PDS COLLISION AVOIDANCE AACSA UNDERGROUND IMPLEMENTATION LEARNINGS

Transcription

1 PDS COLLISION AVOIDANCE AACSA UNDERGROUND IMPLEMENTATION LEARNINGS Coal South Africa - 11 June 2015 Prepared for the SACEA Workshop 1

2 PDS BACKGROUND NEW DENMARK EXAMPLE SUCCESSES CHALLENGES AACSA COLLISION MANAGEMENT RISK PROCESS 2

3 PROXIMITY DETECTION SYSTEM (PDS) UG OVERVIEW PDS CW : Proximity Detection System Collision Warning PDS CA : Proximity Detection System Collision Avoidance A system fitted to Trackless Mobile Machines (TMMs) & cap lamps that is able to warn both operator and pedestrian of the presence of each other. Also known as PAT PDS CW + The system is interfaced to the machine to slow down or stop the TMM if the pedestrian is within the boundaries of defined slow down or stop zones created around the machine. Also known as CAT 3

4 WHY DO WE NEED PDS? In line with AA vision of Zero harm Forms part of AA fatality prevention framework AACSA believes PDS will assist in preventing fatalities in the mining industry, but: Note: PDS regulations were gazetted on 28 February 2015, effective 28 May 2015 Mining houses are required to make presentations to regional PI s by 28 May 2015 It needs to be introduced in a sustainable manner based on risk It is the last line of defence. Guard against complacency AACSA presented our risk based strategy to the PI on 31 March

5 PDS BACKGROUND NEW DENMARK EXAMPLE SUCCESSES CHALLENGES AACSA COLLISION MANAGEMENT RISK PROCESS 5

6 NEW DENMARK PDS IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW In 2013 NDC had 2 fatalities and 3 serious LTIs related to mobile machinery Chosen as the AACSA pilot site for PDS implementation & MOSH best practice adoption PDS implementation commenced in November 2013, alongside the introduction of AACSA critical controls in 2014 Outcome: NDC has gone > 18 months without a mobile machinery injury NDC had the best safety record in AACSA for

7 NEW DENMARK PDS IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW Implementation of PDS over a period of 8 months (within time, budget & with ZERO harm): 36 Mobile machines were equipped with Collision avoidance (CM, BH, RB) 75 Mobile machines were equipped with Collision warning 3 Lamp rooms and 1,600 lamps were converted AACSA change overs are unique Mitigating the risk of moving from a PDS CW supplier to a PDS CA supplier Stepped approach used successfully for implementation and Commissioning (Next slide) 7

8 TYPICAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE EXAMPLE Section 1 + UG lamp room Section 2 Section 3 + UG lamp room Section 4 Section 5 + UG lamp room Section 6 Lamproom conversion LHDs (Collision Warning) Preparation Installation Cold commission Hot commission Live PDS 8

9 PDS BACKGROUND NEW DENMARK EXAMPLE SUCCESSES CHALLENGES AACSA COLLISION MANAGEMENT RISK PROCESS 9

10 PDS SUCCESSES ZERO harm implementation at NDC and Zibulo (Implementation & Risk mitigation going from CW supplier to CA supplier) 15 Sections and a total of > 75 machines on full Collision avoidance Strict requirements, thorough testing and quick operational feedback has allowed early detection of issues for PDS suppliers to correct Method of using a project team across all operations Allowed alignment and a single standard of implementation and management 10

11 PDS SUCCESSES MOSH ADOPTION 1 - Find out how people feel about PDS. Create awareness & understanding 2 - Identify the people that can make or break adoption 3 - Leverage existing trust with the workforce. Create new trust 4 - Communicate the process to all in order to lay the foundation for change 5 - Leadership adoption & drive is the basis for sustainability 11

12 PDS SUCCESSES IMPLEMENTATION JOURNEY PDS CA - SECTIONS (HIGH RISK EQUIPMENT) NUMBER OF SECTIONS 8 7 PDS CW - LHDs NUMBER OF LHDs [VALUE] Sections 97 New Denmark Zibulo Goedehoop Greenside Kriel Total Q Q Q Q Q Planned completion periods for PDS implementation 12

13 PDS BACKGROUND NEW DENMARK EXAMPLE SUCCESSES CHALLENGES AACSA COLLISION MANAGEMENT RISK PROCESS 13

14 PDS CHALLENGES TO BE AWARE OF (UNDERGROUND) 1. Diesel CA PDS challenges (UG) 3. Complacency (Potential) 2. Interference 14

15 1. DIESEL CHALLENGES Successful CA testing means: Results are repeatable Safe stopping under all conditions and speeds Reliability of Diesel OEM stopping mechanism is proven Ripple risks are known and have been addressed (Incline roll back) Safe and practical field sizes can be obtained CA activation on Diesel machines are more complex: Older Engines and Transmissions Speeds of operation differs from electrical machines Delays in activation of stopping mechanism (Hydraulic) Impacts stopping distances 15

