Full Group - Working Copy - Mining Review Panel Report - January 13 2015 Rev 2 Final

MINING HEALTH, SAFETY AND
PREVENTION REVIEW
Emergency Preparedness in the
Ontario Mining Sector
Working Group Report
Revised – January 15, 2015
Team Signature
Working Alex Gryska, General Manager, Ontario Mine Rescue
Group Lead:
Working John LeClair, Goldcorp Canada Limited, Director, Safety and Health
Group
Members:
Dave Stewart, Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations, UNIFOR, JHSC
Coordinator
Resource Scott Campbell, Ministry of Labour Manager, Specialized Professional
Support: Services and Emergency Management
Experts: Jamie West, Vale Canada Limited/USW Local 6500, Co-Chair of

Operations for the Safety Health and Environment Executive
Committee & Smelter Worker Safety Representative
Jamie Mortson, Lake Shore Gold Corp., Health and Safety Manager
(*Note: Working Group Member from May to November, 2014)
Revision History:
Rev. Date Page Reason
1 January 7, 2015 17 Section 4.13 Training. Corrected to read: “equipment added to program in
1984” not 1985.
January 7, 2015 Appendix D Appendix D – Ontario Mine Rescue Map: added Kirkland Lake District
asterisk to the area map.
Appendix D – Ontario Mine Rescue Map: moved the noted asterisk from 7
Districts to “8 Stations.
2 January 15, 2015 Various Added hyperlinks to document.
Mining Review Report – January 15, 2015, Rev. 2

MINING HEALTH, SAFETY AND PREVENTION REVIEW
Emergency Preparedness in the Ontario Mining Sector

December 16, 2014
Table of Contents
1.0 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Deliverable................................................................................................................................ 1
3.0 Emergency Preparedness and Response Background ............................................................. 2
3.1 Underground Mine Rescue ................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Surface Mine Rescue ........................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Exploration Sites and New Mines........................................................................................ 3
4.1.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Managing Risks Related to Emergency Preparedness ........................................................ 4
4.2.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Rescue Challenges Associated With Expansive Mine ............................................................... 7
4.3.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................... 8
4.4 Ability to Respond .................................................................................................................... 8
4.4.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................... 8
4.5 First Aid ..................................................................................................................................... 9
4.5.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................... 9
4.6 Code of Practice........................................................................................................................ 9
4.6.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 10
4.7 Fitness of Volunteers .............................................................................................................. 10
4.7.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 10
4.8 Acclimation of Responders ..................................................................................................... 11
4.8.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 11
4.9 Critical Incident Stress ............................................................................................................ 11

4.9.1 Recommendations: ........................................................................................................... 13
4.10 Regulatory Requirements Surface Mines and Mining Plants ................................................. 13
4.10.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 15
4.11 Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee. ........................................................................ 15
4.11.1 Recommendations: ........................................................................................................... 16
4.12 Technology ............................................................................................................................. 16
4.12.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 17
4.13 Training Structure Capacity/Skill Competency ....................................................................... 17
4.13.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 19
4.14 Training Program Structure and Delivery ............................................................................... 19
4.14.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 20
4.15 Mine Rescue Competitions .................................................................................................... 20
4.15.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 21
4.16 Mine Rescue Funding ............................................................................................................. 21
4.16.1 Recommendation: ............................................................................................................. 22
Appendices
Appendix A - Emergency Responses ................................................................................................. 23

Appendix B – TAC Members ............................................................................................................. 25
Appendix C – MRO Members ........................................................................................................... 26
Appendix D – Ontario Mine Rescue Map and Organizational Chart ................................................ 27
Appendix E – Ontario Mine Rescue Risk Assessment/Register ........................................................ 30
Appendix F – Mine Rescue Related Research................................................................................... 35
Appendix G –References................................................................................................................... 39

MINING HEALTH, SAFETY AND PREVENTION REVIEW
Emergency Preparedness in the Ontario Mining Sector
January 15, 2015
1.0 Scope of Work
The purpose of the initiative to assess the ability of the current system of emergency preparedness
and response in light of changing mine and mining plant processes to:
• Conduct research and solicit advice from subject matter experts to identify best practices
for emergency management processes as well as define optimum models for emergency
preparedness.
• Include stakeholder views on the present state of emergency preparedness and the issues
associated with future mining processes.
• Recommend strategies for ensuring that mine and mining plant emergency preparedness
and the Ontario Mine Rescue program continues to be leading edge
2.0 Deliverable
The key deliverable from this initiative will be a report that includes:
• A summary of possible options for ensuring emergency preparedness, management and

response and Mining Plant Emergency Preparedness techniques and processes are aligned
with hazards posed by existing as well as new mining processes, demographics and labour
challenges.
• A summary of models to address any issues with the current model in meeting changing
needs.
• Recommended strategies to ensure continuous evaluation of the capacity of the emergency
preparedness system to meet future needs.
• Review the adequacy of current regulatory requirements regarding emergency
preparedness and response and provide recommendations where they need to be changed
and strengthened.
The group gathered information from a variety of sources including reviewing inquest jury
recommendations, reviewed the Ham, Burkett and Stevenson Commissions/Inquiries, (Appendix
G – References) reviewed existing regulatory requirements with external similar jurisdictions,
Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 1

Mining Health, Safety and Emergency Preparedness in the
Prevention Review Ontario Mining Sector
and reviewed written and verbal input from public consultations, consulted with other
provincial, territorial and foreign jurisdictions. In addition to the above, consultations were
conducted with organized labour, management, Ontario Mine Rescue Technical Advisory
Committee and the Ontario Mine Rescue organizational staff. The working group compared
Ontario requirements, standards and regulations with other jurisdictions that helped identify
gaps resulting in opportunities for improvement and specific recommendations.
3.0 Emergency Preparedness and Response Background

3.1 Underground Mine Rescue
• Ontario Mine Rescue (OMR) was created as a result of the Hollinger Mine fire in 1928 that
resulted in the death of 39 miners.
• Ontario lacked the ability to respond to the incident and mine rescue teams from the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, ultimately were required to bring the situation under control.
• The Godson Commission resulted in numerous recommendations which mandated the
establishment of mine rescue stations and the creation of Ontario Mine Rescue.
• The McIntyre Mine fire in 1965 resulted in recognizing the challenges with responding to
emergencies in deep and expansive mines and Ontario adopted the Dräger BG 174, four hour
breathing apparatus.
• In 1984, a rock burst occurred at Falconbridge’s No. 5 Shaft and the resulting Stevenson Inquiry
recommended that mine rescue services be expanded to include both fire and non-fire
underground emergencies.
• OMR expanded volunteer training to include rescue and recovery of workers affected by non-
fire incidents.
• Since 2003, OMR has been connected with the International Mines Rescue Body (IMRB) where
they have gained valuable knowledge of mine rescue structures, practices and procedures from
sister mine rescue organizations across Canada and around the world.
• In 2011, mine rescue teams worked with Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR) teams
responding to a tornado that killed one worker at the Sifto Mine in Goderich, Ontario.
• Today, Ontario Mine Rescue is a decentralized organization consisting of approximately 875
highly-trained first responders (volunteers) that service approximately 37 underground mining
operations.
• At the time of the report, Workplace Safety North, OMR’s parent organization, equips and
maintains eight strategically-located and manned mine rescue stations and 30 mine rescue
substations (Appendix D – Ontario Mine Rescue Map and Organizational Chart).
• All facilities are equipped with standardized equipment and all mine rescue responders are
trained and evaluated by staff to ensure competency is maintained.
• In addition to delivery of standardized training, Ontario Mine Rescue Officers provide advice and
support during mine emergencies and ensure mine rescue equipment is serviced, maintained
and repaired to meet manufacturers and regulatory standards.

• Every year, Ontario Mine Rescue teams successfully respond to a multitude of emergencies.
Appendix A - Emergency Responses summarizes Mine Rescue Emergency Responses from 2000
to 2013.
3.2 Surface Mine Rescue

• Ontario does not have a standardized surface rescue program similar to underground mines.
• Surface mines and surface plants are expect to establish and maintain emergency response
capability.
• Although some operations (surface mines and plants) established their own surface emergency
response teams, others rely on municipalities to respond to emergencies (typically fire and
EMS).
• In some circumstances, operators wrongfully assume municipal services can assist during an
industrial accident.
• They typically have limitations which need to be established prior to finalizing an emergency
plan.
4.0 Recommendations
4.1 Exploration Sites and New Mines
Due to the remote location of many exploration sites and reactivation of old mine sites,
management often lacks the knowledge and awareness of emergency response capability. They
may assume that local emergency response providers (EMS, Fire Departments, or Mine Rescue)
will assist at a time of need.
EMS and municipal fire service providers do not have the expertise to respond to underground
mine and mining plant emergency situations.
Fatalities have occurred due to lack of awareness regarding the hazards in workplaces and
capabilities to respond. See examples below:
• The Sullivan Mine disaster, which occurred in British Colombia in May 2006, is an
example of how things can quickly go horribly wrong when effective emergency plans
are not established and maintained (Appendix G – References,
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/HealthandSafety/Sullivan/Documents/Sullivan_Min
e_Accident_Report.PDF).
• Double fatal occurred at Walters Mine in Schreiber where two workers were overcome
by carbon monoxide while dewatering an abandoned mine.
Sites (advanced exploration projects particularly mine dewatering and mining for proving
reserves including taking bulk samples) need to ensure they establish and maintain emergency
response capability. Often these are operations with relatively few employees; however, they
underestimate the risks that they are dealing with. Typical underground risks include oxygen
deficiency, mine gasses in addition to falls of ground, inrush of water etc. An effective
emergency response plan to address these types of risks needs to be developed.

