Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query chromium. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query chromium. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Hexavalent Chromium Cleanup Progressing With Building Demolition in Garfield NJ

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced that it has demolished the E.C. Electroplating building at the Garfield Ground Water Contamination Superfund site in Garfield, New Jersey. Areas underneath the building, located at 125 Clark Street, are contaminated with hexavalent chromium that is reaching the basements of some area residences and businesses through the ground water. The EPA continues to assess and, if needed, clean up nearby basements. The demolition of the building will allow the EPA to remove contaminated soil that is a likely source of chromium contamination in the ground water.

Hexavalent chromium is extremely toxic, may cause cancer and nervous system damage. Prior to the demolition of the structure, the EPA met with community members and local officials to keep them informed, coordinate activities and ensure public safety.

“The EPA has safely taken down the former E.C. Electroplating building, an important step in the agency’s work to protect the health of the Garfield community,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “Our next step is to assess the best way to address the chromium contaminated soil that is underneath the structure.

The EPA’s sampling had shown that the parts of the E.C. Electroplating building above the foundation slab were not contaminated with hexavalent chromium, but two basements and the soil under the structure were contaminated. The structure had to be demolished to access the contaminated soil underneath. The industrial materials and building debris left at the E.C. Electroplating site have been removed and disposed of at facilities licensed to receive the waste. Over 600 cubic yards of debris and over 325 drums of hazardous waste were removed from the site. The demolition work began on October 12, 2012 and was completed on October 22, 2012.

Throughout the demolition work, the EPA followed strict work procedures to protect public health. Dust was controlled and the air was monitored to ensure that contamination was not getting into the community during the demolition. Air monitoring data showed that there have been no hazardous levels of hexavalent chromium, total chromium, lead or cadmium.

As part of its longer-term work, the EPA has established a network of ground water monitoring wells to determine the extent of chromium contamination in the ground water. This in-depth investigation is ongoing and will allow the EPA to develop a proposed plan for the cleanup of chromium-contaminated ground water.

For a complete history of the EPA’s work at the Garfield Ground Water Contamination Superfund site please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/removal/garfield.
....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.

Read more about "Chromium Contamination"
Aug 09, 2012
The building, located at 125 Clark Street, is contaminated with hexavalent chromium that is reaching the basements of some area residences and businesses through the ground water. Hexavalent chromium is extremely toxic, ...
Oct 03, 2009
Chromium exposure has been associated with lung cancer. Breathing high levels of hexavalent chromium can irritate or damage the nose, throat, and lungs. Irritation or damage to the eyes and skin can occur if hexavalent ...
Jun 09, 2009
Soldiers Exposed to Chromium in Iraq File Suit. Soldiers who have been exposed to hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, have filed suit against a government contractor. The present and former soldiers have brought a claims ...
Nov 23, 2010
EPA announced the release of the Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium in the September 30, 2010, Federal Register. This draft assessment is provided for public viewing and comment. Public comments received on ...

Thursday, August 9, 2012

EPA to Demolish Contaminated Building at Toxic Superfund Site in Garfield, N.J

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck was joined today by New Jersey Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Senator Robert Menendez and Congressmember Bill Pascrell, Jr. as she announced that the EPA will safely demolish the E.C. Electroplating building at the Garfield Superfund site in Garfield, New Jersey. The building, located at 125 Clark Street, is contaminated with hexavalent chromium that is reaching the basements of some area residences and businesses through the ground water. Hexavalent chromium is extremely toxic, may cause cancer and can cause nervous system damage. The Regional Administrator and members of Congress were joined by Garfield Mayor Joseph Delaney, local officials and community members to review progress and discuss the ongoing Superfund cleanup at the former electroplating facility.

“The EPA has done a great deal of work since 2002 to reduce the health risks to the people who live and work in the area of Garfield affected by chromium contaminated ground water,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “Today we’re pleased to announce that we’re ready to take a step forward in the long-term cleanup of the Garfield Superfund site.”

