Martin Baker Aircraft Company has been fined £800,000 after three of its workers developed Extrinsic Allergic Alveolitis (EEA).
EEA is often caused when workers inhale contaminated metal working fluids as a mist when high speed machining is taking place, these fluids can provide a home for bacteria and other organisms to breed and lead to serious and ongoing illness.
Extrinsic Allergic Alveolitis
EEA is a condition which causes the small air scacs within the lungs (alveoli) to become inflamed in an allergic reaction. Symptoms include coughing, shortness of breath and joint pain.
The three workers suffering from the condition had been exposed to MWF mist for three years and were among a group of 60 staff which the HSE found to have been put at risk. One of the workers was said to have become virtually paralysed by the illness and the two others have become restricted in the types of work they can undertake in future as they must now avoid contact with the substance.
HSE investigation leads to massive fine
The HSE investigated and found that Martin Baker Aircraft Company (MBAC) had not done enough to reduce the risk with no system of cleaning away the excess fluid and a lack of extraction to prevent the build-up of MWF mist. In addition, they found that there was also a lack of health surveillance (required under Regulation 11 of COSHH.
In court MBAC pleaded guilty to breaching s.2 (1)Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Reg 6(1) Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 . It was fined £800,000 with £36,912 in costs – one of the highest ever penalties for occupational health offences.
Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or request a call back.
Watch our video on occupational health to learn more about how we can support you on this and similar issues.
The Board of HSE met in December to discuss the draft HSE Construction Sector Plan for construction for the coming 3-5 year period, the summary of the points for consideration are listed below with the emphasis being placed on Health, Smaller Business and CDM 2015;
HSE Priorities (HSE Construction Sector Plan)
Health Hazards – reducing incidents of ill-health, with a particular focus on occupational lung disease and musculoskeletal disorders;
Small Businesses – supporting small businesses to achieve improved risk management and control; and
CDM Regulations 2015 – embedding the principles of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM).
HSE will secure effective management and control of risk by:
Project Regulation– directing inspection and enforcement at those failing to manage and control risks, focusing on health risks refurbishment, and licenced asbestos removal;
Central interventions – visiting dutyholders to review their health risk management arrangements using leading indicators in the Construction Health Risks Toolkit; and
CDM 2015 Pre-Construction Phase– intervening with construction clients, principal designers and designers to ensure proportionate CDM understanding and compliance, working with or through other health and safety regulators (eg ONR) where necessary.
HSE will lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety by:
HealthOwnership– working with the Health in Construction Leadership Group in promoting the ownership by industry of good health risk management, and the development of case studies and health-specific leading indicators;
Awareness Research– funding communication insight research enabling improved risk awareness, management and mitigation in small and micro businesses;
CDM 2015 for SMEs – helping small businesses to comply proportionately with CDM, eg case studies on social media;
Designer Risk Mitigation – working with professional bodies to enhance the competence of designers through the effective teaching of design risk mitigation across built environment higher education courses;
BIM Promotion – demonstrating the effective use of building information modelling (BIM) to improve risk information sharing, coordination and collaboration throughout the construction process; and
Manual Handling – working with supply chains to reduce risks from manual handling.
HSE will reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents by:
Major Projects – early and strategic interventions with major projects, including Crossrail, HS2, Thames Tideway, power generation decommissioning and new build; and
Risk Leadership – working with industry to develop clear standards of construction risk leadership and leading performance.
Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or request a call back.
In July HSE ran a consultation on health and safety enforcement allocation with a view to how it shares its enforcement role with local authorities EHO’s (environmental health officers).
A number of options were on the table ranging from completely absorbing the LAs’ regulatory powers for health and safety to allocating them greater duties. It should be remembered that HSE no longer has the resources to directly support the LA’s and that a strange situation has occurred for some clients where one site could be under LA enforcement which has no FFI and another very similar site comes under HSE and is liable to its FFI costs of £124 per hour – hardly fair and equitable!
HSE will always have its place in setting policies and drafting legislation but LA’s play a major part in health and safety enforcement for smaller businesses, from hairdressers all the way up to large vehicle maintenance depots with a diverse range of risk. Their role of the LA’s (EHO), as defined in the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 , is to regulate the retail, leisure and service-based sectors with HSE covering pretty much everything else.
