SA TMM Chapter 8 Amendments (28 February 2015) TMM Collision Management Communications Pack for EMESRT Thys Greyvensteyn Way Forward 21 st February 2017 1
Chapter 8 Collision Management Amendments 27 February 2015..where there is a significant risk of such collisions Trackless mobile equipment must be provided with means:..to automatically detect the presence of pedestrians in UG, and equipment in Pits, to effectively warn the operator of such a presence Collision Awareness should already be implemented..and in the event where no action is taken to prevent potential collision, further means shall be provided to retard the trackless mobile machine to a safe speed where after the brakes of the diesel powered trackless mobile machine are automatically applied Collision Avoidance with a period of grace till technology is available 2
Likelihood..where there is a significant risk of such collisions Chapter 8 Amendments Significant Risk Significant Risk to be determined by each site through a risk assessment process 1. Only equipment with significant risk need to have PDS technologies fitted 2. Minimum requirements for equipment where there is significant risk Underground: At least Equipment to Pedestrian PDS technologies Opencast and Pits: Equipment to Equipment PDS technologies Otherwise reasonably practicable controls to reduce the risk from significant 3. Where no risk assessments have been completed all equipment may be required to be fitted with PDS technologies Definition of significant risk up to each site to define taking into account existing controls One possible example Consequence Level Insignificant Low Moderate High Major Time Frame Almost Certain 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 years Possible 4 (L) 8 (M) 13 (S) 18 (S) 22 (H) 3-10 years Unlikely 2 (L) 5 (L) 9 (M) 14 (S) 19 (S) 10-30 years Rare 1 (L) 3 (L) 6 (M) 10 (M) 15 (S) >30 years First Aid Case Medical Treatment Injury Lost Time Injury Single Fatality or TD Incident Multiple Fatality Incident 3
..where there is a significant risk of such collisions Trackless mobile equipment must be provided with means: Chapter 8 Amendments PDS Implementation Schedule..to automatically detect the presence of pedestrians (UG)/equipment (Pits) to effectively warn the operator of such a presence Collision Awareness should already be already implemented (May 2015)..and in the event where no action is taken to prevent potential collision, further means shall be provided to retard the trackless mobile machine to a safe speed where after the brakes of the diesel powered trackless mobile machine are automatically applied. Compromise: 1. UG Electrical Now. Technology already available 2. Underground Diesel new equipment purchased after June 2017 must be PDS ready OEM requirement for Collision Avoidance 3. Underground Diesel 2 years to June 2018 4. Opencast and Open Pits 3 years to June 2019 5. Surface (plants, concentrators, services, etc.) 3 years to June 2019 6. Grandfather clause 3.5 years to December 2019 4
Schedule July Mining Task Team proposals Aug Proposals committed to by CM&EE and CEOs Way Forward Under the MHSC Guidance Industry Projects to achieve the targets of: o UG Diesel June 2018 o Open Pits and Surface June 2019 Sept - TMM Task Team Adoption Sept MRAC Adoption Oct MH&SC Adoption Oct/Nov - Workshops to clarify the regulations o Note to industry for comment Communication schedule moving forward 10 Nov - Workshop with ASPASA to communicate the Way Forward 11 Nov am - Workshop with Industry, Inspectorate. Labour and Suppliers to communicate the Way Forward 11 Nov pm - Workshop with suppliers to clarify the DMR Technical Requirements Nov DMR and Principal Inspectors By Q1/2 2017 - Workshops in each of the 9 Province Tripartite Meetings to communicate the Way Forward Q1/2 2017 Meetings with all Suppliers