Dr. larry grayson – ponencia


Published on

Seminario Taller – Programa LUMR – PUCP

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dr. larry grayson – ponencia

  1. 1. Health and Safety: A New Vision in the Mining Industry R. Larry GraysonGeorge H. Jr. & Anne B. Deike Chair in MiningEngineering and Professor of Energy & Mineral Engineering The Pennsylvania State University
  2. 2. My Background• 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
  3. 3. Outline of Presentation• 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
  4. 4. Historical contexton the need for anew vision
  5. 5. 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 diedA similar story for other countries. 5
  6. 6. Tremendous Improvements Historically in U.S. H&S * Fatalities (best measure) * Serious injuries * Lost-time injuries * Disabling disease 6
  7. 7. 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 - 24 7
  8. 8. Fatal Incident Rate1911-20: 1.0 million miners 32.6 fatals/10,000 0.326 fatal IR2006-10: 376,000 miners 1.60 fatals/10,000 0.016 fatal IR Coal: 0.027 fatal IR M/NM: 0.010 fatal IR 8
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. How we mined beforenew regulations in1969 and afterwards
  11. 11. How we worked in the „old‟ days• Operational aspects:  Production and safety important  Corporate safety inspections  Safety Committee inspections  Union-Management safety meetings  State and federal inspections intense
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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)
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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 21
  18. 18. 22
  19. 19. 23
  20. 20. 24
  21. 21. Today’s Rule:Continuous Improvement * Fatalities * Injuries * Disabilities * Disease * Productivity * Cost Bottom line: Safe, efficient, cost-effective production! 25
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. Stress Factors on Miners * 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
  25. 25. Our Goal As an Industry Make mining a model of excellence in allrespects - a shining image of H&S accomplishment. 29
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. New perspectives may be gainedby: * 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
  28. 28. New perspectives may be gainedby: * Using new surveillance tools * Involving mine operators, labor, government, and other parties in partnerships that focus on the most pressing needs 32
  29. 29. With these new perspectives,to continue improvements,industry will:* employ improved mining methods and new technologies* organize work more effectively 33
  30. 30. Related Issues* Period of intense retirements* Rapid influx of new and inexperienced workers* Short interface time with new workers 34
  31. 31. How Reduce Injuries in Future?* 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 35
  32. 32. How Reduce Injuries in Future?* 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 36
  33. 33. To continue improvements,the industry will:• demand more health and safety features on mining equipment 37
  34. 34. To continue improvements,the industry will:* ensure that best work practices are integral in accomplishing work 38
  35. 35. To continue improvements,the industry will:* seek breakthroughs in handling some of the most persistent problems -- cost and competition will drive it 39
  36. 36. To continue improvements,the industry will:* incorporate health, safety and environmental aspects in every facet of mine planning and design; and 40
  37. 37. To continue improvements,the industry will:* systematically set goals and objectives to drive continuous improvements across the board 41
  38. 38. Change hasaccelerated!We must actaccordingly. 42
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. 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
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. 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
  44. 44. The key to continuousH&S improvement:Use of a Mine Safety &Health ManagementSystem
  45. 45. • 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.
  46. 46. • Common elements (ILO):  Policy aspects  Worker participation  Responsibility and accountability  Competence and training  Documentation  Communication and information  Initial review
  47. 47. • Common elements (ILO):  System planning, development and implementation  H&S objectives  Hazard identification and risk assessment; preventive and protective measures  Performance monitoring and measurement
  48. 48. • 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
  49. 49. Associated with the MineS & H ManagementSystem is the Mine SafetyManagement PlanRef: NSW Guidance Note GNM-003, version 4.1 in February2008
  50. 50. • 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
  51. 51. Australia has realizedexcellent results in itsfatality rate improvementsince implementation in1997 and 1998, asshown next.
  52. 52. NIOSH major hazard risk assessment study (Iannacchione, Varley
  53. 53. • 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
  54. 54. • 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
  55. 55. • 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
  56. 56. • 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
  57. 57. • 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%)
  58. 58. • 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
  59. 59. • 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
