Model Work Health and Safety Regulations and Codes of Practice Public Comment Response Form Individual/Organisational name: 221 French _Anthony Section A: Model Work Health and Safety Regulations Exposure Draft General Comments (e.g. regulatory impact, level of prescription, notification, record-keeping requirements) Please find further comments included in Part 4.8 Diving work Chapter 1: Preliminary (e.g. definitions) Chapter 2: Representation and participation (e.g. power to request review of risk control measures in certain circumstances) Chapter 3: General workplace management Part 3.1 General working environment Part 3.2 Personal protective equipment Part 3.3 First aid Part 3.4 Emergency plans Part 3.5 Review of general workplace management measures
Chapter 4: Hazardous work Part 4.1 Noise Part 4.2 Hazardous manual tasks Part 4.3 Confined spaces Part 4.4 Falls Part 4.5 High risk work (e.g. Accreditation of Assessors) Part 4.6 Abrasive blasting Part 4.7 Electrical work Part 4.8 Diving work I am an active working commercial diver and wish to submit the following comments on the proposed Model Work Health and Safety Regulations 2010 as they apply to diving work (that is, draft regulations 4.8.1-4.8.21) I am concerned that if the draft regulations are implemented they will actually reduce the current standard of safety in my industry and may impact directly on my ability to earn a living.
These draft regulations will result in my work as a construction diver being adversely impacted by untrained or under-trained divers being allowed to compete unfairly with myself and other divers who have been fully trained according to the Australian Standard. Because these regulations do not mandate most of the safety provisions of the Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2299.1 (2299.1), which have been adopted by the industry as demonstrating good industry practice, many unscrupulous or ill-informed divers will fail to comply with the safety procedures inherent in that Standard. Such divers will be able to achieve their qualifications much more cheaply than those trained by ADAS. Because they will not be required by these draft regulations to conform to the industry accepted good practices of 2299.1 particularly in regard to minimum team sizes and using surface supplied equipment, they will be able to tender for diving jobs for much less than those of us operating in compliance with the Standards. Those of us who are diving in compliance with good practice will be done out of a job. In particular, I think the draft regulations are not acceptable in the following areas. 1. THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ADAS CERTIFICATION AS NECESSARY TO UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION DIVING As noted below, in my view these draft regulations effectively de-regulate construction diver training and much of construction diving operations to the point where the risk to the working diver will be increased over what it is at the moment. The ADAS arrangements provide access to internationally recognised high quality construction diver training in Australia and give Australian divers global access to construction diving jobs. If ADAS accredited dive schools can t compete with the cheap construction diver training alternatives allowed by these draft regulations, ADAS itself is likely to disappear. ADAS has put in place a comprehensive training and certification system that provides locally available training delivered by Australian commercial divers right through from occupational scuba to the highest level of saturation diving. If ADAS disappears, I - and every other Australian construction diver who wants to get the internationally-recognised training needed for oilfield diving - will need to go overseas.
