The road and traffic management code for WA mines is currently a draft code of practice, not law. WorkSafe WA has released a draft Code of Practice on road and traffic management at Western Australian mines for public consultation, and as of 2026 it has not been finalised or approved. That distinction matters: your legal duties for haul roads, light vehicles and pedestrian interaction already sit in the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA) and the Work Health and Safety (Mines) Regulations 2022. The draft code signals where the regulator’s expectations are heading, so preparing now is sensible even though nothing new is yet enforceable.

The WA regulatory picture

Since the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA) and the Work Health and Safety (Mines) Regulations 2022 commenced, WA mine operators work under a duty to have a Mine Safety Management System (MSMS) and to manage principal mining hazards. Vehicle and mobile plant interaction is one of those principal hazards, and roads sit squarely inside it. You can read more about that duty in our guide to the vehicle interaction principal hazard.

A machinery-of-government change has also shifted who you deal with. The mines-safety regulator moved into the Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration (DMPE), created on 1 July 2025 from the former DEMIRS. That transition was still being implemented through to early 2026, so branding, contact points and some published guidance may have changed. Check the current regulator page at the time you are reading this, rather than relying on an older bookmark.

The key point about a code of practice: once it is approved, it is admissible in court as evidence of what is reasonably practicable to manage a risk. It is not the only way to comply, and a duty-holder can meet the same obligation by another method that achieves an equivalent or better standard. But an approved code becomes a practical benchmark that inspectors and courts will measure you against. The draft code does not yet carry that weight.

What the draft road and traffic management code covers

The WA draft code of practice on road and traffic management pulls together guidance for how vehicles, mobile plant and people share the ground on a mine site. Because it is a draft under consultation, the detail can still change and specific clause references are not settled, so treat the themes below as the direction of travel rather than fixed requirements.

Broadly, the draft addresses the areas a competent traffic management approach would already cover on a WA mine:

• Separating heavy mobile plant, light vehicles and pedestrians wherever practicable.
• Designing and maintaining haul roads, ramps, intersections and parking areas for the vehicles that actually use them.
• Managing sight lines, blind spots and vehicle interaction at intersections and loading areas.
• Positive communication protocols, positive isolation of work areas and right-of-way rules.
• Speed management, signage, delineation and lighting appropriate to conditions.
• Documenting all of this in a traffic management plan that ties back to the MSMS.

Traffic management plans on a WA mine

A traffic management plan is the site-specific document that sets out how you keep vehicles and people apart, and how you control the risk where they must interact. On a WA mine it should flow from your principal hazard management plan for vehicle interaction, not sit beside it as a standalone file. Our overview of the principal hazard management plan explains how the two connect.

A workable plan on a WA site usually includes:

• A current map of the road network, showing haul routes, light vehicle routes, pedestrian areas, intersections and parking.
• Rules for interaction: right of way, positive communication, exclusion zones and park-up procedures.
• Speed limits and the basis for them, plus signage and delineation standards.
• Roles and responsibilities, including who authorises changes to the road layout.
• Inspection and maintenance regimes for road condition, drainage, windrows and lighting.
• A review trigger so the plan is updated when the pit, dump or road layout changes.

Haul road design expectations

Haul road design is where traffic management becomes engineering. The expectation is that haul roads on a WA site are designed for the largest vehicle using them, then built and maintained to that standard. That covers running width, gradient, sight distance, superelevation on curves, drainage and windrow height. Windrows sized to at least the rolling radius of the largest wheel remain a widely accepted benchmark for edge protection.

Intersections deserve particular attention, because that is where interaction risk concentrates. Sight lines, approach grades, priority controls and stopping distances all need to suit the vehicles involved. Our guide to mine road intersection design works through the practical detail. Design is only half the job: a road built to standard and then left to degrade will not hold up as evidence of control, so condition monitoring and maintenance records matter as much as the original design.

Interim guidance while the code is in draft

Until the code is approved, WorkSafe WA Health and Safety Bulletin No. 9 on traffic management remains a useful reference for roads and other areas where vehicles operate. It is guidance, not a code, but it reflects the regulator’s current thinking and is a reasonable interim benchmark while the draft is finalised.

Your legal baseline does not move in the meantime. The duties in the WHS (Mines) Regulations 2022 to manage vehicle interaction as a principal mining hazard apply now, draft code or not. Treat the draft as a preview of the standard you will be measured against once it is approved, and close any obvious gaps early rather than waiting for the final version.

How to prepare now

You do not need to wait for the code to be approved to get ahead of it. Work through this checklist:

• Read the draft and lodge feedback. Review the draft code during consultation and comment if the practical detail does not fit your operation. Consultation shapes the final version.
• Confirm the current regulator. Check the DMPE page for the mines-safety regulator so your contacts and references are current after the DEMIRS transition.
• Map your road network. Produce an accurate, current map of haul routes, light vehicle routes, pedestrian areas, intersections and park-up areas.
• Review your traffic management plan against the draft themes. Note where separation, intersection controls or speed management fall short.
• Check haul road and intersection design. Verify width, grade, sight distance and windrow standards against the largest vehicles in use.
• Tie it to the MSMS. Make sure the plan links to your vehicle interaction principal hazard management plan and is not a standalone document.
• Capture evidence. Keep dated records of inspections, maintenance, changes and reviews so you can show the control is live, not just written.
• Set a review trigger. Update the plan whenever the pit, dump or road layout changes, not only on an annual cycle.

Much of this comes down to keeping an accurate picture of your roads and being able to prove your controls are working. HazView helps here: haul road mapping and traffic management sit alongside trigger action response plans (TARPs) and produce the dated evidence your MSMS needs. Our hazard management tools keep the road map, the plan and the inspection record connected, so an inspector sees one current source of truth rather than scattered documents.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the WA road and traffic management code mandatory yet?

No. It is a draft code of practice under consultation and has not been approved, so it is not yet law. Your enforceable duties for roads and vehicle interaction still come from the WHS Act 2020 (WA) and the WHS (Mines) Regulations 2022. Once a code is approved, it becomes admissible in court as evidence of what is reasonably practicable, though you can still comply another way.

What does the WHS (Mines) Regs 2022 require for roads?

The regulations require you to manage vehicle and mobile plant interaction as a principal mining hazard within your Mine Safety Management System. In practice that means designing and maintaining roads and intersections for the vehicles using them, separating heavy plant from light vehicles and pedestrians where practicable, and documenting and reviewing those controls.

What is a traffic management plan?

It is the site-specific document that sets out how vehicles and people move around your mine and how you control the risk where they interact. It typically includes a road network map, right-of-way and communication rules, speed limits, signage, and inspection and maintenance regimes, all linked back to your vehicle interaction principal hazard management plan.

How do I prepare for the WA code?

Read the draft and comment during consultation, confirm the current regulator after the DMPE transition, map your road network, and review your traffic management plan and haul road design against the draft themes and Bulletin No. 9. Then capture dated evidence that your controls are working, and set a review trigger tied to changes in the pit, dump or road layout.

See how HazView keeps your haul road maps, traffic management plan and inspection evidence in one connected system. Book a demo to get ready for the WA road and traffic management code.

The post WA’s New Road and Traffic Management Code for Mines: How to Prepare appeared first on HazView®.

The NSW mining vehicle interaction guideline is the 2025 Technical Reference Guide from the NSW Resources Regulator, titled “Roads or other vehicle operating areas: principal hazard management plan for surface mining operations”. It sets out the regulator’s expectations for how surface mines control the risk of vehicles colliding with other vehicles, plant and people. The guide promotes a layered defence built from multiple independent controls, so that a single failure, whether a design flaw, a lapse in communication or a fatigued operator, does not lead to a collision. This article explains what the guide covers, how it links to your principal hazard management plan, and how it compares to Queensland’s Recognised Standard 19.

Why NSW published the guide

Vehicle interaction remains one of the most persistent causes of serious harm on surface mines. Haul trucks with large blind spots, light vehicles sharing the same roads, mobile plant, and people on foot all operate in the same working areas, often around the clock and in poor visibility. When a heavy vehicle and a light vehicle come together, the outcome is rarely minor.

The Technical Reference Guide was developed with input from an advisory committee formed to look specifically at adverse vehicle interactions. It draws together the regulator’s expectations in one place and reflects lessons from incidents, investigations and industry practice. It sits alongside the broader duties in the Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2022 and the parent Act of 2013, which require operators of mines with relevant hazards to prepare and maintain principal hazard management plans. You can read the full document on the regulator’s website as the NSW Technical Reference Guide (TRG ROVOA).

What “roads or other vehicle operating areas” covers

The phrase “roads or other vehicle operating areas” is deliberately broad. It is not limited to formed haul roads. It captures the full range of places on a surface operation where vehicles move and where an interaction could occur, including:

• Main haul roads and ramps carrying heavy production traffic
• Intersections, junctions and merge points where traffic paths cross
• Light-vehicle access roads and shared roads
• Dumps, tips and stockpile areas where trucks reverse and manoeuvre
• Loading areas around excavators, shovels and loaders
• Workshops, go-lines, parking and refuelling areas
• Pit floors, benches and other working faces where mobile plant operates
• Car parks and pedestrian routes adjacent to operating areas

Treating all of these as part of one connected system matters. A control that works on the main haul road but breaks down at a poorly sighted intersection still leaves the operation exposed. The guide encourages operators to think about the whole road network and every point where light and heavy vehicles, plant and people can meet.

The layered defence approach

The central idea in the guide is layered defence. No single control is treated as sufficient on its own. Instead, operators are expected to combine several independent layers so that if one fails, others remain to prevent a collision. This is the same reasoning behind the wider practice of managing vehicle interaction as a principal hazard: reduce reliance on any one measure, and never let the last line of defence be an operator noticing a truck at the last moment.

The layers the guide points to include:

• Road and intersection design: adequate width, sight distance, grade, drainage, windrows and sound geometry at junctions, so the road itself reduces the chance of an interaction. See our note on mine road intersection design for the design detail.
• Segregation of light and heavy vehicles: physical separation, dedicated lanes, separate access routes and timing that keeps light vehicles away from heavy plant wherever practicable.
• Traffic management: traffic management plans, rules of the road, priority and give-way arrangements, parking and go-line procedures.
• Positive communications: radio call-up procedures, positive contact before approaching heavy vehicles, and clear protocols at intersections and loading areas.
• Speed and fatigue management: enforced speed limits appropriate to the road and conditions, plus fatigue controls that reduce the human errors behind many interactions.
• Proximity detection and collision avoidance: engineered systems that warn operators, and increasingly intervene, when vehicles come too close.
• Trigger Action Response Plans (TARPs): defined triggers, actions and responses so that changing conditions, such as reduced visibility or a failed control, prompt a planned response rather than an improvised one.

The point is not to install every possible control everywhere. It is to select a combination that is genuinely independent and matched to the risk at each part of the network, then to show that the combination holds up when one layer is degraded.

