Health and Safety
Executive / Commission
Toxic Substances Bulletin
Welcome to issue 51 of TSB! Since the January edition, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has endorsed a Chemical Strategy that has been developed by HSE. The Strategy focuses principally on three programmes of work: respiratory disease, occupational cancer and skin disease. The aim of these programmes will be to develop projects and tools that will make a real improvement in the workplace. A communications and education programme will also be developed to make sure that we reach the people who need to know. More on this in the next issue.
In this edition we have included the second article on epidemiology which aims to explain some key terms which arise in the discussion of epidemiological data. We hope that you will find that this article removes some of the mystique surrounding the rather daunting term 'epidemiology'. We have also included in this edition more information on our plans for the European Week for Safety and Health at Work 2003, a week that is dedicated to the issue of dangerous substances. This is an exciting opportunity to raise awareness of the importance of assessing and controlling the risks from harmful chemicals and I hope that readers will get involved. As always, we would be very interested to know about any plans that you have - so check out the article. There is also the possibility you could win a European Week award.
Slightly different from our usual articles is the one on manual handling. Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) form the largest single group of reported injuries (30%) in the chemicals sector. We thought you might be interested in this issue although it is not directly related to toxic substances.
In Issue 50 of TSB we told readers about the success of COSHH Essentials and quoted the latest web-hit figures. There appears to have been some confusion as to whether we were giving you the number of hits or the number of unique visitors. To clarify - there have now been well over one million 'hits' and nearly 30 000 unique visitors completing over 52 000 assessments. We hope you agree that the site is doing very well and, as always, we would be happy to receive any feedback from you by e-mailing CRAU@hse.gsi.gov.uk
I do hope that you find this edition of TSB interesting and useful. Please continue to let us know your views by e-mailing CRAU@hse.gsi.gov.uk
Have a good summer!
Carole Sullivan, Editor
This year's European Week for Safety and Health, starting on 13 October 2003, focuses on dangerous substances at work. HSE would like to encourage readers of TSB to take an active part in this event.
HSE organises the week in the UK. The week is the largest annual workplace health and safety event in Europe. Thousands of businesses use it to find ways to make their workplaces safer and more healthy. In addition to the possibility of participants being entered for UK regional and national health and safety awards, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work is also inviting nominations for good practice awards on the theme of dangerous substances. The closing date for UK entries is 18 July 2003. Further details are available on: http://osha.europa.eu/ew2003/
HSE has launched a newsletter and free action pack of material for participants and is encouraging organisations to look at ways of preventing ill health and reducing adverse effects in the workplace. These include cancers, respiratory diseases (like asthma) and skin diseases (like eczema and dermatitis).
John Thompson, Head of HSE's Chemicals Policy Division, said: "Most of the 1.3 million companies covered by specific chemical legislation are small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of these do not think of themselves as using chemicals. They see chemicals simply as branded products - but these can also be hazardous. Others only partially understand what they need to do to protect their employees and other people from risks from using chemicals."
Best estimates suggest that each year about 6000 people die from cancer due to occupational causes. In addition, 66 000 people suffer from new or existing skin disease caused by work - around two thirds have dermatitis or eczema. All this is preventable.
More information is available from http://www.hse.gov.uk/campaigns/euroweek http://www.hse.gov.uk/campaigns/euroweek
In this article we will explain some key terms which arise in the discussion of epidemiological data.
In an epidemiological study, the aim will be to summarise the difference between two or more populations (for example exposed and non-exposed groups; males and females), ie to calculate a number which represents the difference between them. It is important to exclude as far as possible any other systematic effects on this number other than the effect you are measuring. These unwanted systematic effects are called biases.
An example might illustrate this concept more clearly.
Suppose you are comparing English and Scottish people for the number of cases of Alzheimer's disease, and you select a group of English people and a group of Scottish people to use as a sample. One systematic effect (bias) which could creep in, is the effect of age. If it happened (accidentally or deliberately) that your English sample had an average age much lower than that of the Scottish sample, then regardless of the England-Scotland difference that you are trying to measure, you would expect the Scotland group to have a higher incidence of Alzheimer's - your sample is biased by the difference in age.
