The thought of maintaining a library of MSDS’s over 100+ pages is daunting, not to mention having to print them out. We’ll be publishing guidance very soon in relation to managing these huge MSDS and where Exposure Scenarios are concerned, what your obligations are as a downstream user.

The inclusion of Exposure Scenarios is an interesting topic. Here’s the process that Exposure Scenarios and these huge MSDS represent:

• You receive a revised MSDS containing Exposure Scenarios.
• It’s a legal requirement to make a copy of this MSDS available to your staff and ensure you keep the latest copy on file.
• You check the Exposure Scenarios to see if your particular use and conditions are covered.
• If not, you must inform your supplier within 12 months of receipt of the MSDS.
• Your suppliers obligation is to add Exposure Scenarios that are safe, if they are not safe they will not be added.
• For Exposure Scenarios that are not added to MSDS you can create your own downstream user chemical safety assessment.
• You must notify the agency for which use a downstream user chemical safety assessment has been carried out and who the supplier of the substance is.
• Failure to do this means that you are non-compliant with legislation and can be subject to fines and prosecution.

What is an Exposure Scenario?

An ‘Exposure Scenario’ describes how a substance can be safely handled to control exposures to both human health and the environment. The full REACH definition for an Exposure Scenario is as follows:

‘Exposure Scenario’ means the set of conditions, including operational conditions (OC) and risk management measures (RMM), that describe how the substance is manufactured or used during its life-cycle and how the manufacturer or importer controls, or recommends downstream users to control, exposures of humans and the environment.

When are Exposure Scenarios required under REACH?

Exposure Scenarios are required to be developed for the identified uses of substances that are sold at >10 tonnes per year and are classified as dangerous.

What should you do on receipt of an SDS containing Exposure Scenarios?

When customers receive an up-dated SDS for a product requiring Exposure Scenarios, they will need to identify the relevant Exposure Scenarios for their particular uses. In addition they will need to review the Exposure Scenarios to check whether their local situation is consistent with the operating conditions and risk management measures identified in the Exposure Scenarios for the demonstration of safe use.

If a Downstream User’s use, or the conditions of use, does not appear to be covered, the Downstream User has 12 months (REACH Article 37) from the receipt of the MSDS to contact the supplier to request that they consider including their use/use conditions in their Registration.

If you can not see the video below, please click here

The Health and Safety Executive visited CR Construction (SW) Ltd on 16 June 2011 at its site at Pembroke Road in Clifton, Bristol and found that the washing and bathroom facilities to be completely inadequate.

Bristol Magistrates heard that company managers were fully aware of the requirements as an Improvement Notice was issued on the company at another of their sites in Thornbury.

On further investigation, the HSE inspectors discovered that the failings at the Clifton site had existed from the start of the project a year earlier. The court heard up to sixteen people were employed as builders on the site and facilities were way below the minimum requirements.

HSE inspector Sue Adsett said:

“Workers on sites such as these need access to clean and working toilets and hand washing facilities with hot and cold running water, soap and towels, as many materials used on such sites can cause skin problems.

“It is also a legal requirement to have a heated room on site where workers can change, rest, and make hot drinks and food if required.”

CR Construction (SW) Ltd of Tereslake Green, Bristol pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 22 (1) (c) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 under Section 33 (1) (c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and were fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,014.

Musa Suleman, had instructed builder Robert Jozwiak, to repair the roof on a disused textile dye house at Evington Valley Road, Leicester on 3 June 2009 when it collapsed and the worker fell onto the concrete floor six metres below. The builder fractured his skull and back and died from his injuries.

Suleman was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for failing to ensure the work was properly planned, supervised or carried out in a safe manner. He failed to give Jozwiak a copy of a risk assessment.

The worker accessed the asbestos cement roof without any safety equipment and subsequently fell through the roof.

Suleman pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was given a 12 month jail sentence, suspended for two years at Leicester Crown Court. He was also ordered to pay compensation of £13,800 to Mr Jozwiak’s family and total costs of £17,337.

HSE inspector Karl Raw stated after the hearing:

“The roof was made of corrugated asbestos cement sheets, and the work required careful planning and consideration of the risks involved. Tragically, Mr Suleman failed to do this and to properly supervise the work which resulted in the needless death of a husband and father.

