Mining inspectors want 'zero fatalities' and ever-reducing injury rates, and Anglo American defends its 'zero harm' motto as 'zero tolerance culture', but legal and Sheq specialists want the term abolished.

DMR Gauteng principal inspector Max Madubane drew queries and criticism from lawyers, engineers, Sheq practitioners and some operators, who note that legislation required 'reasonably practicable' safety management.
Current mining performance was within global norms, and exceeded the general South African risk prone culture, concluded a panel of presenters led by Willem le Roux, occupational health and safety law specialist at legal firm Brink Cohen Le Roux, at a workshop on risk tolerance hosted by LexisNexis in June.
Department of Labour OH&S executive manager Millie Ruiters support the DMR approach, saying that DOL was 'embarking on a road to zero'.

Anglo American motto

Defending Anglo American's 'zero harm' motto, championed by its CEO and backed by consultants Du Pont, an Anglo official explained that the corporate occupational health and safety motto implied a 'zero tolerance culture, not a 'statistical goal'.
He noted that 'zero harm' continued the former Anglo motto of 'OTTO', which stood for 'Zero Tolerance, Target Zero'. Senior Anglo safety official Philip Fourie supported the 'zero harm' motto at another forum, while noting draft mining legislation aimed at legitimising a private registration scheme set up by the Institute of Safety Management, IoSM, of which he is president.

'Zero' is misleading

Lawyers, along with some Sheq practitioners, behavioural academics and researchers, notably Corrie Pitzer, point out that the 'zero' concept and mottoes are misleading, unattainable, de-motivating, and erroneously applied to compliance targets by legislators and inspectors.
Compensation figures and several academic studies reveal that mining incidents and diseases are under reported, making a mockery of health and safety statistics.
The latest published comparative data, for 1999, show that in terms of fatality and injury rates, the most hazardous sectors were fishing, mining, and forestry.

Risk tolerance could be 'too low'

Engineers apply a level of risk tolerance in plant design and operations, finding a balance between legal, ethical, social and economic dictates. If tolerance is set too low, mining would be impossible. "A state of zero risk does not exist," said Dr Eng Noel Joughini, a former Chamber of Mines official, at the LexisNexis workshop.
"Public pressure against nuclear energy is one example of unreasonable cost of safety, translating into high energy costs, due to unreasonably low social risk tolerance," Dr Joughini explained.
Safety costs imposed on nuclear energy drive costs up to twice that of coal based energy, while safety, health and environmental risks loom progressively from smaller to larger in the equation of nuclear, to gas, to coal, to petroleum, to wind energy. Wind energy is notable for fatal incidents and intensive maintenance.

Premature deaths off the job

Commenting on Anglo American management's 'zero harm' motto, Dr Joughini said it was "impossible" and that "achievable targets" should be set.
"Traffic, pedestrian and domestic fatality figures prove a high risk tolerance culture in Africa. Traffic fatality rates hover around two per million hours, against mining's 0.2, and gold mining's 0.3. Traffic kills ten times more people than mining."
Dam failures also took large fatality tolls per incident, typically more than single mining incidents do.
Graphs of premature deaths in SA and the USA, for example, diverge from age 20 to age 40, due to more fatalities than the first world norm in South Africa during economically productive years, but not due to occupational causes.

Injury rate stuck

In the last two years, mining fatalities, injuries and incidents did not decrease, but remaining static. Current trends worldwide indicate random incident spikes, while employment levels remained low.
Insurers and statisticians expect increased incidents, injuries and fatalities when the current low level of employment reversed due to economic recovery.
Sheq specialists support the view that mining health and safety loss levels are stuck on a plateau, rising and falling at random, due to factors outside the control of traditional management or Sheq interventions. Among these specialists are DMR mining safety manager Tony Coutinho.
To gain perspective, Coutinho demonstrated a rise in diamond sector fatalities and injuries, and a lack of notable improvement in general mining health and safety performance of the last few years.
"Safety performance had become consistently static, despite major initiatives like the MOSH programmes led by the Chamber of Mines and some leading employers", Coutinho told the LexisNexis workshop.
Recent small improvements could be accounted to lower levels of employment and production during the recent economic dip. Some Sheq practitioners fear that discontinuity of some operations, areas and employment, could take a toll in Sheq losses when economic recovery spurs production growth, likely to be led by resources development in Africa backed by eastern demand.

Milestones to 'zero'

Chamber of Mines sustainability officer Sietse van der Woude queried the DMR assessment of mining Sheq performance, saying that the industry had reduced its fatality rate from 0.3 to 0.15, in numerical terms, from 270 to 165 per year, since agreeing some years ago on a tough set of measures 'aimed at zero', named the 2013 milestones.
Coutinho responded that 2009 and 2010 figures showed little change, while employment had reduced from 600 000 workers to 516 000 workers, the gold sector showing few signs of improving, and diamond sector incidents and losses rising.
"We need major interventions in corporate culture and behaviour, to stem repetitive incidents, for example, related to transport, handling, and electrocution," Coutinho told the interactive workshop.

Chamber wants robust systems

Systems must be designed to reduce the effect of likely human errors, commented Chamber of Mines sustainability official Sietse van der Woude, in line with an international mining and metals industry guideline. Thus plant, procedures and skills should each add to ensuring safety.
"Affordability of safety measures is taken into account when the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, MPRDA, considers licensing a mine", commented Gauteng inspector Max Madubane. "Leeways in legislation are unfortunately often abused by employers."

No 'zero' in law

Lawyer Willem le Roux reminded inspectors and business delegates that there would always be errors in planning, plant, processes, and operation.
"New entrants to a sector or job or site usually learn from their own errors, seldom from others. With many new entrants, we should expect to never see 'zero harm' or zero error, there would always be some incidents, loss, injury, and fatality statistics."
Regarding compliance and enforcement of the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1996, there is constant contention on the level of risk acceptable to government agencies, before they take measures against employers, like temporarily closing operations or criminal charges.
"Zero fatalities and zero harm are not achievable, considering the hazards associated with the work environment in mining, forestry, fishing and other industries.
"Unfortunately, a zero harm safety target is often confused with a relevant legal compliance standard," Le Roux said.

Judge by rule, not exception

Le Roux argued for charging wilfully negligent employees, since every member of a corporate body had legal responsibilities. Since compliance could never be absolute, the state had to prove negligent and unlawful behaviour to support charges like culpable homicide.
"Safety compliance requires a holistic approach. One device or safety measure lacking, or one employee acting negligently, does not make the entire workplace unsafe", Le Roux explained.
"Training and experience of operators should be considered against workplace and equipment conditions, since working conditions are never perfect, and workers should cope with reasonably safe conditions."

|BACK| COMMENT |