A Profile of Workers' Experiences and 

Preparedness in Responding 

to Underground Mine Fires 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mission Statement 

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of 

the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally-owned 

public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, 

wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental 

and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. 

The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and 

works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of 

all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility 

for American Indian reservation communities and for people who 

live in island territories under U.S. administration. 
Report of Investigations 9584 

A Profile of Workers' Experiences and 

Preparedness in Responding 

to Underground Mine Fires 

By Charles Vaught, Barbara Fotta, William J. Wiehagen, 

Ronald S. Conti, and Richard S. Fowkes 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bruce Babbitt, Secretary 

BUREAU OF MINES 

Rhea Lydia Graham, Director 
International Standard Serial Number 

ISSN 1M-5552 
CONTENTS 

Abstract ............................................................................. .. 1 

Introduction ......................................................................... 2 

. Background ........................................................................ 3 

Study settings and methodology ............................................................ 6 

Selectionofmines ................................................................. 6 

Selection of miners and interview protocol ............................................... 7 

Analysisofthedata .................................................................. 8 

Preparedness to evacuate ............................................................ 8 

Experience with incipient fire .......................................................... 9 

Underground fire-fighting experience ..................................................... 11 

Workers' perceptions of training and readiness for fire fighting ................................ 12 

Miners' perceptions of their work ixews as fire-fighting units .................................. 14 

Suggested improvements in fire-fighting preparedness ....................................... 15 

Discussionoftheimplications ........................................................... 16 ... 'Acknowledgments ..................................................................... 17 

References ......................................................................... 17 

Appendix-Intemew guide ............................................................. 19 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Percentage of miners notified to evacuate the mine because of a fire ........................... 9 

Percentage of miners walking escapeways ............................................... 9 

Miners'lastfiredrii .............................................................. 9 

Percentage of miners who have donned an SCSR or FSR in an emergency ...................... 10 

Percentage of miners caught off guard by the sight or smell of smoke .......................... 10 

Source of fire for miners caught off guard .............................................. 11 

Last time source of smoke was not on miner's section ...................................... 11 

Percentage of miners with direct experience in underground fire fighting ........................ 11 

Miners involved in fighting fires ...................................................... 12 

Percentage of miners reporting hands-on experience with various means of fire suppression .......... 13 

Mine-specific training in underground fire fighting ........................................ 14 

Percentage of miners who feel they have an acceptable level of fire-fighting skills .................. 14 

Percentage of miners reporting having specific duties if there is a fire on their section .............. 14 

Contidence level of miners .......................................................... 15 

Training improvements ............................................................ 15 

TABLES 

1 . Minedescriptions ................................................................ 7 

2 . Summary of demographic information for miners overall and mines A through G ................. 7 

3 . Percentage of miners self-reporting special training. certification. or routine performance of certain tasks 8 

4 . Cumulative frequencies with which miners reported either seeing or smelling smoke underground for any 

reason ....................................................................... 10 
UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 

Metric UniQ 

cm centimeter L/min liter per minute 

h hour m meter 

bn kilometer mh minute 

kPa kilopascal t metric ton 

U.S. Custmarv Units 

ft foot psi pound per square inch 

gpm gallon per minute 
A PROFILE OF WORKERS' EXPERIENCES AND PREPAREDNESS 

IN RESPONDING TO UNDERGROUND MINE FIRES 

By Charles vaught,' Barbara ~0th: William J. ~iehagen? Ronald S. conti: and Richard S. ~owkes' 

ABSTRACT 

The purpose of this study was to determine mine workers' state of fire-fighting preparedness and the 

technology being used to detect and respond to underground coal mine fires. To investigate this 

problem, 214 underground coal miners were interviewed by U.S. Bureau of Mines researchers. Frequency distributions of workers ' responses are presented in this report, along with segments of narrative 

accounts, to profile miners' fue-fighting capabilities. The data indicated that much variability exists from 

mine to mine and that there are several important changes operators may undertake in order to make 

miners better prepared to deal with fire underground: seled appropriate sensors, establish and test a 

warning and communication protocol, construct a system capable of delivering hundreds of gallons of 

water per minute for sustained periods, institute formal fire preparedness audits, develop case studies 

of events that occur at an operation to use as teaching and assessment tools, and provide structured 

practice that can be incorporated into fire drills. 

'~esearch sociologist. 

'Research methodologist. 

'~ndustrial engineer. 

4~re prevention engineer 

'Research physicist. 

Pittsburgh Research Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, PA. 
INTRODUCTION 

Historically, fires have been a leading threat to worker 

safety and to the productive capacity of coal mines in this 

country. During the 1960's and 1970's, approximately 50 

fires per year were reported to Federal authorities. It is 

estimated that in each of those years another 200 nonreportable fires, lasting less than 30 min and involving no 

injury, also took place Because such incidents were 

fairly common occurrences, a sizable portion of the industry had some experience in dealing with them. Additionally, these people shared a robust baseline of information that allowed them to assess improvements in fire 

safety over time. Then, between 1980 and 1990, there 

were, on average, 15 reportable mine fires per year (2). 

This figure represents a significant decline in both the 

number and incidence rates since the late 1970's. It also 

serves as evidence to the industry that efforts to improve 

fire protection have paid off up to this point. 

A perception, voiced at the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Mine Emergency Preparedness Conference, is that mine fires now verge upon the nonroutine 

(3). This welcome reduction in mine fues presents several 

interesting considerations. First, people who are relatively 

new in underground mining may never have had to respond during a serious fire event. Such a condition may 

foster complacence. Second, those seeking to justify continued improvements in fue safety can draw upon fewer 

than one-third of the reported cases they would have had 

as examples two decades ago. Thus, their most readily 

available database has been eroded to the point that reportable fires will be less reliable as a dependent measure 

of effect. Any treatment, in the form of some widely 

adopted new technology, for instance, could not show a 

large reduction in the absolute number of mine fires reported each year because there are not that many to begin 

with. Yet, there are enormous potential social and economic costs accruing to any one of those fires that do 

occur annually. 

That potential became reality at some operations during 

the past decade. The 1984 Wiberg disaster, near Orangeville, UT, claimed 27 lives. The permanent sealing of Beth 

Energy's Marianna Mine in 1988 and National Mines' 

Mathies operation in 1990 cost over 1,000 jobs in Washington County, PA. Added to these very real losses is the 

probability that millions of tons of high-quality coal will 

now go unrecovered. It should be clear that the capacity 

to detect and then safely exhguish an incipient mine fire 

is a critical one. This is a capability that ought to be 

developed and supported at all underground coal mines. 

Although few would argue against this need, it opens or 

qtalic numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of references 

preceding the appendix at the end of this report. 

suggests an interesting question: How does one measure 

this capability? Progress in "mine fire preparednessn implies an ability to measure gains over time, at both the 

minesite and aggregate levels. What levels of assessment 

are useful, for the individual minesite, to offer insightful 

information concerning fire prevention, detection, and response capabilities? There is evidence that capability can 

be equated with a readiness to act rapidly and effectively. 

For certain, quick respense implies components of both 

people and technology. 

Elapsed time between the onset of a fue and its detection is critical because fires tend to grow quickly in size 

and intensity (4). Although there is no clear official position on first response, some experts feel that ordinary 

workers will fight a fue regardless of whether they are 

really prepared to. As one miner put it: 

From what I understand, mine rescue is basically after the fact . . . What you really need is to do something before it gets to the point that you have to call 

mine rescue in. . . The biggest threat to our employment . . , has got to be fire. 

In other words, many rank-and-file miners now believe 

that if fire strikes, their livelihoods are at stake. At axy 

rate, it is these miners who are likely to be the first responders if a fire occurs at an operation. Since the first 

few hours are crucial, according to Mitchell (9, efforts of 

ordinary workers and front-line supervisors may actually 

have the best chance of preventing a mine from beii 

sealed because of a fire. Though their role is pivotal, not 

much is known about how well the underground work 

force might be able to perform. The potential for making 

a fue situation worse, as a result of taking some type of 

action, is all the more reason for learning more about 

miners' fire-fighting preparedness. The exploratory study 

reported here discusses some technology that might give 

miners better warning and ability to fight fues, and then 

provides an assessment of such individuals' fire-fighting 

readiness. 

Another issue, concerning the assessment of response 

capability, presents an interesting notion. A decline in the 

number of reportable fires is a gross indicator that allows 

experts to say something about the underground coal industry generally There has been some improvement in 

overall mine fire preparedness. However, such an indicator is less reliable as a predictor of readiness at any 

particular operation. An indication of fire-fighting preparedness would have to be assessed from evidence gathered at the minesite. In other words, there are two levels 

from which to view the problem. On a general level, there 

has been signiticant improvement in the industry's fire 
response capabilities over the past two decades. Specif- based on data collected by the US. Bureau of Mines 

ically, however, few data have been gathered on a site-by- (USBM) at an array of underground coal mines in the 

site basis to determine what improvements might be made United States, will help to focus attention on some central 

on a local level. These improvements would move beyond concerns involving this critical issue. This study is in supregulatory compliance. It is expected that this report, port of the USBM mission to improve mine safety. 

