Plant Professionals Interchange

Coal Dust Regulation in Mines more important than ever

Mark Collett — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:59:45 +0000

Dust comes naturally from mining coal, and it can be a particularly dangerous accelerant to an explosion when floating in the air surrounded by oxygen. A spark to a small amount of methane — another naturally occurring result of the mining process — can be multiplied many times over if it catches onto airborne coal dust.

Researchers in the early 1900s found a simple way to render coal dust inert: ground up limestone. Long-standing federal law mandates rock dust be applied around mine entryways to keep the coal dust grounded, with a concentration of at least 65 percent rock dust in that mixture.

But new mining practices have brought machinery that grinds coal into smaller dust particles. Those smaller particles can more easily become suspended in the air and thus require more rock dust to keep the coal dust grounded.

“According to past full-scale dust explosion test results, the current rock dusting practices used in today’s mines to inert a coal dust explosion may not be adequate,” Marcia Harris and three of her colleagues at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health wrote in a 2009 report.

The research forming the basis of the current rock dust-coal dust regulations was conducted in the 1920s. NIOSH now recommends that instead of 65 percent rock dust, the concentration should be more like 80 percent.

The research has been cultivated for decades, said Jeffrey Kohler, who directs the agency’s Office of Mine Safety and Health Research in South Park, though it was not certified and peer-reviewed until recent years. Even then, MSHA did not act to update its regulations to reflect those findings.

“In the past two to three years, it has been of concern to them, and I think they have been addressing a number of considerable safety and health issues in rule making, and I think this was on their list of things to do,” Dr. Kohler said.

The Government Accountability Office also raised the coal dust problem in a 2003 report, chiding MSHA for inconsistent enforcement of its existing regulations.

“Several district officials in two of the districts we visited told us that the lack of specific criteria for floating coal dust makes it difficult to determine what is an allowable level,” GAO wrote in the expansive report on MSHA and mine safety.

“According to some of the inspectors we interviewed, this has led, in some cases, to inconsistencies in inspectors’ interpretations of the procedures — some inspectors have cited violations for levels of floating coal dust that have not brought citations from other inspectors.”

Then-MSHA head David Lauriski responded in a letter, saying: “The presence of float coal dust is a condition that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no ’shopping list’ or clear-cut formula to indicate when and to what degree the presence of float coal dust poses a distinct hazard to miners.”

Coal dust has been cited as a factor in at least six major deadly explosions in the United States since 1970, according to a review of federal documents and news media reports. Dr. Kohler said preliminary information from Upper Big Branch suggests coal dust played a bigger role in the blast than any disaster in decades.

Such a major coal dust explosion — if confirmed — would prompt NIOSH to take a closer look at preventing and mitigating such explosions, Dr. Kohler said.

For example, in the NIOSH test mine in the Lake Lynn Laboratory, 50 miles from Pittsburgh in Fayette County, researchers have looked into whether suspending bags of rock dust in the air throughout a mine could slow down an explosion.

“I believe that we certainly will look at perhaps ways of quenching explosions,” Dr. Kohler said. “Perhaps we’ll give that a higher priority now than we would have six months ago.”

MSHA Assistant Secretary of Labor (Director) Joe Main has stated that new standards for the amount of respirable dust

Tougher Sanctions from OSHA – Severe Violators Enforcement Program

Mark Collett — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:32:57 +0000

April 24, 2010

OSHA is beefing up its enforcement program by launching a new emphasis program against serious violators and increasing its civil penalty amounts.

The Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) will go into effect within the next 45 days, and will target recalcitrant employers who endanger workers by demonstrating indifference to their legal responsibilities, the Agency said in a press release April 22.

The program involves increased inspections of these worksites, including mandatory follow-up inspections, and inspections of other worksites of the same employer where similar hazards and deficiencies may be present. It will also include a more intense examination for systemic problems, which would trigger additional mandatory inspections.

“For many employers, investing in job safety happens only when they have adequate incentives to comply with OSHA’s requirements,” said OSHA chief Dr. David Michaels. “Higher penalties and more aggressive, targeted enforcement will provide a greater deterrent and further encourage these employers to furnish safe and healthy workplaces for their employees.”

