Isocyanate Asthma at a Chemical Blending Plant
A chemical blending plant in Selangor employs 65 workers. It uses toluene, methanol, and since eight months ago a two-pack polyurethane isocyanate hardener. The safety and health officer resigned two months ago; the employer has not appointed a replacement. The joint safety and health committee last met five months ago. No chemical health risk assessment has been done for the isocyanate; the old assessment covers only toluene and methanol and is six years old. A 34-year-old mixer reports wheezing and chest tightness that improve on weekends. His doctor diagnoses occupational asthma and writes to the employer. The production manager proposes to move him to the packing line, which is in the same open building, and to 'keep it internal' because a report to DOSH could affect a client audit. The plant has no local exhaust ventilation at the mixing tank.
1. Determine the employer's obligations under the OSH (Safety and Health Officer) Regulations 1997 and the OSH (Safety and Health Committee) Regulations 1996.
Read the worked answer
The committee issue is clear: with 65 employees, the employer must establish a safety and health committee, and the committee must meet at least once every three months. A five-month gap is a breach. The committee should have employer and employee representatives and should be reviewing the isocyanate introduction, the asthma case and the lack of ventilation.
The SHO position needs a Schedule check. The OSH (Safety and Health Officer) Regulations 1997 require a competent SHO only for workplaces specified in the Schedule. The fact that an SHO was previously employed does not by itself prove that the plant is a scheduled workplace; it may have been a voluntary appointment or required by a client. The employer should verify the Schedule against its operations. If it is scheduled, failing to replace the SHO is an offence. If it is not scheduled, there is no automatic offence merely because no SHO is employed, but the s 15 general duty still requires competent safety advice for a plant handling isocyanates. The resignation does not suspend the employer's duties.
2. Advise on USECHH 2000 obligations for the isocyanate, including CHRA, medical surveillance, and control measures.
Read the worked answer
USECHH 2000 requires a chemical health risk assessment by a competent assessor before the chemical is used, and a review when there is a significant change or at least every five years. The old assessment is six years old and does not cover the isocyanate, so it cannot be relied on. The employer should commission a new CHRA covering inhalation and skin exposure, the mixing and packing tasks, and the open-building layout.
Control should follow the hierarchy: enclose or provide local exhaust ventilation at the mixing tank, reduce the quantity used, and train workers on safe handling and skin protection. Respiratory protection is a last line, not a substitute for extraction. Medical surveillance should be arranged for exposed workers, with baseline and periodic checks; the affected mixer should be assessed by an occupational physician. The employer should also keep a register of hazardous chemicals and ensure labels and safety data sheets are available. Moving the worker to packing in the same open building is not adequate if exposure continues there.
3. How should the occupational asthma diagnosis be handled under NADOPOD 2004 and the OSH Act 1994? Discuss the manager's 'keep it internal' proposal.
Read the worked answer
Occupational asthma is a reportable occupational disease under the NADOPOD 2004 Regulations. The employer should notify the nearest DOSH office without delay and submit the written report within the prescribed period. The diagnosis should also trigger an investigation into the mixing process, the isocyanate exposure and the absence of local exhaust ventilation.
The 'keep it internal' proposal is not a lawful option. Concealing a reportable disease obstructs the statutory notification system and exposes the employer and the manager to further liability. The client audit is irrelevant to the legal duty. The employer should instead manage the case openly: remove the worker from isocyanate exposure pending medical advice, provide suitable alternative work if available, and review the health of other exposed workers. Under s 15, the employer must provide a safe system of work; under s 18, it must provide information and training. The asthma case is evidence that those duties were not met, not a public-relations problem to be suppressed.