However, the government has slashed LA budgets and one of the departments that took the biggest hit was health and safety enforcement leading to a significant reduction in the number of safety inspections conducted. In addition, staff training and the support on offer from HSE to inspectors is not what it once was and money continues to be tight and budgets squeezed. This has led to further and harsher enforcement by HSE under its fee-for-intervention scheme which allows it to charge for its inspectors’ time and is currently worth several million pounds in income each year (see our post on how prosecutions have trebled here).
The likely outcome? We think HSE will start to take over more and more of the current enforcement territory of the EHO’s leading to many more businesses who are currently out of scope as far as FFI is concerned coming into contact with HSE and its systems of fee’s and fines.
The full findings of the review will be handed to the HSE board in 2017and, once plans are agreed, legislation will have to be amended.
Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or request a call back.
Health in construction is a big issue and HSE are pushing hard to get the message out to clients of all sizes that health in construction is a very high risk. The latest figures show that as many as 100 staff per week die from ill health causes through their job – and that’s just the construction sector!
Dusts in construction (RCS), their risks and how to manage them
These talks won’t just give you an understanding of the risk present, they’ll give you clear and workable advice on how to manage them through changes in working practices and tool selection, we’ll also have expert advice from Dust Control UK on what equipment you can use to clean up dusts without exposing your staff and your clients to cancer causing Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS).
We’ll update you on the free course and also put a booking link here as soon as its live on our Eventbrite page, in the meantime feel free to look at these Workers Stories from HSE to give you some useful resources to raise the issue of construction dusts with your staff and click here to see HSE’s latest Health in Construction – The Facts poster HSE;
Don’t miss this opportunity to hear from experts on exactly how to keep you staff safe when working at height. To secure a place(s) please complete the registration page at: Book your free place now!
The construction industry has taken huge strides forward in tackling risk and reducing injury rates over recent years but still has a significant opportunity to make our high-hazard industry safer still and to drive down the alarming rates of accident and ill health linked to construction work in particular to refurbishment projects.
Event Programme 08:30 – 09:00 REGISTRATION TEA/COFFEE 09:00 – 09:15 Welcome and introduction 09:15 – 12:30 The programme will consist of talks and demonstrations on:
Asbestos Awareness
Working at Height
Scaffolding
Dust and Face Fit Testing
Manual Handing
Mid-morning Break will include Tea/Coffee with Breakfast Roll. You will be asked to complete a feedback form in return for an attendance certificate.
The event will consist of talks and demonstrations with the opportunity to ask questions from those within the industry as well as an HSE inspector.
Whether you are a self-employed jobbing builder or run a small building company this free event is a must. Places at this event are limited and it is likely to be highly popular – BOOK NOW!
Petroc College of Further Education, Old Sticklepath Hill, Barnstaple, EX31 2BQ
Parking facilities are available on site. The college currently operate a pay and display system on the premises at a cost of £1.00 per day, per vehicle.
Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use our contact us page.
So, here you are. Steadily driving your way home along a motorway, mile after mile and junction after junction, perhaps in kind of semi aware state casually glancing at the sat nav, speedo or rear view mirror. Every now and then you find yourself simply gazing at the view ahead and seconds turn into minutes and then half an hour passes without you realising it.
Motion induced blindness
It should do because almost everyone that I’ve spoken to has experienced it, particularly on long and familiar journeys with a steady pace and light traffic, the M5 heading past Bristol and into the Southwest is a good example on a weekday afternoon, clear of bank holiday traffic.
The truth is this drifting state is dangerous and its not just when you’re on a motorway.
We often wonder when we come to look at an accident just how it happened. We are given the gift of 20/20 hindsight of course and its always hard to put yourself in that persons position to the extent that you can truly appreciate the thought processes they went through. You are there to try and identify the root causes – that’s why its worth knowing about motion induced blindness as a principle and also raising it with your staff as an issue before these accidents have a chance to occur.
Visual and optical phenomena and safety
So, how do we get this message out there to vehicle fleet drivers, fork lift truck operators, motorcyclists and a whole other raft of people who might benefit? As usual, by training and education – and a very neat graphic courtesy of the internet.
