Journal of Safety Research 41 (2010) 1–7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j s r

Analysis of work related accidents in the Spanish mining sector from 1982-2006
Lluís Sanmiquel a,⁎, Modesto Freijo b, Joaquín Edo a, Josep M. Rossell c
a
Dpto. de Ingeniería Minera y Recursos Naturales, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Avda. Bases de Manresa, 61-73, 08242-Manresa (Barcelona), Spain
b
Dpto. de Ingeniería Eléctrica, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Avda. Bases de Manresa, 61-73, 08242-Manresa (Barcelona), Spain
c
Dpto. de Matemática Aplicada III, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Avda. Bases de Manresa, 61-73, 08242-Manresa (Barcelona), Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 27 January 2010 Introduction: The rate for work related accidents in the Spanish mining sector is notably higher than in other
countries such as the United States. It produces a very negative impact on the mining industry. This paper is the
Keywords: report of a study on serious and fatal accidents in Spanish mining from 1982-2006. It is based on the reports of
Mining 212 accidents (serious or fatal) carried out by the General Management of Energy and Mining of Catalonia
Incident index (Spain). Method: The high work-related accident rate in the Spanish mining sector makes it necessary to carry
Event
out an analysis and research that can shed light on the causes of this high rate; this is the only way that a
Contributing factor
Skill-based
solution can be found. The study is based on Feyer and Williamson's analysis of accident causes, as they apply to
212 accidents. The types and causes of the accidents are coded according to the coding system used by the
Spanish National Institute for Safety and Hygiene in the Workplace, which allows us to identify a series of direct
causes and contributing factors in different accidents. Results If all the causes and factors that are present in the
accidents are known, we are able to look for appropriate solutions to reduce them as much as possible. In short,
we are able to come up with a series of conclusions that expose the weak links in the management of accident
prevention in companies. This is helpful in the struggle to reduce work injuries in the Spanish mining sector.
© 2010 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Despite improvements in work-related safety in the last decade,
about 5,500 people die every year in work accidents in the European
Union, and more than 75,000 are so seriously disabled that they
cannot work again (Saari, 2001). A basic human right is to be able to
go home from work safe and sound; nobody should die or be injured
in a workplace accident. However, in order to achieve this, there is still
much work to be done in the field of accident prevention. People have
more physical problems in the workplace than ever before, and this
goes against the widespread belief that new technology and
automation have eradicated difficulties such as manual lifting of
heavy objects (Crichton, 2005). Lack of information and little
technological training contribute to mistakes that cause accidents
and work incidents (Cox & Tait, 1991).
Work fatalities are generally higher in Spain than in other parts of
the European Union (EU). Spain is, in fact, second to Portugal regarding
the number of injuries per work accident. This includes the total
amount of accidents with sick leave and fatalities (EUROSTAT). There
are approximately three deaths and 3,000 injuries with sick leave in
Spain every day, which means 20 million lost workdays per year
(Santamaría, Catot, & Benevides, 2006). The Spanish governments of
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sanmi@emrn.upc.edu (L. Sanmiquel), freijo@ee.upc.edu
(M. Freijo), edo@emrn.upc.edu (J. Edo), josep.maria.rossell@upc.edu (J.M. Rossell).
the last 10 years (Rubio, 2007) have taken action in order to reduce the
high rate of work injuries. The incidence index of the total economic
sectors in Spain regarding workplace accidents was approximately
6,000 accidents per 100,000 workers in 2006. This is according to the
Spanish National Institute for Safety and Hygiene in the Workplace
(INSHT), while in the 15 state EU, in 2004, the amount was 3,200
(EUROSTAT). In the United States the amount was 5,000 (National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, USA).
In the total number of Spanish economic sectors, mining is one of
those with the highest incidence in number of accidents per 100,000
workers. Thus, in 2005, mining had an incidence index that was 5.5
times higher than the total economic sectors (National Institute of
Safety and Hygiene in Spanish Work (INSHT)).
If the indexes of work accidents in Spanish mining are compared
with those of other countries, we can see that the values are also much
higher. The incidence indexes per 100,000 workers in the Spain
mining industry, U.S mining industry, and in the state of Queensland
(Australia) are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows how work accidents in Spanish mining have
decreased continuously since 2000. However, the 2005 rate is still
much higher than the United States and the State of Queensland
(Australia). They are specifically 9.6 times higher than those of the
United States and 27.6 times higher than those of Queensland.
