Post on 13-Jun-2020
transcript
Health and Safety:
A New Vision in
the Mining Industry
R. Larry Grayson
George H. Jr. & Anne B. Deike Chair in Mining
Engineering and Professor of Energy & Mineral
Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
• Underground coal (9 years): UMWA laborer,
surveyor, engineer (PE in PA, WV), production
foreman (mine foreman, mine examiner), chief
mining engineer, superintendent
• Academia (26 years): WVU, UMR, Penn State as
Assistant, Associate, and full Professor; mining
engineering department chair; college dean;
endowed chair
• Government (3 years): Associate Director, Office
of Mine Safety and Health Research, NIOSH
• Commission, committees, research panels
My Background
• Historical context on the need for a new vision
• How we mined before new regulations in 1969 and afterwards
• The key to continuous improvement: Mine safety & health management systems
• Building a safety culture of prevention
• A new U.S. model - CORESafety
Outline of Presentation
Historical context
on the need for a
new vision
Mining Disasters Increase in U.S.
Early 1900s
1901-1925: 305 disasters in coal mines,
51 in noncoal mines; each up 3X
Industrial revolution in “high gear”
1907 worst year for fatalities: 3,252
Bloody December: 692 deaths
Monongah, WV: 358 miners died
5A similar story for other countries.
Tremendous Improvements
Historically in U.S. H&S
* Fatalities (best measure)
* Serious injuries
* Lost-time injuries
* Disabling disease
6
Century-Long Snapshot:
U.S. Progress on Fatalities
1911-20: 3,256 per year
Coal - 2,468 (76%)
M/NM - 788
2006-2010: 60 per year
Coal - 36 (60%)
M/NM - 247
Fatal Incident Rate1911-20: 1.0 million miners
32.6 fatals/10,000
0.326 fatal IR
2006-10: 376,000 miners
1.60 fatals/10,000
0.016 fatal IR
Coal: 0.027 fatal IR
M/NM: 0.010 fatal IR 8
Causes of H&S Legislation
• Farmington coal mine disaster (68
died) led to 1969 Coal Mine Health
& Safety Act
• Sunshine silver mine disaster (91
died) led to 1977 Mine Safety &
Health Amendments Act
• Since 1977, rates continued to
decline dramatically13
How we mined before
new regulations in
1969 and afterwards
• Operational aspects:
Production and safety important
Corporate safety inspections
Safety Committee inspections
Union-Management safety
meetings
State and federal inspections
intense
How we worked in the „old‟ days
• Important features (1975-1981):
Superintendent allowed to make
safety commitment
Good communication at all levels
Monitored production, cost, and
safety performances
Gave regular feedback;
accountability
Had enough employees to do job
How we worked in the „old‟ days
• Transition: 1982-1984:
Recession hit hard
Mining industry devastated
Reduced workforce by 50%
Cost-cutting measures intense
Did more (productivity) with less
(1/2 of workforce), but not better
(all other non-production work
suffered)
How we worked in the „old‟ days
• Transition results:
Much higher productivity
(tons/shift)
Reduced cost/ton dramatically
Large percentage of miners
worked a lot of overtime (caught
up on support work)
Fought for economic survival
How we worked in the „old‟ days
Dramatic Changes in Mines Today
• Safety record fluctuates between good
and bad for fatalities, but not lost-time
injuries
• Pneumoconiosis/silicosis rate doubled
in underground coal miners over past
decade
• Disasters increased after a dramatic
decrease
Three-Decade Picture of
Coal Mine Disasters
1981-1990: 7 => 90 deaths
1991-2000: 1 => 8 deaths
2001-2010: 5 => 68 deaths
This caused major problems
for the entire industry!20
21
Major Impacts of 2006 MINER Act
• Emergency Response Plan required – update
• Wireless two-way communications and miner
tracking required; SCSR caches; refuge chambers
• Two mine rescues teams – 1 hour response
• 15-minute notification of serious accident
• Higher criminal penalties - $250,000;
$500,000 for 2nd offense
• Maximum civil penalty of $220,000
• Penalties generally increased 3.5X
22
23
24
Today’s Rule:
Continuous Improvement
* Fatalities * Injuries
* Disabilities * Disease
* Productivity * Cost
Bottom line: Safe, efficient,
cost-effective production!25
New perspectives emerging:
* Employers now beginning to insist that
machinery and equipment be equipped
with features to improve H&S of
employees
* Employers seeking to find and implement
best work practices and best design
features in plant and equipment
* Highly competitive global business
environment is driving systematic
continuous improvement and loss control
programs26
