Ten Years of Conducting Level 1 Simulated Emergency Exercises in Queensland’s Underground Coal Mines Martin Watkinson, Group Mining Engineer, Vale Australia

Ten Years of Conducting Level 1 Simulated Emergency Exercises

in

Queensland’s Underground Coal Mines

Martin Watkinson, Group Mining Engineer, Vale Australia

Darren Brady, Principal Scientific Advisor, Simtars

2

Why Run Emergency Exercises?

• The inquiry into the explosion at the Moura No. 2 Mine in August 1994 recommended -“Emergency procedures should be exercised at each mine on a systematic basis, the minimum requirement being on an annual basis for each mine”

• Qld Approved Standard for the Conduct of Emergency Procedures Exercises (QMD 96 7393)

• Draft Recognised Standard (Qld) being prepared

3

An Oral History Analysis of Mine Emergency Response (NIOSH IC 9471 2004)

• Many believed that some sort of interactive simulated response training should be conducted.

• “To me, training is number one. Continue training the people. Renew them again by having mock disasters”.

• “They [mine management] should understand the requirement for preplanning. And they planned production ahead of time. They should plan for an emergency ahead of time.”

4

A Golden Opportunity

• The level 1 exercise is an opportunity for each mine to test its emergency response scheme and improve it as a result of the outcome. (As are exercises run at the mine.)

• Some mines view this as a pass or fail test and have a real “fear” of the exercise.(This could be seen as a generalisation as several mining companies have embraced training provided by outside commercial agencies to develop and test their Emergency Response Plans as a method to enhance their capability.)

• The exercise has an objective of testing the whole state response and improving mine site emergency response.

5

• “the overall aim being to improve the emergency response capability of not only the mine where the level 1 is being held but all mines and external resources in the state”. (QMJ 2006)

• State Level 1 Emergency Exercise “which happened to be held at Grasstree Mine in 2007”.

A Golden Opportunity

6

Objectives for the last 2 years

• Self escape including changeover process for Self Contained Self Rescuers (SCSRs),

• Use of changeover bays.

• The incident management team process.

• Queensland Mines Rescue Services response and underground deployment.

• Mine site and Department of Mines and Energy emergency call-out procedures.

• Fire fighting procedures and first response,

7

• Incident Management Team (IMT) Process.

• Mine interaction with outside agencies particularly police and hospital, and media.

• Develop a draft Recognised Standard for the Conduct of Emergency Exercises.

Objectives for the last 2 years

8

Southern Colliery 1998

Scenario• The scenario was built around unauthorised alteration of a

district regulator, affecting the ventilation flow on the operating longwall. The reduced flow, plus barometer fall resulted in a frictional ignition of methane. The resulting explosion destroyed and damaged several of the mines ventilation control devices. This exercise was conducted at 12:05 am to test call out of mines staff and responses in the early hours of the morning.

9

Issues Identified

• Communications between control room and Incident Management Team (IMT)

• Emergency call out procedures for staff off site

• Duty cards impossible to follow

• Need to conduct rapid evaluation of ventilation and gas trends

• Need for a clearly defined IMT process.


10

Issues Identified

• Need for adequately resourced IMT room

• Need for training in evacuation in zero/poor visibility

• Escape ways to be adequately maintained

• Safe havens for changeover of Self Contained Self Rescuers (SCSRs)


11

Grasstree Mine 2007

Scenario • Nearby mines have all had frictional ignitions on both longwall and

development panels. Consequently, it was decided to base the scenario for the 2007 Level 1 Mine Emergency Exercise on a frictional ignition on the longwall face.

• The exercise commenced at 20:00 on a Monday night to test the call out of site and other personnel.

• For the purposes of the scenario it was deemed that the shearer drivers and another operator on the longwall would be seriously injured, however they would be able to make contact with the surface using non-verbal communication later in the exercise.

