Gap851 Final Report Main Body
F – Report: Prof. P. K. Kaiser
Yüklə 2,78 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 2. Introduction – Assessment criteria
- 2.5 Health and safety performance and expectations 2.5.1 Australia – Report by T. Brown
- 3. Background information – Canadian experiences 3.1 Canadian mining rock-related research and education
- 3.1.1 Canadian Research Funding
F – Report: Prof. P. K. KaiserAssessment of Rock-Related Research by SIMRAC from a Canadian Perspective Report by P. K. Kaiser July 2005 Table of Contents
1. Preamble “Since the establishment of SIMRAC in 1991 … the improvements in injury and fatality rates … has been disappointingly small. … Hence, this study was commissioned to assess holistically the scope, quality and impact of the SIMRAC research programme.” As part of benchmarking SIMRAC rock-related research against international practice, this sub-report provides an assessment that is largely based on personal experiences with rock-related research in Canada. However, the author also brings international experiences from Europe, Asia, and the U.S. and these international experiences are reflected in this report. Since, to the author’s knowledge, no comparable review study was conducted in Canada, no effort is made to provide a comprehensive, in-depth comparison between research in Canada and South Africa. Specific reference to Canadian studies or approaches is primarily used to either support good research practices in South Africa or to point out potential areas for improvement. Unfortunately, when assessing the value of research, it is seldom possible to arrive at a definite conclusion and it is necessary to address questions that go beyond those of a rock-related research. For this reasons, several questions are raised that the designers and managers of current and future, research programs should address. 2. Introduction – Assessment criteria The SIMRAC Mission Statement defines its purpose as:
The rock-related research program carried out by or through SIMRAC since 1991 is to be assessed. Considering the mission statement, this assessment will be made by considering the primary mandate with focus on health and safety, not sustainability or productivity. As discussed throughout this report, there is no doubt that the SIMRAC program has fulfilled this purpose and the main goal of the review is intended to provide feedback as a means to develop an even more effective R&D program By the above quoted lead-in statement sighting little improvement in injury and fatality rates, it is implied that the rock-related research was either focussed on the wrong topics, was not of sufficient quality, or was not useful for other reasons. However, research is only valuable if the findings are used to affect change. Thus, if the research addressed the right topics and was of good quality, either the findings were not used to develop implementable solutions or the solutions where not implemented. Consequently, a proper assessment of SIMRAC’s research program must address issues of research adoption, an aspect that may not be under SIMRAC’s control. Clearly, it was expected that the SIMRAC research program would have a positive effect on safety risk. Hence, if the above quoted “improvements in injury and fatality rates … has been disappointingly small”, it is justified to ask “what went wrong?” without implying that the research program was actually wrong or at fault for the “disappointingly small” impact. 2.1 Value proposition In 1991, Mine Health and Safety risks were obviously considered to be too high and it was concluded that improvements could be made by H&S and rock-related research producing implementable solutions. Even if accident and fatality rates have decreased, rockburst- and rock fall-related fatality rates on the order of 1 worker per 3500 to 4500 workers or 1 per 1.5Mt treated, are still very high when measured against international performance levels and expectations. Hence, even if improvements have been made, the job is far from completion and the mandate of SIMRAC is still valid. It is therefore evident that efforts to reduce H&S risks must continue and, ideally, should be intensified. While some may question the need for research to reduce H&S risks, it is this reviewer’s conviction that no progress is possible without expanding knowledge through research. Consequently, if progress was inadequate or the goals have not been achieved, research efforts need to be improved, focussed and intensified. This reviewer therefore assesses the rock-related research program with the goal of answering questions like:
2.2 Research effort Since 1991, SIMRAC has spent more than R250 million on rock-related research. According to SIMRAC this represents about 500 person-years of research effort over some 13 years, or about 40 person-years per year. In Canada, rock-related research with a safety focus, peaked a few years ago, i.e., between 1987 and 1997 when three rock engineering research chairs in Ontario alone conducted several large scale projects related to rock support, ground control, rockburst management, etc. Due to the mining industry’s current safety record, research in Canada is now more directed towards productivity enhancement and new mining methods or technologies. As in Australia, many research activities in Canada are provincially rather than nationally planned and funded, with the consequence that there is limited cooperation and only individual-based, often less than desirable, collaboration. Research at the national level is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (a research infrastructure renewal program), and recently by a National Canada Research Chair (CRC) program. Little of this funding is currently allocated to rock-related H&S issues. Canada does not have a provincially or federally funded Centre of Excellence in Mining Research and CANMET’s role in mining research has diminished in recent years as a result of cost-cutting measures by the Federal Government. In Canada, rock-related H&S research is frequently undertaken by university-based research teams and depends largely on the related or supporting mining sector (oil sands in Alberta, underground mining in Ontario and Quebec, etc.). While it is difficult to assess the collective research effort accurately, the following is intended to give a qualitative base for comparison:
In other words, it is estimated that the collective research effort on rock-related research with benefit to H&S in mines at best reaches 10 to 15 person-yrs/yr in Canada. Hence, the research effort of the SIMRAC program is roughly 3 to 4 times larger and presumably more focussed as it is centrally coordinated. The rock-related H&S research program of SIMRAC is therefore, maybe with the exception of Australia (numbers unknown to the author but apparently larger based on report by T. Brown), the largest in the world and the overall research effort expended by SIMRAC on this research is significant. Accordingly, the outcomes of the SIMRAC program should be expected to be superior to others. This is considered when assessing the program here and, in this reviewer’s opinion, the output of the SIMRAC program is actually superior. 2.3 Value assessment When research mandates are set and research programs developed, the mandates and objectives are often defined in general terms, like “… lead to improvements in occupational health and safety conditions and performance”, but when the quality and value of a research program is assessed, very specific expectations surface and the temptation is high to use simple measures, such as “percent improvement in rate of injuries or fatalities”. If the later was the primary goal of the program, this should have been specified at the outset. Because research is an ongoing process of discovery and the adoption of research findings is typically slow and time-consuming as well as costly, it is important to assess research programs from an overall impact perspective as indicated above:
Unfortunately, the value of research is often hard to detect and measure. Unless a research program is designed to produce measurable products (a cure for a disease), new technologies and tools (wireless communication; software), or possibly new standards and regulations, its value is difficult to detect. This is particularly true when research focuses on new knowledge to overcome a problem as illustrated by the following figure: 
The research value chain starts with the definition of a problem; high injury and fatality rates in this case. At this stage, industry normally agrees that research is needed to find a solution but, unfortunately, the types of acceptable solutions are rarely defined, and thus industry cannot commit to implement emerging solutions. Furthermore, even though industry agrees to an identified need for research, this does not mean that it is a priority for industry when it comes to allocate the necessary resources and to spending the funds to implement solutions. As a consequence, research proceeds before the cost or safety benefit of a potential solution has been fully established and before a commitment for implementation exists. For this reason, the value of research is often not visible when a solution has been found. It only becomes visible when the knowledge is transferred and, most importantly, accepted by the user. The value of research therefore only becomes visible when implementation of solutions becomes a priority for the adopting industry (service providers (consultants or contractors), equipment suppliers, mining companies, etc.). If the value of research is not visible, it is seldom because no solutions have been found but rather because the research effort is not matched by an appropriate implementation effort. Furthermore, most research in mining is incremental in nature and thus progress is also incremental, often considered to be of little value. Step-function research is rare, often very demanding (cannot be handled by researchers alone), poorly planned (great idea with no plan of action), and inadequately funded. This type of research is also often prematurely terminated (lack of funding) and thus again considered to be of little value. In all cases, the value is hidden when research has produced a solution and the value is not seen until “the solution” has been transferred to the user and the user is willing to adopt the solution. In this latter process, it is often naively assumed that the researchers could do a better job in transferring the results into practice. In reality, this component is entirely dependent on the will and capability of the receptor. Dissemination alone does not lead to adoption. As indicated in the above figure, if it takes one dollar (or Rand) to do the research, it takes multiples of dollars to undertake the development (D) and commercialization (C) or the technology transfer (TT). If it takes one year to do the research, it takes many years to a decade to implement the findings. Most importantly, those doing the research are seldom best qualified to do D&C and TT does not work unless the receptor, the industry, is committed to make it work. Only when D, C and TT are well executed (funded) will the research value become visible, and rates of injury and fatality drop. Research to improve the understanding of significant occupational health and safety risks and to develop implementable solutions that will lead to improvements in occupational health and safety conditions and performance in the South African mining industry must be assessed with these complications in mind and questions that are not necessarily related to research must be addressed:
2.4 Stakeholder surveys A survey of stakeholders was conducted to supplement previous surveys and to determine what the perceived success of rock-related research to improve mine safety. While these surveys reveal interesting perspectives, they unfortunately also often do provide a biased and not necessarily well-informed opinion. Nevertheless, they do provide insight into what the stakeholders perceive to be the successes and, mostly, the problems of the program. Several interviewees however bring a long-term perspective and provide very credible assessments base on well-founded personal visions. Some of the issues that influenced this reviewer’s opinion are listed in Section with comparative and interpretive comments. It certainly appears that these interviewees present a well informed perspective with valuable advice that should be seriously considered when revamping the SIMRAC program.
In 2002-03, there were 12 fatalities in the Australian minerals industry; 11 in the metalliferous sector (five open pit and six underground), one in the extractive sector, and none in the coal sector (Minerals Council of Australia 2003). In 2001-02, there were seven fatalities, two of which were in the underground metalliferous sector with there being one each in the underground coal, open pit coal, open pit metalliferous, extractive and smelting/refining sectors (Minerals Council of Australia 2002). The nature and frequency of rock falls and the frequency of injuries and fatalities from this source are obviously different from those of the South African industry. Much has been done in recent years to reduce these rates (see report by T. Brown). The Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (the number of lost time injuries per million hours worked) in the Australian minerals industry has declined annually over the last decade. In 1993-94, the industry’s overall LTIFR was 27, but it had reduced to 7 in 2002-03 (Minerals Council of Australia 2003).
