08 dust safety and health surveillance
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•186 views
This document provides information from a small mines roadshow on dust safety and health surveillance. It discusses silicosis prevention, lowering the national silica exposure standard, and ensuring controls are effective. Monitoring results from a quarry showed exposures exceeding standards. Mine operators must review their plans, monitoring, and training to ensure compliance with the new standard of 0.05mg/m3 for respirable crystalline silica which took effect in July 2020. Health monitoring is important to complement safety controls and identify risks to workers.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (16)
Similar to 08 dust safety and health surveillance
Similar to 08 dust safety and health surveillance (20)
More from NSW Environment and Planning
More from NSW Environment and Planning (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
08 dust safety and health surveillance
- 1. Small Mines Roadshow October – December 2020 Dust Safety & Health Surveillance Are your controls working? Risk mitigation, how your business should respond to the lowering of the national exposure standard for SiO2
- 3. Learning Outcomes Silicosis is entirely preventable (video) Review of the video messages: • Reoccurrence of dust related incidents (short history) • Resources Regulators continued approach • Applying hierarchy of controls • Ensuring a safe work environment (dust sampling – real time) • Meeting the new SiO2 national exposure standard (what to do?) • Reviewing controls due to new standard (exercise) • Providing health monitoring
- 4. Things still need to change !
- 5. HEALTH HAZARDS – RCS (Respirable Crystalline Silica) • Silicosis • Classic or simple (low exposures >15 years) • Accelerated (3 -10 years exposure to high levels) • Acute (short exposure to very high levels) • Lung Cancer • Chronic Bronchitis & Emphysema • Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
- 6. HEALTH HAZARDS – RCS (Irreversible)
- 7. SO, what happens if your controls are not working ?
- 8. Regulator’s published objectives (2019) Results of the targeted assessment programs (TAPs) and planned inspections (PIs) for dust and airborne contaminants will be reviewed. A program to revisit those mines identified as requiring improvement in worker health monitoring, management and control of dust will be implemented. We undertake the following activities: An analysis will be carried out to identify mines operating in high silica environments. These mines will undergo further planned inspections to verify that suitable strategies have been implemented to control the risks associated with dust. Develop an awareness package covering worker monitoring and reporting requirements and communicate this to mines in the non-coal sector. There is a clear need to focus on dust diseases in our mining industry.
- 9. Meeting these objectives Information and awareness packages • Review & republish ”Dust Safety” guide • New dust fact sheets • 2020 Small Mines Road shows • 2019 IQA seminar, • 2019 Silica Rd show • RR & Minerals Council (MSAC) toolkit • Stage 2 Targeted Interventions (Nov 2019) • Stage 3 Follow up assessments – review of notices & health monitoring (Nov 2019 – ongoing) • Stage 1 Planned Inspections • (2017 – ongoing for new sites) • Stage 4 Legislation Change assessments (July 2020 – ongoing) 41 Site Assessments 146 assessments 24 Site Assessments 36 Site Assessments
- 10. What are we finding ? Targeted Intervention Program - Nov 2019 24 Quarries (17 small & 7 large) The assessment process highlighted: • Some operators believe that respiratory protection equipment (RPE) is the only control necessary. Operators do not understand that they are required to control workers’ exposure. • Risk assessments to identify the risks and controls for dust on sites were typically not completed, did not identify all activities that generated dust, had not been reviewed and/or controls were not detailed. • Not all activities that generated dust were identified. • The critical controls used by quarry operators to manage the risk of worker exposure to dust were common, such as sealed, air conditioned and/or air filtered pressurised cabins of mobile plant to isolate workers from exposure to dust and water sprays to suppress dust generation. • Workers were not aware of the adverse health effects. They had not been trained in the methods to control dust and had not received RPE training. • The induction process for workers lacked information, training and instruction on the risks to their health from exposure to dust and methods for controlling the hazard. • The procedure for personal protective equipment (PPE) did not state the mandatory RPE required for tasks and areas of the mine where workers were at increased risk due to exposure to dust
- 11. Reality check - How did you determine what controls to use? • No involvement of subject matter experts • Reverse engineered risk assessments • No evaluation of known controls • No involvement of workers • Cut and paste risk assessments within organisations
