XN000022-1986-02-05 — Page 6

+

1

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1986

*THESE TYPES OF ASBESTOS ARE PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS, BUT, FORTUNATELY, VERY RARELY USED IN HONG KONG,+ HE SAID.

SPRAYING OF MATERIALS CONTAINING ASBESTOS IS ALSO PROHIBITED BECAUSE IT IS A SPECIALLY HAZARDOUS PROCESS, MR HENDERSON SAID. THE USE OF ASBESTOS WHICH IS NOT PROHIBITED IS STRICTLY CONTROLLED, AND THE REGULATIONS IMPOSE A NUMBER OF DUTIES ON A PROPRIETOR OF AN INDUSTRIAL TAKING WHO USES AN ASBESTOS PROCESS, HE EXPLAINED.

ALTHOUGH ASBESTOS IS NOT MINED IN HONG KONG AND THE MANUFACTURE OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS IS VERY RARE AND ON A SMALL SCALE, ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS PRODUCTS ARE USED IN A NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS IN HONG KONG FOR INSULATION AND FIRE- PROOF ING.

SPEAKING OF THE DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH ASBESTOS USE, HE SAID INHALATION OF ASBESTOS DUST IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES COULD RESULT IN PNEUMOCONIOSIS IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. SINCE 1981, WORKERS WHO HAVE CONTRACTED ASBESTOS-RELATED DISEASES HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST MIGHT ARISE IN HANDLING RAW MATERIALS OR WORKING IN ANY DUSTY PROCESS INVOLVING MATERIALS CONTAINING ASBESTOS. BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH HAZARD INVOLVED, MANY_COUNTRIES HAD, IN RECENT YEARS, INTRODUCED LAWS CONTROLLING THE USE OF ASBESTOS.

THESE HEALTH HAZARDS HAD ALSO BEEN STUDIED IN HONG KONG BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR, HE SAID.

DUTIES IMPOSED BY THE REGULATIONS ON THE PROPRIETOR WHEN ASBESTOS IS USED INCLUDE:

* USE OF EXHAUST VENTILATION EQUIPMENT OR PROVIDING WORKERS

WITH RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING,

*

*

PROPERLY CLEANING AND STORING SUCH PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, AND

ENSURING THAT PLANT AND PREMISES ARE KEPT CLEAN AND FREE OF ASBESTOS DUST.

IN ADDITION, THE PROPRIETOR MUST NOT EMPLOY A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. HE MUST ALSO ENSURE. THAT EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN ANY ASBESTOS PROCESS PERIODICALLY UNDERGO MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS, AND MUST BEAR THE COST OF THE EXAMINATIONS.

FAILURE IN THESE DUTIES RENDERS THE PROPRIETOR LIABLE TO FINES VARYING FROM $10 000 TO $30 000.

MR HENDERSON ALSO RECALLED THAT HE HAD SAID EARLIER IN THE COUNCIL THAT HE THOUGHT THE REGULATIONS WOULD ALSO PROVIDE FOR CORRESPONDING OFFENCES FOR EMPLOYEES WHO REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY PROPRIETORS.

THIS POINT,