Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi, first post here. Environment - contract electronic manufacturing (CEM) - SMT, hand soldering, box build etc. Approx. 35 shop floor staff. I have completed IOSH managing safely and ROSPA COSHH course, but have no previous experience of COSHH risk assessments and no other qualified persons on site to assist. I'm hoping some of you with more experience can advise. We use a number of liquids, such as fluxes and glues (Loctite, cyanoacrylates etc) which have H319 (Cat 2A) hazard ratings and P280 statements, but safety glasses are not currently used. Practical application is in very small quantities from dispenser bottles and there have been no recorded incidents or near misses. I also spoke to relevant teams and was told verbally that splashing does not occur in day-to-day use. These substances (especially the fluxes) are in constant daily use. EN166 safety glasses or face shields are used during any decanting where splash risk is increased. We have eye wash stations and several trained first aiders on site. To my mind, reducing the risk as far as ‘reasonably practicable’ would involve wearing safety glasses during use – they are cheap, and it would account for the chance of a random splash occurring. On the flip side, the evidence suggests the real likelihood is extremely low (no incidents in several decades), vs workers not wanting to wear safety glasses all the time due to comfort issues – plus many of them wear prescription glasses and have stated that over-glasses are very uncomfortable for long durations, and I cannot see the company forking out for multiple pairs of prescription safety glasses. Do you think the evidence/justification for not mandating PPE is sufficient?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
From personal experience glasses are not a suitable control for decanting liquid products as they tend to sit clear of the face meaning any liquid striking the forehead can run down and in to the eyes. To date I have only found one spectacle style alternative to safety goggles which has a soft seal sitting against the face. From what you have said about the products typical use the imposition of eye protection sounds like over engineering a solution to a problem that does not exist. Within the workplace we tend to overdo the PPE which in similar circumstances such as at home using superglue we would not even consider.
Over specs seem like a good idea but in reality add another layer to the field of vision which despite manufacturer claims does impact the prescription provided by the glasses and that is before the pain from having a second set of spectacle arms over the ears.
If company policy mandates eye protection the company coffers must support prescription safety eyewear.
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
Dan83 on 28/05/2025(UTC), Dan83 on 28/05/2025(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From personal experience glasses are not a suitable control for decanting liquid products as they tend to sit clear of the face meaning any liquid striking the forehead can run down and in to the eyes. To date I have only found one spectacle style alternative to safety goggles which has a soft seal sitting against the face. From what you have said about the products typical use the imposition of eye protection sounds like over engineering a solution to a problem that does not exist. Within the workplace we tend to overdo the PPE which in similar circumstances such as at home using superglue we would not even consider.
Over specs seem like a good idea but in reality add another layer to the field of vision which despite manufacturer claims does impact the prescription provided by the glasses and that is before the pain from having a second set of spectacle arms over the ears.
If company policy mandates eye protection the company coffers must support prescription safety eyewear.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
Dan83 on 28/05/2025(UTC), Dan83 on 28/05/2025(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thanks. I have been looking at some EN166 1 B 3 and 1 F 3 goggles (rated for splash protection) for decanting. In reality, the amount of decanting done is low, but given the cost and time worn for, it seems worth it to me. Regarding the general imposition of glasses, it's good to hear that common sense does play a part. It's hard to know what to do, working in isolation and with limited training. The balance between 'would I do this at home' and 'covering all bases' approaches is hard to navigate at times - but for a reasonable person does seem like a good basis to work from. It's how to account for stupidity or lack of attention and potential blame games that concerns me. For example, we had a two-part epoxy in the other day for a one-off quick job, rated for severe skin burns, eye damage and sensitisation (H314 Cat 1B, H318 & H317) but as a low volume fast curing paste, seemed low risk. I did a toolbox talk with the team before use. One person then leaned over their bench and their shirt went into the mixing tray, which they had placed near the edge, and got it all over their shirt. Luckily it was almost cured and didn't soak through and affect him. It's quite reasonable that someone at home would use an epoxy like this for a one-off job, with little to no PPE - just be careful. If you were going to be using it all day every day, then an apron or coverall would be sensible as the risk goes up - at least that was my thought process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.