Hierarchy of Controls Sample Clauses

The Hierarchy of Controls clause establishes a structured approach to managing workplace hazards by prioritizing control methods based on their effectiveness. It typically requires that employers first attempt to eliminate hazards entirely, then substitute less dangerous alternatives, implement engineering controls, apply administrative measures, and finally use personal protective equipment as a last resort. This clause ensures that the most effective safety measures are considered and implemented first, thereby reducing risk and promoting a safer work environment.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 3 times
Hierarchy of Controls. Elimination is considered to be the most effective form of hazard control. There are several instances in this project where elimination was used. Over-excavating and benching the sides of the excavation area to give workers more room to move and work also prevented any instances of cave-ins where workers could be struck, caught, or crushed by collapsing structures, equipment, or materials. Assembly of the exterior frame was done flat on the finished interior deck. This also eliminated the risk of being struck, caught, or crushed in a collapsing structure. Using pre-fabricated roof trusses eliminated several hazards associated with constructing the trusses at roof height. Installation using a small crane eliminated the risk of workers overexerting themselves lifting the trusses into place manually. If elimination is not a possibility to solve a safety problem, the next desirable alternative is substitution, which could mean substituting in a safer material or a safer process. When installing the ▇▇▇▇▇ ends and interior trusses, blocking was installed on the ground and the trusses were connected and secured at height using a crane. Engineering control is the third most effective form of hazard control. A telescoping forklift was used as an engineering control to lift materials onto the roof. Lifting the materials by hand poses a risk of overexertion. Administrative controls such as communication and training were used extensively during the assembly of the exterior frame and the hoisting of roof materials. The least effective form of hazard protection is Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which was a common response for many tasks throughout the project where the above mentioned controls would not have been possible or economically feasible. PPE such as gloves, sturdy shoes, and safety glasses were absolutely required for all workers.
View SourceView Similar (7)
Hierarchy of Controls. Elimination is seen as the most effective method of hazard control. An example of elimination in this project was having recyclable materials from the demolished portion of the building sorted off-site by the recycling sub. This eliminated worker risk of contact with objects and equipment as well as overexertion in holding, carrying, or wielding. Using an inert gas system that did not require dangerous electrical currents also eliminated the risk of electrocution for the workers installing the system. If elimination is not a possibility to solve a safety problem, the next desirable alternative is substitution, which could mean substituting in a safer material or a safer process. There were no notable examples of substitution in this project. Engineering control is the third most effective form of hazard control. If the hazard cannot feasibly be eliminated or substituted, and engineering control reduces worker exposure to the hazard. Guard rails and a platform were installed on top of the gas tanks for workers installing actuator valves. This greatly reduced the fall risk for workers working on top of the tanks. Using a mechanical lift to install overhead pipes is also an example of an engineering control. Administrative controls such as worker training and pick plans were used extensively throughout the project. The least effective form of hazard protection is Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which was a common response for many tasks throughout the project where the above mentioned controls would not have been possible or economically feasible.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Hierarchy of Controls. An example of elimination in this project was the constructor’s decision to design the temporary bridges wider than needed. This extra width eliminated the risk of workers on the bridge being struck by or compressed by objects or equipment. If elimination is not a possibility to solve a safety problem, the next desirable alternative is substitution, which could mean substituting in a safer material or a safer process. There were no notable examples of substitution used in this project. Engineering control is the third most effective form of hazard control. Examples of engineering controls used within this project include stone grading on the haul road to prevent falls, trips and slips; barricades on the temporary bridges to prevent falls to lower levels, and jersey barriers for construction vehicles entering the site to prevent being struck by objects or equipment. Administrative controls such as communication and signage were used extensively throughout the project for the haul roads, temporary bridges, and construction vehicles entering and exiting the jobsite. The least effective form of hazard protection is Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which was a common response for many tasks throughout the project where the above mentioned controls would not have been possible or economically feasible. Aside from mandated PPE such as gloves, sturdy shoes, and safety glasses, there were no other instances where alternative forms of PPE were used.
View Source
Hierarchy of Controls. Elimination is seen as the most effective method of hazard control. An example of elimination in this project was benching the sides of the excavation area to prevent the instance of a cave-in and allow workers more room to move. If elimination is not a possibility to solve a safety problem, the next desirable alternative is substitution, which could mean substituting in a safer material or a safer process. Assembly of the underwater pipe was done on the barge as opposed to in its final location at the bottom of the creek. This decision limited the diving team’s exposure in a potentially hazardous underwater environment. Engineering control is the third most effective form of hazard control. Piling and lagging was done on the side of the excavation that was adjacent to the railroad tracks since there was not enough room to bench outward on that side. This temporary structure helped prevent instances of collapses or cave-ins. Workers used scaffolding while building the waste tank to prevent falls. Several administrative controls were used during this project. A site safety plan was created before the excavation which outlined some of the hazards associated with the nearby railroad tracks, highway, and treatment plants. The safety plan included several practices to help protect workers from these hazards. Communication was used to warn workers of any approaching trains. Workers down in the excavated area were in close proximity to fuel lines, so oxygen levels were regularly monitored. A spotter was also provided for all divers installing the pipes under the creek bed. The most common administrative control used was worker training, which was used throughout the project for all features of work. The least effective form of hazard protection is Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which was a common response for many tasks throughout the project where the above mentioned controls would not have been possible or economically feasible. Other than typical jobsite PPE, such as hardhats and gloves, the only special kind of PPE used by workers was a fall arrest system for workers constructing the tank.
View Source
Hierarchy of Controls. The hierarchy of controls is as follow (UWA, 2009): 1. Eliminate the hazard. 2. Substitute with a lesser hazard. 3. Use engineering controls to reduce hazard 4. Administrative controls such as workplace procedures.
View Source
Hierarchy of Controls. Elimination is the most effective method of hazard control. An example of elimination in this project was benching the sides of the excavation area adjacent to the underground utilities to prevent instances where the sides of the excavated area could collapse on a worker. If elimination is not a possibility to solve a safety problem, the next desirable alternative is substitution, which could mean substituting in a safer material or a safer process. Using a manlift instead of scaffolding to install the exterior panels reduced the risk of falls for workers. Engineering control is the third most effective form of hazard control. If the hazard cannot feasibly be eliminated or substituted, an engineering control reduces worker exposure to the hazard. During the lifting and placing of the steel beams, tag lines were used with the crane in order to control the payload while it was being hoisted up. A temporary guardrail system helped reduce the risk of falls to lower levels for those working at height fastening the deck to the structure. Bracing the adjacent garage’s foundation helped protect workers installing the deck’s foundation from being struck, caught in, or crushed in a collapsing structure, equipment, or material. Administrative controls such as worker training, lighting for nighttime work, and communication were implemented by the constructer. The least effective form of hazard protection is Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which was a common response for many tasks throughout the project where the above mentioned controls would not have been possible or economically feasible. Aside from standard-issue jobsite PPE such as hardhats, gloves, and boots, the two most common forms of PPE used in the project was a fall arrest system for workers assembling the steel structure and exterior panels and dust masks for demolition crews removing the old concrete stands.
View Source
Hierarchy of Controls. Elimination is the most effective method of hazard control. An example of elimination in this project was benching the sides of the excavation area adjacent to the underground utilities to prevent instances where the sides of the excavated area could collapse on a worker. If elimination is not a possibility to solve a safety problem, the next desirable alternative is substitution, which could mean substituting in a safer material or a safer process. Using a manlift instead of scaffolding to install the exterior panels reduced the risk of falls for workers. Engineering control is the third most effective form of hazard control. If the hazard cannot feasibly be eliminated or substituted, an engineering control reduces worker exposure to the hazard. During the lifting and placing of the steel beams, tag lines were used with the crane in order to control the payload while it was being hoisted up. A temporary guardrail system helped reduce the risk of falls to lower levels for those working at height fastening the deck to the structure. Bracing the adjacent garage’s foundation helped protect workers installing the deck’s foundation from being struck, caught in, or crushed in a collapsing structure, equipment, or material. Administrative controls such as worker training, lighting for nighttime work, and communication were implemented by the constructer. The least effective form of hazard protection is Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which was a common response for many tasks throughout the project where the above mentioned controls would not have been possible or economically feasible. Aside from standard-issue jobsite PPE such as hardhats, gloves, and boots, the two most common forms of PPE used in the project was a fall arrest system for workers assembling the steel structure and exterior panels and dust masks for demolition crews removing the old concrete stands.
View Source

