Update on refuge alternatives:
�

research, recommendations and 

underground deployment
�

E.R. BAUER AND J.L. KOHLER 

E.R. Bauer and J.L. Kohler, members SME, are mining 

engineer and director, OMSHR and associate director of mining 

respectively, with the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH), Pittsburgh, PA. 

Abstract

 In response to the mandates in the MINER Act of 2006, 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) conducted refuge alternatives research that 

included characterizing the utility, practicality and survivability of refuge chambers and outby safe havens. NIOSH 

also prepared and delivered a report to Congress in late 

December 2007 that summarized the findings of the research, included recommendations concerning the design 

and performance specifications forrefuge alternatives, and 

focused on specific information that could inform the regulatory process on refuge alternatives.This paper highlights 

NIOSH’s research and recommendations concerning refuge 

alternatives, survivability evaluations of refuge chambers 

and presents a brief review of the current deployment of 

refuge chambers in underground coal mines in the U.S. The 

research has lead to the conclusion that refuge alternatives 

have the potential for saving the lives of mine workers if 

they are part of a comprehensive escape and rescue plan 

and if appropriate training is provided. 

Introduction

The U.S. coal mining industry 

experienced an increase in fatalities 

during 2006 when 37 miners perished in the nation’s underground 

coal mines. Nineteen miners perished in three disasters: 12 miners 

perished in a methane explosion at 

the International Coal Group, Sago 

Mine, two more miners died in a fire 

at the Aracoma Coal Co., Alma No. 

1 Mine, while another methane explosion resulted in the 

loss of five more miners at the Kentucky Darby, LLC, 

Darby No. 1 Mine. This reversed the downward trend 

of fatalities that had taken place during the previous 21 

years (Fig. 1). The causes of all the underground coal 

mine fatalities in 2005, 2006 and 2007 are listed in Table 

1. Table 1 illustrates that fewer fatalities occurred in 2005 

and 2007 than 2006 with the goal of zero fatalities as desirable. 

The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act), PL 109-236, was passed 

in response to this increase in fatalities resulting from the 

three mine disasters that occurred in 2006 (United States, 

2006). Section 13 of the Act – Research Concerning Refuge Alternatives, specifies NIOSH’s responsibilities with 

respect to refuge alternatives. Section 13, subsection 

(a) of the Act states that “The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) shall provide for 

the conduct of research, including field tests, concerning 

the utility, practicality, survivability 

and cost of various refuge alternatives in an underground coal mine 

environment, including commercially available portable refuge chambers.” Subsection (b)(1) then states 

that “Not later than 18 months after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health shall prepare and 

submit to the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, 

and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of 

the House of Representatives a report concerning the 

results of the research conducted under subsection (a), 

including any field tests.” This document summarizes 

NIOSH’s refuge alternatives research that was included 

in the report to the U.S. Congress. 

The concept of utilizing refuge chambers dates back 

as far as 1912 when the U.S. Bureau of Mines advocated 

the building of refuge chambers to fight mine fires (Rice, 

1912) in the main sections of mines (Paul et al., 1923). In 

the late 1930s and early 1940s, some small refuge chambers had been established in some coal mines in the central states and these chambers saved lives (Harrington 

and Fene, 1941). In addition, the Harwick Coal and Coke 

Co. built a number of large refuge chambers in the Harwick Mine.These chambers were 23-m- (75-ft-) long, 2.4-

m- (8-ft-) high and 3.3-m- (11-ft-) wide, cut out of the 

coal and connected to the surface by two boreholes to 

provide air, communications, food and water (Harrington 

and Fene, 1941). 

More recent research efforts were completed under 

contract for the U.S. Bureau of Mines starting around 

1970 and extending into the mid-1980s. Five major contract efforts were completed between 1970 and 1983 that 

addressed mine rescue and survival, the design of explosion-proof bulkheads, post survival and rescue research 

needs, and guidelines for rescue chambers. As a result, 

one refuge chamber was constructed and is still located in 

NIOSH’s Bruceton Safety Research Coal Mine (Fig. 2). 

