Page 7 - CSA INDEX - Autumn 2019

Chairman’s

Say

always try and make these articles light and devoid of personal opinion but recently I feel the need to
Italk more and more about RAMS (Risk Assessment Method Statement). When I started in this industry,
over twenty years ago, RAMS were a part of life but they were very basic and I don’t think I actually saw
one for the first couple of years in the industry, let alone sign a set.

But as the industry grew and we all became more aware of the risks on site, they became a more
important part of the process; don’t get me wrong, I approve of them and would never put a member
of my staff on site without a set of RAMS that are site specific and highlight the dangers of the site as a
whole. However, my current annoyance is that RAMS have mutated into a version of ‘War and Peace’
with no end in sight. Each contractor, either main or sub, have their own templates and certain points
that need to be included. This means that the method statement is becoming somewhat generic. The
standard air and water balancing method statement is the same from job to job, the process doesn’t
differ greatly between systems. I have been asked previously to complete different RAMS for a number
of air systems that are exactly the same but on different floors. The risks are the same and the method

is the same, it’s generating paperwork for paperwork’s sake and surely our employees know how to
balance a system? My belief is that a RAMS should be no longer than 2 pages and include the site specific
risks. This brings me to another issue with RAMS: they need to be issued and accepted prior to carrying
out any works but how can we know the risks until we have visited the site? Even if we have visited site
and assessed the risks by the time that the works are available the risks have changed and therefore
the RAMS would need to change. I understand that site risks should be assessed daily and control
measures put in place to mitigate these risks but the ongoing updating of RAMS is becoming ridiculous
and negates their purpose. RAMS are becoming more of a check list for others to help ensure works
are being carried out to the set specification and allow them to ignore the guidance that has been drafted
by industry experts over many years. I also believe that those who check the RAMS and have a standard
set of comments reference are not helping the staff carrying out the works.

For example, I would read a set of RAMS from another company and understand the gist of the method
and even though it doesn’t mention scanning the entire branch I would assume that this will be carried
out as they are adhering to the codes. Somebody else would read them and require all of the same
detail included. My standard set of RAMS which is used on projects is sometimes 60 pages long which
is too long and helps precisely nobody. The risk assessment section of that document is the most
important is 3 pages and this surely cannot be right. I believe that the industry needs to give the staff
carrying out the work the information they need rather than give somebody who doesn’t know what
works are being carried out a stick to beat companies with.

Mark Todd – CSA Chairman & Director of Ashford Environmental Services Ltd