COSHH, law & TExT
A thorough examination proves the extraction works; health surveillance proves it is protecting the people using it. COSHH asks for both.
The short answer
Having your LEV thoroughly examined satisfies Regulation 9. It does not satisfy Regulation 11, which is a separate duty to carry out health surveillance where workers are exposed to a substance linked to an identifiable disease and there is a reasonable likelihood that harm may occur. One checks the machine; the other checks the person. Meeting one and assuming it covers the other is a common and costly gap.
The detail
Health surveillance is a system of ongoing checks to detect early signs of work-related ill health while there is still time to act. Under COSHH Regulation 11 it must be carried out by a competent person - usually an occupational health professional - and it is triggered whenever exposure is linked to a specific disease and that disease is reasonably likely under the conditions of the work. The form of surveillance follows the hazard: lung function testing for isocyanates and flour dust, respiratory and skin checks for metalworking fluid mist, nasal examination for hardwood dust, lung function and imaging for respirable crystalline silica.
It sits alongside, not instead of, the engineering control. LEV is meant to keep exposure low at source; surveillance is the safety net that reveals whether the control is genuinely working for each individual, or whether someone is being sensitised despite it. If surveillance flags an early case, that is a signal to re-examine the extraction, not just to manage the worker.
What it means for you
The retention rule here is easy to confuse with the LEV test rule, and the difference matters. LEV thorough examination records are kept for at least five years under Regulation 9. Health surveillance records, by contrast, must be kept for at least forty years from the date of the last entry, because the diseases involved can take decades to appear. Two duties, two retention periods.
For an LEV owner the practical point is that a clean test certificate is not a complete defence. An inspector who finds welding fume, isocyanate mist or wood dust on site will expect to see a health surveillance programme as well as a current LEV report. The two together evidence control; either one alone leaves a hole.
The service behind the guide
We provide the statutory LEV examination and can help you understand where health surveillance is also required, so the two duties are covered together rather than one being missed.
Questions
No. The LEV thorough examination and test satisfies Regulation 9, but Regulation 11 health surveillance is a separate duty where exposure is linked to an identifiable disease and harm is reasonably likely. Many workplaces need both.
A competent person, which for most respiratory and skin conditions means an occupational health professional. The type of check - lung function, skin inspection, nasal examination - depends on the substance workers are exposed to.
At least forty years from the date of the last entry, because work-related diseases can take decades to develop. This is much longer than the five-year retention that applies to LEV test records.
When workers are exposed to a substance linked to a specific disease or adverse health effect and there is a reasonable likelihood that it may occur under the conditions of the work - for example isocyanates, flour dust, wood dust, metalworking fluid mist or silica.
No. They are complementary. LEV controls exposure at source and is tested under Regulation 9; health surveillance checks whether that control is actually protecting each person, and can be the first warning that the extraction needs attention.
Phoenix Duct Clean · by the numbers
We carry out the statutory LEV test and can point you to the health surveillance you also need. Call or email and we will help you see the whole obligation.