[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30488-30491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14305]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
RIN 1219-AA17
Safety Standards for Explosives at Metal and Nonmetal Mines
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of public hearings; Close of record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will hold
public hearings on its January 6, 1995, proposed safety standards for
explosives at metal and nonmetal mines. The hearings will be held in
Cleveland, Ohio and Elko, Nevada.
DATES: The hearings will be held in Cleveland, Ohio, July 6, 1995; and
Elko, Nevada, July 12, 1995. Both hearings will begin at 9:00 a.m. MSHA
requests that persons planning to participate in the public hearings
notify the Agency at least five days prior to the public hearing date.
There will be an opportunity for other persons, who have not made prior
arrangements with MSHA and wish to speak, to register at the beginning
of each public hearing. The public record for the rulemaking will close
on August 18, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held at the following locations:
1. July 6, 1995--Quality Inn Airport, 16161 Brookpark Road,
Cleveland, Ohio 44142.
2. July 12, 1995--Holiday Inn, 3015 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada
89081.
Send requests to make oral presentations to: Mine Safety Health
Administration, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, Room
631, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations and Variances, MSHA, (703) 235-1910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Rulemaking Background
MSHA published comprehensive revisions to its explosives safety
standards for metal and nonmetal mines in January 1991 (56 FR 2070).
Prior to the effective date of the rule, MSHA stayed several provisions
due to compliance issues raised by the mining community and explosives
manufacturers. The provisions involved were subsequently reproposed on
October 16, 1992, (57 FR 47524), and a public hearing was held in April
1993. On December 30, 1993, (58 FR 69596), MSHA published the final
rule which became effective on January 31, 1994. [[Page 30489]]
Some of the mining industry and explosive manufacturers challenged
the final rule. In response to their concerns, MSHA issued Program
Policy Letter (PPL) No. P94-IV-3 on September 30, 1994. This current
policy provides information to the mining community regarding the
proper usage of the IME-22 Container as a ``laminated partition'' under
Secs. 56/57.6000, Secs. 56/57.6133, Secs. 56/57.6201. The Agency also
interpreted the ``continuous loading'' requirements of Secs. 56/
57.6306; clarified the meaning of the term ``good condition'' as it
applies to vehicles used in Secs. 56/57.6202; clarified the application
of Secs. 56/57.6501 regarding double trunklines or loop systems when
using low energy detonating cord with inhole delays; and interpreted
Secs. 56/57.6602(e) on static electricity dissipation during loading as
it applies to the use of plastic hole liners.
On January 5, 1995, MSHA published a proposed rule, (60 FR 1866)
which included revisions to Secs. 56/57.6000 concerning the definition
of ``laminated partition;'' Secs. 56/57.6133 concerning powder chests;
Secs. 56/57.6201 concerning separation of transported explosive
material; Secs. 56/57.6302 concerning separation of explosive material;
Secs. 56/57.6306 concerning loading, blasting and security; and
Secs. 56/57.6602 concerning static electricity dissipation during
loading. Also, the proposal would add a new provision, Secs. 56/57.6905
to address hangup blasting which was merged with requirements for
separation of explosive material; would delete the security provisions
of existing Secs. 56/57.6313 and would incorporate them into proposed
Secs. 56/57.6306; and would clarify in the preamble to the final rule
the meaning of the term ``good condition'' as used in Secs. 56/57.6202.
The standards in part 56 apply to all surface metal and nonmetal mines;
those in part 57 apply to all underground and all surface areas of
underground metal and nonmetal mines.
The comment period closed on March 6, 1995. MSHA received numerous
comments concerning the proposed provisions, including requests for
public hearings.
MSHA is conducting these rulemaking hearings pursuant to section
101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30
U.S.C. 801 et. seq. The purpose of the hearings is to give the public
further opportunity to submit comments on the proposal and to discuss
their concerns. The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner by
a panel of MSHA officials. Although formal rules of evidence or cross-
examination will not apply, the presiding MSHA official may exercise
discretion to ensure the orderly progress of the hearings and may
exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious material and questions.
The hearings will begin with an introduction from MSHA, followed by
an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations.
The hearing panel will be available to address relevant questions. At
the discretion of the presiding official, speakers may be limited to a
maximum of 20 minutes for their presentations. In the interests of
conducting productive hearings, MSHA will schedule speakers in a manner
that allows all points of view to be heard as effectively as possible.
Verbatim transcripts of the proceedings will be prepared and made
part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the hearing transcripts will
be made available to the public for review.