The high work related accident rate in the Spanish mining sector
implies that research should be carried out in this field in order to
show which aspects of the mining companies' prevention systems
have to be improved. That is the basic aim of this study.

0022-4375/$ – see front matter © 2010 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2009.09.008
2 L. Sanmiquel et al. / Journal of Safety Research 41 (2010) 1–7

Table 1 accidents with n2 = 139 cases. Now, by applying the previous formula,
Incidence Index of the mining sector of Spain, The United States and the state of we obtain: For n1 = 73 ⇒ ε = 11.62%, and for n2 = 139 ⇒ ε = 7.06%,
Queensland (Australia).
approximately. These percentages can be considered not high
Year Incidence Incidence Index Incidence Index estimation errors in the samples.
Index Spain United States Queensland (Australia)

1996 42978.4 3927.8 4222.7 2.2. The Classification System

1997 43952.0 3717.3 3536.7
1998 38762.1 3801.7 2927.3
Full details of the classification system are described elsewhere
1999 43484.6 3489.7 2951.3
2000 41802.1 3493.2 2557.3 (Feyer & Williamson, 1991). Briefly speaking, the system was
2001 40461.3 3206.1 2136.4 designed to allow coding of a sequence of up to three events that
2002 35683.7 3183.5 1497.2 immediately preceded the accident leading to the fatality. These were
2003 33646.5 2913.9 1406.8 called Precursor Events (abbreviated to PE1, PE2, and PE3). Each of
2004 32508.6 2770.0 1029.9
these events could be classified in one of four possible ways:
2005 25847.0 2689.3 935.7

Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the U.S.A and Queensland
Mines and Quarries Safety Performance and Health Report. The Spanish values calculated
from the annual number of mild, serious and fatal mining accidents and the number of
workers in the mining sector. The accident data comes from the INSHT and the number of
annual workers of the Mining Statistics of the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and
Commerce. The office employees have been excluded.
Once the accident has taken place, the investigation of what
happened is a very important source of information. There is usually
not just one reason for an accident, but a series of causes that are
closely related. An adequate investigation of an accident allows us to
determine all of its causes and their influence. Thus, if the causes of an
accident are known, methods of protection and prevention can be
designed and applied to eliminate them, and in this way the
possibility of recurrence would be none to very low (Piqué, 1991).
There are different ways to classify the causes of workplace accidents,
one of them is the method described by Feyer and Williamson (1991).
This system was designed to allow the coding of a sequence of up to
three events that predict the serious or fatal accident.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Population
1. Environmental events: events or conditions resulting from the
location of the accident; these conditions could not have been
changed at that point in time (e.g., low lighting, wet floor, or
cramped conditions).
2. Equipment events: events resulting from breakage or malfunction
of machinery or tools that occur at that point in time.
3. Medical events: events resulting from the person's current state of
physical well-being (e.g., heart attack or diabetic or epileptic
episode).
4. Behavioral events: events resulting directly from human involve-
ment (e.g., leaning too far into the path of machinery, touching an
electrically charged object).
Behavioral events were coded further into whether they constituted
an error or not (i.e., the incorrect performance of standard operating
procedure). Errors were classified into each of two well-known
classification systems. The first coded error into Omissions (things not
done) or Commissions (things done incorrectly). The second coding
method coded error into skill-based errors, or errors during routine
behavior, rule-based errors, or errors involving the application of
learned rules (i.e., if X occurs then do Y), and knowledge-based errors, or
errors in troubleshooting or solving problems.
The nature of contributing factors was also coded into eight
possible categories:

This paper analyzes work related accidents in the Spanish mining
sector in the years 1982-2006. The reports on the 212 serious and fatal
accidents that took place in Spanish mining between 1982 and 2006
are the starting point. The accidents described in this paper are those
that took place in mining work centers, within regular work hours
(the so-called “in itinere” accidents are not taken into account), and
that are classified as serious or fatal by competent medical staff.
The serious accidents always imply serious injuries for the affected
worker. This means that the worker loses many workdays. Thus, in the
non-energetic Spanish mining industry, between 1999 and 2006, the
average number of missed workdays from serious accidents was 104
(INSHT), while in the energetic mining industry the average time lost
for serious accidents was 89 days (INSHT).
Mild accidents include those that caused the injured worker to
miss at least one workday. The average duration of mild accidents in
non-energetic and energetic mining was, respectively, 24 and 25
missed workdays (INSHT) for the time period between 1999 and
2006.
