Individual/Organisational name: ACTU
What state/ territory are you from? National
Model Work Health and Safety Codes of Practice - Public Comment Response Form
1) Safe Design Of Building and StructuresComments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Section/page / Issue / Comment
P 3 / Scope / Consider that the scope of the document needs to be clearer. This para merely repeats the Act wording. The scope should be clear that this Code applies:
· When the structure/building is being constructed
· Final user/occupiers
· Activities related to manufacture, assembly, use and proper demolition and disposal
· And those at or in the vicinity of the structure or whose health and safety may be affected by an activity related to the structure.
It is also suggested that these activities are dealt with separately in the Code to ensure clarity and to assist designers understand the application of the duty in these different circumstances
1.4 P7 / Step by step process
Design-related hazards / The risk management process is limited to those: • identify design-related hazards associated with a range of 'intended uses' of the building or structure.
This needs to ensure that the intended use also covers construction.
The Code should address the risk management process for each part of the lifecycle.
The use of the term 'design-related hazards' is unclear and is only used in this instance.
Para 2
P8 / Consultation / Add after second para:
Consultation with workers on the design of new and refurbished environments is crucial to functional and safe outcomes. In addition, it is a requirement under the WHS Act that workers and HSRs are consulted where they will be affected by the design.
Workers are a valuable source of information because they know the work practices and the workplace more intimately than anyone else.
This means that they can help get the design right in the first place, avoiding the need for costly alterations to newly occupied facilities.
Part 3.2
P 19 / Risk Management Process
Hierarchy of control / The lack of clarity from the scope is exemplified in the examples for the hierarchy when the examples given are mostly limited to the when the building is being built and therefore could be read as limiting the application of the hierarchy only to the construction phases and not to the buildings intended use.
The examples in the hierarchy should include an example of each stage of the lifecycle.
P 32 and 33 / APPENDIX D – TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND OTHER REFERENCES / This list should include WHS Codes and refer to:
Practice Notes prepared by Industry associations and Professional Institutes:
Building Design Professions (BDP) (www.bdp.asn.au)
Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) (www.architecture.com.au)
Building Designers Association (BDA) (www.bdav.org.au)
And any specific design guidelines eg
A GUIDE TO DESIGNING WORKPLACES FORSAFER HANDLING OF PEOPLE FOR HEALTH, AGED CARE, REHABILITATION AND DISABILITY, or
Standards Australia AS1428.1–2001. Design for access and mobility: Part 1: General requirements for access – new building work.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
2) Excavation Work
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
3) Demolition Work
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
4) Spray Painting and Powder Coating
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
The ACTU supports comment made by the AMWU. The Codes for Spray Painting and Powder Coating should be separate.
General Comments. For detailed comment refer to the AMWU submission
As with other CoP remove the use of the work “you”. This is a legal document which must be understandable by readers but this conversational style, without clarity of who “you” pertains to is not supported.
Spray Painting and Powder Coating are hazardous processes, and this needs to be adequately reflected in the Draft CoP. The CoP needs more cross referencing to the relevant WHS regulations and CoP. This should be reflected in the foreword and scope and application which currently are standard wording.
It is very unclear why all of the information in guidance material published in 1999 by the NOHSC, a contribution to the state of knowledge, is not included in a CoP thirteen years later. This is a downgrading of the state of knowledge.
Some of the information in the NOHSC guidelines may be in the Australian Standards referred to in the CoP. Such reliance is not supported. This CoP should include information to assist duty holders and should not rely on the purchase of expensive Australian Standards.
The following sections of the NOHSC guidelines need to be inserted into the Draft CoP:
· Hierarchy of Controls – Isolation (NOHSC 6.14 – 6.19): This information is absent from the Draft SP & PC Code. Needs section added between 4.1 and 4.2
· Hierarchy of Control Engineering Controls (NOHSC 6.21, 6.28 and 6.33, 6.34 9(a) (b) and (g)):In contrast to the Draft CoP section 4.2 the information in the NOHSC guidelines indicates the utility and effectiveness for the different types of Spray Booths. This information is necessary for the duty holder when making decisions about the applicability of the level of controls being used. This advice needs to be inserted into section 4.2 & 4.3
· Appendix 2 Hazard Categories NOHSC: the examples given are very useful and need to be inserted into Table 3 CoP
· Appendix 4 Special Control Measures for Electrostatic Spraying NOHSC: it is unclear why the information in A4.6-8 and A4.18-19 is not included in the SP7PC Draft CoP Section 5.3. This information needs to be added.
· Appendix 7 Personal Protective Equipment Under different Ventilation Conditions: the Draft CoP uses some but not all of this information. All of the information is relevant and needs to be included in Table 5 page 17/18 of the Draft CoP.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
5) Abrasive Blasting
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
The ACTU supports the AMWU submission
6.8 Temporary enclosures
The third paragraph under this sub-section makes mention of ‘shade cloth’ should be amended to read:
Any porous material (e.g. sail cloth), or material which become porous through contact under pressure, or other means, must not be used for temporary enclosures if the work generates silica, lead, or other toxic dusts. A list of materials which are considered suitable by SWA for temporary enclosures should also be included at this point.
Insert
Use of Controls When Abrasive Blasting
(1) A person conducting a business or undertaking at a workplace must ensure that abrasive blasting carried out at the workplace is carried out in a manner that will not expose any person to a risk to their health or safety.
