See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311583553

SAFETY IN SURFACE MINING

Technical Report · December 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10165.06881

CITATIONS READS

0 4,973

1 author:

Jacob Serowe
University of Johannesburg
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jacob Serowe on 12 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 University of Johannesburg
Department of Mining Engineering
Module name MINING TECHNICAL SERVICES
Module code MTLB 411
SAFETY IN SURFACE MINING
Student name JACOB SEROWE
Student number 201183375
Due date 30 SEPTEMBER 2016

By placing my name on this title page, I fully commit to the extract from the UJ’s policy on
plagiarism outlined below
Plagiarism is to present someone else’s ideas as my own.

Where material written by other people has been used (either from a printed source or from the
internet), this has been carefully acknowledged and referenced. I have used the Geneva Convention
for citation and referencing. Every contribution to and quotation from the work of other people in
this essay has been acknowledged through citation and reference.

I know that plagiarism is wrong.

I understand what plagiarism is and am aware of the University’s policy in this regard.

I know that I would plagiarise if I do not give credit to my sources, or if I copy sentences or
paragraphs from a book, article or Internet source without proper citation.

I know that even if I only change the wording slightly, I still plagiarise when using someone
else’s words without proper citation.

I declare that I have written my own sentences and paragraphs throughout my essay and I have
credited all ideas I have gained from other people’s work.

I declare that this assignment is my own original work.

I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as
his or her own work.
 ABSTRACT
Safety has now been the priority of every mining company and there are harsh penalties issued
upon companies that do not prioritise the health and safety of their employees and the environ-
ment in which they operate. Zero harm is the recent target for mining companies to achieve and
this can only be achieved through collaboration with the government, mining companies and min-
ing employees.
This paper will discuss safety in surface mining, both coal and hard rock mining. It will identify main
hazards or hazardous areas in surface mines. Furthermore, it will outline systems and procedures,
together with innovative technologies that are employed in surface mining to ensure a safe mining
operation. This report was compiled by making use of the internet, literature reading from the li-
brary and online books on safety.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. BLASTING ........................................................................................................................................ 2
2.1. FLYROCK .................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2. LACK OF BLAST AREA SECURITY .............................................................................................. 3
3. HIGHWALL AREAS ........................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. INSTABILITY OF HIGHWALLS ................................................................................................... 5
3.2. SLOPE INSTABILITY .................................................................................................................. 6
3.2.1. FAILURE MODES .............................................................................................................. 6
3.3. MONITORING AND INSTRUMENTATION ................................................................................ 7
4. DUST .............................................................................................................................................. 10
4.1. DUST CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 10
5. EQUIPMENT & MACHINERY .......................................................................................................... 13
5.1. CONTROL MEASURES ............................................................................................................ 14
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 15
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 16

iii
 List of Tables
Table 1: Accident Statistics (Raina, et al., 2015) .................................................................................... 2

iv
 List of Figures
Figure 1: Description of flyrock (Raina, et al., 2015) ............................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Blasting area demarcation and blasting signal signs (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008) 4
Figure 3: Common Failure Modes (Indian Institute of Technology, 2016) ............................................. 7
Figure 4: GPS monitoring system (Sakurai & Shimizu, 2005).................................................................. 8
Figure 5: SSR System (GroundProbe) ...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Pie-Chart showing dust emissions from a coal mine (Thompson & Visser, 2001) ................ 11
Figure 7: Surface mining fatal accidents (Schaum, 2007) ..................................................................... 13