Key expectations for NSW operators

Reading across the guide, several practical expectations stand out for surface operators in New South Wales:

• Understand the whole road network and identify every location where an adverse vehicle interaction could occur, not just the obvious haul roads.
• Assess the risk at each of those locations and select controls that reflect the actual conditions there.
• Build layered defence rather than leaning on a single control such as speed limits or operator vigilance.
• Make sure controls are independent, so a common cause cannot defeat several of them at once.
• Define who is responsible for each control and how its ongoing effectiveness is verified.
• Keep records and evidence that show the controls are in place, monitored and working.
• Review controls after changes to the operation, after incidents and at planned intervals.

None of this is new duty in isolation. What the guide does is set a clearer benchmark for how thoroughly the regulator expects these steps to be done and documented for roads and vehicle operating areas specifically.

How it links to the principal hazard management plan

The guide is not a standalone compliance document. Its title makes the connection explicit: it is about the principal hazard management plan for roads or other vehicle operating areas. Under the Regulation, where vehicle interaction is a principal hazard at a mine, the operator must have a PHMP that identifies the hazard, assesses the risk and sets out the control measures, along with how those controls are implemented, maintained and reviewed.

In practice, the Technical Reference Guide tells you what a strong vehicle interaction PHMP looks like. The layered defence controls become the substance of the plan. The expectations around independence, responsibility and verification become the parts of the plan that show the controls are real and maintained, not just written down once and filed away. When an inspector reviews your PHMP, the guide is a fair indication of what they will be looking for.

This is where mapping the network visually earns its place. HazView lets you map haul roads, intersections and light-vehicle routes against your controls, record where segregation and traffic controls apply, and hold the inspection and monitoring evidence that supports a PHMP in one place. Instead of a static document, the plan becomes something you can point to on a live site map. The hazard management tools tie each control back to a location and a responsible person, which is exactly the traceability the guide encourages.

How the NSW guide compares to Queensland RS19

Operators who work across the border, or who benchmark against Queensland practice, often ask how this guide sits against Recognised Standard 19. The short answer is that they share intent but are not the same instrument. RS19 is Queensland’s recognised standard for the design, construction and maintenance of mine roads. The NSW Technical Reference Guide is guidance under a different legislative framework and has a broader framing around vehicle operating areas and the PHMP.

The practical takeaway: do not treat the NSW guide as a copy of RS19, and do not assume compliance with one satisfies the other. If you operate in New South Wales, the Technical Reference Guide reflects what your regulator expects. If you operate in both states, expect the underlying principles, such as sound road design and genuine segregation, to align, while the specific documents and legal status differ.

What NSW operators should do now

The guide is guidance, not a new set of offences, but ignoring it is a poor position to be in if an interaction occurs. A sensible response is to test your current arrangements against it:

• Read the Technical Reference Guide in full and note where your practice already aligns and where it does not.
• Map your road network and every vehicle operating area, then mark the controls that apply at each point.
• Check that you have layered defence, not a single control carrying the load, and that the layers are truly independent.
• Confirm your PHMP for vehicle interaction reflects the controls actually in place on the ground.
• Make sure control owners, verification steps and review triggers are defined and recorded.
• Use your Open Cut Examiner inspections to keep the evidence current, which the HazView for OCEs workflow is built to support.

Done well, this is not a paperwork exercise. It is a clearer, defensible line between the hazard on your roads and the controls you rely on to manage it, backed by evidence you can produce on request. For the latest wording and any updates, keep an eye on the NSW Resources Regulator.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the NSW roads and vehicle operating areas guide?

It is the 2025 Technical Reference Guide from the NSW Resources Regulator, titled “Roads or other vehicle operating areas: principal hazard management plan for surface mining operations”. It sets out the regulator’s expectations for managing vehicle interaction on surface mines and links those expectations to the principal hazard management plan.

Is it mandatory?

The guide itself is guidance, not black-letter law, so it does not create offences on its own. The underlying duty to manage principal hazards and maintain a PHMP comes from the WHS (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Act 2013 and Regulation 2022, which are mandatory. The guide reflects how the regulator expects those duties to be met, so operators are wise to treat it seriously.

How does it differ from RS19?

RS19 is a Queensland recognised standard focused on the design, construction and maintenance of mine roads. The NSW guide is guidance under the New South Wales WHS mines framework, with a broader focus on all vehicle operating areas and a strong emphasis on the PHMP and layered defence. They share principles but are separate documents with different legal status, so compliance with one does not equal compliance with the other.

What is layered defence?

Layered defence means using several independent controls together, such as road design, segregation, traffic management, positive communications, speed and fatigue management, proximity detection and TARPs, so that if one control fails the others still prevent a collision. It avoids relying on any single control, especially operator vigilance, as the last line of defence.

See your road controls on one map

HazView helps NSW surface operators map roads and vehicle operating areas, record segregation and controls, and hold the PHMP evidence an inspector will ask for, all against a live site map. Book a demo to see how HazView supports your vehicle interaction principal hazard management plan.

The post NSW Vehicle Interaction on Mine Roads: The 2025 Technical Reference Guide appeared first on HazView®.

A principal hazard management plan (PHMP) is the document a mine operator uses to show how it manages a hazard with the potential to cause multiple deaths or serious injury in a single event. It describes the hazard, sets out the risk assessment, defines the controls including the critical controls, and states how those controls are monitored, triggered and reviewed. In New South Wales a separate plan is required for each principal hazard at a mine. In Western Australia the equivalent sits inside the mine safety management system. This guide walks through what a PHMP is, when it is required, how the NSW and WA rules differ, and what a strong plan actually contains.

What a principal hazard is

A principal hazard is not just any workplace hazard. It is a hazard that, on its own, has the potential to cause multiple fatalities or serious injuries from a single incident. That distinction matters, because it sets the bar for the level of planning, control and assurance the regulator expects. A trip hazard in the crib room is a hazard. A strata failure that could bury a face crew is a principal hazard, and it demands a documented, structured management approach.

The common principal hazards recognised across Australian mining are broadly consistent, even where the terminology differs between jurisdictions. They typically include:

• Ground or strata failure
• Inrush of water, gas or other material
• Gas outbursts and hazardous gas accumulation
• Fire or explosion
• Spontaneous combustion
• Air quality, dust and airborne contaminants
• Mine roads, vehicle operating areas and vehicle interaction
• Mine shafts, winding systems and roadways where relevant to the operation

Not every hazard on this list applies to every mine. An open cut coal operation carries a very different principal hazard profile to an underground metalliferous mine. The first job of any operator is to identify which principal hazards are genuinely present, and then to plan for each of them properly.

When a principal hazard management plan is required

The short answer: a PHMP is required whenever a principal hazard exists at your mine. The obligation is not triggered by an incident or by a regulator’s request. It is a standing duty that flows from the presence of the hazard itself. If your operation has a principal hazard, you must have a plan that manages it, and that plan must be in place before the associated work proceeds.

This is where operators sometimes come unstuck. A PHMP is not a one-off compliance artefact you write once to satisfy an assessor and then file away. It is a working control document. If the hazard is live at your site, the plan needs to be current, accurate and reflected in what actually happens on the ground. A plan that describes controls no longer in use, or that omits a hazard the operation has since introduced, is a plan that fails when it is tested.

New South Wales requirements

In NSW, principal hazards are governed by the Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2022. Under that regulation, a mine operator must manage principal hazards, and a principal hazard management plan is required for each principal hazard identified at the mine. NSW uses the term “principal hazard” specifically, and the expectation is a discrete, documented plan per hazard rather than a single catch-all document.

The NSW Resources Regulator publishes a practical guide to preparing a principal hazard management plan, and it is the reference every NSW operator should keep close. It sets out the regulator’s expectations for structure, risk assessment method, control selection and review. Rather than reproducing schedule numbers here that you should confirm directly, treat the regulation as the source of the legal obligation and the regulator’s guide as the source of the practical “how”.

NSW also provides hazard-specific technical reference material that feeds directly into a PHMP. For vehicle-related principal hazards, the NSW vehicle interaction technical reference guide is essential reading, because it details the control expectations that a vehicle interaction PHMP is measured against.

Western Australia requirements

WA takes a structurally different route to the same outcome. Under the Work Health and Safety (Mines) Regulations 2022, an operator must have a mine safety management system (MSMS). Within that system, the operator must prepare management plans for principal mining hazards. WA uses the term “principal mining hazard”, and the specific hazards are listed in the regulations. The concepts map closely to the NSW principal hazards, even though the wording and the framing differ.

The key practical difference is one of architecture. In NSW you tend to think in terms of standalone principal hazard management plans. In WA you think in terms of the overarching MSMS, with a principal mining hazard management plan sitting inside it for each relevant hazard. The content of a strong plan is largely the same in both states: hazard description, risk assessment, controls, critical controls, trigger action response plans and review. What changes is where the plan lives and how it connects to the broader safety management framework.

WA operators managing vehicle and traffic hazards should also work to the WA road and traffic management code for mines, which sets out the controls a principal mining hazard management plan for vehicle interaction should reflect.

What a strong PHMP contains

Regardless of jurisdiction, a strong principal hazard management plan is built from the same core elements. Each one earns its place.

• Hazard description. A clear statement of the hazard, where it occurs, what the credible worst-case event looks like and who is exposed.
• Risk assessment. A documented assessment of the hazard using a recognised method, showing how the risk was evaluated and what informed the control decisions.
• Controls. The full set of controls applied to the hazard, mapped to the risk and ideally ordered by the hierarchy of control.
• Critical controls. The subset of controls that must not fail, called out explicitly, with the performance standard each one has to meet.
• Trigger action response plans (TARPs). Defined trigger levels and the graded actions that follow when a trigger is reached, so the response is decided in advance, not improvised under pressure.
• Roles and responsibilities. Named accountabilities for owning, implementing, verifying and reviewing each control.
• Monitoring and verification. How the operator confirms controls are in place and working, including inspection, sensor data and assurance activities.
• Review triggers. The events that force a review of the plan, such as an incident, a change to the operation, a control failure or a set time interval.

Critical controls and TARPs are where plans most often fall down. It is easy to list a control. It is harder to define the performance standard it must meet, to name who verifies it, and to prove it was in place when it mattered. That gap between the written control and the verified control is exactly where serious events find room to occur, a pattern explored in more detail in why critical controls fail and how to fix it with real-time visibility.

Keeping a PHMP live, not a shelf document

The single biggest failure mode for a principal hazard management plan is that it becomes a shelf document. It is written to a high standard, approved, and then it stops moving while the mine keeps changing. Twelve months later the plan describes a pit layout that no longer exists, controls that have been superseded, and TARPs nobody has looked at since the last audit.

A live PHMP is one where the controls, TARPs and evidence are connected to what is actually happening on site. When a control changes, the plan changes. When a trigger is reached, the response is logged. When a supervisor verifies a critical control, that verification is captured against the location and the hazard, not lost in a paper pad. This is where connecting the plan to a spatial view of the operation pays off. Platforms such as HazView let you hold controls, TARPs and verification evidence live against the mine map, so the plan reflects the ground rather than drifting away from it.