In general, these contract efforts did not point to any one 

specific component that would ensure survival during a 

mine disaster but stressed that survival is a collaboration 

of subsystems. The subsystems that make up the overall 

survival strategy include escape, rescue, communications, 

breathable air and barricading (refuge). 

NIOSH’s recent research on refuge alternatives was 

limited to underground coal mine applications. Historically, the use of refuge alternatives has been more prevalent 

in underground metal/nonmetal mines. The underlying 
differences between mining sectors are significant and 

practices in one sector cannot be generalized to the other. 

Even so, the findings from this research may be useful for 

metal/nonmetal application. 

The research efforts summarized in this document 

involved a number of activities. First, a literature search 

was performed to identify the findings from any past research on refuge alternatives and topics related to mine 

refuge and mine disasters, escape and mine rescue. Visits 

were made to mines, nationally and internationally, and 

meetings were held with mining experts from labor, industry and government in the U.S., Australia and South 

Africa to collect information on refuge alternatives, specific refuge regulations and to discuss contemporary issues associated with refuge alternatives. Several contract 

efforts were completed that examined existing U.S. and 

international practices, regulations and refuge products. 

However, these efforts revealed very little information 

related to coal mining refuge applications, while identifying several knowledge and technology gap areas. In 

response, a major research contract was awarded to address the gap areas, including guidance for locating and 

positioning refuge alternatives and establishing specifications for chambers and in-place shelters1

. 

1

The gap areas were identified at the end of the international survey effort, which was performed during July through October 2006. 

The technical part of the contract to address these areas was completed at the end of October.The actual contract award, conducted 

in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Rules, was made in 

March 2007.Work on this contract will continue through 2009.The 

contractor was able to provide key inputs for the preparation of 

the report to Congress. 

Concurrently, NIOSH researchers examined nonminFIGURE 1 

Underground coal mine fatalities 1987-2007 (Bauer 

Kohler, 2009. 

Table 1 

Underground coal mine fatalities for 2005-2007 

(MSHA 2008). 

Cause of fatality 2005 2006 2007 

Electrical	 0	 0	 0 

Exploding vessels under pressure	 	 	 	 0	 0	 0 

Explosives and breaking agents	 	 	 	 0	 0	 0 

Falling, rolling, sliding rock/material	 	 	 	 0	 0	 1 

Fall of face, rib, pillar or highwall	 	 	 	 	 	 	 0	 3	 9 

Fall of roof or back	 	 	 	 	 9	 7	 3 

Fire	 0	 2	 0 

Handling material	 0	 0	 1 

Powered haulage	 5	 6	 2 

Ignition/explosion of gas/dust	 	 	 0	 18	 0 

Machinery	 0	 1	 2 

Slip or fall of person	 	 	 	 	 1	 0	 0 

Stepping or kneeling on object	 	 	 	 	 0	 0	 1 

Mine Type Total 15 37 19 

ing applications where survival in confined spaces is critical – notably civil defense shelters, submarines and space 

capsules – in search of guidance for application to coal 

mining. Overall, NIOSH researchers studied a range of 

practical issues associated with refuge such as movement 

of chambers from place to place, collected cost data and 

performed cost analyses of refuge alternatives. NIOSH 

researchers also conducted survivability evaluations of 

refuge chamber performance at the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine. 

Finally, separate research projects were initiated as 

gap areas were uncovered and several research efforts remain ongoing. These research areas include the development of communications technology specifically for use 

in refuge alternatives and the development of training 

modules for using refuge alternatives during escape and 

rescue. These projects are expected to continue through 

2009 and will be reported on in future publications. 

NIOSH refuge alternatives research 

Utility. The utility, or usefulness, of refuge chambers 

has been debated in the U.S. at least since the passage of 

the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, PL 91-173, 

which authorized the Secretary of Labor to prescribe in 

any coal mine that rescue chambers, properly sealed and 

ventilated, be erected at suitable locations in the mine 

to which persons may go in case of an emergency for 

protection from hazards. Despite this and the significant 

research conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines nearly 

30 years ago, refuge chambers have not been embraced 

by industry, labor or government. The focus, understandably, has been on escape rather than refuge. 

