I will be interested to see the approach of others.

As for our place of work (a double glazing fabrication company (we only make the windows, we do not manufacture the raw parts i.e.glass, pvcu, aluminium etc.). When I have a new employee they are given a brief overview of what COSHH is, how it is implimented, and how it relates to the business. They are shown an example and told where to find all the COSHH reports. Then, when they are trained on a process/machine, the safe system of work explains what, if any, chemicals they will be using for the process, any PPE that must be warn and any other safe handling/storage techniques they need to know. I have found it a lot easier for the factory workers to take in the infomation this way, it becomes a part of the actual training as apposed to a separate thing they have to learn. Remember English is not always the first language of our employees.

The maintenance staff and fire wardens have a more indepth knowledge of the fire risks and storage risks etc. To be honest though, we don't have much in the way of hazardous chemicals in large numbers, so I would expect different strokes for different folks.

In saying all this. I have only been in this post for 7 months and have already found many short falls in the system. I would expect there to be a better way.

One place I worked had bulging files of risk assessments and COSHH assessments however where these made findings (say for instance a certain type of glove was needed) this information didn't make it into the SOP's for manufacture since the Quality dept. and the H&S dept. regarded themselves as entirely seperate.

Guess which document people actually printed out and read when they went into the lab to make something?

The key thing in my view is that the findings of any assessment make their way into the day to day SOP's WI's etc. and not remain in seperate documents that are filed away.

A little more depth. We also have lots of paperwork and this seems to be relied upon to prove we are doing something(where in reality we are relying on a signature to confirm they have understood). I feel this then falls down in the effective delivery, considering differing learning abilities and styles and the subsequent training. I am trying to push for the employees to be given an understanding of COSHH and the basic principles of risk assesment and then for us to have SOP's based on those which are a step by step guide to the individual tasks, in an easy to read and understand document.

I think I read in Tim Marsh, Behavioural safety(not exact quote):

Imagine your child comes home one day and tells you they are doing Sex Ed at school, you make a little joke about it but feel this is a good thing for them to learn. The next week they come home and say they are moving on from education and are now doing training!!! How would you feel now. 

I feel this is the difference here, education is the passage of knowlege in an acedemic setting whether by written word or word of mouth. The training aspect comes afterward and can only be done by actually doing the task and in the case of COSHH using the chemical and the supervision of this.

Tim Marsh the man that harnesses smut for the greater good!

What you are describing is competence: the ability to do a job safely which as you have said is more than just having training. Nevertheless a lot of places when the go onto doing COSHH seem to want to put people on a cut down Chemistry degree when all they should be giving their people enough information to do their job safely. Their understanding should be monitored ie ask them why they should be using that particular type of glove not the el cheapo vinyl ones but too much depth can be as bad as not enough.

Process - a series of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.

So my end is to stick A to B and I have a machine that applies glue.

But for the final products I use glue D for one and glue F for another - one is hazardous and necessitates LEV and a lot of controls, the other is benign and does not even requires gloves.

One process two COSHH assessments - one operating instruction which sub-divides based upon the product to be produced (in simple terms LEV on or LEV off).

Operators are trained to produce the products NOT to understand site chemistry on every line we operate.

Let us not lose sight that COSHH is about 'control'. Risk assessment is merely one step in the process. It is there to inform us whether we need to control the substance and the extent to which the control must go in order to safeguard health and safety of anyone who may be affected by what is happening in the task in question. What is important for the user is not the risk assessment but the controls that are in place and their responsibility to implement and maintain these. Of course it is helpful if they have an understanding of the reasons for the controls, but they do not need to understand all the, often very complex, details of the risk assessment. They also need the training necessary to ensure that they are able to maintain the necessary level of control.

Chris