Confounding is in a way a special case of bias. It is where it is impossible to tell whether the difference between your two groups is due to the effect you are measuring or one of the systematic effects.
Example: Suppose you are comparing England and Scotland again for prevalence of Alzheimer's, but your England group consists entirely of males and your Scotland group consists entirely of females. Then it is impossible to tell whether any difference between the groups is due to an England-Scotland difference or a gender difference.
Basically interaction can be defined as follows: if the effect of one factor differs according to the effect of another, then there is an interaction between the two factors. Because of this, interaction is sometimes described as effect modification, which is perhaps a more meaningful term.
Example: Suppose you are interested in whether gender and nationality (English/Scottish) have an effect on the incidence of disease in two companies on the England-Scotland border.
You find that English people are twice as likely to have the disease as Scottish people, and that males are three times as likely as females. If you then compare English males to Scottish females, you should find that the English males are six times as likely to have the disease (twice as likely because of the Englishness and three times more because of the gender). This would imply there was no interaction.
It is also possible that when someone is English and male, the effect is strengthened. The effects of being male and English combine to make you even more likely to have the disease. This is a positive interaction.
It could be that within England males have a higher chance of disease, and within Scotland females have a higher chance of disease. If there were more English males than anyone else then it would simply appear that males have a higher chance of disease than females. However, when you compare English males with Scottish females, you may find that the difference is not as large as expected, because actually Scottish females have a higher chance than Scottish males of having the disease. This is an example of a negative interaction.
Exposure refers to exposure to some kind of hazard or harmful influence, and response is the result of this on health that is being measured. The exposure-response relationship describes how different degrees of exposure relate to different degrees of outcome or response. Response may seem an inappropriate word to use, but it originates from clinical trials of drugs, where you compare how people 'respond' to different drug treatments.
The demonstration of a consistent dose-response relationship across exposure groups in a study can greatly strengthen the arguments for a causal interpretation of epidemiological findings. In other words, if the response is consistently stronger as you move up the exposure scale the arguments for a causal link between the two will be strengthened. We will look in more detail in the next issue at the question of interpretation of observational data.
Most, if not all, readers of TSB will be familiar with EH40, HSE's annual publication containing an up-to-date list of occupational exposure limits (OELs) for use with the Control of Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH). Many readers will have been asking "when will EH40/2003 be published?" The answer is simple, there will not be an EH40/2003!
Instead, EH40/2002 remains current and needs to be read in conjunction with a new 2003 supplement. The reason for this change in policy is that we are in the process of moving towards a new OEL framework (see the article in TSB issue 48, May 2002). The new framework is scheduled to come into effect in summer 2004. At its meeting of 21 November 2002 HSC's Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances (ACTS) agreed that the publication of a supplement to EH40/2002 was the best way forward.
The supplement contains the following information:
The 2003 supplement will be available to download free from the HSE website. The printed version will be available to purchase from HSE Books as a single item ISBN 0 7176 2172 3, price £3.00, or together with EH40/2002 ISBN 0 7176 2083 2, price £10.50 (Tel: 01787 881165, Website www.hsebooks.co.uk).
Regular readers of TSB will be aware that ACTS is reviewing the Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) framework and recently published a Discussion Document containing suggestions for changes to the current limit system with a further Consultation Document due in the autumn. The review is taking a fresh look at how OELs work in practice in the UK, and proposing suggestions aimed at making OELs more accessible to firms without in-house occupational health expertise. During discussions of these options, the ACTS OEL sub-group requested research on how other EU countries organise their limit systems and enforcement as they felt it would provide valuable insights into how alternative limit systems worked in practice. Details of the availability of the report will be announced in a press release later this year and in the next issue of TSB.