MSHA will also accept for the record additional written comments
and other related data from any interested party, including those who
do not present oral statements. Written comments and data submitted to
MSHA will be included in the rulemaking record. To allow for the
submission of any post-hearing comments, the record will remain open
until August 18, 1995.
B. Issues
Commenters posed various questions about the proposed rule. Of
greatest concern to commenters are the issues discussed below.
1.
Secs. 56/57.6000 Definition of Laminated Partition
Secs. 56/57.6133 Powder Chests
Secs. 56/57.6201 Separation of Transported Explosive Material.
Existing Secs. 56/57.6000 defines the composition of a ``laminated
partition,'' that may be used to separate detonators from other
explosive materials under .6133 and .6201. The existing definition also
states that the IME-22 Container meets the criteria of a ``laminated
partition.'' This definition and the nominal dimensions of the
partition were derived from the Institute of Makers of Explosives'
(IME) Safety Library Publication No. 22, ``Recommendations for the Safe
Transportation of Detonators in a Vehicle with other Explosive
Materials,'' 1985.
IME objected to allowing the container to be used in a manner that
is inconsistent with their recommendations for proper and safe usage.
IME states that the IME-22 Container should not be used as a
``laminated partition'' when certain detonators are transported with
explosives or blasting agents in the same vehicle or stored together in
powder chests.
Existing Secs. 56/57.6133(b) allows the storage of detonators with
other explosives in the same powder chests, as long as they are
separated by 4-inches of hardwood, laminated partition, or equivalent.
Similarly, existing Secs. 56/57.6201 (a)(2) and (b)(2) allow the
transportation of detonators with explosives as long as they are
separated by 4-inches of hardwood, laminated partition, or equivalent.
These current regulations make no distinction between different classes
of detonators.
MSHA proposes minor revisions to the existing definition of
``laminated partition.'' The proposal specifies the construction
requirements for a ``laminated partition'' as described in the IME
Safety Library Publication No. 22 (May 1993), and the Generic Loading
Guide for the IME-22 Container (October 1993). For compliance with
Secs. 56/57.6133(b) and Secs. 56/57.6201 (a)(2) and (b)(2), the
definition would allow alternative construction as well.
In addition, the proposal would revise the existing requirements
for Powder chests, Secs. 56/57.6133, and Separation of transported
explosive material, Secs. 56/57.6201, and require that whenever
operators use the IME-22 Container under these regulations, they must
follow the manufacturer's instructions included in the IME Safety
Library Publication No. 22, ``Recommendations for the Safe
Transportation of Detonators in a Vehicle with other Explosive
Materials,'' (May 1993) and the ``Generic Loading Guide for the IME-22
Container,'' (October 1993).
Some commenters objected to MSHA's reference to the IME
publications because the mining industry has not had an opportunity to
comment on these publications. These commenters state that the IME
publications are recommendations rather than federal regulations
intended for the mining industry.
Regarding the term ``equivalent'' as used in proposed Secs. 56/
57.6133 and Secs. 56/57.6201, some commenters requested that the Agency
define the term, or specify in the regulation that any material or
combination of materials providing the same degree of protection
against the initiating force of detonators is equivalent to 4-inches of
hardwood. At this stage, MSHA believes it would be appropriate to make
this clarification in the preamble to the final regulation.
Another commenter requested that MSHA clarify the intent of the
phrase ``4 inches of hardwood.'' At this stage, [[Page 30490]] MSHA
believes it would be appropriate to do so by stating in the preamble to
the final regulation that the purpose of the 4 inches of hardwood is
not to contain the force of initiated detonators but to provide
sufficient separation of explosive materials from detonators to impede
propagation should detonators be initiated by outside forces.
Finally, commenters recommended that MSHA specify in the regulation
that any transport of explosives over the public highways is subject to
the requirements of the Department of Transportation, Title 49 of Code
of Federal Regulations. MSHA intends to include this advisory in the
preamble to the final rule.
MSHA requests comments regarding the compliance impact on the
mining industry under Secs. 56/57.6133 and Secs. 56/57.6201 requiring
that any laminated partition conform to IME's prescribed usage for
their container, which is also a laminated partition. The IME
documentation is currently available to commenters and is a part of the
rulemaking record. However, MSHA will make this information available
to commenters at the hearings.
