“Vision Zero” Concept as a Tool for the Effective Occupational Safety Management System Formation in JSC “SUEK-Kuzbass”
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I deal with mining, I am aware of the importance of the issues raised, and this article interested me personally.
Nevertheless, the article needs to be improved. Please improve the legibility of the drawings. Please make all the drawings in at least twice the resolution. In particular, this applies to the diagrams in drawings: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
The font size in figures, tables, charts and formulas, if possible, should not be smaller than the font size in the main text. Please bear in mind people with slightly impaired eyesight :-). Please print the article and check if all the inscriptions are legible. The above comments apply to almost all objects, e.g. the diagram in Figure 10b - please describe every other year, but in larger font. Please also notice that the figures on the chart do not coincide with the line, the figures should be moved and enlarged.
In table 2 the symbols "Cvict", "Cwork" etc. - please enlarge too, especially the font in subscript is not very visible.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for a detailed review of our article.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1. Please improve the legibility of the drawings. Please make all the drawings in at least twice the resolution. In particular, this applies to the diagrams in drawings: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Response 1: Comments are accepted. Changes have been made to the drawings for the article; changes are highlighted (in yellow) in the attached article.
Point 2. The font size in figures, tables, charts and formulas, if possible, should not be smaller than the font size in the main text. Please bear in mind people with slightly impaired eyesight :-). Please print the article and check if all the inscriptions are legible. The above comments apply to almost all objects, e.g. the diagram in Figure 10b - please describe every other year, but in larger font. Please also notice that the figures on the chart do not coincide with the line, the figures should be moved and enlarged.
Response 2: Comments are accepted. Changes have been made to the figures, tables, charts and formulas for the article; changes are highlighted (in yellow) in the attached article.
Point 3. In table 2 the symbols "Cvict", "Cwork" etc. - please enlarge too, especially the font in subscript is not very visible.
Response 3: Comments are accepted. Changes have been made to the symbols for the article; changes are highlighted (in yellow) in the attached article.
We enclose the corrected text of the article. Please see the attachment.
Yours faithfully,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article entitled "Vision Zero" Concept as a Tool for the Effective Occupational Safety Management System Formation in JSC "SUEK-Kuzbass". At the very beginning, it should be emphasized that the article has been edited correctly. Up-to-date statistical data were used. Translation into English does not raise any major reservations. Minor stylistic errors (e.g. line 133 - no spaces after the dot) do not hinder the perception of the text. The subject of the article is related to the thematic scope of the publishing house. It’s commendable that the article deals with the issues of work safety, in particular work safety in underground mining facilities.
Despite these advantages, the article has many significant disadvantages. First of all, the text refers to the case of one mine where the number of accidents has significantly decreased over the years. The authors did not justify the need to introduce a revolution in the way of managing work safety. The presented concept assumes zero accidents, although, as they show, some of them are basically unpredictable. The risk of rock bursts, rock ejection, dust explosion, etc ... is inherent in underground mining activities. The article does not indicate a method that would guarantee that none of these events (and many other threats) would contribute directly or indirectly to the accident. The method, despite the emphasis on training, creating authorities, etc ... does not eliminate the risk of human error. Only improve (as any other method in my opinion).
The actions described by the Authors of the work do not prove and do not guarantee the effect = zero accidents. Moreover, the assumptions of the method are more or less based on obvious assumptions, which have certainly been the basis of the risk assessment so far. Basically, it seems that the presented concept is based on reinventing the wheel.
In the context of the review of the article, it should be emphasized that in the scientific field, the article basically adds nothing new. The description of the "Vision Zero" methodology in the text is too extensive. The method and its implementations have already been well described in the world literature. I believe the article may be of interest to safety engineers involved in developing new strategies in mining facilities.
Summing up, This manuscript needs modification due to the poor cognitive value of the article, the lack of justification for the need to introduce changes to the described mine and extremely high doubts as to the possibility of achieving the assumed assumptions for changes in safety management.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for a detailed review of our article.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1. Minor stylistic errors (e.g. line 133 - no spaces after the dot) do not hinder the perception of the text.
Response 1: Comment is accepted. Changes have been made for the article.
Point 2. First of all, the text refers to the case of one mine where the number of accidents has significantly decreased over the years. The authors did not justify the need to introduce a revolution in the way of managing work safety.
Response 2: Comments are accepted. The materials presented in the article relate both to the situation in the coal industry in Russia as a whole (Fig. 1), and to the activities of the largest coal company in Russia, JSC Siberian Coal Energy Company (SUEK), which includes 27 coal mines and open pits.
Point 3. The presented concept assumes zero accidents, although, as they show, some of them are basically unpredictable. The risk of rock bursts, rock ejection, dust explosion, etc ... is inherent in underground mining activities. The article does not indicate a method that would guarantee that none of these events (and many other threats) would contribute directly or indirectly to the accident. The method, despite the emphasis on training, creating authorities, etc ... does not eliminate the risk of human error. Only improve (as any other method in my opinion).
The actions described by the Authors of the work do not prove and do not guarantee the effect = zero accidents. Moreover, the assumptions of the method are more or less based on obvious assumptions, which have certainly been the basis of the risk assessment so far. Basically, it seems that the presented concept is based on reinventing the wheel.
Response 3: Comments are accepted. The authors agree that the achievement of an absolute zero level of injuries in modern conditions, including in the mining industry, is practically impossible. However, the main purpose of the article is to show the potential of the Vision Zero concept to further reduce the level of injuries, which, as shown in the article, is cyclical.