See 32-page directive on the program by using the following link: svep-directive

Regarding penalties, the Agency is putting in place what it described as “administrative enhancements” to its calculation system for penalties within the few months to increase their deterrent effect. The changes will raise the overall dollar amount of all penalties while maintaining OSHA’s policy of reducing penalties for small employers and those acting in good faith, OSHA said.

Specific changes, outlined in a memo from Michaels (use following link: penalty-change-memo) to OSHA Regional Administrators, include:

1. increasing the average penalty for a serious violation to between $3,000 and $4,000 from about $1,000 today and raising the minimum proposed penalty to $500.

2. increasing a posting violation to $250 if OSHA has previously provided a poster.

3. raising to five years from three years the time frame for considering an employer’s history of violations and repeat violations.

4. increasing by 10% the penalty for an employer who has been cited within the previous five years for any high gravity serious, willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations.

5. prohibiting penalty adjustments at informal conferences for employers with outstanding penalty balances.

6. allowing separate violations to be assigned their own proposed penalties against employers in the SVEP instead of being grouped.

7. requiring OSHA Area Directors to consider the adequacy of the proposed penalty for violations identified in the SVEP, and authorizing officials to limit adjustments for good faith, history, or size of the business.

8. adopting a system that provides for a gravity-based penalty of between $3,000 and $7,000.

9. increasing fines by calculating final penalties serially.

10. generally limiting reductions in expedited settlement agreements to 30%.

11. continuing to offer good-faith reductions, but only if the employer has a safety and health program in place, and disallowing good faith reductions involving high gravity serious, willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations.

The current maximum penalty for a serious violation remains unchanged at $7,000 and the maximum for a willful violation, at $70,000. In its press release, the Agency noted that the Protecting America’s Workers Act (S1580) would raise these penalties for the first time since 1990 to $12,000 and $250,000, respectively. Future penalty increases would also be tied to inflation. Monetary penalties for violations of the OSH Act have been increased only once in 40 years despite inflation.

2010 April 19 Weekly Update

Mark Collett — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:08:31 +0000

Lawmakers Seek to Move Quickly on New Toxics Bill, but Challenges Remain

House and Senate Democrats yesterday unveiled landmark chemical policy reforms they are pushing to get passed this year, but that is no sure thing thanks to a dwindling legislative calendar and some key sticking points.

The bills would require manufacturers to provide information about chemicals in consumer products instead of presuming substances are safe until proven dangerous, a major change from the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. While several industry, public health and environmental groups have praised the bill thus far, defining the chemical safety standard and determining how it will be implemented will be major challenges.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), along with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) yesterday released legislative language that would for the first time revise TSCA, the only environmental statute that has not been amended since it was enacted.

In a marked shift from current practice, the language from both the House and the Senate measures would require manufacturers to provide a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, and U.S. EPA would have the authority to request any additional data it deems necessary to make a safety determination.

EPA would also be required to prioritize chemicals based on hazard and exposure characteristics. EPA would be directed to take quick action on those chemicals that clearly demonstrate high risk, and manufacturers would have to prove that a chemical is safe to keep it on the market.

Rush and Waxman sent a memo to committee staff and members seeking feedback on their discussion draft over the next six weeks, according to a staff member, and Rush said there is no deadline but that it could happen by Memorial Day.

“We want to get it moving quickly, but we’re looking for substance over speed,” said Rush, chairman of the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee.

On the Senate side, there is not yet a formal process laid out, but a Lautenberg aide said the senator is focused now on trying to find Republican support.

“The senator’s mission now is to build a strong bipartisan coalition that can push this bill across the finish line this year,” the aide said in an e-mail. “The senator will be reaching out to his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and we believe they will be receptive. Fixing the broken chemical regulatory system benefits everybody.”

Fault lines

The Senate bill and the House draft have thus far garnered widespread support from environmental, public health and industry groups for establishing a risk-based approach to evaluating safety and for setting up a system for prioritizing the tens of thousands of chemicals currently on the market.

