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

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).

If it is fatigue failure of the stem, and given this type of failure is due to cyclic loading (pressurisation/depressurisation, rotation, etc.) I would be considering what inspection/maintenance plans are in place, and if there is any replacement policy/procedures for their pressure equipment.

@Grant Franklin would you be able to get/share any follow up information on this incident from the University?

I can make good use of one side of an A4 piece pf paper. — Andrew

That "good use" is very subjective though :rofl:

Its a real drama when I get asked for our Health and Safety policy. I have to fossick around and make one up. — 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"

Yet 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

This goes hand-in-hand with @Stuart Keer-Keer's comment below

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

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.
The requirements to do it the right way, both for removal but also just managing the risks in asbestos related work, are often seen as costly and a delay to the actual work, so isn't it not unexpected that there will be some that will fill the niche in the market to provide "more affordable" services (just look at some of the recent asbestos prosecutions over the last few years to see this).
Most of the options in the report seem to be focused on more awareness and training (including strengthening the licensing and surveying aspects) - but they won't really do anything to actually encourage the removal of (high-risk) asbestos as the preferred option, e.g. from residential buildings and other areas where the presence/risks will be less known to the owner/occupiers/operators. And to be honest the only way to encourage this (without unintendingly delaying needed maintenance work if you just outright legislate asbestos has to be removed during renovations/maintenance) is for the government to subsidise (most likely fully) the costs of removing asbestos.

If you can (i.e. they are still in business) I would be asking the manufacture for advice rather than an internet forum (although I assume your question is more to gauge what is normal than specific advice). If you can't contact the manufacture, then you may get some good advice regarding periodic maintenance and checks from someone at the Maintenance Engineering Society of NZ (https://mesnz.org.nz/).

the checks I am referring to are documented checks rather than a pre-operational visual check. — Brendon Ward

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.
(I am assuming that the gantry crane has a current certificate of inspection, and your question is regarding what is practical above the minimum statutory requirements)

Agree that it is essentially an interpretation issue, however Section 226 is addressing how ACoP can be used in criminal or civil prosecutions/proceedings, but not (directly) addressing any specific duty or obligation under HSWA. Although if I was summarising how ACoPs fit into the HSWA legislative regime to a business owner I would use (and have) a statement such as yours.
However the full section reads:
226 Use of approved codes of practice in proceedings
(1) No code of practice issued or amended under this Part confers rights or obligations capable of enforcement in any civil or criminal proceedings.
(2) However, an approved code of practice is admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings as evidence of whether or not a duty or obligation under this Act has been complied with.
(3) The court may—
(a) have regard to the code as evidence of what is known about a hazard or risk, risk assessment, or risk control to which the code relates; and
(b) rely on the code in determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances to which the code relates.
(4) Nothing in this section prevents a person from introducing evidence of compliance with this Act in a manner that is different from the code but provides a standard of work health and safety that is equivalent to or higher than the standard required in the code.
Which is to say:

1. You don't have to do what the ACoP says,
2. But if you do what the ACoP says you have complied with the relevant duties/obligations,
3. If there is an ACoP you can't say you didn't know about the risk or what to do about it,
4. But you can manage the risk in a way that is different to the ACoP as long as you have managed the risk

The hard part is the subjective nature of determining what is a "better" / "higher" standard?
Example is WorkSafe NZ have a Good Practice Guideline on Health and Safety in Welding (about 32 pages of actual "safety" information), compared to the Weld Australia's Technical Note 7 on Health and Safety in Welding which has over 150 page of "safety" information (and is actually one of the listed sources of the WorkSafe NZ Guidelines) - but even though it is likely more thorough does the Australian document actually specify a higher standard of safety. (and yes I know I am referring to a GPG and not a ACoP, but MBIE / WorkSafe NZ haven't release many ACoPs since HSWA was enacted, and mostly have revoked existing ones to be replaced with GPGs instead)
The easier example to point to is if the ACoP says retrain every 3 years then if you retrain every 2 years you must be safer, the problem is that could actually do very little to raise the standard of safety if the retraining is of little value to begin with.
And on that last point - could more frequent retraining actually have a negative impact on safety? One of the biggest issues workers raise with me when they get called up for retraining is "the added stress from needing to make up the day lost to training"... and what sort of "shortcuts" are going to be made to make up that time?

We have D endorsed drivers and the 'legal' requirement is a 5-yearly refresher which is too long. — Kate Thompson

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...

