Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801

www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Injuries in U.S. mining operations – A preliminary risk analysis

Dragan Komljenovic a, William A. Groves b, Vladislav J. Kecojevic b,*

a Hydro Quebec and Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canadab The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, University Park, PA, USA

Received 26 September 2006; received in revised form 9 January 2007; accepted 16 January 2007

Abstract

Despite significant reductions in mining injuries, incidence rates remain high compared to other industries. A systematicrisk analysis was undertaken to thoroughly characterize injuries for the 10-year period from 1995 to 2004. Data wereobtained from U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) reports. The categories: fatalities, non-fatal days-lost(NFDL) injuries, and no-days-lost (NDL) injuries have been analyzed, and a preliminary risk matrix produced. The resultsshow decreasing injury frequency for all categories over the period examined. However, there still exists a ‘‘serious” level ofrisk for fatal and NFDL injuries, and a ‘‘moderate” level of risk for NDL injuries. These findings emphasize the need forcontinued efforts to reduce mining injuries and should be helpful in prioritizing control strategies. The results of this studyrepresent a preliminary ‘‘global” risk analysis, and will therefore form the basis of subsequent more detailed studies.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Risk analysis; Risk management; Injuries; Mining

1. Introduction

The mining industry is a vital economic sector in many countries and includes production of coal, metals,and non-metals (stone, sand and gravel). In the U.S. mining is one of the largest industries in terms of pro-duction by weight, by volume, and by number of active operations. The estimated value of non-fuel mineralcommodities produced in the U.S. during 2003 was $38 billion (U.S. Geol. Survey, 2004). According to U.S.Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) statistics, mining employment decreased from 361,647workers in 1995 to 344,837 in 2005, while the number of operating mines increased slightly from 13,859 to14,666 in 1995 and 2005, respectively. MSHA reports that the fatal injury rate decreased from 0.0303 to0.0180, while the overall injury rate decreased from 6.30 to 3.92 for the period 1995–2005. Injury rates repre-sent the number of injuries per 100 full-time workers and are calculated as: (N/EH) � 200,000, where N is thenumber of injuries, EH is the total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year, and the number200,000 is used to standardize for 100 full-time employees working 40 h/week � 50 weeks/year.

0925-7535/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.01.012

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 814 865 4288.E-mail address: vuk2@psu.edu (V.J. Kecojevic).

D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801 793

Mine occupational safety and health (OS&H) progress requires a systematic planning of appropriate safetyprograms and measures. The safety management decisions which must be made to select and prioritize prob-lem areas and safety system weaknesses must be based on the recognition of hazards encountered in eachactivity of the mining process. For this purpose, a systematic application of the risk assessment and manage-ment concept may provide needed support.

The management of risk is present in our daily activities. Almost every action we take or do not take affectsour risk exposure. This is particularly true for mining operations where decisions to act or not to act are madeconstantly. Many of these decisions affect the likelihood of adverse outcomes from intended or unintendedeffects of the mining operations or from the effect of external forces or events. Adverse outcomes from thoseeffects may also adversely affect worker’s safety and health. Risk management decisions, which can have seri-ous potential consequences for occupational safety and health have sometimes been made based on traditionor ‘‘good feeling”. This does not always result in optimal risk management. It is worth mentioning that foreffective overall management of any mining operation, the management of OS&H aspects has to be integratedwith the general management of the facility. If risk management is not integrated, measures taken to managerisk of one type could have the unintended and unforeseen effect of exacerbating other types of risk.

The mining industry, like other major global industries, has to take into account and manage risks to busi-ness objectives from many sources (e.g. safety and health, environment, etc.) to remain successful. This isreflected in a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) document (DOE, 1997), which states that ‘‘within safety man-

dates, and considering budget and resource limitations, the management system must also function cost effec-

tively”. Mining can never have zero risk to occupational safety and health – there is always a degree ofuncertainty with regard to the type and extent of adverse impacts which could arise. In addition, managementof risks related to occupational safety and health should be proactive, based on a systematic approach, appliedwhen key decisions are being made across the life cycle of the industry from exploration through mineoperations to mine closure. Therefore, risk management plays a vital role since the likelihood of adverseconsequences cannot be eliminated entirely without making mining operations technically or economicallynon-viable.

