Vulnerability and Risk Management to Ensure the Occupational Safety of Underground Mines

Abstract

Ensuring occupational safety in underground mines is a fundamental priority due to the major risks associated with this unfriendly work environment. This involves employing a set of technical, organizational, and educational measures to reduce the hazards for workers and minimize the risks of accidents and occupational diseases due to electrical and mechanical causes. Old and precarious coal extraction methods, in conjunction with obsolete infrastructure and electrical and mechanical installations, lead to high accident risk, endangering the lives of underground workers when at work. Precarious working conditions and working materials alongside the carelessness of decision makers make underground mine-based work a major cause of accidents and professional illnesses. In this paper, the authors identify, estimate, prioritize, and evaluate the vulnerabilities within underground mines and discuss the actions and resources necessary to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate these vulnerabilities, as well as a mitigation strategy for stopping and/or eliminating them to achieve increased occupational safety.

1. Introduction—The Situation of Underground Mines at the European and National Romanian Levels

In underground mines, various methods are exploited to extract coal in its raw state in order to supply various industrial systems to generate stability and economic growth. Coal remains viable due to its energy content, and it is widely used to generate electricity and as fuel in the steel and cement industry. It is an important energy source ensuring energy security and an element of pollution. However, it is also a factor in work accidents and occupational illnesses due to the old and precarious extraction methods still in use due to the lack of investment in mining machinery and systems and high productivity demand. For this reason, underground mines have developed a number of vulnerabilities over time, resulting from systemic dysfunctions, deficiencies, or non-compliances. These represent factual states, processes, and phenomena that diminish the responsiveness of infrastructures/installations to potential risks or threats or that favor their emergence and development, resulting in consequences in terms of their functionality and utility. The lack of knowledge, non-management, or poor management of vulnerabilities may generate risk factors, affecting the objectives, values, interests, and needs of infrastructures/installations, as well as occupational safety.

In Europe, the underground mine sector—especially coal mines—is in an accelerated process of transition, driven by commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and focus on more environmentally friendly energy sources [1].

The situation in Romania:

• Mine closure plans: Romania has committed to closing coal mines by 2030, in accordance with European commitments regarding the energy transition. Currently, there are nine lignite quarries in Oltenia and four deep bituminous coal mines in the Jiu Valley in use, which are to be closed gradually.
• Social and economic impact: Mine closures affect around 12,000 miners, most of them concentrated in the southwest of the country. Regions such as the Jiu Valley face major economic and social challenges, including high unemployment and a lack of viable economic alternatives.
• Methane emissions: Romania is responsible for 85% of the methane emitted by abandoned coal mines in the EU, which underlines the need for urgent measures to manage these emissions and reduce environmental impacts.

The situation in the European Union:

• Reducing coal production: According to a special report from the European Court of Auditors, coal production in the EU has fallen significantly in recent decades as part of decarbonization efforts.
• Methane emissions: Underground coal mines are significant sources of methane emissions, a powerful greenhouse gas. Coal mining, particularly in underground mines, generates methane emissions which, if not reduced, continue after the mines’ closures.
• Transition of mining regions: Some European mining regions have managed to reinvent themselves. For example, after the closure of coal mines in the 1990s, the Ostrava region of the Czech Republic has become an IT hub, demonstrating that economic transition is possible with appropriate strategies.

Challenges and perspectives: The transition from traditional mining to renewable energy sources is a significant challenge for Romania. It is essential to implement efficient retraining strategies for former miners and to develop the infrastructure needed for new energy sources. The experiences of other European regions, such as Ostrava, can serve as models for the economic and social transformation of mining areas in Romania [2].

2. State of the Art

Ensuring the occupational safety of the mining sector is essential for a number of reasons, given the particularities and risks associated with this field of strategic importance for ensuring energy security. Occupational safety in mining is not only a legal obligation but also a vital component for the protection of workers’ lives and health, for reducing economic costs, and for the sustainability of operations. Below are some key aspects that justify this need [3,4]:

1. High risks associated with mining:

• Mining involves activities in hazardous environments, such as underground depths and unstable tunnels, involving exposure to toxic gases and heavy equipment usage;
• Common accidents include explosions, landslides, tunnel collapse, exposure to toxic substances, and mechanical accidents;
• Long-term health problems such as lung disease (e.g., silicosis) are common.

2. Strict regulations and standards:

• There are strict requirements set by national and international authorities for safety in the mining sector, including employee training, regular equipment checks, preventive measures, and emergency response;
• Compliance with these standards is mandatory in order to avoid legal sanctions and to protect the reputation of companies.

3. Advanced safety technologies:

• The implementation of modern technologies, such as the real-time monitoring of mine conditions, usage of robots for inspections in hazardous areas, and sensors for the detection of hazardous gases, helps to reduce the risks;
• The automation and robotization of certain operations can eliminate the direct exposure of workers to hazardous conditions.

4. Education and training of workers:

• It is crucial that workers are well trained in safety procedures, personal protective equipment usage, and emergency management;
• Regular training and simulation exercises can improve responses in case of an accident.

5. Economic and social impact:

• Work accidents have a significant economic impact on companies through the loss of productivity, costs associated with compensation, and loss of life;
• Mining accidents can cause major social problems, affecting victims’ families and mining-dependent communities.

6. Benefits of a proactive approach:

• The number of accidents and health problems can be reduced;
• The trust of workers and local communities can be increased;
• The sustainability and social responsibility of mining companies can be improved.

However, the planned approach to the mining sector is also becoming a strategic, economic, and environmental necessity, with important implications for the sustainable development of economies and for the efficient use of natural resources. Some key aspects that justify this necessity are listed below [5]:

1. Critical resources for economy and industry:

• The mining sector provides the raw materials needed for industries such as energy, construction, IT, and machine production;
• Rare minerals and metals are essential for the development of green technologies such as batteries for electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines.

2. Economic impact:

• It contributes to GDP growth by generating jobs and attracting foreign investment;
• It supports local economies, especially in regions where mining is a primary activity;
• The export of mineral resources is an important source of income for many countries.