v
1. INTRODUCTION
Mining is the backbone of almost all mining countries in the world. Without mining, the economies
of these countries would collapse. With all the benefits that come with mining, there are safety-
related ramifications that come with mining. Mining is one of the most dangerous and hazardous
working environment in the world. Most people lose their lives in mines due to unsafe work prac-
tices at mines. Safety is as much as important as production and all mining companies are required
by law to ensure safe working environment. One can define safety as being protected from unsafe
working conditions that could cause injury, loss of life, damage or ill health to human life.
Safety has now been the priority of every mining company and there are harsh penalties issued
upon companies that do not prioritise the health and safety of their employees and the environ-
ment in which they operate. Zero harm is the recent target for mining companies to achieve and
this can only be achieved through collaboration with the government, mining companies and min-
ing employees.
The legislation requires mining companies to have code of practices, standards and procedures in
place so that workers can know how to keep their working places safe and free from hazards or
risks. Workers must at all times be kept on the alert about hazards that are prone to their respec-
tive working places so as to combat the issues regarding injuries related to uncontrolled hazards. It
should be noted that although mining is still a risky environment, owners and contractors are work-
ing very hard to eliminate, minimise and control the hazards associated with mining operations.
This paper will discuss safety in surface mining, both coal and hard rock mining. It will identify main
hazards or hazardous areas in surface mines. Furthermore, it will outline systems and procedures,
together with innovative technologies that are employed in surface mining to ensure a safe mining
operation. This report was compiled by making use of the internet, literature reading from the li-
brary and online books on safety.

1
2. BLASTING
Blasting is when a rock mass is broken down into manageable size by means of explosives. The min-
ing cycle of all surface mines incorporates blasting as its core activity. When done correctly and ac-
cording to laid down procedures blasting does not cause any harm. The major problem is not follow-
ing the laid procedures of the mine for safe blasting techniques. Unsafe blast practices are one of the
major role players in injuries and fatalities to employees. Improper use of explosives also contributes
to unsafe blasting practices which will lead to crippling injuries and fatalities. Surface mines use the
most amounts of explosives as compared to underground mines hence it is of utmost importance
that only competent personnel use and handle these explosives. Before blasting can commence the
responsible miner/blaster will examine and ensure that the area for blasting is safe. He/she will en-
sure that no overloading of explosives has been done and that all the holes are charged and con-
nected to the firing line. This he does as part of ensuring that the blast can be as safe as possible and
that the correct blast design is followed or adhered to. Hazards associated with blasting include
among others; flyrock, misfires, premature blast and lack of security at a blast area (Bajpayee, et al.,
2004)

2.1. FLYROCK
Flyrock can be defined as the rock that during blasting is projected outside the boundaries of a blast
area/ blast site. The speed at which the rock move is so high that it can cause property damage and
fatal if it comes across a person. It is, therefore, paramount that this hazard be controlled and at all
times be eliminated. To eliminate this, one needs to know what causes flyrock. According to a report
by Centers for diseases control and prevention, fly rock is caused by:
 Substandard blast design,
 Insufficient stemming,
 Substandard blasthole layout,
 Insufficient burden,
 Overloading of blastholes and
 Geology and rock conditions (Bajpayee, et al., 2004)
The table below shows accident statistics of flyrock injuries compared with blasting related injuries.
The statistics are from different authors.
Table 1: Accident Statistics (Raina, et al., 2015)

2
The author finds the figure below as a good description of a flyrock and it also indicates the ramifica-
tions that come with flyrock.

Figure 1: Description of flyrock (Raina, et al., 2015)

It can be seen from the above table that flyrock injuries account for more percentages with the
highest being 68.20%. This is a clear indication that a lot still needs to be done in order to combat
this hazard that is claiming people’s lives and causing serious injuries.
Controlling flyrock is important in order to keep a good safety record for the mine. Mine manage-
ment in collaboration with the rock engineering department must ensure that a proper blast design
pattern is designed and approved by the mining engineer and chief rock engineer. This blast pattern
must be designed in such a way that all factors such as burden, spacing, stemming, blasthole layout,
and charge diameter are considered before approval of the blast design (D'Andrea, et al., 1987). The
type of explosives to be used must be selected with careful consideration as the energy released by
explosives can influence whether there will be flyrock during the blast or not. The most approved
explosives used by both surface mines and underground mine is ANFO explosives because of their
advantages over the other explosives. Priming of explosives should not be taken for granted also
because based on a research conducted by the Bureau of mines it was found that toe priming reduc-
es flyrock as compared to collar priming (D'Andrea, et al., 1987). One other thing that must be given
attention before drilling commences is ensuring that face (blast site) preparation is done correctly
according to mine procedures. It is vital that the face is inspected to check any geological discontinu-
ities as they may cause flyrock (D'Andrea, et al., 1987).

