HSA BULLETIN January 1997

CONTENTSO Reducing roof bolter operator cumulative trauma exposure

O Fatality Summary, January-December 1996

O Hidden costs of on-the-job injuries add up to more than time

O Alternative arrangements

HSA Bulletin January 1997

1Reducing roof bolter operatorcumulative trauma exposureErgonomics considerations for reducing cumulative traumaexposureBy, Kim M. Cornelius, CPE and Fred C. Turin, CPE

Musculoskeletal injury is a term usedto describe a wide range of softtissue disorders which affect thenerves, tendons, and muscles.Common examples include lowerback pain, tendonitis, and carpaltunnel syndrome. The majority ofthese injuries are not the result ofsudden mishaps, but usually developgradually from repeated wear andtear. Symptoms may first appear afterweeks, months, or even years.Symptoms may result from manytypes of activities, performed at workor at home, and it is often difficult toattribute a single event. In fact, it ismore common to identify the factorswhich may have contributed to thedevelopment of the condition. Theterms repetitive strain injuries orcumulative trauma disorders (CTDs)have been commonly used to refer todisorders that have occurred due towork related activities (Putz-Anderson, 1988; Fraser, 1989).

Three main risk factors contributeto CTDs: force, repetition, and awkwardpostures. Any one or combination ofthese may contribute to the develop-ment of CTDs. Therefore, the design ofequipment in conjunction with therequired tasks should attempt to reducethese risk factors. Examining the layoutof the work area to help identify taskswhich may contribute to cumulativetrauma is necessary. The following list(Putz-Anderson, 1988), describesergonomic concerns that, overall,should be minimized at the workarea:Crowding or cramping theworker:a work area layout may unnecessar-ily constrain movements of theworker.

Twisting or turning:placement of tools and materialsmay require the worker to twist thespine to fulfill the requirements ofthe job.Repeated reaching motions:the layout of the work area mayrequire the worker to lean to reachand grasp the necessary tools andcontrols.Misalignment of body parts:the arrangement of the work areamay require the worker to fre-quently have one shoulder higherthan the other or have the neck orspine bent to one side.

While many of these concernsare a function of equipment designand environmental conditions,making workers aware of theseissues may help them to adapt theirwork habits to reduce risk ofinjury. Additionally, this informationis useful when conducting anergonomic evaluation of a workarea and associated tasks.

Cumulative traumaexposure and coalminingAlthough coal mining has becomemore mechanized, many jobscontinue to be labor intensive andrepetitive in nature. They entail tasksthat, performed over time, can take atoll on the soft tissues and joints. Thefact that the mining industry has anaging workforce may compound theproblem. In 1986 the mean age ofthe coal mining workforce was 39years and the median total years ofexperience was 11 (Butani, 1988). In1992 the mean age of the coalmining work force was 42 years andthe median total years of experiencewas 18 (NMA, 1995). As a personages, the body’s resilience to chronicwear and tear is reduced which maycause a worker to pay an increasinglyhigher health price for performingthe same task (Grandjean, 1988;Putz-Anderson, 1988).

The United States Bureau ofMines (USBM) conducted an

Roof bolting ina low-seammine oftenrequiresoperators,such as thisone, tomaintainawkwardpostures.

HSA Bulletin January 1997

2 TABLE 1: Interview responses and issues concerningroof bolting machines.

INTERVIEW RESPONSE ISSUE

Operator canopy obstructs ...... Operator must lean outvision. from under canopy to

see hole.

Work area in operator ............ Operator must do a lot ofplatform too tight. twisting to do job.

Drill controls are too close ..... Operator cannot fit glovedtogether. hand around controls to

operate properly.

Tram levers are too tight on ... Operator must applysome machines. excessive force to

activate the controls.

Shortage of maintenance ......... Insufficient support ofpersonnel and a lack of boom causes play inknowledge of how to boom and thus drillmaintain machines. steels have a tendency toMachines are not repaired break.adequately.

evaluation at an underground coalmine concerned about early warningsigns of cumulative trauma. Inparticular, they were concerned aboutincreased frequency of aches andpains reported by roof bolteroperators. The primary roof boltingmachine used at this mine, and thusthe main focus of this evaluation, wasa dual head, walk-through roofbolting machine. However, many ofthe identified issues and recommen-dations to follow will be applicable toother roof bolting machines as well.

Evaluation overviewLost time incidentsThe mine provided the researcherswith 43 lost time incident descrip-tions. They consisted of all lost timeincidents involving roof bolteroperators for the period January 1,1991 to August 30, 1994. It shouldbe noted that those responsible forcompiling incident descriptionsusually identify the immediate activityas the cause of the injury. While thismay be appropriate for someincidents, others may require morethorough examination of activitiesincluding those leading up to theincident. For cumulative traumaincidents there may be a combinationof any number of factors which canlead to injuries. For this evaluation,researchers wished to identify roofbolting activities and operator injurieshaving characteristics consistent withcumulative trauma exposure. Afterexamining the incident descriptions,14 were selected and contained thefollowing characteristics:Five of the fourteen incidents involvedpain in the back, neck, shoulder, orelbow.• Two incidents occurred whileputting a roof bolt in a drilled hole.• Two incidents occurred whilelifting bolting supplies• One incident occurred whiletorquing a roof bolt

Nine of the fourteen incidentsinvolved a strain or sprain injury tothe ankle, knee, or hip resulting from

a slip, trip ormisstep.• Seven incidentsinvolved steppingor kneeling onuneven floor,loose materialson the floor, orequipment cable.• Two incidentsinvolved anoperator steppinginto or out ofthe drill platformof a boltingmachine.

