Designers Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment for
Designers
CDM Regulations 2007

www.veritas-consulting.co.uk

Risk Assessment for Designers

TODAY’S PROGRAMME



Risks Assessments & Remedies
1. Introduction
2. Legal Background to Risk Assessment
3. Hierarchy of Controls
4. The Risk Assessment Process Part ‘A’
5. Design Issues and Remedies
6. The Risk Assessment Process Part ‘B’
7. Communication with the Design Team
and Contractors
8. Questions and Answers


1. INTRODUCTION



1. Introduction

a)Review of previous Health & Safety
Training

b)Issues arising from other Legislation

c)Overview of Risk Assessment



1. Review of Previous Training

i. General health and safety presentation

a. Employee safety
b. Workplace safety
c. Hazards associated with site visits

ii. Update on the CDM Regulations



a. Employee safety



a. Employee safety
• Make sure you are familiar with your organisation’s health and safety
policy and arrangements
• Ensure that any equipment you may use is in good safe condition
• Comply with your organisation’s safe systems of work, or ensure one
is put in place
• Refuse to condone unsafe working practices by yourself or others
• Make sure your advice to clients will minimise the risk to the health
and safety of others
• Make sure you are aware of any hazards which may exist
• If you are working alone, make sure you follow your organisation’s
lone working procedures
Follow the dictates of “common sense”


b. Workplace safety
Contractors - anyone who comes to your building to work, or whom you put
to work, must be assessed by you to ensure they are competent,
a risk assessment has been carried out and a safe system of work
has been established.

Asbestos - everyone in control of premises must proactively locate and
manage any asbestos that exists.

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA)

Legionnaires Disease

Welfare Facilities (where relevant):

Smokers, Rest Room, First Aid, Pregnant Mothers



Vacant/unoccupied buildings
(Good Condition)

Lighting levels
Loss of contact (lone working)
Possibility of fire/clarity of
escape route?
Confined spaces
Contamination or contact with
hazardous substances
Closed spaces (cold
rooms,vaults)



New build projects

Slips, trips and falls
Falling objects
Falls from height



Construction Design and Management
Regulations

“A procedure for imposing better standards of
health and safety management by avoiding,
reducing and controlling health and safety hazards
faced by workers on construction and
maintenance sites.”




The parties under the regs – who are they?

• Clients
• Agents
• Planning supervisors
• Designers
• Principal contractors
• Contractors



The Designer’s Duties

•Take reasonable steps to
ensure that clients are aware
of their duties under CDM
before starting design work

•Prepare designs with adequate
regard to health & safety, and
to the information supplied by
the client.




The Designer’s Duties Making clients aware of their
duties:
• You should not start preparing
any design work until the client
is aware of their duties under
the CDM Regulations.
• Reference may be made to
guidance published by the HSC
and the HSE e.g. Construction
Information Sheet No 39.
• If considered appropriate
advise the client to seek
professional advice for help in
complying with their duties.



Review of Previous H&S Training

i. The Health & Safety at Work Act (HASW)

ii.The Management of Health & Safety at
Work Regulations (MHSW)

iii.The CDM Regulations (CDM)



The Legal Background (HASW)
GENERAL DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS
Employers must, so far as is reasonably
practicable, safeguard the health, safety and
welfare of employees particularly with regard to:
• safe plant and safe systems of work
• safe handling, storage, maintenance and transport of (work)
articles and substances
• necessary information, instruction, training and supervision
• a safe place of work, with safe access and egress
• a safe working environment with a adequate welfare facilities



The Legal Background (HASW)
GENERAL DUTIES OF EMPLOYEES
Employees must:
• take reasonable care of their own health and safety
• take reasonable care of the health and safety of others who may be
affected by their acts or omissions
• co-operate with their employer

and must not:

• intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything
provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare (Section 2.8)



The Legal Background (MHSW)

Required an employer for the
first time to specifically consider
and to apply a hierarchy of
precautions to protect the health
and safety of those whom they
are responsible.



The Legal Background (CDM)
“A procedure for imposing better standards of
health and safety management by avoiding,
reducing and controlling health and safety hazards
faced by workers on construction and
maintenance sites.”

