evatech
Safety Management Services
Nelson, New Zealand
AgriBusinness. Issue 66. Nov/Dec. 2007. HSNO-Series. Bruce Evans
DoL inspections reveal security weakness
Department of Labour inspectors probe supplier compliance. They issue compliance notices and improvement notices to some suppliers.
In case you hadn’t noticed in the spring rush, there’s been some recent compliance activity that should make chemical suppliers sit up and take notice.
The Department of Labour (DoL) has been active on a number of fronts and its Enforcement Officers have also been probing compliance status in the agchem supply sector under both HSNO and HSE legislation.
DoL recently appealed a case where it thought the original fine in a quarry accident was too low.
The High Court agreed, and quadrupled the initial District Court fine to $16,000, explaining penalties imposed under the act must bite if they are to serve as a deterrent.
VJ Distributors Fined $4,000:
In another case VJ Distributors of Hastings was fined $4000 under the HSE Act after it failed to obey an ERMA Test Certifier’s instructions to construct a proper storage area for drums of Class 3 liquid.
VJ was told by a Test Certifier to move the drums outside until an approved store could be built, but did not do so.
When a fire subsequently broke out at the site, the company was prosecuted because of extra risks facing the Fire Service.
(This shows the DoL can prosecute using differing Acts – the HSNO Act was the initial basis of instruction, but the actual prosecution was taken under the HSE Act.)
Following a request from a rural retailer to make an initial Test Certification visit to one of its stores, I found DoL had already been there several times, and had served three separate Compliance Notices under section 106 of the HSNO Act.
After the final visit the DoL Enforcement Officer expressed unhappiness with the outcome of one of these notices and was threatening to serve an Infringement Notice under HSE legislation. Whatever the legislation or the type of notice served, it behoves the industry to do what is advised and smartly if the costs of severe deterrent type fines are to be avoided in the agrichemical supply sector.
At about the same time as VJ Distributors was being fined in the Hastings Court for disobeying a Test Certifiers instructions I was being told by rural retailers that doors left open to secure and Class 3 flammable goods stores were just one-off aberrations and will never happen again……yeah right!
I’m afraid it is all too common for security doors and fire doors to be left open in day to day business.
From a Test Certifier’s perspective open doors to a fire rated store mean that the Hazardous Atmosphere zone or DG store required under HSNO is no longer an effective Class 3 store. Instructions I have left for door self closing devices to be fixed or fitted on Class 3 stores are often ignored because the self-closing devices are seen as a nuisance and the door needs to be jammed open when loading.
There are some important lessons for the rural supply trade when you look closely at the ‘open door disease’ and details of the Compliance Notice mentioned above.
Are retailers Poison stores too big?
As a general rule rural retailers got into the habit of building rather large locked secure rooms or cages to store their very small percentage of Deadly and Dangerous products required under the old Toxic Substances Act.
Most of the product kept in these secure stores did not previously need to be there (that is so even now).
If most product is of low hazard and stored in a locked cage or behind locked glass doors, staff are in and out of that store all the time.
This leads directly to the open door attitude i.e.
“I’ll be back here in 5 minutes any way and it’s a hassle. I left it open all day yesterday, locking it up at 5.00pm and the boss was happy.”
The overly large secure chemical zone has also become a good place to store high value items that these days are concentrated and packed in easily stolen packs.
Thus the locked store is further devalued as staff visit what is perceived as an irritating barrier to get to these products that are low hazard and don’t need to be there.
When HSNO says that the few Class 6.1A, 6.1B and 6.1C tracked substances “must be under the control of an approved handler OR secured,” some use their secured store the same way they have always done, with the open door prevailing.
Other retailers interpret HSNO in such a way that ‘under the control of an Approved Handler’ means that the tracked substances don’t need to be under lock and key because a number of Approved Handlers are on duty.
These retailers should be aware that an Approved Handler would need to be in ‘attendance’ or in eyesight of all tracked substances under their control.
Whats wrong with the door being open:
With this background it’s hardly surprising that a DoL Enforcement Officer has found a store that has had either open doors or no Approved Handler in attendance.
At another site the only Approved Handler in that store was on a lunch break at the time of the Enforcement Officer’s visit thus no control was exhibited over the Tracked substances held in a non-secure area.
DoL have issued a compliance notice and after further indiscretions is now talking about issuing an Improvement Notice unless proper security is provided.
Check out the location of your tracked substances and control strategy through the eyes of an Enforcement Officer and ask yourself: am I compliant for tracked substances?