Home / LEV Testing / Guide
LEV testing - the law
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is the foundation of workplace health and safety law in Great Britain. It sets out the core duties - on employers to protect their employees and others, and on employees themselves - that everything else (including COSHH and LEV testing) sits under. Here is an outline of your duties under the Act, in plain terms. This is general information, not legal advice.
The short answer
If you want to understand where your health and safety duties come from, the starting point is the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - the foundation of workplace health and safety law in Great Britain. Everything more specific, including COSHH and the duty to test LEV, sits under it. The Act sets out broad duties: on employers to protect their employees and others, and on employees themselves. Here's an outline of those duties. This is general information, not legal advice - it's a plain-terms overview, not advice on any specific situation. The employer's duty to employees (Section 2). The central duty is on the employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. This is a broad, general duty, and it covers a lot: providing and maintaining safe plant and equipment and safe systems of work; ensuring safety in the use, handling, storage and transport of substances; providing the information, instruction, training and supervision needed for safety; and - directly relevant to exposures - controlling risks to employees' health, which is where controlling substances like dust, fume and mist, and the extraction (LEV) that does it, come in. In addition, an employer with five or more employees must have a written health and safety policy setting out how they manage health and safety, and bring it to employees' attention. So Section 2 is the core employer duty to protect their own workforce. The employer's duty to others (Section 3). The employer's duties don't stop at their own employees. Under Section 3, an employer must also ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that people who are not their employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the way the business is conducted. That means the public, contractors, visitors, and anyone else who might be affected. So a business has to consider the health and safety of people beyond its own payroll - for instance, ensuring that a process, or a discharge, or a contractor working on site, doesn't put others at risk. Section 3 broadens the duty to everyone the business's activities could affect. The employee's duty (Section 7). The Act places duties on employees too, not just employers. Under Section 7, every employee has a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of others who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work, and to co-operate with their employer so far as necessary to enable the employer to meet their own duties. In practice, this means employees must use the controls and equipment provided properly - using the extraction, wearing the RPE, following the safe systems of work - and not do things that put themselves or others at risk. So health and safety is a shared responsibility: the employer must provide and maintain the controls, and the employee must use them and take care. The 'so far as is reasonably practicable' standard. A key phrase running through the main employer duties is 'so far as is reasonably practicable'. This qualifies the duties: it means the employer must control a risk to the extent that is reasonably practicable, which involves balancing the level of the risk against the cost, time, trouble and effort of controlling it. You have to control a risk unless doing so would be grossly disproportionate to the risk - so a small risk might justify only modest measures, while a serious risk demands substantial control, and the more serious the risk, the more you're expected to do about it. It's not a licence to do nothing because control costs something; the balance has to genuinely favour not controlling before that's acceptable, and for serious health risks it rarely will. So 'reasonably practicable' sets the standard of how far the duties go. How it connects to COSHH and LEV. The Health and Safety at Work Act is the overarching framework, stating the general duties; more detailed regulations sit under it and give those duties practical effect for specific hazards. For hazardous substances, that's COSHH (the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations) - which is where the specific duties to assess the risk from substances, control the exposure, and maintain and thoroughly examine and test LEV come from. So when you test your LEV, you're meeting a COSHH duty that gives practical effect to the Act's general Section 2 duty to protect your employees' health. The Act is the why; COSHH is much of the how, for exposures. So the two fit together: the Act's broad duty to protect health, made specific and practical by COSHH for hazardous substances. The takeaway. So your duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 are: as an employer, to protect your employees' health, safety and welfare (Section 2) and to protect non-employees too (Section 3), both so far as is reasonably practicable; and as an employee, to take reasonable care and co-operate with your employer (Section 7). The 'reasonably practicable' standard means balancing risk against the effort of control, with serious risks demanding more. And the Act's general duties are made specific for hazardous substances by COSHH, under which controlling exposures and testing LEV are how you meet the duty to protect health in practice. This is general information, not legal advice - for your specific obligations, get proper advice. This is general information.
Key points
The foundation
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is the foundation of workplace health and safety law in Great Britain. It sets out the broad, general duties - on employers and on employees - that the whole system of workplace health and safety is built on. More detailed regulations (like COSHH for hazardous substances) sit underneath it, giving its general duties practical effect for specific hazards.
