'tt the Committee to? 9 U.S. Department of Labor Robert B. Reach, Secretary me Safety and Health - J. Davrtt McAteer, Secretary - October 1995 -.. - - - - - - - .-.-. . --3- - . .. aca:. . "si" - E: 9 Zgir ` dis th? ?fLabCommittee on the Elrmmatron of Pneumocomosrs Among Coal Mine Workers to examine ways to The Coal Act was . by the Federal Mine Health of {bln Act), mtrieete CWP and silicosis and to make recommendations on ways to improve the program to which moved enforcement responsibilities to the newly created MSHA inthe Department of comm] respirable coal dust. Labor, the enforcement provisions ofthe Coal Act, brought metal- --and non-metal A Ros tmblo dust standards mines under the same agency, and provided for more miner education. -The principle features ofthe COQAQ lf The national respirable coal mine dust standard for Today, the respirable coal mine dust levels are significantly lower than they were prior to passage mom of the Coal Act. For example, federal mine inspector sampling results during 1968-69 showed ngbased upon studies conducted Great Britain, and was mtended to provide almost complete . that the average dust concentration the_ environment of the continuous tmner operator was . . - - . - - 7-7 mg/me-6 Dudng Fiscal Yw 1995, the avmgc dust twat . ed hm MSHA samples for protection from by rtnposmg a strict .on the amount of respirable coal nune dust that occupation hee been reduced to 1.2 of and- silicosis are still Th. being identified. According to a 1994 NIOSH report, the total mrmber of death certiicates retained rn the Mine Act, was an mterun standard and that the Mine Act directs that improved mandatory health or safety standards to protect the health and safety ofthe Nation's coal or other miners be developed and promulgated. Under the Coal Act, mine operators were required to implement `pregeeme to control the amount 2 Statement by gmomt- Hon-gsott wimoms, Choimton ofthe Somto on Labor and of dust in the mine atmosphere prior to coal extraction, to obtain federal govemment approval of public Lcgislatgvo I-Estory of tho Fodom] Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of those programs, and to take accurate dust samples at periodic mtervals usrng approved sampling 1969 (Public Law 91-173) August 1975, Part 1, page 240, U.S. Government Printing devices. The Coal Act also required that citations be issued whenever respirable coal mine dust Washingtom D_g_ 1g?y5_ samples collected by either an operator or federal mine inspector showed noncompliance with the dust standard. - Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 30 U.S.C. 801 et. sg. . 4 The respirable coal mine dust provisions ofthe Coal Act remained essentially unchanged by Coal Act. .-- 223%; at if 1977, Public Law No- 95-164, 91 Sm. 1290 ?f`H?alth and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Wheeler, H. P., "The Working Environment: Statement of the Steps and Rationale for "w?rk`R?lat?d Lung Discasc Rcpon 1994} p' 28' gcttitqor; cm 0 "Work-Related I.ung Disease Surveillance Report 1994," p. 47. 0 at 2 yltri oi o_ 15 '18= l970? 28'34? Personal communications with the Social Security Administration (8/3/96Summary of Operator/Inspector Sampling, Report MSN 111, Run Date: 11/20/95. Department Ofllabor (7/2 /9 16 17 . . . . - I I- - decreased significantly 5?om approximately 500,000 samples to fewer than 70,000 today. These cmcimcm ofthe Mine Act g9?gL]2?p??5cauy' the Act' ns rl On, regulations are currently in efect and continue to require sampling ofthe environment of the mqum that 3 . . "high risk occupation" every two months. The "high risk occupation" is now referred each operator shall continuously maintain the average concentration ef d?S1gmt?d (D0) mspimbl? dust in th? mim atm?sph?r? during each Shih ch each the . MSHA also conducts sampling, and the Agency collected over 20 000 samples in FY 1995. acuvc of is at ?r b?1?w 2*0 Mem ahh dug? These samples were taken by inspectors on occupations for the following purposes: (1) . - pu ?ub1? m?t?r ?f am to detemrine if a noncompliance condition existed at the tinre of sampling; (2) to assess the - . . e&`ectiveness ofthe opcrator's dust control program; (3) to determine the presence of excessive Under cunicm MSHA mgulm?m' this I mquccd when the i I ic mal . levels of quartz dust which-may necessitate a reduction ofthe dust standard; and (4) to identify dust contarns more tlrarr Eve percent quartz._ In nrrners who have early evrdenceofthe other than the DO that might be et risk development of CWP, and who have elected to work in a low-dust environment, be . exposed to respirable coal mine dust above 1.0 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m .- This standard . can be iirrther reduced if the work environment contains more than ten percent quartz dust." Throughout the history _of the dust monitoring program, most mine operators have - fm R?sPu'?bl? Dust . conscientiously attempted to sample miners' exposure to respirable coal mine dust as required . . . . .Nerthe1 aftth `l cd`1970,` maiamgow . samp . I . . . . envim ofthe Occupation on the working section exposed to the highest reepeeble practices were by many ofthe nrrners who testriied before the Comnuttee rn 1996 is ??mP1?d? Au ?th?r tm s??ti?n am to be comlp - cc Sampling irregularities have been documented involving the collection of samples. Since 1990 the high ns? Ocqlpau?n is oixmpmon more than 150 nrine operators, agents and contractors have pled or been found guilty of "fmmg 'd?'m5?4 m? yr _mm?r was samp but submitting Baudulent dust samples to MSHA. Additionally in 1991, citations were issued to more Him-vals' These mdmdufl sample rcsults wm mt u$?d for th than 500 mining companies for submitting dust samples with what appeared to be uncharacteristic - t? NIOSH r?s??r?h ?,?mm?nF H. mfa ns ul-mg dust depositions e. "abnomral white centers") on the sample iilter. The Secretary of Labor 1970s disclosed that the dust sampling data could not be considered reliable. Miners also that th AWG ee they eem known, resulted Hem tempering with samples. testified at public hearings describing how the current system was allowing However these eiteeiene were net upheld by the Federal Min Safety and Heelth Review Sampling t? Commission. These cases have been appealed by MSHA. Given this history, the Committee . . . l` th gram l' il' The regulations governing the nrine _operator sampling program were revrsed rn 1980. Accordmg Eseixigg gn? xesggiltg to Improve the rc mb uy 0 the to MSHA, as a result of this revision- the number of samples required to be taken annually . D. The MSHA Coal Mine Respirable Dust Task Group Report. rr Mine ACL In response to concerns about the coal mine dust sampling program, in 1991 MSHA undertook an extensive review of the Agency's respirable dust control program. The MSHA Coal Mine '2 30 CFR, Section 70.101 and Section 71.101. Respirable Dust Task Group Report, issued in June 1992, found that problems existed in the current sampling and cnforcemerrt programs which could impact miner health protection. *3 30 CFIQ Section 90.101. Recommendations were made for improving both MSHA's enforcement and the operator's 35 FR 5544, April 3, 1970. . . Report to the Congress, Comptroller General ofthe United States, General Accounting Omce, December 31, 1975, p. 7. . 45 FR 23990, April 8, 1980. Report to the Congress . F. Single-Shiit Sampling. - sampling programs." The majority ofthe Task Group recommendations would have required - ?hit?8e? MSHA planned to to notice and comment rulemaking to On February 18, 1994, MSHA published a notice in the Federal Register" announcing its imPi?m??i-sh?s? MSHA dscidi-id sirree F?d??ii ?dVi??i'Y intention to use single, ti.rll?shift respirable dust measurements in addition to the average of eemmittee Wits te he established. eemmittee W??id Pi'?vide the best forum in which to multiple, iirll-shift respirable dust sample results to determine noncompliance and issue citations . - iderrtit? the eritiesi needs fer revised rtries end end eerrsider heth the issues for violations ofthe respirable dust standard under the MSHA coal mine respirable dust program. - the eeneems ef the miners end mine errersters In 1995. the--Secretary ef Liber with this publication by Msrra, the Department ofLabor and the Department or snnenrreed his irrtemierr te eerrvene rr Federsi edviserw eemmitteete address these end ether - Health and Human Services published a joint notice in the Federal Registeret announcing a issuss- - . proposed finding that a single full-shiit measurement, aher applying valid statistical techniques account for the precision ofthe analytical and sampling methods, will accurately represent the . E- R?8ui?t?iY Chsiigcs atmospheric conditions with regard tothe respirable dust concentration during the shift in which it In 1996, MSHA promulgated regulations revising the safety standards for underground coal mine was taken ventilation." As part of this rulemaking eEort, changes were made to two sections ofthe NIOSH C1-item Document regulations dealing directly with areas under consideration by the Committee. Under it dssigmied bYsh? ?P?i'ss?i' must simduss sn ?Xsmi?ssi?n te In November of 1995, NIOSH issued a criteria document dealing with occupational exposure to . eempiienee with the resrirshie dest eentrei in the mine verrtiirrtierr This respirable coal mine dust? In this criteria document, Nrosn concluded that coal miners in the is te he eempieted prier te prerhretierr unless shift ehrmse is witherrt United States continue to be at risk of developing cwr. The criteria document recommendations en i?s?miPii?? whieh it must he ?0mPi?s?d within Ons f?u?Wi?S included reducing the allowable exposure to respirable coal mine dust, citing recent studies that shift eherrae- This ererminstierr is te irrehrde sir qrrerrtities rind writer pressures iiew provided evidenoe that the rislc of developing at the current standard of 2.0 is greater . rates. excessive ieeksse in the water delivery system. water spray and than had been predicted. Ntosrr reoornrnended that exposures to respirable coal mine dust be ventiistien deviee end my s?PPi'?ssi?? limited to 1 mg/m3. Also, NIOSH recommended a 50 percent reduction in the permissible required hy the verrtiletien pirrn- The rearrirrtien else ther when eentimrerrs meniterina is . exposure limit for respirable silica (quartz) dust, ii-ont 100 micrograms per used, additional measurements ofthe air velocity and quantity, and water prresasure and flow rates cubic meter (pg/ms) to $0 pg/ms, to address continued risk of developing silicosis or mixed-dust sis net . . pneumoconiosis. Section 75.370 contains the requirements for the submission and approval of the mine ventilation plan. As revised, 75.370 provides for an increased role for the representative of miners in the - plan approval process. Specifically, the mine operator must notify the representative of miners at . - least 5.days prior to the submission of a mine ventilation plan or any revision to a mine ventilation - plan. If requested, the mine operator must provide a copy ofthe plan to the representative of 0 miners at the time of notification. Following receipt of the proposed plan, the regulation provides 2 59 FR 8356 (February 18' *994* that the representative of miners may submit timely comments to the MSHA district manager(Fcbmary 18, 1994). writing, for consideration during the review process. . - 22 NIOSH, "Criteria for a Recommended Standard, Occupational Exposure to Respirable . Coal Mine Dust," Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and - Health, DHSS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-106, (l995)._ Throughout the report the tenn "permissible exposure limit" (PEL) is used in reference te S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, "Review ofthe the standards for respirable coal mine dust or for respirable silica as set out in MSHA - Program to Control Respir-able Coal lvline Dust in the United States, Rgport gf the (jog] regulations. The Committee recognizes that, at the present time, the term PEL is not used Mine Respirable Dust Task Group," June 1992. in the MSHA regulations with respect to respirable coal mine dust or respirable silica. 61 FR 9764 (March 11, 1996). . - 21 The Committee also heard testimony on the activities of Coal Mine Respirable Dust No TASK OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE . Task Group and addressed many ofthe issues considered in the Task Group Report. gmx: The matter of MSHA's intention to use single, iirll-shift respirable dust measurements addition to the average of multiple, iirll-shift samples to determine noncompliance and issue citations for hd? th': ?fth? Ad ?f 1969 and th? 1977 Mimi Am th? d"ti?s ?fth? violations of therespirable dust standards was not specifically referred to the Committee for *0 CWP ?f ml consideration. nn Agonoy position was read into rno record the respirable dust and the reduction of miners' exposure. Committee was chartered first meeting in Amneten . to . review infomation and experience in the United States and abroad concerning the . . - . prevention of pneurnoconiosis among coal miners; the of current state-of--the-art The Agency nee begun proceeding on the issue of sampling The contrels prevent overexposure tc respirable coal mine dust; andthe See,-etstges and Health and Human Services have issued ajoint strategies for momtonng of coal rmne dust expcsures." The charter charged the with Ending that the average eeheemmien oft-espirable dust to which each coal mi?=1' is Pr?vidi"g t? th? S??r?t"Y fm`: exposed can be measured accurately over an 8-hour shift. The Agency published a proposed notice of its intention to enforce the dust regulations based on single-shin improved standards, or other appropriate actions, on permissible exposure limits to sampling eliminate black lung disease and silicosis; -- . This single-shift sampling notice was published in the Federal Register _two years ago as mama dm lmla joint notice warn We have nom hearings and are about to reopen the record on a technical issue. improved monitonng of respirable coal nune dust level - The Committee is at liberty, of course, to discuss the entire MSHA sampling program; ?fth? mma in that and however, MSHA is not formally seeking recommendations from the Committee on its pending proposal concerning single-shift sampling; nor is the single--shiit sampling the adequacy of the operator's current sampling program to determine the actual levels of prepesnt spc?iscauy mentiened in the che,-te,-_ - dust concentrations to which miners are exposed. The Agency's position notwithstanding, the Committee did consider the issue of single-shift sampling for compliance and made a speciic recommendation addressing this matter. Also addressed was the issue ofthe number of samples required for abatement of citations issued and Many of the rssues under consideration by the Committee were the same as those addressed by based on saInples_ NIOSH in its recently published Criteria Document. During the second meeting of the Committee held in Pittsburgh, the Agency spokesperson addressed the issues dealt with in the . . Criteria Document as follows; . . . MSHA has determined that it will respond to the Criteria Document by publishing a proposed rule to protect miners from exposure to respirable coal mine dust. . Although MSHA will begin preliminary work on a proposed rule, the Agency will defer iirll development and publication ofthe proposed rule until it can tirlly consider the broad range of recommendations expected to be issued in the fall by the Secretary's Advisory Committee to Eliminate Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers. . . - the Advisory Committee is free to consider and use any information contained in the Criteria Document as the Committee develops its own recommendations. I . S9 FR 2* This Agency position is published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 18308 (April 25, 1996). 23 .. 22 v_ REPQRT gp discussed were specifics ofthe MSHA quartz program and pending regulatory activity. In . - response to Committee questionsregarding the issuing of citations based on a single sample, Cemmigtee meetings wete held in Vit-gihis; Piggsbul-gil, Charleston, west Mr. Miller responded by reading into the record a statement outlining the Agency's position on Virginia; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Lexington, Kentucky, The Committee also made this matter. Mr. Miller also MSHA's responsibility in responding to the NIOSH Criteria visits to me mlwonn Mina, near Washington, the Hoon No. 21 Surface Mme, neat Document and indicated that the Agency would make a decision shortly regarding the spccinc Charleston, West Virginia; the Deerereek Mine, near Price, Utah; and the Pittsburgh Research action il intends *0 nike- in Bruceton, . Mr. John Murphy, Research Director of the Pittsburgh Research Center, reviewed the PRC First Meeting significant accomplishments relative to respirable dust, the current trends in mining technology, the PRC current research program, and provided his perspective on the outstanding respirable The Erst meeting ofthe Committee was held on February 21 and 22, 1996, in Arlington, Virginia, dust issues and needs to address these issues. The two-day meeting was attended by 14 members of the public, two of whom elected to address . the Cgmmittgg gil {hg ggngidg;?gtign_ MI. RODCIT G. Peluso, Chief Pittsburgh Safety and HC8lth Technology and Chairperson of MSHA's 1992 Coal Mine Respirable Dust Task Group, presented an overview of Mr. J. Davitt McAteer, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, onieially the Task Group's key Endings and recommendations for improving different aspects of MSHA's - welcomed the members ofthe Committee on behalf ofthe Secretary of Labor. Mr. McAteer dl-isi Pr?Srsm- - brietly described the Comrnittee's purpose, and stressed the importance of its role in thoroughly - examining and evaluating the range of respirable dust issues and making reeommehdetiehs Dr. Gregory Wagner addressed the Committee a second time, on the subject of NIOSH's that will lead to the elimination of black lung and create a more healthtul workplace for- the "ontens f?l' il Standard r?r O??llPild?n?i r? Mind Nstiehsrs eesl mihet-s_ Dust." His presentation focused on NIOSH's rationale for recommending a reduction in the - - permissible exposure limits for respirable coal mine dust and silica He also reviewed The Committee Chair,-Dr. David Wegrnan, welcomed the Committee members and requested that NIOSHP i??9mm?nd??ri?ns l'?1sr?d r? controls and medical survdrusndd- . members briefly introduce themselves. He then addressed the charge, welcoming the challenge assigned to the Committee to End ways to eradicate among ooal miners, He stated me Following the presentations. the Committee developed a list of issues through an informal process need to set a goal to eliminate all disabling coal worker-related lung disease and then outlined the Pl`?br?ms slid did These tasks of the Committee and suggested ways that the Committee eould with its ehsi?ge_ issues served as a working agenda for the next meeting. Key issues included: the need Di-_ outlined gpggijc elements of the ehsrge slid idcntijcd kay issues that needed to be for changes to the PELs for respirable coal mine dust and silica, the need for a separate PEL for addi-essed_ Alse diseussed wete the gt-euhd titles uttdet- whieh the Comnlittec would Opel-ete_ silica, the role of continuous monitoring, the design and implementation of ventilation plans, and the need for medical surveillance for surface coal mine workers. The complete list of the issues is Dr. Gregory Wagner, Director of Respiratory Disease Studies, .NIOSI-I, and a member of the in G- Committee staff] spoke on the recent evidence of the persistence of CWP and silicosis in coal - miners. Dr. Wagner told the Committee that, while the data show substantial improvement in the . number of miners with disease, CWP has yet to be eradicated. He indicated that the original goal - te prevent pt-egtessive lihtesis (pMp)_ Based on eat-llet Studies, lt appeal-ed that if The Committee held its second meeting in Pittsburgh, on April ll and 12, 1996. - the disease ptegtessiett limited to eetegety el- less Cwp_ lniners were urdikcly to develop The two-day meeting was attended by 33 members of the public, eight of whom elected to PMF, and a remarkable improvement would be achieved in coal miners' health. Unfortunately, address cn the rssuds according to Dr. Wagrler, the evidence today does not support this earlier conclusion. - . On April 10, 1996, prior to their second meeting, the Committee along with some stan' members Mr. Ronald Schell, cnlorormo Division ofHealth rot Msna-s coal Mano sanny and Health, visited the Dilwenh Mine. near Washinsien Dnrins their visit the had presented an overview of MSI-IA's Program to Control Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust - the dPP?rr"r"iY rd db firvd did east ??"rr?is heins dd and dri with specific focus on three elements: operator ventilation plans for controlling dust, monitoring scenes. rd dr these rr'? representative by operators, and monitoring by MSHA. He discussed the type of sampling strategies being used, dr the rniners. and with Fdudwmg the "srr? the and . rho purposes rot sampling, and me noqoenoy at wlilon sampling is being carried out. Also traveled to the research facility in Bniectcn where they mei with researchers 24 - 25 I I and discussed the state of development of continuous monitoring for respirable dust and the arameterssedt trol irablcoal' .. Semenetretizn 0f3h;;);1 gcsi mma ust 0 was also gm? a The Committee's third meeting was held in Charleston, West on May 29 and 30, 1996. - . The two-day meeting was attended by 74 members ofthe public, 22 of whom elected to address In response to input &om Committee members following the Erst meeting, the Chair restructured th? unda ??md?m1?n' AH iatthee .i ,e - i I. e'DrMii iAneeid tr rm `ed` ua accepted - NMS was by - as a dowmmt Committee regarding a re?analysis ofthe data referenced by NIOSI-I in the Criteria The agenda for the second meeting called for the Committee to discuss the i sue ofthe "control of D??mi1?m for rcipu-able cm] mine dust DL Amicld dmimed how a populauon mm em i - ku -I-ne en ir i the ongrnal surveillance data was selected and used to derive an age and tenure-related eezziizzqiifgsezgiilrifrmmi eftne the eemmi background prevalence of x-ray abnormalities. Dr. Attlield explained that it was dimcult to draw of mirie vemiierien mens; me ef seen niene; end the wineh MSHA a comparison between younger and older miners with similar years of exposure, since evaluates their md emirevee seen eiene The er deer eeneer which the predominant jobs by age groups difer, with the younger miners working at the face and older ere vemiierieri and weter sprays, were in new duet eennei i ere miners working elsewhere in the mine. According to Dr. Attiield, when comparing the observed ere, determined to be &ctive in an individual enniieerienl - . prevalence derived from his re-analysis ofthe surveillance data with that predicted from the original epidemiology study, the excess risk in?miners age 30 - 40 was found to be greater than The Committee also discussed what constitutes "minimum" dust control parameters, and -whether ??gmauy;pr?dm?d (32 LOGO vs' 4 LOGO) and lm than predicted for age groups information exists that would enable an acceptable margin cr that could rcac to $5*65 (8 *2 ct'cal tecti acti .-Th `ackn systema' . . ;rmaccinari::crimY; qcc;il:a c;a:;;smnr:? gm in NIOSH - However, the Cemmiriee that er-the eemniexny er the nn . ri intervention strategies, Dr. Gregory Wagner, Director of Respiratory Disease Studies, NIOSH, may not bepossible to achieve this goal with a simple objective approach. This is Esctause not gif the;? eS;am ni eSt.n_i veriabi. . . pain surverll gee; giggle gientigigerg igrineneecgn the rgseirnbie te . region, state, or coal seam in which to target interventron to prevent either CWP or standards were eeneiderede eiene with niere ereuet etem me the According to Dr. Wagner, the voluntary participation rate in the was estimated as eemiiriene under nereineiere ere need 20-3 5% during Round S. Dr. Wagner indicated that this rate of participation is unsatisfactory and efforts g. direct mailings to miners' homes) were underway to improve the rate. He stated that The ability of operators to collect samples other than those required to tirliillthe based ?n preliminary results these ?E?m appear t? be having a posmvc Impact - requirements was discussed in detail. It was clarified that the regulations do not prohibit operator from collecting samples for other than compliance purposes. It was explained that the Th? wivndlicussog agmgugng tz? to be met is that an operator must provide MSHA with a list of the cassette gfefer Sgt; `ehie; iigdiregtcedciinaig?niiget dtsigned te immc th 'll ed than - comrilimcc sampling dw qu?su?n?d miner participation in the surveillance program by providing various incentives, such as issuing stoncal basrs ofthe current practice of operators based on the results of their own hard hai seekers here and een bnekiee Mi, wheeler reid ine that ir is very l` . . comp lance samp cs . to get people to change their behavior, and that there. is considerable distrust about_ the program. Dr. Michael Attficld addressed the _Cornrnittee in response to a request made by one of . Accoidmg to Mr- the biggest lesson lcaimd Eoin the need t? tq its members. NIOSH was asked to re-analyze the Coal Workers' X-ray Surveillance Program SIC my program change aimed at Improving Overall pammpamn data to establish a baseline, age-related prevalence of abnormal chest x-rays and I compare it to results. Dr. Attiield explained the limitations ofthe available data but ..-. . . . . . ri eevei . . . A panel representing the National Black Lung Assocratron, an organization comprised of rruners, ggne disabled miners, the survivors of miners, and other interested individuals, with 18 chapters across re_eneiveie may be eimeim ie ieke inte eeneidemeen because the endings would rack review the nation, addressed the Committee. Mr. Mike South, President ofthe Association, urged the - . Committee to caretirlly consider the effectiveness ofthe current respirable dust standard, sampling . -. - 26 - 27 - process, the role of miners in sampling, and miners education in order to assure that the health and ell-b` f' protected.Pe1 LaMarseMo Jli Lesli ?1,vin?j,? the du; nie cenmnaeew rennm meeting wm held in sen Lake city, umn on June zo me 21, 1996. The control,.operator and inspector sampling and the The panel members said they have two-day meeting was attended by 34 members ofthe public, 10 of whom elected to address the been diagnosed with black lung and that they worked in dusty conditions witheut adequate Committee on the issues under consideration. Committee discussions focused on mine ventilation eeIm,e1s_ Feuewine their presentations, ML Jem Cline, beneme counselor at the Oeeupetieml plans, permissible exposure limits, and the application ofthe to sur&ce miners. HealthS ftheN RiverHealthCenter' .Virg1ma,' `th I hemlh problems reported bl; whe age,. 