Search Documents

By Gregory J. Chekan

In This Chapter [Drilling, blasting, and crushers Diesel particulate Enclosed cabs Ventilation with jet fans Stopping construction methods Propeller fans as main fans] This chapter explains how to control dust in large-entry stone mines, including both silica dust and diesel particulate. Most stone mines are limestone mines, but a substantial minority are marble, sandstone, and granite mines. These mines differ from most others in that entry widths are 30 ft or more and entry heights are 25 ft or more. Such mines, developed with room-and-pillar methods, have large open areas that can make ventilation and dust control more difficult. Because of the difficulty of ventilating stone mines, improved ventilation is a major focal point of this chapter. However, the chapter also covers the control of dust from drills, blasting, and crushers. Another part of the chapter covers enclosed cabs, an effective dust control technique for some workers. BACKGROUND The major dust compliance problem in stone mines is caused by silica (quartz) in the rock. Mines in high-silica rock, 8% or more, are far more likely to have a dust problem than those where there is less silica. Geographically, the limestone in the Northeastern and South Central United States has higher silica than the rest of the country. Chekan and Colinet [2002] have analyzed Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) dust sampling results [MSHA 2001] from the stone industry. They have concluded that, on average across the United States, the workers exposed to the highest dust concentrations are rotary drill operators, front-end loader operators, truck drivers, and crusher operators. However, there are many regional differences. Also, occupations that work outside of cabs, such as blasters, roof bolters, and laborers, can be exposed to high dust levels.

Jan 6, 2003

By Steven J. Page, Andrew B. Cecala, John A. Organiscak

In This Chapter [Drill dust control: wet and dry Enclosed cabs on drills and mobile equipment Haul road dust control] Overburden drilling generates most of the respirable dust that affects workers at surface mines. Both wet and dry methods are available to reduce this drill dust. Overburden removal by mobile excavation equipment such as bulldozers, front-end loaders, and haulage trucks can be dusty, particularly under dry and windy conditions. Tightly enclosed cabs with dust filtration systems can substantially lower the dust exposure of both drill and mobile equipment operators. Haul road dust control can be achieved by water application or chemical application. DRILL DUST CONTROL [Drill dust is controlled with wet or dry systems. Wet systems can be more efficient, but may freeze in the winter. Dry systems require careful maintenance of the drill deck shroud. An improved deck shroud is shown.] Wet Suppression. Wet drilling systems pump water into the bailing air from a water tank mounted on the drill. The water droplets in the bailing air trap dust particles as they travel up the annular space of the drilled hole, thus controlling dust as the air bails the cuttings from the hole [Page 1991]. In wet drilling systems, typical water flow rates are 0.1 to 2.0 gpm depending on the size and type of drill and the moisture level of the overburden. The drill operator controls the flow using a control valve located in the cab. Some drills are equipped with a flow meter to give the opera-tor a visual sign of the flow rate. Raising the water flow will improve dust capture, but too much water causes operational problems. Because of this, the drill operator must exercise care in find-ing the best water flow rate.

Jan 6, 2003

By Jon C. Volkwein

In This Chapter [Instruments for measuring dust How to calculate the amount of dust from a source How to get a valid concentration measurement Sampling to assess control technology effectiveness] When there is more than one source of dust, sampling may be required to find which dust sources are most significant. Then, efforts to reduce dust can be concentrated where they will have the most impact. This chapter explains how to perform dust source sampling. It describes two kinds of instruments that are available and discusses their limitations. It explains how environmental variables such as concentration gradients, dust dilution, and production changes can impact dust measurements. It also suggests practical ways to improve the validity of dust source measurements under adverse conditions, such as high-velocity airflow or the presence of water mist in the air. [Dust source sampling at coal mine longwalls and at tunnels is more complicated. Chapters 3 and 7 have more information on sampling in those circumstances.] TWO KINDS OF INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING DUST Gravimetric samplers. The conventional gravimetric sampler is a good device for measuring dust because it is the instrument used for compliance measurements. This dust sampler consists of an air pump, a small cyclone that separates out the respirable size fraction of the dust cloud, and a filter to collect the respirable dust. In coal mines, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-approved gravimetric sampler uses a 10-mm Dorr-Oliver cyclone operating at an airflow of 2.0 L/min [30 CFR78 74 (2002)]. A correction factor of 1.38 is applied to make the results consistent with the U.K. MRE sampler, the instrument on which the 2.0 mg/m3 coal dust standard is based.

