[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38646-38649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16840]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory
Safety Standard
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice is a summary of petitions for modification
submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the
parties listed below.
DATES: All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before September 6,
2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by ``docket
number'' on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number of the
petition in the subject line of the message.
2. Facsimile: 202-693-9441.
3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452, Attention: Sheila McConnell, Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. Persons delivering
documents are required to check in at the receptionist's desk in Suite
4E401. Individuals may inspect a copy of the petition and comments
during normal business hours at the address listed above.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal
Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS
or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roslyn Fontaine, Deputy Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9475
(voice), [email protected] (email), or 202-693-9441 (fax). [These
are not toll-free numbers.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of
petitions for modification.
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
(Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file
a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard
to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary)
determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard
exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure
of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result
in a
[[Page 38647]]
diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish
the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M-2019-002-M.
Petitioner: Graymont (PA) Inc., 375 Graymont Road, Bellefonte,
Pennsylvania 16823.
Mine: Graymont (PA) Inc. Pleasant Gap, MSHA I.D. 36-06468, located
in Centre County, Pennsylvania.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.14105 (Procedures during repairs or
maintenance).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance during
its automated and robotic bagging operations. The petitioner proposes a
Category Three PLC Interlock energy-control method (PLC Interlock) as a
means of compliance with existing energy-control and lockout/tagout
methods.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The petitioner uses automated and robotic bagging systems at
the mine. The bagging systems are equipped with area guarding that
includes a PLC Interlock.
(2) With the automated and robotic bagging systems, miners need to
perform routine operational tasks such as: Removing broken bags from
the hydrate spout, emptying bag falls on the discharge conveyor, fixing
pallet alignment on the pallet infeed, adjusting slip sheets on the
pallet, replacing empty or torn bags on the robot, removing film from
the stretch hood machine, removing overweight bags from the open mouth
packer, removing bags at the flattener if reset is tripped, and
cleaning sensors in order to ensure good operating function of the
equipment. These tasks are routine, low risk, very limited in duration,
and performed by miners trained on the equipment.
(3) To perform such tasks, miners are required to open the door and
enter the area beyond the physical guarding (Operating Area),
necessitating energy control procedures.
(4) Isolating power from the control computers upwards of 15-20
times per shift to perform routine non-maintenance tasks will cause
computer and mechanical failures that would result in increased non-
routine maintenance tasks that pose greater risk to miners. Only
control power shutdowns will uphold the level of safety inherent in
complete source power shutdown and will further maintain the lifespan
and integrity of the equipment. This would have the effect of reducing
required maintenance and making the equipment safer, which enhances
miner safety.
(5) The PLC Interlock method does not cut full source power to the
area and equipment surrounding the Operating Area. The equipment
adjacent to the Operating Area does have electricity flow, with power
cables still carrying power to the system as a whole, even though
control power to the Operating Area where the miners work is cut off.
The petitioner proposes the following terms and conditions:
(a) To control energy related to this system, once a worker enters
the Operating Area, the PLC Interlock system would engage and the
electronic Category Three interlocks within the door completely cut
control power to the area in order to ensure there would not be any
unexpected reenergization or movement of the equipment being accessed.
(b) The PLC Interlock method also includes lockable mechanisms on
all applicable doors whereby a miner can lock the interlock with a
traditional lockout/tagout padlock, such that the lock(s) can only be
removed by the miner who installed them or by other authorized
personnel.
(c) Suitable notices are posted at the power switch and signed by
the miner assigned the tasks.
(d) Only upon completion of the tasks, the miner would remove the
lock, unlock the gate, close the gate, leave the Operating Area, walk
to the control panel, reset the system, and restart operation by
reenergizing the control system while ensuring no miners are exposed to
an unexpected release of energy or any associated potential hazards.
PLC Interlock devices are designed so that the safety-related parts of
the control system do not have a single fault that could lead to loss
of safety function. The PLC Interlock devices are designed with
redundancy to ensure that a failure within the device will not allow
operation of the machine. Additionally, miners are not exposed to any
live electrical conductors when they work beyond the guarding.
(e) Component failures are protected via redundant and fail-safe
design, and the computer program is not controlling the system when the
interlocks are not met. Program errors, power surges, or magnetic field
interference could not cause the equipment to operate because every
time an operator stops the system, the computer program must be reset
and re-started.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will
provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners
under the existing standard.
