TM

IC9481

INFORMATIONCIRCULAR/2005

Fire Response Preparedness

for Underground Mines

Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 

 

 

Information Circular 9481 

Fire Response Preparedness for Underground Mines 

By Ronald S. Conti, Linda L. Chasko, William J. Wiehagen, 

and Charles P. Lazzara, Ph.D. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

Pittsburgh, PA 

December 2005 
 

 

________________________________________ 

 

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 

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 the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to Web sites external 

to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs 

or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these Web sites. 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006–105 
 CONTENTS
 

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................. 

Page 

1
 

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

Fire response preparedness................................................................................................................................................. 6
 

Emergency plan............................................................................................................................................................. 6

 Fire detection................................................................................................................................................................. 6

 Warning systems ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

 Fire response ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
 

 Evacuation ................................................................................................................................................................ 8
 

 Escapeway aides .................................................................................................................................................. 9
 

 Evacuation kits..................................................................................................................................................... 10
 

 Fighting the fire ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
 

 First response ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
 

 Second response................................................................................................................................................... 11
 

 Sustained response............................................................................................................................................... 11
 

 Nourishment for responders................................................................................................................................. 11
 

Workforce skills................................................................................................................................................................. 11
 

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14
 

References.......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
 

Appendix A.—Revised mine emergency evacuation and firefighting plan ....................................................................... 16
 

Appendix B.—Performance evaluation instruments.......................................................................................................... 18

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Emergency preparedness model .............................................................................................................................. 3
 

2. Fire preparedness model.......................................................................................................................................... 4
 

3. First response on discovery of underground mine fire ............................................................................................ 5
 

4. Conceptual representation of a wireless mine communication and warning system............................................... 8
 

5. Extinguishing a liquid fuel fire with dry chemical powder ..................................................................................... 12
 

6. Extinguishing a 400-ft2

 liquid fuel fire.................................................................................................................... 13
 

7. Rescue team entering fire gallery ............................................................................................................................ 13
 

8. Rescue team member fighting a conveyor belt fire ................................................................................................. 13
 

TABLES 

1. Categories of underground mine fires, 1991–2000 ....................................................................................................... 2
 

UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 

cfm cubic feet per minute 

fpm feet per minute 

ft feet 

ft2 

 square feet 

g grams 

hr hour 

Hz hertz 

in inch 

kHz kilohertz 

lb pound 

min minute 

mm millimeter 

mW milliwatt 

nm nanometer 

sec second 
DEDICATION 

This report was initially prepared by Ronald S. Conti and is dedicated to his 

memory. Ron passed away unexpectedly on October 28, 2003. His efforts to 

enhance the training, safety, and effectiveness of mine emergency responders 

have been recognized worldwide. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

FIRE RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS FOR UNDERGROUND MINES

 By Ronald S. Conti,1

1

Fire prevention engineer (deceased).

 Linda L. Chasko,2

2

Physical science technician.

 William J. Wiehagen,3

3

Industrial engineer.

 and Charles P. Lazzara, Ph.D.4 

4

Supervisory physical scientist.
 

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

ABSTRACT 

Fire has long been a concern for underground mine workers. A mine fire can occur at any time and can 

result in a partial or total evacuation of mine personnel and the loss of lives. Fires can grow rapidly. Time 

is the critical element. Prompt detection, timely and accurate warnings to those potentially affected, and a 

proficient response by underground miners can have a tremendous impact on the social and economic consequence of a small underground fire. Fire preparedness and response have components of technology and 

people. These components can work synergistically to reduce the time it takes to bring the system back in 

balance. This report deals with the preparedness of miners to respond to underground mine fires. It is 

intended to aid the mining industry in understanding the various roles of emergency responders and the 

training techniques used to increase their skill levels. The report also presents a technology overview to 

assist in effective response to mine fires. 
 

 

2 

INTRODUCTION 

There has been significant progress over the years in 

reducing the number of lives lost due to mine fires. Today, there is a better scientific understanding of fire risk 

within the mining community and ways to minimize risk 

when fire does occur. This is mostly attributed to improved fire-resistant materials, better detection systems, 

fire suppression systems, and a more skilled workforce. 

Research conducted over a long period has led to better 

standards of acceptable performance. At the same time, 

due to the nature and characteristics of mining, fire is a 

constant. Small fires have occurred and always will occur 

in underground mines. 

There is no accurate record of small mine fires. However, some fires are required to be reported. Statistics 

maintained by the Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA) indicate that 137 underground coal, metal, and 

nonmetal mine fires were reported in the United States 

during 1991–2000.5

5

Mine fire statistics were obtained from information maintained at 

MSHA's Office of Injury and Employment Information, Denver, CO.

 The fires resulted in 2 fatalities and 

34 injuries (these statistics include the Willow Creek Mine 

explosion and fire, which accounted for 2 fatalities and 

8 injuries). 30 CFR6

6

Code of Federal Regulations. See CFR in references. 

50.20 requires mine operators to report to MSHA any unplanned mine fire that is not extinguished within 30 min of discovery or any fire, regardless 

of its duration, that causes an injury or fatality. There are 

different levels of reporting across companies; the only 

constant is those fires that are required to be reported to 

MSHA. For example, some mines track small fires by the 

number of fire extinguishers used; others track them 

through production downtime reports. Some mines require 

internal incident reports for all unplanned fires. For 

planned fires, many mines require "hot work permits" 

when flame cutting and welding underground. 

Table 1 shows the various categories of the 137 underground mine fires that were reported to MSHA during 

1991–2000: 76 underground coal mine fires and 61 underground metal/nonmetal mine fires. 

Table 1.—Categories of underground mine fires, 1991–2000 

Category Percent 

Coal Metal/nonmetal 

Cutting and welding 14 16 

Electrical 14 10 

Friction 24 5 

Mobile equipment1 15 46 

Spontaneous combustion 12 2 

Other 21 21

 Total 100 100 1For a more in-depth summary of mobile equipment 

fires, see De Rosa [2004a]. 

Source: MSHA accident reports, 1991–2000. 

As the table shows, 

friction is the most common cause of underground coal 

mine fires, while mobile equipment malfunction is the 

leading cause of fires in underground metal/nonmetal 

mines. 

Fire is a common concern for underground workers. 

A fire occurred during production on November 25, 1998, 

at Cyprus Plateau Mining Corp.'s Willow Creek underground coal mine near Price, UT. All underground miners 

evacuated with no serious injuries. The mine was sealed 

and inert gas injected into the fire area. The mine returned 

to normal operations about a year later. Nine months later 

on July 31, 2000, two miners died and eight were injured 

because of a series of four explosions and a fire 

[McKinney et al. 2001]. Another fire occurred on February 8, 2001, at the Homestake Gold Mine, Lead, SD. 

Thirty-seven miners evacuated. Rescue teams mustered 

and discovered the fire in an old timber stope (inactive 

area) between the 3,500- and 3,652-ft levels. Water was 

used to flood the affected area. More recent reportable 

underground coal mine fires occurred at Mine 84 in Pennsylvania (January 6, 2003), VP 8 Mine in Virginia 

(April 9, 2003), Pinnacle Mine in West Virginia 

(September 1, 2003), Dotiki Mine in Kentucky 

(February 11, 2004), and Excel No. 3 Mine in Kentucky 

(December 25, 2004). 

These examples suggest that the remote nature of underground mining requires on-site workers to be well 

trained and prepared, especially in the early stages of 

emergency response.7 

7

The large majority of U.S. worksites rely on community services 

(e.g., volunteer or paid professional emergency responders) if fire occurs. 

In contrast, underground miners need higher levels of fire prevention and 

response skills similar to those of Navy personnel out at sea. 

The early stage is critical. Decisions and actions greatly influence the outcome. When 

fire does occur, escape is often complicated [Cole et al. 

1998; Vaught et al. 1997] and may not always be a viable 

option. Thus, the concept of fire preparedness for the individual mine site is an ongoing process. 