The complexity of an emergency response plan will depend on numerous factors including
geographic location of the mine/project, the number of workers at the site, proximity to
municipal emergency response organisations, proximity to neighbouring operations that have
response capability and the site specific hazards.
The emergency response plan must be based on an internal risk assessment (attached as
Appendix E), evaluated by the JHSC where applicable; tested regularly; and adjusted accordingly
to address new and emerging hazards.
The Emergency Response Plan (ERP) must be reviewed and updated at least annually by the
owner/employer and made available for review by MOL Inspectors.
Health and Safety Associations are available to assist in developing Emergency Response Plans
(ERPs).
Since MNDM is the permitting organization and first point of contact for exploration sites, they
are best situated to request ERPs. MNDM should be the one window, point of contact for all
government regulatory requirements for new mine developments
4.1.1 Recommendation:
• Amend R.R.O., 1990, Reg. 854, s 5, to require an employer/owner to develop,
maintain and provide to an inspector, an emergency plan based on a risk
assessment during pre and post production, initial exploration, advanced
exploration and bulk sampling. This plan shall be developed in conjunction with the
Joint Health and Safety Committee or Health and Safety representative, if any.
4.2 Managing Risks Related to Emergency Preparedness

Every workplace needs to conduct regular and thorough risk assessments that address any
potential disruption of normal business. Events such as medical emergencies, fire, building or
structural collapse will affect individuals who are employed within the workplace. An
uncontrolled toxic gas release will affect workers within the facility and also could have an effect
on the nearby community.
The hazardous properties of reagents and chemicals used in processing will determine the
controls that are required to mitigate risk. Consideration needs to be given to the establishment
of safe havens for workers within a facility that have these specified hazards. Escape and rescue
plans need to be established. Escape routes need to be established and, where necessary,
respiratory equipment needs to be provided if the risk assessment determines that it is
necessary to have this equipment available this requirement.
Working with the community is critical in those situations where a community may be affected
by a plant emergency. A communication strategy is critical and in some situations, special plans
may be needed to be established for members of the nearby community. An emergency
situation may require escape from the immediate vicinity where there is potential of fire or

explosion and possible release of toxic gasses. Actions will be defined by the risk assessment
and the controls required will become actions within the plan.
Incidents such as a fire, collapse or like event can rapidly escalate and result in catastrophic
consequences. Ensuring that these kinds of incidents are brought under control effectively and
efficiently is vitally important. Being able to anticipate different and changing emergency
situations cannot be easily regulated by prescriptive legislation. Ontario’s practice is to have the
Mining Legislative Review Committee (MLRC) agree to regulatory changes which can typically be
a lengthy process.
Surface mines and mining plants often rely on municipalities to assist with response to an
emergency situation. Municipal Fire Services and Emergency Medical services (EMS) have
limitations and need to be consulted prior to assuming they will be your first response team.
For example, Municipal Fire Fighters and EMS may not be able to assist with confined space and
high angle rescue or respond to situations where hazardous chemicals are present. It is
imperative that consultations with first response organisations be conducted prior to being
imbedded as standard procedures within the Emergency Response Plan.
Accounting for all personnel at any work site is extremely important and at times may difficult to
achieve. Small sites are typically easier to control because of limited number of employees and
fewer outside visitors. Large complexes may have multiple entrances with numerous individuals
coming and going including: employees, salesmen, suppliers, general public etc. Establishing
systems and processes that monitor the location of on-site personnel along with ensuring they
know what to do and where is go during an emergency needs to be part of the emergency
response plan.
Jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom require that employers and operators
conduct comprehensive risk assessments to better anticipate significant failures. In addition,
most jurisdictions have a legislated requirement to regularly prepare/update comprehensive
written emergency response plan.
Ontario does not have a Regulatory requirement mandating that mine and mining plant
operators and employers conduct regular formal risk assessments relating to emergency
preparedness/response capability.
In addition, there is no mandatory requirement for establishing, maintaining and evaluating
emergency response plans for underground or surface mines or mining plants - including mills,
smelters, concentrators, etc. To support mine and mining plant operators, it is essential to
develop a guideline of critical elements (components) of a written emergency plan. The lack of
standard risk assessment procedures may result in the inability to effectively respond to
emergencies.

Having an effective plan provides the workplace with clearly defined roles and responsibilities
during an emergency. These plans need to be reviewed, audited and tested regularly to ensure
compliance. Adjustments need to be made where changes within the workplace may affect
response capability.
There currently is no specific legislated requirement to maintain an emergency response plan.

R.R.O., 1990, Reg. 854, s. 17 (Appendix G References - R.R.O., 1990, Reg. 854, http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900854_e.htm#BK2) addresses legislated
requirements relating to underground mine rescue services:
17. (1) Mine rescue stations may be established, equipped, operated and
maintained, as the Minister may direct, by an entity specified by the Minister that, in
the opinion of the Minister, is qualified to perform those functions. O. Reg. 296/11, s. 7.
(2) An entity specified under subsection (1) shall,
(a) appoint mine rescue officers; and
(b) establish mine rescue crews. O. Reg. 296/11, s. 7.
(3) Mine rescue officers shall,
(a) administer mine rescue stations;
(b) train mine rescue crew members; and
(c) ensure that each mine rescue crew member is competent to
perform and physically capable of performing the functions of a mine
rescue crew member. O. Reg. 296/11, s. 7.
(4) The owner of a mine shall make available, at the owner’s expense,
(a) an adequate number of workers to be taught and trained in
mine rescue work; and
(b) training facilities and adequate storage for training materials an
equipment. O. Reg. 296/11, s. 7.
(5), (6) REVOKED: O. Reg. 296/11, s. 7.
(7) A mine rescue operation at a mine shall be under the direction of the
supervisor in charge of the mine and the costs of the rescue operation shall be
at the expense of the owner of the mine. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 854, s. 17 (7).
(8) Notice shall be given immediately to a mine rescue officer and to an
inspector when the services of a mine rescue crew are required. O. Reg.
272/97, s. 6.
Other Jurisdictions
Many jurisdictions have much more prescriptive requirements relating to emergency
preparedness and emergency response than we have here in Ontario (i.e., United States MSHA
Section 115(e) of the Federal Safety Health Act 1977, (http://www.msha.gov/30cfr/49.0.htm),
or British Colombia
(http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/HealthandSafety/Documents/HSRC2008.pdf), and Quebec

(http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=%
2F%2FS_2_1%2FS2_1R14_A.htm).
The UK has a detailed “Approved Code of Practice and Guidance relating to Escape and Rescue
from Mines” by virtue of Section 16(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which applies
to underground mining operations. (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l71.pdf)
Australia has a National Risk Based Standards that adopts State Specific Codes of Practice
relating to emergency preparedness and rescue. These documents are very detailed and
address all aspects of mine rescue. New South Wales,
(http://www.coresafety.org/resources/module6/12-352MOD_6D.pdf). Queensland Guidelines
for Mines Rescue Operations (http://www.qmrsl.com.au/members/member_documents.php).
• R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 854, s 17 be amended to require a risk assessment to be
conducted regarding emergency preparedness and response. Requirement to
prepare and maintain a written emergency response plan based on risks associated
with emergency preparedness in an underground operation. This plan shall be
developed in consultation with the Joint Health and Safety Committee or Joint
Health and Safety Representatives, if any.
4.3 Rescue Challenges Associated With Expansive Mine

Getting mine rescue responders to the location of the emergency quickly is becoming
increasingly more challenging as mines expand and get deeper.
Teams are limited to a four hour breathing apparatus and researchers/manufacturers indicate
that this is longest duration a responder should be allowed to remain under oxygen. Practice by
mine rescue organisations is to target teams to two hours.
Special transportation can be provided to mine rescue teams so they are able to get to the site
of the emergency faster.
Specially designed and constructed team transport vehicles are used in many jurisdictions
including Quebec and Germany.
Ontario has not allowed the establishment of underground mine rescue substations due to
complexities associated with storage, care and maintenance of breathing apparatus. This work
must be conducted in clean, air-conditioned and dust free environment. In addition
underground mine rescue stations would result in the necessity of purchasing additional mine
rescue equipment. Logistics regarding this needs to be further investigated. Such facilities are
maintained in other jurisdictions (i.e., Germany).

