Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Queensland joint approach to

fume management
 Scope of Presentation
• The Queensland approach to issues of Fume
• Approach to prevent, manage and treat
• Data set
• Simple graphs to reinforce causes (Graphs in percentages (relative))
• ACARP Project to gather more data
• BEZ and FMZ
• Incident reporting
• Explosives Development
• Conclusion and Questions

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 2

 Fume Steering Group
• Mining industry
• Explosives industry
• CFMEU
• Mines Inspectorate
• Explosives Inspectorate

Presenters
• Steve Simmons – Anglo American metallurgical Coal
• Clive Leeds – Orica
• Noel Erichsen – Explosives Inspectorate, Safety and Health, QG

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 3

 A blast can produce:
• Heat – very close in to blast (metres)
• Noise – distance
• Ground Vibration – substantial distance but not significant forces
• Shock through ground
• Fumes – nitrogen dioxide distance
• Overpressure – distance
• Projections (flyrock) – can be up to several kilometres

Our Focus is Fumes! Particularly NOx

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 4

 The Approach
• Prevention
• Management of a fume event
• Treatment of a fume exposure

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 5

 FUME EVENTS 2003-2011

35
30
25
E V E NT #

20
15
10
5
0
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
YEAR

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 6

 Dataset
• Data has been collected for 2338 blasts
– Likely the largest survey of its kind in the world
• Data has been collected since April of last year
• AEISG fume scale 0 – 5
– Can be subjective
• Video a powerful tool if there is a fume event
• Data collected in a wide variety of categories
– Highlight leading causes of fume

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 7

 Soil water content 2001 - 2010

2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000

Source: CSIRO – Water Availability Project http://www.eoc.csiro.au/awap/

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 8

 Average fume rating vs Sleep time

Average Fume Rating

4.0

3.5

3.0
Average fume rating

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0-1 (592) 2-3 (577) 4-5 (431) 6-10 (474) 11+ (125)

Sleep time days (no. of shots)

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 9

 Fume rating % vs Sleep time
Sleep time days (no. of shots)

11+ (125)

6-10 (474)

4-5 (431)

2-3 (577)

0-1 (592)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 (Fume ratings)

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 10

 This is the slide master
Average fume rating vs Hole depth

Average Fume Rating

1.6

1.4

1.2
Average fume rating

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0-10 (512) 11-20 (610) 21-30 (455) 31-50 (439) 50+ (161)

Hole depth (no. of shots)

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 11

 Percentage of wet holes for each fume rating
This is the slide master
% Wet holes

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5

Fume rating

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 12

 Rain Events
Percentage of rain events for each fume rating

% Rain events

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5

Fume rating
© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 13
 Initiation
Fume rating % vs Initiation
Initiation (no. of shots)

Cast (568)

Centre lift (778)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 (Fume ratings)

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 14

 Average fume rating vs Confinement
This is the slide master
Average Fume Rating

Half buffered (401)

Confinement (no. of shots)

Free face (958)

Box cut (212)

Fully buffered (566)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Average fume rating

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 15

 Size of blast
Average fume rating vs Blast size

Average Fume Rating

2.5

2.0
Average fume rating

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0-1,000 (12) 1,001-50,000 (704) 50,001-250,000 (535) 250,000+ (449)

Blast size (no. of shots)

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 16

 Fume rating % by site (in order of performance)
Mine
League Company AP (20)
Company AO (78)
Company AN (18)
Table Company AM (72)
Company AL (75)
Company AK (20)
Company AJ (53)
Company AI (26)
Company AH (41)
Company AG (26)
CompanyAF(129)
Mine Sites (no. of shots fired)

Company AE (87)
Company AD (20)
Company AC (14)
Company AB (71)
Company AA (23)
Company Z (81)
Company Y (81)
0
Company X (26)
Company W (136) 1
Company V (51) 2
Company U (53)
3
Company T (14)
Company S (18) 4
Company R (13) 5 (Fume ratings)
Company Q (103)
Company P (34)
Company O (93)
Company N (49)
Company M (49)
Company L (60)
Company K (12)
Company J (131)
Company I (39)
Company H (76)
Company G (21)
Company F (130)
Company E (114)
Company D (18)
Company C (55)
Company B (5)
Company A (1)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 17
 Explosives supplier league table
Fume rating % by supplier (in order of performance)

Supplier E (728)

Supplier D (52)
Supplier (no. of shots fired)

Supplier C (940)

Supplier B (276)

Supplier A (79)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 (Fume ratings)

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 18

 ACARP Project by Simtars
• To be conducted on Queensland mines in 2012/13 over 18 months
• Measure fume from 30 blasts, include temperature to determine how
it mixes
• Determine color to concentration of nitrogen dioxide
• Improve measurement techniques at actual blasts
• Improve data to support modeling techniques
• Analyze level of pollutants in fume clouds
• Remove some of the subjectivity in regard to categorizing of fume
clouds.

