CONTROL OF EXPLOSIVES
Administration and Execution of the Laws Pertaining to
the Control of Explosives
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY
ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PART 2
MINING ENFORCEMENT AND
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
MAY 18, 1976
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
GOV DOCS
..p, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
IOC 1 Mi ° WASHINGTON : 1976
.A25
1 Q76 v For sale by the SuPerintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
*" ' OX Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 70 cents
pt.2 There is a minimum charge of SJ.OO for each mail order
Research <TER
Library
Librar
Or: ' 7 me
CONTROL OF EXPLOSIVES
Administration and Execution of the Laws Pertaining to
the Control of Explosives
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY
ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PART 2
MINING ENFORCEMENT AND
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
MAY 18, 1976
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
GOV DOCS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
304 O WASHINGTON : 1976
3953
.A25 — —
I Q-7/- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
* " ' " X Washington, D . C . 20402 - Price 70 cents
pt.2 There is a minimum charge of $1.00 for each mail order
Research
ixcocaiuii Concord, New H .01
Library
■^Mi |C5r
ifu> i
•-' ._-**
-
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota
ROBERT C. B YRD, West Virginia
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California
JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska
HIRAM L. FONQ, Hawaii
HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland
WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal
Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia
Richard L. Schultz, Chief Counsel
Caroline M. Courbois, Assistant to the Chief Counsel
Aljonso L. Tarabochia, Chief Invettigator
Robert J. Short, Senior Invettigator
Mart E. Dooley, Reiearch Director
David Martin, Senior Analyst
(II)
CONTROL OF EXPLOSIVES
Administration and Execution of the Laws Pertaining to the
Control of Explosives
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1976
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee To Investigate the
Administration of the Internal Security Act
and Other Internal Security Laws
of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10:35 a.m. in room
357, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Eastland and Thurmond.
Also present: Richard L. Schultz, chief counsel, and Robert J.
Short, senior investigator.
The Chairman. By resolution passed just a month ago, the Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee committed itself to investigate, in
depth, the problem of explosives control, because this is some-
thing that impinges directly on the internal security of our country.
Our interest encompasses both the administration and execution of
the laws pertaining to explosives control, with a view towards keeping
explosive materials out of the hands of criminals. Today's hearing is a
continuation of our inquiry which we commenced last month. It is
our belief that these hearings will throw light on a number of questions
that are of interest to the Congress and to the public. Among these
questions are the following:
(1) Are the current laws governing the granting of licenses to
manufacturers and distributors of explosives adequate?
(2) Are the laws governing the granting of permits to users ade-
quate?
(3) Are licensees required to exercise adequate control over their
explosives storage facilities, by which theft may be prevented?
(4) How big a role does the theft of explosives play in encouraging
or enabling terrorists and other criminals to perpetrate bombings?
Our witnesses today are representatives from the Mining Enforce-
ment and Safety Administration, a part of the United States Depart-
ment of the Interior. We are pleased to welcome Mr. Herschel Potter,
Chief, Safety Division, Coal Mine Health and Safety; Mr. Roland V.
Wilson, Chief, Safety Division, Metal and Non-Metal Mine Health
and Safety; and Mr. Edward M. Green, attorney-advisor, before
the subcommittee today.
(77)
78
Mr. Potter, you may proceed.
Mr. Potter. I have a prepared statement I would like to read,
Senator.
The Chairman. Fine.
STATEMENT OF HERSCHEL H. POTTER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF SAFETY,
COAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY, MINING ENFORCEMENT AND
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ACCOM-
PANIED BY ROLAND WILSON, CHIEF, DIVISION OF SAFETY,
METAL AND NONMETAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY ; EDWARD
GREEN, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR OF MINING ENFORCEMENT
AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND CLIFFORD ELLIS, COAL
MINE SAFETY SPECIALIST, AND LIAISON OFFICER WITH BUREAU
OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS
Mr. Potter. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
am Herschel H. Potter, Chief, Division of Safety, Coal Mine Health
and Safety, Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration, MESA,
Department of the Interior. I am here in response to your request to
provide information on MESA's administration of an operating
agreement with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
concerning title XI, Regulation of Explosives, as contained in the
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. I am accompanied by Mr.
Roland Wilson, Chief, Division of Safety, Metal and Nonmetal
Mine Health and Safety, and Mr. Edward Green, Assistant to the
Administrator of MESA, and Mr. Clifford Ellis, Coal Mine Safety
Specialist on my staff and the liaison officer with ATF.
Director Davis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
in his testimony before the committee on April 8, 1976, mentioned
briefly our involvement in assisting their Bureau to enforce the
regulations of explosives. I would like at this time to explain our
role in this effort and very briefly give some background information
on the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration.
MESA was created by secretarial order on May 7, 1973, by separat-
ing the health and safety functions of the Bureau of Mines into a
separate and independent organization within the Department of
Interior. MESA is responsible for the enforcement of the Federal
Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act enacted in 1966 and the
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. These laws and
regulations promulgated thereunder contain mandatory provisions
governing the use, handling, and storage of explosives in open pit,
surface and underground mines, which in many instances closely
parallel? ATF's regulations. The mining industry consumed over 80
percent of the 3.1 billion pounds of explosives manufactured in the
United States in 1975. Of this total, about 1.6 billion pounds are
consumed in the coal industry, and 0.9 billion pounds in the metal
and nonmetal industry.
We inspect underground mines in their entirety four times a yeai ,
surface coal mines, three times a year, and metal and nonmetal
quarries at least once annually. Because of our familiarity with the
explosive regulations and the requirement that we inspect mining
operations, it became obvious to ATF and MESA that it would be
79
an unnecessary duplication of effort for two Government agencies to
inspect and enforce regulation, on explosives storage facilities. Albeit,
the two agencies had different responsibilities — ATF, the responsibility
for the security of explosives, and MESA, the responsibility for the
safe storage, use, and handling of explosives. The two agencies
explored methods of enforcement of the Organized Crime Control
Act and concluded that MESA could enforce certain provisions of
the act during their normal inspection routine at mining operations.
On May 21, 1971, an agreement was signed between the Department
of the Treasury and the Department of the Interior to that effect.
Since that time, MESA inspectors have included ATF regulations
in their considerations whenever inspections have been made of ex-
plosives storage facilities. MESA inspectors inspect these facilities
during their routine inspections. During 1975, MESA made a total
of 10,089 such inspections. There were 6,406 inspections made at
coal mines and 3,683 inspections made at metal and nonmetal mines.
We estimate that MESA personnel spent nearly 25,000 man-hours
performing this inspection work. MESA receives no financial re-
imbursement for this work.
The nature of our inspection work for ATF consists of application
inspections, variance inspections, regular inspections and special assist-
ance to Treasury.
MESA inspects the explosive storage facilities and checks for
compliance with subpart J regulations, Commerce in Explosives
part 181 of title 27, Code of Federal Regulations. Mine operators
are informed of all infractions whether they be violations of ATF
regulations or MESA regulations. MESA sets compliance dates for
violations of MESA regulations and informs ATF of all violations of
their regulations. MESA does not have the authority, itself, to enforce
ATF regulations. MESA inspectors also check operator compliance
with recordkeeping requirements on all licensees and permittees.
For the record, we would like to submit the following: A memoran-
dum of understanding, dated May 17, and 21, 1971; the order —
Explosives application and compliance inspections by mining en-
forcement and safety administration, dated May 5, 1976; Public Law
91-173; Public Law 89-577; title 30, Code of Federal Regulations
revised as of July 1, 1975; and coal mine inspection manuals.
That concludes my prepared statement and we are now available
to answer questions.
The Chairman. They will be admitted into the record.
[The memorandum of understanding and order — explosives applica-
tion and compliance inspections will be found in the appendix, p. 103.
The remaining documents mentioned may be found in the files of the
subcommittee.]
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Potter, how many mines are there in the United
States?
Mr. Potter. We will split our answering up. I will answer for the
coal mines and Mr. Wilson for the metal and nonmetal mines.
In the coal mining industry there are approximately 2,100 under-
ground mines and 3,100 surface coal mines.
Mr. Wilson. In addition to that, in metal and nonmetal industry,
we have approximately 675 underground mines and about 12,250
surface operations. These are mines that are active at any one time.
80
Mr. Schultz. Are inspections conducted without advance notice?
Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. There is a provision in the Coal Mine Health
and Safety Act that prohibits advance notice of inspections.
Mr. Schultz. Then I take it that the inspections on behalf of ATF
are conducted in conjunction with your health and safety inspections?
Mr. Potter. That is correct.
Mr. Schultz. What training, if any, is given to your inspectors
who conduct these inspections?
Mr. Potter. Shortly after we entered into an agreement — and I
will speak for coal — ATF personnel conduct training programs for
key personnel in coal mine health and safety, and they in turn taught
our inspectors. In our agreement which I referred to dated May 5, 1976,
that clarified an existing agreement. We thought a clarification neces-
sary because ATF became an independent agency of its own in
Treasury and not under IRS, and we became an independent agency
in the Interior, no longer under Bureau of Mines. It sets forth the
procedure for additional training for our personnel.
Mr. Schultz. You have your own training program in addition to
that provided by ATF?
Mr. Potter. That is correct.
Mr. Schultz. But that training would relate specifically to or focus
upon health and safety, is that true?
Mr. Potter. We also teach ATF — we have training for coal mine
inspectors 80 hours a year mandatory. In 1974, we devoted part of
that 80 hours to ATF regulations. So we keep our inspectors up to
date on the regulations.
Mr. Schultz. Thank you. In connection with your inspections, do
you inspect each process of the mining operation?
Mr. Potter. Again, for coal mine health and safety, the answer
is yes. Mr. Wilson might want to respond to some of your questions
from metal and nonmetal.
Mr. Schultz. All right, I would appreciate an answer.
Mr. Wilson. Would you repeat the question?
Mr. Schultz. Do you inspect each operation of the mine?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. Our inspections at all mines include the entire
operation.
Mr. Schultz. If you inspect on a day when they are not doing those
particular operations that require inspection, do you go back and
inspect those operations later?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. We try to inspect all conditions while they are
operating, and we will make a special effort to do so.
Mr. Schultz. Could you tell us what portion of your inspection
service is attributable to the memorandum of understanding and the
ATF requirements?
Mr. Wilson. Speaking for metal and nonmetal, we have many,
many mines which, of course, do not use any explosives at all and
are not subject to any of the requirements of the Organized Control
Act, the Crime Control Act, but at our larger mining operations that
do use explosives, overall we would probably be expending approxi-
mately 15 percent of our time to the inspection of explosives and its
other parts clear down through the use. And this, of course, will vary
depending upon the size of a mining operation. But, of the time that
we spend enforcing our own regulations, we spend probably one fourth
of that time specifically looking at the BAFT requirements.
81
Mr. Schultz. Thank you.
Upon the completion of an inspection, is a written report prepared?
Mr. Potter. In coal mine health and safety, we do not prepare a
narrative report. Our report is an accumulation of citations issued
during the inspection, along with pertinent information on the mines.
So it is not a written, narrative type report; no, sir.
Mr. Schultz. Well, the focus of our inquiry, of course, is the control
of explosives.
Is there a written report prepared on the inspection aspect that
applies to the ATF regulations?
Mr. Potter. Any violations of ATF regulations, we inform ATF
personnel of the violations, that is correct.
Mr. Schultz. How do you inform them, by written report?
Mr. Potter. By notice, a form that they have designed for our
use.
Mr. Schultz. Would you have jurisdiction to take corrective action
or to close down the operation until remedial action is taken?
Mr. Potter. Not if it is ATF regulations that are violated. If
it is a MESA regulation, we do have.
Mr. Schultz. Would you supply to the subcommittee the number
of violations that have been determined by MESA over the past
3 years?
Mr. Potter. I have a number for calendar year 1974-75 in coal
mine health and safety. That is 426. But we can break that down for
you for the 3-year period.
Mr. Schultz. And Mr. Wilson, do you have similar statistics
for your jurisdiction?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir, let me find that here.
During 1975, we made inspections at which 558 inspections were
made where we had violations that occurred. They may have been
multiple violations within those inspections.
Mr. Schultz. While you have the microphone in front of you,
would you identify the nature of those violations if you can? Could you
break them down for us?
Mr. Wilson. They can occur in any realm of the BATF regulations,
but probably the predominant violation is not having two locks on
storage facilities, having exposed metal within the interior of a storage
facility — those are probably the most common violations.
Mr. Schultz. Now, as I understand it, you furnish this information
to ATF.
Does ATF then make a physical or an on-premise check to insure
that the problem has been remedied?
Mr. Wilson. During our inspections, we also inform the mine
operator where there is a violation of our regulations or BATF
regulations. Of course, we do inform BATF. We do make revisits
to all the mining properties for the compliance of our regulations
and also to check on theirs.
Normally, these things are corrected by a mine operator, whether
ATF returns to make followups or not.
Mr. Schultz. Do you return to follow up or see that these defi-
ciencies have been remedied:
Mr. Wilson. Yes; we do.
Mr. Schultz. You say you advise ATF.
82
To whom do you send these notices of violation — the regional
district, or where?
Mr. Wilson. We send them to the ATF regional offices.
Mr. Schultz. And at that point you are through with it — or do
they respond to you and acknowledge that they have received this or
that they have taken corrective action?
Mr. Wilson. I don't recall them giving us any acknowledgment
of receipt of these notices. On our revisits, if we do see the same viola-
tion, we do again inform them, but to my knowledge we have not
had any problem achieving compliance with their regulations.
Basically, they are a lot of the same regulations that we have
anyway, and we normally will achieve compliance under our own
regulations.
Mr. Schultz. What criminal or civil sanctions are imposed on
violations of 3^our regulations?
Mr. Wilson. There are different t}'pes of penalties under our two
different laws. I will speak for metal and nonmetal. When we issue
or find a violation of a mandatory standard, we issue a notice of
violation to an operator. He has a specified time period within which
to correct that violation. If, upon our return, we find a mine operator
has not abated that violation, we have the authority to issue closure
orders at that particular mining operation until it is corrected, and
that is our tool.
Mr. Schultz. Please tell the subcommittee how many closure
orders you have implemented over the past 3 years.
Mr. Wilson. Let me make a guess on that. Last year, 1975, we
issued approximately 3,100 closure orders. In 1974, we issued approxi-
mately a little over 2,000 closure orders; and I think over the last 3
years, it has exceeded 6,000 closure orders. Now, these are not BATF
regulations. These are closure orders issued under the Federal Metal
and Nonmetal Mine Safety Act in total.
