chemicals – Page 18 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

The changing asbestos campaigns

As the incidence of asbestos-related diseases increases, the issues associated with asbestos have evolved beyond occupational health and safety.

The corporate conduct of James Hardie Industries and the prosecuting of its directors by the Australian Government had asbestos as the product around which corporate misbehaviour occurred. The prosecution has not improved the lot of the victims. The compensation fund which the director’s lied about will still be inadequate to deal with work-related claims.

Asbestos has become a true public-health hazard and issue, in a similar way that lead went from work to the community or even, perhaps, how cigarette smoke went from the personal to the public. Increasingly, useful results will be gained from lobbying the government through the public health sphere rather than through OHS.

Today in Tasmania, Matt Peacock‘s book called “Killer Company” was launched with the support of the Australian Workers’ Union. According to a media release in support of the event, the AWU National Secretary Paul Howes will “call for the creation of a federal National Asbestos Taskforce to manage the prioritised recall of all asbestos containing materials in all forms from the nation.”

Howes says

“The Federal Government must establish a national body with a regulatory mandate to map priority areas for asbestos product removal, such as schools and public places, and oversee its careful and total removal.”

“A National Asbestos Taskforce could facilitate and resource an Asbestos Summit, to bring together industry leaders, regulatory bodies and the nation’s top medical asbestos disease experts. Together with Governments, state, federal and local, such a summit could identify urgent priority areas for asbestos removal and develop a national strategy to deal with this ‘slow burn’ national emergency once and for all.”

Businesses in Australia must have an asbestos register but Paul Howes is also calling for

“…the establishment of a National Asbestos Register for all Australians ill from, or exposed to asbestos. He will also call for the establishment of a Register of all priority areas linked to a national Asbestos Present in Buildings Register.”

“We believe that [an] actuarial study will show that it is cheaper to remove asbestos containing materials completely from Australia, than fund the extraordinary medical cost of treating thousands of Australians contracting very serious asbestos-related disease over some decades to come.”

Unions have a proud history of effecting social change. Asbestos fits this tradition as it concerns the spread of a manufacturing component that is, arguably, going to have more of a social cost than it ever had as a social benefit.

There is enough of a social awareness of the complexity of issues related to asbestos that traction should be achievable with the government on a public health scheme. The challenge for the union movement and asbestos-safety advocates is that the campaigns still need to convince the whole community that this cannot be dismissed as a “union issue” but is a public health issue “championed by the unions”.

As more and more cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma start appearing in people who have not been involved in manufacturing or using asbestos, or washing the dust out of clothing, or living near asbestos mines, the seriousness of the health hazard will become evident. But we should not have to wait till then and a socially-aware government as the Rudd Labor Government in Australia claims to be should be able to acknowledge the sins and mistakes of the past and plan for the future, as it has done on other social concerns.

Kevin Jones

A video and audio interview with Matt Peacock is available online .

UPDATE: 17 September 2009

Tasmania’s Minister for Workplace Relations, Lisa Singh, has released a media statement about her launch of Matt Peacock’s book. In the statement she outlines her government’s action on asbestos:

“Shortly after becoming the Minister for Workplace Relations, I arranged a forum on Asbestos which was held by Workplace Standards on the 18th of March this year.

“A whole of Government Steering Committee was established following the forum and will make recommendations to me later this year.

The Committee is considering a range of issues including prioritised removal, mandatory reporting and disclosure, disposal, current legal and compensation issues and community awareness and education.

An audio report on the call for asbestos registers by the AWU was in the ABC Radio program AM on 17 September 2009 and is available online.

NZ proposes new exposure levels on formaldehyde

The New Zealand of Department of Labour is continuing its negotiations on new exposure levels for formaldehyde.

The latest proposed exposure levels for formaldehyde are 0.3 ppm (8 hour TWA) and 0.6 ppm (STEL). Currently the levels in New Zealand are 1ppm (ceiling).

According to US OSHA, it’s exposure standard is

1910.1048(c)(1)

TWA: The employer shall assure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of formaldehyde which exceeds 0.75 parts formaldehyde per million parts of air (0.75 ppm) as an 8-hour TWA.