Statistical research shows that to determine the sample size of a
finite population and working with 95% certainty (i.e., with the
significance level α = 0.05), the relation among the total population
(N), the sample size (n), and the estimation error (ε) is given by
N
n= ε2 ðN−1Þ + 1
. Since the total population was N = 5000 and the
available sample size was n = 212, the estimation error is approximately
ε = 6.72% (Box, Hunter, & Hunter, 2005; Oncins de Frutos, 1991).
The initial sample size, n = 212, will be divided into two subgroups:
underground mining accidents, with n1 = 73 cases and surface
1. Environmental: factors resulting from conditions occurring at an
earlier time at the location of the accident.
2. Equipment: factors associated with the design or upkeep of
machinery, tools, personal protective equipment, or safety
equipment.
3. Work practice: factors involving risky standard operating proce-
dures accepted by management and/or personnel (this included
categories of poor upkeep or misuse of equipment).
4. Supervision: factors relating to inadequate charge of workers.
5. Training: factors relating to inadequate training of workers.
6. Task error: factors relating to incorrect performance of duty.
7. Medical: factors involving physical well-being at an earlier time.
8. Other: factors such as alcohol/drug involvement, delays in reach-
ing medical attention, and social aspects.
2.3. Reliability
First, we should note that the reports were made by different
coroners, for different kinds of mines, at different times, and written
in a large variety of report styles. Under these considerations, to
obtain an objective pattern to classify mining accidents is not a trivial
task.
From the information extracted in the coroners' reports, a main
coder proposed two coding instruments in order to codify the
accidents. To test these coding instruments, three qualified coders
(the main coder and two coworkers) analyzed a random sample of 35
serious and fatal mining accidents, which were obtained from the 212
registered accidents. The results were discussed and two classification
 L. Sanmiquel et al. / Journal of Safety Research 41 (2010) 1–7
patterns were established. The first one corresponds to the Precursors
Events and the second corresponds to the Contributed Factors. Since it
was necessary to prove if the coding instruments had good reliability,
a test evaluating the extent of the lack of concordance among
independent coders was made. Obviously, it was desired that
someone else who codifies the same data would obtain similar results
and conclusions.
In the first classification pattern, three possible precursor events
were considered. For each precursor event, four possible categories
with an intensity level were used (see Table 2). The intensity levels
were evaluated with 100, 75, and 50 scores. The classification method
penalizes the difference (error) among coders. At the end of this
process, the total error between two coders gives the degree of
agreement-disagreement achieved. In this case, the maximum
possible error was 21,000 scores. The percentage of concordance
between the main coder and the coworkers was 86% and 90%,
approximately, because the corresponding errors were 2,934 and
2,115 scores, respectively. The details of this first classification pattern
are given below.
The second classification method, for contributing factors, follows
a similar reasoning way, establishing eight possible causes to be
considered, with the same intensity values: 100, 75, and 50 (see
Table 3). The maximum possible error was 28,000 scores. In this case,
the percentage of concordance was approximately 85%, 87%, which
correspond with differences (error) given by 4,210 and 3,638 scores,
respectively. More details of this second classification method are
given below.
In summary, a strategy to measure the degree of concordance
among coders has been used. Since the level of concordance was high
for both cases, we find that the coding instruments for the precursors
events and contributed factors provide a reliable method to codify the
mining accidents. Finally, and taking both causal factors into account,
the total number of accidents (212) was coded independently by the
coders. The obtained results will be presented in the next section.
2.4. Precursor events
Each category (E= Environmental, Eq = Equipment, M = Medical,
and B = Behavioral) was coded in terms of the certainty of evidence for
its existence, associated to a percentage. Thus, 100% = yes, certainly;
75% = yes, probably; 50% = yes, possible. The pattern used to codify
precursor events can be observed in Table 2, which shows a hypothetical
accident codified by two independent coders. The boxes numbered as 1,
2, and 3 have been associated with 100, 75, and 50 scores, respectively.
The following rule was imposed: A coder had to mark, as a
maximum, one box for the precursor event PE1, one box for PE2, and
only one box for PE3. Consider, for instance, the precursor event PE1.
Now, if a coder ticks one category in the box 1 (“Environmental” in our
example), it means that this category is “yes, certainly” in his/her
opinion, having the corresponding 100 scores. But if another coder, for
the same accident, ticks the same category for PE1 but in the box 2, he/
she places that accident in the category “yes, probably,” with 75
scores. Then, in this case, the error (in absolute value) between both
coders is 25 scores. An analogous procedure is applied to PE2 and PE3.
