SA TMM Chapter 8 Amendments - Aspasaaspasa.co.za/PDFs/ASPASA TMM Comms Pack-THYS.pdf · SA TMM...
Transcript of SA TMM Chapter 8 Amendments - Aspasaaspasa.co.za/PDFs/ASPASA TMM Comms Pack-THYS.pdf · SA TMM...
SA TMM Chapter 8 Amendments
(27 February 2015)
TMM Collision Management
ASPASA Transport Committee
Thys Greyvensteyn
18th May 20171
Agenda
2
1. Regulatory Requirements2. Chamber of Mines Coordination Role3. Risk Evaluations
• Separate presentation by Chris Doran4. User Requirements5. Vendor Engagements6. Site Risk Assessments7. Technology Development on Pilot Sites8. Way Forward
Chapter 8 Collision Management Amendments27 February 2015
…..where there is a significant risk of such collisions……
Trackless mobile equipment must be provided with means:
…..to automatically detect the presence of pedestrians in UG, and equipment in Pits, to effectively warn the operator of such a presence • ‘Collision Awareness’ should already be implemented
…..and in the event where no action is taken to prevent potential collision, further means shall be provided to retard the “trackless mobile machine” to a safe speed where after the brakes of the diesel powered “trackless mobile machine” are automatically applied • ‘Collision Avoidance’ with a period of grace till technology is available
3
Chapter 8 Amendments Significant Risk…..where there is a significant risk of such collisions……
‘Significant Risk’ to be determined by each site through a risk assessment process
1. Only equipment with significant risk need to have PDS technologies fitted2. ‘Minimum requirements’ for equipment where there is significant risk
• Underground: At least Equipment to Pedestrian PDS technologies• Opencast and Pits: Equipment to Equipment PDS technologies• Otherwise reasonably practicable controls to reduce the risk from significant
3. Surface (Plants, concentrators, quarries, services, etc.) – not defined so reasonably practicable controls to reduce the risk from significant
4. Where no risk assessments have been completed all equipment may be required to be fitted with PDS technologies
Definition of significant risk – up to each site to define taking into account existing controlsConsequence Level
Insignificant Low Moderate High MajorTime
Frame
Like
liho
od
Almost Certain 11 (M) 16 (S) 20 (S) 23 (H) 25 (H) <1 year
Likely 7 (M) 12 (M) 17 (S) 21 (H) 24 (H) 1-3 years
Possible 4 (L) 8 (M) 13 (S) 18 (S) 22 (H) 3-10 years
Unlikely 2 (L) 5 (L) 9 (M) 14 (S) 19 (S) 10-30 years
Rare 1 (L) 3 (L) 6 (M) 10 (M) 15 (S) >30 years
First
Aid
Case
Medical
Treatment
Injury
Lost
Time
Injury
Single
Fatality or
TD Incident
Multiple
Fatality
Incident
One possible example
4
Chapter 8 AmendmentsPDS Implementation Schedule
…..where there is a significant risk of such collisions……
Trackless mobile equipment must be provided with means:
…..to automatically detect the presence of pedestrians (UG)/equipment (Pits) to effectively warn the operator of such a presence• ‘Collision Awareness’ should already be already implemented (May 2015)
…..and in the event where no action is taken to prevent potential collision, further means shall be provided to retard the “trackless mobile machine” to a safe speed where after the brakes of the diesel powered “trackless mobile machine” are automatically applied.• Compromise on Collision Avoidance:
1. UG Electrical – Now. Technology already available2. Underground Diesel – new equipment purchased after June 2017 must be CA ready3. Underground Diesel – June 20184. Opencast and Open Pits – June 20195. Surface (plants, concentrators, quarries, services, etc.) – June 20196. Grandfather clause – December 2019
5
‘Way Forward’ Program of Work“Way Forward’ industry proposal to achieve the targets of:
o UG Diesel – June 2018
o Open Pits and Surface – June 2019
1. Analyse South African TMM incident statistics
o Identify ‘significant risk’
o Industry alignment on ‘significant risk’
2. Develop a South African TMM Risk Guidelineo Inputs for Risk Assessments
3. Technology Process Assessments of PDS Suppliers, OEMs and Third Parties
4. Developing industry User Requirements and Specifications
o Leveraging work done to date
o Collaborative project through EMESRT
o ISO interface standard
5. UoP developing a test capability for surface PDS solutions – CoE project
6. Coordination of pilots on sites to develop the necessary technical solutions
7. Coordination, monitoring and reporting on progress
Schedule
• March – CM&EE supported this sub committee
• April – Support by CEO Meeting for the COM to support and fund the ‘Way Forward’ project proposal
• May? – new dates to be gazettedo No more grace!
