Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 24 May 2001 16:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brian Peirce Can anyone advise as to recommended safe distances etc for siting of Photocopiers and laser printers? This is in respect of an open plan office situation. I know the regulations state the equipment should ideally be in a dedicated room which is well ventilated but I cannot find anything about safe distances from people in an open plan office. Thanks Brian
Admin  
#2 Posted : 24 May 2001 17:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Daniel I think that you will find most modern equipment includes filters. All electrical equipment produces some ozone and there is a theoretical risk, but I've only come across significant levels in welding (TIG welding produces significant levels from the arc) Dave Daniel - H&S Consultant
Admin  
#3 Posted : 24 May 2001 21:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I don't think it exists, Brian. I work upon the HASAWA principles of providing a workplace that is safe and without risk so far as is reasonably practicable. In practice this means avoiding: exhaust air into breathing zones; heat sources near people (particularly heads); and flashing lights in immediate fields of vision. Adequate ventilation is always important - not just for any Ozone, toner and other airborne contaminants but to control the temperature.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 25 May 2001 10:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Woods Keighley Worksafe produce a leaflet on photocopier safety it says that best practice is that phtocopiers are sited at least three metres from workers in a well ventilated area. For a free Copy give them a ring on 01535 664462
Admin  
#5 Posted : 25 May 2001 11:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi I do not think there is a specific "safe distance"-- as it will depend upon the layout of the workplace, and more importantly, the actual air-flow direction, and the ventilation design. It is better to site the printers & photocopier in locations that prevents/minimises exposure rather than only depending on "safe distances". Exposure is covered by COSHH regulations and in the hierarchy of control measures, "safe distances" are not an effective control measures.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 01 June 2001 10:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd To Jay Joshi, I'm afraid I must entirely disagree with you in respect of safe distances. If something, whether it is a substance, noise or piece of equipment is at a safe distance then it is by definition safe. The reason safe distance isn't in the heirarchy of measures under COSHH is that it is common sense that if there is no hazard by distance, there is no need to take further action. Remember anyway, where there is an OES and the OES is not exceeded, there is no hazard, as opposed to an MEL which has no safe level. We do of course wish to make life healthier for staff and as such we will attempt to bring levels of anything unnatural down to the lowest level but in recent tests I had carried out in an office with both photocopiers and laser printers - levels recorded were a twentieth of the OES for 03. With regards Rob
Admin  
#7 Posted : 01 June 2001 11:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard I must agree with Rob here. If I work 100 metres from a copier I am not at risk, if I am only 10 metres away I may be at risk, and if I am only 1 metre away I almost certainly am at risk. While distance per se may not be quoted as a control measure, moving your hazard a mile away from your workforce is certainly going to reduce the risk! Richard
Admin  
#8 Posted : 01 June 2001 14:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Preston In defence of Jay... You can use safe distance to control the risk from radiation because it behaves predictably (inverse square law). You can use distance to prevent the risk of injury from moving parts - providing you can be absolutely confident that they will only move in a predictable manner (and you can control the movement of people in the vicinity). But you can't reliably predict the movement of gases or airborne particulates, and these are the hazards we are talking about. Even if (big if) you knew the rate of generation of the gas, and applied Graham's law to detemine its rate of diffusion, in the real world you could still be out by an order of magnitude because of the other variables - not least those that Jay mentions. That's why control by distance isn't an option under COSHH and why setting a safe distance from a gas is not just over simplistic - it's scientifically flawed. As for Richard's argument - with sufficient wind speed, I'd sooner be 10 metres upwind of a toxic gas than 100 metres downwind ;)
Admin  
#9 Posted : 01 June 2001 14:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd Yes Mark, and if you breathe air you will receive levels of pollution. If you drink water you will receive levels of legionella bascillus and if you eat mint imperials out of restaurant bowls you will be consuming the residue of at least 10 different persons' urine! We were talking ozone. It's dispersion rate will increase as it leaves the emitter thereby lessening it's potential to cause harm and in effect becoming neutralised by distance. Remember - there is no such thing as a toxic substance only a toxic dose. Nothing like being pedantic is there.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 04 June 2001 07:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jane Blunt Dear all There is another factor to take into account with ozone. It has a tendency to decompose, back into oxygen. This takes place readily on surfaces, or particles of dust, so at a distance from the source, there is a chance that not only has it been dispersed but that it may have decomposed altogether, Regards Jane
Admin  
#11 Posted : 04 June 2001 13:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi As I did not want to discuss the details of vetilation design, I simply mentioned it--one could be at perceived "safe distance" from a photocopier--even 100 metres, but their workstation very close to a ventilation intake port ( of "contaminated air" )--then that would not be an effective control measure--my point was that the key control measure is effective ventilation rather than simply depending on distances as a control measure.
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.