Search Documents

By Renee Fippin

INTRO PAGE

Jun 13, 2021

By Randy J. Mikula

Cleaning of low-rank coals can have several meanings, depending upon the definitions of the terms "low rank" and "cleaning." In general, low-rank coals would be lignite or subbituminous according to the ASTM classification. For the purposes of this summary, cleaning is defined to be any process which materially reduces the proportion of inert material in the coal. For low-rank coals, this often means a reduction in moisture content since moisture is the major inert component in these coals. A brief discussion of conventional cleaning processes is included, as is an extensive reference list.

Jan 1, 1991

By Jan Visman, James W. Parkinson

GENERAL INTRODUCTION Sample collection, preparation and analysis are all steps in a single process designed to provide information about a much larger amount of material than the sample itself. For example, information about the ash content of a unit train load of coal may be derived from a single, relatively small sample of perhaps a few hundred pounds (liters) extracted from the entire shipment. These three steps can be thought of as links in a chain, allowing the simple analogy that the strength of the chain, or, in other words, the value of the information is only as strong as the weakest link. Sample collection, discussed in Part 1 of this chapter, is critical because analytical procedures can do no more than reveal the characteristics of the sample presented to the laboratory. If that sample does not properly represent the population to be characterized, neither will the analysis of that sample. Sample preparation is also a critical part of the chain. Any change in the nature of a sample between the time it is collected and the time it is analyzed will appear to reflect the nature of the population. For example, sample preparation procedures that allow air to partially dry the coal sample before reaching the laboratory will cause the sample analysis to indicate a lower moisture content than the sample originally had. Other changes can be more subtle. Second only to moisture loss, oxidation reactions generally cause the greatest problems. Oxidation of a coal sample can alter surface properties, changing flotation response. In extreme cases, combustion parameters, such as caking or agglomerating properties or mineral composition, such as pyrite content, can change. Water samples can also be altered by oxidation. For example, ferrous iron can oxidize to ferric iron, possibly changing water quality parameters such as pH. Sample analysis, the subject of Part 2 of this chapter, is the final link in the chain. Obviously, no laboratory procedure can correct for problems created by improper sample collection and preparation. At the same time, poor analytical techniques will create incorrect information about the total amount of coal from which the sample was extracted (the population) in the same manner as improper sample collection and preparation. The key to gaining correct information about the population is to view these three steps as parts of a single process. Following proper techniques through only one or two steps of the process will not produce accurate information.

Jan 1, 1991

By Peter T. Luckie, Felicia F. Peng

INTRODUCTION The maximum recovery of cleaned coal at the required quality is of major concern to plant operators. However, the quantity and quality of products of coal cleaning, predicted by theoretical calculation based on washability studies and determined in the operation of actual commercial cleaning plants, will be different for each coal. Therefore, during the last half century, coal preparation engineers have repeatedly sought methods for evaluating the technical and economical efficiency of separating coal in coal cleaning equipment and for predicting the quantity and quality of cleaned coal produced, as well as profit- ability for the entire plant. Many formulas have been proposed by investigators to evaluate the efficiency of various coal cleaning operations. Performance criteria in use today are capable of defining all of the important aspects of a given concentrating operation; however, each criterion has certain restrictions or limitations. It is important, therefore, to understand how such formulas can be used and the problems involved in their construction. Technical Measures of Equipment/Plant Performance Conventional measures for evaluating the performance of a preparation plant are generally the same as those used to evaluate equipment performance. Measures involving separation efficiencies are influenced by the following three broadly encompassing primary factors: (1) density composition of the feed coal, (2) design characteristics of the cleaning unit, and (3) relative density of the separation. Since separation efficiencies are dependent on factors involving the nature of the coal, they are termed dependent criteria and represent a very broad technical indicator of an individual process or plant performance. Performance measures known as independent criteria are influenced mainly by quantitative errors inherent in the design and operation of the processing equipment. Economic Measures of Plant Performance True assessment of coal cleaning methods require reference to economic measures such as profitability. During the years in which technical efficiency criteria for characterizing plant performance were being improved, coal preparation engineers were also seeking appropriate economic criteria to assess plant performance. Technical and economic effectiveness of plant performance are important parameters for coal preparation flowsheet design. The relationship of the technical and economic parameters can be formulated in an economic model and mathematical model with the aid of computers. The computerized models

