Evaluating the impact of the Pilot Bristol Safety & Health Awareness ... · Evaluating the impact...

© Crown copyright 2006

Harpur Hill, BuxtonDerbyshire, SK17 9JN T: +44 (0)1298 218000 F: +44 (0)1298 218590 W: www.hsl.gov.uk

Project Leader: Rachel O’Hara

Authors: Rachel O’Hara, Tim Davies and Vince Sandys

Science Group: Human Factors

Evaluating the impact of the Pilot Bristol Safety & Health Awareness Day (SHAD)

on motor vehicle repair bodyshops’ control of health risks

HSL/2006/16

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the motor vehicle repair businesses that participated in this

evaluation. Thanks also to HSL colleague, Jane Hopkinson, for data entry.

iii

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1

2 Method ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Evaluation design .......................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Questionnaire design ..................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Data collection............................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 4

3 Results .................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 General Questions ......................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Management System ..................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Process and Engineering Control Strategy.................................................................... 8

3.4 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Strategy........................................................... 12

3.5 Work Organisation and Methods ................................................................................ 13

3.6 Health Surveillance ..................................................................................................... 14

3.7 SHAD Specific............................................................................................................ 16

3.8 Measurements and Assessments ................................................................................. 21

3.9 Other pertinent observations ....................................................................................... 21

4 Discussion........................................................................................................................... 23

5 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 25

6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 26

7 Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 27

7.1 Appendix 1: SHAD Impact Evaluation Form ............................................................. 27

7.2 Appendix 2: Field Scientist Evaluations: Scoring Criteria.......................................... 33

7.3 Appendix 3: Detailed Results from the SHAD Impact Evaluation Form ................... 34

7.4 Appendix 4: Details of actions & intended actions due to SHAD attendance ............ 45

8 References .......................................................................................................................... 53

iv

FIGURES

Figure 1: How confident are you that your company meets health and safety regulations on

controlling exposure to two-pack isocyanate-based paint? ................................................... 6

Figure 2: Does the company have sufficient knowledge of isocyanate health effects? ................ 7

Figure 3: Is suitable information, instruction, training and supervision provided?....................... 7

Figure 4: Is a suitable ventilated spray booth or space provided (under negative pressure)? ....... 8

Figure 5: Does the MVR business owner/manager know that the booth/spray space has a

‘clearance time’ and has it been assessed?............................................................................ 9

Figure 6: Are HPLV or otherwise ‘compliant’ sprayguns used and are suitable arrangements in

place for cleaning of spray guns?........................................................................................ 10

Figure 7: Are spray booths/spaces suitably maintained and maintenance records kept?............ 11

Figure 8: Type of suitable air fed RPE worn?............................................................................. 12

Figure 9: Are the various aspects of the air supply to RPE checked, tested and maintained: air

flow rate; air quality; filters and tubing; overall system?.................................................... 12

Figure 10: Is air-fed RPE worn at all times in spray booth/space during spraying and the spray

clearance period?................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 11: Does the business owner/manager know how isocyanate exposure can be measured

and has biological monitoring been carried out?................................................................. 14

Figure 12: Is suitable occupational health surveillance provided by a competent person and are

appropriate actions taken when results suggest (early) response to isocyanate is occurring.

............................................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 13: Field Scientist confidence rating that the measures taken since the SHAD have

improved exposure control? ................................................................................................ 19

Figure 14: Field Scientist rating of how likely it is that these control measures will be sustained?

............................................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 15: Field Scientist confidence rating that the intended measures will improve exposure

control?................................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 16: Field Scientist rating of how likely it is that the company will carry out the intended

control measures?................................................................................................................ 20

v

TABLES

Table 1: Number of sprayers in each of the 38 organisations visited ........................................... 4

Table 2: Changes/improvements in the management system attributed to attending the Bristol

SHAD? .................................................................................................................................. 8

Table 3: Changes/improvements in the process and engineering control strategy attributed to

attending the Bristol SHAD?............................................................................................... 11

Table 4: Changes/improvements in PPE strategy attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?.... 13

Table 5: Changes/improvements in work organisation and methods attributed to attending the

Bristol SHAD? .................................................................................................................... 14

Table 6: Changes/improvements in health surveillance attributed to attending the Bristol

SHAD? ................................................................................................................................ 16

Table 7: Measurements and assessments carried out by HSL Field Scientists ........................... 21

Table A1: Did the person interviewed attend the Bristol SHAD? .............................................. 34

Table A2: How confident are you that your company meets health and safety regulations on

controlling exposure to two-pack isocyanate-based paint? ................................................. 34

Table A3: Has the business used the Action Plan provided at the SHAD? ................................ 34

Table A4: Does the company have sufficient knowledge of isocyanate health effects?............. 34

Table A5: Knowledge of isocyanate health effects: It causes Occupational Asthma ................. 34

Table A6: Knowledge of isocyanate health effects: Signs & Symptoms (e.g. chest tightening,

wheezing, coughing)?.......................................................................................................... 35

Table A7: Is suitable information, instruction, training and supervision provided? ................... 35

Table A8: Health effects have been explained:........................................................................... 35

Table A9: Control measures have been explained: Use of air fed BA allowing for clearance time

............................................................................................................................................. 35

Table A10: Control measures have been explained: Exposure measurement (annually) ........... 35

Table A11: Control measures have been explained: Health Surveillance .................................. 35

Table A12: Supervisor has also been trained: ............................................................................. 36

Table A13: Changes/improvements in the management system attributed to attending the Bristol

SHAD? ................................................................................................................................ 36

Table A14: Is a suitable ventilated spray booth provided (under negative pressure)?................ 36

Table A15: Type of ventilated spray booth provided.................................................................. 36

Table A16: Is a suitable ventilated spray space provided (under negative pressure)? ................ 37

Table A17: Spray space: under negative pressure?..................................................................... 37

Table A18: Spray space: Exhaust air filtered and discharged at height? .................................... 37

Table A19: Does the MVR business owner/manager know that the booth/spray space has a

‘clearance time’? ................................................................................................................. 37

Table A20: Has the ‘clearance time’ of the booth/space been assessed?.................................... 37

Table A21: Are HPLV or otherwise ‘compliant’ sprayguns used?............................................. 37

vi

Table A22: Type of sprayguns used?.......................................................................................... 37

Table A23: Are suitable arrangements in place for cleaning of spray guns? .............................. 38

Table A24: Are suitable arrangements in place for paint mixing?.............................................. 38

Table A25: Are spray booths/spaces checked and maintained (routinely)?................................ 38

Table A26: Daily check on booth/space fabric (e.g. door seals, filter seating, manometer)....... 38

Table A27: Filters checked and changed based on e.g. booth run-time (other – describe)......... 38

Table A28: Automatic shut-down tested at least every six months ............................................ 38

Table A29: Are spray booths/spaces thoroughly examined at least every 14 months (specialist;

as per Reg 9)?...................................................................................................................... 39

Table A30: Are suitable test and maintenance records kept?...................................................... 39

Table A31: Simple recording including ‘Actions’ system is present and used........................... 39

Table A32: Are effective dust controls in place when dry flatting/sanding? .............................. 39

Table A33: Dust controls: Effective on-tool LEV?..................................................................... 39

Table A34: Dust controls: LEV of some description plus RPE? ................................................ 39

Table A35: Dust controls: Just RPE?.......................................................................................... 40

Table A36: Changes/improvements in the process and engineering control strategy attributed to

attending the Bristol SHAD?............................................................................................... 40

Table A37: Is suitable air fed RPE (respiratory protective equipment) worn? ........................... 40

Table A38: Is BA air-supply flow-rate checked and tested?....................................................... 40

Table A39: Air-fed device complies with standards ................................................................... 40

Table A40: Is the air quality checked and tested?....................................................................... 40

Table A41: Is the air quality checked and tested against a standard? ......................................... 41

Table A42: Is the air-supply system maintained? ....................................................................... 41

Table A43: Is BA in good physical condition? ........................................................................... 41

Table A44: Is BA stored in a clean area outside of the spray booth/room?................................ 41

Table A45: Are air -supply filters and tubing are checked and maintained? .............................. 41

Table A46: Are clean or disposable overalls worn together with suitable gloves?..................... 41

Table A47: Changes/improvements in PPE strategy attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?41

Table A48: Is all spraying conducted in the spray booth/space .................................................. 42

Table A49: Is air-fed RPE worn at all times in spray booth/space during spraying?.................. 42

Table A50: Is air-fed RPE worn at all times in spray booth/space during the spray clearance

period?................................................................................................................................. 42

Table A51: People can leave and enter booth/space during the clearance time as long as they do

it safely ................................................................................................................................ 42

Table A52: Is the air fed visor lifted to inspect the job during the booth/space ‘clearance time’42

Table A53: Do sprayers (and others who may enter) know how to leave and enter during the

‘clearance time’? i.e. go to pedestrian door, unplug air-supply and immediately leave and

visa-versa for entry.............................................................................................................. 42

vii

Table A54: Changes/improvements in work organisation and methods attributed to attending the

Bristol SHAD? .................................................................................................................... 43

Table A55: Does the business owner/manager know how isocyanate exposure can be measured

(biological monitoring)?...................................................................................................... 43

Table A56: Is effectiveness of isocyanate control measures shown by exposure measurement

(using biological monitoring as per Reg 10)? ..................................................................... 43

Table A57: Is suitable occupational health surveillance provided by a competent person

(questionnaire and lung function test at least annually) ? ................................................... 43

Table A58: Are appropriate actions taken when results suggest (early) response to isocyanate is

occurring?............................................................................................................................ 43

Table A59: Changes/improvements in health surveillance attributed to attending the Bristol

SHAD? ................................................................................................................................ 43

Table A60: Why has action not been taken yet? ......................................................................... 44

Table A61: Field Scientist confidence rating that the measures taken since the SHAD have

improved exposure control? ................................................................................................ 44

Table A62: Field Scientist rating of how likely it is that these control measures will be

sustained? ............................................................................................................................ 44

Table A63: Field Scientist rating of how likely it is that the company will carry out the intended

control measures?................................................................................................................ 44

Table A64 Field Scientist confidence rating that the measures to be taken will improve exposure

control?................................................................................................................................ 44

Table A65: Details of actions taken & intended actions prompted by SHAD attendance, & Field

Scientists’ evaluation of the extent to which the completed & intended actions will improve

exposure control. ................................................................................................................. 46

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OBJECTIVES

Isocyanate exposure is the biggest single known cause of occupational asthma in the UK and

vehicle paint sprayers are the work group at most risk. Specialist Occupational Hygiene

inspectors in HSE’s Field Operations Directorate (FOD) have set up a three year national

intervention project aimed at improving the control of isocyanate exposure in Motor Vehicle

Repair (MVR) by 2008, with a view to reducing the incidence of occupational asthma in this

sector. The programme consists of a series of safety and health awareness events (SHADs);

follow-up inspection visits; a programme of prioritised third-party influencing; and other

methods of increasing awareness.

Pilot SHADs were conducted in four regional locations (Cheshire, Bristol, Kilmarnock, Hitchin)

between October and December 2004. 94% of participants stated the intention to take action

within their business on at least one aspect of health and safety covered in the SHAD. To be

sure that the MVR programme is likely to have a real impact on exposure control measures HSE

needs to know what action SHAD attendees have actually taken within their respective

businesses.

The aim of this project was to quantitatively assess the practical impact of the Pilot MVR

bodyshop SHADs on isocyanate exposure control measures.

The project objectives were:

1. To select a large proportion of Bristol Pilot SHAD attendees for assessment and plan HSL

field scientist visits.

2. To arrange visits, solicit cooperation of MVR business and record findings (including any

measurements) on a standardised form.

3. To analyse findings and compare with previous analysis of the Pilot SHADs in order to

assess the degree of impact on exposure control measures and to compare with the reported

proportion of attendees stating an ‘intention to act’.

4. To prepare a project report.

METHOD

A longitudinal design entailed follow up visits to a cohort of Pilot SHAD attendees

approximately six months after the event. An Impact Evaluation Form was developed to assess

measures in place to control exposure to isocyanate paint and any changes or intended action

resulting from information received at the SHAD. HSL Occupational Hygiene Field Scientists

conducted follow up visits to 38 businesses that attended the Bristol SHAD.

Two of the MVR bodyshops visited no longer sprayed 2-pack isocyanate paint and the Field

Scientists did not undertake any further impact evaluation beyond establishing that both

companies had stopped spraying as a result of the SHAD. A total of 36 complete impact

evaluations were carried out.

MAIN FINDINGS

1. The overall findings indicate that exposure control measures have improved in over half

of the organisations that attended the Bristol Pilot SHAD.

ix

2. 78% (28) of the 36 MVR bodyshops assessed indicated they were 'confident' or 'very

confident’ that their company meets health and safety regulations on controlling exposure

to two-pack isocyanate-based paint.

3. 97% (35) of the 36 of the businesses assessed had either a suitably ventilated booth or

spray room, and 94% (34) had suitable air fed Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE).

The main form of RPE was air fed visors with a small number of companies using half

masks.

4. 35 (97%) of the businesses assessed were using HPLV sprayguns or otherwise

‘compliant’ sprayguns.

5. 27 (75%) of the owner/managers in the 36 MVR businesses knew that the booth/spray

space had a ‘clearance time’ and 13 businesses had assessed the ‘clearance time’ of the

booth/space with smoke.

6. Although 86% (31) of the interviewees knew that isocyanate exposure could be measured

by biological monitoring, only 11% (4) of the companies had actually assessed the

effectiveness of isocyanate control measures using biological monitoring.

7. 47% (17) of the companies assessed provided suitable occupational health surveillance.

8. 27 of the MVR bodyshops had taken action as a result of the SHAD, including two

premises that no longer did spraying. This equates to changes in 52% of the 52 MVR

bodyshops represented at the Bristol SHAD.

9. Of the 11 companies that had not taken any action as a result of the SHAD. Four of these

did not need to make any changes and 5 still intended to make changes. One company did

not intend to address necessary changes and was referred to a local Specialist Inspector.

10. Changes carried out included:

14 changed working practices (e.g. leaving booth, not lifting visor, use of PPE)

10 companies checked the spray booth/space clearance times using the smoke test

7 companies purchased new RPE (e.g. visor, mask)

7 companies changed gloves (e.g. to nitrile gloves)

5 companies conducted Health Surveillance

3 companies conducted Biological Monitoring

2 companies purchased a new booth

2 companies purchased new HPLV guns

2 companies purchased new dust LEV

11. Testing the clearance time of the spray booth/space was the second most common action

after changing working practices. This is consistent with findings from the evaluation of

the four Pilot SHADs, which showed that a high proportion of the intended actions noted

by participants at the end of the Bristol event included testing the clearance time (O’Hara,

2005).