Fire preparedness is a subset of emergency preparedness and has logical components of both prevention 

and response. Methods to measure aspects of fire prevention and response are complex and difficult to quantify. In an emergency, it is commonplace for those 

involved to get the system back to normal—in minimal 

time. Figure1 illustrates this concept. From the model, 

being prepared minimizes the negative consequences 

(social and economic costs) of getting the system back 

in balance. It takes less time when workers are skilled 

in their response and have access to adequate technology. Being prepared can reduce, but not eliminate, the 

probability of negative consequences. 

With little preparation for emergency response, higher 

risks for severe and long-term consequences are probable. 

Negative consequences are not always limited to the specific organization and employees affected. In a serious 

emergency when lives are at risk, consequences (e.g., new 

regulations) can affect the entire industry. Likewise, when 

prepared, the unexpected event offers a good opportunity 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

for organizational learning not only within the site, but also 

across sites—if the information is accurately and objectively shared. For example, when a small fire is extinguished, it can help individuals and the organization learn 

about their emergency response capability. In effect, it is a 

test of the emergency response system. Small fires are 

likely at any worksite,8

8

Although it is very likely that any small, accessible fire will be extinguished at mine sites, that "success" does not mean that the response system is adequate. With a practical and objective incident analysis, the 

system might be improved with small investments designed to better prevent or respond to future similar events. 

 and in one context, what is learned 

from those small fires can help prevent larger, more serious 

fires. It depends on the analysis and how one perceives and 

acts on the opportunities. There are some tools available to 

help assess and enhance levels of fire preparedness, such as 

an underground coal mine fire preparedness and response 

checklist [Conti et al. 2000]. 

Figure 1.—Emergency preparedness model. 

Figure 2 shows a fire preparedness model and is one example of emergency response. Fire preparedness is defined 

within the context of prevention and response. Normal, everyday aspects of safe production tacitly assume some aspect 

of fire prevention. Fire prevention is integrated with production tasks. Examples include housekeeping, examining electrical cables, fire bossing, and washing down equipment. 

The work system is in balance. For any organization, the large 

majority of time is spent in normal, day-to-day work activities. 

Time is always important in a balanced, productive work system. In an emergency, the importance of time dramatically 

increases and the perception of time changes. When a fire is 

detected, time becomes critical. The work system is out of 

balance, and production is interrupted. Decisions are often 

made very quickly to evacuate or fight the fire. 

Once a fire is detected and confirmed, there are three 

logical and progressive stages of fire response: first, second, and sustained response (Figure 2). At each stage, 

time is the main measure of effective response. The less 

time it takes to detect a small fire, the less time it takes to 

warn coworkers and evacuate, the less time it takes to muster, fight, and extinguish the fire (by first or second responders)9

9

Responders in this context are considered the entire workforce and 

are categorized as follows. First responders are the first to encounter a fire 

and either (1) evacuate or (2) investigate, then initiate firefighting. Second 

re-sponders, or fire brigades, have advanced firefighting skills and specialized personal protective equipment. They assume firefighting activities 

when the fire becomes too dangerous to be fought by first responders. 

Sustained re-sponders, or mine rescue teams, are trained to rescue trapped 

and injured personnel, fight fires, or recover a mine [Conti et al. 1998, 

1999]. Evacuating miners are categorized in this model as first responders. 

—the greater the odds are of quickly getting the 
Figure 2.—Fire preparedness model. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

system back in balance. It requires effective firefighting 

technology and skilled responders. 

Response time is directly related to the time it takes to 

detect, issue warnings, and muster an effective response. If 

those first on the scene are not skilled in fire response and 

do not have adequate firefighting equipment, it delays effective response. If a second response is needed, it further 

delays the time to bring the system back in balance. With a 

mine rescue and recovery response, the time it takes to 

bring the system back in balance is extensive—it can vary 

from a few weeks, to months and years, or not at all. Figures 1 and 2 indicate that in a fire emergency, time is the 

critical measure. It remains critical until the system is back 

in balance, implying that no one is at risk and the fire is 

either extinguished or safely contained behind seals. 

The success of safely extinguishing an incipient mine 

fire depends on several factors, such as an awareness of the 

fire hazard, early and accurate detection, availability of 

effective firefighting equipment, quick response time, and 

skilled re-sponders. If a mine fire cannot be contained by 

direct fire-fight-ing methods within a short time after discovery, the chances of successfully extinguishing the fire, 

without sealing, and getting the work system back in balance are greatly diminished. 

Previous fire research and actual underground fires 

have shown that mine fires can spread rapidly. For example, large-scale fire gallery experiments [Lazzara and Perzak 1990] have shown that conveyor belt fires can propagate at rates of more than 20 fpm. This can surprise underground workers, as many may believe that fireresistant belting will not burn. Mine fires often grow out 

of control because of poor planning, inoperative or slowresponding detection systems [Conti and Litton 1992, 

1993; Morrow and Litton 1992; Edwards and Morrow 

1994], inadequate water supplies, inappropriate firefighting equipment, broken waterlines, failed suppression 

systems, improper personal protective equipment, and 

time wasted in response due to poor communication and 

inappropriate decisions and actions. 

Mitchell [1990] states: "The best facilities and equipment can never compensate for poor preparation." Skilled 

responders can often compensate for the lack of state-ofthe-art response technology. At the same time, tested technology in the hands of skilled workers can save significant 

amounts of time in a fire emergency. 

In response to fire, a decision is often quickly made to 

fight the fire or evacuate. Figure 3 illustrates these critical 

decisions and plausible actions. 

Figure 3.—First response on discovery of underground mine fire. 

 A large part of mine fire 

preparedness is management and worker capability, experience, motivation, and training. 

One of the goals of NIOSH is to enhance the safety of 

mine workers by preventing disasters caused by fires and 

explosions. This report deals with the preparedness of responders to underground mine fires. It is intended to aid 

the mining industry in understanding the various roles of 

emergency responders and the training techniques used to 

increase their skill levels. Fire preparedness and response 

have components of technology and people. These components can work synergistically to reduce the time it takes to 

bring the system back in balance. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

FIRE RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS
 

EMERGENCY PLAN 

The first few minutes after discovery of a fire are crucial. 

The key is to minimize the time it takes to respond. Because 

most mine fire emergencies are unique, an emergency plan for 

every situation is not possible. However, there are certain 

elements common to all emergency plans, and preparing a 

written plan can help reduce the turmoil associated with the 

emergency. One of the most important elements of an emergency plan is a communication protocol that includes notification of key officials—and especially responders—immediately 

after discovery of an emergency. A competent person on-site 

is key. Competence implies skills—both training and experience. Communication, protocol, and leadership skills can be 

taught, and assessing those skills occurs either through simulated practice or real events. Mine emergency plans that are 

well thought out contain many other provisions, including the 

surface organization, facilities, and outside sources of assistance for support purposes. At times, having access to outside 

experts is key, as advice from these experts can be weighed to 

help save time and limit the consequences. Good sources of 

planning for mine emergency response can be found in Title 30 CFR and at several Web sites.10 

10For example, see 30 CFR 75.1502, 57.4363, 57.4760(a)(3), 57.11053 

and the MSHA Web site www.msha.gov/ets02-31358/ 

etsevacuationtemplate.htm (reproduced in Appendix A of this report). 

In addition, the National Mine Rescue Association (NMRA) offers information 

on the mine emergency command structure [NMRA 1994a]. 

The mine emergency plan should be periodically reviewed and understood. Everyone should be kept informed 

of any changes as modifications to the plan are made. Fire 

drills are an important part of the plan and are required at 

90-day intervals or more frequently. The main purpose of 

the drill is to test certain aspects of the emergency plan. 

Organizations need to be reasonably sure that there is a 

balance between the technology to prevent, detect, and respond to fire and the skills within the workforce to use the 

technology. Fire drills, in a sense, are opportunities to help 

workers develop or maintain skills to put the response 

(emergency) plan into action. As shown by Figure 3, upon 

discovery of a mine fire, decisions are often complicated as 

the situation unfolds. 