Point 4. In the context of the review of the article, it should be emphasized that in the scientific field, the article basically adds nothing new. The description of the "Vision Zero" methodology in the text is too extensive. The method and its implementations have already been well described in the world literature. I believe the article may be of interest to safety engineers involved in developing new strategies in mining facilities.
Response 4: Comments are accepted. The authors believe that the scientific value of the article in the future can be determined based on a comparison of the results obtained when the Vision Zero implementation at SUEK with the previous period of activity. The results of the Vision Zero implementation in comparison with the experience of other mining companies in Russia, in which it is necessary to develop urgent measures to reduce the injuries level, including fatal ones, are also of interest. You are absolutely right, the article may be of interest to safety engineers involved in developing new strategies in mining facilities; one of the article's authors is the director of Training center and personnel development, JSC SUEK-Kuzbass.
We enclose the corrected text of the article. Please see the attachment.
Yours faithfully,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript exposes an intervention methodology, presents and discusses results about implementing the “zero vision” in the JSC company "SUEK-Kuzbass". It is a successful case in which the results are evident. It can therefore be an important example for other companies. However, it does present some formal issues that must overcome before publication:
- Abstract - the methodology must be clearly explained;
- Keywords - The keyword “golden rules of the concept”, as it is formulated, in addition to appearing only once in the text, also does not explain what the concept is. Thus, it is suggested that be switched to “golden rules” or “golden rules of Vision-zero”;
- Figure 1 - The values of “number of accidents” and “number of Engagement with sources as well as recent scholarship” should be checked, since it is not understood how the number of accidents is less than the number of “fatalities”;
-The first paragraph of the materials and methods (lines 94-97) is written in the style of an advertising spot. Therefore, it must be rewritten;
- Some phrases appear in the 1st person, using "us" and "we" that must be changed;
- In the first part of the chapter, “materials and methods” (pages 94 to 144), company data are presented that seem to be more suitable for the “results” chapter.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for a detailed review of our article.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1. Abstract - the methodology must be clearly explained.
Response 1: Comment is accepted. Changes have been made for the article in Abstract; they are highlighted (in green) in the attached article. Unfortunately the limitation of 200 words in the Abstract does not allow to explain the detailed methodology.
Point 2. Keywords - The keyword “golden rules of the concept”, as it is formulated, in addition to appearing only once in the text, also does not explain what the concept is. Thus, it is suggested that be switched to “golden rules” or “golden rules of Vision-zero”;
Response 2: Comments are accepted. Changes have been made for the article in keywords; they are highlighted (in green) in the attached article.
Point 3. Figure 1 - The values of “number of accidents” and “number of Engagement with sources as well as recent scholarship” should be checked, since it is not understood how the number of accidents is less than the number of “fatalities”.
Response 3: Comments are accepted. Figure 1 shows the number of accidents and the number of fatally injured people in this case in comparison with the coal production dynamics. In some accidents, such as methane explosions, some people were fatally injured.
Point 4. The first paragraph of the materials and methods (lines 94-97) is written in the style of an advertising spot. Therefore, it must be rewritten.
Response 4: Comments are accepted. Changes have been made for the article in lines 94-97; they are highlighted (in green) in the attached article.
Point 5. Some phrases appear in the 1st person, using "us" and "we" that must be changed.
Response 5: Comments are accepted. Changes have been made for the article; they are highlighted (in green) in the attached article.
Point 6. In the first part of the chapter, “materials and methods” (pages 94 to 144), company data are presented that seem to be more suitable for the “results” chapter.
Response 6: Comments are accepted. The first part of the chapter "Materials and Methods" presents data from SUEK, which characterize the current state of safety issues. In present, the company is not only slowing down the rate of decrease in general injuries, but also there is a tendency to increase it. This circumstance is, in our opinion, the main reason for the further Vision Zero implementation at SUEK.
We enclose the corrected text of the article.
Yours faithfully,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The changes introduced in the article do not resolve the allegations previously presented. The article deals with important security management issues. According to the authors, in the described enterprise, the current security management method has reached its limit and there is, in principle, no room for improvement. The main drawback of the existing systems, according to the authors, is the human factor (to put it very generally). So how is the new concept supposed to solve the problem if this factor continues? The entire article is based solely on theoretical considerations and at the level of generalities. It has not been shown in any way that the new concept will bring benefits in such an important aspect as protecting the health and life of employees. Analogies to other examples of implementations, such as road traffic in Scandinavian countries, are not in this case a valid argument in favor of a revolution in the safety management system in a mining plant. What training and control system will guarantee 100% certainty that the employee will not make a mistake? The scientific impact of the article is very small. The constant search for new systems and methods to reduce the accident rate in a given workplace deserves praise. Nevertheless, in the case of this article, it would be necessary to provide specific numerical values, declare the results, perform a full and in-depth analysis. The result may be a scientific monograph where there is room for a detailed analysis of every aspect of the mining plant's operation. In the case of a scientific article, limited in terms of the possible content to be submitted, I suggest focusing on a selected aspect of risk management and describing it in detail in relation to the selected methodology. In the present approach, there is too much commonly known content - golden rules, etc ... It's enough to refer to the source where everything has already been described and in the article to allocate the saved space to something valuable. The article does not contribute anything significant in the context of broadly understood science. It largely duplicates existing knowledge.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for a detailed review of our article.
Comments are accepted.
Changes have been made in the attached article.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for answering my comments. The work has been significantly improved. Earlier comments were included in the text of the article. I believe that the article in its current form, despite its average scientific value, is suitable for publication.
