1 

Draft for EPA Review – Do not quote or cite 

ARI Estimate of Burden to Comply with Proposed Changes to 40 CFR 

98.324(b)(1) 

June 11, 2015 

ARI has developed a cost estimate to comply with the proposed changes to 98.324(b) which would 

remove MSHA quarterly inspection reports as an acceptable data source to report quarterly methane 

liberation from mine ventilation systems. This would leave underground coal mines with two options: 

grab samples and CEMS. The proposed changes also include increasing the sampling frequency of grab 

samples. Currently grab samples must be taken at least once a quarter. 

ARI’s estimates of the cost burden to eliminate MSHA quarterly reports and switch to grab samples or 

CEMS is included in the table below. The cost estimates include labor, capital and operations and 

maintenance costs for Year 1 and subsequent years. These are supported by an accompanying 

spreadsheet with much more detail on the calculations. 

Three sampling frequencies are included to compare the cost of quarterly, monthly and weekly grab 

samples for an individual mine and on a nationwide basis. The table also shows the difference in cost

between mines that already take quarterly grab samples and those that use MSHA data or are new 

reporting mines. With respect to CEMs, two cost estimates were derived. The first uses the original cost 

analysis for the Subpart FF proposed rule in 2009. The second is based on costs quoted for an actual 

project. 

Methodology 

The basis for the cost analysis was the analysis prepared for the original 2009 proposed rule which 

included labor, capital and O&M costs for grab samples and CEMS for sampling 2 shafts per mine on a 

quarterly basis. Labor hours were assumed for three categories (manager, engineer, administrative). 

The assumption for the 2009 burden estimate was that mine staff had to accompany the inspectors 

underground, so the mine staff could just take their samples at the same time as MSHA. 

Incremental Cost Burden Year 1

Subsequent 

Years Year 1

Subsequent 

Years

Quarterly Grab Samples

Quarterly Grab Samples (already taking grab samples) $0 $0 $0 $0

Quarterly Grab Samples (using MSHA) $30,646 $15,936 $1,992,000 $1,035,866

Total National Burden Estimate for Quarterly Grab Samples $1,992,000 $1,035,866

Monthly Grab Samples

Monthly Grab Samples (already taking grab samples) $21,248 $21,248 $1,274,890 $1,274,890

Monthly Grab Samples (using MSHA) $51,894 $41,867 $3,373,131 $2,721,326

Total National Burden Estimate for Monthly Grab Samples $4,648,020 $3,996,216

Weekly Grab Samples

Weekly Grab Samples (already taking grab samples) $127,489 $127,489 $7,649,338 $7,649,338

Weekly Grab Samples (using MSHA) $158,135 $143,425 $10,278,783 $9,322,648

Total National Burden Estimate for Weekly Grab Samples $17,928,120 $16,971,986

CEMS

CEMS Option 1 - Based on 2009 Proposed Rule Burden Analysis $145,554 $112,428 $18,194,203 $14,053,508

CEMS Option 2 - Based on Quoted Costs for a Project $262,587 $35,921 $32,823,372 $4,490,134

$51,017,575 $18,543,641

Per Mine Nationwide
2 

Draft for EPA Review – Do not quote or cite 

We made several modifications to the 2009 methodology for this analysis: 

• Grab Samples 

o There are 4 labor cost categories: developing a methodology, accompanying the 

inspectors, sending samples, and purchasing the devices. We retained the same 

estimated number of labor hours for developing the sampling methodology and 

purchasing the devices that were used in the 2009 estimate to be reasonably 

conservative. 

o However, the number of hours required for sampling (accompanying inspectors) and 

sending samples were adjusted downward. For the 2015 proposed rule, we assume 8 

hours per sampling event is all that is necessary. This is a very reasonable approach as it 

should require no more than 1 day in most mines to obtain samples. A few larger mines 

with many shafts may require more than 1 8-hour shift, but this will be offset by other 

smaller mines where samples can be taken in a half day or less time. This reduced the 

total labor hours significantly for sampling on a quarterly basis compared with the 2009 

estimate. 

o To calculate the labor cost of weekly and monthly sampling where a mine is already 

taking grab samples, the labor hours were adjusted to correspond with the additional 

workload and cost that would be incurred if weekly or monthly samples were required. 

