We had an incident where a car came off a hoist. The independent IQP for the hoists clearly pointed out and proved that the fault was "operator error". The end result was a costly exercise for the company as the vehicle was written off from the damage sustained and the hoist had to be replaced due to damage resulting from the incident. The technician, whilst obviously embarrassed with his actions, was not persecuted by the company. We undertook a full enquiry which resulted in a new SWP for Hoists being written and we also made adjustments to the telescopic arms of the hoists.

Thank you for the responses...there are some excellent points.

I believe the risk matrix scoring should be the same across all industries to have a common starting point. The discussion, which should be done by workers at the coal face, is imperative over being done by someone behind the scenes. We find the thought process in assessing the risk as a good start to getting staff to verbalise the risks but...

There is no common denominator in calculating the residual risk value. The weighting of control factors needs to be also based on a standard format. Yes we ask staff to weight consequences & likelihood, but we do not guide them on how to weigh control measures.

I.E. Training, PPE, maintenance, housekeeping, SWP, equipment checks etc need to have a standard points awarding structure.

Possibly we should re-access the risk once control measures are decided upon, use those values to calculate initial risk and then subtract them as controls to get the residual.

Example. Engine Exhaust Fumes
Initial Risk = likely x major = 4 x 4 = 16
Controls = training / extraction system / maintenance
So instead of asking if those controls are in place, what is the estimate of residual risk ;
unlikely x minor = 2 x 2 = 4 (our example)

Rather ask..
Initial Risk :
Training removed; extraction & maintenance remain in place = occasional x moderate = 3 x 3 = 9 ( training reduction 7 points ).
Extraction removed; training & maintenance remain in place = likely x major = 4 x 4 = 16 ( extraction reduction 0 points ).
Maintenance removed; training & extraction remain in place = unlikely x major = 2 x 4 = 8 ( maintenance reduction 8 points ).

Initial - Training - Extraction - Maintenance = Residual
16 - 7 - 0 - 8 = 1
Which equates to rare x insignificant

Is this formula giving a residual risk that is too low ?
I am not formally trained but do feel my residual risks are more of a thumb suck than being calculated in some logical or standard format...

Someone write an App please.

There is some feedback from OEM suppliers regarding storing these packs at optimum voltage which means the need to be on a constant trickle charge. Feedback from one is the cost for "proper" storage is prohibitive and therefore they will only bring in stock as required.
That is based on PHEV units which are smaller than the upcoming full EV packs.
I am not sure if there is a plan to recycle locally or dump "offshore"...

I have started another discussion relating to storage of larger EV battery packs. Upshot of my current research, there are no regulations regarding storage. I played around with Lithium Polymer batteries when they first came out in model aircraft and boy, were there some scary incidents.

The UPS aircraft crash out of Dubai proved they do not like getting hot or prodded.

The current spate of EV fires prove we are only just learning about Li-Ion.

Further response regarding who may provide training...

Answer - "Yes, that would be appropriate.  We cannot endorse any particular service provider but we would recommend that you use one who is a member of the Fire Protection Associate New Zealand: http://www.fpanz.org/

Fire Information Unit
National Risk Reduction Team"
  
Question - "For in house training, could a 'suitably qualified' person be someone who has completed a fire fighting course covering classes of fires, types of fire extinguishers and method of extinguishing (I.E. PASS method) ?

 As a health & safety officer, I am keen to introduce practical training to help staff feel more confident and be more pro-active in dealing with work place risks.

The site does not have water based hand appliances that could increase the risk when used on electrical fires."

Brendon to answer your question (very simply) : There are some GHS classifications that fall away for minor hazards. I.E. A&B covered but C&D fall away.

I wish the Worksafe calculator populated classification codes when entering the HSR number. I have seen datasheets for the same product reflect different classification codes...

I asked the same question. Below response (I added CAPS to highlight ambiguity);

"Fire extinguisher training is not a requirement in New Zealand, just as it is not a requirement to have any fire fighting equipment installed in a building (extinguishers, hose reels, fire blankets etc).

However, Fire and Emergency recommends the use of fire extinguishers to ensure the safety of building occupants and employees. This is especially relevant for places where there is a higher risk of fire, such as:

⦁ cooking areas
⦁ certain manufacturing processes
⦁ welding
⦁ hot work.

If you do have fire extinguishers on site then only staff who are trained to use them AND who feel comfortable doing so should. Training can be done in house by a suitably qualified staff member or be outsourced to a certified trainer. This is usually done annually, or as new staff are appointed.

You DON'T need to be qualified to use a fire extinguisher, but as above, only occupants who are confident using them and can do so safely, should. Only use fire extinguishers when it is safe to do so, e.g. when the fire is no larger than a waste paper basket or pot on a stove. Always have a safe path of escape, and ensure Fire and Emergency has been called.

Kind Regards,

Name With-held
Fire Information Unit

National Risk Reduction Team
P: 0800 347 346 
fireinfoatfireandemergencydotnz
www.fireandemergency.nz"