BACKGROUND 

When fire prevention fails, early detection and warning 

permit action to be taken in a mine while the blaze is in 

its incipient stage or still small. Over 70% of the fires that 

are detected within 15 min result in only light damage to 

a mine. Delays in detection have caused many fires to be 

sealed rather than controlled by direct attack (5). Such 

delays stem largely from the way fires are detected in most 

mines. Point-type heat detectors, for instance, are supposed to activate when ambient air temperature reaches 

some criterion level or when a certain rate of heat increase 

occurs. Small enclosed areas are where these detectors 

are best used. In a conveyor belt entry, though, the fire is 

likely to have grown significantly by the time a point-type 

heat detector activates an alarm. Other thermal sensors 

such as a distributed fiber optics system have shown promise for early warning (6). Carbon monoxide (CO) and 

point-type detectors are considered equivalent under Federal regulations (30 CFR, Part 75, Subpart GFue Protection) if installed according to MSHA specifications. CO 

detectors, however, could be more practical since CO is 

produced before flames erupt and does not generally decrease with distance unless it is diluted by an external flow 

of air, such as from another entry. Even so, a dependence 

on CO detection can be hampered by false alarms due to 

fumes, diesel exhaust gases, welding, cutting, or blasting. 

Litton (7) discussed an approach that can be used with 

the present level of technology Mine fire detection is done 

using CO and smoke detectors, both of which are productof-combustion fire sensors. These sensors are designed to 

detect the CO and smoke from a smoldering or flaming 

fire wried in the mine ventilation entries. For flxed sensor alarm thresholds, very small fires may be detectable at 

low ventilation airflows. Fires would be much larger before they reached the same alarm level at higher airflows. 

The setting of alarm thresholds most often depends upon 

the mine background level of either CO or submicrometer 

particles. Alarm thresholds should be significantly higher 

than those background levels to protect against false 

alarms of the sensors (8). At the same time, however, 

sensors should not be too insensitive-that is, they should 

not have such high alarm thresholds they are incapable of 

detecting fues in their earlier stages of development. 

Advances in sensor technology need to be made, 

especially for applications in diesel-operated mines where 

the diesel combustion products often overwhelm the fire 

products and cause detection systems to have a low level 

of reliability. Litton (9) described a novel fire detector developed by the USBM that can be used to discriminate between smoke produced by a fire and smoke produced by 

a diesel engine. The detector depends upon pyrolysis 

(chemical change brought about by the action of heat). 

This change occurs when a sample of smoke-laden gas 

passes through a short, heated tube. Inside the tube, fire 

smoke particles increase their number concentration and 

decrease their average size, while diesel smoke particles 

are unaffected. The detector is designed to be used in 

mines that have diesel-powered equipment, where the detection of fires is complicated because of the diesel emissions background levels of smoke and other products of 

combustion. A prototype pyrolysis fire detector was evaluated in a series of intermediate-scale tests, and its performance was very encouraging (10). With this device, the 

problems of false alarms of fire sensors due to dieselproduced combustion products can be reduced if not totally eliminated. 

Laage, Pomroy, and Bartholomew (11) discussed 

USBM research aimed at developing a strategy to detect 

and locate mine fires in real time using a minimum of selectively placed sensors coupled with computer-aided data 

interpretation. The impetus for this work stemmed from 

the fact that it is impractical to install detectors at every 

desired location in an underground mine. The sheer size 

of a mine, including abandoned workings and unsafe locations, precludes sensor installations from both safety and 

economic standpoints. The net effect is that some fues 

are detected and located early, but the location of others, 

even if detected early, remains unknown too long for effective evacuation and fire fighting. Thus, an algorithm 

was developed to utilize the real-time outputs from a system of strategically placed underground detectors as inputs 

to a computer model for determining the location of an 

underground mine fire. 

The algorithm involves three steps: instrumentation, 

computer simulation, and fue location determination. 
Using the fire location algorithm, a hypothetical case study 

experiment was performed. The objective of the experiment was to determine whether detector locations could 

be selected that would produce a recognizable pattern of 

combustion product arrival times for every potential fire 

location and to determine if a slow-growing fire would adversely affect the performance of the differential arrival 

time algorithm. The subject of the experiment was awr- = 

tion of the ventilation network from the Homestake gold 

mine in Lead, SD. Although the fmdings of this experiment were favorable, such an approach to mine ventilation and fire safety analysis is meant to supplement, not 

supplant, the traditional decision-making processes at a 

mine. The value of the fire location system is in the 

information it supplies to human decision makers? 

Grannes (12) discussed USBM research that investigated the reliabity of mine fire detection and suppression 

systems and the effectiveness of inspection and maintenance practices. There are two basic types of fire suppression systems, the automatic sprinkler type and the firesensor-actuated type. The former uses heat-activated 

sprinkler heads, each opening individually in response to 

fire. The latter uses fire sensors that activate a separate 

fue suppression system (water deluge or directed open water nodes, high-expansion foam generators, dry chemical 

systems). Interviews with MSHA inspectors along with 

field data indicate that the reliabity of mine fire suppression systems can be improved. Limitations of current 

inspection and maintenance practices were discussed. Predictive diagnostics methods were developed and tested in 

the field. The predictive diagnostics methods employ functional parameter measurement to predict wear-out-related 

failures in fire suppression systems. Using these techniques, an intermittent failure of an electrical relay system 

failure was diagnosed and corrected. An impending actuator failure was also noted. Limited field data indicate that 

the actual percentage of unreliable systems is somewhat 

greater or less than 25%. Reliability can be improved by 

careful adherence to standard maintenance and testing 

procedures and by applying preventive maintenance 

techniques. 

When measures for preventing mine fires break down, 

something must be available to take over (13). What is 

needed at this point is suitable fire-fighting equipment and 

personnel trained in its use. The sight of hand-operated 

fire extinguishers is commonplace in mines. Nonetheless, 

persons who have not had occasion to use an extinguisher 

'A discussion of fire warning systems is outside the scope of this 

document. The authors recognize that these systems constitute a critical 

but weak link in werall fire response activity. 

may not know how to operate one effectively (5). Hand 

extinguishers are most useful when fires are in their incipient stages. Extinguishers contain only a small amount 

of agent. Lack of knowledge in their use makes them of 

little utility and even dangerous since misuse on oil and 

other fluid fires can spread the blaze. Rock dust is effective in smothering fires, particularly in their incipient 

skages;if it can be shoveled or dumped by the sackful directly on the fire. Application with a high-pressure dusting 

machine has not been effective because much of the rock 

dust is wasted and the pressure needed to force the dust 

to the fire serves to fan the blaze. Chemical mobile units, 

despite their limited capacities, are useful if they can be 

moved to a fire sufficiently fast. However, water is by far 

the most useful and practical extinguisher once a fire has 

passed the incipient stage (4-5). 

Gallick discussed the one fire in 10,000 that occurs and 

is not easily extinguished but spreads to the roof or ribs of 

the mine, that is, an uncontrolled fire (14). The equipment needed for extinguishing this type of fire is a system 

capable of delivering at least 190 L/min (50 gpm) of water 

at 345 kPa (50 psi) simultaneously to the end points of 

three or more fire hoses. This is a minimum amount, 

while realistically a system capable of delivering about 

2,000 L/min (500 to 600 gpm) may be required. A portable hydrant solves the problems of getting the multiple 

hoses into action and preventing damage to the water lines 

from fire or roof falls, which will cut off the water supply. 

A portable hydrant is nothing more than a piece of pipe 

with an end cap and multiple outlets for fire hose hookups. 

Extended hose lines cause reduced performance because 

of friction losses, so separate large-diameter supply line 

hose that reduces friction loss should be available for installation. Once the fire-fighting equipment is in place, 

water may be needed to be placed on (1) fires covered by 

roof falls (cool by using sprinklers or a probe), (2) stoppings to keep them cool (use a water hose and a spray 

nozzle), and/or (3) inby areas after the fire starts (spray 

bars may be set up to help slow its spread). 

Herbert (15) discussed methods of controlling or suppressing fires other than by direct attack: ventilation 

manipulation, fire-fighting foams, inert gas usage, and 

sealing methods. Ventilation manipulation consists of preventing air from continuing to reach the site of the fire. 

The use of high-expansion foam to control underground 

mine fires has been more recently studied by Conti (16 

17). The results of controlled, in-mine tests in the use of 

foam have met with some success. Another indirect method of fire suppression involves the dispersement of inert 

gas. With this method, nitrogen, an inert gas, has been 

used successfully, on occasion, to control mine fires (18). 

Pump packing, a sealing method, has also been used to 

prevent and reduce the risk of spontaneous combustion of 

coal. This method involves the use of cement-like 
materials that have a capacity for absorbing many times 

their own volume of water and then setting hard. The 

common method of dealing with open fires 'is often that of 

sealing off a main entry. Materials used for temporary 

seals include cement block, lumber, brattice, cloth, and tile 

or brick. Sometimes the location and magnitude of the 

fire make sealing underground inadvisable while sealing of 

surface openings is more feasible. 

