CASE STUDY: COAL MINING

CASE STUDY: COAL MINING VERSION 2

1

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

VERSION 2 CASE STUDY: COAL MINING

2

© NOSA (PTY) LTD


3

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

© All rights reserved

NOSA (PTY) LTD

Copyright in the literary, artistic and other works capable of copyright protection contained within these

materials vests in NOSA (PTY) LTD. These materials or any part thereof may not be reproduced, adapted,

published, performed in public, broadcast or transmitted in any form without the express permission of

NOSA (PTY) LTD. Should you carry out any of these actions in relation to any of the works contained within

these training materials without permission, you may be liable for civil law copyright infringement as well as

criminal prosecution.

Visit: www.nosaworld.com

Second Edition

2012

http://www.nosa.co.za/


4

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 5

2. NOSA AUDITING ........................................................................... 6

2.1 NOSA Audit Process .............................................................. 6

2.1.1 Baseline Audit ................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Star Grading Audit ............................................................ 7

2.1.3 Element Index ................................................................... 8

3. NOSA SUPPORT PRODUCTS ........................................................ 12

3.1 NOSA System Kit ................................................................. 12

3.2 MIRACLES ............................................................................ 14

3.3 NOSA Media Sales .............................................................. 15

3.4 NOSA Managed Services .................................................... 16

3.5 NOSA Training ..................................................................... 17

4. A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NOSA CMB150 AND OHSAS

18001 .................................................................................................. 19

5. NOSA – A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE .................................................. 24

5.1 Abstract .............................................................................. 24

5.2 Objective ............................................................................. 24

5.3 NOSA implementation ........................................................ 25

5.4 Audit outcomes .................................................................. 27

5.4.1 Site Report ...................................................................... 27

5.4.2 Audit score sheet ............................................................ 31

5.4.3 Executive Report ............................................................. 34

5.4.4 Star rating ....................................................................... 40

5.4.5 Analyses of the results and conclusion........................... 41


5

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

1. INTRODUCTION

NOSA was established in 1951 and is a leading supplier of

occupational risk management products and services that enhance a

client’s business performance, while creating a safe environment for

employees and the community. From its humble beginnings sixty

years ago, NOSA has expanded into a global business, providing

services to thousands of clients across all major industry sectors.

NOSA’s products and services are recognised as an international

benchmark in the management of Occupational Health, Safety and

Environmental “HSE” risks by multi-national organisations operating

in Africa, South America, the Far East and Australia.

Certification, consultation and training services are tailor-made

according to clients’ specific needs and risk profiles and include areas

such as occupational health, safety, hygiene, environment, quality,

behaviour, HIV/AIDS, corporate governance and corporate social

responsibility.

This study will first give an overview of the NOSA products and

services and thereafter goes into some detail on the practical

benefits of implementing the NOSA system. A large multi-national

client of NOSA’s is used as a case study.


6

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

2. NOSA AUDITING

NOSA’s products and services have been pivotal at improving the risk

management performance of companies across the globe and have

proven to be the most effective systems at reducing workplace

incidents. The 60 years of success is due to the company’s highly

flexible approach, providing services and support products that are

tailor-made according to the clients’ specific needs and risk profile.

NOSA offers a holistic range of certification services, from basic legal

compliance audits to integrated safety, health and environmental

management system audits.

2.1 NOSA Audit Process

2.1.1 Baseline Audit

This is the first audit conducted by NOSA and is used as a basis to

identify deviations between the client’s management system and

that of NOSA’s. The baseline audit serves as a consultation exercise

and whilst the client will receive a detailed site report no star grading

will be allocated. The audit focuses largely on HSE risks, with little

emphasis placed on the efforts scores, which is covered in the Star

Grading Audit.


7

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

2.1.2 Star Grading Audit

This is an audit conducted to determine the status of a client's risk

management system and compliance with the applicable NOSA

protocol. This audit is conducted annually or more frequently if

requested by the client. The result of the audit is displayed as a NOSA

Star Grading. The NOSA audit team provides an independent audit

outcome to clients in the quest to uphold the best principles of risk

management in everyday business operations. The NOSA audit

process should be viewed from a risk driven perspective.

Measurement and evaluation of standards should be measured in

accordance with process/site specific risks rather than fixed and/or

invariable criteria. The audit should identify a company’s strengths,

weaknesses and opportunities for improvement in the day-to-day

management of their safety health and environmental risks.

