health and safety: a new vision in the mining industry -...

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


• 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)


• 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


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

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


the industry will:

* ensure that best work

practices are integral

in accomplishing work

38


the industry will:

* seek breakthroughs in

handling some of the

most persistent problems

-- cost and competition

will drive it

39


the industry will:

* incorporate health, safety

and environmental aspects

in every facet of mine

planning and design; and

40


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


System planning, development

and implementation

H&S objectives

Hazard identification and risk

assessment; preventive and

protective measures

Performance monitoring and

measurement


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 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


• 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.


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


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


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


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

health and safety: a new vision in the mining industry -...

Documents