Managing all the risks

When it comes to disruptions to a bulk handling system, there are many that are outside of an organisation’s control. Spencer Wakelam, an independent Security consultant, explains how planning for only maintenance related disruptions can leave operations exposed.

Bulk handling sites are by definition hazardous environments.

CONDITION MONITORING PLAYS

a vital role in preventing catastrophic machine failure, but it is just one of several elements that contribute to the overall resilience of a bulk handling operation.

The Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery (PPRR) model is a widely recognised and applied method in risk management. However, to plan only for maintenance-related disruptions, rather than take an allhazards approach, is to leave operations exposed to a wide range of risks.

Enterprise Risk Management and Supply Chain Security can mitigate the risks presented by indirect geopolitical, economic, and logistic issues that are often beyond the control of the organisation. But what of the direct threat posed by a determined or malicious human actor?

It is noteworthy that multiple categories of risk event can originate from a security breach. One of the key security threats currently facing the mining and resources, freight and bulk handling industries in Australia is that of Issue Motivated Groups (IMGs) such as Frontline Action on Coal (FLAC), Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Blockade Australia, to name but a few.

Since 2014, activists have conducted non-violent direct action at bulk handling facilities at Whitehaven and Port of Newcastle in New South Wales, several Queensland coal terminals, and the mine and its associated rail construction project in Carmichael. Protests have involved scaling machinery and disabling conveyor systems by locking-on and activating emergency stop buttons. In two weeks alone in November 2021, two activists lockedon to conveyors at both Hay Point and Abbot Point, and protesters conducted more than twenty separate actions targeting the Port of Newcastle and the

rail infrastructure that services it.

This type of illegal activity presents several significant risks. The first and foremost is to the safety of the protesters themselves, and the safety and wellbeing of site employees, including mental and emotional wellbeing in the unfortunate event of an incident. The prevention of a safety incident must therefore always be the primary aim. Thereafter, the priority of the risks will depend on the nature of the site, but will certainly include operational, financial, and reputational damage, with the possibility of regulatory non-compliance resulting from failure to take sufficient measures to prevent the activity occurring.

There are several strategies and controls that can be implemented to mitigate the risk of unauthorised entry leading to safety hazards and operational disruptions. Arguably the most obvious would be physical security measures. However, at large sites installing physical barriers and security systems can be costly, and still fail to prevent access being gained by determined intruders. Therefore, the single most valuable element of a protective security profile is a positive security culture.

Positive security culture can be embedded through employee training, innovative internal communications, and promotion of security risk awareness. A characteristic of such a culture is employees who feel a sense of personal responsibility for security and safety in the workplace. Whenever positive security culture examples are set by employees, they should be recognised and positively reinforced, because employees are more likely to reflect positive peer group behaviour than follow ‘examples’ set by senior leadership.

Knowledge of supportive legislation is another important risk mitigation approach, and therefore a healthy relationship with the organisation’s legal team is essential. Advance understanding of sections of relevant law – for example the Mining Act 1992 and Crimes Act 1990 (NSW), the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld), and the WA Criminal Code (Prevention of Lawful Activity) – can empower an organisation to better formulate its security strategies based on prevention and recognition of illegal protest activity.

Being targeted by IMGs, and the organisation’s public response, can have a significant impact on brand and reputation. It should be assumed that all protests will be photographed, filmed and live streamed to social media, as this is how IMGs gain widespread coverage and support for their ideological cause. For this reason, employee behaviour must be exemplary and focus upon the safety and wellbeing of the protester until such time that emergency services can respond (or the protester voluntarily ceases the activity). During or after a protest, a large organisation portraying itself as a victim, or issuing statements containing overtly negative sentiments about the groups or individuals responsible, is unlikely to win sympathy outside of those already supportive of the organisation and may even have adverse reputational consequences.

Safety must always be the number one consideration in the prevention of, planning for, response to and recovery from IMG activity at bulk handling sites, which are by definition hazardous. The mitigation of security risk will reduce the likelihood of a safety incident and the risk to business continuity.

One of the key security threats currently facing the mining, freight and bulk handling industries in Australia is Issue Motivated Groups. Spencer Wakelam is an independent Security Risk and Resilience consultant based in Queensland. He has over thirty years’ experience gained from both military and police service, and in corporate and government roles across three continents. He holds a Master’s Degree in Security and Risk Management from the University of Leicester.