Hi All Out of interest, do any of you follow a particular heirachy of controls/metaphors when looking at a health and safety situation? eg Work at Height, Confined spaces, Coshh etc Safety as we are all aware is not just black and white but maybe one or two shades of grey. Many thanks

David You can also add a PD to the end of ERIC. Cheers Steve

Ron is bob on: Look at the management regulation HSE's (L21) Schedule 1 General principles of prevention General principles of prevention Regulation 4 (This Schedule specifies the general principles of prevention set out in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC) 34 (a) avoiding risks; (b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided; (c) combating the risks at source; (d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health; (e) adapting to technical progress; (f) replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous; (g) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment; (h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures; and (i) giving appropriate instructions to employees. Hope this helps Phil

If you would like a mnemonic for the principles of prevention try this abc..approach: (a) Avoid: avoiding risks; (b) bRisk: evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided; (c) Combat: combating the risks at source; (d) Design: adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health; (e) Evolve: adapting to technical progress; (f) fear (Danger): replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous; (g) guidelines: developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment; (h) wHole: giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures; and (i) instruct: giving appropriate instructions to employees.

...whatever happened to PPE, which is always considered last in the hierarchy of controls?

Keeping in mind that I am concerned specifically with the prevention of damage to health due to workplace skin exposure, this is my personal hierarchy: Design workplace and equipment to eliminate exposure Select chemical(s) for minimum hazard Install process controls Provide handling equipment Establish safe working procedures Provide personal protective equipment Minimise effect by limiting exposure and monitoring effect Early detection of possible problems through skin health surveillance It may not comply with what NEBOSH teach, but it has been developed by trial and modification over many years and works for me. If anyone would like a more detailed explanation of this hierarchy please PM me. Chris

I was taught ERIC PD as part of my NEBOSH cert in 1999. Did the Dip A course Mar-Jun this year and raised ERIC PD. I was told in no uncertain terms that it was not taught and not part of the sylabus. Instead, we followed the management regs and then subsequently, in Dip B, the specific hierarchies for COSHH etc. Interesting to read that ERIC PD originated with the HSE. I liked it so it was a pain having to forget it and learn a new criteria.

Adrian I would, in part, agree with you. I think it depends upon how we define 'hierarchy'. By hierarchy my approach is that this is simply prioritising the different measures that can be taken. In almost every case more than one of those measures I listed in my posting will be required. However, I always work on the principle that we should be controlling the process rather than people. In other words, our concentration should always be on structuring the workplace and equipment such that exposure (and remember that my concern is with chemical exposure) is automatically eliminated by the nature of the process and equipment. Only when we have gone as far as we can with this should we rely on working practices, personal protective equipment, etc. to adequately control any residual risk. Obviously this is easier to achieve in a new plant or process, but it is surprising how often simple, relatively inexpensive changes in equipment and process can result in elimination - or substantial reduction - in exposure. Chris