Stress Factors on Miners
* Transfer of stress by continuous
improvement programs
* High risk at small operations
* Working longer hours, more days
* Less time with family
* Working night shifts
* Performing broader range of tasks
27
* Doing jobs faster
* More frequent repetitive motions
* More contingency work
* Lower wages (small operators)
* Lack of health insurance
* Switching companies more frequently
* Longer commutes28
Stress Factors on Miners
Our Goal
As an Industry
Make mining a model
of excellence in all
respects - a shining image
of H&S accomplishment.29
Bottom line for us all:
Improve welfare of workers at work,
at home, and in retirement
It is a challenge shared by
enlightened managers and
committed occupational safety and
health professionals worldwide – in
management, labor and
government. 30
New perspectives may be gained
by:
* Developing deeper understanding of
work situations
* Linking group and individual
behaviors to work situations
* An enhanced capability to sift
through more powerful databases
that better frame and target
problems (risk assessment)31
New perspectives may be gained
by:
* Using new surveillance tools
* Involving mine operators, labor,
government, and other parties in
partnerships that focus on the most
pressing needs
32
With these new perspectives,
to continue improvements,
industry will:
* organize work more effectively
* employ improved mining methods
and new technologies
33
Related Issues
* Period of intense retirements
* Rapid influx of new and
inexperienced workers
* Short interface time with new
workers
34
* Requires new perspectives, focused
on continuous improvement and
change; need synergy from good
cooperation and collaboration
* Needs deeper, more specific look in
sectors, regions, states, counties,
jobs, etc.
* More research needed on human
factors and skill-based training
How Reduce Injuries in Future?
35
* Realism imperative in training,
especially with dramatic influx
of new, unskilled miners
* New miners need to be exposed
virtually to infrequently
encountered hazardous
conditions and work situations
How Reduce Injuries in Future?
36
To continue improvements,
the industry will:
• demand more health and
safety features on mining
equipment
37
To continue improvements,
the industry will:
* ensure that best work
practices are integral
in accomplishing work
38
To continue improvements,
the industry will:
* seek breakthroughs in
handling some of the
most persistent problems
-- cost and competition
will drive it
39
To continue improvements,
the industry will:
* incorporate health, safety
and environmental aspects
in every facet of mine
planning and design; and
40
To continue improvements,
the industry will:
* systematically set goals
and objectives to drive
continuous improvements
across the board
41
Change has
accelerated!
We must act
accordingly.
42
Impact of Changing Economy,
Transformation of Business, and
Public/Political Opinion
• Dealing with new or emerging issues
requires proactive approaches to cope
with associated losses in worker welfare,
cost, and productivity
• Leading indicators will be needed to
predict undesired trends earlier and fix
the emerging problems43
Impact of Changing Economy,
Transformation of Business, and
Public/Political Opinion
• Systematic safety management is the
most effective way of ensuring that issues
are dealt with well
• Many standards exist for pursuing
systematic safety management
• In the U.S., the National Mining
Association created and adopted
CORESafety as its model44
The Future
• Concerted efforts throughout
a corporation to build a culture
of safety are key to improving
the welfare of workers
• Commitment of resources is
required to address problems
proactively and systematically
• Such efforts provide „resounding voices‟ politically to demonstrate social responsibility 45
The Future
• More robust surveillance of
performance trends, involvement
of the workforce and other
stakeholders, coupled together,
can be use to identify successive
sets of problems in a prioritized
and targeted way
46
The Future
• In my opinion, systematic safety management is critical now
• But it should be applied to systematic improvement ofall aspects of our business
47
The key to continuous
H&S improvement:
Use of a Mine Safety &
Health Management
System
• Different but similar
standards:
ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005
ISO 9001: 2008(E)
OHSAS 18001: 2007
ILO-OSH 2001
AS/NZS 4804: 2001
In UK, AUS, S. Africa: must do it.
