Exposure Magazine | Issue 5 2020 by BOHS

EXPOSURE PROMOTING A HEALTHY WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL

DECEMBER 2020

KEEPING UP WITH A CHANGING WORLD WE REVIEW SOME OF THE GREAT CHANGES OF THE LAST 50 YEARS FOR HYGIENISTS AND THEIR CLIENTS. ALSO INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

❚ Interview With David Hickish ❚ Personal sampling: the start of a new era? ❚ Changes proposed to the management of cancer-causing substances

The official magazine of

WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK!

We strive to be sure that Exposure is engaging, interesting, and relevant, and to meet those goals, we need your invaluable feedback. Follow the link below to complete our quick two minute survey and share with us your experience of Exposure. https://bohs.link/feedback-on-exposure

www.bohs.org

Welcome

INSIDE

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE

Hello, It’s been a busy two months here at BOHS with both our annual conference, OH2020, in October, and our Asbestos, which wrapped last week at the time of writing, this year having moved to a virtual platform for the first time. We’d like to thank everyone who attended either or both, and sincerely hope you enjoyed them and found what we had to offer interesting and engaging.

3 Welcome 4 President’s Column 5 CEO's Column

In this issue, Lee Heffernan, a Chartered Occupational Hygienist for BP, gives his review of our annual conference on page 7, as it also went virtual for the first time.

7 OH2020 Retrospective - Lee Heffernan, Chartered Occupational Hygienist for BP 8 Personal Sampling: the start of a new era?

On page 23, we are rerunning a 2013 interview we held with David Hickish, who sadly passed away this year.

12 COVER FEATURE: World - History of British Occupational Hygiene Part 11

And in our penultimate issue of 2020, we see the penultimate chapter in Trevor Ogden’s fantastic History of Occupational Hygiene series on page 12. Look out for our final issue of the year next month, before we aim to hit 2021 running, as we have a lot of exciting ideas lined up.

16 A Researched Essay by Mary Cameron BSc LFOH CertOH Discuss the role and relevant importance of measured vibration levels and manufacturers’ data in the assessment of exposure and the implementation of a programme to reduce exposure to hand arm vibration 21 Changes proposed by Europe to the management of cancercausing substances

And finally, as we enter the final stretch of what has been a difficult year for many, we’d like to thank everyone who has worked with and for BOHS this year to produce excellent content, organise fantastic webinars and events, and most importantly, to keep workers safe day in and day out. We hope you enjoy this issue, and we look forward to speaking again at Christmas.

THE EXPOSURE TEAM

22 A Tribute to David Hickish

LEE BURKETT

NADEEM AHMAD

JOE MOTT

@BOHS Video

@BOHSworld

BOHS Head Office 5/6 Melbourne Business Court, Millennium Way, Pride Park, Derby, DE24 8LZ, UK T: + 44 (0) 1332 298101 | membership@bohs.org | www.bohs.org

WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK!

The views expressed in this issue are not necessarily those of BOHS Board

https://bohs.link/feedback-on-exposure

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

PRESIDENT’S COLUMN

I bought a book on “How to Build a Time Machine” by the physicist Paul Davies.

KELVIN WILLIAMS NEW BOHS PRESIDENT

It crops up in all sorts of religious thought, art and philosophy; particularly as it applies to regret, redemption and a second chance. Recent popular works include “The First 15 Lives of Harry August”, a great yarn about a chap who continually lives his life over but each time retains the memory and learning of previous lives. Nietzsche played with the idea as a thought experiment. The film Groundhog Day covered the same territory and I would try and encourage my kids with this after some domestic mishap. Once I’d swept up the glass, put out the fire and extracted the snake from the duck-tape I’d remind the kids that they get to have another go at life tomorrow - while the trauma of immediate events was still sharp in their minds. We’re entering the second wave of the pandemic and fresh national lockdowns. If I could have my time again there are many things I would like to do differently during the first wave. I’m also suffering a low burn anxiety that if I’m not careful I’ll end up making the same mistakes during the second wave. However, things are different now. The initial shock of global pestilence and economic turmoil has passed. We have better knowledge of the virus, improved

History suggests I won’t get around to it or, possibly, I’ll fail to get the thing into reverse. Tinkering with time is an idea that’s been brooding in our psyche at least since civilisation emerged.

treatments for Covid 19 and the prospect of a vaccine in the near future. We have infrastructure and process to deal with the situation, sort of. Workplaces are settling into the new normal.

otherwise been in touch to work on ideas and materials to the benefit of the broader membership. Not to mention all the contributors to OH2020. Thank you all!

There is comfort in this, but also a risk. A trait of the human condition is to become normalised to where we are at - settling for a job well done so far, but nevertheless half done (DIYers the world over can relate). While the BOHS community has cause for satisfaction, we should be careful to maintain perspective. We can rightly take satisfaction in what has been achieved, but how much more satisfaction will we gain from effectively leveraging our enhanced influence - all to the benefit of worker health protection and our profession for years to come. The target is healthy recovery of the preventive agenda across the board. However, as we all know, a target is easier set than met.

It remains that the coming year is going to be a crucial time for the progression of the Society and that it will take active members volunteering to help make the most of the opportunities and drive the profession forward.

Back in March we urged volunteers to ponder the year ahead and look at the volunteer opportunities that are regularly posted on the BOHS website and elsewhere. We are very grateful for all those who stepped up to the plate to contribute to Covid working groups, prepare Exposure magazine articles, organise webinars, represent BOHS on various stakeholder committees or

We’re entering the second wave of the pandemic and fresh national lockdowns. If I could have my time again there are many things I would like to do differently during the first wave.

From a professional point of view, if you had a second chance at the past several months, or maybe years, what would you do? If your answer includes anything to do with any sort of volunteer role with BOHS then please drop us a line. They say the toughest distance in running is from the couch to your trainers. There is a counter argument, but you get the idea. Once you get going with something, you wonder why you ever hesitated.

BOHS.ORG

CEO’S COLUMN

KEVIN BAMPTON CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Practically all of our visible successes have been because we have been able to amplify and support the work of volunteers. It’s been a year of highprofile visibility in the press and social media, spurred on by the production of high-quality technical content entirely produced by groups of individuals working together on a voluntary basis. It’s phenomenal to look at the COVID-19 hub and to think that all of that material was produced by people, outside of their paid employment. We, at Head Office, are working on how we can better harness the expertise and skills of as wide a range of the membership as possible so we can make an even bigger impact. Of the 1400 members of the Society, most of the activity of the Society is driven by around 5% of the membership to whom we are immensely grateful. We want to ensure that when you offer your time of expertise to the Society we: 1

Find opportunities to make the best of your skills and knowledge;

Promote diversity and equality to ensure that we make the best of the experiences and skills of everyone;

Give clear support and guidance to you when volunteering your time;

As we head into the final month of the Society’s operating year, it’s been a great opportunity to reflect on what we have done well this year and the opportunities for us to do better as a Head Office team supporting the Society.

Provide feedback to you to help with their professional development;

Promote and internally advertise roles which can be taken on based on expertise and peer election, but also ones which enable your development through peer engagement;

Construct opportunities in a way that enables a professional benefit to you when you step forward to help others.

