Industrial SafetyNews - New Year 2014-15 by Media Solutions

INDUSTRIAL

SafetyNews

OTHER INSIGHTS

PPE • ACCESS • HAZMAT • HEALTH • INJURY • MANAGEMENT • ENVIRONMENT • FOCUS November - December 2014 VOL 9 NO. 4 Price $9

STRONG FORESTRY ADVICE

BETTER PPE OPTIONS

HEALTH & SAFETY REFORM BILL

Safe workplaces require

SOUND CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT

Employers must ensure employees are trained and equipped to safely handle dangerous goods and hazardous substances.

WE CAN HELP! Our experts deliver cost-effective training customized to meet your needs: HSNO Test Certification How to Implement HSNO in your Business

HSNO Approved Handler Managing a Chemical Emergency

Ph 04 499 4311

Email: info@responsiblecarenz.com Fax: 04 472 7100

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY

ANOTHER RESPONSIBLE CARE NEW ZEALAND INITIATIVE

FIRST WORD>>Standards bearer

New health and safety association of associations A new umbrella association for workplace health and safety professions in New Zealand has been established

HASANZ is a first point of contact for government on workplace health and safety matters and the “go to” place for businesses says NZOHS rep Suzanne Broadbent

he Health and Safety Association of New Zealand (HASANZ) was launched in September in Auckland by George Adams, Chair of the Independent Forestry Safety Review and of the Occupational Health Advisory Group set up by WorkSafe NZ. HASANZ aims to raise professional standards across the occupational health and safety sector to provide healthier and safer workplaces for New Zealanders having been created in response to the findings of the Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety following the Pike River mining disaster. The government’s resulting Working Safer package of reforms in 2013 included a commitment to set up a representative body for health and safety professionals to help prevent serious harm and

It’s important that people have confidence in the health and safety advice they receive according to Tony Rigg of NZISM

Business wants clarity on how to deliver against the new accountabilities for workplace health and safety says George Adams who launched HASANZ

fatalities at work. “Business wants clarity on how to deliver against the new accountabilities for workplace health and safety and on occasions where they need external advice, that will entail the ability to identify, select and to trust a professional or a professional organisation,” Mr Adams says. “Having a well-placed and well-known and effective body such as HASANZ, which is set up to do just that, will be vital going forward.” “As an association of associations, HASANZ is a first point of contact for government on workplace health and safety matters and the “go to” place for businesses seeking support and advice,” adds HASANZ and NZ Occupational Hygiene Society representative Suzanne Broadbent.

Founding member organisations include: • the Australian/New Zealand Society of Occupational Medicine • Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of New Zealand • Maintenance Engineers Society of New Zealand • NZ Institute of Hazardous Substances Management • New Zealand Institute of Safety Management • NZ Occupational Health

Nurses Association • NZ Occupational Hygiene Society • New Zealand Safety Council • New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists (Occupational Group) • Occupational Therapy New Zealand. A step change in workplace health and safety in New Zealand requires us to work more collaboratively and to give as much emphasis to health as to safety, says HASANZ representative and New Zealand Institute of Safety Management National Manager Tony Rigg. “HASANZ is committed to promoting excellence in workplace health and safety practice.” A priority is improving access to quality advice for businesses by creating an online register of competent health and safety professionals. “It’s important that people have confidence in the health and safety advice they receive,” Mr Rigg maintains. It’s also important they know where to go for reliable information, he adds. “Working together with industry and government, HASANZ will enable workplace health and safety professions to provide better guidance and support to employers and workers for the benefit of all New Zealanders.”

HASANZ at a glance The Health and Safety Association of New Zealand (HASANZ) aims to “set the standard for health and safety advice and services in the workplace.” The umbrella organisation for workplace health and safety professions in New Zealand, HASANZ represents 10 diverse organisations with a shared purpose – to raise professional standards to provide healthier and safer workplaces for New Zealanders and promote excellence in workplace health and safety (H&S) practice.

why are things not happening as you planned? Thirty years of research has shown that 70% of all major change efforts in organisations fail to deliver the expected results in the medium to long term – frequently due to a lack of engagement and commitment by the people directly involved. Contact PeopleCentric to find out how we can help you engage your people and develop a productive and safe workplace climate.

www.peoplecentric.co.nz

www.isn.co.nz

THIS ISSUE>>November/December 2014 NEWS to improving workplace safety 3 New health and safety association standards of associations 12 See and be seen key to safety 30 Creative companies show the at night way at Site Safe awards 14 The eyes have it when it comes to workplace safety HAZMAT 15 Mobile Elevated Work Platforms 6 No charges laid following Canter16 Dangerous dust demands bury asbestos investigation careful handling with special 8 Unseen killer lurking in Canterequipment bury following the earthquakes 20 No respite from HSNO FOCUS – PPE Yesterday’s building basic, 10 today’s toxic terror 12 Product certification the key

17 Getting on the right foot when 28 Employee engagement is imit comes to safety footwear portant in developing a safe 18 High fliers keep their feet on the workplace climate ground HEALTH & SAFETY REFORM 19 Lynn River leads the way in cut 26 Just how far will the primary duty resistance of care in the proposed Health and Safety Reform Bill extend? ENVIRONMENT – FORESTRY 21-24 Flying the forestry FLAG SUPPORTERS 22 Comprehensive consultation Bata Industrials P17, Cancer Society MANAGEMENT 25 Pre-dig investigation is vital to worker safety 27 Safety record reflects focus on operational excellence

P23, Conferenz P31, Eye Pro P14, LightKnight P12, Lynn River P19, McLeod Cranes P27, National Safety Show P28, NZ Red Cross P11, People Centric P3, Responsible Care P2, Safety & Apparel P13, SonaSafe P5, St John P32, SubSurface Detection P25

Forest safety – page 21-24 A long and painful process

he Independent Forestry Safety Review was commissioned to improve the safety of New Zealand’s most dangerous industry. Some 32 lives have been lost on the forest block since 2008, the fatality rate is 15 times the overall rate for all sectors and the industry injury rate is double that of other industries. The review was announced on 29th January 2014 by the Forest Owners Association, Forest Industry Contractors Association and Farm Forestry Association (the Review Sponsors) was supported by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, WorkSafe New Zealand (WorkSafe) and the Accident Compensation Corporation. Businessman George Adams, health and safety lawyer Hazel

Armstrong and safety expert Mike Cosman were appointed to take an independent approach to identifying the likely causes and contributing factors to the high rate of serious injuries and fatalities in the New Zealand forestry sector. The processes were grouped into three stages: • issues identification stage • a consultation stage where the Review Panel released a consultation document and travelled to regions • the final reporting stage. The final report recommends a package of practical measures that are expected to result in a significant reduction in the rate of serious injuries and fatalities in the forestry sector by 2017, including making changes to the industry’s safety culture.

Editor Geoff Picken 0212 507 559 geoff@ mediasolutions.net.nz

Design & pre-press Jamie Laurie jlaurie@hayleymedia.com

Managing partner Phil Pilbrow 027 564 7778 or 09 489 8663 phil@mediasolutions.net.nz

Web development Neo Chen 021 507 318 neo@appsolutions.co.nz

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY

Nov/Dec – 2014

Publisher Mike Bishara 027 564 7779 mike@mediasolutions.net.nz Subscriptions mail@mediasolutions.net.nz Rates: $30 incl GST and postage for 5 issues, plus digital editions to five email addresses. Overseas rates available on request.

ISN is endorsed by NZ Safety Council

CONTENT PARTNERS

PROXIMITY

WARNING

SYSTEM Unique in NZ Editor Geoff Picken analyses the Forestry Safety Review released in October – 21-24

Safety & Apparel Sales Director Brendan Beadle: certify PPE for safety – 12-13

Barry Dyer on the handling and treatment of dangerous chemicals – 3

What is SonaSafe™?

Hamish Kynaston and Holly Hedley are with Buddle Finlay and report on how far primary duty of care may extend in the Health and Safety Reform Bill – 26-27

Moira Howson is Senior Consultant at PeopleCentric, a team of industrial and organisational psychologists – P28

Sensor vehicle mounted – Quantity to suit application

SonaSafe™ is an intelligent and unique vehicle safety system designed in New Zealand to help protect workers around large vehicles, forklifts and heavy plant. It uses a blend of proven technologies to warn the vehicle operator of personnel working close to their vehicle.

Why use SonaSafe™? Speaker with flashing light warning

Phil Pilbrow is managing partner of Industrial Safety News

Mike Bishara is the publisher of Industrial Safety News

Neo Chen is the online manager of Industrial Safety News

Main controller

Keeping your workforce safe and healthy is paramount. Installing SonaSafe™ into your business is a worthwhile investment to offset the potential dangers and costs arising from workplace injury. The use of SonaSafe™ creates behavioural change within the working environment. The stored data may be analysed to determine how to do things safer, better and more cost effectively.

How SonaSafe™ Works

Employee wears www.isn.co.nz Free access online to an interactive digital edition. Free access to the industry’s most comprehensive, key word searchable archives in eight key industrial safety categories: PPE, Access, Hazmat, Health, Injury, Management, Environment, Focus. Free access to daily updated news with the ISN online carousel Printed by Crucial Colour 24 Fairfax Avenue, Penrose, Auckland +64 9 589 1550 Published by Media Solutions Ltd 3c 12 Tamariki Ave, Orewa 0931 PO Box 31397, Milford 0741 09 444 5140

Vehicles are fitted with sensors. Personnel wear a personal detection unit. When someone enters a high risk area the driver receives a warning that someone is at risk. It’s simple to say, but in practice, not easy to do... until now.

BE SEEN, BE HEARD, BE SAFE Visit www.sonasafe.co.nz Tel. 07 928 7970 • Mob. 027 571 8648 www.isn.co.nz

HAZMAT>>Asbestos

No charges laid following Canterbury asbestos investigation WorkSafe New Zealand has concluded its investigation into the management of asbestos in the Canterbury Home Repair Programme and has decided not to lay any charges – much to the disappointment of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions

WorkSafe is satisfied the overall risks from asbestos in the Home Repair Programme have been very low.” He says “it has to be remembered that in the weeks and months after the Canterbury earthquakes there was an incredible amount of work done” – both demolitions and emergency repairs. “People and organisations were stretched and conditions were far from ideal,” Mr MacDonald recalls. Chief Executive WorkSafe Gordon MacDonald says that “based on our investigation and expert advice WorkSafe is satisfied the over-all risks from asbestos in the Home Repair Programme have been very low”

“Asbestos causes cancer and we have known this since at least 1986 when the WHO declared just that. The government should have been proactive in its approach to the presence of this known workplace carcinogen,” says CTU’s Jeff Sissons

orkSafe launched an investigation earlier this year in response to allegations about the adequacy of the Earthquake Commission and Fletcher EQR’s systems for identifying and managing the hazard of asbestos during the initial stages of the Canterbury rebuild. WorkSafe’s chief executive, Gordon MacDonald, says that the investigation found that there were some deficiencies in the management of asbestos during the early phases of the Home Repair Programme. “However, given what we know about the type of work carried in the Home Repair Programme the risk of harm to workers and residents was very low and prosecution was not justified,” he believes. “Exposure to asbestos is a very real occupational health hazard, and one that WorkSafe takes very seriously. That’s why we undertook a thorough investigation of the circumstances.” The investigation included: • extensive reviews of EQC and Fletcher EQR documentation, their systems and processes • interviews with management,

contractors and residents • property inspections and asbestos testing in a limited number of houses - including surface and air testing • WorkSafe contacting independent experts to review research conducted on behalf of Fletcher EQR into breathable fibre release during certain types of repair work. The investigation found there were some deficiencies in the management of asbestos and the process of testing for its presence prior to work beginning during the early phases of the Home Repair Programme. However, the level of asbestos likely to have been released was “very low”, as was the risk to workers. The risk to residents is likely to have been even lower, the workplace health and safety regulator believes. “Given the scale of work in Canterbury it’s inevitable there were instances where work was not up to best practice and our investigation did identify shortcomings with the management of asbestos,” Mr MacDonald says. “But based on our investigation and expert advice

Nov/Dec – 2014

Considerable improvements However, he adds that over the course of the Home Repair Programme “considerable improvements” have been made in the way asbestos has been managed by contractors, and WorkSafe and its Canterbury Rebuild Safety Charter partners have “worked hard” to educate tradespeople and contractors about the occupational health risks asbestos pose. “Let me be absolutely clear about this; asbestos is not something to be taken lightly and the risks of exposure need to be very carefully managed,” Mr MacDonald insists. “WorkSafe will continue to work with all companies involved in the rebuild to ensure that asbestos is managed appropriately – and to ensure the lessons learned in Canterbury are heeded nationwide.” The investigation was the subject of a court application for an extension of time to allow WorkSafe more time to consider whether to lay charges, and the decision not to take a prosecution means that application will not now proceed. The regulator’s decision not to press any charges in relation to Fletchers’ failures with regard to asbestos has dismayed the CTU, which is “deeply concerned” about Christchurch workers’ exposure to the deadly fibre. “Asbestos causes cancer. No exposure is safe. We have known

this fact since at least 1986 when the World Health Organisation declared just that,” CTU General Counsel Jeff Sissons says. “The government should have been proactive in its approach to the presence of this known workplace carcinogen.” He points out that WorkSafe’s own fact sheet states “Any building constructed, altered or refurbished before the late-1980s is likely to contain asbestos and/or asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). Buildings constructed after 1990 are generally unlikely to contain ACMs but as materials containing asbestos are still permitted to be imported into New Zealand, some buildings build [sic] after 1990 may contain ACMS.” Predictable problem “The risks of asbestos have been understood since Victorian times and well-understood since at least the 1970s,” Mr Sissons observes. “It is untenable to suggest that it was not utterly predictable that asbestos or asbestos-containing material would not be found in a significant proportion of the homes and businesses affected by the earthquake or that the risks are not extremely well understood.” Given this, he believes the EQC and Fletchers failed in several instances to ensure appropriate education and supervision for the contractors removing the asbestos and therefore that they had taken all practicable steps to ensure that no harm came to an employee of their subcontractors. “Enforcement action should have been taken.” Mr Sissons also notes there is considerable irony in Fletchers’ apparent failure to properly manage asbestos exposure in Christchurch as Fletcher Construction operated Durock Industries in Christchurch, one of two factories in New Zealand manufacturing asbestos containing cement, between 1943 and 1974. “If anyone should know about asbestos and its effects on workers, it’s Fletchers.”

HAZMAT>>Asbestos Typical asbestos locations in a pre-1990 home

C1 G4 G1 A2

F1 C2

C3 F2

A1 F2 F3

I1 H2

E5 H4

E1 E2

E5 J2

F4 E3

E3 J3

A Exterior surfaces 1. Deck undersheeting 2. Cement asbestos board siding and undersheeting 3. Roof felt and shingles 4. Window putty B Automobiles 1. Brake linings, clutch facings and gaskets C Insulation 1. Vermiculite attic insulation 2. Batts insulation 3. Vermiculite wall insulation

Ultimately, he says, New Zealand is out of step with many other countries around the world as it fails to have a plan in place to eliminate asbestos. “Banning all importation of asbestos products

E4 G3 G5

D Flooring 1. Vinyl asbestos sheets, tiles and undersheeting E Boilers, heaters and piping 1. Heat source covering 2. Air duct lining 3. Door and cover gaskets 4. Pipe lagging 5. Wall gaskets and lining F Interior surfaces 1. Sprayed on acoustical ceilings 2. Acoustical tiles

is a critical step,” Mr Sissons maintains. “In Australia and the UK, asbestos products are strictly banned at the border. Urgency should be given to upgrading the asbestos regulations rather than

3. Textured paint 4. Heat reflectors – wood stoves G Electrical equipment 1. Lamp sockets 2. Outlet and switch boxes 3. Insulation on knob and tube wiring 4. Recessed lighting 5. Main panel and fuse boxes H Built in equipment 1. Water heaters 2. Range hoods 3. Clothes dryers 4. Diswashers I Appliances 1. Refrigerators, freezers, portable dishwashers, toasters, slow cookers, oven hair dryers and portable heaters J Miscellaneous 1. Fireplace logs 2. Asbestos hot pads 3. Asbestos gloves

waiting until April 2015.” The CTU believes there should also be notification of work with asbestos, employers should be required to keep records of working with asbestos, and buildings

known to contain asbestos should be registered. “The government has a goal of reducing workplace accidents by 25 percent by 2020 – it must also have a goal around asbestos,” Mr Sissons insists. ”The European Parliament has agreed to ‘eradicate’ asbestos by 2028.” New Zealand should have a national plan to eliminate asbestos from buildings by 2030, with the aim of completely eradicating asbestos from all workplaces, he believes. “MBIE estimates that 170 deaths occur a year from asbestos-related diseases, and that this will rise to over 300 as the results of the ‘asbestos boom’ of the 1970s make themselves felt,” Mr Sissons predicts. He notes that 170 asbestosrelated deaths is double the number of workplace deaths each year from injury – a number which is itself far too high. “The risks have been known to employers and government for 30 years - there is no excuse for putting off decisive action any longer.”

CTU’s twelve-point plan to eliminate asbestos The NZCTU recommends: 1. An immediate priority to upgrading the asbestos health and safety regulations. Currently these are slated to come into force alongside the proposed Health and Safety at Work Act in mid-2015. This is too far away and the Minister of Labour should regulate as quickly as possible. Further amendments can be made following more detailed consultation. 2. As MBIE has proposed, the regulations should be based on the Australian approach, which includes a presumption that asbestos is present in the built environment and therefore workplaces, and lowering the exposure limits which are out of line with international standards, and require more prescription in relation to removal work. 3. There should be mandatory licensing and training for those working with asbestos (both maintenance and demolition). 4. The distinction between friable and non-friable asbestos is unhelpful given the possible deterioration of previously non-friable asbestos. This should be removed. 5. A complete ban on the importation of asbestos-containing products should be implemented. 6. A National Plan to eliminate all asbestos-containing material from the built environment by 2030.

Notification and registers 7. All work with asbestos notifiable under workplace health and safety legislation. 8. The government should take urgent steps to implement a Health Surveillance scheme similar to that used in the United Kingdom for many years. This requires employers (or all persons conducting businesses or undertakings under the proposed law changes) to keep records of worker exposure to hazards such as asbestos for 40 years to allow tracking of long latency diseases such as those caused by asbestos exposure (see Part 26 of our submission on the Health and Safety Reform Bill). 9. All identified asbestos in Christchurch should be registered. If a building contains asbestos materials the priority should be to remove it. If asbestos is identified in a building it should be notified in LIM reports. 10. The National Asbestos Registers should be reinvigorated and improved including by making them compulsory. 11. Lung cancer should be registered and recorded in more detail. 12. There should be a system of notification by medical practitioners of all potential asbestos-related conditions/exposures including, lung cancer and pleural plaques [asbestosis and mesothelioma are currently recorded].

www.isn.co.nz

HAZMAT>>Asbestos

Unseen killer lurking in Canterbury following the earthquakes The Christchurch earthquake rebuild holds hidden dangers for both workers and the general public when it comes to asbestos, warns no less an authority than the province’s Medical Officer for Health

sbestos is not just an occupational health risk as there are circumstances where it can affect the general population, the New Zealand Ministry of Health Medical Officer for Canterbury, Dr Alistair Humphrey, told the 2014 NZ Respiratory Conference. The abundant, cheap, light, heat -resistant mineral that helps bind cement is found in countless applications in both work and domestic situations, which means that in the past many people unwittingly came into contact with asbestos on a daily basis , he says. “It was used in everything from asbestos cement products, roofing, cladding, pipes, insulation and boiler pipes to steel, brake linings and lino backing,” Dr Humphrey observes. “This means a wide cross-section of the workforce was exposed to asbestos, including construction workers, brake lining repairers, asbestos cement manufacturing workers, fitters, boilermen, plumbers and electricians.” Other groups primarily exposed to the mineral include ships’ engineers, customs inspectors (rummagers), bulk handlers such as waterside workers, asbestos removal workers, demolition workers, lino layers, home renovators and workers who install decorative ceilings. Secondary exposure has been shown to occur when clothes covered in dust were taken home by workers. There are well-documented cases of wives and daughters

washing those clothes and then developing asbestos-related lung disease,” Dr Humphrey adds. Asbestos is a health risk because the minute size of the particles – less than 10 micrometres – means they can be absorbed into the lung tissue if someone is exposed to a sufficient dose of concentrated asbestos dust – an obvious risk given the amount of demolition and rebuilding work taking place in Canterbury at present. Asbestos-related illness comes in several forms, including pleural plaques – changes in the linings of the lung leading to thickening, or discrete nodular lesions called plaques. “While these conditions indicate tissue damage, they are not normally associated with impairment of lung function or the presence of symptoms,” Dr Humphrey says. Asbestosis, meanwhile, is a response by the lung tissue to the inhalation of asbestos fibres. “In its pure manifestation scarring of the lung tissue develops over time, the lungs shrink as a result and lung function is impaired, with increasing shortness of breath.” Smoking risk Asbestos can also lead to lung cancer – where an asbestos worker smoked their risk of cancers was multiplied several times over. “As well as using appropriate protective equipment, one of the best ways you can protect yourself from asbestos-related lung disease is not to smoke,” Dr Humphrey says.

“However, recent studies have shown that it may carry a high risk for lung cancer. Basically all asbestos is dangerous, if you are exposed to it over months to years.” There is a national asbestos register in New Zealand which has been maintained for at least 30 years. The Asbestos Review Panel

Despite repeated requests EQC did not stop encasing damaged asbestos ceilings, which once covered with plasterboard became a risk for future home owners who would not necessarily know asbestos was there and inadvertently drill into their ceilings, releasing dust into their homes: MoH Medical Officer for Canterbury Dr Alistair Humphrey Finally, mesothelioma is a rapidly developing form of cancer which occurs to the lining of the lungs. “Both asbestos-related squamous cell carcinoma and mesothelioma have a long latent period, with the disease taking on average more than 40 years to appear,” says Dr Humphrey. “However, when mesothelioma appears progression is rapid with death usually occurring within five years. Once you are exposed, there is no preventive treatment.” There are three main types of asbestos – Chrysotile (white), Amosite (brown) or Crocidolite (blue). “Chrysotile used to be considered less dangerous because it was less likely to cause mesothelioma,” Dr Humphrey explains.

saw 1299 cases notified between March 1992 –July 2012 in the following categories: • 232 cases of mesothelioma • 124 cases of lung cancer • 294 cases of asbestosis • 649 cases of pleural abnormalities. In addition, the register shows that nearly all asbestos-related disease has been in tradesmen working with asbestos: • asbestos processors 7.5 percent • asbestos sprayers 4.5 percent • carpenters/builders 25 percent • electricians 7.5 percent • friction products 1 percent • others 9 percent • plumbers, laggers etc. 37 percent • watersiders 6.5 percent • no known exposure 1 percent • non-occupational 1 percent. The increasing dangers of asbestos-related illnesses becomes starkly clear when reviewing the national cancer figures for mesothelioma, which show a dramatic and continually escalating increase since the late 1980s when the mineral was beginning to be removed or replaced in many traditional applications. Recent figures show a slight tailing-off of the increase, “which is good news,” says Dr Humphrey.

