Chapter 11.
1
PERSONNEL HEALTH AND SAFETY
R AJA V. R AMANI
11.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The single most valuable asset in any organization is human
resources. It is the ingenuity and creativity of people that lead
to the effective and efficient utilization of all other available
resources to achieve the economic and societal goals of the orga-
nization. Protection of the health and safety of employees from
excessive or undesirable stresses in the occupational environment
is all important. This must be so from both the humanitarian
point of view and the overall welfare of the enterprise itself.
The enhancement of personnel health and safety in mines
requires an understanding of the hazards and the requirements
for their control. Further, it requires a critical evaluation and
application of the various approaches to hazard control. In addi-
tion to the learning experience from the lamentable history of
accidents and disasters in mines, there is a critical need to reduce
the risks of mine hazards and resulting accidents through the
application of such proactive analysis techniques as systems
safety analysis and disaster simulations for the identification of
new hazards. For rapid progress towards a hazard-free environ-
ment for the miners, combinations of several hazard control
approaches need to be utilized. The vital role of management in
focusing the miner’s attention to personnel health and safety
must be recognized. Finally, the search for new tools and tech-
niques for mining hazard control must go hand in hand with
transfer of successful practices from other industries.
11.1 2 HAZARDS, ACCIDENTS, AND DISASTERS
Unless there is a common understanding of terms, there
can be considerable confusion in transmitting information and
knowledge. This can be particularly vexing in the understanding
of safety literature in which such terms as “injury” and “acci-
dent” are often (and mistakenly) used interchangeably. Further-
more, definitions of accidents and hazards adopted for classifica-
tion purposes may not be detailed enough to use as a basis for
hazard control.
The term hazard is used here to describe an unsafe situation
in a mine (Anon., 1981). This may be an unsafe physical condi-
tion or unsafe acts of miners. Perception of a hazard is essential.
If a hazard is not perceived, no action can be taken to remove
it. A hazard source is the background condition which, while not
posing a danger in itself, may give rise to a hazard. For example,
methane is a source of hazard. An accident is the realization
of a hazard. An accident of major proportions representing a
substantial threat to human life may be said to have disaster
potential. If a large number of people are in fact killed, it is
deemed a disaster. Disasters command tremendous attention,
due to their infrequent occurrence and the extent of human
suffering involved, even though the number of deaths from non-
disaster accidents may be many times higher.
Fortunately, many mine accidents that have disaster poten-
tial do not become disasters, either because the accidents occur
at a time when no or few workers are in the mine, or because the
response is effective and all the threatened miners are evacuated
safely. For those involved in health and safety management, the
Fig. 11.1.1. Foundation of major accidents/injuries (Bird and
Loftus, 1982).
distinction between accidents and disasters is not significant, and
the aim is to identify, eliminate, or control the hazards.
11.1.3 HAZARD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
The first requirement of hazard control is to recognize that
any unintended occurrence is an accident whether such a hap-
pening results in injury or not. For example, if the objective of
a study of mine explosions is to unearth the underlying causes
of explosions and prevent their occurrence, the analysis of exces-
sive gas accumulations, excessive frictional sparkings, and elec-
trical arcings as well as any ignitions that did not result in injury
or property damage can be just as significant as an incident
(ignition or explosion) that resulted in injury. In fact, all these
occur more frequently in a coal mine than explosions and provide
a much larger basis for the analyses and determination of caus-
ative factors. This, in turn, can provide valuable information for
developing more effective control strategies. According to a
study by Heinrich (1959), the ratio of no injury to minor injury
to major injury is 300:29:1. Underlying these minor injuries are
numerous unsafe practices and unsafe conditions which fortu-
nately may not result in any incident. Bird and Loftus (1982)
have updated this ratio with further information on property
damage accidents (Fig. 11.1.1). The moral of these ratio studies
is that accident prevention must start with prevention of unsafe
practices and unsafe conditions as well as of minor injuries.
A second requirement for an effective accident control pro-
gram is a good index of safety performance. Many attempts
have been made to develop comparative standards for safety
measurement. Routine and surprise inspections, accident investi-
gations, compensation costs, and injury ratings have all been
used at one time or another. The number and severity of disabling
injuries and the number of employee-hours lost can be compared
with production and total employee-hours worked to judge
safety performance between mines in the same company and
between companies in the mining industry (see Chapter 11.0.4).
The tremendous value of these statistics to focus attention on
996 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Factors in Accident Sequence
Accident Causation
Accident Control
Fig. 11.1.2. Accident causation and control (Heinrich, 1959).
health and safety issues must be recognized. But it is obvious
that these performance ratings have a limited value in hazard
control since they are still tied only to injury experience and lost
employee hours. The ability to identify actual health and safety
conditions by combining quantitative aspects of the existing indi-
ces with qualitative aspects is important.
