Health and Safety
Executive / Commission
Toxic Substances Bulletin
As Head of HSE's Chemical Risk Assessment Policy (Programmes) Unit, I am delighted to take over as editor of TSB, which I have admired for some time as an excellent tool for communicating information on toxic substances. Before doing this I was the UK's negotiator of EU Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values (IOELV) directives, a role which I will continue to keep in touch with as the UK's representative on the European Commission's Ad Hoc Group on Chemical Policies in the Workplace. I also worked with the COSHH Essentials development team.
In the last issue we included a short interview with one of the members of ACTS to get a personal view on the development of the future of the OEL Framework. In this issue we have a short news item on the replies to the Discussion Document on this. We also said that ACTS would be developing an outcome focused strategic 4-5 year plan - ACTS has met to discuss this and there is a short report on what happened. We will be able to report more on these developments in the next issue.
In this issue we have included a number of useful short articles. For example, HSE's occupational hygienists explain an interesting project which examines the implications of short-term task-specific exposures to chemicals. Another important item to look out for is the article on dust control in bakeries - significant reductions in flour dust exposure can be achieved by introducing simple controls, such as changes in work practices.
I am delighted to tell you that electronic COSHH Essentials, HSE's new web-based interactive tool to help employers assess and manage the risks from hazardous substances, was successfully launched in April! In the two months following the launch we had 8000 users - so why not log on to www.coshh-essentials.org.uk and see if it can help you protect yourself and your workers?
Carole Sullivan, Editor
In TSB48 (May 2002), we told readers about a Discussion Document inviting views on three options for revising the system of occupational exposure limits in the UK. Responses were due by 30 July and many thanks to all readers who took part.
At the time of writing, exactly 50 replies have been received but, as always with these exercises, one or two late stragglers are still coming in.
HSE is now in the process of analysing the views and putting together some proposals for implementing change. These will include how we should deal with existing limits in the UK, some of which you will be aware are now quite old.
We will let you know the results of the discussion exercise in due course and a full Consultation Document is likely to be issued next summer. We will of course be once again encouraging you to give us your thoughts.
The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (CHIP3) - a new set of Regulations which consolidates and extends previous ones - came into force on 24 July 2002 (suppliers of biocides and pesticides will have until July 2004).
The main changes CHIP3 introduces are:
HSE has published the supporting documents:
HSE Books is also publishing new versions of three free guidance leaflets, The idiot's guide to CHIP; Why do I need a safety data sheet?; and Read the label; and a more comprehensive priced guide, CHIP for everyone.
HSE recognises that the absence of an effective transition period may cause many problems for suppliers and has given advice to inspectors and trading standard officers, emphasising HSE's proportionate enforcement policy.
The HSE website (http://www.hse.gov.uk/chip/index.htm) gives further information. Intermediaries such as suppliers, trade associations, and professional bodies and societies are also a useful source of information.
See also 'New publications'.
In TSB47 (January 2002), we reported that the Environment Council adopted its conclusions on the future EU Chemicals Policy in June 2001. The Council's conclusions were in response to the European Commission's (EC) white paper proposals Strategy for a future chemical policy. In their conclusions the Council called upon the EC to present a simple, clear and transparent regulatory framework to implement the strategy by the end of 2001.
Full details of the Council's conclusions can be found at http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/01/201&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
This update outlines current progress and expected developments for the next six months.
Between September 2001 and February 2002, the EC ran seven working groups with experts and stakeholders from each Member State to develop thinking on the key elements of the REACH (registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals) system, eg testing, rapid risk management etc. All groups have now reported their outcomes to the EC, who are likely to consider them when preparing their legislative proposals.
The EC had originally planned to table draft legislative proposals by summer 2002. However this date has now been delayed until the end of the year, with a probable consultation exercise during autumn 2002.
The Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) maintains the UK policy lead on the new Chemical Strategy (NCS). HSE officials remain engaged on the development of the occupational health and safety aspects of the policy.
The 78th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances (ACTS) took place on 22/23 July 2002.
ACTS was reconstituted for a year from March 2002, pending development of a new four-year plan of work. For some time, the advisory committee has been considering its position in respect of the Health and Safety Commission's Strategic Plan, including 'Revitalising Health and Safety' and 'Securing Health Together'. Specifically, it has been focusing on what it can do to contribute to the Commission's targets.