OMR needs to explore procedures and standards that other jurisdictions have established for
underground mine rescue sub-stations and evaluate possible application in Ontario mines.
OMR needs to investigate team transport vehicles being used by other jurisdictions.
• The creation of new Regulatory requirement for conducting a risk assessment
regarding emergency preparedness and response; and to establish and maintain
an effective written emergency response plan (Refer to Section 4.2.1 Managing
Risks Related to Emergency Preparedness) will address the rescue challenges
associated with expansive mines.
4.4 Ability to Respond

Ontario mines are getting deeper and more expansive which pose new challenges to emergency
responders. Rescue work is considered to be some of the most labour-intensive and dangerous
work associated with mining. Mine rescue responders are expected to react to mine
emergencies often under Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH), under zero visibility
while carrying a basket with a casualty or rescue equipment. As mines get deeper and laterally
more expansive, they become hotter and more humid due to increasing rock temperature.
Responders are being exposed to increased safety risks.
Elevated temperature and humidity affect mine rescue team performance and require a
reduction in mission duration. In addition, expansive mines translate into increased team travel
distances which result in extended response times.
Many jurisdictions require the mandatory use of self-rescuers in addition to strategic use of
permanent and portable refuge stations. Ontario has a regulation respecting refuge stations;
however, it only addresses required elements of a refuge station and not addressing strategic
location within a mine. Ideally, to protect the safety of workers, the risk assessment and
subsequent controls should consider the use of self-rescuers in order to access the temporary or
permanent refuge station or fresh air raise depending on what the emergency plan stipulates.
Many jurisdictions require that self-rescuers be with carried the worker, on mobile equipment
or strategically cached and used during an emergency.
Some Ontario mines follow the practice of mandatory use of self-rescuers while others use them
in select locations where workers can become isolated (i.e., long drifts, loading pockets, Alimak
raise face, etc.).
Typically in Ontario, emergency plans require that Workers remain in refuge stations until the
emergency is brought under control and mine rescue teams are able to safely evacuate them.


Risks Related to Emergency Preparedness) will address the rescue challenges
associated with ability to respond.
4.5 First Aid

Ontario employers covered by the Workplace Safety Insurance Act are required to comply with
Regulation 1101 - First Aid Requirements. These are minimum standards and do not ensure all
workers in every workplace are in close proximity to a first aid station or first aid attendant.
Having appropriate and adequate resources immediately at hand would be invaluable; however,
difficult to achieve because of the diverse mining environment. Many Ontario mine employers
far exceed the standard to maximize coverage and improve first aid response time.
All Ontario mine rescue team members are required to have a minimum of standard first aid
since during an emergency they are often expected to assist with injured workers. Many have
Advanced First Aid training.
Many jurisdictions have considerably higher standards for mine rescue responders including
some include paramedics and even doctors as part of first response teams (i.e., Poland, Czech
Republic, Russia, China etc.).
Similarly, Ontario Surface Emergency Response Teams (ERT) typically receives standard first aid
and many have advanced training. Employers assess their needs and adjust the number of
trained first aid responders based on their requirements.
Risks Related to Emergency Preparedness) will address First Aid Requirements.
4.6 Code of Practice

Different approaches to compliance with standards were explored including comparing
prescriptive regulations versus codes of practice. A concern was raised regarding enforceability
of codes of practices. Ontario has a history of prescriptive health and safety legislation and there
is a sense of comfort in doing things the way we have. It was agreed that it is extremely
challenging to enact prescriptive legislation effectively and efficiently. It was agreed that all
workplace parties including inspectors will need to be trained in order to ensure safety is not
eroded if codes of practice are adopted for mine rescue.
The Australian and UK code of practice models were reviewed (please refer to Appendix G –
References ). It was felt that the UK Mines Recue code of practice was very detailed and
provides the kind of directions we would recommend that Ontario adapt. Strong regulatory

requirements are part of the legislation accompanied by a detailed code of practice which
provides guidance for compliance with the regulation.
To establish a Code of Practice, a working group consisting of industry, worker and ministry of
labour representatives would need to be necessary. These individuals would require in-depth
knowledge of emergency preparedness and emergency response.
• Amend R. R. O. 1990, 854, s 17 and s 41, to incorporate a Code of Practice that
addresses emergency preparedness and response for all mines and mining
plants.
4.7 Fitness of Volunteers

Deep mining is creating new risks to mine rescue teams.
Extensive mission durations under harsh conditions are becoming a regular occurrence for
Ontario teams.
Ontario Mine Rescue emphasises the need for rescuers be capable of preforming arduous work
under extreme conditions. There are requirements for annual mine rescue physical
examinations and clinical testing; however, the comprehensiveness of these may vary
depending on the examining physician. Examining physicians are required to indicate if a mine
rescue volunteer is fit or unfit; however, they may not be aware of the intensity of work
performed by these individuals.
Ontario Mine Rescue does not employ/use medical professionals as many foreign jurisdictions
do where they are responsible for overseeing medical examinations and clinical tests and also
examine and release volunteers after a mission under oxygen.
Mutual Aid Agreements can further complicate issues where responders from one mine may be
asked to respond to an emergency at another mine which is environmentally more challenging
requiring better fit individuals.
Many jurisdictions have stringent mine rescue fitness standards and in some circumstances
monthly fitness testing is conducted by mine rescue organisations (United Kingdom, Germany,
Poland, Czech Republic etc.).
Requirements for fitness can be specified within a code of practice. Typically they would include
things such as Body Mass Index, medical examination requirements, treadmill testing criteria
etc.
• The creation of new Code of Practice regarding emergency preparedness and
response in mines and mining plants; (Section 4.6.1 Code of Practice will
address the fitness of volunteers.

4.8 Acclimation of Responders

Heat and humidity are acknowledged as significant hazards to rescue responders in all
jurisdictions.
In 1998, six rescuers lost their lives in Poland while responding to a routine situation and two
rescuers died of heat exhaustion in the USA at the Goldstrike decline in 2002.
Since that time, all mine rescue organisations have adopted Heat Stress Guidelines that limit
underground mine rescue missions under heated conditions.
South Africa is home to some of the deepest and hottest mines in the world and they are
leaders in understanding the serious health effects associated with microclimatic conditions.
Rescuers responding to emergencies under these conditions must be acclimatized in order to be
able to function effectively.
Research work conducted by Dr. Glen Kenny (please refer to Appendix F – Mine Rescue Related
Research, “The Influence Of Different Mining Clothing, Ensembles On Body Heat Storage And
Core, Temperature Regulation During Physical Work”) indicates that arduous work, such as that
of mine rescue responders, significantly increases risk even at moderate ambient temperatures.
Although OMR has adopted criteria for limiting mission durations of volunteers exposed to
elevated temperature and humidity, this may not be adequate to ensure responders are
acclimatized to their particular operation. Mutual Aid Agreements may complicate emergency
response in hot mines since all responders are not acclimated.
Acclimation requirements can be incorporated into a code of practice which could include
specifications for responders. Without doubt, deep/expansive mining will complicate response
capability and the need to ensure all volunteers responding to a mine emergency are not being
exposed to this currently unaddressed risk. A code of practice would help guide operators
through a proper risk assessment.
• The creation of new Code of Practice regarding emergency preparedness and
response in mines and mining plants; (Section 4.6.1 Code of Practice) will
address acclimation of emergency responders.
4.9 Critical Incident Stress

Various individuals (employees, staff, surface ERT members, mine rescue volunteers etc.) could
be involved in recovery operations and ultimately traumatised by the event. Part of the risk
assessment should include identification of individuals who may be in recovery operations and a
plan must be established to address support and counselling to those that may require it. In
some circumstances, effects of post-traumatic stress do not become evident until long after the
original event; therefore, individuals who identify and treat these individuals require
professional expertise.

Although the main purpose of Ontario Mine Rescue is saving lives, unfortunately teams are
often confronted with recovery operations. This can very dangerous work due to the physical
condition of the incident site therefore mine rescue teams are best suited to respond to these
situations because of their special training and expertise.
Teams must be trained to handle a variety of situations including body recovery. This can
includes safety issues relating to potential exposure to body fluids and the possible. All
emergency situations have the potential to create emotional after affects that can affect mental
health. Formalized debriefing needs to be conducted to ensure the safety of mine rescue and
mining plant emergency preparedness volunteers.
Mine rescue officers are often the first and only point of contact by mine rescue volunteers
following a response to an incident including recovery. Furthermore, they are typically trusted
with even the most sensitive information such as being informed that a volunteer is troubled by
the outcome of a response.
Mine rescue officers should receive special training for dealing with these types of situation.
Mine rescue and Mining Plant Emergency Preparedness volunteers should have immediate
access to personnel who have received special training to help individuals involved with
emotionally stressful situations.
The Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee has recently prepared a draft guideline with the
following extracts:
Body Recovery Guideline – (Draft) September 30, 2014: “Any attempt to recover a body or
body parts must be made within the legislation described in the Occupational Health and Safety
Act and Regulations for Mines and Mining Plants and the Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990.”
Mine Rescue Responsibilities
The four main objectives of mine rescue and recovery work, both fire and non-fire are:
• To ensure the safety of mine rescue and recovery teams.
• To find trapped or missing miners and bring them to surface.
• To respond to and resolve fire and non-fire emergencies.
• To examine the mine for dangerous concentrations of any noxious gases that would
prevent normal operations in any part of the mine.
Welfare of Mine Rescue Team Members and Emergency Control Group Members
The recovery of bodies from any incident is distressing for mine rescue team members and
others involved in the recovery. Critical incidents, such as body recoveries can cause strong
emotional reactions that overwhelm an individual’s ability to function in a normal manner at
work, at home, or in any aspect of their life. This strong emotional reaction is referred to as
Critical Incident Stress. It is important that mine rescue team members are made fully aware of

the support network that is available to them following a mine rescue response involving serious
injuries or a fatality.
Critical Incident Stress management teams must be made available to anyone exposed to a
situation immediately following an incident. Stress related anxiety is normal, but if the emotions
are not dealt with in a healthy, effective fashion, they can result in emotional turmoil and even
harmful behaviour. More information about Critical Incident Stress can be found in Appendix A
of the Ontario Handbook of Training in Mine Rescue and Recovery Operations
(http://www.workplacesafetynorth.ca/products/mine-rescue-handbook).
4.9.1 Recommendations:
• A curriculum be developed jointly by WSN and the employer for all individuals
who are involved in rescue and recovery operations (surface and underground).
Such individuals must be trained in Critical Incidence Stress Management (both
pre and post incident).
4.10 Regulatory Requirements Surface Mines and Mining Plants

