The first lessons of this course focused on the importance of minerals and the role of mining in modern society. The remainder of the lessons in the next seven modules concentrated on the “nuts and bolts” of mining – the five stages that make up the life cycle of a mine and the details of each stage. It only seems fitting then to conclude this course with a module that is concerned with ensuring that mining not only continues to exist in the U.S. but that it co-exists harmoniously with communities and society in general.
It’s an odd situation, isn’t it?
On the one hand, mined products are essential to virtually everything that makes up our standard of living; and as we saw in the first lessons, mining is a major contributor to the economy. While the mining industry employs only a few hundred thousand workers directly, it creates millions of down-stream jobs and contributes billions to the federal, state, and local tax base. So, mining not only provides the minerals essential to every nook and cranny of our lives, but it provides many jobs and societal benefits.
On the other hand, society is largely ignorant of the need for mining and its value, and that which people “know” about mining is generally negative. The commonly held views of mining as an environmentally damaging industry or mining as a dangerous occupation, for example, harken back to an industry of the early 20th century, not the 21st century. Nonetheless, mining activities often bring out vocal critics, and generally, the underlying sentiment is that mining is going to threaten something we care about – peace and quiet, traffic, water quality, the landscape, and so on. And furthermore, these critics would say that we don’t really need mining anyway!!!
These uninformed, but passionately held viewpoints often cause government agencies at all levels to adopt restrictive, and some would say draconian, practices and policies to limit mining activities. Just as a quick example, out of 80 mining countries, the U.S. ranks #78 in the time that it takes to obtain a mining permit! This creates a huge financial burden on companies and drives much investment out of the U.S. to other countries. This extraordinary delay, often exceeding a decade, is a direct result of public resistance to mining and regulatory processes that are easily abused to delay mining projects.
So, why should we care? There are many reasons, but perhaps near the top of the list is our desire to conduct mining operations with societal support over the long term. We, as mining professionals have a significant amount of control over whether or not the industry moves forward in conflict with society or in concert with it. Some would say that we need to take steps to make our industry more sustainable; and as mining engineers, we need to take more responsibility for the current mess and take proactive actions to change the future of the industry. This concept of making the industry more sustainable through our actions is the subject of this module.
In the first lesson, we’ll look at the definition of sustainability and the three dimensions of sustainable development. In the second lesson, we’ll identify the areas in which we need to take action to achieve sustainability. For now, let’s simply state that the three major action areas are: mining practices; community relations; and safety, health, and environment. We’ll look at these in more detail in the coming lessons, and with this as background, we can identify the learning outcomes for this module.
Sustainability is one of the words that many people use, but few agree on exactly what it means! The origin of its current use is rooted in a basic reality: the resources of planet are limited, and human activities today should be undertaken in a way that will not disadvantage or otherwise limit the opportunities of future generations.
Many years ago, I was a “guest” at a mining camp in a very rural part of a developing country. Our day started with a hearty breakfast including eggs. The evening meal was varied initially, but the senior member of our group favored chicken and requested that it be served, and each night for the remainder of our stay we had a chicken dish. Our original four-day stay was extended by another three days due to some problems with the project. On our last day, our breakfast did not include any eggs, much to our dismay. At the risk of offending our hosts we politely inquired and learned that there were no eggs because there were no chickens. They had killed off the chickens to prepare the chicken dishes. This is a true story and a good example of a practice that was not sustainable!
When it comes to using resources, many think of sustainable practices as those that consume resources needed by society, but at a rate no greater than that which will ensure the availability of those resources to futures generations so that they may meet their needs. Usually, it is assumed, if not stated explicitly, that the production of these resources is done without harm to the environment. When I think about mining’s need to be sustainable, I think about an industry whose practices are congruent with society’s values. Let’s try to better understand just what that means to the practicing mining professional.
The three dimensions of sustainability are economy, society, and environment; and are represented in Figure 9.1.1, which illustrates that economy and society are constrained by the environment (planet Earth).
A representation that I like even better is shown in Figure 9.1.2. My preference for this representation lies with the two-way intersections that create the bearable, equitable, and viable regions of the diagram; and then of course, the three-way intersection of these to define the sustainable region of the diagram. The bearable, equitable, and viable regions align well with the sustainability challenges associated with mining and minerals recovery, and we will use this model in our discussion.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll use the word project to represent the mining operation. I will generally use both the future and present tenses in this discussion of the regions in the Venn Diagram. IF we are considering a new project, we will most likely be considering future actions, and the future tense is appropriate in such a discussion. Once the project is underway, our actions are occurring in the present, and consequently the present tense is required. Sustainability considerations must guide our present actions on existing projects as well as how we move forward with proposed projects.
I’ll illuminate through examples what we mean by the terms used in the Venn diagram (Figure 9.1.2). Please note that my examples are not exhaustive, but rather are intended to give you a deeper understanding of each term.
First, we’ll illuminate through examples what we mean by social and economic, and then we’ll look at the intersection of the two, which forms the equitable region. Similarly, we’ll use examples to illustrate that which many would consider as equitable. Please note that these examples are not exhaustive, but rather are intended to give you a deeper understanding of each term.
The social dimension of sustainability would consider the following questions.
The economic dimension would consider the following question:
This single question captures and represents the sum total of everything that affects the cost of bringing a mineral product to market. It also reflects market conditions, i.e. the price at which we can sell our product and the amount of product that we can sell. However, for this discussion, we will neglect market conditions and instead focus on the cost side of the equation. The mining and processing costs will be based on the many factors that we’ve studied in this course, e.g. ore grade, depth of the deposit, geotechnical characteristics of the orebody, the extent to which mechanization and automation can be applied, and so on. Of special interest here are any expenditures that would be made to address the social dimension of sustainability, such as strengthening the community through the improvement of infrastructure.
