[Federal Register: June 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 116)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34139-34173]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jn08-22]
[[Page 34139]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
30 CFR Parts 7 and 75
Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines; Proposed Rule
[[Page 34140]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 7 and 75
RIN 1219-AB58
Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearings and close of comment
period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing
requirements for refuge alternatives in underground coal mines and the
training of miners in their use. The proposed rule also includes
requirements for testing and approval of refuge alternatives. The
proposal would implement section 13 of the Mine Improvement and New
Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006. Consistent with the MINER Act,
it includes MSHA's response to the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health Report on Refuge Alternatives.
DATES: All comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time
on August 18, 2008. MSHA will hold 4 public hearings on July 29, July
31, August 5, and August 7, 2008. Details about the public hearings are
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified with ``RIN 1219-AB58''
and may be sent by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Electronic mail: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov. Include ``RIN 1219-
AB58'' in the subject line of the message.
(3) Facsimile: 202-693-9441. Include ``RIN 1219-AB58'' in the
subject line of the message.
(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st
floor.
Comments can be accessed electronically at http://www.msha.gov
under the Rules and Regs link. MSHA will post all comments on the
Internet without change, including any personal information provided.
Comments may also be reviewed at the Office of Standards, Regulations,
and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia.
Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
MSHA maintains a list that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when rulemaking documents are published in the Federal
Register. To subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/
subscribe.aspx.
Information Collection Requirements: Comments concerning the
information collection requirements of this proposed rule must be
clearly identified with ``RIN 1219-AB58'' and sent to both the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and MSHA. Comments to OMB may be sent by
mail addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA.
Comments to MSHA may be transmitted either electronically to zzMSHA-
Comments@dol.gov, by facsimile to (202) 693-9441, or by regular mail,
hand delivery, or courier to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations,
and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey at
silvey.patricia@dol.gov (E-mail), 202-693-9440 (Voice), or 202-693-9441
(Fax).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The outline of this proposal is as follows:
I. Introduction
A. Rulemaking Background
B. Discussion of the Hazard
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Part 7 Approval
B. Part 75 Safety Standards
III. Executive Order 12866
A. Population at Risk
B. Benefits
C. Compliance Costs
IV. Feasibility
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Economic Feasibility
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
A. Definition of a Small Mine
B. Factual Basis for Certification
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Summary
B. Procedural Details
VII. Other Regulatory Analyses
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
B. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of
1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking
Public Hearings
MSHA will hold four public hearings on the proposed rule. These
public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end after the last speaker
speaks, and in any event not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates
at the locations indicated:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Location Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 29, 2008............... Radisson Hotel Salt (801) 933-8022.
Lake City Downtown,
215 West South
Temple, Salt Lake
City, UT 84101.
July 31, 2008............... Marriott Charleston (304) 345-6500.
Town Center, 200
Lee Street East,
Charleston, WV
25301.
August 5, 2008.............. Hilton Suites (859) 271-4000.
Lexington Green,
245 Lexington Green
Circle, Lexington,
KY 40503.
August 7, 2008.............. Sheraton Birmingham, (205) 324-5000.
2101 Richard
Arrington Jr.
Blvd., Birmingham,
AL 35203.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA,
followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral
presentations. Requests to speak at a hearing should be made at least 5
days prior to the hearing date. Requests to speak may be made by
telephone (202-693-9440), facsimile (202-693-9441), or mail (MSHA,
Office
[[Page 34141]]
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room
2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939).
Any unallocated time at the end of each hearing will be made
available to persons making same-day requests to speak. Any unallocated
time at the end of each hearing will be made available to persons
making same-day requests to speak. Speakers will speak in the order
that they sign in at the hearing. At the discretion of the presiding
official, the time allocated to each speaker for their presentation may
be limited. Speakers and other attendees may also present information
to the MSHA panel for inclusion in the rulemaking record.
The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules
of evidence and cross examination will not apply. The hearing panel may
ask questions of speakers. Speakers and other attendees may present
written information to the MSHA panel for inclusion in the rulemaking
record. MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and data for the
record from any interested party, including those not presenting oral
statements, until the close of the comment period. MSHA will make
transcripts of the hearings, post them on MSHA's Web site http://
www.msha.gov, and include them in the rulemaking record.
I. Introduction
This proposed rule would implement section 13 of the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006. It would
require that operators include refuge alternatives in the Emergency
Response Plan required by section 2 of the MINER Act. MSHA's objective,
consistent with the MINER Act, is to improve the safety of mines and
mining. Toward that end, the proposal would improve mine operators'
preparedness for mine emergencies and require refuge alternatives
underground to protect persons trapped when a life-threatening event
occurs that makes escape impossible. Refuge alternatives can also be
used to assist miners in escaping from the mine. MSHA developed this
proposed rule based on Agency data and experience, NIOSH
recommendations, research on available and developing technology, and
regulations of several states. The proposed rule includes--
New requirements for testing and approval of refuge
alternatives and components of refuge alternatives;
Requirements for the availability and maintenance of
refuge alternatives and communication facilities for refuge
alternatives; and
Requirements for miners to be trained in the location,
use, maintenance, and transportation of refuge alternatives.
A. Rulemaking Background
Section 2 of the MINER Act requires underground coal mine operators
to develop and adopt a written Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which
must be approved by MSHA. The ERP provides for the evacuation of all
individuals endangered by an emergency and the maintenance of
individuals trapped underground. All ERPs must provide for emergency
supplies of breathable air for individuals trapped underground
sufficient to maintain them for a sustained period of time.
MSHA issued Program Policy Letter (PPL) No. P06-V-10 (October 24,
2006) to implement section 2 of the MINER Act. The PPL provides
guidance to mine operators for developing ERPs and to MSHA District
Managers in approving ERPs. MSHA issued Program Information Bulletin
(PIB) No. P07-03 (February 8, 2007) to provide additional guidance to
be used in conjunction with the PPL. The PIB represents the quantity of
breathable air that would be sufficient to maintain persons for a
sustained period of time.
Section 13 of the MINER Act directs NIOSH to conduct research on
refuge alternatives and submit a report on the results of the research
to the Secretary of Labor, among others. Section 13 also directs the
Secretary of Labor to--
* * * provide a response to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Education and
the Workforce of the House of Representatives containing a
description of the actions, if any, that the Secretary intends to
take based upon the report, including proposed regulatory changes
and the reasons for such actions.
MSHA has reviewed NIOSH's report and determined that refuge
alternatives are practical and will increase the chance for survival
for persons trapped in underground coal mines, when integrated into the
mine's comprehensive escape and rescue plans.
B. Discussion of the Hazard
MSHA reviewed a number of underground coal mine accident reports in
the development of this proposed rule. The Agency discusses the
following accidents, which reflect typical emergency conditions,
hazards, and issues in underground coal mines.
On March 9, 1976, an explosion occurred at the Scotia Mine in
Kentucky. Fifteen miners died from the explosion. Of these fifteen
miners, six were found behind a partially built protective structure.
On December 19, 1984, a fire occurred at the Wilberg Mine in Utah.
Twenty-eight miners were working on the section when the fire occurred.
The intake airway and adjacent belt entry were impassable due to gas
and smoke. One miner survived by using an SCSR and crawling on his
stomach through the smoke-filled mine. The remaining twenty-seven
miners who survived the fire, died while attempting to evacuate the
mine.
On July 24, 2002, a nonfatal entrapment accident caused by a water
inundation occurred at Quecreek 1 Mine, Black Wolf Coal
Company, Inc., located at Quecreek, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Nine
miners had attempted to escape, but were blocked by water. The miners
were trapped for over 3 days before all were rescued.
On January 2, 2006, an explosion in which 12 miners were trapped
occurred at the Sago Mine, located near Tallmansville, West Virginia.
The explosion killed one miner instantly and destroyed seals and filled
portions of the mine with toxic levels of carbon monoxide. The victims'
attempts to evacuate were unsuccessful and they barricaded themselves
on the section. Unfortunately, the barricade was constructed in an area
with high concentrations of carbon monoxide. Eleven miners died before
they could be rescued and one was rescued although severely injured.
On January 19, 2006, a fire occurred at the belt take-up storage
unit of the Aracoma Alma Mine 1, located near Logan, West
Virginia, resulting in the deaths of two miners. Miners in the affected
area began an evacuation and, after traveling some distance out of the
mine, encountered smoke and donned their self-contained self-rescue
(SCSRs) devices. The two miners who died had become separated from
their crew while attempting to escape.
On May 20, 2006, an explosion occurred at the Kentucky Darby, LLC,
Darby Mine No. 1, located near Holmes Mill, Kentucky. The forces from
the explosion killed two miners. Four other miners attempted to
evacuate and encountered thick smoke. At this point they donned their
SCSRs and attempted to continue their evacuation. The miners eventually
became separated and three died from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Based on the MINER Act, MSHA data and experience, and the NIOSH
report, MSHA is proposing regulations that address the approval and use
of refuge alternatives in underground coal mines.
[[Page 34142]]
II. Section-By-Section Analysis
A. Part 7 Approval
The proposal includes new requirements for approval of refuge
alternatives for underground coal mines. The proposal also includes
approval of components of refuge alternatives. Under the proposal,
manufacturers could apply for approval of a pre-fabricated self-
contained refuge alternative or for approval of a refuge alternative
component.
MSHA is proposing the approval requirements in part 7 to allow
refuge alternatives or components to be tested by applicants or third-
parties. MSHA has a 20-year history of administering this program,
which has reduced product testing costs and improved approval
efficiency. Under the proposal, the applicant, usually the
manufacturer, would have to provide the required information and
demonstrate that the refuge alternative or component meets the
technical requirements and test criteria. Based upon an evaluation of
this information, MSHA would issue an approval.
The proposal would: Provide alternatives for satisfying the
requirements; provide performance-based approval criteria; and promote
innovative new technology. The proposal addresses requirements for a
pre-fabricated self-contained refuge alternative and components for a
refuge alternative:
Structural, which would create an isolated atmosphere and
contain the other integrated components.
Pre-fabricated self-contained rescue alternative.
Breathable air, which would include the means to supply
safe concentrations of oxygen and dilute harmful gases.
Air-monitoring, which would provide occupants of the
refuge alternative with devices to measure the concentrations of
oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and other harmful
gases.
Harmful gas removal, which would provide for removal of
harmful gases from the refuge alternative.
The refuge alternative would have to include provisions for
sanitation, food, water, and first-aid. These items would have to be
approved in the ERP.
The proposed requirements would assure that the refuge alternative
could be used safely and effectively in underground coal mines and that
the components could be used safely with each other.
All of the existing general provisions of subpart A of part 7 would
apply to refuge alternatives. Existing Sec. 7.8 addresses post-
approval product audit and requires that, on request the approval-
holder make a product available to MSHA for audit at no cost to MSHA,
but no more than once a year except for cause. In addition, under
existing Sec. 7.8, an audit would be conducted at a mutually agreeable
site and time. MSHA anticipates that in appropriate instances, the
Agency would travel to the manufacturer's site particularly for pre-
fabricated self-contained refuge alternatives and components. For
refuge alternatives that are not pre-fabricated, i.e. constructed in
place or materials pre-positioned, the structure would be approved by
the District Manager in the Emergency Response Plan. Consistent with
this requirement, the approval-holder must provide a refuge alternative
or component to MSHA for audit.
Section 7.501 Purpose and Scope
This proposal would state that the purpose of approved refuge
alternatives is to provide a life-sustaining environment for miners
trapped underground when escape is impossible. The proposal would also
define the scope as applying to underground coal mines. Under the
proposal, refuge alternatives could also be used to facilitate escape
by sustaining trapped miners until they receive communications
regarding escape options or until rescuers arrive. MSHA considers
refuge alternatives as a last resort to protect persons who are unable
to escape from an underground coal mine in the event of an emergency.
In its report on refuge alternatives, NIOSH recognized that the
``potential for refuge alternatives to save lives will only be realized
to the extent that mine operators develop comprehensive escape and
rescue plans that incorporate refuge alternatives.''
Refuge alternatives that states have approved and those that MSHA
has accepted in approved ERPs would meet the requirements of this
proposed rule. When mine operators replace these refuge alternatives or
components, the new refuge alternatives or components must meet the
requirements of the proposed rule. Based on preliminary discussions
with manufacturers, MSHA used the estimated service life of the pre-
fabricated self-contained refuge alternative. This would allow refuge
alternatives to be used until replaced or 10 years maximum. This would
allow refuge components to be used until replaced or 5 years maximum.
MSHA solicits comments on the estimated service life of the pre-
fabricated self-contained units. Comments should be specific, including
alternatives, rationale, and supporting data.
Section 7.502 Definitions
The proposed rule includes several definitions to assist applicants
in preparing applications for approval. Because refuge alternatives
represent a relatively new technology for underground coal mines, the
terminology may not be widely used. MSHA intends that these definitions
would facilitate the mining community's understanding of the proposal.
Apparent temperature.
MSHA proposes to define apparent temperature as the combined
effects of air movement, heat, and humidity on the human body. When no
air movement is present, the apparent temperature equals the heat
index. As heat and humidity increase, the amount of evaporation of
sweat from the body decreases. The international scientific community
generally recognizes a maximum safe apparent temperature of 95[deg]
Fahrenheit (F) in confined survival environments,\1\ such as a refuge
alternative. Body heat is the primary heat source in a refuge
alternative and the humidity will likely be high in such a sealed
environment. The carbon dioxide absorption process also generates heat
and humidity. There is currently no permissible air conditioning
equipment, which will overcome this problem in underground coal mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1 R.G. Steadman (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breathable oxygen.
MSHA proposes to define breathable oxygen as oxygen that is at
least 99 percent pure with no harmful contaminants. Acceptable
breathable oxygen is frequently supplied from a compressed gas cylinder
as U.S. Pharmacopoeia medical oxygen or as aviator breathing oxygen.
This definition is consistent with the attachment to MSHA's PIB P07-03:
``Methods for Providing Breathable Air.'' MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed definition. Comments should be specific, including
alternatives, rationale, and supporting data.
Flash fire.
MSHA proposes to define flash fire as a fire that rapidly spreads
through a diffuse fuel, such as airborne coal dust or methane, without
producing damaging pressure. Flash fire may occur in an environment,
such as an underground coal mine, where fuel and air become mixed in
adequate concentrations to combust. In an underground coal mine, a
flash fire can be a rapidly moving flame front from a
[[Page 34143]]
combustion explosion. In its report, NIOSH recommended that the fire
resistance for refuge alternatives be 300 [deg]F for 3 seconds. They
based this recommendation on NFPA-2113, but advised that additional
investigation is warranted. A flash fire is defined by the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2113) as:
A fire that spreads rapidly through a diffuse fuel, such as
dust, gas, or vapors of an ignitable liquid, without the production
of damaging pressure.
NFPA 2113 also includes a longer explanation of flash fire in the
Annex A.3.3.16. This explanation addresses flame temperatures for
diffused fuel flash fires ranging from 1000[deg] to 1900 [deg]F.
Noncombustible material.
MSHA proposes to define noncombustible material as material that
will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors
when subjected to fire or heat.
Overpressure.
MSHA proposes to define overpressure as the pressure above the
background atmospheric pressure. For example, air pressure in a car
tire is measured with a pressure gauge as 30 psi, which is an
overpressure. The absolute pressure of the air inside the tire is 44.7
psi which is 14.7 psi or one atmosphere higher. Explosion pressures are
normally expressed as an overpressure beyond standard atmospheric
pressure.
Refuge alternative.
MSHA proposes to define refuge alternative as a protected, secure
space with an isolated atmosphere and integrated components that create
a life-sustaining environment for persons trapped in an underground
coal mine.
The proposed rule addresses refuge alternatives that consist of a
protective structure, an airlock, an interior space, and components
that provide for breathable air, air monitoring, and harmful gas
removal. The refuge alternative would also include provisions for
sanitation, lighting, communications, food and water, and first aid.
Section 7.503 Application Requirements
Proposed paragraph (a) would require that an application include
information to assure that MSHA can determine if a refuge alternative
or component meets the technical requirements for approval, functions
as intended, and is safe for use in an underground coal mine.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require the application to contain the
refuge alternative or component's make and model number, if applicable.
This provision would assist MSHA in identifying specific units or parts
from different companies.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require that the application list the refuge
alternative or component's parts, including the MSHA approval number
for electric-powered equipment; each component's or part's in-mine
shelf life, service life, and recommended replacement schedule; and the
materials used in each component or part with their MSHA approval
number or a statement that the materials are noncombustible. This
proposed provision would assure that materials are safe for use in an
underground coal mine. The hazardous nature of an underground coal mine
requires that sources of ignition be eliminated. MSHA may have approved
some equipment as intrinsically safe or permissible that may be used in
a refuge alternative component. The confined space of an underground
coal mine necessitates that materials be designed so that they will not
contribute to a fire or give off harmful gases when exposed to heat.
Paragraph (a)(3) would require the application to specify the
capacity and duration (the number of persons it is designed to maintain
and for how long) of the refuge alternative or component on a per-
person per-day basis. For example, the application would need to
include the specific number of persons and a specific length of time
that the refuge alternative or component could support. The application
also would need to contain this same information for food, water,
lighting, sanitation, and any other materials that must be provided to
assure proper use of the refuge alternative or component. This
information is necessary so that MSHA can appropriately evaluate the
performance of the refuge alternative or component and determine if it
meets the requirement that it sustain persons for 96 hours.
Paragraph (a)(4) would require the application to specify the
length, width, and height of space required for storage of each
component. MSHA needs this information for components approved
separately to assure that the refuge alternative will have enough
usable space for occupants when all components are stored.
Paragraph (b) would require that the application include additional
information for the refuge alternative. This specific information is
necessary for the applicant or third party to perform an adequate
evaluation of the refuge alternative and for MSHA to approve the refuge
alternative or component.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require the application to describe the
breathable air component, including drawings, air-supply sources,
piping, regulators, and controls. This information is necessary for the
applicant to demonstrate that all systems are included and in their
proper location, to assure proper functioning of this component.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require the application to specify the
maximum volume of the refuge alternative, excluding the airlock; the
dimensions of usable space provided for each person; and the interior
dimensions of the airlock. This information is necessary to demonstrate
that there is adequate usable space when all systems and components are
shown in their respective place.
Paragraph (b)(3) would require the application to specify the
maximum allowable positive pressures of the refuge alternative and
airlock and describe the means used to limit or control the positive
pressure in the refuge alternative and airlock. Information on the
refuge alternative and airlock is essential for MSHA to determine
whether the atmospheric pressure in the refuge alternative will
maintain good air as miners enter and pass through the airlock. The
information will be used to demonstrate that the pressure will be
adequate for the intended purpose but not excessive, which could create
adverse physiological effects for the miners.
Paragraph (b)(4) would require that the application specify the
maximum allowable apparent temperature of the interior space of the
refuge alternative and airlock and describe the means used to control
the apparent temperature in the refuge alternative and airlock. This
information provides a basis to determine whether the refuge
alternative will protect miners from heat stress. Data show that
apparent temperatures greater than 80 [deg]F are generally associated
with some discomfort. Medical evidence reveals that values approaching
or exceeding 105 [deg]F would be life-threatening, resulting in severe
heat exhaustion or possible heatstroke if exposure is prolonged or
physical activity high. The degree of heat stress would vary with age,
health, and body characteristics.
Paragraph (b)(5) would require that each application include
drawings that show the features of each component and contain
sufficient information to document that each component meets the
technical requirements of this subpart. Drawings of each component
would illustrate the internal configuration of the refuge alternative.
Under the proposal, this information
[[Page 34144]]
would include the dimensions and layout of the refuge alternative
components, controls, and materials necessary for proper operation.
This information is necessary for the applicant or third party to make
an appropriate and informed evaluation and of the unit to provide a
basis for MSHA approval of the refuge alternative or component.
Paragraph (b)(6) would require that the application include
essential information or instructions, such as a training manual that
contains sufficient detail to train personnel to transport, operate,
and maintain the refuge alternative or component. MSHA recognizes that,
as a general practice, manufacturers provide users with information
necessary for safe and effective use of their products. Under the
proposal, the applicant would be required to develop a training manual
for each refuge alternative or component.
Paragraph (b)(7) would require a summary of the procedures for
constructing and activating refuge alternatives. MSHA recognizes that,
as a general practice, manufacturers provide users with information
necessary for safe and effective use of their products. This summary
information would include all of the steps and procedures to construct
and activate a refuge alternative. This information would be used in
evaluating the approval and for instruction in the construction and
activation of refuge alternatives.
Paragraph (b)(8) would require a summary of the procedures related
to using refuge alternatives. This summary information would include
steps and procedures for using the refuge alternative during a
substantial period of time. This information would be used in
evaluating the approval and for instruction in using the refuge
alternatives.
Paragraph (b)(9) would require that the application contain the
results of inspections, evaluations, calculations, and tests conducted
under this subpart. MSHA would use this information to evaluate the
effectiveness and compatibility of refuge alternative components. For
example, the application would contain the calculation of the rate
oxygen is delivered on a per person basis and the results of tests,
including calculations, of the carbon dioxide removal (scrubbing) to
demonstrate that the refuge alternative will maintain a safe atmosphere
for 96 hours.
Paragraph (c) would require that the application for the air-
monitoring component include additional information. This information
is necessary for the applicant or third party to make an effective
evaluation of the component to provide a basis for MSHA approval of the
air-monitoring component.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require that the application specify the
types of sensors, their operating ranges, the gases measured, and any
environmental limitations including the cross-sensitivity of each
detector or device to other gases. This information on the air-
monitoring component is essential for MSHA to determine that persons
inside the refuge alternative will be aware of the concentrations of
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane, inside and outside the
refuge alternative, including the airlock. In addition, this will
assure that oxygen concentrations can be monitored simultaneously.
