Work Health and Safety (Abrasive Blasting) Code of Practice 2015

The Work Health and Safety (Abrasive Blasting) Code of Practice 2015 is an approved code of practice made under section 274 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The Code describes itself as a practical guide to achieving the standards of health, safety and welfare required under the WHS Act and the Work Health and Safety Regulations.

The Code deals specifically with abrasive blasting. It covers the blasting work itself, the products and equipment used for that work, and the workplaces where those activities happen. It is written for persons conducting a business or undertaking, but it also identifies duties for designers, manufacturers, importers, suppliers, officers and workers.

The legal effect is important. The Code says approved codes of practice are admissible in court proceedings under the WHS Act and Regulations. Courts may regard a code as evidence of what is known about a hazard, risk or control, and may rely on it when deciding what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. Inspectors may also refer to an approved code of practice when issuing an improvement or prohibition notice.

The Code is not the only possible compliance pathway. The text says compliance may also be achieved by following another method, such as a technical or industry standard, if it provides an equivalent or higher standard of work health and safety than the code.

The Code states that it was developed by Safe Work Australia as a model code of practice for adoption by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. That matters because businesses should not assume that one Commonwealth instrument is the only version relevant to them. Different jurisdictions may adopt model codes with local changes, or may have their own approved version in force.

Before relying on this page, check which WHS law applies to your workplace, whether your jurisdiction has adopted this model code, and whether there is a local approved code or regulator guidance that should be read alongside it. This is especially important for businesses operating across more than one state or territory, or for contractors moving between sites under different WHS regimes.

You should also check whether other topic-specific WHS requirements apply to the same job. The Code itself points to broader duties and to other areas such as hazardous chemicals, airborne contaminants, plant, noise, manual tasks, confined spaces and asbestos.

The Code applies to all workplaces covered by the WHS Act where abrasive blasting processes are carried out and where abrasive blasting products and equipment are used and stored. The definition of abrasive blasting is broad. It means propelling a stream of abrasive material at high speed against a surface using compressed air, liquid, steam, centrifugal wheels or paddles to clean, abrade, etch or otherwise change the original appearance or condition of the surface.

The examples in the Code show how wide that can be in practice. Blasting may be done in enclosed environments such as blasting chambers or cabinets, or on open sites such as buildings, bridges, tanks, boats and mobile plant. It may be manual, such as a blast pot and hose controlled by an operator, or automated, such as centrifugal wheel systems and tumblers.

That means the Code is relevant not only to specialist blasting contractors. It can also apply to workshops, maintenance businesses, manufacturers, repairers and host businesses that bring blasting work onto their premises. It also matters to businesses that use or store blasting media and equipment even if blasting is not their main line of work.

The primary duty holder identified in the Code is the person conducting a business or undertaking. A PCBU must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that workers and other persons are not exposed to health and safety risks arising from the business or undertaking. A PCBU that carries out abrasive blasting must eliminate risks arising from abrasive blasting, or if that is not reasonably practicable, minimise the risks so far as is reasonably practicable.

The Code also identifies duties for designers, manufacturers, importers and suppliers of plant or substances used in abrasive blasting. They must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the plant or substance is without risks to health and safety. The Code says this includes carrying out testing and analysis and providing specific information about the plant or substance.

Officers, such as company directors, have a due diligence duty. The Code explains that this includes taking reasonable steps to ensure the business has and uses appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise risks arising from abrasive blasting.

Workers also have duties. They must take reasonable care for their own health and safety and not adversely affect the health and safety of others. They must comply with reasonable instructions and cooperate with reasonable workplace health and safety policies and procedures. If PPE is provided, workers must use it in accordance with the information, instruction and training provided.

The practical trigger is not the size of the business. The trigger is whether your work involves abrasive blasting or the use or storage of blasting products and equipment at a workplace covered by the WHS Act. The Code is relevant whenever the process can create blasting-related hazards such as dust, hazardous chemicals, particulate matter, noise or plant risks.

Common business situations include preparing steel for recoating, cleaning concrete or brick, restoring boats or transport equipment, blasting tanks or structures on site, using a blasting cabinet in a workshop, or engaging a contractor to blast at your premises. The Code also becomes especially important where there is uncertainty about the blasting medium, the substrate being blasted, or the coating being removed.

The questions built into the Code are practical ones. What material is being blasted? What is in the blasting medium? What is in the surface coating? How often and for how long will exposure occur? Are the conditions unusual, such as a confined space? What skills and experience does the operator have? Those questions should be answered before the work starts, not after dust is already in the air.

The Code sets out the standard WHS risk management sequence for abrasive blasting. Under the WHS Regulations, a duty holder must identify reasonably foreseeable hazards that could give rise to the risk, eliminate the risk so far as is reasonably practicable, or if elimination is not reasonably practicable, minimise the risk so far as is reasonably practicable by implementing control measures in accordance with the hierarchy of risk control. The duty holder must then maintain the control measures so they remain effective, and review and if necessary revise them.

The Code says this systematic process is how abrasive blasting risks should be managed. It also notes that guidance on the general risk management process is available in the Code of Practice: How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks.

