Hazard Management Requirements in the Health and Safety at Work Act

Hans Buwalda
22 February 2016
Hazard Management Requirements in the Proposed Health and Safety
Legislation Changes in New Zealand

Introduction
In pure legal terms, there may not be a significant difference
between these standards. However, the Independent Task Force
was clear that a higher standard for hazard management is
required. This would be achieved by:
• A new objective for the legislation. The objective in the Health
and Safety in Employment Act is to promote the prevention of
harm to all persons. The objective of the Health and Safety at
Work Act is to secure the health and safety of workers
and workplaces.
• The regulatory framework should be made explicitly risk
based. (Risk is a factor under the Health and Safety in
Employment Act, but it is not explicit).
• The test for hazard management should provide maximum
certainty to those who have to apply it. There should be a
presumption of the highest level of protection against harm.
The NZ Government introduced the Health and Safety Reform Bill
into Parliament in 2014. It was passed in October 2015, to come
into effect on 4 April 2016.
The Act follows the report of the Pike River Royal Commission
(2012) and the Independent Task Force on Workplace Health and
Safety (2013). It is based on current Australian law. Key changes
include a new standard for hazard management. Organisations
will be required to reduce risk to as low as “ …reasonably
practicable”, compared with the standard in the Health and Safety
in Employment Act of “ … …all practicable steps to eliminate,
isolate or minimise hazards”.
22 February 2016
Hazard Management Requirements in the Health and Safety at Work Act
Organisations need to review their current systems for hazard
management, and ensure hazard controls are risk-based. Controls
must be proportionate to the frequency and consequence of
possible incidents.
Some organisations may have achieved this using the standard
…all practicable steps to eliminate, isolate or minimise hazards.
However, the current standard has often been interpreted as
…any practicable step. Many hazard registers in NZ workplaces
excessively default to the “minimise” standard, without
adequately assessing controls that would eliminate or isolate a
hazard. “Minimise” generally means administrative controls and
PPE, and these controls are vulnerable to human error.
Achieving high quality, robust risk / hazard controls is the most
important objective for managing health and safety. Under the
new legislation, it is certain that WorkSafe NZ will more rigorously
assess the choice of hazard controls. If organisations rely on
administrative controls for critical hazards, there will need to be
robust assessments that demonstrate that alternative
engineering controls were not available or feasible.
This paper provides a description of the risk management process
included in Safe Work Australia Codes of Practice referenced
below.
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Doc
uments/633/How_to_Manage_Work_Health_and_Safety_Risks.pdf
uments/774/Guide-Reasonably-Practicable.pdf

Changes in the Hazard Management Standard
Section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work Act:
Meaning of reasonably practicable
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, reasonably
practicable, in relation to a duty to ensure health and safety,
means that which is, or was, at a particular time, reasonably
able to be done in relation to ensuring health and safety, taking
into account and weighing up all relevant matters, including—
a) the likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned
occurring; and
b) the degree of harm that might result from the hazard or
risk; and
c) what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to
know, about—
i. the hazard or risk; and
ii. ways of eliminating or minimising the risk; and
d) the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or
minimise the risk; and
e) after assessing the extent of the risk and the available
ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, the cost
associated with available ways of eliminating or minimising
the risk, including whether the cost is grossly
disproportionate to the risk.
Section 2A of the Health and Safety in Employment Act:
Meaning of all practicable steps
In this Act, all practicable steps, in relation to achieving any
result in any circumstances, means all steps to achieve the
result that it is reasonably practicable to take in the
circumstances, having regard to—
(a) the nature and severity of the harm that may be
suffered if the result is not achieved; and
(b) the current state of knowledge about the likelihood that
harm of that nature and severity will be suffered if the
result is not achieved; and
(c) the current state of knowledge about harm of that
nature; and
(d) the current state of knowledge about the means
available to achieve the result, and about the likely
efficacy of each of those means; and
(e) the availability and cost of each of those means.
22 February 2016