Paragraph (c)(2) would require that the application include the
method for operation of each device so that it functions as necessary
to test gas concentrations over a 96 hour period. This information will
assist MSHA's evaluation of whether the air-monitoring component can
sustain persons for 96 hours. The Agency recognizes that different
types and combinations of instruments from several manufacturers may be
used in an air-monitoring component. MSHA needs to assure that the
different components are available and will provide reliable monitoring
of breathable air as necessary over the 96-hour period. MSHA believes
that a properly designed system would control gas concentrations inside
the refuge alternative. The intent of this provision is that detectors
would be used to periodically check gas concentrations in the refuge
alternative and provide miners with this information.
Paragraph (c)(3) would require that the application include
procedures for monitoring and maintaining breathable air in the
airlock, before and after purging. Under the proposal, breathable air
must be provided in the airlock at all times. However, when miners
enter the airlock following an emergency, it will be necessary to
monitor and purge the air to remove any contaminants and minimize
contamination inside the refuge alternative as miners pass through the
airlock into the interior space.
Paragraph (c)(4) would require that the application include
instructions for determining the quality of the atmosphere in the
airlock and interior of the refuge alternative and a means to maintain
breathable air in the airlock. The quality of air inside the refuge
alternative is vital to sustain trapped miners. The procedures for
using the air-monitoring component are essential for MSHA to determine
whether the component provides adequate means for trapped miners to
verify the quality of the air inside and outside the refuge
alternative.
Paragraph (d) would require that the application specify the volume
of breathable air available for removing harmful gas, both at start-up
and while persons enter or exit through the airlock; and the maximum
volume of each gas that the component is designed to remove on a per-
miner per-day basis. Information on harmful gas removal is essential
for MSHA to determine the ability of the refuge alternative to sustain
occupants for 96 hours. The purpose of this component is primarily to
remove carbon dioxide exhaled by the occupants. MSHA also intends that
this component be capable of removing toxic and irritant gases, fumes,
mists, and dusts that may enter the refuge alternative through the
airlock.
Paragraph (e) would require that the applicant certify that each
component is constructed of suitable materials, is of good quality
workmanship, is based on sound engineering principles, is safe for its
intended use, and is designed to be compatible with other components in
the refuge alternative, within the limitations specified in the
approval. This information is needed to assure that the application,
test results, and construction quality are complete and accurate.
Section 7.504 Refuge Alternatives and Components; General Requirements
Proposed Sec. 7.504 provides general safety and health
requirements for refuge alternatives and components.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require refuge alternatives and components
to be intrinsically safe for use in an underground coal mine and
designed with fire and explosion-proof features for use with an oxygen
supply component. This requirement would assure that the refuge
alternative or component does not contribute to a secondary fire or
explosion.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require that a refuge alternative or
component not produce noise levels in excess of 85 dBA in the
structure's interior. Noise above this level can be irritating and
interferes with communication. Exposure to noise at or above the 85 dBA
level could adversely affect hearing. Based on MSHA's knowledge, noise
controls such as dampening material are available to control noise
levels.
Paragraph (a)(3) would require that the refuge alternative or
component not liberate harmful or irritating gases or
[[Page 34145]]
particulates into the structure's interior or airlock. Some materials
off-gas when heated. Vapors, aerosols or particulates should not be
released into the refuge alternative. The proposed rule would require
that materials used in a refuge alternative or component be tested and
evaluated to determine that nonmetallic materials do not release
irritating odors or toxic gases when subjected to a flash fire test.
The application would have to include the results of the tests and
evaluation.
Paragraph (a)(4) would require that the refuge alternative or
component be designed to be moved safely with devices such as tow bars.
MSHA recognizes that refuge alternatives could be a hazard to miners
during transport if not properly designed and if miners are not
adequately trained. Based on MSHA's experience, inadequate rigging and
towing devices could cause accidents to miners. The refuge alternative
should be designed with proper connections and devices to eliminate or
reduce the use of chains, ropes, and slings. In addition, miners would
need training on how to move a refuge alternative to avoid injury.
Paragraph (a)(5) would require that the refuge alternative and
components be designed to withstand damage during transport and
handling. The proposed rule would require that designs incorporate
bumpers, guarding, skids, packing and securing devices, and rigging
components. Additionally the components and supplies must be
configured, arranged, and stored to minimize shifting, movement, or
damage during handling and routine transport. Training would
incorporate precautions to prevent damage to the refuge alternatives
and components while storing, handling, and transporting the equipment.
Paragraph (b) would require that the apparent inside temperature be
controlled to prevent heat stroke. The miners will produce heat within
the confined space of the refuge alternative. The chemicals used to
remove carbon dioxide also generate heat. Over time, the heat build-up
could produce heat stroke. NIOSH stated that--
Apparent temperature is a measure of heat stress, but other
indices or standards could be used, such as the wet bulb globe
temperature. Regardless of the index selected, the numerical value
must be assigned to prevent heat stroke.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require that, when used in accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions and defined limitations, the apparent
temperature in the fully occupied refuge alternative not exceed 95[deg]
Fahrenheit. The apparent temperature is a measure of relative
discomfort due to the combined effect of heat and humidity. The concept
of apparent temperature was developed by R.G. Steadman (1979) and is
based on physiological studies of evaporative skin cooling for various
combinations of ambient temperature and humidity. At higher dew-points,
the apparent temperature exceeds the actual temperature and measures
the increased physiological heat stress and discomfort associated with
higher than comfortable humidity.
The likelihood of adverse effects from heat may vary with a
person's age, health, and body characteristics; however, apparent
temperatures greater than 80 [deg]F are generally associated with some
discomfort. Temperatures in excess of 105 [deg]F are considered life-
threatening, with severe heat exhaustion or heatstroke possible after
prolonged exposure or significant physical activity. There is a general
consensus among researchers that the apparent temperature within a
confined space occupied by humans should not exceed 95 [deg]F.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Defense, National Aviation and Space
Administration, Canadian, Australian, and the United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA recognizes that body heat and heat generated by chemical
reactions (i.e., CO2 scrubbing chemicals) are inherent heat-
producing sources within a refuge alternative. Ambient temperature in a
refuge alternative also is affected by the mine temperature compounded
by high humidity in the sealed environment. High humidity reduces a
body's ability to regulate temperature by sweating, which could result
in a dangerously elevated internal body temperature.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that calculations or tests be
conducted to determine the maximum apparent temperature in the refuge
alternative when used at maximum occupancy and in conjunction with
required components calculations or test results. In addition, the
proposed rule would require that an application include test results
and calculations to demonstrate that the apparent temperature within
the refuge alternative would not exceed 95 [deg]F when used in
conjunction with required components and fully occupied.
MSHA requests specific comments on the apparent temperature and
mitigation of heat stress and heat stroke. Comments should address the
generation of heat and the methods for measuring heat stress on persons
occupying the refuge alternative. Comments should be specific including
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and
economic feasibility, and supporting data.
Paragraph (c) would require that refuge alternatives include a
number of auxiliary requirements to enhance the safety and survival of
persons in a refuge alternative. These requirements would include a
means for communicating with persons outside, lighting, and first aid,
and provisions for food, water, and sanitation.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require that refuge alternatives accommodate
communications. Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) would require that refuge
alternative accommodate a telephone or an equivalent two-way
communication facility that can be used from inside the refuge
alternative, or a two-way wireless system when it is approved in the
operator's Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Manufacturers would need to
provide suitable ports, connections, jacks, and fittings for
communication equipment, and ports and connections would need to be
designed for electrical permissibility and maintaining air quality (gas
tight cable entries) within the refuge alternative.
MSHA requests comments on including a requirement that refuge
alternatives be designed with a means to signal rescuers on the
surface. This would assure that rescuers on the surface could be
contacted if the communications systems become inoperable. This signal
would be similar to what miners had done in the past by hammering on
the roof, ribs, or floor to create sounds that can be detected by
seismic devices located on the surface. A signaling device would need
to be configured to produce a sound on the roof, ribs, or floor while
maintaining the isolated atmosphere. Comments should be specific,
including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility, and supporting data.
MSHA requests comments on including a requirement that the
manufacturer design refuge alternatives with a means to signal
underground rescuers with a homing device. This would assure that
rescuers could detect the trapped miners within the mine. Comments
should be specific, including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits
to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and supporting data.
Paragraph (c)(2) would require that refuge alternatives include
lighting sufficient to perform tasks. Lighting that generates
significant heat, or requires continual manual power for light
generation, would be unacceptable. Light is essential to allow persons
to read instructions, warnings, and gauges;
[[Page 34146]]
operate gas monitoring detectors; and perform other activities related
to the operation of the refuge alternatives. MSHA recommends a minimum
of 1 foot candle of lighting be provided per miner per day.\3\ The
manufacturer or approval holder would have to measure the number of
foot candles provided per miner per day and report this information in
the refuge alternative's manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MIL-STD-1472F, Lighting for bomb shelters, NOTICE 1,05
December 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA requests comments on the types, sources, and magnitude of
lighting needed for the proper functioning of a refuge alternative and
the needs of the occupants. Comments should be specific, including
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and
economic feasibility, and supporting data.
Paragraph (c)(3) would require that refuge alternatives include a
means to effectively contain human waste and minimize objectionable
odors. Information regarding the sanitation would assure that the
manufacturer or approval holder has included an adequate means for
containing waste.
The proposed provisions on sanitation would encompass containment
and disposal of waste. This provision would also require a means for
operation and use, and a means, such as a plastic bag and closed
receptacle, to contain the waste to prevent objectionable odors from
being detected within the interior space. Provisions should include
individually packaged sanitation supplies, including toilet paper and
hand sanitizer. The manufacturer or approval holder would have to
measure the length, width, and height of the container housing the
sanitation component and report this information, together with
operating instructions, in the refuge alternative's manual.
Paragraph (c)(4) would require that refuge alternatives include
first aid supplies to treat injuries. The provision would assure that a
sufficient quantity of first aid supplies are available for injured
miners.
Paragraph (c)(5) would require that refuge alternatives be stocked
with materials, parts, and tools for repairs of components. This
requirement would assure that refuge alternative manufacturers provide
a repair kit with necessary materials and appropriate tools to perform
repairs. This should include adequate tools, metal repair materials,
fiber material, adhesives, sealants, tapes, and general hardware (i.e.,
screws, bolts, rivets, wire, zippers and clips). Powered tools must be
intrinsically safe and permissible.
Paragraph (d) would require that containers used for storage of
refuge alternative components be airtight, waterproof, and rodent-
proof; easy to open and close without the use of tools; and
conspicuously marked with an expiration date and instructions for use
of the component. This requirement would assure that the containers'
contents are useable when needed. Some contents should be individually
packaged and stored in containers. For example, food and water should
be provided in individual, disposable packages and stored in a
container.
Section 7.505 Structural Components
Proposed Sec. 7.505 Addresses the Structural Components Required for
Refuge Alternatives
Paragraph (a)(1) would require that refuge alternatives provide a
minimum of 15 square feet of usable floor space and a minimum of 60
cubic feet of usable volume per person. MSHA believes that these
proposed minimums are necessary to provide adequate room for miners
using the refuge alternative. Usable space or volume means space or
volume without stored items. The space and volume requirements are
exclusive of the airlock space and volume. NIOSH design parameters
recommended 15 square feet and 85 cubic feet per miner. NIOSH stated
that these recommendations were not to be considered absolute.
Under this proposed provision, a space of 6 feet of length and 2.5
feet of width would amount to 15 square feet. If the same area has a
height of 4 feet, the miner would be provided with 60 cubic feet of
space. For mines with lower heights, the 60 cubic feet of space may
need to be attained by increasing the length or floor area.
MSHA solicits comments on these minimum space and volume
requirements. Comments should be specific, including alternatives,
rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic
feasibility, and supporting data.
The area cannot be determined solely by the number of miners that
would be using the refuge alternative. Miners would need some free
space to operate components, drink, eat, and use the sanitation
facilities--and tend to injuries. Additional space may be needed for
suspended curtains, as part of a passive system CO2 removal
system. Also larger volumes seem to be more effective at dissipating
heat.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require that refuge alternatives include
storage space for securing and protecting the components during
transport and that permits ready access to components for inspection,
maintenance, and activation.
The proposed rule is intended to provide adequate storage space in
addition to the usable space required for persons occupying the unit.
The storage space is required for the supplies in containers. The
containers need to be secured to prevent movement during transport. The
supplies should be located to provide usable space for miners and to be
accessible for inspection while the refuge alternative is stored. The
components should be positioned to allow for visual checks for
availability, readiness and shelf life dates.
Paragraph (a)(3) would require that refuge alternatives include an
airlock that creates a barrier to isolate the interior space from the
mine atmosphere, except for a refuge alternative capable of maintaining
adequate positive pressure. The intent of this provision is to provide
breathable air to miners entering the refuge alternative if the mine
atmosphere is contaminated. The miners would need to go into the refuge
alternative through an airlock supplied with breathable air. The
airlock would minimize the amount of contaminated mine air that could
enter the interior space of the refuge alternative. The airlock would
need to have positive pressure to prevent the contaminated atmosphere
from entering the airlock when the outside door is opened. Conversely
when the inside door of the airlock is opened, the air inside the
airlock should not readily enter the interior space of the refuge
alternative. Pressures need to be different between the interior space,
airlock space and mine atmosphere. Pressures need to be incrementally
higher in the interior space as compared to the airlock and the airlock
pressure needs to be higher than the mine atmosphere. Miners will pass
through the airlock via airtight doors into the interior space.
The proposed rule includes an exception for an airlock if the
refuge alternative is capable of maintaining adequate positive
pressure. The positive pressure would prevent outside air from
contaminating the refuge alternative, therefore an airlock would not be
necessary.
Paragraph (a)(3)(i) would require that the airlock be designed to
be used multiple times to accommodate the structure's maximum
occupancy. This provision would assure access for the number of persons
for which the refuge alternative is designed.
[[Page 34147]]
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) would require that the airlock be configured
to accommodate a stretcher without compromising the airlock's function.
Following a mine accident, miners that would use the refuge alternative
may be injured and transported on a stretcher. The airlock would need
to be an adequate length to accommodate the stretcher (with injured
miner) in the airlock with the outside door closed (to allow the
interior door to be opened for access to the interior space).
Paragraph (a)(4) would require that refuge alternatives be designed
and constructed to withstand 15 pounds per square inch (psi)
overpressure for 0.2 seconds prior to activation. Proposed paragraph
(a)(5) would require that refuge alternatives be designed and
constructed to withstand exposure to a flash fire of 300
[deg]Fahrenheit for 3 seconds prior to activation.
Paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) would assure that the refuge
alternative would be able to withstand an initial explosion and fire.
These provisions would also assure that the components are not damaged
and are able to function as intended.
Paragraph (a)(6) would require that refuge alternatives be
constructed with materials that are noncombustible or MSHA-approved
flame-resistant. MSHA tests for flame resistance of brattice cloth
under 30 CFR 7.27 could be used to determine the flame resistance of
noncombustible materials in refuge alternatives. Materials under this
provision could include, but would not be limited to inflatable
stoppings, inflatable shelters, and any materials providing a barrier
used to protect the inside atmosphere from the hazardous outside
atmosphere. Materials are generally tested for noncombustibility under
ASTM E 136 ``Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a
Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C'' (2004), although a similar ISO
test, ``ISO 1182:2002'' also exists.
Paragraph (a)(7) would require that refuge alternatives be
constructed from reinforced material that has sufficient durability to
withstand routine handling and resist puncture and tearing during
activation and use. Refuge alternatives need to be capable of
withstanding the harsh mining environment and require materials to
withstand abrasion, tears and punctures during handling and activation.
This especially applies to inflatable-type stoppings and tent refuge
alternatives. These materials must be made to isolate areas without
compromising the interior atmosphere of the refuge alternative.
Paragraph (a)(8) would require that refuge alternatives be guarded
or reinforced to prevent damage that would hinder activation, entry, or
use. This paragraph would assure the refuge alternative design
incorporates protective features to protect the integrity of the
barrier and operation of doors, inflatable extensions of the refuge
alternative, or any other functions necessary to use the refuge
alternative.
Paragraph (a)(9) would require that refuge alternatives be designed
to permit measurement of outside gas concentrations without exiting the
structure or allowing entry of the outside atmosphere. Miners would
need to conduct gas monitoring of the atmosphere outside of the
isolated interior space to monitor harmful gas levels outside the
refuge alternative when there is a lack of communication with rescuers
and the occupants are considering whether evacuation is a viable
option. To assure the safety of the miners, the design should
incorporate methods or equipment that can monitor outside of the
interior space without contamination.
Proposed Sec. 7.505(b) would address tests for the structural
components required for refuge alternatives.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require that tests be conducted to determine
or demonstrate that the refuge alternative can be constructed,
activated and used as intended. Under this provision, trained persons
would need to be able to fully activate the structure, without the use
of tools, within 10 minutes of reaching the refuge alternative.
This provision would assure that miners can use the refuge
alternative upon reaching it. Following an accident, the first actions
of the miners are to attempt to evacuate wearing SCSRs. In a worst-case
scenario, only one SCSR may be available to provide 60 minutes of
breathable air. The first 30 minutes would enable the miner to attempt
to evacuate and return to the refuge alternative if escape is
impossible. If the miner cannot escape, and returns to a refuge
alternative, the miner would have 10 minutes to establish a barrier
between the interior and exterior atmospheres. The remaining 20 minutes
of breathable air provided by the SCSR will allow refuge alternative
purging to establish a breathable air atmosphere. It is expected that
the testing under this paragraph would be conducted using simulated
real-life situations and conditions, such as smoke, heat, humidity and
darkness using SCSRs.
Paragraph (b)(2) would test that an overpressure of 15 psi applied
to the pre-activated refuge alternative structure for 0.2 seconds would
not allow gases to pass through the barrier separating the interior and
exterior atmospheres. Paragraph (b)(3) would test that a flash fire of
300[deg] Fahrenheit for 3 seconds would not allow gases to pass from
the outside to the inside of the structure.
Paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) would assure that the refuge
alternative is tested to verify that it will withstand an initial
explosion and fire. It would also assure the structure and components
are intact following a fire or explosion. The testing should
demonstrate that the integrity of the barrier and operation of doors is
maintained.
MSHA tests for flame resistance of brattice cloth at 30 CFR 7.27
could be used to determine the flame resistance of noncombustible
materials in refuge alternatives. Materials under this provision could
include, but would not be limited to inflatable stoppings, inflatable
shelters, and any materials providing a barrier used to protect the
inside atmosphere from the hazardous outside atmosphere. Materials are
generally tested for noncombustibility using ASTM E 136 ``Standard Test
Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750
Degrees C'' (2004), although a similar ISO test, ``ISO 1182:2002'' also
exists.
Paragraph (b)(4) would test that the expected overpressure forces
do not prevent the stored components from operating. Paragraph (b)(5)
would test that a flash fire does not prevent the stored components
from operating. Paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) would assure that refuge
alternatives are tested to demonstrate that they will withstand an
initial explosion and fire. Additionally, the test should assure that
an isolated atmosphere is provided for the miners and the components
are not damaged and are able to function as intended.
Paragraph (b)(6) would require testing to demonstrate that each
structure resists puncture and tearing when tested in accordance with
ASTM D2582-07 ``Standard Test Method for Puncture-Propagation Tear
Resistance of Plastic Film and Thin Sheeting.'' This provision will
test the capability of material used to construct the refuge
alternative. The material must withstand the harsh mining environment
and abrasion, tears, and punctures during handling, transportation and
activation. This especially applies to inflatable-type stoppings and
tent refuge alternatives. These materials must be made to maintain
barriers without compromising the atmosphere established on the
interior of the refuge alternative.
Paragraph (b)(7) would require that each reasonably anticipated
repair can be completed within 10 minutes of opening the storage space
for repair
[[Page 34148]]
materials and tools. The inflatable-type refuge alternative has the
potential to be ripped, torn or develop a leak. The refuge alternative
must maintain an isolated atmosphere at all times. If a leak or tear
occurs, the miners should be able to repair it with little delay or
their safety could be jeopardized. The test would demonstrate that a
miner would be able to make a repair, such as mending a tear or
resealing the fabric, within 10 minutes of opening the storage space.
Paragraph (b)(8) would require that nonmetallic materials used to
construct the refuge alternative, not release harmful gases or
noticeable odors before or after the flash fire test. The test would
determine the identity and concentrations of gases released. This
provision would require a test of the material used to construct the
refuge alternative to assure that the materials do not emit noticeable
odors that may sicken the miners occupying the refuge alternative. The
testing should include provisions and instruments for detecting any
released gases. Materials (i.e., paints, plastics, fiber, etc.) used in
the manufacturing of the refuge alternative should not release harmful
fumes, vapors, or gases.
Proposed Sec. 7.505(c) addresses refuge alternatives that use
pressurized air to activate the structure or maintain its shape.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require a pressure regulator or other means
to prevent over-pressurization of structures that use pressurized air
to activate the structure or maintain its shape. Over-pressurization of
the interior space or airlock space would be detrimental to the safety
of the miners. The regulator should be designed to assure that proper
relief of overpressure can be accomplished.
Paragraph (c)(2) would require inclusion of a means to repair and
repressurize the structure in case of failure of the structure or loss
of air pressure. If the inflatable-type structure is damaged or leaks,
it will need repair and additional compressed air to establish the
pressure and volume of air that was lost.
Proposed Sec. 7.505(d)(1) would require that refuge alternatives
be designed such that pre-shift examination of the components critical
for activation can be conducted without entering the structure.
Paragraph (d)(2) would require that a refuge alternative be designed to
provide a means to indicate unauthorized entry or tampering. Paragraphs
(d)(1) and (d)(2) would assure that the refuge alternative is designed
to allow for all necessary inspections. The gauges and controls for
critical components, such as compressed air and oxygen, should be easy
to observe to determine the readiness of those components.
Section 7.506 Breathable Air Components
Paragraph (a) would require that breathable air be supplied by
compressed air cylinders, compressed breathable-oxygen cylinders, fans
installed on the surface or compressors installed on the surface. Only
uncontaminated breathable air is allowed to be supplied to the refuge
alternative.