Preliminary sampling shows that parts of the E.C. Electroplating building, its two basements and the soil located under the structure are contaminated with the chemical hexavalent chromium. The structure needs to be demolished in order to properly dispose of the contaminated sections of the building and to remove the contaminated soil underneath. The EPA tested the industrial materials left at the former E.C. Electroplating and will safely remove and properly disposed of them at licensed facilities.

The EPA is currently preparing the building for demolition by removing over 220 drums and cleaning the building surface. The agency will work closely with local officials to determine the best time to do the demolition and will hold a community meeting before demolition begins to inform area residents and building owners about the work. Strict procedures will be followed to control dust during the demolition, with special attention paid to the Garfield No.7 School and to a daycare center located near the site. The EPA will establish an air monitoring network to ensure that contamination is contained during the demolition work. The air monitoring plan will be shared with the public before work begins. The demolition work is presently scheduled to take place in October.

Ground water underlying the site is also contaminated with the hexavalent chromium and is seeping into basements in some Garfield homes and businesses. Drinking water for Garfield comes from the Garfield Municipal Water Supply, which is not contaminated and is routinely tested to ensure that it meets federal and state drinking water standards, which it does.

The Garfield Superfund site, which is located in a mixed commercial and residential neighborhood, is bordered by Van Winkle Avenue to the north, Monroe Street to the south, Sherman Place to the east, and the Passaic River to the West. Historically, industrial facilities in Garfield were located in close proximity to residential areas, including a tannery, a chemical plant and two electroplating companies. Some of these facilities used hexavalent chromium in their processes and the nearby ground water is now contaminated with the chemical. In June 1993, water containing hexavalent chromium and dried crystals of chromium was discovered in the basement of Garfield Fire House #3. In 2002, at the request of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the EPA began its investigation of ground water contamination in Garfield.

In September 2010, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued a health advisory recommending that the EPA continue to take steps to minimize people’s exposure to the contamination and that it expedite a long-term cleanup. The site was added to the federal Superfund list in 2011.

The EPA used its Superfund’s emergency response authority in Garfield to address the immediate health threats in properties where ground water had carried hexavalent chromium into basements. Over 500 homes and businesses have been inspected for hexavalent chromium contamination and over 2,000 samples have been analyzed. The EPA has found about 15 properties that require cleanups to protect occupants from unacceptable levels of chromium that have seeped into their basements. The EPA has an ongoing inspection and assessment program to assist any concerned residents within the impacted area.

The EPA has established a network of ground water monitoring wells to determine the extent of chromium contamination in the ground water. This in-depth investigation will allow the EPA to determine how best to clean up chromium contaminated ground water.

Superfund is the federal cleanup program established by Congress in 1980 to investigate and clean up the country’s most hazardous waste sites. When sites are placed on the Superfund list, the EPA looks for parties responsible for the pollution and requires them to pay for the cleanups. In this instance, the EPA has identified E.C. Electroplating as a company that may be liable for the cleanup. The company, however, alleges it lacks funds to conduct any cleanup. To date, the EPA’s cleanup costs for this site exceed four* *million dollars. The EPA is continuing its search for other parties responsible for the contamination at the site.

For more information about the Garfield site, visit: http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/removal/garfield.

Follow EPA Region 2 on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/eparegion2 and visit our Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/eparegion2.

Articles About Chromium
The Time for a Hexavalent Chromium Safety Standard Is Now
Nov 23, 2010
EPA announced the release of the Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium in the September 30, 2010, Federal Register. This draft assessment is provided for public viewing and comment. Public comments received on ...
Jun 09, 2009
Soldiers Exposed to Chromium in Iraq File Suit. Soldiers who have been exposed to hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, have filed suit against a government contractor. The present and former soldiers have brought a claims ...
Oct 03, 2009
Chromium exposure has been associated with lung cancer. Breathing high levels of hexavalent chromium can irritate or damage the nose, throat, and lungs. Irritation or damage to the eyes and skin can occur if hexavalent ...
Jan 14, 2010
"Hexavalent chromium is a powerful lung carcinogen and exposure to this chemical must be minimized," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA David Michaels. "OSHA provides guidance on its standards to ensure that ...

