Inthe matter of Petition for Modification
Twentymile Coal Company
Foidel Creek Mine
IDNo.05-03836 DocketNo. M-1999-142-C
PROPOSED DECISIONAND ORDER
On November 29, 1999, Twentymile Coal Company (Twentymile) filed a petition for modification of the application of 30 CFR 75.1908(a)(5) to its FoidelCreek Mine locatedin Routt County, Colorado. On April 11, 2000 Twentymile filed an amendment to the petition to seek modification of 30 CFR 75.1909(c) ratherthan 75.1908(a)(5). On May 18, 2001, Twentymile amended the petition a second time to seek modification once again of 30 CFR 75.1908(a)(5) rather than 75.1909(c). Finally, on June 3, 2002, Twentymile amended the petition to include additional provisions to the proposedalternative method.
The Petitioner allegesthat the alternative method outlined in thepetition and its amendments will at all times guaranteeno less than the same measureof protection affordedby the standard.
MSHA personnel conductedtwo investigations of the petitionand amended petition and filed reportsof their findingsand recommendations with the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health. After a careful reviewof the entire record, including the petition and MSHA'sinvestigative reports and recommendations, this Proposed Decisionand Order is issued.
Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law
Twentymile’s petition initially sought modification of 30 CFR 75.1908(a)(5) to permit use of diesel-powered pickup trucks to towdiesel fuel transportation units. The diesel equipment standard at 30 CFR 75.1908 categorizes diesel powered equipment according to its use. Ifpickup trucks are used to tow fuel transportation units,they are categorized as heavy duty equipment. As heavy duty equipmentthey must complywith the design and performance standards for nonpermissible diesel powered equipment at 30 CFR 75.1909. Section 75.1908(a)(5) defines non-permissible heavy duty dieselequipment by function. Because the alternative methodalleged in Twentymile’s petition concerns the designand performance standards which apply to diesel equipment performing heavy duty functions, the petition is beingtreated as a request for modification of the mandatory safety standard at 30 CFR 75.1909(c).
Machines used to transport portablediesel fuel transportation units are classified as heavy duty equipment becausethey pull heavy loadsand usually move with frequencyaround the section. When transporting large quantities of diesel fuel any collision or accident has the potential to create a major fire hazard. Such movement also places a high load on the equipment for extended periods of time. This heavy use can place a burden on thebrakes and can result in high exhaustsystem temperatures which createan ignition hazard. For these reasons, MSHA requires heavy duty non-permissible equipment to have a supplemental braking system as requiredby Section 75.1909(c), a fire suppression system as requiredby Section 75.1911,and a weekly repeatable loaded engine emissiontest as required by Section 75.1914(g). The diesel powered pickuptrucks are equipped with a fire suppression systempursuant to Section 75.1911. Twentymile agreedto perform the weekly repeatable loaded emission test as required by Sections 75.1914(g) should the modification be granted. Finally, heavy duty non-permissible equipment must comply with the emissionlimits for diesel particulate matter required by 30 CFR 72.501 which, as a health standard, cannot be modified throughthe petition for modification process.
Section 75.1909(c) of 30 CFR requires self-propelled nonpermissible diesel-powered equipment as definedunder 30 CFR 75.1908(a) to be providedwith a supplemental braking system that:
a) Engages automatically within5 seconds of shutdown of the engine;
b) Safely brings the equipment when fully loaded to a complete stop on the maximum grade on which it is operated;
c) Holds the equipmentstationary, despite any contraction of brakeparts, exhaustion of any nonmechanical source of energy, or leakage;
d) Releases only by a manualcontrol that does not operateany other equipment function;
e) Has a means in the equipment operator’s compartment to apply thebrakes manually withoutshutting down the engine, and a means to release and reengagethe brakes withoutthe engine operating; and,
f) Has a means to ensurethat the supplemental braking system is released before the equipmentcan be trammed, and is designed to ensure the brake is fully releasedat all times while the equipment is trammed.
MSHA’s investigations determined that the mine’shaulage roads extend 5.5 to 6 miles to the face areas and have extended sections with up to a 16 percent grade. There are 30 heavyduty diesel units at the mine used for utility, cleanupand mine supply. Currently, fuel trailers are towed from the surfaceto the section areasby permissible heavyduty diesel powered equipment.
Twentymile’s proposed alternative method is to allow light duty diesel-powered pickup trucksto tow fuel transportation units. There are four diesel fuel transportation units at the mine which areall equipped with an automatic fire suppression system. The diesel-powered pickup trucks are delivered from the manufacturer with no bed. A flat bed, bumper and a pintle hitch are then installed. The pickup trucks are equipped with an automaticfire suppression system and they complywith all Part 75 light duty equipment requirements. The trucks are equippedwith the standard OEM braking system which does not complywith the supplemental brakingrequirements of Section1909(c) of 30 CFR.
