Search Documents

By Edward A. Barrett, Roberta A. Calhoun

MORE THAN 30 MILLION EMPLOYEES each year are exposed to hazardous occupational noise, and approximately one-third of them develop permanent hearing loss (NSC, 2000). Possible explanations for the latter statistic include worker regard for noise as a mere nuisance rather than as an occupational safety and health hazard, and consequent neglect of established protective measures (e.g., hearing protection); lack of knowledge concerning noise; improper use of hearing protection; worker indifference; and inadequate training (Bauer & Babich, 2004). Many drill rigs generate high sound levels, which vary according to the type of machine, its location with respect to the physical surroundings, and the location of the sound measured around the rig. A NIOSH study measured noise output from several types of drill rigs during field investigations (Ingram & Matetic, 2003). Two types of data were recorded the actual noise generated by the drill rig at various positions around the rig and the noise to which the drill operator was exposed during the drilling cycle. For the latter, sound level measurements up to 120 dBA were recorded while hammering casing (metal on metal) in drilling a water well (Photo 1). Several types of administrative controls exist to address worker exposure to loud drill rig noise. Rotating duties to decrease exposure time and posting warning signs in high-noise work areas are two such controls. Another is the use of hearing protection. Worker use of hearing protection has been disappointing, however. One study by the University of Michigan found that construction workers used earplugs and earmuffs only between 36% and 61% of the time that they were necessary (Lusk & Kerr, 1998). In a 2001 study, OSHA reported a relatively low rate of 30.4% for use of earplugs among construction workers (Walker, 2001). Why are rates for hearing protection use so low? One explanation may be workers' lack of concern for noise in the workplace. They expect workplace noise to be a loud and in¬ evitable nuisance and, therefore, accept it as part of the job. As a result, they disregard proven measures that can protect their hearing. Other workers may use hearing protection, but do so improperly. They may misguidedly remain in high-noise areas for extended periods thinking they are protected when in fact they are not. Other reasons for low use and/or misuse of hearing protection include poor education, lack of awareness and inadequate training (Nash, 2003). To address the training issue, NIOSH developed two exercises from which drillers can learn about noise, hearing loss and hearing protection. The first is an invisible ink exercise, titled "Drill Rig Incident" (DRI) (Photo 2); the second is a 3-D slide reel training aid, "Wearing Hearing Protection Properly" (WHPP) (Photo 3). DRI is an instructor-

By David S. Yantek, Paul Jurovcik, Eric R. Bauer

Workers in coal preparation plants, where vibrating screens are significant noise sources, are often exposed to sound levels exceeding 90 dB(A). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a major coal company, and a vibrating screen manufacturer conducted a cooperative study of vibrating screen noise. Rubber isolators reduced sound levels by 1 dB. Urethane screen panels did not reduce sound levels in this case. Drive noise was determined to be the dominant noise source on the screen. Damped side plates reduced vibration levels on the screen sides by 1 to 7 dB(A). Detailed results of the study are presented.

By D. R. Babich, E. R. Bauer

The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is conducting a cross-sectional survey of equipment sound levels and worker noise exposures in the stone/aggregate mining industry. Six stone/aggregate mines (three surface and three underground) were recently surveyed, and the findings (ire presented here. The surveys consisted of sound-level measurements conducted around various equipment and machinery (including stone processing and crushing equipment) and full-shift dose measurements to determine worker noise exposures. The findings identify the equipment and machinery that are likely to cause worker overexposures and identify the workers found to he experiencing overexposures. In addition, the benefit of cabs in reducing mobile equipment operator noise exposure is discussed.

By P. Kovalchik

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies hearing loss as a separate illness category. Hearing loss accounted for 11% of all illnesses in 2005 (U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006a). According to occupational data for coal mining provided by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) from 2000 to 2005, operators that exceeded 100% noise dosage were from only seven types of machines: auger miners, bulldozers, continuous mining machines, front end loaders, roof bolters, shuttle cars (electric) and trucks (Title 30 CFR Part 62, 2000-2005). Roof bolting machine operators rank second among all underground machine operators that exceed 100% noise dose. There are approximately 600 underground coal mines with 3,930 roof bolting machine operators (U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2005; U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Jan 1, 2008

