I have often been asked why we don’t supply Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) with our spill kits as standard equipment.

As its name implies, such equipment is meant to be tailored not just to the individual, but also to suit that particular individual’s field of work. It’s important to correctly specify the PPE to match the chemicals that have been spilt. I have seen many cases of spill kits containing PPE which was inappropriate for the chemicals stored in that area. It would be better to have not have any PPE, than the wrong PPE, which may provide a false sense of protection and potentially expose the individual to hazardous situations. Unless we have been given a clear idea of the chemicals the spill kit is intended to handle, we simply can’t specify which PPE is required.

We are not alone in this view,  as can be seen in blog excerpt below from our good friend Mark East from SAPIRA UK:

“The need to provide PPE for your staff when dealing with a chemical spill is an obvious necessity. Providing the correct PPE for each of your employees is not easy. The issues that need to be addressed are:

• Matching PPE to the MSDS for each chemical on site
• Ensuring that the PPE will fit each person. This may mean that each person has to be individually fitted. Respirators typically need to be fitted to each individual to ensure a gas tight fit
• Where to store the PPE so it is available in a spill emergency.

Most suppliers of spill kits are very professional about their approach to kit specification. The first thing to notice about a spill kit is that it does not contain PPE. That shows a company who understands where the line should be drawn between the supplier and the risk assessor. I recently saw a competitor’s offering where this was not the case for a chemical kit, picked at random, from the web as a result of a search for chemical spill kits. They required a lot of training and explanation for any responder and demonstrated all of the typical pitfalls of kits a company seeking certification to ISO 14001 may be tempted to buy.

The sales patter for the kit stated: ‘Suitable for hazardous chemical spills. Comes in a 240L Blue wheelie bin. Ideal for all small to medium industrial workshops, paint suppliers, panel shops.’

Sounds nice doesn’t it? But what’s that I see? PPE, supplied with the kit! Brave company and obviously visionary; they know the size of the responders and the chemicals that the kit is going to be used on! These responders must be pretty special people as well or related, way back, to pearl divers. It looks like they are going to work alone and be able to hold their breath for a long time. Ask your health and safety advisor what the implications are of providing a worker with the wrong PPE. Consider further the implications of deploying equipment for use in incidents and emergencies without providing the appropriate training. I normally try to encourage anyone specifying spill kits to address the issue of PPE selection within the industrial environment they operate. This is a difficult task but critical to the safety of spill responders.”

As well as ensuring you purchase the correct PPE, it’s also important to locate it in an area where it is easily accessible should a spill occur. The obvious options are:

1. In the spill kit itself (my preferred option)
2. In a locker near the spill kit (also acceptable)
3. In the site store (the least desirable).

The third option is the worst option as the time taken to fetch the PPE and return to the incident scene can be unacceptable. The large time delay can be an irresistible temptation for some employees to clean up a spill without any protection (the vision of Mark’s pearl diver swims into view).

The first option is always the best for prompt response, however, we must be sure it is Personal Protection, in other words, designated for a specific person.

The second option of a dedicated locker is probably a reasonable compromise to store clean, individual, dedicated PPE for each employee working within the area.

To conclude, the selection and maintenance of spill kit PPE is not a trivial issue and requires your diligent attention.

The proposed amendments to the legislation were prompted by an incident at a Newcastle Ammonium Nitrate plant where a release of hexavalent chromium into the atmosphere occurred in August last year. The plant has only recommenced operation this month.

The changes are yet to be gazetted, but are on the way, so I would suggest now would be a good time for companies to review their Emergency Response Procedures, especially if they have business interests in NSW.

In my experience, this is an area where the majority of industrial sites are highly exposed in both a practical and legal sense. Major Hazard Facilities are already required to routinely test their Emergency Response Procedures. Other organisations are not compelled to adopt this level of due diligence, but I believe it is prudent to do so.

The second major aspect of these proposed changes is the increased emphasis on providing information to the general community. This marks a milestone in the adoption of the “Community Right To Know” in Australia. This has previously been associated with United States’ laws. I have consistently advocated an open, transparent and proactive approach by industry when dealing with neighbours. These proposed changes to NSW environmental legislation codify that type of approach.

The details are as follows:

1. The proposed changes to incident reporting requirements include:

• Reduction in the timeframe for notification to “immediately”. Most other jurisdictions allow less defined time periods
• The requirement to notify up to six separate authorities of pollution incidents including the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); the relevant local authority; the Ministry of Health; Workcover and Fire & Rescue NSW and
• Increased penalties for breaches of notification requirements.

2. In addition there is a proposed requirement  for more thorough record-keeping and increased public disclosure on a “ community right to know” basis:

• Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) holders must publish environmental monitoring data on their websites and make them available to the public upon request and
• The EPA must make available details of mandatory environmental audits, pollution studies, pollution reduction programs and any penalty notices issued to EPL holders.