The test is simple. If an inspector asked today whether a given critical control was in place and verified last shift, could you answer with evidence in minutes? If the honest answer is that you would have to go hunting through folders, the plan is closer to a shelf document than a living one.

PHMP checklist

Use this checklist to sense-check a principal hazard management plan before it goes to approval or into a regulator’s hands.

• Every principal hazard present at the mine has a plan.
• The hazard description states the credible worst-case event and who is exposed.
• The risk assessment uses a recognised method and its reasoning is documented.
• Controls are mapped to the risk and ordered by the hierarchy of control.
• Critical controls are named explicitly, each with a performance standard.
• TARPs define trigger levels and the graded actions for each level.
• Every control and TARP has a named accountable owner.
• Monitoring and verification methods are defined and actually used.
• Review triggers are stated, including incidents, change and set intervals.
• The plan matches the current operation, not last year’s.
• Verification evidence can be produced quickly on request.
• The plan aligns with the relevant regulation and the regulator’s guide.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a principal hazard management plan?

A principal hazard management plan is a documented plan that sets out how a mine operator manages a hazard with the potential to cause multiple deaths or serious injuries in a single event. It covers the hazard description, risk assessment, controls, critical controls, TARPs, roles and responsibilities, monitoring and review triggers.

When is a PHMP required?

A PHMP is required whenever a principal hazard is present at a mine. In NSW a plan is required for each principal hazard under the WHS (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2022. In WA, principal mining hazard management plans sit within the mine safety management system under the WHS (Mines) Regulations 2022. The plan must be in place before the associated work proceeds.

What is the difference between NSW and WA?

NSW uses the term “principal hazard” and expects a discrete plan for each one. WA uses the term “principal mining hazard” and requires plans within an overarching mine safety management system. The hazards themselves are conceptually similar and the content of a strong plan is largely the same. The main difference is structural: where the plan sits and how it connects to the wider safety framework.

How often should a PHMP be reviewed?

A PHMP should be reviewed whenever a review trigger occurs, not only on a calendar. Common triggers include an incident or near miss involving the hazard, a change to the mine or its operations, a control failure, new information about the hazard, and a set maximum interval defined in the plan. The point is to keep the plan aligned with the real operation at all times.

See your principal hazard controls live

A principal hazard management plan is only as good as the controls behind it, and controls are only as good as your ability to prove they are in place. If your PHMPs are drifting towards shelf documents, it is time to bring them to life against the mine map. Book a HazView demo to see how operators hold controls, TARPs and verification evidence live where the hazard actually is.

The post Principal Hazard Management Plans Explained (NSW & WA) appeared first on HazView®.

Good OCE report software lets an Open Cut Examiner record a statutory inspection digitally, then produce a report that meets the same content, record-keeping and availability obligations as a paper one. At Queensland surface coal mines the law does not require paper. It requires that the inspection is done, that the report contains the right information, that it is kept, and that it can be produced when needed. A well-built digital OCE report satisfies those obligations while adding a timestamped, georeferenced and permanent record that paper cannot match. This article explains what to look for, and where digital genuinely helps.

The problem with paper OCE reports

Paper has served statutory reporting for decades, but its weaknesses are well known to anyone who has run a shift. Handwriting is misread. Pages go missing from the book. A hazard described in words (“windrow low near the northern ramp”) is open to interpretation by the next crew. Photographs live on a phone and never make it into the record. When an inspector or an incident review asks for the report from a shift three months ago, someone spends an afternoon in a filing cabinet.

None of this changes the legal validity of a paper report. It does, however, make the report harder to trust, slower to act on and weaker as evidence. The point of digitising is not novelty. It is to remove the friction and the gaps that paper introduces, while keeping every obligation intact.

What an OCE report must contain

The Open Cut Examiner is a statutory position. During a shift the OCE inspects the mine and produces a report on the state of the mine, the hazards present and the actions taken or required. Those obligations sit under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 and the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2017. In practice, a complete report captures:

• The mine, the area or areas examined, and the shift and date.
• The examiner’s identity and the time of the examination.
• The condition of the workings and any hazards observed, described clearly enough for the next crew to locate and understand them.
• Actions taken during the shift and actions required, with responsibility and any relevant conditions on continuing work.
• A record that can be kept and produced, and made available to the people who rely on it.

The obligation is about content, retention and availability, not about the medium. For the specific detail, see our guide to Queensland OCE report requirements. Whether you work from a printed open cut examiner report template or an on-screen form, the same fields have to be there.

Does digital reporting meet Queensland requirements

Yes, provided the digital report does what the law asks of any report. It must contain the required information, it must be kept for the required period, and it must be available to the people entitled to see it, including inspectors from the Resources Safety and Health Queensland regulator. A digital OCE report that meets those three tests carries the same weight as a paper one.

Be careful with claims you may hear from vendors. No software is “approved” or “certified” by the regulator as a statutory report. Regulators set the obligations; the mine is responsible for meeting them. What good statutory report software mining teams should look for is a system that is designed around those obligations and makes them easy to satisfy, not a badge that promises the decision has been made for you. The responsibility to get the content, retention and availability right stays with the mine and its statutory officials.

The digital chain of evidence

This is where digital moves ahead of paper. A statutory report is not only a shift tool. It is a record that may be read months later during an audit, an investigation or a court process. The quality of that record is the quality of your evidence.

An electronic mine inspection can attach metadata to every entry that paper simply cannot hold:

• Georeferencing. A hazard is pinned to a coordinate on the mine, not described in prose. The next OCE, the mine manager or an inspector sees exactly where it is on a map. Our note on why a digital hazard map outperforms text-based systems covers this in depth.
• Timestamping. Each observation and action carries the time it was recorded, so the sequence of events is unambiguous.
• Photographs and media. Images are captured against the hazard in place, not lost on a personal device.
• A permanent, tamper-evident record. Entries are retained and any changes are logged, so the report cannot be quietly rewritten after the fact.

When something goes wrong, this chain of evidence is what lets the mine show what was known, when it was known, and what was done about it. It also feeds directly into high potential incident reporting in Queensland, because the hazard record and the incident record share the same underlying data instead of being reconciled by hand.

Faster, clearer handover

Handover is where the daily value shows up. At the change of shift the incoming OCE and crew need to know the state of the mine and the live hazards in minutes, not by deciphering a page of notes. A digital report presents open hazards on a map, sorted by area and severity, with the actions still outstanding. Nothing carries over by being forgotten, because open items stay open until they are closed and signed off.

The gain compounds over time. Because every shift’s report is structured data, patterns become visible: a hazard that keeps recurring at the same location, an action type that is consistently slow to close. That is the material behind our piece on lessons from OCE shift reports. Paper gives you a shift record. Structured digital reporting gives you a trend.

Audit and inspector readiness

When an inspector visits or an internal audit runs, retrieval speed and completeness matter. With paper, producing a specific shift’s report, its photographs and the follow-up actions can take real effort, and gaps are common. With digital reporting, any report is searchable by date, shift, area or examiner, and it comes with its media and action history attached. You can display the current state of the mine on a screen and show the trail behind any single hazard in seconds.

Availability is a legal obligation, not just a convenience. Being able to produce a complete, legible, timestamped record on request is exactly what the availability requirement is about, and it is far easier to meet from a well-organised system than from a shelf of report books.

What to look for in OCE report software

If you are assessing options, judge them against the obligations and the practical realities of a shift rather than the sales sheet. Use this checklist:

• Content coverage. Does the report capture every field your statutory obligations require, and can the template be configured to your mine’s needs?
• Retention and integrity. Are records kept for the required period, tamper-evident, and is every change logged with who and when?
• Availability and retrieval. Can any past report be produced quickly, in full, including photographs and action history?
• Georeferencing and mapping. Are hazards pinned to locations on a live mine map, not just described in text?
• Offline capability. Does it work in areas with no signal and sync reliably later? Mines are not fully connected.
• Handover workflow. Do open hazards and outstanding actions carry across shifts automatically until closed?
• Photographs and media. Can images be attached to a hazard in the field and stay with the record?
• Sign-off and accountability. Is there a clear, attributable record of who examined, who reviewed and who actioned?
• Integration. Does the hazard and inspection data feed incident reporting and other safety systems without re-keying?
• Ease of use on shift. Can an OCE complete a report on a tablet quickly, in the field, with gloves on, without a manual?
• Honest compliance claims. Does the vendor explain how the tool helps you meet your obligations, rather than claiming it is “approved” by the regulator?

HazView is one option built around these points: a live, georeferenced hazard map, digital statutory reporting, offline field capture and shift handover designed for surface coal operations. You can see how it fits the OCE role on the HazView for OCEs page. Whichever system you choose, hold it to the checklist above.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can OCE reports be digital?

Yes. The law governing OCE reports at Queensland surface coal mines does not mandate paper. A digital report that contains the required information, is kept for the required period and is available to those entitled to see it, including regulators, meets the same obligations as a paper report.

What must an OCE report include?

At a minimum, the mine and areas examined, the shift and date, the examiner and time, the condition of the workings, the hazards observed, and the actions taken or required. The report must be recorded, kept and made available. See our Queensland OCE report requirements guide for the detail.

Does digital reporting meet Queensland requirements?

It can, when the system is designed around the content, retention and availability obligations set under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 and Regulation 2017. No software is “approved” by the regulator; the responsibility to meet the obligations stays with the mine, so choose a tool that makes that straightforward.

How does software help at handover?

It presents open hazards on a live map with outstanding actions, so the incoming crew sees the state of the mine in minutes. Open items carry across shifts until closed, nothing is lost in translation from handwriting, and photographs stay attached to each hazard.

See it on your own mine

If you are weighing up how to move OCE reports and statutory inspections off paper, the fastest way to judge the fit is to see it running against your workflow. Book a HazView demo and we will walk through digital OCE reporting, the live hazard map and shift handover for your operation.

The post Digitising OCE Reports and Statutory Inspections appeared first on HazView®.

High potential incident reporting in Queensland is a legal duty, not a matter of judgement. A high potential incident, or HPI, is an event, or series of events, that causes or has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the safety or health of a person. On a Queensland mine or quarry, HPIs must be recorded, investigated and reported to the inspectorate under the state’s mining safety and health legislation. This guide sets out what counts as an HPI, who carries the reporting duty, the notification process, and where reporting most often falls down.

What a high potential incident is

The definition turns on potential, not just outcome. An event does not need to injure anyone to be an HPI. If it caused, or had the potential to cause, a significant adverse effect on a person’s safety or health, it qualifies. That distinction is the whole point of the concept. It captures the near miss with serious consequences that did not happen this time but easily could have next time.