The intersection between the social and economic dimensions is aptly named equitable. Are the economic benefits that will accrue to society, and in particular the community, in reasonable proportion to the social costs of the project and to the economic benefits that the company will realize from the project? This is a difficult question to answer – how do you calculate this value? While every situation is likely to be somewhat different, there has to be genuine respect for the community and its institutions, as well as a desire by the company to improve the community within the realistic financial constraints of the project.
Unfortunately, it may become even more complicated. Whether or not a solution will be considered equitable can depend on the ethical framework under which the proposed solution is evaluated. Let’s take a non-mining example to illustrate this. Suppose that it is determined that a dam is needed at a certain location on a major river. The dam will provide flood control, sparing towns along the river from the devasting floods that occur every decade or so. The reservoir created by the dam will provide a more stable source of water for communities, and it will create some recreational opportunities as well. In total, thousands of people will benefit if this dam is built. Those are the “positives.” What about the “negatives”? There are a few dozen houses and farms that will become uninhabitable as the water accumulates behind the dam. In some cases, generations of the same families have lived in this area. The entity proposing the dam, which in this case is a government body rather than a private company, will pay the displaced landowners a substantial premium over full market value for their residences. Nonetheless, some landowners do not want to relocate and are opposing the construction of the dam. What to do...
Has an equitable solution been proposed? On the face of it, it would appear so. The landowners who will be displaced will receive sufficient money to relocate and are getting an additional sum of money for their inconvenience. Indeed, this and similar scenarios play out on a regular basis for infrastructure projects, and this is supported by the utilitarian school of ethical behavior. This school is about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When viewed through the lens of the utilitarian ethic, the proposed project is ethical and this will strengthen the assessment that the action is equitable as well. Many industrial projects, including mineral projects, have long been evaluated under the utilitarian ethic.
In recent years, however, some have been applying another school of ethical thought known as deontology, which is concerned less with what is “good” and more with what is “right.” This is a school of thought concerned with social justice and the idea that basic human rights supersede what is good for society at large. When viewed through this lens, the dam project is unlikely to be deemed equitable, and as a consequence, there are likely to be protests, government appeals, and other actions to derail or delay the project. For mining projects, we have an obligation to address the parameters of the social and economic dimensions to achieve something that will be deemed equitable when viewed through the lens of the utilitarian ethic, and it is in our best interests to try to understand and address concerns when viewed with the deontological ethic. In essence, the evaluation of the utilitarian school is focused on rightness or wrongness of the consequences of actions, whereas the deontological school is focused on the rightness or wrongness of the actions.
1 Financial performance is assessed through metrics such as net present value (NPV) of the project, discounted cash flow internal rate of return (DCFIRR), payback period, and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). This will take into account many of the locational, natural and geologic, and socio-political factors discussed in Lesson 4.1.
Previously, we looked at a list of questions to help understand the social dimension of sustainability. Now we need to identify relevant questions focused on the environment dimension.
Operating permits, legislation requiring reclamation as well as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to protect the air and water quality, guarantee that the environment dimension is well managed... except for the last question in the foregoing list.
The intersection of the social and environment dimensions is identified as bearable. This region represents a solution in which the environmental costs of a project are deemed acceptable when weighed against the social benefits of the project. As with our last discussion of the equitable region, there is no definitive quantification of “bearable,” and as such, it is subject to the interpretation of the parties affected by the project. Consequently, this will likely be interpreted through an ethical lens. The deontological ethic would assert that the environment, including the landscape, its innate beauty, and its enjoyment is a right of everyone; and therefore, regardless of any benefit, no one has the right to impinge on the landscape. Although the surface area of land that is affected by mining is extremely small, it is generally impossible to surface mine without changing the appearance of that parcel of land. It can be reclaimed, and perhaps to even better use than before, but the original appearance is likely to be changed. Indeed, this change in appearance is often an underlying motivator for protests against mining projects.
We have already identified relevant questions to characterize these two dimensions. A consideration of the intersection, defining the viable region, requires consideration of more specific and technical questions, beyond those already posed. Unlike the considerations of the bearable and equitable regions, the viable region is completely definable by the engineering and science of environmental protection.
We, as engineers, define the engineering steps necessary to protect the environment, in terms of air and water quality, and also in terms of mine closure considerations. Moreover, our reclamation plan can be designed and its costs calculated. Thus, we are able to quantify the costs of protecting the environment. We can even choose to take proactive measures above and beyond those required by any regulations. Of course, that will entail an additional cost, and at some point, the cost of such measures could sink the project. Hence, using the name viable to define the intersection is quite appropriate; and if the cost to protect the environment is too great, the project will no longer be viable.
The intersection of the three regions, bearable, equitable, and viable, defines the sweet spot of sustainability. If you think about it, how could it be anything else? The needs of society for minerals and the needs of the mining company to satisfy the expectations of their shareholders will be balanced against the constraints of the environment and the need to operate in an ethical and socially responsible fashion.
The goal of this discussion has been to equip you with an understanding of the evolving expectations for sustainable development and the ways that society views and evaluates industrial activities such as mining. No doubt you appreciate how difficult it is to establish whether or not something is bearable or equitable, and undoubtedly you can imagine how difficult it could be for a company planning a project over which some are opposed. Despite the uncertainty and fuzzy nature of bearable, equitable, and to a lesser extent viable, there are concrete actions that you can take in the planning and operations stages to facilitate sustainability. We are going to take a look at these in the next Lesson.