Maintaining breathable air inside the refuge alternative is vital
to sustain persons trapped underground. Currently MSHA will accept
compressed air cylinders and compressed breathable-oxygen cylinders as
a means to supply breathable air in underground coal mines. MSHA will
also accept fans or compressors installed on the surface as a means to
supply breathable air in these mines. The proposed rule addresses
MSHA's need to evaluate whether breathable air components will meet the
requirement for sustaining persons for 96 hours in a refuge
alternative. Provisions regarding the proper use of approved breathable
air components are important for MSHA to use in determining that a
component will provide adequate air inside the refuge alternative.
The Agency recognizes that different types and combinations of
breathable air components from several manufacturers may be used to
provide breathable air for refuge alternatives. MSHA needs to assure
that these components and combination of components are reliable and
ready to use for maintaining persons as necessary over the 96-hour
period.
Paragraph (b) would require that mechanisms be provided and
procedures be followed within the refuge alternative such that (1)
breathable air sustain each person for 96 hours; (2) the oxygen
concentration be maintained at levels between 18.5 and 23 percent; and
(3) the average carbon dioxide concentration be maintained at 1.0
percent or less, with excursions not to exceed 2.5 percent.
Paragraph (b)(1) addresses MSHA's need to evaluate the
effectiveness and compatibility of the breathable air components to
assure that the supply of breathable air is sufficient to sustain
persons occupying the refuge alternative for 96 hours. In MSHA's
February 8, 2007, Program Information Bulletin No. P07-03, (PIB P07-
03), MSHA addressed that the Agency considered 96 hours to be
necessary. MSHA concluded that a 96-hour supply was warranted, and
accordingly, the Agency is proposing 96 hours as a time that breathable
air would need to be provided. MSHA solicits comments on the proposed
96-hour supply of breathable air. Comments should be specific,
including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility, and supporting data.
In arriving at this 96-hour minimum, MSHA reviewed recent and
historical data on entrapments. While it is clear that refuge
alternatives can save the lives of trapped persons, it was not clear
how long refuge alternatives should be capable of sustaining miners.
The depth of the mine, the geology of the overburden, and the terrain
above the mine significantly affects rescue activities.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that mechanisms be provided and
procedures be followed within the refuge alternative such that the
oxygen concentration be maintained at levels between 18.5 and 23
percent. In this subpart, MSHA is defining breathable oxygen as oxygen
that is at least 99 percent pure with no harmful contaminants.
Acceptable breathable oxygen is frequently supplied from a compressed
gas cylinder as U.S. Pharmacopoeia medical oxygen or as aviator
breathing oxygen. In addition, consistent with NIOSH's recommendation,
the Agency proposes that breathable air contain an oxygen concentration
between 18.5 and 23 percent.
Paragraph (b)(3) would require that the average carbon dioxide
concentration be maintained at 1.0 percent or less, with excursions not
to exceed 2.5 percent. In this subpart, MSHA proposes that breathable
air contain no harmful quantities of asphyxiant, irritant, or toxic
gases, fumes, mists, or dusts. This is consistent with NIOSH's
recommendation. The provision proposes that the carbon dioxide
concentration not exceed a 1.0 percent time weighted average over the
rated duration of the refuge alternative with excursions not to exceed
2.5 percent.
MSHA is assuming that breathing rates for miners who have reached
refuge alternatives would consist of activity levels of \4/5\ at rest
and \1/5\ moderate activity. Therefore, using the respiratory quotient,
which is the ratio of CO2 that expelled to O2
consumed, the average carbon dioxide generation is 1.08 cubic feet per
hour per person. These breathing rates were based upon the U.S. Bureau
of Mines Foster Miller Report of 1983, ``Development of
[[Page 34149]]
Guidelines for Rescue Chambers,'' Volume I (Foster Miller report).
The Agency recognizes that in an enclosed space, miners may die
from the effects of CO2 rather than the effects of
O2 deficiency. In PIB P07-03, MSHA demonstrated the rate at
which a person would overexpose from carbon dioxide if carbon dioxide
were not removed from the environment. MSHA used air supply
calculations and activity levels based upon information provided in the
Foster Miller report. The Agency used a hypothetical sealed enclosed
space with a volume of 1,800 cubic feet (20 feet long, 18 feet wide and
5 feet high) that contained one person. The initial air quality was
assumed to be 19.5% O2, and 0.03% CO2, and the
breathing rate (\4/5\ at rest and \1/5\ moderate activity) for oxygen
inhaled is 0.022 cubic feet per minute per person.
For this example, MSHA found that one miner could be maintained
49.5 hours in an enclosed space with 1,800 cubic feet and initial air
quality of 19.5% O2, and 0.03% CO2. This equates
to 1.65 minutes per cubic foot of enclosed space (volume).
Correspondingly, 10 miners could be maintained in a 1,800 cubic foot
space for 4.95 hours before the CO2 concentration reached
the defined unacceptable level. In addition, 10 miners in the above
defined 1,800 cubic feet volume would reach 10% CO2 and
resulting unconsciousness in approximately 16.6 hours. Unacceptable
level for CO2 would be 3% based on Peele Mining Engineers'
Handbook and current MSHA Short Term Exposure Limits.
Paragraph (c) would require that breathable air supplied by
compressed air from cylinders, fans, or compressors provide a minimum
flow rate of 12.5 cubic feet per minute of breathable air for each
miner. MSHA proposes to use 12.5 cubic feet per minute of breathable
air as a required volume for each miner based on the amount of air
needed for respiration and dilution of CO2 and other harmful
gases. In addition, the 12.5 cubic feet per minute flow rate would
assure positive pressure to prevent contamination from the mine
atmosphere. A maximum positive relief valve would need to be located in
the refuge alternative. MSHA requests comments regarding the flow rate.
Comments should be specific including alternatives, rationale, safety
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and
supporting data.
MSHA considered the enclosed space as similar to a loose-hood
respirator using supplied air. Flair Corporation Bulletin 270 revision
H (4-01) indicates that OSHA requires a supply air of 6 to 15 cfm (360
to 900 cfm) for supplied air hoods (continuous flow supplied air
respirators) to purge accumulated carbon dioxide. The 12.5 cfm per
person fell within this range. Engineering handbooks recommend
ventilation rates in the range 10-15 cfm of fresh air per person for
offices with 12.5 cfm per person being the midpoint of this range. MSHA
believes that these quantities are conservative. However, they are
design parameters for a life support system, which demands a more
cautious approach. In addition, compressor wear reduces performance and
the system will become less efficient with age.
The Agency considers that the use of compressed air cylinders as
the sole means of providing breathable air may be impractical and
encourages mine operators to consider other options. As MSHA pointed
out in PIB P07-03, a fan or equivalent method should be used to force
fresh air into the hole with enough positive pressure to overcome total
mine pressure to deliver sufficient quantities of breathable air.
Compressor air intakes should be installed and maintained to assure
that only clean, uncontaminated air enters the compressors. Mines
should assure compressors have the capacity to deliver the required
volume of air at the point of expected usage.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require that compressed air from cylinders,
fans or compressors provide a minimum flow rate of 12.5 cubic feet per
minute of breathable air for each miner. Fans or compressors would be
required to (i) be equipped with a carbon monoxide detector located at
the surface that automatically provides a visual and audible alarm if
carbon monoxide in supplied air exceeds 10 ppm; (ii) provide in-line
air-purifying sorbent beds and filters or other equivalent means to
assure the breathing air quality and prevent condensation; (iii)
include maintenance instructions that provide specifications for
periodic replacement or refurbishment of sorbent beds and filters or
alternate means; (iv) provide an automatic means to assure that the
maximum allowable positive pressure is not exceeded in the refuge
alternative; (v) include warnings to assure that only uncontaminated
breathable air is supplied to the refuge alternative; (vi) include air
lines to supply breathable air from the fan or compressor to the refuge
alternative; and (vii) assure that harmful or explosive gases, water,
and other materials cannot enter the breathable air. In addition, the
proposal would require that air lines be capable of preventing or
removing water accumulation, and be designed and protected to prevent
damage during normal mining operations, a flash fire of 300[deg] F for
3 seconds, a pressure wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds, and
ground failure.
In PIB P07-03, MSHA provided a number of recommendations regarding
hazards stemming from the use of compressors to provide breathable air
underground. The Agency also acknowledges that these recommendations
would apply to the use of fans used for the same purpose. As such, MSHA
recommended that compressor air intakes should be installed to assure
that only clean, uncontaminated air enters the compressors. Care should
be exercised when using compressors in the vicinity of other equipment
having gas or diesel engines. Gas engines emit carbon monoxide (toxic
fumes) and diesel engines emit sulfur dioxide (noxious fumes) and
nitrogen oxides. Compressors requiring oil can generate carbon monoxide
(CO) internally which can be supplied inadvertently to miners. Oil-type
compressors could be used; however, the air quality must be sampled
and/or controlled using CO filtration. Oil-less compressors do not
generate carbon monoxide; thus, no CO filtering is required.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would require carbon monoxide detectors for
compressors or fans at the surface that automatically provide a visual
and audible alarm if carbon monoxide in supplied air exceeds 10 ppm
because compressors powered by gas engines emit carbon monoxide.
Through the use of detectors at the surface, this provision is intended
to assure that harmful levels of carbon monoxide would not be
transferred into the refuge alternative from this equipment. MSHA is
proposing to use the same early warning level for carbon monoxide in
compressor supplied breathable air as established by OSHA, which will
maintain uniformity in requirements for the use of such specialized
equipment. MSHA believes warning operators when the CO level exceeds 10
ppm will help maintain safe breathable air in the refuge alternative.
MSHA solicits comments on this provision including alternatives.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require in-line air-purifying sorbent
beds and filters or other equivalent means to assure the breathing air
quality and prevent condensation. Sorbent beds and filters would help
assure that the air quality is maintained and condensation is
prevented.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would require maintenance instructions that
provide specifications for periodic replacement or refurbishment of
sorbent beds and filters or alternate means. Proper
[[Page 34150]]
maintenance and periodic replacement of sorbent beds and filters would
help assure that the air quality is maintained and condensation is
prevented.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) would require that fans or compressors provide
positive pressure and an automatic means to assure that the pressure is
relieved in the refuge alternative at 0.25 psi above mine atmospheric
pressure. MSHA believes that positive pressure to exceed total mine
pressure will prevent contamination and allow sufficient quantities of
breathable air. The pressure should be adequate for the intended
purpose, but not excessive where it creates adverse physiological
effects for the miners. An automatic means, such as a relief valve set
at 0.25 psi, should be provided to assure that the refuge alternative
is not over-pressurized if breathable air is being supplied through a
borehole or other means. The Foster Miller report specifies a minimum
of 5 inches of water gage overpressure in the refuge alternative which
is equivalent to approximately 0.18 psi. Currently, most manufactured
refuge alternatives have relief valves set at 0.25 psi. Having too much
pressure differential would make opening doors difficult for miners
entering the refuge alternative. MSHA requests comments on the proposed
setting for pressure relief and whether a higher pressure relief should
be required. Comments should be specific including alternatives,
rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic
feasibility, and supporting data.
Paragraph (c)(1)(v) would require warnings to assure that only
uncontaminated breathable air is supplied to the refuge alternative.
This provision is intended to assure that only clean, uncontaminated
air enters the compressors. Care should be exercised when using
compressors or fans in the vicinity of other equipment having gas or
diesel engines.
Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) would require that fans or compressors
supplying breathable air underground include air lines to supply the
air to the refuge alternative, that (A) air lines be capable of
preventing or removing water accumulation, and that (B) air lines be
designed and protected to prevent damage during normal mining
operations, a flash fire of 300 [deg]F for 3 seconds, a pressure wave
of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds, and ground failure.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A) is intended to prevent
accumulation of water, which could affect the quantity and quality of
breathable air provided underground. Moisture-laden air should not be
pumped into the area where miners are trapped. If this moisture is not
removed water could accumulate in the refuge alternative. All air
supply systems must provide a means of preventing and removing the
accumulation of water. MSHA anticipates air dryers with drain valves
will be used. Air lines or pipes that are pre-installed must also be
capped to prevent the entry of rain or moisture-laden air. If
horizontal runs of air lines or pipes are used, they must be provided
with a means to automatically drain any water accumulation.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) is intended to provide protection
for lines that come from boreholes or air lines from the surface that
are extended underground to a refuge alternative. This protection could
consist of burying pipes by trenching deep enough to protect the pipes
from mine traffic, explosions, ground movement or equipment damage.
Paragraph (c)(1)(vii) would assure that harmful or explosive gases,
water, and other materials cannot enter the breathable air. When
connecting equipment to boreholes that enter the mine, precautions must
be taken to prevent explosive or harmful gases from entering the
equipment supplying the breathable air. Harmful gases could contaminate
filters or other components or collect in the equipment and affect the
quality of the air being supplied to the trapped miners.
Paragraph (c)(2) would require redundant fans or compressors and
power sources to permit prompt reactivation of equipment in the event
of failure. It is crucial to maintain a continuous supply of breathable
air to persons trapped underground and MSHA believes that redundant
systems would assure that the supply is maintained in the event of
failure of one of these systems.
Paragraph (d) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen (1)
include instructions for activation and operation; (2) provide oxygen
at a minimum flow rate of 1.32 cubic feet per hour per miner; (3)
include a means to readily regulate the pressure and volume of the
compressed oxygen; (4) include an independent regulator as a backup in
case of failure; and (5) be used only with regulators, piping, and
other equipment that is certified and maintained to prevent ignition or
combustion.
Paragraph (d)(1) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen
include instructions for activation and operation. This information
will assure that mine operators have the proper information to
correctly perform the tasks involving activating compressed oxygen
cylinders. MSHA believes that failure to properly perform these tasks
may imperil the lives of the miners within the refuge alternative.
Instructions could include such items as checking for loose
connections, leaking gas sounds, damage to hoses along their lengths or
at their fittings, and broken gauges. The instructions would also help
to assure that tanks are secured and pressure regulators are properly
set and that wrenches and pliers will be in proper working order. Safe
Use of Oxygen and Oxygen Systems: Guidelines for Oxygen System Design,
Materials Selection, Operations, Storage, and Transportation, ASTM
Stock No.: MNL 36.
Paragraph (d)(2) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen
provides oxygen at a minimum flow rate of 1.32 cubic feet per hour per
miner. MSHA is assuming that breathing rates for miners who are using a
refuge alternative would reflect activity levels of \4/5\ at rest and
\1/5\ moderate activity. Oxygen consumption at this assumed breathing
rate would be 1.32 cubic feet per hour per person (0.022 cubic feet per
minute per person). These oxygen consumption rates were based upon the
U.S. Bureau of Mines Foster Miller Report of 1983, ``Development of
Guidelines for Rescue Chambers,'' Volume I.
Paragraph (d)(3) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen
provide a means to readily regulate the pressure and volume of the
compressed oxygen. Regulating is necessary to assure that oxygen levels
remain within the recommended values. In addition, all oxygen valves
should be opened slowly to prevent the oxygen from heating.
Paragraph (d)(4) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen
include an independent regulator as a backup in case of failure. It is
crucial to maintain a continuous supply of breathable air to persons
trapped underground. MSHA believes that redundant regulators would
assure that the miners are maintained in the event of failure of one of
these regulators. MSHA expects redundant oxygen control valves and
regulators will be provided to assure continual availability of
breathable oxygen. This provision is meant to assure that pre-connected
valves and regulators are available. This will assure that miners will
always have breathable air available in case of component failures.
Paragraph (d)(5) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen
be used only with regulators, piping, and other equipment that is
certified and maintained to prevent ignition or combustion. Components
such as
[[Page 34151]]
piping, couplings, valves and regulators used to supply air to the
refuge alternative must be maintained in operable condition and in
accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. These components will
likely be stored by the mine operator until needed for training or
rescue operations. Improper storage of these components can lead to
their corrosion or their contamination. Compressed oxygen components
must not be used with previously used compressed air system components
due to the fire and explosion hazards resulting from pure oxygen coming
into contact with oil and grease that is inherent with used compressed
air systems.
Paragraph (e) would require that carbon dioxide removal components
(1) include instructions for activation and operation; (2) be used with
breathable air cylinders or oxygen cylinders; (3) remove carbon dioxide
at a rate of 1.08 cubic feet per hour per miner; (4) be contained to
prevent contact with the chemicals and the release of airborne
particles; (5) be provided and packaged with all necessary means to
expedite use, such as hangers, racks, and clips; and (6) be stored in
containers that are conspicuously marked with instructions for disposal
of used chemicals.
Paragraph (e)(1) would require that carbon dioxide removal
components include instruction for activation and operation. MSHA needs
this information to assure that mine operators have the proper
information to correctly perform tasks involving activating carbon
dioxide removal components. Carbon dioxide is a natural asphyxiant
produced through human respiration. To prevent the accumulation of
harmful concentrations of carbon dioxide, scrubbing systems have been
developed to chemically absorb the carbon dioxide. When entering a
refuge alternative, miners would have to perform tasks to activate the
carbon dioxide removal components. The miners would have to purge the
atmosphere (in some cases), turn on the breathable air and maintain a
viable atmosphere. Depending on the type of CO2 removal
system, instructions could include activation scheduling and proper
handling of these materials. MSHA believes that failure to properly
perform these tasks may imperil the lives of the miners within the
refuge alternative.
Paragraph (e)(2) would require that carbon dioxide removal
components be used with breathable air cylinders or oxygen cylinders.
MSHA needs to assure that carbon dioxide removal components are
compatible with the overall system for providing breathable air.
Paragraph (e)(3) would require that carbon dioxide removal
components remove carbon dioxide at a rate of 1.08 cubic feet per hour
per miner. MSHA is assuming that breathing rates for miners who have
reached refuge alternatives would reflect activity levels of \4/5\ at
rest and \1/5\ moderate activity. Therefore, using the respiratory
quotient, which is the ratio of CO2 expelled to
O2 consumed, the average carbon dioxide generation is 1.08
cubic feet per hour per person. These breathing rates were based upon
the Foster Miller report.
Paragraph (e)(4) would require that carbon dioxide removal
components be contained to prevent contact with the chemicals and the
release of airborne particles. Commonly used CO2 removal
systems include lithium hydroxide or soda lime curtains or soda lime
cartridges. These systems will require proper handling and may involve
using personal protective equipment. The NIOSH report stated that the
scrubbing material must not become airborne or otherwise cause
respiratory distress or other acute reaction.
Paragraph (e)(5) would require that carbon dioxide removal
components be provided and packaged with all necessary means to
expedite use. Depending on the type of CO2 removal
component, items such as hangers, racks, and clips may be required to
activate and use this component.
Paragraph (e)(6) would require that carbon dioxide removal
components be stored in containers that are conspicuously marked with
instructions for disposal of used chemicals. Manufacturers would need
to provide instructions for disposal of used chemicals.
Paragraph (f) would require the carbon dioxide removal component be
tested and evaluated to demonstrate that it can maintain average carbon
dioxide concentration at 1.0 percent or less, with excursions not to
exceed 2.5 percent under the following conditions: (1) at 55 [deg]F
(4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 50
percent (0.5 percent) relative humidity; (2) at 55 [deg]F
(4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 100
percent (0.5 percent) relative humidity; (3) at 90[deg] F
(4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 50
percent (0.5 percent) relative humidity; (4) at 82 [deg]F
(4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 100
percent (0.5 percent) relative humidity.
The Agency is proposing testing and evaluating of the
CO2 removal component to assure that the concentration not
exceed a 1.0 percent time-weighted average over the rated duration of
the refuge alternative with excursions not to exceed 2.5 percent. The
provisions in proposed paragraph (f) are consistent with NIOSH's
recommendation.
MSHA recognizes that some CO2 scrubbing components may
not perform as well as others and that the most commonly used
CO2 scrubbing chemicals performed their function within an
acceptable range of the conditions found in underground mines. The
testing procedure that would be required under proposed paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) are representative of extreme conditions that
CO2 scrubbing components may be exposed to in different
underground mines. The increased temperature and humidity ranges
between these provisions reflect increases that would result from
occupancy of a refuge alternative, although MSHA assumes that some body
heat and moisture generation will be dissipated by contact with the
refuge alternative or mine roof, ribs, and floor.
Therefore, it is important to evaluate these CO2
scrubbing components and determine the differences in levels of
effectiveness with currently available components. This will enable
mine operators to make more informed choices in selecting scrubbing
components to be used in their particular mining operation.
Paragraph (g) would require that respirators or breathing apparatus
used with a breathable air component (1) be NIOSH-approved with a means
of flow and pressure regulation; (2) be equipped with fittings that
connect only to a breathable air compressed line; (3) allow for
communication, and the provision of food, and water while preventing
the entry of any outside atmosphere; and (4) be capable of being worn
for up to 96 hours. The proposed rule addresses the need to have
provisions to assure the safe use of respirators or breathing
apparatus.
Paragraph (g)(1) would require that respirators or breathing
apparatus used for a breathable air component have a NIOSH approval
with a means of flow and pressure regulation.
Paragraph (g)(2) would require that respirators or breathing
apparatus be equipped with fittings that connect only to a breathable
air compressed line. This provision would prevent respirators from
being connected to piping that is not designed for breathing apparatus
or to gas sources that are not capable of sustaining life. Compressed
air regulating valves and supply hoses are generally shipped with
quick-connect industrial interchange safety fittings/couplings that
prevent accidental separation of the hoses. The proposed rule would
require that these fittings be
[[Page 34152]]
incompatible with outlets for non-respirable air or other gas systems
so that asphyxiating substances are not introduced into breathing air
lines. This provision is also comparable to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration respiratory protection standard 29 CFR
1910.134(i)(8), which states that--
[t]he employer shall ensure that breathing air couplings are
incompatible with outlets for nonrespirable worksite air or other
gas systems. No asphyxiating substance shall be introduced into
breathing air lines.
Paragraph (g)(3) would require that respirators or breathing
apparatus used with breathable air components allow for communication,
and the provision of food and water while at the same time preventing
the entry of any outside atmosphere. MSHA is proposing this requirement
because communications with and between persons in refuge alternatives
to convey and share information are vital to mine rescue efforts. The
knowledge of where persons are in refuge alternatives, their condition
and the conditions in the mine may make the difference between life and
death in a post-accident crisis. In addition, being able to consume
food and water is critical for the 96-hour confinement. MSHA believes
that the proposed requirements could be met with full-faced respirators
or breathing apparatus that have ports for the use of liquids, such as
those used by commercial divers.