• Application of the Regulations
• Parties THE CDM REGS DO NOT
• Duties MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR
ANYONE TO PRODUCE
• Documents
RISK ASSESSMENTS!


Introduction

a)Review of previous Health & Safety
Training

b)Issues arising from other Legislation

c)Overview of Risk Assessment



Issues Arising From Other H&S Legislation
Companies’ Health & Safety Policies are often
characterised by: -
1. A statement of the company’s intent to abide by all relevant
legislation

2. Various policies dealing with such issues as equal opportunities,
quality issues and the environment

3. The duties and responsibilities of their various levels of staff

Implementation is often delegated to inadequately
trained and/or unqualified junior/clerical staff


The Legal Background

i. The new Work at Height Regulations

ii.Re-examine the legal basis for risk
assessment

iii.The Risk Assessment Process



1. Review of Previous Training and Update

i. Falls from Height

ii. Why new Regulations?

iii. HSE Intervention Strategy

iv.The Work at Height Regulations 2005



2. LEGAL BACKGROUND TO RISK
ASSESSMENT



The Management Regulations require an employer to now
specifically consider and to apply a hierarchy of precautions
which includes:
•Avoiding risks
•Evaluating risks which cannot be avoided
•Combating risks at source
•Adapting work to the individual, especially:
the design of the workplace
the choice of work equipment and
the choice of working and production methods
with a view to alleviating monotonous work and work at a
predetermined work rate in order to reduce their effect on health



The Management Regulations require an employer to now
specifically consider and to apply a hierarchy of precautions
which includes:
•Adapting to technical progress
•Replacing the dangerous with the non-dangerous or the less
dangerous.
•Developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers:
technology
organisation of work
working conditions
social relationships and
the influence of factors relating to the working
environment

•Giving collective protective measure priority over individual
protective measures
•Giving appropriate instructions to employees


Designers must:
•Prepare designs with adequate regard to health and safety

•Provide adequate information in or with the design

Since the introduction of the CDM Regulations many designers
have seen the production of risk assessments as the only
vehicle for doing this!

THE CDM REGS DO NOT MAKE IT
MANDATORY FOR ANYONE TO
PRODUCE RISK ASSESSMENTS!



Risk assessment is not the Holy Grail

Generic risk assessments must not be relied upon

Risk assessments should be specific to the project and properly
considered by an experienced practitioner.

THE HSE HAS SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED A PRACTITIONER
FOR PRODUCING AN INADEQUATE AND IMPROPERLY
CONCEIVED RISK ASSESSMENT



Designers do NOT have to do:
•Take into account or provide information about unforeseeable
hazards and risks
•Specify construction methods, except where the design
assumes or requires a particular construction or erection
sequence, or where a competent contractor might need this
information
•Exercise any health and safety management function over
contractors or others: or
•Review and report on contractors’ health and safety
performance (although, like anyone else, they should point out
unsafe practices that they notice to an appropriate person, such
as the on-site manager)


3. HIERARCHY OF CONTROL



Hierarchy of Control Measures
The principles of prevention and protection are:

a) If possible, avoid the risk completely, by using alternative
methods or materials.

b) Combat risks at source, rather than by measures which leave the
risk in place but attempt to prevent contact with the risk.

c) Wherever possible adapt work to the individual, particularly in
the choice of work equipment and methods of use.

d) Take advantage of technological progress, which often offers
opportunities for safer and more efficient working methods.



The principles of prevention and protection are:
e) Incorporate the prevention measures into a coherent plan to
reduce progressively those risks which cannot altogether be avoided
and which takes into account working conditions, organisational
factors, the working environment and social factors.

f) Give priority to those measures which protect the whole
workforce or activity, and so yield the greatest benefit, i.e. give
collective protective measures over individual measures.

g) Employees and the self-employed need to understand what
they need to do, e.g.by training, instruction and communication of
plans and risk assessments.

h) The existence of an active safety culture affecting the
organisations responsible for developing and executing the
project needs to be assured.


The Risk Assessment Process
1. Avoid by:

a. Re-designing the works

b. Using alternative construction methods

c. Using alternative construction materials



2. Prevent or control:



2. Prevent or control by:

a. Using an existing workplace :-
A flat roof with permanent edge protection.
b. Using collective work equipment :-
Access equipment with guard rails (e.g. MEWPs,
scissor lifts, mast climbers, cradles, tower scaffolds,
independent scaffolds).
c. Using personal work equipment :-
PPE used so it is impossible to fall (e.g. work restraint).