- 12. Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia • Guidance material produced by CCAA in Sept 2018 • Workplace Health & Safety Guideline – Management of Respirable Crystalline Silica in Quarries
- 13. WHSR 2017 clause 36 clause applies if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks Duty holder must minimise risk, by 1 or more of the following a) substitute b) isolate c) engineering before d) administrative, and e) Personal Protective Equipment (RPE)
- 15. Administrative controls and PPE should only be used: • To supplement higher order control measures as a means of further mitigating the risk of exposure; • As an interim measure until a more effective way of controlling the risk can be used; • When the PCBU has done all that is reasonably practicable and no other practical control measures are available P1 & P2 P1 & P2 P2 & P3 Powered filtering respirators Negative pressure filtering respirators P2 & P3 Supplied air respirators
- 16. How do you confirm that your controls are working? How do you ensure that you meet the requirements of clause 39? Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2014 clause 39 “ The operator of a mine or petroleum site must, so far as is reasonably practicable, minimise the exposure of persons at the mine or petroleum site to dust and must ensure that no person at the mine or petroleum site is exposed to 8-hour time-weighted average atmospheric concentrations of airborne dust that exceed: for respirable dust—3 milligrams per cubic metre of air, for inhalable dust—10 milligrams per cubic metre of air. for crystalline silica—0.05 milligrams per cubic metre of air.
- 17. Respirable Dust Monitors • Lots of real time dust monitors available (some examples) • Typically $5 -15K • Instantaneous reading of airborne particulate concentrations • Indicator of worker exposures
- 18. Static test – ( July 2020)
- 19. Results • Sandstone Quarry Sio2 (54.0%) • Monitor location 5 m from cone crusher • Crushing & screening with dust sprays on • 15 minute duration • Average reading 3.56 mg/m3 • Change of wind direction @ 12 min mark • 3 minute duration • Max reading 29 mg/m3 • If operators were working in this area their personal exposure would exceed the Workplace Exposure Standard (3mg/m3 Respirable Dust)
- 22. Resources Regulator approach on new exposure standard • On 21 February 2020, the Minister for Better Regulation announced that the new respirable crystalline silica workplace exposure standard of 0.05mg/m3 will take effect in NSW from 1 July 2020. • The new exposure standard is prescribed following a revision of the Workplace Exposure Standards for Airborne Contaminants (WESFAC). Mines and petroleum sites will need to report exceedances of the new exposure standard to the NSW Resources Regulator from 1st July 2020. • We recognise that the ability to meet the new standard, in a relatively short time frame, will be a challenge to some mine operators. • It is our position that a reduction in the exposure standard is appropriate and compliance is achievable through the application of the hierarchy of controls This position paper details our regulatory approach during the period July - December 2020 to assist the NSW mining industry in managing the transition to compliance with the new exposure standard.
- 23. Resources Regulator approach to a reported exceedance (July – Dec 2020) • Does not exceed previous standard (0.1mg/m3) and mine operator provides evidence of appropriate review of controls. • Exceeds previous standard (0.1mg/m3) by up to 100% and mine operator provides evidence of appropriate review of controls, compliance action may be taken, subject to specific circumstances, (e.g. improvement notice). • Exceeds previous standard (0.1mg/m3) by more than 100% normal compliance and enforcement action taking into account subject to specific circumstances and actions taken by mine operator, (e.g. range of notices, site follow-up) A moderated approach to compliance and enforcement No Action Compliance action may be taken Normal compliance action
- 24. Mine Safety Advisory Council – Dust Toolkit https://www.resourcesregulator.nsw.gov.au/safety-and-health/about- us/advisory-council/msac-dust-toolkit • Videos • Guidance • Booklets • Pamphlets • Reports • Fact Sheets • Safety Alerts • Presentations
- 25. What do I need to review ? • Review & update PHMP (Dust) • Are existing controls effective ? • Monitoring frequency ? • Trigger levels for action ? • Is current RPE effective ? • Review & update HCP • Who is at significant risk ? • Is increased health monitoring required? • Review and update incident reporting? • Must notify Regulator ? (0.05mg/m3) • Review information and training material ? • Induction ? • Contractor management ? The new respirable crystalline silica workplace exposure standard of 0.05mg/m3 took effect in NSW from 1 July 2020. 0.1 mg/m3 0.05 mg/m3
- 26. What does your Health Control Plan (HCP) say about health monitoring ? • Do have a HCP? • Which workers are monitored? • Where is the monitoring undertaken? • How often are workers monitored? • What do you do with the results? Around the room ?
