2/10/2015 Refuge Alternative Partnership Agenda & Minutes

Agenda

The agenda for the February 10, 2015, Refuge Alternative partnership meeting.

Click on presentation titles to view slides in PDF format. Presentation file hosting courtesy of the Joseph A. Holmes Safety Association website.

Time	Topic/Title	Presenter/Facilitator
7:15 - 7:45 a.m.	Arrival and sign in
7:45 – 8:10 a.m.	Welcome and Introduction	Dr. R.J. Matetic, NIOSH OMSHR
8:10 – 8:30 a.m.	Overview of prior NIOSH OMSHR research on purging, heat & humidity, and BIP RAs	Dave Yantek, NIOSH OMSHR
8:30 – 9 a.m.	Update on NIOSH OMSHR heat & humidity research	Dave Yantek, NIOSH OMSHR
9 – 9:45 a.m.	Open discussion of heat and humidity issues/concerns	Pete Kovalchik & Joe Lamonica, NIOSH OMSHR
9:45 – 10 a.m.	Break
10 – 10:30 a.m.	Protected compressed air lines for refuge alternatives	Jhon Silva, University of Kentucky
10:30 – 11 a.m.	Surface air supply system for refuge alternatives	Jerry Piercy, ChemBio Shelter, Inc.
11 – 11:30 a.m.	Cryogenic air supply system for refuge alternatives	Ed Blalock, BCS Life Support; or Don Doerr, Liquid Air Breathing Technology, Inc.
11:30 a.m. – noon	Industry example of BIP RAs	David Hales, BHP Billiton; or Mark Watson, Alliance Coal
noon - 12:30 p.m.	Lunch on site
12:30 - 1:30 p.m.	Open discussion of RA issues/concerns	Pete Kovalchik & Joe Lamonica, NIOSH OMSHR
1:30 - 2 p.m.	Open discussion of other RA issues/concerns	Pete Kovalchik & Joe Lamonica, NIOSH OMSHR
2 - 2:15 p.m.	Break
2:15 - 2:55 p.m.	Prioritization of issues/concerns: (1) heat and humidity, (2) BIP RAs, (3) Other	Pete Kovalchik & Joe Lamonica, NIOSH OMSHR
2:55 – 3 p.m.	Wrap-Up	RJ Matetic, NIOSH OMSHR

Minutes

Discussion Points/Takeaways

Topics of discussion

1. Modeling and testing should include the following considerations:
   1. Active cooling
   2. Effects of SCSRs
   3. Effect of higher ambient temperature in the mine
2. The definition of the post-accident environment needs to be investigated
3. There is a desire for more timely publication of NIOSH research findings and results.
4. There is a desire for models and modeling results to be shared with the industry to allow mine operators to reconcile NIOSH results, manufacturer claims, and MSHA findings.
5. There is a desire for a standard testing protocol for RA evaluations to allow for evaluations to be compared between mines or chamber manufacturers.
6. There is a desire for a standardized methodology for determining the ambient temperature in a mine.
7. The assumptions about metabolic heat input should be re-examined.
8. The threshold for and methods of determining apparent temperature should be re-examined
9. NIOSH and MSHA need to work together and communicate openly to ensure that the 2018 compliance deadline is met.
10. A holistic solution needs to be considered: i.e. use boreholes, compressed air lines, built in place, and mobile chambers.
11. For protected compressed air lines, discussion included:
    1. PVC should not be used due to brittle nature.
    2. Overhead and maintenance cost should be considered.
    3. Timeline of research and development needs to be consider the compliance dates.
    4. The design of a mine-wide system should be developed rather than just a single refuge chamber. Must every RA be used at one time?
    5. Post disaster survivability and utility of compressed air lines should be examined.
12. For Safe Air system, discussion included:
    1. Methods of ensuring air quality
    2. Consideration of blower system trade off of depth and hole size
    3. Feasibility/cost comparison of compressed air vs. blower systems
    4. Concerns of physical and legal access on the surface
13. For cryogenic air supply, discussion included:
    1. Need to consider maintenance, reliability and permissibility of the cryocooler
    2. How long after power is lost could the system function?
    3. The timeline for MSHA approval needs to be considered with regard to the 2018 compliance date.
    4. The availability of liquid air at the mine site needs to be addressed
14. For built in place chambers, discussion included:
    1. Do built in place chambers require airlocks and purging systems?

Takeaways from Heat & Humidity Discussion

1. Should include in modeling and testing: *
   1. Active cooling
   2. Effects of SCSRs
   3. Effect of higher ambient temperature
   4. Impact of apparent temperature standard
2. Definition of post-accident environment
3. Timely dissemination of research results
   1. Publication of NIOSH publications
   2. Process through which models and modeling data can be shared with all, so mine operators can interact with suppliers
4. Develop standard testing protocol for RA evaluations to allow evaluations to be compared *
5. Develop standardized method for measuring/determining mine ambient temperature (where in mine is it measured? With ventilation/power?)*
6. Consider the reasonableness of:
   1. Heat load per barrel person
   2. Threshold and method of calculating 95 AT *
7. Work to ensure that NIOSH/MSHA are working together with the 2018 MINER Act date in mind.

