MAY 1999 1Vol. 10 No. 1MAY 1999 1

Code of PracticeSurface Rock Support in

Underground Mines ... SEE PAGE 2

The State Mining Engineer, Jim Torlach, formally released the Code of Practice forSurface Rock Support in Underground Mines in Kalgoorlie on 16 March 1999.

Vol. 10 No. 1

MAY 19992 Vol. 10 No. 1

MINESAFE IS PUBLISHED BY :The Mining Operations Division6th Floor, Mineral HouseDepartment of Minerals and EnergyWestern Australia100 Plain StreetEAST PERTH WA 6004

Editor: Patrick Burke

Associate Editor: Chris StubleyTypesetting: Ruth LavenderGraphic Design: Christine Gillard

Enquiries: Tel: (08) 9222 3438

Fax: (08) 9325 2280

e-mail: mod@dme.wa.gov.au

http: //www.dme.wa.gov.au

MINESAFE is published four times ayear by the Mining Operations Division.Articles and news items may be usedfreely, although we would appreciateacknowledgment, as well as a copy ofany publication in which they are used.

Inside.........PAGE SPECIAL FEATURES:

2. Code of Practice - Surface RockSupport in Underground Mines

4. A Quiet Revolution5. Conveyors and Guarding5. MOSHAB New Logo6. Tuff Torquer Hoist6. New Office for the State Mining

Engineer’s Secretariat7. Dangerous Goods - Yes or No7. Office of Energy8. Training Alliance Seeks to

Improve Safety in the MiningIndustry

9. Diesel Exhaust Reduction A“Win-Win” Situation

REGULAR ARTICLES

3. Guest Editorial10. What’s On11. Staff changes11. New Publications12. Incident Alert12. Watch Out

reinforcement is in place toensure the general structuralstability of the excavation. Therequirements in the Code do notdetract from the obligationscontained in Regulation 10.28of the Mines Safety andInspection Regulations 1995.

The Code states that theinstallation of surface rocksupport, such as mesh, shotcreteor other surface treatment, inaddition to existing or primaryreinforcement methods may benecessary to control the risk ofinjury and death that can resultfrom small rock falls frombetween the installed rockreinforcement elements.

Surface rock support is notintended to replace existingground reinforcement methodsbut should be used, whererequired, in conjunction withthese methods, and integratedinto the mine’s ground controlsystem or strategy.

The Code specifically addressesgravity induced rock falls.Dynamic rock failuremechanisms are not covered bythe Code and must be controlledby appropriate means accordingto the identified risk.

It is recommended that the Codebe read in conjunction with theDepartment of Minerals andEnergy Guidelines GeotechnicalConsiderations for UndergroundMines and Underground BarringDown and Scaling.

Jim Torlach, State MiningEngineer, released the Code ofPractice for Surface RockSupport in Underground Mineson 16 March 1999. It is the firstCode of Practice to be approvedunder section 93(1) of the MinesSafety and Inspection Act 1994.Notification approving the Codeas an approved Code of Practiceunder the Act was published inthe Government Gazette on thesame date which means theCode can be called up as a legaldocument from 16 March 1999.

The Code was developedfollowing a recommendation ofthe Mines Occupational Safetyand Health Advisory Board(MOSHAB) 1997 Fatality InquiryReport and applies to allunderground excavations inwhich persons may travel orwork including developmentheadings and entry-methodstopes.

The Code introduces therequirement to install surfacerock support in high headings(ie. those greater than or equalto a nominal 3.5m in height) inall Western Australianunderground mines unless adocumented geotechnical riskassessment justifies otherwise.Where surface rock support isinstalled, it shall be applied tobacks and sidewalls that are anominal 3.5m from the floor ofthe excavation.

