LEV thorough examination and test records COSHH

Direct answer. If local exhaust ventilation (LEV) is used to control exposure to a hazardous substance, the employer needs an effective system, routine use and maintenance checks, and a competent thorough examination and test at the interval required by COSHH. For most LEV systems, HSE says that examination and test must occur at least every 14 months, with some processes requiring a shorter interval. Keep the competent examiner's report for at least five years and act promptly on defects. A dated sticker or a contractor visit is not enough if the system no longer captures the contaminant effectively. HSE LEV FAQs; HSE COSHH LEV guidance.

This is a Great Britain record-and-response guide under COSHH, not a tutorial on designing LEV or taking exposure measurements. The existing COSHH assessment guide owns the broad assessment task. This page addresses the distinct duty to track the performance of a specific engineering control and its formal examination evidence.

Understand what an LEV test is meant to prove

LEV captures an airborne contaminant near its source before people breathe it. Examples include a woodworking extraction hood, welding fume extraction, a spray booth or on-tool extraction. Its purpose is not simply to move air; it must help control the relevant exposure. A fan can run while a blocked duct, poorly positioned hood or changed process allows dust or fume into the breathing zone.

HSE says LEV should be commissioned when installed so there is evidence that it adequately protects people and a benchmark for later testing. The commissioning information may include the system description, intended process, test points, measurements, method for judging performance and user instructions. HSE LEV commissioning. Keep that baseline with the asset record. A thorough examination and test compares the current system with its intended performance and checks whether deterioration or other problems undermine control.

The employer should identify the exact system: location, plant or process served, hood(s), filter, fan, discharge and any mobile extraction unit. A register of “LEV 1, LEV 2” is useful only if a report and defect can be traced to the right physical asset.

The 14-month rule and important exceptions

HSE's LEV FAQs state that employers should arrange a thorough examination and test at least every 14 months and keep its record for at least five years. Some systems or processes need more frequent testing; HSE's HSG258 guide lists exceptions. Do not convert “14 months for most systems” into a universal interval without checking the process and current regulation. The competent tester and COSHH assessment should inform the schedule.

On-tool extraction is still LEV. HSE says the extraction unit needs a thorough examination and test; other components are dealt with through maintenance checks. A portable unit is not exempt because it moves between tasks. HSE LEV FAQs.

The formal examination is in addition to daily or pre-use checks, operator observations, filter maintenance and repairs. An equipment calendar that sends a reminder every 14 months but has no route for an operator to report poor capture is incomplete. Conversely, routine visual checks do not replace a competent thorough test.

What the formal record should contain

Retain the examiner's complete report, not just a pass label. It should identify the system, purpose and location; the examiner and examination date; conditions during the test; what was inspected and measured; comparison with intended performance; defects or limitations; any immediate action recommended; and the next test date. Keep supporting drawings, the commissioning benchmark, the COSHH assessment and any post-repair retest link. If the report says a hood could not be tested because the process was unavailable, that is a limitation to resolve, not an automatic pass.

HSE's COSHH Approved Code of Practice specifies particulars for examination records; have the competent examiner follow the current requirements for the installation. Do not rely on a generic online form to replace the report. A digital index can help locate and track it, but the substantive technical findings must remain accessible.

Record who in the business reviewed the report. A report filed without a decision can leave a failed system in use. For each defect, note the exposure risk, interim control, repair owner, date and proof of effective restoration. Do not overwrite the failed result after a later successful test.

What to do when a report fails or flags poor control

The immediate question is whether workers are still exposed. A competent person should assess whether work can continue with an adequate interim measure, whether different equipment or respiratory protection is needed, or whether the operation should stop until the LEV is repaired. Do not assume disposable masks can be substituted without a suitable assessment and fit/use arrangements. HSE says critical defects should be addressed immediately; the system must remain effective in real use. HSE LEV FAQs; HSE maintenance of LEV and RPE.

Arrange repair, retain the engineering record, and retest sufficiently to show that the control works again. The exact retest may depend on the fault. A new filter, fan or hood arrangement can alter system performance. HSE's G406 guidance warns that changing part of a system or what it is used for may require recommissioning. HSE G406. If the process changes, review the COSHH assessment and whether the existing LEV still suits it.

Tell the people using the equipment what has changed, how to recognise a problem and what to do if capture seems poor. An LEV report that says “pass” under test conditions is not enough if workers routinely use the hood in a different position.

Day-to-day records between formal tests

Operators should have a simple way to note pre-use observations: obvious damage, airflow indicator, dust or fume escaping capture, unusual noise, filter alarm, damaged ducting, or a hood that cannot be positioned correctly. Maintenance records should identify filter changes, repairs and alterations. Supervisors need to know which faults can be resolved locally and which require work to stop or competent review.

Some operations need more specific performance checks. The HSE welding control guidance points out that visible fume capture and suitable measurements matter; one airflow number alone may not describe effective control for every arrangement. The technical method belongs to a competent examiner, not the person entering a due date in software.

If an LEV unit is moved, reassigned or used with a new material, keep a record of the change and assess whether the original report still applies. A report for a previous process may not prove performance for a new one.

Example: an extraction report finds inadequate capture

A woodworking shop's competent tester reports that the extraction at one saw is below its commissioned performance and notes a damaged duct. The manager records the finding, prevents use of the affected operation or applies a suitable expert-approved interim control, and instructs repair. The engineer replaces the duct, checks the system and the competent person verifies effective capture against the intended performance. The manager updates the asset record and returns the saw to normal use. The original failed report remains attached, with the repair and retest linked to it. The shop also asks why operators had not flagged falling performance earlier and revises the pre-use check.

This is an example of management, not a technical specification or a claim that every duct failure requires the same control.

Common mistakes

• Recording only an expiry date and losing the examiner's complete report.
• Assuming a “tested” label means the system captured the contaminant effectively.
• Applying 14 months to a process requiring a shorter interval.
• Treating mobile or on-tool extraction as outside LEV examination duties.
• Filing a failed report without an immediate exposure-control decision.
• Closing the defect on a repair invoice without verifying restored performance.
• Changing the process or hood without checking whether recommissioning or reassessment is needed.
• Believing a software dashboard makes the LEV technically compliant.

Product connection and next step

Complys COSHH assessments is a related commercial owner for assessment information, but this draft does not assert that Complys provides a deployed LEV asset register, competent testing, exposure measurement, report interpretation or automatic acceptance of failed plant. Claude must verify any such feature before publication. A buyer should test whether a platform can link the LEV report, next due date, defect, interim control, repair and retest to the correct system, with suitable access to technical records.

Next step: locate the latest complete report for one LEV unit, check its due date and five-year record trail, then follow every defect through interim protection and verified repair. If the system's real use has changed since the report, arrange a competent review.

Primary sources

• HSE, LEV FAQs, commissioning guidance, G406 LEV control guidance, and HSG258 LEV guide.
• HSE, COSHH Approved Code of Practice L5 and maintenance of LEV and RPE.

Reviewed 4 October 2026. Great Britain. The competent examiner and current COSHH requirements determine the technical test and any shorter interval for a particular system.