A third area is the critical evaluation of the relative contribu-
tions made by the environment, human beings, and mechanical
elements to an accident. The traditional method to assess their
contribution has been through mandatory investigations and
inspections. There are state and federal government inspection
agencies with powers to ensure compliance with existing laws
and for promulgating new regulations for safer performance. In
many instances, mine personnel have to be certified by govern-
ment regulatory agencies to be employed in certain categories
(e.g., mine foreman) and these officials have a certain number
of prescribed inspections to make. Inspections can be made to
check operations against the prescribed standards, to detect devi-
ations, and to suggest remedial actions. The chain of events
leading to the causation of an accident or injury has been com-
pared to a line of dominos, each domino in the sequence knocking
down the one next to it (Heinrich, 1959). In this concept, the
accident can be avoided by intervention to prevent an earlier
domino from falling down such that the chain of events does
not proceed to the last domino that represents losses to human
resources and property (Fig. 11.1.2). This concept has been mod-
ified by Bird and Loftus (1982) to focus attention on the lack of
control (Fig. 11.1.3) which is the first domino in the sequence.
Also the highlighting of the key role of management in accident
PRE-CONTACT CONTACT POST-CONTACT
Fig. 11.1.3. Accident causation and control (Bird and Loftus, 1982).
prevention by ensuring all aspects are under control at all times
is to be noted. However, the causes of accidents are manifold
and can result from unsafe acts of employees or unsafe mechani-
cal and/or physical conditions, or both. It is comparatively easier
to detect and spotlight physical hazards than unsafe acts of
workers. However mechanically safe a system is designed to be,
built-in safety can be jeopardized by an unsafe act. Maintenance
and preservation of the safety features depend on compliance
with many rules and regulations by the workers in the system.
Miners must be well trained in these rules of safe operation and
behavior. Further, during inspections, supervisors must spend
more time studying the worker to discover possible acts of com-
mission and omission beyond that required to ensure compliance.
In any case, compliance with laws and elimination of known
unsafe practices are in mathematical terms “necessary” rather
than “sufficient” conditions to consider a place safe. For in-
stance, with the increasing ability to measure and characterize
the elements of the mine atmospheric environment has come an
awareness of factors, hitherto unknown, that may pose new
threats to health and safety (Ramani, 1988). Recent examples
here include, but are not limited to, the high concentrations
of quartz in respirable airborne dust in coal mines, the large
proportion of submicrometer particles in diesel engine exhaust
and their impacts on mine air quality, the presence of asbestos-
type fibers in mined products, and the adequacy of existing
standards for radiation exposure in mines. These observations
have enabled focusing attention to the need for increasing re-
 PERSONNEL HEALTH AND SAFETY
search on the health effects and developing more effective engi-
neering controls. In other words, vigilance can never be relaxed
in the search for new hazard sources and their control.
Finally, the collection, analysis, and use of accident statistics
for developing hazard control programs must be a continuing
endeavor. While controlled experimentation is difficult, the de-
velopment of a theoretical framework for investigating hazard
and accident phenomena is necessary. If accident statistics on
an industry-wide basis are general and descriptive, they can
result in conclusions and recommendations that are also of a
broad and general nature. For developing specific programs for
specific mines, the data collection activities and the analysis
procedures must be focused to address the specific issues. For
example, specific studies must be undertaken to achieve definite,
realistic, and quantitative objectives, such as identifying the
cause of specific accident types, initiating a new accident control
program, or decreasing accident severity and injury rates.
11.1.4 HAZARD CONTROL APPROACHES
Mining is one of the oldest of human occupations (Chapter
1.1). The awareness of occupational illness associated with min-
ing is evident from the writings of Hippocrates (460–370 BC),
Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79), and Galen (AD 131–210). There-
fore, hazards associated with mining were known from ancient
times. Georgius Agricola (1494–1535), in his De Re Metallica,
refers to the diseases of miners and the need for their control
through good planning and operating practices and responsible
management. This early recognition of the occupational hazards
has undoubtedly contributed to the development of occupational
medicine and health care systems (Schwerha, 1989).