In order to do this, we are reviewing our volunteer support arrangements, as well as widening the opportunities to take on roles at each level of the Society. However, we would really benefit from feedback and suggestions from any member around the activities you would like to be involved with. This is part of a broader review of our strategic aims as a Society. I will be doing a number of videos in conversation with Board members, to explore the challenges we face and the priorities that the Board has recommended for the Society in promoting occupational hygiene and the occupational hygiene profession over the next five years. The strategic aims that the Board and Head Office recommend for the Society are:

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

• To set standards and benchmarks of practice for all engaged in occupational hygiene services in the UK and to work with the regulator to promote them • To support the professional development of members of the Faculty regardless of the stage of their career through review and development of curriculum and qualification provision • To promote the value of the profession and Chartered membership through communication, campaigning and enhanced design of the journey to qualification • To support the development of Occupational Hygiene as a discipline, science and career through work with Higher and Further Education partners

continued

We, at Head Office, are working on how we can better harness the expertise and skills of as wide a range of the membership as possible so we can make an even bigger impact..

CEO’S COLUMN CONT. • To develop and enhance the technical and scientific base of the Society by investigating partnerships to provide research and technical insights and to share the benefits with members

This reflects many of the priorities that members have identified in the survey that we launched earlier this month. We really do want to hear your views on how we are doing and what we can do better. As well as the Breathe Freely Campaign, you will increasingly see reference to the concept of Sustainable Workplace Health. We think this encapsulates the core values and methods of occupational hygiene as part of a broader multidisciplinary approach. The key issues that we want to stimulate debate around are: • Designing out health risks at work; • Focusing research on prevention and control of workplace health hazards;

• Using an understanding of human factors and their role in helping people manage their own health protection at work; • Targeting enhanced occupational health services to those who need it most; • Embedding occupational hygiene and occupational medicine in mainstream healthcare training and education; • Working with healthcare to develop a whole life strategy for managing occupational health & occupational hygiene exposures.

We see the coming months, with a strategy review being undertaken by HSE, a major government paper on workplace health professions being released and the end of our existing regulatory ties with Europe as the time to really provoke this debate.

BOHS is positioned to make a major difference to the workplace health agenda, and as a member, we want you to feel proud to be wwpart of this, as well as enabled to contribute to or even lead this change.

Remote Monitoring Solutions Trade In & Trade Up Trade in ANY air sampling pump or noise dosimeter for a discount on Casella’s remote monitoring technology!*

Noise Dosimeters & Air Sampling Pumps Bluetooth capabilities for remote control Perform remote monitoring

...and remain socially distant.

Get In Touch Today to ﬁnd out how! 415 Lawrence Bell Drive, Unit 4, Buﬀalo, NY 14221

T: (800) 366 2966 E: info-us@casellasolutions.com

*See website for terms and conditions

www.casellasolutions.com BOHS.ORG

LEE HEFFERNAN

OH2020 RETROSPECTIVE

LEE HEFFERNAN, CHARTERED OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENIST FOR BP

I attended my first BOHS annual conference about 9 years ago and have been a fairly regular attendee ever since. For me, I found them particularly beneficial as I worked from Licentiate to Chartered status. Receiving the David Hickish award for performance in the Diploma examinations at the 2017 conference was a particular highlight. But a new highlight was presenting this year for the first time at OH2020, which I enjoyed very much. Due to covid-19, OH2020 was delivered digitally, a first for BOHS. As a speaker this year, it was also a first for me, both to present but also to pre-record a presentation on camera. I write this article to share with you the experience of presenting but also to encourage new speakers to take part in future BOHS events.

One of the things that makes occupational hygiene such a fantastic career choice is the broad range of issues we get involved in to protect worker health. The annual BOHS conference is a celebration of this varied and important work we all do and the topic I presented on was the development of an occupational hygiene emergency response plan and the critical role the hygienist plays in providing responder force protection in a major incident. As a digital conference, I was offered the choice of pre-recording or presenting live on the day. I opted for pre re-record as that left me free to answer questions as they appeared in the chat box but also meant I was not reliant on my home internet connection behaving. Pre-recording also meant that all the hard work was done and I could enjoy the day. And hard work it certainly was! In the last couple of years I have presented at ILEVE and CIEH events, but I must admit I found recording on webcam much harder. Talking at a camera for 20 minutes without fluffing the lines is much harder than it looks and the repeated attempts was actually quite exhausting. On watching back my first attempt I realised I was rotating from side to side on my office chair, so switched to a dining room chair to stop myself moving about!

As I had not done much public speaking since leaving the RAF in 2012, I was keen to get back into it and to raise my profile particularly since becoming Chartered. Speaking at OH2020 was a perfect way to achieve this and having missed the deadline to volunteer for 2019, I made sure I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t miss it this year.

Whilst it was hard work, it was also rewarding to be part of the presenting team. I really would like to encourage all hygienists reading this article that have not presented previously to volunteer for future events. We all do important work across the whole spectrum of industry

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

therefore we all have something beneficial to share. Also, hearing from hygienists at different stages in their careers and from different parts of the UK (and further afield) is what makes attending a rewarding learning experience. The 5 minute long Ignite sessions are perfect to gain experience or if you want to deliver a shorter session on a topic. I look forward to hearing from more new presenters next year and beyond, so please get in touch with the BOHS conference organising committee conferences@bohs.org to find out how to take part.

I really would like to encourage all hygienists reading this article that have not presented previously to volunteer for future events. 7

PERSONAL SAMPLING: THE START OF A NEW ERA?

AUTHORS: SAMANTHA HALL1, ADAM CLARKE1, RICHARD KAYE2, PRAMUKH JAYASEKERA3 AND PAUL KAYE2 1 HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE, SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, HARPUR HILL, BUXTON, SK17 9JN 2 SCHOOL OF PHYSICS ENGINEERING & COMPUTER SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE, HATFIELD, AL10 9AB 3 DSTL, PORTON DOWN, SALISBURY, SP4 0JQ Measuring exposure to airborne hazards in the workplace is a common task undertaken by occupational hygienists, yet personal sampling techniques used in the UK have hardly changed in the last 60 years.

head attached by tubing to a pump which, it was suggested, could be ‘worn in the pocket of a laboratory coat or hip pocket of trousers’. This set-up is fundamentally still in use today, although the individual components have advanced.

Jerry Sherwood and Don Greenhalgh were the first to develop practical personal airborne sampling techniques, described in the second volume of the Annals of Occupational Hygiene in 1960 [1]. Their method included a sampling

The limitations of these traditional personal sampling techniques include the bulkiness of the pump, the opportunity for the connecting tubing to snag on items in the workplace, maintenance and costs. The “one day

survey” is still a common occurrence which presents many challenges for hygienists. Given that the majority of sites only have one survey per year, at most, the hygienist needs to make every second count. Time taken to set up the samplers and calibrate pumps is time that could be spent gathering contextual information, determining similarly exposed groups (SEGs), making observations and talking to workers, which are far more valuable than the exposure result.

