Search Documents

By Raymond F. Helinski, Linda J. McWilliams, Sean Gallagher, Thomas R. Battenhouse, August J. Kwitowski, John R. Bartels, Dean H. Ambrose

This report examines the boom arm vertical speed for roof bolting machines to study a moving boom arm appendage at different speeds during different work scenarios. The goal of this study is to determine the impact of the appendage speed on the likelihood of the operator's hand, arm, head, or leg making contact, such as touching the moving appendage. The overall research goal is to reduce workers' risks to injury from exposure to underground mining machinery. Accident investigation reports from the Mine Safety and Health Administration do not usually contain enough information to aid in studying this problem, and lab experiments with human subjects are not feasible because of safety issues. As an alternative, researchers used a unique computer simulation model that uses a virtual human, vision tracking, and generates random virtual human motions and risky work behaviors. By using specialized software to simulate the computer model, researchers accurately identified potential hazards of tasks where it is not possible to perform experiments with human subjects. Results of a frequency distribution analytic approach show that, regardless of other variables, contact incidents were always greater when the boom was moving up, always greater on the hand, and always greater or the boom arm part of the machine. The reason why the subject experiences more contacts when the boom arm is moving up rather than down is that more risky behaviors occur during drilling and bolting when the boom is ascending. Results of a cross-tabulation analytic approach show that the 25th-percentile operators experienced more contacts than other operator sizes and had most of their contacts during a boom speed of 13 in/sec. The hand-on-boom behavior during drilling and bolting tasks experienced more contacts than other work behaviors, and both tasks had most of their contacts during speed 13 in/sec. The 60-in seam experienced more contacts than other seam heights and had most of the contacts during speed 16 in/sec. For univariate logistic regression models, seam height is the most important predictor of the probability of a contact. However, a multivariate logistic regression model predicted contacts are more likely with the both-knee work posture in the 60-in seam, a 25th-percentile operator compared to a 55th-percentile operator, and speeds 16 and 22 in/sec compared to 7 in/sec. 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 speeds greater than13 in/sec result in a substantial increase in risk to the roof bolter operator making contact. Speeds less than or equal to 13 in/sec are associated with a more modest relative risk of making contact, which represents a decrease in potential hazard. Virtual operator's response time has little effect on the number of contacts experienced. The mining industry can use the information in this study to reduce the likelihood that roof bolter operators will experience injury due to contact with a moving roof bolting machine's boom arm.

Jan 5, 2005

By W. R. Reed

Dust dispersion modeling is a subject that has had a large amount of research activity. Much of the research has focused on large-scale global or regional dispersion models. Other models have been created for industry-specific purposes. Furthermore, some of the past research has focused on dust dispersion modeling in the mining industry. This report presents the various dust dispersion models that have been developed specifically for the mining industry. The report first gives a brief background of the regulatory environment that helped to promote development of such models. It then presents an overview of the mathematical concepts used in this dispersion modeling. Finally, each of the various models developed for the mining industry are described, along with their associated mathematical algorithms and any field validation conducted on the different models.

Jan 9, 2005

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

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

Jan 7, 2005

By John J. Sammarco

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

Jan 8, 2005

By 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 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 David Cooper, Susan Robertson, William Wiehagen, Launa Mallett, Charles Vaught, Joan Dickerson, Richard Conkle, ROBERT PETERS, Mike Brnich, Charles Urban

