SELECTED HEALTH ISSUES IN MINING 

Douglas F. Scott 

Spokane Research Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane, WA 

R. Larry Grayson 

University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 
1

ABSTRACT 

 Data on health-related illnesses and disease in the 

mining industry are scarce, and information on rates 

and costs is not readily available. Substantial amounts 

of research are being directed to addressing these 

issues, including work at the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) mining 

health and safety laboratories in Spokane and Pittsburgh. This paper briefly discusses the current status 

of some miner health-related issues, including those 

involving coal dust, silica dust, diesel particulate matter, asbestos, noise, lead, welding fumes, and skin disorders, as well as research and other activities aimed at 

protecting miners from occupational illnesses and 

disease. 

INTRODUCTION 

 Miners are exposed to various potentially toxic or 

harmful materials or agents, including, but not limited 

to, fuels, reagents, solvents, detergents, chemicals, coal 

dust, silica dust, diesel particulate matter (DPM), 

asbestos, noise, welding fumes, poisonous plants, 

trona dust, and metal dust. 

 According to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) (2000) “There are many limitations 

on the accuracy of illness reporting.” Defining what 

constitutes health or illness and what is an injury is 

sometimes confusing and often depends on what 

agency is reporting the data. Table 1 summarizes 

different ways CDC, NIOSH, and the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA) classify diseases and 

illnesses in their databases. 

 Clearly, comparing data from each agency is a 

challenge. For the purposes of this paper, mining 

health issues are defined as “any disease or illness 

employees contract while employed as miners and 

which could be caused by mining activities.” Health 

issues discussed include coal-workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP), silicosis, lung disorders caused by DPM, 

asbestosis, hearing loss or impairment, physical disorders resulting from exposure to lead and welding 

fumes, and dermatitis/skin disorders. MSHA health 

and illness data from 1983-2001 are used to frame the 

level of diseases and disorders. 

KEY ISSUE CONCERNING DISEASES 

 If a frog is dropped into a pot of boiling water, it 

will begin to struggle and show stress immediately 

(acute injury). However, if the frog is put in a pot of 

cold water on a burner at low temperature, the water 

slowly comes to a boil, but because the boiling is slow, 

the frog won’t notice until it is near death (chronic 

injury). This example can be used as an analogy when 

investigating traumatic injuries and disease and illness 

development in miners. Traumatic injuries are quickly 

recognized (except cumulative trauma-type injuries) 

and their causes are generally readily identifiable. 

However, the process of contracting an occupational 

disease or illness can be slow (i.e., months or years), 

and miners may be exposed to a toxic or harmful agent 

for decades and not exhibit any effects of exposure. 

Furthermore, historically, many miners may not have 

been adequately instructed about the dangers of specific exposures and to the necessary safety precautions 

required to maintain their health. 

 One of the biggest problems in illness and disease 

in mining is reporting. Figure 1 (after Metz 2002) 

depicts the relationship between reported and unreported disease and illness as an iceberg and illustrates the 

magnitude of the problem. 

 1. Illness or disease is recognized as related to 

work. 

 2. Medical attention is received, but no relationship 

to work is recognized. 

 3. Symptoms are recognized, but no medical treatment is sought. 

 4. Miner is affected, but no symptoms are recognized. 

 In the first case of underreporting, an illness is 

recognized as being related to work. A miner is aware 

of the disease or illness, but may be afraid of reporting 

the disease because of fear of losing his or her job, 

health insurance, or other job-related benefits. Therefore, the disease or illness is not reported. In the 

second case, medical attention is received, but neither 

the attending physician nor the miner associates the 

disease with the work environment. Again, the disease 

or illness is not reported. In the third case, the miner 

has symptoms of a disease, but no medical attention is 

sought, and the disease or illness is not reported. This
2

again could be because of fear of losing a job, health 

insurance, etc. Finally, a miner could be affected with 

a disease, but has no symptoms of the disease. In 

Metz’s opinion, this type of underreporting is one of 

the most serious in dealing with health issues (disease 

and illness) in the mining industry. In short, it is probable that even with health and illness data currently 

collected, the number of miners who actually have a 

disease or illness caused by mining are underreported. 

Table 1.Various illness and disease classifications by agency 

 NIOSH CDC MSHA 

Lung disorders 

 Occupational lung diseases X 

 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease X 

 Dust diseases of the lungs X 

 Coal-workers pneumoconiosis X 

 Asbestosis X 

 Silicosis X 

 Byssinosis X 

 Asthma X 

 Respiratory conditions caused by toxic agents X X 

Repetitive motion 

 Carpal tunnel syndrome X 

 Tendonitis X 

 Disorders associated with repeated trauma X 

Other 

 Neurotoxic disorders X 

 Noise-induced hearing loss X X 

 Dermatologic conditions X X X 

 Psychological disorders X X 

 Severe occupational traumatic injuries X 

 Reproduction disorders X 

 Poisoning X X 

 Disorders caused by physical agents other than toxic agents X 

 Malignant pleural neoplasm X 

 Occupational cardiovascular diseases X 

 Lead toxicity X 

 Pesticide and insecticide toxicity X 

 Hepatitis B X 

 Hepatitis C X 

 AIDS X 

Figure 1.Disease and illness in the mining industry (after 

Metz 2002). 

Exposure Routes 

 For a toxic substance (gas, liquid, solid, or vapor) 

to produce a harmful effect on a miner, the miner must 

be exposed to the harmful material. Entry routes into a 

miner’s body include inhalation; absorption through 

the skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; ingestion; or 

ears. 
3

Terminology 

 An annual mortality rate is defined as the number 

of deaths from a disease per year divided by the 

number of people in the target population (Gordis, 

1996). For example, in the case of coal miners, the 

annual occupational mortality rate for CWP is the 

number of coal miner deaths from CWP per year 

divided by the number of coal miners employed in that 

year and usually multiplied by 1,000. Incidence rates 

are defined as the number of new cases of a disease in 

a population during a specified period of time divided 

by the number of people at risk of developing the 

disease during that same period times 1,000 (Gordis, 

1996). Prevalence is defined as the number of cases of 

disease present in the population divided by the 

number of people in the population during the same 

time (Gordis, 1996). 

 Types of health effects and exposures can be 

classified as either chronic or acute. An acute or 

accelerated health effect is one developed over a brief 

period of time and is generally severe in nature; that is, 

a short exposure of high intensity (Last, 1988). A 

chronic health effect develops over a long period and 

is generally of low intensity (Last, 1988). The U.S. 

National Center for Health Statistics defines “chronic” 

as a condition lasting 3 months or more (Last, 1988). 

 The number of persons employed in the mining 

industry is shown in figure 2, and the number of hours 

 worked in the mining industry is given in figure 3. 

Since 1984, there has been an overall decline in the 

number of people employed and hours worked in the 

mining industry, even though a couple of sectors have 

realized some growth. 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Frequency

Figure 2.Number of persons employed in the mining industry 1983-2001 (MSHA data). 

 As indicated in figure 4 (CDC Worker Health 

Chartbook, 2000), in 1997, mining had a nonfatal 

occupational illness incidence rate of 18.8 per 10,000 

full-time workers, which is about the same as for construction workers. Although this rate seems low compared to the rates in manufacturing or agriculture, the 

mining incidence rate of nonfatal occupational illness 

and disease could be improved by identifying why and 

under what specific conditions illnesses occur (i.e., 

what are the primary causes of illness or disease in the 

mining industry?). 

 The frequency of disease or illness from 1983-2001 

(figure 5) shows a roller-coaster effect for illness and 

disease rates in the mining industry. 

 Although the years 1997 through 2001 show a 

decrease in the rate of disease and illness in the mining 

industry, this rate has not returned to the lower levels

recorded in 1983-1984. This is true partly because of 

changes in reporting requirements, but also because of 

more faithful reporting of illness and diseases once 

ignored by miners. Many mining companies have 

emphasized the latter in recent years. 
4

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

700,000,000

800,000,000

198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

Year

Hours Worked

Figure 3.Employment hours 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Industry Division

Rate per 10,000 full-time 

workers

Figure 4.Incidence rates of nonfatal occupational illness 

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Rate (per 10,000)

Figure 5.Rate of disease/illness 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 
5

 Figure 6 shows the rate of contagious or infectious 

diseases in the mining industry, which is very low. 

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Rate (per 10,000)

Figure 6.Rate of contagious or infectious diseases 1983-2001 (MSHA data)

The category includes such diseases as asthma and 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lead poisoning, 

chemical poisoning, physical effects of pesticide and 

insecticide toxicity, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, AIDS, and 

tuberculosis. 

Coal Dust 

 The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 

1969 defines CWP as a “chronic dust disease of the 

lung arising out of employment in an underground 

coal mine.” Progressive massive fibrosis (PMF) is a 

complicated form of CWP and is generally associated 

with breathlessness, chronic bronchitis, recurrent chest 

illness, and even heart failure. Other complications 

can be increased risk of tuberculosis and mycobacterial infections. PMF is a distinct disease and is associated with increased mortality. According to Kissell 

and Colinet (2001), a study in the 1990’s showed an 

average of 2.8% prevalence of CWP; however, miners 

with more than 30 years of exposure to coal dust had a 

prevalence of 14%. Kissell and Colinet further attributed 18,245 deaths between 1987 and 1996 to CWP as a 

direct or contributing cause of death, with 70% of the 

death certificates listing “mining machine operator” as 

the occupation. 

 The permissible exposure limit (PEL) (unadjusted 

for quartz content above 5%) for coal dust is 2 mg/m3

for underground coal extraction using an 8-hour timeweighted average (TWA). According to Kissell and 

Colinet (2001), 7.4% of all coal mine air samples collected from 1987 through 1996 exceeded this PEL. 

Figure 7 shows the rate of CWP for the years 1983-

2001. An acknowledged 20-to-30-year latency period 

for CWP does not permit recent exposures to be considered as disease. Nonetheless, a definite improvement in the CWP rate has been recorded, especially 

since 1997. 

Silica Dust 

 Kissell and Colinet (2001) stated that chronic 

silicosis involves at least 15 years of exposure to 

silica, and that from 1987 to 1996, about 421 miners 

and construction workers died from silicosis. Again, 

mining machine operators accounted for 14.7% of the 

deaths. A nuisance dust standard of 10 mg/m3

 triggers 

regulation by MSHA, and from 1987 to 1996, 15.6% 

of the dust samples collected from metal mines 

exceeded the PEL. Figure 8 shows the rate of silicosis 

in the mining industry. The rate of silicosis in mining 
6

is generally <0.8 cases per 10,000 employees and is 

not considered to be a major threat to the mining 

community today. 

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Rate (per 10,000)

Figure 7.Rate of CWP 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Rate MSHA 1983 - 2001

Figure 8.Rate of silicosis 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 

Diesel Particulate Matter 

 MSHA’s new Standard on Diesel Particulate Matter 

Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners 

went into effect July 20, 2002. An MSHA DPM exposure level of 400 μg of total carbon per cubic meter 

of air (equivalent to 500 μg of DPM per cubic meter) 

was set, and compliance will be mandatory by July 19, 

2003. Noncompliance after that date will result in 

MSHA citations. Metz (2001) noted that in 1998, the 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists (ACGIH) proposed a TLV-TWA of only 

50 μg/m3

 for diesel particulates <1 μm in size. The 

ACGIH also classified diesel exhaust as a suspected 

human carcinogen, and the International Agency for 
7

Cancer Research (IARC) lists DPM as a probable carcinogen. Of interest, again noted by Metz (2001), was 

the fact that the ACGIH TLV-TWA would require 

occupational air to be cleaner than ambient air. Importantly, Schnakenburg (2002) estimated the technically 

feasible level of DPM control today at 90 μg/m3

. 

 Metz (2001) provided a detailed summary of the 

sources of DPM, how particulates affect the body, and 

a list of particulate fractions and their toxicity. He 

further categorized the clinical manifestations of exposure to diesel particulates as either nonneoplastic 

(acute or chronic) or neoplastic (cancer). While lung 

cancer can be caused in rats exposed to diesel exhaust, 

the long-term health effects on miners is not known. 

Asbestos 

 Figure 9 shows a nearly negligible health effect of 

miners’ exposures to asbestos. 

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Rate (per 10,000)

Figure 9.Rate of asbestosis 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 

Noise 

 Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) begins 

gradually and progressively gets worse. Problems 

with this disease include loss of the ability to communicate and reduced response to environmental and occupational noise and danger. In the mining environment, 

the effects of NIHL can be deadly in specific work 

situations. Bise (2001) listed several factors that 

influence occupational hearing loss. These factors 

include the following. 

1. Age of employee. 

2. Pre-employment hearing impairment. 

3. Diseases of the ear. 

4. Sound pressure level of the noise. 

5. Length of daily exposure. 

6. Duration of employment. 

7. Ambient conditions of the workplace. 

8. Employee lifestyle outside the workplace. 

 MSHA began enforcing its “noise rule” in the year 

2000. It did so in response to its estimate that 13% of 

U.S. miners (~37,000) would suffer significant loss of 

hearing (25 dBA or higher) at previously prevailing 

conditions over a working lifetime. Eight hours of 

exposure to 90 dBA is the current MSHA-permissible 

noise level, with no exposure to exceed 115 dBA. 

Bise (2001) concluded that, although some controversy exists on whether the 8-hour exposure should be 

90 or 85 dBA, “current steps taken by the mining 

industry should enable future generations of mine 

workers to lead productive and safe lives without fear 

of suffering from occupationally based NIHL.” Figure 

10 shows three spikes in the rate of hearing loss from 

1983 to 2001. The rate from 1999 to the present 

seems to have leveled; therefore, to encourage further 

reductions in hearing loss, more research in this area 

appears to be warranted. 
8

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Rate (per 10,000)

Figure 10.Rate of hearing loss 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 

Lead 

 The MSHA occupational PEL for lead is 0.01 

mg/m3

. Lead miners are normally exposed to lead 

sulfide. Lead sulfide is poorly absorbed when inhaled 

(Pon and Gilbert-Jones, 2001) and only slightly soluble in gastric juice, therefore posing a relatively 

insignificant problem to miners. However, lead oxide 

and lead sulfate are more soluble and do pose problems. The good news is that most lead mined is in the 

form of galena (lead sulfide); therefore, lead poisoning 

is normally not a threat to miners. However, mill and 

smelter workers are exposed to lead oxide, which does 

pose a health threat. 

Welding Fumes 

 NIOSH (1988) lists four gases (acetylene, carbon 

monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and phosgene) and 18 

metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, 

molybdenum, nickel, silver, tin, titanium, tungsten, 

vanadium, and zinc) as hazardous agents associated 

with the welding process. Furthermore, it lists asbestos, fluorides, and silica as other minerals that create 

hazards during welding. Finally, it views electricity, 

hot environments, noise, vibration, ionizing radiation, 

ultraviolet light, and visible light as physical agents 

that could be harmful to welders. All of the abovelisted agents can cause short- and long-term toxic or 

harmful effects (including cancer), as well as death. 

Skin Disorders 

 Figure 11 shows the rate of skin disorders in the 

mining industry, and figure 12 shows the causes. 

While the rate is not exceptionally high, a review of 

MSHA records shows that many of these illnesses can 

be prevented. With poison oak/poison ivy and dust 

being the major contributors to skin disorders from 

1983 to 2001, more than 350 illnesses associated with 

these two causes may have been preventable if proper 

personal protective (PPE) had been used. 
9

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Rate (per 10,000)

Figure 11.Rate of skin disorders 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 

0

50

100

150

200

250

Trona

Poison

Ivy/Oak

Reagents

Welding

Fumes

Cement

Fly Dust/Ash

Sweating

Oils

Acidic Dust

Chemicals

Alkali Dust

Lime

Dust

(unspecified)

Other

Cause

Frequency

Figure 12.Causes of skin disorders 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Frequency

Figure 13.Lost work days 1983-2001 (MSHA data) 
10

LOST WORK DAYS 

 The number of days lost to disease and illness from 

1983 through 2001 is shown in figure 13. Although 

the mining workforce has declined during these years, 

reported cases of disease and illness from 1985 

through 2001 are above the levels reported in 1983 and 

1984. An average of 930 days per year have been lost 

because of a miner’s disease or illness, and this has 

had a significant impact on production. 

REGULATIONS 

 As mentioned earlier, new regulations were implemented recently regarding noise and DPM exposures. 

The new hazardous chemical rule in MSHA’s 30 CFR 

Part 47 (the “HazCom Rule”) went into effect September 23, 2002, at mines with more than five employees and will go into effect March 21, 2003, at mines 

with fewer than five employees. The intent of this 

standard is to protect miners from chemical hazards 

that could cause occupational lung diseases, occupational cancers other than lung cancer, occupational 

cardiovascular diseases, reproductive disorders, and/or 

neurotoxic disorders. The new rule requires mine 

operators to do the following: 

1. Inventory the chemicals at a mine or mill and 

determine which are hazardous. 

2. Keep a list of hazardous chemicals. 

3. Establish a written HazCom program. 

4. Prepare a label and Material Safety Data Sheet 

(MSDS) for its product(s).

5. Make sure that containers of hazardous chemicals 

are labeled. 

6. Keep a file or book of MSDS’s for hazardous 

chemicals at the mine. 

7. Train miners about the HazCom program and the 

hazardous chemicals to which they could be exposed. 

8. Allow miners to look at HazCom information or 

give them a copy if requested. 

 MSHA inspectors will issue citations to mines and 

mills that do not comply with the new standard. 

DISCUSSION 

Grayson and Watzman (2001) recognized the six 

following emerging realities in the mining industry. 

1. Conditions will degrade rather than improve. 

2. In the future, mining will be deeper, and thinner 

seams and veins having a lower-grade ore will be 

extracted. 

3. Reserves will be discontinuous. 

4. A significant number of new miners will join the 

workforce. 

5. The mining industry will face tougher competition. 

6. Fewer companies will exist due to mergers. 

 Therefore, based on these factors, more healthrelated issues and problems can be expected. 

 Grayson and Watzman (2001) also recommended 

that further improvements in mining will require the 

industry to do the following: 

1. Seek new or modified mining methods and new 

technologies,

2. Organize and manage work more effectively, 

3. Demand more health and safety features on mining 

equipment, 

4. Ensure that best work practices are integral to 

accomplishing work, 

5. Seek breakthroughs in handling some of the most 

persistent problems, 

6. Incorporate health, safety, and environmental 

aspects into every facet of planning, and 

7. Set goals and objectives systematically to drive 

continuous improvements across the board. 

 No. 6 (incorporate health, safety, and environmental aspects into every facet of planning) will be one of 

the greatest challenges facing the mining industry in 

the future, but it will likely pay huge dividends in 

reducing injury and disease rates as well as mining 

costs. 

 Bailey (2001) supported an “Industrial Hygiene 

Process” to answer questions about worker exposures 

to health problems. He listed the following questions, 

which are applicable to the identification of health 

issues in mining. 
11

1. What hazards might be present? 

2. What potential hazards are present? 

3. What are the priorities for assessment? 

4. What levels of exposure and illness are present? 

5. How bad is it? 

6. Is it fixed; are the employees well? 

 The mining community could benefit substantially 

by applying Bailey’s Industrial Hygiene Process in 

every facet of mine planning and development to help 

reduce miner’s illnesses and diseases. 

• In the area of hearing loss, the effects of sudden 

noise (impulse noise) are not well understood. Levels 

considered hazardous have not been identified or 

studied sufficiently. 

• The overall lack of health and illness data collected 

by a central responsible agency is paramount. This 

gap is considered one of the greatest in identifying 

illness and disease in the mining community. 

• Historically, the mining industry has tended to 

lump methods to address health and safety issues. 

Health issues deal specifically with illness and disease; 

safety issues include accidents, injuries, and fatalities. 

Effective methods for studying these two diverse 

topics are different. As noted, mining health issues 

can be acute or chronic and need classic epidemiologycal and public health knowledge, including knowledge 

about personal protective equipment and control technologies, to address them effectively. Safety issues 

generally do not address chronic problems and do not 

require the sophisticated techniques associated with 

cohort studies and analyses, establishing baselines on 

the workforce, and site-specific, long-term exposure 

patterns. 

• The mining industry, academia, government research agencies, and the medical community still have 

significant progress to make in miners’ health. There 

is a need for serious studies involving mining health 

issues, and these can best be addressed through strong 

research partnerships. 

• Miners need better illness and disease recognition 

skills in general, which will reduce illnesses and diseases more dramatically. To this end, appendices A-G 

summarize current and past research at NIOSH’s 

Spokane, WA, and Pittsburgh, PA, mining research 

laboratories. 

• Finally, underreporting is recognized as probably 

the greatest problem in assessing the magnitude of 

illness and disease in mining. 

REFERENCES 

 Bailey, Kelly, F. 2001. Industrial Hygiene in 

Mining. Mine Health and Safety Management, edited 

by Michael Karmis. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, 

and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, pp. 263-273. 

 Bise, Christopher, J. 2001. Noise. Mine Health 

and Safety Management, edited by Michael Karmis. 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., 

Littleton, CO, pp. 297-306. 

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000. 

Fatal Illness. Worker Health Chartbook, 2000. 

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000. 

Nonfatal Illness. Worker Health Chartbook, 2000. 

 Grayson, R.L., and Watzman, B. 2001. History 

and Overview of Mine Health and Safety. Mine 

Health and Safety Management, edited by Michael 

Karmis. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, pp. 1-13. 

 Gordis, Leon. 1996. Epidemiology. W.B. Saunders Co., , Philadelphia, PA, 277 pp. 

 Last, John M. 1988. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York, 141 

pp. 

 Kissell, Fred N. and Jay F. Colinet. 2001. Control 

of Respirable Dust. Mine Health and Safety Management, edited by Michael Karmis. Society for Mining, 

Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, pp. 

275-295. 

 Metz, E.A. 2002. Oral and written communications. 

 Metz, E.A. 2002. Occupational Ergonomics: 

Ergonomics Issues in the Mining Industry. SME 
12

Preprint 02-146. SME annual meeting, Feb. 27-Mar. 

1, 3 pp. 

 Metz, E.A. 2001. Diesel Particulate MatterSo 

What’s the Big Deal? SME Preprint 01-85. SME 

annual meeting, Feb. 26-28, 12 pp. 

 Moore, Gary S. 2002. Living with the Earth. 

Lewis Publishers. 

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health. 1988. Welding, Brazing, and Thermal Cutting (abridged). DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 88-110a, 

57 pp. 

 Pon, Melinda, and Gilbert-Jones, Illa. 2001. Other 

Industrial Hygiene Concerns. Mine Health and Safety 

Management, edited by Michael Karmis. Society for 

Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, 

CO, pp. 307-345. 

 Schnakenberg, George H., Jr. 2001. Estimate of 

Technically Feasible DPM Levels for Underground 

Metal and Nonmetal Mines. Mining Engineering, vol. 

53, No. 9, pp. 45-51. 
13

APPENDIX A. SILICA DUST

1. Silica Dust Control in Metal/Nonmetal Surface 

Mining. Andrew Cecala and Greg Chekan. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00, FY99). 

2. Control of Silica Dust Exposures in Underground 

Coal Mining. Gerritt Goodman. Pittsburgh Research 

Laboratory (FY01, FY00, FY99). 

3. Development of Enhanced Spray Dust Capture 

Principles for Improved Silica Dust Suppression. John 

Organiscak. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01, 

FY00, FY99). 

4. Dust Measurement and Control. Don Tuchman. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY00) 

5. Dust Control in Surface Coal Mining. Jeff Listak. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00, FY99) 

6. Silica Dust Control for Underground Metal/ 

Nonmetal Mines. Greg Chekan and Roy Grau III. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY00) 

7. Control of Silica Dust in Underground 

Metal/Nonmetal Mines. Robert Timko. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY99) 

8. Mining Dust Control Applied to Other Industries. 

Ed Thimons. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY99) 

9. Controlling Respirable Silica Dust During Underround Mining. G. Goodman. Pittsburgh Research 

Laboratory (FY98, FY97) 

10. Surface Mine Dust Control. Steven Page and John 

Organiscak. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY97) 

APPENDIX B. COAL DUST

1. Personal Dust Monitoring. Steve Page. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY00, FY99) 

2. Tapered-Element Oscillating Microbalance 

(TEOM) Dust Monitors. Fred Kissell. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY00) 

3. Fundamental Scattering Properties of Respirable 

Dusts and Suspended Particulate Matter. C.D. Litton. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY00) 

4. Dust Control for Longwall Mining. Jay Colinet. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00) 

5. Improved Dust Control Technology for Longwall 

Mining. Jay Colinet. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

(FY99, FY97) 

6. Improved Application and Monitoring of Dust 

Control Parameters. Ellsworth Spencer. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY99, FY97) 

7. Fixed Site Dust Monitoring. Bruce Cantrell. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY99) 

8. Influence of Coal Seam Properties on Dust Generation. John Organiscak and Jeff Listak. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY98, FY97) 

9. Control of Respirable Dust in Noncoal Mines and 

Mills. Andrew Cecala and Robert Timko. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY98, FY97) 

10. Control of Silica Dust in Underground 

Metal/Nonmetal Mines. Andrew Cecala and Robert 

Timko. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY98, 

FY97) 

11. Improved Application and Monitoring of Dust 

Control Parameters. J. Colinet. Pittsburgh Research 

Laboratory (FY98) 

12. Respirable Dust Measurement and Analysis 

(Instrumentation). Kenneth Williams. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY98) 

13. Personal Dust Dosimeter. Jon Volkwein and 

Steven Page. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY97) 

14. Instrumentation. Kenneth Williams. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY97) 
14

APPENDIX C. METALS EXPOSURE 

1. Metals at Mining Sites. Pam Drake. Spokane Research Laboratory (FY01) 

2. Chemical Hazards in Mining and Processing. Pam 

Drake and Patrick Hintz. Spokane Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00, FY99, FY98) 

3. Chemical Hazards at Active Metal/Nonmetal 

Mines. Pam Drake and Russell Levens. Spokane Research Laboratory (FY97) 

4. Investigation of Silicate Dust Generation and RareEarth Element Behavior in Coals. Stephen Schatzel. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY00, FY99) 

5. Exposure to Toxic Substances in Dust at Nonmetal 

Mines. Patrick Hintz and Pam Drake. Spokane 

Research Laboratory (FY00, FY99) 

APPENDIX D. HEARING/NOISE 

1. Hearing Loss Prevention. David Byrne. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00, FY99) 

2. Cross-Sectional Survey: Noise Exposure Pattern/ 

Sources. Eric R. Bauer. Pittsburgh Research Laboraory (FY01, FY00, FY99) 

3. A Model Hearing Conservation Program for Coal 

Miners. David Byrne. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00, FY99) 

4. Engineering Controls for Hearing Loss Prevention. 

Peter Kovalchik. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

(FY01, FY00) 

5. Investigation of Impulse Noise in Mining. Alex 

Smith and Michael Sapko. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01) 

6. Evaluating the Role of Positive and Negative 

Emotion in Promoting Hearing Conservation Behaviors Among Coal Miners. Charles Vaught. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01) 

7. Communications and Technology Transfer for 

Hearing Conservation. Roy Bartholomae. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY99) 

8. Technical Assistance for Hearing Conservation. 

Jim Rider. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY99, 

FY97) 

9. Audiometric and Noise Survey in the Sand and 

Gravel Industry. Deborah Landen and Gail McConnell. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY99) 

10. Quiet-By-Design Engineering Noise Control. J. 

Burks. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY98, FY97) 

11. Hearing Conservation Communications/ Technology Transfer. J. Burks (FY98, FY97) 
15

APPENDIX E. ERGONOMICS 

1. Engineering Controls for Reducing Jolting and Jarring Injuries in Surface Mines. Fred Biggs and Rusty 

Miller. Spokane Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00) 

2. Reducing Injury Risk from Jolting and Jarring on 

Mobile Equipment. Fred Biggs and Walter Utt. Spokane Research Laboratory (FY01) 

3. Ergonomics Interventions in Mining. Jon Volkwein. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00, 

FY99) 

4. Systems Approach To Reduce Manual Task Injuries. Sean Gallagher. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

(FY99) 

APPENDIX F. DIESEL PARTICULATE 

1. Dust Measurement and Control. Jon Volkwein. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01) 

2. Reducing Diesel Particulate Exposures in Western 

Mines. Art Miller. Spokane Research Laboratory 

(FY01, FY00, FY99) 

3. Diesel Engine Emissions Measurement and Analysis. Bruce Cantrell. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

(FY01, FY00, FY99) 

5. Diesel Partnership Research. George Schnakenberg. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01)5 

6. Diesel Particulate Dosimeter. Jon Volkwein. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY00) 

6. Diesel Engine Emission Measurement and Analysis. Bruce Cantrell and Emery Chilton. Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (FY98) 

7. Instrumentation: Diesel. Bruce Cantrell and 

Emery Chilton. Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

(FY97) 

APPENDIX G. MISCELLANEOUS 

1. Toxic Fumes from Blasting. James Rowland. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (FY01, FY00) 

2. Engineering Controls for Reducing Surface Mining 

Health Hazards. Fred Biggs and Richard Miller. Spokane Research Laboratory (FY97) 

3. Skeletal Modeling for Protective Mine Gear. Marc 

Filigenzi. Spokane Research Laboratory (FY97)