❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the deterioration of cyclone protective mesh at the Barrick Kanowna Belle underground mine, questioning the Department of Mines and Petroleum's (DMP) oversight and inspection practices. The Minister's response details inspection history, clarifies the nature of the mesh, and defends the DMP's assessment that the missing mesh did not constitute a safety breach.
AnsweredQoN 2513Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Barrick Kanowna Belle underground operations and question on notice No. 2276, asked on 20 April 2010, and ask -
(1) In light of the answer provided for part (1) for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state, when these three segments of the cyclone protective mesh over the end of this primary ventilation fan depicted in the photograph, were able to deteriorate to this condition without being identified by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) inspectorate earlier other than through a Parliamentary question?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state, how the DMP inspectors became aware of this issue referred to in (1), and on what specific date did the investigation take place?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that the mesh over the opening to the fan referred to in (1), as depicted in the photograph, is galvanized, and therefore highly resistant to any form of corrosion?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state how many inspections have taken place at the Kanowna Belle underground operations in the last three years, and the respective dates of each visit?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) In light of the answer provided in part (1) for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister explain why the DMP inspectors did not identify during these inspections within the last three years, that these three segments of protective mesh over the end of this primary ventilation fan, depicted in the photograph were missing, even though this particular primary ventilation fan is clearly visible upon driving down the portal ramp, and into the portal of that mine?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state how many primary ventilation fans in total service the Kanowna Belle underground mine?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister whether or not each and every individual fan, was investigated including a visual observation by a DMP inspector?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Can the Minister state how many other of these fans referred to in (9), were in a similar condition as the fan referred to in (1), and depicted in the photograph?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(17) Can the Minister state how the DMP inspectors were able to determine that the fan referred to in (1), was in fact at the Kanowna belle mine as opposed to the Raleigh mine?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
(19) Is it correct, that below the mesh and within the enclosed outer covering of the fan in (1), and depicted in the photograph, is a large fan approximately three metres in diameter, and revolving continuously at very high speeds?
(20) If no to (19), can the Minister state what is specifically and factually correct, concerning this matter?
(21) If no to (20), why not?
(22) Can the Minister state how the DMP inspectors were able to determine that the fan referred to in (1), was in fact at the Kanowna belle Mine as opposed to the Raleigh mine, given that the two mines are approximately 50 kilometres apart by road from one and another?
(23) If no to (22), why not?
(24) Is it correct that within the last six months during a visit of an inspector, a provisional improvement notice was issued to this mine referred to above, concerning water leaking from an air conditioner?
(25) If no to (24), what specifically is correct?
(26) Can the Minister state, on what date these three segments of the cyclone protective mesh were removed, and when is the shut down expected, in which they are to be replaced with the new ones?
(27) If no to (26), why not?
(28) In light of the answer provided for parts (3) to (4) of question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state whether three segments of cyclone protective meshing missing from the top of the primary ventilation fan, as depicted in the photograph, constitute a breach of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
and
Regulations 1995,
even though the breach according to the view of the inspectorate does not warrant prosecution in this case?
(29) If no to (28), why not?
(30) Can the Minister state why the DMP was of the view, that the three segments of cyclone protective meshing missing from the top of the primary ventilation fan, did not warrant prosecution, given that the DMP repeatedly refers to that, ‘it is the responsibility of the principal employer, officers of the company and all employees’, to ensure compliance with the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995
?
(31) If no to (30), why not?
(32) Can the Minister state, in what way will the DMP Resources Safety Division, take further action to educate principal employers, officers of the company and all employees at this mine, as to the consequences of breaching basic mine safety standards as designated under legislation, including the considerable penalties for breaches of that legislation, given that the DMP on many occasions has determined prosecution is not warranted in the public interest, other than when somebody dies as a result of the breach?
(33) If no to (32), why not?