I and every other Australian diver stand to lose the globally portability and universal recognition provided by the ADAS certificate. ADAS may disappear and my hard won ADAS qualifications and national and international career path opportunities will go with it. To replace my ADAS card, I will need to re-train in the UK or some other foreign country to get an internationally recognised diving certificate the equivalent of my ADAS card. What certification system will the government put in place to replace ADAS as the national construction diver certification scheme and to service the Australian construction divers and provide them with entry to overseas jobs? 2. AS/NZS 2299.1 IS NOT CALLED UP The draft regulations apply only a very small number of the safety provisions of AS/NZS 2299.1. As a result, unscrupulous rogue divers and contractors will be able to use inappropriate and cheaper diving methods and equipment to cut costs. This will put reputable divers and contractors at a major disadvantage and will make it difficult (if not impossible) for us to compete in what will effectively be an unregulated work place. High quality operators will either not be able to compete or will have to compromise; Although there are a few bits in the draft called up from 2299.1 (relating to general matters concerning the fitness of workers, proof of qualifications, undertaking risk assessments, dive planning and dive records), there is a complete absence of requirements set out in 2299.1 in relation to many critical issues. The draft regulations do not have any provisions for such critical safety issues as minimum requirements for diving equipment, team sizes, use of decompression chambers, breathing gas purity standards and the minimum contents of operations manual and much, much more! Such a comprehensive deficiency in the draft regulations is unsupportable. It puts worker health and safety at risk and results in a work
environment where current safety standards are significantly reduced. The Australian standards for diving have been in print for over 30 years and have been developed and refined by successive comprehensive committees of occupational diving experts. They are regarded by the industry in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere in the South East Asia region (and cited by regulators, courts and Coroners) as the reference document in matters regarding industry standard operational practice relating to the undertaking of diving work. Why, therefore, don t these draft regulations include AS/NZS 2299.1? 3. THEY EFFECTIVELY DE-REGULATE MUCH CONSTRUCTION DIVING WORK The way the draft regulations are written (including the definition of limited diving, the way construction work is defined and the exemptions to the definition of construction work ) will allow minimally-trained general work divers to undertake many high risk diving tasks that should be undertaken by ADAS construction divers. Just a few of many examples include: Vessel hull cleaning entailing penetration diving on large freighters, passenger liners and cargo ships; Anode installation and replacement entailing penetration diving on large vessels, wharves and other structures; Deep salvage of boats, ships, motor vehicles and aircraft entailing penetration diving and underwater jetting, dredging and use of mechanical lifting and underwater power tools; Inspection tasks at any depth, potentially involving penetration diving and including deep inspections of dams, wharves, locks, tunnels, mine shafts etc, using underwater video, photographic or visual at any depth using equipment, bridge inspections; Non Destructive Testing (NDT) tasks, potentially involving deep and/or penetration diving; Underwater maintenance or change-out of components at any depth(such as changing foot valves or swapping out pumps) potentially involving penetration diving; Tank cleaning and dredging, including overhead penetration dives and confined space entries;
Water jetting and dredging of channels or the seabed using powered tools and overhead mechanical lifting; Erosion control of river banks or the seabed involving installing heavy concrete mattresses involving heavy overhead mechanical lifting in very restricted visibility; Diving in toxic or contaminated environments to undertake inspections or minor maintenance tasks. By anyone s reckoning, this type of work requires the comprehensive high-end training provided by ADAS and the Australian Standards for construction diving. Considering that construction diving is recognised universally as the most hazardous end of the high risk activity that is occupational diving, why are these regulations reducing safety controls, effectively putting divers with inappropriate training at risk and divers who want to comply with good safety practices out of business? 4. CONSTRUCTION DIVER TRAINING IS ALSO DE-REGULATED Occupational diving is recognised in all developed countries as a high risk activity and construction diving is recognised as the most hazardous of all types of diving work!! This draft regulation effectively de-regulates construction diver training to the significant detriment of trainee diver safety. It does NOT specify the standard to which the training is to be undertaken NOR does it specify that the training must be delivered by a quality assured training establishment. It does not even require that the training deliverer be published on the SWA website!! ADAS was specifically developed to provide quality assured construction diver training through its accredited training establishments that are subject to robust auditing and quality control to demonstrate that they meet the Australian Standards. Under the proposed draft regulations: schools are NOT required to train to the Australian Standards which have been developed by the industry specifically for construction
diving work; training establishments will not have to meet any quality assurance requirements not even those required of the general diving work provisions; it seems obvious that construction diver training will follow the model of the recreational dive training industry in which competition between training schools has meant that standards are cut to reduce costs to the bone; the quality associated with existing Australian certification will be devalued and there will be no central certification scheme to provide continuity of training and an internationally recognised certificate; The de-regulation of construction diver training to the degree implied by these draft regulations will almost certainly result in the disappearance of the quality-assured training that ADAS accredited training establishments provide to divers. This also means the disappearance of the ADAS certification, which offers proof of competence to divers and to diving employers as proof of compliance with their duty of care. ADAS is a premier certification recognised by IMCA and all the major players in the industry. The international offshore oil operators are not going to recognise a certificate issued by XYZ Anonymous Australian Dive School! Again, considering that construction diving is the high hazard end of a high risk activity, why do these regulations completely fail maintain the current world recognised and quality assured construction diving training and training deliverer requirements? 5. STANDARD OF DIVE SUPERVISION IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPRISED The draft regulations impose a range of responsibilities on dive supervisors, requiring them to: identify all hazards and assesses all risks associated with the diving work; implement measures to control risks and monitor their implementation; prepare a dive plan; brief workers on the dive plan; maintain and authorises the dive safety log.
