Search Documents

Exposure to airborne respirable crystalline silica dust can lead to silicosis, a debilitating lung disease. On surface coal mining and construction sites, blast hole drills are notorious sources of airborne respirable dust that may contain significant amounts of silica. The drill operator and drill helper usually receive the greatest silica exposure compared with other occupations. As a result, many drilling operations have been, and still are, on more stringent dust standards. Drilling through various rock formations naturally presents a strong potential for silica dust generation for several reasons. First, drilling is a pulverizing process that generates large amounts of very small dust particles. Second, the bailing air used to flush cuttings from the hole leaves the hole at a very high velocity and can be difficult to contain. Third, many fixed shrouds used to enclose the area beneath the drill deck have a significant amount of leakage due to 1) gaps between the shroud and ground created by raising/leveling the drill, 2) gaps in the corner seams, and 3) tom deck shrouds. CONTROLS A dry dust collection system is typically connected to the drill deck to collect dust as the bailing airflow transports the cuttings (and significant amounts of airborne respirable dust) out of the drill hole. Deck shrouds are installed in an attempt to enclose the volume around the drill steel and prevent dust escaping. However, most deck shrouds are rectangular and constructed of four separate pieces of rubber belting attached to the deck. Because of this design, there is usually a significant amount of dust escaping from the open seams as well as the open area between the shroud and the ground. This dust can be a significant source of silica exposure to drill operators as well as other personnel downwind of the drill.

By Lon Santis, Scott Deitchman, John A. Decker

This report describes three cases of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning in a manhole, including one fatality, from CO migrating through soil after nearby use of explosives. A municipal sewer project involved installation of new pipes and manholes. Work of the general construction contractor was interrupted when a subcontractor detonated 265 pounds of nitroglycerin-based explosive 40-60 feet south of the manhole to break up underlying rock. A construction worker who descended into the manhole 45 minutes after the explosion collapsed within minutes, and two co-workers descended into the manhole to rescue him. One rescuer retrieved the unconscious worker, and the other rescuer died in the manhole. All workers had elevated carboxyhemoglobin levels. In the subsequent NIOSH investigation, air monitoring was conducted with real-time instruments, and air samples were collected in Tedlar bags. Laboratory analyses of the bag samples collected near the bottom showed 1905 parts per million (ppm) CO, 19.5% oxygen, and 3% carbon dioxide. Direct reading instruments showed progressively higher concentrations as the sensor was lowered into the manhole. Subsequent chamber tests on sample explosive yielded 27 liters CO per kilogram detonated. Based on this value, the surface blast at the construction site may have produced about 3,250 liters (114.8 cubic feet) CO. The CO in this incident most likely was released from the nearby explosion and migrated through soil and fractured rock into the manhole. The blasting and construction industries should be made aware of this previously unrecognized CO exposure hazard associated with surface blasting. The extent of CO exposure from explosives used in construction is not known, and additional information on the extent of CO exposure must be collected. In addition, confined space entry procedures (including monitoring confined space atmospheres before entry) should be observed; CO monitoring of confined spaces in the presence of blasting can prevent future incidents such as this one.