12. It was considered that the measures taken in all 27 companies that had made changes

would have improved exposure control. For 26 of these companies it was considered that

the measures taken would be sustained.

x

13. 17 of the MVR bodyshops identified changes they intended to carry out. This equates to

intended changes in 33% of the 52 MVR bodyshops represented at the Bristol SHAD.

14. It was considered that the intended changes would improve exposure control measures to

some extent for all 17 companies though only 14 of the bodyshops were regarded as

likely to carry out the intended actions. Nine of these companies had already introduced

changes since the SHAD, whereas five had not. One of these five was part way through

implementing changes, including setting up a new booth.

15. If the intended actions were carried out, the number of MVR bodyshops making

improvements in exposure control as a result of the Bristol SHAD could increase to 61%

(32) of the organisations attending the event. However, Field Scientists rated one of the

five as ‘not likely’ to carry out the intended action and it should be noted that if

bodyshops have not started to take action within six months of the SHAD, the likelihood

of them making changes is quite limited.

16. Cost, time, and lack of information were all identified as reasons why intended changes

had not been carried out.

17. Interviewees were generally very positive in their comments about the SHAD indicating

that they found the event to be very informative, though it was suggested that it would

have been better to have a sprayer with occupational asthma instead of a welder.

18. Only four MVR businesses had used the Action Plan provided in the information packs

distributed to all attendees at the Bristol SHAD. 32 (89%) of the 36 businesses evaluated

had not used the action plan. It appears to have gone unnoticed or been forgotten amidst

all the other information provided.

19. The SHAD format and content has been revised for the 2005-2006 events, including the

addition of a session entitled ‘The Enforcer’, which was introduced in response to

requests from Pilot SHAD attendees to have information on health and safety regulations

and compliance. A follow up of 2005-2006 SHAD attendees can assess whether these

improvements have increased the SHADs impact in prompting action to improve

exposure control measures.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The evidence from this follow up evaluation of a Pilot SHAD shows that it has had

significant practical impact on isocyanate exposure control measures.

2. A follow up of those MVR bodyshops having made changes or intending to make

changes would establish the longer-term impact of the Bristol Pilot SHAD.

3. The impact evaluation form would benefit from minor revision, along with greater

guidance on its completion, to ensure transparency and consistency in recording evidence

and judgments.

4. The HSE project team should explore the options for more active promotion of the MVR

Bodyshop Action Plan amongst the SHAD attendees and the MVR bodyshop population

that do not attend the SHADs.

5. Evaluation of the practical impact of the revised SHADs held in 2005-2006 will help in

assessing the overall impact of the SHADs as part of the MVR intervention project.

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Over a thousand people contract occupational asthma each year in the UK. Amongst the agents

responsible, isocyanate exposure continues to be the most frequently reported cause accounting

for about 20% of the total (Piney, 2004). Two-pack paints containing isocyanates are used

extensively in motor vehicle repair (MVR) for repainting/refinishing vehicles, mainly in primers

and lacquers. Sprayed application produces the highest exposures and is one of the main causes

of occupational asthma. MVR paint sprayers have an 80 times higher risk of getting asthma

compared with the broader UK working population (HSE, 2005).

Specialist Occupational Hygiene inspectors in HSE’s Field Operations Directorate (FOD) set up

a three year intervention project across Great Britain, aimed at:

Improving standards of control of isocyanate exposure in MVR by 2008, with a view to

reducing the incidence of occupational asthma in this sector.

Improving the design of equipment, instruction, training, maintenance and advice to the

MVR sector on risk control.

The HSE MVR programme seeks to reduce the number of people contracting occupational

asthma in bodyshops by (at least) 20% by 2008. In practice the 20% reduction in risk will be

demonstrated by a clear improvement in isocyanate exposure control measures in 20% of MVR

bodyshops. The programme consists of a series of safety and health awareness events (SHADs);

follow-up inspection visits; a programme of prioritised third-party influencing; and other

methods of increasing awareness.

Pilot SHADs were conducted in four regional locations (Cheshire, Bristol, Kilmarnock, Hitchin)

between October and December 2004. Evaluation of these events demonstrated that they had

increased awareness of the risks from isocyanate paints and how these risks could be controlled

(O’Hara, 2005). 92% of participants stated that the event had improved their awareness of the

health risks associated with two-pack isocyanate paints and 94% stated the intention to take

action within their business on at least one aspect of health and safety covered in the SHAD. To

be sure that the MVR programme is likely to have a real impact on exposure control measures

HSE needs to know what action SHAD attendees have actually taken within their respective

businesses.

The aim of this project was to quantitatively assess the practical impact of the Pilot MVR

bodyshop SHADs on isocyanate exposure control measures.

The project objectives were:

1. To select a large proportion of Bristol Pilot SHAD attendees for assessment and plan HSL

field scientist visits.

2. To arrange visits, solicit cooperation of MVR business and record findings (including any

measurements) on a standardised form.

3. To analyse findings and compare with previous analysis of the Pilot SHADs in order to

assess the degree of impact on exposure control measures and to compare with the reported

proportion of attendees stating an ‘intention to act’.

4. To prepare a project report.

2

Section 2 of this report details the methodology employed in carrying out the work. Section 3

presents the results of the evaluation visits. The findings are discussed in section 4. Conclusions

and recommendations are provided in sections 5 and 6.

3

2 METHOD

2.1 EVALUATION DESIGN

A longitudinal design entailed follow up visits to a cohort of Pilot SHAD attendees

approximately six months after the event. HSL Occupational Hygiene Field Scientists

conducted follow up visits to businesses that attended the Bristol SHAD.

2.2 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

An Impact Evaluation Form was developed to assess measures in place to control exposure to

isocyanate paint and any changes or intended action resulting from information received at the

SHAD (see appendix 1). The design of the evaluation form was based on the documentation

used by HSE Inspectors on visits to MVR bodyshops that did not attend the SHADs - the ‘MVR

bodyshop 2-pack paint Risk Control Indicators (RCIs) criteria’ and the HSE MVR bodyshop

Inspection form’.

The format of the impact evaluation form was very similar to that of the RCI form in that it

included various topics and criteria against which the topics could be assessed. The evaluation

form comprised 9 topic areas:

1 General questions

2 Management system

3 Process and engineering control strategy

4 Personal protective equipment (PPE) strategy

5 Work organisation and methods

6 Health surveillance

7 Shad specific

8 Measurements and assessments

9 Any other pertinent observations

Additional guidance in the form of example answers was provided to ensure consistency in the

use of assessment criteria. The criteria questions and example answers were scored using a four-

point scale (yes; no; partially; n/a). A further category required Field Scientist to explore and

record changes in the various topics areas that were the result of SHAD attendance.

Four additional questions were designed to supplement the evaluation form. These questions

required the Field Scientists to provide confidence ratings in relation to the impact of measures,

taken or intended, on exposure control within each business. Details of the criteria used by the

Field Scientists to assign confidence ratings are provided in appendix 2.

2.3 DATA COLLECTION

A list of MVR businesses recorded as attending the Bristol SHAD was obtained from the local

HSE organisers. The list provided 52 company names and addresses; however, it was only

possible to locate 48 telephone numbers for the companies listed. HSL Field Scientists

contacted each company by telephone to arrange a follow-up visit. In making contact with the

MVR businesses Field Scientists emphasised their HSL research and advisory affiliations, and

that they were visiting to assess the quality and usefulness of the SHAD.

4

10 of the 48 companies were not visited for the following reasons:

The answer-phone was on continuously (2)

Said they were too busy until September (1)

Managers were never in (3)

SHAD attendees had left (3)

Said they did not attend the SHAD (1)

A total of 38 visits were conducted. Two of the MVR bodyshops visited no longer sprayed 2-

pack isocyanate paint. The Field Scientists did not undertake any further impact evaluation

beyond establishing that both companies had stopped spraying as a result of the SHAD. A total

of 36 complete impact evaluations were carried.

Table 1 provides details of the number of sprayers in each of the 36 businesses assessed.

Table 1: Number of sprayers in each of the 38 organisations visited

Number Percentage

Self Employed 3 8%

One sprayer 9 25%

Two sprayers 15 42%

Three sprayers 5 14%

Four sprayers 2 5%

Five+ sprayers 2 5%

Field Scientists offered to do occupational hygiene tests at each site, (e.g. air-quality and

volume flowrate; booth/space1 clearance time and leakage tests). These were voluntary and only

done if the business wanted them done. Each business was also provided with a set of the

laminated posters from the SHAD events. Photographic examples of changes were obtained

where possible.

Each assessment took between 60-90 minutes to complete depending on whether occupational

hygiene tests were carried out. The impact evaluation forms were considered difficult to fill in

during the actual visit without interfering with the Field Scientists dialogue with the

organisation. The form was generally completed immediately following the visits using notes

taken.

In one company there was a clear ‘matter of evident concern’, which was referred to a local

Specialist Inspector.

2.4 DATA ANALYSIS

Numerical and textual data from the impact evaluation forms were entered into an SPSS

(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) database for analysis. Frequency statistics were

calculated for the various criteria, example answers and supplementary questions.

1 The term spray space is used throughout this report to refer to rooms where spraying takes place, as this

is the terminology contained in the SHAD Impact Evaluation Form.

5

3 RESULTS

This section presents the overall findings from the impact evaluation forms for the 36 MVR

businesses assessed. The findings are organised according to the nine topic areas on the

evaluation form:

1 General questions

2 Management system

3 Process and engineering control strategy

4 Personal protective equipment (PPE) strategy

5 Work organisation and methods

6 Health surveillance

7 SHAD specific

8 Measurements and assessments

9 Any other pertinent observations

Results of the four supplementary questions are presented along with findings for topic 7

‘SHAD specific’. A detailed breakdown of results for each topic, including the example

answers, is provided in Appendix 3.

Unless stated otherwise, the percentages presented in this results section relate to a proportion of

the 36 businesses assessed by HSL Field Scientists. Where relevant, comparisons are made with

results from the Pilot SHAD evaluation report (O’Hara, 2005), specifically findings in relation

to the Bristol SHAD.

3.1 GENERAL QUESTIONS

3.1.1 Did the person interviewed attend the Bristol SHAD?

Within the 36 organisations evaluated by the field Scientists, 32 (89%) of the persons

interviewed had attended the Bristol SHAD. Four of the interviewees had not attended the

SHAD. Of these four companies, three reported that the key messages and actions were

communicated verbally within the business. The fourth person indicated that the information

was ‘poorly’ communicated.

3.1.2 Confidence In controlling exposure

Interviewees were asked ‘How confident are you that your bodyshop meets health and safety

regulations on controlling exposure to two-pack isocyanate-based paint?’.

Figure 1 illustrates interviewees’ responses and compares them with responses from Bristol

SHAD attendees before and after the event. It shows that 78% (28) of the participants indicated

they were 'confident' or 'very confident' (response 4&5) that their company meets health and

safety regulations on controlling exposure to two-pack isocyanate-based paint. This is higher

than the confidence ratings provided by the Bristol SHAD attendees before and after the event,

which were 67%(48) and 50% (34) respectively. It should be noted that the percentages for the

follow up visits relate to only those 36 companies assessed by the Field Scientists and excludes

31% (16) of the 52 companies recorded as attending the Bristol SHAD. As a proportion of the

52 companies attending the SHAD, 54% were ‘confident or ‘very confident’.

6

03

19

39 39

0

7

21

50

17

4

10

35

41

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

1 = Not at all confident 5 = Very confident

Pe

rce

nt

Follow-up

Before SHAD

After SHAD

Figure 1: How confident are you that your company meets health and safety regulations on controlling exposure to two-pack isocyanate-based paint?

3.1.3 Action Plan

Only four MVR businesses had used the Action Plan provided in the information packs

distributed to all attendees at the Bristol SHAD. 32 (89%) of the 36 businesses evaluated had

not used the action plan. The following reasons were given to explain why the action plan had

not been used.

Reasons for not using the Action Plan (n=32):

Can't remember seeing it

Confident in controls

Didn't know about it.

Didn't need to

Didn't recall it

Didn't remember it

Does not recall receiving one

Does not remember it

Does not remember seeing it

Doesn't know

Doesn't remember

Filled one in at SHAD, no improvements

Has consultant with own plan

Lost somewhere

No action perceived to be necessary

No actions needed

Not required

Part completed, forgot to finish

Plan in place following inspection

Wanted more advice first

Won't be spraying much longer

Working with paint supplier, used action plan for notes

No recollection (5)

No reason given (5)

7

3.2 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

3.2.1 Knowledge of isocyanate health effects

Figure 2 shows the number of MVR bodyshops assessed as having sufficient knowledge of

isocyanate health effects.

2 1

16

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes Partially No No Data

Co

un

t

Figure 2: Does the company have sufficient knowledge of isocyanate health effects?2

33 (92%) of the 36 businesses evaluated by the Field Scientists demonstrated that they had

sufficient knowledge of isocyanate health effects. In the context of the 52 Bristol SHAD

attendees, this equates to 63% (33) of representatives from organisations attending. Details of

responses in relation to specific aspects of knowledge (health effects; signs and symptoms) are

provided in appendix 3.

3.2.2 Information, instruction, training and supervision

Figure 3 illustrates the number of MVR bodyshops regarded as having suitable information,

instruction, training and supervision.

1 1

16

34

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes Partially n/a No Data

Co

un

t

Figure 3: Is suitable information, instruction, training and supervision provided?

2 The ‘No Data’ category (n=16) refers to the 16 MVR bodyshops represented at the Bristol SHAD that

have not been assessed by HSL Field Scientists.

8

34 (94%) of the 36 businesses evaluated by the Field Scientists were considered to be providing

suitable information, instruction, training and supervision. This figure equates to 65% (34) of

businesses that attended the Bristol SHAD. Details of responses in relation to specific aspects of

information, instruction, training and supervision (e.g. explaining health effects and control

measures) are provided in appendix 3.

Table 2 presents details of changes in the management system attributed to attending the Bristol

SHAD. A total of 9 (25%) interviewees specifically indicated that the SHAD had made them

aware that spraying isocyanate paint causes occupational asthma.