Paragraph (g)(4) would require that respirators or breathing
apparatus used with breathable air components be capable of being worn
for up to 96 hours. The refuge alternative standard would require that
breathable air be provided in the refuge alternative at all times.
Among the concerns addressed by this provision are that if respirators
or apparatus are required to be worn for extended periods of time, the
respirators or breathing apparatus would need to be of such a type or
configuration that it would not become dislodged when sleeping or when
activities are performed.
Paragraph (h) would require that an applicant prepare and submit a
risk analysis to assure that the breathable air component will not
cause an ignition. The proposed provision requires that an analysis be
conducted to evaluate the potential fire and ignition risks of the
equipment and components.
Paragraph (h)(1) would require that the risk analysis specifically
address oxygen fire hazards and fire hazards from chemicals used for
removal of carbon dioxide. This provision addresses MSHA's specific
concern that the use of oxygen presents inherent potential fire
hazards. The provision also focuses on assuring that fire hazards from
chemicals used for removal of carbon dioxide are addressed by
manufacturers of refuge alternative components.
Paragraph (h)(2) would require that the risk analysis identify the
means used to prevent any ignition source. This provision addresses the
need to assure that refuge alternative manufacturers analyze inherent
potential fire hazards and, if any potential exists, that the
mitigation plan includes the means to prevent ignition of breathable
air component equipment or materials.
Paragraph (i) would require that the breathable air component shall
include a fire extinguisher that (1) is compatible with the chemicals
used for removal of carbon dioxide; and (2) uses a non-toxic
extinguishing agent that does not produce a hazardous by-product when
heated or activated. This paragraph addresses the need to assure that
refuge alternative manufacturers analyze inherent potential fire
hazards and develop means to prevent the ignition of breathable air
component equipment or materials. The proposed requirements in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) would help assure that the fire extinguisher
used in a refuge alternative or component does not contribute to a
secondary fire or explosion. The provisions would assist MSHA in
determining that materials used in the fire extinguisher are safe for
use in an underground mine and do not give off harmful gases when
exposed to heat.
Section 7.507 Air-Monitoring Components
Proposed Sec. 7.507(a) would include requirements for an air-
monitoring component that provides persons inside the refuge
alternative with the ability to determine the concentrations of carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxygen, and methane, inside and outside the
structure, including the airlock. This proposal would assure that
breathable air is properly monitored and that air-monitoring equipment
is properly inspected, tested, maintained, and stored so that it is
fully charged and available for immediate use.
The monitoring of these gases is critical to the survival of miners
occupying a refuge alternative. The proposal includes the recommended
values provided in the NIOSH report for oxygen, carbon monoxide, and
carbon dioxide. NIOSH recommended values and gas concentration ranges
that would assure that the quality of breathable air is maintained. The
ability to monitor the atmosphere outside the refuge alternative would
assist miners inside the refuge alternative in making crucial decisions
in the event of a mine emergency. Additionally, methane would be
monitored to negate the possibility of oxygen deficiency or the
potential for explosion.
Paragraph (b) would require that refuge alternatives designed for
use in mines with a history of harmful gases, other than carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane be equipped to measure those
harmful gas concentrations. Some mines have a history of liberating
harmful gases such as hydrogen sulfide, volatile hydrocarbons, or
sulfur dioxide. Miners would need to be prepared for potential
liberating of these harmful gases and have appropriate monitoring
equipment readily available.
Paragraph (c) would require that the air-monitoring component be
inspected or tested and the test results are included in the
application. This provision will assure that all types of monitors or
detectors that are included in the refuge alternative will be tested
for the conditions for which they are intended. Performance testing
will assure the components will operate for which the air monitoring is
intended as well as meet the intrinsic safety requirements.
Additionally, visual inspection, calibration, and performance test
reports will need to be included in the application to verify
performance.
Paragraph (d) would require that all air-monitoring components be
approved as permissible by MSHA and the MSHA approval number be
specified in the application. MSHA will only accept MSHA approved
permissible components to assure an explosion hazard does not exist in
an explosive atmosphere and the components will serve the purpose for
which they are intended. MSHA would allow third party testing of the
components for air monitoring. Approval information will assure the
components are performance-tested for safe usage in the refuge
alternative.
Paragraph (e) would require that air-monitoring components meet the
following: (1) The total measurement error, including the cross-
sensitivity to other gases, shall not exceed 10 percent of
the reading, except as specified in the approval, and (2) the
measurement error limits not exceed after startup, after 8 hours of
continuous operation, after 96 hours of storage, and after exposure to
atmospheres with a carbon monoxide concentration of 999 ppm (full
scale), a carbon dioxide concentration of 3 percent, and full-scale
concentrations of other gases.
[[Page 34153]]
Paragraph (e)(1) would assure that the instruments are tested to
specific ranges. MSHA has referenced gas analyzer specifications from
30 CFR part 7 Diesel Engine approvals detailed in Sec. 7.86(b)(10),
which specifies that the gas analyzer error including cross-sensitivity
to other gases is 5%. MSHA recommends using gas analyzers that account
for cross sensitivity, such as sensitivity to hydrogen or hydrocarbons
which would result in false indication of actual carbon monoxide, and
adjust readings accordingly.
The 5% error specification in Sec. 7.86(b)(10) refers
to the instrument error specification. The 10% total
measurement error specification above refers to the combined effects of
environment and accessories on the measurement itself under normal
conditions, and was arrived at through uncertainty evaluation of gas
measurement instruments used at MSHA's Approval and Certification
Center. Measurements taken when environmental conditions are not within
the instruments' specified acceptable limits, or when the instrument is
in need of calibration, can result in the measurement value falling
outside the 10% limit. Measurements that fall outside of
the 10% limit are not in compliance. The applicant needs to
determine what environmental or calibration issues exist and resolve
them to keep the combined instrument and measurement error within
10%.
Paragraph (e)(2) would require testing to demonstrate that the gas
monitors or detectors will afford miners the capability to determine
accurate gas concentrations throughout the duration of refuge occupancy
and at different parameters such as startup, after 8 hours of
continuous operation, during storage when continuously exposed to the
maximum recommended gas concentrations, and at other concentrations
much higher than the recommended maximum values. This requirement takes
into account the effects high gas concentration levels may have on
these measurements over extended periods of time. A consensus standard
for instruments, ANSI/ISA-92.02.01, Part I-1998 Performance
Requirements for Carbon Monoxide Detection Instruments (50-1000 ppm
full scale), specifies carbon monoxide instrument range limits of 1000
ppm, 2000 ppm overload, and the standard specifies these instruments be
able to withstand a carbon monoxide shock loading of 4000 ppm.
Paragraph (e)(3) would require that calibration gas values be
traceable to the National Institute for Standards and Testing (NIST)
``Standard Reference Materials'' (SRMs). This procedure will assure
proper calibration of the air-monitoring equipment. These standards are
recognized and accepted by industry. This provision is based upon
existing Sec. 7.86(b)(16), which references NIST SRMs.
Paragraph (e)(4) would require that the analytical accuracy of the
calibration gas values be within 2.0 percent of NIST gas standards.
This provision is based upon existing Sec. 7.86(b)(16), which also
references analytical accuracy of calibration gases within 2 percent of
NIST gas standards.
Paragraph (e)(5) would require that the analytical accuracy of the
span gas values be within 2.0 percent of NIST gas standards. This
provision is based upon existing Sec. 7.86(b)(17) which also
references analytical accuracy of span gases within 2 percent of NIST
gas standards.
Paragraph (e)(6) would require the detectors be capable of being
kept fully charged and ready for immediate use. MSHA needs to assure
that the detectors are reliable and ready to use for maintaining
persons as necessary over the 96-hour period.
Section 7.508 Harmful Gas Removal Components
This section addresses removing harmful gases to assure that
breathable air is maintained for persons occupying refuge alternatives
during the 96-hour period.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require purging or other effective methods
be provided for the airlock to dilute the carbon monoxide concentration
to 25 ppm or less and the methane concentration to 1.5 percent or less
as persons enter, within 20 minutes of miners activating the refuge
alternative. The NIOSH recommended value of maximum concentration of
carbon monoxide is 25 ppm. This provision is intended to address
evacuating contaminated air by forcing the contaminated air out of the
refuge alternative environment. Airlocks are intended to speed up the
process of ingress and egress, because this is a smaller volume as
compared to the interior space to purge. MSHA believes that following
the miners' attempt to escape and time required for constructing and
activating the refuge alternative, the SCSRs would allow 20 minutes for
purging the airlock to establish a breathable air atmosphere.
In addition, purge air should be provided from compressed air
cylinders. The allowable carbon monoxide contamination level is the
NIOSH recommended value contained in the NIOSH report. The methane
concentration action level in 30 CFR 75.323(b)(2)(i) of less than 1.5
percent is the limit established for persons to be allowed to occupy an
area.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require that chemical scrubbing or other
effective methods be provided to maintain the average carbon dioxide
concentration in the occupied structure at 1.0 percent or less with
excursions not to exceed 2.5 percent. The provision addresses the
harmful effects of carbon dioxide, a natural asphyxiant produced
through human respiration. To prevent the accumulation of harmful
concentrations of carbon dioxide, scrubbing systems have been developed
to chemically absorb the carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide scrubbing
systems are described as active or passive. Passive systems rely solely
on natural air currents for the air to react with the chemical bed.
Passive systems chemicals are usually packaged in curtains that are
suspended in the refuge chamber environment. Active systems were
designed to increase efficiency of CO2 scrubbing systems.
This is accomplished by forcing the air through the chemical bed by
fans or compressed air. The recommended average carbon dioxide
concentration came from the NIOSH report.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require that chemicals used in harmful gas
removal be contained such that when stored or used they cannot come in
contact with persons. Because these harmful gas removal chemicals are
caustic, they would need to be contained. One way of packaging these
chemicals is in curtains or cartridges that are isolated so that
contact with or exposure to the chemicals is prevented. MSHA does not
condone the use of uncontained materials because of the caustic nature
of these materials. Chemicals must be activated without compromising
the packaging materials and exposing miners to chemical hazards.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that each chemical used for removal
of harmful gas be provided together with all materials, parts, or
equipment necessary for its use. This requirement is proposed to
expedite activation of the scrubbing system to reduce start-up time and
make the system easy to use for the miner. The intent is to make the
system as uncomplicated as possible, and to reduce harmful gases as
soon as possible while ensuring everything necessary is provided. The
harmful gas removal system should be designed on a per-miner
incremental basis to make the system easily understood by miners.
Paragraph (b)(3) would require that each chemical used for removal
of harmful gas be stored in an approved
[[Page 34154]]
container that is conspicuously marked with the manufacturer's
instructions for disposal of used chemicals. The intent of this
provision is to provide for appropriate containment during shipping and
pre-activation storage. Approved containers would be considered those
appropriate for pre-activation transport and storage in the mine
environment as determined by generally accepted chemical industry
practice. Disposal instructions are also to be provided to assure
miners are not exposed or otherwise injured while handling chemicals.
Activation instructions should also be provided on the container.
Paragraph (c) would require that each harmful gas removal component
be inspected or tested to determine its ability to remove harmful
gases. The functionality and efficiency of the gas removal components
need to be verified.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require that the component be tested in a
refuge alternative structure that is representative of the
configuration and maximum volume from which the component is designed
to remove harmful gases. The intent is to obtain data that is directly
representative of how the components will perform in actual use. Data
from small-scale tests or prototype testing would require
interpretation along with making assumptions which introduces the
potential for the measured performance not being representative of
full-scale performance.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would require that the test include three
sampling points located vertically along the centerlines of the length
and width of the structure and equally spaced over the horizontal
centerline of the height of the structure. There are to be a total of
three sampling points equally spaced along the center length of the
structure on the longitudinal (horizontal) centerline and located so as
to provide an accurate representation of the gas concentration found in
the middle of the structure as opposed to the ends, corners, top,
sides, or bottom.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require that the structure be sealed
airtight. The structure is to be airtight to prevent unintended
atmosphere contaminants from entering into the structure and altering/
interfering with the internal test atmosphere.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would require that the operating gas sampling
instruments be placed inside the structure and continuously exposed to
the test atmosphere.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) would require that the sampling instruments
simultaneously measure the gas concentrations at the three sampling
points. Gas sampling instruments must operate continuously at the three
sampling points while measuring the gaseous concentration inside of the
structure. The intent of simultaneously sampling is to determine the
interior atmosphere at different locations at a given point in time, to
eliminate any sampling variability introduced by sequential sampling,
and to determine if a homogenous atmosphere is maintained throughout
the refuge alternative.
Paragraph (c)(2) would require when testing the component's ability
to remove carbon monoxide, the structure be filled with a test gas of
either purified synthetic air or purified nitrogen that contains 400
ppm carbon monoxide. Refuge alternatives should be configured to ensure
the air contained therein is normally isolated from the mine atmosphere
which would negate the need to purge a refuge after an event. However,
the concept of an airlock to provide a transition area into a
breathable air zone, by its very nature, would possibly become
contaminated after an event. In recognizing this, airlocks need the
capability to remove contaminants or otherwise operated to ensure that
contaminated mine atmosphere is prevented from migrating through the
airlock into the breathable air refuge. The 400 ppm was selected based
on safety considerations (ACGIH 400 ppm CO STEL limit) while also being
able to determine multiple gas concentration level reductions of the
gas purification/de-contamination system for the entire ingress/egress
process at maximum occupancy.
Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require that after a stable concentration
of 400 ppm, 5 percent, carbon monoxide has been obtained
for 5 minutes at all three sampling points, a timer be started and the
structure shall be purged or CO otherwise removed. A uniform
homogeneous atmosphere inside of the chamber containing a concentration
of 400 ppm must be consistent for 5 minutes. After this is achieved, a
timer will be started and the structure purged or CO otherwise removed
to an acceptable concentration.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require that carbon monoxide
concentration readings from each of the three sampling devices be
recorded every 2 minutes. The intent is to have enough data points to
have a valid test.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would require that the time from the start of
harmful gas removal until the readings of the three sampling
instruments all indicate a carbon monoxide concentration of 25 ppm or
less shall be recorded. The purpose for recording the time is to assure
the time to remove the toxic gas and activate the refuge alternative is
less than the time to deplete the life of the SCSR. All of the rated
number of occupants need to be located safely inside the refuge
alternative prior to depleting their SCSR air capacity.
Paragraph (d) would allow that alternate performance tests may be
conducted if the tests provide the same level of assurance of the
harmful gas removal component's capability as the tests specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. Alternate tests shall be specified in
the approval application. The intent of this statement is as a general
protection clause. The applicant can perform other tests to assure the
ability of these systems to remove harmful gases if the applicant can
demonstrate that the same degree of protection is provided as the
refuge alternative requirements. Alternate tests may be used if they
are submitted to MSHA for approval and there is assurance that the
capacity to remove harmful gas is adequate.
Section 7.509 Approval Markings
Paragraph (a) would require that each approved refuge alternative
or component be identified by a legible, permanent approval marking
that is securely and conspicuously attached to the component or its
container. This requirement is necessary to assure that only approved
materials and components are used in the refuge alternatives. The
marking would be placed such that the marking will not be subject to
damage or removal.
Paragraph (b) would require that each approval marking include the
refuge alternative's and component's MSHA approval number and
expiration date. This requirement is necessary to assure that only
approved materials and components are used in the refuge alternatives.
Paragraph (c) would require that each refuge alternative structure
provide a conspicuous means for indicating an out-of-service status,
including the reason it is out of service. This requirement would
assure the materials are able to be inspected and removed and replaced
when needed.
Paragraph (d) would require that each airlock be conspicuously
marked with the recommended maximum number of persons that can use it
at one time. This requirement would assure the airlock is used as
intended to allow safe passage of persons through the airlock and to
prevent the contamination of the interior space atmosphere.
[[Page 34155]]
Section 7.510 New Technology
This proposed section would allow MSHA to approve a refuge
alternative or a component that incorporates new knowledge or
technology, if the applicant demonstrates that the refuge alternative
or component provides no less protection than those meeting the
requirements of this subpart. Recent innovative uses of commercially
available technology to enhance mine safety have shown that, while the
drawbacks are significant, credible scientific research supports the
use of refuge alternatives. Refuge alternatives are technologically
feasible in that they use commercially available technology and they
can reasonably be integrated into mining operations considering
specific physical characteristics of a mine. MSHA recognizes that using
the refuge alternatives in low coal mines could be problematic. The
Agency further recognizes that certain types of refuge alternatives may
not be feasible in low coal mines. MSHA solicits comment from the
public on the use of refuge alternatives in low coal mines. Please be
specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, safety
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and data to
support your comment.
B. Part 75 Safety Standards
Section 75.221 Roof Control Plan Information
Paragraph Sec. 75.221(a)(12) would require that the operator
describe the roof and rib support necessary for the refuge alternative
in the roof control plan. Roof and rib falls could damage a refuge
alternative and compromise its integrity. Humidity resulting from
fires, vibrations, shock, and thermal effects are often associated with
catastrophic events that may require the use of additional roof support
for areas housing refuge alternatives. Due to the vital role of refuge
alternatives in the event of an emergency, mine operators must plan for
their location and assure that they are adequately protected from
possible roof and rib falls. MSHA encourages the mine operator to
prepare locations for refuge alternatives in advance. The additional
steps to protect these units from roof and rib falls must be described
in the roof control plan.
Section 75.313 Main Mine Fan Stoppage With Persons Underground
Paragraph 75.313(f) would require the use of intrinsically safe
electrical components in a refuge alternative during fan stoppages
underground. Mine explosions, mine fires, and coal bumps and bounces
may compromise the mine ventilation system resulting in a mine fan
stoppage. A refuge alternative that is normally located in intake air
may be exposed to a potentially explosive mixture of methane in the
aftermath of a mine emergency. Like existing Sec. 75.313(e), only
intrinsically safe electrical components may be operated in a refuge
alternative during fan stoppages.
Section 75.360 Preshift Examination
Paragraph 75.360(d) would require the person conducting the
preshift examination to check the refuge alternative for damage, the
integrity of the tamper-evident seal and the mechanisms required to
activate the refuge alternative, and the ready availability of
compressed oxygen and air. Refuge alternatives may be damaged by
persons, mining equipment, or the mine environment. Compressed gas
storage systems may leak. Due to the critical nature of refuge
alternatives, each refuge alternative must be examined as part of the
preshift examination. Visible damage to the refuge alternative and
damage to the tamper-evident seal would be checked during the preshift
examination. The preshift examination would reveal loss of compressed
gas pressures, electrical charge, or communications system.
MSHA requests specific comments on the visual damage that would be
revealed during the preshift examinations. The Agency is concerned with
the feasibility and practicality of visually checking the status of
refuge alternatives without having to enter the structure or break the
tamper-evident seal. Please be specific in your response, regarding
methods or alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility, and data to support your
comment.
Section 75.372 Mine Ventilation Map
Paragraph Sec. 75.372(b)(11) would require that each refuge
alternative be shown on the mine ventilation map. Showing the location
of the refuge alternatives in relationship to the mine ventilation
system facilitates an evaluation of the effectiveness of a potential
refuge alternative location. The location of the refuge alternative in
relationship to potential hazards such as seals and oil and gas wells
will be evaluated during the ventilation map review. The mine
ventilation map is often referenced during mine rescue efforts.
Plotting refuge alternatives on the ventilation map could aid decisions
during rescue operations.
Section 75.1200 Mine Map
Paragraph Sec. 75.1200(g) would require that the mine map show the
locations of refuge alternatives. The existing Sec. 75.1200 mine map
forms the basis for decisions made during mine rescue efforts. Plotting
refuge alternatives on the mine map allows the mine rescue planners to
consider where miners may be sheltered after a mine emergency. This
information will be critical to mine rescue efforts in locating trapped
personnel.
Section 75.1202-1 Temporary Notations, Revisions, and Supplements
Paragraph Sec. 75.1202-1(b)(4) would require that refuge
alternatives that are moved be shown on the mine map with temporary
notations. During an emergency, mine maps form the basis for mine
rescue efforts. Locations of refuge alternatives are critical to
decisions made in rescue efforts and must be kept current on the mine
map.
Section 75.1500 Emergency Shelters
MSHA proposes to remove and reserve this section and delete the
existing language of Sec. 75.1500. This section would be replaced with
specific requirements for refuge alternatives in existing Sec. Sec.
75.1501, 75.1502, 75.1504, and 75.1505 and new Sec. Sec. 75.1506,
75.1507, and 75.1508.
Section 75.1501 Emergency Evacuations
Paragraph Sec. 75.1501(a)(1) would require that the responsible
person know the locations of refuge alternatives. Under the proposal,
the designated responsible person must have current knowledge of the
locations, types, and capacities of refuge alternatives to make
informed mine evacuation decisions in the event of an emergency.
Section 75.1502 Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of
Instruction
Paragraph Sec. 75.1502(c)(3) would be a new provision and require
that instruction in the activation and use of refuge alternatives be
added to the mine emergency evacuation program of instruction. This
proposal would assure that miners are able to effectively activate and
use refuge alternatives in case of an emergency. Existing Sec.
75.1502(c)(3) would be redesignated as paragraph (c)(4). Paragraph
(c)(4)(vi) would be new and require that the program of instruction
include a scenario for using refuge alternatives. Although MSHA expects
that miners would occupy refuge alternatives only if no other options
are available, they need
[[Page 34156]]
to be aware of the circumstances that may require this difficult
decision.
Existing Sec. 75.1502(c)(7) would be redesignated as paragraph
(c)(8) and would require that the program of instruction include the
locations of refuge alternatives. The locations of refuge alternatives
may be critical for miners who are involved in mine emergencies.