2. Sections 56/57.6202 Vehicles
Existing paragraphs (a)(1) require that vehicles containing
explosives be maintained in good condition. In the preamble to the
final standard, some operators believed that the Agency intended for
such vehicles to comply with licensing requirements of Federal, State,
and local authorities for over-the-road use. These operators requested
that the Agency clarify its position regarding the term ``good
condition.'' In response to commenters' concerns, MSHA clarified the
intended meaning of this term through policy and will include this
language in the preamble to the final regulation. MSHA policy provides
that a vehicle in ``good condition'' must be consistent with safe
operating practices.
3. Sections 56/57.6306 Loading, Blasting, and Security.
Existing paragraphs (a) of Secs. 56/57.6306 prohibit vehicles and
other equipment from being driven over explosive material or initiating
systems. Existing paragraph (b) allows haulage activity near the base
of the highwall being loaded, if no other haulage access exists.
MSHA's proposed standard would redesignate these paragraphs,
without change, as new paragraphs (b) and (c).
The proposal also would add a new paragraph (a), which would
require that when explosive materials or initiating systems are brought
to the blast site, the area must be barricaded and posted, or flagged
against unauthorized entry.
Commenters stated that this provision is unnecessary and arbitrary,
because it would require the demarcation of the blast site regardless
of the presence of authorized personnel. These commenters suggested
that MSHA modify the language of the standard by incorporating by
reference the requirements of existing Secs. 56/57.6313, which requires
identification of the blast site only when the site is not attended.
Existing paragraph (c) of Secs. 56/57.6306 require that the loading
process be continuous, with certain exceptions. Currently, MSHA
standards permit interruptions in the loading process for unfavorable
atmospheric conditions, large equipment failure, or circumstances
beyond the operator's control.
Similarly, existing paragraphs (e) of Secs. 56/57.6306 require the
firing of the blast without undue delay, with certain exceptions to
minimize the risk of a partial detonation. The same permissible
interruptions recognized under existing paragraph (c) are identified in
this standard as well. However, the standard specifies that if the
interruption will exceed 72 hours, the operator must notify the
appropriate MSHA District Office before the 72 hours have elapsed.
MSHA's proposal would revise and combine into paragraph (d)(1)
existing paragraphs (c) and (e) and the security provisions of existing
Secs. 56/57.6313 requiring that areas in which loading is suspended or
loaded holes are awaiting firing be attended, barricaded and posted or
flagged against unauthorized entry. The proposal would also delete the
72 hour notification requirement of existing paragraph (e).
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) of Secs. 56/57.6306 would require that
loading and firing of a blast be performed without undue interruption
or delay. If loading is interrupted or firing of the blast is delayed
for any reason, the proposed standard would require that the mine be
attended to prevent unauthorized entry to the blast site.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 57.6306, for underground mines
only, would add an additional sentence specifying that underground
areas are secure against unauthorized entry when the entrance to the
mine is through vertical shafts and inclined shafts or adits when
locked at the surface.
MSHA specifies in the preamble to the proposal that the presence of
maintenance and other personnel during off-shift and weekends could
satisfy the requirements of the proposal, provided they prevent
unauthorized entry to the blast site when loading is interrupted or
firing is delayed.
Commenters objected to the proposed requirements as unreasonable,
costly and burdensome, and requested that MSHA clarify the standard,
specifically to reflect that the mine be attended rather than the blast
site. Further, these commenters suggested that MSHA delete the phrase
``to prevent unauthorized entry to the blast site'' from the proposal
because they believe that blast site would be protected by the proposed
requirements in paragraph (a). Finally, these commenters objected to
MSHA's concerns for trespassers as the basis for the regulation.
Other commenters requested that MSHA define what constitutes
``undue delay'' within the proposed regulation.
With regard to the underground provisions of proposed paragraph
(d)(1), commenters indicated that the provisions were unrealistic and
broad in that, in some instances, it is infeasible to require that
inclined shafts and adits be locked or attended, since there are many
multiple-adit mines that cannot be locked. Other commenters indicated
that the underground requirements of proposed paragraph (d)(1) cannot
be met without having a negative impact on compliance with MSHA
ventilation requirements.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) of Secs. 56/57.6306 would require persons
securing a blast site at a surface mine or at the surface area of an
underground mine to withdraw from the blast site during the approach
and progress of an electrical storm. For underground mines, MSHA
proposes to include a new provision requiring that persons who are used
to secure an underground blast site involving an electrical blasting
operation capable of being initiated by lightning must be withdrawn
from the blast site into a safe location. These proposed provisions are
derived from existing Secs. 56/57.6604, which requires the suspension
of blasting operations and the withdrawal of all personnel from the
blast area to a safe location during the approach and progress of an
electrical storm.