Mr. Schultz. What is the predominant problem, or cause, that
requires the closure order?
Mr. Wilson. We issue two separate types of closure orders. One is
an imminent danger condition, and one is a failure to comply with a
notice of violation, and they run approximately 50-50 on each type
of closure order.
Mr. Schultz. What is the duration of the closure?
Mr. Wilson. Until correction of the hazard. What a closure order
means is that all persons must be withdrawn from an}7 area that is
deemed to be hazardous. Now, if persons are not exposed to the hazard,
then that order can remain unabated, and of course, it is the people
that we are concerned about. So the answer to your question, there
may not be any time period for correction. It is just that people must
remain withdrawn from any closed area.
You should ask Mr. Potter the question about sanctions under the
coal law because it is different.
Mr. Schultz. I plan to direct questions to Mr. Potter in just a
moment.
In talking about the closure orders and the relationship between the
problem being a safety factor, aren't there remote locations where
explosives are stored that might not meet this criteria?
First let me ask this. Do you inspect the remote locations where
explosives are stored?
83
Mr, Wilson. As long as those explosives are stored on the mining
property, yes, we do. If it is not something that falls within MESA
jurisdiction, that still requires the storage of explosives, we do not
inspect that.
Mr. Schultz. So you do inspect remote locations so long as they
are on mining properties.
Mr. Wilson. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. Schultz. Looking at the criteria of a possible closure based on
a problem relating to safety, do you have closure authority for remote
locations where explosives are stored:
Mr. Wilson. Yes; we do have that for closure.
Mr. Schultz. I will direct the following questions to Mr. Potter.
Would you give us some breakdown of the 426 violations that you
recorded in your jurisdiction.''
Mr. Potter. I don't have a breakdown at the moment. We can
provide the subcommittee with that breakdown. However, it is my
understanding that most of the violations we have is on storage facili-
ties, and pretty much as Mr. Wilson says, two locks not being on
doors and metal being exposed inside. Our regulations as far as metal
being exposed inside of a surface magazine is the same as ATF, so we
would enforce that under the MESA regulations, but the two locks
is not a requirement of our regulations itself.
The sanctions against the operator are pretty much as Mr. Wilson
has explained, with a couple of exceptions. Our act has a civil penalty
clause, and for every mandatory — every violation of mandatory
health and safety standards, the penalty can go as high as $10,000,
and we do assess a civil penalty for each and every one.
Mr. Schultz. Could you advise us how many penalties have been
assessed over the past 3 years?
Mr. Potter. I have no idea. I know there were over $9 million col-
lected in calendar year 1975 against the coal mining industry for
violation of our regulations. We could break that down for you.
Mr. Schultz. Would you supply that for the record.
Mr. Potter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that this and all
future exhibits be included in the record, subject to review.
The Chairman. So ordered.
[The information referred to will be found on page 120 of the
appendix.]
Mr. Potter. The other thing, there is a provision in our law for a
willful violation. If we determine that the operator has willfully
violated the law, then the penalty can be as much as $25,000 and a
term in prison.
I think those are the only two things in our law that are not really
covered by Mr. Wilson's testimony.
Mr. Schultz. In your opening statement you mentioned you did
not have jurisdiction to enforce the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms regulations. I understand from this that you do not
impose any criminal sanctions when you find violations?
Mr. Potter. That is correct; only if their regulations parallel ours,
then we would be enforcing MESA regulations, and there would be
taken action.
73-004 O - 76 - pt. 2-2
84
Mr. Schultz. Do you get any feedback at all from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms concerning what resolution is made
in connection with the violations that you refer to them?
Mr. Potter. We don't have everything going through our Washing-
ton office. The district managers in charge of our districts, and we have
10 districts, have a lot of flexibility in the enforcement of the act.
They have their own contact and their own communication with, I
think it is called the assistant regional manager for ATF. The title
may be wrong, but it is something like that. So they confer with each
other; they know who their counterparts are at the district level. So
there is a flow of communication between those people. It does not
come through our Arlington office, so I do not know.
In questioning our district managers about this, they did tell us
they have a line of communication, they had no problems with AFT
personnel in the flow of communications. In fact, we asked them if
they had any problems in the enforcement — not the enforcement, but
the inspection for ATF regulations, and all 10 of them said they had
had no problems.
Mr. Schultz. Do you provide a quarterly or yearly written report
to ATF concerning violations?
Mr. Potter. Quarterly we tell them the number of inspections that
we have made. There is no other breakdown. It is a total cumulative
number.
Mr. Schultz. Is there a great difference between the number of
inspections and the number of violations for the various districts?
Mr. Potter. As again the district managers notify their counter-
parts in the district level of the number of violations and whatnot —
the type of violations — but our report to the ATF here in Washington
is a number.
Mr. Schultz. The number of inspections?
Mr. Potter. The number of inspections. We don't break down
what the violations were. We don't ask our districts to provide us
with that information either. I am speaking for coal. Metal may have
another system. We don't ask our district managers to provide us the
number of violations or type of violations they cite for our own
regulations. It is available if we need it.
Mr. Schultz. It seems to be a very fragmented approach. If
violations are orally presented to the district managers, who is
coordinating this program to ensure that the violations are corrected?
Mr. Wilson. Let me amplify on this for just a minute. BATF
furnishes us with a form, which maybe I can give you this sample.
This is a copy of an inspection report made by one of our inspectors.
It notes that there were violations made, and this is a report of viola-
tions, so we only fill this out if there are violations. But our inspectors
do fill out this inspection report and send it to BATF. Also, we keep
a copy in our files.
Upon a rein? pection, we are again checking to see that the operator
has complied with these, because we have notified him of the violations
at the time we made the inspection in the first place.
Mr. Schultz. Do you again follow up with this form on your
reinspection?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, we do.
Mr. Schultz. You submit that to ATF again?
85
Mr. Wilson. If necessary we submit that again if the mine operator
has not complied. If he has, then it just drops right there.
Mr. Schultz. Only in the event of noncompliance do you refile
with ATF— is that correct?
Mr. Wilson. That is correct. Upon a revisit we notify AI* of
corrections of violations on the back of the same form upon which
we notified them that a violation existed.
Mr. Schultz. Within your jurisdiction, do you also supply quarterly
and annual reports to ATF concerning the total number of violations
within your districts or geographical divisions?
Mr. Wilson. We don't necessarily keep track of the total number
of BATF violations. We do keep track of the number of inspections
that we make for BATF, the number of application inspections,
variance inspections, or the number of inspections where violations
may have occurred. We do not ourselves keep track of the specific
number of violations for BATF.
Mr. Schultz. Is the theft of explosives or unexplained disappear-
ance of explosives from storage areas reported to BATF?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; the law does require that all thefts be reported
directly to BATF.
Mr. Schultz. I believe the law requires that they be reported
within 24 hours upon determining that a theft has occurred, is that
correct?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; I think that is correct. I don't know for sure.
Mr. Schultz. Does BATF then conduct an investigation of each
and every loss to explain the disappearance, or does MESA do it?
Mr. Wilson. That is the BATF responsibility, and we do not do
it. As a matter of fact, we are not necessarily aware that there has
been a theft. It is something that is strictly between a mine operator
and BATF at that point.
Mr. Schultz. The mine operator is not required to notify MESA
of the theft or unexplained disappearance?
Mr. Wilson. No; there is no requirement they notify MESA of
the theft of explosives.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Potter?
Mr. Potter. In coal mine health and safety, since the agreement
in 1971, there have been 11 instances of theft or missing explosives
reported to our district managers. They immediately notified ATF,
and investigations were made by ATF, in many instances by State
police in the State in which the mine was located.
Mr. Schultz. You say 11 instances?
Mr. Potter. Yes, sir, since 1971 up through the end of April, I
suppose, that we asked the question.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Potter, you are not saying that that is the total
number of thefts. You are only saying that is the total number that
were reported.
Mr. Potter. That is correct, that we are aware of, that were
reported to our district managers.
Now, there is no legal requirement. When our inspectors visit or
inspect coal mine property, they talk to the coal mine operator about
the need to report missing or the theft of explosives, and out of that,
in some locations, MESA is pretty well known, and since a MESA
inspector has cautioned them about this, they will report it to our
district manager, though there is no legal requirement.
86
Mr. Schultz. Do you think it would be helpful if thefts were
required to be reported to MESA since MESA people are onsite
and have a close working relationship with the mine operators?
Mr. Potter. Well, we are highly visible in the coal mining areas
of the country, MESA district offices and subdistrict offices, and I
am sure that's true in metal and nonmetal. We have no problem.
Mr. Schultz. Since the mining industry uses 80 percent of the
explosives manufactured in the country, it seems unusual, to say the
least, that only 11 instances or reports of loss or theft of explosives
have occurred since 1971.
Mr. Potter. I'm saying that's all they reported. Now, there could
have been a number reported to ATF. We don't know that.
Mr. Schultz. Could you provide us the statistics provided to
MESA by the regions covering the deficiencies that have occurred?
Mr. Potter. Yes.
Mr. Schultz. And Mr. Wilson, how about your jurisdiction?
Could you also provide that?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; we can.
For what period of time, sir?
Mr. Schultz. For the last 3 years.
[Mr. Potter subsequently supplied the figure of 20 as the reported
loss of explosives from theft or other reasons.]
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Potter, do your inspectors inspect all storage
facilities?
Mr. Potter. Yes, sir, that is part of their inspection.
Now, as Mr. Wilson said, not all mining companies use explosives.
I would say less than 50 percent of the underground mines use ex-
plosives. They use continuous miners and that type of equipment for
the extraction of coal, but then the inspector makes an inspection of
the entire mine four times a year, on underground mines, and three
surface. And their instructions, as outlined in the instruction manual
that I provided to the subcommittee, tells them that this is their
procedures, and they would inspect all facilities on coal mine property,
which would include explosives storage magazines.
Mr. Schultz. Would that also include explosives stored in under-
ground magazines as well as surface magazines?
Mr. Potter. We store very little explosives underground, not more
than a 72-hour supply. So it is a very small amount of explosives if
they are stored underground. They are not in a central magazine.
It would be in small section magazines with maybe three or four boxes
of explosives at that location, plus a separate box for detonators.
There is not a large amount of explosives stored underground in
underground coal mines.
Mr. Schultz. Is there some restriction on storing explosives under-
ground for lengths of time over 72 hours?
Mr. Potter. I'm sorry, I was just told by Mr. Ellis that it is a 48-
hour supply.
The explosives will deteriorate rather rapidly in the underground
atmosphere in underground coal mines, so we want that supply used
rather quickly before a new supply is brought in.
Mr. Schultz. Is there a daily inventory required for removal of
explosives from a storage area?
Mr. Potter. Surface magazines, storage magazines, in accordance
with ATF regulations, there is an inventory. Under our regulations
87
we do not require an inventory. Once the explosives leave the surface
magazine, generally speaking, they are loaded into what we call
explosive cars, which are constructed pretty much as surface maga-
zines, they are locked, and transported underground. Once under-
ground, they are in an in-use status, and we do not require all of the
security requirements as for surface storage magazine.
Mr. Schultz. I understand from your testimony that BATF re-
quirements are applicable to the above-ground magazines, but once
they leave that and go underground, your regulations go into effect?
Mr. Potter. That is correct.
Mr. Schultz. And you say you do require a daily inventory?
Mr. Potter. We do not. Once they are in an in-use status, we do
not require an inventory. Once they go underground and are dis-
tributed at a section magazine
Mr. Schultz. How can you determine, then, if you have theft or
some disappearance of explosives from an underground location?
Mr. Potter. We have no absolute assurance that explosives
cannot be brought back out by one of the miners, but we have a
regulation, sir, that prohibits the smoking material from being taken
underground, prohibits smoking, cigarette lighters, cigarettes and
what-have-you. We have a search program to prevent that, but that
search program is made periodic, not daily, and we have no assurance
that smoking material is not taken underground either. So we can
give no assurance either way that explosives are not brought back out.
We rather doubt that they are.
Mr. Wilson. Speaking for the metal and nonmetal mines, when
we find that close to 50 percent at least of the people who work under-
ground are users of explosives, that is just a part of their work in
daily work, and unless you did have a search program every day at
these particular underground mines, it would be impossible to really
absolutely say that explosives are not being stolen by the miners
themselves. We do require, of course, that all of our miners are very
competent in the use of explosives, they know the hazards of the
explosives, and generally, they are just not going to be carrying ex-
plosives around in their lunchbox.
Mr. Schultz. Is the underground storage a locked facility, or is it
just open where anybody can obtain explosives?
Mr. Wilson. We do not have a requirement that magazines located
underground be locked. Again, some of the reasons for this is that
there are so many people who have a need to get into explosive storage
facilities that there is no real reason to lock those magazines.
Mr. Schultz. There is really a lack of control once explosives are
underground because of the unlimited accessibility to those who need
them?
Mr. Wtilson. Well, it is certainly limited accessibility to anybody
who is on the surface. There are magazines located underground in
working areas, and they are accessible to any of the underground
employees.
Mr. Schultz. Within your jurisdiction, do you require a daily
inventory of the use of explosives, when the storage facility is an above-
ground magazine?
Mr. Wilson. According to BATF regulations, surface facilities
are required to keep records and inventory.
Mr. Schultz. How is this implemented?
88
Mr. Wilson. I would have to rely on a fieldman to answer that for
me, as I haven't personally done this in many years.
Mr. Schultz. Do they have a supervisor of the magazine that is
physically in place all day?
Mr. Wilson. OK. In main surface storage facilities where the bulk
of explosives are kept, there are generally maybe two people who
would have the key and access to a main surface storage facility.
They would take explosives — well, when they are delivered, store
them in the magazine, and when they are needed, these same people
would take the explosives out and deliver them to whatever facility
their use is required at.
So really there are very limited numbers of people who have access
to surface storage facilities, and they in turn will be maintaining the
records of when material is delivered and when it is taken out.
Mr. Schultz. And what records do they maintain? Do they have
an inventory sheet in front of them to check it off?
Mr. Wilson. Generally they will have some sort of an inventory
book that they will keep track of the explosives.
Mr. Schultz. Could you provide to the subcommittee a copy of
the sheet or record book that they use?
Mr. Wilson. I think we could. We would have to go back to a
mine operator to get a copy of one.