Jan 1, 1991

The variety and sources of sampling errors have been studied since the late 1800s, but the pioneering work of Pierre Gy in the 1950s provided insights into sampling as an error generating process. Total sampling variance is a measure of the total sampling error, but disaggregating the variance into its component parts is problematical. Ten sources of error and error generating processes have been identified, some of which can be eliminated through rigorous application of the principle of correct sampling. Others can only be minimized but never eliminated. Three principal questions relating to the appropriate mass of a sample, the fragment size of the sample and the size of the associated error are addressed. These questions relate principally to the Fundamental Error (FE), the only error that can be estimated before the sampling event. Aspects of constitutional and distributional heterogeneity are examined, as are the essential components of Gy?s formula including the shape factor (?), the granulometric factor (g), the mineralogical composition factor (c), and the liberation factor, l. Applications of Gy?s equation to the problems of sampling in the minerals industry are explained using real-life examples. The approach to sampling taken by Pierre Gy provides an excellent inferential relationship between the mass of material to be sampled, the size of the fragments being sampled, and the relative variance of the sampling error. It also provides solutions for three of the main problems associated with the Theory of Sampling.

Jan 1, 2007

By Byron C. Hardinge, E. R. Palowitch, Albert W. Deurbrouck, David J. Akers, Edward R. Torak

During 1983, 42.2% of the 686.0 (624.3 Mt) million tons of coal reported, 289.6 (263.5 Mt) million tons were mechanically cleaned, of which 107 (97.4 Mt) million tons were cleaned by dense media (magnetite and sand) processes.' The percentage of bituminous coal and lignite cleaned mechanically by dense medium processes increased from 7 to 38% between 1938 and 1983. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that 150 million tons (137 Mt) of coal were cleaned by heavy-media processes in 1986, and that this number may increase to 265 million tons (241 Mt) by 1990.2 Dense medium separations include those coal preparation processes that clean raw coal by immersing it in a fluid having a density intermediate between clean coal and reject. As there is a general correlation between ash content and specific gravity, it is possible to achieve the required degree of removal of ash-forming impurities from a raw coal by regulating the specific gravity of the separating fluid. Dense medium processes generally offer the following advantages over other coal cleaning processes: • Ability to make sharp separations at any specific gravity within the range normally required even in the presence of high percentages of raw coal whose specific gravity is near the specific gravity of separation. • Ability to maintain a separating gravity that can be controlled within + 0.005 sp gr units. • Ability to handle a wide range of coal sizes. • Ability to change specific gravity of separation to meet varying market requirements. • Ability to handle fluctuations in feed, in terms of both quantity and quality. Unfortunately, dense medium processes can have the following disadvantages: • Relatively high capital costs caused primarily by the need for equipment to collect and recycle the medium. Relatively high operating costs caused primarily by operation of medium recycle equipment and loss of medium.

Jan 1, 1991

By G. Robert Moorehead, Peter T. Luckie, Harold L. Lovell, David J. Akers, James K. Kindig