Using the Terms Hazard and Risk
In general use, the terms “hazard” and “risk”, are often used
inter-changeably. In health and safety management, it is
important that distinct definitions are used for each. Thus,
each is specifically defined in the Health and Safety at Work
Act.
In health and safety management, a hazard is a situation
that poses a level of threat to health. In the workplace,
these can include physical, chemical, biological and
psychological hazards. Many hazards are characterised by
the presence of stored energy that, when released, can
cause damage. Another class of hazard does not involve
release of stored energy, rather it involves the presence of
hazardous situations, such as confined spaces.
Risk is expressed in terms of a combination of the
consequences of an event, and the likelihood that it could
occur. The combination of these two factors is derived in a
risk assessment, and this should be used to determine both
the risk mitigation (achieved by hazard controls), and the
priority for implementing these.
This definition of risk is aligned with its definition in the ISO
31000:2009 Risk Management Standard which defines risk
as “ … the effect of uncertainty on objectives”.
Taking care to use these terms consistently with these
definitions, is necessary to develop a hazard management
system that is effective and compliant. A hazard
management process that is consistent with the Safe Work
Australia Codes of Practice will enable this.
22 February 2016
Hazard means a situation or thing that has the potential to
harm a person. Hazards at work may include: noisy
machinery, a moving forklift, chemicals, electricity, working at
heights, a repetitive job, bullying and violence at the
workplace.
Risk is the possibility that harm (death, injury or illness)
might occur when exposed to a hazard.
Risk control means taking action to eliminate health and
safety risks so far as is reasonably practicable, and if that is
not possible, minimising the risks so far as is reasonably
practicable. Eliminating a hazard will also eliminate any risks
associated with that hazard.
How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks Code of
Practice. Safe Work Australia. 2011. Page 5
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publicati
ons/pages/manage-whs-risks-cop

Safe Work Australia Guidance to Risk
Management
Managing workplace hazards so that the risk of these
hazards causing injuries or illness is eliminated or reduced is
called “Risk Management” in the Australian Guidelines:
• Hazards must be identified.
• Organisations must then do whatever is “reasonably
practicable” to eliminate or minimise risks.
Safe Work Australia has identified four steps in this process
(page 4):
1. Identify hazards – find out what could cause harm.
2. Assess risks if necessary – understand the nature of the
harm that could be caused by the hazard, how serious
the harm could be and the likelihood of it happening.
3. Control risks – implement the most effective control
measure that is reasonably practicable in the
circumstances
4. Review control measures to ensure they are working as
planned
http://www.safeworkaustralia.g
ov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publica
tions/Documents/633/How_to_
Manage_Work_Health_and_Saf
ety_Risks.pdf
22 February 2016

Step One: Identifying Hazards
Identifying hazards in the workplace involves finding things or
situations that could potentially cause harm to people.
Hazards generally arise from the following aspects of work:
• Physical work environment
• Equipment, materials and substances used
• Work tasks and how they are performed
• Work design and management.
Some hazards are part of the work processes, such as
mechanical hazards, noise or the toxic properties of
substances. Other hazards result from equipment or
machine use.
How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks Code of Practice.
Safe Work Australia. 2011. Page 7
Workplaces have a finite number of different categories of
hazards, (often six to 12). However, the larger the workplace
the more often these hazards occur.
Identifying hazards requires:
• The use of hazard categories. It is impossible to effectively
develop controls, if there is a separate risk assessment
process for every situation in which a hazard occurs.
Using hazard categories (for example, work at height,
mobile equipment, cranes and other lifting equipment)
means that a set of controls can be developed for each
category, and implemented in each situation in which that
hazard occurs.
• Ensuring that every situation in which the hazard occurs is
identified. There may be many different situations in
which a hazard category is present in the workplace. All
these situations need to be identified so that the controls
for the hazard can be applied to each one.
The processes for identifying hazards include workplace
inspections, consulting workers and reviewing available
information (industry guidelines, regulatory documents etc).
It is also important to identify hazards when designing and
planning products, processes or places used for work. It is
often easier and more effective to eliminate hazards before
they are introduced into a workplace by incorporating safety
features at the design stage.
22 February 2016

Step Two: Assessing Risk
A risk assessment involves considering what could happen if
someone is exposed to a hazard, and the likelihood of it
happening. A risk assessment can help you determine:
• How severe a risk is
• Whether any existing control measures are effective
• What action you should take to control the risk.
• How urgently the action needs to be taken.
A risk assessment can be undertaken with varying degrees
of detail depending on the type of hazards and the
information, data and resources that you have available. It
can be as simple as a discussion with your workers or
involve specific risk analysis techniques.
How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks Code of Practice.
Safe Work Australia. 2011. Page 9
A risk assessment needs to be carried out when there is
uncertainty about how the hazard may result in injury or
illness. This can occur when there are a number of different
hazards that may interact or when there are changes in the
workplace that may affect the effectiveness of control
measures. In addition, there are some hazards where a risk
assessment will be mandatory, for example hazards at a
major hazard facility.
A risk assessment is not necessary when:
• There are specific regulatory controls that must be
adopted, (for example current Crane Regulations).
• A Code of Practice sets out controls, and you adopt these
controls.
• There are well-known and effective controls in use in your
organisation or your industry sector that are applicable to
your workplace.
22 February 2016