3. Strategic security:

• Access to domestic mineral resources reduces import dependency and strengthens national security;
• Rare minerals are of strategic importance in the geopolitical context, being used in advanced technology and defense.

4. Environmental and sustainability challenges:

• Mining exploitation must be carried out responsibly in order to minimize the environmental impact;
• The need to adopt sustainable practices, such as green mining and material recycling, is essential in order to reduce the environmental footprint.

5. Innovation and technological development:

• Modernizing the sector through advanced technologies can increase the efficiency and safety of mining processes;
• Research and innovation can contribute to reducing the negative effects of mining and harnessing alternative resources.

6. Regulations and public policy:

• An integrated approach including strict policies and regulations is needed in order to ensure the sustainable and equitable exploitation of resources;
• Cooperation between governments, local communities, and investors is crucial to ensure mutual benefits.

7. Social involvement:

• It is important that the mining sector is integrated into regional development strategies to support local communities;
• Mining projects should include social responsibility initiatives to contribute to the development of infrastructure, education, and health in the affected areas.

Addressing occupational safety in the mining sector is an imperative necessity, given the high risks in this field. Through the implementation of appropriate measures, mining can become safer, more sustainable, and more economically efficient. Mining companies, governments, and regulatory organizations must work together to ensure a safe and healthy working environment for all workers.

Addressing the mining sector is therefore a necessity that must take into account the balance between economic development, environmental protection, and social responsibility in order to ensure sustainable long-term benefits [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15].

World-renowned achievements regarding research in the field of the health and safety of underground mines and workers are listed below:

Specialists	Entity	Paper
Wang, Q.; Cheng, T.; Lu, T.; Liu, H.; Zhang, R.; Huang, J. [6]	China University of Mining and Techology, Xuzhou, China; Hubey Polytechnic University, Huangshi, China; Guangzhou University from China; and University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.	Underground Mine Safety and Health: A Hybrid MEREC–CoCoSo System, 2024.
Imam, M.; Baina, K., Tabii, Y.; Ressami, E.M.; Adlaoui, Y.; Benzakour, I.; Abdelwahed, E.h. [7]	Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco; Innovation and Research, Rabat, Morocco; Meminex, Managem, Casablanca, Morocco; and Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh, Morocco.	The future of mine safety: a comprenhensive rewiew of anti-collision sustems based on computer vision in underground mines, 2023.
Li, J.; Ren, J.; Li, C.; Zhang, W.; Tong, F. [8]	China University of Mining and Techology, Beijing, China; and CCTEG Wuhan Engineering Company, Wuhan, China.	Failure mechanism and stability control of soft roof in advance support section of mining face, 2023.
Dong, L.; Zhu, H.; Yan, F.; Bi, S. [9]	Central South University, Changsha, China.	Risk field of rock instability using microseismic monitoringdata in deep mining, 2023.
Zhao, X.; Zhou, X. [10]	Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.	Design metrod and application of stope structure parameters in deep metal mines based on an improved graph, 2022.

National achievements regarding research in the field of the health and safety of underground mines and workers are listed below:

Specialists	Entity	Paper
Vasilescu, G.; Moraru, R.; Babuț, G. [11]	INSEMEX Petrosani, Romania; University of Petrosani, Romania.	Quantitative risk assessment and safety databases in Romanian coal mining: preliminary systematic approach, 2021.
Ilias, N.; Tomescu, C.; Gaman, G.; Ghicioi, E. [12]	University of Petrosani, Romania, and INSEMEX Petrosani, Romania.	Evalution of Occupational Health and Safety in romanian coal mining in terms of legislation and practice.
Arad, S.; Arad, V.; Veres, J.; Stoicuta, O. [13]	University of Petrosani, Romania	Safety excavation in salt rock used for underground storage in Romania, 2008.
Cioca, L.; Moraru, R. [14]	Lucian Blaga University from Sibiu, Romania, and University of Petrosani, Romania.	Explosion and/or fire risk assessment methodology: a common approach, structured for underground coalmine environments, 2012.
Moraru, R.; Babut, G.; Cioca, L. [15]	University of Petrosani, Romania, and Lucian Blaga University from Sibiu, Romania.	Study of methane flow in caved goafs ajacent to longwall faces in Valea Jiului coal basin, 2013.

Applications of mining safety technologies at Jiu Valley, Romania:

(https://jesi.astr.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/8_Arad-Victor.pdf, accessed on 18 April 2025).

Mining safety technologies play a critical role in enhancing the safety and efficiency of operations in underground mines, where hazards such as rockfalls, gas leaks, and equipment collisions are prevalent. Key applications of mining safety technologies in underground mining include the following:

• Gas Detection Systems application: They are used in detecting toxic and explosive gases like methane (CH₄), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen sulfide (H₂S).
• Ground Control and Geotechnical Monitoring application: They are used in preventing roof collapses and rockfalls.
• Communication and Tracking Systems application: They are applied to maintain communication with workers and tracking their location in real time.
• Autonomous and Remote-Controlled Equipment applications: They are utilized in reducing human exposure to dangerous environments.
• Ventilation Monitoring and Control application: They are utilized in maintaining air quality and controlling airflow underground.
• Collision Avoidance Systems (CAS) application: They are applied to prevent accidents between mobile equipment and workers.
• Wearable Safety Tech application: They are used in monitoring the health and safety of miners.
• Emergency Response Systems application: They are utilized in enhancing preparedness for fires, collapses, or explosions.

As a result of the critical analysis, 18 vulnerabilities due to dysfunctions, deficiencies, and non-compliances of the mining system were identified.

Following the estimation of gravity and impact, two ”worst” vulnerability scenarios were generated and prioritized:

(a)

Precariousness of mining security activity;

(b)

Precariousness of occupational safety activity.

The assessment of the two vulnerability scenarios resulted in the following:

(a)

Vulnerability level 25—Very high (Gravity 5 × Impact 5);

After implementing the proposed recommendations, the assessment results in the following:

(b)

Vulnerability level 15—High (Gravity 5 × Impact 3).