Jan 6, 2003

In This Chapter [Ventilation: dilution and displacement Water sprays: wetting and airborne capture Water additives: foam and wetting agents Dust collectors: filtration efficiency and inlet capture efficiency Reducing the generation of dust for cutting, drilling, blasting, crushing, and conveying] [This chapter will give you a general perspective on what works or doesn’t work. The chapter will also help if your dust control problem doesn’t fit any of the circumstances described in later chapters. ] This chapter describes the three major control methods used to reduce airborne dust in tunnels and underground mines: ventilation, water, and dust collectors. It also describes methods to reduce the generation of dust, so less has to be removed from the mine air. The ventilation methods provide the best use of air in the vicinity of workers and in the vicinity of dust sources. In this sense, the methods described are local ventilation methods. Most of the emphasis is on so-called displacement ventilation because it is the most effective dust control technique available. The section on water sprays outlines the dual role of sprays—wetting and airborne capture—and describes why wetting is more important. It also corrects some of the misconceptions about spray effectiveness and describes circumstances where sprays can actually increase the dust exposure of workers. The section on dust collectors outlines the circumstances under which dust collectors can be expected to function effectively. It also describes some common design and maintenance problems. The final section describes how to reduce the amount of dust that gets into the air in the first place, since once the dust is airborne it is always harder to control.

Jan 6, 2003

By Jay F. Colinet, John A. Organiscak

In This Chapter [Which dust source to address first How much air and water are needed Keeping dust out of the walkway Moving workers upwind Dealing with the stage loader-crusher Gob and wing curtains to aid airflow The shearer-clearer system Modified support movement practices and Dust control for future longwalls ] Controlling longwall dust is not easy. Longwall production levels are high, and there are several different sources of dust to contend with. If dust levels are high, the initial effort should be devoted to finding which source is the cause. Then, efforts to reduce dust can be concentrated where they will have the most impact. To control dust at longwalls, a large amount of ventilation air and spray water must be used. The water must be sprayed correctly so as not to blow dust into the walkway. Techniques to change local airflow patterns can be helpful. The shearer-clearer, as well as gob and wing curtains, are examples of such techniques. DECIDING WHICH DUST SOURCE TO ADDRESS FIRST [If a longwall is out of compliance with dust standards, knowing where the extra dust is coming from helps to get back in compliance quickly.]

Jan 6, 2003

By Jozef S. Stachulak

In This Chapter [Ore pass dust control Drill dust control Blasting dust control Conveyor belt dust control Transfer point and crusher dust control Roadheader dust control and How much ventilation air to use] This chapter discusses respirable dust control in underground hard-rock mines. These mines use a wide variety of extraction methods, but they have many common dust sources and dust control needs. Ore passes, drills, blasting, conveyor belts, transfer points, crushers, and load-haul-dump operations can be major sources of dust. Roadheaders, which are sometimes used in hard-rock mines, produce dust in large quantities. For the most part, dust in hard-rock mines is controlled with ventilation air, water sprays, and dust collectors. It is also important to prevent dust from getting into the air in the first place. Good dust control practices will reduce overall mine ventilation requirements. [Lack of maintenance is the main source of dust problems in hard-rock mines according to Rodgers [1974], who conducted a dust survey of hard-rock mines several decades ago. Rodgers found that spray systems had clogged sprays, dust enclosures had improperly fitted skirts, and ductwork was plugged and had leaks. Today’s mines have better maintenance programs (we think), but when dust levels are high, maintenance is still the first topic to address.] The Mining Association of Canada [MAC 1980] and Knight [1980] provide good general information about hard-rock dust control. For conveyor belt dust control, Goldbeck and Marti [1996] and Swinderman et al. [1997] are valuable sources of information.

