U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health TRAPED

EM NT OF HEALTH &HUMAN SERVICES . USA

Haulage Truck Dump Site Safety:

An Examination of Reported

Injuries

IC 9454

INFORMATION CIRCULAR/2001
Information Circular 9454

Haulage Truck Dump Site Safety: An Examination

of Reported Injuries

By Fred C. Turin, William J. Wiehagen, Jasinder S. Jaspal, 

 and Alan G. Mayton

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory

Pittsburgh, PA

March 2001
This document is the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted.

Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH.

ORDERING INFORMATION

Copies of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

documents and information

about occupational safety and health are available from

NIOSH–Publications Dissemination

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

 FAX: 513-533-8573

 Telephone: 1-800-35-NIOSH

(1-800-356-4674)

 E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov

 Web site: www.cdc.gov/niosh

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-124
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Frequency and severity of injuries associated with haulage trucks at dump sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Analysis of injuries associated with haulage trucks at dump sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

MSHA-defined data fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Author-defined injury classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Acknowledgments .............................................................................. 8

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Appendix A.–Compilation of safe work procedures with haulage trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Appendix B.–MSHA Part 50 data selection criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendix C.–Supplemental injury tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendix D.–Code listing for author-defined injury classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Serious injury rates associated with surface mining and mobile equipment ........................... 4

2. Fatalities associated with surface mining and mobile equipment ................................... 4

3. Breakdown of results of injuries associated with haulage trucks .................................... 4

4. Serious injuries associated with haulage trucks by product class and operation type .................... 5

5. Fatalities associated with haulage trucks by product class and operation type ......................... 5

6. Fatalities associated with haulage trucks backing up and falling over edge ........................... 6

7. Serious injuries by haulage truck activity, 1988-1997 ............................................ 6

TABLES

1. Injuries associated with surface mining, mobile equipment, and haulage trucks at dump sites, 1988-1997 . . . 3

2. Fatalities and lost-time injuries associated with haulage trucks at dump sites by year ................... 3

3. Serious injuries associated with haulage trucks at dump sites by product class ......................... 5

4. Serious injuries associated with haulage trucks at dump sites by operation type per million hours worked . . . 5

5. Serious injuries by haulage truck activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

6. Serious injuries by effects on operator and haulage truck activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

7. Factors contributing to serious injuries by result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B-1. Criteria used to search MSHA Part 50 databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

C-1. Fatalities and lost-time injuries by surface mining and mobile equipment by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C-2. Serious injuries by surface mining and mobile equipment by degree of injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C-3. Serious injuries and fatalities in surface mining by mine worker activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C-4. Serious injuries and fatalities with mobile equipment by mine worker activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C-5. Serious injuries and fatalities in surface mining by mining machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C-6. Serious injuries and fatalities with mobile equipment by mining machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C-7. Serious injuries and fatalities in surface mining by canvas class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C-8. Serious injuries and fatalities with mobile equipment by canvas class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C-9. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by mine worker activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

C-10. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by mining machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

C-11. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by subunit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

C-12. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

C-13. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by nature of injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C-14. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by age of victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C-15. Fatalities with haulage trucks by mining experience of victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C-16. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by truck activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C-17. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
TABLES–Continued

Page

C-18. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by effects on operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

C-19. Serious injuries by haulage truck activity by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

C-20. Serious injuries and fatalities by exit cause from haulage truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

C-21. Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by seat belt use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

C-22. Contributing factors to serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
HAULAGE TRUCK DUMP SITE SAFETY:

AN EXAMINATION OF REPORTED INJURIES

By Fred C. Turin,1 William J. Wiehagen,1 Jasinder S. Jaspal,2 and Alan G. Mayton2

ABSTRACT

Dump site injuries occur in all major mineral industries. Working in elevated areas near an edge is a

common hazard for operators of off-highway mobile mining equipment. In this Information Circular (IC),

serious injuries involving haulage trucks working at dump sites are examined for the period 1988 to 1997. Data

were acquired from injury reports gathered by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The IC

is organized into three sections. The first presents an overview of the frequency and severity of injuries. The

second analyzes injury characteristics using MSHA-defined data fields and author-defined injury classifications.

Key findings are discussed in the third section. 

In summary, 370 serious injuries were identified that involved trucks at dump sites, of which 26 were

fatalities. Although haulage truck activities at dump sites resulted in a small proportion of the total number of

injuries at surface mines, these injuries were much more likely to result in death or significant amounts of lost

time than most other surface mine injuries. These findings support the belief that haulage truck activities at

dump sites are worthy of continued study by those interested in improving the health and safety of workers at

surface mines.

1

Industrial engineer.

2

Mining engineer. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA.
2

INTRODUCTION

The major mineral industries use mobile equipment in

elevated areas near dump points, either through the construction

of temporary material stockpiles or the construction of semipermanent to permanent waste or spoil piles [May 1990].

Dumping over an edge is an efficient means of handling

material and is widely practiced. However, working near an

edge is considered a common hazard for off-highway mobile

equipment, and dumping over an edge has been identified as one

of the highest risk activities at a dump site. The amount of risk

depends on many factors. These factors include dump site

layout, dump site stability, truck performance, amount of light,

decision-making abilities of equipment operators, and weather

conditions. Important tasks for safety professionals are to quantify work site risks, to provide guidelines for identifying when

risks are too great, and to determine what can be done to reduce

these risks. 

Injury data support the belief that the practice of haulage

truck dumping carries significant risk. May [1990] noted that

from 1983 to 1987, incidents at dump points were responsible

for a disproportionate share of high-severity injuries: that is,

while dump point injuries accounted for 0.3% of the injuries in

surface mining, they accounted for 4.37% of the fatalities, and

each lost workday injury resulted in an average of 67.0 days lost

from work. This compared to an average of only 36.9 days for

mobile-equipment-related injuries and 29.8 days for all other

surface-mining-related injuries. Finally, haulage trucks were

involved in 80% of all injuries at dump points, resulting in seven

fatalities and 61 lost workday injuries. Krowczyk [1995] noted

that from 1991 to 1994, haulage truck operation accounted for

26 fatalities, 27.7% of surface mining fatalities. A sizeable proportion of the fatalities involved rolling off a bench, highwall,

or roadway. 

In this Information Circular (IC), serious injuries involving

haulage trucks working at dump sites are examined for the

period from 1988 to 1997. Injury data were acquired from

injury reports gathered by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). A mine operator is required to submit a

report for each incident that meets the criteria in title 30, part 50,

of the Code of Federal Regulations. These data were analyzed

for coal, metal, and nonmetal mines. This work is an extension

of findings reported in U.S. Bureau of Mines’ (USBM) IC 9250

by May [1990] and is organized into three sections. The first

presents an overview of the frequency and severity of injuries.

The second analyzes injury characteristics using MSHA-defined

data fields and author-defined injury classifications. Key

findings are discussed in the third section.

DEFINITIONS

The following are definitions of selected terms used in this

IC.

Berm: A pile or mound of material intended to assist in

preventing mobile equipment from traveling over the edge of a

bank. Berms are normally used along the edge of haulage roads

and dump sites.

Dump site: For this IC, an area where a haulage truck intends to deposit a load of material. In general, a dump site is

the active area of a stockpile, waste dump, or spoil pile where

material is placed during construction of the pile. It normally

lies at the edge or crest of the pile.

Haulage truck: A truck that has an open box body that is

used for transporting and dumping material.

Incident result: An author-defined injury classification that

describes what happened to a truck.

Lost-time injury: An injury for which a mine employee

required time off from work.

Mobile mining equipment: Tracked or rubber-tired, selfpropelled equipment used at mining operations.

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA): The

mining industry regulatory and enforcement branch of the U.S.

Department of Labor.

Operator impact: An author-defined injury classification

that describes what happened to a haulage truck operator.

Serious injury: An incident that resulted in a fatality or a

lost-time injury.

Spoil pile: A structure consisting of unconsolidated materials once covering a coal deposit removed during surface coal

mining operations.

Stockpile: An accumulation of a mineral formed to create

a reserve to feed a processing plant or to be shipped directly.

Surface mining: Activities associated with mineral excavation and recovery carried out at or near the earth’s surface. 

Truck activity: An author-defined injury classification that

describes what a truck was doing when an injury occurred.

Waste dump: An area where mine waste material is disposed of or piled.
3

FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF INJURIES ASSOCIATED

 WITH HAULAGE TRUCKS AT DUMP SITES

The significance of injuries associated with haulage trucks

at dump sites was put into perspective by comparing such

injuries with all injuries at surface mines and injuries involving mobile mining equipment. This comparison is presented in

table 1. The injury data selection process used for this analysis

is described in appendix B. In general, these are injuries that

likely occurred while a haulage truck was active at a dump site.

There were 79,601 serious injuries at surface mining

operations over the 10-year period examined. This number included an average of almost 62 fatalities per year. Surface

mobile mining equipment was involved in 20% of these injuries

and 42% of the fatalities. The average number of lost workdays

due to injury was 14% higher for operators of mobile equipment

than for all surface mine workers. This figure shows that injuries that involved mobile mining equipment were more severe

than injuries that occurred at surface mines. Three-hundred

seventy serious injuries involved haulage trucks at dump sites,

which was only 2% of the serious injuries that involved mobile

mining equipment. However, these injuries were responsible for

a disproportionate share of fatalities and lost workdays. In fact,

the average number of lost workdays resulting from injuries that

involved haulage trucks at dumps sites were more than 50%

higher than injuries that involved mobile mining equipment and

more than 70% higher than the average for surface mining. 

These findings are consistent with those reported by May

[1990] and indicate that while these injuries made up a small

fraction of the injuries at surface mines, they were much more

likely to be serious or fatal. 

Appendix C is a set of tables that summarize serious injury

information for surface mining, mobile mining equipment, and

haulage trucks at dump sites. These tables supplement the

tables and figures presented in the body of this IC.

Figures 1 and 2 display trends in the frequency of serious

injuries at surface mines and with mobile equipment. The injury

rates presented in figure 1 are based on the number of injuries

per 1 million surface hours worked. Figure 1 shows a clear

downward trend in serious injuries in surface mining and the use

of mobile mining equipment, although the latter dropped at a

much slower rate. The number of surface mining fatalities

ranged from 52 to 72, with an average of 62 per year. The number of fatalities that involved mobile mining equipment ranged

from 17 to 32, with an average of 26 per year. As pictured in

figure 2, there were yearly fluctuations in the number of fatalities, but they did not exhibit a downward or upward trend.

Table 2 lists serious injuries by year for haulage trucks

active at dump sites. The number of fatal incidents did not decrease, but there was a drop in the number of lost-time injuries

beginning in 1992. The average number of serious injuries per

year for the period 1988 to1991 was 46. From 1992 to 1997, the

average number of serious injuries per year was 31. Also, the

average lost workdays from 1995 to 1997 were between 36%

and 66% lower than the average for the 10-year period. These

findings establish that while haulage truck safety at dump sites

remains an important safety concern, there was an improvement

in the number and severity of lost-time injuries.

Table 1.—Injuries associated with surface mining, mobile equipment, and haulage trucks at dump sites, 1988-1997

Category Serious injuries Fatalities Lost-time

injuries

Lost workdays Average lost

workdays1

Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,601 619 78,982 2,289,152 28.98

Mobile equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,601 262 15,339 507,594 33.09

 Percentage, surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 42 19 22 114

Haulage truck dump site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 26 344 17,265 50.19

 Percentage, mobile equipment . . . . . . . . . . 2 10 2 3 152 1

Average lost workdays = lost workdays ÷ lost-time injuries.

Table 2.—Fatalities and lost-time injuries associated with haulage trucks at dump sites by year

Year Fatalities Lost-time injuries Lost work days Avg. lost days

1988 . . . . . . . 2 45 2,545 57

1989 . . . . . . . 3 42 2,075 49

1990 . . . . . . . 2 48 3,378 70

1991 . . . . . . . 6 38 2,489 66

1992 . . . . . . . 1 31 1,667 54

1993 . . . . . . . 1 30 1,427 48

1994 . . . . . . . 2 34 1,636 48

1995 . . . . . . . 4 20 647 32

1996 . . . . . . . 3 25 432 17

1997 . . . . . . . 2 31 969 31

 Total . . . . . 26 344 17,265 50
4

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Surface Mobile Equip

SERIOUS INJURIES PER 1 MILLION HRS WORKED

YEAR

Figure 1.—Serious injury rates associated with surface mining

and mobile equipment.

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

Surface Mobile Equip

YEAR

FATALITIES

Figure 2.—Fatalities associated with surface mining and

mobile equipment.

82.7%

306

Days away from work only

8.9%

33

Days away and restricted activity

7.0%

26

Fatalities

1.4%

5

Permanent disabilities

Figure 3.—Breakdown of results of injuries associated with

haulage trucks.

ANALYSIS OF INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH HAULAGE TRUCKS AT DUMP SITES

MSHA-DEFINED DATA FIELDS

Figure 3 displays a breakdown of serious injuries associated

with haulage trucks by the MSHA data field degree of injury.

Only fatalities and injuries that resulted in days lost from work

were considered. This translates to the four categories

presented. Nearly 83% of the serious injuries resulted in days

away from work only.

To identify where these injuries occurred, the MSHA data

field canvas class and subunit were analyzed. Canvas class is

used to identify a general product class based on the Standard

Industrial Classification codes for the commodity mined. A

subunit is used to identify the general type of operation.

Underground, strip, auger, preparation plant, and office workers

are examples of subunits. The results of this analysis are

presented in tables 3 and 4 and figures 4 and 5.

• Bituminous coal mines had the highest number of serious

injuries—133, or 36% of the total. The largest number of fatalities occurred at stone and metal mines with nine and eight,

respectively. 

• Anthracite coal mines had the highest average number of lost

workdays per injury at 70.13. This was 40% higher than the

average for all haulage trucks at dump sites. 

• Bituminous coal mines and metal mines had average lost

workdays that were about 17% higher than the overall average.

• Nearly 77% of the serious injuries occurred at strip or openpit mines, with a serious- injury rate of 13.62 injuries per 100

million hours worked. This rate was almost three times as large

as that for all other surface operations. These mines had 22 of

26 fatalities and 262 of 344 lost-time injuries. 

• More than 60% of the serious injuries and nearly 75% of

fatalities occurred at bituminous coal strip mines, stone quarries,

and metal open-pit mines. Bituminous coal strip mines had the

highest number of serious injuries, nearly 26% of the total.

Stone quarries had the most fatalities, nearly 31% of the total.

AUTHOR-DEFINED INJURY CLASSIFICATIONS

MSHA data fields were designed to be broad enough to apply

to all types of injuries. The authors developed classifications

tailored for the specific types of injuries being analyzed. The

authors believed that focused classifications would provide

additional information about haulage truck injuries at dump

sites. Four primary classifications were defined: truck activity,

incident result, operator impact, and contributing factors. Two

secondary classifications were also defined, exit cause and seat

belt usage. Code definitions for each classification and notes

concerning their use are provided in appendix D.
5

25.9%

96

Bit. Coal Strip Mines 

20.0%

74

Stone Quarries 

15.4%

57

Metal Open Pit Mines

11.4%

42

Sand & Gravel Open Pit Mines

Bit. Coal Prep Plants

6.8%

25

Stone Prep Plants

12.4%

46

All Other

8.1%

30

Figure 4.—Serious injuries associated with haulage truck by

product class and operation type.

19.2%

5

Bit. Coal Strip Mines

30.8%

8

Stone Quarries 

23.1%

6

Metal Open Pit Mines 

11.5%

3

Other Strip Mines

15.4%

4

All others

Figure 5.—Fatalities associated with haulage truck by product

class and operation type.

Table 3.—Serious injuries associated with haulage trucks at dump sites by product class

Product class Serious injuries Fatalities Lost-time injuries Lost workdays Average lost

workdays

Bituminous coal . . . . . . . . . . 133 6 127 7,424 58.46

Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 9 91 3,897 42.82

Metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 8 58 3,386 58.38

Sand and gravel . . . . . . . . . . 46 2 44 1,413 32.11

Nonmetal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1 16 584 36.50

Anthracite coal . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0 8 561 70.13

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 26 344 17,265 50.19

Table 4.—Serious injuries associated with haulage trucks at dump sites by operation type per million hours worked

Operation type

Hours

worked,

millions

Fatalities Lost-time

injuries

Serious injuries per 100

million hours worked1

Lost workdays Average lost

workdays

Strip or open pit . . . . . . . . . 2,085 22 262 13.62 12,681 48.40

Mill or prep plant . . . . . . . . . 1,495 3 66 4.61 3,825 57.95

All other surface . . . . . . . . . 285 1 16 5.95 759 47.44

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,865 26 344 9.57 17,265 50.19

1

Serious injuries per 100 million hours worked = (fatalities + lost-time injuries) x 100 ÷ million hours worked.

Table 5 presents serious injuries by truck activity and incident result. More than 90% of the serious injuries occurred

while stationary dumping or while backing up. Falling over an

edge, rolling over, and being bounced and/or jarred resulted in

83% of the serious injuries. Falling over an edge resulted in

37% of the serious injuries and 85% of the fatalities. The

combination of backing up and falling over an edge accounted

for 26% of the serious injuries and 73% of the fatalities. In fact,

one in five of the backing-up and-falling-over-an-edge incidents

resulted in death. The second and third most common combinations involved stationary dumping and either rolling over or

being bounced and/or jarred. 

Injuries classified by operator impact are presented in table 6

for the two primary truck activities, stationary dumping and

backing up. The majority, 54%, were classified as “struck

against object.” The “landed outside cab” classification is a

special case of the “struck against object” classification. These

two classifications make up 68% of the serious injuries and 69%

of the fatalities. Eleven of the twenty-six fatalities (42%) occurred when the operator landed outside the cab. This was a key

reason for separating these incidents from other “struck against

objects” incidents. In particular, 70 of the 95 injuries that involved backing up and falling over an edge were classified as

“struck against object” and 17 were classified as “landed outside

cab.” Nineteen operators were killed while backing up and falling over an edge. A breakdown by effects on the operator is

shown in figure 6. Nearly half occurred when the operator

landed outside the cab. These findings indicate that backing up,

falling over an edge, and landing outside the cab describe incidents most likely to have resulted in a fatality.
6

21.05%

4

Drowned

47.37%

9

Landed Outside Cab

5.26%

1

Burned

26.32%

5

Struck Against Object

Figure 6.—Fatalities associated with haulage trucks backing up

and falling over edge.

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

Backing Up

Stationary Dumping

All Other

YEAR

SERIOUS INJURIES

Figure 7.—Serious injuries by haulage truck activity, 1988-1997.

Two secondary classifications were used with injuries in

which the operator landed outside the cab. These classifications

were “exit cause” and “seat belt usage.” Table C-20 and C-21

in appendix C lists the serious injuries for these classifications.

In 35 of the 52 cases, the operator jumped from the cab, 13

times the operator was thrown from the cab, and four times it

was not known whether the operator jumped or was thrown out.

In 40 of 52 cases, it was not determined if the operator wore a

seat belt, 11 times a seat belt was not worn, and only one

incident was reported in which a seat belt was worn. 

Detailed incident reports provided more reliable information

for fatal injuries. A review of the 11 fatal incidents revealed

that seven truck operators were thrown out and were not

wearing a seat belt, three either jumped or were thrown out and

were not wearing a seat belt, and only one jumped, making it

unknown whether a seat belt was worn. Thus, in at least 10 of

11 fatal cases, a seat belt was not being worn.

Table 2 shows a downward trend in the number of haulage

truck lost-time injuries. Figure 7 displays serious injury trends

by truck activity. Backing-up injuries dropped steadily. Those

that occurred while stationary dumping and during all other

activities fluctuated over the period examined, but did not show

either an upward or downward trend. Beginning in 1994,

injuries during stationary dumping surpassed injuries while

backing up and were the most frequent. This confirms that the

drop in lost-time injuries shown in table 2 was primarily due to

the drop in injuries that occurred while backing up.

Table 7 presents contributing factors by incident result. Each

serious injury could be assigned up to three contributing factors.

Injuries that resulted in falling over an edge had the most

contributing factors identified. “Edge failure” and “traveled

through a barrier” were identified most often. The most

common contributing factors to rollover incidents were “uneven

ground” and an “unbalanced or shifted load.” The most

common contributing factors to bounced or jarred incidents

were “mechanical/hydraulic failures” or “unbalanced/shifted

loads.” The last row of table 7 discloses that 96 of the serious

injuries did not have any contributing factors identified. 

Table C-22 in appendix C provides a complete list of contributing factors to serious injuries. The two most common contributing factors to fatal injuries were “traveled through a

barrier” and “no barrier provided.”

Table 5.—Serious injuries by haulage truck activity (fatalities in parentheses)

Incident result Stationary dumping Backing up Moving forward Other/unknown Total

Fell over edge . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 (3) 95 (19) 4 (0) 2 (0) 137 (22)

Rolled over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 (1) 30 (0) 10 (0) 1 (0) 93 (1)

Bounced or jarred . . . . . . . . . 65 (0) 5 (0) 8 (0) 0 (0) 78 (0)

Collision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 (0) 7 (0) 5 (0) 0 (0) 12 (0)

Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (0) 2 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 11 (2)

Hung up on edge . . . . . . . . . 4 (0) 6 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 (0)

Struck by object . . . . . . . . . . 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0)

Contacted powerline . . . . . . . 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 3 (1)

Unknown/other . . . . . . . . . . . 13 (0) 9 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 23 (0)

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 (4) 156 (20) 32 (2) 3 (0) 370 (26)
7

Table 6.—Serious injuries by effects on operator and haulage truck activity (fatalities in parentheses)

Operator impact Stationary dumping Backing up All other Total

Struck against object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 (2) 99 (5) 17 (0) 200 (7)

Jarred and/or tossed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 (0) 13 (0) 9 (0) 80 (0)

Landed outside cab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 (2) 28 (9) 5 (0) 52 (11)

Musculoskeletal injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (0) 5 (0) 1 (0) 16 (0)

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (0) 11 (6) 3 (2) 22 (8)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 (4) 156 (20) 35 (2) 370 (26)

Table 7.—Factors contributing to serious injuries by result

Contributing factors Fell over edge Rolled over Bounced or jarred All other Total

Edge failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 12 0 2 79

Mechanical/hydraulic failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 35 14 56

Uneven ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 35 2 3 48

Load unbalanced or shifted . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 22 18 1 43

Traveled through berm or barrier . . . . . . . . 27 3 0 3 33

Undercut pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1 0 0 16

No berm or barrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1 0 0 14

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 1 12 21

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 84 56 35 310

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 17 23 29 96

DISCUSSION

Hours worked at surface mines during the period 1991 to

1997 have remained fairly constant at about 480 million hours

per year. During this period, serious injuries in surface mining

have steadily dropped by about 8.5% a year, and serious injuries

associated with mobile equipment at surface mines have

dropped by about 5.5% a year. These trends indicate that efforts

to reduce serious injuries in surface mining have realized some

success. Serious injuries at dump sites dropped 27% from 1991

to 1992. For the period 1992 to 1997, the number of such injuries remained fairly constant, averaging about 31 per year.

These injuries were much more likely to result in death or a significant amount of lost time than most other injuries at surface

mines. Although haulage truck activities at dump sites were a

small proportion of the injuries at surface mines, these findings

support the belief that they are worthy of continued study by

researchers interested in improving the health and safety of

workers at surface mines.

The majority of the 370 serious injuries at dump sites occurred at strip and open-pit operations. Although these operations contributed 54% of the surface hours worked, they had a

disproportionate number of lost-time and fatal injuries. Also, the

average number of days lost at strip or open-pit operations was

nearly three times larger than the average for all other types of

operations. Bituminous coal strip mines, stone quarries, and

metal open-pit mines accounted for 80% of the serious injuries,

and bituminous coal strip mines had the most serious injuries.

When choosing places for further study into the causes of

haulage truck injuries at dump sites, it would be wise to

consider these types of operations.

The three primary haulage truck activities were broken down

into stationary dumping, backing up, and moving forward.

More than 90% of the serious injuries occurred during stationary

dumping and backing up. The most common types of injuries

resulted from a haulage truck falling over an edge while backing

up, the operator being bounced and/or jarred while dumping,

and the truck rolling over while dumping. Injuries while backing up decreased over the period studied. Injuries while stationary dumping and moving forward fluctuated from year to year

without showing either an upward or downward trend. The factor most frequently identified as contributing to a serious injury

was edge failure, in particular, edge failure as a truck fell over

an edge.

The two most common contributing factors to fatal injuries

were “traveled through a barrier” and “no barrier provided.”

Eleven of twenty-six fatalities occurred when the operator

landed outside the cab. Incidents most likely to result in death

were those that involved backing up, falling over an edge, and

landing outside the cab. It was determined that a seat belt was

not worn in at least 10 of the 11 fatalities categorized as “landed

outside cab.” These findings are not surprising and provide

more evidence that dump sites need to have adequate edge barriers and that haulage truck operators should wear seat belts.

Devices have been developed to improve a mobile equipment

driver’s ability to detect obstacles and hazardous situations.

Mirrors, video cameras, and backup alarms are continually

being upgraded and added to existing equipment as technology

improves. The use of these technologies may help to explain the

drop in haulage truck injuries while backing up at dump sites.
8

Lux [1990] examined limitations to using mirrors on large

mobile equipment. He concluded that, in order for a mirror to

be effective, an operator must understand how to use it and must

take into account its limitations. Researchers at the Spokane

Research Laboratory (SRL) of NIOSH tested a number of commercially available and experimental sensors that monitor obstacles in a vehicle’s blind spots. None of the sensors had been

used in commercial applications on rigid-frame surface mining

trucks. It was determined that radio-frequency identification

(RFID) and radar technology show the most promise for detecting obstacles in the blind spots of mining equipment. However, more development work is needed to meet the unique requirements of mining equipment and the mine environment

[Ruff 2000]. 

Another important consideration when trying to reduce dump

site risk factors is dump site stability. The USBM developed

INSLOPE3, a computer software package to analyze the effect

of haulage truck operation on dump site stability. INSLOPE3

provides estimates of safe operating distances from slope edges

to aid in the development of safe dumping procedures [May

1991]. 

The two main methods for dumping waste at spoil piles are

edge-dumping and short-dumping. While edge-dumping is the

most common method, short-dumping is used when there are

safety concerns about edge-dumping. Camm [2000] developed

a cost model to examine differences in operating and capital

costs between the two methods. Managers who use this cost

model will be able to make more informed decisions about

which method to use.

To identify elements that may be found in a set of safe work

practices, the authors extracted information from a number of

sources and have provided a compilation of safe work procedures for haulage trucks in appendix A. A review of these

materials indicated that they were based on years of experience

and informed practice in the use of dump sites. 

Safe and efficient dumping depends on a number of factors.

Consider, for example, the inspection of a dump site for cracks.

What is an unsafe or serious crack? To many, the answer is, “It

depends.” This illustrates that there can be a lot of variability in

the interpretation of safety procedures at dump sites. In particular, safe work practices relevant to the two activities most

likely to result in serious injury at dump sites, backing up and

stationary dumping, are discussed briefly.

• Haulage truck drivers are taught to back up with the rear of

the truck square to the edge or berm by using the near side

mirror, so that the left rear tire approaches the berm first. This

improves the dumping position and helps keep the truck from

penetrating or going through the berm. At the same time, far

side mirrors should be used to check for correct orientation and

potential obstacles. 

• Drivers should travel backward at a moderate-to-slow speed.

Backing too fast decreases reaction time if problems develop at

the dump site or with the truck and increases the risk that the

truck will reach the berm too quickly, so that the truck could go

over or through it. Backing through or over a berm is a common

cause of injuries at dump sites. Drivers must not expect a berm

or bumper block to stop the truck. 

• Similarly, it is important for drivers, when preparing to dump,

to brake to a gradual stop just before reaching the edge or berm.

The danger that the slope will fail is increased by braking hard

at the last moment. 

• Haulage truck operators dumping at the edge of a stockpile

or highwall need instruction in how to examine the dump site.

Careful inspection of the area prior to and at the start of the shift

to check for signs of unstable ground and lack of a berm is a

necessity. To ensure safety, the dump site should be checked

for cracks along the top edge and over steep slopes, and for

sunken or soft areas, all of which indicate an unstable edge. 

• Drivers must not dump over the edge if the toe of the

stockpile has been removed. Furthermore, they should never

dump over the edge of an unstable slope. If there is any

question about the stability of an edge, another dump location

should be chosen, or material should be dumped short of the

edge away from any cracks and then pushed over.

• To operate a safe and effective dump site, sound dumping

procedures must be combined with a good maintenance program

and meaningful worker training. One way to enhance training

for a mobile equipment operator is to use driving simulators.

Driving simulators for emergency vehicles are currently on the

market. A large driving simulator called the North American

Driving Simulator (NADS) is under construction in Iowa City,

IA. These systems can provide “situational training,” such as

slippery roads, vehicle systems failures, and hazardous driver

behaviors, that cannot be given safely without using a simulator.

The key to having safe and efficient dump sites is to develop

a comprehensive risk reduction strategy that uses up-to-date

information and methods. The few examples discussed are not

meant to be endorsements of the best or most relevant tools or

approaches. Instead they are presented to illustrate several of

the important issues that should be considered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Christine Boldt (civil

engineer, SRL) and Thomas Camm (mining engineer, SRL) for

providing information about the surface haulage research being

conducted at SRL. The authors would also like to thank

Thomas Camm for his assistance during several field visits to

surface mining operations. 
9

REFERENCES

Camm TW [2000]. Economics of safety at surface mine spoil piles. Report

of Investigations 9653. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane Research Laboratory, 9 pp.

Krowczyk C [1995]. Haulage fatalities at surface coal mines, 1991-1994.

Denver, CO: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Office of Injury and

Employment Information.

Lux WJ [1990]. Limitations on the usefulness of mirrors on construction

and earthmoving equipment. SAE Technical Paper Series 901645. Warrendale,

PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, 5 pp.

May JP [1990]. Analysis of dump-point accidents involving mobile mining

equipment. Information Circular 9250. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Dept. of the

Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh Research Center, 19 pp.

May JP [1991]. User’s guide for INSLOPE3: A computer code to analyze the

effect of haulage truck operation on dump-point stability. Information Circular

9291. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh

Research Center, 20 pp.

Ruff TM [2000]. Test results of collision warning systems for surface mining

dump trucks. Report of Investigations 9652. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Dept. of Health

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane Research Laboratory, 44 pp.
10

APPENDIX A.–COMPILATION OF HAULAGE TRUCK SAFEWORK PROCEDURES1

CONTENT DESCRIPTION

A literature review was conducted to identify examples of

safe work practices for haulage trucks. While the authors organized the information collected into the following categories,

they did not develop or alter any of the information. Some of

these sources are provided in the bibliography, but a complete

bibliography is not included because several sources requested

that their identity remain anonymous. 

A key source of dump-point safety information is MSHA’s

Dump-Point Inspection Handbook (in press). The purpose of

this handbook is to provide MSHA inspection staff with the

information needed to understand hazards at dump sites and to

better recognize potentially unsafe dump-point conditions and

practices. Thus, the handbook offers information on the

relevant standards as well as best practices for the use of dump

sites. It can be accessed on MSHA’s web page at

www.msha.gov.

The literature review showed that safety and training procedures can differ significantly relative to mine size, equipment

size, and management philosophy. For example, start-up and

cab-check procedures can differ depending on the size and

model of truck used. Another factor is that larger trucks have

the cab mounted at a higher elevation on the frame, which

decreases the field of view of the driver dramatically. Most

safety manuals do not deal with the issue of limited field of

view.

The information presented here is by no means complete. It

is included to provide examples of what may be found in a set

of safe work procedures. Any work procedure must be tailored

to fit the conditions and constraints of the target mine

operation.

SURFACE HAULAGE HAZARDS AND PREVENTIVE MEASURES

The material in this section is designed to be used in training

programs to increase the awareness of hazards associated with

surface haulage and to recommend measures that can be used to

minimize these hazards.

WALKING TO AND FROM EQUIPMENT

Potential Hazards

• Muddy walkways, ice, etc.

• Moving vehicles.

• Congested area.

Preventive Measures

• Walk around vehicle as part of preoperation inspection to

check for people around the machine.

• Sound the horn or other warning device before starting to

move.

• Be sure backup alarm and brakes are operating properly.

• Always look in the direction of travel.

• Be alert for pedestrians. 

CHECKING AROUND EQUIPMENT AND MOUNTING

AND DISMOUNTING

Make sure vehicle is not loaded and is secured against motion

before inspection.

1

Materials obtained from mining companies, the Mine Safety and Health

Administration, and the Job Training Series for Open Pit Mining (British

Columbia)

Potential Hazards

• Missing wheel lugs.

• Low tire pressure.

• Tire damage.

• Lowest ladder rung too high.

• Missing or broken steps, ladder rungs, handrails, etc.

• Slick (muddy, greasy or icy) boots and/or ladder.

• Both hands not free for climbing.

• Miners in dangerous position around equipment.

• Poor access to areas that must be checked.

• Undetected suspension or steering damage.

Preventive Measures

• Make a thorough preoperation inspection a habit. Include

tires and wheels, ladders and platforms, suspension and steering,

and walking around the vehicle to check for persons or obstructions. Report any safety defects.

• Clean mud, grease, or ice off boots and ladders. Wear gloves

to ensure a good grip.

• Use belt hooks, pockets, etc., to carry materials up ladders

and keep both hands free for climbing. Use ropes to hoist

bulkier items. Face ladder and use three points of contact when

climbing (two hands and one foot or two feet and one hand in

contact with ladder at all times).

• Sound horn or other warning device before starting engine or

starting to move.

• Be sure backup alarm is operating properly.

• Always look in the direction of travel.
11

ENTERING CAB AND STARTING VEHICLE

Potential Hazards

• Loose items in cab.

• Seat belt not buckled.

• Parking brake off when starting engine.

• Congested parking area.

• Dirty windshield resulting in poor visibility.

• Possibility of fire.

• Defective brakes, gauges, steering system, or retarder.

Preventive Measures

• Keep cab free of extraneous material; secure necessary items

carried.

• Check equipment for warning tags.

• Make sure parking brake is set and controls are in neutral

prior to starting.

• Adjust seat and buckle up.

• Keep cab windows clean.

• Check around equipment before getting on and, to the extent

possible, use mirrors before moving.

• Check gauges and warning lights before and after starting

engine. Check for smooth idle and unusual smoke or noise.

Check wipers and lights.

• Make sure all controls are working properly before moving.

• Check for fuel leaks. Know the location and operation of fire

extinguishers.

• Do not use equipment with safety defects.

• Sound horn or other warning device before starting engine or

moving equipment.

• Check all brake systems, steering systems, and retarders in

accordance with company policy or manufacturer’s

recommendations.

OPERATIONS TRUCK

• Avoid running over rocks or into potholes or ruts.

• Drive with thumbs on the outside of the steering wheel to

avoid injury if the wheel spins.

• At the end of the shift, turn a NEAT AND LEGIBLE REPORT into the mine office on the form provided.

• Be sure the truck bed is all the way down before driving

under overhead cable bridges, powerlines, or other overhead

obstructions.

• Drive defensively at all times.

• Be aware of the locations of runaway ramps, straddle berms,

and other means to stop the truck in case of electrical or

mechanical failure.

• Check gauges and warning lights frequently. Whenever a

gauge does not indicate specific pressure, shut down

immediately.

• Observe all signs and signals.

Dumping Hazards

• Backing over a person, equipment, or obstruction.

• Backing over edge of a dump.

• Pulling down highlines and other obstructions.

Dumping Precautions

• Check air gauge and brakes before backing up to dump.

• Whenever possible, view dump crest before turning on dump

and backing up. Leave a minimum of one truck width between

truck and dump crest when making turns at the dump.

• Do not back up if visibility is impaired.

• Set service brake (electric drive) or parking brake

(mechanical drive) before and during dumping.

• Back up to the dump berm squarely and make sure truck is in

neutral before dumping.

• Make every effort to back up against the dump berm.

However, NEVER RELY ON THE BERM TO STOP THE

TRUCK. BERMS SHOULD BE USED AS A GUIDE ONLY!

• Plug out any low spots in the dump berm by dumping short.

• Lower truck beds completely before pulling away from a

dump location.

• Do not pull truck bed through material after dumping.

• Do not let truck bed come in contact with berm material so

that the wheels are lifted off the ground while dumping.

• Use signal lights for dumping at the primary crushers.

Red light: Do not spot on crusher dump pocket and pull

out if already spotted.

Amber light: OK to spot on dump pocket, but do not

dump. If given an amber light while dumping, stop dumping.

Green light: Proceed to dump.

• If necessary to lower a loaded bed, GENTLY bleed off hoist

cylinder pressure using the dump lever. DO NOT PUSH

LEVER ALL THE WAY INTO THE LOWER POSITION

OR THE BED WILL FALL.

BEST PRACTICES FOR SURFACE HAULAGE TRUCK DUMPING

MATERIALS

• If material must be dumped over edge of stockpile or

highwall, examine area carefully, especially at the beginning of

a shift, for signs of unstable ground and lack of berms.

• If the ground at a dump site could fail, arrange to dump

material a safe distance back from the edge.

• Stay in truck when waiting at dump area.

• When dumping at a stockpile, do not dump over the edge

where the toe of the stockpile has been removed. 
12

PROCEDURES

• Cross windrows at an angle, one wheel leading, to reduce

jarring the load, the truck, and yourself.

• Be sure the dump area has been checked for cracks along the

top edge or sunken or soft areas, which indicate an unstable

edge. Also check for steep slopes. The weight of a truck near

an unstable edge can be enough to break it loose, taking the

operator with it.

• Never dump over the edge of an unstable dump slope.

• When possible, approach the dump site from left to right and

make sure the dumping berm is in place (contact the supervisor

if it is not). This also provides better visibility to look over the

area for obstacles or unstable conditions along the dump edge

and slope. Keep at least one truck width away from the edge

berm. Most mines use mid-axle height as a minimum for berm

construction.

• Report loss of nighttime area lights that provide the capability

of seeing around the dump point at night. Do not dump in areas

where lighting is inadequate.

• Check that the dumping area is level or sloping slightly up

toward the edge. A slight-up slope to the edge will help keep

the truck under control when backing uphill. It will also drain

water away from the edge so the dump edge remains dry and

stable.

• If more than one truck is dumping at a time, keep at least two

truck-widths apart to spread the weight and to avoid hitting

another truck if a tip-over occurs.

• Be aware that rain, melting snow, freezing and thawing, and

other weather effects can weaken the dump and lead to unstable

slopes.

• Make the turn to back up at least one truck-width away from

the dump berm to avoid overloading the dump edge.

• Back up almost perpendicular to the dumping berm so the left

rear tire approaches the berm first. This improves dumping position and can help keep the truck from penetrating or going

through the berm.

• Back up slowly and come to a gradual stop at the dump point

to avoid loading the rear axle and causing the edge of the dump

to break away.

• Do not use or expect the berms or bumper blocks to stop the

truck. Stop just before the berm. This avoids accidentally

breaking through the berm and going over the edge.

• If people or equipment operators are nearby, wait to dump a

load. Raising the truck bed can cause materials to fall off and

can injure or kill those around the truck.

• Shift the truck into neutral and set the appropriate brake when

dumping. This avoids accidental movement forward or backward while the driver is focusing on dumping. Do not use the

retarder as a brake.

• Be alert for the presence of material stuck in the bed when

hauling wet or damp materials. Materials stuck in the bed can

cause truck stability problems.

• Before leaving the dump area, lower the truck bed completely. Lowering the truck bed provides better truck stability,

reduces damage to equipment, and reduces the likelihood of

electrocution by overhead powerlines.

• When pulling out, turn left whenever possible, which gives

a better view of the area the truck is turning toward.

DUMPING IN DESIGNATED AREA

Drivers must dump only at a location designated by the

supervisor. IF A DRIVER IS UNSURE WHERE TO DUMP,

THEN HE/SHE SHOULDN’T DUMP. Drivers should contact

their supervisors and determine the correct dumping location

rather than to take a chance and dump at a potentially unsafe

area. A supervisor may designate dump locations not only on

the basis of production requirements, but also on safety

considerations of which drivers may be unaware. When drivers

are assigned to a dump location, they should stay alert for

potential hazards and notify the supervisor immediately if a

problem is spotted.

If dumping is done in an area where dozers are being used to

push material over the edge of the pile, drivers should use them

appropriately. Loads should be dumped back from the slope

edge as directed. Accidents have occurred when a truck

dumped a load over an edge even though a dozer had been

assigned to push material over. In many of these cases, the crest

of the pile was not strong enough to support the weight of the

truck or the berms were inadequate.

BACKING ORIENTATION

As a truck is backed at an angle to the slope edge, one set of

rear dual tires will reach the edge before the other. If the rear

tires on the side of the truck opposite the operator’s

compartment reach the slope edge first, the chance for an

accident increases. This happens when the operator is watching

his/her side of the truck and unexpectedly contacts the berm

with the other side so that the far-side tires bump the berm too

hard and the truck either goes through or over the berm. If the

berms are inadequate or other impediments are not in place, then

the operator may simply back the far-side dual tires over the

edge.

Therefore, it is important for drivers to back their trucks

square to the edge of the slope or at a slight angle that places the

operator’s side closer to the slope edge. Drivers should

primarily use the mirrors on their side of the truck when

backing. It is much easier to judge backing distance when using

the near-side mirrors. They are closer and provide a larger

image than the mirrors on the far side of the truck.

In summary, DRIVERS SHOULD BACK SQUARE TO

THE EDGE USING THE CLOSEST MIRROR. THEY

SHOULD GLANCE OCCASIONALLY AT THE FAR

MIRRORS TO CHECK FOR CORRECT ORIENTATION

AND POSSIBLE OBSTACLES.

BACKING SPEED

Drivers should approach the slope edge at a moderate-to-slow

speed when backing to dump and should apply the brakes

gradually while stopping. Braking hard at the last moment

imposes a large horizontal force on the truck in addition to the
13

normal vertical force imposed by the weight of the truck. This

additional horizontal force substantially increases the chance of

a slope failure. Even when backing to the slope edge slowly, it

is important to brake gradually. Braking hard at the last minute

at a slow speed will also increase the potential for a slope

failure.

In addition to slope failures, there are other hazards associated with backing too fast. It decreases the driver’s reaction

time if hazards occur at the dump point or problems develop

with the truck. It also increases the risk that the driver will contact the berm too fast, going over or through it.

UNLEVEL GROUND

A vehicle’s center of gravity rises as the bed is raised into the

dump position. If the truck is parked on a slight downhill grade

toward the berm or if it is leaning sideways, it may be in danger

of tipping. The potential for tipping increases when the load is

hanging up in the truck bed or the material is not flowing out

freely.

The dump point should NEVER be constructed so a truck is

parked on a downward slope toward the berm. If the decline is

too steep and material hangs up in the truck bed, then the truck is

in danger of tipping over backward. Creating a slope toward a

dump point also provides poor drainage, allowing water to accumulate at the berm, which can result in decreased slope strength

and soft footing that allows the rear tires to sink. Stopping on a

decline also requires additional braking force, which places additional reliance on the braking system and imposes greater forces

on the slope, increasing the potential for a slope failure. 

THE DUMP POINT SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED

LEVEL OR AT A SLIGHT UPWARD INCLINE. Maintaining

the dump point at a slight upward angle (1° to 3°) allows for

drainage and decreases the amount of force required to stop the

truck. It also decreases the chance of tipping over backward

should material hang up in the truck bed.

THE DUMP POINT SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED SO A

HAULAGE TRUCK SITS FLAT AND DOES NOT LEAN TO

THE SIDE. If the sideways angle is too steep or material hangs

up in the truck bed, the truck is in danger of tipping on its side.

This is also a problem when the dump point is soft. The rear

tires may sink as the truck bed is raised into the dumping

position. If the tires do not sink evenly, the truck will lean to

one side, again increasing the chance of tipping over. Soft

material will also force the operator to apply more power to the

drive wheels when approaching the berm, complicating control

of the truck in this potentially hazardous area.

TRUCK BED POSITION

As the operator approaches the dump site, he or she should

look for any overhead obstructions, such as powerlines. After

backing to the dump point, the truck should be brought to a

complete stop and the parking brake or a holding brake applied.

The procedures provided in the operator’s manual should be

followed for a particular truck being operated. 

After the load is dumped, the driver should pull out slowly.

The transmission should be engaged before the parking brake is

released to prevent the truck from rolling backward. The truck

bed should be as low as soon as possible. If material is hanging

up in the bed, moving the truck can increase the chance for

tipping over. The truck bed should be fully lowered before

leaving the dump site and entering the haulage road.

HAULAGE TRUCKS BACKING OVER AN EDGE

An operator must STAY ALERT when operating a haulage

truck near the crest of a stockpile. They must know where the

rear tires are in relation to the slope edge. A surprisingly high

number of stockpile accidents occur when a haulage truck is

simply backed over the edge of a pile. When operators are enddumping over the crest of a stockpile, they must make sure that

it is in a designated area with adequate berms or other impediments.

Mirrors must be clean and properly adjusted. When dumping

at night, lighting should be adequate to see the edge. Brakes

must be tested to ensure they are working properly.

Operators should back slowly to ensure there is adequate time

to react and stop before contacting the berm. BERMS CANNOT BE RELIED ON TO STOP A TRUCK. When a spotter

is used, the spotter should stand where his/her signal can be

clearly recognized. Spotters should use signal lights at night

and when visibility is limited.

BERMS

Backing through or over a berm is a common cause of stockpile accidents. A normal rule of thumb states that berm height

should be equal to mid-axle height of the largest truck using the

dump site. For roadways, this is mandatory under 30 CFR

56/57.9300. Coal mine safety and health policy also requires

that berms be equal to the axle height of the largest truck at the

work site. The berms should be constructed strong enough to

survive a moderate impact. However, they should not be relied

on to stop a truck. Berms should be used as a visual indicator

of where the truck should be stopped or to provide a “feeling”

of the berm as the rear tires contact it. A BERM SHOULD BE

USED FOR SPOTTING ONLY!

If a berm is present, it should not be assumed that the area is

a safe place to dump. The haulage truck driver should verify

that material has not been removed from the toe of the pile.

Routine supervisory inspections should also be performed to

ensure that the slope is stable. The relevant Federal regulations

are—

30 CFR 56/57.9301. Dump site restraints.

Berms, bumper blocks, safety hooks, or similar impeding devices shall be provided at dumping

locations where there is a hazard of overtravel or

overturning.

30 CFR 77.1605 Loading and haulage equipment, installations.
14

Berms, bumper blocks, safety hooks, or similar means shall be provided to prevent overtravel

and overturning at dumping locations.

Therefore, depending upon the specific mine, an impediment

other than a berm may be used. TRUCK DRIVERS MUST

MAKE SURE THAT THEY DUMP ONLY WHERE A BERM

OR IMPEDING DEVICE IS PROVIDED.

SEAT BELTS

The chance of surviving an accident is greater when a seat

belt is worn. In fact, the safest place to be during an accident is

in the cab with a seat belt fastened. Nearly half of all mobile

mining equipment fatalities involved operators who were not

wearing a seat belt or who took it off in a futile attempt to jump

clear of the equipment. Staying with the machine is almost always better than attempting to jump out. A significant number

of fatalities can be prevented by the simple act of wearing a seat

belt and by remaining in the cab.

With a few exceptions, Federal regulations mandate that seat

belts be provided on dozers, scrapers, front-end loaders, haulage

trucks, etc., and that they be maintained in working condition.

More importantly, the regulations state that they must be worn.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE

The safe operation of mobile equipment is extremely dependent upon the capabilities of the operator, especially when

the size and power of modern equipment are considered. Drugs

and alcohol dull senses. They reduce response time, attention

span, and the a person’s ability to identify an impending problem. More importantly, they inhibit a person’s ability to react

when in a hazardous situation.

Miners who use drugs or alcohol affect not only themselves,

but the people working with them. A person under the influence

of drugs or alcohol is more likely to be involved in an accident

and suffer an injury. More importantly, a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol is more likely to cause a serious injury or death to a coworker, not to mention damage to company

property. FOR EVERYONE’S SAKE, DON’T MIX DRUGS,

ALCOHOL, AND MINING.

STOCKPILES

A stockpile is a temporary pile of ore or other material that

will be used later. Stockpiles are especially hazardous if activities are being carried out at the top edge and the toe. Loading out material at the toe causes sloughing that can cover a

loader. It can also oversteepen the slope, making the top edge

of the pile unstable for trucks that may be dumping at the top.

Always dump in an area where nothing is happening immediately below and never dump over an oversteepened slope. If

possible, dumping should be done at least one truck-length away

from the edge and materials, then pushed by dozer to final

position. Always look around.

SPOIL PILES

Spoil piles are usually permanently placed materials or spoils.

Because the layout and characteristics of dumped materials

change, there can be soft spots, weak and loose materials, and

steep slopes, all of which can cause unstable piles. Of special

concern are dumps that are constructed by trucks end-dumping

over the dump edge to form angle-of-repose slopes. Careful inspection of the dump edge for sloughs and cracks along the edge

should be done before approaching the dump. Look for the

minimum suggested heights (to mid-axle) of dumping berms.

Remember also that too much moisture can weaken the pile. BE

CAREFUL.

BINS AND HOPPERS

Bins and hoppers are engineered structures for storing or

channeling materials. These structures have a specific dump

point with features such as overhead obstructions, chutes,

gratings, stopping blocks, and guide rails. Look over an area

before pulling in to dump to check for any damage to any of

these features. Dumping at these areas is very repetitive, and

special efforts are needed to maintain driver awareness. STAY

ALERT.

STOCKPILING TECHNIQUES

Stockpiling techniques vary depending upon the size of the

mine, the type of material handled, and type of equipment

available. Some techniques are safer than others and should be

used when applicable.

A “Good” Method of Stockpiling

A “good” method of stockpiling involves dumping a load

back from the crest of the pile, after which the material is

bumped over the edge by a dozer or a front-end loader using

other material. This method allows the easy construction and

maintenance of berms and keeps mobile equipment away from

the edge of the pile where the chance of being involved in an

accident is highest. When combined with well-trained operators

and routine inspections for signs of slope instability, this method

drastically reduces the likelihood of an accident.

A “Fair” Method of Stockpiling

A “fair” method of stockpiling involves dumping a load directly over the crest of the pile. For this method to be performed

safely, adequate berms must be maintained and equipment

operators must be well trained to recognize stockpile hazards.
15

Other factors, including the type of material, condition of the

material, weather, and type and size of haulage truck, also need

to be considered. It is also important to inspect the dump area

routinely for signs of slope instability. When using this method,

it is important to ensure that material is not removed from the

toe of the pile where dumping is taking place.

A “Dangerous” Method of Stockpiling

A “dangerous” method of stockpiling involves dumping a

load directly over the crest of a pile where material has

beenremoved from the toe. Removing material from the base of

a pile generally results in a steepened slope. A steepened slope

is less stable and cannot support as much weight, creating a

hazard for equipment operating near the crest of the pile if the

slope fails. The mine supervisor, loader operator, and haulage

truck driver must ensure that dumping does not occur where the

slope has been steepened by reclaiming activities. The practice

of dumping over the edge of a stockpile in an area where the

slope has been loaded out at the toe should be prohibited.

Good Alternative Method

A very good alternative method involves the construction of

stockpiles in layers. In this method, loads are dumped as piles on

a single level. After a level is complete, it is then smoothed over

by a dozer and dumping continues on the next layer. Operating

mobile equipment compacts the previous layer and creates a pile

of greater strength. The method also permits the slope angle to be

maintained lower than the angle of repose, resulting in greater

slope stability. Haulage trucks are also kept away from the edge

of the pile. From a quality control standpoint, this method also

avoids undesirable size separation of material.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Mine Health and Safety Academy, Beaver, WV [1996]. Annual

refresher workbook. 20 pp.

Glenrock Coal Co., Glenrock, WY [1997]. Off-highway truck safety

manual. 27 pp.

Mine Safety and Health Administration [in press]. Dump-point inspection

handbook. MSHA Handbook Series. Beaver, WV: U.S. Dept. of Labor, National Health and Safety Academy.

Mine Safety and Health Administration [1992]. Stockpiling safety. Safety

Manual 30. Beaver, WV: U.S. Dept. of Labor, National Health and Safety

Academy, 58 pp.

Mine Safety and Health Administration [1995]. Surface haulage safety.

Safety Manual 22. Beaver, WV: U.S. Dept. of Labor, National Health and

Safety Academy, 41 pp.

Mine Safety and Health Administration [1997]. Dump-point safety:

Stockpiles and wastepiles. Safety video, VC-858, 14 min. Beaver, WV: U.S.

Dept. of Labor, National Health and Safety Academy.

Newmont Gold Co., Carlin, NV [1995]. Truck driver training manual.

Training Dept., 21 pp.

Phelps Dodge Morenci, Morenci Mines Division, Morenci, AZ [1992].

Specific codes of safe practice for heavy truck operations. 28 pp.
16

APPENDIX B.–MSHA PART 50 DATA SELECTION CRITERIA

MSHA Part 50 data for the years 1988 through 1997 were

analyzed using the selection criteria in table B-1. Each target

group except the dump site group was acquired using the MSHA

codes. To acquire the descriptions and numbers of serious

injuries at dump site, 3,116 narratives for the load-haul-dump

(LHD) group were analyzed, resulting in a final selection of 369

records. To ensure that all fatal incidents were identified, the

authors reviewed the 173 fatal injury narratives for the surface

mining truck group, which resulted in the selection of 30

fatalities that might have occurred while a haulage truck was

active at a dump site. The authors reviewed MSHA fatal

accident reports for these 30 incidents, resulting in the addition

of one fatal incident not selected using the criteria shown in

table B-1.

Table B-1.—Criteria used to search MSHA Part 50 databases

 MSHA field data Target data Selection criteria No. of records

Subunit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface mining Surface at underground OR 155,992

Strip OR

Auger OR

Culm bank OR

Other surface OR

Preparation plant

Degree of injury . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface mining Death OR 79,601

Serious injuries Permanent disability OR

Days away from work only OR

Days away and restricted activity

Mining machine . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface mining Bulldozer OR 15, 601

Mobile equipment Front-end loader OR

Serious injuries Load-haul-dump OR

Off-highway ore haulage truck OR

Highway ore haulage trucks OR

Road grader OR

Scraper OR

Trucks (not ore haulage)

Mining machine . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface mining Load-haul-dump OR 7,305

Truck Off-highway ore haulage truck OR

Serious injuries Highway ore haulage trucks OR

Trucks (not ore haulage)

Mine worker activity . . . . . . . . . Surface mining Escaping a hazard OR 3,116

Truck Bulldozer OR

Load-haul-dump Front-end loader OR

Serious injuries Haulage truck OR

Load-haul-dump OR

Utility truck OR

Surface equipment not elsewhere classified

Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface mining Author selection 1

 369

Haulage truck

Dump site

Serious injuries 1

370 serious injuries at dump sites were analyzed in this report. 
17

APPENDIX C.—SUPPLEMENTAL INJURY TABLES

SURFACE MINING AND SURFACE MOBILE EQUIPMENT INJURY TABLES

Table C-1.—Fatalities and lost-time injuries by surface mining and mobile equipment by year

Year Surface mining Mobile equipment

Fatalities Lost-time injuries Hours worked Fatalities Lost-time injuries

1988 . . . . . . . . . 69 9,919 492,698,210 32 1,786

1989 . . . . . . . . . 63 10,325 502,994,475 23 1,893

1990 . . . . . . . . . 69 10,119 506,406,304 32 1,880

1991 . . . . . . . . . 63 9,041 482,370,836 27 1,650

1992 . . . . . . . . . 57 7,826 471,459,652 29 1,499

1993 . . . . . . . . . 55 7,288 460,721,974 20 1,433

1994 . . . . . . . . . 54 7,253 474,369,329 24 1,515

1995 . . . . . . . . . 72 6,123 474,539,386 31 1,270

1996 . . . . . . . . . 52 5,622 476,888,917 17 1,242

1997 . . . . . . . . . 65 5,504 480,996,381 27 1,171

 Totals . . . . . . 619 78,982 4,823,445,464 262 15,339

Table C-2.—Serious injuries by surface mining and mobile equipment by degree of injury

Degree of injury Surface mining Mobile equipment

Number Percent Number Percent

Days away from work only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,136 86.9 13,965 89.5

Days away and restricted activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,472 9.4 1,111 7.1

Permanent disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,374 3.0 263 1.7

Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 0.8 262 1.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,601 100 15,601 100

Table C-3.—Serious injuries and fatalities in surface mining by mine worker activity

Mine worker activity Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Handling supplies or material, loading and unloading . . . . . . . 18,371 23.1 54 8.7

Machine maintenance/repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,579 14.5 91 14.7

Get on or off equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,973 11.3 25 4.0

Walking/running . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,687 8.4 31 5.0

Hand tools (not powered) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,419 8.1 17 2.7

Haulage truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,439 3.1 68 11.0

Welding and cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,407 3.0 17 2.7

Hand load: shoveling/mucking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,859 2.3 7 1.1

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,867 26.2 309 49.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,601 100 619 100

Table C-4.—Serious injuries and fatalities with mobile equipment by mine worker activity

Mine worker activity Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Getting on or off equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,490 28.8 17 6.5

Haulage truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,335 15.0 66 25.2

Machine maintenance/repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,305 14.8 28 10.7

Front-end loader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,277 8.2 25 9.5

Handling supplies or material, loading and unloading . . . . . . . 1,075 6.9 15 5.7

Bulldozer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 6.0 17 6.5

Utility truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 3.3 25 9.5

Hand tools (not powered) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 2.5 3 1.1

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,292 14.7 66 25.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,601 100 262 100
18

Table C-5.—Serious injuries and fatalities in surface mining by mining machine

Mining machine Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Hand tools (not powered) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,841 9.9 14 2.3

Ore haulage trucks, off-highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,926 6.2 126 20.4

Front-end loader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,389 5.5 52 8.4

Bulldozer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,962 3.7 23 3.7

Conveyor (all types) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,233 2.8 35 5.7

Welding machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,193 2.8 8 1.3

Trucks (not ore haulage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,040 2.6 43 6.9

Dragline or shovel (mining and stripping) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,778 2.2 26 4.2

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,985 17.6 173 27.9

Missing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,254 46.8 119 19.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,601 100 619 100

Table C-6.—Serious injuries and fatalities with mobile equipment by mining machine

Mining machine Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Ore haulage trucks, off-highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,926 31.6 126 48.1

Front-end loader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,389 28.1 52 19.8

Bulldozer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,962 19.0 23 16.4

Trucks (not ore haulage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,040 13.1 43 8.8

Scraper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681 4.4 11 4.2

Roadgrader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 1.7 3 1.1

Load-haul-dump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 1.1 1 1.1

Ore haulage truck, highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 1.0 3 0.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,601 100 262 100

Table C-7.—Serious injuries and fatalities in surface mining by canvas class

Canvas class Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,580 32.1 197 31.8

Bituminous coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,238 30.4 198 32.0

Metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,018 13.8 75 12.1

Sand and gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,943 13.7 102 16.5

Nonmetal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,499 8.2 39 6.3

Anthracite coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,323 1.7 8 1.3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,601 100 619 100

Table C-8.—Serious injuries and fatalities with mobile equipment by canvas class

Canvas class Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Bituminous coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,107 45.6 91 34.7

Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,785 24.3 75 28.6

Sand and gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,083 13.4 44 16.8

Metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,669 10.7 39 14.9

Nonmetal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679 4.4 11 4.2

Anthracite coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 1.8 2 0.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,601 100 262 100
19

HAULAGE TRUCK INJURY TABLES - MSHA DATA FIELDS

Table C-9.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by mine worker activity

Mine worker activity Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Haulage truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 85.7 22 84.6

Escaping a hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.4 1 3.8

Utility truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.7 1 3.8

Load-haul-dump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.9 1 3.8

Surface equipment not elsewhere classified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0.5 0 0.0

Getting on or off equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0.3 1 3.8

Bulldozer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0.3 0 0.0

Front-end loader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0.3 0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100

Table C-10.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by mining machine

Mining machine Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Ore haulage trucks, off-highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 92.7 24 92.3

Trucks (not ore haulage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.8 2 7.7

Ore haulage trucks, highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.0 0 0.0

Load-haul-dump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0.5 0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100

Table C-11.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by subunit

Subunit Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Strip or open pit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 76.8 22 84.6

Mill or preparation plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 18.6 3 11.5

Surface at underground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 1 3.8

Dredge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 0 0.0

Culm bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0.8 0 0.0

Auger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0.5 0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100

Table C-12.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by state

State Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 17.3 4 15.4

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 10.3 1 3.8

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9.5 4 15.4

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.6 3 11.5

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.1 2 7.7

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3 0 0.0

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1 1 3.8

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.5 0 0.0

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2 0 0.0

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2 0 0.0

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.7 3 11.5

All others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 29.2 8 30.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100
20

Table C-13.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by nature of injury

Nature of injury Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Multiple injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 31.9 17 65.4

Sprains, strains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 27.8 0 0.0

Fracture, chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 11.6 0 0.0

Contusion, bruise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9.7 0 0.0

Cut, laceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.6 0 0.0

Burn or scald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.6 2 7.7

Asphyxia, strangulation, drowning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 4 15.4

Concussion, brain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0.8 0 0.0

All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 10.8 3 11.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100

Table C-14.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by age of victim

Age range Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Less than 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.9 1 3.8

20 to 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 17.8 5 19.2

30 to 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 33.2 3 11.5

40 to 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 21.9 4 15.4

50 to 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 16.8 6 23.1

60 to 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.4 6 23.1

70 and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0.5 1 3.8

Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4 0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100

Table C-15.—Fatalities with haulage trucks by mining experience of victim

Number of years of Total years of mining Total years at this mine Total years at this job

experience Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Less than 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 11.5 9 34.7 10 38.5

1 to 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 15.4 7 26.9 6 23.1

5 to 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 38.5 7 26.9 7 26.9

15 to 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 19.2 2 7.7 3 11.5

More than 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 15.4 1 3.8 0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 100 26 100 26 100

HAULAGE TRUCK INJURIES, AUTHOR CLASSIFICATIONS

Table C-16.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by truck activity

Truck activity Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Stationary dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 48.4 4 15.4

Backing up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 42.2 20 76.9

Moving forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.6 2 7.7

Other/unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0.8 0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100
21

Table C-17.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by incident

Incident Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Fell over edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 37.0 22 84.6

Rolled over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 25.1 1 3.8

Bounced or jarred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 21.1 0 0.0

Collision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2 0 0.0

Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.0 2 7.7

Hung up on edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.7 0 0.0

Struck by object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0.8 0 0.0

Contacted powerline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0.8 1 3.8

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.7 0 0.0

Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0.5 0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100

Table C-18.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by effects on operator

Operator Impact Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Struck against object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 54.1 7 26.9

Jarred/tossed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 21.6 0 0.0

Landed outside cab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 14.1 11 42.3

Musculoskeletal injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3 0 0.0

Struck by object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 0 0.0

Burned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 3 11.5

Drowned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 4 15.4

Electrocuted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0.5 1 3.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 100 26 100

Table C-19.—Serious injuries by haulage truck activity by year

Year Stationary dumping Backing up Moving forward Unknown/other Total

1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 18 5 0 47

1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 27 1 0 45

1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 24 4 1 50

1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 3 1 44

1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13 4 0 32

1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 18 2 0 31

1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13 1 0 36

1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7 1 1 24

1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7 6 0 28

1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9 5 0 33

Total . . . . . . . . . 179 156 32 3 370

Table C-20.—Serious injuries and fatalities by exit cause from haulage truck

Exit cause Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Jumped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 67.3 1 9.1

Thrown out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 25.0 7 63.6

Jumped or thrown out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.7 3 27.3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 100 11 100

Table C-21.—Serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks by seat belt use

Use Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

Seat belt worn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.9 0 0.0

Seat belt NOT worn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 21.2 10 90.9

Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 76.9 1 9.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 100 11 100
22

Table C-22.—Contributing factors to serious injuries and fatalities with haulage trucks

Contributing factors Serious injuries Fatalities

Number Percentage of 370 Number Percentage of 26

Edge failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 21.4 6 23.1

Mechanical/hydraulic failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 15.1 2 7.7

Uneven ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 13.0 1 3.8

Load unbalanced/shifted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 11.6 2 7.7

Traveled though berm/barrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8.9 8 30.8

Undercut pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3 6 23.1

No berm or barrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.8 9 34.6

Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4 1 3.8

Truck stalled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.9 0 0.0

Inadequate powerline clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 1 3.8

Limited visibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0.3 1 3.8

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 25.9 0 0.0
23

APPENDIX D.–CODE LISTING FOR AUTHOR-DEFINED INJURY CLASSIFICATIONS

PRIMARY INJURY CLASSIFICATIONS

A. Truck activity: What was the truck doing?

1. Moving forward

2. Backing up

3. Stationary dumping

4. Other

5. Unknown (not enough information)

Note: These activities are based on truck movement. If the

truck was dumping while moving, the activity was coded as

either moving forward or backing up. If the truck was dumping,

but movement was not indicated, the term “stationary dumping”

was used.

B. Incident result: What happened to the truck?

1. Fell over edge, i.e., traveled over an edge and came

to rest at a lower level.

2. Hung up on edge, i.e., traveled onto an edge and got

stuck without falling over.

3. Rolled over, i.e., quarter rolls and other rolls on the

same level.

4. Collision, i.e., collided with mobile equipment or

other large stationary objects.

5. Struck by object, i.e., struck by moving object that

was not a piece of mobile equipment. This category includes an

object coming into the cab.

6. Bounced or jarred, i.e., a sudden release of energy

that caused the truck to bounce or lurch forward or backward.

7. Fire

8. Contacted powerline.

9. Other.

10. Unknown (not enough information).

C. Operator impact: What happened to the truck driver?

1. Struck against object, i.e, operator thrown against

something within truck cab.

2. Jarred/tossed, i.e., sudden release of energy caused

operator to be shaken up or tossed within the truck cab without

striking against something. (Examples: truck bed shifted or

dropped; the truck was backed over a rock or large chunks,

went through a hole, or collided with something at low speed.)

3. Musculoskeletal injury (MSI), i.e., operator hurt

while twisting or turning, reaching too far, pulling or pushing on

something, or lifting something.

4. Landed outside of cab, i.e., operator either jumped or

was thrown from truck cab and struck the ground.

5. Struck by object, i.e., operator hit by moving object

that came either from within or outside the cab.

6. Drowned.

7. Burned.

8. Electrocuted.

9. Other.

10. Unknown (not enough information).

D. Contributing factors: Events that contributed to the injury

incident.

1. Edge failure, i.e., ground at the edge of the dump site

gave way.

2. Mechanical/hydraulic failure, i.e., a mechanical or

hydraulic truck part failed.

3. Undercut pile, i.e., material removed from the base

of a pile compromised the stability of the pile.

4. Traveled through berm/barrier, i.e., the truck went

through an edge berm or barrier.

5. No berm/barrier, i.e, no berm or barrier had been

constructed at the dump site edge.

6. Uneven ground, i.e., the truck traveled over elevated

ground, through holes, or over obstacles.

7. Load unbalanced or shifted , i.e., truck bed material

either shifted or dropped.

8. Weather, i.e., weather conditions were severe.

9. Truck stalled, i.e., truck lost power and moved

without operator control.

10. Inadequate powerline clearance, i.e., powerlines in

a truck dumping area were close enough to the ground that they

could be contacted by a raised bed.

11. Limited visibility, i.e., the truck operator had difficulty seeing because of darkness or severe weather conditions.

Note: More than one factor might have contributed to each

incident.

SECONDARY INJURY CLASSIFICATIONS

A. Exit cause. The way the operator left the truck cab in

incidents in which the operator landed outside the cab.

1. Jumped.

2. Thrown out.

3. Either jumped or thrown out.

B. Seat belt usage. Indication as to whether the truck operator was wearing a seat belt.

0. Unknown.

1. Seat belt worn.

2. Seat belt NOT worn.
Delivering on the Nation’s Promise:

Safety and health at work for all people

Through research and prevention

For information about occupational safety and health topics contact NIOSH at:

1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674)

Fax: 513-533-8573

E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov

www.cdc.gov/niosh

DHHS-(NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-124