May 30 2018 MRE North Goonyella. Longwall Isolation Risk Management
It seems the Inspectors are not pleased about the answer to the question about what isolation was in place and how the level of isolation was decided.
It has been over twenty years since I was a face Deputy (ERZC).
Even back then the Company had a hard and fast Isolation Procedure for accessing the AFC.
Firstly assessing the roof and face for stability and parking the shearer up in a good position setting sprags/flippers to the face.
Before anyone could access the AFC as Deputy I was responsible for the Isolation Process, involving filling out group isolation form that all workers had to sign on and off, isolating the power to the AFC, racking the power cables out and using appropriate locks and do not operate tags.,
It does not seem that is the case at North Goonyella in 2018.
One of the dangers of accessing the AFC were shown at Carborough Downs with the fatality in November 2019.
The most the Inspectors can muster is to say that the Mine and the Supervisor need “to consider” whether a SLAM is a suitable tool for a “high potential task”
Again no Directives of any form.
The Mine needs to consider whether a simple personal risk management tool such as this is sufficient for a task with the risk potential as that which was being undertaken. This is something that the supervisor should consider during the planning process for the work.
LONGWALL ISOLATION Risk Management
At the shearer there were two fitters working on the TG Down Drive unit of the machine. One fitter was on the AFC underneath the body of the shearer tightening bolts. The fitters explained the isolation that was in place for their work. They explained that the risk management process was the use of a SLAM,
The Mine needs to consider whether a simple personal risk management tool such as this is sufficient for a task with the risk potential as that which was being undertaken. This is something that the supervisor should consider during the planning process for the work.
