In the Matter of: ) ) COAL DIESEL PARTICULATE EXPOSURE ) OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS ) Pages: 1 through 169 Place: Salt Lake City, Utah Date: November 17, 1998 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MSHA COAL DIESEL PARTICULATE EXPOSURE ) OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS ) Room 250-7 Salt Palace Court Center 100 S.W. Temple Salt Lake City, Utah Tuesday, November 17, 1998 The hearing began, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. BEFORE: THOMAS TOMB, Moderator APPEARANCES: PAMELA KING SANDRA WESDOCK JON KOGUT ROBERT THAXTON ROBERT HANEY GEORGE SASEEN RONALD FORD PANELISTS: MICHAEL PEELISH DAVID BEERBOWER NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION JAMES CEAL, Local 2176 BRAD ALLEN, Local 1984 UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA ENERGY WEST MINING COMPANY P R O C E E D I N G S MR. TOMB: I guess about everybody has arrived and I'd like to get started. I want to welcome you all here to this hearing. My name is Thomas Tomb and I'm Chief of the Dust Division of MSHA's Pittsburgh Safety & Health Technology Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I will be the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's proposed rule addressing Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Coal Miners. I have a short statement here that I would like to read into the public record before we get started. Personally and on behalf of Assistant Secretary Jay Devitt Lagatier, I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to each of you for your being here today and for your input. With me on the panel today from MSHA are Jon Kogut, from the Office of Program Evaluation and Information Resources, Denver, Colorado. We have George Saseen from the Approval and Certification Center in Tridelphia, West Virginia; Robert Haney, who is the Chief of the Environmental Assessment and Contaminant Control Branch in the Pittsburgh Safety & Health Technology Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We have Sandra Wesdock from the Office of the Solicitor in Arlington, Virginia. We have Robert Thaxton from the Coal Mine Safety and Health, Health Division in Arlington, Virginia and we have Ronald Ford and Pamela King from the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances in Arlington, Virginia. In the audience, we also have several people from Arlington. That is, Carol Jones, who is the Acting Director of the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, and Deborah Jones -- Green, I'm sorry, Deborah. I'm glad you can't talk today, now. Deborah Green who is with the Office of the Solicitor in Arlington. Can you correct that in your transcript? (Laughter.) MR. TOMB: This hearing is being held in accordance with Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. As is the practice of this Agency, formal rules of evidence will not apply. We are making a verbatim transcript of this hearing. It will be made an official part of the rulemaking record. The hearing transcript, along with all of the comments that MSHA has received to date on the proposed rule will be available for your review. If you want to get a copy of the hearing transcript for you own use, however, you must make your arrangements with the court reporter. We value your comments. MSHA will accept written comments and other data from anyone, including those of you who do not present an oral statement. You may submit written comments to Pam King, whom I've introduced, or to Carol Jones, whom I've introduced as Acting Director of the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, at the address that is listed in the notice for the hearing. We will include them in the rulemaking record. If you feel you need to modify your comments or wish to submit additional comments following the hearing, the record will stay open until February 16, 1999. You are encouraged to submit to MSHA a copy of our comments on computer disk. I'd like to emphasize that, because that makes our job a lot easier. Your comments are essential in helping MSHA develop the most appropriate rule that fosters safety and health in our nation's mines. We appreciate your views on this rulemaking and assure that your comments, whether written or oral, will be considered by MSHA in finalizing this rule. In another rulemaking that came out on October 29, 1998, we published the proposed rule to address diesel particulate matter exposure of underground metal and non- metal mines. The comment period for that proposed rule will close on February 26, 1999. Hearings for the metal and non- metal proposal will be announced in the future Federal Register notice. You may obtain copies of that proposal by downloading it from MSHA's website, which is www.msha.gov, or by calling the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at (703) 235-1910. However, the scope of this hearing today is limited to the April 9, 1998 proposed rule addressing diesel particulate exposure of underground coal miners. This hearing is the first of four public hearings to be held on the proposed rule. We plan to hold the second hearing later this week in Beckley, West Virginia on Thursday, at the Mine Safety and Health Academy in Beckley, West Virginia. we will hold the third hearing on December 15, 1998 in Mt. Vernon, Illinois and the fourth and final hearing on December 17, 1998 in Birmingham, Alabama. Information regarding these hearings was published in the Federal Register on October 19 and can also be obtained from MSHA's website on the Internet. And, there are a few copies available here, if you want to pick one up here. On April 9, 1998, MSHA published the proposed rule that would reduce the risk in underground coal miners of serious health hazards that are associated with exposure to high concentrations of diesel particulate matter. Diesel particular matter is a very small particle in diesel exhaust. Underground miners are exposed to far higher concentrations of this fine particulate than any other group of workers. The best available evidence indicates that such high exposure puts these miners at excess risk of a variety of adverse health effects, including lung cancer. The comment period for the proposed rule was scheduled to close on August 7, 1998. However, due to requests from the mining community, the Agency extended the comment period for an additional 60 days, and this was until October 9, 1998. This proposed rule would require the following: Proposed paragraph 72.500 would require the installation and maintenance of high efficiency particulate filters on the most polluting types of diesel equipment and underground coal mines. It would require that beginning 18 months after the date this rule was promulgated, any piece of permissible diesel-powered equipment -- and I stress permissible -- operated in an underground coal mine, must be equipped with a system capable of removing, on average, at least 95 percent of the mass of the diesel particulate matter emitted from the engine. Additionally, beginning 30 months after the rule is promulgated, any non-permissible piece of heavy duty diesel-powered equipment operated in an underground coal mine must be equipped with a system capable of removing, on average, at least 95 percent of the mass of the DPM emitted from the engine. Any exhaust after-treatment device installed to reduce the emission of DPM would be required to be maintained in accordance with manufacturer specifications. The proposal also sets forth the Agency requirements for determining whether a system is capable of removing, on average, at least 95 percent of diesel particulate matter by mass. It states that a filtration system must be tested by comparing the results of emission tests of an engine with and without the filtration systems in place. Proposed paragraph 72.510 is a training requirement which lists the pertinent areas in which instruction must occur. The training is to be provided annually in all mines, using diesel-powered equipment, and it is to be provided without charge to the miners. It also includes provisions on records retention, access and transfer. And, finally, proposed amendment to paragraph 75.371 would amend existing paragraph 75.371, which is the mine ventilation plan contents, which would add one new requirement to an underground mine ventilation control plan. The additional information is limited, but it is critical to the control of diesel particulate matter. The proposal would require the ventilation plan to contain a list of the diesel powered units used by the mine operator, together with information about each units emission control or filtration system. Details relative to the efficiency of the system and the method used to establish the efficiency of the system for removing diesel particulate matter are to be included. Any amendments to a mine's ventilation plan, of course, must also follow requirements of 30 CFR 75.370, which are the submission and approval requirements to the mine ventilation plan. MSHA received comments from various sectors of the mining community and has preliminarily reviewed the comments it has received thus far. MSHA would particularly like additional input from the mining community regarding specific alternative approaches discussed in the economic feasibility section of the preamble. As you might recall, the options discussed include establishing a concentration limit for diesel particulate matter in this sector, the coal sector; requiring filters on some light-duty equipment; and looking at the filter and the engine as a package that has to meet a particular emission standard, instead of requiring that all engines be equipped with a high-efficiency filter. The Agency is also interested in obtaining as many examples as possible of the specific situation in individual mines. This could include the composition of the diesel fleet, what controls cannot be utilized due to special conditions, and any studies of alternative controls you might have used for the computer spreadsheet that we have put into the preamble of the proposed rule. We also seek information about the availability and costs of various control technologies that are being developed, such as high-efficiency ceramic filters. Also, experience with the use of available controls and information that will help us evaluate alternative approaches for underground coal mines. We would also like to hear about any unusual situations that might warrant the application of special provisions. The Agency welcomes comments on any topics on which we should provide initial guidance, as well as any alternative practices which MSHA should accept for compliance before various provisions of the rule go into effect. Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires each federal agency to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions and to prepare an environmental impact statement, a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On July 14, 1998, MSHA published a notice in the Federal Register that announced its preliminary determination that the proposed rule would have no significant environmental impact. The comment period was scheduled to close on August 10, 1998. However, MSHA extended the comment period until October 9, 1998 and the record will remain open as stated in this public hearing notice until February 16, 1999, to allow for post-hearing comments and data submission. MSHA views these rulemaking activities as extremely important and knows that your participation is also a reflection of the importance you associate with the rulemaking. To insure that an adequate record is made during this proceeding, when you present your oral statement or otherwise address the panel, I ask that you come to the front table here, clearly state your name, spell your name and state the name of the organization you represent. The way we were going to handle this today, we've had several, three, lists of people that have asked for time to present. They will be given first come, first presentation privileges. They will be done in 30 minute intervals, and if there's more time required, and then we will repeat and most people will be able to come back and represent. After that time, we have a list of people that have signed in at the door to make presentations and we'll take them in the order that the signees signed the sign-in sheet. It is my intent that during this hearing, anyone who wishes to speak will be given an opportunity. Anyone who has not previously asked for time to speak needs to tell us of your intention to do so by signing the request sheet, and as all of you know, I'm sure by now, that that's in the back of the room. Time will be allowed, allocated for you to speak after the scheduled speaker. We are scheduled to go until 5 p.m. today. Of course, we will call a halt if we run out of speakers. I will attempt to recognize all speakers in the order in which they requested to speak. However, as the moderator, I reserve the right to modify the order of presentation in the interest of fairness. I doubt that it will be necessary, but I also may exercise discretion to irrelevant or unduly repetitious material. And, in order to clarify certain points, the panel may ask questions of the speakers. I might also add for some of you that are not familiar with the facility here, is that there are restrooms directly at the bottom of the escalator out here and there are also vending machines also on that main floor. With that, I would like to call our first speaker this morning, which will be the National Mining Association. MR. PEELISH: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Michael Peelish. That's spelled P-E-E-L-I- S-H, Director of Safety for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company. With me is David Beerbower, spelled B-E-E-R-B-O-W-E-R, Vice President for Safety with Peabody Group. Joining us are Bruce Watzman and Michael Duffy from the National Mining Association. Today, we appear before you representing the members of the NMA who produce the vast majority of coal produced annually in the U.S. Further, NMA member-companies manufacture the equipment and systems which are the subject of this rulemaking. As such, the NMA has a keen level of interest in these proceedings as they will, in large part, determine what equipment and under what conditions, diesel- powered equipment will continue to be used in underground coal mines. Let us be clear at the outset, we are convinced that diesel-powered equipment is not only safe for us in underground coal mines, but has significantly improved safety in our coal mines. Our testimony today will focus primarily on two aspects of the Agency's proposed rule. First, we will comment on the proposed requirement that certain categories of equipment used in underground coal mines be equipped with an after-treatment filtration system, capable of removing 95 percent of the DPM emitted. Second, we will comment on the Agency's economic analysis that accompanies the proposal. Prior to the end of the comment period, we will provide more extensive comments on the Agency's risk assessment and we will provide an alternative, which will afford miners greater health protection within the current limits of technology and economics. Diesel Particulate Matter -- Need to Control Exposures. MSHA and its predecessors have promulgated standards applicable to diesel as far back as 1944 to control gaseous emissions. MSHA began its recent activity addressing the use of diesel-powered equipment on October 6, 1987, when the Agency established an Advisory Committee on Standards and Regulations for Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines. That was the Diesel Advisory Committee. The Diesel Advisory Committee issued its report to the Secretary of Labor in July, 1988. Based on the Diesel Advisory Committee's report, MSHA issued proposed rules for the Approval Requirements for Diesel-Powered Machines and Approval, Exposure Monitoring and Safety Requirements for the Use of Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mining. The rule was published in the Federal Register on October 4, 1989. These rules became final on October 25, 1996, with complete implementation required by November 25, 1999. The 1996 final rule primarily addressed the diesel-powered machine approval, ambient monitoring for certain diesel emissions components, and safety use issues. To some extent, the 1996 final rule did address health issues by focusing on how to improve diesel emissions through cleaner engines verified by engine emissions testing, better fuel quality, better maintenance specifications and training requirements and monitoring for emission gases. While MSHA was still considering the machine approval and safety use issues, it issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on a Permissible Exposure Limit for DPM. The rule was published in the Federal Register on January 6, 1992. In the preamble to the 1992 advance notice, MSHA noted that the Diesel Advisory Committee made "several research proposals to the Secretary, because they recognized the difficulty in implementing the recommendations based on the body of scientific knowledge that existed at the time of the report. The committee recommended that the Secretary request the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Bureau of Mines give the highest authority to research in the development of sampling methods and devices for DPM. In addition, the committee concluded that in the absence of adequate information regarding DPM exposure levels at which health effects accrue, more research is needed." From these recommendations, MSHA set in motion four initiatives. Two of these initiatives pertained to DPM measuring devices and exposure levels. One pertained to risk assessments utilizing animal studies and correlating and modeling these studies to humans, and the last pertained to diesel emissions control technologies. The first emission regarding exposure levels, MSHA has provided data noting ranges of average DPM exposures observed at various mines for underground and surface miners, compared to range of average exposures reported for other occupations and for ambient air. While much has been said about the high-end concentrations that have been found, it must be noted that the average exposures are .644 mg/m3 in underground coal mines. Even these are actually upper bound estimates for DPM, because the sampling devices measure everything below .8 micrometers, including coal dust and rock dust. Beyond this, however, we are uncertain about the data's credibility, since the data was gathered by emissions monitoring devices later discredited by MSHA in the preamble. Quite frankly, we are confused by MSHA's inconsistencies concerning emissions measuring devices and techniques. Regarding DPM devices, by MSHA's own admission in the preamble, its research work has not produced an instrument that provides reliable and accurate measurement capabilities in underground coal mines. Relative to the developing emissions control technology, MSHA has done some work in this area, but it remains unclear whether any of these technologies meet a 95 percent efficiency standard. By MSHA's own admission, the nature of the rule is "technology forcing." We will discuss this in greater detail later. The only tangible results produced by MSHA for use by the mine operator to address diesel emissions are set forth in the MSHA publication "Practical Ways to Reduce Exposure to Diesel Exhaust in Mining - A Toolbox." Unfortunately for the mine operator, MSHA completely ignores its own "Toolbox" by proposing a rule that does not allow engine manufacturers or mine operators the benefit of any of its tools. Rather, the Agency has decided to mandate an across-the-board system efficiency rating. The MSHA toolbox would tend to support the concept that mine operators should be allowed to choose the combination of controls that best suits their operations, versus a restrictive and mandated efficiency rating standard. Relative to the risk assessment, what has really changed since 1992? Simply put, nothing has changed MSHA has failed to initiate any scientifically based research on humans or follow up on previous research performed by NIOSH, the former Bureau of Mines, and MSHA in the late 1970's and early 80's in the western coal mines, using actual coal miners. Rather, MSHA has based its risk assessment on a collection of epidemiological studies whose reliability is of questionable value. Moreover, the reliance on animal bioassays and, particularly, those involving rats, has been called into question by researchers throughout the world. Simply put, we know today that rats cannot be relied upon to estimate human exposure and response mechanisms. Both the EPA and the California Air Resource Board rejected this as the basis for regulating diesel exposure. As noted previously, we will provide additional comments on these aspects in our written comments. Perhaps the most useful scientific study is currently underway between NIOSH and the National Cancer Institute. Rather than wait for preliminary or final results of this study, MSHA has elected to issue a proposed rule that establishes an extremely stringent standard. We are advised that you will receive testimony regarding the NIOSH/NCI study. We support the efforts of the companies involved in that study and would again urge the Agency to await the results of that investigation before promulgating final rules. While seven years may be too long in the Agency's eyes, we must note with some irony the years we've been awaiting rules regarding the use of belt air to ventilate working places and high-voltage electrical standards. In any case, however, we understand that interim reports from the study will be made available. It behooves the Agency to consider these as it proceeds with this important initiative. The industry's approach throughout the prior advisory committee and rulemaking efforts has been to assure reasonable and justifiable approval, use standards, and health standards for diesel-powered equipment utilized in underground coal mines. Indeed, the safety and operational advantages afforded by the use of diesel-powered equipment have been unquestionably demonstrated over years of steadily increasing use of this equipment in underground coal mining. Many of the concerns raised by MSHA, the coal miners and the coal mining industry during the proceedings of the Diesel Advisory Committee and the October 4, 1989 proposed rule have been addressed in the 1996 final rule. Indeed, the missing factor in the management of diesel emissions equation pertains to the health risk. However, before MSHA proceeds with this critical aspect of the solution, it should support its approach with sound scientific data. In the industry's opinion, MSHA has failed to do so. NMA member companies believe that it simply makes common sense to manage a business on the premise that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. MSHA has not met the legal standard to justify proposing such extreme measures to manage DPM emissions. In doing so, MSHA has tied one hand behind the operator's back by not allowing the operator the opportunity to use all available resources as those set forth in MSHA's Toolbox. The definition of an unreasonable rule is MSHA requiring mine operators to meet one of the most stringent diesel emission standards in the world, without the use of all available resources such as clean engines, high fuel quality, ventilation, and greater variety of reliable, commercially available after-treatment devices. Section 72.500(a) The proposed rule as reflected in Section 75.200(a) is premised on the availability of reliable, commercially available after-treatment devices capable of removing 95 percent of the DPM emitted from the engine. NMA is confused as to how MSHA is defining "...a filtration device capable of removing an average of 95 percent or greater by mass of DPM." If MSHA is saying that the filtration devices must show 95 percent efficiency regardless of the type of particle test dust used or sampling device or sampling techniques, then several manufacturers' published reports have made claims that their filtration devices attain a 95 percent efficiency rating. If, however, MSHA is saying that the filtration device is, instead, an entire system tested under ISO-8 Mode steady state test procedures while emitting DPM, then arguably, only one manufacturer currently meets that standard, and then only for one engine package. NMA is assuming the latter situation applies to these proposed rules and further is assuming that Dry Systems Technology, Dry Systems, is the only filtration device anticipated by the proposed standard. DST Dry Systems has undergone several emissions tests required by the proposed rule and is currently installed on two permissible diesel units believed to meet the proposed standard. To NMA's knowledge, other than DST Dry Systems, no other equipment or after-treatment manufacturers claim they have passed the tests envisioned in the proposed rule 72.500(d). This being the case, our review of the economic analysis, which Dave will discuss shortly, is predicated on the belief that operators would be required to use the DST Dry System, assuming it can universally meet the proposed rule. Before turning to the economic analysis, however, we think it is important to set the record straight regarding the availability, reliability, and technical feasibility of after-treatment devices to comply with the 95 percent emission reduction requirement. Quite simply, we have been unable to substantiate the Agency's contention that such devices are feasible and available. Just the opposite has been found. While DST Dry Systems has proven successful under limited testing and in some applications, it has not been found to be universally applicable to all mining equipment. In this regard, we would ask that a study conducted by West Virginia University for the West Virginia Diesel Equipment Commission be made a part of the record. The Agency's blind reliance on manufacturers' claims of efficiency ignores the testing methodologies employed and their inapplicability to the environment in which these devices will operate -- underground coal mines. To promulgate a regulation whose bases are manufacturers' claims of efficiency using latex particles or monodispersed liquid particulate matter as the testing medium is both ill advised and inaccurate. For example, a paper filter tested in the laboratory may have 95 percent efficiency based on the number of particles, but the efficiency may go down to 75 to 80 when tested on polydispersed diesel exhaust on a mass basis. The Agency's rush to judgment to complete this rulemaking has made a mockery of science-based rulemaking and calls into question the validity of the Agency's rulemaking process. Are we to tel our miners that the systems used will protect their health when the sources for that determination are tests that have no relationship to the mining environment? The preamble to the proposed rule speaks extensively to the question of feasibility. Missing from the discussion because of timing is a reference to the decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in National Mining Association and Alabama Coal Association v. Secretary of Labor and issued on September 4, 1998. We believe this decision is directly on point and must be considered as the Agency drafts a final rule. That decision specifically addresses the issue of feasibility under the Mine Act vis a vis that same concept under the OSHA statute. "Feasibility under OSHA means technological and economic feasibility... We believe the Mine Act term 'feasibility' includes these concepts as well, but we do not otherwise address the applicability of OSHA." Thus, when MSHA and the public address the concept of feasibility in this proceeding, they must be guided by case law arising under the OSHA Act as well as the Mine Act. That principle is echoed in the text of the Mine Act itself. For example, Section 106(a) of the Mine Act, briefly summarized, requires that in promulgating a mandatory health standard, the Secretary must first identify a hazard and quantify that hazard, i.e., determine whether unregulated working life exposure to the hazard is significant enough to cause a miner to "suffer material impairment of health or physical capacity." Both the identification and quantification of the risk must be based upon "the best available evidence." While the health and safety of miners are of paramount consideration, the Secretary must also consider the feasibility of a proposed standard, as well as experienced gained under the Mine Act and other safety and health laws, most obviously, of course, the OSHA statute. While issues relating to material impairment and best available evidence have yet to be extensively addressed by the Courts in terms of the Mine Act, these issues or their close analogues have been extensively addressed in the OSHA context. Many of the principles derived in those cases can and should be applied to issues arising in this proposed rule. Indeed, MSHA refers to a number of OSHA cases in the preamble as justification for some of the rulemaking decisions it has made. With respect to the issue of feasibility, however, the Eleventh Circuit's decision, cited above, requires that MSHA follow whatever judicial guidance that has arisen under the OSHA rulemaking activity. It is well established that for each standard it wishes to promulgate, OSHA must find that (1) at present exposure levels, a significant risk of material impairment exists, (2) the standard is technologically feasible, and (3) the standard is economically feasible. Rather than take the time now, our written comments will outline the Courts' treatment of this key rulemaking issue. Keeping those principles in mind, however, we will now focus on how MSHA has addressed them in the proposed rule. NMA takes issue with several assertions by MSHA as to its regulatory responsibilities under 101(a)(6)(A) of the Mine Act. For instance, in its analysis of feasibility, MSHA states, "Courts do not expect hard and precise predictions from agencies regarding feasibility. Congress intended for the 'arbitrary and capricious standard' to be applied in judicial review of MSHA rulemaking. Under this standard, MSHA need only base its predictions on reasonable inferences drawn from the existing facts." The holding of the Eleventh Circuit in the AFL-CIO v. OSHA air quality decision, which is referenced in the preamble, however, requires a harder look at the Secretary's actions than under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedures Act. This is an important distinction that must be considered, particularly when that same Circuit has recently ruled that feasibility under the Mine Act is comparable to that concept under the OSHA Act. Accordingly, MSHA's conclusions with respect to both technological and economic feasibility must be subjected to a harder look. When subjected to such scrutiny, we believe the Agency's proposition that feasible technology capable of meeting the proposed 95 percent emission reduction requirement fails to meet the tests outlined by the Court. This is not to say that we cannot and should not do more -- we can and we should. But, let's not create a false sense of security. There are limitations on what can be accomplished, given the technology available today. Given what we know today, we cannot equip diesel-powered equipment using underground mines in the time frame provided with reliable after-treatment systems capable of removing 95 percent of the DPM. That being said, it is time we all focus on achieving realistic goals to further reduce miner exposure to DPM, while we continue efforts to develop new emission control technologies. At this point, Dave Beerbower will provide you with preliminary comments on the Regulatory Economic Analysis. MR. BEERBOWER: Thank you, Mike. As previously noted, I am Dave Beerbower, Vice President of Safety for the Peabody Group. Peabody is the largest coal producer in the nation, and we operate mines in nine states and annually produce approximately 160 million tons of coal for shipment to customers. Currently we operate diesel-powered equipment at four of our underground coal mines, however, we anticipate that this will increase as diesel-powered equipment is introduced in West Virginia. As Mike mentioned, we have reviewed the Agency's preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis and find it to be flawed. As stated earlier, NMA does not agree with MSHA's approach to managing diesel emission. However, we feel compelled to comment on the statements contained in the Regulatory Analysis. NMA believes that if reliable after-treatment devices that meet the proposed 95 percent collection efficiency are available, the initial cost of the proposed rule will be at least six times greater than that assumed by MSHA. MSHA's assumption of initial costs to retrofit permissible units is $3,378,000. Assuming the use of the DST Dry Systems, the initial cost to the industry is more like $20,622,500. And, I will discuss this later at how we arrived at that cost estimate. MSHA needs to explain how the discount rate is applied to monies that will be expended in the current year, although equipment may be amortized over several years. Further, MSHA needs to explain how long the industry will be required to spend approximately $10 million per year. MSHA has made assumptions about the useful life of equipment. To assure that these assumptions are reasonable, can MSHA provide a useful life schedule for the equipment considered in its assessment? MSHA's economic analysis looks at the coal industry as a whole, when, in fact, the proposed rule impacts only 173 underground coal mines. Thus, portions of MSHA's analysis, when it uses an industry-wide data, needs to be modified to accurately reflect only those underground coal mines utilizing diesel-powered equipment. For instance, if the proposed rule considers only 173 mines, then the financial impact on this segment of the industry are much greater than MSHA would make it appear. In the absence of this, the analysis unfairly characterizes the true economic impact of that segment using diesel-powered equipment. On page 37 of the Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis, MSHA states that there are 567 permissible pieces of diesel-powered equipment, of which 10 percent already have after-treatment devices that meet the regulation. We do not know the basis for MSHA's assumption and would ask that this be provided. Base on our assumption that DST Dry Systems is the only technology capable of meeting the proposal's after- treatment criteria, only two of the 567 machines have after- treatment devices that may meet the 95 percent efficiency requirement under Part 7.89. Also, the cost estimates for the after-treatment devices are inaccurate. Assuming DST Dry Systems has the technology capable of achieving 95 percent reduction, the following implementation costs would be incurred for a Jeffrey 4110 Ramcar 94 horsepower permissible diesel engine package. The cost may vary significantly for larger engines and do not consider all structural modifications that may need to be made in various types of equipment. And, that permissible retrofit cost is $36,500 per unit. It's different on OEM costs and we'll highlight some of that now. By all estimates, some additional costs above currently approved and used technology will be associated with new permissible equipment. The question is, how much? NMA would estimate that if DST Dry Systems are mandated on all future diesel units versus existing water scrubber technology, then the additional costs, including hardware costs and excluding design and applied engineering and installation costs, would range from $1,000 to $5,000, depending on the horsepower of the engine package. It is not accurate, realistic or genuine for MSHA to state that all a mine operator has to do is place a filter in the exhaust stream of an existing permissible diesel unit to be in compliance with the regulation. Based upon these facts, MSHA's initial compliance cost calculations would be modified as follows. For large and small mines, there are 565 permissible pieces times $36,500, for those retrofits, $20,622,500. The cost of initial compliance would be the same for large mines as well as small mines, since the after- treatment technology would be the same applied to the selected engines, regardless of the mine size. Based upon operating experience, the ongoing operating costs for exhaust filters can range up to $10 for operating hour, plus the cost of labor to change the filters. This is considerably higher than the costs assumed by MSHA in its analysis. We must also make note of our disagreement with MSHA's assumptions of small versus large mine operating hours. In truth, to remain competitive, both large and small mines must operate comparable hours. As such, the costs attributable to OEM must be revised to reflect comparable operating hours. As a note, NMA does not believe MSHA should annualize the initial costs, since those dollars are spent immediately to comply with the proposed rule. The impact to cash flows is immediate and this should be the standard used by MSHA. Under Part 75.500(b), MSHA's assumptions concerning the upgrading of and ongoing maintenance for the non-permissible, heavy-duty diesel units are reasonable. Now, we'll turn to the issue of certification costs for engine or equipment manufacturers. Relative to the cost of certification, NMA finds it difficult to believe that certification costs for the entire manufacturing industry only amount to $14,000 annually. To certify the first DST Dry System diesel-powered package costs in excess of $50,000, with subsequent certifications costing slightly less. Further, the rule effectively requires diesel emissions testing conducted under Part 7.89, to provide the efficiency rating of 95 percent, but MSHA does not appear to have factored in this cost. The emissions test alone for diesel-powered package systems can cost around $25,000. To certify an engine according to Part 7 without an after- treatment device cost in excess of $28,000 as recent -- excuse me, let me try that again. To certify an engine according to Part 7 without an after-treatment device, costs in excess of $28,000 as recent experience has proved to mine operators. Also, MSHA should not annualize the certification costs, since these costs are expensed in the year incurred, that is, at the time the certification work is performed. Thus, the initial cost will be significantly higher to the manufacturers. In fact, the proposed rule is a technology forcing regulation, will incite manufacturers to conduct certification testing in order to market new technology to the industry. Thus, MSHA can anticipate a flurry of activity by manufacturers. MSHA's assumptions do not consider the time and costs incurred by engine and after-treatment manufacturers and mine operators to develop technology to meet the DPM standard. Specific manufacturer and operator costs are not provided in these comments. However, speaking from general experience among the NMA members, large financial commitments, several hundred of thousands of dollars annually by after-treatment manufacturers alone, are made in the research and development area. Quite frankly, this is an area where MSHA has not done enough with its knowledgeable personnel and research facility. The industry would welcome the opportunity to develop with MSHA a research and development program that encourages sound scientific research of feasible technologies in the various aspects of diesel emissions management. Now, we'll turn to the issue of time frame for compliance. MR. TOMB: Is this all you have to do, is the next few pages? MR. BEERBOWER: Yes. MR. TOMB: Okay. MR. BEERBOWER: Another area where we find the analysis to be incorrect is in the area of the time frames required for compliance. We believe MSHA is too optimistic and will cause confusion among operators, miners and equipment manufacturers. For example, using a popular diesel-powered unit in the industry, the Jeffrey Ramcar, as a case study, it's estimated it would take, at best, 42 months to convert 85 percent of the existing fleet. The existing fleet of Jeffrey Ramcars is about 300, or more than 50 percent of the existing permissible diesel units. This time frame considers time required for certification of the after-treatment technology under Part 7.89, since that has not been accomplished for these units. MSHA assumes that once a diesel power package is completely certified, multiple units can be converted simultaneously, which is an unreasonable expectation. To address these concerns, we would propose at least 48 months for the permissible diesel units and 60 months for non- permissible diesel units. This would be more reasonable and allow adequate time for manufacturers, mine operators and rebuilt facilities to properly get their arms around an orderly, industry-wide conversion program. Such a realistic time frame is fully supported by the legislative history of the Mine Act. While Congress, acknowledging that MSHA may issue so-called technology forcing standards, it also recognized the reality of such standards and they must be given adequate time for implementation. "Where substantial outlays are needed in order to allow industry to reach the permissible limits necessary to protect miners, other regulatory strategies are available to accommodate economic feasibility and health considerations... includ[ing] delaying implementation of certain provisions or requirements of standards in order to allow sufficient time for engineering controls..." We will skip over a little bit and speed it up here. On the quantification for benefits, you will be able to read our comments, but we are looking at the NIOSH/NCI study and want to particularly talk about, for MSHA, particularly, within its own files, the research information on the impact of diesel emissions based upon the work done in conjunction with NIOSH and the Bureau of Mines and MSHA, themselves, and several western coal operators. This medical surveillance research was conducted between '79 and '81 in Colorado and Utah, on coal miners operating diesel equipment in underground mines. The project plan involved gathering exposure levels, x-rays, lung function tests and a questionnaire. And, we would ask where is that information? It doesn't appear to be part of the rulemaking, and we would ask that it be brought forward. We are also attaching an appendix that talks about compliance with NEPA, for your consumption. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we reiterate that it is essential that the Agency permit operators to employ an integrated approach, to provide the flexibility required to reach DPM in underground coal mines. The utility of such an approach has been recognized in several peer-reviewed papers and journal articles, authored by MSHA technical staff. An integrated approach would allow operators to use all the tools in the toolbox in order to attain the highest degree of safety and health that is feasible. The Agency's recent semi-annual regulatory agenda highlighted the need to "explore new approaches to achieve our regulatory goals at lower costs and with greater flexibility for the regulated community." We support this objective and believe the adoption of an integrated approach will meet this objective. Thank you and we'll be happy to answer any of your questions. MR. TOMB: I have one question. Does this complete NMA's presentation or you're going to still have more after? MR. BEERBOWER: Yes. MR. TOMB: This is it, completed? Okay. Okay, Sandra? MS. WESDOCK: Mr. Peelish? Hi. I have one question. I don't have a list of what we have in our records -- we're making records right now -- with me, and I was wondering, has NMA completed the, you know, the comments, a copy of this West Virginia University Commission Study that you identified -- MR. PEELISH: I think we just submitted to Mr. Strom the copy of that. MS. WESDOCK: Okay, okay, thank you. MR. TOMB: Mike? MR. SASEEN: Mike, you mentioned -- are you going to make the West Virginia data available? I think you provided some? No, you didn't, that's right. But, you hope to make WB's data available? MR. PEELISH: Yes. MR. SASEEN: Is there any other data you're aware of that can be presented, that's been tested on the 95 percent, on the filter system? MR. PEELISH: On the DST System? MR. SASEEN: Yes. MR. PEELISH: The original data that supported the implementation of diesel equipment in Pennsylvania, from March of 1995, I think was submitted when you had your workshop. MR. SASEEN: Okay. MR. PEELISH: I need to resubmit that for the record, but it has been previously submitted. In fact, I think at the workshop. MR. SASEEN: Okay, then that's different from this that you stated in here? MR. PEELISH: That's different than the final report of the West Virginia Diesel Commission, that's correct. Those are two separate reports. MR. SASEEN: Okay, is there any other data that you're aware of that can be submitted? MR. PEELISH: At this time, through NMA, no. We have not done our own independent testing to support the comments. MR. SASEEN: Okay, thank you. MR. TOMB: Ron? MR. FORD: Yes, my name is Ron Ford and Mr. Peelish, I have two questions for you and then the rest for Mr. Beerbower. On page four of your comments, you made the statement that while DST is proving successful in a limited testing and in some applications, it has not been found to be universally applicable to all mining equipment. Can you just talk a little bit about what your experience is to what equipment it is applicable to now, that you know of? MR. PEELISH: My involvement with DST is quite personal. Cyprus Amax Minerals, Cyprus Amax Coal Company is one of the general partners that developed the technology. The test that I referred to in addressing Mr. Saseen was a test that was done on an NWM contingent package. The report that was filed by the West Virginia University shows that that exceeded 95 percent. The applicability of that standard, of the 95 percent standard, then became then apparent in Pennsylvania, in their statutory language. We have only tested at West Virginia the NWM package. However, in Pennsylvania, they have accepted -- the technical advisory committee has accepted those tests for purposes of accessibility to other engines. There have been some tests done on other engines by DST, however, we have not made that testing data publicly available yet. Other than that and the West Virginia report by the Commission, by the West Virginia Diesel Commission Study, which showed a DST drive system was used on a 3306 Caterpillar engine, 150 horsepower, those are the only systems that NMA will provide evidence for the testimony on. DST partnership is another issue and I wouldn't want to get into that right now. I will wait for those comments to be submitted. MR. FORD: Okay. On page six, again at the bottom, a statement that was made, "Given what we know today, we cannot retrofit diesel-powered equipment used in the underground coal mines with reliable after-treatment systems capable of removing 95 percent of the DPM's." Could you comment on whether or not there is a level that you think you could meet in efficiency level? MR. PEELISH: I think you can meet 95 percent. It's from one to one report. The question becomes, does the universal, is the applicability of that technology universally on all the equipment, without having to run the test? Again, speaking as kind of the partner in DST, we believe that it's capable. There, and it may -- there are some members who believe it is not capable, and on all packages universally, and we have the test results to show that. That's where I think it's incumbent upon OSHA, and we've noted it in here, the people that you had, the knowledgeable people that you have and the facilities that you have to do more of that testing and to verify these systems. MR. FORD: Thank you. Mr. Beerbower, can we start on page seven? In the mode of trying to help us get a better economic analysis, I'd ask you to please help me with these questions. At the top, you say currently that we offer a diesel-powered equipment underground at four of our mines. Do you have any sort of control technologies on any of those equipment currently, or have you ever had it in the past, and what's your experience with it? MR. BEERBOWER: We currently do not have any of the Dry System Technology installed in any of our equipment. We do have catalytic convertors on some and wet scrubbers on others. MR. FORD: Have you done any testing or anything of what DPM is removed? MR. BEERBOWER: We have not. We have not. MR. FORD: On that same page, under industry profile, I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding. Are you saying that the number that MSHA went forward with in their economic analysis of 173 coal mines that utilized diesel equipment is incorrect, and there are more mines, or are you saying that maybe that may be a correct mine number now, but in the future, we haven't assessed what the diesels that could go into mines that are not using? MR. BEERBOWER: We're saying that you have spread the cost of the conversion across the whole industry, when, in fact, it only affects 173 mines. So, that it really is higher for the mines that are utilizing diesel equipment currently. MR. FORD: On page eight, you talk about the costs for permissible equipment, the retrofit cost of $36,500 and you call this implementation costs. Is the $36,500, is that purchase and installation costs? I'm trying to get an idea of what the definition of implementation costs? MR. BEERBOWER: That's total costs, installed cost. MR. FORD: So, that's system purchase, the system installed? MR. BEERBOWER: Yes. MR. FORD: So, does that encompass, that doesn't encompass what you talk about later as the cost to figure out how to redesign it onto the system? MR. BEERBOWER: There are many pieces of equipment, for instance, large locomotives and track locomotives may have to have major frame alterations to get the DST System installed. We have not -- and really cannot -- figure out a cost, although we did hear yesterday from one of our members that the cost, for instance, of a Petito Mule, to be retrofitted with DST costs upwards, between $50,000 and $60,000 for that, because it did require mainframe modifications. MR. FORD: Okay, now, that $50,000 to $60,000, you're talking then, not only purchase and installation, but also, the time it takes in the office to figure out how to redesign this? MR. PEELISH: I don't know -- I think that was more a hardware cost. The cost of putting it in the machine. The design costs and the flat engineering cost, I don't see anywhere -- MR. FORD: That's what I'm trying to get at. So, the $50,000 you just quoted and the $36,500 is just purchase and installation? MR. BEERBOWER: Yes, and modification of the original piece of equipment, so that it would accept that, the DST technology. MR. FORD: Okay. Do you have any idea of what it might cost to sit down and redesign this? MR. BEERBOWER: No, we don't, but, I mean, that cost needs to be considered. I would guess, particularly with a major reconfiguration of a frame of a piece of equipment, you're talking upwards of $20,000, I would think. MR. FORD: Okay, so, do you have an idea how MSHA might go about trying to find out how to determine such costs? Could you supply us with data from maybe some of your mine companies that would stipulate what their cost is for doing this? MR. PEELISH: If I might answer that, the only system that has been retrofitted for a permissible unit is the 4110. The Ramcar. That's the reason you see the $36,500. That's a fairly certain cost. But, to do a locomotive or Petito Mule or a Wager Scoop, nobody's done it yet. But, I think the costs, from our experience, is going to be in excess of the $36,500. Because, number one, they're large units, the engines are larger. This is a 94 horse power unit. Those are going to be significantly larger, so the costs are going to be greater. I think $36,500 is your bottom number. MR. BEERBOWER: I think one thing we want to point out is that if you're talking about larger engines than this, the retrofit cost is going to be higher than $36,500 - - MR. FORD: Right, right. MR. BEERBOWER: -- even if there are not structural changes. MR. FORD: It seems to be left on here for something less than 150 horsepower, the purchase and installation, you're saying would be around $36,500. For something greater than 150 horsepower, if you just purchase installation, would be $50,000 to $60,000? MR. PEELISH: For greater than 94 horsepower, not 150. That $36,500 applies to a 94. MR. FORD: And, something greater than 94 would be $50,000 to $60,000? MR. PEELISH: It would be more. The question is how much, because nobody has actually done the structural work on a retrofit yet. MR. FORD: On the figure that you talked about for the $50,000, $60,000 machine, what horsepower is that? MR. BEERBOWER: One hundred fifty we computed. MR. FORD: Okay, so as we go down, we see, you talk about additional costs. But, in talking about additional costs, I'm a little bit confused. You say that includes hardware costs and that includes design and applied engineering and installation costs. What -- MR. PEELISH: This is on now, the OEM side, that when an OEM -- right now, the current technology that's used are water scrubbers. So, above the cost of a water scrubber, there's going to be some additional cost to put DST in an existing, or in a new unit, that currently would use water scrub technology. So, we're saying that above what you currently pay -- if you go out right now and pay for a water scrub after- treatment device, you're going to pay that. So, DST now is in their on early invasive versus the water scrubber, and you're going to pay X costs, an additional $1,000 to $5,000 for a 94 horsepower equipment type of deal. MR. FORD: That $1,000 to $5,000 additional, so it's not that much different -- MR. BEERBOWER: When you compare it to water scrubbers, it's some, and again, that's where that -- MR. FORD: It's a little bit different, but from our workshops, I remember back, that was one of my questions. They said it was very little different cost if you're doing it on OEM equipment. MR. BEERBOWER: And, again, that's for 94 horse, so maybe it will be different as you go up. MR. FORD: Well, is the difference significant? MR. PEELISH: It can be, because the cost of the - - primary cost is associated with the heat exchange, and when you have to pay straight -- it can be costly. MR. TOMB: Go ahead. MR. FORD: Let's talk about the operating experience would range up to $10 per hour. Can we have, if you have some documents which show how you got that $10 per hour? MR. BEERBOWER: We don't have any with us, but we can get them to you. MR. FORD: Oh, yes, okay, thank you. Also, on page nine, you talk about cost to manufacturers for certifying the system. Do you have any idea of when a system gets certified and then eventually they're sold right over to the -- there are a number of systems that are sold, or even engines that are sold, what that additional add-on cost would be? It certainly wouldn't be this high, because all these costs are spread over a large number of engines, more engines than one. MR. BEERBOWER: Well, you know, one of the points that we're making here is that that's an upfront cost and we recognize that you amortize that over the whole, over the course of the engine life. And, in fact, what happens with whoever it is that manufactures the engine and getting it certified, it is day one. So, we think that you need to take another look at how you amortized those costs. MR. FORD: Right. This is a cost that's an upfront cost to the manufacturers and eventually, it will be stretched through to the line operators over a number of engines, which would not be a greater cost than we have here, correct? MR. BEERBOWER: That's correct. The additional units would not cost that much. MR. FORD: The last question I have is, we do get into this research and development area in the last paragraph, which we touched on earlier in the questions. MR. BEERBOWER: I'm sorry, where? MR. FORD: The last paragraph on page nine. MR. BEERBOWER: I'm sorry, our page numbers are different. You're talking about inserted stationery? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. PEELISH: Mr. Ford, let me just add one point. On the cost that the certification, we're assuming it's paid by the manufacturer of the engine or the manufacturer of the technology. We're going through an issue right now with respect to the industry to comply with the November 25, 1999 deadline, where manufacturers of engines are saying, we're not going to do it. We're not going to certify engines, because the marketplace isn't there for it. Yet, the operators still have existing equipment that has those engines in it and we're having to go back and pay ourselves to have these engines certified. Now, we can't submit the certification because we don't own the engine. Therefore, we're incurring approximately $28,000 per engine package right now to get it certified, where, in 1996, in MSHA's economic impact assessment, they never assumed that. MR. BEERBOWER: And, quite frankly, we didn't either. MR. PEELISH: We got, you know, we've all been kind of stunned by this. Now, we're working towards that. There's a huge cost in this that I don't think MSHA estimated. We'll try to give you some numbers relative to what it would take to certify these costs. Yes, these things get amortized, but frankly, I don't think you ever get your money back. MR. FORD: So, if I can reiterate what you're saying, you're saying that sometimes engine manufacturers won't do that certification part, it's not worth it for them. So, the actual mine operator himself has to go into MSHA and pay for all these upfront costs? MR. PEELISH: Yeah, we pay for the engine manufacturer to go to find a third-party consultant to certify an engine and we pick up the tab, the cost of his operators, but yet, the engine manufacturer will get the certification. MR. FORD: So, it's not one particular mine that's paying these dollars, it's, you get a certification for a particular model and then the NMA, as an association, pays - - MR. PEELISH: Well, quite frankly, it's been individual companies who are undertaking this to do it themselves. And, it's not anything against the MSHA certification process. That's not the issue. The issue is that there were assumptions made that aren't now accurate and we don't want to go down that same path again in these rules, okay, because I think there's a lot more costs associated. Then, there's again the whole issue that some manufacturers are just flatly denying any certification of any engines. And, we're going to lose some mining engines based on this rule. MR. FORD: That's all I have. MR. SASEEN: Mike, is DST going to be prepared to submit any additional data from their customers? I know you're representing NMA here. MR. PEELISH: I guess we'll have to see what the final -- is. I haven't drafted them and don't know what they're going to say yet. MR. SASEEN: Okay, thank you. MR. PEELISH: Another thing that I'd ask MSHA is that on the issues of the exposure studies that were done in Utah and Colorado in the late 70's and early 80's, we would like to get that data if there's still data that exists. We're scouring our mines where these tests were done and a lot of it's old stuff and we can't find it. MR. BEERBOWER: There were quite extensive x-ray studies and air -- MR. TOMB: I don't think there were particulate measurements made, though, were there? MR. BEERBOWER: I'm not sure. But, there were lung capacity studies done and those type of things. MR. TOMB: Okay, we have a couple more questions. Sorry. MR. HANEY: On the filter efficiencies, are you saying that other commercial systems do not meet 95 percent, or that they haven't been tested? MR. PEELISH: We're saying those are 7.89 and where the ISO-8 study state test, that's the only one that's passed that test. And, again, there's some argument as to whether it has or not. It isn't a DST Dry Systems. The other filtration devices that have been claimed to have passed that have not been done pursuant to that test, so right there, to certify those other filters, they've got to go through a whole listing of testing, just to certify that they do meet the 7.89. MR. TOMB: Are we talking paper filters or other? MR. PEELISH: Or any filter, any filtration device. MR. HANEY: And, what is different with the DST System that would make it better or worse than other commercial systems out there? MR. PEELISH: That's a hard -- I guess I don't know that I want to get into why we're better or worse or anything like that. Now I think it's just a matter of the efficiency of paper filters and being able to reduce your temperature to where a paper filter can act in the capacity that they would act, which is a very high efficiency, no infiltration. That's probably the primary difference. MR. BEERBOWER: The West Virginia study has comparisons with some of the other filtration units out there, so I would encourage you to take a look at that. MR. TOMB: Okay, Jon, any other questions? MR. KOGUT: Mr. Peelish, at the bottom of my page six, you stated that given what we know today, we cannot retrofit diesel-powered equipment used in the underground coal mines with reliable treatment systems capable of removing 95 percent of the DPM. That being said, at a time when we all focus on achieving realistic goals to further reduce miner exposure, does that constitute a suggestion that MSHA require something less than 95 percent of efficiency, or are you prepared to make more specific suggestions about what we should do as an alternative? MR. PEELISH: I think what we are prepared to do is, we are going to submit addition comments on the alternative and I think it would be best for us to explain all of that in our original comments versus right now there's no need to speculate as to what that might be. MR. TOMB: I guess that leads me to -- I have two questions I wanted to ask. One, on your retrofit costs you talked about, how often do you do a rebuild on a machine and when they do that, if they retrofit it with a, something like a DST System, what kind of additional costs are we talking about there? Is it the same as OEM? That was sort of brought out in our workshops, also, to do this was not tremendously expensive, if you're going to rebuild, for instance. MR. PEELISH: Well, that would be the $36,500, Tom, because what you have to do -- that's what we did with these. They were scheduled to rebuild. We didn't put them out just to put DST on them. They were scheduled rebuilds. We went in, and that was the package, the dealer package, cost $36,500, with the entire retrofit. MR. TOMB: Okay, but then, that $36,500, then, though, is the difference between if you went back and did a whole -- there's a difference cost in there, not just $36,500 to be tacked onto it? MR. PEELISH: Well, no, the $36,500 would be the cost. That would be the cost just to put that diesel down, that power package in. Now, if I've got to do other things that were not attributable to this retrofit for the emissions, those aren't added in the $36,500. Now, if I had to redo brakes or redo -- MR. TOMB: Right, okay. MR. PEELISH: That's all different. That's not included in the $36,500. MR. TOMB: Well, yeah, how often would you be doing rebuilds on equipment? MR. PEELISH: On the engine, or on the equipment itself? MR. TOMB: On the engine? MR. PEELISH: Just off the top of my head, Tom, I'm going to say every 4,000 hours or so. MR. TOMB: Okay. Okay, my other question is, it gets back a little bit to what Jon was alluding to there. In your conclusions, maybe you answered this, but I just want to clarify it. You indicate that the Agency should permit operators to employ an integrated approach to reducing diesel particulates and I guess the question is, are you going to submit something as a preferable, what you think is a way to go to do that? You're going to come back in that? MR. PEELISH: Yes. MR. TOMB: You're not going to discuss that here, or are you going to discuss it in another meeting? MR. BEERBOWER: We're not prepared to discuss it here. We're still formulating that plan. MR. TOMB: Okay. MR. BEERBOWER: We're just not ready to bring it forward. MR. TOMB: Okay, but you are going to come forward with that? MR. BEERBOWER: We will have it before the end of the comment period. MR. TOMB: I think that would be very helpful. And, I think Ron Ford has one more question. MR. FORD: Just one additional question. Mr. Beerbower, on the $36,500, not today, but after the hearing, can you supply us with like a written document showing the detailed numbers of how you get to $36,500? MR. BEERBOWER: Not having DST, I'm going to defer to Mike on that, since he's the expert on it. MR. PEELISH: Let me discuss that with the DST. Part of that is -- I mean, that is a sum number. How we break that down is somewhat proprietary, but that is a total number. MR. FORD: I only ask that because it would just help us to try and understand, get a better understanding of where these numbers come from -- MR. PEELISH: Sure. MR. FORD: -- and help us to get more correct figures into our final package. Thank you. MR. TOMB: I want to thank you for your comments. Oh, I'm sorry. MS. WESDOCK: Sorry, just following what Ron said, on the last page of your testimony, page nine, you talk about the equipment manufacturers' certification costs. Without getting into any detail, you stated that, "Specific manufacturer and operator costs are not provided in these comments. However, speaking from general experience among the NMA members, large financial commitments are made in the research and development area." Would you be willing, in your post-hearing comments, you know, to submit some figures or something to give us an idea? MR. BEERBOWER: That's a pretty fluid number. What it does, you know, that number keeps growing and I know Mike has experienced this in their development work and so have many of the other manufacturers, that that is an evolving cost. But, it is a very high number. Whether they're going to be willing to share those actual numbers with you -- MS. WESDOCK: I understand. MR. BEERBOWER: -- we'll ask, we'll see. MR. TOMB: Any other questions? Thank you for your input. Okay, next we'll have the United Mine Workers of America and I think the presentation will be made by Jeff Duncan? No? Okay, I'm sorry. Oh, the list? Okay. We'll first hear from, and if I pronounce these names incorrectly, please correct me, James Ceal. Mr. Ceal is from UMWA, Local Union 2176. MR. CEAL: Good morning. My name is James Ceal, C-E-A-L, and I'm a miner rep, United Mine Workers, Local 2176. I work at Trail Mountain Mine at Orangeville, Utah. I just want to bring some information to you this morning. I'll be as brief as possible and give someone else a chance. I worked in the mines, although I've now mined for 18 years. I've been at the same work all this time. I've seen the increase in the use of diesel equipment in our mines and over these past 18 years, and I won't say that they definitely are not production oriented. They're definitely necessary to produce the kind of coal that we need to produce, that the nation needs from us. What I would like to point out to you is that you're using the diesel equipment in these closed loops of ventilation. I would like to identify some physical distresses that I've experienced myself. I've had other miners experience the same kind of distresses, so I've condensed this all down for you. Some of the stresses you actually can feel -- you don't need a gauge to measure this -- your burning eyes, nose, throat, your chest irritation. The more you're exposed to, the higher this goes. This includes headaches and nausea and some lasting congestion, depending on how long you've been exposed per shift or per week. The men I represent have experienced more cold- like symptoms, especially over the past, I would say, eight to ten years, when diesel has really peaked and we no longer really use much of anything else. They've, we've all been exposed to atmospheres that you can actually see and taste, black, reddish-brown atmosphere. Now, earlier, someone mentioned laboratory rats. We feel like laboratory rats that, in the future, when this is all said and done, it will prove out what we're saying now, but it may be too late for us unless something is done immediately. And, we have an opportunity now. When you're actually working in a mine around this equipment, it does help you a lot, but everything that comes out of the exhaust is going past the people working, because the ventilation system is circulating in one direction at all times. So, no matter what you do, everything that comes out of that exhaust and people that are there by the airstream get exposed to everything. Ventilation alone is not sufficient to alleviate this, because those particulate matters will hang together, much like a cloud, rather than get loose and fan out and just move along. And, in all of this, I've heard the NIOSH study that everyone is probably familiar with, with all the cancer-causing agents that they've identified in diesel exhaust alone, it's pretty scary. I'd like to address the costs. Yes, there will be some initial costs, monetary costs involved in replicating the equipment that's used in the industry, not only in the company I work for, but all other companies. But, that cost will eventually be absorbed, and I'm sure that with just the ability to compete in this country, the manufacturers will be supporters of the systems, once they begin to see that that's what it's going to be like, that's how we're going to use it. I'm sure that their competitive nature will bring these costs closer to what we -- it will bring them down to where we can live with them. But, the cost that I would like to address was the cost, the human cost. What are medical costs in the future going to cost to treat the guys that have come down with the diseases, the heart disease, the cancers, the lung diseases, other organ diseases that will surely show up in the future? What's the medical cost of that going to be? I'd like to touch base on the asbestos work. That was a great project when this country needed it, and everyone knows what happened to those people, the people that were actually affected. It's too late for them. They died young. The same thing is going to happen to miners of our time. Our lives are going to be shortened, our time with our families are going to be shortened, unless something is done about this. So, I'd like you all to think a little bit on the human cost if something's not done real soon. And, with that, I'll leave it to my colleagues so we can give them a chance to speak. I thank you for your time. MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Ceal. We have one question, please? MR. HANEY: At Trail Mountain, are they using diesel -- MR. CEAL: No, we don't use diesel -- we do use large scoops, diesel mantraps. MR. SASEEN: Do you know what size engines that you use in those? MR. CEAL: Not off the top of my head. MR. SASEEN: They're mostly scoops, you said? MR. CEAL: Mm-hmm, scoops and pick ups of a sort. I can submit that information to you later, if you would like me to? MR. SASEEN: Yes, that would be good for the committee to have an understanding of what equipment. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you very much for your comments. Next, Mr. Allen, from Local 1984. MR. ALLEN: Hello. As you all know, my name is Brad Allen, spelled B-R-A-D, A-L-L-E-N. I'm with District 22, Local 1984, another miner. I'm currently Safety Committee Chairman, Miner's Rep, at the Deserelda Mine. I've been mining for ten years and at the Deserelda Mine, we run diesel scoops, generators, air compressors and other various outlay equipment. Primarily, we're man-hauled, material-hauled, clean faces and especially low -- we don't use exposed diesel. Based on several studies conducted by the U.S. EPA, California EPA, NIOSH and several independent entities, it is known to the mining community and MSHA that DPM is known to contain cancer-causing carcinogens. Therefore, MSHA has a responsibility to create a rule that will adequately protect the industry's most valuable asset, the miner. The proposed rule doesn't contain provision for light-duty outlay equipment, which is the source of approximately two-thirds of the diesel particulate produced in mining. We need protection from all these pieces of equipment, which produce carcinogenic smoke. The Pennsylvania rule would be an excellent model for MSHA to follow. To provide an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams per cubic liter of air of DPM's, a DPM filter, which are readily available from a variety of suppliers, capable of 95 percent or more reduction of DPM, as well as a number of other specific detections, such as on-board diagnostic equipment, the use of low-volatile fuel and scheduled maintenance programs that can remove the diesel equipment from service if it is out of compliance. In addition to ventilation parameters. now, since we're on the topic of ventilation, I want to say that this is a good supplementary control of DPM, but cannot be relied upon for total control of the carcinogenic compounds. Operators may or may not provide adequate ventilation over diesels. Our miners have received a citation for inadequate ventilation over a scoop cleaning the feeder. I have also seen, during our last one, four diesel scoops running hard in a low-velocity entry and the smoke from that was so thick I could barely see 30 feet in front of me, and it was causing a burning sensation to my eyes, nose and throat and head. We are confined to these entries and are forced to breathe this kind of "air." That's why MSHA needs a law to control the smoke at the source, on the equipment. Implementing a quality DPM emission control program would be much more cost effective for operators relying on diesels, versus converting to a non-diesel status or the probable medical expenses of treating employees for lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses. Studies show that between two and 870 per 1,000 miners are at risk of dying from lung cancer and/or they will have some problems. MR. ALLEN: At current levels of exposure. In a ruling on benzine, one death in one thousand was identified by the U.S. Supreme Court as being a significant level of risk. Based on this alone, we know this is an unacceptable level of human sacrifice. I hope that the diesel particulate will not be the "black lung" of this generation of miners. Last of all, as technology advances MSHA needs to look at advancing the diesel rules to insure the protection of the industry's most valuable asset, the miners. I also have copies of the Pennsylvania rules and relevant study to present to you for the record. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Any questions? Go ahead. MR. HANEY: Are any of the scoops being used for permissible scoops? MR. ALLEN: Yes. MR. HANEY: And do they have any after treatment on them? MR. ALLEN: Water scrapes. MR. TOMB: If you would leave the things that you were going to turn in with Ms. King. Okay. Our next presenter will be Mr. Curtis from Local 1769. MR. CURTIS: My name is Tain Curtis. T-A-I-N C-U-R-T-I-S. I'm the safety committee chairman of UNWA Local 1769 up at the Deercreek Mine. I have 18 years of experience in the mining industry. Our mine's operated by Energy West Mining and employees 206 miners who are members of our local. The information that I have available to me does show that there's a potential risk with particles of diesel exhaust. So, basically, we need to address it now before it's too late. I encourage the industry to seriously look into the matter and set safety levels to protect miners to adequately set up laws to better guarantee are health and safety so we can live long productive lives. Our biggest exposure to diesel particularly is during long haul moves. Diesel equipment is used extensively. Everyone working in these areas know of the discomfort diesel smoke causes, throat irritation, chest and lung discomforts, headache and other ailments. We feel if these, when exposed to these conditions, we don't know the exposure or the problems that we are exposed to when we're not exposed to these conditions but still in the coal mining environment. The dinosaurs became extinct because the environment changed drastically. I understand the financial burdens these two standards will place on the operators. I don't want us to become extinct because of the financial burdens and the changes made. But at the same time, our health environment with the diesel, particularly that's so bad to our health, there needs to be ways to make these improvements to benefit both parties in the long run. As Chairman of the Safety Committee at Deercreek, I encourage the use of whatever measures need to be utilized to make our workplace a healthier place to be. We need to look at all the options that technology offers us today. Exhaust filter technologies, additives to fuels, better diesel engines and anything else that is available and best use them to our needs now in the present, but remain open minded at whatever avenues the new technology lie ahead of us and be able to implement that new technology in the future. These hearings today will effect the way my health will be when I retire. I'm a father of four and have a wife that I hope to retire with and see my children raised. I solicit our attention into the matter of diesel particular matter to better protect my health and safety in the close environment of an underground coal mine. At our mine, we are operating at this time to start testing of a new scheduled 24 pieces of equipment under conditions that will be sufficient to do the work. We don't know what these results will be, but I'm optimistic as how they'll affect us in the future. I appreciate the opportunity to address you this day and look forward to a better tomorrow for us all. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Any questions? Go ahead. MR. HANEY: The equipment use on long haul moves, is any of it equipped with after treatment devices? MR. CURTIS: Yes, it's permissible scrubbers. MR. TOMB: And what's the testing of new equipment? I sort of missed that. MR. CURTIS: Well, it's dry filter -- similar to the technology we talked about today. MR. TOMB: DST? MR. CURTIS: DST. It's not them but the operator, Energy West, has been looking at and working with, and I don't have any -- MR. TOMB: Is that on one piece of equipment? MR. CURTIS: Yes. MR. TOMB: One piece of equipment. MR. CURTIS: But it'll be used the way all the other pieces of equipment of the miner use. So, I believe it'll be an accurate test. MR. SASEEN: Does that have a filter media on that piece of equipment? MR. CURTIS: Yes. It has a paper filter. MR. SASEEN: Paper. MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CURTIS: Thank you. MR. TOMB: A Mr. Farrer? MR. FARRER: It's Farrer. MR. TOMB: Farrer. Okay. From Local 1769. MR. FARRER: Yes. I'm Bill Farrer from -- it's F-A-R-R-E-R from Local 1769. I'm a member of the Safety Committee. I'm a classified diesel mechanic and have been for the last seven years, in different mines owned by Energy West, a subsidiary of Pacific Corp. I've worked 23 and a half years at this mine. I'm 44 years old. I plan on working till 62. That'll give me 41 years in this environment that we're talking about. I believe that we need to have some new regulations. And the regulations shouldn't keep clear of just not the heavy duty equipment but the light duty. I brought this up at a meeting in Grand Junction. I was up at the mine at Deer Creek a couple of years ago when they had the University of Michigan come in and test on the new machines comparable to what we're testing emissions with now. And some of the biggest polluters were the man trips and personnel carriers. On stalled speeds, they were producing up to close to 4,000 parts per million CO, compared to bigger equipment. The max was about 4,000 on some of the other big equipment. When the new regs come out, I'd like to see at least half to test every diesel engine that goes under. Whether we have to scrub them or not, we should at least be testing them because if we get some that's out, you know, the operator could say just run it. That happens a lot. Just like me, when we used to have to test them before these new regs came in, we had to do a CO, NO2 test on everything that is running under there on the new regulations just on the heavy duty equipment. So, they can take anything they want in the mines. You know, I'm not just saying any mine. That there's no way to shut them down. And I brought this up at the meetings in Grand Junction. And what they told me, well, in '99 when the new regulations, they're going to have to monitor the face. So, they'll know how much is in the air. But there's a lot of guys that work around this equipment. We've got air compressors. We've got welders. We've got little Bobcats that move coal. I've seen them take 4,000 on the ECOM meters right now. And we're breathing this stuff. So, I'd like to see at least in the new regulations, we've got to test all the diesel that's under there to keep the standard. And the piece of equipment Tain was talking about is 3306 Wagner and it has a dry scrubber. The guy that's designing it is Bruce Spence of Grand Junction, Colorado. And they're working with the company and they're trying to do a test on them. That's about all I got, really. MR. TOMB: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Let's take Ron first. MR. FORD: You said you were a diesel mechanic. At your mine, do you have any scheduled maintenance on diesel-powered equipment? Is it like a routine schedule maintenance? Could you tell us how that works? MR. FERRER: Yeah, we do a 100 hour service on it. The operators do a pre-inspection check every day. They change their filters, check everything. But every 100 hours the machines get serviced -- complete service. MR. FORD: So, a major maintenance is done every 100 hours? MR. FERRER: Yes. MR. FORD: Okay. Is there any kind of a schedule set up or program set up whereby the machine is colluding in any way? There's some type of way to get it into service? What happens there? MR. FERRER: All's we got -- we have to check the heavy duty with a ECOM. The light duty there's no emissions check or nothing. If that gets up to 2,500 parts, we've got to pull it out of service. That's all we've got. But you know, they can keep records and see how the engine is wearing or whatever by these ECOM tests. MR. FORD: They can keep records? MR. FERRER: Yes, the company. Weekly, we have to do permissibility. We do install them and check the emissions on the big equipment. MR. FORD: Okay. And I've just got one more question. And that is, concerning the after treatment devices or control technology that are concerned with DPM removal, diesel particulate removal, are you trained in any way to do service on those systems? MR. FERRER: No. The one that we've got up here now, they've only run it a couple shifts. I don't know why because we've had it up there a couple of months. We're supposed to be testing it, so probably, you know, it could have helped us out on these hearings if we would have been. But no, I've not been trained on them. MR. FORD: So, if any of that equipment came into your mine, you would need to be trained as a mechanic? MR. FERRER: Yes. MR. FORD: Thank you. MR. TOMB: John? MR. KOGUT: When you're servicing these diesel equipment, roughly what portion of the time is the equipment running? MR. FERRER: When we're servicing them? MR. KOGUT: Yeah. Do you ever -- do you have it running when you're servicing it to some extent, or is it always just shut off? MR. FERRER: It's always shut off when we're servicing. When we're doing the test, we're exposed to a lot of CO, because you know, you've got them stalled out to the max out on ECOM. That's two to four minutes you're standing back there, 600 parts. MR. KOGUT: You mean, when you're doing the emissions testing? MR. FERRER: Emission test. MR. KOGUT: And what percentage of your time would you say in involved doing emission testing? MR. FERRER: The guy that does most of permissibilities, a weekend worker, and he does that probably two -- he works three days, probably half the time he's doing emission tests, I'd imagine. MR. KOGUT: In half the time that he's there? MR. FERRER: Yes. MR. KOGUT: And is there some sort of a specially ventilated facility in which that's done? MR. FERRER: Well, we live where it's cold. It's in the shop or in the mine. No, it's not being performed like a shed out in the open air to where he's not getting the emissions. MR. KOGUT: Thank you. MR. SASEEN: Mr. Ferrer, this Wagner you spoke of, is that a scoop? MR. FERRER: Yeah. MR. SASEEN: And does that have a filter? MR. FERRER: Yes. It's got a paper filter. They -- alls I've heard about it, you know, run it a couple of shifts, it's run great, real low CO when you're running the max. But when they're idling it, they plug them up because it's not hot enough to burn it off in their PTX, I guess, before it gets to the filter. MR. SASEEN: And can you say from experience, it's probably limited, is there definitely a difference in air quality when the filter is on versus not ont? MR. FERRER: Yeah, you can stand behind it and breathe it right out of tail pipe practically. Pat Worthy's behind me for Energy West. Maybe you can talk him into coming up and telling you a little bit about it. MR. SASEEN: Thanks. MR. TOMB: Okay. I have one question, Bill. Can you -- you know, you talk about the light duty equipment and how you think it should be filtered also, can you sort of give us some relative operating times for that equipment versus what's defined as heavy duty equipment? MR. FERRER: Well, I know -- okay. Man trips. We got three crews in that mine on each shift. They've got two miner sections, one long haul section. So, that takes care of three pieces of equipment. We've probably got 45 to 50 pick-ups out there. MR. TOMB: Okay. But are these all -- these aren't operating for the full shift, are they? MR. FERRER: No. The only ones that don't I would say is the man trips. They take the crews in. They shut them off, and they start them up and bring them out. MR. TOMB: Okay. That's about an hour, an hour and a half? MR. FERRER: About an hour probably. MR. TOMB: But two hours a day probably? MR. FERRER: Yeah. MR. TOMB: Okay. MR. FERRER: But the rest of the equipment -- there's people running around that mine all the time. I mean, that's what I'm saying this light duty stuff, there's fire bosses going all over the mine. There's diesel mechanics that went on breakdowns, you know. There's punters. There's bosses traveling all over. Belt mechanics. Breathing that air that's in the mine that these trucks are buzzing around in, that air's going into the sections, and them guys are breathing it. That's the way I look at it. That's why I say we ought to at least be checking them, whether we have to put filters on them or not was another thing. If we check them, we can tell them we're getting too high of emissions out of them and pull them out of service. MR. TOMB: You think that once the check is made that they can be -- whatever has to be done to them, maintained or tuned or whatever done, that gets them back into a condition where they can be used that way without filtering them? MR. FERRER: Well, I wouldn't dare say that. MR. TOMB: Okay. MR. FERRER: What I've noticed since we haven't had the check and the stuff up there, we used to put the catalytic converters on our Isuzus and stuff. When we change an exhaust system, we don't even put them back on now, because we don't need them. We don't have to check them. MR. TOMB: Because of the safety rule? MR. FERRER: Well, you guys just changed the rules that just came into effect. That one we don't have to check anymore. So, that's what I'm bringing to the panel. MR. TOMB: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much for your comments. Mr. Hampton from Local 1984? I'm sorry, Bill. MR. HAMPTON: My name is Monty Hampton, M-O-N-T-Y H-A-M-P-T-O-N. I'm from Local 1984 UNWA. I've been with Des Auto Mine for approximately six and a half years. I'm a diesel -- not diesel. But I'm a mechanical electrician out there. A safety committeeman. And I feel that we need to get a lot stricter on the diesel. We run diesel in and around the mining sections and long haul loops. And we do have diesel man trips, which is running around the mine all the time. And it concerns me because -- since the new regs came in, we haven't go to any lengths to correct the problems with our emissions on the man trips, especially the scoops. We kind of got a control on them because they're being checked weekly. Your out by equipment, there's no check on. The scoops as far as being rebuilt or anything, we've got one scoop we've had for years that's never been out for a rebuild or anything. And the man trips, they just -- we run them till they don't run no more. And it seem like we need to get a handle on it. And as far as the laws, I think we need to go with Pennsylvania laws. They seem to be pretty strict. And I think we need to do the same thing out here. And we keep hearing about cost. Well, to me a person's life is far more greater than the cost of repairing equipment. And I just think we need to get more of a handle on it. And that's pretty much all I had to say. Appreciate your time. MR. TOMB: Any questions? MR. SASEEN: Mr. Hampton, as a mechanic, do you do work on the engine itself, or is that contracted out to like a dealer -- engineer/manufacturer, dealer? MR. HAMPTON: We really don't do much work on the engine itself other than just to, you know, changing alternators or something like that. But as far as the injectors or the fuel system, we don't work on it. MR. SASEEN: If there is a problem, who do you call? MR. HAMPTON: We have a diesel mechanic. MR. SASEEN: An the mine or -- MR. HAMPTON: At the mine. MR. TOMB: I guess this question is similar to the previous one I asked. But on your man trips, you say they're running all the time. Is this again -- are they operating eight hours or six hours or at the beginning of the shift and the end of the shift, or just how are they operating? MR. HAMPTON: We have man trips that's running around the mine all the time. We have John Deere tractors that's running around the mine all time. And we have a middle section that's running back and forth all the time in the section. And we have Wagner scoops that's running around all the time. MR. TOMB: What are the John Deere tractors used for? MR. HAMPTON: They were used for hauling material. MR. TOMB: Is that considered light duty equipment? MR. HAMPTON: Yes. MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time if I could take a 10 minute break, and when we come back what I'd like to do is have Energy West make their presentation, and then we'll go back and pick up with presentations by the United Mine Workers. Thank you. (Whereupon, a short break was taken.) MR. TOMB: Change in schedule. We're going to continue with the UMWA presentations. We have only two more. And then we'll go to Energy West presentation. We'll now have a presentation by Mr. Montgomery from Local 2176. MR. MONTGOMERY: My name is Cameron Montgomery. C-A-M-E-R-O-N, first name. M-O-N-T-G-O-M-E-R-Y, last name. I'm a safety committeemen for Local Union 2176 out of Orangeville, Utah. I work for Energy West Mining Company. I've got two years experience underground at Kaiser Steel. Worked at Valley Camp, Utah for four years. And I've been at Energy West Mining for just under 14 years. So, I've got about 19 years in the mining industry. I like my job. It's a good job. It pays the bills. I raise my family out of the wages I make up there. I need to be an efficient, productive, safe coalminer. My company's got to make money to employ me. I know these things. When -- at Valley Camp we experimented one time. It's been years ago. I was running a continuous miner and we brought in three Jeffrey diesel shuttle cars behind a miner and pretty well stunk out the place. The section was bad. Visibility was poor. Diesel particulate matter was terrible in a section. Personally, I've had bronchitis about five times and sinusitis so many times I can't even count them anymore. Worked on over 40 long haul moves in a row as we'd move the long haul from panel to panel for Energy West Mining Company on a Wagner LST5S20X, 25X, 30X. We keep getting bigger, better, more break horsepower machines to move bigger, more efficient heavier stuff around on a long haul move. So, I've worked all these long haul moves. Visibility is usually poor because you got two, three, four, five hand pieces of heavy duty equipment in one locale. Our company's and the union's worked together by using some administrative controls to limit the number of types of diesel equipment in the area. The law mentions in various areas of event regs carrier way, render harmless, dilute, coal dust, rock dust, diesel. You can't do it with diesel. You're in a close circuit. It's going to dilute a little bit, but even the equipment operating out by is going to effect you in working a section because that air's coming over you. You're breathing it. It might be in diminished quantity, but you're breathing some contaminants no matter where you're at when they're operating diesel equipment in the mine. The best way to cure that is to take care of it at the pipe where it comes out of the exhaust of the diesel, in my opinion. All this information I'm giving you is empirical data. I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm a coal miner. Long haul moves. Poor visibility, lot of orange 10, NO, CO. Visibility's poor. No one's -- a lot of people's mentioned sore, dry throats. Real common occurrence with running this stuff continuously for a week or two weeks steady moving long hauls. Nobody's mentioned anything about -- we seem to separate pneumoconiosis, silicosis, dust, rock dust, quartz, silica, diesel. When you're running one of these pieces of equipment, you're going down a coal mine after it. Exhaust is blowing rock dust off the ribs. You're picking up coal dust off the ribs off the top. You're running over -- we have gravel in our coal mine, the same as silica, quartz. It's rock. You're mixing all that stuff in a dust bowl. It reminds me of Snoopy and Linus walking around, if you recall that. You know, he's always walking around in a cloud of dust. That's how it is when you're running a piece of diesel equipment. Ten years ago I read industrial hygienist reports. I've got a boxful of them at the house on the carcinogens in diesel exhaust. For years we've know that there's not one good thing that comes out of a tailpipe of a diesel for the human body. There's not. We know this. We talk about time. We talk about more tests, meanwhile coalminers have been working underground inhaling this stuff. Okay? The railroad did a thing and it's been 10 years ago at a union meeting that I read industrial hygienist report from some pretty good people I understand in the industry on what the rail workers went through when they changed from steam locomotives to diesel. And cancer rates in their employees increased significantly. I'm not going to mention a bunch of statistics and