World Tunnel Congress 2008 - Underground Facilities for Better Environment and Safety - India

Risk assessment for deep underground work spaces

Jukka Pukkila & Pekka Srkk
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

SYNOPSIS: The sites of this work were Pyhsalmi Mine of Inmet Mining Corporation, Tytyri Mine of Nordkalk Oyj Abp, Orivesi Mine of Polar Mining Corporation and Onkalo of Posiva Ltd., which is an underground rock characterisation facility for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The objectives of this work were to develop work safety of the workers and of the sites as well as to obtain knowledge of hazards of underground mining and excavation process. To reach these objectives The Risk Assessment at Workplace method was developed more suitable for assessing the risks of underground mining as well as for underground rock excavation work. The first phase of risk assessment, hazard identification was carried on in a way in which workers themselves identified them in their own work. At the second phase of the risk assessment, risks were formed and their magnitudes were defined for the most often identified hazards by two parameters - probability and consequences. Proposals for actions to either reduce the magnitudes or to eliminate the risk were developed by meetings with the representatives of the company management, industrial safety organization, occupational health care and workers themselves as well as the risk assessment team of HUT.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The risk assessment for underground mines and deep underground spaces is the third project of Finnish Work Environment Fund, implemented by Laboratory of Rock Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology. The project was done during the years 2006 to 2008. The mines involved were Pyhsalmi zinc, copper and sulphur mine, Orivesi gold mine and Tytyri limestone mine. The underground space ONKALO was selected due its special nature as an underground rock characterisation facility for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Clients and the main financers of the project were the selected places for implementation, the Finnish Environmental Fund, and Ministry of Social Affair and Health with a total amount of 80 000 . The primary objective of this project was to evaluate the hazards at each workplace recognized by the workers and to improve the safety and health by developing these areas of work with the resources available by the enterprise involved. The second purpose was to increase knowledge of general hazards existing in mine and rock excavation work. To reach this primary objective the work was divided to two phases. The first phase was the evaluation of the hazards existing in various work processes into four sections - physical

hazards, accident hazards, ergonomic as well as chemical and biological hazards. In addition the hazards resulting from mental stress were evaluated. In the second phase the risks were formed and their magnitudes were defined from the most recognized hazards by their probability and consequences. 2. THE METHOD OF RISK ASSESSMENT

The risk assessment was realized according to Figure 1. The most important aspect is that the management of the enterprise involved is fully committed in the process. This means that it is formally ready to release both resources to the evaluation and measures suggested to the further risk management activities. 3. PLANNING OF EVALUATION

Effective planning of risk evaluation demands for work group which organizes and plans the risk evaluation. This work group can be a work safety group or a joint production council or a separate group for risk evaluation in which there are represented persons according to the MEWprinciple (Management, Experts, Workers) (Figure 2). This does not mean that all persons in the group will participate the work with equal amount of

1761

Figure 1. Risk assessment procedure. 1. Risk assessment procedure.

2. According to MEW- principle, the following personnel participate and commit to the assessment: management (M), Figure 2. According to MEW- principle, the following personnel participate and commit to the assessment: management experts (E) and workers (W). (M), experts (E) and workers (W).

effort at the same time but that each party will be committed to the targets and will participate to the evaluation when ever the evaluation is focused to the party. The workers representative, who have enough experience of his job can join in the evaluation group concerning his own special work. Use of experts is essential in evaluation subjects where evaluation groups do not have enough knowledge. Efficient evaluation group consists typically of 3 5 persons. Evaluation group has to get acquainted into the general risk assessment rules and to the safety work done in the enterprise as well as to the material concerning it. The evaluation should be directed to different target in work places and work phases,

working points, departments, parts of processes or according areas limited to specified construction which does, however, not divide the evaluation into too detailed targets. In the beginning it is advised to choose a method which can be examined in general level and by which it is possible to examine methods in more detail at some specified targets. 4. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Hazard identification consists of identification and documentation of all hazards and safety conditions which affect the safety of workers in regular and irregular works and exceptional conditions. Hazard identification is recommended to be done