- 27. Name Work task Respirable Crystalline Silica mg/m3 – 8hr TWA Respirable Dust mg/m3 – 8hr TWA Inhalable Dust mg/m3 – 8hr TWA Fitter 1 Screen changes 4hrs; replace conveyor drive motor 4hrs 0.078 0.198 8.89 Fitter 2 Screen changes 4hrs; replace conveyor drive motor 4 hrs 0.065 0.205 9.24 Operator 1 Fixed plant cleaning 5hrs; plant inspections 3hrs. 0.124 0.256 11.34 Current Workplace Exposure Standard (8hr TWA, mg/m3) 0.05 3.0 10.0 You are the Quarry Manager at hard rock quarry producing aggregate for use in concrete production from a granite deposit. You have recently engaged an occupational hygienist to conduct personal dust monitoring at your operation. The diagram below is a cut down version of the hygienist’s report highlighting the results for 3 out of the 15 workers who participated. The monitoring was conducted for an 8-hour period on a day that the fixed plant was down for maintenance. Normal sales and pit extraction activities were conducted during the monitoring period. You have viewed the monitoring results, what action if any, would you take in response?
- 28. Who are we? icare dust diseases care Dust Diseases Care2 Dust Diseases Care provides no-fault compensation and support for people who have developed work-related dust diseases in NSW, and their dependents Relevant legislation: Workers’ Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942 We provide: medical examinations health monitoring compensation payments payment of medical & healthcare expenses information & education about dust diseases funding for research into, and support for, dust diseases
- 29. A convenient and flexible screening service – Since 2000, over 67,800 workers screened Dust Diseases Care7 DDC Screening Workers screened per dust type Mobile Lung Bus 115 Pitt St. Sydney Local Doctor 2,409 1,154 1,722 Silica Silica and Asbestos Asbestos 4,299 for 72 employers 920 for 153 employers 66 for 9 employers
- 30. Worksites across NSW with our regional lung screen visits, making it easier for employers to proactively provide their workers with essential health-monitoring for potential dust diseases Dust Diseases Care8 Mobile Lung Screening Service 62 Worksites / Locations visited across NSW 55,000 kms Travelled across NSW
- 31. 1st stage of screening – 3 simple steps, quick and painless, takes 20 to 25 minutes Dust Diseases Care9 Lung Screen: One stop service Chest X-Ray Lung Function Test (Spirometry) Respiratory health examination
- 32. Dust Diseases Care12 Key Messages icare services are free for retired workers and individuals with exposure in previous employment and subsidised for current workers on behalf of employers Health monitoring should complement or validate the safety measures that employers have put in place. It should not be used as a control measure Workers can be screened through the Pitt Street clinic, the Lung Bus and local doctors The 1st screening stage consists of a Chest X-ray, Spirometry Test and respiratory health exam The 2nd stage of screening involves a CT Scan, full Lung Function Test and detailed work history Silicosis is irreversible and there is compensation entitlements from DDC Contact us on 139 444 or lungscreen@icare.nsw.gov.au
- 33. Silicosis is preventable if appropriate dust control, atmospheric monitoring and worker monitoring procedures are in place.
- 34. “Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean its not there !”
- 36. Dust Safety & Health Surveillance 2020 Small Mines Roadshow
Editor's Notes
- Introduce the topic and yourself Discuss the purpose of this workshop This presentation is designed to go for 30 – 40 minutes
- Play this video to set the scene for the rest of the presentation.
