Working with dangerous gasses, no PPE supplied ?
Discussion
For the last eight years I have worked for a company building luxury powerboats. My job was a fit-out engineer and Air Conditioning installer, and it's the aircon side of things that my question relates to.
During the commissioning of the aircon system we charge the system to a set pressure with R417a refrigerant gas. Also, the condensers and blower fans have labels attached to them which reads
'This product contains a chemical known to the State of California which causes cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm'
I managed to get hold of the COSHH data sheet for the R417a and it states there must be bespoke gloves and overalls, oxygen sensors for the work area and 1/2 hour per day exposure limits.
The company never takes any request for aircon equipment seriously, and prefer to tell you to just "Get in there and do it, the boats got to go".
OK, in Feb 2008 I was diagnosed with testicular cancer, I had the op and the treatment and now I've been clear for 12 months. I understand proving a link would be nigh on impossible, but surely the company must be responsible / liable for making us work with the stuff without any protection at all?
If anyone knows about this sort of thing I'd be very glad of any input.
During the commissioning of the aircon system we charge the system to a set pressure with R417a refrigerant gas. Also, the condensers and blower fans have labels attached to them which reads
'This product contains a chemical known to the State of California which causes cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm'
I managed to get hold of the COSHH data sheet for the R417a and it states there must be bespoke gloves and overalls, oxygen sensors for the work area and 1/2 hour per day exposure limits.
The company never takes any request for aircon equipment seriously, and prefer to tell you to just "Get in there and do it, the boats got to go".
OK, in Feb 2008 I was diagnosed with testicular cancer, I had the op and the treatment and now I've been clear for 12 months. I understand proving a link would be nigh on impossible, but surely the company must be responsible / liable for making us work with the stuff without any protection at all?
If anyone knows about this sort of thing I'd be very glad of any input.
Soovy!Mark34bn said:
I started a claim with the Union solicitor but they didn't seem interested, it wasn't an 'accident' as such. I was thinking more along the lines of the company failing to protect it's workforce and ignoring COSHH safety guidelines. Or something like that.
Me too. When I've worked with various nasty chemicals the COSHH sheet has been forced into my hand to read 1st. Not "I've managed to find one".But I don't know enough about this stuff to know what they "have" to do legally. However if the COSHH sheet says you need protective gear...and you are refused it...well I can't see how it's good for them and it's certainly not the attitude of places I've worked.
You'll need some kind of legal person who knows this stuff to explain the details of it though and where you stand.
I'm surprised a Union guy is not that interested.
http://www.refrigerants.com/MSDS/r417A.pdf
See Section 16. Looks like there are no known cancer risks. This document is current to December 2008. Does the OP have a newer version? I haven't found anything else online. Is the OP SURE that is said that there is a cancer risk? It is easy to mis-read that from a cursory glance of section 16...
See Section 16. Looks like there are no known cancer risks. This document is current to December 2008. Does the OP have a newer version? I haven't found anything else online. Is the OP SURE that is said that there is a cancer risk? It is easy to mis-read that from a cursory glance of section 16...
I'll PM you some more details but the label on the equipment definitely states the cancer risk. I'll find one and scan it in. This is the equipment I was fitting
http://www.dometic.com/enuk/Europe/United-Kingdom/...
Maybe the tags relate to the fluorescent dye (titanium dioxide?)used in the system, or the previously used R22 gas.
http://www.dometic.com/enuk/Europe/United-Kingdom/...
Maybe the tags relate to the fluorescent dye (titanium dioxide?)used in the system, or the previously used R22 gas.
Edited by Mark34bn on Sunday 6th December 19:08
Edited by Mark34bn on Sunday 6th December 20:24
Hi,
Look forward to receiving them. Even if there isn't a proven link to testicular cancer, (the textbooks don't say that such exposure causes testiuclar cancer; they suggest other factors), you may still have been exposed to another cancer risk from use of the gas, without suitable PPE. For that reason, this definitely requires further, proper investigation.
Speak soon,
Richard
Look forward to receiving them. Even if there isn't a proven link to testicular cancer, (the textbooks don't say that such exposure causes testiuclar cancer; they suggest other factors), you may still have been exposed to another cancer risk from use of the gas, without suitable PPE. For that reason, this definitely requires further, proper investigation.
Speak soon,
Richard
Nice extract from the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Read this in conjunction with the COSHH data sheet !!!
2 General duties of employers to their employees
(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the
health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection, the
matters to which that duty extends include in particular—
(a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably
practicable, safe and without risks to health;
(b) arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks
to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and
substances;
(c) the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to
ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;
(d) so far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer’s
control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and
the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and
without such risks;
(e) the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.
2 General duties of employers to their employees
(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the
health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection, the
matters to which that duty extends include in particular—
(a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably
practicable, safe and without risks to health;
(b) arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks
to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and
substances;
(c) the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to
ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;
(d) so far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer’s
control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and
the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and
without such risks;
(e) the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.
This is pretty straightforward, so they can't claim ignorance and say they weren't aware of the specific requirements for this job. It's the employers responsibility to look it up and supply the correct equipment ?
I worked with this stuff for 5 years and they never once mentioned the need for bespoke equipment. I left the company in June but there are roughly 15 other engineers still doing the same job as I was.
I worked with this stuff for 5 years and they never once mentioned the need for bespoke equipment. I left the company in June but there are roughly 15 other engineers still doing the same job as I was.