By Gerald J. Joy, Paul J. Middendorf

This study examines the patterns and trends in noise exposure documented in data collected by Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors at U.S. coal mines from 1987 through 2004. During this period, MSHA issued a new regulation on occupational noise exposure that changed the regulatory requirements and enforcement policies. The data were examined to identify potential impacts from these changes. The overall annual median noise dose declined 67% for surface coal mining and 24% for underground coal mining, and the reduction in each group accelerated after promulgation of the new noise rule. However, not all mining occupations experienced a decrease. The exposure reduction was accompanied by an increase of shift length as represented by dosimeter sample duration. For coal miners exposed above the permissible exposure level, use of hearing protection devices increased from 61% to 89% during this period. Participation of miners exposed at or above the action level in hearing conservation programs rapidly reached 86% following the effective date of the noise rule. Based on inspection data, the occupational noise regulation appears to be having a strong positive impact on hearing conservation by reducing exposures and increasing the use of hearing protection devices and medical surveillance. However the increase in shift duration and resulting reduction in recovery time may mitigate the gains somewhat.

By E. R. Bauer

Prolonged exposure to noise can cause permanent damage to the auditory nerve and/or its sensory components, known as noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). It is the most common occupational disease in the United States today. The Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is addressing NIHL in the mining industry through several research efforts. This paper presents a general review of NIHL, the status of NIHL in mining, the results of the longwall noise surveys, and a review of the longwall engineering controls research efforts.

Jan 1, 2008

By Hugo E. Camargo

Noise Induced Hearing Loss is the most common occupational disease in the U.S. and of paramount importance in the mining industry. According to data for 2006 from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Continuous Miner operators accounted for 30.2% of underground mining equipment operators with noise doses exceeding the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). This figure becomes more significant considering that 49% of the 2006 national underground coal production was extracted using continuous mining methods. Thus, there is a clear need to reduce the sound radiated by Continuous Mining Machines. The first step towards efficient noise control of a Continuous Mining Machine requires identification of the various noise sources under controlled operating conditions. To this end, a 42-microphone phased array was used in conjunction with 4 reference microphones to sample the acoustic field of a machine in the Hemi-anechoic chamber of the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. These data were processed using a frequency-domain beamforming algorithm to obtain acoustic maps of 5 sides of the machine. The focus of the test was on the conveyor noise since previous studies showed that operation of the conveyor is the most important contributor to the sound radiated by the machine. From the acoustic maps, the following potential areas for noise control were identified, and included: chain-tail-roller interaction, chain flight tip-side board interaction, and chain-upper deck interaction.

Jan 1, 2008

By H. E. Camargo

In an effort to decrease noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in coal preparation plant employees, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is conduct­ing research to identify and control dominant noise sources in vibrating screen (VS) machines. To this end, acoustic measurements of the noise radiated by a dewatering VS were conducted at the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) using microphone phased-array technology. These measurements allowed for the identification of the screen as the dominant source in the 250 Hz 1/3-octave band. The sidewalls are the major contributors in the 315 and 400 Hz bands, whereas the eccentric mechanisms and the electric motor are the dominant sources in the 800 and 1,000 Hz bands, respectively.

Jan 1, 2009

Reduce the noise levels to which operators of double-drum longwall shearers are exposed without compromising the operational effectiveness of the shearer. The Problem Noise produced by double-drum longwall shearers can be harmful to machine operators. Typical noise levels at the lead-drum operator position range from 100 to 105 dBA, and Federal noise regulations allow only one to two hours of exposure per shift at these levels. Noise radiated by the shearer cutting drum is the primary contributor to the overall noise level. However, test of a noise-controlled cutting drum developed by the Bureau of Mines reduced the operator noise level to 95 dBA, thereby increasing the allowable operating time to four hours per shift. Approach The key design aspect of the noise-controlled shearer drum is its reduced vibration-al response to coal-cutting forces. Laboratory studies have shown that these forces are concentrated in the low-frequency region (500 Hz and below). Since the cylindrical core and the cantilevered I plate-like helix of the standard shearer drum are easily excited by these forces (natural vibration frequencies be-