- We have just watched a video that contains many messages from our CIM Garvin Burns about the management of dust. It is no surprise that the Resources Regulator continues to focus on the identification and control of dust hazards as its # 1 priority. We make no apologies about our continued program of work relating to the education and assessment of mine operators controls with respect to the management of dust hazards. We plan to continue these programs until such time as we are satisfied that industry has the necessary knowledge and controls in place to manage this hideous disease. So lets brake down the messages from the video which will form our Learning Outcomes for the session
- Very quick refresher… to set the scene Summarise this blurb in your own words and reinforce the severity of managing the hazards with Sio2 Below is background information…(it is not expected that you cover all this) the message is that it has been around forever and we have taken our foot off the pedal. The hazard of silica is nothing new to our industry, we have known and been managing the effects of silica for more than a century. Quartz is the most common form of crystalline silica and is the second most common mineral on the earth’s surface. Silicosis was directly related to the introduction of new technology and mechanisation and was abundant in the workplace. The first major inquiry into miners health was in WA in 1905 with the ‘Royal Commission on the Ventilation and Sanitation of Mines” Shortly following was the 1910 Royal Commission of Pulmonary Disease Amongst Miners. - This required Commonwealth intervention In 1921 the Commonwealth established the Industrial Hygiene Division as part of its new Department of Health, and “so the journey continues.”
- - A quick overview… summary of information provided below Crystalline silica presents a hazard when fine particles are inhaled into the lungs, these are termed respirable particles. The respirable fraction of a dust cloud is generally less than about 7um in size. Just to put this in context a human hair is typically 80-100 microns Silicosis: Silicosis is a fibrosis of the lung – in other words a scarring making breathing more difficult by reducing lung function or capacity and increases the risk of lung infections. Classic Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS after 15 years or more, Accelerated silicosis occurs after 5 – 10 years heavier exposure. Acute silicosis can occur after a few months of very high concentrations and lead rapidly to ill health. Lung cancer: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the relative risk of lung cancer is increased in persons with silicosis. Respirable crystalline silica is classified as carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 1) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): COPD is a group of lung diseases, including bronchitis and emphysema, resulting in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It may be caused by breathing in any fine dusts, including RCS. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death. Cigarette smoking can make it worse. Source: UK Health and Safety Executive “ Control of Exposure to Silica Dust – A Guide for Employees” 2013
- The slide on the left is of from a worker that has a normal chest x-ray while the worker on the right is approximately 40 yrs old and has severe silicosis. What is concerning is that this worker was exposed to RCS for about 6 years – therefore has accelerated silicosis. This worker is now unable to do any normal activities and his prognosis is very poor without a lung transplant. Fact I learnt the other day is that a lung transplant might only be good for approx 10 -15 years.
- SO, what happens if your controls are not working ? This is a question to all of you…………“Can we take that risk ??? Challenge everyone in the room to sit for one minute to imagine what the consequences will be if ‘your controls are not working’ !!! The alternative and outcome are simply not acceptable. As an industry we must ask ourselves, are we doing everything that is reasonably practicable to prevent workers from being exposed to a contaminated atmosphere. As recently as last week (this was 2019) I confirmed with I care that there are currently 21 cases of silicosis under investigation, with many more expected to arrive on their books due to the increased awareness campaign of the Silica Rd shows and an increased number of peopled being included in a health monitoring program. - This article was taken from the SMH earlier last year in regard to silica and engineered stone, however this gentleman was a brickie. Of concern in the article was that he had not realised breathing in silica dust was hazardous. He was first diagnosed at 33 after working 15 years into his job as brickies labourer - Early detection of silicosis is vital so that those still in the workforce can be removed from further exposure. Tragically, many potential sufferers continue to work in dusty conditions while their condition remains unidentified. A diagnosis may be easily missed, or assumptions made that the loss of function associated with silicosis is due to reduced fitness, age, or lifestyle factors such smoking. It remains of great concern that a number of workers may have early onset of silicosis, without knowing. - I ask you again … how do you know that ‘your controls are working ?? - Are you monitoring your workplace atmosphere? - Do you have a health monitoring program and are all workers that are at significant risk part of that program?