Two words carry the weight. “Potential” means you assess the credible worst realistic outcome of the event, not only what actually occurred. “Significant” means the effect on safety or health would be material, not trivial. A tyre that deflates slowly in the workshop is unlikely to meet the threshold. A haul truck that loses braking on a decline does, regardless of whether it reached the bottom without contact. When you are weighing an event, ask what a reasonable person would conclude the event could have done, and rate it against the potential, not the luck.

This is closely tied to how a site frames its exposure more generally. If you want to understand how sites justify where they draw these lines, our note on the acceptable level of risk and what you can prove is a useful companion read.

Examples of HPIs on a mine site

Categories help crews recognise an HPI in the moment, when it matters most. The following are the kinds of events that commonly meet the threshold on Queensland operations. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive, and each event still needs to be assessed on its own facts against the potential-effect test.

• Uncontrolled movement of mobile plant, such as a haul truck runaway, brake failure or loss of steering on a ramp.
• Loss of control of a load, including dropped objects from cranes, excavators or elevated work.
• Highwall, lowwall or spoil pile instability, slumping or unexpected ground movement.
• Inrush or unplanned water ingress into a pit or underground workings.
• Exceedance of a gas threshold, an ignition source in a hazardous zone, or any potential for a methane or coal dust event.
• Contact or near contact between mobile plant and light vehicles, pedestrians or fixed infrastructure.
• Electrical events including flashover, contact with overhead lines or unexpected energisation.
• Fire or the potential for fire on plant, conveyors or in fuel and storage areas.
• Failure of a critical control that a site relies on to keep a principal hazard within an acceptable level of risk.
• Uncontrolled release of energy, including stored pressure, suspended loads or unexpected start-up.

The pattern across these is the same. Something that a site depends on to keep people safe did not perform as intended, and the consequence could have been serious. When a critical control fails and only circumstance prevents harm, treat it as an HPI and record it.

The legal basis for HPI reporting in Queensland

Queensland runs two parallel mining safety statutes. Coal mines sit under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999. Mineral mines and quarries sit under the equivalent Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999. Both Acts define the high potential incident and both create duties to record and report it. The regulator that receives these reports is Resources Safety and Health Queensland (RSHQ), working through its mines inspectorate.

The reporting duty is a statutory obligation. It is not discretionary, and it does not depend on whether anyone was hurt or whether the site considers the matter closed. Because section references and the fine detail of the obligation can change with amendments, always confirm the current wording directly in the relevant Act and against current RSHQ guidance rather than relying on a summary. The principle, however, is stable: HPIs are reportable, and the obligation to report them sits with defined people at the mine.

Who reports, and to whom

The Site Senior Executive (SSE) carries the central reporting duty. The SSE is the person with overall control of the mine’s operations, and the safety and health management system runs under their authority. When an HPI occurs, the SSE is responsible for ensuring it is reported to an inspector at RSHQ. In practice the SSE will have delegated the mechanics of notification to nominated people, but the accountability remains with the role.

SSE notification duties do not sit in isolation. Site safety and health representatives, and the Industry Safety and Health Representatives (ISHRs) who operate across the sector, also have a role in the flow of incident information. Supervisors and coordinators, including those completing statutory inspections, are usually the first to identify an HPI and are the people who feed it into the reporting chain. A well run site makes that chain explicit, so an operator who sees a reportable event knows exactly who to tell and how quickly.

This connects directly to statutory inspection reporting more broadly. The same discipline that keeps Queensland OCE report requirements in order is what keeps HPIs from slipping through, because the open cut examiner report is often where a reportable event first surfaces in writing.

Timeframes and the notification process

HPI notification in Queensland typically runs in two stages. The first is a prompt oral notification to an inspector, made without delay once the site is aware of the event. The second is a written report that follows, providing the detail of what happened, the potential consequence and the site’s response. The urgency of the first stage reflects the purpose of the system, which is to let the inspectorate know quickly that something with serious potential has occurred.

Because exact timeframes and the required content of a written report are set by the legislation and current RSHQ practice, and because they differ in detail between the coal and the mineral and quarrying frameworks, do not work from memory or a rule of thumb. Confirm the applicable timeframe against the relevant Act and the current guidance published by RSHQ for your operation. As a working principle, treat oral notification as something to be done without delay and the written report as something to be completed as soon as practicable, and build your site procedure around the specific requirements that apply to you.

The practical failure mode is delay caused by internal handoffs. An event is identified on shift, the information moves by word of mouth or a paper form, and hours pass before the person responsible for notification even learns of it. The tighter the path from identification to the SSE’s nominated notifier, the more defensible the site’s compliance. This is one of the strongest arguments for digitising OCE reports and statutory inspections, so a reportable event raises a flag the moment it is captured rather than sitting in a notebook until the end of shift.

What a good HPI record contains

A report to the inspectorate is only as good as the underlying record. Weak records slow investigations, invite follow up questions and undermine the site’s credibility. A strong HPI record is specific, timestamped and tied to a location. Use the following as a checklist when capturing an HPI.

• What happened, in plain factual terms, without speculation about blame.
• The date and time the event occurred and the date and time it was identified.
• The precise location on the mine, ideally tied to a mapped point rather than a vague area name.
• The potential consequence, and why the event met the significant adverse effect threshold.
• The principal hazard involved and which critical control failed or was challenged.
• The people, plant and equipment involved, and the conditions at the time.
• Immediate actions taken to make the area safe and prevent recurrence.
• Who was notified, at what time, and the reference for the notification to the inspector.
• Supporting evidence, including photographs, readings and any relevant inspection records.
• The person recording the event and their role.

The location detail matters more than sites often realise. An HPI tied to an exact point on the mine can be cross referenced against inspection history, prior hazards at the same location and the controls that were meant to be in place. An HPI logged as “the pit” cannot.

The under-reporting problem

RSHQ has repeatedly flagged under-reporting of HPIs as a concern across the Queensland sector. The reasons are rarely deliberate concealment. More often it is genuine uncertainty about whether an event crosses the threshold, a culture that treats near misses as non events because no one was hurt, or a reporting process so slow and manual that events are quietly dropped rather than pursued.

Under-reporting is a safety problem before it is a compliance problem. Every HPI that goes unreported is a warning the industry does not get to learn from. The value of the system is that it surfaces the events where a critical control failed but harm did not follow, which are exactly the events that let a site fix a weakness before it produces a fatality. When those events stay on site, the same failure can play out somewhere else with a worse outcome. The lessons from serious incidents at open cut operations, explored in our piece on enhancing safety in Australian open cut mines, repeatedly trace back to signals that were available but not acted on.

The practical fix has two parts. First, make the threshold clear to the workforce so people err towards reporting when in doubt. Second, make reporting so quick and low friction that raising an HPI is easier than not raising it. When those two conditions hold, reporting rates climb because the barriers that suppressed them are gone.

Capturing HPIs digitally

This is where a purpose built system changes the picture. With HazView, a person on the ground captures an HPI against an exact location on the mine, the right people are notified instantly, and the event becomes a permanent, timestamped record that cannot be lost or quietly forgotten. The delay between identification and notification, which is the single biggest weakness in most HPI processes, effectively disappears, and the SSE has visibility of reportable events as they arise rather than at the end of shift.

Just as importantly, a digital record ties the HPI to the site’s wider picture: the hazards already logged at that location, the inspection history, and the critical controls that were meant to hold. That context is what turns a compliance obligation into genuine learning, and it is what an inspector expects to see when they ask how the event was managed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a high potential incident?

A high potential incident is an event, or series of events, that causes or has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the safety or health of a person. The key feature is potential: an event can be an HPI even if no one was injured, provided the credible potential consequence was serious. It is defined under Queensland’s mining safety and health legislation for both coal and mineral mines and quarries.

When must an HPI be reported in QLD?

Reporting is typically done in two stages: a prompt oral notification to an inspector made without delay once the site is aware of the event, followed by a written report. The exact timeframes are set by the relevant Act and current RSHQ guidance and differ between the coal and the mineral and quarrying frameworks, so confirm the specific requirement that applies to your operation rather than relying on a general figure. As a rule, notify without delay and complete the written report as soon as practicable.

Who must the SSE notify?

The Site Senior Executive is responsible for ensuring an HPI is reported to an inspector at Resources Safety and Health Queensland. On site, the SSE typically delegates the mechanics of notification to nominated people, while retaining accountability for the duty. Site safety and health representatives and Industry Safety and Health Representatives also have a role in the flow of incident information.

Why is HPI under-reporting a problem?

RSHQ has repeatedly raised under-reporting as a concern. Every unreported HPI is a lost warning: it is an event where a critical control failed but harm did not follow, which is exactly the kind of signal that lets a site fix a weakness before it causes a fatality. Under-reporting keeps those lessons on site instead of sharing them across the industry, so the same failure can recur elsewhere with a worse outcome.

Where can I find the exact legal requirements?

Start with the primary legislation and the regulator. Coal mines are covered by the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 and mineral mines and quarries by the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999. For current guidance, forms and notification detail, refer to Resources Safety and Health Queensland.

Reliable HPI reporting comes down to speed, location and a record that holds up. If your current process still runs on paper forms and word of mouth, see how HazView captures reportable events against an exact location and notifies the right people instantly. Book a demo to see it on your own operation.

The post High Potential Incident (HPI) Reporting in Queensland: Duties and Timeframes appeared first on HazView®.

The vehicle interaction principal hazard is one of the most consistently fatal risks on Australian mine sites, and every jurisdiction now treats it as a hazard that can cause multiple fatalities from a single event. A light vehicle sitting in a haul truck operator’s blind spot, an unplanned movement on a grade, or two machines converging at an unmarked intersection can each end a life in seconds. This article compares how Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia require you to manage vehicle interaction, and sets out the layered defence controls that actually reduce the risk rather than simply documenting it.

What a principal hazard means and why vehicle interaction qualifies

A principal hazard is a hazard that has the reasonable potential to cause multiple fatalities or a single fatality from a single event or a series of related events. It is a step up from an ordinary hazard because the consequence is catastrophic, not because the likelihood is high. That distinction matters: a control failure around vehicles rarely results in a minor injury. It results in a fatality or several.

Vehicle interaction qualifies on every count. The mass and momentum of a loaded haul truck, restricted operator visibility, mixed traffic of light vehicles and heavy mobile plant, night operations, dust, grades, and the potential for unplanned movement all combine to produce a hazard where a single mistake is unforgiving. Because of this, the three major mining states each require vehicle interaction to be managed through a formal, documented, and audited system rather than left to general duty of care. What differs between the states is the legal architecture and the terminology, not the underlying expectation that you identify the hazard, apply multiple controls, and verify they work.

The layered defence model

Layered defence, sometimes called defence in depth, is the principle that no single control should be relied on to prevent a catastrophic event. Instead you build multiple independent controls so that if one fails, others remain in place to catch the error. It is the same logic behind the Swiss cheese model: individual layers have holes, but the holes rarely line up when the layers are independent and well maintained.