Communication schedule moving forward
• Q2 2017 – Meetings with all Suppliers and OEMs to clarify requirements and to understand their processes and dates
• Q2 2017 – Meetings with Mining Houses/ASPASA to clarify the requirements and to understand their strategies for implementation of Collision Management Strategies
• Q2 2017 - Workshops in each of the 9 Province Tripartite Meetings to communicate the ‘Way Forward’
6
CM&EE Industry Task Team
CM&EE Task Team Responsibilities1. Meet bimonthly2. Coordinate the Way Forward3. To sensitise and influence the
industry4. Influence the direction for the
PDS industry5. Influence the OEMs to commit6. Coordinate the projects
• Incident analysis• Risk Guidelines• Stage-gate technology
development process• Industry standards• CoE Testing Facility• Coordinate pilots
7. Communicate the progress to MRAC, PDS Suppliers, OEMs, CM&EE and Industry CEOs
CM&EE Task Team1. Harmony2. Kumba3. Anglo Coal4. Anglo Platinum5. Petra Diamonds6. Lonmin7. AGA8. Impala9. De Beers
10. Sasol11. Sibanye12. Gold Fields13. Exxaro14. South 3215. ASPASA
7
Possible Additional Members1. Nkomati2. Glencore
Project Schedule
8
24-Apr-17 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1. Incident AnalysisCollect Data
Draft Analysis
Update Analysis
2. TMM Risk GuidelineOpen Pit pilot in Excel
Industry comments
Design Web Tool
Develop Web Tool
Open Pit
Underground Diesel
Underground Electric
Surface
3. Technology Process AssessmentDevelop & Test process
Evaluate PDS Suppliers
Evaluate OEMs
Feedback
4. Industry User Requirements (EMESRT)Develop User Requirements
Industry Consultation
Publish
Interface Protocol Draft
Interface Protocol SAE & Standard
5. PDS Test Facility (UoP)Develop CMS Simulation
Develop PDS Test Capability
6. Project Monitoring
7. Coordination
Group Strategy RoadmapGroup
Incident Review (Internal and External)
Control Effectiveness Review
Identify Significant Risk
Site Risk Assessment
Roll-out
User Requirements and Vendor Evaluation
Site Scope and DeliverablesTechnology Development Process
9
30
-55
+
10
-30
3-1
0
0-3
0-3
3-1
0
10
-30
30
-55
+
L1-Head-on V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
L2-Reverse-on V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
L3-Backup V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
L4-Dovetailing V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
L5-Passing Head-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L6-Passing Reverse-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L7-Overtaking V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L8-Blind Approach V-V 8 8 9 9 9 9 8 8
T1-Merge V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T2-Crossover V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T3-Junction V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T4-Intersection V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
O1- Obstacle V-O 7 7 7 9 9 7 7 7
P1-Person (direct) V-P - - - - - - - -
P3-Person (indirect) V-P - - - - - - - -
V1-Void V-O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
V4-Loss of Control LOC 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 7
V6-Congested Area V-V 7 7 8 9 9 8 7 7
Speed Ranges
Reverse ForwardOpen Pit / Opencast
SenariosPUE
30
-55
+
10
-30
3-1
0
0-3
0-3
3-1
0
10
-30
30
-55
+
L1-Head-on V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
L2-Reverse-on V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
L3-Backup V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
L4-Dovetailing V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
L5-Passing Head-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L6-Passing Reverse-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L7-Overtaking V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L8-Blind Approach V-V 8 8 9 9 9 9 8 8
T1-Merge V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T2-Crossover V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T3-Junction V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T4-Intersection V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
O1- Obstacle V-O 7 7 7 9 9 7 7 7
P1-Person (direct) V-P - - - - - - - -
P3-Person (indirect) V-P - - - - - - - -
V1-Void V-O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
V4-Loss of Control LOC 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 7
V6-Congested Area V-V 7 7 8 9 9 8 7 7
Speed Ranges
Reverse ForwardOpen Pit / Opencast
SenariosPUE
Levels of Control
1. Site Requirements
