A Rolleston-based pest bait manufacturing organisation has been fined $275,000 over an incident in which a worker was
poisoned in May 2019 and nearly lost his life.
Pest Control Research Limited Partnership (PCR) manufactures pest control products including baits containing sodium
fluoroacetate (more commonly known as 1080) as the toxic active ingredient.
In 2018-2019 PCR was experiencing issues with the ongoing supply of sodium fluoroacetate and set up an internal project
codenamed the “Home Brew Project” / “Project X” to manufacture its own supply of the highly toxic substance.
“Health and safety requirements were not met from the very start of this project and cumulatively design, fabrication
and process errors ultimately resulted in workers being exposed to highly toxic vapour from a failure in the
manufacturing process and in PCR’s overall safety management systems,” Dr Catherine Gardner, Head of Specialist
Interventions, said.
“One worker spent four weeks in hospital being treated for fluoroacetate poisoning and a further two months recuperating
out of hospital.
His urine fluoroacetate reading was more than 500 times higher than WorkSafe’s Biological Exposure Index limit and he
was extremely lucky to survive.”
The incident occurred during the first trial production of sodium fluoroacetate when a runaway chemical reaction
resulted in a loss of containment.
The work was being undertaken inside a purpose built self-contained chemical processing container inside an empty
industrial unit in Bromley, Christchurch.
WorkSafe’s investigation into the incident uncovered a series of failings, including:There was no structured hazard and operability study prior to commissioning the operation;PCR did not obtain a peer review of the proposed chemical process, plant, and equipment from a competent person;PCR failed to ensure that there were safe ventilation arrangements for the chemical processing container (including for
when it was operating under negative pressure),PCR failed to ensure that a commercial proprietary pressure relief valve was used on the processing container’s reactor;PCR failed to develop, document, implement, and communicate a safe system of work for the operation of the process
including detailed operating procedures, automatic data logging, appropriate personal protective equipment, and an
emergency response plan.PCR failed to test its chemical process and processing container by ensuring that a trial run was completed with a more
benign raw materialPCR failed to take any steps to obtain a Hazardous Substances Location Compliance Certificate and did not meet
fundamental safety requirements to obtain a compliance certificate (including failing to notify WorkSafe, failing to
display any signage on the outside of the Bromley building and inadequate signage on the process container itself,
failing to prepare an emergency response plan and a site plan). They had also failed to ensure that a safety data sheet
was readily accessible at the site for emergency service workers.
“PCR is experienced in handling and manufacturing hazardous substances but in this case, it would seem that their
enthusiasm to create their own active ingredient has over-ridden the legal obligation to ensure their workers were
protected. It was an operation they knew was dangerous and could have potentially fatal consequences” said Gardner.
PCR appeared for sentencing in the Christchurch District Court yesterday. PCR was fined $275,000. Reparation of $8,177
was ordered (in addition to what the Defendant had already paid voluntarily to the victim). Costs of $96,603.94 were
awarded to WorkSafe.
The chargesCharge 1:Sections 36(l)(a), s 48(1) and (2)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015Maximum penalty:Fine not exceeding $1,500,000Offence description:Being a PCBU, having a duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers who work for
the PCBU, while the workers are at work in the business on the home brew project, did fail to comply with that duty and
that failure exposed individuals, to a risk of death or serious illness arising from exposure to hazardous substances.Charge 2:Regulation 10.34(4)(b) of the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017Maximum penalty:Fine not exceeding $50,000Offence description:Being a PCBU with management or control of a hazardous substance location where Class 3.1B hazardous substances (91
kilograms of ethanol) and Class 3.1C hazardous substances (400 litres of ethyl fluoroacetate) were present, failed to
ensure that the location had a current compliance certificate as required by regulation 10.34(1) Health and Safety at
Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017.Charge 3:Regulation 10.26(8)(b) of the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017Maximum penalty:Fine not exceeding $50,000Offence description:Being a PCBU with management or control of a hazardous substance location where Class 3.1B hazardous substances (91
kilograms of ethanol) and Class 3.1C hazardous substances (400 litres of ethyl fluoroacetate)were present, failed to
ensure that a site plan was available for inspection that showed the physical position, in relation to the legal
boundary of the site in which the hazardous substance location was located as required by regulation 10.26(4)(b) Health
and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017.Charge 4:Regulation 2.11(7)(b) of the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017Maximum penalty:Fine not exceeding $30,000Offence description:Being a PCBU with management or control of a workplace failed to ensure that the current safety data sheet for -the
Class 6.1B and Class 3.1C hazardous substance ethyl fluoroacetate or a condensed version of the key information from the
safety data sheet was readily accessible to any emergency service worker or anyone else, who was likely to be exposed to
the hazardous substance at the workplace, as required by regulation 2.11(3)(b) Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous
Substances) Regulations 2017.