IMPROVING HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN THE UNDERGROUND MINING INDUSTRY
THE RANGE OF APPROACHES
There are a range of options available, but the real challenge is to achieve the optimal mix of approaches that will improve the ways hazards are identified and managed in underground mining.
We may need to combine a number of approaches to make sure we get it right for both small and large mining operations in New Zealand.
Outlined in this paper are some of the potential options identified as possible means of improving the ways hazards are identified and managed within the underground mining industry. We would like your views on:
- what would be most effective in improving the ways hazards are identified and managed
- potential problems and impacts you think may occur
- potential variations to these options to improve them
- if you feel that a mix of more than one of these options would be more effective in improving the ways hazards are identified and managed, what combinations you think would work
- any other options that are not listed here that you think would be effective in improving the ways hazards are identified and managed.
The possible approaches are not overly detailed because we want to use your feedback to shape them into options that are the most effective in improving the ways hazards are identified and managed. Input from the industry will help us do that. We have, however, provided some practical examples of how the approaches might work.
The Department of Labour has set out our initial analysis of the benefits and risks of each option in Appendix 1. We would appreciate you telling us what you think and adding to the table where you think we have left something important out.
Potential options
The potential options are organised into six different approaches to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed in the underground mining industry:
I. A new safety case hazard management system
II. Ways to improve notification of hazards
III. Ways to improve guidance
IV. Ways to amend regulatory coverage
V. Ways to improve employee participation
VI. Ways to improve health and safety inspections.
I. A NEW SAFETY CASE HAZARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSafety case regime
Proposal
A safety case regime would require operators to present a case to a Department of Labour inspector to demonstrate how they will manage safety. The case would need to be approved before operations could begin.
Explanation
A safety case regime is an objective-based regime where legislation sets broad safety objectives for the mine operator. The operator is responsible for the on-going management of safety and develops the most appropriate methods to achieve those objectives.
The operator must make a 'case' demonstrating to the Department of Labour how they will manage safety effectively. The Department of Labour reviews the case and must approve it before operations can begin, and the operation must follow the methods set out in the safety case.
Example
Safety case regimes are used overseas in high-risk sectors. Examples include those operated by the Major Hazard Facilities Division of WorkSafe Victoria and the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (a Statutory Authority regulating Commonwealth, State and Territory coastal waters). The United Kingdom also introduced a safety case regime for their rail system.
New Zealand currently has a safety case regime in the railway sector. The Railways Act 2005 sets out the contents of what must be contained in the safety case. The case must be submitted to obtain a licence to enable the applicant to operate. The railway industry currently has one very large operator (Toll NZ), several large operators and around 75 very small operators.
The rail safety case must include, for example:
- the safety policy and objectives, and how these will be given effect
- the management systems that identify and assess risks and develop and implement risk control measures
- the arrangements that are in place to ensure that equipment is fit for purpose, safety critical tasks are clearly identified, and workers have received appropriate training and are competent
- processes for the continuous review of the rail participant's activities to identify potentially significant changes.
Possible variations/features
- A plan in the style of a safety case could be required without the requirement that it must be signed off by an inspector (see systems and plans option below).
- Safety cases could be applied to selected parts of an operation, for example, for certain sizes of operations, certain activities or phases in the development of a mine.
|
Safety case QUESTIONS: 1 Do you think the safety case regime would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 2 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? 3 What do you think of the variations and features proposed? Can you add any more? |
II. WAYS TO IMPROVE NOTIFICATION OF HAZARDSa. Licensing regime
Proposal
Certain activities, such as high-risk activities, would require a licence to perform.
Explanation
A licence from an inspector would be required before a licence holder carried out the activity. The licence application would need to show that the person has the appropriate qualifications or can demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the activity.
Example
In New South Wales, some activities also require a licence to perform them. Activities requiring a licence include (but are not limited to) shaft or drift sinking, raise boring and development of a new underground mine entry. Unless a licence is obtained from the chief inspector, that activity is unable to be carried out. The applicant for the licence must be over 18 with appropriate qualifications to demonstrate their knowledge, and they must be a fit and proper person.
|
Licensing regime QUESTIONS: 4 Do you think the licensing regime would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 5 What activities should require a licence? 6 Should the licence be a one-off type, or valid for a certain period of time? 7 What would the appropriate qualifications or knowledge be? 8 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? 9 Can you think of any variations and features that would enhance this option? |
b. Third-party monitoring system
Proposal
Certain activities would need to be performed by, or under the supervision of, an appropriately qualified person.