It can be noted that the vulnerability level decreased from 25 to 15, and we developed the following from this context:

(a)

Necessary actions and resources to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate vulnerabilities;

(b)

A strategy to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate vulnerabilities.

The results and utility of this study also agree with those of specialized papers from other European countries and can serve as a model for other types of vulnerability assessments in the context of ensuring occupational safety within underground mines.

The elements of novelty and originality presented in this paper are the following:

(a)

Definition of dysfunctions, deficiencies, and non-compliances within the mining system;

(b)

Definition and identification of vulnerabilities;

(c)

Estimation of vulnerabilities using gravity and impact matrix;

(d)

Determination of scenario type depending on the vulnerability level;

(e)

Prioritization of vulnerabilities;

(f)

Vulnerability assessment;

(g)

Presentation of necessary actions and resources to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate vulnerabilities;

(h)

Development of a strategy to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate vulnerabilities.

3. Vulnerability and Risk Management—Critical Analysis

• Glossary of terms:

A. Vulnerabilities are factual states, processes, and phenomena that diminish the responsiveness of infrastructures/installations to potential risks or threats or that favor their emergence and development, with consequences in terms of functionality and utility. The lack of knowledge, non-management, or poor and faulty management of vulnerabilities may generate risk factors regarding the objectives, values, interests, and needs of infrastructures/installations, as well as the occupational safety status. Vulnerabilities are generated by dysfunctions, deficiencies, or non-compliances in the mining system [16].

B. Dysfunctions are those actions manifested by failures and/or disturbances of the functions of underground mines, reducing, integrating, or adapting the infrastructure/installation. Failure to identify the dysfunctions, as well as their superficial treatment or poor management, automatically generates vulnerabilities, which can affect occupational safety.

C. Deficiencies represent the lack of physical attributes manifested by defects or gaps and are characterized by deficits. An infrastructure/installation within underground mines with deficiencies cannot operate at its normal parameters, and urgent re-commissioning or resilience measures must be taken to prevent work accidents or illnesses.

D. Non-compliances represent the failure to meet the requirements of an infrastructure/installation within underground mines, manifested by deviation in some required characteristics specified in the security plan or operating manual. An infrastructure/installation with non-compliances cannot operate at its normal parameters, and urgent measures must be taken to eliminate them to prevent work accidents or illnesses.

Vulnerability management is an intrinsic approach with the following selective steps (critical analysis) [16,17]:

(a)

The identification of vulnerabilities;

(b)

The estimation of vulnerabilities;

(c)

The prioritization of vulnerabilities;

(d)

The assessment of vulnerabilities.

3.1. The Identification of Vulnerabilities

Table 1. Identified vulnerabilities in the mining system.

No.	The Identified Vulnerability	The Generating Source
1.	Poor management of mining operator activity and mining installations.	Dysfunction
2.	Poor management of the operative and operational management activities of underground mines.
3.	Instability and insecurity of underground mines caused by the lack or precariousness of investments in mining infrastructure.
4.	Precariousness of mining security activity.
5.	Precariousness of occupational safety activity.
6.	Precariousness of the protection and security activity of critical mining infrastructures.
7.	Lack of underground mine development strategies, critical infrastructure protection, and mining security.
8.	Power deficit in the National Power System.	Deficiency
9.	Deficit in high-performance mining installations in underground mines.
10.	Deficit in coal storage infrastructures.
11.	Deficit in mining financial resources.
12.	Deficit in mining energy research and development resources.
13.	Deficit in mining qualified and overqualified human resources.
14.	Deficit in honest and serious human resources.
15.	Deficit in political and legislative stability.
16.	Precariousness and non-performance of mining equipment and appliances within underground mines.	Non-compliance
17.	Lack of coal—possible local, area, regional, or national black-out, derived from the lack of coal-fired electricity.
18.	Dependence of national systems on coal-fired electricity.
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

identifies the vulnerabilities within a mining system arising from dysfunctions, deficiencies, and non-compliances.

3.2. The Estimation of Vulnerabilities

Based on gravity and impact,

Table 2. Scenario type by gravity estimation, impact estimation and level vulnerability.

No.	The Identified Vulnerability	Gravity Estimation	Impact Estimation	Vulnerability Level	Scenario Type
1.	Poor management of mining operator activity and mining installations.	4. High	4. High	16. High	Plausibly the worst
2.	Poor management of the operative and operational management activities of underground mines.	3. Medium	3. Medium	9. Medium	Moderate
3.	Instability and insecurity of the mining system caused by the lack or precariousness of investments in mining infrastructure.	4. High	4. High	16. High	Plausibly the worst
4.	Precariousness of mining security activity.	5. Very high	5. Very high	25. Very High	The worst
5.	Precariousness of occupational safety activity.	5. Very high	5. Very high	25. Very High	The worst
6.	Precariousness of the protection and security activity of critical mining infrastructures.	4. High	4. High	16. High	Plausibly the worst
7.	Lack of mining system development strategies, critical infrastructure protection, and mining security.	3. Medium	4. High	12. Medium	Moderate
8.	Power deficit in the National Power System.	3. Medium	4. High	12. Medium	Moderate
9.	Deficit in high-performance mining installations in the mining system.	4. High	4. High	16. High	Plausibly the worst
10.	Deficit in coal storage infrastructures.	2. Low	4. High	8. Medium	Moderate
11.	Deficit in mining financial resources.	4. High	4. High	16. High	Plausibly the worst
12.	Deficit in mining energy research and development resources.	3. Medium	3. Medium	9. Medium	Moderate
13.	Deficit in mining qualified and overqualified human resources.	3. Medium	3. Medium	9. Medium	Moderate
14.	Deficit in honest and serious human resources.	3. Medium	3. Medium	9. Medium	Moderate
15.	Deficit in political and legislative stability.	3. Medium	3. Medium	9. Medium	Moderate
16.	Precariousness and non-performance of mining equipment and appliances within the mining system.	4. High	4. High	16. High	Plausibly the worst
17.	Lack of coal—possible local, area, regional, or national black-out, derived from the lack of coal-fired electricity.	3. Medium	4. High	12. Medium	Moderate
18.	Dependence of national systems on coal-fired electricity.	3. Medium	4. High	12. Medium	Moderate
The vulnerability level is given by the product of Gravity × Impact The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System. Colors for gravity, impact and vulnerability level: Yellow—3 medium; Brown—4 high; Red—5 very high Colors for scenario type: Yellow—plausibly the worst; Green—moderate; Red—the worst

lists the estimations of the 18 vulnerabilities identified within the mining system and the type of scenario developed according to the gravity and impact matrix.