For vehicle interaction, a robust layered defence typically includes:

• Road design and segregation: separating light vehicles from heavy mobile plant by distance, time, or physical barriers such as windrows.
• Traffic management: rules, signage, give-way priorities, parking protocols, and controlled intersections.
• Positive communications: two-way radio call-ups, positive acknowledgement before approaching or passing heavy plant.
• Speed and fatigue controls: speed limits matched to road geometry, fatigue management, and journey management.
• Proximity detection and collision avoidance: technology that warns operators or intervenes when vehicles converge.
• Trigger Action Response Plans (TARPs): pre-agreed triggers and responses that move the operation to a safer state as conditions deteriorate.

The order matters. Higher-order controls that eliminate or physically separate the interaction are more reliable than administrative controls that depend on human behaviour. A windrow does not get tired at the end of a night shift; a give-way rule can be forgotten. All three states, in different words, push operators up the hierarchy of controls and warn against over-reliance on a single administrative layer. You can see how the individual layers fit together in our guide to TARPs for mine roads and vehicle interaction.

How Queensland manages vehicle interaction

In Queensland, vehicle interaction is a declared principal hazard at surface coal mines. It is managed under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 and the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2017, which require the site’s safety and health management system to identify principal hazards and apply controls to an acceptable level of risk. The regulator is Resources Safety and Health Queensland (RSHQ).

The key technical document is Recognised Standard 19: Mine roads. Recognised standards state ways to achieve an acceptable level of risk, and while a site can choose an alternative approach, it must then demonstrate that its approach achieves at least the same outcome. RS19 covers road design, geometry, sight distances, intersections, signage, segregation, and the management of interactions between light vehicles and heavy mobile plant. It is the practical benchmark Queensland inspectors work from when they assess a site’s mine roads.

Queensland also runs a High Potential Incident (HPI) reporting regime. Vehicle interaction events, including near misses where a collision was narrowly avoided, are reported and analysed, and the data feeds directly back into safety alerts and site-level review. If your HPI trend shows repeated light vehicle and haul truck interaction events at particular intersections or during particular shifts, that is a signal your controls are not holding, and it should trigger a review of the relevant part of your management system. Intersection geometry is a recurring theme in these events, which is why we cover mine road intersection design as a topic in its own right.

How New South Wales manages vehicle interaction

New South Wales manages vehicle interaction under the Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Act 2013 and the associated Regulation 2022. The central mechanism is the Principal Hazard Management Plan (PHMP). Where a mine has a principal hazard, the operator must prepare and implement a PHMP that documents the hazard, the risk assessment, the controls selected, and how those controls are monitored and maintained. Roads and vehicle operating areas, and the interactions that occur on them, sit squarely within this framework.

In 2025 the NSW Resources Regulator finalised a Technical Reference Guide on roads or other vehicle operating areas. The guide sets out a layered-defence model and gives operators a structured way to assess whether their controls across road design, traffic management, communications, speed and fatigue, and collision-avoidance technology are adequate and independent. It is deliberately built around the idea that no single layer is sufficient, and it gives inspectors and operators a common reference point for what good looks like.

For NSW operators, the practical task is to map the guide’s layers against your existing PHMP and identify where you are relying on a single control. If light vehicle and haul truck segregation depends entirely on a traffic rule with no physical or technological backup, the layered-defence lens will expose that gap. We break the document down in detail in our NSW vehicle interaction Technical Reference Guide summary, and the broader plan structure in our overview of the principal hazard management plan.

How Western Australia manages vehicle interaction

Western Australia manages vehicle interaction under the Work Health and Safety (Mines) Regulations 2022. These regulations require mining operations to have a Mine Safety Management System (MSMS) and, where principal mining hazards are present, principal mining hazard management plans. Vehicle and mobile plant interaction is a principal mining hazard that must be assessed and managed within that system, with controls documented and reviewed rather than assumed.

WA has also released a draft code of practice on road and traffic management for mines. As of 2026 it remains in draft, but it signals the regulator’s direction and is worth reviewing now so your controls align before it is finalised. A code of practice, once approved, is admissible in proceedings as evidence of what is reasonably practicable, so operators who get ahead of it reduce their exposure later. We track the detail in our summary of the WA road and traffic management code for mines.

One administrative point for WA operators: the state’s mines safety regulator moved into the Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration from 1 July 2025. If your management system documents reference the previous departmental name, update those references so your regulatory contacts and reporting pathways remain correct.

Practical controls that work

Across all three states, the same controls consistently prove their worth. The difference between a plan that protects people and one that only satisfies an auditor is whether these controls are genuinely independent, maintained, and verified in the field:

• Physical segregation: windrows, bunds, dedicated light vehicle roads, and separate parking bays that remove the interaction rather than manage it.
• Positive communications protocols: mandatory radio call-ups and acknowledgement before a light vehicle approaches or passes heavy mobile plant, so the truck operator knows exactly where the smaller vehicle is.
• Exclusion zones and park-up rules: defined safe distances and procedures for approaching stationary or operating machines, addressing the blind-spot risk that drives so many light vehicle haul truck interaction events.
• Speed management: limits set to road geometry, sight distance, and conditions, not a single site-wide number that is too fast for the worst corner.
• Controls against unplanned movement: park brake protocols, wheel chocks, and parking on grade rules to prevent unplanned movement in mining operations where a vehicle rolls or runs away.
• Proximity detection and collision avoidance systems: technology that provides an independent warning or intervention layer, particularly valuable at night and in dust where line of sight fails.
• TARPs: triggers tied to weather, visibility, road condition, or incident frequency that move the operation to a safer state before an event occurs.

No single item on this list is sufficient alone. That is the whole point of layered defence for vehicle interaction: each control is chosen and maintained on the assumption that another will occasionally fail.

Mapping and monitoring vehicle interaction

Layered defence only works if you can see where your interactions actually occur and whether your controls are still in place. This is where a spatial, evidence-based approach earns its keep. Plotting interaction hotspots, intersections, segregation boundaries, and control locations on a live site map turns an abstract PHMP into something a supervisor can act on during a shift. Monitoring HPI and near-miss trends against those locations tells you whether the controls are holding or quietly degrading.

HazView is built for exactly this: mapping vehicle interactions against site geography, recording the segregation and controls that apply at each location, and monitoring incidents and inspections so a weakening control shows up before it becomes an event rather than after. It gives QLD, NSW and WA operators a single place to hold the layered-defence picture that their respective frameworks demand. Explore the hazard management tools to see how the pieces connect.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a principal hazard?

A principal hazard is a hazard with the reasonable potential to cause multiple fatalities, or a single fatality, from a single event or a series of related events. It is defined by the severity of its potential consequence rather than by how often it occurs, which is why it must be managed through a formal, documented management plan rather than routine hazard controls.

Is vehicle interaction a principal hazard in every state?

Vehicle and mobile plant interaction is treated as a principal hazard, or principal mining hazard, in each of the major mining states, though the exact legal term and framework differ. Queensland declares it a principal hazard at surface coal mines under the Coal Mining Safety and Health legislation, New South Wales manages it through principal hazard management plans, and Western Australia treats it as a principal mining hazard under the WHS (Mines) Regulations 2022. The common thread is that all three require multiple documented controls and ongoing verification.

What is layered defence?

Layered defence, or defence in depth, means using multiple independent controls so that if one control fails, others remain in place to prevent a catastrophic event. For vehicle interaction this typically spans road design and segregation, traffic management, positive communications, speed and fatigue controls, proximity detection or collision avoidance, and TARPs. The controls are chosen to be independent, so a single failure does not remove all protection.

What controls reduce vehicle interaction?

The most effective controls physically separate light vehicles from heavy mobile plant through segregated roads, windrows, and parking bays. These are backed by positive radio communications, exclusion zones around operating machines, speed limits matched to road geometry, park brake and chock protocols against unplanned movement, proximity detection and collision avoidance technology, and TARPs that respond to deteriorating conditions. Higher-order controls that eliminate or physically separate the interaction are more reliable than administrative rules alone.

See how HazView helps you map, control and monitor vehicle interaction across your site. Book a demo to walk through your own layered-defence picture with our team.

The post Managing Vehicle Interaction as a Principal Hazard (QLD, NSW & WA) appeared first on HazView®.

A TARP in mining is a Trigger Action Response Plan: a simple document that defines escalating trigger levels for a changing hazard, and states in advance what action must be taken at each level and who is responsible for taking it. Instead of deciding what to do about deteriorating conditions in the heat of the moment, a TARP lets a site agree the response beforehand. If you have ever asked what is a TARP in mining, the short answer is that it turns “we should probably do something” into a defined, accountable action tied to a measurable trigger.

TARPs are used across Australian mines to manage conditions that can shift quickly, from ground movement and gas readings through to weather effects on haul roads. This article focuses on one of the highest-consequence applications: mine roads and vehicle interaction. We will cover what a TARP is, how one is structured, a worked example you can adapt, how TARPs connect to critical controls, and the mistakes that quietly undermine them.

What a TARP is and why mines use them

A Trigger Action Response Plan exists because conditions on a mine site are not static. A haul road that is safe at the start of a shift can become genuinely dangerous after two hours of rain. Visibility that is fine at dawn can drop as dust builds through the day. The risk profile changes, but the people working in it are busy, under production pressure, and not always the best placed to judge when “a bit greasy” has become “unsafe to operate”.

A TARP removes that ambiguity. It sets out observable, and ideally measurable, triggers that mark the boundary between one level of response and the next. When a trigger is reached, the response is not up for debate: it has already been agreed, documented and signed off. This matters most for hazards where hesitation costs lives, and vehicle interaction is exactly that kind of hazard. A loaded haul truck cannot stop or steer like a light vehicle, and a wet or rutted road removes the margin that keeps them apart.

Regulators actively encourage this approach. Both Resources Safety and Health Queensland (RSHQ) and the NSW Resources Regulator promote TARPs as a practical tool for managing principal hazards and keeping response decisions consistent across crews and shifts. A TARP is not a substitute for engineering the hazard out, but it is a strong administrative layer that keeps a site inside its acceptable level of risk as conditions move.

The anatomy of a TARP: levels, triggers, actions, responsibility

Every effective TARP is built from the same four elements. Get these right and the plan works. Get them vague and it becomes shelfware.

• Trigger levels. Most TARPs use three escalating levels, commonly shown as green, amber and red, or Level 1, 2 and 3. Three levels is usually enough to separate “monitor”, “act” and “stop” without overcomplicating the decision. Some hazards justify more, but each extra level adds judgement calls, so add them only when they earn their place.
• Triggers. The condition that puts you at a given level. A good trigger is observable and, where possible, measurable: “standing water deeper than 100 mm across a traffic lane” beats “road looks wet”. The less interpretation required, the more consistently the TARP is applied.
• Required actions. What must happen at that level. Actions should be specific and verifiable: reduce speed to a stated limit, grade a section, close a road, escalate to the shift supervisor. “Exercise caution” is not an action.
• Responsible person. The named role accountable for acting on the trigger and, at higher levels, authorising escalation. Every level needs an owner, or the trigger fires and nobody moves.