Asbestos-related squamous cell carcinoma and mesothelioma have a long latent period, with the disease taking on average more than 40 years to appear - when mesothelioma appears progression is rapid with death usually occurring within five years

Nov/Dec – 2014

HAZMAT>>Asbestos

The minute size of the particles – less than 10 micrometres – makes asbestos an obvious health risk given the amount of demolition and rebuilding work taking place in Canterbury However, recent studies from Australia indicate an increase in DIYers and their families – after miners and tradesmen (the first and second “waves”). Third wave DIYers are the “third wave” of asbestos-related disease. Dr Humphrey cites the NSW Ombudsman’s 2010 report “Responding to the asbestos problem: the need for significant reform in NSW”, which stated “home renovators and innocent bystanders are now presenting with asbestos-related diseases and dying from mesothelioma.” More recently, a University of Western Australia reviewed the increasing incidence of malignant mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos during home maintenance and renovation. “It found that malignant mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos during home renovation is an increasing problem in Western Australia, and these cases seem to have a shorter latency period than other types of exposure,” Dr Humphrey explains. “It also said that malignant mesothelioma cases related to renovation will probably continue to increase because of the many homes that have contained, and still contain, asbestos building products.” The massive destruction wrought by the Canterbury earthquakes brought the issue firmly to the fore, with the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) raising concerns in May 2012 about the treatment of asbestos in houses during earthquake repairs. CDHB division Community and Public Health met with the Earthquake Commission (EQC) in August of that year and asked for a mora-

torium on encasement of damaged asbestos in houses and a thorough risk assessment of the process. “Despite repeated requests EQC did not stop encasing damaged asbestos ceilings, which once covered with plasterboard became a risk for future home owners who would not necessarily know asbestos was there and inadvertently drill into their ceilings, releasing dust into their homes,” Dr Humphrey notes. EQC at the time further stated that removal, encapsulation and sealing work was being carried out by “a person with a certificate of competence”, but this level of skill was not required under the Department of Labour guidelines at that time (these guidelines have now been revised by MBIE). There was therefore a financial incentive to cover, rather than remove asbestos – not only was the process easier, the labour was cheaper.

cate that the risk to people from asbestos dust outside is negligible to non-existent. However, it is important that all tradesmen working with asbestos follow the correct procedures for dealing with asbestos and Worksafe has been running education sessions to improve asbestos awareness among the rebuild workforce. In addition, an AsbestosAware programme has also recently been launched (www.asbestosaware.co.nz) to alert tradies and DIYers to the risk asbestos. “Asbestos ceilings should never have been encased, in my opinion, and it is a tragedy that EQC and other insurers failed to carry out proper risk assessments before working on so many homes,” Dr Humphrey says. Fudgy figures “While most would not present EQC was unclear about how many homes had asbestos repair work carried out. Initially it stated that 10 percent of 43,500 homes were damaged, 800 with asbestos damage and 297 with asbestos ceilings, about 30 of which were encased as of January 2013. “EQC then said in May 2013 that 47 percent of all homes tested were positive, following 5,060 requested tests,” Dr Humphrey adds. Ultimately, EQC admitted that it had not carried out any risk assessment of 35,000 homes and that about one quarter (9,000 or so) were likely to have had some form DIYers are the “third wave” of asbestos damage, nearly all of of asbestos-related disease home renovators and which would have been minor. innocent bystanders are now Data from the NZ Defence Force presenting with asbestosand research from the World Trade related diseases and dying Center collapse in New York indifrom mesothelioma

a problem, it is not unlikely that a few of the 9,000 with damaged asbestos-containing materials could still present a risk to a family where the dust was not cleaned up properly,” Dr Humphrey concludes. “If a family was exposed over a period of months or years this would put them at risk and this is not acceptable.” “Many Australian states have agreed to remove all asbestos where possible and removal is always the best option. This is certainly something we should be considering on this side of the Tasman. However, until all asbestos is removed we need to educate the public and tradespeople about the risks of asbestos and take proper precautionary measures when working on buildings.”

“Asbestos ceilings should never have been encased, in my opinion” says Dr Humphrey

www.isn.co.nz

FOCUS>>Asbestos and PPE

Yesterday’s building basic, today’s toxic terror

It’s been an extremely common material used throughout New Zealand workplaces and homes for decades but it’s only recently that the dangers of asbestos have begun to be fully appreciated

hoever would have thought all those years ago that one of the most common building materials in use at the time would also turn out to be one of the most dangerous? Asbestos seemed like the answer to a builder or home renovator’s dream: cheap, easy to handle, long lasting – in short, the ideal product. Unfortunately, like so many other things that are too good to be true, asbestos came with some hidden pitfalls that only become obvious as the years went by. It’s now known, of course, that asbestos is a potential killer if proper precautions aren’t taken when being handled. The good news is that while there may be asbestos -containing material (ACM) in the workplace, health risks only occur when this material becomes airborne and can be inhaled. The bad news is that significant health effects can arise from the inhalation of airborne fibres due to their effects on the lungs. Asbestos is very durable and chemically resistant – so the natural lung breakdown and clearance mechanisms do not work effectively. This means fibres can stay in the body for many years, causing damage before they are cleared from the lungs. The three major occupational lung diseases caused by inhalation of asbestos fibres are: • Asbestosis – sections of lung become fibrotic and are no longer able to absorb oxygen into the bloodstream • Lung cancer – can form in the lung structures • Pleural Mesothelioma – cancer of the linings of the lung that is closely associated with exposure to blue asbestos. Those at risk from asbestos exposure are those carrying out maintenance, repair or refurbish-

Nov/Dec – 2014

ment work or asbestos removal in buildings built or refurbished before 2002, for example builders, carpenters, plumbers, electricians and cable installers – although home renovators also have the potential to be exposed to asbestos when working on older homes. Industrial use of asbestos has basically ceased and other types of materials are now used as substitutes but unfortunately there remains a legacy of many tonnes of asbestos still in place in workplaces, buildings and homes across New Zealand – particularly

ed Work’ and must be completed by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Certified Asbestos Removal Contractors. Examples of restricted work include: • work involving asbestos, if the asbestos concerned is friable (easily crumbled) and is, or has been used in connection with lagging around boilers, ducts, furnaces or pipes, thermal or acoustic insulation, or fire protection in buildings • the demolition or maintenance of anything, including a building or

“The best solution to asbestos dust is a full-face reusable respirator with a high impact protection rating that will protect the eyes and the lungs” in Christchurch, where Fletcher Earthquake Recovery (EQR) is spearheading asbestos removal efforts. Asbestos cement products such as old fibro and cement pipes are everywhere and will not be removed in the foreseeable future but all workplaces should be inspected for asbestos and appropriate action taken according to WorkSafe guidelines. Anyone working around asbestos materials needs to be aware of the relevant information as it applies in their situation and should check out WorkSafe New Zealand’s Asbestos Toolkit, a series of eight factsheets that help assess the hazard of asbestos and provide options on how it can be safely managed. Handling and removal of asbestos-containing materials requires specialist skills and must only be undertaken by appropriately qualified personnel – respiratory protection is essential when working directly with asbestos. Fletcher EQR notes that certain types of asbestos work in New Zealand are classified as ‘Restrict-

part of a building containing friable asbestos • the encapsulation (spraying with a resin or bonding agent) or sealing of material containing friable asbestos • the use on asbestos cement or other bonded product containing asbestos of a power tool with any kind of cutting blade or abrasive device, except when used with high quality dust control equipment that eliminates all dust produced; or any other equipment the use of which may result in the release of asbestos dust except when it is used with high quality dust control equipment • dry sanding of floor coverings containing asbestos • removal of friable asbestos material. A Clearance Certificate must be obtained for all friable asbestos removal and interior asbestos sheeting removal (including plaster ceilings). Plaster (including lathe and plaster) is generally considered non-friable unless it is in very poor condition or severely damaged.

Repair strategies (other than destructive removal, raking or sanding) can be undertaken by general contractors as long as appropriate safety controls are implemented. These include: • a task analysis completed prior to commencement • the agreed methodology is followed • correct PPE is being used • all safety procedures are being followed to minimise risk of contamination • disposal of all waste in accordance with Labour Group Guidelines. Plaster ceilings may be enclosed (battened and lined) by general contractors as long as minimal damage is caused to the plaster during this process and full safety precautions are implemented. Other non-friable ACMs can be removed or repaired by general contractors as long as no asbestos dust or debris is present and the material is not broken or damaged during this process. Personal protection As a general guide, Fletcher EQR recommends the following PPE: Respiratory protective equipment – disposable half face-piece particulate or half face-piece particular filter (cartridge). Workers should select a make and size that fits them, but it should be noted that this equipment is not suitable for people with beards or stubble or for long periods of continuous use – powered equipment is then required for such situations. Overalls – disposable overalls should be worn with the legs over footwear, cuffs should be sealed with tape and the hood worn over the RPE straps. Gloves – single-use disposable gloves and if latex gloves must be used – use only ‘low protein powder-free’ gloves. Footwear – boots are preferable to disposable overshoes which cause a slipping risk but laced boots should never be used as they are very difficult to clean properly It’s vital that any tight-fitting respirator (either half face or full face) needs to fit the individual wearer – one size does not fit all and there is

too much variation in face size for one respirator size/model to get a suitable fit for every person. Users can get a suitable size by undergoing a fit test – a standard protocol where the fit of the selected respirator on the face of the individual is tested to determine if the fit is satisfactory and if not a different model or style of respirator should then be selected and tested. Fit testing must be carried out by a competent fit tester using one of two forms of fit testing: • Qualitative Fit Testing – used for testing the fit of half face respirators • Quantitative Fit Testing – used for testing the fit of full-face respirators which provide higher levels of protection, this type of testing uses specialised particle-counting equipment. Note also that all users of tight fitting respirators must be clean shaven at the beginning of the work shift – any facial hair that grows or is caught between the face seal of the respirator and the face will “support” the respirator off the face and can create significant leak paths and degraded

protection. The Australian/New Zealand standard AS/NZS1715:2009 “Selection Use & Maintenance of Respiratory Protective Devices” provides comprehensive details on fit testing and fitting of respirators. Seeing safety Work-related eye injuries remain an important problem among workers with most injuries involving foreign bodies on or in the eye, particularly the cornea. Asbestos fibres can cause eye irritation – like any particle, the more that gets into the eyes the more irritation will occur. The exposure is likely related to the type of tasks being undertaken and processes that can release particles, dusts and many fibres or bundles of fibres. It is not a common issue, but the needle-like structure of the asbestos fibres can even become lodged in the eye. While many eye injuries occur when individuals are not wearing any eye protection, surprisingly a considerable proportion of cases occur when some sort of protective eyewear is being worn. This supports the need to ensure

that the protective eyewear selected fits the individual wearer as well as possible – i.e. gaps between the frames and the face are minimised. Eyewear should be designed to hold securely to the wearer’s face and also provide medium impact protection. Tight-fitting goggles that seal directly onto the wearer’s face and fully protect the eyes are necessary for work where falling dust and debris are an issue. Perhaps the best solution to the problem of asbestos dust is a fullface reusable respirator with a high impact protection rating that will protect the eyes as well as the lungs. Decontamination Decontamination of all equipment including PPE used during asbestos-handling operations is critical to prevent any further fibre release and exposure. All respiratory equipment used for asbestos work needs to be properly inspected, discarded or cleaned and decontaminated after each use to remove any residual asbestos fibres – the cleaned units can then be stored, ready

for the next use. Certain PPE such as full-face respirators can be fully disassembled, cleaned and reassembled, ready for reuse. For light duty asbestos-related tasks, like inspection or working in areas adjacent to asbestos, some enclosed filters with hard external cases used for light duty asbestos-related tasks can be suitably wiped clean, stored and reused. Other filters, where the filter material is open and fibres can be disturbed and released, should be discarded in the asbestos waste stream after use. Other equipment such as some filters and disposable coveralls cannot be effectively decontaminated and must be disposed of appropriately, along with the other asbestos contaminated waste, to a suitable asbestos waste disposal facility. Normal work clothing can be very difficult to fully decontaminate and should be washed in an asbestos-specific cleaning facility. Disposable coveralls are used routinely across the asbestos industry.

www.isn.co.nz

FOCUS>>PPE certification

Product certification the key to improving workplace safety standards Employers and employers should both be looking at investing in PPE products that are fully certified rather than accepting equipment that simply meets relevant standards

afety & Apparel sales director Brendan Beadle says the new WorkSafe NZ regulations rightly put the onus on both the employer and employee to jointly assess risk. “PPE equipment has to meet AS/ NZ standards or ‘best practice’,” he explains. “However, we understand from the market, WorkSafe is also quite relaxed about meeting other international standards if products don’t comply with AS/NZ requirements.” He believes this approach may create “confusion” in the marketplace, particularly when there are suppliers and importers selling non-AS/NZ certified PPE products. “We therefore think both employers and employees, if they want to be sure, should be looking for products with standards certifica-

tion rather than just approval,” Mr Beadle maintains. “Anyone can state on their product that it is approved to the relevant standard, whatever that may be, but the proof is in the pudding – if you have certification to the relevant standard it provides protection for both employers and employees and therefore both parties should be asking to see the certification.” Both employers and employees are looking for guidance as the new legislation beds in, he believes, but this isn’t forthcoming in minute detail as the sheer size of the local safety industry means it’s almost impossible for all PPE products to be regulated immediately. “I therefore think part of a supplier’s job is education – to recommend that employers and

employees choose products that are certified rather than simply meeting the standard because if it is certified it’s an assurance that the product is going to be fit for purpose, to that relevant standard” Mr Beadle stresses. “Obviously they have to do their assessment as to whether they think the product is appropriate for their particular needs, but being provided with certification for a product or garment shouldn’t be an issue.” A striking example is the asbestos industry, particularly with the Christchurch rebuild and the ongoing refurbishment of buildings in Wellington. “That’s a really dangerous fibre and there are products available claiming to meet certification standards,” Mr Beadle observes.

