Winstone Aggregates. Page 2 of 14

Transcription

1 Attachment 1 to Fletcher Building Submission Submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on Government s Proposed Changes to the Health and Safety in the New Zealand Mining Industry from Winstone Aggregates CONTACT DETAILS Name: Mike McSaveney Address: P O Box , Green Lane, Auckland mike.mcsaveney@winstoneaggregates.co.nz Telephone Organisation (if applicable): Winstone Aggregates Position (if applicable): National Operations Manager I am making this submission on behalf of Winstone Aggregates My background or interest area is: Quarrying Page 1 of 14

2 Winstone Aggregates Winstone Aggregates is New Zealand's largest quarrying company. Along with Rocla Quarry Products in Australia we are the aggregates division of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Ltd. In New Zealand we manufacturer and distribute a comprehensive range of aggregates and sand to the roading, ready mixed concrete, building and contracting customers. The aggregates that we produce are a vital part of constructing and maintaining New Zealand s infrastructure. Winstone Aggregates operates in 26 locations nationwide and has a range of hard rock, alluvial and sand quarries. We have been in operation since 1864 and have a significant amount of experience in operating quarries. The Australian part of our business operates both sand and hardrock quarries at 20 different sites across Australia. With 320 employees in New Zealand and 140 across the Australian Aggregates business we operate with a significant workforce across a wide range of quarrying operations over a large geographic area. For this submission we also represent the quarries operated by Golden Bay Cement and Firth Industries, under the company, Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Limited. Page 2 of 14

3 Broadening the Royal Commission s recommendations: What We Propose The new regulatory regime covers the mining industry generally, not just underground coal mines. 1. Do you agree with the proposed coverage of the mining industry? What changes would you suggest, and why? Winstone Aggregates does not agree with the proposed coverage of the mining industry. The proposed changes have been drafted in response to a tragedy in a coal mining operation, and are based on Queensland coal mining regulations. While we agree they are both relevant and needed for coal mining and possibly other metalliferous mining in NZ, we do not believe they are appropriate to apply as is to the NZ Quarrying industry. We also do not agree with the proposal to apply the regulations to just a sector of Quarries within scope as per a defined criteria (p.11), on the basis that ministry does not have the resources to monitor the whole industry. There are in excess of 900 quarries in NZ, and the proposed scope will only include of the larger sites. Approximately half of these are owned by our company. Winstone Aggregates has a total recordable injury frequency rate per million hours (TRIFR) of 2.3, which is approximately four times lower than the New Zealand quarrying industry average of (The other major industry members whose quarries are likely to be included in this scope are also likely to have TRIFR values below the industry average.) This being the case, many of the smaller quarry operators must have TRIFR s significantly higher than the industry average. Accordingly it is likely that there is a higher risk of serious and fatal injury incidents in those operations. Focusing on the few major players with above average safety performance is not going to reduce safety risks within this sector Quarries do not have a large number of employees working in localized areas within a quarry. Most quarries operations involve individual employees working at remote work stations. It is extremely unlikely that a single incident (either as a result of a process safety failure or human error) will result in multiple fatalities. (In this proposal the definition of a Principal Hazard is one where there is the potential for multiple fatalities. It is the understanding of Winstone Aggregates that there has never been a multiple fatality in any quarry for at least the past 30 years if not longer). Explosives are used extensively in quarries, and therefore the possibility of an unexpected explosion cannot be eliminated. Use of explosives is very strictly controlled by the existing regulations and standards, and the NZ quarrying industry has an extremely high safety record in relation to their use. In many instances shot firing is done by contracted experts. We do not see any need for additional regulations to control the use of explosives in the quarrying industry. Requiring just the larger companies to comply would be subjecting them to additional compliance costs and placing them at a financial disadvantage to those not needing to comply. Our primary submission is that ALL quarries should be excluded from the proposed coverage. Page 3 of 14

