The Commission of Inquiry into the on-the-job death of BOSAI Minerals Group Guyana Inc (BMGG) employee Neptrid Hercules found culpability not only on the part of the company, but also the Ministry of Labour and respective oversight agencies, as had they been vigilant in their duties and enforced laws of the country, the fatal incident would have never occurred.
The report included a long list of recommendations with timelines for implementation to prevent another occurrence, but it is unclear what has been done nearly three months after by those identified in the Ministry of Labour, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC).
The Ministry of Labour had issued a release with some of the recommendations in the report, but there was no word on the overall report findings nor was it stated that a timeframe was advised for the implementation of the recommendations.
The report presented the results of an investigation undertaken, consequent to an earth structure failure on March 11th 2023, of an area being reclaimed by Bosai where Hercules was entombed along with a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. He had been operating the machine at the time and the report underscored that had certain requisite risk assessments been taken prior, the accident could have been avoided.
“The primary cause… was BMGG’s failure to conduct a risk assessment of the reclamation dump construction methodology. The risk assessment would have identified the possibility of liquefaction simply based on the stratigraphy of the dump and the consequences associated with a highly impermeable layer underlying a loose granular soil with no ability to dissipate ground and surface water inflows into the granular layer. Another contributory factor is BMGG’s failure to address geotechnical engineering/ groundwater hydrology issues in its operations,” the report seen by the Stabroek News stated.
It explained that elementary geotechnical knowledge would recognize that clay would lose strength in undrained load conditions when loaded, but this was never considered by BMGG.
“Reclamation dump operations never integrated any soil strength data into the design, therefore the likelihood of soil strength loss was never considered. BMGG had no monitoring instrumentation in place at the reclamation dump. The development of elevated pore water pressures, warning of the possibility of liquefaction, could have been determined if low technology stand-pipe piezometers were installed in the area. … several minor failures [had] occurred at the reclamation dump previously,” the report highlighted.
“Legislative/regulatory bodies also must bear some culpability for the failure. Application of best technology and risk assessment requirements by the EPA; the Ministry of Labour’s request of BMGG for a report, bearing the seal of a professional engineer that the ground stability would not endanger a worker and GGMC’s application of some of the requirements of the 2005 Mining (Amendments) Regulations may have induced BMGG to incorporate geotechnical engineering and hydrology considerations into the reclamation dump construction,” the report added.
Best practices
In a stinging rebuke to the company, the report stated that “best practices” such as risk assessments for large-scale operations were never applied by the company and while it had hired an Occupational Health and Safety consultant, that person focused more on public relations than ensuring safety measures were implemented.
The investigation also highlighted that the company also did not have an Emergency Response Plan and thus no noted measures could have been activated on the said day.
According to the report, the failure that day resulted in the displacement of approximately 35,000 cubic meters (m3) of soil and was reflected by significant saturated soil flow to the base of the wall opposite the reclamation area. That saturated soil flow also progressed to the north and east of the mined-out area and was precluded from entering the active mining area by a ramp separating it from the mined area.
“There was failure to identify risks associated with dump construction, consequently an appropriate corrective mechanism could not be applied to dump construction. An Emergency Response Plan, which would have been prepared if a risk assessment was undertaken, was never prepared for the likelihood of reclamation dump failure,” the report said.
Further, it added, “The site visit confirmed the presence of small static liquefaction flows elsewhere around the reclamation dump. This should have alerted BMGG to the likelihood of other failures. BMGG should have considered the increased likelihood of additional failures given the occurrence of these small liquefaction flows coupled with the failure reported by Mr Bacchus and Mr Graham. This confirms the absence of technical oversight of a relatively complex reclamation dump construction.”
‘Negligence’
The report said that BMGG’s actions, after the failure and loss of life, “have indicated no interest in resolving the technical issues and gaps in the design and construction methodology. BMGG continues the dump reclamation operation with practically no changes despite the technical deficiencies having been identified.
“BMGG efforts are more focused on public relations as is evidenced by its hiring of a non-technical consultant. That consultant, Mr Peter Benny, adds no value to BMGG’s ability to develop solutions to the technical deficiencies in the reclamation dump design and construction…”
And with the state owning 30% of the company, the report said, BMGG seems to believe that it “validates its failure to comply with the legislative/regulatory framework which is applicable to its operations.
“There is an urgent necessity for the Government of Guyana to ensure that this is immediately addressed and corrected. This is especially important to ensure that the Government of Guyana is not regarded as being insensitive to environmental, health and safety concerns given its development thrust based on the exploitation of natural resources. Inaction of the legislated/regulatory bodies does not excuse BMGG from exercising appropriate Standard of Care and Due Diligence required of an international mining company,” the report said.
“The reclamation dump failure was caused totally by BMGG omissions and negligence in exercising appropriate standard of care and due diligence.”
While BMGG adopted an Occupational Safety and Health Policy Statement, the report said, it was “undated”. That statement outlines 27 policies where several were shown to be applicable to the fatal incident. The ones considered particularly applicable where listed as Policy # 13 – Personal Injury; Policy # 21 – Planned Inspections of Worksites; Policy # 23 – Departmental Health and Safety Committee and Policy # 24 – Job Safety Analysis.
The report said that during the investigation, BMGG team members and Benny provided responses of adherence to the BMGG Occupational Safety and Health Policy Statement. However, “the responses to queries from the investigation team, indicate that BMGG generally implements minimal/no enforcement of the above identified policies”.