2.2. LACK OF BLAST AREA SECURITY

Ensuring that there is enough security measures at a blast area is very crucial to every surface mining
operation. A blast area and its boundaries are determined by the mine manager. Anyone in the vicin-
ity of the blast area is likely to be injured during the blast due to blast concussion and flying material
associated with blasting. It is, therefore, necessary that adequate security measures be determined
for the blast area. Injuries occur due to not adhering to the requirements laid down by the mine for
a blast area.

3
To ensure that a secured blast area is achieved the following must be observed:

 Training,
 Planning,
 Blast area boundaries,
 Blast area guards,
 Clearing procedure,
 Blasting schedule and
 Blast signals (D'Andrea, et al., 1987)

All mine personnel must be trained in what precautions to take when blasting is about to take. The
mine health and safety act requires an employer to provide training to employees on procedures
and how to control, manage and eliminate workplace hazards. Only competent and appointed per-
sons must be involved in blasting and other crew members must be removed to a place of safety.
Planning before blasting can take place is important because any irregularities will be identified and
solved in the planning meeting. Most mines now utilise a system of central blasting hence regular
planning meetings are reduced. The boundaries of a blast area must be clearly demarcated and if
possible fenced off to prevent unauthorised entry into the blast zone. Another effective way to pre-
vent unauthorised entry into the blast zone is by placing guards at every blast area/zone entry
(D'Andrea, et al., 1987).
A proper clearance procedure must be established to ensure that no person or employee is left with-
in the boundaries of the blast zone. Every miner/blaster must be conversant with the procedure as
he/she is always the last person to leave the blast zone. After loading the rounds, the blaster must
ensure that all persons are moved to a place of safety prior to blasting. A proper blasting schedule
should be implemented to avoid irregular blasting times. Blasting times must also be posted on no-
tices so that the surrounding community and public traffic can know at what time the blast will go
off. Blasting signals must be utilised to ensure that anyone in the vicinity of the blast area can be
aware that a blast is about to take place and take necessary measures to protect him/herself. An
audible air hooter is an effective means for a blasting signal.

Figure 2: Blasting area demarcation and blasting signal signs (U.S. Department of the Interior,
2008)

4
3. HIGHWALL AREAS
3.1. INSTABILITY OF HIGHWALLS
One of the major hazards associated with highwalls in surface mining operations is rockfalls. The re-
sults of this hazard are catastrophic as they include death, damage to equipment and disabling inju-
ries. Rockfalls occur as a result of instability of the highwall, geological discontinuities within the
highwall, substandard blasting operations and adverse weather conditions (D'Andrea, et al., 1987).
Another factor that contributes to instability of highwalls is the mining depth because the deeper
the open pit the more support needed to support the wall. In order to control or monitor highwall
instabilities and rockfalls, the Mine Safety and Health Administration require that a ground control
plan be established and implemented by all surface mines (Ames, 2015). The ground control plan is a
plan that identifies all the geotechnical aspects of the mine and it serves the primary purpose of
providing mitigation measures on how pit walls will be maintained for the entire life of a mine
(Ames, 2015).
To mitigate this hazard mines can use techniques such as:
 Pre-splitting/buffer blasting,
 Toe burden control,
 Scaling (barring),
 Providing adequate catchment area and
 Ground reinforcement (Ames, 2015)
Pre-splitting is a specialised wall control blasting technique which ensures that a blast is only con-
fined to the blasting point and ultimately reduces the negative impact on the walls. Only competent
blasters are to perform this method. The benefit of this method is that it results in competent wall
and therefore injuries are reduced thereby improving safety.
Scaling or barring is a process of checking any loose rocks from the wall by means of a pinch bar. This
is the widely used method for both coal mines and hardrock mines. Uncontrolled rockfalls results in
catastrophic events so by barring one is simply controlling rockfalls and minimising the risk of uncon-
trolled rockfalls. If after performing a risk assessment and it is found that scaling by mean of a pinch
bar is hazardous then mechanical scaling can be performed. Mechanical barring is more efficient as
large areas can be barred quickly, saving time and costs.
In cases where barring is not enough to eliminate the hazard, a more strategic approach is needed
hence that is why mines utilise ground reinforcement methods. This can be done by means of mesh-
ing, rock bolting, rockfall fences, drainage and providing catch benches (Ames, 2015). Different
mines use different kinds of mesh depending on the geotechnical aspects of the rock mass. Rockfall
fences confine the fallen rock to one place thereby preventing it from production areas and injuring
workers. Installation of rockbolts (dowels) holds the rock intact thereby reducing rockfalls (Ames,
2015).

