Hi All - First time poster so go easy on me

I have been queried regarding Risk Assessments namely

1- Do they physically need to be on site

2- Generic Risk Assessments for trades where the trades is repettiive in nature i.e. White Liners/Balck Toppers are they acceptable

3- We employ a lot of small subcontractors where historically we have done their RAMS for them and left our company logo on them.

My answers are

 Point 1 - Yes they need to be on site printed and available for inspection - my view is if HSE walk on site they would ask to see them

Point 2 - Generic risk assessments are in my opinion are ok BUT there should be a one pager or similiar where the foreman can do a Dynamic on the spot assessment

Point 3 - By leaving our logo on them we are taking ownership of the RAMS, what experience do we have to carry out specilisit subbies RAMS

Appreciate any help

You mention roads construction trades in your OP so I'm guessing the Site is a Construction Site.

You NEED a construction phase plan.

You don't need Risk Assessments (A management tool, not a work instruction for competent people doing the task)

You may well need RAMS for unusual risks or specific site environment issues.

Proportionate paperwork. CDM does not require or intend that the employer move the entirety of his H&S management system onto site. In fact, strictly speaking, the CDM Regs do not actually require a physical copy of the CPP to be on site - the information within it can be delivered via tablet/smartphone in comprehensible form either directly, or via supervisor or translator.

RAMS have developed primarily as a way for the prospective contractor to demonstrate competency at selection stage. Only on rare occasions would a specific RAM need to be referred to on-site.

Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by: Bigmac1

If a risk assessment is not on site then how can an operative follow it?

You don't 'follow' a risk assessment, you follow a method statement.

Is the discussion about risk assesments (in my opinion, no they don't need to be accessible to every operative - most operatives don't need to see teh risk assessmnets for most tasks, though some will hopefully have provided input into them) or about method statements?

Thanks for all the responses folks, an interesting topic, which has shed new light on my thinking

Having been involved in construction for some 10 years as a site officer, to a HS Officer and now management I always had the opinion that RAMS must be on site, signed off by the operatives etc etc.

The legislation and CDM Guidance is open to interpretation.

For instance Reg 8 of CDM General Duties - Providing clear information or instructions " Information about hazards is essential to all project workers and managers to make sure they understand the risk involved with the risk, instructions are those agreed actions that must be followed to prevent or minimise those risks"

In my view one way of ensuring this is having clear, readable and understandable risk assessments on site for the operatives to read.

Yes the big issue is reading them and understanding - maybe the whole industry needs to change as the attitude is NO RAMS no access to site.

I agree there is a large focus on bits of paper, rather than proper supervision of the works

Originally Posted by: ryan7780

For instance Reg 8 of CDM General Duties - Providing clear information or instructions " Information about hazards is essential to all project workers and managers to make sure they understand the risk involved with the risk, instructions are those agreed actions that must be followed to prevent or minimise those risks"

That's not what the regs say, actually.  I believe you are quoting from the guidance in L153, not the regs.

Further, I don't think anyone is claiming that operatives should not have clear health and safety information or instructions - the question was about whether operatives need access to risk assesments, and I don't think there is anything that mandates the information to operatives should include the record of risk assesments done.

Specifically, it seems a slight variation on the error of insisting that CDM requires designers to issue risk assesments.  CDM does no such thing (either now, or in the 2007 guise)  Designers must provide information about significant residual hazards, but there is not (and was not) any requirement to issue risk assesment paperwork, regardless of how loudly the CDM-C claimed otherwise. 

Information about hazards is essential for operatives.  Records of the risk assesment process are not.

A risk assessment is no good sat on a shelf in a box file or on a computer that no operative is ever gonna access, it needs to be unserstood by those who are carrying out the work and those supervising the work.

I cant believe some comments, risk assessment- the assessment of risk, control measures and residual risk, who needs to know what the risk is? who needs to know what the control measure that should be in place are?

Who needs to know what risk is left? who needs to know what they have to do to protect themselves?

The Person doing the work - so yes they do need access to risk assessment

I just wonder what the RA stands for in RAMS

Originally Posted by: harveykd

I can't believe what people have posted in this thread i.e. a lot of really bad misunderstandings when it comes to the basics of construction H&S. Bigmac1 is the only person that has spoken any sense!

Surely it's unethical to advise someone when you are making things up?

A very bold and contentious statement!

People have varying views and that's what makes a Discussion Forum interesting. There are very few right and wrongs on this forum and users don't as rule 'make things up'.

Edited by user 19 May 2017 08:40:31(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

I think we can all agree that the huge disparity of understanding as to what a risk assessment is and what it's for is a source of concern.

Let's bear in mind too that the whole concept of "RAMS" or Method Statements grew up from higher hazard tasks in the construction and maintenance industries and in my humble opinion degenerated from a good system (where the preparation and agreement of a method statement added value and safety to the project) to a very bad system where key players insist on worthless bits of paper in a vain attempt at an ar*e covering exercise.

This insistence on 'RAMS with everything' is almost insulting to the trade. I cannot think of any other skilled trade or industry so reliant on foisting paperwork on skilled tradesmen and insisting that they cannot do their job without it! Would you expect a welder, machineman, steel or foundry worker, window cleaner to be referring to a document to tell him how to do his job?

Current and prevalent RAMS approaches  also contrary to the principles of CDM which asks that we do not obscure significant issues with trivial paperwork.

Dammit. I swithered about adding window cleaner to that list. I had in mind a domestic ladder and bucket one-person operation. I don't want to get into a side argument when there is a meaty issue here with polarised opinions to discuss.

I stand by my post.

Interesting discssion, I can't help but think RAs are getting confused with Method Statements and other SSOW documentation. RAs should be transposed into these documents and not a substitute for a SSoW.

Furthermore, many RAs I have seen are not worth the paper they are written on. Full of generic activities and sometimes not even relevant to the project or task. When I check a MS I seldom take much notice of the RAs but I am concerned the MS properly articulates how the work is to be done safely, e.g. competencies of operatives, plant and machinery to be used and so on. In that respect I want to see that operatives will be using a CAT before breaking ground, marking out any buried services, using hand tools below 500mm, etc.The RA might state all things and more, but for me it needs to in the MS which should be briefed to operatives by the supervisor prior to the work starting. All the other stuff in the RA is irrelevant.