THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1998 D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B OR MINE, SAFETY, AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS Pages: 1 through 204 Place: Birmingham, Alabama Date: DECEMBER 17, 1998 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1998 D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B OR MINE, SAFETY, AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS 2 1 I N D E X 2 3 SPEAKERS: PAGE 4 MR. GLENN PIERSON 16 5 " " 198 6 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER 29 7 " " 184 8 MR. DENNY CAPLEY 36 9 MR. JIM BRACKNER 39 10 " " 198 11 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE 48 12 MR. RICKY PARKER 54 13 MR. GARY TRAMELL 69 14 MR. CHUCK STEWART 77 15 MR. DALE BYRAM 84 16 MR. LARRY JORDAN 90 17 MR. TED SARTAIN 95 18 MR. LARRY PATTS 137 19 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR 149 20 MR. MIKE CAUVLE 161 21 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN 166 22 " " 199 23 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 THE PANEL: 4 5 OFFICE OF STANDARDS, REGULATIONS AND VARIANCES 6 Program Analyst 7 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Rm. 631 8 Arlington, Virginia 22203 9 BY: MS. PAMELA KING 10 ECONOMIST: 11 BY: MR. RONALD FORD 12 13 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 14 Solicitor 15 4105 Wilson Boulevard, Rm. 400 16 Arlington, Virginia 22203 17 BY: MS. SANDRA WESDOCK 18 19 OFFICE OF PROGRAM EVALUATION & INFORMATION 20 RESOURCES 21 Mathematical Statistician 22 P.O. Bos 25357 23 Denver, Colorado 80225 4 1 BY: MR. JON KOGUT 2 3 PITTSBURGH HEALTH AND SAFETY TECHNOLOGY CENTER 4 Chief, Dust Division 5 P.O. Box 18233, Cochrans Mill Road 6 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236 7 BY: MR. THOMAS TOMB 8 SUPERVISORY ENGINEER: 9 BY: MR. ROBERT (BOB) HANEY 10 11 APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION CENTER 12 Industrial Park Road 13 Triadelphia, West Virginia 26059 14 BY: MR. GEORGE SASEEN 15 16 MINE, HEALTH AND SAFETY ACADEMY 17 Industrial Hygienist 18 Beckley, West Virginia 19 BY: MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY 20 21 22 23 5 1 -- P R O C E E D I N G S -- 2 3 4 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Good morning. I'd 5 like to start the public hearing for this 6 proposal for diesel particulate in underground 7 coal miners. 8 My name is Thomas Tomb. I am the 9 Chief, Dust Division Health and Safety 10 Technology Center, located in Pittsburgh 11 Pennsylvania. I will be the moderator of this 12 public hearing on MSHA's proposed rule 13 addressing diesel particulate exposure of 14 underground coal miners. 15 Personally, and on behalf of the 16 Assistant Secretary J. Davitt McAteer, I would 17 like to take this opportunity to express our 18 appreciation for each of you for being here 19 today and for your input. With me on the panel 20 today are: Jon Kogut, from the Office of 21 Program Evaluation and Information Resources; 22 George Saseen, from the Approval and 23 Certification Center; Robert Haney, from the 6 1 Environmental Assessment of Contaminant Control 2 Branch of the Dust Division; Sandra Wesdock, 3 from the Office of the Solicitor; William 4 McKinney, from the Mine, Safety and Health 5 Academy; Ronald Ford and Pamela King, from the 6 Office of Standards, Regulations and 7 Variances. 8 This hearing is being held in 9 accordance with Section 10 of the Federal, Mine 10 Safety and Health Act of 1977. As is the 11 practice of this Agency, formal rules of 12 evidence will not apply. 13 We are making a verbatim transcript 14 of this hearing. It will be made an official 15 part of the rulemaking record. The hearing 16 transcript along with the all the comments that 17 MSHA has received today and the proposed rule 18 will be available for your review. If you want 19 to get a copy of the hearing transcript for 20 your own use, however, you must make your own 21 arrangements with the reporter. 22 We value your comments. MSHA will 23 accept written comments and other data from 7 1 anyone, including those of you who do not 2 present an oral statement. You may submit 3 written comments to Pamela King or send them to 4 Carol Jones, Acting Director of Standards, 5 Regulations, and Variances, at the address that 6 has been listed in the hearing notice. We will 7 include them in the rulemaking record. If you 8 feel you need to modify your comments or wish 9 to submit additional comments following this 10 hearing, the record will stay open until 11 February 16, 1999. You are encouraged to 12 submit to MSHA a copy of your comments on 13 computer disk. 14 Your comments are essential in 15 helping MSHA develop the most appropriate rule 16 that fosters safety and health in our Nation's 17 mines. We appreciate your views on this 18 rulemaking and assure you that your comments 19 whether written or oral will be considered by 20 MSHA in finalizing this rule. 21 In another rulemaking on October 29, 22 1998, we published a proposal to address diesel 23 particulate matter exposure of underground 8 1 metal and nonmetal miners. The comment period 2 for that proposed rule will close on February 3 26, 1999. 4 Hearings for the metal and nonmetal 5 proposal will be announced in a future of 6 Federal Register Notice. You may obtain copies 7 of that proposal by downloading it from MSHA's 8 website at WWW.MSHA.GOV or by calling the 9 Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances 10 at 703-235-1910. 11 However, the scope of this hearing 12 today is limited to the April 9th, 1998, 13 proposed rule addressing diesel particulate 14 matter exposure of underground coal miners. 