3. Mitigate by:

a. Using collective work equipment to minimise
“distance and consequences” :-
Nets and soft landing systems, such as air bags close
under work surface.
b. Using personal work equipment to minimise
“distance and consequences” :-
Fall-arrest system with anchorage points above head
(zero fall factor), at sternum (fall factor 1), or at feet (fall
factor 2); rope access, work positioning system.


3. Mitigate by:
c. Using personal work equipment to minimise
“consequences” :-
Personal injury systems such as life jackets when next
to unguarded water.
d. Training, instruction and other means :-
Ladders, stilts.

NB. PPE is a last resort not the first Port of call !!



Designer initiative 2005
Despite the overall improvement, poor practices which continued to figure in field work findings
this year were:
• production of vast quantities of paperwork with no useful purpose;
• ineffective communication of information about residual risks,
• lack of understanding of the needs of the contractor during construction and maintenance;
• and the use of running lines as the main control for work at height.
This indicates that both HSE and others should continue to develop guidance in these key
areas. It is hoped that the current consultation on the revision of CDM will help designers ...
move from the false comfort of producing vast quantities of untargeted and generic paperwork
where key messages are hidden.

The poor practices identified provide a useful guide to where further work and guidance
should be developed. The current consultation on the revision of CDM and the ‘less is more’
message should help particularly with the paperwork and communication issues.


4. THE RISK ASSESSMENT
PROCESS PART ‘A’



The Risk Assessment Process Part ‘A’

I. Principles of risk assessment

II. Some definitions

III.Who prepares them and when?

IV. The HSE ‘5 step’ approach to risk assessment

V. E.R.I.C.

VI. Alternative evaluation approaches



The Principles Of Risk Assessment
1. The implementation of a systematic procedure to assist
employers and self employed persons in identifying what
measures should be taken in order to comply with:

– HSW etc 74 Act
– MHSW Regulations 92

2. To plan and organise work activities and make effective
arrangements for health and safety.

3. To enable control measures to be devised.

4. To provide a vehicle for monitoring and review.



The Principles Of Risk Assessment

• Provide a formal means of identifying the risks inherent in the works
and of communicating them to other members of the design team,
the Planning Supervisor and Principal Contractor.

• Identify the possible need for a safety method statements due to the
risks involved not otherwise being capable of being reduced to an
acceptable level.

• Provide formal documented information for the Principal Contractor
to use in site induction and pre-work briefings identifying the hazards
that operatives will be exposed to and the measures to be taken to
minimise the risks maintain their health and safety.




Some definitions: -

• Hazard
Anything that has the potential to result in personal injury or
damage to property

• Risk
A measure of the likelihood and severity of injury/damage

• Population
The number of people likely to be affected by a hazard



Risk assessments are carried out on daily basis, often unconsciously, by
everyone in their day-to-day activities - this may be considered to be a
qualitative assessment.

• For low risk, straightforward activities these assessments are a
relatively simple and straightforward process being based upon
the managers knowledge, skill and judgement and adequate for
their purposes.

For unusual, complicated or high risk activities where the consequences
of an accident may be particularly severe or widespread a quantitative
assessment must be undertaken.

• This type produces an objective probability estimate based upon
known risk information applied to the activities under consideration .


‘Generic’ or ‘Model’ risk assessments (often included within organisations’
Health & safety Policies) are acceptable and can be useful where: -

• there is a similarity of : • there is constancy across:
– activities – workplaces
– hazards – sites
– risks – activities

‘Specific’ risk assessments must be prepared on such occasions when these
will not be sufficiently detailed or address the particular circumstances e.g.

• asbestos or asbestos containing materials
• ‘poor’ environments e.g. brownfield sites and refurbishment works
• installation of bulky/heavy plant or pre-fabricated equipment
and often relate to changing environmental conditions or locations



WHO PREPARES THEM AND WHEN?

Designers
•At every stage of the design process in order to comply with
Regulation 13 of the CDM Regulations 1994

Principal Contractors
•Prior to commencement of Construction Phase
•During the course of the contract due to changes in scope of
works, unforeseen circumstances etc.