In March, ACTS decided to hold a strategic two-day residential meeting in July, to discuss issues that will inform important components of the plan. The development of a limit-setting process at European level has presented ACTS with the opportunity to move away from this key element of its work, which was a major consumer of its resources.
The meeting began with a presentation of HSE's chemicals strategy. This brought members up to speed with HSE thinking in this area, as well as providing a context against which to develop ideas for a new work plan. The strategy was well received by members. Members discussed and finalised the aim of a new programme of work: 'to stop people being made ill from exposure to substances at work'.
In a departure from previous ways of working, members then split up into four syndicate groups to discuss the key areas that will make up a new plan of work. These were:
The discussions within the syndicate groups generated a wealth of innovative ideas. A common theme was the need to concentrate on measures that will make a real difference in the workplace. These should be prioritised and measurable. There was general acknowledgement that initiatives would need to be sustained - there are no short fixes. The plan will need new ways of communicating information to people in the workplace.
ACTS Secretariat agreed to work up a plan based on the members' ideas and aspirations. This will be circulated to members for comment, redrafted then presented to November 2002 ACTS for final agreement.
On 16 July 2002, the Health and Safety Commission approved new Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH), Control of Lead at Work Regulations (CLAW) and Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations (CAWR) 2002. These have been developed primarily to implement the health requirements of the European Commission's Chemical Agents Directive.
At the time of writing (early August), HSE was preparing to submit the Regulations for Ministerial approval and signing into law. The new Regulations are likely to come into force during the second half of September. However, a new duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises that CAWR 2002 will also introduce will not come into effect until 18 months later.
The new COSHH and CLAW Regulations will be supported by revised and extended Approved Codes of Practice (ACoP). These are expected to be published at the end of September, together with a new asbestos ACoP (L127) to support the duty to manage asbestos in buildings. Revised editions of two other asbestos ACoPs to support CAWR 2002, replacing the existing L27 and L28, will be published in October.
On 3 September, HSC will consider regulatory proposals to implement the safety requirements of CAD. These are set out in the Dangerous Substances and Explosives Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR) and are expected to come into force during October. DSEAR will also contain provisions to implement by July 2003 the requirements of the 1999 Explosives Atmospheres Directive (ATEX).
In TSB46 (September 2001) we explained where HSE was on the planned amendment of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations (CAWR). We are now updating readers on the latest position on this and other asbestos initiatives.
HSC consulted again in the winter of 2001/02 on the proposed duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. There was overwhelming support for this proposal and agreement to the 18-month lead in period. The definition of dutyholder was subsequently amended to make this clearer, as requested by consultees.
There was also considerable backing for the proposal that employers use only accredited laboratories to analyse materials for asbestos, providing there was a two-year lead-in period to allow unaccredited laboratories time to become accredited.
The regulations are expected to be in force, apart from the above two proposals, in the second half of September.
Following the successful roadshows in autumn 2001, HSE has signed up over 900 intermediaries to help cascade information on the duty to manage. These intermediaries have received a presenters' pack Asbestos risk management to help them run seminars, road shows and conferences. HSE has also developed a campaign web page in HSE's website, www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/.
The new Regulations, the Approved Code of Practice and guidance The management of asbestos in non-domestic premises (L127), a guidance book A comprehensive guide to managing asbestos in premises (HSG 227), and a revised version of the leaflet A short guide to managing asbestos in premises (INDG 223) will be launched on 3 October at the British Library. The new HSE publications will be available from HSE Books.
Since the last issue of TSB, HSE has produced new or revised guidance on a range of relevant topics. Here is a round-up of some of the leaflets and publications. These publications are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2WA. Tel: 01787 881165. Fax: 01787 313995. Website: http://books.hse.gov.uk
Free leaflets are also on HSE's website.
EH64/2002 supplement - Summary Criteria for Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) was published on 28 June 2002.
The summaries, which set out the scientific basis of OELs, are initially published in draft form in consultative documents to enable employers, employee representatives, occupational hygienists and occupational health practitioners to comment on them. The draft documents summarise the interpretation of the scientific and technical information considered, in recommending particular occupational exposure limits, by:
Consultative documents are available free of charge on the HSE website (www.hse.gov.uk/condocs/).
