The law is quite clear that CIOSHH applies to any hazardous substances in the workplace and this includes domestic cleaning products used in the workplace. As far as I know there are no examples prosecutions for employers for simply not having a risk assessment.  Generally what has happened is that something goes wrong and then it emerges that there is no risk assessment covering that work. For example there is a case of a sports centre (Wakefield?) where a drain cleaner (available in all good hardware stores) was used on a floor drain. A kiddie then sat on the drain and burned their bottom. I cannot remember if they were prosecuted under COSHH or if they just used Section 3 of Health and Safety at Work Act.  UK law obviously advances by use of precedent and case law and as a bit of legal nerd I am please your client has decided to provide an opportunity to advance the law by ignoring it in this way. Good luck to them!

Originally Posted by: chris42

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

UK law obviously advances by use of precedent and case law and as a bit of legal nerd I am please your client has decided to provide an opportunity to advance the law by ignoring it in this way. Good luck to them!

They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but can be funny on a Monday morning

Start low and work your way down!

I give Departments a form to list product, any symbols, risk phrases or other concerns. No symbol or a statement that it's non-hazardous - it just gets included in a general risk assessment. Anything else has to have a COSHH assessment - but I have been known to lump things together (e.g. washing up liquid - does it really matter if it's Fairy or Aldi's own if the symbol, general info & use are the same?)

I'm a firm believer of action proportionate to risk - & its seems to go down better with my employer too.

And when you look on the back of the washing up liquid - a not insubstantial GHS07 (exclamation mark) - the pictogram comes from the classification indicating hazard with the material.

Problem is locating the correct information to see "if" the professional version is the same as the domestic version is the same as the competitors equivalent

Consumer products provide their hazard information through labelling so tend to avoid the Hazard & Precautionary numbers and provide none of the additional information found upon the Safety Data Sheet which supports Professional/Industrial uses

BUT ensure if you are looking up an SDS on-line that you go to the manufacturer as many resellers posted documents but then fail to update with the current best available knowledge

Google "Fairy SDS" and the first result is non-compliant https://www.careshop.co.uk/img/cms/PFL5.pdf 

Not hazardous? Wet work, i.e. exposure to water and from wearing of gloves for longer periods, is the most common cause of occupational contact dermatitis. Water has long been known to dermatologists as a skin irritant.

Also how about the case of  a company actually manufacturing cosmetic products asked to clean a changing room using the normal cleaning products present. No training, no risk assessment. Mixed two of the cleaning products together. Outcome fatal. Prosecution followed. Company fined.

There are over 4,350 chemicals known to dermatologists as skin sensitisers. Only a small minority will have been classified as H317. Rest may not even appear on the safety data sheet!

Chris

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/10598237.Pub_worker_tells_of_creating_toxic_fumes_while_cleaning_urinal/

It not what you use its the way that you use it.

There is no legislation against being a half wit at home (except for Gas and certain aspects of electrical work)

Those who do conduct RA realise you can swop solvent based correction fluids for tapes eliminating the hazard and the spurious COSHH assessment

Thanks for all responses so far.

Can I try to get back to the point of my original posting which was requesting examples of prosecutions or accidents people have had whilst using domestic cleaning products at work.

Can anyone provide me with typical examples please?

Thanks

DHM

Not prosecutions to cite but some examples are present in the HSE guidance doc

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/hsg262.pdf

And a general, not generic RA for office cleaning

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/casestudies/pdf/officecleaning.pdf

It takes minutes to do COSHH assesments so just do them and be content in the knowlege that the law is an ass.

Well having started as a chemist I must be too critical with my approach:

Presented with an SDS the first thing I do is review its validity which takes those "couple of minutes" (looking at the document and making confirmation via the web / supplier).

Then I verify the information provided by the SDS is current and to "best available knowledge" checking sources such as ECHA registration dossiers and GESTIS along with competitor documents - yes GHS / CLP mean the information should be consistent but often it is not.

After that I consider what I have been told about how the product is intended to be used and where possible see it in use (not necessarily the same thing) within the work environment.

Not quite…

Firstly there is section 6-1 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. act 1974, part of which states:

It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work:-

(c) to take such steps as are necessary to secure that there will be available in connection with the use of the article at work adequate information about the use for which it is designed and has been tested, and about any conditions necessary to ensure that, when put to that use, it will be safe and without risks to health.

This is somewhat different from what is required for the SDS

Secondly, consider what the current ACoP for COSHH states in para 10:

Paragraph 10 - 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.

It isn’t the hazard on the safety data sheet that counts; it’s the hazard present when we use it for a particular task. That hazard can be different for different tasks.

And how many still base their risk assessment on the information on the safety data sheet? In fact, how many training courses on COSHH risk assessment still  use the safety data sheet as the basis for the risk assessment? How often do I encounter the view that 'as I am complying with the WEL I am compliant with COSHH'? Not so

As it happensmy copy of  the reference work on skin sensitisers (Patch Testing by Anton de Groot) mentions 4,350 chemicals recognised by dermatologists as sensitisers. Only a minority of these will have been classifie as H317 and appear as such on the safety data sheet - assuming they appear at all. So your safety data sheet lists 70% of the constituents as hazardous. Have you any idea what the other 30% are and what they might do for example in contact with the skin?

Now read para 10 of the current ACoP for COSHH. Does this even mention the safety data sheet?

Chris