Hazards may be identified in several ways, including a walk-through assessment of the workplace, observing the work, talking to workers, inspecting plant and equipment, reading product labels, safety data sheets and manufacturer instructions, talking to manufacturers, suppliers, industry associations and health and safety specialists, and reviewing incident reports.

The examples of blasting hazards listed in the Code include airborne contaminants such as dust, hazardous chemicals, particulate matter, noise, and abrasive blasting plant and equipment. Chapters 3 and 4 of the Code also deal with other hazards and control measures including heat, vibration, manual tasks and confined spaces.

The Code says a risk assessment is not mandatory for abrasive blasting activities in every case, but it is required for some specific situations, such as when working in a confined space. Even where it is not mandatory, the Code says a risk assessment will often help determine which control measures should be implemented.

According to the Code, a risk assessment can help identify which workers are at risk of exposure, what sources and processes are causing that risk, what kind of control measures should be implemented, and whether existing controls are effective.

The Code gives practical questions to ask. How often, and for how long, will exposure occur? If exposure happens, will the outcome be severe, moderate or mild? What are the properties of the blasting medium? What is the substrate being blasted? What are the surface coatings of the items being blasted, including whether they contain lead or other toxic metals? Under what conditions is the blasting being carried out, including whether confined spaces are involved? What are the skills, competence and experience of the operator?

For business owners, these questions are useful because they force you to look beyond the blasting machine itself. The real risk profile often depends on the material being removed, the environment, nearby workers and the quality of the control system around the task.

The Code places consultation at the centre of blasting risk management. A PCBU must consult, so far as is reasonably practicable, with workers who carry out work for the business and who are, or are likely to be, directly affected by a work health and safety matter. If workers are represented by a health and safety representative, the consultation must involve that representative.

The Code says consultation with workers and their health and safety representatives is required at each step of the risk management process. The reason is practical as well as legal. Workers often have the best information about how the task is actually done, where dust escapes, whether procedures are followed, and whether PPE and plant are working as intended.

Shared duties are also common in blasting work. Where more than one person has a work health or safety duty in relation to the same matter, they must consult, cooperate and coordinate activities with each other so far as is reasonably practicable. The Code gives a direct example: if you engage a contractor to carry out abrasive blasting at your workplace, you should find out what blasting medium and work processes are being used, any associated hazards, and how the risks will be controlled. This may include jointly conducting a risk assessment and then coordinating implementation of the controls.

The Code explains that a PCBU must ensure that no person at the workplace is exposed to a substance or mixture in an airborne concentration that exceeds the relevant exposure standard. It notes that exposure standards represent airborne concentrations that must not be exceeded, and refers to the Workplace Exposure Standards for Airborne Contaminants and the Hazardous Substances Information System.

The Code gives a direct practical warning for blasting work. If the blasting medium or the surface being blasted contains crystalline silica, lead or any other substance with an exposure standard, you must ensure that workers are not exposed above the relevant standard.

Air monitoring must be carried out to determine the airborne concentration of a substance or mixture at the workplace if an exposure standard applies and the PCBU is not certain on reasonable grounds whether the airborne concentration exceeds the standard, or if monitoring is necessary to determine whether there is a risk to health. The results must be recorded and kept for 30 years after the date the record is made.

The Code says air monitoring should be carried out by a person such as an occupational hygienist with the skills to monitor according to standards and interpret the results. Where monitoring is used to determine a person’s exposure, it must be undertaken in the worker’s breathing zone, including inside the abrasive blasting helmet, to ensure the helmet is effective. Monitoring should also be conducted in the breathing zones of other workers in the vicinity.

The Code also explains what air monitoring is for. It can be used where there is uncertainty about exposure, to indicate whether exposure standards are being exceeded or approached, and to test the effectiveness of control measures such as ventilation. If monitoring shows the exposure standard is being exceeded, control measures must be reviewed and any necessary changes made.

Health monitoring is separate from air monitoring. The Code says a PCBU must ensure health monitoring is provided to a worker carrying out ongoing work using, handling, generating or storing hazardous chemicals where there is a significant risk to the worker’s health because of exposure to certain hazardous chemicals, or in other circumstances described in the WHS Regulations.

The Code lists substances commonly encountered during abrasive blasting that may require health monitoring, including asbestos, crystalline silica, cadmium, inorganic arsenic, inorganic chromium and inorganic lead. It explains that health monitoring may include biological monitoring and can help identify disease or health effects linked to exposure, or determine levels of toxic substances in the body so informed decisions can be made about controls and further action.

The Code is clear that health monitoring is not an alternative to implementing control measures. If results indicate adverse health effects or signs of exposure, the control measures must be reviewed and, if necessary, revised.

The administrative requirements are also important. The PCBU must inform workers and prospective workers about health monitoring requirements, ensure monitoring is carried out by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner with experience in health monitoring, consult workers about the selection of the practitioner, pay the expenses, provide required information to the practitioner, take reasonable steps to obtain the report as soon as practicable, provide a copy of the report to the worker and in some cases the regulator and other PCBUs, and keep reports as confidential records for at least 30 years after the record is made, or 40 years for reports relating to asbestos exposure.