1910.1048(c)(2)

Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL): The employer shall assure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of formaldehyde which exceeds two parts formaldehyde per million parts of air (2 ppm) as a 15-minute STEL.

WorkSafe BC says

BC‘s current 8-hour TWA of 0.3 ppm is well below levels capable of causing adverse health effects and protects the worker from the pungent, unpleasant odour of formaldehyde.

NZ DoL is also discussing dropping there exposure levels for soft wood dust from 5mg/m3 to 1mg/m3.

The cancer risks of formaldehyde have been investigated over some time and the weight of evidence shows that this chemical is a probable human carcinogen.

Kevin Jones

Man crushed by unstable stack

On 1 September 2009 there were early reports that

“… a man died at Stanhope in northern Victoria when a one-tonne bag of salt fell from a stack and crushed him at a cheese factory.”

Further details were revealed in a media report on 4 September 2009. The media officer for WorkSafe, Michael Birt, discussed the stacking of multiple, one-tonne, bags of salt.

“The improvement notice is requiring them to develop a safer system of work in relation to storing the salt because they can’t stack it three high in these bales which are about a metre tall,” he said. “It’s symptomatic of what happens in typical cases after this, we look at it and we find the systems need to be further improved. Our aim is to get safety improvements happening sooner rather than later and if those improvement notices are dealt with promptly everyone’s life moves on.”

WorkSafe informed SafetyAtWorkBlog that the 50-year-old man was at the base of a stack of three bags of salt. Each bag had been placed in the factory on a pallet, so the stack from the floor was pallet – bag – pallet – bag – pallet – bag. The bottom bag had leaked and has possibly destabilised the stack. The stack fell, crushing the man. There was not racking around the stack.

The bags (similar to the one pictured right) are large bale-type bags with handles. The bags are used for a variety of contents and are in common use.

There were no witnesses to the man’s death on the Tuesday afternoon. Gaffer tape was found near the man’s body

WorkSafe has placed a “do not disturb” notice on the fatality site and has formally directed the company to review its bulk handling procedures in the salt store.

WorkSafe Victoria has a range of advice and guidances concerning the bulk handling of raw material, a couple are below.

Kevin Jones

James Hardie directors face the consequences of their poor decisions

SafetyAtWorkBlog has kept a watchful eye on the long saga involving the directors of James Hardie Industries and their mishandling of a compensation fund specifically established for victims of the company’s asbestos products. The compensation fund story has been handled well by Gideon Haigh in his book on the company.

The saga has since evolved into one of the duties and actions of the board of directors, moreso than one of compensation. Today, 20 August 2009, the previous directors will be told of the financial and professional penalties determined by the New South Wales Supreme Court.

The ABC News online has an article about the impending court decision but more relevantly to the OHS and compensation issues is the fact that the existing compensation fund runs out in 2011 and the company says that the current economic climate does not allow for any more funds. For a company that has earned good profits from asbestos over many decades, two years of poor corporate performance does not seem to balance the scales.

Too many corporations are using the global financial crisis to mask their own management failings. The United States and England have seen this more than most countries.

The ABC was able to interview the current CEO of James Hardie Industries, Louis Gries, who is not as damning of the past directors’ decisions as some might expect, and the reporter, Sue Lannin, asks many direct questions about the company’s responsibilities to victims of its products. This interview deserves careful listening.

Company directors around Australia are watching how the court case ends and the size of penalties they may face if they make similar decisions. The OHS element is oblique to the issue of directors’ responsibilities but it is the hot topic in Australia at the moment and many OHS professionals talk with these same directors. It may be necessary to adjust one’s language or message when talking safety with them from tomorrow on.

Kevin Jones

Forest not required – indoor air quality and plants

Ever since modern offices have relied on air conditioning for ventilation, indoor air quality has been a contentious occupational issue from other people’s smells to thermal comfort to photocopier toner dust.

The prominence of air quality in offices as an OHS issue can be illustrated by a paragraph from the 1997 edition of Officewise when cigarette smoke remained a real hazard. No mention was made of plants.

