Original source · versioned page text
Annex 8 - Safety in Design Report V1
Attached to the e-mail DA Application - Noosa Oyster Project (2 of 3).
Safety in Design Report Noosa Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project Prepared for The Nature Conservancy By International Coastal Management
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 12 pages
Page 2
Document Control Sheet ICM Project Number: 2020.3500 Prepared by: Sam King Title: Special Projects Engineer Company: International Coastal Management Final Review: Bobbie Corbett Title: Principal Coastal Engineer Company: International Coastal Management Approved for final release: Bobbie Corbett Title: Principal Coastal Engineer Company: International Coastal Management Version History Version No. Date Changed by Nature of Amendment Ver 0 20/05/2021 Initial issue Ver 1 04/08/2021 Minor wording changes This document has been produced by International Coastal Management Pty Ltd (ICM) in accordance with the terms and limitations of the brief by The Nature Conservancy. In preparing this report, ICM has used information provided by the Client and others identified herein. ICM does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document. This document is not to be used without the express approval of The Nature Conservancy.
Page 3
1. SAFETY IN DESIGN
1.1 THE LEGISLATION
The following legislation is relevant to this assessment.
• Work Health and Safety Act 2011
• Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011
ICM acknowledges it has a duty to comply with section 22 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and ensure, so
far as is reasonably practicable, that the design does not result in an increase of risks to health and safety.
This report is to be provided to the client (section 295 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations). The client is
responsible for providing this report to the Principal Contractor (section 296).
1.2 PRINICPLES, FRAMEWORK & PROCESS
The process of Safety in Design (SiD) adopted by ICM is consistent with ISO 31000:2018 (Figure 1), adapted as
required to suit a specific project and focussed only on risks associated with health and safety.
Figure 1: The Principles, Framework & Process (extract ISO 31000:2018)
1
Page 4
1.2.1 Principles
Integrated This assessment is undertaken during the design phase of the project, but
addresses risks expected to be encountered throughout the life of the project.
Structured & Comprehensive This report has been presented in a structured and comprehensive way and
should be reviewed and implemented in a similar manner.
Customised The assessment is specific to a single unique project. It should not be utilised on
other similar projects without review and adaptation as required.
Inclusive This report is to be provided to relevant stakeholders during the design process to
ensure awareness and facilitate discussion. Feedback is welcome.
Dynamic This report is a living document. It is the responsibility of the Client, Contractor
and future stakeholders to update the risk register as required during future stages
of work and in response to other changes that might affect the safety risk
assessment.
Best available information This report is based on historical and current information as well as future
expectations. It considers limitations and uncertainties associated with such
information and expectations.
Human & Cultural Factors Human behaviour and Australian culture have been considered when undertaking
this risk assessment.
Continual Improvement ICM is committed to continual improvement.
1.2.2 Framework
This report should form part of the client’s risk management framework.
1.2.3 Process
Scope This report relates to health and safety risks associated with this project throughout
its life cycle.
Context A description of the project is provided in section Error! Reference source not
found.
2
Page 5
Criteria Risks are to be assessed in terms of their likelihood and consequences based on
the following classifications.
Risk Classification Table
Consequences
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Likelihood
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Almost certain
M M H E E
(A)
Likely (B) L M M H E
Possible (C) L M M H H
Unlikely (D) L L M M M
Rare (E) L L L M M
Qualitative Measures of Risk
Classification Interpretation
Unacceptable.
Extreme
Add additional controls or do not proceed.
May be acceptable if additional controls not practicable.
High
Senior management attention required prior to acceptance.
Medium Acceptable.
Low Acceptable.
Qualitative Measures of Consequence or Impact
Classification Interpretation
Catastrophic Death
Major Extensive injuries
Moderate Medical treatment required
Minor First aid treatment, on-site with immediate release
Insignificant No treatment required
Qualitative Measures of Likelihood
Classification Interpretation
Almost certain Is expected to occur in most circumstances
Likely Will probably occur in most circumstances
Possible Might occur at some time
Unlikely Could occur at some time
Rare May occur only in exceptional circumstances
3
Page 6
Risk Identification Risks are to include risks associated with all stages of the project lifecycle
including construction, operation, during and after storm events, the impacts of
climate change and future works or maintenance.