1969s wl On June 19, 1996, prior to their fourth meeting, most ofthe Committee and stalf visited the According to Mr. Cline, based on data from West Virginia for a group of 200 miner; to Deercreelc Mine, near Price, Utah. During the visit, the Committee observed dust controls on have mere than tee years efdust expesure and 25 et-the 48 miners with eenmmed both a longwall and a continuous-miner section and had the opportunity to discuss the mine's dust CWP had su eftheir werk time sinee 1969 control practices with mine management, the representative ofthe miners, and individual miners. In preparation for a presentation scheduled for the fourth meeting, the Committee had an Th -H th - fthe . I- d- - the indie me meemm west-I opportunity to observe the use ofRacal Airstream? helmets,"' a type ofpowered air-purifying dmliteg during tlisgrelteenii meedneEUR;3,iusbweie The ereeisef eensidemtien Ons respirator that protects miners Eom respirable coal mine dust by providing a continuous stream of included: the use of continuous monitoring, training needs related to dust control portion of mtilmd mr th? w?l:k?r Th? ?fth? dls?usS?d th? us? md ventilation plans,_ the hierarchy of controls, veriticationand validation ofthe dust control portion - maml??an?? ?fth?S? with lh? Wh? t? th?m? as w?u as th?S? wh? ofthe ventilation plan, plan implementation and approval, compliance sampling, angie-min d' th oerta1nty' hat C;si5Leg; tgogsuehmg? Because of the number and scope ofthe issues before the Committee, the Chair divided the th es eress EMI vetine en me take plsee umu the Emi Committee into two working groups to discuss and develop findings and recommendations on meeting sirice members -would need to fully understand how the various reconunendations interact medical and dust plans. The working groups met separately during the bei-ere being prepared te make Emi judgment en morning ofthe day ofthe meeting. However, all discussions ofthe working groups remained open to the public. At the request of the Chair, Mr. Ron Schell, Chief ofthe Division of Health for MSHA's Coal Mine safety and Health, addressed me Cemminee en the issue ability te eenduet hu Following the meeting ofthe working groups, the Committee reconvened to discuss the working eemplisnee sampling seheu explained thee in respense te the Cemminees diseussienss paper prepared by its working group on medical surveillance. The working paper was modified MSHA hed examined the eunem reseuree situation Assuming that neneempumee and adopted for inclusion in the Comn1ittee's working document. The Committee then discussed I determinations could be made on singlesample measurements, Mr. Schell suggested that MSHA papcl prepared by ?n dust ??mll?l plum Th? w?rl?l?g palm was may be able to double the amount of sampling done underground, sample at surface mines at least m?d'll??l md ad?pl?d f?r mcluslml th? - . . once a year, and target "problem" mines for sampling approximately four or Eve times a yearSeveral Committee members expressed disappointment that MSHA could not assume compliance Committee on me nee nrnnenn Airstream? neimem. Mn Lauriski gave an overview the history of these devices. He urged the Committee to recommend that On May 31, 1996, following the conclusion ofthe tlurd meeting, most of the Committee and stat? all . . . visited the Hobet No. 21 Surface Mine and Preparation Plant, near Charleston; West V'u'ginia. be as Dl' - During the visit, the Committee Observed the 0 eration variety Ofsu . . uipmem - presented the results of research he directed to develop protection factors for the helmets. He Committee members discussed the use efthis pei mem me the snieulsr dust comme; in use en presented data showing the results of lield tests at four mines. According to Dr. Bhaslcar, the the equipment with miners sed eemem pglsegnel Their end willingness so explsin helmets, under the conditions tested, a&`orded an average efective protection of 83.8%. specific details were particularly to the Committee members in better understanding the . - mining operation at the Hobet No. 21 Surface Mine and the preparation plant. While at the mine, ersoll lcoll if su ll Registered trade names are used for identification purposes only and do not constitute much rfa . mem used endorsement by the Committee, individual members ofthe Committee, or the - .2 Department ofLabor. - . eg I 29 Mr. Ronald Schell, Chief of the-Division of Health for MSHA's Coal Mine Safety and Health, was STATEMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS again asked to address the Comnrittee on the issue of MSHA's ability to conduct all compliance . sampling. Mr. Schell explained that the sampling program he presented during the third meeting The committee was charged with providing recommendations of ways to improve the program to held in'Charleston, West Virginia, was t.he result of sta&` work. Aner that meeting, discussions control respir-able coal mine dust and silica dust in underground and surface coal mines in the were held between his stan] MSHA managers, and others in the Agency and he was now prepared United States. Specincally, the charge ofthe Committee was to make recommendations to the to present a modified plan. According to Mr. Schell, MSHA would be _able to conduct a full-shirt . secretary for improved standards or other appropriate actions on permissible exposure limits to sampling inspection druing each regular inspection (four annually at underground mines and two eliminate black lung disease and silicosis; the mean to control respirable coal mine dust levels; annually at surface mines) and also target "problem" mines for sampling at least improved monitoring of respirable coal mine dust levels and the role of the miner in that Mr. Schell emphasized that these estimates were based on the use of single-shift sampling for monitoring; and the adequacy ofthe operators current sampling program to determine the aetual making noncompliance determinations. - levels of dust concentrations to which miners are exposed. The following is a statement of Committee recommendations. The remainder ofthe meeting was devoted to addressing agenda items and no iirrther presentations were made. The Committee discussed the following-subjects and modified or RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 prepared iindings and recommendations for each: mine ventilation plans, the need for changes to i the PELs for respirable coal mine dustand silica, the need for a separate standard for silica, MSHA should consider lowering the level of allowable exposure to coal mine dust. Any monitoring, research needs, medical surveillance for surface workers, .and personal versus reduction in the level should include a phase-in period to allow allocation of sumcient enviromnental sampling. resources to the compliance eifort. Fifth Meeting - - In the interim, the operators, MSHA and miners should develop a comprehensive program to - . assure compliance with the current permissible exposure level. This e&`ort should include at The Committee's Etth meetingwas held in Lexington, Kentucky on July 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1996: least targeted compliance e&`orts, sharing of documented exposure reduction This meeting was held as a working session and therefore no presentations were made except increased water sprays, on continuous miners, dust control plan parameters), and during that portion set aside for public conunent. The four-day meeting was attended by 59 increased "good faith e&`ort" consideration in enforcement actions. members ofthe public, 32 of whom elected to address the Committee on the issues under consideration. . . RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 Duringthis iinal meeting, the Corrunittee discussed each issue being considered. These issues MSHA should develop and enforce separate PELs for exposure to silica and coal mine dust. included: pemrissible exposure limits (PELs), controls required to achieve exposure limits, i . sampling practices, medical surveillance, training and education, hazard surveillance, research MSHA should explore appropriate methods for detemrining compliance with exposure limits needs, and reporting by MSHA. From these discussions, the Committee finalized thirty four for mixtures of silica and coal mine dust. recommendations requiring voting by the Committee. - RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 In developing consensus recommendations, the Committee operated under a set of ground nrles in (Appendix I) that deiined "consensus" as "a majority of the votes cast are in favor of or against The Committee suggests that MSHA cause the lowering of the silica exposure of miners. in the resolution on an issue'? and "majority" as "a simple majority ofthe votes cast except that thiseiforr, MSHA should seek input from NIOSH and collaborate with OSHA. However, the abstentions are not counted." The ground rules tirrther stated that: "Members affirming a` Committee recommends that MSHA move forward with these e&`orts and not await possible resolution-to an issue_need only state their amrmation. Members not aHirming a resolution to an action by OSHA. MSHA eforts to lower silica exposures below the current PEL might issue must state their rationale-for their position. Members may abstain ti-om voting and are include rulemaking, targeted compliance eiforts, encouragement of operator efforts to lower . neither obligated to state the reason for their abstention nor required to propose an alternate silica exposures below the current PEL, and more extensive siliqa hazard surveillance. resolution." During this meeting, the Comnrittee expended considerable effort in an attempt to Additionally, MSHA must confirm the accuracy of its analytical procedures to assure that reach unanimous agreement on all ofthe recorrunendations. The Committee was in its actual exposures are recognized and documented. eH`orts on twenty-one votes and there were three other votes where no member voted not to the recommendation under consideration. A complete ummary of the votes cast by the . members of the Committee is given in Appendix of this reportQ i. 4 with infomation on actual production levels and dust control parameters in use during operator monitoring, should be submitted with the dust control plan. MSHA should Environmental control measures should continue to be the pl-ima,-y means Ofmajmaining not issue citations for violation ofthe applicable dust standard based on this operator respirable dust levels in the mine atmosphere in the active workings in compliance. verincation sampling. Operator inaction to protect miners where dust values are in excess of - Respiratory protective equipment should not replace these control measures but should the PEL should be crtable by MSHA. continue to be provided to miners until environmental controls are implemented that are . capable of the respirable dust level in compliance. Administrative controls should - . only be utilized in situations similar-to respiratory controls-as interim control measures while envirenniental eentrels are being installed Within 30 days of recerpt of operator venficatron data documenting that the plan rs eifectrve, i MSHA should, in consultation with the operator, perform scheduled independent dust RECOMMENDATION NQ. 5 . monitoring to verify the operator's plan. . Adrninistg tive Final, minimum operating dust control parameters ofthe dust control plan should incorporate values measured by MSHA during sampling and, if needed, appropriate data Rom operator MSHA should develop an administrative review process for timely approval of new or revised $?mP1mS- plans to permit testing ofthe adequacy ofthe plan. The process should consider the proposed . changes in nlan parameters and their netential based on available performance If the productren level at the time-of the verriicatron mspectron rs sumcrently close to the data, current or projected operational parameters and production levels, the mine operator's maximum a'm?lPm?d m? Plimr m? l?V?l the previous histerv et- abilitv-te rnaintain eernnlianee with the dust standard and plan nat-ametet-s_ plan should be the approved maximum production level so long as the resprrable dust level rs and the proposed test sehedule to assess the egeetiveness efthe new or revised plan . at or below the permissible exposure limit. Otherwise, the production at the time of the naranieters verification shall be the basis ofthe approved production level. MSHA should denne the range of production levels which be maintained during . sampling to verify the plan. This value should be sumciently close to maximum anticipated . production to reasonably assure the operator and the miner that the plan will be efective MSHA d?V?l?l{ sP??m? relative under typical operations. sirerriri review and preauerierr to 9f Shculd that detennine when there is need ibr nlan inedilieetien and verineatien results and momtonng of dust control parameters and production be recorded order that correlation of dust control parameters with dust measurements is facilitated. - MSHA should develop criteria detailing when plan modification is required. These criteria should include changes in mining conditions, including production. Onerater Operator monitoring for compliance with the dust control measures established in the mine ventilation plan should be consistent with the new on-shift examination requirement of MSHA should require operators to collect respirable dust samples to evaluate the adequacy of n? rcfluimd Pm offhis the a new or revised nlan under typical ruining conditions within 30 days et- granting nrnvisienal Committee believes that results of such examinations are rnfonnatrve and, therefore, should be approval of the new or revised plan parameters. Iffountl to bc efeetivei MSHA sheuld recorded and shared with workers who have been properly trained concermng their extend the provisional approval until MSHA can undertake independent vcriscation et-the interpretation and importance. MSHA should tirrther explore the level of detail needed for revised plan. recorded data. -- lbund to be elieetive, a niedilied nlan sheuld be submitted to MSHA, including Whenever on-shift examinations indicate that the plan's minimum requirements are not being dbeunientatien el-interirn nietheds nersennel exnesure, in erder tb establish eomplied with, operators should be required to take appropriate corrective action as specified minimum critical control parameters reasonably anticipated to be adequate for dust control . 30 CFR under typical mining conditions. Results of operator samples and analyses of these data, along Once the technology for continuous dust monitors has been these monitors should be broadly applied in conjunction other sampling methods coo puate fd I and uml . hi risk fd . maintain compliance with the applicable dust I 1 ust contro at ocations at gh evated ust exposures. MSIE Ep gnsibimx Once verilied as reliable as in (1) above, MSHA should use continuous monitor data for - assessing operator compliance e&`orts in controlling miner exposures, and should consider use MSHA inspections should include a review of recorded parameter data, dust control measures of commucus dm comp regarding whether controls and pmducmm an MSHA should take whatever action possible to expedite the development and Eeld testing of a continuous personal monitor to serve a variety of purposes, among them identifying sources Msna should examineallnecorded oncnnioncn dataandinformati_ 'on on miner exposureand dust control measures in place as part ofthe on-going and six-month reviews ofthe ventilation plan. These reviews should be designed to evaluate the continued efectiveness ofthe plan. RECOMMENDATION N0. 6 In addition to the chest radiographs at the time of employment and then at the specified intervals thereafter, spirometry and questionnaire data should be collected periodically during Dwi thi . . . . and th . . . a rniner's employment. Testing with these modalities will allow the identincatton of those . mh 'h?"ld lm miners with possible early oocicnncicd health eifects. 103(i) walkaround as they do under MSHA inspections. MSHA plan should be developed by NIOSH in consultation with MSHA to determine which cases mines plim should be followed-up considering, for example, the severity of Endings, clustering of the relevant parameters, for surface dust control plans and a process for plan verification mg?lhc potential for prggary This pim should assure that the con entia ity miner is protect . . Dust surveillance should be conducted at surface facilities and each surface area of an - - - - underground coal mine by . . locations when dust .0n and miners, exposure should examine the of controls operatmg at work sites represented by - occurs. When operations/activities not previously covered by a plan as specified in (1) above . . are found to have exposures at or above 95 the PEL, those operations/activities must be Miners identified with abnormal . tests my benefit hm appropnate Secondary . . . . . . . . - covcrc by an - prevention efforts and appropnate nuner education regarding the nature of mimng-related lung The parameters ofthe approved dust control plan should be verified as part of the operators' dlscasci al Inspection requirements OBO CFR Medical testing of underground coal miners should be extended to surface miners. RECOMM ND . - RECOMMENDATION NO. 10 studI;?h;h;l;a;?;Tgg;t;; cs such? NIOSH should oversee the provision of confidential periodic medical examination programs methods cx Osum to imblc dust when I difm ms meth ucd for all mine workers including surface miners as specified above in order to achieve at least the function Ofhamrd S: name aspwcu as when devel . ogcm gis are agp t? . 85% participation rate. Participation should be promoted with adequate attention to the continuous monitbdn dam (for . I com uns education of the miners and mine operators regarding the need for this program. The ance a frequency of the periodic examination program should be at least that recommended by the NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard, "Occupational Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust - criteria for eligibility (degree of chest x-ray abnormality as well as criteria based on other 3 In addition, NIOSH should specify performance standards for medical testing; collect data on health criteria such as pulmonary function), b) determination of adequate level of reduced dust medical testing, perform ongoing analysis of surveillance data as well as to `locate "hot spots", exposure to prevent progression of abnormality, c) degree of protection of wage and seniority perform 5eld investigations when warranted by hot spots or other surveillance findings in benefits, d) adequacy in process of infomring miners ofthe Part 90 option and ofthe conjunction with MSHA consequences of exercising or not exercising it in each speciic case, and e) the training - I . associated with dust control and its relationship to Part 90. MSHA should mandate operator medical examination programs, and supply appropriate I . MSHA--col1ected exposure and employment data to NIOSH for surveillance purposes. In RECOMMENDATION NO. 12 cooperation with NIOSH, MSHA should consider what additional exposure or employment data should be obtained from the operator to further the objectives of medical surveillance, MSHA should consider changes to assure that the program is appropriately Struetured and perform field investigations when warranted by hot spots or other surveillance findings. and staffed to carry out education and training functions related to dust control issues. . MSHA should conduct these activities in a manner that provides quality assistance to the Mme operators should pay for the mandated medical testing. I mining industry and oversight of training programs. When cases of overexposure occur to I respirable dusts, education and training personnel should be assigned to investigate possible Miner participation should be improved by arranging converrierrt access to examinations, failures in the education and training of miners and mining personnel at mines where these effective education about the purposes ofthe testing, timely notification of results ofthe overexposures occur. In addition, MSHA should place high priority on filling the `director of testing, and maintenance ofconfidentiality. Additional benefit will b? gained by promoting the training position as soon as possible. development of effective and accurate exposure classification. I It is likely that adequate training cannot be delivered in the current time frames allowed to . NIOSH shoulddevelop a program to track ex-miners and provide them with the same tests train, therefore, MSHA should review and consider restructuring as well as expanding its available to active miners. The appropriate frequency of such testing will need to be existing training prograr?ns to better meet the objective of a workf`orce with a comprehensive detemuned. understanding ofthe potential long-terrn hazards of dust exposure, able to recognize dust I sources and be effective partners with the operators in the routine maintenance ofthe dust RECOMMENDATION NO. 11 control parameters. I The results ofthe Part 90 program should be wstematically evaluated to detemrine its MSHA should evaluate the content, duration, adequacy and methods of training for each effectiveness. The surveillance data should be developed to allow appropriate comparison content area. The evaluation must specifically include the adequacy of treatment of the between those who do and do not exercise the Part 90 option. The comparison should following topics which should be included in initial training in addition to annual . . consider the following: a) the health status as measured by initial and current chest x-ray, b) health status determined by earliest available and current pulmonary function (if any), c) health hazards of respirable coal mine dust overall current rmpairrnent or disability status, d) measuredI respirable dust exposure in jobs at time of health hazards of respirable silica dust . Part 90 eligibility and in current job, and e) current employment status. These data should be - objectives and content of a model dust control plan orgamzed for all miners as well as separately according to: a) geographic region (or type of the specifics ofthe dust conttiol plan at the specific mine coal and coal rank mined), b) size of mine (in terms of employment and in terms of tons of MSHA process for approval of dust control plan type of mining (underground -- longwall, continuous, conventional -- sources of dust- generation . versus surface), d) union status of miners, and e) age of miner. The annual rate of Part 90 control of dust sources . eligibility should be examined by mine to determine whether- gpeoijo mines expeyienee very - dust control parameter ranges approved for the mine operations high or very low rates. The characteristics of such mines, if any, should be described in the relative effectiveness of various dust control measures included in the plan temts noted in this recommendation. mechanisms for reporting deficiencies and implementing corrective actions function and importance of monitoring exposure The results of this evaluation ofthe Part 90 program should be organized and presented to an function and importance of medical surveillance, including local resources independent advisory committee for consideration of any recommendations for alteration of company, NIOSH) the program. Part 90 program characteristics that should be examined for change include: a) how to review reports of exposure monitoring . . 36 37 sources of additional infomation and assistance RECOMMENDATION NO. 13 The should also include the methods of delivery; where not currently applied, proven, Hazard surveillance guidelines should be developed with the assistance of NIOSH for use by effective mteractrve methods of adult learning should be incorporated into program revisions, . operators in maintaining and improving dust controls. These guidelines should directly and effectively utilize sampling results and measures related to control of respirable dust. These . Methods of evaluation of knowledge, skills and abilities gained ii?om the training should be guidelines should speciically identify any trends or exposure levels that indicate deteriorating 0bje?fiVeS. A program for evaluation ofthe long term of or marginally adequate conditions. A report of these findings should be included in -MSHA's Muna be d?V?l?Ped and implemented. report of respirable dust samples results provided to the operator and to the miners' representative, and alert them that there is a need for a systematic reexamination of the . The need for a specific, training program for opuatorslsupervisors in addition to the above continued efectiveness of existing control measures. should be studied. Training topics might include: - - - - Hazard surveillance guidelines should also be developed for ventilation plan parameters that . the role ofthe foreman in the dust control plan are regularly reviewed. These should be designed to assist operators in early identiication of the implementation ofthe team approach to dust control adverse trends in the parameters that, if not corrected, may cause miners to be exposed to the hierarchy of controls higher dust levels. Pefsemlei responsible for monitoring respirable dust at mines should. receive similar - RECOMMENDATION NO. 14 trarmng as miners/supervisors. In additiort they need to be constantly educated and updated . on dust control methods and how they are applied. Their training should include proper MSHA should develop an initiative to ensure the protection of nrine construction workers, . procedures on evaluating dust control parameters. contract drillers, and other contractor employees with respirable coal mine dust and silica . exposures. This eH`ort should include estimation ofthe types of contractors, number of All miners md need to be educated on any changes to respirable dust workers at risk and their levels of exposure; exploration of means of assuring compliance with as ?h??8e8 efe made. permissible exposure limits, the use of dust control plans, sampling and delineating responsibility of mine operators and contractors in protecting contractor workers; and The resulting programs should be used by all trainers for training of miners and mine ?f ?6mpn*m?? a?tiviti??` t? pr?t??t this ?f mim wm-k?rs' MSHA - also improve recordkeeping of exposure to dusts, occupational lung disease, and other hazards that occur to workers of and other contractors in order to prevent - MSHA sheuld serve as a resource for training materials for the trainer-s_ and MSHA should explore ways in which inspectors, during their normal work detail, might MSHA should work with NIOSH to expand medical surveillance to appropriate groups of figncuon to improve understanding ofthe role or enforcement activities in er dust me mi?e W?fk??S wd dis?"? disease. and respirable dust exposures in contractor workers. MSHA Sheuld review, revise, and update the program to ti-ein and certify pct-scm for taking MSHA should collaborate with OSHA in bringing similar attention to operations such as dust samples. MSHA should require annual update training for and maintenance ddm"g? which fall unda OSHA judsdi?ti?n' for the purpose of keeping these persons up to date with sampling methods and regulations, and for maintaining their expertise. If certified persons do not perform their duties properly . MSHA should consider retraining and/or de-certification. . MSHA's reliance on dust sampling for compliance should be based on an appropriate balance - of personal, occupational, and environmental sampling. 38 . 39 I I I operators and MSHA The miner's representative would be afforded the opportunity to . artici ate in these ins ection activities as rovided in Section 103 ofthe Mine Act. a. MSHA should adjust the to account for extended work weeks. - (D MSHA Sh - Operator compliance sampling in the interim should continue with substantial improvement . -?Pld d?vF1Pl' a f9m"l? tugcung f01' more frequent sampling of to increase credibility ofthe program based on the Committee's recommendations. mums mining units, and operators found to have a history of noncompliance with I dm a. enema increase the muse of samples by me Agency to determine MSHA sho compliance with respirable dust standards. MSHA should place major emphasis on the use - uid mmvauvc WBYS T0 enhance its presence in mines for compliance of personal monitoring for determining compliance with PELs. However, MSHA should continue the practice of designated occupation sampling for determining noncompliance. - $amPl? f??H Should be reviewed- to assure that there is adequate space fm. MSHA should change the compliance sampling program to allow use of single hill shiit recordmg the operating parameters at the time of sampling. The actual parameters should samples for determining compliance. b? wmpuqq wm} th?" the dust plan as part ofthe of results of each compliance inspection. e. MSHA should make no upward adjustment to the PELs to account for measurement uncertainty. MSHA should revise the sampling method g. flow rate) to be consistent with recently . I developed rntematronal standards. MSHA in conjunction with the Department of Labor Solicitors 0Ece should review the - . current process for investigating and acting on respirable dust practices which result in A m?th?d =h??ld be t0 identify the on the sample dm f?rm_ unrepresentative respirable dust samples and should create a credible, adequately staH`ed ro for such investi `ons. ??minu?us m?mt?" hung be ?l??l$hed tamper resistant to the maximum extent g. Mine operators should continue to measure exposure to respirable dust for DOs, DWPs, possible. further, MSHA should develop education and to be delivered to and DAs compliance sampling as provided in 30 CFR 70, 71, and 90. Additionally, mine the entire industry concemmg the importance of such equipment in a tamper operators should sample as part of plan verification. Operator sampling at surface mines - proof state along with the consequences for failure to do so. and surface areas of underground mines should be increased sampling similar - - to the underground sampling program. Operators should also continue to be allowed to . - he believes that any MSHA resource eonstmime eheum be Overcome by mine . take samples for purposes other than detemrining compliance. These samples should be - - operator support for MSHA compliance sampling. The Committee recommends that to the clearly in the mine such as by using color code. degree that MSHA's resources cannot alone serve the objective identified, resource constraints should be overcome by mine operator funding for such incremental MSHA Abatement of citations based on MSHA or operator samples should require the operators compliance sampling. One means for obtaining this support could be a reasonable and fair to sample on multiple shifts as currently required. Operator fee, based on hours worked, or other equivalent means designed to cover the costs of compliance sampling. Any operator fee program should include an accountability h. MSHA should exercise more oversight on operators' sampling methods and management t? PIP "mf?ml ofthe program throughout the industry The fee of samples including periodic audits of dust sampling programs. should only be utrhzed for the purposes of required compliance sampling. i. Samples taken to determine noncompliance should be taken when production is sufficiently c. The Committee considers it a high priority that MSHA take tirll responsibility for all close to the "normal production shiit." The production level should be 90 percent of the compliance sampling at a level which assures representative samples of respirable dust I average production ofthe last 30 production shifts and MSHA should require the mine exposures under usual conditions of work. In this regard, MSHA should explore all operator to maintain the appropriate records. possible means to secure adequate resources to achieve this end without adverse impact on the remainder ofthe Agency's resources and responsibilities. Compliance sampling should j? MSHA adjust the PELS to account for extended work Shim' be camed out at a number and &equency at least at the level currently required of 40 . 41 RECOMMENDATION NO. 17 recommends that MSHA target such mines for compliance sampling.