Yes, it is true. You as a mining professional, along with your colleagues, and the companies that constitute the mining industry are more in control of your destiny than many like to admit. Moreover, the industry and its actions, or in some cases lack of action, have contributed to the current poor state-of-affairs for mining throughout the world. For too long, and in too many corners of the globe, mining companies, often with the blessing of local governments, have conducted their business without due regard to societal expectations; and now everyone is paying a price! And, it’s time for that to change! Okay, that felt good... now let me step down from my soapbox.
First of all, it is changing, and positive change is being advanced by leaders in the global mining community with the guidance of their professional and trade associations. However, lasting change, and the leaders of this movement all agree, will only be achieved through the sustained actions of the next generation of mining professionals. Why is this? Unlike your predecessors, you are being equipped with a new set of tools that will allow you to take more informed actions that will pave the way to a more sustainable industry. You see, the work that needs to be done is on an on-going basis, not once and done; further, it cannot be done by only certain designated persons within each operation. Rather everyone has to do their part, every day, and a goal of this lesson is to outline what that means for you.
I’ve chosen to group those actions into three categories, and I list them in no particular order: mining practices; community relations; and safety, health, and environment. And, before proceeding, I should clarify a few points. As with previous lists, the examples that I give here are representative but are by no means exhaustive. The focus of this discussion is on facilitating sustainability and not on traditional mine design and operation – here we are looking for ways to supplement and complement traditional design and operation to become more sustainable. In other words, what is it that we should we be doing in mine planning, design, and operation so that our mining is conducted in harmony with societal expectations?
All mining, past and present, has occurred on less than a fraction of a percent of the Earth’s land mass; and the mineral resources mined to date are a small fraction of the total estimated resources. We, as miners, cannot control societal demand for minerals, but we can take steps to ensure that resources are not squandered. We do this through a design and planning process that allows us to achieve the highest extraction rate that is safely possible. In surface mining, we normally have strong economic incentives to recover all of the ore above the cutoff grade. In underground mining we usually need to leave some resource in-place for ground support reasons, and this will limit the extraction ratio. Extraction ratios of 60% are not uncommon, although for some commodities, the ratio will be much higher. Remember that after we have finished mining a specific reserve, it is almost always impossible to go back at a later time to recover additional ore. It is often said that the resource has been “sterilized.” From a sustainability perspective, we want to ensure that we are not wasting the opportunity to recover all the resource than can be recovered safely and economically; and we do this through proper planning and design.
Mines receive permits to operate, and these permits typically define conditions of operation. The constraints imposed by the permits may include operating hours, noise levels, water usage and discharge, and so on. These limitations are generally in addition to regulatory constraints, such as the clean air standards. Regardless, it is in the company’s best interest to ensure that operations are always practiced within permit limitations.
Often mines are located near or in communities, and their appearance from public areas, e.g. roads and residential developments is a concern. The use of landscaped berms to completely shield operations from public view is a good practice, as are attractive and well-maintained entrances to the mine property. Admittedly, there are some large surface mines that cannot be shielded from public view, e.g. Bingham Canyon copper mine These are the exception, and even in those cases, steps should be taken to improve the appearance through increased green areas on the site and better management of waste and product piles.
Blasting practices at surface mines located near communities are always contentious. We’ll talk about this again under community relations, but the design guidance given in Module 6 is critical to minimizing the technical and public relations problems arising from blasting.
Reclamation is of course mandated by various regulations. Often, within the conditions of the regulations and permits, there is some leeway in timing and methods. In addition to the traditional operating considerations affecting reclamation, the view and perception of the public should be factored into the reclamation planning process. Minimizing both the extent of exposed areas and the time that they remain exposed prior to reclamation becomes important if you are concerned about the bearable in addition to the viable region of the sustainability diagram. Even in operations where much of the reclamation cannot occur until near the end of the mine life, e.g. an open pit mine, small actions can be taken to think about the placement of overburden and waste piles for example. It is likely that the placement of these piles will be driven primarily by mine planning concerns, but whenever possible, sustainability considerations, balancing the viable and bearable regions, must be part of the thinking process.
Simply put, if you want to be accepted into a community, you have to behave like a citizen and strive to become part of the community. You can improve your chances of becoming a part of the community if your behavior and actions strengthen the sense of community.
As a starting point, it may be helpful to think about a few realities. First, even if most people recognize that your mine is providing good jobs and contributing to the tax base, they still don’t want you in “their backyard.” We all drive cars, but how many of us want a car factory nearby? We all take comfort in knowing that a hospital is available in our community, but how many of us would be happy if they broke ground for a new hospital down the street from our house? You get the idea! It’s nothing personal against you or even the company, but people don’t want an increase in traffic, a noise source, or an eye sore in their community. They are concerned about their quality of life and the value of their home. Understanding their concerns is a good starting point to help you understand the task that lies ahead and the journey to become a valued member of the community.
While there is no one “magic bullet,” there are actions that many companies have found productive. Here are commonly mentioned ones.
Community Day: Invite your neighbors for a tour of the mine. Once they better understand what you do and how you do it, they are likely to have a better impression. Combine this with a cookout and a social opportunity for the community to meet and talk with the people who work at the mine. Don’t be afraid to share reclamation and mine closure plans, or to answer questions about the operation. Rather than simply complain about public ignorance, accept that it is your responsibility to educate and inform! And of course, recognize that this is something that requires attention year-round, not just during Community Day.
