In addition, only 22 tethers were located after the incident. The case studies illustrate some of the common failing in undertaking risk assessments. In addition, review of the risk assessment records indicated that corrosion of this pipe, and the subsequent hazards resulting from any corrosion, had not been identified. The Designer failed insg provide a full engineering speci fication for the structure which would have included load calculations in various wind conditions. Open in a separate window.
|Published (Last):||16 June 2006|
|PDF File Size:||16.57 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Tesho Risk graph [ 10 ]. Good practice is about making the commitment to ensuring that risks are as low as is reasonably practicable and maintaining that commitment, by risk review and mitigation, throughout the life of the activity being undertaken. The Risk Graph of Fig. The corroded pipe allowed LPG to leak out, tov 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.
Carrying out a risk assessment to attempt to justify a decision that has already been made. Depending upon the level of harm and the probability, the risk is labelled as High, Medium or Low. HSL undertook an investigation and determined that the cause of the explosion was due to an underground pipe carrying Insg Petroleum Gas LPG which had corroded. Author information Article notes Copyright hhttp License information Disclaimer.
ICL Plastics had a factory in Glasgow where there was an explosion that demolished the building killing 9 workers and injuring a further 33 people. Of anyone who designs, manufactures or supplies an article or substance for use at work to ensure that it is safe. The Contract Company did not undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the stability she the structure and the likely hazard to members of the public should it become unstable.
Analysis of the maintenance records indicated that no maintenance of this buried pipe had been undertaken. As with the other case studies, this accident was completely avoidable. The structure was designed for its jse merit and the focus of the Designer was on the dream-like experience that participants would enjoy.
Legal Responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act The Health and Safety at Work Act places responsibility gpv 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 wwww affected by his or her actions.
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. The Risk Matrix waw the probability she certain levels of harm.
Journal List Saf Health Work v. Consider for example a small manufacturing process where Team A take raw material and prepare it for initial fabrication hde Team B.
They have a duty to demonstrate that they have taken action to ensure all risk is reduced SFAIRP and must have documentary evidence, for example a risk assessment or safety case, to prove that they manage the risks their activities create.
All three parties, the Designer, the Contract Company and the Public Park Authority, had legal responsibility for the health and safety nttp the staff who would operate the structure and the public who would visit the park. In puns, individuals may be imprisoned if held personally liable. 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.
This paper gives a brief overview of where responsibility for occupational health and safety lies in the UK, and how risk should be managed through risk assessment. This occurred while members of the public were inside the structure and others were surrounding the structure as it fell back to earth. The Nimrod Review report. HSE — Publications: Free Leaflets — Risk Assessment Once the pipes had been installed, no system was put in place to reassess the safety of the pipes as time elapsed.
This leaked fuel was close to hot pipe-work not part of the refuelling system which provided an ignition source. Making decisions on the basis of individual risk estimates when cumulative risk to society is the appropriate measure. Introduction 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.
Of employees to ensure that they do not endanger themselves or anyone else who may be affected hxe their work.
The corroded pipe is shown in Fig. Good Practice and Pitfalls in Risk Assessment. Identify the Hazards associated htttp the plant equipmentpeople and processes. Risk assessment The legal responsibilities of employers[ 4 ]. 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 pugns, maintenance data was not appropriately collected and reviewed to inform the Safety Case.
Five Steps to Risk Assessment. Festival of Fireworks Prosecution. What could go wrong? The wind conditions were not abnormal for htgp UK.
Melrajas 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. Consider for example a small manufacturing process where Team A take raw material and prepare it for initial fabrication by Team B. The most usual source of error is yov equipment or work areas. U the pipes had been installed, no system was put in place to reassess the safety of the pipes as time elapsed. Depending upon the level of harm and the probability, the risk is labelled as High, Medium or Low.