❓ A parliamentary question investigates a potential safety incident at Barrick Kanowna's gold mine involving a smouldering rag in a truck engine and alleged underreporting of incidents. The Minister's response indicates no breach of reporting requirements occurred.
AnsweredQoN 2453Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Kanowna Belle Operations owned and operated by Barrick Kanowna, and ask -
(1) Is it correct that on or around 24 April 2010 a Caterpillar AD 55 dump truck that had been parked underground at the above mentioned operations at the end of shift was found, by the operator on the next shift during the prestart, to have a rag in the engine near the exhaust that was smouldering and ready to burst into flames?
(2) If no to (1), what is correct?
(3) Is it correct that fitters often leave rags in the engine bays of machines when working on them and creates a hazard on the machinery at this mining operation referred to above?
(4) If no to (3), what is correct?
(5) Is it correct that the management of these operations referred to above were upset when the operator of this truck referred to in (1), wanted to fill in an incident report?
(6) If no to (5), what is correct?
(7) Is it correct that the management of this mining operation referred to above often omit reporting, on their internal reporting system and to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP), incidents, in which trucks catch on fire?
(8) If no to (7), what is correct?
(9) Was this incident referred to in (1), reported to the DMP?
(10) If no to (9), -
(a) why not; and
(b) will the Minister urgently require an investigation into this matter?
(11) If no to (10)(b), why not?
(12) Have any sections of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1995 and Regulations 1994
been breached in this incident referred to in (1)?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) Will the Minister state, what is the maximum penalty for these breaches?
(15) Will the resident manager or any other person at Kanowna Belle be prosecuted for any breaches for this incident referred to in (1)?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(17) Will the Minister state how many incident reports have been received by the DMP in regards to trucks catching fire at the above mentioned operations in the past 36 months?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
(1) Is it correct that on or around 24 April 2010 a Caterpillar AD 55 dump truck that had been parked underground at the above mentioned operations at the end of shift was found, by the operator on the next shift during the prestart, to have a rag in the engine near the exhaust that was smouldering and ready to burst into flames?
(2) If no to (1), what is correct?
(3) Is it correct that fitters often leave rags in the engine bays of machines when working on them and creates a hazard on the machinery at this mining operation referred to above?
(4) If no to (3), what is correct?
(5) Is it correct that the management of these operations referred to above were upset when the operator of this truck referred to in (1), wanted to fill in an incident report?
(6) If no to (5), what is correct?
(7) Is it correct that the management of this mining operation referred to above often omit reporting, on their internal reporting system and to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP), incidents, in which trucks catch on fire?
(8) If no to (7), what is correct?
(9) Was this incident referred to in (1), reported to the DMP?
(10) If no to (9), -
(a) why not; and
(b) will the Minister urgently require an investigation into this matter?
(11) If no to (10)(b), why not?
(12) Have any sections of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1995 and Regulations 1994
been breached in this incident referred to in (1)?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) Will the Minister state, what is the maximum penalty for these breaches?
(15) Will the resident manager or any other person at Kanowna Belle be prosecuted for any breaches for this incident referred to in (1)?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(17) Will the Minister state how many incident reports have been received by the DMP in regards to trucks catching fire at the above mentioned operations in the past 36 months?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
29 June 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
35 days
1) Yes, it is correct that a rag was found in the engine near the exhaust on the 24 April 2010.
2) Not applicable
3) No
4) Rags have been reported to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) as being the cause of a fire on 2 occasions since 1 January 2007.
13/12/07 - Caterpillar AD 55 truck, rag left on the turbo.
17/12/09 - 775E rag left on exhaust during maintenance.
5) No
6) An incident report was completed and lodged on the mine's internal system.
7) No. DMP does not consider this to be the case.
8) Since 1 January 2007 seventeen fires on Caterpillar 775 and Caterpillar AD 55 trucks at Kanowna Belle operations have been reported to the Department of Mines and Petroleum.
9) No
10)
a)The underground manager has advised that there was no fire and no smoke.
Section 78 of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
lists a number of occurrences that are immediately reportable to the district inspector.
Leaving a rag in an engine compartment is not listed.
b) No
11) In the circumstances, an investigation is not warranted.
12) No
13) It is not a requirement of Section 78 of the
Mine Safety and Inspection Act 1994
that an incident where a rag has been left in the engine compartment of a truck is reportable to the district inspector.
14) No breach has occurred.
15) No
16) No breach has occurred.
17) Refer to answer 8 above.
18) 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) No
4) Rags have been reported to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) as being the cause of a fire on 2 occasions since 1 January 2007.
13/12/07 - Caterpillar AD 55 truck, rag left on the turbo.
17/12/09 - 775E rag left on exhaust during maintenance.
5) No
6) An incident report was completed and lodged on the mine's internal system.
7) No. DMP does not consider this to be the case.
8) Since 1 January 2007 seventeen fires on Caterpillar 775 and Caterpillar AD 55 trucks at Kanowna Belle operations have been reported to the Department of Mines and Petroleum.
9) No
10)
a)The underground manager has advised that there was no fire and no smoke.
Section 78 of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
lists a number of occurrences that are immediately reportable to the district inspector.
Leaving a rag in an engine compartment is not listed.
b) No
11) In the circumstances, an investigation is not warranted.
12) No
13) It is not a requirement of Section 78 of the
Mine Safety and Inspection Act 1994
that an incident where a rag has been left in the engine compartment of a truck is reportable to the district inspector.
14) No breach has occurred.
15) No
16) No breach has occurred.
17) Refer to answer 8 above.
18) 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.