Contractors
•Prior to commencing works on site. Generic assessments may be
adequate for some trades or activities






IV.The HSE ‘5 step’ approach to risk assessment

V. E.R.I.C.

VI. Alternative evaluation approaches



THE HSE ‘5 STEP’ APPROACH TO RISK ASSESSMENT
• Step 1
Look for the hazards
• Step 2
Identify who might be harmed and how
• Step 3
Value the risks and decide whether the
existing precautions are adequate or
whether more should be done

• Step 4
Enter and record your findings
• Step 5
Review your assessment and revise it
if necessary


Step 1: Look for the hazards



Step 1: Look for the hazards

• Do they arise from?
– the location?
– the work itself?
– the plant or machinery?
– the process?
– the environment?
– the season or geographical
location?



Step 2: Identify the population

Who will be affected:

– the operative?

– occupants of the building?

– persons accessing the
building?

– maintenance personnel?

– the general public?



Step 2: Identify the population

Who will be affected:
Special categories:

– Visitors?
– Young workers?
– Expectant mothers?
– Physically disabled?
– Mentally disturbed?



Step 3: Value the risks
There are many different approaches:
•relatively frequent, straightforward tasks may simply be categorised as
being high, medium or low (the qualitative or descriptive approach)
•at the other extreme complicated mathematical matrices may be
utilised whereby elements are scored within a given range and the
scores added, multiplied or factored using advanced statistical
techniques (the quantitative or analytical approach)
There are however main two factors that any risk analysis should take into
account:
• severity of the injury in the event of an event occurring
• likelihood of the event occurring
Each of these must be weighted on the same basis to give a meaningful
evaluation - it is not possible to mix a descriptive measure of severity with an
analytical (mathematical) measure of likelihood.


Step 4: Entering the results



Step 5: Review and Revision
• Set a date for reviewing the assessment:
– this is best done at least annually
– or otherwise as deemed necessary

• When conducting the review take into account:
– whether the precautions for each hazard still adequately control the risk

– if not indicate the action needed

– note the outcome of the review

– if necessary amend the assessment or carry out a new assessment



Step 5: Review and Revision
Consider events that might make an earlier review necessary:
• Changes in the working environment
– new factory or site location
– identification of new health hazards
– introduction of new PPE
• Changes in working practices:
– factory prefabrication of components and building elements
– lone working or shift working
– introduction of new regulations
• Changes in technology:
– new processes
– new materials
– new machinery



Eliminate the hazard/combat risks at source.

Reduce the risk.

Inform constructors and users of the remaining
hazards and risks.

Control the remaining hazards and risks.






IV. The HSE ‘5 step’ approach to risk assessment

V. E.R.I.C.

VI.Alternative evaluation approaches



Alternative evaluation approaches

As previously seen a major aspect of risk assessment
is evaluating the risks by using a function of both
severity and likelihood.

The evaluation of the risks enables actions for risk reduction to
be determined. A simple subjective method of conducting this
exercise that takes account of both of these elements would
be to rate each element Low, Medium or High in terms of their
increasing severity or likelihood.



A SIMPLE THREE-FACTOR APPROACH

Severity High Fatality, major
injury or illness
causing long term
disability

Injury or illness
Medium causing short
term disability

Other injury or
Low illness




Certain or near
Likelihood High certain to occur

Reasonably likely
Medium to occur

Very seldom or
Low never occurs



This plot results in a rating ranging
fromLow/Low to High/High with other LIKELIHOOD
action levels within the range. LOW MEDIUM HIGH
S
Whilst a Low/Low rating may be confidently EL L/L L/M L/H
ignored clearly a High/High rating has to be
V
addressed by redesign of the activity or
process to reduce the level of risk. E
RM M/L M/M M/H
The ratings in between these extremes I
though present great difficulty (due to the
T
narrative nature) in determining how the
activity or process may be modified to
YH H/L H/M H/H

reduce the risks to the lowest possible
level.