Docket Number: M-2019-003-M.
Petitioner: Graymont (PA) Inc., 375 Graymont Road, Bellefonte,
Pennsylvania 16823.
Mine: Graymont (PA) Inc. Pleasant Gap, MSHA I.D. 36-06468, located
in Centre County, Pennsylvania.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.12016 (Work on electrically-powered
equipment).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance during
its automated and robotic bagging operations. The petitioner proposes a
Category Three PLC Interlock energy-control method (PLC Interlock) as a
means of compliance with existing energy-control and lockout/tagout
methods.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The petitioner uses automated and robotic bagging systems at
the mine. The bagging systems are equipped with area guarding that
includes a PLC Interlock.
(2) With the automated and robotic bagging systems, miners need to
perform routine operational tasks such as: Removing broken bags from
the hydrate spout, emptying bag falls on the discharge conveyor, fixing
pallet alignment on the pallet infeed, adjusting slip sheets on the
pallet, replacing empty or torn bags on the robot, removing film from
the stretch hood machine, removing overweight bags from the open mouth
packer, removing bags at the flattener if reset is tripped, and
cleaning sensors in order to ensure good operating function of the
equipment. These tasks are routine, low risk, very limited in duration,
and performed by miners trained on the equipment.
(3) To perform such tasks, miners are required to open the door and
enter the area beyond the physical guarding (Operating Area),
necessitating energy control procedures.
(4) Isolating power from the control computers upwards of 15-20
times per shift to perform routine non-maintenance tasks will cause
computer and mechanical failures that would result in increased non-
routine maintenance tasks that pose greater risk to miners. Only
control power shutdowns will uphold the level of safety inherent in
complete source power shutdown and will further maintain the lifespan
and integrity of the equipment. This would have the effect of reducing
required maintenance and making the equipment safer, which enhances
miner safety.
[[Page 38648]]
(5) The PLC Interlock method does not cut full source power to the
area and equipment surrounding the Operating Area. The equipment
adjacent to the Operating Area does have electricity flow, with power
cables still carrying power to the system as a whole, even though
control power to the Operating Area where the miners work is cut off.
The petitioner proposes the following terms and conditions:
(a) To control energy related to this system, once a worker enters
the Operating Area, the PLC Interlock system would engage and the
electronic Category Three interlocks within the door completely cut
control power to the area in order to ensure there would not be any
unexpected reenergization or movement of the equipment being accessed.
(b) The PLC Interlock method also includes lockable mechanisms on
all applicable doors whereby a miner can lock the interlock with a
traditional lockout/tagout padlock, such that the lock(s) can only be
removed by the miner who installed them or by other authorized
personnel.
(c) Suitable notices are posted at the power switch and signed by
the miner assigned the tasks.
(d) Only upon completion of the tasks, the miner would remove the
lock, unlock the gate, close the gate, leave the Operating Area, walk
to the control panel, reset the system, and restart operation by
reenergizing the control system while ensuring no miners are exposed to
an unexpected release of energy or any associated potential hazards.
PLC Interlock devices are designed so that the safety-related parts of
the control system do not have a single fault that could lead to loss
of safety function. The PLC Interlock devices are designed with
redundancy to ensure that a failure within the device will not allow
operation of the machine. Additionally, miners are not exposed to any
live electrical conductors when they work beyond the guarding.
(e) Component failures are protected via redundant and fail-safe
design, and the computer program is not controlling the system when the
interlocks are not met. Program errors, power surges, or magnetic field
interference could not cause the equipment to operate because every
time an operator stops the system, the computer program must be reset
and re-started.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will
provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners
under the existing standard.
Docket Number: M-2019-004-M.
Petitioner: Solvay Chemicals, Inc., P.O. Box 1167, 400 County Road
85, Green River, WY 82935.
Mine: Solvay Chemicals, Inc. Mine, MSHA I.D. 48-01295, located in
Sweetwater County, WY.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.22305 (Approved equipment (III
mines)).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance for the
respiratory protection of miners. The petitioner proposes to use non-
MSHA approved, intrinsically safe battery-powered air purifying
respirators (PAPR) to protect miners from potential exposure to
respirable dust and ammonia gas during normal mining conditions in or
in by the last open crosscut and where methane may be present.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The operator may use the following battery-powered PAPR units
to provide respiratory protection for personnel, subject to the
conditions of this petition:
--Sundstr[ouml]m SR 500 EX
--Drager X-plore 8000
--3M TR-800 Versaflo
The petitioner proposes the following terms and conditions:
(a) The batteries for the PAPRs will be charged outby the last open
crosscut when not in operation.