“We look at both efforts as really embodying a constructive approach to trying to respond to some of significant challenges in trying to modernize TSCA,” said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council.

“This legislative language is a pretty monumental sea change from the status quo,” added Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.

There are, however, already several fault lines emerging.

For one, the chemistry council expressed concern with the proposed safety standard, which would require that all chemicals meet a safety determination that “provides reasonable certainty of no harm” and that takes into account aggregate and cumulative exposures, as well as potential exposures to vulnerable subpopulations.

The current definition says EPA must show why it believes a chemical poses a health threat and must use the least burdensome alternative to restrict a chemical’s use.

“The reasonable certainty of no harm — that’s a concern,” Dooley said. “The challenge policymakers are going to have to address is that if you do accept … that you need a science-based, risk-based approach, what is the level of risk that is going to be embodied in ‘certainty of no harm’? What is going to be that risk factor as a society we’re willing to accept?”

But Denison said that although the bill language does not go into much detail about how the safety standard would work, the proposed change would make the standard health-based, a shift from current practices.

MSHA approves new dust monitor

The Mine Safety and Health Administration announced that it has approved a new kind of dust monitor for use in underground coal mines.

Continuous personal dust monitors measure the amount of respirable dust in the air throughout a miner’s shift, instead of sampling the air after a shift. MSHA and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health determined that the devices can be used, but they are not required.

Older types of monitors are collected after a shift and sent to a lab for analysis, and that can take weeks.

The new monitors are good for providing miners with immediate feedback about the dust they’re breathing in a mine, said Celeste Monforton of George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services. Monforton previously worked for MSHA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Monforton said the dust monitor is a small part of what she hoped would be a “comprehensive health standard to prevent black lung.”

“What is MSHA’s vision for the rights miners will be able to exercise given this knowledge that they’ll potentially be wearing on their belt?” Monforton said.

One company has been approved to manufacture the 6.6-pound device that a miner wears into the mine.

The device is important to miners as they work longer shifts and overtime, and as recorded incidences of black-lung disease have started to climb.

Black lung is a range of respiratory diseases caused by inhaling coal and rock dust.

The new dust monitors must be able to measure dust levels during a 12-hour period, although MSHA rules requiring a sample averaging exposure over an eight-hour shift have not changed.

MSHA is considering lowering the personal dust exposure limits by 50%, officials have said.
Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/04/13/1221063/msha-approves-new-dust-monitor.html#ixzz0lHXrA8RG

About Methane

I have been asked whether it would be possible to make mines safer from methane explosions than they currently are. Firstly it has to be recognized that methane is generated with the coal as it turns from the original vegetation into the different varieties of coal, but it depends on how well the coal was sealed into the surrounding rock as to whether that methane is still there. If the overlying rock did not provide a seal, then the gas may have migrated to the surface over the millennia that it took the coal to form. Some of the topic was covered in the article by Tom Maugh discussing methane generation, but I thought it would also help to discuss two different aspects of the story. How a gas explosion could be so devastating, and how one might get the methane out, if possible before mining. If not then how to extract it from the coal before the machines get there.

Because methane is often present in coal mines, miners learned early in their career how to check and see whether there was any around. They usually did this by looking at the flame of the candle or other light they were using to work by. When there was gas present, then the yellow normal flame would be surrounded by a blue cone, the size of which depended on the gas amount present.

Methane caps on a safety lamp flame (Colliery Deputy’s Handbook) (One of the first tests I had as a miner was to be able to recognize the size and meaning of these cones)

When the miner saw the flame cone, he would first wave a shirt or towel to stir the methane into the air, hoping that the concentration would fall below 1%, but if the level built up, he might have to leave, or call for more drastic measures to get rid of it. Back in Medieval times there was an individual called The Penitent, who would wrap himself in wet rags and crawl into the mine with a candle on a long stick. Raising the candle to the roof, he would ignite the layers of methane that would gather there, before the rest of the miners came back into the working. Methane, being lighter than air would gather in the roof, when the air currents were not strong enough to mix it into the air and remove it.