Jan 6, 2003

By Gerrit V. R. Goodman

In This Chapter [Design and operation of machine-mounted scrubbers Dust control with scrubbers and blowing ventilation Dust control with scrubbers and exhaust ventilation Dust control with exhaust ventilation and no scrubber Dust control methods common to all continuous miner sections Dust control for roof bolters] This chapter explains how to control dust at continuous miner sections in coal mines where the main dust sources are continuous miners and roof bolters. In relation to dust, there are three categories of continuous miner faces depending on the type of ventilation and whether or not a machine-mounted dust scrubber is used. These are— 1. Mining machines with dust scrubbers used with blowing face ventilation 2. Mining machines with dust scrubbers used with exhaust face ventilation 3. Mining machines without scrubbers used with exhaust face ventilation The approach to dust control is somewhat different in all three of these. However, there are many dust control features (such as the need to provide adequate airflow) common to all continuous miner sections. For workers at roof bolter faces, there are two dust sources: 1. Dust from the continuous miner when it is upwind. 2. A malfunctioning dust collector on the bolter, which allows dust to escape DESIGN AND OPERATION OF MACHINE-MOUNTED SCRUBBERS [Almost all new continuous miners are equipped with scrubbers. When the dust is excessive, it is possible that the scrubber needs some maintenance.]

Jan 6, 2003

By John J. Sammarco, Edward F. Fries

This report (Independent Functional Safety Assessment 4.0) is the fifth 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 (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—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.—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 lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment.—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. • 5.0 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 the 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. [ ]

Jan 5, 2003

By Thomas Mucho, Anthony Iannacchione

This marks the 100th year that the aggregate industry has been served by a national association. Of all the accomplishments this longstanding relationship has achieved, there is probably none greater than the progress made, in worker safety. Perhaps the best way to measure this success is to examine injury trends in the aggregate miner population. For example, in the first half of the 20th [ ] century, 16 quarry mining disasters (a "disaster" is an incident with five or more fatalities) claimed 157 miners between 1909 and 1952. The largest of these was the disaster at the Sandts Eddy Limestone Quarry near Allentown, Pa., on March 26, 1942, where 31 miners died of asphyxiation by fumes/explosion. Thankfully, no mining disasters have occurred in the aggregate industry since 1952. It is these kinds of information that help us characterize improvements in aggregate worker safety over the last 100 years.

Jan 1, 2003

By N. Kumar Kittusamy

A field study was conducted to evaluate seat designs on shuttle cars. Eight operators participated in evaluating seat designs on the basis of perceived levels of vehicle jarring/jolting and discomfort. Researchers also measured the levels of vehicle jarring/jolting. Four basic seat designs were compared on low and mid-coal seam shuttle cars during production operations at two underground coal mines. Two seats were currently used on the shuttle cars and another two were NIOSH designs. Objective data were collected using accelerometers with pre-amplifiers and filters connected to a data recorder; whereas subjective data were gathered with a visual analog scale (VAS) and a questionnaire. Results from measured levels of jarring/jolting showed that the NIOSH Seat L2A smoothed out bumps better than any other seats. Using the VAS, mid-seam and low-seam shuttle car operators rated the levels of jarring/jolting and discomfort lower with the NIOSH seat than the other seats. Questionnaire responses indicated that operators rated NIOSH seat designs as more comfortable. This research will provide the industry with better seat designs for isolating jarring/jolting in vehicles. Furthermore, researchers plan to improve the NIOSH seats using information gathered in this study.

Jan 1, 2003

By Dean H. Ambrose

This paper presents the results of a study using computer human modeling to examine machine appendage speed. The objective was to determine the impact of roof bolter machine appendage speed on the likelihood of the operator coming in contact with. A contact means two or more objects intersecting or touching each other, e.g., appendage makes contact with the operator?s hand, arm, head or leg. Incident investigation reports do not usually contain enough information to aid in studying this problem and laboratory experiments with human subjects are also not feasible because of safety and ethical issues. As an alternative, researchers developed a computer model approach as the primary means to gather data. By simulating an operator?s random behavior and machine?s appendage velocity, researchers can study potential hazards of tasks where it is not possible to perform experiments with human subjects. Analysis information is helpful to the mining industry in terms of making recommendations that reduce the likelihood that roof-bolter operators experience injury due to contact with a moving boom. Data analysis of roof bolter simulations show that the virtual-operator?s response time has little effect on the number of contacts experienced. Based on frequency and cross-tabulation, regardless of other variables, contact incidents were always greater when the boom was moving up, were always greater on the palm, and were always greater for the boom part of the machine. Also, regardless of boom speed, the 25th-percentile-sized operators experienced more contacts than did other operator sizes. Furthermore, regardless of boom speed, the 152-cm mine seam experienced more contacts than did other seam heights tested. Results of a survival analytic approach suggest that controlling the boom speed is the most important factor in determining the risk of an operator making contact. Based on the data collected, boom speed greater than 41 cm/s results in a substantial increase in risk to the roof bolter operator and should probably be avoided. At speeds less than or equal to 25 cm/s are associated with a more modest relative risk, which represents an acceptable level of risk. Also, at speeds between 25 and 41 cm/s, there could be a particular boom speed in this range at which a significant inflection point in the relative risk estimates occurs. Based on the results, this issue needs to be addressed by future research.