Citizens Advisory Group: If there are concerns and there is an active citizen's group, work with its members to form an advisory group where they can channel their concerns and engage productively with mine management. However, please understand that if you do this, you and your management must engage in good faith. Otherwise you are likely to take a difficult situation and turn it into a very bad one!
Employee Engagement: Encourage employees to be active on the school board, in civic organizations, e.g. Rotary Club or Lion’s Club, in schools as speakers, in coaching of kids' sports, or in the scouts, among others. Adapt employee work schedules insofar as is practicable to facilitate their participation. Donate rock kits or informational literature to the schools. Invite science teachers to visit your operation.
Donate to Local Activities: Sponsor the local youth teams for soccer, baseball, softball, and so on. Buy the team new uniforms. Purchase sponsorships in local civic events. Make a donation to the local library’s annual fundraiser.
In-Kind Contributions: depending on the nature of your mining operation, you may have surface construction equipment, trucks, wheeled loaders, dozers, and so on, and you may have construction aggregates and even concrete and/or blacktop (bituminous concrete). You may be able to donate the equipment, along with operators and materials, to redo the local ballfield, or to put in or extend a local bike path, for example. If you cannot support the entire cost on your own, you might be able to donate just the machine time or perhaps the materials. These efforts can net goodwill for years to come.
Be a Good Neighbor, Every Day: Do not play “fast and loose” with the parameters of your operating permits, and make sure that contractors and customers coming onto your site do the same. If trucks are taking product from your yard, make sure they are covering their beds before leaving the property, and while you are at it, make sure they are not tracking mud or stone dust onto the public road. Undercarriage water sprays are commonly used in some operations. Back-up alarms are often noted as the single greatest aggravation within the community. When MSHA regulations allow, consider using strobes instead of audible alarms.
You can look at these community relations activities as a major investment in the equitable region of the sustainability diagram. And remember, it’s not about how much money you spend, it’s about making a genuine effort to strengthen the institutions and organizations that comprise the community through your company’s involvement.
There were four mine explosions in the U.S. in the first decade of this century, including one that was the worst such explosion in the past 40 years. Globally, there several high-profile mine disasters from New Zealand to China to Brazil, and many other countries in between. Although the number of fatalities in each of these was far less than in many other disasters, the public has a much lower tolerance for a mine fatality than other disasters. A typical response to the news headlines by the average person on the street was ‘this is terrible, why do we need to mine, why should we be putting these people at risk?’ And as you might expect, these events provoked strong legislative responses across the globe, resulting in not only legislation for improvements, but in some cases, a substantial over response.
As this played out, the U.S. industry in particular, but the global industry as well, realized that they needed to be more proactive. They realized that it was not sufficient to merely comply with regulations. They needed to take additional steps to eliminate: major safety hazards, e.g. a mine explosion, that result in multiple fatalities; major health hazards, e.g. silica dust, that result in debilitating occupational diseases; and major hazards, e.g. tailing dam failure, that result in environmental disasters. During this period there was every reason to believe that one more high-profile disaster would result in the mining industry losing its “social license” to mine. In other words, the public, and by extension their legislators, would decide that ‘enough-is-enough and we’re going to ban this activity regardless of its other benefits.’ The industry was duly alarmed and knew they had to take action to eliminate these disasters2.
The focus of this discussion is not the general topics of safety, health, and environment, how we apply our engineering and science skills to achieve safe and healthful workplaces, and do so in an environmentally responsible fashion, but rather on the management of safety, health, and environmental activities to help eliminate mining disasters. We, as industry in general and mining in particular, have been complying with regulations for decades, and yet every year workers die and environmental accidents occur. Safety and health were the focal points of the conversation, and the turning point was the report published by the National Commission for Mine Safety, Technology, and Training. This report advocated a more aggressive and proactive approach to mine safety, and the CEOs of the major mining companies signed a pledge committing to take the steps necessary to eliminate fatalities and reduce injuries. Mitigating environmental risks was not addressed at that time. However, the methodology to achieve this concept of zero harm3 in safety and health can be applied directly to the environment scenario as well. In the next lesson, we’ll introduce this methodology.
2In the U.S., a mining accident in which three or more persons are killed is designated as a disaster. This number is determined by MSHA and the number sometimes changes over different presidential administrations.
3 This implies that the activity should be conducted in a way that results in zero harm to the mineworker's safety or health. The concept is directly applicable to the environment as well, indicating that the activity should result in no permanent harm or damage to the environment.
We studied mining laws in Lesson 2.2, and you learned that various laws affecting mining form the basis for regulations that are administered and enforced by federal and state agencies. The act of following, i.e. complying with, the regulations is known as compliance. If you do not strictly follow the regulations, your company can be penalized, i.e. given a citation. These penalties can range from a few tens of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and can include temporary closure of the mine until the citation is corrected. In a few instances criminal charges can be brought against mining company officials in addition to civil penalties. The procedures for interpreting and enforcing the regulations, as well as the calculation of the penalties, is beyond the scope of this course4.
If you examine different types of regulations across many industries, you will find that they are generally performance-based regulations. A performance-based regulation specifies the desired outcome and leaves the means of achieving that outcome to you. A prescriptive regulation, on the other hand, not only specifies the desired outcome but directs you to achieve that outcome in a specific, i.e. prescribed, fashion. Many mining safety and health regulations are prescriptive in nature. There are a limited number of cases where a prescriptive regulation is warranted, but in many cases, it is problematic; and the biggest problem is that it unwittingly transfers responsibility from the mine operator to the enforcement agency (MSHA)!