[The material referred to will be found on p. 115 of the appendix.]
Mr. Schultz. This is in compliance with your regulation, isn't it?
Mr. Wilson. No; this is in compliance with BATF regulations.
Mr. Schultz. Does BATF provide them with the inventory forms
to use?
Mr. Wilson. I don't know.
Mr. Schultz. But as part of your inspection procedures, you check
this log to make sure that BATF regulations are being complied with?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; we check to make sure that the mine operators
have an inventory method.
Mr. Schultz. Can we assume that — you say you are not completely
familiar with it — there is a date on the form and the supervisor or
whoever is in control of the magazine initials and then signs out the
allocation of explosives?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; we can certainly assume that.
Mr. Schultz. And this is kept on a daily basis?
Mr. Wilson. Right. Well, not necessarily a daily basis, but de-
pending upon if explosives are used, whenever they are used, taken
in and out, then of course the inventory
Mr. Schultz. What about the explosives that are checked out but
not used? Are they then returned to the magazine?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; they are returned to the magazine, and we
require that, that all explosives be returned to the magazines as soon
as they are no longer needed.
Mr. Schultz. Is there a separate entry for the return of these
explosives?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; that would be part of the inventory record.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Potter, would you care to comment on this same
subject matter pertaining to your jurisdiction?
Mr. Potter. Because of the small amount of explosives taken in
underground coal mines, it is generally used and not returned to tb<»
surface magazine.
89
In surface coal mines, any explosives that are not used are returned
and record made. But again, most of our explosives used in surface
coal mines is ANFO, which you are familiar with, I am sure, and until
that is mixed or put together for a blast — well, they take out enough
to shoot the holes that they are going to is what I am trying to say,
so the chances are that there is no explosive taken back to the surface
magazine of the coal mine because it is used on the site.
Mr. Schultz. Are there ever occurrences when the explosives set
to be charged did not actually go off?
Mr. Potter. I am sure there are misfires. I have no record or
knowledge of how many misfired shots we've had, but certainly in
the course of the use of explosives, there must have been misfire shots.
Mr. Schultz. Do you require the industry to check, to retrieve
those charges that do not actually explode?
Mr. Potter. Our regulations spell out the procedures for handling
misfire shots, yes, sir.
Mr. Schultz. Briefly, what are they?
Mr. Potter. Well, there are several ways. If it is use of permissible
explosives — I'm not talking about ANFO — but permissible explosives
in underground mines, you can drill a hole along the side of that
misfired shot, charge and fire the shot, and you will detonate the
explosives. The stemming may be washed out under water pressure,
and the explosives recovered.
Mr. Schultz. The storage facilities and bookkeeping requirements,
do carry criminal sanctions, is that true?
Mr. Potter. Again, in coal mine health and safety regulations, we
have no bookkeeping requirements.
Mr. Schultz. But BATF does, and you enforce them.
Mr. Potter. We don't enforce them. We notify them of violations
of their regulations, and they carry the ball from there.
Mr. Schultz. Are you aware of how many of the violations that
you have reported have resulted in criminal sanctions being imposed?
Mr. Potter. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Schultz. Could you give us the statistics pertaining to the
violations — pertaining specifically to violations of the storage of
explosives?
Mr. Potter. Yes, sir, we can provide that information.
Is that for the 3 years also?
Mr. Schultz. For the past 3 years, by region.
[The information referred to follows :]
VIOLATION OF ATF EXPLOSIVES STORAGE REGULATIONS
District
1973
1974
1975
1 „
0
0
2
3
10
32
(0
2
2
1
(»)
0
2...
3
1
3
2
9
4...
5
0
5
93
266
6...
(')
(0
7
5
2
8
5
14
9
2
7
10...
(0
(?)
1 (58) 3-yr period.
> (41) 3-yr period.
90
Pertaining to violations relating to the storage of explosives, do you
get any feedback from ATF concerning what they have done and what
resolutions may have come?
Mr. Potter. I'm sure that that line of communication between
their regional office and our district office exists, and I do know that
they do talk to each other, tell each other what they are doing about
regulation and what-have-you. Exactly what that constitutes, I
really don't know, but we could find out.
Mr. Schultz. Were these violations reported in writing?
Mr. Potter. I think the answer to the question
Mr. Schultz. We are talking about storage facilities specifically.
Do you advise ATF in writing?
Mr. Potter. Yes, sir, we record it in writing.
Mr. Schultz. And it is the same form Mr. Wilson held up before
him?
Mr. Potter. We may use a different form. It is a BATF form. It is
a BATF form; yes, we are using the same form.
Mr. Schultz. Well, if you find a violation, do you then go back
and reinspect, or do you just leave that up to ATF once they are
notified?
Mr. Potter. You know, when we start an inspection, we may be
at that mine for 1 week, 4 weeks, 60 days, for a long period of time,
to make an inspection of the entire mine, and we have followup,
and we find something wrong today and we issue a notice of violation
of our regulation, certainly we have to follow it up, but if we would
cite or find or observe a violation of ATF regulations, certainly we
would follow up to see if a correction was made.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Potter, how many inspectors do you have?
Mr. Potter. We have, in round figures, about 1,350.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Wilson, does that include your inspectors?
Mr. Wilson. No. Within metal and nonmetal industry, we have
approximately 300 inspectors.
If I may, I might like to give you some numbers of the type of
inspections that we in metal and nonmetal performed in 1975.
We made 30 application inspections. We made eight application in-
spections at which the application was not approved. We made five
mine revisits concerning applications. We made 2,934 regular inspec-
tions at which we found no infractions of BATF regulations. We made
558 inspections at which violations were noted. We made 146 regular
inspections concerning revisits on infractions of violations, and that
is about it. That was during 1975. That is the variety of work that
we have done.
Mr. Schultz. That is with 300 inspectors?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, that is correct.
Now, we also — this is only concerning BATF. All our safety in-
spectors, as a total, made over 30,000 inspections last year, but this
is only the portion of BATF.
Mr. Schultz. 30,000 inspections is a very impressive figure. Could
you tell us what that means?
Surely we are not talking about 30,000 different locations, but a
location where you inspect many different items? Is that how you
compute 30,000 inspections?
91
Mr. Wilson. This 30,000 inspections reflects 30,000 visits to mine
properties.
Mr. Schultz. Individual properties?
Mr. Wilson. Individual properties.
Now, of course, as mentioned, we only have approximately 14,000
mining operations, so we do get back to the mining operations. As we
indicated, we go to underground mines at least four times a year, and
we try to inspect all surface operations at least once. We do inspect
our larger surface operations more than once.
Now, of those 30,000 inspections, we would have what we call regular
inspections and spot inspections. A regular inspection is an inspection
where we inspect the operation in entirety, and our spot inspections
are mainlv for the purpose of going back to make sure of the compliance
with any violations that may have been noted during the regular
inspection.
Mr. Schultz. Those 300 men are very busy.
Mr. Wilson. Yes; they are. They are on the road approximately
65 percent of the time.
Mr. Schultz. Could you tell us, please, whether you are reimbursed
by ATF for the functions that you handle for them?
"Mr. Wilson. No, sir; we are not reimbursed by BATF for the
work that we do for them.
Mr. Schultz. Is this a line item in the Department of the
Interior budget?
Mr. Wilson. No, sir; no special request is made for funds to do this.
Mr. Schultz. Do you believe that you have a sufficient number of
inspectors to carry out the responsibilities that you have undertaken
in the Memorandum of Agreement with ATF?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; we feel that we have enough inspectors to
adequately do the job for BATF. We are within metal and nonmetal
still seeking more inspectors basically to increase our frequency of
inspections at surface operations.
Mr. Schultz. Would you comment, as Mr. Potter did previously,
on the training of your inspectors?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; Mr. Potter mentioned that when we signed the
agreement that we had some special training from BATF, upon which
those people who were trained taught our other inspectors. In the
last 2 years, anyway, we have had a 6-week indoctrination course for
all new inspectors, and during that course we do devote approximately
4 hours to specifically explosives training and BATF regulations. So
every one of our new'inspectors over the last couple of years, of which
there are approximately 200, has received this training.
Mr. Schultz. And then is there a retraining or in-service training
periodically?
Mr. Wilson. Not per se; no.
Should our work between BATF and ourselves cause some revision
of existing regulations, we then at that point make this known to our
inspectors.
Mr. Schultz. You make your adjustments as you go along r
Mr. Wilson. Right.
Mr. Schultz. I wonder if you would comment, Mr. Wilson, on
the inspection and storage facilities you review in your inspection.
Mr. Wilson. In what regard, sir?
92
Mr. Schultz. First, are all of the storage facilities inspected, and
on what basis?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; all storage facilities — it doesn't matter if it is
surface or underground, we will inspect them. We inspect every one
of these facilities at least once a year.
Mr. Schultz. You say at least once a year?
Mr. Wilson. That's correct; yes.
It would be my guess, you know, at mining operations that use
explosives, they are generally the larger type of mining operations,
and our inspection frequency at larger operations is much greater
than once a year. So I am saying that as a minimum, we are inspecting
them at least once a year.
Mr. Schultz. And this would include all storage facilities on mining
property?
Mr. Wilson. All storage facilities at a mining operation, yes.
Mr. Schultz. Do you also have, within your jurisdiction, under-
ground storage of explosives?
Mr. Wilson. Yes; we do have underground storage at our under-
ground operations.
Mr. Schultz. So again here the MESA regulations would apply as
opposed to ATF?
Mr. Wilson. That is correct.
Mr. Schultz. Would you tell us how many violations you've found
within your storage inspections over the past 3 years?
Mr. Wilson. I would have to furnish those for you, and we can
provide you with the number of violations concerning explosives
regulations for the last 3 years.
[The information referred to will be found on page 121 of the
appendix. 1
Mr. Schultz. And could you also provide us the results of those
inspections under your jurisdiction — I think you said you had juris-
diction to impose a fine?
Mr. Wilson. No; we do not within metal and nonmetal. That is a
function of the coal law.
Mr. Schultz. Do you have any civil or criminal sanctions that can
be imposed?
Mr. Wilson. No; we don't, unless a mine operator would violate a
closure order, at which time he could be assessed a civil penalty.
Mr. Schultz. Can you give us some idea of the quantity of explo-
sives that would be on hand in the magazine in a big mining operation?
Mr. Wilson. Oh, boy. That could vary. We are probably talking
upwards to 25,000 pounds at a large operation.
Mr. Schultz. What is the shelf life of the explosive, or is it relevant?
Mr. Wilson. Well, that is variable, depending on really atmos-
pheric conditions at one mine versus another. If you are in a high
humidity area, of course, the explosives could deteriorate much more
rapidly than in the drier countries. There are probably some areas
where it probably would not be unsafe to let explosives be stored up
to 1 year. High humidity areas, maybe within a week the cartons
and boxes would deteriorate.
Mr. Schultz. Would the prudent mining manager use his explosives
on a first in, first out basis?
Mr. Wilson. The prudent mining operator would use it on a first
in, first out basis.
93
Mr. Schultz. Does MESA have regulations concerning the use of
explosives with regard to how long they are left on the shelf?
Mr. Wilson. We do have specific regulations that say that any
damaged or deteriorated explosives shall be removed and destroyed
properly. We do have those regulations.
Mr. Schultz. And is a written record maintained on explosives
destroyed each year because they have deteriorated?
Mr. Wilson. That should be a part of the inventory record of a
mine operator, yes, he should be keeping track of any of the damaged
or deteriorated explosives as part of his routine.
Mr. Schultz. If I could switch back to Mr. Potter — I am not sure
now whether it was Mr. Wilson or Mr. Potter, who testified about
taking explosives out of a magaaine — are the men in charge of a
magazine the ones who physically transport the explosive to the needed
location or do they merely check the explosives out and assign them?
In other words, do they stay with the storage facility or do they ac-
tually deliver the explosives?
Mr. Potter. For underground coal mines, you have supply crews,
and generally they work an off-shift, off-production shift. If you are
on a three production cycle, then the supply crew may be working
shift or any of the shifts.
Mr. Schultz. Of course, in the underground operation you don't
maintain an inventory?
Mr. Potter. Only when you take it out of the storage facility.
Mr. Schultz. But once you take it underground there is no
inventory?
Mr. Potter. No, sir.
Mr. Schultz. Well, tell us about the above-ground removal of
explosives.
Mr. Potter. Above ground you have your shooting crews that are
responsible for the loading, charging and firing of the holes, and they
will go to the surface magazine, depending on the type of blasting,
and load their truck, and will go to the blasting site. There is no
one physically, to the best of my knowledge, no one physically at
the surface magazine and 8-hour shift or around the clock or anything
like that. The crew that does the blasting will have the keys to the
surface magazine, and they will move the explosive material.
Mr. Schultz. And then hopefully they lock it up when they leave?
Mr. Potter. Well, if we find they are not locked, then we would
take action by notifying ATF.
Mr. Schultz. An interesting point — Mr. Martin said he thought
previous testimony indicated that two men had to have keys to the
storage facility?
Mr. Potter. I know of no number myself.
Mr. Schultz. Is there a Government agency that classifies what
materials are explosive materials?
Mr. Potter. I don't think so. Mr. Ellis attended a meeting, perhaps
someone from Mr. Wilson's office, with the Department of Transporta-
tion some time ago where the meeting was called specifically for
that purpose. At that time, I understand, they asked the Bureau of
Mines to be the agency to classify explosives. I don't think they
took up on that, but anyway, I have no knowledge of it.
Mr. Schultz. Does MESA have a laboratory where they analyze
explosives?
94
Mr. Potter. Well, we have a testing laboratory in Bruceton, Pa.,
which is near Pittsburgh, which tests explosives for permissibility
as explosives. We are only permitted in the coal mining industry to
use permissible explosives underground. Dynamite is not used
underground.
I hope you don't ask me to define a permissible explosive.
Mr. Schultz. I was just going to ask that because I'm not sure I
understand what a permissible explosive is.
Mr. Potter. I don't think I have the technical knowledge to tell
you. We do know that the permissible explosives, if used in a permis-
sible manner, will not detonate coal dust, nor will it detonate a methane
gas mixture because it has a short duration of flame.
The permissible explosives must be shot with permissible blasting
units. Again, the amount of energy impressed on the shooting cable
into the explosives is very limited so that you don't have a long
duration of a source of energy in the explosive atmosphere.