Stare at the central yellow dot and keep looking, do the other three dots then start to disappear? That’s motion induced blindness.
Now imagine yourself at a busy crossroads waiting to pull out with pedestrians and other waiting to cross – can you spot that motorbike approaching?
Or perhaps you’re a a forklift truck driver in a busy warehouse passing by aisles and with pallet movers and pedestrian pickers all around you.
What next?
Use the video above in your training sessions when you have fork lift truck refreshers or new driver training, hold a toolbox talks for those who drive as part of their job (road users or otherwise) or ask us to complete a toolbox talk on your behalf to raise awareness.
How to combat motion induced blindness
You may still be wondering, why the jet fighter image at the top of the page? Fighter pilots are taught a technique to overcome this weakness in the way we process our view of the world around us and its very simple but very effective – you keep you head moving. Don’t believe me? Keep moving your head whilst re-watching the video above and you’ll see the difference – make sure that’s a key part of your training session.
As always, we hope you’ve found the information above interesting and feel you can use it to make a positive change in how you actively manage risk in your workplace.
About: Roger Hart is Managing Director of Outsource Safety Ltd, a consultancy specialising in ISO9001, ISO14001 and OHSAS18001 Management Systems. The company employs 10 staff and works for hundreds of retained clients across the UK in all sectors from Defence and Aerospace to Education and Museums with a specialism in the contracting, construction and renewables sectors, www.outsource-safety.co.uk
Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use our contact us page.
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.”
With more and more one man bands setting up safety consultancy businesses 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;
Do we know the health risks in our business well enough?
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.
Having read of a recent case where a company was fined £200,000 plus £27,724 costs for a HAVS incident has made us revisit the vibration issue here in the office.
Each of us already know that the emphasis from HSE and our insurers is now firmly on health as well as safety. We reported nearly two years ago that occupational deafness has become the new whiplash with claims rocketing and payouts of well over £10,000.
Vibration monitoring and assessment
We liken HAVS to COSHH and DSEAR as one of those areas which many of us know that we should tackle head on but we often find a number of other more pressing things we need to do instead – if this is you read on or make contact with your retained consultant to have a 5 minutes chat and find out more.
The truth is that many of us have made a good attempt as assessing our vibration risks and in many cases have felt that it wasn’t quite s bad as we had feared once we had got started. However, as its something most of us don’t tackle every day that familiarity soon wears off and we find ourselves back as square one making he same old excuses. Its also worth remembering that this dates back to the 1990’s and so we have very little in the way of excuses when it comes to defending cases or demonstrating our own safety management qualities to the Board.
Although the risks are certainly real the damage takes a long time to manifest, what we have to remind ourselves of is that this, like occupational deafness, isn’t going to reverse itself and the consequences for the person can be life changing.
You have in essence two choices; complete your own assessments or call in ourselves as external experts to complete this for you. We can often work from manufacturers data and so costs are competitive and even if you do have specific processes which require vibration to work we can always monitor these individually and arrive at not just an answer in terms of exposure but also good advice on how you can control and reduce exposure.
So, don’t stick your head in the sand and hope this will go away or kid yourself that you’ll get around to it soon – if you need help contact us and if you’re too busy to be able to complete internally just ask your consultant, we’ll be glad to help out.
Welding fumes from mild steels, zintec (zinc alloys), stainless steels, brass, aluminium and phospor bronze all carry a significant risk of long term health problems 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 welding fumes and similar substances.
Air sampling – Welding of Galvanized (zinc coated) Products
Welding of galvanized steel is completed in a very similar way to welding of the bare steel of the same composition. The same welding processes, volts, amps, travel speed, etc. can be used with little modification when the switch is made from uncoated steel to galvanized steel, unless the zinc coating is unusually thick.The difference between welding galvanized steel and welding uncoated steel is a result of the low vaporization temperature of the zinc coating. Zinc melts at about 480°C and vaporises at about 900°C. Since steel melts at approximately 1,500 °C and the welding arc temperature is 8,300 to 11,000°C, the zinc that is near the weld is vaporised. By the time the weld pool freezes, the zinc is gone giving rise to two immediate consequences:
The vaporized zinc increases the volume of welding smoke and fumes.
