Search Documents

By Fred N. Kissell

This U.S. Bureau of Mines report is a guide for the control of air contaminants during tunnel construction. Topics discussed are calculating air quantity requirements, types of ventilation systems, planning ventilation systems, control of methane gas, control of dust, control of diesel emission, ventilation to remove blasting fumes, measuring airflow, and measuring gases. This report does not provide detailed design information, but seeks to answer practical questions on air contamination issues.

Jan 1, 1995

By Christopher Mark

This proceedings volume contains papers presented at technology transfer seminars sponsored by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on New Technology for Ground Control in Retreat Mining. The seminars were conducted at five locations: Uniontown, PA (March 26, 1997), Norton, VA (April 8, 1997), Pikeville, KY (April 10, 1997), Charleston, WV (April 17, 1997), and Evansville, IN (April 22, 1997). The papers presented here describe several new, highly practical technologies developed by the NIOSH Pittsburgh and Spokane Research Centers3 to improve safety during pillar retreat operations. Two central issues are addressed: pillar design and mobile roof supports (MRS's). Proper pillar sizing is essential for safe pillar extraction. The Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) program and its large data base of actual mining case histories are presented. LAMODEL, a second computer program, can be used for analysis of multiple-seam and other complex mining situations. Other papers address pillar design to avoid massive pillar collapses and the proper role of coal strength testing. MRS's have greatly improved safety where they are used for pillar line support. We studied the application of MRS's at 20 mines throughout the Eastern United States. Conclusions regarding the most effective section layouts, cut sequences, and support placements are reported. Field and laboratory tests of MRS's are also described.

Jan 1, 1997

By Michael J. Pazuchanics, Thomas J. Fisher, John J. Sammarco, Jeffrey H. Welsh

This report (An Introduction to Safety) is the first in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment's life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics, and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 61508 and other recognized standards. The scope is "surface and underground safety mining systems employing embedded, networked, and non-networked programmable electronics." System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system's safety. • 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a "proof of safety" that the system and its operation meets the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. [ ]

Jan 4, 2001

By Thomas J. Fisher, John J. Sammarco

This report (System Safety 2.1) is the second in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics, and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other recognized standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system.

Jan 4, 2001

By Fred N. Kissell

This handbook describes effective methods for the control of mineral dusts in mines and tunnels. It assumes the reader is familiar with mining. The first chapter deals solely with dust control methods, regardless of the application. It is a brief tutorial on mining dust control and will be of help to the reader whose dust control problem does not conveniently fit any of the mining equipment niches described in later chapters. The subsequent chapters describe dust control methods for different kinds of mines and mining equipment. This includes underground coal and hard-rock mines, as well as surface mines, stone mines, and hard-rock tunnels. Because dust sampling has so many pitfalls, a chapter on methods used to sample dust is included. For those occasions when there is no practical engineering control, a chapter on respirators is also included. Except for those listed as ?future possibilities? in the longwall chapter, the dust control methods described are practical and cost-effective for most mine operators. If controlling dust were a simple matter, dust problems in tunnels and mines would have been eradicated years ago. Unfortunately, most underground dust control methods yield only 25% to 50% reductions in respirable-sized dust. Often, 25% to 50% reductions are not enough to achieve compliance with dust standards. Thus, mine operators must use several methods simultaneously, usually without knowing for sure how well any individual method is working. In fact, given a 25% error in dust sampling and day-to-day variations in dust generation of 50% or more, certainty about which control methods are most effective can be wanting. Nevertheless, over the years, some consensus has emerged on the best dust control practices. This handbook summarizes those practices.

Jan 1, 2003

By Launa G. Mallett, Kathleen Kowalski-Trakofler, Robert H. Peters, Charles PH. D. Vaught, Peter Keating, William J. Wiehagen

