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
Identifying non hazards in a Risk assessment
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
stonecold  
#1 Posted : 22 January 2015 13:20:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold
Hi,

Our maintenance guys have just written a RA for the use of a MEWP (Boom). They used the standard company template and have correctly identified most of the typical hazards associated with the task. But they have also identified things as hazards, that are not actually hazards. E.g in the hazards identified section of the RA they have included, delivery to site, visibilty, ground operators, storage.

Now in regard to this wording and description these things are simple not hazards. How can storage be a hazard? I can sort of see why they have gone this way, i think they may be to include items that are not techinically hazards but may have some bearing on the task.

My question is, will the risk assessment still be considered sutibale and suffcient if these desciptions of hazards are left in the assessment? When i did my NEBOSH there was a list of mechanical and non mechanical hazards that covered all scenorios.
Back to top
saferay  
#2 Posted : 22 January 2015 13:34:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
saferay
To be 'suitable and sufficient' the RA needs to identify 'significant' risk and suitable control measures. Adding extra bits will not result in the RA being unsuitable or insufficient unless it turns it in to a 'war and peace' size document that people will not read.
Back to top
A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 22 January 2015 13:41:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel
But could ’delivery to site, visibility, ground operators, storage’ be hazards? Could there be a risk involved in bringing the MEWP onto the site etc? If the risk assessment is solely for operating it and does not include these possible, auxiliary risks then the risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient.
Back to top
RayRapp  
#4 Posted : 22 January 2015 13:41:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
With a Task Based RA the actual activities associated with the task are analysed for risks, controls and significant risks are recorded...blah, blah. However if I have read your post correctly, other activities may impinge on the task and these are a legitimate concern - for example, how is the MEWP delivered/collected from site, is the ground stable, even or bumpy, wet/dry, wind, loading, etc? These issues may be covered by another RA e.g. deliveries and collections - however these should not always be treated in isolation.

These issues may seem to be on the periphery, but I think your maintenance guys have called this one correctly. I would sit down and discuss with them so that there is a clear understanding what the RA covers, or should cover and what is assessed elsewhere.
Back to top
JohnW  
#5 Posted : 22 January 2015 14:32:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW
stonecold, I'm with Ray on this one, that the guys are right to identify any hazards associated with things your guys identified: delivery to site, visibilty, ground operators, storage.

Maybe just a slight rewording is needed in the 'hazards identified section' of the RA. So, the hazards can be identified as, say:

Delivery to site - traffic control, positioning of MEWP for commissioning

Poor visibility and awareness of surroundings

Control of ground operators

Storage - traffic control, positioning of MEWP
Back to top
stonecold  
#6 Posted : 22 January 2015 14:34:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold
Thanks all, after reading all posts and taking it all in , my mind has been changed somewhat. Its given me a slightly different view of risk assessment docs.

Cheers
Back to top
jay  
#7 Posted : 22 January 2015 14:51:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay
I feel that there is a difference between a discrete "activity" and the "hazards" associated with the activities. You can have a risk assessment format has both.
Back to top
chris42  
#8 Posted : 22 January 2015 15:03:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42
I would also agree with your engineers and comments above. I have sadly been aware of an incident during off loading, fell off side of trailer ramp, locking pin not engaged poor conditions on a slope. Storage to prevent unintended use etc and in a safe place etc are all valid.

You have to ask, If these issues are not part of the activity assessment, under what assessment would they come ?

But on a more general note if there is something assessed which turns out to not be an issue ( provided not war and piece as above), why not leave it in to show it was considered. Providing it was not risk of paper cut from doing RA :0)

Chris
Back to top
boblewis  
#9 Posted : 23 January 2015 11:02:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis
Question "did they put in place any measures to deal with the identified hazards?" If not then the RA is insufficient.
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET