Posted By Philip McAleenan
Hi you guys, I need some considered advice on what to do here. A workplace that I visit uses a variety of hazardous substances as part of their processes, one of which has presented me with a real headache, primarily because I cannot obtain a MSDS from the manufacturers. The main difficulty is contacting the relevant person, as they are outside the jurisdiction and seem unwilling or unable to provide the appropriate information. I have tried getting in touch with them in a variety of different ways, but so far no response.

My client is happy enough to work away without doing a CoSHH assessment, as he is satisfied that the manufacturers created the product so that it would cause no harm to his workers in its normal usage. But, contrary to his assurances, long term exposure leads to tissue damage and cellular breakdown and as the process exposes his entire workforce they are all at risk. My investigations also indicate that the surrounding community is at risk. Random samples taken at various points indicate contamination higher than 1400mg per litre.

There are other reactive properties but I have been able to persuade my client to take appropriate measures to prevent this, or at least reduce the potential for harm significantly by changing elements of his work process and using barriers. However he will not budge on seeking a safer alternative.

Any advice would be much appreciated,

Regards, Philip

Posted By John Webster
From your posting, I am assuming that the substance is a bespoke mixture of unspecified chemicals sourced from overseas and a country where H&S is not a significant consideration. I'm sure I don't need to quote the following section of the HSAWA!

(4) It shall be the duty of any person who manufactures, imports or supplies any substance for use at work

(A) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the substance is safe and without risks to health when properly used;
(B) to carry out or arrange for the carrying out of such testing and examination as may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed on him by the preceding paragraph;
(C) to take such steps as are necessary to secure that there will be available in connection with the use of the substance at work adequate information about the results of any relevant tests which have been carried out on or in connection with the substance and about any conditions necessary to ensure that it will be safe and without risks to health when properly used.

So if they cannot get an MSDS then if they want to keep using the substance the onus is on them to commission the relevant tests to demonstrate its safety.

Posted By Philip McAleenan
Thanks folks for the speedy response. One of the difficulties lies in the fact that the manufacturers claim universal rights for the creation their product. There is one other potential supplier that I have heard of, but his business methods are somewhat dubious and I understand that he has been blacklisted by a lot of companies. On the plus side though, he has the reputation of providing exactly what the client asks for, but I believe that that comes at a price. He charges a bit more than an arm and a leg. We are coming to a bit of a crossroads here, and I am not sure I want to send my client there, certainly not at this time.

Persuading my client of the hazards is a devil of a job. He eats, sleeps and breathes his work, and will not be told that there is any elementary harm in what he is doing. I have shown him the MSDS obtained from the Internet, and he points out that in its normal usage, his workers are not harmed and argues that any harm that is accumulative over many years is too remote to make a direct causal connection to him.

However the MSDS also states clearly,

“Personal precautions, Evacuate area.
Ensure adequate air ventilation.
Eliminate ignition sources.
Personal protection, Do not smoke while handling product
Environmental precautions, Try to stop release.
Prevent from entering sewers, basements and workpits, or any place where its accumulation can be dangerous.
Clean up methods Ventilate area.”

The feeling I am getting is that people have gotten so used to inhaling this stuff all day in its current concentrations that they would probably be more at risk if the concentration level changed, either up or down.

Philip

Posted By Salus
Philip you say that you are visiting this company, is your brief
1. providing H & S advice and guidance for this company
or
2. or are you the person responsible for carrying out the COSHH assessmnent / s?

if 1 do just that, you have done your job
if 2 and you feel that you cannot complete a suitable / suffecient assessment inform the responsible person of your findings and provide tell them what they need to do next, you will have fullfilled your resaponsibilities.
Do not beat around the bush with people or companies that you are doing your best to help.
Good Luck

Posted By Helen Horton
I agree with Salus to but remember previous postings re liability of H&S advice givers and make sure it is all in writing.

Posted By lewes
I know its slightly off topic but I agree with the previous post about Asbestos.

My father works in the H&V industry and as an apprentice it was quite common to use asbestos for insulation around heating pipes and he recalls great times throwing this paste they had to make up around boiler/plant rooms!!

I doubt they would do that now !!!

Posted By John Webster
Would that be the three Wiesemens, Philip? I was beginning to smell a strange substance.
Merry Christmas

Posted By Ron Hunter
Congratulations Philip on what appears to be the most cleverly crafted wind-up posted so far on this Forum!

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Philip

I wonder to what extent the HSE Guidance(HSG48) and associated research on latent and active error might help to improve the standard of the 'safe system of work' in this instance.