BOHS.ORG

PERSONAL SAMPLING: THE START OF A NEW ERA? For sites and hygienists to take a positive approach to taking measurements to inform risk assessments the sampling technology needs to be quick and easy to set-up, affordable and accessible. Sampling devices, filter technology and associated analytical techniques also need to keep pace with ever decreasing exposure limits. High flow rates are becoming a regular requirement to gather more sample material in shorter sampling times and lower concentration environments so that detectable amounts are collected. Numerous advancements have been made including the development of all-in-one devices, filter media and simultaneous real-time monitoring. Small, lightweight samplers are more likely to achieve user acceptance. All-in-one sampling devices may provide these features and negate the need for tubing and a separate pump. However, there are disadvantages to the all-in-one devices. They are sometimes less able to cope with the high flow resistances produced by certain collection media, increased loading or the attachment of flow meters. Existing all-in-one samplers include the CIP10, which was originally developed to be robust and practical for use in coal mines and offers a higher flow rate than some, at ten litres per minute [2]. The sampler is based on the rotation of a foam which can collect the respirable, thoracic or inhalable fractions. Another example is the ultrasonic personal aerosol sampler [3] which claims the advantage of being ‘ready-togo’ out of the box. It measures PM2.5 to PM10 particulate sizes which do not allow for comparison with workplace exposure limits. The sampler also incorporates wireless connectivity through an app and has built-in sensors including GPS and automatic flow control. The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and the University of Hertfordshire have jointly developed a new all-in-one personal aerosol sampler,

the CPAS [4] that is small, lightweight and low-cost. The CPAS is designed to measure the inhalable fraction of airborne particles. The sampler flow rate can be calibrated prior to attending site and the device then automatically corrects for flow rate changes due to filter loading. The CPAS continuously records data on the sampling flow rate, sampling time, ambient temperature and relative humidity. Before any personal sampler is used to take measurements in the workplace, it is important that it is validated to make sure that it samples the expected healthrelated size fraction efficiently. The CPAS sampler is currently undergoing extensive evaluation at the Health and Safety Executive’s Science and Research Centre in Buxton. The sampler is being tested in calm air chambers and using a large dust tunnel. Its performance is being compared to that of the IOM sampler [5] and the inhalable sampling convention [6]. The samplers are being exposed to aluminium oxide powders of different sizes that span the inhalable size range.

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

The CPAS sampler is currently undergoing extensive evaluation at the Health and Safety Executive’s Science and Research Centre in Buxton. The sampler is being tested in caalm air chambers and using a large dust tunnel. Its performance is being compared to that of the IOM sampler

PERSONAL SAMPLING: THE START OF A NEW ERA?

Further to the laboratory-based performance assessment, there are other factors that should be considered to evaluate the effectiveness of a personal sampler. Some factors will only become apparent when a sampler is deployed in the workplace. Trialling new samplers by experienced occupational hygienists is therefore also important to highlight practical factors that are revealed in “real” circumstances. Dstl are interested to hear from occupational hygienists about which sampler features are deemed essential and about useful future developments. Please follow this link to a short survey if you’d like to contribute by sharing your views. It’s important that the UK is open and progressive in its approach to exposure assessment. HSE is currently in the

process of establishing a research project to investigate the use of sensor networks and wearable technology which could allow exposure to be mapped across sites, highlighting ‘hot-spots’ and focusing attention in the right place. This could be a game-changer for site risk assessment and occupational hygiene. The research will be carried out as a shared research project between HSE and industry sponsors. More details about the scope of the project, as well as how to take part, can be found on HSE’s website. Innovations incorporating optical particle counters (OPCs) with all-in-one samplers such as the CPAM, a variant of the above-mentioned CPAS where ‘M’ indicates real-time aerosol concentration monitoring, could have a huge impact on the occupational hygiene profession. Hygienists must use their experience

HSE is currently in the process of establishing a research project to investigate the use of sensor networks and wearable technology which could allow exposure to be mapped across sites...

BOHS.ORG

LEE HEFFERNAN to anticipate activities that could carry an increased exposure risk whilst also ascertaining when they are taking place. Often on large sites this presents a serious challenge, and it is commonplace to stumble across an activity of concern by chance. Having an indication of all your samples, and their real-time concentrations linked to a smart device would be invaluable and direct the hygienists to the areas of concern immediately, ensuring the exposure scenario can be identified, observed and mitigated. It is essential that we do not forget about our own health, safety and wellbeing. Adopting small simple all-inone air sampling devices will eliminate the days of handling heavy sampling equipment, reduce stress from time consuming pre and post calibrations and improve worker acceptance and engagement.

and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy. ©Crown Copyright, Health and Safety Executive 2020 REFERENCES: 1. Sherwood RJ, Greenhalgh DMS. (1960) Apersonal air sampler. Ann Occup Hyg; 2: 127–32. 2. https://www.tecora.com/en/produit/ individual-dust-sampler-cip10/ 3. https://www.a1-cbiss.com/ultrasonicpersonal-air-sampler-upas.html 4. UK Patent GB 2560611, date of Publication- 17/06/20

It is essential that we do not forget about our own health, safety and wellbeing. Adopting small simple all-in-one air sampling devices will eliminate the days of handling heavy sampling equipment...

5. https://www.skcltd.com/products2/ sampling-heads/iom-sampler.html 6. BS EN 481:1993 Workplace atmospheres

This publication and the work it describes were co-funded by Dstl and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions

— Size fraction definitions for measurement of airborne particles

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

HISTORY OF BRITISH OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE PART 11

KEEPING UP WITH A CHANGING WORLD

The struggle to stop the working environment killing the workers has been an ever-changing one, as industry and society has changed, and technology has provided more solutions as well as more problems.

3000

>55%

39 - 55%

<30%

2500 1994

1996

2000 1500 1000 500

E. An gl an d

M id la nd s SW En gl an d

W al es

0 Yo rk sh ire NE & Cu m br ia N. Ire la nd

At that date the occupational hygiene principles of control of substances, which Thomas Legge had spelt out in 1912, were finally brought into British law, and at that time too there were big changes in the profession of hygiene – but that will be discussed in the final part. Meanwhile this article summarises how some of the great changes of the last 30 years of the 20th century affected our field.

Percent reduction

La nc as hi re SE En gl an d W M id la nd s Sc ot la nd

We are nearing the end of this long look at how occupational hygiene has developed in Britain in the past 300 years. The struggle to stop the working environment killing the workers has been an ever-changing one, as industry and society has changed, and technology has provided more solutions as well as more problems. I have decided to end this account at about 2002-3, but as will be seen later that is a very rough date because some topics do not fit it neatly.

3500

Number employed (thousands)

In part 11 of his look at topics in the history of British occupational hygiene, Trevor Ogden reviews some of the great changes of the last 50 years for hygienists and their clients.

BY DR TREVOR OGDEN

Fig 1. The reduction of employment in manufacturing in different parts of Britain between 1966 and 1994. Figures from Cunliffe et al, The Penguin Illustrated History of Britain and Ireland (2004)

The changing workplace Ted Hatch, the American industrial hygiene pioneer who had been born in 1901, listened to some presentations at BOHS’s 5th Inhaled Particles conference in 1980, and is said to have commented, “In my day we counted bodies. Now they worry about chromosomes.” The other people present in 1980 were conscious of different changes that were happening. The founders of BOHS in 1953 had in general been linked with big industries – manufacture and mining in particular – or with government bodies regulating those industries, or with universities training people who would expect to make careers in them. By the time those new graduates retired, British employment had changed vastly. In 1971, about 300,000 people worked in coal mining – down from 600,000 a decade earlier – and 320,000 in steel processing. By 2020, those figures were

down to 1000 and 24,000. In contrast, the four big supermarket chains now employ 780,000. Manufacturing was still a substantial employer, but the number of employees fell from 9.5 million in 1966 to 4.3 million in 1994 (Fig 1). There had been a massive shift to service industries and smaller companies, and the users of occupational hygiene services had changed.