(2) If it is not possible for abrasive blasting to be carried out in a blasting cabinet or blasting chamber, the person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure that a worker carrying out the abrasive blasting, and other persons at the workplace, are protected from the risks resulting from the abrasive blasting by using one or more of the following:
(a) substitution of abrasive blasting with another cleaning process that eliminates or minimises health and safety risks;
(b) isolation of the abrasive blasting work by the use of robotics, or other suitable engineering controls;
(c) engineering controls, by the use of extraction systems, silencers on intake and exhaust systems;
(d) administrative controls, including training, defined exclusion zones, and separate amenities facilities.
(e) personal protective equipment – including respiratory protection, eye and hearing protection, protective clothing, footwear and gloves.
(3) An emergency switch that immediately stops the flow of abrasive material must be installed.
Ventilation of abrasive blasting area
A person conducting a business or undertaking at a workplace must ensure that an area in which abrasive blasting is carried out at the workplace is ventilated to eliminate the risks to the health and safety of workers and other persons caused by exposure to inhalable particles.
Waste Materials
(1) A person conducting a business or undertaking at a workplace must ensure that any airborne, liquid or solid residue, or waste material, resulting from abrasive blasting at the workplace does not pose any risk to the health and safety of workers or other persons at the workplace.
(2) The person in charge of a business or undertaking must ensure that any airborne, liquid or solid residue, or waste material, resulting from abrasive blasting at the workplace is captured and disposed of in accordance with [the relevant State or Territory law].
Monitoring
Monitoring must be undertaken to ensure workers and other persons are not exposed to levels in excess of the exposure standard where it is likely that exposure standards will be reached.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
6) Welding and Allied Processes
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
ACTU supports the AMWU submission. Overall a useful document
Introduction - The Draft CoP fails to recognise the IARC classification of exposure to welding fumes as Group 2B carcinogen . This is a particularly important omission as further research indicates that there is probably at least 1 205 excess risk of lung cancer amongst welders. The lack of inclusion of such information degrades the value of the Draft CoP.
In 1990 an IARC Monograph Working Group considered that there was limited epidemiologic evidence carcinogenicity of welding fumes, where the main concern was with lung cancer as the outcome. Since then, a large number of additional studies have been published. Some of the accumulated evidence has been used by IARC Monograph Working Groups in assessing the evidence regarding some agents which can be found in welding fumes, notably chromium VI and nickel compounds. But there has not been a formal re evaluation of welding since 1990. The only exception to this statement is a recent evaluation of overexposure of the eyes to UVR, common among electric arc welders. Several case-control studies reported excess risks of ocular melanoma in welders (Guenel et al., 2001; Lutz et al., 2005, Shah et al., 2005). This association may be due to the presence in some welding environments of fumes of thorium-232, which is used in tungsten welding rods (NCRP, 1988 ; Nuclear Regulatory commission, 2001). While there has not been such a formal re evaluation recently regarding risks of lung cancer, a widespread consensus seems to have formed to the effect that some welding environments, notably in stainless steel welding, do carry risks of lung cancer. This widespread consensus is in part based on empirical evidence regarding risks among stainless steel welders and in part on the fact that stainless steel welding entails moderately high exposure to nickel and chromium VI compounds, which are recognized lung carcinogens. In this line of reasoning, the presence of nickel and chromium VI compounds would explain the excess lung cancer risk among stainless-steel welders. The corollary is that welding without the presence of nickel and chromium VI compounds, namely mild-steel welding, should not carry risk. But it appears that this line of reasoning in not supported by the accumulated body of epidemiologic evidence. As reviewed by Ambroise et al. (2006), there have been around 60 studies published that are informative about lung cancer risks in welders. While there remained some uncertainty about possible confounding by smoking and by asbestos, and some possible publication bias, the overwhelming evidence is that there has been an excess risk of lung cancer among welders as a whole in the order of 20%-40%. By K Husgafvel-Pursiainen & J Siemiatycki 2008
2.1 Common Hazards
Other Codes of Practice and significant parts of the WHS Regulations e.g. Confined Spaces need to be referenced in this section.
3.3 Fire and explosion - very last paragraph of the section - final dot point needs additional information (in bold)
To minimise the risk to others eg the next worker, equipment must be drained and purged immediately after finishing the job, rather than leaving it to the next person using the equipment when they start the next job. If the hoses are drained and purged, and the gas locked off at the valve once the hoses and lines are cleared, the valves are less likely to leak therefore posing less of a hazard than leaving gas in the lines. Also this means that person who starts the equipment up for a new job can have confidence that there is nothing left in the lines and hoses - minimising risk.
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so what are they?
7) Safe Access in Tree Trimming and Arboriculture
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
The ACTU is aware of the reasons for the development of this Code in granting an exception to Reg 220(1) (a) and (b) for plant used in connection with tree lopping (reg 221).
However in our view the draft Code goes beyond its stated scope and purpose and needs significant re-writing. It is also of concern that the scope is limited to the 'urban environment' without any rationale for this limitation.
If the Code is to cover the risks of Arboriculture and Tree Trimming then it is would need to cover all aspects of work undertaken by workers in that industry and would require a revision to the scope and greater consideration of the management of all risks.