and OEMs to clarify requirements and to understand their processes and dates 1. Analyse South African TMM incident statistics o Define the risk 2. Develop a South African TMM Risk Guideline o Inputs for Risk assessments 3. Technology Process Assessments of PDS Suppliers and OEMs 4. Developing industry User Requirements and Specifications o Leveraging work done to date o Leveraging EMESRT work o ISO Interoperability interface standard 5. Developing of a test capability for surface PDS solutions CoE project with the University of Pretoria 6. Coordination of pilots on all sites to develop the necessary technical solutions 7. Mining Task Team to coordinate, monitor and report on progress 5
1. Analysis of South African TMM Incidents Preliminary Results Objectives 1. To communicate industry incident data 2. To understand the industry statistics 3. To understand the hazards 4. To define the risks by: 1.By area (UG, Pits, Surface, etc.) 2.Equipment 3.Priority Unwanted Event (PUE) 6
Incident History 7
Data Selection Process 20,076 DMR Reported Incidents 1995-2015 2,017 DMR Incidents Analysed 1995 2015 442 collision TMM Completed to date 2000-2015 1,935 Above ground 2,104 Underground 242 Aboveground 200 Underground 1,155 Open-pit 780 Surface 621 UG Electric 1,483 UG Diesel 107 Open-pit 135 Surface 44 UG Electric 156 UG Diesel 2000 2013 partially complete (keyword filter) 2013 2015 fully complete (all reported incidents analysed) 8
Open Pit Example Significant Risk Sample Speed Scenario Priority Unwanted Event 9 (rev 1.7)
2. Development of a South African TMM Risk Guideline Objectives 1. To provide a guideline for input into risk assessments 2. A common understanding of the hazards, threats, controls and consequences By Area UG, Open Pits and Surface By Equipment By Threat 3. To give direction on significant risk 10
Levels of Control Design Guidelines Operational Discipline Controls Proximity Awareness Alerts the operator Proximity Detection Advises the operator Collision Avoidance Takes control from the operator 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 Work Area Controls for all equipment that could reduce significant risk and costs Technology Controls to address significant risk Regulation 8.10.1 and 8.10.2 11
Industry Incident Analysis Development of a South African TMM Risk Guideline June 2017 SA TMM Risk Guideline PUEs Priority Unwanted Events Threats Controls Consequences Hazards Risk Ratings Process Map Processes Hazards Site Baseline RA UEs PUEs Controls TMM Issue Based RA Significant Risk CM Strategy Controls Critical Controls Bowtie Threats Controls Consequences Collision Management Strategy to address significant risk Controls Control Effectiveness Procedures Standards COPs Training 12
Code 0307F1 0310C1 0308C4 Category Front end loader Forklift Haultruck Risk Rating V-P V-V V-E LoC 18 (S) 13 (S) 13 (S) 21 (H) 9 (M) 9 (M) 13 (S) 21 (H 13 (S) TMM Risk Guideline 1. On-line web based resource for SA industry 2. Organised by Equipment type Area 3. Listing combinations of: Unwanted Event Threats Preventative Controls Mitigation Controls Supportive Controls Consequences Weighted Risk 4. Site selects applicable combinations for use in their issue-base risk assessment 0308B1 LHD Unit 21 (H) 18 (S) 13 (S) 13
Use of inputs into the Site Risk Assessments Code Category Risk Rating V-P V-V V-E LoC 0307F1 Front end loader 18 (S) 13 (S) 13 (S) 0310C1 Forklift 21 (H) 9 (M) 9 (M) 0308C4 Haultruck 13 (S) 21 (H 13 (S) 0308B1 LHD Unit 21 (H) 18 (S) 13 (S) Risk Guideline Weighted Risk Site Risk Assessment Significant Risk PDS Strategy Site Controls
3. Technology Development Process Objectives 1. To ensure a rigorous development process is followed 2. To better understand the process steps & stage gates 3. To understand the maturity of the various technologies 4. To determine projected dates 15
