Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 55492-55494 [2016-19802]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Mine Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55492-55494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19802]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 September 19, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by ``docket 
number'' on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronic Mail: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov. 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), 
barron.barbara@dol.gov (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-2016-006-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 57.11050 (Escapeways and refuges).
    Modification Request: The petitioner requests relief from the 
existing standard insofar as it applies to the development and 
exploration areas of the Kensington Mine. The petitioner states that:
    (1) Coeur Alaska owns and operates the Kensington Mine, which is 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 elevation, 
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).
    (2) Coeur Alaska seeks a modification stating that during the 
exploration or development of an ore body within the mine, in order to 
comply with 30 CFR 57.11050(a), Coeur will not be required to 
continuously reposition a portable emergency refuge chamber 
(``refuge'') on the lowest decline within the mine or to continuously 
reposition the refuge to remain within 1,000 feet from the face of a 
development drift.
    (3) Coeur Alaska seeks relief because Kensington already has 
secondary escapeways constructed to the lowest level of the mine, and 
is constructing and planning to develop additional secondary escapeways 
to future levels of the mine. Kensington's existing

[[Page 55493]]

permanent refuge chamber already complies with the 30-minute travel 
time to a refuge chamber required by Sec.  57.11050(b). Training miners 
to rely on portable refuges that will change locations on frequent 
basis will result in a diminution of safety to the miners affected.
    (4) Installing and relocating refuge chambers to remain within 
1,000 feet of each development drift face would subject miners to 
greater hazards than they are subjected to under current conditions. 
Like any underground mine, 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 in development drifts twice per day, with each advance being 
a 12-foot length. If the portable emergency refuge chambers (`refuge'') 
were positioned at the safest distance away from the face while still 
being in compliance with MSHA's newly proposed 1,000 distance 
requirement, the refuge would have to be relocated twice each day 
(following each of the two advances) just to remain within that lateral 
boundary each time the face is advanced, or the Mine will be out of 
compliance.
    In order to reduce the number of relocations to less than one per 
day, the refuge will need to be positioned well within the 1,000 foot 
range. If Coeur places the refuge at 50 percent of the maximum 
allowable distance at the beginning of a development cycle (e.g. 500 
feet from the face of a development drift), the refuge could remain in 
one place for a maximum of 21 days at typical development rates. 
However, during that 21-day cycle, the refuge will be repeatedly 
subjected to severe blast damage. The concussive forces from face 
blasts can be devastating at 500 feet. Over the course of 21 days 
blasting, the refuge would be exposed to 42 blasts. Accordingly, 
placing the refuge will inside of the 1,000 foot boundary increases the 
likelihood of mechanical damage to the refuge chamber. Moreover, 
Kensington only blasts during shift change, when the mine is completely 
evacuated, save one miner in the designated safe zone. No miners will 
be anywhere near the refuge chamber during blasting, or in a position 
to inspect the refuge chamber before the next shift arrives. Thus, any 
blast damage suffered by the refuge chamber will not be discovered 
until Coeur's miners arrive and inspect the chamber, exposing them to a 
greater risk of harm if use of the refuge chamber were necessary upon 
their arrival.
    Not only is the structural integrity of the refuge chamber at risk 
if it is habitually located near the blasting activities, if the refuge 
chambers are require to ``follow'' the face in a development drift on 
the lowest level of the mine, the physical locations of these refuge 
chambers will be continually changing. This means that miners will not 
have reliable, fixed locations to which they can travel in an 
emergency. Instead, they will be searching for a moving target. The 
added difficulty for miners and mine rescue teams to know with 
certainty the exact location of each mine refuge chamber is more 
hazardous than a situation where each refuge chamber's location is 
fixed, will-known and depicted on historical and current versions the 
mines' map.
    Because of Kensington's remote location, miners work long rotations 
and are away from site on Rest & Relaxation (``R&R'') for long periods 
of time. If refuge chambers must be moved as MSHA appears to require, 
it is highly likely that a miner could go home on R&R and return to a 
different refuge chamber location every rotation. The shifting 
locations will require each miner to continuously remember the current 
locations for the refuge chambers in his vicinity, as opposed to 
constant emergency egress routes that are more likely to be remembered 
during an emergency. This will undoubtedly lead to less familiarity 
with the location of the facilities and in times of an emergency people 
need to be ``programmed'' as to mitigate the risk of responding 
incorrectly. Not only will uncertainty arise from the change in 
physical location for the refuge chamber, but the maps and signs inside 
Kensington might have to be updated as well. To the extent there are 
more signs and maps than refuge chambers, the risk will increase that 
one or more of the maps or signs will not be updated to reflect a 
future change of location. This error could have a catastrophic effect 
for miners going to a location they believe has a chamber based on an 
obsolete map only to find that it had moved.
    In addition, in the event of a mine accident, mine rescue teams 
will need to validate that the location of each refuge chamber in which 
injured miners might be located, was in fact the current location of 
each refuge chamber in which injured miners might be located, was in 
fact the current location for that chamber. This uncertainty will 
complicate if not delay rescue efforts.
    Not only does MSHA's requirement that a refuge chamber be tethered 
to the location of the development drift's face add uncertainty 
regarding the chambers precise location, the movement of that chamber 
deeper into the mine increases the risk for miners working in the area 
in between the lowest level and the development and exploration 
activities. For example, miners on the 405 and 330 Level Access areas 
have a shorter travel time to reach the portable refuge installed on 
the 255 Decline than secondary escapeways at the 480 Level.
    As the 255 Decline face advances towards the planned 255 Level, if 
the portable emergency refuge chamber must follow along 1,000 feet 
behind the decline face, the travel time and distance to that portable 
refuge will be increasing for the miners on the 405 and 330 Level 
Access areas. Also, miners are trained first to try and evacuate the 
mine through the portal if possible, as opposed to going deeper into 
the mine if there is an emergency. If there is thick smoke in the mine, 
and the miners don their self-rescue breathing devices, they are 
trained to seek the nearest refuge. Not only does the movement of the 
portable emergency refuge chamber result in longer travel times for 
these miners, they are moving further underground and farther away from 
the escapeway, and trying to find a moving target in thick smoke.
    If MSHA's purported rationale for having the portable refuge within 
1,000 feet of the face in the development and exploration area is that 
this area is the most likely source of hazards for miners, the miners 
on the 405 and 330 Levels who are traveling to the refuge are moving 
towards the likely source of hazards, not away from it. Hence, the 
frequent relocating of the portable emergency refuge chamber adds a 
greater risk of physical damage to the refuge and a greater level of 
uncertainty and risk for the mines working underground who need to 
navigate to the refuge. Conversely, keeping refuge chambers in fixed 
locations, compliant with the standard's travel time requirement, 
simplifies the miners' egress plans, which increases the probability of 
proper execution of these egress plans, and does not detract from their 
safety.
    (10) The proposed action by Coeur would provide no lesser degree of 
safety than application of the Sec.  57.11050. Another basis for 
permitting modification of the standard's application is that Coeur's 
proposed alternative method provides at least the same measure of 
safety contemplated by the standard.
    Repeated movement of the refuge puts miners at risk for several 
reasons. First, damage to the refuge will put miners at risk as the 
refuge may not function as intended. Second, the potential to damage 
the refuge chambers increases

