First, describe the work and worksite
A glazing crew will remove damaged glass from a released ground-level storefront opening in an unoccupied work zone, secure the opening and collect fragments. This fictional learning example records planned controls; it supplies no actual inspections or work authorization.
- Glass type, damage pattern, retained support and removal method are assessed before anyone approaches.
- Both sides of the opening and the potential fragment area can be isolated.
- This excludes elevated glass, unstable structural framing and emergency work in an occupied public route.
Questions before work
- What retains the damaged pane and how will it be supported?
- How far can fragments reach on both sides of the opening?
- Which collection tools and containers avoid hand contact with shards?
Build the analysis one step at a time
What will the worker do? How could someone be harmed? What prevents or reduces that exposure? Who checks the control, and when?
1. Assess from a protected position
Hazard: Cracked glass can release suddenly or conceal loose fragments.
Control: Glazing lead identifies the glass type, retained support and damage from outside the potential fall area. Obtain technical help when the removal method is uncertain.
Verification: Record the assessed support and planned removal sequence before approach.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Visible cracks do not establish how the pane will fail.
2. Isolate both sides
Hazard: Falling fragments can cut workers or people beyond the opening.
Control: Separate the opening and fragment area on both sides, coordinate adjacent access and prepare a stable temporary opening protection.
Verification: Lead confirms the boundary and protection materials before removal.
Why this belongs in the analysis: A one-sided boundary leaves a second exposure path.
3. Prepare support and collection
Hazard: Sharp material or unsuitable handling devices can injure the crew.
Control: Use support and removal tools suitable for the damaged pane; do not rely on suction equipment unless its instructions permit the actual condition. Select assessed cut, eye, face and body protection.
Verification: Lead checks the planned devices, protective equipment and puncture-resistant collection containers.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Damage may invalidate a normal glass-handling method.
4. Remove in the assessed sequence
Hazard: Releasing a retainer can cause uncontrolled glass movement.
Control: Follow the supported removal sequence from designated positions, keep hands out of fragment paths and maintain the boundary. Stop for unexpected movement or a loss of support.
Verification: Lead monitors support as each retainer or section is released.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Every release changes what holds the remaining glass.
5. Collect fragments without hand sorting
Hazard: Shards can puncture gloves or cut workers through unsuitable bags.
Control: Use appropriate collection tools and rigid or otherwise suitable identified containers. Keep sharp waste separated and use the site disposal method; never compact shards by hand.
Verification: Crew checks surfaces, frame channels and waste containment from safe positions.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Protection must cover small fragments as well as the main pane.
6. Secure and hand over the opening
Hazard: Remaining shards or an open frame can expose occupants and later crews.
Control: Install the required temporary protection, identify remaining glass and frame defects, and maintain access restrictions until the designated release.
Verification: Lead checks both sides and communicates the opening status.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Removal is incomplete until the opening and waste are controlled.
What does a useful control look like?
| Needs improvement | More useful for this scenario |
|---|---|
| Be careful around the equipment. | Use support and removal tools suitable for the damaged pane; do not rely on suction equipment unless its instructions permit the actual condition. Select assessed cut, eye, face and body protection. |
| Check the area before starting. | Glazing lead identifies the glass type, retained support and damage from outside the potential fall area. Obtain technical help when the removal method is uncertain. |
Decisions that change the analysis
Do cut-resistant gloves make hand pickup acceptable?
No. Gloves have task-specific limits and cannot make every sharp edge safe. Use collection tools and suitable containers to reduce direct contact.
What must be recorded before this example is used on a job?
Replace the scenario with the actual work, identify additional hazards with the crew, and record the applicable instructions, responsible people, inspection findings, unresolved actions and required authorization. A planned verification is not an inspection result.
Agree when the crew will pause
- Support or glass type is uncertain.
- Cracks, movement or retained fragments change unexpectedly.
- The boundary, removal support or waste containers are unsuitable.
After a pause, correct the condition, reassess the work, and obtain required authorization before restarting. Keep unresolved actions visible.
Download the worked example and free template
No account or paid membership required. The worked example contains planned controls. The blank template is for your own work; neither includes fabricated inspection results, signatures or approval.
Your editable working copy
Build and download your draft
Start blank or load the learning example. Replace its assumptions with your actual conditions and involve the people doing the work. Your entries stay in this browser tab; download a copy before leaving or refreshing.
1. Describe your work and site
2. Work through each task
Describe an observable step, how someone could be harmed, and the control that acts on that hazard. Identify who checks it and what evidence is needed.
3. Record changes, checks, and open actions
Walk the work area, review with the crew, and resolve missing controls. Follow the required approval process. This tool does not judge completeness, verify signatures or authorize work.
Open the downloaded file in a browser, then use Print → Save as PDF for a printable copy.
Training needs to confirm
- Damaged-glass support and removal sequence.
- Fragment collection, container handling and bleeding-response readiness.
Confirm applicable qualifications, task instruction and actual training evidence for the people assigned. Related toolbox talks support crew discussion; they do not establish competence.
Common questions
Can this be used as a JSA?
Use the Task | Hazard | Control structure if it meets the employer’s format. Adapt the boundaries, controls, verification and records to the actual job.
Does this provide a completed USACE AHA?
No. Use the project’s required AHA process, risk method, supporting fields and acceptance requirements. The existing formwork AHA explains the additional structure.
Are these resources part of a paid course?
This walkthrough, browser draft builder and downloads are free public resources, separate from Academy course enrollment.
References and source note
Original worked example developed for the stated scenario. Primary references support the planning framework; the actual equipment manual, product instructions and project design must supply applicable operating and acceptance criteria. Use actual equipment instructions and site requirements alongside these references. Reference review: October 9, 2026.