Those guidelines are clear that you can consider each Hazardous Substance Location separately, however they don't actually go so far as saying you don't need a Location Compliance Certificate if you do split up you storage. It only says it may not be required:Further - it then specifically says that means you can split quantities below threshold values and not need a Compliance Certificate. — Chris Harris
What this means is, if you split the volume of the substances you hold into below-threshold quantities, and store them in separate locations (and at appropriate distances), you may not need a location compliance certificate — WKS-6-AGCHEM-Location-Compliance-.pdf
To be fair, the WorkSafe guidance says "...you may not need a location compliance certificate."The calculator reported that because I now have 60L on site, I now need a Location Compliance Certificate. Which is against what the WorkSafe guide provided by Meihana above says. — Chris Harris
If you are able to share it would be interesting to hear what the workers actually wanted (as rewards)?You will be surprised by what is classed as a reward and who the recipients of it should be. — Chris Hyndman
Depends on the role/ If admin role and not in workshop/manufacturing area closed shoe fine if in low risk areas i.e. walkways and office areas. — TracyRichardson
Three pillars of sustainability: people, planet and profits. — Jane
Is simplifying ESG to a triple bottom line of "People, Planet, Profit" missing a big part of the point that ESG is a separate way to evaluate a prospective (or current) investment to limit the risk of investing into a business which looks good by the numbers - but is essentially achieving those numbers through unsustainable business practices? i.e making sure that the return on investment is not being made through screwing over the environment (E) or employees/suppliers/customers (S) or by lying to their shareholders (G).Jane you nailed it. The Triple Bottom Line - People (your staff and their welfare), Planet (your impact on the environment) and Profit (meeting your investors/customers/consumers needs). — Tony Walton
While the final nail may likely have been adiabatic combustion / contamination - it is interesting that the failure was at the valve stem and that it looks like it has failed from fatigue ("shiny" outer "rings/" with a rough inner section). Most other adiabatic combustion / contamination failure points seem to be through the diaphragm/bonnet or the gauges (thinner parts where there is also a larger surface area for the increase in pressure to act on).Another oxygen regulator explosion/fire recently. This time at Waikato University. A worker at the University was hospatilised with burns and hearing loss after an old regulator exploded when opening for use. Having old regulators myself I was unaware the risk that these pose. The people know of this the better — Grant Franklin
That "good use" is very subjective though :rofl:I can make good use of one side of an A4 piece pf paper. — Andrew
Please tell me that you have had to take up smoking just so it can be "written on the back of a ciggy pack"Its a real drama when I get asked for our Health and Safety policy. I have to fossick around and make one up. — Andrew
This goes hand-in-hand with @Stuart Keer-Keer's comment belowYet New Zealand remains content to try to manage this huge quantity of asbestos in situ, lacking the ambition to seek to remove it from the built environment — The State of Asbestos - Safeguard Article
Can we really blame them though, given those that propose to do the "right thing" will be priced out of the market by those that are offering the quick-fix (or actually the cheaper fix) - since both are technically legal - especially in residential buildings and renovations.They think that if they incur the cost of doing this it puts them at a disadvantage with their competitors that don't do it. — Stuart Keer-Keer
rather than "documented checks" the better evidence would be to have a (working) Preventative Maintenance program and the proof being maintenance work records (e.g. work orders or POs) to inspect/identified, and carried out maintenance work as required.the checks I am referring to are documented checks rather than a pre-operational visual check. — Brendon Ward
To take that example even further - you only need to be retested for your drivers license in NZ once you hit 75 years of age... I'm sure most of us know a licensed driver that isn't exactly still a competent driver...We have D endorsed drivers and the 'legal' requirement is a 5-yearly refresher which is too long. — Kate Thompson
Where in HSWA does it say that?Any refresher or follow up training should comply with the HSWA which basically says that if there's an ACOP or other code, do it to that standard or better, but you can choose how you do it. — Darren Cottingham
The other cynical viewpoint on refresher training is doing it to cover your ass if something was to happen, i.e. (irrespective of if the refresher training is of any value) companies consider it valuable to be use it as evidence of "taking all reasonably practicable steps" to manage the risk and if an incident were to happen they should not be prosecuted/convicted of any breach of duty... however the reality on this one is it is more likely that companies know/want to do what they can to make sure their workers are competent and the "refresher training" has just become the standard practice. And if they think about stepping outside of this "normal way of doing things" they feel exposed to the risk of prosecution if something were to go wrong.if i was cynical i would say that it inceases thier FTE funding by a large amount. — Stephen Small
Likely in the same situation as for H&S Consultants - given to be eligible to be a HSR under the Worker Engagement regs you have to be a worker in the workgroup then the PSPLA would have to conclude the same "in-house" exception would apply. Regarding the disclosure of information clause 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of HSWA provides rules around what information a HSR can disclosed and when/who they can disclose it to. Which is what I would rather had seen in the PSPLA decision rather than a seemingly arbitrary line in the sand drawn based on employment status or membership of certain organisationsAs a footnote, I searched the HSWA for "investig" and found that safety reps can investigate worker complaints. What if the complaints were about workplace incidents? Would there be a conflict between our Act and the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act? — Chris Peace
↪Steve H I do believe the UK determination does not apply here as the ACOP is the NZ reference or am I wrong?
He is also using one as a workbench so it is probably above the 300 heights — Don Ramsay
The wording from PSPLA is clear that any member of NZISM is covered. To clarify, the PSPLA policy is based on the HASANZ member organisations having their own "codes of ethics" and complaints processes - since these apply to all members of NZISM (not just graded members) it would stand that all members of NZISM are covered by this exemption.HASANZ and its member organisation are better placed than the PSPLA to regulate and have oversight of health and safety professionals. Therefore, any person who is on the HASANZ register or is a member of a HASANZ member organisation is not required to also hold a license or certificate with the PSPLA, and complaints against them for failing to do so will not be accepted by the Authority.
I agree with you completely @Aaron Marshall, and that is my point that H&S investigation should not be included under the types of investigations covered by the Act's definition of a "Private Investigator" as the private/identifiable information that may need to be collected for the investigation of the event either doesn't need to be included in the final report or can be de-identified/anonymised.Any information released should be de-identified. So, the information provided relates to the incident, and causes. While the information collected will include a lot of personal info, this should not be released to the customer. — Aaron Marshall