In assessing health and safety problems in the mining indus-
try, there is no room for complacency or fatalistic attitudes. Yet
one must recognize that mining is hazardous, and vigilance can
never be relaxed. As distinct from practices in many other indus-
tries, the mine working environment cannot be precisely con-
trolled. Also the environment is constantly changing. It is virtu-
ally impossible to foresee all the possible hazards and therefore,
to take precautions against each of them. However, the control
of the threats to health and safety of the miners has been a major
concern for management, labor, and government alike. This con-
cern has manifested itself in four primary mechanisms of control:
(1) regulatory control through the passage of mine health and
safety laws that set minimum standards of performance, (2) legal
and social control through workmen’s compensation laws for
occupation-related injuries and health deterioration, (3) medical
control through periodic physical examination, wearing of per-
sonnel protective devices, etc., and (4) engineering control
through design and operation of mines according to the best
recommended practices.
11.1.4.1 Health and Safety Regulations
It is only within the last 250 years that government regula-
tion of mines and the promulgation of health and safety stan-
dards were initiated. France and Germany took a lead in this
direction with the creation of inspectorates and schools of mines
(Bryan, 1985). In England, statutes governing industrial working
conditions were beginning to be debated by 1800. Initially, these
efforts were spurred by the evils and excesses of the employment
of women and children and increasing concerns to protect the
community from the dangerous and unsanitary conditions in the
mines. A major aspect of the early literature calling for legislation
of mines was the recognition of the importance of adequate
ventilation to health and safety and the need for better education
997
Fig. 11.1.4. Development paths for control mechanisms.
and training of those responsible for the management of coal
mines. Legislation specific to the mining industry was first en-
acted in England in 1842, and by 1850, a bill establishing a mine
inspectorate was passed.
In the United States, Pennsylvania should be credited with
the first formal move to legislate safety measures in its anthracite
mines. In 1858, a bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania legisla-
ture authorizing state supervision of the mines in Schuylkill
County. The bill failed that year and again in 1868, but in 1869
it became law, the first state mining statute in the United States
(Core, Ramani, and Frantz, 1983). A bituminous mining law
was not passed by Pennsylvania until 1877. As a matter of inter-
est, the American Institute of Mining Engineers (AIME) was
founded in Wilkes Barre, PA, in 1871, and one of its primary
goals was the development of safer coal mines. Enactment of
significant mine health and safety legislation in the United States
has closely followed in the footsteps of major disasters (Table
11.1.1).
Prior to 1969, the federal government was extremely reluc-
tant to intrude into the areas of health and safety, particularly
the enforcement of standards, which was viewed as a state re-
sponsibility. The situation since 1969, as discussed in Chapter
11.0, has changed significantly. For a more detailed discussion
of mine health and safety regulations, see Chapter 3.3 in this
Handbook. It is worth emphasizing again that health and safety
legislation, at any level, provides only a minimum framework
for the engineering and operations of mines, and should rarely
go beyond what is generally accepted as a good practice. Legal
controls cannot solve problems of health and safety if they are
not supported by sufficient technical clarity and feasibility. Oth-
erwise, they will be no more than statements of good intent and
may even frustrate professional progress towards safer work
environments. The desirable process for developing effective con-
trol is better understanding of the cause and effect, dose-response
relationships, feasible engineering designs and practices, and
good professional judgment. These must be the foundations on
which the legal control of health and safety is built (Fig. 11.1.4).
However, advances in technology, good practices in other indus-
tries, and increases in knowledge provide sufficient grounds for
the loop to run in the opposite direction. The danger to avoid
is legislation that may restrict the alternatives available to the
industry or does not fully consider the uniqueness of the mining
operations and environment.