This study performs a global risk analysis of the following categories: fatalities (FTL), non-fatal-days-lostinjuries (NFDL) and no-days-lost injuries (NDL) in U.S. mining operations for the interval of 1995–2004.There is no distinction made between injuries from different sources (equipment, roof fall, etc.) nor for thedifferent types of mining (underground/surface, coal/metal, non-metal/sand, gravel, stone). Data include bothmine operator, and contractor workers. This project focuses on a preliminary ‘‘global” risk analysis – futurework will address the other aspects of a holistic risk management approach such as risk evaluation, risk treat-ment, risk communication, and risk monitoring.

2. Background

Injuries and fatalities in U.S. mining operations for various intervals were analyzed by several researchers.Front-end loaders and truck-related fatalities were examined for the period 1995–2002 (Kecojevic andRadomsky, 2004). Fatality categories and causes of accidents were established as well as suggested controlstrategies for increasing hazard awareness through emphasis on safe loading, hauling, and maintenance prac-tices using traditional and innovative miner training programs. An analysis of incidents for the stated periodrevealed that the most common types are collisions with pedestrians and rollovers, while the most commonroot causes are failure of mechanical components, lack of and/or failure to obey warning signals, and inad-equate or substandard mechanical procedures. In addition, several key contributing factors, such as inade-quate training, poor haulage road and dump design engineering, and the failure to wear seat bests wereassociated with several loader and truck accidents. A similar analysis of the additional significant subcatego-ries of equipment identified here including belt conveyors, continuous miners, dozers, and drills, would pro-vide information useful in developing prevention strategies.

Karra (2005) described a study using mining injury surveillance data as the basis for assessing the severityof injuries among operator and contractor employees in the underground and surface mining of various min-erals. The author analyzed injury rates during 1983–2002 derived from the Mine Safety and Health Admin-istration (MSHA) database by using a negative binomial regression model. The logarithmic mean injury

794 D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801

rate was expressed as a linear function of seven indicator variables representing Non-Coal Contractor, MetalOperator, Non Metal Operator, Stone Operator, Sand and Gravel Operator, Coal Contractor, and WorkLocation, and a continuous variable, RelYear, representing the relative year starting with 1983 as the baseyear. Based on the model, the mean injury rate declined at a 1.69% annual rate, and the mean injury ratefor work on the surface was 52.53% lower compared to the rate for work in the underground. With referenceto the Coal Operator mean injury rate, all other types of mining experienced lower injury rates ranging from37% lower for Non-Metal Operator to 1.4% lower for Coal Contractors. Fatality rates during the same20 year period were analyzed similarly using a Poisson regression model. Based on this model, the mean fatal-ity rate declined at a 3.17% annual rate, and the rate for work on the surface was 64.3% lower compared to therate for work in the underground. Again referencing the Coal Operator, differences in mean fatality rate ran-ged from 234% higher for Non-Coal Contractors to 47% lower for Non-Metal Operators.

Many industries prepare risk assessment/management standards and guides, which reflect a specific indus-try experience. Certain standards and guides are generic and are applicable to any industry branch (ANSI,2000; CAN/CSA, 2002; DOE, 1997, 1998b; MIL-STD, 2000; AS/NZS, 1999). These documents provide a gen-eric framework for systematically establishing the context, identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, mon-itoring and communication of risk. Alternatively, numerous industries or disciplines (environment, ecology,petroleum and natural gas, chemistry, nuclear, space, machine tools, health) have developed specific standardsand guides (ASTM, 2002; DOE, 1998a; ISO, 1999, 2000). The design and implementation of the risk manage-ment system is influenced by the varying needs of an organization and its specificities.

The Minerals Council of Australia initiated a project seeking to improve risk assessment in the Australianminerals industry. The University of Queensland, Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre (MISHC) pro-duced a guideline (Joy and Griffiths, 2005), which aims to provide advice on risk assessment within the Aus-tralian mining industry. It intends to improve safety performance of this industry in Australia. At the sametime, The Minerals Industry Cooperation Initiative (MICI) project at the University of Queensland, Australia,has launched a new web-site to improve the way mining, minerals processing and quarrying industries accesshazard-related information using Internet technology. The site is called MIRMgate, an acronym for MineralsIndustry Risk Management Gateway. MIRMgate provides effective access to minerals operations related,hazard-based topics in a risk assessment framework using ‘metadata’ technology (Kizil and Joy, 2005).

The South African mining industry established a Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) pro-gram (HIRA, 2003). HIRA is considered to be an ongoing process of systematic identification and documen-tation of significant risks. Manufacturers and suppliers also have duties relating to HIRA. The outcomes fromthe HIRA process are inputs for the risk treatment process, which is part of the broader risk managementprocess. However, the HIRA program does not address all aspects of the risk management process.

The acceptable level of risk is an issue that is widely discussed throughout many potentially hazardousindustries. As an example, a study by Aven and Vinnem (2005) discusses risk acceptance criteria as upper lim-its of acceptable risks for offshore activities on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. The common thinking hasbeen that risk analyses and assessments cannot be conducted in a meaningful way without the use of such cri-teria. The ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) principle also applies, but risk acceptance criteria haveplayed a more active role in the assessment processes. This discussion may be useful in a further examinationof acceptability criteria in occupational safety and health for U.S. mining operations.

The U.S. National Mining Association created an independent commission in January 2006 to examine theconditions under which new and existing technologies and training procedures can improve safety in under-ground coal mines. The Commission released its report in December 2006 (Grayson, 2006). This report callsfor a new paradigm for ensuring safety in the U.S. underground coal mines, one that focuses on systematicand comprehensive risk management as the foundation from which all life-safety efforts emanate. The Com-mission recommendations include that a comprehensive approach, founded on the establishment of a cultureof prevention, be used to focus employees on the prevention of all accidents and injuries. Further, the Com-mission recommends that every mine should (1) employ a sound risk-analysis process, (2) conduct a risk anal-ysis, and (3) develop a management plan to address the significant hazards identified by the analysis. Simpleregulatory compliance alone may not be sufficient to mitigate significant risks. The Commission recognizesthat not all mines have a familiarity with risk management, and therefore, recommends that NIOSH developa series of case studies that mines could use as templates, and that it conduct workshops and seminars to dis-

D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801 795

seminate this approach to safety throughout the industry. The ultimate goal is of achieving zero fatalities andzero serious injuries in the U.S. underground coal mining industry. However, this approach and goal shouldalso be applicable to the U.S. mining industry as a whole.

3. Methodology

The approach taken for this project is based on a holistic risk management concept (Fig. 1). This conceptcan be used in occupation safety and health to help judge the tolerability of risk and aids in choosing betweenpotential risk-reduction or risk avoidance measures. A structured risk management approach also enhancesand encourages the identification of greater opportunities for continuous improvement and thorough innova-tion. From the decision-maker’s perspective some of the principal benefits of risk management and risk ana-lysis in this field include:

(a) Systematic identification of potential hazards.(b) Quantitative risk statements or ranking.(c) Evaluation of possible modifications to reduce risk.

Fig. 1. Stages of a holistic risk management process (CAN/CSA, 2002).

796 D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801

(d) Identification of the important contributors to risk and weaknesses of a system.(e) Better understanding of the system and its installation.(f) Comparison of risks to those of alternative systems or technologies.(g) Identification and communication of risks and uncertainties.(h) Help in establishing priorities for improving health and safety.(i) Selection between alternatives such as different risk-reduction measures and technologies.(j) Improved stakeholder relationships and enhanced reputation.

(k) Director protection (raising awareness of potential risks, and demonstrating a proper level of duediligence).

(l) Accountability, assurance and governance as well as personal well-being.

In accordance with internationally recognized risk management standards (AS/NZS, 1999; CAN/CSA,2002; ISO, 1999, 2000), a risk analysis involves two stages: (1) Preliminary Analysis, and (2) Risk Estimation.It is preceded by an Initiation stage which serves the following purposes: (a) to produce a clear statement ofthe issue, (b) to identify the various groups involved in resolving the issue and their responsibilities, and (c) toidentify potential stakeholders. For the current study, the elements of the Initiation Stage were presented byway of introduction and will not be further discussed here. The remaining two steps of the Risk Analysis Stagewill be described in more detail.

The purpose of the Preliminary Analysis is to undertake an evaluation of the potential risks related to theissue (mishap) being considered. In this study, mishaps are considered as all types of injuries related to miningoperations. This stage includes:

(a) Identification of the categories of injuries (mishaps) related to the U.S. mining operations for the periodexamined (identify the risks).

(b) Collection of data upon identified risks.

These elements were completed by analyzing MSHA records collected under Part 50 of the U.S. Code ofFederal Regulation via MSHA Form 7000. Electronic versions of these data files are maintained by theNational Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Based on a review of these records, thefollowing high level risk categories were identified: fatalities (FT), non-fatal-days-lost injuries (NFDL), andno-days-lost injuries (NDL). A more detailed stratification is possible for the purpose of further in-depthanalyses. However, this topic is not within the scope of the current study.

The objective of the Risk Estimation is to provide a detailed assessment of both the frequency and conse-quences (severity) of the analyzed issue (mishap risk). As a result, a risk matrix is produced. A mishap risk is aproduct of frequency (or probability of occurrence) and consequences (AS/NZS, 1999; CAN/CSA, 2002;MIL-STD, 2000; ISO, 1999, 2000):

TableSeverit

Catego

IIIIII

R ¼ P � C ð1Þ

where R is the level of risk, P is the probability of occurrence (frequency), and C is the mishap consequence(severity). The current study proposes three severity categories (consequences) presented in Table 1.

This level of detail is adequate for the purpose of the current preliminary global analysis of injury-relatedconsequences in mining operations. For more detailed studies in which specific topics related to OS&H areexamined, this categorization can be further stratified.

1y categories for mining injuries

ry Description

FTLNFDLNDL

D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801 797

4. Results and discussion

The number of injuries for each category is obtained by compilation of the data presented in the MSHA/NIOSH database (Table 2).

In this study, it is chosen that the probability of occurrence for various types of injuries be calculated on theannual basis considering the number of work-hours in the U.S. mining operations. Annual work-hours arecompiled by MSHA and have been summarized in Table 2. The number of work-hours decreased over the10 year period (Table 2). Fig. 2 depicts the mathematical relationship between relative years (RY) and thenumber of work-hours (expressed as Million Work-Hours – MWH).

A relatively high coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.84) confirms a decreasing trend of work-hours in min-ing operations for the period examined. The year 2004 represents an exception because of an observed increasein work-hours. Further observations for following years are needed for analyzing whether or not there is anysignificant change in this trend.

For the purpose of this study the proposed mishap frequency level categories (probability of occurrence)are given in Table 3.

As in the case of the severity categories, these frequency levels may be more refined for the purpose of aspecific risk analysis. Based on the proposed severity and frequency levels, a global risk matrix is suggested,where four levels of risk are identified: high (H), serious (S), moderate (M), and low (L) (Table 4). These riskcategories may be used to prioritize activities, and to generate specific actions if needed, as a function of theacceptable level of risk.

In accordance with recognized risk assessment and management related references (AS/NZS, 1999; CAN/CSA, 2002; MIL-STD, 2000), the mishap risk impact may be assessed using other factors to discriminatebetween hazards having the same mishap risk. For example, a discrimination between hazards with the samemishap risk level may be carried out in terms of social, economic, and political factors (Aven and Vinnem,2005). In the case of operational safety and health, it especially concerns situations where fatalities and per-manent disease injuries are involved because they are usually less acceptable by the public.

The obtained results will be presented in two parts. The first part discusses a temporal behavior of the ana-lyzed categories. The second part presents the results of a risk analysis related to injuries.

An analysis of the records presented in Table 2 shows a decreasing trend for all the analyzed categories. Amathematical relationship is sought to describe this dependency. Figs. 2 and 3 portray temporal variations ofwork-hours (WH), and fatalities (FTL), NFDL, and NDL injuries, respectively. The numbers show a constantdecrease of values related to these categories over the years with relatively significant coefficients of determi-nation (R2 = 0.82–0.97).

In the next stage, frequencies of analyzed categories are calculated based on the data for work-hours andthe different types of injuries (Table 2).

One may observe that all the frequencies presented in Table 5 also show a decreasing trend over the years.Thus, it may be interesting to study what are the observed decrease rates regarding analyzed categories, and

Table 2Total employee work-hours (WH), and numbers of fatalities (FTL), non-fatal days lost injuries (NFDL), and no days lost injuries (NDL)for U.S. mining operations: 1995–2004 (injury frequencies in parentheses)

Year (relative year) WH FTL NFDL NDL

1995 (1) 660,553,197 97 (1.5E�07) 13,852 (2.1E�05) 6869 (1.0E�05)1996 (2) 659,969,250 85 (1.3E�07) 12,508 (1.9E�05) 6303 (9.5E�06)1997 (3) 663,248,294 91 (1.4E�07) 12,057 (1.8E�05) 6154 (9.3E�06)1998 (4) 655,039,983 78 (1.2E�07) 12,186 (1.8E�05) 5786 (8.8E�06)1999 (5) 638,149,185 90 (1.4E�07) 11,026 (1.7E�05) 5101 (7.7E�06)2000 (6) 624,888,489 85 (1.3E�07) 10,893 (1.6E�05) 5051 (7.6E�06)2001 (7) 620,978,232 72 (1.1E�07) 9984 (1.5E�05) 4692 (7.1E�06)2002 (8) 582,678,793 66 (1.0E�07) 9387 (1.4E�05) 3958 (6.0E�06)2003 (9) 569,218,542 56 (8.5E�08) 8360 (1.3E�05) 3634 (5.5E�06)2004 (10) 598,165,329 55 (8.3E�08) 8183 (1.2E�05) 3867 (5.8E�06)

MWH = -10.394*RY + 684.46R2 = 0.8399

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Relative Year

Mill

ions

of W

ork

Hou

rs.

Fig. 2. Variation of work-hours in mining operations (in Million Work-Hours – MWH) in the interval 1995–2004.

Table 3Suggested mishap frequency levels

Level Description Frequency (per WH/year)

A Frequent >1.0E�04B Probable 2.5E�06 to 1.0E�04C Occasional 1.0E�07 to 2.5E�06D Remote 1.0E�08 to 1.0E�07E Rare <1.0E�08

Table 4Proposed risk matrix

Severity

I II III

Frequency

A (Frequent) High High SeriousB (Probable) High Serious ModerateC (Occasional) Serious Serious ModerateD (Remote) Serious Moderate LowE (Rare) Moderate Low Low

798 D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801

compare them with the decrease in work-hours over the analyzed interval (Table 2). For the purpose of thisanalysis, a relative frequency (RF) is defined as the ratio of an actual value for an analyzed year, and the valuefor the year 1995. Therefore, all the values of analyzed categories were set to unity for the year 1995, i.e. 1995:RF = 1. A comparison between the variables is depicted in Fig. 4.

The obtained results show decreasing rates for all the analyzed categories: the relative frequencies for FTL,NFDL, and NDL are decreasing at a larger rate than work-hours. Consequently, one may conclude that thedecreases for these categories over the analyzed interval are globally genuine. These results are in principlecoherent with the findings presented by Karra (2005).

The second part of this section presents the results of the risk analysis. Based on the calculated frequencies,the level of mishap risk for each category on an annual basis is defined, and presented in Table 5. Average

FTL = -4.4182*RY + 101.8

R2 = 0.8206

NFDL = -606.95*RY + 14182

R2 = 0.9729

NDL = -363.72*RY + 7141.9

R2 = 0.96730

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

Relative Year

NF

DL

and

ND

L In

jurie

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Fat

aliti

es

NFDL

NDL

FTL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 3. Variation in number of fatalities (FTL), non-fatal days lost injuries (NFDL), and no days lost injuries (NDL): 1995–2004.

Table 5Frequencies and assigned risk levels for mining injuries: 1995–2004

Year FTL frequency FTL risk NFDL frequency NFDL risk NDL frequency NDL risk

1995 1.5E�07 Serious 2.1E�05 Serious 1.0E�05 Medium1996 1.3E�07 Serious 1.9E�05 Serious 9.5E�06 Medium1997 1.4E�07 Serious 1.8E�05 Serious 9.3E�06 Medium1998 1.2E�07 Serious 1.8E�05 Serious 8.8E�06 Medium1999 1.4E�07 Serious 1.7E�05 Serious 7.7E�06 Medium2000 1.3E�07 Serious 1.6E�05 Serious 7.6E�06 Medium2001 1.1E�07 Serious 1.5E�05 Serious 7.1E�06 Medium2002 1.0E�07 Serious 1.4E�05 Serious 6.0E�06 Medium2003 8.5E�08 Serious 1.3E�05 Serious 5.5E�06 Medium2004 8.3E�08 Serious 1.2E�05 Serious 5.9E�06 Medium

Average 1.19E�07 Serious 1.63E�05 Serious 7.74E�06 MediumSD 2.35E�08 2.83E�06 1.62E�0695% LCL 1.01E�07 Serious 1.44E�05 Serious 6.57E�06 Medium95% UCL 1.33E�07 Serious 1.84E�05 Serious 9.00E�06 Medium

LCL – low confidence level.UPC – upper confidence level.SD – standard deviation.

D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801 799

value, as well as lower and upper limits at a confidence level of 95% for the 10 year period are also determined.The presented mishap risk levels are determined in accordance with the risk categories depicted in Table 4.

The obtained results show that the level of mishap risk is still ‘‘Serious” for the categories: fatalities (FTL),and NFDL despite a decreasing trend in frequencies over the analyzed period. It signifies that the level of riskshould still be decreased in the time ahead. The category NDL shows a moderate level of risk for the analyzedinterval, and a decreasing trend. These findings may help in prioritizing further corrective action required forlowering risk levels.

Nevertheless, the analysis presented here only provides a global level of risk. A more detailed analysis forvarious subcategories (e.g. surface/underground mining, equipment and non equipment related injuries, coal,metal and other mining, etc.) is required for a more precise risk management strategy, which involves controlmeasures against the risk, and management of residual risk.

WH % Reduction = -1.06*RYR2 = 0.7246

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Relative Year

Rel

ativ

e F

requ

ency

(%

cha

nge)

WH FTL NFDL NDL ALL INJ

INJ % Reduction = -4.90*RYR2 = 0.89

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 4. Variation of relative frequencies for TF/NFDL/NDL and work-hours.

800 D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801

5. Conclusions

The paper presents a preliminary risk analysis of injuries in the U.S. mining operations for the interval1995–2004. The study utilizes a structured and systematic risk management approach, where risk analysis rep-resents an integral process for determining levels of mishap risks for the categories: fatalities (FTL), non-fatal-ity-days-lost (NFDL) injuries, and no-days-lost (NDL) injuries. The approach employed is consistent with anew paradigm presently discussed in the U.S. mining industry, which is oriented toward a more systematic useof the concept of Risk Assessment and Management. The benefits of employing this concept are also discussedin the research.

Mishaps frequencies are calculated as a function of work-hours annually, and a risk matrix is produced forthese three injury categories. The results obtained show a decreasing frequency for all the injury categoriesover the years. Since the FTL and NFDL categories still represent a serious level of risk, more detailed inves-tigations are needed to deepen understanding of this phenomena, and to allow for development of appropriaterisk mitigation/reduction measures. The ultimate goal is to decrease the incidence of fatalities and severe inju-ries to zero. The NDL category has a moderate level of risk. This category of injuries needs no specific cor-rective measures but it has to be continuously monitored in order to discover any adverse tendency, and takecurative actions if required. These findings may be helpful in a future prioritization of mitigation measuresaimed at lowering the analyzed risks. Since this study provides a global risk analysis of analyzed categories,further research is needed for more specific and detailed studies, which may focus on a particular topic (e.g.mining equipment or non-equipment related injuries, surface/underground mining, mine operators or contrac-tor workers, etc.).

References

ANSI/AAMI/ISO 14971:2000, 2000. Risk Management-Part 1: Application of Risk Management, Standard.ASTM E2205-02, 2002. Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological Resources. ASTM International,

Standard.Aven, T., Vinnem, J.E., 2005. On use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry. Reliability Engineering and System

Safety 90, 15–24.CAN/CSA Q850-97, 2002. Risk Management: Guideline for Decision Makers. Canadian Standard Association, Standard.DOE-STD-1120-98, 1998a. Vols. 1 and 2, Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Facility Disposition Activities, Volume 1 of

2: Technical Standard, (DOE STANDARD), U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585, Standard.

D. Komljenovic et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 792–801 801

DOE-STD-1120-98, 1998b. Vols. 1 and 2, Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Facility Disposition Activities, Volume 1 of2: Technical Standard, (DOE STANDARD), U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, DC 20585, Standard.

DOE G 450.3-3, 1997. Tailoring for Integrated Safety Management. U.S. Department of Energy.Grayson, L.R. et al., 2006. Improving Mine Safety Technology and Training: Establishing U.S. Global Leadership, National Mining

Association and Mine Safety and Training Commission. <http://www.coalminingsafety.org>.ISO-14121, 1999. Safety of Machinery – Principles of Risk Assessment, International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva,

Standard.ISO-17776, 2000. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Offshore production installations – Guidelines on Tools and Techniques for

Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Standard.Joy, J., Griffiths, D., 2005. National Industry Safety and Health Risk Assessment Guideline, Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre

(MISHC), University of Queensland, Australia.Karra, V.K., 2005. Analysis of non-fatal and fatal injury rates for mine operator and contractor employees and the influence of work

location. Journal of Safety Research 36, 413–421.Kecojevic, V., Radomsky, M., 2004. The causes and control of loader and truck-related fatalities in surface mining operations. Injury

Control and Safety Promotion 11 (4), 239–251.Kizil, G.V., Joy, J., 2005. The Development and Implementation of a Minerals Industry Risk Management Gateway, APCOM 2005,

Tucson, Arizona, USA.MIL-STD-882D, 2000. Military Standard, Standard Practice for System Safety, Department of Defence, Standard.Minerals Industry Risk Management gateway (MIRMgate), Hazard-Related Database for Mineral Industry. <http://www.mirm-

gate.com/>.South African Mining Industry Guide to Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA), 2003. SA Safety Adviser’s Office Chamber

of Mines of South Africa, Standard.Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand, 1999. AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk Management, Homebush, Wellington, Standard. ISBN

073372647 X.U.S. Geological Survey, 2004. The Role of Nonfuel Minerals in the U.S. Economy, U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity

Summaries 2004, p. 4.U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2004. Mining Industry Accident, Injury, Employment, and Production Statistics, U.S. Dept.

of Labor, MSHA.