3. Stronger investigatory and auditing powers including:

• Ministry of Health to conduct a health risk analysis if requested by the EPA
• EPA to conduct environmental risk analysis of the nature and extent of any pollution incident; and
• EPA to impose mandatory environmental audit conditions if the EPA reasonably suspects that such conditions are warranted.

4. A requirement for EPL holders to prepare, test and implement a pollution incident response management plan (PIRMP):

• There is a range of offences regarding failure to comply with these obligations
• The EPA may also require occupiers of unlicensed premises to prepare PIRMP.

These proposed changes in NSW legisation should be an incentive to all Australian companies to both review and test their Emergency Response Procedures to ensure that they are effective and that staff know how to respond to an emergency situation in an appropriate manner.

*Some of the information in this blog was originally published by Clayton Utz

The debate on the Carbon Tax is reaching fever pitch as the legislation gets closer to being unveiled in parliament. In fact the tone and pitch of the debate is such that all reason has been abandoned in favour of shrill accusations from both sides.

Seems like a good time for me to get my megaphone out!

WHY DO WE NEED A CARBON TAX ANYWAY?

The main reason is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising and that we, the human race, are responsible. There is enough scientific evidence to prove this beyond doubt.

This means that our climate will be affected. Just how and when it will be affected is still a matter of debate. However it is safe to assume it will not be pretty. I personally do not not think we have seen any evidence of global warning yet. All the weather we have been experiencing lately – floods, cyclones, droughts and bushfires have all been seen before. We only have weather records in Australia for less than 200 years. This is a very short period to know what variations are NORMAL. We can only dread what may be possible when a real change starts to occur, such as weather events we have not seen before eg cyclones hitting Sydney or measurable sea level rises.

All environmental law in Australia contains basic principles which have been derived from UN agreements. One of these is called the “Precautionary Principle” which says that we should not wait until we have fully proven facts before taking action. For example if a native animal appears to be declining in population we should not wait until it is extinct before taking protective measures.

Taking action on CO2 emissions is a perfect example where we should be taking action based on this Precautionary Principle. I, for one, fervently hope that rising CO2 levels will have no impact on the Global Climate. But am I willing to bet the future lives of my grandchildren on this by doing nothing and hope for the best? Do I rely on being selfish and leading a comfortable existence and let future generations wear the consequences of my apathy.

For me the answer is NO!

HOW SHOULD A CARBON PRICE WORK?

Currently there is no cost for each of us to emit CO2. When we drive a car; turn on a light switch; ride in a train or switch on the air conditioner we are all emitting CO2 and currently the price of fuel; electricity or train fares do not include any component reflecting the fact that we have indirectly released CO2 into the atmosphere. We are all guilty of this. Very few of us voluntarily make painful changes to our CO2 emissions.

By putting a price( I prefer to call it a price rather than a tax) on CO2 emissions we will be able to detect the amount of CO2 we emit in the price of the things we consume. If we are rational we will change our consumption behaviour to reduce the cost. Just how each of us will react will vary enormously. Ultimately we will create a whole new market for goods and services that will reduce our CO2 emissions because they will be cheaper or more effective. Most of these have not been invented yet but you can be certain that they will be invented by the market.

Free market distribution of goods and services is the most efficient tool we have to respond to this issue. We need the stimulus of a price on CO2 to change our behaviour.

My criticism of the price or tax that is currently proposed is that the intention is to compensate the general consumer from the impact of the tax. This is nonsense as it will reduce the stimulus needed to change our behaviour.

In fact the fantasy being promoted by the government is that only the large emitters need to be taxed. The rest of us are OK the way we are! This is plain silly as the single largest source of CO2 emissions is the electricity generation industry. These are often government owned and they sell their product to us. One way for us to change CO2 emissions is to use less electricity. If electricity costs more we will use less. In fact this has been the trend over the past 3 years with an annual 2% drop in per capita electricity consumption. May be that roof insulation is actually working!

The fact that there will be no CO2 tax on petrol is lunacy. 30% of our CO2 emissions are generated by transport fuels. We need to see this in the price if fuel to change our behaviour. For example we should be driving smaller fuel efficient vehicles.

The most important message is that –

WE ARE THE POLLUTERS – NOT INDUSTRY.
IF WE DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS THEY STOP IMMEDIATELY.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

In principle the CO2 price should be applied identically to GST. No CO2 price applied on exports. All imports priced for the CO2 used to manufacture them. It is not clear to me how the government intends to deal with this however the debate seems to imply that export industries will be taxed. This again is silly as it simply encourages our overseas customers to buy from countries with no price on CO2. Australia loses income and the same amount of CO2 is produced globally.

THE QUALITY OF THE DEBATE.

The most disappointing feature of the Great Debate is the standard of the language that is being used.