There are three steps to assessing risk:
Work out how severe the harm could be This requires
considering:
• What type of harm could occur?
• What influences how severe it is?
• How many people are exposed?
• Could one failure lead to another, resulting in escalating
harm?
Work out how hazards can cause harm Consider:
• The effectiveness of existing control measures?
• How work associated with the hazard is actually done?
• What abnormal situations could occur?
Work out the likelihood of harm occurring Taking into
account how the hazards can cause harm, consider:
• How often is the task done?
• How often are people near the hazard?
• Has it happened before in either your workplace or
elsewhere?
The level of risk will increase as the likelihood of harm and its
severity increases.
Questions to ask in determining likelihood
How often are people exposed to the hazard?
How long might people be exposed to the hazard?
How effective are current controls in reducing risk?
Could any changes in your organisation increase the
likelihood?
Are hazards more likely to cause harm because of
the working environment?
Could the way people act and behave affect the
likelihood of a hazard causing harm?
Do the differences between individuals in the
workplace make it more likely for harm to occur?
Rating likelihood
Certain to occur - expected to occur in most
circumstances
Very likely - will probably occur in most
circumstances
Possible – might occur occasionally
Unlikely – could happen at some time
Rare – may happen only in exceptional
circumstances
22 February 2016

A risk matrix may be used as part of the risk assessment.
These are used when it is necessary to prioritise new
controls.
Care must be taken if using these such matrices in health and
safety management:
• Eliminating hazards or using engineering controls when
these are reasonably practicable, is required by legislation.
Organisations do not have the flexibility to determine
their tolerance to the risk of serious or fatal injuries.
• This is a coarse assessment and should have only limited
influence on determining hazard controls, for example,
prioritising additional controls for hazards with moderate
and high risks, or deciding that administrative controls will
suffice for hazards with low risks.
22 February 2016

Step Three: Controlling Risks
Risks need to be eliminated so far as is reasonably
practicable. If this is not possible, then they must be
minimised as far as reasonably practicable.
Organisations must follow a hierarchy of possible control
measures, and choose the control that most effectively
eliminates the hazard, or minimises the risk in the
circumstances. This is known as the hierarchy of risk control.
Level 1 Control Measures
Eliminating hazards is often more practical at the design
stage. However, it may not be possible to eliminate the
hazard if doing so means that you cannot carry out your
usual operations.
Level 2 Control Measures
If it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate the hazard,
then use one or more of the following:
• Substitute the hazard for an alternative with lower risk.
• Isolate the hazard from people.
• Use engineering controls.
Level 3 Control Measures These do not control the hazard at
source. They rely on human behaviour and supervision.
They are least effective in minimising risks. They usually
include:
• Administrative controls such as procedures and training.
• Personal protective equipment
Particularly for hazards that can cause serious or fatal
injuries, level 3 controls should only be used as a last resort,
or as an interim measure and/or to supplement higher-level
controls.
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publication
s/Documents/633/How_to_Manage_Work_Health_and_Safety_Ris
ks.pdf
22 February 2016

The “… as far as is reasonably practicable…” test will require
an assessment of what a reasonable person would do in the
circumstances, taking a careful and prudent approach and
erring on the side of caution.
An organisation must take into account:
• The extent to which each possible control measure (or
combination of) lowers the likelihood or degree of harm.
• The capacity to influence and control.
The higher the risk, the more that is required to be done to
eliminate or minimise it. The greater the degree of harm, the
more that is required to be done to eliminate or minimise it.
If you have identified engineering controls or similar and you
are not able to implement them immediately, then put
interim controls in place.
If there is at least a moderate likelihood of death or serious
injury, then the highest level of protection should be
provided. If there is a high likelihood of repeated or multiple
injuries, then a higher level of control should be applied.
When considering each control or combination of controls,
an organisation must take into account the likelihood of a
particular control being effective. Supplementary controls,
such as signs or supervision, may be needed to make a
control more effective.
After identifying available and suitable control measures, the
duty holder should consider whether the control measure that
is most likely to eliminate the risk, or minimise it the most, is
able to be applied.
If the control measure that will provide the highest level of
protection is possible, a duty holder should implement that
control measure, unless it is not reasonably practicable to do
so in the particular circumstances.
Page 10
22 February 2016