It is a performance test of explosives, as I understand it, and if
you would like to have the definitions of permissible explosives on our
testing, we can provide that to you.
Mr. Schultz. I think that would be helpful, but let me ask this —
is it MESA that conducts this test or makes the determination
whether or not the explosive is a permissible explosive?
[The following definition of permissible explosive was supplied by
Mr. Potter. It is quoted from IC 8597, Active List of Permissible
Explosives and Blasting Devices Approved Before December 31,
1972:
[The term "permissible explosive" as applied by the Bureau of
Mines means that the explosive conforms to the basic specifications
and to tolerance limits as defined in the appropriate current Bureau
of Mines Schedule, and implies that it will be used as prescribed in
the Schedule. A permissible explosive must at all times be handled ,
transported, and stored so as to retain its original characteristics.]
Mr. Potter. That is correct, for the coal mining or the mining
industry, yes, sir. We have in that title 30, the testing procedures for
explosives. It is either in part 15, 16, or 17 in title 30, but it is very
difficult to find. We will break that out for you and provide it to you,
and maybe along with a technical dissertation on the permissibility of
explosives.
[The document referred to will be found on page 106 of the appendix. 1
Mr. Schultz. We appreciate that.
Mr. Wilson, are the remarks of Mr. Potter applicable to your
mining jurisdiction also?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. We have within the metal and nonmetal industry
the requirement that at mines that have methane gas, that they also
have to use permissible explosives, although the methane problem
in metal and nonmetal mines is nowhere near as severe as it is in coal.
In fact, it is somewhat less than a dozen mines in the United States
have methane gas that are not coal mines. So it is a very minor thing
with us.
Mr. Schultz. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but in view of the
absence of a governmental entity to determine what is an explosive,
wouldn't that properly fall within MESA's jurisdiction?
Mr. Wilson. Well, let me, maybe, from my knowledge — DOT has
basic responsibility for classification of explosives. Now, to my
95
knowledge, thev have relied upon a nongovernmental agency called
the Bureau of Explosives, to perform the test work for them, upon
which they base their classification, and that is mainly for, of course, the
transportation of hazardous materials.
Mr. Schultz. Is the basis of their jurisdiction the interstate trans-
portation of explosive materials?
Mr. Wilson. Well, I don't want to get too far afield on their business,
I would rather not answer that. But I think your question was, is
there a governmental agency that tests explosives?
Mr. Schultz. Is there a governmental agency which classifies
whether or not a material is an explosive material?
Mr. Wilson. That is done by DOT.
Mr. Wilson. They have many regulations concerning the transpor-
tation of hazardous materials, including explosives, and they must
classify them and require that the transportation vehicle be labeled
appropriated, which certainly includes many varieties of explosives.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Wilson, while you have the microphone there,
would you comment about the "applicant" investigations conducted
by MESA?
Mr. Wilson. The "applicant" investigations?
Mr. Schultz. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. BATF requirements place responsibility on certain
people to have permits or licenses, of which not every mining operator
is required to have a permit or license, but wherever he is required to,
we will make an inspection of his storage facility to assure that it is in
compliance with BATF regulations.
Mr. Schultz. This is prior to him being granted a license?
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Schultz. So he must have the facilities in place first, and
then he makes application with you, and you inspect the facilities,
and if they are suitable and meet the standards, then he is given
the license.
Mr. Wilson. License or permit, depending on the circumstances.
Mr. Schultz. Who approves the issuance of a license or a permit,
MESA or BATF?
Mr. Wilson. BATF is the one that issues the license or permit.
All we are doing is inspecting the facility to make sure that that
facility meets the requirements of BATF, and we so inform them
whether it does or does not.
Mr. Schultz. The issuance is based on the recommendation of
MESA? Or does BATF conduct an independent inspection?
Mr. Wilson. To my knowledge, they do not conduct an inde-
pendent investigation of the storage facility. They rely uDon our
inspection for that purpose.
Now, they have got — I am sure they have other requirements that
people have to meet in order to get that permit. It is not strictly a
storage facility.
Mr. Schultz. How many applicant investigations have you con-
ducted in the past year?
Mr. Wilson. I seem to recall, we made 30 application inspections
last year for new people who were required to have licenses or permits.
Mr. Schultz. Were any of the 30 denied a permit or license?
96
Mr. Wilson. Yes. During those 30 we found 8 that — where
the storage facility did not meet the requirements of BATF, and it
was unapproved on at least the first visit.
Mr. Schultz. Does MESA make a return visit, and having
determined compliance, then resubmit the recommendation to
BATF?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, we do. If we find that their facilities do not meet
the requirements, they can refile for a new permit, and we again will
go back and reinspect those facilities, and if my memory is correct,
we did do five of those type inspections out of the eight that were
unapproved.
Mr. Schultz. Is an application for variance allowed?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, it is.
Mr. Schultz. Who determines the propriety of the variance?
Mr. Wilson. We conduct again an investigation to see that what-
ever the operator wishes to request a variance on is equal to or better
than the requirements of BATF, and we so inform BATF that in our
opinion that operator's variance could be granted.
Now, the granting of that is up to them.
Mr. Schultz. The final decision remains with BATF.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Schultz. You mentioned that there were some mining opera-
tions that did not require a license or permit. Would you identify
those and expand on that briefly?
Mr. Wilson. To my knowledge, it is those people who are buying
explosives that have to be transported through interstate, across
interstate lines, that require licenses or permits. Those mining opera-
tions that buy their explosives within the State are not required to
have a permit or license.
Mr. Schultz. They need only comply with the State regulations?
Mr. Wilson. No; I think they are still bound to comply with the
storage regulations though.
Mr. Schultz. Do you inspect them?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, we still inspect the mining operations according
to BATF regulations.
Mr. Schultz. In your applicant investigations, how thorough an
investigation do you do in connection with the individual who applies
for a license?
Mr. Wilson. We do nothing insofar as the individual is concerned.
Our concern is only the security of the storage facility and it does not
apply to the individual. That is BATF's responsibility.
Mr. Schultz. To your knowledge, does ATF conduct any investiga-
tion relating to the individual?
Mr. Wilson. Now, when you speak of an individual, you are usually
in our case talking about a company, not necessarily an individual.
Mr. Schultz. Are you saying that the licenses or permits are issued
in a company name then?
Mr. Wilson. I don't know for sure. I would guess that they are.
BATF licenses must be issued to the company, but again I don't
know that.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I know we are running short on time,
and I know you have other commitments.
I wonder if we could keep the record open and submit some further
questions for Mr. Potter or Mr. Wilson.
97
Senator Thurmond. Without objection, that will be done.
Mr. Schultz. I just have one final question.
Senator Thurmond. All right, go right ahead.
Mr. Schultz. The subcommittee's inquiry, of course, is focused
upon the control of explosives, the adequacy of laws and the execu-
tion of these laws. We have only to read the daily papers to see that
there are explosives in the hands of those that shouldn't have them.
It becomes somewhat meaningless to keep reading statistics of the
deaths and property damage without really trying to find out what
we can do to help control these explosives, to keep them out of the
hands of terrorists and other criminals.
Do you have some recommendations that you can make to us which
might strengthen controls or help deter the explosives getting into
the hands of individuals who are bent on criminal endeavor?
I ask the question, recognizing that you have within your jurisdic-
tion about 80 percent of the explosives manufactured in the country.
Mr. Wilson. Sir, we feel that the people that are using explosives
within the mining industry are very competent in the use of explosives,
and they know what they are doing, and I think the mining industry
itself maintains good control over their explosives.
Now, there are many, many types of explosive devices, and it is
certainly very easy right now for anyone to go to a hardware store
and purchase a sack of fertilizer and create an explosive right there.
Now, to try and develop recommendations to control even that
sort of use I think would be very, very difficult.
Mr. Schultz. Well, I'm not talking about that because I think
that is something that will always occur by those who are able and
interested in going that far, but what we are talking about, what was
it, 300-some billion tons
Mr. Potter. 3.1 billion pounds.
Mr. Schultz. 3.1 billion pounds of explosives, some of which must
be finding their way into the hands of criminals. And it is unbelievable
to me that from 1971 to the present time, you could only have 11 indi-
vidual notifications of the theft of explosives.
Now, I understand that thefts are not required to be reported to
MESA. I'm not so sure that they shouldn't be. It just seems strange
that since 1971 you have been notified only 11 times of the theft of
explosives — and yet MESA has the jurisdiction for health and safety
and helps with the ATF regulations for 80 percent of the explosives
used in this country.
There must be a better way to do it.
Mr. Potter. When I was an inspector in the field — and that has
not been too many years ago — we would hear of thefts of explosives,
and we looked into it, and it would be small mine operators that were
stealing from each other. They would take it to the next mine and use
it. Our investigations revealed that kind of action that we made.
That was long before ATF regulations, before the Coal Mine Health
and Safety Act that we are presently enforcing.
I don't have any recommendations for tightening up security of
explosives. Maybe I am being biased in saying this. I believe the coal
mining industry does a good job of policing itself in the use of
explosives.
98
Mr. Schtjltz. I would have to agree with your statement, but you
are talking about the use of explosives and we are talking about the
control of explosives.
Mr. Potter. I would expand on that statement to say; and the
control and the use of explosives.
Mr. Schultz. In other words, you really don't feel that there is any
great theft of explosives from the mining industry, or a need to explain
any disappearance of any great magnitude.
Mr. Potter. Not in the coal mining industry; no, sir.
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Wilson, how about you?
Mr. Wilson. I do feel that the mining industry itself is very re-
sponsible in the control of explosives. I think that they are doing as
good a job as they possibly can. In particular, let's talk about the
mining industry employees themselves. I don't think that they are the
type of people that would be stealing explosives. They are using them
all the time, sure; they would have access to them all the time. But
even though the mining industry may take all of the control or exercise
all of the control that it can, it is still the people that may come onto a
mining property during off-hours that would be the ones that may be
trying to break into magazines and storage facilities and steal
explosives.
Mr. Potter. You asked a question of Mr. Wilson a moment ago.
I'd like to respond to talking about the number of man-hours that is
used by MESA in the enforcement of ATF regulations, or the in-
spection against ATF regulations. As I said in my prepared state-
ment, an estimated 25,000 man-hours were devoted to this last year.
As we see the coal mining industry expanding its production which has
been asked of the mining operations, to double production, 646 mil-
lion tons last year, we see more and more of our people working to
inspect against ATF regulations. Now, that amounted to about 15
man-years last year. This may become a large burden on the Mining
Enforcement and Safety Administration to continue to provide this
service without some form of reimbursement. Last year we issued
about 118,000 notices and orders against the coal mining industry.
We made something like 80,000 inspections. Again, we are required to
make more inspections under our law than the metal and nonmetal
people, specifically, inspect four times a year, once every 5 working
days in certain mines. So our inspection program is much stricter by
law than the metal and nonmetal, and therefore we have a greater
number of inspectors.
Mr. Schultz. 1,350, I believe you said.
Mr. Potter. Approximately — law enforcement people. That in-
cludes supervisors, district managers, beyond office personnel, and
what have you.
So this could become a burden on coal mine health and safety at
some future date.
Mr. Schultz. Do these inspectors carry the civil service classi-
fication of 1811?
Mr. Potter. No, sir, we are not police type that we have power to
arrest or anything like that; no, sir.
Mr. Schultz. It is regulatory compliance?
Mr. Potter. That is correct; yes, sir.
73-004 O - 76 - pt. 2-3
Mr. Schultz. In view of the hour and your order, Mr. Chairman,
that we will be allowed to submit questions in writing, I have nothing
further.
The Chairman. If that's all, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to
the call of the Chair.]
Supplemental Questions and Answers
mr. herschel h. potter
Question. In reply to a question from Mr. Schultz, you said: "We don't take
down what the violations were. We don't ask our districts to provide us with the
information either. I am speaking for coal. Metals may have another system.
We don't ask our district managers to provide us with the number of violations
or type of violations they cite for our own regulations. It is available if we need
it."
From this statement, it would appear that MESA does not receive from its
district managers reports which would enable it to estimate how many specific
violations there were relating to the secure custody of explosives. If that is so,
then would it not be accurate to conclude that MESA does not, and could not,
provide such information to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?
Answer. As I said in my reply, the information is available to us. We do not
have all Notices and Orders concerning explosives or other violations of health
and safety standards sent to our Arlington office because of the storage and
handling problems. It would also be a duplication of effort, inasmuch as they are
on file in each district and subdistrict office, where enforcement is directed by the
district managers. It would not be accurate to say that MESA cannot provide
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms with such information, as a running
total of specific violations by section number is maintained, and each individual
violation is available from the districts.
Question. In another reply to Mr. Schultz, you said the following: "We store
very little explosives underground, not more than a 72-hour supply (corrected
to 48 hours). So it is a very small amount of explosives if they are stored under-
ground. They are not in a central magazine. It would be in a small section maga-
zine, which may be 3 or 4 boxes of explosives at that location, plus a separate
box for detonators. There is not a large amount of explosives stored in underground
coal mines."
Would you not agree that the fact that underground magazines rarely contain
more than 3 or 4 boxes of explosives isn't any reason for complacence? A box of
explosives could make a lot of terrorist bombs, couldn't it? And even a half dozen
sticks of dynamite could make a pretty powerful bomb?
Answer. We do agree, that because underground magazines seldom contain
more than 3 or 4 boxes of explosives, we should not be complacent, and only one
stick from a box of explosives makes a pretty powerful bomb.
Question. From a purely theoretical standpoint, isn't it conceivable that the
underground magazines in our nationwide mining operations may constitute
the weakest link in the control of explosives — first, because, as was pointed out,
the mining industry consumed over 80% of the 3.1 billion pounds of explosives
manufactured in the United States in 1975 ; second, because of the many thousands
of workers who have more or less unrestricted access to the underground magazines ;
third because of the nonexistence of any effective control procedures in the under-
ground magazines?
Answer. Eighty percent of the 3.1 billion pounds of explosives manufactured
in the United States in 1975 included ANFO which is not used in underground
coal mines. The total amount of explosives consumed by underground mining
was 42 million pounds of permissible explosives used in coal.
We do not agree that underground storage of explosives is our weakest link.