The NOSA Integrated Five Star System caters for underground coal

mining and opencast coal mining as follows:

Integrated HSE system for underground coal mining (CMB

259)

Integrated HSE system for opencast mining (CMB262)

5 Star Health and Safety system for underground mining

(CMB343)

5 Star Health and Safety system for opencast mining

(CMB342)


8

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

The NOSA Five Star System (CMB342 and CMB343: Health and

Safety) contains 5 sections and 68 elements and the NOSA Integrated

5 Star system (CMB259 and CMB262: Safety, Health and

Environment) contains 5 sections and 72 elements which are detailed

below:

2.1.3 Element Index

ELEMENT SECTION / ELEMENT

1.00 PREMISES AND HOUSEKEEPING

1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26

Buildings and floors Lighting: Natural and artificial Ventilation: Natural and artificial Sanitation, plant hygiene amenities for personal hygiene Pollution risk control Aisles, storage and keep accessible areas demarcated/signposted Good stacking and storage practices Factory and yard: Tidy Waste management Colour coding: Plant equipment and pipelines Resource conservation (applies to CMB259 and CMB262)

2.00 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PERSONAL SAFEGUARDING

2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.30

Plant and equipment maintenance Machine guarding Lock-out system Labelling of electrical switchgear and critical valves Ladders, elevated platforms, stairs and scaffolding Lifting machines and lifting tackle Boilers, pressure vessels and compressed gas cylinders Hazardous chemical substances (HCS) control Motorised equipment: Checklist, licensing Portable electrical equipment Earth leakage (E/L) relays: Use and check General electrical installations and electrical machinery in hazardous locations Hand tools: E.g. hammers, chisels and trolleys


9

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

2.31 2.40 2.41 2.50

Ergonomics Personal protective equipment (PPE) Hearing conservation Notices and signs: Electrical, mechanical, protective equipment, traffic signs, symbolic safety signs

3.00 MANAGEMENT OF FIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY RISKS

3.01 Management of fire risks 3.02 Fire emergency equipment accessible and visible 3.04 Maintenance of fire protection equipment 3.05 Storage of flammables/chemicals and explosive material 3.06 Emergency alarm system 3.07 Fire fighting drill and instruction 3.08 Security system 3.09 Emergency planning

Management of fire risks Fire emergency equipment accessible and visible Maintenance of fire protection equipment Storage of flammables/chemicals and explosive material Emergency alarm system Fire fighting drill and instruction Security system Emergency planning

4.00 INCIDENT RECORDING AND INVESTIGATION

4.11 SHE incident records 4.12 Internal incident investigation 4.13 Statistics 4.22 SHE risk financing 4.23

SHE incident records Internal incident investigation Statistics SHE risk financing Incident recall

5.00 ORGANISATIONAL MANAGEMENT

5.01 SHE policy 5.02 SHE risk and impact assessment 5.03 Legal requirements and/or standards 5.04 Corporate standards 5.05 SHE objectives and targets 5.06 SHE plan 5.07 System review 5.10 Responsibility of Chief Executive Officer 5.11 Appointments 5.12 SH&E representatives 5.13 Committees 5.14 Communication 5.15 First-aider and occupational health service facilities 5.16 First-aid training 5.21 Awareness and promotion

SHE policy SHE risk and impact assessment Legal requirements and/or standards Corporate standards SHE objectives and targets SHE plan (applies to CMB259 and CMB262) System review (applies to CMB259 and CMB262) Responsibility of Chief Executive Officer Appointments SH&E representatives Committees Communication First-aider and occupational health service facilities First-aid training Awareness and promotion


10

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

5.22 SHE experience and star grading board 5.23 Suggestion scheme 5.24 Reference resources 5.25 Annual report 5.30 Training 5.32 5.33 Selection and placement 5.39 Environmental monitoring 5.40 Inspections and action 5.41 Bi-annual self-audits 5.42 Design specifications: Manufacturing, purchasing and engineering control – new plant and modifications 5.43 Contractor and contracts control 5.50 Written safe work procedures: Issued and used 5.51 Planned job observations 5.52 Work permits 5.60 Off-the-job SHE

SHE experience and star grading board Suggestion scheme Reference resources Annual report Training Medical services Selection and placement Environmental monitoring (applies to CMB259 and CMB262) Inspections and action Bi-annual self-audits Design specifications: Manufacturing, purchasing and engineering control – new plant and modifications Contractor and contracts control Written safe work procedures: Issued and used Planned job observations Work permits Off-the-job SHE

During the audit a detailed audit scoresheet will be completed,

whereby each NOSA element is scored. A spreadsheet draws from

the score information together with the weighting allocated to each

element to calculate a total effort score for the company (an example

of a score sheet is reflected in the case study below).

The effort score along with the Disabling Incident Frequency Rate

“DIFR” will determine a company’s star rating as per the matrix

below.


11

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Example:

(1 x fractured arm + 1 x gas inhalation + 1 diagnosed case of asbestosis) x 200 000

Jan 100 000 + Feb 150 000 + Mar 150 000

= 3 x 200 000

400 000

= 600 000 400 000

DIFR = 1.5

Incidents = injuries + illnesses + diseases = total number of disabling incidents


12

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

NOSCAR status is the ultimate achievement in HSE management and

can be achieved in two ways: (1) if a company has a DIFR less than

0.80 and an effort score greater than 95% and they are the winners in

their respective sector industry category in the international

competition; and (2) if a company has a DIFR less than 0.80 and an

effort score greater than 95% for a period of three years but is not

the sector industry winner. NOSCAR companies represent

approximately 6% of companies that have implemented the NOSA

programmes, an indication of how difficult it is to achieve. First time

NOSCARS are awarded at the International Awards Banquet which is

hosted annually at NOSHCON, and recurring NOSCAR companies are

recognised on an annual basis, at the NOSCAR Awards Banquet.

3. NOSA SUPPORT PRODUCTS

In order to assist in the implementation and maintenance of the

NOSA system, NOSA has developed a number of support products,

including:

3.1 NOSA System Kit

The System Kit is a set of tools which assists with the implementation

and improvement of the Integrated Safety, Health and Environmental

Risk Management Programme. These tools are flexible, easy to use

and time efficient. The kit comprises of:


13

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

NOSA Integrated Five Star System Guide

Provides clarity on the interpretations of the Integrated Five Star System through:

The definition of key words contained in the intent statement

Orientation words to assist customisation

Links to other relevant clauses, which ensures total risk management

Links to relevant legislation

Implementation Standards Framework

Generic documentation

Conformance guidelines

Flexibility for customisation

Linked for system integration

Simplified document control

Registers

Provides a framework for legal compliance

Records equipment maintenance management

Efficient document layout provides ease of use and allows for customisation

Paperwork reduced by 90%

Register Control Documents

All inspections recorded in one document

Provides a record of inspections performed

Identifies areas for attention or improvement

Consists of weekly, monthly and annual inspection checklists and 28 equipment register monitoring documents

Appointment Documents

Comprises of statutory appointment letters

HSE Planner

Breaks down the HSE policy into measurable objectives

Provides an overview of the status of the HSE management system

Enables the organisation to monitor progress

Indicates ownership of activity


14

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Increases awareness of HSE in the organisation

Incident Investigation Documents

All incidents are recorded, documented and defined in a formal system

Causes of incidents are determined in a structured manner

Legal implications of incidents are defined and addressed

Consists of HSE incident investigation dockets, a minor incident investigation register and an HSE incident register.

3.2 MIRACLES

MIRACLES offers Safety, Health, Environment, Quality, Liability and

Security Information Technology systems and support. The product is

an easy to use system for integrated risk management assessments

and effective control. The system proactively alerts key users on

essential risk management activities and caters for any audit protocol

or company standard. The system is compatible with the ISO

standards and NOSA system specifications.

The modules, which are indicated in the screen shot below include,

an incident register, personal compliance planner, integrated audit

wizard, task scheduler, equipment inspection register and a detailed

reporting tool. Additional information on the product is available on

the NOSA website (www.nosaworld.com).

http://www.nosaworld.com/


15

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

3.3 Additional Products

NOSA has a range of off the shelf products that assists in increasing

awareness around occupational risks management in the workplace.

These products listed below are customised for specific industries

and to client requirements:

DVDs

Posters

Registers, Books, Manuals and Planners

Legislation

Flags and Grading Board Items

NOSA Toolbox

NOSA Promotional Items

Mine Management Training and Mentorship Programme


16

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Working at Heights Training and Installations, including the

development of Fall Protection Plans

Reptile Risk Training

Malaria and other Chronic Disease Management

3.4 NOSA Managed Services

NOSA Managed Services offers a complete range of consulting

services adding value in the implementation and management of an

HSE system, whether it is ISO9001, ISO14001, OHSAS18001 or any of

the NOSA protocols. The appointed consultant will evaluate the

business process and will implement and customise an appropriate

solution to best suit the company’s needs and requirements.

Products and Services

Diagnostic Review / Situational Assessment

Review of SHE competencies / training needs

Risk Assessments

Management System Development, implementation and ongoing support

Management System Optimisation

Management System Integration

Capacity Building

Performance Reporting

Monitoring of environmental stressors

Legal Services

On Site SHEQ Management


17

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

3.5 NOSA Training

The following courses are presented by experienced, qualified and

accredited full-time training facilitators. The training is either

provided as public training through one of NOSA’s 40 training

academies or provided directly to the client on an in-house basis.

A detailed overview of each course and the course outcomes is

available on the NOSA website (www.nosaworld.com).

General Introductory Courses

Applying SHE Principles and Procedures

Environmental Awareness

HSE Induction

Introduction to Occupational SHE

Basic SHE Inspections

Office Health and Safety

HSE Representative / Supervisory Courses

SHE Representative Functions

Preliminary Incident Investigation

Safety for Supervisors Training Course

SHE Representative Course

Introduction to Occupational Health and Safety Act

COID Act Training Course

Specialised and Advanced HSE Courses

Fire-Fighting

First-Aid Level 1

First-Aid Level 2

First-Aid Level 3



18

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Working at Heights - Module 1A: Safety at Height

Working at Heights - Module 1C: Safety at Height - Electrician

Working at Heights - Module 1E: Safety at Height - Marine Offshore

Working at Heights -Module 2: Rescue training Course

Working at Heights - Module 1AS: Safety at Height

Working at Heights - Module 2AS: Rescue training Course

Working at Heights –Fall Protection Plan Development

Lifting Tackle Inspector Workshop

Management and Technical Lifting Tackle Workshop

Basic Slinging and Inspection Course

Procedures and Observations

Incident Investigation Level 3

Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

Advanced Occupational Health and Safety Act

From A-Z: OHS Act 85 of 1993

NOSA Auditor’s Course

NOSA Integrated Five Star System Navigator

NOSA HSE System Documentation Tools

Introduction to SAMTRAC

SAMTRAC

ITIS Train-the-Trainer

Strategic Risk Planning

NEBOSH International General Certificate (IGC)

NEBOSH International Construction Certificate (ICC)

NEBOSH International Diploma

NEBOSH National Environmental Certificate (IEC)

Miracles Course

Theory and Principles of Behaviour Based Safety

Executive Level Courses

Safety for Senior Executives

Corporate Governance: An Insight into Strategic Risk management

Climate Change Management Course


19

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Courses Specialised for the Mining Industry

Applying SHE Principles and Procedures for Mining

SHE Representative for Mining

SAMTRAC for Mining

Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSAct) Course

Namibian SAMTRAC for Mining

SAMTRAC for Mining: Bridging Course

Accredited Auditor and HSE Management System Training

ISO 9001:2008 Introduction

ISO 9001:2008 QMS Internal Auditor’s Course

ISO 9001:2008 QMS Implementation

ISO 14001 Introduction

ISO 14001 Implementation

ISO 14001 EMS Internal Auditor’s Course

OHSAS 18001 Introduction

OHSAS 18001 Implementation

OHSAS 18001 Internal Auditor’s Course

4. A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NOSA CMB150

AND OHSAS 18001

There is an ongoing debate on the merits of the NOSA Five Star

System and OHSAS 18001.

The following exercise examines the respective protocols and

outlines the distinct similarities and differences.


20

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

OHSAS 18001 NOSA FIVE STAR SYSTEM

Firstly the auditor must

determine if the organisation

has identified and assessed

occupational health and safety

hazards and risks associated

with all the processes, activities

and major installations of the

organisation.

Firstly the auditor must determine if the

organisation has identified and assessed

occupational health and safety hazards

and risks associated with all the

processes, activities and major

installations of the organisation.

Secondly the auditor must

determine if a formal

(documented) system is in

place to manage the

occupational health and safety

risks associated with all the

identified risks.

Secondly the auditor must determine if a

formal (documented) system is in place to

manage the occupational health and

safety risks associated with all the

identified risks.

Thirdly the auditor must check

that the organisation is

complying with its documented

formal occupational health and

safety system.

Thirdly the auditor must check that the

organisation is complying with its

documented formal occupational health

and safety system.

Up to this point, there is clearly no difference between a NOSA and an

OHSAS 18001 audit, except that OHSAS has clauses and NOSA has elements.

In principle the clauses and the elements cover the same basic issues

namely risks to a person’s health and safety.

The OHSAS auditor does not

have to evaluate the

EFFECTIVENESS of the

implemented system

At this point the NOSA auditor has to

additionally evaluate the effectiveness of

the implemented system. Each of the 72

elements clearly states an intent, e.g. “to

reduce the severity and frequency of


21

© NOSA (PTY) LTD


incidents”. The auditor now has to ask

the very important question of the

whether the implemented system

effectively meets the intent of the

element

OHSAS 18001 does not take the

incident frequency rates into

account when recommending

certification. Theoretically a

company can have an

extremely high frequency of

disabling incidents – and even

fatalities and still be certified

on OHSAS 18001.

The NOSA auditor also has to determine

the different incident frequency rates for

different types of incidents such as:

For safety Incidents

Fatality Incident Frequency Rate

Permanent Disability Incident Frequency

Rate

Lost Day Case Rate

Restricted Work- Day Case Rate

Medical Treatment Case Rate

First-aid Treatment Case Rate

For Health Incidents

Fatality Incident Case rate

Irreversible Diagnosed Disease Rate

Reversible Diagnosed Disease Rate

Noise Induced Hearing Loss Case Rate

Different specific rates will exclude an

organisation from obtaining an excellence

rating that could be anywhere from zero

to 5 stars – depending on the different

disqualifiers in terms of the accident

frequency rates as well as the score

obtained during the audit


22

© NOSA (PTY) LTD


If the OHSAS auditor does not

identify any major non-

conformances with relation to

any of the clauses, he or she

will recommend that the

organisation is certified to have

a formal system in place.

OHSAS auditors do not score

the implemented system but

simply determine if there are

major or minor non-

conformances. The OHSAS

auditor may also record

findings – which do not

constitute a non-conformance.

The NOSA auditor now has to score each

of the elements as prescribed by the

audit protocol and allocate a score to

each element of 100%, 90%, 75%, 65%,

50%, 45%, 25%, 15% or 0% based on the

level to which the implemented system

meets the intent of each one of the

elements.

Risk, System, Compliance and

Effectiveness is considered for each of the

72 elements and scored as explained

above.

Thus the outcome of an OHSAS

18001 audit can have only two

possible outcomes, namely:

Recommend for certification

No recommendation for

certification

The outcome of the NOSA audit has 7

possible outcomes, namely:

0 Stars - system not certifiable

1 Star - Poor

2 Star - Weak

3 Star - Good

4 Star - Very good

5 Star - Excellent

NOSCAR – Special recognition

Objective: To measure if a

formal OHS Management

system is in place

Objective: To measure whether a formal

OHS management system is in place AND

the level of effectiveness of the

implemented system in meeting the OHS

objectives of the organisation.


23

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Whilst the above comparison only touched on the critical differences

between OHSAS 18001 and the NOSA Health and Safety protocol it

can be summarised as follows:

Any OHS management system is as comprehensive as the people

in the plant or workplace who implement and maintain the

system.

One is unable to say that an OHSAS 18001 audit is “better” than a

NOSA grading audit – the intensity of the system is determined

internally by the organisation and should normally be determined

by the OHS risk profile of the organisation.

OHSAS 18001 measures whether a formal OHS risk management

system has been implemented and gives recognition by issuing a

certificate that the requirements of the standard have been met.

NOSA measures whether a formal OHS risk management system

is in place and is done in conjunction with the CMB150 protocol,

which measures the level of excellence of the implemented

system. This allows companies with multiple sites to benchmark

and gain an understanding of where their greatest exposures lie.

NOSA recognises excellence in OHS risk management by

awarding a star rating.


24

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

5. NOSA – A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE

5.1 Abstract

The following practical example will analyse the impact of the

implementation of the NOSA CMB259 system on a leading multi-

national company in the coal mining industry. The company shall be

referred to throughout this study as “Company A.” The study will not

only evaluate and investigate the risks within the industry, but will

determine whether the implementation of the NOSA Integrated Five

Star System has created a safer, healthy and more environmentally

friendly workplace. “Company A” focuses on the extraction and

removal of coal as well as the full mining service of drilling, blasting

and hauling. The mining company implemented the NOSA Integrated

Five Star System in 2003.

5.2 Objective

To determine whether the NOSA CMB253 system has had an impact

on:

a) The Disabling Incident Rate “DI” – time lost in the workplace where employees have been absent and unable to work for any length of period due to an occupational accident/injury, however severe.

b) The Disabling Incident Frequency Rate ”DIFR” – the total number of fatal injury cases, permanent disability cases, lost workday cases, irreversible diagnosed disease cases and reversible diagnosed disease cases multiplied by a factor of 200 000 divided by the number of hours worked over the exposure period.

c) Costs related to workplace injuries.


25

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

5.3 NOSA implementation

The integrated HSE Management system within Company A was

specifically designed to:

Minimise, manage and monitor SHE risks and impacts

associated with contaminants, waste and pollution.

Identify and manage the risks associated with the safety of

people.

Optimise the consumption of natural resources.

Effectively monitor the micro and macro environment and to

trigger corrective actions when required.

Ensure there are procedures in place to control workplace

SHE risks at their source.

Promote sustainable mining practises.

Occupational health and safety issues that may be specifically

associated with coal mining operations include the following:

o Physical hazards

o Exposure to dust and biological hazards

o Exposure to chemicals including gases and vapours

o Exposure to noise and vibrations.

Unfortunately without the correct training and a sound OHS

understanding many hazards are only realised once an incident,

injury or fatality occurs. The industry specific auditing, training and

consulting services that NOSA offers are designed to provide

employees at all levels of business with both the correct tools and

knowledge to recognise potential hazards, and implement systems to

prevent or mitigate the potential future risks.


26

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

The following table illustrates some of the everyday hazards faced by

Company A in the coal mining industry.

Task Hazards/

Aspects

Risk/

Impact Consequence

S

H

E

Condition

N/A/EM

Drilling Rotating

Shafts

Contact

with

moving

parts

Severe injury,

loss of limbs,

fatality S N

Coal

removal

Moving

trucks on

steep slopes

& Terrain

Roll over-

vehicle

accidents

Physical

injury- fatality S N

Coal

cleaning

Moving

conveyor

belts

Exposure

to moving

parts

Physical

injuries,

fatalities &

amputations

S N

Coal

cleaning

Water Runoff Contamin-

ation of

water

courses

Prosecution

&

reputational E A

Under-

ground

mining

Poor

ventilation

Respira-

tory

Disabling

injury- lung

disease

H N

Blasting Exposure to

noise

NIHL Disabling

injury,

permanent

disability

H N

Waste

removal

Separation of

waste

Contami-

nation/

Environment

al damage, E N


27

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Task Hazards/

Aspects

Risk/

Impact Consequence

S

H

E

Condition

N/A/EM

pollution reputation

Nightshift Poor lighting/

visibility

Falling &

Tripping/

fatigue

Injuries-

fractures,

fatalities

S N

Under-

ground

mining

Seismic

activity

Rock falls Physical

injury, fatality S A

Chemical &

Explosive

storage

Fire and

explosions

Burns to

persons

Physical

injury, fatality S N

It is important that the risk assessment addresses both normal and

abnormal working conditions and includes emergency scenarios.

5.4 Audit outcomes

Each site of Company A that is audited by NOSA’s auditors will

receive the following:

5.4.1 Site Report

The site report is compiled by the audit team and contains the

findings pertaining to each of the 68 or 72 elements indicated section

2.1.3 of this document. At the end of each day the auditor will score

the audit findings in relation to risk, system, compliance and

effectiveness as indicated in the detailed score sheet below.


28

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

The reference number in the first column comprises the initials of the

auditor who made the finding and the finding number. This ensures

that any queries on a finding can be directed to the apropriate

auditor.

In circumstances where multiple audit outcomes are requested by

the client, such as OHSAS18001 and/or ISO14001, an additional

column is added where the clause number is linked to the element

number. This allows for multiple outcomes (NOSA Five Star,

OHSAS18001, ISO14001 and ISO9001) in a single audit.

EXAMPLE OF FINDINGS RAISED DURING AN AUDIT

Ref

No.

Elem

No. Details of finding raised

TO1 1.11 Haul roads surfaces in the pit area C4 are extremely dusty

TO2 1.11 New office complex has been completed but gardening and

finishing off yet to be addressed.

TO3 1.12

5.02

Defective light in workshop store room.

The illumination survey done by Optimum Colliery does not

specifically cover the Company A’s site.

TO4 1.13

5.02

The site relies mostly on a natural ventilation process. The

in-house ventilation checks were conducted as per the

schedule; however no instrumentation was utilised

resulting in the findings not being substantiated.

TO5 1.24

The spill kit drum in the workshop (Plant) area was being

used for general waste which indicates a lack of

knowledge/compliance to waste separation in this area.

TO6 2.13 The isolator switches on distribution board 6 B are not

labelled in accordance to the standard.


29

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Ref

No.

Elem


TO7 2.17

The data file containing material safety data sheets

contains no index. The material safety data sheets should

be filed alphabetically allowing for easy access in case of

emergency.

TO8 2.17 There are no material safety data sheets available for

oxygen and acetylene.

TO9 2.18

The repeated camera failure on the mobile equipment

appears to be problematic as this has been reported

repeatedly over a period of time without corrective action

being taken.

TO10 2.22 The earth leakage test and polarity checks have not been

conducted as per the standard requirement.

TO11 3.01

An in house fire risk survey has been conducted, but there

is no evidence of the experience or qualifications of the

person conducting the survey.

TO12 3.04

Not all fire extinguishers have been individually identified.

Thereby making it difficult to determine whether the

monthly checks have been conducted as per the element

requirement.

TO13 4.12 Near miss incidents are not formally investigated at

present.

TO14 4.12

The element standard SHEQ/SP/4/002 is currently being

revised and will include the procedure for identifying and

appointing investigation team members.

TO14 4.13

The 56 cases of inadequate supervision and 65 cases of

inadequate tools and equipment would identify a trend and

should therefore possibly have been investigated for

corrective action.


30

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Ref

No.

Elem


TO15 4.22 The consequential loss arising out of the incidents has not

been determined as per the system requirement.

TO16 5.02

The baseline risk assessments have been reviewed but do

not consider the outcomes of the occupational hygiene

surveys.

TO17 5.02

The occupational hygiene surveys were not conducted by

Approved Inspection Authority as required in terms of the

Act.

TO18 5.30 A training needs analysis has been developed but it has not

been utilised in determining individual training.

TO19 5.40

SHE representative inspections are not always endorsed on

the inspection deviation report forms by supervisors. This is

a system requirement.

TO20 5.51 The planned job observation schedule does not prioritise

tasks to be observed as per their risk ranking.

TO21 5.51

Deviations from safe work procedures have not been

recorded or investigated, however there is evidence from

the incident investigations that clear deviation from safe

work procedures has occurred in the work place.

TO22 5.52

The following permits 2807, 2806 and 1786 were not

signed off by the authorising permit holder as per

procedure.

The permit conditions did not adequately identify the

specific PPE to be worn during the operation in question.

The permit documentation for working at heights did not

identify the risk of adverse weather conditions when

working at heights.


31

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

5.4.2 Audit score sheet

When the auditors scores a site, they will score each element against

health, safety and/or environment (depending on whether it is

applicable to that element) using the score guideline below. In terms

of the risk, system, compliance and effectiveness, the auditor will:

Firstly analyse whether the risk has been identified for that

specific element for health, safety and environment;

Thereafter he will determine whether there is a system in

place to address and mitigate the risks. The auditor will also

determine whether the control factors have been taken into

consideration.

The auditor will then conduct a sample of activities to verify

compliance to what is stated in the client’s system and

procedures.

Finally, the auditor will review the effectiveness of the

controls and procedures in place to manage the risks.

Example: If one reviews the findings above on element 5.52: Work

Permits it is clear that the operation has identified working at heights

as a risk, however, the auditor has identified that inclement weather

conditions are not included in the risk assessment.

Accordingly, the risk rating for both health and safety on the score

sheet has been reduced to 90 as not all risks associated with the task

have been identified. There is a work permit in place to control the

activity of working at heights, however, the operation failed to

consider the appropriate use of PPE in mitigating the risk.


32

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

The score for safety system was therefore reduced to 90. Although

there was a permit to work system in place, when a sample of work

permits was taken, the auditor found that they were not adequately

signed off as per the procedure. The score for compliance on safety

was therefore reduced to 90. If the activity could have resulted in

adverse health and/or environmental effect, then the health and/or

environmental score would also have been adversely affected.

Finally, the effectiveness of the system and controls is scored and in

the example, both health and safety scores were reduced to 90. This

is due to the fact that by failing to identify the appropriate PPE, the

activity would have had an adverse effect on the employee’s health

and the fact that permits were not signed off could result in a safety

breach.