2. Segregation Controls
3. Operating Procedures
4. Authority to Operate
5. Fitness to Operate
6. Operating Compliance
7. Operator Awareness
8. Advisory Controls
9. Intervention ControlsCollision AvoidanceTakes control from the operator
Proximity DetectionAdvises the operator
Proximity AwarenessAlerts the operator
Operational Discipline Controls
Design Guidelines
Work Area Controls for all equipment that
could reduce ‘significant risk’
and costs
Technology Controls to address
‘significant risk’
Regulation 8.10.1 and 8.10.2
10
Group Risk Evaluation
11
ASPASA
Group 1 Group 2
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site Site
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Safety 1 1 1
Ops 1 1 1
Maint/Eng 1 1 1
Contractor 1
Union 1 1
15-20 People
Incident Review (Internal and External)
Control Effectiveness Review
Identify Significant Risk
Group / SITE
39.9% 5.8% 13.3% 41.0%
48 5,043 2010 290 673 2070
Front End Loader 15 1810 1000 19 (S) 10 10 (M) 200 18 (S) 600 18 (S)
LDV 10 1260 10 10 (M) 100 18 (S) 150 18 (S) 1000 19 (S)
ADT 5 680 200 18 (S) 80 18 (S) 200 19 (S) 200 19 (S)
Forklift 8 493 300 18 (S) - 3 8 (M) 190 18 (S)
Road Truck (flat bed) 5 350 100 18 (S) 100 18 (S) 100 19 (S) 50 17 (S)
Road Side Tipper 5 450 400 19 (S) - 20 17 (S) 30 12 (M)
Person - - - - - -
47.8% 1.9% 7.1% 43.2%
115 25743 12300 500 1823 11120
Front End Loader 30 8400 5000 22 (H) 100 17 (S) 300 18 (S) 3000 20 (S)
LDV 30 6800 400 19 (S) 200 18 (S) 200 18 (S) 6000 23 (H)
ADT 20 2550 750 19 (S) 100 18 (S) 800 19 (S) 900 19 (S)
Forklift 20 6293 5300 23 (H) - 3 8 (M) 990 19 (S)
Road Truck (flat bed) 10 1200 400 19 (S) 100 18 (S) 500 19 (S) 200 17 (S)
Road Side Tipper 5 500 450 19 (S) - 20 17 (S) 30 12 (M)
Person - - - - - -
Combined(site controls)
Priority Unwanted Event
Equipment
Incid
ents
Weig
hte
d
Ris
k Person Vehicle Environment Uncontrolled
V-P V-V V-E LoC
DMR / Industry(site controls)
49.6% 1.0% 5.6% 43.8%
67 20650 10240 210 1150 9050
Front End Loader 15 6590 4000 22 (H) 90 17 (S) 100 15 (S) 2400 20 (S)
LDV 20 5540 390 19 (S) 100 16 (S) 50 14 (S) 5000 23 (H)
ADT 15 1870 550 19 (S) 20 14 (S) 600 18 (S) 700 19 (S)
Forklift 12 5800 5000 23 (H) - - 800 19 (S)
Road Truck (flat bed) 5 850 300 19 (S) - 400 18 (S) 150 15 (S)
Person - - - - - -
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-7 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
L9 - - -
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-7 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
L9 - - -
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-7 Level 1-7 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-7 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
L9 - - -
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-7 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
L9 - - -
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Level 1-7 Level 1-7 Level 1-6 Level 1-6
Collision Management Strategy
Person VehicleEnviron-
ment
Uncon-
trolled
V-P V-V V-E LoC
12
Surface
User Requirements
13
30
-55
+
10
-30
3-1
0
0-3
0-3
3-1
0
10
-30
30
-55
+
L1-Head-on V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
L2-Reverse-on V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
L3-Backup V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
L4-Dovetailing V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
L5-Passing Head-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L6-Passing Reverse-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L7-Overtaking V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L8-Blind Approach V-V 8 8 9 9 9 9 8 8
T1-Merge V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T2-Crossover V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T3-Junction V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T4-Intersection V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
O1- Obstacle V-O 7 7 7 9 9 7 7 7
P1-Person (direct) V-P - - - - - - - -
P3-Person (indirect) V-P - - - - - - - -
V1-Void V-O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
V4-Loss of Control LOC 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 7
V6-Congested Area V-V 7 7 8 9 9 8 7 7
Speed Ranges
Reverse ForwardOpen Pit / Opencast
SenariosPUE
Equipment Test Configurations
ScopeTechnical Profile
Solution Complexity
Pathway to L9 for Surface
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 2017 End 2018
Concept
Lab Scale
S-Machine
M-Machine
Demonstration
Commercialise L7 - Awareness
