❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding ventilation practices at the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh mine, referencing internal memos and a previous question on notice. The Minister's response details inspections, log book reviews, and actions taken to address ventilation concerns.
AnsweredQoN 2493Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh operations, internal memorandums numbered RUM-MO-10-31 and RUM-MO-10-32 dated 3 February 2010, the Raleigh Secondary Vent Survey Log Sheet dated 2 February 2010 which are available for viewing at
http://www.robinchapple.org.au/sites/robinchapple.org.au/files/2010-02-03%20RUM-MOs%20Raleigh.pdf
and question on notice No. 2276, 20 April 2010, and ask -
(1) In light of the answer provided in parts (10), for question on notice No. 2276, is it correct that internal Memo number RUM – MO – 10 – 032, sent from an employee to the Shift Bosses the Mine Foreman and Fern Schnabel on 3 February 2010 states, ‘in order to combat the rising temperatures below the 5696, it is important to control the number of equipment that is being operated below the vent rise’, and, ‘to ensure a safe working environment the machinery working below the 5682 must not exceed the current flow as shown in the secondary ventilation survey of 58.7’ (cubic meters per second)?
(2) Can the Minister state why this memo dated 3 February 2010, was issued if the persons responsible for the management of the ventilation of that mine, did not perceive that they had a problem with either the primary ventilation system, or the secondary ventilation system, in the mine referred to above?
(3) If no to (2), why not?
(4) Can the Minister state how long the Raleigh Mine has been in operation as an underground mine?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state why the inspection of the secondary ventilation took place at that mine on 10 February 2010, given that no reference to a specific inspection of the ventilation of that mine by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) had taken place for the life of that mine?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state whether or not, during the course of the investigation, did the DMP inspectors in fact conduct a physical inspection of the primary ventilation system of that mine?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) If yes to (8), -
(a) exactly how was the inspection conducted;
(b) on what date was the inspection conducted;
(c) what was the outcome of the investigation; and
(d) what action did the DMP inspectors take, to rectify all problems identified and therefore eliminate the risk to the occupational health of the employees in the Raleigh mine?
(11) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state how far back, in years and months, the DMP inspectors checked through the ventilation log book during this investigation?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state how many problems, were identified in the ventilation log book in the past two years, specifically what they were, and how long they took to resolve?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state whether or not the DMP inspectors checked in the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book, to see how many concerns had been raised by the employees with management at Raleigh mine, concerning the ventilation in the mine in the past 24 months?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(17) If yes to (15), -
(a) will the Minister state how many complaints were received;
(b) what the course of action for management was for each complaint; and
(c) how long each complaint took to resolve?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
(19) With regards to (15), will the Minister expediently require an investigation into all the safety toolbox meeting minutes for the last 24 months, to ensure that the safety committee at this mine is functioning effectively?
(20) If no to (19), why not?
http://www.robinchapple.org.au/sites/robinchapple.org.au/files/2010-02-03%20RUM-MOs%20Raleigh.pdf
and question on notice No. 2276, 20 April 2010, and ask -
(1) In light of the answer provided in parts (10), for question on notice No. 2276, is it correct that internal Memo number RUM – MO – 10 – 032, sent from an employee to the Shift Bosses the Mine Foreman and Fern Schnabel on 3 February 2010 states, ‘in order to combat the rising temperatures below the 5696, it is important to control the number of equipment that is being operated below the vent rise’, and, ‘to ensure a safe working environment the machinery working below the 5682 must not exceed the current flow as shown in the secondary ventilation survey of 58.7’ (cubic meters per second)?
(2) Can the Minister state why this memo dated 3 February 2010, was issued if the persons responsible for the management of the ventilation of that mine, did not perceive that they had a problem with either the primary ventilation system, or the secondary ventilation system, in the mine referred to above?
(3) If no to (2), why not?
(4) Can the Minister state how long the Raleigh Mine has been in operation as an underground mine?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state why the inspection of the secondary ventilation took place at that mine on 10 February 2010, given that no reference to a specific inspection of the ventilation of that mine by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) had taken place for the life of that mine?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state whether or not, during the course of the investigation, did the DMP inspectors in fact conduct a physical inspection of the primary ventilation system of that mine?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) If yes to (8), -
(a) exactly how was the inspection conducted;
(b) on what date was the inspection conducted;
(c) what was the outcome of the investigation; and
(d) what action did the DMP inspectors take, to rectify all problems identified and therefore eliminate the risk to the occupational health of the employees in the Raleigh mine?
(11) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state how far back, in years and months, the DMP inspectors checked through the ventilation log book during this investigation?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state how many problems, were identified in the ventilation log book in the past two years, specifically what they were, and how long they took to resolve?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) In light of the answer provided in part (7), for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state whether or not the DMP inspectors checked in the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book, to see how many concerns had been raised by the employees with management at Raleigh mine, concerning the ventilation in the mine in the past 24 months?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(17) If yes to (15), -
(a) will the Minister state how many complaints were received;
(b) what the course of action for management was for each complaint; and
(c) how long each complaint took to resolve?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
(19) With regards to (15), will the Minister expediently require an investigation into all the safety toolbox meeting minutes for the last 24 months, to ensure that the safety committee at this mine is functioning effectively?
(20) If no to (19), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
56 days
(1) Yes
(2) Regulation 9.5 of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 (MSIR) stipulates the duties of an Underground Ventilation Officer.
In performing these duties a secondary ventilation survey was carried out on
2 February 2010.
Further to this survey an internal memorandum RUM-MO-10-032 dated
3 February 2010 was prepared by the Ventilation Officer.
The memorandum stated:
· the ventilation requirements for the various types of equipment in use at the Raleigh Mine; and
· the amount of available air in cubic metres per second below the 5682 level (58.7 cubic metres per second).