First of all, they are transported underground by a designated person and, after
being placed in the section magazine, they are handled only by a designated person
under direct supervision. The amount used must be checked at the end of each
shift to ascertain that the following shift will have an adequate supply. Also, the
underground supervisor reports to the foreman who has overall charge of the
mine, the number of working places in which coal has been blasted down during
73-004 O - 76 - pt. 2-4
100
his shift. Blasting or the amount of explosives used is determined by the desired
results in a fall of coal. So, performance — in a way — is a method of accounting
for explosives.
Question. Mr. Potter, in your testimony you made this statement about the
custody of explosives: "There is no one physically, to the best of my knowledge,
and no one physically at the surface magazines on an 8-hour shift or around the
clock or anything like that. The crew that does the blasting will have the keys to
the surface magazine and they will move the explosive materials."
This would mean that in a large mine there may be many crews that have
keys to the main magazine, would it not? Could you tell us whether the keys to
the magazines are used by only one member of each crew, or whether there may
be several members of a single underground crew who use the keys to the magazine
on different occasions? In a large mine, as a rough estimate, approximately how
many men would have keys that give them access to the explosive magazines?
Answer. Neither MESA nor ATF has regulations governing the custody of
explosives. The practice of how explosives are distributed varies in the coal mining
industry. However, we believe that it is fair to say that there would be very few
people having access to the keys of the surface explosives storage facilities, even
at a large coal mine. Once the explosives are taken underground to the various
sections' storage magazines there are no locks on these small storage facilities.
Any miner in the section of the mine would have access to these small amounts of
explosives.
Question. Mr. Rex Davis, in his testimony before the subcommittee, quoted the
following paragraph from the law governing the periodic inspections of explosives
storage facilities:
"Anjr persons storing explosive materials shall open and inspect its storage
facilities at intervals not greater than 3 days to determine whether the explosives
there are intact and to determine whether there has been any unauthorized entry
or attempted entry into the storage facility, or the unauthorized removal of facili-
ties or their content."
In response to a question from Senator Scott about how these inspections were
conducted, Mr. Davis said: "In my view, if the person making the inspection un-
locked the door of the magazine, walked inside and looked around, and there ap-
peared to be an amount of explosives that should be in there, and if there was no
evidence of any forced entry, then he would satisfy this requirement."
Is this an accurate description of the manner in which most mines conduct their
periodic inspection, and this is all that MESA requires of them?
Answer. MESA does not have any regulations with respect to record-keeping;
however, we do inspect against ATF regulations. In accordance with their regu-
lations, the mine operator is required to maintain and record, on a daily basis, all
explosives received or removed from the storage facility and the total amount on
hand at the end of the day. Any discrepancy that might indicate a theft or loss
shall be reported.
In addition to the daily inventory, any person storing explosive materials shall
inspect the shortage facility at intervals of 3 days or less to determine that the ex-
plosives are intact and that there has been no unauthorized entry or attempted
entry or unauthorized removal of its contents.
We believe that Mr. Davis' statement has been taken out of context with re-
spect to the inventory. This statement may be construed as a lack of concern in
this area. I believe that he meant to imply that the statute needs to be strength-
ened.
Question. Storage facilities are required to be inspected at intervals not greater
than 3 days in order to determine unauthorized entry, attempted entry, removal,
etc. What records does the mine operator have to keep to show that this require-
ment is met?
Answer. None. Part 181 of Title 26 CFR does not require recording the 3-day
inspection of storage facilities and their contents.
Question. The record is not quite as precise at it might be on the question of
what happens when your inspectors discover a violation of ATF procedures
governing the storage and control of explosives. Do you then, on a routine basis,
notify ATF of what measures have been taken to bring about compliance, and
whether or not subsequent inspections have determined that the mine operators
have abated the violation? Does ATF in some of these cases, or all of them,
follow up with MESA to make certain that the violations have in fact been
abated?
101
Answer. When our inspectors observe a violation of ATF regulations it is
documented on Form 4729 in Section A and then sent to the appropriate ATF
regional office. If a recall investigation becomes necessary due to the fact that
compliance of the regulations was not met during our first investigation, Section
B of Form 4729 is then filled out. When further action is required, ATF may
take action with or without the assistance of the MESA inspector.
Question. We would like to have your comments on several paragraphs dealing
with commerce in explosives taken from Part 181 of Title 26 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Section 181.127 reads:
"In taking the inventory required by (stated subsections) the inventory shall
be entered in a record of daily transactions to be maintained at each magazine
of an approved storage facility. At the close of business of each day each licensee
and permittee shall record by class of explosive materials, as prescribed in the
explosives list, the total quantity received in and removed from each magazine
during the day and the total remaining on hand at the end of the day. Any
discrepancy which might indicate a theft or loss of explosive materials shall be
reported in accordance with the provisions (as required)."
However, when you go back to the wording of Sections 181.122 through
181.125, it becomes obvious that the inventory they are talking about is not a
daily physical inventory. All of these sections state that an inventory shall be
taken, I quote:
"As of February 12, 1971, or at the time of commencing business subsequent
thereto, which shall be the effective date of the license issued . . .; at the time
of changing the location of premises to another region; at the time of discon-
tinuing business, and at such other times as the Assistant Regional Commissioner
may in writing require."
This appears to mean that the inventory called for under Section 181.27 is
simply a bookkeeping inventory — that all they do is add to the book inventory
for the previous day the quantity of explosives received and the quantity issued
during the course of the day. Wouldn't you agree that such a book inventory is
not sufficient, that there has to be a physical inventory?
Answer. Empirically speaking, I still believe the coal mining industry does a
good job of policing itself in the use of explosives. Past results of the manner in
which the records have been maintained does not indicate a need for a physical
inventory.
Question. Circumstances will obviously vary from one installation to another—
but wouldn't it be reasonable to require that manufacturers, distributors and
industrial users conduct physical inventories at specified intervals? A manufac-
turer obviously could not be required to conduct a daily inventory — in this case
it might be once a week or once a month. But it does seem that the mines, which
use the bulk of explosives produced in our country, and which generally work
with limited quantities in their storerooms, could be required to conduct daily
inventories without imposing any undue economic hardship on them?
Answer. Generally speaking, physical inventories are conducted by those in-
dividuals responsible for the blasting operations at a mine. The number of places
shot, the number of drill holes per cut, and the amount of explosives per hole is
regulated by the designated shot firer who directly reports to the section super-
visor, who is responsible tor the entire mining operation.
APPENDIX
[Exhibit referred to on p. 79]
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of the Treasury
and the Department of the Interior Regarding Title XI (Regulation
of Explosives) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
Whereas, Title XI (Regulation of Explosives) of the Organized Crime Control
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-452) establishes, effective February 12, 1971, regula-
tory controls over explosive materials, including storage thereof, and conditions
the* issuance of licenses and permits on the suitability of storage facilities; and
Whereas, the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate is charged with the
administration of Title XI of said Act, including the: (1) issuance of licenses to
persons engaged in business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in explosive
materials; (2) issuance of permits to persons who rely on interstate commerce to
acquire explosive materials; (3) establishment of standards for the storage of
explosive materials; and (4) inspection of storage facilities of licensees and per-
mittees; and
Whereas, the Bureau of Mines of the Department of the Interior, in administer-
ing the Federal mine safety programs, prescribes standards for the handling and
storage of explosive materials for use in mining operations and periodically
inspects such storage facilities; and
Whereas, in the interest of economy and efficiency it is deemed desirable to
avoid unnecessary duplication of effort;
Now, therefore, it is understood and agreed between the Department of the
Treasury and the Department of the Interior as follows:
1. Effective June 1, 1971, the Bureau of Mines will perform on behalf of the
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service,
inspections under the explosive materials standards prescribed in Part 181 of
Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, at all mines subject to the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Mines. The results of all such inspections should be promptly
submitted to the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division.
2. Prior to June 1, 1971, the Bureau of Mines will prepare and submit to the
Internal Revenue Service, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, a complete
list of all mines subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mines. The list shall
include the location of each such mine as well as the name and address of the
owner, and shall be updated periodically to include additions and deletions.
3. The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue
Service will accept the inspection of storage facilities by the Bureau of Mines as
satisfying the purposes of Title XI of the Act, including the conditions imposed
on license and permit applicants with respect to storage facilities for explosive
materials. Further, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division will accept the
inspection by the Bureau of Mines of records maintained by persons holding
licenses or permits as satisfying the purposes of Title XI of the Act.
4. The Bureau of Mines and the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the
Internal Revenue Service will cooperate in the development of uniform standards
for storage of explosive materials and, will, to the greatest extent possible, maintain
liaison and cooperation with each other in regard to their respective responsi-
bilities under the Federal mine safety programs and under Title XI of the Act
and each such agency will furnish to the other all information deemed of interest
to the other obtained through routine inspection or through investigation of
incidents.
Approved:
Eugene T. Rossides,
Department of the Treasury.
Date: Mav 21, 1971.
Hollis M. Dole,
Department of the Interior.
Date: May 17, 1971.
(103)
104
Department of the Treasury,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
May 5, 1976.
Subject: Explosives application and compliance inspections by mining enforce-
ment and safety administration.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this order is to provide guidelines and procedures
relating to inspections of explosives licensees, permittees, and non-permittee users
of explosive materials, who are subject to the jurisidiction of the Mining Enforce-
ment and Safetv Administration (MESA), formerly the Bureau of Mines, under
Chapters 21 and 22, Title 30, U.S.C.
2. Scope. The provisions of this order apply to ATF Regulatory Enforcement
offices. It is also being supplied to ATF special agents and MESA district and
subdistrict offices for information.
3. Cancellation. Manual Supplement 62G-51 dated October 19, 1973, is
cancelled.
4. Background. An agreement between the Department of the Treasury and
the Department of the Interior provides that MESA will make inspections of
storage facilities involving applications for licenses and permits under Chapter 40,
Title 18, U.S.C, when the applicant is subject to the juisdiction of MESA.
MESA inspectors will also conduct compliance inspections in regard to storage
and recordkeeping requirements of licensees and permittees under their jurisdiction
as well as compliance inspections in regards to storage requirements for all opera-
tors (nonlicensee and nonpermittee) under their jurisdiction who use and store
explosive materials.
5. Reciprocal agreements:
(a) ATF:
(1) Each ATF Regional Director will furnish to MESA District Managers
in his region a list of ATF personnel and titles, and addresses and telephone
numbers of the ATF regional and field offices who will provide advice or
assistance to MESA. The list will be updated as necessary.
(2) Each ATF Regional Director will furnish each MESA District Manager
with a supply of ATF F 5030.5, Report of Violations, and copies of applicable
regulations, Industry Circulars, publications, directives and other pertinent
information, for use by MESA inspectors. The Regional Director will also
furnish ATF F 4712, Report of Theft or Loss of Explosive Materials, for
distribution by MESA inspectors to licensees, permittees and operators using
and storing explosive materials.
(3) When both the ATF Regional Director and the MESA District Man-
ager agree that the training of MESA inspectors in storage and recordkeeping
requirements would be appropriate, the ATF Regional Director will provide
such training.
(4) The approving ATF office will furnish the appropriate MESA District
Manager an information copy of an approved or denied request for a variance
involving an operation coming under the jurisdiction of MESA. Variance
information and advisory determinations issued by ATF Headquarters will
be furnished to MESA headquarters if they relate to operations under the
jurisdiction of MESA.
(5) If the MESA District Manager desires, the ATF Regional Director
will furnish a list of Federal explosives licensees and permittees by State to
the MESA District Managers in the ATF region.
(b) MESA:
(1) MESA will furnish ATF Headquarters (R:I:S) quarterly a list of all
mines coming under the jurisdiction of MESA and a list, which will be up-
dated as necessary, of MESA district and subdistrict offices. These lists will
be distributed to ATF regional offices for use in processing applications re-
ceived from applicants coming under the jurisdiction of MESA. MESA is
divided into the Metal and Nonmetal Health and Safety Division and the
Coal Mine Health and Safety Division.
(2) MESA will furnish to the ATF Regional Director a copy of accident
investigation reports relating to accidental detonations which MESA
investigates.
(3) MESA safety specifications and security requirements will govern the
movement and use of explosive materials taken underground for use in mining
or other operations.
105
6. Processing applications from applicants under the jurisdiction of MESA.
(a) Receipt of application— -When an application (ATF F 4705, Application
for License (Explosives), or ATF F 4707, Application for Permit (Explosives), is
received from an applicant who is listed as being subject to the jurisdiction of
MESA, or who indicates on his application that he will be using explosives in
mine or quarry operations, the ATF office will:
(1) Make two photocopies of the application.
(2) Complete ATF F 5400.1, Referral and Report of Application Inspec-
tion of Explosives Storage Facility Under Jurisdiction of MESA, in triplicate.
Enter on ATF F 5400.1 both the address of the ATF regional office and a
reasonable due date for return to that office to enable the processing of the
application within the 45 day limit prescribed by law and regulations.
(3) Send two copies of ATF F 5400.1 and two copies of the application
to the appropriate MESA District Manager for the district in which the
applicant's storage facility is located for inspection by MESA. Retain one
copy of ATF F 5400.1 in a suspense file in the ATF regional office.
(4) Forward the original application form to the appropriate ATF field
office for inspection if derogatory or other information is developed requiring
action by ATF field personnel.
(b) MESA recommendation. — If the storage facility of the applicant meets or
exceeds the requirements of Subpart J of 27 CFR Part 181 the MESA inspector
will recommend approval on ATF F 5400.1 or on a separate memorandum, and
return the application and recommendation through his District Manager to the
ATF regional office.
(c) Recordkeeping and reports. — If it appears likely that a license or permit
will be issued, the MESA inspector should discuss pertinent recordkeeping and
reporting requirements with the applicant, emphasizing the necessity of reporting
thefts or losses of explosives.
(d) Variance:
(1) If, upon an application inspection, the storage facility does not meet
or exceed the minimum standards as prescribed by Subpart J of 27 CFR
Part 181, but is constructed substantially equivalent to such standards, the
applicant may, on his own initiative or on the advice of the MESA inspector,
submit a letter request for a variance, in duplicate, to the ATF Regional
Director for approval.
(2) The applicant must submit his letter requesting a variance to the
ATF Regional Director through the MESA inspector, who will review it
and make his recommendation on ATF F 5400.1 or on a separate memo-
randum.
(3) The MESA inspector will then promptly forward both copies of the
application (ATF F 4705 or ATF F 4707), the letter request for the variance
and his recommendation to his District Manager who will retain one copy
of each document and transmit the remaining documents to the appropriate
ATF regional office.