Historically, many operators held the belief that because MSHA told them how to comply with the regulations and because MSHA inspected their operations for compliance, they were absolved of any responsibility for adverse safety and health outcomes... as long as they complied with the regulations. MSHA requires the companies to prepare detailed plans on topics such as ventilation and ground control, and the company is not allowed to operate until MSHA has agreed to their plan and approved it! It is no surprise that operators took the view that their responsibility was to comply with MSHA’s requirements and that MSHA was ultimately responsible for the safety of miners.
It became clear after the U.S. mine disasters in 2006 that a system focused solely on compliance was not achieving the desired outcome. Moreover, that was a contrasting approach in another great mining country, Australia. While the tipping point for the U.S. was the Sago Mine disaster in 2006, the Australians had theirs in 1994 with the Moura Mine disaster, and over the ensuing years, they developed and institutionalized a very different approach to achieving safe and healthful workplaces, which could be characterized as a risk-based approach, and by 2006, their system was producing remarkably better outcomes.
An analysis of fatalities over the decades reveals that root causes are not simply engineering failures, but are often a combination of cultural, leadership, and systems failures. The approach that was adapted for U.S. mining was based on the Australian successes as well as similar approaches used in other industries where low probability but high consequence events cannot be tolerated (think nuclear power plant). The U.S. National Mining Association, took these successful approaches and adapted them for the U.S. industry; and then developed implementation materials and training to facilitate the diffusion of this approach through the industry. Their approach is known as CoreSafety.
4 If you are interested, I would recommend taking a quick look at three sources: Subchapter P of 30 CFR, which describes the calculation of civil penalties, Section 104 through 110 of the Federal Mine safety and Health Act, which describes penalties and processes including orders for mine closure, and The Mine Inspectors Manuals, which provides detailed guidance on how to interpret certain regulations and how to select the level of penalty that is to be assessed for a specific violation of a mandatory safety or health standard. You can access all of these through the MSHA website.
This discussion and the figures included in Lesson 9.3.1 are abstracted from National Mining Association materials on CoreSafety and are reproduced here with permission.
Leadership is essential in affecting the behavior of workers. Safety and health performance is directly enabled (or hindered) by the behaviors and decisions of company leaders. Leaders have a responsibility for ensuring safety is integrated into all aspects of the business, holding people accountable for their responsibilities, driving a safe culture, having effective safety systems, and setting a safe example, among many others.
Many organizations that have realized substantial performance improvement have identified leadership development as the catalyst for that change. Leadership development is the process of identifying critical leadership competencies and providing structured development opportunities for leaders to improve those competencies.
While there are many leadership competencies that are complimentary to safety and health management, NMA has identified eight that are critical in the U.S. mining industry. These competencies include, but are not limited to:
Safety culture can be defined as a pattern of behavior that is encouraged or discouraged by people and by systems over time. This is a very important concept – think about what it means! Do we have a culture that values safety over production? Does the “system” reward us or penalize us if we bring safety concerns to the attention of management? Do we have established committees to look for opportunities to improve safety? We could go on with another fifty questions, but I think you are getting the idea.
Culture determines what we do when no one is watching! This statement makes it clear: if we don’t have a good safety culture, we will be unable to achieve good safety performance. The attributes of a good safety culture are illustrated in Figure 9.3.3.
The systems element of the zero-incident framework shown in Figure 9.3.1 represents those processes and systems used to identify and address hazards. All of these are captured nicely in one overarching system known as the HSMS, i.e. the Health and Safety Management System. Often the order of health and safety is changed, so you are equally likely to see SHMS, i.e. Safety and Health Management System. The content and function of the HSMS is defined by a standard such as the American ANSI Z10 or the Australian OHSAS 18000. CoreSafety encompasses the best of these standards. An effective HSMS will facilitate an orderly and systematic identification of hazards and the development of solutions to mitigate or eliminate risk associated with these hazards. Further, the system will facilitate the verification that the solution was effective and will incorporate regular audits to ensure that risks are managed. The flow of an effective HSMS system is illustrated in Figure 9.3.4.
After decades of experience we know that prescriptive regulations are nominally effective, systematic control of risk offers the best opportunity to eliminate fatalities, leadership plays a critical part of improving safety performance, leadership drives culture, and culture affects systems. Figure 9.3.1 illustrates this relationship.The integration and active management of systems, culture, and leadership can produce world-class performance. Let’s look at each of these elements in a bit more detail.
The circular nature of this diagram draws attention to the need for an ongoing process. Before moving on, a few additional comments are in order.
The Plan phase encompasses five activities:
Having completed the planning phase, we are ready to spring into action!
The Do Phase is when we conduct the work. This work could include a variety of solutions including developing an offering training, changing certain work practices, installing engineering controls, implementing different operating procedures, and so on.
The Check Phase is too easily forgotten. We identify a problem, craft a solution, and assign people to implement the solution. That’s that! We’re done! Right? Well, not so fast! Things come up, people get distracted by other tasks, and sometimes an unforeseen problem arises, which prevents full implementation of the solution. The bottom line is that someone needs to check to ensure that the solution was implemented and to provide feedback to the people responsible for the planning and doing.
Finally, there is the Act Phase. Based on our planning, doing, and checking, we have the expectation that we’ve successfully eliminated hazards and managed risks. That’s a reasonable belief to have, but it is a belief that needs to be tested. How do we “test” our belief? We assess the effectiveness of the solution. It may be something that we can visually assess through an inspection, or other instances we may be able to look at data to see whether or not a certain category of injury has decreased. Regardless, conducting audits must be a regular occurrence. Although it goes without saying that the findings of the audit must be acted on in a timely fashion, this is another potential failure point. In addition to the performance evaluations that are conducted as part of the Plan-Do-Check-Act process, progressive companies will conduct annual audits of their mines – and here’s the clever part – these audits will be conducted by the manager of a different plant or mine within the company! Nothing like a fresh pair of eyes to spot potential issues.