Oct 30, 1997

By Joseph P. Flick, Kathleen M. Kowalski, Lynn L. Rethi, Roberta A. Calhoun

Many miners are involved in tasks at the mine site that are similar to those sub-tasks performed in general construction, maintenance and repair (CMR) type work activities. As a result, many of the injuries in the mining industry today can be traced to employees performing these CMR type work activities. Indeed, a recent analysis of a major aggregate company revealed that 65% of all injuries documented originated from performing such CMR activities. It is hypothesized that the number of injuries to miners performing construction, maintenance and repair (CMR) work activities on mine property may be reduced through improved training that focuses on better hazard recognition using the numerous visual and other cues that are available for evaluating workplace health and safety hazards. To this end, researchers at NIOSH’s Pittsburgh Research Laboratory have merged two proven methods of training miners to recognize hazards, stereoscopic (3-D) slides and the concept of degraded images, into this training program. Stereoscopic (3-D) slides have been shown in earlier NIOSH and U.S. Bureau of Mines research to be an effective training aid for improving the ability of miners to recognize various geologic and mining-induced irregularities that can cause groundfalls.3 They realistically portray the natural mine environment, and thus are an excellent training aid for teaching miners to recognize such visual cues. The degraded image concept, originally developed by the military and used for target detection training, describes scenes where the target is partially hidden by cloud cover, dust, rain, natural barriers, buildings, or other obstructions that can camouflage or confuse the target. Research had shown that flight observers who were trained with less than ideal (or degraded) pictures were more successful in subsequent identification of targets than those trained using ideal (or highlighted) pictures of targets. In order to investigate this concept for training miners to recognize hazards, NIOSH researchers developed a prototype hazard recognition training program using such mining scenes. A control program based on traditional highlighted mining scenes was also developed. Both programs were applied to subjects in a field experiment. Results indicated that miners trained with the degraded images did significantly better on a follow-up test of hazard recognition.4 This hazard recognition program teaches trainees to look for hazards in a more realistic manner than that of the control program. This specific training program for CMR activities involves using the degraded image concept and 3-D slides. The module is designed to educate workers on hazard identification techniques and safe work practices. It focuses on teaching miners techniques for recognizing visual (sight) cues, and then uses these cues to evaluate mining conditions. It should be stressed that other senses, such as sound can also play an important role in hazard detection.

Jan 1, 1999

By N. Grosland, G. Kopp, L. Frey-Law, D. Wilder, M. Contratto, S. Rahmatalla, T. Xia

Heavy equipment manufacturers have made a long-term commitment to minimize operator vibration exposure for comfort, performance, and health reasons. Domestic and international guidelines/standards and EC laws dictate exposure limits based on measurement of vibration at the interface between the seat and the operator’s buttocks using seat-pad accelerometry.1-4 This is historically based on the assumption that the only major source of vibration is transmitted through the seat pan. However, vibration may also be imparted to the head and neck via the steering wheel and/or arm-rest controls and a relatively rigid upper body.5 Unfortunately, little is known regarding the influence of arm position on head and neck motion. The purpose of this study was to investigate relative head and trunk motions during riding simulations of large construction equipment, using three different arm control options. Methods Five typical heavy equipment ride files were “played back” through a man-rated Servo Test 6-degree-of-freedom vibration system. An 8-camera Vicon motion capture system operating at 200 frames per second, recorded the motion of reflective surface markers on 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile right-handed male subjects, using 3 seat and control configurations (steering wheel (SW), floor mounted armrest controls (FM), seat-mounted armrest controls (SM)). Two trials were performed for each ride and seat control combination (each trial: 60 sec of 6-dof and 60 sec of vertical vibration). The relative motions (change in distances) from the marker over the xiphoid process (caudal end of sternum) to markers over each shoulder, each mid-clavicle, the presternal notch, and to each of four markers on a tight band around the head were calculated (12,001 frames, 6-dof motion only). As a rigid body control, distances between markers on the head band were also monitored. The standard deviation (SD) of the 12,001 distances between pairs of markers was normalized by the mean (L) of the associated distances producing: SD/L which was used as a measure of motion. Error assessments were also performed by analyzing the motion between relatively fixed markers (on the headband). A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate the results. While five ride files were used, only one ride file containing significant lateral acceleration components was analyzed for comparing the effects of two armrest controls versus use of a steering wheel for this part of our study. Results Values of SD/L between the points on the relatively rigid head band were consistently small and similar to each other for all conditions with one exception due to treatment (SM v SW, p=0.0145). SD/L between the markers over the xiphoid process and the presternal notch, another region that should be relatively rigid, were also similar to each other for all conditions. Use of floor-mounted, arm rest controls versus a steering wheel produced a significant increase in the value of SD/L between the xiphoid process and: the right shoulder marker (92%, p=0.0316), the right mid-clavicle marker (47%, p=0.0478), and the right-front marker on the head band (28%, p=0.0182). Use of floor-mounted, arm rest controls versus seat-mounted, arm rest controls