The original suggestion of a quick literature search on the Internet had to be re-thought when colleagues pointed out searches involving 'exposure' as a keyword might find sites we weren't expecting! More seriously, the sub-group decided that it wanted the research to reflect the opinions of experts in different countries and their experience of the strengths and weaknesses of the various systems. This would need face-to-face interviews with key people in different countries. As the scope of the project grew, it quickly became obvious that this reseach was going to need specialist expertise and someone who had contacts across the EU occupational health community. Professor David Walters (then at South Bank University, now TUC Chair of the Working Environment at Cardiff University) was commissioned to carry out this study which is now complete.
The three main objectives were:
After the initial overview of the EU states, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Greece were selected on the basis of features of contrasting economies and regulatory systems. They represented a range of approaches within the EU to OELs and provided us with insights into how the different types of systems worked. This stage involved interviews with key informants from regulatory agencies, trade unions and specialist researchers/professionals, all considered to be well informed and placed to comment on the realities of workplace practice.
Professor Walters found the problems of setting, understanding and the use of OELs across the EU to be similar to those in the UK. For example, limit setting systems had stakeholder participation, and involved examination of scientific/health-based issues followed by economic/technical issues of feasibility. There was also a common tendency for companies to regard OELs as 'safe' levels despite official guidance clearly stating that OELs are not solely health based. As the Executive Summary of the report says, "The problems of understanding and use identified in HSC's Discussion Document on the UK situation are borne out by experience in other EU countries." Despite the limitations of OELs, the report showed a widespread belief that OELs are a necessary part of a system to control risks to health.
Issue 50 of TSB told readers about the outcome of the Discussion Document, which clearly identified Options 2 or 2A (good practice supported by a single limit with 2A flagging combining good practice with special arrangements for carcinogens) as the preferred options. The continental European experiences analysed during the study would also seem to indicate that Options 2 and 2A represent the best way forward. The report also says that either of these approaches is consistent with its findings concerning the positive uses of OELs.
So while not offering any new insights into the setting, compliance and enforcement of OELs, it is reassuring that the report is able to consolidate the views of industry, TUC and professional bodies in the UK.
The Discussion Document can be read on the HSE website, although the response deadline has now passed, and printed copies are still available from Tony Gissane, Tel 020 7717 6596, e-mail tony.gissane@hse.gsi.gov.uk
Regular readers of the TSB will no doubt be aware that there is a free online interactive version of COSHH Essentials available at: http://www.coshh-essentials.org.uk/ or via the host site http://www.hsedirect.com, as featured in Issue 49.
COSHH Essentials provides employers with simple practical advice on how to control hazardous substances tailored to the tasks they carry out and the chemicals they use. It is therefore at the heart of HSC's chemical strategy, which recognises the need to provide compliance aids for employers that will enable them to control exposure better and so reduce occupational ill health from chemicals.
Evaluation of the paper version of COSHH Essentials showed that 80% of purchasers found it easy to use and 75% had made improvements to the controls they had in place to protect workers.
The Internet version of COSHH Essentials was launched at a high profile event on 30 April 2002. It is located at www.coshh-essentials.org.uk or can be found via the free section of www.hsedirect.com
The site is very successful, having had over one million total 'hits' which equates to 30,000 unique visitors with around 52,000 assessments completed since its launch in April 2002. This is an average of over 4,500 assessments per month. However, HSE and HSE/Local Authorities Enforcement Liaison Committee (HELA) recognise that the existing system may not cater too well for small businesses that work with chemicals in premises typically enforced by Environmental Health Officers.
HSE has therefore been developing 'control guidance sheets' that give advice on good practice in a range of tasks typically found in the commercial and retail sector. We hope that the new sheets will be available on-line towards the end of 2003 as part of a planned extension to electronic COSHH Essentials (Phase 2). Once we have made a few changes to the home page, you should be able to go straight to the new sheets without having to follow the standard risk assessment-based inputs.
Examples of the sort of tasks that the planned sheets will cover are cleaning/disinfecting using pressure washers, handling and diluting chemical concentrates, using chemicals in hairdressing, fuel in motor vehicle operations, vehicle exhaust fume in workplaces and storing chemical products.
