The regulations has the following

(5) A PCBU with management or control of a workplace must ensure that a copy
of the asbestos management plan for the workplace is readily accessible to—
(a) a worker who has carried out, carries out, or intends to carry out work at
the workplace; and
(b) a representative of a worker referred to in paragraph (a); and
(c) a PCBU who has carried out, carries out, or intends to carry out work at
the workplace; and
(d) a PCBU who has required, requires, or intends to require work to be carried
out at the workplace.

If you have not seen it or made it available to people that work there, then are you and the owner breaking the law?


It also states

Duty to review asbestos management plan

(1) A PCBU with management or control of a workplace that has an asbestos management
plan must ensure that the plan is reviewed and, if necessary, revised
if—
(a) there is a review of a control measure:
(b) asbestos is removed from, or disturbed, sealed, or enclosed at, the workplace:
(c) the plan is no longer adequate for managing the risk arising from asbestos
or ACM at the workplace:
(d) a representative requests a review under subclause (2):
(e) 5 years have passed since the plan was last reviewed.

You can request a review under (c) (if you get to see it). There is clause 9 in the regulation to minimise or eliminate exposure. Is that being done. There are plenty of other clauses in the regulation I suspect they are not being complied with.

Using masks - respirator filters to protect against a risk to health is a trap a lot of people fall into. There is a perception that they have a mask on so they are protected.

The filters in the masks need to be thought of like a sponge. If you have water to mop up the sponge will only pick up so much water. Once it is saturated then it will not absorb any more.

The same applies to filters on masks. It is possible that they reach end of life in hours of use.

The other risk is that filters on masks will not necessarily capture all solvents. Some solvents will not be trapped by the filters.

If you have a risk of exposure then using masks you need to know what the compounds are in the air and how much is being inhaled. With this information can get an idea on how filter is going to last and if the filter you are using will remove the solvents present.

How long it lasts will depend on a number of factors such as how much is there, the temperature, how hard a person is working.

The above assessment must be done by someone that understands the chemistry of what is going on and what is present in the air.

As always you are far better off by removing the risk and not needing masks.

Carbon monoxide is most likely to be coming from a combustion source. Testing personal exposures and areas is a sound practice. Blood levels can also give you more information on what is going on. The amount in the blood can be affected by smoking.

I would suggest you need to assess the possible sources of carbon monoxide. A good step is to test the discharges from the forklift with a combustion gas analyser. This is standard practice for us when we do personal sampling. If a forklift is found with elevated carbon monoxide it needs to be sent for a service or actions to lower the amount emitted.

I would expect the emissions from a forklift for carbon monoxide to be less than 200 ppm.

Each PCBU needs to make that decision themselves and make it such that it is defend able.

Understandable as far as religious/ cultural reasons. Then goto step two. The cost of this is a lot higher than a negative pressure mask. As for how enforceable, if it is in an employment contract, and there is a good reason for it. (health). Hard to understand why it would not be enforceable.

I am no lawyer.

As to legal then the health and safety act requires an PCBU to take all steps to eliminate or reduce to the lowest practicable risks to health. It also requires an PCBU to provide safety equipment that fits. So if a person was not clean shaven and you gave them a mask to reduce a risk to health.....are you complying with the law? Another question for the lawyers.

Some options are:-

1. Put in the employment contract that employees must be clean shaven. I know of two companies that do just that.

2. Use a positive pressure mask. That is where the air is filtered then supplied to the person. You need to verify that the filter is in good condition. With time it will block up and need to be changed. You need a system of identifying when that has occurred.

3. Put in extraction so it is not required.- need to validate this.

4. Eliminate so that is it not required.

You say you have excellent air quality results. This is very much a relative term. It is possible that there is a problem with the air quality in your workplace. My son told me he has an excellent fantastic car. To him it is the car of his dreams. To me hmm well I would go for a drive in it but I would not rate it as an excellent car.

Without seeing what the results are and without knowing what the risks are in the workplace difficult to say. It is very possible there are hazards in the workplace that were not assessed. Those hazards could be causing a health effect.

Each person reacts differently to air quality hazards. Someone could be fine yet their buddy next to them is coughing and spluttering.

The most hazardous fractions of chain saw dust will not be visible to the human eye. At best we can see particles down to 40µm. Particles less than 10 µm are gong to have health effects. The amount of ultra fines particulate which is a risk to health is likely to be elevated. This will be contributed to by the dust from cutting as well as the exhaust from the engine and the oil use to lubricate the blade. (which can get hot).

There was a time that people worked on a roof with no edge protection at all. Or you could smoke when on a plane. Times have changed. There is a high chance that aborists and forestry workers are unaware of the risks to health. In an industry where there are quite a few deaths and acute injuries I guess the focus is on these to start with.

This sounds like a fine way to go. In the scenario where a person is using a skill on a regular basis and is competent how do you demonstrate that? A site will ask for the training card. If it has gone past the expiry date how do you get the site to understand they know what they can do.

It would be good that instead of a refresher they sit an exam or practical. If they pass it give them another two or three years.

The company I work for is active in this field. They only take on people with no experience but a passion to learn. Other companies employ a lot of staff from our company.

I know they are looking for a qualified person with no experience now.

I have read a few health and safety documents prepared for builders. There is a big pile of papers, The guys say the submit them to sites to meet safety requirements. What is in them I ask. "All that safety stuff".

I tend to agree with the Worksafe inspector do it yourself. If you cannot get help but do it and learn yourself.

Then there is the plethora of safety system auditors. Why are there so many doing the same thing?

Why dont consultants teach people how to do it themselves?

I have worked for K2 Environmental for over 20 years. Air quality assessments, noise, stack testing are all on the menu. Asbestos assessments and analysis, methamphetamine are the deserts.

Always looking to do work smarter better and listening to others ideas.