The Penitent – an etching by Hildebrand

Obviously with the gas diluted and layered it would burn, but not explode –what makes the difference? Firstly it is concentration, when the concentration gets above 5% (but below about 15% since above that there is not enough oxygen in the mix) the gas will explode. And so if the gas is desorbing from the coal, or has previously desorbed into cracks in the coal structure, which are suddenly exposed by the mining process, then the gas can come out in an explosive mix with the air. Because the air currents along the face are high, that concentration is not held for long, but it is one of the two necessary conditions.

The second is that a flame source is also needed, and this would most likely be created by the action of the picks on the mining machine as they rotate through the coal, grinding it from the surface.

Picks backed away from the face so that the full pattern can be seen(ACS).

When the shearer is moving down the face that full set of picks will be set into the coal. The coal is broken free by the picks and moved over to the conveyor by the shape of the scroll that is carrying the picks that you see in the picture above. But because of the shape of the picks, as they cut into and break out the coal, they will also crush some of it to a fine powder. Some of this is fine enough (between 2 and 10 microns that it can be breathed in by the miners, and to prevent this the cutting head is surrounded by spraying jets of water that are located and operated to capture and knock down the dust onto the floor of the mine. Thus by both wetting the coal and by ventilation with a lot of air, the mines develop plans to make the area safe.

The problem however is that within the immediate area after the machine has mined the coal, and while the large coal has been carried away by the adjacent conveyor belt, the fine coal is left on the floor. Now when there is an explosion, there is a blast wave that moves down the tunnel faster than the flame front itself. This blast wave can lift up the dust that is lying on the floor and scatter it across the path of the flame front before it gets to that point. Thus a small pocket of methane exploding can generate a cloud of coal dust ahead of itself, which then ignites with a much more powerful explosion, that is self-sustaining as it keeps lifting the coal dust ahead of the blast to continue fueling the propagating flame front.

In order to stop the blast there are two precautions that mines take. The first is to cover the walls and floor with stone dust. This is usually a limestone, and so when you go down a mine you will find that instead of the surfaces being black they are white. Now if the blast lifts the dust, it also lifts the stone dust into the passage, and this stone dust quenches the flame front when it arrives. Near the face they can also place stone dust piles on planks that are set in the upper part of the passage way. This dust has to be fine enough to pass through a 240 mesh sieve. When the blast wave hits the barrier it knocks it over spilling the dust into the air, and again quenching the following flame front. In some mines the dust barrier has been replaced with water troughs that serve the same function.

The barriers are placed in the tunnels close to the face, since this is the area where stone dust can’t be laid onto the floor and walls, since the mining operation prevents it.

While there are a couple of ways of getting rid of the risk (I mentioned last time that using high pressure waterjets to cut the coal instead of picks obviates the heat source required to initiate the explosion) the process that is being increasingly used is to drain the methane from the coal before the mining process begins.

Par of the historic problem with introducing this methane drainage is that it is a different fuel resource than the coal is, and thus the mineral rights to the two may be different. But getting the methane from the coal first, provides the Coal Bed Methane (CBM) that has become an additional source of natural gas. There is a video on recovery that lasts 8 minutes on Youtube, showing how much of the drilling uses the long horizontal drilling that is becoming common for recovering gas and oil in more conventional deposits. It is that process that EPA has already decided does not threaten surface drinking water quality. Already it provides about 7% of natural gas production in the U.S. But it is not always possible to do this drainage from the surface, particularly in mountainous terrain, where it is difficult to get the necessary drilling rigs in place.

And so the gas is often still there when the coal mine is put into production? And at this point, again, based on how much gas there is, and whether it can be economically recovered for sale an analysis will likely be made on whether it would be worthwhile putting in a methane drainage network.

What is most useful is to drill long horizontal holes into the coal before the coal is mined, since in this way there are fewer problems, and the gas recovered is generally of better quality. If these weren’t drilled before mining they can be drilled from the developing tunnels of the mine, though typically these will not reach out as far as those from a dedicated surface drilling operation.

