Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Profiles

Document

Required Elements for Initial Public Posting

Subject: NIOSH Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Profile documents

Purpose: Provide information about the basis of and process for derivation of NIOSH Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Profiles. IDLH values are based on health effects con­siderations determined through a critical assessment of the toxicology and human health effects data.

Timing of Review: Public comment period May 2015 – June 2015; peer review during public comment period.

Primary Disciplines or Expertise Needed for Review: Toxicology, risk assessment, industrial hygiene, occupational medicine

Type of Review: Individual

Number of Reviewers: 2-3 reviewers per Profile document

Reviewers Selected by: NIOSH

Public Nominations Requested for Reviewers: No

Opportunities for the Public to Comment: Yes

Peer Reviewers Provided with Public Comments Before Their Review: No

Charge to Peer Reviewers

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is conducting a peer and public review of the draft Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) values and support technical documents, entitled IDLH Values Profiles. The draft documents are based on the process outlined in the NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin 66 - Derivation of Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Values.

To facilitate the review of these documents, NIOSH requests that the following questions be taken into consideration:

1. Does this document clearly outline the health hazards associated with acute (or short-term) exposures to the chemical? If not, what specific information is missing from the document?
2. Is the rationale and logic behind the derivation of an IDLH value for a specific chemical clearly explained? If not, what specific information is needed to clarify the basis of the IDLH value?
3. Are the conclusions supported by the data?
4. Are the tables clear and appropriate?
5. Is the document organized appropriately? If not, what improvements are needed?
6. Are you aware of any scientific data reported in governmental publications, databases, peer-reviewed journals, or other sources that should be included within this document?