Microsoft Word LeonreportVo doc

COMMISSION
  
OF
  
INQUIRY
  
INTO
  
SAFETY
  
AND
  
HEALTH
  
IN
  
THE
  
MINING
  
INDUSTRY 
 
172 
 
Such specificity ages quickly, it is unlikely to be suitable in all conditions and often retards 
progress.  Hence, its proper place is in the manager’s code which can be changed rapidly if 
improvement is desired.  However, in Recommendation 12.1.4 (and also in Section 10.5.1) one of 
the five principles listed as follows: 
 
“..the support rule should be based on the best available knowledge and experience, and 
should include the use of hydraulic props at prescribed densities;” 
 
In my view the second part of the statement should be replaced by the following: “…and should 
include the use of the best practicable support and support density appropriate for the site;”. (The 
underlined words represent my changes.) The prescription of particular support means and/or 
density belongs to the manager’s code. 
 
ORGANISATION OF THE MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTORATE 
 
Recommendations 12.2.1 to 12.2.15 and the whole of Chapter 11 deals with the organisation and 
the structure of the MHSI.  The recommendations contained here are all prescriptive.  Little or no 
room is provided for any deviation.  I am not familiar with the duties and responsibilities of the 
Inspectorate sufficiently intimately to feel comfortable with such a dogmatic set of 
recommendations. A life time of experience suggests, however, that local conditions and 
requirements often circumscribe the manner in which an institution can be structured. Also, I 
venture to add that the input of the current managers into the plans for re-organisation is usually 
valuable and often essential. 
 
There are a number of points in the recommendations that especially worry me: 
 
*  While the high level of qualifications and experience specified (Section 11.1.8 & 11.1.10) would 
be ideal and desirable, these goals may not be achievable in South Africa today. Furthermore, 
the wholesale importation of foreign mining engineers (who are unfamiliar with conditions in 
South Africa and lack hard rock mining experience), as Principal or Senior Inspectors, is not an 
acceptable solution. Thus, we can indicate the ideal, but the actual solution will have to be found 
by the people who will have the responsibility to reorganise the Inspectorate. 
 
*  I am in full agreement with the notion that the intensity and frequency of mine inspections 
should be linked strongly to the frequency of accidents and health violations experienced by the 
various mines and quarries.  I am not convinced, however, that the establishment of the two tiers 
Inspectorate (where the lower tier is a quarry inspectorate) is an appropriate part of the solution 
of the problem (Recommendation 12.2.2).  While this scheme appears to have worked well in 
Great Britain, it may not be ideal in South Africa, where the country’s geography and the nature 
(that is type, size etc.) of its surface mining operations are very different. 
 
*  In Recommendation 12.2.9 (see also Section 11.1.11) the opportunity is provided for the 
employment of twelve Assistant Inspectors and twelve Sub Inspectors.  While this proposal 
appears to open the door, the rigid requirements of high academic qualifications and recent 
mining experience at a senior level seem to restrict the advancement of these persons. 
 
I suggest, therefore, that it would be prudent to treat the organisational structure proposed in 
Chapter 11 as an illustrative example of the desired goal and not as the blueprint for the new South 
African Mine Safety and Health Inspectorate.” 

---

COMMISSION
  
OF
  
INQUIRY
  
INTO
  
SAFETY
  
AND
  
HEALTH
  
IN
  
THE
  
MINING
  
INDUSTRY 
 
173 
 
 
APPENDICES TO VOLUME 1 
 
INDEX 
 
APPENDIX 
 CONTENTS 
     PAGE 
 
1. 
 
List of Organisations and Persons who submitted  
  Written 
Representations 
    174 
 
2. 
 
List of Witnesses who gave Oral Evidence and 
 
 
the Location of the Evidence in the Transcript. 
 
175 
 
3. 
 
List of Exhibits handed in to the Commission 
 
178 
 
4. 
List of Members of the Chamber of Mines of South 
Africa 
(April 
1994). 
     182 
 
5. 
Standards of Accommodation in Bylaws of the City of  
Johannesburg. 
      184 
 
6. 
 
Comparison of Remuneration Packages in Mine 
  Management 
and 
in 
the 
Inspectorate 
Graph 
  186 
 
7. 
 
Further comments relating to health matters in 
  existing 
legislation. 
     187 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

---

COMMISSION
  
OF
  
INQUIRY
  
INTO
  
SAFETY
  
AND
  
HEALTH
  
IN
  
THE
  
MINING
  
INDUSTRY 
 
174 
 
APPENDIX 1 
 
THE FOLLOWING ORGANISATIONS AND PERSONS SUBMITTED WRITTEN 
REPRESENTATIONS: 
 
 
The Chamber of Mines 
The National Union of Mineworkers 
Western Platinum Limited 
S A National Group of Rock Mechanics 
Ergotech 
Mr M R A Göllner 
MAC Performance Consulting 
Council of Mining Unions 
Mineworker’s Unions 
S A Society of Occupational Health Nurses 
NOSA - Mining Division 
W C H Dobbin 
SASOL 
Mine Site Technologies 
S A National Committee on Illumination 
Mr P P Nyakane 
Underground Official’s Association of South Africa 
Hallback & Braun S A (Pty) Ltd. 
Mr H F du Toit 
ASPASA (Sand Producers) 
Underground Railway Association 
Mr J J Kruger 
Cemtec Mining Products 
Mr B J Smith 
National Productivity Institute 
Mr Richard Spoor of Watters & Co. 
(on behalf of Chemical Workers Industrial Union) 
DMEA 
NPI 
ESKOM 
SASOHN 
NOSA 
Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation Ltd. 
Council for Nuclear Safety 
The Mine Ventilation Society of South Africa 
Mine Medical Officers Association of South Africa 
SGS South Africa (Pty) Ltd. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

---