Risk Indices For Roof Bolter Injuries Using Microanalysis

Introduction The researchers combine a detailed microanalysis of accident data and roof bolting field observations to develop new and meaningful risk indices for the roof bolter job classification. These indices incorporate information that has not been used in traditional measures of risk. The significant parameters that these new indices incorporate are the total number of accidents occurring within a particular work activity, the amount of time a miner usually spends performing the work activities in which the accidents occurred, and the average severity of the injuries incurred in the accidents. Being specific for a particular job, they aid comparisons among work tasks performed in the bolting cycle. The indices' specificity provide anew basis for reexamination of training and operational development of miners for specific jobs. Microanalysis The roof bolting microanalysis was performed by examining the empirical data and written summaries for all bolting accidents reported in the West Virginia Safety Information System (WVSIS) for the years 1983-1987. The WVSIS database contained more than 15,000 accident narratives. The microanalysis of bolting accidents covered 2083 reported personal injuries (RPIs). This large number of injuries, performed at an industry-wide level, provides a broad picture of the nature of roof bolting injuries. The analysis focuses on the activities associated with the cyclical routines of the roof bolting process. For this analysis, roof bolting tasks were categorized into work routines based on the sequence of work activities performed by roof bolters. Four work routines were identified within the overall bolting cycle. And these routines comprised 70% (1217) of all roof bolting accidents at the face. The routines include: face area preparation; tramming, positioning and setting the automated temporary roof support (ATRS); drilling holes; and installing bolts. The types of injuries most common within a routine and the average severity of those RPIs were also identified. Table 1 gives a breakdown of the percentage of accidents by the bolting routines. Another 19% of the roof bolting RPIs cannot be classified in a particular routine because of the vagueness of the narratives. However, it was clear that these accidents involved drilling holes or installing bolts. These results are consistent with previous research. It identified drilling and bolting, followed by tramming, as the most frequent sources of injuries (Helander, Krohn & Curtain, 1983). [Table 1-Accidents by bolting routines at the face Accidents Bolting routine Percent Number Face area preparation 18.2 222 Tram, position, ATRS 23.3 284 Drilling holes 34.2 416 Installing bolts 24.2 295 Total 1217] Roof bolter operators were involved in 82% (1706) of the 2083 accidents. The RPIs incurred by classified roof bolters occurred largely on working sections (95%) and at the face area on the working section (75%). Approximately 23% of the 1706 roof bolter RPIs occurred during tasks which were not part of the bolting cycle. These included belt utility work, providing supplies and section moves. Miners in other job classifications who were involved in roof bolting accidents accounted for the remaining 18% of the 2083 roof bolting RPIs. Among this group were section utility men and general laborers (41%), section machine operators (38%), and electricians and mechanics (11%). Another 9% were performing on-section supervisory functions. Face area preparation Face area preparation work led to a substantial number of injuries, although it accounted for the lowest number of injuries of the four routines. Several tasks were associated with the injuries incurred in this routine. Table 2 shows the percentage of injuries associated with face area preparation. [Table 2- Accidents occurring during face area preparation 26.6% Setting temporary and supplemental supports 24.8% Scaling roof and ribs 21.2% Installing ventilation devices 15.8% Handling supplies and materials 11.6% Miscellaneous tasks] The injuries commonly involved overexertion and 'struck by' falling coal and rock. Handling materials often led to overexertion injuries. Nearly 66% of the scaling-related injuries and about 33% of the injuries incurred during the setting of temporary supports involved 'strikes' by equipment, materials, top and rib. Tramming, positioning and setting the ATRS During tramming operations, workers were often struck by components of the machine and hit by loose roof and rib. Poor footing also led to slips, sometimes against the moving machinery. Table 3 gives a breakdown of accidents in this routine. Control levers were a significant problem in this routine.