On-the-job training is a common means of training or retraining workers and the practice may seem simple and straightforward. Doing it effectively however requires more thought and preparation than simply having someone follow an experienced worker around and watch what they're doing. Over the years, various techniques and practices have evolved that pass on the skills and knowledge of a trainer or coach in a manner that leads an inexperienced trainee to really absorb the information being taught. On-the-job training thus becomes less a haphazard show-and-tell and more a real transfer of information. The goal of this document is to describe how to develop or manage an on-the-job training program so that information is passed on from trainer/coach to trainee efficiently and effectively. By efficient is meant the best use of time and resources of all those involved in the training process, and by effective is meant that the trainee truly learns the skills and internalizes the knowledge needed to perform the job well. The first part of the document discusses topics to think about when developing a formal on- the-job training program. A structure based on coaching is suggested. Then a workshop designed to prepare trainers as coaches is described. Workshop materials include an instructor’s guide and trainee workbook. These materials can be used to train coaches and to assist trainees as they go through the learning process. Content related to specific jobs can be added to these materials to create targeted on-the job-training manuals. Structuring a formal on-the-job training program It is likely that some form of on-the-job training (OJT) is being conducted at your workplace. The formality of that training can range from a structured program to an informal “follow Joe around” method. If your program is completely unstructured, it may not be meeting current training needs. Worse, it may perpetuate bad habits and create “trained” employees who are not given the same information or evaluated to the same standards. Wiehagen et al. comment that, “Success in using unplanned OJT is usually dependent on the luck of the draw, that is, whether the informal trainer is competent at the task he or she is teaching, is motivated to teach, can organize the job into logical components, and knows something about good practices in teaching and evaluating” (2002, p. 27). It is only through planning a structured OJT program that consistency can be created and maintained. At the least, all trainees who have successfully completed such a program can be expected to perform at an established level—they will know what they must do to be successful.

Jan 7, 2005

By John J. Sammarco

This report (System Safety Guidance 5.1) is the sixth in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various lifecycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [< 5.1 System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 8, 2005

By John J. Sammarco

This report (Safety File Guidance 6.0) is the eighth in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [5.1System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 4, 2006

By John J. Sammarco, Janet S. Flynt

This report (Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance 7.0) is the last in a nine-part series of recommendations and guidance addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and after-market suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction (Part 1).—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing a system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety (Part 2) and 2.2 Software Safety (Part 3).—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g]and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File (Part 4).—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meet the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full life cycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment (Part 5).—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. The guidance reports comprise parts 6 through 9 of the series and are listed below: [< 5.1 System Safety Guidance (Part 6).—This guidance supplements 2.1 System Safety. < 5.2 Software Safety Guidance (Part 7).—This guidance supplements 2.2 Software Safety. < 6.0 Safety File Guidance (Part 8).—This guidance supplements 3.0 Safety File. < 7.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment Guidance (Part 9).—This guidance supplements 4.0 Independent Functional Safety Assessment.] [ ]

Jan 4, 2006

By Sean Gallagher

This report was written in an effort to provide better control measures for low back pain (LBP) and low back disability in the mining industry. There are numerous factors associated with development of LBP, many of which can be effectively controlled while some cannot. Better job design is promoted as the best method of reducing cases of LBP and can also reduce the disability (i.e., lost time from work) associated with LBP when it happens. The report draws attention to what is currently known about LBP, what the causes are thought to be, and discusses recent back injury trends in the mining industry. Research describing unique physical demands in mining, such as the capabilities and limitations of working in awkward postures, is also presented. Methods that can be used to prevent initial LBP episodes are provided, including facilities design and layout for materials and supplies, use of mechanical-assist devices, improved design of lifting tasks, and better seat design. Methods of reducing the disability associated with LBP (including workplace design, proactive return-to-work efforts, communication, and management commitment) are also discussed. The report concludes that control of LBP and disability in mining requires a comprehensive approach to limit the repetitive loading that can occur on the low back due to manual materials-handling tasks and exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV). Specific recommendations include the following: ? Successful LBP prevention efforts require a proactive program that has strong management commitment and incorporates employee involvement. ? More efficient supply handling systems and use of mechanical-assist devices can greatly reduce exposure to hazardous lifting tasks. ? Lifting tasks should be designed to minimize low back stress. Tools to evaluate and redesign lifting tasks are presented. ? Improved seat design can reduce exposure to WBV and improve posture, leading to reduced LBP risk. ? The disability associated with LBP can be reduced. Getting the worker back on the job as quickly as possible is in the interest of everyone involved.

