Search Documents

By Dana C. Reinke

Jan 1, 2005

By Fred N. Kissell

This handbook describes effective methods for the control of methane gas in mines and tunnels. It assumes the reader is familiar with mining. The first chapter covers facts about methane important to mine safety, such as the explosibility of gas mixtures. The second chapter covers methane sampling, which is crucial because many methane explosions have been attributed to sampling deficiencies. Subsequent chapters describe methane control methods for different kinds of mines and mining equipment, primarily for U.S. coal mines. These coal mine chapters include continuous miners and longwalls, including bleeders. Coal seam degasification is covered extensively. Other coal mine chapters deal with methane emission forecasting and predicting the excess gas from troublesome geologic features like faults. Additional coal chapters contain methane controls for shaft sinking and shaft filling, for surface highwall mines, and for coal storage silos. Major coal mine explosion disasters have always involved the combustion of coal dust, originally triggered by methane. Thus, a chapter is included on making coal dust inert so it cannot explode. Methane is surprisingly common in metal and nonmetal mines around the world, as well as in many tunnels as they are excavated. Accordingly, a chapter is included on metal and nonmetal mines and another on tunnels. Proper ventilation plays the major role in keeping mines free of hazardous methane accumulations. The ventilation discussed in this handbook, except for the chapter on bleeder systems, deals only with so-called face ventilation, i.e., ventilation of the immediate working face area, not ventilation of the mine as a whole. The omission of whole-mine ventilation was necessary to keep this handbook to a reasonable size and because a huge amount of excellent information is available on the subject.2

Jan 1, 2006

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 James M. Baugher, Donald W. Conrad, William J. Wiehagen

This report describes a process for quickly developing information that is useful for skills training. The process is called job training analysis (JTA). Its main use is to structure skills training at the jobsite. JTA supports structured skills training by identifying the job duties, tasks, and steps and the reasons why those job components are important. The outcome of the JTA process is a worksheet—a training outline based on the knowledge and expertise of experienced workers. Time invested in developing a JTA will result in significantly more time saved when it is used appropriately by skilled trainers. Like a roadmap, JTA saves time and energy. Experimental work at several mine sites helped document, refine, and validate the JTA process. JTAs for two mining jobs—roof bolting and lift truck operation—at two different mine sites are used to illustrate some of the concepts and the specific JTA process described in this report. The work at these two sites was influenced by cooperative work between the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) at several other mine sites and prior collaborative work with the U.S. Navy. The mining JTA process is grounded within the military research on the design of instructional systems. MSHA and NIOSH worked to simplify and apply the military training development model for mining industry use through collaborative work at several mine sites. The JTA process involves three activities: (1) planning, (2) a 1- to 3-day workshop where the JTA is developed using facilitated work with subject-matter experts, and (3) followup. Guidelines and considerations for each of these activities are included. Results indicate that the JTA process has been well received and valued by mining industry participants. It blends aspects of health and safety, production, maintenance, and crew coordination.

Jan 8, 2006

By Janet Torma-Krajewski, Pauline Lewis, Paul Gust, Lisa Steiner, Kean Johnson

Ergonomics processes described in the literature have been associated mostly with manufacturing, financial, electronics, and office settings where working conditions tend to be rather constant and repetitive. The information presented in this document demonstrates, however, that an ergonomics process can also be implemented in a setting such as mining where working conditions frequently change and workers are periodically exposed to extreme weather conditions. This document describes how Bridger Coal Company implemented an ergonomics process at its Jim Bridger Mine from 2001 through 2004. The process developed by the Ergonomics Committee, the promotion of the process to management and employees, and the impacts of the process on working conditions at the mine are reviewed. Barriers overcome and lessons learned are also described. Quotes from Bridger Coal Company employees are included in the document to add a personal perspective. Other industries with working conditions similar to mining, such as construction and agriculture, may find this information useful.

