André De Kock – Research Manager, Simtars
ABSTRACT
One of the major hazards in an underground coal mine is the interaction between mining equipment and humans. This is the result of limited vision around underground equipment and the confined space within which the equipment operates. To address this hazard, various proximity detection systems have been developed.
This paper describes a project that evaluated three proximity detection systems in an underground coal mine. The systems were subjected to a suite of nine scenarios, involving interaction between humans and continuous miners, shuttle cars and LHDs. In addition, the detection zones of the different proximity detection systems, were determined on surface as well as underground. The underground zones were determined under “normal conditions” (reference pattern), in the vicinity of an underground substation, tags at different heights, and multiple tags in zones.
The scenario results provide a documented comparison of the proximity detection systems performance when subjected to the same scenarios. This will allow a mine to make an informed selection of the most suitable proximity detection system. The detection zone results provide a graphical comparison between the performance of a proximity detection system on surface and underground. The results also present the comparison for “normal conditions” of the proximity detection system and when subjected to EMF radiation, multiple tags and tags at different heights.
The project also identified the need to develop a universal specification for a proximity detection system.
Anthony Deakin
Glasshouse Consulting Pty Ltd
Anthony Deakin,
Glasshouse Consulting
Assoc. Prof. Geoff Dell
Head of Transport and Safety Science Courses, Central Queensland University
Accidents and injuries in Australia are at epidemic proportions, the annual direct costs to the economy are now over $80 billion and the associated long term social impacts and suffering of individuals and their families are immeasurable. Clearly, existing strategies and interventions are at best holding back the flood gates and there is a need to re-think the problem and devise new and more effective programs and solutions. The high consequence low probability (HCLP) industries, like the airlines and rail, have contributed only 0.4% to these costs.
So, what are the lessons from the HCLP industries which could inform effective intervention in the others? One of the key differences between HCLP industries and others is in the way safety management is regulated, especially in relation to safety management systems, their content, implementation and effectiveness. This paper will present a clear picture of the accident and injury epidemic and contrast the key differences in the way LCHP industries typically manage safety and respond to issues, hazards and incidents. It will also offer some reasons why this epidemic may have evolved and yet largely remained under the radar of government and industry leaders and provide some guidance for the future of accident prevention and regulation in order to deliver a step change reduction in accident and injury occurrence.
Dan Dennis
INTELICS
Suzanne Desailly, General Manager, MATES in Mining & Energy
Mark Desira
Inspector of Mines – Occupational Hygiene
The underground mine environment may contain a number of airborne contaminants that affect worker health. This includes diesel plant exhaust (gases and particulate matter) that is emitted into the underground work environment.
The classification of diesel exhaust as a Class 1 ‘confirmed human carcinogen’ by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) necessitates the management of the workers’ exposure to diesel exhaust.
The Mines Inspectorate has undertaken a study of underground mines to evaluate the level of risk to mine workers and the effectiveness of differing management strategies for diesel exhaust.
In the initial phase of this study, the monitoring results for mine worker exposure to diesel exhaust were collated for underground Similar Exposure Groups (SEGs). The characterisation of the exposure monitoring found that some SEGs (service crews and drilling operations) have higher exposure risk.
In the second part of the study, the effectiveness of the control measures applicable to different SEGs were analysed to identify the optimal control strategies.
This paper presents the finding that no single control measure is sufficient, and that a multifactorial approach incorporating complementary control measures is required to ensure the effective management of diesel exhaust in underground mines.
Ross Di Corleto
Monitor Consulting Services
Andrew Dickinson, Senior Product Designer, Blundstone Australia