Table 2
PE1 PE2
E Eq M B E Eq
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1
C1 X X
C2 X X
Diff. 25 0 0 0 0 100
Diff. = Difference (error) between C1 and C2 for a hypothetical accident.
T = Total error between C1 and C2 corresponding to a hypothetical accident.
3
The last line in Table 2 gives us the error committed in coding one
specific accident by two independent coders (225 scores in the
example). Taking into account this criterion, the possible maximum
error between two coders, for each analyzed accident, is 600 scores.
Therefore, the highest error in coding the 212 registered accidents
could be 127,200 scores.
Example: Table 2 shows the coding of precursor events
corresponding to a fatal accident that has been analyzed by two
independent coders C1 and C2.
Having these ideas in mind, when the 212 accidents were analyzed
and coded by three coders (main coder, C1 and C2), the percentage of
agreement between C1 and C2 was 83% and the percentages of
agreement of the coders C1 and C2 with the main coder were 86% and
83%, respectively. Thus, the codification into event category sequences
allows an evaluation of the reliability of the proposed classification
system.
2.5. Contributing factors
A similar process was followed for the contributing factors. The
way to establish the error between two coders is similar to the
precursor events codification. Here, the maximum possible error for
each analyzed accident is 800 scores. Therefore, the maxim total error
for the 212 analyzed accidents is 169,600 scores.
Example: Table 3 shows the codification of the contributing factors
corresponding to an accident which has been analyzed by the coders
C1 and C2.
In our study, the percentage of agreement between both coders C1
and C2 was 81% and the percentages of agreement of the coders C1 and
C2 with the main coder were 82% and 87%, respectively.
Thus, the obtained reliability was high, both for coding precursor
events and contributing factors. We can note that the coding
instrument for the contributing factors provides a good method to
rank the possible factors as a cause of an accident. At the end of the
coding process, we can find the most common factor as a prime causal
factor of an accident up to the minor important contributing factor.
3. Results and discussion
The analyzed 212 serious and fatal accidents only take into account
two conditions: (a) it has to be an accident that was classified as
serious or fatal by the competent medical staff, and (b) the possibility
of having access to the accident report that was made by the General
Management of Energy and Mining in its day.
The reports on serious and fatal accidents in the mining industry in
Spain are not digitalized or available on the Internet. One has to
request them from the competent faculty in order to examine the
information. This is not often possible. The 212 accidents that were
analyzed took place between 1982 and 2006 in the Spanish
Autonomous Community of Catalonia. In this period of time, there
were 244 serious and fatal accidents in the mining sector in Catalonia
(INSHT). This is why the sample that was studied made up 86.1% of
the total accidents in this Spanish community.
PE3
M B E Eq M B
2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
X
X
75 0 0 0 0 25 T = 225
4 L. Sanmiquel et al. / Journal of Safety Research 41 (2010) 1–7
Table 3
E Eq WP S T
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2
C1 X X
C2 X
Diff. 0 0 25 0 75
Diff. = Difference (error) between C1 and C2 for a hypothetical accident.
T = Total error between C1 and C2 corresponding to a hypothetical accident.
Out of the 212 serious and fatal accidents that were analyzed, 139
took place during surface mining jobs, and 73 during underground
mining jobs. The two main age groups of the workers who had
accidents in the mining total were 30-39 (26.9%) and 45-54 (26.4%).
Moreover, 42.5% of the workers who had accidents had a labor
experience of less than 4 years in the position. This would apply to
both surface and underground mining. Regarding the way in which
the serious or fatal accidents were produced, 25.5% of them were
caused by “being trapped by or between objects.” There were 19.3%
caused by “objects falling down or collapsing,” and 13.2% caused by
“people falling down at different levels.” For these two types of
mining, the results are the following:
• For surface mining: 30.2% were caused by “being trapped by or
between objects,” 17.3% were caused by “people falling down at
different levels,” and 7.9% were caused by “being trapped by
overturned machines or vehicles.”
• For underground mining: 48.0% were caused by “Objects falling
down or collapsing,” 16.4% were caused by “being trapped by or
between objects,” and 13.7% were caused by “being run over or hit
by vehicles.”
Of the accidents, 18.4% took place within the first two hours of
work. In surface mining, the percentage rose to 21.6% of the cases;
while in underground mining it was only 12.3%, and the 4th hour of
work was when most accidents occurred (17.8%).