Even if there is not enough gas to make it economic to sell, with higher volumes in the coal it can be cost effective to drain the gas from the seam before it is mined, or as part of the mining process, since this can increase the safety of the mining process itself. In this case drainage holes must be drilled not only into the coal. Because the advancing face causes the coal to crack about 9 to 15 ft ahead of the longwall face itself, these cracks also work their way into the roof. So that gas can be desorbed into the cracks, and is then carried in the fractures that open around the mining operation, not only into but also over the mining operation and into the collapsing rock pile behind the face. Thus to get all the methane out of the vicinity exhaust holes need to be drilled not only into the coal ahead of the face, but also into the overlying rock, to capture all this methane, before it causes a risk.

These exhaust holes are increasingly fitted with monitoring instruments that feed data to a central computer and software that monitors levels of the dangerous gases within the mine so that, when dangerous levels are detected, then the operations may be closed down.

Sadly, however, the instruments are not sensitive enough or in enough places that they can capture any release of gas from small pockets that can ignite, with tragic results. Our thoughts and prayers remain with those who have lost loved ones in West Virginia, and in other recent disasters of this type around the world.

2010 April 10 Weekly Update

Mark Collett — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:17:53 +0000

Proper Cautionary Manuvers

It is important to note when a Utility takes appropriate actions in persuit of safety and risk improvements. A plant burning 87% PRB and 13% bituminous coal was taken off line by the plant operators because of the collapse of support structures for duct work carrying hot gases and some flyash to the dust collector (not a fuel handling dust collector but a component within a steam generator gas recirculating system). Falling material and the gases, which were 700-800 degrees, caused extensive damage to nearby electrical cables, cable trays, air hoses and coal-pipe gaskets.

There were no injuries, but the escaping hot gases, together with electrical sparking, caused several small fires from ignited coal dust and insulation. They were quickly extinguished by the plant’s industrial fire brigade.

A sister unit was removed from service for detailed inspection as a preventive action to protect people. This action is applauded.

Dust Explosion Rocks Dayton Plant

7 April 2010 – DAYTON, Ohio – Officials said a dust explosion happened at the Cargill Plant on Needmore Road around 8 p.m. Tuesday. Hazmat crews were called to the scene as a precaution because of the dust explosion. Fire crews said two employees were taken to a local hospital to be checked out and they are expected to be OK.

MSHA announces final rule on Coal Mine Dust Sampling Devices

Mark Collett — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:11:47 +0000

12 April 2010 – MSHA announced today, the publication of a final rule which revises MSHA and NIOSH requirements in approval of sampling devices for monitoring miner exposure to respirable coal mine dust. These “coal mine dust personal sampler units” have improved in technology over the past 15 years and required updates on approval guidelines. New criteria is also established for a new type of technology, the “continuous personal dust monitor,” which is worn by the miner and will report real-time dust exposure levels during a shift.

Key features of the final rule include the following:

Provides for MSHA approval of sampling devices for intrinsic safety and NIOSH approval for performance.
Revises design specifications for the existing CMDPSU to reflect voluntary improvements made in the past 15 years, including reduction in size and weight, longer battery life, continuous flow and more tamper-resistant features.
Establishes new requirements for approval of CPDMs, which will allow the operator to monitor dust levels in real-time and to immediately take corrective action to prevent overexposures.
Establishes performance criteria to allow any instrument manufacturer to produce a continuous real-time dust exposure monitor.

“The final rule upgrades the approval requirements for the existing dust sampler that has been in use since passage of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. It allows the approval of a new and revolutionary continuous personal dust monitor that, for the first time, allows for continuous monitoring in real time of the coal mine dust that miners breathe,” said Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. “Most importantly,” he added, “the new CPDM device is a tool that will help wipe out the black lung disease that has plagued miners for over a century, claiming tens of thousands of lives.”

The development of the unique CPDM sampling device was the product of a 12-year partnership and commitment involving MSHA, NIOSH, labor, management and other stakeholders. MSHA is now considering the best ways to use the CPDM device to protect miners from unhealthy coal mine dusts.

