Example risk assessment for food preparation, cooking and service

Transcription

1 Example risk assessment for food preparation, cooking and service This example risk assessment applies to food preparation and food service areas (restaurants, cafes, sandwich bars, pubs, takeaways, hotel kitchens) which employees both adults and young persons. It can be used as a guide to help you think through some of the hazards in your business and steps you need to take to eliminate or reduce risks to as low as possible. Please note that it is not a generic assessment that you can just put your company name on and adopt wholesale without any thought. This would not satisfy the law and would not be effective in protecting people. How was the risk assessment done? 1. To identify the hazards and the risks the manager: Look at health and safety guidance on for catering and hospitality and the employment of young persons Walked around the kitchen, the stockroom and all other areas noting things that might pose a risk to health Talk to staff to learn from their knowledge and experience, and to listen to their concerns and opinions about health and safety issues Looked at the accident book to gain an understanding of what particular risks have resulted in injury 2. The manager wrote down who could be harmed and how 3. The manager then wrote down what controls were already in place to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of injury. The manager then considered whether further controls were necessary and assessed the level of risk the lack of controls presented as either low, medium or high. This approach helped decide whether further controls were necessary and if so, by when these controls should be in place. The aim of the further action was to further reduce the risks to as low as reasonably practicable*. 4. After the manager put in place further identified controls, the findings were discussed with staff and placed the assessments in the staffroom. The guardians of the young person were informed of the findings of the risk assessment and how the risks to that young person would be controlled. Any workers who had difficulty in understanding English had the safety arrangements explained to them in their own language 5. It was decided that the risk assessment would be reviewed on a yearly basis or if there were any major changes in the workplace

2 Hazards Who harmed & how Control measures already in place Further action Risk level Action date Residual risk Slips & trips Staff, visitors may be injured if they trip over objects or slip on slippery floor 3 months Good housekeeping goods stored suitably, work areas kept tidy Equipment maintenance to avoid leaks Spills cleaned immediately Good lighting No trailing wires Steps and changes in levels highlighted Renew worn kitchen floor to improve roughness Review working practices to reduce risk of water and oil spillage onto floor Ensure suitable footwear worn Manual handling Staff may suffer pulled muscles, strains and bruising. Where possible goods ordered in lighter packages Bucket sink at good height to avoid stooping Staff training and information Suitable steps provided for placing goods at higher level Suitable environment lighting, floor etc Assess individual capability of staff in particular for young persons Ensure adequate rest periods in place in particular for young persons Introduce team working for heavy items Buddy up young person to ensure adequate supervision Contact with steam, hot water, hot oil and hot surfaces Kitchen staff, food service staff may suffer scalding or burn injuries Water mixer taps provided Staff wear long sleeves Safe system of work/ training for emptying / cleaning fryers. Staff trained in risks of release of steam Display Hot Surface signs at appropriate places Ensure maintenance of pan handles Staff trained in use of coffee machine

3 Hazards Who harmed & how Control measures already in place Further action Risk level Action date Residual risk Knives Staff could suffer Staff trained to handle knives cuts and finger Knives stored properly when not Purchase box opening cutters to eliminate knives used to open amputations in use First aid box provided and maintained boxes Hazardous substances Staff using hazardous substances could suffer ill health or injury from vapours, ingestion, skin contact etc All containers clearly labelled Gloves and goggles provided Chemicals stored in a designated cupboard Identify each hazardous chemical and what it s used for Obtain hazard data sheets Carry out risk assessment of each chemical, substitute where possible, then implement precautions Carried out specific PPE assessment Devise written safe systems of work for chemical use Retrain staff on chemical hazards and use Provide further training for young persons to take account of lack of awareness of chemical hazards and risks Gas Appliances Staff and customers could suffer serious or fatal injuries as result of gas release or explosion Though the check of gas appliance controls Staff know where main isolation tap is and how to turn off Inspection carried out by CORGI engineer every 12 months Contact CORGI engineer to fit flame failure device on oven

4 Hazards Who harmed & how Control measures already in place Further action Risk level Action date Residual risk Electrical Staff could suffer Manager trained to visually Trained staff to visually check serious or fatal inspect electrics monthly equipment before use and injuries as result of Electric system tested by report any defects electric shock competent electrician every five years Remove electrical sockets from above sink Provide RCDs for handheld and portable appliances Removed Fire Machinery Staff and customers could suffer serious injuries and fatalities from burns and smoke inhalation Staff could suffer serious injury from contact with dangerous parts Separate fire risk assessment completed Young persons prohibited from using dangerous machinery Staff trained and cleaning, assembly and operating procedures Daily checks of machine guards before use Machines serviced and maintained every 12 months None Remind staff to a) do preuse checks on machinery guards and b) to follow the safe system of work for clearing blockages, being especially sure to turn off the machine before doing so. Remind staff not to distract colleagues who are using machinery. Workplace temperature Kitchen staff may suffer ill health when they overheat in hot working conditions Fans and extractors provided to control air temperature Light protective clothing provided to assist body losing heat Employee engineer to service extraction unit Encourage staff to switch off unnecessary heat sources i.e. grills not in use Encourage staff to take regular drinks of water During extremely hot

5 periods monitor young persons to reduce heat exhaustion risk. If heat becomes extreme, the young person not allowed to work under such conditions by law Reasonably practicable explanation You may come across it as SFAIRP ( so far as is reasonably practicable ) or ALARP ( as low as reasonably practicable ). SFAIRP is the term most often used in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act and in Regulations. ALARP is the term used by risk specialists, and duty holders are more likely to know it. We use ALARP in this guidance. In HSE s view, the two terms are interchangeable except if you are drafting formal legal documents when you must use the correct legal phrase. The definition set out by the Court of Appeal (in its judgment in Edwards v. National Coal Board, [1949] 1 All ER 743) is: Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than physically possible a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice the defendants discharge the onus on them. In essence, making sure a risk has been reduced ALARP is about weighing the risk against the sacrifice needed to further reduce it. The decision is weighted in favour of health and safety because the presumption is that the duty holder should implement the risk reduction measure. To avoid having to make this sacrifice, the duty holder must be able to show that it would be grossly disproportionate to the benefits of risk reduction that would be achieved. Thus, the process is not one of balancing the costs and benefits of measures but, rather, of adopting measures except where they are ruled out because they involve grossly disproportionate sacrifices. Extreme examples might be:

6 To spend 1m to prevent five staff suffering bruised knees is obviously grossly disproportionate; but To spend 1m to prevent a major explosion capable of killing 150 people is obviously proportionate. Of course, in reality many decisions about risk and the controls that achieve ALARP are not so obvious. Factors come into play such as ongoing costs set against remote chances of one off events, or daily expense and supervision time required to ensure that, for example, employees wear ear defenders set against a chance of developing hearing loss at some time in the future. It requires judgment. There is no simple formula for computing what is ALARP. Source: Health and Safety Executive, 2008 Amended by Mid Beds DC