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Defense Department to Investigate Hexavalent Chromium Exposure Claims

The US Department of Defense has announced that it will investigate emerging environmental and health risks arising from chemical exposures. One of the particular areas of concern is the exposure to hexavalent chromium that occurred Iraq.

On October 8, the Senate Committee on Veteran’s Affairs will hold a hearing on chemical exposures including the hexavalent chromium incident.

Chromium exposure has been associated with lung cancer. Breathing high levels of hexavalent chromium can irritate or damage the nose, throat, and lungs. Irritation or damage to the eyes and skin can occur if hexavalent chromium contacts these organs in high concentrations or for a prolonged period of time. Exposure to chromium can occur from inhalation of dusts, mists, or fumes containing hexavalent chromium, or from eye or skin contact with hexavalent chromium.

For more information about chromium exposure click here.

Friday, May 24, 2013

EPA Adds the Riverside Industrial Park in Newark, New Jersey to the Superfund List

Seven Acre Site along the Passaic River Contaminated with PCBs and Volatile Organic Compounds

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has added the Riverside Industrial Park in Newark, New Jersey to the Superfund National Priorities List of the country’s most hazardous waste sites. After a 2009 spill of oily material from the industrial park into the Passaic River, the EPA discovered that chemicals, including benzene, mercury, chromium and arsenic, were improperly stored at the site. The agency took emergency actions to prevent further release of these chemicals into the river. Further investigation showed that soil, ground water and tanks at the Riverside Industrial Park are contaminated with volatile organic compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).


Benzene, mercury, chromium and arsenic are all highly toxic and can cause serious damage to people’s health and the environment. Many volatile organic compounds are known to cause cancer in animals and can cause cancer in people. Polychlorinated biphenyls are chemicals that persist in the environment and can affect the immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems and are potentially cancer-causing.

EPA proposed the site to the Superfund list in September 2012 and encouraged the public to comment during a 60-day public comment period. After considering public comments and receiving the support of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for listing the site, the EPA is putting it on the Superfund list.

“The EPA has kept people out of immediate danger from this contaminated industrial park and can now develop long-term plans to protect the community,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “By adding the site to the Superfund list, the EPA can do the extensive investigation needed to determine the best ways to clean up the contamination and protect public health.”

Since the early 1900s, the Riverside Industrial Park, at 29 Riverside Avenue in Newark, has been used by many businesses, including a paint manufacturer, a packaging company and a chemical warehouse. The site covers approximately seven acres and contains a variety of industrial buildings, some of which are vacant. In 2009, at the request of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the EPA responded to an oil spill on the Passaic River that was eventually traced to the Riverside Avenue site. The state and the city of Newark requested the EPA’s help in assessing the contamination at the site and performing emergency actions to identify and stop the source of the spill. 

The EPA plugged discharge pipes from several buildings and two tanks that were identified as the source of the contamination. In its initial assessment of the site, the EPA also found ten abandoned 12,000 to 15,000 gallon underground storage tanks containing hazardous waste, approximately one hundred 3,000 to 10,000 gallon aboveground storage tanks, two tanks containing oily waste, as well as dozens of 55-gallon drums and smaller containers. These containers held a variety of hazardous industrial waste and solvents. Two underground tanks and most of the other containers were removed by the EPA in 2012. 

The EPA periodically proposes sites to the Superfund list and, after responding to public comments, designates them as final Superfund sites. The Superfund final designation makes them eligible for funds to conduct long-term cleanups. 

The Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters should pay for the cleanups, rather than passing the costs to taxpayers. After sites are placed on the Superfund list of the most contaminated waste sites, the EPA searches for parties responsible for the contamination and holds them accountable for the costs of investigations and cleanups. The search for the parties responsible for the contamination at the Riverside Industrial Park site is ongoing.
......
For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.  Click here now to submit a case inquiry.