The final rule does not address compliance-related issues regarding the CPDM, such as how the unit will be used, who would be required to wear it and when. The use of the CPDM will be addressed in a future rulemaking. It will a considerable challenge to monitor or verify the proper use of the CPDM, but this is necessary to reflect real results.

2010 April 3 Weekly Update

Mark Collett — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:45:34 +0000

NFPA 654 Revision Changes CombDust Definition, etc.

As you know, one of the difficult decisions OSHA faces in writing this standard is that of NFPA Standards usage or adoption. Until that is sorted out, it is important for us to continue focusing on NFPA Standards, especially the foundation of the NEP, NFPA 654.

The new suggested definition of Combustible Dust is: A combustible solid that presents a fire or deflagration hazard when suspended in air or some other oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations, regardless of particle size or shape.

NFPA 654 is presently being revised and will be issued as the 2011 edition. The code committee finalized proposed changes to the definition of combustible dust as well as requirements related to hazard assessment, explosion isolation, fugitive dust control and housekeeping, control of ignition hazards, and contractors.

Combustible dust: The first step in hazard identification is recognition of what materials constitute combustible dusts. NFPA 654 currently includes combustible particulate solid to emphasize that larger solid particles can be broken down into finely divided solid form that may become combustible. For a combustible dust explosion to occur the dust must be suspended in air at the correct concentration with an ignition source, and where confinement occurs – such as a building, structure, or process equipment. The NFPA 654 committee proposes to revise the definition of a combustible dust as follows: “Combustible dust is a combustible particulate solid that presents a fire or explosion hazard when suspended in air or the process-specific oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations, regardless of particle size or shape.”

Housekeeping: Combustible dust explosion investigations conducted by the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) as well as OSHA indicate inadequate housekeeping as a contributing factor in several incidents. Typically, the secondary explosion results in the most damage. The initial explosion causes combustible dust to become airborne which is often ignited by the initial ignition source. Proper housekeeping is critical to reduce the potential and severity of a secondary explosion. The proposed revision to NFPA 654 requires implementation of a planned inspection process to determine facility dust accumulation rates and determine housekeeping frequency necessary to maintain accumulations below acceptable levels.

Another proposed change clarifies the hierarchy to be utilized during cleaning. Investigation findings indicate improper cleaning methods may be more dangerous than no cleaning. The committee states vacuum cleaning is the preferred method for cleaning, followed by sweeping or water wash down. Blow down using compressed air or steam is allowed only after other methods have been utilized or other methods are considered more hazardous. Use of blow down method requires a restriction on air/steam pressure and use of protected electrical equipment.

Contractors: A new selection on contractors and subcontractors has been added requiring contractors to possess appropriate credentials documenting their qualifications and to be specifically trained in the installation, testing, and maintenance of systems and equipment they are interacting with. Also, contractors must be trained on facility safe work practices.

The release of the 2011 Edition of NFPA 654 is expected during the middle of 2010.

Another set of Dry Dust Collector fires and explosions

Onondaga, NY — Two people were treated for smoke inhalation today after a fire at the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency trash-burning steam plant on Rockcut Road, town of Onondaga.

Firefighters from several fire departments were called to the steam plant about 1:30 p.m. Workers inside the plant doing repairs apparently started the fire in a dust collection area, Syracuse Deputy Fire Chief Stephen Cavuto said

OSHA Citations on rise in Northeast

There are a multitude of citations which have been issued within the past 60 days in the Northeastern Region. The violations include the company’s failure to properly contain polyvinyl chloride dust particles, evaluate contractors’ safety programs and procedures, properly inspect process equipment, provide fire retardant clothing for employees, require employees to wear adequate eye protection with side shields, provide proper training and provide employees with an infirmary, clinic or person trained in first aid. Additionally, inspectors identified hazards involving a lack of machine guarding, a deficient process safety management program, inadequate lockout/tagout procedures for energy sources and unguarded machinery, floor holes and walkways. OSHA issues a serious citation when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and the employer knew, or should have known, of the hazard.

Within the past two weeks their had been mill citations, dust collector fires, and a manufacturer fire.

