Paganhill Lane, Stroud, GL5 4JW  Phone +44 (0)1453-800100

Send us a Mail:
info@outsource-safety.co.uk
Opening Hours :
Mon - Fri: 8am - 5pm
Get a Quote

Spa Pools; new legislation for commercial installations

You might be wondering why this post is here, if you are you’re probably not aware of the wide range of clients which we work with!

This post relates to the commercial rather than residential use of these spa’s but if you’re lucky enough to have one at home there are some good points below which are worth being aware of linked to HSE document HSG282 “Control of legionella and other infectious agents in spa-pool systems” published in January 2017.

The simple facts are that these warm agitated pools of water provide a good breeding ground for a number of harmful bacteria; folliculitis, e-coli, viral skin infections and of course legionella.  Add to this the risk of droplet inhalation through agitation and the risk increases significantly.

The key risk is that water in these pools is kept at a steady 30-40oC, an ideal temperature for these bacteria to breed in, but don’t forget the other key associated risks such as;

  • chemical exposure;
  • electrical risks;
  • slipping;
  • entrapment;
  • drowning and so on.

If you have any of this equipment in use or plan to install it take the time to read through this useful guidance, a copy can be down loaded here:  Control of legionella and other infectious agents in spa-pool systems HSG282 (HSE)

If you’re a user of such equipment ask your hotel or operator if water is changed between rental groups as required by this guidance and check that a robust in line disinfectant feeder has been installed as you cannot rely on direct chemical dosing through tablets.

[sform id=’3220′]

Posted by Roger Hart

Occupational Health: Alveolitis in Metal Working

Health is becoming the central thrust of any HSE visit and with good reason, health causes a huge impact on individuals and a massive strain on our NHS. However, not all safety professionals are aware of these risks well enough to control them and that’s where expert, external, independent advice can be invaluable.

Alveolitis is a condition of the lung caused by the inhalation of the mist created by metal working fluid when machining – particularly at higher speeds.

The Hazards of Metal Working Fluids (MWF) Alveolitis

Exposure to MWF can be hazardous in several ways but dermatitis from skin contact and lung problems from inhalation are the two major issues.  Biocides are often introduced into MWF’s to stop bacterial growth and this gives the clue about what can happen to the lungs when a fine mist is inhaled by workers.

Over a period of time workers may develop a number of ill health conditions including;

  • bronchitis;
  • irritation of the upper respiratory tract;
  • occupational asthma;
  • or, most seriously, extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EEA).

If you use MWF then seek to control exposure by minimising the volume and rate of delivery at the cutting point or seek to capture mist or enclose it within CNC machines.  If you use a small bright torch with a focusing beam you may be able to seek where and how mist is rising from the process – we issue these torches for free to our clients so if you need one please ask – we’ve helped many businesses with this simple tool.

Consider also your current health surveillance provision – if you need any help and support we can provide skilled practitioners to help you put a robust health surveillance plan in place – just call us on 01453 800100 for more detail and read here for a case study involving a major aerospace company which was recently fined £800,000

Contact us on 01453 800100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use contact us.

Posted by Roger Hart

Occupational Health: Styrene Vapour Prosecution, Templetown Canopies Ltd

We’ve carried out many monitoring programmes which have involved exposure to styrene vapour over the past 20 or so years.  The substance is in common use and because of this businesses and their staff can sometimes become too familiar with the substance and fail to take adequate precautions.

We also have heard staff assuring us that they don’t need to use protective equipment as they have developed a tolerance or even an immunity to styrene’s effects – wouldn’t it be good if that could ever be the case…

In the case below styrene exposure simply wasn’t guarded against and although HSE Inspectors know that small businesses have pressures on them they quite rightly won’t allow this as an excuse to endanger the health of their employees.

If you need occupation health advice, air monitoring for styrene or any other safety support please speak to your retained advisor or contact us on 01453 800100 to get some sound advice.

Solar panel installer falls through fragile asbestos roof, company fined more than £20,000

Templetown Canopies Limited from Tyneside has been prosecuted over the lack of controls regarding the use of the hazardous substance styrene during the production of fibre glass door and window canopies.

Styrene exposure causes irritation to the nose, throat and lungs and neurological effect including difficulty in concentrating, drowsiness, headaches and nausea.

HSE inspected the company premises in May 2013 issued an Improvement Notice. However, the company did not take action to comply with the Notice until they moved premises in March 2015 failing to adequately control exposure of their employees to styrene.

An extraction system should also have been in place to remove the heavier than air vapours and RPE provided with the correct filters (FFP3) to protect operators.