Paragraph Sec. 75.1502(c)(10) would be new and require a summary
of the procedures related to constructing and activating refuge
alternatives. This summary information would be necessary for miners
during training. The summary would assure that all critical steps of
constructing and activating the refuge alternative are reviewed in
training.
Paragraph Sec. 75.1502(c)(11) would be new and require a summary
of the procedures related to refuge alternative use. This summary
information would be necessary for the miners to review during
training. The summary would assure that all critical steps of using the
refuge alternative are reviewed in training.
Section 75.1504 Mine Emergency Evacuation Training and Drills
The best refuge technology, equipment and emergency supplies are of
little benefit if they are misused or not used at all. In its report,
NIOSH stated that--
The potential of refuge alternatives to save lives will only be
realized to the extent that mine operators develop comprehensive
escape and rescue plans, which incorporate refuge alternatives.
Emergencies can result in miner disorientation and panic. Using
sound judgment in a given emergency can be critical for survival. MSHA
and NIOSH have found that training is necessary to instill the
discipline, confidence, and skills necessary to survive a mine
emergency. This proposal would improve miner training and help assure
that underground coal miners know when to use a refuge alternative and
know how to use the various components to sustain life until rescued.
During each quarterly drill, miners would be required to locate the
refuge alternatives and review the activation and use of the refuge
alternative for the area where the miners normally work and travel
during each quarterly drill. Refuge alternatives expectations training
would emphasize that miners first try to evacuate the mine and that
refuge alternatives are a haven of last resort when escape is
impossible.
MSHA has identified problems related to skill degradation in
emergency evacuations of mines. In a series of studies from 1990
through 1993, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, University of Kentucky, and
MSHA researchers measured skills degradation. In one study, the
proficiency rates dropped about 80 percent in follow-up evaluations
conducted about 90 days after training. MSHA recognizes that with any
non-routine task, such as constructing, activating, and using a refuge
alternative, knowledge and skill diminish rapidly. In another study \4\
researchers concluded that ``companies should adopt a hands-on training
protocol.'' The proposed rule reflects MSHA's conviction that frequent
and effective refuge alternative training would be necessary to assure
miner proficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The U.S. Bureau of Mines (Vaught et al., 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 75.1504(b)(3)(ii) and (4)(ii) would require that in
quarterly training and drills, miners locate refuge alternatives. This
knowledge would be critical to miners in a mine emergency.
Paragraph Sec. 75.1504(b)(6) would require a review of the
checklist for constructing and activating the refuge alternatives and
components. MSHA proposes that quarterly training and drills includes
this training as recognition that with any non-routine task, such as
activating and using a refuge alternative, knowledge and skill diminish
rapidly.
Miners need to be aware of how to construct and activate a refuge
alternative safely. The information in the proposed checklist would be
used in the training and should include all of the step-by-step
procedures easily understood by the miners to perform these tasks. For
easy availability, mine operators should consider laminated cards or
other equally durable forms of the checklist for use by miners.
Paragraph Sec. 75.1504(b)(7) would require a review of the
procedures related to use of refuge alternatives and components. Miners
need to be aware of how to use a refuge alternative safely in the event
of an emergency. MSHA recognizes that manufacturers generally provide
information on the safe use of their products. This information would
be used in training and should include the step-by-step procedures
necessary to use refuge alternatives and should be easily understood by
the miners. This information will be critical for miners who need to
spend a sustained period in a refuge alternative.
MSHA's Office of Educational Policy and Development will assist
mine operators with job task analysis and training materials such as
videos to improve the quality and effectiveness of programs of
instruction. NIOSH is developing a refuge alternative training program
that is expected to be available by the end of 2008. MSHA plans to
include a delayed effective date in the final rule to allow mine
operators to develop Emergency Response Plans and training plans and
submit them to MSHA.
Proposed Sec. 75.1504(c)(3) would require annual expectations
training in construction, where applicable, activation, and use of
refuge alternatives and components. Under the existing standard, each
miner must participate in expectations training over the course of each
year. This training includes donning and transferring self-contained
self-rescuers (SCSRs) in smoke, simulated smoke, or an equivalent
environment. The training also requires breathing through a realistic
SCSR training unit that provides the sensation of SCSR airflow
resistance and heat.
Under the proposal, miners would have to be trained in
construction, where applicable, activation, and use of refuge
alternatives similar to those in use at the mine, including activation
and operation of component systems; and instruction on when to use
refuge alternatives during a mine emergency. Refuge alternatives
expectations training would emphasize that miners first try to evacuate
the mine and that refuge alternatives are a haven of last resort when
escape is impossible. The proposed expectations training would require
an annual realistic experience of constructing where applicable,
activating, and using a refuge alternative in a simulated emergency
situation. The proposed refuge alternative expectations training could
be combined with the existing expectations training.
Expectations training will be essential to reduce the level of
panic and anxiety associated with the use of refuge alternatives. NIOSH
supports expectations training to reduce the level of panic and anxiety
associated with the use of refuge alternatives.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NIOSH, Research Report on Refuge Alternatives for
Underground Coal Mines (2007), p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Properly constructing and activating a refuge alternative can be a
relatively complex procedure that must be done correctly to establish a
breathable air environment in a smoke-filled mine. The operation of
most refuge alternatives requires periodic monitoring and adjustments
to the gases to assure a breathable atmosphere. Failure to correctly
perform these tasks may imperil the lives of miners within the refuge
alternative. MSHA envisions the use of a modified version of the
[[Page 34157]]
refuge alternative in the mine for this training purpose.
The miners would have to construct the refuge alternative, if
applicable, activate the refuge alternative, purge the atmosphere, and
turn on the breathable air and maintain a viable atmosphere. Although
MSHA does not specify a minimum time for this annual training exercise,
the duration should be sufficient to allow miners to perform all of the
necessary tasks and give them a realistic experience of using the
refuge alternative. The Agency would require that this training expose
the miners to the expected heat and humidity conditions in the refuge
alternative. MSHA does not expect that this training would include the
actual use of oxygen and harmful gas removal components; these actions
may be performed with compressed air and simulated removal components.
The training must also emphasize that, in the event of an emergency,
miners should first try to evacuate the mine and that refuge
alternatives are the option of last resort when escape is impossible.
MSHA solicits comment from the public on the Agency's proposed
approach to expectations training. The Agency is interested in comment
on its proposed strategy and the proposed elements of training. Please
be specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, safety
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and data to
support your comment.
Proposed Sec. 75.1504(c)(4), redesignated from existing Sec.
75.1504(c)(3), would require that a miner participate in expectations
training within one quarter of being employed at the mine. MSHA would
expect that any new miner would be given the expectations training
within this timeframe. This could be accomplished during new miner or
newly employed miner training.
Section 75.1505 Escapeway Maps
Proposed Sec. 75.1505(a)(3) would require that the escapeway map
be posted or readily accessible at each refuge alternative. The
location of refuge alternatives relative to the escapeway may be vital
to the survival of miners during mine emergencies. Escapeway maps form
the basis for decisions made during mine evacuation. Having escapeway
maps on hand for miners would facilitate important decisionmaking.
Proposed Sec. 75.1505(b) would require that escapeway maps include
the locations of refuge alternatives, and that any change be shown on
the map. Escapeway maps form the basis for mine rescue efforts.
Locations of refuge alternatives are critical to decisions made during
rescue efforts and must be kept current on the escapeway map.
Section 75.1506 Refuge Alternatives
This section would require that mine operators provide refuge
alternatives to accommodate all persons working underground and specify
criteria for the use and maintenance of refuge alternatives. MSHA
believes that refuge alternatives will provide a refuge of last resort
for miners unable to evacuate the mine during an emergency. By
providing the essential elements of survival (breathable air, water,
food, communications, etc.) the likelihood of miners surviving an
inhospitable post-emergency environment would be increased. MSHA
realizes that a flexible approach to providing refuge alternatives is
necessary due to the wide range of mining conditions (seam height,
pitch, mining method, and mine layout) that exist in underground coal
mines. To address these widely-varying conditions, MSHA has taken a
performance-based approach to refuge alternatives. For example, the
refuge alternative has to provide for essential needs of occupants, but
the proposal does not require specific methods, equipment, or devices.
Paragraph (a) would require each operator to provide refuge
alternatives with sufficient capacity to accommodate all persons
working underground. MSHA believes that escape to the surface is more
protective than using a refuge alternative. However, when escape is
impossible, a refuge alternative must be available for all persons
underground. MSHA recognizes that the highest concentration of miners
is near a working section. Toward this end, refuge alternatives would
need to be located to accommodate the miners at or near a working
section. Refuge alternatives would also be required for miners working
in outby locations. The proposed rule would not require refuge
alternatives for miners who can reach a surface escape facility within
30 minutes. Under the proposal, mines in which all miners would be
within 30 minutes of the surface or a surface escape facility would not
have to have a refuge alternative.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require at least 15 square feet of usable
floor space and at least 60 cubic feet of usable volume per person.
This proposed requirement of interior floor space and volume is
necessary to provide adequate room for miners during any period of time
confined in the refuge alternative. MSHA is interested in practical
floor space and volume requirements for mining operations. The proposed
requirements are intended to mean that the miner would have this space
available to them without being affected by any other factors, e.g.,
stored items. MSHA intends that space requirements would not include
airlock space. The NIOSH report recommended key design values of 15
square feet of floor space and 85 cubic feet volume per miner. However,
in its report, NIOSH stated that these recommendations were not to be
considered absolute. MSHA recognizes that achieving the volume per
miner in refuge alternatives for low coal mines could be problematic.
To lie down, miners would require a certain length and width. For
example, 15 square feet would be provided by a space 6 feet long and
2.5 feet wide. This space would have to be 4 feet high, which would
give each miner 60 cubic feet of volume. These dimensions would serve
as a minimum for the miner during the periods of confinement. In lower
mining heights, the 60 cubic feet of volume may need to be gained by
increasing the floor space. For example, 60 cubic feet of volume in a
refuge alternative 2.5 feet high would require 24 square feet of floor
space, which could be provided by a space 6 feet long and 4 feet wide.
MSHA solicits comment from the public on these proposed values for
floor space and volume, particularly in low mining heights. Please be
specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, safety
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and data to
support your comment.
Miners would need to have additional space to perform duties such
as attending to the harmful gas removal components, performing gas
tests or attending to basic needs--drinking, eating, and using the
sanitation facilities--and providing for injured miners. Curtains
suspended as part of a passive system to remove carbon dioxide should
be considered when determining volume.
Another important factor in the volume design is the need to
control the apparent temperature in the interior space of the refuge
alternative. Larger volumes are more effective at dissipating heat
because of increased surface area.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require that refuge alternatives for working
sections accommodate the maximum number of persons that can be expected
on or near the section at any time. The refuge alternatives for the
working sections would need to include space to accommodate all persons
working near the section. It should accommodate all miners that join
those working at the section during a shift change. For example if a
mine has a practice of ``hot
[[Page 34158]]
seat'' change-out of crews at the face, the refuge alternative would
need to accommodate both crews; any other persons who would routinely
work near the section, such as managers, surveyors, vendors, and state
and Federal inspectors. Mines that have just begun development in which
the working section is within 30 minutes travel time (walking or
crawling) from a portal or surface escape facility would not be
required to have a refuge alternative.
Paragraph (a)(3) would require that refuge alternatives for outby
areas accommodate persons assigned to work in the outby area. The
proposed rule would not require that outby refuge alternatives be able
to accommodate all persons working inby its location. Refuge
alternatives are used to shelter in-place only when evacuation is not
feasible. Under the proposal, outby refuge alternatives would have to
accommodate supply persons, locomotive operators, examiners, state and
Federal inspectors, pumpers, maintenance persons, belt persons, and
other persons who may be working in the outby areas. A refuge
alternative must be sufficient to maintain the miners who can
reasonably be expected to use it.
MSHA solicits comment from the public on the Agency's proposed
approach to refuge alternative capacity. Please be specific in your
response, including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility, and data to support your
comment.
Paragraph (b) addresses proposed locations for placement of refuge
alternatives. Refuge alternatives would have to be near locations where
miners are typically stationed. MSHA's experience shows that the
highest concentration of miners underground will be at the working
section, therefore, a refuge alternative capable of accommodating these
miners must be positioned close to the working section.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require that refuge alternatives be located
between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet from the working face and from areas
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed. MSHA
is proposing these distances to accommodate the periodic advancement of
the working section, to recognize the potential for damage from an
explosion, and to limit travel time from the working section to the
refuge alternative.
In its report, NIOSH recommended that the refuge alternative be
located no further from the working face than the distance a miner
could reasonably travel in 30 to 60 minutes under expected travel
conditions. NIOSH also recommended that the refuge alternative be
located at least 1,000 feet from the working face to limit damage from
explosions at the working face. In its report, NIOSH recognized that
establishing the exact location is problematic and indicated it would
appear advantageous to place the refuge alternative as close to the
face as possible to minimize the time and effort required for miners to
reach it. NIOSH added that locating the refuge alternative closer to a
possible explosion source will increase the chance it is damaged by
overpressure or flying debris from the initial explosion. NIOSH
analyzed past disasters as well as various probable scenarios. NIOSH
further noted that lower seam heights, difficult bottom conditions, and
the presence of smoke, among other factors, would affect travel times.
NIOSH went on to say that,
[n]onetheless, the experience of studying mine explosions at NIOSH's
Lake Lynn experimental mine suggests that refuge chambers should
normally be located a minimum of 1000 feet from the working face and
could be as far as 2000 feet * * *.
This NIOSH reasoning is consistent with MSHA's rationale for at least
1,000 feet, which is based on explosion pressure.
West Virginia requires ``An emergency shelter/chamber shall be
maintained within one thousand (1,000) feet of the nearest working face
in each working section.'' Illinois requires that ``Rescue chambers
must be provided and located within 3,000 feet of each working section
of a mine, in accordance with a plan submitted by an operator and
approved by the Mining Board.'' The proposal would require that refuge
alternatives be located between 1000 feet and 2000 feet from the
working face and from locations where mechanized mining equipment is
being installed or removed. As an alternative to the proposed
requirement that refuge alternatives be located between 1,000 feet and
2,000 feet from the working face and from areas where mechanized mining
equipment is being installed or removed, MSHA is considering including
the following alternative in the final rule. As an alternative to the
specific requirements in the proposal for locating refuge alternatives
in inby areas, MSHA is proposing to allow, depending on mine specific
conditions, refuge alternatives with boreholes to be located up to
4,000 feet from the working face. MSHA solicits comments on this
proposed alternative to locating refuge alternatives in inby areas.
MSHA also solicits comments on the proposed requirement that refuge
alternatives be located between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet from the
working face and from areas where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed. Please be specific in your response, including
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and
economic feasibility, and data to support your comments.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that refuge alternatives be spaced
within one-hour travel distances in outby areas where persons work such
that persons in outby areas are never more than a 30-minute travel
distance from a refuge alternative or safe exit. Proposed paragraph
(b)(2) further provides that the operator may request and the District
Manager may approve a different location in the Emergency Response Plan
(ERP). The operator's request would have to be based on an assessment
of the risk to persons in outby areas, considering the following
factors: Proximity to seals; proximity to potential fire or ignition
sources; conditions in the outby areas; location of stored SCSRs; and
proximity to the most direct, safe, and practical route to an intake
escapeway. This approach is generally consistent with NIOSH's
recommendations. Persons who work in outby areas may need to travel
more than 30 minutes to reach a refuge alternative. They should be
provided with additional SCSRs to assure that they can reach a refuge
alternative from outby areas.
In 2006, MSHA examined how far miners could travel during 30
minutes for the Emergency Mine Evacuation final rule (71 FR 71430,
December 8, 2006). Existing Sec. 75.1714-4(c)(2) provides two methods
for determining the 30-minute spacing of SCSR storage locations in
escapeways. The first method, in existing Sec. 75.1714-4(c)(2)(i),
requires the mine operator to calculate the spacing based on a sample
of typical miners walking a selected length of each escapeway. A sample
of typical miners is a cross-section of the population of all miners
who would have to evacuate the mine and use the SCSRs stored in the
escapeways. In general, operators using this option must use a sample
that includes miners of various ages, weights, levels of physical
fitness, and smoking habits; and a selected portion of the escapeway
that reflects entry height, slope, and underfoot conditions
representative of the entire escapeway.
The second method, in existing Sec. 75.1714-4(c)(2)(ii), requires
a mine operator to use a table that specifies maximum SCSR storage
location
[[Page 34159]]
spacing based on average entry height. This table is based on
statistical data collected from the 1997 MSHA-NIOSH study.\6\ The mine
operator may use the SCSR storage location spacing specified in the
following table, except for escapeways with uphill grades over 5
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ MSHA-NIOSH study, ``The Oxygen Cost of a Mine Escape''
(Kovac, Kravitz, and Rehak, 1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum distance
between SCSR
Average entry height storage locations
(in feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<40 in. (Crawl)..................................... 2,200
>40-<50 in. (Duck Walk)............................. 3,300
>50-<65 in. (Walk Head Bent)........................ 4,400
>65 in. (Walk Erect)................................ 5,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For spacing refuge alternatives in outby areas, the mine operator
may choose either of the above methods.
MSHA solicits comment from the public on the Agency's proposed
approach to locating refuge alternatives in outby areas, including the
minimum and maximum distances. Please be specific in your response,
including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility, and data to support your
comment.
Paragraph (c) would require that roof and rib support for the
refuge alternative locations be specified in the mine's roof control
plan. The proposed provision addresses hazards from falling material,
which may compromise the integrity of the refuge alternative. MSHA
understands that no currently available refuge alternatives can
withstand significant roof and rib falls. Humidity resulting from
fires, vibrations, shock, and thermal effects are often associated with
catastrophic events that may require the use of additional roof support
for areas housing refuge alternatives.
Due to the vital need for refuge alternatives to serve their
intended purpose, mine operators must assure that they are adequately
protected from roof and rib falls. MSHA encourages mine operators to
plan and prepare locations for refuge alternatives in advance. The
necessary steps to protect refuge alternatives from roof and rib falls
must be described in the roof control plan. MSHA anticipates that in a
significant number of instances, operators will need to provide
supplemental roof and rib support to protect the refuge alternative.
Paragraph (d) would require that the operator protect the refuge
alternative and contents from damage during transportation and storage.
The proposed provision is intended to assure that care will be taken to
avoid damage to the refuge alternative at all times. Mine operators
need to assure that miners follow all safe procedures when transporting
a refuge alternative from one location to another. Attention needs to
be paid to procedures such as the use of proper connections for
transportation and devices such as tow bars, clevises and hitches.
Refuge alternatives that have materials and components stored on
transportable equipment, such as a skid, would require care to assure
that they are not damaged while in storage.
Paragraph (e) would require that a refuge alternative be removed
from service if examination reveals damage or tampering that could
interfere with the functioning of the refuge alternative or any
component. Refuge alternatives may be damaged by persons, mining
equipment or the mine environment. The proposed rule would require that
damage must be evaluated and any indication that it interferes with the
functioning of the refuge alternative or its components would require
that the refuge alternative be immediately removed from service. For
example, if examination reveals a leak in a compressed gas storage
system, the refuge alternative would have to be removed from service
since it would be unable to provide breathable air in an emergency.
Paragraph (e)(1) would require the operator to withdraw all persons
from the area serviced by the refuge alternative if the refuge
alternative is removed from service, except those persons referred to
in Sec. 104(c) of the Mine Act. Under the proposal, if an inoperable
or damaged refuge alternative would not provide the protection
intended, all persons would have to be withdrawn from the area serviced
by the refuge alternative. This would not include persons performing
the repairs, who should be provided with additional SCSRs to assure
that they can reach another refuge alternative.
Paragraph (e)(2) would require that refuge alternative components
removed from service be replaced or be repaired in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. This proposed provision would require
mine operators to maintain the refuge alternative in its approved
condition by using approved components and repairing it in accordance
with the manufacturer's specifications. Miners would be provided the
protection afforded by approved refuge alternatives at all times.
Paragraph (f) would require that, at all times, the site and area
around the refuge alternative be kept clear of machinery, materials,
and obstructions that could interfere with the activation or use of the
refuge alternative. Under the proposal, refuge alternative locations
would be easily accessible in that the areas around them would be
maintained without obstructions to hinder access to the refuge
alternative or to allow the refuge alternative to expand or be
constructed to create the secure space. The proposal is necessary to
assure the availability and survivability of the refuge alternative and
its occupants.
Paragraph (g) would require that each refuge alternative be
conspicuously identified with a sign or marker. The proposal would
provide a quick way for persons not using the lifeline system to easily
locate the refuge alternative in an emergency.
Paragraph (g)(1) would require that a sign or marker made of
reflective material with the word ``Refuge'' be posted conspicuously at
each refuge alternative. Reflective material greatly increases the
visibility of these signs. This requirement is the same as the existing
Sec. 75.1714-4(f), which requires reflective signs on SCSR storage
locations.
Paragraph (g)(2) would require that a directional sign, made of
reflective material, be posted leading to each refuge alternative
location. Miners may not be located in escapeways when an emergency
occurs. For these miners, a clear system of signs may be critical
during an emergency. Persons traveling in adjacent entries would have
signs directing them to the refuge alternative.
Section 75.1507 Emergency Response Plan; Refuge Alternatives
Proposed Sec. 75.1507 would require mine operators to include
refuge alternative provisions in their Emergency Response Plan (ERP).
Section 2 of the MINER Act requires each underground coal mine operator
to develop and adopt an emergency response plan.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require that the mine operator specify the
types of refuge alternatives and components used in the mine. There are
three types of refuge alternatives envisioned in the proposed rule. The
proposed rule would provide flexibility in the type of refuge
alternatives that will meet the requirements. The type of alternative
is not specific to the seam heights.
One type is a pre-fabricated self-contained unit. The unit is
portable and may be used in outby applications as
[[Page 34160]]
well as near the working section. This unit has all the components
built-in.
A second type is constructed in place. Typically, the components of
this unit are placed in a cross-cut or dead-end entry and stoppings are
built to create a secure area with an isolated atmosphere. The
components, including breathable air, removal of harmful gases, and air
monitoring should be approved components and placed such that they are
ready to be activated when miners reach the secure area. The stoppings
and doors would have to be designed to resist a 15 psi overpressure.