Table 2: Changes/improvements in the management system attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Knowledge: Spraying causes occupational asthma 9 25%

Knowledge: Signs & symptom of asthma 5 14%

Suitable information, instruction, training & supervision 2 5%

Health effects explained 3 8%

Control measures explained: clearance time 4 11%

Control measures explained: Exposure measurement 3 8%

Control measures explained: Health Surveillance 4 11%

Supervisor trained 1 3%

3.3 PROCESS AND ENGINEERING CONTROL STRATEGY

3.3.1 Ventilated Booth or Spray Space

Figure 4 presents the number of businesses that had a suitably ventilated spray booth or spray

space (under negative pressure). 32 (89%) of the 36 businesses evaluated by the field scientists

had a suitably ventilated spray booth and 6 (17%) had a suitably ventilated spray space.

32

4

0

16

6

2

28

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes No n/a No data

Co

un

t

Booth Spray Space

Figure 4: Is a suitable ventilated spray booth or space provided (under negative pressure)?

9

Three MVR bodyshops have both a (suitably ventilated) booth and spray space, indicating that

35 (97%) of the 36 of the businesses assessed had either a suitably ventilated booth or spray

space. The majority (19, 53%) of bodyshops assessed used a ‘downdraft’ booth. Ten of the

bodyshops had booths with ‘down in/across out’ ventilation and one had a ‘crossdraft’ booth.

Two businesses had homemade booths, one of which had ‘crossdraft’ ventilation and the other

had ‘down in/across out’ ventilation.

Details of responses in relation to specific aspects of the booths and spray spaces are provided in

appendix 3.

3.3.2 Clearance Time

Figure 5 shows the number of MVR businesses where the owner/manager knew that the

booth/spray space has a ‘clearance time’ and had assessed it?

27

9

16

13

21

2

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes No n/a No data

Co

un

t

Know about Assessed

Figure 5: Does the MVR business owner/manager know that the booth/spray space has a ‘clearance time’ and has it been assessed?

27 (75%) of the owner/managers in the 36 MVR businesses knew that the booth/spray space

had a ‘clearance time’ and 13 businesses had assessed the ‘clearance time’ of the booth/space

with smoke. Two of the interviewees indicted that they based their assessment of the clearance

time on ‘estimate’ and ‘guesswork’.

These findings can be compared with responses from the Bristol SHAD attendees in the after

event questionnaires. Immediately following the event attendees were asked ‘how do you know

that the booth or spray space extraction system is working properly’; 81% (55) gave smoke

test/negative pressure or airflow as the response, compared with 37% (27) immediately before

the event.

3.3.3 Spray Guns

Figure 6 illustrates the number of MVR bodyshops using High Performance Low Velocity

(HPLV) or otherwise ‘compliant’ sprayguns and organisations with suitable arrangements in

place for cleaning of spray guns.

10

35

0 1

16

33

1 2

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes Partially No No data

Co

un

t

Suitable guns Suitable cleaning

Figure 6: Are HPLV or otherwise ‘compliant’ sprayguns used and are suitable arrangements in place for cleaning of spray guns?

35 (97%) of the businesses assessed were using HPLV sprayguns or otherwise ‘compliant’

sprayguns. Two of these were ‘compliant’ but not HPLV. One organisation used a conventional

spray gun.

33 (92%) bodyshops had suitable arrangements in place for cleaning of spray guns. 31 (86%)

used a spray gun cleaner and 2 of these also swilled the spray gun out and sprayed thinners into

the booth extract filter with the sprayer wearing air-fed breathing apparatus. 3 (6%) other

bodyshops used the latter method only.

3.3.4 Mixing Paint

32 (89%) of the 36 MVR bodyshops assessed had suitable arrangements in place for paint

mixing. A further two were regarded as having partially suitable arrangements. One of the two

businesses with partially suitable arrangements for paint mixing had effective general

ventilation, whereas the other premises was considered to have only partially effective general

ventilation. The former business intended to install a new paint system. Two premises did not

have any effective general ventilation in the paint mixing area.

3.3.5 Spray Booth/Space Maintenance

The field scientists assessed whether spray booths/spaces were checked and maintained

routinely3, as well as thoroughly examined by a specialist at least every 14 months as required

by COSHH Regulation 9. Test certificates were viewed to demonstrate that thorough specialist

examinations had been carried out. The suitability of records kept in relation to testing and

maintenance was also assessed for each business.

Figure 7 shows the number of MVR bodyshops having suitably maintained spray booths/spaces

and the number where maintenance records are kept. 17 (47%) of the MVR bodyshops assessed

had carried out suitable maintenance on a routine basis and 22 (61%) had suitable specialist

maintenance of spray booths and spaces. 22 (61%) of the bodyshops kept maintenance records.

3 Routine checks include: daily check on booth/space fabric (e.g. door seals, filter seating, manometer);

filters checked and changed; automatic shut-down and test at least every six months.

11

17

4

13

2

16

22

1

11

2

16

22

1

10

3

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes Partially No n/a No data

Co

un

t

Routine Specialist Records

Figure 7: Are spray booths/spaces suitably maintained and maintenance records kept?

3.3.6 Dust controls

The impact evaluation form addressed whether businesses had effective dust controls in place

when dry flatting/sanding. 27 (75%) of the MVR premises assessed were regarded as having

effective dust controls, with 6 (17%) having partially effective controls. Three premises did not

have effective dust controls.

Assessment of the nature of dust controls in place showed that 23 (64%) of the bodyshops had

effective on-tool LEV, 20 (55%) had LEV of some description plus RPE, and 8 (22%) had just

RPE.

Table 3 presents details of changes in the process and engineering control strategy attributed to

attending the Bristol SHAD. 10 (28%) of the bodyshops conducted a smoke test to check the

spray booth/space clearance times. Additional changes included the purchase of spray booths

(2), spray guns (2), and dust extraction (2). Two bodyshops had also invested in specialist

maintenance.

Table 3: Changes/improvements in the process and engineering control strategy attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Purchased suitable ventilated spray booth - other 2 5%

Knowledge: MVR business owner/manager learned that the

booth/spray space has a ‘clearance time’?

3 8%

Spray booth/space clearance time tested (smoke) 10 28%

HPLV Gun purchased 2 5%

Spray booths/spaces thoroughly examined at least every 14

months (specialist; as per Reg 9)

2 5%

Dust controls: Bought sanding LEV 2 5%

12

3.4 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) STRATEGY

3.4.1 Respiratory protective equipment (RPE)

Figure 8 provides details of the suitability and type of breathing apparatus used in each MVR

bodyshop. 34 (94%) of the 36 premises had suitable air fed RPE. The main form of RPE was air

fed visors with a small number of companies using half masks. 24 (67%) of the air fed devices

complied with the relevant standards.

28

3 3 2

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Visor Half-mask Both None No data

Type of Breathing Apparatus

Co

un

t

Figure 8: Type of suitable air fed RPE worn?

The evaluation form addressed the condition and storage of RPE, and revealed that in 33 (92%)

of the businesses, the breathing apparatus was in good physical condition. In 32 (89%) of the

bodyshops, the breathing apparatus was stored in a clean area outside the spray booth/room.

Figure 9 shows the number of companies checking the various aspects of the air supply to RPE.

23

13

0

16

23

13

0

16

22

12

1 1

16

33

2 1

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes No Partially n/a No data

Co

un

t

Air Flow Air Quality Filters & Tubing System Maintained

Figure 9: Are the various aspects of the air supply to RPE checked, tested and maintained: air flow rate; air quality; filters and tubing; overall system?

13

The airflow and air quality was checked in 23 (64%) of the bodyshops. 22 (61%) of the

bodyshops checked and maintained the filters and tubing. The overall air supply system was

maintained in the vast majority of premises (33,92%). Detailed responses in relation to RPE

maintenance are provided in appendix 3.

3.4.2 Personal protective equipment (PPE)

35 (97%) of the companies assessed used both disposable overalls and suitable gloves; one

company used suitable gloves but not overalls.

Table 4 presents details of changes in the personal and respiratory protective equipment strategy

specifically attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD. 7 (19%) of the bodyshops had purchased

suitable RPE and 6 (17%) had purchased suitable gloves. Additional investments included air

quality testing by 5 (14%) of the companies.

Table 4: Changes/improvements in PPE strategy attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Bought suitable RPE 7 19%

Air quality tested 5 14%

Breathing apparatus in good physical condition? 1 3%

Changed gloves (e.g. to nitrile) 6 17%

3.5 WORK ORGANISATION AND METHODS

35 (97%) of the 36 businesses assessed conducted all their spraying in the spray booth/space.

Figure 10 shows the number of companies where air-fed RPE was worn at all times in the spray

booth/space during spraying and the spray clearance period. The majority of organisations

indicated that air-fed RPE was worn during spraying and the spray clearance period, 34(94%)

and 32 (89%) respectively.

34

1 1

16

32

31

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes No n/a No data

Co

un

t

Spraying Spray Clearance Period

Figure 10: Is air-fed RPE worn at all times in spray booth/space during spraying and the spray clearance period?

14

Sprayers were asked how they ‘check the paint finish’, in order to identify whether they lifted

their air fed visor to inspect the job during the booth/space ‘clearance time’. Responses within

10 (28%) of the companies indicated that sprayers lifted their air fed visor during the clearance

period. In the organisations where sprayers didn’t lift their visors within the clearance period,

four bodyshops provided sprayers with peel off visor strips; others stated that they used half

masks, the suitability of the half mask was questioned in one of the companies. Other sprayers

indicated that they re-entered the booth after the clearance period.

Field Scientists also explored whether sprayers and others who may enter the spray booth/space,

knew how to leave and enter during the ‘clearance time’ (i.e. go to pedestrian door, unplug air-

supply and immediately leave and visa-versa for entry). Responses from 31 (86%) of the

companies assessed were positive (‘yes’).

Table 5 presents details of changes in work organisation and methods specifically attributed to

attending the Bristol SHAD. 9 (25%) of the MVR bodyshops indicated that people were more

aware of how to leave & enter the booth/space safely during the clearance time and in 5 (14%)

of the bodyshops sprayers no longer lifted their visor during the clearance time.

Table 5: Changes/improvements in work organisation and methods attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

All spraying carried out in the booth 1 3%

People know how to leave & enter booth/space safely during

the clearance time 9 25%

Sprayers don’t lift visor to check finish during clearance time 5 14%

3.6 HEALTH SURVEILLANCE

In each of the companies evaluated the business owner/managers were asked if they knew how

isocyanate exposure could be measured (i.e. biological monitoring as required by COSHH

Regulation 10) and whether biological monitoring had been carried out. Figure 11 shows the

number of responses.

31

0

5

16

4

1

31

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes Partially No No data

Co

un

t

Knowledge of exposure measurement Biological monitoring carried out

Figure 11: Does the business owner/manager know how isocyanate exposure can be measured and has biological monitoring been carried out?

15

Although 31 (86%) of the interviewees knew that isocyanate exposure could be measured by

biological monitoring, only 4 (11%) of the companies had actually assessed the effectiveness of

isocyanate control measures using biological monitoring. The recording of ‘partial’ exposure

measurement relates to one company where a sprayer had returned a urine sample to HSL

following the SHAD. None of the companies indicated that they had received positive results

from biological monitoring.

These findings can be compared with responses from the Bristol SHAD evaluation attendees in

the after event questionnaires. Immediately following the event attendees were asked ‘how can

you check that isocyanate exposure is properly controlled’; 41% (28) gave ‘biological

monitoring’ or ‘urine test’ as the response, compared with 3% (2) immediately before the event.

The higher level of awareness during the field scientists follow up visits may be related to the

apparent confusion in a number of responses to this question immediately after the SHAD. A

number of attendees gave ‘smoke test’ as the response. The wording of this question has been

altered in the ‘before’ and ‘after’ evaluation forms for the more recent SHADs.

The Field Scientists assessed whether each MVR business had suitable occupational health

surveillance, provided by a competent person (questionnaire and lung function test at least

annually), and whether any positive results had been acted on. Figure 12 shows the number of

responses.

17

0

19

1

16

9

1 1

25

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes Partially No n/a No data

Co

un

t

Health Surveillance Results acted on

Figure 12: Is suitable occupational health surveillance provided by a competent person and are appropriate actions taken when results suggest (early) response to isocyanate

is occurring.

In all 17 (47%) of the companies where suitable occupational health surveillance had been

carried out, results were given to the employers and employees, and explained in the context of

previous surveillance. One company had not acted on the findings from health surveillance.

Table 6 presents details of changes in health surveillance attributed to attending the Bristol

SHAD. 6 (17%) of the MVR bodyshops indicated that the business owner/manager was more

aware of how isocyanate exposure can be measured using biological monitoring and 3 (8%) of

the bodyshops had conducted health surveillance.

16

Table 6: Changes/improvements in health surveillance attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Business owner/manager knows how isocyanate exposure

can be measured (biological monitoring)? 6 17%

Suitable occupational health surveillance provided by

competent person 3 8%

3.7 SHAD SPECIFIC

The impact evaluation form addressed what changes and actions the companies identified and

carried out as a result of information provided at the Bristol SHAD. 27 (75%) of the MVR

bodyshops had taken action as a result of the SHAD and 12 (33%) of these companies also

intended to carry out additional actions. 11 (30%) companies had not taken any action as a

result of the SHAD. 5 (14%) of the organisations that had not carried out changes by the time of

the evaluation visits did identify a number of intended actions.

The following are the changes carried out by 27 companies as a result of the Bristol SHAD:

Bought a new booth (2)

Bought dust LEV (2)

Bought longer hose to reach door (1)

Bought new HPLV guns (2)

Bought new pressure gauge for booth (2)

Bought new RPE (e.g. visor, mask) (7)

Air quality tested (5)

Annual Booth LEV check (2)

Changed filters in the compressor (1)

Changed gloves (e.g. to nitrile gloves) (6)

Changed working practices (e.g. leaving booth, not lifting visor, use of PPE) (14)

Smoke tests carried out (10)

Clearance time displayed on booth doors (2)

Business quit spraying (2)

Sprayer changed career (1)

Biological Monitoring (3)

Health Surveillance (5)

The following are the reasons why no changes were made in 11 companies:

No changes required (4)

Changes in progress but not completed

Didn’t stay for the whole of the SHAD due to a funeral

Wanted more information (2)

Don’t know where to start

Haven’t got round to it yet

Manager didn’t attend (low priority) – inspector contacted and visited the company

17

The following are photographs of the two MVR bodyshops that displayed the clearance time on

booth doors:

Photograph 1: Clearance time displayed on booth doors

Photograph 2: Clearance time displayed on booth doors

18

The following are the intended changes identified by 17 companies as a result of the SHAD but

which had not been carried out:

All (1)

Annual LEV checks (1)

Biological monitoring (4)

Smoke test (5)

Air quality (1)

Change filters (1)

Health surveillance (7)

Improve extraction/inlet filters (1)

New dust LEV (2)

RPE (1)

The following reasons were given by organisations for not having carried out their intended

actions?