R.R.O., 1990, Reg. 854, s. 41 stipulates the requirements for surface fire response. Emergencies
that can occur on surface in a mine and mining plant extend well beyond fires and could also
include structural failures, gas accumulations, chemical spills, molten metal, injuries, explosions
etc. Although most mine emergency measures and first responses include mitigation measures
for these types of emergencies, regulation does not require nor mandate that plans need to be
put into place. This said, although there are a number of emergency scenarios that could occur
at a particular mine or mining plant and many scenarios could be replicated mining plant by
mining plant, there is a requirement for flexibility required within an emergency plan.
Underground mines rescue is a good example of a standardized, coordinated and effective
response to emergencies and could form the foundation for a similar program supporting
surface emergency response.
Ontario
R.R.O., 1990, Reg. 854, s. 41 addresses surface mine fire procedures:
41. (1) Procedures in case of a fire at,
(a) the surface of an underground mine;
(b) a surface mine; or
(c) a mining plant
shall be prepared by the supervisor in charge of the mine or mining
plant. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 854, s. 41 (1).
(2) The procedures required by subsection (1) or extracts therefrom shall be
set out in writing and shall be posted and kept posted in a conspicuous

place or places where they are most likely to come to the attention of a
worker. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 854, s. 41 (2).
(3) A suitable number of workers at each mine and mining plant shall be
trained in the fire-fighting procedures and,
(a) the names of such workers shall be posted in a conspicuous
place;
(b) such workers shall be tested for proficiency at least once a year;
and
(c) a written report of the results of the tests shall be made and
kept on file. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 854, s. 41 (3).
(4) Fire-extinguishing equipment of a suitable type and size shall be
provided at,
(a) the surface of every underground mine;
(b) every surface mine; and
(c) mining plant. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 854, s. 41 (4).
(5) At least once each month, the,
(a) fire-extinguishing equipment;
(b) fire suppression systems;
(c) fire hydrants; and
(d) fire doors.
At the surface of an underground mine, a surface mine and a mining plant shall be
inspected by a competent person who shall report thereon to the supervisor in charge
of the mine or mining plant, as the case may be. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 854, s. 41 (5).
Other Jurisdictions
Many Canadian jurisdictions have more prescriptive legislation relating to surface mines (Alberta
http://work.alberta.ca/documents/WHS-LEG_ohsc_2009.pdf, British Colombia
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/HealthandSafety/Documents/HSRC2008.pdf.
Australian legislation is risk based and requires that open pit mines and plants maintain
emergency response capability similar to underground operations.
Recently, several new open pit mines have opened in Ontario and many others are forecasted to
open in the future. Typically they adopt western Canadian open pit mine rescue standards which
are higher than those here in Ontario.

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 854, s 41 be amended to require employers to conduct a risk assessment and
develop and maintain an emergency preparedness and response plan. This plan shall be
developed in consultation with the Joint Health and Safety Committee or Joint Health and Safety
Representatives, if any. This would address other emergency situations that can occur in surface
mines and mining plants that extend well beyond fire.
4.11 Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee.

The Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) includes representation from all Ontario
Mining Districts and includes labour, management, Ministry of Labour and Ontario Mine Rescue.
TAC’s mandate includes making recommendations regarding:
• providing advice and recommendations on the content of mine rescue training
programs
• providing advice and making recommendations regarding mine rescue emergency
equipment requirements
• identifying and recommending research projects
• recommending changes to the mine rescue handbook
The Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee has developed numerous guidelines and
documents (i.e., Mutual Aid Agreements, Emergency Simulation Guidelines for Underground
Mines, Mine Rescue Refuge Station Guidelines, and Emergency Response Planning for Shaft
Sinking, etc.) that assist workplaces to comply with Legislated requirements.
The Mine Rescue TAC has been integral in establishing unbiased criteria which is used to identify
and recommend the best-suited rescue equipment to meet the needs of Ontario’s mining
industry.
Risks associated with mine rescue are similar in every jurisdiction in the world. Information
sharing and learning from both successful and unsuccessful missions is critical to improving
response capability here in Ontario.
The International Mines Rescue Body (IMRB) freely shares mine rescue related information
including; research findings, international best practices, identifying new equipment and
approaches relating to mine rescue and provides a unique venue for international mine rescue
standardization. Workplace Safety North (WSN) has been a contributor and actively involved
with IMRB since 2003. Ontario Mine Rescue was the first exclusive non-coal jurisdiction that
was granted membership. In 2013, Ontario Mine Rescue was a valuable contributor to the
International Mines Rescue Body Conference which was held first the time ever in Canada.
Research projects are identified and supported by our Mine Rescue Technical Advisory
Committee. Findings and outcomes from research are critical in making safety improvements to
emergency response capability. Current mine rescue related research projects include:

• “Heat Stress and Related Issues” which are being investigated by Dr. Glen Kenny
University of Ottawa. Ontario is home to some of the deepest and most expansive
mines in the world. Deep mining exposes workers and especially mine rescuers to the
serious potential risk of heat induced illness. The work being done by Dr. Kenny is
providing us with new information which results in reduced mission as related to heat
humidity and possible workload (Appendix F – Mine Rescue Related Research, Heat
Stress and Related Issues).
• “Team Dynamics and Its Impact on Ontario Mine Rescue Teams” being investigated by
Dr. Mary Waller, York University. Dr. Waller is an expert who has globally investigated
team behaviour in a variety of extreme industrial settings and for the past three years
has been collecting data relating to Ontario Mine Rescue. Findings from this research
will result in improved safety in selection of team members and decision making during
emergency response here in Ontario and around the world. (Appendix F – Mine Rescue
Related Research, Team Dynamics and Its Impact on Ontario Mine Rescue Teams)
• The Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee makes recommendations that shape
Ontario Mine Rescue and ensure that good decisions are made. Guidelines that are
developed by the Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee often become standard
procedures for underground mine rescue emergency preparedness and response. TAC
recommendations tend to bridge the gap in existing regulatory weaknesses.
Surface Emergency Response - Technical Advisory Committee
The Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee has been integral in shaping and maintaining
effective emergency response capability in the Ontario underground mining sector. A similar
committee should be established to address the needs of surface mines including, open pit
mines, surface plants (mills, smelters, concentrators, etc.). Often local emergency services (fire
fighters, EMS), will not respond to emergencies at these operations because of unique hazards
associated with the operation or because they are outside of their geographic area of service.
Many surface mines/mine plants and related operations already have established Surface
Emergency Response Teams and are asking for a forum similar to the Mine Rescue Technical
Advisory Committee for sharing information. The proposed Surface ERT TAC should be
structured similar to the Mine Rescue TAC along with adopting an information-sharing mandate.
4.11.1 Recommendations:
• A Surface Mine and Mining Plant Emergency Rescue Technical Advisory
Committee shall be established by WSN to help shape the needs of surface
mines, mills, smelters, refineries and surface facilities.
4.12 Technology
New and changing technology will continue to affect our industry and impact how rescue teams
respond to emergencies. Innovative and new instrumentation, breathing apparatus, portable

refuge stations, team transport vehicles, robotics, use of tablet/electronic devices etc., all
potentially have an effect on how Ontario Mine Rescue will continue to evolve. These must be
evaluated and adapted where warranted due to the changing mining environment and
extraction methods. New technology is typically investigated by our Technical Advisory
Committee and recommendations are made to improve the safety of our team members.
Mine Rescue is a unique closely-knit global fraternity where information is freely shared. Often
when a new product enters the Canadian market it has already been evaluated in another
jurisdiction and we are evaluating against our requirements.
One area that we haven’t given much attention to is exploring the desired learning styles of new
(younger) mine rescue volunteers. We may need to make adjustments to our delivery
methodology to ensure we are able to connect with our future and younger mine rescue
volunteers. In the short term, we need to ensure existing delivery methods are maintained until
such time demands of younger tech-savvy workers becomes the norm. Several foreign
jurisdictions are more progressive in developing and integrating such tools which include virtual
reality, classroom computers, use of tablets etc., in order to enhance learning
• The working group, through the process of developing recommendations, has
reviewed the work of the WSN TAC and supports the ongoing work and
mandate of this group. There is no recommendation for change.
4.13 Training Structure Capacity/Skill Competency