Explanation
Certain activities would require the supervision of, or would need to be carried out by, a suitably qualified person. Regulations would determine the activities, and who a suitably qualified person was.
Example
A mine survey would need to be carried out by, or under the close supervision of, a mine surveyor.
This requirement already exists in respect of the use of explosives in mines. A person must be an approved handler under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001.
|
Third-party monitoring system QUESTIONS: 10 Do you think a third party monitoring system would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 11 What activities should require monitoring? 12 Who would a suitably qualified person be? 13 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? 14 Can you think of any variations and/or features that would enhance the option? |
c. Notification regime for certain high-risk activities
Proposal
High-risk activities would need to be notified to an inspector before they are carried out.
Explanation
Certain activities deemed high-risk would need to be notified to an inspector. A notice would be needed containing the nature of the activity, the intended commencement date and information that is deemed necessary for that activity. There would be a waiting period that could vary between activities from the time the notice is given to the commencement of the activity.
Example
Currently, Regulation 8 of the Mining Underground Regulations requires that an inspector is notified of the commencement, recommencement or cessation of any operation. Regulation 8(4) also requires that an inspector is notified of the installation of a shaft or winding system not less than 14 days before the proposed date of installation. These requirements could be extended to include other activities.
There are notification requirements under HSNO Regulations that a person in charge of any transportation on public roads or by rail of explosives must notify an enforcement officer appointed by Police at least 24 hours before departure.
New South Wales currently requires notification when certain activities are being carried out. They include (but are not limited to) single entry development, sealing when an explosive atmosphere may result, working within an inrush control zone, injection or application of polymeric material for ventilation or strata, and cutting or welding in a hazardous zone underground.
Possible variations/features
▪ Potential for an online notification system that will be less onerous than written applications.
▪ The current notification requirements could be expanded to include high-risk activities and require information deemed necessary by inspectors. The information required could potentially be in the form of a safety case for each activity (see safety case option above).
|
Notification regime for certain high-risk activities QUESTIONS: 15 Do you think a notification regime would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 16 What activities should be included? 17 What information should be required? 18 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? 19 What do you think of the variations and features proposed? Can you add any more? |
III. WAYS TO IMPROVE GUIDANCEa. Health and safety management systems and major hazard management plans
Proposal
Operations would be required to provide health and safety management systems and a major hazard management plan.
Explanation
The systems and plans are already required under the HSE Act, but the requirement could be strengthened by including it, and expanding on the requirements, in the Mining Underground Regulations.
Example
The state of Victoria's regulations require a safety management system to be documented, containing:
▪ the operator's safety policy
▪ the systems and procedures by which risks are controlled
▪ performance standards for measuring the effectiveness of the system
▪ the way the standards are to be met
▪ the audit process.
Victoria also requires a safety assessment for major mining hazards to be prepared containing methodology; the nature, likelihood and severity of the potential harm; judgements; measures for the control of risk; and reasons for adopting or rejecting control measures.
The plans could cover, for example:
▪ a risk management system
▪ spontaneous combustion
▪ ventilation
▪ gas management
▪ mining methods and strata management - this could potentially include a comprehensive strata management plan that includes, as a minimum, matters discussed in the Manual on Pillar Extraction in NSW Underground Coal Mines, MDG No. 1005 - Strata Management Plan Control Cycle
▪ mining transport systems and production equipment
▪ mine services and infrastructure systems
▪ emergency preparedness and response systems.
|
Health and safety management systems and major hazard management plans QUESTIONS: 20 Do you think this option would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 21 What should be detailed in the systems? 22 What hazards should require a plan, and what should the plan include? 23 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? 24 Are there any differences between large and small underground mines that would lead to different requirements in the systems and plans? |
b. Increased supporting guidance, including an approved code of practice (ACOP) on hazard management
Proposal
An ACOP will be completed to increase the amount of material supporting the regulations.
Explanation
An ACOP would be prepared under the HSE Act. It would develop and formalise guidelines for the underground mining industry. Complying with an ACOP is not compulsory. However, conforming to one is accepted as evidence of good practice, and may provide a defence against any complaints of non-compliance with the HSE Act.
We note that a draft ACOP has been developed for the underground mining industry. This option would look to reviewing and completing this ACOP.