Cost (5)

Time (9)

Lack of information (9)

Sprayer reluctance (1)

Can’t find a visor with air flow indicator (1)

One company was in the process of installing a new booth and LEV. 9 of the MVR bodyshops

expected to carry out their intended changes within three months and 3 bodyshops intended to

make changes within six months. There was no information for the other 5 companies regarding

a time frame for the introduction of changes

In addition to the influence of the SHAD on changes to control measures, a number of other

influences on measures taken to control exposure were identified:

One of the companies regarded as not requiring any further action had everything in place in

order to comply with ISO9002 and employed a health and safety consultant. This company

also shared its site with a car leasing company and had to comply with their health and

safety policy.

Another company had made the necessary changes as a result of HSE inspection.

One company that had assessed the clearance time following the SHAD had made a number

of other health and safety improvements due to joining MVRA.

One company mentioned LEV Suppliers as a source of information on dust extraction,

which had been identified by the SHAD as something the organisation needed.

3.7.1 Field Scientists’ overall evaluations

Field scientists gave ratings for each bodyshop that had made changes as a result of the SHAD

regarding the extent to which the measures taken had improved exposure control. Details of the

criteria used are provided in appendix 2. Figure 13 illustrates the ratings given to the 27

organisations that had made changes. In all 27 of the companies it was considered that the

measures taken would have improved exposure control to some extent, either ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’.

19

7

20

11

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

A little A lot n/a No data

Co

un

t

Figure 13: Field Scientist confidence rating that the measures taken since the SHAD have improved exposure control?

Overall this indicates that 27 (52%) of the 52 MVR bodyshops represented at the Bristol SHAD

had taken actions that were expected to improve exposure control. For the majority of premises

exposure control was expected to improve ‘a lot’.

Field scientists also gave ratings for each bodyshop that had made changes as a result of the

SHAD regarding the likelihood that control measures would be sustained. Figure 14 illustrates

the ratings given to the 27 organisations that had made changes. In 26 of the 27 companies it

was considered that the measures taken would be sustained. For the majority of premises the

changes were considered ‘very likely’ to be sustained. In the one company it was considered

that changing the filters was not likely to be sustained, as the owner did not expect to be in

businesses for much longer and does very little spraying.

1

8

18

11

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

Not likely Likely Very likely n/a No data

Co

un

t

Figure 14: Field Scientist rating of how likely it is that these control measures will be sustained?

Overall, this indicates that 26 (50%) of the 52 MVR bodyshops represented at the Bristol SHAD

had taken actions that were expected to result in a sustained improvement in exposure control.

Field scientists gave ratings for each bodyshop that intended to make changes, regarding the

extent to which the intended measures would improve exposure control. Figure 15 illustrates the

ratings given to the 17 organisations that intended to make changes.

20

89

21

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

Not at all A little A lot n/a No data

Co

un

t

Figure 15: Field Scientist confidence rating that the intended measures will improve exposure control?

In all of the companies, the intended measures were expected to improve exposure control to

some extent, either ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’. This equates to 27% (14) of the MVR businesses

represented at the Bristol SHAD.

Field scientists gave ratings for each MVR bodyshop that intended to make changes, regarding

the likelihood that they would carry out the intended actions. Figure 16 illustrates the ratings

given to the 17 organisations that intended to make changes.

3

8

6

21

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

Not likely Likely Very likely n/a No data

Co

un

t

Figure 16: Field Scientist rating of how likely it is that the company will carry out the intended control measures?

Only 14 companies were regarded as likely to carry out the intended actions. Five of these had

not introduced any changes by the time the evaluation visit was conducted. Therefore, if the

intended actions were carried out, the number of MVR bodyshops making improvements in

exposure control as a result of the Bristol SHAD could increase to 61% (32) of the organisations

attending the event. However, Field Scientists rated one of the five as ‘not likely’ to carry out

the intended action.

Appendix 4 provides details of the control measure changes that the above ratings refer to for

each company having either carried out or intending to make changes.

21

3.8 MEASUREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS

Field Scientists offered to do occupational hygiene tests at each of the 36 MVR bodyshops

evaluated (e.g. air-quality and volume flowrate; booth/space clearance time and leakage tests).

These were voluntary and only done if the business wanted them done. In some companies

measurements had already been carried out or vehicles in the booths meant it was not possible

to conduct measurements. Table 7 gives details of the number of measurements carried out.

Table 7: Measurements and assessments carried out by HSL Field Scientists

Number Percentage

Assessment of the clearance time of spray booth/space

(using the smoke generator) 7 19%

Measurement of the airflow rate to the air-fed BA

(using the HSL test kit) 1 3%

Measurement of the air quality of the BA air supply

(using the Factair device) 8 22%

Assessment of spray booth/space clearance times revealed clearance times ranging from 2.5 to

14 minutes, with most being under five minutes. The higher figure related to a large homemade

booth for commercial vehicles. The airflow and air quality measurements were satisfactory.

3.9 OTHER PERTINENT OBSERVATIONS

The final section of the impact evaluation form required the field scientists to record any other

pertinent observations or comments. Appendix 4 provides details of additional information for

each of the 36 MVR bodyshops assessed and the two additional companies that had stopped

spraying.

The following information summarises comments from organisations regarding the Bristol

MVR SHAD.

General positive comments

Worthwhile, better than inspection

Frightening / shocked

Very interesting & educational

Made changes for the right reason

Very pleasantly surprised

An eye opener

Main points remembered from SHAD

Invisible fine mist

Booth / spray space models

Asthma sufferer

Testing clearance times

Dermal exposure

Negative comments

Health Surveillance costs not explained

Biological Monitoring not remembered as it was at the end

RPE / Spray-gun session was sales orientated

22

Using a welder made them doubt the accuracy of the story

Didn’t learn anything new

Requests

Which company can do LEV checks

Where can they get a visor with a flow ball

Urine bottles

Will the field scientist go back and re-do the smoke test after they have improved their

ventilation

Can others from the organisation attend the Cardiff SHAD

Information on sanding LEV

Issues

Wrong person attended

Insufficient attendees from the company

Too much emphasis on dermal exposure

To much paperwork handed out, not many remembered the Action Plan

23

4 DISCUSSION

This section provides a brief discussion of the key findings presented in the results section.

The overall findings indicate that exposure control has improved in a high proportion of the

organisations that attended the Bristol Pilot SHAD. Over half of the MVR bodyshops that

attended the Bristol SHAD have introduced measures to improve exposure control. Additional

bodyshops have identified changes that they intend to make. The finding that 52% of bodyshops

have improved exposure control demonstrates a high level of impact for the Pilot SHAD. There

is also the possibility that this figure could increase to 61% if intended actions are carried out.

However, it should be noted that if bodyshops have not taken any action within six months of

the SHAD the likelihood of them making changes is quite limited. One company had started to

introduce changes but they were not completed at the time of the Field Scientists visits. These

changes are very likely to be completed.

A follow up of those businesses having made changes or intending to make changes to explore

whether improvements have been sustained would ascertain the longer term impact of the Pilot

SHADs. This would also help to identify any factors influencing the extent to which effective

exposure control measures are maintained over time.

Testing the clearance time of the spray booth/space was the second most common action after

changing working practices. This is consistent with findings from the evaluation of the four

Pilot SHADs, which showed that a high proportion of the intended actions noted by participants

at the end of the Bristol event included testing the clearance time (O’Hara, 2005).

Interviewees were generally very positive in their comments about the SHAD indicating that

they found the event to be very informative. Only four businesses had used the Action Plan

provided at the Bristol SHAD, which was designed to assist MVR bodyshops in reviewing and

recording their actions in relation to control measures. The Action Plan was included in the

information supplied to all Bristol SHAD attendees and appears to have gone unnoticed or been

forgotten amidst all the other information provided. This suggests that there is scope for greater

effort to promote the use of the Action plan during the SHADs and possibly exploring its use

within organisations with a view to its wider promotion amongst the MVR bodyshop population


With regard to improving the content of the MVR SHAD, two bodyshops suggested that it

would have been better to have a sprayer with occupational asthma instead of a welder. The

session on spray booths and spaces/rooms was identified as memorable by a number of

bodyshops in illustrating the invisible isocyanate mist, and demonstrating clearance times and

how to test them. The impact of this session is reflected in the actions carried out by SHAD

attendees, as noted above.

The findings from this report cannot be regarded as representative in the statistical sense.

However, it was considered that the MVR businesses in Bristol would not be substantially

different to MVR businesses in other geographical locations where SHADs have been held. The

evaluation of the four Pilot SHADs shows that the proportion of Bristol SHAD attendees stating

an intention to take action within their businesses on at least one aspect of health and safety

addressed within the event was the same as the overall percentage for attendees across all four

Pilot SHADs (94%). Analysis of questionnaires from 11 of the 2005-2006 that had taken place

at the time of writing this report shows that the same proportion, 94% of SHAD attendees,

expressed an intention to take action within their organisations.

24

Since the pilot MVR SHADs in 2004, the SHAD format and content have been changed as part

of a process of continual improvement and taking account feedback from attendees. For

example a key change to the SHADS taking place in 2005-2006 was the addition of a session

entitled ‘The Enforcer’, which addresses what an HSE inspector expects when they visit an

MVR premises. This was introduced in response to requests from Pilot SHAD attendees to have

information on health and safety regulations and compliance. An early analysis of post event

questionnaires indicates that this session is popular with attendees. A follow up of 2005-2006

SHAD attendees can assess whether the revised SHADs are even more effective than the Pilot

SHADs at prompting action to improve exposure control measures.

It should be noted that prior knowledge of the field scientist visits might have prompted action,

though this is unlikely to have accounted for the many changes viewed. Pre-arranged visits were

necessary to avoid the possibility of numerous wasted journeys to companies where it was not

possible to conduct the evaluation at that time.

There appeared to be some variation in recording on the impact evaluation form in relation to

the ‘no’ and ‘n/a’ categories. Also in relation to the use of the four point scoring for the SHAD

section in each topic area. There is also scope for greater clarification of the criteria for the Field

Scientists’ overall evaluations. These issues could be explored in revising the impact evaluation

form and providing guidance for possible future use, to ensure transparency and consistency in

recording evidence and judgments.

25

5 CONCLUSION

This report has presented findings from follow up visits by HSL Occupational Hygiene Field

Scientists to MVR bodyshops that attended the Bristol Pilot SHAD. The aim of the visits was to

quantitatively assess the practical impact of a Pilot MVR SHAD on isocyanate exposure control

measures to inform HSE’s three year national intervention project.

HSL’s Field Scientists conducted visits to 38 of the 52 bodyshops that attended the Bristol Pilot

SHAD, using an Impact Evaluation Form to assess measures in place to control exposure to

isocyanate paint and any changes or intended action resulting from information received at the

SHAD. The design of the evaluation form was based on the documentation used by HSE

Inspectors on visits to MVR bodyshops that did not attend the SHADs. Field Scientists also

provided confidence ratings in relation to the impact of measures, taken or intended, on

exposure control within each business.

The overall findings indicate that exposure control measures have improved in over half of the

organisations that attended the Bristol SHAD. 27 of the MVR bodyshops had taken action as a

result of the SHAD, including two premises that no longer did spraying. This equates to changes

in 52% of the 52 MVR bodyshops represented at the Bristol SHAD. Of the 11 companies that

had not taken any action as a result of the SHAD, four of these did not need to make any

changes and 5 still intended to make changes.

A variety of changes were carried out and included: changing working practices; checking spray

booth/space clearance times using the smoke test; purchasing new RPE or PPE; and conducting

Health Surveillance. Changes made were broadly consistent with the intended actions noted by

participants at the end of the Bristol event, for example, testing the clearance time. It was

considered that the measures taken in all 27 companies would have improved exposure control

and that in 26 companies the improvements were likely to be sustained.

The follow up visits also identified potential improvements to the MVR SHADs and other

interventions such as more active promotion of the Action Plan to SHAD attendees and the

wider MVR bodyshop population.

The approach adopted for assessing the impact of a pilot MVR SHAD has been effective in

achieving its aim. However, there is scope for some refinement, specifically in relation to the

impact evaluation form and associated guidance, prior to assessing the practical impact of other

MVR SHADs.

26

6 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The evidence from this follow up evaluation of a Pilot SHAD shows that it has had

significant practical impact on isocyanate exposure control measures.

2. A follow up of those MVR bodyshops having made changes or intending to make

changes would establish the longer-term impact of the Bristol Pilot SHAD.

3. The impact evaluation form would benefit from minor revision, along with greater

guidance on its completion, to ensure transparency and consistency in recording evidence

and judgments.

4. The HSE project team should explore the options for more active promotion of the MVR

Bodyshop Action Plan amongst the SHAD attendees and the MVR bodyshop population


5. Evaluation of the practical impact of the revised SHADs held in 2005-2006 will help in

assessing the overall impact of the SHADs as part of the MVR intervention project.

27

7 APPENDIX

7.1 APPENDIX 1: SHAD IMPACT EVALUATION FORM

28

Ev

alu

ati

ng

th

e i

mp

ac

t o

f P

ilo

t M

VR

bo

dys

ho

p S

HA

Ds

B

usin

ess (

inc n

am

e, co

nta

ct

nam

e, ad

dre

ss, vis

it d

ate

(s),

vis

ito

r an

d F

OC

US

/CO

IN d

eta

ils):

Fil

lin

g i

n t

his

Fo

rm:

Com

ple

te the form

in b

lack p

en, or

type in a

nsw

ers

, w

hic

hever

is m

ore

convenie

nt

Crite

ria Q

uestions –

Apart

fro

m Q

uestion

1(ii) a

ll qu

estions a

re in the form

of

= Y

es. X

= N

o. ?

= P

art

ially

. =

Not applic

able

.

Exam

ple

Answ

ers

– U

se a

sim

ilar

= Y

es.

X =

No

. ?

= P

art

ially

. =

No

t ap

plic

ab

le.

where

you c

an a

gain

st

the A

nsw

ers

whic

h a

re n

um

bere

d in

the s

am

e w

ay

as the C

rite

ria w

ith a

n “

a”,

“b”

suffix

for

separa

te a

nsw

ers

/poin

ts

It is e

ssential th

at

you a

pply

sam

e=

Ye

s.

X =

No

. ?

= P

art

ially

. =

Not

applic

able

. scorin

g s

yste

m in

th

e la

st

(SH

AD

) co

lum

n s

o t

ha

t it is p

ossib

le t

o id

en

tify

changes/im

pro

vem

ent

to e

xposure

contr

ol

me

asure

s w

hic

h o

ccurr

ed a

s a

result o

f th

e P

ilot

SH

AD

. T

here

are

SH

AD

-specific

question

s i

n s

ectio

n 7

bu

t th

e

indiv

idual A

nsw

ers

will

help

in r

ecord

ing the d

eta

il

To

pic

C

rite

ria

X ?

Ex

am

ple

An

sw

ers

X ?

S H A D

1.

Ge

nera

l q

uestio

ns

i. D

id the p

ers

on inte

rvie

wed a

ttend the P

ilot S

HA

D?

ii. H

ow

confident are

you that your

bodyshop m

eets

health a

nd

safe

ty r

egula

tions o

n c

ontr

olli

ng e

xposure

to 2

-pack

isocyanate

pa

int?

No

t at

all c

on

fid

en

t 1

2 3

4 5

V

ery

co

nfi

den

t

iii.

Has th

e busin

ess used th

e A

ction P

lan pro

vid

ed at

the

SH

AD

?

ia.

If p

ers

on

did

n’t

att

en

d S

HA

D h

ow

were

ke

y m

essag

es

an

d a

cti

on

s

co

mm

un

icate

d w

ith

in t

he b

usin

ess?

iia. P

lease r

eco

rd S

co

re h

ere

:

iiia. If n

ot re

cord

“W

hy n

ot”

here

:

2.M

anage-

ment

syste

m

i.

Do

es

co

mp

an

y

ha

ve

su

ffic

ien

t kn

ow

ledg

e

of

iso

cya

na

te

health e

ffects

?

ii. I

s s

uitable

info

rmation,

instr

uction,

train

ing a

nd s

uperv

isio

n

pro

vid

ed

?

ia. It

cau

ses o

ccu

pa

tio

nal asth

ma

ib. S

igns a

nd s

ym

pto

ms e

.g c

hest tighte

nin

g, w

heezin

g, coughin

g

iia. H

ealth e

ffects

ha

ve b

een e

xpla

ined

iib. C

ontr

ol m

easure

s e

xpla

nation inclu

din

g:

Use o

f air-f

ed B

A a

llow

ing for

cle

ara

nce tim

e o

f booth

/space

Exposure

measure

ment (a

t le

ast annually

),

Health s

urv

eill

ance

Oth

er

29

To

pic

C

rite

ria

X ?

Ex

am

ple

An

sw

ers

X ?

S H A D

iic. S

uperv

isor

als

o b

een tra

ined

3.P

rocess

an

dengin

eer-

ing

con

tro

l str

ate

gy

i. Is a

suitable

ventila

ted s

pra

y b

ooth

is p

rovid

ed?

ii. Is a

suitable

ventila

ted s

pra

y s

pace is p

rovid

ed?

iii.

Do

es

the

MV

R

busin

ess

ow

ne

r/m

an

age

r kno

w

tha

t th

e

booth

/space h

as a

“cle

ara

nce tim

e”?

iv.

Ha

s

the

“cle

ara

nce

tim

e”

of

the

b

oo

th/s

pa

ce

b

een

a

ssesse

d?

v. A

re H

VLP

or

oth

erw

ise “

com

plia

nt”

spra

yguns u

sed?

vi. A

re s

uitab

le a

rran

ge

me

nts

in

pla

ce f

or

cle

an

ing o

f spra

y

gu

ns ?

vii.

Are

suitable

arr

angem

ents

in p

lace for

pain

t m

ixin

g?

viii

. A

re

spra

y

boo

ths/s

pa

ce

s

che

cke

d

an

d

ma

inta

ined

(r

ou

tin

ely

)?

ix. A

re s

pra

y b

ooth

s/s

paces thoro

ughly

exam

ined a

t le

ast

eve

ry 1

4 m

onth

s (

sp

ecia

list)

(as p

er

Reg

9)?

x A

re s

uitable

test and m

ain

tenance r

ecord

s k

ept?

xi.

Are

e

ffe

ctive

du

st

con

tro

ls

in

pla

ce

wh

en

d

ry

flattin

g/s

andin

g?

Ia.

Main

cri

teri

a i

s t

hat

it i

s u

nd

er

ne

gati

ve

pre

ssu

re (

Ple

ase i

den

tify

w

hat

typ

e:

Do

wn

dra

ft

Cro

ss

dra

ft

Oth

er

(des

cri

be

) iia

. U

nder

negative p

ressure

iib

. E

xh

au

st

air f

ilte

red

and

dis

ch

arg

ed a

t h

eig

ht

(ma

ny s

pra

y s

pa

ces d

o

not filter

exhaust air o

r dis

charg

e a

t ro

of heig

ht)

iii

– T

his

is a

sim

ple

”Y

es”

“No”

Crite

rion

iva. B

ooth

or

space teste

d w

ith s

moke

ivb. O

ther

meth

od o

f cle

ara

nce tim

e a

ssessm

ent used (

describe)?

va. C

onventional

vb. H

VLP

vc. “C

om

plia

nt”

(but not H

VLP

) via

. S

pra

y g

un c

leaner

vib

. S

pra

y g

un s

will

ed o

ut

and t

hin

ners

spra

yed i

nto

booth

extr

act

filter

with s

pra

yer

wearing a

ir-f

ed

BA

) (w

ithout B

A is u

nsuitable

) viia

. E

ffective

genera

l ventila

tion

viii

a.

Daily

check on booth

/space fa

bric (e

.g.

door

seals

, filter

seating,

manom

ete

r)

viii

b.

Filt

ers

checked a

nd c

hanged b

ased o

n e

.g.

booth

run-t

ime (

oth

er

–

de

scrib

e)

viii

c. A

uto

matic s

hut-

dow

n teste

d a

t le

ast every

six

month

s

ixa.

A t

horo

ugh e

xam

ination t

est

cert

ific

ate

is a

vaila

ble

for

the t

horo

ugh

exam

ination a

nd test

xa

. S

imp

le r

eco

rdin

g inc “

Actio

ns”

syste

m is p

resen

t a

nd

use

d

xia

. E

ffective o

n-t

ool LE

V?

xib

. LE

V o

f so

me d

escription p

lus R

PE

?

xic

. Ju

st R

PE

?

30

To

pic

C

rite

ria

X ?

Ex

am

ple

An

sw

ers

X ?

S H A D

4.P

ers

onal

pro

tective

eq

uip

-m

ent

str

ate

gy

i. Is s

uitable

air fed R

PE

worn

?

ii. Is B

A a

ir-s

upply

flo

w-r

ate

checked a

nd

teste

d?

iii. Is

the a

ir q

ualit

y c

hecked a

nd teste

d ?

iv

. Is

the a

ir-s

upply

syste

m m

ain

tain

ed?

v. Is

BA

in g

ood p

hysic

al conditio

n ?

vi.

Is

BA

sto

red

in

a

cle

an

are

a

ou

tsid

e

of

the

spra

y

bo

oth

/roo

m?

vii.

A

re

air

-su

pp

ly

filte

rs

an

d

tubin

g

are

ch

ecke

d

and

main

tain

ed?

viii

. A

re

cle

an

or

dis

posable

overa

lls

worn

to

geth

er

with

su

ita

ble

glo

ves?

ia

. A

ir-f

ed b

reath

ing a

ppara

tus (

BA

). P

refe

rably

a v

isor

but

could

be h

alf-

mask a

ir-f

ed. P

lease indic

ate

:

Vis

or

Ha

lf-m

ask

iia.

Diffe

rent

types

of

air-f

ed

devic

e

should

com

ply

w

ith

diffe

rent

sta

nda

rds

4

iiia. A

ir q

ualit

y s

hould

be

teste

d a

nd c

hecked a

gain

st a s

tandard

. via

. W

hat does the s

tora

ge a

rea c

onsis

t of and is it adequate

/cle

an?

viia

. In

-lin

e a

ir-s

upply

filt

ers

should

be c

hecked e

very

six

month

s a

nd b

elt-

mounte

d devic

es should

be checked by spra

yers

m

ore

fr

equen

tly (e

.g

we

ekly

) viib

. W

hen w

ere

the in-lin

e a

nd b

elt-m

ounte

d filt

ers

last re

new

ed?

viii

a. C

lea

n o

r d

isp

osab

le o

ve

ralls

are

ava

ilab

le a

nd

use

d?

viii

b. S

uitable

glo

ves w

ould

be thin

nitrile

or,

possib

ly, lo

w-d

ust la

tex

5.W

ork

o

rgan

-is

atio

n a

nd

me

tho

ds

i. Is a

ll spra

yin

g c

onducte

d in the s

pra

y b

ooth

/space

ii. Is a

ir-f

ed R

PE

worn

at all

tim

es in s

pra

y b

ooth

/space d

uring:

-

spra

yin

g?

- spra

y c

lea

ran

ce

pe

riod

?

iii. Is

air fed v

isor

lifte

d to inspect th

e job d

uring the

booth

/space “

cle

ara

nce tim

e”

iv

. D

o s

pra

yers

(a

nd

oth

ers

who

ma

y e

nte

r) k

now

how

to

le

ave

a

nd

en

ter

durin

g th

e “

cle

ara

nce

tim

e”?

ia

. S

elf-e

xpla

nato

ry

iia.

People

can l

eave a

nd e

nte

r booth

/space d

uring t

he c

leara

nce t

ime a

s

long a

s they d

o it safe

ly.

iiia. S

peak to s

pra

yer

- H

ow

do y

ou c

heck the fin

ish?

iv.

i.e.

go t

o p

edestr

ian d

oor,

unplu

g a

ir-s

upp

ly a

nd im

media

tely

leave a

nd

vis

a-v

ers

a for

entr

y

6.H

ealth

surv

eill

-ance

i. D

oes th

e b

usin

ess o

wn

er/

man

age

r kn

ow

ho

w is

ocya

na

te

exposure

can b

e m

easure

d?

ii. I

s e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss o

f is

ocya

na

te c

on

tro

l m

ea

sure

s s

ho

wn

by

exp

osu

re

mea

sure

me

nt

(usin

g

bio

log

ica

l m

on

ito

ring

a

s

per

Re

g 1

0)?

ia

. M

easure

ment

of

exposure

by

bio

logic

al

monitoring

was

specific

ally

covere

d in the P

ilot S

HA

D

iia.

All

de

leg

ate

s w

ere

off

ere

d s

am

ple

co

nta

iners

and

fre

e a

na

lysis

at

the

P

ilot S

HA

D

iib.

What

actions h

ave b

een t

aken w

here

BM

results h

ave b

een p

ositiv

e?

(Lis

t)

4S

tan

da

rd4 =

BS

EN

1835:2

000 f

or

vis

or

typ

e B

A.

De

vic

e s

ho

uld

be C

lass L

DH

3. S

tan

da

rd =

BS

EN

124

19:1

999

for

half-m

ask B

A.

Devic

e s

hould

be C

lass L

DM

2

or

LD

M3.

Sta

ndard

for

vis

or-

type d

evic

es d

oesn’t s

pecify a

ir v

olu

me f

low

rate

but

each m

anufa

ctu

rer

should

specify “

min

imu

m flo

w conditio

ns”

in t

erm

s o

f tu

bin

g

len

gth

an

d i

nte

rna

l b

ore

an

d a

ir p

ressure

- s

ee

ma

nu

factu

rer’s m

an

ua

l4.

No

min

al

flo

wra

te w

ill b

e ~

170

l/m

in S

tan

dard

fo

r ha

lf-m

ask a

ir-f

ed d

evic

es s

pecifie

s a

m

inim

um

airflo

w r

ate

of

120

l/m

in (

and

a m

axim

um

of

30

0 l/m

in)

No

te:

Accord

ing t

o t

he s

tandard

s b

oth

vis

or

(LD

H3)

and h

alf-m

ask (

LD

M 2

& 3

) should

be f

itte

d w

ith

low

airflow

wa

rnin

g d

evic

es a

nd

th

ere

sh

ou

ld b

e a

“m

ea

ns”

by w

hic

h th

e u

ser

can

ch

eck o

n the

actu

al a

irflow

ra

te

31

To

pic

C

rite

ria

X ?

Ex

am

ple

An

sw

ers

X ?

S H A D

iii.

Is s

uitable

occupational

health s

urv

eill

ance p

rovid

ed b

y a

co

mpe

ten

t p

ers

on

?

iv.

Are

ap

pro

pri

ate

action

s t

ake

n w

he

n r

esu

lts s

ug

ge

st

(ea

rly)

resp

on

se

to

isocya

na

te is o

ccu

rrin

g?

iiia.

Suitable

would

inclu

de a

questionnaire a

nd l

ung f

unction t

est

at

least

annually

. iii

b.

Results g

iven t

o t

he indiv

idual and e

xpla

ined in

the c

onte

xt

of

pre

vio

us

su

rve

illa

nce

. iii

c.

Results

giv

en

to

the

em

plo

yers

and

expla

ined

in

the

conte

xt

of

pre

vio

us s

urv

eill

ance.

iva. W

hat actions h

ave b

een taken a

s a

result o

f health s

urv

eill

ance? (

Lis

t)

7.

SH

AD

specific

i. W

hat

changes/a

ctions d

id t

he b

usin

ess i

dentify

, as a

result

of th

e S

HA

D, w

hic

h r

eq

uired

actio

n?

(L

ist)

ii.

You

have

taken

actions

to

impro

ve

isocyanate

exposure

co

ntr

ol. W

ha

t spe

cific

ally

pro

mp

ted

you

to

do

th

is? (

Rea

d l

ist

at th

is p

oin

t)

iii.

Did

th

e S

HA

D id

entify

any are

as th

at

you have not

yet

acte

d o

n?

iv

. W

hy h

as a

ction n

ot been taken y

et?

v. W

hen d

oes the b

usin

ess inte

nd to take a

ction?

ia

. Lis

t:

iia.

Pro

mpt

Lis

t: S

HA

D,

HS

E g

uid

ance

, H

SE

Website,

HS

E I

nfo

line,

HS

E

Insp

ecto

r,

Su

pp

liers

, A

rtic

le

in

Tra

de

Pre

ss

(if

ye

s

–

wh

ich

?),

T

rade

We

bsite

(I

f ye

s

–

wh

ich

?),

T

rad

e

Associa

tion

s

(If

ye

s

–

wh

ich

?),

C

onsultant, T

rain

ing p

rovid

er,

, O

ther

bodyshop a

nd O

ther

(Lis

t)

iiia. Lis

t iv

a. C

ost

ivb. T

ime

ivc. Lack o

f in

form

ation

ivd. O

ther

(Lis

t)

va. 3 m

onth

s

vb. 6 m

onth

s

vc. 12 m

onth

s

8.

