What are you intending that the software should do? Is it to maintain a record of risk assessments and exposure management actions or are you intending that the risk assessment should be carried out by the software? These are two totally different applications requiring different approaches.
Chris

safetodo,

My main customer operations manager did something for me that has been very useful. He created an excel spreadsheet which creates a one page print-out COSHH assessment that First-Aiders can quickly access in the event of an accident/incident.

First of all a sheet/page lists all the R and S phrases numbers (and the new CLP statements).

Then a page listing all the chemicals they use. I have obtained current MSDSs and using the excel spreadsheet I input just the 'relevant' data for a COSHH assessment: the R and S phrase numbers (and the new CLP statement numbers), the hazards, very brief descriptions of how the material is used on site, what precautions are in place for normal operations, what PPE is used for jobs that use it, what first aid should be administered (for skin, eye, inhalation, ingestion).

For each chemical this inputting take just minutes.

The excel program is designed with a search that prints a one page COSHH assessment for any chemical. So first aiders can print the one-page and get a clear concise document that explains what harm the IP may have suffered, and what the first aider should do.

This can be done in Microsoft Excel if you know someone who can do it :o) (I can't provide you with my customer's file).

Might sound a big job but it's not really with know-how; for example with care all the R,S and CLP phrase texts can be copied/imported in bulk, from the internet, onto the spreadsheet page in just a few minutes.

The program also puts in reminders e.g. to get/check new MSDS every 2 years.

John

Unfortunately, a risk assessment for COSHH cannot be based purely on the risk and safety phrases on the safety data sheet. There are literally thousands of chemicals that will not have been assigned a risk or safety phrase but that, particularly in contact with the skin, will represent a hazard to health. For example, there are now over 4,000 chemicals recognised by dermatologists as skin sensitisers (Patch Testing. Test Concentrations and Vehicles for 4350 Chemicals, Anton C. De Groot: 3rd edition). Only a few of these will have been classified as R43/H317. They probably also will thus not appear on the safety data sheet.

We usually purchase chemicals to use for a purpose. In doing so we may change their properties. The latest ACoP for COSHH recognises this.

===
“Employers should regard a substance as hazardous to health if it is hazardous in the form in which it may occur in the work activity. A substance hazardous to health need not be just a chemical compound, it can also include mixtures of compounds, micro-organisms or natural materials, such as flour, stone or wood dust.” - COSHH ACoP (6th edition), para. 10
===
“The risk assessment should consider the work activity, including:
All the substances hazardous to health (including biological agents and simple asphyxiants) arising from the work (use, produced, synthesised, created as waste or by-products, or released from processes or during accidents, incidents and emergencies);
Work done by sub-contractors, at the workplace, that may expose employees to substances hazardous to health.”
COSHH ACoP, para. 57
===

To be valid, any risk assessment for COSHH must be based on the hazard that a chemical represents when used for a particular task. The same chemical may represent different hazards in different tasks. Identifying the real hazard is arguably the most difficult and time consuming part of any COSHH risk assessment.

Chris

safetodo01,
With reference to the commercial product mentioned above, be aware of the following issues that I'm aware of based on a number of client COSHH Management audits.
1) Because the assessment needs to relate to the task, you can end up with several assessments for the same substance. If the internal records system is then managed by people with minimal COSHH awareness, they can select the wrong assessment for a repeated, or very similar task.
2) You pay for each assessment, so if you change supplier and receive a 'new' SDS a user can request another assessment when it's not in fact needed. Similar issues if you have multiple sites, each able to request the assessments they think they need without understanding there may be similar tasks elsewhere.
3) Possibly the 'weakest link': because the contracted external assessors aren't familiar with the task or worksite, they will typically add a number of controls to 'consider'. But the non-specialist user typically doesn't actually do that, merely clipping the COSHH assessment to the Permit request or other task paperwork. There may also be unnecessary controls listed, because these there are site rules in place that already cover them, e.g. no smoking or eating in work areas, etc. So the person who is supposed to ensure the controls are in place can find it very difficult to 'see the wood for the trees', i.e. which controls will actually reduce the exposure risks and which are just 'backside covering'.

In the worst applications I've seen, the software-based COSHH assessment becomes an expensive and complex paper exercise, with no one making much effort to manage and optimise the actual controls or the total number of assessments.

Hope this helps.

