In the matter of
Clark Elkhorn Coal Company
Ratliff Mine No. 111
I.D. No. 15-17776
| Petition for Modification
Docket No. M-96-204-C
|
PROPOSED DECISION AND ORDER
On December 23, 1996, a petition was filed seeking a modification of the application of 30 CFR 75.388 to Petitioner's Ratliff Mine No. 111, located in Pike County, Kentucky. The Petitioner alleges that application of the standard will result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the alternative method outlined in the petition will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the standard.
Specifically, the petitioner requested a waiver of the requirement for borehole drilling at distances greater than 50 feet of the Hopkins Creek Coal Company Mine No. 1 and averred the request should be granted for the following reasons:
1. Although CFR 75.388(3) clearly states that drilling is required whenever a working place approaches with 200 feet of an adjacent mine unless the mine workings have been preshift examined we believe this to be overly stringent at this location.
2. The “Hopkins Creek” mine was operated until the early 1980's. The engineering survey and mapping work was done by personnel of the TCH Coal Company. The surveys were based on the Kentucky State Plane Coordinate System with close looped survey control points. The “Clark Elkhorn” mine has been engineered with the same coordinate system and has control from the same stations. A close loop survey has been done between the mines that verifies the accuracy of the relative positioning of the mines. Due to the accuracy and the interaction of the survey and mapping of the two mines we believe that they should be considered as one mine in terms of 30 CFR 75.388 instead of two adjacent mines.
3. A mobile coal drill is used to borehole drill at this mine. The drill is a cable equipped, 480 VAC powered electric machine. Bore hole drilling requires one to two people, working the majority of the time to stay ahead of the mining operation. The drilling effort to maintain compliance with the 200 foot distance is about 2 to 3 times greater than complying with the 50 foot distance. This additional effort increases the operator exposure to the hazards inherent with borehole drilling.
4. Borehole drilling requires handling of 10 foot sections of drill steel in a low seam work environment (approximately 38 to 44 inches). The drill steel weighs approximately 20 pounds, is awkward to handle and can result in material handling injuries such as pulled muscles, pinched fingers and etc..
5. The 200 foot drill requirement causes the mobile drill to be moved across much of the section, increasing the potential for impact with other equipment or miners.
MSHA personnel conducted an investigation of the petition and filed a report of their findings and recommendations with the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health. After a careful review of the entire record, including the petition and MSHA's investigative report and recommendation, this Proposed Decision and Order is issued.
Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law
Application of 30 CFR 75.388 to the subject mine will not result in a diminution of safety to the miners and the alternative method proposed by the petitioner will not at all times provide a safe work environment to the miners.
MSHA’s investigation of the requested modification concluded that application of the standard did not diminish the safety of miners. The investigation found that the mine had no reported lost time accidents since opening. In addition, interviews with the miners operating the borehole drilling machinery identified no problems with pulled muscles, pinched fingers or other injuries occurring with greater frequency when operating the borehole drill than when doing other necessary mining activity. It is MSHA’s position that well trained miners, operating appropriate and properly maintained mining equipment can, safely and without detriment to their health, complete their assigned duties.
The petitioner has requested a waiver of the standard which requires the drilling of boreholes when approaching within 200 feet of an adjacent mine [30 CFR 75.388(a)(3)] and not commencing the drilling of boreholes until approaching within 50 feet of the adjacent mine as if it were an area of the same mine as shown by surveys that are certified by a registered engineer or registered surveyor [30 CFR 75.388(a)(1)].
The adjacent mines have been unventilated and unexamined since their closure approximately 12 years ago. These are precisely the kind of mine workings addressed by the standard under 30 CFR 75.388(a)(3). The petitioner's allegation that the abandoned mine(s) had been accurately surveyed does not assure precise information. Unidentified surveying or mapping errors; unmapped mine working; unrecorded locations of roof falls or floor heave; and unrecorded rolls in the coal seam, may have occurred and the lack of complete information can be misleading. Moreover, there may be locations where water or noxious or explosive gases may have accumulated and are detectable only by entering the area and conducting a preshift examination or by the drilling of boreholes in advance of mining.
The Petitioner has provided supplemental information that, throughout the execution of the alternative drilling program approved by MSHA’s District Manager for the mine under 30 CFR 75.388(g), boreholes have been drilled into the adjacent mine(s) without encountering water or inflows of oxygen deficient air. MSHA believes this information supports the District Manager’s judgment that the alternative borehole pattern provides the same measure of protection as the pattern established by paragraphs (b) and (c). It may also justify further modifications of the alternative borehole pattern but does not justify suspension of all borehole drilling. The supplemental information submitted in support of the petition is too brief and unsubstantiated to assure a further reduction in borehole drilling is appropriate. In any event, adjustments to the alternative borehole pattern resides within the approval authority of the MSHA District Manager.
Based on MSHA’s thorough evaluation of all information regarding this Petition, the Agency has concluded that Clark Elkhorn Coal Company should not be granted a modification of the application of 30 CFR 75.388 to its Ratliff Mine No. 111.
ORDER
Wherefore, pursuant to the authority delegated by the Secretary of Labor to the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health, and pursuant to Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C., sec. 811(c), it is ordered that Clark Elkhorn Coal Company’s Petition for Modification of the application of 30 CFR 75.388 in the Ratliff Mine No. 111 is hereby:
DENIED.
Any party to this action desiring a hearing on this matter must file in accordance with 30 CFR 44.14, within 30 days. The request for hearing must be filed with the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
If a hearing is requested, the request shall contain a concise summary of position on the issues of fact or law desired to be raised by the party requesting the hearing, including specific objections to the proposed decision. A party other than Petitioner who has requested a hearing shall also comment upon all issues of fact or law presented in the petition, and any party to this action requesting a hearing may indicate a desired hearing site. If no request for a hearing is filed within 30 days after service thereof, the Decision and Order will become final and must be posted by the operator on the mine bulletin board at the mine.
_________________________________
Robert A. Elam
Deputy Administrator
for Coal Mine Safety and Health
|