RichBurley said:
Hi,
Look forward to receiving them. Even if there isn't a proven link to testicular cancer, (the textbooks don't say that such exposure causes testiuclar cancer; they suggest other factors), you may still have been exposed to another cancer risk from use of the gas, without suitable PPE. For that reason, this definitely requires further, proper investigation.
Speak soon,
Richard
Hi my PM wasn't sent for some reason, so I've sent a message via your website. Hope this is OK.Look forward to receiving them. Even if there isn't a proven link to testicular cancer, (the textbooks don't say that such exposure causes testiuclar cancer; they suggest other factors), you may still have been exposed to another cancer risk from use of the gas, without suitable PPE. For that reason, this definitely requires further, proper investigation.
Speak soon,
Richard
Thanks
Mark
Mark34bn said:
RichBurley said:
Hi,
Look forward to receiving them. Even if there isn't a proven link to testicular cancer, (the textbooks don't say that such exposure causes testiuclar cancer; they suggest other factors), you may still have been exposed to another cancer risk from use of the gas, without suitable PPE. For that reason, this definitely requires further, proper investigation.
Speak soon,
Richard
Hi my PM wasn't sent for some reason, so I've sent a message via your website. Hope this is OK.Look forward to receiving them. Even if there isn't a proven link to testicular cancer, (the textbooks don't say that such exposure causes testiuclar cancer; they suggest other factors), you may still have been exposed to another cancer risk from use of the gas, without suitable PPE. For that reason, this definitely requires further, proper investigation.
Speak soon,
Richard
Thanks
Mark
Edited by RichBurley on Wednesday 9th December 18:01
From what I remember about health and safety law...
If you're genuinely concerned for the welfare of the guys doing the work, an anonymous tipoff to the HSE should result in at least an Improvement Notice being served, more likely in this case is a Prohibition Notice which effectively bans the company from carrying out further work until they put in place some suitable safety measures.
If you're seeking to prosecute and make a claim, you need to prove that:
(1) the company has breached their statutory duty of care (easy one, if an HSE inspector issues a prohibition notice then that should be enough evidence)
(2) the breach has resulted in loss or injury (this is where things become tricky, as you effectively need to prove that exposure to these chemicals was the cause of your illness)
It's a minefield but by the sounds of things the company are breaching their duty under the H&S at Work Act and no doubt are contravening the COSHH regulations as well.
If you're genuinely concerned for the welfare of the guys doing the work, an anonymous tipoff to the HSE should result in at least an Improvement Notice being served, more likely in this case is a Prohibition Notice which effectively bans the company from carrying out further work until they put in place some suitable safety measures.
If you're seeking to prosecute and make a claim, you need to prove that:
(1) the company has breached their statutory duty of care (easy one, if an HSE inspector issues a prohibition notice then that should be enough evidence)
(2) the breach has resulted in loss or injury (this is where things become tricky, as you effectively need to prove that exposure to these chemicals was the cause of your illness)
It's a minefield but by the sounds of things the company are breaching their duty under the H&S at Work Act and no doubt are contravening the COSHH regulations as well.
You need to remember that while your employer has a duty to protect the work force the employee also has duties to look after themselves as well.
I am not sure when you were aware of the specifics i.e. the labels on the machines but as soon as I saw a warning like that I wouldn't have continued working. This doesn't relieve the employer of their duties which someone has highlighted above.
The other thing with COSSH data sheets is that an assessment needs to be made in relation to the environment that the product is to be used. A company called SYPOL would be able to advise specific PPE requirement for handling and the use of the gas you worked with.
Good luck and I hope your recovery continues.
I am not sure when you were aware of the specifics i.e. the labels on the machines but as soon as I saw a warning like that I wouldn't have continued working. This doesn't relieve the employer of their duties which someone has highlighted above.
The other thing with COSSH data sheets is that an assessment needs to be made in relation to the environment that the product is to be used. A company called SYPOL would be able to advise specific PPE requirement for handling and the use of the gas you worked with.
Good luck and I hope your recovery continues.
swerni said:
Glad your treatment went well, I've just passed the three year mark.
Having looked into testicular cancer and spent time with some top oncologist I think you are going to struggle to find any link between the work and the illness.
What are you trying to do?
Teach them a lesson?
Point out that they are doing things wrong and should be taking more care?
Get some free money?
Re - what am I trying to do? truth be told a bit of all three really. I'm really annoyed at the fact they make us work with this stuff without giving a toss about the dangers. I'm annoyed that about 15 of my colleagues throughout the company are still having to do the same thing each day. If it's something that could facilitate a large amount of money coming my way then so be it, I won't refuse it.Having looked into testicular cancer and spent time with some top oncologist I think you are going to struggle to find any link between the work and the illness.
What are you trying to do?
Teach them a lesson?
Point out that they are doing things wrong and should be taking more care?
Get some free money?
The company treats it's staff like dirt and they should at the very least implement the proper safety procedures.
I understand it would be nigh on impossible to prove a link between the cancer and the company, but surely something is wrong when they ignore all relevant COSHH rules and just tell you to 'get on with it'.
HRG said:
Do you know if a Risk Assessment has been carried out and if so what did it identify?
If his company are not suppying PPE I would very much doupt if a Risk Assesment has ben carried out.Looking at the Material Data Sheet on the product
http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/special/isceon_mo59.p...
it appears only to be a problem if leaked.
Is the transfer (charge) of the refrigerent contained?
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff