PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED RULE ) DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER ) EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND COAL ) MINERS ) Pages: 1 through 231 Place: Beaver, West Virginia Date: November 19, 1998 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED RULE ) DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER ) EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND COAL ) MINERS ) National Mine Health And Safety Academy Airport Road Beaver, West Virginia Thursday, November 19, 1998 The public hearing convened, pursuant to the notice, at 9:08 a.m. MODERATOR: THOMAS TOMB APPEARANCES: Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration 4015 Wilson Boulevard Room 631 Arlington, Virginia 22203 (703) 235-1910 THOMAS TOMB, Moderator JON KOGUT GEORGE SASEEN ROBERT HANEY SANDRA WESDOCK WILLIAM MCKINNEY RONALD FORD PAMELA KING P R O C E E D I N G S MODERATOR TOMB: My name is Thomas Tomb. I'm Chief of the Dust Division of MSHA's Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I will be the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's proposed rule, adjusting diesel particulate matter exposure of underground coal miners. Personally, and on behalf of Assistant Secretary J. Devitt McIntyre, I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to each of you for 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; George Saseen from the Approval and Certification Center; Robert Haney from the Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Centers, Environmental Assessment and Contaminant Control Branch; Sandra Wesdock from the Office of the Solicitor; William McKinney from the Mine Safety and Health Academy; Ronald Ford and Pamela King from the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. This hearing is being held in accordance with Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. As is a 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 rule-making record. The hearing transcript, along with all of the comments that MSHA has received today on the proposed rule, will be available for your review. If you want to get a copy of the hearing transcript for your own use, however, you must make your own arrangements with the reporter. We value your comments. MSHA will accept written comment and other data from anyone, including those of you who do not present an oral statement. You may submit written comments to Pamela King during this hearing or send them to Carol Jones, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances in our Arlington office. The address for the Arlington office is also in the notice for this hearing. We will include them in the rule-making 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 your comments on computer disk. Your comments are essential in helping MSHA develop the most appropriate rule that fosters safety and health in our nation's minds. We appreciate your views on this rule-making and assure you that your comments, whether written or oral, will be considered by MSHA in finalizing this rule. In another rule-making on October 29, 1998, we published a proposed rule to address diesel particulate matter exposure of underground metal and non-metal miners. 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 in the Federal Register. You may obtain copies of that proposal by downloading it from MSHA's website at 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 matter exposure of underground coal miners. This hearing is the second of four public hearings to be held on a proposed rule. The first was held in Salt Lake City, Utah on November 17, 1998. We will hold the third hearing on December 15, 1998 in Mt. Vernon, Illinois and the fourth of the final hearings on December 17, 1998 in Birmingham, Alabama. Information regarding these hearings is published in the Federal Register on October 19 and can also be obtained from MSHA's website on the Internet. And also, there are a few copies of that notice available here today that you can pick up, if you would like a copy. On April 9, 1998, MSHA published a proposed rule that would reduce the risk to underground coal miners of serious health hazards that are associated with exposure to high concentrations of diesel particulate matter. Diesel particulate matter is a very small particle in diesel exhaust. Underground miners are exposed to far higher concentration of this fine particulate than any other group of workers. The best available evidence indicates that such high exposures 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, until October 9, 1998. The proposed rule would require the following: Proposed paragraph 72.500 would require the installation and maintenance of high efficiency, particularly filters, and the most polluting types of diesel equipment in underground coal mines. It would require that beginning 18 months after the date that the rule is promulgated, any piece of permissible -- and I stress permissible -- 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 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 be equipped with a system capable of removing on average at least 95 percent of the mass of the diesel particulate material 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 the manufacturer's specifications. The proposal also sets forth the Agency's 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 an emission test of an engine with and without the filtration system installed. 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 is to be provided without charge to the miner. It also includes provisions on the records retention, access, and transfer. And finally, proposed amendment to paragraph 75.371 would amend existing paragraph 75.371, which is a ventilation requirement, to add one new requirement to an underground coal mine's ventilation control plant. 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 diesel- powered units used by the mine operator, together with information about each unit's emission control or filtration system. Details relative to the efficiency of the system and the methods used to establish the efficiency of the system for removing DPM must also be included. Any amendments to a mine's ventilation plan must, of course, also fall within the requirements of 30 CFR 75.370, which is the mine's ventilation plan submission and approval requirements. MSHA has 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 DPM in this sector; requiring filters on some light duty equipment; and looking at the filter and engine as a package that has to meet a particular emission standard, instead of requiring that all engines be equipped with just a high efficiency filter. The Agency is also interested in obtaining many examples -- 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 that could be used for the computer spreadsheet. We also seek information about the availability and cost 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 like also 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 on whether actions 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 will 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. The record will remain open, as stated in the public hearing notice, until February 16, 1999, to allow for post-hearing comments and data submission. MSHA views these rule-making activities as extremely important and knows that your participation is also a reflection of the importance your association is with this rule-making. To ensure that an adequate record is made during this proceeding, when you present your oral statements or otherwise address the panel, I ask that you come to the podium and clearly state your name, spell your name, and the name of the organization that you represent. 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 their intention to do so by signing the request to speak sheet, which is outside the door of the auditorium. Also, tell us how much time you would need to make your presentation. We are scheduled to go until 5:00 p.m. today. Of course, we can call a halt, if we run out of speakers. I will attempt to recognize all speakers in the order in which they request to speak. However, as the moderator, I reserve the right to modify the order of presentation, in interest of fairness. And the way that I intend to do this is I would like you to limit your presentation to 30 minutes, to give everybody an opportunity to speak. And when everybody has spoken, if you haven't finished your presentation in 30 minutes, then you'll be given an opportunity to continue with your presentation. We have three or four people that have pre- scheduled, that I have listed here, to start the presentation. So if there are no -- okay, I'd like to start the hearing by having the first presenter, who would be from the United Mine Workers of America, and I don't know who that will be, but -- Jeff? The first person to make a presentation will be Dr. James Weeks, from the UMWA. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. My name is Jim Weeks. I'm an associated professor at the School of Public Health at George Washington University and I'm speaking here on behalf of the United Mine Workers. First of all, let me congratulate MSHA on two matters, one of which is responsive to the question that your raised about an exposure limit. In this rule, you did not propose an exposure limit. I think that's appropriate, at this point. My concern with proposing an exposure limit is that it would bring scientists and lawyers and economists and so on to the floor, in what could be a very lengthy and tedious debate over what the exposure limit should be. I think the critical need, at this point, is not to have that debate and not to try and set an exposure limit. But the critical need now is to reduce exposure that already exists. I think eventually, obviously, we do need an exposure limit, but I don't think we should hold up this rule-making, in order to try and accomplish that now. I think what you've done in proposing emission controls for in-by and some out-by equipment is appropriate. It's a common sense approach. It takes feasible and effective control technology, requires it on these engines, and in so doing, will reduce exposure. There are some problems with the way you've done that. I think some of our members will elaborate on those. And I think the answer to your second question, which is whether light duty out-by equipment should be required to have the emission controls, I think the answer to that is yes. I think we should do that, because -- well, that will be explained later by others. This issue of a potential delay is of serious concern here. Let me just note that the diesel advisory committee in 1987, I believe it was, recommended that the Agency set rules for exposure. That was 11 years ago. And I think during that time, people have encountered exposure to diesel particulate matter that really much of it could have been avoided. Now, my second area that I'd like to congratulate you on is on the risk assessment that was in the preamble to the rule. I think this risk assessment was thorough. It was balanced. I think it accurately characterized the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific data, and I think it was responsive to the requirements of the Act. I think it forms a very good and solid foundation for us to go ahead with this rule and any other rule-making that follows on. Now, let me highlight -- what I would like to do is to highlight some features of the data and characterize it in a way in which we see the data. First of all, let me say that I think the scientific data is coherent and, in fact, is remarkably coherent. Many had characterized that data as inconsistent, as inconclusive, and so on. I don't agree with that approach. I think it is coherent. What I mean by that is that -- well, let me explain. The level of risk that comes out of the scientific data, the relative risk measures are in the neighborhood of -- some go as high as four to five, which is very, very high; most of them are under two; some around 1.5. As measures of relative risk go, these are not overwhelming levels. Two pack-a-day smoking, for example, I think the risk is around four. Normal is one. So that's one feature of the data that stands out. The second is that there are many weaknesses in the data. Exposure to diesel particulate matter of other workers that has been -- that has occurred in the past has been measured in a few studies, estimated in most. But, in terms of having an accurate assessment of what workers have been exposed to over the 20 years or so that they need to have been studied, we really don't know what that is with a great deal of certainty. There are some very good estimates, but they remain estimates. So that is one of the weaknesses of the existing data. The other is, like other -- and the way that would manifest itself is that there will be some bias. There will be some misclassification. And the risk estimates may be biased upward or downward, depending on the specifics of the data. The other feature of the data is that like all epidemiologic studies, there is a certain amount of random noise that creates a standard deviation and confidence into those above and below during the estimates. Now, these two features together, the moderate level of risk and the presence of uncertainty, practically guarantees that there will be some studies that are negative; that will have their lower confidence interval below one, and there are many studies like that. I do not believe that those studies are inconsistent with the positive studies. On the contrary, I think they all point to this moderate level of risk measured in -- as the relative risk is concerned. The data are also coherent in the sense that when we look at other ways in which chemicals cause cancer, there are many other systems of evaluating that, diesel particulate matter comes up causing -- or having results that are consistent with causing cancer. It's a product of combustion. There are many other products of combustion that also cause cancer: smoking, for example; coke oven emissions; roofing tar; chimney soot; and recently the byproducts of grilling hamburger also has been noted as carcinogenic. Diesel exhaust is exactly like these -- not exactly, but it's very, very similar. It's in the same class. So that on that basis alone, we have reason to suspect it as causing cancer. Secondly, in the various other tests systems using cells -- individual cells in culture, it's positive in those systems, as well, both with bacterial cells and mammalian cells. It's positive when tested in laboratory animals, primarily rats. So, we have -- and interestingly enough, the shape of the curve -- the effect curve in rats is very similar to the shape in human beings; that is, it tends to appear fairly late in the life of a rat, fairly late in the life of human beings. So, the data is coherent in that respect, as well. There are some unanswered questions about the data. One is we do not know the disease mechanism by which cancer is caused. But, we don't know the disease mechanism by which smoking causes cancer. We don't know the disease mechanism by which exposure to coke oven emission causes cancer. We don't know the mechanism for asbestos and cancer. We don't know it for vinyl chloride monomer and cancer, and so on. This has not prevented us from moving ahead and saying we need to treat this material as a potential carcinogen and will work out many of these scientific details later. The knowledge of disease mechanism would help us understand the disease process, but the absence of that knowledge should not prevent us from moving ahead. Another unanswered question has to do with the health effect of small particles, of which diesel particulate is almost entirely small particles. That research is going ahead primarily in the environmental field, where the high concentrations of small particles are associated with a variety of ill effects, including cancer, shortened mortality from other causes, asthma, and some other effects. That remains to be researched. And we're looking at the data, as it exists now, on the effect of small particles. So there is risk. There is a -- the data is coherent. And I think there are indeed some unanswered questions, but I don't think they should prevent us from moving ahead. Now, the other point that I would like to make is that when we take the data and ask of the data the question, well, what's a safe level, and we apply essentially state- of-the-art risk assessment methods that were summarized, I think, in the preamble, and apply that to these data, we come up with -- apply that to these data, along with the criteria that was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Benzene decision, and would apply that to these data, we come up with estimates of a safe level that are somewhere between 50 and 200 micrograms per cubic meter. That's .05 to .2 milligrams per cubic meter, to use the scale that is used in mining. Now -- so that's -- and in addition to that, the American Conference Governmental Industrial Hygienists has suggested a TLB of 150 milligrams, which is in that range -- it's in that same range. And if we look at current levels of exposure that you had documented in the preamble, they are much, much higher than these estimates of what a safe level is. And that's true almost across the board. I mean, you take whatever estimate there is of a safe level, it's much lower than exposure. Now, that circumstance right there, using state-of-the-art risk assessment methodology, combined with current levels of exposure, really requires that we take action now that's going to reduce that exposure, especially in an industry where we worked for 25, 30 years to control dust in coal mines. We should not be adding additional sources of respirable particulate matter. Now, a reasonable question that one might ask is that how do we get from the moderate level of risk that I talked about in the epidemiologic study to the high level of risk that comes from combining the risk assessment with the criteria. And I think the answer to that comes from the disease that we're concerned with, which is lung cancer. Lung cancer is the most common -- the most common cause of death from cancer is lung cancer, by far. It's true in both men and women, at this point. Secondly, lung cancer -- almost without exception, most people that are diagnosed with lung cancer have died within five years. 85 to 90 percent of those people have died within five years. So, it is a substantial public health problem already. If we add to that risk -- additional risk a small number times a large number will give you -- could give, and in this case does give you a large number. That's kind of the thinking that I want to suggest to you, so that we get to that high level of risk from -- because it is lung cancer that we're trying to prevent. Now, the third matter is that controls -- emission controls are feasible technically, economically, and they're effective. So, the situation that we see is that there is fairly coherent data that shows there's a risk. When you measure that risk, it's very high. And there are feasible and effective controls. That seems to me to be a pretty straight and clear case that we need to do something now to reduce exposure. Let me make one other comment about the issue of feasibility. In this State, feasibility of meeting the requirements of any diesel rule is a foregone conclusion. Mines in West Virginia and in Pennsylvania and Ohio, I should mention, are among the most productive mines in the world and none of them use diesel-powered equipment. So, there are alternatives. If mine operators find that diesel equipment is too expensive to operate, no one is requiring that they do it, and it's not essential, and there are viable alternatives for them to use. So, in a way, the question of feasibility, as I mentioned, is something of a foregone conclusion. It's already demonstrated this right before us, at the present time. So, let me just briefly summarize here. I think the data is coherent. There is a high risk. There are feasible and effective controls. And I think the requirements of the Act, in Section 101 that you referred to, have been met. And I think exposure needs to come down as soon as possible. Now, do you want to take questions -- or do I want to take questions? MODERATOR TOMB: We'll see if we have any questions we'd like to ask. Does anybody have any questions? Jon? MR. KOGUT: I just wanted to clarify the middle point that you made about the high risk, in view of the -- what you said, that the relative risks that have been established are not extraordinarily high, but I think you said that they range from something like four, in some cases, down to about 1.5. I think the average in the studies that we're looking at here were actually closer to 1.4. MR. WEEKS: Right. Yes, that's true. MR. KOGUT: It said that the excess relative risk is 1.4. And the way I'm interpreting your point, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that since you're starting out with a large background number of lung cancers in the population already, that when you multiply that large number by a 40 percent excess, that that's a substantial number of lung cancers. Is that the point you're making? MR. WEEKS: Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. MODERATOR TOMB: Any other questions? Thank you, Dr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Sure. MODERATOR TOMB: Our next presenter will be a Mr. Bob Knisley from UMWA, Local 1501. MR. KNISLEY: I don't want you to panic. I'm not going to read all of this. Good morning. My name is Robert Knisley. I'm an underground coal miner, employed at Consol, Number 95, Robinson Run Mine. I have 25 years experience and it's all at this location. My mine is represented by the United Mine Workers of America and I hold a position on that local's health and safety committee, and I've held that position for 15 years. I thank you for the opportunity this morning of addressing you. I can't tell you how many times I and other rank and file miners have stood before such panels in the past. We have stood before men and women who, in my opinion, have listened to our remarks with deaf or, in many cases, an unsympathetic ear. It appears that there are real challenges in the coal industry. It seems that the laws which protect the men and women in the coal industry of today are being attacked on many sides. I stand here today and challenge not only this panel, but any panel, which would diminish the standards of health and safety in the coal mines of this nation, that you will meet an unmovable force. We, as coal miners, are resolved to fight any ill-conceived, profit increasing, or safety diminishing plans by the coal companies. We also put you on notice today that we demand fair and thoughtful treatment by such panels, whose actions directly influence the working lives of the people in the coal industry. Your actions, as well as ours, will be held up to public scrutiny. None of us will any longer have that luxury of getting lost in enmity. We plan to humanize these panels and make the members accountable for the actions that they take. And even though my remarks so far, I think, have had an antagonistic tone, I don't apologize. But, if you'll allow me, I would like to try to explain. The mine at which I work is located in north central West Virginia, near Farmington. This was a site of a mine disaster in 1968, which claimed 78 lives and led directly to the Mine Act of 1969. The people who died at the Farmington mine paid dearly for the safety protections, which we all enjoy today. They paid with their blood. This is why we will never allow an assault on these protections for coal miners without a fight. Oftentimes, it appears that it's a losing battle, but we have remained optimistic. We have not lost heart. Like the small boy locked in a room full of horse manure, who happily digs through this unpleasant mess, we say to you, just as the small boy said, there has to be a pony in here someplace. The bottom line: we won't, and you shouldn't, sacrifice health and safety, because companies tell you the cost of this safety is too high. I say to them and to you: our safety is not for sale at any price. We now face the challenge of allowing diesel equipment in underground coal mines in West Virginia. And contrary to what you have been told, we do not necessarily disagree with this. What we do demand is that we implement -- excuse me, I lost my place -- what we do demand is that the implementation will grant the high safety and health standards. No longer can anyone afford the luxury of being reactive to the problems posed by diesel. We must find someway to take a realistic look at the safety and health problems and deal with them. I think these kind of gatherings will help this process. Not forgetting the dynamics of the coal industry today, we cannot escape the realities: diesel poses a real health and safety problem to underground coal miners. Since there appears to be little sympathy for our concern at the State level, we ask that we be given a fair hearing here. At my mine, we average well over 500 federal citations a year. Many of these violations concern coal dust and ventilation. How can we add additional pollutants into the working atmosphere of coal miners without first demanding that the strictest controls are in place and then demanding that they are enforced. It seems ironic to me that we have such a cavalier attitude with protecting the very air that miners must breath every day for up to 10 hours, and yet politicians make clean air -- or put clean air at the top of their agenda. At the very least, we must demand that diesel equipment be equipped with the very best filters and also demand that these filters be maintained. To the cooperation of industry, manufacturing, and coal miners, technology has been developed to filter particulate matter from the exhaust of diesel equipment. We must take steps to demand that the filters set a limit for 95 percent efficiency for all underground equipment, whether it be in-by or out-by. We must tailor any standard to afford the maximum protection to coal miners. We have only to look at your own government documentation to understand the concern of underground coal miners. There exists a real danger to the health and safety of these miners, when they are exposed to diesel particulate matter. NIOSH and laboratory studies has indicated that it is possible to have 900 of 1,000 coal miners dying of lung cancer after a lifetime exposure to diesel exhaust particulate matter. Keeping this fact in mind, why has that stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, that the rule would not require light duty out-by equipment to be filtered. This would mean that 2,000 of the approximate 3,000 pieces of diesel equipment in the nation's underground coal mines would be permitted to operate without filters. I think we all see a problem, one which could be life threatening. We must be realistic when we set the standard for exposure to diesel exhaust particulate matter. Costs cannot be the only consideration. Never again can we ignore a health risk, which could develop into another black lung. Morally, each of us must all do what we can to meet our obligations. As members of our health and safety committee, we must point out health problems that affect our members. You, as participants in this rule-making process, are bound by law to enact standards which afford us the largest measure of protections. It is unacceptable for you or for us to be guided in our deliberations only by the cost of such protections. We stand at the threshold of a major change in the mining industry. Rank and file miners are not afraid at the coming changes. We have seen the coal mines go from production levels of 10,000 tons per day to well over 30,000 ton per day. This has been mostly from the introduction of mining methods. The change came with many problems of dust and ventilation controls. These problems were met and, for the most part, overcame when the health and safety of the miners was made priority. We stand at a unique time in the history of the coal mining industry in this country. We also stand here with some tough choices to make. What kind of future do we want to leave for the future generations of coal miners? I hope that five, ten, twenty years down the road, we can each be proud of the decisions we make today. Future coal miners will hold us accountable. We must be able to look at them straight in the eye and tell them that our actions were motivated by sound, scientific information, and with the desire to afford them the greatest measure of protection, as diesel equipment was expanded in the industry. How could we not hang our heads in shame if we had to tell a future coal miner that there was a time we could have protected his health, but the cost of this protection was too high. God forgive us all if this was ever to come to pass. And that does conclude my prepared remarks. And I would like to submit this for part of the record. I notice -- you notice me clearing this box of -- box down front. What this is is the citations at our coal mine. This isn't 20 years worth, 10 years worth. What you're looking at here is four years worth of federal citations, and that's not even state citations. I don't bring this as an indictment for anybody. It's a visual aid to let you know that we have a real problem in the industry. The reality is that compliance is a real problem. But what -- how much worse would it have been if we hadn't had these standards in place to protect us. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. MODERATOR TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Knisley. Any questions? I have one question, if you don't mind. Just succinctly, from what you've presented, I think your main point is that the proposal falls short from the standpoint of all equipment needs filtered. MR. KNISLEY: Yes, sir. MODERATOR TOMB: That's your main -- MR. KNISLEY: I think if I understood what was presented in the preamble, what was proposed, what we're going to do, we're going to leave two-thirds of the industry, as far as diesel equipment, unfiltered. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay, that's your point. MR. KNISLEY: And then what we're going to do, we're going to try and take care of this problem with ventilation. Well, you know, from my coal mine -- there's a lot of things happening in the industry. Like, my mine has went to three headings. Right now, we have to dump over -- well over 100,000 CFM at the start of the section, so we even have enough minimum air at the face. So, where is this velocity? Where is this air going to come from, with the changes -- other changes taking place in the industry? MODERATOR TOMB: Okay; fine. Thank you, very much. MR. KNISLEY: Thank you, sir. MODERATOR TOMB: The next presenter will be Mr. Randy Bedilion -- did I pronounce that correctly -- from UMWA Local 2300. MR. BEDILION: That's close. You got it a lot closer than a lot of other people did. Good morning. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. What did I get wrong? MR. BEDILION: Pronunciation, but my wife -- MODERATOR TOMB: Oh, I'm sorry; okay. MR. BEDILION: -- she mispronounces it once in a while. I'm Randy Bedilion from Local 2300. I'm not much of a speaker, I'll tell you that now. We have a -- MODERATOR TOMB: Can you spell your name, please? MR. BEDILION: B-e-d-I-l-I-o-n. Right now, we have one piece of diesel underground. It's a Brookville locomotive. I'm a mechanic underground and I've done the 100 hour test. This piece of equipment, even with the filter system that's on it, which I think -- my first point is, it's a must. Anytime we've got a piece of diesel underground, I think it's a must that we have this filter system on it. Even with the filter system on it, we've had -- the fumes of the heat off of it, or whatever, we've had people get sick. I don't think ventilation is an answer. We've got a pretty competent mine, as far as management. This is the last three years ventilation only. Citations we have had written from MSHA. I've traveled a lot with MSHA's inspectors and we're at a point where, in our mine, ventilation, it's a must, I mean, but as far as the answer, I don't believe in that. We've had so many just breakdowns in the system. As far as the filtration, if we had anything less than what we've got now, at least 95 percent, I think that would be like a fall back. As far as the safety and health of my brothers and sisters, I don't think that would be -- the answer is filters. We've got to have the filters. This is the bottom line. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. You have any questions? MR. HANEY: How frequently do you have to change the filters? MR. BEDILION: The air filters? You're talking the air -- MR. HANEY: The exhaust filters. MR. BEDILION: The exhaust filters, I would say every -- I think it was like every fourth or fifth 100 hour test. MR. HANEY: Okay. And about how long does it take to change those filters? MR. BEDILION: Probably 20 minutes. MR. HANEY: Okay, thank you. MR. SASEEN: Did you -- did I miss, did you state what mine you -- MR. BEDILION: Cumberland mine. MR. SASEEN: Cumberland, okay. MR. BEDILION: It's out in western Pennsylvania. MR. FORD: Would you, by any chance, know the purchase price of installation to put that filter on that piece of equipment? MR. BEDILION: No, I wouldn't. I know it's -- I know it's costly, but it's not worth our lives, you know. MR. FORD: Sure. MR. BEDILION: We're a lot more priceless than what that stupid filter system is. MR. FORD: All right. Are you the one in charge of maintaining that filter like on an annual basis? MR. BEDILION: Not myself, personally, all the time. I mean, we have other mechanics underground that are trained, you know, for the service -- the 100 hour service. MR. FORD: Okay. Can you talk about what is involved in maintaining that filter on like an annual basis, I mean, besides just changing the filter? MR. BEDILION: In maintaining? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. BEDILION: As in what matter? MR. FORD: Keeping it running in the best efficient shape that it should be running. MR. BEDILION: The 100 hour service, the diesel particulates are checked visually. I mean, you know, whenever -- whenever the 100 hour test is done on it, the gauges, which are on there for back pressure -- there's a multitude of things that just have to be checked with that 100 hour test. But the -- probably in testing the diesel particulate, on the exhaust, that's probably one of the best test. MR. FORD: I've just got one more question. How much do the filters cost, do you know? MR. BEDILION: I have no idea. That's a management problem. MR. FORD: Thank you. MODERATOR TOMB: I have one question, Randy. How do you -- you said you tested for the particulate, is that just a visual observation? MR. BEDILION: No. The instrument -- I've been trying to think since last night what the name of that instrument is -- that is put on the exhaust and -- it's carbon monoxide is what it's testing for. MODERATOR TOMB: Oh, okay. MR. BEDILION: Because, it tracks the same thing as, you know -- the same way as -- MODERATOR TOMB: Yeah, okay. MR. BEDILION: But, I can't think of the instrument, but the -- in the 100 hour test, there is an untreated check on the exhaust and the treated check with the exhaust. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. MR. BEDILION: And as far as the instrument, I can't think of the name of it now. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. Well, I thought it was particulate you were looking at. That clarifies it when you said it's CO. Okay, one more question -- just one more: When that filter was put on, how did the diesel mechanics, in your mind -- how were they trained in learning how to keep that filter -- I mean, that system maintained? Did like a manufacturer come and put the system on and then also gave training? MR. BEDILION: Yeah. MODERATOR TOMB: Or did you have to go out and the mine paid for the training? MR. BEDILION: No. There was an eight hour operator's training that was given to us. And then the maintenance people, which is myself, I'm a mechanic, we were given the additional eight hours. And we had a guy from Brookville, which manufactured the diesel. They came down and schooled us on the service of the machine. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. So the total hours of training, I'm confused, was 16 hours? MR. BEDILION: Yes, sir. MODERATOR TOMB: And all of those were given by the manufacturer? MR. BEDILION: Yeah. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay, thank you. MR. BEDILION: Do you want these? MODERATOR TOMB: Yes, I'll take those. Thank you, Mr. Bedilion. All right, that limits the 30-minute time for the UMWA. And what I'd like to do right now is have Mr. George Ellis from Pennsylvania Coal Association make his presentation. MR. ELLIS: Thank you. Good morning. May name is George Ellis, E-l-l-I-s, and I am president of Pennsylvania Coal Association. With me today are members of PCA's tech committee -- safety committee, excuse me, who will help answer any of your questions following my testimony. These individuals include: Bob Dubreck, who is vice president of operations with Tanoma Mining Company and he also serves as PCA's representative to the technical advisory committee on diesel-powered equipment, which was created under the Act, 182 Pennsylvania law; also, John Galleck, who is manager of safety with Cypress Emerald; Larry Patts, who is assistant to the vice president for safety and Consol, Inc.; and Henry Moore, with Buchanan Ingersoll, who serves as PCA's counsel on safety matters. PCA is a trade association, organized and operating under the laws of Pennsylvania, representing both surface and underground producers of bituminous coal in Pennsylvania. Our members produced over 75 percent of the coal annually mined in Pennsylvania and over 90 percent of the coal mined by underground methods. We also represent associate members companies, including equipment manufacturing companies and other organizations that serve the mining industry. The intent of this rule is to establish new health standards for underground coal mines that use equipment powered by diesel engines. PCA member companies have a substantial interest in the outcome of the proposal, both in terms of safety and reducing worker exposure to high concentrations of diesel particulate matter and creating a feasible regulatory program that is conducive to the use of diesel engines in underground coal mines. We, therefore, appreciate this opportunity to comment. Coal supplies nearly 60 percent of the electricity generated in Pennsylvania. At the same time, deep coal mines in the Commonwealth are a major industrial user of electricity, to power everything from rail-bound trollies for carrying men, to conveyer belts, continuous mining equipment, and other heavy machinery. But sole reliance on electric-powered equipment in deep mines to unearth coal came at a price. This was especially true for Pennsylvania underground mine operators who, prior to 1996, were unable to take advantage of the power, mobility, flexibility, and safety benefits of using diesel equipment at their mines, as an alternative to electric-powered equipment. While diesel-powered equipment gained popularity in underground mines nationwide, its use in Pennsylvania's bituminous mines was precluded by a de facto regulatory ban, putting Pennsylvania operators at a safety and competitive disadvantage with mine operators in other coal producing states that were allowed to utilize such equipment. Diesel usage steadily increased outside Pennsylvania over the past 20 years, with approximately 3,000 units now operating in underground coal mines. Why the trend to diesel from traditional electric- or battery-powered underground mining equipment? The answer is simple: safety and competitiveness. From the safety standpoint, diesel has reduced the risks attended with the use of electrical equipment by eliminating the need for trolley wires, trolley poles, and trailing cables. Injuries and accidents, like shocks, burns, and fires, are minimized. The additional injuries resulting from being struck by trolley pulls or tripping over trailing cables are removed from the mine and work place. Indeed, a 1984 Penn State University study presented at a Society of Mining Engineers meeting in Denver, Colorado, concluded that many accidents could have been prevented through the use of diesel equipment, which provides a significant potential for improved mine safety. In support of its proposed rule for diesel-powered equipment, MSHA also recognized the safety advantages of diesels, issuing the following statement in the initial impact assessment and regulatory flexibility analysis in October of 1989: "MSHA reviewed its data files to determine whether there were any accidents, other than fires, that would be considered unique to diesel-powered equipment. Fatality and injury abstracts from 1987 through '89 were reviewed for the 116 underground coal mines using diesel- powered equipment in 1988. Of these, there were no injuries unique to diesel-powered equipment that occurred in 1987, there were only three injuries unique to this equipment that occurred in 1988, and there was only one injury unique to the equipment that occurred in '89." MSHA also acknowledged, in promulgating its final rules on approval and safety requirements for diesel equipment, that diesel-powered equipment does not have the inherent electrocution hazards of the electric-powered equipment. Also, according to MSHA's electric hazard awareness program, electrocution comprises about eight percent of the fatalities in mining, and between 1970 to 1986, there were 102 fatalities from electrocutions in underground mines. Trailing cables, trolley wires, and mobile electric equipment accounted for 49.9 percent, or almost half of these fatalities. Also, a 1994 Bureau of Mines report by Temco and Cassel reported that hall entries were the most likely locations for fires that resulted in fatalities; and that between 1970 and 1989, trolley wires were directly responsible for 40 of the 82 hall entry fires. In fact, the Matheys mine, a major southwestern Pennsylvania underground mine, has experienced three fires as a result of trolley wires, two of which caused the mine to be shut down for a substantial period of time. Use of diesel equipment obviously reduces or eliminates these risks and provides the versatility and flexibility to reduce the risk from other hazards, such as material and large equipment handling. Diesel-powered equipment also has a number of productivity advantages and operational benefits over electrically-powered equipment. The use of diesels underground promotes more productivity than electrical equipment, owing to its greater safety, power, mobility, and flexibility. Diesel use does not restrict the mining plans or mining cycle, because operations are not hampered by cable length or time consuming power moves. Diesels provide greater flexibility in underground travel routes and make equipment moves from one area of a mine to another more efficient. Compared to battery-powered mining equipment often used in smaller underground coal operations, diesels can haul coal more efficiently over longer distance, provide more power to mine coal, and eliminate time consuming battery change-out time. Moreover, because of its flexibility, the use of diesel equipment for handling supplies and other materials reduces the number of material handling injuries. Diesel-powered supply equipment, like mining systems in recent years, provides the mine operator with another tool to compete in today's coal market. PCA has long believed that this tool should be available to Pennsylvania operators. It was against this backdrop that PCA sought to pursue a legislative remedy in the 1995-96 Pennsylvania legislative session that would allow for diesel usage in the Commonwealth, without compromise to health and safety in the workplace. Prior to 1996, only three coal producing states -- Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio -- did not allow diesel equipment to be used in underground coal mines. Unlike the other two states, the Pennsylvania mining law did not contain an absolute statutory prohibition against the use of diesel combustion engines in underground coal mines. Under the prior Pennsylvania mining law, diesel engines would be permitted, provided the request for such equipment was approved by the secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection. However, despite requests made by a number of Pennsylvania mining companies to use diesels, they were never approved by the secretary for various reasons. So, in effect, we had a regulatory ban on the use of diesels. At this point, I want to clarify for the record two points relative to the Pennsylvania law explained in the preamble to this proposal that may be misconstrued by the reader. The first is the reference on page 17503, which implies that the Pennsylvania law had banned the use of diesels. There was no statutory ban in Pennsylvania. Also on the same page, the vehicle for the Pennsylvania diesel law is identified as Senate Bill 1643. This is also wrong. The correct cite is House Bill 2828. While this last point may seem unimportant to some, I can assure you that pride of authorship is not viewed as a trivial issue among Pennsylvania legislatures. The last Pennsylvania coal company to submit an application under the old Pennsylvania law for use of diesel engines was the Cypress Coal Company, which operates two underground coal mines in Green County, Pennsylvania and in Cumberland. Cypress filed a diesel emission's management plan with the department on October 23, 1995. This submission was also presented to the UMW locals at both mines and the UMWA international representatives. Cypress and the union negotiated the content of the diesel plan. In early January, 1996, the UMWA submitted a counterproposal to Cypress, almost 100 percent consisting of the Cypress plan, but written in statutory language. Although PCA knew of the ongoing negotiations with the UMWA, since it was an isolated occurrence that involved just a regulatory use of diesels by one company, we were not directly involved. But, at this juncture, since the playing field was elevated to a legislative point, Cypress formally brought the issue to PCA for its consideration, since it became an industry-wide issue. Thereafter, the negotiations were between PCA and the UMWA. About 10 months later, the bill allowing the use of diesel-powered equipment was signed into law as Act 182 in 1996. At about the same time the Pennsylvania diesel bill was becoming law, MSHA issued its diesel-powered equipment final regulations on October 25, 1996. Please keep in mind that the parties in Pennsylvania were not privy to the contents of MSHA's final rules, at the time of negotiations. Act 82 contains the most stringent diesel particulate emission standards in the world. Its requirements exceed those proposed in the MSHA draft rule. By not knowing the direction in which federal regulators were headed on this issue, Pennsylvania now faces the possibility of having State program requirements exceeding federal standards. If this occurs, Pennsylvania operators will be essentially troubled by the same competitive imbalance that they faced concerning diesel uses prior to 1996. PCA hopes to address, in concert with the United Mine Workers of America, our disadvantageous competitive position with the Pennsylvania legislature in the next session. Our purpose today is to convey to you the problems that Pennsylvania operators are encountering with the Pennsylvania law and to strongly caution against using this law as the basis for a national standard. Act 182 specifically addresses diesel particulate matter. The State did not set a limit on the exposure of miners to DPM, nor did it establish a limit on the concentration of DPM in the deep coal mines. Rather, they approached the issue by imposing controls that would limit DPM emissions at the source. First, all diesel engines used in underground coal mines in Pennsylvania must be MSHA approved engines with an exhaust, emissions control and conditioning system that meets certain tests. Among these are DPM emissions from each engine no greater than an average concentration of 12 milligrams per cubic meter of air, diluted by 50 percent of the MSHA approved plate ventilation for that diesel engine. In addition, any exhaust emission control and conditioning system must include a diesel particulate matter filter capable of an average of 95 percent or greater reduction of DPM emissions. The law also requires the use of an oxidation catalytic converter. Thus the Pennsylvania statute envisions the use of high-emitting engines and then the use of after-treatment devices that significantly reduce what particulates are emitted from these engines. The Pennsylvania law also has a number of other requirements to encourage the safe use of diesel-powered equipment. Many of these parallel the requirements in the MSHA proposed rule. Like MSHA's requirements, they, too, can result in reducing minor exposure to diesel particulate, for example, regular maintenance of diesel engines by qualified personnel and equipment operator examinations. The requirements in the Pennsylvania law take into account the need to maintain the after-treatment devices required to control DPM. Unfortunately, since the Pennsylvania law was negotiated at a time when there was no federal rule and was based on limited data and experience, it's become so restrictive that it actually discourages the use of diesel engines. Furthermore, some of its requirements may not be realistically obtainable. In hindsight, the 95 percent filter requirement on all diesel engines is too tight a standard and does not allow for the integration of other components to enhance the system. Among the major problems which we've identified with the Pennsylvania law are: (1) implementation of a 95 percent filter efficiency on all diesel equipment relative to the reduction of DPM is not currently possible on a consistent, repeatable basis. Only one manufacturer proposes to have such a filter and its performance has not been measured over a long period of time. Reliance on the standard is also an impediment to cleaner fuel and cleaner engines. Ironically, the filter works best with less cleaned engines and fuel. This is a point conceded by the manufacturer. As you get cleaner engines and fuels, the filter may not meet the 95 percent standard, since it is easier to reduce the amount of particulate on an engine producing a greater amount of particulate than on an engine that runs clean. Using this standard, really, is a deterrent to new technology or cleaner engines, because manufacturers recognize the inherent technical difficulties of reducing particulate from engines that already run clean. The second concern is reliance on a .12 standard, as we believe it's not realistic. There is no existing system that has repeatedly met this standard and which has been in use for any significant period of time. Finally, out-by diesel equipment, as with out-by electrical equipment, should not be subject to surface temperature controls. Temperature limitations preclude the use of certain type of filtering systems, which would also effectively reduce DPM. Also, the ISO eight test does not appear to be representative of normal operation of diesel engines in an underground mine and a different test may be needed. Perhaps the best illustration of the shortcomings of the Pennsylvania law is the fact that after being in effect for almost two years, there are only two diesel- powered 2010 locomotives operating in Pennsylvania underground mines at this time. The incentives to have more diesel-powered equipment are the safety and productivity aspects of diesel equipments. That's what I said prior. Recognizing that these goals should not be achieved at the expense of the miner's health, the coal industry in Pennsylvania has not grasped the opportunity to implement the use of diesel equipment, because of the stringent nature and unrealistic parameters of the Pennsylvania law. This is unfortunate and not an intended outcome of Act 182. To derive the many benefits gained by the use of diesels, PCA supports revisions to the Pennsylvania diesel law. During the next legislative session in Pennsylvania, we intend to sit down with the UMW to determine if we can come up with a unified approach to refine the law to make it more realistic and usable, without adversely affecting the worker's health. The diesel bill signed into law in December of '96 was essentially based upon the use of the dry systems technology after-treatment control device. But, it also incorporated many aspects of an overall diesel emissions management plan, such as clean engines, fuel quality, and maintenance requirements. By recognizing these other emission management concepts, the Pennsylvania diesel law recognizes and implements the concept of an integrated approach. PCA now views the additional requirement of a 95 percent efficiency filter as unnecessary and prefers that it be replaced in any new legislation with the integrated approach concept. As alluded to earlier, the Pennsylvania law and the MSHA proposed rule need to create the proper incentives to encourage more, not less, diesel-powered equipment usage in underground coal mines, without placing the miner at risk to health impairment. Again, we will continue to work with the UMWA on achieving these goals in Pennsylvania. Based on Pennsylvania's experience with this issue, we recommend that any federal rule on diesel-powered equipment consider the following: First, as an alternative to the proposed 95 percent emission reduction requirement, adopt an integrated system. It involves a combination of measures, including a practical laboratory DPM standard and various options on how to effectively meet the standard. These options would include cleaner burning engines, lower sulfur fuel, after-treatment devices, ventilation, and training. If an integrated approach is not adopted, any incentive to stretch and improve technology towards the use of cleaner diesel engines will be absent. Adoption of a filter rule only discourages the technology. Second, any regulation should not impose additional future requirements. To require a DPM filter at a 95 percent efficiency in two years may be unrealistic, since there are no guarantees that such technology will exist. Moreover, an integrated system will create a better environment for the workers, rather than "a dirty engine," with a 95 percent efficiency filter. Equipment manufacturers are finding it nearly impossible to meet a 95 percent filter efficiency at a .12 DPM standard. The goal of any rule or legislation must be to reduce worker exposure to DPM levels, while providing the operator with the ability and flexibility to meet that goal through the use of an integrated system. Finally, maintain the current regulatory requirements between heavy and light diesel-powered equipment. PCA thanks MSHA for its opportunity to present testimony and we'd be happy to try and answer any questions. As I told you before the start, I will be submitting these comments in a more refined packet. MODERATOR TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Any questions? MR. SASEEN: Mr. Ellis, the two diesels, are they the same engine -- the two machines, do they contain the same engine? MR. ELLIS: I'm going to let John Galleck answer that. MR. GALLECK: George, yes, they are. MR. SASEEN: Do you know which engines they are? MR. GALLECK: CAT engine 3306. They're all -- both locomotives are duplicates. They're exactly the same. MR. SASEEN: It's a 3306 CAT engine? MR. GALLECK: Yes, it is. MR. SASEEN: Okay. You mentioned that -- what you called the "practical lab standard," can you offer -- you said in lieu of the ISO 8178, is there a -- is there some data you can present to us, as an alternative? MR. GALLECK: Anybody else want to answer that one? MR. PATTS: Yes, Larry Patts, and I think we'll hear some testimony further on it in the hearing here today, that will suggest a practical lab standard and there will be comments filed to the rule-making before the comment period closes on a practical lab standard. MR. SASEEN: Can you share with us, the committee, the data on how you -- the data that was used to meet the 95 percent filter to the 3306 and also how you met your .l2? Can that be -- MR. GALLECK: I believe that data will eventually be submitted through other sources. MR. SASEEN: Okay, thank you. MR. HANEY: Do you have any comparison between cost to the locomotive that you have with the dry systems and the same locomotive without the dry systems? MR. GALLECK: Bob, I would have only just the general pricing differential. But, I couldn't say that that's accurate, because, obviously, Brookville's pricing through us may be more beneficial to us, since we were providing them their first venture into Pennsylvania. So, I'd like to believe we negotiated a tight price. But, you're looking at probably in the low 30's -- for an additional system, 25 to 30,000, depending on all the add- ons and what all there is involved with Pennsylvania, keeping in mind Pennsylvania had other standards that may not be necessary under federal standards. MODERATOR TOMB: Do you know of any other -- do you know how many filter systems have been tested, other than -- are there other filter systems that have been tested and have failed? Or are these the only two that ever been tested? MR. DUBRECK: There is a problem that we have with the 95 percent efficiency on the filter. I believe, in a larger degree, even the union would agree with this. What you've got is this -- you know, we're in a difficult situation here, you are also -- nobody knows what the DPM standard should be. Anyone in here that can tell me or you that they do, I don't believe that. I don't believe it's scientific. We're all engineers in here. We're all intelligent people. There hasn't been enough research done on it. I sure as heck don't know what the DPM standard should be. You know, metal or non-metal, they tell me .4 and, you know, .164 here, NIAS might tell me .15, Pennsylvania said .12. I don't know what that standard is. I think it's very important that the health and safety of the miner be protected. But at what standard that is, I don't know. I don't think anybody knows. When you come -- if you had a DPM standard and you have the leeway to reach that standard, then you can use engineering controls and other methods, such as engines, after-treatment systems, fuels, training, maintenance, to meet the standard. But, if the federal law sticks to a 95 percent efficient filter, I think you're making a tremendous mistake. MODERATOR TOMB: That wasn't my question, though. MR. DUBRECK: Okay. MODERATOR TOMB: My question specifically was: You have two filter systems, I understand, that have been approved and are in use, right? Have there been other ones submitted for approval that haven't been approved? MR. DUBRECK: No. What you got into is the original engine was tested in WVU, with the DST system, an MWM engine, and it was 95 percent efficient filter, okay. The 3306 PCAs that Cumberland used, by engineering methods and filtering manufacture data, the TAC committee approved that engine with that filter and that system for underground use, because we felt it would meet the .12 standard, okay. It hasn't been in test for any long period of time. It hasn't been in use for any long period of time, okay. What happens when you meet that standard of a 95 percent efficiency, it cuts out all future technology. That filter will not work. If you're going to a new 3306 cleaner engine, that filter will not meet 95 percent. So what you've done now is, there's no hope for us ever to get to cleaner engines. There's no hope for us ever to get to cleaner fuels, because nobody, to my knowledge, with cleaner engines and cleaner fuels can meet 95 percent, okay. We've had manufacturers come to us -- MODERATOR TOMB: It still doesn't answer my question. There's no other -- nobody has taken just a paper filter and put it on the end of a scrubber and tested it? MR. DUBRECK: No. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. MR. DUBRECK: Well, we've had -- MR. ELLIS: At least for application in Pennsylvania. MODERATOR TOMB: Pennsylvania, okay. That's my question. MR. DUBRECK: We've had other people come to us with different technologies that meet a 91 percent filter efficiency at a .08 standard. Yet, we cannot approve that, because it doesn't meet the filter efficiency. You will get into the same situation in federal law, if you stick with that 95 percent filter efficiency. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. Let me -- I'd like to ask another question. Can the .12 be met? I guess from what you just said, it can. The .12 can be met or even lower can be met, using the combined technology? MR. DUBRECK: Yes, to the best of my knowledge. MODERATOR TOMB: Using a 90 percent filter and cleaner engine and doing all these other things, you can get down to below the .12 -- MR. DUBRECK: Well, two were approved at .12. We have -- a manufacturer came to us just last week, I don't have the data in hand, but his testing in West Virginia, he said he could meet a 91 percent and a .08 something. I forget the exact -- I mean, what ought to be important, though, is what the guy is breathing. That's what's important. Electricity in these lights, we really don't care how it gets here, just so it's here. The miner underground, he cares what he's breathing. Surely, you have to have leeway to meet that in an integrated approach or you're going to force him to not have the best possible situation. MR. GALLECK: Let me clarify one other point. MODERATOR TOMB: As you speak, could you clarify for the record who is speaking, so -- MR. GALLECK: Oh, I'm sorry. This is John Galleck, Cypress Emerald. One clarification is that the Pennsylvania law also includes a 50 percent of the ventilation rate of the MSHA standard for that engine size and, obviously, that was made prior to. As George said earlier, we were not aware that you were changing the law to part seven. So, our numbers, just for clarification, like Bob said, we met a .12 at 50 percent of the old part 32 standard. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. MR. ELLIS: This is George Ellis. I'm not quite sure, in response to your question, Mr. Tomb, that any of us here can definitely say that cannot any other approach meet a .12 or a less than .12 standard. MODERATOR TOMB: From what your presentation has sort of precluded, that you couldn't even get down to -- it was very difficult to meet the .12, because you have got a 95 percent efficient -- MR. ELLIS: That's right. MODERATOR TOMB: -- you're having trouble. MR. ELLIS: That's right. MODERATOR TOMB: And then -- I'm sorry, your name, sir? MR. DUBRECK: Bob Dubreck. I'm with the TAC committee. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. When you were talking, and he mentioned that he could get down to .08, 90 percent -- MR. DUBRECK: And that's on a smaller engine. The net result is, what does a person breath? What is he going to see in his lungs? And surely, the operators has to have the ability to use the means available to him, to reach that goal. That has to be the ultimate goal, what does the guy breath. It has to be, not a 95 percent efficient filter. MR. SASEEN: Bob, just when you said that the system had a 91 percent filter and a .08 lab standard, was that with part 32, 50 percent air or the part seven name plate air? MR. DUBRECK: I'm not certain. MR. SASEEN: I'm sorry? MR. DUBRECK: I'm not certain. MR. SASEEN: Okay. MR. DUBRECK: It was a small piece of out-by equipment, with a subfilter and some other mechanisms on it. Now, you now -- and when we went to New York, up at the Climber, you know, you heard guys up there talk about ceramic filters and they can come up -- you know, and then they'd see the 302 temperature of the Pennsylvania law. So, what you've got to watch is that you don't prevent yourself from down the road using the best technology, the cleanest engines, the cleanest fuels. And the net result again has to be, what is that man in the coal mine breathing? That's the end result. And that's what we all got to look at in any legislation. And if we preclude by legislation, somewhat like has happened in Pennsylvania, that there's no diesels can be used in the mine. I've got on that committee, because I wanted to put diesels in Tanoma. I had none, because I don't know of anything that I can put in there that meets the statutes. But, I do remember fellows what trolley wire is. Guys in this room remember what trolley wire is, and equipment fires moving equipment, the wire on the bottom and evacuating people. And I think you have to keep that mind. I think diesels are very important, as long as the health and safety of the miner is protected, in moving this industry forward versus the old systems existing. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. MR. SASEEN: Bob, can -- and I know you remember the Pennsylvania technical committee -- can you supply our committee the data that was used to approve that engine, to meet the Pennsylvania? Now, I know -- I'm asking you as a member of the PA technical committee, versus TAC. MODERATOR TOMB: Are you talking about the Cypress -- MR. DUBRECK: The Brookville proposal? MR. SASEEN: Right. Can that be made available to this committee? MR. DUBRECK: I don't know why not. MR. SASEEN: Okay. MR. DUBRECK: From my personal point of view, I don't know why not. MR. SASEEN: Well, if you can, we'd be interested. MR. DUBRECK: Yes. MR. SASEEN: Thank you. MR. DUBRECK: I'll see if I can do that. MR. SASEEN: Thank you. MODERATOR TOMB: Thank you, very much. MR. GALLECK: Would you guys mind -- this is John Galleck, again -- if I just clarified a couple of points that were made earlier -- MODERATOR TOMB: No, go ahead. MR. GALLECK: -- for one minute? I think there is a mistake on a filter life. Our typical filter life for the DPM filter is 50 to 70 hours, just a clarification point, rather than putting it in a written record later. MODERATOR TOMB: Instead of the 500 that was -- MR. GALLECK: Yeah. Okay, thank you. MODERATOR TOMB: I know some people are standing up. Maybe it's a good time to take a 15-minute break. But, please be back here exactly 10 to 11:00. Thank you. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MODERATOR TOMB: Before we get started, one of the panel members would like to ask a question of the last speakers. I'm not sure which one he wants to ask a question to, but he would like to ask a question to clarify a point. MR. SASEEN: Mr. Galleck -- I think our bladders kind of overruled my thinking process here -- could you give me what the -- do you know what the cost of the filter is on the Brookville? MR. GALLECK: Individual filter? MR. SASEEN: Individual filter, when you change it. MR. GALLECK: Roughly, $80 a filter. MR. SASEEN: I'm sorry? MR. GALLECK: Roughly, $80 a filter. MR. SASEEN: Eighty dollars a filter. Is that specific to that system? MR. GALLECK: That's the only system we have, George, so I would suspect it would be a sliding scale, depending on the size of it and what engine application it would go with. MR. SASEEN: Thanks a lot. MR. GALLECK: You're welcome. MODERATOR TOMB: Thank you. Alright, our next speaker will be Mr. Chris Hamilton from the West Virginia Coal Association. MODERATOR TOMB: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, panelists. I am Chris Hamilton, vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association. Today, I appear before you as a representative of the West Virginia Diesel Commission. I am joined by Dr. Pramod Thakur of Consolidation Coal and Mr. Ken Perdue of Piston Coal, along with myself, comprise the industry or management contingent of the Commission. Before I proceed, I would like to, on behalf of our group and the West Virginia Coal Association, concur with the initial comments made by Mr. George Ellis, not necessarily all the exchange between the panel and members of Mr. Ellis' contingent. But, we do concur with his initial comments regarding the competitive advantages, the safety advantages, and the economics, and general aspects and advantages of operating diesel equipment. We are one of the states here in West Virginia that heretofore has prohibited the use of diesel and we anxiously await the days that we can be on the same level playing field with the rest of the nation. We urge you to accelerate the finalization of these final -- of these proposed rules. We believe that that will aid our cause, as well as the other states that currently don't use diesel. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ellis, with respect to the competitive -- the point of competitive disadvantage that he feels that he is currently in. As the State of West Virginia, we just assume men should not tinker with that and send more and more production south of that Pennsylvania border to West Virginia. Over the past 18 months or so -- I already hear the hecklers; I probably ought to proceed. Over the past 18 months or so, we have been involved here in West Virginia, in a state initiative, a process very similar to MSHA's current rule-making subject to today's hearing. As representatives of the West Virginia Diesel Commission, we have also been working towards comprehensive rules governing the use of diesel equipment underground coal mines, including the establishment of performance-based standards for the control of diesel particulate matter and emission control and conditioning systems. We welcome this opportunity to share our findings and research with MSHA. We believe our experiences to date are both enlightening and scientifically based and will serve as a meaningful contribution to this proceeding and to this process. We also look forward to forging a partnership with MSHA on this topic, as a commission, in years to come, as we work to continuously improve our state rules, as new technologies are developed, which prove effective. We view the current task before us as a preliminary or initial one, to set to bar on a reasonable and practical level, so then we can continuously research, update, and revise those rules, as new technologies are proven effective. We hope that MSHA shares that goal and premise, as well. Our shared goal of providing maximum health and safety protection for miners with an acceptable, feasible cost in technological parameters is now in sight. And we submit to you that that can be accomplished, while optimizing operational flexibility, by allowing mines to take full advantage of existing complex ventilation systems, existing engineering controls, along with existing and new and developing technologies. Before proceeding, some background may be in order. On April 10, 1997, the West Virginia legislature enacted the West Virginia Diesel Act, thereby creating the West Virginia Diesel Commission and setting forth an administrative vehicle to allow and regulate the use of diesel equipment in underground coal mines here in West Virginia. The Commission is specifically charged with developing rules and regulations governing diesel usage, which will address everything from equipment testing and approval, to all the various safety aspects and test monitoring found in MSHA's existing rules, as well as deciding which diesel units, if any, should be equipped with particulate filters. The Commission's rules are also to include performance standards for particulate filters, stated as an average percentage for the reduction of DPM. To serve as a resource for our efforts and to guide the Commission to meeting its mandate, West Virginia University has been appropriated over $150,000 by the West Virginia legislature to test diesel exhaust controls, as well as an array of diesel particulate filters. The work of the University is intended to provide the technical support and data necessary for the Commission to make decisions, which are grounded in scientific fact, and to also assist us in driving at appropriate levels of collection efficiencies and related standards for emission controls and conditioning systems. Dr. Thakur, with me today, will discuss some of the work of the University and put that into practical application. In addition, a copy of the WVU work plan and study results will also be submitted with our written comments, following today's hearing. Allow me to point out, however, that the University tested a total of four different engines and an assortment of configurations of available control devices, including the widely publicized DST system. In fact, I believe tests were run on approximately 27 different engine filter configurations or thereabouts. The range of collection efficiency of ceramic filters and oxidation catalysts combined fell between a low of 65 percent and a high of 78 percent. The highest collection efficiency obtained using the ISO's eight-mode test was 81 percent, and that was the second of a series of tests that was conducted with the DST system. The 95 percent requirement proposed by MSHA was not achieved by any of the configurations: ceramic filters, DST system, oxidation catalysts with filters, catalyzed filters, filters and traps, and a variety of orders and configurations. Of all the tests that were run, the highest that was achieved there was 81 percent. We're submitting that document, the work study, the plan, the technical analysis, and background for your use and examination, as you continue your mandate of finalizing these rules. Although the Commission, itself, has not finalized its rule-making, the industry representatives have developed an approach worthy of consideration by MSHA. This approach represents a departure from the across-the-board requirement proposed by MSHA, that all machines used in in-by areas and those which are classified as heavy duty be equipped with particulate filters that are 95 percent effective in the removal of DPM. Based on the tests performed by WVU, this level of collection efficiency is unreasonably high and is simply not substantiated by reliable data. MSHA's proposed rule contains several additional fallacies, which are evident to us. First, the rigid across-the-board 95 percent requirement could easily result in varying levels of the volume of DPM emitted from diesel equipment. It is conceivable that one machine with a particulate filter of 95 percent efficiency could yield an overall greater amount of diesel particulate mass than the exhaust of an unfiltered machine. MSHA's proposal also fails to take into account viable options and engineering controls, which would otherwise be available to mine operators to maintain low-levels of DPM in the mine environment and further neglects to consider the unique environmental features of each mine. Additionally, we have, as previously stated, serious reservations of the 95 percent collection efficiency of MSHA's proposed rule. Frankly, we don't believe it's achievable with available technology. I would also point out that it may even be a regressive standard, as stated so eloquently by Mr. George Ellis: garbage in, garbage out. If you have dirty engines, dirty fuel, you could easily achieve a 95 percent efficiency with a variety of instruments and devices. As we move towards the next -- the newer generations of diesel engines, fuel additives, which help decrease overall emission levels, it's going to be harder and harder to sustain those higher percentages in the overall removal of DPM -- garbage in, garbage out. In fact, we -- the University, and I'll let the report speak for itself, has also done some tests and the original test on the DST, we understand, was done with a higher sulfur-containing fuel that currently is prohibited. When we tested the different fuels at the University that contained a varying sulfur content, there was a fluctuation in the overall results. If I'm not mistaken, again the report will verify, I believe it was on the order of 12 to 15 percent difference in the collection efficiency. We have a proposal which we'll briefly outline, and Dr. Thakur is prepared to cover it in greater detail than I. But, our proposal, on the other hand, does establish new lab diesel particulate standard. We are proposing a .5 milligram per cubic meter standard, which must be met by all diesel equipment, as the equipment is configured, before approval is granted for underground use. A .5 milligram standard, according to our research, is more realistic, can be defended from a human health standpoint, and is technologically feasible with available control devices. The term "as configured" is significant, and it is central to our integrated approach, which is embodied within our proposal. And the term "as configured," as used within our proposal, means each type of diesel equipment, together with all emission controls and conditioning devices, if any, which are proposed for use in any underground mine. And we specify, if any, because I think EPA is driving this issue from the on-road engine design, and we feel confident within a very short period of time, we will see engines alone, very expensive, may not be designed or intended for all the duty cycles and all the workloads that they might be subjected to. But, we think that they will be here, when an engine alone, combined with the fuel and perhaps fuel additives, will result in a clean-burning engine to the -- on the order of magnitude of where we have placed our initial standard. So, you have to ask what significance is it if it has a filter on it, and further more, what significance is the collection efficiency of the filter, if you're achieving an acceptable DPM level? Based on this in-lab test, all diesel equipment will bear an approval plate containing the specified CFM rate, as equipment is configured to maintain a .5 milligram particulate standard. This approach recognizes that the control of DPM may be enhanced or adequately addressed with mine ventilation, clean burning engines, or by using higher quality fuel, along with fuel additives. It factors the specific conditions of each mine, along with the specific type diesel units and their intended application to the regulatory scheme. It also allows mine operators to carefully select and implement the most appropriate cost- effective control technologies among a greater variety of reliable and commercially-available devices. Moreover, it provides for an unprecedented higher level of protection for miners than what currently exists anywhere in the nation, for that matter, the world. We, frankly, view Pennsylvania's standard equivalent to our previous prohibition against using diesel equipment here in West Virginia. This approach is also consistent with MSHA's integrated approach found in its October 25, 1996 final rule, addressing the approval exhaust gas monitoring and the safety aspects of diesel equipment, which we contend also goes along way, in and of itself, towards reducing miners' exposure to DPM and underground coal mines. It's also compatible with MSHA's toolbox initiative, which advocates the consideration and application of not one, but a variety of appropriate alternatives. Although we appear today as members of the West Virginia Diesel Commission, the regulatory approach outlined herein, which will be elaborated on by Dr. Thakur, is fully embraced by the member companies of the West Virginia Coal Association, which collectively account for over 90 percent of the State's 180 million annual tons. The West Virginia Coal Association also represents equipment manufacturers, who are extremely and have been extremely involved in our process and in the formulation of this position. To summarize, we encourage MSHA to modify its proposed rule by eliminating the across-the-board boilerplate requirement, that all face machines and certain out-by units be equipped with particulate filters capable of achieving a 95 percent collection efficiency. In lieu thereof, we recommend that all -- and heavy duty machines be equipped with emission control devices or configured to achieve a .5 milligram standard and to additionally provide mine operators with alternatives from MSHA's toolbox approach to assist with compliance demands. We would further recommend that particulate filters achieve a minimum collection efficiency of 70 percent, which is consistent with the technical test and data obtained from the West Virginia University project. As members of the Commission, we look forward to working with MSHA in the future. And at this time, if it pleases the panel, I will turn the podium over to Dr. Pramod Thakur. Thank you. Dr. Thakur will be using the slide projector. He has a few slides he'd like to share with the panel and audience. (Pause.) DR. THAKUR: Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, my name is Pramod Thakur. That's the last name on the display and it's spelled correctly. But, I have to apologize to Kenny. His name is not spelled correctly. It's P-e-r-d-u-e. This morning, you heard from the Pennsylvania Commission -- Coal Commission -- Association, I mean, and Mr. Hamilton correctly introduced the subject. We -- all of us, we agree, at least on one aspect, that diesel engines are good for the mine, for safety, as well as for preventing injury. We also agree that the best approach to control the ill effects of diesel, if any, is to take a systematic or integrated approach. I intend to submit to you an alternative scheme this morning, which I believe is perhaps the best approach in the world. I might add a few things in this regard. My interest in diesel engine goes a long time back. I wrote a piece, this is 24 years back, on exactly this subject, how do you dilute the diesel exhaust emissions in the mines, to keep it below safety levels, or TLV, test limit values? The Commission -- and I'd like to express my gratitude to the other members of this Commission, Gary Trout, Danny Odell, and Rick Glover. All six of us, we felt that we would be remiss if we did not create scientific data before we begin to play with numbers or methodology to control DPM, diesel particulate matter, or any other species of diesel exhaust in the mines. And the Commission, with the help from the legislature and West Virginia University, has been able to accomplish this goal. And I reiterate what Chris said earlier, the data you're going to see today and the approach you're going to see today is unique and, at the same time, without being too modest, the best approach there is. It's better than MSHA. It's better than Pennsylvania. It's better than European, Australian, Canadian. I have been everywhere, talked to everybody. I want to say, in the State of West Virginia, that we have the best scheme that I know of. That's not to say someday, somebody can't do any better. But, today, what you're going to hear from me is by far the best way we can protect our people. Alright. Why do we want diesel? You heard already, so I go quickly through it. Number one, like George Ellis said, safety in the mines. Diesel engines were introduced in Europe 70 years back for one and only one reason. The mines got deeper and gassy and there was the risk of mine explosion. If you look at the local history alone, the coal company I served had 18 fatalities in