Jan 9, 2006

By Daniel R. Babich, Jeffrey R. Vipperman, Eric R. Bauer

Prolonged exposure to loud noise can cause permanent damage to the auditory nerve and/or its sensory components. Despite regulations and efforts by government and industry to reduce noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), it is still a problem in the U.S. coal mining industry. The Mine Safety and Health Administration noise standard (30 CFR3 62), which was enacted in September 2000, is aimed at reducing NIHL in the mining industry. To address NIHL in various aspects of coal mining and provide the necessary information to effectively implement control technologies, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted a cross-sectional survey of noise sources and worker noise exposures. Noise surveys consisting of full-shift worker noise exposure (dose) determination, time-motion studies (task observations), and equipment and/or area noise profiling were completed in 8 underground coal mines, 10 surface coal mines, and 8 coal preparation plants. The studies revealed that more than 40% of all workers monitored were subject to noise exposures above 90 dBA TWA8. A summary of these studies is presented, their application to administrative and engineering controls is discussed, and exposure reduction methods are reviewed.

Jan 12, 2006

By Jamie Girard Dwyer, Edward McHugh, Stanley Miller, Jeffrey Whyatt

This user&apos;s guide covers the operation of a suite of three computer programs-Bplane, Bstepp, and Bwedge. These programs can be used to evaluate the potential for plane shear, step-path, and wedge failures along the crest of a slope bench. Such failures reduce the width of a catch bench and may compromise the bench&apos;s ability to catch rolling or sliding material before it reaches miners working below. The Bplane and Bwedge programs address sliding of blocks defined by continuous planar joints. The Bstepp program examines sliding of blocks defined by more complex failure surfaces that include steeply dipping cross joints and may even include breaks across small bridges of intact rock. The programs are applicable to jointed rock masses where the joints are small relative to the overall slope and form a number of sets with uniform statistical characteristics within a slope sector. The theoretical basis, application, and operation of these programs are described.

Jan 3, 2007

Multiple-seam interactions are a major ground control hazard in many U.S. underground coal mines. In some U.S. coalfields, particularly in central Appalachia and the West, the majority of today’s mines are operating above and/or beneath previously mined seams. The effects of multiple-seam interactions can include roof falls, rib spalling, and floor heave. These can seriously disrupt mining operations and threaten the safety of miners. In early 2006, a West Virginia coal miner was killed by rib roll that occurred in a high-stress zone beneath a remnant structure in an overlying mine. Fortunately, not every multiple-seam situation results in hazardous conditions. Indeed, the vast majority do not. For the past several years, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has been conducting research to develop better techniques for predicting the location and severity of multiple-seam interactions. During this investigation, more than 50 mines were visited across the U.S. coalfields. Nearly 300 case histories were collected and analyzed using multivariate statistical techniques. The study also employed the numerical model LaM2D to estimate the multiple-seam stress, the Analysis of Longwall Pillar Stability (ALPS) and the Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) programs to determine pillar stability factors (SFs), and the Coal Mine Roof Rating to measure roof quality. The study focused on the two most common types of multiple-seam interactions: • Undermining, where stress concentrations caused by previous full extraction in an overlying seam is the main concern; and • Overmining, where previous full extraction in an underlying seam can result in stress concentrations and rock damage from subsidence. The study confirmed that overmining is much more difficult than undermining, and isolated remnant pillars cause more problems than gob-solid boundaries. For the first time, however, it was possible to quantify these effects in terms of the equivalent thickness of interburden needed to compensate for them. The study also found that pillar design is a critical component of multiple-seam mine planning. Many of the failed cases involved pillars whose SF seemed inadequate once the multiple-seam stresses were accounted for. Weaker roof was also found to significantly increase the risk of multiple-seam interactions. The most important result of the study is an equation that predicts the critical thickness of the interburden required to minimize the likelihood of a multiple-seam interaction. This equation was incorporated into a step-by-step methodology that allows mine planners to evaluate each potential interaction and take steps to reduce the risk of ground control failure. Such measures could include installing cable bolts or other supplemental support, increasing the pillar size, or changing the mine layout to avoid the remnant structure entirely. These Proceedings also contain several previously published papers that cover other facets of multiple-seam mining research. Two papers describe the LaModel family of software developed by Professor Keith A. Heasley of West Virginia University. The LaModel programs were designed for calculating the stresses and displacements in coal mines or other thin, tabular seams in layered media. The original three-dimensional version of LaModel is essential for detailed analyses of complex multiple-seam scenarios. LaM2D, by contrast, implements a simplified two-dimensional model that is suitable for quick approximations of the multiple-seam stresses and strains. Three additional papers in these Proceedings describe the extensive multiple-seam experience of the Harris Mine, examples of extreme multiple-seam mining from the central Appalachian coalfields, and longwall mine experiences in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Utah. The final paper reports on a numerical modeling study that provided some insight into the mechanics of multiple-seam mining.