 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Table 11.1.1. Development of Federal and State Mine Safety Laws in the United States
Proposals for or Enactment of Other
Date Disaster Significant State and Federal Legislation Legislation
1842 Pennsylvania Mine Safety Act Proposed
1865 Federal Bureau of Mines Proposed
3.14.1866 Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania (Anthracite)
Mine Inspection Act Proposed
4.12.1869 Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania (Anthracite)
Mine Inspection Act
9.6.1869 Avondale, PA (108 killed)
3.3.1870 Pennsylvania (Anthracite) Mine Inspection Act
4.22.1870 Mercer County, Pennsylvania (Bituminous)
Mine Inspection Act
3.27.1872 Illinois Mine Inspection Act
3.21.1874 Ohio Mine Inspection Act
4.18.1877 Pennsylvania (Bituminous) Mine Inspection
Act
3.11.1879 West Virginia Mine Inspection Act
5.10.1884 Kentucky Mine Inspection Act
2.25.1886 Federal Inspection of all mines where more
than 10 men work—Wyoming Territory
3.3.1891 Federal Inspection of all mines in Territories
with greater than 1000 tons production—
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah
7.1907 Federal Inspection of mines in the Territories
transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey
12.6.1907 Monongah, WV (361 killed)
12.19.1907 Darr, PA (239 killed)
5.1908 US Geological Survey funded to investigate
mine accidents and explosions
11.28.1908 Marianna, PA (154 killed)
11.13.1909 Cherry, IL (259 killed)
7.10.1910 US Bureau of Mines established, no mine
inspection rights
3.13.1912 Virginia Mine Inspection Act
5.7.1941 PL 49: Federal Coal Mine Inspection Act
7.24.1946 Federal Mine Safety Code
3.25.1947 Centralia, IL (111 killed)
8.4.1947 Mandatory compliance with the Federal Mine
Safety Code for 12 months
8.4.1947 PL 328: Survey of mines to determine compli-
ance with the FMSC of 1946 (33% compli-
ance found)
12.21.1951 West Frankfort, IL (119 killed)
7.16.1952 PL 552: Federal Coal Mine Safety Act
1960 Senate Bill: S. 743 Eliminate Small Mines
Exemption of PL 552 Proposed
3.26.1966 PL 376: Elimination of the small mines exemp-
tion of PL 552
9.16.1966 PL 89-577 Federal Metal and Non-Metal
Safety Act
9.1968 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Proposed
11.20.1968 Farmington, WV (78 killed)
12.30.1969 PL 91-173: Federal Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act of 1969
11.9.1977 PL 95-164: Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act of 1977
Source: Kinsey and Ramani, 1980.

11.1.4.2 Workmen’s Compensation Laws
The use of penalties to control occupational illnesses and
injuries has been in practice from the earliest of times. However,
specific approaches to indemnifying workers through worker’s
compensation laws began in Germany in 1885, Great Britain in
1897, and the United States in 1902 (Grimaldi and Simonds,
1975). These laws required the employer to compensate the in-
jured employee whether or not negligence could be proved. The
cost incurred due to accident insurance and compensation is
considered, in the framework of control, as a part of operating
the business. Workmen’s compensation cost is viewed as a deter-
rent since it is, in effect, an after-the-fact penalty whose magni-
tude can be so high that it encourages management to take many
 PERSONNEL HEALTH AND SAFETY
positive actions to avoid it. Workmen’s compensation insurance
is required in each of the 50 states. This insurance is carried
through an insurance firm or a state-operated insurance fund.
In the event of a health or an injury problem, compensation is
paid to the worker. For example, in 1985 the average annual
compensation cost per covered employee (benefits paid ÷ cov-
ered workers) in the 50 states varied from a low of $90 (Indiana)
to a high of $618 (Alaska). The national average for all 50 states
was approximately $290.
The 1969 Coal Mine Act considered the plight of miners
suffering from coal worker’s pneumoconiosis (CWP) arising out
of employment in underground coal mines and provided for the
payment of black lung benefits. This compensation program is
funded by a charge on every ton of coal mined. At the present
time, the charge is $1.10/ton ($1.22/t) of underground mined
coal and $0.55/ton ($0.62/t) of surface mined coal. The cumula-
tive annual benefits paid out of this fund, thus far, total over $25
billion. The number of claims processed in 1987 totalled nearly
300,000 and the amount expended nearly $1.8 billion. The num-
ber of new claims per year in the late 1980s averaged between
400 to 500. For professionals engaged in health and safety of
mines, no compensation should be enough to equalize the dan-
gers to health and safety, particularly if these can be avoided
through design and operational procedures.
11.1.4.3 Medical Examinations
In recent years, increasing financial responsibility for occu-
pation-related health problems and accident-injuries cases has
been placed on employers. Pre-employment physical examina-
tions and periodic continuing examinations are required to as-
sure that employees’ health and physical conditions are routinely
monitored and documented. These examinations may reveal the
on-set of physical problems such as hearing loss, loss of vision,
heart problems, arthritic conditions, lung impairment, etc.
Whether required by law or not, examinations provide medical
evidence for job switching and settlement of claims.
Under the 1969 Coal Mine Act, there are two activities
focused on the prevention of CWP: (1) the National Coal Work-
ers’ Health Surveillance Program, and (2) the Coal Mine Respi-
rable Dust Sampling Program. Both these activities have been
pursued since 1970 by federal government agencies. The two
together combine both primary and secondary methods for CWP
prevention: the dust control program by environmental control
and the surveillance program by protecting the health of the
coal miner (Attfield, 1984). The health surveillance program has
several significant purposes: (1) the protection of health of the
individual miner; (2) the monitoring of prevalence and progres-
sion of CWP; and (3) the identification of mines with high inci-
dences of CWP for closer dust control monitoring. If a miner
shows signs of CWP on a chest X-ray, then the miner has the
option to transfer to a less dusty work area. In addition, the
surveillance program provides a means to monitor the incidence
and prevalence of CWP under the dust control program. The
medical control provides a useful evaluation of the individual
miner’s health status through early detection of abnormal condi-
tions and prescription of preventative action.