Measure

-m

en

ts

&

assess-

me

nts

Offer

to:

Assess t

he c

lea

ran

ce

tim

e o

f th

e b

oo

th/s

pace (

usin

g t

he

sm

oke

gen

era

tor)

Measure

the a

irflow

rate

to t

he a

ir-f

ed B

A (

usin

g t

he H

SL

test kit)

Measure

the a

ir q

ualit

y o

f th

e B

A a

ir s

upp

ly (

usin

g t

he

Facta

ir d

evic

e)

R

ecord

fin

din

gs h

ere

:

32

To

pic

C

rite

ria

X ?

Ex

am

ple

An

sw

ers

X ?

S H A D

9.

Any

oth

er

pert

inent

observ

a-

tio

ns?

Record

thoughts

/observ

ations h

ere

:

Ad

dit

ion

al

Qu

esti

on

s: F

ield

Sci

enti

st o

ver

all

ev

alu

ati

on

s

1.

Ho

w c

on

fid

ent

that

th

e m

easu

res

tak

en s

ince

th

e S

HA

D h

ave

imp

rov

ed e

xp

osu

re c

on

tro

l? (

1 =

no

t at

all

, 2

= a

lit

tle,

3 =

a l

ot,

N/A

no

t ap

pli

cab

le)

2.

Ho

w l

ikel

y t

hat

th

ese

con

tro

l m

easu

res

wil

l b

e su

stai

ned

? (1

= n

ot

lik

ely

, 2

= l

ikel

y,

3 =

ver

y l

ikel

y,

N/A

no

t ap

pli

cab

le)

3.

Ho

w c

on

fid

ent

that

th

e m

easu

res

to b

e ta

ken

wil

l im

pro

ve

exp

osu

re c

on

tro

l? (

1 =

no

t at

all

, 2

= a

lit

tle,

3 =

a l

ot,

N/A

no

t ap

pli

cab

le)

4.

Ho

w l

ikel

y i

s it

th

at t

he

com

pan

y w

ill

carr

y o

ut

thes

e co

ntr

ol

mea

sure

s? (

1 =

no

t li

kel

y,

2 =

lik

ely

, 3

= v

ery

lik

ely

, N

/A n

ot

app

lica

ble

)

33

7.2 APPENDIX 2: FIELD SCIENTIST EVALUATIONS: SCORING CRITERIA

Q1 How confident that measures taken since the SHAD have improved exposure control?

(1= not at all) Intended to do something but had not yet done it or completed it.

For example, one company wanted more information about LEV testing and who would be able

to carry it out. They intended to contact HSE but simply hadn't got around to it.

(2 = a little) The changes made did not directly improve the exposure control.

For example, having the air quality tested or carrying out biological monitoring would have had

an indirect impact.

(3 = a lot) When any changes made, or a combination of changes made, directly improved

exposure control.

For example, changing working practices or buying a longer hose that the sprayer could

unattach at the door would have a direct impact.

(N/A) Companies that either did not need to make any changes or that no longer spray.

Q2 How likely that these control measures will be sustained?

The decision on whether the company would get a 1, 2 or 3 was based on the changes that were

made, the sustainability of the changes and partly on the attitude of the company.

(1= not likely) One company was given a score of 1, unlikely to sustain the changes. This

company had changed the filters in the compressor for the first time in years and had so many

other things that needed changing it was considered that the filter change would be low down on

the priority list.

(2 = likely) Changes in working practices regarded as likely to be sustained.

(3 = very likely) Changes in equipment.

For example, if the company have bought equipment like a new booth, a new hose or a smoke

generator.

(N/A) Companies that did not make any changes (n=11).

Q3 How confident that the measures to be taken will improve exposure control?

(1= not at all) Not used as all the intended measure were regarded as likely to improve

exposure control to some degree.

(2 = a little) The changes made did not directly improve the exposure control.

For example, organising health surveillance would have had an indirect impact.

(3 = a lot) When any changes made, or a combination of changes made, directly improved

exposure control.

(N/A) Companies that did not intend to make any changes (n=17)

Q4 How likely is it that the company will carry out these control measures?

The scoring for this was based on what the intended work to be done was, how easy and how

much was intended to do and partly on the attitude of the company.

(1= not likely) For example, one company had a huge check list of things to do but they hadn't

done any of it in 6 months, not even the important changes, so the chances of them doing them

all in the future was thought to be not likely.

(2 = likely) Considered likely but not as confident as companies given a 3 rating.

(3 = very likely) If a company had made several changes that involved resources but only had a

few minor changes left and for a reason, then they were given a 3, very likely.

For example, one company had everything in place apart from smoke testing the proprietary

booths. It was a large, busy company and he needed empty booth time and some advice on how

to carry it out. It was considered very likely that they would do this.

(N/A) Companies that did not intend to make any changes

34

7.3 APPENDIX 3: DETAILED RESULTS FROM THE SHAD IMPACT EVALUATION FORM5

7.3.1 General Questions

Table A1: Did the person interviewed attend the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Yes 32 61%

No 4 8%

No data 16 31%

Table A2: How confident are you that your company meets health and safety regulations on controlling exposure to two-pack isocyanate-based paint?

Not at

all confident

1 2 3 4

Very

confident

5

Before SHAD - 7% (5) 21% (15) 50% (36) 17% (12)

After SHAD 4% (3) 10% (7) 35% (24) 41% (28) 9% (6)

Follow up - companies assessed* - 2% (1) 13% (7) 27% (14) 27% (14)

Table A3: Has the business used the Action Plan provided at the SHAD?

Number Percentage

Yes 4 8%

No 32 61%

No data 16 31%

7.3.2 Management System

Table A4: Does the company have sufficient knowledge of isocyanate health effects?

Number Percentage

Yes 33 63%

Partially 2 4%

No 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A5: Knowledge of isocyanate health effects: It causes Occupational Asthma

Number Percentage

Yes 34 65%

No 2 4%

No data 16 31%

5 Unless otherwise indicated, percentages presented in the appendix are calculated as a proportion of the

52 businesses recorded as attending the Bristol SHAD.

35

Table A6: Knowledge of isocyanate health effects: Signs & Symptoms (e.g. chest tightening, wheezing, coughing)?

Number Percentage

Yes 35 67%

No 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A7: Is suitable information, instruction, training and supervision provided?

Number Percentage

Yes 34 65%

Partially 1 2%

n/a (no employees) 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A8: Health effects have been explained:

Number Percentage

Yes 35 67%


No data 16 31%

Table A9: Control measures have been explained: Use of air fed BA allowing for clearance time

Number Percentage

Yes 35 67%


No data 16 31%

Table A10: Control measures have been explained: Exposure measurement (annually)

Number Percentage

Yes 30 58%

No 5 10%


No data 16 31%

Table A11: Control measures have been explained: Health Surveillance

Number Percentage

Yes 32 61%

No 1 2%

Partially 2 4%


No data 16 31%

36

Table A12: Supervisor has also been trained:

Number Percentage

Yes 24 46%

Partially 1 2%

n/a* 10 19%

No data 17 33%

* Few or no employees

Table A13: Changes/improvements in the management system attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Knowledge: Spraying causes occupational asthma 9 17%

Knowledge: Signs & symptom of asthma 5 10%

Suitable information, instruction, training & supervision 2 4%

Health effects explained 3 6%

Control measures explained: clearance time 4 8%

Control measures explained: Exposure measurement 3 6%

Control measures explained: Health Surveillance 4 8%

Supervisor trained 1 2%

7.3.3 Process and Engineering Control Strategy

Table A14: Is a suitable ventilated spray booth provided (under negative pressure)?

Number Percentage

Yes 32 61%

No 4 8%

No data 16 31%

Table A15: Type of ventilated spray booth provided

Number Percentage

Downdraft 19 36%

Crossdraft 1 2%

Other 12 23%

n/a 3 6%

No data 17 33%

Other (details):

Downward in, crossdraft out (4)

Down in, across out (4)

In down and out across both sides

Cross/down at one end, ceiling inlet

Homemade downdraft

Self made booth, down and cross draft

37

Table A16: Is a suitable ventilated spray space provided (under negative pressure)?

Number Percentage

Yes 6* 11%

No 2 4%

n/a 28 54%

No data 16 31%

* 3 businesses have a (suitably ventilated) booth and spray space

Table A17: Spray space: under negative pressure?

Number Percentage

Yes 5 10%

Partially 1 2%

n/a 30 58%

No data 16 31%

Table A18: Spray space: Exhaust air filtered and discharged at height?

Number Percentage

Yes 6 11%

n/a 30 58%

No data 16 31%

Table A19: Does the MVR business owner/manager know that the booth/spray space has a ‘clearance time’?

Number Percentage

Yes 27 52%

No 9 17%

No data 16 31%

Table A20: Has the ‘clearance time’ of the booth/space been assessed?

Number Percentage

Yes 13 25%

No 21 40%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A21: Are HPLV or otherwise ‘compliant’ sprayguns used?

Number Percentage

Yes 35 67%

No 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A22: Type of sprayguns used?

Number Percentage

Conventional 1 2%

HPLV 33 64%

‘Compliant’ but not HPLV 2 4%

No data 16 31%

38

Table A23: Are suitable arrangements in place for cleaning of spray guns?

Number Percentage

Yes 33 64%

Partially 1 2%

No 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A24: Are suitable arrangements in place for paint mixing?

Number Percentage

Yes 32 61%

Partially 2 4%

No 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A25: Are spray booths/spaces checked and maintained (routinely)?

Number Percentage

Yes 17 33%

Partially 4 8%

No 13 25%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A26: Daily check on booth/space fabric (e.g. door seals, filter seating, manometer)

Number Percentage

Yes 11 21%

Partially 1 2%

No 22 42%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A27: Filters checked and changed based on e.g. booth run-time (other – describe)

Number Percentage

Yes 18 35%

Partially 2 4%

No 14 27%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A28: Automatic shut-down tested at least every six months

Number Percentage

Yes 12 23%

Partially 3 6%

No 17 33%

n/a 4 8%

No data 16 31%

39

Table A29: Are spray booths/spaces thoroughly examined at least every 14 months (specialist; as per Reg 9)?

Number Percentage

Yes 22 42%

Partially 1 2%

No 11 21%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A30: Are suitable test and maintenance records kept?

Number Percentage

Yes 22 42%

Partially 1 2%

No 10 19%

n/a 3 6%

No data 16 31%

Table A31: Simple recording including ‘Actions’ system is present and used

Number Percentage

Yes 22 42%

Partially 1 2%

No 9 17%

n/a 4 8%

No data 16 31%

Table A32: Are effective dust controls in place when dry flatting/sanding?

Number Percentage

Yes 27 52%

Partially 6 11%

No 3 6%

No data 16 31%

Table A33: Dust controls: Effective on-tool LEV?

Number Percentage

Yes 23 44%

No 13 25%

No data 16 31%

Table A34: Dust controls: LEV of some description plus RPE?

Number Percentage

Yes 20 38%

No 13 25%

n/a 3 6%

No data 16 31%

40

Table A35: Dust controls: Just RPE?

Number Percentage

Yes 8 15%

No 12 23%

n/a 16 31%

No data 16 31%

Table A36: Changes/improvements in the process and engineering control strategy attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Purchased suitable ventilated spray booth - other 2 4%

Knowledge: MVR business owner/manager learned that the

booth/spray space has a ‘clearance time’?

3 6%

Spray booth/space clearance time tested (smoke) 10 19%

HPLV Gun purchased 2 4%

Spray booths/spaces thoroughly examined at least every 14

months (specialist; as per Reg 9)

2 4%

Dust controls: Bought sanding LEV 2 4%

7.3.4 Personal protective equipment (PPE) strategy

Table A37: Is suitable air fed RPE (respiratory protective equipment) worn?

Number Percentage

Visor 28 54%

Half mask 3 6%

Both 3 6%

None 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A38: Is BA air-supply flow-rate checked and tested?

Number Percentage

Yes 23 44%

No 13 25%

No data 16 31%

Table A39: Air-fed device complies with standards

Number Percentage

Yes 24 46%

No 5 10%

n/a 5 10%

No data 18 35%

Table A40: Is the air quality checked and tested?

Yes 23 44%

No 13 25%

No data 16 31%

41

Table A41: Is the air quality checked and tested against a standard?

Yes 23 44%

No 9 17%

n/a 4 8%

No data 16 31%

Table A42: Is the air-supply system maintained?

Yes 33 63%

No 2 4%

n/a 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A43: Is BA in good physical condition?

Yes 33 63%

No 1 2%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A44: Is BA stored in a clean area outside of the spray booth/room?

Yes 31 60%

Partially 2 4%

No 1 2%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A45: Are air -supply filters and tubing are checked and maintained?

Yes 22 42%

Partially 1 2%

No 12 23%

n/a 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A46: Are clean or disposable overalls worn together with suitable gloves?

Yes 35 67%

No 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A47: Changes/improvements in PPE strategy attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Bought suitable RPE 7 19%

Air quality tested 5 10%

Breathing apparatus in good physical condition? 1 2%

Changed gloves (e.g. to nitrile) 6 11%

42

7.3.5 Work Organisation and Methods

Table A48: Is all spraying conducted in the spray booth/space

Yes 35 67%

No 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A49: Is air-fed RPE worn at all times in spray booth/space during spraying?

Yes 34 65%

No 1 2%

n/a 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A50: Is air-fed RPE worn at all times in spray booth/space during the spray clearance period?

Yes 32 61%

No 3 6%

n/a 1 2%

No data 16 31%

Table A51: People can leave and enter booth/space during the clearance time as long as they do it safely

Yes 27 52%

Partially 1 2%

No 3 6%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A52: Is the air fed visor lifted to inspect the job during the booth/space ‘clearance time’

Yes 10 19%

Partially 1 2%

No 23 44%

n/a 2 4%

No data 16 31%

Table A53: Do sprayers (and others who may enter) know how to leave and enter during the ‘clearance time’? i.e. go to pedestrian door, unplug air-supply and immediately leave and visa-versa for entry

Yes 31 60%

Partially 1 2%

No 1 2%

n/a 3 6%

No data 16 31%

43

Table A54: Changes/improvements in work organisation and methods attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

All spraying carried out in the booth 1 2%

People know how to leave & enter booth/space safely during

the clearance time

9 17%

Sprayers don’t lift visor to check finish during clearance

time

5 10%

7.3.6 Health Surveillance

Table A55: Does the business owner/manager know how isocyanate exposure can be measured (biological monitoring)?

