Module 9 - Sustainability (Good For Summery and CPD)

3/9/23, 5:37 PM Module 9: Sustainability
Published on ABC 123: Testing Site / Course (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog000)

Home > Lessons > Module 9: Sustainability
Module 9: Sustainability
Module 9 Overview
Module 9 Overview
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:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog000/print/book/export/html/917 1/23
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.
Learning Outcomes
At the successful completion of this module you should be able to:
Define what we mean by sustainable and explain it in terms of the Venn diagram for
sustainable development;
describe the three dimensions of sustainability for the mining industry, and cite examples of
issues or questions considered with each dimension;
identify specific mining practices that impact sustainability, and cite a few examples of how
these practices could affect the equitable or bearable regions;
describe an action plan to manage and improve community relations and public perception
of mining;
explain the effect of safety, health, and environmental performance on the “social license to
mine,” and the relationship between this and the equitable and bearable regions;
explain what is meant by statutory compliance and zero harm.
explain why leadership, culture, and systems constitute a framework for achieving zero
incidents and explain what is meant by each of these terms;
explain the difference between a hazard and a risk;
explain the plan-do-check-act actions of a health and safety management system;
construct a risk assessment matrix;
conduct a bow tie analysis for a given event, such as a mine explosion;
describe how the HSMS approach directly applies to environmental performance and use
surface water runoff as the example to illustrate the application of the approach.
Lesson 9.1 A Framework for Sustainability

Lesson 9.1 A Framework for Sustainability
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).
Figure 9.1.1 A diagram indicating the relationship between the "three pillars of sustainability," in
which both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits.
source: Nested Sustainability, by KTucker. Wikipedia.org, CC BY-SA 3.0
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.
Figure 9.1.2 Venn diagram of sustainable development at the confluence of three constituent
parts.
source: Sustainable Development, by Johann Dréo [1]. Wikipedia.org [2], CC BY-SA 3.0 [3]
Recall that in the introduction to this module I identified three actionable areas to realize a
sustainable mining industry, and they are mining practices; community relations; and safety,
health, and environment. Let’s take a look at the categories in the Venn diagram, and how our
actionable areas map into them.
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.
9.1.1 Social - Economic

9.1.1 Social - Economic
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.
Will (does) the project improve the infrastructure of the community, e.g. schools, hospitals,
water supply, and highways?
Will (does) the project contribute to the local economy, through tax revenue for example, in
addition to creating jobs, and is this contribution in reasonable proportion to the value
obtained by the company?
Will (does) the project provide good-paying jobs within the local community?
Will (does) the company provide training and education opportunities to improve the skill
sets of workers?
Will it be necessary to displace or move indigenous peoples as a prerequisite to mining
activity?
What will happen to the community or region when the project is completed? Will there be
other industries to employ the workers from the former project?
The economic dimension would consider the following question:
Is (will) the financial performance1 of the project (be) consistent with investor or company
expectations?
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.
9.1.2 Social - Environment

9.1.2 Social - Environment
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.
Will the project adversely affect air or water quality during operations or after the project is
completed?
Will the project create other hazards during operations or after the project is completed?
Will the project create nuisances, e.g. noxious odors or noise?
Will the project spoil the landscape, or otherwise reduce the recreational value around the
project?
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.
9.1.3 Environment - Economic

9.1.3 Environment - Economic
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.
9.1.4 Sustainable
9.1.4 Sustainable
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.
Lesson 9.2 You are In-Charge

Lesson 9.2 You are In-Charge
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?
9.2.1 Mining Practices

9.2.1 Mining Practices
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.
9.2.2 Community Relations

9.2.2 Community Relations
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.
9.2.3 Safety, Health, and Environment

9.2.3 Safety, Health, and Environment
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.
Lesson 9.3 A Sustainable Approach to Mine

Safety and Health
Lesson 9.3 A Sustainable Approach to Mine Safety and Health
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.
9.3.1 CoreSafety
9.3.1 CoreSafety
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.
Figure 9.3.1. A Framework for Achieving Zero Incidents

source: National Mining Association, used 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:
managing by objective using structured accountability;

understanding and influencing culture;
leveraging communication and collaboration;
having credibility and integrity;
using performance feedback and management;
being action-oriented; and
and understanding management systems and ensuring they work as designed.
Figure 9.3.2. Illustration of the Leadership Competencies

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.
Figure 9.3.3. Illustration of the Attributes of Safety Culture

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.
Figure 9.3.4. The “Plan-Do-Check-Act” flow of an HSMS.

