Rank: Super forum user 
|
Can anyone provide a few samples of COSHH exempt 'flammable only' substances? I take we are talking mainly gaseous???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
An interesting thought.
Hydrogen is flammable and explosive, so is usually dealt with under DSEAR, but I guess technically you could create an asphyxiating atmosphere with it, and this would make COSHH kick in.
In practice, however, you would apply the principles of DSEAR to hydrogen and not worry about COSHH, because producing an atmosphere that is oxygen deficient due to displacement by hydrogen is reckless to say the least.
other examples:
Carbon monoxide - very toxic
Silane - ??
methane and other fuel gases - just asphyxiants?
phosphine - toxic
running out of ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Given the definition in COSHH Regulation 2(e) of what constitutes a substance hazardous to health as: “...which, not being a substance falling within sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), because of its chemical or toxicological properties and the way it is used or is present at the workplace creates a risk to health” I do not think one can classify any substance as being ‘exempt’ from COSHH.
It all depends upon the circumstances in that workplace and for that particular task. Consider also that a deficiency in a particular substance can present a risk to health. So lack of oxygen could constitute a risk according to COSHH.
What this definition shows is that it is not just the intrinsic properties of the substance that need to be considered, but the use to which it is being put or the way it is present in that workplace. I get the impression that all too often the concentration with COSHH is on the substance, not recognising sufficiently that this stands for the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health and that what we need to keep in the foreground of our minds is the need for ‘control’.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for the replies...
My initial enquiry is directly connected to...
5.—(1) Regulations 6 to 13 shall have eVect with a view to protecting persons against a risk to their health, whether immediate or delayed, arising from exposure to substances hazardous to health except***
(b) where the substance is hazardous to health solely by virtue of its radioactive, explosive or flammable properties, or solely because it is at a high or low temperature or a high
pressure;
'solely' troubles me!
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I suppose the risk from gunpowder is mainly due its explosive nature but I have heard of people developing an allergy to it so perhaps even this could be a ‘substance hazardous to health’.
Like some people have said, anything can become a substance hazardous to health and so fall under COSHH. I once had to point out to some people using mustard powder to lure worms to the surface( I work at an R&D lab and we do strange things!) that as they were at work and that there are at least an allergy risk associated with handling the mustard powder that they will need COSHH assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
A Kurdziel wrote:I suppose the risk from gunpowder is mainly due its explosive nature but I have heard of people developing an allergy to it so perhaps even this could be a ‘substance hazardous to health’.
Like some people have said, anything can become a substance hazardous to health and so fall under COSHH. I once had to point out to some people using mustard powder to lure worms to the surface( I work at an R&D lab and we do strange things!) that as they were at work and that there are at least an allergy risk associated with handling the mustard powder that they will need COSHH assessment.
Someone's going to ask so it may as well be me; "Do worms like mustard powder then?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No they don't. They hate the stuff and try to get out of the soil where our scientists can collect them and use them for whatever experiments they have to do.
It's not all CDM you know
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"solely" + "hazardous"
I suppose it is to do with how you define "hazardous" with regard to substances. If you only consider those substances as "hazardous" that have been assigned risk phrases/hazard statements, then I think you would find exemptions. I imagine that the statement about 'solely' is in line with that approach and consequently some substances would not be considered hazardous. However, if you define 'hazardous' as capable of causing damage to health, then we are dealing with a much wider range of substances and this would include those exempt under the other ruling.
COSHH is quite clear on this. The definition includes anything, irrespective of whether it carries a risk phrase/hazard statement. It all depends on the conditions under which it encountered in that workplace.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Poor worms...perhaps they could be used to lure seagulls out of ponds?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Worms and mustard aside (although a facinating Friday discussion...) I agree Chris, the situation I was working with has been resolved, however once again, it was an individuals understandings or perhaps more accurately the perception of COSHH and the specific regulation that caused me some concern. The product in question was clearly marked as 'flammable' and this was taken as the 'sole' hazard associated with the product (not the case) therefore it was removed from the COSHH register! As you can imagine debate and much reddening of the neck upwards ensued...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
garfield esq wrote:Can anyone provide a few samples of COSHH exempt 'flammable only' substances? I take we are talking mainly gaseous??? Bottle of brandy? Hairspray?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnW wrote:
Bottle of brandy?
Hairspray?
Brandy - no, the ethanol has an exposure limit when inhaled, and it is a carcinogen. Hairspray - I doubt it - I'm sure it will have an inhalation exposure limit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hairspray
Check out the list of constituents on the label.
What is the propellant?
And almost certainly it will have some form of 'preservative'. This will be a biocide by another name, and as such an irritant and a skin sensitiser! Proabaly a fragrance as well. These are notorious to the point that at the European Society of Contact Dermatitis conferences there is always a whole day devoted to the problems of skin allergies and fragrances.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.