Technology Development Process For PDS and OEMs Concept TRL 1-3 1 Research Development Demonstration 2 3 4 TRL 4-5 TRL 6 TRL 7 Commercial TRL 8-9 1. Understand User Requirements 2. Understand Regulatory Requirements 3. Understand the market 1. Develop User Requirements 2. Review alternatives 3. Identify technologies 4. Indicative Business Case 5. Development Strategy and Schedule 6. Development funding model 7. Model the requirements 8. Choose partner/s going forward 1. Design and build a prototype 2. Labscale Tests Go/Redesign Date - 1. Review User Requirements 2. Model the requirements 3. Define the specifications & deliverables 4. Confirm the Test Protocols 5. Update the Business Case 1. Design and build Prototype 2. Design Risk Assessments 3. Develop interface protocol and test 4. Test Prototype (on a machine in a test environment) Go/Redevelop Date - 1. Operational Risk Assessment 2. Confirm Test Protocols 3. Industrial Prototype (on multiple machines in a production test environment) DMR Technical File 1. Confirm User Requirements, KPIs and Business Case 2. Sign-off on exclusions 3. Update the simulation model with actual data 4. Confirm Deliverables and Test Protocols 5. Update design and rebuild if necessary 6. Review Design and Operational Risk Assessments 7. Operator, Maintenance and Training Manuals 8. Training 1. Production Demonstration Test (on multiple machines in a production environment) 2. Evaluate performance and Close-out Report Go/Demo again Date - 1. Update User Requirements 2. Sign-off on exclusions 3. Develop Commercial Plan 4. Develop Implementation Schedule 5. Define Operating Procedures and Training 6. Define Support Model Implement Date - Go/Redevelop Date - 16
In the past there appears to be a gap in input from End Users 1. Formal detailing of requirements 2. Sign-off on deliverables 3. Go/No Go decisions 4. Close-out Reports 5. Records Resulting in protracted unsuccessful pilots Technology Development Process End User Responsibilities Concept TRL 1-3 1 Research Development Demonstration 2 3 4 TRL 4-5 TRL 6 TRL 7 Commercial TRL 8-9 1. Understand User Requirements 2. Understand Regulatory Requirements 3. Understand the market 1. Develop User Requirements 2. Review alternatives 3. Identify technologies 4. Indicative Business Case 5. Development Strategy and Schedule 6. Development funding model 7. Model the requirements 8. Choose partner/s going forward 1. Design and build a prototype 2. Labscale Tests Go/Redesign Red End User input required 1. Review User Requirements 2. Model the requirements 3. Define the specifications & deliverables 4. Confirm the Test Protocols 5. Update the Business Case 1. Design and build Prototype 2. Design Risk Assessments 3. Develop interface protocol and test 4. Test Prototype (on a machine in a test environment) Go/Redevelop Date - 1. Operational Risk Assessment 2. Confirm Test Protocols 3. Industrial Prototype (on multiple machines in a production test environment) Go/Redevelop DMR Technical File 1. Confirm User Requirements, KPIs and Business Case 2. Sign-off on exclusions 3. Update the simulation model with actual data 4. Confirm Deliverables and Test Protocols 5. Update design and rebuild if necessary 6. Review Design and Operational Risk Assessments 7. Operator, Maintenance and Training Manuals 8. Training 1. Production Demonstration Test (on multiple machines in a production environment) 2. Evaluate performance and Close-out Report Go/Demo again 1. Update User Requirements 2. Sign-off on exclusions 3. Develop Commercial Plan 4. Develop Implementation Schedule 5. Define Operating Procedures and Training 6. Define Support Model Implement 17
