Southern Ultimate Sign Installations Pty Ltd (Southern USI) pleaded guilty at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court this week to one charge of failing to provide a safe system of work.

The incident happened on 9 November 2010 when the worker and his colleague were dismantling an advertising sign at Northland Shopping Centre in Preston.

The court heard the worker was taking off a metal rod at the top of the sign – which had to be removed so he could install a new banner – when it hit an overhead power line, sending 22,000 volts though his body.

The worker remained in intensive care for five days and has since undergone extensive skin grafts to treat third degree burns, the court was told.

A WorkSafe investigation found the company failed to ensure employees had sufficient training when working near powerlines at this particular site.

The investigation also found the company could have installed “fixed tracking” at the site, which would have prevented the worker from being able to remove the metal rods over his shoulder, striking the power lines.

The court heard that following the incident, Southern USI undertook a range of remedial measures, including fixing the metal tracking at the site, providing training in “no go zones” areas for its employees and mandating the use of a “spotter” in all jobs.

Magistrate Anthony Parsons convicted and fined the company $50,000 and ordered it pay almost $6000 in legal costs.

WorkSafe Construction and Utilities Acting Director, Allan Beacom, hoped this case served as a reminder of the dangers associated with working near powerlines.

“Understanding “no go zones” when working near power lines is essential and strict procedures must be implemented,” he said.

“Not doing so greatly increases the risk of workers receiving an electric shock through either direct contact with the powerlines or due to arcing of the electricity.”

Want to know more or need help? Why not contact us here.

Five new national work health and safety model Codes of Practice are currently open for public comment. They are:

• Safe Design, Manufacture, Import and Supply of Plant
• Working in the Vicinity of Overhead and Underground Electrical Lines
• Traffic Management in Workplaces
• Scaffolding Work
• Formwork and Falsework.

To submit a comment on these draft model work health and safety Codes of Practice, visit the Safe Work Australia website.

The public comment period for these Codes of Practice will close at 5 pm Friday 22 June 2012.

Draft Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022

Safe Work Australia invites all Australians to provide comments on the draft Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022. The input received will help shape the final Strategy and ultimately the future coordination of work health and safety in Australia over the next decade.

You can view the draft and make a comment until 5.00pm (AEST) Monday 21 May 2012.

Public comment closed for:

Recreational Dive and Snorkelling Industry Reference Group recommendations

Twelve recommendations were made by the Recreational Dive and Snorkelling Industry Reference Group.

Comment on the proposed changes is now closed. (Closed 31 March 2012).

Rural Plant Code of Practice 2004

The public comment period on the proposed changes to the Rural Plant Code of Practice 2004 is now closed (Closed: 31 March 2012).

Consultation Regulation Impact Statement on precursor chemicals to homemade explosives

The community and businesses were invited to provide comment on four options that serve to reduce the national security risks posed by chemicals of security concern (Closed: 30 March 2012).

A list of the submissions received, and further information on the development of the Decision RIS is available at the Chemicals Security website (non-Queensland Government link).

The presence and location of asbestos should be indicated if reasonably practicable by a label.

Registers are required for workplace buildings built up to 31 December 2003 – compared to current cutoff date of 1 January 1990.

Asbestos management plans and training are required for naturally occurring asbestos.

PCBUs must provide health monitoring for certain workers involved in removal work or other asbestos-related work.

There is a requirement to notify the regulator of:

• licensed asbestos removal work
• demolition of a pre-31 December 2003 structure or plant in an emergency
• asbestos fibre levels exceeding 0.02 fibres/ml during Class A asbestos removal work.

A new licence category for individual ‘asbestos assessors’ required for Class A asbestos removal work – air monitoring, clearance inspections and clearance certificates.

An independent competent person is required for clearance inspections and clearance certificates for Class B removal work.

Both Class A and Class B licence holders must be a PCBU.

There are new obligations when the demolition or refurbishment of a structure or plant built or installed before 31 December 2003 is undertaken:

• a PCBU with management/control must, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure ACM is removed before demolition
• a PCBU must before refurbishment of structure or plant where asbestos is likely to be disturbed, identify and, so far as reasonably practicable, remove the asbestos before refurbishment
• there are requirements for when an ‘emergency’ requires something to be demolished (e.g. structure is structurally unsound). There is a procedure to reduce risk of exposure to asbestos and notify the regulator prior to demolition.

Want to know more or need help?

Why not contact Safety Concepts and speak with one of our Safety Consultants.

The purpose of this safety alert is to highlight the importance of correctly locking out the free fall controls on mobile cranes fitted with this feature.

