You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Bit random but I can't find an answer.
Is there any official guidance on when glasses Vs goggles Vs face shields should be worn for PPE. Looking but can't find anything. Not bothered about opinions, want something from an official body or manufacturer.
Handling very dangerous chemicals. Low visc liquids. Other protection also in place.
Anything useful here?
https://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/index.htm?utm_source=hse.gov.uk&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=coshh&utm_content=home-page-info
IME risk assessment tho cannot really be done to hard guidelines. In a situation like you are in there should be a union rep with responsibility for H&S. If you are not in a union join one!
It maybe Australian but if offers some pretty robust guidance for a risk assessment.
The "official" guidance is this:
There is no handy read off chart, it comes out the COSHH assessment as you need to consider all kinds of factors when deciding what would be suitable. E.g. are there RPE requirements as well? Will it be worn for 5 minutes or 5 hours?
The legally compliant answer is "whatever your employer has determined via their COSHH assessment". Otherwise just pick something out of the Arco catalogue and hope for the best.
Handling very dangerous chemicals. Low visc liquids. Other protection also in place.
as above are there RPE requirements?
What does the manufacturers MDS / SDS say?
The legally compliant answer is “whatever your employer has determined via their COSHH assessment”.
Is the correct answer.
very dangerous chemicals. Low visc liquids.
Is very vague.
And it's dependent on a multitude of other factors. E.g. Petrol would fit that description, and most people who handle it professionally probably have to wear at a minimum safety glasses, liquid proof / oil resistant gloves and boots, and nomex overalls. But your company possibly wouldn't be deemed negligent if you cack handedly spilt it whilst filling your car on a business trip then decided to have a calming cigarette on the forecourt.
I thought the union / staff rep had to have input into the COSHH assessment. An individual can also challenge risk assessments if they believe they are not adequate.
If the management ignore a complaint about too lenient risk assessment they would be liable if an accident occurred surely?
As others have said, it will depend on specific chemical, exposure time, quantities etc. That's why having a decent Risk Assessment is required - it should take everything into account. To be honest given there's not exactly much cost difference between googles, glass and shields, the risk assessment should probably recommend the one that most reduces the risk identified?
I think regarding Union/staff involvement, it's good practice to involve them, but not mandatory. I've seen examples of where the risk assessments have been 'handed over' to operators alone, and they don't quite have the full knowledge - needs to be a partnership approach really.
I thought the union / staff rep had to have input into the COSHH assessment.
Unions and/or staff bodies have some right to consultation and input to safety at work, though I can't remember which rules or regulations require this, but input into individual COSHH assessments, no. That needs to be someone with the capability to understand the detail in the MSDS and apply that to the circumstances the product will be used. Plus there might be thousands in use in a big organisation, it'd be too onerous for staff members to be vetting every single one.
I'm reviewing COSHH/pushing for change* so am probably the closest thing to an employee or union rep on site. I'm looking at options. It was the subject of some debate so I wanted a reference. I'll make some calls to PPE companies on Monday. We have all the option available. If I can't find an answer it will be full face mask (Combined RPE/mask) as we use those anyway for some chemicals as we have some really bad stuff on site*. But they aren't great to be wearing all day so I would prefer to be able to provide a comfier safe solution for lower risk tasks.
*A handful are fatal by inhalation/in contact with the skin. Loads are toxic, quite a few are carcinogens etc. The other thing I'd like to do is remove those from our products but that will take time and research.
It was the subject of some debate so I wanted a reference.
For a reference to be definitive it would need to be from a parallel situation, eg, same chemicals, same tasks, same duration, etc. What should be useful area examples of risk assessments that show how other people have weighed up the variables. You're the one allocated to the review, so you have the knowledge and experience to do it; debate is fine but you're making the decision. Is there any guidance from your industry or from HSE on the process to follow?
Alongside the information in the SDS, it depends on several other factors, including scale, set up (e.g how the reagents are handled/transferred) and so on. So even for one chemical there isn’t a single answer. In the past I’ve been the safety coordinator in a university chemistry department - glasses were the bare minimum (EN167-F) for protection in the event of something going pop. Goggles were recommended if there was a likelihood of chemicals being able to reach the face e.g. by a splash or spray (and these would also be EN167-F). Face shields were required if the skin also needed protection and would be used with goggles. On almost every occasion someone asked about goggles it was possible/better to change the process to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of chemicals ever getting near the face.
so am probably the closest thing to an employee or union rep on site
A handful are fatal by inhalation/in contact with the skin. Loads are toxic, quite a few are carcinogens etc. The other thing I’d like to do is remove those from our products but that will take time and research.
Your workplace scares me. I work in a Comah tier2 site.
But they aren’t great to be wearing all day
Sundstrom SR500. But you shouldn't be needed to wear one all day. Shit is really ****ed up if you are.
I’m reviewing COSHH/pushing for change* so am probably the closest thing to an employee or union rep on site.
If you're reviewing COSHH assesments, you need to have the competence to do so. You should*:
- Understand hazard and risk
- Know how the work can expose people to substances hazardous to health
- Have the ability (and authority) to collect all the necessary information
- Have the knowledge, skills and experience to make the right decisions about how to control exposure.
From your questions, it doesn't come across that you fulfil those requirements.
What are the health hazards involved with the task?
What chemicals are involved, and do they have MEL or OEL limits?
What are the routes to exposure? (e.g. skin absorption, eye contact, ingestion, etc.)
What controls are already in place?
If there is still a risk of harm, you should demonstrate that you have followed the hierarchy of control (with PPE being the last resort if there are no other practicable alternatives):
1 - Elimination
2 - Substitution
3 - Engineering controls
4 - Administrative controls
5 - Personal protective equipment (PPE)
* https://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/faq.htm
A handful are fatal by inhalation/in contact with the skin. Loads are toxic, quite a few are carcinogens etc.
In which case, you should be seeking the advice of a qualified Occupational Health specialist with appropriate indemnity insurance and do exactly as they advise.
(ex H&S Manager at a top tier COMAH site.)
do they have MEL or OEL limits?
Or other occupational standards - OES, WELs etc. (I think WEL may have replaces MEL - not sure of current abbreviations.)
Thanks, I'm aware of all that. I've already made similar recommendations and things are progressing. The culture was very poor before I started.
I was looking for something quite specific but it doesn't appear to exist.
I was looking for something quite specific but it doesn’t appear to exist
I don't doubt your good intent but if you think something specific could exist, you don't understand the basis of UK H&S law.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/basics/assessment.htm