InterviewsDuring a minesite visit,interviews wereconducted withroof bolteroperators and anurse who hadtreated many roof bolter operators.The objective of the interviews was tolearn about bolting tasks and workingconditions, to identify safety hazards,and to discuss the details of accidentsand injuries. The interview data wasanalyzed to identify similarities ininjuries and pains; tasks that maycontribute to cumulative trauma; andaspects of the working environmentthat may contribute to cumulativetrauma.

Twelve roof bolter operators wereinterviewed. The most commoninjuries cited were:• lacerations and cuts to arms andface,• shoulder, neck, and arm strainsand pains,• ankle sprains and twists, back painand strains, and knee strains, and• numbness in legs.

Operators said that roof boltingtasks require a lot of lifting, carrying,bending, reaching and stretching.Common activities cited as contribut-ing to their pain and discomfortincluded: leg pains while leaning outto see the drill hole; hand and elbow

pain from using the controls; soreknees, back, and shoulders frombending and twisting to put up pinsor lift and position drill steels,wrenches, and bolts; shoulder andelbow aches from picking up andholding drill steels; and knee andback aches at the end of the shiftfrom standing all day.

Comments made during theinterviews concerning the roof boltingmachines, broken into responses andassociated issues are described intable 1. Many comments may apply toa variety of bolting machines.

The interview with the nurseprovided information similar to thatgiven by the operators. The mostcommon ailments reported wereaches, pains and muscle soreness.The most frequent complaint wasshoulder pain caused by reachingand retrieving tasks.

ObservationsObservations included operatorsbolting the top and ribs and anexperienced bolter operator discuss-ing the layout and operation of a roof

HSA Bulletin January 1997

3Table 2: Observations and issues concerning roof bolting machines.

OBSERVATION

Confined operator platform causes operators to twist andstretch to get drill steels, bolts, plates, and wrenches.

Supply trays are positioned at heights well above theoperators’ waists.

Tops of control levers are positioned well above waistheight.

Operators lean against the back rail of operator compart-ment and out from under the canopy while performingdrilling and bolting tasks.

Operators shift their weight to the side of the bodycorresponding to the hand which places the drill steelinto the drill chuck.

Operators frequently extend their arm up and out to holdonto steels while drilling, and onto bolts while installingthem.

Drill steels are being inserted into the drill chuck usuallyat knee level or lower.

Transfer of supplies from the back of a bolting machineto supply trays involves frequent lifting, carrying, andtwisting.

ISSUE

This places operator in awkward postures creating stressto the muscles and joints, particularly in the back and theknees.

Lifting and retrieving tools and bolts is stressful to theneck, arm, and shoulder.

The operator must work with the arm and wrist inawkward postures.

This places the operators in awkward postures. Also, it isputting them at risk of being hit by falling top.

The muscles on the opposite side of the body, particularlythe low back muscles, are stressed and may becomefatigued.

This is stressful to the neck, arm, and shoulder muscles.

The operator must do more bending which stresses thelow back muscles.

This places operator in awkward postures creating stressto the muscles and joints, particularly in the back and theknees.

bolting machine. After reviewingobservation notes, video tape, andstill photographs, key items wereidentified and are listed in table 2.Some observations are specific to thetype of machine observed, whileothers are more general and canapply to many different boltingmachines.

Issues andrecommendationsAnalysis of data obtained from losttime incidence reports, interviews,and observations was used to identifyroof bolting factors which pose riskto the development of CTDs. Theseissues were:• materials handling,• operator orientation in work space,• vision obstruction,• control bank design, and• slipping and tripping hazards.

For each issue a brief description

will be provided followed byrecommendations for reducingcumulative trauma exposure.Recommendations address the threeelements which define a system:human, equipment, and environment.Recommendations directed at thehuman element are intended toincrease worker awareness of riskfactors. This knowledge can then bemotivation for workers to modifytheir behavior to reduce exposure.Equipment recommendations addressmodifications to existing equipmentwhich can be performed at the minesite or retrofitted by the manufacturerand recommendations that wouldrequire more significant changes thatshould be addressed in the design offuture roof bolting machines.Environmental factors play animportant role in human-machineinterfaces. The underground miningenvironment is particularly challeng-

ing for equipment designers. For thisreason, environmental limitationswere considered when developingrecommendations.

The recommendations are intendedto be used as a guide for morecomprehensive examinations of roofbolting activities. Each mine shouldconduct a mine specific evaluation dueto varying conditions, equipment, andworkforce. An evaluation team withdiverse members including roof bolteroperators, first line supervisors,engineers, and safety personnel is aneffective approach for developingsolutions (Hamrick, 1992; O’Green etal., 1992; Carson, 1993). Additionally,more specific information is availableconcerning human factors consider-ations for reducing roof bolting hazards(Turin et al., 1995) and for designingunderground mobile mining equipment(see related internet resources at endof paper).

HSA Bulletin January 1997

4

Figure 1.—Supplies piledon the back ofa boltingmachine

Materials handlingRoof bolter operators were observedperforming two types of materialhandling tasks. The first involvedretrieving supplies and loading theminto supply trays. The second involvedlifting and handling steels, bolts,plates, and wrenches while perform-ing bolting tasks.