In other words, we use quarterly labor hours as the base assumption and then calculate 

weekly and monthly labor hours. Thus, sampling monthly would require 3x more effort 

for a mine already taking grab samples which currently samples 4 times per year. 

o For mines that currently use MSHA data, we assumed that the level of effort to obtain 

and report MSHA data was $2,000 per year. Therefore, the annual incremental costs for 

taking grab samples at such a mine will be the cost of taking the samples less the 

avoided cost ($2,000) of obtaining, interpreting and reporting MSHA data. 

o The labor categories used for this analysis are the same as for the 2009 proposed rule: 

Industrial Manager, Industrial Engineer/Technician, and Administrative Support. 

o Labor rates used for this analysis are the approved 2014 labor rates sent out for the 

current ICR exercise. The labor rates increased for two labor categories and decreased 

for 1 category: 

 Industrial Manager (+12%) 

 Industrial Engineer/Technician (+20%) 

 Administrative Support (- 4%) 

o The O&M and capital costs in the 2009 analysis were based on 2006$. All CAPEX and 

O&M costs were inflated to 2014$ using the Consumer Price Index. 

o Following a review of Subpart FF data, we determined that an average of 3 shafts per 

mine is a more appropriate shaft count compared with the 2 shafts per mine used for 

burden analysis in the 2009 proposed rule. This has the impact of increasing the 

sampling operations and maintenance (O&M) costs by 50% per sampling event over the 

2009 proposed rule. 

o For mines that already take grab samples, it is assumed that they have an adequate 

monitoring plan in place with the necessary equipment, thus there are no additional 

labor hours associated with developing a methodology and purchasing equipment and 

no additional capital costs. 

 
3 

Draft for EPA Review – Do not quote or cite 

• CEMS 

o 2 CEMS options are presented. 

o Option 1 is based on the labor hours and capital costs from the burden analysis for the 

proposed rule. 

 There has been no adjustment to the labor hours. 

 Capital costs are adjusted for inflation. 

 The original burden analysis for the 2009 rule did not include O&M costs for 

CEMS and it is not clear why. CEMS will have necessary maintenance, repairs 

and calibration. However, for this analysis, Option 1 continues to show now 

O&M consistent with the 2009 analysis 

o Option 2 is based on real price quotes in 2010 for a CEMs system including a methane 

analyzer, volumetric flow meter, and temperature and pressure sensors. 

 Labor is assumed to be the same as for Option 1. 

 Prices are inflated to 2014 $ 

 Capital and O&M costs are included 

All costs presented are in 2014$. A discounted cash flow analysis has not been prepared for this 

analysis. To do so would not require much additional effort, but we would need an approved discount 

rate, acceptable term for incurring costs (e.g., 10 years), and an approved inflation rate. The cost 

burden estimate for the 2009 proposal assumed a 7% discount rate but the term is not stated nor is the

inflation rate quoted. The discounted cash flow analysis would result in a total Net Present Value (NPV) 

over the term. The total could then be divided by the term for an annualized cost which is likely to be 

less than the cost in real (2014) dollars. 

Observations 

In addition to adjustments noted previously, we considered the following additional adjustments to the

cost estimate: 

Potential Adjustment to 

Analysis 

Comment Decision

Allow mines to sample at the 

surface taking grab samples 

from the fan instead of in the 

• Considered this option to reduce the cost of sampling – much 

easier and less labor intensive than going underground 

• But no data available to confirm whether it is as effective as 

underground measurements 

• As far as we know, there has been no demand for surface 

sampling either 

Did not include in this 

analysis 

Do not include any labor 

hours for accompany 

inspectors 

• Mine staff will have to accompany the MSHA inspector 

during the MSHA visit, regardless, and the mine staff 

member can take samples when the MSHA inspector 

takes samples so there is really no additional labor 

associated with this task.

• Only potentially valid for quarterly sampling 

• Overall cost reduction is minimal – 32 hours or $2100 per mine 

per year. 

Did not include in this 

analysis 
4 

Draft for EPA Review – Do not quote or cite 

Potential Adjustment to 

Analysis 

Comment Decision

Net out 5 mines per year 

that will close. 

• These mines have the opportunity to reduce their 

burden and the nationwide burden by avoiding sampling 

for 3-5 years once the mine is abandoned. 

• For monthly sampling this could reduce the nationwide 

burden by 4% or around $200,000 per year. 

• This may overestimate the cost reduction because it

does not consider that each year a set of mines is above 

the reporting threshold for the first time and have to 

report. 

Did not include in this 

analysis 

For CEMS option #2 -

remove temperature and 

pressure sensors and 

airflow meters so CEMS is 

only used for CH4

• Results in significant cost reduction due to removal of 

volumetric air flow meter. Temperature and Pressure sensor 

are not very expensive. 

• With this change, CEMs is still an expensive option compared 

to quarterly or monthly sampling but appears to be more cost 

effective than weekly sampling 

Have included in the 

analysis