Read more about the EPA:
Apr 19, 2013
"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action officials did not complete planned corrective actions under its Libby Action Plan in a timely manner. This occurred because the scope of the work was larger than originally ...
Feb 21, 2013
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined six Arizona school districts a combined total of $94,575 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) violations. More than 15,000 children attend the 25 ...
Mar 07, 2013
Today the PBS NEWSHOUR airs a documentary, EPA Contaminated by Conflict of Interest, on how the chemical Industry is quietly delaying implementation of regulation of Chromium VI. The compound, hexavalent chromium, ...
Mar 14, 2013
Poisoned Water: Chromium IV - What the EPA Hasn't Done. Corporate water pollution in the US is the subject of a current PBS-TV (Public Broadcasting Network) series. In part one of a two-part series, PBS NewsHour Science ...

Friday, July 10, 2009

OSHA Adds Hexavalent Chromium to Shipyards Standards

Hexavalent chromium [Chromium (VI) [hexavalent chromium or Cr(VI)]”means chromium with a valence of positive six, inany form and in any compound.] has been added to the list of air contaminants whose concentrations should not exceed stated exposure levels in the OSHA guidance document Shipyard Industry Standards.

"The Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health recommended that OSHA update and republish the shipyard and longshoring industry digests," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "The revised document is now up-to-date with current standards and will continue to serve as another resource for protecting the safety and health of shipyard workers."

Shipyard Industry Standards revises the existing Shipyard Industry Digest and incorporates new shipyard employment requirements that have been developed and finalized since the booklet was last published in 1998. It lists the guidelines for safety and health programs in the industry and incorporates topics such as management commitment; employee participation; hazard identification, assessment and control; and program evaluation.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

New OSHA Booklet Sets Forth Hexavalent Chromium Standard


The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has published a booklet describing the industry requirements for safe handling of Hexavalent Chromium. Know hazards to workers handling 
this substance include lung cancer and damage to the nose, throat and 
respiratory system.


"Hexavalent chromium is a powerful lung carcinogen and exposure to this chemical must be minimized," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA David Michaels. "OSHA provides guidance on its standards to ensure that employers and workers know the best ways to prevent workplace injuries and illnesses."


Click here to read more about Hexavalent Chromium and workers' compensation.


Click here to read about Hexavalent Chromium and potential litigation for benefits.



Thursday, January 17, 2013

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: FDA Issues a Alert on Potential Risks

The US FDA has issued an alert concerning Metal-on-metal hip implants consist of a ball, stem and shell, all made from cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloys. 
There are two types of metal-on-metal hip implants:
  • Traditional total hip replacement systems
  • Resurfacing hip systems
Purpose: In February 2011, the FDA launched a metal-on-metal hip implant webpage. The FDA is providing updated safety information and recommendations to patients and health care providers.  This new information is based on the FDA’s current assessment of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the benefits and risks, the evaluation of the published literature, and the results of the June 2012 Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Advisory Panel meeting.