On the personal injury policy, it addresses three injury scenarios and mandates responses to those scenarios. The failure of the reclamation bench which resulted in no injury falls under the Minor Injury Requiring First Aid Treatment since the fall of the D9T bulldozer, confirmed by Bacchus and Graham, resulted in only minor injury. “That policy requires that BMGG conduct an immediate investigation and submit a report clearly identifying causes and steps which must be implemented to preclude the occurrence of a similar accident. BMGG, in spite of this policy, never developed that document which may have prevented the accident which resulted in the death of Mr Hercules,” the report stated.
Further, this policy mandates that should a fatality occur, BMGG must prepare a comprehensive report incorporating an analysis of the underlying causes and preventative strategies after proper investigation. This report must be submitted to the General Foreman and Plant Manager. “This report has not been prepared and the BMGG consultant claims that this report must await the retrieval of the D9T bulldozer. Reclamation operations are continuing without the identification of the underlying causes and preventative strategies. The failure to implement its mandated requirements calls into question BMGG’s interest in ensuring safe and technically defensible construction of the reclamation area,” the report noted.
No evidence
According to the policy, Inspections of worksites are required for all sections of each department and must be done at least annually. That inspection must be conducted by a team which is identified in that policy and requires submission of a written report of that inspection to the Health and Safety department. The policy further requires that the inspection committee shall classify the hazard and establish a time frame for corrective measures which the head of department must ensure are completed. “BMGG could provide no evidence of a planned inspection of the reclamation area construction. This is despite the occurrence of the accident referenced by Mr Bacchus and Mr Graham. No effort was consequently expended by BMGG to identify and eliminate accidents associated with reclamation area construction. BMGG clearly has no interest in the management of hazards associated with its operations since similar documents were presented for none of its worksites,” the report said.
The report detailed a number of other policy deficiencies and stated that interaction with the Ministry of Labour indicated that a Safety and Health Authority is still to be created. The functions of the authority are, however, performed by the Chief Occupational Safety and Health Officer.
“The mandates of the Safety and Health Authority/the Chief Occupational Safety and Health Officer, as required by Part II 7(6), Part III 12(2) and Part III 13 (1)(q), were never enforced on BMGG. The Minister of Labour, as can be inferred, never designated any person(s) to serve as technical examiners to BMGG. BMGG has more than 20 employees in the Mines Department. A Safety and Health Committee mandated by the Act does not exist in the Mines Department. The absence of a workplace safety and health committee prevented enforcement of the requirements of the Act detailed in Part III (23) (13) (a) through (f),” the report highlighted.
Turning to the role of the EPA, the report pointed out that it indicated that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), undertaken by Omai, could not qualify for BMGG operations but the agency did request that BMGG submit an EIA.
Nonetheless, it said that BMGG was still required to conform to the dictates of the EPA Act and more particularly to item 9 of Schedule 7. The EPA, in collaboration with the GGMC and or the Ministry of Labour, implements several cross-section programmes but none was implemented for the BMGG mine pit reclamation.
Part II of the Act also declares that the EPA, in the exercise of its functions may conduct investigations and inspections to ensure compliance with the Act or the regulations and investigate complaints relating to breaches. It can also formulate standards and codes of practice to be observed for the improvement and maintenance of the quality of the environment and limits on the release of contaminants into the environment and request, examine, review, evaluate and approve or reject environmental impact assessments and risks analyses and make suitable recommendations for the mitigation of adverse effects of any proposed activity on the environment.
Noted too was that the EPA can monitor and coordinate monitoring of trends in the use of natural resources and their impact on the environment.
However, the report said, “The EPA has conducted no investigations and/or inspections to ensure compliance of the mine pit reclamation with this Act. The agency has not, in addition, exercised any of the functions identified above to BMGG operations and more particularly to ensure these are addressed in the Mine Pit reclamation programme.”
Both the EPA and BMGG were flagged as neither has to date “identified how adherence to the precautionary and State of Technology principles were addressed prior to commencement of the Mine Pit reclamation exercise. Failure to ensure adherence to these two principles is one of the factors which resulted in the accident at the reclamation dump site since no threat of serious and/or irreversible damage was ever identified by the EPA or BMGG.”
The GGMC, the report pointed out, though its mandates are detailed in the Mining Act 1989 and its amendments particularly those of 2005 and 2012, failed to act in adherence to a number of laws therein.
“License requirements were grandfathered to BMGG since mining operations commenced prior to its acquisition of the company from Omai. The initial Mining Permit did not address the issue of mine-pit reclamation. BMGG never informed GGMC of its intent to apply Section 48(1) (b) of the Mining Act, which granted it the right to stack or dump any waste product resulting from mining operations. This plan was consequently never approved by the GGMC. BMGG has never submitted an Environmental Management Plan to GGMC as required by the 2005 Mining Amendments,” the report said.
“No Contingency and Response Plan setting out provisions for hazards in mining operations with practical provisions for responding to emergencies was submitted by BMGG as required under Part 228 (3) of the 2005 Mining Amendments. No Contingency and Response Plan was communicated to employees prior to the failure and BMGG has made no effort to develop such a plan. BMGG never submitted a certificate of appointment for a Mining Manager to the GGMC,” it added.
The investigations highlighted that “BMGG’s failure to develop Environmental Management and Contingency and Response Plans means that BMGG never examined the likelihood of failure of the reclamation dump. These regulations were promulgated after the EIA for Omai was completed by SENES. Due diligence by BMGG dictates that it should have confirmed adherence to these stipulations at the time it acquired the assets. The issue of enforcement by GGMC is not an adequate excuse since BMGG is required to adhere to the laws of Guyana.”