The logic runs left to right: a person observes a trigger, matches it to a level, and the responsible person ensures the required action happens. When those four columns are clear, anyone from a new operator to a mine manager can read the same plan and reach the same decision.

A worked TARP example for mine road conditions

Below is a realistic TARP mining example for deteriorating haul road conditions where light vehicles and heavy vehicles share the road. It is written to be adapted, not copied: your triggers should reflect your own road design, vehicle mix, speed limits and site standards. Treat it as a template for a vehicle interaction principal hazard plan rather than a finished control.

Notice how the triggers sharpen as the level rises. Green tolerates minor imperfection, amber demands active intervention while keeping the road open under tighter rules, and red stops the activity outright. The responsible person also escalates with the level, so the decision to close a road sits with someone who has the authority to carry the production consequences. This is deliberate: the harder the decision, the more senior the owner.

How TARPs link to critical controls and principal hazards

A TARP is not a control in its own right. It is a mechanism that protects the controls you already rely on. Vehicle interaction is a principal hazard on almost every surface mine, and it is managed through critical controls such as segregation, road design, speed management, positive communication and, increasingly, collision awareness technology. A TARP sits alongside those controls and tells the site what to do when conditions start to erode their effectiveness.

Consider road design as a critical control. Good mine road intersection design keeps vehicles apart through sight lines, geometry and priority rules. Rain does not change the design, but it changes how well that design performs: braking distances lengthen, and a driver who could safely judge a gap in the dry no longer can. The TARP is what recognises that degradation and pulls the speed limit down, or closes the intersection, before the control fails silently.

That link matters because critical controls fail more often through gradual erosion than sudden collapse. A control can look present on paper while being quietly undermined by conditions, workload or drift. This is one of the main reasons critical controls fail, and a well-run TARP is a direct countermeasure: it forces a visible, accountable response the moment a defined threshold is crossed, rather than trusting that someone will notice the control weakening.

Common TARP mistakes

Most TARP failures are not exotic. They come from a handful of recurring problems that are easy to spot once you know to look for them.

• Vague triggers. “Heavy rain” or “poor visibility” force each person to interpret the threshold differently, so the same conditions get different responses. Make triggers observable and, where you can, measurable.
• Weak actions. “Take care” and “monitor closely” are not actions. If an action cannot be verified after the fact, it will not drive behaviour under pressure.
• No named owner. When responsibility reads “the crew” or is left blank, the trigger fires and everyone assumes someone else has it. Every level needs a specific role.
• Too many levels. Five or six levels blur the boundaries and slow the decision. Three clear levels usually beat six fuzzy ones.
• Set and forget. A TARP written once and never reviewed drifts out of step with the site. Triggers should be revisited after incidents, near misses and changes to roads or fleet.
• Buried in a binder. A TARP the crew cannot see at the moment conditions change is not a plan, it is a record. Accessibility at the point of decision is the whole game.

Running TARPs digitally

The last two mistakes above, drift and inaccessibility, are exactly where paper TARPs struggle most. A printed plan cannot tell you when a trigger has been reached, cannot show which road it applies to, and cannot prove that the required action was taken. This is where running TARPs digitally changes the picture. With HazView, trigger levels can be linked directly to the hazard map, so a road TARP is tied to the actual section of road it governs, and the response actions flow into the checklists and tasks the responsible person already works from. When conditions change, the trigger, the location and the required action sit together in one place instead of three.

That connection also builds the evidence trail. Every trigger, action and sign-off is recorded, so a supervisor can see at a glance which roads are at amber, who is acting, and whether a red-level closure has actually been completed and reinspected. Instead of hoping the TARP was followed, you can show it was. That kind of proof is increasingly what separates a control that exists on paper from one that demonstrably works.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does TARP stand for?

TARP stands for Trigger Action Response Plan. It is a document that sets escalating trigger levels for a hazard and defines, in advance, the action required at each level and the person responsible for taking it.

What is the difference between a TARP and a control?

A control reduces risk directly, such as road segregation or a speed limit. A TARP does not reduce risk on its own: it monitors changing conditions and triggers a response when a control’s effectiveness is threatened. Think of the control as the barrier and the TARP as the plan that keeps that barrier working as conditions shift.

How many trigger levels should a TARP have?

Three levels is the common and usually sensible choice, often shown green, amber and red or Level 1, 2 and 3. Three levels cleanly separate monitoring, active intervention and stopping the activity. Add more only when a hazard genuinely needs finer steps, because each extra level adds a judgement call.

Who acts on a TARP trigger?

The named responsible person for that level. Lower levels often sit with operators and road inspectors, while higher levels escalate to the shift supervisor and, for a stop or road closure, the mine manager or a delegated authority. Naming the role for every level is what makes sure a trigger actually leads to action.

Turn your TARPs into live controls

A TARP is only as good as the site’s ability to see the trigger, act on it and prove the action happened. HazView links your trigger levels to the hazard map and to the checklists your crews already use, so mine road and vehicle interaction TARPs stay visible, accountable and current. Book a demo to see how HazView runs TARPs digitally on your site.

The post What Is a TARP? Building a Trigger Action Response Plan for Mine Roads appeared first on HazView®.

Mine road grade requirements exist because gradient drives braking distance, runaway risk and operator fatigue. On Queensland coal mines, Recognised Standard 19 (RS19), “Design and Construction of Mine Roads”, sets the expectations for haul road gradient and ramp design. In practice a commonly used maximum sustained grade on haul roads is around 10%, or 1 in 10, with short pinches sometimes steeper by design. Ramps also need flat zones at the top and bottom so vehicles can stop and queue safely. This guide explains what those limits mean and how to apply them.

Why grade matters on a mine road

Grade, or gradient, is the rate at which a road climbs or falls, expressed as a percentage or a ratio such as 1 in 10. It is the single biggest geometric factor in how a loaded haul truck behaves, and it works against you in three separate ways.

• Braking and stopping distance. A fully loaded truck descending a grade carries far more energy than the same truck on the flat. Service brakes, retarders and the road surface all have to absorb that energy. Steeper grades and longer descents mean longer stopping distances and more heat in the braking system.
• Runaway risk. If a truck loses braking or retardation on a steep descent, gravity keeps accelerating it. The steeper and longer the grade, the higher the runaway speed and the worse the consequences.
• Operator fatigue and productivity. Steep grades slow loaded trucks, increase cycle times and raise engine and driveline loads. Sustained steep hauls also add to operator workload and fatigue over a shift.

Grade never acts alone. It combines with surface condition, crossfall, sight distance and the layout of intersections and ramps. That is why RS19 treats gradient as one part of a whole road design rather than a single number to tick off.

What grade a haul road can be (RS19 guidance)

There is no single legislated number that fits every mine road, because the safe grade depends on the vehicles, the road surface, the length of the descent and the braking capacity of the fleet. RS19 approaches grade as a risk-based decision informed by good practice rather than a one-size-fits-all cap.

That said, a widely used rule of thumb across Australian mines is a maximum sustained grade of around 10%, or 1 in 10, on main haul roads. RS19 recommends keeping sustained grades within limits the fleet can safely handle both loaded and empty, and manufacturers typically publish grade and retardation limits for their trucks that should be checked against the design. Short, steeper pinches are sometimes built in where the terrain demands it, but these are the exception and should be justified, kept short and controlled.

The practical takeaways for mine road grade requirements are:

• Design sustained haul grades to a limit the whole fleet can descend and climb safely, commonly around 10% (1 in 10).
• Match the grade to the braking and retardation capacity of the largest loaded vehicle that will use the road.
• Treat any grade steeper than the standard limit as a short, engineered pinch with its own controls, not as normal running road.
• Consider the combined effect of grade and descent length. A moderate grade over a long descent can be as demanding on brakes as a steeper short one.

Where you set the number, record the basis for it. A documented grade limit tied to fleet capability is far easier to defend and audit than a figure with no rationale behind it.

Ramp design and flat zones

Ramps are where grade, geometry and traffic conflict come together, so they deserve particular attention. A ramp that starts or ends on a grade forces trucks to stop, hold and pull away on a slope, which is exactly where brake demand, roll-back and runaway risk are highest.

To manage this, RS19 references flat areas at the top and bottom of ramps, commonly around 25 m of near-level road, so vehicles can stop and queue safely before or after the grade. These flat zones do several jobs at once:

• They give trucks a level place to stop and hold without rolling back or straining service brakes on a slope.
• They provide safe queuing space at the base or crest of a ramp, away from the descent itself.
• They reduce the risk of a stationary truck being struck or of a following vehicle closing in on a slope.
• They ease the transition onto intersections, dumps and loading areas at the ends of the ramp, which ties into mine road intersection design.

When you review a ramp, look at the whole profile: the flat zone at the top, the grade through the middle and the flat zone at the bottom. If either flat zone is missing or too short, trucks end up stopping on the grade, and that is a hazard worth recording and correcting.

Runaway vehicle controls and escape provisions

Runaway vehicle risk on a mine is managed through a layered set of controls rather than any single measure. The first line of defence is design: keeping grades within fleet capability, keeping descents to a sensible length and building flat zones so trucks are not forced to stop on a slope.

Beyond geometry, the controls that reduce runaway consequences typically include:

• Grade limits and descent length. Capping sustained grade and avoiding long, uninterrupted descents keeps brake and retarder temperatures within limits.
• Escape provisions. Escape ramps, arrester beds or run-out areas give a runaway vehicle somewhere to shed speed safely away from other traffic and infrastructure.
• Safety berms and windrows. Edge protection along descents helps keep a vehicle on the road, which connects directly to mine road safety berms.
• Speed limits and traffic separation. Setting descent speeds to the road and separating light and heavy vehicles reduces both the likelihood and the severity of a loss of control.
• Fleet condition and operating discipline. Brake and retarder maintenance, correct gear selection on descent and driver training all keep the vehicle-based controls effective.

These controls sit alongside the wider duties in the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2017, made under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999. Runaway vehicle interaction is also a natural trigger point for a TARP for mine roads, so that a change in road condition or a near miss drives a defined response rather than being left to judgement.

Surface, drainage and crossfall

A well set grade only works if the road surface can deliver traction and shed water. Surface condition, drainage and crossfall all interact with gradient, and a fault in any of them can turn a compliant grade into a hazard.

• Surface condition. Loose material, potholes, corrugations and spillage reduce traction and braking, which matter most on a grade. A steep road with a poor surface is far more demanding than the same grade well maintained.
• Drainage. Water running down or across a grade scours the surface and creates slippery or soft patches. Drains, table drains and culverts need to carry water off the road rather than along the running surface.
• Crossfall. A consistent crossfall sheds water to the side and helps vehicles track predictably. Too little crossfall ponds water; too much, or crossfall that reverses through a curve, upsets a loaded truck on a grade.