Existing paragraphs (d) of Secs. 56/57.6306 require that in
electric blasting prior to connecting to the power source, and in
nonelectric blasting, prior to attaching an initiating device, all
persons vacate the blast area except persons in a blasting shelter or
other safe location. MSHA's proposal would redesignate this provision
as paragraph (e) without change.
Existing paragraphs (f) require clear escape routes from the blast
area, and all access to the blast area be protected
[[Page 30491]] against entry. Existing paragraphs (g) require, in part,
that post-blast examinations be conducted by a person having the
ability and experience to perform the examination. No changes were
proposed to these existing paragraphs.
4. Sections 56/57.6302 Separation of Explosive Material. Sections 56/
57.6905 Separation of Explosive Material and Hang-Up Blasting
Existing paragraphs (a) of Secs. 56/57.6302 require that explosives
and blasting agents be kept separated from detonators until loading
begins. Paragraphs (b) require that explosive material be protected
from impact and temperatures in excess of 150 deg.F when taken to the
blast site.
This standard was promulgated under the ``Use'' portion of the
explosives regulations. Shortly after publication, MSHA received
information indicating a need to clarify that explosive material must
be protected from impact during transportation and storage as well.
MSHA agrees and the proposal would expand the scope of existing
paragraph (b) to the cover storage and transportation, in addition to
use. The Agency received no comments concerning proposed Secs. 56/
57.6302 and proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of Secs. 56/57.6905.
Under MSHA's proposal, the existing requirements of paragraph (a)
of Secs. 56/57.6302 would remain unchanged. The proposal, however,
would revise the section heading to ``Separation of explosive
material.''
Proposed Sec. 57.6905, would include a new paragraph (c), which
would require the use of detonating cord to initiate explosives placed
in raises, chutes and ore passes to free hang-ups. MSHA's proposed rule
would not preclude the use of such devices as ballistic disks which are
initiated by a detonating cord.
With regard to proposed paragraph (c) of Sec. 57.6905, commenters
found the proposal too restrictive in that it would limit commonly
accepted methods of blasting. Specifically, these commenters stated
that the use of detonating cord as proposed by MSHA may introduce
inherent hazards such as fire from the ignition of timber, loosening
timber or other supports, contributing to fly rock, and loosening rib
and back. These commenters also believe that MSHA's proposed standard
would restrict technological developments in this area and questioned
MSHA's evidence for requiring that operators use detonator cord in
blasting hang-ups.
5. Sections 56/57.6313, Blast Site Security
As explained above, existing Secs. 56/57.6313 requires that areas
in which loading is suspended or loaded holes are awaiting firing be
attended, barricaded and posted, or flagged against unauthorized entry.
MSHA's proposed rule would revise and incorporate the security
provisions of existing Secs. 56/57.6313 into Secs. 56/57.6306 to ensure
that the blast site is secure at all times.
6. Sections 56/57.6602 Static Electricity Dissipation During Loading
Existing Secs. 56/57.6602 address the build-up of static
electricity during pneumatic loading or dropping of explosive material
into a blasthole and require that when explosive material is loaded
pneumatically or dropped into a blasthole in a manner that could
generate static electricity, an evaluation must be made of potential
static electricity hazards and the hazard must be eliminated before
loading begins.
Following publication of the final rule, MSHA received technical
information indicating that the scope of this provision may be too
broad because the term ``dropping'' encompasses dropping, pouring, or
auguring explosive materials into blastholes which are performed at a
low velocity. As a result, the generation of static electricity is
insufficient to initiate the primer.
MSHA clarified the scope of the final standard through policy by
interpreting the standard to apply only to pneumatic loading of
explosive material. As indicated in the PPL, MSHA intends to delete the
term ``dropping'' from the introductory text of existing Secs. 56/
57.6602. Some commenters believe that the provision, as revised, would
still be too restrictive.
7. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Based on an analysis of the impact of the proposed rule, MSHA
estimates that the total annual recurring cost impact would be about
$70,000. All of these costs are attributable to the attended provision
of paragraph (d)(1) of Secs. 56/57.6306. The total cost impact on all
small mines, those employing fewer than 20 miners, would be nominal.
Some commenters stated that MSHA significantly understates the
expense that will result from this requirement. These commenters
believe that they would either have to hire specific persons for
security or use managerial personnel which would cost approximately
$300,000 annually. Another commenter stated that MSHA's analysis
considered only medium-sized underground and most open pit mines, but
did not adequately consider large mines.
Dated: June 2, 1995.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 95-14305 Filed 6-7-95; 12:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P