I've only come across such an expectation from the HSE themselves in a high-hazard chemical manufacturing plant subject to the COMAH regulations.  Never from any auditor.

I am also interested to know what you are being audited against and on whose behalf!

This looks like an auditor who reads the term in the Regs/standard and then asks how you achieve it, without truly understanding its meaning, or how it links to legal duty.

With regards to a WEL, you are partly correct that if you are below a WEL you have achieved a suitable level of control for most substances, but for higher-risk substances (which are clearly identified in COSHH 7(7)(c) & EH40) you must achieve the WEL but then reduce the level of exposure to ALARP. (COSHH 7(7)(c) last sentance.- notice 7(7)(b) ends with the word 'and').

It is the bane of having to work with SMS auditors. They always seem to ask questions that seem misplaced or are not applicable. 

Hope it helps,

Tony.

Edited by user 16 August 2024 07:24:20(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Hi Thomas

Possibly your health and safety management system specifically says that in your risk assessments you have to demonstrate that you have assessed that the outcome should be demonstrably what is ALARP.

If so and a risk assessment doesn't demonstrate that, then ergo non-conformance.

Getting away from the niceties of different bits of COSHH for a moment, with the exception of the highly regulated sectors where e.g. COMAH applies, then it is quite rare for anyone to actually do a calculation of where the line between ALARP and not ALARP might lie.

For the simple reason that most of the time, (good) duty holders decide to apply best practice, whether that might be in legislation, some HSE publication, industry guidance etc etc.

Nobody usually decides to think - "do we need triple guard-rails at the edge of this scaffold platform?" UNLESS there is some clear reason to think that the standard double-guard-rails [and toe-boards] are not going to provide adequate control.

As a parallel to indicate why one might go for something beyond the norm, permanent edge protection on a new or modified structure is usually designed to be a minimum of 1100mm above the surface that people would be on. 

In contrast, if you have a bridge with cattle or horses crossing then the relevant design standard looks for a somewhat higher barrier. 

So, if your workforce was made up of giants then you might well decide that you needed an extra (higher) rail at the edge of your scaffold platform.