Risk Analysis Risk analysis is to identify the risk source, likelihood and expected consequences.
Risk Evaluation Quantify the level of risk based on the risk criteria, considering existing controls
(assuming typical safety procedures for a competent but inexperienced contractor).
This evaluation is to be documented in the Risk Register in section Error!
Reference source not found..
Risk Treatment & Controls Safety risks are to be eliminated or minimised where reasonably practicable. Risk
control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the following risk
hierarchy:
1. Eliminate risk
2. Substitute hazard (wholly or partly) with lower risk alternative
3. Isolate hazard from exposed persons
4. Engineering Controls
5. Administrative Controls (e.g. signage)
6. Suitable PPE provided and used
Selected controls and responsible person for each control (control owner) are to be
documented in the Risk Register in section Error! Reference source not found..
Where safety is managed through engineering controls as part of the design
process, details regarding selection and expected performance are to be
documented in the Design Report.
Communication This report is to be provided to the client and any appropriate external and internal
stakeholders as part of the consultation process prior to finalising the design to
promote awareness and facilitate discussion. Any feedback is to be incorporated
into the document as appropriate. The report is to be provided to the Contractor to
allow for the preparation of a Site-Specific Safety Management Plan.
Monitoring & Review It is the client’s responsibility to ensure that safety performance of the project is
monitored and the safety assessment reviewed through key project stages to
ensure nominated controls successfully achieve safety objectives.
Recording & Reporting This report has been prepared to document the process and meet the various
needs of the stakeholders throughout the project.
4
Page 7
2. THE PROJECT
ICM have been consulted by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to provide engineering advice and design drawings,
along with documentation to support the approvals, for the installation of oyster bed restoration substrates within
the Noosa River estuary. The objective of the project is the restoration of oyster beds within the Noosa River
estuary, as outlined in the Project Restoration Plan (TNC) for the Noosa Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project.
The works are designed such that they can be installed in a safe manner for construction works, but also consider
interactions with the public, the environment and the on-going operation of the restoration beds.
Project Location & Environment
The project is located within five restoration zones identified in the Noosa River through habitat and restoration
suitability modelling by TNC (Figure 2). Phase 1 includes restoration at 4 sites.
1. Tewantin
2. Goat Island
3. Noosa Sound East
4. Noosa Sound West
Figure 2: Layout of the Restoration Zones and Phase 1 sites
5
Page 8
Figure 3: The four restoration sites selected for Phase 1
Project Timeframe
The Phase 1 works are anticipated to be implemented between 2021 and 2024
Phase 2
Phase 2 works include:
• Augmentation of the pilot phase restoration sites, with additional restoration substrate deployed as
required.
• Identification of new restoration sites in Restoration Zones 1 to 5
• Deployment of restoration substrates into newly identified sites.
These will be subject to future permits. Timing and funding is currently uncertain.
6
Page 9
Assumed Methodology & Equipment
Installation of the restoration beds is to be undertaken using an excavator mounted on a barge. During suitable
weather conditions, stockpiled restoration substrates are to be loaded onto a small barge, mixed as required and
transported to each restoration site where it is then installed on the river beach by excavator.
This proposed construction methodology has been successfully employed by TNC construction contractors in
shellfish restoration projects in port Philip Bay (VIC), Adelaide (SA), Albany and Swan River (WA), as well as by
the Department of Primary Industries for the restoration of rock oyster ecosystems in Port Stephens, NSW.
Photos: Kirk Dahle
Figure 4: Example of proposed methodology using barge mounted excavator to install restoration
substrates (Source: Kirk Dahle, DPI NWS)
3. HAZARD EVALUATION & CONTROL
Identified hazards are evaluated using a risk matrix that quantifies the risk as a function of likelihood and
consequence. Controls are identified, using the engineering hierarchy of controls, to reduce the risk score. The
process is documented in the risk register in (Table 1).