Jan 6, 2006

Reduce dust exposure of longwall shearer operators by keeping them upwind of the primary cutting drum. Approach Use a different coal cutting sequence by cutting from headgate-to-tailgate, making the cleanup pass from tail-gate-to-headgate. How It Works The cutting action of the shearer drum is usually the primary source of respirable dust at longwall shearer faces. Dust exposure of the shearer operator is deter-mined by his position relative to the lead drum, which is normally in the raised position taking a full sump. On long-wall faces where the cut pass is taken from tail-to-head, against the primary airflow, the shearer operators must remain at their controls, on the return-air-side of the primary dust source, to maintain proper control. A simple method to lower shearer operators' dust exposures is to extract the primary coal from head-to-tail, thus positioning the operators up-wind of the lead cutting drum. The bottom coal is then cut, and the floor cleaned by the trailing drum during the tail-to-head cleanup pass. This sequence places the primary dust source, the cutting action of the shearer drums, on the return-air side of both shearer operators, except when cutting out at the longwall headgate.

Jan 1, 1984

The first metal-mine accident-prevention course was prepared and published in 1942--45 as a series of seven miners' circulars (Nos. 51-57). The scope of the course has been broadened, revised, and brought up to date, and it is being published as a similar series of seven miners' Circulars (Nos. 51-57, revised) on accident prevention in metal and nonmetallic mines. These circulars are: Accident Statistics (Miners' Circular 51), dealing with general statistics on accidents and injuries at metal and nonmetallic mines, including causes, costs, and the uses of investigations and reports of all accidents.

Jan 1, 1957

By Alice Turcot

Knowledge of risks from exposure to hand-arm vibrations is usually presented by clinicians and researchers from a medical and engineering point of view. There is a strong need to develop innovative health promotion programs for exposed workers. Risk perceptions by vibration exposed workers and HAVS (hand-arm vibration syndrome) affected workers are less well known. In 1983, Brubaker demonstrated that 75% of studied fellers thought that whitening of the fingers was part of the job and/or an unrelated nuisance, while only 25% believed it was a disease. 1Grounds also showed that even though there were a very high number of forestry workers with white fingers, none considered quitting because of their condition. 2 It seems that many workers hesitate to declare the illness or believe they are less affected than they really are, perhaps from fear of losing their jobs and livelihood. 3 Risk awareness, on the part of exposed workers and their employers, as well as knowledge and acceptance of available preventive solutions are necessary steps before installing adequate preventive measures, whether organizational, behavioral or environmental. Workers need to understand fully the hazards and risks in order to be able to make informed decisions under uncertain conditions.4 Prerequisites include the following: workers knowledge about the risk, their attitude towards it, which in turn, can be influenced by values, needs and interests. Also, knowledge and attitudes towards safety behaviour, organizational or environmental barriers must be taken into account. Our research focuses on these key elements, which help bridge the gap between health promotion research and practice. Methods A descriptive exploratory study is in progress with workers exposed to hand-arm vibrations. It uses qualitative methods that include focus group discussions with workers exposed to hand-arm vibrations, as well as individual interviews with other key informants (employers, health care professionals). An open-ended questionnaire was developed to collect qualitative data on perceived risks and solutions to prevent or reduce HAVS. Based on an integrated theoretical framework related to known determinants of behavior change, the analysis will focus on the following5: 1) knowledge of health effects, safety, well-being and/or quality of life 2) related beliefs about individual susceptibility and severity of consequences 3) attitude and values related to hand-arm vibration exposure 4) knowledge and attitudes towards exposure reduction, as well as perceptions of barriers and facilitating factors for these measures, in the workplace environment or otherwise.

Jan 6, 2006

By Mark R. Stephenson

Everyone knows that mining is a noisy job, but did you know that you are nine times more likely to lose your hearing than someone who works in a quieter job? If unprotected from noise on the job, by age 50, you will probably need hearing aids. Obviously, the best solution is to engineer out the noise, but that isn?t always im­mediately possible. Until mines are quieter, one way you can help save your vital sense of hearing is to use hearing protectors whenever the noise around you is hazardous. Even if you already have some hearing loss, you can use hearing protectors to prevent your hearing from getting worse. When loud noise is present, proper use of hearing protectors will help miners pre-vent most or all noise-induced hearing loss.