So understanding your duties starts with the Act, because it's where the core obligations come from: the employer's duty to protect people, and the employee's duty to take care. Everything more specific - including the duty to control exposures and to test LEV - traces back to the general duties the Act sets out. This is why it's worth knowing the Act's basic structure: it's the framework that explains why the more specific duties exist. The outline that follows covers the main duties - on employers to employees (Section 2), on employers to others (Section 3), on employees (Section 7), and the 'reasonably practicable' standard that qualifies them. So the foundation - the Act everything else sits under - frames the rest: the Act is the source of the duties, with regulations like COSHH building on it. The employer's duty to employees comes first. So the Act is the foundation the specific duties build on. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
The employer's duty to employees
The central duty is on the employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees (Section 2). This is a broad, general duty covering a lot: providing and maintaining safe equipment and safe systems of work; ensuring safety in the use, handling, storage and transport of substances; providing the information, instruction, training and supervision needed for safety; and controlling risks to employees' health - which is where controlling exposures (dust, fume, mist) and the extraction (LEV) that does it come in.
In addition, an employer with five or more employees must have a written health and safety policy, setting out how they manage health and safety, and bring it to their employees' attention. So Section 2 is the core employer duty - to protect their own workforce's health, safety and welfare, through safe equipment, safe systems, training, and the control of health risks. The duty to control risks to health is the thread that connects the Act to exposure control and LEV: protecting employees from a harmful dust or fume is part of ensuring their health at work. So the employer's duty to employees - Section 2, protect your workforce - is the central obligation: keep your employees safe and healthy, so far as reasonably practicable. The duty to others follows. So Section 2 is the core duty to protect your own employees. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
The employer's duty to others
The employer's duties don't stop at their own employees. Under Section 3, an employer must also ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that people who are not their employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the way the business is conducted. That means the public, contractors, visitors, and anyone else who might be affected by the business's activities.
So a business has to consider the health and safety of people beyond its own payroll - for instance, ensuring that a process, an emission or discharge, or a contractor working on site, doesn't put others at risk. In the context of exposures, this could include making sure that what a business does (or what it discharges) doesn't expose neighbours or visitors to a hazard, as well as protecting its own workers. Section 3 broadens the duty to everyone the business's activities could affect, reflecting that a workplace's hazards don't necessarily stay within its own workforce. So the employer's duty to others - Section 3, protect non-employees too - extends the responsibility: the business must protect the public, contractors and visitors, not just employees, so far as reasonably practicable. The employee's own duty follows. So Section 3 extends the duty to non-employees affected by the business. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
The employee's duty
The Act places duties on employees too, not just employers. Under Section 7, every employee has a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of others who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work, and to co-operate with their employer so far as necessary to enable the employer to meet their own duties.
In practice, this means employees must use the controls and equipment provided properly - using the extraction, wearing the RPE, following the safe systems of work - and not do things that put themselves or others at risk. So health and safety is a shared responsibility: the employer must provide and maintain the controls (the working, tested LEV; the RPE; the safe systems), and the employee must actually use them and take reasonable care. This matters because even the best controls only protect if they're used - an extraction system switched off or bypassed, or RPE not worn, doesn't protect, and the employee's duty is to use them as intended. So the employer's provision and the employee's use work together. So the employee's duty - Section 7, take care and co-operate - is the shared-responsibility part: employees must take care and use the controls, complementing the employer's duty to provide them. The 'reasonably practicable' standard follows. So employees must take care and use the controls provided. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
Reasonably practicable, and COSHH
A key phrase running through the main employer duties is 'so far as is reasonably practicable'. This qualifies the duties: the employer must control a risk to the extent that's reasonably practicable, which means balancing the level of the risk against the cost, time, trouble and effort of controlling it. You must control a risk unless doing so would be grossly disproportionate to the risk - so a small risk might justify only modest measures, while a serious risk demands substantial control. The more serious the risk, the more you're expected to do; it's not a licence to do nothing because control costs something.