15 This hearing is the fourth of four public 16 hearings to be held on this proposed rule. The 17 first was held in Salt Lake City on November 18 17th, 1998; the second was held at Beckley, 19 West Virginia, at the Mine, Safety, and Health 20 Academy on November 19th, 1998; and the third 21 was held in Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on December 22 15th, 1998. 23 Information regarding these hearings 9 1 were published in the Federal Resister on 2 October 19th, and can also be obtained from 3 MSHA's website on the internet, and there are a 4 view copies here, if you would like to get them 5 today. 6 On April 9th, 1998, MSHA Published a 7 proposed rule that would reduce risks to 8 underground coal miners of serious hazards that 9 associated with exposure to high concentrations 10 of diesel particulate matter. Diesel 11 particulate matter is a very small particle in 12 diesel exhaust. Underground miners are exposed 13 to far higher concentrations of this fine 14 particulate than any other group of workers. 15 The best available evidence indicates 16 that such high exposures put these miners at 17 excess risk of a variety of health effects, 18 including lung cancer. 19 The comment period for the proposed 20 rule is scheduled to close on August 7th, 1998. 21 However, due to requests from the mining 22 community, the agency extended the comment 23 period for an additional 60 days until 10 1 October 9th, 1998. 2 The proposed rule would require the 3 following: Proposed paragraph 72.500 would 4 require the installation and maintenance of 5 high-efficiency particulate filters on the most 6 polluting types of diesel equipment in 7 underground coal mines. It would require the 8 beginning 18 months after the date that the 9 rule promulgated, any piece of permissible 10 diesel-powered equipment operated in an 11 underground coal mine must be equipped with a 12 system capable of removing, on average, at 13 least 95 percent of the mass of DPM emitted 14 from the engine. 15 Additionally, 30 months after the 16 rule promulgated, any nonpermissible piece of 17 heavy duty -- and I stress heavy duty -- piece 18 of diesel-powered equipment operated in 19 underground coal mine be equipped with a system 20 of removing, on average, 95 percent of the mass 21 of the diesel particulate matter emitted from 22 the engine. 23 Any exhaust after-treatment device 11 1 installed to reduce the emission of DPM would 2 be required to be maintained in accordance with 3 manufacture specifications. 4 The proposal also sets forth the 5 Agency's Requirements for determining whether a 6 system is capable of removing, on average, at 7 least 95 percent of diesel particulate matter 8 by mass. It states that a filtration system 9 must be tested by comparing the results of the 10 emission tests of an engine with and without 11 the filtration system in place. 12 Proposed paragraph 72.510 is a 13 training requirement, which list the pertinent 14 areas in which construction must occur. The 15 training is to provide annually in all mines 16 using diesel-powered equipment, and is to be 17 provided without charge to the miner. It also 18 provides provisions on record retention, 19 access, and transfer. 20 And finally, proposed amendment to 21 paragraph 75.371 would amend existing paragraph 22 75.371, which is the mine ventilation plain 23 contents, to add one new requirement for an 12 1 underground mine's ventilation control plan. 2 The additional information is limited, but is 3 critical to the control of diesel particulate 4 matter. 5 The proposal would require the 6 ventilation plan to contain a list of 7 diesel-powered units used by the mine operator 8 together with information about each unit's 9 emissions control or filtration system. 10 Details relative to the efficiency of the 11 system and the method used to establish the 12 efficiency of the system for removing DPM must 13 be included. Any amendments to a mine's 14 ventilation plan must, of course, also follow 15 the Requirements of 30 CFR 75.370, which is the 16 mine's ventilation plan; Submission and 17 Approval Requirements. 18 MSHA received comments from various 19 sectors of the mining community in the 20 preliminarily reviewed the comments it has 21 received thus far. MSHA would particularly 22 like additional input from the mining community 23 regarding specific alternative approaches 13 1 discussed in the economic feasibility section 2 of the preamble. As you might recall, the 3 options discussed include: establishing a 4 concentration limit for DPM in the sector, 5 requiring filters on some light-duty equipment, 6 and looking at the filter and the engine as a 7 package that has to meet a particular emission 8 standard instead of requiring that all engines 9 be equipped with high-efficiency filter. 10 The Agency is also interested in 11 obtaining as many examples as possible of the 12 specific situation in individual mines. This 13 could include the composition of the diesel 14 fleet, what controls cannot be utilized to 15 special conditions, and any studies of 16 alternative controls you might have used for 17 the computer spreadsheet. 18 We also seek information about the 19 availability and cost of various control 20 technologies that are being developed; for 21 example, high-efficiency ceramic filters; also 22 experience with the use of available control 23 and information that will help us evaluate 14 1 alternative approaches for underground coal 2 mines. We would also like to hear about any 3 unusual situations that might warrant the 4 application of special provisions. 5 The Agency welcomes comments upon any 6 topics on which we should provide initial 7 guidance, as well as any alternative practices 8 which MSHA should accept for compliance before 9 various provisions of the rule go into effect. 