Sep 1, 2008

By A. Iannacchione

Major Hazard Risk Assessment (MHRA)1 is used to help prevent major hazards, e.g., fire, explosion, wind-blast, outbursts, spontaneous combustion, roof instability and chemical and hazardous substances, etc., from injuring miners. The structured process associated with MHRA helps to characterize the major hazards and evaluate engineering, management and work process factors that impact how a mine mitigates its highest risk. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studied the application of this technique to US mining conditions through a field-oriented pilot project. Risk assessment teams used in the pilot project were primarily composed of mining company personnel. Ten case studies were performed over a wide cross-section of mines. These mines were representative of the important mining commodities in the US minerals industry, i.e. coal, metal, non-metal, and aggregate. Also, the sizes of the mines ranged from small to large and were located across the country. The ten case studies demonstrate that most US mines have the capability to successfully implement an MHRA and that the MHRA methodology produced additional prevention controls and recovery measures to lessen the risk associated with a select population of major mining hazards. The basic ingredient for a successful MHRA is the desire to become more proactive in dealing with the risks associated with events that can cause multiple fatalities. A successful outcome is marked by a thorough examination of existing prevention controls and recovery measures. When pressed to consider more controls to further mitigate the risk, a well-staffed risk assessment team was able to identify additional controls. For these mining operations, it was important to add additional controls, even if they were not required by existing mining regulations, to lower the risks associated with the major hazards under consideration. If a mining operation is not willing to commit its best people to an MHRA or will not provide them with sufficient time to see the process through to its conclusion, the MHRA output may prove to be useless. Additionally, if a mining operation is not prepared to discuss its major hazards in an open and honest fashion and to present the findings of the risk assessment in a written report, the MHRA output will be unclear, and attempts to monitor or audit important controls may not be possible. A MHRA is most effective when the mining operation possesses 1) a proper understanding of its hazards, 2) experience with informal and basic-formal risk assessment techniques, 3) proper facilities, machinery and equipment, 4) suitable systems and procedures that represent industry Best Practice, 5) appropriate organizational support with adequate staff, communications and training, 6) a formal and thorough plan for emergency response, and 7) a safety risk management approach that is promoted and supported at all levels of the organization.

Jan 1, 2008

By Janet Torma-Krajewski

Research has shown that an ergonomics process that identifies risk factors, devises solutions to reduce musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), and evaluates the effectiveness of the solutions can lower worker exposure to risk factors and MSDs and improve productivity. A review of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) injury/illness database indicated that 46% of illnesses in 2004 were associated with repetitive trauma and 35% of nonfatal lost days involved material handling during 2001? 2004. Even though these statistics show that MSDs significantly contribute to occupational illnesses and injuries in the U.S. mining industry, few mining companies have implemented an ergonomics process. Despite the many unique challenges in the mining environment, three mining companies partnered with the MSD Prevention Team at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health?s Pittsburgh Research Laboratory to demonstrate that an ergonomics process could be systematically implemented and effectively integrated with existing safety and health programs. Because these three mining companies were very different in organization, culture, and size, the ergonomics processes had to be modified to meet the needs of each company. A description of how these three companies applied ergonomics and the tools and training used to implement their processes is given. Prior to discussing the case studies, general information on the elements of an ergonomics process is provided.

Feb 1, 2009

By Gerald T. Homce

Accidental contact of overhead electrical power lines by mobile equipment is a leading cause of occupational fatalities in the United States, accounting for 20% of on-the-job electrocutions. Overhead electrical power line proximity warning devices (PWDs) are intended to warn personnel if mobile equipment moves within some preselected minimum distance of an energized overhead electrical power line. Two commercially available PWDs were tested at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health?s (NIOSH) Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL). The objective of the tests was to document performance capabilities and limitations for these PWDs by identifying factors that can influence their operation. The two PWDs evaluated in this research are the SIGALARM Model 210 marketed by Allied Safety Systems, LLC, and the ASE Model 2100 from Allied Safety Engineering. Both of these devices operate by measuring the electric field present around energized power lines. The PWDs were installed on a government-owned 22-st (20-mt) rough terrain crane. A purpose-built test site used for this research at PRL allowed operation of the crane near a variety of power line configurations operating at up to 25 kV. Most of the tests involved positioning the crane adjacent to one or more overhead power lines, adjusting sensitivities of the PWDs to alarm when the crane boom was approximately 20 ft (6.1 m) from the power lines, swinging the crane boom toward the lines under a wide variety of test conditions, and finally, for each unique set of test conditions, documenting the deviation from 20 ft (6.1 m) for actual alarm activation. Test results show that several factors can adversely affect PWD performance. PWD alarm accuracy generally deteriorated when operating with a boom position significantly different than that used for the device?s last sensitivity adjustment. Another factor that can affect PWD performance is configuration of the overhead power line(s) involved. Accuracy of alarm activa­tion distances was best for simple single-circuit installations, but degraded for multiple circuits on the same poles. This degradation was slightly greater for installations with different voltage levels and/or a combination of vertical and horizontal conductor arrangements. Performance also degraded for crane operation between two intersecting power line installations, especially for intersecting lines at different voltages. An additional aspect of power line configuration shown to influence PWD accuracy was phase sequence on the power line circuit(s). Specific phase con­ductor arrangements and combinations, particularly in multiple circuit installations, resulted in either improved or degraded accuracy.