(4) If the variance is approved, and the applicant is otherwise qualified,
the ATF regional office will issue the license or permit and forward a copy of
the variance approval to the MESA District Manager.
(5) If the variance is not approved, ATF (Regional Director or Director)
will state in a letter of disapproval to the applicant why the variance cannot
be granted and what alternative, if any, would be acceptable. A copy of the
letter of disapproval and a photocopy of the license or permit application
will be forwarded to the MESA District Manager.
(6) If, upon a compliance inspection, the surface storage facility does not
meet or exceed the minimum standards as prescribed by Subpart J of 27
CFR Part 181, but is constructed substantially equivalent to such standards,
the licensee, permittee or operator may on his own initiative or on the advice
of the MESA inspector submit a letter request for a variance, in duplicate,
to the ATF Regional Director for approval. The request for a variance will
be processed in accordance with subparagraphs 6.d.(2) through (5) above.
(7) The ATF Regional Director will prompt^ forward to the appropriate
MESA District Manager two copies of any request for a variance under
27 CFR 181.181(b) received direct from a licensee, permittee, applicant or
operator subject to MESA jurisdiction. ATF F 5400.1 will be used to for-
ward the request for variance. MESA and ATF will process the request for
variance in accordance with subparagraphs 6.d.(2) through (5) above.
106
(e) Withdrawal of application:
(1) If a facility does not meet the minimum standards as prescribed by
regulations, and the deficiency cannot be corrected in sufficient time to
complete processing and return to the ATF regional office by the due date,
the MESA inspector should advise the applicant that he may withdraw his
application and reapply when the deficiency is corrected or a variance is
obtained. Denial proceedings against the application will be instituted by
ATF if the deficiency cannot be corrected in sufficient time to allow proc-
essing within the 45 day limit and the applicant does not withdraw his
application.
(2) If the application is withdrawn there is no bar to reapplying. The
application fee will be refunded if an application is withdrawn.
(3) To withdraw an application, an applicant must indicate on the face
of the application or in a separate letter that he requests his application be
withdrawn. The request for withdrawal must be dated and signed by the
applicant.
7. Compliance inspections by MESA inspectors.
(a) MESA inspectors will conduct compliance inspections during their routine
inspections. Storage facilities will be inspected at all mines where explosive
materials are stored.
(b) In addition, MESA inspectors will inspect records of all licensees and
permittees under their jurisdiction.
(c) Each compliance inspection will be reported to the ATF Regional Director.
A violation or noncompliance will be documented on ATF F 5030.5, Report of
Violations. This form will be prepared bjr the MESA inspector in quadruplicate.
The MESA inspector will give the original to the licensee, permittee or operator.
He will then forward the copies of ATF F 5030.5 to his District Manager who
will retain a copy and forward the remaining two copies to the appropriate ATF
regional office. A report showing no violations may be in any appropriate form,
provided the name, address and license or permit number, if any, of the proprietor
and the date of inspection are shown.
(d) Reports of violations or noncompliance will be reviewed by the ATF
regional office. If further action regarding violations is required by ATF, such
action may be taken with or without the assistance of the MESA inspector. The
appropriate MESA District Manager should be kept informed of any action
taken by ATF in this regard.
Rex D. Davis, Director.
[Exhibit referred to on p. 94]
CFR TITLE 30— MINERAL RESOURCES
Chapter 1
Subchapter C — Explosives and Related Articles; Tests for
Permissibility and Suitability
PART 15— EXPLOSIVES AND RELATED ARTICLES
SCHEDULE 1-H
Sec.
15.1 Purpose.
15.2 Definitions.
15.3 Application for tests.
15.4 Fees.
15.5 Shipment, quantities, and sizes of explosives.
15.6 Conditions under which tests leading to issuance of a certificate of approval will lie made.
15.7 Place of investigation.
15.8 Consultation.
15.9 Observers at formal investigations and demonstrations.
15.10 Chemical and physical tests.
15.11 Establishment of basic specifications.
15.12 Requirements for approval as a permissible explosive.
15.13 Notification to applicant.
15.14 Approved markings.
15.15 Changes after certification.
15.16 Withdrawal of certification.
15.17 Release of test data.
107
Section
15.18 Lists of permissible explosives.
15.19 Use of permissible explosives.
15.20 Field testing.
15.21 Tolerances and requirements as applied to Held samples.
15.22 Field sample failures.
15.23 Variances from prescribed tolerances.
15.24 Miscellaneous tests on explosives and other hazardous materials.
Authority: The provisions of this Part 15 issued under sees. 2, 3, 5, 36 Stat. 370, as amended; 30 TJ.S.C.
3, 5, 7.
Source: The provisions of this Part 15 appear at 35 F.R. 5335, Mar. 31, 1970, unless otherwise uoted.
Note: Nomenclature changes to this part appear at 39 FR 23998, June 28, 1974.
§ 15.2 Purpose.
The regulations in this part state the requirements for certification of explo-
sives as permissible for use in underground coal mines; provides standards for
the examination of explosives previously certified to check conformance to their
basic specifications; and provide for miscellaneous tests not leading to certification.
§ 15.2 Definitions.
As used in this part, the following terms are defined :
(a) "Explosive" means any chemical compound, mixture or device, the pri-
mary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion, i.e., with sub-
stantially instantaneous release of gas and heat. This definition does not include
blasting devices as defined in Part 17 of this subchapter.
(b) "Certificate of approval" means a formal document issued by MESA
stating that an explosive has met the specifications and requirements in this
part, and authorizing the use of markings signifying this fact, as provided hereafter.
(c) "Applicant" means an individual, partnership, company, corporation, asso-
ciation, or other organization that compounds, manufacturers, or controls the
production of an explosive and that seeks a certificate of approval for
permissibility.
(d) "Basic specifications" for an explosive that is submitted for certification
means those chemical and physical properties which characterize it. They will
be stated in the certificate of approval.
(e) "Poisonous gases" shall mean those gases, such as carbon monoxide, hydro-
gen sulfide, and oxides of nitrogen, which may have deleterious physiological
effects even when present in the atmosphere in relatively low concentrations.
(f) "Ingredients" are substances specified or found to be present in any given
sample of an explosive.
(g) "Test detonator" is a detonator containing a base charge of 0.25 ±0.02
gram of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN).
(h) "Bureau" means the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines.
(i) "MESA" means the United States Department of the Interior, Mining
Enforcement and Safety Administration.
[35 FR 5335, Mar. 31, 1970, as amended at 39 FR 23998. June 28. 1974]
§ 15.3 Application for tests.
Before an applicant may obtain any tests by MESA on an explosive, the
applicant must file a written request, in duplicate (no application form is provided
by MESA), with a statement as to the nature of the explosive to be tested, in-
cluding the composition. This request should be addressed to Approval and
Testing, Pittsburgh Technical Support Center, 4800 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15213. MESA will review the application to determine whether
the request is within the scope of this part. If the application is approved, an
application number will be assigned and instructions given regarding the fees
required and method of shipment of materials. Upon receipt of this information,
the applicant shall transmit to the address given in this section a check, bank
draft, or money order made payable to MESA, to cover all fees for the tests
requested.
§ 15.4 Fees.
(a) The fee for complete tests leading to approval of an explosive as permissible
is $1,320. If the applicant withdraws an explosive, or if the explosive fails to pass
Individual
test
Total
$1,320
22
$22
22
77
110
110
22
22
44
44
33
330
550
550
55
55
110
110
108
any of the tests prescribed in this part, MESA will charge for the tests actually
performed, with a minimum charge of $100 according to the charges stated in
paragraph (b) of this section. The balance of the fees will be returned to the
applicant.
(b) The fees covering individual and complete (total) tests are revised to read
as follows:
I. Complete permissibility test
(i) Friction
(ii) Physical examination
(iii) Chemical analysis
(iv) Gap
(v) Ballistic mortar
(vi) Gallery test 4
(vii) Gallery test 7
(viii) Rate of detonation
(ix) Gaseous products
(x) For other tests or additional work, the costs as determined by MESA based on an
estimate of the actual cost of the test. The Bureau will notify the applicant accord-
ingly, and the fee shall be paid before such tests are begun.
(c) If no experimental tests are required, the fee for issuance of a revised
certificate of approval will be $25.
§ 15.5 Shipment, quantities, and sizes of explosives.
Samples of explosives to be tested shall be shipped only after MESA has
furnished instructions regarding the quantities of materials required, mode of
shipment of the materials, and destination. Shipments shall be properly labeled
and shall comply with the Interstate Commerce Commission regulations. The
minimum quantities and sizes required for complete official tests are as follows:
(a) One hundred pounds of each explosive in 1% by 8-inch cartridges, but if
the cartridge count per 50-pound case is less than 150 cartridges, then 300 car-
tridges is the minimum quantity required.
(b) Fifty cartridges of 8-inch length of each explosive in the smallest diameter
(not less than 1 inch) in which it is desired the explosive shall be certified as
permissible, except when this smallest diameter is 1% inches.
(c) Ten cartridges of 8-inch length of each explosive in any diameter other
than those described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, for which application
is made to determine the permissibility of the explosive.
(d) Should the applicant later desire to market cartridges of other diameters,
MESA will, upon application, establish the basic specifications for grams of
wrapper and apparent specific gravity of these diameters. A fee (§ 15.4(b)(2))
will be charged for each cartridge diameter. If the cartridge diameter is smaller
than the smallest diameter previously approved as permissible, a propagation
test (rate of detonation) will also be required and a fee charged for such test
(§ 15.4(b)(8)). No test will be made on cartridges of a diameter smaller than ones
along which detonation has failed to propagate, nor will a retest be made on same-
diameter cartridges of a formulation for which detonation has failed to propagate
in any one trial.
§ 15.6 Conditions under which tests leading to issuance of a certificate of ap-
proval will be made.
(a) The explosive will be stored in a MESA magazine for at least 30 days before
the gallery tests are made.
(b) Explosives containing incompatibles (that is substances that will react
when mixed); or those containing either chlorites, chlorates, or perchlorates; or
other explosives that are chemically unstable; or show leakage of explosive oil, or
are in such condition that exudation of the explosive oil would occur in handling
or transporting, will not be tested.
(c) Tests will be limited to samples of explosives which are produced under the
control of the applicant.
(d) Explosives with cartridge diameters of less than 1 inch will not be tested
for certification.
(e) No report on the results of tests made by MESA, or any part thereof,
may be published without prior written consent of MESA.
109
§15.7 Place of investigation.
Tests on explosives will be made at the Bureau's facilities at Bruceton, Pa., in
order of receipt of the explosives, provided an application is on file.
§ 15.8 Consultation.
Any potential applicant (or accredited representative thereof) may visit Ap-
proval and Testing, Pittsburgh Technical Support Center, 4800 Forbes Avenue,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, to discuss, without charge, explosives proposed
to be submitted for investigation by MESA, Should preliminary tests be de-
sirable before submitting the explosive for formal investigation, MESA may
conduct such tests for the applicant after payment of the fees prescribed in § 15.4.
The results from such preliminary tests may not be used to reduce the require-
ments of the formal investigation.
§ 15.9 Observers at formal investigations and demonstrations.
No one shall be present during any part of the formal investigation for permissi-
bility conducted by MESA except the necessary Government personnel, rep-
resentatives of the applicant, and such other persons as may be mutually agreed
upon by the applicant and by MESA, After the issuance of a certificate of ap-
proval, MESA may conduct such public demonstrations and tests of the ap-
proved explosive as it sees fit. Those who attend any part of the investigation, or
any public demonstration, shall be present solely as observers; the conduct of
the investigation and of any public demonstration shall be controlled by MESA.
Results of chemical analysis for ingredients and all information contained in
the drawings, specifications, and instructions shall be deemed proprietary and
their disclosure will be appropriately safeguarded by MESA.
[39 FR 23998, June 28, 1974]
§ 15.10 Chemical and physical tests.
(a) Chemical tests. The following chemical tests will be made:
(1) Chemical analysis for ingredients.
(2) Gaseous products of detonation will be determined using the Bichel gage
for carbon monoxide and Crawshaw-Jones method for oxides of nitrogen.
(b) Physical tests. The following physical tests will be made :
(1) Physical examination. The physical examination of an explosive is made on
several cartridges of each size taken at random from the shipment of explosives. It
shall consist of determination of apparent specific gravity and wrapper-to-explosive
ratio.
(2) Ballistic mortar test. The strength of an explosive will be determined by the
ballistic mortar.
(3) Gallery test 4. Ten trials, each with a Impound tamped charge of explosive,
are made. Each charge is fired, without stemming, into a mixture of natural gas
and air containing 4.0 ±0.2 percent of Pittsburgh natural gas (Bruceton property),
or its equivalent, and 8 pounds of bituminous coal dust placed on shelves in the
gallery, at 25° ± 5° C.
(4) Gallery test 7. The W50 (weight for 50 percent probability of ignition) will be
determined using the Bruceton up-and-down method and firing a minimum of 20
tamped charges of varying weights, stemmed with one pound of dry-milled plastic
fireclay, from a steel cannon into a mixture of natural gas and air containing
8.0 ±0.3 percent of Pittsburgh natural gas, at a temperature of 25° ±5° C.
(5) Rate of detonation. The rate of detonation is determined on a 50-inch column
of l>^-inch diameter cartridges and for the smallest diameter submitted for testing,
provided that this diameter is less than 1% inches. Nongelatinous explosives are
initiated with the Bureau's test detonator only, while gelatinous explosives are
initiated with the Bureau's test detonator and a 60-gram tetrylpellet booster.
(6) Pendulum friction test. Ten trials are made with the steel shoe released from a
height of 1.5 meters (59 in.) and if evidence of sensitivity is obtained, the test is
repeated with the hard-fiber-faced shoe.
(7) Explosion-by-influence test. The air-gap sensitivity is determined by the
halved-cartridge method on lj4-inch diameter cartridges.
§ 15.11 Establishment of basic specifications.
The composition of the explosive as furnished by the applicant, will form a
part of the basic specifications provided that the requirements of §§ 15.12(a) and
15.21(b) are met. Such physical properties of the explosive as may be furnished by
the applicant will form a part of the basic specifications, provided that the require-
110
ments of § 15.21 are met with the exception of the air-gap sensitivity, in which
case the requirement of § 15.12(c) must be met; otherwise the basic specifications
will be those obtained by MESA tests.
§ 15.12 Requirements for approval as a permissible explosive.
