Page 59 - Advances In Productive, Safe, and Responsible Coal Mining

Zero Harm coal mining 45

own approach to complying with these governmental requirements whereas in other
countries, compliance is highly prescribed and rigid. There are a wide variety of reg-
ulatory and legislative systems found throughout the industry; however, they can be
divided into three primary categories: (1) hazard-specific prescriptive systems, (2)
performance-based risk management schemes, and (3) some combination of the two.
The majority of regulatory schemes in developed mining countries began as
hazard-specific systems in which the regulator defines specific hazards that if present
in a coal mine required specific controls to be implemented. These controls were often
in the form of programs with training, documentation, and specific parameters in rela-
tion to mine design, ventilation, ground control, fixed and mobile equipment opera-
tion, and emergency procedures. The advantage to such schemes is that they ensure a
minimal level of risk control for key hazards and make it easier for the government to
define compliance and noncompliance. The disadvantage of this type of scheme is that
it does not mandate for more systematic assessment and risk-appropriate controls to be
applied, as is characteristic of the performance-based risk-centered schemes. The
advantages of the risk-centered approach are that it requires each mine to understand
and control all relevant risk (not just those that are listed in the regulation under the
hazard-specific approach), it allows for the introduction of new technology, mining
methods, and new risks, without changing the regulations. The disadvantage of the
risk-centered approach is that each mine and company will have its own system of
risk management, which makes enforcement more complex—one size does not fit
all. The US has used a hazard-specific prescriptive scheme for safety regulations since
the 1970s whereas the commonwealth countries evolved to a performance-based risk-
centered approach.
To appreciate the difference, one need only examine the present differences that
exist in the US and Australia. While both countries had relatively similar beginnings
with respect to the development of mine safety legislation and regulation, they have
since taken different paths relative to the improvement of their respective mine safety
schemes. On August 14, 1994 the Moura coal mine in Queensland, Australia exploded
in a disaster that resulted in the death of nine miners. Australian government officials,
in conjunction with academics, unions, and enlightened industry representatives,
came to the conclusion that any incremental response to the specific circumstances
that caused the Moura disaster would be inadequate to prevent future occurrences
in Australia. Not less than a radical overhaul of the country’s existing regulations
was warranted. Not an update or modification, but a reassessment of first principles
and restructuring of the entire system based on what was then beginning to be seen as
the most progressive approach to mine safety: systematic risk management [26].
The resulting framework that eventually formed the structural elements of
Australia’s current mine safety scheme goes beyond just the manner in which risk
is addressed and includes three interrelated provisions: risk management, duty of care,
and legal accountability through industrial manslaughter legislation; i.e., civil and
criminal liability for company officers from frontline managers to boards of director.
These three elements have motivated a broader understanding of risk and reduced the
willingness of coal companies to accept residual operational risk that will not protect
miners and minimize liability for managers and officers of the company [27].