Page 1

Systematic Review and Compliance Audits of

Ground Control Management Plans
Louie Human MAusIMM, Principal Consultant (Geotechnical Engineering),
SRK Consulting

This article first appeared in The AusIMM Bulletin, April 2015 edition.

A systematic approach to review and auditing of Ground Control Management Plan (GCMP) for both open
pit and underground operations adds value and provides a clear priority list for continued improvement.
The process should be based on and tailored to meet the guidelines provided by the States Mines
Inspectorate with respect to the location of operation under review and reflect the in-house corporate
governance requirements.
An approach has been developed to audit Ground Control Management Plan (GCMP) documentation,
related operating standards, management plans, procedures and the site implementation process to ensure
compliance to legislation and industry expectations. The approach is designed to evaluate and score the
mine’s GCMP documentation and associated operating procedures consistently with respects to satisfying
legal requirements and robustness to the rigors of regular Mines Inspectorate geotechnical audits.
The Mines Inspectorate recognise that mining experience and professional judgment in geotechnical
engineering are not easily quantified, but can contribute significantly to formulating various solutions to a
particular mining problem. Management is required to recognise, identify and address the geotechnical
issues that are unique to their mine, using current geotechnical knowledge and tools.

Methodology
This systematic approach provides a methodology, checklist and assessment process that auditors can
follow when evaluating GCMP documentation and auditing operational compliance to the plan. Since
operations can have unique geotechnical issues, certain aspects on the audit form may be tailored; auditors
should use their judgment to include any additional geotechnical aspects identified on the specific operation
during the review process.
Auditors can use this checklist to ensure that all aspects required are addressed consistently.
A typical GCMP audit should:
 Provide the site with a systematic evaluation of the current quality and effectiveness of their GCMP and
level of compliance; and
 Provide a clear transparent prioritised action plan or recommendations to address any gaps or
deficiencies identified relative their level of severity.
A typical GCMP audit may cover the following sections:
 Description lithology, geological structure and rock mass parameters;
 Mine design and controls;
 Ground support reinforcement design, standards and justification documentation;
 Ground monitoring systems;
 Seismic Response Management Plan;
 Blasting considerations;
 Surface or groundwater management;
 Integration of the GCMP into the life of mine planning;
 Risk management process;
 Personnel role descriptions and responsibilities according the GCMP;
 Training requirements for mine personnel with regards to ground awareness; and
 Improvement action plan completion since last audit.

April 2015
SRK Consulting Page 2

Each Section is divided in to elemental questions that define the requirements of each section from a
legislative and industry exception.
A descriptive rating system has been developed and is shown in Table 1-1. These ratings are applied to
sections under review based on the individual assessment of the elements making up each section.
An example of the overall section rating score and category descriptions that can be used to evaluate the
outcome for each section based on their individual elements audited is summarised in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Section rating score and category descriptions
Rating Description

All elements are in place and of an excellent standard. These elements have been
Excellent (Score 10)
confirmed by viewing evidence of compliance
The majority of elements are in place and of a high standard, approaching excellence.
Above Average (Score 8-9)
These elements have been confirmed by viewing evidence of compliance.
Elements are generally in place. There is evidence of some non-critical weaknesses.
Average (Score 5-7)
Actions need to be included in risk reduction plan with a priority appropriate for risk.
Certain key elements are not applied. High priority for prompt improvement and action
Below Average (Score 3-4)
implementation. Actions need to be completed before next annual review.
Major elements of property conservation system are not applied. Potential “Extreme” or
Poor (Score 1-2) “High” risk to people, environment, property and business evident. Urgent action (as
specified in the audit recommendations) required to reduce the risk.

Table 1-2 shows the priory rating categories and descriptions that are used for the assessment of the
individual elements making up the various sections.
Table 1-2: Element priority ratings and descriptions
Priority Description

The presence of a critical risk or absence of documentation that requires immediate

attention.
High
The presence of such an issue requires immediate action including the
implementation of interim control measures where appropriate.
The presence of a significant risk or absence of documentation that requires
management attention.
Medium
The presence of such an issue requires management action including the
implementation of interim control measures where appropriate.
Based on sound engineering judgement. No timeframe for action is specified.
Low These assist the site in moving from recognised and generally accepted good
engineering practice to best practice
Nil Considered to be best practice

The auditor rates these specific element questions, which drilldown in to each section according to
compliance and priority for improvement, if required. Each element question is assessed and a priority level
is assigned based on documentation and operational compliance.
Any comments and supporting evidence needed or provided by the mine site is noted and collected as part
of this process. Each section is provided with an overall rating according to standard definitions (Table 1-1).
Results
Following the audit, the site receives a report highlighting the level of compliance of their GCMP and
supporting documentation, with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the controls; and an action plan with
priorities addressing areas requiring improvement.
An example of an audit summary table showing various element results and overall section ratings based on
review of GCMP documentation and compliance audit is contained in Table 1-3.

April 2015
SRK Consulting Page 3

Table 1-3: An example of an audit result summary table

Element Priority Results
Overall Section
Sections No Action
Low Medium High Rating (Score)
Required
1 Life Of Mine Planning 5 2 6 Nil Average (5)
Geological Structure and Rock Mass
2 8 3 1 Nil Above Average (8)
Strength
3 Blasting Considerations Nil 3 1 Nil Average (5)
4 Excavation Design and Controls 3 2 Nil Nil Above Average (9)
5 Ground Support Reinforcement 5 1 2 Nil Average (7)
6 Hydrogeological Considerations Nil Nil 3 Nil Below Average (3)
7 Mine Design and Planning 7 Nil 2 Nil Average (7)
8 Ground Monitoring 3 1 1 Nil Average (6)
9 Risk Management 9 1 4 Nil Average (5)
10 Responsibilities and training 2 2 Nil Nil Average (5)
Total 42 15 20 Nil
Percentage of Total 54 20 26 Nil

Conclusions
The intent of this audit methodology is to provide transparency and identify any deficiencies or vulnerabilities
in the current GCMP documentation, supporting procedures and implementation on site. In the long term,
this process will encourage a systematic self-management and auditing tool of ground control-related risks,
which typically improve safety and performance on site. It is important to remember you cannot manage
what you don’t measure.

April 2015