- Slide is designed to show that the Resources regulator has been working to a plan for the past couple of years Our commitment from last year (2019) (what we said we were going to do) Quickly run through slide - Key issues are highlighted in bold
- Summary of our performance so far in meeting our objectives This is what we have done and what we are going to continue to do Work through the slide e.g. Stage 1 to 4 We have also continued to develop information and awareness packages Hold up the new dust book, fact sheet and talk about the information toolkit on the website There is a slide at the end of the presentation that shows the information available on the RR website
- RESULTS OF WHAT WE SEE. Draw the audience’s attention to this publication which summarises the results of the 2019 TIP It is a good summary of the commonly identified shortcomings I would also add the failure to include; (next slide) Subject matter experts (hygienist and the workers on site) Reverse engineered risk assessments (may have to explain to the audience what this means… doing a risk assessment to suit a pre determined outcome)
- - Background information below. - “Reverse engineered risk assessments are the curse of our industry” - Time and time again as regulators we are provided with risk assessments that clearly have a predetermined outcome. They are managed, manipulated, twisted and often illogical as to how they have determined the result. They are often nothing more than a piece of paper that attempts (and in many cases poorly) to demonstrate that they have thought about the issue. They often do not include any subject matter expert involvement, do not involve the workers, do not consider known controls, and are regularly passed from organisation to organisation It is time for a reality check – How did you determine what controls to use ? I read from the CCAA’s guideline : And most importantly… • Is the exposure reduced to an acceptable level and, at a minimum, consistently below the exposure standard of 0.05mg/m3 on an 8 hour TWA for any activity or task that may create an unacceptable RCS exposure? • Is there monitoring and verification in place to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of controls and that exposures are kept to an acceptable level?
- Background information below So you may ask ‘how do I determine what is reasonably practicable’ ? Many of you in the room work for companies that are members of the Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia Association Amongst other publications, of which there are many, and I mean many, the CCAA has produced a publication titled ‘Management of Respirable Crystalline Silica in 2018 This publication is an excellent starting point and provides general guidance to assist operators in the appropriate management of respirable crystalline silica (RCS) and gives many examples of controls that will assist you in determining what is ‘reasonably practicable’ for your site. Please be aware that this document is not a substitute for obtaining expert advice (including an expert occupational health and safety assessment), which should be obtained by operators prior to the commencement of quarrying activities and on an ongoing basis. However, it is an excellent lifecycle summary of how to approach the management of silica dust. I encourage you to get a copy as it is your associations document and it has been written for you. The CCAA document promotes exactly the same approach as that required by clause 36 and details a comprehensive list of control examples.
- Example of list of controls from CCA document The document gives an excellent account of control selection Clause 36 outlines that the Duty Holder MUST minimise the risk by a), b),c) before using administrative or PPE controls - NEED TO REINFORCE THIUS CONCEPT (REQUIREMENT)
- Background information below Another way of looking at where the controls fit To better explain this concept it is often easier to display the controls laid out in clause 36 in the following manner. This bow tie approach centralises the exposure to dust as the unwanted hazard and places the preventative (higher order controls) to the left and the protection controls (often referred to as the mitigating controls) to the right. Clause 36 requires the duty holder to consider the higher order preventative controls, so far is reasonably practicable, and only if the risk remains should they adopt the lower order protection controls. In all cases, the primary goal should be to minimise exposure to RCS so far as reasonably practicable and ensure exposure is no greater than the exposure standard. Controlling dust at the source is the key to effective control. It is far more effective to prevent and minimise the generation of RCS dust than it is to manage the risk in the air, or reduce the risk to each worker. - As before … the primary duty under WHS Legislation is for the PCBU to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that workers and other people are not exposed to health and safety risks arising from the business or undertaking.