When an occupational exposure limit has been set, the final versions of the summaries are published in EH64. The summaries provide information on the hazards of the substances, usage and exposure patterns, analytical techniques and the reasons why particular exposure limits have been set.
The overwhelming majority of the new or revised summaries in this year's supplement are for substances that are included in the 1st Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Value Directive (IOELV). This was implemented in Great Britain on publication of EH40/2002, on 31 December 2001.
Unfortunately, there have been problems with the printing of the supplement and this necessitated a reprint in August 2002. The reprinted version has been automatically sent to customers purchasing the publication direct from HSE Books. Customers who have purchased copies through bookshops should send the back page (with the ISBN number) with their name and address to HSE Books, who will send them a copy of the revised version.
This year, HSE has included a questionnaire for users of EH64. Please take the time to fill this out, as the results will help us to review the publication to make sure that it meets your needs.
HSE has published several new publications to support the new CHIP Regulations.
CHIP for everyone: Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (HSG228) was published in August, and replaces the previous version (HSG126).
This is intended to help business understand the basic requirements of CHIP3. It describes a step-by-step approach to CHIP3, explaining what guidance is available and when it is likely to be needed. It is aimed at those who supply, manufacture or import dangerous substances and preparations and highlights the most important new features of CHIP3. It provides detailed explanations about classification, safety data sheets and labelling, and uses worked examples.
Approved classification and labelling guide (fifth edition): Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002. Guidance on Regulations (L131) was published in July and replaces the previous version (L100) published in 1999.
This sets out the general principles of classification and labelling for supply as required by the CHIP3. It is addressed to manufacturers, importers and other suppliers of dangerous substances and preparations.
Approved Supply List (seventh edition): Information approved for the classification and labelling of substances and preparations dangerous for supply. Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (L129) was published in July. It replaces the previous version (L124) published in 2000.
This has been updated to take account of the 2002 CHIP Regulations. It contains detailed information about substances to assist manufacturers, importers and suppliers having responsibilities under CHIP.
Read the label: how to find out if chemicals are dangerous (INDG352) was published in July. It replaces INDG186.
This is aimed at anyone who works with chemicals or uses them at home. It describes the information, warnings and safety information that appear on product labels and explain what they mean. It is available on the HSE website at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg352.pdf
The compilation of safety data sheets (third edition): Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002. Approved Code of Practice (L130) was published in July and replaces the previous version L62 which was published in 1994.
This gives practical guidance to manufacturers, importers, distributors and suppliers of substances and preparations dangerous for supply on their responsibilities to provide safety data sheets as set out in regulation 6 of CHIP3.
The idiot's guide to CHIP: Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (INDG350) was published in July and replaces INDG181.
This is aimed at suppliers of chemicals - single substances (such as acetone) or mixtures (preparations) such as a paintbrush cleaner. It sets out how to decide what to do about CHIP and whether to get help.
It is available on the HSE website at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg350.pdf
HSE has published new guidance notes on various toxic substances. These are aimed at a technical audience and provides scientific information.
Acetic anhydride: risk assessment document Guidance note, environmental hygiene/EH72/16 ISBN 0 7176 2364 5 £10.00.
Respirable crystalline silica - phase 1: variability in fibrogenic potency and exposure-response relationships for silicosis. Hazard assessment document Guidance note, environmental hygiene/EH75/4 ISBN 0 7176 2374 2 £7.50.
Vanadium and its inorganic compounds: risk assessment document Guidance note, environmental hygiene/EH72/15 ISBN 0 7176 1845 5 £10.00.
HSE has published guidance on a new method of measuring mercury in workplace air.
Mercury and its inorganic divalent compounds in air (MDHS 16/2), in the series Methods for the determination of hazardous substances, is aimed at occupational hygienists when they are measuring mercury in workplace air. The revised method uses Hydrar® sorbent tubes or diffusive badges, acid dissolution and analysis by cold vapour atomic absorption spectrometry or cold vapour atomic fluorescence spectrometry.
This method updates and replaces MDHS 16, expanding the scope of the method to include the determination of mercury vapour and divalent mercury compounds, rather than mercury vapour only;
Mercury and its inorganic divalent compounds in air MDHS 16/2 ISBN 0 7176 2348 3 £17.50.