Jan 1, 1985

By R. V. Rahfuse

Noncaking 0- by 2 -inch subbituminous coal from New Mexico was gasified with air and steam at 205 prig using a stirred-bed producer to determine coal losses by entrainment in the gas for this low-sulfur, high-ash coal which contained 20 percent particles smaller than 1/16-inch sieve size. The use of fine-sized coal has particular importance because most production from mechanized mines is smaller than 2-inch size. This initial attempt showed technical feasibility for gasifying New Mexico subbituminous coal containing small-sized particles in fixed-bed producers without excessive coal loss by entrainment. Dust loss averaged about 2 percent of moisture-free coal, most of which was recovered from the gas. Ash clinkering was controlled by adding 1,010 lb/hr steam to reduce tempera¬tures in the combustion zone. Yield of low-Btu fuel gas, 150 Btu per scf, dry, amounted to 69,800 scfh from 1,490 lb/hr coal (as received) and 3,450 lb/hr air (dry).

Jan 1, 1974

Jul 1, 2003

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) defines an independent contractor as "any person, partnership, corporation, subsidiary of a corporation, firm, association or other organization that contracts to perform services or construction at a mine." Contractors that perform specific types of work are required to report the number of employees who perform work at coal mines and at noncoal mines.

Jan 1, 2004

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) defines an independent contractor as any person, partnership, corporation, subsidiary of a corporation, firm, association or other organization that contracts to perform services or construction at a mine. Contractors that perform specific types of work are required to report the number of employees who work at coal mines and noncoal mines.

Jan 1, 2008

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) defines an independent contractor as any person, partnership, corporation, subsidiary of a corporation, firm, association or other organization that contracts to perform services or construction at a mine. Contractors that perform specific types of work are required to report the number of employees who work at coal mines and noncoal mines.

Jan 1, 2008

An independent contractor is defined by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) as ?any person, partnership, corporation, subsidiary of a corporation, firm, association or other organization that contracts to perform services or construction at a mine.? Contractors that perform specific types of work are required to report the number of employees who work at coal mines and noncoal mines.

Aug 1, 2009

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) defines an independent contractor as "any person, partnership, corporation, subsidiary of a corporation, firm, association or other organization that contracts to perform services or construction at a mine." Contractors that perform specific types of work are required to report the number of employees who perform work at coal mines and at noncoal mines.

Feb 1, 2005

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) defines an independent contractor as “any person, partnership, corporation, subsidiary of a cor-poration, firm, association or other organization that contracts to perform services or construction at a mine.” Contractors that perform specific types of work are required to report the number of employees who work at coal mines and noncoal mines.

Sep 1, 2007

The Bureau of Mines Minerals Information organization collects worldwide data on virtually every commercially important non fuel mineral commodity. These data form the base for tracking and assessing the health of the minerals sector of the U.S. economy. This data collection activity was instituted by the 47th Congress in an appropriations act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. 829), to place the collection of mineral statistics on an annual basis. The most recent authority for the Bureau of Mines Minerals Information activity is the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-479, 96th Congress), which strengthens protection for proprietary data provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior by persons or firms engaged in any phase of mineral or mineral-material production or consumption.

Jan 1, 1984

The Bureau of Mines Minerals Information organization collects worldwide data on virtually every commercially important nonfuel mineral commodity. These data form the base for tracking and assessing the health of the minerals sector of the U.S. economy. This data collection activity was instituted by the 47th Congress in an appropriations act of August 7. 1882 (22 Stat. 829) to place the collection of mineral statistics on an annual basis. The most recent authority for the Bureau of Mines Minerals Information activity is the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-479, 96th Congress), which strengthens protection for proprietary data provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior by persons or firms engaged in any phase of mineral or mineral-material production or consumption.

Jan 1, 1987

By William R. Vogel

The Bureau of Mines Minerals Information organization collects worldwide data on virtually every commercially important nonfuel mineral commodity. These data form the base for tracking and assessing the health of the minerals sector of the U.S. economy. This data collection activity was instituted by the 47th Congress in an appropriations act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. 329), to place the collection of mineral statistics on an annual basis. The most recent authority for the Bureau of Mines Minerals Information activity is the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-479, 96th Congress), which strengthens protection for proprietary data provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior by persons or firms engaged in any phase of mineral or mineral- material production or consumption.

Jan 1, 1988