Background While safety in US coal mining has improved over the past two decades, general occupational health research shows that risk of injury varies across individual worksites and is influenced by worksite safety cultures and practices.
Methods In this longitudinal study, we evaluated whether mine-level characteristics reflecting poor adherence to health and safety regulations in underground coal mines are associated with higher acute injury rates. We aggregated Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) data by year for each underground coal mine for the period 2000–2019. Data included part-50 injuries, mine characteristics, employment and production, dust sampling, noise sampling, and violations. Multivariable hierarchical generalised estimating equations (GEE) models were developed.
Results Based on the final GEE model, despite an average annual decline in injury rates by 5.5%, the following indicators of inadequate adherence to health and safety regulations were associated with increased average annual injury rates: +2.9% for each 10% increase in dust samples exceeding the permissible exposure limit; +0.6% for each 10% increase of permitted 90 dBA 8-hour noise exposure dose; +2.0% for every 10 substantial-significant MSHA violations in a year; +1.8% for each rescue/recovery procedure violation; +2.6% for each safeguard violation. If a fatality occurred in a mine, injury rates increased by 11.9% in the same year, but declined by 10.4% in the following year. The presence of safety committees was associated with a 14.5% decline in injury rates.
Discussion In US underground coal mines, injury rates are associated with poor adherence to dust, noise and safety regulations.
- coal dust
- coal mining
- occupational health
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors LSF had full access to all of the data in the study and accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. LSF was involved in the conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the article and statistical expertise. BS was involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafting of the article. LHTG was involved in the conception and design, acquisition of data, cleaning the data, interpretation of the data and review of the written manuscript. YS was involved in the conception and design, acquisition of data, cleaning the data, interpretation of the data and review of the written manuscript. KSA and RAC was involved in the acquisition of data, conception and design, interpretation of the data and review of the written manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.