Figure 1 depicts supplies piled ina disorganized manner on the backof a bolting machine. Operators mustbend, pull, slide, gather, and liftarmfuls of supplies. Often supplieswill shift and roll toward theoperator. Once in tow, supplies arecarried to the front of the machineand placed into trays. This process isrepeated often over the course of aday. Although the worker has controlover the size of a load and the paceof work, the walkway is narrow andthey often assume awkward postureswhile carrying a cumbersome load.

The bolter operators may be ableto minimize their risk to supplyhandling problems by maintaining

order among the supplies piled onthe machine. However, it may bepossible to improve the layout of thework area thus easing supplyhandling for operators. For example,barriers are created by limited spacein the operator platform and a supplytray that is located to the side of theoperator at arm’s length and too high(see figure 2). The result is that theoperator must do frequent liftingwhile twisting and reaching.

Twisting and reaching while liftingcan cause stress to the musculoskel-etal system and increase the risk ofinjury (Grandjean, 1988). Twistingwhile handling supplies requires anasymmetric exertion where the loadis in one hand and/or to one side ofthe body. This has been shown to bemore hazardous than symmetricexertion, where the load is held inboth hands at the center of the frontof the body. Frequently, acute lowback pain is associated with asym-metric activities. During interviews,several operators cited back pain on

one side of the back, the sideopposite the arm used to grasp drillsteels and bolts. Reaching whilelifting also places a worker at risk. Itis important to keep an item beinglifted or carried as close to the bodyas possible and at a low height. Thefurther the load is from the spine,the greater the stress to the lowback. The higher the load is heldabove the hips, the greater the stressto the upper extremities and back.Additional information is availableconcerning materials handling in lowseam coal mines (Gallagher et al.,1992). Furthermore, many of therecommendations in this documentcan be applied to higher seam mines.

Recommendations• Evaluate the delivery, packagingand transport of roof boltingmaterials. For example, delivermaterials as close as possible to theworking area. Ensure that items arepackaged in appropriate sizedbundles.

HSA Bulletin January 1997

5

Figure 2.—Bolter operatorretrievingsupplies fromatool traymounted on aboltingmachine

• Modifications to materials handlingtasks should be geared towardcarrying supplies as close to the bodyas possible, restricting the size of theload, and minimizing lifting distances.• Supplies handled from the operatorplatform should be held slightlybelow elbow height, at about theheight of the hip. There should be nobarriers in the path which wouldrequire the operator to lift thesupplies up and over.• Evaluate supply tray design,reposition supply trays, or redesignthe method of stacking and retrievingsupplies. For example, supply trayscan be designed to better accommo-date necessary items, relocated tominimize handling materials, andpositioned to reduce awkwardpostures and excessive force requiredto access items.

Operator orientation inwork spaceRoof bolter operator compartmentsare designed so that the operator

faces the control bank. However,much of the work is performed ateither side of the compartment. Drillsteels, bolts, plates, and wrenchesmust be acquired while turningtoward the inside of the machine.Reaching to insert tools or bolts intothe drill chuck must be done whileturning toward the front of themachine. The orientation of theoperator’s compartment is a directcontributor to the asymmetricexertion which was discussed in thematerials handling section. It isrecognized that the orientation of thework space would be difficult tochange for existing machines;however, these issues should beconsidered as technological advanceswhen designing future generations ofroof bolting machines.

Jobs that require a worker torepeatedly reach above, behind, and/or to the side can contribute toshoulder disorders, even if themotion does not involve a heavy lift.(Putz-Anderson, 1988). Take for

example a supermarket cashier whomoves merchandise across an opticalscanner. These cashiers do notrepeatedly perform heavy lifts yethave experienced shoulder problemsrelated to the motion required to dotheir job (Wilson & Grey, 1984).

Operators stand while working inhigh coal seams. Standing throughouta work day is very taxing to thelower extremities. Bolter operatorsspend a good portion of the timeleaning toward the drill head side ofa machine while performing boltingtasks. Having the body weightdistributed to one side for extendedperiods is particularly stressful to thejoints and soft tissues of the backand lower extremities on that side ofthe body.

Another concern related tooperator orientation involvesextending the arm and reaching up.Roof bolter operators were observedplacing drill steels and bolts in thechuck and leaving their hand in placeas the drill boom was raised (see

HSA Bulletin January 1997

6

Figure 3.—Front end viewof a dualboom, walkthroughboltingmachine. Theoperator onthe left isoperating drillcontrols withhis palms. Theoperator onthe right hashis left handon the boltwhile insertingit into the roof.

figure 3). As their hand movedupward their arm extended and theirshoulder flexed. This motion,repeated over time, will cause stressto the joints and surrounding softtissues.

Recommendations• Bolter tasks and equipment shouldbe designed to minimize shoulderabduction, where the upper arm isextended and no longer hangsstraight down from the shoulder. Thiswill keep the shoulder in a neutralposture and reduce stress.• Operator work areas should bedesigned to facilitate operator tasksbased on operator reach and visibilityrequirements.• Examine position of supply trays inrelation to operator (either lowertrays or raise operator to achieveproper positioning).• Utilize anti-fatigue mats onplatforms or use shoe inserts.• Consider a height adjustable,

padded rail at back of operatorplatforms.• Buyers and manufacturers ofequipment should consider operatorposition, coal seam height, size ofcompartment, location of controlbank, supply handling, and orienta-tion to drill chuck when designingoperator compartments.

