Search Documents

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 Edward A. Barrett, Roberta A. Calhoun

Introduction This Instructor’s Copy contains most of the information needed to use the Wearing Hearing Protection Properly 3-D training reel. It offers practical suggestions on how to use the reel as a training aid, performance objectives for deciding if the training is appropriate for your needs, and discussion notes that provide additional information to the user. The 3-D reel was designed as a self-teaching aid that drillers and others who work at a drill site can use wherever the opportunity for such training presents itself. The latter could be a company preshift requirement or a tailgate session where workers would have an opportunity to view and discuss the reel. It could also be an individual looking at the reel in a pickup truck prior to beginning work at a drill site. The 3-D training reel is versatile in that it can be used for a small group of persons or for a single worker. For any of these situations, information is transferred to the individual by viewing each of the seven colorful, in-depth 3-D scenes and relating the words that appear in each scene to what is depicted in the visual. Acknowledgment The authors thank Linda J. McWilliams, Statistician, NIOSH Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, for her assistance in analyzing the experimental data in this document.

Jan 11, 2004

By Fred C. Turin, William J. Wiehagen

This study examined musculoskeletal injury risk at four mining sites: underground coal, underground limestone, surface copper, and surface phosphate. Each site offered opportunities to investigate musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) injury risks and how those risks might be identified and categorized. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) worked with these sites to (1) identify work activities that showed evidence of MSD injury risk, (2) examine physical risk factors that can lead to MSDs for a handful of work tasks at each site, and (3) develop a set of ideas for problem-solving to help reduce risk factors for examined work tasks. For each site, NIOSH implemented a plan that was refined over the time period of this study. The plan consisted of four steps. The first step was to use mine injury records, a musculoskeletal discomfort questionnaire, front-line supervisor interviews, and a list of management concerns to identify work groups and work activities that have significant evidence of MSD risk factors. The second step was to select work tasks for evaluation. The third step was to interview those who do the work and make observations to characterize the MSD risk factors and musculoskeletal symptoms that exist for target tasks. The final step was to conduct brainstorming sessions with workers who perform the work or have a stake in the production task. The brainstorming sessions served to identify general strategies (ideas) for reducing MSD risk factor exposures. A final report of findings was presented to mine management and workforce representatives at each site. The risk factors and ideas for improvement identified for each site were specific to the target tasks examined. These target tasks were diverse, but there were some key similarities. For instance, jobs were found at each site that required a significant amount of manual work involving the upper extremities and low back. Handling heavy and awkward objects, forceful arm and shoulder exertions, and working in awkward postures were common for a variety of jobs across the four sites.

Jan 8, 2004

By Edward J. Chuhta, Joseph E. Chilton, Robert J. Timko

in underground mines to measure worker exposure to various gases such as methane, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Even in relatively small concentrations, NO2 can produce harmful side effects in underground workers. Mines using equipment powered by diesel engines, carrying out explosive blasting operations, and performing extensive arc welding and/or cutting work will have measurable quantities of NO2 released by these processes. Workers in these areas often use gas monitors to warn of excessive gas concentrations and to help them determine when to increase ventilation air that will dilute these gases, thus minimizing exposures to this gas. Portable gas monitors, used to measure NO2 levels, must be calibrated before each use. Calibration is typically performed using a small portable pressurized cylinder containing a certified gas mixture. The certified NO2 standard mixture, usually 10 ppm NO2 concentration, is diluted with either air or nitrogen gas. To determine the stability of commercially available portable gas standards, two different cylinders containing NO2 in nominal 10-ppm concentrations were examined. One cylinder was diluted in air, the other, in nitrogen. Baseline NO2 mixtures were generated using a standard liquid NO2 permeation tube operated at a constant temperature. Final dilutions of the test gas mixtures were made with air or with nitrogen using a mass flow-controlled gas dilution system. This study showed that, when a permeation-type NO2 generator is used, the electrochemical sensors in portable NO2 monitors provide identical results for gas mixtures whether they are diluted with air or with nitrogen. Two different gas monitors, one with a two-electrode sensor and one with a three-electrode sensor, were used to measure gas concentrations in the two commercially available cylinders. One month after the cylinders were delivered, the NO2-in-nitrogen cylinder, stated to contain 10 ppm NO2, measured 8.13 ppm. The NO2-in-air cylinder, also stated to hold 10 ppm NO2, measured 6.88 ppm. Therefore, before using NO2 gas cylinders to calibrate monitors, it is recommended that their concentrations be verified either by manufacturer recertification or by comparing the stated cylinder gas concentrations to a laboratory-based permeation tube-generated standard.