12

Issues Identified

• All mines to conduct a gap analysis on their emergency response plans to recommendations made in 2007 report as well as previous exercises

• The draft recognised standard should be circulated for comment and adoption. This will provide mechanisms for the follow up from Level 1 Mine Emergency Exercises and information not currently available from Level 2 mine site exercises

Grasstree Mine 2007

13

Issues Identified

• Improved training required in the donning and changeover of SCSRs

• A mines inspector and industry safety and health representative should respond to and attend all Level 1 Mine Emergency Exercises

Grasstree Mine 2007

14

Continual Improvement

• Safety management is a process of continual improvement.

PreliminaryHazard

Analysis

DevelopControlProcesses

DevelopPlan

Elements

ManagementPlan

ModifyPlan

Operate toManagement

Plan

ReassessRisk /

Review Plan

Review triggered by: - Time - Event - Non Conformity

RiskAssessment

15

• The level 1 exercise is and has been subject to the results of a process of continual improvement.

• However, it is a fact that no matter how good a system is there is always room for further improvement.

Continual Improvement

16

Comparison Southern Vs Grasstree

17

• Southern - Emergency call out procedures for staff off site.

• Grasstree-This again was an issue with the call outs being undertaken by the controller at Grasstree West (Southern Colliery).

• There is possibly a need for automated call out and maybe an on call roster for weekends/public holidays


18

• Duty cards impossible to follow .

• Too many duty cards this is a common issue at all mine sites


19

• Need to conduct rapid evaluation of ventilation and gas trends.

• Gas analysis was undertaken but access to information from the gas chromatograph was delayed due to the location


20

• Need for a clearly defined IMT process.

• In 2007 the mine was using the Mine Emergency Management System (MEMS) and worked through the scenario in a co-ordinated manner


21

• Need for an adequately resourced IMT room.

• The ICT room had good facilities but additional facilities were recommended for the other rooms required in the MEMS process


22

• Need for training in evacuation in zero/poor visibility.

• Mine workers conducted an evacuation in low visibility.


23

• Escape ways to be adequately maintained.

• Recommendations were made about maintenance of the travel ways, in 2007 these related to grading of roadways and air-doors whereas in 1998 they were un-travelable on foot.


24

• Safe havens for changeover of SCSR’s.

• The mine had implemented a system of change over bays, however the procedures for using them was not fully understood by the entire workforce.


25

• Based on Incident Control System adopted by Emergency Services in Australia (based on National Interagency Incident Management System NIIMS – USA)

• Incident Control: typically the Mine Manager, Leads the formation and direction of the IMT. :-

1. Planning

2. Operations

3. Logistics

Mine Emergency Management System(MEMS)

26

• Planning: responsible for the collation of incident and resource information, predictions of development of the incident scenario, development of potential solution options and a recommended solution .

• Operations: responsible for the management of workgroups and response teams such as mines rescue.

• Logistics: responsible for the provision of facilities, services, materials and finance that will support the operational response.

Mine Emergency Management System

27

Major Issues Being Faced in an Emergency

• The activation of the emergency response plan means that there has been a failure of the mines safety management plans.

• Mine workers who are underground need to make informed decisions as to what actions they will take. (Thorough training required in all aspects of emergency response and decision making are required as well as competency in the use of the emergency response equipment.)

28

• The IMT when formed will have no effect on the decisions made by mineworkers responding to the initial incident. They will however have to manage on from these initial decisions made by those personnel underground.

• Use of the MEMS system requires discipline and manpower resources to cover an extended period. (Why not involve mineworkers in the process to cover this requirement?)

Major Issues Being Faced in an Emergency

29

Conclusions

• In conclusion, Mine Emergency Response Plans and escape capability have improved as a result of conducting level 1 exercises and the associated level 2, 3 and 4 exercises at Mine sites.

• Industry needs to work on ways of sharing the learning with each other as mutual safety is in everyone’s interest.

• All mines should conduct a gap analysis of their plans to the recommendations within the reports and amend their plans as necessary

30

Copies of Reports:

Copies of all the exercise reports on CD/DVD containing video footage taken underground can be obtained by

contacting Simtars at [email protected] or +61 7 3810 6333

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Ten Years of Conducting Level 1 Simulated Emergency Exercises in Queensland’s Underground Coal Mines Martin Watkinson, Group Mining Engineer, Vale Australia