evatech
Safety Management Services
Nelson, New Zealand
AgriBusiness. Issue 62. Mar/Apr.2007. HSNO-Series. Bruce Evans
Is HSNO Achieving Effective Change?
One of the reasons I agreed to resume these articles was the change of mindset that is or is not occuring in the rural fraternity in the wake of HSNO implementation. AC Nielsen survey farmer sentiments to compliance.
One of the reasons I resumed these columns for 2007 was the change of mindset that is (or is not!) occurring in the rural fraternity in the wake of HSNO implementation.
As seasoned agchem and fertiliser suppliers pointed out during my first Approved Handler training course this summer, resistance to change still prevails for many in the industry.
In the case of end users, we now have authoritative data about attitudes to change, because AC Nielsen’s Farm Market Index survey of December 2006* asked approximately 800 farmers nationwide their opinions about HSNO and its requirement for Approved Handlers.
A C Nielsen Survey Farmers about HSNO:
The survey revealed lots of good news about HSNO uptake at farm level.
But it also found a significant proportion of AH trained farmers who claimed they ‘learned nothing new in their AH training, it is just common sense and is a waste of time and money’.
Of farmers who have not yet trained for HSNO, the survey also found that 17 per cent of them have no intention of ever training, and a significant proportion of these think HSNO is unnecessary law; they don’t need training nor do they believe the law will be enforced.
This question of enforcement was dealt with in our last issue – at least we now know that farmers who feel this way are estimated to be in the minority.
On the positive side AC Nielsen’s FMI survey found that while approximately 50 per cent of all farmers are trained in HSNO, that figure rises to 65 per cent for South Island farmers.
(Presumably because of the very high number of cropping farmers – 90 per cent – who are AH-trained.) And while many farmers told the Nielsen surveyors they learned nothing new at their training, a much healthier 60 per cent said “they did learn something”.
The most common examples quoted were methods of improving chemical storage, and much greater awareness of risks associated with handling chemicals.
Resistance to Change/ 'Who me!
Does the AC Nielsen survey reveal a group of people firmly resistant to change?
And as a result, will accidents continue to occur through bad practice in handling and storing chemicals? A trainee at one of my AH Supplier courses this week pointed out a recent media article about an explosion and the hospitalization of a Picton person after mixing pool chemicals.
The trainee had learned something too and said the Class 5 oxidizing material that I had been using as a training example was quoted in the newspaper as being involved in the accident.
This is the same class of substance involved in the infamous ICI Auckland fire 23 years ago, which ultimately led to the initiation of the HSNO Act.
Could HSNO help prevent incidents like the Picton explosion and the ICI Fire? It should do, but maybe not when this typical situation witnessed as a Test Certifier visiting such Class 5 storage areas develops. Sharp-eyed readers of the HSNO Regulations remind me that…
“I only need to be trained and obtain a AH Certificate if I have more than 500 kg
of Class 5.”
“I think I can understand why I need a Location Certificate and signage and other emergency stuff if I’m handling and using 50 kg or more or storing more than 500 kg in unopened drums.”
Class 5 Oxidiser problems:
There seems to be a prevailing belief among Class 5 oxidizer users that they don’t need to do any HSNO training because they don’t have more than 500 kg.
Even more relief when they realise if they have less than 50 kg in opened drums they don’t need a Location Certificate and associated compliance requirements.
Thus it is quite common for holders of substantial quantities of Class 5 product to avoid the perceived rigors of HSNO by stocking below the quantity trigger levels.
Few understand however that HSNO requires any level of Class 5 product to have proper segregation, irrespective of quantity.
All too often sizeable quantities of Class 5 material are mixed up with incompatible substances in a haphazard fashion in rural supply and home-handyman retail stores.
Thus all the ingredients required for another ICI-type fire are in situ now and all that is needed for disaster is for two of those containers to be slightly leaking or damaged.
The ICI Fire again?
It is 2007 not 1984, but it seems the issue of segregation and separation of incompatibles that was implicated in that disastrous fire 23 years ago have not been learnt.
Perhaps it won’t happen because we don’t need a Location Certificate?
Yeah right!