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

Where in HSWA does it say that?
HSWA basically just says that a PCBU has to provide training when relevant. And the regulations essentially just reword that vague statement to the equally vague "workers must be adequately trained in the safe use of what they need to use to do their work" - even when the regualtions cover specific circumstances like first aid the requirement is still a nondescript "trained to administer first aid".
Regarding the ACoPs - HSWA is actually saying that compliance with an ACoP can be used as evidence that a duty/obligation has been complied with, not that you should/must follow the ACoP. However on the flip side an ACoP can also be used as evidence of what is known about a hazard or risk and what should be considered reasonably practical to manage that risk. i.e. follow the ACoP and you should be able to successfully argue you have fulfilled your duty, but also if there is a ACoP relating to the work then you will not be able to argue that you are not guilty because you weren't / couldn't have been aware of the hazard/risk or how you could of reasonably control it.

To often (and this thread is one example of it) we confuse training with competence - there can easily be situations where no matter how many times a person is trained and retrained on a task they will never be competent at that task, or on the other hand another person may be competent in that task with little to no training (due to having experience/competency in other similar tasks).

To go back to the original post - there is no "definitive rule for refreshers", as the act/regulations address the "requirements" as workers must:

• be competent to do their work (i.e. having the knowledge and experience), or if they are not competent that they are supervised by someone who is competent, and
• They have received training on the safe use of what they use to do their work.

Each company then needs to determine how they will comply with these requirements - which could be to outsource the training to a PTE, which could use refresher training as the assessment of current competency. Or it could bean in-house training program.

The only "definitive rule for refreshers" I have actually come across is has been in principle contractor / subcontractor situations (or sometimes client / principle contractor), where the rule is being dictated by the company you are doing the work for (because that is what is written in their H&S Management System) - however this more often ends up in a focus on compliance management rather than risk management.

if i was cynical i would say that it inceases thier FTE funding by a large amount. — Stephen Small

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.

As 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

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 organisations

↪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

Even if the pallet jacks come under the definition of a "forklift" in the ACoP - there is nothing in the ACoP that states operators have to complete "forklift training" (which I am assuming @MichaelWilson is refering to an external NZQA Unit Standard 10851 training coarse) - all it says is workers need to be trainined on the equipment they used, and that employers shouldn't authorise an employee to use a forklift until they are satisfactorily trained. The NZQA training is satisfactory for typical forklift use, but for the pallet jacks used in Michael's workplace it may actually be better for the training to be in-house and specific to the equipment being used.
@MichaelWilson the ACoP does provide some good guidance for developing a training program in section 5 if you go this route - ACoP TRAINING OPERATORS AND INSTRUCTORS OF POWERED INDUSTRIAL LIFT TRUCKS (FORKLIFTS)

The exact wording from the decision is:

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.

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.

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

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.

Unfortunately the decision that has been made from the discussion between the PSPLA / HASANZ / NZISM / etc. has just focused on:

• the business relationship involved (distinguishing between a H&S Practitioner that is consultant/contractor and an employee), and
• simply the type of information being collected (rather than the purpose for which it is being collected).

Which has unfortunately meant that the PSPLA, using this basis, has concluded that H&S Consultants are considered Private Investigators under the Act.

I expect mine to 100% be listening to their work groups and raising the issues/ideas those people don't feel so inclined to raise otherwise — Andrew

Problem is you always seem to be the exception to the rule @Andrew :wink:

Reps doing their job and thinking they are helping keep people safe should I would have thought be incentive enough. — Andrew

Is part of the problem that a lot of organisations have strayed away from the intended purpose of H&S Representation - with most of these roles now being a mouthpiece of "management" rather than actually advocating for the needs of the workers they are representing?

It would be interesting to hear the split of time that H&S reps spend on communicating the latest company safety initiative (or similar) vs listening to their work-groups H&S issues and working with management to actually address those issues?

Digging up this old thread since there has been some new developments - specifically the decision made by the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority (PSPLA) that H&S Consultants that carry out investigations are considered Private Investigators, but they agreed that HASANZ, NZISM or similar are better suited to "regulate" H&S Consultants. Therefore if you are registered with HASANZ or a member of a HASANZ member organisation you are exempt from needing to be licensed.
(Also it clarifies auditors and employees who conduct investigations for their employer are not considered private investigators)
Update including links and previous updates are on the NZISM website - https://www.nzism.org/blog/accident-investigators-and-the-psppi-act-2010/

Like most of the above comments I think this is not the best outcome, while it is good there is some clarity I think the arguments made missed some key issues (similar to those made here).