OMR has several standardized competency-based training programs including:
a) Introductory Program
b) Refresher (Regular) Training
c) Advanced Mine Rescue Certification
d) Management Program
e) Technician Program
f) Technician Refresher Training
g) Supervisory Program
The Introductory Program is a five day, 40 hour training session that provides the foundational
knowledge for a person being involved in Ontario Mine Rescue. By comparison, many
introductory programs are more comprehensive (covering more topics than OMR) and longer
duration. The Ontario program covers legislated requirements (for Mine Rescue), mine gases
basic mine rescue equipment and the BG4 apparatus. Typically, an individual who recently
completed the Introductory Program would not be competent to respond to a mine emergency.
To remain active, each active first responder (volunteer) must attend six, eight-hour, refresher
training sessions per year. Topics covered during this training include special equipment used by
Ontario Mine Rescue in addition to exposing volunteers to arduous work underground while

wearing the BG4 which is the primary breathing apparatus. Until 1985, OMR responded to only
fire emergencies which required six sessions to remain able to remain in mine rescue. The
Stevenson Commission made recommendations that OMR expand its mandate to include non-
fire response which was adopted; however, additional training days were not added to the
training curriculum. Equipment added to the program since 1984 includes the following:
Hydraulic tools, rock splitters, bolt cutters, reciprocating saws, lifting bags, rope rescue systems,
thermal imaging cameras, rapid extrication devices and environmental weather metres. It is not
possible to cover all topics (special equipment) in a yearly cycle and competency of by
volunteers in use of this equipment comes into question.
Many jurisdictions (both coal and non-coal) have a more intensive, longer duration introductory
mine rescue program and require more frequent refresher training than in Ontario. Some
volunteer jurisdictions require monthly training including mandatory time under oxygen.
All Ontario Mine Rescue Programs are supported with leaders’ guides and participant manuals
and where appropriate; have competency checklists which are used to evaluate performance.
In addition, a comprehensive training data base is maintained which tracks key training related
elements including things such as competencies, training received, oxygen time, experience in
other jurisdictions, first aid certifications etc.
Advanced Certification is available to all volunteers who have been active for at least two years.
This eight hour evaluation consists of knowledge testing in addition to extensive skill
competency demonstration evaluation.
Training is seasonally, cyclical normally delivered between September and May of each year.
This could result in extended durations between regular/refresher training. It appears that the
training delivery calendar centers on district and provincial mine rescue competition rather than
the needs to the mine operators or the responders.
Very little research/evaluation has been conducted relating to competency of non-competition
trained mine rescue volunteers. In order to better understand retention of skill by these
individuals, a competency-retention study should be conducted which can be used to determine
frequency of refresher training. Arbitrarily, increasing frequency of training may not necessarily
address knowledge/skill retention gaps.
Ontario Mine Rescue officers deliver standardized training as per the Ontario Mine Rescue
Handbook, to all underground mines across the province. This training consists of both fire and
non-fire response. Soft rock mines are room and pillar operations while hard rock mines will
vary their mining methods depending on geology, size and configuration of the ore body
including various other factors. Although typically Ontario mines are modern highly mobile
operations, there is some that employ less modern mining techniques.
All mines receive that same core training regardless of their unique features. Risks in mines vary
from operation to operation and training delivery should be designed accordingly specifically to
address mine-specific needs.

The Management Program consists of lectures and practical case histories which expose
participants to handling both fire and non-fire emergencies. Topics covered include roles and
responsibilities of workplace parties during an emergency, mutual aid agreements and practical
exercises relating to fire and non-fire emergencies. Although not mandated by regulatory
requirements, the Management Program is well attended with participation by those individuals
who may potentially be required to oversee emergencies or be asked to provide expert advice
during an emergency. Many jurisdictions have regulatory requirements mandating individuals
who may be required to oversee mine emergencies to attend Management training.
The Technician Program is a comprehensive 24 hour, three day course that teaches individuals
to maintain and repair equipment used by our mine rescue teams. Strategically located
technicians are essential in maintaining emergency response capability at Ontario’s
geographically dispersed mining operations. Technicians are specially-trained individuals who
provide back up to Mine Rescue Officers (MROs) prior to their arrival at an emergency scene. At
remote sites (fly-in operations), they may be required to provide support, repair and maintain
rescue equipment for extended durations during adverse weather periods. Currently, there are
approximately 75 technicians actively employed at Ontario mining operations. In order to
remain active, Technicians must complete a one day annual technician refresher course and
attend at least two regular training courses.
Supervisory training is delivered upon request to Ontario mine operations. This training is
designed for front line supervisors and focuses on their roles and responsibilities during a mine
emergency and exposes them to rescue equipment used by OMR teams.
• A Third Party evaluation of all Ontario Mine Rescue Training Programs be
conducted to assess the adequacy of content, frequency of regular/refresher
training and to assess the competency (skill retention) of participants. Programs
to be adjusted accordingly.
4.14 Training Program Structure and Delivery

Many emergency response organisations have separated training into knowledge and skill
components which can be delivered using different methodologies. Mine rescue training in
Ontario is delivered by highly skilled, very knowledgeable mine rescue officers who typically
have extensive “expert” knowledge of mine rescue. The mine rescue program does not employ
the use of videos (to support training), e-learning, virtual reality or other similar delivery
systems.
Evaluation of the program needs to be conducted to determine how best to deliver the
knowledge components of the program.

The skill related aspects of learning must be delivered under close supervision of highly trained
individuals who can coach, mentor and correct. This is the most valuable component of the
MRO function.
Several Mine Rescue organisations have established virtual reality theatres (i.e., Australia, Russia
and China) to train employees and evaluate performance. This training is used to supplement
rather than replace skill components of training.
South Africa has recently acknowledged mine rescue as a trade and established “Occupational
Qualification for Mines Rescue Services Workers”. This very comprehensive program that
addresses knowledge, skills, experience and competencies that must be obtained and
maintained by their mine rescue “brigades’ men”. This program is similar to our mining
common core however it applies to mine rescue.
South Africa is home to some of the world’s deepest and most expansive mines anywhere and
their brigades men must be able to respond to very challenging environments and situations.
Furthermore, they have a deep knowledge of conducting rescue work in micro-climatic
conditions and have established stringent fitness testing and evaluation in addition to “heat
tolerance testing”. Over the years, they have conducted extensive medical research regarding
working in harsh climates and are experts in this field.
These special skills and mine rescue responder requirements are reflected in the certification
document.
• The Third Party evaluation of all Ontario Mine Rescue Training Programs
referenced in Section 4.13 to include the review of Training Program Structure
and Delivery methods. (See Section 4.13 regarding Training Structure
Capacity/Skill Competency).
4.15 Mine Rescue Competitions

Several review respondents have indicated that Ontario Competition team members are much
better trained and skilled than the other volunteers. Ontario Mine Rescue teams that compete
receive more training and are much better prepared to handle emergencies that those who only
participate in the mandated six regular sessions per year.
Individuals, who participate in competition, receive considerably more training than those who do
not. In addition to the mandated six refresher training sessions, an additional three days training is
delivered to district competition teams by MROs. This does not include additional personal training
time or other training supported by the employer. The seven teams that advance to the Provincial
Mine Rescue competition receive an additional five days training from their MRO and will typically
considerably more time from their employer. This does not include personal training time. Without
doubt, individuals who compete are better trained and more prepared to handle emergencies
simply due to time additional time devoted to training. One of the concerns expressed is the

traditional training cycle (September to May) adopted by OMR which focusses on developing those
individuals that compete and tends to ignore other volunteers. The question was raised, “how well
are these individuals to handle an emergency at the start of the training cycle?”
Mine Rescue Competitions are an important mechanism for demonstrating and evaluating
competency/proficiency in mine rescue skills not only in all Canadian jurisdictions; but in most
countries. Typically jurisdictions who don’t engage in competitions are those who have many
emergencies to respond to or those who employ full-time responders. Even full-time services
typically do compete at the international level.
In the USA, participation in competitions (contests) is mandatory within the coal sector.
Competitions are very common and well attended at the US Regional and National level.
Australia has Regional (State) and National competitions to evaluate competency of teams and to
ensure high standards are maintained.
More recently, many jurisdictions go further and participate at biennial International Mines Rescue
Competitions which help to further enhance learning on a Global basis. The 2012 competition held
in Donesk, Ukraine attracted 26 teams from 13 Nations and 21 teams from 13 Nations competed in
Bytom, Poland in 2014.
Ontario competition is designed as a complete incident response (numerous integrated tasks) which
includes team preparation, team briefing followed by solving a complex incident that will typically
include triage, use of special equipment and firefighting. Although this results in a very complete
and thorough evaluation of a team’s ability to work through these tasks, this is not representative of
what happens in a realistic emergency situation. Ontario competitions can be long in duration and a
very gruelling endurance test; however, very different from most other jurisdictions.
In a real-life situations, a single mine rescue team mission would typically complete one
underground task which would consist of being briefed, getting under oxygen and completing a
single task such as rescuing a casualty, putting out a fire, extricating a trapped worker followed
by completing required administrative reports.
Most jurisdictions have separate tasks which are classified into knowledge, skill and endurance
categories. Teams are required to complete several tasks and are evaluated against standards.
• WSN to establish a multiple task competition vs the existing integrated
simulation scenario arrangement to evaluate rescue skills are improving.
4.16 Mine Rescue Funding

Several written and verbal submissions were made to the Mining Review Panel relating to the
need for full and adequate funding of the Ontario Mine Rescue program. Although the working
group members agree with these comments, it was felt that it was outside of the scope of the
mandate to explore this issue. Although there is no specific recommendation for funding, the

funding should match the emerging program requirements. Examples are expanding
underground mandate to include fire and non-fire response; impact of the third party review of
the mine rescue programs; impact of expansive/deep mining/new technology.
• Government of Ontario to ensure that recommendations as submitted by the
“Emergency Preparedness in the Ontario Sector” Working Group are
implemented and fully funded by WSIB or appropriate funding partners.

