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: Gardajas Kagalkree
Country: Anguilla
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 19 November 2008
Pages: 269
PDF File Size: 1.95 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.17 Mb
ISBN: 197-1-69947-298-4
Downloads: 79656
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Samuramar

This leaked fuel was close to hot pipe-work not part of the refuelling system which provided an ignition source.

Risk assessment

In addition, when undertaking the Risk Assessments, the team must remember the responsibilities:. Please review our privacy policy. However, the focus of the group’s risk assessment was event management in terms of crowd management, people flow through the structure etc. 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 Carrying out a risk assessment to attempt to justify a decision that has already been made.

HSL undertook an investigation and determined that the cause of the explosion was due to an underground pipe carrying Liquid Petroleum Gas LPG which had corroded. How bad could it be? The risk assessment team should be multi-disciplinary including, for example, those who work in the area being assessed, a manager, a health and safety specialist and a person who is not closely associated with the work area.

HSE – Publications: Free Leaflets – Risk Assessment

In a recent legal action, where two fire fighters were killed as a result of the incorrect storage of fireworks, two company directors were jailed for 5 and 7 years respectively [ 5 ].

Carrying out a risk assessment using inappropriate ‘good practice’ e. The structure lifted up to a near vertical position, ‘like a sail’, as shown in Fig. 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.

Support Center Support Center. In the great majority of cases, HSE can make this judgement by referring to existing ‘industry good practice’ that has been established by a process of discussion with in dustry stakeholders to achieve a consensus about what is ‘SFAIRP’. Open in a separate window.


Dividing the time spent on the risk assessment between several individuals – this approach to risk estimation usually means that risks at interfaces between hytp, people or processes are missed. The most usual source of error is between equipment or work areas.

Common Pitfalls of Risk Assessment puvns How to Improve The case studies illustrate some of the common failing in undertaking risk assessments. These are outlined in Fig. It comprised inflatable ‘cells’, each 5m high.

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 undertaken some time after the modified aircraft had been in service, maintenance data was not appropriately collected and reviewed to inform goov Safety Case.

These modifications made the aircraft unsafe, but this wasn’t identified. The corroded pipe is shown in Fig.

The Legal responsibilities of Employers. Here, the risk consequence level of harm has its probability derived from a number of factors. Five Steps to Risk Assessment. The Contract Company did not require the Designer to supply a suitable specification containing the loading calculations to inform the location indy163 the tethers.

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

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 structure was assembled and inflated by a Contract Company on public land, a park controlled by a Public Park Authority. All three of the parties listed above had a responsibility to ensure the structure was safe but not one of them did so.

A suitable and sufficient risk assessment called a Safety Case for large, high hazard plant was not completed following the modifications.


Had engineering calculations been undertaken to determine the loading that various weather conditions would impose on the structure? These tethers and pegs obviously failed to hold the structure in place.

This accident was completely avoidable as a suitable and effective risk assessment would have identified corrosion as a hazard and a suitable maintenance regime, as the risk mitigation, would have prevented the LPG leak.

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

What could go wrong? This is illustrated in Fig.

The reason for nidg163 the responsibility with the organisation creating the risk is that it is impossible for HSE to be expert in the operation of every technology and workplace, especially at the rate of technology development. For example; had the structure been designed hytp withstand wind conditions? To undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment takes time and an appropriate multi-disciplinary team of people. Prior to the UK had spent the preceding years generating a large number of Health and Safety laws focused on individual industries, and even individual regions of the country.

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 short guide to Health and Pbns Regulation in the UK [ 3 ] provides a summary of the Health and Safety at Work Act and states ‘The main require ment on employers is to carry out a risk assessment. This is shown in Fig. The group did not have the structural engineering expertise to cover the stability of the structure and did not require evidence from the 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.

These laws, covering work places such as factories, offices, railway premises etc.