Jan 5, 2007

Rock mass classification is widely used throughout the underground mining industry—in both coal and hard-rock mines. It is used in all stages of the mining process, from site characterization to production operations. The goal of the International Workshop on Rock Mass Classification in Underground Mining was to provide a forum for leading practitioners of rock mass classification to come together and share their methods and experiences with the technique. The workshop was held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on May 31, 2007. It was co-chaired by Christopher Mark, Ph.D., P.E., National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA, and Rimas Pakalnis, P.Eng., University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. The proceedings of the workshop contain 16 invited papers from 9 countries, reflecting the international depth and breadth of current practice. Applications in both hard-rock and coal mining are well represented. Some of the topics that were addressed at the workshop include: • Major rock mass classification systems used in mining and their variants • Collection of input data through observation, rock testing, and geophysics • Design of mine layouts and rock support systems using classification • Estimation of rock mass strength and other input parameters for numerical models from classification • Applications in weak rock, raise boring, cavability assessment, and other special topics • Risk assessment using rock mass classification

Jan 5, 2007

By Launa G. Mallett, Charles Vaught

This report is intended to help mine safety trainers better prepare to teach the influx of new underground coal miners who are entering the industry. This is done by identifying two different approaches to instruction and discussing the ways they may affect how well prepared new hires are to deal with a dynamic and hazardous workplace. One approach is based on the use of a syllabus. Those using a syllabus are more likely to rely on lecturing or direct instruction. This is a good way to get across factual information, but does not provide a context within which miners can fit the discrete facts so that they form an integrated whole set of concepts, principles, and skills. The other approach is based on the use of a curriculum. Those using a curriculum may be more likely to help miners integrate concepts and skills that give them an overall picture of the complex mining environment and how they fit into the workplace. This will better prepare them for the decision-making and problem-solving activities that will help them work safely and productively

Jan 1, 2008

By Jürgen F. Brune, R. Karl Zipf, Michael J. Sapko

Seals are barriers constructed in underground coal mines throughout the United States to isolate abandoned mining panels or groups of panels from the active workings. Historically, mining regulations required seals to withstand a 140-kPa (20-psig) explosion pressure. However, the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act (“MINER Act”) requires the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to increase this design standard by the end of 2007. This report provides a sound scientific and engineering justification to recommend a three-tiered explosion pressure design criterion for new seals in coal mines in response to the MINER Act. Much of the information contained in this report also applies to existing seals. Engineers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) examined seal design criteria and practices used in the United States, Europe, and Australia and then classified seals into their various applications. Next, the engineers considered various kinds of explosive atmospheres that can accumulate within sealed areas and used thermodynamic calculations and simple gas explosion models to estimate worst-case explosion pressures that could impact seals. Three design pressure-time curves were developed for the dynamic structural analysis of new seals under the conditions in which those seals may be used: unmonitored seals where there is a possibility of methane-air detonation or high-pressure nonreactive shock waves and their reflections behind the seal; unmonitored seals with little likelihood of detonation or high-pressure nonreactive shock waves and their reflections; and monitored seals where the amount of potentially explosive methane-air is strictly limited and controlled. Figure 1 is a simple flowchart that illustrates the key decisions in choosing between the monitored or unmonitored seal design approaches and the three design pressure-time curves. For the first condition, an unmonitored seal with an explosion run-up length of more than 50 m (165 ft), the possibility of detonation or high-pressure nonreactive shock waves and their reflections exists. The recommended design pressure-time curve rises to 4.4 MPa (640 psig) and then falls to the 800-kPa (120-psig) constant volume (CV) explosion overpressure. For unmonitored seals with an explosion run-up length of less than 50 m (165 ft), the possibility of detonation or high-pressure nonreactive shock waves and their reflections is less likely. A less severe design pressure-time curve that simply rises to the 800-kPa (120-psig) CV explosion overpressure may be employed. For monitored seals, engineers can use a 345-kPa (50-psig) design pressure-time curve if monitoring can ensure that (1) the maximum length of explosive mix behind a seal does not exceed 5 m (16 ft) and (2) the volume of explosive mix does not exceed 40% of the total sealed volume. Use of this 345-kPa (50-psig) design pressure-time curve requires monitoring and active management of the sealed area atmosphere. These design pressure-time curves apply to new seal design and construction.

