guidance – Page 45 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Working in heat – still contentious

Australians associate working in hot conditions as outside work although the occupational hazard of heat is just as relevant in bakeries and foundries. OHS regulators and safety lobbyists often try to include too much in their heat-related strategies – heat stress, skin cancer, hydration, dust, and a range of other hazard combinations related to specific industries.

What the community and many workers want is a defined unsafe temperature limit. Some will remember being allowed to take their school ties off when the temperature reached 38 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit). But OHS legislation, more often than note, focuses on the system of work and this allows for work in excessive temperatures as long as the system can ensure this is safe.

Legislatively, this position is understandable but it is not what people want or expect.

The issue was raised recently at the Trade Union Congress in September 2009 in England in a discussion on working temperatures. Pauline Nazir, representing the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union, said

“The question is why there is no maximum temperature and why has the Health and Safety Executive and the Government have consistently dodged calls for similar protection for those who work at the higher levels of temperature? It is a big question for a big organisation, but one that the Health and Safety Executive has failed to answer logically despite years of pressure. While they have failed to act, workers suffer the consequences, year in and year out.

It seems illogical that we have regulations that limit the temperatures at which cows and pigs can be transported around the country, but offers no protection other than the general health and safety legislative offerings. It is true that if you move livestock in Britain, there is a maximum level of 35 degrees Centigrade within the carrier, but poor old human beings can regularly carry out physical and strenuous work at temperatures that far exceed these levels. Why have we failed to get the Health and Safety Executive to act?”

The variety of factors contributing to excessive heat at work is probably the reason for lack of progress on the hazard. There are many organisations advocating prevention of harm from working in heat but they all have their own funding models, costs, agendas and “sub”hazards. Nazir’s call for the Health & Safety Executive to do something sounds unfair but the common activity she is referring to is working in heat so it is not unreasonable to expect an OHS regulator to coordinate resource and, perhaps, research.

Coordinated safety action is expected of business operators to ensure these hazards are controlled but that operator would need to read up to a dozen brochures, codes, guidances or policy statements to get close to achieving a situation that employees would consider safe.

It may never be appropriate for an OHS regulator to state a defined (un)safe temperature (the hygienists would argue safe working conditions) but what can be achieved is guidance that pulls together the multiple hazards and control measures so that achieving a safe workplace is as easy as can be.

WorkSafe Victoria has started along this path with a (thin) guidance and more generic terms of discomfort and illness but there is a need for a much more comprehensive guide.

Kevin Jones

UPDATE: 9 October 2009

A reader has pointed out a podcast by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety from the July 2009 that explains some of the justification for not issuing a specific working in heat benchmark.

GHS is coming to the United States

On 30 September 2009 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the United States said in a media statement:

A proposed rule to align the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) with provisions of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) will be published in the September 30 Federal Register.

Jordan Barab, acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA said

“The proposal to align the hazard communication standard with the GHS will improve the consistency and effectiveness of hazard communications and reduce chemical-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities…… Following the GHS approach will increase workplace safety, facilitate international trade in chemicals, and generate cost savings from production efficiencies for firms that manufacture and use hazardous chemicals.”

On 6 October 2009, Safe Work Australia released the draft “Australian Criteria for the Classification Hazardous Chemicals”.

The closing date for comments is 18 December 2009.

Safe Work Australia stresses what the draft is not and the web page on the issue is very important to read.

Safe Work Australia says it

“…will be preparing guidance material for different audiences on the GHS and introducing two training courses (as basic and an expert one) to understand GHS classification.”

It should also be noted that the draft Classification Criteria is being revised in the context of the OHS harmonisation program of the Federal Government.

Kevin Jones

Freshening an OHS career

OHS professionals, as with any profession, can easily become out-of-touch with what their profession is all about. This is to improve the safety of people through a professional and competent approach.

Some professionals lose touch because they may be dealing with corporate OHS policies all day, they may never get away from head office and the endless round of meetings, they don’t get to go to events outside their own professional network or they are simply comfortable with the “academic” role and not miss getting their hands dirty on the shop floor.

In each of these scenarios the OHS professional is doing themselves, and their profession, no favours. Their career may progress but their thinking does not. Some OHS professional associations are at the same plateau.

There are some small things one can do if one wants to break the cycle and obtain a better quality of work.

Test the validity of the corporate polices by arranging for an internal audit by someone else and participate as an observer.
Take one’s skills out of head office and offer to mentor some of your contractor’s OHS people.
Establish a pro-bono service for the smaller businesses nearby.
If one’s company is in an industrial estate, start-up an Estate OHS group where business owners can meet to share or create solutions.
Offer one’s OHS services to a not-for-profit organization, if your company offers “volunteer” leave.
Offer to assist students at all levels with their OHS assignments.
Take a sabbatical to majority world sectors, such as Asia, and offer one’s OHS skills to OHS and labour advocates in that region.*

The biggest threat to one’s safety skills is stagnation. If one’s professional safety organisation does not have the programs available to freshen up your skills and approach, go outside the safety field. It is surprising how one’s skills in one area can be applied in others, such a public health, environmental safety, transport or maritime safety.