Yes 31 60%

No 5 10%

No data 16 31%

Table A56: Is effectiveness of isocyanate control measures shown by exposure measurement (using biological monitoring as per Reg 10)?

Yes 4 8%

Partially 1 2%

No 31 60%

No data 16 31%

Table A57: Is suitable occupational health surveillance provided by a competent person (questionnaire and lung function test at least annually) ?

Yes 17 33%

No 19 36%

No data 16 31%

Table A58: Are appropriate actions taken when results suggest (early) response to isocyanate is occurring?

Yes 9 17%

Partially 1 2%

No 1 2%

n/a 25 48%

No data 16 31%

Table A59: Changes/improvements in health surveillance attributed to attending the Bristol SHAD?

Number Percentage

Business owner/manager knows how isocyanate exposure

can be measured (biological monitoring)?

6 11%

Suitable occupational health surveillance provided by

competent person

3 6%

44

7.3.7 SHAD Specific

Table A60: Why has action not been taken yet?

Number Percentage

Cost 5 10%

Time 9 17%

Lack of information 9 17%

In process of installing new both & LEV 1 2%

Sprayer reluctance 1 2%

Can’t find a visor with air flow indicator 1 2%

Table A61: Field Scientist confidence rating that the measures taken since the SHAD have improved exposure control?

Number Percentage

A little 7 13%

A lot 20 38%

No data 25 48%

Table A62: Field Scientist rating of how likely it is that these control measures will be sustained?

Number Percentage

Not likely 1 2%

Likely 8 15%

Very likely 18 35%

No data 25 48%

Table A63: Field Scientist rating of how likely it is that the company will carry out the intended control measures?

Number Percentage

Not likely 1 2%

Likely 7 13%

Very likely 9 17%

No data 35 67%

Table A64 Field Scientist confidence rating that the measures to be taken will improve exposure control?

Number Percentage

Not at all 3 6%

A little 8 15%

A lot 6 11%

No data 35 67%

45

7.4 APPENDIX 4: DETAILS OF ACTIONS & INTENDED ACTIONS DUE TO SHAD ATTENDANCE

46

Ta

ble

A6

5:

De

tails

of

actio

ns t

ake

n &

in

ten

de

d a

ctio

ns p

rom

pte

d b

y S

HA

D a

tte

nd

an

ce

, &

Fie

ld S

cie

ntists

’ e

va

lua

tio

n o

f th

e e

xte

nt

to w

hic

h t

he

co

mp

lete

d &

in

ten

de

d a

ctio

ns w

ill im

pro

ve

exp

osu

re c

on

tro

l.

C

hanges

/Act

ions

What

pro

mpte

d

act

ion

/in

tend

ed

act

ion

Co

nfi

den

ce

in m

easu

res

imp

rovi

ng

co

ntr

ol

Lik

elih

oo

d

of

mea

sure

s

bei

ng

S

ust

ain

ed

Inte

nd

ed

act

ion

Co

nfi

den

ce i

n

mea

sure

s

imp

rovi

ng

co

ntr

ol

Lik

elih

oo

d o

f

inte

nd

ed

act

ions

bei

ng

carr

ied o

ut

Add

itio

na

l

info

rmati

on/c

om

men

ts/o

bse

rvati

ons

1.

No l

on

ger

spra

ys

S

HA

D

3

3

n/a

.

. C

om

pan

y u

sed t

o s

pra

y b

ut

do

n't

anym

ore

an

d

don't

inte

nd t

o d

o s

o i

n t

he

futu

re.

2.

Dec

ided

no

t to

res

tart

spra

yin

g

SH

AD

3

3

n

/a

. .

Has

a s

pra

y b

oo

th b

ut

hav

e re

nte

d i

t o

ut

for

a

whil

e; w

as c

onsi

der

ing r

esta

rtin

g b

ut

dec

ided

it w

asn't w

ort

h h

is w

hil

e af

ter

the

SH

AD

.

3.

Bo

ugh

t lo

ng

er h

ose

to

reac

h d

oo

r

SH

AD

3

3

H

ealt

h

surv

eill

ance

2

2

2 m

an o

per

atio

n -

Ow

ner

an

d s

pra

yer

.

Imp

ress

ed b

y S

HA

D -

go

od

in

form

atio

n.

4.

New

RP

E w

ith

indic

ator

SH

AD

2

3

H

ealt

h

surv

eill

ance

2

1

1 b

oo

th.

Em

plo

yee

qu

it a

fter

SH

AD

; n

ot

spra

yer

but

convin

ced f

latt

ing p

aint

would

mak

e h

im i

ll.

Ow

ner

thou

gh

t th

at u

sing

th

e

wel

der

as

an e

xam

ple

of

occ

up

atio

n a

sth

ma

was

wro

ng a

nd d

oubte

d t

he

accu

racy

.

5.

Hea

lth s

urv

eill

ance

;

bo

ug

ht

air

qu

alit

y

test

ing k

it;

smoke

test

s

(cle

aran

ce t

ime

on

booth

s);

new

pre

ssure

met

er;

nit

rile

glo

ves

bought;

bio

logic

al

mo

nit

ori

ng

reg

ula

rly

do

ne

SH

AD

3

3

N

o

. .

Sp

ray

sh

op

man

ager

and

ov

eral

l m

anag

er

atte

nd

ed;

imp

ress

ed b

y S

HA

D. 3

spra

yer

s; 2

bo

oth

s. C

lear

ance

tim

es p

ost

ed o

n b

oo

ths.

Ver

y k

now

ledg

eab

le a

nd

kee

n, lo

ok

ing

to

impro

ve.

Wan

ted t

o k

now

wher

e to

get

a v

isor

wit

h f

low

bal

l.

6.

Chan

ged

fil

ters

in

com

pre

sso

r

SH

AD

2

1

C

han

ge

of

filt

ers

2

2

On

e-m

an/s

elf-

emp

loyed

. Im

pre

ssed

by

SH

AD

. H

as s

pra

y s

pac

e but

not

use

d;

does

ver

y l

ittl

e sp

rayin

g.

Roof

leak

s so

can

't s

pra

y

in b

ad w

eath

er. 5

5 y

ears

old

an

d w

on

't b

e in

bu

sin

ess

lon

g. U

ses

spra

yb

oo

th i

n B

rist

ol

for

larg

er j

obs.

47

7.

Sm

ok

e g

ener

ato

r

bo

rro

wed

; b

ou

gh

t ai

r

qual

ity t

est

kit

; an

nual

LE

V c

hec

k;

skin

hea

lth

su

rvei

llan

ce;

nit

rile

glo

ves

bought

SH

AD

3

3

B

iolo

gic

al

mo

nit

ori

ng

2

2

Fam

ily

co

mp

any

; o

wn

er a

nd

2 o

ther

sp

ray

ers.

Enjo

yed

SH

AD

; ver

y i

nfo

rmat

ive.

Appea

red

ver

y i

nfo

rmed

on

iso

cyan

ates

. A

dd

ed s

kin

to

annu

al h

ealt

h s

urv

eill

ance

. A

sked

fo

r m

ore

uri

ne

bo

ttle

s. K

new

a l

ot

abou

t boo

ths;

imp

ress

ed b

y I

tali

an s

tan

dar

ds.

8.

New

RP

E (

mas

k)

purc

has

ed;

chan

ged

wo

rkin

g p

ract

ices

(lea

vin

g b

oo

th;

lift

ing

vis

or)

SH

AD

3

3

N

o

. .

Sp

rayer

att

ended

; no

t o

wn

er. A

sked

fo

r n

ew

mas

k a

fter

SH

AD

- b

ough

t im

med

iate

ly.

No

longer

lif

ts v

isor

whil

st s

pra

yin

g &

rem

oves

vis

or

at d

oor.

Found

the

SH

AD

inte

rest

ing.

Hom

emad

e booth

; ai

r in

let

in c

eili

ng;

extr

acti

on i

n w

all.

Lig

hts

& s

ock

ets

unsa

fe.

9.

Sto

pp

ed r

e-en

teri

ng

boo

th a

fter

sp

rayin

g;

use

nit

rile

glo

ves

no

w;

hea

lth

su

rvei

llan

ce

arra

ng

ed a

nd

do

ne

SH

AD

3

3

S

mo

ke

gen

erat

or;

bio

logic

al

mo

nit

ori

ng

3

2

2 m

en s

pra

yin

g -

bo

th a

tten

ded

SH

AD

.

App

eare

d c

om

pet

ent

and k

now

ledg

eab

le.

Ver

y k

een

fo

r in

form

atio

n.

Tho

ug

ht

SH

AD

was

ver

y g

ood,

info

rmat

ive

and w

ort

hw

hil

e.

10.

Sm

ok

e te

st;

hea

lth

surv

eill

ance

; bo

ugh

t

new

vis

or

SH

AD

3

2

N

o

. .

Ow

ner

/sp

ray

er a

nd

3 a

pp

ren

tice

s; o

wn

er d

oes

mo

st s

pra

yin

g. S

HA

D f

rig

hte

ned

him

- d

oes

tend t

o n

ip i

nto

the

booth

duri

ng c

lear

ance

tim

e if

he

has

a n

um

ber

of

jobs

on &

tim

e is

tig

ht.

Hea

lth

su

rvei

llan

ce 6

mo

nth

ly.

Appea

red k

now

ledgea

ble

& c

om

pet

ent.

11.

Sm

ok

e te

sted

; n

ew

HP

LV

gun

; n

ew v

isor

SH

AD

3

2

H

ealt

h

surv

eill

ance

2

2

Sp

ok

e to

th

e o

wn

er a

nd

th

e o

nly

sp

ray

er

thou

gh

th

ey d

id n

ot

atte

nd S

HA

D d

ue

to

hav

ing

op

erat

ion

on

th

eir

han

d.

Boo

th l

oo

ks

effi

cien

t. W

ill

look a

t hea

lth s

urv

eill

ance

thou

gh

has

med

ical

ev

ery 2

yea

rs.

12.

New

nit

rile

glo

ves

;

now

roll

s pri

mer

ou

tsid

e b

oo

th

SH

AD

2

3

N

o

. .

On

e-m

an /

self

-em

plo

yed

. V

ery

know

ledgea

ble

and s

afet

y c

onsc

ious.

Has

done

CO

SH

H a

sses

smen

ts.

Ser

vic

es h

is o

wn

bo

oth

; k

no

ws

abo

ut

iso

cyan

ates

an

d b

oo

th

pre

ssure

s. E

njo

yed

the

SH

AD

and t

hought

it

ver

y i

nfo

rmat

ive.

48

13.

Bio

log

ical

mo

nit

ori

ng

;

Air

qual

ity

SH

AD

2

3

S

mo

ke

test

3

1

E

stab

lish

ed c

om

pan

y.

1 s

pra

yer

; 2

0 y

ears

at

com

pan

y.

Bio

log

ical

mo

nit

ori

ng

do

ne

and

clea

r. S

mo

ke

test

to

be

arra

ng

ed.

Man

ager

atte

nded

.

14.

New

mas

k b

ou

gh

t

imm

edia

tely

; sp

rayer

left

bu

sin

ess

SH

AD

3

3

N

o

. .

Spra

yer

att

ended

not

the

ow

ner

. S

pra

yer

chan

ged

car

eer

par

tial

ly d

ue

to S

HA

D.

Poo

r

posi

tion o

f ex

trac

tion i

n b

ooth

(sh

ort

cir

cuit

).

Gar

age

ow

ner

inte

nds

to s

ell

up s

oon. S

pra

yer

ask

ed f

or

new

mas

k a

fter

SH

AD

an

d o

ne

was

bought

imm

edia

tely

.

15.

Bo

ugh

t a

boo

th

SH

AD

3

3

H

ealt

h

surv

eill

ance

;

Sm

ok

e

gen

erat

or

3

2

2 p

eop

le s

pra

yin

g. O

wn

er a

nd

sp

ray

er

atte

nd

ed. O

wn

er h

as m

ild

ast

hm

a fr

om

chil

dhood.

Though

t th

at h

is s

pra

y s

pac

e w

as

no

t ad

equ

ate

and t

he

SH

AD

co

nfi

rmed

th

is.

16.

Cle

aran

ce t

imes

on

boo

th d

oo

rs;

bio

logic

al m

onit

ori

ng;

Act

ion p

lan

SH

AD

3

3

N

o

. .

Est

abli

shed

com

pan

y;

2 b

oo

ths

& 3

sp

ray

ers.

Pin

ned

cle

aran

ce t

imes

on

bo

oth

s (4

& 7

min

s).

17.

Chan

ged

to n

itri

le

glo

ves

SH

AD

2

2

u

rin

e te

sts;

RP

E

3

3

Co

nsu

ltan

cy m

anag

es H

&S

. C

hec

ked

RP

E -

spra

yer

was

usi

ng

a 3

M o

rin

asal

res

pir

ato

r.

Man

agem

ent

pro

mis

ed t

o a

dd

ress

AS

AP

.

Ow

ner

rel

uct

ant

to s

upply

new

RP

E a

s

pre

vio

us

on

e d

amag

ed t

hro

ug

h m

isu

se a

nd

was

consi

der

ing a

lo

an w

ith i

nce

nti

ve

to g

et

the

spra

yer

to l

ook a

fter

it.

Consu

ltan

t ad

vis

ed

that

th

e co

mp

any i

s d

uty

boun

d t

o p

rov

ide

it.

Att

end

ee t

hou

gh

t th

e S

HA

D w

as v

ery a

good

even

t an

d l

earn

t fr

om

it.

Inte

rest

ed i

n

bio

log

ical

mo

nit

ori

ng

& s

mo

ke

test

.

18.

New

bo

oth

; ch

ang

ed

wo

rkin

g p

ract

ices

SH

AD

3

3

O

ccupat

ional

hea

lth

surv

eill

ance

;

new

extr

acti

on

2

3

Mo

ved

pre

mis

es 5

mo

nth

s ag

o;

lear

nt

a lo

t

fro

m S

HA

D. 2

par

tner

; n

on

-sp

ray

er w

ent,

oth

er p

artn

er i

s sp

rayer

wan

ts h

im t

o g

o t

o

Car

dif

f S

HA

D. W

ants

info

rmat

ion

on n

ew

san

din

g e

xtr

acti

on

sy

stem

. P

eop

le c

om

ing

nex

t w

eek

to

tes

t b

oo

th.