Since data for Canada overall are not readily available, the safety performance record of Ontario is briefly reviewed here. In 2001, 2002 and 2003, there were 2, 5, and 3 fatalities respectively in the Ontario mining industry, and 1, 0, and 2 fatalities respectively in the quarries/sand/gravel pits over these years (Mines and Aggregates Safety and Health Association, 2005). Of the Ontario mining industry fatalities between 1999 and 2003, 18% resulted from a fall, 18% involved the use of mobile equipment/track haulage, 18% were ‘struck by’ fatalities, 12% were due to fall of ground, 6% from material handling, 6% from burns, and 6% from being caught in machinery (Mines and Aggregates Safety and Health Association, 2005). In other words, rock-related fatalities in Ontario are on the order of 0.5 fatalities per year. In Ontario, the frequency of mining injuries has been trending down since 1990 for both lost-time injuries (resulting in days away from work) and total medical injuries (including medical aid only injuries, lost time injuries and fatalities). The improvement is most striking if one looks at the record over the last two decades. The mining sector’s safety performance has improved by 90% over the last 20 years when looking at lost-time accident frequency rates (Ontario Mining Association, 2005). The lost-time injury frequency in the Ontario mining industry has dropped from 15.5 injuries per million hours worked in 1990 to 6 in 2003. Total medical injury frequency has decreased from 88.5 injuries per million hours worked in 1990 to 43 in 2003. The lost-time injury frequency rate in the Ontario minerals industry, represented by underground mines, mine contractors and diamond drill firms across Ontario, has seen a decline from 9.5 to 6.5 between 1994 and 1996, but held relatively steady at just over 6.5 on average from 1996-2003 (Mines and Aggregates Safety and Health Association, 2005). In 2004, the rate dropped to 5.5 and reached the same level as typically encountered for government workers. In other words, mines have created a very safe working environment for their employees. The significant efforts undertaken to improve workplace safety are reflected in the high level of health and safety spending. In 2003, almost $28 million was spent by mining companies in Ontario on health and safety, according to the Datametrics Consulting Inc./University of Toronto survey. Respondents to the survey spent, on average, $1,870 per employee on health and safety (Ontario Mining Association, 2005). While mining conditions as well as economic and social settings differ in S.A., it should be the goals of S.A.’s Mine Health & Safety Council to undertake the necessary steps and to make the necessary investment to approach similar safety records. 3. Background information – Canadian experiences 3.1 Canadian mining rock-related research and education As indicated above, the Canadian rock-related research had reached its peak a decade ago. Currently, most mining rock mechanics or rock-related research is carried out by the national research organisation, CANMET, and by university-based research groups or centres, industry co-sponsored research organisations, and consulting companies. In the past, mining companies had dedicated research teams but since the closure of NTC (Noranda’s Mining Technology Centre) and INCO’s Mining Research Centre, rock-related research has lost its momentum. Little mining rock mechanics research is now carried out by Federal and Provincial government agencies or by the mining companies themselves. Much effort is currently directed to research improving efficiency and sustainability. However, several programs, like the Deep Mining Research Consortium (DMRC, CAMIRO), have a safety component in that hazard assessment, support enhancement, gelfill design, etc., contributes to more productive and safer mining methods. Rock-related research and teaching in Canadian, as in Australian, universities usually form part of broader programs in civil engineering geomechanics or mining engineering and is particularly intensive in the postgraduate programs at the Master’s or PhD degree level. In the author’s opinion, this constitutes a most significant difference between the Canadian (and Australian) and the S.A. system. By undertaking research in a postgraduate program setting, with active participation of graduate students, a high level of technology transfer is immediately ensured (even though research may progress at a slow pace as it takes almost a decade for new knowledge to find its way into the decision-making process through university-based training). Nevertheless, the fact that relatively little research is undertaken at S.A. universities does essentially eliminate this mode of technology transfer. It should also be noted that many university-based researchers maintain connections with former students and thus establish a base for future research and knowledge transfer.
As indicated above, NSERC is the major Canadian science and engineering research funding agency and the major source for research funding available to university-based researchers. NSERC primarily focuses on top quality fundamental and applied research with a subordinate but very important aim of producing high quality personnel and researchers through “training on the (research) job”. NSERC funding programs are competitive in nature across disciplines and mining researchers have great difficulties in competing for funding against more “sexy” sectors such as biotechnology, high tech, etc. Nevertheless, the immediate linkage of postgraduate education and research is seen as a successful means of getting new knowledge produced and then used by industry. Despite the importance of the mining industry to Canada’s GDP and its export trade, mining rock-related research and its commercialization is weakly supported in Canada.
Yüklə 2,78 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|