Jigging is a process of particle stratification in which the particle re- arrangement results from an alternate expansion and compaction of a bed of particles by pulsating fluid flow. The vertical direction of fluid flow is reversed periodically. The rearrangement results in layers of particles that are arranged by increasing density from top to bottom of the bed. This response, developed from the many and continuously varying forces acting upon the particles, permits a solid-solid separation more related to particle density and less to particle size than any other "hydraulic-type" process. The stratification is usually carried out in a rectangular, open-top container called a jig, in which the mass of particles (termed a "bed") is supported on a perforated base through which the water flows in alternating directions. The coal particles, in addition to the vertically expanded and compacted bed motion, move continuously, horizontally across the supporting screen. Following the particle stratification, the particle bed is physically "cut" at a desired horizontal particle density plane to separate the desired clean coal product from the more dense refuse. The jig system includes means for continuously introducing the raw coal and for moving the water through the coal bed in a controllable manner, as well as for separating and removing the stratified particles from the system as two or more product streams. In coal preparation, this highly versatile unit operation is applied preferably to a wide size range of particles with top sizes up to 8 in. (20 cm) rather than to a closely sized fraction. In gravity ranges, the process has been applied to gold particles with a density of 19.3 and to coal particles having densities less than 1.30. Single jig washers have capacities from 5 (4.6) to greater than 700 tph (637 t/h) of feed coal. The separation results attainable by jigging have favored this unit operation as optimum for creating a clean coal product as required by steam coal specifications. Al- though the jig is used in preparing coals which are difficult to separate, its limitations to achieve both quality products and high recovery are being recognized in comparison with heavy media-based processes which make sharper separations from feeds having high "near-gravity" contents. The accu- racy of the densimetric stratification in the upper portions of the jig bed are less precise. It follows that coals with more than 10% near-gravity material

Jan 1, 1991

By Nick Bower, Richard Giffen

N/A

Jun 13, 2021

By Roe-Hoan Yoon

INTRODUCTION In 1960, coal accounted for 49% of the world energy consumption, an amount that was reduced to 29% in 1973 because of the availability of cheap oil. At that time, it seemed that oil would remain available for a long time in unlimited quantities. However, this situation changed drastically in 1973/74 when a series of closely spaced price increases from $3 per to $12 per bbl by mid-1974 hit both industrialized and developing countries. Another sharp price increase in 1979/80 to the $34 to $38 per bbl level also hit the world economy hard and, at the same time, set in motion powerful technology development forces for increased coal utilization. At this point, the price of coal was approximately $1.50 per MM Btu, while that of oil approached $6.00 per MM Btu. This huge price differential offered an incentive for developing new coal technologies including liquefaction, gasification, fluidized bed combustion, coal-water mixture (CWM), etc. The CWM technology was of particular interest to the utility industry, which consumes more than 80% of the coal mined in the US for power generation. In this technology, a powdered coal is mixed with water to produce a stable slurry that can be stored for an extended period of time without settling and is readily pumpable. Various reagents in the amount of approximately 1% by weight of the coal are added to inhibit sedimentation during storage and to reduce the viscosity for atomization in burners. The coal loading is in the range of 50 to 80% solids, depending on the particle size and its distribution. With very fine particles, it is difficult to increase the coal loading above 50%, and a binomial distribution helps increase the coal loading. The presence of water consumes a relatively small amount of the heating value of the coal during combustion; for a coal-water slurry containing 30% water, less than 5% of the calorific value of coal is usually consumed due to evaporation. The major advantage of burning coal as a slurry is that many of the oil-burning furnaces can be converted to coal-burning with a minimum retrofit cost. Considering the substantial price margin between coal and oil, the pay- back period for retrofit costs can be relatively short. Nevertheless, the retrofit cost can be further reduced if low-ash coals are used as feedstocks for CWM; there will be savings in the capital cost of installing bag filters or electrostatic precipitators that are designed to remove the ash from the combustion gases. Furthermore, the use of low-ash coals can minimize derating of boilers because the velocity of the combustion gases can be maximized without creating erosion

Jan 1, 1991

Application of Gy?s formula is appropriate for calculation of the Fundamental Error (FE) prior to samples being collected at any stage of the minerals process, provided that sampling parameters K and a (alpha) have been determined by calibration of the ores. Two types of calibration procedure are well established in the industry, the Hetrogeneity test and the 32-piece sampling tree experiment. The sampling tree experiment uses the variance and average grade of metal analyses from four series of samples at different nominal fragment size, as the basic input data. Pierre Gy suggested the cube as an appropriate exponent of the nominal fragment size for use in his equation. More recent work suggests that this exponent is variable and characteristic of specific ores and therefore requires calibration. The method described here explains the experimental procedure of the calibration. It is then possible to calculate a sampling nomogram using the sampling parameters K and a. This allows the sampler to determine a suitable protocol for the sampling event that will ensure that the FE does not exceed a predetermined precision at any point in the sampling procedure.