And the Act connects to the specific duties through more detailed regulations that sit under it. For hazardous substances, that's COSHH (the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations) - which is where the specific duties to assess the risk from substances, control the exposure, and maintain and thoroughly examine and test LEV come from. So when you test your LEV, you're meeting a COSHH duty that gives practical effect to the Act's general Section 2 duty to protect your employees' health. The Act is the why; COSHH is much of the how, for exposures (covered in the what-coshh-legally-requires-of-an-employer page). So reasonably practicable, and COSHH - how far the duties go, and how they get specific - completes the picture: the duties are set by the reasonably-practicable balance, and made specific for substances by COSHH, under which LEV testing is how you protect health in practice. So the duty is risk-proportionate, and COSHH makes it specific for exposures. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
Questions
It's the foundation of workplace health and safety law in Great Britain, setting out broad general duties - on employers to protect their employees and others so far as reasonably practicable, and on employees to take reasonable care and co-operate; more detailed regulations like COSHH sit under it. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is the foundation of workplace health and safety law in Great Britain. It sets out the broad, general duties that the whole system of workplace health and safety is built on - and more detailed regulations (like COSHH for hazardous substances) sit underneath it, giving those general duties practical effect for specific hazards. The Act's core duties are: on employers, to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare of their employees (Section 2), and to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that non-employees - the public, contractors, visitors - aren't exposed to risks from the business (Section 3); and on employees, to take reasonable care for their own and others' health and safety and to co-operate with their employer (Section 7). The employer duties are qualified by 'so far as is reasonably practicable', which means balancing the risk against the cost and effort of controlling it. The Act is the overarching framework - the 'why' behind workplace health and safety obligations - while regulations like COSHH provide much of the specific 'how' for particular hazards (such as the duty to assess and control exposures and to test LEV). So it's the foundational law from which the more specific duties, including controlling exposures and testing LEV, ultimately derive. So it's the foundational workplace safety law setting out the core duties. So the foundation of GB workplace safety law and its core duties. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
Ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of employees (Section 2) - through safe equipment, safe systems, training and controlling health risks - and protect non-employees too (Section 3); with five or more employees, also have a written health and safety policy. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, an employer's central duty (Section 2) is to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. This broad duty covers: providing and maintaining safe equipment and safe systems of work; ensuring safety in the use, handling, storage and transport of substances; providing the information, instruction, training and supervision needed for safety; and controlling risks to employees' health - which is where controlling exposures (dust, fume, mist) and the extraction (LEV) that does it come in. An employer with five or more employees must also have a written health and safety policy, setting out how they manage health and safety, and bring it to employees' attention. Beyond their own workforce, under Section 3 the employer must also ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that non-employees (the public, contractors, visitors) aren't exposed to risks to their health or safety from the way the business is run. All of this is qualified by 'so far as is reasonably practicable' - balancing the risk against the effort of controlling it, with serious risks demanding more. And for hazardous substances specifically, the more detailed COSHH regulations (which sit under the Act) set out the practical duties - assessing and controlling exposures, and maintaining and testing LEV. So an employer must protect employees and others, provide safe conditions and controls, and (with 5+ staff) have a written policy. So protect employees and others, so far as reasonably practicable. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
Yes - under Section 7, every employee must take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and others affected by their acts or omissions, and co-operate with their employer; in practice that means using the controls and equipment provided (the extraction, RPE) and following safe systems of work. Yes - employees have duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act too, not just employers. Under Section 7, every employee has a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of others who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work, and to co-operate with their employer so far as necessary to enable the employer to meet their own health and safety duties. In practice, this means employees must use the controls and equipment provided properly - using the extraction (LEV), wearing the RPE, following the safe systems of work - and not act in ways that put themselves or others at risk. So health and safety is a shared responsibility: the employer must provide and maintain the controls (the working, tested extraction; the RPE; the safe systems), and the employee must actually use them and take reasonable care. This matters because even the best controls only protect if they're used: an extraction system switched off or bypassed, or RPE not worn, doesn't protect anyone, so the employee's duty to use them as intended is an essential part of the protection working. The employer provides; the employee uses and takes care. So the duties fit together - both sides have a part to play in keeping people safe. So yes - employees must take reasonable care and co-operate, using the controls provided. So yes; take reasonable care and co-operate (Section 7). This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