The zinc at and near any welds is actually burned off by the heat of the arc, removing the protective zinc coating.
Sometimes a white dust can be seen following welds and this is typically zinc oxide, inhalation should be avoided.
Welding fumes sampling method
A measured volume of air is drawn through a membrane filter mounted in a sampler, and the mass of fume collected is determined by weighing the filter before and after sampling subject to a period of stabilisation. The difference in weight reflects the mass of the fume collected and this, coupled with the flowrate and time period, enable the fume levels to be quoted as milligrams per cubic metre (mg.m-3).
Use of welding fume data for the assessment of exposure
Compliance with Regulation 6 of the COSHH Regulations will be ensured if the occupational exposure standard for particulate welding fume does not exceed 5 mg.m3, provided exposure to other toxic constituents of the fume which have lower occupational exposure limits are adequately controlled. It follows that where the fume contains one or more toxic constituents which have lower occupational exposure limits the OES of 5 mg.m3 may no longer apply.In these circumstances the exposure to individual constituents of the welding fume may have to be quantified separately. This procedure may be simplified for purposes of assessment and, where appropriate, monitoring under the COSHH Regulations. The total weight, in mg.m3, of welding fume at which each of the components of the fume will reach its occupational exposure limit can be calculated from the consumable suppliers’ fume analysis data.
Welding Fumes- Background Information
Welding fume is a varying mixture of airborne gases and fine particles which if inhaled or swallowed may be a health risk. The degree of risk will depend on:
the composition of the fume;
the concentration of the fume; and
the duration of exposure.
The main health effects are:
(a) IRRITATION OF THE RESPIRATORY TRACT
Gases or fine particles of fume can cause dryness of the throat, tickling, coughing, tightness of the chest and difficulty in breathing.
(b) METAL FUME FEVER
Inhaling many freshly formed metallic oxides, such as those of zinc, cadmium, copper etc., may lead to acute flu-like illness termed metal fume fever. With the exception of exposure to cadmium fume serious complications are rare. The most common cause of metal fume fever is welding galvanised steel.
(c) SYSTEMIC POISONING
Systemic poisoning can result from inhaling or swallowing substances contained in welding fumes such as fluorides, hexavalent chromium, lead, barium and cadmium. The presence of these substances in the fume depends upon the welding process being used and the material being welded.
(d) LONG TERM OR CHRONIC EFFECTS
Inhaling welding fumes can lead to benign X-ray changes, referred to as siderosis. A subject of current concern is whether welders have an increased risk of developing respiratory cancer, as certain constituents of some welding fumes, such as hexavalent chromium and nickel, may be carcinogenic.
ORIGIN AND CONSTITUENTS OF FUME
To evaluate the risk to health from exposure, information is required on the sources of welding fume and gases. Usually more than 90% of particulate welding fume arises from the vaporisation of the consumable electrode or rod. The metal being welded usually dictates the welding process and the consumable used, but it does not itself contribute significantly to the particulate fume composition except at certain operations which include:
(a) welding through metallic coatings, e.g. zinc and cadmium plated materials;
(b) welding through painted surfaces such as those which contain lead compounds;
(c) removal of base metal, e.g. cutting or arc gouging.
Depending on the welding process, gases encountered during welding may be:
(a) fuel gases which are used in gas welding and cutting which on combustion will produce carbon dioxide and in some circumstances carbon monoxide;
(b) shielding gases such as argon, helium, carbon dioxide or mixtures of these gases. These gases may be toxic or asphyxiant;
(c) gases produced by the action of heat upon the welding flux or slag, such as carbon dioxide and monoxide;
(d) gases produced by the action of heat or ultraviolet radiation upon the atmosphere surrounding the welding arc. These may include nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. Ozone may be formed at some distance from the arc, depending upon the welding process being used and the metal being welded.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE COMPOSITION AND CONCENTRATION OF FUMES AND GASES
The quantity and composition of welding fume and gases are influenced by a number of variables, usually dictated by the job requirements. The most important variable is the type of process: however, it does not necessarily follow that exposure to welding fume will be the same for all welders using a similar process. Therefore each welder should be assessed individually in relation to the job that is being carried out. To ensure an adequate assessment of exposure is made it is necessary to consider each of the factors which are relevant to the particular welding operation..
