Individual/Organisational name:230 Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce
What state/ territory are you from? Victoria
Model Work Health and Safety Codes of Practice - Public Comment Response Form
IntroDUCTIOn
The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) is an employer organisation representing the interests of more than 5500 members in Victoria and Tasmania in the retail motor industry. VACC members are predominantly small businesses with 90% of the members employing less than 20 employees. The various divisions in the retail motor industry are mechanical repair, body repair (including spray painting), automotive dealers, used car traders, auto electrical, engine re-conditioners, tyre dealers, radiator services, farm machinery, motorcycle dealers, service station and convenience stores and towing operators.
VACC provides comprehensive advice and assistance to help members run their businesses more effectively. VACC, on behalf of its members, tenders this submission in response to the Issues Paper on the Draft Model Work Health and Safety (WHS) Codes of Practices that are due Friday 16 December 2011.
The views expressed in this submission have been developed through a number of avenues:
- VACC’s OHS and Industrial Relations Department which have extensive experience in the practical application of OHS legislation, and its interaction with industrial instruments and other legislative provisions regulating the employment relationship in the retail motor industry;
- Views of members expressed through day-to-day contact who use VACC’s advice, training and consultation services;
- VACC as a member of Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has consulted through the ACCI Occupational Health and Safety Working Party; and
- Discussions with other key stakeholders.
1)Safe Design Of Building and Structures
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
No Comment
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).
No Comment
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).
No Comment
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).
General Comment:
VACC is of the opinion that this spray painting and powder coating code of practice should be shorter, sharper guidance material as opposed to a code of practice. The reason for this is that this code is too general for all the types of spray painting that occurs across different industries and situations. When reading this code of practice it always reverts back to the application of spray painting for vehicles and it fails to pick up other types of spray painting or spray applying, for example, spray painting of walls.
Page 6 Section 2
In table, 1 the examples in the first row for ‘hazardous chemicals hazards’ is incorrect. It states, ‘Products containing iso-cyanates, paints, solvents, adhesives, resins, rust removers, rust converters, lacquers and degreases’, all but iso-cyanates are products. After iso-cyanates it should continue to list other hazardous chemicals such as lead, methanol, benzene, etc. You can get paints and degreases that are not hazardous or contains hazardous chemicals.
Page 7 Section 2.1
The last paragraph on this page outlines a requirement to label containers, which is not practical. The first paragraph uses the word ‘ensure’ to outline an absolute duty to label all containers as required in table 2 on page 8, which is incorrect with regards to the spray painting process. The opening sentence should be changed to ‘ensure so far as reasonably practicable’. In automotive body repair businesses, the spray painter will mix in a plastic container many paints to produce a certain colour and there wouldn’t be an automotive workshop who could comply with this labelling requirement. Labelling the short time used disposable containers will be time consuming and will achieve no safety outcome. This code of practice needs to outline practical solutions that are reasonably practicable to comply with and not place a duty where it is not required.
Page 8
The text below the heading of ‘Lead’ outlines that workers who carry out spray painting could be exposed to lead when repainting old motor vehicles. This paragraph is incorrect as the old vehicle would have been prepared (sanded back and cleaned) before spray painting. The lead exposure is a risk to body repairers who would prepare the car, not the spray painter. The code fails to acknowledge that there are two different skilled trades, there are body repairs who repair the physical damage to a vehicle and prepare the car for spray painting, then there are spray painters who mix and match paints and spray paint. The intention of this code of practice is based on spray painting application, it shouldn’t include every process prior to spray painting such as mechanical repair, preparation and assembly of items that require spray painting.
Page 9
The last sentence under the title of ‘Hazardous Chemical Register’ states:
“the register must contain a list of hazardous chemicals found in paint,coatings, solvents and thinners, fillers, strippers and cleaning products”.
This is grossly incorrect as the Work Health and Safety Regulation Hazardous Chemicals provision Section 346 does not ask for this regarding a Hazardous Chemicals Register. Furthermore, this is impractical for a business to do for the following reasons:
- No small to medium business (which makes up approximately 85% of businesses) would have a person qualified and skilled enough to go through allthe products safety data sheets to outline and list which chemicals found in the product are hazardous.