Takeaways from Compressed Air Line Discussion

1. Don’t use PVC
2. Don’t forget O&M of the systems
3. Think about scheduling and pacing of ongoing efforts with 2018 date in mind
4. Need to think about the design of a mine-wide system and not just for a single RA. Must system be designed for every RA to be used simultaneously?
5. Post-disaster survivability/utility of compressed air lines *
6. Need to think holistically – use boreholes, compressed air lines, BIP, mobile, etc. **
7. Agencies need to talk to each other – Dr. Wade will discuss with Joe Main and cooperation will continue at working level.

Takeaways from Safe Air System Discussion

1. Consideration of a blower system trade off of depth vs hole size
2. Feasibility/cost comparison of compressed air vs. blower systems
3. Concerns of physical/legal access on the surface (case by case, airlift unit to borehole? How do you ensure air access? Legal access from property owner? Drill after the event – with compressed air cylinders?) *
4. What happens in the event of equipment (blower) failure?

Takeaways from Cryogenic Air Supply Discussion

1. Need to consider maintenance, reliability, and permissibility
2. How long after “end of power” could the system function?
3. Consider the path to Part 7 approval
4. What about the availability of liquid air at the mine site?
5. Production of liquid air on site?
6. Application to BIP?

Takeaways from BIP RA Discussion

1. Do the San Juan RAs require an airlock or purging?
2. Clarification of what doors/stoppings are available? – MSHA website.
3. Planned NIOSH research on BIP to start next month with construction of BIP RA in Experimental Mine
4. Incorporating into mine ventilation design – ventilating into entry? (issue to mine rescue teams? does it feed fire?) Should air exhaust to surface?
5. Is built-in air supply acceptable, or do you need boreholes?

Other issues

• Communication to the surface
  • Protection
  • Secondary systems (MF, TTE) vs. Primary systems
  • Ongoing extramural NIOSH research on improving TTE (antenna design)
  • Method for miners to signal (if not talk) from inside a mobile chamber
  • Should miners enter chamber if comm is unavailable?
  • Communicating with SCSR
• Re-examine Part 7 for BIP rather than mobile chambers?
• Secondary events
  • Risk analysis
  • Standardized test method/protocol needed
• Acceptance by miners
  • Training, decision making
• CO concentration – should entire chamber be purged?
• Review volume/floor space requirements?
  • Re-examine for active cooling vs. passive cooling
• Re-examine apparent temperature methods/standards (ISO WBGT suggested)
• Opportunity for fresh perspective on issues

Priorities for Heat and Humidity

• Should include in modeling and testing: *
  • Active cooling
  • Effects of SCSRs
  • Effect of higher ambient temperature
  • Impact of apparent temperature standard
• Develop standard testing protocol for RA evaluations to allow evaluations to be compared *
• Develop standardized method for measuring/determining mine ambient temperature (where in mine is it measured? With ventilation/power?)*
• Consider the reasonableness of:
  • Heat load per barrel person
  • Threshold and method of calculating 95 AT *

Priorities for Compressed Air Line

• Post-disaster survivability/utility of compressed air lines *
• Need to think holistically – use boreholes, compressed air lines, BIP, mobile, etc. **

Priorities for Safe Air System

• Concerns of physical/legal access on the surface (case by case, airlift unit to borehole? How do you ensure air access? Legal access from property owner? Drill after the event – with compressed air cylinders?) *

Cryogenic Air Supply

• All items brought up during discussions (refer to slide 7) are being addressed through BCS Life Support LLC research and NIOSH contracts

MSHA Refuge Alternative Request For Information

• Both Reg Richards and Steve Gigliotti stated at the partnership meeting that MSHA encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to the Refuge Alternative Request For Information (RFI) that is set to close on April 2, 2014.
• Responses to the RFI do not need to be limited to the questions asked if a commenter would like to address other issues related to refuge alternatives.

http://www.msha.gov/REGSRFI.asp

NIOSH Refuge Alternatives Training

• All training materials that were at the partnership meeting can be found on the OMSHR website:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/co ntent/refugechambers.html

• Further information on refuge alternatives training can be obtained by contacting:

Dr. Dana Willmer 412-386-6648 Dwillmer@cdc.gov

Refuge Alternative NIOSH Contact Information

Pete Kovalchik, Chief, Electrical and Mechanical Systems Safety 412-386-6098 Pkovalchik@cdc.gov

Adam Smith, Deputy Chief, Electrical and Mechanical Systems Safety 412-386-6028 ASmith9@cdc.gov

Jacob Carr, Leader, Machine Safety Team 412-386-6877 JCarr1@cdc.gov

Dave Yantek, Lead Mechanical Engineer 412-386-4498 Dyantek@cdc.gov

---