Gas shielded welding
Gas shielded welding uses a continuous solid wire consumable to provide filler metal and form the arc which is protected by an inert gas shield such as argon or helium (MIG (metal inert gas) welding), or an active gas shield such as carbon dioxide or mixtures of gases containing carbon dioxide or oxygen and an inert gas (MAG (metal active gas) welding). Process variables are important: the arc length increases with the current and the mode of metal transfer changes from globular to spray, with a consequent increase in emission of particles and pollutant gases. Another mode of transfer is obtained by using pulsed current conditions, the fume emission rate will depend upon the welding parameters.
Note: when welding aluminium a change to 98% argon gas can help to create cleaner welds and also reduces the generation of Ozone significantly (a respiratory irritant).
THE EFFECT OF WELDING CONSUMABLE ON CONCENTRATION AND COMPOSITION
The type of consumable used, and its chemical composition, will be dictated by the technical demands of the welding process. Various types are available. MIG consumables may consist of a solid bare wire, or copper coated wire and, in the case of FCW, a tubular wire containing flux in-fill. The type of consumable will affect not only the quantity of particulate fume produced, but also its composition.
An adequate assessment of the risk to health from exposure to welding fume needs information on the chemical constituents and their concentration in the fume. Welding fume will usually contain all the chemical elements present in the consumable, although the proportion and toxic nature will have changed as a result of physical and chemical processes which occur during welding. The most important changes concern consumables that contain chromium, such as those used in hardfacing and welding of stainless steel. Chromium metal in arc welding processes oxidises to trivalent chromium compounds but also some conversion to hexavalent chromium may occur. This is important because trivalent and hexavalent chromium have different occupational exposure limits. Trivalent chromium compounds have an OES of 0.5 mg.m3 whereas the ‘guidance value’ given in Table 4 of Guidance Note EH 40 for hexavalent chromium is ten times lower at 0.05 mg.m3. Where hexavalent chromium is present in welding fume it will therefore be the principal substance of hygiene interest.
Stainless steel MIG welding fume usually contains up to 18% chromium but only a small percentage is likely to be present as hexavalent chromium. An adequate assessment of health risk requires information on the chemical constituents and their concentrations produced from a given consumable during a specified process.
The Welding Manufacturers Association has produced a standard format for hazard data sheets for welding consumables to enable their members to comply with their legal obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 Section 6. Most UK manufacturers and suppliers now provide information using this format. The hazard data sheets should include information on chemical analysis of substances of hygiene interest present in the fume produced by the consumable, the appropriate OELs, and an indication of the measures necessary to ensure adequate control.
THE EFFECT OF SURFACE TREATMENT AND PARENT METAL ON COMPOSITION
The composition of the welding consumable is of primary importance in assessment of exposure of welders to fume. In certain circumstances, however, and at specific types of welding operation the surface treatment and composition of the parent metal also need to be considered. Fume from oxygen arc cutting, and flame gouging processes and flame cutting will consist of particulates which are generally similar in composition to the parent metal. Information on the composition of the metal or alloy is important to establish the fume composition and the relevant OEL which will apply. It is likely, although no information is available, that chromium in fume from arc gouging of alloy steels will be present in the hexavalent form and the guidance value of 0.05 mg.m3 for hexavalent chromium will apply.
Surface treatment may include zinc galvanising, cadmium plating or applications of paint primers and sealers. When welding or cutting operations are carried out on coated steels additional constituents of the fume will be formed by the effect of heat on the surface coating. These may include oxides of the metal used for coating, or thermal degradation products from the primer application. Suppliers of coated steels and primer formulations have duties under HSW Act Section 6 to provide information on the composition of the material , the risks and precautions which should be taken during welding. Similarly welding directly on to steel which is coated with oil, to prevent corrosion, can give rise to smoke containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Welding or flame cutting existing steel structures or cutting metal scrap presents particular problems, as the composition of the metal alloy and any surface coating will not be known. Old structures and plant are frequently coated with paint that may contain lead, zinc, chromate or cadmium pigments, which will increase both the quantity and toxicity of the fume emission. Surfaces treated with PVC and/or chlorinated rubber coatings decompose with heat to give fume and gases containing hydrochloric acid and phosgene. In all cases of cutting and welding it is necessary as part of the assessment to determine the composition of any surface treatment, and the metal where appropriate, before work starts, to prevent or control exposure to toxic substances.