There is one very important piece to this brief introduction that I want to cover. Think back to the Planning phase. How do we identify risks and prioritize our work for the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle? That is the missing piece that needs to be covered, and we’ll do that in the next lesson.
Life is fraught with hazards. At the moment we are concerned with hazards in the workplace, e.g. the mine or the plant. What do we mean by hazard? A hazard is a situation that presents with a likelihood of adverse consequences. A weak and unsupported roof represents a ground fall hazard, accumulated rock on the walkway next to a conveyor represents a tripping hazard, and a cutting operation in a dimension stone plant represents a respirable dust hazard.
We talk about risk, but what do we mean when we use this term? Risk is a situation involving the chance of loss or injury. On the face of it, there seems to be little difference between the definition of a hazard and a risk. However, there is a subtle but important difference. Risk is taking into account how likely it is that a loss will occur. The weak roof mentioned earlier presents a hazard because it could collapse, and if someone is underneath that spot when the fall occurs, something bad will happen to that person. Whether or not this represents a risk depends on whether or not a collapse is likely to affect anyone. If it is in a remote area of the mine where no one works or travels, the risk is minimal. If it is in the main travel way into the mine, the risk is huge.
It is useful to talk about risk factors as part of this discussion as well. Risk factors are conditions or behaviors that increase the chance of loss or injury. As an example, consider accidents involving surface haul trucks. What are some of the risk factors that could individually or in combination increase the likelihood of an accident? Poor visibility (night time or foggy conditions), deterioration of the berms, operator impairment (drugs or alcohol), operator fatigue, equipment malfunction, and so on. The value of identifying the risk factors will become apparent shortly.
Risk is an inevitable part of our lives at work and play. The challenge is to reduce the likelihood that a risk will lead to a loss or injury, and we meet this challenge by managing the risks. Risk management first requires that we identify the risks. Then if practicable, we work to eliminate them, and failing that we endeavor to mitigate the risks. Elimination while most desirable is often not possible. Think about the risk associated with crossing a busy street. We can’t eliminate the traffic, but if we could build a pedestrian bridge over the street we would effectively eliminate the hazard posed by the traffic. Unfortunately, there are few instances where building such a bridge is practicable. Thus, we will need to mitigate the risk. We might do this using engineering controls such as putting in a traffic light with a pedestrian signal. We might also use a behavioral intervention, where we train everyone who will cross a street to look both ways before stepping off the curb, or we might also employ an administrative control where we have a policy that no one is allowed to cross the street except at intersections. These actions 6 to mitigate the risk will significantly reduce the likelihood of a pedestrian being killed while crossing the busy street. Despite our best efforts, however, a small amount of risk still exists. Indeed, this is the norm, and we ultimately accept some level of risk in our lives whether it is flying in an airplane, investing in the stock market, or eating too many sweets. The challenge is to know when we have reduced the risk as low as reasonably achievable.
The process of identifying risks, risk factors, and the options for mitigating the risk need not be performed in an ad hoc or casual manner. There are many well developed methods for analyzing risk, and each has its advantages depending on the application. There are two simple but powerful tools for analyzing mining risks.
The first is the so-called risk assessment matrix, and it is based on the principle that risk is a function of the probability of occurrence and the severity of the consequence if the event occurs. You can think of it as risk being equal to the product of this probability and consequence metrics. However, to be clear, for mining applications this is a qualitative assessment because we generally do not have quantitative knowledge of either the probability of occurrence or the severity of the consequence. Generally, we do have a qualitative understanding, and that makes this assessment matrix very useful to prioritize our risk management activities. Let’s take a look at Figure 9.4.1.
The rows are a measure of probability of occurrence and the columns represent the impact or severity of the consequence. The likelihood of occurrence begins with a “1” at the bottom row and increases to a “5” at the top row, in which the probability of the event occurring increases as we move from the bottom to the top row. Similarly, the impact of the occurrence begins with a “1”, representing the least impact, at the left-most column and ends with a “5” designating the greatest impact at the far-right column. The numbers in the cells represent the risk as the product of probability and impact. The larger the number, the more serious the risk. In this figure the colors have been added to underscore the severity of the risk with green representing minimal risk and red representing extreme risk.
You are probably wondering, how to assign the probability and impact score to a specific event. In most cases, we use a qualitative scale. As long as we are consistent in using the same scale, we can compare and assess the many risks that might be present at our mine. As an example, we might standardize on the follow scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents the lowest level of probability or impact, and 5 represents the highest level:
Probability | Impact | |
---|---|---|
1 | very unlikely to ever happen | no injury or insignificant operational cost |
2 | unlikely, but such events have occurred | minor injuries or minor operational costs |
3 | likely, not common by does occur | significant injuries, operation costs |
4 | likely, these have occurred here | severe injury, likely fatality, significant costs |
5 | highly likely, they occur from time-to-time | multiple fatalities, major operational costs |
Another very useful tool for mining risk management is bowtie analysis (BTA). This tool combines in one diagram causes and consequences as well as control and recovery measures. A bowtie is illustrated in Figure 9.4.2. The center of the bowtie represents the event, e.g. haul truck accident, a mine explosion, or a conveyor belt fire. The potential causes of the event are placed on the left side of the bowtie, and the consequences of the event are placed on the right side. Dashed lines connect the causes with the event and the consequences with the event as shown.