Jan 1, 2008

Numerical models play a significant role in the design of safe underground mining excavations and support systems. Advances in the capabilities of numerical modeling software, together with ever increasing computational speeds, have made it possible to investigate the very nature of the large-scale rock mass and its response to mining excavations. The improved understanding of the rock response obtained from modeling enhances our designs, resulting in greater stability and safety of the mining excavations. To help advance the state of the art in this field, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health organized the International Workshop on Numerical Modeling for Underground Mine Excavation Design. The workshop was held in Asheville, NC, on June 28, 2009, in association with the 43rd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium. The proceedings include 10 papers from leading rock mechanics and numerical modeling experts in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Germany. The papers address a wide range of issues, including various numerical modeling approaches, rock mass modeling, and applications in coal and metal mines.

Jun 1, 2009

There is a saying, ?If it moves, it vibrates.? This is especially true in our modern industrial environments, where workers use powered tools, machinery, vehicles, and heavy equipment. How workers are affected by these elements of the industrial working environment is a concern of health professionals, govern­ments, and scientists around the world. How to adequately assess the effects of human vibration exposure is an equally important issue. The human body comprises a dynamic structure that is living, intelligent, and complex. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to consider that exposing the body to an array of vibration environments would result in outcomes that are not necessarily simple or easily predictable. Sensations caused by vibration may include nausea, annoyance, discomfort or pain, and exhilaration or pleasure. Many factors contribute to the effects of vibration on humans, including the characteristics of the motion and the exposed indi­vidual, the activities of the exposed individual, and various elements of the environment. There have been attempts to summarize the effects of occupational vibration exposures by simply recommending the avoidance of certain frequencies of vibration or by providing a graphical method, i.e., a single curve displaying all human responses to all frequencies. However, such efforts have not withstood the scrutiny of scientific research and analysis. Thus, attendees and participants at this professional gathering now have the rare opportunity to benefit from the technological advances and new scientific research to enhance their understanding of human responses to vibration that suggest more than a simplistic approach. In the tradition of the First American Conference on Human Vibration (1st ACHV) held in Morgantown, WV, June 2006, the 2nd ACHV provides a forum for scientists, engineers, medical doctors, industrial hygienists, and educators to learn and advance research and education in the specialized area of human body vibration. The conference was organized by the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Chicago, with support from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. As with the first conference, the 2nd ACHV provides the unique opportunity to learn about the current activities of peers and colleagues and to exchange information on topics of interest such as human response, human modeling, experimental design, sensors, new technologies, and epidemiological studies of human responses to hand-transmitted and whole-body vibration. The conference organizers hope that the publication of these conference proceedings continues to foster new research and technological advances to reduce health hazards associated with occupational vibration exposures.

Jun 1, 2009

By Katherine A. Klein

Refuge chambers may potentially save the lives of miners during a mine emergency. For this reason, it is crucial that miners know how to operate them. Unfortunately, because refuge chambers provide so many services, they can be very complicated and difficult to operate. Therefore, NIOSH has created this document with suggestions for developing manuals and educational materials. A multidisciplinary team comprised of NIOSH engineers, sociologists, psychologists, health communication professionals, and geologists developed the recommendations contained in this document. These recommendations are based on an evaluation of manufacturers? instruction manuals from both the U.S. and globally, interviews with over 20 mining and safety experts, and an extensive literature review. This research, focused on the best practices for refuge chambers, led to the formulation of this document. It is intended to offer suggestions to manufacturers and mine operators on how to create effective and easy-to-understand training manuals for miners as well as tips to create the most comfortable and usable refuge chambers. It should be noted that these recommendations are not meant to substitute for manufacturer-supplied materials but rather to be used in conjunction with manufacturer?s materials. Manufacturers should always be consulted for up-to-date information about their chamber. Although different states and different mines refer to underground refuges by different names, this guide will simply refer to underground refuges nearest to the face as refuge chambers, whether inflatable from a skid or constructed from steel. Other popular terms for refuge chambers are rescue chambers, rescue shelters, and refuge shelters. Refuges that are nearer to the shaft, whether a prefabricated refuge chamber or one built into a crosscut, will be referred to as outby refuges because of their location in the mine. Outby refuges can be permanent, semipermanent, or portable and are usually located at every other SCSR cache. Outby refuges are sometimes called hardened rooms, outby shelters, and in-place shelters. When discussing outby refuges and refuge chambers collectively, this guide will refer to them as underground refuges. Other terms for underground refuges include refuge alternatives, locations of safety, and safe havens. This document is designed to be read either cover to cover or by specific section. It is recommended that on first read, this guide be read cover to cover. In subsequent readings, manufacturers and mine operators may find it easier to use the table of contents page to locate specific information on parts of the refuge chamber.