1.
The definition of a private investigation in the act is [paraphrasing] someone (or a business) who collects information regarding;

• the personal character, actions, or
• behaviour; or the financial position; or
• the occupation or business; or
• the identity or whereabouts

of another person to provide to a client - in other words their core business is providing information about one person to another person.
The act also makes an number of exceptions, one of which is where the information is gathered "only as a necessary, usual, or reasonable incident of any other activity by that person that is not described in [the definition of a private investigator]"
Investigation into a workplace incident is the activity that H&S practitioners undertake, with gathering the types of information above being incidental to that as necessary - we do not collect the information primarily to provide it to another person in and of itself. This should have been the main argument made to the PSPLA

2.
The exclusion of "in house" H&S practitioners solely on this fact alone is potentially illogical as a large proportion of "in-house" H&S investigations, while conducted by the employer regarding their own incident, have the ultimate purpose of providing the information to others - mainly clients but this could even include for WorkSafe in the case of duty holder reviews (but not sure if this would be exempt as providing information to the Crown as they are a Crown Agent).

3.
It is also potentially illogical to say that the HASANZ / HASANZ Member Organisations are better positioned than the PSPLA to regulate/manage H&S Consultants that conduct H&S Investigations, but if you are not a member of such organisation then you need to be licensed by the PSPLA - surely the logical outcome of the first part of this statement would be PSPLA does not regulate any H&S practitioners, and leaves HASANZ, etc. to regulate all H&S Investigations / H&S practitioners. Unfortunately this is a much bigger issue relating to the professionalisation of the H&S industry in NZ.

One final point is that I do completely agree with the comment made by @Mike Cosman that there is need to for our industry as a whole to improve knowledge and understanding of NZ's privacy laws and how they relate to H&S Investigations.

Interested in hearing others opinions on this decision.

This is essentially the reason why they scrapped the WSMP scheme - it had become a farce where companies knew what they had to do to get certified so were just focusing their limited resources on getting that done, rather than improving the actual safety of the operations. And you couldn't really blame them as a lot of the time improvements to actual safety could have little influence of the outcome of a WSMP audit.

ACC basically said this with their findings when they reviewed the WSMP scheme where they "found there were no significant reduction in injuries and injury claims."

This is a common issue with most auditing schemes - if the focus is on getting certification for certification's sake then typically the minimum will be invested to get there. Even the ACC AEP webpage lists the first 2 benefits (of 5) as financial motivation. Same happens with ISO9001 Quality systems - if the motivation is needing it to win work or as a client/statutory requirement it is seen less as a tool to use to improve the business's operations and more rather a hurdle that needs to be jumped every 1-3 years.

To be honest my advice is to accept the AEP audit for what it is seen as for the company, a means to reduce their operating costs - but that also means that very little weight should be given to the audit's outcomes when reviewing and planning improvements to the work processes, and rather use evidence from more "realistic" sources such as your H&S committees and worker engagement processes.

1) valve guards are useless because you can't attach a regulator to the bottle — Matthew Bennett

Are they misunderstanding the purpose of the threaded valve guards/caps? My understanding is these are installed when the cylinders are being transported/moved (and therefore not chained up), not when they are in use. Once in position and secured, the cap can be removed and regulator fitted.
Am I missing something?

My other favourite is asking what the HSAWA regulations that you must follow when you see this sign. — MichaelWilson

Well the obvious answer is "all of them" :roll:

The BOC Guide (thanks for sharing Steve) is well laid out and contains good information. It references, value guards, rings and caps, however is quite silent on when where and what. — Matthew Bennett

Section 5.5 of Worksafe's guide for Gas Cylinders provides a bit more details for "when, where and what"

It is important that all users of cylinders take appropriate steps to ensure that
cylinder valves are protected against damage.
Examples of appropriate steps include:
a. Valve protection rings, where these form part of the cylinder design
b. Vented valve caps, where threaded provision for these has been provided
c. Protecting the tops of cylinders during transport and handling, or
d. Securing tall cylinders during transport and storage to prevent them from toppling.

While it is implied that not all of these need to be done (with the "or" at the end) the question to the supplier if their intended method of protection is to ensure the cylinders are chained up is what is the plan for a case like the linked video when a cylinder is being moved and potentially left to stand unsecure for a moment while doing so?