The current system of carriage of dangerous goods legislation has become complicated and difficult for dutyholders to follow. Because of the complex system currently in place, HSE have decided to restructure domestic legislation when producing the next set of regulations.
There are currently 14 sets of regulations and seven associated approved documents to follow, which contain many cross-references. HSE has to introduce new regulations every two years which implement amendments to the ADR and RID Framework Directives (the European Agreements for the international carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail). These amendments are included in revised ADR and RID texts.
The restructured legislation will be based on a single set of goal-setting regulations containing duties, and making reference to ADR and RID for the technical detail. This should make the regulations easier to understand and help industry comply with their duties, hopefully improving safety standards. Any differences between ADR/RID and domestic requirements will be contained in schedules to the regulations.
Because of a restructuring of the 2001 ADR and RID texts, their implementation date was deferred until the end of 2002. The 2003 texts are to be implemented by 1 July 2003.
Due to the work involved in restructuring domestic legislation, it became clear that the implementation of the ADR and RID 2001 texts would be delayed. After discussions with the Department for Transport, HSE sought, and was given, ministerial agreement to combine the implementation of the 2001 and 2003 editions of ADR and RID.
The proposed new Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail Regulations will therefore implement changes introduced in the 2001 and 2003 texts of ADR and RID, and will directly reference the 2003 editions. The consultative document will be released by the end of 2002, with regulations to come into force by 1 July 2003.
For further information please e-mail cdgpolicy.spda@hse.gsi.gov.uk, or call 020 7717 6114.
What is the health significance of short-term task-specific exposures to chemicals? Does industry have evidence to confirm that the controls for chemicals are adequate for short-term operations as well as for full shift time-weighted averages? These are important questions particularly for certain groups of chemicals such as asthmagens and genotoxic carcinogens for which short-term exposures might be significant.
HSE occupational hygienists, assisted by the Health and Safety Laboratory and other Inspectorate colleagues, are planning a study in 2002-03 to investigate current approaches to the control of short-term task-specific exposures.
Traditionally, risk measurement by hygienists has been largely related to relevant 8-hour occupational exposure limits. There has been little attention to determining whether exposures were compliant with short term exposure limits (STELs) and even less work on the effectiveness of control of short-term task-specific exposures. This is not to suggest that the OELs are wrong, but where the task is very short duration - seconds or minutes - the exposures can still be high, yet be below the OEL.
So why investigate short term exposures?
In 2000-01 HSE carried out a research project to better understand the magnitude of these task-specific exposures during chemical manufacture. Different methods of carrying out tasks were assessed, for example, exposure profiles during tanker off-loading with and without vapour return, and the reductions in exposure achieved using dry-break couplers. The work was carried out over 12 sites and included the use of real time dataloggers and video equipment. In addition, operators wore passive samplers or pumped sampling equipment to obtain an additional measure of exposure.
High peak and short-term exposures were found, although in every case full shift exposures were still below the relevant OEL. The significance of these short-term task-specific exposures is uncertain. However, there were instances when carcinogens were being handled and the level of control of these compounds was not as low as is reasonably practicable. Examples were filling open beakers with benzene and tanker off-loading with dry break coupling where the connections were found to be leaking.
HSE is now in the planning stages of the further research project, which will look at awareness in the chemical industry of these exposures and current standards of control. The work will be carried out by HSE's Health and Safety Laboratory who will be targetting CMRs (carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxins) to see how exposure from short-term tasks are controlled. The work will also involve visits to substance and equipment suppliers, and research organisations. 50 visits are planned. Although this is only a drop in the ocean for the UK chemical industry, it will be supplemented by discussions with suppliers and possibly other EU members states, and we are confident that we can establish a current picture of the industry.
The overall aim is to benchmark current standards of control and to determine whether this constitutes good practice for the control of exposure to CMRs. Industry will be consulted in developing improved industry standards, where improvements are needed. If warranted, HSE will then formalise these good practice standards in industry guidance and might also incorporate the guidance into the control guidance sheets for the control of carcinogens as part on the development of the e-COSHH Essentials package.
