Rank: New forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If a risk assessment is not on site then how can an operative follow it?
|
 1 user thanked Bigmac1 for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hello Ryan....welcome!
My personal views are:
1. The HSE would accept that they can be accessible, I.e. able to be downloaded & printed out, but not just for them, but more importantly so that they can be shared with the workforce.
2. Generic RA's do have a place, but if your sites etc. have any unique features or ways of working, then additional site specific ones should be generated.
3. By all means give your subbies some help in carrying them out, but under no circumstances do them for them; you are asking for trouble!
Good luck!
|
 1 user thanked Zyggy for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thanks for reply Zyggy and Bigmac1.
Traditionally i would have expected to have seen the RAMS on site as Bigmac1 says if they are not on site how can they be read, understood and followed, first time i have ever been challenged regarding this.
Regards Generic RAMS yes they have a place for repetitite tasks but also have downsides I picked up a Generic RAMS yesterrday on site dated 2007.
Totally agree with Zyggy yes we can coach and help subbies but should never do there RAMs for them
Thanks for all help
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hello Ryan. Bit of a pompous legalistic reply from me, sorry, but take what you can from it.
Risk assessment is the management tool to determine what control measures are needed to comply with statutory duties. The regs refer to 'a' risk assessment. Not risk assessmentS for each and every component or sub-activity of the business. That is something that seems to have been adopted over the years.
The 'significant findings' (only) of this decision-process are required to be communicated in an understandable way to those affected. They are also to be recorded, although see final paragraph.
There is no legal requirement to 'give' risk assessment records (which could be quite complicated or in complex formats) as such to workers, and if done, this can result in poor communication of the real important stuff. (my experience).
Evidence supporting management decisions and actions may be requested by HSE, and as long as it can be accessed reasonably easily / swiftly - it does not have to be 'on site'. BUT . .
Evidence that risks have actually been assessed could include site rules, written procedures, method statements, instructions, notices, etc. relevant to the workers, and / or management instructions, checklists, flow charts etc relevant to site management. It is usual for this to be accessible / available on site. See the HSE guidance on RA. HSE inspectors should be aware of their own guidance (although not all seem to be).
What and precisly how each organisation does the above is up to them. What works for you is what counts, but it helps to know the foundation. So now the short answers to your questions:
1. No
2. Yes - with provisos
3. Dont!
But do ask them for their own rules, procedures, method statements etc, and remember the need to co-ordinate activities to avoid or minimise risk to anyone. Direct them to the HSE site - guidance for small builders etc.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: aud  Risk assessment is the management tool to determine what control measures are needed to comply with statutory duties. The regs refer to 'a' risk assessment. Not risk assessmentS for each and every component or sub-activity of the business. That is something that seems to have been adopted over the years.
Yes. What Aud said. Used inappropriately, 'risk assessments' are just compliance documents for proving whatever it is you're trying to prove to whom so ever you're trying to prove it to. It often shows.
I can't believe that many actually doing the job check a task RAMS in the real world. They follow their experience and training in relation to how closely they a. care and b. are being supervised.
And yes, H&S inspectors would do well to remember the above too rather than focusing on bits of paper.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have you ever seen them read by someone who didn't have h&s in their job title or job description? ;) RA documents aren't a bad thing...but they weren't designed to be a tool for instructing workers. Even in the UK our average reading age is 11/12 ... ignoring those who can't read English. There are almost certainly better ways of delivering Reg 8.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Btw - no such thing as average reading age...shouldn't really propogate that but its a useful means of making the point.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is this idea that when they come into a workplace the first thing that HSE inspectors do is ask for the risk assessments ( or rather the paper work showing the finding of the risk assessment process) . usually what the do is look and see what people are doing and then ask the employees questions, to ascertain what information, training, instruction and supervision the employees have been given. Only then might they look at the risk assessments.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The employer has a statutory duty to provide a safe place of work, safe work articles and equipment, suitable, appropriate and comprehensible information, instruction and training and competency of his employees.
Collectively, these may be referred to as a safe system of work.
Risk assessment is a process conducted by the employer which confirms the adequacy (or otherwise) of that Safe Sytem. Risk Assessment is not a work instruction and attempts to make it work as such are very likely to result in a risk assessment that does not satisfy statutory requirements.
The employer is required to convey the significant findings of the risk assessment to his employees and this may be done via employee representatives. Significant findings may be "all is well" (we have a Safe System) or "more needs to be done" to enable a SSoW or reduce risk SFARP or ALARP.
Other aspects (Such as significant hazards, residual risks and how they are dealt with is delivered via relevant information, instruction and training - not left to a chance comprehension of the risk assessment by the employee.
Good luck with your approach when something goes badly wrong, Bigmac1
|
 1 user thanked Ron Hunter for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I just wonder what the RA stands for in RAMS
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
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?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My view on the topics:
1. RAs do not have to be on site - they are a management tool to ensure risks are properly controlled. Operatives do not read RAs! Moreover, the findings of a RA should be articulated in a SSoW e.g. Method Statement or some other form of information and instruction. Proper site supervision should be an extra control to ensure the measures of a RA are implemented properly.
2. Generic RAs have their uses and also their limitations. For reptitive activities they are often a practical solution. However, there should be a process in place to ensure where the work or environment changes the generic RA can be re-assessed by a responsible person.
3. It is not unusual to assit small contractors in preparing their RAMS. That said, for high risk or specialist activities I would expect the sub-contractor to have RAMS which are suitable and sufficient. If RAMS are adopted or provided by the main contractor, then I would expect the subbie to use their logo and sign them off as their own.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Ron Hunter  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?
Yes I would actually. I want written confirmation that a task will be done safely....the last time a gaggle of window cleaners came to one of our large sites they all decided to climb onto to a flat roof to access some windows...no fall protections etc...well out of order....RAMS are important, helps everyone understand how a task is to be carried out....In regard to RAs they are a mangement tool only in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I wouldnt allow a domestic ladder on my site either.
RAMS do not tell a worker how to hammer a nail into a wall but it will tell him theres electric cables for example in the wall and the wall will needs scanned Dont forget RA is to record significant risk only
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Bigmac1  RAMS do not tell a worker how to hammer a nail into a wall but it will tell him theres electric cables for example in the wall and the wall will needs scanned Dont forget RA is to record significant risk only
The RA doesn't tell the worker where the cables are. The worker doesn't need the RA, they need the information that cables may be present and the need to scan for them - information that should be in the method statement, the SSOW, or as a residual hazard note on the drawings. Workers don't need risk assessment records documentation - they need information about the control methods and the residual hazards.
|
|
|
|
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.