Twentymile alleged that the pickup trucks were used to haul the fueltransportation units withoutincident prior to November 25, 1999,the effective date of the standard. However, MSHA’s investigation found that the pickup truckssustain considerable body damageon the front, back, and on both sides. Maintenance records confirmed that the pickuptrucks sustain much damage. Even though the trucks mighthave been used only on occasion for towing fuel trailers, the vehicles have sustained extraordinary wear and tear and are rarelyserviceable for the anticipated 5 yearservice life accordingto the maintenance records. Because motor vehicle accidents may not need to be reportedunder Part 50 requirements, MSHA cannot concludethat pickup trucks can safely transport fuel transportation unitsbased upon the allegation that no accidents have been reported at the mine.
Twentymile’s original proposedalternative method provided”that diesel-powered pickup trucks utilized to tow diesel fuel transportation units will be only so utilizedif the rated capacity of the truck exceedsthe load by a fractionof 50 percent.” Twentymile later explained that this meantthat the rated load capacity of the dieselpowered pickup truckscapable of handling a minimum of 150 percentof the fuel trailer weight. For example, if the load of the fuel transportation unit is 6500 pounds, the towing capacityof the truck must be greater than 9750 pounds (6500 + 50% of 6500). Limiting the maximum trailer weight significantly below the operatingcapacity of the towing vehicle might ensure that the suspension and braking capacityare not exceeded. However, this would not provide protection from the potential fire and explosionhazards associated with transporting large quantities of diesel fuel 5 to 6 miles,in and out of the mine, over gradesof up to 16 percent. In this same regard, limitingthe diesel fuel trailer weightmight reduce the possibility of exceeding the capabilities of the vehicle’s service braking system; however,it does not eliminate the potential for a fire resulting from service brakefailure.
The standard brakingsystem on the pickup truck is not designed to be a secondary or supplemental brakingsystem capable of safelybringing the fully loaded vehicleto a complete stop on itsmaximum allowable grade. The standard requires a supplemental braking system on vehicles used to transportdiesel fuel to ensurethat the vehicleis provided with a primary service brake system and a secondary or supplemental braking system. The supplementary or secondary brakingsystem must be capable of stopping and holding the fully loaded vehicle on the maximum grade. It must have a means of ensuring that the system isreleased before the equipment can be trammed. This serves to address the hazard of dragging brakeswhich were the cause of numerous fires reported in the Ontariofire data. In the course of developing this standard, MSHA reviewed accidentdata from the Province of Ontario Canada. The data detailed fires on diesel powered equipment in underground mines from 1984 to 1992. Of 289 firesduring this period,one fire involveda fuel trailer, 13 fires involvedutility trucks, and 5 fires involved personnel carriers. Diesel fuel was the source for 25 of the 289 fires. The excessive heat from draggingbrakes is a potential ignition source. The standardprovides protection from fire and explosion hazards associated with transporting large quantities of diesel fuel. Limiting the load capacity of the dieselpowered pickup trucks does not provideat all times the same measure of protection as the supplemental braking system requiredby the standard.
Twentymile also proposedas an alternative method “that diesel fuel transportation units towed by a pickuptruck will be equipped with automatic fire suppression devicespursuant to 30 CFR Section 75.1911.” A fire suppression device is not required on afuel transportation unit unless it has an ignition device such as electric power for a dispensing pump. Thefuel transportation units at this mine do not have an ignition source ofthis type and are not required to have a fire suppression device. However, addinga fire suppression device wouldnot increase fire protection. A fire suppression devicewould not offer the same measureof protection as a supplemental braking system. The supplemental brakingsystem reduces the potential for catastrophic accidentsor fire due to servicebrake malfunctioning. A runaway fuel transportation unit on the significant grades at this mine could result in diesel fuel being spilled in areas of the mine where other potentialignition sources are present. A supplemental braking system could also eliminate a potential ignitionsource caused by a draggingpark brake. A fuel trailer’s fire suppression systemwould be ineffective in extinguishing or suppressing a fire causedby this type of accident. For these reasons, the additionof an automatic fire suppression deviceto the fuel transportation unit does not at all times providethe same measureof protection as the supplemental braking systemrequired by the standard.
Twentymile amended the proposed alternative method to provide “that the diesel-powered pickuptrucks utilized to tow diesel fuel transportation units shall be equippedwith an automatic fire suppression system meetingthe requirements of 30 CFR 75.1911.” Diesel-powered pickup trucks categorized as light duty equipment are required to be equippedwith a manual or automatic fire suppression system. The pickuptrucks at this mine are already equipped with an automatic fire suppression system. This provision does not provideadditional protection, nor does it provide at all timesthe same measureof protection as the supplemental braking systemrequired by the standard.