Level of Effort, Skills, Competencies, Decision Making Pathway to L9 for UG Diesel Concept Lab Scale M-Machine S-Machine Demonstration L8 Demonstration L9 Demo L9 Commercialise L9 OEM Commercialise L9 PDS Complexity Step Change Production and Management Complexity Step Change Technical Multiple Machine Concept Lab Scale S-Machine Concept M-Machine S-Machine Lab Scale Demonstration Commercialise L7 - Awareness Target June 2018 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 End 2017 18
Level of Effort, Skills, Competencies, Decision Making Pathway to L9 for Surface Concept Lab Scale M-Machine S-Machine Demonstration L8 Demonstration L9 Demo L9 Commercialise L9 OEM Commercialise L9 PDS Complexity Step Change Production and Management Complexity Step Change Technical Multiple Machine Concept Lab Scale S-Machine Concept M-Machine S-Machine Lab Scale Demonstration Commercialise L7 - Awareness Target June 2019 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 2017 End 201819
Level of Compliance Monitoring Industry Technology Maturity To achieve UG Diesel L9 by June 2018 To achieve Open Pit/Opencast by June 2019 High Med Low Not Yet Supplier 20
Underground Electric Rtg Scenario PUE Speed %WR 0.5 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 Stationary 5% 1.0 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 Stationary 10% 3.5 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 0-3 35% 4.0 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 0-3 40% 8.0 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 3-10 80% 9.0 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 3-10 90% 9.1 R1-Swing PUE2 <3 >90% 9.2 L1-Head-on PUE2 <10 >92% 9.4 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 <10 >94% 9.6 L3-Backup PUE2 <10 >96% 9.8 L4-Dovetailing PUE2 <10 >98% 9.9 L8-Blind Approach PUE2 <10 >99% Underground Diesel Rtg Scenario PUE Speed %WR 0.5 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 Stationary 5% 1.0 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 Stationary 10% 2.0 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 0-3 20% 2.5 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 0-3 25% 6.0 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 3-10 60% 7.5 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 3-10 75% 8.0 L1-Head-on PUE2 <10 80% 8.5 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 <10 >84% 8.7 L3-Backup PUE2 <10 >86% 8.8 L4-Dovetailing PUE2 <10 >88% 9.0 L8-Blind Approach PUE2 <10 >90% 9.2 T4-Intersection PUE2 <10 >92% 9.6 O1-Obstacle PUE3 <10 >96% 9.8 O1-Obstacle PUE3 10-30 >98% 9.9 V4-Loss of Control PUE4 <30 >99% Open Cut Rtg Scenario PUE Speed %WR Rating for PDS Suppliers 0.5 L1-Head-on PUE2 <10 5% 0.7 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 <10 7% 1.0 L3-Backup PUE2 <10 10% 1.5 L4-Dovetailing PUE2 <10 15% 2.0 L8-Blind Approach PUE2 <10 20% 2.3 T3-Junction PUE2 <10 23% 2.5 T4-Intersection PUE2 <10 25% 3.0 L1-Head-on PUE2 10-30 30% 3.5 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 10-30 35% 4.0 L3-Backup PUE2 10-30 40% 4.5 L4-Dovetailing PUE2 10-30 45% 5.0 L8-Blind Approach PUE2 10-30 50% 6.0 T3-Junction PUE2 10-30 60% 6.5 T4-Intersection PUE2 10-30 65% 7.0 O1-Obstacle PUE3 0-3 70% 8.0 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 0-3 80% 8.5 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 0-3 85% 9.5 V4-Loss of Control PUE4 <30 95% 9.9 L1-L8 PUE2 30-55 99% Surface Rtg Scenario PUE Speed %WR 1.0 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 Stationary 10% 2.0 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 Stationary 20% 3.0 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 0-3 30% 4.0 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 0-3 40% 5.0 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 3-10 50% 6.0 P3-Person (indirect) PUE1 3-10 60% 7.0 O1-Obstacle PUE3 0-3 70% 8.0 L1-Head-on PUE2 <10 80% 8.5 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 <10 85% 9.5 V4-Loss of Control PUE4 <30 >95% 21