The legislative environment The legislative environment also changed out of all recognition. The main organs of health and safety law had been the succession of Factory Acts, which were supported by probably hundreds of sets of regulations spelling out required controls for particular workplaces or activities. Despite that, there were many areas of employment not covered by those laws. This changed in 1974, when the Health and Safety at Work Act made it “the duty of every employer to ensure,

BOHS.ORG

HISTORY OF BRITISH OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE PART 9

In more specific regulations, there was a major change in emphasis (Table 1). Employers became responsible for properly assessing exposure (lead 1980, asbestos 1987, and noise 1989), or more generally risk (COSHH 1988, MHSAW 1992), and the controls required depended on the risk. This approach largely replaced the forest of Factories Act regulations and orders laying down detailed requirements - the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 revoked

1400 1200 1000 Number of members

so far as if reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all his employeesâ&#x20AC;? and to similarly ensure that members of the public were not exposed to risks. The onus was therefore now on every employer, not just those in the restricted range of businesses covered by the Factories Acts. There was a general shift from specified control measures to performance standards. The system was overseen by the Health and Safety Commission, with representatives of employers and employees and other interests, supported by a system of advisory committees, also tripartite, and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The duties of every employer led to concern for occupational hygiene, and growth in BOHS membership (Fig.2).

800 600 400 200 0 1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Fig 1. BOHS Individual membership. The effect of the Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974 is clear â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the membership doubled between 1971 and 1977.

all or part of 24 earlier measures, and COSHH 1988 similarly dealt with 50. In 1986 the European Community adopted the Single European Act, which brought about measures to implement a Single Market between the Member States. One of the results was the 1989 occupational safety and health Framework Directive. Since then the twenty individual

directives implemented within this framework have dominated British legislation affecting occupational hygiene. Some of these are listed in Table 1. Table 1. Some important regulatory changes affecting British occupational hygiene 1974-2002. The following years saw further measures implemented, notably to implement directives on physical agents.

Measure

Some of the Occupational Hygiene Impact

HSE organisation from 1974

Team of specialist inspectors. Occupational Medicine and Hygiene Laboratories. Regional laboratories. Mines and Quarries inspectors brought into HSE.

Advisory Committee on Asbestos 1st Report, 1977

Recommended quality control scheme

Advisory Committee on Asbestos Final Report, 1979

Control Limit based primarily on reasonably practicable exposure rather than risk

Control of Lead at Work Regs, 1980, and Control of Asbestos at Work Regs 1987

Required exposure assessment, monitoring, and various control measures

Single European Act 1987

Laid down programme towards the Single Market, including reform of EU legislative processes. Led to the 1989 OS&H Framework Directive, and by 2013 to 20 individual directives

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regs 1988

Assessment of risks and necessary controls, and use of controls; Introduced Maximum Exposure Limits (MELs) and Occupational Exposure Standards (OESs)

Noise at Work Regulations 1989

Exposure assessment, limits, action levels, and controls

Management of H&SAW Regulations, 1992 (revised 1999)

Required risk assessment

Workplace (HS&W) Regs 1992

Ventilation, cleanliness, lighting, etc

Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992

Employers must provide suitable PPE unless control is by other means

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992

Risk assessment, and avoidance of risk of injury where reasonably practicable

H&S (Display Screen Equipment Regs 1992

Assessment and reduction of risks at workstations

European Standard EN 481:1995

Inhalable and respirable particulate definitions

COSHH Regulations 2002

Hierarchy of control measures (following their appearance in the Chemical Agents Directive, 1998). Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs)

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

HISTORY OF BRITISH OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE PART 11 Although this account stops at about 2002, other directives came after that, notably on noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields, and optical radiation.

HSE expertise Within HSE, a specialist occupational hygiene unit had been established in the Factory Inspectorate under Stuart Luxon (President of BOHS in 1971). By the mid 1970s, the leader of this team was Stan Silk (President, 1980), although his inspectors still generally regarded themselves as chemical or engineering inspectors rather than occupational hygienists. Their skills were needed not only for investigations and the development of regulation and guidance and support of enforcement, but expertise in assessing what limits of exposure were really reasonably practicable.

The shift to proper assessment and proportionate control obviously gave importance to occupational hygiene skills, but who should exercise them? At the 1976 BOHS Annual Conference, Bill Simpson, Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, used his after-dinner speech to say that HSC had decided against requiring specific qualifications in health and safety work.

Before 1974, the Factory Inspectorate had a small laboratory in London, but in HSE this greatly expanded to meet the needs for in-house capability, and research on better methods of measurement and control. Organisationally, the laboratories were integrated with the occupational hygiene side of the Safety In Mines Research Establishment in Sheffield. As EU activity grew in workplace health, HSE specialist staff were required to negotiate and improve European measures, which increasingly influenced British legislation.

The struggle for quality – for consultants The shift to proper assessment and proportionate control obviously gave importance to occupational hygiene skills, but who should exercise them? At the 1976 BOHS Annual Conference, Bill Simpson, Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, used his after-dinner speech to say that HSC had decided against requiring specific qualifications in health and safety work. (I was on the top table that year and gathered that BOHS had hoped for a role for the British Examining Board in Occupational Hygiene (BEBOH) – see Part 10 of this series.) This was clearly easier for employers where the health and safety problems were trivial or the solutions were obvious, but as legislation grew, so, apparently, did the number of unscrupulous or incompetent people willing to take employers’ money to give them bad advice, sometimes requiring unnecessary action, but often failing to identify problems or solutions. This obviously wasted resources and weakened the position of competent consultants, and no doubt often cost the good health of employees. Examples are seldom published, but in the course of a review of rubber fume and rubber process dust Abid Dost and an HSE team looked at occupational hygiene reports for the British rubber industry, and found a lack of essential information on sampling and analysis, frequently ill-conceived sampling strategy, measurement of the wrong substance, inappropriate advice, and misrepresentation of control requirements.

In 2010 the government commissioned a review by Lord Young of “the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture”. The emphasis, as the Prime Minister David Cameron put it in the Foreword to the report, was to help businesses “drowned in red tape, confusion and the fear of being sued for even minor accidents”, and there was no hint that the same businesses were responsible for thousands of deaths and perhaps hundreds of thousands of cases of illness every year. However, one outcome with the potential to help the quality problem was a “requirement that all consultants should be accredited to professional bodies”, and that they should be listed in “a web based directory of accredited health and safety consultants.” This had the prospect of correcting HSC’s decision 34 years previously. But once on the list a consultant can claim the area of expertise they choose, and there is then no specific test of occupational hygiene competence, so the quality problem was not solved. In his 2016 Manchester University MSc dissertation, David Marsh presented more jaw-dropping stories of consultant incompetence. And even if a consultant’s qualifications are appropriate, there is still a problem for professional associations in adequately testing and policing competence to make sure that the qualifications deliver what they claim.