Severity High Fatality, major 3
injury or illness
causing long term
disability

Injury or illness 2
Medium causing short
term disability

Other injury or 1
Low illness




Certain or near
Likelihood High certain to occur 3
Reasonably likely
Medium to occur 2
Very seldom or
Low never occurs 1



Replacing the descriptive Low/Medium/High terms with numerical values 1-3 enables the risk
evaluation to be quantified. A simple quantitative version of the previous subjective exercise
again taking account of the severity/likelihood elements scores each from 1 - 3 in terms of
their increasing severity or likelihood.

This plot results in a rating from ranging from
1 - 9 with 6 different action levels. LIKELIHOOD
As before whilst a score of 1 may be confidently
ignored clearly a score of 9 has to be addressed by 1 2 3

SEVERITY
redesign of the activity or process to reduce the level
of risk.
2 4 6
The majority of scores however lie between these
extremes though in this quantitative exercise a
pattern can be seen developing across the diagonal 3 6 9
from bottom left to top right! www.veritas-consulting.co.uk


5. DESIGN ISSUES AND
REMEDIES



Design Issues and Remedies
Some typical design issues

The design must consider:-

• The health and safety of those
who are going to maintain,
repair and clean the building.



Some typical design issues

The design must also
consider:-

•The safe demolition of the
building.



Typical design issues to be addressed

•Plant Replacement Strategy •Reaching High Level Plant

•Marking Drawings •Steps and Walkways

•Access Around Plant •Door Thresholds

•Plant Room Floors •Guarding/Signage on Equipment

•Clear Walkways •Soft Spots in Floors/Walls



Typical design issues to be addressed

•Crane Access/Hard standing •Drainage Materials
for Future Plant Replacement
•Bunds
•Positioning of Luminaires
•Positioning of Traps
•Service Ducts
•Fire Dampers/Smoke Outlets
•Future Escalators
•Services Above Ceilings
•Epoxy Resin Floors
•Motorised Shades/Blinds/Shutters
•Emergency Battery Packs



DESIGNING OUT HAZARDS
To design out hazards successfully designers must assess critically their design
proposals at an early stage and throughout the design process. The following section
identifies some areas over which the designer has direct influence. The areas cover
construction as well as future maintenance and cleaning requirements, but are not
exhaustive.
Understand how the design can be built and erected safely:
(a) take full account of the hazards that can arise from the proposed construction
processes; and give particular attention to new or unfamiliar processes, and to those
that may place large numbers of people at risk;
(b) where stability of partially erected structures is an issue , or the design is complex,
detail one method showing how temporary stability can be achieved during
construction; when refurbishing buildings consider the effect of the proposed work on
the integrity of the existing structure; and www.veritas-consulting.co.uk



Design out hazards including:
(a) fragile roofing materials; and
(b) deep excavations.
Consider prefabrication to minimise the amount of work at height, or to allow it to be
carried out in more controlled conditions on site including:
Where work at height cannot be avoided, design in:-
(a) edge protection or other features that expedite safe access and erection;
(b) anchorage points, etc. for nets or harnesses; and early installation of permanent
access.




Design to simplify safe construction including:
(a) avoiding conflict between processes;
(b) providing lifting points and marking the weight and centre of gravity of heavy or
awkward items requiring slinging;
(c) making allowance for temporary works required during construction;
(d) marking the weights of structural elements that require lifting on drawings;
(e) designing joints in vertical structural steel members so that bolting up can easily be
done by someone standing on a permanent floor;
(f) designing connections that can only be made in an unique manner to avoid erection
errors; and
(g) sequencing the work to ensure hard standings are available to aid steel erection.




Design to minimise health risks e.g.:-
(g) specify low solvent or solvent free adhesive and water based paints;
(h) design the length and weight of reinforcing bars to ease handling;
(i) specify lighter weight building blocks that are easy to handle; and
(j) avoid processes that create dust, noise or vibration, such as forming chases in
brickwork and concrete;




Design to simplify future maintenance and cleaning work, e.g.:-
(a) make provision for safe permanent access;
(b) specify windows that can be cleaned from the inside;
(c) design plant rooms to allow appropriate access and for the removal and
replacement
of plant;
(d) design safe access for roof mounted plant and roof maintenance; and
(e) make provision for safe temporary access.




