A WA parliamentary question investigates a rock slip at the KCGM superpit, focusing on reporting, safety measures, and potential prior warnings. The answers indicate adherence to safety protocols and no prior warnings.

AnsweredQoN 4354Legislative Council
Asked
30 June 2011
Portfolio
Mines and Petroleum

QuestionView source ↗

With reference to a rock slip that occurred at KCGM superpit on or about 4 or 5 June this year and a photo of that slip at
http://www.robinchapple.com/qdata
‘2011-06-4-5 Rock slip at KCGM.pdf’, I ask -
(1) Was the Department of Mines and Petroleum advised of the slip?
(2) When did that advice occur?
(3) When did the inspectorate visit the site?
(4) Was the haul road closed after the slip?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) When was the haul road reopened?
(7) Was anybody in the vicinity of the slip when it occurred?
(8) Was there any prior warning of the slip potentiality?
(9) Have any workers or supervisors or any staff including geo-technical staff raised any concerns with regard to this area or the fault line running through this area or any other areas in the vicinity of the fault in which this slip occurred prior to the slip occurring?
(10) Is there any connection directly or indirectly between this slip and the concerns raised in question on notice No. 2322?
(11) Was the equipment monitoring this area in correct condition and operating at the time of the slip as per the Mine Safety Regulations?
(12) If the monitoring equipment on X Ramp was not operating at 100 per cent capacity, what action will the Minister take?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
9 August 2011
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
40 days
1. Yes.
2. At about 09:00 am on the day that the slip occurred.
3. At 09:00 am on 10 June 2011.
4. Yes. The haul road was closed by the site manager immediately after the slip.
5. Not applicable.
6. Approximately 24 hours after the slip.
7. No.
8. No.
9. KCGM have advised that they had not received any concerns and the Department of Mines and Petroleum did not receive any concerns.
10. No. There is no relation to the previous slip. This slip occurred on a different structure.
11. Yes. An automated prism monitoring system was in place and operating at the time of the slip. Radar was being used in another area.
12. 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