Opinion ID: 520277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: longwall mining

Text: 57 We turn now to the Union's remaining challenge to MSHA's new regulations on longwall mining which provide as follows: 58 For each longwall mining section, the roof control plan shall specify-- 59 (a) The methods that will be used to maintain a safe travelway through the tailgate side of the longwall; and 60 (b) The procedures that will be followed if a ground failure prevents travel out of the section through the tailgate side of the longwall. 61 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.215 (1988). Additional regulations set out in greater detail the criteria which will govern plan approval in this regard; [r]oof control plans that do not conform to the applicable criteria ... may be approved by the District Manager, provided that effective control of roof, face and ribs can be maintained. 22 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.222(a) (1988). In particular, the criteria suggest that supplemental support be installed throughout the tailgate entry and that emergency procedures such as reinstruction of miners in the use and availability of escapeways and self-rescue devices, be put into effect if ground failure prevents travel through the tailgate; these procedures should be required to remain in effect until the travelway is reestablished. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.222(g) (1988). 62 Unlike the challenges to the roof bolt and support removal regulations, we find no error in the Secretary's promulgation of these new standards to address the roof support concerns raised by longwall mining. To begin with, the standard of review here is quite different: the new longwall mining regulations do not replace existing standards so that the constraints of Sec. 101(a)(9) do not come into play. We therefore review the new regulations only to ensure that they are not arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706 (1977).
63 To put the debate over the new longwall mining regulations in perspective, we begin with a brief description of the nature of two-entry longwall mining. In this type of mining, two parallel tunnels (entries) are created. At the end of these entries another tunnel is established perpendicularly to join the two parallel tunnels, thus creating three sides of a rectangle called a longwall section. The joining tunnel, the longwall itself, exposes the face of rock from which coal will be extracted by a shearer moving back and forth across the face. The longwall is progressively mined so that the longwall advances towards the start of the two parallel entries and the sides of the rectangle shorten. The two parallel entries are called the headgate entry and the tailgate entry. Coal extracted from the face of the longwall is normally carried out of the mine on conveyors which travel through the headgate entry. 64 Other tunnels or entries may connect with the longwall section. For example, there may be other entries on the tailgate side (that is, next to the tailgate entry but outside the three-sided rectangle formed by the headgate, tailgate and longwall) which are themselves connected to the longwall by other tunnels. There may also be other entries which go deeper into the mine in the mined-out area behind the longwall. 65 Obvious dangers arise for miners working on the longwall from the possibility that their ventilation and escape may be restricted because of the limited number of entries. (Entries serve not only as potential escape routes but also as aircourses through which fresh air reaches the miners.) These dangers are heightened by the risk of fire arising from the operation of equipment located in the headgate entry. If such a fire occurs, escape on the headgate side of the longwall may become impossible because of heat and smoke. Hence the understandable concern about the feasibility of escape and ventilation through the tailgate side. 66 Two reports commissioned by MSHA have emphasized the importance of maintaining escape routes on the tailgate side of the longwall. Indeed, MSHA's Task Force on Longwall Mining specifically recommended that a safe travelway, under supported roof through tailgate entries or bleeders to a mine exit, be provided off the face on the tailgate side for emergency purposes at all times while personnel are present. J.A. 240. And MSHA's investigative report on a 1985 disaster at the Wilberg Mine in Orangeville, Utah, in which 27 miners died after a fire blocked the headgate, also stressed the dangers of inadequate escapeways on the tailgate side. See J.A. 343.