A residual risk (the final risk score after controls are applied) is quantified and documented to ensure
communication with all stakeholders.
7
Page 10
Table 1: Safety Risk Register
RISK IDENTIFICATION RISK ASSESSMENT RISK EVALUATION RISK TREATMENT RESIDUAL RISK EVALUATION
Risk Name Causes Consequences Controls to be implemented to reduce risk Control
Owner
Accepted / Not
Consequence
Consequence
Residual Risk
Likelihood
Likelihood
Risk
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Works near water Falling into water from Drowning Works limited to depths shallower than 1m below MLWS at most sites (2m below MLWS max) Designer
barge or tender
Suitable plant and equipment that is in good repair and compliant with relevant legislation. Contractor
Excavator toppling into
Accepted
water from barge Excavator to be secured to the deck or alternate acceptable arrangements.
D
H
E
E
5
5
Walking or swimming in Site-specific Safety Plan implemented for proposed methodology and plant
water to inspect works Personnel to be aware of site conditions, including tidal cycles, water depths, current speed,
wind chop and vessel wake.
Diving Diving Diving Accident Diving not expected to be required. Separate safety assessment to be undertaken if Contractor
Accepted
Drowning proposed.
N/A
N/A
M
D
5
5
Powered mobile plant Excavator (barge- Injury or death Restoration Zones consider public usage as part of their selection. Sites are largely TNC
mounted) or similar. to personnel inaccessible by land, but works are within public waterways.
Injury or death Suitable plant and equipment that is in good repair and compliant with relevant legislation. Designer
to public
Experienced and licenced operators.
Accepted
Personnel to be trained in procedures.
D
H
E
E
5
5
Suitable PPE.
Site-specific Safety Plan to address these risks for specific plant and equipment.
Personnel nominated as a spotter for public persons in close proximity to the site.
For sites where land-based access is available, safety fencing is to be installed.
Electrical Excavator impact with Excavator Restoration modules at Tewantin site located minimum 20m from existing overhead power Designer
overhead power cable impact cable. Existing infrastructure to be considered when designing Phase 2 works.
(Tewantin) Injury or death
Accepted
Excavator impact with Contractor to locate services and infrastructure on site prior to start of work. This is to include Contractor
a Dial B4U Dig search, liaising with relevant agencies as required and physical location of
M
C
H
D
5
5
exposed submarine
cable during placement services and infrastructure on site.
Anchoring impacting on Site-specific Safety Plan implemented suitable for proposed methodology and plant.
submarine cable
8
Page 11
RISK IDENTIFICATION RISK ASSESSMENT RISK EVALUATION RISK TREATMENT RESIDUAL RISK EVALUATION
Risk Name Causes Consequences Controls to be implemented to reduce risk Control
Owner
Accepted / Not
Consequence
Consequence
Residual Risk
Likelihood
Likelihood
Risk
Traffic Rock deliveries by truck Road accident Suitable handling and loading area to be identified. Contractor
Accepted
Injury / Death Traffic Management Plan to be implemented where required.
M
M
D
E
5
5
General Construction Risks Temperature extremes Injury Contractor to address in Site-specific Safety Plan Contractor
UV exposure
Excessive noise
Accepted
Manual tasks
M
M
C
D
3
3
Slips, trips & falls
Violence & aggression
Worker Fatigue
OPERATIONAL PHASE (INLCUDING POST-STORM & CLIMATE CHANGE)
Physical interaction with the Narrow walking spaces. Slip, trip, fall. Gaps around individual modules to be 1-4m wide at seabed. Designer
restoration substrate Rocks or oyster shell Cut from oyster. Rock size to be stable. Oyster shell to be placed to minimise displacement from structure.
(Monitoring Personnel or between modules from Injury or death Works are a restoration zone. Transit across the individual modules is not intended.
