You are on page 1of 48

International evaluation of injury

rates
in mining: A comparison of risk
and compliance-based
approaches

Jefferey L. Burgess, MD, MS, MPH


Professor and Director
Division of Community, Environment
and Policy
Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public
Health

University of Arizona
Mining Safety and Health Program
Lowell Institute for Mineral Resources
(IMR):

Public Health
Mining & Geological Engineering
Geosciences
Atmospheric Sciences
Anthropology/Social sciences
Business/Economics
Law

Research and Training:

Safety & health management systems


Economics of health & safety programs
Exposure evaluation and control
Epidemiology
Training evaluation & optimization
3-D Gaming simulation training platform
Leadership development

Mining Fatalities
Countr
y

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

U.S.
MNM

33

23

17

23

16

16

U.S.
Coal

34

30

18

48

21

19

Peru
62
52 basis so
54each
*Australia
reports on64
a financial56
year (e.g.64
2007-2008)
column
from
July of9the previous
Australi represents the
4 deaths occurring
16
6
5 year
to
a* June of the current year.

http://www.rminc.com/html_email/client_newsletter_january_20
10.html

Outline
Regulations and legislation
International comparison
of injuries in Australian
and U.S. coal mines
A case study of risk
management in the U.S.
metal mining industry
Risk management process
and examples from the
fire service

Compliance-based
Regulations

Government-based

May lack guidelines for how to


meet the regulations
Limited flexibility to address
mine-to-mine variation

Less adaptive to change


With advancements in
technology and management,
regulations can become
outdated or inappropriate

Enforced in the United


States

Risk-based Regulations
Industry implements safety
and health improvements
Form team(s) including all
levels of the workforce
Determine likelihood and
magnitude of potential
consequences for each risk
Implement methods to
control, mitigate or eliminate
risks

Mandated in Australia and


the European Union

Risk Management
Legislation
Risk-based regulation has its roots in the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Established in the United Kingdom in the 1970s
Introduced to the Australian mining industry in
the 1980s and revised following two disasters
1994 Moura explosion, killing 11
1996 Gretley flooding, drowning 4

Required for all European Union industry in


1990s
AS/NZ 4360 standard served as the basis for
the ISO 31000 Risk Management Standard

International Comparison
of Lost-time Injuries Study

Poplin GS, Miller HB, Ranger-Moore J, Bofinger CM, Kurzius-Spencer M,


Harris RB, Burgess JL. International evaluation of injury rates in coal
mining: A comparison of risk and compliance based regulatory
approaches. Safety Science 2008; 46: 1196-1204.

Study Methods
Australian and U.S coal
mines
Only mines with 10
employees

Data (1996-2003) from:

Mine Safety and Health


Administration (MSHA) in U.S.
Queensland Dept. of Natural
Resources & Mines
New South Wales Coal
Services, Pty Ltd.

Primary outcome was


lost-time injury rate

Crude Incidence: All Coal


Mines

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

(per 100,000 miners)

1996

1997

1998

1999

U.S.
New South Wales

2000

2001

2002

Queensland

2003

Mines with 10-99 workers

5000

10000

15000

(per 100,000 miners)

1996

1997

1998

1999

U.S.
New South Wales

2000

2001

2002

Queensland

2003

Mines with 100-249 workers

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000 12000

(per 100,000 miners)

1996

1997

1998

1999

U.S.
New South Wales

2000

2001

2002

Queensland

2003

Mines with 250+ workers

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

(per 100,000 miners)

1996

1997

1998

1999

U.S.
New South Wales

2000

2001

2002

Queensland

2003

.2

Incident Rate Ratio


.4
.6
.8

1.2

Incident Rate Ratio* All Coal


Mines

1996

1997

1998

1999

Year

U.S.