The memorandum highlights the need to control the amount of equipment working below the 5682 level. It does not indicate there is a problem with the ventilation systems.
(3) Not applicable
(4) The notification letter granting the approval to commence mining was signed and dated 22 July 2003. As such the mine has been operating for nearly seven years.
(5) Not applicable
(6) Prior to the inspection the District Inspector was informed that the local AWU organizer had visited the mine. It was reported that the organizer had made comments about the accuracy of the Ventilation Log Book. As a result of the allegations raised, the District Inspector inspected the mine on 10 February 2010 to follow up the matter.
(7) Not applicable
(8) During the investigation the intake decline airways of the primary ventilation system were inspected. The inspector did not observe the return airways or primary ventilation fans.
(9) Not applicable
(10)
(a) Physical inspections were carried out of the primary intake airways and a number of temperature readings taken.
(b) 10 February 2010
(c) The Ventilation Log Book was checked and a number of defects observed. When asked what was done to rectify the defects, the Inspector was advised that any areas that did not meet minimum ventilation standards were to be stopped.
(d) As the Inspector was satisfied that headings that did not comply with ventilation standards had been stopped, no further action was taken.
(11) The last two Secondary Ventilation Surveys completed in January and February 2010 were checked as these were considered the most relevant.
(12) Not applicable
(13) No
(14) The Ventilation Log Book was not checked for the time frame mentioned. Only the last two ventilation surveys in the book were examined.
(15) The Department of Mines and Petroleum Inspectors did not check the minutes of the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book.
(16) Employees Inspectors attend some of the safety meetings held by each crew. An employee's Inspector was made aware that ventilation issues had been raised at the safety meetings. It was understood the matters related to poor maintenance of the ventilation systems and could be easily rectified.
(17) The Safety Meeting Minutes Book was checked on 21 June 2010 as a response to this Parliamentary Question. All relevant entries mentioning the ventilation system were noted.
These entries referred to a range of issues including requests for ventilation surveys, records of damage to ventilation ducting by trucks and heat at the bottom of mines.
(a) There are nineteen ventilation issues raised in the last 24 months.
(b)- (c) Records in the book indicate that management has addressed the issues raised. Where ventilation surveys were requested, the date of the follow up survey was entered. Other entries related to discussions being held with crews on the matters raised and action taken to address specific issues.
(18) Not applicable
(19) No
(20) The minutes referred to in Question 15 are the minutes of each crew's individual safety meeting held once during that crew's roster. They are not the minutes of the meetings of the Safety and Health Committee as referred to in the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
. As such, they do not provide an indication of how effectively the Safety and Health Committee is functioning.
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) Regulation 9.5 of the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 (MSIR) stipulates the duties of an Underground Ventilation Officer.
In performing these duties a secondary ventilation survey was carried out on
2 February 2010.
Further to this survey an internal memorandum RUM-MO-10-032 dated
3 February 2010 was prepared by the Ventilation Officer.
The memorandum stated:
· the ventilation requirements for the various types of equipment in use at the Raleigh Mine; and
· the amount of available air in cubic metres per second below the 5682 level (58.7 cubic metres per second).
The memorandum highlights the need to control the amount of equipment working below the 5682 level. It does not indicate there is a problem with the ventilation systems.
(3) Not applicable
(4) The notification letter granting the approval to commence mining was signed and dated 22 July 2003. As such the mine has been operating for nearly seven years.
(5) Not applicable
(6) Prior to the inspection the District Inspector was informed that the local AWU organizer had visited the mine. It was reported that the organizer had made comments about the accuracy of the Ventilation Log Book. As a result of the allegations raised, the District Inspector inspected the mine on 10 February 2010 to follow up the matter.
(7) Not applicable
(8) During the investigation the intake decline airways of the primary ventilation system were inspected. The inspector did not observe the return airways or primary ventilation fans.
(9) Not applicable
(10)
(a) Physical inspections were carried out of the primary intake airways and a number of temperature readings taken.
(b) 10 February 2010
(c) The Ventilation Log Book was checked and a number of defects observed. When asked what was done to rectify the defects, the Inspector was advised that any areas that did not meet minimum ventilation standards were to be stopped.
(d) As the Inspector was satisfied that headings that did not comply with ventilation standards had been stopped, no further action was taken.
(11) The last two Secondary Ventilation Surveys completed in January and February 2010 were checked as these were considered the most relevant.
(12) Not applicable
(13) No
(14) The Ventilation Log Book was not checked for the time frame mentioned. Only the last two ventilation surveys in the book were examined.
(15) The Department of Mines and Petroleum Inspectors did not check the minutes of the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book.
(16) Employees Inspectors attend some of the safety meetings held by each crew. An employee's Inspector was made aware that ventilation issues had been raised at the safety meetings. It was understood the matters related to poor maintenance of the ventilation systems and could be easily rectified.
(17) The Safety Meeting Minutes Book was checked on 21 June 2010 as a response to this Parliamentary Question. All relevant entries mentioning the ventilation system were noted.
These entries referred to a range of issues including requests for ventilation surveys, records of damage to ventilation ducting by trucks and heat at the bottom of mines.
(a) There are nineteen ventilation issues raised in the last 24 months.
(b)- (c) Records in the book indicate that management has addressed the issues raised. Where ventilation surveys were requested, the date of the follow up survey was entered. Other entries related to discussions being held with crews on the matters raised and action taken to address specific issues.
(18) Not applicable
(19) No
(20) The minutes referred to in Question 15 are the minutes of each crew's individual safety meeting held once during that crew's roster. They are not the minutes of the meetings of the Safety and Health Committee as referred to in the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
. As such, they do not provide an indication of how effectively the Safety and Health Committee is functioning.
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.