(1) In light of the answer provided for part (1) for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state, when these three segments of the cyclone protective mesh over the end of this primary ventilation fan depicted in the photograph, were able to deteriorate to this condition without being identified by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) inspectorate earlier other than through a Parliamentary question?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state, how the DMP inspectors became aware of this issue referred to in (1), and on what specific date did the investigation take place?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that the mesh over the opening to the fan referred to in (1), as depicted in the photograph, is galvanized, and therefore highly resistant to any form of corrosion?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state how many inspections have taken place at the Kanowna Belle underground operations in the last three years, and the respective dates of each visit?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) In light of the answer provided in part (1) for question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister explain why the DMP inspectors did not identify during these inspections within the last three years, that these three segments of protective mesh over the end of this primary ventilation fan, depicted in the photograph were missing, even though this particular primary ventilation fan is clearly visible upon driving down the portal ramp, and into the portal of that mine?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state how many primary ventilation fans in total service the Kanowna Belle underground mine?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister whether or not each and every individual fan, was investigated including a visual observation by a DMP inspector?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Can the Minister state how many other of these fans referred to in (9), were in a similar condition as the fan referred to in (1), and depicted in the photograph?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(17) Can the Minister state how the DMP inspectors were able to determine that the fan referred to in (1), was in fact at the Kanowna belle mine as opposed to the Raleigh mine?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
(19) Is it correct, that below the mesh and within the enclosed outer covering of the fan in (1), and depicted in the photograph, is a large fan approximately three metres in diameter, and revolving continuously at very high speeds?
(20) If no to (19), can the Minister state what is specifically and factually correct, concerning this matter?
(21) If no to (20), why not?
(22) Can the Minister state how the DMP inspectors were able to determine that the fan referred to in (1), was in fact at the Kanowna belle Mine as opposed to the Raleigh mine, given that the two mines are approximately 50 kilometres apart by road from one and another?
(23) If no to (22), why not?
(24) Is it correct that within the last six months during a visit of an inspector, a provisional improvement notice was issued to this mine referred to above, concerning water leaking from an air conditioner?
(25) If no to (24), what specifically is correct?
(26) Can the Minister state, on what date these three segments of the cyclone protective mesh were removed, and when is the shut down expected, in which they are to be replaced with the new ones?
(27) If no to (26), why not?
(28) In light of the answer provided for parts (3) to (4) of question on notice No. 2276, can the Minister state whether three segments of cyclone protective meshing missing from the top of the primary ventilation fan, as depicted in the photograph, constitute a breach of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
and
Regulations 1995,
even though the breach according to the view of the inspectorate does not warrant prosecution in this case?
(29) If no to (28), why not?
(30) Can the Minister state why the DMP was of the view, that the three segments of cyclone protective meshing missing from the top of the primary ventilation fan, did not warrant prosecution, given that the DMP repeatedly refers to that, ‘it is the responsibility of the principal employer, officers of the company and all employees’, to ensure compliance with the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995
?
(31) If no to (30), why not?
(32) Can the Minister state, in what way will the DMP Resources Safety Division, take further action to educate principal employers, officers of the company and all employees at this mine, as to the consequences of breaching basic mine safety standards as designated under legislation, including the considerable penalties for breaches of that legislation, given that the DMP on many occasions has determined prosecution is not warranted in the public interest, other than when somebody dies as a result of the breach?
(33) If no to (32), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
54 days
(1) No
(2) Barrick Management was unable to give the exact date when the three segments were removed.
(3) The Senior Inspector received a report from the Hon Helen Bullock MLC, Member for Mining and Pastoral Region. The report alleged a number of poor conditions at the Kanowna Belle and Raleigh Mines. The Senior Inspector followed up on the areas of concern at the Kanowna Belle Mine on 8 March 2010.
(4) Not applicable
(5) No
(6) The mesh in the photograph was not galvanized.
(7) Seventy-one (71) Department of Mines and Petroleum inspections have been carried out since 1 June 2007 at the Kanowna Belle Gold Mine on the following dates:
14/06/07
28/06/07
09/07/07
01/08/07
10/10/07
11/10/07
24/10/07
25/10/07
29/10/07
14/11/07
23/01/08
06/02/08
08/02/08
20/02/08
13/03/08
17/04/08
13/05/08
19/05/08
10/06/08
17/06/08
26/06/08
27/06/08
01/07/08
05/07/08
06/07/08
09/07/08
14/07/08
22/07/08
18/08/08
09/10/08
20/11/08
09/12/08
23/12/08
22/01/09
29/01/09
13/03/09
20/03/09
26/03/09
27/03/09
17/04/09
22/04/09
14/05/09
15/05/09
01/07/09
14/07/09
16/07/09
24/07/09
30/07/09
08/08/09
09/08/09
10/08/09
11/08/09
12/08/09
13/08/09
14/08/09
18/08/09
26/08/09
28/08/09
09/09/09
10/09/09
25/09/09
26/11/09
03/12/09
18/01/10
22/01/10
02/02/10
05/02/10
08/03/10
07/04/10
07/05/10
13/05/10
(8) Not applicable
(9) The Department of Mines and Petroleum does not consider that the three missing segments constitute a breach of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
and Regulations 1995.
(10) Not applicable
(11) Three
(12) Not applicable
(13) The Senior Occupational Health Inspector viewed the fans during an inspection of the mine on 22 January 2010.