2000

2001

2002

2003

Queensland

New South Wales

*Adjusted for underground v. surface, mine size and production

Study Discussion
Marked reduction in lost-time injury
rates following introduction of risk
management in Australian coal
mines
Temporal association does not prove
causality
Discussion with mine managers
suggested:
Risk management led to safer operating
processes

Risk Management in U.S. Metal


Mining
Some mining companies operating in the
U.S. have adopted formal risk
management
Company A instituted its Australian-style
risk management system starting in 2004
Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) data were used to compare all
reported and lost-time injury rates over
time

Mean Incident Rate


(per 100 employees)
4
6
8
10

12

All Injuries in Metal Mines

1998

2000

2002
Company A

2004
Year

2006

2008

2010

All Other Metal Mines

Mean incident rate for all injuries of Company A (risk


management) mines compared with all other U.S.
metal mines.

Mean Incident Rate


(per 100 employees)
1
2
3

Lost-time Injuries in Metal


Mines

1998

2000

2002
Company A

2004
Year

2006

2008

2010

All Other Metal Mines

Mean incident rate for lost-time injuries of Company A


(risk management) mines compared with all other U.S.

All Injuries in Metal Mines


Predicted Average Injuries per Mine from 1999-2010

5
3
1

Predicted Injuries

All Injuries: Company A and All Other Mines

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Calendar Year
Company A Injury Pre-2004

Other Mines Injury Pre-2004

Comopany A Injury Post-2004

Other Mines Injury Post-2004

Predicted Injury Count/Yr: Company A


Company A 95% CI

Predicted Injury Count/Yr: Other


Other Mines 95% CI

Predicted incidence rate ratio for all injuries pre- and


post-intervention (year 2004) for Company A mines
compared with all other metal mines.

Lost-time Injuries in Metal


Mines
Predicted Average Lost-Time Injuries per Mine from 1999-2010

2
1

Predicted Injuries

Lost-Time Injuries: Company A and All Other Mines

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Calendar Year
Company A Injury Pre-2004

Other Mines Injury Pre-2004

Company A Injury Post-2004


Predicted Injury Count/Yr: Company A

Other Mines Injury Post-2004


Predicted Injury Count/Yr: Other

Company A 95% CI

Other Mines 95% CI

Predicted incidence rate ratio for lost-time injuries pre- and


post-intervention (year 2004) for Company A mines compared
with all other metal mines.

U.S. Risk Management


Outcomes
In Company A there was
a (statistically significant)
15% annual reduction in
lost-time injuries
following introduction of
risk management
Injuries in all other U.S.
metal mines combined
increased (nonsignificantly) during the
same period

Risk Management Process


A proactive systematic approach for improving
risk and decision making in the workplace
Mines develop individualized solutions to risks

Information organized in an efficient, orderly


manner
Can be used at all levels of the management
structure.
Helps focus attention and resources on the most
significant risks.

Enables managers to better anticipate and


mitigate risk

Risk Management Phases


Hazard
Identificati
on/Scoping

Risk
Assessme
nt

www.firefighterclosecalls.c
om

Control
Implementati
on

Risk Management
Energie
s

Hazard ID
Risk Analysis
Risk
Characterization

Avoidanc
e
Reductio
n
Retentio
Modified from MISHC: Univ. of Queensland
n

Phase 1: Scoping
Review available data
on outcome of interest
(injury/event)
Identify and prioritize
tasks, events and
systems
Task analysis (e.g., roof
bolting) or unwanted
event (e.g., roof collapse)

Determine the direction


for risk assessment

Phase 2: Risk Assessment


...an activity that occurs
after some harmful event, to
try to figure out what
happened, how it happened,
and then trying to devise a
way of preventing the same
or similar harmful events
from occurring again.
Wassell JT. Hum Ecol Risk Assess.
2003; 9(5)

I. Hazard Identification
II. Risk Analysis
III. Risk Characterization

Hazard Identification
Obtain detailed information on
hazards causing injuries and other
potential adverse events
Determine the extent of the problem
Low frequency, high impact event
High frequency, low impact event

