Health and Safety
Executive / Commission
Local authority circulars
To: Directors of Environmental Health/ Chief Environmental Health Officers of London, Metropolitan, District and Unitary Authorities and Chief Executives of County Councils.
For the attention of: Environmental Services/Trading Standards/Fire authorities/Other
This circular gives advice to local authority enforcement officers
| Health and Safety Executive | Operational Circular |
| OC 273/19 |
| Review Date | 31/07/2012 | Open Government Status | Fully Open |
|---|---|---|---|
| Version No & Date | 1: 31/07/2003 | Author Unit/Section | FOD FSU |
To
All HSE Inspectors
ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT MODEL (EMM)
1 Application of the EMM to the health risks from exposure to chemicals covers a wide topic and touches upon a range of issues concerning a variety of hazards, the existence of established arrangements for setting exposure limits and the hierarchy of controls as applied through legislation. It is not possible to provide for all eventualities and therefore this guidance is intended to be used as an outline or a set of principles to be followed when considering the appropriate level of enforcement action.
2 The matrix (see Appendix) provides information to assist in the selection of the appropriate EMM terms to feed into the model to deal with health risks from chemicals. It starts by listing the 'topics' by health effect and these are based on the descriptions used in CHIP to enable the descriptions to be used consistently (column 1). Some of the CHIP categories have been combined where enforcement options seem to be similar and the final row deals with chemical substances which do not give rise to the other specific health outcomes.
3 For most risks arising from the use of chemicals the nature of the health outcome will be known and will be identified in labelling requirements (eg risk phrases) and in data sheets.
4 For some chemicals it will be necessary to obtain basic information about the toxicology and potential health effects from exposure to the chemical before using the model. See OC 130/5 for general guidance on applying EMM to health risks, and on determining the most credible health outcome.
5 Column 2 of the matrix sets out the consequence descriptor (as described in OC 130/5 Table 1 - Consequences) which is coupled with its 'Application/Interpretation' (column 3) to indicate the seriousness of the outcome and the health effect being considered.
6 Where reference is made to 'exposure' a judgement of the potential extent of exposure needs to be made by taking into account all the factors in the benchmark standard. This will include such elements as the condition and maintenance arrangements for ventilation equipment or PPE, the effect of inadequate provision of information and training, and the consequences of limited health surveillance. The judgement is not necessarily dependent on measured exposures against limits.
7 The matrix uses some qualifying terms such as 'repeated', 'prolonged', etc which are not defined. It is not possible to provide definitions that fit all circumstances but in some cases there is further guidance given in the 'Notes' column. Inspectors need to apply professional judgement in these matters and seek specialist advice if necessary in particular cases.
8 The BENCHMARK has usually been identified as 'NIL or negligible'. This is based on an assumption that all the relevant controls are in place including such issues as assessment, control measures, monitoring, training, health surveillance etc. In such circumstances the aim of the law is to eliminate, or control to a negligible level, the likelihood of injury.
9 The COSHH Regulations include occupational exposure limits described as MELs and OESs and many chemicals are assigned exposure limits within this legal framework. The formal establishment of a limit for a chemical by the ACTS would have taken into account its toxicity. For a MEL this process involves consideration of a balance between toxicity, uncertainty and the practicability of control. The exposure to substances with a MEL is required to be reduced so far as is reasonably practicable or the equivalent to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) which may be below the relevant MEL.
10 The risk matrix places exposure at or below the MEL in the nil/negligible category. Therefore, there is no benchmark comparitor available to reflect an enforcement response where reducing exposure further is reasonably practicable. To get over this and for the purposes of the EMM 'the actual risk' may be defined as 'remote' in these circumstances. The benchmark of 'NIL or negligible' is only achieved when control has been reduced so far as is reasonably practicable. This interpretation leads to the outcome that formal enforcement can be applied below the numerical limit of the MEL.