4 However if this was not accepted, we would support other submissions to have all quarries providing material for commercial gain included in the coverage. This would ensure a level playing field and also have a benefit towards increasing the safety awareness of the poorer performers in the industry. 2. In particular, do you agree with the proposed features for tunnels and quarries that would be covered by the new regulatory framework? What changes would you suggest, and why? Winstone Aggregates believes that the industry should have its own set of regulations (as outlined in question 1) that cover all extractive operations as defined in the Quarries & Tunnels Act (1982). In this act there is also a very clear definition of a tunnel and what constitutes a tunnel. The Table on page 29, Vol. 1 needs revision to distinguish between the two and which appointments are required at each. 3. In making your submission on the proposals in this chapter you may wish to refer to the proposed definitions for mining operation, tunnel, quarry, and mine worker, which are set out in technical appendix four (located in volume 2). The criteria now proposed to determine what quarries and in scope is too restrictive and excludes much of our industry when in fact if quarries are to be included then all quarries should be within scope and subject to the same rules. The Health and Safety in Employment Act (Mining Administration) Regulations 1996 also has a definition for a quarry. Previous Acts and Regulations, particularly the Quarries and Tunnels Act 1982 and the Quarries Regulations 1983 (both since repealed) gave concise definitions regarding many of the aspects that current legislators are considering. Regrettably, in subsequent revisions of legislation (HSE Act 1992), many of the sound clauses in these acts were inadvertently excluded/ or not included with appropriate updating, resulting in a situation for the extractive industry which the current proposals are now trying to amend, based on Queensland Coal Mining Regulations. We believe that the Queensland Coal Mining Regulations are unsuitable for the majority of above ground extractive operations, in our case the Quarry Industry and that updated extracts from previous regulations that also include the recommendations from the Royal Commission of the Pike River Coal Mining Tragedy more than adequately meet the requirements for our industry that legislators are seeking to achieve, namely a safer workplace and industry to work in. We also believe that Recycling operations need to be included as some of these are processing in excess of 100,000 tonnes and share much of the equipment and many of the risk factors with above ground extractive operations. Page 4 of 14

5 A new regulatory approach: what we propose A new regulatory approach, with stronger hazard and risk management The comments and suggestions made by Winstone Aggregates in the following paragraphs are made in a constructive manner should this approach be attained. Nothing in the following responses should be seen to detract from Winstone Aggregates primary position. 4. Do you support the proposals to require principal hazard management plans and principal control plans? Winstone Aggregates believes that Principle Hazards need to be identified and Principle Control Plans prepared. Principle Hazards should be based on sound risk assessments. The level of detail to be included in these Principle Hazard Management Plans and Principle Control Plans should be determined by the quarry operator after that risk assessment. Winstone Aggregates supports the development of Industry Codes of Practice and the use of these to control hazards. The Quarry Industry certainly has Principal Hazards that need to be identified and have appropriate principal control plans for these hazards. However, they need to be constructed so that they reflect the hazards applicable to the individual operations. In short no site, no matter how small, is excluded. Some will have high hazard potential others low. Again it should be noted here that Winstone Aggregates understands that there has not been a multiple fatality in the quarrying industry for at least 30 years. Multiple Fatalities, two or more, is the term used as the definition of a Principal Hazard. 5. Are the requirements for the preparation of principal hazard management plans and principal control plans clear enough to enable mine operators to prepare these plans? What changes would you suggest? Winstone Aggregates believes that the Queensland Coal Mining Regulations overlaid on NZ Quarry Industry do no match the requirements properly to reflect the NZ Quarry Industry. We believe that the development of Industry Codes of Practice may be more appropriate. 6. Have we focussed on the right hazards? What changes would you make to the list of principal hazards? The list of proposed hazards are appropriate, but many are specific to underground mining operations. An omission from the list is the Isolation requirements for all energy types. This would be applicable for all quarries. The listing of roads and traffic management is generic to all industry types, and we would suggest a specific reference to the hazards associated with operating large items of mobile plant with limited peripheral visibility would be more relevant. Page 5 of 14

