15th December 2016 Methane > 2.5% and HPI’s
15.12.2016 Methane and HPI’s + comments MRE – Grosvenor –
POINTS TO NOTE
NEW SSE
Old Management trick, bring in new Chief by Internal Transfer, reshuffle a few chairs, appearance of new broom sweeps clean, while nothing really changes.
NOTE. Nothing noted about worker involvement (appropriate cross section); or worker review process, or training and assessment.
LW 101
Limited production due to Domain A seam split influence also by operational matters No indication of what seam split influence is. Bad Roof, Gas, From Where? What are the Operational Factors?
TG102. “Backholing” C heading being driven 27 to 26/ct
Why Backholing? Makes no sense unless because of roof fall or absolutely horrendous scheduling in the development plan
21/12/2016 Page of
INSPECTOR FEEDBACK
Why not Review All and provide updated Form 5 A Reports including full Investigations as required by X date?
ANGLO HPI vs DNRME HPI
Number of HPI’s v Anglo HPH (High Potential Hazard as per previous Inspection (undated) Procedure currently under review.
How convenient
Anglo stated “Definition between incident and hazard is also based on whether release of energy has occurred, and critical control has failed.
‘Also based”? What other criteria apply.
All a smokescreen effort to limit number of HPI’s being reported.
Hazards are always present, Roof, Gas, Spon Com, Hydraulic pressure etc etc.
Eliminating/Controlling the hazard is what Mandated Principal Hazard Management Plans,
Mandated Standard Operating Procedures and other mandated elements of the Mines Safety and Health Management System
First Indication of basis for DNRME Interpretation of a Non Reportable Incident “Critical Control Failed”
Also, application of “Reasonably Foreseeable”.
So called “Critical Controls” supposedly in place nothing is then Reasonably Foreseeable
CHIEF INSPECTORS BIG 10
The Inspectorates annual plan was developed from the Chief Inspectors Big 10 items .
The matters of relevance for the undergrounds were Respirable dust, Strata control,
Contractor management, UMM & ERZC forums, Health strategy, and Tyre management.
First 3 Grosvenor all over prime candidate. Gas Management and Spon Com, Emergency preparedness do not rate mention.
1.3 UMM and VO meeting
The Inspectors then met with the Ventilation officer Michael Webber and IJMM Bull to discuss information previously provided with regards to Methane issues that were apparent in the Longwall Tailgate from the previous inspection from the ERZ Controllers reports. The graphical representations provided showed that on a number of occasions that Methane appeared to be greater than 2.5% in the Longwall Tailgate. I asked Mr Webber to verify this detail for the dates and time span that this was greater than 2.5%. This was to be provided for the close out meeting.
WHY HAS ANGLO NOT REPORTED THESE AS HPI’s?
It was noted that Methane makes were not entered on the VO’s monthly report that was provided. Mr Webber showed that these were now on current reports.
The weekly ventilation review process that UMM Bull planned to implement was discussed. I was given a copy of one of these reviews.
Another of Mr Bulls planned implementations.
Has Mr Bull given similar assurances in the past?
MUSTER AREA
Document “Confirmation of Inspection” not signed
ERZC Report Main, bolt pull tests, no details
LW 101
POST GRASSTREE access to goaf.
Gas Monitor Position not kept in correct location as specified by Mine SHMS.
METHANE DRAINAGE WORK ACTIVITIES
Scoping Inspection completed, 2 different people two days apart Not clear who “Permit Holders” are.
Multiple SWI’s referenced which all referenced Grosvenor SHMS.
System for permits does not work. Requirements” section which was all referenced to the Grosvenor SHMS.
Regulation 94 Inspections.
Is Inspector pushing Inspections as part of Mines Inspection regime or is he pushing it to lowest point of workers responsible for own safety
INSTALLATION FACE
Centre Line Cracking in C hdg for Backholing. Megabolts for when TARPS enacted.
Always Backholing in Grosvenor. Is it from poor Mine Scheduling.
What happened to megabolts as part of normal pattern?
This was recommendation from Strata Consultants following Roof Falls earlier in year What about tell-tales every 15m?
RESPIRABLE DUST SUPPRESSION
I noted that no tail sprays were installed on the tail of the miner to suppress any dust from the delivery from the centre chain to the car. This had been identified as a key dust suppression control in the development of the recent Recognised Standard for dust control. Mr Bull committed to investigate this.
No tail water dust suppression sprays on 12CM Miner.
Another BULL COMMITTMENT
Install face megabolted centre line on advance no centre line cracking.
Not planned to widen road for near future.
MAINS
Travel road needs grading from 19c/t.
Another Bull Commitment “to fix it.
Cleanskin labour hire employee at face.
1 car cut then had to advance vent ducting.
Cable protection wheeling roads and corners not adequate, not as high as MG102.
All segregation stoppings 17 to 20c/t all temporary bag stoppings very poor standard, brattice pogo sticks.
Bull promised to implement a standard immediately Complete failure of segregation.
No alternative intake uncontaminated by Outbye fire etc
Should reflect Reg 350 no more than 2 even though Segregation not ventilation intake return
CLOSE OUT MEETING
Permit to Work
Not done correctly.
Requirements for VO, UMM and Geo Tech to sign off (only if required) not signed off
Lawrence Review it
Section 94
Only sign off if required. How convenient for senior statutory roles.
Is this pointed at ERZC Inspections or worker personal?
The requirement to document the standard for cable protection on wheeling corners was issued as an SCP.
SCP to document cable protection standards.
How can Grosvenor not have this. Besides being required under Regulation, this is a mine that is damaging cables regularly.
ELECTRICAL HPI’s
Corrective Actions from number of recent (no indication of how long) HPI’s.
Training cable torn in half one of 6 cable incidents
GAS MONITORING SYSTEM
SSE Garde committed to move gas monitors as part of longwall retraction and easy identification as hung high in rib
Gas monitoring obviously not high priority. Location not really general body
Methane > 2.5% in LW VO Webber.
Graphs Real Time instead of CITEC
Showed methane in different concentrations to CITEC.
VO could not explain why.
“ I required further explanation with respect to reasons for these, the actions taken and duration of each of these events as it is not clear as to why any of these events had not been reported to an Inspector as HPI’s.
NOT INFORMING INSPECTORS
Bull committed to provide this ASAP.
DIRECTIVE
Management of Methane in the Longwall Tailgate
TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTROL and MANAGEMENT of METHANE in the LONGWALL TAILGATE. (Due Date 12/01/2017 One month
Does that mean <2.5 % CH4 at all times, or control as company thinks acceptable?
Why nothing about Reporting >2.5% as HPI?
No mention of summary of Commitments given by Management to fix issues identified through the Inspection