It is framed on the assumptionthat the necessary primary rock

COVER STORYCODE OF PRACTICE

SURFACE ROCK SUPPORT INUNDERGROUND MINES

MAY 1999 3Vol. 10 No. 1

GUEST EDITORIALWe often tend to be concernedabout the outcome of an accidentor incident rather than getting tothe root cause and exploring waysto prevent the occurrencehappening again. We view anincident as being more serious ifsomeone is killed or badly injuredthan if everyone walks awaywithout having any harm come tothem. This is natural and no onesuggests that we should not doeverything possible to activelyprevent injuries or deaths. Thequestion is how best to go about it.

The one certain way is to preventall occurrences that might result ininjury. Anything else leaves usopen to chance. While there isalways a root cause (or causes)behind an accident, the outcome isalways subject to a degree ofchance. When a rock falls from thehanging wall of a stope, there maybe no one in the area, it maynarrowly miss the miner workingthere or it may strike him and killhim. The root cause might be thesame in each instance - the lack ofproper understanding of the groundconditions and how to control them- but the consequence might be amatter of good (or bad) luck.

Look on it like taking a ticket in thelottery. When you buy one, youalong with millions of others don’treally expect to win the firstdivision prize. You know that thechances are that you won’t.

Yet every week, someone wins thebig prize, a few win the seconddivision and more win the lowervalue prizes. Most don’t winanything at all, but if you have a

Section 93 of the Act sets out theprocesses associated with theapproval and revision of codes ofpractice, and the status of approvedcodes of practice in relation tolegal proceedings.

The following points are included:

• A person is not liable to anycivil or criminal proceedingssimply because of non-compliance with a Code ofPractice; and

• Where it is alleged that a personhas contravened a provision ofthe Act or Regulations, theinformation in a Code ofPractice may be used asevidence to show there is apracticable means of reducingthe risk of work-related injury ordisease. However,demonstration that the personhas complied with the Act orRegulations by some othermeans would be a satisfactorydefence.

Codes of Practice may not provideexact solutions to occupationalsafety and health problems in theindustry, but following the practicalguidance in this code of practiceshould help to reduce the risk ofserious injury or death from rockfalls.

Copies of the Code of Practicecan be obtained by contactingthe SME Secretariat on Tel (08)9222 3310 or can be printeddirectly from the DME webpageat www.dme.wa.gov.au. Copies ofthe Code can also be viewed free-of-charge in the DME Perth Library,5th Floor, Mineral House or at theregional offices in Collie,Kalgoorlie and Karratha.

ticket there is always a chance thatyou will be the one who takes outthe big one.

Safety at work is like that. Everytime you do something unsafe, youtake a chance in the lottery. Mostpeople, most of the time, don’texpect to get hurt - and they areright - most of the time they don’t.However, as they are in the lottery,they may win a fourth divisionprize and have a near-miss; theymight win second division andbreak an arm or a leg; and there isa remote possibility that they couldtake the first division.

Remember that if you’re in it, youcould win it and that if thePowerball comes up, you could beout of here!

Martin KneeGeneral Manager - Mining Safety

MAY 19994 Vol. 10 No. 1

A QUIET REVOLUTIONOn 18 April 1998 an eventoccurred in an open pit mine nearKAMBALDA which is believed tohave been a world first, thesuccessful firing of one hundredand ninety blastholes using adevice known as an ElectronicDelay Detonator (EDD). Mostpeople in the mining industry arefamiliar with the various types ofdetonator used in blasting, from the‘old timers’ with their safety fuse‘dets’ to the almost universalmillisecond NONEL type. Electricdelay detonators are also inwidespread use, often as theprimary initiator of a NONEL basedblast.

Although the safety fuse, theelectric detonator, and the NONELunit are all different, themechanism of the delay is basicallychemical. The rate at whichchemical reactions take place is notalways as precise as we would wishand despite the best efforts of thevarious manufacturers, theperformances of the devices onwhich we currently rely are sovariable that blast designers arequite restricted in the way they cancontrol the parameters of a blast.

