OSH inspection campaign on carcinogens in the federal state of Hessen
Overview
Type of intervention(s):
Inspection campaignNumber of inspections undertaken:
611
Duration of campaign:
2014 - 2019Scope of intervention
Key duties
The federal state Hessen focus on a subject-specific political level on the topic for a complete legislative period.
Focus of the Campaign
Inspection of enterprises in which workers are subjected to carcinogenic agents. There was no limitation to SME when it comes to company size. Within the inspection, status of performance of the risk assessment, analysis of alternatives, adherence to limit values, implementation of state of the art technical solutions and duties to document (hazardous substance inventory, exposure registry), was looked at.
Key findings of intervention
Positive findings
Sensitisation of companies on their duties when handling carcinogens at work as well as stimulation to substitute. Additionally, best practice examples could be identified.
Negative findings
Selection of companies to inspect, proofed to more challenging then estimated, as there is no land register (cataster) of companies using or working with carcinogens (with the exeption of asbestos).
Key outcomes following intervention
- On average, not even half the companies checked for alternatives and documented this
- On average, the limit values were only complied with in half of the companies (except for asbestos with a better situation)
- On average, enforcement authorities took follow-up action in approximately 75% of the companies inspected for hazardous substances.
- Only in ¼ of companies, the exposure registry is kept (1/2 for asbestos)
- On average, in 80% of the companies administrative measures and consequences were the result of the inspection
- The results and experience transpired into the design of the GDA national inspection campaign and their tools
Level and type of enforcement issued
- Verbal advice
- Written advice
- Improvement notice
- Prohibition notice
- Fines
Key EU legislation
- CMRD
Additional information
Inspection results showed that compliance levels for asbestos were generally higher than for other hazardous substances. Inspectors attributed this to the clear and well-defined requirements in the hazardous substances legislation. The findings suggest that the more specific and detailed the legal obligations, the greater employers' awareness of, and compliance with, their duties.
