Hiya, Frank was the one who originally developed the new RA format for the space, but i believe he is now busy buying a house. The following is all just my opinion on the points you’ve raised.
The review process for RAs doesn’t currently exist, but I would propose the following:
RA is written.
Competent person reviews and adds to RA.
Board approve RA and add it to the Google drive and physical risk assessment folder in the space.
Tool is available for use following implementation of points from RA.
My aim is to have a physical folder of risk assessments in the space available for any member to have a look at.
Agreed they should be living documents. I’d like to see risk assessments shown at the end of inductions. This could be while members are signing the forms. This gives them a chance to suggest updates but also be aware of any risks and controls in place that weree missed in the induction. This doesn’t need to be more complex than opening the plastic wallet of risk assessments and showing them the relevant one.
In addition to this, whenever a new trainer is trained on a machine I think they should do a proper recorded review of the risk assessments. If they don’t feel capable of doing this, then I’d argue they are competant enough to be a trainer either.
For other items that don’t have trainers, this responsibility could be split between the board and subgroups. Our space doesn’t change as quickly as a commercial space might, so I’d think reviewing no more than every 3 years would be appropriate. The most dangerous tools will all have inductions anyway so will be checked more frequently as above.
We have to be very careful not to make all our processes so unweildy that no one every volunteers to help at the space ever again, while also weighing up what we need to do to keep the membership safe.
The intention of the risk assessments was to make text bold for any controls that require user action e.g. PPE, warning bystanders etc.
This hasn’t been well communicated nor implemented and I apologise. I was rushing to get as many risk assessments done to a basic level as possible, then was going to revisit them once we had the basics covered.
As I understand, though PAT testing all equipment would be ideal, it’s not a legal requirement as we don’t have employees. Given the attitude to spending money previously, I haven’t been pushing for this as it can add up in cost quickly and we’re in the process of upgrading tools at the moment anyway.
For similar reasons I don’t think we should hire a H&S consultant. At a guess I’d imagine it might cost £65-100 per hour and most of the things they would flag we already know about but don’t have the volunteer hours to action on top of everything else currently.
I think estops would be a good idea. Perhaps 2 in woody and 1 in metal plus a few on the machines most likely to pull the user into them if snagged as a starting point. I’d preference installing this small number to start and test them out before rolling it out to more tools. I think a discrete task like this could be completed much quicker than a more general aim like ‘estops on every machine’. The need for them will be dictated by risk assessments anyway.
As the link mike has shared from HSE states we should try our best with what we have. We should try to make the space as safe as we can within our very tight financial and physical resources, and without taking on an enormous admin burden.
Already typed this once already then my phone deleted it all so sorry if it doesn’t flow as well the second time I typed it.
Happy to attend a meeting. I can’t do Tuesdays.