Jan 1, 2007

By John T. Cantwell

INTRODUCTION The process engineer usually is responsible for the design operating philosophy and/or day-to-day operations of a process. Since instrumentation is an integral part of the operation, it is essential that engineers understand the general capabilities of the different types of control equipment available. Many "noncontrol" engineers have become involved with instrumentation for machinery monitoring and control as well as other plant applications. The advent of the microprocessor has led to significant changes in control, both in systems configurations and man-machine interfaces. Today's concept is called simply "distributed control." What is distributed control? Distributed control is exactly what the name implies; the control system is divided into several functional segments and spread out to cover a process. The systems are distributed for physical, functional, and risk reasons. Before delving further into the specifics of distributed control, let's look at the evolution of control systems to see how we got here. Instruments initially were located near measurement and control points in the field. Operators physically had to go to the instrument to change setpoints or take measurements. As processes became more complex, it became evident that a central control area was required. This allowed an operator to monitor and control many variables. The operator's effectiveness was increased dramatically, which resulted in greater efficiency, better quality control, and lower personnel requirements. At the same time, plants became much larger, control applications became more complex, energy became expensive, and the industry became more competitive. All of these factors placed pressure on process and production engineers to get the most for the money. The result was a continuing push to put more instrumentation into a central control room to maximize efficiency and productivity and minimize manpower. This chapter deals in some detail with devices for measuring physical and chemical properties of coal; devices for measuring the weight and weight-rate of flow of coal; devices for the monitoring and control of conveyor systems, solids inventory, fluid flow, liquid level, density, and specific gravity. These instruments have a multitude of uses throughout a coal preparation plant. The discussions cover advancements in "on-line analysis," nuclear control devices, and distributed control using microprocessors, mainframes, and soft-

Jan 1, 1991

By Peter T. Luckie, Joseph W. III Leonard

INTRODUCTION In a bed of fine coal, water can be found in the interstices created by the particle surfaces and in the pores within the coal particles. The extent of the interstices voidage is obviously a function of the particle sizes and morphologies, as shown by the fact that the bulk density of coarse coal is greater than that of fine coal. After drainage, the voids can be completely or partially filled. By increasing the suction pressure across the bed, as is done in vacuum filtering, the quantity of water in the voids can be reduced. But eventually the increased suction pressure has little influence on the moisture reduction. In addition, the moisture in the pore structure of the coal is unaffected by the mechanical removal of the moisture in the interstices. When this condition is reached, the total moisture content of the coal can only be reduced further by evaporating the water. Evaporative drying is done for one or more of the following reasons: 1. To avoid freezing difficulties and to facilitate handling during shipment, storage, and transfer to the points of utilization. 2. To reduce the heat loss due to evaporation of the moisture from the coal during the combustion process, thus increasing heating efficiency. 3. To decrease transportation costs. The heating value of coal is equally improved for each percentage point reduction in the noncombustibles in coal. It is estimated that a reduction of 1%22 in the total moisture in the coal increases the thermal efficiency of the heat-raising process by about 0. Some coal buyers consider 1 % moisture content to be the equivalent of a 4% ash content.23 It is important to avoid drying the coal to too low a moisture level, since the complete removal of surface moisture to produce a bone dry product can result in a serious dust, wind lost, and safety problem. Surface moisture con- tents of 3% or less for shipped coal are not uncommon. However, the evaporatively dried coal may be lower, Y, to 1%, since the mechanically dewatered coal may be higher. Evaporatively dried coal can be treated (sprayed) with chemicals in order to control the dustiness and any freezing difficulties, thereby providing the producer with more operational flexibility. The evaporative drying of coal is essentially a process of simultaneous transfer of energy, usually in the form of heat, and water, in the form of vapor, from the coal. In order to remove the undesired moisture, it is necessary to raise the temperature of the water from the entering temperature of the feed stream, TF, to the boiling point of the water (usually taken as 212"F), vaporize