The key point is that grade, surface, drainage and crossfall are one system. When you inspect a ramp or a descent, check them together, because a change in the surface or drainage can quietly erode the safety margin the grade was designed with.

Recording grade and ramp hazards

Grade and ramp issues are location-specific, so they are best recorded against the place on the road where they occur rather than in a spreadsheet that loses the geography. A steep pinch, a missing flat zone at the base of a ramp or a scoured descent all need to be found again, tracked and closed out at the right spot.

This is where HazView helps: you can record grades, ramp hazards and TARP triggers directly on the map, so the descent that needs attention, the flat zone that is too short and the trigger condition that escalates the response are all visible in one place. That keeps the road design intent, the current condition and the required action tied to the actual location on site.

Grade and ramp checklist

Use this checklist when reviewing a haul road grade or ramp against RS19 expectations:

• Is the sustained grade within the design limit for the fleet, commonly around 10% (1 in 10)?
• Is any steeper section a short, justified pinch with its own controls, not normal running road?
• Has the grade been checked against the braking and retardation limits of the largest loaded vehicle?
• Is the combined effect of grade and descent length within brake and retarder capacity?
• Does the ramp have a flat zone at the top and at the bottom, commonly around 25 m, so trucks are not stopping on the grade?
• Are escape provisions, arrester beds or run-out areas provided where descent length or grade warrant them?
• Are safety berms and edge protection continuous along the descent?
• Is the surface maintained, free of loose material and providing traction on the grade?
• Does drainage carry water off the road, and is crossfall consistent and correct through curves?
• Are descent speed limits and traffic separation set to suit the grade?
• Are grade and ramp hazards recorded against their location, with TARP triggers defined?

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the maximum grade for a haul road?

There is no single legislated maximum, because the safe grade depends on the fleet, the surface and the descent length. In practice a commonly used maximum sustained grade on Australian haul roads is around 10%, or 1 in 10, with short pinches sometimes steeper by design and controlled separately. RS19 recommends setting the limit to what the whole fleet can descend and climb safely, loaded and empty.

What is a 1 in 10 grade?

A 1 in 10 grade means the road rises or falls 1 metre for every 10 metres travelled horizontally, which is a gradient of 10%. It is a common reference point for the upper limit of sustained haul road grade, because it keeps braking demand and runaway risk within the capability of most haul truck fleets.

Why are flat zones needed on ramps?

Flat zones give trucks a level place to stop, hold and queue at the top and bottom of a ramp, rather than forcing them to stop on a slope where roll-back, brake strain and runaway risk are highest. RS19 references flat areas around 25 m at each end of a ramp for this reason. A missing or short flat zone is a hazard worth recording and correcting.

How is runaway risk controlled?

Runaway risk is controlled through layered measures: grade limits and sensible descent lengths, flat zones so trucks do not stop on slopes, escape ramps or arrester beds, safety berms along the edge, descent speed limits, traffic separation, and disciplined brake and retarder maintenance. No single control is enough on its own, so the design and operating controls work together.

For the full standard, see the Recognised Standard 19 PDF and our RS19 guide.

Want grades, ramp hazards and TARP triggers mapped and tracked in one place? Book a HazView demo and see how your haul road controls come together on the map.

The post Haul Road Grades and Ramps: RS19 Design Limits Explained appeared first on HazView®.

Understanding mine road safety berm requirements comes down to two questions: when do you need a berm, and how high does it have to be. A safety berm, also called a windrow, is an earth mound built along the edge of a mine road to reduce the risk of a vehicle running off. Under Recognised Standard 19 (RS19), a berm is generally warranted wherever there is a drop-off, with a commonly cited trigger of more than about 0.5 metres. For height, RS19 recommends a trapezoidal berm of at least about 50% of the largest tyre diameter of the vehicles using the road, and a triangular berm of at least about 66% of that diameter.

This guide sets out what a berm is designed to do, when RS19 calls for one, how to size and place it, and how to inspect and record berm condition so your controls hold up. It sits alongside our broader RS19 design and construction of mine roads guide and our articles on mine road intersection design and haul road grades and ramps.

What a safety berm (windrow) does

A safety berm is a continuous mound of compacted material placed along the outer edge of a road or dump. Its job is to give a driver a physical and visual edge, and to redirect a vehicle that begins to run off the road back towards the running surface. On elevated roads, ramps and tip heads, this run-off protection is one of the most important controls you have against a vehicle leaving the road and rolling or falling to a lower level.

It is worth being clear about what a berm is not. A berm is a run-off protection measure, not a barrier designed to stop a vehicle travelling at speed. A large haul truck carries enormous momentum, and no reasonable earth mound will halt one that has left the road at operating speed. The berm buys reaction time and correction, discourages a slow drift over the edge, and provides a clear tactile cue when a wheel makes contact. Treating it as a crash barrier is a mistake that leads to under-sizing and complacency.

Because the berm is an earthwork rather than a fixed structure, its effectiveness depends entirely on how it is built and maintained. A windrow that has been knocked down by a grader pass, scalped for material, or eroded by rain is no longer doing its job, even though it still looks like a berm from the cab.

When RS19 requires a berm

RS19, the Queensland Recognised Standard 19 “Design and Construction of Mine Roads” made under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999, treats edge protection as a function of the consequence of running off. The general principle is straightforward: where a vehicle leaving the road could travel onto ground that presents a hazard, edge protection is warranted. The most common trigger discussed in practice is a drop-off, and the figure widely used across Queensland operations is a change in level of greater than about 0.5 metres.

In plain terms, if the ground beside the running surface falls away by more than roughly half a metre, you should expect a berm along that edge. The larger the drop and the more serious the consequence below, the less room there is for judgement: elevated roads, ramps, dump edges and tip heads all sit firmly in berm territory. Situations that commonly call for a berm include the following.

• Elevated or benched roads where one side falls away to a lower level.
• Ramps and haul road grades with drop-offs on the low side.
• Dump and tip head edges where vehicles reverse or tip near an edge.
• Roads running alongside voids, highwalls, low walls, water or steep batters.
• Any road edge with a drop-off greater than about 0.5 metres.

Where you cannot verify a precise threshold against your own site standard, treat the 0.5 metre figure as a screening trigger and escalate on consequence. RS19 recommends assessing each edge on the hazard it presents rather than applying a single number blindly, so a shallow drop onto a hard, unforgiving surface can warrant a berm just as a deeper drop does.

How high must a berm be

Berm height is set relative to the largest vehicle using the road, because a berm that suits a light vehicle is meaningless to a haul truck. RS19 ties the height to tyre diameter, which is a sensible proxy for the size and ground clearance of the machine. The guidance is:

• Trapezoidal berms: at least about 50% of the largest tyre diameter of the vehicles using the road.
• Triangular berms: at least about 66% of the largest tyre diameter of the vehicles using the road.

The practical point is that you size the berm to the biggest tyre on the road, not the average vehicle. If a road carries both light vehicles and large haul trucks, the truck governs. As a worked example, a haul truck with a tyre roughly 3.5 metres in diameter would call for a trapezoidal berm of about 1.75 metres, or a triangular berm of about 2.3 metres, along that edge. Always confirm the actual tyre diameter for the fleet on the road rather than assuming, because tyre sizes vary widely between truck classes.

These are minimums, not targets to shave down to. Erosion, traffic wear and grading all tend to reduce berm height over time, so building to the minimum on day one leaves no margin before the berm falls out of compliance. Many operations build a little above the minimum precisely so that normal wear does not immediately breach the standard.

Trapezoidal vs triangular profiles

The two common berm profiles behave differently, which is why RS19 sets a higher fraction for the triangular shape.

A trapezoidal berm has a flat top and sloped sides, giving it a broad base and a substantial mass of material. It holds its shape well, resists erosion, and presents a more consistent barrier to a drifting wheel. The trade-off is that it consumes more material and takes more road width to build. This is why the required height fraction is lower, at about 50% of tyre diameter: the profile is inherently more stable and effective for a given height.

A triangular berm is quicker to form with a grader or dozer and uses less material, but it comes to a narrow crest and is easier to knock down, erode or override. To compensate for the less robust shape, RS19 recommends a greater height, at about 66% of tyre diameter. Triangular berms suit temporary or lower-consequence edges, while trapezoidal berms are generally preferred on permanent, high-consequence edges such as ramps and dump crests.

Whichever profile you choose, the material matters. A berm built from loose, oversized or non-cohesive material will not hold together under impact and will erode quickly. Compacted, well-graded material of a suitable size gives the berm the integrity it needs to perform.

Placement, gaps and maintenance

Height alone does not make a berm effective. Placement and continuity are just as important. The berm should run continuously along the hazard side of the road, set back far enough from the edge that the ground beneath it is stable and will not slough away under the weight of the material or a vehicle bearing against it. A berm built right on a soft or cracked edge can fail together with the edge it is meant to protect.

Gaps are a particular weakness. Every break in a berm, whether for drainage, access or a crossing point, is a place where a vehicle could leave the road. Gaps should be minimised, justified, and clearly identified. Where drainage requires a break, consider carrying the water through or under the berm rather than cutting it. Intersections and access points need particular thought, because they naturally interrupt edge protection.

Maintenance is where many berms quietly fail. A grader clearing the running surface can pull material off the berm or knock the crest down. Rain erodes the profile. Traffic contact flattens sections. Without a maintenance routine and a clear owner, a compliant berm degrades into a token mound over a few weeks. Berm restoration should be part of routine road maintenance, not an afterthought raised only when someone notices a problem.

Inspecting berms and recording drop-offs

Berms are a critical control, and critical controls need verification rather than assumption. The person best placed to check a berm is whoever holds responsibility for the road, typically supervisors and operators on shift, supported by regular checks from surveyors and geotechnical staff. Height should be measured against the largest tyre on the road, not judged by eye from a light vehicle, because the view from a ute badly overstates how tall a berm looks.

The recurring problem is knowing where every drop-off and every berm actually is, and whether each one currently meets height. Roads change daily as pits develop, so a berm that was compliant last week may not be today. This is exactly the kind of control that fails quietly when there is no live picture of its condition, a pattern we cover in why critical controls fail and how to fix it with real-time visibility.

This is where HazView helps. Teams use HazView to track berms, drop-offs and edge-protection inspections on a shared hazard map, so every open drop-off has a location, a status and an owner, and every berm inspection is logged against the point it relates to. Instead of a berm hazard living in someone’s notebook, it sits on the map where the next shift, the surveyors and the geotechnical team can all see it and act.

Berm compliance checklist

Use the following checklist when assessing a berm against RS19 principles. It is a screening aid, not a substitute for your site road standard.