NIOSH investigated the utility of refuge alternatives 

to aid in the survival of miners following a mine disaster. 

Past mine disasters were reviewed to determine if the 

presence of refuge alternatives might have altered the 

outcome of these disasters. The results are mixed given 

the small number of disasters and the mine-specific circumstances under which they occurred.Thus, it is difficult 

to make a strong case for or against a specific refuge alternative, or even for or against the efficacy of coal miners taking refuge. Nevertheless, the recent mine disasters 

have refocused attention on the utility of refuge alternatives. And it has been argued that the availability of refuge alternatives may have been useful in these disasters. 

An extensive study of the mining disasters in underground coal mines in the U.S. from 1970-2006 involving 

fires, explosions and inundations in which fatalities occurred revealed the potential affect of refuge alternatives on both survivors and fatalities (Ounanian, 2007a, 

2007b). This included 17 major disasters in which five or 

more miners perished; 20 disasters in which one to four 

miners were killed; one disaster in which no miners were 

killed, the July 2002 inundation at BlackWolf Coal Co.’s 

Quecreek No. 1 Mine in which all nine miners trapped in 

a flooded mine were rescued as well as four other disas-
ters involving fatalities that were not deemed applicable. 

In all, 38 disasters were investigated for inclusion in the 

analysis. 

Table 2 

Design and performance specifications for refuge alternatives (NIOSH 2007). 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Parameter	 Recommended value or practice 	 	 	

Minimum rated duration 48 hours.
�

Strength 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds.
�

Anchor system Not recommended at this time.
�

Fire resistance 148° C (300o F) for 3 seconds.
�

Deployment time Minimize this time when establishing the location of the refuge alternative and 

 consider as part of the travel time. 

Min. concentration O2 18.5%. 

Max. concentration O2 23%. 

Max. concentration CO 25 ppm. 

Gases to be monitored inside chamber O , CO, CO 2 2. 

External gases to be monitored O , CO. 2

Max. concentration CO 2 1.0%, not to exceed 2.5% for any 24-hour period. 

Apparent temperature 35° C (95o F). 

Entry and Exit Provide a means of egress without contaminating the internal environment and/

 or a means to maintain a safe environment during and after ingress/egress.
�

Potable water per person 2 to 2.25 qt per 24 hour. 

Durability Structurally reinforced and of sufficient physical integrity to withstand routine 

 handling.
�

Purge air volume No specific recommendation (see entry and exit parameter). 

Food, per person 2000 cal per 24 hour.
�

Human waste disposal system Required.
�

First aid kit Required.
�

Occupant-activated annunciation Battery-powered strobe light or radio homing signal.
�

Communication with surface Survivable post-disaster system.
�

Minimum distance to working face 305 m (1,000 ft).
�

Maximum distance from working face Distance that a miner could reasonably travel in 30–60 minutes, under the 

expected travel conditions
�

Security Visual indication that a refuge alternative has been entered; inspection and 

 maintenance actions required subsequent to discovery.
�

Repair materials Materials and instructions supplied by manufacturer.
�

Testing and approval Required.
�

Unrestricted floor space > 1.4 m2

 (15 sq ft) per person.
�

Unrestricted volume > 2.4 m3

 (85 cu ft) per person.
�

Capacity Sufficient to accommodate the maximum number of miners in the area to be 

served by the refuge alternative. 

FIGURE 2 

Refuge chamber located in Bruceton Safety Research

Mine. From the disaster analysis, a number of positive impacts were identified. The term “positive impact” described when the presence of a refuge alternative might 

have changed the final outcome of a disaster in a positive 

manner such as miners surviving instead of perishing. 

First, it was estimated that the presence of a refuge alternative (chamber or safe haven) might have positively 

impacted the outcomes in 12 of the 38 disasters studied. 

Second, of the 429 miners who were underground and 

impacted (forced to escape, injured, barricaded or perished) by the 38 disasters, 83 might have been positively 

impacted by the presence of a refuge alternative. Finally, 

if a refuge alternative had been present, 74 of the 252 

fatalities might have been positively impacted, resulting 

in the potential survival of the miners. 