Summary of Problem and Scope:
Metal-on-metal hip implants have unique risks in addition to the general risks of all hip implants.
In metal-on-metal hip implants, the metal ball and the metal cup slide against each other during walking or running. Metal can also be released from other parts of the implant where two implant components connect.  Metal release will cause some tiny metal particles to wear off of the device around the implant, which may cause damage to bone and/or soft tissue surrounding the implant and joint. This is sometimes referred to as an “adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR)” or an “adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD).”
Soft tissue damage may lead to pain, implant loosening, device failure and the need for revision surgery (a surgical procedure where the implant is removed and another is put in its place). Some of the metal ions released will enter the bloodstream and travel to other parts of the body, where they may cause symptoms or illnesses elsewhere in the body (systemic reactions).
Presently, the FDA does not have enough scientific data to specify the concentration of metal ions in a patient’s body or blood necessary to produce adverse systemic effects.  In addition, the reaction seems to be specific to individual patients, with different patients having different reactions to the metal wear particles.
Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons:
Before Surgery
  • Select a metal-on-metal hip implant for your patient only after determining that the benefit-risk profile of using a metal-on-metal hip implant outweighs that of using an alternative hip system (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic or ceramic-on-metal).  Factors to consider include the patient’s age, sex, weight, diagnosis, and activity level.
    • Note that a 2012 FDA advisory panel of experts identified young males with larger femoral heads as the best candidates for hip resurfacing systems. 
  • Inform patients about the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the risk that the hip implant may need to be replaced. Also discuss the patient’s expectations and review the potential complications of surgery with a metal-on-metal hip implant.
  • Pay close attention to patient populations for which metal-on-metal hip systems are contraindicated.  Be aware of the risk factors that may predispose a device to excess wear and early failure. 
Additional information on the FDA’s recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons before, during and immediately following metal-on-metal hip replacement surgery can be found in Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Patient Follow-Up
  • Follow-up of asymptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, including physical examinations and routine radiographs, should occur periodically (typically every 1 to 2 years).  If the hip is functioning properly, the FDA does not believe there is a clear need to routinely perform additional soft tissue imaging or assess metal ion levels in the blood.
  • Be aware that there are certain patients who are at risk for increased device wear and/or adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) and should be followed more closely. They may include:
    • Patients with bilateral implants
    • Patients with resurfacing systems with small femoral heads (44mm or smaller)
    • Female patients
    • Patients receiving high doses of corticosteroids
    • Patients with evidence of renal insufficiency
    • Patients with suppressed immune systems
    • Patients with suboptimal alignment of device components
    • Patients with suspected metal sensitivity (e.g. cobalt, chromium, nickel)
    • Patients who are severely overweight
    • Patients with high levels of physical activity.
  • Pay close attention to signs and symptoms that may be associated with metal-on-metal hip implants. Please see the website for a list of common ALTRs and systemic symptoms/complications.
  • Conduct a thorough evaluation if a patient with a metal-on-metal hip experiences local symptoms such as pain or swelling at or near the hip, a change in walking ability or a noise from the hip joint more than three months after metal-on-metal hip implant surgery. 
  • Follow symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants at least every 6 months.
Additional information on the FDA’s recommendations for patient follow-up can be found in Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
For additional information regarding soft tissue imaging or assessing metal ion levels, please review the FDA’s recommendations below.
Imaging
For some symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, additional diagnostic imaging is required to assess and diagnose soft tissue findings surrounding the implant.  Please be aware of the FDA’s recommendations:
  • Consider the benefits and risks of using different types of diagnostic imaging procedures (e.g. MRI with metal artifact reduction, CT, or ultrasound) as well as the availability of specialized radiology expertise when determining the most appropriate imaging modality for each patient.
If you determine that an MRI of a metal-on-metal hip implant patient is appropriate, the FDA recommends the following:
  • Consult with the radiologist to evaluate the benefits and risks of utilizing MRI with metal artifact reduction;
  • Review the available device-specific labeling from manufacturers for MRI Conditions; and
  • Inform the MRI site that the patient has a metal-on-metal hip implant.
For additional information on the FDA’s recommendations about imaging a patient with a metal-on-metal hip implant, please see Imaging Evaluation.
Assessing Metal Ion Levels
Some patients with a metal-on-metal hip implant may have elevated metal ion levels (e.g. cobalt and/or chromium) in their bloodstream.  Several factors can impact the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical interpretation of metal ion test results.  Please be aware of the FDA’s recommendations:
  • The FDA does not believe there is a clear need to routinely check metal ion levels in the blood if the orthopaedic surgeon feels the hip is functioning properly and the patient is asymptomatic.
  • Patients with metal-on-metal hip implants who develop any symptoms or physical findings that indicate their device may not be functioning properly, should be considered for metal ion testing.  
  • If measuring metal ions, consider obtaining and following serial measurements (using the same sample type, the same measurement method, and preferably the same laboratory) in determining metal ion levels in symptomatic patients.
  • At this time, the FDA is not recommending a specific metal ion level as a trigger for revision or other medical intervention.  The metal ion concentration values, including increases in metal ion levels over time, should be considered in addition to the overall clinical scenario including symptoms, physical findings, and other diagnostic results when determining further actions.
For additional information on the FDA’s recommendations on metal ion test methods, selecting a test lab and interpreting test results, please see Metal Ion Testing.
Device Revision
The decision to revise a metal-on-metal hip implant should be made in response to the overall clinical scenario. In case of adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR), revision of a metal-on-metal hip implant may have a worse prognosis than revision of other types of bearing surfaces.
In selecting components for revision:
  • Consider the benefits and risks of all bearing surfaces for each patient.
  • Check the specific device labeling for compatibility of device components.
  • If a patient is suspected to have developed metal sensitivity, carefully select the materials of the revision components (potentially avoiding materials with nickel or chromium). 
For additional information, please review the FDA’s considerations on device revisions, which includes our recommendation for a retrieval analysis of every failed metal-on-metal hip implant.
Summary of FDA Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons
Symptomatic PatientsAsymptomatic Patients
Regular Clinical Evaluation At least every six months Typically at least once every 1 to 2 years
Soft Tissue Imaging Consider the benefits and risks of MRI, CT and ultrasound for each patient. Not necessary if you feel the hip is functioning properly.
Metal Ion Testing Consider monitoring serial metal ion levels.  Currently, the most reliable test results are available for cobalt in EDTA-anticoagulated blood*.  In repeat tests, use same sample type, measurement method and preferably the same laboratory. Not necessary if you feel the hip is functioning properly.
*For chromium testing, a validated method that resolves potential interferences must be used.  Please reviewFDA’s recommendations for chromium testing.
Recommendations for Health Care Providers:
Metal-on-metal implant patients with systemic symptoms are more likely to visit their primary care practitioner than their orthopaedic surgeon, which makes it important for all health care providers to be aware of metal ion adverse events that may occur in metal-on-metal hip implant patients. Based on case reports, these events may include:
  • General hypersensitivity reaction (skin rash)
  • Cardiomyopathy
  • Neurological changes including sensory changes (auditory, or visual impairments)
  • Psychological status change (including depression)
  • Renal function impairment
  • Thyroid dysfunction (including neck discomfort, fatigue, weight gain or feeling cold.
Patients with systemic findings that are thought to be related to a metal-on-metal hip implant should be advised to follow-up with his or her orthopaedic surgeon to determine the appropriate course of action.
For additional information, please review the FDA’s considerations to Health Care Professionals.
Recommendations for Patients Considering Hip Implants:
  • Be aware that every hip implant has benefits and risks.
  • Discuss your options for hip surgery with your surgeon. 
A list of some questions to ask your orthopaedic surgeon can be found in Patients Considering a Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant.
Recommendations for Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants:
  • If you are not having any symptoms and your orthopaedic surgeon believes your implant is functioning appropriately, you should continue to routinely follow-up with the surgeon every 1 to 2 years.
  • If you develop new or worsening problems such as pain, swelling, numbness, noise (popping, grinding, clicking or squeaking of your hip), and/or change in your ability to walk, contact your orthopaedic surgeon right away. 
  • If you experience changes in your general health, including new or worsening symptoms outside your hip, let your physician know you have a metal-on-metal hip implant.
Additional information for patients with a metal-on-metal hip can be found in Patients who have a Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant.
FDA Activities:
The FDA is committed to providing reliable safety recommendations to patients and health care providers about the utilization of these devices.  Recent activities include:
  1. On May 6, 2011, the FDA instructed manufacturers of metal-on-metal total hip replacement (THR) systems to conduct postmarket surveillance study of these devices.  Five manufacturers currently market metal-on-metal hip implants in the U.S. and all five have approved postmarket surveillance study plans.  Data from these studies will provide patients and health care providers with additional information about the safety profiles of the implants, including the effect of metal ion concentrations in the bloodstream.
  2. On June 27-28, 2012, the FDA convened the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee to seek expert scientific and clinical opinion on the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip systems. Information from this panel meeting has helped form these recommendations.
  3. On January 17, 2013 the FDA issued a proposed order requiring manufacturers of metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems to submit premarket approval (PMA) applications.  Metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems were evaluated under the 510(k) premarket notification program. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems were marketed in the U.S. prior to 1976 legislation that gave the agency premarket authority over medical devices. As “preamendment devices,” they were designated as Class III (higher risk) devices but were regulated under the 510(k) premarket notification program.
Additional information on FDA ongoing activities are provided in FDA’s Role and Activities.
Other Resources:
For additional resources, see Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: Other Resources.
Reporting Problems to the FDA:
Prompt reporting of adverse events can help the FDA identify and better understand the risks associated with medical devices. If you suspect a problem with a metal-on-metal device, we encourage you to file a voluntary report through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program. Health care personnel employed by facilities that are subject to the FDA's user facility reporting requirements should follow the reporting procedures established by their facilities. Device manufacturers must comply with the Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulations.