This trainer’s guide is designed as a reference manual. The purpose is to offer information and examples to skills trainers to assist them in structuring training for new operators of Walk-Thru roof bolting machines. Trainers can use this manual as a resource for helping trainees learn, understand, and apply knowledge and skills. In this sense, the guide is not prescriptive. It is designed to offer information and trigger ideas on what might be done to accelerate learning to those who are new to the roof-bolting task. On-site trainers can modify this guide to fit their conditions, machines and equipment, and work procedures. They can integrate roof control plans, company policies and procedures, and operators’ manuals from the manufacturers of the original equipment into this guide. Every trainee is different and will come to the job with varying levels of relevant knowledge and skills. The trainer’s decisions on where to start, how to organize the on-the-job and classroom training portions, and when and how to offer different aspects of the training will be based on (1) a pretraining assessment of the trainee’s knowledge and skills and (2) the trainer’s experience in conducting skills training. The “Skill Check” section might be useful for deciding where training should start among miners who have underground experience but limited knowledge of roof-bolting techniques. Every job carries a learning curve and likely has a number of “teachable moments” where significantly new knowledge and skills can be learned. The videos on the DVD that accompany this guide can be shown at the beginning of training to give trainees an idea of what the job entails and related requirements. They can also be used within the training cycle (after the trainee has some experience in the job) to reinforce key points or as a trigger for eliciting questions about particularly difficult parts of the job. The video segments are meant to be visual models of good performance. They are designed to elicit discussion on good (lower risk) ways to do the job. In this context, they can be used very creatively at different times within the training cycle. The section on “Talking Points” offers a number of questions that can be used in the classroom to support and elaborate on certain aspects of the job duties. If the trainee has a fair amount of underground experience, some of the questions can also be used to support the pretraining assessment (i.e., skill check) of knowledge and skills. Likewise, some of the questions can also be used while teaching on the job to reinforce key points affecting safety, production, or maintenance. The section dealing with a mine’s roof control plan should be used at various times in the training cycle to make sure the trainee understands the plan and knows how to apply it in performing the job. The supplemental materials offer additional resources that can be used to support initial job training or follow-up. Learning continues well after an individual has been trained. The supplemental materials can help reinforce good operating skills and provide an opportunity for further discussion on better ways to do the job.

Jan 8, 2006

By William Wiehagen

This trainer?s guide is designed as a reference manual. The purpose is to offer information and examples to skills trainers to assist them in structuring training for new operators of Walk-Thru roof bolting machines. Trainers can use this manual as a resource for helping trainees learn, understand, and apply knowledge and skills. In this sense, the guide is not prescriptive. It is designed to offer information and trigger ideas on what might be done to accelerate learning to those who are new to the roof-bolting task. On-site trainers can modify this guide to fit their conditions, machines and equipment, and work procedures. They can integrate roof control plans, company policies and procedures, and operators? manuals from the manufacturers of the original equipment into this guide. Every trainee is different and will come to the job with varying levels of relevant knowledge and skills. The trainer?s decisions on where to start, how to organize the on-the-job and classroom training portions, and when and how to offer different aspects of the training will be based on (1) a pretraining assessment of the trainee?s knowledge and skills and (2) the trainer?s experience in conducting skills training. The ?Skill Check? section might be useful for deciding where training should start among miners who have underground experience but limited knowledge of roof-bolting techniques. Every job carries a learning curve and likely has a number of ?teachable moments? where significantly new knowledge and skills can be learned.

Aug 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

By Christopher C. Jobes, N. Kumar Kittusamy, Alan G. Mayton, Dean H. Ambrose

Researchers with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a systematic study to evaluate seat designs on low- and mid-coal-seam shuttle cars. The purpose was to gather additional data to support earlier findings that NIOSH seats, with unique viscoelastic foam padding, are indeed improved designs for coal mine shuttle cars. This study included a larger sample of shuttle car operators than a prior NIOSH investigation. Eight shuttle car operators participated in evaluating seat designs on the basis of perceived levels of vehicle jarring/jolting and discomfort. Researchers then compared the operators’ perceptions with field-measured levels of vehicle jarring/jolting. Seven seat designs were evaluated on low- and mid-coal-seam shuttle cars during production operations at two underground coal mines in southern West Virginia. These seat designs comprised the one already in use on each vehicle and five NIOSH designs. Experimental data were collected using accelerometers, signal conditioning amplifiers, and filters connected to a data recorder, whereas subjective data were gathered via a visual analog scale (VAS) and a questionnaire. Field trials included shuttle cars operating under full- and no-load conditions. VAS responses indicated that NIOSH-designed seats performed better relative to comfort and isolation from vehicle jarring/jolting than the existing seats used in the shuttle cars. Both mid- and low-coal-seam shuttle car operators, during no-load and full-load conditions, rated lower levels of jarring/jolting with the NIOSH seat design. Questionnaire responses indicated that shuttle car operators rated NIOSH seat designs as more comfortable. Vehicle operators most frequently suggested the addition of armrests as a way to improve the seats on the mid-seam shuttle car. The quantitative levels of vehicle jarring/jolting for the no-load condition (more severe condition for vehicle operation) showed that NIOSH seats for the mid-coal-seam shuttle car performed better than the existing seat in terms of peak acceleration and crest factor. Similarly, for the low-coal-seam shuttle car, NIOSH seats performed better than the existing seat in terms of peak acceleration, root-mean-square (RMS) acceleration, and crest factor.

Jan 11, 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