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:
Set goals: all risks in all the company’s operations cannot be addressed at once... it is
necessary to divide the work into achievable chunks.
Define tasks: identify the task that will have to be completed. Example tasks could include
conducting a site survey, reviewing past accident records, performing engineering
calculations, designing risk mitigation measures, purchasing materials or hiring
consultants, and installing interventions.
Assign responsibilities: Clearly identify who is responsible for doing a task AND who will be
accountable for the completion of the task. This is one of the points at which the HSMS
fails because it wasn’t clear who was doing what, and then things “fall through the cracks.”
Ensure know how: make sure the people assigned tasks have the knowledge and skills to
complete the task. Although this sounds obvious, it is another common failure point within
the HSMS.
Provide resources: It usually requires time and money to implement the actions identified in
the Planning Phase. Usually the money is allocated, but often the time is not. Suppose I
want to implement a series of tasks for the Bedrock Quarry, and I assign responsibility for
conducting the risk assessment to my quarry manager, a task that may take a few weeks
to complete. I know that my quarry manager, a Penn State grad, is proficient in conducting
risk analyses. Most likely I have set up a failure at this point! Why? The quarry manager
has a full-time job, from 6 in the morning until 6 in the evening running the quarry. When
will she find time to do risk analyses? She won’t. You have to allocate the resource of time
if you want to be successful. Maybe we bring in an assistant quarry manager form another
operation for a few weeks or find another solution.
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.
Lesson 9.4 Risk Management

Lesson 9.4 Risk Management
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.
Figure 9.4.1 Example of a Risk Assessment matrix

Enter image credit here
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 and Impact Scale

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
Now we can take each of the identified risks and assign them a score based on our matrix.
Those with the higher scores demand more immediate attention, and their elimination should be
a priority.
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.
Figure 9.4.2
source: J. Kohler, © Penn State University, is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 [4]
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:
Explosive concentration of methane

Ignition source
The consequences of an explosion are:
Miners die from breathing toxic levels of carbon monoxide

Fire
Miners in immediate proximity to the explosion are killed by the force of the explosion
Miners die while attempting to escape from the mine
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.
Figure 9.4.3 The resulting bowtie for the example of a mine explosion
source: J. Kohler, © Penn State University, is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 [4]
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.
Figure 9.4.4 Generalized Representation of the Bowtie

Used with permission from THESIS Bowtie Risk Management Software
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.
6The hierarchy of controls, going from the most to least reliable and effective is: engineering
controls, administrative controls, and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE was
not used in this example because it wasn't applicable. Examples of PPE would include
respirators to limit dust exposure, earplugs to limit noise exposure, and safety glasses to reduce
the chance of eye injury from foreign objects. Simplistically, the effectiveness of engineering
controls at the top of hierarchy do not depend on people to mitigate the risk, whereas the bottom
of the hierarchy, PPE, will be effective only if people remember to use it and use it correctly.
9.4.1 Application to an Environmental

Problem
9.4.1 Application to an Environmental Problem
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.
Module 9 Summary
Module 9 Summary
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.
Source URL:https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog000/node/917
Links
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nojhan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sustainable_development.svg
[3] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en [4] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Module 9 - Sustainability (Good For Summery and CPD)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 9 - Sustainability (Good For Summery and CPD)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/9/23, 5:37 PM Module 9: Sustainability

Published on ABC 123: Testing Site / Course (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog000)

It’s an odd situation, isn’t it?

Lesson 9.1 A Framework for Sustainability

9.1.1 Social - Economic

The social dimension of sustainability would consider the following questions.

The economic dimension would consider the following question:

9.1.2 Social - Environment

Previously, we looked at a list of questions to help understand the social dimension of

9.1.3 Environment - Economic

We have already identified relevant questions to characterize these two dimensions. A

Lesson 9.2 You are In-Charge

9.2.1 Mining Practices

9.2.2 Community Relations

Employee Engagement: Encourage employees to be active on the school board, in civic

9.2.3 Safety, Health, and Environment

Lesson 9.3 A Sustainable Approach to Mine

Figure 9.3.1. A Framework for Achieving Zero Incidents

managing by objective using structured accountability;

Figure 9.3.2. Illustration of the Leadership Competencies

Safety culture can be defined as a pattern of behavior that is encouraged or discouraged by

Figure 9.3.3. Illustration of the Attributes of Safety Culture

Figure 9.3.4. The “Plan-Do-Check-Act” flow of an HSMS.

The Plan phase encompasses five activities:

Lesson 9.4 Risk Management

Figure 9.4.1 Example of a Risk Assessment matrix

Probability and Impact Scale

Causes of this event are:

Explosive concentration of methane

The consequences of an explosion are:

Miners die from breathing toxic levels of carbon monoxide

Providing self-contained self-rescuers (SCSRs) is a recovery measure that virtually eliminates

Figure 9.4.4 Generalized Representation of the Bowtie

9.4.1 Application to an Environmental

The method or approach known as CoreSafety is designed to address this combination of

You might also like