Reports to the FDA about adverse events related to metal-on-metal hip systems include, but are not limited to: pain, malposition, adverse local tissue reaction, metallosis, hypersensitivity (allergy), loosening, and dislocation.
To help he FDA learn as much as possible about the adverse events associated with metal-on-metal hip implants, please include the following information in your reports, if available:
  • Date of implantation
  • Date of implant removal (if applicable)
  • Clinical cause for revision (if available)
  • System components affected by the adverse event.
Read more about Hip Implants and Workers' Compensation
May 16, 2011
"The FDA is continuing to gather and review all available information about currently marketed metal-on-metal hip systems, including information related to adverse events that may be associated with increase levels of cobalt ...
Aug 27, 2010
Johnson and Johnson has recalled 2 Hip Implants because of failure. The two implants were made by the DePuy Orthopaedics unit of Johnson and Johnson. The decision to withdrawn the products was based upon the fact ...
Jul 10, 2012
Under Administrative Code section 80.32(3), a “total hip prosthesis” carries a minimum 40% PPD. Based on previous Wisconsin Court and LIRC decisions, generally any subsequent invasive surgery resulting from the same ...
Dec 17, 2010
The workers' compensation insurance system is about to be the initial payor for joint replacement surgery and for the complications of defective artificial hip joint damage that were said to be inadequately tested because of a ...