Each sheet is aimed at employers and will give simple do/don't advice and some background information, as well as an employee checklist. Headings under which advice will be given include: access, procedures, design and equipment, special care, personal protective equipment, maintenance, health surveillance, training and further information. Two local authorities are represented on the advisory group that will consider the drafts before they go live.
The planned launch of Phase 2 of electronic COSHH Essentials coincides with this year's European Week for Safety and Health at Work 2003, which will focus on dangerous substances in the workplace. Organised in the UK by HSE, this annual initiative has become the largest workplace health and safety event in Europe. Thousands of businesses use the week to look at ways of making their working environment a safer and healthier place. It is for this reason that we intend to have a stand at the launch to demonstrate the new control guidance sheets and other developments.
Looking further ahead, small firms commented during market research that distinctions 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. The ultimate goal is that COSHH Essentials should be further developed into a 'one-stop-shop', ie incorporating safety aspects such as flammability or explosiveness as well as environmental aspects into the system.
In January this year HSE got its Asthma Project Board under way with 13 members drawn from a wide number of organisations, including the CBI and the TUC. The board, which had its third meeting in February this year, has now been strengthened by the inclusion of both a Scottish representative, and an asthma sufferer.
Its brief is to:
The Project Board was not seen as:
Much of its initial work has been to produce a Plan of Actions, concentrating on the top eight causes of occupational asthma, to develop a range of partnership activities that would contribute to achieving the target of reducing the disease by 30% by the close of this decade. HSE has been keen to emphasise the mutual benefit of partnership working for both industry, unions and professional organisations in tackling this preventable form of asthma.
Several high-profile milestones have been achieved already:
There are an estimated 1500-3000 new cases of occupational asthma each year. This rises to 7000 cases a year if you include asthma made worse by work.
Surveillance data indicates that one of the leading causes of occupational asthma in the UK is glutaraldehyde, primarily due to its use in the disinfection of endoscopy equipment. HSE and the Asthma Project Board (see 'Occupational asthma') see substitution as an important way of reducing the disease. However, it is essential to ensure that substitution decisions take adequate and informed account of the potential occupational health effects of any proposed substitute chemicals.
With this aim in mind, HSE compiled reports summarising the available toxicity data for three potential alternatives to glutaraldehyde, namely ortho-phthalaldehyde, succinic dialdehyde and peracetic acid. These reports were presented to HSC's Working Group for the Assessment of Toxic Chemicals (WATCH) at its meeting on 19 September 2002. Note that these are not the only possible alternatives to glutaraldehyde. Others include chlorine dioxide and systems using superoxidised water; these are not reviewed here.
Before considering the toxicity information on ortho-phthalaldehyde, succinic dialdehyde and peracetic acid, it is worth considering the molecular structure of these substances. Like glutaraldehyde, both succinic dialdehyde and ortho-phthalaldehyde contain two aldehyde groups (-CHO). Aldehyde groups are chemically reactive and have cross-linking properties which enable such compounds to bind to other substances. It is this cross-linking activity that is responsible for the bactericidal properties of some aldehyde substances. However, the molecular structure of ortho-phthalaldehyde contains a benzene ring. It is not clear whether the benzene ring will influence the cross-linking ability of ortho-phthalaldehyde but preliminary work suggests that unlike glutaraldehyde, its bactericidal action may be due to coagulation of proteins inside cells rather than to cross-linking effects at the surface of cells. The chemical reactivity of aldehyde groups is also likely to be involved in the mechanism for the development of asthma, enabling the parent molecules to bind to plasma proteins forming a 'hapten' which the body then recognises as 'foreign' triggering an allergic response. Peracetic acid does not contain any aldehyde groups or possess cross-linking properties.
