Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Dave5705  
#1 Posted : 21 November 2018 09:58:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Hi, a very general question. When writing a risk assessment, and asked 'how many persons may be affected', would you put the number who may be directly affected by the hazardous event when it happens or the number of persons on site who might as individuals be affected but not at the same time.

for example cleaners who need to lift a heavy bin up to empty it into a tall skip, is the number affected 1 because only one would be performing the task at the time the hazard presents itself, or (say) ten because there are ten cleaners on site who will all do it at some point, but not together.

Or a better example, a person up a ladder drops a brick, the brick can't fall on more than maybe one or two persons, but there are 150 workers on site and it could hit any one (or two) of them. So is the risk potential just two or three people or 150?

I've just seen a manual handling assessment, and a fire assessment for the same organisation, which says the risk of musculoskeletal injury from lifting, and the risk of death from smoke are both the same at 50 people because 50 people work there. Surely the number should indicate how many may be injured by an event?

hilary  
#2 Posted : 21 November 2018 12:04:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

"How many persons may be affected" is not an official risk assessment question.  The question is "who may be harmed and how".  Therefore, in lifting the bin the answer would be "cleaning staff" and "ergonomics".  For the brick the answer would be "employees, visitors, subcontractors" and "falling object".

You need to include everyone who might be affected.  It's not always going to be Joe Bloggs/Fred Smith working underneath, so you need to provide netting to ensure no one is hit by said brick and that needs to include EVERYONE who might be affected.

thanks 1 user thanked hilary for this useful post.
Dave5705 on 21/11/2018(UTC)
nic168  
#3 Posted : 21 November 2018 12:48:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
nic168

 I have not come across this as a question on Risk Assessments before. The more usual way is to look at who might be affected- Regular staff engagaed in the task, cleaners, visitors, contractors etc- not forgetting tresspassers of course!.

 Numbers are used for more specific types of Risk assessment, such as a Fire Risk Assessment on buildings where there could be people sleeping where the number of people who could be involved is a factor as you have to consider evacuation routes and possible need to assist etc.

thanks 1 user thanked nic168 for this useful post.
Dave5705 on 21/11/2018(UTC)
Dave5705  
#4 Posted : 21 November 2018 13:48:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

I agree with both of you, numbers seem pointless unless there is a reason to need them for other purposes like an evacuation. I think this organisation have tried to use one form they have 'found' to cover all needs. I am trying to review them but I think I am going to need to replace them with a better format. They are using a 25 point numeric quantitive risk scale too, which I am trying to reduce to a four-point qualitative low to v.high.

It's not always easy to argue with a boss who made the error in the first place!

George_Young  
#5 Posted : 21 November 2018 14:06:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
George_Young

Only time I include number of people is generally on fire RA. every other RA I use type of person such as engineer, operator, employee, visitor, etc

andybz  
#6 Posted : 21 November 2018 15:11:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
andybz

When considering major accident hazards you would certainly need to indicate the number of people who may be affected.  For most normal activities you are most interested in whether it is the person doing the task that may be affected and/or someone else because that will have a big effect on how to implement controls.  If the someone else includes members of the public your controls will need to be particularly robust.

peter gotch  
#7 Posted : 21 November 2018 17:34:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Even beyond e.g. major hazards scenarios, there may be times when you want to consider the population at risk to determine what is reasonably practicable.

But if you are counting numbers, then you need to take account of other variables including time that each is exposed to the risk, if you want to get to a situation where you are comparing risks on a like for like basis.

When working out what is reasonably practicable, you can assign monetary values to different severities of injury. This may sound unfeeling but it is done in practice.

Department of Transport publishes a Value for the Prevention of a Fatality, VPF and various severities of Injury VPIs.

Rail Safety and Standards Board go one step further and tell you how many injuries of various severities equate to a fatality.

All becomes quite important if you are faced with choosing to spend money on e.g. something that will provide long term public protection against a decision to reduce risks to the workforce. Particularly in the public sector most investment decisions have a large Benefit to Cost ratio. Doing what is reasonably practicable to reduce health and safety risks requires an opposite approach, i.e. deciding to spend more on risk reduction than the benefit that arises. HSE provides guidance on ALARP on its website (whilst conveniently ignoring the judgment in Marshall v Gotham).

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Dave5705 on 22/11/2018(UTC)
Dave5705  
#8 Posted : 22 November 2018 12:26:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Yes, of course I can see that there are many times when you would need to consider numbers, especially of the hazard could affect a larger number of persons, when establishing if a control is reasonably practicable. Unfortunately someone has told our business manager that you must provide numbers on every RA for every risk, and she is expecting me to do that. Some of the RA's are not fit for purpose, I am trying to review and re-educate at the same time!

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post
HSE provides guidance on ALARP on its website (whilst conveniently ignoring the judgment in Marshall v Gotham).
 

Peter, in what way would you say they are ignoring Marshal v Gotham?

Users browsing this topic
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.