5
3.2. SLOPE INSTABILITY
Slope instability presents a major risk for mining operations. Any instability in the slope can cause
the slope to fail leading to a catastrophic event. According to a report by Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy, Slope failure occurs when the downward movements of material due to gravity and shear
stresses exceeds the shear strength (Indian Institute of Technology, n.d.). Open pit operations de-
pend on the stability of the slope for continued production. Any failure due to instability will cause
major delays or halt operations thereby causing loss in production. Since in any mining operation
safety is of utmost importance it is imperative to ensure that strategic measures and procedures are
put in place to monitor slope stability. Slope failure holds as much weight as the above-mentioned
hazards it terms of the consequences of it. If it occurs it can cause undesirable events such as per-
manent disability, serious injuries, loss of life and damage to equipment and infrastructure. As open
pit mines continue to deepen, the stability of the pit slope decreases as compared to when the pit
depth was close to surface (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016). The stability of the slope is influenced by the
following factors:

 Geological discontinuities,
 Groundwater,
 Mining method,
 Slope geometry (slope angle and bench height)
 Rock strength,
 Cohesion and
 Dynamic forces (Blasting and vibration) (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016)

3.2.1. FAILURE MODES

Basically, every slope failure is either classified as a planar failure, rotational failure, wedge failure or
toppling failure (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016).

Planar failure is a result of a geological feature intersecting the face of the slope parallel at a dip that
is steeper than the angle of friction.

Rotational failure normally occurs on highly weathered rock or soil. This type of failure can occur in
the rock mass that does not show any plane of weakness (Indian Institute of Technology, 2016).the
shape left after the failure has occurred exhibit a circular shape hence the failure mode is sometimes
referred to circular failure.

Wedge failures are the commonest types of failure experienced most at coal mines. This type of
failure mode occurs when two discontinuities (joints/bedding planes) intersect the slope face where
the angle line of intersection of the two discontinuities is greater than the friction angle along the
discontinuities (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016) (van Heerden, 2004).

A toppling failure mode is likely to occur where the pit slope is very steep and the structures or rock
mass dipping towards the pit. Blocks of rocks are dislodged from the pit face and rotate down the
face into the benches.

6
Figure 3: Common Failure Modes (Indian Institute of Technology, 2016)

3.3. MONITORING AND INSTRUMENTATION

Before the development of new technology used for monitoring slope instability, techniques which
were practiced was through visual observation of warning signs such as the formation of tension
cracks, the formation of scarps, sudden unusual water flow, the appearance of bulging material on a
slope and rubble at the toe (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016). Slope monitoring plays an important role in
surface mining because through monitoring any movement in the slope mine management can for-
mulate better ways of controlling or eliminating hazards associated with slope instability. This sec-
tion of the report will discuss some of the slope monitoring techniques used in surface mines.

TOTAL STATION NETWORKS

Total stations are installed at strategic places which are suspected to slope movement or instability
in mines. Each station consists of a device that is used to measure vertical and horizontal angles.
With the aid of Electromagnetic Distance Measurement system (EDM), the total stations can also
measure distance (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016). For a complete network of total station a common tar-
get prism is needed. These target prisms are placed also placed at areas prone to instability (Girard,
2001). From the prism to the station network, angles and distances are regularly measured to ana-
lyse any movement in the slope (Girard, 2001). An upgrade to this technique is that it can now be
operated automatically thereby reducing the need for personal interaction and human error.

7
LIDAR SCANNER

This technique is now becoming common in the mining industry because it provides in-depth ge-
otechnical data analysis with regards to slope instability. The laser imaging system or 3-D scanner
comes with the advantages of speed, accuracy, precision and it is user-friendly (Chaulya & Prasad,
2016). The system has the ability to gather all the geotechnical data of the area concerned at once,
unlike the total station which takes or make one measurement at a time. With the system being able
to scan a distance of up to 2.5km with the accuracy level of +/- 25mm, it can acquire approximately
10000 data points per second (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016). From the slope data collected by the sys-
tem, movement of the slope can be analysed.

