Search

Refuge alternatives provide shelter to miners trapped underground during a disaster. Manufacturers must demonstrate that their refuge alternatives meet the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) requirements for oxygen supply, carbon dioxide removal, and management of heat from the occupants and mechanical/chemical systems. In this study, miner size and activity level were used to determine the metabolic heat rate, oxygen requirements and carbon dioxide generation that are representative of miners in a refuge situation. A convenience sample of 198 male miners was used for the distribution of current U.S. coal miners, and the composite 95th percentile height and weight were determined to be 193 cm (76 in.) and 133 kg (293 lb). The resting metabolic rate (RMR) was determined to be representative of activity level in a refuge alternative. The highest likely metabolic heat generation ranged from 113 to 134 W, depending on occupancy. The highest required oxygen supply and carbon dioxide removal were estimated to be 23 L (0.81 cu ft) of oxygen per hour per person and 20 L (0.71 cu ft) of carbon dioxide per hour per person, which means the margin of safety is 50 percent or more compared with the MSHA requirements. The information on metabolic heat generation can be used to assess refuge alternative thermal environments by testing or simulation. The required oxygen supply and carbon dioxide removal can be used to assess refuge alternative requirements.

Occupational noise-induced hearing loss is the second most self-reported occupational illness or injury in the United States. Among coal miners, more than 90% of the population reports a hearing deficit by age 55. In this formative evaluation, focus groups were conducted with coal miners in Appalachia to ascertain whether miners perceive hearing loss as a major health risk and if so, what would motivate the consistent wearing of hearing protection devices (HPDs). The theoretical framework of the Extended Parallel Process Model was used to identify the miners' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and current behaviors regarding hearing protection. Focus group participants had strong perceived severity and varying levels of perceived susceptibility to hearing loss. Various barriers significantly reduced the self-efficacy and the response efficacy of using hearing protection.

A theoretically based formative evaluation was conducted with coal miners in the Appalachian Mountains who were at high risk for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). The results of four focus groups indicate that despite high levels of knowledge, strong perceived severity of negative consequences, and strong perceived susceptibility to hearing loss, two main categories of barriers (environmental and individual) keep coal miners from using their hearing protection devices (HPD). Further analysis suggests that the environmental factors, rather than individual variables, more strongly influence decisions against protective actions. Recommendations and practical implications are offered.

This article reviews various dust control technologies developed over the years at the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to provide various options and alternatives to lower bag machine operators' and bag stackers' dust exposures. Dust exposure records for the past 20 years show that bag machine operators and bag stackers normally have the highest respirable dust exposures of workers at mineral processing plants. A substantial amount of research has been performed over the years to minimize the dust exposure to these workers and the intent is to present all this information together in one article. Most of the research describes engineering controls that were adapted to existing facilities to reduce the dust generated during bag filling, bag conveying, and bag stacking. In some cases, a single technique succeeded in lowering respirable dust concentrations for all three processes, thus reducing the dust exposure to both the bag machine operator and the bag stacker. In other cases, a technique was developed to specifically reduce the dust exposure of one process or the other. This research also reviews various controls for secondary dust exposure, including general ventilation requirements to mill buildings, the effects of background dust sources, and personal work practices. This information is presented to help industrial hygienists, plant managers, engineers, and workers lower the dust exposure of bag machine operators and bag stackers.

The Bureau of Mines has evaluated cost effective systems to ventilate enclosed vehicles being loaded directly with bagged product material at mineral processing plants. This evaluation included both forms of transportation: railcars and trailer trucks. The goal of this research was to lower the dust exposure of workers stacking bags in these enclosed vehicles; these workers usually have the highest dust exposures in the entire processing plant. The problem occurs because there is no mechanical ventilation inside these vehicles. As the vehicle is being loaded, dust concentrations increase to substantial levels because released dust has no means of exiting the vehicle or of being diluted with fresh air. In cases where the dust is hazardous, as with silica sand, this may present a serious health hazard. This research project was a two-step effort. The first step was a qualitative laboratory evaluation performed in a railcar to compare different types of ventilation systems (blowing, exhaust, and push-pull systems) using a methane (CH4) tracer gas technique. An exhaust system located over the snake conveyor was the most effective system at reducing gas levels in and around the bag stacker's work area. The second step then involved a field evaluation at a silica sand processing plant to determine the system's effectiveness in the actual work environment. Three different versions were evaluated in an attempt to optimize the exhaust ventilation system's effectiveness. The most effective version involved exhausting 54.5 m3/min (2000 ft3/min) through a fiberglass tube located 1.1 m past the end of the slinger at a 2.0-m height so as not to interfere with the bag stacker's job function.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)