Mitchell and Nagy (19) offered explanations to why 

some fires reach major proportions and require sealing for 

controL Their statistic. show there is a 50-50 chance that 

unless a mine fire is extingukhed with a few minutes, it 

cannot be dealt with in less than 8 h. Fie finds abundant 

fuel in many combustibles needed for mining, in addition 

to the coal itself, namely, insulation on cables, hydraulic 

oils, lubricants, tires, brattice cloth, belts, and wooden 

supports. As the flame consumes these fuels, its intensity 

increases, the temperature of the surrounding coal is 

raised, and volatiles are released into the mine atmosphere. These reactions may take minutes or hours. However, should the volatiles be ignited, the fire flashes, 

engulfs the passageways, and creates an inferno. Once 

developed, fire can spread rapidly. Miners must contend 

not only with the intense heat but with an atmosphere that 

is opaque because of black smoke containing toxic and 

flammable gases and with falling ribs and roof. A developed fire burns into and spreads on the ribs of coal pillars, 

generally near the roof. Most roof in mines falls when exposed to excessive heat, which results in fire burning beneath a fall of roof. These deep-seated fires can lie smoldering for long periods of time and then flare up again if 

air reaches the smoldering zone. Given such a scenario, 

the chance that the mine or at least a portion of it will 

have to be sealed is 1 in 20. 

Training 

The International Society of Fire Service Instructors 

(ISFSI) developed performance standards for the fire defense and suppression training of employees (20). The 

goal of a general fire defense training program at the 

"EmployeeFire Awareness" level is to ensure that employees are provided with the minimum education and 

training to allow them to (1) detect and recognize the 

presence of a fue emergency, (2) notify the proper authorities, (3) initiate evacuation, and (4) perform fire defense 

duties to defend themselves or their evacuation route from 

the fire. To achieve the training program goal, students 

must be able to demonstrate competency in the following 

elements: (1) know their duties and responsibilities in the 

event of a fue, (2) be able to recognize and detect a fire 

emergency within the work environment, (3) have a basic 

understanding of hazards and the role they play with regard to fire defense duties, (4) have a basic understanding 

of the role that each of the components of the fire safety 

system plays with respect to fue control and fue defense 

duties, (5) identify the common fire-exhguishing agents, 

(6) explain the operation of a common portable type of 

fire extinguisher, (7) have a thorough understanding of 

personnel safety aspects while performing the fire defense 

duties assigned to persons at the Employee-Fire Awareness level, (8) explain the £ire attack techniques used with 

a common portable fire extinguisher, (9) explain the purpose of automatic fue detedion, (10) explain the purpose 

of automatic sprinkler protection, (11) explain the purpose 

of a fire protection water supply system, and (12) explain 

the purpose of sped ahing systems. 

Standards that address the minimum general and onsite performance requirements for the fire suppression 

training and education portion of the integrated training 

program for industrial emergency response teams go beyond those listed above. The goal of a general fire suppression training program is to ensure that the industrial 

emergency responder students are provided with the minimum education and training to allow safe performance of 

either offensive or defensive fire suppression duties using 

portable fire extinguishers from outside the hot zone, to 

attack and/or control incipient or beginning fires. The 

students must be able to satisfactorily complete modules 

that require them to explain, list, or demonstrate competencies in the following: (1) duties and responsibilities, (2) 

chemistry and behavior of fue, (3) hazards, (4) fire safety 

concepts, (5) exthgukhing agents, (6) portable fire extinguishers, (7) safety, (8) fire attack techniques, (9) automatic fire detection, (10) automatic sprinkler detection, 

(11) fire protection water supplies, and (12) special extinguishing systems. Details are given for each module of 

what the student is expected to explain, list, or 

demonstrate. 

The National Fie Protection Association (NF'PA) 

Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in Underground 

Bituminous Coal Mines" (13) states tha~ training should 

include annual instruction in fire prevention, fire-fighting 

techniques, and emergency evacuation procedures for d 

operating employees. According to the NFPA (13), fire 

drills, complete with activation of the mine warning system, should be performed frequently. These exercises 

would reinforce the training and help to identify weaknesses in a mine's emergency plan. As Mitchell (9 stated, 

me best facilities and equipment can never compensate 

for poor preparation." Hence training is needed, and "the 

most important facts to teach and learn are how to lead 

and how to follow. Too often the section foreman is not 

the only one telhg the crew what best to do ..." The drills 

should be unannounced and should involve a simulated fire 

or explosion specific to conditions in the section. 

Gallick (17) argued that the training needed to fight a 

mine fire, like the equipment, depends on the extent of the 
fire. The general fire drill training that MSHA requires to experiences in responding to smoke and fire underground? 

be given to all employees, in Gallick's opinion, provides USBM researchers interviewed 214 miners from 7 coal 

adequate basic training. This raises a few questions, mines to determine their state of preparedness and the 

however. Do all miners get the same basic traink or current technology they use to detect and respond to 

is there variability within and among sites? What can undergrotmd mine fires. A profile of their basic readiness 

be learned from underground miners regarding their to respond is discussed in the sections that follow. 

. . 

.. . - STUDY SElTlNGS AND METHODOLOGY 

,, s 

SELECllON OF MINES nual cod production of over 1,360,000 t. Track locomotives, mantrips, and jeep6 are the major modes of transThe selection of the seven mines included in the study portation. The mine's coal haulage system consists of 107- 

was based on the researchers' former contacts with mine em-wide rubber and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) conveyor 

management. The study included an escorted tour of belting, which extends from the faces to the bottom where 

the surface facilities and the underground mine conducted a ,.jump bin is located. F~~~ there, mine cars are loaded 

by either the safety oficer or a sup en is or^ staff person. and coal is transported out of the mine via a trolley haul- A~~rodmatel~ workers * minesite -wered s se- age sysam. CO and thermal sensors are used for fie ries of prepared questions (see appendix A). 

A brief description of each of the minesites is provided monitoring, and a deluge system is used for fire suppresin the following section and summarized in table 1. It can sion at belt drives. The mine has no unusual problems. 

be seen that these varied by geovaphic locat;on Mine D is a union mine located in the Midwest. This 

and mine size (based on the number of employees). ~11 operation mines the No. 9 Seam, a high-volatile biturnioperations were mining coal seams 1.8 m (6 ft) or more nous coal- An elevator car and track equipment are the 

high. The descriptions are intentionally nonspecific in main modes of transportation at the minesite. Mine D has 

order to maintain the anonymity of the seven participating a work force of over 350 employees and operates 6 consites. They shall be referred to in this report as mines A tinuous miner units that produce 2,270,000 t of coal per 

through G. year. The mine's coal haulage system consists of more 

Mine A is a small (about 40 employees) mnunion oper- than 13 km of rubber conveyor belting. The mine has a 

ation in the Eastern United States that mines the Sewick- history of weak roof due to geological disturbances as 

ley Seam, a high-volatile bituminous coal. Mine A uses a result, utirlzeS roof trusses installed in-cycle to provide continuous min&J metho& and produces 226,m of coal der conditiom. CO semors an used for fue 

Fr Year. '0' transported from the sections '0 the sm- monitoring, a sprinkler system is used for fue sup- face via 3 km of haulage belt. Battery-operated track vehicles are the major mode of transportation for personnel pression at belt drive areas. 

and supplies. The mine employs thermal sensors for fire Mine E is a nonunion slope mine located in the Westdetection and a deluge water suppression system for belt ern United States. % mine extracts the Updrive areas. The mine has no unusual problems. per and Lower O'Connor Seams, both high-volatile bitumiMine B is a union mine located in the Eastern United nous coals. Diesel jeeps are the main mode of transStates. It employs over 250 individuals. Using continuous portation for personnel and supplies. With a work force 

miners and a lnngwall section, this mine extracts over 2 of over 400 employees, this operation mines 5 million t per 

million t of clean coal annually from the Jawbone Coalbed, year using both continuous miners and longwall units. The 

a high-volatile bituminous coal. Coal is transported from mine's coal haulage system consists of over 4.6 km of 122- 

working secti0US via conveyor belt. Personnel are trans- and 137-cm-wide rubber conveyor belting. co and 

ported by track haulage- The mine is currently using a thermal sensors are used for fire monitoring, and autoCo system a water su~~ressiOn SYS- ,.tic spraers are used for rue suppresion in bell drive 

'em, and it "0 ev'uati'g smoke ~"Sors. Mine B 

areas. ~h~ coal at this mine is to spontaneous experiences methane problems and has extremely weak 

roof and ribs. This mine also experienced a major fire combustion. 

since opening. Mine F is a union mine located in the Midwest. EmMine C is a union mine located in the Eastern United ploying over 500 workers, this mine extracts coal from the 

States that edracts the Pittsburgh Seam, a high-volati]e Herrin Seam, a high-volatile bituminous cod known for its 

bituminous coal. The mine, which employs over 350 work- low ash and sulfur content- Continuous mining units are 

ers, is primarily a longwall operation, utilizing a Centry used in a room-and-pillar of operation to yield an 

system and bleederless ventilation system. Mine C has an annual coal production of over 2,700,000 t. Track haulage 
Table 1.--Mine descrlpiionm 

Mine Geograph- Number of Union Annual pro- Type of mining Type of fire detection Type of fire 

ic location employees duction, t suppression 

A.. East .... 40 No 226,000 Continuous Thermal sensors Water deluge system. 

B . . East . . . . 250 Yes 2,000,007 Continuous and longwall CO sensors Do. 

C.. East .... 350 Yes 1,360,000 Longwall CO and thermal sensors Do. 

D . . Midwest . 350 Yes 2,270,000 Continuous CO sensors Sprinkler system 

E .. West .... 400 No 5,000,000 Continuous and longwall CO and thermal sensors Do. 

F . . Midwest . 500 Yes 2,000,000 Continuous CO sensors Do. 

G . . West . . . . 225 No 4,350,000 Longwall CO sensors Do. 

Do. Same as above. 

is the main mode of transportation. Mine Fs fire preparedness program includes six fully equipped fire brigade 

teams consisting of eight members per team. There are 

three teams on the surface and three teams underground 

at this operation. The mine also has well-equipped trailers 

located on the surface, for the fire brigade and mine 

rescue teams, and an intense fire training program. CO 

sensors are used for fire monitoring, and automatic sprinkler systems are used for fire suppression at conveyor belt 

drives. 

Mine G is a nonunion operation located in the Western 

United States. This mine uses continuous and longwall 

mining to extract the Wadge Seam, a high-volatile C bituminous coal. Mine G is a slope mine that utilizes diesel 

jeeps and trucks as the major modes of transportation. 

The mine has a work force of 225 employees and mines 

4,350,000 t per year. Mine G experiences air slack, a process in which the coal disintegrates because of rapid 

changes in mine conditions (air movement and temperature changes). These rapid changes cause the surface 

moisture of the coal to evaporate more rapidly than the interior moisture replacement, causing the coal to fracture 

and disintegrate. As a result, the roof and ribs of the 

entire mine are wire meshed and bolted. In addition to 

having the floors of all belt drive areas cemented, the roof 

and ribs in the main drive area are also gunnited (coated 

with a cementatious sealant) and washed down frequently. 

The haulage system of mine G consists of 11 km of 137- 

and 152-cm-rubber belting. On longwall panels, the mine 

uses three entries and a bleeder system. CO sensors are 

used for fire monitoring. An automatic sprinkler system, 

with signal feeds back to a surface mine monitoring control room, is used for fire suppression at belt drives. The 

coal at this mine is susceptible to spontaneous combustion. 

ranging from 27 to 35. These data, along with general 

demographic information, are provided in table 2. A standardized interview guide (appendix A), which included 

both forced-choice and open-ended questions, was administered. All interviews were voluntary and were conducted 

one-on-one. Each interview began with a standardized introduction assuring the miner of the confidentiality of the 

responses. To ensure that all responses were entered accurately, miners were asked for their permission to record 

the interview. All but a few of the 214 miners interviewed 

agreed to have their accounts recorded. Interviews lasted 

approximately 20 to 60 min depending on the length of 

each miner's responses to open-ended questions. 

Table 2Summary of demographic information for miner# 

overall and mines A through G 

Number Ratio of fe- Av years Av years 

Mine inter- males to Av mining ex- in job 

viewed males age perience classiA ...... 

B ...... 

C. ..... D ...... E ...... F ...... G...... 

Total or 

wt av. . 

fication 

In most cases, the interviews were conducted underground, at the miners' normal work locations. The section 

foreman arranged for individual workers to be available to 

researchers, depending on the type of tasks miners were 

engaged in on that section at the time. A few of the inSELECTION OF MINERS AND INTERVIEW terviews were conducted at surface facilities of the unPROTOCOL derground mine either just prior to or at the conclusion of 

a working shift. Accounts were gathered during both the 

Where mine size allowed, the sections in which in- morning and afternoon shifts. In most cases, two reterviews would be conducted were chosen randomly. For searchers would collect data at a particular minesite, each 

this exploratory study, an attempt was made to interview investigator traveling to a different location within the 

30 miners at each minesite. The workers constituted a mine. Overall, the interviews took approximately 2 days to 

sample of convenience. The actual number varied slightly, complete at each operation. 
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 

Table 2 presents averaged demographic data. Included 

are the number of respondents at each mine, including the 

ratio of females to males, their mean age, years of mining 

experience, and length of time in their current job classification. As expected, there was variability across operations, although mines C and E account for the greatest 

departures from the mean. Mine C, a large eastern longwall operation, provided a sample whose mean age (43.6) 

was some 10 years more than the average age of those 

sampled at mine E, a western site that also has a longwall. 

The difference in mining experience was almost 13 years 

(18.8 versus 6.1), and perhaps not surprisingly, workers interviewed at mine C had roughly. 7 more years in their 

present job classification than did the sample from mine E. 

Respondents from the other five sites fell between these 

two extremes, and the differences among them were less 

than 3 years on all three demographic variables. 

The remote location and potentially dangerous nature 

of underground mines require workers to have higher levels of both routine and nonroutine task proficiency than 

might be found in the general industrial work force. To 

help profde these competencies, miners were asked to report any training or practical capabilities they had in the 

following categories: (1) technical mining skills (eg., as 

fireboss, foreman), (2) specialized, emergency medical 

technician (EMT), training to assist injury victims in need 

of advanced first aid, and paramedic, (3) mine rescue team 

training, (4) training in fire fighting (military, volunteer 

firefighter, mine fire brigade), and (5) training to support 

the fundion of health and safety committee members. 

Table 3 presents a mine-by-mine summary of the percentage of workers who reported special training, certification, or routine performance of tasks associated with the 

listed positions. Overall, the miners interviewed were most 

likely to have had training or certification in first-aid skills 

(54%), as a fireboss or mine examiner (37%), or as a 

foreman or manager (35%). From mine to mine, the 

proportion having skills in any particular category varied 

considerably. Across operations for most of the 11 areas 

listed, percentages for mine C, which had the oldest and 

most experienced workers, were among the lowest. The 

two exceptions at mine C were mine fire brigade and fustaid training. Here, percentages exceeded those for the 

overall grouping. Percentages at mine G were among the 

highest, particularly for first-aid training, reported by 90% 

of the miners compared with 54% reported overall. Percentages for mine G consistently exceeded those for the 

overall grouping in each category. It is interesting to note 

that miners at mine G had less experience than workers at 

four of the other mines. 

PREPAREDNESSTOEVACUATE 

Fire affects a ~ig~cant proportion of underground coal 

miners at some time during their work lives. For instance, 

180 of the respondents were asked if they had ever been 

notified to evacuate a mine because of fire. As figure 1 

shows, almost 40% of those questioned responded in the 

amative: 

That's been--well, a long time ago. They had a 

cutting machine caught on fire, but it's been several 

years ago. I don't know how long ago it was. They 

evacuated us for that. 

Yeah, it happened one time down here, and that was 

just a few months ago. That was probably back in 

December. We had a hot spot back in our return ... It was producing smoke, and they immediately shut 

the mine down ... 

Tab 3.--Pwcontage of minors -If-reporting special iraining, cedficatlon, 

or routlm performance of certain taaka 

-- -- -- 

A B C D E F G Av 

Technical mininp skills: 

Fireboss or mine examiner .............. 26 33 7 18 58 60 53 37 

Foreman or manager .................. 44 43 11 21 29 43 50 35 

Training in injury assistance: 

Firstaid ............................ 44 30 68 39 45 60 90 54 

EMT .............................. 37 23 4 15 10 14 27 18 

Ambulance or reacue squad ............. 7 3 4 12 13 9 17 9 

Paramedic .......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Minerescue .......................... 15 7 7 27 13 9 37 16 

Training in fire fighting: 

Mine fire brigade ..................... 15 3 14 12 3 14 17 11 

Military fire fighting ................... 0 10 4 3 6 6 7 5 

Volunteer firefighter ................... 7 10 11 24 19 11 17 15 

Safety committee ...................... 4 23 7 6 10 11 20 12 

Other certification. ..................... 7 7 4 3 3 0 30 8 
The proportion of respondents who have had to evacuate 

because of a fire ranged from slightly less than one-fifth at 

mine E, which had a younger and less experienced work 

force, to approximately two-thirds for mines F and G. 

Considering such a potential for fire underground, it is 

important that miners know their escape routes and mine 

evacuation plans. Workers were therefore asked when 

they had last walked their escapeways. The percentages of 

miners who reported having walked their escapeways within the past year are depicted in figure 2. The remainder 

either reported having walked their escapeways over a year 

ago or having never walked them, or could not remember 

when they had last walked their escapeways. Note that 

over 90% of the workers at mines A, C, E, and G reported having walked their escapeways sometime during the 

previous year. For the remaining three mines (B, D, and 

F) this percentage was less than 70%. Although rotational 

assignments for walking escapeways are required by 

regulation, it seems likely that four of the mines had such 

an actual practice in place, while the other three did not. 

Miners were also asked when their crew had last participated in a fire drill. Answers to this question suggest 

that in at least some of the operations, fire driis were less 

than rigorous exercises: 

From time to time some foreman would come in, 

and after they'd shut the face, they would [announce] 

"I've discovered a fire here." And we'd walk through 

a simulated-type drill. Just basically like I said, get to 

the phone, get to the fire box-nothing to really fine 

act-not too much realism involved either. I would 

say most people are pretty reluctant to participate. 

It's been awhile ... 

Oh, just Monday. I don't know what you'd call it-a 

fue drill or [what]. They got a paper they read 

down the steps taken in case of a fire. You know, 

your secondary escapeways, your neutral and your 

primaries, your intake. We don't, I mean, we didn't 

actually go through a drii "Hey, there's a fire ... Let's 

do something!" 

The responses for each mine are summarized as cumulative percentages in figure 3. Values for the past 3 months 

ranged from a low of approximately 25% for mine B to a 

high of about 85% for mine G. Overall, slightly less than 

80% of the respondents reported participating in a fire 

drill at any time during the previous 12 months. 

EXPERIENCE WITH INCIPIENT FIRE 

An interesting, although imprecise, indicator of encounters with fire is whether a miner was ever required to 

don a filter self-rescuer (FSR) or self-contained self-rescuer 

(SCSR) in an emergency. As illustrated in figure 4, a sizable 

MINES 

Pememageofrni~s norjfiad to ewawte the minc beme 

of .fin. 

ABCDEF 

MINES 

Key 

mPast 3 months =Past 6 months BaPast year 

G Wtav 

A B C D E F GWtav 

MINES 
number of workers across operations said that they had 

done this at some time: 

Smoke came on up in the unit. I think we were 

about to head on out anyway. Some of us were riding the trip. I went ahead and put [my filter selfrescuer] on and we got out. It was a jeep battery on 

fue ... It had a belt on top of it and it caught this belt 

on fire. 

The one time that I put the [self-contained] selfrescuer on was a battery fire. It was on the longwall 

section in a charging station. The batteries shorted 

inside. So we went down in there. We put the selfrescuers on, because it wasstunk real bad in the 

battery fie... There was smoke. 

The actual percentages having donned apparatus ranged 

from a low of 11% at mine A to 31% at mine F. 

If there are occasions when workers must don their 

emergency breathing apparatus, there are many more in 

which that potential exists. Table 4 summarizes for each 

mine the frequency with which miners reported seeing or 

smelling smoke underground for any reason. These frequencies varied widely from mine to mine. For example, 

at mines D, E, and F over 50% of the workers reported 

seeing or smelling smoke at least once a week, but only 

about 30% of those at mines C and G reported smoke this 

often. The two remaining operations (A and B) fell somewhere in between. It would appear, from looking at table 4, that smoke is a fact of life at most of the mines. In 

many instances, however, miners may well be aware of 

where the smoke is coming from and what is causing it. 

Tabh 4.-Cumuhthre fraqwncles (In percent) 

with whkh miners reported dther dng or 

unelllng smoke underground tor any reason 

Mine . . . . . . . . A B C D E F GWtav 

months, over 50% of the workers at mines C and F said 

they had been in the same period of time. As a followup 

to this question, miners were then asked what the source 

of smoke was determined to be: 

A couple of weeks ago ... I smelled something that we 

didn't normally smell, and we got to looking for it, to 

try to find out what it was, from the smel L.. and then 

a few minutes later we noticed the smoke. [A plug in 

the back of a sub had overheated.] I knocked the power on the sub, and let the foreman know about it. 

These known origins are listed in figure 6 along with the 

number of miners reporting each one. The most commonly cited sources were belt rubbing and hot metal. 

Of additional interest to investigators was how often 

miners were caught off guard by smoke that was not from 

a source on their section but rather had rolled in from 

some other location. Workers were thus asked about the 

last time they were caught off guard by smoke that had its 

ABCDE F G Wtav 

MINES 

Peradageof miners who haw donned an SCSR or FSR in 

an a"=%mcyFigure 5 -- - 

At least once per Kev 

shitt ........ 4 7 4 18 16 20 7 11 -Past month OPast 3 months =Past 6 months 

At least once per 70 

week . . . . . . . 37 37 32 '55 '55 '71 27 46 

At least once per 60 

month . . . . . . '63 '70 46 67 84 95 '67 '71 

At least once per 8 50 

year ........ 78 80 '89 79 100 97 90 88 .$' 40 

Less than once - 

- m 

peryear ..... 96 100 96 100 100 97 99 30 

NO response . . 100 100 100 100 5 o 

ui 20 

'~edian frequency for the mine a 

w 10 z 

Workers were thus asked when thev were last cau~ht off o " a, 

guard by the sight or smell of smoke Lnderground. Their A B C D E F GWtav 

responses are given in figure 5. The cumulative frequen- MINES 

cies show that while less than 25% of the miners at mines Perccntageof miners mught oflgrrmdby the sight or smell 

A and D reported beiig caught off guard in the past 6 of &. 
source at another location in their mine. Figure 7 is a bar 

graph categorizing how all of the 214 miners responded to 

this question: 

Yeah, about five years ago there was a roller on the 

belt* big main roller. The belt had gotten jammed, 

and it was slipping inside the belt. Created a lot of 

smoke, and we was notified that there was a fire outby and we were to proceed to the evacuation area at 

once. The proper measures were taken at the time. 

Everybody was O.K. We used our self-contained 

rescuers at the time (I recall putting them on) until 

we got into the clear. 

At least a third recounted that, souietime in the past, they 

had been caught off guard by smoke coming from somewhere off their section. In sum, while smoke may be a fact 

of life at most of the mines in this study, its presence often 

comes as a surprise to workers. Sometimes, as discussed 

below, miners may be required to take action. 

UNDERGROUND FIRE-FIGHTING EXPERIENCE 

Fie 8presents for each operation the percentages of 

workers who reported having direct experience in fighting 

underground mine fires at some point during their mining 

careers. Many individuals were involved in more than one 

fire-fighting incident, and the percentages of those are 

further differentiated for each site. Workers at mines C 

and F were involved in more fire-fighting occurrences than 

were reported by respondents at the other five mines. At 

mine C, 82% of the miners reported at least one firefighting incident, and about half of those (43%) reported 

being involved in two or more episodes. Those workers 

interviewed at mine C were also, on average, the oldest 

and most experienced miners among the seven groups. 

About 70% of mine F workers reported two or more incidents of fighting underground mine fires, and an additional 18% reported one event. Although individuals at 

mine E were among the youngest and least seasoned, the 

percentages showing their direct experience in fighting 

underground mine fires are not very different from those 

at mines A, B, and G (where workers were older and 

more experienced). 

Followup questions were asked of the miners who 

reported being involved 31 an underground fire-fighting 

incident in order to gain additional information about their 

experiences and perceptions of the event(s). Across the 

seven mines, as illustrated in figure 9, 70% of the 214 

miners reported being involved in at least one fire-fighting 

incident. About 20% of the workers were involved in episodes in which apparatus was domed to help fight the 

fire, and almost 15% were involved in incidents in which 

ventilation changes were made to help fight the fire. 

Belt rubbing 

Hot metal 

Belt rollers 

Mobile equipment 

Belt drive 

Cables 

Trolley line 

Other 

Batteries 

Electrical components 

Tail roller 

spontaneous combustion 

Other 

Unknown 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

NUMBER OF MINERS 

Soum of* for mi- wvght ofgd 

Lart time sowa ofmoh war not on miner's section. 

Key 

Billone incident Ilko or more incidents 

100 

A B CD E F G Wtav 

MINES 

Percentage of minrrs with dim apience in udmgmund 

fimfigwng- 
Miners Involved In fighting a fire 

MINERS. % 

70 

Apparatus was donned 

In tenns of their perception of the way the fire was 

handled, 30% of miners reported beii involved in at least 

one event in which they felt the fire could have been 

handled differently and 45% were involved in fighting a 

fire (or fires) that they felt could have gotten out of 

control. 

Miners were asked a series of questions with respect to 

their experience in the use of fire-fighting equipment and 

materials (such as rock dust). The four bar charts in ftgure 10 summarize for each mine the percentage of those 

who reported having hands-on experience in the use of 

rock dust, fire exhgukhers, fire hoses, and fire suppression systems on equipment. The extent of these workers' experience was differentiated as to whether they had 

used them underground to fight fires, used them underground for some other purpose, and/or used them at all. 

In the case of rock dust, however, the only relevant 

question seemed to be whether the miners had ever employed it to put out a fire underground. 

A look across the four graphs and across mines, with 

regard to fighting fires underground, indicates that over 

half of the miners interviewed had hands-on experience using rock dust to put out a fire. In some instances, the 

attempt failed: 

19 

I was on third shift rock dusting, and we was coming 

back up the track, and we hit smoke. There was me, 

and another rock duster, and a motorman. When 

we hit that smoke, we put our self-rescuers on to go 

through the smoke. He just put the motor in low 

tram and we rode the motor and rock duster 

through it. And when we got through it we got to 

the fire up there. We found it--located it, and we 

got on the good side; we had good air. We took our 

self-rescuers off then, and we had about half a tank 

of rock dust left. One of us went to the phone, to 

call and tell them about the fire, and I went in there, 

and started shooting rock dust on the fire. You 

know, trying to contain it, and it was done too far 

gone. And they called us out of the mine at that; 

after we fooled with it for a little while. They called 

us on out of the mine. 

Ventilation changes were made 

When fire exhgukhers had been employed inside the 

mine, it was almost always to fight a fire. Forty percent of 

the respondents had used fire extinguishers to perform this 

task. About 30% of the workers had used water hoses to 

fight fire, and less than 10% had activated a fire suppression system for that purpose. 

As a group, workers were most likely to report having 

hands-on experience in the use of water hoses (over 80%). 

Individuals were also most likely to have used hoses underground (about 75%). Since water hoses are utilized in 

the mine for such tasks as washing down equipment and 

wetting roadways, this is not an unexpected finding. Some 

75% of all respondents had hands-on experience in the use 

of fire extinguishers, although only about half of these 

miners had used extinguishers underground. As mentioned above, most of the extinguishers discharged inside 

the mine were used on a fire: 

Fire could have been handled differently 

Flre could have gonen out of control 

I guess the [shuttle car] cable caught on fire. So 

anyway, the cable was burning. All the cable on the 

roll-probably about four blocks of cable on the roll 

was burning, and the shuttle car tire was on fire too 

... Now, like I said, I went back in for the fire extinguisher. I shoot the fire extinguisher off; but it 

never helped. 

30 

45 

In general, the lowest percentage of miners reported using a fire suppression system (less than 30% overall), with 

the exception of respondents at mine G, where more than 

69% of the workers had activated a fire suppression sys: 

tem. In terms of the differences among mines with regard 

to workers' use of fire-fighting equipment, note that for 

mine A 100% of the miners had used a fire extbgukher 

and almost 100% of them had used a water hose. These 

individuals were also most likely to describe their firefighting training as a hands-on approach. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

WORKERS' PERCEPTIONS OF TRAINING 

AND READINESS FOR FIRE FIGHTING 

Miners were asked to descni their training to fight underground mine fires in terms of whether this instruction was 

conducted prhady through the use of lectures wing told 

what to do), discussion (tallring about it), or a hands-on 

approach (practicing with fire-6ghtjng equipment). Many 

miners reported that their training consisted of a combination 

of two of the three approaches (eg, discussion and lecture). 

The percentages of miners reporting each of the three types 

of training are depicted for each mine in figure 11. Workers 

from mines B, C, D, and F hibed their training as 

coosisting primarily of lecture and discusion. Conversely, 

more miners at mines A and E desaibed their training as a 

hands-on approach. At mine G, this appraach was often in 

combination with hiwe andlor discusion. 

Miners were asked if they felt they had an acceptable level 

of fire-fighting skills. Fwe 12 displays the percentage of 

miners at each mine who felt they had an acceptable level of 

such skills: 

I think I know when to fight a fire, and I believe I 

how how big a fire I can put out just by looking at it, 

and if I can't put it out then we're gonna get people 

down here to do it... If it's bad enough I can't put it 

out, management will be immediately made aware that 

we have a problem with this area. 

At four of the mines, C, D, Fi, and F, about 70% of the 

workers felt they had an acceptable level of skills. The 

highest percentages were found at mines A and G, two operations where fairly high percentages of miners reported a 

hands-on approach to training. Conversely, only 57% of 

miners from mine B felt they had an acceptable level of firefighting skills; this was also the only mine where none of the 

miners hi their fire-fighting training as a hands-on 

approach 

MINERS PERCEPTlONS OF THEIR WORK CREWS 

AS FIRE-FIGHTING UNITS 

Fwe l3 depicts the percentage of individuals at each of 

the seven mines who reported having specific duties if there 

is a fire on their don. These percentages vary from lows 

of 31% to 33% for mines G and C to highs of 74% to 94% 

for mines F, A, B, and D, reshly. Traditionally, many 

miners have been instructed (via lecture and discussion) in 

the performance of specific roles if a fire occurs. There ap 

pears to be a slight movement from these cultural traditions 

(eg, mines G and C) to a more practical, problem-based solution that relies heavily upon the leadership, skills, and 

experience of the supervisor and veteran aew members. 0b 

viously, there are both advantages and disadvantages to preasEigning specific duties in case of an incipient fire. An 

important question might be whether or not miners actually 

put these preset protocols into place when fire does occur. 

.. A B C D E F GWtav 

MINES 

MINES 

Pmxntageqfrnirras who fdcl they haw an acxxptdle hl 

ofmgfig skiufA B C D E F GWtav 

MINES 

Perantageof minas npom3@aving specijic drrticr if tk 

is afircon thcirscdion 
Miners were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5, the 

confidence they have in their crew's ability to extinguish 

fires on the section: 

I think if it's exhguishable, we can put it out. [We 

couldn't handle] a fire that had been burning long 

enough that the ribs and stuff had also caught fire ... 

A mean confidence rating was computed for each mine by 

averaging the ratings of individual respondents. The resultant means, displayed in we 14, range from a low of 

3.9 for mine F to a high of 4.6 for mine A-again, the operation at which most miners had hands-on training. 

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS IN FIRE-FIGHTING 

PREPAREDNESS 

One of the final questions interviewers asked 212 respondents (two miners didn't finish the interview) was 

what, in their opinion, could be done to improve firefighting response. Figure 15 shows that only 8% of the 

miners were satisfied with the fire-fighting training they 

were getting, and a portion of them called for less 

complacency and more involvement by the rank-and-file. 

Half of those individuals who felt that training at their 

operation was adequate were from mine A, which emphasized hands-on practice. Another 8% suggested that a 

formal discussion of techniques would be useful. One 

person even recommended that, in these formal discussions, management find a way to let workers draw upon 

their collective knowledge: 

Well, it might not hurt to have something once a 

month that was using all the experiences of every 

miner and what they had their biggest problem with 

and what they would have done to alleviate some [of 

the problem]. 

Seventy-two percent indicated a desire for hands-on experience, either in extinguishing a real fire or at least in 

handling fire-fighting equipment: 

I'd say either hold actual drii...or have ... somebody 

up on top show you the proper use of a fire extinguisher ... There are a lot of people don't know how 

to use them. 

I think if they went to hands-on training, or even a 

special class--like so many people at a time and just 

let them use a fire extinguisher. Let them'experience high-expansion foam. A section of people, they 

know about the fire suppression systems on different 

pieces of equipment, but to actually activate it, I 

don't think there's too many people that's actually 

done it. 

- ABCDE F G Wtav 

MINES 

Formal discussions D 

Hands-on practice 

Current training satisfactory D 

72 

0 20 40 60 

MINERS, % 

Training hpmwma&. 

One worker, who was a fire brigade member at his mine, 

carried the notion of what would constitute good hands-on 

training a step further: 

Start out with several individuals per unit. Teach 

them at least the basics, as far as putthg on the air 

equipment, the bunker gear, give them just the basics of really being a €ireman ... And that's the key, as 

opposed to waiting 35 or 40 minutes for somebody 

else to show up. By that time it could be so far out 

of control that it can't be handled by anybody, I 

think. 

In sum, most of the miners had apparently given some 

thought to ways in which the work force could become 

better prepared. Their suggestions ranged from such simple items as seeing for themselves where various firefighting equipment is located to full-scale drii underground using smoke generators. 

In addition to identifying ways in which training could 

be enhanced, a substantial number of workers suggested 

organizational and technological improvements that 

needed to be made at their mine. Many of these items 
dealt with better communications, and they ranged from operation. So, while the need for hands-on training was 

such things as developing a crew plan to cleaning signs uppermost in the minds of those workers interviewed, 

regularly. Other concerns voiced by some of the several thought of ways to augment this instruction by 

respondents were perceived shortcomings in equipment improving the system. 

availability or a lack of adequate water pressure at their 

DISCUSSIONS OF THE IMPLICATIONS 

During the past 15 years the number of reportable mine 

fires has declined. Industry efforts to provide better fire 

prdedion have played a part in this trend. The number 

of mining jobs has also declined, partly because there are 

now fewer mines. It can be argued that this has brought 

about a change in people's thinking. Whereas workers 

might once have held the notion that if their mine were 

sealed because of a fire, they could go to work at another 

operation, they are now more likely to regard sealing as an 

end to a career in mining. Whereas miners might once 

have been reluctant to endanger themselves in a fuefighting effort, they are now more likely to think in terms 

of saving the mine in order to save their jobs. Each incident that occurs, therefore, may be dealt with by a group 

of first responders intent on extingukhing the fire. It 

becomes critical to first understand their capabilities and 

then to enhance them where necessary. There are several 

important areas in which mine operators can undertake 

changes to make workers better prepared to deal with fire 

underground: detection and warning, suppression systems, 

preparedness audits, case studies, and structured practice. 

The first aspect of an enhanced fire response capability 

involves hardware. Since timeliness is key to a successful 

fust response, strict attention must be paid to the selection 

of appropriate sensors, depending upon where they are to 

be located underground. It is likely that more than one 

type could be utilized. Additionally, an operation should 

have a preventive maintenance schedule in place to ensure 

that all detection and suppression devices work properly. 

Moreover, since early detection is of little value unless a 

quick response is mobiid, a mine ought to have an established warning and communication protocol that has 

been tested and refined as needed. 

Because water is the most practical exhguishing agent 

once a fire has passed its incipient phase, a well-prepared 

operation will have adequate quantities and pressure as 

well as the means to deliver it to a fue site. Such a system, realistically, would include such items as largediameter supply lines, portable fire hydrants, and highpressure hoses with suitable nozzles. Rather than the 

minimum 190 L/min (50 gpm), this system should be 

capable of delivering hundreds of gallons per minute for 

sustained periods of time. The implication here is that 

some thought must be given to water reserves. 

Insofar as the task of detecting and extbgukhing a fire 

may require the involvement of a complex system, current 

USBM research is aimed at developing and testing formal 

fire preparedness audits. The chief advantage of such a 

strategy, using a carefully defined and preset protocol, is 

that any strengths and weaknesses of a site could be highlighted in some systematic way. In addition, there would 

be less chance that problem areas might go undiscovered 

and hence uncorrected. 

"The best facilities and equipment can never compensate for poor preparation" (5). A large part of mine fire 

preparedness, therefore, is worker capability. And, a large 

part of worker capability is experience and training. One 

of the most interesting observations from the data, in 

terms of experience, is that 45% of these miners reported 

having dealt with a fire that could have gotten out of hand. 

Additionally, 30% of the respondents were involved in at 

least one incident they believed might better have been 

handled differently. It would seem from these statistics 

that while there are many successes, there is also room for 

improvement in how people respond to fires underground. 

A very interesting observation concerning training needs, 

in view of this fact, was made by the person who suggested 

companies find a way to let workers learn from others' 

experiences. 

In a sense, each occurrence of fire underground, no 

matter how small, presents a teachable moment for the 

work force. Safety personnel should consider recording 

the particulars of these events in order to assess what was 

done correctly and where mistakes were made. Teaching 

points could then be derived and passed on in safety talks 

or embedded in fire drills. Thus, miners at an operation 

would be exposed to ongoing learning opportunities that 

draw upon things that have happened to people they know 

in their own work setting. Another use of such a compilation would be as a database to indicate, over time, 
whether improvements in worker responses were beii 

achieved. 

A major drawback to learning fire response procedures 

"on-the-job" is the lack of structured practice. There are 

some aspects of fire preparedness that require cognitive 

knowledge and others that demand motor task skills. Safe 

evacuation, for instance, depends on knowledge of a mine's 

escapeways. Yet, at three of the sites in this sample, a 

sizable portion of those interviewed had not walked their 

escapeways within the past year. A successful attempt to 

put out a fire might well hinge upon the responder's having some skill in the use of a fue extinguisher. Many of 

the miners sampled, though, had used one only in an 

emergency. That is hardly the situation in which to learn 

good technique. However, the percentages of miners who 

had some fire response training as either volunteer firefighters or part of a mine fire brigade are perhaps reflective of firms' encouraging employees to expand upon 

skills that may be of direct, long-term benefit to both the 

work organization and the community. 

It would seem, from the data gathered in this study, 

that there are two types of missed opportunities at some 

operations. On one hand, good fire drii not only could 

incorporate an opportunity to learn from the experiences 

of others through discussions or reenactments of past 

incidents but might provide a wide variety of hands-on experience in using emergency equipment as well. The better structured and planned these drii are, the more 

teaching can take place in a reasonable timeframe. On 

the other hand, occurrence of incipient fires provides 

opportunities to look back, evaluate, and enhance prevention, detection, and response capabilities. 

By and large, the picture that emerges from this study 

is one of variability. Swcantly greater percentages of 

interviewees had walked their escapeways at some operations than at others. The same was true for those who 

recently participated in fire drills. The broad types of 

training offered to the work force also varied, with some 

mines relying heavily upon discussions and lectures as the 

main vehicle for developing fue response skills. Some 

mines tended to more formally integrate learning from 

their ongoing fire and smoke experience as a means for 

maintaining fire prevention, detection, and response 

communications with the work force. With little variability, all mines seemed to take the threat of smoke and 

fire seriously. However, the median frequency of reported 

smoke at three mines was at least once a week, while at 

one it was about once a year. The most consistent part of 

this picture is captured in figure 8. That is the graph 

showing the percentage of workers at each mine who have, 

at some time during their career, fought a fire underground. It suggests that fire is a constant. 

There probably is no primary difference, during the incipient phase, between most fires that go unreported and 

one that results in a mine being sealed. It is simply that 

the latter either wasn't detected quickly enough or was not 

responded to properly. To achieve enhanced mine fire 

preparedness, mining companies will need to sharpen their 

strategy in relation to available technology and equipment 

while investing increased time and effort in their human 

resources. If this is done, the number of reportable incidents will likely decline even further and there should be 

even less chance of another disaster or permanent mine 

sealing. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors thank the following individuals, &om the Pitts- Lazzara, supervisory research chemist, for help in the deburgh Research Center, for their contributions: David L. sign of the interview instruments; and Michael J. Bmich, 

Garry, mining industry research specialist, for collecting Jr., mining engineer, for assistance in drafting the mandata at several of the subject mines; Kristine L. Burns, sta- uscript and revising the figures used in the draft document. 

tistical analyst, who conducted the preliminary data analy- Finally, the authors acknowledge and appreciate the efforts 

sis; G. T. Lineberry, research scientist, and Roberta A. of John N. Murphy, Research Director, who initiated and 

Calhoun, safety and occupational health specialist, for their encouraged this research project. 

assistance in designing the literature review; Charles P. 

1. Pomroy, W. H. Mining Methods and Equipment. Sec. 8, ch. 26, 3. Mine Safety and Health Administration (U.S. Dep. Labor). Mine 

in Fire Protection Handbook, ed. by A. E. Cote. Na. Fire Prot. Assoc., Emergency Preparedness Conference. Apr. 1995,52 pp. 

Quincy, MA, 1991, pp. 8-169-8-181. 4. Pomroy, W. H., and A M. Carigiet. A Statistical Analysis of 

2 Lmik, S. J. Mine Fur kntion Rqmmt Strategies Rts at Annu Underground Coal Mine Fire Incidents in the United States From 1978 

Joint Maet. SME- Mcadowiands, PA, 01% 31,1991,33 pp. Through 1992. USBM IC 9246, 1995,25 pp. 
5. Mitchell, D. W. Mine Fires: Prevention, Detection, Fighting. 

Maclean Hunter, Chicago, IL, 1990,198 pp. 

6. Dobroski, H. Jr., and R S. Conti. A review of Distributed 

Temperature Sensing for Underground &It Lines. Pres. at Sixth 

Annual (Intcrnational) Longwall Mining Conference and Exhibition, 

Pittsburgh, PA, June 4-6, 1991, pp. 143-156. 

7. Litton, C. D. Relationships Between Smoke and Carbon Monoxide and Thei; Implication ~owak Impmvcd Mine Fire Detection. Paper 

in Proceedinas of the 23rd International Conference of Safety in Mines 

Research ln&tutes, Washington, DC, Scpt. 11-15, 1989, pp. jl-82. 

8. Conti, R S., and C D. Litton. Response of Underground Fire 

Sensors: An Evaluation. USBM RI 9412, 1992,13 pp.. 

9. Litton, C. D. Diesel-Discriminating Fire Sensor. Paper in Recent 

Developments in Metal and Nonmetal Mine Fire Protection. USBM 

IC 9206, 1988, pp. 21-27. 

10. Litton, C. D., R S. Conti, J. G. Tabacchi, and R Grace. Evaluation of a Nitric-OxidcCompemted Carbon Monoxide Fire Sensor. 

USBM IC 9339, 1993, 10 pp. 

11. Laage, L. W., W. H. Pomroy, and A. M. Bartholomew. ComputerAided Mine Fire Sensor Data Interpretation in Real Time. Paper in 

Recent Development in Metal and Nonmetal Mine Fire Protection. 

USBM IC 9206, 1988, pp. 3141. 

12. Grannes, S. G. Reliability of Underground Mine Fire Detection 

and Suppression Systems. USBM Paper in Recent Developments in 

Metal and Nonmetal Mine Fire Protection. IC 9206,1988, pp. 4248. 

13. National Fire Protection Association (Quincy, MA). Standard for 

Fire Prevention and Control in Underground Bituminous Coal Mines. 

NFPA 123-1990, 1990, 25 pp. 

14. Gallick, J. M. Mine Emergency Preparedness: Fire Fighting, 

What Else Can You Do? Paper in Coal Mining Technology, Economics, 

and Policy 1991 (Pittsburgh, PA, June 2-5, 1991). Am. Min. Congr., 

1991, pp. 427433. 

15. Herbert, M. J. A Practical Guide to the Detection and Control of 

Mine Fires. Paper in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference 

of Safety in Mines Research Institutes, Washington, DC, Scpt. 11-15, 

1989, pp. 200-212. 

16. Conti, R S. Fire-Fighting Resources and Fire Preparedness for 

Underground Coal Mines. USBM IC 9410,23 pp. 

17. . Inflatable Partitions for High-Expansion Foam Generators. 

Min. Eng., v. 47, No. 6, June 1995, pp. 561-566. 

18. Panlrmki, M., G. A. Tracy, and A. Wojtyczka. CMI Inert Gas 

Mine Firefighting System. USBM contract JMlSOSO, CSE Corp., Feb. 

1982, 56 pp. 

19. Mitchell, D. W., and J. Nagy. Problems in Fire Control in Coal 

Mines. Paper in Proceedings, Conference on the Underground Mining 

Environment (Univ. MO-Rolla, Oct. 27-29, 1971). Univ. MO-Rolla, 

1971, pp. 251-258. 

20. International Society of Fire Se~ce Instructors (Ashland, MA). 

Performance Standards for the Fire Defense/Suppression Training of 

Employeeti1992 Edition. 1992, 50 pp. 
APPENDIX A-INTERVIEW GUIDE 

Interview guide - 311 7/92 

Mine Company 

Interviewer Date of Interview 

Demographic Information 

2) Age 3) Sex M F 4) Years mining experience 

5)Job title 6) Years of job experience 

. . Check all the mas in which you have -,certification. andor that you 

famzSpecial Routinely 

Perfonq 

7) Fo~~man/fnanager 

8) Safety committee 

9) Mine mscue 

10) Fireboss/mine examiner 

11) Volunteer fm fighter 

12) Mine fire brigade 

13) Military Fire fighting 

14) Ambulance/rescue squad 

15) Fist aid 

16) EMT 

17) Paramedic 

18) Other (describe) 

(turn recorder on) 

Experience and lFaining in the Use of Breathing Apparatus 

Have you ever donned a filter self-rescuer (FSR) or a self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR) in an 

emergency? Yes No - 

If "yes" - No. of instances Date of last donning 

Circumstances? 

Ifill in after story) 

When did you last receive training on the SCSR? Date (or) No. of months ago 
Familiarity with your mine's evacuation plan 

Could you don your SCSR in the event of an emergency? 

Yes- NO- Don't know 

Do you know where your escapeways are located? Yes - No - 

What enaies are they? 

When was the last time you walked your escapeways? 

Never (skip to next page) Don't recall (skip to next page) 

Were you in the lead or did you follow other miners off the section? 

Lead Follow 

Did you walk all the way to the portal or just part of the way (eg. mouth of the section)? 

About how long did it take you to walk the escapeway? 
General Fire Experience Information 

The presence of smoke on the working section does not always indicate a serious situation. Miners 

sometimes smell or see smoke that at times may be the result of planned maintenance activities such 

as the use of torches and welders. 

1. FOR ANY REASON, how frequent would you estimate either smelling or seeing smoke 

underground? 

a. oncelshift - b. oncelweek c. oncelmonth d. oncelyear e. other 

2. When was the last time you were CAUGHT OFF GUARD by eitherthe sight or smell of smoke 

underground? 

Don't mall (skip to next page) Never (skip to next page) 

Briefly. what was your reaction? 

Did you notify anyone? Yes No - 

Whom did you contact? 

What was the source of the smoke (cable fm, welder, cutting torch, hot roller, etc.)? 

3. About how many times over the past year would you estimate being CAUGHT OFF GUARD 

by the smell or sight of smoke underground? 

4. When was the last time that the source of the smoke was NOT on your section ( immediate work 

area)? 

Don't recall Never 

5. When was the last time that you were notified that there was a fire underground and you may 

need to evacuate the mine? 

Don't recall Never 

Describe briefly: 
Open-ended questions relating to fire fighting experience 

(As a follow-up to the previous questions, ask the miner for specific details about his experience in 

fighting an underground mine fire. These details could relate to any fire regardless of the kind of 

fire (cable, roller, equipment, etc.) or size of the fire. The details should reflect the complete set of 

circumstances such as how the fire was spotted, the size of the fire, and the equipmentlmaterials used 

to extinguish.) 

Incident # 1. 

What, if anything, could have been done differently? 

Could the situation have gotten out of control? 

Any apparatus donned? Any changes made to the mine ventilation? 

Transcribe: Yes No 

Incident #2. 

What, if anything, could have been done differently? 

Could the situation have gotten out of control? 

Any apparatus donned? Any changes made to the mine ventilation? 

Transcribe: Yes No 
Use of fire fighting equipment and procedures 

What kind of equipment is available for fire fighting in your normal work location? 

Have you ever used a fue extinguisher underground? Yes No 

(If "yes", was it used to extinguish a fire?) ., 

Did it extinguish the fire? Yes No - 

(If "no", did it malfunction or was the fm too large, etc.) 

Have you ever used the fire supression system on a piece of mining equipment? Yes - No - 

Did it extinguish the fire? Yes No - 

(If "no", explain if it malfunctioned or if the fin: was too large, etc.) 

Have you ever used a water hose underground? Yes No - 

(If "yes", was it used to extinguish a fire?) 

Did it extinguish the fire? Yes No - 

(If "no", explain if it malfunctioned or if the fire was too large, etc.) 

Have you ever used rock dust to extinguish a fire? Yes No - 

(If "yes". explain.) Did it extinguish the fire? Yes No - 

(If "no", explain what happened - if the fire was too large, etc.) 
Mine specific training in fire fighting 

Describe your training in fighting underground mine fires. 

Fire drills Amual retraining Other 

When was the last time your work crew particpated in a frre drill? 

What kinds of equipment are used in training? 

Extinguishers Fire Hoses Foam Generators Fire suppression systems 

other (explain) 

Which of these have you actually activated in practice or used on a real fire? 

Extinguishers Fire Hoses Foam Generators Fi suppression systems 

other (explain) 

During training, did you extinguish a real fire or simply demonstrate the use of fire fighting 

equipment? 

Real fire Demonstration (If a real fire, what kind? How large?) 

Where was this training conducted? 

Which of the following best describes your training in fighting underground mine fires: 

a. We talk about it. 

b. We are told what to do in case of a fire. 

c. We practice with fire fighting equipment. 
Do you have any specific duties if there is a fire on your section? Yes No.-. 

What are they? 

Who would be in charge of fire fighting efforts? 

Do you feel that you have an acceptable level of fie fighting skills? 

On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best), how confident are you that your crew could extinguish 

fires on the section? 

What type of fires do you think your work crew could not handle? 

In your opinion, what could be done to improve fue fighting training? 

If the miner indicated any advanced training infirefighting, go on to the next section. 
Fire Fighting Information 

Summarize the type of specialized training from section 1. 

Volunteer fireman 

Mine fire brigade 

Have you ever fought a structure fire? Yes - No - 

What kind of structure(s)? 

Is the fire fighting training and experience you have applicable to fighting firesunderground? 

Yes - No - In part (please explain below) 

If the miner is a member of a minefire brigade, go on to the next section. 
Fire Brigade Information 

How long have you been a member of the mine fire brigade? 

How many people arc on the fm brigade at your mine? 

Does each shift have a fire brigade or is the brigade made up of miners from all shifts? 

How are the brigade members selected? 

Who is in charge of the fue brigade at your mine? 

How is this person selected? 

If this person is absent, who takes charge? 
What type of equipment do you have available? 

A. Personal protective equipment (ex. turnout gear, SCBA, etc.) - 

Where is this equipment located? 

?. 

Is this equipment adequate? 

Physical fm fighting equipment - 

Where is this equipment located? 

Is this equipment adequate? 
What kind of training have you completed as a fire brigade member? (describe below) 

(at the mine site, ie. drills) 

(off the mine site, it. fire school training) 

Is there cross training between members for various fire fighting duties? (Are fire brigade 

members trained for more than one fire fighting job)? 
How often do you practice to maintain your fire fighting skills? 

Describe the type of training exercises used to help maintain fire fighting skills. 

How often should you be retrained? 

Describe the mustering plan (how the brigade is called) used in case of a fire. 

When is the last time that your brigade was called into action? 

Approximately how much time did it take to be fully prepared? 

Have you ever fought a fire of any size or type in a coal mine? Yes - No - 

What type of fire was it? 
What were your duties? 

Type of breathing apparatus used? 

What was used to fight the fire (e.g. water hose, extinguishers, etc.)? 

What was the outcome of the fire you fought?