Gravity is defined as follows:

• Very low: The event produces a minor disturbance in the activity, without material damage;
• Low: The event causes minor material damage and limited disruption to activity;
• Medium: The event causes injuries to staff and/or certain losses of equipment and utilities, and delays in providing the service;
• High: The event causes serious staff injuries, significant loss of equipment of installations and facilities, delays, and/or interruption of service provision;
• Very high: The consequences are catastrophic, resulting in deaths and serious injuries to staff; major losses in equipment, installations, and facilities; and the termination of service provision.

Impact is defined as follows:

Criteria: Potential deaths (persons) with five levels; potential injured persons (persons) with five levels; potential losses or damage to on-site infrastructures providing the main utilities, electricity, communications, drinking water, and natural gas (damage), with five levels; potential losses or damage to the material goods of those to whom services are provided by the critical national infrastructure in question, public, commercial, and private (income on invested capital), with five levels; potential losses or damage to the environment (%) with five levels; and potential social impacts (the public confidence) with five levels.

The levels are defined as follows:

• Very low: The event produces a minor disturbance in the activity, without material damage;
• Low: The event causes minor material damage and limited disruption to activity;
• Medium: The event causes injuries to staff and/or certain losses of equipment and utilities, and delays in providing the service;
• High: The event causes serious staff injuries, significant loss of equipment of installations and facilities, delays, and/or interruption of service provision;
• Very high: The consequences are catastrophic, resulting in deaths and serious injuries to staff; major losses in equipment, installations, and facilities; and the termination of service provision.

The scores are based on expert estimates and the history of technical incidents and accidents at work, which have been very frequent and catastrophically fatal, as well as loss of life (explosions of methane gas) and the unavailability of infrastructure, with the related interdependencies (explosions: Livezeni, Lupeni, Vulcan, Uricani, Petrila, and Lonea underground mines).

The gravity estimation (from 1 to 5) and impact estimation (from 1 to 5) conform to ISO 31000 Risk Management, and the estimation of the five levels was elaborated and deeply considered by the authors [18].

The vulnerability level (from 1 to 25) conforms to ISO 31000 Risk Management, given by the product between the gravity estimation (five levels) and impact estimation (five levels), according to the matrix below.

The estimation of gravity and impact, as well as the assessment of the vulnerability level, is modeled for the first time for Romania. This represents a novelty regarding the identification of the vulnerability level of the mining objectives (underground coal mines).

Gravity	Very high 5
	High 4
	Medium 3
	Low 2
	Very low 1
	0	Very low 1	Low 2	Medium 3	High 4	Very high 5
Impact
Note: The vulnerability level is given by the product between the gravity level and impact level.

After estimating the vulnerability of gravity and impact, the scenario type will be decided as follows:

• 1. The worst;
• 2. Plausibly the worst;
• 3. Moderate.

1. The Worst	2. Plausibly the Worst	3. Moderate

3.3. The Assessment of Vulnerabilities

Statistics of the worst mining accidents in Romania 2019–1972

(source: https://www.agerpres.ro/documentare/2019/05/07/accidente-miniere-cronologie-2000-2019--302631, accessed on 18 April 2025).

2019

May 7: One electrician from the Lupeni Mine in the Jiu Valley suffered a work accident while working on a high-voltage transformer; the man was hospitalized at the Emergency Hospital in Petrosani. Based on the initial data from the scene, it seems that the transformer exploded, and the victim suffered burns on 25% of their body surface.

2018

July 18: One miner was injured and another died as a result of a subsurface accident that occurred in the Lupeni Mine, in the Jiu Valley, about three kilometers from the mine entrance.

May 23: A miner from the Livezeni Mine in the Jiu Valley died in a labor accident underground while transporting materials for a mechanized dam. The miner was hit in the head area by a metal piece weighing about 150 kg.

2017

October 30: One miner died and three others were injured in a deflagration that occurred on a gallery of the Uricani mine in the Jiu Valley. The four miners had descended 50 m underground to raise a pier. Subsequently, on November 9, one of the injured miners, who had been transported to the Burn Hospital in Bucharest, died. He suffered 40% burns on the surface of his body and airway burns.

October 5: In a gallery in Lupeni Mine, Jiu Valley, there was a subsidence that surprised 11 miners. Eight of them managed to reach the surface, and three of them were stuck under the rubble. One of the miners was found dead by rescuers; another died on October 6, 2017, although he was transported to Bucharest by helicopter to Floreasca Hospital; and the third was found in better condition, hospitalized for investigations at the hospital in Petrosani. The surprise at the Lupeni Mine, in which two miners lost their lives and another was injured, was framed as a collective work accident with three victims.

2013

October 17: A mining accident at the Rosiuta mine in Gorj County resulted in a dead man and twelve injured. Seven people were in a mixed van for freight and passenger transport.

2012

June 18: Two employees of Petrila Mine suffered a steam engine-related accident during an operation they were performing at an underground gallery to cool an area behind an isolation pier. In the accident, an engineer and a brigade master miner suffered burns of grades 3 and 4 due to overheated water, and were subsequently transported by SMURD helicopter to a hospital in Bucharest.

