Determining Controls for the Hazards Identified

transcript

Determining Controls• Do all Controls need to be based on a Risk

Assessments?

Known & Accepted Controls

No Need For Risk Assessment

Known Control for Worker

The Beanie?

Sect 35 Regs - Primarily Response

Section 35 Regs - Secondary Response

Clause 18 WHS ActThe Threshold of Performance-Reasonably Practical

Works Underway – Immediate Danger

Risk Will need to Be Controlled Immediately

You Turn up to site

• In the following situations Risk Assessments are not appropriate as works are underway

Residential

Fall From Height

Immediate Risk – Known Control

Do we know how to control

The Problem ?

• What Planning was there?

• Why wasn’t the Hazard Identified?

• Has there been a failure & breach?

The Problem ?

• What Planning was there?• If there was why did the works proceed?– Control not Considered– Control has not arrived– Couldn’t be bothered

• Why wasn’t the Hazard Identified?

• Has there been a failure & breach?

The Problem ?

• Why wasn’t the Hazard Identified?• Was a Hazard Identification Conducted• Has there been a failure & breach?

The Problem ?

• Why wasn’t the Hazard Identified?• Was a Hazard Identification Conducted• Has there been a failure & breach?• Either Hazard not identified or Risk not removed

Review Your Assessments

• Which Hazards present an immediate danger

• Known Control must be immediately installed

• Risk Assessment for any Residual Risk

Planning the Works

• Hazards Identified on Project

• Risk Assessment is Required

Selecting Controls

• Bases on Risk Assessment where appropriate

• Must Be Reasonable Practicable

Reasonably practicable includes:

ReasonablyPracticable

Degree of harm

State of knowledgeAvailability &

suitability of controls

Likelih

Factors to assess reasonably practicable

Estimating likelihood can be based on what we know about a risk (e.g. how often particular risks result in injury). It must also be based on the actual circumstances of the workplace and the way work is done.

We can ask the following questions to help work out the likelihood

– How often does the risk situation occur?

– How long might people be exposed to the risk?

– How might operating conditions increase risk?

– How are effective current controls in minimising risk?

Likelihood

Accounting for the degree of harm or the likely consequences of a risk resulting in injury means looking at what injuries or incidents could result from the hazard, how many people might be affected and how widespread could the effects be.

We can ask the following questions to understand likely consequences

• Is there available information on consequences?

• What factors could influence the severity of an injury?

• How many people could be injured?

• Are there circumstances that could magnify the severity of an injury or incident?

Level of harm

Accounting for what a person knows or ought reasonably know is sometimes referred to as the state of knowledge about a hazard or risk and ways of controlling it.

We can ask the following questions to find out about the hazard or risk• Are there specific regulations that apply?• Are there approved codes of practice that apply?• Are there reputable technical standards that apply?• Are there published guidelines from regulators or industry

associations that apply?• What industry practices are currently used?• What expert advice is available?

State of knowledge

Identifying ways to eliminate or minimise the risk that are available means that ways of eliminating or reducing risk are available to purchase or apply in your workplace. Risk controls are suitable if they are feasible to apply in your workplace and have been shown to be effective in similar circumstances.We can ask the following questions to find out about availability and suitability

• Is an available product or process feasible to use ?

• Is an available product or process suitable to use?

• Is there an effective way of eliminating the risk?

• Is there an effective way of minimising the risk?

Availability Suitability

Only after all the other factors have been taken into account does cost get taken into account. Risk controls should be implemented unless the cost of doing so is so disproportionate to the benefit (in terms of reduction in the level of the risk) that it would be clearly unreasonable to require the expenditure.

We can ask the following questions to consider cost

• Will the control significantly reduce the risk?

• Will the control significantly reduce the degree of harm?

• Are their cost effective alternatives to eliminate or minimise risk?

• Should the activity be discontinued?

Reasonably practicable: Getting the balance

Reasonably practicable is the balance between risk and time,

effort and cost

Likelihood, degree of harm, knowledge etc

Time, effort and cost to eliminate or minimise risk

Reasonably practicable: Getting the balance

? Level of time, effort and cost way out of proportion with benefits

in risk minimisation

E.G little likelihood of risk occurring risk/minimal harm

High level of time, effort and cost to eliminate or minimise risk

Reasonably practicable in the workplace

• For common hazards such as noise, falls and manual handling there are regulations that define what has to be done to control risks. These common hazards also have supporting codes of practice to provide guidance on how to control risks.

• For more complex or workplace specific risks a risk management approach can be used to establish what is reasonably practicable

• The most common decisions about reasonably practicable relate to the type of risk control to be used (the hierarchy of control). In other words what is the highest level of protection that is reasonably practicable.

Reasonably Practicable & Hierarchy of Controls – It’s the Law

• Section 35 (a) of the Regulations

• You must Eliminate the Risk

Reasonably Practicable & Hierarchy of Controls – It’s the Law

• Section 35 (b) of the Regulations

• If you cannot Reasonably Practicably Eliminate the Risk you must minimise in accordance with the Hierarchy of Control as outlined Section 36 of the Regulations

Hierarchy of Controls Section 36

• Eliminate• Substitution• Isolate• Engineering• Administrative• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Examples

• Cut Rafters to Single Storey – Risk of FallControl Description

Eliminate Cut at Ground Level

Substitute N/A

Isolate Handrail System

Engineering Scaffold

Administrative Safe Work Method Statement

PPE Fall Arrest or Fall Restraint

Examples

• Cut Rafters to Double Storey – Risk of FallControl Description

Substitute N/A

Examples

• Place 1 Sign to Double Storey – Risk of FallControl Description

Substitute N/A

Reasonably Practicable

• Is there a difference in Controls

Examples

• Excavation– Risk of CollapseControl Description

Eliminate Cut at Battering or Benching

Substitute N/A

Isolate N/A

Engineering Shoring

PPE N/A

Reasonably practicable: the Hierarchy of Control

• The WHS Act advocates the highest level of protection as is reasonably practicable and the model regulations in some cases mandate a set of preferred controls consistent with the hierarchy of control

• Consequently the level at which controls are applied is subject to decisions about reasonably practicable.

For example, falls from height are regulated with a preferred set of controls from design and engineering down to personal protection measures.

Questions

1. Does Reasonably practicable mean that if a risk control is costly it does not have to be used??

2. If something was reasonably practicable ten years ago there is no need to change how the risk is controlled?

3. How does someone demonstrate that they have done all they can do to comply?

The Task

Identify the Hazard

• Access to Playing Field

Identify the Hazards

Asses The Risk

• How would you do it

Risk Matrix – WorkCover Hazpak

Risk Matrix - Commcare

Control Measures

• What Control Measures would you implement?

• How do we decide?

Remember The Government is always there to Help You!

Control Measure

Determining Controls for the Hazards Identified

Documents