Vision obstructionOperator canopies on roof boltingmachines, which protect operatorsfrom falling top, also can preventthem from having a clear view of themine roof and subsequent hole beingdrilled. Consequently, operators mayplace themselves in postures whichcause stress to the neck and back tosee what they were doing. Thisposture used over time could resultin neck and back strain and increasethe risk of being hit by falling top.

Recommendations• Ensure use of an operator canopy

appropriate for the seam height. Forexample, in high seams, a canopyintended for a lower seam height willnot extend high enough. This mayobstruct the operator’s line of sightto the hole.• Future equipment models shouldconsider alternative operator canopyand roof support designs aimed atimproving operator vision of the roof.

Control bank designIt is critical to ensure that a work areais not located too high or too low.When it is too high, the shoulders mustbe raised frequently to compensate,which stresses the neck and shouldermuscles. When the work area is toolow, the worker must bend over whichcauses stress to lower back muscles(Grandjean, 1988).

Bolter operators have beenobserved working in postures wherethe shoulder was raised in anundesirable position while force wasexerted to activate controls. This was

HSA Bulletin January 1997

7TABLE 3: Elbow and hip heights for select male sizes(Pheasant, 1986)

5th 50th 95thpercentile percentile percentile

Elbow height (in.) ......... 40.2 ............ 43.5 ................. 46.9

Hip Height (in.) ............. 32.9 ............ 36.0 ................. 39.2

due to the tops of control leversbeing positioned at a height abovewaist level.

Two factors determine the desiredheight of a standing work station, thesize of the operator and the type ofwork being performed (Grandjean,1988). For example, precise ordelicate work should be performed ata height several inches above waistheight. Light work should beperformed at approximately elbowheight. Heavier work, such as roofbolting tasks should be performed atslightly below elbow height. There-fore, it is desirable for the operatorto adjust the platform such that thetops of the controls are slightly belowelbow height (approximately hiphigh). If the work area is too highwhen the platform is adjusted to itshighest level, the operator couldplace something on the floor of theoperator platform to elevate himself.Table 3 defines desired work stationheights for a range of sizes of maleswhich can be used as a guideline.

It is important that the spacing ofcontrols not be too close. Whilecontrol spacing may vary somewhaton each machine, the distancebetween tops of adjacent controllevers, with the exception of the drilland feed levers, on one boltingmachine was measured at 3/4 of aninch. Operators were observedoperating control levers using thefinger and thumb or the palm.

A small male operator (5thpercentile) has a hand thickness of 1inch measured at themetacarpalphalangeal joint of themiddle finger. The same measure-ment for a large male operator (95th

percentile) is 1.3inches (NASA,1978). Anoperator shouldbe able to graspthe control topwith the fingerswrapped aroundit. Grasping thecontrols in this

manner allows an operator to easilygenerate the force required toactivate it. A distance of 3/4 inchbetween control tops is too close forthe bare hand of a small male and,therefore, inadequate for the glovedhand of any operator. Levers like theones examined require a moderateamount of force. When they areoperated by the finger and thumb thiscan stress the tendons controlling thefingers. Using the palm to operatecontrols can cause damage to the softtissue of the hands (see figure 3).

Recommendations• Ensure that operator platformposition with respect to control bankposition is adjustable to accommo-date most workers. Also, workersmust be educated on how theyshould position themselves in relationto the controls.• Assess the control bank todetermine what changes could bemade to improve future iterations. Aredesign of the control bank shouldallow an adequate amount of spacebetween each control to accommo-date the thickness of a 95th percen-tile male gloved hand. However,minimizing the total breadth of thecontrol bank is also important. Itmay be necessary to examinecombining functions or considerdifferent types of controls.

Slipping and trippinghazardsAlthough no operators were observedto slip or trip, the existence of thesehazards was apparent. Loosematerials from the top were observedto fall into and around bolting

machines with regularity. Hazards ofthe environment combined withnarrow walkways and uneven flooron bolting machines place theoperator at greater risk of slipping ortripping. In addition, when anadjustable operator platform is usedits position relative to the walkwaycan vary creating an uneven thresholdbetween the platform and thewalkway. Daily exposure to thesehazards could result in frequenttwisting and strain to the lowerextremities.

Recommendations• Evaluate thresholds betweenwalkways and operator platforms withspecial consideration given to slippingand tripping hazards.• Improve housekeeping practicesand implement an active program toevaluate.• Increase worker awareness ofslipping and tripping hazards.

SummaryThe information presented is intendedto provide the reader with anawareness of factors which maycontribute to cumulative traumainjuries to roof bolter operators. Therecommendations developed shouldbe useful to equipment manufacturersand to the management andworkforce at underground coalmines. Their common goal should beto reduce the risk of roof bolteroperator cumulative trauma exposure.

Some of the problems identifiedin this report would require signifi-cant equipment design change.Equipment manufacturers should takeinto consideration factors whichcontribute to cumulative traumaexposure and make them an integralpart of future equipment design.However, there are changes thatcould be implemented at the minesite or when a machine is sent backto the manufacturer for retrofitting.For example: changing control bankheight with regard to operatorposition, installing a padded rail at

HSA Bulletin January 1997

8 back of operatorcompartment,and utilizinganti-fatigue matsor shoe inserts.

It is antici-pated that minescould use therecommendationsto provide roofbolter operatorswith task specifictraining. Elementsfor this trainingwould include:awareness of thetypes of injuriesconsistent withcumulativetrauma exposure,awareness of riskfactors thatcontribute to cumulative trauma,proper materials handling proce-dures, and work procedures toreduce bending, lifting and reachingduring bolt installation tasks. Trainingcan have a more immediate impactthan equipment redesign. Although,for many issues addressed in thisevaluation, the impact will not be aseffective as changes to equipment.

The mine environment provides aunique challenge to equipmentdesigners and places significantconstraints on the design of equip-ment. However, manufacturers willoften build a machine for use at aspecific mine operation. When thisoccurs there is an opportunity forbuilder and customer to identifyelements important to worker safety.Many of the issues presented may beaddressed by options or featurescurrently available or may beincorporated during machineconstruction. In order to ensure thatthe right tool is used for the job athand there must be clear communi-cation between designer and user.Therefore, it is apparent that themost effective long term solutionwould be for mine operators andmanufacturers to work together to

evaluate existing equipment and todevelop future generations of miningequipment that incorporate soundergonomic design principles.

REFERENCES:Butani, S. J. and Bartholomew, A. M.(1988). Characterization of the 1986Coal Mining Workforce. U.S. Bureauof Mines, IC 9192.

Carson, R. (September 1993). How toStart a Successful Ergonomics Program.Occupational Hazards, pp. 122- 127.

Fraser, T. M. (1989). The Worker atWork. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis Inc.

Gallagher, S., Bobick, T. G., and Unger,R. L. (1989). Reducing Back Injuries inLow-Coal Mines: Redesign ofMaterials-Handling Tasks. U.S.Bureau of Mines, IC 9235.

Grandjean, E. (1988). Fitting the Taskto the Man. Philadelphia, Pa.: Taylor &Francis Inc., 4th edition.

Hamrick, C. A. (January 1992).Ergonomics in Mining: ErgonomicIntervention Strategies. AppliedOccupational EnvironmentalHygiene, pp. 14-16.

NASA, Staff of Anthropology ResearchProject (1978). Anthropometric SourceBook; Volume Id: A Handbook ofAnthropometric Data. NASAReference Publication 1024.

National Mining Association (1995).Facts About Coal. Washington, D.C.:National Mining Association.

O’Green, J. E., Peters, R. H., and Cecala,A. B. (1992). AEP Fuel Supply’sErgonomic Approach to Reducing BackInjuries. Proceedings of 23rd AnnualInstitute on Mining Health, Safetyand Research, VPI, Blacksburg, Va., pp.187-195.

Pheasant, S. (1986). Bodyspace:Anthropometry, Ergonomics andDesign. Philadelphia, Pa.: Taylor &Francis Inc.

Putz-Anderson, V. (1988). Cumulativetrauma disorders: A manual formusculoskeletal diseases of the upperlimbs. Bristol, Pa.: Taylor & Francis Inc.

Turin, F. C. and others (1996). HumanFactors Analysis of Roof BoltingHazards in Underground Coal Mines.U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 9568.

Wilson, J. R. and Grey, S. M. (1984).Reach requirements and job attitudes atlaser-scanner checkout systems.Ergonomics, 27 (12), 1247-1266.

Related internet resourcesHuman Factors Recommendations forUnderground Mobile MiningEquipment. Accessible throughNIOSHPRC World Wide Web pagelocated at www.usbm.gov, last modifiedOctober 7, 1996.

Other dutiesas assigned…in betweenbolting entriesthis minerhelps securethe brattice.

HSA Bulletin January 1997

10

Fatality summary, January-December 1996This article updates the status offatalities occurring in both coal andmetal/nonmetal mines from Januarythrough December of 1996. Basedon preliminary accident reports, asof December 31, 1996, 84 fatalitiesoccurred at coal and metal/nonmetal mining operations. During1996, coal experienced 38 fatalitiesand metal/nonmetal had 46fatalities. Powered haulage fatalitiesin both coal and metal/nonmetalwere the most frequent accidentclassification—36 percent of thetotal fatal injuries.

Summary of coal andmetal/nonmetalstatistics:

Coal miningTwelve of the fatalities wereclassified as powered haulageand nine were classified as fall ofroof/rib. Twelve coal fatalitiesoccurred each in Kentucky andWest Virginia. Twenty-sevenfatalities occurred undergroundand eleven occurred on thesurface.

Metal/NonmetalminingEighteen of the fatalities were classified aspowered haulage. Slip or fall of personaccidents accounted for five fatalities.Falling or sliding materials accidentsaccounted for four fatalities, and threefatalities each were classified as: fall ofroof or back, handling materials,machinery and “other”. Fifteen fatalitiesoccurred at limestone operations and tenoccurred at sand and gravel operations.Thirty-four fatalities occurred at surfaceoperations, and twelve fatalities occurredunderground.

Submitted by: John ForteMSHA Academy, Beckley, WV

Electrical

Explosives and breaking agents

Fall of face/highwall

Fall of roof/rib

Falling/sliding material

Hand tools

Handling materials

Outburst

Ignition/explosion of gas

Machinery

Other

Powered haulage

Slip/fall of person

Metal/Nonmetal

Coal

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

ACCIDENT CLASSIFICATION

FATALITY SUMMARY, JANUARY-DECEMBER 1996*

* Based on preliminary accident reports as of 12/31/96

HSA Bulletin January 1997

11

Hidden costs of on-the-job injuriesadd up to more than timeHow many dollars do you lose eachyear because of on the job injuries?$5,000?, $50,000? Usually, we call themaccidents but that is too easy a term fora very involved process.

Every day in your [mine or] plantthere are accidents of one kind oranother: minor falls, slips, strains, cuts,spills, near misses. Ninety-nine percentof these accidents go unreported and,usually, go unnoticed. The onlyaccidents reported are those resultingin an injury requiring some medicalattention other than first aid.

And it’s these job-related injuriesthat often result in some time lost fromthe job—from a few hours to severalweeks, depending upon the severity ofthe injuries. More important, thesetime-loss injuries contribute heavily to

the compilation of each company’sworkers’ compensation premiums.

Necessary expensesAs profit margins continue to shrink formine owners and competition becomeskeener, many mine operators aresearching for ways in which to cutoverhead—from cutting back on thenumber of employees to abolishingunprofitable services. A line item inevery company’s operating budget is:Workers’ Compensation Premiums, anecessary expense of doing business.

What are your annual workers,compensation premiums—$10,000,$25,000, $50,000 or more? Check itout, and at the same time check outyour time loss injures over the pastthree years (premiums are based on

the time-loss injuries of the past threeyears).

Workers’ compensation premiumsare based on the sum of threecalculatons:• Job risk rate—How accident-proneis a particular job? Obviously a roofbolter or a common laborer has moreof an injury risk than an office clerk.There are over 700 job risk classifica-tions, and the higher the job riskclassification, the higher the job riskrate.• Applicable wages rate—Thehigher the wages paid to a particulargroup of workers such as roof bolteroperators or continuous mineroperators or muckers, the higher thewages rate that compose the secondpart of workers’ compensation

Holmes Safety Assocation proposedconstitution changesIn accordance with Section 15 ofthe Holmes Safety AssociationBylaws, Section 11(d) selection isproposed to be amended as follows:

Amendment to Sec.11(d)Holmes Safety Assoc.BylawsIn order to reflect the National Scopeof the Holmes Safety Association, theAnnual Society spring meetinglocation should be rotated among thefollowing four zones listed below.Annual meeting site location will berotated in the following order: Zoneone, Zone two, Zone three, Zonefour. Each year, at the annual springmeeting, representatives from thefollowing four zones may petitionExecutive Committee to consider theirparticular location as a meeting sitefor the next meeting in theirparticular zone. Should no represen-tative of a particular zone desire to

host the next annual meeting, theannual meeting site will be rotated tothe next zone.

Zone 1Mississippi TennesseeWest Virginia South CarolinaMaryland LouisianaAlabama VirginiaGeorgia Washington, DCArkansas KentuckyNorth Carolina Florida

Zone 2Missouri WashingtonMontana South DakotaIowa WisconsinOregon WyomingNebraska AlaskaIllinois IdahoNorth Dakota Minnesota

Zone 3Michigan OhioNew York ConnecticutMaine IndianaNew Jersey Rhode IslandNew Hampshire PennsylvaniaDelaware MassachusettsVermont

Zone 4California ArizonaKansas HawaiiNevada New MexicoOklahoma UtahColorado Texas

Supporting RationaleBy realigning some of the locationsZone 1 and placing them in Zone 2will more evenly distribute therepresentation of Holmes chaptersaround the country.

Submitted by: Robert Glatter, NationalSecretary/Treasurer, HSA

HSA Bulletin January 1997

12 premiums.• Company’s time loss injury(experience) rate—This is wherethose time loss injuries really count.When a worker is injured on the job,workers’ compensation insurance paystwo items—medical costs of the injuryand wage compensation. The medicalcosts depend upon the severity andduration of the injury.

If a preparation plant worker hurtshis back while carrying bags, and theinjury requires back surgery and ahospital stay, the medical bills will bein the thousands of dollars. However, ifthe injury is a mild back strain,requiring rest and muscle relaxants, themedical expense is minimal.

Factoring in wagecompensationWage compensation is the other part ofthe time loss experience rate calcula-tion. Any wages lost as the result of ajob injury are usually compensated at2/3 of the injured worker’s regularhourly rate up to a state-imposedmaximum of so much per week. Thisweekly maximum is usually higher injurisdictions where the cost of living ishigher.

Every hour an injured worker ispaid via workers’ wage compensation,wage compensation increases thatcompany’s experience rate. Medicalcosts and wage compensation togetheraccount for the company’s loss-timeinjury experience rate.

In terms of the three items thatdetermine workers’ comp premiums,the first two are about the same for allmining companies.

Mining companies have similarkinds of employees—continuous mineroperators, haulage truck operators,general laborers, loader operators, etc.Also, in each locality, employers pay

their employees about the same wagesin order to remain competitive in thelabor market

For the most part there are novariables with these first two items thatcomprise workers’ comp premiums. Itis with the loss-time experience ratethat the differences occur: Any operatorwith few or no time-loss injuries has anadvantage over a competitor since hisworkers’ comp premiums will be less.

Direct costsFurther, there is another variable,

often overlooked, with time-lossinjuries. Workers’ compensationinsurance companies claim that theworkers’ compensation premiumspaid are only one part of theemployee injury expense. Thepremiums they pay are the visible ordirect costs of on the job injuries.

These direct costs are only the tipof the total injury iceberg.

Adding up hidden costsThere are also indirect costs which areseldom accounted for. These indirect orhidden costs are: lost time to supervi-sor and co-workers when the injuryoccurred; lost time in investigating theinjury; lost time in completing all thepaper work involved; lost time infinding a replacement; lost time inhiring and training a replacement;overtime paid to make up for lost timein replacing the injured worker; loss ofproductivity with a new crew membersuch as slower production, damage toequipment and tools; payment of wagesto the injured worker when he/shereturns to part-time light duty. And thehidden costs to the company do notaccount for the economic loss to theinjured worker and his/her family.

To calculate the dollars lost inhidden injury costs, insurance

companies use the factor of four timesthe actual medical and wage compensa-tion costs. So for each lost-time injury,add together the medical and compen-sation costs from your worker’s compinsurance company report and multiplyby four (hidden costs) to arrive at thetotal cost of that particular time lossinjury.

If you have no accidents in anyparticular year, the only injury costsyou have are your workers’ compensa-tion premiums. Also, for every year inwhich you have no lost-time injuries, orin which you decrease your time lossesfrom the previous year, your premiumsdecrease. Conversely, each time lossinjury increases, your premiumsincrease as well as your hidden costs.

A bottom-lineconsiderationWorkplace safety is a bottom-lineconsideration. Many mining companieschalk up literally thousands of dollarsin workers’ comp premiums and injuryhidden costs to “the cost of doingbusiness” with little or no thoughttoward the establishment and enforce-ment of a strong safety program. Safetyprograms, even with incentive projects,are much less expensive than the injurycosts outlined above.

But employee injuries are not a wayof life in the workplace and are not anecessary cost of doing business.Rather, most injuries can be preventedwith a company mindset that is directedtoward instituting a company safetyprogram that has both incentives andenforcement.

Arthur H. Bishop is an OSHA/EPAcompliance consultant/trainer andprincipal with HazComm Inc., based inthe Wasington, D.C. area.

HSA Bulletin articles categorizedSpecial thanks go to Robert McGee ofthe Pennsylvania Bureau of DeepMine Safety for submitting copies of

the HSA articles by category fromMay 1989-December 1996. If you areinterested in obtaining a copy of this

categorized listing, please contact BobGlatter at (703) 235-8264 or MerleMoore at (304) 256-3531.

HSA Bulletin January 1997

14

Alternativearrangementsby Alan L. Dessoff

Every other week, most employees inthe headquarters of ARCO CoalCompany in Denver, Colo., take athree-day weekend. They also cantake President’s Day, Good Friday andVeterans Day holidays either on theirdesignated days, or whenever theywant throughout the year.At The Doe Run Company’s head-quarters in St. Louis, Mo., employeescan arrive and leave a half hourearlier or later than the company’snormal working hours of 8 a.m. to4:30 p.m.

Meanwhile, at some of Doe Run’smines and mills, workers put inl0-hour shifts, three days on and

three days off. Similarly, PhelpsDodge Corporation is experimentingwith four days of 12-hour shiftsfollowed by four days off at one of itsfield operations.

Flexible scheduling like this ispart of a trend in American businessand industry to provide workplaceoptions for employees withoutjeopardizing operating efficiency. Infact, according to a recent article inHemispheres magazine, managementconsulting firm Hewitt Associatesfound that 73 percent of the majorcorporations it surveyed in 1995offered flex time.

Many companies that have tried

flex time say it boosts employeemorale and productivity, which gohand-in-hand, thereby generatingpositive bottomline results. Miningcompanies that have adoptedalternative schedules have been ableto lower costs per ton by 10 to 20percent—“a dramatic improvement,”according to Richard Coleman,president of Coleman ConsultingGroup in Koss, Calif.

Phelps Dodge employees whowork the four-and-four schedule aretruck shop, field maintenance, andelectrical workers at the company’smine in Tyrones, N.M. “They havenearly perfect” attendance, reportsTom Foster, Phelps Dodge vicepresident and controller. “So itevidently has an impact on theirenjoyment of their work,” he says.

Circumstances dictateNot all workplace operations lendthemselves to alternate workscheduling like flex time in offices ordifferent shift structures in mines andmanufacturing facilities. “We will onlyconsider those types of scheduleswhen they have no negative impacton operations, stresses James Stack,vice president of human resources atDoe Run. While employee conve-nience is a key factor, work schedul-ing basically is a business decision.

Coleman agrees. “It’s a cost-efficiency measure. Meeting custom-ers’ needs better and stayingcompetitive are driving morecompanies to alternative schedules,”Coleman asserts. “Their goal is tolower costs per ton.”

Often, says Coleman, alternativeschedules are determined bydecisions to operate some industrialfacilities or the equipment in themmore hours than at other places.“Sometimes it makes more sense torun your best piece of equipment allthe time; or to shut down two olderplants here, but run five other newer,more efficient plants around theclock.”

Union rules determine work

HSA Bulletin January 1997

15

schedules in many types of jobs, andarrangements that differ from thenorm frequently are subject to labornegotiations.

“However,” says Coleman, “thelast industry contract with the UnitedMine Workers of America produced abreakthrough,” allowing union andmanagement for the first time toagree on different types of schedulingat individual sites.

As a result, some miningcompanies “are just starting to lookat creative schedules,” says Coleman.While the companies’ incentive is tobe competitive with non union mines,workers recognize that maintainingthat competitiveness will preservejobs and boost company profits—good news for labor and managementalike.

Doe Run instituted its alternativework options for the convenience ofits employees. Driving to and from

corporate headquarters proved to bea difficult commute for someemployees because of the building’slocation. Highway construction in thearea aggravated the problem.

So Doe Run began offeringlimited flex time schedules. With theapproval of their supervisors,employees can work from 7:30 to 4or 8:30 to 5 if it helps them avoidtraffic tie-ups during normalcommuting hours, explains Stack.

At Doe Run, the locations of thecompany’s mines and mills presentother problems. They are mostly inrural areas, which means someemployees must drive 50 miles ormore each way every day, says Stack.Under the alternate work scheduleavailable to them, they still put in a40-hour week but in only four workdays, not five, thereby reducingdriving time and mileage.

Similarly, Caterpillar Inc.,headquartered in Peoria, Ill., allowsemployees to start work between 7and 8 a.m. and leave accordingly,says Emmy Wright, public communi-cations representative.

In addition to easing transporta-tion problems, flexible arrangementsalso allows employees “to accommo-date their personal schedules better,”says Wright. For single-parenthouseholds or families with twowage-earners, flexible working hoursallow employees to coordinateschedules with caregivers for childrenor elderly relatives.

With more continuous time off,many employees devote time toself-improvement. Several suchemployees working flexible schedulesat the Phelps Dodge mine havesigned up to take courses at nearbyWestern New Mexico State University,

HSA Bulletin January 1997

16 reports Foster.

Enlarging the scopeARCO Coal’s hourly employees haveworked different shift schedules—8,10 or 12 hours—for years, depend-ing on operational needs, saysCharlene Wilson, manager ofcompensation and benefits Now thecompany is considering offering thosearrangements to human resources,accounting and other supportpersonnel at the mines. As at DoeRun, it has to do with the length oftheir commute,” states Wilson.

Meanwhile, at ARCO’s headquar-ters in Denver, office employees enjoyseveral flexible work options. Arrivingand leaving at different times is onlyone of them.

Most ARCO employees work 9days in two weeks and every otherweek, they can take a three-dayweekend. In the first week, they putin 9-hour days Monday throughThursday, with 8 hours on Friday,totaling 44 hours. The next week,they again work four 9-hour days,totaling 36 hours, but take Friday off.

It averages 40 hours a week, and

ARCO has arranged it so half thegroup is off one Friday and half thenext. Thus, a partial staff is alwaysthere.

The flex time option “has goneover extremely well; people love it,because they have that three-dayweekend every other week,” Wilsondeclares. Some employees, she notes,have chosen to stick to a traditionalfive-day. 8-hours-a-day schedule.

Then there are the holidays. Thisyear, for the first time, ARCOremoved President’s Day, Good Fridayand Veterans Day from the standardholiday schedule in its Denver office.Instead of closing, the office remainsopen on those days. Employees stillcan stay home and observe theholidays as designated, or they cango to work and take the holiday timewherever they want, perhaps adding itto their vacations.

You always can come up withattractive schedules for employees,”says Coleman. “They may not betraditional, but a lot of people preferschedules that give them more timeoff.”

Finally, ARCO Coal has initiated

another change in office procedure.It has extended casual dress onFriday, a popular practice throughoutcorporate America, to the rest of theweek. Now, employees can come towork every day wearing just aboutanything—within reason.

We haven’t had to counselanybody about inappropriate dress,”says Wilson. “People love it.”

ARCO Coal sees no need,however, to extend the practice to itsfield operations. “They obviously havecasual dress there all the time,”quips Wilson.

No matter what changes compa-nies choose to make, one thing isclear: most employees appreciate alittle flexibility. As competitionincreases for workers with top skills,offering the benefit of alternativework schedules may help companiesattract and keep both their peopleand their loyalty—perhaps the bestbenefits for the company to have.

Reprinted from the May/June 1996 issueof MiningVoice.

1997 National Conference toEliminate SilicosisA National Conference to EliminateSilicosis, sponsored by MSHA, OSHA,NIOSH and the American LungAssociation, will be held March25-26, 1997, in Washington, D.C. Theconference will provide a forum forrepresentatives of business, labor,health professionals, and thegovernment to exchange informationand share specific techniques toprevent silicosis. The two-day eventwill highlight best practices inequipment and engineering controls

and training, respiratory protection,and health surveillance programs, aswell as other timely topics. The goalis to have every participant leave theconference armed with practical waysto control silica dust and preventsilicosis, along with knowing whereto turn for advice or help. Anyonewho plays a part in controllingworkers’ exposure to crystalline silicashould not miss this dynamic forum.This includes small and largeemployers, managers, workers, health

and safety committee members,representatives of labor organizationsand trade associations, industrialhygienists, engineers, trainers,occupational health nurses andphysicians, and representatives fromfederal, state and local governments.For further information and registra-tion details, contact Donna Greenwith MSHA at (703) 235-2625.