Steps Three: Controlling Risks
A great deal has been written about what (…as far as is
reasonably practicable…) means, and although no clear cut
criteria have emerged, there is general agreement about
what needs to be considered.
One consideration is the severity of the risk: how serious are
the possible consequences? Another is the question of
foreseeability: would a reasonable employer have been able
to foresee what might happen? A third consideration is
whether means are available to control the risk and a fourth
is whether the cost of installing these controls is justified in
the circumstances. According to one influential view, if there
is a “gross disproportion” between the cost of the precautions
and the level of risk, that is, if the risk is insignificant in
relation to the financial sacrifice involved in rectifying it, a
reasonable employer is not bound to take the precautions in
question.
These considerations do not generate a set of rules which
can be automatically applied to determine whether the risk is
as low as is reasonably practicable, and ultimately a
judgment must be made in each situation about what a
reasonable employer would do. Such judgments are to some
extent subjective, which is not to say that they are arbitrary.
One guide which courts use as to what is reasonably
practicable is current good practice in the industry.
Employers who fail to comply with current good practice are
likely to be found not to have done what was reasonably
practicable, should the issue arise. One implication of this is
that what is reasonably practicable will vary, from industry to
industry, and over time, as industry standards improve. It is
not a concept which can ever be given a fixed meaning. .
Hopkins, A. (2004). Quantitative risk assessment: a critique.
Canberra: Occasional Paper Series, National Research Centre for
OHS Regulation, Australian National University, Page 1.
http://regnet.anu.edu.au/publications/wp-25-quantitative-risk-
assessmentcritique
While cost is … a matter to be taken into account and weighed up
with other relevant matters to identify what is reasonably
practicable, this must only be done after assessing the extent of the
risk and the ways of eliminating or minimising it.
The more likely the hazard or risk, or the greater the harm that may
result from it, the less weight should be given to the cost of
eliminating the hazard or risk.
If there are several available options for eliminating or minimising a
risk, and they would achieve the same level of reduction in the
likelihood or degree of harm, a duty holder may choose to apply
one or more of the least costly options. Using more expensive
control measures may not be required to minimise a risk that is low
in likelihood or severity of harm.
It may not be reasonable to require control measures that are
expensive to apply, in terms of time and/or money, such as
engineering controls, to minimise or further minimise a risk that has
a low likelihood of occurring and would cause minor harm. It may
however be reasonable to apply less expensive controls, such as
training and supervision, to further lower the likelihood of the risk.
Choosing a low cost option that provides less protection, simply
because it is cheaper, is unlikely to be considered a reasonably
practicable means of eliminating or minimising risk.
The question of what is reasonably practicable is determined
objectively, not by reference to the capacity to pay circumstances.
An organisation cannot expose people to a lower level of protection
simply because it is in a lesser financial position than another
organisation facing the same hazard or risk in similar
circumstances.
How to Determine What is Reasonably Practicable to Meet a Health
and Safety Duty. Safe Work Australia. 2013. Page 15
22 February 2016

Bow-tie diagrams are a simple and effective tool for
developing controls for significant hazards that have
several threats. They display the links between the
potential causes (threats), prevention controls and
mitigation controls.
For significant hazards, multiple controls are
necessary. Each threat is reviewed and potential
controls are selected, to ensure that incidents are
prevented as far as reasonably practicable. Incident
consequences are then examined to ensure these are
mitigated according to the level of residual risk.
The bow-tie method enables risk-based monitoring,
auditing and review of critical risk controls. It is
particularly useful in incident investigations, enabling
failed controls to be identified.
The general structure of a bow-tie diagram is shown
below.
22 February 2016