But he maintains that sometimes the labelling is wrong, or products are certified under a generic brand name, which should be spotted by the quality assurance agency if the product is going to pass certification. “For the sake of a few dollars either way, why would you take a risk on a coverall for example in a critical area like that?” The same could be said for PPE safety eyewear. “There’s an AS/NZ standard so why wouldn’t customers look for that information on the frame so that they know that that factory has been certified to produce that product?” His company is therefore pushing for certification of all the products that it supplies. “We look at the AS/NZ standard and if there isn’t an AS/NZ standard for that particular product we will

See and be seen key to safety at night

Sponsored article

An innovative patented safety system that offers all the advantages of high-visibility workwear in low light conditions such as night time is being used by some of New Zealand’s leading companies

he LightKnight safety kit reduces danger dramatically by combining the company’s breakthrough armourglow kits with traditional hi-vis gear, enabling the wearer to be more visible from greater distances and wider angles and in more challenging weather conditions that any other retrofittable safety system. “LightKnight International has developed and patented a high tech controller and recharging system for self-illuminating hi-vis retrofits that can be applied to vests to be worn at night time by road workers, emergency and police, in mines and at airports,” says LightKnight International Ltd Director Mario Vulinovich. The NZLTA-approved system uses proven technology originally devel-

oped in the US for military night flying to provide a new standard in workplace safety that is highly visible in the day but also provides “active lighting” so that vests illuminates at night. “The LightKnight’s lighting is generated by radio frequency instead of conventional incandescent light so that the generated spectrum beam is visible in its original form through fog, smoke, and rain, enabling the user to be accurately determined in any weather condition as the beam of light doesn’t scatter,” Mr Vulinovich explains. Other key advantages of the LightKnight Safety Kit include: • interchangeable between work gear for longer life and greater savings • easy to use – one size fits all

• designed for extreme performance • bright, self-illuminating armourglow panels • 16+ hours long-life performance • smart charging fast recharge time • visible from all angles • usable in all weather conditions • dual modes • flashing – constantly on • built-in audio and visual battery warnings LightKnight International’s LightKnight System has been specifically designed to serve industrial needs and solve existing problems such as: • the high level of fatalities among the people working in the industries that are often forced to operate in low-visibility environment – for example, construction,

emergency, night workers, forklift drivers and roading • the low level of protection for users of conventional reflective vests, relying on external light sources • lack of warnings, and low adoptability of current technology – a worker is killed every eight hours in on a highway construction work zone in the US • 20 percent of fatal injuries in New Zealand from 2006-2009 were caused by someone being hit by a moving object. Shortlisted in the prestigious 3M Traffic Safety Innovation Award 2013, the LightKnight safety kit is used by several leading New Zealand and international companies.

FIND US ON FACEBOOK Tel (09) 5700825 • email info@lightknight.com 12

Nov/Dec – 2014

www.lightkni

FOCUS>>PPE certification look at best practice,” Mr Beadle explains. He concedes, however, that there are some employers who simply want a basic product to get the job done but believes the new legislation will change their thinking. “The very nature of saying to employers that they have a direct responsibility now in the welfare of their employees is going to be a bit of a wake-up call for some companies and remind them that they just can’t take those shortcuts anymore,” Mr Beadle predicts. That said, the “vast majority of employers” do want to protect their employees. “There’s plenty of choice in the market today so I don’t think there are any excuses for anyone to say they were ignorant of what is needed,” he says. “Most employers would be surprised to learn that certified products needn’t cost more than approved-only products.” There has, however, been a subtle change taking place over the past few years as more companies

become aware of safety requirements and more willing to accept the expertise of safety specialists. “It isn’t always about adding costs to get compliant products fit for purpose – working with safety specialists will ensure that the employer is getting the right product at the right cost, the right certification level and when they want it.” Some organisations are obviously already very proactive with safety committees and in-house or consultant safety advisers, a trend which Mr Beadle welcomes and foresees continuing with increased participation under the new legislation. “There’s recognition that safety is a two-way street involving both employer and employee,” he says. “If an employee is uncomfortable about a particular PPE product, most employers would encourage them to voice their concern’s through this process.” This increasing awareness of, and determination to meet, safety standards has, in turn, boosted PPE

The cost-cutting mentality of many of the remaining short-circuit specialists will “hopefully” change with the new, stricter WorkSafe NZ legislation

product sales. “We’ve certainly seen quite a big growth over the last five years in hi-vis apparel – the visibility factor on site has clearly and rightly become a more important part of the safety culture and that growth will continue,” Mr Beadle predicts. Another area where he is anticipating increased activity as a result of the new legislation is items like respirators, which under the standard should be fit-tested annually or where there has been a change in the employee’s physical features. “Certainly around making sure that once the product is on site that it’s still fit for purpose, providing surety for both employee and employer,” he adds. It will no longer be acceptable to buy a harness, use it once and then dump it in the truck to bring it out 10 months later to use again. “That will all change and employers and employees will take better care and maintain their equipment to standards guidelines and requirements so that it’s ready to go next time,” Mr Beadle believes. “There’ll be more awareness of the care factor and the responsibility to maintain equipment properly.” As for hot topics such as asbestos, he thinks there is a lot that New Zealand can learn from Australia with regard to safety. “It has been somewhat of an El Dorado to date, but the people that are taking short circuits are steadily being weeded out,” Mr Beadle claims. The cost-cutting mentality of many of the remaining short-circuit specialists will “hopefully” change with the new, stricter WorkSafe NZ legislation, although he has noticed that New Zealand companies overall have become more aware of the AS/ NZ standards in general and certification in particular. “This has probably been driven by

“There’s plenty of choice in the market today so I don’t think there are any excuses for anyone to say they were ignorant of what is needed. Most employers would be surprised to learn that certified products needn’t cost more than approved-only products” – Safety & Apparel Sales Director Brendan Beadle the multinational companies that have come to New Zealand and brought that ethos and ethic with them, which in turn has helped sub-contractors look at the way they handle health and safety issues and that is becoming ingrained in the local safety culture.” Australia is, he thinks, more aligned to looking at the AS/NZ standard through the lens of risk management. “I think we’re in a situation now where we are catching up and becoming more educated about that sort of system – which can only be good in the long run.” He believes there’s a “real desire” to make the local workplace safer and that has to a certain extent been led by the new legislation. “But I also believe that employers, employees and safety specialists all have to work together and strive to ensure that we have the safest workplaces possible,” Mr Beadle concludes.

www.isn.co.nz

FOCUS>>PPE eye protection

The eyes have it when it comes to workplace safety Eye injuries in the workplace are unfortunately extremely common but the right protection can lessen the severity or even prevent many of these injuries

any workers still don’t recognise the dangers of not wearing proper safety eyewear despite the ever-increasing number of accidents every year. Common eye injuries at work can result from chemicals, foreign objects in the eye, cuts or scrapes on the cornea, splashes with grease and oil, burns from steam, ultraviolet or infrared radiation exposure, and flying wood or metal chips. In addition, health care workers, laboratory and janitorial staff, and other workers may be at risk of acquiring infectious diseases that can be transmitted through the mucous membranes of the eye as a result of direct exposure to blood splash-

es, respiratory droplets generated during coughing, or from touching the eyes with contaminated fingers or other objects. Potential eye hazards against which protection is needed in the workplace are: • projectiles such as dust, concrete, metal, wood and other particles • chemicals - splashes and fumes • radiation - especially visible light, ultraviolet radiation, heat or infrared radiation, and lasers • blood-borne pathogens (hepatitis or HIV) from blood and body fluids Some working conditions include multiple eye hazards and proper eye protection should take all hazards into account.

ESSENTIAL EYE PROTECTION MADE EASY. All of our products are certified to meet or exceed the new ANSI Z87.1-2010 testing for occupational eyewear bringing industries into compliance with OSHA regulations. Eyepro source through Essilor for some Prescription Safety Eyewear. Essilor also partners with the top safety frame manufacturers with lines from 3M, Uvex/Titmus, OnGuard, Hudson Optical, and ARMOURx. With discomfort as the chief cause of PPE non-compliance and workers complaining that their safety glasses were too hot, fit poorly, or were unattractive-looking; Eyepro Prescription Safety Eyewear offers safety eyewear to accommodate everyone’s needs.

0508 393 776 14

Nov/Dec – 2014

The best methods of eye protection differ for each type of hazard and the protector must be matched to the potential hazard. High-risk occupations for eye injuries include construction, manufacturing, mining, carpentry, auto repair, electrical work, plumbing, welding and maintenance. The type of safety eye protection wear depends on the workplace hazards. Particles, flying objects, or dust hazards require safety glasses with side protection (side shields). For chemicals use goggles and for hazardous radiation such as welding, lasers or fibre optics there are special-purpose safety glasses, goggles, face shields or helmets. In addition, employers need to make the work environment as safe as possible. This includes conducting an eye hazard assessment of the workplace, removing or reducing eye hazards where possible and providing appropriate safety eyewear and requiring employees to wear it. Selecting and providing protective eyewear appropriate for a given task should then be made based on the hazard assessment of each activity. Types of eye protection include non-prescription and prescription safety glasses. Although some safety glasses may look like normal dress eyewear, they are designed to provide significantly more eye protection and have lenses and frames that are much stronger than regular eyeglasses. Safety glasses provide eye protection for general working conditions where there may be dust, chips or flying particles – additional side protection can be provided by the use of side shields and wraparound-style safety glasses. Safety lenses are available in glass, plastic, polycarbonate and Trivex materials, with polycarbonate lenses providing the highest level of protection from impact.

The shield provided by goggles protects eyes from chemical splashes and ocular exposure to blood-borne pathogens. Goggles provide impact, dust and chemical splash protection, are highly impact resistant, securely shield the entire eye and protect against hazards coming from any direction. They can also be worn over prescription glasses and contact lenses to provide protection from flying objects and chemical splashes and in dusty environments. Full face shields protect workers exposed to chemicals, heat, or blood-borne pathogens, while helmets are used for welding or working with molten materials. However, face shields and helmets should not be used as the sole means of protective eyewear and need to be used in conjunction with safety glasses or goggles that provide added protection when the shield is lifted. Other types of protection, such as helmets or goggles with special filters to protect the eyes from optical radiation exposure, should be used for tasks such as welding or working with lasers. Safety glasses should fit properly to ensure adequate protection and should be properly maintained as scratched and dirty devices reduce vision, cause glare and may contribute to accidents. Combined with machine guards, screened or divided work stations, and other engineering controls, using the correct protective eyewear can help keep workers safe from any type of eye hazard. However, contact lenses can’t provide significant protection from workplace eye hazards, although the improved vision many users experience can have a positive impact on workplace safety. Individuals who wear contact lenses usually obtain a wider field of vision than with eyeglasses and often have less visual distortion, especially with higher power lens prescriptions. In addition, wearing contact lenses instead of eyeglasses can provide a better, more comfortable fit of eye safety equipment such as goggles and full face respirators.