On the left half of the bowtie we will place “barriers” along the dashed lines. These barriers represent actions that we can take to prevent the cause from leading to the event. On the right half of the bow we will again place “barriers” along the dashed lines. These barriers represent actions that we can take to lessen the impact of the event or even to prevent certain consequences from occurring.
Let’s look at an example, and for this example, let’s choose a mine explosion as the event of interest, and we’ll keep it simple to illustrate the concept. First, let’s identify causes that lead up to a mine explosion, and similarly, let’s identify the consequences of the event, i.e. the mine explosion.
Causes of this event are:
The consequences of an explosion are:
Next, we’ll want to identify control and recovery measures. A control measure for preventing an explosive concentration of methane is adequate ventilation. A control measure to prevent an ignition source is to use only electrical equipment that is certified as permissible for use in explosive environments. Another control is to equip the machines with methane monitors, which will cause them to shut off if elevated levels of methane are detected.
Providing self-contained self-rescuers (SCSRs) is a recovery measure that virtually eliminates the outcome of dying from CO poisoning. Miners in the immediate vicinity of an explosion will be killed by the air pressure blast, and there are no known controls to change this outcome. Providing quarterly training to miners on self-escape will improve their chances of safety exiting the mine. If they have access to functioning wireless communications equipment to allow communication with the outside world, their chances of safely exiting the mine are improved.
Certainly, we can identify additional root causes, outcomes, control measures, and recovery measures. However, the ones that we have chosen to list here illustrate the technique. The bowtie shown in Figure 9.4.3 is populated with this information that we identified.
As you look at this bowtie, and the lists that we just made, you may be wondering what useful purpose is served by completing the drawing of the bowtie, rather than working from the lists. In relatively simple and straightforward cases like the one we completed for this example, the only purpose served is a graphic for others to examine and discuss. In more complicated cases, and cases in which all controls or recovery measures are not yet identified, the diagram does serve as a useful tool to facilitate the process. This is especially true if there are interactions between certain controls or recovery measures that need to be identified and taken into account. A more general representation of the bowtie is shown in Figure 9.4.4.
I’ve deliberately used different terms on this bowtie from those I used in my example. Many of these words are used interchangeably, and it is good to be aware of this. Threats and causes are substantially the same, as are consequences and outcomes. The hazard release is the event. The control measures and recovery measures represented on this figure are similar to the nomenclature that I used earlier. No doubt you noticed the addition of a critical path diagram at the bottom of the bowtie. This is not an essential part of bowtie analysis, but its addition to the graphic is a powerful complement to bowtie analysis and this further enhances the planning stage of risk management.
As I mentioned earlier, there are a couple dozen different tools available to do a risk analysis, but only a few lend themselves to the qualitative scenarios encountered in the majority of mining applications. In addition to the risk assessment matrix and bowtie analysis, job hazard analysis (JHA) and workplace risk assessment and control (WRAC) are commonly employed. JHA is particularly useful for studying specific jobs or tasks such as operating a haul truck or changing the bits on a cutting drum. WRAC is a useful tool to conduct a preliminary assessment of risk, but many who do this prefer to use bowtie analysis instead.
Compliance with environmental regulations is an important part of the job nearly every day, and especially at surface mining sites. As with safety and health, mere compliance with the regulations is not sufficient if you are thinking in terms of sustainable development. All of the guidance given in this lesson applies to environmental as well as safety and health considerations. To illustrate this, let’s “talk through” a risk management problem related to protecting the environment, and you will soon see that the process is the same regardless of whether we are examining a safety, health, or environmental risk.
The Bedrock Quarry is located in a rural valley with no close neighbors. One neighbor of note is a large state-operated fish hatchery, which sits a few miles from the quarry. This is of note because the quarry discharges several hundred thousand gallons of water per day, and this discharge feeds into the stream feeding the hatchery. Interestingly, the fish hatchery loves the mining operation because the water they discharge is of higher quality than the normal stream water! It’s not often that a mine has a neighbor who loves them! Of course, there is a potential downside to this scenario: if the mine’s discharge should be contaminated, it could wipe out the entire hatchery. Think about the ensuing public relations disaster!
This is the kind of problem that you would tackle with your risk management tools. It is understood that you are operating with an EPA approved storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and as part of this plan, your company will have identified the day-to-day activities required to remain in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Here we are not talking about redoing this plan or setting it aside. Instead we are going to take a fresh look to determine if we are doing everything that we reasonably can to protect the water supply. Remember, compliance alone may not be sufficient to prevent a mishap, and if we are truly mindful of staying within the bearable and viable regions of the sustainability diagram, we need to go above and beyond compliance!
As the first step of any risk management exercise, we need to put together a team. The team should include people with unique knowledge to contribute to the process, and at a minimum should include someone from operations management, an engineer, a safety or environmental staffer, and one or more miners. With the team duly constituted, there are some steps to be taken to help the individuals on the team to function as a team. These are beyond the scope of this discussion, but please realize that you can’t throw five people together, call them a team, and expect that they will function successfully as a team!
The Plan-Do-Check-Act paradigm, which was illustrated in Figure 9.3.4, provides a good road map for the team. As part of the planning, the team will define the objective, which is to ensure that the discharge water is always pure; and then they will define the tasks they believe need to be completed. The tasks will include reviewing the existing SWPPP, auditing the quarry’s performance under the existing plan, conducting a site assessment, performing a risk analysis and a risk mitigation/elimination study. The site assessment will involve several subtasks. Assignments for completing these tasks should be made and a schedule adopted. The person(s) accountable for completion of the tasks should be identified. Once these tasks have been completed, the risk management study can be conducted. The risk assessment matrix can be used to prioritize the risks that will be investigated, and then BTA or another tool of the team’s choosing, can be used to identify needed controls and recovery measures.