With the development of the massproduced electronic ‘chip’, the ideaoccurred to a number of peoplethat a very accurate ‘clock’ couldbe placed in the detonator whichwould enable it to be fired withgreat precision. As a concept thiswas readily achievable. The majordifficulties arose with methods ofaddressing the ‘chip’ and with themeans of providing electricalcontact and insulation to thevarious components. As might beexpected, a number of systemswere developed, but many were socomplex that potential customersdecided that it was all “too hard”and refused to become involved.One Australian mining contractorpersevered and the outcome wasthe blast at Kambalda.

The apparent benefits from the blastat Kambalda included; 20%reduction in powder factor, 22 mm/second peak particle velocity at 50metres (from the blast), excellentfragmentation, excellent‘diggability’, very little dilution ofore into waste, no misfires and noappreciable fly rock. Otherbenefits were not so obvious. Thefact that the blast was fired by a

blasting ‘computer’ or ‘machine’which had to be satisfied that allwas well before it would do itswork is of great importance. Onehas only to think of thecomparatively recent fatalaccidents and other blast relatedincidents to appreciate the value ofa machine, which rigorously checksthat all necessary precautions arein place before it initiates a blast.The fact that the detonators are‘armed’ just before the blast isinitiated is also a major safetyfactor as is their ‘disarming’ twominutes later. In this condition thesystem has ‘failed to safe’ and isincapable of firing.

The technical details of how all thishappens is beyond the scope of thisarticle and in any case is regardedas a ‘trade secret’ by the companieswho make the systems. What isimportant is the fact that EDDsoffer a means of blasting moreefficiently which has some verysignificant safety implications.

The Electronic Delay Detonator is anew device that is currentlyexpensive, maybe difficult tounderstand and most certainlyposes a challenge to the establishedway in which we do things.Western Australian mining peopleare not generally phased bychallenges but we do tend toembrace the ‘not invented heresyndrome’ (NIHS) and have beenknown to say, on occasions, ‘Toohard’. To supporters of NIHS thewriter would say that WA has had aworld first in the use of the EDDand that the benefits this eventdemonstrated are too great to beignored. A tool of great potential isin our grasp and it only requires therational application of itscapabilities to provide us withsome badly needed solutions to avariety of problems which currentlytrouble us.

World First EDD Blast

MAY 1999 5Vol. 10 No. 1

CONVEYORS AND GUARDING“Each responsible person at a minemust ensure that any movingmachinery at the mine whichcreates a risk of injury to anemployee through inadvertentcontact is screened or guarded toprevent such contact.” Regulation4.4. of the Mines Safety andInspection Regulations 1995.

Awareness is the key to therecognition of potential hazardsthat may exist around yourworkplace.

Many potentially life threateningsituations remain unnoticed due to‘over-familiarity’, not taking acloser look, not asking the question ’why’ or simply because ‘that is theway the plant was originallyinstalled’.

Planning, maintenance proceduresand asking “what is the likelihoodof a situation occurring,” areimportant factors in plantremaining safe to personnel duringoperation and maintenance.

Regulation 6.17 describes theemployer’s obligation to assessrisks arising from plant andmethods that may be used toidentify such risks.

Plant with moving parts such as theconveyors pictured, pose a risk ofentanglement or injury to personspassing in close proximity to themachinery. Each picture tells itsown story:

Fig (2) A conveyor operating withcounterweight guards removed has a chaindraped over the counterweight to act as a‘barrier.’ An inadequate means of providingeven temporary personal protection.

Fig (3) Clearing of spillage fromaround idler roller guards has alwaysbeen a problem, and to cut anddestroy the very purpose of a guardwhile allowing the spillage to remainis like waiting and priming a rat trapready to strike. This is acontravention of Section 10(2)(c) ofthe Mines Safety and Inspection Act1994.

Fig (1) A very good approachto guarding except forprobably the most critical nippoint of all which could dragpersons in to such an extentthat they may not be able toreach the emergency-stoplanyard.

The Mines Occupational Safety and Health AdvisoryBoard (MOSHAB) has agreed to a logo that will beused on all its publications, notices etc. MOSHABpublications include reports, codes of practice andguidelines.