Air in offices may be contaminated by several different

sources, including odours and micro-biological and

chemical contaminants. In an office environment, the

quality of the air is often controlled through an air

conditioning system. A building’s air conditioning

system may be considered as its lungs. The function

of such a system is to draw in outside air, filter, heat,

cool or humidify it and circulate it around the building.

The system expels a portion of the air to the outside

environment and replaces this expelled portion with

fresh or outside air.

“Air in offices may be contaminated by several different sources, including odours and micro-biological and chemical contaminants. In an office environment, the quality of the air is often controlled through an air conditioning system. A building’s air conditioning system may be considered as its lungs. The function of such a system is to draw in outside air, filter, heat, cool or humidify it and circulate it around the building. The system expels a portion of the air to the outside environment and replaces this expelled portion with fresh or outside air.”

Continue reading “Forest not required – indoor air quality and plants”

OHS harmonisation – chemicals draft

As part of the Australian government’s program of national OHS harmonisation, Safe Work Australia has released “Proposed revisions to the workplace chemicals regulatory framework“. This has been a long time coming.

This is not yet open for public comment but is a great indication of what Australian workplaces that handle chemicals may be in for. Not being experts in dangerous goods, SafetyAtWorkBlog will let the document speak for itself.

“This National Standard marks a significant change in the approach to the classification and communication of chemical hazards in the workplace. The National Standard adopts the principles of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) published by the United Nations. The adoption of the GHS in the workplace chemicals framework serves two important purposes:

it represents best practice in the classification of chemicals and the communication of hazards using a standardised approach that will allow harmonisation amongst international trading partners; and

it allows the promulgation of a streamlined framework for identifying, assessing and controlling chemical hazards in the workplace, where hazards may be related to health or physical effects.

The previous national framework for managing chemical hazards in the workplace was based on a distinction between hazardous substances and dangerous goods. Hazardous substances were associated with human health effects (for example acute toxicity or carcinogenicity) and dangerous goods were predominantly associated with physical effects (for example corrosivity, flammability). In many cases, a single chemical would be classified as both a dangerous goods and a hazardous substance, triggering the need to comply with two distinct regulatory frameworks.

This National Standard provides a consolidated basis for the control of health hazards and physical hazards arising from the presence of chemicals in the workplace. In this framework chemical substances, mixtures and articles can be classified as “hazardous chemicals”― a term that includes both health hazards and physical hazards.”

From a brief look, it is noted that MSDS loses a letter to become SDS, Safety Data Sheets. The principal reference codes and guidelines such as those below are now being reviewed and the public comment period began on 31 July 2009.

Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous Chemicals.
National Code of Practice for the Labelling of Workplace Hazardous Chemicals
National Code of Practice for the Preparation of Safety Data Sheets
National Standard for the Synthetic Mineral Fibres
National Standard for the Control of Inorganic Lead at Work

Because Australia will follow the guidelines of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, the issue of environmental impact of work-related chemicals will also become relevant. The proposal says

“A full implementation of the GHS would require the provision of appropriate information on labels and safety data sheets (SDS) where a chemical is classified as an environmental hazard.”

All of this sounds like a big shake-up for many Australian businesses and safety advisers but there is still time for the government and Safe Work Australia to provide enough information to minimise its impact. The release of the proposed revisions prior to public comment is a positive sign.

Kevin Jones

Nanotechnology safety – literature review

Earlier in June 2009 The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work released a literature review entitled “Workplace exposure to nanoparticles”

The EU-OSHA says

“Nanomaterials possess various new properties and their industrial use creates new opportunities, but they also present new risks and uncertainties. Growing production and use of nanomaterials result in an increasing number of workers and consumers exposed to nanomaterials. This leads to a greater need for information on possible health and environmental effects of nanomaterials.”

The report is available for download by clicking on the image in this post.

Kevin Jones

Category: chemicals

The changing asbestos campaigns

Like this:

NZ proposes new exposure levels on formaldehyde

Like this:

Man crushed by unstable stack

Like this:

James Hardie directors face the consequences of their poor decisions

Like this:

Forest not required – indoor air quality and plants

Like this:

OHS harmonisation – chemicals draft

Like this:

Nanotechnology safety – literature review

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: