Safety Culture Assessment of Coal Mine Enterprise

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Engineering ProcediaProcedia Engineering Engineering 00 (2011 26) 000(2011)–000 1939 – 1948 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

First International Symposium on Mine Safety Science and Engineering Safety culture assessment of coal mine enterprise

CHEN Kuna∗,b, XU Longjunb, CHEN Yanc, BI Zhiming b, YI Juna

aCollege of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing 401331, China bState Key Laboratory of Coal Mine Disaster Dynamics and Control (Chongqing University)，Chongqing 400030,China cSchool of Foreign Languages and Literature, Chongqing Education College, Chongqing, 400067, China

Abstract

The paper is inclined to introduce a renovated fuzzy overall evaluation model specially purposed for safety culture of coal mine enterprise, which was established by us authors based on our own years’ experience in this area. The index system of coal mine enterprise safety assessment here mentioned has been founded, as well as analyzing safety culture on-spot along with the duty consultants. And, then, all the fuzzy membership indexes and their degrees were to be weighed, calculated with the final evaluation results presented in accordance with the analytic hierarchy process. Furthermore, all the safety culture statuses of T coal mine enterprise, S coal mine enterprise and X coal mine enterprise were then put into detailed analysis. The results of our application prove that the order of the safety cultural level can be as follows: X coal mine enterprise Beijing), McGill University and University of Wollongong.

Key words: safety control; assessment model; fuzzy comprehensive assessment

1. Introduction

In recent years, the Chinese coal mine enterprise has witnessed intensified operational accidents[1–2], which amounts possibly to 26.91% of the total enterprise accidents in the country, with serious casualty made up 40.26% in China, and 80% worldwide, the decreasing death toll from 5670 in 2001 to 3786 in 2007 caused by coal mine accidents. According to the State Administration of Work Safety, from 2002 to

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-23-65023970; fax: +86-23-65023970. E-mail address: [email protected].

2005, coal mine accidents account for 72.8% to 89.6% of total amount of extremely big accidents (over 10 deaths per accident) among industrial and mineral enterprises. In 2005, Chinese death rate per megaton coal was 2.83, while 0.04 in the USA. In 2006, that rate declines to 2.041 in China, though it’s 50 times more than that in the USA. In 2007, that rate kept going down to 1.485, among which rural death rate reached up to 3.06 while 0.38 in state key coal mines. MA YC [3] studied the function of safety culture in coal mine enterprises and found that it actually helps reduce operational accidents. Currently, reports about enterprise safety culture are numerous around the world. According to Schein [4], safety culture in enterprises directs the organization members’ behaviors, teaches them how to observe, cerebrate and perceive things in the objective world. Gulden- mund [5] stands that there is a lack of description on the relationships among definition of “safety”, risk management and safety-conduct management. More attention of academic circles are paid to analysis on the difference between safety culture and safety atmosphere, especially the psychological approach. As for methodologies in safety culture research, Locatelli et al. [6] compares three qualitative repertory grids, twenty statement tests (TST) and panel discussions, which are aiming at measuring organization culture, only to find that qualitative methods cover only a portion of cultural issues, and that TST collects the most relevant information while scores have a low indicators’ reliability in evaluation. HANG YJ [7] discusses the nature of safety culture and its position in and effects on safety production of coal mine enterprises, analyzes the establishment procedures of safety culture adaptive to characteristics of such enterprises, and yet fails to give his qualitative analysis a quantitative evaluation. Ma YC [3] points out existing problems in safety culture construction among Chinese coal mine enterprises, puts up with relative solutions which lack an indicative system to quantify the assessment. The value assignment method, proposed by SIMA JJ [8] Evaluates 10 factors of enterprise safety culture, yet not quantitative, particular and principle-rigid enough in the design of evaluation index system. WANG Xin [9] establishes and verifies with examples a multi-level fuzzy evaluation system model to flight-safety based on fuzzy mathematics, which is of practical values to safety flight evaluation. Considering the factors about the safety matter of coal mine industry, Liu Wei [10] quantifies each indicator of these factors and utilizes multi-level fuzzy evaluation methods, thus concluded in a scientific, reasonable analysis in safety evaluation of coal mine industry. To escalate the level in coal mine enterprises safety, safety culture construction needs to be strengthened. A comprehensive evaluation to safety culture in individual enterprise is good for grasping its safety condition, including deficiencies and latent risks, thus we can bring up improvement measures and lifting the safety managerial expertise in coal mine enterprises. Consequently, as to construct an evaluation model of safety culture in coal mine enterprises, we need to particularize, categorically descript and then quantify all the indicators, and according to practical situations of three coal mines, conduct a safety culture evaluation in enterprises to provide a basis to construct a safety culture for relative administrations.

2. Coal mine safety culture evaluation index system

2.1. The establishment and analysis of coal mine safety cultural evaluate index system

Ref. [2] evaluate coal mine safety culture from 6 first-level indices, and 30 second-level indices, ref. [3] evaluate coal mine safety culture from 10 first-level indices. This essay analyzed elements relevant with coal mine culture evaluation thoroughly, at the same time, I consulted experts’ advice (including 2 safety administrative person , 2 safety officers engaged in safety administration , 1 researcher of safety culture theory),and combined with evaluation of safety culture in other field [10-12]. We established the coal mine safety cultural level index system from 3 dimensionality (strength, length, and direction), 6 first- level indices, and 23 second-level evaluating indices. We analyszed the substance of the index through CHENCHEN Kun Kun etet al. al // ProcediaProcedia EngineeringEngineering 2600 (2011)(2011) 1939000– 000– 1948 19413 analysis of research results on safety culture system domestic and abroad, and combined the experiences of enterprises’ construction on safety culture.

Table 1 Assessment parameters system of coal safety culture

Level indicators (weight) secondary index (weight) Evaluation content "three-governance" project C11 (0.15) Treatment for smoke, dust and drug For a full range of special positions (human "Green jobs" building C12 (0.20) Organizational commitment environment) and safety construction C1 (0.125) "All four” management C13 (0.25) Full, comprehensive, and the whole process, all-day "5S" activities C14 (0.40) Seiri, seiton, seiso, seikeetsu, shitsuke

Systems Personnel, equipment, environmental safety and Management C21 (0.10) Countermeasures On the production process controlled management Hidden danger Management C22 (0.41) Management participation of target hazards In the safety education, safety technology and safety C2 (0.152) Safety-objectives management measures to promote the objectives of financial C23(0.37) management, etc. Man-machine interface management C24 On the internal human-computer interface research, (0.12) analysis "three groups" Countermeasures C31 To implement safety group policy, group power, (0.25) group management Staff authorized Check ideas, check system, search facilities, search "Four examinations" project C32 (0.32) C3 (0.095) hidden da nger Safety checks of people causes C33 Leaders and workers at all levels in all aspects of the (0.43) evaluation carried out Using a fine incident, safety measures to guarantee Economic Strategy C41(0.40) safety fund established Rewards and To take safety risks of mortgage contracting Risk mortgage system C42(0.11) punishment system methods, control and management of accident On the advanced team, workshops, individual C4 (0.203) Safety celebration C43(0.37) awards

Accident report C44(0.12) On the business or the industry to report incidents Throu gh the regular inspection, classification of Predict risk activities C51(0.17) hazardous work activities First-line staff organization may be ahead of the Reporting System Judging fault activity C52 (0.35) state accident judge C5 (0.168) Emergency plans C53(0.33) On the possible accident emergency plan design Effectiveness inspection of safety The effectiveness of the enterprise to conduct a management C54 (0.15) comprehensive safety management system check Knowledge contest C61 (0.13) To carry out safety knowledge contest Special training C62 (0.51) Special types of work, job, department training Education and Training Safety knowledge, accident cases, policies and C6 (0.257) Full education C63 (0.26) Regulations of the learning Family education C64 (0.10) Discussions and home visits 19424 CHEN Kun etet al.al/ /Procedia Procedia Engineering Engineering 00 26 ( 2011(2011)) 000 1939–000 – 1948

2.2. Determining Weights of Evaluation of Coal Mine Safety Culture system

Numerous methods for determining weight factors are available; these include the Landfill (Delphi) method, as well as expert investigations and comprehensive analyses, among which the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is widely used. This paper uses the AHP method to determine the index weight [13]. The matrix is constructed during the first evaluation. The elements of the matrix determine the value that reflects a culture of evaluation of safety awareness and importance of each index. Then, experts on the importance of each indicator compare pairwise layers and evaluations. The eigenvectors of the matrix calculation are determined to reveal the indicators of the lower targets for the contribution of the upper level; the upper level contributions are indicators of each variable level indicator that denotes the importance of the arrangement results for the target layer. Substituted into the calculation of the Matrix software, can be regarded as superior index weights. The results of Matlab calculations are shown in Table 1.

3. Fuzzy Comprehensive Assessment of Colliery Safety Culture

The concept of safety culture was born in the 1980s, and safety culture assessment began in the 1990s. The index expression of safety culture is qualitative. Given the ambiguity of the status of safety culture itself and the imprecision of the logical relationship among indicators, the definitions of this concept are frequently unclear. However, the fuzzy risk assessment method can overcome this shortcoming [14]. Fig. 1 shows the flow of fuzzy comprehensive assessment.

Index System Option Experts Weight Investigation Calculation

Membership Grade Determination

Fuzzy Assessing Model Analysis

Fig.1 Flow chart of fuzzy comprehensive assessment

3.1. Keystone of Fuzzy Assessment

The fuzzy comprehensive assessment can be carried out according to the following steps [15-16]. (1) Factor sets U are confirmed. Then, U is divided into several un-intersected factor subsets U = {U1, U2, …, Un } and evaluation sets V = {v1, v2, …, vm } according to their different attributes. (2) Primary comprehensive assessment is conducted for each Uk=(uk1,uk2,…,uknk). First, Ak is endowed a numerical value, so that Ak=(ak1,ak2,…,aknk). This value is in accordance with the dimension of CHENCHEN Kun Kun et etal. al // ProcediaProcedia EngineeringEngineering 2600 (2011)(2011) 1939000– 000– 1948 19435

Uk=(uk1,uk2,…,uknk) in each element. Then, the degree of membership rkij(i=1,2,….,n; j=1,2,….,m), which is uki to vj, is assessed according to the different grades of evaluation sets V={v1, v2,…, vm}, which is Uk to uknk. Therefore, single factor assessment matrix Rk is constituted by all of these. Then, the first-degree comprehensive assessment of U is Bk = AkRk = (bk1, bk2, ...... , bkm ). (3) A final comprehensive assessment is performed for U. Factor sets Uk , which has n quantity in U, are regarded as n single factors of U. The relevant numerical value is endowed to A on the basis of the effect of each Uk in U; with the evaluation results Bk of Uk, we can obtain the entire estimated matrix.

 B  b b  b   1   11 12 1n   B  b b  b  R = 2 = 21 22 2n (1)                   Bn  bn1 bn2  bnm  (4) Then we can get the comprehensive assessment：  B   1   B  B = AR = A 2 = (b ,b ,b ) (2)    1 2 n      Bn 

3.2. Mathematical Model of Fuzzy Comprehensive Assessment of Colliery Safety Culture

(1) Establish factor sets. Colliery Safety Culture is effected by the organizational commitment, management participation, employee accreditation, rewards and punishment system, reporting system and education training. These factors include the factors of different attribute, in this paper the index system of colliery safety culture is determined by combining the experts' opinions and safety inspection table. Altogether there are six primary index and 23 secondary indexes. (2) The evaluation sets are established. The evaluation sets are V= { V1, very good; V2, better; V3, generally good; V4, not good; V5, very bad; V6, extraordinarily bad}. The relevant scores are 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, and 40, corresponding to the following levels: {level 1, level 2, grade 3, level 4, level 5, and level 6}. The larger the evaluation result, the better the safety culture construction. (3) The weights of evaluation indexes are determined. First, a comprehensive assessment is conducted. Then, the degrees of importance of every factor that is influenced by safety culture are obtained; that is, weight vectors A and Ai. AHP is used to define the weight value of each index, with the grades marked by experts, field engineers, and technical personnel. (4) The degree of membership and membership function are determined. The degree of each factor belonging to V in the factor sets is fixed, and the method is determined using fuzzy control theory commonly used for membership functions. The determination of membership function in the current work is referred to in Ref. [17].

 1 (90 ≤ u11 ≤100)  u11 − 80 f11(u11 ) =  (80 ≤ u11 < 90) (3) 90 − 80  <  0 (u11 80) 61944 CHENCHEN Kun Kunet al et/ Procedia al. / Procedia Engineering Engineering 00 (2011 26 (2011)) 000– 0001939 – 1948

100 − u 11 (90 ≤ u ≤100)  − 11 100 90  1 (80 ≤ u11 < 90) f12 (u11 ) =  (4) u − 70  11 (70 ≤ u < 80) 80 − 70 11   0 (u11 < 70)

 0 (90 ≤ u11 ≤100)  90 − u  11 (80 ≤ u < 90) 90 − 80 11  f13 (u11 ) =  1 (70 ≤ u11 < 80) (5) u − 60  11 (60 ≤ u < 70) 70 − 60 11   0 (u11 < 60)

 0 (80 ≤ u11 <100)  80 − u  11 (70 ≤ u < 80) 80 − 70 11  f14 (u11 ) =  1 (60 ≤ u11 < 70) (6) u − 50  11 (50 ≤ u < 60) 60 − 50 11   0 (u11 < 50)

 0 (70 ≤ u11 < 80)  70 − u  11 (60 ≤ u < 70) 70 − 60 11 f15 (u11 ) =  (7)  1 (50 ≤ u11 < 60) u − 40  11 (40 ≤ u < 50) 50 − 40 11

 0 (60 ≤ u11 ≤ 70)  60 − u11 f16 (u11 ) =  (50 ≤ u11 < 60) (8) 60 − 50  <  1 (u11 50)

Put the numerical value which is assessed by experts into the above membership function formula, we can get the following membership grade. ，，；，，； r11 = f11(u11 ) r12 = f12 (u11) …… r21 = f11 (u12 ) r22 = f12 (u12 ) …… ，，；，，； r31 = f11 (u13 ) r32 = f12 (u13 ) …… r41 = f11 (u14 ) r42 = f12 (u14 ) …… ，，；，， r51 = f11 (u15 ) r52 = f12 (u15 ) …… r61 = f11 (u16 ) r62 = f12 (u16 ) ……. CHENCHEN Kun Kun et al.et /al Procedia/ Procedia Engineering Engineering 26 00 (2011) (2011 1939) 000 –– 0001948 19457

Thus, we can find the fuzzy relation matrix:  r r  r   11 12 1n  r r  r  R = 21 22 26 (9)           r61 r62  r66 

4. Application Instance

4.1. Object Selection

The safety culture of three coal mines in Chongqing was selected as evaluation objects: Chongqing Tianfu Mining Limited Liability Company (T), Chongqing Songzao Coal and Electricity Limited Liability Company (S) and Chongqing X Coal Mine.

4.2. Evaluation Results

According to the weight curtained by table 1, 20 managers of production technique and experts of safety management were asked for marking every safety culture indexes of T、S、X coal mines. It’s principle is according to the degree of membership determined method in this thesis. That is: 90 ≤ values ≤ 100 is best；80≤values＜90 is better；70≤values＜ 80 is good；60 ≤values ＜70 is not good； 50≤values ＜ 60 is worse; 40 ≤ values ＜ 50 is worst. We chose the average value, and then got the integer by round off, as grade value. Due to limited space, now taking T coral mine for instance, we can use value model above mentioned to figure out the evaluation results. (1) Primary judge. We can get vague relationship matrix by taking experts’ grade values into membership function formula. 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0   0.3 0.2 0 0.4 0.1 0 RT = (10) 1  0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0 0     0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 0   0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 0 RT = (11) 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0 0     0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 T   R3 =  0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 (12)    0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0  0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0    0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0 RT = (13) 4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 0     0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 0 81946 CHENCHEN Kun Kunet al et/ Procedia al. / Procedia Engineering Engineering 00 (2011 26 (2011)) 000– 0001939 – 1948

 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0 0   0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 0 RT = (14) 5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0     0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0 0  0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0   0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0 0 RT = (15) 6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0     0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0 0 Organization promise calculation results: T B1 = (0.1150 0.3550 0.2500 0.2650 0.0350 0) Management participation calculation results: T B2 = (0.1740 0.3190 0.3340 0.1730 0 0) Employee empowerment calculation results: T B3 = (0.0820 0.4320 0.2860 0.1250 0.0750 0) Rewards and penalties system calculation results: T B4 = (0.0820 0.4320 0.2860 0.1250 0.0750 0) Reporting system calculation results: T B5 = (0.1980 0.2170 0.2860 0.2660 0.0330 0) Education & training calculation results: T B6 = (0.2870 0.2000 0.2740 0.2260 0.0130 0) T T (2) Secondary judge. Making B1 ～ B6 into matrix. 0.1150 0.3550 0.2500 0.2650 0.0350 0    0.1740 0.3190 0.3340 0.2140 0 0  0.0820 0.4320 0.2860 0.1250 0.0750 0  RT =  . (16) 0.1230 0.2100 0.2350 0.2890 0.1420 0    0.1980 0.2170 0.2860 0.2660 0.0330 0    0.2870 0.2000 0.2740 0.2260 0.0130 0  We can use the weight and formula (16) of the primary index to derive the safety culture evaluation results for the Tianfu Mining Company: BT = ART = (0.1806 0.2644 0.2754 0.2390 0.0492 0) , Given that the value evaluation set is on a range interval, V = (90 80 70 60 50 40) , so BTV T = 73.52 。 In like manner, we can figure out the safety culture evaluation results of Songzao coral mine, a small coral mine in Chongqing. S S T B = (0.1723 0.2741 0.2915 0.2390 0.1089 0) ， B V = 77.63。 X X T B = (0.1654 0.1942 0.1229 0.2763 0.2686 0) ， B V = 69.03 。 It’s safety culture evaluation results ranged from lowest to highest is X coral mine, T coral mine, and S coral mine. In general, if evaluation results is below the “good” level, it can be thought this coral mine’s safety culture construction is poor, and may leading the company to much risk, and it must take rectification measures in time, only reach above “good” can produce. It will be seen from this that in the three mining companies’ safety culture evaluation results coral mine and S coral mine get the “good” rank, have reached the production requirement, while X coral mine’s is “not good”, with much risk, and must take CHENCHEN Kun Kun etet al. al // ProcediaProcedia EngineeringEngineering 2600 (2011)(2011) 1939000– 000– 1948 19479 rectification measures to reach the standard, then produce under permission. Through statistical analysis about these three coral mines’ recent safety achievement and unsafety event, T coral mine and S coral mine both have no casualty accident recently, the description about these three coral mines’ standard of Safety Supervision Bureau of Chongqing: the safety standard of T coral mine and S coral mine is upon middle among their peers, can receive required education training regularly, and ad the rewards and penalties’ strengh of staff, producing standardise, normise, now Chongqing is strenghing on closing down the coral mine with low production, taking measures to “close and transform”, X coral mine’s production is low, unstandard, with high risk, among the list of which should be closed down. Therefore, after assess the three companies achievement and deficiency objectively, the results of evaluations basically the same with actual situation, accord with actual production. But T mine, S mine got the results of “general good ", needing to strengthen on constructing safety culture based on the target system, improving produce standard.

5. Conclusions

This thsis has comprehensively analyzed the major factors and implications of coal mining enterprises’ safety culture construction, three measured dimensions, six direction indicators, and twenty-three appraisal targets have established the safety culture indicator system of coal mining enterprises, and fuzzy synthesis evaluation model based on the Fuzzy Theory. Through analyzing the instance, evaluation results shows that safety culture rank of T coral mine and S coral mine is “general good”, of X coral mine is “not good”. The culture ranks from small is X, T, S coral mine one by one, among influence factors rewards and penalties system combines with education and training takes a greater weight. It had offered reference for related coral mining enterprises to build safety culture, and push forward enterprises to produce safely.

References

[1] HUANG Dongmei, QIN zhongcheng, CHANG Xikun. The discuss of infiltration from safety culture to safety management in coal mine. Coal Engineering, 2007(4): 85–87. (in Chinese) [2] WU Youjun, JIN Qi. Discussion on the evaluation system of coal- mine enterprise's safety culture’s building. China Coal, 2006, 32(2): 67–71. (in Chinese) [3] MA Youcai, WANG Yuhai, LIU Zhenlun, et al. Analysis of problems and countermeasures in safety culture construction of coal mine enterprise. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2006, 6(s1): 44–46. (in Chinese) [4] EDGAR H S. Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 1990, 45(2): 109–257. [5] GULDENMUND F W. The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety Science, 2000, 34: 215–257. [6] VERONICA L, MICHAEL A W. On elephants and blind researchers: methods for accessing culture in organizations. Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 1996, 17(7): 12–21. [7] HANG Yinjian. Safety culture and its build in coal mining enterprise. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2006, 6(s1): 49–51. (in Chinese) [8] SIMA Junjie, SUI Xiuhua, MIAO Dejun. System of safety culture in enterprise and appraisement. Safety in Coal Mines, 2006, 37(9): 68–71. (in Chinese) [9] WANG Xin, LI Xiang. On the new fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for flying safety. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2008, 8(3): 150–152. (in Chi nese) [10] LIU Wei, TAO Shuren. Application of comprehensive fuzzy evaluation method to coal industry safety. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2005, 25(1): 89–91. (in Chinese) [11] HELMREICH R L, MERRITT A C, SHERMAN P J. Research project evaluates the effect of culture on flight crew behaviour. International Civial Aviation Qrganization (ICAO) Journal, 1996, 51(8): 14–16. 101948 CHENCHEN Kun Kunet al et/ Procedia al. / Procedia Engineering Engineering 00 (2011 26 (2011)) 000– 0001939 – 1948

[12] NIEVA V F, SORRA J. Safety culture assessment: a tool for improving patient safety in healthcare organizations. Qualty and Safety in Health Care, 2003, 12(s2): 17–23. [13] ZHAO Hua nchen, XU Shuba i, HE Jinsheng. Analytic hierarchyprocess. Beijing: Science Press, 1986: 1–30. (in Chinese) [14] TIAN Hongxia, ZHENG Shuangzhong, WU Qiong. Fuzzy mathematics researches on safety assessment in enterprises. Industial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2003, 29(3): 41–43. (in Chinese) [15] JAMES JB, THOMAS F, YOICHI H. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 129(1): 48–64. [16] KONSTANTINOS A, HARIS D, JOHN P. A linguistic multicriteria analysis system combining fuzzy sets theory, ideal and anti-ideal points for location site selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 2008(35): 2041–2048. [17] MIN Fanfei, XU Junjie, YANG Xiaohong. Selection of coal preparation flowsheet by multi-stage comprehensive fuzzy evaluation method. Journal of China Coal Society, 2002, 27(2): 201–205. (in Chinese).