Those who want to put a price on CO2 universally call CO2 emissions “pollution”.  They characterise the large emitters as polluters who are only interested in profits.

Those who do not call the CO2 price a “great big tax”.

The use of emotive language clouds the true nature of debate and hides what we need to do. This style of lanuage seeks to tap into the two base emotions that drive us – fear and greed.

CO2 EMISSIONS ARE A GLOBAL PROBLEM. WHY SHOULD WE GO IT ALONE?

This is key question to the debate. My view of this is that someone has to be first. Australians have had a long and proud history of being first with innovations such as reduction in trade barriers. We fought a long campaign to liberalise trade around the world. Ultimately we unilaterally reduced our import duties as an example to the rest of the world. Since then our access to world markets has improved as a direct result of our brave move.

In my opinion we should introduce a price on CO2 emissions because it is inevitable that this will occur globally. Doing something now has the least impact on our economy( according to Garnaut). We should be careful that it does in fact reduce CO2 emissions and not simply transfer them offshore. If we apply the CO2 price as we have done with the GST this will occur.

Some politicians are calling for the shutting down of industries such as coal mining. The same politicians want to impose a CO2 tax. You cannot have it both ways. You either put a price on CO2 emissions and let the market decide if an industry should survive OR make decisions about individual industries. My view is that we simply let the market rule.

Australia produces around 1.4% of the global CO2 output. If we waved a magic wand and stopped emitting any CO2 the impact on Global  CO2 emissions would only be 1.4% reduction – a negligible amount.

Some politicians make claims that we(Australia) need to reduce our CO2 emissions to save the Great Barrier Reef. Clearly this is nonsense. The whole planet needs to reduce CO2 emissions, not just us.

However, as individuals, Australians are the highest CO2 emitters in the world. If we expect other countries to do anything about CO2 emissions it makes sense that we set an example. We may not like it but whether we are first or last we will have to do something about CO2 emissions.

CO2 EMISSIONS ARE A GLOBAL ISSUE BUT WE MUST ACT NOW

I’m a firm believer in remaining “current”, particularly when it comes to the latest trends and developments in environmental chemistry.

And besides that, this stuff is really interesting (for chemical engineers, anyway!).

So last December, I jumped at the chance to attend the Pacifichem 2010 International Chemical Congress.

Held every five years, this congress represents the gathering of the best and most recent cutting-edge research from the Pacific Rim countries.

More than 13,000 research papers were presented from countries including the USA, China, Japan and Australia.

There were papers being delivered across 10 fields of chemistry in 71 different lecture theaters simultaneously, so the size of this conference was impressive.

Given it would have been impossible for me to be in all different places at once, I focussed on environmental chemistry.

My absolute highlight at the conference was hearing discussions about the development of the direct conversion of water into hydrogen and oxygen using solar-powered chemical cells.

This is the “Holy Grail” of sustainable energy where sunlight converts water directly into hydrogen and oxygen at room temperature and pressure.

This is an attractive way to create storable solar fuel from water.

The energy efficiency of these cells is already at 10 per cent of visible light.

Not bad when compared to plant photosynthesis at six per cent. Hydrogen is already in use as a transport fuel in new “green” vehicles.

A number of researchers around the world are focussing on this problem.

There is significant funding from the US Government as this can potentially reduce the reliance on oil as a transport fuel.

Already prototype solar cells based on this chemistry are under construction.

The leader in this field is the Research Triangle Solar Fuels Institute based in North Carolina, USA, which believes this technology will be available before 2020.

This is very exciting, not just for chemical engineers, but for all humans who share this planet.

Absorb Environmental Solutions was invited to present two technical papers at the inaugural National Environmental Conference run by CIGRE, an international organisation that shares technical information regarding electrical networks such as the national power grid.

We were also the major sponsor of the conference, which was held in Brisbane and led by Steve Martin of Powerlink.

Our most significant paper was a report on progress towards a comprehensive range of nationally recognised Environmental Training courses, for which we are in the final stages of the accreditation process.

These courses are targeted to the electrical distribution industry as well as a wide range of other industries.

Judging by the number of audience questions, the level interest generated by this paper was high and Absorb Environmental Solutions felt priviledged to be able to contribute.

Based in Brisbane, Les is the OHSE Compliance Manager for Virgin Australia.

For those who don’t know, “aircraft chocks” are those triangular blocks that are placed under plane tyres when they are parked to keep them in one place.

Generally “chocks” are made from new plastic materials such as polyurethane, but Les saw an opportunity and encouraged a local manufacturer to make the chocks from recycled polyethylene, which is commonly derived from recycled plastic milk bottles.

We love the practicality of this environmentally conscious solution, which is now in service at the Brisbane airport.

While we can’t take credit for Les’ ingenuity, we hope our course provided him with a little “inspiration”.