2011

November 15: A man died in the Botusanu mine, belonging to the Cross Mine, subordinated to the National Uranium Company. The accident occurred following a controlled explosion at a mine wreck, most likely due to human error. The man was 42 years old; he was from the Bacau area, Bacau County; and he worked in mining for 20 years.

November 9: A 42-year-old miner lost his life in a work accident at Mina Lupoaia of the National Society of Lignite Oltenia, Motru municipality, after being hit in the head area by a beam. He worked in mining for more than 20 years.

October 27: A miner from Paroseni Mine, Jiu Valley, was injured after a piece of coal broke off from the wall of an underground gallery and crushed his leg. He was working as a wagoner, and the piece of coal that broke off from the gallery caught his foot on the side of a conveyor belt from a mechanized underground dam.

February 5: Five miners died underground at the Uricani Mine, most likely due to an explosion as a result of an accumulation of methane gas. In addition to them, an engineer and four electricians were troubleshooting an electrical transformer.

2009

November 1: A powerful explosion occurred in an underground hydropower gallery in Nehoiasu, in Arsele. A team of ten workers from Siriu Hydroconstruction was underground at the time of the deflagration, and six of them were injured.

February 9: An explosion took place at the mine in Paroseni, Jiu Valley. All the miners who were in the mine were evacuated, with no casualties.

2008

November 15: A serious explosion occurred in the 431st abbey of Petrila Mine in the Jiu Valley, about 950 m underground. The cause was an accumulation of methane gas. The explosion was followed for another four hours and resulted in 13 deaths and 14 injuries.

2006

January 14: In Anina, Caras-Severin County, seven people died and five others were injured following an underground explosion caused by the accumulation of methane gas.

2002

May 15: Ten miners died at the Vulcan mine in the Jiu Valley, and four others were injured in a methane gas explosion.

2001

August 7: In the abattage of the Vulcan Mine in the Jiu Valley, 14 miners died and four others were injured due to carbon monoxide poisoning, I-IV burns, and trauma caused by a methane gas explosion.

2000

May 8: While mining quartz sand in Hudesti, Botosani County, seven miners lost their lives due to an accidental explosion on the surface of an explosive charge prepared for the dislocation of the sand deposit used to manufacture the glass.

2008

May 6: An underground accident at work in the Vulcan Mine in the Jiu Valley resulted in the injuries of two miners.

April 12: An accident at Paroseni Mine, Jiu Valley, resulted in a dead man and a wounded man.

2006

August 7: In the Baia Noua mine in Mehedinti County, two miners were trapped underground following the collapse of a mine wall. They died instantly from mechanical shock, and their inanimate bodies were brought to the surface after 24 days of search efforts.

May 8: In Lupeni Mine, Jiu Valley, due to a strong flood, a miner died, and four others were injured. According to the initial investigation, the underground flood occurred due to water accumulation in voids above the galleries.

2004

July 6: An employee of the Livezeni Mine died electrocuted in a labor accident on the surface in a power substation located in Dalja Mine, Jiu Valley.

May 22: Two miners died and two others were injured in a collective labor accident in the underground Uricani Mine in the Jiu Valley.

2003

March 20: Three mining rescuers from Lonea Mine, Jiu Valley, suffered burns after pieces of burning coal fell from the ceiling of the gallery while working on a dam where the ignition phenomenon of coal was reported.

2002

December 22: A fireworker died and three other miners were injured after igniting underground methane gas at the shooting site in Lonea Mine, Sector 1, Jiu Valley.

2000

March 8: Four miners died at the Iara Mine in Cluj County, following carbon monoxide poisoning caused by a fire in the underground.

1993

At Mina Baia Noua, an accident occurred, where two miners lost their lives after a mine wall collapsed.

1980

November 29: At the Livezeni Mine in the Jiu Valley, there was an explosion underground that killed 53 people.

1972

November 2: An explosion occurred at the Uricani Mine, Jiu Valley, that killed 43 people.

The assessment of vulnerabilities consists of the following steps:

(a)

The pre-assessment;

(b)

The assessment;

(c)

The post-assessment.

3.3.1. The Pre-Assessment

Table 3. A causal analysis of the identified vulnerabilities.

The Identified Vulnerability		The Identification of the Generating Source (Dysfunction, Deficiency, Non-Compliance)	The Causal Analysis
4.	Precariousness of the mining security activity.	Dysfunction	Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance of mining security activity within the mining system or underground or surface mining exploitation: Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance with mining security procedures during coal exploitation or mining closures; Non-performing infrastructure, equipment, facilities, and machinery during coal exploitation or mining closures.
5.	Precariousness of occupational safety activity.	Dysfunction	Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance of occupational safety activity within mining system jobs or underground or surface exploitation: Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance with legal occupational safety procedures and rules during coal exploitation or mining closures; Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance with electrical safety procedures during coal exploitation or mining closures; Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance of the assessment and audit from an occupational safety point of view, during coal exploitation or mining closures; Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance with the Prevention, Protection, and Security Plan during coal exploitation or mining closures; Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance with legal procedures and rules on the Fire Extinguishing Plan during coal exploitation or mining closures; Lack, precariousness, or non-compliance with legal procedures and rules on mining rescue activity during coal exploitation or mining closures in the event of an accident or explosion.
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

analyzes the identified vulnerabilities.

3.3.2. The Assessment

The vulnerability level is calculated using the European method of risk assessment from ISO 31000 Risk Management, adapted by the authors to the needs of underground mines in Romania (quantitative matrix with the five levels of gravity and impact) [18]:

(a)

Gravity—G:

• 1: Very low;
• 2: Low;
• 3: Medium;
• 4: High;
• 5: Very high.

(b)

Impact—I:

• 1: Very low;
• 2: Low;
• 3: Medium;
• 4: High;
• 5: Very high.

