Indeed. matelot Nitrogen is not covered by COSHH (see EH40) but that does not mean a risk assessment is not required! LB

As an ex aircraft engineer myself, I would agree that nitrogen should not present a risk when used as described to inflate aircraft tyres. However it DOES need a COSHH assessment to be strictly correct. It is a natural asphyxiant. It get caught under the definition of a 'substance hazardous to health', under clause (e) 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; The CoSHH L5 ACOP then goes on to say within section 2 guidance, paragraph 9 9 COSHH applies to a wide range of substances and preparations (mixtures of two or more substances) which have the potential to cause harm to health if they are ingested, inhaled, or are absorbed by, or come into contact with, the skin, or other body membranes. Hazardous substances can occur in many forms, including solids, liquids, vapours, gases and fumes. They can also be simple asphyxiants or biological agents (see paragraphs 14–23). Ref 2013 L5 CoSHH Approved Code of Practice.

Ian is correct. Asphyxiants are mopped up in COSHH. Here, however you have to ask yourself what the potential for asphyxiation actually is. If it is almost zero, as your post suggests, then I suggest you don't need to do anything other than record that fact. With large tyres I suspect that there are bigger risks from tyre failure at pressure. In my own workplace we do have to consider nitrogen under COSHH because we have piped supplies which have around 20 000 cubic metres of gas available at the other end of the pipe. If you have a leak in that you have a problem.

Matelot I apologise for misleading you. Although I don't think nitrogen should be covered by COSHH, the HSE think differently and I should have checked the ACoP before rushing to answer your query. Interestingly, there was no mention of COSHH in this prosecution: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-wm-24910.htm LB

This is where the current system falls down. Strictly speaking nitrogen is not a substance hazardous to health as it does not come under the definitions under reg 2 of COSHH. It is an asphyxiant, which is not a toxilogical or chemical property but in circumstances where it displaces oxygen such as in a confined space it can be a killer. We use liquid nitrogen and I tell my staff to include nitrogen in the COSHH assessments as this will cover them under the wider duty to assess risk.

Quote=Ian Bell]Agree totally, that for inflating tyres, CoSHH assessment is a one line comment. Along the lines of 'ensure adequate ventilation, no significant health risk' As we know the atmosphere is about 79% nitrogen. However as a wider substance management point, if not managed and the hazards of nitrogen are not recognised under Coshh, which other h&s legislation applies to nitrogen and other simple asphxyiants? Confined Spaces obviously only apply in certain circumstances. Nitrogen has very real risks, in the process industries its is widely used as a purge gas/to suppress flammable atmospheres. Applying CoSHH principles even to asphyiants is a good memory aid, even when there are no classic chemicals issues eg corrosive burn, irritants, toxics. There however very real human physiological effects, namely asphyxiation risks.

Sadly common sense cannot be relied upon. To me, its a sort of word association exercise With the exception of lead and asbestos, having their own regulations, any mention of a chemical element, compound or mixture or biological agent links with CoSHH. If flammable as well, then an automatic memory link to DSEAR. As per my original comment, in the great tradition of UK safety regulation, there is usually a 'catch all' requirement which the HSE can cling on to, if they can't think of anything else to pin on someone. In the case of CoSHH, clause (e) as mentioned.