This refuge alternative would typically be used outby. If used near the
working section, the stoppings could be removed to allow the components
to be moved periodically to the next location and new stoppings would
have to be built. A method and materials, if needed, would be necessary
to provide breathable air for the miners while this type is being
moved.
A third type uses materials pre-positioned for miners to construct
a secure area with an isolated atmosphere. The materials and components
are portable and used to construct a secure area following an accident.
The components, including breathable air, removal of harmful gases, and
air monitoring should be approved components and placed such that they
are ready to be activated when miners reach the secure area. MSHA
envisions that mine operators using this type would have all materials
and components in a protected self-contained unit ready to be
activated. The proposed rule would allow for the refuge alternative
materials and components to be placed at locations such that, following
an accident, a secure space could be constructed with the materials and
the breathable air component would be readily activated within the
secure space to create an isolated atmosphere. This provision would
require the operator to provide details of this refuge alternative in
the ERP. This alternative would require the operator to have the
materials situated in a safe location and to move them as necessary to
be located near the working section as required. The provisions are
necessary to assure the availability and survivability of the structure
and the occupants.
As appropriate, MSHA would approve the refuge alternatives and
components. The pre-fabricated self-contained unit would need to be
approved under Part 7, including structural, breathable air, air
monitoring, and harmful gas removal components of the unit. The
structural components of units constructed in place and with materials
pre-positioned would be approved by the District Manager and as
appropriate, would be inspected during the enforcement process. The
breathable air, air monitoring, and harmful gas removal components of
these units would be approved under Part 7.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require that the ERP include procedures for
maintaining the approved refuge alternatives and components. This
proposal would assure that miners are able to maintain or correct any
problems that may develop during storage or use of the refuge
alternatives. Procedures should include maintenance checks and
replacement schedules for components.
Paragraph (a)(3) would require that the rated capacity of each
refuge alternative, the number of persons expected to use each refuge
alternative, and the duration of breathable air provided per person by
the approved breathable air component of each refuge alternative be
defined in the ERP. The ERP would need to state specifically that the
refuge alternatives can support a specified number of persons for a
designated length of time. This information assists MSHA in evaluating
whether the refuge alternative or component meets the requirements for
sustaining persons for 96 hours. MSHA solicits comments from the public
on the 96-hour duration. Please be specific in your response, including
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and
economic feasibility, and data to support your comment.
Paragraph (a)(4) would require that the ERP include the method for
providing breathable air and removing carbon dioxide with sufficient
detail of the component's capability to provide breathable air over the
duration stated in the approval. For example, the Agency recognizes
that different types and combinations of equipment and methods from
several manufacturers may be used to provide for breathable air and for
the removal of carbon dioxide. This information assists MSHA in
evaluating whether the breathable air meets the requirements for
sustaining persons for 96 hours.
Paragraph (a)(5) would require that the ERP include methods to
provide ready backup oxygen controls and regulators. The term ``ready''
is meant to be pre-connected valves and regulators. Redundant oxygen
control valves and regulators are necessary to assure that miners will
always have breathable air available in case of component failures.
Paragraph (a)(6) would require that the ERP include the methods for
providing an airlock and methods for providing breathable air in the
airlock. Refuge alternatives that require an airlock would be required
to provide breathable air in the airlock at all times. However, when
miners enter the airlock, it is necessary to monitor and provide purge
air to remove any contaminants and minimize contamination inside the
refuge alternative. Sufficient purge air is necessary to clear the
airlock of contaminants.
Paragraph (a)(6) would require that the ERP specify that the
airlock is capable of maintaining breathable air, except where adequate
positive pressure is maintained. The ERP should provide specific
information regarding how the airlock will provide and maintain
breathable air. Purging or other effective methods would be necessary,
within 20 minutes of miners activating the refuge alternative, for the
airlock to dilute the carbon monoxide concentration to 25 ppm or less
and the methane concentration to 1.5 percent or less as persons enter.
The proposed rule includes an exception for an airlock if the refuge
alternative is capable of maintaining adequate positive pressure. The
positive pressure would prevent outside air from contaminating the
refuge alternative. The proposal would assist MSHA in evaluating
whether the airlock would function effectively.
Paragraph (a)(7) would require that the ERP include methods for
providing sanitation facilities. The ERP should contain information on
containing waste and eliminating objectionable odors. The ERP should
also include information that the sanitation facilities are adequate
for the specified number of persons and where it is to be located. The
proposal would assist MSHA in determining that the refuge alternative
includes an adequate means for containing waste.
Paragraph (a)(8) would require that the ERP include the methods for
harmful gas removal. Sufficient purge air is necessary to clear the
refuge alternative of smoke and carbon monoxide unless the design of
the refuge alternative prevents the infiltration of these combustion
products. Information on harmful gas removal is essential for MSHA to
determine the ability of the refuge alternative to sustain occupants
for 96 hours. The purpose of this component is primarily to remove
carbon dioxide exhaled by the occupants. MSHA also intends that this
component be capable of removing toxic and irritant gases, fumes,
mists, and dusts that may enter the refuge alternative through the
airlock.
Paragraph (a)(9) would require that the ERP include methods for
monitoring
[[Page 34161]]
gas concentrations, and charging and calibrating equipment. This
information is essential for MSHA to determine that persons inside the
refuge alternative will be aware of the concentrations of carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and oxygen inside and outside the
structure, including the airlock. This information assists MSHA in
evaluating whether the air-monitoring component meets the requirements
for sustaining persons for 96 hours. Different types and combinations
of instruments may be used to comprise an air-monitoring component. The
proposal allows MSHA to determine that discrete components are
appropriate, available, and functional for monitoring breathable air.
MSHA believes that a properly designed system would control gas
concentrations inside the refuge alternative. The intent of this
provision is that detectors would be used to periodically check and
provide a means of increasing the miner's awareness of gas
concentrations. Instruments that require fresh air for initial startup
would not be appropriate to be stored for use in refuge alternatives.
If the battery life of the instruments is not sufficient for 96 hours
of monitoring then multiple detectors would be required.
Paragraph (a)(10) would require that the ERP include the method to
provide lighting sufficient to perform tasks. Sufficient light is
essential to allow persons to read instructions and warnings, as well
as reading gages, operating gas monitoring detectors, and other
activities related to the operation of the refuge alternatives and the
needs of the occupants. Lighting that generates significant heat, or
requires continual manual power for light generation, would be
unacceptable for use in a refuge alternative.
Paragraph (a)(11) would require mine operators to affirmatively
state in the ERP that the locations are suitable for refuge
alternatives. The proposed rule would require that refuge alternatives
be protected from known hazards in the coal mine. Refuge alternatives
would also need to be located so that they are easily accessible. The
proposed rule would require that refuge alternatives be placed at
locations that do not have obstructions to future physical dimensions
of the refuge alternative. The provisions are necessary to assure the
availability and survivability of the structure and the occupants.
Paragraph (a)(11)(i) and (ii) would require that the ERP specify
that refuge alternatives are not within direct line of sight of the
working face and, where feasible, not in areas directly across from,
nor closer than 500 feet radially from, belt drives, take-ups, transfer
points, air compressors, explosive magazines, seals, entrances to
abandoned areas, and fuel, oil, or other flammable or combustible
material storage. The proposed rule addresses the potential damage from
a working face explosion and, additionally, the potential of a fire at
certain areas or equipment. Locating refuge alternatives away from
these areas would minimize the heat or explosive forces that could
occur and affect the safety of persons in the refuge alternative.
NIOSH recommended that refuge alternatives be positioned in
crosscuts rather than entries, or located in dead-end cuts to decrease
the possibility of damage from overpressure or flying debris from an
explosion. NIOSH also recommended that refuge alternatives be located
away from potential sources of fires, such as belt drives. NIOSH
further recommended that, whenever practical, the refuge alternative
should not be located in nor off of track entries nor within
approximately 1,000 feet of any mine seal.
This proposal includes locations for refuge alternatives that are
consistent with NIOSH's recommendations. The Agency would consider
exceptions to this requirement when it is not feasible to locate the
refuge alternative according to this provision.
Proposed paragraph (b) contains provisions for ERPs for refuge
alternatives constructed in place. The proposal would require that the
ERP specify that stoppings and doors are designed to resist 15 psi
overpressure.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require that the ERP include information on
breathable air components approved by MSHA. Breathable air is intended
to protect miners from injury or death from a contaminated atmosphere.
MSHA is proposing that breathable air contain an oxygen concentration
between 18.5 and 23 percent and a carbon dioxide concentration not
exceeding a 1.0 percent time-weighted average and that at no time
exceeds 2.5 percent for any 24-hour period. These concentrations are
consistent with NIOSH's recommendation. Breathable air delivered from
fans or compressors through pipes or air lines would need to meet the
requirements of Part 7.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that the ERP specify that the refuge
alternative is capable of withstanding exposure to a flash fire of 300
[deg]F for 3 seconds and a pressure wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2
seconds. Because the stoppings must protect the components of the
refuge alternative and persons inside, the stoppings must be able to
withstand both flash fires and explosive overpressures.
Proposed paragraph (c) contains provisions for ERPs for refuge
alternatives consisting of materials pre-positioned for miners to
construct a secure space with an isolated atmosphere.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require that the ERP specify the means to
store and protect materials from being damaged when moved. The operator
would be required to provide details of how the components are placed
on a transportation device to provide security, transportation
readiness and component integration to assure this alternative will be
available when needed and readily constructed and activated. The
materials should be arranged together and protected from potential
damage when moved.
Paragraph (c)(2) would require that the ERP specify that the refuge
alternative can withstand exposure to a flash fire of 300 [deg]F for 3
seconds and a pressure wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds
prior to construction and activation. Because this type of refuge
alternative is constructed following an accident, materials and
components would be stored in a crosscut or dead-end entry until
needed. The materials and components must be stored in a container that
will withstand a flash fire of 300 [deg]F for 3 seconds and a pressure
wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds so that the components
would operate as intended and would be available and functional when
needed.
Paragraph (c)(3) would require that the ERP specify the method for
assuring that the refuge alternative could be constructed and
functional in 10 minutes. Under the location requirements for refuge
alternatives, miners would never be more than 30 minutes from either
the portal or a refuge alternative. In the event of an accident, a
miner with only one SCSR would have 30 minutes to reach the portal or a
refuge alternative. The proposal would allot 10 minutes to establish a
barrier between the interior and exterior atmospheres. The remaining 20
minutes of breathable air provided by the SCSR would allow time for
purging the refuge alternative to establish a breathable atmosphere.
Paragraph (c)(4) would require that the ERP specify the method for
having all components ready to be activated and used. Components
include breathable air, harmful gas removal, air monitoring,
communication, first aid, food and water, and sanitation. The proposal
would assist MSHA in determining that components comprise a complete
functional refuge alternative.
Paragraph (c)(5) would require that the ERP specify the means to
assure that
[[Page 34162]]
the initial air quality is breathable once the refuge alternative is
constructed. This refuge alternative is built following an accident,
which could produce smoke and contaminated air in the area where the
refuge alternative is constructed. Therefore, the atmosphere may be
contaminated and would need purging or other effective methods as
necessary, within 20 minutes of miners activating the refuge
alternative, for the airlock to dilute the carbon monoxide
concentration to 25 ppm or less and the methane concentration to 1.5
percent or less as persons enter. An operator would need to provide
sufficient compressed air to purge the refuge alternative to establish
a breathable atmosphere.
Paragraph (d) contains provisions for ERPs if the refuge
alternative would only sustain persons for 48 hours. It would require
that the ERP specify that advance arrangements have been made to assure
that persons who cannot be rescued within 48 hours will receive
additional supplies to sustain them until rescue. The basis for the
proposal is MSHA's existing PIB on breathable air.
Paragraph (d)(1) would require that the advance arrangements
specified in the ERP include pre-surveyed areas for refuge alternatives
with closure errors of less than 20,000:1. The proposed provision is
intended to assure that the survey that is done on the surface and the
one performed underground are closed. The surface survey could be done
with global positioning satellite equipment. When a survey connects
back to itself, it is called a loop. The loop in this provision would
begin with the surface survey of the location above the location of the
refuge alternative and along a route to the underground location of the
refuge alternative and back to the beginning survey location on the
surface. If a loop is surveyed perfectly, the survey should come back
to the exact point at which it started. If the loop does not come back
to the exact starting point, it is called a closure error. Closure
errors indicate that some or all of the survey measurements within a
loop have errors. This provision assures accuracy in getting the
borehole to the correct location underground.
Paragraph (d)(2) would require that the advance arrangements
specified in the ERP include an analysis to indicate that the surface
terrain, the strata, the capabilities of the drill rig, and all other
factors that could affect drilling are such that a hole sufficient to
provide required supplies and materials reliably can be promptly
drilled within 48 hours of an accident at a mine. This provision is
intended to assure that conditions that could interfere with or delay
drilling are discovered and prepared for well in advance. The drill rig
capabilities should be examined to assure the appropriate drill model
is selected. This allows planning so that correct equipment and
supplies are available when needed.
Paragraph (d)(3) would require that the advance arrangements
specified in the ERP include permissions to cross properties, build
roads, and construct drill sites. This provision is intended to assure
that the arrangement to drill a borehole is done in advance so that
normal delays that would occur during a mine emergency are eliminated
and the drilling can proceed immediately upon arrival of the drill rig.
Paragraph (d)(4) would require that the advance arrangements
specified in the ERP include an arrangement with a drilling contractor
or other supplier of drilling services to provide a suitable drilling
rig, personnel, and support so that a hole can be completed to the
refuge alternative within 48 hours. MSHA expects that the arrangements
that are finalized with the drilling contractor and other suppliers are
such that all details including, but not limited to, mobilization,
availability, ancillary services, back-up plans, drill-hole
specifications, completion schedules, and spare parts are considered
and included.
Paragraph (d)(5) would require that the advance arrangements
specified in the ERP include the capability to promptly transport a
drill rig to a pre-surveyed location such that a drilled hole would be
completed and located near a refuge alternative structure within 48
hours of an accident at a mine. MSHA intends that this provision would
assure the prompt delivery of the drill to the site. If the site is not
easily accessible, the operator should have advance arrangements to
have the appropriate equipment to transport, deliver, or carry the
drill rig to the site. The operator should consider and prepare for
potential delays. These procedures should be adequately evaluated to
assure that 48 hours are more than reasonable. MSHA expects that the
borehole would be drilled near the location of the refuge alternative.
A method for supplying breathable air from the surface through the
borehole would need to have the capability to provide a sufficient
quantity of air to dilute any harmful gases in and around the refuge
alternative.
MSHA requests comments on whether the rule should contain a
provision that the advance arrangements specified in the ERP include a
method for assuring that there will be a suitable means to connect the
drilled hole to the refuge alternative and that the connection be made
within 10 minutes. Under this provision, MSHA would expect the operator
to have detailed plans for making connections from the drill hole
casing to the refuge alternative. These plans would have to address the
conditions that the miners will encounter during this planned work,
including smoke, contaminated atmosphere, lack of adequate lighting,
etc. The means to connect the drill hole casing should include all
necessary clamps, fittings, connections, proper and sufficient hosing,
mechanical supports, and tools. The connection to the refuge
alternative should also be planned. The number of steps to accomplish
this task of making the connections should be minimized and simplified.
Under this provision, MSHA would also expect that advance
arrangements specified in the ERP include the capability to provide
full-face breathing apparatus to persons exiting the refuge alternative
to make necessary connections from the borehole. The breathing
apparatus would be necessary to protect the miner from any gases or
toxic products of combustion generated by a fire or explosion. The
apparatus would need to have adequate capacity to allow sufficient time
to complete the connection. The operator would also need to provide
several breathing apparatus to enable occupants to come to the aid of
an injured miner. Other devices, such as tag lines or tethers, would
need to be available to assist miners in returning to the refuge
alternative. Comments should be specific, including alternatives,
rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic
feasibility and supporting data.
Paragraph (d)(6) would require that the advance arrangements
specified in the ERP include a list of the pipes, air lines, approved
fan, and approved compressor that will be used. This information
decreases the possibility that an inappropriate or inadequate source of
breathable air would be connected to the borehole.
Paragraph (d)(7) would require that the advance arrangements
specified in the ERP include a method for assuring that the breathable
air system, including compressors and fans, is designed for the planned
conditions. The design should include consideration of pipe resistance,
volumes and velocities needed, connections required on the surface,
power needs, supplies required and necessary redundant or back-up
requirements. The system should be on hand and ready to provide
breathable air after the borehole is completed.
[[Page 34163]]
Paragraph (d)(8) would require that the advance arrangements
specified in the ERP include a method for assuring the immediate
availability of a backup source for supplying breathable air and a
backup power source for surface installations. This information assists
MSHA in evaluating the continued availability of breathable air.
Paragraph (e) would require the ERP to specify that the refuge
alternative is stocked with essential supplies.
Paragraph (e)(1) would require that the ERP specify a minimum of
2,000 calories of food and 2.25 quarts of potable water per person per
day to sustain the maximum number of persons reasonably expected to use
the refuge alternative at one time. These requirements would provide
adequate amounts of food and water and are consistent with NIOSH
recommendations. These components should be replaced prior to their
expiration.
Paragraph (e)(2) would require that the ERP specify that manuals
and instructions for operation, training, and maintenance for the
refuge alternative and components are provided. The proposal requires
operators to obtain information necessary for the safe and effective
use of the refuge alternative and its components.
Paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) would require that the ERP specify
that the refuge alternative is stocked with sufficient quantities of
materials and tools to do repairs and first aid supplies.
MSHA proposed rules have provided flexibility in the type of refuge
alternatives that will meet the requirements. The type of alternative
is not specific to the seam heights. MSHA recognizes that the 60 cubic
feet requirement may be of concern in mines with low seam heights.
Section 75.1508 Training and Records for Examination, Maintenance,
Transportation, and Repair of Refuge Alternatives and Components
Paragraph (a) would require that persons be trained on examining,
maintaining, transporting, and repairing refuge alternatives and
components. A refuge alternative includes a number of functional
components that are vital to the survival of persons using it. This
proposal addresses training for routine examination, maintenance,
transportation, and repair of refuge alternatives and components in
addition to the training and drills provided all underground miners.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require the operator to assure that all
persons assigned to examine, maintain, transport, and repair refuge
alternatives and components are trained prior to performing the task.
This training assures that these critical facilities and components are
available and usable when needed. All facilities and components should
be maintained using the manufacturer's specifications and procedures.
The examiner should be trained in the aspects critical to the
activation and use of the refuge alternative. In addition, paragraph
(a)(1) would require training in proper transportation of the refuge
alternative or component. Miners need to be aware of the safe
procedures necessary to transport a refuge alternative or component
from one location to another. Training in these procedures would
include knowledge of all connections necessary for transportation, such
as tow bars, clevises, and hitches. MSHA requests comments on these
training requirements and whether it would be more appropriate to
include training on examining, maintaining, transporting, and repairing
refuge alternatives under the training provisions of Part 48. Comments
should be specific, including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits
to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and supporting data.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require the operator to certify, by
signature and date, the training of persons who examine, maintain,
transport, and repair refuge alternatives and components. The training
certifications help MSHA and the operator assure that the appropriate
personnel have received the required training. Maintenance and repair
work on refuge alternatives and components will not occur at regular
intervals. To facilitate these maintenance tasks a just-in-time
approach to training is required. The required training can vary given
the scope of the tasks and the interval since the last training in that
same task.
Paragraph (b) would require the person conducting the maintenance
or repair to make a record of all corrective action taken at the
completion of each repair required by this paragraph. Records of
training help assure that persons are periodically re-trained to
prevent skills degradation.
Paragraph (c) would require that the mine operator keep the
training certifications and repair records at the mine for one year.
Certification and repair records are necessary to help MSHA and the
operator identify any systemic defects or problems with the refuge
alternative are identified and corrected.
Section 75.1600-3 Communications Facilities; Refuge Alternatives
Paragraph (a) would require that refuge alternatives be provided
with a two-way communication system and an additional communication
system when approved in the mine operator's Emergency Response Plan.
Communications with the persons in refuge alternatives are vital to
mine rescue efforts. The knowledge of where miners are in refuge
alternatives, their condition, and the conditions in the mine may make
the difference between life-and-death in a post-accident crisis.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require a two-way communication facility
that is a part of the mine communication system, which can be used from
inside the refuge alternative. The communications device must be usable
without further exposing persons to smoke and toxic gases. MSHA
solicits comments on the proposed two-way communication facility.
Please be specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale,
safety benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and
data to support your comments.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require an additional communication system
when approved in the operator's Emergency Response Plan (ERP).
III. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulatory agencies
assess both the costs and benefits of regulations. To comply with E.O.
12866, MSHA has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis
(PREA) for this proposed rule. The PREA contains supporting data and
explanation for the summary materials presented in this preamble,
including the covered mining industry, costs and benefits, feasibility,
small business impacts, and paperwork. The PREA can be found at MSHA's
Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy of the PREA can be
obtained from MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at
the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. MSHA requests
comments on all the estimates of costs and benefits presented in this
preamble and in the PREA, and on the data and assumptions the Agency
used to develop estimates.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant regulatory action is one meeting
any of a number of specified conditions, including the following:
Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of
another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of
[[Page 34164]]
entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel
legal or policy issues. Based on the PREA, MSHA has determined that
this proposed rule would have an annual effect of $100 million or more
on the economy and that, therefore, it is an economically significant
regulatory action.
Congressional Review Act
The costs in the PREA represent what MSHA believes to be the upper
bound of the range of estimated compliance costs: $102.6 million first
year and $43.3 million yearly. MSHA has presented these upper-bound
estimates as a conservative approach to estimating compliance costs.