Concept
Lab Scale
S-Machine
Multiple Machine
Concept
Lab Scale
S-Machine
M-Machine
Demonstration L9
Commercialise L9 OEM
Commercialise L9 PDS
Leve
l of
Effo
rt, S
kills
, C
om
pet
enci
es, D
ecis
ion
Mak
ing
Demo L9
TargetJune 2019
Complexity Step Change“Production and Management”
Complexity Step Change“Technical”
Demonstration L8
Requires a structured Test Site
Level 7Awareness
Level 8Advisory
Level 9Avoidance
14
xx
xxx
Vendor Engagement and Decision
15
Site Risk Assessment and Scope FinalisationWith Preferred Vendors
163
0-5
5+
10
-30
3-1
0
0-3
0-3
3-1
0
10
-30
30
-55
+
L1-Head-on V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
L2-Reverse-on V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
L3-Backup V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
L4-Dovetailing V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
L5-Passing Head-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L6-Passing Reverse-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L7-Overtaking V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7
L8-Blind Approach V-V 8 8 9 9 9 9 8 8
T1-Merge V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T2-Crossover V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T3-Junction V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
T4-Intersection V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8
O1- Obstacle V-O 7 7 7 9 9 7 7 7
P1-Person (direct) V-P - - - - - - - -
P3-Person (indirect) V-P - - - - - - - -
V1-Void V-O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
V4-Loss of Control LOC 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 7
V6-Congested Area V-V 7 7 8 9 9 8 7 7
Speed Ranges
Reverse ForwardOpen Pit / Opencast
SenariosPUE
Significant Risk from Risk Evaluation
Site Risk Assessment
Signed-off Solution Scope
Technology Development ProcessFor Sites, PDS and OEMs together
1. Understand User Requirements
2. Understand Regulatory Requirements
3. Understand the market
1. Develop User Requirements
2. Review alternatives3. Identify technologies4. Indicative Business
Case5. Development Strategy
and Schedule6. Development funding
model7. Model the
requirements8. Choose partner/s
going forward
1. Operational Risk Assessment
2. Confirm Test Protocols
3. Industrial Prototype (on multiple machines in a production test environment)
1. Review User Requirements
2. Model the requirements
3. Define the specifications & deliverables
4. Confirm the Test Protocols
5. Update the Business Case
1. Design and build a prototype
2. Lab Scale Tests
1. Design and build Prototype
2. Design Risk Assessments
3. Develop interface protocol and test
4. Prototype Test (on a
machine in a test environment)
1. Confirm User Requirements
2. Sign-off on exclusions3. Confirm Performance
Requirements4. Confirm Business Case5. Update the simulation
model with actual data 6. Confirm Deliverables
and Test Protocols7. Update design and
rebuild if necessary8. Review Design and
Operational Risk Assessments
9. Operator, Maintenance and Training Manuals
10. Training
1. Production Demonstration Test (on
multiple machines in a production environment)
2. Evaluate performance and Close-out Report
1. Update User Requirements
2. Sign-off on exclusions
3. Develop Commercial Plan
4. Develop Implementation Schedule
5. Define Operating Procedures and Training
6. Define Support Model
Demonstration Test
Industrial Prototype Test
ConceptTRL 1-3
ResearchTRL 4-5
DevelopmentTRL 6
DemonstrationTRL 7
CommercialTRL 8-9
1 2 3 4
Implementation
Lab Scale Test
DM
R Tech
nical File
Prototype Test
17
9 Feb 2017
Not Signed-off
Not done
Signed-off
Concept
Technology Development ProcessSite Responsibilities
1. Understand User Requirements
2. Understand Regulatory Requirements
3. Understand the market
1. Develop User Requirements
2. Review alternatives3. Identify technologies4. Indicative Business
Case5. Development Strategy
and Schedule6. Development funding
model7. Model the
requirements8. Choose partner/s
going forward
1. Operational Risk Assessment
2. Confirm Test Protocols
3. Industrial Prototype (on multiple machines in a production test environment)
1. Review User Requirements
2. Model the requirements
3. Define the specifications & deliverables
4. Confirm the Test Protocols
5. Update the Business Case
1. Design and build a prototype
2. Labscale Tests
1. Design and build Prototype
2. Design Risk Assessments
3. Develop interface protocol and test
4. Test Prototype (on a
machine in a test environment)