6 7. Have we focussed on the right controls to be subject to principal control plans? Although they do require differentiating between underground and surface operations. 8. Do you agree with the proposed strengthened minimum standards (set out in technical appendices two and three)? What changes would you suggest? Yes We agree in principle but again the underground mining operations in the current proposals are dominant. Again we believe that if new regulations are applied to one part of the quarry industry sector, they must be applied to all operations that are offering material for commercial gain. This illustrates how the broad approach taken creates overreach into other areas. 9. Do you agree with the proposed processes for managing principal hazards (set out in technical appendices two and three)? What change would you suggest? Yes in principle but again as proposed there is too heavy a reliance on underground mining specifics versus above ground operations. The difference between underground mining and above ground extractive operations, in our case quarries, needs to be clearly differentiated if one legislative framework is to be adopted. 10. Do you agree with the new enforcement powers for mines inspectors? Yes However, the risk based approach should apply to all above ground extraction activities. The current ACC Workplace Safety Management Practices Audit Standards program by way of example, provides an excellent audit format for both auditor and those being audited. Generally Winstone Aggregates is supportive of new powers to the inspectors but it does have concerns about the level of resource available. It is also concerned that it does again illustrate the dominance of underground mining. If there are to be new Regulations which apply to quarries, they should apply to all quarries that are offering material for commercial gain. 11. Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements? Are there any transition issues that we have missed? The number of Life Time License Holders is currently unknown, although Winstone Aggregates believes that there may be up to 500 in the Quarry Industry alone. Of this, the actual number still practicing and active in the industry is unknown. However, those that are still in the industry will have between years experience, which no industry would like to potentially lose in one hit. The three year time frame indicated for the transition could lead to an overload of the industry training providers, Board of Examiners Examination Panel trying to meet the three year time frame proposed. Add in all those who are on the current five year renewal for their Certificate of Competence, could result Page 6 of 14

7 in the Examination Panel meeting every second day for the three years with no guarantee that they will adequately cover everyone. Winstone Aggregates would propose that the transition period be changed to five years for as per current Certificate of Competence holders. Also, for the Life Time License Holders, receive further training to fulfil the recommendation of the RCPRCMT, and then retain the Life Time License, as the vast majority will be nearing or will have already reached retirement. This would then allow those with extensive industry experience to remain and pass on their collective knowledge to those coming into the Quarry Industry. 12. In making your submission you may wish to comment on the technical appendices for this chapter. No comment. Safety critical roles for mining operations 13. Do you agree with the proposed functions and duties of the new and expanded safety critical roles? Why, why not? What would you change? No Many do not apply to quarries. The proposed roles of Ventilation Officer, Electrical Engineer & Mechanical Engineer are not required in a quarry. In the Quarry Industry, the vast majority of electrical and mechanical operations are carried out by suitably qualified industrial trained electrical and mechanical tradesmen, most of whom operate on a contractual, as required basis, rather than a full time as fits the relatively small scale of our industry. Winstone Aggregates believe that the presence of a specific supervisor at all times on any production shift, given the incident history in quarries, and the unlikelihood of any incidents which could give rise to multiple fatalities, is difficult to justify. While roles for a Ventilation Officer, Electrical Engineer & Mechanical Engineer may be justified in underground mining operations, for the above ground quarries, electrical and mechanical operations can be carried out by suitably qualified tradesmen, often operating on a contractual basis. Full time roles are not commercially viable. 14. Is the role of a site senior executive (SSE) relative to that of mine manager clear and, if not how could we clarify this? Winstone Aggregates recommends that the current A & B quarry manger certificates with the addition of the appropriate health and safety unit standards are a sufficient model for individual site SSE s for all quarry operations. This is an established system within the Quarry industry and it works very well. 15. Should an SSE be able to be responsible for more than one mine site? Page 7 of 14

8 If the proposal for the scope of quarries is amended to cover ALL quarries, an SSE should be able to be responsible for more than 1 quarry. However, the recommendation that one person can be a SSE for an adjacent site does not show what adjacent means. Some larger quarry businesses have multiple sites, which can be 20, 50 or even 100kms apart. However if the proposal remains with the current scope of quarries, we agree that an SSE should only be responsible for 1 quarry. 16. Do you agree with the proposal that, in certain circumstances, a person can hold more than one safety critical role? In particular, do you think it is appropriate that a mine manager also hold the role of SSE? Addressed in (15) above. 17. In making your submission you may wish to comment on the technical appendices for this chapter. No comment. Establishing a mining sector advisory group 18. Do you support the establishment of a mining sector advisory group? Providing that the quarry industry via the AQA and IOQ are directly represented. There should be an underground mining sector advisory group and a surface mining sector advisory group. 19. Do you agree with the proposed functions of the group? What changes do you suggest? As per question 18 above. 20. Do you agree with the proposed membership of the group? What changes do you suggest? Yes, but there needs to be specific quarry industry representation. Training and qualifications: Competencies for safety critical roles in the mining industry 21. Do you agree with the proposed competencies for safety critical roles in the mining industry? If not, why not? What changes do you suggest? Page 8 of 14

