The hierarchy of controls
Risks are controlled in accordance with the hierarchy of controls prescribed in the WHS Regulation, which are outlined in the following:
| 1 | Elimination | Remove the hazard from the workplace |
| 2 | Substitution | Use something less hazardous. For example, use water based paints rather than solvent based ones |
| 3 | Isolation | Use barriers to shield or isolate the hazard. For example, guards on machines, no-go zones near operating machinery |
| 4 | Engineering
controls |
Design and install equipment to counteract the hazard. For example, install a local exhaust ventilation system to extract fumes or dust. |
| 5 | Administrative
controls |
Implement administrative processes to minimise risks. For example, induction, adopting SWMS and conducting OHS training |
| 6 | Personal protective
equipment |
Wear personal protective equipment (PPE) near the hazard. For example, hard hats, earplugs and respirators |
Control measures are drawn from as high up the hierarchy as is practicable, according to the severity of the risk, current knowledge about the hazard and its risks, and the availability and cost of control technology.
A combination of control measures is required if a single measure does not effectively control the risk, for example, using engineering controls and PPE w hen working with paint containing lead.
Risk assessment meeting outcomes
Outcomes from the RA meeting are critical information to manage OHS issues on construction projects; they relate or feed as follows:
- The initial project RA record constitutes the Project hazards register and must be included in the CPMP for the project. This is updated throughout the life of the project, through subsequent RA meetings and RA reviews.
- OHS hazards and controls identified during the RA are then entered into the Safe Work Method Statements for the activity and environmental risk and controls entered into the Environmental protection measures table.
- SWMS and environmental protection measures are detailed in the Construction Project Management Plan (CPMP) for the project
- Foreseeable emergencies and activities requiring health surveillance must be communicated to workers during induction.
- Safe work method statements must be developed for medium and high risk activities where the hazards cannot be eliminated. Refer to IMS-SP-21Developing Safe Work Method Statements procedure.
- Design changes identified are formally submitted to the client.
- Foreseeable Emergencies should be documented in an Emergency Plan – refer to IMS-SP-13 Emergency preparedness and response procedure
Risk assessment review
The PM reviews the RA with the project team once a month or when new activities are introduced to verify that the risk assessment is still valid, all known and foreseeable hazards are included, and that the controls are implemented.
Other triggers for review:
- incidents indicate that the risk assessment may not be adequate
- there is other evidence that the risk assessment is no longer valid
- subcontractors are engaged who might introduce additional hazards such as
- plant or hazardous equipment and substances
- significant changes are proposed in the work.
Safety risk assessment reckoner (Illness and injury)
| Consequences &/or Impact
What type of impact do you expect could result from exposure to this hazard? |
Likelihood: What is the likelihood of this occurring? |
|||
| Very Likely (VL)
(could happen at any time) |
Likely (L)
(could happen sometime) |
Unlikely (UL)
(could happen but rarely) |
Very unlikely (VU)
(may happen but probably never will) |
|
KKill or cause permanent disability or ill health |
1 |
1 |
2 | 3 |
SLong term illness or serious injury |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
MMedical attention and several days off work |
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
FFirst aid needed |
3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
Risk Rating
| 1 to 3 | High and medium risk | Immediate action is required to reduce the risk. Implement appropriate control measures prior to the activity being undertaken |
| 4 to 6 | Low risk | Risks will be minimised with standard work practices. |
| Environmental risk assessment reckoner (environmental harm)
Assess the likely risk of the event by multiplying the likelihood of the event occurring by the severity of the impact. |
| LIKELIHOOD | ||||||
| 5
Almost certain |
4
Likely |
3
Moderate |
2
Unlikely |
1
Rare |
||
|
SEVERITY |
RISK=LIKELIHOOD X SEVERITY | Several times per month.
(Will occur regularly on this project) |
Once per month.
(Will probably occur monthly this project) |
Once per year.
(May occur on this project.) |
Once every 10–20 yrs.
(Unlikely to occur on this project) |
Once every 100 years.
(Very Unlikely to occur on this project) |
| 1
Minor, Negligible |
Short term (<1 week) impacts, community not affected, on site incident immediately contained. | 5
Low-Med |
4
Low-Med |
3
Low |
2
Low |
1
Low |
| 2
Low |
Short term (<6 mths) impacts, mild affect on community, requires some action with minor resources readily available on site. Will not have effects beyond the site boundary. | 10
Medium |
8
Low-Med |
6
Low |
4
Low |
2
Low |
| 3
Medium |
Medium term (up to 1 yr) impacts, complaint from community, remedial action required, pollutant within vicinity of site and can be managed with routine procedures | 15
High |
12
High-Med |
9
Medium |
6
Medium |
3
Low |
| 4
High |
Long term (1–10 yr) impacts, complaint lodged with EPA, likely to attract media attention/criticism, requires considerable remedial action and notification to EPA. | 20
High |
16
High |
12
High-Med |
8
Medium |
4
Low |
| 5
Extreme |
Persistent long term (>10 yrs) impacts, large group of people affected, EPA involved, widespread media attention, requires extensive remedial action | 25
High |
20
High |
15
High |
10
High-Med |
5
Low-Med |
If you’ve got questions about anything in this article or anything related to Ensafe or the construction industry, you can contact us via phone or email or leave your question in the comments below.
{ 0 comments }
