Industry Forum Q&A
School safety issues - questions & answers

Our TAS teachers are having difficulty obtaining woodworking timber supplies from our usual suppliers because of widespread out-of-stock situations and long delivery time frames. Does anyone have any suggestions or experience in sourcing and safely using alternative wood or engineered wood products?

A1 :

These resources may be helpful in considering alternatives and the safety of alternatives:

• • RECYCLED TIMBER SPECIALISTS

  • WOOD DUST HAZARDS AND CONTROLS Fact Sheet (SafeWork NSW)

  • WOOD PRODUCTS OCCUPATIONAL CANCER RISK Fact Sheet (NSW Cancer Council)

  • TOXIC WOODS Information Sheet (UK HSE)

Do any schools or colleges that have school-owned indoor climbing walls have any documentation or advice about wall (and component) safety inspections?

A1 :

(School)

Australian Standard AS 2316.1 2009 covers this. Similar to outside play equipment, periodic condition checks by competent people are required.

A2:

(School)

We would seek confirmation that the climbing wall meets the Australian standard, then abide by any manufacturer's maintenance schedules. And Kidsafe provides pre- and post-installation inspections and reports, and can provide helpful advice around any type of playground equipment.

A3:

(School)

A few of our schools have climbing walls, and we apply the risk management requirements of the standards for outdoor play equipment to them.

A4:

(School)

I know some schools have external providers for wall climbing activities, and they bring in their own equipment. Needs due diligence in obtaining contractor sign-off that the equipment meets Australian standards for certification and maintenance. The same standards would apply to school-owned walls.

A5:

(Climbing wall company inspector)

We inspect and certify to AS2316.1-2009 Artificial climbing structures and challenge courses. Aspects of our inspection include:

• Safety of structural components (e.g. steel and timber design, construction, workmanship, and integration with wall-holding structure)

• Quality and condition of climbing holds, wall hardware, ropes, and climber equipment

• Climbing zone safety, including impact, entrapment, or impalement risks

• Fall zone adequacy, safety, and clearance from adjacent structural elements and walls

• Adequacy of belay and fall attenuation systems and landing mats

• Engineering load analysis

• Adequacy of instruction for climbers and belayers

• Risk assessment of overall climbing setup and system

• Logbook documentation review, including inspection and maintenance schedules

• Based on the inspection, corrective action recommendations

Has anyone developed a guideline or policy for using expanding water beads in Primary school or early childcare activities? We are concerned about the health risks if ingested, keep expanding and don't break down. Our school has been using them for sensory stimulation activities, but one of our childcare partners strongly discourages them, as does the ACCC. ​Any replies would be appreciated.

ESN A:

The use of Water Absorbing Beads (WABs) in children's play remains a subject of medical and consumer concern because of the serious health risks to children who swallow them or insert them in their ears.

• 1. In 2012 and 2013, the US CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) issued product recalls for certain types of WABs because of WAB ingestion and insertion injuries to young children in the US and fatal injuries to young children in other countries

  2. In 2015, the ACCC (Australian Consumer and Competition Commission) urged suppliers to stop marketing WABs as toys, and urged consumers to immediately stop using them as playthings because of their potential risks to children​.

  3. In 2016, researchers from Westmead Children's Hospital, the NSW Poisons Information Centre and the University of Sydney conducted a retrospective review of WAB ingestion cases reported in Australia between 2004 and the time of the review. 129 children with a median age of 2 were treated as outpatients or in emergency departments, presenting in intestinal distress after WAB ingestion 6 hours to 5 days previously.

  4. Paediatricians report cases of complete bowel obstruction by ingested WABs and of ear canal obstruction by inserted WABs

  5. In 2018 and 2019, the ACCC issued product recalls for Fremantle brand and Zart brand WABs because ​of the health risks to children who ingest them

Based on this information, the likelihood of WAB ingestion by a young child who is playing with or has access to them is possible, and the potential consequences of that ingestion range from major (bowel and ear obstructions requiring surgical intervention) to catastrophic (death). The risk level is therefore high to extreme.

Based on Australian health and safety legislation, risk elimination is the preferred risk control measure, so ELIMINATING the use of WAB's for sensory play and SUBSTITUTING something safer is strongly advised.