The logo shows three safety helmets which representthe tripartite membership of MOSHAB. MOSHABmembers include representatives from DME, theChamber of Minerals and Energy and the Trades andLabor Council.

MOSHAB NEW LOGOThe helmets with and without the cap lamp representboth the surface and underground mining sectors, andthe safety diamond and black and yellow safety tapecomplete the safety message.

MAY 1999 5Vol. 10 No. 1

MAY 19996 Vol. 10 No. 1

NEW OFFICE FOR THE STATE MINING ENGINEER’S SECRETARIAT

Alan Sheppard, Executive Officer - Board of Examiners,Dr Brian Galton-Fenzi, Mines Occupational Physician,and Administrative staff, Cassie Booth and Jo Duggan.

The SME Secretariat has moved to new offices on the3rd Floor of Mineral House. Any inquiries for the SMESecretariat can be made to the following numbers:

State Mining Engineer: (08) 9222 3310

MOSHAB: (08) 9222 3129

Board of Examiners: (08) 9222 3269

Mines Occupational Physician: (08) 9222 3310

Fax: (08) 9222 3722

Email: j.duggan@dme.wa.gov.au

The SME Secretariat, a section in the MiningOperations Division, has been established todetermine policy direction and conduct legislativereview. Jim Torlach, State Mining Engineer, heads theSecretariat which retains the Mines OccupationalSafety and Health Advisory Board (MOSHAB), and theBoard of Examiners and the Mines OccupationalPhysician.

All other operational and field activities areadministered through the operational arm of theDivision, headed by Bob Hopkins, Director MiningOperations.

The Secretar iat members include J im Torlach,SME, Tracy Long, Executive Off icer - MOSHAB,

Mike Rowe, a familiar face atmining industry seminars andVentilation Officer Courses, wasrecently appointed as ManagerOccupational Health in MiningOperations.

Mike’s early education was inEngland and Malta beforegraduating from WAIT (Curtin) in1971. He was a chemist at CocaCola, Perth before moving to theGovernment Chemical Laboratories(now the Chemistry Centre).Originally a food chemist, he beganspecialising in occupational healthand environmental chemistry fromthe mid 70’s, and first undertookminesite assessment work for theMining Engineering Division in1982.

By 1988 Mike was Chief of HealthChemistry and following arestructure of the Chemistry Centre,transferred to Mining Operations as

Principal Occupational Hygienist in1992. One of his first tasks was thepractical application of the newDangerous Goods Regulations tominesites, while more recently hehas been involved with theapplication of the NationalStandard for the Control of MajorHazard Facilities, with an emphasison processing plant riskmanagement.

Mike regularly contributes toconferences, seminars and journalsand has sat on a number ofGovernment and tripartitecommittees. He was presented withthe Bilsom Overseas ProfessionalDevelopment Award by theAustralian Institute of OccupationalHygienists in 1996.

Mike can provide help on mattersrelating to the handling, storageand disposal of hazardoussubstances and dangerous goods,

PROFILE: MIKE ROWEincluding requirements andtechniques for atmospheric andbiological monitoring forcontaminants. He can becontacted on Tel: (08) 9222 3050.

MAY 1999 7Vol. 10 No. 1

DANGEROUS GOODS - YES OR NOAny classification system willalways have items that either fitmore than one category or don’tappear to fit any. The dangerousgoods classification systemaccording to the AustralianDangerous Goods Code 6th edition(ADG6) is no exception. A fewmaterials that we deal with on aregular basis such as diesel fuel,sulfur, xanthates and lime fall intothis dilemma and the classificationis sometimes dependent on whetherthe material is moving (transport) orstationary (storage).

Diesel fuel

Diesel fuel is not listed in ADG6.One could be excused for thinkingit is not dangerous goods - and forthe purposes of transport this is thecase unless it is transported with alow flashpoint material like petrol.However, under the DangerousGoods Regulations 1992 whichapplies Australian Standard 1940-1993 for storage and handling,diesel fuel is a combustible liquidand licensing is required for thestorage of more than 5000 litres inbulk.