(14) Not applicable
(15) No defects relating to the fans were recorded as a result of the inspection on 22 January 2010.
(16) Not applicable
(17) On 28 April 2010 during an unannounced visit of the Raleigh Mine the District Inspector discussed the photograph of the fan with management representatives. The District Inspector was advised that the photograph related to the Kanowna Belle Mine.
(18) Not applicable
(19) No
(20) Barrick Management has advised that the fan is not directly behind the mesh but located approximately five metres away.
(21) Not applicable
(22) Refer to response to part 17 of this question.
(23) Not applicable
(24) No
(25) Inspectors of Mines are not authorised to issue Provisional Improvement Notices. These notices are issued by the Safety and Health Representatives.
(26) Barrick Management was unable to give the exact date when the three segments were removed. The remaining segments were removed on 10 May 2010. All segments were replaced on that day.
(27) Not applicable
(28) The Department of Mines and Petroleum does not consider that the three missing segments constitute a breach of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act
1994
and Regulations 1995.
(29) Not applicable
(30) The Department of Mines and Petroleum does not consider that the three missing segments constitute a breach of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
and Regulations 1995.
(31) Not applicable
(32) The Department of Mines and Petroleum's Resources Safety Division will continue to follow its Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(33) 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) Barrick Management was unable to give the exact date when the three segments were removed.
(3) The Senior Inspector received a report from the Hon Helen Bullock MLC, Member for Mining and Pastoral Region. The report alleged a number of poor conditions at the Kanowna Belle and Raleigh Mines. The Senior Inspector followed up on the areas of concern at the Kanowna Belle Mine on 8 March 2010.
(4) Not applicable
(5) No
(6) The mesh in the photograph was not galvanized.
(7) Seventy-one (71) Department of Mines and Petroleum inspections have been carried out since 1 June 2007 at the Kanowna Belle Gold Mine on the following dates:
14/06/07
28/06/07
09/07/07
01/08/07
10/10/07
11/10/07
24/10/07
25/10/07
29/10/07
14/11/07
23/01/08
06/02/08
08/02/08
20/02/08
13/03/08
17/04/08
13/05/08
19/05/08
10/06/08
17/06/08
26/06/08
27/06/08
01/07/08
05/07/08
06/07/08
09/07/08
14/07/08
22/07/08
18/08/08
09/10/08
20/11/08
09/12/08
23/12/08
22/01/09
29/01/09
13/03/09
20/03/09
26/03/09
27/03/09
17/04/09
22/04/09
14/05/09
15/05/09
01/07/09
14/07/09
16/07/09
24/07/09
30/07/09
08/08/09
09/08/09
10/08/09
11/08/09
12/08/09
13/08/09
14/08/09
18/08/09
26/08/09
28/08/09
09/09/09
10/09/09
25/09/09
26/11/09
03/12/09
18/01/10
22/01/10
02/02/10
05/02/10
08/03/10
07/04/10
07/05/10
13/05/10
(8) Not applicable
(9) The Department of Mines and Petroleum does not consider that the three missing segments constitute a breach of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
and Regulations 1995.
(10) Not applicable
(11) Three
(12) Not applicable
(13) The Senior Occupational Health Inspector viewed the fans during an inspection of the mine on 22 January 2010.
(14) Not applicable
(15) No defects relating to the fans were recorded as a result of the inspection on 22 January 2010.
(16) Not applicable
(17) On 28 April 2010 during an unannounced visit of the Raleigh Mine the District Inspector discussed the photograph of the fan with management representatives. The District Inspector was advised that the photograph related to the Kanowna Belle Mine.
(18) Not applicable
(19) No
(20) Barrick Management has advised that the fan is not directly behind the mesh but located approximately five metres away.
(21) Not applicable
(22) Refer to response to part 17 of this question.
(23) Not applicable
(24) No
(25) Inspectors of Mines are not authorised to issue Provisional Improvement Notices. These notices are issued by the Safety and Health Representatives.
(26) Barrick Management was unable to give the exact date when the three segments were removed. The remaining segments were removed on 10 May 2010. All segments were replaced on that day.
(27) Not applicable
(28) The Department of Mines and Petroleum does not consider that the three missing segments constitute a breach of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act
1994
and Regulations 1995.
(29) Not applicable
(30) The Department of Mines and Petroleum does not consider that the three missing segments constitute a breach of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
and Regulations 1995.
(31) Not applicable
(32) The Department of Mines and Petroleum's Resources Safety Division will continue to follow its Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(33) 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.