FIRE DETECTION 

During the incipient stages of a fire, smoke and gaseous 

products, including carbon monoxide (CO), are produced 

and released into the mine atmosphere. If these products 

are not detected in the early stages of combustion, they can 

result in severe hazards to personnel in remote and confined 

areas. Many underground mine fires are discovered in their 

early stages by mine personnel who see or smell smoke, 

then make a quick decision to either investigate and fight 

the fire or escape. Pomroy and Carigiet [1995] and 

De Rosa [2004a,b] reviewed MSHA investigative reports 

for underground coal mine fires that occurred during 

1978–1992 and 1990–1999, respectively. They found 

that over 75% of these fires were first detected by miners 

who saw smoke, smelled smoke, or saw the fire start. 

These findings are supported by more extensive field 

research detailing miners' experiences in responding to 

small fires [Vaught et al. 1996; Wiehagen et al. 1997b]. 

The study detailed the experiences of workers at 

7 underground coal mines to gain a better understanding 

of fire preparedness from 214 underground workers. Of 

note, only one of these mines had an MSHA reportable 

mine fire, yet many of the miners interviewed (about 

70%) indicated that, over the course of their mining career, they had some direct experience in helping to extinguish a fire. The large majority of those incipient fire 

incidents were first detected by miners who saw or 

smelled smoke. 

The presence of smoke underground is not unusual, as 

"hot work" (flame cutting and welding operations) is 

common and necessary to maintain mining and haulage 

machinery. Seeing or smelling smoke is not necessarily 

evidence of an emergency. In interviewing the 214 underground miners, most reported seeing or smelling 

smoke about once per week to once per month. In many 

cases, miners are well aware of the source of the smoke. 

However, being caught off guard by the sight or smell of 

smoke presents a different picture. Across the seven 

mines, about 40% of the workers reported being caught 

off guard within the past month, another 30% in the past 

3 months, and about 20% of the interviewees reported 

being caught off guard within the past 6 months. The 

source of the smoke is important. If the source is on the 

working section, finding and correcting the problem can 

be timely, effective, and relatively straightforward. 

However, about one-third of the 214 miners indicated 

that they recalled being caught off guard by smoke coming from somewhere off their section. If miners consider 

the presence of smoke to be commonplace at some 

mines, this could lead to complacency and delayed response. They may assume that some-one else is investigating, or it is part of planned flame-cutting and welding 

maintenance activities. 

The success of safely controlling and extinguishing an 

incipient mine fire depends on several factors. The key 

is quick detection and response. The successful detection of a developing fire in a mine entry using CO or 

smoke sensors requires that three events take place, each 

with some associated time frame [Conti and Litton 1992; 

Litton et al. 1991]. The first event that must occur is that 

the developing fire must be large enough to generate 

bulk average CO or smoke levels greater than, or equal 

to, the alarm threshold levels of the sensors. Bulk average levels are those levels that result upon complete mixing of the fire-produced CO or smoke with the ventilation airflow. The time it takes for sufficient CO or 

smoke to be produced depends on the type of fire. For a 

liquid fuel fire, this time is short because the total surface 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

area of the liquid fuel is involved very rapidly from the 

moment of ignition. For a more slowly developing coal 

fire, this time increases. If smoldering occurs at a sufficient 

temperature, detection of the smoldering stage of a coal fire 

is possible. If smoldering does not occur long enough and 

flames erupt before detection, then the coal fire must attain 

a sufficient intensity to generate the required CO or smoke 

alarm thresholds. 

The second event that must occur is the transport of the CO 

or smoke from the fire to the sensor location. The time it takes 

to do this is the sensor spacing divided by the air velocity. At 

low air velocities, this time can be long and have a significant 

effect upon the time to alarm. Increasing the airflow decreases 

the travel time, but also dilutes the CO and smoke levels. 

Thirdly, the sensor must rapidly respond to the CO or 

smoke levels. Although most sensors respond rapidly, the use 

of a sensor with a longer response time can increase the time to 

alarm. The delay (from the incipient fire stage to the time it 

takes for the ventilation system to move the products of combustion downwind to locations where workers are present) 

could cause the fire to grow in intensity to the point where 

escape is the only option. When this happens, escape can be 

very complicated [Vaught et al. 2000]. Timely detection and 

communication is key. If the fire is off the section, the communication of essential information about the emergency requires personnel to investigate the source. If an alarm sounds 

on the surface (e.g., sensors indicate a rise in CO levels or the 

presence of smoke) to indicate a potential problem, it is either 

a false alarm or a fire. If workers see or smell smoke coming 

into their working section, there is less uncertainty. In any 

case, determining the source of the problem is key and time is 

critical. 

For underground mines that use diesel engine-powered 

equipment, an array of fire sensors may be necessary for 

the early and reliable detection of incipient mine fires. Particulate and CO emissions from diesel engines can produce 

false fire alarms that miners can learn to ignore. NIOSH 

research showed that multiple-type sensors (including CO, 

smoke, and metal oxide semiconductor sensors) and a neural network analysis program successfully predicted smoldering coal and conveyor belt fires in the presence of diesel 

emissions several minutes before the onset of flaming combustion. The system did not alarm when subjected only to 

diesel emissions [Edwards et al. 2002; Friel and Edwards 

2002; Edwards et al. 2004]. 

WARNING SYSTEMS 

Underground mines rely on various systems, such as 

stench gas, audible or visual alarms, pager phones, telephones, and messengers to warn miners of a fire or other 

emergency that can affect the entire mine. These systems 

are often slow, unreliable, and limited in their mine coverage. It is imperative during an underground emergency that 

all persons, no matter their location, be able to get quick 

notification of the emergency. An Australian mining research initiative resulted in the commercial availability of a 

"paging" system for underground mines [Zamel 1990]. The 

Personal Emergency Device (PED) communication system 

is a "through-the-earth" transmission system that enables 

one-way communication of specific messages with individuals underground, no matter what their location and 

without depending on underground cables or wiring. The 

low-frequency electromagnetic field can penetrate kilometers of soil and rock to reach the most remote shaft or tunnel, which makes it ideal for underground signaling and 

paging. This system consists of a personal computer, lowfrequency transmitter, portable receiving units, and surface 

and/or underground loop antennas that can be strategically 

placed to create an electromagnetic signal that can completely envelop most mines without using repeater systems. 

Messages can be directed to an individual, to a group, or to 

all underground/surface personnel. Escape routes and the 

fire location could be communicated, fire brigades and 

mine rescue teams alerted, and key personnel contacted. 

When the message is received, the caplamp flashes and the 

miner can then read the message from a liquid crystal display on top of the lamp battery. The first demonstration of 

the system in the United States was conducted at NIOSH's 

Lake Lynn Laboratory in November 1990. Figure 4 shows 

a typical configuration of the wireless system for a multilevel mine. The transmitter loop antenna is on the surface, 

and a receiver/transmitter loop antenna is underground. 

The system can also turn devices such as strobe lights on or 

off. Additional information on wireless signaling systems 

and medium-frequency radio communication systems for 

mine rescue was reported by Conti and Yewen [1997] and 

Dobroski and Stolarczyk [1982]. 

A successful evacuation of miners during the Willow 

Creek mine fire that occurred on November 25, 1998, was 

attributed to the PED system. The paging system was activated when miners saw flames and telephoned the dispatcher to evacuate the mine. The PED system allowed a 

mine evacuation plan to be safely carried out before the 

mine passageways filled with smoke. All 45 underground 

miners escaped in approximately 45 min. There are approximately 17 PED systems installed in U.S. coal mines 

and 2 in metal/nonmetal mines. 

Transtek, Inc., has developed a wireless, two-way cellular communications system for underground mines [Product 

and Process News 2001]. The ComCell technology allows 

mine-wide wireless communication and can be used to reduce communication costs and improve underground productivity in addition to its use for emergencies. The system 

consists of a master and several remote-control modules 

connected by a minimal wired network, each module having an antenna associated with it. Miners using wireless 

two-way radios can communicate from anywhere in the 

mine with other persons in the mine without being in the 

direct line of sight of the antennas. In addition to providing 

voice communication, the system also provides mine-wide 

data communication between computer terminals, or between remote sensors and a terminal, by using wireless data 

transceivers. Options include multichannels and integration 

with existing telephone systems. Also being tested is a 

unique through-the-earth wireless system that allows two­
 

 

 

8 

way mobile voice and data communications between the 

underground passageways and aboveground sites. Currently, the systems are installed in an underground mushroom mine and an underground limestone storage facility, 

both in Pennsylvania. 