Jan 1, 1998

By R. J. Matetic

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recognized that Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is the most common occupational illness in the United States. The use of heavy equipment, the drilling of rock, and the confined work environment are some of the factors that contribute to high levels of noise exposure to workers in the mining industry. Every day 80% of the nation’s miners go to work in an environment where the time weighted average (TWA) exceeds 85 dBA. Moreover, 25% of the miners are exposed to a TWA noise level that exceeds 90 dBA, the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). Furthermore, a NIOSH analysis of a large sample of audiograms showed that at age 50 approximately 90% of coal miners and 49% of metal/non-metal miners have a hearing impairment. By contrast, only 10% of the non-occupational-noise exposed population has a hearing impairment at age 50 (Franks, 1997) (Stephenson, 1998). Simply stated, the majority of miners have a hearing loss by the time they retire. While NIHL is the most common occupational disease in this country, this problem is especially acute among workers in the mining industry. There are several barriers to reducing NIHL in the mining industry. These include: gaps in knowledge of noise dose/source relationships, the unavailability of effective noise controls, and needs for worker education and worker empowerment. A related issue is the difficulty of communication in noisy workplaces by both hearing impaired and normal hearing workers. The Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) at NIOSH has strategically developed a hearing loss prevention program for overcoming these respective barriers in an attempt to reduce NIHL in the mining industry. This paper provides an overview of the research program being conducted at the PRL.

By David C. Byrne

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in level-dependent hearing protectors and inexpensive personal acoustic monitors. RESEARCH SUMMARY: The results of previous NIOSH research show that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals and that miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and gender. Using hearing thresholds at 4,000 Hz as an indicator, coal miners experience hearing loss 2.5 to 3 times greater than would be expected for persons not exposed to occupational noise. At age 50, 90% of coal miners and 49% of metal/nonmetal miners were found to have a hearing impairment. In comparison, only 9% of a nonoccupationally exposed control group had a hearing impairment at age 50. There are numerous barriers to the prevention of hearing loss among miners. In an effort to overcome some of these obstacles, this work was initiated to evaluate practical technological advances in level-dependent hearing protectors and inexpensive personal acoustic monitors. Experiments will involve analysis of this new technology under both laboratory and field conditions. Laboratory components will consist of controlled studies using an anthropometrically correct test fixture as well as human subjects to evaluate the adequacy/effectiveness of various hearing protective devices. Electroacoustical performance testing of new noise monitors will also be conducted in a laboratory setting. Subsequent field studies will determine the actual usefulness and practicality of the personal protective/monitoring equipment as used in different mining situations. It is anticipated that increased on-the-spot awareness of hazardous noise levels and the availability of better-suited hearing protectors will provide a degree of protection beyond what is currently attained in different mining environments. Therefore, the intent of this project is to identify and adapt new acoustical technologies and products that have a direct application to individual mine workers. With increased knowledge of these technological advances, a greater demand for similar devices will likely occur, which, in turn, will lead to a better understanding and awareness of hearing loss prevention methods throughout the mining community. The ultimate goal is for widespread integration of useful hearing loss prevention products and devices into the daily routines of miners

Jan 2, 2000

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protective devices for use in different mining environments. RESEARCH SUMMARY: Previous NIOSH research shows that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals. Also, miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and sex. As described in the National Occupational Research Agenda, problems created by occupational hearing loss include (1) the reduced quality of life due to social isolation and unrelenting tinnitus, (2) impaired communication with family members, the public, and coworkers,(3) a diminished ability to monitor the work environment (e.g., warning signals, equipment sounds, etc.), (4) lost productivity and increased accidents resulting from impaired communication and isolation, and (5) expenses for workers? compensation and hearing aids.

Jan 1, 2000

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protective devices for use in different mining environments RESEARCH SUMMARY: Previous NIOSH research shows that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals and that miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and sex. As described in the National Occupation-al Research Agenda, problems created by occupational hearing loss include(1) reduced quality of life due to social isolation and unrelenting tinnitus,(2) impaired communication with family members, the public, and coworkers, (3) diminished ability to monitor the work environment (i.e., warning signals, equipment sounds, etc.), (4) lost productivity and increased accidents resulting from impaired communication and isolation, and (5) expenses for workers? compensation and hearing aids.

