Maintaining a Stability Safety Case in Seismically Active Mines - RASIM 2022

In Australia, Safe Work legislation requires mines to have a documented ‘Safety Case’ explaining how a mine will safely manage all major hazards. A similar requirement is legislated or inferred by regulation in all jurisdictions. For small scale, instabilities leading to day-to-day seismic hazards, a ‘Stability Safety Case’ built around observational methods and measurement triggered responses can be effective because adverse situations are easily identified and the costs of lower control measures are not onerous. Also, if the influence of a volume of yield on the mine load system is small, the response of the system will be more predictable. However, for episodes of large scale mine instability, the hazard derives from the widespread, multi component influence of the event on the mine load system. As the system response depends on interactions between many parts, the resolution of predictions will be lower and situations can arise without local precedent. Further, as episodes of large scale instability change the stiffness and nature of the connectedness between parts of the mine load system, the behavior of the system before the event will be a poor empirical basis for forecasts of event related hazards. Most importantly, Triggered Action Response Plans (TARPs) and ‘traffic light’ warning systems cannot make design choices or identify new hazard phenomena. They are ‘lower’ control measures targeting explicit human-made instability hypotheses. As such, the Safety Cases related to management of hazard from potential large scale seismic events and mine instability cannot rely solely on TARPs. Mines that successfully manage meaningful dynamic instability always acknowledge the ultimate reliance on expert human intuition, knowledge and imagination to appreciate the range of possible hazard scenarios, to make stability hypotheses and propose solutions. Complex analysis, TARPs and measurements are critical steps in the human decision cycle, but only support the making and testing of ‘Stability Hypotheses’ made by expert engineers. Relying on expert skill and judgement as essential components of a Safety Case, however essential, introduces human vulnerabilities. Another challenge is that the expert decision making process is hard to document. Beck et al 2019 first described an organizational and procedural framework for maintenance of an ongoing large-scale ‘Stability Safety Case' where a degree of expert judgement and imagination is needed to manage a seismically active mine. The structured data appreciation process outlined sufficient measurements, analysis and appreciation to confirm the stability state of the mine and was applicable to all underground mines. After several years of implementation in various forms in stoping, caving and room and pillar mines, this update addresses lessons learned and describes some considerations for numerical forecasting to establish a base case, and some challenges for empirical hazard identification.