stuff like that. But they found years ago that they were having problems with people inhaling diesel fumes. We need diesel in the coal mines. The mobility, logistics-wise, it's great. I worked at Kaiser Steel back in 1979 and '80, all electric. Electric battery cars kind of move shil. If you run out of juice, you were down. I mean, you ain't going anywhere. Very slow, very lethargic way of moving equipment around. The mobility of diesel equipment's great. But you got a whole generation of miners right here that are the guinea pigs for this diesel stuff. The guy from Consel and Peabody mentioned costs. Costs are important, but they mention costs 30 to probably 50 times during the course. Not one time did anyone mention the health and safety of a coalminer in the underground workings of a coal mine. Now, I imagine if there CEO is probably not down in the mine as much as I am. I do probably 60 hours roughly a week in a coal mine. I'd like to comment on the rule. I think MSHA's made steps in the right direction through the last few years. I've been to all kinds of informational meetings in Grand Junction, Colorado on diesel equipment, on heat exchangers, on cleaning them up, surface temperatures. Better fuel. Cleaner burning motors. I think the motor burns cleaner, puts out less contaminants if you get better fuel or sulfur fuel, less contaminants. That's a step in the right direction. It really is. But it's almost too little, too late. What do we got to do? Supply you guys with a bunch of corpses? Whip up some good statistical data on what diesel does to people? You know, in the asbestos industry, black lung silicosis in the mining industry, you literally -- we waited for people to die to decide whether it was healthy or unhealthy to use this type of equipment or expose people to this type of stuff. As I said, I like my job. I try to be a safe coalminer. I went up there to work and make money. I didn't go up there to die for anybody. These gentlemen back here mentioned being affiliated with DST and their scrubbers. There's a lot of technology out there. There's no doubt that there's improvements that could be made in technology, cost efficiency and the scrubbing capabilities. No doubt. We, as an industry, should have demanded this stuff 10 years ago, and then we'd be in the second, third, fourth generation of technology that's better and above we're looking at dealing with now. Sure, it's imperfect. No doubt. Everything is imperfect. My -- just being curious, I'm wondering why the gentlemen that's involved in DST don't have any of these -- put on any of their mining equipment, just out of curiosity to see what it did. Or to me, it seems that lowering the contaminants a little bit is better than not lowering them at all. Cutting your exposure rates and times for your individuals working underground. And we mentioned costs. Hey, costs are important. We've got to be cost efficient productive. It's a tight market out there. But the mention of $36,500, $50,000, $60,000 for a petite muhl. I work on a U4D longhaul prop right now. That petite muhl is probably the one piece of equipment that needs scrubbing before anything because of the negative effect of the people working in by it, in an extraction phase, removing a long haul. What are the costs of say $60,000 to retrofit a petite muhl? That's a chunk of change. But what are the costs of the local community, the state and Federal Government, families of people that are literally going to be dying from too much exposure to this stuff? I mean, your $36,500 to retrofit an outfit is minuscule into the cost of curing cancer for one patient. You know, we don't know how many people are going to get this stuff. We've got all these great estimates, one in a thousand. The Supreme Court seen some concern in the one in a thousand number. I guarantee it's going to be a lot higher than one in a thousand. One the gentleman on the panel mentioned face haulers. I work at Energy West Turner Mountain Mine. We don't use any kind of diesel for hauling equipment. But as I said earlier, that there's a lot of equipment that's running out in a mine. I've been involved in ambient studies with MSHA tech reps and stuff in our two entry petition many times. And you can see the CO, NO, SO2, CO2 spikes is equipment goes by, yet alone the residual -- what's left, slowly comes out the return, and you can actually elevate certain areas of the mine by a piece of equipment in the past 15, 20 minutes. You know, the dust might be gone and the other stuff might be gone, but the gases are still trailing along behind it. I just want to thank you for the opportunity of being here and talking. You guys obviously are concerned. You're here. And if there's any questions I can help you with, feel free. MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. MR. SASEEN: Is a petite muhl does that have a -- is that permissible? MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Schedule 30, part 36. MR. SASEEN: It has a wet system on it, a water scrubber? MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, yes. And most of the Wagners we've gone through 20, 25Xs. We're now up to 30Xs. They do all have wet scrubbers on them. And I've got to tell you. Our company, we've experimented with Calgar different soaps to add to the water. And I believe they're trying to make an effort in the area to reduce contaminants the air. But we need to strive to do better in the industry without financially tripping us. MR. SASEEN: Has there been any efforts to put like a paper filter, in your experience, on any wet system in your mind? MR. MONTGOMERY: The first mention I've ever heard of a paper filter was at the Deer Creek Mine, which is our sister coal mine. Same company operates it. They're experimenting right now, and obviously, it hasn't gotten too far along that. So, I don't know too much about it. I've read a lot of information on different scrubbing setups. MR. FORD: So, my understanding is that there's no face haulage equipment. That is the problem. That the problem with diesels is mainly on the out by equipment that you're having? MR. MONTGOMERY: No. It's mostly heavy duty equipment. We've limiting the number of type that goes in an air course. We're running two entry systems, one way in, one way out during development, or during the longhaul phase, you've got your belt, is an intake, as well as your intake. And it's going down the face and returning outside the side of the face. But in our development sessions, they do run some diesel scoops for mostly material supply in a production section developing longhaul. And we've had problems with them in that in a two entry section, running bratage for tubing and return fast, that it's really tough to be mining in an adjacent entry if you've only got two of them and being supplying a roof holder in the entry next to it and have the proper CFM over that type of equipment. If you're with me on that. MR. FORD: What type of equipment are you talking about where you can have up to five pieces in one area? MR. MONTGOMERY: Mostly intersections they'll do the administrative controls in our two-entry position. We're limited by CFM the number of equipment. And we bounce around with a 100 percent approval label for the first two, 75, 50/50. But the limit it by CFM. If you've got the CFM to have four or five pieces of equipment in a single split, they'll be there. And each piece of equipment restricts the air course just a little more, raises ambient temperature due to the heat of the engine and the hydraulics of the equipment. And when you get a bunch of them stacked on top of each other, conditions seem to get a lot worse, as far as visibility contaminant-wise. We've had experiences -- we run a lot of Dodge man trips, personnel carriers. They're a Dodge machine. Got Cummins diesel motor on it, sheet metal box, roll cage to haul the people in and out of the mine. Now, I work in Utah. It's cold part of the year. Diesel doesn't have a real good affinity to cold weather. They'll fire those man trips up a little early to defrost the windows and get the cab warm. I've experienced times when I got my mind forming filling out papers, and occasionally carried detection equipment, 270s, 310s, 410s, CO260s, 240. And I've seen CO alarms in the riding compartment of these Dodge man trips from starting them up. Diesel seemed to run cleaner when they reached ambient temperature, but on initial starts, you're pumping out a lot of black soot and contaminants until they reach operating temperature. And I believe people are negative affected. A few people that I know is not really that great a problem have gotten sick to their stomach and a little bit nauseous being exposed to too much of that. MR. FORD: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Any other questions? MS. WESDOCK: I am was just curious. You said that your mine -- they use administrative controls. MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. MR. WESDOCK: Could you tell me -- I mean, what type? MR. MONTGOMERY: I was involved as a mine health safety committeemen in the two entry position. And we've adopted administrative controls by definition is limiting the type and quantity of diesel equipment in a particular air strip, I believe is about as close as I can give you on that. MR. WESDOCK: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Montgomery for your comments. Next, will be Mr. Linville from Local 1307. MR. LINVILLE: Good morning. I'm Kenneth Linville, L-I-N-V-I-L-L-E. I'm Safety Committeeman for Local 1307, Timmer, Wyoming. I work for Pittsburgh Midway Coal Mining Company for 22 and a half years. We are a surface mine but we do have problems there. And I was wondering if I could enlighten you a little bit on our problems. In the enclosed areas of our shops for adequate ventilation, we have approximately 90 miners that are mechanics. And I'll give you a little bit of a background on what they do. Inside these shops, sometimes the weather conditions are such that you can't open the doors to get proper ventilation such as when it's 20 below to 40 below zero and that time. Part of the shop is old and it doesn't have adequate ventilation. That's where the build-up problem comes from. Whenever you're test loading a diesel electric truck, that's a load box, you're placing the engine under full power over a period of time, trying to set up the electrical drive on the trucks. Not only that, the diesel's setting up your fuel pumps and stuff like that to get everything to coincide to work together. It could take up to three hours and you're spewing this fuel -- smoke out, in this enclosed area within adequate ventilation. I've gone in there at times to pick up a piece of equipment when the smoke's so bad my eyes are burning, tears running out of my eyes, my nose is burning, trying to get that piece of equipment out of that shop. I don't know how the other people stand to stay in there, but I'm just in there for a short period of time, 10 to 15 minutes. The mechanics work anywhere from eight to twelve hours depending on when they come in, so they're exposed to it at quite an expensive period of time. There could be more than one test going on a different piece of equipment. We're running 240 ton cap trucks. We're running D -- it's either -- they're Caterpillar R10Ns I think is what they are. We're running blades in there, 16G blades, running R170 Euclid trucks. A lot of this equipment has 16 cylinder engines. They put out 17 -- between 1,700 and 2,300 horsepower. They burn approximately 75 plus gallons of fuel an hour. So, if it takes you two or three hours to set up one of those trucks, you're spewing out a lot of diesel fuel or diesel smoke in that area. And you can't get the smoke out of the shop in the proper manner. So, these are some of our problems. Also, and when you're testing, you're testing your hydraulic system. You have to have the engine running. You test your transmission, you have to have your engine running. When I go back and say, testing transmission, I'm talking about a cab truck with a six speed automatic. The other truck's a 170 Euclids. They're diesel electric. Sometimes when you're assembling the pieces of equipment on some of these trucks, you have to have the engine running, so that creates smoke and stuff in that truck and there's a build-up in the shop. Other problems that we have is malfunctioning equipment. We're talking about turbochargers, fuel injectors, pumps, air induction systems. There's a lot more. Too many to mention. I'll just go with those. This improper burning creates an improper burning of fuel which is a real black smoke that builds up inside the building and it doesn't take very long to really just pollute the whole place. It takes a long time to get that smoke out of there. I want to go on to the surface equipment, where we have problems with surface equipment such as trucks in the cabs are not sealed good. Again, that comes back into weather conditions, where sometimes you'll have your exhaust pipes are cracked. Some of them are deteriorated. Sometimes they use a flex pipe, which is not a very good pipe to use on your exhaust. It creates a leak. Comes up underneath cabs, up on around them and it seeps inside. A lot of our trucks are over 15 years old, so the weather stripping's bad. The channel around the windows are bad. Windows that didn't recut because they don't use factory windows. They recut windows. Sometimes they're not cut adequately, which creates a leakage. So, you know, coal dust will come in or fumes or anything like that. Those things -- and when you can't get around and move around in those trucks and you're sitting there getting