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 130/5 |
| Review Date | 31/07/2012 | Open Government Status | Fully Open |
|---|---|---|---|
| Version No & Date | 1: 31/07/2002 | Author Unit/Section | FOD FSU |
To
All HSE Inspectors
ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT MODEL (EMM)
GENERAL GUIDANCE ON APPLICATION TO HEALTH RISKS
| Para | Heading | |
|---|---|---|
| PART 1 | General guidance | |
| 1 | Introduction | |
| 2 | When to use the EMM | |
| 5 | Determining the risk gap | |
| 8 | Risk-based decisions - Table 2.1 | |
| 14 | Compliance issues - Table 5.2 | |
| 15 | Initial Enforcement Expectation (IEE) | |
| 16 | Personal protective equipment (PPE) | |
| 17 | Training and supervision | |
| PART 2 | Occupational health descriptors and supporting advice | |
| Table 1 | Consequence descriptor | |
| Appendix 1 | Serious health effect | |
| Appendix 2 | Significant health risk | |
1 The EMM Health Risks Project was set up to review the principles underlying the EMM and its application to health issues. The following guidance has been produced to help inspectors reach a proportionate enforcement decision. It contains advice on use of the EMM, determining the Risk Gap, risk-based decisions and compliance issues. It refers also to the Initial Enforcement Expectation, personal protective equipment and training and supervision. Risks from some specific health topics are described more fully in other OCs (para 8 refers).
2 During the course of a regulatory contact, inspectors will continue to use their judgement to determine:
(1) what law applies;
(2) whether there is a breach (based on the evidence);
(3) whether the activity involves or will involve a risk of serious personal injury; and
(4) priorities for enforcement action. If they come to the conclusion that there is a breach or such a risk then the EMM should be used.
3 Enforcement action should either be risk based (EMM, Chapter 2, Table 5.1 and paras 5-11 below) or compliance based (EMM, Chapter 2, Table 5.2 and para 14) below. In some cases, a combined approach may be required. For example, situations where risks may be controlled in the short term by PPE but compliance with the law also requires consideration of a hierarchy of measures including elimination/substitution through to control by engineering means before recourse to PPE. Further guidance on PPE is given in para 16.
4 The EMM outcome could be PN and IN action being taken in parallel - the former to reduce the risk in the short term and the latter to secure compliance in the longer term.
Risk Gap Table
5 Table 1 - 'Consequence' has been developed to give descriptors with supporting characteristics for health risks comparable to those used for safety risks. For example, 'serious health effect' is the equivalent of 'serious personal injury'. Definitions supporting the likelihood descriptors of 'probable', 'possible', 'remote' and 'nil/negligible' have also been developed. Table 1 in Part 2 of this OC gives descriptors that should be used when determining the risk gap for health issues.
Determining the most credible health outcomes
6 Consideration has been given to the most likely typical end health effects from a range of occupational exposures. There will be circumstances where lesser health effects might well be the outcome. Conversely, worse outcomes may be possible but the approach taken here does not reflect the 'worst case scenario'. In general, no account has been taken of specific individuals' susceptibility since this will not be known - the working population has been taken as a whole. For each of the topics, the approach has been to determine the most credible health outcome.
7 The resultant enforcement outcome should be preventive, aimed at dealing with the particular situation confronting the inspector, who may not know the details of previous exposures or likely future changes to exposure patterns. In weighing up the quality of evidence available, inspectors will use their judgement about the nature of the exposure to risk and where necessary seek advice and support from Specialists, HSL, relevant Directorate Units and Technology Division.
RISK BASED DECISIONS - EMM TABLE 2.1
8 Further guidance has been produced to help inspectors determine the risk gap for a variety of health topics, current examples include: Hand Arm Vibration (OC 246/32-LAC 36/3), Asbestos (OC 266/6-LAC 5/23), Chemicals (OC 273/19-LAC 37/12), and Noise (OC 246/33-LAC 59/6). Specific guidance on biological agents is planned, and others may be developed by authors in due course. Health Division has advised that it is not currently possible to handle risk of musculoskeletal injuries rigorously within the EMM framework. Available epidemiology is not good enough to establish a dose response relationship between the various musculoskeletal disorder factors and particular health effects. Further development work is continuing in this area and inspectors may need to seek advice from specialists, on a case by case basis, to the actual risk and benchmark before that should be used.
9 Topic guidance gives information on risk with supporting explanatory notes. This should be used in conjunction with the EMM Table 2.1 to determine the risk gap. Where possible, the position of the benchmark has been indicated. For some topics, further industry/sector advice may be needed, for example, to advise inspectors on issues concerning 'so far as reasonably practicable'.
10 As much occupational health legislation uses numerical limits for minimum standards of performance, the risk guidance uses a corresponding approach to reflect the seriousness of a breach, and the extent of the actual risk, in terms of how far minimum limits are exceeded. For example, a range of exposure levels will indicate a particular likelihood of an ill-health effect. The boundaries to the ranges have been determined through debate within HSE involving specialist and medical inspectors and policy units. Discussions and agreements both inside and outside HSE (for example concerning occupational exposure limits) have informed these debates.
11 The approach proposed is not intended to be prescriptive, but aims to give inspectors a broad indication of the relative seriousness of a particular set of circumstances to help determine a proportionate enforcement response. The inspector is not expected to carry out a surrogate assessment in place of one often required of the employer by legislation. Rather, the inspector is making a best estimate of the situation based on the evidence to hand. As a result, enforcement of the assessment duty itself might be a high priority. Where issues are complex, inspectors may wish to involve relevant specialists in determining the actual level of risk, and any relevant benchmark.