the last 24 years, because of trolley wire. My main job is to get gas out from the mines. And I'm very proud to say that with the help of everybody, including rank and file, we have been able to avoid the incidents mentioned earlier in 1968. With God's grace, we shall keep the mines safe just like that. There is no absolute guarantee, but we'll try our best. That is my biggest motivation for diesel in the mines. The second thing, I design mine ventilation for a job. Those of you who know, somebody mentioned about three entry system. Trolley wire restricts your air velocity in one entry. You have to regulate the intake to prevent leakage and what not. The net result is reduced quantity of air of the face. Diesel can eliminate that and we can provide much better ventilation at the face, and that is my second safety concern or safety reasoning for introducing diesel in the mines. Injury prevents on what's covered already, so I'll get away from it. You can carry a 50 pound load better with equipment rather than in hand, and that's all you would save back, especially if you're as old as I am. Mining remains somewhat an unforgiving environment, like logging or flying or military. And I think by improving productivity -- I look at it like this way, get used to exposure for that kind of environment and, again, safeguard the health of the people and the safety of that person. Because, I completely agree with the comments made by the rank and file, the life and health of the individual in the mine is perhaps more -- not perhaps -- it is the most important thing for us. There are some concerns about the use of diesel, and they're very good concerns and I think we should address them, and I intend to. Health effects of diesel: what are they? Let's look at it. If you look at the diesel exhaust, it basically consists of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, unburnt hydrocarbon. People tell me that DPM gives them running eyes and chokes their throat. DPM has nothing to do with it. Unburnt hydrocarbon is your culprit, sulfur oxides and, of course, DPM. When you talk about control, you should talk about the entire thing. Although we cannot address all of them, but I just want you to keep one thing in mind: that by trying to control one, you may make the other one worse. For example, from George and Bob and Gene Davis, carbon monoxide, Pennsylvania law demands the reduction to 100 ppm in the tailpipe. It's counterproductive, because if you have that low CO in the tailpipe and you use a catalyzer filter to control it, you have a whole lot more particulate emission. Sulfur oxides go up. What's worse, the oxides of nitrogen can go up, you know. You've got to have your balance, once again, and a systematic approach to control it. We're going to talk about DPM only, because we don't have time for other stuff today, and others have no problem. Let me assure you, that we will show they can very easily be controlled by the device we recommend in the State of West Virginia. Diesel particulate matter, henceforth called DPM, is nothing but solid carbon, elemental carbon. Over that small piece of carbon, you have liquid and other solid hydrocarbons. They are known as -- some of them are known as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. They could be of a nitrate, you know. And these are the things, if they were present in high enough concentration, could damage human health. And our job should be to minimize the concentration of these things to the level that it cannot hurt anybody. Drinking water has some chemicals, very powerful toxins, but the city supply makes sure that the concentrations are so low that they cannot hurt human health. Sulfate is a big culprit, you know. And our study at WVU will find almost half of the DPM is by way sulfate. So, if we can somehow reduce sulfate, we have a cheap -- a tremendous gain in our efficiency. So what exactly is the approach? The way we configure -- we use Chris' word, he created it -- we start with clean engines. Now, you hear about the EPA and all those things that are on highway engines. I wish we had engines like that. I will share with you what I got back from George, MSHA, their numbers. In general, today, the engines we're going to use in our mines, let's say 150 horse engine or locomotives, MWM or GAP 3304 for the second cars, 59 horse engine, or out-by porter buses, 43 horse engines, all these engines typically when we tested them at WVU, and they repeat what MSHA had said. You know, I'm very glad to see an agreement between the two labs -- are generally below .3 grams per bhp hour. If you multiply that by the horsepower of the engine, you're going to get the emission of DPM from that engine per hour and that tells you how clean the engine is. Clean sulfur fuel, .05. That's 500 parts per million. The Commission insisted, and both sides agree on this thing, that we should provide a protective mechanism called oxidation catalyst or a catalytic converter on each and every piece of equipment -- diesel equipment going in the mines. Adequate ventilation, I insist on it. And we will provide soot filter on heavy-duty large engines which produce more DPM per hour. Whatever comes out with this scheme becomes our ambient DPM concentration level. Now, earlier, somebody mentioned about what Dr. Riggs talked about the health risks of diesel. If you look around the world and look at the literature, you'll find half the people say it's dangerous; half the people say, well, I haven't seen any epidemiological evidence. In a situation like, if you cannot come up with a medical standard, it behooves us to have a technical standard. Knowing what we know, looking at things we have, engines, control technology, ventilations, whatever we can achieve -- I agree with Bob Dubreck, that the most important thing is what the guys working in the mines inhale. Well, we've got to minimize it, and that's the key -- I mean, the core of my presentation. You look at these engines. These are data from Tridelphia and Statistic Lab. They range from .271 to .306. This is called permissible. The emissions are a little higher in here, because they had to mix one percent methane with it, you know. The numbers, again, range from .193 to .26. There are many other engines. I believe 17 engines. They range anywhere from .19 to .3. And that's why I say that the clean engine should be defined as anything less than .3 gram per bhp hour sulfur. I'll make a generic statement: the lower the sulfur, the lower the DPM emissions. Once again -- remember, too much of a good thing can be bad. Lower the sulfur, when you go to almost no sulfur, like less than five parts per minute, you lose the lubricity in the fuel. Your engine life maybe significantly curtailed. We don't have any good data from WVU right now. And Chris, I might as well tell you, they're asking for some more money, so we can continue with the work. That's between you and Rick Glover. But, I'm sure it will influence you to have the -- we should be able to continue with this work. The limit really is that this FT or by- diesel that's almost free of sulfur, they are very expensive. But, we don't have good data yet on them, as to how much good they really do. Engine manufacturers, they ought to tell us what impact that low sulfur is going to have on the valves and the life of the engine itself. Incidently, this fuel, with five parts per million sulfur or less, down to .4, is available at around four times the cost of the diesel that you have today. Okay. This is really my trump card, oxidation catalyst, you know. We believe -- we, the Commissioners of West Virginia for diesel equipment, believe that it should be an integral part of all coal mine diesel engines. Because what it does -- look at the benefits that you derive out of it. People talk about 95 percent collection of DPM. DPM is not going to kill you today or tomorrow. But, this stuff here, it will kill you in a minute. Why not control that, too? We intend to. A well-designed oxidation catalyst will do 80 to 95 percent CO reduction; hydrocarbons, which make your eyes water and throat choke, 85 to 90 percent; even diesel particulate matter, 25 to 35 percent. This is for -- Mr. Chairman and the panel -- this is for the existing equipment. An amount of 14 manufacturers have oxidation catalysts right now. We have tried only three of them. And they, themselves, had met on a scale of one to 10, they are somewhat around six and seven. The position varies depending on whom you ask. So, there is a scope for improvement. Next week, I have a meeting with Johnson, Mathey, and Deguesse. They claim they can reduce 50 parts per million -- older control, very good. There is hardly any drop -- pressure drop across it. Because you put something at the end of the tailpipe and you have a lot of pressure drop, again, it becomes counterproductive. Sure, you can get 95 percent with something that would choke the engine to death. That's, again, counterproductive. That's not the right thing to do, because it becomes counterproductive. This thing does not have any pressure drop, so there is no fuel penalty. There is no excessive emission of CO or particulate matter. The liability? Very good. Durability? Over 5,000 hours. How do I know it? Because, we have been using it for 14 years and we know it, in the State of Virginia. Let me give you a brief outline of certain filters, what they talk about. And you heard about all kinds of filtration systems, you know. There are two kinds, basically: high temperature and low temperature. In high temperature, there are some paper, except they are not like paper. They're made of bolsilitate or quartz. They are not available commercially. The longest history we have, again going over the four continents, you know -- Australia, Europe, Asia, and North America -- you have ceramic filters. Hundreds and thousands of them are in use today, as I speak to you, and their performance history is very well known and I'll share that with you. The one problem that this filter system is, it's made of stuff called cardioright. It's ceramic. It's not really hardy. It can't take very high thermal distress. We're trying to develop something based on silicone carbide, they're doing it in New York, and that will be perhaps the ideal answer. Low temperature filter, you get the exhaust, cool it, and go through ordinary cellulose paper, which you can buy for $80, $250. If you're a partner with the manufacturer -- probably, John, you can get for $80 -- go to another partner, they claim a cost of $140. Well, that's the nature of the world, you know. Comparing them -- now, by comparing them, I'm not trying to slide one system over the other. I think, just like Chris said earlier, that people should have total choice to achieve the goal. But, I just want to point out the good things and bad things, whatever you call them now. It's paper filter, cellulose paper, you need a heat extender. It's big, bulky, and very expensive. Almost 20 grand per cost is a heat extender. You don't need a ceramic -- I mean, a heat exchanger for a ceramic filter. Cost: somebody said if you go from like say small engines, like 30 horse to 150 horse, this is the cost of the equipment. Installation will be extra. Ceramic, $35,000. Size is very large. Large equipment can afford to have this system. There are two manufacturers right now, DSD and -- what's the other one, John Smith -- Flame Tip. Jeffrey is marketing it in this country. Ceramics are small and compact; typically, about six to 12-inch in diameter, six to twelve inch in length. Maintenance, people claim 70 hours life. It all depends on the duty cycle. I've seen some people change them in eight hours. Ceramics typically last 2,000 hours. Again, these are average numbers. There could be some lower and there could be some higher. Collection efficiency, based on what I know, it could be variable, depending on which stage of the paper you check: brand new filter, put it in, like after 33 or 60 hours, operating at MWM. Efficiencies go up to 70 percent. Paper plugs up in 10-12 hours; it then goes up. You want to get 95 percent, I can tell you how. Plug it for 16 hours, so you'll get 95 percent. But is that the way to work? No. Here, it's constant, 70 to 90 percent. The important thing to note here is that there are some systems that give only 68 percent like you said. There are systems, you heard only give 90 percent. The vast majority of them are in the range of 75 to 80 percent, and that's what I probably claim as the average deficiency for ceramic system. When we design something, we design on that basis, not on either extreme. Okay. Ventilation we have to have in mines, for a variety of other reasons, other than diesel, such as methane. I don't have to tell you what it does, if you don't have enough air. You all know it already. I've got some numbers. I have been rightfully accused that I only deal with the large mines, you know. But, these are some average numbers, fellows, which came from a variety of sources, you know. The three that I'm going to consider, I'm going to walk you through with the typical combination of engines. So, what we can achieve with the air we have, with the engine we have, with the control technology that we have, which we can run systematically without worry. What we can really achieve and what exactly .5 in the lab means for the guy in the mine who is breathing it, you know. So, that's the whole intent of my paper. Just remember these numbers. In the mines, I believe a well ventilated mine can have 95 in air. In the section -- at the section mouth, you can have 40,000. There are sections with more than 100,000. On an average, that's what you got. And in-by, you have about 20,000. And if these numbers appear too high, you can accuse me of being a little spoiled working for large mines, you know. You can do it, too, and I'm guilty. But, you can modify the numbers. This is just a number. After