3.1. Patterns of accident causation
Fig. 1 shows how environmental events predominate in both
surface and underground mining in the first precursor event (PE1);
51.1% (n = 71) refer to surface mining and 67.1% (n = 49) to
underground mining. We can observe that in order for immediate
accidents to occur (PE1 first event), workplace conditions have
influenced underground mining more than surface mining. Human
Fig. 1. Types of events that preceded serious and fatal accidents in surface, underground and total mining (where PE1 indicates the first event that took place immediately before the
accident, PE2 is the event that took place before PE1, and PE3 is the event prior to PE2).
TE M O
3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
X
100 T = 200
behavior events have also occurred in 33.1% (n = 46) and 21.9%
(n = 16) for surface mining and underground mining, respectively.
Regarding the second event (PE2, which is the event that took place
immediately before the first event, PE1), we can observe that the
opposite of the first event occurs in the two kinds of mining. That is to
say, the events that predominate as accident precursors are behavior
related, which are more frequent than those of environment. Thus, we
can say that behavior events for surface mining, as a second event
(PE2), are present in 40.3% (n = 56) and 30.1% (n = 22) for surface
mining and underground mining, respectively. However, the environ-
ment events are present only as a second event (PE2) in 5% (n = 7) and
5.5% (n = 4) of surface mining and underground mining respectively.
Regarding the third event (PE3), behavior events are predominant in
surface mining as well as underground mining and are 7.2% (n= 10)
and 4.1% (n= 3), respectively.
Equipment events only make up 12.9% (n = 18) and 11.0% (n = 8)
as a first event (PE1) of the surface and underground mining
accidents. As a second event (PE2), the percentage is 6.5% (n = 9)
and 1.4% (n = 1).
Out of the 212 accidents that were analyzed, 99.5% of them
produced a first event (PE1), 46.7% produced a second event (PE2),
and only 9.0% of the accidents produced a third event (PE3). Thus,
only 0.5% of the accidents were not identified with any precursor
event. The behavior events occurred in 72.1% (n = 153) of the total
mining accidents, the environmental ones in 63.2% (n = 134), and the
equipment ones in 18.4% (n = 39).
Six patterns of event sequences accounted for 74.8% (n = 104),
87.7% (n = 64), and 79.2% (n = 168) of the surface, underground, and
total mining accidents, respectively (see Fig. 2).
Four of the six patterns involved an environmental event just prior
to the serious or fatal accident. Behavior events appear in five
patterns, and only in one as a first event (PE1). They are also the
events that appear most often as a third event (PE3). The three
sequence patterns that add up to the highest number of cases are for
the total of mining: (a) “E-o-o,” that is, accidents in which only one
 L. Sanmiquel et al. / Journal of Safety Research 41 (2010) 1–7 5

Fig. 2. Patterns of precursor events.

event appears (PE1), and also the environmental type, 24.1% (n = 51);
(b) “E-B-o,” accidents in which two preceding events occurred, a first
event (PE1) that is the environmental kind, and a second event (PE2)
involving behavior, 23.1% (n = 49); and (c) “B-o-o,” accidents in
which only one preceding event occurred (PE1), which was of the
behavior kind, 22.2% (n = 47).
All of the behavior events that were identified in the analyzed
accidents implied some kind of error (see Table 4). Behavior events in
both surface and underground mining were largely action related
errors. These took place in the three events, with the exception of the
third event (PE3) in underground mining, where errors by omission
are more frequent than those caused by actions. If one uses the
alternative method 2 for the classification of behavior errors and
which is based on the level of behavior (Rasmussen, 1982), one will
see that “skill-based” errors predominate in surface and underground
mining, as well as in the three events (PE1, PE2, PE3; see Table 4).
These errors took place in 48.2% (n = 54), in 63.4% (n = 26), and in
52.3% (n = 80) of surface mining, underground mining, and total
mining, respectively. The “rule based” errors, after the “skill-based”
ones, are the kind of errors that take place most frequently in the first
event (PE1) in the two types of mining. This is different for the second
event (PE2), where “knowledge based” errors are the second kind of
predominant behavior type error. In all the three events (PE1, PE2,
and PE3), “rule based” and “knowledge based” behavior errors
occurred in 51.8% (n = 58), in 36.6% (n = 15), and in 47.7% (n = 73)
of surface, underground, and total mining, respectively.
Regarding the factors that contributed to the causes of the
analyzed serious and fatal accidents, the factors that came about
due to unsafe work practice (see Table 5) are clearly predominant.