A good alternative is quick-cook edible tapioca pearls coloured with food colouring(select the colouring agents carefully for children who may have allergies). Preparation time (for quick-cook pearls) is 5 minutes, and shelf life (if the pearls are kept refrigerated) is up to 7 days.

Our school relies on parents, often car pooling, to transport students to rep sports events. Before any parent drives other students in their car we've required written permission from students' parents, a copy of the driver's license and proofs of their vehicle's CTP and comprehensive insurance. We've been told that parental permission is all that's needed. Does anyone have any information or advice about this?

Schools' A:

1. SCHOOL 1: We work along the lines of best practice & ensuring duty of care is covered. If the school is sending out permission slips, parents should be able to rely on the fact that the school knows the proposed driver is capable and their car is roadworthy. Therefore, license and CTP/rego checks are also needed

2. SCHOOL 2: Parental permission is required, but I think our duty of care also extends to ensuring proposed drivers are licensed, fit and experienced to drive students and that vehicles to be driven are registered (associated CTP insurance compensates people who are hurt, and registration verifies mechanical soundness)

CSO A:

1. We require written permission from parents of students to be transported, and we have a Transporting Students in Staff or Parent Volunteer Cars form that we ask school staff and volunteer drivers to complete annually and when any of their relevant details change

2. The form outlines parent drivers' responsibilities, and requires drivers' license details (license number, expiry); CTP, registration and comprehensive insurance details (insurer, policy number, date); verification of the driver's medical fitness to drive; driver's signed and dated agreement to fulfill their responsibilities (set out on the form). We keep these completed forms on file at the school

3. We do not allow students to travel in vehicles that are not comprehensively insured.

ESN A:

1. If the activities are school-endorsed, parent drivers could be considered volunteers, their vehicles as work-related plant, and the students being transported as 'other people' to whom the school owes a duty of safety care

2. Journey risk management considerations include vehicle, driver, journey (distance, time, road surface), students (health and behaviour issues) and child protection

3. ►VIC Ed’s policy re private car use for transporting students includes parental permission, checking driver's license, vehicle rego/CTP and comprehensive insurance; checking the suitability of the driver in relation to child safety standards; and keeping records of each private vehicle's passengers

4. Comprehensive insurance is recommended because it usually covers passengers’ personal property damage (eg. sporting equipment) and often covers passengers' personal injury costs if the vehicle is involved in an accident

5. A safety guideline issued to parent drivers would also help, as would a form or checklist dated and signed-off by each parent driver/vehicle once a year, and whenever anything relevant changes.

Does anyone have any policy, procedure or training information to increase awareness and improve the prevention and management of concussion - caused not only by impact during PDHPE activities and excursions but also by other activities and bodily impacts?

School 1 A:

We have consent forms and medical consent forms that prompt for other medical information, but not concussions. Our staff complete first aid training, but not particularly around the management of concussion injuries. I've looked at DET NSW sport and PE safety resources but can't find very much that's specific to concussion. I think staff should be made aware if a student has had a previous concussion injury (at school or outside of school) so action can be taken to prevent further injury.

ESN A:

We don't have any specific policies or procedures, but these external resources might help:​

• Managing Head Injuries guidelines from DET QLD

• ​Concussion Recognition Tool (CRT5) from the concussion in sport group

• Managing Sports-related Concussion guidelines from Australian College of GP's

• Managing Concussions in Schools publication

We have a potential safety issue in our school playground (photo adjacent). Lots of work has been done to make the playground a great area for students to play, but the railing concerns me. Students sometimes stand on the rungs and hang over the railing. The drop to the cement footpath below is quite considerable. I would appreciate your views about this, and about what we could do within the small budget we have to make this area safer.

ESN A:

Our initial thoughts are:

1. Just as you've identified, there is a risk of children falling and hurting themselves on the concrete below

2. The brick ledge on the outside of the railing also looks like a risk - an open edge that kids would love to clamber along holding onto the rail (or not)

3. WHS regs require elimination/minimisation of the risk of someone falling

4. There are building/railing standards that apply to edges/heights (eg. Building Code of Australia part 3.9.2 (balustrades)). There are minimum requirements for rail spacing, especially to ensure child safety, and the railings in the photo don't appear to meet them. ​> Here's a fact​sheet from the kids hospital that has some helpful balustrade design guidelines.