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS)

The Global Positioning System (GPS) was first developed as a system for navigation but has now re-
cently been used as a method for surveying. GPS has been introduced in open pit mining operations
for monitoring walls and/or slope deformation/instability. GPS has the ability to monitor 3-D dis-
placements over a broader area than conventional monitoring systems and it has a high level of ac-
curacy (Shimizu, 2015). As a monitoring system in surface mines the GPS uses a method called rela-
tive positioning unlike point positioning used for navigation. For monitoring rock displacements, rel-
ative positioning provides the control room server with 3-D relative coordinates between two points
(Shimizu, 2015). The displacement of the rock is found by calculating the changes in the coordinates.
The GPS uses sensors, antenna, control box and a computer. Data is received by antennas from the
GPS satellite located in space and is then computed or analysed in the control room to give real time
results (Shimizu, 2015). Researchers in the field of rock engineering have proposed a new model that
yields more accurate results than conventional GPS method (Standard Deviation method). This mod-
el is called the trend model (Sakurai & Shimizu, 2005). Again for better results and interpretation of
the results of the GPS, a Back Analysis method of the measured displacements was introduced
(Sakurai & Shimizu, 2005). With back analysis the strength parameters of the rock can be deter-
mined based on the mathematical calculations of the measured displacements from the GPS
(Sakurai & Shimizu, 2005). After getting the strength parameters then the factor of safety of the
slopes can be calculated (Sakurai & Shimizu, 2005).

Figure 4: GPS monitoring system (Sakurai & Shimizu, 2005)

8
SLOPE STABILITY RADAR (SSR)

The slope stability radar is an innovative technology which has recently been adopted by the mining
industry. This innovative technology is based on radar technology to remotely scan pit slopes to
monitor any deformation of the face (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016). SSR is very advantageous in a sense
that it gives early warning signals of potential highwall or slope failure. The other advantage of this
technique is that even in harsh atmospheric conditions the system can still operate to its maximum
potential. The system is calibrated with four coloured alarms; Red alarm indicates an emergency
situation and persons are removed to safety; orange alarm indicates displacement of the wall and
rock engineering department should be notified; yellow alarm indicates system failure and the rock
engineering department is notified to assess the SSR and the green alarm indicate a minor failure of
the SSR and a reboot of the system occurred (Haries, et al., n.d.). Another advantage of the SSR is
that it does not need to be installed permanently in one place; it can be moved around the mine to
take measurements for comparing movements along the slopes and identifying which areas are haz-
ardous.

Figure 5: SSR System (GroundProbe)

TIME DOMAIN REFLECTOMETER

The Time Domain Reflectometer is an electrical method used in surface mines for locating disconti-
nuities in the conducting material or cables (Chaulya & Prasad, 2016) (Darling, 2011). TDR is used to
monitor rock or soil movement and highwall slope in surface mines. The technology uses coaxial ca-
bles which are grouted in boreholes drilled in the slope. These coaxial cables are inserted in the
borehole and when there is movement of the slope it will cause a fault in the cable which is then
measured by the cable tester; the movement causes what is known as “reflections” along the cable
and these are logged into a software and analysed by a geotechnical engineer (Chaulya & Prasad,
2016). The benefits of this technology are increased safety, high accuracy, inexpensive and the abil-
ity to monitor deformation along the entire length of the cable.

9
4. DUST
Surface mines are also well known for their level of dust produced at their operations. Dust is a major
concern in surface mines as it affects not only the mine employees but also the community in which
the mine is located. Sources of dust in surface mines are drilling and blasting activities, in-pit crush-
ing, handling/loading and transportation (Cecala, et al., 2012). Over the years dust has been a major
cause of occupational diseases associated with prolonged exposure to dust. These occupational dis-
eases include:
 Silicosis
 Tuberculosis (TB)
 Bronchitis
 Emphysema
 Anthracosis and
 Pneumoconiosis (Cecala, et al., 2012)
With the above said, it is extremely important that strict legislation is tabled so as to ensure that
mines combat or minimise the level of dust particles which employees and the community at large
are exposed to.