1762

consistently and initiating first to the previous documentations on hazardous situations. After this the working conditions and methods are examined by following and interviewing the workers. Forms where possible hazards are listed are given to the workers to make the identification process simpler. These lists name most of the hazards possibly existing in heir work. The completed lists are collected and stored by the risk assessment team. 5. DETERMINING THE MAGNITUDE OF RISKS

large number of hazards identified. Although the target is to eliminate or minimize all identified risks, it is necessary to give priority to preventation of the biggest risks. Limit for measures is commonly defined as: 1-2 does not require immediate measures but 3-5 requires (Table 3). 7. DECIDING ON THE MEASURES AND IMPLEMENTING THEM

When the hazard identification has been done, the magnitudes of the risks are determined. According to the magnitude of risk the priority of measures and needed resources can be defined. This way the most critical risks and those needing immediate action can be minimized or eliminated (Table 1 and 2). The magnitude of risks (R) is determined generally by the function of probability of appearing (p) and seriousness of consequences (C): R = (p, C) 6. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RISKS

There will be typically many hazards to be identified. Although the target is to eliminate or minimize all identified risks, the rejection of biggest risks must be prioritized. Limit for measures is normally determined like in Table 4: When risk magnitude is 1-2 it does not need any measures but when it is 2-5 measures are needed. 8. SELECTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE MEASURES

At the stage of hazard identification there will be

According to measures and their selection the risks should be anticipated, eliminated, minimized or substituted by less significant ones. When selecting the measures to risks above the limit for measures, it is necessary to take into consideration the increasing safety level and its scope. In carrying out

Table 1. Determining the seriousness ( C ) of consequences 1. Insignificant 2. Harmful 3. Serious Incident will cause sickness or harm which will go over and do not presume visit to the first aid, cause the maximum of 3 days absence. For example headache or bruise. Incident causes longer sickness or consequences or long slight harm. Cause visit to first aid. Cause 3-30 days absence. For example cut wound or slight burn. Incident causes permanent irreversible damage. Necessitates hospital treatment and causes over 30 days absence. For example serious illnesses caused from work, permanent disability or death. Table 2. Determining the probability ( p) of risks Improbable Possible Probable Happens seldom and irregularly. For example a fault in the working machine will cause dangerous situation. Incident which happens regularly but not repeatedly. For example, during maintenance, things must be removed from conveyor belt manually. Accident which happens often and regularly. For example constant truck traffic causes accident hazard. Table 3. Risk seriousness. Probability Improbable Possible Probable Slight 1 insignificant risk 2 slight risk 3 moderate risk Consequences Harmful 2 slight risk 3 moderate risk 4 significant risk Serious 3 moderate risk 4 significant risk 5 intolerable risk

1763

Table 4. Measures depending on the magnitude of risks. RISK I insignificant II slight III moderate Measures and schedule No need for measures or documentation Preventive measures not needed. Better cost effective solutions which does not result more costs should be considered. Feedback is needed which secures that the risk is in control. Minimization of the risk is needed but costs of preventive measures should be measured and limited. Measures have to be carried out during a determined time. If the risk has very harmful consequences, more evaluation may be necessary to verify the significance by which more efficient need for control can be determined. The work should not be started before the risk has been minimized. To minimize the risk it might be necessary to put in a large amount of resources. If the risk is connected to current work, the problem should be corrected in shorter time. The work should not be started or continued before the risk has been minimized. If the risk cannot be minimized even with unlimited resources, the work has to be permanently forbidden.

IV significant

V intolerable

measures it is important to note the ratio of importance and difficulty, needed time and amount of work, cost efficiency, possible opposition to change, possibilities given by technology as well as effects to the fluency of work, reliability, personnel and customer relations. According to the situations it is also necessary to decide on the need for internal and outside resources. It is necessary to compare separately the effects to law, interest groups or goals of the enterprise. Implementing the measures is internal risk management of the enterprise in which risk assessment is a tool. To be successful and productive in the implementation, it is necessary for each measure to make a schedule, reserve the resources and decide on the responsibilities of the implementers. The risk that remains has to be evaluated separately during planning, and after implementation. When the measures have been carried out, the evaluation process has some value. This is why it is necessary to document the implemented measures, so the advantages of the process can clearly be seen.. 9. FOLLOW UP AND FEEDBACK