Kevin Jones

* A particularly useful organisation that is worth contacting is ANROAV – the Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational Accident Victims

A colleague in Asia recently told SafetyAtWorkBlog that ANROAV is in need of variety of educational materials. Many of these are basic tools such as jigsaws that can be used to identify hazards or safe work options.

$A10,000 would be a great help in establishing a basic education fund which could access a suite of OHS comics and short films that can be used for education on fire risk, cancer, mine safety, electronics, solvents etc..

When ATV helmets are “best practice”

A recent media statement from the New Zealand Department of Labour on all-terrain vehicle (ATV) safety is annoying and disappointing.

On 15 September 2009, the Palmerston North District Court today fined farmer Trevor Mark Schroder $25,000 and ordered him to pay reparation of $20,000 to his employee John Haar over an ATV accident on 26 November 2008 that left Mr Haar with serious head injuries.

Dr Geraint Emry, the DoL Chief Adviser for Health and Safety, says

“…Mr Haar was riding an ATV supplied by Mr Schroder when he apparently drove into a wire used to direct cows into specific areas of the farm. Mr Haar had not been wearing a helmet and the severity of his injuries increased as a consequence. Nor had he been told that the wire he rode into had been put across the race.”

The statement goes on to state

“The Agricultural Guidelines – Safe Use of ATVs on New Zealand Farms – advise that the wearing of helmets by quad bike riders is considered best practice.”

SafetyAtWorkBlog strongly knows that New Zealand is very active in ATV safety but finds it hard to believe that the “wearing of helmets…is considered best practice”. This admits that, in using ATVs, personal protective equipment is the best hazard control option available.

The guidelines mentioned above are from 2003 and do mention ROPS:

“Until such time as there is evidence to the contrary, farmers have the right to choose whether or not they fit ROPS to their ATVs.”

The NZ DoL and, by inference, the Chief Adviser are quoting a 2003 guideline as best practice in 2009?!

Relying on helmets may be the reality but is also an admission of defeat with ATV designers and manufacturer. In many circumstances ATVs cannot be fitted with roll-over protective structures (ROPS) due to the nature of the work – orcharding for example. But Australia and New Zealand insist on ROPS for tractors, with similar criteria and exceptions to ATVs.

In one ROPS FAQ from the NZ DoL it says

“Evidence both in New Zealand and overseas has shown that the risk of injury in a tractor overturn can be substantially reduced when the tractor is fitted with ROPS of the appropriate standard.”

and

“Where the nature of the operation makes it not practical for ROPS to be fitted to an agricultural tractor, then, under the terms of this code of practice, the General Manager, Occupational Safety & Health Service, may issue a notice excluding the tractor from the requirement to have a ROPS.”

Some States in Australia have had rebate schemes for ROPS for many years.

It is suggested that a better level of driver protection from rollovers is evident on forklifts through the use of seatbelt and an integrated protective structure. Applying logic to safety is fraught with danger but the rollover hazard is the same whether in a warehouse or a paddock and having only a helmet for a forklift driver would be absurd and unacceptable. Why is only a helmet considered best practice for ATV drivers?

Rather than comparing ATVs to motorcycles as in this 2003 report, the comparison should be between ATVs and tractors or, maybe, forklifts.

The New Zealand Transport Agency says this about ROPS and ATVs in June 2008:

Many ATVs have a high centre of gravity, and are prone to tipping over when cornering or being driven on a slope. Rollover is the leading cause of injury associated with ATVs – riders can be crushed or trapped under an overturned machine.

If you attach a rollover protection structure (ROPS) to your ATV, make sure it’s securely fastened, doesn’t interfere with rider mobility and doesn’t raise the ATV’s centre of gravity. Contact OSH for guidelines on how to fit ROPS safely, and make sure the ROPS is strong enough to protect you.

So why aren’t ROPS considered best practice by the DoL?

The ATV injury case quoted above is unlikely to have occurred if the ATV had some form of structure around the driver or, admittedly, the wire was more visible or known to the driver. The relevance in this case was that the helmet most probably reduced the severity of the injury but would not have avoided contact with the wire.

Research is occurring on ROPS for ATVs but the rollover hazard has existed for as long as ATVs have existed. Are ATVs simply unsuitable for the work they are being used for? Is the design wrong for workplace use? Are they being advertised or promoted for inappropriate use? Should farm workers be encouraged legislatively or financially to fit ROPS? Perhaps the only safe ATV is a tractor?

Is the requirement for ROPS for tractors, but only helmets for ATVs, an acceptable double standard for workplace safety?

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

Public Comments – Fishing and Legionnaire’s

WorkSafe Western Australia has two documents currently open for public comment. One concerns a draft code of practice for the prevention of falls from commercial fishing vessels. The other may have a wider appeal as it is a draft code of practice for the prevention and control of Legionnaires’ disease.

The man overboard code is an example of established hazard management and risk control options for a niche hazard in a niche working environment, however, it is often in these areas where procedural and technical processes are most easily recognised. The draft code is in a format, and has a degree of clarity, that encourages discussion and examination.