(a) The chemical composition as determined by MESA's analysis must cor-
respond, within tolerances specified in § 15.21(b), to the composition as furnished
by the applicant.
(b) The explosive must not fail to propagate completely in any of the tests
involving detonation, except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section.
(c) In the explosion-by-infiuence test the air-gap sensitivity of the explosive in
l}l-inch diameter cartridges must be at least 3 inches.
(d) The explosive must yield in gallery test 7, a W50 value equal to or greater
than 450 grams to 95 percent confidence.
(e) The explosive must pass without a single ignition, gallery test 4.
(f) The volume of poisonous gases produced by the explosive must not exceed
2.5 cubic feet per pound of explosive (71 liters per 454 grams).
(g) If an explosive fails to propagate completely in the rate of detonation test
(§ 15.10(b)(5)), it will not be approved for cartridges having a diameter equal
to or smaller than that of the cartridge that failed the test.
(h) In the pendulum friction test, an explosive must not show, in any trial with
the hard fiber-faced shoe, a result more unfavorable than an almost indistinguish-
able local crackling.
§ 15.13 Notification to applicant.
After MESA has completed the investigation of an explosive, a written report
summarizing the results of the investigation and including a statement of either
approval or disapproval of the explosive as permissible will be sent to the applicant.
§ 15.14 Approved markings.
(a) Upon certification of an explosive as permissible, it shall be marketed only
under a brand or trade name which shall have been furnished to MESA, and the
certification shall apply only to the explosive as so designated.
(b) The wrapper of each cartridge must be clearly and legibly labeled:
(Insert brand or trade name of explosive) Permissible Explosive, Approved by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, MESA. A reasonable abbreviation of "by the U.S. Department of the Interior, MESA" is
acceptable.
(c) The brand or trade name and the words "Permissible Explosive" must be
included in the case marking.
(d) The applicant must warn the user by means of a case-insert that the ex-
posive is permissible only when used in conformance with MESA's requirements
(§15.19).
(e) After obtaining certification, the applicant who places approved markings
on his permissible explosives must use all reasonable precautions to assure that
his explosives are manufactured to conform with the basic specifications within
specified tolerances.
§ 15.15 Changes after certification.
No change in the basic specifications may be made by the applicant without
prior written approval from MESA. To obtain this approval, application shall
be made in writing giving complete information on the nature of the proposed
change(s). MESA will determine what tests, if any, will be required. A fee will
be charged for such tests. Once a change in basic specifications involving compo-
sition has been approved, the brand name may only be used for the new com-
position, and the former composition may not be manufactured as a permissible
explosive until it has been reapproved under the provisions of this part.
§ 15.16 Withdrawal of certification.
MESA reserves the right to rescind for cause, at any time, any certification
granted under this part. Upon such withdrawal, the certification shall lose all
force and effect, and explosives to which it relates shall not be marketed as
permissible.
§15.17 Release of test data.
MESA may publish test results in such manner as will not identify the data
except cartridge weight, count, and detonation velocity, of an individual applicant.
Ill
§ 15.18 Lists of permissible explosives.
(a) Active list. MESA will maintain a list of active permissible explosives
which will be published from time to time so that interested parties may have
information regarding available explosives which have passed the tests leading to
approval. In order to be retained on the active list, any explosive must be pro-
duced in a total quantity of not less than 50,000 pounds in any period of 3 calendar
years. This requirement shall become effective on January 1 following the publi-
cation of these regulations in the Federal Register. The applicant will be notified
of MESA's intent to remove any brand from the active list. An applicant may
request that a permissible explosive be placed on the inactive list, or be deleted
entirely.
(b) Inactive list. MESA will maintain an unpublished file of inactive permissible
explosives. These explosives will be retained on the inactive list for a period not
to exceed 5 years and will be returned to the active list during this period only
after approval by MESA on specific written request of the applicant. An explosive
may be deleted 'from the inactive list upon written request of the applicant. An
explosive may not be manufactured for sale as a permissible explosive while on
the inactive list.
§ 15.19 Use of permissible explosives.
An explosive certified as permissible under this part is permissible in use only
so long as it meets the following requirements:
(a) Conforms with the basic specifications within limits of tolerances prescribed
herein, and the cartridges are of diameters that have been approved.
(b) Is stored in surface magazines under conditions that tend to maintain
original product character, and is used within 48 hours after being taken under-
ground.
(c) Remains in its original cartridge wrapper throughout storage and use,
without admixture with other substances.
(d) Is initiated with a copper or copper-based-alloy shell, commercial electric
detonator (not cap and fuse) of not less than No. 6 strength.
(e) Is in all other respects used in conformance with the regulations specified
in the most recent edition of the applicable Federal Mine Safety Code.
§15.20 Field testing.
MESA will periodically collect and examine samples of permissible explosives
in order to determine whether they continue to conform to the basic specifications.
§ 15.21 Tolerances and requirements as applied to field samples.
Tolerances which provide for reasonable limits of variation in the results of
analvses and tests of field samples of permissible explosives were established
July 1, 1915, subsequently amended November 15, 1920, February 26, 1921, and
March 24, 1955, and are further modified in this section. The tolerances and
requirements as enumerated below supersede all previous tolerances.
(a) Requirements for tests that directly affect permissibility.
(1) Gallery test 7. The sample must yield in gallery test 7, as a W50 value equal
to or greater than 450 grams to 95 percent confidence. (For exception see § 15.22
(a)).
(2) Gallery test 1. Field samples failing Gallery test 7 but excepted under
§ 15.22(a) will be subjected to Gallery test 1. In this test, 10 trials, each with
a 220-gram tamped charge of the explosive, are made. Each charge, stemmed
with 1 pound of dry-milled plastic fireclay, is fired from a steel cannon into a
mixture of natural gas and air containing 8.0 ±0.3 percent of Pittsburgh natural
gas, at a temperature of 25° ± 5° C. No ignitions must result.
(3) Gallery test 4. The sample must pass five shots with a tamped unstemmed
charge of 680 grams (1,4 pounds).
(4) Pendulum friction test. The sample must pass the pendulum friction test with
a hard-fiber-faced shoe released from a height of 1.5 meters (59 inches).
(5) Poisonous gases. Poisonous gases produced must not exceed 2.5 cu. ft. per
pound of the explosive (71 liters per 454 grams).
(6) Propagation test. Complete propagation of the explosive must be obtained
in the rate of detonation test.
(b) Requirements for tests that do not directly affect permissibility.
(1) Carbonaceous combustible material. The tolerance shall be ±3 percent of the
total explosive.
(2) Moisture and other ingredients. The tolerances shall be in accordance with
those shown in Table 1.
112
TABLE 1. — LIMIT OF VARIATION (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EXPLOSIVE) FOR VARIOUS QUANTITIES
OF INGREDIENT
[All figures in percent)
Quantity of ingredient
— — Limit of
From— To— variation
0.0 5.0 1.2
5.1 10.o 1.5
10. 20.0 1.7
20.1 30.0 2.0
30.1 40.0 2.3
40.1 50.0 2. 5
50.1 55.0 2. 8
55.1 100.0 3. 0
(3) Rate of detonation. The tolerance shall be ±15 percent of that shown in
the basic specifications.
(4) Ballistic mortar. The tolerance shall be ± 10 percent of that shown in the
basic specifications.
(5) Explosion by influence test. The air-gap sensitivity, using 1%-inch-diameter
cartridges, must be not less than 2 inches.
(6) Grams of wrapper. The tolerance shall be ±2 grams per 100 grams of ex-
plosives ingredient based on that shown in the basic specifications.
(7) Apparent specific gravity. The tolerance shall be ±7.5 percent of that shown
in the basic specifications.
§ 15.22 Field sample failures.
(a) Any field sample will be declared nonpermissible if when tested it fails to
meet any of the requirements of § 15.21 (a): Provided however, That, for a period
of 5 years following the issuance of this schedule, the requirement of § 15.21(a)(1)
shall not apply to any field sample whose basic specifications were approved
under prior schedules.
(b) MESA will immediately report any field sample failure to the applicant.
The applicant must immediately remove from the market and the field any
unused portions of the explosive bearing the same lot number as the sample
tested. If a field sample of any particular brand of permissible explosive fails
three times within a period of 5 years, the explosive will be declared nonpermis-
sible and removed from the lists of permissible explosives.
§ 15.23 Variances from prescribed tolerances.
Variances on field sample tests from tolerances as specified in § 15.21(b) do
not directly affect permissibility of the explosive, but the applicant will be notified
of such variances, and is then obligated to modify his formulation of future
lots of the explosive to bring the explosive within the prescribed limits and to
keep it within such limits.
§ 15.24 Miscellaneous tests on explosives and other hazardous materials.
(a) MESA conducts some tests not leading directly to approval of explosives
as permissible for use in underground coal mines. Fees for these tests will be
prescribed in § 15.4 and as prescribed below:
(1) Impact test $33
(2) Electrostatic spark test 22
(3) Thermal sensitivity test 33
(4) Suspended tests in the gallery (per shot) 11
(5) Gaseous products:
i. Oxides of nitrogen only 77
ii. Complete analysis of gaseous products, including oxides of
nitrogen 110
(b) Application for miscellaneous tests shall follow the procedure prescribed in
§ 15.3. Applicants requesting tests shall follow the instructions under § 15.5. The
applicant will be notified by MESA as to the quantity of material needed. No report
on the results of tests made by MESA, or any part thereof, may be published
without prior written consent of MESA.
113
Section 15.19 of Part 15 deals with the use of permissible explosives, and
paragraph (e) of that section incorporates the "regulations specified in the most
recent edition of the applicable Federal Mine Safety Code." Except for provis ons
which impose requirements now expressly dealt with in, or which are inconsistent
with, the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, these regulations are
as follows:
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Underground Mines
article iv explosives and blasting
Sec. 5. Blasting practices. * * *
u * * *
3. Where the coal is cut, shots shall not be fired if the blast hole is drilled
bevond the limits of the cut.
4. Boreholes shall be cleaned, and they shall be checked to see that they are
placed properly and are of correct depth, in relation to the cut, before being
ch&rffod.
5. All blasting charges in coal shall have a burden of at least 18 inches in all
directions if the height of the coal permits. _
6. Boreholes shall be stemmed with at least 24 inches of incombustible material,
or at least one-half of the length of the hole shall be stemmed if the hole is less
than 4 feet in depth unless other permissible stemming devices or methods are used.
*******
9. Charges exceeding 1% pounds, but not exceeding 3 pounds, shall be used only
if boreholes are 6 feet or more in depth, the explosives are charged in a continuous
train, with no cartridges deliberately deformed of crushed, with all cartridges in
contact with each other and with the end cartridge touching the back of the hole
and the stemming respectivelv, and Class A or Class B permissible explosives are
used; provided, however, that the 3-pound limit does not apply to solid rock work.
10. Shots shall be fired by certified shot firers wherever State law requires such
certification. In mines where certification of shot firers is not required by State
law, the management shall designate competent persons to fire shots.
11. Boreholes shall not be charged while any other work is being done at the
face, and the shot or shots shall be fired before any other work is done in the zone
of danger from blasting except that which is necessary to safeguard the employees.
12. Only nonmetallic tamping bars shall be used for charging and tamping
boreholes. This does not prohibit the use of a nonmetallic tamping bar with a
nonsparking metallic scraper on one end.
13. The leg wires of electric detonators shall be kept shunted until ready to
connect to the firing cable.
14. Shots shall not be fired from the power or signal circuit while any men are
in the mine. .
15. The roof and ribs of working places shall be tested before and after firing
each shot or group of multiple shots.
16. Ample warning shall be given before shots are fired, and care shall be taken
to ascertain that all persons are in the clear. Men shall be removed from adjoining
working places when there is danger of a shot blowing through.
17. Mixed types or brands of explosives shall not be charged or fired in any
borehole.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6. Blasting cables, a. Blasting cables shall be:
1. Well insulated and as long as may be necessary to permit the shot firer to
get in a safe place around a corner.
2. Short-circuited at the battery end until ready to attach to the blasting unit.
3. Staggered as to length or the ends kept well separated when attached to the
detonator leg wires.
4. Kept clear of power wires and all other possible sources of active or stray
plpot rip current
Sec. 7. Misfires, a. Where misfires occur with electric detonators, a waiting
period of at least 5 minutes shall elapse before anyone returns to the shot. After
such failure, the blasting cable shall be disconnected from the source of power
and the batterv ends shortcircuited before electric connections are examined.
114
b. Explosives shall be removed by firing a separate charge at least 2 feet away
from, and parallel, to, the misfired charge or by washing the stemming and the
charge from the borehole with water, or by inserting and firing a new primer
after the stemming has been washed out.
c. A very careful search of the working place, and, if necessary, of the coal after
it reaches the tipple shall be made after blasting a misfired hole, to recover any
undetonated explosive.
d. The handling of a misfired shot shall be under the direct supervision of the
mine foreman or a competent person designated by him.
Anthracite Underground Mines
article iv— explosives and blasting
Sec. 4. Blasting practices. * * *
2. Boreholes shall be cleaned, and they shall be checked by the miner in charge
to see that they are placed properly before being charged.
3. Boreholes shall be stemmed with at least 24 inches of material, or at least
one-half of the length of the hole shall be stemmed if the hole is less than 4 feet
in depth or suitable blasting plugs shall be used.
*******
6. Shots shall be fired by certified persons in charge.
7. Boreholes shall not be charged while any other work is being done at the
face, and the shot or shots shall be fired before any other work is done in the zone
of danger from blasting except that which is necessary to safeguard the employees.
8. Only nonmetallic tamping bars shall be used for charging and tamping
boreholes.
9. The leg wires of electric detonators shall be kept shunted until ready to
connect to the firing cable.
10. Shots shall not be fired from any power or signal circuit while any men are
in the section of the mine in which such shots are fired.
11. The roof and faces of working places shall be tested before and, where
possible, after firing each shot or group of multiple shots.
12. Ample warning shall be given before shots are fired, and care shall be taken
to ascertain that all persons are in the clear. Men shall be removed from adjoining
working places when there is danger of a shot blowing through.
13. Mixed types of explosives shall not be charged or fired in any borehole, nor
shall detonators made by different manufacturers be combined in the same
blasting circuit.
*******
15. Workmen shall never go inside a battery to start the flow of material.
16. Power wires and cables that could contact blasting cables or leg wires shall
be deenergized during charging and firing.
