[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9234-9236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02297]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory
Safety Standards
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the
application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed
below.
DATES: All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before March 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by ``docket
number'' on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1. Electronic Mail: [email protected]. Include the docket
number of the petition in the subject line of the message.
2. Facsimile: 202-693-9441.
3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452, Attention: Sheila McConnell, Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. Persons delivering
documents are required to check in at the receptionist's desk in Suite
4E401. Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments
during normal business hours at the address listed above.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal
Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS
or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Barron, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
[email protected] (Email), or 202-693-9441 (Facsimile). [These are
not toll-free numbers.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
(Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file
a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard
to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard
exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure
of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result
in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish
the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M-2016-009-M.
Petitioner: Coeur Alaska, Inc., 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4700,
Denver, Colorado 80203.
Mine: Kensington Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 50-01544, located in Juneau
County, Alaska.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.11052(d) (refuge areas).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing
[[Page 9235]]
standard for refuge areas applied to the development and exploration
areas at its Kensington mine. The petitioner seeks approval to use the
recently installed Strata-manufactured, 12-person emergency refuge
chambers--portable (ERCP), which are equipped with internal air and
water supplies, without having to provide compressed air and
waterlines. The petitioner states that:
(1) On July 12, 2016, Coeur submitted a petition for modification
(PFM #1) seeking relief from Sec. 57.11050. PFM #1 seeks relief from
MSHA's requirement that Coeur provides a refuge chamber within 1,000
feet of the development face in the mine. During Coeur's discussions
with MSHA as part of the review of PFM #1 and Coeur's compliance with
Sec. 57.11050, Coeur learned that a second petition for modification
(PFM #2) was necessary to seek relief from Sec. 57.11052(d). The
petitioner requests that MSHA consider PFM #2 in conjunction with
information submitted previously for PFM #1 because the factual basis
for both petitions and means of compliance for both standards are
intertwined. These means of compliance will provide the same or greater
measure of safety as the existing regulations.
(2) The petitioner owns and operates the Kensington mine, an
underground gold mine located in Juneau County, Alaska. Kensington
utilizes both transverse and longitudinal long-hole stoping. In both
methods, a single development drift is driven through waste rock
adjacent to the ore body. When this drift reaches planned elevations,
level accesses are developed to provide entry points to the ore body
for exploration and later ore production. Once the level development
and exploration are completed at a planned elevation, the ore is
extracted either perpendicular (transverse stoping) or parallel to the
strike of the ore (longitudinal stoping).
(3) With PFM #1, Coeur sought relief from MSHA's interpretation of
30 CFR 57.11050 that would require that a refuge chamber be located
within 1,000 feet of the development face. Part of the basis for PFM #1
is that the petitioner's miners at the development face can walk to the
existing refuge chamber within 30 minutes as required by the standard
and the existing location of the permanent refuge chamber complies with
Sec. 57.11050. Also, the petitioner has voluntarily elected to provide
an ERCP in the vicinity of the development face, and to reposition that
ERCP from time to time as development advances.
(4) Because ERCP is equipped with a minimum of a 72-hour internal
air supply for up to 12 miners, and more than 20 gallons of potable
water, the petitioner seeks relief from the requirement in Sec.
57.11052(d) to connect compressed air and waterlines to the ECRP each
time it is repositioned.
(5) The ERCP as constructed by the manufacturer complies with Sec.
57.11052 because the ERCP has internal air and water sources.
Kensington has been in operation since 1987. The petitioner has
operated the mine since 1995, and between 1995 and 2009, activities
were exclusively exploration and development. Coeur did not begin
production until 2010, with limited production areas. The portions of
the Kensington mine that are relevant to PFM #2 are still in the
exploration and development phases--no production is occurring in these
areas. During the fourth quarter of 2016, Kensington typically had nine
stopes associated with production, and approximately three main
development drifts in which exploration and development are taking
place. The precise number of stopes and drifts may vary slightly from
one month to the next.
Currently, 100 percent of Kensington's operations below the 480
level are either development or exploration. At present, the ERCP is
positioned within 1,000 feet from the development face, and the current
location of Kensington's permanent refuge station adjacent to the 585
Downramp complies with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 57.11050 and
57.11052(d) because the miners working in the development area can
reach it within 30 minutes, and compressed airlines and waterlines are
installed at that station.