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 19

 BEZ and FMZ
• Fume Management Zone
• Extended area downwind of blast location
• Exclusion zone for personnel
• Typically fan shaped
• Pre – firing checklist
– If factors point towards a fume event increase the FMZ
• Weather station
– Temperature, wind direction and speed, cloud cover, etc.
• Things to consider inside FMZ
– Buildings, air intakes for underground works, adjacent properties

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 20

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 21
 Exclusion zone breach rate

Blast Exclusion Zone (BEZ) Breach Rate

0.06
0.056
0.05

0.04
Breach Rate

0.03 0.031 0.031

0.027
0.02 0.021
0.019

0.01 0.011

0
May- Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12
11
Date

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 22

 FUME INCIDENT REPORTING

FUME
Incident Reporting GENERATED

• Indicates the reporting

requirements for the BREACH
BLAST EXCLUSION
N
END

Explosives Inspectorate ZONE

(BEZ)

and the Mines

Inspectorate. Y

NOTIFY
EXPLOSIVES
INSPECTORATE (EI)
(2)

PERSONS EXPOSED N
OR MOVED TO AVOID END
AN EXPOSURE
(1)

NOTIFY
MINES
INSPECTORATE (MI)
(3)

(1) Persons moved as part of the planned evacuation for establishing the Fume Management Zone are NOT to be reported.
(2) Explosives Inspectorate response number 1300 739 868
(3) Mines Inspectorate website http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/contacts-mines-inspectorate.htm
© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 23
 Key items identified in preventing fume from investigations
• Investigations conducted by Inspectorates, Mining companies and
Explosives companies
– Wet conditions
– Changes to design loading and initiation not recorded or
adjusted or mitigated
– Calibration of Mobile Manufacturing Units
– Initiation and Timing Issues
– Not using a free face
– High powder factor in soft ground
– Load out of specification product
– In appropriate firing conditions

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 24

 Explosives development
• Ammonium Nitrate explosives have advantages in cost, safety,
logistics that make them attractive to large scale mining operations
• Ammonium nitrate based products are hygroscopic and damaged by
water
• Increase in use of ANE – improved water resistance
• Formulations

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 25

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 26
© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 27
 Precursor combinations

100 % 100 %
ANFO EMULSION
Emulsion

ANFO

50 %

Heavy ANFO Pumpable Blends Product

Ranges

Augering Pumping Delivery

Method

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 28

 Water resistance…
• Emulsion : ANFO blends showing impact on VOD when loading into
various water levels in 150 mm diameter tube x 1.8 m long
Product VOD (m/sec)
Emulsion : ANFO ratio
75mm 150mm
Dry water water

ANFO 3,600 Failed Failed

20/80 Blend 3,790 Failed Failed

30/70 Blend 4,230 1,320 Failed

40/60 Blend 4,540 3,590 Failed

50/50 Blend 4,380 4,100 3,940

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 29

 Water resistance…
• These factors are taken into consideration in the design of bulk
explosive product ranges.
• Recommendations for product application based on blasthole water
condition are provided in explosive supplier’s Technical Data
Sheets.

It is worth highlighting:
• Emulsion and watergel explosives can be effected by water; they
are water resistant but NOT waterproof
• The extent of this effect is dependent on:
– Sleep time
– How dynamic the water is

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 30

 Loading ANFO into wet blast holes

2 m slump
5 hours

1 m water in 10m
hole simulation 4 m damage

dissolved

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 31

 Augering HANFO product into wet blastholes - bridging

Click to play video on bridging in wet holes

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 32
 Water resistance…
• HANFO with 40 % Emulsion showing level of water penetration after
1 hour

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 33

 Poor hose handling during charging of wet holes with
pumpable blends or watergels
Hose
withdrawn too
fast –
excessive
water
contamination

Hose below
primer during
pumping -
floating primer
causing poor
priming of bulk
charge

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 34

 Toploading of wet blastholes with pumpable blends and
watergels
Before charging After charging After charging
Note: water dyed blue 10 cm water 50 cm water

© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 35

 Conclusions and Questions
• Fume Steering Group goes to July 2012
• Detailed data analysis to come
• Data sets are being provided to mines, explosive companies
industry and researchers
• Data set collection should be extended to cover seasons
• A version 4 of the QGN will be issued some time after July

Web site http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/631.htm

includes:
– Queensland Guidance Note 20 – The management of oxides of
nitrogen in open cut mining
– Fact sheet for miners
– Fume seminar presentations
– Company Presentations
– This presentation
© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 36
© The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2012 37