They took place in 74.1% (n = 103) of surface mining accidents, in
54.8% (n = 40) of underground mining, and in 67.5% (n = 143) of total
mining accidents. The second most predominant contributing factor is
that of training; 23.7% (n = 33) for surface and equipment mining and
24.7% (n = 18) for underground mining. For total mining the second
predominant factor is that of the equipment, 21.7% (n = 46). The third
most predominant contributing factor is that of equipment, 20.1%
(n = 28) for surface mining and earlier task error, 17.8% (n = 13) for
underground mining. For the mining total the third predominant
factor is that of training, 19.3% (n = 41).
It has been observed that the contributing factors due to unsafe
work practice are clearly the predominant factors in both surface and
underground mining. They are also the main factors or causes in a
higher proportion. These contributing factors, which are caused by
unsafe work practice, can be classified in 11 types (Feyer & Williamson,
1997; see Fig. 3).
The predominant work practice is “Unsafe procedures by man-
agement,” which are 32% (n = 33) of the work practice factors
identified in surface mining, 52.5% (n = 21) of underground mining,
and 37.8% (n = 54) of total mining. The second work practice that
occurs most frequently is “Safety equip not provided,” 16.5% (n = 17)
in surface mining, and “Equipment upkeep,” 20% (n = 8) for
underground mining. For total mining, the second work practice
that is most often repeated is that of “Safety equip not provided” and
“Equipment upkeep,” 14% (n = 20) each one.
4. Conclusions
The analysis of the 212 serious and fatal accidents in Spanish
mining has allowed the identification of a series of causes that
influenced in their occurrence. The classification method of accident
causes that was used (Feyer & Williamson, 1991) has exposed some
accident patterns or characteristics that are grouped into surface and
underground mining and the total of both.
The first event (PE1) was mostly produced by an environment
event in both surface and underground mining. Environment events
are essentially due to deficiencies in the preventive system of
companies, since working conditions depend mainly on whether
companies have established adequate supervision and maintenance

Table 4
Clasification of behavioral events. Table 5
The role of different types of contributing factors.
% Cases % Cases % Cases
Surface Underground Mining Contributing Surface mining Underground mining Mining total
mining mining total Factor
% of % of cases as % of % of cases as % of % of cases as
PE1 PE2 PE3 PE1 PE2 PE3 PE1 PE2 PE3 cases prime cause cases prime cause cases prime cause

Cases with error 33.1 40.3 7.2 21.9 30.1 4.1 29.2 36.8 6.1 Environmental 16.5 39.1 16.4 50.0 16.5 42.9
Clasification method 1 Equipment 20.1 75.0 24.7 55.6 21.7 67.4
Omisión 23.9 12.5 10.0 12.5 18.2 66.7 21.0 14.1 23.1 Work practice 74.1 68.0 54.8 75.0 67.5 69.9
Comminssion 76.1 87.5 90.0 87.5 81.8 33.3 79.0 85.9 76.9 Supervisión 2.9 0.0 16.4 41.7 7.5 31.3
Clasification method 2 Training 23.7 30.3 11.0 25.0 19.3 29.3
Skill-based 52.2 44.6 50.0 68.8 54.5 100.0 56.5 47.4 61.5 Earlier task 19.4 51.9 17.8 61.5 18.9 55.0
Rule-based 32.6 21.4 30.0 18.8 18.2 0.0 29.0 20.5 23.1 error
Knowledge-based 15.2 33.9 20.0 12.5 27.3 0.0 14.5 32.1 15.4 Medical 2.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 100.0
Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 13.7 21.1 0.0 0.0 9.0 21.1
6 L. Sanmiquel et al. / Journal of Safety Research 41 (2010) 1–7
Fig. 3. Porcentage of cases with each type of unsafe work practice.
mechanisms. If these kinds of underground mining accidents are
analyzed, we see that an event preceding the first event (PE2) was
produced in 30.6% (n=15).
A series of contributing factors were identified in 75.5% (n = 37)
and were directly caused by the companies' preventive system, which
malfunctioned where those accidents took place.
These contributing factors are those of equipment, supervision,
and training; as well as the contributing work practice factors “Unsafe
procedures by management,” “Equipment upkeep,” “PPE not provid-
ed,” or “Safety equipment not provided.”
In the 35 accidents that occurred in underground mining (i.e.,
48.0% of the accidents in which an environment first event (PE1) took
place), the accidents were also caused by “objects falling down or
collapsing.”