Background

A worker was fatally injured by a falling load while erecting a transmission tower west of Dalby inQueensland in March 2012. A 20 tonne rough terrain mobile crane was being used to lift part of the tower when it appears the auxiliary winch inadvertently went into free fall and the load fell, striking the worker.

Hoist winches on some mobile cranes are fitted with a free fall feature that allows the hook and load to fall under gravity in an uncontrolled manner. This feature has been traditionally provided on cranes for activities such as clam-shell dredging and dynamic compaction. However, the risk associated with an inadvertent activation of the free fall feature can be high and the provision is rarely needed. Most mobile crane manufacturers do not provide this feature on new cranes. The risk to workers from falling loads and potential damage to the crane and crane operator is too great to continue to allow free fall on cranes as standard industry practice.

To prevent inadvertent activation of the free fall feature, it is a common practice for crane owners to install a physical lock. Unfortunately, some of the physical lock arrangements have not been effectively installed. Errors have been made when interpreting the operation of the free fall switching mechanism.

Remedial action required

This incident has highlighted the need for the cranes to be operated so that inadvertent free fall of the load cannot occur. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) considers that the following action should be taken by all owners of mobile cranes inQueensland:

1. Immediate action:

• Owners of cranes with free fall features, that do not have a physical lockout arrangement to prevent inadvertent activation, are to engage a competent person to install a lockout and test the arrangement.
• Owners of cranes with a free fall lockout on the crane are to engage a competent person to inspect and test to ensure that the lock out has been correctly installed and free fall cannot be inadvertently activated.

The test of the free fall function (while the lock is installed) is to verify that free fall cannot be inadvertently activated. The test is to be carried out in a controlled environment where people cannot be injured and the crane cannot be damaged. A signed, written record of the test is to be provided on the crane.

2. Action within six months:

• Owners of any crane with free fall capabilities should consider de-activating the free fall facility permanently unless there are no alternatives for this type of operation. A documented risk assessment should be prepared for this situation. This de-activation of the free fall should include removal of free fall switches on the crane and a certificate from the crane manufacturer or a competent person (preferably a professional engineer) to state that the free fall function has been permanently removed.

The following additional information should also be noted:

• Workers should avoid being located under the suspended loads.
• The use of the free fall function on a mobile crane should be extremely rare and only be permitted where a documented safe work method statement has shown there is no other reasonable alternative.
• Free fall operation on a mobile crane should never be carried out with people any where near the lift zone.

Want to know more or need help?  Why not contact Safety Concepts and speak with one of our Safety Consultants.

Proposed measures to stop chemicals falling into the wrong hands: chance to have your say.

Industry and members of the community have until 30 March 2012 to comment on measures designed to reduce the risks of common chemicals getting into the wrong hands and being used to make homemade bombs.

There are literally tens of thousands of chemicals used daily in Australia for commercial and household purposes. There are over 400,000 chemical-based products on the market, which are used by some 570,000 workplaces and millions of Australian consumers.

The vast majority of these chemical products have important and legitimate uses. However, in the wrong hands, some chemicals can be used to make lethal weapons.

Terrorism remains a significant threat to Western societies, including Australia. While terrorists use a wide-range of weapons to pursue their objectives, the ease of availability of chemicals in Australia makes homemade explosives an ideal weapon.

In 2011, we saw the devastating effects of precursor chemicals when a homemade explosive device was detonated in Oslo, Norway, killing eight people and injuring 90. That bomb was created using chemical materials that are readily available in Australia, including fertilizer, nitromethane and aluminium.

So far Australia has been fortunate in not having experienced a direct terrorist attack on its own soil. However, it has still been impacted significantly through terrorism incidents worldwide, many of which involved chemical explosives.

Australia’s National Terrorism public alert remains at ‘medium’ which means authorities believe a terrorist attack could occur. This ongoing concern has driven governments and industry to work together to determine practical ways of minimising the risk of chemicals being misused by terrorists to make homemade explosives.

Part of this work is a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) that weighs up the costs and benefits of a number of different policy options, including a targeted awareness campaign, codes of practice and supply-chain regulation.

Stakeholders have an important opportunity to help shape government policy on this issue by commenting on the RIS. In particular, this is your chance to put forward your views and comment on issues, such as cost, effectiveness and likely uptake of a range of measures. These include: employee and contractor checking, inventory and consignment control, security during transport and storage, and point-of-sale procedures.

