Electrical accidents in the mining industry, 1990-1999

Cawley, James

doi:10.1109/tia.2003.818963

Cited by 39 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…leading cause of lost time injuries in the mining industry, but the fourth leading cause of fatality. In his study of electrical injuries in the mining industry 1990-1999, he noted that 1 fatality per 272 lost time accidents, but 1 in 27 electrical accidents was fatal [3]. For all occupational injuries, the potential for an electrical injury to be fatal is even more severe, 1 in 13 lost time injuries from contact with electrical energy is fatal.…”

Section: Illusion Of Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systems Safety Approach to Occupational Electrical Safety

Floyd

2015

IEEE Trans. on Ind. Applicat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the past decade, the discussion of occupational electrical safety in the U.S. has largely focused on compliance with NFPA70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace. Without taking away from the importance of the requirements in the standard, this paper describes a more comprehensive solution, based on proven concepts derived from systems safety engineering. This paper provides an overview of systems safety engineering and includes a 20+ year case history of a global Fortune 500 company's effort to change the electrical safety culture in its operations to demonstrate results of applying systems safety techniques to electrical safety.

show abstract

Section: Illusion Of Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systems Safety Approach to Occupational Electrical Safety

Floyd

2015

IEEE Trans. on Ind. Applicat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Plant and equipment maintenance and repair tasks have long posed challenges ranging from human performance issues leading to acute traumatic injuries and fatalities (Cawley, 2003; Lind, 2008; Lind and Nenonen, 2008), reduced equipment availability during troubleshooting and repair, and equipment failure due to errors during maintenance. Not only is this work non-routine, there are, among other issues, machine and electrical hazards, materials handling exposures, falls, access issues that restrict posture and increase biomechanical demands, and injuries associated with hand tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maintenance and repair injuries in US mining

Pollard

Heberger

Dempsey

2014

Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify key tasks, tools, and equipment associated with maintenance and repair injuries at US mines and to provide some mitigation strategies to reduce these types of injuries. Design/methodology/approach – This study analyzed incidents resulting in injuries reported to the US Mine Safety and Health Administration from 2002 to 2011. Incident reports were limited to those occurring at mining plants, shops, yards, and aboveground locations. Incident reports were analyzed to determine which activities contributed to injuries and were due to machine maintenance and repair, non-powered hand tools, and powered hand tools. An in-depth analysis of the root causes of these injuries was then performed. Findings – Maintenance and repair in mining is associated with a significant number of hand and finger injuries with a range of severities and averaging over 20 amputated fingers, 180 fractured hands and fingers, and 455 hand and finger lacerations per year. Many of these injuries are caused by hands being struck by or caught in tools and equipment. Back and shoulder strains are found to be associated with the most days lost from work and are mostly attributed to materials handling. Practical implications – Occupational injuries and fatalities still occur with high incidences in the mining sector. The mission of the Office of Mine Safety and Health Research (OMSHR; part of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH) is to “eliminate mining fatalities, injuries, and illnesses through research and prevention.” As part of this work, OMSHR acquires surveillance data from MSHA to quantify the types and sources of injuries at US mining facilities. The authors evaluated maintenance- and repair-related injuries at US mining sites (excluding underground coal mines). Results of this study suggest a need for improved design of machine guarding, improved hand protection through gloves and equipment design/redesign, and manual materials handling solutions. Originality/value – The findings indicate that maintenance and repair in mining include occupational risks that may be managed through modifications to machines, proper usage of hand tools and hand protection, and improved manual materials handling processes.

show abstract

“…The results from the accident characterization were compared with those of Ashworth and Peake (1994), Sanmiquel et al (2010), Kecojevic et al (2007), Cawley (2003), and Lenné et al (2011). Ashworth and Peake (1994), who studied causes of accidents in the South African platinum and gold industries, also identified falls of ground, trackbound equipment, slipping and falling, and scrapers and winches as frequent causes of accidents.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may be due to the fact that mining in the USA is more mechanized. Cawley (2003) reported that electrical-related accidents represent the fourth-highest cause of mining accidents in the USA. Lenné et al (2011) found that operations involving surface mobile equipment, working at heights, and electrical equipment were the chief causes of mining accidents in Australia.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A systemic study of mining accident causality: an analysis of 91 mining accidents from a platinum mine in South Africa

Bonsu

2017

J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to demonstrate how a systemic approach can be applied to the analysis of the causes of accidents in South African mines. The accident analysis framework used was developed previously by the authors from the combination of the Mark III version of the Swiss Cheese model, Incident Cause Analysis Method (ICAM), the Nertney Wheel model, and safety management principles. Data on 91 accidents occurring from 2010 to 2012 at the site of a platinum mine in South Africa were used to populate the newly developed framework. The results obtained show that while routine violations (45% of all accidents analysed) were the most common form of human error, problems in the physical environment of workers were the most common workplace factor (39.6% of all accidents analysed). Furthermore, inadequate leadership was found to be the most common systemic factor responsible for accidents (51.6% of all accidents analysed). Some workplace factors were more commonly associated with particular unsafe acts than others, and some systemic factors were more associated with particular workplace factors than others. The outcome of this study demonstrates that systemic factors, rather than human errors and violations, are the chief causes of accidents in the mining sector. mine safety, systemic factors, accident causality, human error.

show abstract

Electrical accidents in the mining industry, 1990-1999

Cited by 39 publications

References 1 publication

A Systems Safety Approach to Occupational Electrical Safety

A Systems Safety Approach to Occupational Electrical Safety

Maintenance and repair injuries in US mining

A systemic study of mining accident causality: an analysis of 91 mining accidents from a platinum mine in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About