Relatively little safety testing has been carried out for OPA itself. Laboratory studies have shown that OPA causes severe skin and gastro-intestinal irritation following dermal and oral dosing respectively. Although there are no studies into the potential for OPA to cause eye and respiratory tract irritation, the evidence for severe skin and gastro-intestinal tract irritation strongly suggests that OPA will also cause eye and respiratory tract irritation if it comes into contact with these tissues. No studies into the potential for OPA to cause asthma have been reported. However, WATCH concluded that OPA may have the potential to cause occupational asthma. This was based on knowledge about the asthmagenic properties of other dialdehyde molecules and information suggesting that OPA is very reactive towards protein molecules.
Little safety testing has been performed with SDA. The molecular structure of SDA is very similar to glutaraldehyde and there are a number of similarities in the toxicological properties of these two substances. Studies have shown that it is a strong skin irritant and severe eye irritant and this suggests that it could also cause respiratory tract irritation. On the basis of the information available, and by analogy with glutaraldehyde, WATCH concluded that SDA may have the potential to cause occupational asthma.
As was the case with OPA and SDA, relatively little safety testing has been conducted with PAA. It is a corrosive liquid, and its key adverse health effect is the ability of the airborne vapour or aerosol droplets to provoke a stinging sensation in the eyes and upper respiratory tract. WATCH considered that PAA would also be likely to cause chronic inflammation of the upper respiratory tract following repeated exposures. Unfortunately, there were no reliable dose-response data from which to identify a threshold for such effects. One reason for this is that PAA does not exist in isolation. It is always in chemical equilibrium with hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid, and this has led to technical difficulties in measuring airborne concentrations of PAA. The evidence available did indicate that PAA was far more irritant than hydrogen peroxide, but WATCH felt that the quality and extent of information available was insufficient to allow an occupational exposure limit to be determined for PAA. Although there was no information available on the potential for PAA to cause occupational asthma, it was felt that from its chemical structure, and from consideration of its chemical breakdown products (hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid, neither of which are recognised causes of asthma) there were no grounds for considering that PAA should be regarded as a potential cause of asthma.
So far, all of the deliberations have focussed purely on the likely intrinsic toxicological hazards of the chemicals OPA, SDA and PAA. However, these substances are generally only present in low concentrations in commerical disinfectant formulations. HSE did not have enough information on the likely levels of exposure in the workplace for any of these substances to enable WATCH to comment on whether ill health could occur as a result of workplace exposure. HSE therefore wishes to take a broad look at all potential substitutes for glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants. This will cover their effectiveness as disinfectants, control of exposure in the workplace and the occupational health risks that could arise during their use. The aim is to identify examples of good practice to enable recommendations to be made on suitable alternatives to glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants.
For more information about this work please contact Judith Reilly, e-mail judith.reilly@hse.gsi.gov.uk
A new website with advice on how to reduce occupational asthma has been launched by HSE. There are an estimated 1500-3000 new cases of occupational asthma each year. This rises to 7000 cases a year if you include asthma made worse by work. Aimed at employers, safety representatives and health professionals, the website is part of the HSC's campaign to reduce occupational asthma by 30 per cent by 2010. It sets out:
Visitors to the site can also view video clips, read case studies, download the plan of actions on occupational asthma agreed by HSC's Asthma Project Board and Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances, and access guidance on the main causes of the disease. People are commenting that the site is easy to navigate and provides useful information.
HSE recently warned that people who work with harmful dusts should not use nuisance dust masks (also known as comfort or hygiene masks) to protect themselves from exposure.
In addition to the warning, HSE is encouraging voluntary withdrawal from the sale of these, and urging the use of approved CE-marked disposable respirators instead.
The warning is in support of HSC's campaign to reduce diseases such as occupational asthma, which is the most frequently diagnosed occupational-related respiratory disease in Great Britain.
A press release on nuisance dust masks is available on HSE's website at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2003/e03003.htm
General information on the extent of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) and their relationship with manual handling was given in the article 'Manual handling: The whats, whys, hows and wheres' in Issue 50 of TSB.
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) form the largest single group of reported injuries (30%) in the chemicals sector. About 50% of these reports are related to manual handling. Given the range of manual handling tasks encountered in the sector, this is perhaps unsurprising. Tasks include: loading mixers, hoppers and reactors from bags; mixing/packing; lifting various containers; pushing/pulling trolleys/racks etc; transferring goods; handling gas cylinders; loading/unloading pallets; maintenance tasks such as valve and pump removal etc.
