structure with responsibilities pdf. 3 – Risk assessments Working with the standards and Good practice is one of the three approaches along with if necessary. Source: Assessment – a brief guide to controlling risk in the workplace. Available at: http:// (accessed ).

Author: Mezilkree Mezigal
Country: Laos
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 28 September 2016
Pages: 377
PDF File Size: 7.93 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.6 Mb
ISBN: 856-3-78601-214-7
Downloads: 16068
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tuzahn

What new actions are required to further reduce the risk? There was also a failure of the parties involved to communicate to one another about possible risks.

The Nimrod Review Report [ 11 ] stated that the failure was one of ‘leadership, culture and priorities’. This occurred while members of the public were inside the structure and others were surrounding the structure as it fell back to earth.

Here, the risk consequence level of harm has its probability derived from a number of factors. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. The Risk Graph of Fig. High quality risk pbns are usually achieved quite easily for individual pieces of equipment or self contained work pubnz. HSL undertook a Review of Risk Assessment Practice in [ 12 ] and identified these and further common failings that are listed below: The Designer’s risk assessment stated that 40 tethers would be required for the structure distributed around the perimeter but only 22 were used by the Contract Company.

Journal List Saf Health Work v. The Nimrod aircraft had been in service for over 30 years and had been modified twice.

Risk assessment

The legal responsibilities of employers[ 4 ]. Dreamspace, July2 Fatalities, 27 Injured Dreamspace was a large inflatable structure inside which members of the public could walk around to experience a dream-like world of light and sound. All three parties, the Designer, the Contract Company and the Public Park Authority, had legal responsibility for the health and safety of the staff who would operate the structure and the public who would visit the park.

The legal responsibilities of employers are summarised in Fig. Legal Responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act The Health and Safety at Work Act places responsibility not only on employers but also on designers, manufacturers and suppliers to ensure that articles and substances are safe for use so far as is reasonably practicable, and on every employee while at work to take reasonable care of him or herself, and of any other person who may be affected by his or her actions.

The latter will bring a ‘fresh pair go eyes’ and often sees risks that those very familiar with the area being assessed overlook due to their over familiarity. Carrying out a detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment without first considering whether any relevant good practice was applicable, or when relevant good practice exists.


Subsequent maintenance records showed evidence of fuel leaks that had happened before but these were not acted upon. This leaked fuel was close to hot pipe-work not part of the refuelling system which provided an ignition source. A suitable and sufficient risk assessment called a Safety Case for large, high hazard plant was not completed following the modifications. These laws, covering work places such as factories, offices, railway premises etc.

The Designer failed to provide a full engineering speci fication for the structure which would have included load calculations in various wind pubnd. The wind conditions were not abnormal for the UK. The risk assessment steps allow the generation of a list of risks but for many people it can beg the question ‘where should I focus, what are the biggest risks? Carrying out a risk assessment to attempt to justify a decision that has already been made.

Risk Assessment in the UK Health and Safety System: Theory and Practice

There were three failings in this example 1 a failure to undertake suitable and sufficient risk assessment at the design stage of the modifications to the aircraft 2 a failure to review and act on maintenance data 3 when a retrospective Safety Case was hee some time after the modified aircraft had been in service, maintenance data was not appropriately collected and reviewed to inform the Safety Case.

Carrying out a wdw assessment using inappropriate ‘good practice’ e. What harm could be caused to plant, people employees and the public and the environ ment land, water, air, plants, animals.

Investigation of the historical context indicated that the pipes were installed correctly and to the appropriate standard of the time the pipes were installed in In this case, the employer forgot Step 5 of HSE’s Five Step Risk Assessment Process, that is ‘to continually review and update the risk assessment at suitable time intervals’. To undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment takes time and an appropriate multi-disciplinary team of people.

The best way for this organisation to risk assess their manufacturing process is first to have each Team A-D assess their own work and then for representatives of each Team A-D to form a new team to complete a ‘whole process’ risk assessment using both the information on the individual risk assessments and considering the interactions between processes. The Contract Company did not undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the stability of the structure and the likely hazard to members of the public should it become unstable.

Please review our privacy policy. HSL undertook a Review of Risk Assessment Practice in [ 12 ] and identified these and further common failings that are listed below:. These modifications made the aircraft unsafe, but this wasn’t identified. The structure was assembled and inflated by a Contract Company on public land, a park controlled by a Public Park Authority.


HSE successfully prosecuted all parties, the Designer, the Contract Company and the Public Park Authority, for failing to protect the health and safety of both workers and the public.

The corroded pipe allowed LPG to leak out, the LPG had col lected in the basement of the building and, on reaching an ignition source, the gas ignited resulting in the explosion and de molition of the building.

A specific approach htrp industry A may be inappropriate in industry B. Recognising that different laws for different ku was con fusing and complex, the UK Government set up a com mittee inled by Lord Robens, to recommend a way forward. Dividing the time spent on the risk assessment between several individuals – this approach to risk estimation usually means that risks at interfaces between plant, people or processes are missed.

HSE – Publications: Free Leaflets – Risk Assessment

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http: In addition, when undertaking the Risk Assessments, the team must remember the wqw. Five Steps to Risk Assessment. This is illustrated in Fig. The resulting Robens Report [ 1 ] recommended ‘the unification within a single comprehensive framework of legisl ation of the main Statutes bearing on safety and health at work’ and ‘the establishment of a ;ubns Safety and Health Au thority’.

Support Center Support Center. The paper concludes with an analysis of the common failings of risk assessments and key actions for improvement. The group did not have the structural engineering expertise to cover the stability of the ggov and did not require evidence from ukk Designer or the Contract Company that the appropriate load calculations had been undertaken and verified, and that the structure would be appropriately secured to ensure stability.

HSL then investigated the risk assessments that had been undertaken asking many questions. In the UK, company directors and managers can be found personally liable of negligence, or indeed manslaughter, if someone is injured or killed and HSE finds that there was no suitable and sufficient risk assessment covering the activities involved.

The most usual source of error is between equipment or work areas. In addition, only 22 tethers were located after the incident. These tethers and pegs obviously failed to hold the structure in place.