Once the controls and recovery measures have been identified, they need to be evaluated for practicality. Some of these may require design and construction, such as swales and rip rap lined ditches. Others may require adoption of operating procedures, such as regular inspections of fuel storage tanks and the prompt use of sorbents in the maintenance shop to cleanup spills. The monitoring and sampling program may require modifications. The “Do” stage of the paradigm, i.e. implementing the findings from the planning phase can be substantial, involving multiple personnel and requiring a period of time and significant resources to implement. This must be carefully scheduled and resourced.
All of the effort expended to reach the end of the “Do” stage will be wasted if a formal effort to verify that the risk management measures have been implemented. Moreover, the controls as implemented should be assessed to determine whether or not they are performing as expected. Of course, if the “Check” stage reveals gaps or shortcomings, they must be acted upon. This “Act” stage should not be treated as an afterthought; rather, the need to “close the loop” must be anticipated and built into the team’s charge. Adequate resources must be provided for this stage as well.
While the primary purpose of this environmental example was to illustrate the applicability of the management system approach, it should be noted for completeness that the Plan-Do-Check-Act paradigm is really an ongoing process, and the next key action would be to perform regular audits, as mentioned earlier.
The primary goal of this module was to tackle the question: what does it mean, in practical terms, to operate in a sustainable manner? We concentrated on gaining a better understanding of sustainability in Lesson 1. We looked at a Venn diagram of the three dimensions of sustainable development, social, environment, and economic; and we focused on the intersection of these three regions, which are known as bearable, equitable, and viable. And of course, it is the intersection of these three that constitute sustainable. From the perspective of a practicing mining professional, the question then becomes: what is it that we do or do not do to make something more or less bearable, equitable, and viable?
We saw that it is difficult to quantify the bearable and equitable regions, but we identified a series of questions to help define how society will view the extent to which the project is likely to be considered bearable and equitable. Making a determination within the viable region is a bit easier because we can quantify the majority of the costs and perform a financial analysis. During our discussion of the equitable region, we encountered two prevalent but very different schools of ethical thought: the utilitarian school and the deontological school. Although civil and industrial projects are most often viewed through the lens of the utilitarian school of ethics, there has been an increase in protests raised by those who subscribe to the deontological school. Armed with a better understanding of what is meant by sustainable, we then tackled the next question: what is it that we can do to improve the sustainability of a mining project?
We began Lesson 9.2 with the premise that there is much that you can do to improve the sustainability of mining, even though historically, our industry failed to be as progressive and proactive as it should have been. I grouped the many actions that could be taken to improve sustainability into three categories: mining practices, community relations, and safety, health, & environment. We looked at examples within the groups of mining practices and community relations. Then I described background on the third group titled safety, health, & environment. The concept of a social license to mine was introduced, and a couple of high profile disasters were cited as examples of the importance of the equitable and bearable regions. The concept of zero harm was mentioned, and the need for a specific methodology to achieve zero harm was identified.
The focus of Lesson 9.3 was an approach to achieve zero harm in safety, health, and environment. Early on the distinction was made between compliance with regulations and achieving zero harm. The difference between prescriptive and performance-based regulations was explained, and the Australian risk-based approach was mentioned. It was noted that an analysis of fatalities and disabling injuries revealed that engineering failures were often not the root cause or the only root cause of the incident. Instead, it was frequently a combination of cultural, leadership, and systems failures.
The method or approach known as CoreSafety is designed to address this combination of systems, culture, and leadership. Each of these was defined and described. Next, the characteristics of effective management systems were identified and the Plan-Do-Check-Act paradigm was introduced. Although somewhat simplistic, this is a powerful paradigm, which forms the basis of CoreSafety as well as the ANSI and OHSAS standards for health and safety management systems. Notably, this exact approach can be used for environmental and other technical applications beyond safety and health. An environmental example of this paradigm was presented at the end of Lesson 9.4.
The identification, analysis, and mitigation of risks are a critical part of the Plan-Do-Check-Act paradigm. Collectively these steps are known as risk management, and this was the subject of Lesson 9.4. At the beginning of this lesson, I defined hazard, risk, and risk factors, and then went on to discuss what is meant by managing risk. The difference between eliminating and mitigating a risk was noted, as were the use of engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. Behavioral interventions, typically training, were noted as another effective way to manage risk. The idea of a hierarchy of controls was introduced.
An effort to identify the risks in an operation may result in a large and rather daunting number of risks. We saw that we can use the risk assessment matrix to develop a risk score based on the likelihood or probability of the hazard occurring and the severity or impact of consequences if the hazard occurs. The identified risks can be ranked according to this score, and then the greater risks should be addressed earliest in the process.
Once we have identified a potential event, in which a hazard is released, we would analyze it to define the root causes and to identify both control measures and recovery measures. We saw that the bow tie analysis (BTA) is nicely suited to the qualitative risks often encountered in our application. After the BTA has been completed, we would assess the practicality of employing various control and recovery measures to mitigate the risk. At this stage, we would be ready to move into the “Do” stage of the paradigm, and we have a basic understanding of what that means. Similarly, we understand why the “Check” and “Act” stages are so important to the overall process.
Many books have been written and entire courses devoted to each of the topics covered in this module, ranging from sustainability through risk management. Some of you may have already taken or will be taking such courses; and for everyone else, this material will serve not only as a platform on which you can base more detailed study but also it gives you knowledge that will be useful in the workplace.