FOCUS>>PPE at height Sponsored article

Mobile Elevated Work Platforms The new Best Practice Guidelines (BPG) for Mobile Elevated Work Platforms were released in August

obile Elevated Work Platforms (MEWPs) have become an integral means of managing the risk at height. Used correctly MEWPs provide simple and safe height access solutions for hard-to-reach places where scaffolding and rope access can be difficult, laborious and time consuming to set up. MEWPs are incredibly useful if used correctly, but don’t forget that they are complex pieces of equipment, and if not used correctly they certainly have the potential to cause serious harm. The guidelines have been developed in order to outline the safe work practices surrounding the use and maintenance of MEWPs, while taking account of legislative requirements. Use of harness systems It is a mandatory requirement to wear an approved fall arrest harness and lanyard when operating a boom type MEWP. For scissor lift MEWPs the BPG states that “before starting work a hazard assessment should be completed to decide whether a harness system will be needed to complete the job safely”. The manufacturer’s instructions should also be followed. When deciding if a safety harness is needed, operators must consider factors such as the size and type of scissor lift, the maximum side force the scissor lift is rated to i.e. If a harnessed worker falls from the platform, will the machine tip over?, specific site hazards and requirements, and the availability of certified anchor points on the scissor lift. Operators in boom type MEWPs must wear a safety harness with a lanyard – fitted with a short energy absorber or self-retracting lifeline (SRL). The harness must be at-

tached to a certified anchor point. If using an adjustable lanyard, make it as short as practical to keep the operator inside the platform. Select a lanyard length based on the size of the platform of the MEWP being used. Competency requirements Where a harness is required, MEWP operators “must be competent in how to wear, use and secure it”. A “recommended” means of demonstrating competence when using harness systems is the NZQA Unit Standard 23229 – Use a Safety Harness for Personal Fall Prevention When Working at Height. The BPG states that operators must get training on the type of EWP that they are going to use and that operators require regular refresher training in order to remain competent. The length between training sessions should not exceed three years. An MEWP operator must also be able to demonstrate that they have the knowledge and skills needed to complete an effective hazard assessment in their operating location. One of the ways to achieve competency is to complete the current recommended NZQA unit standards for operating MEWPs which are: • Unit Standard 23966v1: Describe Types of Elevating Work Platforms (EWPs) and Legislative Requirements For Their Use (Note: People need to do this unit standard before unit standards 23960 through 23964) • Unit Standard 23960v1: Assess the Worksite, Prepare and Operate a Scissor Lift Elevating Work Platform (EWP) • Unit Standard 23961v1: Assess the Worksite, Prepare and Operate a Truck Mounted Elevating

Free Phone: 0800 72 33 848 Email: info@verticalhorizonz.co.nz

Work Platform (EWP) • Unit Standard 23962v1: Assess the Worksite, Prepare and Operate a Self-Propelled Boom Lift Elevating Work Platform (EWP) • Unit Standard 23963v1: Assess the Worksite, Prepare and Operate a Trailer Mounted Elevating Work Platform (EWP) • Unit Standard 23964v1: Assess the Worksite, Prepare and Operate a Vertical Lift Elevating Work Platform (EWP) • Unit Standard 17259: Operate an Elevated Work Platform Vehicle for Arboriculture. Vertical Horizonz delivers MEWP industry training courses that meet both New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA) requirements and internationally recognised Australian standards. Our data from client feedback tells us that this training makes a positive difference to the way MEWPs are used, enabling our clients to get more benefit from their equipment

without compromising safety. While delivering this training, we have identified some common safety issues that are being overlooked; we often find that trainees are not carrying out the basic prechecks to ensure the machine is suitable and mechanically sound to complete the task. Recent incidents have shown that some operators rely on hire companies to carry out the required pre use checks. While this is something that a hire company should be doing, operators should also perform their own pre-operation checks in order to mitigate any residual mechanical risk. If you need any advice in this area or would like to enquire about how Vertical Horizonz can assist with your training needs please email info@verticalhorizonz. co.nz

FOCUS>>PPE asbestos Sponsored article

Dangerous dust demands careful handling with special equipment Industrial use of asbestos has diminished considerably in the last 15-20 years, but it is still prevalent throughout New Zealand and must be handled with extreme care 3M Senior Occupational Hygienist Terry Gorman advises

he amount of asbestos exposed as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes is “unprecedented” according to no less an authority than the region’s medical officer of health. The number of late 20th century buildings being demolished or repaired in Christchurch following the earthquakes is unprecedented in New Zealand and on a scale rarely seen anywhere in the world, says Dr Alastair Humphrey. This issue is not limited to Christchurch, however, as many older buildings in other areas of the country also contain asbestos in some form or another, and that will have to be removed sooner or later. Currently New Zealand has a ban on importation of raw asbestos (blue and brown banned in 1984 and white in 2002) but not on imported goods containing asbestos as long as these are labelled. There is no routine testing of imported goods at New Zealand ports. Other types of materials are now used as substitutes but there remains a legacy of many tonnes of asbestos still in place in workplaces, buildings and homes across the country. Asbestos cement products such as old fibro or cement pipes are everywhere and will not be removed in the foreseeable future. All workplaces should be inspected for asbestos and appropriate action taken according to relevant government regulations and guidelines. The major sources of exposure to asbestos are older buildings with insulated reticulated service, infrastructure undergoing renovation or demolition where maintenance and demolition workers are employed. Exposure to airborne asbestos fibres occurs primarily during dust-forming operations such as manual handling, sawing, sanding, grinding, drilling and other activi-

Nov/Dec – 2014

duced where workers are exposed to airborne asbestos. Different levels of exposure require different levels of respiratory protection. 3M offers two positive pressure and two negative pressure respiratory kits, allowing for a convenient respiratory solution for most tasks involving asbestos. Eye and body protection Asbestos can irritate the eyes like any foreign body or dust particle.

Proper asbestos application, removal and disposal is a job for properly equipped specialists ties involving asbestos-containing material. Workers most at risk from asbestos exposure are those carrying out maintenance, repair or refurbishment work or asbestos removal in buildings, including factories built or refurbished before 2002 - for example, carpenters, plumbers, electricians and cable installers. Home renovators also have the potential to be exposed to asbestos when working on older homes. Persons involved in asbestos work or even in working around asbestos materials need to be aware of the relevant information as it applies in their situation. Worksafe NZ Authority has regulations and guidance material relating to the identification, monitoring and safe removal of asbestos, including New Zealand Guidelines for the management and removal of asbestos- 3rd edition, and Personal protective equipment to use when working with asbestos. asbestos should only be removed by suitably trained and certified workers. There are asbestos removal companies that have the

equipment, expertise and certification to perform asbestos removal work. Respiratory hazards When asbestos is mined or processed or when asbestos-based products are sanded, sawn or drilled, it can form a fine airborne dust made up of tiny fibres. These fibres are easily breathed into the lungs where they can become embedded. Due to their small size and elongated shape, these fibres can resist the lungs’ natural cleaning process and may cause serious health problems in later years. There are different types of respiratory protection solutions for the various types of asbestos-handling work. Selection of the appropriate respiratory protection solution is critical in achieving suitable level of protection from airborne asbestos fibres. In addition, a Respiratory Protection program created in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1715:2009 Selection Use & Maintenance of Respiratory Protective Devices should be intro-

The level of irritation can be minimal to extreme depending upon the amount of asbestos that enters the eye. In addition, though not common, asbestos particles can penetrate and become lodged inside the eye. To protect eyes from falling or flying debris, safety eyewear such as 3M SecureFit 200 Series Safety Glasses should be used when removing and demolishing materials, especially from overhead installations or when using wire brushes to clean surfaces. Eyewear is also recommended during floor tile removal. Protection is needed from head to toe to avoid being exposed to the harmful asbestos fibres. 3M offers two disposable coveralls that are suitable for asbestos inspection and removal – the five-layered, breathable and lightweight, 4520 and the high-visibility, orange-coloured 4515 model. More information and assistance with various aspects of asbestos removal, including the selection of suitable respiratory protection can be found by calling the 3M TechAssist Helpline on 0800 364 357. Or visit 3m.com/nz/ ppeasbestos. Terry Gorman is Senior Occupational Hygienist at 3M

FOCUS>>PPE footwear Sponsored article

Getting on the right foot when it comes to safety footwear Many workers don’t appreciate the importance of safety footwear and often choose sub-par work boots. But selecting comfortable gear needn’t be a daunting task

hoosing the right safety footwear is a simple matter of following a few basic guidelines to ensure the correct choice for the job. First, check whether the job has any specific safety gear requirements – for example, working on the factory floor will demand stronger footwear than sitting at a desk. Second, choose from steel, composite or aluminium protective toes – though this may come down to comfort and preference as well as need. The traditional choice for protective toecaps, steel toes are heaviest and most compact but conduct temperature more than alternative safety options.

Aluminium toecaps offer another choice for lightweight protection – thicker than steel toes, they provide a great option for workers looking for the most lightweight choice in footwear. Composite toecaps are typically comprised of carbon fibre, plastic, or Kevlar – lighter than steel toes but the thickest option for a safety toe, they don’t transfer cold or heat. Having chosen the right toe protection, the next question is whether or not to invest in metatarsal guards. Work boots with metatarsal guards help protect the upper foot and toe area from heavy falling objects and are also useful for welders or in environments with falling embers or hot materials.

Soles are another important element to consider, with the long-wearing, slip-resistant outsoles that offer added protection an increasingly popular choice for most industrial situations. Then there is fit: at the end of the day and regardless of the job footwear needs to be comfortable as well as safe. That’s why it’s always worth choosing flexible, cushioned insoles for ultimate comfort, dual-density memory foam for stabilisation. Flexible, cushioned insoles will still allow freedom of movement and waterproof construction that ensures feet stay dry no matter the weather conditions. Check that the instep fits snug but not tight - if the instep is too

loose there’ll be excessive slipping in the heel, and if it’s too tight it could cause heel and toe pain. The ball of the foot should rest on the ball of the boot – if it’s too short, the ball of the foot will sit too far forward and force the toes into the toe box, causing pain. There might also be slight slippage in the heel with a new pair of boots, but as they are broken in the sole will flex and most of the slippage will disappear with time. Take time to try on several pairs of safety footwear to ensure that the toe box isn’t causing discomfort that can ultimately lead to in-grown toenails, blisters or corns. Remember also that a leather boot will stretch as it conforms to the shape of the foot but a steel toecap won’t, so don’t buy a pair of safety-toe boots thinking they will eventually stretch and become more comfortable. Finally, it’s extremely important to choose the right size in order to feel comfortable all day long, so don’t hesitate to invest in a wider width boot if it feels too snug.

BATA Company New Zealand Ltd 3 Bata Place, Owhiro Bay, Wellington, New Zealand. Phone: 0800 658 068 Email: orders@batashoes.co.nz www.bataindustrials.com

For ISO; Quality endorsed company. ISO 20345:2004, MOD Standards New Zealand.

www.isn.co.nz

For New Zealand Standards; AS/NZS 2210.3:2009, BMP 544006 ID No. 5010 Australian/New Zealand Standards.