to their own work and have positive influence towards their attitudes to work safety. 10. METHOD OF RESEARCH In previous research work of Helsinki University of Technology, the method used was the Risk Evaluation at Working Places /1/. The experience based on this research work was applied and the same method was chosen for this research project Risk assessment for underground mines and deep excavated spaces with some modifications. The new problem area appeared caused by underground miners and excavation workers versatile jobs. The previous research was done in open pits where the jobs were normally of single type, for example drilling or charging. In underground mines and underground excavation, workers can do these and in addition many other jobs. If the lists of hazards used in Risks Evaluation at Working Places had been used in the form they existed in the original form, the risk evaluation could not have been possible to analyse the risks involved in each particular job of underground work. For this reason the lists of hazards were modified to be more suitable to this purpose. First the jobs were divided to groups which best represent the workers main activity most of the time. There were 9 of these groups, as shown in Table 5. Each group had to answer to hazard lists which represented best their actual activity and the works they did most of their time.

The levels of risk at workplace, according to resources and working conditions depend on the need of renewing the risk evaluation. Regularly done evaluation fits better to other work places than to workplaces where changes happen irregularly. Most important in occupational safety and health in all work places is a sufficient contribution and continuance in risk management. The feedback to the workers has to be relevant. This way all the personnel will see the meaning of risk management

1764

Table 5. Division to 9 different types of jobs representing various works listed underneath

A Construction and maintenance construction works ventilation, water and filling line works maintenance / control maintenance of wastewater lines /pumping shaft works road dragging road constructing and maintenance digging B Drilling drift drilling long hole drilling cable bolt drilling other bolt hole drillings boring drift raising, full face raising C Blasting works drift blasting long hole blasting rock breaking by blasting breaking arching by blasting other blasting works D Mechanical supporting shotcreting cable bolting, mechanical short hole bolting scaling mechanical wire netting mechanical

E Maintenance works high power electric works low power electric works mechanical maintenance, moving mechanical maintenance static drill bit sharpening daily maintenance / control F Loading and rock breaking loading remote loading mechanical rock breaking spraying water on rock piles G Manual reinforcing works bolt hole drilling wire netting rock bolt fitting/ welding cable bolting, manual welding manual scaling H Transporting materials transporting explosives transporting personnel transporting other transport ore transport I Other works mine surveying geological mapping piece sampling supervising chemical handling maintenance of safety equipment works in crushing plant

11. RESULTS OF HAZARD EVALUATION An example of a hazard list filled by all the workers at each of the sites is shown in Table 6. These lists were 5 pieces, one for each type of hazard (Physical hazards, Accident hazards, Ergonomic hazards, Chemical and biological hazards and Hazards resulting from mental stress) (Figures 3 and 4).

12. RESULTS IN DETERMINING THE MAGNITUDE OF RISKS AND DECIDING ON THE MEASURES The determining of the magnitude of risks and deciding on the measures was done to a limited hazard, mainly to the mostly identified hazards. This was because the time was limited to one day to

1765

Table 6. Number of filled hazard lists collected in each research sites. Onkalo site 37 9 6 7 2 10 3 3 10 9 59 1,3 35,8 Orivesi mine 33 8 9 10 7 7 4 0 5 4 54 1,6 45,1 Pyhsalmi mine 57 7 11 4 8 20 14 1 3 5 73 1.3 45,7 Tytyri mine 24 6 5 9 1 7 6 2 5 3 44 1,8 40,4 Total 151 30 31 30 18 44 27 6 23 21 230 1,5 average 42,3

Filled total A-Construction & maintenance B-Drilling C-Blasting works D-Mechanical supporting E-Maintenance works F-Loading and rock breaking G-Manual reinforcing work H-Transporting I-Other works Total (A-I) Filled/ worker Average age of workers

Figure 3 . Percentual distribution of hazards identified by different sites.