Step Four: Reviewing Hazard Controls
Other important aspects of this process are:
• Ensure the process leads to continuous improvement, that
is, risk is continuously being reduced as far as is
reasonably practicable.
• Ensure the process includes consultation with workers
who are regularly exposed to these risks.
• Ensure there is consultation with other organisations that
also have duties with regard to these hazards. Never
assume that someone else is taking care of a health and
safety hazard. Find out who is doing what and work
together with other organisations in a co-operative and
co-ordinated way so that all risks are eliminated or
minimised as far as reasonably practicable.
Hazard controls should be reviewed on a regular cycle, for
example every three years. In addition, there are a number
of trigger events that should lead to a review of controls:
• An incident
• A significant business change, particularly changes that
reduce resources.
• New information about workplace risks becomes available
• Concerns are raised by workers and / or health and safety
representatives.
• New Regulations or Codes of Practice are introduced.
The control measures that you put in place should be
reviewed regularly to make sure they work as planned. There
are certain situations where you must review your controls:
• When the control measure is not effective in controlling the
risk
• Before a change that is likely to give rise to a new or
different and the current may not be effective.
• If a new hazard is identified
• If the results of consultation indicate that a review is
necessary
• If a health and safety representative requests a review.
You may use the same methods as in the initial hazard
identification step to check controls. Consult your workers
and consider the following questions:
• Are the control measures working effectively in both their
design and operation?
• Have the control measures introduced new problems?
• Have all hazards been identified?
• Have new work methods, new equipment or chemicals
made the job safer?
• Are safety procedures being followed?
• Has instruction and training provided to workers on how to
work safely, been successful?
• If new information becomes available, does it indicate
current controls may no longer be the most effective?
If problems are found, go back through the risk management
steps, review your information and make further decisions
about risk control. Priority for review should be based on the
seriousness of the risk. Controls for significant risks should
be reviewed more frequently.
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/
Documents/633/How_to_Manage_Work_Health_and_Safety_Risks
.pdf22 February 2016

Keeping Records
There are two types of records that should be
developed during the hazard management process:
• Records of the process to develop controls. This
provides evidence of how decisions were made,
assists training in hazard controls and provides a
basis for other processes such as preparing
procedures and investigating incidents. The detail
and extent of recording will depend on the size of
your workplace and the potential for major work
health and safety issues.
• A hazard register. This should provide an accessible
record of all hazards and controls. There are many
ways in which a register can be developed, with an
example shown below.
HAZARD
CATEGORY
HAZARD THREATS LOCATION(S) RISK ISOLATE /
ENGINEERING
CONTROLS
RESIDUAL RISK ADMINSTRATIVE
/ PPE
CONTROLS
22 February 2016

Hazard management requires a systematic process to:
• Identify hazards associated with the activity or
environment
• If necessary, assess the risks associated with the
hazards
• Identify and implement available and suitable control
measures to eliminate or minimise the risks
• Review the effectiveness of the controls.
Controls must be developed following a hierarchy. If it is
not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks to health
and safety, then the following hierarchy must be followed:
• Substituting (wholly or partly) the hazard giving rise to
the risk with something that gives rise to a lesser risk
• Isolating the hazard
• Implementing engineering controls
• Implementing administrative controls
• Ensuring the provision and use of suitable PPE.
The standard of ‘reasonably practicable’ is a new one in
New Zealand health and safety law and it is intended to
be a very high one.
Organisations need to understand this new standard, and
ensure their hazard management processes, hazard
controls and hazard registers comply with its
requirements. This will require a full review of hazard
management systems. Priority should be given to
significant hazards that currently have only administrative
and PPE controls.
What Organisations Should Do To Prepare
Preparation Pathway
• Review the current Hazard Register and use this to
decide on 6-12 appropriate hazard categories.
• Group these into those hazards that have the potential
to cause serious / fatal injuries, and those with the
potential for minor injuries only.
• Prioritise the significant hazards for review. Use
evidence-based data and/ or feedback from workers to
assess risk and to decide the order in which hazards
will be reviewed.
• Ensure that there is information available on existing
and possible hazard controls, for example Codes of
Practice, industry and organisation standards.
• Based on the priority selected above, work through
Steps 1-4 for the each hazard category. Choose an
appropriate time period for each hazard review, (for
example, 2-3 months).
• Carry out inspections, consult with workers and review
incident records to ensure that all the locations of these
hazards have been identified.
• Prepare the template for a revised hazard register, and
enter the hazard, hazard category, threats and
locations.
• Ensure the revised hazard register is populated with
new information on risks and controls, and ensure
records are kept from this process.
22 February 2016

Hazard Management Requirements in the Health and Safety at Work Act

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Hazard Management Requirements in the Health and Safety at Work Act

Similar to Hazard Management Requirements in the Health and Safety at Work Act (20)

Hazard Management Requirements in the Health and Safety at Work Act