Jan 1, 1991

By Byron C. Hardinge, Michael Sokaski, Paul F. Sands, W. Loring III Mc Morris, David J. Akers

INTRODUCTION In the early days of coarse-coal cleaning by the dense-medium process in Europe, loess was one of the materials used for medium solids. Newly developed cyclones were used to reclaim and thicken the loess suspension. On occasion, when the cyclone thickener at the Maurits mine in the Netherlands plugged, the overflow was found to be filled with clean coal free of impurity. From this observation stemmed the concept of the cyclone as a cleaning device. Development took place during World War II in the laboratory of the Dutch State Mines under the direction of M. G. Driessen. A 15-tph (13.6 t/h) pilot plant was in operation in the laboratory by 1945, when, in September, Driessen made the first public disclosure of the process in a paper presented to the Institute of Fuel in London.51 In April 1945, operation of this pilot plant was observed by H. F. Yancey, who was so impressed with the potential of the cyclone process that, on his return to the United States, a research program on the cyclone was immediately started by the US Bureau of Mines (USBM). This work led to an AIME paper in 1946 in which the first details of cyclone operation on American coals were made available.52 Commercial adoption of the cyclone proceeded in Europe, initially in the Netherlands, Germany, and France. In the United States, where coal is less costly and most of the coals are easy to clean and respond well to simpler cleaning processes, the first cyclone plant was not built until 1961.53 THEORY Before discussing the theory of a dense-medium cyclone, a brief description may be helpful to some readers who are not familiar with its basic operation. In a typical dense-medium cyclone, illustrated in Fig.7-51 a mixture of medium and raw coal enters tangentially near the top of the cylindrical section, thus forming a strong vortical flow. The refuse moves along the wall of the cyclone and is discharged through the underflow orifice. The washed coal moves toward the longitudinal axis of the cyclone and passes through the overflow orifice, or vortex finder, to the overflow chamber. Washed coal is discharged from this chamber, usually through a tangential outlet.

Jan 1, 1991

By Eugene R. Palowitch, Albert W. Deurbrouck, Thomas H. Parrsons

INTRODUCTION Hydraulic concentrators utilize the physical characteristics-size, shape, and specific gravity-of particles suspended in a fluid medium to effect a concentration of desired quality. Fine-coal concentrators include generally those devices which are used to clean roughly 3/4, in. (9.5 mm) top-size coals. While this size designation is somewhat arbitrary, it is consistent with current practice although some fine- coal concentrators can treat coarser coals effectively. A variety of devices have been and are currently being used to wash fine coals and include: dense media cyclones, wet concentrating tables, hydrocyclones, jigs, spirals, launders, and upward-current classifiers. As launders and upward-current classifiers have been replaced by more efficient devices, they no longer warrant consideration as fine-coal washers. And as fine-coal jigs were addressed with the Baum jig under Part 1, Section 2, and heavy media cyclones and hydrocyclones were addressed under Part 2, Section 1, of this Chapter, only the wet concentrating table and the spiral concentrator will be discussed here. WET CONCENTRATING TABLES History The current wet concentrating table evolved from continuous belt concentrators which utilized a flowing film of water to recover heavy metals. In these devices the heavier concentrate moved up the inclined plane of the belt while the lighter impurities were washed away by water flowing down the belt. The natural outgrowth of the continuous belt concentrator was the vanner, a vibrating endless belt which was first developed about 1860 by Hartwig. Later models of the vanner, such as the Frue, incorporated oscillation in a plane transverse to the direction of the water current. Excellent descriptions of these washers are found in The Cleaning of Coal, by Chapman and Mott.80 Further development of tables included the circular stationary table (Linkenbach), the multiple round table (Anaconda-Evans), the bumping table (Campbell), and finally the differential-motion table which is now used extensively for cleaning fine coals.