Employees exposed to styrene vapour for almost 2 years

Templetown Canopies Limited, of Shaftsbury Avenue, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and was fined £8,500 and ordered to pay costs of £4,500.

Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Fiona McGarry said:

“Workers’ health was put at risk from exposure to styrene for a period of 22 months, even after the company had been made aware of the actions it needed to take.

Whilst HSE is sympathetic to the pressures faced by small businesses, this is simply not acceptable. Employers need to take action to ensure they are providing adequate control to protect the health of their employees.”

Posted by Roger Hart

Safety Advisor fined by HSE for poor occupational health advice

With more and more one man bands setting up safety consultancy HSEbusinesses in the past 10 years its time to question if you’re being given the right advice rather than just advice – there’s a big difference and the outcome can be devastating for individuals and for companiesas this case for a safety advisor being fined.

The case below raises two questions;

  1. Do we know the health risks in our business well enough?
  2. Does our consultant have the right skills for our sector?

Take some time to ask yourself if the person looking after your safety really knows enough about the risks in your business.  Perhaps their background isn’t in manufacturing, engineering, construction or whatever it is that you do.  If so, get the right advice.

Safety Advisor Fined under HASAWA 1974

Hereford Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee contracted the skin disease after being exposed to sensitising ingredients in rubber compounds.

TRP Polymer Solutions Limited, of Netherwood Road, Rotherwas Industrial Estate in Hereford, has been fined £40,000 after a worker contracted allergic contact dermatitis.

Hereford Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee contracted the skin disease after being exposed to sensitising ingredients in rubber compounds.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company, which manufactures specialist rubber sealing components and high performance elastomer ‘O’ rings, had failed to assess risks from products used or manage those risks.

TRP Polymer Solutions’ health and safety advisor failed to understand the underlying issues to the level required for the company to understand its responsibilities.

The firm pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and Regulations 6 and 11 of the Control of Substances hazardous to Health 2002, and was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,529.

Paula Underwood, a self-employed health and safety advisor, of Slaughter Castle, Kimbolton, Leominster, Herefordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for failing to carry out her duty under the act to a level of competence expected by someone carrying out her role, thereby exposing others to risks to their health and safety.

She was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £200.

Posted by Roger Hart

Choosing a dust mask

Choosing a dust mask

We often have questions regarding which mask should be used and so thought a very quick summary here would be useful.

In general, filtering face masks used for dusts and similar can be categorised into three types all with an FFP number.

  • FFP1 for simple dusts such as nuisance and soft wood dusts
  • FFP2 for more hazardous dusts such as grinding, powder painting or respirable cystalline silica
  • FFP3 for hazardous dusts which also involve some vapours and gases which are hazardous to health (a good example here would be welding fumes)

One of the key failing when we review the use of face masks is how people wear them and you should, since November 2002 in fact, be testing the fit of these items to ensure they are effective – this is known as fit testing.

Many people do not fit masks well and do not even press the metal strip fixed around the nose of the mask to get a good seal – if a mask is to protect you this is essential.  A second common error is keeping the mask at the point of work uncovered – perhaps on a work bench.  This will allow the mask to collect exactly what it should be protecting you from and allow you to inhale it as soon as you use it!  Always keep RPE in a sealed container or bag to prevent this type of contamination.

More information is supplied below on the new APF figures.  These allow you, once occupational hygienists, such as ourselves, have completed an appropriate air sampling survey, to select an item of RPE which will adequately protect you and your staff from harm (see graphic to the right for more information). The APF is an allowance over which the mask will protect you;

For example; the allowable limit for hard and soft wood dusts is currently 5 mg per cubic metre.  In your workplace an occupational hygienist such as one of our safety consultants may measure the dust level at 3 times this amount, 15 mg per m3.  In that case you would need to seek an APF (assigned protection factor) of at least 3.  This would put you in the typical 4-10 or 4-20 range.

One final point concerns the amount of time which a mask will last before requiring replacement, this can be summarised as follows;

  • For particulate (dusts) when breathing become more difficult the mask will be partially blocked and should be replaced
  • For gases and vapours the mask should be replaced when you detect ‘breakthrough’ i.e. when you can detect through smell or taste the item against which you should be protected be that a solvent or other substance.

As a general rule, disposable masks should be disposed of daily and reusable half face respirators should have their filters changed at least monthly.

If you would like to speak to an experienced occupational hygienist about this please contact us on 01453 800100

Posted by Roger Hart

Air sampling for exposure to isocyanate (MDI, TDI and similar isocyanates)

lungs exposed to isocyanateExposure to isocyanates such as MDI, TDI or similar substances carries a very serious risk of long term health problems for skin and lungs if exposure is not properly controlled.  As occupational hygienists and qualified safety consultants we have many years experience of carrying out air sampling surveys to determine occupational exposure to many types of isocyanate used in paints, glues and foams amongst other substances.