11.1.4.4 Engineering Control
Engineering control encompasses design of mines, selection
of appropriate equipment, selection and training of the human
resources into a knowledgeable work force, and management of
these resources to achieve the goals of health, safety, and produc-
tivity. The specific aspects of designing mining engineering sys-
tems with effective control over hazards from mine atmospheric
999
contaminants such as gases and dust, and environmental aspects
such as radiation, heat, humidity, noise, and illumination, are
the topics of coverage in the subsequent chapters of this section
and therefore will not be amplified here. It is, however, important
to stress that the greatest positive effect on the health and safety
of miners can be achieved through proper application of engi-
neering controls during the planning, designing, and operating
phases of the mine.
11.1.4.5 Human Factors Engineering
During the last two decades, the application of human fac-
tors to mining engineering problems has been growing to en-
hance operational efficiency and health and safety of the miners.
Human factors engineering is the systematic application of rele-
vant information about human characteristics, abilities, expecta-
tions, and behaviors to the design of machines, tools, facilities,
procedures, and environments that miners use (Sanders and
Peay, 1988). There is a large body of human factor data, princi-
ples, and methods developed outside the mining industry that
can be brought to bear on problems encountered within the
industry. Increased activity in the human factors area has re-
sulted in the documentation of human-factor-related mining
problems and their solutions. The objective of all these efforts is
to ensure that human factors engineering is an inherent compo-
nent of the mining engineering design and that a mining system
of greater safety and reliability is designed.
11.1.4.6 Systems Safety Analysis
Systems safety analysis methods provide a proactive ap-
proach to analyze systems for potential hazards that may
threaten the health and safety of miners. This approach, devel-
oped specifically for the space program in the early sixties, made
it possible to generate safety statistics before the deployment of
new products and systems—that is, to ensure safety on the basis
of analysis of the system rather than on the basis of past history.
In the space program, this involved (1) making products of
unexcelled quality and reliability, (2) identifying the failure char-
acteristics of each unit and the impact of the unit’s failure on
the total system, (3) increasing system reliability by providing
alternatives to permit safe functioning of the system in the face
of failures of individual units, and (4) developing emergency
procedures for contingencies. While the objectives of the space
program permitted incurring larger costs in the interest of safety
than may be practical in other programs, much of the systems
safety approach is applicable to other industries, mining among
them.
The systems approach to the safety problem focuses on the
system taken as a whole, and not on its parts separately. It
involves the interaction of people, machines, and environment
within procedural constraints. It does not imply that the system
must be risk-free, but rather that risk can be identified, quanti-
fied, managed, and controlled (Hammer, 1972). This systematic
approach as applied to mine safety should include all phases
from conceptual formulation of the system through analysis,
synthesis, design, testing, evaluation, construction, training, ap-
proval, operation, and maintenance of the system. It requires:
(1) a logical examination of all the elements of the system and
their interactions; (2) identification of all sources of hazards; (3)
calculation of the probability of hazard occurrence; (4) a search
for the available options for hazard elimination or minimization,
and in the extreme case, provisions for evacuation, escape, sur-
vival, and rescue; and (5) an analysis of costs and of problems
associated with implementation and other procedural aspects of
the various alternatives.

Fig. 11.1.5. System engineering process (after Anon., 1973).
The system engineering process is outlined in Fig. 11.1.5 as
a three-step sequential process with iterative feedback loops to
earlier steps from the later ones. The first step is conceptual
analysis and design, which is often subject to constraints on input
resources and to performance requirements of the final design.
In the second step, these designs are evaluated for compatibility
and technical and cost effectiveness through a number of special-
ity disciplines. In the third step, the implementational aspects are
analyzed and developed. In this three-step process, the system
designer moves from analysis to synthesis, pulling together parts
into a system (Anon., 1973).
