❓ Hon Robin Chapple asks a series of detailed questions regarding the safety of a pressure vessel used for explosives at the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh mine, focusing on missing safety features and operational procedures. The Minister declines to answer, citing excessive time spent on similar questions and promoting direct consultation between workers and management.
AnsweredQoN 2516Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh underground operations, and question on notice No. 2277, answered on 20 April 2010, and ask -
(1) In light of the answer provided in part (4) for question on notice No. 2277, can the Minister state the difference between, and give specific details of, the safety functions on a pressure vessel used for explosives of, -
(a) a pressure gauge;
(b) an automatic safety pressure release valve; and
(c) a manually operated pressure release valve?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister interpret and determine from the photograph of the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage referred to in question on notice No. 2277, that the automatic safety pressure release valve and the manually operated pressure release valve are missing, and therefore inoperable?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state the average operating pressure, and the maximum operating pressure, of the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage, referred to in question on notice No. 2277?
(6) If no to (6), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state the usual number of persons, including machine operators, that it takes to complete a charging operation with the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage, referred to in question on notice No. 2277?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state the amount of time in hours and minutes it would take, with the usual number of persons abiding by the correct prescribed process, including machine operators, that it takes to complete a charging operation on a twin boom cut, with the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage referred to in question on notice No. 2277?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state how many twin boom cuts would be charged in a 12 hour shift, on average with the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage, referred to in question on notice No. 2277?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister state how long the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage referred to in question on notice No. 2277, had been in the condition that it has, given that the Normet underground charge vehicle that this charge cage was replacing at the time, in the photograph referred to in question on notice No. 2277, was in fact in front of the surface workshop, stripped down almost to the chassis?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Does the Department consider breaches such as those identified in (1), to be very serious, indicating a blatant disregard by the responsible persons at the mine, for the occupational safety of all persons in that mine, posing a very high risk to the safety and the lives of all persons involved in a charging operation, with the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage referred to in (1)?
(16) If no to (14), why not?
(17) Will the resident manager, or any other responsible person at Barrick Kanowna Raleigh operations, be prosecuted for any of the breaches identified in (1)?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
(1) In light of the answer provided in part (4) for question on notice No. 2277, can the Minister state the difference between, and give specific details of, the safety functions on a pressure vessel used for explosives of, -
(a) a pressure gauge;
(b) an automatic safety pressure release valve; and
(c) a manually operated pressure release valve?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister interpret and determine from the photograph of the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage referred to in question on notice No. 2277, that the automatic safety pressure release valve and the manually operated pressure release valve are missing, and therefore inoperable?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state the average operating pressure, and the maximum operating pressure, of the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage, referred to in question on notice No. 2277?
(6) If no to (6), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state the usual number of persons, including machine operators, that it takes to complete a charging operation with the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage, referred to in question on notice No. 2277?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state the amount of time in hours and minutes it would take, with the usual number of persons abiding by the correct prescribed process, including machine operators, that it takes to complete a charging operation on a twin boom cut, with the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage referred to in question on notice No. 2277?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state how many twin boom cuts would be charged in a 12 hour shift, on average with the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage, referred to in question on notice No. 2277?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister state how long the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage referred to in question on notice No. 2277, had been in the condition that it has, given that the Normet underground charge vehicle that this charge cage was replacing at the time, in the photograph referred to in question on notice No. 2277, was in fact in front of the surface workshop, stripped down almost to the chassis?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Does the Department consider breaches such as those identified in (1), to be very serious, indicating a blatant disregard by the responsible persons at the mine, for the occupational safety of all persons in that mine, posing a very high risk to the safety and the lives of all persons involved in a charging operation, with the pressure vessel used for explosives in the charge cage referred to in (1)?
(16) If no to (14), why not?
(17) Will the resident manager, or any other responsible person at Barrick Kanowna Raleigh operations, be prosecuted for any of the breaches identified in (1)?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
54 days
(1)-(18) During May and June 2010, Mines Safety Inspectors in the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) spent over 400 hours preparing answers to many scores of Parliamentary Questions, most of 15 to 20 parts, relating to numerous alleged safety and health issues on specific mine sites and allegations of bullying on some of those sites. Unfortunately, this required them to remain in their offices for extended periods, and absent from their normal duties inspecting mine sites in the field.
In this context I would emphasise that the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
prescribes clear procedures for the reporting by workers to higher authorities, and the resolving, of the types of issues mentioned above. Furthermore, I am informed that it has previously been agreed in consultation between DMP, Unions WA and the Chamber of Minerals and Energy that a key factor in improving safety and health on mine sites is the promotion of "coal-face" consultation directly between workers and management.
In view of the foregoing, I am not prepared to allow DMP to continue to consume an inordinate amount of inspectorate and staff time in preparing answers to numerous Parliamentary Questions relating to alleged safety, health and bullying issues on specific mine sites. However, given the obvious interest held by some Members in these matters, I would be happy to arrange for DMP to provide those Members with a briefing on any matters of concern that they may have in respect of any particular mine site.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
In this context I would emphasise that the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
prescribes clear procedures for the reporting by workers to higher authorities, and the resolving, of the types of issues mentioned above. Furthermore, I am informed that it has previously been agreed in consultation between DMP, Unions WA and the Chamber of Minerals and Energy that a key factor in improving safety and health on mine sites is the promotion of "coal-face" consultation directly between workers and management.
In view of the foregoing, I am not prepared to allow DMP to continue to consume an inordinate amount of inspectorate and staff time in preparing answers to numerous Parliamentary Questions relating to alleged safety, health and bullying issues on specific mine sites. However, given the obvious interest held by some Members in these matters, I would be happy to arrange for DMP to provide those Members with a briefing on any matters of concern that they may have in respect of any particular mine site.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.