1 / 51

Determining Controls for the Hazards Identified

Determining Controls for the Hazards Identified. 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.

ember
Download Presentation

Determining Controls for the Hazards Identified

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Determining Controls for the Hazards Identified

  2. Determining Controls • Do all Controls need to be based on a Risk Assessments?

  3. Known & Accepted Controls No Need For Risk Assessment

  4. Known Control for Worker The Beanie?

  5. Sect 35 Regs - Primarily Response

  6. Section 35 Regs - Secondary Response

  7. Clause 18 WHS ActThe Threshold of Performance-Reasonably Practical

  8. Works Underway – Immediate Danger Risk Will need to Be Controlled Immediately

  9. You Turn up to site • In the following situations Risk Assessments are not appropriate as works are underway

  10. Residential

  11. Fall From Height

  12. Fall From Height Immediate Risk – Known Control

  13. Do we know how to control

  14. The Problem ? • What Planning was there? • Why wasn’t the Hazard Identified? • Has there been a failure & breach?

  15. 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?

  16. 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? • Was a Hazard Identification Conducted • Has there been a failure & breach?

  17. 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? • Was a Hazard Identification Conducted • Has there been a failure & breach? • Either Hazard not identified or Risk not removed

  18. Review Your Assessments • Which Hazards present an immediate danger • Known Control must be immediately installed • Risk Assessment for any Residual Risk

  19. Planning the Works • Hazards Identified on Project • Risk Assessment is Required

  20. Selecting Controls • Bases on Risk Assessment where appropriate • Must Be Reasonable Practicable

  21. Reasonably practicable includes: Likelihood Degree of harm Reasonably Practicable Availability & suitability of controls State of knowledge Cost WHS Act

  22. Factors to assess reasonably practicable Likelihood 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? WHS Act

  23. Factors to assess reasonably practicable 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 WHS Act

  24. Factors to assess reasonably practicable 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 WHS Act

  25. Factors to assess reasonably practicable Availability Suitability 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? WHS Act

  26. Factors to assess reasonably practicable Cost 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? WHS Act

  27. Time, effort and cost to eliminate or minimise risk Likelihood, degree of harm, knowledge etc Reasonably practicable is the balance between risk and time, effort and cost Reasonably practicable: Getting the balance WHS Act

  28. High level of time, effort and cost to eliminate or minimise risk E.G little likelihood of risk occurring risk/minimal harm Level of time, effort and cost way out of proportion with benefits in risk minimisation Reasonably practicable: Getting the balance ? WHS Act

  29. Reasonably practicable in the workplace • Forcommon 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 approachcan 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. WHS Act

  30. Reasonably Practicable & Hierarchy of Controls – It’s the Law • Section 35 (a) of the Regulations • You must Eliminate the Risk

  31. 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

  32. Hierarchy of Controls Section 36 • Eliminate • Substitution • Isolate • Engineering • Administrative • Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

  33. Examples • Cut Rafters to Single Storey – Risk of Fall

  34. Examples • Cut Rafters to Double Storey – Risk of Fall

  35. Examples • Place 1 Sign to Double Storey – Risk of Fall

  36. Reasonably Practicable • Is there a difference in Controls

  37. Examples • Excavation– Risk of Collapse

  38. 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 engineeringdown to personal protection measures. WHS Act

  39. Questions • Does Reasonably practicable mean that if a risk control is costly it does not have to be used?? • If something was reasonably practicable ten years ago there is no need to change how the risk is controlled? • How does someone demonstrate that they have done all they can do to comply? WHS Act

  40. The Task

  41. Identify the Hazard • Access to Playing Field

  42. Identify the Hazards

  43. Asses The Risk • How would you do it

  44. Risk Matrix – WorkCover Hazpak

  45. Risk Matrix - Commcare

  46. Control Measures • What Control Measures would you implement? • How do we decide?

  47. Remember The Government is always there to Help You!

  48. Remember The Government is always there to Help You!

  49. Control Measure

More Related