Safety Standards for Explosives at Metal and Nonmetal Mines

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