Jan 1, 1991

By Frank A. Aplan, Barbara J. Arnold

INTRODUCTION Coal flotation is a fine cleaning process usually present in all but the older preparation plants. It is typically used to clean either the -28 mesh (-500 pm) or - 100 mesh (- 150 pm) raw coal fines, and it is the only commonly used preparation method that can effectively recover coal particles finer than, say, -200 mesh (74 pm). To place coal flotation into its proper context, it should be noted that the bulk of the raw coal sent to preparation plants is treated by gravity concentration. On a worldwide basis, from 0 to 40% of the raw feed to a preparation plant is treated by flotation, while in the US only about 10% of the raw coal feed is floated. Roughly, 50% of US preparation plants use flotation to process at least a portion of the raw coal feed, although most of the newer plants incorporate flotation into their flowsheet. Historically, the process has only been used to treat the raw coal fines naturally occurring after mining and a minimal amount of crushing at the preparation plant. This is in sharp contrast to ore flotation where, typically, the entire tonnage is first ground and then floated. As a consequence, of the approximately 500 Mt of raw coal treated by preparation in the US yearly, it is estimated that only about 40 Mt are sent to the flotation circuits (producing -30 Mt of clean product).'O1 This small tonnage compares with about 400 Mt of ores treated annually in the US by flotation. By analogy to ore flotation, where it is an effective, large tonnage, low cost, easy to operate process, its potential in coal preparation should be great. Reasons why it has not achieved a greater potential in coal preparation have been attributed by Aplan 102 to: 1. Indifferent results in removing sulfur and ash. 2. Difficulty in floating low rank and oxidized coals. 3. Inability to make clean separations with the finer sizes. 4.Inability to clean slurries with a high percentage of clay. 5. Problems with water chemistry. 6. Competition with effective, gravity coarse-cleaning methods. 7. Low value of coal historically. 8. Dewatering problems. 9. Transportation and storage problems with coal fines. 10. Marketing problems with coal fines. 11. Inadequate attention to the process in the plant. 12. Inefficient use of capital and operating monies. Inadequate attention to procedures, machines, and processes.

Jan 1, 1991

By Dillon Tew, Kush Chohan

N/A

Jun 13, 2021

By James D. Hervol, Josepph W. III Leonard, Barbara J. Arnold

INTRODUCTION Dry concentration or pneumatic cleaning uses air currents as the separating medium. Pneumatic cleaning in the United States today is limited to three or four operations. In fact, the quantity of bituminous coal cleaned pneumatically has declined from its peak in 1965 of about 25.4 million tons (23.1 Mt) to its current level (1988) of less than 4 million tons (3.64 Mt) annually, as shown in Fig. 7-9 1. In 1940, pneumatic methods accounted for 15% of the bituminous coal and lignite cleaned in the United States as given in Table 7-32. Currently, pneumatic methods account for less than 2%. The largest air plant was built in Pennsylvania about 1968 with 14 units processing 1400 tph (1280 t/h) of 3/, in. X 0 (19 mm X 0) raw feed and two additional units retreating middlings. This same plant is one of only three or four plants still operating air-cleaning devices in the US. A wet plant was added in 1985 to increase the efficiency of cleaning the fines. The air plant is still used as a scalping operation for the coarse material. Five additional operations are either no longer in production or have discontinued the use of air tables within the last year. Wet cleaning methods are now being employed at the facilities that have discontinued air table operation. he advantage of dry cleaning techniques is the low moisture content of the clean coal product. However, to decrease respirable dust, mining operations must use water sprays on modem mining equipment. This water adds to the moisture content of the run-of-mine coal and decreases the effectiveness of dry cleaning processes that rely on low surface moistures in the feed to allow for good separations. Wet cleaning methods are preferred, especially since they also allow for much sharper separations. The advantage of dry cleaning techniques is the low moisture content of the clean coal product. However, to decrease respirable dust, mining operations must use water sprays on modem mining equipment. This water adds to the moisture content of the run-of-mine coal and decreases the effectiveness of dry cleaning processes that rely on low surface moistures in the feed to allow for good separations. Wet cleaning methods are preferred, especially since they also allow for much sharper separations. Despite dry concentration's drawbacks, research has continued into dry concentrating methods, including both electrostatic and magnetic separation techniques. The real application for future dry cleaning processes is probably at the power plant between the pulverizer and the boiler feed where particles are already dry and ground to fine sizes (- 200 mesh [ -0.075 mm]), increasing the effectiveness of the separation and also, possibly, increasing the liberation of clean coal from finely disseminated impurities. From a utility's viewpoint, pneumatic cleaning offers the best delivered Btu cost, based on the premise that a percent of moisture is just as detrimental as a percent of ash. Additionally, several other advantages are inherent in dry concentration techniques. The main advantage is that dry concentration re-