The Code also notes that the WHS Regulations contain specific requirements for lead. If a worker is carrying out lead risk work, health monitoring must be provided before the worker first commences lead risk work and one month after the worker first commences lead risk work.

The Code says the WHS Regulations prohibit and restrict the use of some hazardous chemicals as abrasive material in an abrasive blasting process. It lists restricted hazardous chemicals by threshold concentration, including substances containing greater than 1 per cent free silica, 0.1 per cent antimony, 0.1 per cent arsenic, 0.1 per cent beryllium, 0.1 per cent cadmium, 0.5 per cent chromium except as specified for wet abrasive blasting, 0.1 per cent cobalt, 0.1 per cent lead or which would expose the operator to levels in excess of those set in the WHS Regulations covering lead, 0.1 per cent nickel and 0.1 per cent tin. For wet abrasive blasting, the Code also refers to substances containing chromate, nitrate or nitrite, and it lists polychlorinated biphenyls.

The Code further notes that other carcinogenic chemicals are prohibited or restricted under the WHS Regulations and therefore cannot be used in abrasive blasting. It gives acrylonitrile as an example of a substance that must not be used, handled or stored for any purpose unless properly authorised by the regulator.

For businesses, the practical message is simple. You should check the composition of the blasting medium before purchase and before use. You should also check what is in the surface or coating being blasted, because the hazard may come from the substrate or coating rather than the blasting medium itself.

The Code separately highlights asbestos. A PCBU must not use, direct or allow a worker to use high pressure water spray or compressed air on asbestos or asbestos-containing materials. The Code explains that asbestos can release airborne fibres whenever it is disturbed and that inhalation of those fibres is a significant health risk.

The Code also warns that asbestos can be difficult to identify by sight. It says having a sample analysed will confirm whether a material is asbestos, but sampling can itself be hazardous and should only be undertaken by a competent person. Samples should only be analysed by a NATA-accredited laboratory or a laboratory approved by or operated by the regulator.

The Code also flags lead as a practical issue because lead may be present in surface coatings or in the object being blasted. While the extract available here is truncated before the full lead section, the Code clearly indicates that the WHS Regulations contain specific requirements for working with lead and for lead risk work.

For businesses dealing with older buildings, plant, structures or coatings, the safest reading is that you should not guess. If you do not know what the material contains, stop and verify before blasting or using compressed air.

The Code explains the hierarchy of control in practical terms. You must always aim to eliminate the hazard and associated risk first. If elimination is not reasonably practicable, the risk must be minimised using one or more higher-order controls such as substitution, isolation and engineering controls.

The examples given in the Code are useful for real operations. Substitution may involve using a less hazardous abrasive material. Isolation may involve carrying out blasting in a blasting cabinet or enclosure. Engineering controls may include automatic cut-off devices on abrasive blasting equipment. If risk remains, it must be minimised so far as is reasonably practicable by administrative controls, such as establishing exclusion zones around open air blasting activities. Any remaining risk must then be minimised with suitable PPE.

The Code also gives an important warning: administrative controls and PPE rely on human behaviour and supervision and, used on their own, tend to be the least effective in minimising risks. A combination of control measures may be required. The Code also says you should check that your chosen control measure does not introduce new hazards.

For many businesses, this is the section that changes day-to-day practice. It means a blasting plan should not begin and end with issuing helmets and respirators. You should be looking at the blasting medium, the enclosure, the plant features, the work area, nearby workers, ventilation, exclusion zones and the actual conditions of the task.

The Code says control measures should be regularly reviewed to make sure they are effective. Review methods can include workplace inspection, consultation, testing, and analysing records and data. The same methods used to identify hazards can also be used to check whether controls are working.

The Code suggests practical review questions. Are the control measures working effectively in both design and operation? Have they introduced new problems? Have all hazards been identified? Have new work methods, equipment or chemicals made the job safer? Are safety procedures being followed? Has training and instruction been successful? Are workers actively involved in identifying hazards and possible controls? Are they raising concerns and reporting problems promptly? Are the frequency and severity of incidents reducing over time? If new legislation or new information becomes available, does it suggest current controls are no longer the most effective?

If problems are found, the Code says you should go back through the risk management steps, review your information and make further decisions about risk control. In other words, blasting safety is not a one-off document. It is a system that needs to be checked against the actual work being done.

Before relying on this page for operational decisions, businesses should check the current approved code and the WHS laws that apply in their jurisdiction. This page summarises the Commonwealth instrument and the model code concepts described in it, but your workplace may also need to comply with local regulator requirements or related codes.

You should also check your own documents and conduct against the Code. That includes plant information, safety data sheets, product labels, supplier information, contractor arrangements, worker consultation records, monitoring records, health monitoring arrangements where required, and procedures for reviewing controls.

If your work involves older coatings, uncertain substrates, dense dust, hazardous chemicals, lead, asbestos, or confined spaces, do not rely on assumptions. The Code repeatedly points businesses toward verification, consultation, monitoring where required, and stronger controls than PPE alone.