Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
Reg 4 & Schedule 1 of the Management Regs are sometimes referred to as a hierarchy but my reading of the ACoP is that they are just a list. Is there anything more which does require us to treat them as a hierarchy eg you must install LEV rather than relying on RPE?
It's not that I am against having a hierarchy but I have to represent what the Law/ACoP/Guidance actually says rather than my own idea of what should be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Oliver
This is where your definition of "reasonably practicable" comes into play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Whaley
Max
Yes there is. One problem is that, in your example, you are mixing up the Management Regs with COSHH. In the example, it is preferable to use LEV because it protects everyone in the area, REP only protects the wearer. Use the highest level of protection that is 'reasonably practicable' or 'practicable' depending on which regulation applies.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pugwash
Max
Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 to MHSWR provides a list of principles. I am not sure where the idea of a hierarchy comes from. Each principle can be considered in isolation from the others. It makes no difference in what order the individual principles on the list are presented.
I reckon that you can tell a lot about the HSE's views on a particular part of a Directive by the length of the ACOP to the corresponding regulation. The ACOP for Regulation 4 is pretty terse Reading between the lines, this ACOP says "We think this a load of unnecessary waffle but we have had to include it to avoid accusations that we are not fully implementing the Directive. It is unlikely that anyone is going to face enforcement action under this particular Regulation."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
Thanks folks - I should not have mixed up COSHH with the Management Regs by giving a chemical example.
That's clarified things - definite hierarchy in the case of hazardous substances (so far as reasonably practicable) but a list for other hazards and risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Max
Actually the hierarchy comes into play in quite a lot of situations; another example would be working at height, there is a clear hierarchical procedure for identifying the safest means for WAH. Agreed there is nothing wrong with a list but in the main when all is said and done you are identifying a procedure that ultimately creates a safer working method, noise is another one, removing/eliminating it would be top of the hierarchical ladder followed by good quality engineered controls etc, agreed, you can class it as a list if you want but personally I use the hierarchical method fairly often, it is a clear and uncomplicated way of examining the procedure/method/task etc which will clearly identify priorities to consider before jumping on a PPE route.
It works for me anyway.
All the best
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
Although Reg 4 of MHSW does talk about general principles of prevention, I feel that the idea of a hierarchical approach is implicit.
Schedule 1 list these principles and right at the top is "avoiding risks". It then goes through the list until item (h) which specifically says "giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures". Finally item (i) talks about appropriate instruction.
My interpretation is that avoiding risks is clearly the first priority and everything else follows on from that. Evaluating the risk that cannot be avoided and combating it at source comes next.
There may be room for manoeuvre with the next 3 items which are mainly procedural but when it talks about physical controls, "giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures" the whole thing seems pretty hierarchical to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
Thanks Peter and everybody else. I was reasonably sure in my own mind that the hierarchy was implicit in the Management Regs but there isn't the same wording as in the COSHH Regs where we actually have a list "in order of priority". So before I go off and start saying "the law says we have to ....." I wanted to be sure what the law actually said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
No problem Max
This is the problem with goal setting v prescriptive legislation. If the regulations had said "you must adopt a hierarchy of controls as follows", either the list would have been endless or there would have been a whole list of exemptions to cover every eventuality. Instead the legislation is open to interpretation which inevitably leads to confusion or misinterpretation in some areas. The ACOP and guidance needs to be clearer in spelling out that a hierarchical approach is the one that is being encouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.