dr. larry grayson – ponencia

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

EngineeringThe 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 deathsMonongah, WV: 358 miners died

5A similar story for other countries.

Tremendous ImprovementsHistorically 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 miners1.60 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 dramatically

13

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 problemsfor 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 programs

26

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 commutes

28

Stress Factors on Miners

Our GoalAs an IndustryMake mining a model

of excellence in allrespects - 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


* ensure that best work practices are integral in accomplishing work

38


* seek breakthroughs in handling some of the most persistent problems -- cost and competition will drive it

39


* incorporate health, safety and environmental aspects in every facet of mine planning and design; and

40


* systematically set goals and objectives to drive continuous improvements across the board

41

Change hasaccelerated!

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 problems

43

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 model 44

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 of all 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 preventionof all accidents and injuries.”

RiskMgmt

MineRescue

UGComm.

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.”

RiskMgmt

MineRescue

UGComm.

Escape-Protect

Training

MINE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING COMMISSION - NMA

“Simple regulatory compliance alone may not be sufficient to mitigate significant risks.”

RiskMgmt

MineRescue

UGComm.

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 HarveyCEO, CONSOL Energy

CONSOL Management

CONSOL Leadership

48% of CONSOL Employees

2 Day GameboardSession

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-visors

Workers

• 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. ofOccurr.

Freq.

Prob.

Occ.

Impr.

Remote

Risk Assessment MatrixOne 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 RecordOne 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 RecordOne 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-OutCommitment 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

dr. larry grayson – ponencia

Health & Medicine

imminent danger

msha accident

time accident

mine safety

time accident

mine safety

safety culture

continue improvements