• Common elements (ILO):
Policy aspects
Worker participation
Responsibility and accountability
Competence and training
Documentation
Communication and information
Initial review
• Common elements (ILO):
System planning, development
and implementation
H&S objectives
Hazard identification and risk
assessment; preventive and
protective measures
Performance monitoring and
measurement
• Common elements (ILO):
Investigation of work-related
injuries, ill health, diseases and
incidents, and their impact on
H&S performance
Audit
Management review
Preventive and corrective action
Continual improvement
Associated with the Mine
S & H Management
System is the Mine Safety
Management Plan
Ref: NSW Guidance Note GNM-
003, version 4.1 in February
2008
• Elements of Mine Safety
Management Plan:
Management structure
How risks are to be managed
Arrangements for the safe use
of mine/plant and electricity
Contractor management plan
Emergency plan
Australia has realized
excellent results in its
fatality rate improvement
since implementation in
1997 and 1998, as
shown next.
NIOSH major hazard risk assessment study (Iannacchione, Varley
and Brady, 2008)
• The Mine Safety and Health
Management System and the
Mine Safety Management Plan are
very formal and require significant
documentation
• To be effective they require
commitment from the top of the
company all the way to the front-
line supervisors and miners
• The Australian industry uses very
formal systems that require a high
level of documentation
• The regulatory provisions place a
“duty of care” obligation on all
companies, and require the use of
these formal systems
• They also have required
comprehensive audits of H&S
performances
• Although generally not as formal as the
Australian approach, several companies
in the U.S. have similar results
• They have also used formal methods to
create a supportive safety culture,
hinged on prevention of injuries and
high-risk conditions
• Among these companies are Arch Coal,
BHP Billiton, CONSOL Energy, Peabody
Energy, and Rio Tinto
• The well-managed companies have
dramatically reduced their lost-time
accidents, fatalities and disabilities, and
withdrawal and imminent danger orders
• In general, their approaches to safety
and health management are much more
systematic and well-documented than
the majority of other operations
• They are also large corporate entities
• The problems to be overcome in making
a rule requiring the use of Mine Safety
and Health Management Systems follow
(U.S. example):
Unlike in Australia, 85% to 95% of our
mines are small mines (fewer than 50
employees), depending on the sector
The Australian coal industry is mostly
comprised of large mines (70%-75%)
• Other problems to overcome are:
U.S. operations are „battling‟ hard, in
their minds, to simply comply with
regulations now, and they have
developed a combative mindset in
many instances
This mindset precludes cultivation of
best practices and good relations with
MSHA because they believe the are
being punished unfairly
• Other problems to overcome are:
They resort to litigation (due process) to
defend their performances, which they
believe have been unfairly penalized by
MSHA
Their workforces are kept busy in
abating the citations that MSHA issues,
which they believe prevents them from
being able to be proactive in compliance
Building a safety
culture of
prevention
The Way Forward in the U.S. (Grayson)
• Since the emphasis in the U.S. is on
compliance with a myriad of complex
regulations, we need to consider this
burden when addressing Mine Safety
and Health Management Systems
• This translates into a somewhat less
formal, paperwork-based system
which focuses on efforts to build not
just a culture of safety but a safety
culture of prevention
MINE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING
COMMISSION – NATIONAL MINING ASSOC.