- There is an average of 250 chemical products in a small automotive repair business and it would be an administrative burden for the business.
- This is no current legislative requirement to conduct this type of analysis per chemical product safety data sheet.
Page 12 Section 4.1
VACC is of the opinion that under the subtitle of ‘Minimise the risk’, the dot point explaining ‘isolation’ is not a common solution example in the bulk of the spray painting industry. Often, isolated automated spray painting systems are present in large manufacturing processes. VACC recommends that the example/explanation is replaced with:
“Conducting all spray painting in an enclosed spray booth ensures that other workers in the spray painting area or building are not affectedby the spray painting”
Page 13
At the top of the page it lists all the types of spray booths that exist, however, it does not give a PCBU enough information on how they function. Furthermore, a spray booth is one of the most vital pieces of equipment in the interest of safety when spray painting. Additionally, if a PCBU was to read the code of practice they would look at the type of spray booths. VACC recommends that a diagram is inserted for each spray booth type where it depicts how it functions. These diagrams will assist new businesses with picking what booth is suitable, especially as there is an increase in foreign PCBUs (with English difficulties) opening businesses with very little idea of what is required.
Page 13 and 14 Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8
VACC is of the opinion that figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 have incorrect personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements displayed for the spray painting of automotive doors and vehicle. The most common paint used in the automotive industry is two pack paint which contains iso-cyanates, and it can be assumed that the automotive spray painters in the figures are spray painting with two pack paint. From these figures it can be assumed that the PPE used in these diagrams are correct for use, however, it is incorrect. Below are the issues with the figures:
- Figure 1 & 2- Automotive spray painters should not wear half mask canister respirators. The industry standard for respirators is either a full head covered positive air fed mask or positive air fed mask with goggles and hood for the head.
- Figure 1 &2- The spray painter has his eyes, face and hair exposed and is at risk due to over spray and fumes.
- Figure 3, 4, 7 and 8- The positive air fed mask or disposable overalls do not cover his hair.
- Figure 3, 4. 7 and 8- The figures show that the air that feeds the mask comes from a fire extinguisher looking cylinder. This is incorrect as the automotive industry does not provide air from cylinders. The automotive industry have air line outlets in the spray booth which are connected to the air compressor which feeds continuous air and will not run out unless the air compressor ceases to function.
Page 16 Section 4.4
VACC believes that spray painting with no booth is a rare occurrence and it is recommended that this section includes an example diagram of the setup for spray painting outside of spray booth. The diagram should depict the explanation of section 4.4. An example of such an application seen in industry is the application of spray on protective linings on the base of boats, refer to .
Page 17 Section 4.6
VACC is of the opinion that an additional explanation is inserted to the sentence under the shaded box which outlines a workers duty for PPE. VACC strongly emphasizes that when conducting spray painting of any kind, PPE will always be required, regardless of the issues or other controls such as spray booths. VACC recommends that the following sentence is added:
“Workers must understand that PPE such as respirators, eye protection and protection clothing will always be required if conducting spray painting with hazardous chemicals, regardless of other controls that exist such as spray booths, ventilation systems or administrative controls.”
VACC stresses that the regulations and code of practice with the qualifier of ‘so far as reasonably able’ will give a worker an excuse not to wear PPE or the correct PPE, especially respirators. The automotive industry PCBUs find it difficult to enforce the PPE requirements as skill shortages make it hard to discipline and replace spray painters. The automotive industry PCBUs may supply all the controls necessary, however, the laws and authorities do not support and focus upon worker defiance.
Page 18
The second dot point under the subtitle ‘Two part polyurethane paint’ requires the addition to the full length overalls to state “full length overalls with head hood”. The head hood ensures that the hair and neck area is fully covered to prevent exposure to paint.
Page 24 onwards Section 6 onwards
From page 21 it would appear that the code of practice finishes with spray painting and commences with powder coating, however, it appears on page 24 onwards and from section 6 onwards that the section crosses over together spray painting and powder coating. VACC recommends that this adjusted or titles outline the combination so readers do not conclude at section 5.