The systems safety approach is a composite of elements from
a number of diverse disciplines including systems engineering,
statistics, reliability theory, information theory, control theory,
management, and behavioral psychology. It uses a number of
techniques (Hammer, 1972). For example, the technique of oper-
ations review (TOR) is a tracing technique for identifying and
defining a health and safety problem by searching for the root
Fig. 11.1.6. Illustration of the fault tree analysis technique (after
Anon., 1973).
causes. In the failure mode and effects analysis technique (FME),
the possible modes of failure of each component in a system are
listed, and the effects of this failure on other components and
the total system are analyzed. The outcome of the failure may be
stated in qualitative terms for hazard potential as safe, marginal,
critical, or catastrophic; and for frequency of occurrence, as
probable, reasonably probable, remote, or extremely remote. In
the fault tree analysis technique (FTA), all events and combina-
tions of events that can lead to an undesirable event are arranged
in a logic flow chart (or diagram) with the undesirable event on
the top. A simple application of the technique is shown in Fig.
11.1.6 where for the system schematic shown, the undesired
event is the loss of output B. The bottom level of a fault tree
represents failures that cannot be further broken down meaning-
fully, that is, these failures are basic. Probabilities can be attached
to these basic failures, and the probability of the top event oc-
curring can be calculated as a function of these basic probabili-
ties. The use of fault tree analysis technique to evaluate the
reliability of escapeways in the event of a mine fire is provided
by Goodman and Kissell (1989). More importantly, the very
intensive nature of the inquiry required to apply TOR, FME,
and FTA techniques to complex systems meaningfully will focus
attention on potential weak links in the design and operations
 PERSONNEL HEALTH AND SAFETY 1001
and provide the opportunity to solve them prior to implemen- Table 11.1.2. Elements of Underground and Surface
tation. Mine Health and Safety Training Programs.
There are several aspects of mining in which the systems
Introductory for
safety approach can be applied. It can be used by regulatory
agencies to evaluate mine plans and procedures before approval Newly Annual
and to conduct post-audits of disasters and accidents. It can be employed refresher
used by research organizations to unearth new sources of hazards New experienced for working
miners miners miners
in existing systems, to conduct pre-design audits for developing
specifications and standards, and through post-design audits, to Statutory rights and responsibili-
evaluate the developed product or system for effectiveness. It ties of supervisors A A
can be used by mine operators to evaluate existing systems, Self-rescuer and respiratory de-
suggest modifications to operations or equipment or both, and vices A A
develop training programs. Introduction to the work envi-
ronment A A
Health A A
11.1.4.7 Miner Training Hazard recognition A A
Electrical hazards A A
Manpower is the most precious investment made in a mine. First aid A A
The right person for the job is not just “born” but created by Health and safety aspects of
meticulous selection and adequate training and job orientation assigned tasks A
(Craig and Bittel, 1967). The past two decades have seen consid- Mandatory health and safety
erable progress in miner training. The fuel crisis of the early standards A A
seventies, which highlighted a need for increased coal produc- Prevention of accidents A
Explosives S A
tion, also focused attention on the alarming shortage of trained Entering and leaving the mine,
workers to achieve the new production goals. This in turn led to transportation,
a reappraisal of the role of training in the health and safety communication U U U
of all personnel associated with mines and culminated in two Mine map, escapeways, emer-
documents that have had far-reaching effects on miner training. gency evacuation, barri-
The first of these was the 1974 contract between the United cading U U U
Mine Workers of America and the Bituminous Coal Operators Roof and ground control, venti-
Association (UMWA-BCOA), in which an agreement for the lation plans U U
development of health and safety training and retraining pro- Cleanup, rock dusting U
Mine gases U U
grams for all union bituminous coal mines was outlined. The Transportation and communi-
second document was the 1977 Federal Mine Safety and Health cation S S S
Amendments Act which mandated training for the entire min- Escape and emergency evacua-
eral industry and also required that several of the training pro- tion, firewarning and fire-
grams be conducted by instructors certified by the Mine Safety fighting S S S
and Health Administration (MSHA). Ground control, highwalls,
The federal regulations for new underground miners set water hazards, pits and spoil
forth a minimum of 40 hours of training, of which 32 hours is banks, illumination and night
work S S S
classroom training and eight hours is at the jobsite. Eight hours
of training must be received before a new miner can go under- Legend: A = All miners; U = Underground miners only; S = Surface
ground. For new surface miners, the regulations specify only a miners only.
minimum of 32 hours of training, of which eight hours occurs Source: Modified from Sanders and Peay (1988); Digman and Grosso
before miners begin their actual work assignments. In addition, (1982).
eight hours of annual refresher training is required of all miners.