“The commission recommends that a
comprehensive approach, founded on the
establishment of a culture of prevention, be used to
focus employees on the prevention
of all accidents and injuries.”
Risk
Mgmt
Mine
RescueUG
Comm.
Escape-
ProtectTraining
MINE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING
COMMISSION - NMA
“The commission recommends that every mine should
employ a sound risk-analysis process, should conduct a risk
analysis, and should develop a management plan to address
the significant hazards identified by the analysis.”
Risk
Mgmt
Mine
Rescue
UG
Comm.
Escape-
ProtectTraining
MINE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY &
TRAINING COMMISSION - NMA
“Simple regulatory compliance alone may not be
sufficient to mitigate significant risks.”
Risk
Mgmt
Mine
Rescue
UG
Comm.
Escape-
ProtectTraining
The Way Forward in the U.S. (Grayson)
• The Mine Safety and Health Management
System process must first commit to building a
corporate-wide safety culture of prevention
• I give as an example the CONSOL Energy
process of building the safety culture of
prevention (Path to Zero)
• I could just as easily given the Arch Coal
process, which I have also studied
THE CONSOL ENERGY EXAMPLE
“We are in the process of instituting a new
approach to safety awareness and training that
we believe will accelerate our drive to zero
accidents throughout the company. We will
start with the premise that our normal state of
operation is no accidents. An accident is an
abnormality that is unacceptable. Accidents are
an exception to our core values.”
J. Brett Harvey
CEO, CONSOL Energy
CONSOL Management
CONSOL Leadership
48% of CONSOL Employees
2 Day Gameboard
Session
Culture Change
Strategy
Commitment of
341 Leaders
Buy In and
Empowerment
CONSOL “Ambassadors”
8 One Day
Alignment
Sessions
“Train the Trainer”
Program
CONSOL – led
Roundtable
Discussions
Charged 45
Change AgentsCONSOL Initiative TeamsCharged 40
Team Members
Launched 4
Initiative Teams
38 Executive Interviews
9 Focus Groups
Understanding
CONSOL Culture
CONSOL … IGNITED CONTAGIOUS COMMITMENT
The Way Forward in the U.S. (Grayson)
• Second, each operation’s management must
specify, adopt and implement the techniques it
believes will attain high-level safety goals and
objectives, e.g., zero lost-time accidents, no
withdrawal and imminent danger orders, less
than 10% S&S citations, reduce near misses
by 25% next year, etc.
• This means that a Mine Safety Management
Plan is needed, but it doesn’t have to be as
voluminous as in Australia
• At least some appropriate method
for identifying hazards; assessing
the related risk; and then
developing and implementing a
plan to manage them is necessary.
• Some approaches to managing
risks are not so formal
Risk Management‟s Role in a
Safety Culture of Prevention
RISK MANAGEMENT
THROUGHOUT THE COMPANY
Corpor-
ation
Mine-
Plant
Super-
visorsWorkers
• Clear
policy
• Consider
risks
• Enable
people
• Reinforce-
ment
• Endorse
policy
• Consider
risks
• Enable
people
• Reinforce-
ment
• Commit
to policy
• Consider
risks
• Enable
people
• Commun-
ication
• Follow
policy
• Understand
& treat risks
• Faithful task
execution
• Commun-
ication
DIFFERENT WAYS TO ASSESS RISK
• Plots of incidents (violations, injuries,
best-practice critical-task compliance,
near misses, specific standards violated,
etc. (see trends)
• Using tabled data of safety measures and
prioritize action plans to address
• Prioritizing multiple risks from a matrix plot
(major hazards, injury causes, violations)
• Quantitative risk analysis
Risk AnalysisSerious Violations Are Exceptions to Plan
1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
08 09
40
30
20
10
37, 4, 0
22, 9, 1
29, 4, 0
21, 6, 0
10, 3, 0
20, 7, 0
7, 1, 0
9, 5, 0
Quarterly Plot: Number of 75.370(a)(1) Citations
for LW Mine 25.