16 2.INTERFERENCE CHALLENGES Power source interference (Affects communication) Structural interference GDIs and Other battery sources Metal affects field size Propagation interference Braided hoses affects field sizes VSD interference creating signal amplifier False signals Transformers Welding machines Frequency interference Emitted (VSD) Transmitted (Radios) Affect of PDS on other systems (Magnetic field generators) Detonators (Detonators to comply with SANS 1717) Most PDS technologies are based on magnetic field generation. All PDS suppliers using VLF systems are susceptible to interference 16

17 3. COMPLACENCY CHALLENGES Collision Management - Control Levels Years - Weeks Days - Seconds ms 1. Site Requirements 2. Segregation Controls 3. Operating Procedures 4. Authority to Operate 5. Fitness to Operate 6. Operating compliance 7. Operator Awareness 8. Advisory Controls 9. Intervention Controls Equipment specifications, standards, mine design/plans Berms, pit access control, traffic segregation SOP s (9x9), maintenance, road rules, lock out Training, licences, induction, access control Fatigue state, drug & alcohol, medicals Pre-start, safety tests, machine health, event recordings Cameras, live maps, mirrors, lights, visible delineators Alerts: Proximity, Fatigue, Over-speed, Vehicle stability Interlocks: Prevent Start, Slow down-stop 17

18 3. COMPLACENCY CHALLENGES 18

19 COMPLACENCY CHALLENGES Adding PDS CA reduces risk of an incident occurring PDS CA cannot be the first or only layer Need a full collision management system ZERO HARM 19

20 3. COMPLACENCY CHALLENGE If any of the layers are removed Risk increases PDS cannot be the only or first line of defence 20

21 PDS BACKGROUND NEW DENMARK EXAMPLE SUCCESSES CHALLENGES AACSA COLLISION MANAGEMENT RISK PROCESS 21

22 PDS COLLISION AVOIDANCE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT Factors taken into consideration to determine risk related to specific equipment. The same process is followed for opencast: Data set of injuries spanning 5 years ( ) AACSA data (HPI,FAC, MTC, LTI, Fatality) DMR data (Reportable LTI, Fatality) Determining local object and remote object Determine direction of travel Determine speed (Slow, Medium, Fast) Evaluate severity and potential severity of each incident 22

23 PDS COLLISION AVOIDANCE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT Follow a risk process to determine the likelihood of re-occurrence taking current controls into consideration Determine and group potential route causes and contributing factor Other considerations (Weight, Operating environment) Evaluate scenarios (Traveling around corners, Pulling etc.) A weighted risk process (ISO19014) + consideration of other factors above + evaluation of current controls drives the decision: Where should collision avoidance be installed and activated 23

24 INCIDENT ANALYSIS DMR DATA 2,827 Machinery accidents (S/F &U/G) DMR DATA Remove Rail, nonmechanized, Long wall etc. 578 U/G & 255 S/F 112 REPORTABLE ACCIDENTS U/G S/F Remove incidents not covered by Collision management: Hand caught (RB) Slipped accessing 30 ELECT 82 DIESEL 77 DIESEL INCIDENTS SCENARIO EVALUATION RISK EVALUATION 24

25 INCIDENT ANALYSIS SCENARIO EVALUATION AACSA DATA DMR DATA INCIDENTS SCENARIO EVALUATION RISK EVALUATION 25

26 SCENARIO EVALUATION OUTCOME - DMR Vehicle Person Vehicle Vehicle/Obstacle Vehicle Loss of control 54,1% of Industry risk 4,0% of Industry risk 41,9% of Industry risk PDS PDS PDS Industry data is based on DMR data (Reportable incidents) across all commodities 26

27 PROCESS TO DETERMINE WEIGHTED RISK Consequence Level Insignificant Minor Moderate High Major Injury to Personnel Type of Consequence Damage to Equipment Code Description Code Description FAC MTI LTI SFI MFI First Aid Case Medical Treatment Injury Lost Time Injury Single Fatality Incident Multiple Fatality Incident HPI- Minor HPI- Low HPI- Mod HPI- High HPI- Major Minor Damage Low Damage Moderate Damage High Damage Major Damage Risk Priority Number (Part 1 of ISO standard ) P x E x S x N = RPN P = Probability S = Severity E = Exposure N = Number of Persons Likelihood Almost Certain Consequence Level Insignificant Minor Moderate High Major Time Frame 11 (M) 16 (S) 20 (S) 23 (H) 25 (H) <1 year Likely 7 (M) 12 (M) 17 (S) 21 (H) 24 (H) 1-3 yrs Possible 4 (L) 8 (M) 13 (S) 18 (S) 22 (H) 3-10 yrs Unlikely 2 (L) 5 (L) 9 (M) 14 (S) 19 (S) yrs Rare 1 (L) 3 (L) 6 (M) 10 (M) 15 (S) >30 yrs Equipment HPI-Minor HPI-Low HPI-Mod HPI-High HPI-Major Personnel FAC MTI LTI SFI MFI PxExSxN Probability (P) Weighted Risk Exposure x Number of Persons (ExN) Severity (S) INCIDENTS SCENARIO EVALUATION RISK EVALUATION 27

28 THANK YOU CONTACT DETAILS: Quintin Coetzee AACSA PDS Project Manager