The topics required for training new miners, newly employed
experienced miners, and annual refresher training under the
and remote control technology are now changing the working
federal regulations are listed in Table 11.1.2 for both under-
environment and job functions within the mines. Determining
ground and surface coal mining. Several coal producing states
how such innovative changes create hazards, affect accidents,
have additional training requirements, and in some states, these
and cause injuries for different occupations and how much the
exceed the federal provisions. Included among the latter states
safety conditions will change is complicated. The need for new
are Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia
training and increased training to meet these technological
(Sanders and Peay, 1988). Finally, several mining companies
changes poses a new challenge to the industry. A conceptual
have training programs for their personnel which go beyond the
framework for the evaluation and development of effective train-
mandated state and federal levels (Masutomi, 1990).
ing and job design strategies is presented in Fig. 11.1.7. The
The National Mine Health and Safety Academy, established
framework incorporates the tools and techniques from systems
in 1976 as an educational and training arm of MSHA, offers a
safety, and loss control procedures to identify and eliminate weak
wide variety of training products and services to the mining
links in the human, machine, and environmental components of
industry. Among these are films and videotapes, instructional
the system and their interactions.
programs, mine emergency simulation exercises, pre-shift inspec-
tion programs, self-study books on health and safety problems,
safety manuals, and other important health and safety reference 11.1.5 ROLE OF MANAGEMENT
documents (Anon., 1990). As a result of these actions, there
has been an accelerated development of mine health and safety Management’s role in health and safety is ubiquitous. It is
training programs and increased emphasis on mine safety train- reflected in the development of well-engineered systems, the
ing and procedures by the industry. Mechanization, automation, choice of personnel for specific jobs, the provisions for education
 Fig. 11.1.7. Conceptual framework for evaluation and development of effective training and job-design strategies (Masutomi, 1990;
Anon., 1981).
and training, and the continuing search for improvement in
health and safety. Management has the sole authority to establish
policies and priorities, to initiate and implement safety programs,
to commit resources, and to reward managers and employees
for achieving goals within the larger framework of its overall
responsibilities (see Chapter 8.6).
The importance of management’s commitment to safety was
underscored in a National Academy of Sciences’ mine safety
study (Anon., 1982), which found that it was not possible to
explain through statistical analyses of accident data the large
and persistent differences between the injury rates of several
mining companies as a function of physical, technological, or
geographical factors. Instead, the differences were attributed to
factors internal to the companies, particularly management’s
commitment, cooperation between management and labor, and
quality of training of employees and manager.
It may even be worthwhile to side-step traditional concepts
in mine management in favor of new ideas and principles for
improving health, safety, and productivity. This was the case in
a central Pennsylvania coal mine where a one-year test of the
autonomous work group concept was conducted (Goodman,
1979; Trist, Susman, and Brown, 1977). In simplistic terms, the
workers were responsible for planning and scheduling their own
work, while the section foreman was responsible for ensuring
that work practices adhered to applicable health and safety rules
and regulations. An independent evaluation team analyzed the
data and found a definite improvement with regard to safety.
Mine safety violations had decreased; the miners felt that safety
had improved; onsite observers noted better practices and habits
in the autonomous work group than in the control group; and
the responsibility given to the miners had the effect of reinforcing
and creating better safety attitudes. Positive changes in attitudes
and increased competency in job performance were also noticed.
Although the study cannot be conclusive due to the small sample
and short experimental period, it does point to the importance of
teamwork, and suggests that closer cooperation between workers
and management may be a way to achieve improved health and
safety in mines.
The objectives of management, from the top executive to the
first-line supervisor, must be to
1. Provide leadership in safety with clear definition of the
goals and means to achieve them.
2. Ensure effective management through a safety organiza-
tion that has clear lines of responsibility and support for manage-
rial decision-making.
3. Promote and seek highest standards of safety perform-
ance at work through consistent and persistent development and
use of knowledge and skill.
4. Provide a working environment for the miners in which
the equipment, processes, and procedures are so reliable, well-
defined, and understood as to eliminate hazards to the miners in
the face of system failures.
5. Exemplify through actions at every available opportunity
its deepest commitment to safety.
The major success of the 1969 Coal Mine Act rests on such
strong foundations as methane concentration control, dust con-
 PERSONNEL HEALTH AND SAFETY
trol, intrinsic safety and explosion-proof enclosures, minimum
air quantity and quality standards, and escapeway provisions.
These requirements drastically impacted mine ventilation plan-
ning, engineering, and practice, leading to both greater expecta-
tions and fulfillment of safe working conditions. The Act recog-
nized the need for increased scientific, engineering, biomedical,
and medical research studies to support not only the new legisla-
tion but also the development of new equipment and methods.