12 In general, the single casualty table should be used even if more than one person is at risk. Both the breach and the extent of the risk should be the same for single or multiple casualties. Inspectors will still need to take into account numbers exposed to the risk as part of a 'proportionate' enforcement response and this should be part of the 'Local Factors' consideration. Strategic Factors may be important even for single casualties, eg where circumstances could serve as an example to other duty holders.
13 Use of the multiple casualty table should usually be restricted to scenarios such as major hazards with off site risks, or where a number of members of the public may be at risk. Single events affecting large numbers of employees may also be considered.
COMPLIANCE ISSUES - EMM TABLE 5.2
14 Many Regulations covering health risks comprise a package of measures. Some of these are risk control measures, whilst others may be 'administrative'. The failure of a dutyholder to comply with administrative measures such as missing or inadequate assessments (for example COSHH Reg.6; NAWR Regs.4&5), should be dealt with by reference to Table 5.2 of the EMM.
INITIAL ENFORCEMENT EXPECTATION (IEE)
15 Inspectors will evaluate the quality of evidence they have already, or will need to obtain, to support enforcement action indicated by the IEE. However, the IEE is not the final enforcement outcome. There are other steps to follow, including application of 'Dutyholder Factors' and 'Strategic Factors', which may vary the IEE. Individual Directorates may produce additional guidance for inspectors covering, for example, the benchmark and interpretation of 'so far as reasonably practicable', which will influence the IEE, and any strategic factors that may be relevant across an industry.
16 Judgements will be made about the entire hierarchy of risk control set out in relevant legislation when identifying any breaches of the law including any reliance on PPE/RPE as a control measure. In some circumstances elimination, substitution or control at source may be reasonably practicable and PPE would not be considered to constitute adequate compliance. In others, PPE might be the only reasonably practicable option for controlling risk. Industry/sector guidance will be an important consideration.
17 Where training and supervision are essentially risk control systems supporting the maintenance of other workplace precautions, then it might be difficult to enforce provisions via the 'risk gap' route in circumstances where control is good. Therefore, in circumstances where training and supervision do not contribute directly to the risk gap analysis, the EMM Table 5.2 should be used to ensure compliance.
18 However, in some circumstances training may be a primary precautionary measure, for example, where there is reliance on PPE for protection. In such cases where absence/inadequacies lead to employees being at greater risk, then of the EMM Table 2.1 should be used to guide enforcement decisions.
Modified Table 1 (showing health risks only) from EMM Chapter 2
| TABLE 1 - CONSEQUENCE (What are the potential consequences of the event? | |
| Descriptor | Definition - Possible characteristic (one or more may be relevant) |
| Serious Health Effect | - certain diseases listed in Appendix 1; - fatal; - a permanent, progressive or irreversible condition; - permanently disabling, ie: - i) lifelong restriction of work capability or, - ii) major reduction in quality of life |
| Significant Health Effect | - Certain diseases listed in Appendix 2; - Non-permanent, reversible, non-progressive condition; - Temporary disability. |
| Minor Health Effect | - Conditions not included above, eg temporary symptoms like irritation, nausea, headache, etc; minor skin irritations; infections caused by biological agents in Hazard Group 1 and some in Hazard Group 2, eg staphlococcus aureus. |
How many people are likely to be affected by the exposure?
19 Multiple casualties - health effects occurring to more than one person, both on and off site.
20 Single casualties - health effects occurring to one person.
21 See paras 12-13 for further guidance on use of single/multiple casualties tables
The following diseases may be considered as having a serious health effect:
1 Conditions due to physical agents and the physical demands of work:
inflammation, ulceration or malignant disease of the skin due to ionising radiation;
cataract due to electromagnetic radiation;
malignant disease of the bones due to ionising radiation;
blood dyscrasia due to ionising radiation; w decompression illness;
barotrauma resulting in lung or other organ damage;
dysbaric osteonecrosis;
hand-arm vibration syndrome;
noise-induced hearing loss.
2 Infections due to biological agents in Hazard Groups 3 & 4 and some agents in Group 2, egneisseria meningitis.
3 Conditions due to substances:
cancer of a bronchus or lung;
primary carcinoma of the lung where there is accompanying evidence of silicosis;
Cancer of the urinary tract or the bladder;
angiosarcoma of the liver;
skin cancer;
mesothelioma;
cancer of the nasal cavity or associated air sinuses;
peripheral neuropathy;
chrome ulceration of the nose or throat;
pneumoconiosis;
byssinosis;
asbestosis;
occupational asthma.
The following diseases are diseases which may be considered as having a significant health effect:
1 Conditions due to physical agents and the physical demands of work:
cramp of the hand or forearm due to repetitive movements;
subcutaneous cellulitis of the hand (beat hand);
bursitis or subcutaneous cellulitis arising at or about the knee, due to severe or prolonged external friction or pressure at or about the knee (beat knee);
bursitis or subcutaneous cellulitis arising at or about the elbow, due to severe or prolonged external friction or pressure at or about the elbow (beat elbow);
traumatic inflammation of the tendons of the hand or forearm or of the associated tendon sheaths;
carpal tunnel syndrome.
2 Infections due to biological agents:
3 Conditions due to substances:
chrome ulceration of the skin of the hands or forearm;
folliculitis;
acne;
occupational dermatitis;
extrinsic alveolitis (including farmer's lung) (Dermatitis may be chronic and disabling. Repeated attacks of alveolitis may lead to disabling scarring of the lungs).