If you have any thoughts on the above or would like to hear more then please contact Tom Taylor at HSE, e-mail tom.taylor@hse.gsi.gov.uk
Over the past year or so TSB has been telling you about the coming of an electronic version of COSHH Essentials which is to be FREE on the Internet. Well - it is finally here!
Dr Alan Whitehead MP, Minister with responsibility for health and safety at work, officially launched electronic COSHH Essentials on 30 April 2002 at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in Whitehall.
The paper version of COSHH Essentials, simple step-by-step guidance to control health risks from chemicals, was launched in May 1999. A telephone survey of 500 purchasers revealed that:
Because of the success of the paper version we looked at how we could improve the product and make it more widely accessible to firms. The Internet was the obvious answer. It can be found on www.coshh-essentials.org.uk, or via hsedirect (www.hsedirect.com) where it is hosted.
As well as being quicker and easier to use than the paper version, the electronic system has hypertext links throughout so the user can get other guidance. This can all be printed off. For example there are links to:
Speaking at the launch, which was chaired by Sandra Caldwell, Director of Health Directorate, Alan Whitehead said: 'I wanted to be here to launch this innovative product that can make a real impact on workers' health. My congratulations to all concerned in its creation, and I hope that people will take the message away with them that electronic COSHH Essentials is an important tool for the future of workplace chemicals control.'
John Monks, General Secretary of the TUC, also spoke at the event, and said:
'There is nowhere to hide from chemicals at work. Machinists use them, hairdressers use them, printers use them and farmers use them. But they must use them safely. Unions welcome anything that makes it simpler to work safely, and COSHH Essentials is certainly that.'
Chris Money of Exxon-Mobil gave a live demonstration of the system and explained how well COSHH Essentials has been received overseas; several countries were looking at how they could adapt the system for their own use.
Finally, Gerry Martin of Hayman Ltd spoke as a manager from a small firm who had used COSHH Essentials regularly. He praised its simplicity and said that it removed the 'blank sheet of paper' that faced so many people, even after reading all the guidance about what they should do to comply with COSHH.
In the first two months following the launch COSHH Essentials received 25 000 hits; this equates to 8000 actual visitors. We find this really encouraging as only 15 000 copies of the paper version were sold in three years. Feedback has also been very positive, with comments that the guidance is really easy to use and is saving people lots of time.
Please have a look at the site and let us know what you think. You can e-mail us at: COSHH-Essentials@hse.gsi.gov.uk
So just what is planned for future development? Firstly 'sector specific' guidance will be introduced. Users will be able to state at the beginning of the risk assessment process if they work in a particular industry eg printing. They can then be taken down a route which is specific to the chemicals and processes used in that industry.
During market research, small firms commented that the distinctions government makes between health, safety and the environment and the different pieces of legislation are irrelevant to them. They want simple, integrated advice to help them to comply with 'the law'.
So COSHH Essentials will be further developed into a 'one stop shop'. Firstly we will build 'safety' aspects such as flammability or explosivity into the system. This is in line with the Chemical Agents Directive (CAD) which includes both health and safety. Lastly, 'environmental' aspects will be introduced. Discussions are well under way with the Environment Agency, who have given their commitment to help develop this part of the product.
In certain industries or locations - near landfill sites or underground coal strata, water industry, large-scale research laboratories, gas bottle stores in breweries, etc - there is potential for large quantities of inert or low toxicity gas (eg nitrogen, helium, argon, carbon dioxide and steam) to escape. This reduces the concentration of oxygen in the immediate environment and leads to risk of asphyxiation. The risk is enhanced when working in confined spaces.
The risk assessment for such situations may require use of gas monitors to warn of significant leaks of gas resulting in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere, ie a lower than normal concentration of oxygen, which could impair health. Typically, the alarm level of the oxygen monitor is set at 19% v/v (volume ratio). The reading of some oxygen monitors may, however, be inaccurate if there are other gases in the atmosphere besides nitrogen which displace the air.
There are currently two main types of sensor which are used for the detection of oxygen deficiency, as a volume ratio, in the workplace: electrochemical sensors and paramagnetic sensors.
The performance standard for oxygen monitors in the workplace is BS EN 50104:2002 and while there is no specific guidance on the use of oxygen deficiency monitors in the workplace, there is some information in BS EN 50073:1999.
