The Trade Union View Presented by Renata Musolino VTHC OHS Unit. 4 July 2012

Transcription

1 The Trade Union View Presented by Renata Musolino VTHC OHS Unit 4 July 2012

2 OHS Information and Website Officer - Victorian Trades Hall Council (Peak union council in Victoria affiliated with the ACTU) ACTU representative on a number of forums NICNAS CEF and through this the Nanotechnology Advisory Group; also Safe Work Australia s Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group Due to now several years involvement, was invited by the then relevant minister, Senator Kim Carr, to be a member of the Ministerial Stakeholder Advisory Council established by him under the National Enabling Technologies Strategy Nanotech specific submissions to various reports, inquiries, legislative proposals Main area of concern is nano in workplaces potential effects of nano; information (or lack of); potential exposure to workers; need of and ability to implement effective controls. However NOT a technical expert!!

3 What s the situation now?

4 Duties to workers Under OHS/WHS legislation: An employer (or a person conducting a business or undertaking ) has a general duty of care : to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and of other persons who may be affected it covers everything & everyone Manufacturers, Suppliers, and Employers/PCBUs have duties to provide information on chemicals/substances, and specifically MSDS/SDS and labels for those classified as hazardous

5 Questions at the workplace Are Nanomaterials present? Are they a hazard? Do they pose a risk? Exposure standards? Measurement? What controls need to be implemented? Are they effective? What information do we need? What training do we need? We don t know the answers to these questions - but more importantly, those with duties don t know However, we do know that potentially 1000s of workers already working with nano, sometimes unknowingly and potentially being exposed

6 What do we have now? In Australia MSDS/SDS information: SWA Report: An Evaluation of MSDS and Labels associated with the use of Engineered Nanomaterials (2010) found only 18% of the MSDS reviewed were assessed as providing reliable information to appropriately inform an occupational risk assessment. New Model SDS Code of Practice For products containing nanomaterials: For engineered or manufactured nanomaterials or chemicals containing engineered or manufactured nanomaterials, an SDS should be provided unless there is evidence that the nanomaterials are not hazardous.

7 Internationally Recent paper by Ji Hyun Lee (et al) 2012 Evaluated 97 nanomaterial-related SDSs according to GHS criteria Found most did not include sufficient information on the safety of nanomaterials, such as their toxicity or physicochemical properties Referred to ISO TC 229 and its recommendations generally in line with the Model SDS code (precautionary approach; listing of additional physicochemical properties; that SDSs be prepared for all nanomaterials, unless evidence exists they are non-hazardous)

8 Implications There is no reliable information regarding the presence or otherwise of NMs in workplaces This is a problem for both employers and workers So we need accurate identification, notification and tracking of NMs through supply chains: a mandatory register; labelling; MSDSs. (Re Register: many arguments both in support of and against a mandatory register recommended by the NSW Inquiry; supported by significant proportion of SAC members; subject of Federal govt feasibility study which rejected it, but our view on the basis of flawed information) Even with knowledge of presence of NMs we do not know what, if any, are safe levels of exposure, both in extraordinary and routine exposures For this reason, groups have called for moratorium we believe it s too late so even more reason to ensure protections for which accurate information is crucial.

9 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) Literature Review June 2012 These are international issues Conclusions of the literature review: There are serious gaps in our awareness of the potential risks involved in handling nanomaterials at work, and serious shortcomings in the way that those risks are communicated to workplaces While some work being done: much more still needs to be done (preferably jointly by policymakers, the social partners, national occupational safety and health bodies, public health agencies, sectoral associations, etc.) as poor risk communication may generate confusion and lead to unjustified fears or to underestimation of the risks, with consequent inadequate risk prevention and control

10 EU-OSHA conclusions, continued Risk communication strategies need to help employers make informed decisions about their workplaces and put adequate prevention measures in place, and to empower individual workers to take personal control of their own situations in order to protect themselves adequately. In this context, the issue of the definition is, therefore, a crucial one.

11 Definition - implications

12 What do workers (and employers) want/need from a definition? So: if duty holders in workplaces are going to be able to comply with their duties, then the definition of what is a nanomaterial must be: 1. Biologically meaningful; and 2. Enforceable The specific aspects of the definition that are of most concern and are still being debated have been listed and some of the issues surrounding these have been discussed.

13 Issues European Commission recommended definition: Nanomaterial means: A natural, incidental or manufactured material Containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate And where, for 50% or more of the particles in number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1nm 100nm Allowance for, in specific cases the number size distribution threshold to be replaced by a threshold between 1 and 50% As noted by my colleagues the 50% is 333 times higher than that recommended by the SCENIHR in 2010!