Jan 7, 2007

By Erica E. Hall, Robert H. Peters, Charles Vaught, Jon C. Volkwein

Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis is the leading cause of death due to occupational illness among U.S. coal miners. This disease is caused by miners’ exposure to excessive levels of respirable coal mine dust. A personal dust monitor (PDM) has recently been developed to provide near real-time feedback to miners regarding the level of respirable coal dust in the air they breathe. The main objective of this report is to document coal miners’ reactions to this device and how they make use of the information it provides. It summarizes a field study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health that documented the opinions of 30 miners at 4 underground coal mines concerning the use of PDMs.

Jan 2, 2008

By Steven J. Schatzel, Gerrit V. R. Goodman, Robert B. Krog, C. Özgen Karacan, Gabriel S. Esterhuizen

Although longwall mining productivity can far exceed that of room-and-pillar mining, the total methane emissions per extracted volume associated with longwall sections are generally higher than those for continuous miner or pillar removal sections. Increased face advance rates, increased productivities, increased panel sizes, and more extensive gate road developments have challenged existing designs for controlling methane on longwalls. Methane control research by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently examined a number of practices designed to maintain concentrations in mine air within statutory limits and consistently below the lower explosive limit. These included a reservoir modeling approach to predict methane inflows in gate road entries. The outputs sug­gested that emission rates in the gate roads decreased with the use of shielding boreholes and increased degasification time. Also, mining perpendicular to the face cleats liberated more gas into the mine workings, emissions were almost a linear function of Langmuir pressure and volume, and emissions were inversely related to sorption time constant. Subsequent simulations predicted changes in methane drainage using in-seam boreholes. The results showed that longer degasification times resulted in lower face emission rates. Premining degasification produced more methane than that produced during panel extraction, a fact attributed to the already decreased methane content of the coalbed. This work concluded that longer premining degasification periods would be more advantageous to the operator. The industry trend toward increasing longwall face width can produce increased methane emissions from the face due to a higher volume of cut coal on the face conveyor. Two methods were used to estimate face methane levels on longer faces. In the first method, segmented methane data were extrapolated for greater face widths. The second method estimated emissions contributions from the shearer, face conveyor, panel belt, longwall face, and ribs, and summed these for wider panels. Permeability changes in the gob behind the longwall shields were estimated using a NIOSH-developed numerical model. The results showed that permeability was highest near the edges and corners of the gob.

Jan 3, 2008

By James P. Ulery

Explosions in U.S. coal mines have caused death and injury to miners and destruction of workings since the first reported explosion in 1810. These explosions are caused when buildups of explosive gas and/or dust in the mine are ignited by the presence of a flame or spark. Methane gas is inherently generated and held by adsorption in coal and is normally liberated during mining. Because this gas is explosive in the range of 5%–15% by volume, fresh air is constantly supplied to the working face to prevent the methane/air mixture from reaching this explosive range. The required amount of ventilation air is based on estimates of gas release under normal conditions. Occasionally, unanticipated and unusually high emissions are encountered, which, despite normal ventilation controls, result in an explosive mixture that a spark from a cutting bit or electrical equipment can easily ignite. Investigations have shown that such emissions are often associated with anomalous geologic features or conditions. Although most operators are aware that certain geologic features may adversely affect productivity, few are aware of their potential as a gas emission hazard. This report presents a historical framework detailing the impact of geologic features on excess gas emissions and resultant mine explosions. It also provides operators with specific information on recognizing and alleviating potential hazards from methane emissions related to these geologic features.2

