Posted By Derek Carpenter
Following six years of enforcement to substitute the Carcinogen Trichloroethylene in the "Shortest Possible Time" under the Solvent Emissions Directive and Carcinogen Directive, it has been recently announced that HSE, DEFRA and Environment Agency are supporting a scheme which extends the products use to at least 2010 for vapour degreasing.
I am interested to hear views on whether this seems consistent with existing regulation?

Posted By IOSH Moderator
Sorry AHS, in the long and protracted discussions this morning, we totally forgot that you had responded to the previous thread (same text).

Your response was not under discussion. Would you like to re-post it here?

Regards
Jane

Posted By Derek Carpenter
Many thanks to AHS for an interesting case i will look at. There are a number of sensitivities surrounding this subject but opinions should be expressed.

Posted By Smurfer
Derek, please can you post a link giving more details of this proposed scheme? I can't find any info on HSE/EA or DEFRA sites.

Posted By Derek Carpenter
Thanks for that guidance Heather.
I find it a remarkable state of affairs but wonder if i am in the minority?

Posted By Derek Carpenter
Hi Heather. Thanks for the time you are taking here. Debate is good.
Ask these questions.
Why was a voluntary scheme needed at all when substitutes are readily available?
Whether as a Carcinogen or when obligated under SED the principle was early substitution.
Suddenly, at the deadline dates Trike gets a reprieve.
My concern is the level of support given by enforcement agencies and the promotion given via use of their Logos.
I would like a level playing field. Tell me how that exists when no equal support is given to other products.
Under SED trike had six years to substitute.
Where did the six year rule go?
Most product is used in vapour degreasing with many not yet having permits.
Is their any joined up thinking for the overall issue.
Trike is getting enormous support on the evidence. I am curious why?
Happy for you to enlighten me.

Posted By Derek Carpenter
Most people will refer to Regulation 7 of CoSHH and ignore the fact that Carcinogen Directive 90/394/EEC comes in above CoSHH and places more requirements on users, including the need to justify not substituting by a safer material. e.g.

Article 4
Reduction and replacement
1. The employer shall reduce the use of a carcinogen at the place of work, in particular by replacing it, in so far as is technically possible, by a substance, preparation or process which, under its conditions of use, is not dangerous or is less dangerous to workers' health or safety, as the case may be.
2. The employer shall, upon request, submit the findings of his investigations to the relevant authorities.

Article 5
Prevention and reduction of exposure
1. Where the results of the assessment referred to in Article 3 (2) reveal a risk to workers' health or safety, workers' exposure must be prevented.
2. Where it is not technically possible to replace the carcinogen by a substance, preparation or process which, under its conditions of use, is not dangerous or is less dangerous to health or safety, the employer shall ensure that the carcinogen is, in so far as is technically possible, manufactured and used in a closed system.
3. Where a closed system is not technically possible, the employer shall ensure that the level of exposure of workers is reduced to as low a level as is technically possible.
4. Wherever a carcinogen is used, the employer shall apply all the following measures:
(a) limitation of the quantities of a carcinogen at the place of work;
(b)
keeping as low as possible the number of workers exposed or likely to be exposed;
(c)
design of work processes and engineering control measures so as to avoid or minimize the release of carcinogens into the place of work;
(d)
evacuation of carcinogens at source, local extraction system or general ventilation, all such methods to be appropriate and compatible with the need to protect public health and the environment;
(e)
use of existing appropriate procedures for the measurement of carcinogens, in particular for the early detection of abnormal exposures resulting from an unforeseeable event or an accident;
a)
(f)
application of suitable working procedures and methods;
(g)
collective protection measures and/or, where exposure cannot be avoided by other means, individual protection measures;
(h)
hygiene measures, in particular regular cleaning of floors, walls and other surfaces;
(i)
information for workers;
(j)
demarcation of risk areas and use of adequate warning and safety signs including 'no smoking' signs in areas where workers are exposed or likely to be exposed to carcinogens;
(k)
drawing up plans to deal with emergencies likely to result in abnormally high exposure;
(l)
means for safe storage, handling and transportation, in particular by using sealed and clearly and visibly labelled containers;
(m)
means for safe collection, storage and disposal of waste by workers, including the use of sealed and clearly and visibly labelled containers.

This Directive seems always to be placed in the background. Why is this?
As users of the Carcinogen Trichloroethylene did assessments include this criteria?
If so what is the continued justification for use with so much time now elapsed?

Posted By Derek Carpenter
Modern open top machines are remakably efficient. Perhaps you are thonking of old machines when you offer surprise Heather.
Why are you under the impression everyone currently using Trike has a permit to use?
I am also interested to hear why you think it is not "reasonably practicable" to substitute Trike.
This has always been used as a poor reason to hold onto Trike and users of over one tonne per annum in open top machines (the majority)are asked to substitute in the "Shortest possible time" or within a period of six years upon reclassification to Carcinogen status.
How does no action fit the spirit of legislation and protection in your mind?

Posted By Heather Collins
Derek - I will try to answer your points in turn:

"Why are you under the impression everyone currently using Trike has a permit to use?"

I'm not. Why did you think I was? I said our LA-PPC permit did not require the phase-out of trike. I didn't say anything about other users. I used this merely as an example of a regulated site (ours) which had no obligation to phase out trike.

"I am also interested to hear why you think it is not "reasonably practicable" to substitute Trike."

We tried. We could not find a suitable technical alternative for our process, which also satisfied our customer. Therefore we were using a modern enclosed vapour degreasing process which reduced exposure as far as we could. It wasn't cheap, but we did think the cost was justified under the reasonably practicable test.

"users of over one tonne per annum in open top machines (the majority)are asked to substitute in the "Shortest possible time" or within a period of six years upon reclassification to Carcinogen status."

I believe that most of these users WILL be covered by the PPC regs if they are using more than one tonne for surface cleaning. It is therefore likely that their PPC permit will already contain conditions that they have to fulfill to reduce the emissions of trike. Ours certainly did. I imagine they will still have to comply with this by law. So only the small users will not have to take immediate action.

"How does no action fit the spirit of legislation and protection in your mind?"

It doesn't. As explained above, I don't think this is the case for the majority of users.

With all due respect Derek, it's clear that you have a vested interest in this matter as your company is a supplier of a trike alternative.

At this stage I've spent quite enough time on this (especially as we no longer use trike!) so I'll leave others to continue to refute any further arguments you wish to raise.