Interestingly, ADG6 lists diesel oilas UN1202, Class 3, PG III.However the type of diesel oilreferred to in ADG6 is not thecommonly used variety employedin Australia but a lower flashpointproduct widely used in Europe.

Sulfur - UN1350, Class 4.1 PG III

Read Special Provision 242 inADG6. Sulfur is not classified asdangerous goods during transport if“it is transported in quantities ofless than 400 kg per package” or“when it is formed to a specificshape (eg prills, granules, pellets,pastilles or flakes)”. For all storagepurposes sulfur is classified asdangerous goods.

Xanthates UN3342, Class 4.2 PG IIor III

In the early days (pre-1994) theUnited Nations Recommendationson the Transport of DangerousGoods did not specifically identifyxanthates as a dangerous good. InAustralia however (and in severalother countries), a classification onUN3134, Class 4.3 was deemed tobe appropriate to ensure publicsafety for transportation andstorage. This non-specific (N.O.S)classification has now beenupgraded to UN3342, Class 4.2,but when does it apply?

A recent request for exemptionfrom this dangerous goodsclassification was granted by theChief Inspector of Explosives forthe transport of liquid xanthates. Itwas decided that during the time oftransport, liquid xanthates are

incapable of generating ahazardous (flammable) zone, theprimary reason for theclassification. This is not the casefor liquid xanthates storage ateither end of the transport activity.The generation of carbon disulfide(toxic and flammable) in the ullagespace of the tank is considerable.

Therefore liquid xanthates aredangerous goods during storage butnot during transport.

Lime

Neither dehydrated lime(calciumoxide) nor hydrated lime (wateradded) is dangerous goods for thepurpose of normal road/railtransport or storage. A designationof UN1910, Class 8 PG III doeshowever apply for air transport.

It is worth mentioning thatirrespective of Dangerous Goodsclassifications (primarily for PublicSafety), these materials are alldesignated workplace HazardousSubstances (ie they have anoccupational exposure standard forworker health and safety) and needto be managed accordingly. Shouldyou require further information onany of these issues or help inclassifying materials pleasecontact Stephen Kamarudin onTel: (08) 9222 3543.

OFFICE OF ENERGYGas Installation Mine Site Inspection

With Natural Gas joining Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPGas) as a premium fuel for the mining industry, theOffice of Energy (OOE) is to conduct inspections of gasfired plant and equipment used on minesites.

Inspections in the past have only taken place onspecific plant and equipment being installed. As theavailability of both gases has been more accessible sothe size of the gas installations has grown.

Gas inspectors from the OOE will be conductinginspections to determine the level of compliance with

the Gas Standards Regulations. It is intended thatmost minesites where either Natural Gas or LPGas is used will be visited. Initial inspections willcommence in the Eastern Goldfields on gasinstallations ranging from the stove in the campkitchen to the processing plant and equipment.

Mine managers will be given written notificationof an impending inspection.

For further information contact Chief GasInspector Kevin Hooper, Tel: (08) 9422 5284.

MAY 19998 Vol. 10 No. 1

TRAINING ALLIANCE SEEKS TOIMPROVE SAFETY IN THE

MINING INDUSTRYCIVIL TRAIN, a strategic alliancebetween the West Coast College ofTAFE and the Civil ContractorsFederation, is seeking to improvesafety training for new entrants tothe mining industry through itsrange of innovative mining courses.

CIVIL TRAIN specialises in thetraining of operators for heavyequipment such as dump trucks,excavators, dozers, loaders andgraders and any other machineryused in the mining industry. Thefocus of the training is to ensurethat each participant graduates as asafe and competent operator ofmachinery. Training programs arestructured around nationalstandards, are competency basedand tailored to meet the practicalskills and safety requirements ofindustry.

Training is delivered at the WALimestone quarry at Neerabup

where a fully equipped trainingfacility has been developed. WALimestone provides a live workprogram for the students givingcourse participants an opportunityto develop their skills in a realworking environment. To furtherensure that students realise theimportance of safe work practicesthey receive an induction to thequarry by a representative from WALimestone on the first day of theircourse. All mining coursesdelivered by CIVIL TRAIN have aone day MARCSTA induction and aSenior First Aid componentincluded.