1. Confirm User Requirements
2. Sign-off on exclusions3. Confirm Performance
Requirements4. Confirm Business Case5. Update the simulation
model with actual data 6. Confirm Deliverables
and Test Protocols7. Update design and
rebuild if necessary8. Review Design and
Operational Risk Assessments
9. Operator, Maintenance and Training Manuals
10. Training
1. Production Demonstration Test (on
multiple machines in a production environment)
2. Evaluate performance and Close-out Report
1. Update User Requirements
2. Sign-off on exclusions
3. Develop Commercial Plan
4. Develop Implementation Schedule
5. Define Operating Procedures and Training
6. Define Support Model
Go/Demo again
Go/Redevelop
ConceptTRL 1-3
ResearchTRL 4-5
DevelopmentTRL 6
DemonstrationTRL 7
CommercialTRL 8-9
1 2 3 4
Implement
Go/Redesign
DM
R Tech
nical File
Go/Redevelop Date -
Red – End User input required18
Technology Development ProcessTest Sites
19
Underground Hard Rock Diesel Test SiteTest Details
• Test Site – Mining House, Site• Site Project Manager – Piet Pompies
• Mining method – Hard Rock Mechanised
• PDS Supplier - X
• OEMs – A, B and C
Project Progress• Project halted in Jun 2016 at L9 Demonstration due
to production impact
• Project to be restarted Jun 2017
PDS Technology Process
• Scope• L8 V-V and V-P on all machines
• L9 V-P on defined machines
• Technology Readiness• L9 Production impact issues
• Technology dependability and reliability
OEM Technology Process
• Equipment• OEM A – Models
• OEM B – Models
• OEM C - Models
• OEMs focussing on intelligent machines
• Technology Readiness• All 3 OEMs have provided CA Ready solutions for
intelligent machines
• Band C have developed CA Ready solutions for non-intelligent machines
20
30
-55
+
10
-30
3-1
0
0-3
0-3
3-1
0
10
-30
30
-55
+
L1-Head-on V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
L2-Reverse-on V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
L3-Backup V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
L4-Dovetailing V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
L5-Passing Head-on V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
L6-Passing Reverse-on V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
L7-Overtaking V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
L8-Blind Approach V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
T1-Merge V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
T2-Crossover V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
T3-Junction V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
T4-Intersection V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
O1- Obstacle V-O - 7 7 9 9 7 7 -
P1-Person (direct) V-P - 7 9 9 9 9 7 -
P3-Person (indirect) V-P - 7 9 9 9 9 7 -
V1-Void V-O - - - - - - - -
V4-Loss of Control LOC - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
V6-Congested Area V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -
UG Diesel
SenariosPUE
Speed Ranges
Reverse Forward
Solution Scope
21
Test Sites
• Must follow the defined process and be willing to share results
• Tests must be representative of ASPASA operations
• Test sites have to be sponsored and managed by a site
• Tests to include the Site, PDS Supplier and the OEM (plus 3rd party if involved)
• Sites may already be testing
• Sites may already have identified their PDS Supplier
• Sites may still need to identify their PDS Supplier and wish to become a test site
• Sites may already have identified a 3rd Party OEM
PDS 1 PDS 2 PDS 3 PDS 4 PDS 5 PDS 6
Bell x x
Cat x x
Komatsu Group
Site
Proj Lead
Volvo x Group
Site
3rd Party
Proj Lead
Liebherr
Hitachi
ASPASA Test Sites
Way ForwardRisk Evaluations
• Nominations of participants
• Risk Evaluation – 26 to 29 June
• At ASPASA
• Circulation of findings
• Planning going forward
• Moving to Site Assessments
Test Sites
• Nomination of Test Sites
• Vendor Evaluations
• Implementing the Test Process
• Stakeholder management
• Regular report-back
Site Audit Process
• Process to be developed by ASPASA
• Through Marius Deventer
22
Next Meetings
• Risk Evaluation Feedback – 3 July
• Second Transport Meeting – 7 September
• Cape Town Regcom – 3 October
• Kwazulu Natal Regcom – 4 October
PDS 1 PDS 2 PDS 3 PDS 4 PDS 5 PDS 6
Bell x x
Cat x x
Komatsu Group
Site
Proj Lead
Volvo x Group
Site
3rd Party
Proj Lead
Liebherr
Hitachi
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Safety 1 1 1
Ops 1 1 1
Maint/Eng 1 1 1
Contractor 1
Union 1 1
15-20 People