FOCUS>>PPE height safety Sponsored article

High fliers keep their feet on the ground Falls from height cost five lives and countless million dollars in injuries last year alone, dramatically underlining the need for safety gear that meets relevant standards

hoosing personal protective equipment for working at heights comes down to more than cost and meeting relevant legislative guidelines. The best and safest equipment meets the Australian and New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) developed by Standards Australia in conjunction with representatives from industry, government, the public, and academia. This standard sets out in writing minimum requirements for a safety product, allowing businesses, safety managers, and workers to be confident that they are using the correct equipment for the task they are performing. The following standards are relevant for various applications relating to fall protection: • AS/NZS 1891.1 2007 – for harnesses and ancillary equipment, such as the AirCore and Revolution harnesses • AS/NZS 1891.3 1997 – for fall arrest devices such as the TurboLite and Falcon • AS 1657 2013 – for fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders. Design, construction and installation • AS/NZS 5532 2013 – Manufacturing requirements for single-point anchor devices used for harness-based work at height • AS/NZS 1891.4 2009 – for selecting, using, and maintaining industrial fall arrest systems: this standard provides guidance in developing a risk assessment programme for working at height • AS/NZS 4488 – for industrial rope access systems. Honeywell Safety Products actively participate in shaping the New Zealand and Australian Standards for PPE, which offers its staff an ideal opportunity to develop relevant equipment that meets the

Nov/Dec – 2014

standards’ specifications. Miller by Honeywell harnesses and lanyards are manufactured in Victoria, and are independently certified for compliance with AS/ NZS 1891.1 2007 by SAI Global through a rigorous testing process. For example, in order to simulate seven workers falling consecutively while using the Söll Xenon 2.0 horizontal lifeline system, it underwent a multiple fall test – a test mass of 200 kilograms representing two workers was dropped, followed by five more masses of 100 kilograms each, representing five more workers falling in turn. An additional mass of 650 kilograms was added to the load for three minutes to demonstrate the effectiveness of Miller Force-Dis-

lower obstacle and will be able to be rescued or lowered to safety quickly in the event of a fall • certain workplaces may require particular features like sharp edge rated ropes and webbing, which are also tested: for example, sharp edge rope should endure a weight of 100 kilograms attached to it and dropped from a height of two metres over a steel edge with a radius of half a millimetre before it is considered fit for use. Standards-compliant PPE are designed to function correctly within their operating specifications when undamaged but they may not operate adequately if they aren’t checked and maintained by regular inspections carried out with reference to AS/NZS 1891.4 2009. Basic checks that Honeywell recommends that workers should carry out before every fall protection PPE include: • ensure that all labels, serial numbers, and inspection and withdrawal dates are visible, and that the PPE is currently suitable for use – it is also important to

“Reputable suppliers of PPE provide a full range of standards-compliant fall protection products” persal Technology in preventing both personal injury and structural damage resulting from a fall from height. The PPE resulting from tests such as these is manufactured in accordance with the ISO 9001 international standards for quality management systems to ensure consistency in delivering a quality and standards-compliant product. There are a number of important characteristics that are tested as part of standards compliance certification for fall protection equipment: • the maximum allowable free fall before PPE safely arrests a person’s fall is two metres • fall clearances must be appropriate, per the requirements set out in AS/NZS 1891.4 2009, for the particular work application and working environment so that workers will not strike a

check that the standards compliance mark is present • check for physical damage to the harness and lanyard webbing – PPE that may have been exposed to corrosive materials, excessive heat, or hardware damage, could render them unfit for use • make sure that ropes and webbing are not frayed or cut, remove and destroy damaged webbing and ropes, check harness and lanyard hardware such as snap hooks and d-rings to ensure they are not deformed or corroded and replace them if they are worn • inspect the sewing patterns for breakage and wear – if unauthorised repairs have been made, the equipment should be immediately removed from service. Once PPE has passed this brief inspection, it is likely ready for use within the parameters of the

Miller by Honeywell harnesses and lanyards are certified for compliance with AS/NZS 1891.1 2007 by SAI Global through a rigorous testing process relevant New Zealand and Australian Standard that is necessary to ensure that workers are adequately protected. Reputable suppliers of PPE such as Honeywell provide a full range of standards-compliant fall protection products, so that employers and safety managers can be assured that workers are protected at height with PPE suitable for the job. The consequences of using inadequate and non-standards compliant PPE can be tragic: research conducted on behalf of Honeywell Safety Products in the US found that nearly 85 percent of fall protection products being used in the construction industry were not in compliance with the relevant standards due to misuse, inadequate maintenance, or damage. This worrying statistic almost undoubtedly contributed to the over 600 deaths that occur due to falls from height in the US each year and the problem is universal, underlining the importance of employers taking responsibility for ensuring that PPE is used and maintained correctly. Safety is a joint effort involving suppliers of standards-compliant PPE, employers, and workers.

PPE Sponsored article

Lynn River leads the way in cut resistance Lynn River is widely regarded as New Zealand’s hand protection specialist and is dedicated to supporting the education of health and safety professionals, procurement managers and wearers alike about the importance of specifying the correct hand protection for the various tasks encountered. This approach has seen our customers rewarded in many ways, not least by a reduction in hand related injuries Leather gloves have for many years been the standard form of hand protection for medium to heavy duty jobs. As years have passed, innovations in both yarn and glove manufacturing mean that gloves have become better fitting, which in turn contributes to improved productivity and a reduction in hand injuries. A growing trend that Lynn River has noticed over the past year has been the increase in enquiries about solutions for cut protection in gloves. Lynn River has a wide range of cut resistant glove available including the innovative Showa S-Tex range. Showa’s impressive pedigree of product innovations continues with the introduction of their high performing S-TEXTM range. This range of gloves

features state of the art, patented Hagane Coil™ fibre technology. The liner of Showa S-Tex gloves is manufactured using strands of Hagane stainless steel – the same steel used for making the Japanese Samurai swords. The strands of steel are wrapped within the yarn to provide high levels of cut resistance while also maximising wearer comfort. Combined with either a latex (S-TexTM 300) or nitrile (S-TexTM 350) palm coating, the S-TEX range provides outstanding levels of grip and allows workers to perform detailed tasks with ease. The result is excellent protection against cuts and lacerations with unmatched comfort and dexterity. Recommended uses for these gloves include construction, glass industry, refuse and recycling. For more information on the Showa S-Tex range and product assessment contact your safety provider or Showa stockist.

www.lynnriver.co.nz

Or The igi na l

S-TEX 300 L a t e x

Provides outstanding wet and dry grip, excellent resistance to abrasion, cuts and tears.

Premium Quality

Both gloves use patented Hagane Coil technology. Cut protection level 4. Comfortable

S-TEX 350 N i t r i l e

Provides Excellent protection against hazardous chemicals, oils, solvents and animal fats.

Durable

Machine Washable

For more information and product assessment, contact your safety provider or Showa stockist. www.lynnriver.co.nz

www.isn.co.nz

COMMENT>>HAZMAT by Barry Dyer

No respite from HSNO A new Minister and a restructured Select Committee indicates the April 2015 target for the introduction of new workplace health and safety legislation is looking more like third quarter 2015

his in turn means compliance obligations with our ageing Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) chemical management regime will continue as is, for at least the next couple of years. For business operators, specifically the thousands of SMEs which are not captured by the HSNO thresholds, safely managing the chemicals and chemical products on site remain under the generic workplace health and safety ‘best practice’ requirements. These include: • maintaining an accurate chemical inventory as part of the Site Hazard Register • having HSNO-compliant Safety Data Sheets • training staff involved with chemicals • providing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) • ensuring site signage is compliant • ensuring emergency preparedness includes planning for a chemical incident. Sites with extensive chemical inventories beyond HSNO thresholds will continue to require test certificates, Approved Handlers and in some examples, a Safety Case to satisfy the upcoming requirements of the Major Hazards Facility division of WorkSafe NZ. Employers may be tempted to renew five year Approved Handler certification online in accordance with the Hazardous Substances Regulations 2001. Common sense will hopefully prevail as Approved Handlers must clearly be assessed as competent to carry out their chemical related duties. A competent Approved Handler (AH) is a valuable and immediate source of HSNO compliance advice, supported by the chemical supplier’s compliant safety data sheet. They need to be trained and assessed in practice as well as theory. The EPA intends to police Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and product

labels. Ensure your SDS are compliant by checking: • the supplier’s New Zealand contact information, particularly who to call during an incident • the HSNO Classification is included in Section 2 (and usefully in the top right hand corner of the first page) • accurate disposal instructions are provided, not the traditional (and non-compliant) ‘dispose of in accordance with local requirements’ • the SDS is not more than 5 years old. • the Hazardous Substances Approval number and title is in Section 15. The requirement for a 24/7 emergency contact number can be fulfilled by the popular RCNZ 0800 CHEMCALL® Emergency Response Advisory service. The long-awaited HSNO review will begin with the release of a consultation document proposing the changes to the HSNO Classification System, SDS, labels and packaging. Changes incorporate overdue international developments, including switching to the UN GHS numbering system, within the next couple of years. This will further encourage offshore chemical suppliers to recognise New Zealand’s safe chemical management requirements in their SDS and product labels. Ongoing debate and turbulence regarding the new workplace health and safety regime and legislation should not affect your HSNO compliance efforts. The requirements are well known, and for most businesses readily implemented. Chemical suppliers will provide compliant SDS and contribute both compliance advice and sometimes training, helping your staff to safely handle their products. Advice for employers committed to ‘doing the right thing’ by safely managing chemicals throughout their operations is readily available from Responsible Care NZ and your local WorkSafe NZ Inspector.

Your Christmas present to your staff, your local community and our environment could be demonstrating a responsible and proactive approach to chemical safety through HSNO compliance. Start with compliant SDS and labels. If they are not compliant, tell us and your supplier. If they are, we can all relax and look forward to our summer holiday. Endangered species? Included in the Cabinet Papers describing new workplace health and safety legislation is the extinction of the HSNO Approved Handler (AH) requirement. It seems the responsibilities of this elite group of chemical handlers are to be added to the rapidly expanding role of the Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) in the guise of existing training obligations. The primary justification for this far-reaching decision appears to be criticism of the poorly implemented HSNO test certification system, which requires specially trained workers handling and using chemicals to be competent in the role. Their expertise is presently recognised by the AH qualification which must be renewed every five years. Responsible Care NZ is a constructive critic of the execution of the sound and pragmatic HSNO certification regime – an erratic chemical safety training, certification and supervision requirement, affecting thousands of workers and their employers. Committed to the global chemical industry’s renowned Responsible Care® health and safety protection initiative, chemical suppliers set very high standards in producing and managing their products throughout their life cycle. A critical element of this strategy is to ensure those using the product are competent to do so. In the workplace, the AH carries much of this responsibility. The AH qualification requires thorough training focused on the chemical categories involved, particularly the candidate’s ability to correctly apply their knowledge to their workplace activities. Flawed

legislation allows the renewal of AH certificates online, affording no credibility for those who choose to exploit this loophole. Implementation of the sensible AH concept is handicapped by too many inadequately trained individuals, the result of credible Unit Standards and non-certified trainers delivering generic courses which fail to recognise individual performance requirements. Relying on theory without practical demonstration exacerbates the ‘remote renewal’ fiasco by not satisfying the duty of care obligation. Opinions about retaining the AH qualification vary, despite general agreement employers need competent employees safely carrying out their tasks. Onsite AHs offer an employer immediate access to basic chemical safety advice, particularly in responding to a chemical incident. They should be identifiable and respected for their expertise and significant contribution to workplace health and safety. Competent AH are helping to safeguard people and our environment from harm by safely managing the chemicals present in every workplace. Their role is critical. Barry Dyer is the Chief Executive of Responsible Care NZ, which provides practical products and services to enable compliance with New Zealand’s world-class chemical management regime. Tel: +644 499 4311, email: info@ responsiblecarenz.com, visit: www.responsiblecarenz.com

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY

Nov/Dec – 2014

ENVIRONMENT>>Forestry

Flying the forestry FLAG

Forestry review plants safety seeds but stresses all parties must work together to make them grow

everal sweeping proposals have been recommended by the independent panel appointed to reduce the appalling death and injury rate that has made forestry the country’s most dangerous industry The Independent Forestry Safety Review panel has recommended a comprehensive three-year action plan to drive sorely needed safety improvements in an industry that saw 10 deaths last year alone. The core of the plan is the development of a Forestry Leadership Action Group (FLAG) made up of government, industry, workers and their representatives to oversee the delivery of a Forestry Sector Health and Safety Action Plan that will implement the recommendations in the panel’s Final Report. These recommendations include: • a charter or pledge for industry leaders to commit to specific actions for change now and into the future and tools and resources to support the development of safety leadership capabilities – this should be specifically detailed and implemented within six months to provide a benchmark for organisations and individuals • developing effective worker participation and representation schemes and a network of trained worker representatives for the forestry industry • a review of the Approved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forestry Operations and regulations that set out the competency standards required for safety-critical roles – including establishing clear and consistent standards for risk identification, assessment and management; the design, testing, modification and maintenance of equipment and machinery; and competency standards for high hazard and safety-critical roles as well as training, supervising and assessing competence • FLAG working with the sector to

develop a three-year timetable for an industry-led contractor certification scheme and supporting systems to recognise those that meet health and safety and employment obligations • an enhanced approach to data collection and evaluation and information sharing across the sector so that data and accident investigation information is shared and change can be evaluated – FLAG should work to ensure that information about near-misses, serious harm and fatalities is shared in a meaningful and timely way and overcome the current lack of robust and consistent data. The Review Panel also recommends that WorkSafe: • enhance its workplace assessments and investigations to look at all underlying factors contributing to serious injuries and fatalities on the forest block • review its memorandum of understanding with the New Zealand Police so that investigations are undertaken to an agreed standard that will enable prosecutions to progress if appropriate • develop a communication policy for engaging with victims, families, workers, crew and industry when an accident occurs and during the investigation and prosecution phase. Everyone’s problem The panel stresses that health and safety failures in forestry are not simply those of the worker, but of the crew boss, the forestry contractor and the forest owner, manager or marketer. “The failures extend all the way up the supply chain,” the panel maintains. “This is why a Forestry Leaders Action Group and Forestry Sector Health and Safety Action Plan are necessary to drive longterm, system-wide and integrated improvements across the supply chain.”

