I am a bit of a quandary with regards to the interpretation or difference between a risk and a hazard.

Whilst recently compiling my Nebosh Diploma Unit D practical assessment, I questioned my tutor over the correct application of a hazard and risk, i.e. a hazard is anything that can cause damage, injury or loss to people material the environment etc along with the risk being evaluated as likelihood x severity adopting the risk matrix model

I am embroiled within a disagreement with a manager who states that if you look at Regulation 12 of PUWER 1998 details a hazard as the following

(3) The hazards referred to in paragraph (1) are—

(a) any article or substance falling or being ejected from work equipment;

My interpretation

• Incorrect selection of apparatus
• Incorrect use of apparatus
• Attachment incorrectly rated to apparatus
• Inadequate guarding
• Guarding is of insufficient strength

(b) rupture or disintegration of parts of work equipment;

My interpretation

• Inadequate maintenance of apparatus
• Inadequate inspection of apparatus
• Incorrect tooling to tighten accessory
• Lack of training by user
• Lack of supervision to user
• Lack of lighting
• User manual unavailable
• User Manual ineligible
• Defective Emergency Stop mechanism

(c) work equipment catching fire or overheating;

My interpretation

• Incorrect power supply
• Incorrect rating of fuse
• Lack of maintenance
• Ineffective inspection
• Lack of training in PAT testing
• Incorrect selection of apparatus
• Environment the apparatus is to be used in
• Overuse of apparatus
• User Manual Unavailable
• Incorrect storing of apparatus

I am baffled as to why the HSE publicise Regulations based around their interpretation of a hazard whereas NEBOSH taught me otherwise.

Interesting to see what the IOSH community thoughts

Hi

I have to agree with CdC that your interpretations are underlying causes, management failures and behaviours, rather than hazards.

I tend to look at hazards as something which can cause harm from a direct interation with the equipment, work process etc

Thanks for you replies.

I was led to belive that (a) any article or substance falling or being ejected from work equipment is a direct consequence of the interaction with the apparatus i.e. swarf being ejected from a threading machine therefore requiring controls to be administered i.e. training, guarding, maintenance, supervision PPE etc.

Isn't the initiating point - threading of a steel pipe using a mechanical apparatus would be the hazard then require the consequence to be evalulated in terms of liklihood x severity i.e. a risk of an article or substance being ejected from the apparatus.

Again, all comments very welcome.

Damian

No, not within the contect of relating it back to PUWER Reg 12 - the initiating point is not the threading of the pipe, as this is the task required.

Threading the pipe is the work process, which has potential mechanical hazards associated with the process.

As you say the ejection of swarf etc is a hazard - but inherent in the process/machining operation as a hazard - which can usually easily be guarded against - thereby controlling the risk of injury.

An additional hazard would be if the whole pipe became unsecure and could be ejected by the machine, striking the machine operator/passer by. Again a potential hazard if safe guards aren't taken

Then more general machine hazards - operator getting struck/trapped/entangled in moving parts of the machine.

How likely this is, is the risk.

The controls are as you have mentioned - correct machine, correct use/operation, physical guards, trained operators etc etc