Possible variations/features
▪ Guidance material could also be produced on other areas of health and safety related to mining where there is evidence that it is currently absent.
|
Increased supporting guidance QUESTIONS: 25 Do you think this option would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 26 What ACOP development process would you prefer? (For example, should it be written by industry and unions, the Department of Labour, or developed by industry, unions and government together?) 27 What areas would you like to see specific guidance on? 28 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? 29 Can you think of any variations and features that would enhance the option? |
IV. WAYS TO AMEND REGULATORY COVERAGEa. Extending coverage of the HSE Mining Underground Regulations 1999
Proposal
The regulations would be reviewed to identify gaps in the coverage of hazards.
Example
Gaps we have already identified in the regulations are:
▪ machinery - relating to conveyors, crushers and the provision of emergency stops
▪ vehicles and transport - relating to condition of access ways, roadways and slopes, and separation distances of walkways from flume roads.
We would review the regulations further to identify any other potential gaps that need addressing.
|
Extending the coverage of the Mining Underground Regulations QUESTIONS: 30 Do you think this option would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 31 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? 32 What gaps do you think currently exist in the regulations that need addressing? |
b. Amending the HSE (Mining Administration) Regulations 1996
Proposal
Regulation 11(3)(b) would be deleted so a coal mine deputy would no longer be able to run a mine employing eight or fewer people.
Explanation
As Regulation 11 of the HSE (Mining Administration) Regulations currently stands, smaller underground coal mines may have a manager in charge who holds a lesser qualification than a larger mine manager in charge would hold. This regulatory hierarchy does not recognise that the hazards requiring management in an underground coal mining environment are predominantly unrelated to the number of people employed on the site.
Example
Regulation 11(3)(b) would be revoked so that a holder of a coal mine deputy certificate of competence is no longer considered qualified to manage an underground coal mine where eight or fewer people are present. Underground coal mine managers in charge would then require a coal mine underviewer certificate for an underground coal mine where eight or fewer people are ordinarily at work at any one time. Underground coal mines currently run by a coal mine deputy would require their person in charge to upgrade to a coal mine underviewer certificate.
|
Amending the Mining Administration Regulations QUESTIONS: 33 Do you think this option would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 34 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? What impact do you think this option would have on smaller mines? 1. What do you think are the main benefits and costs of each possibility? 35 What impact do you think each possibility would have on smaller mines? |
V. WAYS TO IMPROVE EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATIONEmployee participation requirements
Proposal
The way employees participate in the management of hazards in underground mines would be set out.
Explanation
Employee participation is crucial to improving the way hazards are identified and managed in underground mines. Various requirements relating to employee participation could be set out in order to improve the involvement of employees in hazard identification and management.
Example
There are a number of ways that requirements relating to employee participation could be set out, from amending primary legislation through to guidance. Below are four possibilities of how to improve employee participation, ordered from setting mandatory requirements through primary legislation and regulations, through to improved guidance and information.
i Amending primary legislation
A mandatory role of a check inspector could be created, with various powers and duties. Due to the performance-based nature of the HSE framework and the current regulation-making powers under the HSE Act, this option is not possible to achieve through amendments to current regulations. To accommodate the option in its entirety, primary legislation would need to be amended, or specialised legislation would need to be created.
The elected check inspector would:
• be recognised and provided for in legislation
• be an employee of the mine
• have at least five years' experience working in an underground mine
• hold at least a coal mine deputy and/or a gas tester certificate of competence
• be a health and safety representative. (While this would be preferred, it would not need to be a mandatory requirement.)
The check inspector would have the following legislative roles and powers:
• The right to check all miners' gear and check that all miners clearly understand their role, tasks and hazards before they go underground, to help ensure their safety.
• The power to detain individuals and groups from going underground if their gear is not up to standard, or if they are not clear on their tasks or how to manage the hazards.
• The power to request the manager to immediately order the withdrawal of employees from the mine or that part of it that is believed to be dangerous to life or injurious to health (determined by the check inspector), or to immediately order the discontinuance of any dangerous practice, as well as the power to evacuate a mine in emergency situations.
• A statutory right to access and liaise with the health and safety inspectorate.
• An entitlement to two additional days' training per year in addition to the health and safety representative's training provisions in the HSE Act.
