G225 Local Exhaust Ventilation in D&T is the main guide on this topic The opening sentence states:

Local exhaust ventilation is used to remove or reduce the level of contamination in workplace atmospheres and thus reduce the risk of ill health in staff, students and visitors. It is essential that LEV is provided where the risk assessment shows it is required, that it is used, and that it is maintained in good working order. It is also essential that the correct type of LEV is installed so that contaminants are removed from the air.

Any dust can be harmful, and under COSHH regulations, harmful dust must be controlled.

In a typical secondary school, it would be unlikely that the levels of dust in a D&T workshop will reach the Work Exposure Limits (WELs) where action must be taken. However, the employer is required to keep exposure to harmful dust and fume as low as is reasonably practicable, which will require some precautions.

Cutting and machining timber products tends to create larger dust particles, but sanding or hand sanding will create smaller particles which can be breathed in and become a risk to those carrying out the operation, or those nearby.

The Work Exposure Limits (WELs) for wood dusts have been updated recently, which means that the level of dust in a room may now require greater controls, but it is unlikely to be a significant issue, or require a change in how it is handled, in most schools.

Our guidance has been for many years; where there is dust created, which is considered a risk to the operator, or those nearby, it should be controlled.

Through the increased awareness of respirable dust, it is now becoming more likely that, in an industrial setting, or on a building site, it would be expected that dust is controlled through the use of on-tool extraction with HEPA M standard filters.

HEPA stands for: High-efficiency particulate air, The effectiveness of the machine is measured against three levels of extraction, L which will capture approximately 99% of dust with a grain size less than 2 microns, M which will capture 99.7% of the same dust and H which will capture 99.995% of the same dust.

In schools, M is capable of removing nearly all dust that is generated in working with timber materials.

Henry Hoovers are often used in schools and can be fitted with HEPA bags, but they are not M rated, as the M standard includes various other aspects of the design of the cleaner, not just the dust bag.

For a number of years, CLEAPSS have recommended that cleaning should be carried out using a ‘dustless’ method, i.e. using an industrial vacuum cleaner, fitted with HEPA filters to M standard. Or using a wet method, such as wet mopping – however, this is not always a good idea in a workshop as it may increase the risk of slips and trips.

In summary, where you have assessed that dust presents a you must do something to control that risk. Ideally, this would be through the use of effective extraction at source, but where this is not possible, the activity or the materials may need to be changed to avoid creating the dust. The use of a vacuum cleaner to remove the dust at the end of an operation is preferable over wet cleaning in a workshop, brushing the dust must be avoided. To avoid dust being re-introduced into the breathing space by the vacuum, the vacuum should be HEPA filtered and the industry standard is now M rated.

There have also been a few helplines about the use of protective footwear in workshops.

CLEAPSS assumes that footwear falls under the school uniform policy, and the pupils comply with the school rules.

It would be unusual to find a school where there are special provisions for footwear in D&T or food, although departments do sometimes have in their own rules, that hard wearing shoes or boots, should be worn. This would be common in a FE college or industrial workplace.

Hard wearing footwear is not, strictly speaking, PPE, as PPE would have to reach a certain standard, and be marked as such. General shoes, or leather trainers are not tested to be provide certain levels of safety, and are therefore not classed as PPE.

If the teacher (or any other employee) considers that there is a significant risk of harm, they should put this in writing to their manager, with suggested control measures, which may include the wearing of protective footwear.

The control measures should take into account the hierarchy of risk control:

1. Elimination: Redesign the job or substitute a substance so that the hazard is removed or eliminated.

2. Substitution: Replace the material or process or activity with a less hazardous one. Care should be taken to ensure the alternative is safer than the original.

3. Engineering controls: Use work equipment or other measures. Install or use additional machinery such as local exhaust ventilation to control risks from dust or fume. Separate the hazard from operators by methods such as isolating, enclosing or guarding dangerous items of machinery/equipment. Give priority to measures which protect collectively over individual measures.

4. Administrative controls: Identifying and implementing the procedures you need to work safely. For example: reducing the time workers are exposed to hazards; increasing safety signage, and performing risk assessments.

5.  Personal protective clothes and equipment: Only after all the previous measures have been tried and found ineffective in controlling risks to a reasonably practicable level, must personal protective equipment (PPE) or Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) be used.

Under 2 above, the teacher could substitute the activity, and reduce the requirement for pupils to move heavy or sharp objects – neither of which is ideal, but they should be considered prior to considering PPE – safety footwear.