Jan 1, 2003

Objective To accurately measure very low air velocities (0-100 ft/min) in U.S. large-opening underground metal/nonmetal mines. Background Hundreds of metal/nonmetal underground mines operate throughout the United States. They extract commercial products from deposits such as limestone, salt, and gypsum. Mining generates a wide variety of gases and dusts, such as silica, diesel exhaust, radon, blasting byproducts, and perhaps even methane. If these substances become airborne, they can adversely affect the health and safety of underground workers. Many metal/nonmetal mines have large cross-sectional airways that could be 60 times larger than an average underground coal mine entry. These large airways require adequate volumes of fresh air to dilute, make harmless, and exhaust the toxic and, at times, explosive byproducts. However, in some underground mine sections, air movement is barely perceptible. The technology of measuring very low air velocities will become increasingly more important for operators of large-opening stone mines in order to monitor miner exposure to diesel particulate matter. Conventional anemometers (e.g., vane) are capable of accurately measuring air velocities only above 100 ft/min. Thus, it was necessary to investigate other anemometry technology to detect low air velocities in the range of 0-100 ft/min. Two different portable ultrasonic anemometers were tested. Actual testing was done in an underground limestone mine with openings about 51 ft wide by 29 ft high. Ultrasonic Anemometers Vane-type anemometers are commonly used by engineering personnel throughout the underground coal mine industry. They work well in measuring air velocities >100 ft/min. However, a separate technology, e.g., portable ultrasonics, is needed to measure air velocities much below 100 ft/min at various places within the large mine opening. Laser-doppler technology was also considered for this application, but was ruled out because of its high cost and other technical limitations. With no moving parts, the portable ultrasonic anemometers are claimed to be accurate down to about 1or 2 ft/min. The first type of ultrasonic anemometer that was examined underground is manufactured by Gill Instruments Ltd., Hampshire, U.K. The U.S. distributor is IN USA, Needham, MA. The Gill Instruments Solent Volometer (figure 1) is a battery-powered, single-axis anemometer meant for measuring low to medium air flows up to1,999 ft/min. It uses the ultrasonic "time of flight" principle where pulses of high-frequency sound are transmitted along the air flow path and the time taken to reach the receiver is measured. The faster the air speed, the quicker the pulses reach the receiver. The second ultrasonic anemometer that was examined under-ground is manufactured by Airflow Developments Ltd., Buckinghamshire, U.K. The U.S. distributor is Airflow Technical Products, Inc., Andover, NJ. The Anemosonic UA-6 (figure 2) is a battery-powered, handheld instrument with digital display. It measures air velocity (0 to 9,999 ft/min) or volume flow, flow turbulence intensity, and air temperature. Neither device is considered to be intrinsically safe for use in underground gassy coal mines. A comparison of salient specifications of both instruments is shown in table 1. The total suspended weight includes the instrument (Gill) or instrument probe (Airflow) plus about 35 ft of connecting cable attached to the pole. This combination of instrument plus cable length allows two operators to measure air velocities up to about 30 ft above the mine floor. Figures 1 and 2 show how each unit would be attached to an extensible, graduated fiberglass rod in order to position the sensor probe at a certain spatial point (centroid of the quadrate) within the underground large opening.

