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
JJ Proudbody  
#1 Posted : 25 July 2014 11:40:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JJ Proudbody

I have just been refeshing my memory with respect to the above. Having read te HSE webpage about risk assessment and the associated FAQs, the HSE give the following definition. 'Risks, which are significant, are those that are not trivial in nature and are capable of creating a real risk to health and safety which any reasonable person would appreciate and would take steps to guard against. What can be considered as "insignificant" will vary from site to site and activity to activity depending on specific circumstances.' I can't help thinking this is just waffle? Opinions? How about:- 'While risks will vary from site to site and for each activity - a significant risk is one which a reasonable person would understand to potentially cause fatal injuries, life changing injuries or ill health or require first aid and/or professional medical treatment - even though full recovery would be expected'
chris.packham  
#2 Posted : 25 July 2014 11:52:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

As a basis for discussion: The significance of a risk will vary according to both the probability of the effect occurring and the severity of this effect. A significant risk would be one where an identifiable effect would result. This could be fatality, life changing injury or ill health affecting ability to remain in employment and/or quality of life7 Chris
boblewis  
#3 Posted : 25 July 2014 12:05:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

I would prefer that we look at significant risks to the business if we are to get H&S to be part of the routine of management. So any definition has to also look at Environmental, Quality, Financial, Manpower, Resources, Corporate Responsibility and Finance. Just to name a few. I really worry that reliance on HSE definitions is going to go past most movers and shakers.
jwk  
#4 Posted : 25 July 2014 12:49:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

One way of viewing significant risk would be something which would have more impact than the control measures necessary to prevent it; so the risk arising from a wet floor (stf, lost-time injury, legal fees, management time all divided by likelihood) would cost more than the act of drying the floor, in this view a wet floor is a significant risk. Not saying I wholly agree with this, but it is a way of looking at risk, John
Jigsaw  
#5 Posted : 25 July 2014 12:55:09(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Jigsaw

Doing risk assessments is, for me, about ensuring you've covered the stuff that worries you. My definition of significant risk is if I answer yes to the following question "Is it foreseeable that anyone will suffer significant harm, loss or damage through this activity?" Having ruled out paper cuts - and other such trivials - doesn't mean I'd do a risk assessment (as an example) for every kettle, toaster or hoover in the premises; in this case I'd consider an electricity RA, and look at maintaining items to such a standard that risk is reduced to minimal levels (PAT/Fixed wiring) when accompanied by cleaning and checking regimes according to use and restricting the item's use to suitably competent persons.
Steve e ashton  
#6 Posted : 25 July 2014 13:50:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

A very cautious query if I may... Why exactly do you need a "definition" for 'significant risks'? Apart fromt he problem that everyone has their own interpretation and so a single 'definition' will never satisfy everyone I feel it necessary to observe that the legal obligation - in all the Regs that I can think of where risk assessment is mentioned - is that we need to record the "significant findings" of our risk assessment. NOT that we need to assess significant risks... The phrase 'significant risk' does not appear in any Regs (so far as I know) I know this seems pedantic to many but I genuinely think HSE themselves may have muddied the water quite a lot on this issue, and I can't decide if they were gold plating or if they were simplifying....
jwk  
#7 Posted : 25 July 2014 13:57:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Steve, one of my former teaam used to make exactly the same point, and I'll make the same rejoinder to you as I did to him. The findings of a risk assessment include an evaluation of the risks, and the controls required to address them etc etc. Your record of the significant findings will include a record of risks, since they are part of your significant findings I don't think it's gold-plating to think of them as significant risks. I agree it's loose, just a verbal shorthand, but we do record our significant risks, even if the term has no (strict) basis in law, John
Steve e ashton  
#8 Posted : 25 July 2014 14:00:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Wat is 'significant' will depend on who you are, where you are and how important the issue is to you ... I was in Glasgow yesterday - opening day of the Commonwealth Games. I was very nervous because what I perceived to be the heightened risk of terrorist (or disaffected nutter) activity seemed (to me) to be significant, I was worried, I stayed off the main streets, I didn't enter the rail station until two minutes before departure, and I kept a twitchy eye on everyone I could see. Totally over-the top, paranoid behaviour according to many. But I can't help it if I assess significance differently from others... Indeed, therein lies the problem at the heart of trying to come up with a 'definition' for significant risk
jay  
#9 Posted : 25 July 2014 14:10:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