Guides selection of risk analysis tools

Risk Analysis
Purpose is to
Increase awareness
Set priorities

Methods of Analysis:
Qualitative
Semi-Quantitative
Quantitative

Qualitative Risk Analysis


Subjective coding
Low, medium, high
Green, Yellow, Red

Informal risk awareness for day-to-day tasks


Depends on the experience and expertise of the
person applying it

Quick and cheap

Consequences

Likelihood

High
High
Medium
Low

Medium

Low

Semi-Quantitative Risk
Analysis
Retains some aspects of quantification
Number values
Categorization approach

Risk matrices often used in industry


Numerical ranges for the levels must be
carefully defined to meet objectives as well as
provide discreet and suitable choices

Various dimensions are used and depend


on the objectives and nature of the
unwanted event

Risk Matrix

Quantitative Risk Analysis


Involves the calculation of probability
Uses real numbers, not ranks
Probability of a structural collapse = 0.003 per
year

Requires disciplined approach to


recording and interpreting incidents,
accident and maintenance information
for accurate measures
Best for low frequency, high consequence
events

Quantitative Examples
Increasing complexity

1.Failure Mode and effect analysis (FMEA)


2.Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP)
3.Human error analysis (HEA)
4.Reliability block diagrams
5.Fault-tree analysis
6.Event tree analysis
7.First order reliability methods (FORM)
8.Monte Carlo methods
9.Probabilistic risk and safety assessment (PRA &
PSA)

Risk Characterization
Presents an integrated discussion of
Hazard identification
Risk analysis

Evaluates the overall quality and degree


of confidence in the assessment
Describes extent and severity of risk to
Individuals
Populations

Bowtie Analysis Model

Courtesy of Jim Joy

Phase 3: Implementation
Scope & Deliverables
Implementation Timeline/Schedule
Work Breakdown

Governance & Accountability


Resources
Continued Risk Management
Stakeholder Management

Countermeasures for Injury


Control
Engineering, enforcement or education

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Reduce the amount of hazard brought into being


Prevent the release of the hazard
Modify the rate of release of the hazard from its source
Separate the hazard from that which is to be protected by
time and space
Separate the hazard from that which is to be protected by a
physical barrier
Modify relevant basic qualities of the hazard
Make what is to be protected more resistant to damage from
the hazard
Begin to counter damage done by the hazard
Stabilize, repair, and rehabilitate the object of damage

Monitor, Review & Revise


Measurements of effectiveness
Physical inspections
Reduction of injuries, near misses, citations, etc.

Process Evaluation
Did those involved in the process learn anything,
change behavior, appreciate the process, etc.?

Management review meetings


Reviews of organizational policies, strategies
and processes

Successful Implementation
Successful implementation includes:
A strong, positive climate for implementation
Management support
Financial resources
Good communications
Event reporting system including near misses

Added benefits:
Improves the understanding as to why things are
done, at all levels of the workforce
Making the right decision because they understand why

Has the potential to increase productivity


Klein KJ. Innovation Implementation.
2005

Fire Services Data


In mining and firefighting the
hazards are dynamic and
cannot be completely controlled
Risk management interventions
implemented in the Tucson Fire
Department (since 2010)
International comparison of fire
department injuries (20042009)
International meeting on
standard operating procedures
best practices (2012)

Workplace Risk Assessment &


Control

Firefighter Lost-time Injuries

U.K. fire department with most advanced risk management system

Standard Operating
Procedures

Future Studies
Economic and injury analyses of
specific risk management
interventions
Critical risks and controls

Conclusions
Introduction of risk management has been
associated with a decline in injury rates
In Australia and the European Union risk
management is required for all industry
Requires a consistent systematic approach
Risk management techniques are scalable
for any operation regardless of size or
income
Studies of the cost-effectiveness of individual
risk management interventions are needed

Acknowledgments
Gerald S. Poplin, MS, PhD
Vivien S. Lee, MS
Carmel Bofinger and Jim
Joy, University of
Queensland Minerals
Industry Safety and
Health Centre (MISHC)
National Institute for
Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH)

You might also like