I think the word review is the main word in this and although you say there are no accidents and the risk is controlled you are in fact reviewing the risk assessment. As we know risk assessment have to be reviewed as and when is determined by the nature of the risk so I my humble opinion you do need to review risk assessments however if the control measures are working then you would not need to change it but identify that you have reviewed it. Jurgen

If you do not review at regular intervals, how will you know that nothing has changed? Even minor changes, e.g. in the chemical product you are purchasing or the way in which the control measures are working, could result in a significant change in the risk or effect of exposure. Not to review would be akin to the quality control department stating that they do not need to control any more as the situation is stable and the product up to now has been as specified. I doubt whether the relevant EN standards would accept this. Chris

As others have said, “How do you know that nothing has changed if you don’t do the review?” The review need not be onerous ie you don’t need to do the assessment from scratch again; all you need to do is to check the assessment and make sure that: 1. It is still appropriate ie the procedure has not been changed/modified since the RA was written 2. It is sufficient, ie there haven’t been any incidents( including near misses) which might lead to doubts about the RA 3. It is suitable as the apparent risk has not changed because there is new information about the hazards involved. This is what we do.

Legally you only need to review if there has been an incident or if there has been change in the work activity. Best practice is to review, but to me that just means to acknowledge that nothing has changed. It's not like you have to rewrite it or anything. Resign it to bable to prove that it hasn't just sat on a shelf gathering dust.