The struggle for quality – for laboratories Perhaps it Is not too surprising that hygienists differ in their judgement, but they might hope that the analyses that they depend on should be reliable. Occupational exposure limits were originally intended as guides to trained professionals, who would be able to use judgement and experience in interpreting the results. As compliance with the numbers became a legal necessity, everyone expected that the numbers were right. Unfortunately when measurements were checked, it was sometimes found that the confidence was misplaced . Standardisation of methods helped, but was often insufficient.

BOHS.ORG

HISTORY OF BRITISH OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE PART 9 This is especially true of optical counting methods, and in the days when coal-mine air quality was judged by the counting of thermal precipitator slides, the National Coal Board had an elaborate system of interlaboratory comparisons. As the membrane filter method of measuring asbestos spread in the 1970s, the problem was rediscovered, and as concern grew about the health effects of asbestos exposure, the lamentable state of measurement accuracy became a major problem. The Regular Interlaboratory Counting Exchange (RICE) scheme became available to all laboratories in 1984, and the results showed that the asbestos exposure limits had little objective meaning. Different laboratories showed systematic differences of a factor of ten, or a factor of a hundred on individual samples. Participation in the scheme rapidly resulted in improvement, but a quarterly voluntary check was insufficient to ensure daily good performance, and eventually, in the 1990s, regulations required asbestos laboratories and then asbestos surveyors to be accredited by what is now UKAS. There was already a blood-lead interlaboratory exchange scheme operating in the 1970s, and gradually the tests spread to other analytes. It led to nasty surprises, and a common response was: “I have been measuring this substance for many years; your scheme says that my results are inaccurate; what is wrong with your scheme?” I saw a letter from one respected but aggrieved senior hygienist to other laboratories, telling them how to cheat at RICE, but I do not know if the letter was actually sent. In the end the scheme improved and became accepted.

A golden era? Looking back, we can see that the fifteen years following the Health and Safety at Work Act led to important technical developments in British occupational hygiene, and input into standards, which had worldwide effects (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Two important British developments of the 1970s which had an international impact. (a) The Airstream dust helmet, developed at HSE’s Sheffield laboratories under the direction of George Greenough, incorporated head protection, a visor, and a powered respirator. It could also carry a lamp. Air is drawn in behind the head and filtered, and then passed down in front of the face. (Crown Copyright 1980; Open Government Licence) (b) The Walton-Beckett eyepiece graticule, developed at the Institute of Occupational Medicine, greatly improved the ease and accuracy of asbestos counting, and was soon specified worldwide .

By the end of that period, there was a much more critical attitude to the finance of applied research, and perhaps there was an unspoken attitude in some quarters that the worker was protected enough and there should be more emphasis on economic development. Also, the impact of regulations whose main purpose was to reduce accidents led to public disenchantment with “health and safety”, and perhaps this affected willingness to spend to on the much bigger problem of occupational disease. The decline of large manufacturing and extractive industries led to a decrease by them in research into their own health problems. However, perhaps as the emphasis on research decreased the profession of occupational hygiene was gaining more confidence, and at last more influence. The final part of this story will illustrate some of these changes.+

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. This part of the story would have been much weaker without comments and contributions from colleagues: Peter Hewitt, David Marsh, Mark Piney,and James Sanderson. Any remaining errors are my fault. A versionof this article with sources given is at https://tinyurl.com/y23zs3e4

RESEARCHED ESSAY BY MARY CAMERON BSC LFOH CERTOH

DISCUSS THE ROLE AND RELEVANT IMPORTANCE OF MEASURED VIBRATION LEVELS AND MANUFACTURERS’ DATA IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPOSURE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAMME TO REDUCE EXPOSURE TO HAND ARM VIBRATION A RESEARCHED ESSAY BY MARY CAMERON BSC LFOH CERTOH REVISION DATED: APRIL 2020

Employers are required to protect their employees against the risk to their health and safety arising from exposure to vibration at work. Estimating this risk and preventing unacceptable exposure to hand arm vibration (HAV) is crucial to avoid adverse health effects. The employer must choose the most suitable method for assessing HAV exposure based on their particular circumstances while understanding the benefits and limitations of that method. The most important action an employer can take is to focus on HAV exposure control and the principle of ALARP (reducing exposure to as low a level as is reasonably practicable as per the Control of Vibration at Work (CVW) Regulations 2005). The work process should be designed so as to avoid HAV exposure from the outset. If the process was not designed as such initially, this may result in a subsequent restructuring of the work process or carefully managing exposure which cannot be reasonably reduced any further through controls. Understanding the risk and assessing

exposure may require (some or all as follows, depending on the circumstance) observing specific working practices, the use of personal dosimeters, applying Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advice, referring to relevant information on the probable vibration magnitude (e.g. tool manufacturer’s data), and, if necessary, measuring the magnitude of vibration to which the employees may be exposed (e.g. on-site monitoring of actual tool usage). Measured vibration levels play a role in the HAV risk assessment by allowing the employer to understand the magnitude of which their employees are exposed to vibration under the actual condition of tool use. On-tool measurements can usually give more accurate data based on tool use within a particular process. As opposed to the manufacturer’s tool vibration data which is derived based on specific circumstances of application under laboratory conditions. But as with any assessment method, there are limitations. On-tool measurements rely on the operator to demonstrate

Measured vibration levels play a role in the HAV risk assessment by allowing the employer to understand the magnitude of which their employees are exposed to vibration under the actual condition of tool use.

BOHS.ORG

RESEARCHED ESSAY BY MARY CAMERON BSC LFOH CERTOH

XXXX

‘typical’ use which may vary from day to day or person to person e.g. hand placement onto tool, tool age, when the tool last underwent maintenance, various tool heads, accessories or power settings, various materials being worked on, only part of the process was able to be demonstrated at the time, particular operatives’ application styles, etc. The ‘fuzzy numbers’ produced from an on-tool vibration assessment should be treated with caution, should measurement data have been gathered in a situation not reasonably representative of ‘typical’ exposure. And for this reason it must also be assured that a competent person, such as a qualified occupational hygienist, is employed to conduct the vibration monitoring as this person will be better able to gauge what the typical process conditions are and take into account any variables.

those conditions stated under the manufacturer’s information sheet were, for the most part, comparable to the manufacturer’s vibration data. Although variations were seen (the manufacturer’s data over-estimating in some cases) the differences were likely due to differing push forces, test subject’s size or posture, angles of tool application or the exact types of materials in use. This demonstrates

that it is difficult to come across real-life situations of tool use which precisely reflect laboratory conditions of testing. This notion is backed by several HSE research reports which revealed in many cases a low-rate of verification for the testing standard (EN 60745). The reasons included a lack of precise specification of the dimensions and design of the test bit, drilling into new concrete blocks vs weathered/aged

From my own practical experience when using a BOSCH Sander and Drill, I found that on-tool vibration measurements during conditions of use relatable to