For further information contact:

Andrew PattersonProject ManagerWest Coast College of TAFE

Tel: (08) 9277 5400Fax: (08) 9479 4385.Heavy Equipment Fleet

MAY 19998 Vol. 10 No. 1

Principal Trainer (Bill Morice) and student

MAY 1999 9Vol. 10 No. 1

DIESEL EXHAUST REDUCTIONA “WIN-WIN” SITUATION

Diesel Exhaust and Health

Diesel exhaust is a complexmixture of gases, vapours andparticulates. However, it is theextremely fine (sub-micron) sootparticles, with absorbed mattersuch as polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons, which are critical interms of respiratory health effects.The International Agency forResearch on Cancer has dieselparticulate matter (DPM) listed as aGroup 2A carcinogen (ie probablycarcinogenic to humans). This isbased mainly on extrapolation fromexperimental animal studies, and issubject to debate. Nevertheless,the subject is receiving increasedattention by regulatory agenciesand the 8 hour time weightedaverage, threshold limit value of0.15 mg/m3, as proposed by theAmerican Conference ofGovernment Industrial Hygienists(ACGIH) is used widely as aninterim standard in Australia andelsewhere.

MERIWA Particulate Study

A major 3 year MERIWA/DME/CMEstudy on inhaled dusts at minesitesin WA has been completed andhas great ly enhanced ourunders tanding of :

• The particulate size distributionof airborne dusts in the variousIndustry sectors.

• The collection efficiencies ofpast and current inspirablesampling heads-with importantfindings that bear on standard

setting, compliance andinterpretation of past monitoringresults.

• The chemical and mineralogicalmake-up of airborne dusts as afunction of size.

• Diesel particulateconcentrations in various workenvironments.

The last mentioned elementincluded an assessment of the roleof low sulphur fuel (<0.05%S) inreducing DPM in diesel exhaust.Some work was carried out withvehicles operating in bothunderground and surface (confinedspace) situations, and DPMreductions of up to 50% weremeasured. This producednoticeably cleaner workplace airand a positive reaction fromoperators. But low sulphur fueloffers more than this. It allowsoxidising catalytic converters towork properly and also reducesengine wear and maintenancecosts.

Control measures

The US Department of Labour hasproduced a comprehensive toolboxpackage on practical means toreduce exposure to DPM. Apartfrom the use of low sulphur fuel,other key measures are:

• Use of low emission engines

• Use of certain fuel additives andalternative fuels

• Use of exhaust treatment devices

• Use of improved/increasedventilation

• Use of enclosed cabs

• Diesel engine maintenance

• Work practices and training

• Fleet management

• Respiratory protectiveequipment for contingency use

Conclusion

The MERIWA study has improvedour understanding of the nature ofairborne particulates in WAminesites. In the DPM area, it hasfocused attention on the potentialof low sulphur fuel to markedlyreduce airborne concentrations ofthe contaminant. A number ofmining companies are currentlychanging over to this fuel and areworking with suppliers to overcomesupply and logistical problems thathave prevailed in the past, but thelow sulphur fuel strategy should notbe applied in isolation. There areseveral other elements, referred toabove, that collectively constitutean effective diesel emissionmanagement program. Importantly,this is an example of where a cleanair end point is attached to benefitsfor operators (improved health andworking conditions), equipment(reduced engine wear andmaintenance costs) and theorganisation (improvedproductivity, compliance anddemonstration of leadership andcommitment). In short, everyone isa winner!

For further information contactBarry Chesson Tel: (08) 9410 3301.

