b'Minerals geophysics Minerals geophysicsdeveloping that the system itself wouldPresenters can struggle to keep the look after you, relieving you of muchpresentation pertinent, and participants of the responsibility. In some earlyjust switch off.safety systems, common sense was downplayed or even demonised, further exacerbating the lack of appreciationThe tailored approachfor the role of personal responsibility.Are personnel more likely to follow Weve moved on. Safety systems nowthrough with risk assessments or emphasise that there must be a personalprocedures where they are clearly responsibility for safety. Safe behaviourtailored to their situation? A tailored is mandated, and this is reinforced byassessment would have to be individually focussing on the consequences to aand carefully developed for each person from un-safe behaviours. situation, requiring sustained effort Terry Harveyfrom the developers. Arguably, the Associate Editor As systems developed, so too did the for Minerals geophysics paperwork. Safety systems becameparticipants will be more appreciative terry.v.harvey@glencore.com.au more bureaucratic, with not entirelyand involved, with less chance of fatigue. unexpected consequences. Most of usHowever, the danger in the tailored have seen the tick and flick approachapproach is that the fatigue is transferred to, say, daily vehicle pre-start checkliststo the developers and there is the Safety first: A personal view where repeated use of a checklist leadschance of omission of a pertinent hazard. to people just ticking all the boxesRather than developing a tailored risk Safety should be the prime considerationwithout doing the actual checks. Theyassessment or procedure from scratch in any activity in our industry. Some ofwould then justify this by arguing thatevery time, each could be based, at least the things we do (for example airbornethe procedures were too involved foras a starting point, on a selective version surveys and ground electrical surveys)daily checking, i.e., overkill, and thusof a much more comprehensive generic have inherent dangers with potentiallyseen as onerous and unwarranted.version. Input from potential users fatal consequences should things goSafety systems stress compliance withshould be sought, both for relevance wrong. Attitudes to safety have evolvedprocedures, but this doesnt necessarilyto the situation and to foster a sense of dramatically in mineral exploration overaddress the perception that someinvolvement.the past twenty years. But are we goingprocedures are inappropriate.about safety in the most appropriateI have wondered whether imposition of way? How can we ensure involvementAs a further example, consider thea system by management, particularly if and compliance? Could we be doingdevelopment and application of riskparticipants have little or no input into things better? assessments and procedures. the design phase, exacerbates issues of non-involvement. There may also be a In my early days in mineral exploration,lack of confidence in the efficacy of a safety was considered a personalOne size fits all system if it is seen as something imposed matter. We were aware of some of theby outside experts who have little or no risks and the consequences involved,Is a comprehensive risk assessmentexperience with local conditions. This is but it was mainly left to our commonor procedure designed to cover everyparticularly relevant where sections of sense (defined in the Oxford dictionarypossible eventuality in every possiblethe system are clearly not appropriate as the ability to think about thingssituation the best approach? Do weto conditions at the workplace. The last in a practical way and make sensiblerun the risk of swamping people bything we want is resentment, which decisions) to keep each of us from harm.addressing all manner of hazards, manywill hamper adoption and usage. To The prevailing attitude was somewhatof which are clearly not appropriateencourage participation and relevance, more considered than the fatalistic shellto their particular circumstances? Asome safety system developers go out of be right, but production foremost didcomprehensive risk assessment requirestheir way to seek opinions and ideas from dominate the conduct of most surveys.an exhaustive listing of every possiblepotential users.Risk-taking to achieve this, while nothazard and the procedures to mitigate actively encouraged, was certainly notthem. Once developed, their applicationThe dual aims of any safety system, discouraged. is quite convenient - the same riskincluding procedures and risk assessment can be applied every time.assessments, should be fit-for-purpose With the advent of formal safety systems,But the participants actually doing theand participant involvement. A safety all this changed. Safe behavioursassessment, the very ones that the risksystem will only be effective if it covers all were prescribed. The responsibility forassessment is designed to protect, thenthe relevant eventualities, and is one that safety nominally remained with thehave to wade through a plethora ofparticipants actually believe in, use and individual, but the system was whatpossible hazardous situations, many ofabide by. Human behaviour must come had to be followed. However, withwhich are clearly inappropriate. There isinto consideration. The end purpose is such a strong emphasis on the system,a real risk of fatigue, particularly if thisto keep people safe, but we must keep there was a real danger of an attitudeprocess has to be repeated frequently.them involved to achieve this.31 PREVIEW OCTOBER 2023'