Rank: Super forum user
|
We have all MSDS in a central location, readily accessible to all employees, we are not a big site and it would take you a couple of mins to reach them from the furthest point of our building. Everyone knows where to get them if needed.
Its now being suggested from someone (external auditor) that we should have multiple MSDS locations closer to the chemical being used.
Wondering what your thoughts are?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
How capable of understanding the MSDS are the personnel at point of use? Most are written by technicians for technicians and for transport safety, not the safety and health of end-users.
An alternative approach would be to have clear and prominent instructions for safe use, first aid etc for those substances that are most hazardous, at the point where harm may occur.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You'll get a mix of views on this one I suspsect!!.
I think the auditor is wrong. As long as employees are aware of emergency first aid and fire procedures associated with the product the MSDS does not need to be closer than a couple of minutes away. Obviously the more dangerous the product the more crucial to do things faster but I would hope if it was that dangerous employees would be well versed in the emergency procedures (not the MSDS) and not have to go reading the MSDS to know what to do. Many MSDS's aren't very good anyway and are only used as a basis for the COSHH assessment and emergency procedures, which should be specific to your own operations.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi
I produced a sheet with the common chemicals used giving brief details on the chemicals we use i.e. name, type of hazard, PPE needed and spillage measures. I then laminated this and stuck it around the place.
My issue was not so much access to the MSDS but an awareness that most people would not bother to consult them anyway. It is much easier for people to glance at the sheet on the wall which tells the 'wear gloves' of something similar. We only deal with fairly low risk products which are often used in a domestic setting with no precautions.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The problem with multiple copies (apart from the waste of paper, time and effort in the situation described) is keeping them all up to date.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Guru. I think I agree with Stuff. MSDS have all necessary info in them but it can be hard to interpret if your not used to reading & understanding them. So I would only have one set accessable to all.
If the auditor is trying to say that PPE and spill information should be available at the place of work then I would implement a local site system to group and list which materials require what PPE. i.e. Nothing,or LEP and simple gloves, or LEP & dust mask & gloves. or .... Like a lot of Cos we introduced 4 levels of PPE and then allocated each material into one of those PPE catagories.
best wishes Peter
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And the problem with overemphasising msds as an authoritative source of information is that you will get people looking at them and saying "but we have to dress up in overalls, rubber gloves and RPE to work with sodium chloride" instead of going by the COSHH assessment.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My apologies if I have missed something here, but I would expect to find multiple copies of the Control Measures formed as result of your COSHH assessment at different locations, along with appropriate evidence that you have communicated these measures to your employees. I would only use the MSDS as a starting point in COSHH assessments and as others have already said they can be difficult for the untrained to interpret for different work environments.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Having an MSDS with or closely following a casualty to hospital can be a good thing in the event of a serious incident, saving valuable time in emergency situation - not applicable to every product though. Failing that, the container, or something with supplier contact data can be useful to the people in A&E.
Assessment would determine if such an approach was necessary.
Generally, electronic storage /retrieval is a better way to go, perferably hosted on supplier's website. Should not need day-to-day access on the shop floor, although First Aiders will need to know more than most - again depending on products used/handled.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
We have made all of our MSDS's available on a central database that everyone in the company can access from their PC. When staff want to look at a particular one they just click the icon and the whole database in alphabetical order comes up and they can go straight to the specific chemical they are looking for. They can also print any of them off and keep a copy for themselves if they would like. We used to have multiple folders in multiple locations but found it very hard to keep them all up to date with new revisions and if anyone removed an individual MSDS we would not know immediately.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Generally, when carrying our tasks, it is not a practical proposition to refer to MSDS's as the reference source of information by front line personnel. This is because MSDS's cover a wide range of scenarios that a hazardous material can be used.
It is the outcome of the COSHH assessment in context of control measures that the employees etc should be informed about, the extent depending upon the complexity etc--whether it is information, instruction and/or training.
Electronic storage/retrival of MSDS's is becoming more common.
Yes, COSHH assessors will require access to the MSDS's and they will be required should there be an emergency, but not necessarily by the front line personnel.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks everyone for your valued input, I think the auditor was being very picky with this one.
The MSDS's are going to be kept in one central location, but I think its not a bad idea to have a laminated poster at each location, where chemicals are handled, explaining they types of chemicals used in that area.
It can spell out what it means, and what to do when theres contact or spillage etc. I dont see any value in having multiple locations of MSDS's, it will get confusing, hard to control, and will end up some going missing which I dont want.
COSHH assessments have been done, with appropriate controls, and everything is included in the staff training, so we are ok with that. I quite like the idea of having the documents scanned and have them on a central database, so they potentially could be accessed from any PC, which we may look at.
As it turned out, the audit went well :)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As others have stated, MSDS are for CHIP, i.e. for supply. Paragraph 13 of the ACoP for COSHH explains why these may not be adequate for COSHH. The hazard, and therefore the risk, will frequently be significantly different for the same chemical used in different ways for different tasks.
In my view your auditor is wrong and hasn't understood the limitations of the MSDS. What you need locally for each area is guidance on how the product should be used for that particular task, the precautions and action in an emergency. Keep this simple so that those not versed in chemistry or health issues can quickly understand the information. Pictograms are often a good approach, as literacy skills (and language skills) may vary widely.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
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.