Posted By Alan Murphy
I have had a lot to do with COSHH at my company. I consider it a bit of a specialist subject, but what i dont get through all these threads i just read. Is nobody is mentioning the pieces of information from the HSE how do do COSHH assessment book and i quote it is not enough to simply say its ok to be exposed to the chemical at work and say its safe.

You MUST ALWAYS err on side of caution and prove it is safe not make an assumption. Unless of course it is something like Tipex that has a exposure limit under EH40, which this case obviously is not.

Alan

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Alan,

One last point - you can't prove a negative. Therefore, you can never prove something is safe; however, there are two axioms of toxicology that are worth remembering:

"All substances are poisons; there is none that are not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy" Paracelsus.

and

"There are no harmless substances; there are only harmless ways of using substances." Emil Mrak.

Regards Adrian

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Alan,

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. As a Occupational Hygienist I have seen so many COSHH assessments that are nonsense it beggers belief.

The majority I have seen have regard to the substances MSDS, but not to who uses it, when, where and how it is used. In addition assessments do not have regard to the hazardous properties and the frequency, intensity, duration and routes of exposure, as well as interactions with othersubstances. As a consequence many draw the wrong conclusions.

Furthermore most miss out the COSHH essentials - How do I prevent harm occurring; how do I minimise any residual risk; and what do I have to do to comply with the law?

Regards Adrian Watson.

In doing COSHH risk assessments think of the ITEMS - Individual, Task, Environment (physical and pscho-social), Management (supervisory and senior), Substance (Physical, Chemical and Biological properties, routes of exposure, and harmful effects).

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Alan,

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. As a Occupational Hygienist I have seen so many COSHH assessments that are nonsense it beggers belief.

The majority I have seen have regard to the substances MSDS, but not to who uses it, when, where and how it is used. In addition assessments do not have regard to the hazardous properties and the frequency, intensity, duration and routes of exposure, as well as interactions with othersubstances. As a consequence many draw the wrong conclusions.

Furthermore most miss out the COSHH essentials - How do I prevent harm occurring; how do I minimise any residual risk; and what do I have to do to comply with the law?

Regards Adrian Watson.

In doing COSHH risk assessments think of the ITEMS - Individual, Task, Environment (physical and psycho-social), Management (supervisory and senior), Substance (Physical, Chemical and Biological properties, routes of exposure, and harmful effects).

Posted By Alan Murphy
I agree exactly what you say, i suppose i put it across wrong, all i really mean is if there is a level of exposure you should not pass, then you must test to prove you have not passed it and lower the level to its lowest level if it can not be eliminated or substituted, not simply accept its ok.

I always refer to asbestos, no one thought that was doing us harm, who are we to know what the next asbestos will be, so every chemical must be kept to its lowest level. Because of its unknown potential to harm.

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,

Now about asbestos, it is interesting isn't it that the Factory Inspectorate knew it was dangerous in 1896, parliament passed the first specific regulations in 1931, the Factory Inspectorate knew it caused cancer in 1930, the Factory Inspectorate knew it caused mesothelioma in the early 1960's but only recommended and got the first generally appicable regulations in the 1980's. And, politicians, the unions, employers and the factory inspectorate say asbestos was an unknown killer - it must have been the worst kept secret in history. Unknown killer, No Way! Unenforced, improperly used substance, Yes!

On that somber note!

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,

Now about asbestos, it is interesting isn't it that the Factory Inspectorate knew it was dangerous in 1896; parliament passed the first specific regulations in 1931; the Factory Inspectorate knew it caused cancer in 1930; the Factory Inspectorate knew it caused mesothelioma in the early 1960's; but, the first generally appicable regulations were the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987.

Furthermore, politicians, the unions, employers and the factory inspectorate all suggest that asbestos was an unknown killer; if so, it must have been the worst kept secret in history.

Unknown killer, No Way! Unenforced, improperly used substance, Yes! On that somber note!

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,

Now about asbestos, it is interesting isn't it that the Factory Inspectorate knew it was dangerous in 1896; parliament passed the first specific regulations in 1931; the Factory Inspectorate knew it caused cancer in the early 1930s; the Factory Inspectorate knew it caused mesothelioma in the early 1960's; but, the first generally appicable regulations were the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987.

Furthermore, politicians, the unions, employers and the factory inspectorate all suggest that asbestos was an unknown killer; if so, it must have been the worst kept secret in history.

Unknown killer, No Way! Unenforced, improperly used substance, Yes! On that somber note!

Regards Adrian Watson