Jan 1, 1991

By Leo Misagi

THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT IN PLANT SAFETY Safe Production In plant management, safe production is an ideal. It becomes reality when: 1. Plant employees work in healthful and safe conditions. 2. Plant safety is in harmony with productivity. 3. Worker absenteeism and turnover are low-the work force is stable. Plant management must apply its talents, skills, and resources to build and maintain the foundations of safe production on a system of policies, procedures, and attitudes. It must do so by marshaling all managerial functions - staffing, direction, control, innovation, and representation-toward that goal. Ideally, a plant safety program is proactive. Management should plan and implement safety activities that are aimed at prevention. Past accidents-accomplished facts-should not be the sole guide of future actions. In other words, positive preventive measures, not the fewness of accidents are the criteria for safety production. An ideal safety program is one which is cost effective. Management should view plant safety as part of a broader program-loss control. Loss control includes prevention of fires and other accidents, unhealthful conditions, and occurrences that cause bodily injury, illness, property loss, or damage. Management evaluates the employees' productivity and safety. An effective training program aimed at loss control is the hallmark of safe production. Ideally, both labor and management should be well versed in safety. They believe in the premise that work-related injury and illness, as well as property loss and damage from fire and other accidents, are manageable and preventable. Such belief prompts them to learn more about the work process and potential hazards associated with each job. They also learn how to expect and prevent fues and other accidents, and respond to emergencies at the plant. Plant management determines which individuals or groups of employees are accountable for the following functions:

Jan 1, 1991

By Everett Litton, Ehsan Alavi

N/A

Jun 13, 2021

By J. Davitt McAteer

Dear Mine Operator, Training for new employees, refresher training for new employees, refresher training, and new task training can mean the difference between life and death for workers. Part 46 spells out how you can develop a training program to protect workers for on-the-job hazards. Together, labor, industry, and the U.S. Department of Labor reached a milestone with the development and publication of Part 46. We want to continue working together toward the next milestone, October 2000, when the regulations take effect. We want to make sure you have all the information you need about these new training requirements. Throughout the next 12 months, MSHA personnel will be holding regional meetings across the country, delivering information and sample training plans to your operation, and offering you help to develop your plan. If you are among the many operators who are already providing training to your workers, keep up the good work. The rule will tell you exactly what is expected. If you currently have no training program, we can help you develop one. A brochure is being distributed, which highlights the main provisions of the rule. It is designed to introduce the rule to you. More detailed materials will be delivered to you. If you want information right away, simply call us, or e-mail us. We also welcome your comments, suggestions, and success stories. Part 46 will be successful and beneficial to miners through our combined efforts. Together, we can make our mines safe and healthier for everyone. Sincerely, J. Davitt McAteer, Assistant Secretary of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration

Jan 1, 1999