- MSHA targeting should be active in nature and should consider many factors including miner input, Continuous monitors for dust control parameters should be utilized to evaluate and assess history, and medical surveillance data. Given the seriousness of this problem, the quality of dust control measures as a part of mine respirable dust control plans. MSHA should immediately start auditing and appropriately targeting these types of operations. NQ. 18 . RECOMMENDATION NO. 20 - MSHA should make public a report ofthe progress toward each ofthe recommendations provided in the report-of the Advisory An interim report should be provided by The NIOSH Criteria Document lists research needs pertinent to coal miner respiratory . September 1997 with a Enal report issued by September, 1998. health and prevention of disease in the following areas: engineering control methods, respiratory protection, sampling devices, sampling strategy, medical screening and RECOMMENDATION NO. 19 intervention, adverse health effects of dust exposure, characterization of dust, and training - and education. '1`he primary focus of NIOSH with regard to the prevention of CWP needs a. Miners' participation in the interim operator dust sampling program should be increased to to be ongoing analysis ofthe medical surveillance program data for hot spots, in order to provide assurances that a credible and eEective dust sampling program is in place. To that direct primary prevention e&`orts where they are most likely to be of direct and immediate - - end, miners at each mine should select designated representatives who are employed at that benefit to miners. To the degree that research activities do not take precedence over or mine for compliance sampling. Miners designated as representatives ofthe miners should be detract fiom resources devoted to meaningful administration ofthe medical surveillance afforded the opportunity to participate in all aspects of respirable dust sampling for program, the Committee concurs with these research needs. The Committee recommends compliance at the mine.- That participation would include protection against loss of pay as increased funds for research into fundamental and applied aspects of respirable dust control provided under Section 103(f) ofthe Federal Mine Act. - i as well as health effects research. In addition to those listed by NIOSH, some Committee . members believe that the following specific research should be undertaken in areas b. Miners' representatives should have the right to participate in dust sampling activities that pertinent to MSHA responsibilities: would be carried out by the employer for verification of dust control plans at no loss of pay. - Mi-ners" representatives should also have the right to participate in my activities involving A. Medical and Epidemiologic Research any handling of continuous dust monitoring devices or the extraction of data from continuous dust monitoring devices without loss of` pay. - MSHA should collaborate with NIOSH in assessing long-latency health effects and - - - . their risk relationships with quantitative dust exposure estimates in miners who have . c. Miners' representatives should receive training and certification to conduct respirable dust left the industry. sampling paid by the employer. Miners' representatives should be afforded the opportunity without loss of pay from the mine operator to participate in the training of the miners. MSHA should collaborate with NIOSH in research on respiratory health rn - . construction and contract workers with worrisome exposures to respirable coal rnrne d. A description of work activities and dust exposures on sampling days would be provided to and silica dusrs to serve as the basis for continued policy recommendations. the affected by those taking the dust samples. The emcacy and economics of high resolution computerized tomography (HRCT) as . e. Miners being sampled should receive in writing by mine operators data on their dust a routine confirmatory test in surveillance of coal miners. exposure along with any pertinent information on the sampling activities and dust control - parameters/production rate, etc. once the sample is analyzed. Written data on the dust Among risk factors already identified by NIOSH in their Criteria Document, coal exposure of miners being sampled along with any pertinent information on the sampling rank should also be a consideration. activities and dust control parameters/production rates should be posted on the mine bulletin board. The relative degree of pathology and dust loading in the lungs of deceased miners in the autopsy program, comparing miners who started mining subsequent to 1972 with - fi The Committee recognizes the problem of miner representation and participation in the dust those with pre-1972 coal mine dust exposure. control programs at mines not represented by a recognized labor organization and 42 43 I . I I MSHA in collaboration with NIOSH should evaluate the impact of silica exposures Assessment ofthe relationships between netsons_l_ area and environmental sampling, I II - on adverse health eH`ects among miners, including silicosis among mi!i?f8- and time-averaged and continuously monitored concentrations. . I I B. Research on Mechanisms of Coal Mine Dust, Generation, and Control MSHA and the USBM must test and eliaraeterize reliable tamper resistant respii-able dust monitoring devices that would provide real time information on the mine dust Researchisneededtoenhanceour oftl1eirrtluer1ceofgeologyarrd overseveraldays. The devicesneedto seam characteristics on respirable coal mine dust generation and physical be developed for person-wearable use, as well as environmental monitoring on characteristics of coal mine dust needed for development of machines and in areas., II r. . Applied research to enhance the Emdamental understanding ofcoai mine dust I E. Infomation and Training I generation entrainment, transport and capture mechanisms. - . ee MSHA and the former USBM should evaluate the efectiveness of techniques of I I C- APPii?d C0??i'?i technology transfer. MSHA and the former USBM must develop a program to In disseminate to the mining industry, and MSHA personnel responsible for respirable QI Development of more efective mine dust (including quartz) control systems for dust plan evaluation and approval information on the various methods of respirable I I medem hish prednetien ienswelis. These might inehnie new eunins mechanism and dun control. Additionally, MSHA nears to insist on are rmplemennrren er such tool to reduce dust generation, use of operation practices (face/out-by haulage, controls where applicable to control respirable dust as part of mine plan approval. - I headgate cut-out, sprays) to reduce entraimnent or use of air distribution systems - . VI which create two splits of air (face split, walkway split) along the longwall face to MSHA, in conjunction with NIOSH, should conduct research regarding the impact I contain dust in the face area. - of training and efectiveness of diferent training techniques, which could be used to strengthen training program content and delivering/evaluation methods. Development of improved dust control systems for continuous mining units which I might include ventilation/spray systems for containing dust to the face area in . continuous miner sections and enhance their capture and scrubbers for I application in continuous-miner sections (higher collection eiciency). I I . Assessment of sources of dust exposure and dust levels in new mining systems or I . new mining technology continuous miner, diesels, etc.) and development of appropriate control technology. Development- of new technology for airbome dust control utilizing surfactants, - QI change sprays, foams, etc. D. Dust Sampling Methods and Surveillance MSHA in collaboration with NIOSH should analyze available data on sampling and dust exposure conditions to identify a sampling strategy that assures representative I characterization of respirable dust exposures under usual conditions of work. The I strategy should include the number of samples and frequency of sampling in order to . provide accurate and unbiased estimates of exposures. I I I Development of sampling instruments and sampling methodology for continuous I monitoring of personal and area exposures - the greatest extent possible, that the working conditions in each underground coal mine are FINDINGS AND RECORHIENDAIHONS sufficiently nee of respirable dust concentrations in the mine atmosphere to permit each miner the . opportunity to work underground during the period of his/her entire adult working life without The Committee concludes that although progress towards making mines safer horn the health imm-ing my disability norn or any other occupation-related disease during or at hazards ofresprrable coal m11'l? dust IS It IS HDI to the ofthe the end of Such ll The Act also Coal The Committee believes the elimination and a systematic each Operator shall continuously maintain the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine dw md atmosphere rioririg each shin to which each miner in the active workings or such mine is exposed . ter am mm ??n?9mmu?m thniugh b?tt?r dust plans; (3) at or below 2.0 milligrams of respirable dust per cubic meter of air." The Committee also notes dust (4) ?fP?f"?ml that the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) PEL for respirable coal (5) enhanced trainmg of mmers and mme oicials on relevant aspects of coal mme dust control; dust whim silica is less than 5% is 2_4 magma that cut-t-cnt TLv.?i?wA 9 (6) upgmd?d p{?gmmsi_ (7) rapid mF?NF"ti?" (8) recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for were ?n ??imnumg and md (9) respirable coal mine dust is 2 mg/m', and that 100 pg/m' is the current OSHA PEL and ACGIH . critical evaluation ofthe coal mme respirable dust standard of 2.0 mg/m3 and the silica standard of recommended tin. respirable silica ze. za 100 pg/m'. . . According to a report submitted to Congress on June 16, 1969 by the Department ofthe Interior gh? S?p?mt9d this 9`?m th? me tw? - on the causation of CWP, it?was indicated that the "probability of developing simple esign an -1mp etinentatron, and program evaluation. It then. developed issueeand questions for Pneumoconiosis decreases with decreasing dust concentrations." According to this ?l and t? mh 7,0 mg/m', the rate of simple `pneumoconiosis per 1000 miners, alter 35 years exposure would be 3 ifs? 'ssu?sn Th? ed ?fth? are Sift 360 (36 percent); at 4.5 mg/m', the expected rate would be 150 (15 percent); and at 2.0 mg/m3, 19 lisucgla 9u?su?n fe Ia is f?u?'Y?d a the expected rate would be 20 (2 percent). "The probability of developing progressive massive . conc usion, tis, a statement of how the Committee members voted on that recommendation tihtcsis aisc with reduced For cxamnic, at . 7.0 mg/m3, the rate per 1000 miners, after 35 years exposure would be 130 (13 percent), at ISSUE I: EXPOSURE LIMITS (PEM) 4.5 mg/m?, the expected rate would be 40 (4 percent), and at 3.0 mg/m', the expected rate would be 20 (2 percent). These probabilities were based on British medical studies on dose-response I RESPIRABLE COAL b' level ?f relationships extrapolated to various dust concentrations.'? These studies indicated that lifetime t? dust exposure levels maintained below the 2.0 mg/m' limit should prevent advanced CWP or PMP. Analyses showed that coal miners exposed to 5 2 mg/m3 for a 35 year working lifetime had essentially no risk of progression of chest x-ray changes to Category 2/1 or higher (including - PMF). This evidence seemed to support the interpretation that as long as chest x--ray changes had Respirable coal mine dust is a mixture of particulates of coal, silica, and other mineral and organic advanccd beyond i was no tick of to higher materials found in the mine environment. Miners' exposure to excessive amounts of respirable categories with cxncautcs 2_0 mg/tn3_ coal mine dust can cause `Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis (CWP) or Progressive Massive Fibrosis (P {969 th? su"g?P" ?fth? Umwd estimated that 100-000 The significance of these quantitative provisions and their impacts on the coal mining industry and "9"md 9""?rs CWP- Th? C?al Act Hist were obvious. A U.S. Bureau of Mines survey of 29 mines in the 1968-69 period had found comprehensive national respirable coal mine dust standard for U.S. coal rmnes. . The Committee recognizes the all-important role ofthe respirable coal mine dust standard in the enhancement of the condition ofthe mine atmosphere. According to the Coal Act, the purpose of standards related to the control of exposure to coal mine dust is . . to provide, to 2* 29 CFR 1910, Table Z-3. i i American Conference of Govemrnental Industrial Hygienists, j1@gld Limit Value; and . 27 The Committee recognizes that MSHA does not currently enforce a separate standard of ical lndiaes I 1995 4996 of Governmental Industrial 100 hg/or for reepirehie silica However, the formula used by Msria to adjust the Hysienists. OH 1996 . 2.0 mg/m' respirable coal mine dust standard when the quartz content exceeds 5% 30 . mathematically limits the current silica exposure to 100 pg/mi. H'st?'- . i average dust concentrations in`excess of 6 Clearly, a concerted eH`ort by govemment_ have demeneii-nied ther, even at exposure levels below 2 mg/mi, Category 1 CWP may progress, and industry had to be mounted to bring mines into compliance. and Seine miners risk developing PMF. There is also evidence of an exposurenresponse th - . rel ti hi CWP even for those who begin with no chest x-raY Atthweh that is m"?h that he it is Pl?"?d with We ein-i-ent nvniiehie data provide evidence that the prevalence cf CWP in 18 that have been made in dust control in mines. The Committee notes the general decrease in the higher than that eniieipnted by the Coal Act. - prevalence of CWP. Over the past quarter century, the total prevalence of CWP has decreased - - - . &om_l1% to under The total prevalence of PMF has decreased even more dramatically, - pni-inennere, the most recent report based on data irom the National Study of Coal Workers from about 1% to less than In addition, the mean age for CWP deaths has increased by Pneumoconiosis pi-edicts 45 year working lifetime risk of dcV?l?Pi?8 ef . approximately seven years while the age-adjusted mortality rate has declined nearly 50%. The between 23% and 15,5% following exposure to 2.0 mg/m' coal mine dust, dependmg on the rank Committee commends the role of government agencies, miners, mine operators, and equipment ofthe e0ni_ 34 predictions are supported by related reports from other examuiatrons of data in on coal miners born som ure and Great Britain. it The opporiunuy re these . miners exposed exclusively to coal mine conditions since 1972 (and presumably never exposed to The understanding of pulmonary disease related to coal mine dust exposure continues to develop. mspimhlc cnn] mine dust abgvg 3 mg/m3) is limited both by the nature of available da? The. Committee acknowledges limitations in the currently available studies, for example the gi llqw-up time, However, an analysis prepared by NIOSH for the Committee problem of random exposure misclassincation ofthe bias of cross sectional studies, both - $36) Eiaigaggd that the risk of Category 2/1+ and PMF, while reduced,?was still present md itk FMF i" mm- Om membet end in ems, erin., background of enesr xniy ernionnsiides. whine less reliable than of the Committee raised concern that the logistic models used do not allow for the possibility of a data 5-om the NIOSH used data hom the bFtW??" 1999 me threeheid efeet end that preieeted lifetime ettrihvtehle risks ere highly tensitive te wetkitts was who had no underground exposure prior to 1972, io provide an analysis of state lifetime (3 Sr 40, 45 Wm etc-)- The thtetheht w?"ld t't . This analysis indicated that the prevalence of CWP may not be elevated above significantly alter the methodology for predicting health e&`ects of long duration, low exposure in some gee; west of Appalachia. levels based on health efects &om short term high exposure levels. Nonetheless, the majority of the Cemmittee the eppreeches used in the referenced studies, in vettitviet the As pen ofthe e&`0rt to update knowledge about end dust exposures, Niosii investigated cumulative exposure metric and the regression models, to be appropriate itnd consistent with ine iinneei gf rank on CWP, These analyses provide support both for an e&`ect of coal rank . sound epidemiologic practice; Experimental analytic methods and models continue to be and ef dust; There is a consistent geographic variability rn the prevalence of abnormal chest developed (such as those that attempt to consider the importance of dust-overload on xneys among underground eoal miners in the United States with a general decrease from east to pulmonary clearance mechanisms and threshold models of exposure-response relationships) and wcs[_ Higher rank eenl is associated with an increase in riskof PMP. The analyses ofthe the ef dose mic risk te be Studied- It he ??ti?iP?i?d, of rank on CWP, however, showed that there was a dose-response relationship for CWP that our understanding of the disease process will continue to evolve. i I The majority ofthe Committee believes that recent studies from the U.S. as well as Great Britain have provided evidence that Category CWP is not always a benign finding.'2? These studies . sn Legislative Histofy, 1198. - . 14 end Seixas, N. S., "Prevalence of Pnwmoconiosis and its Reintionship to 32 Hurley, J. F. and Jacobsen, M., "Occupational Hygiene Implications of New Results on Dust Exposure in Ua Cohortlof U. S. Bituminous Coal Miners and Ex-miners Progressive Massive Hbrosis in Working Coalminers, Anna]; ofthe American Conference 27, (1995), 137451- (1986), M. D. and Moning, K., "An Investigation intolthe Between 50Hodous T. K. and Attiield, M. D., Massive Fibrosis Developing on a -- Workers Pneurnocomosrs and Dust Coal Miners, encen TI Background of Minimal Simple Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis," In: Proceedings of the 53(8), (1992), . International Pneumoconiosis Conference, August 23-26, 1988, PittsburghRisks {Rad- I ?eni Changes in Cog] Cincimiati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 36 yw wei-k by NIOSH Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHSS . . . . . I 1987)- (NIOSH) Publication 90_108, (1990) Edinburgh, Scotland. Institute of Occupational Medrcme, Report . 48 i 49 . each ofthe oigrorom ooul rank outogouou sr. sr Thug while in the coal mine increasingly significant as the prevalence oftrue CWP has decreased. One Committee member dust level should add important protection against CWP for coal workers who are mining any of estirneted that the Em ?fih? the coal ranks, it is unclear whether reduction of exposures even below 1,0 mg/m' would be approximately 14% ofthe observed CWP and by round 6 it accounted for approximately 50%. to protect those exposed to ooel niine dust 5-em the higher ren]; cog]; This phenomenon must be considered when evaluating the efectiveness of existing standards. In addition to the evolving understanding of lifetime dust-exposure and chest x-ray changes in Th? Cemmiiree tim dcsifability ef ?V?I??ti?8 the ?fth? 2-0 mg/ms miners, great deal orevidenea has accumulated that eaal mine don can cause aigniriaam erenderd veins dere hem U.S. nndersrennd een! miners whe ererred their minins eereere . decrements in pulmonary function. Two important cross-sectional studies shew subsequent to the current standard. The contains themajority of data available . impact or coal mine dust onine forced expinaory volume -1 second and the roroed vital reanrdins the erevnienee ef CWP nmena U-S endersrennd eeni miners whe etnrred their capacity supporting a need to consider oonrrol gf duet level; to prevent of underground mining under the current standard. These data, however, are surveillance data based cabcts as The also noted that analysis cfdata hm Qn low coal IRES, SO it is UIICICRT what SubopOpUia>>tiOD of miners the restricted to exposures subsequent to 1972 however-_ do dernonen-need gn represent. Consequently, NIOSH has not employed these data to any extent to assess the eifect loss of lung iilnction atier a fol1ow?up period of 13-15 of exposures subsequent to 1972, nor have they used these data to develop risk assessments. The . . - risk assessments presented by NIOSH are based predominantly on analysis ofthe data, Some Committee members believe that there is an age.releted bnekgronnd prevnlenee efnhnemnu but the majority ofthe miners followed in this study had at least some mining experience at dust chest X-my Endings indistinguishable &om CWP. 'I'his background preval a . ce has beeoine levels existing prior to the current standard while many had all or the majority of their cumulative . . - exposure under conditions existing prior to the Coal Act. 37 Attiield, M. D. and Seixas, N. S., (1995). The Committee recognizes the importance of these questions, especially as they relate to the - NIOSH Criteria Document, and the need to answer them adequately. Some Committee members Attiield, M. D. and Morring, K., (1992). also noted that NIOSH has not performed an economic evaluation, and that the need for 39 . perfomling such an evaluation exists. The forced exprratory volume -1 second rs the volume of gas which is expired hom the lungs ln one second by forced expiratory e&`ort, starting fiom til1l"inspiration total . The Committee recognizes and is gravely concemed that overexposure to respirable coal mine lens ?aP"*iY? dust remains a problem. For example, of 5,398 samples analyzed by MSHA between July 1995 ,0 The forced vital ca I and May 1996 (for which there were also silica analyses) approximately 15% ofthe samples were Pmiy is Sas the mt?] l??8 - - above 2.0 mg/ms. Exposure data collected by MSHA and analyzed as part of its Coal Mine .. . by th? umd gas een he Respirable Dust Task Group activities indicate that exposures above the current standard mg/m' are found in some mines. For example, approximately 20% of the Spot Inspection gig ?f Program (SIP) and 15% ofthe Monitoring Inspection Program (MIP) Designated Occupation . Disease 13-7 (1988) 106-112 (DO) samples exceeded 2 mg/mi . The rate of non?compliance was related tomine size, accounting .for about 25% of MMUs at smay or medium-sized mines employing less than 125 42 and Huduuss Kn cfu S- Coal Mi (ns to miners and 10% at large mines. During the SIP the sample collection at continuous miners Dust Exposure Estimates)-. Rnvi nn -1,ntn Dis 1456) (1992) coincided with unusually low production shifts compared with operator and regular . 605-609- inspector sampling no such difference was noted for longwalls. The Task Group data also - indicated that dust concentrations for DO cutting machine operators and hand loaders were same, N. Robins, r. mmala, M. D., ma Moulton, ??r.angn.ainal and Cross ereeier SIP eemviee- then bv Thee ere Similer ie there Sectional Analyses arenaana to can Mine Dna: and Pulmonary Function in New by eihee MSHA me evereier eemvilee eereful Ioumu! gf lndugrigl Mudicinn 50, (1993), 929_937- evaluation of sources of error, Serxas adjusted results by up to 0.08 mg/current standard." In addition, considerable testimony iiom both active and disabled miners was Henneberger, P. K. and M. D., "Coal Mine Dust Exposure and Spirometry in 153, 1, . . . (1996) 1 $60-1566 - . . Seixas, N. S., "Dust Exposure and Respiratory Disease U. S.. Coal Miners," Doctoral . Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1990. so 51 i heard by the Committee These senm-ke indicate that some Inincrs c?ntinuc to wetk in duet I B. SEPARATE SILICA STANDARD: Should there be a separate ilica standard that concentrations well in exeess gf2_0 mg/m3_ includes an allowable posure to airborne silica particulate as well as the related aspects of sampling, controls, medical monitoring and training? In tsummary, there is substantial evidence that either a significant number of miners are currently to coal mine dust at levels well in excess of 2.0 mg/m3 or that the current exposure or co mine dust is insudiciently protective. Th Co 'ttee beli . tha erstan - ofthe disease prggegg more jmgozmnoinmbe medgv ution sting Both respirable silica and respirable coal mine dust aEect the respiratory system, and both are where ee 2.0 Inthe heme . should be developed gdditign to for c?mp1iancc)t? tewetd these 0 tote disease. MSHA currently regulates exposur to silica and coal mine dust by reducing the who undertake good faith emu-gs to eonu-ol dust levels at ot. bqlow the z_0 me/ms for mitteoduet vgltere] quartz is present- at concentrations above 5% of respirable dust . Stall 0. C8 . RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 - - Information reviewed by the Committee demonstrates a continued significant silica exposure MSHA should eoiiside; lowenng the level otellowoole mposurc to duet Any hazard in coal mining, especially for some operations such as roof bolting. The Cormnittee also in net?tt should include peered to allow er suitieient resources - to eoomp'?ee n_ co mme sta.ndard,wereas is ue caexposure. ommi ee thus considers it important that separate standards be applied to silica and coal mine dusts. Such In the interim, the operators, MSHA and miners should develop a comprehensive program to a monitoring complimix tid in targeting mining situations when silica eomplience current exposure level. This e&`ort should include at least exposure constitutes a slgmicam hazard comp tance sharing 0 ented red . - increased water spl-eye, scrubber; on eoozgluolgut The Committee linds that_ it is appropriate that the combined eH?`ects of exposure to respirable coal faith egette eottetdetettett in ettfeteement actions . dust and silica dust be considered when establishing the PELs, since both contaminants act upon the same organ system. However, the Committee recognizes that a consensus among scientists CONCLUSION =o and physicians does not currently exist as to whether the e&`ects of a combined exposure would be synergistic or additive. All members of the Committee airmed the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 . - MSHA should develop and enforce separate PELs for exposure to silica and coal mine dust. MSHA should explore appropriate methods for determining compliance with exposure limits for mixtures of silica and coal mine dust. I CONCLUSION I I - All Committee members aitirmed the recommendation. . 52 I 53 I C. RESPIRABLE SILICA: Should there be a change in the levelof allowable exposure and in the measurement of pulmonnry timdtidn to silica? . in these etndies_"? Silico 's is indistinguishable &om CWP on a eheet X-re! I I - . Therefore, the relative prevalence ofthese two conditions among current mrners cannot be knovnm FINDING - . . from chest x-ray data alone. No studies have been published data horn the NIOSH . National Coal Workers' Autopsy Study, which may contain rnfomratron regardmg the relative The Committee finds that the potential for exposure to silica in is . of these two among U_g_ mmol-o_ . terS,?n percento surfnde btm??ttdY t'Y ??dt mine dm mtluitdd t? Since then, additional research has been published that is relevant to the srhca permissible I . . ??mPtY with mm'? $td?8??t dust t? df tludttz td df exposure limit. Following miners after they have left allowed documentation of 5% in dust S?mpl??' ??timat?s ?fth? mm ?fq"m mY be att substantial rates of silico 's among those exposed at cunent levels. For eisample, a underestimate because are rdutineiy snelyzed fd? ofthe study of South African gold miners which included retirees, showed a 25% of after samples analyzed for quartz by MSHA over the last eleven years, 31% of 20,226 continuous - miner, 34% of 14,913 roof bolter, 21% of 1,298 longwall shmrer operator, and 16% of 1,626 longwall jack setter samples exceeded the current 100 pg/m3. Comparable MSHA data for surface coal mines show that 57% of 2,663 highwall drill operator and 33% of 3,457 bulldozer *9 Graham, W, G, B., O'Grady, IL V., and Dubue, B-, P?itndd??'Y in operator samples exceeded the PEL.- Coal miner autopsy data has demonstrated a 12.5 rate of Vermont Granite Workers: A Long-term Follow-up and APPt'd'std? silicosis among underground coal face workers and 6.4% for surface miners at underground coal 123, (1981), 25-28.- . inines,t' data suggest a significantly increased risk of abnomral chest x-ray findings . consistent with CWP or silicosis among miners who have ever worked as a roofbolter," Thetiault, G. P., Peters, J. M., and ohnson, W. M., 1TiIl'10lld?l'Y ml However, these data may not be representative and have not been linked to exposure estimates, Roentengograpluc Changes Granrte Dust Exposure, Considerable testimony on this issue irom both active and disabled miners was heard by the 28, (1974), 23-27. - lgiicsiz/int, ks that Some co to work uhm con Ons *1 Thetiault, G, Peters, and J. M., Fine, L. J., "Pulmonary Function in Granite Shed - Workers in Vermont," 28, (1974), 18-22. In light ofthe continued occurrence of silicosis in the mining industry, MSHA has established special emphasis program. Additionally, OSHA also has recently initiated a special emphasis - 5 Musk- Wu P?t?rs? It Me w?gm?n* Li immry unour Year Follow-u Among Revrg of Respiratory program on silica of continued occurrence of other mdustrres. Grams Dust Exp?sur?' a . p' . Disease, 115, (1977) 769-776. In 1974, NIOSH published a recommended exposure limit of 50 pg/mi', which relied heavily on ,3 Craiohood I Vouyothool Vo puknonmy lesions in wei-kei-s . studies of silicosis among granite workers," Controversy about these studies has existed . to dust siuca:" Journal ofthe American Medical concemmg x-ray classrlicatron methodology, prevalence of pneumoconrosrs among those with no 244, (1980) 1939_1941_ . I $4 wegmano H_o A., S, I. M., llpuknonary Function Loss in V??n?nt Green, F. H. Y, Althouse R.,and Weber K.C., "Prevalence of Silicosis at Death in Granite Workers" (Letter-t0 the Editor), 128 Underground Coal Miners," Amm`can Joumgl Medicine, 16, (1989), (1983), 776-777. 605-615. Eisen, E. A., Robins, J. M., Greaves, I. A., and Wegrnan, D..H., Selection Effects of Personal correspondence: John P. Gibbs, M. D. to David H. Wegman, M. D., Repeatability Criterion Applied to Lung Sprrometry." July 16, 1996. Epidemiology, 120, (1984), 734-742. NIOSH, "Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to $6 Eisen, Wegrnan, Louis, T. A., Smith, T. J., and Peters, J- "Heeithlf .. Silica, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public . wei-ke; Efgct in a Longitudinal Study of One-seoond Forced Expirotory_ Volume Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and - and Chronic Exposure to Granite Dust," 24, Health, DI-IEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 75-120, (1974). . (1995), 1154-1162. 