APPENDIX A - EMERGENCY RESPONSES

EMERGENCY RESPONSES
Fires
Time
(MOL Stat) MRO Fire Non Fire Other Fire Persons Persons Teams
YEAR Under
(when Responses Responses Responses Emergencies Drills Rescued Recovery Used
O2
available)
2013 0 20 7 5 2 6 8 1 39 15H 4M
2012 0 21 15 0 1 5 5 0 10 23H 38M

2011 0 10 4 1 2 3 0 3 7 7H 37M
2010 0 20 6 1 4 9 4 0 12 16H 53M
2009 40 25 4 1 6 14 2 0 41 8 H 44M
2008 0 37 14 4 3 16 14 0 52 31H 13M
2007 0 31 10 2 8 11 1 2 46 29H 18M
2006 63 30 7 3 3 15 4 0 43 32H 05M
2005 64 36 9 2 0 25 5 0 46 22H 58M
2004 89 24 6 2 1 15 3 1 41 19 H 57M
2003 119 38 9 6 1 22 30 1 48 28H 35M
2002 141 40 10 1 9 20 20 1 42 51H 15M
2001 92 34 10 1 6 17 0 0 53 87H 01M
2000 121 30 3 2 8 17 0 0 31 25H 03M

Totals 729 396 114 31 54 195 96 9 511 399H 35M
** Notes:
My Documents: Incident Response Chart.

APPENDIX B – TAC MEMBERS

Ontario Mine Rescue
Technical Advisory Committee
MHSPR Meeting – Review
August 12, 2014 Meeting
Member Name Company

Alex Gryska Ontario Mine Rescue
Ted Hanley Ontario Mine Rescue
Charlie Burton Ontario Mine Rescue
Bruce Hall OMR Ontario Mine Rescue
Gilbert Wahl Wesdome
Emmett Houston DMC Mining
Jim Ahrens Compass Minerals
Sudbury Nickel Operations, A Glencore
Jim Lundrigan
Company
Tim Maloney. Vale Canada Ltd
Markus Uchtenhagen Goldcorp Canada Ltd.
Mike Dudar Vale Canada Ltd.
Carl Uusivirta Goldcorp Canada Ltd.
Claude Landry, KGHM
Dan Demers AuRico Gold

APPENDIX C - MRO MEMBERS

Ontario Mine Rescue
Mine Rescue Officers Meeting
MHSPR Meeting – MRO Review
September 17, 2014
Name Title
Alex Gryska General Manager
Ted Hanley General Manager (Transitional)
Charlie Burton Supervisor
Tim Taylor Mine Rescue Officer, Southern Ontario District
Duane Croswell Mine Rescue Officer, Thunder Bay District
Tim Ebbinghaus Mine Rescue Officer, Thunder Bay District
Grant Saunders Mine Rescue Officer, Red Lake District
Danny Taillefer Mine Rescue Officer, Timmins District
Emanuel Cabral Mine Rescue Officer, Timmins District
Wally Adler Mine Rescue Officer, Sudbury District
Bruce Hall Mine Rescue Officer, Sudbury District
John Hagan, Mine Rescue Officer, Onaping District

APPENDIX D – ONTARIO MINE RESCUE

MAP AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Ontario Mine Rescue

As at November 7, 2014
No. of
8 Mine Rescue 30 Substations
Volunteers
Stations More than 875 Volunteers
per District
Hemlo/Algoma River Gold, Island Gold
103
(One MRO) and Williams Mines
Garson, Copper Cliff North,
Sudbury Stobie, Coleman,
85
(Two MROs) Creighton and Totten
Mines
Red Lake
(One MRO)
140
Red Lake and Musselwhite
Mines
*
Fraser, Craig, Lockerby,
Onaping
(One MRO)
111 Nickel Rim, McCreedy and
Podolsky Mines
*
Timmins
Dome, Holey-Pond, Kidd * * *
169 Creek, Timmins West and
(Two MROs)
Bell Creek Mines
Kirkland Lake
127
Kirkland Lake Gold,
Holloway, AuRico, and
**
(One MRO)
Primero Mines 7 Districts in Ontario
Southern Windsor, Sifto and CGC *8 Mine Rescue Stations
90
(One MRO) Mines 11 Mine Rescue Officers (MROs)
30 Substations in Ontario
867 Mine Rescue Volunteers
Thunder Bay
(Two MROs)
42 Lac de Illes *

Ontario Mine Rescue

Organizational Chart – September 2014

APPENDIX E – ONTARIO MINE RESCUE

RISK ASSESSMENT/REGISTER

Elements Required for Risk Assessment

The actions taken in the initial minutes of an emergency are critical. A prompt warning to employees to
evacuate, shelter or lockdown can save lives. A call for help to public emergency services that provides
full and accurate information will help send the right responders and equipment. An employee trained
to administer first aid or perform CPR can be lifesaving. Action by employees with knowledge of building
and process systems can help control a leak and minimize damage to the facility and the environment.
The first step when developing an emergency response plan is to conduct a risk assessment to identify
potential emergency scenarios. An understanding of what can happen will enable you to determine
resource requirements and to develop plans and procedures to prepare your resources to respond. The
key information that should be considered in the risk assessment is below.
Once the risk is established the emergency plan should detail how (should the event occur) to minimize
the consequence through an effective and timely emergency response. This approach is commonly
known as Bow Tie Analysis.

Ontario Mine Rescue Risk Register

INDEX SHEET
Before using this Emergency Response Risk Register, please read the accompanying Emergency
Response Risk Assessment document.
A - Example Sheet
Example Sheet “A” is attached ONLY.
B - Human Resources
Team Roster Other information (B to K) is available
Control Group (20 pages) if necessary.
C - Travel & Communications
Travel
Communications
D - Equipment
Mobile Equipment Operation
Manual Equipment Operation
E - Underground Fire
F - Natural Disasters
G - Other Incidents
Run of Material
Fall of Ground
Breakthroughs
Sulphide Dust Explosion
Gas Emissions
Oxidation of Ore
Re-establishing Ventilation
H - Firefighting Response
Direct Methods
Indirect Methods
I - Rescue Responses
Confined Area Rescue
Extrication
Rope Rescue
J - Shaft Rescue Response
K - First Aid & Recovery
First Aid
Recovery