Electrochemical (fuel cell) sensors, the commonest type, are used in both portable and fixed monitors.
The response of the sensor is dependent on the rate of diffusion of oxygen to the sensor. This in turn is a function of the relative molecular weight of oxygen to that of the other gas. For example, helium has a very low molecular weight compared to pure nitrogen (the usual diluent gas). Helium increases the sensor response to oxygen compared to the oxygen response in nitrogen, and this enhancement is greater the more the helium dilutes the air. This could result in the monitor overestimating the oxygen concentration, which is a dangerous situation, if the instrument was not calibrated correctly.
The effect of various diluent gases on the response of the sensor over the typical range of oxygen concentrations is greatest for helium. Here the sensor over-reads, eg at an actual oxygen concentration of 19% where the helium concentration is 9.5% and the nitrogen concentration is 71.5%, the sensor reads 20% oxygen; at 15% oxygen (helium concentration 28.6%) it reads 18%. For a heavier than nitrogen gas such as carbon dioxide, the sensor under-reads, eg at 19% oxygen (carbon dioxide concentration 9.5%) the sensor reads 18.4% oxygen; at 15% oxygen, the sensor reads 13.8% oxygen.
Paramagnetic sensors are used in fixed monitors only.
This type of sensor is based on the paramagnetic property of oxygen. Paramagnetic sensors are not significantly affected by the diluent gas.
The main consideration is to ensure that the oxygen deficiency alarm is activated at the correct and appropriate concentration. There are two approaches, illustrated with reference to helium, although the same principles apply to other diluent gases:
1 Use a volume ratio electrochemical sensor, and calibrate in air as usual but for helium raise the alarm level from 19% (the typical alarm level) to 20%. If helium dilutes the air such that the concentration of oxygen is reduced to 19%, the sensor will read 20% and so will activate the alarm at the right level. Note that the sensor does not fail to danger for the heavier than nitrogen gases - argon and carbon dioxide. Here the alarm level could be kept at 19% which would mean the alarm would activate when the actual concentration of oxygen (in argon or carbon dioxide) was slightly higher than this (approximately 19.4 or 19.5% respectively).
2 Use a paramagnetic sensor which will be the most accurate technique but is only applicable to fixed, not portable, monitors.
The simplest and most cost-effective solution for portable and fixed oxygen monitors is therefore probably option (1). If high accuracy and long life is required then option (2) could be considered for a fixed monitor. In all cases it is important to follow the manufacturer's guidance and ensure the instruments are regularly calibrated and maintained.
Occupational asthma is one of the most debilitating forms of occupational ill-health. HSE estimates that, allowing for under-reporting, there are between 1500 and 3000 new cases each year. HSC has developed a strategy which includes a target of a 30% reduction in the incidence of occupational asthma by 2010. An asthma action plan is expected to be available soon on HSE's website (www.hse.gov.uk). HSE will publish an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) for COSHH 2002 in October which will include supporting guidance on the control of substances that cause occupational asthma.
Flour dust is one of the top eight asthmagens, and is classed as a hazardous substance (respiratory) under the COSHH Regulations 1999 (soon to be replaced by COSHH 2002). In May 2001, a Maximum Exposure Limit (MEL) for flour dust of 10 mg/m-3 averaged over an eight-hour period, and a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) of 30 mg/m-3 averaged over 15 minutes came into force.
To comply with COSHH, exposure to flour dust should be reduced as far below the MEL or STEL as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, it must not exceed either the MEL or the STEL.
Employers should give priority to preventing flour dust from becoming airborne in the first place. The Health and Safety in Bakeries Liaison Committee (HSBLC), which consists of representatives from the bakery industry, trade associations, unions and HSE, produced guidance in 1999 - Guidance on dust control and health surveillance in bakeries. This gives comprehensive information on improving working practices and on engineering controls to prevent dust becoming airborne.
This guidance shows that significant reductions in flour dust exposure can be achieved by introducing simple controls, such as changes in working practices.
Local exhaust ventilation (LEV) is now widely available in plant baking for a variety of processes and equipment. HSE's Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) has developed a purpose-built LEV device for bakeries called 'the immaterial lid'. This is actually not a lid at all but a simple extraction device.