AGD is particularly interested in receiving input from businesses that manufacture, handle or use any products that contain the following chemicals:

• Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)
• Ammonium perchlorate (NH4ClO4)
• Sodium chlorate (NaClO3)
• Sodium nitrate (NaNO3)
• Nitric acid (HNO3)
• Potassium nitrate (KNO3)
• Potassium chlorate (KClO3)
• Nitromethane (CH3NO2)
• Sodium perchlorate (NaClO4)
• Sodium azide (NaN3)
• Potassium perchlorate (KClO4

To access a copy of the Consultation RIS and to find out how to make a submission, please refer to the AGD Chemical Security program website at www.chemicalsecurity.gov.au/RIS. For further information you can also contact AGD on (02) 6141 2925 or (02) 6141 3012.

 The public consultation period will commence on Friday 3 February and end on Friday 30 March 2012.

Often we focus on the workers who perform ‘high risk’ tasks such as operating guillotines, presses, angle grinders and bandsaws. The workers who do the housekeeping (including sweeping, vacuuming and removing rubbish and waste product) or clean the machinery and equipment are equally at risk of workplace injuries.

Injuries can be caused by hazardous manual handling tasks, and machinery and equipment which has not been shut down, de-energised or isolated.

Examples of how these workers have been injured include

• maintaining an awkward posture such as bending whilst cleaning floors (sweeping, mopping or vacuuming)
• exerting high force to remove stains or spills on benches, floors, machinery and equipment or moving waste from the collection bin to the disposal bin
• becoming entangled or crushed by moving machine parts.

Most of these injuries could have been prevented by:

• providing equipment or mechanical aids to enable the worker to maintain a neutral body position
• isolating or de-energising machinery and equipment
• providing training and supervision on safe manual handling techniques and how to use or isolate machinery or equipment.

WorkSafe has guidance  to assist you  protect the safety of your workers who perform cleaning tasks including -

• Code of Practice for Manual Handling
• Isolating plant
• Working on energised plant
• Contractor management

So, as you sit and consider how safe your workplace really is, make sure you also take account of the cleaning tasks and take action to make them safer.

Need help?  Why not inquire about getting some safety consulting by Safety Concepts.

The Model Act, Regulations and Draft Codes of Practice are available on the www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au website. Links are provided below.

The Act, Regulations and Codes

Model Work Health and Safety Act (revised draft 23 June 2011)

Model Work Health and Safety Regulations 

Model Codes of Practice

Interpretative Guidelines

• the meaning of ‘person conducting a business or undertaking’
• the health and safety duty of an officer under section 27
• the meaning of ‘reasonably practicable’

Guidance material on the Safe Work Australia website

Resources

Free Education Sessions on new WHS laws

Workshop and seminar presentation notes

Fact sheets and publications

Information by topic

• Duty of care
• Consultation changes
• Health and safety representatives
• Discriminatory conduct
• Offences and penalties
• Entry permit holders
• Regulator and inspectors
• Incident notification

Workplace Standards Tasmania

Helpline

(03) 6233 7657 (Outside Tasmania)
1300 366 322 (Inside Tasmania)

As with the Work Safety Act 2008, the new legislative regime comprises 3 formal elements with a fourth, non-legislative element sitting below that. These are:

• the principal Act, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, which takes effect from 1 January 2012
• the Regulations that sit below the principal Act, namely the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011
• Codes of Practice
• National and Australian Standards
• Guidance Material.

The Act sets out the overall framework for work safety and a range of duties designed to ensure work health and safety.

The Regulation spells out minimum standards for the duty holders to ensure work safety in relation to specific hazards and risks (such as the performance of manual tasks). Regulations have the force of law and MUST be adhered to. Failure to comply may result in a criminal penalty or an infringement notice.

Codes of Practice provide practical guidance on how to comply with legal duties. Codes have formal status, allowing courts to consider whether a Code has been complied with in deciding whether legal duties have been met. The steps set out in a Code are not compulsory, but you should follow the Code or an equivalent [or better] alternative.

National Standards and National Codes of Practice are developed by Safe Work Australia and its predecessors (NOHSC, ASCC). Once adopted in each jurisdiction, they are then legally enforceable. Australian Standards are separate technical guides which may also assist a person to comply with a particular work safety duty.

The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 has brought health and safety laws in the ACT into harmony with similar legislation adopted by most of the other Australian states and territories.  This harmonisation process has significantly narrowed the differences in work health and safety legislation across borders within Australia.

