Coal Age Magazine - For more than 100 years, Coal Age has been the magazine that readers can trust for guidance and insight on this important industry.
Issue link: https://coal.epubxp.com/i/961722
38 www.coalage.com March 2018 dust compliance continued the rock dust, while in the winter the rock dust dries quicly and more water is needed to minimize excess dust libera- tion from haulageways. Watering Down Areas All of the workers interviewed believed that they were using more water than prior to the CPDM, realizing the impact water can have on preventing dust liberation. Two of the mines visited had both longwall and contin- uous mining. To their surprise, supervisors and miners felt that managing the dust in their longwall section was fairly easy. One supervisor said, "We thought it would be harder there but it's not. We did evaluations where we followed the shearers on the long- wall and were really surprised." Miners said that the key is to use a lot of water on the longwall shearer, as well as the shield sprays. Ventilation The workers interviewed shared that the biggest dust control measure they can do is to maintain their ventilation. Several miners referenced the increased attention to problems identified in the mine's venti- lation plans, resulting in improved respon- siveness to these issues. Non-compliance Situations Situations and responses were also shared when mines encountered non-compli - ant samples. Almost all of these stemmed from miners engaging in activities out- side the scope of their normal day-to-day duties. For example, a supervisor shared an incident that occurred with one of his Part 90 miners whose sample exceeded the allowable limit. After referring to the dust data cards to retrace his workday, the miner and supervisor determined that the overexposure occurred when there was a coal spill and the Part 90 miner was help- ing to clean up the area. To prevent overexposure during these non-routine situations, a notable, broad corrective action discussed was improve- ments in housekeeping practices. Most people talked about the need to improve housekeeping efforts to ensure compli- ance with the 1.5 mg/m 3 . One CMO said, "I was surprised to see that I got big spikes when changing torque shafts. We've had to improve our housekeeping to prevent exposure during activities we're less fa- miliar doing or don't have to do as much. This has been especially important for maintenance activities." Housekeeping corrective actions often occur during pre- shift examinations or just prior to starting equipment for the day, such as spraying down and cleaning the CMM to reduce dust liberated before starting production. Additionally, several roof bolters indi- cated that just standing by their dust-cov- ered equipment during breaks or while eating lunch was when their highest dust peaks were registering on the CPDM. Of course, this exposure can change depend- ing on the cleanliness of the machine or if the bolter, in particular, is positioned downwind of the miner at the same time. In response, several miners noted re- treating to a different area to take breaks or cleaning portions of their equipment more frequently prior to taking a break. Finally, electricians, although not a typical DO or ODO sampling occupa- tion, discussed some of their test samples being out of compliance and tracing the reason back to blowing off tools prior to use, liberating respirable dust right in their breathing zone. Next Steps for Mines While previous recent papers have out- lined the initial response of mines while learning how to use the CPDM (e.g., Haas, Willmer, & Meadows, 2016; Haas & Helton, 2017), this article highlighted the correc- tive actions that have been implement- ed and, in some cases, sustained among DOs and ODOs. Many of these corrective actions have already been studied and recommended in best practices for dust control in the industry (see Colinet et al., 2010). However, all corrective actions shared by the interviewed miners may not have successful application at other mine sites where operating conditions may be different. Although the dust rule is still posing some challenges for the industry that have been well documented in various pub- lic forums, miners have noted positive changes in their knowledge and awareness of respirable dust sources. As one min- er said, "Something I really didn't think about before was that you can see the dust but that's not necessarily the most harmful dust. Like, if I don't see anything I wonder if I'm in more harm now—be- cause I can watch the peaks and seeing dust doesn't always correlate with what the readings show." The responses from the participating miners show that using the CPDM raised awareness of dust-producing situations and prompted responses to lower dust exposures, which is a major benefit of the CPDM that can be realized by all mining operations. Moving forward, hopefully corrective actions will become second na- ture for all DOs and ODOs whether they are wearing the CPDM or not. If so, they can significantly reduce their respirable dust exposure during any given work shift. Emily J. Haas is a lead research behavior- al scientist for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Jay F. Colinet is a principal mining engineer for NIOSH. Both work at the Pitts- burgh Mining Research Division. Haas can be reached at wcq3@cdc.gov. References 1. Code of Federal Regulations (30 CFR Parts 70, 71, 72, 75, and 90). Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. Mine Safety and Health Administration, Depart- ment of Labor. RIN 1219-AB64. 2. Colinet, J.F.; Rider, J.P.; Listak, J.M.; Organiscak, J.A.; & Wolfe, A.L. (2010). Best practices for dust control in coal mining. Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Na- tional Institute for Occupational Safe- ty and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publi- cation No. 2010-110, Information Circular 9517, January 2010; :1-76. 3. Haas, E. & Helton, J. (2017). "How Miners in Low Coal Respond to the CPDM." Mining People Magazine, April/May Issue, pp. 42-44. 4. Haas, E.; Willmer, D.; Meadows, J. (2016). "Using CPDM Dust Data." Coal Age, February issue, 40-41. 5. MSHA (2009). Accident, illness and injury, and employment self-ex- tracting files (Part 50 Date). U.S. De- partment of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Office of In- jury and Employment Information, Denver, Colorado. https://arlweb. msha.gov/STATS/part50/.