One killed and 18 others injured in “Coal Crusher Explosion”

It is expected that this explosion was amplified by a Secondary Explosion, but we are still pursuing more details, including whether or not the “crusher” was a pulverizer. This is a State-run facility.

Baran, March. 31 — One person was killed and 18 others were injuredinjured in a coal crushing machine blast in the thermal power plant in Chhabra today. According to police and plant sources, the blast occurred while coal was being crushed for the power plant. The machine caught fire after the blast. Twelve of the injured were referred to hospital in nearby Guna (MP) while eight were being treated in Chhabra, the sources said.

Coal Explosion kills 12 in China

While these explosions in China (there are actually two mentioned…occuring the same week) are thought to be gas explosions, there is speculation on both accidents, that there was a secondary dust explosion. These facilities are being examined for possible state control to improve safety results. We will stay tuned.

BEIJING,CHINA NEWS: A gas explosion at a coal mine in central China killed 12 people and left 32 missing, Xinhua news agency said on Thursday, even as rescuers worked to save 153 workers at a different mine in Shanxi province.

Coal mine accidents are common in China, the world’s largest producer, but the large number of people involved in the two accidents this week has raised further questions about safety standards.

Rescuers have pumped water all day at the Wangjialing mine in Shanxi province, which flooded on Sunday when construction workers breached a wall to a nearby disused pit. Nothing has been heard from the 153 workers inside.

Wednesday’s gas explosion in Henan province destroyed the entrance of a mine owned by private Guomin Mining Co in Yichuan county, near the city of Luoyang.

Eight miners and four people on the surface were killed, while 50 miners escaped. About 32 were trapped in the mine, but the explosion caused a two-storey building to cave in, leaving the exact number killed unknown.

China has ordered the consolidation or takeover of many private mines in order to better regulate them, improve the safety record and prevent the simultaneous mining of a single seam by numerous, uncoordinated outfits.

It credits the shutdown of many of the most dangerous private mines with helping reduce the death toll in the coal industry to about 2,600 last year from over 3,000 the year before.

Still, the deadliest accidents aren’t limited to private firms. The Wangjialing mine was a high-profile project belonging to a joint venture between China National Coal Group and Shanxi Coking Coal Group, two of China’s larger state-owned firms.

Earlier in March, flooding killed 31 miners in Inner Mongolia, in a mine under construction for China’s largest coal producer, state-owned Shenhua Group.

Other rules related to Combustible Dust Comliance are required from OSHA.

Mark Collett — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:52:18 +0000

Rulemaking continues on several fronts, in connection with OSHA’s Combustible Dust Standard writing and currently actionable NEP. These fronts include:

Globally Harmonized System (MSDS) Hazardous Communications ANPR. This is currently in the Stakeholder Meeting phases and is focused on improving the format, organization, and quality of current MSDS documents. The Combustible Dust rulemaking is said to include efforts to improve the MSDS quality to clarify the composition and specific instructions relating safe usage of materiels yeilding such dust.
Recordkeeping NEP. This new NEP specifies requirements regarding labor statistics, accident statistics, and other vital information tied to the employers safe workplace performance.
Protecting American Workers Act (HR2067 and S1580). This effort of the Senate and House Labor Subcommittees relates to laws which will be tied to OSHA and MSHA rules, making them much more solid to challenges from District Court contests such as those occasionally brought under the current General Duty Clause 5 (a)(1)(a). The Act includes the encouragement and protection of whistle blowers and their jobs, the increased civil and criminal penalties, the inclusion of all federal, state, and local workers, and the ability to prosecute any officer of any company with remote ownership ties to the company cited. See current House Hearing Notes located on this blog-site under the same title “Protecting American Workers Act”.

Health Care Reform changes Aid to Black Lung Victims

Mark Collett — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:28:38 +0000

Provisions included in recently-passed health-care reform legislation will make it easier for miners suffering from black lung disease and their widows to receive benefits.

The language, inserted by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), establishes a rebuttable presumption that a miner is entitled to benefits if he or she has 15 or more years of coal mine employment and medical evidence of totally disabling lung disease. To rebut, coal companies would have to prove the miner’s disease was not black lung or the disease was not the result of working in coal mines.