Because of the importance of manual handling accidents in the sector, HSE's Hazardous Industries Directorate (HID) have initiated several projects in support of the MSD priority programme (MSD PP). These are at different stages and tackle different aspects of the problem. One common feature is that they will all run for several years in recognition of the fact that a continuous effort is needed to make any real impact on the accident rates.
The main project involves support for a campaign on manual handling inspired by the Chemical Industries Forum (CIF). CIF - now the Chemicals and Downstream Oil Industry Forum (CDOIF) - was the tripartite body set up to inform HID on health and safety issues in the chemical industry. The campaign was launched on 7 April 2000 and is due to run for up to five years. It aims to reduce the incidence of manual handling injuries in the sector and hence contribute to the Revitalising targets.
The campaign began with publicity and awareness-raising, and encouragement of stakeholders to use an opening learning pack (Handle with care) for training and to improve the assessment and control of manual handling risks. Also in 2000 a benchmarking exercise was carried out using a cultural tool designed by HSL that provides a means for companies (and indeed the industry as a whole) to measure their attitudes and approaches to manual handling.
HID inspectors have been visiting premises to test project compliance with the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and to highlight the CIF campaign and the use of the Handle with care training package. They also encourage companies to set in-house targets for reducing the incidence of manual handling injuries and to establish plans and programmes to improve performance and to monitor their progress. Some 200 entries relating to the MSD PP have been made on HID's inspection database. These have not yet been fully analysed since it is intended that this will coincide with a further benchmarking study by HSL.
HID has other ongoing, or planned, projects in support of the MSD PP and the CIF campaign. Several of these have the potential to be expanded into other sectors.
A project targeting companies that report manual handling injuries with a questionnaire and advice, is being piloted. The questionnaire is partly built around the manual handling assessment charts that have recently been promulgated by HSE. The aim is to give companies advice on manual handling and to obtain basic intelligence on the current status of manual handling in the sector. This information will compliment the information from the HSL benchmarking study and RIDDOR reports.
The second round of benchmarking will be started by HSL in 2003. This will allow a comparison, both within individual companies and across the industry, of any changes in attitude and management of manual handling, by both managers and employees.
It is intended in 2003 to consider with the industry how manual handling of LPG and other cylinders could be improved and mechanised. The idea is to collect best practices in the industry and promulgate these as standards.
HID and HD are also working with the industry on the application of HSE's recently produced manual handling assessment charts (MAC), or a modification of these, in the sector.
The impact of work to reduce manual handling injuries in the chemical sector will be judged by changes in the benchmark and against trends in reported accidents. There are encouraging signs from the latter. Thus the three-year rolling averages between 1999/2000 and 2001/2002 for reports of this type have been 653, 635 and 615. Hopefully, the fall will continue.
Manual handling. Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. Guidance on Regulations L23 (Second edition) HSE Books 1998 ISBN 0 7176 2415 3
Handle with care: Assessing musculoskeletal risks in the chemical industry. Open learning and training pack HSE Books 2000 ISBN 0 7176 1770 X
Getting to grips with manual handling: A short guide for employers INDG143(rev1) HSE Books 2000 (single copy free or priced packs of 15 ISBN 0 7176 1754 8)
Manual handling. Solutions you can handle HSG115 HSE Books 1994 ISBN 0 7176 0693 7
A pain in your workplace? Ergonomic problems and solutions (case studies of real problems and real solutions) HSG121 HSE Books 1994 ISBN 0 7176 0668 6
The Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances (ACTS) was established in 1977 to provide the Health and Safety Commission with independent advice concerning the control of risks arising from the supply of or exposure to toxic substances at work. It has a work plan which aims to "stop people being made ill at work". Through this work plan, ACTS aims to work with HSE to develop initiatives that will prevent ill health at work, particularly on occupational cancer, skin disease and respiratory disease.