Jan 1, 2009

By R. Karl Zipf

This report presents nearly all structural data available from explosion tests of 20-psi mine ventilation seals and concrete-block ventilation stoppings that were conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health during 1997?2008. Although the seals tested were designed to meet the former federal 20-psi pressure design standard, the structural information contained herein on these seal tests will facilitate the analysis and design of coal mine seals that meet the new explosion pressure design criteria of 50 and 120 psi as set forth in the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)?s final rule on ?Sealing of Abandoned Areas.? The seal testing data are organized into six broad categories of seal structures based on the materials used and the construction method for those 20-psi seals: 1. Concretelike materials with steel reinforcement and reinforcement bar anchorage to rock 2. Pumpable cementitious materials of varying compressive strengths with no steel reinforcement and no hitching 3. Articulated structures such as solid-concrete-block seals and ventilation stoppings made of solid and hollow-core concrete blocks 4. Polymer and aggregate materials without hitching 5. Wood-crib-block seals with or without hitching 6. Articulated structures such as lightweight blocks with or without hitching This summary contains data on 52 different structures in the above categories?44 seals and 8 ventilation stoppings. The structural data sets include the applied loading on the tested seal represented by a pressure-time curve and, when available, the measured seal response represented by a displacement-time curve. The structural data sets enable the calibration and verification of numerical models of seal behavior at the 20-psi level, which may then facilitate future structural analyses of seal designs for the new 50- and 120-psi explosion pressure design criteria.

Aug 1, 2008

By Katherine A. Margolis

Refuge Chamber Expectations Training was created by a multidisciplinary team at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to inform miners of what to expect psychologically and physically if it became necessary to use a refuge chamber in a mine emergency. The presentation can be used either for one large group or for individual miners. The training is a multimedia Adobe Flash presentation containing pictures, audio, video, and interviews with miners who have used a refuge chamber in an emergency. It must be run on a computer with Adobe Flash Player installed (refer to the computer system requirements section).

Oct 1, 2009

By Jay F. Colinet

Respirable dust exposure has long been known to be a serious health threat to workers in many industries. In coal mining, overexposure to respirable coal mine dust can lead to coal workers? pneumoconiosis (CWP). CWP is a lung disease that can be disabling and fatal in its most severe form. In addition, miners can be exposed to high levels of respirable silica dust, which can cause silicosis, another disabling and/or fatal lung disease. Once contracted, there is no cure for CWP or silicosis. The goal, therefore, is to limit worker exposure to respirable dust to prevent development of these diseases. The passage of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 established respirable dust exposure limits, dust sampling requirements for inspectors and mine operators, a voluntary x-ray surveillance program to identify CWP in underground coal miners, and a benefits program to provide compensation to affected workers and their families. The tremen­dous human and financial costs resulting from CWP and silicosis in the U.S. underground coal mine workforce are shown by the following statistics: ? During 1970?2004, CWP was a direct or contributing cause of 69,377 deaths of U.S. underground coal mine workers. ? During 1980?2005, over $39 billion in CWP benefits were paid to underground coal miners and their families. ? Recent x-ray surveillance data for 2000?2006 show an increase in CWP cases. Nearly 8% of examined underground coal miners with 25 or more years of experience were diagnosed with CWP. ? ?Continuous miner operator? is the most frequently listed occupation on death certificates that record silicosis as the cause of death.

Jan 1, 2010

By J P. Tidman, I J. Kirby, G H. Harries

The SABREX computer model is based on the fact that both shock waves and gas pressure are important in describing a blast. The treatment of explosive-rock interactions includes the influence of non-ideal detonation to make use of recent advances in that field. Details of the blast layout are defined from a comprehensive list of conditions the blaster can control (drill pattern, charging and hook-up). The program gives practical and graphic information about fragmentation, muckpile, damage and costs.

Jan 1, 1987