A systems approach to the eradication of the problems of health
and safety was prescribed through increased health and safety
standards, inspections, personal protective devices, miner train-
ing, medical examinations, black lung benefits, and development
of more effective engineering controls through increased re-
search. Since the passage of the 1969 Coal Mine Act and the
1977 Mine Act, significant progress has been made in all aspects
of health and safety. The vital role played by mine management
and mine workers in achieving this improved record should not
be overlooked or underestimated. The cooperative and coordi-
nated efforts of the mining companies and miners, along with
significant commitment of corporate financial resources, were
among the major reasons for the rapid development and absorp-
tion of the newly developed technology. Much remains to be
accomplished in achieving a hazard-free health and safety envi-
ronment for the miners. There is little doubt, however, that
mining in the United States has become less hazardous.
REFERENCES
Anon., 1969, Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, 91st US Con-
gress, PL 91-173, 63 pp.
Anon., 1973, “System Safety: A Modern Approach to Safety Problems,”
Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services
Region, Cleveland, OH, 58 pp.
Anon., 1981, “Underground Mine Disaster Survival and Rescue: An
Evaluation of Research Accomplishments and Needs, National Re-
search Council,” Committee on Underground Mine Disaster Sur-
vival and Rescue, Washington, DC, 122 pp.
Anon., 1982, “Toward Safer Underground Coal Mines, National Re-
search Council,” Committee on Underground Coal Mine Safety,
Washington, DC, 190 pp.
Anon., 1990, “Catalog of Training Products for the Mining Industry—
1990,” Mine Safety and Health Administration, US Dept. of Labor,
Washington, DC, 95 pp.
Attfield, M.D., 1984, “Recent Results on Forthcoming Studies in the
Epidemiology of Coal Worker’s Pneumoconiosis in Underground
1003
Mines,” Proceedings Coal Mine Dust Conference, Generic Technol-
ogy Center on Respirable Dust, West Virginia University, Morgan-
town, pp. 156–162.
Bird, F.E., and Loftus, R.G., 1982, Loss Control Management, Institute
Press, Loganville, GA, 562 pp.
Bryan, A., 1985, The Evolution of Health and Safety in Mines, Ashire
Publishing Ltd., London, UK, 192 pp.
Core, J.F., Ramani, R.V., and Frantz, R.L., 1983, Coal Mines—Health
and Safety, Chapter 21, Pennsylvania Coal: Resources, Technology
and Utilization, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Easton, PA, pp.
389–403.
Craig, R.L., and Bittel, L.R., 1967, Training and Development Hand-
book, McGraw-Hill, New York, 650 pp.
Digman, R.M., and Grasso, J.T., 1982, “An Observational Study of
Classroom Health and Safety in Coal Mining,” US Bureau of Mines
OFR 99-83, NTIS PB 83-210518, Washington, DC, 65 pp.
Goodman, G.V.R., and Kissell, F.N., 1989, “Fault Tree Analysis of
Miner Escape During Mine Fires,” Proceedings, 4th US Mine Venti-
lation Symposium, University of California, Berkeley, SME, Little-
ton, CO, pp. 57–65.
Goodman, P., 1979, Assessing Organizational Change: The Rushton
Quality of Work, Wiley, New York, NY, 391 pp.
Grimaldi, J.V., and Simonds, R.H., 1975, Safety Management, Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL, 694 pp.
Hammer, W., 1972, Handbook of System and Product Safety, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 351 pp.
Heinrich, H.W., 1959, Industrial Accident Prevention, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 480 pp.
Kenzy, G.W. and Ramani, R.V., 1980, “An International Review of
Regulations for Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground
Mines,” Proceedings, 2nd International Mine Ventilation Congress,
SME, New York, pp. 175–190.
Masutomi, A., 1990, “The Application of Loss-Control Principles for the
Reduction of Human-Performance-Based Accidents and Injuries at
the Continuous-Miner Worksite,” MS thesis, Department of Min-
eral Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, 176 pp.
Ramani, R.V., 1988, “Air Quality in Mines: Progress and Prospects of
Legal Control,” AusIMM Bulletin and Proceedings, Vol. 293, No.
7, Oct., pp. 27–30.
Sanders, M.S., and Peay, J.M., 1988, “Human Factors in Mining,”
Information Circular IC 1982, Bureau of Mines, US Department of
Interior, Washington, DC, 153 pp.
Schwerha, J. J., 1989, “Industry Perspective—Health Issues: Past, Pres-
ent and Future,” Coal Mining Technology, Economics and Policy
1989, American Mining Congress, Washington, DC, pp. 419–426.
Trist, E., Susman, G.I., and Brown, G.R., 1977, “An Experiment in
Autonomous Working in an American Underground Coal Mine,”
Human Relations, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 201–236.