Hi There's loads of free basic advice on the NetRegs/Business Link website. http://www.businesslink....n&topicId=1079068363 William

The intention of such training is to provide an overview of the environmental policy etc and it is to this that you should refer for topics. If you are not familiar with this then may I commend Grahams thoughts to you. Bob

My advice is to get somebody in as such areas do creep from an awareness training session [the word training is also wrong in my view] situation to people believing that its a competent advice training session with all the repercussions that can come with it

Excellent discussion guys with a variety of points well made. As a H&S practitioner, I agree, we are all 'requested' to tickle other subjects from time to time which fall outside our remit because there's no one else in the company who can present or communicate a message like we can. In this case, I think Bob Lewis has hit the nail on the head with his comments. I intend to communicate the companies Environmental Policy, written in line with its CSR, to all personal and if it needs escalating, outsourcing further requirements sounds best. Thanks everyone for your input.

Several aspects of my final paragraph at #3 stem from having an environmental matter (mainly investigation rather than training) thrust upon me in the mid-1990s. Several incidents involving spillages of heating oil during deliveries had occurred at different premises operated by my local authority employer. The final one was by far the most serious and had resulted in oil getting into a local river. Though no humans had been harmed, numerous fish had died and there was a good likelihood that the Environment Agency (EA) would prosecute. At the behest of our then chief executive, I investigated and reported on what factors had caused the incidents and advised on how to prevent further ones. (It didn’t seem a good idea to say ‘no - not my remit’ to someone like a chief executive; better to say something like ‘yes, not quite my speciality but will give it a go!' ) The investigation looked at both human and hardware aspects, just as in many OS&H investigations, and readily identified a number of deficiencies. These included oil being ordered and delivered in litre quantities for old tanks which had gauges marked in gallons. Also some gauges hadn’t worked for years, so caretakers had to guess how much oil to order. Some premises had different filler points for different tanks but no identification plates. Moreover, there was nothing to prevent tanker drivers from arriving unannounced and connecting up without local supervision to any filler point of their choice. (this aspect bore some similarity to the highly publicised incident in 1988 in which aluminium sulphate was added to the wrong tank by a delivery contractor at a water treatment works at Camelford in Cornwall.) Also, tanker drivers could set their tankers to pump a pre-set amount of oil and then go off for a cigarette or sit in their cabs to catch up on paperwork. The final incident stemmed partly from poor design of pipework for 2 large tanks, including the fact that their overflow/vent pipes had been located on the opposite side of the building to the filler point/s. Thus, oil intended for an empty tank got wrongly pumped into a nearly full tank during a late winter afternoon (after daylight had gone) nobody became aware of the major spillage until daylight next day. Measures suggested to prevent further incidents included simple and mostly low-cost ones like devising gallon-litre conversion charts for caretakers, fixing or replacing defective gauges, and labelling filler points and fitting them with simple lockable covers. Where overflow/vent pipes were not readily visible to people at the filler points and could not be suitably re-located, overflow alarm devices were suggested. My report mentioned that some people had unfairly blamed overworked caretakers and/or tanker drivers rather than identify elements of poor design, defective understanding and sloppy management. Its introduction included the fact that the investigation had been based on OS&H principles & practice which had proved readily transferable to the environmental and related issues involved. Anyhow, the chief executive seemed pleased with the report. This probably helped to raise the standing of OS&H with him and also gain a useful ally for support when needed regarding significant OS&H matters thereafter.

Good advice from Blodwyn earlier today. Also, to answer my question in response #3, other work fields which sometimes get added to OS&H work include security and, for public sector practitioners, civil resilience alias planning for & management of local/regional civil emergencies. Additional work fields are fine for OS&H professionals who willing accept them and either have or get appropriate training and develop experience, but not if imposed/dumped upon them. Note: only one paragraph in this response so as to avoid over-stretching the attention spans of some forum users! :-)