• Is there a drop-off greater than about 0.5 metres, or another hazard, along this edge?
• Is a berm present continuously along the full length of the hazard?
• Is the berm height at least about 50% of the largest tyre diameter (trapezoidal) or 66% (triangular)?
• Was height measured against the largest vehicle using the road, not a light vehicle?
• Is the berm built from compacted, suitable material that holds its shape?
• Is the berm set back on stable ground clear of a soft or cracked edge?
• Are gaps minimised, justified and clearly identified?
• Is berm maintenance owned and scheduled as part of road upkeep?
• Is the berm and any open drop-off recorded, located and tracked to closure?

Frequently Asked Questions

How high does a mine road berm need to be?

RS19 ties berm height to the largest tyre diameter of the vehicles using the road. A trapezoidal berm should be at least about 50% of that diameter, and a triangular berm at least about 66%. Size the berm to the biggest machine on the road, so a haul truck governs even where light vehicles also use it, and build a little above the minimum to allow for wear.

When is a berm required?

A berm is generally warranted wherever a vehicle running off the road could reach a hazard. The common screening trigger is a drop-off of more than about 0.5 metres, but RS19 recommends assessing each edge on consequence, so a shallow drop onto an unforgiving surface can also call for a berm.

Trapezoidal or triangular berm?

Trapezoidal berms are more stable and erosion-resistant and are preferred on permanent, high-consequence edges such as ramps and dump crests. Triangular berms are faster to form and use less material, which suits temporary or lower-consequence edges, but they must be built taller to compensate for the less robust shape.

Who inspects berms?

Responsibility usually sits with the people who own the road: supervisors and operators on shift, supported by regular checks from surveyors and geotechnical staff. Height should be measured against the largest tyre on the road rather than judged by eye, and results should be recorded so the control can be verified over time. The Queensland regulator, Resources Safety and Health Queensland (RSHQ), oversees compliance with the standard.

For the full requirements, read the Recognised Standard 19 PDF and always defer to your own site road design standard.

See your berms and drop-offs on one live map. HazView lets your crews record every drop-off, track berm height against RS19 and verify edge-protection inspections in real time, so nothing slips between shifts. Book a HazView demo to see how it works on your roads.

The post Mine Road Safety Berms: RS19 Height and Placement Requirements appeared first on HazView®.

Good mine road intersection design is about geometry that lets an operator see, decide and stop before a collision becomes possible. Under Queensland’s Recognised Standard 19 (RS19), the safest haul road junctions are simple: roads that meet at about 90 degrees, clear sightlines in every direction, controlled priority, and no confusing multi-leg layouts. This guide walks through what RS19 expects at intersections, why those rules exist, and how to build the checks into your day-to-day hazard management so non-compliant layouts get flagged before a light vehicle and a 200 tonne truck arrive at the same point.

Why intersections are a killer on mine roads

Intersections concentrate risk. They are the one place on a haul road network where vehicles on different paths are meant to cross, and where a light vehicle in the blind spot of a haul truck can be invisible to the operator until it is too late. Vehicle interaction is a declared principal hazard at Queensland surface coal mines, so it must be managed through a principal hazard management plan rather than treated as a routine risk. You can read more in our overview of the vehicle interaction principal hazard.

The physics are unforgiving. A loaded rear-dump truck needs a long stopping distance, has enormous blind zones, and cannot swerve. When an intersection forces the operator to judge a shallow-angle merge or crane around the cab, the design has already loaded the dice. The RS19 approach removes those judgement calls by fixing the geometry so the safe action is the obvious one.

What RS19 says about intersections

RS19, “Design and Construction of Mine Roads”, is a Queensland recognised standard issued under section 72 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999. The current published edition is the 2019 version of RS19, and it sits alongside the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2017 as the reference the regulator expects you to have considered. It is a statement of good practice: if you depart from it, you need a documented reason and an equivalent or better control. For the full picture, see our RS19 design and construction of mine roads guide.

On intersections, the core principles are consistent and practical:

• Cross at about 90 degrees. RS19 recommends roads meet as close to a right angle as the terrain allows, typically within roughly plus or minus 5 degrees of 90. A square intersection gives the operator the shortest, clearest head-turn to check both approaches and removes the long blind quarter that a shallow angle creates.
• Avoid Y-shaped and multi-leg intersections. Acute-angle merges and junctions with more than four legs multiply the number of conflict points and force operators to judge closing speeds at an angle. RS19 favours simple T and cross layouts over Y and star arrangements.
• Keep the grade flat through the junction. Intersections should be built on flat ground, not on a grade, so vehicles can stop and hold without rolling and loaded trucks are not fighting a hill as they enter the conflict zone.
• Provide flat zones at ramps. Where a ramp meets a bench road or another route, RS19 recommends a flat landing, typically in the order of 25 metres, at both the base and the top of the ramp before the intersection, so vehicles are on level ground when they arrive at the decision point.

None of these are arbitrary. Each one shortens the time an operator needs to perceive a hazard and lengthens the distance available to react. Combine a square crossing, a flat approach and a clear view, and you have designed most of the risk out before a single sign goes up.

Sightlines and stop control

Geometry only helps if the operator can actually see. Sight distance is the length of clear road an operator can view ahead, and at an intersection it needs to be long enough for the largest, heaviest vehicle on that road to come to a controlled stop from its normal operating speed. That means measuring against the worst case, a fully loaded haul truck at speed, not a light vehicle.

Common things that quietly eat into sightlines include stockpiles and windrows near the junction, high median berms, parked equipment, spoil, signage clusters, and the crest of a nearby rise. The sight triangle, the area an approaching operator must be able to see across to detect a vehicle on the crossing road, has to stay clear of all of them. Design the intersection so that priority and stopping requirements are unambiguous:

• Assign clear priority. One road gives way, and the give-way road is signed and, where warranted, physically controlled with a stop position.
• Set the stop or give-way line where the operator on the minor road can see the full length of required sight distance along the major road.
• Check sightlines from the correct eye height. A haul truck cab sits metres above a light vehicle, so a berm that blocks a ute driver’s view may be irrelevant to a truck operator and vice versa. Design for both.
• Re-check sightlines as the pit develops. A clear intersection today can be blinded next month by a new dump or a growing stockpile.

Median and centre berms

A median berm is a raised earth bund running down the centre of a road to separate opposing traffic, and at an intersection it helps channel vehicles onto the correct path and discourage corner-cutting. The design tension is obvious: a berm tall enough to guide a truck can also be tall enough to hide an approaching light vehicle. RS19 resolves this by favouring low berms at intersections, high enough to channel and delineate the path but low enough that they do not block the sight triangle. In short, the median should guide the wheels without hiding the traffic.

Practical points for medians and centre berms at intersections:

• Keep the berm profile low through the sight triangle so operators can see across it from both cabs.
• Use the median to define the turning path and prevent short-cutting the corner, not as a visual barrier.
• Maintain the berm. Erosion, spillage and repeated grading change its height and shape over time, and a well-designed berm can drift out of compliance.
• Do not confuse a median berm with the perimeter windrow or safety berm that stops a vehicle running off the edge. They do different jobs and are sized differently.

For how edge protection is sized around the rest of the network, see our companion guide to mine road safety berms.

Signage, lighting and delineation

Once the geometry is right, signage and delineation tell operators what to do at speed and in the dark. Every intersection should be announced with advance warning, controlled with clear priority signs, and made visible at night. The aim is that an operator arriving for the first time, at night, in dust, can read the intersection without hesitation.

• Advance warning signs sited far enough back that a loaded truck can respond before the junction.
• Consistent give-way and stop signage that matches the priority set in the design, used the same way across the whole site.
• Reflective delineators, guide posts or edge markers so the road alignment and the median are visible in headlights.
• Lighting or high-visibility marking at busy or complex junctions where light vehicles and haul trucks mix.
• Speed control on the approach where sight distance is constrained and cannot be improved.

Signage is the last line, not the first. It supports good geometry, but it cannot rescue a Y-shaped junction with blind approaches. Fix the layout, then sign it.

Designing intersections into your hazard map

The hard part is not knowing the rules, it is keeping every live intersection compliant as the pit changes week to week. This is where a spatial view earns its keep. In HazView for OCEs, each intersection can be dropped onto an interactive hazard map over current imagery, with its geometry, priority control, sightline notes and inspection history attached to the point. When a new dump grows into a sight triangle or a berm is graded down, the layout that has drifted out of compliance is visible on the map rather than buried in a folder, and the relevant checklist can be raised against it.

Intersection compliance checklist

Use this as a starting point for inspecting or designing a haul road junction against RS19, adapted to your site’s standards and vehicles.

• Roads meet at about 90 degrees, within roughly plus or minus 5 degrees.
• Layout is a simple T or cross, not a Y or a multi-leg junction.
• The junction sits on flat ground, not on a grade.
• Flat zones of around 25 metres are provided at the base and top of any adjoining ramp.
• Sight distance meets or exceeds the stopping distance of the largest loaded vehicle at its operating speed.
• The sight triangle is clear of stockpiles, spoil, parked plant and signage clutter.
• Priority is assigned and signed, with a defined stop or give-way position.
• Median and centre berms are low enough not to block the sight triangle.
• Advance warning, priority signage and night-time delineation are in place and consistent.
• The intersection is recorded on the hazard map and re-inspected as the pit develops.

Resources Safety and Health Queensland publishes current standards and safety alerts at rshq.qld.gov.au.

Frequently Asked Questions

What angle must mine road intersections meet at?

RS19 recommends that mine roads meet as close to 90 degrees as the terrain allows, typically within about plus or minus 5 degrees. A square, right-angle crossing gives operators the shortest and clearest view of both approaches and removes the long blind quarter created by a shallow-angle merge. It is a recommendation of good practice rather than a fixed legal number, so a documented reason and equivalent control is expected wherever the site departs from it.

Why avoid Y intersections?

Y-shaped intersections force vehicles to merge at an acute angle, which creates a large blind spot on the trailing side of the cab and makes it hard for an operator to judge the closing speed of crossing traffic. They also add conflict points compared with a simple T or cross. RS19 favours square junctions precisely because they shorten the operator’s head-turn and make priority and sightlines easier to design and read.

What is a median berm?

A median berm, sometimes called a centre berm, is a raised earth bund running along the centre of a road to separate opposing traffic and to channel vehicles onto the correct path through a junction. At intersections it should be kept low enough that it does not block the sight triangle, so it guides the wheels without hiding an approaching vehicle. It is different from a perimeter safety berm or windrow, which is edge protection sized to stop a vehicle running off the road.

How far should the flat zone extend from a ramp?

RS19 recommends a flat landing, typically in the order of 25 metres, at both the base and the top of a ramp before it meets an intersection. The flat zone means vehicles are on level ground when they reach the decision point, so a loaded truck is not accelerating downhill into the junction or fighting a grade to hold position. Confirm the exact distance against your site’s road design standard and the vehicles in use.

Ready to see your intersections and haul road hazards on one live map, with RS19 checks built into your inspections? Book a HazView demo and we will show you how it works on your own site imagery.

The post Mine Road Intersection Design: RS19 Rules for Safer Haul Road Junctions appeared first on HazView®.