The vulnerability level matrix is built as follows:

$$NV=G\cdot I$$

(1)

where

$$G={\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}5& 4& 3& 2& 1\end{array}\right]}^T;$$

$$I=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& 5\end{array}\right].$$

Following the calculations, the following is obtained:

$$NV=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}5& 10& 15& 20& 25\\ 4& 8& 12& 16& 20\\ 3& 6& 9& 12& 15\\ 2& 4& 6& 8& 10\\ 1& 2& 3& 4& 5\end{array}\right]$$

(2)

The classification of the vulnerability level is based on the value of the VL (vulnerability level) obtained:

• Between 1 and 3: Very low (Green);
• Between 4 and 6: Low (Brown);
• Between 7 and 12: Medium (Yellow);
• Between 13 and 16: High (Orange);
• Between 17 and 25: Very high (Red).

Table 4 analyzes the gravity level of the vulnerabilities.

Table 4. Analysis of the gravity level of the vulnerabilities.

The Gravity Analysis	Level
The identified vulnerability: 4. Precariousness of mining security activity. 5. Precariousness of occupational safety activity.		1. Very low
		2. Low
		3. Medium
		4. High
	X	Very high

Table 4. Analysis of the gravity level of the vulnerabilities.

The Gravity Analysis	Level
The identified vulnerability: 4. Precariousness of mining security activity. 5. Precariousness of occupational safety activity.		1. Very low
		2. Low
		3. Medium
		4. High
	X	Very high

Level		Gravity
	1. Very low	The event produces a minor disturbance in the activity, without material damage.
	2. Low	The event causes minor material damage and limited disruption to activity.
	3. Medium	The event causes injuries to staff and/or certain losses of equipment and utilities, and delays in providing the service.
	4. High	The event causes serious staff injuries, significant loss of equipment of installations and facilities, delays, and/or interruption of service provision.
X	5. Very high	The consequences are catastrophic, resulting in deaths and serious injuries to staff; major losses in equipment, installations, and facilities; and termination of service provision.

Table 5 analyzes the impact level of the vulnerabilities.

Table 5. Analysis of the impact level of the vulnerabilities.

The Impact Analysis	Level
Potential deaths (persons)		1. Very low	0–5 people
		2. Low	6–10 people
		3. Medium	11–15 people
		4. High	16–20 people
	X	5. Very high	>21 people
Potential injured persons (persons)		1. Very low	0–20 people
		2. Low	21–40 people
		3. Medium	41–60 people
		4. High	61–80 people
	X	Very high	>81 people
Potential losses or damage to on-site infrastructures providing the main utilities: electricity, communications, drinking water, and natural gas (damage)		1. Very low	temporary damage
		2. Low	considerable damage
		3. Medium	medium damage
	X	4. High	high damage
		Very high	very high damage
Potential losses or damage to the material goods of those to whom services are provided by the critical national infrastructure in question: public, commercial, and private (income on invested capital)		1. Very low	0–10% of IIC
		2. Low	11–20% of IIC
		3. Medium	21–30% of IIC
	X	4. High	31–40% of IIC
		5. Very high	over 41% of IIC
Potential losses or damage to the environment (%)		1. Very low	0–20%
		2. Low	21–40%
		3. Medium	41–60%
	X	4. High	61–80%
		Very high	over 81%
Potential social impacts (the public confidence)		1. Very low	0–10% of PC
		2. Low	11–20% of PC
		3. Medium	21–30% of PC
	X	4. High	31–40% of PC
		5. Very high	0–10% of PC
IIC— income on invested capital; PC—public confidence. The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

Table 5. Analysis of the impact level of the vulnerabilities.

The Impact Analysis	Level
Potential deaths (persons)		1. Very low	0–5 people
		2. Low	6–10 people
		3. Medium	11–15 people
		4. High	16–20 people
	X	5. Very high	>21 people
Potential injured persons (persons)		1. Very low	0–20 people
		2. Low	21–40 people
		3. Medium	41–60 people
		4. High	61–80 people
	X	Very high	>81 people
Potential losses or damage to on-site infrastructures providing the main utilities: electricity, communications, drinking water, and natural gas (damage)		1. Very low	temporary damage
		2. Low	considerable damage
		3. Medium	medium damage
	X	4. High	high damage
		Very high	very high damage
Potential losses or damage to the material goods of those to whom services are provided by the critical national infrastructure in question: public, commercial, and private (income on invested capital)		1. Very low	0–10% of IIC
		2. Low	11–20% of IIC
		3. Medium	21–30% of IIC
	X	4. High	31–40% of IIC
		5. Very high	over 41% of IIC
Potential losses or damage to the environment (%)		1. Very low	0–20%
		2. Low	21–40%
		3. Medium	41–60%
	X	4. High	61–80%
		Very high	over 81%
Potential social impacts (the public confidence)		1. Very low	0–10% of PC
		2. Low	11–20% of PC
		3. Medium	21–30% of PC
	X	4. High	31–40% of PC
		5. Very high	0–10% of PC
IIC— income on invested capital; PC—public confidence. The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

Level		Impact
	1. Very low	The event produces a minor disturbance in the activity, without material damage.
	2. Low	The event causes minor material damage and limited disruption to activity.
	3. Medium	The event causes injuries to staff and/or certain losses of equipment and utilities, and delays in providing the service.
	4. High	The event causes serious staff injuries, significant loss of equipment of installations and facilities, delays, and/or interruption of service provision.
X	5. Very high	The consequences are catastrophic, resulting in deaths and serious injuries to staff; major losses in equipment, installations, and facilities; and termination of service provision.

Table 6. The involved (critical) infrastructures.

The Identification of the Involved (Critical) Infrastructures	Notes
Critical energy infrastructure: power plants (through the lack of coal, which is the raw material for thermo power), power substations, and overhead power lines.	-
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

identifies the involved (critical) infrastructures.

Table 7 analyzes the interdependencies.

Table 7. Analysis of the interdependencies.

The Analysis of the Interdependencies	Critical Infrastructures or Systems
The National Power System is interdependent with the mining system in that it covers the electricity demand in case of energy insecurity, damage, crisis, power outages, or natural disasters (earthquake, drought, frost, storms, etc.)	Critical mining and power infrastructures.
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

Table 7. Analysis of the interdependencies.

