Injuries Associated with Underground Coal Mining Equipment in Australia

Abstract

Abstract:In the 3 years to June 30, 2008, 4,633 injuries occurring underground at NSW (Australia) coal mines were reported to the insurer. Equipment was involved in 2149 of these injuries (46%). The narrative field accompanying these reports was examined to determine opportunities for controlling injury risks. The most common equipment types involved were: Continuous miner (12% of all underground injuries); Bolting machines (6%); LHD (8%); Longwall (7%); Personnel Transport (4%); and Shuttle Car (3%). The most common combinations of equipment and mechanism were: strains while handling items associated with continuous miner or bolting machines; strains, or being struck by, or caught between, while drilling or bolting on a continuous miner or bolting machine; driving or traveling over rough roads in a variety of equipment; being struck by while operating Longwall equipment. Rare, but high potential consequence events reported during the period included: interactions between personnel and mobile equipment; interactions between personnel and Longwall shield movements; transport equipment collisions. A range of potential short-term control measures for these risks have been identified, including monorails for continuous miner services; redesign of continuous miner platforms and bolting rigs to reduce reach distances during drilling and bolting; improvements to guarding of bolting controls; standardisation and shape coding of bolting controls; two handed fast-speed drilling & bolting; improvements in underground roadway maintenance, vehicle suspension, visibility and seating; and proximity detection devices interlocked with mobile equipment controls. Longer term control measures include automated bolting, and mesh placement, in conjunction with either non-line-of-sight remote control of, or automated, continuous mining machines.

Using a case study fatality to depict the limits of proximity detection systems for articulating, underground machinery

“…In some of the fatalities, the operator was unaware of where the victim was positioned, suggesting that a proximity detection system could have improved situational awareness for the operator and prevent the accident. In many other cases, the operator was the victim or knew where the victim was located just prior to the accident (Burgess-Limerick, 2011). In these cases, the role of proximity devices is less clear, and the design of the system becomes an important consideration.…”

Visual feedback system to reduce errors while operating roof bolting machines

“…Errors in the operation of roof bolters have caused many fatalities and injuries. Injuries caused by intentional control operation can be divided into the following categories: the wrong control was operated; the correct control was operated in the wrong direction; the intended control was operated in the intended direction while the injured employee (a roof bolter operator or another person) was in a position of danger (Burgess-Limerick, Krupenia, Zupanc, Wallis, & Steiner, 2010;Burgess-Limerick & Steiner, 2006, 2011.…”

Rapid Roadway Development

“…The methods currently employed to deliver, handle and install the consumable materials require high levels of human intervention and cannot be improved to the rates needed to support longwall production. Additionally, the manual handling support activities are carried out in a confined space in close proximity of rotating components, contributing to the high rates of injuries reported by personnel working on CMs (Burgess-Limerick, 2011). Australian mine design guidelines ("Guideline for bolting", 2010) have been introduced in an attempt to reduce the risks associated with operating this equipment, however the rates required for rapid roadway development are likely to undermine this progress and dramatically increase the load, fatigue and injury rates of personnel.…”