- Background info below… Just to reconfirm. Administrative controls and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) are lower order controls that rely on human behaviour and supervision to minimise exposure to a hazard. In the right circumstance PPE is an effective control. It’s lowly position in the hierarchy is not because it doesn’t work, but rather that in order for it to work it relies on human interaction and we know that this introduces a higher level of uncertainty. Firstly, it relies on the PPE being correctly selected to reduce the risk, but more fundamentally, it relies on the PPE fitting the individual and then that person wearing it properly every time. Most in the room will have heard of the term ‘fit testing’ and many have adopted the process on their site. In brief, as fit testing is a whole other presentation, various research papers have established that 98 % of Workers that are fit tested will achieve a Workplace Protection Factor of 10 while only 50 % of those that are not fit tested will achieve the same protection level. If you have not adopted fit testing as a method to ensure a satisfactory protection level on site I strongly encourage you to talk to an occupational hygienist to discuss the benefits and pitfalls of poorly fitted PPE. So in to finish this slide I remind you that… Administrative controls and PPE should only be used: • To supplement higher order control measures as a means of further mitigating the risk of exposure; • As an interim measure until a more effective way of controlling the risk can be used; • When there are no other practical control measures available. This is reinforced in “Safe Work Australia” May 2018 - publication
- - So how do we confirm that our controls are working?” Clause 39 of the Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites ) Regulation 2014 states… “ The operator of a mine or petroleum site must, so far as is reasonably practicable, minimise the exposure of persons at the mine or petroleum site to dust and must ensure that no person at the mine or petroleum site is exposed to 8-hour time-weighted average atmospheric concentrations of airborne dust that exceed: So how is everyone doing this ??? (ASK THE AUDIENCE if anyone hasn’t do personal dust monitoring as yet) If NOT why NOT ?
- - This slide is to show mine operators that there are other options that may assist with better understanding the correlation between dust levels (visual) and exposure standards. - Realtime Respirable dust monitors are becoming more readily available and affordable Many different types of dust monitors Understand that real time hand held dust monitors are not going to give the user a Sio2 reading, however if you know the % of SiO2 in your material you can make a calculated estimated of the Sio exposure to workers. Be clear that the RR is not promoting any one type, but can see the benefits of being able to make real time assessments as opposed to waiting up to 3 weeks (sometimes more) to receive results back from NATA lab.
- This slide is designed to show the audience how the dust monitor works and to also let the audience know that Resources regulator Inspectors have three (3) units and that we are doing demonstrations when we are doing field assessments. Next slide shows the audience the type of real time data that can be obtained. The photos are from Woodburn Quarry (Steve Kohler and myself were doing the demonstration)
- Reasonably self explanatory Idea is to work through the dot points and the graph to show the audience the type of information that comes out of the monitor.
- Idea of re showing this picture is for the audience to ponder the relationship between a dust exceedance by a factor of 10 and the dust levels seen in the picture. Stress the point “that it didn’t look too bad” and there was an exceedance by 10.
- Another recent example of how easy it is to exceed the national standard when a control has failed Everyone in the room can probably relate to this, however probably wouldn’t have thought that it would have resulted in an exceedance Site (Calga Sands – audience doesn’t need to know that) is a rip and push sandstone site that washes the material to produce sand. It has a SiO2 level that exceeds 80% This photo is typical of the work being carried out on the day and was taken two weeks from the time of the sampling program Very little dust was being generated by the dozer due to the inherent moisture in the base material yet the personal dust monitoring exceeds the exposure standard for a 10 hour shift by a factor of 10 (ooouch) Trying to get through the audiences head that it does not take much for a worker to be exposed. Site now understands that if such an event (failure of air con) then ripping should stop. How many times do we see machines working with windows down (in this case door open) despite the air con working ??? ASK THE AUDIENCE IF THEY LET IT HAPPEN ON THEIR SITES ? When you are explain to the audience note that the 0.035 exposure standard has been adjusted for a 10hr shift (e.g. would normally be 0.05 for 8 hour shift)
- Slide is designed to reconfirm with the audience that the SiO2 national standard has been lowered to point 0.05 Don’t need to read it all, just let them know it has occurred and that we have published a position paper on it implementation, and more particularly the reporting of exceedances.
- - Slide describes what is going to happen when they report an exceedance? Background info from the position paper. The NSW Resources Regulator is committed to ensuring that the NSW mining industry understands its obligations and our expectations. We accept that compliance with the revised exposure standards will present a significant challenge to some mine operators in the short term, and that achieving compliance may take some time, based on requirements to upgrade or modify equipment. However, improving conditions relating to the health and safety of workers and reducing the potential risk of all airborne contaminants is an absolute necessity and we expect that all mine operators are actively working to reduce exposure, not only to below the prescribed maximum, but to as low as reasonably practicable. We will moderate our approach to compliance in recognition of this and provide additional support and guidance to industry and workers. Moderation will not be applied where mine operators cannot demonstrate they have made a genuine attempt to address the causes of an exceedance to protect workers.