9 They are not applicable to the above ground extractive industry for reasons outlined above, namely the ventilation officer, electrical engineer and mechanical engineer (see comments on question13). 22. What level of qualification should an SSE have and should this differ depending on the type of mining operation? It depends on the size and scale of the operations. The majority of the quarry sites can be covered by A or B grade qualifications, upgraded with additional requirements not already included for the above ground extractive industry. 23. What should be the minimum training or competency requirement for mine workers? Winstone Aggregates believes that while training for quarry workers is critical, there should not be any formal qualification requirement for all new employees, other than the appropriate certification or licensing for equipment which they may use. It also needs to be clear that if any competency requirements are to be included, they should not apply to administrative and weighbridge personnel and specific trades, but only to those who are actively involved in the quarrying process. If all contractors are considered mine workers then we see little benefit in electrical or mechanical contractors brought in to work on a processing plant of in a workshop (for instance) obtaining a New Zealand Certificate in Mining (Induction) qualification. 24. How do you think the competence of existing workers should be assessed to ensure that they meet the new minimum requirements? What transitional arrangements should apply? Recognition of existing qualifications issued by EXITO/MITO, as well as recognition of prior learning via length of service in the industry. Every new operational person needs to achieve a Level 2 qualification within 12 months of commencing employment. This is subject to MITO being able to provide all the required training and notification of new staff must be made to MITO by the employer. 25. Should we introduce human factors into the competency requirements for safety critical and general management/supervisory roles in mining operations? If so, for which roles should this requirement be introduced? The industry is based around people operating heavy machinery or equipment, and a clear understanding of the types of errors or violations people can make is essential to manage the inherent risks. This should be introduced for all roles down to supervisor level. Page 9 of 14

10 26. We currently have separate certificates of competency for underground and opencast mines, tunnels and quarries, although some of these have the same or similar unit standards. Do you favour consolidating the certificates of competency where practicable? Winstone Aggregates strongly believe there needs to be a clear distinction between underground mining operations and surface mining, tunnelling and quarrying. 27. Are the transitional phase-in provisions for the new competencies reasonable? Are there any transitional issues that we have missed? A longer timeframe needs to be considered to avoid overloading industry training providers and/or board of examiners. 28. In making a submission on this chapter we also welcome your feedback on the more detailed proposals in technical appendix seven. No comment. A board of examiners providing greater regulatory oversight 29. Do you agree with the proposed functions for the board of examiners? Is there anything you would suggest that we do differently? Yes However, this needs clarity with regards to the role of the Board of Examiners as compared to an Examination Panel. Also, it must have quarry industry representation on the examination panel appointed by the Board of Examiners. There could be a core membership of the board, with industry experts called upon for examinations in particular industries. 30. Should we work towards a joint New Zealand/Australia accreditation process, or have an independent New Zealand board of examiners that maintains close links with Australian counterparts? An independent NZ Board of examiners is a better option. 31. Should the industry fund the board of examiners through the payment of a levy? If yes, should the levy be based on output or the size of the workforce? If not, how should the board be funded? The Board of Examiners should be funded by the Government with Industry contributing to cover the cost of the examination panel. Page 10 of 14

11 Worker participation: 32. Do you support the proposed approach for applying worker participation to contractors? Do any difficulties arise; for example, from the use of the mine worker concept? It depends if the contractor is integral to the quarrying operation or itinerant. In practice if they are on site longer than 12 months full time, then they are a quarry worker. In practice Contractors are obliged on their engagement to comply with individual site rules, commencing with their induction. The same applies to non- operational staff. Ad hoc contractors e.g. cartage operators, are increasingly required to have a purpose designed site induction for the operational area and while this is currently not universal, it is gradually being adopted. In the NZ Quarry Industry, there are also drill and blast, fitters, electricians, welders, auto electricians etc who work in a quarry on an as required basis. These contractors will have been through the site induction programme prior to being allowed to carry out any work. None of these contractors could be considered a permanent employee, as they only work for a few hours to a few days at a time during the month, and not necessarily every month. We would not want to see these contractors classified as mine workers requiring them to all have completed a New Zealand Certificate in Mining (Introduction) qualification Therefore we believe this should only apply to contractors involved in permanent full time quarry operational tasks. It should not apply to roles such as maintenance contractors, drill & blast contractors, overburden stripping contractors or dedicated non-operational roles. 33. Do you agree that we should replace the current approach for determining the functions of a site health and safety representative, which is for employers, employees and unions to negotiate these, and instead specify a list of functions? Should the parties be able to negotiate functions and powers in addition to those specified in the HSE Act. While we agree with the specified functions and powers of health and safety Reps, the focus needs to be on establishing a culture of involvement, co-operation and consultation with all employees on all health and safety issues, and thereby negating the need for health and safety reps. Most quarry sites operate with small teams (<10 people) making the involvement of all employees quite feasible. The current structure in the larger quarry companies is the site Manager (Quarry Manager) is ultimately responsible of health and safety on their site plus safety representatives elected by the work force. Group appointed health and safety staff administer the collective in the case of a number of sites. We support the concept of the Health & Safety reps role, but they must first approach the site manager with a documented concern, prior to any decision stopping work (confined to appropriate at risk area only) on any site. The discussion listed on page 55 of Volume 1 also seems to concentrate on larger sites where union participation is prevalent verses the majority of quarry sites where it is not. Page 11 of 14