Identify demolition hazards for inclusion in the health and safety file, e.g.:
(a) post-tensioned members;
(b) unusual stability concepts; and
(c) alterations that have changed the structure.
Designers have to provide adequate health and safety information about hazards that
remain after the design has been completed. Designers need to make clear to planning
supervisors (and to any one else working on the pre-tender plan) the assumptions about
work methods and the precautions so that they can be described in the pre-tender plan.
Designers also need to ensure that information is sent forward with their design
drawings,
etc. to inform those carrying out the construction work.



Designers do not need to mention every hazard or assumption as this can obscure the
significant issues. They do need to point out significant hazards which are not obvious to
a competent contractor or other designers, and those hazards that are likely to be difficult
to manage effectively. To do this designers must know how the design can be built.
Examples of significant hazards that designers ought to point out include:-
(a) temporary bracing required to ensure stability during construction of steel or concrete
frame buildings;
(b) sequences of assembly or disassembly that are crucial to safe erection or demolition;
(c) specific problems and solutions, e.g. how to remove a large item of plant from the
basement of a building;
(d) hazardous or flammable substances specified in the design, e.g. fungicidal paints, or
those containing isocyanates;
(e) structures that create particular access problems, e.g. domed glass structures;
(f) heavy or awkward prefabricated elements likely to create risks in handling; and
(g) areas needing access where normal methods of tying scaffolds may not be feasible,




Designer initiative 2005
Overall there has been a continuing improvement in designer performance over the last 3
years. Particularly noteworthy good practices identified by inspectors were:
• clients, planning supervisors and principal contractors proactively engaging designers;
• an increased number of designers who had identified sources of training to gain practical
knowledge on health and safety;
• health and safety being seen by many as part and parcel of design and not an add-on;
• an increase in team approaches to design; and
• greater success in reducing risk through the design process.
“since the last visit they [the design practice] have started having discussions with the
client at an early stage, developed greater awareness of risks on site, arranged more
targeted training, and moved from just looking at generic risks to concentrating on site-
specific risks. They believe that the initial visit had an impact on the practice and how
they deal with risks on site and train their staff” www.veritas-consulting.co.uk


6. THE RISK ASSESSMENT
PROCESS PART ‘B’



The Risk Assessment Process Part ‘B’
A FOUR-FACTOR APPROACH
Catostrophic Imminent danger – capable of
Severity causing death and illness on a 4
wide scale

Critical Serious illness or severe injury
3
Marginal Illness or injury – not expected
to be serious 2
Negligible No serious injury – remote
possibility beyond minor first-
aid case
1


A FOUR-FACTOR APPROACH

Likelihood Certain Likely to occur immediately or
very shortly
4

Probable Probably will occur in time 3

Unlikely May occur in time 2
Remote Unlikely to occur 1



A SUGGESTED FIVE-FACTOR APPROACH

1. Identify the hazards



DESIGNERS HAZARD CHECKLIST DESIGNERS HAZARD CHECKLIST

ACTIVITY HAZARDS (Tick normal hazards but put a cross against unusual hazards) HAZARDS (Tick normal hazards but put a cross against unusual hazards)

Contact with moving machinery

ontact w moving machinery
RESPONSIBLE DESIGNER

Being struck by mobile plant

ESIGNER

Being struck by mobile plant
Chemical or metal splash
Work in confined spaces

hemical or metal splash
W in confined spaces
Harmful substances

Noise and vibration

H ful substances
Falls from height

oise and vibration
Manual handling

SIBLE D
Moving objects

Falls from height

anual handling

oving objects
Electricity

Explosion
Collapse

ith
Tripping

Explosion
Electricity
ESPON
Fire

ollapse
Tripping
(Delete non-applicable activities)

arm

ork
Fire
M

M
R

C

C

N

C
S IT E S E T U P (Delete non-applicable activities)
Site access Transformers
Site deliveries Power factor correctn equipment
Site compound UPS equipment
Temporary works Cable installation
Pedestrian routes Cable support system
Temporary screens etc Cable chambers
Works by public bodies Cable trenches
Works by nominated subs
Testing/commissioning
Works by client's direct sub-ctrs

