avoided health system costs and improved workplace productivity . There are also benefits to workers ’ families , friends and communities .
The extent to which these benefits are realised will depend on the option implemented . A prohibition on the use of all engineered stone ( Option 1 ) will have greater health benefits for workers compared to a prohibition on the use of engineered stone containing 40 % or more crystalline silica ( Options 2 and 3 ). There is no evidence to demonstrate that prohibiting engineered stone with 40 % or more crystalline silica ( Options 2 and 3 ) will prevent all adverse health effects associated with exposure to dust from engineered stone .
Consultation outcomes
Consultation on the proposed options showed clear stakeholder support for some form of prohibition ( rather than maintaining the status quo ), with preferences split across the options proposed . Only 16 of the 114 submissions did not support any of the proposed options . Unions , professional organisations and peak health bodies supported Option 1 ( a prohibition on the use of all engineered stone ). Industry groups , while not necessarily supportive of a prohibition of engineered stone , acknowledged there is an issue with silicosis in engineered stone workers . They consider it can be addressed through regulation of high risk crystalline silica processes previously agreed by WHS ministers ( Option 5a in the Silica Decision RIS ). The majority of stakeholders acknowledged there is not currently enough evidence to determine a threshold crystalline silica content at which engineered stone could be worked with without risk ( for example , the 40 % threshold proposed in Options 2 and 3 ). Around half of PCBUs working with or supplying engineered stone supported Option 3 , commenting that a licensing scheme would enhance compliance in the sector .
What is the best option or combination of options ?
Recommended option : Option 1 : Prohibition on the use of all engineered stone .
All options , including maintaining the status quo ( i . e . no prohibition on the use of engineered stone ), were considered in the context of the problem statement , consultation feedback , workshop outcomes , an economic impact analysis and an expert review of available evidence on the risk profile of working with engineered stone .
A complete prohibition on the use of engineered stone is recommended .
The risks posed by working with engineered stone are serious and the possible consequences of being exposed to RCS generated by engineered stone are severe and sometimes fatal . To date , we – PCBUs , workers , regulators and policy agencies – have failed to ensure the health and safety of all workers working with engineered stone .
To ensure prevention is effective , it is vital all participants in the WHS system discharge their duties : �
� � importers , manufacturers and suppliers must provide adequate information on the risks posed by engineered stone
PCBUs must do all that is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise those risks workers must take reasonable care for their own health and safety , and
DECISION REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT Prohibition on the use of engineered stone Page 9 of 107