❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses ventilation compliance at the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh underground mine, focusing on the effectiveness of current testing methods, air quality monitoring, and adherence to safety regulations. The Minister's response indicates ongoing monitoring and upgrades to ventilation systems.
AnsweredQoN 2494Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh underground operations and question on notice No. 2276, 20 April 2010, and ask -
(1) In light of the answer provided in part (12), for question on notice No. 2276, is it correct that conducting both a humidity test and a ventilation flow test, are generally used as the most effective method of verifying that the primary ventilation system, and the secondary ventilation system are in compliance?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically is correct?
(3) Is it correct that it is necessary to monitor the air quality in underground mines for contaminants, such as dust and diesel particulate emissions as well as toxic, asphyxiant and explosive gases, to ensure the occupational health of employees in an underground mine, especially when the ventilation flow is low?
(4) If no to (3), what specifically is correct?
(5) With respect to (1) and (2), will the Minister quote and state which sections of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995
refer to the these individual areas, and what specifically each area covers, respectively for, -
(a) dust;
(b) diesel particulate emissions;
(c) toxic gases;
(d) asphyxiant gases;
(e) explosive gases; and
(f) any other hazardous or toxic substances?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) With respect to (1) and (2), will the Minister expediently require the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) inspectorate, to return to the Raleigh mine, and complete a thorough investigation into the primary ventilation system and the secondary ventilation system, to ensure the occupational health of all employees in the mine?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Is it correct that the management of the Raleigh mine have conceded to any persons in the workforce, that they have a problem with the primary ventilation system, and the secondary ventilation system in the mine?
(10) If no to (9), what specifically is correct?
(11) Is it correct as of Monday, 31 May 2010, that the management of the Raleigh mine are currently working on having an upgrade installed to the primary ventilation, to improve the ventilation flow in that mine?
(12) If no to (11), what specifically is correct?
(13) If yes to (11), why is this occurring when the DMP inspectorate has indicated, that there is no deficiency or non compliance with the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
for the ventilation?
(14) Is it correct the primary ventilation upgrade that the management of the Raleigh mine are currently working on fitting, is an interim measure expected to improve the vent flow in that mine by approximately 110 cubic metres per second, when in fact an upgrade to the effect of 140 cubic metres per second, has been calculated as necessary to enable the primary ventilation to cope effectively with the current requirements of the mine, to comply with the legislation?
(15) If no to (14), what specifically is correct?
(16) Is it correct that the upgrade that the management of the Raleigh mine are currently working on fitting to the primary ventilation, as an interim measure to improve the vent flow in that mine, will be followed up in the future with another upgrade, that will be required for the mine to cope effectively with the current requirement for primary ventilation flow?
(17) If no to (16), what specifically is correct?
(18) In light of (7),(9),(11) and (14), is it correct that the primary ventilation system, and the secondary ventilation system, at Raleigh mine, has been at least deficient, and at times non-compliant with the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
for quite some time?
(19) If no to (18), what specifically is correct?
(20) Can the Minister state specifically, what the DMP inspectorate is going to do in relation to ensuring, that the primary ventilation system, and the secondary ventilation system at Raleigh mine is not deficient, and at times non compliant with the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
to ensure the occupational health of all employees in the Raleigh mine?
(21) If no to (20), why not?
(1) In light of the answer provided in part (12), for question on notice No. 2276, is it correct that conducting both a humidity test and a ventilation flow test, are generally used as the most effective method of verifying that the primary ventilation system, and the secondary ventilation system are in compliance?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically is correct?
(3) Is it correct that it is necessary to monitor the air quality in underground mines for contaminants, such as dust and diesel particulate emissions as well as toxic, asphyxiant and explosive gases, to ensure the occupational health of employees in an underground mine, especially when the ventilation flow is low?
(4) If no to (3), what specifically is correct?
(5) With respect to (1) and (2), will the Minister quote and state which sections of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995
refer to the these individual areas, and what specifically each area covers, respectively for, -
(a) dust;
(b) diesel particulate emissions;
(c) toxic gases;
(d) asphyxiant gases;
(e) explosive gases; and
(f) any other hazardous or toxic substances?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) With respect to (1) and (2), will the Minister expediently require the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) inspectorate, to return to the Raleigh mine, and complete a thorough investigation into the primary ventilation system and the secondary ventilation system, to ensure the occupational health of all employees in the mine?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Is it correct that the management of the Raleigh mine have conceded to any persons in the workforce, that they have a problem with the primary ventilation system, and the secondary ventilation system in the mine?
(10) If no to (9), what specifically is correct?
(11) Is it correct as of Monday, 31 May 2010, that the management of the Raleigh mine are currently working on having an upgrade installed to the primary ventilation, to improve the ventilation flow in that mine?
(12) If no to (11), what specifically is correct?
(13) If yes to (11), why is this occurring when the DMP inspectorate has indicated, that there is no deficiency or non compliance with the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
for the ventilation?
(14) Is it correct the primary ventilation upgrade that the management of the Raleigh mine are currently working on fitting, is an interim measure expected to improve the vent flow in that mine by approximately 110 cubic metres per second, when in fact an upgrade to the effect of 140 cubic metres per second, has been calculated as necessary to enable the primary ventilation to cope effectively with the current requirements of the mine, to comply with the legislation?
(15) If no to (14), what specifically is correct?
(16) Is it correct that the upgrade that the management of the Raleigh mine are currently working on fitting to the primary ventilation, as an interim measure to improve the vent flow in that mine, will be followed up in the future with another upgrade, that will be required for the mine to cope effectively with the current requirement for primary ventilation flow?
(17) If no to (16), what specifically is correct?