SCORE SHEET

SCORE ACTUALS

S H E

S H E RISK 75 100 100

2.03 0.23 1.58 3.83

SYSTEM 100 100 100 4.05 0.45 3.15 7.65

COMPLIANCE 100 100 100 6.08 0.68 4.73 11.48

EFFECTIVENESS 75 100 100

8.10 0.90 6.30 15.30

TOTAL 20.25 2.25 15.75 38.25

ELEMENT TOTAL: 85

INTENT: Structural integrity through appropriate maintenance of buildings and structures

SCORE ACTUALS

S H E

S H E RISK 100 100 100

1.60 0.80 1.60 4.00

SYSTEM 90 90 90 2.88 1.44 2.88 7.20

COMPLIANCE 90 100 100 3.89 2.16 4.32 10.37


5.76 2.88 5.76 14.40

TOTAL 14.13 7.28 14.56 35.97

ELEMENT TOTAL: 90


33

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

INTENT: SHE risks associated with pressurised systems, vessels and containers are identified, assessed and managed.

SCORE ACTUALS

S H E

S H E RISK 100 100 100

4.00 2.00 2.00 8.00

SYSTEM 75 75 75 6.00 3.00 3.00 12.00

COMPLIANCE 100 100 100 9.00 4.50 4.50 18.00


14.40 7.20 7.20 28.80

TOTAL 33.40 16.70 16.70 66.80

ELEMENT TOTAL: 84

INTENT: Safe storage of potential SHE dangerous substances.

SCORE ACTUALS

S H E

S H E RISK 100 100 100

1.32 1.32 1.36 4.00

SYSTEM 90 90 90 2.38 2.38 2.45 7.20

COMPLIANCE 100 100 100 3.56 3.56 3.67 10.80


4.75 4.75 4.90 14.40

TOTAL 12.01 12.01 12.38 36.40

ELEMENT TOTAL: 91

INTENT: To create a participative forum to discuss and action SHE related matters.

SCORE ACTUALS

S H E

S H E RISK 90 90 100

1.19 1.19 1.36 3.74

SYSTEM 90 100 100 2.14 2.38 2.72 7.23

COMPLIANCE 90 100 100 2.89 3.56 4.08 10.53


4.75 4.75 5.44 14.94

TOTAL 10.97 11.88 13.60 36.45

ELEMENT TOTAL: 91

INTENT: Control over execution of potential dangerous tasks.


34

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

SCORE GUIDELINE

5.4.3 Executive Report

The Executive Report is compiled by the audit team and is delivered

to the client’s senior management. The Executive Report is reviewed

by the NOSA Technical Review Panel prior to distribution to ensure

that there are no inconsistencies between the audit findings and the

score sheet. Once the Technical Review Panel is satisfied with the

technical content of the report, the final star grading outcome is

communicated to the client.


35

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

The Executive Report summarises the key findings identified during

the audit and reported in the site report. A summary of the score per

section, along with a manhattan graph indicating the score per

element is also included. The Executive Report will identify both

critical areas of concern or major findings and will also commend the

client on their positive achievements. The Executive Report allows

management to make key decisions on their HSE exposures, enabling

them to allocate budgets to areas that require urgent attention.

An example of an executive report is reflected below.


36

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

NOSA INTEGRATED FIVE STAR SYSTEM

EXECUTIVE REPORT

FOR

[COMPANY AND SITE NAME]

PROJECT NUMBER: QAED 1316

[AUDIT DATE]

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY:

[Auditor’s name]

NOSA PO BOX 1665 WANDSBECK 3631 Tel : Fax Cell : E-mail : E-mail : Website : www.nosaworld.com



37

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

INTRODUCTION

A NOSA integrated Five Star System grading audit was conducted at [COMPANY AND SITE NAME] on [DATE]. The scope of the audit included Safety, Health and Environmental management. Company A is an opencast coal mine and the mining method is strip mining. The original contract consisted of opening the “box-cut” for three different pits. At present, Company A is assisting with the removal of coal and topsoil, as well as the full mining service of drilling, blasting and limited hauling. The following activities/ processes were covered:

Pit and haul-roads, heavy vehicle workshop, light vehicle workshop, stores, offices and yard area.

All areas were included in the audit. During the exit meeting the following key findings and trends were presented:

CRITICAL CONCERNS

No critical areas of concern identified.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

The Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment is the nucleus of your system and has been reviewed and upgraded, however, survey information used in this exercise may not be as accurate as most have been done in-house and not by an Approved Inspection Authority.

A fire risk survey by an approved authority should be given consideration.

Critical tasks should be reconsidered and task observations planned accordingly.

Incident Investigations should be carried out for “near miss” incidents where required, as these could indicate potential areas of loss.


38

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

ACHIEVEMENTS

The positive attitude of personnel encountered during the audit is commendable.

No disabling incidents occurred during the period under review. Based on the above mentioned trends, the following recommendations serve to improve the effectiveness of the current SHE Management Programme:

The review and upgrading of incident investigations including “near misses” should be considered.

The fire risk survey should indicate the adequacy or not of fire prevention and control equipment

Job observations should be done as per priority and those observed not always notified before the PJO.