54 55 I - 28 Wm ?fm"l"'g at we silica A d'-mh Df S9?th relationship between exposure and the development of silicosis the level of risk reported has Dakota gold mmers predicted that a 45-year exposure at 90 micrograms/m' would result in a v,_ried_63? 64- 66- 66 lifetime risk of silicosis of Study of Hong Kong granite quarriers indicated that cumulative s1l1ca ergaosure between 1 and 5 led to radiologic silicosis in 32% of men . Ir1 addition to silicosis, there is some recent evidence that obstructive airway disease may be aged 50 and older. a study of Colorado miners who had letl the hard rock mining industry, related to chronic exposure to average levels of respirable silica that are below the current using musurements (rn contrast to respirable dust, assuming a constant exposure 1imit_"' The International Association for Research on Cancer is reviewing updated proportion of silica) were associated with even higher risks of radiologic silicosis. information regarding lung cancer risk associated with silica exposure. In contrast to these studi there is evidence from Canada -provide strongly expoem.e_1.e8pooee The discrepancy among rn the variety of studies, the substantial driferences rn - latter predicted a cumulative risk of silico 's aner 40 years at 0.1 mg/m' of 60% After a exposure circmimanccg and the dia-cram types of dP?im? and- cohort-dcimtlom au of exposure, however, the Canadian studies would predict 8, 1 2% The provide the basis for considerable interest and ?debate in the scientriic This debate - ba-we-. at an estimate or--n omarmmasamr African audi tri- were committee not a common mterpretatron recent stu res an muc . considerable interest and debate. While the experience tlus country shown a clear disagreement about ofthe Endings was cviduu, the Commwc believes it i - - appropriate for NIOSH, MSHA, and OSHA to review the adequacy ofthe current PEL of silica - - - in light of tirrther research since 1974. There was a consensus ofthe Committee that regardless - ofthe adequacy of the current PEL, miners exposed to silica in excess of the current PEL for long - durations are at risk of developing silicosis. MSHA should take steps to control these . overexposures in all mines in which they occur. These steps might include rulemaking, targeted compliance efforts, encouragement of operator eiforts to lower silica exposures below the current - . PEL, and more extensive silica surveillance. Hnizdo, E. and Sluis-Cremer, G. K., "Risk of Silicosis in a Cohort of White South - - African Gold Miners," 24, (1993), 447-457. 63 (1995)- - . - Steenland, K. and Brown, D., "Silicosis among Gold Miners; Exposure-response Rice- C- H-- Hams- R- L- JY-- H-- and SYm?"s- M- I-- Analyses and Risk Assessment," American Jgnmal gf Public Health 3 5, (1995), Relationships for Silicosis fiom a Case-control Study of North Carolina Dusty Trades i372-I377). Workers," In: Siligg, silicgsi; and cancer. Controversy in gg; gpational medicine. Qancer - - Research Vol.2, 77-86, Goldsmith, D. F., Winn, D. M., and Shy, C. M., - Ng, T.P. and Chan, L., "Quantrtatrve Relations Between Silica Exposure and - Editors, Praeger Press, New York, 1986. Development of Radiological Small Opacities in Granite Workers," Annals of 38, (1994), (Supplement 1, Elsevier Science Ltd.; Inhaled Particles Gfaham. W- G- B-- D-- Ashikasa. T-- and S-- "R?di?8mPhl? Abnormalities in Vermont Granite Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Granite Dust," l00(6), (1991), 1507-1514. Krerss, and Zhen, B., "Risk of Silicosis in a Colorado Mining Community," American . . (1996), (in pr-esa), Graham, W. G. B., Weaver, S., Ashikaga, T., and O'Grady, R. V., "Longitudinal 6, - Pulmonary Function Losses in Vermont Granite Workers -- A Reevaluation," Qhegt, - MW- D- C- F-- 5-11- - 106(1), (1994), 125-130. Muir. D- C- F-. 29-43. . 6' Eisen, E. A., (1995). 56 57 I . . RECOMMEND ATION 3 ISSUE H: ICONTIQOLS REQUIRED TO COMPLY PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE The Committee su 6Sts that MSHA efgnt MSHA 8110]%% inout this A. HIERARCHY OF CONTROLS: Are changes needed to assure that exposure Committee recommends that MSHA movo forward with these wom and not await pgssiblc control measures follow the recognized. hierarchy first choice engineering, next . acrtorr OSHA- MSHA dom to tower ca exposures below the PEL might include administrative, and last, use of personal protection devices)? W'S?t?d of operator eforts. to lower silica - PEL, and more extensive silica hazard surveillance. Additionally, - must co accu and mcy 0 its analytical to mum that exposures are Providing and maintaining a work environment free of excessive levels of respirable coal mine - dust is essential to prevent the occurrence of o_ccupational lung disease among coal miners and CONCLUSION progression of disease in those miners with early evidence of its development. According . to the Mine Act, respirable dust must be sumciently controlled to permit coal miners to work over All amtmod tho recommuldationl a lifetime without becoming impaired by CWP or any other occupational lung disease. Environmental controls should be the primary means of preventing or miners' exposure to respirable coal mine dust. The reliance on enviromnental control measures as the primary means of protecting workers over the past 25 years has resulted in significantly lowering the levels of respirable dust in active n1ine workings and in decreasing the incidence of . occupational lung disease in coal miners. Environmental controls include measures that control the amount of respirable coal mine dust in the air that miners breathe by either reducing dust generation or by suppression, dilution, or capturing the dust. In general, however, improvements - in environmental control technology have not kept pace with increases in production technology. - The Committee encourages the development and use of improvements in technology to control . miners' exposure to respirable coal mine dust. . . . While the Mine Act and implementing regulations require respirators to be made available to all miners underground when concentrations of respirable dust in excess of the applicable standard are known to exist, the Mine Act specifically prohibits the substitution of the use of respirators for - environmental control measures in the active workings. The Committee was reminded by the i industry representatives that this prohibition is an interim mandatory health standard which could 2 . be changed, if warranted, through rulemaking. However, while aclcnowledging that advances in personal protective devices (respiratory controls) have been made over the past 25 years, the Committee believes that environmental controls must continue as the primary means of protection - for miners. - The Committee saw Airstream? helmets (a type of powered air-purifying device that provides a . continuous stream of filtered air across the workers face) being used by miners at both the Dilworth and Deercreek mines. The Committee discussed use and maintenance of these devices with miners who elected to use them, as well as those who did not. In addition, the Committee . heard a presentation on the eiicacy of Airstream? helmets at its meeting in Salt Lake City. Data, - - showing the results of field testing at four mines, indicated that under the conditions testedhelmets afforded an average eifective protection of 83 In this regard, the industry B, IMPLEMENTATION OF DUST CONTROL PLAN: How should a dust control representatives on the Committee believe that operators who are already effectively controlling plan be designed, implemented and evaluated for effectiveness in order to assure dust with environmental controls and who supplement this with the use of Airstream? helmets that eoal mine dust and airborne ailiea partieulate levels are maintained below the should benefit and be recognized as making a good faith eH`ort toward compliance. . The use of administrative controls does not reduce the responsibility of the operator to maintain FINDING I the ambient dust levels in active workings at or below the mandatory level. The current sampling program isdesigned to ensure this responsibility. While not a substitute for engineering controls, The dust control portion of the mine ventilation plan is the key element of an operators strategy . administrative controls, which restrict the amount of time that miners spend in an area with to control respirable dust in the work environment, thereby miners' exposures and uniform exposure level, canresult in lower personal exposures. eventually CWP. Therefore, the evaluation, approval, in-mine verification and . . monitoring to demonstrate the eiectiveness ofthe operators proposed dust control plan are RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 critical to achieving this end. The Committee believes that the design of initial or new plans and . the process by which MSHA evaluates and approves such plans are based on experience and Enviromnental control measures should continue to be the primary_means of maintaining engineering judgment. Although plans submitted by operators are required to be designed to respirable dust levels in mine atmosphere in the active workings in compliance. Respiratory control respirable dust, there is no current requirement that provides for the early in-mine protective equipment should not replace these control measures but should continue to be verification ofthe proposed p1an's efectiveness under typical mining conditions. Current - provided to -miners until environmental controls are implemented that are capable of maintaining regulations, however, prohibit a mine operator from any mining activity without an the respirable dust level in compliance. Administrative controls should only be utilized in approved ventilation plan. To enable an operator to commence mining, most proposed plans are situations similar to respiratory controls -- as interim control measures while enviromnental either approved immediately or approved provisionally based on engineering judgment and on controls are being installed. . experience until MSHA can sample for plan e&`ectiveness. Consequently, plans may be implemented that may later be shown not adequate to control respirable dust. To prevent or CONCLUSION minimize this ii?om occurring, a review process needs to be developed for provisional approval - that is associated with a rapid follow-up testing ofthe proposed plan or revision to verify its All Committee members aErmed the recommendation. if effectiveness for dust control. While the initial development and review of provisional plans may indicate a reasonable likelihood - of maintaining dust concentrations within pemrissible levels, the adequacy of these plans in maintaining dust levels can be assured only through appropriate monitoring of dust levels under - typical mining conditions. Although current MSHA procedures provide for periodic assessment of plan effectiveness by its inspectorate, the Committee questioned their adequacy and timeliness. . The Committee believes that such monitoring should occur as soon as possible following approval of the provisional plan. Final approval should be based on results of dust surveillance and - monitoring of actual dust control parameters and production levels. The Committee does not consider these samples to be part ofthe routine hazard surveillance monitoring. n- Until validated as being suitable to the conditions and mining system at the mine, the MSHA . approval of the dust control portion of the mine ventilation plan should be considered provisional. For the validation -0f a new plan, the Committee believ that must perform necessary evaluation in the mine. Ifthe respirable dust level is below the applicable standard, the actual dust - - . control parameters in place during the evaluation should become the minimum operating dust - control parameters to be included in the approved ventilation plan. The Committee considers use of average production levels for purposes of plan verification to be inappropriate. Production 68 F??t?Utah, levels at the time of validation should be near the upper limit of production for that MMU. Energy West Mining Company, Huntington, UT, 1994. - . 60 61 reasonably assure -the operator and the miner that the plan will be effective under typical . Operator compliance with dust control measures established in tire approved mine ventilation plan operations. MSHA should reviewlcompliarrce and production records to detemrine when there is that have been demonstrated to be effective under typical mining conditions, is essential to n??d fm Plan and preventing overexposures and the occurrence of occupational respiratory disease. Compliance can be achieved through operator monitoring of plan parameters on a regular basis and through MSHA d?v?1np ?nt?na wn?n plan m??nn??n?n is r?qmr?d' cmena appropriate adjustments where needed to maintain those controls. The Conunittee believes that in?n*d? ?nang?S in mining ??n?nn?nS= induding P1-?du?n?n' the new provision ofthe ventilation mle requiring operator cxanrination ofthe dust control parameters prior to the start of production should aid in safeguarding the health of miners by reducing the likelihood of overexposures. The Committee considers on-shift . . cxanjnations dust oontrols an port ofressonsple and prudent respintplo MSHA should require operators to collect respirable dust samples to evaluate the adequacy of a dust control strategy Miner involvement in monitoring plan compliance is essential, as is MSHA new or revised plan under typical mining conditions within 30 days of granting provisional - oversight during regular and other inspections approval ofthe new or revised plan parameters. Iffound to be effective, MSHA should extend - the provisional approval until MSHA can undertake independent verincation of the revised plan. the effectiveness ofthe ventilation plan and, therefore, the plan may require alteration to Ifnot found to be a modrned plan should be to MSHA, including I . respirable dust levels in eontplisnoe This is espeeinllv true tvlienever noncompliance is documentation of mtenm methods to control personnel exposure, rn order to establish del?l?lgil5tl?gl;gd_ Currently, however, 'thg operator is not required to routinely ineludo in revisod critical control parameters reasonably anticipated to be adequate for dust control under typical ventilation plan any alterations in control measures needed to eeltieve eontplisneo Sinoo tlto mining conditions. Results of operator samples and analyses of these data, along with informatron eifeetiveness gf controls gan vary signincantly_ depending on now, vvltere, and in what on actual production levels and dust control parameters in use during operator nronrtorrng, should combination these are employed_ proposed revisions to ventilntion plans noon to po be submitted with the modified dust control plan. MSHA should not issue citations for violation cvaluatcd by MSHA to determine ifthe new gy upgraded plan parameters the of the applicable dust standard based on this operator verincatron Operator mactron to desired objective under aotual milling conditions. while some Iplsn revisions esp bo spprovod protect miners where dust values are rn excess ofthe PEL should be crtable by MSHA. based on engineering judgment and experience alone, the adequacy of others under typical mining . conditions can be demonstrated only through appropriatesampling. This process must assure that MSHA - miners are adequately protected during the transition between plans. Within 30 days of receipt of operator verification data documenting that the plan is effective, i In addition to coal production areas, miners may be exposed to ltigli levels of mine dists wlioro MSHA should, in consultation with the operator, perform scheduled independent dust monitoring - coal is transported, transferred, handled, processed and stored. In areas where maintenance work t? tn? plan xr- or construction takes place (such as building overcasts or installing additional roof support - - . following falls gfrogf) miners may also be exposed to nigh levels cfdusts mal, mrmmum operating dust control parameters ofthe dust control plan should rncorporate I - - values measured by MSHA during sampling and, if needed, appropriate data from operator . RECOMMENDATION No. sampling- - . 2 Administrative If the production level at the time ofthe verification inspection is sufiiciently close to the maximum anticipated production in the proposed plan, the production level in the proposed plan MSHA should develop an administrative review proeoss for timely ol- pow or povlsod should be the approved maximum production level so long as the respirable dust level is at or plans to permit tgsting ofthe adequacy of the plan- -l?lio process should oopsldo,. tho ppoposod below the permissible exposure limit. Otherwise, the production at the time of the verification changes in plan parameters and their potential effectiveness based on available performance data, shan be the basis of the approved production level` - Z. current or projected operational parameters and production levels, the operator's previous - history of ability to maintain compliance with the dust standard and plan parameters, and the M?nn?"ng ro osed test assess edulc to the ofthe new or famed pim MSHA should develop specific performance requirements for operator sampling relative to MSHA should define the range of production levels which must bg maintained during samrsling to of Continued adequacy ofthe plan parameters. MSHA should require that the verily the plan. This value should be suiiciently close to maximum anticipated production to . . 63 62 - . . C. PARTICTPATION DURING PLAN results momtonng of dust control parameters and production be recorded in order that correlation of dust control parameters with dust measurements is facilitated. FINDING - Operator R??p?mibmty The Committee recognizes that dust control portion ofthe ventilation plan is an essential element Opera, .t . . . to control respirable dust in all work environments. The Committee also recognizes that the .1 as I- with um dw 111 the mine legislative history ofthe Mine Act clearly documents the belief that the involvement ofthe miner 75 36 UH with the new on-shin examination requirement of is vita] to eEeetively improve the health and safety at our nations mines. i . Although no record keepmglis required as part of this examination, the . 3?i1?V?$ of such examinations are mforrnative and, therefore, should bg Testimony before the Committee identified clearly that no one has more at stake in the end result i an wl wh? u?v? u??u their interpretation of a ventilation plan than the miner. It is essential that the miners be involved in the development, an importance. MSHA should further explore the level of detail needed for recorded data. evaluation, verification and monitoring ofthe plan that intimately aEects their healthutilize _the miners' knowledge ofthe and in the ventilation plan process would be a . gtdteatel that the tali;an's mimmum requirements are not being gi-est ioss_ Adequate input can be achieved only if miners are included in the proe as a routine rs erequiredto app 'tecorrectiveacti eciEedpart of their wor assignment . . . . - To the extent that any miner's role in the process of implementing a ventilation plan is gp ?f*l1? uuf"lu?fY ?fth? dust ??ni10l Pefsmeters compromised by insumcient understanding ofthe dust control program in underground coal tpu at in mine ventilation plan and make modincattons necessary to achieve and- maintain mines, this lack should be addressed-through appropriately enhanced training, covered elsewhere compliance with appucubui uust standard- in the Committee's iindings and ons. MSHA RECOMMENDATION No. 6 Lnspections should include a of recorded parameter data, dust control measures During this (plan) verification visit, miners and their representatives should have the same paid- serve in operation, and input from miners regarding whether controls and prodootioii 103 walkaround rights as they do under MSHA inspections. . - representative of usual operations. . . CONCLUSION MSHA should examine all recorded operational data and information on miner exposure and dust . measures 1n place as part of the on-going and six?month reviews ofthe ventiistioh plan six ofthe (jornrnittee members affirmed the recommendation. Dr. Gibbs and Mr. Lamonies voted ese reviews should be designed to evaluate the continued eH`ectiveness of the plan. not to the recommendation and Dr. Ramani abstained from voting on the recommendation. i In voting not to affirm the recommendation, the representatives of the industry submitted a 1 dissenting opinion for the record. The complete text of this opinion can be found in Section All members of the Committee aftinned the recommendationI D. DUST CONTROLS FOR SURFACE MINES: Should the implementation of dust wa surface mine, while it was noted that filters were \1S?d V??til?fl?n t? reear panama provided was information on yam the are was designed to exclude respirable dust or silica. This information was not available on either the_ FINDING Elter or the Hlter packaging. In summary, with regard to dust control at surface mrne operations, - the Committee believes that these operations have not received a comparable level of attention as . The Committee notes that the pattern of dust exposures and the sources of dust are likely to be compared to underground mine operations. - coal mines. The most common surface coal mining method, strip consists ofthe follo unit operations: land cleanng,' drilling, and blasting in the overburden, overburden ertcavugfigrr, coal drilling and blasting, coal loading, coal haulage, and reclamation and MSHA should specify the circumstances in which dust control plans are needed for surface mines, revegetation. The hauled coal may- be washed in a preparation plant, and then transported to the surface facilities, and surface areas of underground coal mines. MSHA should develop the customer. The land clearing, drilling, blasting and overburden excavation activities are associated relevant parameters for surface dust control plans and a process for plan venhcatron. sources. of dust._. The quartz component of dust isa potentially significant health hazard when Dust surveillance should be conducted at urface facilrtres and surface of an work is performed in the overburden. The amount of quartz dust in the air depends on the type of underground coal mine by exanrining locations where dust generation and miners. exposure I fh? Sandstone can be 100% quartz, granite about 40%, and slate about 30%, ocean-,_ when not previously covered by.a plan above by weight. Drilling generates very fine dust, while blasting and excavating also can produce and found to have exposures at or above 95 the PEL, those must be covered by a disperse dust. Coal drilling and blasting and coal loading activities in the coal seam produce plan. . . . airbome particulate where coal dust is the predominant component that may aff`ect the miner's . . health. During transportation ofthe coal in the pit. area the source of dust is the coal seam, and The parameters of the approved dust control plan should be verified as part of the operators daily outside the pit area, the source of dust is the haulroad. As much ofthe equipment in surface- inspection requirements of 30 CFR 77.1713. mining operations is diesel-powered, the presence of diesel particulates is an additional potential . . . exposure risk. - . CONCLUSION . different exposure patterns exist for surface mine employees engaged in the variety of All members of the Committee affirmed the recommendation. I surface operations. For example, those who work in coal preparation areas and maintenance personnel who spend time in a shop environment experience quite different exposure environments. Furthermore, miners who work in outside environments are exposed to changing weather conditions, which can lead to extreme variability in dust conditions. In any case, the . steady airflow conditions of underground mines are rarely found in surface mines. The geographic location of mines also has an important impact on exposure circumstances. While the . 5 overall surface mining dust exposures are likely to be less severe than those of underground - mining, the nature and circumstances of these exposures are different and the opportunities and . challenges for their control are also different. For example, types of dust control technology .- needed to control coal dust may differ from that appropriate for silica dust or diesel particulates. It is important that adequate attention is devoted to protect the miner from the specific hazardous component in the dust exposure that is being controlled. The Committee notes that feasible and eH`ective engineering controls for most surface mining jobs . exist, are commercially available, and some are required by MSHA regulations (30 CFR 72.620). Driller dust can be contained by enclosing and ventilating the drill shaft. Almost all major surface mining equipment (draglines, loaders, drills, trucks, dozers, etc.) are fitted with an operator cab, . and it is possible to design these cabs to provide a clean air enviromnent. In the Comrnittee's visit . - 66 67 ISSUE mt PRACIICES A1. CONTINUOUS G: Under what circumstances _is continuous monitoring of coal mine dust concentration appropriate? A. UNREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES FINDING FINDING - - Worker exposure to excessive levels of dust can be prevented by implementing a hazard The (jemmittee heiieves that the ofthe omrem system ofminc epemtet. surveillance program that provides mine personnel current information on actual dust levels mdttitei- eempiiattee yyith exposure limits has been severely eemmemleem Over the Peet to in the work enviromnent at all times, and on the status of key dust control parameters. The Jsgrigug qtlestidhs have heeh raised regsrdihe the efteemtehle duet levels availability of this information on a rea1--time basis would then enable mine persoruiel to focus measured by dpetatel-st the ofiilt settes, md the ehett eine tk esl I I attention immediately on the need to adjust dust control parameters to avert possible and/et wot-king ggnditicns during oillmotb The in overexposure. The recent development of continuous dust and continuous dust control parameter 5u$t;igtlt depth to evaluate each challenge to the opemtm. dust hteetem; hewevee the monitors, which have both direct reading and data recording/processing capabilities, o&`ers the . Committee did review ihformstioh eethetetl by Reehltehle Duet meek Gteub wee potential to improve monitoring ofthe work environment and contribute to the provided summary infomation on the 150 mining companies or individuals convieted'o? cmu-?l bguwes two tleclmolollgical then -ete I sobmittihe frsodolem dust sem and heetd lh tl . - ev opments, lmke cou asis more ve surv ce exr be-Ot it Coma. The Come also as bm mwumg MH aad Health Review Commission ih the Nmbnonnal whlte eehteta (AWG) htleetleh whleh available in January 1997, for placement in operating underground coal min by MSHA. teeogpiaes the multiplicity Ofactors whleh can Awce All efthle eehvlheed the members However, research is needed before recommending the manner in which continuous monitors can that the credibility ofthe system is severely compromised. b? us?d fe ??mphan?? ?r r?gulat?rY purp?s?S' Regardless of the reesohs for the mmem . leek eteerh- - th . . The utilization of continuous parameter monitoring would provide additional information to the I highest priorities should lzitulnslie fe; operator, both in real time (instant) and accumulated time (stored data), that the approved provided that samplipg most be at the level eml hequehey thet le euttehtly mehltelned by the ventilation plan relating to dust control practices is being properly implemented and continues to combination and opemtol. sampling- This hmdemehtel ehehee lh the Sem hne eteete be elfective. Water flow and water pressure parameters would provide information concerning $h??ld fesult in a reduction in meaningful health Should Operator sam l- hegy the degree or adequacy of dust allayment. Tram speed and cutting time would provide l-etailted_ the laok of credibility ofthe cumt pteemm would teehhe thet MSHA lneteegemg information relative to whether maximum productivity was being achieved. Rate of advancement . enwemenee nt. tbe end tnke tn ensure ebnt nn emeenve stem is in (progressive distance of coal extraction), along with the accumulative stored data of it piece-to illvestigste prsotioes or action; whleh would duet egnnlee tn be concentrations could be used to estimate percentage of dust generation per coal extraction. su mitte . The continuous read--out exposure levels along with the stored data would provide necessary RECOMMENDATION -16f infomation to the operator- that the dust control praetices currently designed were either being implemented per instruction, and/or that immediate changes should be made .to those practices to MSHA itil C9?_l??Qtl0? with the Department of Labor Solicitor's Ofrice should review the current lower cxposum I proeess or investigating and acting on respirable dust practices which result in unrepresentative . respirable. dust samples and should create a credible, adequately staffed program for such investigations. - - MSHA should complete research (in consultation with other agencies such as NIOSH) to study - the relation between indices collected from continuous monitors and the traditional methods of i assessing exposure to respirable dust when these diferent methods are applied to the limction of Eight of the nine members ofthe eehlhmed the Dn Gibbs hazard surveillance well whendeveloping other potential uses of continuous monitoring data 3 from. voting on the recommendation. (fm- ?xamP]?? ss . 