FLAG should be convened by WorkSafe within the next three months, a timetable which can be achieved with concerted effort the Review Panel adds. “This is critical to ensuring the momentum from the Review is maintained and the first steps towards a new safety culture are quickly put in place,” the panel insists. Over time, the panel believes WorkSafe can take a “lower profile”, but says the nature of New Zealand’s health and safety environment means that government, industry and workers will always need to work together. “With rapid implementation of the Review’s three key recommendations, the Forestry Leadership Action Group and the Forestry Sector Health and Safety Action Plan, we believe the rate of serious injuries and fatalities can be lowered quickly and dramatically.” All industry parties have welcomed the Review Panel’s rec-

ommendations, first and foremost among them Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse. “The government supports the findings of this review and acknowledges everyone who played a role in this critically important work,” Mr Woodhouse says. “The safety record of the forestry sector is not acceptable and government agencies are committed to working in partnership with industry to build a safe, sustainable and professional forestry sector.” Industry led The government supports the establishment of a FLAG with industry, worker and government representation, Mr Woodhouse says. “We believe it is essential FLAG is led by industry to ensure that the onus remains on industry to respond to health and safety

Continued on page 23

www.isn.co.nz

ENVIRONMENT>>Forestry

Comprehensive consultation

our key issues were highlighted by most forestry stakeholders during the Independent Forestry Safety Review Panel’s extensive consultations with various industry sectors. They were: • lack of leadership to drive a safety culture • gaps in the standards to ensure safe work and safe workplaces • inadequate training and supervision of workers • widespread support for WorkSafe New Zealand stepping up its compliance and enforcement visits. The stakeholders also recognised numerous major problems such as: • a lack of safety culture contributing to poor outcomes – 87 percent support • a lack of regulatory oversight and information contributing to poor outcomes – 86 percent support • impairment impacting on safety – 83 percent support • adverse working conditions impacting on safety – 80 percent support • concerns with understanding the new legislation and regulation – 80 percent support • variable planning and hazard mapping – 79 percent support • a lack of worker participation and representation – 72 percent support • variable infrastructure – 70 percent support • a training system that is not fitfor-purpose – 65 percent support • varying approaches to the design and maintenance of equipment/ machinery/PPE – 62 percent support. A high level of stakeholder agreement with the panel’s consultation document options was another key theme to emerge from the discussion process: • the need for a leadership/advisory group – 81 percent • the need for a forestry sector intervention strategy – 90 percent • investment in research and information about the forestry sector – 74 percent • sharing information about forest-

Nov/Dec – 2014

ry accidents in a timely manner – over 90 percent • regulatory reform or guidance to bring greater clarity and consistency – over 70 percent • reviewing and updating the Approved Code of Practice – 60 percent • improve safety management systems – 80 percent • setting regulated standards for key infrastructure – 60 percent • improve the clarity of employment contracts and ensure all workers have them – 80 percent • regulated competency standards for safety critical roles – 82 percent • a review of curricula and funding policy – 79 percent • implement an industry wide certification scheme – 82 percent • the need for better regulatory oversight from the regulator – 86 percent • the development of a comprehensive set of indicators to support workplace assessments – 94 percent • develop enhanced procedures and protocols for accident investigations – 100 percent. The importance of planning at all stages of forestry operation was central to discussions regarding infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and skid sites, and was also seen as key to developing consistently safe systems of work. “Good pre-operations planning and hazard identification and mapping were emphasised by stakeholders as safety-critical tasks that must be done and done to a high professional standard,” the report notes. Stakeholders often commented on the differing resources and capabilities of corporate controlled and small and farm forests, but the Review Panel didn’t find any conclusive evidence that highlighted either segment of the industry as a key concern; with injuries and fatalities occurring in both corporate controlled and small and farm forests. “It is the Review Panel’s view that the small size of forestry contractors may be a more signif-

The panel stresses that health and safety failures in forestry are not simply those of the worker, but of the crew boss, the forestry contractor and the forest owner, manager or marketer. “The failures extend all the way up the supply chain,” the panel maintains. icant factor impacting health and safety,” the report adds. Another key theme to emerge in the submissions and consultation meetings was the increased risks to health and safety when working on steep terrain, which, combined with changing environmental conditions such as wind, rain and/or snow, can make tree felling and breaking-out tasks particularly hazardous. The need for the sector to have a clear and consistent legislative and regulatory framework backed up by good codes of practice and best practice guidance was made clear to the Review Panel. “The industry was very supportive of the Approved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forestry Operations (the forestry ACoP),” the report says. But it also acknowledged gaps in the forestry ACoP. “The Review Panel consistently heard the feedback “tell us what the rules are, so we know what we have to comply with”. More than 330 workers completed a Forestry Worker Survey, all thought that safety at work was important and most believed that their boss takes safety at work very seriously. “Only one percent of respondents answered in the negative to say their boss did not take safety seriously at all,” the report notes. Fifty four percent of survey respondents indicated that they got one break or less during their day and these breaks were usually short, with 57 percent having a

break of 30 minutes or less each day. Fifty eight percent of respondents didn’t stop work when the weather was bad, and when they do have to stop work 40 percent don’t get paid. “High wind was the most recorded reason for stopping work,” the report advises. The survey found that: • 56 percent of respondents receive a personal protective equipment (PPE) allowance, which the Review Panel noted was illegal • 87 percent of respondents said that their boss checks their PPE • 51 percent of respondents said that their boss did not provide fresh drinking water on site • 77 percent had access to shelter • almost 50 percent of respondent advised that they would use a toilet if it was provided on site • about one-quarter of workers said that they knew of people coming to work affected by drugs and alcohol. Sixty percent of workers completing the Forestry Worker Survey believed that more training would improve safety and listed a wide range of training needs, with training on forestry machines a feature. The Independent Forestry Safety Review Panel compiled its report after receiving 111 written submissions from private individuals, workers and unions, forestry contractors, forest management and marketing companies and forest owners; and holding public and private meetings with more than 540 stakeholders including forestry contractors and workers.

Continued from page 21 issues on the ground,” he adds. “Work will begin immediately to establish FLAG.” FLAG will be supported by government and play an important role in showing strong industry leadership and guidance on how the Review’s recommendations will be addressed, Mr Woodhouse promises. “We also expect that FLAG will take the lead on operationalising and embedding good practice,” he says. “The government’s role is to develop regulations and FLAG will be a key participant in the process.” Mr Woodhouse says it is “critical” for industry and workers to be involved in the development of regulations. “We are committed to improving the health and safety of all workers and the recommendations by the Forestry Safety Review Panel will contribute significantly to help up reduce the number of injuries and fatalities in the forestry sector.” He adds that the Review’s findings would contribute to work already underway which includes: The Working Safer reform of the workplace health and safety system which aims to: • reduce the workplace injury and death toll by 25 percent by 2020 • cover all sectors including forestry • set out clearer duties, more worker participation, stronger enforcement and tougher penalties. New legislation and planned regulations includes general risk and workplace management regulations, worker participation,

engagement and representation [see page 28], hazardous work and plant and structures regulations which aim to cover all sectors, including forestry. Other government initiatives that will mesh with the Review’s findings include: • Safer Forest Harvesting - a project commenced by WorkSafe NZ in August 2013 which has seen a significant increase and focus on its assessment and enforcement efforts in forestry • an increase to inspectorate capability and new intervention approach by WorkSafe NZ which focuses more on underlying causes • funding and support provided by ACC for a range of industry-led forestry injury prevention initiatives • the Ministry for Primary Industry’s work to forecast the future workforce needs of primary sectors, including forestry in the report The Future Capability Needs for the Primary Industries in New Zealand • Competenz putting its 26 forestry qualifications through the NZQA review process. The government will release a more detailed response to the Review on the recommendations concerning regulations and Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) around February 2015, the minister adds.

facing an industry in which 10 workers were killed last year alone. “The Review’s analysis matches our own view and leaves no doubt about the need for comprehensive, integrated action by all participants in the sector, including the regulator,” WorkSafe Chief Executive Gordon MacDonald says. The next step must lead to action to fix the industry’s ills, and WorkSafe will assist the establishment of FLAG and work with it, he promises. “The FLAG is the mechanism to develop practical solutions to the industry’s issues and the Review’s recommendations.” Mr MacDonald believes FLAG should soon transform into an industry-led group as WorkSafe proposed in its submission to the review. “This industry must assume responsibility and accountability for its own health and safety improvement programme,” he insists. “WorkSafe will continue to work with FLAG and alongside the industry as it takes on this role.” WorkSafe believes that responsibility for managing risks in any environment lies with those who create the risks. “We will actively participate in that process as well as continuing to hold to account those who needlessly create serious harm in the workplace.” Mr MacDonald stresses that WorkSafe and other government agencies have responsibility for legislative, regulatory and advisory and guidance matters. “We will Regulator agrees work with those agencies and the Meanwhile, WorkSafe NZ says the FLAG to determine how recomIndependent Forestry Safety Review mendations in these areas can be had clearly identified the problems advanced,” he advises. “We will

WorkSafe Chief Executive Gordon MacDonald: The FLAG is the mechanism to develop practical solutions to the industry’s issues support the FLAG and industry as they develop responses to the Review recommendations which are for them to resolve.” The WorkSafe leader says the organisation has already begun the development of a forestry-specific intervention approach which is directed at the five critical issues it identified in its submission to the Review: • supply chain and production pressure • undervaluation of safety • industry competency deficits • poor safety culture • insufficient investment in forest harvesting infrastructure. This work builds on WorkSafe’s extensive assessment programme that has been operating since August last year. “It will extend our interventions to a more sophisticated focus on underlying causes of poor risk management and harms which will complement our consideration of hazards and immediately evident problems,” Mr MacDonald adds.

0800 CANCER (0800 226 237) Our free support services are here to help

www.isn.co.nz

ENVIRONMENT>>Forestry

John Stulen – industry has failed to achieve a cultural change

Bill McCallum – safety needs to be given the highest priority Cultural change The report was commissioned by the Forest Owners Association (FOA), Forest Industry Contractors Association (FICA) and the Farm Forestry Association (FFA) following an appalling death and injury toll that saw 10 people die last year alone. FOA spokesperson Bill McCallum says there was acceptance that safety needed to be given the highest priority, adding that the industry realised an outside review was necessary to achieve a target of zero harm injuries and become a “safety success story”. “It is unacceptable to have any forestry workers seriously injured or killed on the job,” Mr McCallum says. “Everyone who works in our industry has the right and responsibility to return home safely at the end of the day.” The FOA executive and the boards of the two other sponsoring organisations are now studying the report and will decide about responsibility for implementing the recommendations once the findings have been discussed with their members. “These decisions will need the involvement and support of government, Worksafe NZ, training organisations, ACC, Federated Farmers and others,” Mr McCallum says. “Forest safety involves many players outside the industry itself.” FICA spokesperson John Stulen says the industry has failed to achieve a cultural change across

Nov/Dec – 2014

the industry from ‘can do’ to ‘can do safely’. “Fine words will not be enough,” Mr Stulen maintains. “Safe working practices will now need to be agreed with contractors’ right along the supply chain and documented in contracts or by reference to the Approved Code of Practice and Best Practice Guidelines.” The Review met with an equally positive response from the union sector, with FIRST Union General Secretary Robert Reid saying the report was a wake-up call for all stakeholders in the forest industry – including unions. “Together with the Council of Trade Unions, FIRST Union has been vigorously campaigning over the last three years to make New Zealand forests a safe place to work,” he observes. “The Forest Safety report pulls no punches and puts the responsibility on all forestry stakeholders including workers and unions to work together to bring a sea change of safety improvements in the industry.” Union role Mr Reid stresses that FIRST Union, as the wood sector union, is willing to play a “full role” in the creation of the tripartite FLAG that the report recommends be established over the next three months. “FIRST Union is also willing to play its role in developing the network of worker health and safety representatives that is called for in the report,” he adds. “FIRST Union and the CTU have wide and deep experience in developing and training workplace health and safety representatives in other parts of the wood industry and in other sectors over the last couple of decades.” There has been an “antipathy” against worker representatives and unions in the forest sector for far too long, Mr Reid believes. Only two years ago, the forest contractors and MBIE locked the union out of a series of Health and Safety briefings for forestry workers,” he recalls. “The tragedy was that a year later in 2013 we saw the worst-ever fatality rate in the forests of 10 deaths.” The union wants to “learn from

Helen Kelly – Clear competency standards are critical these dark years but also put them behind us”, Mr Reid adds. “Just last week FIRST Union reached an agreement with one of New Zealand’s biggest forest management companies to facilitate our union to meet up with and talk to all forestry workers in the crews contracting to it,” he reveals. “We hope this is indicative of a more collaborative approach through the whole industry; an approach called for by the Independent Forest Safety Review report.” The CTU also welcomed the findings, with CTU President Helen Kelly insisting the recommendations must be implemented to ensure that everything possible is done to make forestry safer. “It is fantastic to see the acknowledgment of mandatory standards including the rights of workers that these standards are necessary and non-negotiable,” she says. “Clear competency standards are critical in ensuring workers are trained to perform their work.” The CTU completely agrees with recommendation that the government should not shy away from forestry specific regulations because of the burden of the current legislative change programme, or because it may set a precedent. “Such regulations should be seen as simply a part of the system-wide and integrated suite of changes needed to improve health and safety outcomes in the forestry industry,” Ms Kelly adds. “It is heartening to see that the panel have recognised the real value of strong worker participation in health and safety development and implementation at work - commitment to this is paramount.”