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

RESEARCHED ESSAY BY MARY CAMERON BSC LFOH CERTOH

Measured vibration levels conducted on-site are important for obtaining more accurate data of site-specific exposure. This may be needed when it cannot be reasoned that the manufacturer’s data... concrete blocks, pendulum settings, the manufacturers’ data were based on earlier test codes, poor clarity about how the machine/tool should be used, push forces in the test codes being unnecessarily high, etc. (HSL, RR868 p.6, RR879 p.4, RR754 p.6, RR717 p.8, 20092011). The employer should thus be wary of the variability of the laboratory test data for these reasons Research which involves HAV emissions testing largely promotes the application of site-specific on-tool measurement data and cautions against the use of manufacturer’s data. Stating that the test data obtained from different laboratories may vary greatly, as measured vibrations have been shown to vary with the subject’s physical size and with the magnitude of applied hand forces. Difficulties in fabricating a durable mechanism that provides consistent tool loading may also contribute to interlaboratory variances (McDowell et al., An Evaluation of Impact Wrench Vibration Emissions and Test Methods, 2007, p.126). Vibration emissions measured in the laboratory are unlikely to be fully representative of those in the workplace. Therefore, for final tool selections and for reliably assessing workplace vibration exposures, vibration measurements should be collected under actual working conditions (McDowell et al., Comparing Three Methods for Evaluating Impact Wrench Vibration Emissions, 2009, p.617). The HSE is also aware that some standardised test methods may not be representative of the tool’s vibration risk. HSE guidance cautions that vibration test codes tend to under-estimate the vibration of tools when used in the workplace (by a factor of 1.5 to 2 for pneumatic and electric tools). This being said, the manufacturer’s data must still be considered, as stated under the CVW Regulations. The HAV risk

assessment should include consideration of any relevant information provided by the manufacturers of work equipment. The Machinery Directive requires machine manufacturers to provide information on vibration emissions at the hand (which values are obtained from harmonised European vibration test codes) thereby highlighting any ‘residual risk’ associated with the machinery due to shortcomings of the protective measures adopted by the manufacturer. Declared emission values allow purchasers to compare machines tested to the same standardised test code. The emission values can show when there are large differences between machines, so that high-vibration tools can be avoided (EU, Good Practice Guide HAV, 2006, p.15). Although the manufacturer’s data is largely cautioned against, the need for the manufacturer to provide details on residual risk is statutory and so stands. It does though serve a purpose in providing a ball-park figure of the tool’s vibration level in order to direct the employer in purchasing low-vibration tools from the outset. The employer may therefore use this information for tool comparison purposes especially at purchasing stage.

Measured vibration levels conducted on-site are important for obtaining more accurate data of site-specific exposure. This may be needed when it cannot be reasoned that the manufacturer’s data (or other reliable data resources e.g. the HSE hand-arm vibration exposure calculator tool, Operc or Havtec databases) is representative of exposure from actual tool use in a particular process. Since the declared vibration emission level normally only represents the main applications of the tool, any tool use outside of its ‘main applications’ may significantly increase the exposure level over the total working period. The HSE’s standpoint is that should it be reasonable to expect that the manufacturer’s data is representative of the range of exposure which may be experienced on-site (i.e. the process and testing conditions are similar) then this data may be applied for the purposes of a preliminary assessment of exposure, in lieu of on-tool vibration measurements (where a specialist may not be readily available to attend site). The emphasis should be placed on ensuring that the vibration magnitude data in use (however sourced) is reasonably true to the situation on-site. However, a strong argument for the use of on-tool measurement data is the expectation that it should be the tool in use to do the job under assessment. This is what the HSE expect to see when measurements have been undertaken. But as long as the employer has sourced the general range of the tool’s expected vibration magnitude in that process then either method (manufacturer’s data or on-tool measurement) can provide the information needed to sufficiently assess the risk and base controls around. Occupational ill-health court cases are typically concerned with the employer’s lack of appropriate actions to control exposure, not whether or not on-tool vibration measurements have

BOHS.ORG

RESEARCHED ESSAY BY MARY CAMERON BSC LFOH CERTOH been taken. So the employer should focus their resources on risk reduction actions rather than unnecessarily hiring in a specialist to undertake the on-tool vibration measurements and subsequent reporting. It comes down to a cost/ benefit analysis: would the money and resources spent on monitoring (which is not required by the HSE) be better spent on improving processes and equipment? (Wilson, P., 2019). This being said, I have found in my experience that it often cannot be reasoned that the manufacturer’s data is representative of exposure from actual tool use on-site. As an example, I recently attended a train maintenance depot to perform on-site testing of vibrating tools (with various blades and power settings) which were used to cut into a polyurethane sealant for removal of damaged train windows. Prior to my visit, the employer had set a 30 minute limit of total tool usage per person per shift based on the manufacturer’s data for these tools (stating a magnitude of 10 ms-2) to achieve a HAV exposure at

the Exposure Action Value (EAV) of 2.5 ms-2 A(8). My findings when assessing these tools under various conditions of use found that the average vibration magnitudes were two to three folds higher than stated by the manufacturer. This indicated that daily exposure is likely to exceed the Exposure Limit Value (ELV) of 5.0 ms-2 A(8) if the tools are used for 30 minutes total per day. In this case, the employer had become reliant on the validity of the manufacturer’s vibration data (by incorrectly assuming that conditions of tool use on site were similar enough to the laboratory test conditions) and this resulted in overexposure even from restricted usage time. My client’s approach was not correct from the get-go in that one should not ‘work up to the limit’ but must apply an ALARP approach in all cases of HAV exposure. Based on my on-tool measurements, even with just 10 minutes of tool use per day, the EAV would be approached or exceeded. Therefore time limitation on these tools was not a practicable solution to

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

Occupational illhealth court cases are typically concerned with the employer’s lack of appropriate actions to control exposure, not whether or not on-tool vibration measurements have been taken. So the employer should focus their resources on risk reduction actions rather than unnecessarily hiring in a specialist...

RESEARCHED ESSAY BY MARY CAMERON BSC LFOH CERTOH reducing exposure to an acceptable level and alternative means of exposure reduction needed to be considered. For example, alternative means of window removal such as grasping tools to pull the sealant out, seek low-vibration tool alternatives or adaptions, use of non-vibrating tools to cut out the sealant, breaking a portion of the glass to relieve pressure along the edges prior to cutting with vibrating tools, or seek advice from specialist window removal companies. So, as I have seen, the manufacturer’s data can be misunderstood and misused by the employer. On a contrary note, there is no legal requirement to undertake on-tool measurements or monitoring of vibration. The CVW regulations direct the employer to assess daily exposure to vibration and if necessary measure the magnitude of vibration to which employees are likely to be exposed. But from my experience with an array of site managers where I have discovered situations similar to this example, I would recommend that it is necessary to undertake on-tool vibration measurements in most cases.

REFERENCES:

...the manufacturer’s data can be misunderstood and misused by the employer. On a contrary note, there is no legal requirement to undertake on-tool measurements or monitoring of vibration.