5. The height of the wall/drop between the playground edge and the path below will have a bearing on the kind of edge protection needed

Looks like one of those risks that isn't reasonably practicable to eliminate but definitely needs to be minimised and brought within safe railing parameters. Maybe some fencing companies in your local area could offer some cost effective options for closing out the climb-and-fall factors by meshing-out and/or filling-in gaps?

A lift service company told us it's WHS legal requirement in NSW to have 24/7 monitoring installed in our school lifts. We have emergency communications installed, which we thought was enough. Do you have any information about this?

ESN A:

​SafeWork NSW has a Lift safety info page https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/hazards-a-z/lifts-escalators-and-moving-walkways, which lists the requirement for emergency communications (just as you've identified), but makes no recommendation for 24/7 monitoring. As far as we know, neither the WHS Regulations or Plant Code list this requirement either.

If the school is on the NBN, it would be worth checking that the school lifts' emergency phones have not been put out of action by the NBN rollout. There are a few warnings about this, including from SafeWork NSW, and a national initiative to make sure disruptions are identified and retored. See https://www2.nbnco.com.au/residential/learn/device-compatibility/lift-emergency-phone). Lift emergency phones should be checked as a priority if your school is now on the NBN, and should also be tested routinely as part of the school's routine emergency equipment testing schedule.

​The prescribed Standard AS 1735.1 (SAA lift code) will have more detail, and may refer to 24/7 monitoring. Checking the Standard would be worthwhile and would give you the answer.

Are there any concerns that the tile-type benchtop heat mats we use in science labs may contain asbestos? We know about the issue in gauze-type mats but is there an issue with benchtop tile mats?

ESN A:

1. ​​DET VIC picked up on potential sources of asbestos containing material (ACM) in school science labs, including in gauze mats and tile heat mats a couple of years ago and issued an alert recommending that schools pull heat mats not verified as ACM-free out of service, contain, and obtain certified testing to confirm or deny. Verified ACM-free to go back into service, verified ACM-present to be disposed of (according to asbestos disposal regs)

2. A ​US law firm representing the family of a man who developed mesothelioma while working with ACM equipment (including benchtop heat mats) in science labs gives this general advice ​

3. ​UK education also has some advice for teachers working around science lab ACM (including gauze and bench type heat mats) to mitigate the risk of developing mesothelioma​

Based on these, the earlier alert issued in Australia re asbestos in ceramic gauze-type heat mats should be extended to include benchtop heat mats that are not verified, or cannot be verified, as ACM-free.

Does anyone have a CCTV policy or protocol for security CCTV in schools, and information about a school's duties?

ESN A:

ESN has researched CCTV policies, procedures and management requirements, and based on those, has developed a security CCTV management package for schools, including:

1. CCTV policy

2. CCTV management checklist

3. CCTV footage view request and record form

4. CCTV signage

The package is available on the ESN Hub.

Do you have any safety information on access to boiling water from a zip lock tap in a senior student cafe area? We can't reduce the water temperature below 68 degrees, and can't find any school-relevant info about temperature regulations.

ESN A:

The building's hot water system may pose a greater safety risk than the zip lock tap in the student cafe, which can be assured for the most part by obtaining and following the particular tap manufacturer's instructions for safe installation, use and maintenance. Here's a sample from one manufacturer that includes safety guidelines and warnings.

The real risk may be the >= 68^o hot water storage temperature not only at the cafe tap but also at the other hot water taps in the building. This temperature meets the minimum 60^o hot water storage required to prevent Legionella but significantly exceeds the maximum prescribed tap outlet temperature of 50^o and exceeds the maximum prescribed school bathroom hot tap outlet temperature of 43.5^o . At the building's >= 68^o hot water temperature at the taps, there is a significant risk of severe scalding and burning.