Jan 1, 2003

By Michael J. Sapko, Eric S. Weiss, Kenneth L. Cashdollar

A fundamental safety research area for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to eliminate the occurrence of coal mine explosions or to mitigate their effects. One approach is to develop and evaluate new and innovative seal designs that provide increased explosion protection for mining personnel. The NIOSH Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) cooperated with HeiTech Corp. of Virginia, Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd. of Queensland, Australia, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in three separate research programs to evaluate the strength characteristics and air leakage resistance of numerous innovative seal designs and ventilation control structures for use in underground coal mines. For each phase of the program, various full-scale seals, stoppings, and an overcast design were constructed in PRL's Lake Lynn Experimental Mine near Fairchance, Fayette County, PA. The seals and stoppings were built in crosscuts and were subjected to explosions to evaluate their strengths. Four pumpable cementitious seal designs ranging in thickness from 610 to 915 mm (24 to 36 in) were evaluated in the first cost-reimbursable research program with HeiTech Corp. A simple wooden framework with brattice liner was used as a form to contain the cementitious slurry during the curing period. As the seal designs decreased in thickness, higher compressive strength cementitious grout was used. All four seals withstood an explosion pressure pulse of at least 138 kPa (20 psi) while maintaining acceptable air leakage resistance. In the second cost-reimbursable research program with Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd. of Australia, several innovative seal and stopping designs and an overcast design were evaluated. Each of the seal designs and the overcast side and wing walls used one or more air-inflated vinyl bladder assemblies anchored to the mine roof and hitched into the ribs and floor. The air within these bladders was displaced with a high-strength cementitious grout. The overcast deck consisted of a 200-mm ('7.8-in) thick reinforced cementitious slab. This was the first time that an overcast structure had been explosion tested under full-scale conditions. All of the seals, stoppings, and overcast design passed the air leakage tests before being subjected to a series of explosions with static pressure pulses ranging from 14 to 475 kPa (2 tab 69 psi). Instrumentation measured seal and overcast wall displacement as a function of time. The 450-mm (1 7.7-in) thick seal in the 2.8-m(9-ft) high third crosscut withstood an explosion pressure of 170 kPa (25 psi), but failed during a later test, which generated a peak static pressure of 475 kPa (69 psi) at the seal location. A similar 450-mm-thick seal in the 2.1-m (7-ft) high second crosscut withstood three explosion tests, which generated peak static pressures of 195, 205, and 370 kPa (28, 30, and 54 psi) at the seal location. Next, the overcast design withstood four explosions, which generated static overpressures ranging from 16 to 47 kPa (2.3 to 6.8 psi). A third program at the request of MSHA evaluated the effectiveness of using pressurized grout bags (Packsetter bags) along the mine roof and ribs in lieu of floor and rib hitching for a standard-type solid- concrete-block seal. This program was initiated to address an urlusual geological mining condition encountered when building seals in entries where required rib hitching is not a viable option due to soft friable coal. Results showed that the use of these quick-setting grout-filled Packsetter bags pressurized internally to 300 kPa (44 psi) not only provides a seal that can withstand a 138-kPa static pressure explosion, but also provides a sealing option where rib hitching is not possible.

Jan 1, 2003

By Dean H. Ambrose

This paper presents the results of a study using computer human modeling to examine machine appendage speed. The objective was to determine the impact of roof bolter machine appendage speed on the likelihood of the operator coming in contact with. A contact means two or more objects intersecting or touching each other, e.g., appendage makes contact with the operator?s hand, arm, head or leg. Incident investigation reports do not usually contain enough information to aid in studying this problem and laboratory experiments with human subjects are also not feasible because of safety and ethical issues. As an alternative, researchers developed a computer model approach as the primary means to gather data. By simulating an operator?s random behavior and machine?s appendage velocity, researchers can study potential hazards of tasks where it is not possible to perform experiments with human subjects. Analysis information is helpful to the mining industry in terms of making recommendations that reduce the likelihood that roof-bolter operators experience injury due to contact with a moving boom. Data analysis of roof bolter simulations show that the virtual-operator?s response time has little effect on the number of contacts experienced. Based on frequency and cross-tabulation, regardless of other variables, contact incidents were always greater when the boom was moving up, were always greater on the palm, and were always greater for the boom part of the machine. Also, regardless of boom speed, the 25th-percentile-sized operators experienced more contacts than did other operator sizes. Furthermore, regardless of boom speed, the 152-cm mine seam experienced more contacts than did other seam heights tested. Results of a survival analytic approach suggest that controlling the boom speed is the most important factor in determining the risk of an operator making contact. Based on the data collected, boom speed greater than 41 cm/s results in a substantial increase in risk to the roof bolter operator and should probably be avoided. At speeds less than or equal to 25 cm/s are associated with a more modest relative risk, which represents an acceptable level of risk. Also, at speeds between 25 and 41 cm/s, there could be a particular boom speed in this range at which a significant inflection point in the relative risk estimates occurs. Based on the results, this issue needs to be addressed by future research.