Related to Hierarchy of Controls

  • Accounting Controls The Company and its Subsidiaries maintain systems of “internal control over financial reporting” (as defined under Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 under the Exchange Act Regulations) that comply with the requirements of the Exchange Act and have been designed by, or under the supervision of, their respective principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP, including, but not limited to, internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations; (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP and to maintain asset accountability; (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences. Except as disclosed in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, the Company is not aware of any material weaknesses in its internal controls. The Company’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company have been advised of: (i) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are known to the Company’s management and that have adversely affected or are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’ ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (ii) any fraud known to the Company’s management, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.

  • Internal Controls The Company shall maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that: (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary in order to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP and to maintain accountability for assets; (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences.

  • S▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇; Internal Accounting Controls The Company and the Subsidiaries are in compliance with any and all applicable requirements of the S▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Act of 2002 that are effective as of the date hereof, and any and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder that are effective as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date. The Company and the Subsidiaries maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that: (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations, (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP and to maintain asset accountability, (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization, and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences. The Company and the Subsidiaries have established disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and the Subsidiaries and designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. The Company’s certifying officers have evaluated the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures of the Company and the Subsidiaries as of the end of the period covered by the most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act (such date, the “Evaluation Date”). The Company presented in its most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act the conclusions of the certifying officers about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on their evaluations as of the Evaluation Date. Since the Evaluation Date, there have been no changes in the internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in the Exchange Act) of the Company and its Subsidiaries that have materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the internal control over financial reporting of the Company and its Subsidiaries.

  • ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇; Internal Accounting Controls The Company and the Subsidiaries are in compliance with any and all applicable requirements of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Act of 2002 that are effective as of the date hereof, and any and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder that are effective as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date. The Company and the Subsidiaries maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that: (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations, (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP and to maintain asset accountability, (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization, and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences. The Company and the Subsidiaries have established disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and the Subsidiaries and designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. The Company’s certifying officers have evaluated the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures of the Company and the Subsidiaries as of the end of the period covered by the most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act (such date, the “Evaluation Date”). The Company presented in its most recently filed periodic report under the Exchange Act the conclusions of the certifying officers about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on their evaluations as of the Evaluation Date. Since the Evaluation Date, there have been no changes in the internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in the Exchange Act) of the Company and its Subsidiaries that have materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the internal control over financial reporting of the Company and its Subsidiaries.

  • Personnel Controls The County agrees to advise Contractor Staff, who have access to PII, of the confidentiality of the information, the safeguards required to protect the information, and the civil and criminal sanctions for non-compliance contained in applicable federal and state laws. For that purpose, the Contractor shall implement the following personnel controls: