1108 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998 

EVALUATION OF MINING ACTIVITIES USING A SCENARIO 

INTERVIEW APPROACH 

Fred Turin 

Lisa Steiner 

Kim Cornelius 

NIOSH, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

Pittsburgh, PA 

NIOSH researchers have been examining underground coal mining activities in order to 

evaluate work crew hazards. In 1994 a continuous mining machine operator was killed by 

falling roof during extended cut mining. Many aspects of the incident were used by NIOSH 

researchers to develop a scenario interview. The goal was to provide a realistic framework 

for acquiring frank and detailed insights. The interview consists of two sections. The first 

describes the underground mining conditions. The second recounts the fatal incident. Each 

section is supplemented by a diagram and a set of questions addressing relevant safety issues. 

The interview was administered at three mines that actively take extended cuts. Researchers 

found the scenario approach to be an effective interview tool as well as an effective hazard 

awareness and safe work practices training platform. 

INTRODUCTION 

Underground coal mining is unpredictable by 

nature and presents workers with numerous hazards. 

Many of these hazards, including roof falls, occur 

near the working face. During the 1970s remote 

control technology was introduced to increase 

productivity and improve safety. Because of this 

innovation, mine workers were able to take longer 

cuts of coal. A face advancement that exceeds 

twenty feet is considered an extended cut. Extended 

cut mining was first allowed by the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA) in 1979 and has 

since been widely adopted. 

The use of extended cut mining has resulted in 

industry wide safety concerns. Removal of the 

operator from equipment may reduce exposure to 

equipment hazards but may increase exposure to 

other hazards and/or create new hazards. Human 

factors researchers at the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) were 

charged with examining extended cut mining 

activities in order to better define work crew 

hazards. This information is to be used to develop 

generalized innovations for work procedures, 

equipment redesign, and training strategies that 

improve safety. 

Ground falls have been the largest cause of 

underground coal mining fatalities. In addition, 

many victims were found to be in an area of 

unsupported roof at the time they were killed (Bauer 

et al., 1994). In 1994 a continuous mining machine 

(CM) operator was fatally injured while turning a 

cross cut during extended cut mining. The CM 

operator was struck by falling roof while extracting 

coal and may have been under unsupported top. An 

exploratory study of this incident was conducted as 

part of NIOSH extended cut mining research. 

One key finding by NIOSH researchers was the 

desire of CM operators to view the face while 

extracting coal. Establishing a physical location 

that provides a clear field of view and having 

adequate illumination were viewed as critical needs 

by CM operators (Steiner et al., 1997). It was 

discovered that these issues were exacerbated when 

turning a cross cut. 

In response to these findings, researchers 

developed a scenario interview that addressed cross 

cut safety issues. Many aspects of the 1994 fatal 

injury were incorporated into the scenario interview 
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998 1109 

guide. The goal of the scenario interview was to 

provide a realistic hands-on approach to acquiring 

insights from face crew members. 

THESIS 

NIOSH researchers assert that the use of a 

realistic scenario interview will result in frank and 

detailed responses from face crew members. This 

approach provides an effective means of acquiring 

worker perceptions of the types of hazards that 

exist, the relative magnitude of the hazards, and 

what could be done to reduce or eliminate hazards. 

SCENARIO INTERVIEW APPROACH 

A prototype version of the interview was 

developed to test the efficacy of this approach. Four 

face crew members were interviewed individually at 

a single underground mine site using laminated 

hand-held diagrams. Interviews were administered 

by two ergonomists with considerable experience 

interviewing underground mine workers. 

Respondents found the scenario to be realistic 

and easy to relate to. More important, interviewers 

were able to engage face workers in meaningful 

dialogs related to target safety issues. Results were 

reviewed by NIOSH human factors and mining 

researchers and characterized as open, honest, and 

insightful. A final version of the interview was 

developed using prototype findings and reviewer 

recommendations. Three mines that actively take 

extended cuts were identified for the scenario 

interview evaluation. 

The scenario interview consists of two sections. 

The first section, background information, describes 

underground mining conditions for a face crew 

turning a left cross cut. The second section recounts 

briefly a fatal injury that resulted from a roof fall 

that occurs shortly after the scenario presented in 

the background section. Each section is 

supplemented by a diagram that specifies the 

location of face crew members and equipment, and 

a set of questions. The final version of the scenario 

sections and accompanying diagrams are presented 

as Figures 1 through 4. 

Figure 1: Background Story and Questions 

The centers had been marked on the mine roof and ribs 

to start the 2 to 1 left crosscut. The # 2 entry had been 

mined 2-3 feet off center up to the last cut mined. The 

last cut in the #2 entry was brought back to center by 

offsetting to the right about 3 feet. The last row of bolts 

for the crosscut was not in direct alignment with the left 

rib bolts of the entry. 

Visible warning was not posted to prevent persons 

from inadvertently traveling inby permanent roof 

supports. The miner operator, using a Jeffery radio 

remote controlled continuous miner (CM) with leftmounted cable, had taken the initial lift from entry 2 to 1 

(left xcut) on the left side and was taking the 2”d lift on the 

right side. The operator mines the 2 to 1 left crosscut to 

about 3 1 feet in depth. The helper was outby the operator 

monitoring the trailing cable. 

As a CM operator on this section, 

A. What concerns would you have before starting this 

cut? 

B. What could be done about these concerns? 

C. Where would you position yourself to take this lift? 

Figure 2: Background Diagram 

Not to scale 

CM Miner Operator 

H Helper 

SC Shuttle Car Operator 

Roof Bolts 
1110 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998 

Figure 3: Fatal Injury Story and Questions 

The shuttle car was nearly loaded when the CM 

operator, standing at the last row of bolts, was pinned to 

the floor by a large piece of rock that fell from the top. 

CM operators had been warned to stay at least 2 rows of 

bolts back. This particular operator had been warned 

twice in the 2 months before the incident and just minutes 

before the fall. 

The width of the opening from 2 to 1 left crosscut 

was 27.5 feet. The approved roof plan requires the 

opening to be limited to 26 feet in width. 

D. Could this type of situation occur at this mine? 

YES or NO Why or why not? 

E. If YES, When would something like this most 

likely happen? 

F. Have you had any special training that would 

have helped you to better assess this situation? 

YES or NO If YES, what? 

Figure 4: Fatal Injury Diagram 

I 

Not to scale 

CM Miner Operator 

H Helper 

SC Shuttle Car Operator 

At the first mine site ten face crew members 

were interviewed. In an attempt to get a 

representative sample of face crew workers, 

participants were chosen from different sections and 

different shifts. Prior to collecting scenario data, 

background data on each participant was collected. 

All participants were assured that their responses 

would be held in confidence and that their 

participation was strictly voluntary. During the 

interview participants were encouraged to examine 

diagrams closely and to make sure they understood 

the conditions of the scenario. They were 

encouraged to draw on the diagrams and make 

diagrams of their own to clarify answers. Eight 

interviews were administered individually at various 

underground sites. One interview was conducted 

above ground and administered using flip chart 

sized diagrams to two members of the same crew. 

The above ground interview was conducted by 

three researchers concurrently. One ergonomist 

administered the interview and the other two 

facilitated data collections and respondent 

participation. Examination of results from the first 

mine revealed that the above ground results were 

superior in terms of the ability to accurately collect 

data and to elicit more in depth responses. 

Researchers felt that dialogs between the two 

workers allowed for a broad discussion of relevant 

safety issues. 

Interviews at the second and third mine sites 

were conducted above ground with face crew 

members from various sections that work the same 

shift. Large diagrams were posted on a wall and the 

groups sat facing the diagram. Again, all 

participants were assured that their participation 

was strictly voluntary and they were encouraged to 

use the diagrams when responding to questions. 

Twenty-two face crew members were interviewed at 

the two mine sites. At the second site two groups 

were interviewed, a group of three and a group of 

six. At the third site two groups were interviewed, a 

group of six and a group of seven. 

FINDINGS 

Findings consist of responses to questions that 

follow the background and fatal injury sections of 

the interview. Information from drawings was 

incorporated into responses. The findings presented 

are summaries of the most common responses to 

each question. 
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998 III1 

Background Responses 

As a CM operator on this section, 

Question 1: What concerns would you have 

before starting this cut? 

- With this mining setup and cut pattern, it would 

be hard for the CM operator to be well back from 

unsupported top and see face and avoid shuttle car 

- Where CM operator is standing a fall can occur 

- An offset bolt pattern increases the chances of 

being under unsupported top 

- A large unsupported roof area will be opened up 

as the turn is developed 

- Bolts are not close enough to rib 

- Curtain is too far from CM, the #2 entry is not 

getting ventilated and there would be too much dust 

at face 

Question 2: What can be done about these 

concerns? 

- CM operator should stand well back from 

unsupported top 

- Put ventilation and cable on right when take left 

turns so CM operator can work well back on right 

side of CM 

- Take a notch cut and bolt it before cutting turn 

- CM operator should check roof conditions and 

ask bolters for an assessment before cutting turn 

- Always bolt as tight to ribs as possible and use 

extra bolts used when you have an offset entry 

- You should shorten cut to 20 or 30 feet if you 

have concerns about conditions 

- Extend curtain closer to CM 

Question 3: Where would you position yourself 

to take this lift? 

- On the cable side and as close to the shuttle car 

as possible 

- In the center of the entry next to the shuttle car, I 

would let shuttle car operator know I was there, I 

might even be a little behind the shuttle car 

- Even with the rib line where cut was started but 

two rows of bolts over. If the distance is greater 

than 3 feet between rib and bolts, I won’t stand by 

rib. 

- Initially, on left rib further back from turn. You 

have room here since closer to rib and the shuttle 

car has room. When shuttle car moves in, move 

closer to shuttle car. 

- In a bolted notch cut if available 

- Where helper is on drawing, you need to be 

further back 

Fatal Injury Responses 

Question 1: Could this type of situation could 

occur at this mine? YES or NO 

- Thirty of thirty-two respondents said YES. 

- Two respondents said NO. Both No 

respondents were interviewed individually at the 

first mine site. 

The following comments were made regarding 

Why or why not 

- If CM operator not aware of mine conditions 

- If CM operator places himself in a dangerous 

location, it could happen anytime CM operator 

stands that close to unsupported top 

- Adequate bolting is important, when bolting 

inadequate a fall could happen anywhere 

- Whenever you have a significant offset bolt 

pattern 

- It would not happen here because we stand on 

right of CM when cutting turns to left and can stay 

well back from unsupported top 

Question 2: When would something like this 

most likely happen? 

- Bad roof conditions, the cut sequence, and 

people’s attitudes could all result in a situation like 

this one 

- Whenever you get off site lines that much 

- Sometimes operators get into a comfort zone 

and lose the edge in terms of awareness. 

- Whenever you run cable on left and make left 

turns 

- Whenever people are tired or in a hurry 

- If CM operator trying to get in position to see or 

focusing too much on what he is doing and not on 

mine conditions, it is hard to look at everything at 

same time 

Question 3: Have you had any special training 

that would have helped you to better assess this 

situation? YES NO 

- Responses were almost equally mixed between 
1112 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998 

YES and NO 

- None of the mines had a special training 

program 

- One of the mines sent a select group of face 

crew workers to other mines to observe their mining 

practices 

- In general, they learned from experience and 

received safety guidelines during annual retraining 

DISCUSSION 

Responses to background questions indicated 

that several significant concerns were easily 

identifiable: the offset entry, the bolt pattern, the 

mining setup and cut pattern, and the CM operator’s 

proximity to unsupported roof. Each mine had 

working conditions, equipment, and procedures that 

differed from those of the scenario. These 

differences influenced responses to questions 

regarding corrective actions or preferred methods. 

There was a definite preference for procedures that 

face workers were accustomed to using. It was 

generally believed that if the scenario mine had used 

procedures similar to their mine then the CM 

operator would have been able to work from a safer 

location. 

The fatal injury questions elicited more 

reflective and candid responses. Most participants 

indicated that this type of accident could occur at 

any mine given the right set of conditions. It was 

generally believed that if the CM operator had 

stayed well back from unsupported roof the fatality 

would not have occurred. The combination of an 

offset bolt pattern and working too close to 

unsupported roof was considered very dangerous. 

Although this question was not asked, several 

respondents reported having observed CM operators 

either at their current mine or at another mine 

working too close to unsupported top. 

Reaction to the scenario interview was 

universally positive. Participants were eager to 

share their thoughts and expressed interest in 

learning about other participant’s thoughts. They 

felt that the scenario presented circumstances that 

were realistic and easy to relate to. Interviews 

conducted in small groups with flip chart size 

diagrams were most effective. They provided a 

good forum for open discussion and debate of safety 

issues and concerns in a setting that permitted 

accurate and complete collection of responses. 

The approach presented is by no means a novel 

one. Variations of scenario-based interviewing 

have been used for many applications. It was the 

intent of the researchers to show that if a short but 

well crafted scenario was developed that it could be 

effective in acquiring candid and detailed responses 

from underground coal mine face crews. In 

particular, each underground mining environment 

has unique physical and operational characteristics 

but face many similar work scenarios. 

A subjective evaluation of the scenario results 

by the ergonomists who conducted this work 

concluded that the results exceeded expectations. In 

support of this evaluation was the universally 

positive feedback from participants and mine 

managers who received reports outlining the 

findings for their respective mines. Mine managers 

were genuinely pleased with both the quality and 

quantity of feedback garnered. 

Finally, the most useful outcome of this effort 

may be the utility of this approach as a training tool. 

Scenarios can be crafted as simple realistic stories 

using characteristics of recent serious injuries or a 

series of common less serious injuries. The 

mechanism can be used to educate the work force 

about the types of hazards that exist and injuries that 

have occurred. The end result would be to survey 

the work force about safety issues that are important 

to them as well as creating a participatory platform 

for hazard awareness and safe work practice 

training. It is hoped that this example provides a 

framework for others to further evaluate and utilize 

this approach in dynamic working environments. 

REFERENCES 

Bauer, E., Steiner, L., and Hamrick, C. (1994). Extended Cut 

Mining and Worker Safety in Underground Coal Mines. 

SME Preprint 95-60,7 pages. 

Steiner, L., Turin, F., and Cornelius, K. (1997). A Method for 

Evaluating System Interactions in a Dynamic Work 

Environment. In B. Das and W. Karwowski (Eds.), 

Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safely 1997, 

(pp. 603-606). 10s Press and Ohmsha. 

This work is not subject to U.S. copyright restrictions.