Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi all, I've taken over H&S from a previous manager and am trying to clean up which RA's are relevant, and ensure I have RA's to cover all hazards.
How do you handle overlapping activities in Risk Assessments? E.G. We use forklift trucks on site. This could fall into multple existing risk assessments: Workplace Transport, Forklift Trucks, Lifting Equipment Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The law requires that you carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, based on which specific regs apply. There is no set format for the findings of the risk assessment, and you do not need a separate piece of paperwork that relates to each set of regs. You just need to make sure that you cover all of the bases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel  The law requires that you carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, based on which specific regs apply. There is no set format for the findings of the risk assessment, and you do not need a separate piece of paperwork that relates to each set of regs. You just need to make sure that you cover all of the bases.
Thank you. I feel confident for what is required with regards to completing Risk Assessments. My question is more around the practicalities of having overlapping activities. I'm aware it will take me more time to complete multiple RA's for the same activity, and I run the risk of the measures and controls not being consistent across the 3. So how would you tackle that?
E.G. copy/paste? Put a reference to another RA inside the RA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Previosly I have covered FLTs in workplace transport, I inlcude activities such as loading / unloading and control measures such as LOLER
|
 1 user thanked thunderchild for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
i would try doing it as an activity based assessment(s) so maybe a general one for the warehouse activities, a slightly different one for the yard (some of the vehicle transport may be different), and if you have a set system, say for training drivers, or checks before use, a simple one liner that refers to a SSW or similar.
|
1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: HSSnail i would try doing it as an activity based assessment(s) so maybe a general one for the warehouse activities, a slightly different one for the yard (some of the vehicle transport may be different), and if you have a set system, say for training drivers, or checks before use, a simple one liner that refers to a SSW or similar.
Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. Then, for example, I have a couple of activities that use an FLT. E.g. 1) Goods Receipt (unloading of delivery vehicles), and 2) Customer Deliveries (loading of our delivery vans). Would I copy/paste some of the FLT related hazards between the two, where they would be equally applicable. E.g. the hazard is inadequate training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That would be my approach, i remember looking at one set of Risk assessments where a company had tried to cover them as individual hazards, i found 1 titled "Falling off Ladders" which talked all about ladder training etc, but never mentioned what they were even using ladders for. As an inspector i usually found that companies did a better job of controlling hazards if they considered an activity. I always said to people, have as few risk assessments as you can, (without making them two complicated) but as many as you need. There is no one size fits all.
Think about COSHH - hf you just think about the substance and not how you are using it its a recipe for disaster.
|
1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: HSSnail
That would be my approach, i remember looking at one set of Risk assessments where a company had tried to cover them as individual hazards, i found 1 titled "Falling off Ladders" which talked all about ladder training etc, but never mentioned what they were even using ladders for. As an inspector i usually found that companies did a better job of controlling hazards if they considered an activity. I always said to people, have as few risk assessments as you can, (without making them two complicated) but as many as you need. There is no one size fits all.
Think about COSHH - hf you just think about the substance and not how you are using it its a recipe for disaster.
That perspective is really useful, thank you. I'm going to draw out a matrix of activites and hazards and come at it from a different angle. Thank you so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.