Welding certain metals can produce high concentrations of ozone. The predominant pollutant during MIG/MAG welding of aluminium and aluminium alloys is ozone, similarly significant concentrations of ozone are produced during TIG and MIG welding of stainless steel. Ozone is formed by the effect of ultraviolet radiation from the arc on atmospheric oxygen and can be produced some distance from the arc. Effective control of particulate fume emission in certain circumstances can result in significant increase of ozone generation. This is because particulate welding fume may reduce or inhibit emission of UV radiation from the arc.
JOB ASPECTS THAT AFFECT EXPOSURE TO WELDING FUMES
The type of process, size and composition of any consumable used will influence the amount of fume generated and its composition. However, the extent of exposure to welding fume is considerably influenced by the skill of the welder. Changes in current, voltage, welding angle and arc gap can significantly increase or decrease the quantity of fume generated in a given time.
Welding position
The principal welding positions are flat (downhand) horizontal, vertical and overhead. The downhand position is most commonly used and also induces the highest fume levels in the welder’s breathing zone. The welder’s posture in relation to the welding position is also important: exposures of welders in a crouching position are significantly higher than exposures of welders working in a sitting position, and exposure to fume when standing is intermediate between the crouching and sitting position. These differences reflect the proximity of the welder to the welding plume, and every effort should be made to prevent head and shoulder contact with the plume, by changes where practicable to the working position.
Welding location
Equally important is the location of the welding process. In a large workshop and welding on an open structure welding fume and gases will be partially dispersed and diluted by air movement, and although exposure of the welder may be high during arcing the fume and gases do not accumulate in the working area. In a small workroom, or in a space with restricted air movement, fume from welding processes will not disperse so readily, with the resultant increase in average exposure. Work in confined spaces, such as internal welding of process plant or in ship construction, can lead to accumulation of high concentrations of particulate fume, by-product and shield gases, which do not disperse and require the use of efficient ventilation systems to ensure that exposure is adequately controlled and there is no depletion of oxygen of the working atmosphere.
Duration of exposure
Both long term and short term limits relate to the concentration averaged over a specific reference period. For most substances contained in particulate welding fume the averaging period for the occupational exposure limit is eight hours. Exposure to welding fume will be intermittent, the highest exposures occurring during the welding operation, i.e. during arcing or flame cutting. The periods between the actual welding operation should give rise to minimal exposure to fume, although this will depend upon the size of the workshop, the number of welders, their work patterns and effectiveness of control measures and general ventilation. The pattern of work, the arcing time and down time for any individual welder will vary from day to day and similarly duration of exposure and pattern of work will vary significantly between welders although they may be doing similar work. Exposure (to substances hazardous to health) should be calculated according to the approved method, which is reproduced in Appendix 1 of Guidance Note EH 40. Assessment of average exposure becomes very difficult and will require frequent sampling unless the welding operation is of a routine nature, for example production line welding of domestic boilers.
Martin Baker Aircraft Company has been fined £800,000 after three of its workers developed Extrinsic Allergic Alveolitis (EEA).
The Board of HSE met in December to discuss the draft HSE Construction Sector Plan for construction for the coming 3-5 year period, the summary of the points for consideration are listed below with the emphasis being placed on Health, Smaller Business and CDM 2015;
s over recent years but still has a significant opportunity to make our high-hazard industry safer still and to drive down the alarming rates of accident and ill health linked to construction work in particular to refurbishment projects.
businesses 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.
Welding fumes from mild steels, zintec (zinc alloys), stainless steels, brass, aluminium and phospor bronze all carry a significant risk of long term health problems 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 welding fumes and similar substances.