However, the requirements for dive supervisor competencies as drafted fail to recognise both these significant legislated responsibilities (imposed on dive supervisors by the draft regulations themselves) and the critical role of the dive supervisor both from a diving safety and a work-outcomes perspective. The competence requirements for dive supervisors in the draft make no allowance for the degree of significant maturity, judgment and expertise required to comply with the duties these regulations place upon him. The provisions of the draft result in significant reduction of the standards of safety currently applied by AS/NZS 2299.1. The draft regulations totally ignore the requirements placed on the role of the supervisor by 2299.1 and identified as specific competencies in AS 2815.5. Supervisors are the key risk management control for occupational diving. o They keep the worksite, divers and equipment safe and ensuring the minimal escalation of any safety issues that may occur on a dive site The draft regulations require only that the worker be experienced in the type of diving to be supervised. The obvious questions are: how experienced? and experienced in what? Unscrupulous contractors will use their experienced and capable divers on the bottom getting the work done and their least experienced divers on the surface supervising. These draft regulations do not recognise that supervisors have a special responsibility to ensure diver safety and that such responsibility entails them being trained in the recognition and management of emergencies as required by 2299.1. There is also no recognition that most divers go for years without experiencing an emergency and then may well during their very first emergency actually have to manage it and secure the safety of the diver(s). The regulations must require that the dive supervisor be a required to be a competent person and to have acquired through training, qualification or experience the knowledge and skills to carry out the responsibilities of the dive supervisor as detailed in 2299.1.
6. DIVING WORK ABLE TO BE DONE ON BREATHOLD FREE DIVING The draft Regulations provide for diving using breath hold technique to be used in both general and construction diving work. This is deemed to be totally unsafe and unacceptable for any other activity where there is a risk to the worker from a toxic or non-respirable atmosphere (for example, in operations involving work in toxic or asbestos contaminated atmospheres or for confined space entries). By any understanding, attempting to breathe water will result in substantial injury or death to the worker. To add insult to injury, the draft regulations specifically provide that a standby diver is NOT required for free diving operations. Workers undertaking free-diving work are always subject to the risk of being snagged and running out of air or suffering from shallow water blackout on ascent. In my view, free diving work is an unacceptable technique for undertaking either general or construction diving work without substantial risk management arrangements in place. Workers in the asbestos removal industry and those working in confined spaces would never be permitted to just hold their breath for periods of time in order to circumvent the hazardous work regulations. Unscrupulous employers will be tempted to use this provision as a cheap and dirty way to undertake general and construction diving work. The safety and careers of Australian construction divers will be put at risk if these regulations are permitted to go ahead in their present form. Chapter 5: Plant and Structures Chapter 6 Construction (e.g. construction induction requirement) Chapter 7: Hazardous chemicals Part 7.1 Hazardous chemicals
Part 7.2 Inorganic lead Part 7.3 Asbestos Chapter 8: Major hazard facilities Chapter 9: Mines Chapter 10: General Part 10.1 Review of decisions Part 10.3 Exemptions
Section B: Model Codes of Practice General Comments How to manage work health and safety risks How to consult on work health and safety Managing the work environment and facilities Managing noise and preventing hearing loss at work Hazardous manual tasks Confined spaces How to prevent falls at the workplace Labelling of workplace hazardous chemicals Preparation of safety data sheets for hazardous chemicals
How to manage and control asbestos in the workplace How to safely remove asbestos Facilities for construction sites
Appendix Penalty levels Infringement notices Other Comments