Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I am designing a new (simple) COSHH Assessment form and have included a box for WELs 8hr and 15min with a tick box if it is a proscribed HSE WEL.
Now, in the case of say aerosol paint, there are several proscribed 'nasties,' but obviously in very small amounts. Is it necessary to include all these WELs in the Assessment?
Common sense tells me no - aerosol paint would be a low risk in most environments. The risk of the can exploding is probably higher than the contents!
Thanks in advance.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Ray,
WELs are related to pure substances. Mixtures are another kittle of fish as there can be some synergy between the components. i.e. one non-toxic component with a high WEL could open your skin pores allowing another, very low WEL, very low concentration component to blast straight through to your testicles.
Hypothetically speaking.
Go by the manufacturer's recommendations.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
Another point to bear in mind is that, by its nature, an aerosol is maximising the potential for inhalation, when compared with, say, a brushed-on paint.
It therefore largely depends on what the constituents are.
Cheers
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Merv/Jane
Thanks for the comments. The paint was an example and as a rule we do not use any substances more hazardous than white spirit.
I still feel I am no closer to my original question - might not sleep tonight! Are there any COSHH Gurus who can give me a definitive answer?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Ray
You can put the WELs in the assessment but it is exposure that is important. You could get exposures measured (by a competent occupational hygienist); it may help you sleep at night.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Raymond
I have a similar issue with a garage. They have loads of spray paints which have many ingredients, that are often similar.
I have included all the hazardous substances on the assessment, including the OES or OEL from the data sheet. It has been really time consuming and most of the controls in reality are the same (small amounts in well ventilated area - gloves, sometimes goggles etc.).
What I am doing is trying to get them to reduce quantity as much as possible (loads of cans knocking about that don't get used or once a year). Hopefully this will reduce risk and reduce admin time for the assessments.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Karen Wilson
Hello Ray - I don't know if you have received the response you were looking for. You are quite right to consider the application of the product, the process and the people involved.
Typical COSHH example scenarios in the early days was to use the old Tippex bottle, showing that the product contained 1,1,1Trichloroethylene. (Hazardous material by inhalation)
The same substance is also used as a degreasing agent for metals and is frequently present in open vessels.
The hazard relating to the substance is the same. However the process and method of use shows very different risk factors.
Multiple components of a product have the same consideration.
In an environment where a paint mix is created prior to spray painting (for example within a spray paint booth for spraying car components) it is important not only to consider the individual exposure levels to each component assigned a WEL - but also to assess the mixed exposure level......[summation of basically the ratio of exposure:WEL (product A) + exposure:WEL (product B) etc.......explained more fully in the notes section of EH40/2005]
If the same mixture is produced in an aerosol and only used in small quantities within a well ventilated area - then yes the overall risk factor will be reduced accordingly.
At the risk of teaching you how to suck eggs - it is important to remember that it is not only airborne concentrations which should be compared with the WELs - but the substances within the mixture utilized may also have BMGVs and there maybe additional requirements such as urine sample analysis.
One of the companies I look after from time to time have to conduct Biological Monitoring as well as airborne monitoring of their workforce.
The most recent addition to detectable breakdown products within urine samples is fro isocyanates. The HSL lab in Sheffield have recently commenced the analysis of isocyanates (all forms) in urine samples collected post-shift.
Please contact me should you wish to discuss further.
Karen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Karen Wilson
Re: My last post - The "aerosol" I reference relates to the "aerosol" can of paint in your original example. I don't wish to be bombarded with emails regarding "general aerosols - within the working atmosphere" - which in the context of my preious posting obviously do warrant consideration!!
No confusion intended. Its late.
G'night.
Karen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
May I make two points:
Merv - pores do not open or close. For this to happen where would have to be some muscular structure to enable this and this is not the case. Pores are just the "holes" at the top of the sweat glands.
Re WELS - remember that these are only for respiratory - not airborne - exposure. You can be below the WEL and still cause airborne contact dermatitis. WELs do not relate to non-respiratory exposure so where skin exposure is concerned WELs are irrelevant. In fact, there are no exposure limits for skin exposure, since the science does not exist to develop these.
This raises an interesting situation, since REACH is dependent upon Derived No Effect Levels (DNELs) and no-one knows how to do these for skin.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D H
Hi - may I suggest that you look at all the ingredient in the paint and check all those that are registered in EH40 or any other information you have been supplied.
Find the nastiest - the one with the lowest recommended WEL - then aim to cut that exposure by %50 if "practicable" and then state this figure as the "new" WEL on the COSHH assessment sheet.
Maybe not practical depending on what you are using but may help you sleep if these controls are in place and followed?
I have a suspicion i will be rubbished for this suggestion, but stand ready to be "constructively" criticised for this reply!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
DH
I doubt anyone will rubbish you because I suspect not too many people fully understand the practical implications of WELs, including the HSE!
Following this thread I contacted the HSE by email and asked them the question. Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the HSE response did not clarify the issue. Seems like no one there knows either!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.