Source information and regulations in answering this question are as follows:

1. Australian building legislation calls up the Plumbing Code of Australia which is actually Vol 3 of the National Construction Code

2. The Plumbing Code calls up AS/NZS 3500.4:2018 - Plumbing and drainage heated water systems

3. Public Health Association of Australia hot water policy includes reference to water temp-at-tap requirements for schools (p3)

4. Westmead Children's Hospital hot water safety information includes reference to NSW adopting the Plumbing Code

5. Victorian Building Authority hot water safety information includes reference to water temp-at-tap requirements for schools

6. Australian Hot Water safety web page refers to pending 2020 NSW regulations for hot water systems, including for tempering devices on hot water taps

Recommend 1) and 2) as your action references. Apart from the authority they carry, they will almost certainly include the detail the school needs for the safety of its hot water system.

A supplier sent us a brochure advising welding fumes have been re-classified as carcinogenic to humans, and that if welding students and staff wear powered airflow welding helmets we will be compliant. Have you heard anything about this?

ESN A:

We hadn't heard about this, and ESN has no welding experience that qualifies us to advise. However, here's what we've researched:

1. ​In March 2017, the IARC re-classified welding fume as carcinogenic to humans, based on sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between welding fume and lung cancer, and on limited evidence of a causal relationship between welding fume and kidney cancer. (See Welding Fume White Paper.pdf - helpful overview)

2. Welding fume has components that are classified in Australia as hazardous chemicals to which exposure standards apply. Our exposure limit for general welding fume in a work atmosphere is currently 5mg/m³, but the standard was set before the IARC re-classification, so may in practice be lower. An occupational welder without respiratory protection could inhale weld fume of up to 11mg/m³ in a year.

3. The level of health risk from welding fume is directly related to the extent and type of welding fume exposure; the welding process employed; the materials being welded and the coatings that are on the materials; welding work area ventilation and enclosure; and the personal protection used

Rather than focusing firstly on fume protection PPE (lowest level risk control), a risk assessment and control plan should really be undertaken in accordance with the Welding Process Code of Practice and its hierarchy of risk controls. The Code calls up Welding Fume Minimisation Guidelines, and according to the hierarchy, recommends fume minimisation well before fume protection. Minimising fume at source makes sense not only from a safety perspective but also because effectively minimising fume and therefore risk exposure may make disposable or reusable respiratory protective devices sufficient and remove the need for more expensive powered or air-supplied protective equipment.

The only way to measure the amount of weld fume in a work area would be for a professional (eg. a suitably qualified and equipped occupational hygienist) to take and analyse an air sample. If in doubt, some sampling could be worthwhile.

Welding teachers may be at higher and cumulative fume exposure risk than students because teachers have longer day-to-day exposure and probable exposure history from other workplaces. Depending on particular teachers' welding work history and current exposure, health screening and stronger risk controls may be wise to consider.

Because welding is potentially hazardous on a number of other fronts as well (identified in the Code), welding risk management should include identifying and controlling these risks also.

One of the K-10 schools in our area is proposing to allow several Year 10 students, all 16 this year, to play down an age group in the 15's inter-school rugby competition. Would it cover players' safety and the school's liability risk to write to all the comp players' parents, informing them and giving them the choice of whether their children play against the team fielding ​older boys?

ESN A:

​In responding to this question, ESN consulted two independent school rugby coaches, considered NSW Department of Education school rugby guidelines (from SMART RUGBY - Rugby Australia) and legal WHS risk management requirements. SMART RUGBY gives access to their rugby safety guidelines and tools that are relevant to your question (eg. player age/grade dispensation and size-for-age information, guidelines, procedure, flowchart and templates for parental letter and independent coach's assessment report). These tools and SMART RUGBY's approach are geared towards players' safety and welfare.

​Based on these, we consider that much more will be required to ensure the safety of all players and protect the school from liability exposure than simply informing and gaining consent from players' parents. Rather, following the DEC/SMART RUGBY guidelines would give the school a recommended and pro-active way of making sure the older players are actually safe to play in the lower age group; of assuring parents that the older players have been independently assessed by a qualified assessor as safe to play; and of protecting the school from liability exposure (on this head, anyway). It is a WHS offence, for which organisations have been successfully prosecuted, to leave a reasonably foreseeable risk uncontrolled, whether anyone is injured or not.​

Our school was told by a CPR Course instructor that all NSW government schools ​keep a spare Epipen, provided by the Department, in their sick bays. He advised our school to do the same. My questions are:

1. Is this a requirement for our school to keep spare Epipens and administer these on instruction from the triple 000 operator?

