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'

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.

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, 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

The legal terminology used is that the risk assessment has to be "suitable & sufficient" and its significant finding recorded if employing 5 or more

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.

Indeed it is. I trust you kept a copy of L21.

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.

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