  60. 60. Building a safety culture of prevention
  61. 61. 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
  62. 62. MINE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING COMMISSION – NATIONAL MINING ASSOC. UG Mine Escape-Risk Training Comm. Rescue ProtectMgmt “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.”
  63. 63. MINE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY & TRAININGCOMMISSION - NMARisk UG Mine Escape- TrainingMgmt Comm. Rescue Protect “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.”
  64. 64. MINE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY &TRAINING COMMISSION - NMARisk UG Mine Escape- TrainingMgmt Comm. Rescue Protect“Simple regulatory compliance alone may not besufficient to mitigate significant risks.”
  65. 65. 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
  66. 66. THE CONSOL ENERGY EXAMPLE“We are in the process of instituting a newapproach to safety awareness and training thatwe believe will accelerate our drive to zeroaccidents throughout the company. We willstart with the premise that our normal state ofoperation is no accidents. An accident is anabnormality that is unacceptable. Accidents arean exception to our core values.”J. Brett HarveyCEO, CONSOL Energy
  67. 67. CONSOL … IGNITED CONTAGIOUS COMMITMENT 38 Executive Interviews Understanding CONSOL Culture 9 Focus Groups 2 Day Gameboard Culture Change Session CONSOL Leadership Strategy 8 One Day CONSOL Management Commitment of Alignment 341 Leaders Sessions Charged 40 “Train the Trainer” Charged 45Launched 4 Initiative CONSOL Initiative Teams Team Members Program CONSOL “Ambassadors” Change Agents Teams CONSOL – led Buy In and Roundtable 48% of CONSOL Employees Empowerment Discussions
  68. 68. 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
  69. 69. Risk Management‟s Role in a Safety Culture of Prevention• 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
  70. 70. RISK MANAGEMENTTHROUGHOUT THE COMPANY Corpor- Mine- Super- Workers ation Plant visors • Clear • Endorse • Commit • Follow policy policy to policy policy • Consider • Consider • Consider • Understand risks risks risks & treat risks • Enable • Enable • Enable • Faithful task people people people execution • Reinforce- • Reinforce- • Commun- • Commun- ment ment ication ication
  71. 71. 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
  72. 72. Risk Analysis Serious Violations Are Exceptions to Plan Legend40 37, 4, 0 (Citations, S&S, Orders) 29, 4, 030 21, 6, 0 20, 7, 020 22, 9, 1 9, 5, 010 10, 3, 0 7, 1, 0 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 08 09 Quarterly Plot: Number of 75.370(a)(1) Citations for LW Mine 25.
  73. 73. Risk Assessment Matrix One Case StudyProb. of Hazard SeverityOccurr. Cat. Crit. Marg. Negl.Freq. Combustible Materials FireProb. Protection GuardingOcc.Impr.Remote
  74. 74. Lost-Time Accident Record One Case StudyAccident Class NumberMaterial Handling 52 RepresentsHandtool 23 79.1% of total reportableSlip/Fall 20 accidents.Machinery 17Ignition/Explosion 9
  75. 75. Lost-Time Accident Record One Case StudyAccident Class Days LostMaterial Handling 2,213 RepresentsMachinery 913 92.8% ofSlip/Fall 681 total lost time.Powered Haulage 510Handtool 336
  76. 76. 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
  77. 77. Quantitative Example – Case Study (MSHA accident database)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-timeinjury during the year.Note the NFDL IR is 15.17 (per 100 miners) for theunderground mine in that year.
  78. 78. Quantitative Example – Case Study (MSHA accident database)Risk (in dollars), based on estimated $20,000average cost per lost-time accident:Risk = 0.1517 for LT accident/miner X $20,000/LT accident = $3,034 per miner
  79. 79. Quantitative Example – Case Study (MSHA accident database)Risk (in dollars), based on $20,000 average cost perlost-time accident:For 312 miners working at mine in a year, the totalcost estimate is:$3,034 X 312 = $20,000 X 312 X 0.1517 = $946,608
  80. 80. 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
  81. 81. In Managing Risk:Each Person’s Role is CriticalEach person plays a role in safe,efficient, cost-effective production –whether a corporate or division manager,the mine/plant manager, a supervisor inproduction or maintenance, a technicalstaff person, or a worker.
  82. 82. In Managing Risk:Management’s Role is CriticalCorporate or division leaders set thestage, give commitment, and then playa critical role in challenging everyoneelse to seek accident-free, safetycompliant performances, insisting onbuilding a safety culture of prevention.
  83. 83. In Managing Risks:The Mine Manager’s Role is CriticalSerious transfer of accountability thenmust permeate downward to the nextlevel of responsibility.Here the mine/plant manager plays acritical role in challenging supervisorsto seek accident-free, safety compliantperformances, which further builds thesafety culture of prevention.
  84. 84. 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.
  85. 85. Day-In and Day-OutCommitment to the process to achieve a safetyculture of prevention, and executing itsystematically, 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.
  86. 86. Day-In and Day-OutAnd … we strive in all we dofor continuous improvementas excellent performers –always looking for better andsafer ways of doing our workand sustaining our business.
  87. 87. Gracias por su atenciόn.?Tienen algunas preguntas? 92