The people who had the accidents were directly affected by
material falling from the roofs or walls of the tunnels where they
happened to be. Of these accidents, 34.3% were fatal; the rest of them
seriously injured the workers involved. Of the 35 accidents, 65.7%
(n = 23) indicated involved one of the indicated contributing factors
that was directly caused by a malfunction in the company's preventive
system. For example, several accidents of this kind have been noted
where, if the worker had had access to work equipment or a vehicle
with an adequate cover, he/she would not have been injured, or his/
her injuries would not have been so serious. Another observation is
that 60.0% (n = 21) of these accidents took place while jobs like
drilling, scaling, or cutting with a continuous miner were being
carried out near the site of the accident.
One possible explanation is that these machines transmit vibra-
tions to the roofs or walls of the tunnel while they are functioning and
this contributes to material falling down. In these cases, safety
protocols and preventive measures should be extreme.
In the case of surface mining, the 71 accidents where a first event
(PE1) of the environment type took place are classified by 19.7%
(n = 14) that did not have adequate protection against falls at different
levels, 18.3% (n = 13) had limited space for the worker to carry out his/
her task correctly, and 18.3% (n = 13) had dangerous environmental
conditions (presence of dust, smoke, gases or projections).
Inadequate workplace conditions were the main cause of all of
these accidents. Of the 71 accidents, 59.2% (n = 42) mentioned had a
behavior event that preceded the first kind (PE2), which is different to
underground mining where only 30.6% of this kind of accident had a
preceding cause that was attributed to human behavior. As also occurs
with underground mining, accidents were also caused by contributing
factors that can be attributed directly to malfunctioning of the
company's preventive systems. These contributing factors appear in
90.1% (n = 64) of the accidents where a first event (PE1) of the
environmental kind took place. These are equipment, supervision and
training factors, as well as contributing factors of work practice such
 L. Sanmiquel et al. / Journal of Safety Research 41 (2010) 1–7
as “Unsafe procedures by management,” “Equipment upkeep,” “PPE
not provided,” or “Safety equip not provided.”
Concerning the behavior events that occurred in the 212 accidents
that were analyzed, these events are those that occurred most often if
we take into account three events (PE1, PE2, and PE3) of the sequence
of the accidents. This coincides with the common belief that the
causes of the accidents are mainly attributed to human error
(Murphy, 1994). There have been a total of 153 behavior events in
the mining total; 112 of them occurred in surface mining and 41 in
underground mining. As was mentioned in the previous paragraph,
skill-based behavior errors predominated surface and underground
mining, as well as in the case of the three events (PE1, PE2, PE3).
Behavior errors that are based on rules and knowledge can be avoided
more easily with good prevention than those that are skill based
behavior errors (Williamsom & Feyer, 1998). This is partly due to skill-
based errors being the result of the worker's experience and training.
This occurs when a worker who has had a lot of experience or is
skilled at his/her task does things incorrectly. Self-confidence, routine,
and so forth all contribute to the worker not paying attention to safety
aspects and this can cause accidents. There was a notably higher
proportion of skill based behavior errors in the 73 underground
mining accidents than in the case of surface mining (see Table 2);
63.4% occurred specifically in underground mining as opposed to
48.2% in surface mining.
We have said that environment based events and some specific
contributing factors are mainly caused by the malfunctioning of a
company's preventive systems. We have also mentioned that
behavior type errors that are based on rules and knowledge are
more easily avoided by having a good preventive policy than in the
case of skill-based behavior type errors.
In all of the 212 accidents that were analyzed, 80 skill-based
behavior type events were identified as being involved in 73 different
accidents. There were also 343 contributing factors identified, of
which 237 (69.1%) are in the category of factors that were directly
caused by errors in the company's preventive systems. The remaining
106 factors (close tasks errors, medical errors, and others), as well as
specific bad work practice (equipment misuse; PPE provided, not
used/misused; PPE not used, reason unknown; safety equipment
provided, not used/misused; safety equipment not used, reason
unknown; unsafe procedures by individual; unsafe procedures
unknown origin), cannot be directly attributed to a bad functioning
of the preventive policy. The misuse or non-use of individual
protection equipment (PPE), the misuse of work equipment, and so
forth by the worker could be caused by skill-based behavior.
In all the accidents that were analyzed there has been an event or
contributing factor that can be clearly avoided with a rigorous and
efficient preventive policy. This means that the index of work related
fatalities in Spanish mining can be greatly reduced and brought to the
level of countries like the United States. In order to do this, and based
on the types of causes and factors identified in the accidents that were
analyzed, it is essential to carry out the following actions: improve-
ment of the workers' training and information; adoption of a
maintenance system and enough preventive and adequate inspec-
tions of work equipment, personal protection equipment (PPE), and
work areas; adequate supervision by supervisors and those respon-
sible for jobs that involve serious risk; the election of work equipment
that is better suited to the task; and the creation of viable and efficient
rules and procedures for safe work.
Acknowledgements
We would especially like to thank the Dirección General de Energía
y Minas de Cataluña (Spain) for allowing us to have access to its
7
general archives, where we were able to look up the serious and fatal
accident reports in Catalonian mining from 1982 to 2006. We would
also like to thank the Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el
Trabajo Español, for allowing us to access their database of all the
accidents that took place in Spain from 1999-2006.
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his/
her helpful comments paper.
References
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, J. S., & Hunter, W. G. (2005). Statistics for Experimenters: Design,
Innovation, and Discovery, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.
Cox, S. J., & Tait, N. R. S. (1991). Reliability, Safety and Risk Management: An Integrated
Approach. London: Buttenvorth-Heinemann.
Crichton, M. (2005). Attitudes to teamwork, leardership, and stress in oil industry
drilling teams. Safety Science, 43(9), 679−696.
Feyer, A. -M., & Williamson, A. M. (1991). A classification system for causes of
occupational accidents for use in preventive strategies. Scandinavian Journal of
Work and Environmental Health, 17, 302−311.
Feyer, A. -M., & Williamson, A. -M. (1997). The involvement of human behavior in
occupational accidents : Errors in context. Safety Science, 25(1–3), 55−66.
Murphy, J. N. (1994). Coal mine health and safety research in the USA-the achievements
of the US Bureau of Mines. Coal International, 242(6), 219−226.
Oncins de Frutos, M. (1991). NTP 283: Encuestas: metodología para su utilización.
Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo.
Piqué, T. (1991). NTP 274: Accidents investigation: Causes Tree Analysis. Madrid:
Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo.
Rasmussen, J. (1982). Human errors: A taxonomy for describing human malfunction in
industrial installations. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 4, 311−335.
Rubio, M. (2007). De vital importancia. Técnica Industrial, N° 267, 17−21.
Saari, J. (2001). La prevención de accidentes hoy en día. Magazine n° 4 de la Agencia
Europea para la seguridad y salud en el trabajo (pp. 3−5).
Santamaría, N., Catot, N., & Benavides, F. G. (2006). Time trends in fatal traumatic
occupational injuries in Spain (1992-2002). Gaceta Sanitaria, 20(4), 280−286.
Williamsom, A., & Feyer, A. -M. (1998). The Causes of Electrical Fatalities at Work.
Journal of Safety Research, 29(3), 187−196.
Lluís Sanmiquel Pera: Holds a PhD from the Polytechnical University of Catalonia
(UPC) and a Superior Technician Degree in Prevention of Labour Risks in the
specialties of Security, Hygiene, Ergonomic and Psycho-Sociology. Between 1990 and
2004 he was a mining Inspector for the Main directorate of Mines and Energy of
Catalonia, (Spain). Since 1990, he is a professor of the department of Mining
Engineering and Natural Resources of the Polytechnical University of Catalonia (UPC).
He has collaborated in different training programs in subjects related to labor security
for both underground and opencast quarries and exploitation plants.
Modesto Freijó Alvarez: Holds a PhD from the Polytechnical University of Catalonia
(UPC) and a Superior Technician Degree in Prevention of Labour Risks in the
specialties of Security, Hygiene, Ergonomic and Psycho-Sociology. He has been a Senior
Professor at the Polytechnical University of Catalonia for the last 22 years. He has
9 years professional experience in the industry and has published several articles in
Spanish journals on labour security in mining. He has written communications,
attended and spoken at International mining Congresses.
Joaquín Edo Tomás: Mining Engineer since 1968. Senior Professor of the Polytechnical
University of Catalonia (UPC) for the last 25 years. He has had positions and
responsibilities in different mining operations for 21 years. He has published articles
on labour security in mining in Spanish journals. He has written communications,
attended and spoken at International mining Congresses.
Josep M. Rossell Garriga: Recieved his Ph.D. degree in Mathematics from the
Polytechnical University of Catalonia (UPC), Spain, in 1998. He is now a professor in
the same University, where he teaches courses in the area of Mathematics. His
research interests include decentralized control, robust control, and statistics methods.
He leads an important research line of the CoDALab research group. He is the author
and co-author of many papers indexed in ISI JCR and he has participated in prestigious
international conferences. Moreover, he has written books and publications on
academic mathematical topics. He has also participated in several National and
International Research Projects.