4.1. DUST CONTROL

WET DRILLING

Wet drilling is a process whereby water is injected out of the drill rod to suppress dust when the
drilling machine is drilling hole into the ground. The drilling machine is mounted with the water tank
which supplies water to the annular space of the drilled hole (Cecala, et al., 2012). For better results,
it is recommended that the water flow rates be kept at 7.57 Litres per minute (Karmis, 2001). It is
very important that the drill operator ensures that the required water flow rate is achieved and does
not increase the flow rate as it will affect the effectiveness of the drilling machine.

The disadvantage of this method is that it reduces the lives of the drill bits and this will incur costs
for constantly replacing the drill bit. To mitigate this advantage a method of water separation was
introduced by the Bureau of Mines. The method of water separation involves using a water separa-
tion sub which removes water from the bailing air (Cecala, et al., 2012). Based on literature review
the author found out that this method is 2% higher than when not using the water separation sub in
terms of efficiency. Not only does the water separation method increase the efficiency of controlling
dust but it also increases drill bit life by more than 450% (Cecala, et al., 2012).

DRY DRILLING

In the case of dry drilling water is not used for dust control. In this technique, the area/drill hole area
is covered by a rubber or a shroud (cloth) from the underside of the drill deck (Karmis, 2001). The
area enclosed by the shroud is connected to the dust collector whereby the dust generated during
drilling will be collected to. For this technique to be effective it is required that the fan that is
equipped in the dust collector must create a negative pressure of about 50 Pascal inside the whole
system so that dust can be captured (Karmis, 2001). It is important to ensure that circular shrouds

10
are utilised as they are more effective than using the normal rectangular shrouds. Circular shrouds
are less prone to leakages than rectangular shrouds and any leakage can cause dust to escape. Dust
can also escape if there is leakage in the drill deck and to avoid this, it is recommended that the Air
Ring Seal be utilised (Cecala, et al., 2012).

HAUL ROADS DUST CONTROL

Based on research papers studied for this report, the author found out that haul roads account for
about 78%-97% of dust emissions in surface mining operations, making haul roads the predominant
source of dust (Cecala, et al., 2012) (Thompson & Visser, 2001). It is quite clear from this statistic
that more resources must be deployed to deal with surface mining haul roads in order to combat the
hazards/risks associated with dust.

Figure 6: Pie-Chart showing dust emissions from a coal mine (Thompson & Visser, 2001)

11
 The best way to deal with this problem is to look at the source of the problem which in most cases is
the haul road construction. Poor design of the road will result in many problems encountered during
mining such as excessive dust generation, high maintenance costs and production delays. It is para-
mount that the design of haul roads is given a high level of priority during mine design as it will last
for the entire life of mine. The guidelines for mine haul road design issued by (Tannant &
Regensburg, 2001) should be followed when designing a haul road so that less dust can be generat-
ed from the road.

After the main source has been dealt with then focus can be placed on dust suppression systems.
Before the application of dust suppressants/dust palliatives it is required that the haul road be pre-
pared first as follows: [after (Cecala, et al., 2012)]

 The road must be bladed for elimination of potholes and corrugations,

 Large material in the road must be bladed off the road,
 A good crown must be created to avoid any ponding which may create unnecessary potholes
and
 The dust palliatives are to be applied as the final step (Tannant & Regensburg, 2001).

The following are some of the widely used dust suppressants on mining haul roads as identified by
different authors:

 Water
 The use of water for dust control on haul roads is widely used by mine is it is the most
effective method. It is also inexpensive as compared with other methods. Water is
sprayed on the haul road by a mine’s water truck. Depending on the conditions of the
road and weather condition this method has recorded efficiency of about 95% (Cecala,
et al., 2012).

 Surfactants
 There are generally wetting agents added to water. They work on a principle of extend-
ing the time of dust suppression by water on haul roads thereby increasing the effec-
tiveness of using water.

 Salts
 Like surfactants, solutions of salt are also added to water to control dust. It works by ab-
sorbing moisture in the atmosphere and ensuring that the road is kept damp for longer
periods than normal (Cecala, et al., 2012).

 Emulsified Asphalt
 These are probably one of the best dust suppression agents because once they have
been applied to the haul road, the road can be dust free for months. Their advantages
are that they are insoluble in water, they are non-corrosive, not toxic and not flammable
(Cecala, et al., 2012).