The group of miners that might have been most impacted were those who perished during their escape attempts. The analysis indicated that 57 of the 67 miners 

who expired while escaping might have been positively 

impacted if an outby refuge station had been present, the 

escaping miners found it and they successfully activated 

the breathable air systems. A second group most likely 

to benefit were the miners who barricaded. While barricades were used in only two relevant incidents, these 
incidents resulted in at least 17 and possibly 19 fatalities. 

All of these miners might have been positively impacted 

(survived) by the presence of a refuge chamber on the 

working section. 

Based on the disaster analysis and numerous other 

NIOSH research efforts associated with the utility of 

refuge alternatives, the significant opportunity today is to 

recognize that refuge alternatives can be useful to facilitate escape from the mine as well as to serve as a safe haven of last resort. The potential of refuge alternatives to 

save lives will only be realized if mine operators develop 

comprehensive escape and rescue plans that incorporate 

refuge alternatives. Such an approach would be far superior to one in which refuge chambers are simply placed 

into the mine to comply with a regulation. Thus, it does 

make sense to use refuge alternatives because it is likely 

that miners’ lives could be saved. 

Practicality. The practicality of refuge alternatives 

encompasses whether or not they can be implemented, 

moved and maintained in underground coal mines. Refuge chambers are commercially available and have been 

successfully installed in underground coal mines abroad 

and, to a limited extent, in the U.S. Although there are no 

documented cases of successful use of a refuge chamber in 

an underground coal mine in an emergency, there is no evidence to suggest that refuge chambers or alternatives are 

impractical, but their use will be challenging. The installation of refuge alternatives and the moving and maintenance of such chambers will require an ongoing effort on 

the part of mine operators. There was a concern that the 

moving of refuge alternatives to advance or retreat with 

mining could be difficult and possibly impractical. After 

a thorough investigation of this issue including numerous 

site visits, it was found that the moving of refuge alternatives can be done safely and feasibly (NIOSH, 2006a). 

Also, it is thought that it may be impractical to implement 

viable refuge alternatives in the few mines that operate 

in very low coal, e.g. less than 914 mm (36 in.). The finding of the NIOSH research is that refuge alternatives, to 

facilitate escape and to serve as a refuge of last resort, are 

practical for use in most underground coal mines. 

Survivability. Survivability focuses on the ability of 

refuge alternatives to ensure that the workers who use 

the alternatives will survive for a specific duration. The 

most crucial specifications for the survivability of miners 

who seek refuge in a chamber or safe haven are: maintaining the structural integrity of the unit through an initial explosion; initiating and maintaining an atmosphere 

that will support life; and providing for basic human 

needs. These parameters need only address the support 

of life for a limited time under emergency conditions 

since refuge alternatives are not intended to serve as 

routine workplaces. Ultimately, the desired result is a 

survivable event and not necessarily the most comfortable experience. 

The likelihood of a refuge alternative to survive an 

explosion is enhanced by the integrity of structural design, the positioning of the alternative out of the expected 

direct explosion force path, by minimizing the probability 

of being struck by flying debris, and by not locating the 

alternative near likely explosion/fire sources such as seals, 

belt drives, etc. 

Providing and maintaining a survivable atmosphere 

has generally been solved by chamber manufacturers. 

Oxygen is supplied from breathable grade (99% pure 

with no harmful contaminants) oxygen bottles, flowing 

through manifolds and ball float meters (Fig. 3). 

FIGURE 3 

Example of oxygen supply system in a refuge chamber. 

Carbon 

dioxide scrubbing has been accomplished in a number of 

ways including passive lithium or soda lime curtains (Fig. 

4), and air, or battery-powered fans pulling contaminated air through soda lime cartridges (Fig. 5). The control 

of heat and humidity was not an issue for the inflatable 

chambers since there is considerably more surface area 

for the heat to dissipate. Initially, this was a problem in 

the rigid steel chambers, but recent simulation testing and 

short duration human occupancy testing has indicated 

that the steel chambers can also be operated at apparent 

temperatures below 35° C (95° F), the WV standard for 

the combination of heat and humidity. 

