|
| Safety at work is the priority issue for Tasmania’s mines and mineral processors. |
|
| Safe workplaces are the result of effort and persistence by managers and employees. |
|
| It is unending work – each day is a fresh challenge, but the aim is continual improvement. |
|
| Nationally, the mining industry in Australia is pursuing workplaces free of injury or fatalities. It is the priority issue for the members of the Minerals Council of Australia www.minerals.org.au/safety and it is a vision shared by Tasmania’s miners and processors. |
|
|
Duty of Care
| Tasmania’s chief legislative safety instrument is the Workplace Health and Safety Act (1995) www.thelaw.tas.gov.au which imposes a Duty of Care on employers to provide a safe workplace. The Act reflects the Robens model of prevention of injury or fatality in the workplace and is consistent with the approach in most Western nations. Lord Robens headed a Committee of Inquiry into the Aberfan disaster in Britain. In essence, the commission of inquiry found that the prescriptive methods of occupational health and safety which had evolved since the industrial revolution were not the best way to prevent injury or death. The committee recommended instead that legislation should place a “duty of care” upon employers to provide a safe workplace. Here is a summary of the Aberfan disaster which happened in 1966, leading to the Robens committee’s recommendations in 1972, and Britain’s initial take-up of the duty-of-care approach in 1974 - |
|
The events of Friday, 21 October 1966 |
|
Tip no. 7, which was 500 feet above the village of Aberfan, near Merthyr Tydfil, started to slide at 9.15 am. It was the last day before half-term at the Pantglas schools below. The valley was in low cloud, so that nobody saw the slide. Everybody heard it, but it was coming too fast to outrun. It first hit a farm, killing everybody in it. Then it engulfed Pantglas Junior School, killing 109 children and five teachers. Only a handful of the children aged between seven and ten survived. The tip comprised colliery waste, liquefied by the springs underneath. The liquefied flow slide of about 100,000 tons of slurry lost energy and solidified again after hitting the school and neighbouring houses. They were buried as completely as Pompeii. A total of 144 people died.
(http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-52.html#intro) |
|
| Since the adoption of the “duty-of-care” model there have been more disasters, some of them in Australia, but the uptake of the new approach has been coincident with an increased focus on safety in the workplace in the Western world, including within the minerals sector and among governments and regulators. As mentioned, safety is the priority for Tasmania’s minerals industry –
The duty-of-care approach forces managers and regulators to consistently focus on the elimination or control of hazards in the workplace |
|
|
|
Safety Management Systems |
|
| The Tasmanian Minerals Council advocates a safety approach based upon Safety Management Systems, which all to one extent or another, have their genesis in the International Safety Rating System(http://www.topves.nl/Safety%20Management%20and%20ISRS.pdf) |
|
| These are systems which drive a constant alertness about safety matters throughout an organisation, including the workforce. They specify the elements a workplace will require and have built-in review and feedback mechanisms. Apart from playing a strong part in the provision of a safe workplace, the Safety Management Systems will help to build a culture of safety, which is a fundamental building block to a safe workplace. |
|
| Most of the mines in Tasmania use Safety Management Systems. However, even with these sophisticated tools, there is always room within them for new ideas. Some of these are the PASS system, the Job Safety Analysis, the Last Minute Risk Assessment (Stepback 5x5) and safety leadership programs. |
|
|
|
|
| The above are some of the initiatives people are taking at Tasmanian mines and mineral processing plants. Others will be adopted as they are developed and tested in the future. There is no end-point with safety and better or different ways to make a workplace safer will always be on the horizon. However, for the medium term, the diligent implementation and maintenance of a Safety Management System will provide the best platform. Despite best efforts over a protracted period of time, there are injuries and fatalities in the Australian mining industry, including in Tasmania. There are fewer in both categories than there were before the rise of improved safety consciousness since the 1970s and the trend in the graph has been downward over the past few decades. Nonetheless, it is difficult for people within the industry (or any industry) to congratulate ourselves on improved performance while there are still injuries and fatalities. Statistical improvement across a sector of the economy is cold comfort to the family which has lost a loved one in an industrial accident. In Tasmania, mines and processors are constantly working on improved safety performance. It will be reflected in achievements such a number of years at a single enterprise free of injury for some years. However, constant vigilance is required industry-wide. For example, the system failed recently in Tasmania, at the Renison tin mine on the West Coast. Three people were killed there in the early part of this decade. The Coroner Don Jones, who is from Burnie on Tasmania’s north-west coast, published the result of his inquiry into the deaths and identified systemic failure at the mine. He also questioned the role of the Regulator at the time. The Coroner’s full report can be found at( http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/100923/Renison_Decision_21-5-_08.pdf) |
|
| It is apparent from the Renison case that given circumstance, a high-risk environment can develop and proceed unchecked. The Renison case was an exception in Tasmania’s mining industry. Other mines, at the time and now, have very high standards of health and safety – higher than any other primary industry. However, the point of making readers of this website aware of the Renison failure is to demonstrate that three parties must have some responsibility in safety – management, employees and an independent Regulator, with significant powers. If any or all of the three pillars are removed, significant potential for disaster arises. The task for all concerned – management, employees and Regulators, is commitment and persistence. |