[[Page 55494]]

significantly while they are being move. Third, the portable refuge 
chambers cannot simply be parked on the decline because of their size, 
they would block assess 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 refuge chamber. Fourth, the refuge 
chambers are not available for use while being moved (and air and water 
are being reconnected), meaning that Kensington risks non-compliance 
with Sec.  5711010 each time it is attempting to comply with MSHA's 
directive to reposition the refuge to remain within 1,000 feet of the 
face.
    Taken to its logical conclusion, to ensure compliance, Kensington 
would be forced to have two refuges in place, and ``leapfrog'' them 
during exploration and development. However, the spacing and cost 
associated with that approach are untenable.
    Each refuge chamber is roughly 15 feet long, and requires a cutout 
that is 30 feet deep. The development costs at Kensington are 
approximately $1500 per foot, meaning that each 30-foot cutout will 
cost $45,000 to create. Installing air, water and shotcrete will be in 
addition to the $45,000 figure. Moving the unit will take 2 miners 
approximately 12 hours, at a labor cost of $1136. In total, the average 
cost to relocate a portable refuge one time is almost $50,000. Assuming 
Kensington positioned the refuge at a distance that was 50 percent of 
the stated requirement, so that relocations were only required every 
ten days, the resulting 36 relocations per year will cost approximately 
$1.8 million for the 255 Decline alone.
    For these reasons, not only does MSHA's current interpretation of 
30 CFR 57.11050 add a new requirement to the standard without 
undergoing the rulemaking process, the interpretation will result in a 
diminution of safety to the miners at Kensington Mine. There is no 
peer-reviewed empirical data to support this additional requirement, 
and the plain language of 30 CFR 57.11050 does not support the 
requirement either.
    The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will 
provide the same or greater measure of safety as would be provided by 
application of the existing standard.

Sheila McConnell,
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. 2016-19802 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4520-43-P