2. If 'yes', what is the exposure and liability for a member of staff who administers an Epipen if the student then has an adverse reaction to the adrenaline?

School 1 A:

1. ​I don't know of anything that specifically relates to a requirement for schools in your State, but I can find a number of references for other States that align with the NSW approach of keeping spare Adrenaline Auto-Injectors (AAI's) at school. The number of AAI's kept should take into account the number of students at the school and certainly the number of students for whom there is an anaphylaxis plan in place (provided by the parent/guardian(s)).

2. My feeling is that being a legislated requirement in at least one State and a departmental requirement in others, even if there is no strict requirement, it would very much something that ought to be done in the spirit of schools' primary duties under WHS legislation.

3. In VIC schools it's a requirement that staff are trained every 2 years in recognising signs of anaphylaxis and using an auto-injector.

4. It's important to note that all AAI's have an expiry date, so some kind of schedule would need to be implemented to ensure the school's devices are kept in date.

5. The question of personal liability is an interesting one. My understanding is that the notion of vicarious liability is the same across Australia – i.e.. in the unlikely event that an adverse reaction brought about some kind of serious consequences, then any subsequent liability action would be taken against the school or organisation, not the individual.

School 2 A:

1. You might find the current >position paper from ASCIA provides an approach that can be adopted with reasonable confidence. ASCIA position paper clearly recommends that schools consider providing spare auto-injector devices for general use (eg. in school and field first aid kits)

2. Regular staff training in anaphylaxis prevention, recognition and management and auto-injector administration is also recommended - face to face, and/or online (https://etraining.allergy.org.au)

3. I have no qualified opinion about liability exposure for persons administering emergency aid auto-injectors. My personal opinion is that if a member of staff has been suitably trained to recognise and respond to an anaphylactic reaction, and to follow their organisation's procedure to do so, the far greater risk and tragedy would be if they did not then do so. ​

School 3 A:

I think the question of personal liability associated with rendering assistance to others might be found in s5 of the Civil Wrongs Act under which a Good Samaritan rendering assistance in good faith and without recklessness to someone in need of assistance is not personally liable.

I've had an enquiry from a school regarding the use of Round Up (active ingredient glyphosate) in light of the recent >lawsuit against the manufacturer. I am just wondering if there is any Safety Alert around banning the use of the chemical?

ESN A:

As far as ESN is aware,

1. In March 2015 the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the WHO) upgraded the classification of glyphosate from 2B (possible carcinogen) to 2A (probable carcinogen)

2. The APVMA (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and regulator) reviewed the evidence at the time and concluded glyphosphate could continue to be safely used in accordance with label directions. The >APVMA published a response to the recent lawsuit that prompted your question, and continues to advise "glyphosphate is registered for use in Australia, and APVMA-approved products containing glyphosate can continue to be used safely according to label directions".

3. In late 2015 the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) conducted a peer review of glyphosate risk assessments and concluded that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential"

4. >SafeWork NSW currently advises "If you use [organophosphate chemicals, including glyphosphate], obtain the latest information and conduct a risk assessment on their use. Use the hierarchy of risk controls to develop safe work methods and avoid exposure." SafeWork also advises that under WHS Regulations, organophosphates are one of 14 chemicals for which workers' >health monitoring is required.

5. >SafeWork Australia has an factsheet detailing prescribed health monitoring requirements for workers using organophosphates.

6. WorkSafe VIC has a useful pesticide/herbicide factsheet

The consensus seems to be "Follow the hierarchy of risk controls. IF glyphosphate has to be used because it's not reasonably practicable to eliminate by using/doing something safer, THEN use/ensure use according to glyphosphate chemical label and SDS instructions, AND, as prescribed by WHS Regs, monitor the health of workers using it and/or exposed to it".

Substituting a safer herbicide if possible would not only be safer but also a lot easier for all concerned!