MAY 199910 Vol. 10 No. 1

WHAT’S ONAustralianCentre forGeomechanics

GROUND CONTROL AT THE MINE FACE

Kalgoorlie, 28 July 1999Perth, 11 August 1999

The course objective is to increasethe awareness and knowledge ofunderground workers in groundcontrol issues. Topics covered inthe course could include thefollowing:

• Case histories to explain theconcept of in-situ and mineinduced stresses, rock massproperties, rock mass behaviourand failure mechanisms(including rockburst).

• The possible impact of good andbad mine design strategies onground conditions.

• A section on ground supportsystems and practices.

• Simple techniques of groundhazard assessment.

UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS

Perth, 19-20 August 1999

It is intended that this entirely newcourse concept will include thefollowing:

• A series of presentations frommining engineers from differentoperations describing in detailthe mining method with anemphasis on the design,planning and rock mechanicsissues at their individualoperations.

• One complete section on narrowvein mining covering a variety ofapproaches such as alimak

COMPETENCY-BASEDVENTILATION OFFICER COURSES

IFAP began new competency-basedSurface Sampling Officer andSurface Ventilation Officer coursesin early April 1999. The SurfaceSampling Officer course coverscompetencies in occupationalhygiene required to carry outCONTAM sampling. The course isfour days duration. To completethe Surface Ventilation Officercertification participants mustcomplete one extra day in additionto the four-day Surface SamplingOfficer course.

For further information contactMartin Ralph or MalcolmMcFarlane,(IFAP)Tel: (08) 9310 3760

MINESAFE 2000

The Minesafe 2000 Conference willbe held at Burswood Resort Hotelfrom 3-8 September 2000.

The theme of the Conference -”ANew Century: A New Vision: ANew direction” provides an

mining, uphole and longholebenching, avoca, etc.

• One section on large open stopebulk mining methods.

• The advantages anddisadvantages of differentmining approaches and howthey may perform in differentconditions (for example in highstress or weak ground, etc).

• Local modification andcustomisation of techniques andequipment that contribute to thesuccess of different operations.

For further information contact:

Christine Neskudla or GillianMacmillan

Telephone: (08) 9380 3300Facsimile: (08) 9380 1130e-mail: acg@acg.uwa.edu.au

opportunity for innovatory andvisionary planners to fast forwardthe mining industry to the year2005, identify the occupationalhealth and safety concerns that willemerge in the next 5 years (andbeyond) and provide directions forthe industry to enable it to preparefor and meet the challenges it willface.

For further information contact:Paula Sinclair, Chamber of Minerals& Energy on Tel: (08) 9325 2955.

NOISE OFFICER COURSE

NVMS runs a WA Department ofMinerals and Energy approvedNoise Officer Course, and offerstraining in all aspects ofoccupational and environmentalnoise measurement, assessment andcontrol.

For more information pleasecontact: Noise & VibrationMeasurement Systems Pty Ltd,

Tel: (08) 9381 4944Fax: (08) 9381 3588Email: nvms@svt.com.au

EXAMINATIONS FORCERTIFICATES OF

COMPETENCY

First Class Mine Manager’sUnderground Supervisor’sQuarry Manager’sRestricted Quarry Manager’s

Mining Law Examinations onlywill be held in Perth on 30August 1999. Appl icat ionsclose on 30 July 1999. The feeis $100.

Min ing Law and Min ingPractice Examinations will beheld statewide on 25 October1999. Applications close on 24September 1999. The fee is$100.

For applications and furtherin fo rmat ion contac t A lanSheppard,

Tel:(08) 9222 3683 or(08) 9222 3269

MAY 1999 11Vol. 10 No. 1

STAFF CHANGESMOD welcomes three new officersto the Division; Tony Webster,Assistant Environmental Officer -Perth, Campbell Hawks, AssistantEnvironmental Officer - Kalgoorlieand Wayne Bingham - SpecialInspector (Machinery) - Karratha.

The Division bids Farewell to MarkBrown, David Bills and SilvanaDeluca who have recently resignedfrom MOD. We wish them all thebest for the future.