(b) Affected miners will be trained in the proper use and care of
the PAPR units in accordance with manufacturers' instructions.
(c) If methane is detected in concentrations of 1.0 percent or
more, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 57.22234 will be followed.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will
provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners
under the existing standard.
Docket Number: M-2019-05-M.
Petitioner: Nevada Gold Mines, LLC, 1655 Mountain City Highway,
Elko, Nevada 89801.
Mine: Genesis Mine, MSHA I.D. 26-00062, 26 Miles on SR766, North of
Carlin, Carlin, Nevada 89822, located in Eureka County, Nevada.
South Area Mine, MSHA I.D. 26-00500, 6 Miles on SR766, North of
Carlin, Carlin, Nevada, located in Eureka County, Nevada.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 56.6309(b) (Fuel oil requirements for
ANFO).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to allow the use of recycled used waste oil blended
with diesel fuel (blended oil) to prepare ammonium nitrate fuel oil
(ANFO).
The petitioner states that:
(1) On July 1, 2019, petitioner assumed the operation of multiple
gold mines in Nevada, including Goldstrike Mine, Genesis Mine and South
Area Mine.
(2) Blended oil has been approved for use to prepare ANFO at
petitioner's Goldstrike Mine, pursuant to MSHA's Amended Decision and
Order of December 1, 1998, reinstated by Decision and Order of November
4, 2011, granting modification of the application of 30 CFR 56.6309(b)
at Goldstrike Mine (Goldstrike Modification Order). The petitioner
states that it seeks only to use the blended oil that has already been
recycled and tested at Goldstrike Mine according to the conditions set
out in the Goldstrike Modification Order in its ANFO blasting agents,
and use the blended oil prepared and approved for use at Goldstrike
Mine in ANFO mixtures at petitioner's Genesis Mine and South Area Mine.
(3) The Genesis Mine and South Area Mine are open-pit gold mines
that consist of series of sediment hosted Carlin-style gold deposits.
The Genesis Mine is adjacent to the Goldstrike Mine. The principle
blasting method to be applied at both mines involves the use of ANFO
loaded in pre-drilled blast holes, similar to the blasting methods at
Goldstrike Mine. The petitioner states that it intends to ignite
approximately 1,000 blast holes per month at each mine.
The petitioner proposes the following terms and conditions:
(a) The ANFO blasting agents the petitioner seeks to load in its
blast holes at Genesis Mine and South Area Mine will consist of blended
oil prepared at Goldstrike Mine according to the conditions set forth
in the Goldstrike Modification Order, combined with ammonium nitrate.
(b) The ammonium nitrate to be combined with the blended oil to
create ANFO will be stored separate and apart from the blended oil in
three 100-ton silos in a locked and secured compound in the same
vicinity at Goldstrike Mine. Only authorized blasting personnel will
have access to the blended oil and ammonium nitrate storage facilities.
(c) The blended oil and ammonium nitrate will be transported from
Goldstrike Mine to the respective blast sties at Genesis Mine and South
Area Mine in separate containers and will be combined at each mine only
as part of the actual process of loading the blast holes. The same
certified blasting personnel operating at Goldstrike Mine
[[Page 38649]]
will perform blasting operations at Genesis Mine and South Area Mine.
(d) The ANFO will not be used in confined spaces or underground
blasting operations. The ANFO will be used only at Genesis Mine and
South Area Mine, and not be sold or transported to other mine
properties.
(e) The petitioner will maintain a daily ``load'' and ``shot''
report detailing all holes loaded and shots fired which contain the
ANFO.
(f) Emulsions (heavy ANFO) will not be used with the recycled oil
unless the emulsion manufacturer certifies compatibility of the product
with the oil.
(g) Misfires/hangfires which are reasonably suspected to have been
caused by the blended oil will be reported to the MSHA District Manager
in a timely manner.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at
all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection
afforded by the existing standard.
Sheila McConnell,
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. 2019-16840 Filed 8-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P