The system was tested on a bin and on a dough mixer. A reduction of up to 70% in the mean and peak concentrations of airborne flour dust in the worker's breathing zone was achieved in both processes.
Similar trials on site also achieved reductions in airborne flour dust concentrations of about 70%. An important advantage of the device is that ingredients can be added during operation and the extraction still remains effective.
Another potentially hazardous constituent of bakery ingredients' dust is fungal alpha amylase (FAA) which is used for the preparation of flour conditioners. FAA has been reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances' Working Group on the Assessment of Toxic Chemicals (WATCH). They concluded that it was not possible to identify a level of exposure at which development of asthma could be prevented.
Although used to a lesser extent in baking, bacterial alpha amylase (BAA) has also been reviewed and similar conclusions reached. Chemical Hazard Alert Notices (CHANs) on fungal and bacterial alpha amylase were issued in June 2001, highlighting the hazards from these substances. There may be restrictions in future on the use of powdery forms of amylase.
HSE considers powder-based amylases to be hazardous substances; they can be substituted by different forms of the substance. Amylases can be produced in liquid, paste or granular (non-respirable) form, all of which have less of an inhalation risk than the powder form.
This could completely eliminate the inhalation risks from this potent enzyme in one process change. Moreover, there is emerging evidence from recent trade press articles that there are also production advantages to be gained from using liquid improvers.
HSE fully supports the technological advances that have already been made by industry in developing less hazardous forms of bread improver. It ties in well with one of the key aspects of HSC's strategy for reducing occupational asthma, which is to encourage process or formulation changes.
HSE therefore encourages the ingredients and baking industries to work together in furthering this work. The use of less dusty forms of bread improver, combined with improvements in working practices and in engineering controls, can make a significant contribution to achieving the target of a 30% reduction in cases of occupational asthma by the year 2010.
Guidance on dust control and health surveillance in bakeries forms part of an interactive training package which includes a copy of the guidance, training notes and a video illustrating the control measures in the guidance. The package is available from the Federation of Bakers, 6 Catherine Street, London WC2B 5JW. Tel: 020 7420 7190.
www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/index.htm
This recent addition to HSE's website is dedicated to the topic of asbestos. Presented as one long page of text with links to other parts of the same page, the site kicks off with a brief summary of what asbestos is and what dangers it presents. It is concisely written in a straightforward, user-friendly style to make it accessible to all.
Among other things, the site links through to the Asbestos Events Diary, provides details of HSE's new responsibilities in managing risk associated with the substance, and shows you how to become a partner of HSE in combating the menace of asbestos.
There is also a link to HSE's quarterly newsletter, the Asbestos Campaign News.
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/chemicals/index.htm
This page concerns itself with the implications chemicals in the workplace have on the wider environment: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for the British Government's policy on the environmental safety of industrial chemicals, as well as being linked with EU and international policy-making.
The site is nothing if not practical. You can choose from a wide range of topics and access online publications presented conveniently in report style. For example, click on 'Asbestos and man-made mineral fibres in buildings: practical guidance' and you get a series of links to 'key points', 'introduction', etc. There is advice on lead in old paint tins, among numerous other tips.
www.healthyworksheffield.org.uk
Provided by the Sheffield Occupational Health Development Group, which was set up four years ago to plug a gap in co-ordinated occupational health care in Sheffield, this site rests on a firm belief that a safe workplace is everybody's business, as it 'indirectly improves the health of the community and the nation'. You will find a link to information on the organisation's quarterly meeting, described as a 'forum for open discussion between parties'. There is also an annual conference, and the site lets you access a quarterly newsletter.
HSE's Securing Health Together team has added a Best Practice Database to its website. This serves to highlight best practice in occupational health projects around the country: 'By national sharing of information about occupational health projects, we can all learn "what works".' The page invites readers to contribute their own examples of occupational health initiatives, stressing that examples of ideas that have gone wrong are as valuable as those that have worked.
Ms Carole Sullivan Editor
Miss Naseem Walji Assistant Editor
Ms P Kiley Content Editor
Mr D Kyle
Dr J Groves
Mrs E Ball
Mr S Campbell
Dr R Rawbone
Ms D Llewellyn