Previously, workers had to prove they were totally disabled and were suffering from black lung disease in order to get financial and medical support.

Other language does away with the requirement that widows of black lung benefit recipients reapply to continue to receive the compensation. Instead, benefits will keep coming without interruption after the miner dies, regardless of the cause of death.

President Obama signed the legislation into law March 23.

MSHA making bold new moves; increase in fines and citations

Mark Collett — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:27:41 +0000

In an action so rare MSHA turned it into a press release, an administrative law judge has raised penalties for MSHA violations brought against an Alabama coal operator.

The fines against Shelby Mining Co. increased to $10,000 from $7,684, and were for two unwarrantable failure violations at the operator’s now-closed Coke Mine #1 near Montevallo. The citations were written in November 2007 for failure to have ventilation curtains in place and for not conducting an adequate pre-shift examination to detect and correct the absence of the curtains.

29 Miners Killed by WV mine blast, Investigation begins

Mark Collett — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:22:53 +0000

14 April 2010 (p2) – There is no known cause for this blast, be it methane, coal dust, or a hybrid of primary and secondary explosions.

Twenty-nine miners have now been accounted and their bodies recovered after an explosion and collapse at a West Virginia coal mine owned by a unit of Massey Energy on April 5, 2010. The blast was at the Upper Big Branch Mine, owned by Massey’s Performance Coal subsidiary. Mine rescue teams and State and Federal agencies responded, but after several attempts, found no survivors amonst the remaining Miners. There should be a discription given in the coming weeks/months, regarding cause of death for each. It was announced today that the Independant Team responsible for investigation of this disaster will be made up of ex mining officials. There is a high state of concern due to the many unresolved MSHA citations which were unresolved at the time of this accident. The mine had been shut-down by MSHA several times, but was allowed to reopen in short-order. Another mine owned by Massey, named Montcoal, also known as Whitesville, had a fatal accident in 2001.

A former federal mine safety official, who also looked into the deadly 2006 Sago mine disaster, will conduct an independent investigation of the deadliest coal mine explosion since 1970.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin said Tuesday he has asked J. Davitt McAteer, who headed the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration during the Clinton administration, to independently investigate the explosion that killed 29 miners last week.

McAteer’s probe of Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine will be independent of separate state and federal investigations, and he will focus on what actions should be taken to prevent such explosions in the future.

“I want a transparent third party, that’s not attached in any way, shape or form,” Manchin said.

McAteer conducted similar probes of the Sago mine disaster that killed 12 and the Aracoma Alma No. 1 mine fire that killed two miners. He expects to focus on the apparent failure of systems meant to prevent such a disaster: the spraying of powdered rock to dilute explosive coal dust; the venting of methane gas; and safety conditions before miners begin each shift.

Also Tuesday, federal mine safety officials said Upper Big Branch should have received a warning letter in October about a potential pattern of safety violations, but a computer program that screens for violation patterns failed to include eight citations at the mine.

If they had been included, MSHA would have notified the mine and given the operator 90 days to improve safety conditions.

Half of the eight citations involved problems with ventilation, according to data provided by MSHA. Those problems were corrected within hours or days of determination, per federal guidelines.

Highly explosive methane is believed to have been a factor in the deadly blast.

The chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and two other lawmakers called for an immediate investigation by the Labor Department’s inspector general into the computer error. Reps. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., and Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., joined Miller in calling the mistake “deeply disturbing.”

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama was to meet Thursday with federal labor and mine safety officials to discuss preliminarily what may have caused the blast. Investigators still don’t know what ignited the worst U.S. coal mine disaster in four decades, though officials believe methane was involved.

Congress is also convening hearings later this month to look at weaknesses in federal mine safety legislation and whether the system encourages operators to challenge safety violations and delay penalties.

Since the April 5 explosion, details have emerged about an extensive list of safety violations at the mine. The company has been repeatedly cited and fined for problems with the system that vents methane and for allowing combustible dust to build up..