• The right to inspect every part of the mine and its machinery and workings, once every two weeks, or on receiving notice from two or more persons employed in the mine that it is their belief that the mine or its machinery is in a condition dangerous to life or injurious to health, or that any dangerous practice exists in the working of the mine.
• On completing an inspection of a mine, to prepare a written report of the results of the inspection, sign it, and send or deliver it to the manager of the mine.
The check inspector would notify the mine manager in writing of the time of the proposed inspection and the reason for making it. The mine manager or some other person appointed by them would accompany every check inspector making an inspection, and would be required to give the check inspector full and free facilities for the inspection.
If the report stated that the mine or any part of it was in a condition dangerous to life or injurious to health, or that any dangerous practice existed in the working of the mine, then the mine manager would be required to immediately forward a copy of the report to the health and safety inspectorate. The check inspector would also be able to order the immediate withdrawal of employees.
If a mine manager failed within a reasonable time to comply with a recommendation in the report served on them by a check inspector, the check inspector would forward a copy of the report to the health and safety inspectorate.
This role would likely be a full-time position, and the check inspector would not be able to carry out normal duties. As some small mines will not have enough employees to have a separate check inspector, a 'roving check inspector' role could be developed, where a check inspector from a neighbouring mine would visit the small mine and perform the required tasks.
ii Amending regulations
This option would require amendments to regulations. There are two potential ways of improving employee participation through amending regulations.
Amended version of check inspector
An amended version of the check inspector, as set out above, could be provided for in regulations. The option above would be reframed to mention duties, not powers, to better fit with the intent of the regulation-making powers of the HSE Act. The parts of the option that may not be possible under current regulations - entitlement to two more days paid leave to train and regulating hours of work and payment - would be removed.
Expanding options in this paper
Alternatively, certain aspects of the check inspector option could be incorporated into the options already in this document - hazard management systems, increased supporting guidance, and a safety case regime.
To add to the option of hazard management plans above, certain aspects of the check inspector option could be used to expand the option. Therefore, if hazard management plans were to be compulsory, operators could be required to state how they propose to carry out certain duties. For example, employers may have to specify in hazard management plans:
• how they intend to inspect miners' gear and how they will ensure that all miners clearly understand their role, tasks and hazards before they go underground
• the process of preventing individuals and groups from going underground if their gear is not up to standard, or if they are not clear on their tasks or how to manage the hazards
• how they will order the withdrawal of employees from the mine or that part of it that is dangerous to life or injurious to health, or how they will order discontinuance of any dangerous practice
• how they will inspect every part of the mine and its machinery and workings on a regular basis.
Additionally, the option of the development of an employee participation ACOP specific to the underground mining industry (see below) could include the aspects of the check inspector regime set out above.
The safety case regime option above could also include employee participation aspects, for example, asking employers to specify how they would ensure good employee participation.
iii Increased guidance via an ACOP on employee participation
An ACOP could be developed to provide guidance around employee participation and the role of employee health and safety representatives. Under section 19B(3) of the HSE Act, when it comes to employee participation, an employer must take into account any approved code of practice for employee participation in workplace health and safety.
|
Employee participation requirements QUESTIONS: 36 There are four possibilities to improve employee participation under this option: a Amending primary legislation to include a check inspector regime. b Amending current regulations to include a modified version of a check inspector regime, with powers reframed as duties and certain aspects removed. c Incorporating certain aspects of the check inspector regime into the existing options in this paper on safety cases, hazard management plans and employee participation ACOPs. d Creating an employee participation ACOP. Think about each possibility separately. Do you think they would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 37 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of each possibility? |
VI. WAYS TO IMPROVE HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTIONS Requirements for health and safety inspectors
Proposal
Legislation could be passed setting out what is required by health and safety inspectors when they are visiting underground mines. Requirements would include the frequency and nature of visits.
Explanation
It may not be possible to amend the current regulations applying to underground mining to specify the frequency and nature of inspectorate visits. Amendments to the HSE Act, or new specialised legislation, would be required.
Example
Legislation could specify the frequency and nature of visits by the health and safety inspectorate. For example, the inspectors must:
• go underground when they inspect the mine
• visit every mine in operation
• visit every mine on a regular three-month cycle.
|
Requirements for health and safety inspectors QUESTIONS: 38 Do you think this option would work well for underground mining to improve the ways hazards are identified and managed? Why/why not? 39 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this option? 40 What could the legislation specify regarding health and safety inspector visits? 41 Can you think of any variations and features that would enhance this option? |