 

If you would like to speak to one of our safety consultants or occupational hygienists about an air sampling survey for isocyanate exposure please contact us on 01453 800100.

ISOcyanate air sampling method

The methods closely follows the recommendations of HSE MDHS 25/3 and the principle is as follows;

A measured volume of air is drawn through a glass fibre filter impregnated with 1-(2-methoxyphenyl) piperazine mounted in a sampler and attached in the breathing zone of the exposed worker. The Methylene Di-isocyanate (MDI) is held on the filter for subsequent High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) analysis using ultraviolet and electrochemical detection. The results of this analysis, coupled with the flow rate and time period, enable the exposure levels to be quoted as milligrams per cubic metre (mg.m-3) for application to the exposure limit published in HSE Document EH40/2001.

ISOCYANATES

all (as -NCO)

MAXIMUM EXPOSURE LIMITS

8-HOUR TWA: 0.02mg.m-3

15-MINUTE REF. PERIOD: 0.07mg.m-3

NOTATION: SENSITISER

IDENTITY AND PROPERTIES

Isocyanate is the functional group (-NCO) which occurs in a number of substances and their reaction mixtures. The saturated vapour concentration at 25oC varies with the substance; refer to manufacturers data sheet.

Conversion factors:

di-isocyanate 1 ppm = 3.44mg.m-3 -NCO at 25oC

isocyanate 1 ppm = 1.72mg.m-3 -NCO at 25oC

Isocyanates react rapidly with all substances having ‘available hydrogen’. This includes alcohols, amines and amide groups in proteins. Isocyanates are soluble in many organic solvents and decompose at varying rates in water. Substances carrying the isocyanate group are not detectable by smell until many times the exposure limit (for example, TDI odour threshold is about 30 times the MEL).

OCCURRENCE AND USE

Organic isocyanates may arise from burning polyurethane. Only MDI is produced in the UK, by reacting methylene dianiline with phosgene in a closed process; other isocyanates are imported. About 60,000 tonnes per annum of isocyanates are used in the UK, of which about half is used for polyurethane foam, and the rest for surface coatings (paints, lacquers, inks, adhesives), foundry core binders and synthetic rubbers.

EXPOSURE

The number of persons who may be occupationally exposed to isocyanate is not known. In general, exposure can be minimised by using isocyanate prepolymers of low volatility. Control measures such as suitable extraction ventilation and use of airline breathing apparatus are needed where isocyanate aerosols or significant vapour concentrations may occur.

Exposures above 0.02 mg.m-3 isocyanate may be experienced in spray-painting large articles, with exposures briefly exceeding 0.06 mg.m-3, Respiratory protective equipment is required for these processes. In most foam plants, exposure is controlled to below 0.01 mg.m-3 isocyanate. Molten MDI can give rise to high exposures if the fume is not extracted.

MEASUREMENT

Methods based on air sampling through bubbler solutions and subsequent instrumental or colorimetric analysis are detailed in MDHS 25.

METABOLISM

The main exposure route is by inhalation of vapour, aerosol mist or dust. Isocyanate reacts rapidly with respiratory tract surfaces; its further metabolic fate is not known.

HEALTH EFFECTS (Human data)

The isocyanate group (-NCO) is the functional group which causes the adverse health effect. Heavy exposure has been associated with bronchitis. There have been numerous reports on asthma due to isocyanates, but the levels which can induce sensitisation are unknown although there are anecdotal reports suggesting that peak exposures may be important. Sensitised individuals may react with severe asthmatic symptoms at very low concentrations of isocyanate, in some cases below 0.02 ppm. The development of sensitisation may occur within months of exposure, or only after years of symptom-free exposure. Sensitisation may result in the development of bronchial hyper-reactivity, and the affected individual responds to non-specific stimuli such as cold air and exercise. In these individuals, recovery may not follow cessation of exposure. Health surveillance is appropriate. {EH 16 ISOCYANATES: TOXIC HAZARDS AND PRECAUTIONS ISBN 0 11 883581 5 HSE Books (1984)}

BASIS FOR SETTING THE LIMIT

The critical health effect of isocyanates is respiratory sensitisation and in the absence of dose-response data a no-adverse-effect level cannot be established. Consequently a maximum exposure limit was considered appropriate. This was set at 0.02 mg.m-3 (8-hour TWA) isocyanate, with a 15-minute reference period MEL set at 0.07 mg.m-3 isocyanate.

Posted by Roger Hart