EFFORT SCORES

Premises & Housekeeping

92,92% Safety 94% Risk 96%

Safeguarding 96,36% Health 93% System 96%

Fire & Emergency 94,94% Environment 98% Compliance 94%

Incident Management

91,77%

Total Points Scored

1652,13 Effectiveness 92%

Organisational Management

93,15% 1761,05 Total Effort Score 93,81%

CURRENT OUTCOME

Rating 5 Platinum Star Status Peer Reviewer: Graham Kings Date: 15.05.11

Current NOSCAR company: No In line for NOSCAR: No


39

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

INCIDENT EXPERIENCE

Date from/to 1 May 2010 to 30 April 2011 Months 12 Months

Employees/contractors 176 Hours Worked

523 781

Number of Disabling Incidents 0 DIFR: 0.00

S/F: 0 S/PD: 0 S/LWD: 0 S/RWD: 0 H/F: 0 H/IDD: 0 H/RDD: 0 NIHL: 0

ENV/MAJ: 0

LEGEND FOR DISABLING INCIDENT ABBREVIATIONS: S/ F Safety, Fatality H/ F Health, Fatality E/ MAJ Environment, Major S/ LWD Safety, Lost Work Day H/ IDD Health, Irreversible Diagnosed Disease S/ RWD Safety, Restricted Work Day H/ RDD Health, Reversible Diagnosed Disease S/PD Safety, Permanent Disability NIHL Noise Induced Hearing Loss

PREVIOUS OUTCOME

OUTCOME OF THE PAST YEARS GRADING RESULTS

Outcome 29/05/2009 DIFR = 1,01 Effort = 86,98% Star Rating = 4 Green Stars

Outcome 27/05/2010 DIFR = 0,00 Effort = 92,40% Star Rating = 5 Green Stars

ELEMENT MANHATTAN.


40

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

5.4.4 Star rating

Upon communicating a site’s final star rating to management, a

certificate reflecting the grading is sent to the site (examples of the

certificates are reflected below). In addition, the site is entered into

the NOSA Regional and National Awards. Both the site and the

individuals responsible for the site’s performance compete against

their peers and are recognised at the respective annual awards

banquets.

NOSA Certificates


41

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

5.4.5 Analyses of the results and conclusion

Substantial improvements have been made since the use of NOSA’s

products and services in 2003, with both the South African and

international operations showing a rapidly declining number of

Disabling Incidents and DIFR. As reflected in the graph below,

Company A reported 60 Disabling Incidents in 2003, with the number

falling to 7 in 2011.

Similarly, the DIFR has fallen from 2.2 (2003) to 0.6 in 2011. This is a

notable reduction and a further indication of the success of the NOSA

system. The decline has had a positive impact on staff morale and has

resulted in significant cost savings for Company A.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

DI's 60 50 56 48 32 38 20 13 7

0

20

40

60

80

Dis

ablin

g In

cid

en

ts

DI's for "Company A"


42

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

It is clear from figures 1.1 and 1.2 that the systems implemented and

the training provided by NOSA has been extremely successful, as the

disabling incidents have fallen dramatically.

Whilst the DIs increased slightly during 2005 and 2008; this does not

mean that the NOSA system was unsuccessful, but it is more of an

indication that all incidences were being recorded and classified

correctly and could be an indication that complacency had set in due

to the dramatic decrease in previous years.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

LITIFR 2.2 1.8 2 1.3 1.01 1.2 1 0.75 0.6

0

1

2

3

Dia

bili

ng

Inci

de

nt

Fre

qu

en

cy r

ate

DIFR for "Company A"


43

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Benefits to Company A:

1. Company A has clearly managed their HSE risks more

effectively

2. The NOSA system has reduced the costs related to injuries

and maintenance through the mitigation of problems and

risks.

3. It has improved labour relations and productivity, with

employees being more confident that they will return home

safely.

4. It has allowed Company A to benchmark all its sites, allowing

it to place more focus on sites that have achieved a low star

grading.

5. Significant reputational gain in being recognised as a

responsible employer in the eyes of authorities and

communities.


44

© NOSA (PTY) LTD

Other Benefits of implementing the NOSA Five Star System Standard

A Risk based measurable system.

Critical issues and OHS/ SHE risks are easily identified. Risks can be prioritised and addressed in a systematic manner.

Enables all categories of staff to participate.

Compatible with existing organisational management systems, e.g. ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 systems, as well as legislative requirements.

Proven correlation between the DIFR of a company and its NOSA star rating status.

Reduces absenteeism, claims and insurance assessments.

Addresses moral, legal and financial issues related to occupational health and safety management.

Enhances employer/employee relationships and marketing integrity both locally and abroad.

Boosts morale, productivity, standards of living and profits.

Improves commitment to health and safety that are as integral to operations as production and quality standards.

Improves commitment to sound environmental management

Implementation can start virtually overnight as NOSA can supply all the necessary back-up documentation, examples of forms, registers and other technical data.

Recognition is given in the form of a grading certificate and grading board at the entrance of the plant for all to see – employees, public and competitors.

Could be incorporated into sustainable reporting.

Reflects perceptions as well as realities as built into corporate reputation.