Authors: Jian Xi; David Cliff; Zongzhi Wu
Addresses: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Haidian, Beijing, 100083, China ' Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia ' State Administration of Work Safety, Dongcheng, Beijing, 100713, China
Abstract: This paper introduces current practices on underground coal mine emergency management in China and Australia. From aspects of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR), methods, measures and technology applied in two countries on underground coal mine emergency management are compared. The influences of education, engineering and enforcement (3E) on accident prevention in both countries are analysed. Differences on legislations, emergency plans, organisation, equipment and exercises during emergency preparedness are enumerated as well as the reasons leading to these differences. On the aspect of emergency response, the incident classification, command structure, evacuation and aided rescue are compared. For emergency recovery, differences on incident report rules are emphatically compared. At last, advantages and challenges of China and Australia on underground coal mine emergency management are concluded. Third party emergency services, trigger action response plans (TARPs) and high potential incidents (HPIs) are three major advantages from which China could benefit.
Keywords: China; Australia; underground coal mine; mine accidents; accident prevention; emergency preparedness; emergency plans; emergency response; TARPs; trigger action response plans; HPIs; high potential incidents.
International Journal of Emergency Management, 2017 Vol.13 No.4, pp.349 - 367
Received: 29 Oct 2015
Accepted: 27 Jun 2016
Published online: 08 Sep 2017 *