However, based upon a review of literature and discussions with
manufacturers of refuge alternatives, MSHA believes that a more
realistic assumption of the types of refuge alternatives required under
the proposal provides a lower-bound estimate of costs: $84.1 million
first year and $38.7 million yearly. MSHA has revised the PREA to
include these lower-bound estimates of costs. If costs are more in line
with the lower-bound estimates, the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
would not apply. If costs are more in line with MSHA's upper-bound
estimates, then the rule would be classified as a major rule and MSHA
would comply with the CRA. Under the CRA, major rules generally cannot
take effect until 60 days after the rule is published.
A. Population at Risk
The proposal would apply to all underground coal mines in the
United States. Based on the most recent MSHA data, there were 624
underground coal mines, employing approximately 42,200 miners, in the
United States in 2007, of which 613 mines employ miners working
underground. These 613 mines employ approximately 37,800 miners and
5,100 miners working underground, for a total of approximately 42,900
workers underground.
B. Benefits
1. Introduction
One of the goals of the MINER Act is to improve emergency response
capability in underground coal mines. MSHA has published a number of
standards in the last several years and has stated in them that, in the
event of a mine emergency in an underground coal mine, the miner should
be trained to evacuate the mine. Over the years, MSHA has promulgated a
number of rules that address the safety of miners in the event of
explosions, fires, or inundations in underground coal mines. These
rules include requirements which address escape from a mine, such as:
Two separate and distinct escapeways for each working section, maps in
an underground mine that delineate escape routes out of the mine, miner
participation in practice drills to escape the mine in an emergency
situation, and life-saving devices such as lifelines and self-contained
self-rescue (SCSR) devices to facilitate escape. This proposed rule
would require refuge alternatives in the event that escape is delayed
or not possible.
This proposal would improve mine operators' preparedness for mine
emergencies and increase miners' safety by requiring refuge
alternatives underground to protect and sustain miners trapped when a
life-threatening event occurs that prevents escape. The refuge
alternatives proposed in the rule may also assist miners in escaping
from the mine.
2. Evaluation of Accident and Injury Data
MSHA has evaluated its accident and injury data from 1900 through
2006. During that period, 264 miners who were alive after a mine
accident died later during rescue or escape. Because forty-three lives
have previously been attributed to other recent MSHA regulatory
actions, a total of 221 lives could have been saved over the 107 year
period for purposes of estimating benefits for this proposal. If refuge
alternatives had been available, MSHA estimates that the range of lives
saved would be between a low of 25 percent and a high of 75 percent.
MSHA estimates that 55 lives could have been saved under the lower
estimate, and that 166 lives could have been saved under the higher
estimate. Using these estimates, the proposal would result in
approximately one-half life saved per year under the lower estimate or
one and one-half lives saved per year under the higher estimate.
3. Conclusion
The proposed rule would implement the MINER Act. It would require
that mine operators install refuge alternatives and would include
requirements for use, transport, maintenance, and inspection of refuge
alternatives. These provisions would be essential for effective
operation of the refuge alternatives during an emergency. The proposed
rule would also include requirements for training of miners on how to
use refuge alternatives during an emergency. To facilitate mine
emergency preparedness, refuge alternative training would be integrated
into existing escapeway drill training--quarterly mine evacuation
training and annual expectations training. The proposed rule would
include requirements for installing necessary roof support in areas
where refuge alternatives are placed to assure that they will not be
damaged. It would also require that the locations of refuge
alternatives be noted on the mine maps so that miners can easily locate
the refuge alternatives in an emergency. The proposal would also
require that miners be trained to maintain and repair refuge
alternatives. In addition, the proposal would require that refuge
alternatives (and their components) be inspected before each shift to
assure that they are always functioning properly and will be effective
in the event of any emergency. The proposal would also include
requirements for the location of refuge alternatives to assure that
they are readily accessible to all miners underground when an emergency
occurs.
C. Compliance Costs
MSHA estimates that the total yearly cost of the proposed rule
would be approximately $43.3 million for underground coal mine
operators and refuge alternative manufacturers. MSHA estimates that the
proposed rule would result in a total yearly cost of $2.1 million for
manufacturers and $41.2 million for underground coal mine operators.
The first-year cost of the proposed rule is approximately $102.6
million. The costs in the PREA represent what MSHA believes to be the
upper bound of the range of estimated compliance costs: $102.6 million
first year and $43.3 million yearly. MSHA has presented these upper-
bound estimates as a conservative approach to estimating compliance
costs. However, based upon a review of literature and discussions with
manufacturers of refuge alternatives, MSHA believes that a more
realistic assumption of the types of refuge alternatives required under
the proposal provides a lower-bound estimate of costs: $84.1 million
first year and $38.7 million yearly. MSHA has revised the PREA to
include these lower-bound estimates of costs.
By mine size, the estimated yearly cost would be $3.1 million for
operators with 1-19 employees; $33.1 million for operators with 20-500
employees; and $5 million for operators with 501+ employees.
The approximate cost of the proposed rule by provision would be:
$2.1 million for refuge alternative and component application and
approval costs; $21.8 million for the costs to purchase, install,
[[Page 34165]]
transport, and repair refuge alternatives; $6.6 million for the costs
for pre-shift exams and revisions to plans and maps; and $12.8 million
for training costs.
Table 1 presents a summary of the yearly costs of the proposed rule
by mine size and by cost category. MSHA solicits comments on the yearly
costs of the proposed rule. Comments should be specific including
alternatives, rationale, and supporting data.
Table 1.--Summary of Yearly Costs of Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detail Yearly cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application and Approval Costs.. $2.1 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to Mine Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine size
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-19 employees 20-500 employees 501+ employees Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost for Purchase, Installation, $2.4 million...... $17.5 million..... $1.9 million...... $21.8 million.
Moving, and Repair of Refuge
Alternatives.
Cost for Pre-Shift Exams and $300,000.......... $5.2 million...... $1.2 million...... $6.6 million.
Revisions to Plans, Maps, and
Programs.
Cost for Training............... $520,000.......... $10.4 million..... $1.9 million...... $12.8 million.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... $3.1 million...... $33.1 million..... $5 million........ $41.2 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In some cases, the totals may deviate from the sum of the components due to rounding.
IV. Feasibility
Although MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the proposed
rule would be both technologically and economically feasible, MSHA
recognizes that all refuge alternative applications may not be
appropriate for all mining conditions.
A. Technological Feasibility
MSHA believes that this proposed rule is feasible because refuge
alternatives are currently being manufactured for use in underground
coal mines in West Virginia and Illinois. MSHA recognizes that it may
not be feasible to locate the refuge alternative according to this
proposal. In addition, MSHA recognizes that using the refuge
alternatives in low coal mines could be problematic. The Agency further
recognizes that certain types of refuge alternatives may not be
feasible in low coal mines. MSHA also recognizes that research on some
requirements of refuge alternatives, for example, post accident
communications, is on-going. MSHA will continue to work with NIOSH and
the mining community as refuge alternative technology continues to be
developed. MSHA solicits comment from the public on the location of
refuge alternatives, the use of refuge alternatives in low coal mines,
and the feasibility of requirements for refuge alternatives. Please be
specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, safety
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and data to
support your comment.
Also, MSHA may approve refuge alternatives or components that
incorporate new technology, if the applicant demonstrates that the
refuge alternative or components provide no less protection than those
meeting the requirements of the proposed rule.
B. Economic Feasibility
MSHA estimated that the yearly compliance cost of the proposed rule
is approximately $41.2 million for underground coal mine operators,
which is 0.3 percent of annual revenue of $14.1 billion for all
underground coal mines. MSHA concludes that the proposed rule would be
economically feasible for these mines because the total yearly
compliance cost is below one percent of the estimated annual revenue
for all underground coal mines.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), MSHA has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small
entities. Based on that analysis, MSHA has notified the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, Small Business Administration (SBA), and made the
certification under the RFA at 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The factual basis for this certification is presented
in the PREA and summarized below.
A. Definition of a Small Mine
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of the proposed rule on
small entities, MSHA must use the SBA definition for a small entity, or
after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an
alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that
definition in the Federal Register for notice and comment. MSHA has not
established an alternative definition and is required to use the SBA
definition. The SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an
establishment with 500 or fewer employees.
MSHA has also examined the impact of this proposed rule on
underground coal mines with fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA has
traditionally referred to as ``small mines.'' These small mines differ
from larger mines not only in the number of employees, but also in
economies of scale in material produced, in the type and amount of
production equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, the cost of
complying with MSHA's proposed rule and the impact of the proposed rule
on small mines will also be different.
This analysis complies with the legal requirements of the RFA for
an analysis of the impact on ``small entities'' while continuing MSHA's
traditional concern for ``small mines.''
B. Factual Basis for Certification
MSHA initially evaluates the impact on small entities by comparing
the estimated compliance cost of a rule for
[[Page 34166]]
small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated
revenue of the affected sector. When the estimated compliance cost is
less than one percent of the estimated revenue, the Agency believes it
is generally appropriate to conclude that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
When the estimated compliance cost exceeds one percent of revenue, MSHA
investigates whether further analysis is required.
Total underground coal production in 2007 was approximately 278
million tons for mines with 500 or fewer employees. Using the 2007
price of underground coal of $40.37 per ton, MSHA estimates that
underground coal revenue was approximately $11.2 billion for mines with
500 or fewer employees. Under MSHA's upper-bound estimate, the yearly
cost of the proposed rule for mines with 500 or fewer employees is
estimated to be approximately $36 million, or approximately $59
thousand per mine. This is equal to approximately 0.32 percent of
annual revenue. Under MSHA's lower-bound estimate, the yearly cost of
the proposed rule for mines with 500 or fewer employees is estimated to
be approximately $32 million, or approximately $52 thousand per mine.
This is equal to approximately 0.29 percent of annual revenue. Since,
under both the upper and lower-bound estimates, the yearly cost of the
proposed rule is less than one percent of annual revenue for small
underground coal mines, as defined by SBA, MSHA has certified that the
proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small mining entities, as defined by SBA. However, MSHA has
provided, in the PREA accompanying this rule, a complete analysis of
the cost impact on this category of mines.
Total underground coal production in 2007 was approximately 7.7
million tons for mines with fewer than 20 employees. Using the 2007
price of underground coal of $40.37 per ton, MSHA estimates that
underground coal revenue was approximately $310.2 million for mines
with fewer than 20 employees. Under MSHA's upper-bound estimate, the
yearly cost of the proposed rule for mines with fewer than 20 employees
is estimated to be approximately $3.15 million, or approximately
$14,116 per mine. This is equal to approximately 1.02 percent of annual
revenue. Under MSHA's lower-bound estimate, the yearly cost for mines
with fewer than 20 employees is estimated to be approximately $2.8
million, or approximately $13 thousand per mine. This is equal to
approximately 0.91 percent of annual revenue.
In the Agency's PREA, MSHA estimates that some mines might
experience costs somewhat higher than the average per mine in its size
category while others might experience lower costs. Even though the
analysis reflects a range of impacts for different mine sizes, from
0.32 to 1.02 percent of annual revenue under MSHA's upper-bound
estimate and from 0.29 to 0.91 percent of annual revenue under MSHA's
lower-bound estimate, the Agency concludes that this is not a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small mines.
MSHA has provided, in the PREA accompanying this rule, a complete
analysis of the cost impact on this category of mines.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Summary
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that would affect requirements in existing paperwork packages with OMB
Control Numbers 1219-0004, 1219-0054, 1219-0066, 1219-0073, 1219-0088,
and 1219-0141. The new information collection requirements contained in
the proposed rule are found in proposed Sec. Sec. 7.503, 75.221,
75.360, 75.372, 75.1200, 75.1502, 75.1505, 75.1506, 75.1507, and
75.1508, which would establish new approval requirements for refuge
alternatives. This proposed rule would result in 90,189 burden hours
and related costs of approximately $6.8 million in the first year the
rule is in effect. In the second year the rule is in effect, and every
year thereafter, the proposed rule would result in 78,138 burden hours
and related costs of approximately $6.6 million.
For a detailed summary of the burden hours and related costs by
provision, see the PREA accompanying this proposed rule. The PREA is
posted on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy
of the PREA can be obtained from MSHA's Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances at the address provided in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble.
B. Procedural Details
The information collection package has been submitted to OMB for
review under 44 U.S.C. 3504, paragraph (h) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, as amended. A copy of the information collection package
can be obtained from the Department of Labor by electronic mail request
to king.darrin@dol.gov or by phone request to 202-693-4129.
MSHA requests comments to:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Comments on the information collection requirements should be sent
to both OMB and MSHA. Addresses for both offices can be found in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The regulated community is not
required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays
a current, valid, OMB control number. MSHA displays OMB control numbers
in 30 CFR part 3.
VII. Other Regulatory Analyses
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that
the proposed rule would not include any Federal mandate that may result
in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. MSHA estimates that
the proposed rule would increase private sector expenditures by more
than $100 million in the first year and has included an analysis of the
costs of the requirements of the proposed rule in this PREA.
B. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999:
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The proposed rule would have no effect on family well-being or
stability, marital commitment, parental rights or authority, or income
or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, Sec. 654 of the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C.
601 note) requires no further agency action, analysis, or assessment.
[[Page 34167]]
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
The proposed rule would not implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, Executive Order 12630 requires no further
agency action or analysis.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden
on the Federal court system. Accordingly, the proposed rule meets the
applicable standards provided in Sec. 3 of Executive Order 12988.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The proposed rule would have no adverse impact on children.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13045 requires no further agency action or
analysis.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed rule would not have ``federalism implications''
because it would not ``have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.'' MSHA acknowledges that West Virginia and
Illinois have laws and/or regulations on refuge alternatives and has
drafted the proposed rule to minimize conflict with these laws and
regulations.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
The proposed rule would not have ``tribal implications'' because it
would not ``have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' Accordingly, Executive
Order 13175 requires no further agency action or analysis.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed rule has been reviewed for its impact on the supply,
distribution, and use of energy because it applies to the coal mining
industry. Insofar as the proposed rule would result in yearly costs of
approximately $41.2 million to the underground coal mining industry,
relative to annual revenues of $14.1 billion in 2007, it is not a
``significant energy action'' because it is not ``likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy * * * (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and
increased use of foreign supplies).'' Accordingly, Executive Order
13211 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate
account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations. MSHA has determined and
certified that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 7
Coal mines, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Underground mining.
30 CFR Part 75
Coal mines, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Training programs, Underground mining.
Dated: June 11, 2008.
Richard E. Stickler,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Mine Safety and
Health Administration is proposing to amend 30 CFR parts 7 and 75 as
follows:
PART 7--TESTING BY APPLICANT OR THIRD PARTY--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.
2. Add new subpart L to read as follows:
Subpart L--Refuge Alternatives
Sec.
7.501 Purpose and scope.
7.502 Definitions.
7.503 Application requirements.
7.504 Refuge alternatives and components; general requirements.
7.505 Structural components.
7.506 Breathable air components.
7.507 Air-monitoring components.
7.508 Harmful gas removal components.
7.509 Approval markings.
7.510 New technology.
Subpart L--Refuge Alternatives
Sec. 7.501 Purpose and scope.
This subpart L establishes requirements for MSHA approval of a
refuge alternative and components for use in underground coal mines.
Refuge alternatives are intended to provide a life-sustaining
environment for miners trapped underground when escape is impossible.
Refuge alternatives may also be used to facilitate escape.
Sec. 7.502 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this subpart:
Apparent temperature. The combined effects of air movement, heat,
and humidity on the human body.
Breathable oxygen. Oxygen that is at least 99 percent pure with no
harmful contaminants.
Flash fire. A fire that rapidly spreads through a diffuse fuel,
such as airborne coal dust or methane, without producing damaging
pressure.
Noncombustible material. Material, such as concrete or steel, that
will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors
when subjected to fire or heat.
Overpressure. The highest pressure over the background atmospheric
pressure that results from an explosion, which includes the impact of
the pressure wave on an object.
Refuge alternative. A protected, secure space with an isolated
atmosphere and integrated components that create a life-sustaining
environment for persons trapped in an underground coal mine.
Sec. 7.503 Application requirements.
(a) An application for approval of a refuge alternative or
component shall include:
(1) The refuge alternative or component's make and model number, if
applicable.
(2) A list of the refuge alternative or component's parts that
includes--
(i) The MSHA approval number for electric-powered equipment;
(ii) Each component's or part's in-mine shelf life, service life,
and recommended replacement schedule; and
(iii) The materials used in each component or part with their MSHA
approval number or a statement that the materials are noncombustible.
(3) The capacity and duration (the number of persons it is designed
to maintain and for how long) of the refuge alternative or component on
a per-person per-day basis.
[[Page 34168]]
(4) The length, width, and height of the space required for storage
of each component.
(b) The application for approval of the refuge alternative shall
specify the following:
(1) A description of the breathable air component, including
drawings, air-supply sources, piping, regulators, and controls.
(2) The maximum volume, excluding the airlock; the dimensions of
space provided for each person using the refuge alternative; and the
interior dimensions of the airlock.
(3) The maximum allowable positive pressures in the interior space
and the airlock and describe the means used to limit or control the
positive pressure.
(4) The maximum allowable apparent temperature of the interior
space and the airlock and the means to control the apparent
temperature.
(5) Drawings that show the features of each component and contain
sufficient information to document compliance with the technical
requirements.
(6) A training manual that contains sufficient detail for each
refuge alternative or component addressing in-mine transportation,
operation, and maintenance of the unit.
(7) A summary of the procedures for constructing and activating
refuge alternatives.
(8) A summary of the procedures for using the refuge alternative.
(9) The results of inspections, evaluations, calculations, and
tests conducted under this subpart.
(c) The application for approval of the air-monitoring component
shall specify the following:
(1) The operating range, type of sensor, gas or gases measured, and
environmental limitations, including the cross-sensitivity to other
gases, of each detector or device in the air-monitoring component.
(2) The method for operation of the individual devices so that they
function as necessary to test gas concentrations over a 96-hour period.
(3) Procedures for monitoring and maintaining breathable air in the
airlock, before and after purging.
(4) Instructions for determining the quality of the atmosphere in
the airlock and refuge alternative interior and a means to maintain
breathable air in the airlock.
(d) The application for approval of the harmful gas removal
component shall specify the following:
(1) The volume of breathable air available for removing harmful gas
both at start up and while persons enter through the airlock.
(2) The maximum volume of each gas that the component is designed
to remove on a per-miner per-day basis.
(e) The applicant shall certify that each component is constructed
of suitable materials, is of good quality workmanship, is based on
sound engineering principles, is safe for its intended use, and is
designed to be compatible with other components in the refuge
alternative, within the limitations specified in the approval.
Sec. 7.504 Refuge alternatives and components; general requirements.
(a) Refuge alternatives and components:
(1) Shall be intrinsically safe for use and designed with fire and
explosion-proof features for use with an oxygen supply component.
(2) Shall not produce continuous noise levels in excess of 85 dBA
in the structure's interior.
(3) Shall not liberate harmful or irritating gases or particulates
into the structure's interior or airlock.
(4) Shall be designed so that the refuge alternative can be safely
moved with the use of appropriate devices such as tow bars.
(5) Shall be designed to withstand forces from collision of the
refuge alternative structure during transport or handling.
(b) The apparent temperature in the structure shall be controlled
as follows:
(1) When used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions
and defined limitations, the apparent temperature in the fully occupied
refuge alternative shall not exceed 95[deg] Fahrenheit.
(2) Calculations or tests shall be conducted to determine the
maximum apparent temperature in the refuge alternative when used at
maximum occupancy and in conjunction with required components. The
results shall be reported in the application.
(c) The refuge alternative shall include:
(1) Accommodations for the following means of communications--
(i) A telephone or an equivalent two-way facility that can be used
from inside the refuge alternative, and
(ii) A two-way wireless system when it is approved in the
operator's Emergency Response Plan (ERP).
(2) Lighting sufficient to perform tasks;
(3) A means to contain human waste effectively and minimize
objectionable odors;
(4) First aid supplies; and
(5) Materials, parts, and tools for repairs of components.
(d) Containers used for storage of refuge alternative components
shall be:
(1) Airtight, waterproof, and rodent-proof;
(2) Easy to open and close without the use of tools; and
(3) Conspicuously marked with an expiration date and instructions
for use.
Sec. 7.505 Structural components.
(a) The structure shall--
(1) Provide at least 15 square feet of floor space and at least 60
cubic feet of volume per person;
(2) Include storage space that secures and protects the components
during transport and that permits ready access to components for
inspection, maintenance, and activation;
(3) Include an airlock that creates a barrier and isolates the
interior space from the mine atmosphere, except for a refuge
alternative capable of maintaining adequate positive pressure.
(i) The airlock shall be designed for multiple uses to accommodate
the structure's maximum occupancy.
(ii) The airlock shall be configured to accommodate a stretcher
without compromising its function;
(4) Be designed and constructed to withstand 15 pounds per square
inch (psi) overpressure for 0.2 seconds prior to activation;
(5) Be designed and constructed to withstand exposure to a flash
fire of 300[deg] Fahrenheit for 3 seconds prior to activation;
(6) Be constructed with materials that are noncombustible or MSHA-
approved flame resistant;
(7) Be constructed from reinforced material that has sufficient
durability to withstand routine handling and resist puncture and
tearing during activation and use;
(8) Be guarded or reinforced to prevent damage to the structure
that would hinder activation, entry, or use; and
(9) Permit measurement of outside gas concentrations without
exiting the structure or allowing entry of the outside atmosphere.
(b) Inspections or tests shall be conducted to determine or
demonstrate that--
(1) Trained persons can fully activate the structure, without the
use of tools, within 10 minutes of reaching the refuge alternative;
(2) An overpressure of 15 psi applied to the pre-activated refuge
alternative structure for 0.2 seconds does not allow gases to pass
through the barrier separating the interior and exterior atmospheres;
(3) A flash fire of 300[deg] Fahrenheit for 3 seconds does not
allow gases to pass from the outside to the inside of the structure;
[[Page 34169]]
(4) The overpressure forces of 15 psi do not prevent the stored
components from operating;
(5) A flash fire of 300[deg] Fahrenheit for 3 seconds does not
prevent the stored components from operating;
(6) Each structure resists puncture and tearing when tested in
accordance with ASTM D2582-07 Standard Test Method for Puncture-
Propagation Tear Resistance of Plastic Film and Thin Sheeting;
(7) Each reasonably anticipated repair can be completed within 10
minutes of opening the storage space for repair materials and tools;
and
(8) No harmful gases or noticeable odors are released from
nonmetallic materials before or after the flash fire test. The test
shall determine the identity and concentrations of gases released.
