I agree entirely, they need to be committed to actually complete the POW and not making assumptions based upon previous assessments. We have the same issues here and we are actively issuing POW booklets to staff to ensure they have conducted assessments for each activity where there is clearly some residual risk that needs consideration. Then at regular intervals checks are made on their assessments, to ensure firstly they are doing them and also to ensure they understand the meaning of them and the clear benefits. Ultimately the point is to make them appreciate the risks are being controlled for their benefit and not yours, you agree?

If you employ me as a groundworker what part of my job description would say complete the site specific RA as your employer cant or wont do it. Any way don't you only have to record significant risks, why make hard work and enemies on site when you want improvement And if that was part of my job, who is going to train me to do it, and if I don't do it how you want it , it wont be right any way.

Surely this depends on what you think a point of work risk assessment (POWRA) is for? Most organisations that I have worked for use the POWRA to supplement a suitable and sufficient risk assessment not instead of it. A suitable and suffient risk assessment is produced prior to the work commencing including consultation with the work force, visiting the point of work,examining all available data, method statements, etc. The POWRA is completed, sometimes daily, when conditions or circumstances change that may negate some of the controls identified in the original risk assessment. It's a way of communicating any changes that may have taken place and feeding back to the originator and fits into the monitoring and review process. That's my take on it anyway. Kevin

This is where I depart with the idea of PoWRAs and say things must be assessed Dynamically once the work is about to start. The task risk assessment is the start point and surely the supervisor would ensure this is correct or else how can the work be safely started. Surely we only need to record significant and potentially ongoing changes to the risk assessment. If we record everything aat this point then the overkill will drive everybody away from the use of any system Bob

I'm slightly ambivalent about this. I have implemented a solution that works well for me which allows for operatives to assess risks and to assign scores before starting work (work is of a field service nature and this RA is completed via a PDA script). My motivation is not to use these RAs as something to fulfill the RA requirements of the Management Regs but simply to encourage the operatives to pause before starting work to actually consider the risks associated with their activities. As such I think it works well - it's certainly not a substitute for a 'suitable and sufficient' RA (which is by necessity generic in nature) but it does allow for the operatives to account for site specific issues that may not be covered in the 'proper' RA.

Taylor - there is some good advice here; as I agree that the primary RA is undertaken before work starts by the appropriate people and dynamic [PoWRA] RA's have a place where unexpected higher risk change is present at the point of undertaking the work Staff should be appropriately trained etc so as they understand RA's and the roles that they [the RA's] play and how to undertake dynamic RA's as needed Its the employers [managements] responsibility to manage e.g. Undertake RA;s etc noting that competence is the main criteria so the staff may undertake them as the most competent people with management acting as facilitators if nothing else and being one of the signatories

Absolutly correct Ron, if an employer requires his staff to undertake a a PoWRA he is failing in his prime duty to assess the risk as far as is reasonably practicable because if he is saying the employee must do such a risk assessment he is failing to comply with the law. Yes there may be some circumstances that arise that are not previously known about but would you like to see an employee undertaking the work without you knowing that this additional risk being present, not me I would say.

Walker you are very privilaged to have people who understand exactly what they are doing, but there are many others out there who do not and it is those that this thread is concerned about. There is a very serious risk that the responsibility for undertaking risk assessments (of any type) is being pushed out to the front line staff, this is not enough under the law and no one can get away from that situation. The law is the first thing everyone must comply with so the risk of diluting this is very dangerous for both the company concerned and the employees.

Walker, it seems that you have the necessary attributes in your workforce (positive culture, highly trained, highly motivated) to make this work and presumably a work environment that deems it necessary. Fair play to you. It would seem however that the original poster does not enjoy these same attributes within his workforce and hence my notes of caution and opinion. I do have a fairly wide view of the world of work and I'm all for "horses for courses" however I do think though that this whole "dynamic risk assessment" thing is being taken too far in some quarters, and I've first hand experience of employers attempting to "cop out" by attempting to apply this inappropriately. I'm only attempting in some small way prevent others from making those same mistakes.