Jan 1, 2001

By David C. Byrne

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protective devices for use in different mining environments. RESEARCH SUMMARY: Previous NIOSH research shows that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals and that miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and sex. As described in the National Occupation-al Research Agenda, problems created by occupational hearing loss include(1) reduced quality of life due to social isolation and unrelenting tinnitus,(2) impaired communication with family members, the public, and coworkers, (3) diminished ability to monitor the work environment (i.e., warning signals, equipment sounds, etc.), (4) lost productivity and increased accidents resulting from impaired communication and isolation, and (5) expenses for workers’ compensation and hearing aids. Although eliminating hazardous noise is the long-term solution to the noise problem, miners will likely need to rely on personal hearing protection in certain situations for quite some time. However, it is well known that noise attenuation provided by hearing protectors as they are worn during everyday use is usually quite different (i.e., worse) than when tested under lab conditions. In addition, workers may refuse to wear their hearing protection for any number of reasons. This project was initiated to evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protectors, with an emphasis on optimizing the balance between effectiveness, comfort, over protection, and communication ability. The recently completed auditory research facility is now under-going the accreditation process conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program. Experiments are planned to investigate the factors that affect a miner’s ability to hear hazard and warning sounds (e.g., roof working, alarm signals, spoken communications, etc.). A service contract has been initiated to record and digitally store samples of typical warning sounds heard in an underground coal mine. This information will be analyzed in the lab to develop recommendations that can be offered to the mining community regarding correct earplug/earmuff usage to maximize there cognition of hazard and warning sounds while adequately protecting the miners’ hearing.

Jan 12, 2001

By David C. Byrne

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protective devices for use in different mining environments. RESEARCH SUMMARY: Previous NIOSH research shows that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals. Also, miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and sex. As described in the National Occupational Research Agenda, problems created by occupational hearing loss include (1) the reduced quality of life due to social isolation and unrelenting tinnitus, (2) impaired communication with family members, the public, and coworkers,(3) a diminished ability to monitor the work environment (e.g., warning signals, equipment sounds, etc.), (4) lost productivity and increased accidents resulting from impaired communication and isolation, and (5) expenses for workers’ compensation and hearing aids. Although the elimination of hazardous noise is the ideal long-term solution to the noise problem, miners will likely need to rely on personal hearing protection in certain situations for quite some time. However, it is well known that noise attenuation provided by hearing protectors as they are worn during everyday use in the workplace is usually worse than when tested under laboratory conditions. Additionally, workers may refuse to wear their hearing protection for any number of reasons. Therefore, this project was initiated to evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protectors, with an emphasis toward optimizing the balance between effectiveness, comfort, overprotection, and communication ability. Currently, the necessary in-house laboratory facilities and research techniques are being finalized. Individual experiments are planned that involve analysis of new hearing protector technology under both laboratory and field conditions. The laboratory components are to consist of con-trolled studies using human subjects and/or an anthropometrically correct artificial test fixture to evaluate the adequacy/effectiveness of various hearing protective devices. Field studies are planned to determine the actual usefulness and practicality of the hearing protectors as used in diferent mining environments. Recommendations can then be offered to the mining community regarding correct earplug/earmuff usage that maximizes recognition of hazard/warning sounds while adequately protecting the miners’ hearing.

Jan 12, 2000

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in level-dependent hearing protectors and inexpensive personal acoustic monitors. RESEARCH SUMMARY: The results of previous NIOSH research show that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals and that miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and gender. Using hearing thresholds at 4,000 Hz as an indicator, coal miners experience hearing loss 2.5 to 3 times greater than would be expected for persons not exposed to occupational noise. At age 50, 90% of coal miners and 49% of metal/nonmetal miners were found to have a hearing impairment. In comparison, only 9% of a nonoccupationally exposed control group had a hearing impairment at age 50.

Jan 1, 2000

By David Ingram

The results from the sound level measurements, the dosimeter recordings and the time-activity studies on four different air-rotary rigs indicate a wide variation of operator noise exposure during hole development. These variations appear to be dependent on the cab design and the operator?s drilling behavior. Studies have documented that exposure to high sound levels for long periods of time can cause hearing loss. The results of this study help identify the loudest parts of the drilling cycle. Sound level measurements on the four rigs show that all the rigs generate sound levels that are 90 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) and above within 6 feet around the rigs during drilling. It is easy to conclude that some type of noise protection, such as a cab, is needed to protect the operator from overexposure to noise for an eight-hour shift of uninterrupted drilling. However, even when rigs are outfitted with cabs, operators observed in this study are being exposed to sound levels above 90 dB(A) during some activities required to complete a drilling cycle. An evaluation and comparison of the four dosimeter recordings and time-activity studies during one drilling cycle may explain why variations in operator exposure occur. Table 1 summarizes the time-weighted average (TWA) and accumulated dose percentages for each of the four operators during the time needed to complete one typical hole cycle.

Jan 1, 2008

Reduce fire warning time and avoid activation of false alarms in underground mines. Approach A heat activated stench/tracer gas system was developed which automatically releases the gas mixture into the mine ventilation air. How It Works A canister approximately 12 inches long and 3 inches in diameter is charged with 50 grams of ethyl mercaptan or other appropriate stench gas and 500 grams of instrument detectable Freon. The canister is then pressurized to 100 psi with nitrogen. A disc is used to seal the contents of the canister. A low-temperature alloy designed to melt at a predetermined temperature is used to restrain a spring loaded plunger. Upon exposure to heat, the alloy melts and the plunger is released. The plunger ruptures the disc and the mixture of stench and tracer gas is released from the canister. Canisters are mounted in areas of a mine which are susceptible to fire such as near

Jan 1, 1983

By Ellsworth Spencer

Noise induced hearing loss continues to afflict workers in many occupational settings despite longstanding recognition of the problems and well-known methods of prevention and regulations. Sound levels associated with heavy construction equipment range from 80 to 120 dB(A) and power tools commonly used in construction produce sound levels up to 115 dB(A).(1) The focus of this research was to determine the noise exposures of heavy construction equipment operators while documenting the workers’ tasks, (i.e. hauling, moving, and/or pushing construction material). Time-motion studies were performed at the construction sites and were used to correlate the noise dosage with the work performed by equipment operators. The cumulative dose for the operator was then plotted with references to work tasks, to identify the tasks that caused the greatest noise exposure. Three construction sites were studied for this research located in the western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio areas. The types of construction equipment studied included asphalt pavers, backhoes, bulldozers, compaction equipment, excavators, haul trucks, telehandlers, and wheeled loaders. The results showed that bulldozer operators consistently had the highest noise exposures, ranging from a NIOSH REL (Recommended Exposure Limit) dose of 844% to 25,836% and an OSHA PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) dose of 139% to 1,397%.

By Gerald T. Homce, Michael R. Yenchek, H. Kenneth Sacks, James C. Cawley

Accidents occur when least expected, from sources that we rarely anticipate and with outcomes that can vary greatly. Anyone who has ever been involved in an automobile accident knows, the transition from driving comfortably and safely down a highway to being involved in a potentially life-threatening situation can occur in a heartbeat. Accidents on the job are no different. The mining industry has a relatively small number of electrical injuries, compared to industries such as construction or agriculture, due to the small total employment in mining. Mining does, however, have one of the highest occupational electrocution rates of any U.S. industry, at 2.8 for every 100,000 workers per year. This is approximately four times the average for all industries. Data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) shows that 75 electrical fatalities occurred in the mining industry between 1990 and 1999. Of these, at least 17% involved high-reaching mobile equipment that contacted overhead power lines.

By Harold W. Lipper

HELIUM shipments in 1963 exceeded the volume shipped during the previous year for the 14th successive time. Shipments from Bureau of Mines plants were 627.3 million cubic feet, an increase of 5 percent over the volume shipped in 1962. Production from Bureau of Mines plants totaled 774.2 million cubic feet. The Bureau purchased 1,420 million cubic feet of helium in the helium conservation program and stored it underground for future use. Each of the five plants, financed and built by private industry for helium conservation, made deliveries during the year. Helium continued to playa key role in space, atomic energy, defense, and other research programs. Additional capacity for liquefying helium became available, and the first civilian helium-cooled nuclear-powered reactor in the United States began pre-operation testing.

Jan 1, 1964