|
|
|
|
Indicators |
|
Safety performance is measured by Regulators and industry. However, the measurement is mainly of things like “lost time injury frequency rate” or “fatality rate”. These indicators are generally described by safety professionals as “lag” indicators – that is, they give a perspective of what has happened in the past. For some years, safety professionals have been casting about for more meaningful ways to measure what is happening now, or how present actions may influence future events. They refer to these as “lead” indicators. Some measure things such as the number of incidents (things which had a potential at least for injury) which have been investigated, “near misses” (things which could have hurt or killed somebody) which have been investigated and remedial measures instituted, or the number of safety discussions staff are holding at a given enterprise at a given period of time. This link gives an outline of the approach of lead indicators
http://www.preventionbestpractices.org/files/1177/HUC2003.ppt#276,24. and this link demonstrates thinking about this area of safety management in the minerals sector http://sustainability.bhpbilliton.com/2005/repository/safety/ourApproach/leadIndicators.aspIncrementally, a lot of thought worldwide is going into measurement of “lead" indicators. Companies and academics are doing a lot of good work on the subject. It is possible that standards on these indicators will evolve over time because it is a body of work which can assist with the overall objective – prevention of harm or fatality in the workplace. With “lag” indicators, we suggest two sources. The first is the Tasmanian Government’s WorkCover organisation http://www.workcover.tas.gov.au/resources/statistics which gives a picture of “lag” comparisons of individual sectors and comparisons across sectors. The second is the Minerals Council of Australia’s ongoing work to look at the minerals industry’s performance Australia-wide http://www.minerals.org.au/safety/safety_and_health_performance |
|
| In Tasmania, the responsibility for safety at work is at the enterprise level. That is, each site of work is responsible for the safe conduct of that work. Sites use Safety Management Systems and use some of the tools described previously. They will also reference Australian and International Standards on given problems and procedures and will also innovate. They will also have safety professionals on site and will use external consultants on safety to give a different perspective or to bring to bear high-level expertise Apart from the site work, the mines and smelters in Tasmania also maintain a standing Occupational Health and Safety Committee within the Tasmanian Minerals Council. The committee is chaired by a member of the Minerals Council’s Board and draws representatives from the mines and smelters. The committee’s objective is to promote a free exchange of ideas and processes which relate to occupational health and safety, and to hear from experts from outside the minerals sector from time to time to gather information about how other sectors approach aspects of safety management. It is essentially a clearing house for safety information and learning and promotes safety leadership throughout the industry within the State Finally, there is within Australia an outstanding body of reference work about risk management and safety. It is at the University of Queensland and is called “MIRMgate”. The work is supported by national and international mining companies and is a valuable resource for industry, professionals and students of the discipline of risk management
http://www.mirmgate.com/about_mirmgate.aspIn summary, the minerals sector, like other resource sectors, is hazardous. It does not have to be dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
|
Initiatives
Minerals Industry Safety Handbook
A recent initiative of the Committee has been the Minerals
Industry Safety Handbook. This is a generic guideline designed
for reference by mines and processors to assist in appropriate actions
and strategies in the development of health and safety procedures.
The Handbook represents a minimum set of standards in a range of
applications consistent with the expectations of the Tasmanian Regulations
but is flexible for use across State jurisdictions.
The handbook was developed from a NSW mining guideline and involved
substantial liaison and input, initially in conjunction with NSW
Department of Minerals Resources and later with the involvement
of sister industry organisations and government departments on the
eastern seaboard and the Northern Territory . The Handbook has been
recommended for endorsement by the Chief Inspectors in the Mine
Safety Implementation process and it is hoped this endorsement will
be recognised nationally and accepted throughout the industry.
|
Fatigue Guidelines
Policies and guidelines assist in the day to day management of
safety in the workplace. The Tasmanian Minerals Council has been
working on the development of Fatigue Management guidelines for
the industry. Fatigue Management is an area of health and safety
that until recently did not have a stated procedure behind it for
any industry. It is now acknowledged that fatigue is a hazard and
should be managed within the health and safety risk assessment regime
of a workplace. In recognition of this the Safety Committee and
member companies have been working very closely with professionals
in the area of fatigue management. In addition to training and education
on the topic, site representatives have assisted in the development
of a general minerals industry Guideline
that includes the industry position in a Fatigue Management Statement
and a suggested model for a Risk Management Plan together with a
toolkit of current ideas and proformas to assist development at
the site level and as a reference
|
|
|