LIGHT ING INSTALLAT ION
D E MS , ALT S & R E N OV AT ION S
Luminaires & lamps
Asbestos removal
Remote control gear
Other mineral fibres
External lighting
Petrol/diesel tanks
Illuminated signage
Demolition of structures
Removing fixtures and fittings
COMMUNICATIONS/SECURITY
Cutting openings
Signage
Building up openings
Shoring
Equipment
Future demolition
Data cabling installations
Security alarm installations
S IT E P R E P AR AT ION
Removing deleterious materials D R AIN AGE AN D E XT E R N AL W OR KS
Taking down trees and hedges
Site Preparation DRAINAGE
Surface water drainage
S U BS T R U CT U R E S Foul water drainage
M/holes & inspection chambers
EXCAVATION & EARTHWORK Sewer connections & dropshafts
Exc basements, trenches & pits Drain connections/diversions
Pumpg/excvn below water table
Breaking out obstructions EXTERNAL WORKS
Disposal of excavated materials Walls & fencing
Surface treatments Works to car parks
Earthwork support Works to roads & footpaths
Filling & making up levels Kerbs & edgings
Entry: confined spaces Paving
Planting
PILING Site furniture
Bored piles Incoming mains services
Driven piles
Sheet piling www.veritas-consulting.co.uk
Services diversions (pls specify)
Other (please specify)



A SUGGESTED 5 FACTOR RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
2. ANALYSE THE MAGNITUDE OF RISK

Likelihood Ranking

• Very Unlikely 1
• Unlikely 2
• Possible/May Happen 3
• Likely 4
• Very Likely/Certain 5



A SUGGESTED 5 FACTOR RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Severity Ranking

• No Injury/Damage 1
• Minor Injury 2
• 3 Day Absence 3
• Major injury/Long Term Absence 4
• Death/Permanent Disability 5



A FIVE FACTOR RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Death/Permanent Severe

Long Term Absence
No Injury/Damage

3 Day Absence

Disablement
Major Injury/
Minor Injury
SEVERITY

LIKELIHOOD 1 2 3 4 5
Very Unlikely 1 1 2 3 4 5
Unlikely 2 2 4 6 8 10
Possible/May Happen 3 3 6 9 12 15
Likely 4 4 8 12 16 20
Very Likely/Certain 5 5 10 15 20 25


Many other similar approaches have been advanced including rating the two criteria from
1-10 giving a range from 1-100 and introducing weightings for other considerations e.g. the
populations likely to be affected, resulting in complex (and very expensive) statistical
quantified risk assessment procedures.

Consider how an increase to a 5 X 5 matrix
increases the potential ratings giving a range
from 1-25 and 14 different scores!
1 2 3 4 5
Again the extremes are obvious and the pattern
developing across the diagonal from bottom left to
top right can also be seen. 2 4 6 8 10
Expressed in the range of scores from the example
opposite these are from low to high: -
3 6 9 12 15
1-2, 3-5, 6-9, 10-16, 20-25

Almost irrespective of the range of ratings the
4 8 12 16 20
increasing trend across the diagonals is a
predominating feature giving rise to an almost 5 10 15 20 25
universal five level approach to risk reduction! www.veritas-consulting.co.uk


From the previous example we might advance the following action profile: -
Score range 20 – 25 1st Rank Action Avoid, by re-designing if necessary
Score range 10 -16 2nd Rank Action Combat at source, by changing methods/materials
Score range 6 - 9 3rd Rank Action Control/manage the risk e.g. communal protection
Score range 3 - 5 4th Rank Action Minimise the risk e.g. PPE, safety harnesses etc
Score range 1 - 2 5th Rank Action Ignore, there is in reality virtually no risk

The objective must be to continually drive-down the risk throughout all stages of
design. Just because an assessed risk does not fall under the 1st or 2nd Rank
Actions should not be interpreted as being acceptable. No risk can be considered
acceptable until it has been reduced to the absolute minimum and then only if it can
be adequately controlled.

IF AT ALL POSSIBLE THE OBJECTIVE MUST ALWAYS
BE TO REDUCE THE RISK TO A 5TH RANK ACTION



A SUGGESTED FIVE-FACTOR APPROACH

3. Carry out the Risk Assessment, Review and Revise


Designers Risk Assessment

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Designers Risk Assessment

Similar a Designers Risk Assessment (20)

Último

Último (20)

Designers Risk Assessment