doing a lot of forward and backward calculations, we felt, the industry Commissioners, that taking all the mines in the State of West Virginia, large and small, we believe that we can do in the lab 0.5 milligram cubic meter. That was as configured, the engine worked eight hours and the specified amount of airway grown on it, it cannot create more than .5 milligram per cubic meter of DPM concentration. What do we need to do? Okay. It's a very interrelated thing, you know, and lots of variations are possible. And if you can show me something better than this, then I'll immediately pack myself. But, this is what you can do. In my observation, a catalyst and a catalyzer, all heavy-duty equipment out-by -- I'm sorry, it's defined a little differently -- but basic criterion here is that when you install this thing, it should be able to regenerate. The temperatures should be high enough -- all diesel engines, small and big ones, if they had to do the cycle, can develop a very high temperature and work successfully. But, in general, in the mine, things above 60, it would probably be able to regenerate with some degree of confidence, you know. I mean, you may have situations there when it would not regenerate, and it creates a problem. But, we put a limit there, that anything above 60, except on cars and locomotive, they'll be able to regenerate. We will provide an oxidation catalyst, simply because we don't want to have that CO and other stuff floating in the air there. So, if you accept this premise, I'm going to walk you through and show you a number of combination of engines -- oh, one more thing now. This came straight out of my Ph.D. thesis -- I have done this a long time back -- 800:75:50 rule adequate, you know, and I'll discuss with you is more than adequate, you know. So, we propose 100:75:50 rule, which means first engine in similar equipment, 100 percent air, West Virginia name plate, which typically is going to be higher than inside. The inside, I will accept that. The second engine, 75 percent of that. The third engine and fourth, so on, 50 percent of the air. Now, I have purposely digressed a little bit from West Virginia producing state, just to see if we provide the mixed amount of air -- I mean, that might not be rational. What is it we can achieve? And that's why I'm slightly on the high side on ventilation and you'll have to kind of forgive me for that, you know. And we applied the model everywhere. In-by and out-by, I believe we should have 100:75:50 rule, whatever we have, as long as it's working. Let's talk about the typical situation. In the large mine, you have two locomotives at the shaft bottom, six portal busses, and two jeeps. They have a requirement for .5 milligrams, works out to 68,000 CFM. If you have that much air and the engine starts working eight hours that shift, you cannot have it create more than .5 milligram. And a different calculation -- MODERATOR TOMB: Excuse me, can you wrap up in about five minutes, Dr. Thakur? DR. THAKUR: Okay. MODERATOR TOMB: Otherwise, we can take it up for the end. DR. THAKUR: Alright. This other calculation -- let's skip it, let's go to the next one. One locomotive, one portal bus, two jeeps, 33,000, again, well within the 45 in there we had. Next one, please. Let's just skip the next one. Two separate parts working there, typically about 94 to 100 horse, about 14,500 in air. You have that there. Next one, please. Calculation -- let's just skip it. Alright. I said, the question people ask me: If we have an instant figure of .5 milligram in the lab, going to Bob Dubreck's question, what is it that the guys inherit in the mines? I wish we had an instrument that can just pull in the air and say that this is the DPM, you know. We don't have that. There are indirect ways to calculate it, you know, or estimate it -- more like estimate, you know. Look at the cycle. Portal buses and jeeps, the vast majority of equipment in the mines, somebody said about two- thirds, they work only about two hours. In fact, they have been consolidated about 67 minutes per shift. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the engine can create .5 milligram in eight hours work and if it works only two hours, it's definitely less than .5. Next one, please. The second safety factor is this -- this was proposed a long time back, 30 years back, by a guy named Holtz and Bob Dolgen, two well-recognized ventilation experts. You may think that engines stays, they'll say, and air is blown on it. That's not the case. An engine is moving all the time. If the head is moving at 200 feet per minute, and the engine is moving at 800 feet per minute, the actual ventilation there -- effective ventilation is 1,000 feet -- 1,000 feet per minute times the cross-section. And if the cross-section is 100, that's 100,000 air. If they're moving in the same direction, then it's 800 minus 200, it's about 60,000 air, you know. This is how exactly they drafted the -- this is signed. This is a fact, you know. But for -- what you call for approving the deal, they never used this equation developed by Holtz and Dolgen and verified by me in my thesis. Next one, please. You've got the third 50 factor. Remember, I talked about multiple engine working in the same respect. I have my thesis here, anybody can borrow a copy and see it from Penn State. Actually, on quantity, you need, first one 800 percent; second one, 130; 106 for the third one. Look at the extra air we have provided. What did that do? It lowers that .5 to something lower than .5. Next one, please. The last, and not the least, is, you might have seen it in your own home, whenever you have a hot shirt coming out from somewhere and you've got cold surfaces, it gets deposited. What I'm trying to say, diesel exhaust, DPM, in particular, do not stay in the air forever. They get deposited on the sides of the airway and when any other object comes into contact. The net result, fellows -- next one, please; I'm almost done, Tom. The conclusion is that based on the state-of-the-art technology for DPM control and existing ventilation rates we can achieve in our mines in West Virginia, achievable DPM level, in ISO eight-mode test in the lab, is .5 milligrams. The factors I discussed with you, they indicate that the actual DPM concentration will be much less than .5. And the built-in safety factors compensate for aiding the engines. It is a fact that as the engines get old, that emissions get worse. Of course, we're going to be checking it; good maintenance can avoid it. But, the built-in safety factors take care of it. The next slide, please. In concluding my topic, if I -- if I did not highlight certain areas where I think improvements are possible, and I would encourage and solicit help from each and everyone who can make these things better, because that will make our mines safe. That will make our workers healthier, make engines cleaner. With a small market, Mr. Chairman, and we cannot go and demand from TAC or companies that make engines that can give me, say, .2 or .1 range, rather than .3, but if we open the market, open the gate, and begin to install these engines and we immediately save three or four thousand in the community of mining people, we may be able to demand and get cleaner engines, you know. I will say the number two point, develop fuels with good lubricity and low sulfur. Third, the ceramic systems, as I said, you know, if you demand that CO be reduced to 100 parts per million, they will have to use very high amount of platinum, the equipment becomes counterproductive. So, let's have a balance there and make the body of the system strong, so it won't be cracked in its use. And the last recommendation I have, that if you insist on using low-temperature paper filter, think about air cooling. Mine air is quite cold, compared to diesel exhaust. And you can use that mine air to cut down the size. I don't know for sure, but I think you can cut down the cost. So, this is basically my proposal and I'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have, to the best of my capacity. If not, my fellow Commissioners will help. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. Thank you, Dr. Thakur. Why don't we start with George. MR. SASEEN: Chris? MR. HAMILTON: Yes. MR. SASEEN: You mentioned that WVU tested 27 engine filter combinations. Was a larger scrubber with a pleated paper medium system tested? MR. HAMILTON: Not that I'm aware of, no. MR. SASEEN: Is there any plans by the West Virginia Commission to look at that type of system, since, you know, a lot of the permissible systems in use in the United States, you know, is a large scrubber-based system, at this time? MR. HAMILTON: It's been discussed. There are no concrete plans that are before us to have that tested. MR. SASEEN: Okay, thank you. MR. HAMILTON: It's envisioned that the Commission is going to have some perpetuity with this. We're going to -- we are charged, once we have an initial set of rules in place, to continuously work to raise the bar, as new and new technologies and innovations are developed and some of the older technologies are refined and improved. You know, the $150,000 grant, there was some in-kind contribution, probably raise that in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars. You know, we wanted to take those technologies that have been available for some time, that are in use around the country, as well as some of the ones that were on the drawing board, and get those tested and factor those into our initial standard setting process. MR. SASEEN: Thank you. MODERATOR TOMB: You done, George? MR. SASEEN: Yes. MODERATOR TOMB: Ron? MR. FORD: Yes. Mr. Thakur, in one of your slides, you showed a $30,000-45,000 figure for the paper filter. Is that the DST dry system? DR. THAKUR: A similar dry system based on heat exchange and cooling, and that's an approximate price. I'm not a manufacturer. MR. FORD: And that price is the purchase plus installation? DR. THAKUR: No. As I said, that's the cost of the equipment. Installation would be extra. MR. FORD: Okay. But, I thought that in Salt Lake City, where we had the first hearing which you attended, that I asked about their DST system, and they said it costs $36,500, and they said that was purchase and installation. DR. THAKUR: You also recall that was for a 94 horse engine. And the speaker later made a comment, the bigger the size, the higher the cost, you know. MR. FORD: Okay. So, what size horse power are we looking for just the purchase price in your slide of $30,000-45,000? DR. THAKUR: Ron, it's not fair to pinpoint that question on me. I don't manufacture these things. I only buy them. MR. HAMILTON: I can add that there is a West Virginia equipment manufacturer that has a dry scrubber type system that's incorporated, Ron. I'm not sure it's in operation. But, they have used the figure of $61,000 for the cost and installation of that device. MR. FORD: Thank you. MR. HANEY: Dr. Thakur, in your slide for oxidation catalytic converter, you showed a 25 to 35 percent reduction in DPM, and that's consistent with the values I've seen for oxidation catalytic converters operated over 250 degrees centigrade. Do you have any information or data on the performance of the oxidation catalytic converters at temperatures below 250 degrees, where your light-duty equipment would normally be operated? DR. THAKUR: No. MS. WESDOCK: Will you be able to submit copies of your slide for the record, as well as copies of your testimony? DR. THAKUR: Yes. MS. WESDOCK: Thank you. MODERATOR TOMB: Dr. Thakur, could you also include a copy of your thesis, if you -- that was part of that, also? DR. THAKUR: You'll have to pay for that. MODERATOR TOMB: Okay. We're not done, yet. Okay, Jon? MR. KOGUT: In the filtration efficiency testing that was done at West Virginia University, did you make comparative measurements with and without the filter of the diesel particulate size distributions and/or the numbers of particles -- DR. THAKUR: Jon, say it again. I'm sorry, I missed your question. MR. KOGUT: In the testing that was done at West Virginia University, did you take measurements -- comparative measurements of the size distribution of the diesel particulate with and without the filters and/or measurements of the numbers of particles -- number of diesel particles? DR. THAKUR: It was not the intent of the Commission to measure the size distribution. Our only concern was on a mass basis, the total exhaust system, what efficiency we can get. Now, you will have to ask the University if they have any data. In fact, Dan Carter is here and he can answer that question. MR. KOGUT: So, you're saying that they may have made such measurements, although that wasn't the primary purpose of the study? DR. THAKUR: It was not the primary purpose of our study, right Chris? MR. HAMILTON: That is correct. MR. KOGUT: But there may have been some measurements? MR. HAMILTON: Could have been, yes. MR. KOGUT: And one other question to Dr. Thakur. You -- I think before you put the slides up, you mentioned the 500 level and you implied that that would be a safe level, 500 milligrams per cubic meter, that that would be a safe level. DR. THAKUR: No, no, no. I have no idea what is safe. I am a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor. What I said, whatever we don't have, it's common in the industry that when you cannot come up with a medical standard to say about the health of workers, it is proper and fair to take a technical approach. And generally, as you know, there are two kinds of standards: MAK and TAK -- correct me, I don't know what you call it. What I talked about is what is technologically achievable. MODERATOR TOMB: I guess I have a question on that, then. Are you saying that you think that the lowest level that can be technologically achievable is 500 or .5 milligrams per cubic meter? DR. THAKUR: In the lab. And I tried very hard to explain that the ambient air concentration becau