MANAGEMENT>>Sub Surface Detection Sponsored article

Pre-dig investigation is vital to worker safety While there have been a number of major advances in the past 10 years to reduce excavation injury and accidental damage to underground utilities, it is proving a hard lesson to learn for many contractors who are struggling to stay competitive

f there is significant damage or injury to workers from excavation accidents, expensive legal action is inevitable. The question becomes who is at fault and costly claims are a consequence. WorkSafe investigations may add to contractors’ woes and result in large fines if it is proven that safety procedures were not followed. “It is easy to have sympathy with contractors when margins are so tight and there is no provision for pre-dig testing,” says Sub-Surface Detection Chief Executive Justin Bell. “Still the fact remains that accident prevention or mitigation should take place long before excavation begins. A few hours diagnostic and preventative work ahead of a dig can save thousands later and provide increased safety for workers. Contractors need to see us as a kind of insurance policy,” he says. The key to preventing pipeline and cable hits and potential injury begins by accurately locating and marking existing underground facilities. “We have introduced ionic detection to cater for a growing need to locate a greater variety of objects at far deeper depths and in more difficult terrain than ever before. In a recent job we located a 32mm PE gas main within a council berm

more than two metres deep in places,” says Mr Bell Many underground sites are a criss-cross of power cables, gas lines, water and drainage pipes and fibre optic communications cables, with danger millimetres away from a probing mechanical digging shovel. Sub-Surface uses electro magnetic induction (EMI) and ground penetrating radar (GPR) to locate metallic utilities such as steel pipes, power cables, and copper communications cables “When both GPR and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are used in conjunction, the overall accuracy of the data produced is greatly enhanced,” he says. “Combined with the underground images produced by a GPR survey, both metallic and non metallic (plastic, concrete, asbestos, cement) objects lying in the path of a potential excavation can be seen and identified,” says Mr Bell. “Our GPR units have dual frequency antennas and very clear resolution, giving the best chance of finding an image. They are combined with our selection of EMI locators with different frequencies which aid the detection of multiple services and deep locations. “In providing accurate marking to avoid the expense of potholing it is important to be very specific. If

The key to preventing pipeline and cable hits and potential injury begins by accurately locating and marking existing underground facilities necessary Sub Surface will have an on site meeting to explain complex locations,” says Mr Bell. Before an underground utility installation begins, on-site personnel should be aware of tolerances required for depths of new installations and regulations regarding distances they should be away from

existing facilities. Locations of most utilities are measured from the outer edge, with required clearance distances ranging anywhere from about 15 cm upwards. Markings usually represent the centre of the facility and it is important to allow for clearances beyond the overall diameter or width measurement.

PO Box 72 095, Papakura 2244 Auckland Tel: 0800 500 330, 021 532 599 Email: justinbell@leakdetection.net.nz Websites www.waterleakdetection.co.nz www.subsurfacedetection.co.nz

www.isn.co.nz

COMMENT>>The Law by Hamish Kynaston and Holly Hedley

Under the influence Just how far might the primary duty of care in the proposed Health and Safety Reform Bill extend?

he Health and Safety Reform Bill has generated a lot of discussion in New Zealand. So far, particular attention has been paid to the new (albeit imported from Australia) concept of a “person conducting a business or undertaking” (a PCBU) and to the new due diligence obligations that will be imposed on officers. One area that has not yet received as much attention is the new ‘primary duty of care’ set out in section 30 of the Bill, and the meaning of ‘influence’ in that section. Currently, section 30(1) of the Bill provides that all PCBUs must … ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of:

(a) workers employed or engaged, or caused to be employed or engaged, by the PCBU while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking; and (b) workers whose activities in carrying out work are influenced or directed by the PCBU, while the workers are carrying out the work. Assuming that the Bill passes into law in its current form, the primary duties set out in section 30(1) (a) and (b) will form the cornerstone of the new Health and Safety at Work Act. So, just how far might these primary duties of care extend – who are the workers “whose activities … are influenced or directed by the PCBU”? What do we know so far? There is no definition of ‘influence’ in the current Bill and neither does the Bill’s explanatory note give an indication of the type of working relationships that section 30(1)(b) is intended to capture. Accordingly, the precise meaning and scope of section 30(1)(b) is open to interpretation and will need to be tested by the New Zealand Courts. What we do know, however, is that one of the key goals of the new health and safety regime is to cast a wider net to ensure that

Nov/Dec – 2014

health and safety obligations are not constrained by traditional ‘legal’ relationships. This general notion is reflected in the Explanatory Memorandum for the Australian Model Law which explains (in relation to the equivalent Australian provision) that “influence connotes more than just mere legal capacity and extends to the practical effect the person can have in the circumstances” (our emphasis). The idea is also reflected in WorkSafe New Zealand’s online commentary about the Bill, which explains that “PCBUs have to think broadly about who is working in their business or undertaking – including their contractors and not just their employees”. Accordingly, the duty in section 30(1)(b) is likely to be interpreted broadly and, in considering whether a PCBU owes a duty under section 30(1)(b), the Courts will look past the legal technicalities and instead consider evidence which demonstrates the practical realities of the relationship and the degree of influence between the PCBU and the worker. By way of example… To help demonstrate the possible scope of section 30(1)(b) let’s consider a franchise arrangement. Typically, a franchisor contracts with a franchisee and the franchisee then employs a number of workers who carry out the day-to-day business independently of the franchisor. Clearly, the franchisee will have a primary duty of care to its workers under the new section 30(1)(a). But what about the franchisor? Will the franchisor owe a primary duty of care to the same workers under section 30(1)(b)? Are the workers’ activities ‘influenced or directed’ by the franchisor? Of course, the answer to these questions will always depend on the particular circumstances. However, given the degree of control and influence that many franchisors

retain over the day-to-day operation of a franchisee’s business (including factors such as the equipment that the franchisee must use, the location and layout of the premises, and the business policies and processes the franchisee must follow) there is a real prospect that a franchisor would be found to have a sufficient degree of influence over the workers’ activities, and would therefore owe a primary duty of care under s 30(1)(b).1 It is important to note that the franchisor’s duty will of course be in addition to the primary duty that is owed by the franchisee. The Health and Safety Reform Bill makes it clear that more than one PCBU can hold the same duty and, in fact, section 27 of the Bill goes so far as to require each duty holder to (as far as is reasonably practicable) “… consult, co-operate with, and co-ordinate activities with all other persons who have a duty in relation to the same matter”. This focus on consultation and cooperation between different duty holders will be a key part of the new health and safety regime and, as WorkSafe New Zealand explains: PCBUs cannot ‘contract out’ of their duty. But they can and should make reasonable arrangements and coordinate responsibilities with the other PCBUs to fulfil their duty – so far as is reasonably practicable. The PCBUs should also monitor each other to ensure everyone is doing what they agreed. The extent of a PCBU’s duty depends on the level of influence or control the PCBU has over health and safety matters at work and the different circumstances that might be at play when there are multiple PCBUs. The franchising arrangement is, of course, just one example of the different types of entities and working

relationships that might be captured under the broader scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Other examples could include the various entities that work together within a supply chain arrangement; holding companies and their subsidiaries or trading companies; and funders who contract with service suppliers. Essentially, any individual or entity that has a degree of control or influence over a workplace or over a worker’s activities has a potential to be liable under section 30(1)(b), regardless of the technicalities of the contracting arrangements that may be in place. In practice Although the new primary duty under section 30(1)(b) is likely to be interpreted broadly and may well cover a range of working relationships that may not have previously been captured in New Zealand, the primary duty is still subject to the ‘reasonably practicable’ limitation. That is, a PCBU is only required to do what is ‘reasonably practicable’ in all the circumstances and (as set out section 17 of the Bill). This test incorporates the concept of reasonableness based on a range of factors, such as the PCBU’s knowledge about the hazard or risk, and the available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk. In addition, although there may be a technical ability to prosecute those PCBUs who have a more distant relationship with workers, the practical reality is that WorkSafe New Zealand is much more likely to prosecute the PCBU who has the most direct relationship with the workers. This view is supported by the position taken by the Governance Institute of Australia, which states that holding companies are likely

to have a lower exposure to health and safety liability than companies that conduct operations and employ people.2 What next? The Health and Safety Reform Bill is currently before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Committee’s report is not due until March 2015. The Bill is therefore still subject to change, though we think it is unlikely that the primary duty of care will change much, if at all. To help prepare for the upcoming health and safety changes you should consider the various working relationships that you have, and ask yourself: • which workers (and workplaces) do I realistically have some degree of influence or control over? • do I know enough about the health and safety systems that are in place? • have I got systems to make sure I cooperate and consult with other PCBUs?

In the context of less direct working relationships (such as in a franchise or subsidiary company situations) this final step of cooperation and consultation with other PCBUs is particularly important. As WorkSafe New Zealand explains: A PCBU that has less direct control or influence is more likely to fulfil its duty by making arrangements with the PCBU that is closer to the work and has more direct influence or control. If you have a degree of influence over a workplace or workers, but don’t have direct involvement or control, one option is to apply the same approach that an officer might take when exercising ‘due diligence’. While the obligations in each case are defined differently for strict legal purposes, practically there are clear similarities and we think due diligence provides a helpful framework for considering what steps a PCBU ought to take in situations of influence. Steps that you could take to

ensure that you act with ‘due diligence’ in relation to health and safety include: • setting a clear health and safety strategy that promotes a positive and integrated health and safety culture, and outlining to the other entities and PCBUs that you work with what is required of them in this regard • having reasonable knowledge and understanding of the work that is being carried out by all of the entities that you work with, and have some degree of influence over and the associated risks and hazards involved in their work • satisfying yourself that all of the other PCBUs that you work with have effective health and safety compliance systems in place and that these are applied in practice (and having systems in place to continuously monitor this) • ensuring that health and safety is sufficiently resourced • ensuring that discussions and decisions made regarding health and safety are appropriately docu-

mented so that there is an “audit trail” • keeping up to date with developments in health and safety that are relevant in your area – for example, by subscribing to updates from WorkSafe NZ or attending relevant health and safety training and seminars. Hamish Kynaston is a Partner and Holly Hedley is a Senior Solicitor at Buddle Finlay, one of New Zealand’s leading commercial law and public law firms with offices in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch There is Australian case law that shows that the Courts were willing to find a franchisor liable for a health and safety incident even under the ‘old’ (pre-harmonisation) health and safety legislation (see WorkCover Authority (NSW) v McDonald’s Australia Ltd (1999) 95 IR 383. 2 Guidelines for directors of wholly-owned subsidiary companies, 2014, page 9. 1