Exposure, control and containment issues

A central message, echoed by many of the speakers throughout the conference was the importance of communication and collaboration between Occupation Hygiene professionals, designers, engineers and especially end users at the earliest possible stage in the lifecycle of a project. Jakob Naerheim, chief engineer, health and working environment, Statoil gave examples of how this approach worked for a variety of projects associated with the design and construction of offshore oil and gas rigs which are required to be operated safely in some of the harshest and most hazardous environments on earth.

The company’s approach to using BAT and ALARP principles together with a policy which limits hazard control options to elimination, substitution and engineering strategies only at the design stage, while reserving administrative and PPE controls only as a last option during the operational phase of a project has served the organisation well in ensuring that more effective, long term control and containment options are embedded into the project at the design stage.

John Farris, SafeBridge developed this theme outlining the communication challenges, even at design stage, as a result of different disciplines having different project philosophies and priorities and in effect speaking ‘different languages’; Engineers talk about ‘budget’, ‘schedule’, ‘cGMP’, ‘tried and tested technologies’ and ‘company focus’, whereas the hygienist philosophy is focused on the outcome of the project, a liking for new design and technology, with compliance as the overriding factor and the employee is the customer. Even the terminology between the two professions is strikingly different: validation versus verification, design exposure limit versus occupational exposure limit; we must continue to understand and learn from each other. John stated that the "suit ‘em up philosophy” will not work and offered examples of how occupational hygienists (or indeed engineers) can build the business case and communicate this to management. 

Peter Marshall, AstraZeneca further extrapolated some of the challenges in the design process and methodology advocating a risk based approach to control and containment solutions.  A defined control scheme should be put in place at the design stage of a project based on a combination of the knowledge of the toxicity of the materials (fixed) together with information on the process (exposure; variable) to assess risk (control system knowledge) and define the control scheme. 

Nigel Saunders of GSK reminded the delegates that containment is the middle of the hierarchy of control and too often we forget about elimination and substitution. He discussed that as we move down the hierarchy of control from elimination to PPE/RPE, we are relying on increasing participation and supervision and accepting decreasing effectiveness and sustainability. GSK’s Exposure Control Approach was presented which again highlighted the importance of a multidisciplinary team in all the project stages. Nigel concluded with some thoughts on risk perception and strategies for effective cross cultural team work. 

Mark Abromovitz, Novartis also highlighted the importance of a risk-based approach particularly in the case of retrofitting control and containment solutions. Getting good reliable exposure information, through monitoring and measuring can best inform targeted solutions to exposure issues and ensure that resources are focused where they are most needed and can deliver the most effective solutions. Mark concluded with a suggestion that we "Bring Good Science to the Party; If you are not keeping score, you are only practicing”. 

Over the two days, several detailed case studies were presented on exposure control and containment challenges and discussions on how these were successfully addressed.  A highlight of the conference was a visit to the ProSys facility which designs and builds bespoke engineering containment controls including isolators. Here delegates got the opportunity to see the interaction of engineering and occupational hygiene professions at the concept design and build stages. Practical innovative applications using both flexible and rigid technologies in design and retrofit were demonstrated as well as workshops on ergonomic considerations in the design of containment solutions and techniques for verifying the performance of containment systems both as part of FAT and in the field.

The conference ended with an open discussion during which delegates, speakers and exhibitors discussed many of the issues and challenges experienced in the day-to-day management of exposure control and containment in industry and, with so much energy, enthusiasm, interaction and expertise buzzing around Cork for the two days, hopefully left with a broader perspective on options, solutions and support available in achieving effective exposure control.