Hi Stuart. Me again! Have you touched base with BRANZ? This entity would seem to an appropriate body to sort out a guide in conjunction with WorkSafe and Fire Engineers from FENZ. There may already be well-researched guides in existence for this specific hazard - suggest web-searching in Australia, United Kingdom, Canada and the United States.
Regards
Ben

Hi Stuart. Positive pressure breathing apparatus does not have filters as the higher air pressure within the full-face mask works to keep out anything from entering, provided that that the wearer has a good face seal i.e. no beards, straps in the seal etc. In dampening-down type work when the fire is out and crews are doing a stand-by to ensure re-ignition does not occur (and it is impractical to continue wearing the full noise breathing apparatus I would (presume) that is when filter-only PPE might be worn and the correct filter replacement would simply be part of the normal/regular equipment checks and protocols after use.

Hi Stuart, what information are you sourcing for cancer rates on fire-fighters? Is it NZ data? FENZ fire-fighters are supplied with adequate respiratory protection via their self-contained positive pressure breathing apparatus but are perhaps more likely to absorb products of combustion via skin in the normal course of work when their higher levels of PPE may not be in use e.g. dampening down, making up and cleaning equipment after a fire.

I am not disputing the hazardous nature of stuff that been burnt and these by-products remaining on intact surfaces, water-logged gib, soot and char etc.

Are there not construction industry guidelines on this, as a building that has been on fire and is now being stripped/repaired is clearly a contaminated work-site and there is obvious benefit from an endorsed guide or code published by a building industry agency to assist those preparing for such work, (which may also include encasing or surface sealing to minimise release of nasties). The local territorial authority would also have a responsibility as they will be signing off a renovated fire-damaged building as safe so would expect various conditions to be laid down in the approved building consent.

If WorkSafe is still keeping within the mandate of its enacting legislation and its primary statutory instruments, then there would be an ministerial expectation(?) that the agency would investigate all best-value-for-life initiatives, some of which do need to be innovative for the reasons Steve has identified above. Good on the nous of the CEO for taking on this task - I applaud his courage and vision. Creating and maintaining safe workplaces is a goal that requires multiple measures and any worker that does not get home is a damn good reason for trying something "radically" different to how ordinary businesses are treating safety in the workplace, entities which by their nature are sometimes over-influenced by shareholder expectations, with Pike River being a terrible and ghastly example. New Zealand has also for too long wallowed in complacency around workplace safety fostered by that she'll be right attitude and fixing stuff with a piece of No. 8 wire, vital in the trenches of war but not when felling trees in our pine plantations.

Hello Matt
Thank-you very much for your explanation which makes sense. My curiosity is part-satisfied :)
Regards
Ben

Wow! The first charge using section 90 since the HSWA was enacted. That is a very interesting and telling statistic!

My personal view of an HSR investigation is simply the HSR carrying out an assessment of a work situation (that is probably complex), hence a more detailed look at whatever it is, as in history, compliance landscape, nature of the hazard and the risks posed, incident report audit, monitoring audit, plant maintenance audit, safe standard of work processes, documentation review, actions already taken to improve controls, barriers to improvement, current situation, which will lead to a reasonable picture of the state of the controls which is all digested with the view to creating some form of improvement plan/recommendation. Very much off the top of my head and each situation will be different and require different things.

Hello Keith
Are we referring to the same legislation i.e. HSWA 2015? If you are not sure what I am referring to perhaps you have not yet seen this pertinent section in the Act, which is compatible with the WEPR. Sections 88 and 89 provide protection for HSR's and therefore this was my original query i.e. the Act does not (appear to) state which sections cannot be used for the purposes of a PIN, and therefore can these sections be a reason for a PIN if the HSR considers that this section of the Act is being contravened by a PCBU?. I am interested to know if there is anything in the Act that is an impediment to issuing a PIN on these grounds.
Regards
Ben

In this hypothetical situation, I am meaning workers raising their concerns as opposed to a specific incident. Carrying on with the supposition, what if HSR-A did inform all involved re their representation of work group B, did raise the views of work group B with management, did request that the control measures be reviewed and following all this, was formally directed to stop assisting.

Hi Keith
How are the workers acting outside the HSWA which will be the relevant legal guidelines? In Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 6 the hypothetical situation meets the criteria of 2(a), 3(b)(i) and (ii). This appears to cover the situation I have described i.e. an HSR acting in the capacity of another HSR in another workgroup. There also a number of "other" valid reasons an HSR may be unavailable e.g. fear of PCBU retribution being one of them.
Regards
Ben

Continuing this hypothetical situation, HSR-A has submitted a section 99 request to the particular regulator concerned. The regulator is informed of this new development and does not intervene in any way or form.

Would HSR-A be acting appropriately and in line with the HSWA if a PIN was issued to the PCBU for prohibited adverse conduct?

Let me clarify a hypothetical situation:
Trained HSR (A) is conducting an investigation into a serious health and safety matter for another work group (B) where HSR-A is acting in the capacity of HSR under same PCBU but different workgroup. HSR B is unavailable and they and workers of workgroup B have requested HSR-A to assist resolving a serious H&S matter. Officer of the PCBU issues a cease and desist instruction to HSR-A in relation to assisting work group B. The processes prior to issue of a PIN have been complied with. HSR PIN training does not cover this situation.

Hi Janet
What was the risk assessment/decision that vehicles be provided with fire extinguishers in the first place i.e. is it an insurance policy requirement because all the vehicles are petrol-powered or the work that staff will be carrying out or something else? Who decided on the size/type of the extinguisher and what is its intended use i.e. leased vehicle or some other plant/machinery?
As a lease choice, diesel fuel vehicles will generally have a lower risk of engine-related fires.
What planning was put in place i.e. reason for issue, standard location in vehicle/s, size, extinguishing medium, who is responsible for checking them every year, what is the training requirement, has the vehicle safety policy been updated, is the bracket robust so extinguisher does not become a fast-moving object in a prang? If some staff state they would not use them it indicates that training of some sort is missing as there is a level of (anxiety)?
Having said all that, a functional fire extinguisher in a vehicle may one day be very, very useful and is a pro-active safety measure. Rural work location is a good reason for fitting extra safety kit and if a person is competent to drive the vehicle, being able to make a safety assessment prior to then correctly operating a "pull pin and squeeze" fire extinguisher is not a biggy.
Suggest also contact your local FENZ Fire Safety Officer or seek information online via the FENZ website. These people have the expertise and experience to offer sound advice.