(6) The ERCP is located directly below the 330 level access, and
has air and waterlines connected to it. However, the ERCP will not
remain in this location permanently. The petitioner will relocate the
ERCP in the future as development activities advance. The ERCP is more
than a reinforced metal compartment to physically shield miners
following an underground emergency--it is a self-contained chamber with
own sources for electrical power, breathable air, water, food, and a
lavatory. Even without being connected to mine services, the ERCP can
provide electrical power and breathable air to occupants for a minimum
of 72 hours if the atmosphere outside the ERCP is contaminated. The
ERCP is equipped with enough potable water to last three days with up
to 12 occupants.
(7) Section 57.11052(d) requires that every refuge area be provided
with compressed air lines, waterlines, suitable hand tools, and
stopping materials. Based on our research, there is no regulatory or
judicial history that explains the purpose behind a requirement for
compressed air lines and waterlines. Accordingly, petitioner assumes
that these lines are intended to serve the purpose a reasonably prudent
person, familiar with the mining industry, would expect--to provide a
source of breathable air and potable water to miners inside a refuge
area.
As a matter of simple logic, an operator complies with Sec.
57.11052(d) by prepositioning hand tools and stoping materials inside
the refuge area for future use. Similarly, if air and water could be
prepositioned in a refuge area for future use, the operator would be
complying with the standard. Historically, it was difficult to ensure
that sufficient breathable air and potable water would be available in
a refuge area. Today, the technology behind the ERCP enables the
petitioner to provide a sustainable environment for its miners and a
viable time window for mine rescue teams to reach the ERCP following an
emergency, thereby rendering the requirement for external air
waterlines obsolete--particularly when the ERCP is a supplemental
device in addition to Kensington's existing permanent refuge stations.
(8) Section 57.11052(d) does not specify a minimum quantity, volume
or pressure for air lines and water lines, and the regulation makes no
mention of independent power sources or lengths of time the air and
waterlines need to be available at the refuge area. The standard simply
requires they be provided. The ERCP provides breathable air and potable
water. Kensington already complies with the standards requirement. This
capability to provide known quantities of air and water internally is a
benefit to the ERCP occupants because there is no risk of interrupted
air and water access from external damage to the lines, and the known
quantities allow mine rescue teams to make informed decisions regarding
the length of time that an ERCP can provide a sustainable environment
for its occupants.
(9) Installing air lines and water lines each time the ERCP is
relocated to remain in proximity to the development face would result
in a diminution of safety; however, requested relief provides an
equivalent degree of safety to Sec. 57.11051(d).
Kensington's underground operations take place in a dynamic
environment, and its exploration and development areas are dominated by
self-propelled mobile equipment and blasting activities. At desired
development rates, Kensington typically advances its faces
[[Page 9236]]
in development drifts twice per day, with each advance being a 12-foot
length. If the ERCP will have to be relocated from time to time to
remain in the vicinity of the development face, as contemplated in PFM
#1, the ERCP would have to be relocated on a recurring basis.
(10) Repeated movement of the ERCP puts miners at risk for several
reasons. An ERCP cannot simply be parked on the decline because of its
size--it would block access between the development drift face and the
escapeways. To allow for the decline to remain clear, a cutout into the
rib must be made to park the ERCP, making the relocation more complex.
(11) Damage to the ERCP will put miners at risk as the refuge may
not function as intended. Each time the ERCP is relocated, there is a
potential that the ERCP will be damaged in some manner. Similarly, if a
compressed air line and waterline need to be run and connected to each
new location for the ERCP, there is a chance that the lines or the
connections will be damaged. Potential damage to the ERCP and the
external airline and waterlines increases each time they are moved,
disconnected, rerouted, reconnected, and tested. The risk of damaging
the lines and connectors is eliminated by relying on the ERCP's self-
contained capabilities.
The ERCP can only provide a safety benefit to miners while the
device is operational. To the extent an ERCP is unavailable while being
relocated, that window of non-availability will increase while the air
and water lines are being run, connected and tested for the new
location. As such, complying with Sec. 57.11052(d) with respect to the
relocating of the ERCP will have a detrimental effect on miner safety.
(12) There are significant costs associated with each movement of
an ERCP. The ERCP is roughly 15-feet long, and requires a cutout that
is 30-feet deep. The development costs at Kensington are approximately
$1,500 per foot, meaning that each 30-foot cutout will cost $45,000 to
create. Installing air, water and shotcrete will add to the figure.
Moving the unit will take 2 miners approximately 12 hours, at a labor
cost of $1,136. In total, the average cost to relocate a portable
refuge one time is almost $50,000. To the extent these costs can be
controlled by alleviating redundant or unnecessary requirements,
Coeur's submits this petition.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will at all
times provide the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Sheila McConnell,
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. 2017-02297 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P