67 The Union first contends that the new longwall regulations are unlawful because they conflict with an existing regulation. This regulation, drawn directly from the interim standards established in the Act, provides in relevant part: 68 [E]xaminations for hazardous conditions, including tests for methane, and for compliance with the mandatory health or safety standards, shall be made at least once each week by a certified person designated by the operator in ... at least one entry of each intake and return aircourse in its entirety. ... [I]f any hazardous condition is found, such condition shall be reported to the operator promptly. Any hazardous condition shall be corrected immediately. If such condition creates an imminent danger, the operator shall withdraw all persons from the area affected by such condition to a safe area ... until such danger is abated. 69 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.305 (1988); 30 U.S.C.A. Sec. 863(f) (interim standard) (emphasis added). 70 Relying on the language highlighted, supra, the Union argues that this weekly examination regulation requires that tailgate entries (which are either intake or return aircourses, 53 Fed.Reg. at 2,369) be travelable at all times and that should the tailgate become blocked, mining must cease in the longwall section until the blockage is cleared. It contends that the new longwall mining regulations violate a cessation-of-mining requirement in the weekly examination rule: the Union reads the new regulations to allow mining to continue despite a blockage in the tailgate entry because they provide for emergency procedures to be put into effect when a blockage occurs and to continue throughout the duration of the blockage. 71 The complaint is oddly framed. The weekly examination regulation is still in effect. Whatever it requires in terms of maintaining travel through the tailgate is still required. The new regulations merely supplement that regulation with details on emergency procedures to be followed once a blockage in the tailgate is discovered. 72 Admittedly, the precise effect of the weekly examination regulation is somewhat ambiguous, and MSHA has not provided us with a definitive interpretation of how it is being implemented. As we read the regulation, however, it requires that the tailgate entry be capable of travel each week in order to test for hazardous conditions. 23 What the mine operator is required to do once an examination reveals a blockage or other hazardous condition also seems clear enough: Any hazardous condition shall be corrected immediately. If such condition creates an imminent danger, the operator shall withdraw all persons from the area affected by such condition to a safe area ... until such danger is abated. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.305 (1988). We cannot find, nor has the Union shown us, in this language any requirement that mining stop whenever any blockage is discovered. Only if the blockage poses an imminent danger must miners be withdrawn from the area. MSHA's new regulations appear only to supplement that requirement by stating that while correction of any tailgate blockage is underway, certain emergency precautions will be in effect. 73 Were MSHA urging the court to accept an interpretation of the new regulations which did not require immediate correction of any hazardous condition or withdrawal of miners in the face of imminent danger created by a blockage of the tailgate, the Union would be on stronger ground. We do not, however, understand MSHA to be urging any such interpretation and consequently we reject the Union's challenge that the new regulations are inconsistent with the weekly examination regulation.
74 The Union's contention that the new longwall mining regulations are arbitrary and capricious must also fail. Essentially the Union argues that because MSHA's reports on Two-Entry Longwall Mining and the Wilberg Mine Disaster conclude that it is critical to miner safety to keep open routes out of the mine on the tailgate side of the longwall, it is unreasonable for MSHA to promulgate regulations which assume mining will continue despite blockage. 75 But the longwall regulations challenged here are only part of the total regulatory regime for longwall mining: they pertain to Roof Support. 24 The regulations on roof support are not the only nor even the most likely vehicle for addressing the Union's legitimate concerns about the dangers of escaping from longwall sections when tailgate entries are blocked. Indeed, other portions of MSHA's regulations address these concerns directly. In addition to the continuing requirement that tailgate entries be traveled weekly, and that hazardous conditions be corrected immediately, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.305 (1988), the regulations (again adopting an interim standard established by Congress) require that mine operators maintain two travelable escapeways at all times. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.1704 (1988); 30 U.S.C.A. Sec. 877(f)(1) (interim standard). Thus mine operators are still required to shut down mining on the longwall section if the tailgate becomes blocked and as a result there is only one remaining escapeway from the section. 76 The Union's concern, echoed in MSHA's task force report, is that the requirement of two escapeways is inadequate to protect miners because if both escapeways are on the headgate side, a fire in the headgate would make them both impassable, thereby trapping miners in the longwall section. MSHA is, however, addressing this problem in ongoing rulemaking to revise those portions of its regulations that directly address ventilation and escape standards. For example, the following regulations have been proposed by MSHA: 77 Sec. 75.383 Shortwall and Longwall Travelways 78 When shortwall or longwall systems of mining are used, and the two designated escapeways ... are located on one side of the block of coal being mined, a travelway shall be provided on the other side of that block of coal. The travelway shall be located to follow the most direct and safe practical route to a designated escapeway, and the route of travel shall be clearly marked if more than one entry is used to provide the travelway. Sec. 75.364 Weekly Examinations 79 (c) Hazardous Conditions. At least every seven days, an examination for hazardous conditions, including air velocity measurements and tests for methane, shall be made by a certified person designated by the operator at the following locations: 80