Thank you for the Newsletter. I would though, take issue with some of your assertions and the emphasis that you seem to be fixed to in respect of Hazards.

I believe firmly that the European approach is by far the best - not because I work within it but because it addresses much more than hazard identification. You say we spot hazards and implement techniques to remove or ameliorate the hazard. Not so. We identify a potential (the hazard) to cause HARM (the Risk) - which is what we ameliorate the HARM occasioning a Person, not necessarily the potential.

If we see a scaffold for example. it may only become a hazard if man interacts with it. It is noticeable that on rest days when no work is undertaken and the site is closed there are zero reported accidents even though the site is full of identified Hazards. The scaffold is fine. If men are put to work on that structure there are risks to their safety in doing so. They may be from falling and sustaining injury or death, having items fall on them causing injury or death, the structure was not constructed properly and it may collapse. That in itself is a hazard but if there was nobody on it at the time - there was no Risk of HARM to a person.

We in Europe carry out assessments of the Risk occasioning HARM to an individual, and seek to mitigate that risk whilst acknowledging the potential of the Hazard. If a trench were to collapse over a weekend - the open trench is a hazard sure, but so what - we dig it out again, but we undertake measures to prevent the collapse if men are to enter it. If that cannot be done then men will not enter until measures are in place to prevent collapse that may kill or injure- that simple.

We carry out Risk management rather than hazard spotting. Working with US companies Bechtel for example - I found their approach very simplistic and a large reliance on the workforce to figure ways of staying safe as the job went on with an emphasis on keeping the job going ie the commercial interest was seemingly put first.

I do also understand that there is much more to Risk analysis than what I have alluded to here. It was just the emphasis on Hazards in your article that I have an issue with. I send out safety advisers, engineers, Foremen et al to do site inspections of the workplaces. They can all point to Hazards. What they can’t do is look through the hazard and see the potentials for harm and address that! One engineer thought that Petrol driven Disc Cutters for cutting steel and concrete were a hazard as they might cut a person. His answer? Much like your article he removed the hazard band them from site. I asked him to give a solution to the cutting of 40mm Rebar - he had none to offer other than a hack saw. That is patently unworkable and not a good solution. If we banned chainsaws because they were deemed to be Hazardous or motor vehicles or airplanes?

Nothing wrong with Disc cutters so long as the RISK of HARM occasioning the user or third parties is addressed then the Hazardous item should be able to be utilised. We do this with training in the main i.e. in the case of cars with a drivers licence or the disc cutter operative attains a Certificate of Operational Competency.

So, rant over! Please see if your system lets you look at the HARM that may arise from interface with a Potential source rather than merely addressing the potential.

In Europe we commonly refer to your term “pre-job hazard assessments” as a “risk assessment”. This would typically be written by the Supervisor and someone from the workforce carrying out the job. This involvement of the people doing the job is an essential part of a risk assessment.

A “safety case” on the other hand usually refers to a very comprehensive document covering a whole plant or installation , and “makes the case for safe operation”. This is very much a high level “hazard assessment” and indeed companies will often use external consultants in its preparation as you indicated.

My suggestion would be to replace the words “safety case” with the words “risk assessment ” and your observations are then very valid e.g. ” was applied proactively as part of the pre-job assessment by the employees (workers and supervisors) who would be trained to conduct the hazard assessment, develop the hazard reduction strategies, and write the risk assessment ( omit safety case.)