(18) In light of (7),(9),(11) and (14), is it correct that the primary ventilation system, and the secondary ventilation system, at Raleigh mine, has been at least deficient, and at times non-compliant with the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
for quite some time?
(19) If no to (18), what specifically is correct?
(20) Can the Minister state specifically, what the DMP inspectorate is going to do in relation to ensuring, that the primary ventilation system, and the secondary ventilation system at Raleigh mine is not deficient, and at times non compliant with the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
to ensure the occupational health of all employees in the Raleigh mine?
(21) If no to (20), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
56 days
(1) Both a humidity test and a ventilation flow test would generally be used by the Ventilation Officer as the most effective method. This would not however, detect the presence of any gases in the primary or secondary ventilation systems.
(2) Not applicable
(3) Yes
(4) Not applicable
(5)
a)
Dust
:
Regulation 9.5(a)(i) - Duties of Ventilation Officer underground
Regulation 9.11(1) and (2) - Exposure Standards
Regulation 9.12 - Control of atmospheric contaminants.
b)
Diesel Particulate Emissions
:
Regulation 10.55 - Opacity of exhaust emission
Regulation 10.57 - Records
c)
Toxic Gases
:
Regulation 9.29- Monitoring of toxic, asphyxiatant and explosive gases.
Regulation 10.54 - Undiluted exhaust gas sampling.
Regulation 10.57 - Records.
d)
Asphyxiant gases
:
Regulation 9.29 - Monitoring of toxic, asphyxiant and explosive gases.
Regulation 10.54- Undiluted exhaust gas sampling.
Regulation 10.57- Records.
e)
Explosive gases
:
Regulation 9.29- Monitoring of toxic, asphyxiant and explosive gases.
f)
Any other hazardous or toxic substances:
Regulations 7.20-7.30 - Hazardous substances.
(6) Not applicable
(7) No
(8) The Senior Occupational Health Inspector visited the Raleigh Mine on
11 June 2010 and conducted an underground inspection which included ventilation issues. No member of the workforce raised any ventilation issues with the inspector at that time.
(9) The Department of Mines and Petroleum has no evidentiary material to indicate that management of the Raleigh Mine have conceded to the workforce that they have a problem with the ventilation systems at the mine.
(10)Not applicable
(11)Yes
(12)Not applicable
(13) The upgrading of primary ventilation systems at mines occurs from time to time in order to cope with the additional air requirements as each mine develops and expands. This is normal practice as changes in mine planning and design take place.
(14) No
(15) The designed primary ventilation requirement for the ventilation upgrade is 210 cubic metres per second. The current primary ventilation capability at the mines is in excess of 150 cubic metres per second.
(16) Although the Department of Mines and Petroleum has no knowledge of any additional future upgrades, an upgrade would not be unexpected. Primary ventilation systems need to continually change with the development of the mine.
(17) Not applicable
(18) Defects have been detected with the primary and secondary ventilation systems at the Raleigh mine by the Ventilation Officer and entered in the Ventilation Record Book. These matters have been addressed by management as required.
(19) Not applicable
(20) The Department of Mines and Petroleum will continue to inspect the ventilation systems at the Raleigh Mine and other mine sites to ensure the safety and health of the workforce is being maintained.
(21) Not applicable
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
(2) Not applicable
(3) Yes
(4) Not applicable
(5)
a)
Dust
:
Regulation 9.5(a)(i) - Duties of Ventilation Officer underground
Regulation 9.11(1) and (2) - Exposure Standards
Regulation 9.12 - Control of atmospheric contaminants.
b)
Diesel Particulate Emissions
:
Regulation 10.55 - Opacity of exhaust emission
Regulation 10.57 - Records
c)
Toxic Gases
:
Regulation 9.29- Monitoring of toxic, asphyxiatant and explosive gases.
Regulation 10.54 - Undiluted exhaust gas sampling.
Regulation 10.57 - Records.
d)
Asphyxiant gases
:
Regulation 9.29 - Monitoring of toxic, asphyxiant and explosive gases.
Regulation 10.54- Undiluted exhaust gas sampling.
Regulation 10.57- Records.
e)
Explosive gases
:
Regulation 9.29- Monitoring of toxic, asphyxiant and explosive gases.
f)
Any other hazardous or toxic substances:
Regulations 7.20-7.30 - Hazardous substances.
(6) Not applicable
(7) No
(8) The Senior Occupational Health Inspector visited the Raleigh Mine on
11 June 2010 and conducted an underground inspection which included ventilation issues. No member of the workforce raised any ventilation issues with the inspector at that time.
(9) The Department of Mines and Petroleum has no evidentiary material to indicate that management of the Raleigh Mine have conceded to the workforce that they have a problem with the ventilation systems at the mine.
(10)Not applicable
(11)Yes
(12)Not applicable
(13) The upgrading of primary ventilation systems at mines occurs from time to time in order to cope with the additional air requirements as each mine develops and expands. This is normal practice as changes in mine planning and design take place.
(14) No
(15) The designed primary ventilation requirement for the ventilation upgrade is 210 cubic metres per second. The current primary ventilation capability at the mines is in excess of 150 cubic metres per second.
(16) Although the Department of Mines and Petroleum has no knowledge of any additional future upgrades, an upgrade would not be unexpected. Primary ventilation systems need to continually change with the development of the mine.
(17) Not applicable
(18) Defects have been detected with the primary and secondary ventilation systems at the Raleigh mine by the Ventilation Officer and entered in the Ventilation Record Book. These matters have been addressed by management as required.
(19) Not applicable
(20) The Department of Mines and Petroleum will continue to inspect the ventilation systems at the Raleigh Mine and other mine sites to ensure the safety and health of the workforce is being maintained.
(21) Not applicable
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.