Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
benek84  
#1 Posted : 07 March 2017 08:47:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
benek84

Hi Is LPG for forklift trucks under COSHH? Thank you
Ian Bell2  
#2 Posted : 07 March 2017 09:16:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

LPG has very limited COSHH implication on a forklift. The liquid/gas shouldn't be free to edcape/leak to give exposure to people in the area. The exhaust fumes/gases do need to be considered, but unless the Flt is being used in a particular confined space, shouldn't be a problem as there should be sufficient natural ventilation to dilute exhaust gases. You will need to consider the LPG from the fire safety point of view. LPG falls under the risk assessment requirements of DSEAR, Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regs.
DHM  
#3 Posted : 07 March 2017 14:51:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DHM

Keep the canisters in a marked, external, locked cage protected from vehicle traffic routes, and away from pedestrian fire exits etc. Include it in the site fire risk assessment. Your LPG supplier should be able to provide further guidance.

Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 07 March 2017 21:18:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

You need instruction and training for all employees regarding the use of LPG on FLT which does come under COSHH

We changed FLT providers and noted a marked increase of issues of unplanned gas releases and more frequent cylinder changes (despite not being empty) - root cause one employee who missed the supplier provided training was not aware of how to correctly position the cylinder (valve up versus previous valve down) and operate the quick connector (previously a valve spanner was required).

Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 07 March 2017 21:18:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

You need instruction and training for all employees regarding the use of LPG on FLT which does come under COSHH

We changed FLT providers and noted a marked increase of issues of unplanned gas releases and more frequent cylinder changes (despite not being empty) - root cause one employee who missed the supplier provided training was not aware of how to correctly position the cylinder (valve up versus previous valve down) and operate the quick connector (previously a valve spanner was required).

Ian Bell2  
#6 Posted : 07 March 2017 22:10:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

This still isn't a COSHH issue. The WEL limit for LPG is quite high. Can't remember without looking it up, but not really a realistic problem. Provided the ventilation is good no issue. Even the fire risk is limited if ventilated ok etc Hazards from simply the gas pressure are also not a COSHH issue. For changing the gas bottle a simple safe system of work. No need to drag in extra stuff.
Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 07 March 2017 22:49:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The very low temperature of the compressed gas is a physical hazard.

This particular employee ended up with a cold contact burn thanks to their lack of training, sodden with rain at the external storage cage in the middle of winter. It was only during the investigation of the incident was it realised they had been absent during the FLT fleet change over training.

EH40 - 1000 ppm 8hr TWA or 1250 ppm STEL for LPG (without buta-1,3-diene)

Last time I checked EH40 there was no WEL for water but immerse your face in 2" of the stuff and you soon realise it has serious asphyxiant properties.

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 07 March 2017 22:49:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The very low temperature of the compressed gas is a physical hazard.

This particular employee ended up with a cold contact burn thanks to their lack of training, sodden with rain at the external storage cage in the middle of winter. It was only during the investigation of the incident was it realised they had been absent during the FLT fleet change over training.

EH40 - 1000 ppm 8hr TWA or 1250 ppm STEL for LPG (without buta-1,3-diene)

Last time I checked EH40 there was no WEL for water but immerse your face in 2" of the stuff and you soon realise it has serious asphyxiant properties.

Ian Bell2  
#9 Posted : 08 March 2017 00:14:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

Temperature and pressure and associated physical hazards are still not a COSHH consideration. Yes they need to be considered as part of a general risk assessment. . COSHH L5 ACOP Reg 5 (1)(b) As for the 2" of water in the face/rain - COSHH really? Training under COSHH for changing an Flt LPG bottle outside on a wet day. Don't think so.. Don't see your point of raising COSHH training for this task/situation. It is barely relevant.
biker1  
#10 Posted : 08 March 2017 08:49:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

It is also very important to change cylinders in a safe place. There is an anecdotal tale of one guy changing the cylinder next to a welding bay. Some gas leaked during this process, and being heavier than air gathered around the guy's legs, and was then ignited by sparks from the welding bay. Your risk assessment should also consider the behaviour of cylinders in a fire, when a BLEVE can occur and you can end up with flying cylinders.

Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 08 March 2017 09:37:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Water was to raise the point that EH40 is not a definitive list of materials requring COSHH assessment

When you look at broader publications such as GESTIS international exposure limit tables other nations consider the same substances more / less harmful and quite a few items ommited from EH40 appear as hazardous in other nations

So if you aren't assessing the material how do you know the level of the carcinogen buta-1,3-diene is less than 0.1% ?

Roundtuit  
#12 Posted : 08 March 2017 09:37:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Water was to raise the point that EH40 is not a definitive list of materials requring COSHH assessment

When you look at broader publications such as GESTIS international exposure limit tables other nations consider the same substances more / less harmful and quite a few items ommited from EH40 appear as hazardous in other nations

So if you aren't assessing the material how do you know the level of the carcinogen buta-1,3-diene is less than 0.1% ?

Ian Bell2  
#13 Posted : 08 March 2017 09:57:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

Have a current SDS for the LPG. Are you suggesting sampling the LPG and having lab analysis? The LPG will be supplied to the required specification. What other sources of bottled LPG would you propose? So changing an Flt LPG bottle gives a credible risk of exposure to a carcinogen? Low volume of gas Relatively infrequent task Good ventilation if done outside
biker1  
#14 Posted : 08 March 2017 14:22:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I think the point about water is that almost anything can be toxic if you have too much of it, even water (leaving aside the risk of drowning in it). EH40 will include substances that are toxic etc at low concentrations, but I'm sure you could come up with an indicative WEL for water if you were so inclined.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.