12
5. EQUIPMENT & MACHINERY

One of the biggest contributors to surface mining accidents is equipment and machinery. This is the
case because for most if not all surface mines are mechanised operations meaning that machines
and equipment are responsible for the daily operations of the mine. This section will put emphasis
on haulage trucks and measures put in place to reduce and control haulage trucks accidents.

Different authors have stated that most of the fatalities that result in surface mines are due to haul
trucks accidents. Based on statistics from the Mine Safety and Health Administration there were 137
fatalities in the United State which were caused by haul truck accidents between 1995 and 2011
(Zhang, et al., 2014). Another statistic from NIOSH stated that 110 fatalities occurred between 2000
and 2006 in the United States of America which accounted for 14 percent of all the fatal accidents
for that period (Schaum, 2007). Figure 7 below reiterates the fact that equipment and are still the
biggest contributing factors to injuries and or fatalities in surface mines. This according to the author
is a clear indication that there has been a little improvement of safety in terms of reducing hazards
associated with haul trucks.

Figure 7: Surface mining fatal accidents (Schaum, 2007)

13
5.1. CONTROL MEASURES
For proper control and minimisation of hazards associated with equipment and machinery especially
mobile equipment hazards, it is paramount that emphasis be placed on training. Operators of mobile
equipment are to be trained on how to properly operate these equipment and be found competent.
Once they are deemed competent as haulage truck operators they will be trained on how to identify,
minimise, control and eliminate hazards or risks associated with the operation of haul trucks as re-
quired by section 10 of Mine Health and Safety Act.

Another factor that contributes to haulage accidents is the construction of unsafe haul roads. It is of
utmost importance that haul roads are designed and constructed according to laid down procedures
and standards. In order to have a safe haul road that will be free from defects and result in excellent
traffic, it is advisable to follow guidelines issued by (Tannant & Regensburg, 2001) when designing or
constructing haul roads. The main aspect of traffic management of haul roads will be to focus on the
geometric design of the road. By adhering to vertical alignment and horizontal alignment issues
such as the stopping distances, sight distances, grade, width, super-elevation, curves and safety
berms then most of the accidents can be eliminated. The specification for these alignments are given
by the above-mentioned authors.

TECHNOLOGY

COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM (CAS)

Due to the humongous size of haulage trucks, it is always difficult for the truck operator to be always
aware of the people or other small vehicles in proximity of the truck. For this reason, it was neces-
sary to develop a system that would allow the detection of personnel or other vehicles which are
close to the haulage truck. This system works by alerting the truck driver with an alarm if it detects
any person or other vehicles which is within the predetermined distance to the truck. The system
has the ability to differentiate between a person and a vehicle. Miners are fitted with a CAS tag in
their hard hats which will transmit a signal to the CAS Receiver in the truck. CAS systems include ra-
dar, sonar, infrared, magnetic, radio frequency identification and GPS systems.

HASARD

NIOSH developed the Hazardous Area Signalling and Ranging Device better known as HASARD sys-
tem. Its main purpose is to eliminate the risks of working near earthmoving equipment in surface
mines. The device is fitted into the equipment and workers also carry a personal alarm device which
is wirelessly connected to the main device in the trucks. When a signal is received by both devices
that they are in proximity to one another a warning alarm sets off and if they are too close a trigger
device will shut down the equipment (Workplace Safety North, 2012).

14
6. CONCLUSION
The health and safety of employees has always been an issue in the mining industry as a whole. It is
quite evident that the safety culture of mining is not what it used to be many moons ago when min-
ing was starting to gain its feet whereby safety was not a priority. Very strict laws are now in place so
that employers and employees can take care of their health and safety and the health and safety of
others. This reported has highlighted on the hazards found in surface mines and how these hazards
are controlled or minimised to achieve a safe working environment. The author strongly believes
that with proper training and hands-on supervision the hazards stated in this report could be effec-
tively managed.

When it comes to slope stability, surface mines have come up with measures which are feasible to
ensure that risks associated with instability are minimised and controlled. Technological improve-
ment has also proved to be viable in the long run to provide early warnings of slope instability.