“Safe routes and protective equipment should have been in position to allow Mr Jozwiak to get to work areas without injury, and measures to prevent or mitigate any falls should have been in place.

“Work at height remains a major cause of injury and fatalities in the workplace and for this reason it is important appropriate planning, supervision and safety measures are essential. This becomes even more critical when a job involves work on or near fragile roofing materials as at this site.”

On passing sentence the Honourable Judge Simon Hammond stated that Mr Jozwiak’s death was a terrible tragedy that could have been prevented. He said there were valuable lessons to be learned and stressed that anyone working on buildings to treat health and safety as their top priority in order to prevent injury or death.

Cancer can be caused by substances called carcinogens. Occupational cancer can be caused through extended exposure to carcinogens in the workplace.

The HSE expert stated that further reduction in exposure limits relating to occupational carcinogens and increased workplace compliance could prevent almost 8500 cancer cases over the next 50 years.

Work related cancer is the largest cause of fatal occupational diseases recognised in the UK and Dr Rushton noted that the percentage of attributable cancers is 5.3 per cent, which equates to almost 8000 deaths per annum.

Although the biggest causes of cancer are smoking and diet, the study revealed that approximately 11,494 of cancer cases are caused by occupational exposure. This represents 3.7 per cent of all cancers.

Occupational cancer may occur as a result of work relating to direct exposure to a carcinogen or exposure to a carcinogen produced as part of a work process. There is usually an extensive period of time between exposure to a carcinogen and the start of any ill-health symptoms.

The main causes of work related lung cancer are asbestos, silica, and exhaust fumes, while shift work is cited as a major cause of breast cancer among women.

Following the presentation to the HSE, board member Hugh Robertson said that the research highlighted the need to take action and adopt behaviour changes to improve work place compliance.

Judith Hackitt, chair of the HSE, stated that further research needed to be undertaken to determine what it needs to do to form its intervention strategy over the next 5 years.

The British Occupational Hygiene Society said  “All of these (work-related) cancers could have been prevented through better recognition of the risks within occupations, and BOHS believes that with appropriate focused efforts almost all occupational cancers could ultimately be prevented.

“This goal would take time to achieve because there is a very long lag between workers first being exposed to carcinogens and any disease being diagnosed, but if we do not act now then the present death toll will continue.”

A team of international scientists found a six-fold increase in the risk of developing Parkinson’s among those who had worked with trichloroethylene (TCE).

The researchers made the connection after analysing data on 99 sets of twins. One twin in each pair had Parkinson’s and the other did not. The subjects were interviewed to determine their work history and their exposure to solvents. They were also asked about their hobbies.

The findings included a “significant association” between TCE exposure and Parkinson’s, in that the solvent was likely to result in a six-fold increase in the chances of developing the disease.

Dr Samuel Goldman, of the Parkinson’s Institute in California, who co-led the research, said “Our study confirms that common environmental contaminants may increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s, which has considerable health implications”.

The findings were reported in the journal Annals of Neurology.

TCE has been used in paints, glue, carpet cleaners and dry-cleaning solutions. Its use was banned in the global food and pharmaceutical industries in the 1970′s due to toxicity concerns. In 1997 the US authorities prohibited its use as an anaesthetic, skin disinfectant, grain fumigant and coffee decaffeinating agent but it continues to be used globally as a degreasing agent for metal parts.

Commenting on the paper, Dr Michelle Gardner, Research Development Manager at the charity Parkinson’s UK, said: “This is the first study to show that the solvent TCE may be associated with an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s.

“It is important to highlight that many of the previous uses of this solvent have been discontinued for safety reasons over 30 years ago and that safety and protection in work places where strong chemicals such as this solvent are used has greatly improved in recent years.”

In a landmark ruling of July this year, the Court of Appeal decided in favour of a former RAF corporal who was diagnosed with a neurological condition linked with Parkinson’s following exposure to solvents, including TCE, while working as a painter and finisher at RAF sites in the UK and overseas.

On September 29th 2011 at  Hendon Magistrates’ Court, both Barnet FC and former catering manager Allan Collinge pleaded guilty to health and safety failures which contributed to a teenage girl being badly scalded.

The prosecution was brought against the club by Barnet Council’s Environmental Health department who conducted the investigation into the incident. They discovered that the club had no formal health and safety policy in place plus no evidence of health and safety documentation.

