I would think that there is a distinct difference of putting the fact you do not have any hazardous substance in your workplace. It would be far more effective to put in place a system IF such substances do come into the workplace... How would this be managed, assessed and communicated?

I just don't want to write too much detail on a section that isn't applicable (and wont be read by employees) to the company

Martin. How about: All chemical substances for use at work to be purchased by Purchasing Dept MSDS to be obtained before purchase All MSDS to be examined by H&S Manager COSHH assessment to be carried out if required All staff to be informed of COSHH findings and given necessary training All staff to implement the findings of COSHH assessments including PPE if required Job done.

Hmmm Heather's fingers beat me to it!

thanks Heather, that should do the job cheers

It's an office safety policy. It's stated that there are no hazardous substances. Why include arrangements for a hazard that does not exist. Keep a sense of proportion about an office policy.

And approaching the management of health and safety based on that logic is creates an unnecessary level of bureaucracy!!

Actually most things in an office wouldn't really need PAT except for very infrequently. Most woul dbe low risk, double insulated etc. Heather, sorry to disagree but if you start saying that someone needs an MSDS for bleach then I think that is going OTT.

In my opinion anyone stating that there are no hazardous substances in any workplace is being somewhat incautious. I recently went through an office specifically to identify what one might find. It is interesting when you actually go thorugh cupboards, desk drawers, etc. what you find. No safety data sheets, of course, but lots of interesting information on the packaging! For several reasons I cannot be more specific, but since someone has mentioned toner cartridges, just consider what had triggered the request for my involvement. On replacing a toner cartridge in a largish laser printer a cartridge had broken open and spilled a considerable quantity of the toner on to work surfaces, carpet etc. The toner contained both epoxy compounds and carbon black. Not hazardous? Cleaning actually required an outside contractor as a normal vacuum cleaner would not be appropriate. Remember also what section 7(1) of COSHH states. In reality any substance can become hazardous, given certain circumstances. The fact that no hazards are shown on the safety data sheet is irrelevant. So I would tend to agree with Heather on this one. Chris

Good call from Chris on the carbon black in toner cartridge spillage. Carbon black is an excellent conductor and can make for an interesting "bang" if unwitting office staff attempt to clear up with the works vacuum. Spillage is a call out to the copier maintenance company. Whilst they're in, ask them to show a few trusted individuals how to change a cartridge properly. Thereafter ensure only they are authorised to change cartridges.

To add to this. I know a case where someone damaged their lungs and vocal chords while trying to clear up a spillage in the wrong way. The damage appears to be permanent. Therefore, while these cartridges are safe in normal use, the procedures need to allow for the case where something goes horribly wrong and 700g of toner lands on the carpet.

I don't think anyone has suggested putting in "everything that may apply" Bob - where are you getting that from? I simply believe that some potential hazards are too common not to have a few brief words about them in the policy arrangements to cover the "what if". To me this would include a brief statement about chemicals, manual handling, machinery, fire, etc. In a normal low risk office work place I wouldn't bother with - e.g. lead at work, DSEAR, power presses, etc, etc. Of course as a consultant, writing the absolute bare minimum certainly ensures that the client has to keep calling you back to change things. That's why I don't do it! I like my clients to know that what I give them is going to be OK for their business in a year's time, not just today. And no before someone says it, this isn't just unnecessary padding as an excuse to charge more - I don't do that either!

As a client knowing very little except that there is an awful lot of H&S stuff I would want my consultant to use proessional judgement to tell me that I did not need to be concrened about hazardous substances. Heather may think she is not OTT but I would not hire her as a consultant on the basis of her opinions in this post and others. But what do I know since the original poster seems very happy with her advice. Ken

A useful link Redken. I would not rule out the possibility of an ordinary vacuum cleaner causing ignition, but what an ordinary vacuum cleaner will certainly do is to spray the dust out of its exhaust for people to inhale. Hence the need for 'appropriate filtration'.