Mark Whiteley, Senior ResearchEngineer, Occupational Health andEngineering Safety, has beengranted 19 months leave of absencein order to take the post of ResultsManager-Diving at the SydneyOlympics. Mark’s task is to build asystem to report on competitionresults and then to operate it duringthe Olympics Tournament. Mark iscurrently based at SOCOG inSydney but will spend some time atthe IBM facility in Madrid, Spain.We wish Mark every success in thisimportant endeavour.

NEW MOD PUBLICATIONSA Review of Incentive - Based RemunerationSchemes in The Western Australian Mining Industry

Contains the report and recommendations from theMOSHAB Incentive-Based Remuneration WorkingParty’s examination of current industry incentive-based remuneration schemes to ensure safety andhealth are not compromised.

Incentive - Based Remuneration Schemes - WorkshopOutcomes Report.

MOSHAB Information Sheet 1/99: Incentive BasedRemuneration Schemes: Safety & Health Implications.

Significant Incident Report 100:Pressure Vessel Entry - Scalding Injury (January 1999)

Significant Incident Report 101:Lime Tank Pressure Piping Connection Failure (April1999)

Safety Bulletin 44:Radio-Frequency Energy - Hazards & Safeguards(January 1999)

Safety Bulletin 45:Two Post Vehicle Hoists Are Not Suitable For LiftingCertain Types Of Vehicles; eg. 80 Series ToyotaLandcruisers (January 1999)

Safety Bulletin 46:Lightning - Hazards & Safeguards (February 1999)

Tony Webster

Campbell Hawks

Wayne Bingham

MAY 199912 Vol. 10 No. 1

INCIDENT ALERT

MAY 199912

Incident

A licensed electrician received asevere electric shock and burns tohis hand and forearm when hecontacted the ‘live’ 3300vincoming slip-rings of an orestockpile stacker.

Details and events

The person was employed by anelectrical contractor engaged tocarryout scheduled inspectionmaintenance of the 415v electricdrives and ancillaries on thestacker.

Prior to commencing work, theresponsible site electricalsupervisor isolated the stacker’sonboard main 415v isolator and allpersons involved attached tags andpadlocks. Unfortunately, thesupervisor failed to observe a taskon the job-sheet ‘CABLE REELER -blow down slip-rings andbrushgear’ that required furtherisolation of the 3300v trailing cablesupply.

When the electrician began thetask, notices on the cable reelercover stating ‘High-Voltage’ and‘Isolate Elsewhere’ raised somesuspicion, and the electricianconfirmed that the cable reelerisolator was indeed switched-off.

A key issued to the electricianfitted the enclosure padlock,allowed entry and the accident tooccur. Only after receiving theinjuries did the electrician learnthat the isolator he had checkedwas for the reeler motor drive andnot the slip-rings.

Eleven of the 242 items on the jobsheet stated ‘blow down slip-ringsand brushgear’ and only the one inquestion required full 3300visolation.

Comments and prevention

This was an accident waiting to happenand could have easily proved fatal.

The particular task should havebeen separately identified toeliminate any possibility of such anoutcome. All minesite personnelinvolved in electrical maintenanceneed to be mindful and check toensure the circumstances of thisaccident do not recur.

Most disappointing is the fact thatthe isolation shortfall had not beencorrected following previousmaintenance undertakings on theequipment.

Electricians are again reminded

‘TEST BEFORE TOUCH’

Typical Cable Reeler and Slip-ring Enclosure

Presence of gasBreakage of ropeRailway incidentGas or dust ignitionExplosives incidentUnconsciousness/fumingLight vehicle incidentDrill/power shovel incidentCrane incidentFixed plant incidentRockfallWall failureElectrical incidentOther incidentsTruck/mobile equip. incidentOutbreak of fire

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Contact with buried cables

Failure to isolate

Contact exposed live parts

Hosing electrical equipment

Overhead powerline contact

Welding electric shock

Other

Working on live parts

Damage to electrical equipment

Ingress of water

Defective electrical equipment

Number of incidents reported since 1994 Electrical incidents by type during 1998(210 incidents)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vol. 10 No. 1

WATCH OUT!