The court heard how the victim, Miss Charlotte Lytton, aged 17 years, had just began her working day when two of her male colleagues had started to move a large tea urn. However, as they started to move the urn it leaked boiling water onto the two boys who were unable to hold it. The urn dropped onto the floor pouring boiling water over Miss Lytton. As she attempted to move away she slipped in the water and sustained further burns to her body.

As a result of the accident in November 2008, the worker suffered serious burns to her feet, arms and lower legs.

At the hearing, Barnet FC admitted failing in its duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all its employees and was fined £6,000. They were fined a further £5,000 for failing to conduct an adequate risk assessment into the health and safety issues that their workers might face.

The club were also liable to pay the £25,000 court costs.

Former catering manager Allan Collinge was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £535 in costs after admitting breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 by failing to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and others.

Barnet FC spokesperson Dennis Signy said that the club was “extremely sorry” for what had happened to Miss Lytton. He said it was a most unfortunate accident and health and safety procedures had now been put in place to safeguard against this happening again.

Preventable slips, trips and falls are having a serious financial effect on the UK. The Health and Safety Executive estimated that the cost to society from such incidents, to be around £800 million.

Costs to business can include civil damages, administration and insurance costs, lost production and absences from work. As well as 40 fatalities, there were also over 15,000 major injuries to workers, plus over 30,000 workers needing to take over three days off work.

In addition to the financial argument for reducing slips, trips and falls, there is also a legal requirement for businesses to manage the risk effectively. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states that employers must ensure that risks to health and safety are properly controlled in order that employees and others do not become ill or injured at work.

A good management system will help you to identify problem areas, decide what to do, act on decisions and check that the steps taken have been effective.

A good management system should include:

• Planning. Identify key areas of risk and set goals for improvement. Choose materials and equipment carefully. Ensure effective working practice to help remove or reduce risks.
• Organisation. Employee involvement and commitment to risk reduction. Give select workers (eg line managers, supervisors) the responsibility of keeping workplace areas safe.
• Control. Make sure that working practices and processes are being implemented such as, keeping smooth floors dry and repairing leaks from equipment promptly.
• Monitor and Review. Analyse accident and inspection reports for flaws in your management system.

A thorough account of any risks needs to be identified in a risk assessment and any necessary controls should be taken to manage the risk of slips, trips and falls.

• Identify slip and trip hazards around the workplace, such as loose cables, uneven surfaces, and areas that can be slippery due to spillages.
• Decide who may be harmed and how.
• Consider the risks. Are enough precautions being taken to control the risks?
• Record your findings if you have more than five employees.
• Ensure that the assessment is reviewed regularly.

Getting working conditions right from the start will making dealing with slips and trips risks easier. Choose suitable floor surfaces and ensure that lighting levels are sufficient.  Avoid overcrowding and plan pedestrian and traffic routes effectively.

A company from Sunderland was fined a total of £5,000 by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for failing to carry out adequate risk assessments of manual handling tasks.

The company manufacture and install a range of fencing products. They have a small concrete shed at their site where they manufacture concrete posts and lintels ranging in weight from 13.6 kgs to 234.78 kgs. The casting process for making these units involves considerable manual handling, i.e moving the units around the process area. The company had not carried out risk assessments of these operations.

Due to the fact that the company had failed to carry out risk assessments, they had failed to understand the real risks associated with moving the loads. Managers in the company did not appreciate the need for mechanical lifting equipment nor did they comprehend the incredible strain placed upon employees when moving these loads around.

The company pleaded guilty to breaches of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations and were fined over £5,000.

Following the intervention by the HSE, the company installed roller tables in the concrete shed that have dramatically reduced the amount of manual handling by employees. Manual Handling training has also been provided for the employees in the concrete shed and lifting charts are displayed on the walls.

Poor housekeeping in a convenience store led to prosecution following a tripping accident to a customer.

The customer tripped over newspaper binding (used to hold newspapers together) while shopping in the store and caused an injury to her hip. As a result, she was unable to work for 5 months.

The management at the store had already been previously served with an Improvement Notice following warnings regarding housekeeping issues.

As a result of the customer’s accident, the company was fined over £4,500 in the Magistrates Court.