ACTS discharges its responsibilities through formal meetings of the committee and through the work of a number of subcommittees. ACTS will hold its first public open session in the London headquarters of HSE on the morning of:
The open meeting will coincide with European Week for Safety and Health 2003, which this year takes the theme "prevention of risks caused by dangerous substances". This is highly relevant to the work of ACTS, whose aim it is to stop people being made ill from exposure to substances at work.
The open meeting will include presentations on the current ACTS work programme, during which it will be explained that the remit of the Committee is now much wider than setting OELs. There will be an opportunity to put questions to Committee members and HSE officials.
For security reasons and to ensure sufficient seating is available, if you wish to attend, please apply in advance by contacting ACTS Secretariat by either:
e-mail: naseem.walji@hse.gsi.gov.uk;
tel: 020 7717 6780;
fax: 020 7717 6190; or
write to: ACTS Secretariat, HSE, Floor 7NW, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS.
Please provide, by 15th August 2003, the following: your full contact details (address/email/tel); your job title and
whom you will be representing (e.g. organisation, trade association etc). It would also be helpful if you could provide
details of any particular interests, topics or issues you have that are relevant to the work of ACTS. Seats will be
allocated on a first-come first-served basis. We will contact you nearer the time to confirm that you have been allocated
a seat and to provide the agenda and location details. It will not be possible to simply turn up on the day if you have
not pre-registered.
TSB50 (January 2003) included an article on HSE's 3Rs programme. Unfortunately, the list of projects and participants in the programme did not acknowledge the valuable contribution by the Chemical Hazards Communication Society (CHCS) to the project. We apologise for this error.
This regular article highlights recent relevant HSE publications. They are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2WA, Tel: 01787 881165, Fax: 01787 313995, Website: http://www.hsebooks.com/ (HSE priced publications are also available from bookshops and free leaflets can be downloaded from HSE's website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/)
Control of exposure to triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC) in coating powders Engineering Information Sheet (EIS15rev2) - publication due June 2003
This guidance is aimed at anyone involved in the formulation of coating powders which contain TGIC. It has been revised (a) to reflect changes introduced by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) (COSHH); and (b) because TGIC, as a Category 2 Mutagen, and products containing it are subject to the additional control measures that COSHH applies to substances classified as Category 1 or 2 Carcinogens or Mutagens.
COSHH: A brief guide to the Regulations. What you need to know about the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) Leaflet INDG136(rev2) 2003 (single copy free or priced packs of 10 ISBN 0 7176 2677 6)
This revised booklet is written mainly for employers to help them meet their specific duties under the new Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). It will also be useful to safety representatives, health and safety professionals and anyone with an interest in health and safety issues. The booklet provides a simple step-by-step approach which will help employers identify risks, implement controls and establish good working practices related to hazardous substances in their workplaces.
EH40 Occupational exposure limits: Supplement 2003 ISBN 0 7176 2172 3
This publication supplements and updates EH40/2002. It should be read in conjunction with E40/2002 which continues to provide the supporting guidance and a complete list of occupational exposure limits for use with COSHH 2002. It is available to purchase on its own or together with EH40/2002. It can also be downloaded free off the HSE website.
Guidance for aluminium recyclers on reducing dioxin exposure INDG377 (Publication due June 2003)
Exposure to dioxins can happen to workers recycling aluminium, copper and its alloys, and zinc. This leaflet, aimed at employers and employees, describes what dioxons are, where they are formed, legal requirements, and how workers should be protected (by minimising the amount of dust and fume produced, and by using protective equipment and ensuring proper hygiene procedures are followed). It will be of interest to everyone involved in the aluminium recycling industry.
Ms Carole Sullivan Editor
Miss Naseem Walji Assistant Editor
Mrs E Eggington Content Editor
Mr D Kyle
Dr J Groves
Mrs E Ball
Mr S Campbell
Dr R Rawbone
Ms D Llewellyn
You can contact TSB at CRAU@hse.gsi.gov.uk or via the TSB feedback form