Level 7 Rating for PDS Suppliers Scenario PUE Speed (km/h) TRL1-3 Concept TRL4-5 Lab Scale TRL6.1 Confirme d Rating Confirme d Rating Confirme d 1-Machine Trial TRL6.2 M-Machine Trial TRL7 Demo Trial TRL8-9 Implement Date Date Date Date Date Date L1 L1-Head-on PUE2 0-3 Y 10,0 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 - L1 L1-Head-on PUE2 3-10 Y 0,0 Y 0,0 Y 0,0 - - L2 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 0-3 Y 0,2 Y 0,2 Y 0,2 - - L2 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 3-10 Y 0,0 Y 0,0 Y 0,0 Y 0,0 - L3 L3-Backup PUE2 0-3 Y 0,3 - - - - L3 L3-Backup PUE2 3-10 Y 0,0 - - - - L4 L4-Dovetailing PUE2 0-3 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 - - L4 L4-Dovetailing PUE2 3-10 Y 0,0 - - - - L8 L8-Blind Approach PUE2 0-3 Y 0,5 - - - - L8 L8-Blind Approach PUE2 3-10 Y 0,0 Y 0,0 - - - T3 T3-Junction PUE2 0-3 Y 0,3 Y 0,3 Y 0,3 Y 0,3 - T3 T3-Junction PUE2 3-10 Y 0,0 Y 0,0 - - - T4 T4-Intersection PUE2 0-3 - - - - - T4 T4-Intersection PUE2 3-10 - - - - - L1 L1-Head-on PUE2 10-30 - - - - - L2 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 10-30 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 - - - L3 L3-Backup PUE2 10-30 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 - - - L4 L4-Dovetailing PUE2 10-30 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 - - - L8 L8-Blind Approach PUE2 10-30 Y 0,5 Y 0,5 - - - T3 T3-Junction PUE2 10-30 Y 1,0 Y 1,0 - - - T4 T4-Intersection PUE2 10-30 Y 0,5 - - - - O1 O1-Obstacle PUE3 0-3 Y 0,5 - - - - P1 P1-Person (direct) PUE1 0-3 - - - - - P3 P3-Person (indirect PUE1 0-3 - - - - - V4 V4-Loss of Control PUE4 0-3 - - - - - V4 V4-Loss of Control PUE4 3-10 - - - - - V4 V4-Loss of Control PUE4 10-30 - - - - - L1 L1-Head-on PUE2 30-55+ - - - - - L2 L2-Reverse-on PUE2 30-55+ - - - - - L3 L3-Backup PUE2 30-55+ - - - - - L4 L4-Dovetailing PUE2 30-55+ - - - - - L5 L5-Passing Head-on PUE2 30-55+ - - - - - L6 L6-Passing Reverse PUE2 30-55+ - - - - - L7 L7-Overtaking PUE2 30-55+ - - - - - L8 L8-Blind Approach PUE2 30-55+ - - - - - TF1 TF1-Technical File - - - - 10,0 6,3 4,5 1,5 0,8 0,0 Rating Confirme d Rating Confirme d Rating Confirme d Rating 22
Not Intelligent Intelligence Intelligence Not Intelligent Action Speed (km/h) Motion Inhibit Stationary Slowdown 0-3 Controlled Stop 0-3 Slowdown 3-10 Controlled Stop 3-10 Slowdown 10-30 Slowdown 30-55+ Controlled Stop 10-30 Technical File - Motion Inhibit Stationary Slowdown 0-3 Controlled Stop 0-3 Slowdown 3-10 Controlled Stop 3-10 Slowdown 10-30 Slowdown 30-55+ Controlled Stop 10-30 Technical File - Rating for OEMs Action Speed (km/h) TRL1-3 Concept TRL4-5 Lab Scale TRL6.1 Confirme d Rating Confirme d Rating Confirme d 1-Machine Trial TRL6.2 M-Machine Trial TRL7 Demo Trial TRL8-9 Implement Confirme d Confirme d Date Date Date Date Date Motion Inhibit Stationary Y 10,00 Y 1,25 - - - - Slowdown 0-3 Y 1,25 Y 1,25 Y 1,25 Y 1,25 - Controlled Stop 0-3 Y 1,25 Y 1,25 Y 1,25 - - Slowdown 3-10 Y 1,25 Y 1,25 - - - Controlled Stop 3-10 Y 1,25 - - - - Slowdown 10-30 N - - - - Slowdown 30-55+ N - - - - Controlled Stop 10-30 N - - - - Technical File - - - 10,0 6,3 3,8 2,5 1,3 0,0 Date Date Date Date Date Motion Inhibit Stationary Y 10,00 Y 1,25 Y 1,25 Y 1,25 - - Slowdown 0-3 Y 1,25 - - - - Controlled Stop 0-3 Y 1,25 - - - - Slowdown 3-10 N - - - - Controlled Stop 3-10 N - - - - Slowdown 10-30 N - - - - Slowdown 30-55+ - - - - - Controlled Stop 10-30 - - - - - Technical File - - - 10,0 3,8 1,3 1,3 0,0 0,0 Rating Rating Confirme d Rating Rating 23
4. Industry User Requirements and Specifications Objectives 1. A common understanding of the requirements Do we know what we want? 2. To align sites, PDS Suppliers and OEMs 3. Direction for procurement departments Know what we get 24
Industry User Requirements and Specifications June 2017 ISO 21815 Collision awareness and avoidance Terminology (Level 7-8-9) Performance criteria On-board Communications Interface 25