Sample Risk Register Example Sheet WSN Drillers Risk Assessment Workshop
A ‐ Example Sheet
Company: XYZ MINERALS INC. Site: XYZ SITE Team: MINE MANAGER, HEALTH & SAFETY DIRECTOR, MINE RESCUE TEAM MEMBER, OTHER Date: 20XX/XX/XX
ID Activity Risk Source Incident or Frequency of Controls Severity of Likelihood Risk Priority Recommended Controls Residual Risk Account. Completed
# Event Exposure Conseq. Assessment Date
(existing)
Elimination Substituti Engineering Admin. PPE
on /Isolation
Underground Radiant heat Heat stress Once a year • Ventilation Moderate Rare Low
Fire • Water
• Team procedures
• Firefighting training
• Indirect firefighting
Underground Radiant heat Burn Once a year • Ventilation Moderate Rare Low
Fire • Water
• Team procedures
Underground Gases produced by fire Exposure beyond Once a year • Ventilation Moderate Rare Low
Fire TLV • Team procedures
• Gases training
• Breathing apparatus training
Underground Gases produced by fire Absorption through < Once a Year • Ventilation Major Rare Low
Fire skin • Material Data Safety Sheets
Underground Stored flammables Instrumentation < Once a year • Training Major Rare Low
Fire issues (cross- • Instrumentation specifications & standards
sensitivity)
Underground Stored flammables Fire growth < Once a year • Regulatory requirements re: storage of Major Rare Low Fire suppression
Fire flammables
Underground Stored flammables Explosion < Once a year • Regulatory requirements re: storage of Catastrophic Rare Med Fire suppression
Fire flammables
Underground Stored flammables Heat stress < Once a year • Ventilation
Fire • Water
• Team procedures
Underground Stored flammables Burn < Once a year • Ventilation
Fire • Water
• Team procedures
Underground Poor visibility (smoke, lighting) Loss of Transport < Once a year • Team procedures Minor Rare Low
Fire Vehicles • Thermal Imaging Camera (TIC)
Underground Poor visibility (smoke, lighting) Trip, slip, fall Once a year • Team procedures Moderate Possible Med
Fire • TIC
Underground Poor visibility (smoke, lighting) Lost navigation Once a year • Team procedures Major Possible Med Incre
Fire • Current level plans ase
• Thorough briefing sign
• Signage age
Underground Poor visibility (smoke, lighting) Encounter with < Once a year • Team procedures Major Unlikely Med • Incre
Fire unseen risk sources • TIC ase
(i.e. unguarded • Current level plans signa
openings) • Thorough briefing ge
Underground Poor visibility (smoke, lighting) Team separation < Once a year • Training Minor Unlikely Low
Fire • Link lines
• TIC
• Guidelines
• Communication with radio
Underground Failed ground support Fall of ground < Once a year • Training in GC Minor Rare Low
Fire • Ground failure recognition training
• Common Core Training
• Scaling
Underground Failed ground support Limited access < Once a year • Training in GC Minor Rare Low
Fire • Ground failure recognition training
33 of
Sample Risk Register Example Sheet WSN Drillers Risk Assessment Workshop
A ‐ Example Sheet
Company: XYZ MINERALS INC. Site: XYZ SITE Team: MINE MANAGER, HEALTH & SAFETY DIRECTOR, MINE RESCUE TEAM MEMBER, OTHER Date: 20XX/XX/XX
ID Activity Risk Source Incident or Frequency of Controls Severity of Likelihood Risk Priority Recommended Controls Residual Risk Account. Completed
# Event Exposure Conseq. Assessment Date
(existing)
Elimination Substituti Engineering Admin. PPE
on /Isolation
Underground Failed ground support Change of < Once a year • Training in GC Minor Rare Low
Fire ventilation/services • Ground failure recognition training
Underground Energized Services Electric shock < Once a year • Training Major Rare Low
Fire • Team procedures
• Briefing
Underground Energized Services Rupture < Once a year • Training Moderate Rare Low
• Briefing
Underground Energized power, water, air Explosion < Once a year • Training Moderate Rare Low
• Briefing
Underground Energized power, water, air Noise < Once a year • Training Moderate Rare Low
• Briefing
• PPE (muffs)
Underground Tires Explosion Once a year • Training Moderate Unlikely Low
Fire • TIC
• Hazard awareness, refresher training
Underground Tires Flying Debris Once a year • Training Major Unlikely Med TIC for
Fire • TIC remote
• Hazard awareness, refresher training substations
Underground Tires Noise Once a year • Training Moderate Unlikely Low
Fire • Hazard awareness, refresher training
• PPE (muffs)
Underground Tires Concussion < Once a year • Training Moderate Unlikely Low
Underground Tires Burn < Once a year • Training Moderate Unlikely Low
Underground Excessive noise (localized) Loss of verbal Once a year Minor Rare Low
Fire communication
among team
Underground Excessive noise (localized) Loss of < Once a year Minor Rare Low
Fire communication with
Control Group
Underground Lost communications Loss of < Once a year • Training Moderate Rare Low
Fire (infrastructure) communication with • Procedures
Control Group
Underground Exceed mission duration O2 depletion < Once a year • Training Moderate Rare Low Site assessment for
Fire • Procedures travel
• Advance fresh air base distances
Underground Exceed mission duration Overexertion / < Once a year • Training Moderate Rare Low
Fire Fatigue • Procedures
34 of
APPENDIX F – MINE RESCUE RELATED

RESEARCH

Ontario Mine Rescue Related Research - Dr. Mary Waller and Dr. Glen Kenny
Mary Waller will be publishing her research findings relating to Team Dynamics relating to her 3-year
study of OMR teams in 2015. Her website is http://www.mjwaller.com.
LIFE ON THE EDGE: DYNAMIC BOUNDARY SPANNING IN MINE RESCUE TEAMS
Mary J. Waller
York University
mwaller@yorku.ca
Seth A. Kaplan
George Mason University
sethakap@gmu.edu
DRAFT
ABSTRACT
Research adopting an external perspective of team dynamics focuses on interactions between teams
and the contexts within which they are embedded. One area of this literature concerns boundary
spanning activities, during which team members interact with elements outside team boundaries on
behalf of the team. However, patterns of boundary spanning in extreme contexts, and particularly the
iteration by boundary-spanning team leaders between internal- and external-team communication have
received little research attention. In this study, we examine the activities of mine rescue team captains
as they work at the edge of the team boundary, leading rescue teams underground while interacting
with external above-ground sources during stressful, time-pressured rescue simulations. Through
pattern recognition analysis of data from digital audio recordings coupled with data from multiple
underground expert observers, we find that higher performing teams have leaders who serve as
information conduits, quickly adapting their interaction patterns to fit emergent situations. Our work
provides implications for both the extension of existing boundary spanning theories and for the
development of new theory concerning leader behavior in extreme contexts, along with direct practical
implications for teams and team leaders facing such challenges.

Mine Ventilation, D.C. Panigrahi (Ed.),
Proc. 9th International Mine Ventilation Congress,
India 2009 Oxford & IBH Publishing, ISBN:9788120417519
THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT MINING CLOTHING

ENSEMBLES ON BODY HEAT STORAGE AND CORE
TEMPERATURE REGULATION DURING PHYSICAL WORK
Hardcastle S.G.1, Kenny G.P.2, Stapleton J.2 and Allen C.3
1
CANMET-MMSL, Natural Resou7rces Canada, 1079 Kelly Lake Rd., Sudbury, Ontario,
P3E 5P5, Canada, shardcas@nrcan.gc.ca
2
School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Montpetit Hall, 125 University Ave.,
Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada, gkenny@uottawa.ca
3
Vale Inco, 18 Rink St., Copper Cliff, Ontario, P0M 1N0, Canada,
Cheryl.Allen@valeinco.com.
ABSTRACT
An assessment of the energy expenditure of various mining tasks in Canada’s deep mechanized metal
mines, and the current environmental conditions under which they are performed, indicates the
significant potential of evaporative cooling (of sweat) to protect workers. However, this process is
affected by the type of clothing, the extent of its coverage and the number of layers. In Canada,
it is not uncommon for underground miners to wear multiple layers of clothing which when combined
with personal protective equipment results in greater than 90% of the body being covered. This
significantly limits evaporation from open areas and can retard cooling elsewhere from the skin’s
surface. Recently, there have been trends towards the use of “sports” undergarments with enhanced
wicking properties and also away from coveralls without knowing the consequences to the worker.
To date, whole-body heat loss and changes in body heat content have been used to evaluate three
clothing configurations against a semi-nude control condition. The heat values, determined through
simultaneous direct whole-body and indirect calorimetry, were independent of core/skin
temperature monitoring. This paper only discusses some of the preliminary results as the work is still
on-going. The results to-date indicate the detrimental effects of clothing with time during both exercise
and recovery to total heat loss and that the “sports” undergarment had neither beneficial nor
detrimental effects despite being designed to promote the wicking of sweat.
KEYWORDS: Heat Stress, Clothing, Calorimetry, Heat Loss/Storage, Mining
http://securmine.net/img/Mine%20Rescue%20Heat%20Stress.pdf

Mine Ventilation, D.C. Panigrahi (Ed.),
Proc. 9th International Mine Ventilation Congress, India 2009
Oxford & IBH Publishing, ISBN:9788120417519
ASSESSING THE WORK INTENSITY OF MINE RESCUE

ACTIVITIES AND ITS RELEVANCE IN APPLYING HEAT
STRESS MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS
Hardcastle S.G.1 , Reardon F.D.2, Kenny G.P.2 and Allen C.3
1
CANMET MMSL, Natural Resources Canada, 1079 Kelly Lake Rd., Sudbury, Ontario,
P3E 5P5, Canada, shardcas@nrcan.gc.ca
2
School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Montpetit Hall, 125 University Ave.,
Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada, gkenny@uottawa.ca
3
Vale Inco, 18 Rink St, Copper Cliff, Ontario, P0M 1N0, Canada,
Cheryl.Allen@valeinco.com.
ABSTRACT
The metabolic heat production, as measured through indirect calorimetry, and the associated
changes in core and skin temperatures of mine rescue personnel were continuously monitored during
a simulated rescue in an underground mine. The purpose of the study was to target and analyze a
high intensity task to supplement data already gathered on more typical light to moderate mining
tasks. This data was being compiled to help design the test protocols for more rigorously controlled
heat stress research being performed in a climate controlled environmental chamber and the
Snellen whole-body calorimeter. The mine rescue assessment evaluated ten volunteers performing a
repeated exercise working as teams of five. The exercise which lasted on average 66 minutes,
involved carrying a weighted rescue-basket up an incline, installing pipe on a wall and descending the
incline. The task generated an average of 538 W of metabolic heat which was sufficient to cause the
average core temperature of the volunteers to increase continuously throughout the exercise from
37.31 to 38.14°C, this was despite the exercise being performed under cool environmental conditions
t.lb = 16.9°C and iwb = 14.9°C. In two individuals the core temperature exceeded 38.5°C. This study
shows, special consideration is required for monitoring mine rescue personnel because even in cool
shallow mines, a prolonged mine rescue task could cause core temperatures to exceed recognized
limits.
KEYWORDS: Heat Stress, Mine Rescue, Core Temperature, Indirect Calorimetry