The legal terminology used is that the risk assessment has to be "suitable & sufficient" and its significant finding recorded if employing 5 or more
Steve e ashton  
#10 Posted : 25 July 2014 14:21:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

And - as another angle - it can be a very 'Significant finding' that there is no 'significant risk'... As was the case following a DSEAR assessment I did last year... The large silos of polymer may give the impression of being a significant - even a major- risk. But the impression is wrong! If we try to define 'significant risk' as a way of deciding what to assess - the I feel we are putting the cart before the horse... Surely - any risk assessment is trying to find out 'how significant' the risk may be...???
fiesta  
#11 Posted : 25 July 2014 15:48:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fiesta

The significance of a risk will also depend on your perception of that risk. How often do we all see scaffolders working at considerable height with zero fall protection ? I'm assuming that all safety professionals would see this risk as just about as significant as it gets, but plenty of scaffolders clearly don't perceive it that way, or they just wouldn't do it.
jodieclark1510  
#12 Posted : 25 July 2014 15:59:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jodieclark1510

As many rightly suggest, risk is perceived and significance is calculated. This is why I don't believe in one person undertaking a risk assessment. It needs to be an activity with a variety of inputs. Just today I wrote up a risk assessment which I discussed with 2 managers that have worked in a warehouse for almost 50 yrs between them, and what I saw as a significant risk, like hot glue scalding you, they don't because they have seen it happen or had it happened to themselves! But I have been guilty of it too, in my last position I became complacent with chemicals because "touch wood" I never had an incident or accident with them, but if I did it would potentially be significant to me if I couldn't work again, and to the business for a multitude of reasons!
Ron Hunter  
#13 Posted : 25 July 2014 16:24:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

JJ Proudbody wrote:
Having read te HSE webpage about risk assessment and the associated FAQs, I can't help thinking this is just waffle?
Indeed it is. I trust you kept a copy of L21.
jwk  
#14 Posted : 25 July 2014 16:30:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Indeed, a significant finding can be that there are no risks, though I wouldn't even start an assessment unless I had an inkling that there were some risks somewhere.... I tend to agree with the OP about HSE's passage on risk; it's hard to fathom just what exactly they mean; as a rule of thumb it's best just to ask yourself if anybody is likely to get hurt, and if so what can we do to stop it. HSE doesn't seem too good at using simple language despite their best efforts, John
RayRapp  
#15 Posted : 26 July 2014 09:28:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Surely it's a case of doing what it says on the tin? The term 'significant' means a risk where someone is likely to get seriously hurt or worse if that risk was to materialise. I accept you can get hurt with a relatively minor risk if you are unfortunate. Similarly a major incident can have minor consequences. The bottom line is we as practitioners do not have a crystal ball.
chris.packham  
#16 Posted : 26 July 2014 14:48:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

"... we practitioners do not have a crystal ball." Of course we don't. We need always to recognise that we, too, are subject to what I call the Sodd-Murphy factor. If it can happen it will happen, when we least expect it and in a way that we had not anticipated! Isn't this why we always have to keep using our imagination and asking the "what if...." question? Chris
jontyjohnston  
#17 Posted : 28 July 2014 14:36:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jontyjohnston

Doing risk assessments is, for me, about ensuring you've covered the stuff that worries you". Post 5. Could not agree more! Just before I started a £200Million Power Plant construction project I had a coffee chat with a Senior HSENI Inspector about the project. I was looking up at a mountain of work to get it right (85% foreign workforce) and was a bit daunted. Inspector turned round and said "look, what's gonna give you sleepless nights?", I said "steel works, HV works, diving operations, commissioning". His reply was "me too....so lets give priority to managing those first", and that's what he based his inspection programme on. We worked closely with HSENI to manage what we both knew where the significant issues. In that case the risk of someone falling whilst erecting the steelwork or HSG's was MORE significant than someone twisting an ankle. When it comes to the recording I had an unpleasant experience with a County Court judge (different environment - manufacturing) when I tried to explain why I had not recorded what I deemed to be an insignificant risk in a welding centre. His view was that by not recording EVERY risk I could not show the court HOW we had determined it to be insignificant. Needless to say we coughed up for the claim! Nothing clear or unambiguous about risk and risk assessment...makes it fun. J
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.