System Behaviours Performance Requirements June 2017 Equipment Testing Criteria Stopping Distances System Performance 26
Industry Standard utilising existing Body of Knowledge (RP 35) Levels of Control Technology Development Cycle Scenarios PDS Supplier Technology Readiness Stakeholders Specifications Industry Interoperability Protocol Protocol Development Schedule Q1 2017 ISO Standard (2018-2019) 27
5. Establish a Surface CMS simulation and test capability Objectives 1. To build capacity in South Africa 2. Establish a simulation capability to verify CMS requirements 3. Establish a capability to test surface CMS solutions against set specifications 4. Further communication to follow 28
5. Establish a Surface PDS simulation and test capability CoE Project with University of Pretoria 29
6. Monitoring of the Pilots Objectives 1.To understand who is testing what 2.Rationalising the number of pilots 3.To communicate the results 4.To facilitate where there are issues 5.To accelerate the programmes 30
Monitoring of the Pilots COMPANY MINE REPRESENTATIVE ENGINE S TYPE Anglo American Mogalakwe na Thys Greyvensteyn 082 871 7617 thys.greyvensteyn@angloamerican.c om 2. ECU equippe d engines Anglo American Coal Thys Greyvensteyn 082 871 7617 3. BOTH 1&2 thys.greyvensteyn@angloamerican.c om Anglo American Bathopele Thys Greyvensteyn 082 871 7617 3. BOTH 1&2 thys.greyvensteyn@angloamerican.c om Anglo American Sishen Thys Greyvensteyn 082 871 7617 thys.greyvensteyn@angloamerican.c om 2. ECU equippe d engines AngloGold Mponeng Richard Mack 3. BOTH 083 446 6010 1&2 RSMack@AngloGoldAshanti.com AngloGold Mponeng Richard Mack 1. Non 083 446 6010 RSMack@AngloGoldAshanti.com ECU equippe d engines AngloGold Mponeng Richard Mack 2. ECU equippe d engines TMM OEM Komatsu/ Caterpillar NEW/OLD TYPE MACHINE PDS SUPPLIER MINING LAYOUT Old and New Schauenburg Open Cast Sandvik LHD Old and New Strata U/g Room and pillar Atlas/ Sandvik Old and New Schauenburg Bord and Pillar Komatsu Old and new Safemine Opencast Atlas Old and New Schauenburg U/g Development Fermel Old Schauenburg U/g Development Manitou New Schauenburg U/g Development 31
7. Industry Coordination Objectives 1. To align the industry 2. To monitor progress 3. To pre-empt issues 4. To remind stakeholders on commitments 5. To ensure this issue remains on the radar 32
CM&EE Task Team 1. Harmony 2. Kumba 3. Anglo Coal 4. Petra Diamonds 5. South 32 6. AGA Industry Coordination CM&EE Task Team Responsibilities 1. Meet Quarterly 2. Coordinate the Way Forward 3. To sensitise and influence the industry 4. Influence the PDS industry 5. Influence the OEMs to commit 6. Coordinate the projects Incident analysis Risk Guidelines Development stage-gate process & technology maturity Industry standards CoE Testing Facility Coordinate pilots 7. Report to the progress to TMM Task Team, Industry and CEOs 8. Ensuring industry is ready for implementation 7. Lonmin 8. Royal Bafokeng 9. De Beers 10. Anglo American 11. Glencore 12. Sasol 13. ASPASA 33
Project Schedule 1. Incident Analysis Collect Data Draft Analysis Update Analysis 2. TMM Risk Guideline Open Pit pilot in Excel Industry comments Design Web Tool Develop Web Tool Open Pit Underground Diesel Underground Electric Surface Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 3. Technology Process Assessment Develop & Test process Evaluate PDS Suppliers Evaluate OEMs Feedback 4. Industry User Requirements Develop User Requirements Industry Consultation Publish EMESRT Interface Protocol 5. CMS Test Facility Develop CMS Simulation Develop CMS Test Capability Setting up Testing Facilities Testing of CMS Solutions 6. Project Monitoring 7. Coordination 34
Thankyou Thys Greyvensteyn Greyvensteynthys@gmail.com +27 (0) 82 871 7617 35