69 xg dust] ha m?mt?" A2 PERSONAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLIN G: Under what circumstances dust comm! at an MMIUS md low. f?r suW?1um?? and ?f does area sampling of the coal mine environment provide dust concentration other rons high rr of elevated dust exposures. data useful for the protection of coal miner health? Once verined as reliable as in (1) above, MSHA should use continuous monitor data for asses . . . . FINDING . miner exposures, and should consider use of continuous a drrectl . . - . . . . . . . - _y comp The current system of momtormg dust exposure coal murrng by sampling lugh designated MSHA sh I . . occupations (DO), designated (DA) and designated work places (DWP) has evolved since the gud _5e1d of a enactment ofthe Coal Act. Tlu sampling strategy can be related to personal Samples, occupational purpo amo ernr - - . . levels of exposure to respirable dust md, as for comggumccl samples and area or environmental samples which are denned as follows. RE I Pgonal Sample: A personal sample is one taken in the breathing zone of a miner while - perfomring normal duties for a work shin. The sampling device - pump, hose, cassette - . . 'thth thro khin.S lfPart90' Continuous momtors for dust control parameters should be utilized to evaluate and assess the ughou wor amp cs or mums are quality of dust control measures as a part of mine respirable dust control plans. CONCLUSION An occupational sample is one taken during a work sara on - . individual workers who perform duties of an occupation. The intent of an occupational Rc . - sample is to measure exposure for an occupation as if one person perfumed the duties in commendatron 8. All members ofthe anirmed the recommendation. that occupation for the duration ofthe sampled work shin. Samples taken for designated Recommendation 17: All members of the Cornmittee anirmed the recommendation. Occupations are occupational wi`?l?s' . Area or Environmental Sgple: An area or environmental sample is one taken at a fixed location in an area or environment of interest. It measures the concentration of a - . contaminant in that area and not necessarily the exposure of any individual. DA samples are 1 - area samples. . il The Committee considered the mix of samples described above to be a reasonable, systematic approach for the determination of rniners' respirable dust exposure and the subsequent control of exposure. Choice of the DO, DA or DWP should be mine specinc, taking into account the mining I conditions and technology, and reviewed periodically. I RECOMMENDATION NO. 1S . MSHA's reliance on dust sampling for compliance should be based on an appropriate balance of personal, occupational, and environmental sampling. - as . 1? . CONCLUSION Seven of the nine members ofthe Committee anirmed the Dr. Gibbs and Mr. Lamonica voted not to anirm the recommendation. In voting not to anirm the recommendation, the representatives of the industry submitted a il - . dissenting opinion for the record. The complete text of this opinion can be found in Section VIH I sample as part_ of plan veriication. Operator sampling at and Suffice 0f - I . underground mines should be increased to sampling to the . - sainpling Operators should also continue to be allowed to f`?f other than determining compliance. These samples should be clearly rdentrned the mine such as Despite the MSHA policy to collect respirable dust samples on each mining section at least by nemo eoloi code. annually, the Respirable Dust Task Group reported that only 58% ofthe 2099 mining sections that were in operation for at least 181 days in liscal year 1991 were adequately sampled by the of citations based on MSHA or samples should require the 1? Agency." Innovative methods should be explored to enhance MSHA's presence in mines for eemnle on mnltinle anifta as enrrenriy required compliance sampling. At present, during MSHA inspections conducted for purposes other than . - dust sampling, inspectors are required to monitor compliance with the approved ventilation plan; I CONCLUSION I however, respirable dust samples are not collected. When samples are collected, the dust data - 'Lt . card which accompanies the sample does not currently include the parameters from the dust Reeommendation 16d: seven nfine nine rnernbers ofthe Committee aliirmed the ??nn?1 as ?P?mnn8 dining tn? nn' Quantity md number and reooniniendetion, Dr, Gibbs and Mr. Lamonica voted not to 351111 fh? distribution of water sprays). reeornrnendetion I When there is a determination of noncompliance, the mine operator must make appropriate Recommendation log; Five efrne nine rnernbers ofthe Committee anirmed the chang in dw and submit sninP1?$ in is i'?dn??d b?1?W the Dr_ Dr, Gibbs and Mr. Lamonica voted not to ?Hi1'111 1h? PEL- Own time this can Pin ininnr nt at risk ?f high reeornniendntion Dr, Rice abstained from voting on the recom111?11d?t1?11. even while the average exposure is below the PEL. MSHA is not issuing citations based ?n Singh s?mP1?s? Th? b?1i?v?d nm this pm?ti?? is mt pr?t??tiv? ?f mum h??lth; In voting not to airm recommendations 16d and 16g, the representatives of the industry moreover, it is inconsistent with the stated intent ofthe Coal Act and the Mine Act, which require submitted a dissenting opinion for the reoord_ In voting not to amrm recomm?11d?11011 bs nt ?r b?1?w limit fin mh shin- It is nI'? with Dr. Ramani submitted a dissenting opinion for the record. The complete text of these oprmons - procedures used by OSHA at the Department of Labor. The Committee also considered criteria can bc found in geerien vm_ .- for determining that abatement had been achieved. Because ofthe changing mine environment, - some Committee members believed that abatement sampling should continue to be conducted i over tive shifts because, in their opinion, multiple samples at or below the PEL are necessary to - confirm abatement. RECOMMENDATION NO. 16d it MSHA should increase the number of samples collected by the Agency to determine compliance with respirable dust standards. MSHA should place major emphasis on the use of personal I- monitoring for determining compliance with PELs. However, MSHA should continue the . i practice of designated occupation sampling for determining noncompliance. -. MSHA should change the compliance sampling program to allow use of single iirll shift samples - . for determining compliance. . RECOMMENDATION NO. 16g Mine operators should continue to measure exposure to respirable dust DOs, DWPs, and DAs i compliance sampling as provided in 30 CFR 70, 71, and 90. Additionally, mine operators should i I - U.S. Department of Labor, (1992), p30 . . Dust monitorin from 1970-1980 A3 SAMITLING FOR COMPLIANCE AND VERIFICATION: Should operator results be used for evaluating compliance with the Mine operator': sampling program; In 1970, regulations were issued that initiated the Instrumentation, sample site selection, quality control and assurance), comprehensive operator dust sampling program based on the "high risk" concept developed by - the BOM. Under this concept, if the dust concentration ofthe high--risk occupation (designated Should there be a change in the MSHA rules and procedures for monitoring occupation, or DO) is at or below the applicable standard, then it is assumed that all other section coal mrne dust? I workers in less risky occupations were protected fiom excessive concentrations of respirable dust. This procedure is based on the knowledge that there usually is an exposure gradient with higher exposure occurring for workers closer to dust generating sources at the working face. The high i - . . risk occupation for each mining method was identified in the regulation based on the data MSHA sampling of underground mrnes rs currently conducted in order to: 1) verify the obtained by the BOM during an extensive environmental study conducted in bituminous coal effectiveness of an Ventilation plan for dust control, 2) determine compliance with mines between 1968 and 1969. For example, sections that used mining . . respirable dust standards, and 3) serve as a check ofthe operator collected compliance samples. the regulations specified that the high risk occupation samples be collected "in the working The MSHA program also provides information used by MSHA to verify that the correct environment ofthe continuous mining machine operator". designated occupation, designated areas, and designated work positions for the operator sampling program are being sampled. MSHA collected samples may be used to lower the dust standard The new sampling provisions put in place in 1970 required each operator to sample 0Vcr a based on the content of rmne dust. - shin, portal to portal, the environment ofthe high risk occupation in each coal-producing section . - on nomral roduction shifts and at intervals, by placing the sampling device on the miner The Committee believes that one highest priorities must be to restore the corr'1idence or locatinglit on the mining machinzp within 36 inches inby between the miner and the working of miners and mine operators the respirable coal mine dust sampling program Efortg to make face) the miner's normal working position. Specifying the particular location ofthe sampling - respirable dust cassettes more tamper-resistant are a step in the right direction, and the Conunittee device was intended to assure that samples representative of respirable dust exposures in the mine finds rt essential that all dust sampling technology, including the new continuous monitors environment were collected. Consequently, when sampling the environment ofthe continuous currently bemg developed, should be as tamper-resistant as possible. . miner operator, for example, the sampling device remained in that environment for the entire shin, . even if the particular miner performing the duty at the beginning ofthe shin was replaced by urthermore, the Conunittee believes that MSHA should take responsibility for the tasks of another miner during the shift. compliance sampling in- lieu ofthe current system under which operators are primarily responsible for out such compliance sampling, augmented by limited MSHA compliance sampling In addition to high-risk samples, operators were required to sample each underground miner I during MSHA compliance Sampling must be conducted at the number and individually every 120 or 180 days depending on where the in the mine, UT - frequency of current levels requrred of both operators and MSHA to ensure the reliability ofthe every 90 days for each miner who had a positive chest x?ray for CWP and who elected to exercise program. This eH`ort should not adversely affect the Agency's other responsibilities In this the option of transferring to a less dusty area. The additional sampling permitted more frequent regard, the Committee rs of the vrew that a number of innovative alternatives exist which would monitoring of the dust levels in the mining environment. These individual exposure data were not allow MSHA to srgmiicantly increase its sampling efforts. In addition, MSHA should explore used for compliance purposes; however, the data were forwarded to NIOSH to develop a . methods for operator financial support of increased MSHA sampling comprehensive exposure data base for research purposes. Each sample was accompanied by a i completed mine data card which included rnine-specific information, such as the mine The current program to evaluate respirable coal mine dust exposures in the mining identification number, the miner's'occupation, and the date ofthe sample. ., envrronment represents more than 25 years of Agency experience. The Coal Act required mine operators to take accurate dust samples at periodic intervals using approved sampling devices to Federal government sampling program:? The 1970 changes also included a federal govemment measure the amount of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere where miners work or travel. dust sampling program providing for semi-annual respirable dust inspections at each underground Although amended by the Mme Act, this requirement remains essentially unchanged. coal mine. Inspectors sampled the lugh risk occupation and other face workers, as well as 10 - percent of the non-face workers over a period of two to five complete shifts. Inspectors were At mines lacking nuners' representation, the Committee believes that more aggressive also required to conduct frequent spot inspections of active to check the overall participation rn the overall health and safety ofthe miners by MSHA is warranted, There is a effectiveness of the dust md compelling record that supports this need. For instance, there are several cases of criminal . prosecution for fraudulent sampling practices at these types of operations. - I . . maintam` concentration of irable i" ms- in riddihug the active sm Preps bv mae is erpe ed at OT anew 2.0 milligrams on-eepesiie dee pe cubic mee ew. The Mine mad ef me Act here dcEnes "average concentration" to mean eve single are any, unless shin in the working environment of at least-live diiferent occupations that included the high risk the Secmary and the Secretary ?fHeatnn Education and Welfare and, in with the t? mus th? ?fth? r??pmb1? dust ??mr?l p1??S' provision of Section 101 of this Act that such single shin measurement will not, aner applying . . . . valid statistical techniques to such measurement, accurately represent such atmospheric conditions t's? during each rn developing its recommended exposure limit (REL) rer respirable een mine i *977 1978* g?v?mmg sampling Chmgu lmpaqtmg exposure values, rather than the upper 95% conndence limit for the mean. Thus, for some miners m?1ud?d r?Ph?mg r??uu??m?m that sii high mk the risk of adverse enects may be higher. Therefore, in using single full-shin samples for making bc sempkd with th? ??uF?u?n mais mu (D6) t? noncompliance determinations, NIOSH recommended that no upward adjustment ofthe PEL be measure the dust concentrations the active working associated with other dust generatmg mae to account fm, mensnremun nneenanny sources, such as transfer points. The specinc locations where DA samples are required to be . . F?u??t?d ae 'd?m5?d th? ?t??mt?r'S ?pPr?v?d vmulmm plan A"?th?r ?ha"g? was t? The current dust sampling program allows for a dust sample collected by an operator to be the frequency cf sampling &0?1 eVe1'Y 90 d8Y$t0 delle far a who had a considered "valid" if the production during the shin during which the sample is is $0 X-rw md WM my percent erdie average 1eve1 iepened during erneietsveermemny eempiee. rd- I area- Sum mm ?P?tet?rs were t? semPte eertem e"'erY an MSHA collected sample to be considered "valid", the production on the shin during which the _'P?Pths umm mw at ?r b?l?w the 2 mg/ms . sample is collected must be 60 percent ofthe average production for the last 30 days. Dust lrnut, or at or below the reduced standard when more than 5% quartz was present in the dust. As generation during a Shih is related to the production that ahih_ As with sarnpling for plan a rcsult ?f th? "mP1?s_??tl??s?d emtteuy d?sr?es?d verification, the Committee considers the use of average production levels for purposes of making 500900 t? less than 150-000- with the declms the number ?f compliance detemrinations to be inappropriate. The production at the time of compliance operating mines, the number of mme.operator samples has declined to less than 70,000 per year; sampling Should be neat. nmdnetien levela . about two-thirds of these are from underground mines, the remainder ii?6m surface mines. - - A"?th?r shangc was t? r?m?Y? p?rs?"?1 'd??t?rs &?jn th? dust samph mnt- dt'? t? Data reviewed by the Committee showed that work weeks in excess of 40 hours per week and 8 5 . am?"g mm?rs_ that the data might be t? th? ?xp?sur? mdmdual mma hours per day are now common in the mining industry; these data were consistent with the reports black lung clams- as t? th? mm? nom many miners who spoke to the Committee. Estimates of lung disease risk among coal - . miners are based on long-term average exposures assuming a typical work week of 8-10 hours per ms a - day and a 40-hour work week. The metric used for risk assessments is the cumulative exposure dust samplutg fm: msP??t?rs umd the emphests ?f (intensity multiplied by duration) and disease risks are assumed to be a limction of cumulative Sampling s? that was d?tt? uses where there was meh level ?t ?f exposure and not to depend on the intensity or duration used to compute the cumulative e?mPl'arlee? and mere rn Where th?r? was a Ormere exposure. Workers who are exposed for more than 40 hours per week experience higher eXP?st*res ab?Ve_the exP?sure Thea; targetmg tt?WeVer>> _dtd rlet atter the Praettee er cumulative exposures, given the same intensity of exposure, thus adjustment of the PEL is sar"PtmS erwtrertmeat of at teast ave dttrerent ?ee?Patt??$ ?Ver a single Shirt- SamPte$ taken necessary to maintain exposures--?at or below the pennissible level. Additionally, exposures longer bY MSHA msPeet?rs were wd fer rear P?rP?see$ te determt?e with the eta?dard>> than 8 hours per day result in greater respirable dust deposition for the work shin with a - te assess the ?Perat?r's dust Pr?Srem. te determme the er proportionately shorter period of dust clearance prior to the next exposure. - levels of quartz in the dust which might necessitate a reduced dust standard, and to identity - occupations other than the designated occupation (DO) that might be_at high risk. In making its recommendations, the Conunittce noted that estimates of lung disease risk for coal - miners by NIOSH were based on long-term average exposures of 0.5 The Mine Act . 71 . . t? NIOSH, 1995. 1995. . . RECOMMENDATION NO. 16a - Methods of adrusuns PELs tc account for unconventional andextended work shirts have been NIOSH reconunended a REL for respirable coal mine dust of 1 mg/m' for up ahcujd adjust PELS to ggcgum {ct- work 2 dajihang a 42-hour work The Committee believed that an adjustment - ou to EL or extended work weeks. Some Committee members thought the MSHA should develo a fomtal, etin mechanism for more 'ri? uent sampling of mining 8-hour PEL should also be adjusted for extended work shifts, within a 40-hour work week. The sections, mining units,pand operatourrgfousd to have a history of with the respirable rndustry representatives on the Committee expressed the opinion that there is currently inadequate dust standards ct- aampjtag information to determine if shiit duration or total hours overtime) worked per year are srgruhcant factors at today's coal dust exposure levels. MSHA should explore innovative ways to enhance its presence in mines for compliance sampling. The Committee revrcwedthe in sampling procedures that have occurred since the Tha MSHA sample data form should be reviewed to assure that there i adequate spaoc fof passage ofthe Mine The current procedures result hom the exposure limit having been based recording the operating parameters at the time of sampling. The actual parameters should be on data from the Medical Research Council (BMRC). exposure data used by the compared with those in the approved dust control plan as part ofthe review of results of each BMRC was based on samples taken with a Casella horizontal elutriator. In order to use the - compliance inspection. . 10 mm Dorr-Oliver cyclone, which removes non-respirable dust diEerently than the elutriator, - results One would have to be converted to the other in order to insure that the dust . MSHA should revise the sampling method flow rate) to be consistent with recently concentration measured the cyclone operated at 2.0_ liters/minute (lpm) would be equivalent to developed international standards. . -that measured the elutnator. Thus, with the pump operating at 2.0 lpm, a conversion factor of 1.38 was experimentally derived by operating the two amplers in the same environment and A method should be provided to identify the miner on the sample data form. comparing results. This practice differs iiom both OSHA's and MSHA's in the metal/non-metal . sector where the 10 Dorr?Oliver cyclone is operated at 1.7 In these situations, there is MSHA should ensure that all respirable dust sampling technology, such as the new continuous no need for the conversion. monitors being developed, be de igned tamper resistant to the maximum extent possible. Further, MSHA should develop education and training material to be delivered to the entire industry the data of results and the data collected by the Respirable Dust Task concerning the importance of maintaining such equipment in a tamper proof state along with the - Group, the believes that MSHA has sumcient infomation to identify mines or mining consequences for failure to do so. umts where exposure exceedences are probable, or where respirable quartz exposures are of 1 major concem. The Agency could use these data to develop a scheme to target environmental RECOMMENDATION NO. 16b surveillance eH'or?ts_ - . - The Committee believes that any MSHA resource constraints should be overcome by mine operator support for MSHA compliance sampling. The Conunittee recommends that to the degree that MSHA's resources cannot alone serve the objective identified, resource constraints . 72 B,-gat; R_s_ and Saajg RA, ??Occupati0ml Exposure Limits for Novel work should be overcome by mine operator iimding for such incremental MSHA compliance sampling. American Hygiene Aggiatign Joumal, 36, (1975), 467-417. One means for obtaining this support could be a reasonable and fair operator fee, based on hours worked, or other equivalent means designed to cover the costs of compliance sampling. Any . 73 Hjckay_ j_ g_ and Rcisg p_ ??Appgcati0n of Ocwpatioml Exposure Limits to operator fee program should include an accountability system to ensure the uniform applicability - . . Unusual Work Schedules, 38_ of the program throughout the industry. The fee should only be utilized for the specific purposes 613-621. of required compliance sampling. Anderson, M.E., MacNaughton, M. G., Clewell, J., and Paustenbach, D. J., "Adjusting RECOMMENDATION NO. 16c . . Exposure Icimits for Long and Short Exposure Periods Using A Physiological . . 48, (1987), The Committee considers it a high priority that MSHA take tirll responsibility for all compliance 335343- sampling at a level which assures representative samples of respirable dust exposures under usual - Roach, SA., "_I_hI_cSh?ld Limit Values for Extmo work crican conditions of work. In this regard, MSHA should explore all possible means to secure adequate 39. (1978), 345-364. . Rcco hg th ?ttee the resources to achieve this end without adverse impact on the remainder of the Agency's resources mb Izxjonicg asxsd bam voting on tba and responsibilities. Compliance sampling should be carried out at a number and Eequency at . recommendation. least at the level currently required of operators and MSHA. The miner's representative would be - gg;-gchiitllc to pammpatc these Inspection as provided Section 1030) Recommendation 16c: All members ofthe Committee the recommendationendati I6: Committeeamrmedthe Operator compliance sampling the interim should continue with substantial improvement to on 6 Gibbs and Mi-_ voioo not mdibmw bi-iid i no aErm mo recommendation. en Rice oonninoo i:i?om voting on mo - - recommendation16h: Eight th members ofthe Committee airmed the MSHA should make no upward adjustment to the PELs to account for measurement uncertainty. mm Ds Ramani abstained 5-om voting on the recommendation. RECQMMENDATIQN N0. 16h Rego endati 16': fthe embers ofthe Committee adirmed the MSHA should exercise more oversight on operators' sampling method and management of mm on I Di._ Rsmani Di-_ Gibbs and Mi; Lamonica voted not samples including periodic audits of dust sampling programs. . to amrm the i.cc?mmsmistib?_ . Recommendation 16j: Three of the nine members of the Committee amrmed the . reconunendation. Dr. Gibb and Mr. Lamonica voted not to aErm the Samples taken to determine noncompliance should be taken when production is suiciently close Da wagmab, Da Domom, Di-_ Kreiss and Di-. Rice - . to the "normal production shih." The production level should be 90 percent of the average abstained hm voting on tba - production ofthe last 30 production and MSHA should require the mine operator to - .. mamtam the appropriate Recommendation l9fi Seven of the nine members of the Committee afrirmed the . recommendation. Dr. Gibbs and Mr. Lamomca voted not to the 5 MSHA adjust the PHS t? account f?r ?xt?nd?d wm-k shim: In voting not to affirm recommendations l6e, 16i, 16j and l9?l? the representatives of the industry i submitted dissenting opinions for the record. In voting not to recommendations 16e and i6i_ on Romani dissenting opinions for the record. The complete tem efthese opinions can be found in Section VH1. The Committee recognizes the problem of miner representation and participation rn the dust control programs at mines not represented by `a recognized labor organization and recommends - that MSHA target such mines for compliance sampling. MSHA targeting should be active in nature and should consider many factors including miner input, compliance history, and medical surveillance data. Given the seriousness of this problem, MSHA should immediately start auditing and appropriately targeting these types of operations. . CONCLUSION . Recommendation 16a: All members of the Committee affirmed the recommendation. i 81 i . 8? ll I i' - RECOMIVIENDATION No. isc . IH ROLE OF In what ways can miner participation in eradicating - ni dust-related diseases be improved? . Miners' representatives should receive training and certiication to conduct respirable dust Sampling paid by the employer-_ Miners' representatives should be p#`01' ded the QPP0l'iu?1tY without loss of pay from the mine operator to participate in the trammg ofthe nuners. - The Mine Act contains various measures to protect the health ofthe Nation's coal miners. NO. 19d I Among these, it sets maximum mine respirable dust exposure levels to which miners can be exposed. The Mine Act also establishes a mechanism for monitoring the dust to ensure that the A oi- work activitis and dust exposures on sampling days would be provided to the I - atmosphere is maintained at a healthy level. To be considered an effective program, both the mine agaatad tninei-s by those taking the dust samples. operator and the miner must have a high level of confidence in the dust monitoring process. RECOMMENDATION NO. 19e . The Committee heard testimony &om miners who described a mimber of unfortunate examples I where mine dust sampling programs appeared to have been operated improperly. In some mines, Miners being sampled should receive in writing thai dust ?xP?sur? i dust samples collected by the mine operators were reported to be uncharaeteristic, As a result of along with any pertinent information on the sampimg activities and d??l Mum I these instances and related legal cases, it appears that many miners have lost confidence in the parameters/production rate, etc. once the sainplc Wmuiu uutuu? Est ?xi:i dust - . dust ?l8? heard testimony regarding instances where there of miners being sampled along with any pertinent infonnaticn QH the 8 ?s an was concem with the MSHA sampling program as well. control parameters/production rates should be posted on the mine bulletin oar . A concerted effort needs to be undertaken to assure mine operator and miner confidence in the I dust sampling process. As part of the eEort to assure that pro nate procedures are eratin . I my dust Sumpuug iu mums- C?m"uu?? xt tum is fu thi Recommendation 19a: Six ofthe nine members ofthe Committee amrmed the reconmiendauon. I- miners' participation during dust sampling. . Dr. Gibbs and Mr. Lamonica voted not to aEn?n the reoommendation. I Dr. Ramani abstained fiom voting on the recommendation. - I - I . RECOMMENDATION NO. 19a . I I- SCVGII ofthe ofthe Committee the . - Miners' participation in the interim operator dust sampling program should be increased to recommendation. Mi'- mt t? adm um mon provide assurances that a credible and effective dust sampling program is in p|aee_ To that end, Di; Gibbs abstained ti-om voting on the . il miners at each mine should select designated representatives who are employed at that mine for compliance sampling. Miners designated as representatives of the miners should be aforded the Recommendation 193; Seven ofthe nine members ofthe Committee afiinncd fi th opportunity to participate in all aspects of respirable dust sampling for compliance at the mine. Gibbs aid Mu not to a rm IQ That participation would include protection against loss of pay as provided under Section 103 i of the Federal Mine Act. . i i . Recommendation 19d: All members of the Committee affirmed the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION NO. 19b . I Recommendation 19e: All members of the Committee the recommendation. I ii Miners' representatives should have the right to participate in dust sampling activities that would . . be carded out for verihcation of dust at no IQSS Qf Miners, In voting not to amrm 193, and the of the an .ustI?9b representatives should also have the right to participate in any activities involving any handling of submitted a dissenting opinion f?T till? In V?u"g u?t t? umm mcommcn man . ns i i continuous dust monitoring devices or the extraction of data from continuous dust monitoring Mr. Lamonica submitted a dissenting opinion for the record. The complete text of ese opimo Wliil?**l ean be found in Section VIH tool for detecting CWP and silicosis, it is insensitive to detecting early airways diseases, which ISSUE MEDICAL AND PART 90 requires tests of pulmonary function. The and specihcity of pulmonary Emction tests to . . . detect coal dust related Emotional decrements is unknown, as is the prevalence of abnormal tests Medical testmg for respiratory e&cts of coal- nunmg serves at least two objectives: the screening ndeigm ii - Th redindividual miners and the surveillance of coal rniner? populations. Screening involves the use of xiigy Piiugrrignt ;;i;n;1d Ls rsyn- mcdmal tem (foil pulmonary dmax in wai minus this potential to lie useE1l in the surveillance for coal miner airways disease. Recording the depth of rrienirne andthe altitude surraee may be study the relationship or abnormality in individuals. Surveillance involves the collection of results ofthe same types of ei- pulmonary iimctinn changes with mining exposures and experiences medical tests and their analysis on a population basis. Distinct E?om medical screening, the goals my I of surveillance include: a)-early identification of evidence of disease that represents new Th efiee nine disease ?e im md umio finfonnation on ree imo tate tt tt- not ming gxegiztigtt ?f history, or information regarding the use of personal protective equipment. Individual exposure . . . measurements are important and lmowable variables in any surveillance activity attempting to dw is a ?fl?w relate a disease endpoint with occupational exposure. cigarette smoking is an Eh: dt; ?h?st x'mY8 may dw important confounder in any evaluation _of respiratory disease. . Population studies of secondary prevention eE?`orts (transfer of workers with abnormal chest x-ray AL PROGRAM: Sh?"ld th"' be 'fl the findings to lower dust exposures) have not yet been able to demonstrate a signihcant impact on in tl*? ddid {Nm ll?? I5 the progression of CWP in those transferred workers. Therefore, it is not clear that the risk of an - FINDING individual miner developing PMF once simple CWP is detected can be substantially affected by lowering the dust exposure. However, transfer of workers with chest x-ray abnormalities to 2 only to lower exposure environments whenever possible rs a prudent practice . - . 5;*88; Nd is d?$Pll? Although the medical tests and the disease process endpoints for coal dust related diseases eifcf d`cal eem'n th dthernsel med`cal Q- thus llmfung lis ld hsalfh with l??S l?t?n?y. The primary ir Pl'?Vld? ld mind MSHA SFPUPS with preventive strategies. Primary prevention (which has been shown to have dramatic results) i mgar rc l>Y Th? mind? medical remains clearly the primary strategy for Errther reducing the occurrence of coal dust related manimcd bY with chest ?`?dldS?Pl\ dl the li?1? df - diseases. The distinction between medical surveillance and medical screening is vague among m1?t?t'S 85 mine operators, miners and even most physicians. Education will be important to clarify these . dif essesf all led. . Eve year rnteryals. The is responsible for certifying facilities offering chest x-rays as enum I cram proc or 0 OSC mvo . as sgnlilnng ti? Phil f?l' l?$ll?S- lid offer chest . Surveillance is least biased if participation rates are high. Miner participation in voluntary medical no convement to miner or the mrne operator. tggting nes been low in many rounds of testing, apart fiom the initial round. It is not known . whether the miner population that is participating in the program is a biased sample of eligible_ - . mm ma at all ?llY 0 miners, or if it is biased, what the nature ofthe bias is. Low_ rates of miner participation in the - - 't"`aY "stadlng 93% 84%, rn d?t??ting Vliith the x-ray surveillance program may arise from contradictory incentives on the part of mine operators, _pr?vt ?tlg;? CWP amcmg Us miners- the Pl`?dl?llV? Value ofs reading IS NIOSH, or miners; E?om under Emding of program administration, miner training, facility it . inspection, and publicity; and from mistrust, low awareness, and poor communication. NIOSH and some members believe that airways diseases are likely associated with at least as great and mortality as CWP or silicosis. While the chest x-ray is the principal . I 84 85 Individual miners have a right to medical confidentiality, and mine operators, other miners and IV MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM: MSHA have a need to know where and how much (but not in whom) disease is . occurring in order to take efective preventive actions. The former's tights can be protected need kn . proper managing Umm on mm tm to Ow . Construction and other contractors to mine operators have workforces with exposures to coal . RECOMMEND ATION 9 - mine dust and silica. The Committee heard testimony which leads it to conclude that MSHA has - . - not focused on this portion of mine workers with regard to dust control plans, training, hazard - . In addition to the chest radiographs at the of employment and then at the speciied intervals and Suiulm-1y* Such mt gmmuy th? thereafter, spirometry and questionnaire data should be collected periodically during a miner's ?PP?mmny t? pmmpatc m?d1?"1 SuN?mm??' 1 t. Testm' 'th th daliti willall the 'dentihca m1ners' - - ggisgiggleigly heelcst; :?eets_ cs Ow I mm 0 with Challenges exist in extending hamrd control and-surveillance e&`orts to these mine construction . and other contract workers. For construction workers, conditions of work may change quickly as NTOSH sh old Share the End' {-th cdlcal eumemanee data -th ISIIM activities change Exposures and means of control may not be under the control ofthe contractor 0 0 - I wl in some work. Locations of work may change &equently, e.g. for contract drillers. Mine A pled should be developed by NIOSH in eonsumdon with MSHA to which eases construction workers developing mines may do identical work_as miners subsequently producing should be fouowedmo eodsidering for the sevedty clustering of coal for the developed mine, but the means for ventilation and exposure control may not exist. abnonnautics and the potential for primary prevention This plan should assure that the These challenges in hazard surveillance and control require special consideration in MSHA eforts ofthe miner is protected- to assure that workers of independent contractors on mining properties are protected from the - . risks of respirable coal mine and silica dust. - - MSHA ld exam1n' th e&`ectiv 1 miners- Ou mess 0 comm Opmmg at work represented by these In addition, risk exists for workers in exploratory drilling not done on mine properties. The I Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has jurisdiction in these` instances. - . Miners identified with abnormal screening tests may beneai &om secondary Pf ?f - prevention cgorts and appropriate miner education regarding the Ofminingqemcd lung pneumocomosis in some and are at risk for acute and accelerated silicosis. - diseases. Medical testing of underground coal miners should be extended to surface miners. coNcLusroN All membersof the Committee ahirmed the recommendation. Amandus, Hanke, W., Kullman, G., and Reger, R. B., Re-evaluation of Radiological Evidence from a Study of U.S. Strip Coal Miners," Archives of . . Enviromnental Health, 39(5), (1984), 346-351. Amandus, D. E., Petersen, M. R., and Richards, T.B., "Health Status of Anthracite 5 Surface Coal Miners," Archives of Environmental Health, 44(2), (1989), 75-81 Piacitelli, G.M., Amandus, H.E., and Dieifenbach, "Respirable Dust Exposures in U.S. 2 Surface Coal Mines, Archigs of Environmejtg Health, (1990), 202-209. . - NIOSH, Alert: Request for Assistance in Preventing Silicosis and Deaths in Rock Drillers," Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHSS (NIOSH) Publication No. ill -- 86 87 I RE NDATION 14 IV B. IMPROVING MINER PARTICIPATION. In what ways can rn the MSHA should develop an to ensure the protection of mine construction workers, medical suwunmcc program be Improved? - contract dnllers, and other contractor employees with respirable coal mine dust and silica FINDING exposures. This efort should include estimation of the types of contractors, number of workers mine operators and contractors in protecting contractor workers; and implementation of if tgrtigi Iviitiircc ation in I compliance activities to protect this sector of mine workers. MSHA should also improve - I recordkeeping of exposure to dum Occupational! di - and that low rn rounds of testing, apart from the round. eforts rn the round to workers of and other ITB invite participation through home mailings has increased but rt remains at less than contractors er to prevent occupational disease and injury. - 40% of eligible miners.'? Low participation may arise from in arranging convenient . . testing sites; contradictory incentives on the part of mine operators, NIOSH, or miners; fiom 2 expand medi- cal to appropnate groups of mrne undmanmding gf administration; inadequate miner education on the purpose 0f 2 imblc dust 0 mw to preventing 1'?Sp1l'8i0I'y and pmicipntign in the tests; or fiom a more general history of mistrust, low Bild POOT 2 . Sufca mine contractor workers. communication. Interpretation of surveillance results would benefit if information was also MSHA Should collaborate with OSHA in to ch available regarding personal and -occupational histories, along with infonnation about the use of attention operations expxomoiy dnung, wnatarinna a CONCLUSION Medical screening tests that are limited to active miners curtails the e&`ectiveness of surveillance r` - by failing to ascertain health eEects requiring long latency, such as CWP. For silicosis, the - All members majority of cases in miners arise after employment has ceased in the mining industry_" 3 mmenda on - RECOMMENDATION NO. 10 . NIOSH should oversee the provision of confidential periodic medical examination programs for -I - all mine workers including surface miners as specified above in order to achieve at least 85% participation rate. Participation should be promoted with adequate attention to the education of the miners and mine operators regarding the need for this program. The frequency of the periodic EYE: examination programshould be at least that recommended by the NIOSH Criteria for a . Recommended Standard, "OccupationaI Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust". In addition, NIOSH should specify performance standards for medical testing; collect data on medical testing, perform ongoing analysis of surveillance data as well as to locate "hot spots", perform field investigations when warranted by hot spots or other surveillance findings in conjunction with MSHA. - 5 MSHA should mandate operator medical examination programs, and supply appropriate - . MSHA-collected exposure and employment data to NIOSH for surveillance purposes. In cooperation with NIOSH, MSHA should consider what additional exposure or employment data I Personal communication with Dr. Michael Attiield, NIOSH. I - . I-lnizdo, E., 1993. - f- ss 89 i nr -i should be obtained fiom tho Operator to dittiici. the Objectives dfmedicai suwciumcc and IV C. ROLE OF THE PART 90 PROGRAM: Is the Part 90 program accomplishing its per?form iield investigations when warranted by hot spots or other surveillance gm]? Mine operators should pay for the mandated rnedieal rearing, - MSHA pgrtigipation Should bc im dd m.ang?mt - . . Data currently available are insumcient to determine whether the Part 90 program is achieving its - elfooglvo odooatioo about testing, tiinociy goal. It is understood that the Part 90 program was introduced as a "safety net" for coal miners and gf Additional bdiictit wm be gained by pmmottn the g' who show evidence ofthe development of CWP. Control of daily exposure to respirable dust in devolopmom gf ogootjvc and ciassidcatiim coal mines to a level not exceeding 2 mg/m3 was determined necessary to prevent most coal miners from developing PLE. At the time of its introduction, the existing understanding NIQSH should a prog,-cm track and -d - -. of PLE was that it could be prevented if Category 2 x-ray changes were prevented. The available re derive mlooya The dt- fosgg . ed exposure level was selected based on statistical models derived from the best scientific evidence . - . available at the time. There have been some cases in which PLE has evolved in miners who only reach the level of Category 1 prior to developing PLE. All momboya ofthc Committcc the recommendation When this exposure level was adopted, it was understood that some miners would experience risk . . even at these levels. In order to prevent these miners from developing- illness or disability ?i . associated with the new dust exposure limits, a "safety net" was designed, one component of . which was the Part 90 program. When medical screening evidence indicated a miner had been adversely a&`ected by exposure to respirable dust, the miner was to be provided the option_ to . - -- work in a low dust_environment, and to have increased personal dust monitoring. Since 1969, i i only 2276 of 8637 eligible miners have exercised the Part 90 option. According to MSHA, only . . 59 miners are participating in this program at the present time. While this is a small proportion, no systematic evaluation has been undertaken to determine whether those not exercising the option have been adequately informed about their rights, whether they are experiencing undue risk by continuing in their current jobs, or whether those who have chosen to exercise the option achieve reduced risk by moving to a reduced dust job. In addition, a number of part 90-eligible giji it miners at UMWA-represented mines have elected to exercise their superseniority rights under the collective bargaining agreement instead of their Part 90 option. Therefore, there is insullicient I . evidence to conclude whether or not improvements in the presentation or operation of the Part 90 i. option are needed. . No. 11 The results of the Part 90 program should be systematically evaluated to detemrine its . . effectiveness. The surveillance data should be developed to allow appropriate comparison between those who do and do not exercise the Part 90 option. The comparison should consider . the following: a) the health status as measured by and current chest x-ray, b) health status j. detemrined by earliest available and current pulmonary iirnction (if any), c) current impairment or . disability status, d) measured respirable dust exposure in jobs at time of Part 90 eligibility and in -. current job, and e) current employment status. These data should be organized for all miners as I well as separately according to: a) geographic region (or type of coal and coal rank mined), b) i size of mine (in terms of employment and in terms of tons of coal mined/quarter), c) type of 90 . 91 - . . . I ISSUE V: TRAINING AND EDUCATION: Should there be changes in training for mining (underground -- longwall, continuous, conventional versus surface), d) union status of miners, inspectors, and others responsible for air sampling, data miners, and e) age of miner. The anmral rate of Part 90 eligibility should be examined by mine to interpretation gud and maintenance dust controls, determine whether specinc mines experience very high or very low rates. The characteristics of - such mines, if any, should be descn'bed in the terms noted in this recommendation. - FINDING . i The results of this evaluation ofthe Part 90 program should be organized and presented to an . . independent advisory committee for consideration of any recommendations for alteration ofthe Education and training of miners and sample collectors are vital components of any health I Pm 90 that be f0?` 8) ?fit?1'i? . protection strategy aimed at eliminating occupational lung disease among coal miners. . for eligibility (degree of chest x-ray abnormality as well as criteria based on other health criteria . such as pulmonary tirnction), b) determination of adequate level of reduced dust exposure to . I -- prevent progression of abnonnality, c) degree of protection of wage and seniority benefits, d) adequacy in process of informing miners ofthe Part 90 option and ofthe consequences of The Cormnittee recognizes that 30 CFR Part 48 requires new miner training and annual refresher . exercising or not exercising it in each specific case, arid e) the_training associated with du . training on various topics involving the purpo of making dust measurements and on any health I control and its relationship to Part 90. related control plan in efect at the `mine. Additional training is also required by 75.370 of the I - I regulations on provisions of a new or revised ventilation plan prior to its implementation. Both CONCLUSION . . the miner and mine management should be iirlly knowledgeable about the nature ofthe dust I - . - - hazard in the work environment, the various sources of dust generation, the relative efectiveness, All members ofthe Committee amrmed the recommendation. proper use, mechanisms for implementing corrective actions, and maintenance ofthe dust control . measures required in the mine ventilation plan as well as the iimction ofthe operators monitoring I program in exposure control. . - Notwithstanding these established requirements fortraining, miners appear to lack the level of a understanding of dust-related hazards necessary to assure that routine, ongoing eH`orts are made I to avoid exposure and maintain dust controls. For example, according to the Respirable Dust Ji . Task Group Report: "Interviews conducted during the recent spot inspection program indicate . that miners are not knowledgeable about certain aspects of the dust program. For example, . during these interviews, 30 percent ofthe miners interviewed did not know the parameters included in the mines dust control plan, although this is a topic speciically required to be covered tI I by the operator in the Part 48 training. Miners whose occupations were sampled were asked what I I they were required to do with the sampling pump when they changed jobs. Thirty-three percent `i - I I of the miners interviewed responded incorrectly to this question. Other spot inspection data . - indicate a_lack of miner knowledge of hanrds associated with respirable coal dust and of the dust I - - control plan parameters, and a failure of personnel to follow correct sampling procedures." *2 - . MSHA should use the infomation developed by the Task Group as the basis for an initial review of the content of the current training programs. MSHA training personnel currently-report to the District Manager, who is charged with I - - overseeing compliance activities. The Committee feels that training personnel should report to I i the director of training, a position which has been filled by an acting director for the past four - years. Active efforts to till the position permanently are encouragingU.S. Department of Labor, (1992), p35Mali. . . persons perform an important iirnction in providing a healthiirl environment and hould 7 Pm 48 delweyygs rhreuah States Grant Prosmm. MSHA be aware ofthe The-erere, me test shears be designed to arse - reviews the Part 48 requrrements annual call for proposals under the program and provides evaluate their knowledge of ethical or legal obligations. This has become a particularly sensitive .- NWS bf ?mPh?$l$ The 199697 ?PPll9?*i?? 8P??l5??uY 88kS issue in light ofthe concerns with the dust sampling program. . for inclusion ofthe health efects of silica in . - Once a person has been certiied, the integrity ofthe program depends on that person continuing i 2 The State awardees are-brought to the Academy armually rn an e&jort to provide uniformity in to iirliill the regulatory requirements in a competent and honest manner. Certified persons who do content md d?l1V?1'Y. The Sfite ?0mp?1'? 85 Pm 0f`? program not comply with the regulations or who otherwise fail to carry out their responsibilities should no - - . longer be certified. However, there is no ongoing process in place to assess the quality of the i certification program under existing regulations and procedures. Certiications are valid I The evaluation. of progrems at completion and the long--term impact of training in indefinitely, and no refresher training is required to maintain certification. Moreover, the Agency workplace mcludmg have been the focus ofa number of reports."? The has no formal criteria deining the type of conduct that may warrant action. Er Committee feels that a focus on evaluation would improve the content and delivery of programs Although MSHA has initiated proceedings on an ad hoc basis against a small - by identifying deicrencres which can be remedied by program Any impact of low number of individuals, the lack of formal procedures for may inhibit prompt . literacy on training success can be assessed as part of a comprehensive evaluation efort. Agency action. - SAMPLE The Committee recognizes that substantial other training requirements exist in order to assure safe working in the mine environment. These additional recommendations for training elements The Committee believes that the program to tram and certify persons for sampling rcspirable dust must be carried out within the overall context ofthe training program developed by the operator. mus: be strengthened. Wlule pul?lishes the certification examinations as well as answers to examination questions, no ormal assroom training is required prior to taking the The training and education of miners must be recognized as an essential element in achieving examination. Accordingly,. a person who has passed the examination may not possess the control, since it is the miners who are present throughout the shift and can alert the operator to if necessary level of knowledge and competence mtended by the regulations. Such a lack of changes in operating parameters which indicate decreasingly eH?`ective controls, prior to outright . requisite knowledge rs evidenced by the results of interviews of dust samplers during the failure ofthe dust controls. The Committee believes that, through the mining Academy, MSHA recent spot rnspectron program. Some 34 percent ofthe samplers interviewed did not know how has an established mechanism for the development and eifective delivery of such training. oiien a dust pump must be calibrated under the regulations." - MSHA should consider changes to assure that the training program is appropriately structured and staffed to carry out education and training iimctions related to dust control issues. MSHA should conduct these activities in a manner that provides quality assistance to the mining industry agen Hal?y' v" Rm?' Esumatmg the Impact.?fH?alth and oversight of training programs. When cases of overexposure occur to rcspirable dusts, q, and Safety Trarmng Usrng the Retrospective Pretest Design, Applied Occupatrog . . . . . - . . . . g= al - education and tramrng personnel should be assigned to investigate possible farlures rn the . . Cm presseducation and trarmng of miners and mrnurg persomrel at mines where these overexposures occur. *4 GOtsch_ and wcidnm., for Evaluating me of Training In adgition, MSHA should place high priority on filling the director of training position as soon as l; 9, (I994). l7l?l88. p?ss' I Z- Yotjecky, M, and Schmitz, Evaluation and Health and Safety It is likely that adequate cannot be delivered in the current time names allowed to train, - . Training," Joumal pf Sg gesparch, 17, (1986), 57-63. therefore, MSHA should review and consider restructuring as well as expandurg its training programs to better meet the objective of a workforce with a comprehensive A., Rice, C., Graumlich, S., and Radilce, M., Development and Evaluation ofa understanding ofthe potential long-terrn hazards of dust exposure, able to recognize dust sources Health md Safety Training Program for Foundry Workers," Applig Qccupptionpl and be effective partners with the operators in the routine maintenance ofthe dust control 5, (1990), $95-603. parameters. U.S. Department of Labor, (1992), p34. I 5 . ss . . . grams tr?aim' MSHA should evaluate the cement, duration, adequacy and methods of trauung for each content "isultmg pm sh?uld mma _"ij area The evaluation specilically include the adequacy of treatment ofthe `following topics 5 which should be Included mma] addmon tmuung MSHA should serve as a resource for training materials for the trainers. . errpiere ways inwhich inspectors, during their normal work detail, might iimction obj . and mmspugga mcg:] dust I to improve understanding ofthe role of enforcement activities in control of dust and disease. .. the specifics ofthe dust com-01 Plan at the Faso mine . MSHA should review, revise, and update the program to train and certify persons for taking dust i MSHA fm- apploval of dust comm - samples. MSHA should require annual update training for certification and maintenance for the sources of dust generation .. purpose of keeping these persons up to date with sampling methods and regulation and for s?ur??s for the . operations - maintaining their expertise. If certiied persons do not per?forrn their duties properly, MSHA . . . relative eEectiveness of various dust control measures included in the plan should and/or canon . mechanisms for reporting deiciencies and implementing corrective actions iirnction and importance of monitoring exposure - All members ofthe Committee aflirmed me how to reports of exposure monitoring sources of additional information and assistance The review should also include the methods of delivery; where not currently applied, proven, i 5 effective interactive methods of adult learning should be incorporated into program revisions. Methods of evaluation of knowledge, skills and abilities gained from the {raining should be consistent with adult learning objectives. A program for evaluation ofthe long term impact of training should be developed and implemented. ig . The need for a training program. for operators/supervisors in addition to the above should be studied. Training topics might include: the role ofthe foreman in the dust control plan the implementation of the team approach to dust control - the hierarchy of controls - MSHA personnel responsible for monitoring respirable dust at mines should receive similar training as miners/supervisors. In addition, they need to be constantly educated and updated on - dust control methods and how they are applied. Their training should include proper procedures - - on evaluating dust control parameters. All aH`ected miners and supervisors need to be educated on any changes to respirable dust control plans, as changes are made. so . 97 96 ISSUE VI: HAZARD SURVEILLANCE: Should MSHA develop and implement a ISSUE RESEARCH NEEDS Tl hazard surveillance program? a program to examine and act on trends in results of monitoring both dust levels and controls) Ann nusmutcu . Qi conditions, which can change significantly fiom one day to another because ofthe The x.ray.surveillance program, even assuming high participation rates, will be limited in dynamo nature of mining, directly impact the eieetiveness ofthe measures in place to control generating further exposure-response information for CWP, since many miners likely develop jf_ respirable dust. Failure to detect when existing dust controls become ineiective may radiologic abnormalities after they leave the industry. To avoid underestimation of disease burden needlessly expose mmers to higher dust levels. This can be prevented or through associatediwith particular mining exposures, follow-up of ex-miners is critical, as has been shovm - regular review of sampling and parameter data as part ofhazard surveillance program.` Such a in the hardrock mining industry. - 3. program will pemlit the operator to evaluate plan _adequacy on an ongoing basis to determine the controls to be 8. to the is lIlf0H!l8.tlOIl 'sts f0I' to for their protection, although sentinel events of accelerated silicosis among this group make action im erative. With efective hazard surveillance tools, designed to trigger specific action, the required on-shih examination of dust control measures along with the personalsampling and continuous ENGINEERING RESEARCH monitoring provide an excellent means for targeting operations that require more effective and - consistent control of coal mine dust. Effective hazard surveillance can also focus attention at the - The Committee finds considerable evidence that research into the generation, entraimnent, earliest possible time on the need to improve control parameters before permissible dust exposure transport and control of airborne respirable coal mine dust since 1969 has been efective. The levels are exceeded. The Committee believes that implementation of a hazard surveillance research has significantly contributed to the reduction in the ambient respirable dust . j_ program will assist mine operators in achieving a sound occupational health protection strategy, concentration. However, the Committee notes that the respirable dust control sampling program gg; The program should be designed as a set of guidelines by MSHA for implementation by operators has found that a large number of samples collected underground have concentrations exceeding . El who have access to the necessary data on a daily basis, the mandated levels. The Committee has also concluded that the advancements in respirable dust control technology have not kept pace with advancements in production technology. There is also reason to believe that the technology for quartz dust control in mines is not adequate. Therefore, the Committee finds a significant need to accelerate research and development into the Hazard surveillance guidelines should be developed with the assistance of NIOSH for use by generation, entrainment, suppression, and sampling of respirable coal mine dust. iQ; operators rn mamtarmng and improving dust controls. These guidelines should directly and . effectively utilize sampling results and measures related to control of respirable dust, These The Committee also concluded that a dust sampling device which could provide reliable constant guidelines should specifically identify any trends or exposure levels that indicate deteriorating or information on the respirabledust _levels to miners and mine operators along with a recording of f_ marginally adequate conditions. A report ofthese findings should be included in report the actual levels over a period oftime could be utilized to improve the respirable dust levels at ii of respirable dust samples results provided to the operator and to the miners' representative, and coal mines. alert lthem that there is a need for a systematic reexamination of the continued effectiveness of - .- existing control measures. The Committee found that MSHA and the Mining Health and Safety Research Division ofthe PRC was finalizing the development of such devices to be machine mounted and area mounted. i Hazard surveillance should also be for VCl1[il3tl0l'l pallmetcfs that also that tl"lC WBTB WOfl(.llig OH development Ofa similar dust regularly reviewed. These should be designed to assist operators in early identification of adverse device to attach to the individual. ir??dS in the parameters that, if not corrected, may cause miners to be exposed to higher dust . Q. levels, The Committee notes that the subject of respirable dust control in mines has been studied in the past by Committees ofthe National Research Council. The Cornrnittee notes with concem the inadequate amount of resources currently committed to resolving the fundamental aspects ofthe respirable dust control program, and the potential for fixrther reduction ofthe present research .z All members of the Committee atiirmed the recommendation, base of personnel and facilities . - I I - I . I siread 'd NIOSH their? Criteria Document, coal rank should also The Committee recognized that the methods of respirable dust control which have been l;n;?cn?n2lillm: I cn by gil developed are not as widely understood as they should be in the mining industry. Additionally the - . implementation of new technology may be delayed due in part to a lack` of dissemination ofthe The relative doosoo ofosillolony md dust loading inthe lungs gf deceased miners in the autopsy il . information in the mining industry, and in part due to operational and economic decisions not to ro oomosnno who ml-ldd mining gubgequ e. to 1972 with those with pre-1972 QF utilize them. For instance, while some mine operators utilize water sprays on longwall shields, dost o,noosuro_ which have been shown to be a reliable dust control, other operators do not. I `th NIOSH sh ld evaluate the impact of silica exposures on adverse It is important for miners to participate in conceiving, conducting, and interpreting the results of including sililensie among miners, jj research. Miners have practical knowledge about the operation of coal mines and if- this knowledge should be available to anyone doing research and development in the mines. ENGINEEMNG RESEARCH 2 In general, the Committee notes that the level of fimding for respirable dust research has proven . - l?C Mi Dust, Genennrien, and Control . to be inadequate to achieve, in a reasonable time, the intent ofthe 1969 Act and recommends that Research on Muhamsms 0 oa nc . increased iimds be specifically allocated for research into the iirndamental and applied aspects of . - . lull loss ofthc inilnenee gf geology and seam coal mine respirable dust control. This iirnding is necessary to rapidly enhance the protection cs ooedloiglmolo oostlunriino dust generation end Physica] eharacteristics of coal mine i ii afforded mums dust needed for development of control technology. - Applied research to enhance the iimdamental understanding of coal mine dust generation . . - ture echanisms. i The NIOSH Criteria Document lists research needs pertinent to coal miner respiratory health and - transport an cap prevention of disease in the following areas: engineering control methods, respiratory protection, Aoolloo Engineering Resenr-en . . sampling devices, sampling strategy, medical screening and intervention, adverse health eH`ects of - dust exposure, characterization nfdust, and training and ?du??ti?n' Th? primary focus an Development of more effective mine dust (including quartz) control systems for modem high . with regard to the prevention of CWP needs to be ongoing analysis ofthe medical surveillance rolloollon nligln inelnde new editing mechanism and tools to reduce dust - pmgram data et hm Sp?tS' in Order to direct primary prevention wom when they are most I peneration use of operation Practices (face/out-by haulage, headsate cut--out, sprays) to reduce 3 likely to be of direct-and immediatebenelit to miners. To the degree that research activities do gmmlomoln or uso of nil. distribution systems which ereate two splits of air (face split, . not take precedence over or detract from resources devoted to meaningiirl administration ofthe ln) along longwall i-sus to eunlnin (inet in the {see area, medical surveillance program, the Committee concurs with these research needs. The Committee recommends increased iirnds for research into iirndamental and applied aspects of respirable dust Dovolopmool oflmorovod dust uunnul Systems fer eenrinnons mining units which might ilieiude as wd] as health r?s?ar?h' In additkm t? th?s? umd by s?m? ventilation/spray systems for containing dust to the face area in continuous miner sections and b?H?v? that f?u?wing sp??i5? r?s?ar?h b? u"d?mk?n in mm pmimm to enhance their capture and improved for application in continuous-miner sections (higher MSHA a Celeron enemy). . MEDICAL AND EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH Assessment of sources of dust exposure and dust levels in new mining wstems or new mining . . . technology continuous miner, diesels, etc.) and development of appropriate control MSHA should collaborate with NIOSH in assessing long-latency health e&`ects and their risk loolloolooy . relationships with quantitative dust exposure estimates in miners who have left the industry. - ig. hnolo for airbome dust control utilidng surfactants, change sprays, . Ei - MSHA should collaborate with NIOSH -in research on respiratory health in construction and new ec gy . contract workers with worrisome exposures to respirable coal mine and silica dusts to serve as the basis for continued policy recommendations. The and economics ofhigh resolution computerized tomography (HRCT) as a routine I LT1 i confirmatory test in surveillance of coal miners100 I:-l if I Dust Sampling Methods and Surveillance ISSUE vm: REPORTING BY MSHA MSHA in collaboration with NIOSH should analyze available data on sampling and dust exposure conditions to identify a sampling strategy that assures representative characterization of respirable i dust exposures under usual conditions of work. The strategy should include the number of i 1 - Ord lm. ,-ld biased mimat The Committee that considerable interest exists ut t.he subject area addressed Iby the Ecqumcy Sampling In to accurate an un . cs Committee's activities. This interest is evidenced by the mxmber of persons attending each ofthe i Committee meetings as well as the number of persons taking advantage ofthe time provided for ?Development of sampling and sampling methodology for continuous monitoring of pubhc th? gum? t? th? a?u"u?s as m??tmgs .I personal and ma . were held around the country illustrates an even larger mterest. Z. Assessment ofthe relationships between personal, um and sampling, and in Rulemaking is historically a complicated and time consuming process involving considerable effort and continuously monitored concentrations by the agency involved. The process is made more uncertain by competing agency agenda items . and the need to coordinate with other governmental agencies. Therefore, the Committee believes MSHA and the USBM must tm and characterize reliable tamper resistant mspimblc dust that it is in the best interest ofthe health of miners that the progress of MSHA in dealing with the ni monitoring devices that -would provide real time information on the mine dust levels and record sh?uld b? vubhdv r?p?n?d' gg the actual concentrations over several days. The devices need to be developed for person-wearable use, as well as environmental monitoring on machines and in areas.. i . . . - MSHA should make public a report ofthe progress. toward each ofthe recommendations A a a - provided in the report ofthe Committee. An interim report should be provided by `gi i MSHA and the former USBM should evaluate the e&`ectiveness of techniques of technology S?pt?mb?r *997 with a Em! r?P?n by 1998' transfer. MSHA and the former USBM must develop a program to disseminate to the mining - CONCLUSION industry, and MSHA personnel responsible for respirable dust plan evaluation and approval information on the various methods of respirable dust control. Additionally, MSHA needs to All EE ed th insist on the implementation of such controls where applicable to control respirable dust as part of mem au?n' - mine plan approval. MSHA in conjunction with NIOSH, should conduct research regarding the impact of training and - effectiveness of different training techniques, which could be used to strengthen training program I. . content and delivering/evaluation methods. i All Committee members aHirmed the recommendation. 5 . . 103 authority and responsibility to promulgate regulations addressing the scope ofwalkaround. . ii vm. DISSENTING OPINIONS MSHA undertook that task in 1978, and should revisit the subject in light of more than 15 years The Committee members voted on the record for each separate recommendation described in this . lmd??` th? Am- . fi ort. In 11 ofthe total of 34 recommendations, at least one Committee member voted not to i rligrm the position expressed. In every case in which a member could not afrirm a resolution to an Industry w?1??m?s th? (lust sampling pmcess Put issue, Committed gound rules rdduirud that such nmusr their ruiidrruic for cannot agree to proposals outside the limits ofthe Mine Act that would impose heavy econorruc their position." To firlfill this requirement, the Chair asked that dissenting viewpoints be I submitted in writing for inclusion in the omcial record ofthe Conunittee. These dissenting opinions are presented in this section ofthe Committee report. . - RECOMMENDATIONS 6, 19a, 19b, 19c PARTICIPATION IN DUST SAMPLIN DISSENTING OPINION SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY ATIVES: The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the "Mine Act") clearly addresses miners' role - Qi - in the various activities relevant to dust sampling. Where the activity in question is an MSHA inspection, "[s]ubject to regulations issued by the Secretary," a representative of miners "shall be . - given an opportunity to accompany the [inspector] during the physical inspection of [the] mine . - . ., for the purpose of aiding such inspection and to participate in pre- or post-inspection ij conferences held at the mine Such representative of miners who is also an employee of the . operator shall suffer no loss of pay during the period of his participation in the inspection . 2 Mine Act Section 103(f). Where the activity, however, is an operators monitoring or measuring of employee exposure to potentially toxic or hannfirl agents, miners and their representatives (again, subject to regulations issued by the Secretary) have an opportunity to observe such monitoring or measuring and to have access to the records, thereof] but not to participate in these activities without loss of pay. Mine Act Section l03(c). In general, therefore, the g? walkaround-with-pay right extends only to MSHA insgectign activity. Within this broad frameworlg the walkaround right does not apply to such MSHA non-inspection activities or processes such as investigation, technical assistance, demonstrations, or verification. . Furthermore, under the Mine Act, inspections must be unannounced. Thus, the pre-anrtounced ii} MSHA visit to a mine in order to verify a dust control plan (as recommended by the Committee in Recommendation 5) is not an inspection activity and, accordingly, does not trigger the walkaround right. Similarly, to the extent that the activity is operator-conducted measuring or . i monitoring, the extent of miners' participation rights is confined to no more than observation and - access to records. . Miners' participation in the overall dust sampling process should be encouraged, but must be . conducted within the framework of the Mine Act. The issue is not so much whether there is a - right to participate in a given activity but whether all participation should be without loss in pay. i . The economic burden to the industry of any widespread paid participation beyond the limits ofthe Mine Act would be heavy. Furthermore, the_Mine Act expressly confers upon MSHA the - .. 104 ros Burl- RECOMMEND AHONS 15, 16d, 16 16- By blandly recommending in Recommendation No. 15 that MSHA dust. sampling for compliance PERSONAL _Vs_ ENVIRONNIEN-1- AL be based on an "appropriate balance" occupational and sampling, . Committee is not helpful to miners or MSHA. As emphasized above, the Mine Act's focus rs on gg, the exposure of each miner. Thus, Section 202(a) ofthe Mine Act makes clear that Congress DISSENTING OPINION BY INDUSTRY rmmtasaurarrvas; b? ?f 5 . gnat Similarly, section 202(b)(2) ofthe Act requires each operator to a . designated occupations and designated work places is intended to, and does . . . - lrance th he fi 0 Sb thi _glu Esp, cd . to coal mine dust. Rather, personal sampling, if properly conducted, provides the only accurate gr :?1?Yv Lhmg/m Iizlmcu 1:?n?l .3, ne. resprra rmnerrsexpos eeause,as rnow ll The ultima? measure of any eiftictive dust Eontrol prolgam in a mine is tlgecggsonal? 8-hgur results ?f ??v"?nm?mal Sampling with ?a?h muws ?xp?sml?' I exposure miners worl?_ 'ng in mine. current mandatory stan ard or . . . . if exposure to respirable coal dust, section 202(b)(2), is based on this premise and is keyed to the Th? balm the personal exposure of miners. Furthermore, such data for any individual, combined with potential ciggusls Egxzcunsulamy . - CWP progression, rs the only scientific basrs for developmg a PEL for resprrable coal mine dust. I importantly, ho indumys . conccm is that the . . co my mus; move le system of dust control. Since personal sampling is the optimal means -. In contrast, environmental (or area) sampling of a dusty area, DO and DWP samples, fmward l? a m?r? . . - . - provides a measure ofthe emcacy of dust control techniques being used in that environment or at ?f p?rS?ml ?xp?sur?' It is th? that have agivenMMUIndustry underscores its to work with MSHA and miners and their representatives to Several attempts in various countries have been made to infer indirectly personal exposures &om dcsign a ?f p?rs?mlt;ampung au? The directly measured area dust concentrations. To date, however, no mathematical or statistical 15 and I cncqumgr ali gt cr: Tgrc? th; Ubi`; I. on . correlation has been established between the two measurements. Two main reasons for this Sol {hc Committee problem are: (1) the random walk of the mrner any 8-hour period, and (2) the ly existence of very dust concentration gradients in work places.- The latter subject has been . . . . . ll! thoroughly examined by the U.S. Bureau oflvlines, as well as others, and studies reveal that dust Th? Indus"; favm cgldugmg an Sampling; Um!] th? happ?ns' *0 times . ust samp ers ac si e- y-side on mining machines yield widely varying dust . - . . . . . level ofvorded samples. To the extent that eomplrance sampling involves operator this concentrations rf their inlets point rn driferent drrectrons. Therefore, the only useful purpose would impose correspondingly increased administrative costs on Operators- To the extend this served by any area sample is the Immediate comm] of dust at the source` Am samples must be involves MSHA sampling, it multiplies MSHA's costs A less restrictive tolerance band would be We note that devices used for both personal and area sampling need considerable . improvement. Diiculties experienced with theexisting personal samplers have led to - I development of some very expensive area samplers the tapered element oscillating micro-balance). These instruments help in the engineering control of dust at the source - but will not be able to provide even an indirect measure of personal exposure. Therefore, . . . . while development and field testing of a continuous dust monitor should receive some {lg-sollal dust sampling equipment as evidenced by the problems uncovered the AWG attention, the highest priority should be given to "correcting the deficiency" in the present mgamn 106 107 . A- aacommupauou rar 164 . I NORMAUAVERAGE PRODUCTION SIN SHIFT SAMPLING FOR COMPLIANCE PURPOSES DISSENTING OPINION BY DR RAIA V. RAMANI, NEUTRAL MEMBER . DISSENTING OPDIION BY INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES: I the reasons cited for voting against the continuance ofthe operator sampling are i applicable here as operators are required to maintain data for compliance purposes Throughout these discussions we have attempted to the documented tlaws use of - when coal is brolcen, there is a size distribution ofthe breakage products, When more coal is . . single samples for compliance purposes due large variations rn MSHAs if .I broken, more respirable dust is produced. Egwever, it dog n'ly follow that the . and analytic process. Regrettably, the Committee -m choosing to endorse tlus method for tran The conducting compliance submissions (see suppression ofthe entrainment propensity ofthe generated dust and the amonnt gf airflow aretns comments of the American Mining Congress, National Coal Assocratron and National Mining two most important factors a&`ecting the amount ofrespirable dust airborne and the (inst Assocratron dated May 20, 1994; November 30, 1994 and June 10, 1996) rnresponse to .- i concentration. The Committee hearings and discussions on production has been extensive, but regulatory endeavor but also the very testrmony of both MSI-IA and NIOSH -and. - i conclusions reached and this recommendation are unfortunately inappropriate_ For in the consultants who are MSHA and serve as the agencys techrucal experts. The comrruttee I recommendation "production should be close to the normal production shirt". in the 5rst sentence decision. to endorse this methodology however, does not resolve the tirndamental tlaws wluch and "90 percent ofthe average production in the last 30 production shiits" in the second sentence its I are inconsistent. This recormnendation is also inconsistent with recommendation no. S. Thirdlythe mine system (`mcluding ventilation and dust suppression sub-systems), is planned to achieve a - Both MSHA and NIOSH experts have consistently stated (see ASARCO v. Secretary, PMSPIRC, delined production level. Therefore, compliance should be achieved at any production level Docket No. SE-94-362-RM (1996)) that. Sample and Analytic-Error (SAE), the error to I below the designed level if all other conditions remain the same, MSHA can always declare a the sampling pump and laboratory process, wrdelylvanes for any single sample- I Samplc itwalid plan parameters are not adhered to. Recommendation no. 5 has addressed . bythe Agencys laboratories. Yet, these statements and screntric documentation notwithstanding, f-li this issne_ the majority has endorsed a sampling protocol whose application in the mining environment must Ii I be considered experimental at best and of questionable validity at most. What the majority reiirses In voting against this iwaniniandaiianj this gamminaa mamba, faaia thatliit is essential for to accept is- that the dynamic. nature of the mining environment, as opposed to the static nature of 9 operator to provide MSHA with sampling data showing that the dust control plan is egective for manufacturrng, create wluchcannot be resolved merely through the application of the conditions and production levels for which it is designed, Ifthere is non-compliance corrective factors. In any event, the majority has decided to recommend against the of - (concentrations are above PEL and/or there are non-trivial violations of plan the such corrective factors, see Recommendatron 16e. committee has already recommended plan modification and veriication in recommendation notakc_ to acm that the il ig etter un an aws ur majorr propo one rn un errors attributable to SAE comprise only a small fraction of the total variability attributable to any . single sample. Indeed, numerous MSHA and NIOSH representatives and independent experts (A SARCO v. Secretary cited above) have stated that SAE, the error intrinsic to the sampling I pump and laboratory analysis, constitutes only about ten percent or less of the total variability . inherent in any single sample. Yet, while acknowledging the magnitude and significance of environmental variability, MSHA and NIOSH employees and experts, have aflirmed that MSHA simply reiirses to include environmental variability in its analysis of a single sample's validity. i More troubling however, is the fact that MSHA's own experts have readily agreed with the i i proposition that the broad environmental variation attendant to a single-sample precludes that Il sample trom being used as an accurate predictor of worker exposure. This fact was by li Dr. Paul Hewett who has statedthe workplace, there's many diH`erent factors that contribute to variability; production - I level, effectiveness of the ventilation or engineering controls iiom day-to-day, individual A I I, ii it . RECOMMENDATION 16e - . ADJUSTMENT OF PELS T0 ACCOUNT FOR I Qj" work practices. The measurements that are derived fiom the workplace reflect this UN variability. They also have added to them the imparted to the measurement by - l.ssl'l is Drsseurmo OPINION BY mmusmv REPRESENTATIVES: I it an accurate characterization of exposures for an individual worleer across some broad . - 'sPsP l?s?l?ls The decision ofthe majority to protiibittneadjostinent ofthe permissible exposure limit (Par.) to 'l'll_ ln Pm 'llE?l`?ll?? W?l`k Pm?tl??s? account for measurement uncertainty does little more than add insult to injury and exacerbate an I gi sj? already troubling decision. inthe preceding rocornniendationtrienrajonty votedto recommend i utc greatly t? Sm Y?m` that MSHA utilize the results of single-samples to make compliance determinations. This . . recommendation which directs that no adjustment be made to the PEL to account for V, DCPIOSIUOH ofDr. Paul Hewett It 13, measurement uncertainty ignores the my science both and have I 1 th 1 akin I I I i Smularly, other (ASARCO v. Secretary, cited above) have noted they would mm cu. single samp ru cm . i the hm "mPl?S ?ll 'llm? date semc Shift. Variation is a measure ofthe dispersion of data about some central value, typically, the mean. i i same location, because even though the samples are taken at the same time, the atmosphere is - Vadadon is comprisw nfsduidss nt- stmt. tits stmt. with tits sarnpung and nnitiytin P'?l'sl'lY . . process (san) and environrnentnr (temporal and spatial) In their proposal or rs 5 - 1994, MSHA stat Put. file inherent environmental which the majority recommendation chooses to muy an - I is The oarooration [for determining ooniprianoej includes veriaoirity associated with i ig,. as the RISIZIAS CMI the sampling and analytical methods. The sampling and analytical variability is lutstoncal approach to accountutg for environmental rslto average a multiplenumber ss tits dtvsiistinn, computed by combining mdom ith samples rather than rgnote the existence of environmental vanability as would be the case under associated with tits nm_ imd nftiis nits, capsule . (.14 flowrate variability (s percent), and associated with . flowrate adjustment (5 percent). Using an overall coemcient of variation of 10 emelsls eXPel'ls'h?Ve el?Pfes8ed the Pfeiiefenee fe? percent at 2.0 mg/m', MSHA has determined that a single-shift measurement of average of samples to detemune compliance. In other forums MSHA omcials and retained - 2_4 mg/ms tot s,tsmnis_ would indicate noncompliance with tt 2_0mg;m3 dust i governmental and nongovernmental experts give preference to averaging a series of samples niitii (st least) g-L5 ii rather than relying upon any single sample to reach a compliance determination. For exatnple, MSl?lA's retained outside expert in the coal- single-sample regulatory proceeding Dr. Robert Spear 59 Fed. gg. pages 8356-57 Febmary 18 1994 testified that he believed a single-shift measurement above a particular standard can be obtained . fhousil no miner an exposnre abovethe standard. Specifically Dr. Spear has stated his - while the industry believes that the estimates understate the SAE and bc the zelle ls ll?l Sege -- ?fth= rn the environmental variability it is important to recognize that even these organizations recognized that i_ z?ll?? Hc l? Stale Plefelellee fel me samples ell each Ofien some adjustment must be made to account for-this uncertainty. The majority decision disregards le delelmme efle_ at least lieu? el' llVe this believing instead that a single sample can, with unalterable precision unknown to any es el elly elle (ASARCO V- researcher, measure the dust concentration to which a miner is exposed. Such an analysis is i i. el l57?60>> 17]*72 elle 239**0) The m?.Ie?lY fundamentally flawed and will dramatically increase the number and frequency of false positives . ?xl?m' (noncompliance determinations where a workplace was actually in compliance). I t. It is unthinkable to believe that compliance detemrinations can-be made without regard to SAE it . and environmental variability. The majority decision will, once again, undermine the credibility of the dust sampling program and result in a de-facto reduction of the PEL by requiring operators to i maintain dust levels well below the current standard in order to ensure, with 95 percent . confidence, compliance with the 2.0 mg/m3 standard based upon a single--satnple compliance ?i determination. This will result in the need, based upon specihc factors, to develop mine-by-mine, - . -- if not, section-by-section dust standards. Neither industry nor MSHA can tolerate such a i - situation I .- RECOMMENDATION 16e - . Q, ADJUSTMENT OF PELS TO ACCOUNT FOR . MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY - ll . . RECOMMENDATION 16g DISSENTING BY DR RAJA v. RAMANI NEUTRALMEMBER: SAMPLING T0 ABATE Concentration data &om MSHA and operator samples, as well as from research studies of i - the USEM and this committee member have clearly documented the large spatial . DISSENTING OPINION SUBMITTED BY INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES. variability ofthe airbome dust- concentration measurements. Respirable dust measurements have . GSDs _of 2.5, a reiection ofthe high overall The 'de by side dust sampling Although the C?mm?tt??. th R?Q?mm??d?t1?h 16d, ?hm8? measurements with identical samplers have an average coeicient ofvariation of25 percent, The sampling program tc ciicw usc md- its . l8l)01'8tOI'y procedures to the collected- 011 the Elt?l'S and . urges to nuke no to to account for - content) have al high Therefore, it is only prudent that an enforcement pgliey toltes measurement uncertamty," nevertheless Recommendation 16g states crtattlon abatement must . into ggcgum the gouycgg gfva_1?iati0n_ be on 0p?f8,tO1' Sl'llRS, IS TUquu?Cd by Pans 70 and 71. . In most inspection and acceptance programs, including health e&`ects' programs, the commonly an - accepted practice is to deine a range about the PEL, whatever the magnitude ofthe PEL. When While Wc fliS?S1'?? that $i?Sl? fill! Shih should bc f?t' ??mPlf*m?? md measured oftherange,theplaceis deemedtobein j. Wligti ig in [gngq wm gg]; motion gn ggtign S8.mpl?S, 'Il'l?1'l 8. SlI1glC hill sluft S8.mpl8 Sl'lO\1ld 8lS0.b8 to dCm0!lStl'81C li . plan Whose objective is to take immediate corrective actions to ensure that non?compliance does abatcihcnt. not result. The idea of an action level provides a margin of safety for the worker from harmiirl eH`ects of exceeding the PEL and for the oper-ntor ngninet tiequetit, often hte, punitive ggtigng In To the extent that the Comnuttee's recommendation on multiple Shin sampling for effect, the lower limit ofthe range is an action level. The width ofthe range is based on the is Pt?mt$?d that such m"ltiPl? bs veiiobility ofthe eotleeiitmgon-meeom-omento_ ofthe dust control portions ofthe ventilation plan, we believe that 2 -- . best handled in a manner consistent with the operator and verification format set out This vote against this reoommeodadoa should not be eoasuued as a support rot upward EUR?mmi?== 5- Spwifically. vedicaupn adjustment ofthe it is to tl'lC (l?V?lOpm6!1t of 8. l'8tlOI18l8 The should not bc used for enforcement any uuhzauon to show i question regard to has been in cndati?n no- In summary, the I Wl'lEURtl'lC[ I10t 3 Cit3tlOH for violation ofthe coal mine has been abated- - correct and defendable- approach for MSHA is to recognize the variability in airbome dust sampling, and develop a range around the PELlie; - - - - Ilji - - - {fi i - - RECOMMENDATION 16j . TMENT EXTEND an SHIFI - RECOMMENDATION 16g PEL ADJUS FOR CONTINUATIUN OF OPERATOR SAMPUNG DISSENTING OPINION BY INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES: i DISSENTING OPINION SUBMITTED BY DK RMA NEUTRAL MEMBER: Throughout the Committee deliberations, we have been reminded repeatedly that the Mine Act ,7 - . . prohibits miner exposure to greater than 2.0mg/m' of respirable dust and that this is an environmental The credibility ofthe 0P?t`?t?T $??nPnn8 lm b??n bY alm?st au nw standard. The Mine Act is not a labor smtute and places no limit whatsoever on the duration of a 0f miners in ?fth? ?ftl}? work shift or the amount of overtime that may be worked. With the current state of knowledge, - ?fL?n?T "V?m1 mal mimi fm. ms ?f ?r am reducing exposure limits for longer shifts makes no more sense than increasing the exposure limits 1- well documented. Court judgements have only contirsed the issue; and the operators' views on all for (cig., several 6_h?ur shim) an these are Apparently, solflpolicing is not viewed as asuceess or as desirable by . many parties. The liek of ?'?dibilnY The current 2.0 mg/m' PEL, as well as the 1.0 mg/m' PEL recommended in the Criteria Document i - has been aeltnewledsed bY the C?mmi?== in iw TT Nt? were derived from long term, high-dose exposures in the range of up to hundreds of In I It i i 16b, I6 and 16d, t0S?th?1', have 9 sam? S- order for NIOSH to "estimate" the risk of a miner developing CWP after a 45-year working _lifetime, it ii'. i this Committee members belief that a positive atmosphere for self policing is not readily apparent. -1-here is some quggtion on the to oolleet the same number of samples as is being by MSHA and operators now, However, this concem is no basis to At the Erst Committee meeting in Arlington, Greg Wagner proposed that extended shifts may present continuing a sampling program, in which miners appear to have little conndence, the has a greater risk of pneumoconiosis. When queried regarding his basis for such an assertion, he ii several concerns, and operators are skeptical of acceptance ofthe operatgfg - alek?isowleiltged only tl?lat "feel?" that lollgourr; are larger owever, the committee mernber's su ort ofthe recommen ons os. ,c an . 1 cou increase rr ung rsease. r. cr cou no provi a scren is Eltgaetnfireltlhat the MSHA compliance samplingipliogram can proceed to till the void that be this "feeling", nor has any such supporting information been presented subsequently, . liancesam lin ro' ceasestoexist. Further, ent . I - ciin-y forwarg a albeit without legal coercion, for Throughout the Committee deliberations and the Criteria Document, the only exposure metric that gi their own assurance ofthe performance of the control tools and techniques, and the quality ofthe has been supported by any data rs "cumulative exposure." There rs no indication that coal mine dust i atmospheric environment. is an acute toxin, nor is it absorbed systematically (as with hydrocarbons) nor has any information . i - been presented regarding the clearance rate. Under the current state of knowledge, it is not known - whether working 8, l0 or 12-hour shifts at exposures under the cun?ent PEL significantly alters the risk of developing lung disease or, if it does, which shift schedule is more protective (assuming that the same number of hours are worked on a yearly basis). A miner working 8--hour shifts hu more 2 . time to recover between shifts but a miner working 12-hour shifts has more days to recover between in work weeks. I In Dr. Gibbs' correspondence to Dri Wegrnan of June 6, 1996 (part of the official Committee record), he included three independent models that are based on lung clearance and deposition mechanisms. This type of modeling approach has the decided potential to elucidate subtle diff`erences between various shift schedules. Industry is hopeful that, in the future, NIOSH will utilize this type of -: scientific modeling approach. .1 2 . . There are many relevant factors to consider in efectively mandating a change in work schedules, - including worker satisfaction, circadian job safety, and economics. Any change made for medical reasons should be made on some scientific basis other than a mere "feeling" and with careful consideration as to whether more harm than good will result - i iillic li . - - . RECOMMENDATION 19f - MSHA COMPLIANCE SAMPLING OF MINES NOT REPRESENTED BY A RECOGNIZED LABOR ORGANIZATION . A j= DISSENTING OPINION INDUSTRY No documentation was presented to the Committee in support ofthe recommendation that . MSHA should target for compliance sampling those coal mines not represented by a "recognized . I labor organization." 'I;o-the contrary, at the Committee's in Pittsburgh, gf; - Charleston, West Virguua, Salt Lake Crty, Utah, and Lexington, Kentucky, virtually all of the - statements presented by miners regarding their concems about dust sampling irregularities wer?e made by miners represented by the United Mine Workers of America in connection with mines at which they either had worked or were currently working. We are not aware ofany data which J-- demon?strate that the sole criterion of a mine not being represented by a "recognized labor .2 organization" has anything to do with a mine's dust sampling compliance record. Indeed, many such mines have outstanding dust sampling compliance records and excellent programs in place 1 for the protection of their employees from the hazards of respirable coal mine dust. We do, however, agree that MSHA targeting of mines for compliance sampling, properly done, is a wise and_ use of resources. In that respect, we agree with that portion of Committee Recommendation l9f stating that targeting should be active in nature and should if consider ND (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, we agree with our colleagues on the Committee that "[g]iven ily the seriousness of this problem, MSHA should immediately start auditing and appropriately targeting" mines with poor records ._of dust Sampling compliance. - ijlia . - -- . . - ij tw - . . APPENDIX A I I ADVISORY EARTER - l. bmi Coxmnittoefs ofticial designation. Am Advinory Committee on the Elimination of Pneumoconiosis . - Mine W?=k?rs? . .2. The objettives and the scope of its activity. The Committee is` established in accordance with the . requirements of Secnions (al and lm:) of the Federal Mine 2; -- - Safety and Health 1977 Act} the Federal Advisory - Committee Act. The purpose of the Committee is to make . recommendations_?or improving the program to control'respirable .- gnal mine dust in underground and surface mines in the United fi The period of time necessary for the Gonmiittee to carry put ts purpose. The Committee must make recommendations to the secretary ig}? within 180 days of the date of its first meeting. 4. The Agency or official to whom the Committee reports. . The Secretary of Labor. I iw? . tgheclngenny responsible for providing the necessary support - . mzza 1 - Laghe Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department I T-the duties for which the Committee is l; IQBPOBB 3, - th enamine how nnagnadgcate pneumeconiosis roug con ro coa mine resp ust and th reduction of miners' exposure to achieve the purpose ofethe I . Federal coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 and the 1977 Mine . Act amendments. The Coumittee will review intozmatien and yl-Eye experience in the United States and abroad concerning the I prevention of pneumoconiosis among coal miners; the availability pievest re re pir ne ust; an t' Strategies for monitoring of coal mine dust Eg Qiommttee shall make recommendations te the Setretafy for min - imp;-sued gtandards, or other appropriate actions, on permissible . I exposure limits to eliminate black lung disease and ei1ie?'sis: 7 1. i 1 7 - . . Arrtuutx A . KPPEHDIX Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 20 I Tumday, January 31. 1995 I Notices 594; the means to control respirable coal mine dust levels: improved mm Wham, Cqugq monitoring of Ieepirtable coal Nite duet levels and the role the miner ill that and the ad?quaey of the Ope1'atOt'B . . . - current sampling Program.- to determine the actual levels of dust 2 to writes miners er-e exposed. .V- drla rely liz:-1. 7. Menbership. vm .213 was As required by SeCtl.?I1 102 (Cl of the Nine Act, the Illaj?I1ty -9 . of the Committee will he composed of individuals who have no rmroorre asoocors Fm Mi as-zzsr mer 1-30-85; :45am] - economic interests in the ruining industry and who are not - xenroos-sy . . l. operators, !llil.D.eJ'.'Bo Offl.Ce1'8, OI employees of the Federal, state, ?jo Ave. (jet . or local government. There will he nine cotumittee members: I Rapids. CHO 18501*; CVQ induetty, alld fiVe SL cm!. county Niagara County DEPARTMENTOFLABO who `haVe` 210 economic interest ill the mining tlStI'y and d?nal'Guard gm, who are not operators miners, officers, or employees of the -90* Fedefal State OI government. I 6 Aulums Pr Imax f?r NIE - NEBRASKA :rbanC?naumers;Un Statesillty A De?elC?unqr . . cud lnnge tBe gp costa in dnllars and staff -1700 Pursuantto Sectlo 112 ofthel976 . 9m!-N amendmentstothe deralElectlon la . Ontario County Campaign Act (P.L 4-283. 2 U.S.C. . Estimated annual operating costs: $350,000 or the oruer so-or imat staff ears- 4 Fig": boundedby ?yctl'ark Election I this- Est 'i notloelntheli - Reglsurthatthe 9. The estimated- and ftequenejl of Sleetltgeo . st--nd G?roo?? - - Consumers - increased . The Committee will hold six meetings during a 6-month . puoentkom 191-tannual out ., . 0 cw Wen! period. The meetings will be held on a' basis and the 147-7??l?1 estimates each meeting, including travel time, will last a ll Ur?g-dghugykizw?z I 976:t:dbase El?-Eli - ChureharrdEl AverageA lten?ConsumerPrloe Index NEWYORK 95UW086 for AIIU Consumers thus ln?'eased? Egllilyiji, - 10. The termination date. ., _200?_100tolts199?tannual Thle C?!??tlttee will 180 days the date of lte Ann? Amugm yugsum 300-6- a' lei New o:kS .195W D.C.. the - dayol'>> ll. The date the charter is filed. an . N. $d:e?o??q?onA ohm This Clilaftet filed 011 the date ihditated be].0W aud will "Ps`u9 -- :8:45 ml . if tetmitlate eh 30, 1996. N. - lr ll:. - ua Hmesarzilvw wflionvll 62 Mine Safety and Health Administration Advlsory Establishment Robert Reich c-os - I A Fo Administration. Labor partment. Secretary of Iaabbf 'gp5)_z spun: Notice of establishnrentof {Ig; no ca 1 9Z0w36 advisory committee. November 20. 1995 -- OREON lz Gl?\oe?vil? Armory Mm;?NadonaI Guard cf Labor l'1lIS - .- inN?w York fe W9- 87 Malmo -- County determined that It is In the publlc 31: Jelferso County (B?undargrDecrusql,z34s make recomrnendatlons gig- . I LeRays NW. oolalSt.. Portland. 95000104 f?LeRoy 9500l!l6ll -I-HAS among coal miners. The committee will Qi Slerll le Archeological Dlsodcr. Address provide a collective expertise not I i Res 'cted. Philadelphia vicinlty. 95000070 Lu - County otherwise available to the il; -- . till 5948 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 20 I Tuesday. January 31. 1995 I Notices I address the complex and Despite this the Natl nal The Adequacy Control issues involved. vc institute for Occupational Safetynand Measures APPENDIX ?n In There 'leede be review emle Advisory Committee on the Elimination - IIDURESQESI send I0 concludes that the risk MMI, of for of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers - the Omee ?f and d?v?1?p mg md all methods of mining and how those val-iances_. MSHA. Room 631. Ballston mm controls can be Background of Members Tower No. 3. 4015 Wilson BoulevardAm"gt?"' z22?3' the the Safety and Health Act - - RMATION ACT: the standard by of MIHG Act) Ihd Federal - The mt to the kdm! mm In I cemm I . David (Chair cfithe Advisory committee] Chairman of - MSHA- Lung,. sewign, lhave Departmen of Work Env ronment at the Un versity of I SWFLENBWARY Ihmn an mm In dere.-mh-led thu lhe ere I Massachusetts Lowell Lowell Massachusetts . . Fidel}-I gg MICQT these diseases. In fiscal year 1993. over i M) labor md 75.000 former miners were me eumlmuen ?f Dr . John Dement Associate Professor in the Division of - lhehjehy have rggulfgd lh black luna benefits et en annual cost Occupational and Environmental Medicine Duke University Medical SL3 billion. In me 25 slnce ln the public interest. I am establishing . _lower levels of resplrable dust lh coal . on I Im ge? awe the unda. sections 101(a) I Center Durham North Carol ina . mines- the Qssgemd mm. de black and l02(c) ofthe Mine Act and the FAC - pneumoconlosis. commonly referred to Pe - 8 Lu md has been hug. the dmc, md Act to address this issue at surface and Dr . Kathleen Kreiss Director of the Occupational and Du;-xm this the most Health and Human Servicer have pald 'llmee- Environmental Medicine Division at the National Jewish Center for medley hiehee that benefits totaling over $30 billion- The M11 nieke 1 Immunology and Respiratory Medicine Denver Colorado . miners ccnunugvm be at risk of Recent events also have raised serious me fer i deVe1?P!?Ramani Head of the De artment of Mineral En ineerin at The annual cost tothe federal - Unive sity gtat 11 13 . In ooBhck Lung-- disability rgultgd in gf [hg eliminilf lack lullg dl$8IS? and SY Van 3 5 Bg? 8.1118 . - . anna allwlayemalals billion. - additional steps med to be must be made tn th; ne dust Dr . Carol Rice Associate Professor of Environmental Health at is rh bg are gn cant I was mmer I Kettering Laboratory University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio . . representatives of government. labor . 'B??kgtotmd - . I I . . - rehed dt ?e 5 ;'nvo:re three primary issues. mn Joseph Main Administrator of the Department of Occupational . coalamigses ln tile Tho; They are: . md by seem IOZICI of the I Health and Safety at the United Mine Workers of America stan ar were nten to rotect . - foqu umm cn th?'m?um drupinble wal as mufmmn ws mm ::11 be composed or I Dr James Weeks Associate Research Professor in the Division of mine dust-allowed in the alr that miners Recent studies by British scientists ve no economic interest in mining ll - Ir:-ellrhe, Under current Mlhe serery {nd and by indicate that the risk or industry anodu who al?e not ;lperatolIIs.h Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the George Washington . ealth Administration (MSHA) nlostserlous form of miners. or cers or emp oyees regulations. mine operators are required CWP at the present standard is higher or local govemment. S1 1_ng to implement measures to control the than had been previously believed. re wl seven committee . amount of dust ln the mlne atmosphere. However. the Australians have reported members: one representing labor. one I to obtain MSHA approval of these that they have no evidence at industry. and live 5 Gibb V1 id It measures. and to monitor through levels greater- than our present 2.0 ve no economic interest in . ce- res en ea Managemen an Corporate - amount ofcoal mine m= standard. Additionally. although industry. - Medical Director of the Kerr-McGee Corporation Oklahoma City respimble dust in the rrline atmosphere most reports Indicate that levels of Th ill ctlo solely IS where miners work or travel. Citations mpiragk Iczlal mine dust are generally I an adilgzg-`ymhel; :14 Okl ahoma - are issued and abatement is requlred ow . me. the recent evidence with the rovl th FAC Actwhenever resplrable dust samples tampering with resplrahle dugt gunples nehmange wiihogg Ac; ns Cha,-te, Joseph Lamonica Vlce-President for Health! Safety and Training I cgh?rlby a or by will be Sled IIS day; from the dare of Bltumlnous Coal Operators As ociation Inc . Washington nspe noncompliance with the dust standard. mines. Interested Ons are Invited to i . ln the 25 years slnce enactment bee" Mm Rapnble within . in mine the allowable lime IO paulala vv. - 5 levels. MSHA data shows that average There are significant dillerences of si|"y_ Director. Chiu of sm..IdaI.dS_ -dust levels in most mines have been . opinion conceming the role of MSHA. Regulations and variances MSHA at 1 reduced from 8.0 mg/me to below the the mine operator and the mIners' me add current standard of 2.0 mg/me. Duri re ntati i nitorl this period. considerable knowledge and process. Also. the future potential to 2- *99* -. experlilnce have been gai;l:Id In continuously monitor resplrable coal B- Re;h? -l - contro ing exposure to mine dust mine dust with new eq ipment wo ld raryof bor- and new technology has been require a revised approgch to sampling IFR Doc. 95-2281 Filed 1-26-95; 10:59 aml - introduced. to minimize dust generation. which may raise differences in opinion. elttno cooe aslo.4s?al - 2 I i - APPENDIX i i List ofDocuments Distributed to ii Dust Advisory Committee Members - . - . . crm. . Notice of Appointment and First Meeting. i Agenda of First Meeting. Ground Rules. . 30 CFR Part 70, Mandatory Health Standards-Underground Coal Mines. 30 CFR Part Mandatory Health Standards-Surface Coal Mines and Surface Work ig Areas ofUnderground Coal Mines. I I if 30 CFR Part 90, Mandatory Health Standards-Coal Miners Who Have Evidence ofthe lj Development of Pneumoconiosis. Tir i Q. . - Final Rule, 30 CFR Part 56, et. al., Air Quality: Health Standards for Abrasive Blasting sj and Drill Dust Control, Febmary 18, 1994. -- I *5 I "Healthy Worker EH`ect in Longitudinal Study of One-Second Forced Expiratory Volume gi . and Chronic Exposure to Granite Dust," Intemational Joumal of Epidemiology, i_ International Joumal of Epidemiology, Vol. 24, No. 5, by E. Eisen, D. Wegman, T. l- A .--. I Louis, T. Smith, and J. Peters. EI- .. . . Cross Sectional Study ofthe Independent EH'ect of Occupation- on Lung Function in IEFI gg? 1 - British Coal Miners,' by S. Lewis, J. Bennett, K. Richards, and J. Britton, Division of lj} Respiratory Medicine, University of Nottingham, September 1995. "Limit Value Assessment for Respirable Coal Mine Dust in Germany," submitted to the Joumal of Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. "Assessment of Potential Biases in the Application of MSHA Respirable Coal Mine Dust Data to an Epidemiologic Study," AIHAJ, by Sexias, Robins, Rice, Moulton, October I 1990. ii. Il - APPENDIX I APPENDIX i - "Estimating Possible Fraud in Coal Mine Operators' Samples of Respirable Dust," - Final Rule, 30 CFR Part 75, Safety Standards for Underground Coal Mine Ventilation, AIHAJ, by_Jarnes Weeks, 1995. March 11, 1996. "Analysis of Quartz Exposure Data Obtained from Underground and Surface Coal ?o Table of Contents, Second International Mine Ventilation Congress, Reno, Nevada, . - Mining Operations," Applied Occupational Environmental Hygiene, by Tomb, Gero, November 4-8, 1979, Society of Mining Engineers, Sponsored by Maclcay School of Kogut, December 1995. Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, and MSHA. Appendix L-Validation of Predictions of Small Rounded Opacity Prevalence From .- Table of Contents, Intemational Conference on the Health of Miners, ACGIH, . i Attield and Morring-Criteria for a Recommended Standard, "Occupational Exposure to Cincinnati, Ohio, 1986. Respirable Coal Mine Dust," Department of Health and Human Services, National . . Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, September 1995. Table of Contents, Respirable Dust in the Industries: Health Effects, - Characterization and Control, edited by Robert L. Frantz and Raja V. Ramani, The "Causation, Impairment, Disability: An Analysis of Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis - State University, 1988. - Evaluations," JOEM, Volume 38, Number 1, by Prince and Frank, January 1996. fg; if- - Table of Contents, Proceedings ofthe Intemational Pneumoconioses Conference, ., "Components of Coal Mine Dust Exposure and the Occurrence of Pre-Stages of .- NIOSH-ILO, Part 1, Pittsburgh, PA 1988. Pneumoconiosis," submitted to the Joumal of Applied Occupational and Environmental ij Hygiene. Table of Contents, Proceedings ofthe V1Ith International Pneumoconioses Conference, . NIOSH-ILO, Part 2, Pittsburgh, PA 1988. "Particle Collection Emciency of Two Personal Respirable Dust Samplers," AIHAJ, by Tsai and Shih, September 1995. Table of Contents, Respirable Dust in the Mineral Industries, Proceedings ofthe 3rd . Symposium on Respirable Dust in the Mineral 1ndustr?ies, October 17-19, 1990, 'o "The Accuracy of Self-Reported Regulatory Data: The Case of Coal Mine Dust, AJIM Pittsburgh, PA. jfi . 6:427-440 (1984), by Boden and Gold. ri Table of Contents, 3rd Symposium on Respirable Dust in the Mineral Industries, edited Federal Register Notice, Coal Mine Respirable Dust Standard and Noncompliance by Robert L. Frantz and Raja V. Ramani, Littleton, CO, 1991. if - Detemtinations, MSHA Febmary 18, -1994. fi; Table of Contents, 4th Symposium on irable Dust in the Mineral Industries, Final Federal Register Notice, Mine Shift Atmospheric Conditions: Respirable Techmcal Program and Referred Abstracts, November 8-10, 1994, Pittsburgh Vista Dust Sample, Febmary 18, 1994. Hotel, Pittsburgh, PA. 2- . Federal Register Notice of Public Hearing, MSHA Coal Mine Respirable Dust Standard Table of Contents, Proceedings ofthe U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, March 29- I and Noncompliance Determinations, June 6, 1994. 31, 1982, The University of Alabama. j- Federal Register Notice of Public Hearing, Mine Shih Atmospheric Table of Contents, Proceedings of the 2nd U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, University Conditions: Respirable Dust Sample, June 6, 1994. of Nevada, Reno, NV, September 23-25, 1985. Final Rule, 30 CFR Parts 70 and 75, Safety Standards for Underground Coal Mine i_ Table of Contents, Proceedings ofthe 3rd U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, October . Ventilation, May 15, 1992. 12-14, 1987, The State University. . . Proposed Rule, 30 CFR 75, Safety Standards for Underground Coal Mine Table of Contents, Proceedings of the 4th U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, June 5-7, Ventilation, May 19, 1994. 1989, University of California, Berkeley Aprramnrx 2 {gil-jig Table of Contents, Proceedings ofthe U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, June . 1991, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. Preamm Manual, Subpart B, Dust Standards, Part 70, Volume V, July 1, 1988. - Table of Contents, Proceedings ofthe 6th U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, June 21- - L?tt?t? Mt- Mike Suuth. Pfastdaat. Nattdual Black Assdatatida. t? Edward I 23, 1993, Salt Lake City, UT. Mina?. (DFG), February 19, 1996, re: Issues for DAC consideration. . - Table of Contents, Proceedings ofthe 7th U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, June 5-7, NIOSH Criteria Deeument, "Oeeupational Exposure to-Respirable Coal Mine Dust," 1995, Lexington, KY. . september 1995- Table of Contents, The Second Intemational Conference on the Health of Miners, Hyatt W?rk--Re1sted Lung Disease Surveillance Report 1994, CDC, NIOSH. - Regency Pittsburgh, November 11-13, 1995. - - - Zi- Handouts from Presentation by Ronald J. Schell, MSHA, February 21, 1996, First gr ju: . U_g_ Bureeu ofMines Booklet, ugeepgrebre Coal - Meeting ofthe Common Terms; (2) MSHA Program to Control Exposure to fig,. . Respirable Coal Mine Dust; (3) U.S. Bureau of Mines Booklet, "Respirable Coal Dust-Quartz." - Transcripts of First Meeting. I U.S. Bureau of Mines Booklet, "Respirable Coal Dust-Sampling." - - gi . - Trtle 30 Code of Federal Regulations, 1995. . U.S. Bureau of Mines Booklet, "Respirable Coal Dust-Continuous Miners." - - Ff'd?t'ut Not1ce;Reopening of Record, Joint Finding that a gg a us. anreen ofMines aeekrer, ??1teep1ne1>>1e cenr Deer-senreberemnn Collectors." Smale-Shut Measurement efkespimble Coal Mine Dust Can Be Used te Aeeumtely i - Measure the Concentration of Respirable Dust in the Active Workings of a Mine, March i U.S. Bureau of Mines Booklet, "Respirable Coal Dust-Ventilation." 12. 1996- - . . Bureau gfhfings Beekreu ugeeujreble Cue] o- Report ofthe MSHA Respirable Dust Task Group Team on Dust Control Plan Criteria - and Improved Approval Methodology, Executive Summary, 38 pages. U.S. Bureau of Mines Booklet, "Respirable Coal Dust Control Technology News." - i Report ofthe Recommendations ofthe Special Team on Sampling Strategies and us. anreen ermnee Beeruer, "Surface Mine Dnu Dust Control- aeseerenr Iuumfeuve Ceueepts. Executive Summary. 37 peset- List of References contained in the Criteria for a Recormnended Standard, "Occupational MSHA R?sPu'sbl? Dust Task Gt?uP Educatitm and Training Team, Executive Summary Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust," Department of Health and Human Services, 25 Pagus- {Ig; National _Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, pages 147-218, September 1995. . Report ofthe Recommendations ofthe Respirable Dust Task Group Insu-umeumjeu Report of the Statistical Task Team of the Coal Mine Respirable Dust Task Group, Team. Executive Summary, 33 pages. September 1993. gif; - an Report on the MSHA Respirable Dust Team on Spot Inspection and Monitoring Report of the Statistical Task Team ofthe Coal Mne Respirable Dust Task Group, Preamm. Exuautivu Summary, 47 pages. - Appendices, September 1993. - rg, Review of the Program to Control Respirable Coal Mine Dust in the US. Coal Mine il`, Report of the Respirable Dust Task Group, June 1992. R?sPu'aul? Dust Tesk Gl`?uP- Rwummsadattdus aud Current Status. . li - - Expert Repogg Task @.. I a. Report on the Respirable Dust Team on Spot Inspection and Monitoring . . Aggnda gf Meeting 3 Program, by Bentley, Bollinger, Conrad, Hughes, Vaught, Metzler, Reynolds, I 5 Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center. Ljinuteg efFii?;t Meeting_ b- Report ea the MSHA Respirable Dust Task Group en Dust Control Platt Criteria '"Prevalenoe anti rta Relationship to Dust aitpoanro in a Cohort of aud ituarevetl Approval Methetleleay, by Haney. Martin, Werrell, . us. Coal Minors and by rvnonaar D. Attiioitt, and Noah . Hearl, la?l> dust l?V?ls>> needed? . I Should the surveillance of exposure and conduct of health surveillance for surface QH miners dif'f`er from underground miners? tr 2. Role of continuous monitoring V. Training and education Under what circumstances is continuous monitoring of coal mine dust concentration appropriate? A. Of miners gl-ii - ir iigg . . . . 3. Personal or environmental B. Of mine operators and - my Under what circumstances does area sampling of the coal mine" environment provide dust concentration data useful for the protection of coal miner health? C. Of persons to measure dust exposure 5 - 4 Should be changes in training for miners, inspectors, and others responsible for 2; P?t`?t?P . . arr sampling, data interpretation and implementation and maintenance dust controls. - Should operator sampling results be used for evaluating compliance with the . I instrumentation, sample site selection, quality control and assurance). PROGRAM EVALUATION B- Mi??rs' role in dust sampling? VI. Records making, collection. use - In what ways can miner participation in eradicating dust related diseases be improved? . I A. Medical records a . . Should there be changes MSHA rules procedures utilized? irgr it Should there be a change in the MSHA rules and procedures monitoring coal mine dust? - B. Hazard surveillance program by MSHA Should MSHA develop and implement a hazard surveillance program? a D- Dust $?mPlt?S t`0f Surface mmes. program to examine and act on trends in results of monitoring both dust levels and Should the surveillance of exposure for surface miners differ from underground controls) miners? Qi ll; - - VI. Research needs :1 E. MSHA approval of operators's mine plan . . r. A. Medical and idemiolo `c IV. Medical surveillance cp gl f_ ri B. Engineering fort dust control methods ii; A- THC uututu ofered. What research questions must be answered to eradicate disease? Should there be changes in the medical surveillance program and the way the data from the program is utilized? li B. The incentives and disincentives for miner participation in medical surveillance. Elj In what ways can participation in the medical surveillance program be improved? - C. The role of the Part 90 program. - i? fg?_ Is the Part 90 program accomplishing its goal APPENDIX 1 Advisory Committee on the iz Elimination of Pneumoconiosis . Among Coal Mine Workers il.? . - . Gnouuo RULES These ground rules will govern the conduct of the Labor Department Advisory Committee on the .. I . Elimination of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers. [Dust Advisory Committee The DAC is established under Sections 101(a) and l02(c) ofthe Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. fi - A. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 1. The DAC shall consist of 9 voting members appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Labor, ji one of whom will be designated by the Mine Safety and Health Administration ofthe U.S. Department of Labor (MSHA) to serve as the Chair ofthe committee. MSHA shall designate a 2 it - Federal Omcial (DFO) to serve as the spokesperson ofthe Department of Labor and to be a fiill and active participant in the consensus building discussions but who will not vote on any matter. 2. Each member shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall serve until the dissolution of gr; - . the Committee unless he or she becomes unable to serve or resigns. 1 3. Each member will be provided with a list ofthe other members prior to the start ofthe first advisory committee meeting. 4. Observers - Committee meetings will be announced in the Federal Register and will be open to the public unless notice to the contrary is provided in the Federal Register. All observers will identity themselves and their aliiliation by entering this information in a designated log. fw I B. FACILITIES SERVICES 1. MSHA will pay the per diem and travel expenses of the members. . 2. MSHA will provide for suitable meeting rooms, appropriate secretarial and support staff] as well as equipment and resource material. an 3. Expenses for experts, advisors, or additional consultants may be paid at the discretion ofthe DFO. - . Il li . - ii il APPENDIX 22222 222 222222222 . l. Schedule - Except for meeting dates scheduled by the Chair and approved bythe DFO Vi I- E. U, established, including extending the time for discussion atameeting, may be made by.a consensus 8 QQ if ofthe or at the discretion ofthe Chau-. All changes in schedule or scheduling of gp Ni - - 222222 2 2 1: I it u.n.au.LaLau.i.ao.atau. l; . 2 . the Federal Register at least 15 days prior to the date of the meeting. This announcement shall . 5 also includeasurnrnary ofthemeeting agenda. 5 tu iu mu222222 22222 222222222222222222 00<<000 0< consist of 2 or 3 day meetings. The sessions will be spread over approximately 180 daysl)iscussion - Only agenda items will normally be open for discussion at each meetingji. well as the approval ofthe Chair. I ii - 22222222222 22222222 The Il- allow for caucuses to be held to gather information, conduct research, analyze relevant issues and ?s cn facts, or to draftaproposed position paper for deliberation by the advisory committeeD.VOTING . . . - . 55555 - E, 2. Neutral members - No vote shall be taken at a meeting unless the votes of the "neutral" - 3 2 - 22222222 2 gg members, that is, votes orproxyvotes ofmembers who are notlrepresentmg the numng industry ln if or labor, constitute at least 50 percent ofthe votes present. This provision shall not apply atthe H