(c) If pressurized air is used to activate the structure or
maintain its shape, the structure shall--(1) Include a pressure
regulator or other means to prevent overpressurization of the
structure, and
(2) Provide a means to repair and re-pressurize the structure in
case of failure of the structure or loss of air pressure.
(d) The refuge alternative structure shall provide a means--
(1) To conduct a preshift examination, without entering the
structure, of components critical for activation; and
(2) To indicate unauthorized entry or tampering.
Sec. 7.506 Breathable air components.
(a) Breathable air shall be supplied by compressed air cylinders,
compressed breathable-oxygen cylinders, fans installed on the surface
or compressors installed on the surface. Only uncontaminated breathable
air is allowed to be supplied to the refuge alternative.
(b) Mechanisms shall be provided and procedures shall be followed
such that, within the refuge alternative--
(1) The breathable air sustains each person for 96 hours,
(2) The oxygen concentration is maintained at levels between 18.5
and 23 percent, and
(3) The average carbon dioxide concentration is maintained at 1.0
percent or less, with excursions not to exceed 2.5 percent.
(c) Breathable air supplied by compressed air from cylinders, fans,
or compressors shall provide a minimum flow rate of 12.5 cubic feet per
minute of breathable air for each miner.
(1) Fans or compressors shall meet the following:
(i) Be equipped with a carbon monoxide detector located at the
surface that automatically provides a visual and audible alarm if
carbon monoxide in supplied air exceeds 10 parts per million (ppm).
(ii) Provide in-line air-purifying sorbent beds and filters or
other equivalent means to assure the breathing air quality and prevent
condensation.
(iii) Include maintenance instructions that provide specifications
for periodic replacement or refurbishment of sorbent beds and filters
or alternate means.
(iv) Provide positive pressure and an automatic means to assure
that the pressure is relieved at 0.25 psi above mine atmospheric
pressure in the refuge alternative.
(v) Include warnings to assure that only uncontaminated breathable
air is supplied to the refuge alternative.
(vi) Include air lines to supply breathable air from the fan or
compressor to the refuge alternative.
(A) Air lines shall be capable of preventing or removing water
accumulation.
(B) Air lines shall be designed and protected to prevent damage
during normal mining operations, a flash fire of 300[deg] Fahrenheit
(F) for 3 seconds, a pressure wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2
seconds, and ground failure.
(vii) Assure that harmful or explosive gases, water, and other
materials cannot enter the breathable air.
(2) Redundancy of fans or compressors and each power source shall
be provided to permit prompt re-activation of equipment in the event of
failure.
(d) Compressed breathable oxygen shall--
(1) Include instructions for activation and operation;
(2) Provide oxygen at a minimum flow rate of 1.32 cubic feet per
hour per miner;
(3) Include a means to readily regulate the pressure and volume of
the compressed oxygen;
(4) Include an independent regulator as a backup in case of
failure; and
(5) Be used only with regulators, piping, and other equipment that
is certified and maintained to prevent ignition or combustion.
(e) Carbon dioxide removal components shall--
(1) Include instructions for activation and operation;
(2) Be used with breathable air cylinders or oxygen cylinders;
(3) Remove carbon dioxide at a rate of 1.08 cubic feet per hour per
miner;
(4) Be contained to prevent contact with the chemicals and the
release of airborne particles;
(5) Be provided and packaged with all necessary means to expedite
use, such as hangers, racks, and clips; and
(6) Be stored in containers that are conspicuously marked with
instructions for disposal of used chemicals.
(f) The carbon dioxide removal component shall be tested and
evaluated to demonstrate that it can maintain average carbon dioxide
concentration at 1.0 percent or less, with excursions not to exceed 2.5
percent under the following conditions:
(1) At 55 [deg]F (4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 50 percent (0.5 percent) relative
humidity.
(2) At 55 [deg]F (4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 100 percent (0.5 percent) relative
humidity.
(3) At 90 [deg]F (4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 50 percent (0.5 percent) relative
humidity.
(4) At 82 [deg]F (4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 100 percent (0.5 percent) relative
humidity.
(g) Respirators or breathing apparatus used with a breathable air
component shall--
(1) Be NIOSH-approved with a means of flow and pressure regulation;
(2) Be equipped with fittings that connect only to a breathable air
compressed line;
(3) Allow for communication, and the provision of food, and water
while preventing the entry of any outside atmosphere; and
(4) Be capable of being worn for up to 96 hours.
(h) The applicant shall prepare and submit a risk analysis to
assure that the breathable air component will not cause an ignition.
(1) The analysis shall specifically address oxygen fire hazards and
fire hazards from chemicals used for removal of carbon dioxide.
(2) The analysis shall identify the means used to prevent any
ignition source.
(i) The breathable air component shall include a fire extinguisher
that--
(1) Is compatible with the chemicals used for removal of carbon
dioxide; and
(2) Uses a non-toxic extinguishing agent that does not produce a
hazardous by-product when heated or activated.
Sec. 7.507 Air-monitoring components.
(a) Each refuge alternative shall have an air-monitoring component
that provides persons inside with the ability to determine the
concentrations of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxygen, and methane,
inside and outside the structure, including the airlock.
(b) Refuge alternatives designed for use in mines with a history of
harmful
[[Page 34170]]
gases, other than carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane, shall
be equipped to measure the harmful gases' concentrations.
(c) The air-monitoring component shall be inspected or tested and
the test results shall be included in the application.
(d) All air-monitoring components shall be approved as permissible
by MSHA and the MSHA approval number shall be specified in the
application.
(e) The air-monitoring component shall meet the following:
(1) The total measurement error, including the cross-sensitivity to
other gases, shall not exceed 10 percent of the reading,
except as specified in the approval.
(2) The measurement error limits shall not be exceeded after
startup, after 8 hours of continuous operation, after 96 hours of
storage, and after exposure to atmospheres with a carbon monoxide
concentration of 999 ppm (full-scale), a carbon dioxide concentration
of 3 percent, and full-scale concentrations of other gases.
(3) Calibration gas values shall be traceable to the National
Institute for Standards and Testing (NIST) ``Standard Reference
Materials'' (SRMs).
(4) The analytical accuracy of the calibration gas values shall be
within 2.0 percent of NIST gas standards.
(5) The analytical accuracy of the span gas values shall be within
2.0 percent of NIST gas standards.
(6) The detectors shall be capable of being kept fully charged and
ready for immediate use.
Sec. 7.508 Harmful gas removal components.
(a) Each refuge alternative shall include means for removing
harmful gases.
(1) Purging or other effective methods shall be provided for the
airlock to dilute the carbon monoxide concentration to 25 ppm or less
and the methane concentration to 1.5 percent or less as persons enter,
within 20 minutes of miners activating the refuge alternative.
(2) Chemical scrubbing or other effective methods shall be provided
to maintain the average carbon dioxide concentration in the occupied
structure at 1.0 percent or less with excursions not to exceed 2.5
percent.
(b) The harmful gas removal component shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) Each chemical for removal of harmful gas shall be contained
such that when stored or used they cannot come in contact with persons.
(2) Each chemical used for removal of harmful gas shall be provided
together with all materials, parts, or equipment necessary for its use.
(3) Each chemical used for removal of harmful gas shall be stored
in an approved container that is conspicuously marked with the
manufacturer's instructions for disposal of used chemical.
(c) Each harmful gas removal component shall be tested to determine
its ability to remove harmful gases.
(1) The component shall be tested in a refuge alternative structure
that is representative of the configuration and maximum volume from
which the component is designed to remove harmful gases.
(i) The test shall include three sampling points located vertically
along the centerlines of the length and width of the structure and
equally spaced over the horizontal centerline of the height of the
structure.
(ii) The structure shall be sealed airtight.
(iii) The operating gas sampling instruments shall be placed inside
the structure and continuously exposed to the test atmosphere.
(iv) Sampling instruments shall simultaneously measure the gas
concentrations at the three sampling points.
(2) For testing the component's ability to remove carbon monoxide,
the structure shall be filled with a test gas of either purified
synthetic air or purified nitrogen that contains 400 ppm carbon
monoxide.
(i) After a stable concentration of 400 ppm, 5 percent,
carbon monoxide has been obtained for 5 minutes at all three sampling
points, a timer shall be started and the structure shall be purged or
carbon monoxide otherwise removed.
(ii) Carbon monoxide concentration readings from each of the three
sampling devices shall be recorded every 2 minutes.
(iii) The time from the start of harmful gas removal until the
readings of the three sampling instruments shall all indicate a carbon
monoxide concentration of 25 ppm or less shall be recorded.
(d) Alternate performance tests may be conducted if the tests
provide the same level of assurance of the harmful gas removal
component's capability as the tests specified in paragraph (c) of this
section. Alternate tests shall be specified in the approval
application.
Sec. 7.509 Approval markings.
(a) Each approved refuge alternative or component shall be
identified by a legible, permanent approval marking that is securely
and conspicuously attached to the component or its container.
(b) The approval marking shall include the refuge alternative's and
component's MSHA approval number and expiration date.
(c) The refuge alternative structure shall provide a conspicuous
means for indicating an out-of-service status, including the reason it
is out of service.
(d) The airlock shall be conspicuously marked with the recommended
maximum number of persons that can use it at one time.
Sec. 7.510 New technology.
MSHA may approve a refuge alternative or a component that
incorporates new knowledge or technology, if the applicant demonstrates
that the refuge alternative or component provides no less protection
than those meeting the requirements of this subpart.
PART 75--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
3. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
4. Amend Sec. 75.221 by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.221 Roof control plan information.
(a) * * *
(12) A description of the roof and rib support necessary for the
refuge alternatives.
* * * * *
5. Amend Sec. 75.313 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.313 Main mine fan stoppage with persons underground.
* * * * *
(f) Any electric-powered refuge alternative component that may be
operated during fan stoppages shall be intrinsically safe.
6. Amend Sec. 75.360 by redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g)
as paragraphs (e) through (h) and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.360 Preshift examination at fixed intervals.
* * * * *
(d) The person conducting the preshift examination shall check the
refuge alternative for damage, the integrity of the tamper-evident seal
and the mechanisms required to activate the refuge alternative, and the
ready availability of compressed oxygen and air.
* * * * *
7. Amend Sec. 75.372 by revising paragraph (b)(11) to read as
follows:
[[Page 34171]]
Sec. 75.372 Mine ventilation map.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(11) The location of all escapeways and refuge alternatives.
* * * * *
8. Amend Sec. 75.1200 by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.1200 Mine map.
* * * * *
(g) Escapeways and refuge alternatives;
* * * * *
9. Amend Sec. 75.1202-1 by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows.
Sec. 75.1202-1 Temporary notations, revisions, and supplements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Escapeways and refuge alternatives designated by means of
symbols.
Sec. 75.1500 [Removed and reserved]
10. Remove and reserve Sec. 75.1500.
11. Amend Sec. 75.1501 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.1501 Emergency evacuations.
(a) * * *
(1) The responsible person shall have current knowledge of the
assigned location and expected movements of miners underground, the
operation of the mine ventilation system, the locations of the mine
escapeways and refuge alternatives, the mine communications system, any
mine monitoring system if used, locations of firefighting equipment,
the mine's Emergency Response Plan, the Mine Rescue Notification Plan,
and the Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of
Instruction.
* * * * *
12. Amend Sec. 75.1502 as follows:
A. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(8) as paragraphs
(c)(4) through (c)(9).
B. Add new paragraph (c)(3).
C. Revise newly designated paragraphs (c)(4)(iv) and (v).
D. Revise newly designated paragraph (c)(8).
E. Add paragraph (c)(4)(vi).
F. Add paragraphs (c)(10) and (c)(11).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 75.1502 Mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of
instruction.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) The activation and use of refuge alternatives.
(4) * * *
(iv) Switching escapeways, as applicable;
(v) Negotiating any other unique escapeway conditions; and
(vi) Using refuge alternatives.
* * * * *
(8) A review of the mine map; the escapeway system; the escape,
firefighting, and emergency evacuation plans in effect at the mine; and
the location of refuge alternatives and abandoned areas.
(9) * * *
(10) A summary of the procedures related to constructing and
activating refuge alternatives; and
(11) A summary of the procedures related to refuge alternative use.
* * * * *
13. Amend Sec. 75.1504 by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii),
(b)(4)(ii), and (c), and adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.1504 Mine emergency evacuation training and drills.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Physically locates and practices using the continuous
directional lifelines or equivalent devices and tethers, and physically
locates the stored SCSRs and refuge alternatives;
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Locating escapeways, exits, routes of travel to the surface,
abandoned areas, and refuge alternatives.
* * * * *
(6) Reviewing the checklist for constructing and activating refuge
alternatives and components.
(7) Reviewing the procedures for use of the refuge alternatives and
components.
(c) Annual expectations training. Over the course of each year,
each miner shall participate in expectations training that includes the
following:
(1) Donning and transferring SCSRs in smoke, simulated smoke, or an
equivalent environment.
(2) Breathing through a realistic SCSR training unit that provides
the sensation of SCSR airflow resistance and heat.
(3) Construction, where applicable; activation; and use of refuge
alternatives similar to those in use at the mine, including--
(i) Construction, where applicable; activation; and operation of
component systems; and
(ii) Instruction on when to use refuge alternatives during a mine
emergency, emphasizing that it is the last resort when escape is
impossible.
(4) A miner shall participate in expectations training within one
quarter of being employed at the mine.
* * * * *
14. Amend Sec. 75.1505 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.1505 Escapeway maps.
(a) Content and accessibility. An escapeway map shall show the
designated escapeways from the working sections or the miners' work
stations to the surface or the exits at the bottom of the shaft or
slope, refuge alternatives, and SCSR storage locations. The escapeway
map shall be posted or readily accessible for all miners--
(1) In each working section;
(2) In each area where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed;
(3) At the refuge alternative; and
(4) At a surface location of the mine where miners congregate, such
as at the mine bulletin board, bathhouse, or waiting room.
(b) Keeping maps current. All maps shall be kept up-to-date and any
change in route of travel, location of doors, location of refuge
alternatives, or direction of airflow shall be shown on the maps by the
end of the shift on which the change is made.
* * * * *
15. Add Sec. Sec. 75.1506, 75.1507, and 75.1508 to subpart P to
read as follows:
Sec. 75.1506 Refuge alternatives.
(a) Each operator shall provide refuge alternatives with sufficient
capacity to accommodate all persons working underground.
(1) Refuge alternatives shall provide at least 15 square feet of
floor space and at least 60 cubic feet of volume per person.
(2) Refuge alternatives for working sections shall accommodate the
maximum number of persons that can be expected on or near the section
at any time.
(3) Refuge alternatives for outby areas shall accommodate persons
assigned to work in the outby area.
(b) Refuge alternatives shall be provided at the following
locations:
(1) Between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet from the working face and
from locations where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or
removed;
(2) Spaced within one-hour travel distances in outby areas where
persons work such that persons in outby areas are never more than a 30-
minute travel distance from a refuge alternative or safe exit. However,
the operator may request and the District Manager may approve a
different location in the Emergency Response Plan (ERP). The operator's
request shall be based on an assessment of the risk to persons in outby
areas, considering the following factors:
[[Page 34172]]
proximity to seals; proximity to potential fire or ignition sources;
conditions in the outby areas; location of stored SCSRs; and proximity
to the most direct, safe, and practical route to an intake escapeway.
(c) Roof and rib support for the refuge alternative locations shall
be specified in the mine's roof control plan.
(d) The operator shall protect the refuge alternative and contents
from damage during transportation, installation, and storage.
(e) A refuge alternative shall be removed from service if
examination reveals damage that interferes with the functioning of the
refuge alternative or any component.
(1) If a refuge alternative is removed from service, the operator
shall withdraw all persons from the area serviced by the refuge
alternative, except those persons referred to in section 104(c) of the
Mine Act.
(2) Refuge alternative components removed from service shall be
replaced or be repaired for return to service in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications.
(f) At all times, the site and area around the refuge alternative
shall be kept clear of machinery, materials, and obstructions that
could interfere with the activation or use of the refuge alternative.
(g) Each refuge alternative shall be conspicuously identified with
a sign or marker as follows:
(1) A sign or marker made of a reflective material with the word
``REFUGE'' shall be posted conspicuously at each refuge alternative.
(2) Directional signs made of a reflective material shall be posted
leading to each refuge alternative location.
Sec. 75.1507 Emergency response plan; refuge alternatives.
(a) The Emergency Response Plan (ERP) shall include the following
for each refuge alternative and component:
(1) The types of refuge alternatives used in the mine, i.e., a pre-
fabricated self-contained unit; a secure space, constructed in place,
with an isolated atmosphere; or materials pre-positioned for miners to
use to construct a secure space with an isolated atmosphere.
(2) Procedures or methods for maintaining approved refuge
alternatives and components.
(3) The rated capacity of each refuge alternative, the number of
persons expected to use each refuge alternative, and the duration of
breathable air provided per person by the approved breathable air
component of each refuge alternative.
(4) The methods for providing breathable air and removing carbon
dioxide with sufficient detail of the component's capability to provide
breathable air over the duration stated in the approval.
(5) The methods for providing ready backup oxygen controls and
regulators.
(6) The methods for providing an airlock and methods for providing
breathable air in the airlock; except where adequate positive pressure
is maintained.
(7) The methods for providing sanitation facilities.
(8) The methods for harmful gas removal (if necessary).
(9) The methods for monitoring gas concentrations, including
charging and calibration of equipment.
(10) The method for providing lighting sufficient to perform tasks.
(11) Suitable locations of the refuge alternatives and an
affirmative statement that the locations are--
(i) Not within direct line of sight of the working face; and
(ii) Where feasible, not placed in areas directly across from, nor
closer than 500 feet radially from, belt drives, take-ups, transfer
points, air compressors, explosive magazines, seals, entrances to
abandoned areas, and fuel, oil, or other flammable or combustible
material storage.
(b) For a refuge alternative constructed in place, the ERP shall
specify that--
(1) The breathable air components shall be approved by MSHA; and
(2) The refuge alternative can withstand exposure to a flash fire
of 300 [deg]Fahrenheit (F) for 3 seconds and a pressure wave of 15 psi
overpressure for 0.2 seconds.
(c) For refuge alternatives consisting of materials pre-positioned
for miners to use to construct a secure space with an isolated
atmosphere, the ERP shall specify--
(1) The means to store and protect materials from being damaged
when moved;
(2) That the refuge alternative can withstand exposure to a flash
fire of 300 [deg]F for 3 seconds and a pressure wave of 15 psi
overpressure for 0.2 seconds prior to construction and activation.
(3) The method to assure the refuge alternative is constructed and
functional in 10 minutes after a person arrives at the pre-positioned
materials;
(4) That all necessary materials have been provided as a self-
contained unit ready to be activated and used within the secure space
once constructed; and
(5) The means to assure establishment of approved breathable air in
the refuge alternative promptly after construction.
(d) If the refuge alternative sustains persons for only 48 hours,
the ERP shall detail advanced arrangements that have been made to
assure that persons who cannot be rescued within 48 hours will receive
additional supplies to sustain them until rescue. Advance arrangements
shall include the following:
(1) Pre-surveyed areas for refuge alternatives with closure errors
of less than 20,000:1.
(2) An analysis to indicate that the surface terrain, the strata,
the capabilities of the drill rig, and all other factors that could
affect drilling are such that a hole sufficient to provide required
supplies and materials reliably can be promptly drilled within 48 hours
of an accident at a mine.
(3) Permissions to cross properties, build roads, and construct
drill sites.
(4) Arrangement with a drilling contractor or other supplier of
drilling services to provide a suitable drilling rig, personnel and
support so that a hole can be completed to the refuge alternative
within 48 hours.
(5) Capability to promptly transport a drill rig to a pre-surveyed
location such that a drilled hole would be completed and located near a
refuge alternative structure within 48 hours of an accident at a mine.
(6) The specifications of pipes, air lines, and approved fans or
approved compressors that will be used.
(7) A method for assuring that within 48 hours, breathable air
shall be provided.
(8) A method for assuring the immediate availability of a backup
source for supplying breathable air and a backup power source for
surface installations.
(e) The ERP shall specify that the refuge alternative is stocked
with the following:
(1) A minimum of 2,000 calories of food and 2.25 quarts of potable
water per person per day in approved containers sufficient to sustain
the maximum number of persons reasonably expected to use the refuge
alternative for at least 96 hours, or for 48 hours if advance
arrangements are made under paragraph (d) of this section;
(2) Manuals for the refuge alternative and components;
(3) Sufficient quantities of materials and tools to repair
components; and
(4) First aid supplies.
Sec. 75.1508 Training and records for examination, maintenance,
transportation, and repair of refuge alternatives and components.
(a) Persons who examine, maintain, transport, or repairing refuge
[[Page 34173]]
alternatives and components shall be instructed in how to perform this
work.
(1) The operator shall assure that all persons assigned to examine,
maintain, transport, and repair refuge alternatives and components are
trained.
(2) The mine operator shall certify, by signature and date, the
training of persons who examine, maintain, transport, and repair refuge
alternatives and components.
(b) At the completion of each repair, the person conducting the
maintenance or repair shall make a record of all corrective action
taken.
(c) Training certifications and repair records shall be kept at the
mine for one year.
16. Add Sec. 75.1600-3 to subpart Q to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1600-3 Communications facilities; refuge alternatives.
(a) Refuge alternatives shall be provided with a communications
system that consists of--
(1) A two-way communication facility that is a part of the mine
communication system, which can be used from inside the refuge
alternative; and
(2) Additional communication system and other requirements as
defined in the communications portion of the operator's approved
Emergency Response Plan.
[FR Doc. E8-13565 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P