❓ Hon Jon Ford questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding safety conditions and incidents at Barrick Kanowna's Kanowna Belle Operations, specifically concerning Caterpillar 775 trucks and reported vehicle incidents. The Minister provides details on exemptions granted for truck operation and clarifies incident reporting and potential prosecution.
AnsweredQoN 2370Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Kanowna Belle Operations owned and operated by Barrick Kanowna with management from Evan Spencer, Callum Winn, Justin De Meillon and Ashley Tidey, and ask -
(1) Can the Minister quote and state the conditions imposed on the above mentioned operations in relation to allowing the Caterpillar 775 trucks to operate in the underground mine?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Was it reported to the Department and Mines and Petroleum (DMP), that there were three incidents involving both heavy vehicles and light vehicles, in the above mentioned operations within a 72 hour period of each other on or around 28 January 2010?
(4) If yes to (3), was it documented that the explosive vehicle involved in the incident with the 775 truck on the 28 January 2010 was carrying explosives, and that the appropriate signage was showing and the blue light in operation signifying that it was carrying explosives?
(5) Will the registered mine manager, or any other person at Barrick Kanowna, be prosecuted for the incidents referred to in (3), above?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(1) Can the Minister quote and state the conditions imposed on the above mentioned operations in relation to allowing the Caterpillar 775 trucks to operate in the underground mine?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Was it reported to the Department and Mines and Petroleum (DMP), that there were three incidents involving both heavy vehicles and light vehicles, in the above mentioned operations within a 72 hour period of each other on or around 28 January 2010?
(4) If yes to (3), was it documented that the explosive vehicle involved in the incident with the 775 truck on the 28 January 2010 was carrying explosives, and that the appropriate signage was showing and the blue light in operation signifying that it was carrying explosives?
(5) Will the registered mine manager, or any other person at Barrick Kanowna, be prosecuted for the incidents referred to in (3), above?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
15 June 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
41 days
1. Due to the size of the 775 trucks and the decline, an exemption to Regulation 10.39(2)(a) of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 was granted by the Senior Inspector of Mines in a letter to the mine dated 26 March 2002. The exemption was granted subject to the following conditions:
· Tight sections of the decline where identified in the Risk Assessment are to be signposted "No pedestrian traffic whilst 775's are hauling".
· Tight sections of the decline where identified in the Risk Assessment are to be whitewashed to increase visibility.
· The speed of the 775 trucks is not to exceed 10kph in areas where total horizontal clearance of less than 1.8 metres has been identified.
· Personnel employed underground including the truck drivers are advised of the reduced clearance in the identified sections of the decline. Pedestrians are not to travel in those sections of the decline whilst the trucks are in use.
Further to a letter dated 15 October 2003 from the Kanowna Belle Gold Mine seeking a review of the exemption conditions, the exemption was revised by the Senior Inspector of Mines.
The significant difference was that the speed restriction imposed on the 775 trucks was increased to 19kph in areas where the total horizontal clearance of less than 1.8 metres had been identified.
The company was informed in a letter dated 11 November 2003 of the new conditions.
The exemption to Regulation 10.39(2)(a) was extended in a third letter to the company from the Senior Inspector of Mines dated 18 November 2005.
2. Not applicable
3. There were three incidents involving light vehicles. Two were reported to the Department of Mines and Petroleum and the third incident was assessed as being so minor that it did not warrant reporting to the Department.
4. The vehicle involved was reported as being loaded with explosives. The report submitted by the company to the Department did not state if the vehicle had appropriate signage and a blue light.
5. No
6. Where prima facie evidence of a breach is found and there is satisfaction of 'public interest' tests, prosecution of a company or individuals will always be considered after State Solicitor's advice is in favour of such enforcement action. In this case there is no prima facie evidence that will support a prosecution of the registered manager or any other individual.
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
· Tight sections of the decline where identified in the Risk Assessment are to be signposted "No pedestrian traffic whilst 775's are hauling".
· Tight sections of the decline where identified in the Risk Assessment are to be whitewashed to increase visibility.
· The speed of the 775 trucks is not to exceed 10kph in areas where total horizontal clearance of less than 1.8 metres has been identified.
· Personnel employed underground including the truck drivers are advised of the reduced clearance in the identified sections of the decline. Pedestrians are not to travel in those sections of the decline whilst the trucks are in use.
Further to a letter dated 15 October 2003 from the Kanowna Belle Gold Mine seeking a review of the exemption conditions, the exemption was revised by the Senior Inspector of Mines.
The significant difference was that the speed restriction imposed on the 775 trucks was increased to 19kph in areas where the total horizontal clearance of less than 1.8 metres had been identified.
The company was informed in a letter dated 11 November 2003 of the new conditions.
The exemption to Regulation 10.39(2)(a) was extended in a third letter to the company from the Senior Inspector of Mines dated 18 November 2005.
2. Not applicable
3. There were three incidents involving light vehicles. Two were reported to the Department of Mines and Petroleum and the third incident was assessed as being so minor that it did not warrant reporting to the Department.
4. The vehicle involved was reported as being loaded with explosives. The report submitted by the company to the Department did not state if the vehicle had appropriate signage and a blue light.
5. No
6. Where prima facie evidence of a breach is found and there is satisfaction of 'public interest' tests, prosecution of a company or individuals will always be considered after State Solicitor's advice is in favour of such enforcement action. In this case there is no prima facie evidence that will support a prosecution of the registered manager or any other individual.
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.