Public) construction
Accepted
Rocks or oyster shell Construction to alignment, levels and specifications on the approved drawings (except where Contractor
M
D
E
3
3
L
between modules due to modified in line with design provisions and approved by certifying engineer).
displacement from Rock to be stable and well interlocked.
works. Access gaps to be clear of rock and oyster shell.
Works to be certified by coastal engineer on completion.
9
Page 12
RISK IDENTIFICATION RISK ASSESSMENT RISK EVALUATION RISK TREATMENT RESIDUAL RISK EVALUATION
Risk Name Causes Consequences Controls to be implemented to reduce risk Control
Owner
Accepted / Not
Consequence
Consequence
Residual Risk
Likelihood
Likelihood
Risk
Uneven surface of Monitoring and maintenance of the structure in line with ICM Drawings and Project Owner /
works. Implementation Plan. TNC
Sharp oysters. Access to be via gaps between modules (not transit across the reef modules).
Slippery surface. Monitoring personnel to be aware and take due care when undertaking inspections of the
works. Inspections to be undertaken at a suitable tide. Personnel to be aware of site
conditions, including tide levels, water depths, currents, wave action and vessel wake.
Safety management plan to be implemented, considering if access is walking or swimming /
snorkelling.
Monitoring personnel to be wearing suitable PPE and have first aid available.
Diving not expected to be required. Separate safety assessment to be undertaken if
proposed.
Remove displaced rock and oyster shell within access gaps where it is presenting a safety
hazard for monitoring.
Review signage to ensure it remains legible and sufficient. Modify signage or enhance
community education if required.
Public eating oysters Oysters growing on Injury/Illness Project signage to discourage consumption of oysters at restoration sites. Owner /
Accepted
restoration substrate Project brochure and online Q and A advising consumers to purchase oysters from seafood TNC
M
M
D
E
4
4
eaten by public suppliers.
Vessel collision or impact to Vessels transit in Damage to Restoration modules located at least Designer
restoration substrate proximity to (or toward) vessel 10m outside of existing navigation channels.
restoration substrates. Injury or death 10m from foreshore access points
Vessels anchoring.
30m from tidal works (incl boat ramps, jetties, pontoons)
30m from moorings
Accepted
Crest height of Mean High Water Springs, such that the modules are exposed at most tidal
M
M
D
E
5
5
levels.
Restoration Areas to be marked with aid to navigation and signage as detailed in section 7 of
the Project Implementation Plan and in accordance with MSQ permit conditions.
Construction to alignment, levels and specifications on the approved drawings (except where Contractor
modified in line with design provisions and approved by certifying engineer).
Works to be certified by coastal engineer on completion.
10
Page 13
RISK IDENTIFICATION RISK ASSESSMENT RISK EVALUATION RISK TREATMENT RESIDUAL RISK EVALUATION
Risk Name Causes Consequences Controls to be implemented to reduce risk Control
Owner
Accepted / Not
Consequence
Consequence
Residual Risk
Likelihood
Likelihood
Risk
Notice to Mariners / Updated Chart to be issued for the works by MSQ. Owner /
Monitoring and maintenance of the structure in line with ICM Drawings and Project TNC
Implementation Plan.
Issue public information locally to advise of site locations and hazards.
Displacement of rock from Unstable rock placement Damage to Suitable rock size to be determined based on site conditions and design event. Designer
restoration substrate Undersized rock material restoration reef
Accepted
Wave impact Impacts to
access between
M
C
E
2
2
L
Excessive water Contractor to install appropriate rock size within tolerances as specific in the design Contractor
and around specifications.
currents restoration
footprint
Erosion adjacent to Excessive water Injury Periodic monitoring and maintenance of the structure in line with ICM Drawings and Project Owner /
restoration footprints currents (collapsing Implementation Plan. TNC
Wave impacts vegetation/steep
steps in riverbed
profile)
Accepted
Damage to
M
C
H
D
4
4
restoration reef
Impacts to
access between
and around
restoration
footprint
MAINTENANCE, UPGRADE OR REMOVAL
Risks as outlined in As per above
Construction Phase (above)
11