Sec. 5. Blasting cables, a. Blasting cables shall be:
1. Well insulated and as long as may be necessary to permit the person firing
the blast to get in a safe place.
2. Short-circuited at the battery end until ready to attach to the blasting unit.
3. Staggered as to length or the ends kept well separated when attached to the
detonator leg wires.
4. Kept clear of power wires and all other possible sources of active or stray
electric currents.
Sec. 6. Misfires, a. Where misfires occur with electric detonators, a waiting
period of at least 30 minutes shall elapse before anyone returns to the shot. After
such failure, the blasting cable shall be disconnected from the source of power and
the battery ends short-circuited before electric connections are examined.
b. Explosives shall be removed by firing a separate charge at least 2 feet away
from, and parallel to, the misfired charge.
c. A very careful search of the working place, and, if necessary, of the coal after
it reaches the tipple, shall be made after blasting a misfired hole to recover any
undetonated explosive.
d. The handling of a misfired shot shall be under the direct supervision of the
miner in charge.
115
[Exhibits Referred to on P. 88]
MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES - Southeast Division
Explosives Withdrawal Report
QUARRY rJ\/> ^Lctfl
USE C~T fcl^j-/ By/^,,,^ ^o^T^
tef-/7-M
Pounds
or
Units
A3 ££
-£i2_
r^Hf r9
Iflf
Manufactured by
LJ^Jt-L^A-nA
Description
^Lvp^ 2%*\L ,.
Hs.rirj.^ l-iixx
fhyiJ. sr-
iJ-fJztjtJSi-'-n* c
Manufactured by
Caps Withd
rawal Report
#1 Delay
#2 Delay
#3 Delay
#4 Delay
#5 Delay
Otv.
Otv.
Lenath
Otv.
Lenqth
Otv.
Lenath
Otv.
Lenqth
Qty.
Lenqtl
1
<T/9
.s
s P
<?
f 0
//
c n
IX
/ 0
9
£0
9
lb
9
1 (,
//
i it,
1%
a
9
It.
#6 Delay
#7 Delay
#8 De
lay
#9 Delay
#10 Delay
#11 Delay
Otv.
Otv.
Lenath
Otv.
Lenath
Otv.
Lenqth
Qty.
Length
Qty.
Lenqtl
g
i"/7
s
to
/
?0
$
/£
1
1 1*
/
1 t,
#12 Delay
#13 Delay
# Delay
# Delay
# Delay
# Delay
Otv.
Lenqth
Otv.
Lenath
Otv.
Lenqth
Otv.
Lenqth
Qty.
Lenqth
Qty.
Lenq
116
MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES
CalO- i^^AL A3 blasting report
Date of Blast MjU^L^LjLj/lb
Time of Day: A.M.; 3<H 5 P.M.
Weather at Time Blast Fired: Clear ; Low Clouds ; High Clouds J^-rT. ;
Raining ; Direction of Wind
Location of Blast in Pit Including Bench Number and location on bench Oh.Ll. tX-Gt-LX ^&*X«JlA ..'... _
tiLaM' JifU^CrrUy.. JL^Lit^cJl ,... „
If Seismograph Used advise where machine was set up and who operated it
Vertical
No. Holes
TYPE OF BLAST
Wall Leveling
kc
Sinking
Toe
Sloped
Size Holes
Depth Holes
Depth Sub-Drilling
Stemming
Spacing
Number Rows
....-£. 3w.....
C'
3Mta
IXLCL
ELECTRIC FIRING: Instantaneous Blast ;
Number of Series in Blast £
Number holes primed with Regular EB Caps
Number holes primed with No. 1 (MS25) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 2 (MS50) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 3 (MS75) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 4 (MS100) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 5 (MS125) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 6 (MS150) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 7 (MS175) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 8 (MS200) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 9 (MS250) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 10 (MS300) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 11 (MS350) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 12 (MS400) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 13 (MS450) Caps
Number holes primed with No. 14 (MS500) Caps
il
%
1
ve Used £3 H
ve Used /*..?....
ve Used < X S J
ve Used ... I \A ( 7
ve Used LHJn. it.
/Mo /
Delay Bhist U^~~ ; No. Delay Periods in Blast
; Tolal Caps Used / / 4> .
•J
S~ ; Total Pounds Explos
X ; Total Pounds Explos
a ; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos
■ ; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos
; Total Pounds Explos:
; Total Pounds Explosi
; Total Pounds Explos
Total Pounds Explos
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
ve Used
l$ 7
?<?
117
PRIMA-CORD FIRING: Use reverse side for details concerning TYPE OF BLAST.
Delay Blast: Yes ; No
Periods of Delay Used: ; Total Delay Periods Used
Number holes in period containing maximum amount of explosives fired together ;
Maximum pounds explosives fired together ; Total pounds explosives fired in blast
Trunk-line Used: Yes ; No If yes, was trunk-line covered? Yes ; No
Down-line primed with caps: Yes ; No . If yes, were down-line and caps covered?
Yes ;No -
Pop Shots: Electric Firing ; Number Fired ; Pounds Explosives Used
Fuse and Cap: Number fired ; Approximate number per round ;
Total Pounds explosives used
TYPE OF EXPLOSIVES USED
Free Running
Cartridge
Type
^U^y-
2il~L*£*i*£&
L. -A-A.CU.' lc rt-i~ ...
Size
Z huL
IAaJL
knL
Pounds
1 1 1 rv
Type
Pounds
cui^f-a kit La
50
Total tULSJL
lO ajLs^uctL*
Powder Man
Superintendent
118
s: 1% Ten Days. 30 Days Net From
of Invoice. A Finance Charge Is
i To Accounts 30 Days Or More
Due, Computed At A "Periodic
; Of 154% Per Month (Or Any Port-
hereof. Minimum Charge 50 Cents).
i Is An Annual Percentage Rate Of
CAROLINA EXPLOSIVES, Inc.
0H.IVERY TICKET
jyo > c e
George E. ied > Uuowick
OFFICE PH. 633-3602
(PLOSIVES DISTRIBUTOR
SHIP TO
~ s%&*7%L ~7-Afe<issZdi
&2/ ,o yC
ADDRESS
BILL TO
ROUTE
/■f/.t^/jLJ&r
rr;,L ^> <?
DA1E_
.CUSTOMERS P.O. tf /<?-*/* ~'f '2 -
-DELiVERED BY
-TRUCK UNIT
NO. PKGS.
TYPE PKG.
QUAJHTlTY
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
UNIT PMC«
PER
AMOUNT -
<10
<r£>
4&fifi6
/A^V a^
" t ;/>y;.,.',s
'"'*£
.<-©
>5r,u. .- -T aV.st/6'
a-V>^/> ,* **-
"
/
r*
^//T FA. /"^r «*/
*$>
*2
•' V
*J
f/"
*V
.- -
=V
/■
"■^
-.-
"7
r.-
***
V
-?
r,;
^
. j/«»
/^^7T A /? r^r. ^r77
'
-
description or articles
SPECIAL MARKS AND EXCEPTIONS
COM
MODFTY
COM
description of Atnctn
SPECIAL MARKS AND EXCEPTIONS
COM.
MODtTV
CODE
DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES
SPECIAL MARKS AND EXCEPTION?
COM-
MODITY
COM
description of ARTian '
SPECIAL MARKS AND EXCEPTIONS
High f.plotl**< IN.OJ.B.NJ
Clou A Eiplo+U-M
5
Propoilonf E. plo.lv*. (Solid) CrOM 1
Clou ■ Eiplo*WM
»
Electric lloitinf Cep> — Mora The* 1000
Clou A Eipleehrea
13
Lood->. P«»P.
Nitre Corbo Nilroto
■
Clou A Eiplotl***
10
lloiiho Cop.— 1000 or Low
Clan C Eiptoth-et
'•
NWrO Co. bo Nil. or.
Ooldlline MoUftol
'
Safety fvM
11
lk..'*o Copt — More Thoe 1000
Clo.t A E. pio.lv*.
IS
o3££r*2X
•
Electric Uo.rno Copt- 1 000 or lew
Clou C Eiptotrvn
12
Cordee.. O.t^o.i Pum (Sot.tr FMot
Clou C f ipk-lWe.
'*
rHii is to certify that the above nomid ortldei are properly dattltled, described, pacVaged, moried and labeled, and
ore in proper coo d it km for rrornportollon. according to The applicable, regulation* of the Department of TrorvportofHm. iV/
CAROLINA EXPLOSIVES, Inc.
rn
'J
i
119
EXPLOSIVES INVENTORY
TO: ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
FROM: QUARRY Charlotte NO. 18
INVENTORY TAKEN BY: Ed Abernathy DATE TAKEN Sept. 30, 1976
FORM PREPARED BY: Jerry W. Mobs APPROVED BY: OVa^^Cc <&UsS'..^ s^
TOTAL VALUE OF EXPLOSIVES ON HAND: $ 9.077.87
REMARKS:
*** IMPORTANT REMINDER ***
1. Attach receiving reports, which have not been forwarded to Accounts Payable Sec-
tion, for explosives included in inventory.
2. This report should be mailed no later than the end of the first work day of the
month.
120
[Exhibit referred to on p. 83]
The number of citations of AFT regulations for calendar years 1973, 1974 and
1975: 1973— 221; 1974— 69; 1975—353
A BREAKDOWN,
BY SECTION NUMBER, OF THE VIOLATIONS OF AFT REGULATIONS FOR THE SAME PERIOD
Section No.
1973
1974
1975
181 29
7
2
0
0
0
0
8
0
4
0
0
2
10
13
14
1
4
1
2
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
181 95
0
181 103
1
181 123
2
181 125
0
181 127
26
181 141
0
181 181
. 2
24
181 183
2
181 184
0
29
181 185
1
181 186
... 9
9
181 187
35
65
181 188
56
98
181 189
0
0
181 190
16
2
181 191
5
48
181 192
3
3
181 193
1
2
181 194
4
12
181 195
28
42
181 197
2
0
181 198
18
6
181 199
3
0
181 200
0
2
121
[Exhibits referred to on p. 92.]
Violations cited as a result of ATF inspections, 197k through May 1976
Number
Metal and nonmetal districts: violations cited
Pittsburgh 374
Birmingham 297
Duluth 153
Dallas 544
Denver 79
Alameda 163
All districts 1, 610
EXPLOSIVE STANDARDS MOST FREQUENTLY CITED AS REASONS FOR NOTICES
Number of notices issued-
Calendar
Explosive standards '
.6-20
.6-5
.6-47
.6-1
.6-92
.6-42
.6-43
.6 8
.6-40
.6-103
.6-120
.6-122
.6-193
.6-27
.6-2
.6-112
.6-57
.6-177
.6-50
6-29
.6 44
•6-102
•6-30
Remaining standards
Total
Grand total 7-213
i Of the metal and nonmetal mine health and safety standards and regulations, there are 112 explosive standards of
which 84 are mandatory and 28 are advisory.
Calendar year
Calendar year
January 1976-
1974
1975
April 1976
1, 130
1,271
410
227
427
103
187
193
73
176
193
52
144
154
42
114
150
55
104
157
53
63
50
17
48
82
16
45
58
16
45
23
12
44
51
13
44
32
9
34
40
10
33
45
14
31
36
5
24
26
7
23
34
15
22
32
6
20
25
7
19
17
5
15
24
6
15
13
5
179
277
66
2, 786
3,410
1,017
122
EXPLOSIVE STANDARDS MOST FREQUENTLY CITED AS REASONS FOR CLOSURE ORDERS, PERIOD OF
JAN. 1,1972, TO SEPT. 2, 1975
Standard number
Imminent Non-
danger compliance
orders orders
Not
specified
Total
.6-20
.6-1
.6-168
.6-47
.6-107
.6-92
.6-2
.6-177
.6-40
.6-5
.6-130
.6-42
.6-45
.6-43
.6-102
.6-96
.6-00
.6-193
.6-120
.6-94
.6-50
.6-106
.6-95 .
.6-90
.6-46
.6-195
.6-170
.6-111
.6-100
.6-65
.6-52
.6-116
.6-113
.6-97
.6-91
.6-57
.6-56
.6-54
.6-53
.6-44
.6-35
.6-123
.6-122
Total
12
46
9
67
29
5
1
35
8
1
3
12
5
7
12
10
1
11
9
1
1
11
11
11
6
1
2
9
8
1
9
1
8
9
8
8
3
4
7
6
6
2
4
6
4
1
5
5
5
5
5
3
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
280
INDEX
(Note. — The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee attaches no significance
to the mere fact of the appearance of the name of an individual or organization
in this index.)
Page
Abernathy, Edwin 115, 116, 119
AXFO (explosive) 89,99
Anthracite Underground Mines 114
ATF. (Sec Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. )
B
BATF. (Sec Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. )
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Underground Mines 113
Blaekwell 117, 119
Bruceton, Pa 94, 109
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) 78-101, 103-106, 120
Bureau of Explosives 95
Bureau of Mines 78,80,94,103,104,107
C
Carolina Explosives, Inc 118
Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 78,80,97
Crime Control Act 80
D
Davis, Rex D 100
Dole, Hollis M 103
E
Eastland, Senator James O 77-99
Ellis, Clifford 78, 86
Explosive Standards Most Frequently Cited as Reasons for Closure Orders
(table) 122
Explosive Standards Most Frequently Cited as Reasons for Notices (table) - 121
Explosives and Related Articles (CFR) 106
G
Green, Edward M 77,78
I
Interior Department 77-81, 103, 107, 110
Interstate Commerce Commission 018
M
Moss, Jerry W 119
Martin Marietta Aggregates 115, 116, 118
Memorandum of Understanding 79, 103
Metal and Xonmetallic Mine Safety Act 78, 82
O
Organized Crime Control Act 79,103
P
Pittsburgh, Pa 94, 107, 109
Potter, Herschel H., testimony of 77-101
(I)
II
R
Rossides, Eugene T 103
S
Schultz, Richard L 77-101
Scott, Senator William 100
Short, Robert J 77-101
T
Thurmond, Senator Strom 77-99
Transportation Department (DOT) 93-95
Treasury Department 79, 80, 103, 104
U
United States 78, 79, 99
V
Violation of ATF Explosives Storage Regulations (table) 89
Violations of ATF Regulations (table) 120
Violations Cited as a Result of ATF Inspections (table) 121
W
Wilson, Roland, testimony of 77-99
o
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05995 194 5
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11