APPENDIX G –REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Commission Reports:
1. “Report of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines.”
Recommendations of the Ham Commission, 1975.
(http://archive.org/stream/reportofroyworkmine00onta/reportofroyworkmine00onta_djvu.txt)
2. “Improving Ground Stability And Mine Rescue. The Report of the Provincial Inquiry into
Ground Control and Emergency Preparedness in Ontario Mines. “Recommendations Of The
Stevenson Inquiry, March 1986.
(http://www.mirarco.org/files/publications/Improving_Ground_Stability_and_Mine_Rescue.pdf)
3. “The Report of the Joint Federal-Provincial Inquiry Commission into Safety in Mines and Mining
Plants in Ontario.” Recommendations of the Burkett Commission, April
1981[http://search.library.utoronto.ca/search?N=0&Nr=p_author_corp_name:Joint%20Federal-
Provincial%20Inquiry%20Commission%20into%20Safety%20in%20Mines%20and%20Mining%20Plan
ts%20in%20Ontario%20\(Canada\)] .
4. “Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, The Sullivan Mine Accident Report, May
17, 2006.
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/HealthandSafety/Sullivan/Documents/Sullivan_Mine_Acci
dent_Report.PDF).
Regulations:
5. Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation 5/12 Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, 2012
under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (O.C. 2012-005)
(http://www.assembly.nl.ca/Legislation/sr/Regulations/rc120005.htm#top).
6. Nova Scotia (refer to part 4) Underground Mining Regulations made under Section 82 of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act S.N.S. 1996, c. 7 O.I.C. 2008-306 (June 3, 2008, effective
August 1, 2008), N.S. Reg. 296/2008 as amended to O.I.C. 2014-405 (Sept. 23, 2014, effective
Oct. 1, 2014), N.S. Reg. 144/2014
(http://www.novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/ohsmine.htm#TOC1_5)
7. Ontario Regulation 296/11, made under the Occupational Health and Safety Act Made: June 22,
2011, Filed: June 24, 2011, Published on e-Laws: June 28, 2011, Printed in The Ontario Gazette:
July 9, 2011, Amending Reg. 854 of R.R.O. 1990 (MINES AND MINING PLANTS) (Ontario see
Section 7) http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2011/elaws_src_regs_r11296_e.htm,.
8. Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 854, Mines and Mining Plants
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900854_e.htm#BK2.
9. Alberta Legislation relating to surface mines: Occupational Health and Safety Act, Occupational
Health and Safety Code, 2009. (http://work.alberta.ca/documents/WHS-LEG_ohsc_2009.pdf).

10. British Columbia Legislation relating to Surface Mines - Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for
Mines in British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Mining and
Minerals Division Victoria, British Columbia 2008.
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/HealthandSafety/Documents/HSRC2008.pdf
11. New Brunswick Legislation: New Brunswick Regulation 96-105 Under The Occupational Health
And Safety Act (O.C. 96-968) http://laws.gnb.ca/en/showdoc/cr/96-105/ga:l_v#anchorga:l_v
12. NWT Nunavut Legislation: Mine Health And Safety Regulations R-125-95 Mine Health And
Safety Regulations R-125-95
http://www.wcb.nt.ca/Employers/Forms/Documents/Mine_Health_and_Safety_Regs%20EN%2
0FR.pdf
13. Quebec Regulation Respecting Occupational Health and Safety in Mines an Act Respecting
Occupational Health and Safety (chapter S-2.1, ss. 223, 286, 294 and 310) O.C. 213-93; O.C.
1236-98, s.
http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=%
2F%2FS_2_1%2FS2_1R14_A.htm
14. Saskatchewan Legislation - The Mines Regulations, 2003
http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/english/Regulations/Regulations/O1-1r2.pdf
15. Manitoba The Workplace Safety and Health Act (C.C.S.M. c. W210) Operation of Mines
Regulation http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/current/212.11.pdf
Other Jurisdictions:
16. United States Department of Labour - Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, Title 30,
Code of Federal Regulations Part 49-Mine Rescue Teams http://www.msha.gov/30cfr/49.0.htm
17. Australia Emergency Response http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/model-whs-
laws/public-
comment/Documents/Mining%20Public%20Comment%202011/Draft%20Model%20Codes%20
of%20Practice%20for%20Public%20Comment/EmergencyResponse.pdf
18. Australia Harmonized Health and Safety Code of Practices.
http://www.comcare.gov.au/the_scheme/the_whs_act/codes_of_practice
19. Government of UK “Approved Code of Practice and Guidance relating to Escape and Rescue
from Mines” by virtue of Section 16(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
(http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l71.pdf)
Support Information:
20. WHSCC (Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission) Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mine Rescue Training Standard.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEcQFjAF&url=htt

p%3A%2F%2Fwww.whscc.nl.ca%2Fdownload.aspx%3FID%3Db61a96f2-e223-4826-a7d4-
8adc7a08ada8&ei=oJuDU5_iJ-ut8gHmwYDIBg&usg=AFQjCNE3mU6ATdqQK0HiBV4j31WzifHdhw
21. Handbook of Training in Mine Rescue and Recovery Operations
http://www.workplacesafetynorth.ca/products/mine-rescue-handbook
22. British Columbia Mine Rescue Manual
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/HealthandSafety/minerescue/Pages/manual.aspx.
23. Mine Ventilation, D.C. Panigrahi (Ed.), Proc. 9th International Mine Ventilation Congress, India
2009 Oxford & IBH Publishing, ISBN:9788120417519, The Influence of Different Mining Clothing
Ensembles on Body Heat Storage and Core Temperature Regulation During Physical Work.
Hardcastle S.G.1, Kenny G.P.2, Stapleton J.2 and Allen C.3
http://www.securmine.net/img/Clothing%20Tests%20Heat%20Stress.pdf
24. Mine Ventilation, D.C. Panigrahi (Ed.), Proc. 9th International Mine Ventilation Congress, India
2009 Oxford & IBH Publishing, ISBN:9788120417519, Assessing the Work Intensity of Mine
Rescue Activities and its Relevance in Applying Heat Stress Management Protocols.
Hardcastle S.G.1 Reardon F.D.2 Kenny G.P.2 and Allen C.3

Full Group - Working Copy - Mining Review Panel Report - January 13 2015 Rev 2 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Group - Working Copy - Mining Review Panel Report - January 13 2015 Rev 2 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MINING HEALTH, SAFETY AND

Experts: Jamie West, Vale Canada Limited/USW Local 6500, Co-Chair of

Mining Review Report – January 15, 2015, Rev. 2

Emergency Preparedness in the Ontario Mining Sector

Mining Review Report – January 15, 2015, Rev. 2

Appendix A - Emergency Responses ................................................................................................. 23

Mining Review Report – January 15, 2015, Rev. 2

January 15, 2015

Working Group Report

1.0 Scope of Work

• A summary of possible options for ensuring emergency preparedness, management and

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 1

3.0 Emergency Preparedness and Response Background

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 2

3.2 Surface Mine Rescue

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 3

4.2 Managing Risks Related to Emergency Preparedness

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 4

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 5

There currently is no specific legislated requirement to maintain an emergency response plan.

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 6

4.3 Rescue Challenges Associated With Expansive Mine

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 7

4.4 Ability to Respond

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 8

an effective written emergency response plan (Refer to Section 4.2.1 Managing

4.5 First Aid

4.6 Code of Practice

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 9

4.7 Fitness of Volunteers

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 10

4.8 Acclimation of Responders

4.9 Critical Incident Stress

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 11

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 12

4.10 Regulatory Requirements Surface Mines and Mining Plants

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 13

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 14

4.11 Mine Rescue Technical Advisory Committee.

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 15

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 16

4.13 Training Structure Capacity/Skill Competency

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 17

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 18

4.14 Training Program Structure and Delivery

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 19

4.15 Mine Rescue Competitions

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 20

4.16 Mine Rescue Funding

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 21

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1 Page | 22

APPENDIX A - EMERGENCY RESPONSES

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1

2012 0 21 15 0 1 5 5 0 10 23H 38M

2005 64 36 9 2 0 25 5 0 46 22H 58M

2003 119 38 9 6 1 22 30 1 48 28H 35M

2002 141 40 10 1 9 20 20 1 42 51H 15M

2001 92 34 10 1 6 17 0 0 53 87H 01M

2000 121 30 3 2 8 17 0 0 31 25H 03M

Mining Review Report – January 7, 2015, Rev. 1

APPENDIX B – TAC MEMBERS

Member Name Company

Mining Review Report – January 14, 2015, Rev. 2