Dec 1, 2005

By Dana C. Reinke

Water well drillers are exposed to high levels of noise while working. NIOSH researchers have found that water well drillers are exposed to levels above 85dB (A) while performing certain tasks during a typical drilling job. Noise levels consistently over 85dB (A) during an 8–hour work shift are hazardous and can lead to hearing loss in workers. Finding ways to reduce noise exposure is difficult because of many factors. The work environment is constantly changing due to the location of jobs and environmental factors. The types of drill rigs required for drilling are expensive. Equipment can range from new to used (10 to 30+ years old). Drillers and owners can work together to prevent noise–induced hearing loss, and measures can be taken to reduce exposure to hazardous noise.[ ] Preventing hearing loss occurs through three stages. The first stage is removing noise from the source (i.e., drill rig). Various parts of a drill rig create noise besides the drilling rod. NIOSH researchers have examined noise levels of drill rigs. Some of the loudest parts of the drill rig include the compressor, engine, and cooling fan (Fig. 1). While removing the noise source from a worksite is ideal, the process would be expensive and difficult.[ ]

Jan 9, 2005

By Dana C. Reinke

A job analysis is a written list of the tasks associated with doing a particular job. In drilling, describing the steps associated with adding rod to the drill steel would be an example of a task associated with the job. How to hammer casing or fish a lost drill bit out of a hole would also be job tasks. Develop a written list of job tasks. Ask drillers in your company if the tasks listed are correct and accurately reflect how to perform the job. While each driller may do the job a little differently, some tried?and?true methods are required to perform certain tasks safely and correctly. You may find a separate analysis is needed for different drilling jobs (e.g., a residential well or a monitoring well). Also remember to include the tasks of both the helper and the driller.

Jan 1, 2005

By Dana C. Reinke

Jan 1, 2005

By Elaine Cullen, Launa Mallett, Mike Jenkins, C. M. K. Boldt, Thomas Camm

The material in this Information Circular was presented at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) open-industry briefing held during the 2004 Northwest Mining Association conference in Spokane, WA. The open-industry briefing discussed results of recently completed and on-going mine safety- and health-related research conducted at NIOSH’s Spokane and Pittsburgh Research Laboratories on the human side of mining—the miner. The first paper sets the stage for what mining has achieved and what we mean by “getting to zero.” The second paper, “Help Experienced Miners Become Great On-the-Job Trainers,” distinguishes between experienced miners and trainers. This paper provides some key concepts for turning great miners into great trainers. “The Power of Story-Telling in Getting Through to Miners” explains the history and importance of stories in the culture and training of miners. Finally, “Understanding Self in Stressful Working Environments,” describes the personal and social aspects of the working environment, much of which parallels familial theories. The downward trend of deaths in U.S. mining has been remarkable. The number of miners killed or injured each year has decreased steadily over the past 100 years. Some charts show these trends overlain with important events such as World War II and the Mine Safety and Health Act. However, this downward trend in mining fatalities has flattened out. How can you get to zero accidents? Do you concentrate on technological advances and equipment maintenance to avoid malfunctions? Do you concentrate on developing work processes and organizational structures that minimize risk? Do you combine them and take a systems approach that links one to the other with an evaluative loop? Safety efforts in mining have used all of these approaches. What more can we do to get to zero? Getting to zero will require two objectives: A clear and unshakeable belief that it can be done and attention to the human side of mining. Getting to zero is not a new idea; it has been used by mine companies and safety professionals for years as the safety goal. But getting to zero is not so much a physical goal as it is a belief that there are no insurmountable barriers to achieving the goal.

Jan 3, 2006

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 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

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 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 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