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?
Based off VACC members, VACC believes this code of practice will not add any safety benefit compared with what is currently enforced in Victoria. VACC is concerned that this code of practice will confuse any industry that spray paints and would also confuse a PCBU who is trying to understand the requirements. VACC has assisted the automotive industry to understand the obligations under the occupational health and safety laws even before OHS laws existed. This code of practice could lead to a PCBU implementing an incorrect control and to then find out later from an inspector or from the VACC that it is not suitable.
VACC urges that this code of practice is made into guidance that is short and sharp, no different to the WorkSafe Victoria Solution for Spray Painting with Paints Containing Iso-Cyanates.
5)Abrasive Blasting
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
General Comment:
VACC believes that abrasive blasting should not be a code of practice,in comparison to the development of other codes of practice, abrasive blasting is not a specific provision in regulations, unlike plant, hazardous chemicals etc. VACC recommends that abrasive blasting is made into guidance.
Page 6 Section 2
VACC is of the opinion the whole section 2 Prohibited Substance would be better placed in the ‘How to identify the hazard’ section 3.1 on page 8. The current area at the front of the document does not logically fit well in the way it reads. The prohibited substances should be considered when identifying abrasive blasting hazards.
Page 8 Section 3
VACC is concerned with the heading of section 3 as it is titled ‘Dust’. The intention of this code of practice is to address abrasive blasting, not dust. As per the risk management format of other codes of practice, section 3 title should be, “How to identify abrasive blasting hazards”. The current section only addresses the identifying of dust hazards.
Page 10 Section 4
As per the comment above for page 8 section 3, the section should focus on controls for abrasive blasting, not dust only. VACC recommends that a further review is conducted of this code of practice and there is a need to focus on other hazards associated with abrasive blasting besides dust.
Page 13-14 Section 4.5
VACC recommends that after the exclusion zones section a diagram should be install to demonstrate how it should be set up.
Page 17 Section 5
Section 5 of the code of practice is titled ‘Particulate Matter’ which has the same issue as commented on page 8 section 3. VACC recommends that where possible the codes of practice should follow a similar format. VACC recommends that particulate matter is intergraded into a “How to identify abrasive blasting hazards’ section. Furthermore, a reader of this code of practice will become confused between ‘dust’ and ‘particulate matter’ as it can be perceived as the same thing, therefore, dust is classified as particulate matter.
Page 20 Section 6.5
VACC is concerned with the first dot which states:
“High pressure hoses should be firmly secured at a distance of no more than three meters from the operator”.
This does not occur in industry, as there are water blasting equipment that is secured and safe at greater than three meters. Furthermore, this dot point and some other dot points in this section are vague as to the reason why that specific control is needed. It is recommended that the dots points are reviewed and made clear the reason for the control.
Page 22 Section 6.8
VACC is of the opinion that an example diagram is inserted depicting a temporary enclosure setup as per the explanation in this section. As mentioned previously in this submission, a diagram showing what can be done will attract a reader to follow the code of practice.
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?
VACC believes that this code of practice will not add any further safety benefits to the abrasive blasting process. Also the code of practice in its current process will confuse the reader as it does not present a logical flow of information and topics.
Currently in Victoria and Tasmania, abrasive blasting is not a legislative requirement and there are no major enforcement programs.
6)Welding and Allied Processes
Comments due by Friday, 16 December 2011
Comments: (Please include section/page numbers).
General Comment:
VACC has an issue with the title of this code of practice as it uses the words ‘allied processes’. A PCBU or worker would not understand what allied processes are from the title.
Although section 1.1 explains what ‘allied processes’ are, it is a concern to VACC that the code of practice fails to address ‘allied processes’ hazards and risk controls. The content of this code of practice is focused predominately on welding processes. The allied processes do not use in all circumstances the same controls as welding processes. For example, an allied process of metal cutting using an angle grinder will not require ventilation systems and welding personal protective equipment. VACC recommends that the code either has a section added for allied process risk controls or allied processes are removed and the code of practice is solely for welding processes.