PrintModule 6 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 6.2 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 6.3 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 6.4.
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 6.4. 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.