12 34. Do you support the proposed mix of functions, powers and complementary provisions for site specific and industry wide health and safety representatives? What would you suggest we do differently? This question needs clarification. However our view is that Management must have the opportunity to respond and/or rectify health and safety concerns expressed by employee reps, prior to the latter contacting regulatory inspectors. The functions and powers of health and safety Reps to be able to stop mining operations in situations where there is an immediate danger to workers (p54) needs to be clarified to limit this to the specific area of operations concerned, rather than potentially the closure of the entire site. Quarrying operations are a collection of different activities which can proceed independently if one area is identified as unsafe Winstone Aggregates does not agree that an Industry Wide Health & Safety Representative is required for quarries. The site health and safety Rep has access to the regulatory inspector, who can be approached if there is no satisfaction relating to a health and safety issue on site. There are many quarry operations which do not have any union representation. 35. Are the industry wide functions from the Queensland legislation appropriate? What other industry wide functions could the proposed industry health and safety representative undertake? Functions and regulations need to be tailored for the quarry industry. The Queensland Coal Mining Regulations are not suitable for above ground operations and our understanding is, that smaller mining or quarry operations in Queensland do not use the Queensland Coal Mining Regulations: but instead fall under the Queensland Metalliferous Regulations. 36. Do we need to provide immunity from liability for site and industry health and safety representatives? The question as we understand it is unclear. But we believe that every employee has a certain level of responsibility on entering a site. If they see a potential health and safety issue and don t report it are they liable? However, the definitions on page 58 of Vol one have our support. 37. What level of training and qualifications do you think should be required for site health and safety representatives? Winstone Aggregates believe that the site health and safety rep should be trained to Unit (or equivalent) from the NZQA documents This is already current practice for some of the larger quarry companies and sites in NZ 38. What level of training and qualifications do you think should be required for the industry health and safety representatives? Is the deputy s certificate an appropriate level of qualification for an industry health and safety representative for all types of mining operations? As above, question 36. The deputy s certificate is appropriate for underground mining but not to quarrying. Page 12 of 14

13 39. What issues should be covered in a code of practice for worker participation? What sort of guidance on the documentation of worker participation systems would be useful? We agree with Paragraphs 3 & 4 on page 50 of the discussion document and it will be possible to adopt a quarry industry code of practice. A company s involvement in the ACC Partnership Program should be recognized as an acceptable level of worker participation Emergency management: 40. Do you agree with the proposed emergency management processes for mining operations? What would you change? As read these apply principally to underground mining activities and do not refer to surface extractive. Winstone Aggregates already have detailed appropriate emergency plans incorporated in their health and safety manuals and many of our sites are in close proximity to regional centres 41. Do you agree with the proposed minimum standards for the emergency equipment and facilities that must be present at underground mines? What would you change? They are not applicable to the Quarry Industry. 42. Do you agree with the proposed requirements for emergency management plans? What changes do you suggest? Yes As long as they are site specific for the Quarry Industry. 43. Do you agree with the proposed changes to the MRT Act concerning functions, scope and levies of the MRS? What would you change? No MRS should not be extended to quarry operations. 44. Do you have any suggestions on how the levy that funds the MRS should be structured? Any levy should not be applicable to the quarry industry. 45. In making a submission you may wish to refer to the more detailed proposals concerning EMPs in technical appendices three and eight (in volume two). Again, EMPs need to distinguish between underground and surface extraction activities. Page 13 of 14

14 Transitional arrangements 46. Are the transitional phase-in provisions for the new regulatory approach reasonable? As per comments above, 5 years depending on the qualification, with Life time qualifications needing further examination. Page 14 of 14