During mine rescue training simulations at Lake Lynn 

Laboratory, the ComCell technology was evaluated by team 

members. Four ComCells were temporarily positioned at 

stra-tegic underground locations, and the signal was received at over 98% of the underground workings and the 

surface conference room. One radio was used by the team 

and another by the briefing officer at the underground fresh 

air base. The briefing officer in one area of the mine was 

also able to communicate to the briefing officer in another 

part of the mine with the two-way radios. This preliminary 

testing indicated excellent voice clarity of the radio signal. 

A major advantage of this new system was that all team 

members were able to hear what the briefing officer was 

communicating. Transtek has now commercialized a selfcontained system, Ron Conti ResQCom, which provides 

voice communications and a 1,000-ft-long lifeline for mine 

rescue teams. 

Figure 4.—Conceptual representation of a wireless mine communication and warning system. 

FIRE RESPONSE 

Upon discovery and confirmation of a fire, decisions are 

limited—evacuate or investigate/fight the fire. 

Evacuation 

Fire affects a significant proportion of underground miners at some time during their mining career. A study of the 

under-ground preparedness of miners at seven coal mines 

[Vaught et al. 1996] revealed that of the 180 miners who 

were asked if they had ever been notified to evacuate a mine 

because of fire, 38% responded in the affirmative. On average, 21% of the same miners at some time in their mining 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 

career said that they had donned a self-contained selfrescuer (SCSR) or filter self-rescuer in an emergency. 

Considering the potential for fire underground, it is 

important that miners know their escape routes and mine 

evacuation plans. Fire drills are important exercises; however, from the same study, fire drills in at least some operations mainly consisted of talking about, or being told, 

what to do if a fire were to occur at the mine as opposed to 

a more practical hands-on approach, such as examining 

fire detection and suppression equipment or a simulated 

response to a fire involving a battery-charging station, conveyor belt drive, or power center. 

Escapeway Aids 

Early warning and rapid response of miners to evacuate 

the underground passageways before they fill with smoke 

are key elements to survival during an underground mine 

fire. Underground miners are required by 30 CFR 75.383 

to walk escapeways and participate in fire drills every 

90 days. However, these drills are conducted in a smokefree environ-ment that does not fully prepare the miners 

for the conditions that they may encounter in real escape 

situations. Miners must know the escape routes from their 

section and understand the ventilation system and how 

smoke will travel through the passageways. 

Underground mines typically mark their escapeways with 

reflectors or arrows. Usually two colors are used. For example, red might be used to indicate the primary escapeway and 

green to represent the secondary escapeway. After a period of 

time, the dust entrained in the airways can collect on the reflectors and decrease their effectiveness, so they may never be seen 

if the passageways are filled with smoke. A few underground 

mines use a continuous lifeline for escape purposes. This lifeline or rope would most likely be secured to the rib of the mine 

starting at the working section and leading to the exiting portal. 

Some mines are securing the lifeline near the roof in the center 

of the entry at an average height of 6.5 ft from the floor and 

lower in low-seam operations. Depending on the configuration 

of the mine, the lifeline could be many miles in length. 

One manufacturer developed a directional lifeline. It 

consists of standard spools containing either 300 or 1,000 

ft of 0.25-in polypropylene rope with directional (coneshaped) orange indicators with green reflective tape installed at regular intervals. The cone's tapered end should 

always point inby (toward the interior of the mine) so that 

escaping miners would never have to take their hand off of 

the line. Because of the complexity of mine entries that 

contain crosscuts, doors, overcasts, air regulators, etc., we 

suggest that two-directional indicators be mounted together on the lifeline approximately 6 to 10 ft from a door, 

regulator, etc. This would alert personnel escaping in low 

visibility and smoke-filled entries that an obstacle of some 

sort is ahead. 

A study to evaluate the feasibility of using prototype 

pinwheels to identify primary and secondary escapeways 

was recently conducted at an operating coal mine for a 

10-week period. The four-bladed, 5.2-in-diam pinwheels 

were constructed from durable and highly reflective 

Scotchlite or holographic prism materials. The four colors 

evaluated in the mine were green (Scotchlite), silver, yellow, and red (holographic prism). The side of the pinwheel facing the airflow was painted black. Of the 

27 pinwheels deployed in the mine, 1 was completely destroyed, 3 were broken and not spinning, and 1 broke loose 

from its mount and was laying on the floor. These five 

pinwheels were in entries with airflows exceeding 260,000 

cfm and were made from holographic prism material. The 

green Scotchlite pinwheel performed well in the higher 

airflows and was the miners' preferred color. Overall, the 

pinwheels located in the higher airflows tended to have 

more dust buildup than at the lower airflows. The spinning 

pinwheels averaged about 1.7 g of dust accumulation at the 

high airflows and about 0.07 g of dust buildup at the lower 

airflow of 10,000 cfm. The dust buildup on the 3.25-indiam escapeway reflectors used at the mine ranged from 14 

to 27 g over the same time period. 

Another escapeway aid is the commercial laser pointer. 

During smoke training exercises, the laser pointer was effectively used to negotiate travel through a smoke-filled 

passageway. The lasers are compact, lightweight, affordable, and have high-quality beams. They use laser diode 

technology, and several of these handheld battery-powered 

pointers have ranges of up to about 2,400 ft. Beam diameters are less than 1 mm, and the output power ranges from 

1 to 3 mW. The green laser pointer, with a wavelength of 

532 nm, appears brightest to the eye and can operate continuously for 2–3 hr. 

During several underground exercises, approximately 

25 participants traveled about 1,000 ft in a nontoxic 

smoke-filled entry using a lifeline to lead them to fresh air. 

Visibility ranged from 1–3 ft, and there were no tripping 

hazards in the entry. Two to three participants entered the 

smoky entry at 40- to 60-sec intervals until all participants 

were headed toward the fresh air base. Another participant 

followed this group with only the laser pointer to direct 

him to the other end and with his caplamp turned off. The 

beam of the laser pointer was continuously moved up and 

down and left to right. When the beam hit the rib, roof, 

floor, or other participants, a spot was seen. Although the 

laser beam range decreases as the smoke becomes thicker, 

the beam always gives the user some depth perception in 

the smoky environment. The participant with the laser 

reached the fresh air base at the same time as the first participant who entered the smoke using the lifeline. The concept of laser pointers for escape aids was success-fully 

demonstrated in experiments at the Lake Lynn Laboratory 

Mine and at operating coal and metal and nonmetal mines. 

Another escape aid examined was a high-intensity 

strobe light (xenon-white flash tube) strategically located 

in the entries to map out an escape route for evacuating 

miners during an emergency. These weather-resistant 

strobe lights, with interchangeable colored reflective 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 

lenses, are compact and lightweight. The triangular 

(3.5 inches each side by 1.6 inches high), battery-powered 

strobe lights can be remotely activated by a wireless throughthe-earth signaling system. Using titanium batteries, the 

strobe light can flash for over 7 hr. Ideally, underground sensors could be used to monitor the gases and smoke in the passageways during a fire. By interfacing the output of these 

sensors with a computer, the best escape route could be determined and the appropriate strobe lights remotely turned on. 

In a larger mine, the uncertainties inherent in a complex ventilation system would considerably complicate this process. 

During in-mine rescue team simulations conducted at 

Lake Lynn Laboratory, strobe lights were positioned in the 

center of the entry about 6 ft from the floor and in the entry crosscuts predetermined to be the best escape routes. 

The strobe lights were activated by a wireless, throughthe-earth signaling system. Rescue team members were 

told that a roof fall had occurred and severed the main 

communication/lifeline. Team members detached themselves from the main communication/lifeline and successfully followed the strobe lights out of the smoke-filled 

entries to the fresh air base. Team members believed that 

the strobe lights are easier to follow with their caplamps 

off. A total of 580 miners evaluated five strobe light colors (red, green, blue, amber, and clear) during the simulations. The most visible color in the nontoxic white smoke 

was green; the least visible was amber. 

Similar simulations were conducted for underground 

mine personnel in coal mines. Miners spaced at 30-sec 

intervals entered smoke-filled (nontoxic white smoke) 

passageways and followed strobe lights to the fresh air 

base. Not only did this exercise allow miners to travel 

through smoke in their own mine (many for the very first 

time), but it also gave them an opportunity to evaluate the 

strobe lights as an escape aid. Miners believed that placement of strobe lights at decision points was quite helpful. 

In another underground smoke training exercise, several strobe lights were interfaced with high-intensity, slowpulsing buzzers (frequency 300 Hz and 2.8 kHz). The 

beeping sound enhanced the strobe lights for traveling in 

smoke-filled escapeways. Only 1 of the 140 miners who 

participated in that training simulation could not hear the 

two distinct frequencies. Overall, miners believed that the 

colored reflectors currently mounted in their entries would 

not have helped them because of the poor visibility from 

the smoke. The concept of strobe lights to identify escapeways and marking mine obstacles was successful in all 

experiments. 

Evacuation Kits 

When smoke is encountered underground, visibility is 

reduced, anxiety levels increase, and decision-making skills 

can become clouded. It is extremely important that the 

crew members stay together and have the necessary tools to 

aid them in a successful evacuation. Some mines have 

evacuation or escape kits on each working section. The kit 

contains rope, chemical lightsticks [Wilson 1999], drinking 

water, chalk, SCSRs, a first-aid kit, brattice curtain, mine 

map, handheld multiple gas detector, and radio or pager 

phone. The rope is used for crew members to attach themselves and to keep everyone together, especially when traveling in smoky passageways. Various colored chemical 

lightsticks are available to mark passageways, so if the 

crew members become disoriented they would know that 

they had previously passed a certain area. Lightsticks can 

also be used as a light source to negotiate travel through 

smoke, or a high-intensity lightstick can be used when administering first aid. Miners are encouraged to keep a 

chemical lightstick on their person. It serves a twofold 

purpose: (1) if their caplamp malfunctions, they would 

have an instant source of light, and (2) if they encounter 

smoke, a lightstick could be used to assist travel through 

the passageways. Water is necessary to maintain hydration. 

Chalk can be used to mark the ribs, stoppings, etc. (names, 

direction, date, and time). Crew members would carry extra SCSRs. A handheld gas detector can alert the crew of 

hazardous gases. A pager phone or radio may be used to 

communicate valuable information to the surface or rescue 

team, such as crew location or underground conditions. 

Some kits also contain materials to barricade, which should 

only be used as a last resort when all escape routes are 

blocked. An updated map is essential for travel out of the 

section and the mine to safety. 

Fighting the Fire 

When decisions are made to fight the fire, there are 

three logical and progressive stages of fire response: first, 

second, and sustained response. 

First Response 

First responders are the first persons to initiate firefighting. If a miner who has limited training in extinguishing fires discovers a small fire and evacuates, the fire may 

continue to grow before trained personnel arrive on the 

scene. It is important that miners be properly trained in the 

use of fire extinguishers, water hoses, and firefighting procedures. They should also know how to immediately and 

effectively communicate information about the emergency 

to other miners and outside personnel so that others have a 

complete understanding of the situation. The best way to 

convey this communication protocol is through training, 

fire drills, and safety meetings. It is paramount that the 

first person communicating the content of an emergency 

warning message convey essential information. This includes all aspects of the communication triangle (who, 

where, and what) [Mallett et al. 1999]. 

When miners smell or see smoke underground, they normally investigate the source. If a fire is found, the miners 

often attempt to extinguish it using rock dust, portable fire extinguishers, or water. After discussing this with miners who 

have firefighting experience and good training, the protocol 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 

most often described is: (1) if the miner is alone, he/she 

would attempt to extinguish the fire and then call the surface 

to report the incident; (2) if two or more miners are together, 

one would find a phone to report the fire and the other(s) 

would attempt to extinguish the fire. Many of the miners 

who have no hands-on training or firefighting experience are 

not sure what size fire they would be able to extinguish and, 

most likely, would find a phone to report the fire and evacuate, relying on qualified firefighters to respond. Significant 

delays in firefighting efforts would result in the scenario 

where miners would rely on qualified firefighters to extinguish the fire. Time is a critical factor in any fire situation, 

and a few seconds saved can mean the difference between a 

fire's extinction 11

 11See appendix B for performance evaluation instruments to provide 

skill training to workers in he use of handheld extinguishers and water 

hoses. 

or a disaster. 

Second Response 

Fire brigades are the second responders. Fire brigades, although not common in underground mines, are composed of specially trained and equipped miners who work at the mine site and 

can rapidly respond to a fire. Usually, a fire brigade consists of 

eight members, with two teams per mine and several members on 

each shift. Fire brigades have specialized personal protective equipment, like turnout gear, self-contained breathing apparatus 

(SCBAs), etc. Their firefighting equipment usually includes effective water hose nozzles with pistol grips, which allow team members to fight fires for extended periods of time with less fatigue and 

to more accurately control water patterns and flows. Fire brigades 

should also be experienced in using high-expansion foam generators if available at the mine. "Experienced" means that they actually 

test the foam generator in their mine during training drills and 

propagate foam in the passageways. This also entails erecting a 

suitable stopping or partition to be interfaced with the foam generator and/or other stoppings to contain the foam plug. They should 

ensure the compatibility of the foam and mine water supply and that 

the proper fittings and adequate amounts of foam concentrate for a 

24-hr period are available. Brigade members usually handle fire 

extinguisher and water hose inspections and ensure that water 

sources (fire hydrants, fire taps, etc.) are operational, free of obstructions, and adequately identified. The members are usually ideal 

choices for conducting on-site fire training of the general workforce 

and for conducting fire prevention audits. The NMRA has defined 

general guidelines for fire brigades, including the training of fire 

brigade members [NMRA 1994b]. 

Sustained Response 

Mine operators rely on mine rescue teams for a sustained response to save lives during an underground emergency such as a fire, explosion, roof fall, or water inundation. This special breed of miners often place their lives in 

peril to save others. Because of the nature of these events, 

team members should be well trained, physically fit, and 

fully understand the hazards that may await them during 

rescue and recovery operations. These hazards often include fighting underground fires. 

Historically, underground mine rescue teams have 

mainly received training in simulated mine environments, 

usually on the surface, with placards to identify objects and 

hazards, or in the course of actual emergencies. Although 

surface training exercises enhance their skill levels, it is 

extremely important that team members be provided with 

adequate exploration equipment and that training simulations be conducted in a realistic manner [Conti et al. 1998]. 

Nourishment for Responders 

Discussions with miners who have fought underground mine fires or responded to other mine emergencies 

raised the following question: What might be appropriate 

nourishment for responders who could be at the mine for 

several days or more? Many miners believe that hot entrées 

and carbonated beverages are inappropriate. Hot foods are 

usually cold before they reach the responders, and carbonated beverages cause bloating. Soda pop may contain caffeine, which tends to dehydrate. A sports drink was preferred because it helps replenish carbohydrates and electrolytes, which speed fluids into the body's system to provide 

energy to working muscles. Water, too, is an excellent 

source of fluid replenishment. Replenishing fluids is necessary because perspiring during intense activities such as 

firefighting robs the body of vital fluids and minerals. 

Fresh fruits such as bananas and oranges for potassium, 

energy bars, bagels, and grain products (granola bars) are 

also an excellent source of nourishment. It was also suggested that MREs (meals ready to eat) be available for 

emergency responders. The main point is a need for high 

carbohydrates and a high caloric intake during intense activities. 

WORKFORCE SKILLS 

Fire prevention and response skills are learned through 

train-ing or experience. Training is an effective means of 

developing skills within the workforce to reduce the number 

of serious fire incidents and injuries. Two key skill domains 

are (1) preventing fires and (2) responding to small fires. 

The importance of these domains was borne out in

interviews with underground workers at seven underground 

coal mines. Of 214 underground miners interviewed, over 

70% indicated that at one point in their mining career they 

had helped to extinguish a small fire [Vaught et al. 1996; 

Wiehagen et al. 1997a]. 

In responding to a small fire, the workers have to decide to (1) evacuate, or (2) investigate the source, warn 

others, and evacuate, or (3) investigate the source, warn 

others, and attempt to fight the fire. More than likely, 
 

 

 

12 

option (2) or (3) will be the initial choice. Whereas large

fires are rare, small fires are fairly common. Some fires

will grow rapidly, resulting in extremely high firefighting

and mine recovery costs. Time is the critical measure in

any fire event—from small cable fires, electrical power

center fires, equipment fires, fires along the conveyor belt

lines and at belt drives, fires caused by flame cutting and

welding operations, or fires within underground maintenance facilities. 

Skills in preventing fires can be addressed, in part,

through on-the-job training (OJT). There is a practical fire

prevention component for every underground job. For example, equipment operator training often includes fire prevention elements as part of the walkaround inspection, periodic machine maintenance, washing, and good housekeeping practices. Most underground skills are taught through

OJT. Good OJT includes a plan for skill development.

Worker response to unusual events is a logical part of a job

training analysis. Skills in preventing and responding to

small fires can also be obtained from prior research in the

development of training and performance evaluation aids

for conducting a fire audit [Conti et al. 2000]. These

checklists can serve as a plan for experienced workers in

providing structured training to less experienced miners.

The key to good skills training is (1) structure and

(2) having personnel interested in teaching/transferring

skills to those with less experience [Wiehagen et al. 2002;

Robertson et al. 2004]. Well-designed checklists, such as a

job training analysis, can offer that structure. 

Skills in responding to small fires can be divided into

the following three areas: (1) basic training for all miners,

(2) intermediate training for mine fire brigades/mine rescue

teams, and (3) advanced training for fire brigades/mine

rescue teams [Conti 1994]. A basic fire training program

for all miners should be conducted above ground and may

consist of the following: 

• Basic fire chemistry (classes of fires, fire triangle,

smoke, heat); 

• Assessment of the size of the fire; types of portable

fire extinguishers, hose lines, water nozzles, and compatibility of fittings; 

• Hands-on practice in extinguishing liquid- and

solid-fuel fires with portable fire extinguishers and water; 

• Classroom-based simulations on critical decisions in

communicating the fire emergency and responding to fire; 

 • Mine evacuation procedures and scenarios; and 

• Understanding the operations of fire sensors 

(thermal, smoke, CO) and suppression systems (mobile and 

fixed). 

 

 

An important element to consider in any fire safety program is adequate hands-on training for all miners. A few dollars spent now for training may prevent a disaster due to an 

out-of-control fire. Miners cannot gain effective experience 

by talking about using a fire extinguisher, watching a 

video, or observing someone else extinguishing a fire. In 

general, mines have ample in-house firefighting expertise 

(mine rescue teams, fire brigades, and volunteer firefighters). These personnel can be used to develop an adequate 

and effective training program. For small mines with limited resources, one option for training may reside with the 

local fire department. 

Figure 5 shows a miner extinguishing a liquid fuel 

fire with a portable dry chemical powder fire extinguisher. 

Figure 5.—Extinguishing a liquid fuel fire with dry chemical 

powder. 

An inexpensive mortar box (several sizes are available) 

filled with several inches of water and a mixture of diesel 

fuel and a splash of gasoline is suitable for training in the 

use of portable fire extinguishers, fire hoses, handheld 

foam generators, and other types of firefighting equipment. 

At the same time, miners would have the opportunity to 

recharge the extinguishers after extinguishing as many fires 

as they could using one fire extinguisher. Hands-on training builds confidence and skill levels and shows miners 

what to expect in the event of a real fire. 

Figure 6 shows a more complicated fire where 

two persons with large-wheeled (150 lb of powder) fire 

extinguishers are required to fight the fire. Fighting such 

fires on the surface is beneficial, but fighting the same fires 

underground will pose additional problems and hazards 

because of the underground environment. 

Intermediate training for mine fire brigades and 

mine rescue teams would include basic fire training, plus 

use of handheld and large foam generators, fighting fires in 

smoke, wearing SCBAs, paper-and-pencil simulations on 

fighting fires out by the section, and review of firefighting 

strategies (underground fire houses, fire cars, or trailers). 

Advanced firefighting training would include all 

of the above skills acquired in basic and intermediate levels, plus hands-on experience in combating simulated mine 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 

ventilated entries with portable and wheeled fire extinguishers, water lines, and foam generators (the simulated 

fires would include equipment fires, conveyor belt fires, 

etc); erecting seals to isolate fire areas; and examining the 

impact of ventilation on fires and airflow changes during a 

fire. 

Figure 6.—Extinguishing a 400-ft2 liquid fuel fire. 

Figure 7 shows a mine rescue team entering a surface 

fire gallery at Lake Lynn Laboratory with charged water 

hoses during an advanced training exercise to combat a 

conveyor belt fire. 

 Quality hands-on training enhances miners' 

awareness of mine fire hazards and promotes selfconfidence in combating underground and surface mine 

fires. 

30 CFR 75.383 requires all miners to walk escapeways and conduct fire drills every 90 days in a smokefree environment. Miners would benefit by participating 

in a preplanned fire evacuation drill with nontoxic smoke 

at least once, if not more often, during their career before 

Figure 7.—Rescue team entering fire gallery. 

 Figure 8 shows a team member using a 

water hose to fight the conveyor belt fire inside the fire 

gallery. 

Figure 8.—Rescue team member fighting a conveyor belt fire. 

they may encounter a real fire emergency. This would 

give the miners a better understanding of how they might 

react during an emergency. 

NIOSH conducts mine-site smoke training exercises 

[Conti 2001]. The objectives of these exercises are to 

evaluate present escape methods, existing technology, and 

new technology that could be used for escape purposes, 

while giving the miners an opportunity to travel through 

smoke-filled entries at their mine. A smoke generator is 

used to create a nontoxic, smoky atmosphere; visibility can 

be varied from several yards to zero. An added benefit of 

these exercises is that a smoke generator is an excellent 

device to evaluate the smoke leakage of mine stoppings or 

to observe air currents in the mine passageways. At the 

end of each of these training segments, miners complete a 

questionnaire on topics such as anxiety levels, usefulness 

of the exercise and technology, and most visible colors of 

light seen in smoke. 

Over the past several years, NIOSH, in cooperation 

with state agencies and operating mines, has conducted 

mine rescue training simulations at its Lake Lynn Laboratory and at operating mines [Conti 2000]. These exercises 

have resulted in improved technology and training for 

mine rescue teams, fire brigades, first responders, and miners in general. For example, existing technologies have 

been identified to help responders during exploration, rescue, and recovery operations. These include various colored chemical light shapes, strobe lights, light vests, and 

laser pointers to identify team members. Most of these 

devices may also be used to mark underground areas and 

certain mine materials. During these exercises, strobe 

lights were used for mapping out or identifying escapeways, and lasers were used to negotiate travel through 

smoke. Using thermal imaging systems allows rescue personnel to see in darkness and locate heated areas [Conti 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 

and Chasko 2002]. These training and evaluation efforts 

have also spurred the development of improved mine 

emergency response drills and the development of new 

technology, such as novel team lifelines and inflatable 

devices for fire suppression and personnel escape [Conti 

and Weiss 1998]. These simulations and technological 

advance-ments have improved the state of readiness for 

rescue personnel and increased the chances of survival for 

personnel escaping from underground emergencies. Other 

U.S. mine rescue training facilities include the Edgar Mine 

Rescue Training Center, Idaho Springs, CO; Central Mine 

Rescue Unit, Wallace, ID; and MSHA's National Mine 

Health and Safety Academy, Beaver, WV. 

NIOSH has also developed an Internet-based computer 

simulation that can train command center leaders [Glowacki 

et al. 1996]. The Mine Emergency Response Interactive 

Training Simulation (MERITS) is a tool for preparing command center personnel in their potential response to a mine 

emergency. It teaches the importance of planning and 

preparation, allowing learning via practice in critical communication, judgment, and decision-making. The simulation setting is an underground bituminous coal mine. 

SUMMARY
 

Response and preparedness are essential elements of 

any underground mine's strategic plan in dealing with an 

unexpected event, like a fire. Time is a critical factor, and 

delay may mean serious injury and loss of the mine. Therefore, it is important that the fire be detected in the incipient 

stage and that well-trained and equipped miners respond 

during that crucial period. An important element to consider in any fire safety program is adequate hands-on training for the entire workforce (first, second, and sustained 

responders). Quality training enhances the awareness of 

mine fire hazards and promotes self-confidence in combating both underground and surface fires. 

Fire affects a significant proportion of underground 

miners at some time during their mining career. Therefore, 

all miners need to walk their escapeways and participate in 

preplanned fire drills with nontoxic smoke early in their 

career. These exercises give miners an opportunity to learn 

from the experiences of others and provide them with a better understanding of how to respond in realistic fire drills 

before they experience an actual emergency. It is 

imperative during an underground fire or similar emergency 

that all personnel, no matter what their location, be able to 

get notified of the event. Through-the-earth wireless transmission systems like the PED have successfully demonstrated that early warning and evacuation can save lives. If 

mine passageways are filled with smoke, lifelines and other 

devices (lasers, strobes, pinwheels, etc.) can aid miners when 

negotiating travel out of the section or mine. Evacuation kits 

can keep miners together and provide other key tools to aid 

escape. 

During an underground fire, responders need to understand the complex environment (fuel supply, smoke, combustible gases, etc.), escape methods and procedures, and team 

limits and capabilities. They must comprehend when a fire 

can no longer be fought because of intense heat, poor roof 

conditions, or accumulation of flammable gases. Time invested now in preventing mine emergencies and improving 

emergency and fire response skills will save a great deal of 

time later in getting the work system back in balance. Small 

fires are a constant; fire risk will never be zero. 

REFERENCES
 

CFR. Code of Federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register. 

Cole HP, Vaught C, Wiehagen WJ, Haley JV, Brnich MJ Jr. [1998]. 

Decision making during a simulated mine fire escape. IEEE Trans Eng 

Manage 45(2):153–162. 

Conti RS [1994]. Fire-fighting resources and fire preparedness for 

underground coal mines. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Mines, IC 9410. NTIS No. PB95–128807. 

Conti RS [2000]. Mine rescue and response. In: Proceedings of the 

12th International Conference on Coal Research (Sandton, Republic of 

South Africa, September 12–15, 2000), pp. 127–136. 

Conti RS [2001]. Emerging technologies: aiding responders in mine 

emergencies and during the escape from smoke-filled passageways. In: 

Proceedings of the Northwest Mining Association's 107th Annual Meeting 

(Spokane, WA, December 3–7, 2001), pp. 1–14. 

Conti RS, Chasko LL [2002]. Thermal imaging cameras and their use 

in the mining industry. Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and 

Exploration, Inc., Transactions 2002, Vol. 312, pp. 1–7. 

Conti RS, Litton CD [1992]. Response of underground fire sensors: 

an evaluation. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Mines, RI 9412. NTIS No. PB92–206937. 

Conti RS, Litton CD [1993]. Effects of stratification on carbon 

monoxide levels from mine fires. In: Proceedings of the Sixth U.S. Mine 

Ventilation Symposium (Salt Lake City, UT, June 21–23, 1993). Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Chapter 73,pp. 489–494. 

Conti RS, Weiss ES [1998]. Inflatable devices for combating underground mine fires. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Safety and Health in the Global Mining Industry (Minesafe International 1998) (Sun City, Republic of South Africa, September 28­

October 2, 1998). Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa: University of 

Witwatersrand, pp. 388–393. 

Conti RS, Yewen RG [1997]. Evaluation of a signaling and warning 

system for underground mines. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 97–127, RI 9641. 

Conti RS, Chasko LL, Cool JD [1999]. An overview of technology 

and training simulations for mine rescue teams. In: Proceedings of the 

28th International Conference of Safety in Mines Research Institutes 

(Sinaia, Romania), vol. II, pp. 521–538. 
Conti RS, Chasko LL, Lazzara CP, Braselton G [2000]. An underground coal mine fire preparedness and response checklist: the instrument. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) 

Publication No. 2000–144, IC 9452. 

Conti RS, Chasko LL, Stowinsky LD [1998]. Mine rescue training 

simulations and technology. In: Proceedings of The International Emergency Management Society (TIEMS) Conference (George Washington 

University, Washington, DC, May 19–22, 1998), pp. 453–464. 

De Rosa MI [2004a]. Analyses of mobile equipment fires for all 

U.S. surface and underground coal and metal/nonmetal mining categories, 1990–1999. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 2004–105, IC 9467. 

De Rosa MI [2004b]. Analysis of mine fires for all U.S. underground and surface coal mining categories, 1990–1999. Pittsburgh, PA: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004–167, 

IC 9470. 

Dobroski H Jr., Stolarczyk LG [1982]. Medium frequency radio 

communication system for mine rescue. In: Postdisaster Survival and 

Rescue Research. Proceedings: Bureau of Mines Technology Transfer 

Seminar, Pittsburgh, PA, November 16, 1982. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Mines, IC 8907, pp. 39–48. 

NTIS No. PB 83–156026. 

Edwards JC, Morrow GS [1994]. Evaluation of the response of 

diffusion-type carbon monoxide sensors. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 9520. NTIS No. PB95– 

147971. 

Edwards JC, Franks RA, Friel GF, Lazzara CP, Opferman JJ [2002]. 

In-mine evaluation of discriminating mine fire sensors. In: De Souza E, 

ed. Proceedings of the North American/Ninth U.S. Mine Ventilation 

Symposium (Kingston, Ontario, Canada). Lisse, Netherlands: Balkema, 

pp. 527–532. 

Edwards JC, Franks RA, Friel GF, Lazzara CP, Opferman JJ [2004]. 

Real-time neural network application to mine fire-nuisance emissions 

discrimination. In: Ganguli R, Bandopadhyay S, eds. Mine ventilation: 

Proceedings of the 10th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium (Anchorage, AK, May 16–19, 2004). Leiden, Netherlands: 

Balkema, pp. 425–431. 

Friel GF, Edwards JC [2002]. Neural network application to mine 

fire diesel exhaust discrimination. In: De Souza E, ed. Proceedings of 

the North American/Ninth U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium (Kingston, 

Ontario, Canada). Lisse, Netherlands: Balkema, pp. 533–538. 

Glowacki AF, Brnich MJ Jr., Mallett LG, Unger RL, Vaught C 

[1996]. Mine emergency response interactive training simulation. In: 

Proceedings of Minesim '96, the First International Symposium Via the 

Internet. University of Idaho, National Technical University of Athens, 

Greece. 

Lazzara CP, Perzak FJ [1990]. Conveyor belt flammability studies. 

In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Institute on Coal Mining Health, 

Safety and Research (Blacksburg, VA, August 28–30, 1990). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, pp. 119–129. 

Litton CD, Lazzara CP, Perzak FJ [1991]. Fire detection for conveyor belt entries. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 9380. NTIS No. PB 92–152107. 

Mallett LG, Vaught C, Brnich MJ Jr. [1999]. The emergency communication triangle. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 99–157. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 

McKinney R, Crocco W, Tortorea JS, Wirth GJ, Weaver CA, 

Urosek JE, et al. [2001]. Report of investigation, underground coal 

mine explosions, July 31-August 1, 2000, Willow Creek Mine – 

MSHA ID No. 42–02113, Plateau Mining Corporation, Helper, Carbon County, Utah. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine 

Safety and Health Administration. 

Mitchell D [1990]. Mine fires: prevention, detection, fighting. 

Chicago, IL: Maclean Hunter Publishing Co. 

Morrow GS, Litton CD [1992]. In-mine evaluation of smoke detectors. 

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

IC 9311. NTIS No. PB92–193234. 

MSHA [2002]. Revised mine emergency evacuation and firefighting 

plan. [http://www.msha.gov/ets02-31358/etsevacuationtemplate.htm]. 

Date accessed: June 2005. 

National Mine Rescue Association (NMRA) [1994a]. NMRA and 

Veterans Issues Committee special report: mine emergency command 

system. Issue No. 3. Hunker, PA: National Mine Rescue Association. 

National Mine Rescue Association (NMRA) [1994b]. NMRA and 

Veterans Issues Committee special report: mine fire brigades. Issue 

No. 1. Hunker, PA: National Mine Rescue Association. 

Pomroy WH, Carigiet AM [1995]. Analysis of underground coal 

mine fire incidents in the United States from 1978 through 1992. Minneapolis, MN: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Twin 

Cities Research Center, IC 9426. 

Product and Process News [2001]. Transtek Corp Min Mag 

Feb:112–113. 

Robertson SB, Cooper DP, Wiehagen WJ [2004]. Safety improvements for 

roof bolter operators. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Safety Engineers Professional Development Conference (Las Vegas, NV, June 7–10, 2004). 

Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Safety Engineers, pp. 1–17. 

Vaught C, Brnich MJ Jr., Mallett LG, Cole HP, Wiehagen WJ, 

Conti RS, et al. [2000]. Behavioral and organizational dimensions of 

underground mine fires. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 2000–126, IC 9450. 

Vaught C, Fotta B, Wiehagen WJ, Conti RS, Fowkes RS [1996]. 

A profile of workers' experience and preparedness in responding to underground mine fires. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Mines, RI 9584. NTIS No. PB96–147848. 

Vaught C, Mallett LG, Fowkes RS, Conti RS, Wiehagen WJ [1997]. 

Underground mine fire preparedness. Part 2 of 4: Preparedness to evacuate 

and miners' experiences with incipient fires. MSHA Holmes Saf Assoc 

Bull July:1–4. 

Wiehagen WJ, Conrad D, Friend T, Rethi L [2002]. Considerations 

in training on-the-job trainers. In: Peters RH, ed. Strategies for improving miners' training. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 2002–156, IC 9463, pp. 27–34. 

Wiehagen WJ, Conti RS, Vaught C, Fowkes RS, Brnich MJ Jr. 

[1997a]. Underground mine fire preparedness. Part 3 of 4: Underground 

firefighting experiences and workers' perceptions of training and readiness for firefighting. MSHA Holmes Saf Assoc Bull Aug:3–7. 

Wiehagen WJ, Fowkes RS, Vaught C, Conti RS, Fotta BA [1997b]. 

Underground mine fire preparedness. Part 1 of 4: Study overview and 

perspective of underground mine fires. MSHA Holmes Saf Assoc Bull 

May-June:14–19. 

Wilson E [1999]. What's that stuff? Light sticks. Chem Eng News 77 

(3):65. 

Zamel GI [1990]. A breakthrough in underground communications 

for enhanced safety and productivity. In: Proceedings of Minesafe International 1990, an International Conference on Occupational Health and 

Safety in the Minerals Industry. Perth, Australia: Chamber of Mines and 

Energy of Western Australia, Inc., pp. 763–766. 
16 

APPENDIX A.—REVISED MINE EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND FIREFIGHTING 

PLAN (Source: MSHA [2002]) 

Mine operators should consider the following issues and topics when developing new mine emergency evacuation and firefighting programs of instruction under 30 CFR 75.1502. As applicable to 

the particular mine, all of the following procedures should be expanded to cover fires, explosions, 

and gas or water inundations. Mine operators developing these programs and MSHA personnel approving individual mine emergency and evacuation and firefighting programs of instruction should 

consider this list as suggestions and guidance for topics to be covered in the plan. 

The list may be expanded as necessary to cover the different circumstances at a particular mine. 

1. Identify and list the name(s) and/or title(s) of the responsible person(s) (RP) who will take 

 charge on all shifts during mine emergencies involving fires, explosions, or inundations. If 

 there is more than one RP on a shift, who is designated as the primary decision-maker? 

2. Describe how the underground miners will be notified of any changes in the RP. 

3. What type and where are communications systems located underground that are available to 

 rapidly notify personnel of an emergency? What procedures will be followed if these commu- 

 nications systems fail during an emergency? 

4. Describe how underground miners, and their work locations and anticipated movements that 

 change their work locations during the shift, will be identified and tracked for their work 

 shifts. 

5. What are the locations of underground and surface assembly points for emergency evacua- 

 tions? What procedures will be followed to assemble and account for mine personnel during 

 an evacuation? 

6. Are there any other personnel responsible to facilitate the evacuation from underground? Iden-

 tify and list their names and/or titles. Describe how other underground personnel will know 

 who these people are. 

7. What equipment and travel routes will be used to evacuate underground personnel? 

8. Describe how up-to-date ventilation and escape route maps and/or schematics will be provided 

 for use by the RP. 

9. If applicable, define the atmospheric monitoring system parameters (alert and alarm levels) and 

 actions that will be taken in response to these incidents, as well as the alarms initiated due to 

 communication errors or malfunctions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 

10. Identify all persons who are trained and qualified to respond to these emergencies (identify 

their particular training and qualifications, e.g., gas detection, firefighting, mine rescue, etc.). 

Describe how this information will be made available to the RP. 

11. Identify and list the location and type of equipment available for emergency response. Describe how this information will be provided to the RP. 

12. Describe how the trained and qualified personnel, emergency equipment, and/or rescue 

apparatus will be rapidly assembled and transported to the scene of the mine emergency. 

13. What are the different types of emergencies that the mine could encounter? If there is the 

potential for a water inundation, does the RP know where the high ground is so that he/she 

can direct miners during an evacuation? Do miners understand the dips and orientation of the 

mine and where water would accumulate? 

14. How will underground water supplies be directed in the event of a fire or explosion? 

15. What procedures will be taken to deenergize electrical power? 

16. What type of gas detection equipment is being used? 
S UATION INSTRUMENT RMANCE EVAL O B.—PERF NDIXEAPP

18 

Portable Dry Chemical Fire Extinguishers: Hands-on Performance Feedback 

( + ) Observed ( – ) Not observed ( ) Not sure (leave blank) 

Miner Inspection 

a. Quick look at

the unit for

 any obvious

problems? 

Activation 

a. Shake unit?b. Set unit down?c. Release hose?d. Puncture lever? 

Test Extinguisher

a. Quick test (burst) before approaching the fire? 

Approaching the Fire

a. Upwind? b. Posture (keep arm holding hose close to the body)?c. Maintain safe distance in addressing the fire? 

Extinguishing the Fire

a. Sweep unit at the base of the fire?b. Wide enough sweep to cover fire area

plus several inches on either side?

c. Prevent splashing or scattering of fuel?d. Prevent reflash (keeping unit pointed at the base of the fire)? 

Backing Away 

a. Back away facing the fire zone?b. Remain calm and

confident in back-

 ing away? 

1. a._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ 

2. a._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ 

3. a._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ 

4. a._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ 

5. a._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ 
19 

Water Hose With Nozzle: Hands-on Performance Feedback

( + ) Observed ( – ) Not observed ( ) Not sure (leave blank) 

Miner Inspection 

a. Quick look at the water hose

and nozzle for

 any obvious

problems?

b. Nozzle preset to fog spray?c. Hose man ready?d. Backup team ready? 

Test Water Nozzle

a. Quick test (burst of water) before approaching the

fire? 

Approaching the Fire

a. Upwind? b. Posture (keep arm holding hose close to the body)?c. Maintain safe distance in addressing the fire? 

Extinguishing the Fire

a. Sweep water spray at the base of the fire in a circular motion?b. Wide enough sweep to cover fire area plus

several inches on eitherside? 

c. Prevent splashing or scat- tering of fuel?d. Prevent reflash (keeping fog spray pointed at the base of the fire)? 

Backing Away 

a. When the fire is out, back away facing the fire zone?b. Remain calm and confident in backing away?c. Hose man assisting? 

1. 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

2. 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

3. 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

4. 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

5. 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 

a._____ b._____ 

c._____ d._____ a._____ b._____ c._____ 
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–N IOSH (1–800–356–4674)

Fax: 513–533–8573

E-mail: pubstaft@ cdc.gov

www.cdc.gov/niosh

S AFE R • H E ALT H IE R • P E OP L ET M

DHHS (N IOSH) Publication No. 2006–105