Apply the hierarchy of hazard control in the context of confined spaces, giving specific examples of how each control level can be implemented to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate risks within the space.

The hierarchy of hazard control is a systematic approach to minimizing or eliminating workplace hazards. It prioritizes control methods from the most effective (eliminating the hazard) to the least effective (relying on personal protective equipment). In the context of confined spaces, applying this hierarchy is crucial for protecting workers from the inherent dangers of these environments. The hierarchy consists of five levels: elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment.

First, elimination, the most effective method, aims to remove the hazard completely. In a confined space scenario, this could mean eliminating the need for entry altogether. For example, if a tank requires cleaning, instead of having workers enter the tank, the cleaning could be done remotely using high-pressure water jets or automated cleaning systems. This eliminates the risk of atmospheric hazards, engulfment, or physical injuries associated with entry. Another example could be when an old underground vault has to be inspected for safety purposes, the employer could hire a drone with cameras to go into the confined space, which would then transmit live images so the conditions can be observed without anyone having to enter the hazardous space. The key concept is to find an alternative way to accomplish the task that avoids entering the confined space. By completely avoiding worker entry, the elimination control strategy removes all risks for confined space hazards.

Second, substitution involves replacing a hazardous material or process with a less hazardous one. This is not always feasible in confined spaces, but it can be considered in certain circumstances. For example, if a confined space cleaning process traditionally uses a harsh chemical solvent, the employer could substitute this with a less toxic or corrosive cleaning agent. This would lower the risk of chemical exposure for the worker, should they be required to enter the space. Another substitution example might be replacing a flammable solvent, with a non-flammable cleaning agent. This would then reduce the risk of explosion or fire if ignition sources are present. Substitution can be a beneficial method to reduce the hazards, even before entry occurs.

Third, engineering controls involve making physical changes to the workplace to reduce or eliminate hazards. These controls are more effective than administrative controls or PPE. For example, installing permanent ventilation systems in a confined space, to continuously extract stale air and introduce fresh air, can reduce the risk of oxygen deficiency or the buildup of flammable gases. Engineering controls can be expensive to implement but provide more effective controls. Another example might be the installation of permanent ladder systems with handrails, which provides safer access than temporary ladders. Another engineering control would be the installation of a winch system, permanently fixed to a tripod that would allow for quick and easy retrieval of workers in the case of an emergency. Engineering controls are physical controls that remove some of the risks from the confined space.

Fourth, administrative controls involve developing and implementing work procedures and policies that reduce the risks. These are controls that are less effective than engineering or elimination, but they provide additional protection. For example, developing a detailed confined space entry permit system ensures that all hazards are properly assessed, and that proper control measures are in place before entry is allowed. In addition, the development of comprehensive training and certification programs ensures that workers are aware of the risks and hazards associated with confined spaces. Another example of an administrative control is the proper scheduling of work, to allow ample time for breaks, and avoiding the effects of fatigue. Administrative controls always involve processes and procedures to reduce the risk of working in hazardous spaces.

Finally, personal protective equipment (PPE) is the last line of defense and is generally considered the least effective control, but it still provides a vital layer of protection. PPE includes items like respirators, harnesses, protective clothing, and safety glasses. For example, workers entering a confined space with a known risk of a hazardous atmosphere would wear full-face air-purifying respirators or supplied air respirators. Another example would be the use of full-body harnesses and retrieval lines, used to help quickly remove a worker in the event of an emergency. All PPE should be properly fit-tested, maintained, and used according to manufacturer instructions. The use of PPE only protects the worker as a final control method, and it is the lowest level of control in the hierarchy.

In summary, applying the hierarchy of hazard control in confined spaces ensures that risk reduction is approached systematically, always focusing on more effective controls. By combining multiple layers of control, including elimination or substitution of hazards, installing effective engineering controls, developing solid administrative procedures, and finally the use of PPE, the risks associated with confined space entry can be minimized. This comprehensive approach enhances safety and helps protect workers in these dangerous environments.