- Slide is designed to demonstrate to the audience our commitment to educational material and awareness packages, particularly with respect to the implementation of the new national exposure standard Background information below The Resources Regulator, combined with the NSW Mine Safety Advisory Council, have developed a toolkit to help you through this transition. The information is on our website (link attached) and contains lots of resources I encourage you to take the time to familiarise yourself with the information Little bit of info about MSAC if you need it… The NSW Mine Safety Advisory Council (MSAC) was established in 1998 following recommendations from two enquiries (Gretley & Mine safety review) It provides the Minister with advice on WHS issues of critical importance to NSW govt. Made up of industry stakeholder (Coal, Met, CCAA, CFMEU,AWU, independent experts, Resources Reg) - Members have combined Resources to create the toolkit - “Just because you cant see it, doesn’t mean its not there !” - The tool kit is designed to provide mine workers and mine operators with information, advice and guidance related to managing dust
- - Slide is self explanatory - We have now been through what the Resources Regulator is going to do, now we need to discuss what you need to do. Presenter to talk through the revision of documents and systems that a mine operator should have on site Remember to involve your work force and a subject matter expert (where possible)
- Exercise # 1 Spend 5 minutes working around the room asking the following questions (it will promote plenty of conversation) Do they have a documented HCP? How did they determine who will receive health monitoring ? What was their criteria for establishing ‘significant risk’ ? Is health monitoring being performed in accordance with schedule 14 (WHSR 2017) general health, spirometry, chest x-ray What frequency have you determined that monitoring will be completed at ? How long are you keeping the records for? Where are you keeping the records
- Exercise # 2 (5 minutes) Given that we have COVID restrictions this will have to be done on the screen as a whole of audience exercise (normally I envisaged this would be done in a ground at the table) Let the audience read the example and then ask them what they would do ? Hopefully the answer will include: (this is from this years QM CoC exam) Report the three exceedances (SiO2) to the Resources Regulator via the portal or by phoning the CAU. What are you reporting and (clause 128 r) ? SiO2 limit 0.05mg/m3, respirable 3mg/m3, inhalable 10mg/m3 (not required to report) Commence an investigation (using the mine incident reporting procedures) Consult the workforce and explain results and health implications. Review the hygienist’s recommendations listed in the report. Review tasks undertaken during monitoring (investigate), interview participants to gain a good understanding of tasks undertaken and possible exposure points. With a relevant cross section of workers, review the risk assessment for the tasks undertaken where exceedances were recorded. Review the risk assessment- dust and airborne contaminants In consultation with relevant workers, develop additional control measures. (considering hierarchy of controls) Review PHMP- Dust and airborne contaminants Review HCP Implement new control measures Train workers in new methods Supervise and monitor compliance of new controls
- - Quick information transfer about I Care (five slides) During our site assessments, there are lots of conversations about how to go about organising ‘Health Monitoring’ for your workers Mine operators often find it difficult about where to start and who to engage. The following slides provide the audience with some basic information about I Care and the LUNG BUS They are taken straight out of the 2019 state wide Silica Roadshow Work through the slides.
- - Self explanatory - Message is that the lung bus does a lot of people and is available Last time I was speaking to I care they were thinking of maybe getting another bus I Care can also help with putting you in contact with a local doctor
- - Self explanatory
- - Self explanatory
- Contact details of I Care https://www.icare.nsw.gov.au
- To finish - reinforce - Pneumoconiosis and silicosis are preventable if appropriate dust control, atmospheric monitoring and worker monitoring procedures are in place.
- - You don’t have to show this slide if you don’t want to “Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean its not there !” - A photo taken from my recent climb (Oct 2019) to 4,400 m in the Lang Tang Valley, where the air is clear and free of silica. - It is time for change !!!