1. ISVR, HSL, BGIA, INRS, and HSE under the supervision of The Working Party “Vibration” mandated by the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work in cooperation with the European Commission (2006). Guide to good practice on HandArm Vibration, Non-binding guide to good practice with a view to implementation of Directive 2002/44/EC on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibrations). Edition V7.7. [PDF]. European Union, page 15. Available at: http://resource.isvr.soton. ac.uk/HRV/VIBGUIDE/HAV%20Good%20 practice%20Guide%20V7.7%20English%20 260506.pdf [Accessed March 2019]. McDowell, T., Dong, R., Xu, X., Welcome, D., Warren, C., (2007). An Evaluation of Impact Wrench Vibration Emissions and Test Methods. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Volume 52, Issue 2, March 2008. [PDF] Morgantown, USA: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), NIOSH Health Effects Lab, page 126. Available at: https://academic.oup. com/annweh/article/52/2/125/278857

On-tool measured vibration data can give ‘fuzzy numbers’ and the manufacturer’s data may be unreliable. Should it be determined that it is not suitable in that particular process to apply the manufacturer’s data then on-tool measurements of vibration may be required to ensure that the residual risk of vibration exposure is being appropriately managed. And visa versa, should it be determined that on-tool measurements are not necessarily required and the manufacturer’s data is suitable. Although on-tool measurements may be more accurate, arguably if both data sources were to produce the same general range of vibration magnitudes then the subsequent controls would be the same. With both data sources having their limitations though, employers should recognize these limitations, choose the most appropriate method, and focus on understanding the level of risk through a ‘soundly based estimate’ of daily exposure. The employer must determine (through observation over a representative period) which tasks expose workers to vibration, who is

[Accessed February 2020]. 2. McDowell, T., Marcotte, P., Warren, C., Welcome, D., Dong, R., (2009). Comparing Three Methods for Evaluating Impact Wrench Vibration Emissions. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Volume 53, Issue 6, August 2009,. [PDF] Morgantown, USA: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Effects Laboratory Division; Montre´al, Que´bec: Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauve´ en Sante´ et en

exposed, what tool they use and what for, and the total time they are in contact with the tool in operation i.e. a daily ‘trigger time’ estimate. At the same time, questioning if the principle of ALARP has been applied to the work process, if the EAV or ELV is likely to be exceeded, if the hierarchy of control has been adequately reflected in the current controls, or if modifications to the process are required. On completion of the risk assessment the employer must implement an appropriate HAV exposure reduction programme and monitor the effectiveness of the controls through the regular review of that risk assessment.

Se´curite´ du Travail, page 617. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/annweh/ search-results?page=1&q=Comparing%20 Three%20Methods%20for%20 Evaluating%20Impact%20Wrench%20 Vibration%20 3. Wilson, P., 2019. ASA Ruling: Wrist Mounted HAV Monitors Do Not Measure To The Standard … Not Suitable For Regulatory Risk Assessment... [online] Invc.com. Available at: http://www.invc. com/fact-wrist-mounted-hav-monitorsdo-not-comply-with-the-standard/ [Accessed March 2020].

BOHS.ORG

SUBSTANCE MANAGEMENT PROPOSED CHANGES

CHANGES PROPOSED BY EUROPE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CANCER-CAUSING SUBSTANCES The British Occupational Hygiene Society has been asked to respond to proposed changes to the employee protections that have been proposed by Europe. This has prompted further discussion in Head Officer and the Board of the legal ramifications of Brexit on OELs for carcinogens and mutagens. The additional protections against cancer causing agents, which will now not automatically benefit British workers after January 2021, have been proposed by the European Commission. It has recommended additional limits to exposure of workers to benzene, nickel and acrylonitrile; according to the European Commission, this would affect people working industries as diverse as car maintenance, through electronics manufacture and the fur and leather industry. According to the Commission, these substances cause a range of cancers, including breast cancer, brain and stomach cancers, as well as leukaemia and miscarriage. They have proposed an amendment to the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive requiring the distribution of recommendations for risk reduction through appropriate risk management measures, including reducing the Occupational Exposure Limits which set the levels beyond which employers should be criminally liable. BOHS is expressing concerns that since Brexit, UK guidance on these substances might not be informed by the latest research about cancer risks in humans. Published government guidance on acrylonitrile, for example, references the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), saying that acrylonitrile is only a possible human carcinogen. However, last year IARCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own expert committee stated that the evidence is now that it probably does causes cancer in men and women and has recommended work to formally raise its risk level. Nonetheless, this could take

IARC several years. The Commission has done this work already, using an expedited methodology for scientific review. While some members of BOHS have raised concerns about the new role of the Risk Assessment Committee in speedily setting OELs, the British Occupational Hygiene Society is using its membership of the newly formed European Platform on Occupational Hygiene (a consortium of health prevention professional bodies) to welcome the new research and legal limits for workers in Europe. It also joins IARC and fellow European Platform members in calling for Europe to do further work on the cancer-causing properties of metal cutting fluids. The Health and Safety Executive is yet to say whether the new Occupational Exposure Limits will be followed in the United Kingdom. Brexit has placed the UK in a confused legal position in relation of pending and prospective legal standards. By leaving Europe, there is now no binding legal obligation on the UK government to ensure the updating of legal standards for such exposures in the workplace. This means rules restricting exposure to cancer-causing substances might not always be updated in line with scientific discovery. That decision will be a question of priority and time given to it by government departments and be subject to consideration by the HSE as they review their Strategy under the leadership of a new Chair, former Minister, Sarah Newton. The situation means that employers and public bodies will need to be vigilant and keep up with the latest science, if they are not to fall foul of costly law-suits. More importantly, it means that there will be tremendous pressure on UKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s science and health infrastructure to keep up to date with global research and find practicable ways to prevent workers from contracting avoidable cancers

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

Some of the cancer-causing chemicals that the UK has accepted need further control might now no longer be subject to planned controls. The European Council agreed in 2019 to changes to an earlier list of controls for 13 cancer-causing substances. The UK agreed that limits needed to be put in place to protect workers, but argued for more time. There is now no guarantee that those safeguards will ever be in place. One of the substances is formaldehyde, which is widely used in the funeral industry to enable dignified burial. The government had argued that it would take until 2024 for the UK industry to protect funeral home workers from cancer-causing levels of the substance, delaying the implementation of the safeguards. Another area where Europe has proposed to make inroads in protecting workers relates to cytotoxic drugs, which are widely used by healthcare professionals and vets in cancer treatments. Whilst the COSHH Regulations already require that carcinogens (and mutagens) are controlled to as low as reasonably practicable below a limit value, the limit value itself is key in driving control improvement.

Brexit has placed the UK in a confused legal position in relation of pending and prospective legal standards. By leaving Europe, there is now no binding legal obligation on the UK government to ensure the updating of legal standards for such exposures in the workplace.

A TRIBUTE TO DAVID HICKISH

A TRUE ORIGINAL DAVID HICKISH AND THE FOUNDATION OF BOHS. In honour of David Hickish after the sad news of his passing, we take a look at the life and career of one of our former presidents and inaugural members. The initiative for the foundation of BOHS came from two other people who had recently done Masters’ training in occupational hygiene at Harvard. They were young engineering lecturers, David Hickish and Peter Isaac. . After graduation, David had done an electrical engineering apprenticeship, and then became an engineer with the Post Office. In 1949 he was appointed Lecturer in Industrial Hygiene at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. We do not know what his previous experience was that led to this, or what courses in the subject that the School was then offering. Whatever the background, David took up his Rockefeller Fellowship to study industrial hygiene at Harvard in 1951, and there met Peter Isaac, who had been a railway engineer but had become a public-health engineering lecturer at King’s College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (later to become Newcastle University).