Sorry folks, but Ian Bell has it right. He has quoted the relevant paragraph from the COSHH Regulations. There is no chemical that is excluded from COSHH. What is important is how it is used. We normally purchase chemicals to use for a purpose. It is when we use them that the potential for damage to health arises. Thus it is the task that is the key and on which we must base our risk assessment. Whether a chemical is listed in EH40, or in CLP with a Hazard Statement, is irrelevant. There are thousands of chemicals that will not be in EH40 or bear a Hazard Statement but which can, under certain circumstances, cause damage to health. Check out the sixth edition of the ACoP for COSHH. Several paragraphs deal with this topic. Para. 35 reads: === When deciding whether the substances used or produced in the workplace are covered by COSHH, employers should also consider the following: Different forms of a substance may present different hazards, eg substances may not be hazardous in solid form but may be hazardous when ground into fine powder or dust that can be breathed into the lungs. Nanoparticles (ie particles less than 100 nanometers) may be more toxic than larger particles of the same chemical substance. Impurities in a substance can make it more hazardous, eg crystalline silica is often present in minerals which would otherwise present little or no hazard. Some substances have a fibrous form which may present a potentially serious risk to health if the fibres are of a certain size or shape. Some substances have a known health effect but the mechanism causing it is unknown, eg certain dusts of textile raw materials cause byssinosis. Exposure to two or more substances at the same time or one after the other may have an added or synergistic effect. Epidemiological or other data, eg reports of illness due to new and emerging agents, indicate that a biological agent that does not already appear in The Approved List of biological agents could nevertheless cause a hazard to health. One-off, emergency situations arising out of the work activity, such as a dangerous chemical reaction or fire, could foreseeably produce a substance hazardous to health. ‘Wet work’ is one of the most frequently and consistently reported causes of irritant occupational contact dermatitis. ‘Wet work’ is the term used to describe tasks involving prolonged or frequent contact with water, particularly in combination with soaps and detergents. === With regard to liquid nitrogen, when used in a laboratory it can certainly represent a significant hazard to health due to the extremely low temperature. When used in enclosed spaces it can represent a risk due to asphyxiation. When used with the correct equipment to fill aircraft tyres the risk will be much lower, but consider possible unexpected events, such as a hose rupturing releasing an instense cold stream of gas. As para 35 states, water – which as far as I am aware is not listed in EH40 nor bears a Hazard Statement – is actually the most common causative chemical for occupational contact dermatitis. And wearing occlusive gloves is equivalent to having hands in water and needs a risk assessment, even though you are not directly using a chemical. Methinks some people need to go back and revisit how they approach COSHH. Chris

Ian Technically you are correct according to Regulation 5 - 1(b). However, would you want to have to defend in court an employer who neglected to assess the risk of a nitrogen burn and provide the appropriate control measures and whose employee was then seriously burned? I have had a client warned by and HSE inspector about not having assessed this risk (before the introduction of FFI!). Chris

Who said health and safety was just common sense?

In my view, the hazards from nitrogen gas are not health related, i.e COSHH. Even if Confined spaces regs do not apply , a risk assessment under the management regs is required to ensure that the ventilation rate is adequate, and that there are emergency procedures in place for dealing with large releases. Extract from a BOC Gases Compressed Nitrogen Gas SDS: SECTION 2: Hazards identification 2.1. Classification of the substance or mixture Classification acc. to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008/EC (CLP/GHS) Press. Gas (Compressed gas) - Contains gas under pressure; may explode if heated. Classification acc. to Directive 67/548/EEC & 1999/45/EC Not classified as hazardous to health. Asphyxiant in high concentrations. Risk advice to man and the environment In high concentrations may cause asphyxiation. Compressed gas. 2.2. Label elements - Signal word Warning - Hazard Statements H280 Contains gas under pressure; mayexplode if heated. EIGA-As Asphyxiant in high concentrations. - Precautionary Statements Precautionary Statement Prevention None. Precautionary Statement Response None. Precautionary Statement Storage P403 Store in a well-ventilated place. Precautionary Statement Disposal None. 2.3. Other hazards None.

http://www.csb.gov/hazar...f-nitrogen-asphyxiation/ A 12 minute video, if you have the time to watch.

Thank you, AK; I'm glad I'm not the only one! LB

The asphyxiation risk is real. I worked for a time at a company making superconducting magnets for body scanners. They were cooled with liquid nitrogen. An installation engineer died while carrying out the nitrogen fill. This was in a room much smaller than a hanger, but by no means a confined space.

Gents/Ladies, Very many thanks for your input on this subject. It really has created some debate. There are conflicting opinions/views with no definitive. I suppose you could only get a definitive answer by asking the HSE. Normally I would have done the research myself but with my NEBOSH diploma unit A exam on January 20th my priorities where elsewhere. Thanks once again

Article in the news today regarding two fatalities and five injured in LG factory in South Korea, initial reports point in the direction to a nitrogen leak. http://news.sky.com/stor...at-lgs-tv-screen-factory