Coal Age Magazine - For nearly 100 years, Coal Age has been the magazine that readers can trust for guidance and insight on this important industry.
Issue link: https://coal.epubxp.com/i/513975
Historical Performance Metrics and Discussion of Results AEP annually asked 27 to 29 coal suppliers to complete the survey; 11 to 13 responded. The suppliers entered information on 32 to 58 mines and two to 10 facilities with MSHA identification numbers. Of the mines, 10 to 26 were underground and 22 to 32 were surface. Geographically, the mines stretch from the Gulf Coast to Wyoming and as far east as Pennsylvania. Four of the six major U.S. coal-pro- ducing regions were represented in the surveys. Coal provided by respondents to AEP ranged from 42 to 59 million tons per year (tpy), or 79% to 95% of the coal provided by all suppliers. The survey results provide an excellent snapshot of the environ- mental, safety and health performances of the U.S. coal industry, as it annually represented 40% to 46% of the total coal mined in the U.S. during the survey period. It also reflects excellent, sustained performance by the coal industry — according to six years of data that have been collected and analyzed. Background Information In an effort to understand the localized nature of the labor force, as indicated in GRI's MMSS, respondents were asked to identify the proportion of the workforce that lived within 50 miles, 75 miles and greater than 75 miles of the mine. Results in 2013, and generally for the survey period, reflect that coal mining employment is highly localized. Of those responding, 82% of mine employees live within 50 miles, 12% live between 50 and 75 miles, and the remaining 6% live greater than 75 miles from the mine. In 2013, the total tonnage currently under permit by respon- dents was 5 billion tons. Additional permitting is under way for 14 of these mines with an additional tonnage of 606 million tons, or 12% of the total current permitted tonnage. Post-mining land use was indicated for 31 different permits comprised of 54.8% agricultural use, 32.3% forestland/fish/wildlife uses, and 12.9% "other" uses. There were only two mines indicating a variance from reclaiming to the Approximate Original Contour (AOC). One mine indicated the post-mining land use would be "agricultural/grazing/pasture" while the other one was granted for a steep slope area. None of the mines with a variance from AOC stated the reason for the variance to be related to mountaintop removal. Table 1 shows the distribution of surface mining methods for the primary method of extraction. In some mines, multiple meth- ods of extraction are used, and Table 2 reflects the secondary meth- ods used. Six of the mines used more than one method, while five of them used two secondary methods. Of the four responding surface mines within Central Appalachia (CAPP), which provided sufficient information, both reported the method of surface mining used in 2013. Of note over the period of the survey, the use of mountaintop removal gradually decreased until none was done by AEP suppliers in 2013. Citation Results To review and more accurately compare the data, mines were ana- lyzed by size category and the numbers of citations (regular, signifi- cant and substantial (S&S;) and order types) were divided by inspection hours and then normalized by 100 inspection hours. Mine-size categories used in the data review were large (100 or more employees), medium (50 to 99 employees), small (20 to 49 employees), and very small (less than 20 employees). The six-year trends for AEP large underground mine suppliers' serious citation rates and their comparison with national averages are given in Table 3. For AEP suppliers, the overall six-year trend shows a steady decrease in the significant and substantial rate (SS/100 IH) and the order rate (O/100 IH) from 2009 through 2013, which generally reflects the national trend as well. Notably, the AEP supplier rates are consistently much lower than the national rates, with the exception of 2009. Results for medi- um-size underground mine AEP suppliers are given in Table 4. Significant improvements of the rates were achieved since 2009, with AEP supplier average rates being less than the national average rates during 2010-2012. The six-year trends for AEP underground small-mine suppliers' rates and their comparison with national averages are given in Table 5. Notably, the AEP supplier rates are consistently lower than the national rates, showing a steady decrease from 2009. There were no very small mine suppliers to AEP in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The six-year trends for AEP large surface mine suppliers' serious citation rates and their comparison with national averages are given in Table 6. Similar to the previous results, the AEP large surface s u s t a i n a b i l i t y c o n t i n u e d May 2015 www.coalage.com 45