Key features of the new legislation include:

• continuation of the definition of ‘worker’ under the previous Work Safety Act 2008 as including more than just employees, e.g. contractors, volunteers, etc.
• continuation of the emphasis in the previous Work Safety Act 2008 on those who engage workers in the conduct of a business or undertaking [a 'person in control of a business or undertaking, or PCBU, noting that 'person' in this context can include a whole business or government agency] as the primary safety duty holder
• continuation of the inclusion in the Work Safety Act 2008 of upstream and other similar duty holders amongst PCBUs
• a duty for a PCBU to, as far as is reasonably practicable, provide a safe workplace and a safe systems of work
• where a PCBU has a safety duty, an ‘officer’ [e.g. a director or senior manager] within the business has a ‘due diligence’ requirement to take steps to assist the PCBU in meeting its obligations
• the primary means of providing a safe working environment is through eliminating or, if elimnination is not possible, minimising risk
• employers must consult with workers to allow them to contribute directly to the management of risk and creation of a safe working environment. 

The new legislation also introduces some new terminology, including:

• ‘work safety’ becomes ‘work health and safety’ or WHS
• ‘worker consultation units’ become ‘work groups’
• ‘work safety representatives’ and ‘work safety committees’ become ‘health and safety representatives’ and ‘health and safety committees’
• ‘authorised representatives’ become ‘WHS entry permit-holders’.

Transitional Arrangements

Part 20 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 contains a number of transitional provisions which will ease the move from the Work Safety Act 2008 to the new Act.

In particular, the Act provides that:

• existing ‘worker consultation units’ automatically become ‘work groups’
• existing ‘work safety representatives’ become ‘health and safety representatives’
• existing ‘work safety committees’ become ‘health and safety committees’
• existing ‘authorised representatives’ become ‘WHS entry permit-holders’.

This means that there is no need for businesses to hold new elections, for example, for HSRs or to reorganise their consultative arrangements as a result of the new legislation coming into effect.

Section 2 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 also provides for transitional arrangements including:

• Division 4.7.4 [electrical work on energised electrical equipment] commences 1 July 2012
• Sections 168-170 [certificate of fitness for diving work] commence 1 July 2012
• Section 53 [storage of flammable or combustible substances] commences 1 January 2013
• Sections 164 and 165 [residual current devices] commences 1 January 2013
• Sections 171-175 [competence of workers for diving work] commences 1 January 2013
• Divisions 4.8.3 and 4.8.4 [diving work] commences 1 January 2013
• Divisions 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 [design of plant] commences 1 January 2013
• Section 235 [inspection of mobile and tower cranes] commences 1 January 2013
• Part 5.3 [registration of plant designs and items of plant] commences 1 January 2013
• Sections 309-311 [WHS management plan for construction work] commences 1 January 2013
• Section 313 [WHS management plan for construction work] commences 1 January 2013
• Schedule 3 [high risk work], table 3.1, Item 23 commences 1 July 2013
• Schedule 4 [high risk work], Table 4.1, Item 23 commences 1 July 2013.

The Commonwealth has not provided sufficient time for all Western Australian businesses to come up to speed with the new requirements.  The model WHS regulations are still minus the mining component.  These regulations have an important bearing on the implementation of the overall WHS laws package.  The Government has concerns that having a different commencement date for mining laws will create an uncertain regulatory environment which could conceivably have a negative impact on safety standards in this high risk industry.  Western Australia is of the view that implementation of the model WHS laws requires the complete package for implementation which includes all the mining regulations.

The Commonwealth Government’s Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) for the model WHS regulations is inadequate for Western Australia.  As a result, a local RIS including public consultation in relation to the implementation of the model WHS regulations in WA is required.  The process, which should take up to six months, has commenced.  It is anticipated that the public consultation element of the process will be started around February 2012.  In order to aid its decision making, this process will provide the Government with information and analysis about the consequences the model WHS regulations would have on workers, businesses, government and the economy if applied to Western Australian workplaces. 

In view of these circumstances, the date of implementation for the model laws in WA has not been determined and will need to be reassessed.

Beyond the timing issue, the process for implementing model WHS laws will involve the development of some WA specific transitional laws. Some guiding principles have been agreed through the harmonisation process to deliver a consistent transition process in each jurisdiction. However, as each jurisdiction has a different set of current laws, the transitional provisions in each jurisdiction may need to cover different topics and therefore will not be identical.

Once the WA version of these transitional provisions has been finalised, WorkSafe will make more information available on how they will operate. But by way of example, the transitional provisions will deal with numerous administrative issues such as – 

• Continuity of currently elected Safety and Health Representatives so as to avoid the need for unnecessary election processes.  
• The rules for the continuation of existing investigations.

SA Government has every confidence that the nationally harmonised legislation will be approved by Parliament when it resumes in the New Year. The exact date is naturally a matter for the Parliament.

SafeWork SA’s planning for implementation of the new legislation will continue. This will build upon our extensive programme of preparation for the 1 January launch date, all of which remains entirely valid. Our WHS training will continue as will our engagement initiatives and preparation of administrative arrangements.