Jan 4, 2008

By Susan M. Moore

Many challenges are faced by workers in lower-seam (42 inches or less) mines. The lower-seam heights confine mine workers to their knees as they perform their daily tasks such as installing roof bolts, delivering supplies, repairing belt, or cutting coal. Miners working in these lower seams often consider kneepads to be their only line of defense against knee injuries. However, healthy knees do not start and stop with kneepads. Other interventions such as changing postures, proper hygiene, and work station design may also be used to reduce mine workers? risks for developing knee injuries. Incorporating these and many other interventions into a mine worker?s ?way of life? is an important step to ensuring a long, healthy career and retirement. Keeping knees healthy is also a key aspect to reducing costs in low-seam mines as the industry battles rising health care costs, and training/recruitment of replacement workers is time-consuming and costly. Educating the workforce about the possible interventions to reduce knee injury risk is a primary objective for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health?s (NIOSH) Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL). Therefore, NIOSH researchers, along with industry and academia, developed a training package to educate the mining community about some possible interventions beyond kneepads that may be used to help decrease knee injury rates. Increased awareness and simple changes are the first steps to reducing knee injuries.

May 1, 2008

By Susan M. Moore

Many challenges are faced by workers in lower-seam (42 inches or less) mines. The lower-seam heights confine mine workers to their knees as they perform their daily tasks such as installing roof bolts, delivering supplies, repairing belt, or cutting coal. Miners working in these lower seams often consider kneepads to be their only line of defense against knee injuries. However, healthy knees do not start and stop with kneepads. Other interventions such as changing postures, proper hygiene, and work station design may also be used to reduce mine workers? risks for developing knee injuries. Incorporating these and many other interventions into a mine worker?s ?way of life? is an important step to ensuring a long, healthy career and retirement. Keeping knees healthy is also a key aspect to reducing costs in low-seam mines as the industry battles rising health care costs, and training/recruitment of replacement workers is time-consuming and costly. Educating the workforce about the possible interventions to reduce knee injury risk is a primary objective for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health?s (NIOSH) Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL). Therefore, NIOSH researchers, along with industry and academia, developed a training package to educate the mining com­munity about some possible interventions beyond kneepads that may be used to help decrease knee injury rates. Increased awareness and simple changes are the first steps to reducing knee injuries.

Jan 1, 2008

By William L. Porter

From the first day of new miner training until the day they retire, mine workers will experience changes due to the normal aging process. It is an unfortunate fact of life that many age-related changes result in diminished physical, sensory, or cognitive capabilities. Of course, workers also gain a tremendous wealth of experience, knowledge, and insight as they age, making them a vitally important resource for their company. Effective leveraging of this precious resource requires both an appreciation of the changes that occur with age and an understanding of methods that can be used to reduce the injury risk that may result. The purpose of this training is to provide the information necessary to accomplish these objectives. Aging workers may not necessarily have a higher injury risk overall; however, the effects of a musculoskeletal injury (MSI) on older workers may be more extreme. MSHA data show that not only does the percentage of MSIs increase when workers are over age 30, so does the number of days lost per injury, as shown in the graph below [MSHA 2005]. [ ] Protecting the safety and health of aging workers requires matching the demands of the job to worker capabilities. This means reducing or eliminating risk factors for injuries, such as heavy lifting, awkward postures, static postures, repetitive movements, and/or vibration exposures. In other cases, it may mean improving visibility or streamlining processes. Designing jobs to accommodate the changing capabilities of older workers will not only reduce injury risk for older workers, it will have the added benefit of protecting younger employees as well.

Jan 1, 2008

By Samuel P. Harteis

Many mining operations rely on retention bulkheads to provide a barrier between impounded water and active mine workings. However, bulkhead failures can cause catastrophic flooding that puts the underground workforce at risk. Underground observations and evaluations of existing bulkheads indicate that a systems approach is required when building an underground water or slurry retention system. In addition to engineering the bulkhead, the designer must ensure the quality control of materials and workmanship of the bulkhead, the reaction of the mine strata when exposed to water under pressure, and methods to monitor the performance of the retention system. Researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), with the assistance of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), conducted an extensive review of bulkhead permits submitted to the MSHA Technical Support office in Bruceton, PA. In addition, the researchers visited accessible bulkhead installations at undeground mining operations to gather information related to construction practices, maintenance issues, and monitoring and emergency response procedures. Several key items were identified that must be considered when permitting the installation of an underground fluid retention system.

Jan 1, 2008

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