The Analysis of the Interdependencies	Critical Infrastructures or Systems
The National Power System is interdependent with the mining system in that it covers the electricity demand in case of energy insecurity, damage, crisis, power outages, or natural disasters (earthquake, drought, frost, storms, etc.)	Critical mining and power infrastructures.
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

Gravity	Very high 5					Vulnerabilities 4 and 5
	High 4
	Medium 3
	Low 2
	Very low 1
	0	Very low 1	Low 2	Medium 3	High 4	Very high 5
Impact
Note: The vulnerability level is given by the product between the gravity level and impact level.

Calculated Vulnerability Level
Level	Score
Very low	1–3
Low	4–6
Medium	7–12
High	13–16
Very high	17–25

Table 8. Proposed recommendations.

The Vulnerability		Proposed Recommendations
4.	Precariousness of mining security activity.	(a) The development and application of some procedures and rules regarding mining security, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure mining security by the management and leaders of working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; (b) Massive investments from European or national funds in infrastructure, equipment, installations, and high-performance machinery from mining decision makers within the Ministry of Energy and the management of underground or surface mining exploitation during coal exploitation or mining closures.
5.	Precariousness of occupational safety activity.	(a) The development and application of some procedures and rules regarding occupational safety, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure the safety and security of the workers by the management of the mining exploitation, those responsible for the occupational safety activity and leaders of working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; (b) Maximum strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules on occupational safety to ensure the safety and security of workers, by the leaders of the working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; (c) Maximum strict compliance with all the electrical safety procedures and rules that would ensure the safety and security of workers, by the leaders of the working parties (electrical personnel) in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; (d) The development, implementation, and application of procedures and rules regarding the assessment and audit from an occupational safety point of view, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure the safety and security of workers, in order to observe the level and manner of the implementation of safety and security rules by the management of underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; (e) The assessment of occupational health and safety through different national or European methods, for all jobs in underground or surface mining exploitation, by the occupational health-and-safety risk-level assessor (external or internal authorized person), and the identification of all risks that may be dangerous to the integrity or life of workers; (f) Audit of the occupational health and safety of the mining exploitation industry regarding how to comply with the occupational safety activity at the management level (director, chief engineer, sector head, etc.) or with mining exploitation personnel (hauler, miner, gasser, brigadier, etc.); (g) The development, implementation, application, and strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules regarding the Fire Extinguishing Plan during coal exploitation or mining closures; (h) The development, implementation, application, and strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules on mining rescue activity during coal exploitation or mining closures.
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

highlights the proposed recommendations.

Table 9. The vulnerability level after the proposed recommendations.

Vulnerability	Identified		After the Proposed Recommendations
4. Precariousness of mining security activity. 5. Precariousness of occupational safety activity.		1. Very low		1. Very low
		2. Low		2. Low
		3. Medium	X	3. Medium
		4. High		4. High
	X	5. Very high		5. Very high

highlights the vulnerability level after the proposed recommendations.

Gravity	Very high 5			Vulnerabilities 4 and 5
	High 4
	Medium 3
	Low 2
	Very low 1
	0	Very low 1	Low 2	Medium 3	High 4	Very high 5
Impact
Note: The vulnerability level is given by the product between the gravity level and impact level.

Calculated Vulnerability Level
Level	Score
Very low	1–3
Low	4–6
Medium	7–12
High	13–16
Very high	17–25

3.3.3. The Post-Assessment

Table 10. The prioritization of the recommendations.

The Prioritization of the Recommendations
1. Maximum strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules on occupational safety, which would ensure the safety and security of workers, by the leaders of the working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; 2. Maximum strict compliance with all the electrical safety procedures and rules that would ensure the health and safety of workers by the leaders of the working parties (electrical personnel) in underground or surface mining exploitation during coal exploitation or mining closures; 3. The assessment of occupational health and safety, through different national or European methods, of all jobs in underground or surface mining exploitation by the risk-level assessor (external or internal authorized person), and the identification of all risks that may be dangerous to the integrity or life of workers; 4. Audit of the occupational health and safety of mining exploitation on how to comply with occupational health and safety activity at the management level (director, chief engineer, sector head, etc.) or with mining exploitation personnel (hauler, miner, gasser, brigadier, etc.); 5. The development, implementation, application, and strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules regarding the Fire Extinguishing Plan during coal exploitation or mining closures; 6. The development and application of some procedures and rules regarding mining security, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure mining security by the management and leaders of working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; 7. The development and application of some procedures and rules regarding occupational safety, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure the safety and security of the workers by the management of the mining exploitation, those responsible for the occupational health and safety activity and leaders of working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; 8. The development, implementation, and application of procedures and rules regarding the assessment and audit from an occupational safety point of view, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure the safety and security of workers in order to observe the level and manner of implementation of occupational health and safety rules by the management of underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures; 9. The development, implementation, application, and strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules on mining rescue activity during coal exploitation or mining closures; 10. Massive investments from European or national funds in infrastructure, equipment, installations, and high-performance machinery from mining decision makers within the Ministry of Energy and the management of underground or surface mining exploitation during coal exploitation or mining closures [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27].
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

highlights the prioritization of the recommendations.

3.4. The Development of the Strategy to Mitigate, Stop, and/or Eliminate Vulnerabilities

Following the assessment of the two vulnerabilities (4 and 5), the necessary actions and resources to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate vulnerabilities (

Table 11. Necessary actions and resources to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate vulnerabilities.

Necessary Actions	Necessary Resources
1. Strict compliance with all the procedures and legal norms regarding occupational health and safety, electrical security, and the Fire Extinguishing Plan.	Control personnel
2. The assessment of occupational health and safety.	Specialized occupational health and safety personnel, internal or external (assessor/auditor)
3. The audit of occupational health and safety.
4. The development and application of some legal procedures and rules regarding occupational health and safety and mining rescue.	Specialized personnel in occupational health and safety and mining rescue
5. Massive investments from European or national funds in (critical) infrastructure, equipment, installations, and high-performance mining machinery [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]	National and European non/refundable funds
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

) can be realized and materialized, which may generate the strategy to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate vulnerabilities (Table 11).