Friday, August 21, 2009

California Proposes Regulations on Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the availability of draft technical support document for the proposed Public Health Goal (PHG) for hexavalent chromium in drinking water. This draft document is a new risk assessment, culminating an extensive evaluation of oral toxicity of this chemical. A PHG of 0.06 ug/L or 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) is proposed for hexavalent chromium in drinking water, based on tumor incidence data from rodent cancer bioassays. OEHHA is soliciting comments on the draft report during a 45-day comment period. The Office will also hold a public workshop on October 19, 2009 at the Elihu Harris Building, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, 94612, Room 1, 10 a.m.-12 noon, or until business is concluded. OEHHA follows the requirements set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 57003(a) and 116365 for conducting the workshop and receiving public input.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Wisconsin shipyard faces nearly $1.4M in OSHA penalties for exposing workers to lead, and other hazards

OSHA finds workers exposed to lead at levels up to 20 times the permissible exposure limit

SUPERIOR, Wis. - Federal health inspectors found Fraser Shipyards Inc. overexposed workers to lead during the retrofitting of a ship's engine room. The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration's sampling results determined 14 workers had lead levels up to 20 times the exposure limit. The agency also found workers exposed to other heavy metals.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Limit urged for cancer-causing chromium in California drinking water

Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from www.latimes.com 

State public health officials Thursday proposed the nation's first drinking-water standard for the carcinogen hexavalent chromium, at a level that elicited sighs of relief from municipal water managers and criticism from environmentalists.

At 10 parts per billion, the standard is 500 times greater than the non-enforceable public health goal set two years ago by the state Environmental Protection Agency.The Department of Public Health described the proposed limit as a balance of public health, cost and treatment technology, but the agency acknowledged that economics were a key consideration.