Readers may find some useful information for those workers who work alone or in isolation, for those who need to undertake tasks at nighttime and in intense darkness, and for those workplaces that require a strict induction for new workers.

Similarly, the Legionnaire’s code of practice builds on established risk management concepts and shows that businesses still need to prevent legionnaire’s infections even if there is a regulatory/licensing system in place for cooling towers.

On a formatting note, both these draft codes could have benefited from the regulators embracing more of the Web 2.0 concepts. The PDF files do have some hyperlinks for some more information or emails but there could be a lot more effort put in to making the drafts a hub for the documents’ references. For instance, mentions of legislation could lead to online versions so that those commenting online can flick back and forth from reference to topic.

[Just imagine how much more helpful a code of practice with such functionality could be to a small business – wiki + blog+ safety = better compliance]

In the Legionnaire’s draft there are tags on page 36 that could lead to the online text of the Acts referred to. The tags are a good idea but could use increased functionality.

Lastly, the Legionnaire’s code references eight Australian Standards and publications. It is a reasonable expectation that, for this hazard, industry submissions will be the majority and those parties already have the Standards. However, if a broad consultation is required, many interested parties may find purchasing these Standards a substantial cost burden, which SafetyAtWorkBlog calculated to be at least $A390 for the PDF versions.

Kevin Jones

The future for Standards Australia will be hard

SafetyAtWorkBlog has written elsewhere of how the global financial crisis has caused OHS related programs to be revised. The latest bulletin from Standards Australia indicates the impact of the financial pressures on its plans and the reduction in the value of their investments has come at a time of other worrisome changes.

(In this article there is a focus on the safety-related Australian Standards.)

According to the 17 August 2009 bulletin, Standards Australia has lost $A70 million from its investment portfolio since November 2007. This has caused it to introduce a “New Business Model” which reduces Standards Australia’s operating costs and also increases the costs to many of the voluntary participants on committees that develop Australian Standards through the new consultative strategies.

Hopefully during the period of reflection caused by the financial threats, Standards Australia should have considered whether it is worth continuing, at all.

Following are some ruminations about safety-related Standards and their applicability. These may be relevant to quality, risk and environmental Standards, also.

Australia is a very small market for Standards compared to Europe and the United States, in particular.
The management professions are becoming more globalised.
Manufacturing is becoming more globalised.
Europe can draw upon a broader range of expertise in the development of management standards, than can Australia.
Several International Standards could be applied in Australia allowing for an international “compliance”. Some Standards are already in place and promoted by companies as somehow more legitimate that the Australian Standards.
Safe Work Australia has informed SafetyAtWorkBlog that:

“The application and use of Australian Standards in model OHS regulations has not yet been decided and will be considered by the Safe Work Australia Council’s Strategic Issues Group”

SafetyAtWorkBlog has heard from a South Australian colleague that SafeWorkSA is considering replacing OHS Standards referenced in legislation with codes of practice. (SafetyAtWorkBlog has sought confirmation of this from SafeWorkSA)
Australian Standards can be expensive for small businesses, who may have the greatest need for OHS management standards, whereas government publications, such as Codes of Practice are generally free.

Australian Standards are important for many industries, particularly, those that are required to be audited and/or accredited. Needless to say there is a considerable secondary industry of auditors for these sectors.

All Australian Standards are only guidelines but many have been granted legislative clout by being referenced in law. As mentioned above a considerable industry has developed in support, providing some legitimacy to the guidelines through weight of numbers.

Safe Work Australia recognised the important role of Australian Standards, but with several qualifications:

“The COAG [Council of Australian Governments] Guidelines recognise that the use of prescriptive requirements, such as those in Australian Standards, while not preferable, may be unavoidable in order to ensure safety.”

Standards Australia must have realised by now that the days of automatic legitimacy through referencing in legislation may be numbered for many of their Standards . Their previous operating model has had to be thoroughly revised, government and business are fierce on reducing red tape, international standards have been developed that can be applied in Australia, and contributing organisations are reviewing their own costs of participation.

In fact so keen is the government on the reduction of red tape that it established an Office of Best Practice Regulation in the Department of Finance. On Finance’s website is a clear statement of aim:

“The Government has committed to reducing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses, non-profit organisations and consumers. This is consistent with larger commitments to address impediments to Australia’s long-term productivity growth.”

Employer groups have identified industrial relations and OHS requirements as “impediments”.

There is no doubt that in many circumstances technical standards are essential reference documents for improving safety, in particular, and for showing that workplace safety is being managed in a systematic and verifiable manner. The big question is whether those technical standards should be those produced by Standards Australia.

Kevin Jones

Category: guidance

Working in heat – still contentious

Like this:

GHS is coming to the United States

Like this:

Freshening an OHS career

Like this:

When ATV helmets are “best practice”

Like this:

Man crushed by unstable stack

Like this:

Public Comments – Fishing and Legionnaire’s

Like this:

The future for Standards Australia will be hard

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: