Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO GOVERNMENT SPONSORED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Research and development relating to escape, survival and rescue equipment is probably more demanding than research for almost any other mine health and safety equipment, because while the equipment may be used only rarely, when it is used lives will depend on it. Failure of escape, survival, or rescue equipment is worse than the absence of any equipment, as its presence provides a sense of security and may deter the miner from seeking other means of egress. The highest degree of reliability must be demanded of this equipment. In mining, much of the R&D in escape, survival and rescue equip- ment is done by government agencies, either in-house or under contract. The limited size of the market, the uncertainties associated with rule- making, and the requirement for testing and approval by governmental agencies all serve as barriers to investment in such R&D within the private sector. Consequently, government finds itself in the role of proposing and underwriting the development of new technology. Market analysis may not play a dominant role in these decisions. Moreover, the private sector may not share government's perception of the problem (and the solution) and government may have to underwrite not only the R&D, but implementation of the results as well, either by regulatory mandate or by economic means such as tax incentives or subsidies. Nonetheless, mining companies, unions, equipment manufacturers, and others in the mining community have important roles in ensuring that research programs are effectively directed toward useful purposes. In assessing the contribution that research and development can make to post-disaster survival and rescue, a number of concepts must be defined and clarified. First is the nature of the R&D path from initial identification of a need, a problem, or an opportunity, through the somewhat overlapping activities of broad-ranging basic research, objective-oriented exploratory research, project-oriented technological or applied research, specific product development, and finally, imple- mentation of R&D results. Second is the difference between R&D con- ducted by the private sector where success is measurable in terms of sales, profits, or other economic considerations, and R&D conducted by government to benefit the public welfare, where the object is improved health and safety, environmental protection, or other similar goals that are not readily measured in economic terms. Finally, there is -85-
the different nature of the demands on escape, survival, and rescue equipment and the impact of these differences on R&D programs in those areas. 5.1 The Idealized R&D Process The R&D process is often conceived of as consisting of a number of loosely defined elements such as "basic research" and "applied research,""research" and "development," or "research" and "implementa- tion of research results." There have been many attempts to define these components of R&D: for the purpose of this report, the discus- sion by White* is particularly appropriate. White considers four broad bands of research activity that are different in nature, although they do overlap and merge into each other. First, in the sense that it is likely to precede the others in time, is basic research. Basic research can be completely free or it can be directed toward some broad underlying mission, but it is not bound by the time schedule of a particular project and it is open- ended, in the sense that the researcher is not striving toward some specific goal but is willing to go in whatever direction the research leads. Second, and closely allied to this, is exploratory researchâ research that is oriented toward a specific objective, but is never- theless open-ended and not tied to specific project objectives. Third is technological research, also called applied research, objective-oriented research, or product-oriented research. Here the previous research has led to an innovative idea, and further research is necessary to determine its feasibility and in fact to take the concept from an idea to the point where its likely viability as a marketable product, or a solution to a technical or social problem, can be ascertained. This stage often includes assessment of costs and markets and assembly of the information needed by top management in order to decide whether or not to go ahead with development. Develop- ment is the final stage. Here research methods are used to take a process or product that is conceptually understood to the point where it can be put to practical use. These four phases of research activity do not necessarily follow each other in recognizable sequence. A fundamental idea may be suf- ficiently complete in itself that it can be applied directly to a practical operation. On the other hand, development may be well under way before it is realized that there is a need for some fundamental research. The decision to commit resources to development is perhaps the most important decision in the R&D sequence. Before this decision is made, the amount of money spent is often relatively small, as is the involvement of staff and facilities outside the research department. Results often are not and cannot be hurried. With the decision to proceed with development the pace steps up. The development engineer *The discussion in this section follows that in White, P.A.F., "Effective Management of Research and Development," John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, pp. 5-9. -86-
enters the picture alongside the research scientist whom he will eventually replace in the management of the project. Market research and market development, along with other considerations concerning implementation of the final result, begin to receive attention, and the amount of money spent increases. In fact, development costs may be as much as 10 times greater than research costs. Successful development is followed by a final production stage, in which R&D is no longer involved. Here the R&D result is produced and sold or incorporated into operations or in some other way put into practical use. From a managerial point of view, it is helpful to consider the following sequence. o Stimulus; A company or organization is provoked by some need into expressing the requirement for a new idea, and a member of the organization gives expression to a new idea potentially capable of meeting the need, o Conception; A plan of action to give form to the new idea is conceived, o Proposal; A formal proposal to adopt this plan is developed and presented to management. o Adoption; After assessment by appropriate specialists, the proposal is accepted as something for the organization to make its business. o Implementation; All the steps necessary to bring the new idea to the point of being a marketable product, or to put it into operational use, are undertaken. From this perspective, basic and exploratory research usually play a major role in "stimulus," while technological research and development, along with such non-research processes as market development, produc- tion, quality control, advertising, sales, and service, all fall under "implementation." The sequence, along with the relative emphasis of the roles of the research scientist, development engineer, and production manager, is illustrated schematically in Figure 5.1. In its early stages, the process is subject primarily to "scientific or technological push." Beginnning with the decision to start development, it becomes increas- ingly subject to "managerial pull" and "market" considerations. 5.2 R&D in the Private and Public Sectors In the private sector, where the ultimate goal is manufacture of a new product, the success of the R&D effort can be measured in sales. Where the goal is improved efficiency in an operation, success may be measurable in reduced operating costs. As long as there is some economic measure of the result, "success" can be quantified. Even measures relating to health and safety, environmental protection, and other public welfare goals may be amenable at least in part to economic assessment in terms of time lost from work, costs of early retirement for health reasons and of training new workers, and costs for legal defense in regulatory proceedings, costs of paying fines, costs of lawsuits, etc. -87-
Research Scientist Development Engineer Production Manager Basic Exploratory Applied research research research Development Production Stimulus H Conception -\ Proposal, Adoption , Implementation t Figure 5.1 Schematic illustration of the R&D process and the relative roles of the scientist, engineer and production manager -88-
In the government sector the picture is much less clear. While in principle social welfare programs involving health and safety and the environment can be measured by the cost to society of mitigating or compensating for the effects of problems that are not corrected, these are often long term costs and are not generally calculated as part of the "cost of doing business." Moreoverf while the ultimate purpose of such government programs is the public well-being, the way in which government achieves this purpose is usually by enacting and implementing laws and regulations. In allocating resources for the R&D needed to implement these laws and regulations, a legislative or administrative decision is made concerning the level of funding that will be devoted to a particular program and this, rather than market considerations, dictates the economics of the effort. Moreover, whereas in industry R&D and production are often internal to one organization, government R&D addressing health and safety usually involves government doing the research, private manufacturers producing the equipment, and mine operators purchasing and using the equipment. .Thus there are many actors, all with different motives. This gives the "implementation" part of the R&D process a distinctly different flavor from what it has in private industry. In particular, funding priorities are usually determined by the importance of the goals, rather than by economic considerations. A further distinction that is useful to keep in mind is that between relatively well-bounded, single-discipline research and more loosely bounded, multi-disciplinary research. Development of a new method for radio transmission may involve only electronic engineering; development of a new rescue breathing apparatus may involve chemistry, materials, human factors, mechanical engineering, etc. Complex safety systems are certain to require a systems analysis approach. The greater the complexity of the task, and the more disciplines or areas of expertise likely to be involved, the greater the challenge to management. There are three essential elements in the ultimate success of an R&D venture: proper identification of a need; successful research and development to meet that need; and successful implementation of the research results. The last of these is crucial, for without it the previous effort will be wasted. Successful implementation requires user acceptance, which in turn depends on cost, appropriateness of design, human factors considerations, quality control in manufacture, and effective marketing. Recognition of the various participants in the process and their differing perceptions must be explicitly addressed. For example, if the research managers in the Bureau of Mines, the regulatory officials in MSHA, the mining companies, the unions, and the mine equipment manufacturers do not agree on (1) the existence of the need and (2) the degree to which the R&D addresses this need, there will be a great deal of resistance to implementing the R&D results. The steps necessary for successful transfer of R&D results into operational practice must be developed specifically for each R&D project. Some general comments can, however, be made. No product can be successful if it does not have user acceptance. The likelihood of -89-
acceptance will be enhanced if those who ultimately will be involved in implementationâfor example, equipment manufacturers, operators, unions, etc.âare involved from the beginning. Unless their views and their economic considerations are taken into account, the necessary ingredients for a successful R&D effort may be missing. In a sense, the concern for production and implementation must begin at the stage of problem identification, and be active throughout the R&D process, rather than being a final step that starts when development is complete. It is not enough for government to invite input from industry and labor. It is government's responsibility to reach out and actively solicit this input, and it is the responsibility of the mining companies and unions to actively participate in the process. There are a number of ways in which this can be done, and there is no one "correct" way. A specialist in implementation of R&D results could be assigned to each proposed project from the start, before projects are ranked and funding priorities assigned. This specialist can contribute an assessment of ultimate user acceptance, and can maintain liaison with potential users throughout the project's life, seeking reactions, suggestions, and evaluations. Other approaches include advisory bodies, boards of consultants, ad hoc meetings of mine safety directors, industrial applications committees in professional societies, etc., so long as these groups function at the "nuts and bolts" level rather than at the policy level. In seeking input from the "industry," it is important to recognize that the mining industry is not monolithic. There are a number of organizations representing, in different ways, the different points of view that arise due to the diverse nature of the mining industry. These organizations include the American Mining Congress, Bituminous Coal Operators Association, National Coal Association, National Independent Coal Operators Association, and National Crushed Stone Association. All of this puts still more of a responsibility on government to establish means of drawing on the expertise and perceptions of the industry as research is going on. Within government too the picture is not as simple as it might appear. Where different parts of the R&D sequence are the responsi- bilities of different agencies, it is particularly important to be clear about the areas of overlap so that decisionmaking by management is not impaired. In the case of mine disaster survival and rescue, the Bureau of Mines has much of the responsibility for research and development, while MSHA and NIOSH have much of the responsibility for initial identification of needs and, ultimately, for testing, approval, and implementation. NIOSH also has some responsibility for research. The joint MSHA-USBM project ranking procedure discussed earlier is a formal mechanism for effective management at the research funding stage although, as indicated in Chapter 3, it could be improved. Mechanisms are also needed to foster appropriate decisionmaking at the development-implementation end of the process. 5.3 Design Considerations for Escape, Survival, and Rescue Equipment There are important distinctions between the equipment used for escape and survival and that used in rescue operations. Escape -90-
equipment must be available to all miners in an emergency, and is used to survive for a short time in a hostile environment while moving to safer areas of the mine. Adeptness at using the equipment is not readily developed as it is not regularly used. Furthermore, when the time for its use arises, the miner may be under considerable stress, and time may be a serious limiting factor. Therefore, the equipment must be simple to operate, must have clearly understandable instructions, and should be deployable with considerable ease. From a human factors aspect, the equipment must be totally unobjectionable to the miner. Frequent inputs from industry, unions, manufacturers, and life support R&D efforts in other agencies must be sought and incorporated in the development effort to ensure that these design criteria are met and that the resulting product is accepted. More important, the design specifications must be correctly established for the activities involved in escape. Several designs should be evaluated, and the selected design should be studied in detail through pre-design tests, employing such techniques as failure mode and effects analysis and fault-tree analysis to ensure that the product will work under expected conditions, that it will meet requirements, and that operating procedures are in fact simple and understandable. Frequent demonstration and briefing meetings should be held with all concerned parties to discuss developmental problems and any need that may arise for changes in research objectives and goals. Evalua- tion tests similar to pre-design tests should be performed on the designed product. This should be followed by extensive tests to ensure that the product will perform as required under worst-case conditions. After this phase, there should be field tests, trials and demonstra- tions. Before full scale deployment, the deterioration in performance characteristics over time (particularly in the underground mine environment of dust, moisture, and vibrations) must be established, and on the basis of this maintenance and replacement schedules must be developed. Survival equipment must enable the survivors to isolate themselves from the hazards posed by the surrounding environment. These hazards depend on the type of emergency, and can be life threatening due to toxic gases, generation of explosive atmospheres, excessive heat, lack of oxygen, collapse of workings, etc. Therefore the requirements and applicability of survival capability and equipment may be quite vari- able. Improved mine design considerations, such as the provision of two escapeways from any work location (one of which will be in the fresh air intake), greatly reduce the likelihood of a situation in which evacuation or escape becomes impossible. Also, providing miners with oxygen self-rescuers should aid in evacuating and escaping through airways that may contain irrespirable atmospheres, further dimininshing the likelihood of entrapment. However, being trapped is a contingency that must be anticipated and provided for by careful evaluation of the alternatives for survival. Much of what has been said above with regard to the development of escape equipment applies to survival equipment as well. However, there are some important implications and differences. -91-
Refuge chambers have been suggested as a means of enabling trapped miners to survive. The dangers of promoting a refuge chamber as any- thing other than a "last resort" capability should be stressed. When it has been decided that a point of no return has been reached with regard to the control of the emerging disaster, evacuation and escape should be the first alternative. It is important that miners not try to use prematurely a refuge chamber when there may be means to escape. Once inside a refuge chamber it may mean staying there until rescued due to the hostility of the environment outside the facility. It is also important to ensure that the refuge chamber will in fact protect the miners in it against the anticipated hazards for the designated period, and that the miner inside the facility can and will be rescued before the end of that period. Nothing can be more disastrous than to find the facility not to have performed as designed in an actual emergency, or to find that the facility cannot be approached or serviced as planned. The number of miners, their distribution in terms of work loca- tions, and the maximum anticipated duration of entrapment must be established. The facilities, equipment and instructions can be more complex than is the case for escape equipment. Some of the considera- tions with regard to the equipment itself will be such things as the quantity, location, construction, ventilation, communications, provi- sion of food and other supplies, etc., all of which depend on the refuge chamber's specific purpose. Given the diversity of mining conditions, the types of additional hazards posed during an emergency, the areal and vertical extent of the mine, and the number of miners who may be affected in an emergency, the need for refuge chambers and the kind of equipment with which they must be supplied can be quite variable. These needs should be established by contingency analysis. It is essential to solicit input and feedback from the miners who will use the equipment, from those who have used similar and different equipment in the past, from equipment designers and manufacturers, and others with relevant expertise. Equipment for use by rescue personnel differs from that intended for escape and survival. Rescue equipment is used only by specially trained persons who undergo rigorous and frequent training. Therefore, considerable flexibility can be exercised in research and development. Several different designs and different pieces of equipment can be developed as it is always possible to match equipment with personnel or vice-versa through training. The equipment can be designed to be as complex as needed to fulfill the requirements of rescue operations. The most important piece of rescue equipment is the rescue breathing apparatus. This apparatus must not only be extremely reliable but must be generally acceptable to rescue workers. The important design considerations are the physiological needs of persons working in an extremely hostile environment. Primary areas of concern are system weight, system bulk, operating time, human factors and system performance. R&D efforts aimed at aiding rescue teams underground must solicit input from those who have actually participated in rescue efforts in mines and who have an appreciation of the needs. Inputs from personnel -92-
who have rescue experience in other fields can be very useful; however, such inputs must be carefully sorted out for applications to mining. Other government agencies having R&D efforts in rescue equipment and procedures and related psychological and physiological research, as well as manufacturers of rescue equipment, should have significant input. Since the research outcomes have applications to rescue and recovery efforts in all parts of the world, and there are centers of research in many countries, information exchange to and from such centers will facilitate coordinated efforts. However, it is worthy of special note here that different countries have different societal demands, and these are usually reflected in their mine safety regulations. Thus, foreign experience and development must be considered in the context of the applicable rules and regulations. 5.4 Recommendations In managing research and development for post-disaster survival and rescue, it is essential to adopt a systems analysis point of view. The entire post-disaster response systemâencompasssing the roles of mine management, workers, equipment manufacturers, and federal agencies, and the functions of research, design, planning, operations, training, regulation, and enforcmentâshould be viewed as a whole. Specifically, within this context: 1. It is essential, in managing the R&D program, to draw from the start of each project upon the expertise, viewpoints, and economic considerations of all parties who will ultimately be involved in the implementation of the R&D results. This includes federal agencies, mine operators, unions, and mine equipment manufacturers. It is not enough for the R&D agency to merely invite such input; it must be actively solicited, and the mining companies and unions must actively participate in the process. Concern for problems associated wtih produc- tion and implementation must begin at the stage of problem identification and continue throughout the R&D process. 2. Mechanisms should be developed for effective managerial decisionmaking at those points in the R&D process where responsibility passes between the Bureau of Mines and MSHA. Research without an eye to implementation, or vice versa, cannot be effective. 3. With regard to escape, survival and rescue equipment, realistic design criteria should be established early in the R&D process, taking into account the nature of mine emer- gencies, the conditions under which the equipment will be used, and the human element in its use. R&D progress should continually be assessed in light of these criteria. 4. Among the considerations in the design and evaluation of emergency equipment should be the need to train miners in its use in actual or simulated emergency conditions. This may require simulation techniques (analogous in principle to use of the Link Trainer in aviation). The filter self-rescuer, for example, which heats up to mouth-blistering temperatures -93-
in actual use in a carbon monoxide environment, requires development of a training simulator that at least approaches the temperatures achieved in emergency use. -94-