Twentymile further amendedthe proposed alternative method to provide “thatdiesel fuel transportation units being towedby a pickup truckshall be equippedwith an adequateelectric braking system.” The electricbraking system would be capableof stopping and holdingthe fully loaded diesel fuel transportation unit on the maximum grade of the mine. MSHA’s investigation determined that the dieselfuel trailers are already equipped with an electric brakingsystem. Manufacturers recommend that these types of trailersbe equipped with either a hydraulic or electric brake system. Also, the pickup truckmanufacturer recommends that trailersweighing over 1000 pounds be equipped with brakes, and requires trailersweighing over 2000 pounds to be equipped with brakes. The manufacturer of the trailersused as fuel transportation units at the mine recommended that the trailer axle be equippedwith brakes unlessthe gross vehicle weight of the traileraxle is less than 3000 pounds. Brakes on trailers used in underground coal mines are not mandatory under MSHA regulations; however,it is recommended that trailers weighing over 3000 poundsbe equipped with brakes. Trailer brakes are intendedto assist the towing vehiclesbraking system and are not supplemental or secondary brakes. The standard service braking systemon a pickup truck is not designedto handle the additional load of a trailer weighingover 1000 pounds.
MSHA’s investigation found that the brakes for the diesel-powered pickup trucks at the mine requirean inordinate amount of maintenance. These pickup truckswere not built for the mining environment. Brakes can wear out prematurely and overheat when towing the additional weightof a trailer. Trailer brakes can compensate for the additional wear to the brakes on the diesel powered pickup trucks; however,they cannot provideat all times the same measureof protection as the supplemental braking system required by the standard.
Finally, Twentymile amendedthe alternative methodto provide “that diesel-powered pickup trucks utilizedto tow diesel fuel transportation units shall be equipped with an adequatetrailer hitch and safetychains.” MSHA’s investigation determined that Twentymile’s fuel transportation units use a long lengthof chain that has both ends welded to each side of the trailer tongue. The chain would be connected to the pickuptruck by threading it through two straightclevises that are welded to the bumperon each side of the hitch. Both the pickup truck owner’s manualand the industry standard(SAE J684; TrailerCoupling, Hitches, and Safety Chains – Automotive Type) specify a class IV trailer hitch when towing a trailerweighing more than 5000 poundsand the use ofa safety chain. The use of a class IV hitch and safety chain isalways recommended. MSHA determined that the safetychain rigging between the diesel fuel trailer and the towingvehicle were not in accordance with the SAE standard referenced above. Trailer hitches and safety chainsare always recommended, but they do not provide at all times the same measure of protection as the supplemental braking systemrequired by the standard.
Twentymile’s proposed alternative method specifies initialand refresher training whichwould be providedprior to implementation of the alternative method as part of a revised Part 48 training plan for all diesel-powered pickup truck operators towingdiesel fuel transportation units. In addition, the alternative method would not be implemented until MSHA had inspected the equipment. Twentymile is already requiredto provide initial and refresher trainingfor all miners in accordance with Part 48 and MSHA already inspectsthe equipment at the mine. Consequently, these provisions would not provide additional protection.
MSHA has evaluated the potential safetybenefits of each provision of Twentymile’s proposedalternative as described above. MSHA has also considered the overall safetybenefits for all of the provisions of the proposedalternative method and has concluded that they do not provide at all timesthe same measure of protection as the standard. The standard requires a supplemental brakingsystem which wouldat all times provide protection from the fire and explosionhazards associated with transporting large quantities of diesel fuel 5 to 6 milesin and out of the mine and up and down grades of up to 16 percent. Limiting load capacity, installing fire suppression systems, installing electrictrailer brakes on the fuel transportation unit, and utilizing trailer hitchesand tow chainswill not at alltimes provide the same measureof protection as would the supplemental braking system requiredby the standard.
On the basisof the petition and the findings of MSHA's investigations, Twentymile Coal Companyis not granted a modification of the application of 30 CFR 75.1909(c) to its FoidelCreek Mine.
ORDER
Wherefore, pursuant to the authoritydelegated by the Secretary of Labor to the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health, and pursuant to Section 101(c)of the Federal Mine Safetyand Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C., sec. 811(c), it is orderedthat Twentymile Coal Company’sPetition for Modification of the application of 30 CFR 1909(c) in the FoidelCreek Mine is hereby:
DENIED.
Any party to this actiondesiring a hearingon this mattermust file in accordance with 30 CFR 44.14, within30 days. The request for hearing must be filed with the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, 22209-3939.
If a hearingis requested, the request shall contain a concise summary of position on the issues of fact or law desiredto be raised by the party requesting the hearing, includingspecific objections to the proposed decision. A party other than Petitioner who has requesteda hearing shall also commentupon all issues of fact or law presentedin the petition, and any party to thisaction requesting a hearing may indicate a desired hearing site. If no request for a hearingis 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.
John F. Langton
Deputy Administrator
for Coal Mine Safetyand Health