14 NICNAS Working Definition industrial materials intentionally produced, manufactured or engineered to have unique properties or specific composition at the nanoscale, that is a size range typically between 1 nm and 100 nm, and is either a nano-object (i.e. that is confined in one, two, or three dimensions at the nanoscale) or is nanostructured (i.e. having an internal or surface structure at the nanoscale) [Notes to the working definition: intentionally produced, manufactured or engineered materials are distinct from accidentally produced materials unique properties refers to chemical and/or physical properties that are different because of its nanoscale features as compared to the same material without nanoscale features, and result in unique phenomena (e.g. increased strength, chemical reactivity or conductivity) that enable novel applications. aggregates and agglomerates are considered to be nanostructured substances where size distribution shows 10% or more of a substance (based on number of particles) is at the nanoscale, NICNAS will consider this substance to be a nanomaterial for risk assessment purposes.]

15 NICNAS activities (using working definition ) New Chemicals 1. Amended requirements to ensure that any new industrial chemical that falls under the definition of an industrial nanomaterial will not be permitted to be introduced under some exemption and self-assessment categories. 2. Nano-specific information is also required when an introducer applies for an assessment certificate Existing chemicals 1. A Public Discussion Paper on the regulation of nanoforms of existing chemicals and an integrated approach to the regulation of all industrial nanomaterials is currently under development. Issues: The establishment of a filter to identify substances that would require notification to NICNAS for assessment Whether there should be a separate filter for environmental considerations or whether to have a final filter incorporating both health and environmental criteria eg criteria that may indicate evidence of hazard to the environment and physical characteristics which may indicate persistence, environmental transport and ability to cross biological membranes.

16 whether it s not already excluded insolubile or biopersistent? Draft Filter looking at: whether it triggers one or more of the following: shape that is fibrous, high aspect ratio of >3:1 used in workplace &/or consumer products in respirable form, or have potential to be inhaled nanoform of chemical that is a) carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive toxicant or b) known sensitizer or c) is an environmental risk Contains impurities of concern manufactured nanoform has different oxidation state to the conventional novel functionality has a zeta potential outside range of +/- 30mV in ph range of 4-9 (indication of surface activity and agglomeration) Use of nanomaterial is considered to be wide dispersive known concerns linked to its use (eg antimicrobial resistance)

17 Issues for us: The use of a filter could end up being a de facto definition, as its practical effect would be to narrow down the general definition and exclude even more NMs Our preference is not to have a filter that is, take a precautionary approach - treat all nanomaterials as new chemicals requiring a risk assessment. Furthermore, we have issues with the NICNAS draft Criteria biopersistence yes, but also issue of solubility/partial solubilty (eg nanosilver or zinc oxide concern these could slip past) Solubility, biopersistence and the other inclusion criteria should be part of the safety assessment Need to consider other potential inclusion criteria/issues such as catalytic properties

18 Other Issues Review of NICNAS under the Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership Announced September 2011 and currently underway - Discussion paper out for public comment. The role and functions of NICNAS as determined by the Review could have implications on mechanisms utilised to give effect to a process for regulating of nanoforms of industrial chemicals. Until such time as Review complete NICNAS view is that it be inappropriate to firstly identify such mechanisms based on the current framework and secondly to undertake public consultation on these mechanisms So?

19 Other issues And from left field Principles, not definitions. Rather than rely on a single definition of engineered nanomaterial to guide risk-related research, we incorporated a set of principles into our conceptual framework to help identify materials of concern from an environment, health and safety impact perspective. Andrew Maynard!!

20 Conclusion 1 Our concerns focus on: The narrowness of definition the exclusion of size and/or percentage thresholds that show novel nano-properties (the effects of which are mainly unknown). As mentioned earlier, this could create an incentive for some parts of industry to manipulate products so that while still having nano-properties, would escape regulation Workplaces and workers information; protection; exposures; long term effects; future compensation; etc The persistent gaps in the regulatory system

21 Conclusion 2 What we want: Accurate information about the presence of NMs which pose uncertain OHS risks Precaution based, specific nano regulation which will ensure that duty holders can comply with duties under general OHS obligations Continuing involvement in development and implementation of appropriate regulation and other measures To ensure effectiveness we need a meaningful and enforceable definition. Finally there is no need for Australia to hang back. We can have a positive influence in what is being decided around the world.

22 THANK YOU