Risk Assessments
Risk.
Asked to conduct a survey of a capping beam i looked to install a suitable access via a ladder and then use a harness to secure myself to the outside edge of the capping beam. At this point I was told that this was considered dangerous and that should Crossrail spot me i would be asked to leave site. The Junior engineer told me that we should wait until Saturday when it would be quiet and no one would see me accessing the capping beam. I entered a short argument during which I pointed out. The survey would take a maximum of 5 mins and that the two approaches that the other site engineers wanted to take were wrong.
View of capping beam. Survey required of right edge, acces via broken ground behind orange pipe next to exposed scafold bars
The Options
Overly Safe. The option considered safe was to construct a scaffold tower access to the capping beam area. To which i pointed out:
1. It would take longer to construct the scaffold platform then it would take to conduct the survey
2. The risk that the scaffolders would be exposed too during the construction of the platform were the same as those that I would be exposed to during my survey. However they would be exposed to them for longer, thus increasing the risk.
Unsafe Option. The preferred option by the other engineers was to turn a blind eye and then climb onto the capping beam at the weekend without a RA. This I pointed out was possibly worse. This showed no planning of the task at hand no consideration of the risk and how to mitigate against them.
My solution seemed to be breaking new boundaries of risk acceptance and planning. I simple planned to secure a ladder to the bottom of the capping beam and midway using scaffold bars, thus preventing it from moving and then to wear a work restraint harness to prevent me from working to close to the edge. Risk assessment filled out i then presented my case to the project manager and won the argument. Survey completed and i am still alive to write this rather dull blog.
However the point I later made to my project manager is one that I have made time and time again. The aversion to risk causes engineers and operatives on site to take greater risks without proper planning. The requirement for engineers to write task sheets and method statements for all tasks on site means they are constrained by unnecessary paperwork. Having written a task sheet and risk assessment they then brief the operatives, but then fail to ask question 4 once on site ‘has the situation changed?’. To which can always be answered yes!. Task sheets and risk assessments are never updated and in effect the engineers are then working illegally, should there be an accident the RA would be void and there would be no evidence of a RA to cover the works at the time of the accident despite all the paper work that had gone before.
Has anyone else had issues like this???
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
All the time! The work around for question 4 is the point of work risk assessment that is completed by the supervisor to look at the daily situation changes. There should also be a risk assessment and method statement review every 3 months. I have just had to read 135 pages about boreholes and trial holes yet microboring under a road near 133kV cables 8m from the main line to Chatham was a quarter of the size! The industry seems to have forgotten the reason behind them which in my eyes is to keep the operator safe by highlighting the risks and mitigating them where possible. Providing 135 pages of technical and legal waffle doesn’t really help the person it is meant to. But I have learnt that is the way the industry has gone. I also agree that people forget the simple solution and over complicate things because they are worried that the individual carrying out the task won’t do it correctly so the gold plated solution must be put in place despite the cost and time implications. I think that’s why I miss soldiers and combat engineering!
Thanks Steve for this rather dull (as you put it) but really useful blog, and Angela for illustrating how widespread this issue is. Your ability to identify that question 4 moment and to establish the practical solution is what sets you apart from many of your civilian counterparts and will stand you in good stead at 170. Even there teams can struggle with targeting what risks they really need to focus on, especially if the team is relatively junior and lacking experience.
No in short. There seems to be a sensible approach to risk here at the South Bank Tower. Method statements are generally well written but risk assessments are sometimes a bit too generic. My only bug bear is how un-engaged our Health and Safety Manager is with Temporary Works. All he cares about is signs on stairs telling users that the steps are steep!!!
Interesting for me as I am working in an organisation who are supposedly reknown for one of the best QC system in industry (which goes hand in hand with safety) – I can well see why this happens Steve due to the paperwork necessity. We (the USA gov / USACE) legally enforce a 3-phase system to any definable feature of work. 1. The preparatory phase: About 48hrs prior, hold a birdtable style meeting with client’s rep, QA, QC, H&S team, sub and prime to review, update and talk through all risk assesemnts, method statements and drawings; 2. The initial phase – kicked off once the first bit of work is in place, same personnel to gather and inspect work quality, review safety measures and assesments then periodically throughout the work to ensure quality does not decline and sfatey shortcuts are not taken. 3. Final phase. Same personnel gather to inspect and sign off on work, and take lessons learnt for future works. Works really well if embraced in the correct spirit by the contractor and led by a strong QC manager
I wonder if it is exactly this sort of rigid QC system that lacks a Q4 moment and requires tracking back around a complex circiut in order to do the sensible thing that leads to undeclared ill thought through short cuts such as those suggested to Steve?