each site. Also many of the identified hazards in different working groups were same. In practise the number of hazards was limited to 30. This was done so that from the summaries of working groups identification percentage was taken and the ones that were over were treated. These hazards should have been approximately 15 pcs. Identification percentages were for Onkalo 30 % and 50 % for all mine sites. In addition five of the most identified or all over 30 % identified hazards resulting from

mental stress were determined. The determined hazards have been shown in Tables 7-9. The measures resulted from the risks were listed and recorded. The schedule of actions depended on the magnitude of the risk at each site. According to the documents, the management and the persons involved in this work, had the responsibility to implement changes in activities, equipment and possible processes to improve the safety by eliminating or minimizing the risks (Table 10).

1766

Work group: __________ Actual activity: __________________ Name: _____________________________ PHYSICAL HAZARDS

Special notes:

Figure 4. Example of hazard identification list, physical hazards.

13. CONCLUSIONS This research work showed that the risks in underground mines were much similar to an underground excavation construction site. Also

most of the equipment and machinery as well as the working conditions were similar. These facts made it possible to use the same method in the risk assessment.

1767

Table 7. Identified number of hazards of each hazard type. Onkalo Orivesi mine Pyhsalmi mine Tytyri mine Sum of all sites according to hazard types 779 2008 1252 894

Physical hazards Accident hazards Ergonomic hazards Chemical and biological hazards Total identified Sum of identifications per person

121 333 194 150

184 569 369 376

332 713 463 303

142 393 226 165

798 21,6

1398 42,4

1811 31,8

826 38,6

4933 32,7

Table 8. Identified number of hazards to mental stress. Onkalo Orivesi mine Pyhsalmi mine Tytyri mine Sum of all sites 536 3,5

Mental stress Identifications/person

126 3.4

145 4.4

183 3,2

82 3,4

Table 9. The of hazards determined as risks at each inspected site. Determined Onkalo Orivesi Pyhsalmi Tytyri Total hazards mine mine mine per number From summary 15 15 17 1 12 59 of working groups From work 4 10 12 132 39 groups From 5 6 5 5 21 mental stress Total 24 31 34 30 119 1. Driving speed was added to working groups at Pyhsalmi mine. 2. Working group A-Construction and maintenance 4 different ergonomic hazards were added to Tytyri mine Table 10. Greatest risks and their magnitude at each inspected site (risks 2- 4 included) Type of risk and its magnitude Constant noise Transport Onkalo site Orivesi mine Pyhsalmi mine Tytyri mine

4 4

2 3

3 4

1768

The results of hazard identification were similar. The only differences were in the magnitudes of risks between different sites. The magnitude rating 5 (intolerable risk) did not appear in any of the inspected sites. This meant that there was no need to stop any activity permanently. When comparing the sum of risks over the value of 2 (slight risk), only Pyhsalmi mine had a major difference to other sites. This could occur of Pyhsalmi being the deepest participating mine, thus the risks were found more serious.
REFERENCE 1. Murtonen, M. 2003, Riskien arviointi typaikalla Tykirja, Sosiaali- ja terveysministeri, Tampere

he worked for several companies including Outokumpu, Sandvik Tamrock, Metso Minerals and Larox in application and sales positions both in Finland and abroad in Africa, Saudi-Arabia and Southern America. Since 1987 he has been research manager at HUT leading among others research programs Intelligent Mine and Intelligent Mine Implication.

Pekka Srkk graduated in Applied Geophysics from HUT in 1970. He obtained a Ph.D in Rock Engineering at HUT in 1978. From 1970 to 1972 he worked in the Outokumpu Mine as research engineer, then came back to HUT to make his postgraduate studies. From 1980 to 1984 he was senior reseach fellow at the Academy of Finland and came then back to HUT as associate professor. In 1988 he joined Neste Oil and Gas. From 1993 to 1997 he was managing director of Concave Oy, and in 1997 he was invited to the Chair of Rock Engineering at HUT.

BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS OF THE AUTHORS Jukka Pukkila graduated in Mining Engineering from the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) in 1970. He obtained a Ph.D in Rock Engineering at HUT in 1999. Between the years 1970 and 1986

1769