Equipment safety is still a big issue which needs thorough investigation or research because that is
where most accidents are still accounted for. Top industry experts need to work together to come
up with better solutions on how to prevent these accidents and improve the culture of safety. Em-
phasis should also be placed on training as it is also one of the responsibilities of the employer to
provide health and safety training to employees.

15
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ames, T., 2015. www.mining-technology.com/. [Online]
Available at: http://www.mining-technology.com/downloads/whitepapers/roofing/proactive-
controls-highwall-instability/
[Accessed 08 August 2016].

Bajpayee, T. S., Bhatt, S. K. & Rehak, T. R., 2004. FATAL ACCIDENTS DUE TO FLYROCK AND LACK OF
BLAST AREA SECURITY AND WORKING PRACTICES IN MINING. NIOSH.

Bajpayee, T. S., Rehak, T. R., Mowrey, G. L. & Ingram, D. K., 2004. Blasting injuries in surface mining
with emphasis on flyrock and blast area security.. NIOSH, 35(1), pp. 47-57.

Cecala, A. B., O'Brian, A. D., Schall, J. & Colinet, J. F., 2012. Dust control for industrial minerals mining
and processing, Pittsburgh: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Chaulya, S. & Prasad, G. M., 2016. Sensing and Monitoring Technologies for Mines and Hazardous
Areas: Monitoring and Prediction Technologies. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

D'Andrea, D., Fletcher, L., Peltier, M. & Dick, R., 1987. Surface Mine Blasting. Chicago: The Bureau.

Darling, P., 2011. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Third Edition. s.l.:Society for mining,
metallurgy and exploration Inc.

Girard, J. M., 2001. ASSESSING AND MONITORING OPEN PIT MINE HIGHWALLS. Salt Lake City, CDC.

Haries, N., Noon, D. & Rowley, K., n.d. CASE STUDIES OF SLOPE STABILITY RADAR USED IN OPEN CUT
MINES. Johannesburg, The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy .

Indian Institute of Technology, 2016. Indian Institute of Technology. [Online]

Available at: http://www.iitbhu.ac.in/faculty/min/rajesh-rai/NMEICT-
Slope/Pdf/03%20Types%20of%20slope%20failure.pdf
[Accessed 10 August 2016].

Indian Institute of Technology, n.d. Indian Institute of Technology. [Online]

Available at: http://www.iitbhu.ac.in/faculty/min/rajesh-rai/NMEICT-
Slope/Pdf/02%20Causes%20of%20slope%20failure.pdf
[Accessed 10 August 2016].

Karmis, M., 2001. Mine Health and Safety Management. Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy,
and Exploration, Inc.

Raina, A. K., Murthy, V. M. & Soni, A. K., 2015. Flyrock in surface mine blasting: understanding the
basics to develop a predictive regime. 108(4).

Sakurai, S. & Shimizu, N., 2005. MONITORING THE STABILITY OF SLOPES BY GPS. Johannesburg, The
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Schaum, A. M., 2007. Increasing Haul Truck Safety through the use of Virtual Pre-Shift Inspection
Training, Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

16
 Shimizu, N., 2015. Rock Displacement Monitoring using Satellite Technologies-GPS and InSAR. Hanoi,
ISRM.

Tannant, D. D. & Regensburg, B., 2001. Guidelines for mine haul road design, Kelowna: University of
British Columbia.

Thompson, R. J. & Visser, A. T., 2001. Mineravia. [Online]

Available at:
http://mineravia.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Dust_emission_and_exposure__mine_roads.8
224449.pdf
[Accessed 19 August 2016].

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008. www.osmre.gov. [Online]

Available at:
http://www.osmre.gov/resources/blasting/docs/WYBlasterCertModules/8AdverseEffectsBlasting.pd
f
[Accessed 08 August 2016].

van Heerden, G., 2004. Geotechnical factors affecting high- and low-wall stability in opencast coal
mines , s.l.: COALTECH 2020.

Workplace Safety North, 2012. Pedestrian/Mobile Equipment Visibility, Ontario: Workplace Safety
North.

Zhang, M., Kecojevic, V. & Komljenovic, D., 2014. Investigation of haul truck-related fatal accidents in
surface mining using fault tree analysis. Safety Science, Volume 65, pp. 106-117.

17

View publication stats