Having looked at the Sevron website and run their demonstration I have strong concerns about this approach. Firstly it appears to be based solely on the information from the safety data sheet. This is not adequate for COSHH. If you consult the current edition of COSHH it contains the following:-

“Employers should regard a substance as hazardous to health if it is hazardous in the form in which it may occur in the work activity. A substance hazardous to health need not be just a chemical compound, it can also include mixtures of compounds, micro-organisms or natural materials, such as flour, stone or wood dust.” - COSHH ACoP (6th edition), para. 10 - and

“The risk assessment should consider the work activity, including:
All the substances hazardous to health (including biological agents and simple asphyxiants) arising from the work (use, produced, synthesised, created as waste or by-products, or released from processes or during accidents, incidents and emergencies);
Work done by sub-contractors, at the workplace, that may expose employees to substances hazardous to health.” - COSHH ACoP, para. 57

There are literally thousands of chemicals that have never been allocated hazard statements but that, particularly in contact with the skin, can cause damage to health, either through damage to the skin or skin penetration resulting in systemic toxic effects. For example there are over 4,000 chemicals known to dermatologists to be skin sensitisers (Patch Testing. Test Concentrations and Vehicles for 4350 Chemicals, Anton C. De Groot: 3rd edition). The vast majority of these will not have a hazard statement.

The two paragraphs quoted concern themselves with the real hazard that arises when one or more chemicals are used. Mixing, reacting, contaminating, heating, oxidising, etc. will all change a chemical's properties such that the information on the safety data sheet is no longer applicable.
Only a workplace visit to study how the chemicals are used and the consequences will allow you to determine the real hazard on which the risk assessment must be based. Otherwise you stand a risk of damage to health occurring due to an invalid risk assessment.

Chris

For those who mention the software by SYPOL - the company no longer exists. They sold up.

As for the software, I saw it put together from the inside. All very generic, not too impressed.

As with most commercial products, they managed to convince enough people to buy it....

Self generated CoSHH assessments are just as good, if done properly.

As someone who has spent more years than he cares to remember on the prevention of damage to health due to workplace skin exposure in my experience there are three fundamental rules for a COSHH assessment.
1. The risk assessment has to be task based. It is what you do with the chemicals that matters.
2. The effect of what you do governs the hazard. An extremely hazardous substance can be used quite safely (and often is as everyone is aware of the hazard). A substance not classified as hazardous can become a hazard depending upon how it is used. Unless this is reflected in the risk assessment then there is a very real risk that this will not be valid. The same chemical can represent different hazards when used for different tasks.
3. Due to the above the risk assessment can only be done by identifying what is really happening when the chemical is used, the real hazard that this represents and then the level of exposure (actual and/or potential).
How many people are exposed to water? Yes, we need it to clean our hands, but under certain circumstances it can be a hazard.
“An irritant is defined as any agent, physical or chemical, capable of producing cell damage. Everything can be an irritant if applied for sufficient time and in sufficient concentration. Water, being the most abundant element of the skin, is usually regarded as banal and gentle. However, the irritancy of water is beyond doubt.” - From Dermatotoxicology, second edition, Zhai H, Maibach HI, CRC Press
Perhaps this explains why wet work is one of the major causes of occupational contact dermatitis.
From the above I suggest that to carry out a risk assessment requires time spent observing the actual task so that one can (a) identify the real hazard that the chemicals – as used – represent and (b) whether the level of exposure requires additional controls to be implemented. I wonder how a computer can do this! (It is, of course, great for recording our findings.)
Chris

I think the main problem here is people wanting a quick fix.
It doesn't exist.
Chemical safety is complex, and we need also need to understand some quite complex process chemistry if we are to change for 'safer' alternatives...

I am looked at like I am crazy when I ask, so why are you using that as a reduction agent... would x work instead....

For simple solutions (haha puns :) ) - The HSE provide a tool, and some example assessments... I'm not saying these are always enough, but something is better than nothing right?

Just a thought, could the way in which the chemical is used make it safer than the H phrases suggest?
I hope the answer is yes because that's why we have controls in place!

I love these COSHH questions, especially Chris Packam's answers

Graham

Graham,
Another Yes - e.g. when I delivered a COSHH Assessors training course today for a client. One of the example tasks for their trainees was taking small diesel fuel samples on an offshore installation. The supplier SDS includes the H-phrase 'may be fatal if swallowed and enters airways' (H304). We agreed this isn't relevant when collecting a small 50ml sample for onshore analysis, so we used others to define the hazard and then consider what are proportionate, suitable controls - pretty minor in this particular case.