Mark Starr, deputy director of the Center for Environmental Health, said the state's aim was to determine the lowest possible limit for the toxic heavy metal "given the technology available and the cost in order to protect public health."

Environmentalists said the 10 parts per billion standard — the equivalent of about 10 drops in an Olympic-sized pool — was far too high. "Five hundred times higher than safe levels is not protective of public health," said Avinash Kar, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sued the state to issue the long-delayed standard.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Soldiers Exposed to Chromium in Iraq File Suit

Soldiers who have been exposed to hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, have filed suit against a government contractor. The present and former soldiers have brought a claims against KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a subsidiary of Halliburton, for concealing the contamination and knowingly exposing them to potential harm. The chromium chemical, sodium dichromate, was utilized to prevent corrosion.

The Oregon legislature has held hearings on pending legislation to assist the ill soldiers. One Oregon soldier has died of complications of leukemia at the age of 21.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The Toxic Legacy in Iraq

The Public Education Center (PEC) has published the second in a series of investigative articles concerning the toxic exposure of Army National Guard Units to cancer-casuing chemicals allegedly released by a government contractor, KBR, Inc.

The exposure was a result of a release by KBR, Inc. to, “...dichromate, a rust-fighting industrial chemical and highly-concentrated hexavalent chromium compound, Hexavalent chromium.” Hexavalent chromium has been described as the most toxic chemical known to man.

The series entitled, “No Contractor Left Behind,” chronicles “...chronicles how a toxic time bomb followed three Army National Guard units home from Iraq. It reveals how a notorious military contractor exposed American soldiers to a cancer-causing carcinogen on the battlefield and how the Pentagon tried to downplay the consequences. And it describes how Congress has relegated its investigation to a toothless forum that lacks the political clout and oversight powers to ensure effective accountability.”

A law suit has been filed by 30 West Virginia National Guardsman because of the exposure. Last month a Pittsburg shoulder who served in Iraq and was also exposed filed a law suit seeking damages for the consequences of his exposure.

For additional article on the Halliburton-KBR Litigation click here.

Saturday, December 1, 2012

US NTSB Initiates Investigation of NJ Toxic Train Derailment

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has now commenced an investigation of the train accident in Paulsboro, New Jersey where a moveable bridge collapsed and the 84 car train, with 4 cars of toxic substance crashed into a creek spilling hazardous vinyl chloride. 
The NTSB is a Federal agency charged with accident investigation. It has begun to collect data, both human and mechanical, to determine the cause of the investigation. A team of investigators has from Washington DC and other areas of the country has now appeared on the scene to commence the investigation. After conclusion of the investigation and analysis as to the its cause, the NTSB will issue
recommendations to prevent further similar accidents.

The same bridge was had collapsed in 2009, when a train pulling coal cars came off its tracks after the railroad bridge over the Mantua Creek collapsed and sent 16 cars into the water. The bridge was “an old structure,” and its original “A” frame dated back to 1873. The train has two locomotives and 83 freight cars.

One tanker containing 25,000 gallons of vinyl chloride. It was breached in the accident. The gas leaked into the air, while the rest turned into a solid and settled into the bottom of the tanker. Elevated levels of vinyl chloride were detected in a 12 block radius and over 500 people were evacuated last night. Approximately 70people have been treated at the local hospital. No fatalities have yet to be reported.

Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air has resulted in central nervous system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure in humans has resulted in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. EPA has classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, human carcinogen.


....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping vinyl chloride victims and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson).  

Read more about "vinyl chloride"


Jan 29, 2010
The 5 substances that TSCA mandates regulations for are all known carcinogens: Asbestos, Hexavalent Chromium, Vinyl Chloride, Trichloethylene, Methyene Chloride and Dicloromethene. Since 1976 chronic and terminal ...
Aug 11, 2007
This case involved exposure to poly vinyl chloride at a Pantasote, a Paterson NJ plant, causing disease to former workers which is characteristic of Raynaud's phenomenon ( fingers blanch and numbnessand discomfort are ...
Feb 20, 2008
Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. Secondhand smoke has ...