Construction workers being diagnosed with silicosis in their 30s is unacceptable, and something needs to change, says engineer and occupational hygienist Kate Cole OAM AffilIEAust.
As told to Lachlan Haycock
The heavy media focus given to silicosis in recent years has led to people considering it solely an issue to do with engineered stone.
While it is true there are very high rates of disease caused by that incredibly toxic product – in one Australian state, as many as one in every four people who have worked with engineered stone has been diagnosed with a silica-related disease – it’s not the only substance engineers need to look out for.
Back in 2022, researchers at Curtin University predicted up to around 100,000 cases of silicosis and at least 10,000 cases of lung cancer due to exposure to crystalline silica in the workplace.
Given how large the mining and construction industries are in Australia, and how many of those workers are exposed to silica dust, they represent quite a large proportion of that estimate of 100,000 workers.
Hidden hazard
The risks around working at height, working in or around water, or when people are interacting with large-scale machinery, are quite obvious. If you were to look at a construction site and notice a wall has fallen down, it’s clear what’s gone wrong.
With dust, the danger can be significantly less obvious.
I started out my career as a site engineer on construction projects, but I’ve seen this issue play out through a number of different lenses. The main areas I’ve worked in are remediation of contaminated land, construction, demolition, and tunnelling.
What’s clear to me is that – while there are many health and safety hazards that engineers manage on a day-to-day basis during the design, construction and operation of assets – we tend to, as a community, focus a lot more on overt safety hazards than we do on hazards that can impact our health. This is interesting because those are the hazards that actually cause more fatalities in the workplace.
Part of the problem is that the effects of exposure to this hazardous chemical can take years or decades to manifest into disease, so the risk may not be recognised if awareness is limited.
In practice
There are two resources to which I routinely direct engineers seeking to learn more.
The first is the code of practice for the safe design of structures. That’s the obvious one. I’d recommend reading it through the lens of the silica dust risk, not the more general safety lens engineers probably use to read it the first time.
The second is the crystalline silica substances regulation. It’s very specific, very prescriptive, and it’s like that for an important reason.
But beyond this, there’s an extra layer to consider. When at university, engineers don’t necessarily learn how things are actually done in practice. We learn how they’re theoretically done. We learn what should be done, but not always how it’s really done. There’s a gap between work as imagined versus work as done.
Spending time talking with, listening to and observing the work of workers – and understanding how their work is actually being carried out – is critical.
Construction workers being diagnosed with silicosis at the age of 32 is unacceptable. If we want this to change, then we need to do something drastically different. We need to place this risk at the front of our minds when considering all the health and safety risks that are posed during the design, development, construction and operation of our country’s assets.
Rock-solid approach?
We’ll always have to dig into rock that contains silica. We can’t avoid that. It’s a given. There will also be a need to use silica-containing products such as concrete, and we can’t get away from that either. But there is still the opportunity to replace some of these silica-containing products with silica-free products.
I’m talking about silica-free grouts. Stones that don’t contain crystalline silica. Maybe it’s a less hazardous form such as amorphous silica, or maybe there’s no silica in it at all. What can be done at time of design to preferentially select products that are less hazardous to the workers using them?
Early in the design process, engineers generally have control – in consultation with other stakeholders of course – over what can reasonably be done to address this. Making such decisions at the time of construction is rarely practicable. That’s when the design is already set in stone, if you pardon the pun.
It’s not only looking at the materials, but how something is built. Is there different machinery that can be used to reduce the risk to workers? If workers must operate the machinery, can they do so remotely? If not, can they operate it in an enclosed and pressurised environment that prevents exposure to dust? What other options do we have?
We are not going to get anywhere as a society by simply relying on respiratory protection or dust masks, no matter how fantastic they are. That’s not to suggest they’re not needed, but we’re going to need bigger gains in reducing the burden of silicosis and related diseases in our country through implementing engineering interventions.
Unfortunately, the sheer number of cases of silicosis and other silica-related diseases evident in Australia has raised awareness of the importance of this issue. It’s resulted in some really important regulatory reforms, the ban on engineered stone being one and the introduction of the crystalline silica regulations being another.
Kate Cole OAM AffilIEAust is a Certified Occupational Hygienist, the former President of the Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists, and has advised government and industry bodies such as the NSW Dust Diseases Board, and the Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Council.
Watch Kate Cole outline the crystalline silica challenge further in this webinar.
Thanks Kate
Great to see this major health risk publicsed.
This issue has been recognized in the IRON Ore mining industry for several decades
I was the appointed Ventilation Officer at the Hamersly Iron Tom Price Mine for 11 years – We were required to monitor and respond to employee exposure to crystalline silica on an ongoing basis.
One of the sad things about this – the WHS mining regulations specifically covered this hazard, but the WorkSafe WHS Regulations did not.
They were the two WA regulators for general workplaces and mining.
It appears they did not or were prevented from communicating about silica exposure.
It took the Engineered stone and associated diseases suffered by employees to trigger a regulatory change.
Your point though – is the hazard still exists in the workplace and has not been properly addressed by the WHS Regulator.
Thanks for the article I have had a good read of “code of practice for the safe design of structures” and felt enlightened.
Courts do NOT expect perfect foresight, site control, zero risk but expect professional curiosity, basic lifecycle thinking and evidence an engineer cared.
Good day. I write in response to the article concerning silica dust and the effects on workers.
I am 78 years of age and have been a member of IEAust since 1975. I worked in the water and sewerage industry since 1967, when I was an undergraduate cadet engineer with the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board in Sydney.
In those days it was readily acknowledged that siliceous Hawkesbury sandstone was a health hazard to those cutting or excavating the rock for water and sewerage projects, including tunnels and trenches.
My first job during university vacation employment as a cadet was to do dust counting in tunnels and trench excavations. The air in the immediate area of work was sampled, the dust particles measured using a microscope and the report issued to all levels involved in the work. The practice led to the strictly administered requirement to have water administered to the excavation tools to suppress the dust. This activity seems to have been overlooked by the new breed of engineer and manager and needs to be a mandatory requirement on all dust producing jobs including cutting engineered stone. This requirement can be complemented by the use of the correct form of mask.
Engineers and others need to refer back to time honoured practices to learn from past experience.