Basic human needs such as water, food and toilet facilities can and have been successfully addressed by all 

chamber manufacturers. All in all, there is no reason to 

believe that miners using a refuge alternative can not 

survive for the NIOSH recommended minimum duration 

of 48 hours. 

Simulation testing 

NIOSH, as part of its research and as required in the 

MINER Act, evaluated the performance of the West Virginia approved refuge chambers. NIOSH developed a 

protocol to simulate human occupancy based on a specific set of performance standards. The protocol was subsequently peer-reviewed and implemented. 

The goals of the evaluations were limited to investigating the CO2 scrubbing, oxygen flow rates and the heat 

index (i.e., apparent temperature during chamber operation). In addition, the overall deployment and operation of the chambers were observed and evaluated. Of 

critical importance was a chamber’s ability to maintain 

a breathable atmosphere. This included maintaining O2 

above 19.5%, CO2 below 0.5%, and a maximum ‘apparent-temperature’ of 35° C (95° F). The protocol defined 

the means of simulating human occupancy to facilitate 

the evaluation of the chambers as follows: the oxygen 

flow rate was measured and removed from the chamber 
(a rate of 0.62 L/min (0.022 cuft/m) per occupant was 

desired); CO2 was injected into the chamber based on the 

respiratory quotient of 0.8 or 0.51 L/min (0.018 cuft/m) 

per occupant; the heat from light bulbs was used to mimic 

the metabolic heat load of 117.24 W/hour (400 Btu/hr) 

per occupant; and humidified air was injected into the 

chamber at a rate of 1.5 L/day (0.4 gpd) per man to simulate moisture from human respiration and perspiration. 

The evaluations were conducted continuously over a 96-

hour period unless developing problems necessitated 

shortening the evaluations. Four manufacturers provided 

chambers for testing, two inflatable and two rigid steel. 

	 	 	 	 	

		 		

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 																			

	 	 	 	 	 	 					

	 	

	 	 	 	 	

Table 3 

Number of operating underground coal mines.

No. of 0perating

State	 underground Year Source

coal mines	

Alabama	 8	 2007	 http://dir.alabama.gov/mr/2007_ANNUAL.pdf 

Arkansas	 1	 2006	 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html 

Colorado	 11	 2007	 http://mining.state.co.us/Reports/12-07CoalSummary.pdf 

Illinois	 15	 2006	 http://dnr.state.il.us/mines/public/asr2006.pdf 

Indiana	 8	 2006	 http://www.in.gov/dol/files/CoalMineStatistics91307.pdf 

Kentucky	 302	 2006	 http://www.omsl.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6BAD4878-7779-4BEE-873F-	 

0960535D2685/0/2006ARbook.pdf 

Maryland	 3	 2006	 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html 

Montana	 1	 2006	 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html 

New Mexico	 1	 2006	 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html 

Ohio	 11	 2006	 http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/min_ind_report/06minind.pdf 

Oklahoma	 1	 2005	 http://www.mines.state.ok.us/id20.htm 

Pennsylvania	 38	 2006	 http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/bmr/annualreport/2006/ 

table09_bituminous_operators_and_sites_summary.htm 

Tennessee	 10	 2006	 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html 

Utah	 11	 2006	 http://168.179.220.114/idev/coalmines/coalsiteinfo.php 

Virginia	 76	 2006	 http://www.energy.vt.edu/vept/coal/coal_prod_eia.asp 

West Virginia	 330	 2007	 http://www.wvcoal.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=41 

Wyoming	 1	 2006	 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html 

Total	 828

The testing revealed unanticipated shortcomings in 

some of the chambers. For instance, heat dissipation was 

more of a problem in the rigid steel than the inflatable 

chambers, and the heat stress index2 

2 West Virginia specified “apparent temperature” as a measure of 

heatstress and established an upper limit of 35° C (95° F), which is 

reasonable and is conservative. 

in both steel chambers exceeded the levels established as acceptable by the 

state of West Virginia. It should be noted that the ambient mine air temperature for the tests was in the range 

of 13-16° C (55-60° F) with little if any airflow over the 

chambers. If the steel chambers were used in mines with 

ambient temperatures closer to 21° C (70° F), as is found 

in some deep mines, the problem would be exacerbated. 

Three of the four chambers were unable to maintain CO2 

concentrations below the level specified by West Virginia 

OMHST, while two of the four chambers were unable to 

deliver oxygen for the duration of the test. Finally, the 

time to activate3 

3 This is the elapsed time from arriving at the chamber until the 

environmental systems inside the chamber have begun to function. 

This time would include the setup and inflation time for an inflatable chamber in addition to the time required to start the oxygen 

flow and CO2

 scrubbing inside of the chamber. 

each chamber varied from a few minutes to more than 30 minutes in two cases. There is no 

consensus on what constitutes a reasonable activation 

time, but the time to activate a specific chamber should be 

considered when establishing the maximum distance that 

a chamber can be located from the face. These shortcomings are sufficiently serious in three of the chambers to 

require correction before deployment. In most cases, but 

not all, these shortcomings should be correctable, or have 

already been corrected, with minor technical changes, the 

addition of clear instructions, and/or improved design/ 

engineering. 

Testing also revealed deficiencies with the documentation provided for each chamber, and this information 

has been discussed with the manufacturers. As a result, 

NIOSH initiated research to define and develop improved documentation. Additional opportunities for improving the usability and performance of chambers were 

noted. Finally, the results of the simulated evaluations 

indicate the need for independent evaluations and testing 

beyond the chamber manufacturers. Computational modeling and other engineering and mathematical analyses 

proved to be inadequate. 

Re-evaluations

To address some of the deficiences found during 

the simulated occupancy evaluations, some additonal 

evaluations were conducted, modifications observed and 

chamber manufacturer test results analyzed. One manufacturer’s redesigned curtain stands were viewed and 

found to be sufficiently strong to prevent tipping. Their 

oxygen flow meter problems were also addressed and a 

96-hour test was observed that indicated the fluctuating flow was corrected. Another manufacturer’s all-steel 

chamber was subjected to a repeat evaluation at Lake 

Lynn. This evaluation lasted 14 hours until a steady state 

condition was reached and demonstrated the chamber’s 

ability to remain below 35° C (95° F) apparent tempera-
ture. Finally, one manufacturer, without NIOSH participation, completed a short-term human subject evaluation. 

The results of the human occupation test were sent to and 

reviewed by NIOSH for verification that the scrubber 

containers were redesigned to prevent spillage and that 

the apparent temperature met the West Virginia standard. 

FIGURE 4 

Passive lithium curtains for scrubbing carbon dioxide. 

FIGURE 5 

Air powered soda lime carbon dioxide scrubber system. 

Recommendations 

NIOSH’s Report to Congress on refuge alternatives 

contained many recommendations concerning the characteristics of refuge alternatives for use in underground 

coal mines (Table 2) (NIOSH 2007). A more complete 

explanation of the recommendations can be found in 

the original report at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/ 

mineract/pdfs/Report_on_Refuge_Alternatives_Research_12-07.pdf. 

Chamber deployment in U.S. underground

coal mines 

Deployment possibilities. The number of underground 

coal mines in the U.S. in 2005 and 2006 was estimated to 

be between 600 and 670 (EIA 2006 and NIOSH 2006b). 

MSHA data from August 2007 on mechanized mining 

units (MMU’s) places the number of MMU’s at 873 and 

the total underground mines at approximately 464. According to the individual states, the number of operating 

underground coal mines exceeds 800 as seen in Table 3. 

Despite this variation, if all underground coal mines in 

the U.S. were required to have a refuge chamber on each 

working face, it is estimated that from 450 to more than 

1,000 chambers might be required. 

Number and type of chambers ordered. Although the 

exact numbers and types of chambers ordered, sold and 

delivered is not readily identifiable because information 

from all chamber manufacturers was not obtained, some 

preliminary numbers are available. 

First, according to Bruce Watzman, vice president for 

Safety and Health with the National Mining Association, in testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on 

Employment and Workplace Safety, the underground 

coal mining industry has spent $53 million for 752 total 

facilities to maintain trapped miners (Watzman, 2008). 

Also, from information provided by chamber manufacturers, as of August 2008, approximately 980 orders have 

been placed for rigid and inflatable refuge chambers, or 

bulkhead type systems. More than 90% of the chambers 

ordered were soft-side deployable (inflatable). It was also 

reported that more than 540 units have been delivered to 

underground coal mines in Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, 

Indiana, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia. The greatest 

number of units were delivered to West Virginia (approximately 36%). 

Secondly, the capacity has been selected to cover the 

maximum number of expected users, based on betweenshift and hot-seat change outs of personnel. The result 

is inflatable chambers of up to 36 person capacity being 

ordered. Finally, orders by the larger coal companies have 

been placed on a company-wide basis, resulting in chambers being placed not only in West Virginia mines but also 

in the company owned mines in other states as well. 

Problems and concerns with underground deployment. NIOSH has heard minimal negative feedback 

about the deployment of the chambers, which is interpreted as little if any problems have been encountered. 

Issues have been mentioned concerning training, ie, availability of training models, in-mine or outside training, etc. 

In addition, at least two mines found that the rubber door 

seals had deteriorated after the chambers sat outside 

for the winter. These were replaced prior to deploying 

the chambers underground. It does raise questions as 

to the environmetal conditions that could lead to sealing 

problems. Recently, a problem has surfaced concerning 

the apparent temperature in refuge chambers employed 

in mines where the ambient temperature is greater than 

13-16° C (55-60° F).This could force a reduced occupancy 

requirement in somes cases due to expected apparent 

temperatures above 35° C (95° F). These might need further investigation. 

MSHA proposed refuse alternatives rules 

The MINER Act required the Secretary of Labor to 

report on proposed regulatory changes within 180 days 

of receipt of NIOSH’s refuge alternatives report. In re-
sponse, MSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making on Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal 

Mines on June 16, 2008 (MSHA, 2008). At the time of the 

preparation of this manuscript, the comment period was 

closed, public hearings completed and MSHA was in the 

process of developing the final rule. The proposed rule 

contains many of NIOSH’s recommendations found in 

the report to Congress, as well as solutions to other critical issues, a result of ongoing communications as part of 

the MSHA/NIOSH Refuge Alternatives Working Group 

and MSHA’s diligent investigative efforts since passage 

of the MINER Act. 

Summary and conclusions 

The 2006 mine disasters and subsequent passage of 

the MINER Act has led to the development, testing and 

deployment of refuge alternatives in underground coal 

mines in the U.S. Specifically, a number of manufacturers have researched, developed, built and supplied refuge 

chambers to the coal industry. 

The state of West Virginia has passed legislation requiring the use of refuge chambers in all the underground 

mines of that state and has approved a number of refuge 

chambers. MSHA has proposed rules for the use of refuge 

alternatives in all U.S. underground coal mines. NIOSH 

has conducted numerous research efforts to investigate 

the utility, practicality and survivability of refuge alternatives in underground coal mines, performed survivability 

analyses of a number of chambers and provided recommendations for use in the rule making process. Finally, all 

research has led to the conclusion that refuge alternatives 

have the potential for saving the lives of mine workers if 

they are part of a comprehensive escape and rescue plan 

and if appropriate training is provided. 

Disclaimer 

The findings and conclusions in this report have not 

been formally disseminated by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. 

References 

Alabama,(2007),Annual Report, Statistical Supplement of the Department of Industrial Relations, Mining and Reclamation Division, 

Mine Safety and Inspection Section, for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 2007,Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, 

46 pp., http://dir.alabama.gov/mr/2007_ANNUAL.pdf 

Bauer, E.R. and J.L. Kohler, (2009) “Update on Refuge Alertnatives: 

Research, Recommendations, and Underground Deployment,” 

SME Preprint 09-113, Feb., 7 pp. 

Colorado, (2007), Monthly Coal Summary Report, 1/2007 to 12/2007, 

Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety, 1 p., http:// 

mining.state.co.us/Reports/12-07CoalSummary.pdf. 

EIA,(2006),Annual Coal Report, Energy Information Administration, 

Department of Energy, 14 pp., http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/ 

page/acr/acr_sum. html. 

Harrington, D. and W.J. Fene, (1941), “Barricading as a Life-Saving 

Measure in Connection With Mine Fires and Explosions,” Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Miners’ Circular 

42, 64 pp. 

Illinois, (2006), Annual Statistical Report, 2006, Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals, 23 pp., http://dnr. 

state.il.us/mines/public/ asr2006.pdf 

Indiana, (2006), 2006 Annual Coal Statistics Report. Indiana Department of Labor, Bureau of Mines, 4 pp., http://www.in.gov/dol/files/ 

CoalMineStatistics91307. pdf 

Kentucky, (2006), Annual Report 2006, Office of Mine Safety and Licensing, 54 pp., http://www.omsl. ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6BAD4878-

7779-4BEE-873F-0960535D2685/0/2006ARbook.pdf 

MSHA, (2008), “Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines; 

Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, 73(116):34140-34173, June 16, 

http://www.msha.gov/ regs/fedreg/proposed/2008prop/e8-13565. 

pdf. 

NIOSH, (2006a), Summary Information of Refuge Chamber Use and 

Moving in Underground Coal Mines, 8 pp., http://www.cdc.gov/ 

niosh/docket/pdfs/ NIOSH-125/125-Moving%20Refuge%20 

Chambers. pdf. 

NIOSH, (2006b), NIOSH Mining: Number of Active Underground and 

Surface Mines by Commodity and Year, 1 p., http://pit/prl/surveillance/tables/m3.html. 

NIOSH, (2007), Research Report on Refuge Alternatives or Underground Coal Mines, Office of Mine Safety and Health, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, December, 16 pp. 

Ohio,(2006), 2006 Report on Ohio Mineral Industries:An Annual Summary of the State’s Economic Geology, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, 105 pp., http://www. 

dnr.state. oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/min_ind_report/06minind.pdf. 

Oklahoma, (2006), Coal Division, Oklahoma Department of Mines, 1 

p., http://www.mines.state.ok.us/id20.htm. 

Ounanian, D, (2007a), “Refuge Alternatives in Underground Coal 

Mines,” Phase I Final Report, Foster-Miller, Inc., Waltham, MA, 

OMSHR Contract No. 200-2007-20276, July, 184 pp. 

Ounanian, D. (2007b), “Refuge Alternatives in Underground Coal 

Mines,” Phase II Final Report, Foster-Miller, Inc., Waltham, MA, 

OMSHR Contract No. 200-2007-20276, December, 164 pp. 

PA DEP, (2006), 2006 Bituminous Operators and Production Sites 

Summary by County, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources, 1 p., http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/ 

bmr/annualreport/2006/table09_bituminous_operators_and_sites_ 

summary.htm. 

Paul, J.W., B.O. Pickard, and M.W. VonBernewitz, (1923), “Erection of 

Barricades During Mine Fires or After Explosions,” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Miners’ Circular 25, 28 pp. 

Rice, G.S., (1912), “Mines Fires, A Preliminary Study,” Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Technical Paper 24, 51 pp. 

United States, (2006), Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act), PL 109-236 (S 2803), 109th 

Congress – Second Session, June 15, 13pp. 

Utah, (2006), “Utah Coal Program, Mining Information, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 1 p., 

http://168.179.220.114/ idev/coalmines/coalsiteinfo.php. 

Virginia, (2006), Summary of Coal Production and Employment.Virginia Energy Patterns and Trends, http://www.energy.vt.edu/vept/ 

coal/coal_prod_eia.asp. 

Watzman, Bruce,(2008), “Mine Safety Advances with Investments and 

Programs,” Coal News 5(8):1. 

West Virginia, (2006), Mine Safety Recommendations. Report to the 

Director of the Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training by 

the West Virginia Mine Safety Technology Task Force, May 29, 

136 pp. 

WV Coal Association, (2007), “Coal Facts 2007,” West Virginia Coal 

Association, Charleston,WV, 48 pp., http://www.wvcoal.com/index. 

php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=41.