Legend
(Citations, S&S, Orders)
Hazard Severity
Cat. Crit. Marg. Negl.
Prob. of
Occurr.
Freq.
Prob.
Occ.
Impr.
Remote
Risk Assessment Matrix
One Case Study
Combustible
Materials
GuardingFire
Protection
Accident Class Number
Material Handling 52
Handtool 23
Slip/Fall 20
Machinery 17
Ignition/Explosion 9
Lost-Time Accident Record
One Case Study
Represents
79.1% of total
reportable
accidents.
Accident Class Days Lost
Material Handling 2,213
Machinery 913
Slip/Fall 681
Powered Haulage 510
Handtool 336
Represents
92.8% of
total lost
time.
Lost-Time Accident Record
One Case Study
Quantitative Example – Case Study(MSHA accident database)
• 54 NFDL accidents occurred in a year
• Miners worked 711,830 hours
• Total lost+restricted days = 1,964 days
• Total miners employed = 312
Probability (P) of NFDL accident/miner/year:
P = (54)(200,000)/711,830/100
= 0.1517 or 15.17%
This is the chance of a miner incurring a lost-time
injury during the year.
Note the NFDL IR is 15.17 (per 100 miners) for the
underground mine in that year.
Quantitative Example – Case Study(MSHA accident database)
Risk (in dollars), based on estimated $20,000
average cost per lost-time accident:
Risk = 0.1517 for LT accident/miner
X $20,000/LT accident
= $3,034 per miner
Quantitative Example – Case Study(MSHA accident database)
Risk (in dollars), based on $20,000 average cost per
lost-time accident:
For 312 miners working at mine in a year, the total
cost estimate is:
$3,034 X 312 = $20,000 X 312 X 0.1517
= $946,608
Quantitative Example – Case Study(MSHA accident database)
Risk could be analyzed based on days lost, too,
as follows for the year:
Average days lost = 1,964 days lost divided
per miner by 312 miners
= 6.30 days lost/miner/year
Quantitative Example – Case Study(MSHA accident database)
In Managing Risk:
Each Person’s Role is Critical
Each person plays a role in safe,
efficient, cost-effective production –
whether a corporate or division manager,
the mine/plant manager, a supervisor in
production or maintenance, a technical
staff person, or a worker.
In Managing Risk:
Management’s Role is Critical
Corporate or division leaders set the
stage, give commitment, and then play
a critical role in challenging everyone
else to seek accident-free, safety
compliant performances, insisting on
building a safety culture of prevention.
In Managing Risks:
The Mine Manager’s Role is Critical
Serious transfer of accountability then
must permeate downward to the next
level of responsibility.
Here the mine/plant manager plays a
critical role in challenging supervisors
to seek accident-free, safety compliant
performances, which further builds the
safety culture of prevention.
In Managing Risks:Supervisors’ and Worker’s Roles are Critical
At the work sites supervisors play a critical
role in transferring accountability for accident-
free, safety compliant performances to the
workers.
Ultimately, each worker plays a critical role in
changing the culture permanently by 1)
executing tasks faithfully according to best
practice, 2) not taking shortcuts, 3) examining
the work place well, 4) performing proper pre-
op checks, and 5) using good judgment.
Day-In and Day-Out
Commitment to the process to achieve a safety
culture of prevention, and executing it
systematically, reaps the following paybacks:
Majority of excursions from plan are eliminated:
• Lost-time accidents,
• Elevated citations for violations of regulations,
• Avoidable downtime,
• Untimely progress on projects,
• Avoidable costs,
• Problems with contractors.
Day-In and Day-Out
And … we strive in all we do
for continuous improvement
as excellent performers –
always looking for better and
safer ways of doing our work
and sustaining our business.
Gracias por su atenciόn.
?Tienen algunas preguntas?
92