49

19.

Ch

eck

ed a

ir q

ual

ity

;

chan

ged

glo

ves

; w

ears

vis

or

wh

ile

clea

nin

g

gun

(in

boo

th)

SH

AD

3

3

Im

pro

ve

extr

acti

on/i

nle

t

filt

ers;

hea

lth

surv

eill

ance

3

3

2-p

erso

n b

usi

nes

s; b

oth

att

ended

. S

pra

y l

arge

com

mer

cial

s. H

om

emad

e b

oo

th. E

xtr

acti

on

on

e en

d. lo

ok

ing

to

double

the

size

& p

rovid

e

inle

ts.

Ask

ed f

or

adv

ice.

Hav

en't

go

t ro

un

d t

o

hea

lth

su

rvei

llan

ce b

ut

wil

l. U

ncl

ear

about

hea

lth s

urv

eill

ance

. A

ll e

qu

ipm

ent

kep

t in

spra

y s

pac

e. G

ave

up

sm

ok

ing

.

20.

An

nu

al L

EV

ch

eck

;

bo

ug

ht

air

qu

alit

y

annu

ally

; bo

ugh

t

smo

ke

gen

erat

or;

pre

ssu

re g

aug

e fo

r

boo

th;

bo

ugh

t n

ew

vis

or;

bou

gh

t du

st

extr

acti

on

fo

r sa

nd

ing

SH

AD

3

2

N

o

. .

2-m

an c

om

pan

y;

bo

th s

pra

y;

on

e at

ten

ded

SH

AD

. H

ave

do

ne

lots

of

thin

gs

sin

ce;

fou

nd

it i

nfo

rmat

ive

though t

hey

knew

mo

st a

lrea

dy.

No h

ealt

h s

urv

eill

ance

or

bio

logic

al

mo

nit

ori

ng

. D

o s

mo

ke

test

mo

nth

ly.

21.

Ch

ang

ed p

ract

ices

;

do

esn

't re

-en

ter

boo

th

for

10

min

s; s

pec

ific

ov

eral

l/g

lov

es f

or

spra

yin

g

SH

AD

3

3

N

o

. .

Ow

ner

is

spra

yer

; en

joyed

th

e S

HA

D a

nd s

aid

it w

as a

n e

ye

open

er e

spec

iall

y t

he

hea

lth s

ide

and

th

e sp

ray

bo

oth

cir

cula

tio

n. A

pp

eare

d

ver

y h

ealt

h c

on

scio

us

and

had

ch

ang

ed

work

ing p

ract

ices

sin

ce t

he

SH

AD

.

22.

Bought

smoke

mac

hin

e; t

este

d

clea

rance

tim

e;

chan

ged

wo

rkin

g

pra

ctic

e of

lift

ing

vis

or

and c

lear

ing

boo

th

SH

AD

3

2

N

o

. .

Ow

ner

att

end

ed S

HA

D. 1

sp

ray

er.

Lar

ge

spra

y s

pac

e w

ith

cy

lin

dri

cal

extr

acti

on

.

Mix

ing a

nd c

lean

ing i

n b

ooth

. V

ery l

ittl

e

spra

yin

g c

urr

entl

y d

on

e. W

ill

stop

sp

rayin

g

wh

en s

pra

yer

fin

ish

es;

fin

anci

ally

no

t w

ort

h i

t.

Spra

yer

unhap

py -

les

s pay

than

mec

han

ics.

23.

Bo

rro

wed

sm

ok

e

gen

erat

or

to c

hec

k

clea

rance

tim

es &

trai

n s

pra

yer

s

SH

AD

3

3

N

o

. .

Join

t o

wn

ers

plu

s 2

sp

ray

ers.

Im

pre

ssed

by

kn

ow

led

ge

of

ow

ner

& s

pra

yer

s. C

lean

bu

sin

ess.

Req

ues

ted

uri

ne

bo

ttle

s -

did

n't

rem

emb

er b

ein

g o

ffer

ed a

ny

at

SH

AD

.

Pro

vid

es b

arri

er c

ream

s. U

sed

sm

ok

e

gen

erat

or

to s

ho

w s

pra

yer

s sm

ok

e ci

rcu

lati

ng

on s

ides

of

bo

oth

50

24.

Sm

ok

e g

ener

ato

r;

boug

ht

new

HP

LV

gun

s

SH

AD

3

2

N

o

. .

2 m

an o

per

atio

n;

bo

ss a

tten

ded

& w

ants

spra

yer

to

att

end

nex

t o

ne.

Is

kee

n f

or

Fie

ld

Sci

enti

st t

o r

eturn

to

re-

test

the

air

qual

ity

(done

rece

ntl

y).

Appea

red k

now

ledgea

ble

and

inte

rest

ed. T

hou

gh

t th

e S

HA

D w

as

info

rmat

ive

(poin

ted o

ut

that

a s

pra

yer

wit

h

occ

up

atio

nal

ast

hm

a w

ou

ld h

ave

bee

n b

ette

r).

25.

Bo

ugh

t n

ew v

iso

r

SH

AD

2

2

N

o

. .

Did

n't a

tten

d h

imse

lf;

sen

t his

spra

yer

who h

as

since

lef

t. T

he

com

pan

y s

pra

y l

arge

item

such

as e

xh

ibit

ion

sta

nd

s. W

ants

a m

ore

ex

pen

siv

e

vis

or.

Wou

ld l

ike

to a

tten

d t

he

Car

dif

f S

HA

D.

26.

Skin

hea

lth

surv

eill

ance

SH

AD

2

3

N

o

. .

Ow

ner

bo

ug

ht

the

com

pan

y f

rom

his

bo

ss. 2

boo

ths

and 2

sp

rayer

s. E

njo

yed

SH

AD

and

kn

ew m

ost

an

yw

ay. A

dd

ed s

kin

to

hea

lth

surv

eill

ance

. T

hin

ks

HS

E s

hou

ld b

e m

ore

pro

acti

ve

in g

ivin

g i

nfo

fro

m t

he

SH

AD

. N

ew

booth

wil

l be

bought

nex

t yea

r; l

arger

one

to

rep

lace

sm

all

on

e.

27.

Cle

aran

ce t

ime

asse

ssed

; q

ues

tio

ned

hal

f m

ask s

uit

abil

ity

SH

AD

; M

VR

A

3

2

No

.

. M

ost

thin

gs

in p

lace

. G

ood h

ealt

h a

nd s

afet

y

atti

tude.

Join

ed M

VR

A t

o g

et c

ontr

acts

&

imp

rov

ed H

&S

- i

ncl

ud

ed b

ooth

tes

tin

g;

airl

ine

qual

ity;

hea

lth s

urv

eill

ance

. S

ound

Advic

e do h

ealt

h s

urv

eill

ance

; ai

r te

stin

g

mai

nta

ined

by S

pra

ybak

e. I

nte

rvie

wee

found

SH

AD

wo

rth

wh

ile

bu

t fo

un

d t

he

RP

E &

sp

ray

guns

talk

s a

bit

sal

es o

rien

ted;

not

enough

tech

nic

al i

nfo

rmat

ion e

spec

iall

y r

egar

din

g h

alf

mas

ks

and

vis

ors

.

28

. N

o a

ctio

ns

tak

en

SH

AD

.

. S

mo

ke

test

2

3

M

anag

er v

ery

en

thu

sias

tic

abo

ut

imp

rov

emen

t. 4

bo

oth

s &

4 s

pra

yer

s.

Ever

yth

ing e

lse

in p

lace

.

29

. N

on

e d

on

e y

et

SH

AD

.

. bio

logic

al

mo

nit

ori

ng

;

smo

ke

test

; ai

r

qual

ity

3

2

2 o

wn

ers

& 1

sp

ray

er a

tten

ded

SH

AD

; v

ery

info

rmat

ive.

1 o

ther

sp

ray

er. D

idn

't

und

erst

and

ab

ou

t h

ealt

h s

urv

eill

ance

or

bio

logic

al m

onit

ori

ng.

51

30

. N

on

e

SH

AD

.

. A

ll;

En

coura

ged

to

revis

it a

ctio

n

pla

n

3

1

1 B

oo

th;

2 s

pra

yer

s. E

njo

yed

SH

AD

an

d

lear

nt

lots

about

all

safe

ty a

spec

ts o

f sp

rayin

g.

No

rea

l ac

tio

n t

aken

so

en

cou

rag

ed t

o t

ry a

nd

acti

on s

afet

y i

ssues

. S

afet

y k

it a

vai

lable

but

no

test

ing/m

ainte

nan

ce/h

ealt

h s

urv

eill

ance

pro

ced

ure

s in

pla

ce.

31.

No

t co

mp

lete

d y

et

SH

AD

&

Sup

pli

er

Inst

alli

ng n

ew

du

st e

xtr

acti

on

syst

em

3

3

1 B

oo

th;

2 s

pra

yer

s. U

nd

ergo

ing m

ajo

r

upgra

de

- n

ew p

ain

t sy

stem

. N

ew b

oo

th

awai

ting f

inal

set

up.

Ever

yth

ing n

ot

in p

lace

bu

t ar

e co

mm

itte

d. A

dv

ised

to

co

nta

ct H

SE

&

kee

p r

eco

rds.

Att

end

ee t

hou

gh

t th

e S

HA

D

was

a g

oo

d a

nd

was

sho

cked

by

th

e v

ideo

of

the

wel

der

an

d v

id v

iz o

f p

ain

t sp

ray

pai

nte

r’s

in b

reat

hin

g z

on

e.

32

. N

on

e d

on

e y

et

SH

AD

.

. A

nnu

al L

EV

chec

ks;

hea

lth

surv

eill

ance

3

3

2 p

artn

ers;

1 a

tten

ded

; o

ther

is

spra

yer

. B

oo

th

& s

pra

y s

pac

e w

ith e

xtr

acti

on f

or

larg

er

veh

icle

s (b

use

s). H

op

es t

o i

nv

est

in a

lar

ger

bo

oth

if

the

coac

h-s

pra

yin

g c

on

trac

t

con

tinu

es. E

njo

yed

th

e S

HA

D;

goo

d w

ay o

f

doin

g i

t, l

earn

t a

lot.

Not

sure

about

LE

V

chec

ks

- so

ught

advic

e.

33

. N

on

e

.

. N

o

. .

Ow

ner

att

end

ed, n

ot

spra

yer

; b

oth

bee

n

spra

yin

g 2

0 y

ears

. O

nly

att

ended

a s

mal

l par

t

of

the

SH

AD

du

e to

a f

uner

al. S

pra

yer

pre

fers

hal

f m

ask b

ut

rare

ly w

ears

goggle

s/ey

e

pro

tect

ion

.

34.

No

ne

- In

spec

tor

con

tact

ed

.

. N

o

. .

2-m

an c

om

pan

y;

spra

yer

att

end

ed n

ot

the

man

ager

. S

pra

yer

to

ld m

anag

er w

hat

was

wro

ng

an

d t

hat

air

fed

vis

or

was

nee

ded

bu

t

man

ager

ref

use

d t

o g

et o

ne.

In

spec

tor

info

rmed

an

d t

he

com

pan

y r

ecei

ved

an

insp

ecti

on v

isit

.

35.

No

ne

(No

ne

req

uir

ed

acco

rdin

g t

o t

he

ow

ner

)

.

. N

o

. .

Ow

ner

has

occ

up

atio

nal

ast

hm

a fr

om

sp

ray

ing

- n

o l

on

ger

sp

ray

s. 3

sp

ray

ers

incl

ud

ing

his

son. H

as h

ealt

h s

urv

eill

ance

but

not

bio

logic

al

mo

nit

ori

ng. V

ery k

no

wle

dg

eab

le;

run

s ti

gh

t

ship

due

to h

is c

ondit

ion.

52

36

. E

ver

yth

ing

in

pla

ce

.

. N

o

. .

Lar

ge

com

pan

y w

ith

8 s

pra

yer

s. H

& S

off

icer

and H

& S

Man

ager

; b

oth

att

end

ed. H

ad

ever

yth

ing i

n p

lace

. 2 p

ropri

etar

y s

pra

y

booth

s. A

ll w

ork

ers

had

hea

lth s

urv

eill

ance

no

t ju

st s

pra

yer

s.

37.

Lar

ge

com

pan

y -

No

chan

ges

nee

ded

Co

nsu

ltan

t;

ISO

90

02

;

shar

ed s

ite

. .

No

.

. 3

bo

oth

s; 6

sp

ray

ers.

Lar

ge

bo

dy

sho

p s

har

es

site

wit

h a

car

lea

sing c

om

pan

y &

do t

hei

r

bodyw

ork

pri

or

to r

esel

ling. H

as a

2nd s

ite

nea

rby

- n

ot

vis

ited

. M

D t

ho

ug

ht

SH

AD

was

a

good

th

ing b

ut

did

n't

tell

him

an

yth

ing

new

.

Act

ion i

nfl

uen

ced

by c

onfo

rmin

g t

o I

SO

900

2

and c

ar l

easi

ng c

om

pan

y’s

h&

s poli

cy.

38.

No a

ctio

ns

taken

H

SE

Insp

ecto

r

. .

Bio

logic

al

mo

nit

ori

ng

2

2

1 s

pra

yer

& 1

boo

th. M

anag

er t

hou

gh

t th

e

awar

enes

s day

was

wort

hw

hil

e. M

ost

of

info

rmat

ion

he

was

aw

are

of

du

e to

con

tin

uin

g

pre

ssure

fro

m H

SE

in

spec

tora

te.

Mo

st

req

uir

emen

ts h

ave

bee

n m

et a

nd

th

e m

anag

er

is n

ow

qu

ite

awar

e of

the

issu

es o

f sp

rayin

g

isocy

anat

e pai

nts

.

53

8 REFERENCES

HSE (2005) http://www.hse.gov.uk/mvr/main-illhealth.htm

O’Hara R (2005) Evaluation of four Pilot Safety & Health Awareness Days (SHADs) for motor

vehicle paint sprayers, HSL Report SOFS/05/01.

Piney M (2004) FOD MVR and isocyanate control influencing and inspection project plan 2004

– 07 (Version 2), Field Operations Directorate: Wales and South West Divisional Specialist

Group – Occupational Hygiene Section.

Evaluating the impact of the Pilot Bristol Safety & Health Awareness ... · Evaluating the impact...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluating the impact of the Pilot Bristol Safety & Health Awareness ... · Evaluating the impact...