It means an employer must control a risk to the extent that's reasonable - balancing the level of risk against the cost, time and effort of controlling it - and must control it unless doing so would be grossly disproportionate to the risk; so a serious risk demands substantial control, and it's not a licence to do nothing because control costs something. 'So far as is reasonably practicable' is the standard that qualifies the main employer duties under the Act, and it means the employer must control a risk to the extent that is reasonably practicable - which involves balancing the level of the risk against the cost, time, trouble and effort of controlling it. The test is that you must control a risk unless doing so would be grossly disproportionate to the risk. So the balance is weighted towards control: it's not enough that a control costs something, or is a bit of effort - the cost or effort has to be grossly disproportionate to the risk before it's acceptable not to do it. In practice this means a small risk might justify only modest measures, while a serious risk demands substantial control - and the more serious the risk, the more an employer is expected to do about it. For a serious health risk (like exposure to a carcinogenic dust or a respiratory sensitiser), the balance will almost always favour proper control, because the risk is grave. So 'reasonably practicable' is not a loophole to avoid control on cost grounds; it sets a genuine, risk-proportionate standard for how far the duties go. It's why serious exposures need real, effective control (like working, tested LEV) - the seriousness of the risk demands it. So it means controlling a risk unless the effort is grossly disproportionate to it. So control the risk unless the effort is grossly disproportionate. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
The Act is the overarching framework setting out the general duty to protect health; COSHH (which sits under it) makes that specific for hazardous substances - requiring exposures to be assessed and controlled, and LEV to be maintained and tested; so testing your LEV meets a COSHH duty that gives practical effect to the Act's general duty. The Health and Safety at Work Act relates to COSHH and LEV testing as the overarching framework to the specific duties. The Act sets out the broad, general duties - including the employer's Section 2 duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health of their employees, which includes controlling risks to health from exposures. But the Act states these duties in general terms; it doesn't spell out exactly how to control every specific hazard. That's done by more detailed regulations that sit under the Act. For hazardous substances (dusts, fumes, mists, vapours), the relevant regulations are COSHH - the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. COSHH gives practical effect to the Act's general duty to protect health by setting out specific duties: to assess the risk from hazardous substances, to control the exposure (including by extraction/LEV), and to maintain and thoroughly examine and test that LEV regularly. So the chain is: the Act creates the general duty to protect employees' health; COSHH makes that specific for hazardous substances; and testing your LEV is how you meet the COSHH duty to keep your extraction working and proven - which in turn gives effect to the Act's general duty. In short, the Act is the 'why', and COSHH is much of the 'how', for controlling exposures. So testing your LEV is meeting a COSHH duty that flows from the Act. So the Act is the framework; COSHH makes it specific, and LEV testing meets it. So the Act's duty, made specific by COSHH, met by testing LEV. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
No - this is general information outlining the Act's main duties in plain terms, not legal advice on your specific obligations; the exact duties that apply depend on your particular circumstances, so for advice on your situation you should consult the relevant guidance or a suitably qualified professional. No - this is general information, not legal advice on your specific duties. What's set out here is a plain-terms outline of the main duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - the employer's duties to employees (Section 2) and others (Section 3), the employee's duty (Section 7), and the 'so far as is reasonably practicable' standard - intended to give a general understanding of the framework, not to advise on any particular situation. The exact duties that apply to you, and how they apply, depend on your specific circumstances: the nature of your business, your activities, the hazards involved, your workforce, and other factors. Health and safety law can also involve detail and nuance beyond a general outline, and the more specific regulations that sit under the Act (like COSHH for hazardous substances) carry their own detailed requirements. So for advice on your particular obligations - what you specifically must do to comply - you should consult the relevant official guidance (such as that published by the health and safety regulator) or take advice from a suitably qualified health and safety professional. This outline is a starting point for understanding, not a substitute for that. What is clear in general terms is that the duties are real and serious, and that controlling health risks properly (including keeping any LEV working and tested) is part of meeting them. So this is general information to understand the framework, not advice on your specific duties. So no - it's general information; get proper advice for your situation. This is general information, not legal advice. This is general information.
The Health and Safety at Work Act's duty to protect your employees' health is made specific for hazardous substances by COSHH, under which LEV must be thoroughly examined and tested; we test LEV so you meet that duty and your extraction genuinely protects your workforce, as the law requires. Ask us to test your LEV. This is general information.