Table 12. Strategy to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate vulnerabilities.

Strategy to Mitigate, Stop, and/or Eliminate Vulnerabilities (Action/Job)		Importance		Execution Time
		I	Important	S	Short	(1–5 years)
		VI	Very Important	M	Medium	(5–10 years)
		U	Urgent	L	Long	(10–15 years)
1.	Maximum strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules on occupational health and safety that would ensure the health and safety of workers, by the leaders of the working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures.	U		S
2.	Maximum strict compliance with all the electrical and mechanical safety procedures and rules that would ensure the health and safety of workers, by the leaders of the working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures.	U		S
3.	The assessment of occupational health and safety through different national or European methods for all jobs in underground or surface mining exploitation, by the risk level assessor (external or internal authorized person), and the identification of all risks that may be dangerous to the integrity or life of workers.	U		S
4.	Audit of the occupational health and safety of mining exploitation on how to comply with the occupational health and safety activity at the management level (director, chief engineer, sector head, etc.) or with mining exploitation personnel (hauler, miner, gasser, brigadier, etc.).	U		S
5.	The development, implementation, application, and strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules regarding the Fire Extinguishing Plan during coal exploitation or mining closures.	U		S
6.	The development and application of some procedures and rules regarding mining security, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure mining security by the management and leaders of working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures.	U		S
7.	The development and application of some procedures and rules regarding occupational health and safety, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure the safety and security of the workers by the management of the mining exploitation, those responsible for the occupational health and safety activity and leaders of working parties in underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures.	U		S
8.	The development, implementation, and application of procedures and rules regarding the assessment and audit from an occupational health and safety point of view, aligned and harmonized at the European level, very modern and pragmatic, to ensure the safety and security of workers in order to observe the level and manner of the implementation of occupational health and safety rules by the management of underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures.	U		S
9.	The development, implementation, application, and strict compliance with all the legal procedures and rules on mining rescue activity during coal exploitation or mining closures.	U		S
10.	Massive investments from European or national funds in infrastructure, equipment, installations, and high-performance machinery from mining decision makers within the Ministry of Energy and the management of underground or surface mining exploitation, during coal exploitation or mining closures [36,37].	U		L
The results were determined by the authors in a doctoral thesis at the University of Petrosani, Romania, and are in the process of being implemented in the National Mining System.

highlights the strategy ti mitigate, stop and/or eliminate vulnerabilities.

Case studies on safety technologies in the Jiu Valley, Romania:

• Experimentation with Permissible Emulsion Explosives: The researchers tested a new type of permissible emulsion explosive tailored for the methane-rich conditions of Jiu Valley mines. These explosives were evaluated both in controlled environments and through underground blasts to ensure safety and effectiveness.
• Reliability Analysis of Underground Conveyor Belt Systems: A comprehensive study focused on the conveyor belts at Vulcan Mine identified that transportation system failures were significant contributors to operational downtimes. The analysis aimed to inform maintenance and upgrade strategies to improve system reliability.
• Assessment of Specific Workplace Risks: An evaluation of occupational risks in Jiu Valley mines involved identifying and ranking risk factors based on their potential severity. This assessment provided a foundation for implementing preventive measures to enhance worker safety.
• Management of Coal Dust Explosiveness: Studies addressed measures to mitigate the explosiveness of coal dust, emphasizing techniques like treating mining areas with hygroscopic substances. These methods aimed to reduce hazards associated with coal dust in Jiu Valley collieries.
• Safety Improvement Solutions Using GIS Technology: A notable study titled “Safety Improvement Solutions in Coal Mines Using GIS” highlights the application of Geographic Information Systems (GISs) to enhance safety in mining operations. Conducted at the Lupeni coal mine in the Jiu Valley, the study demonstrated how GIS technology can be utilized to monitor and manage safety parameters effectively, thereby reducing risks associated with underground mining activities.
• Transition Strategies and Safety Considerations: The European project TRACER has been instrumental in formulating smart strategies for the transition in coal-intensive regions, with the Jiu Valley serving as a case study. The project emphasizes the importance of integrating safety measures into the broader framework of economic and environmental development. This includes addressing environmental risks and ensuring the well-being of the local population during the transition period.
• Environmental Impact and Safety Management: Research published in the journal Environmental Management and Health discusses the significant environmental risks posed by coal mining in the Jiu Valley. The study presents a sequential approach to environmental management, underscoring the necessity of implementing safety technologies to mitigate pollution and other hazards associated with mining activities.

These studies collectively contribute to advancing safety technologies and practices in the Jiu Valley mining sector, Romania.

4. Conclusions

This paper presented a critical analysis based on the statistics of the most serious work accidents in the period of 2019–1972; in particular, collective accidents involving the loss of human life. Accidents at work have resulted from technical incidents and non-compliance with occupational safety. This study identified 18 vulnerabilities resulting from dysfunctions, deficiencies, and non-compliances with the mining system. Following the estimation of the gravity and impact, two of ”the worst” vulnerability scenarios were generated and prioritized. The assessment of these two vulnerability scenarios resulted in actions and resources needed to eliminate the vulnerabilities, which allowed for the generation of a strategy to mitigate, stop, and/or eliminate them. This strategy underpins the occupational health and safety of the mining system (underground mines) and area, as well as regional and national energy security. Through generalization and customization, this study on the mining systems of Romania (underground mines) can be adapted to many European states, as it highlights the possible dysfunctions, deficiencies, and non-compliances that generate vulnerabilities. This study proposes measures to eliminate these vulnerabilities, which materialized as the abovementioned strategy. These measures are in line with the new needs presented in the literature and Romanian mining spectrum. Occupational safety in underground mines is essential for protecting the life and health of mining workers, and a combination of modern technology, continuous training, and strict compliance with safety rules can help to significantly reduce the level of vulnerability and subsequent risk.