Jan 1, 2003

By Kathleen M. Kowalski-Trakofler

This paper discusses human judgment and decision making under stress. The authors review selected recent literature across various disciplines and suggest a definition of stress within the context of decision making during the management of emergencies. They also discuss fieldwork by the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, NIOSH, which explores traumatic incident stress, the relationship between previous training and performance under stressful conditions, and human behaviour in underground mine fires. The authors assert that stress is one of the factors that decision makers must contend with in most life-or-death situations. They suggest that a better understanding of individual judgment and decision making activities whilst under stress would yield a better understanding of how people reach the choices they make in emergencies. This enhanced understanding would be of enormous value to emergency managers, researchers and policymakers.

Jan 1, 2003

Objective To develop safety training tools for mine safety and health trainers that can be used for both new-miner training and annual refresher training. Background For the past 3 years, NIOSH has been developing training materials for mine safety trainers in response to gaps identified during stakeholder meetings. Most materials have been directed to the hazards of underground mines, but the recent passage of Part 46 of CFR 30 required new-miner and annual refresher training in aggregate operations. One result was the identification of another audience needing basic information about safety in mining. Trainers characterized trainees in this segment of the industry primarily as young males, many of whom had little work experience. Approach Training specialists from the Arizona State Mine Inspector’s Office approached NIOSH researchers early in2002 about the possibility of a collaborative project to develop safety training materials for new trainees in aggregate operations. A preliminary search of MSHA accident statistics identified over a dozen common hazards that could be targeted in a training video. A storyline was developed for review by safety specialists in the aggregate industry, and a script was written to cover the selected hazards. Although the target audience was primarily new hires, the finished video was also to be relevant to more experienced workers.

Jan 1, 2003

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 S. A. Ferguson

Purpose: Marras et al. developed a technique to evaluate sincerity of effort during dynamic trunk motion performance. The validity and reliability of the technique have not been evaluated. Therefore, the objective of this study was to first determine whether or not a sincerity of effort measure correctly identified those giving a sincere effort in a blinded randomized control trial and second to quantify inter-rater and test-retest reliability. Methods: This article reports the findings of a two phase study. In phase one, the blinded evaluation, participants were randomly assigned to either a sincere or insincere performance condition. An examiner tested participants without knowledge of the participant's group membership. In the second phase, two examiners evaluated each participant twice to quantify inter-rater and test-retest reliability. Results: In the blinded phase the specificity was 100% and sensitivity was 90% for identifying sincere and insincere effort, respectively. Phase two results showed no significant difference in probability of sincere effort between raters or between testing sessions. Conclusion: A performance criterion that accurately identifies sincere vs insincere group membership during functional evaluations was identified. There were no significant differences between raters or between testing sessions. These findings indicate that this test is reliable and possesses good predictive validity in assessing sincerity of effort.

Jan 1, 2003

By N. Kumar Kittusamy

The purpose of this study was to assess the adequacy of the cab design and to determine the percentage of musculoskeletal symptoms among workers. A questionnaire was designed to assess demographics, work information, job history, and musculoskeletal symptoms in operators of heavy construction equipment. Information concerning equipment included design of the seat/chair, levers, pedals, bothersome vibration, quality of egress from the equipment, proper preventative maintenance and repairs, and age of the equipment. The body regions that were evaluated included the neck, middle/upper back, low-back, shoulder/upper-arm, elbow/forearm, wrist/hand, hip, knee, and ankle/foot. One hundred and eighty nine operators completed the questionnaire. The results indicate that these workers are at risk for developing musculoskeletal disorders, the need to perform a larger survey to further substantiate the outcome, and the need to quantify risk factors (i.e., whole-body vibration and static sitting postures).

Jan 1, 2003

By Lloyd A. Morley

This Bureau of Mines publication presents a comprehensive review of mine electrical power-system theory and practice. It discusses fundamental theory and the vital aspects to be considered in planning and designing mine electrical power systems. The report is divided into three major sections. The first presents the history of electricity in mining and the fundamentals of electrical phenomena and components. The second focuses on power-system components: motors, grounding systems, cables, and protective equipment and devices. The final section includes mine power-center equipment, switchhouses and substations, batteries, and mine maintenance.

Jan 1, 2003