A committee was formed ... and the inaugural meeting of what became BOHS was held on 27 April, 1953. at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine about forming a British association. Bedford was very supportive, and wrote to all those he knew working in the field. The result was a meeting at the School on 21 January 1953, attended by 37 people, all men, six of them from the Factories Inspectorate or its parent Government Department. A committee was formed to make the arrangements, and the inaugural meeting of what became BOHS was held at the School on 27 April, under the chairmanship of Tom Bedford, who was elected President.

Peter Isaac’s account was published in the BOHS history “The First Forty Years”, and was recently reproduced in Exposure , issue 6, 2019. They had the opportunity to visit industrial plants to see occupational hygiene at work, and the Annual Conference of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). On their return to Britain in 1952 Peter and David approached Tom Bedford, who was then head of the MRC Environmental Hygiene Research Unit

David Hickish in his BOHS presidential year (1967-8)

Peter Isaac became Secretary, and David Hickish Treasurer. By the end of June, BOHS had 49 members. Its first conference was held in November, opened by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and attended by the President of AIHA.

BOHS.ORG

SUBSTANCE MANAGEMENT PROPOSED CHANGES

AN INTERVIEW WITH

DAVID HICKISH

David Hickish, a founding member of BOHS sadly passed away this year. We held a 'Meet the Member' interview with him in 2013 that we wanted to rerun to honour and remember him by. David was present at the inaugural meeting of BOHS and has served as our President, as well as holding many other positions within the Society. David was also awarded the prestigious Bedford Award on its inception and became an Honorary Member in 1989.

Q: What was your last job title and which organisation did you work for?

Q: How long have you been a member of BOHS?

A: At retirement in 1989, I was Industrial Hygiene Specialist for Ford Motor Company Ltd.

A: I was at the inaugural meeting in 1953 and was appointed Honorary Treasurer and have since served as President and member of various committees.

Q: What A-Levels and first degree did you take? A: At retirement in 1989, I was Industrial Hygiene Specialist for Ford Motor Company Ltd.

Q: What A-Levels and first degree did you take? A: Maths, Physics, and Chemistry A-Levels, and a BScTech (Hons) in Electrical Engineering.

Q: What was your first job after you finished your full-time education? A: I entered a two-year college apprenticeship with MetropolitanVickers Electrical Company in Manchester and then joined their general engineering (industrial) department.

Q: When and why did you become interested in Occupational Hygiene? A: I later moved to London to the Engineering Chief’s office of the GPO and was allocated to the Heating and Ventilation Section, a subject I knew very little about and had to engage in selfeducation. Part of my duties involved investigating complaints about thermal conditions and I became aware of the booklet “Environmental Warmth and its Measurements” by Thomas Bedford, who later became the Society’s first president. Use of a globe thermometer and Kata thermometer were my introduction to occupational hygiene investigations.

Q: What further qualifications or honour do you hold? A: SM (Harvard) in Industrial Hygiene, PhD London, Honorary Fellowship of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians of London

Q: How has BOHS help you in your career? A: In 1953, in the UK, industrial hygiene was in its infancy as a profession and BOHS provided a forum for its embryo practitioners to get to know and to learn from each other. I have happy memories of GOPOH (The Group of Practicing Occupational Hygienists) who visited each other’s places of work and shared information and methodologies.

Q: How did you get your last job? A: When the Slough Occupational Hygiene Service came to an untimely end, I was headhunted by Ford.

Q: Describe a typical day at your job. A: As part of the central occupational health department, we were a point to which queries from management, plant, medical officers and trade unions would be addressed. We also played a significant role in defining company policy to comply with existing and proposed legislation. Plant surveys and investigations were often called for at short notice.

Q: What has been the most satisfying accomplishments of your career to date? A: In 1952, Peter Isaac and I attended the AIHA Conference in Cincinnati during our course at Harvard and were most impressed. On return to the UK, we sought the help of Thomas Bedford to initiate a similar organisation. The result was the inaugural meeting of BOHS. Today, as BOHD receives a

EXPOSURE #5 DECEMBER 2020 - the official magazine of BOHS

Royal Charter, I feel satisfaction in having helped sow the acorn from which a might oak has grown.

Q: What has been the worst experience of your career to date? A: At Easter 1964, I had to tell the enthusiastic team who were the staff of the pioneer Slough Occupational Hygiene Service that the venture was failing financially and was to be closed immediately and the staff and facilities dispersed. A dream shattered.

Q: What is your pet subject in occupational hygiene? A: I particularly enjoyed noise control and local exhaust ventilation. Also reviews of potential hygiene concerns in new plants and processes.

Q: What did you enjoy doing when not working? A: Spending time with the children and grandchildren and giving pastoral leadership in an evangelical church.

Q: Football or Rugby, and which team? A: Football, although I have never been to professional match. At the urging of a daughter and grandson, I give mental support to Leyton Orient.

Q: Cat or dog? A: I have never had a pet but prefer dogs. I’ve had good relationships with a yorkie and a Labrador in the homes of my daughters.

Q: Chocolate or cheese? A: I like both but eat more chocolate.

Q: Favourite book? A: The bible, the new international version.

Q: Where did you last go on holiday? A: Present circumstances limit any holiday plans, but my wife and I have had many very happy times in Taormina, Sicily, and Gardone Riviera, Italy.

Q: What was the last music album you bought? A: Guildford Cathedral Choir performing “The Crucifixion” by Stainer and “Olivet to Calvary” by Maunder.

QuantiďŹ t Respirator Fit Tester

A growing number of RPE wearers are now switching to reusable, half- or full-mask models, a more sustainable and environmentally friendly solution. Quantifit provides the most accurate and verifiable fit test for half- and full-face respirators on the market. It utilises simple air and controlled negative pressure to directly measure respirator leakage and, unlike other

Test indoors or outdoors

No sharing test masks

technologies, does not require consumables such as alcohol solutions, wicks and probes. If you would like to find out why UK government organisations, the emergency services, utility companies and many more businesses have already chosen to switch to Quantifit, contact the team at Shawcity to discuss your requirements.

Less cleaning & maintenance

No more consumables

1 minute daily calibration

QuantiCheck for a Daily Mask Seal Check NEW The QuantiCheck is the first quantitative user seal check device, available exclusively from Shawcity in the UK and Ireland.

Suitable for half- and full-face masks, QuantiCheck has interchangeable adapters for a wide range of mask manufacturers.

Once your respirator is fit tested, QuantiCheck can be used to provide a quantitative seal check each time the mask is donned.

Get in touch with Shawcity today to request a free QuantiCheck demonstration from one of our product specialists.

01367 899419 solutions@shawcity.co.uk

Exposure Magazine | Issue 5 2020

Articles inside

COVER FEATURE

Changes proposed by Europe to the management of cancercausing substances

A Researched Essay by Mary Cameron BSc LFOH CertOH

CEO's Column

Personal Sampling: the start of a new era?

President’s Column