Ron, IMHO Dynamic risk assessment is not the same thing as POWRA Your reading of the OP is different to mine taylor walters - I'll pm you later for an address to send you my POWRA booklet

I presume, that reg 10, providing the RA has been overlooked then

Phil Rose You said "Therefore many risk assessments are carried out by managers and supervisors (who are employees in themselves), acting on behalf of and with the ‘authority’ of the employer, within the context of reg 7. It seems reasonable to me that employees, usually someone with supervisory responsibilities, but in any case someone is competent, can and should be able to carry out POWRA or dynamic RA" What it was aimed at Phil is Regulation 7 MHSWR states The employer shall ensure that- (a) any person appointed by him in accordance with paragraph (1) who is not in his employment- (I) is informed of the factors known by him to affect, or suspected by him of affecting, the health and safety of any other person who may be affected by the conduct of his undertaking, and (ii) has access to the information referred to in regulation 10; Regulation 10 MHSWR states (1) Every employer shall provide his employees with comprehensible and relevant information on- (a) the risks to their health and safety identified by the assessment; (b) the preventive and protective measures; Not the employee will conduct the POWRA

SteveL All the supporters (in this thread) of POWRAs have repeated time and again "POWRA should never be used as a substitute for a suitable & sufficent RA." Which bit of that sentence don't you understand?

Steve Thanks for both posts, they are more helpful than the ‘one liner’ about reg 10! It’s one thing to quote regs but another to put them into the context, and to apply this to the practical world of work. The point I am trying to make is who is this employer who carries out the risk assessment? I suggest that the employer is this case is a somewhat ‘nebulous’ entity and that in many cases the ‘employer’ in this context is often an employee, (usually but not always in a management or supervisory position) who may or may not have been formally appointed under reg 7. In most large organisations it is common and accepted practice for employers to use the safety policy to delegate the task of carrying out risk assessments and ultimately the management of risk to (perish the thought) managers, who are of course employees of the organisation. This is in most cases the only realistic and pragmatic way to achieve the goal of reg 3 and countless other regs. Assuming that the ‘safety officer’ will do them all (on behalf of the employer?) is a throw back to the 60’s and before and would have Lord R turning in his resting place. As I have already said, with my feet planted firmly on the ground, I suggest that for the majority of organisations, an employee of that organisation will carry out the formal RA’s, generic RAs, DRAs and POWRAs. I see little other choice in most circumstances. Or have I finally lost it? Again, quoting regs is fine, but I suggest that a significant part of our job is to put them into context of the workplace, and advise/demonstrate how they may be applied in a practical and pragmatic way. It would be interesting to hear from you and others who you/they think the ‘employer’ is in this context, i.e. who should carry out the RA’s?

There are several versions of this termed as "last minute risk assessment" (LMRA), "Take Two", "Take Five" etc. The principle behind all of them is that they either supplement task/activity risk assessment (some of the generic) and are used as reminders/checklists. There is nothing wrong in using them as long as suitable and sufficient generic risk assessments have been carried out for the activities and those undertaking these assessment are properly trained and competent.

The overall culture of the business will dictate whether these will be of any benefit, as it will be down to the wider issue of training, competence and willingness to work safely that will affect the decision making the worker undertakes. POWRA are only ever going to be records of the concious decisions the worker would have made anyway. It was noted by kdrew that in investigations workers carried on regardless of changing situations and had an accident. I think it's fair to say any of these workers would have carried on regardless of what box they ticked on form number xxx of the day. If your workforce is trained well enough to make effective use of a POWRA system they are undoubtably well trained enough to read a generic SSoW and apply good risk aware reasoning to the job they undertake without having to complete additional paperwork. I would suggest having a near miss or unsafe condition report for the occasional time a real problem was identified which is the ultimate goal of the forms anyway. Minimise the paperwork, spend the extra money on training.

BobL the only thing I disagree with is the 'it cannot be written' statement as our lads in high risk areas do write down all significant situations as an on going action as they work and stop work where real significant hazards are discovered etc which have not been accounted for previously Regards B