10 Additionally, the National 11 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires each 12 Federal Agency to consider the environmental 13 effects of proposed actions and to prepare an 14 environmental impact statement on major actions 15 significantly affecting the quality of the 16 human environment. 17 On July 14th, 1998, MSHA published a 18 notice in the Federal Register that announced 19 its preliminary determination for the proposed 20 rule would have no significant environmental 21 impact. The comment period was scheduled to 22 close on August 10th, 1998, however, MSHA 23 extended that comment period until October 9th, 15 1 1998. The record will remain open, as stated 2 in the Public Hearing Notice, until February 3 16th, 1999, to allow for post-hearing comments 4 in date of submission. 5 MSHA reviews this rulemaking activity 6 as extremely important and knows that your 7 participation is also a reflection of the 8 importance you associate with this rulemaking. 9 To insure that an adequate record is made 10 during this proceeding when you present your 11 oral statement, or otherwise address the panel, 12 I ask that you come to the podium and clearly 13 state your name, spell your name, and state the 14 name and the organization that you represent. 15 It is my intent that during this 16 hearing, anyone who wishes to speak will be 17 given an opportunity. Anyone who has not 18 previously asked for time to speak needs to 19 tell us of their intention to do so by signing 20 the Request to Speak Sheet and let us know how 21 much time you will need to make your 22 presentation. I have the sheet up here, so at 23 the break if anybody that has not signed the 16 1 sheet wants to come up and sign it, they can do 2 that when we take for break or at lunch time. 3 We are scheduled to go until 5:00 4 p.m. today. Of course, if the presentation 5 don't go that long, then we'll abandon the 6 hearing earlier. 7 Our attempt to recognize all speakers 8 in the order in which they request to speak. 9 As the moderator, if necessary, I reserve the 10 right to modify the order in presentation in 11 the interest of fairness. I doubt that it will 12 be necessary, but I may also exercise 13 discretion to exclude irrelevant or unduly 14 repetitious material. In an order to clarify 15 certain points, the panel may ask questions of 16 the speakers. 17 To begin for the first speaker, we 18 will have Mr. Glenn Pierson: 19 MR. GLENN PIERSON: I'm Glenn 20 Pierson, G-l-e-n-n P-i-e-r-s-o-n. I am a 21 member of the United Mine Workers and I work at 22 Local 1928. 23 Back in the mid-1990s, we had these 17 1 similar hearings in Beckley, West Virginia. At 2 that time a gentlemen by the name of Norbert 3 Paas had a dry-filtration system that -- in the 4 neighborhood of 98 percent particulate that 5 would filter out. About four years have past 6 now, and we haven't seen any improvements in 7 our filtration systems. We have got more 8 equipment in the mines. We've got people 9 exposed to combinations of things that could 10 cause breathing problems: coal dust, silica, 11 and the diesel particulate. Your own tests and 12 studies have shown that 900 out of 1,000 people 13 that are exposed to these diesel particulates 14 could possibly come down with lung cancer. 15 The Pennsylvania State Laws have 16 chosen to protect their miners and go a little 17 bit further than what MSHA has done in the 18 past. And I think it's MSHA's moral obligation 19 to give the miners across the country the equal 20 protection that those Pennsylvania miners have. 21 Thank you. 22 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Wait a 23 minute, please. I have some questions here. 18 1 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Yes, sir. 2 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any questions of 3 him? 4 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Sir, did you say 5 -- does your mine have any Norbert Paas' 6 dry-filtration systems? 7 MR. GLENN PIERSON: No, sir. 8 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Okay, are you 9 using any phasetology (phonetic) equipment? 10 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Yes, sir. 11 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: What type? Are 12 they with wet scrubbers? 13 MR. GLEEN PIERSON: Yes, sir. 14 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Could you provide 15 us with an inventory of that equipment at your 16 mine? 17 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Particular 18 numbers? 19 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Numbers and types 20 of equipment. 21 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Numbers, no, sir. 22 I could provide you with types. We've got a 23 diesel Ramcar, it's a Jeffrey, and we've got -- 19 1 let's see, I think we've got some Eimcos, and 2 -- what's the name of that other? Wagner. I'm 3 sorry. As far as face equipment. 4 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: As far as face 5 equipment you -- 6 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Yes, sir. We've 7 got diesel locomotives that run on a track 8 which is in our main intake. 9 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: If you could 10 provide that list, also if you could present us 11 with information on the usage and how much 12 they're used per days each piece of equipment, 13 an hour, two hours, if that's possible. 14 MR. GLENN PIERSON: The majority of 15 it is run the majority of the shift. 16 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Well, if you 17 could specify that, please. 18 MR. GLENN PIERSON: I can't at this 19 time. 20 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Well, I mean in 21 written form, if you would like to submit that 22 before the February 16 deadline. 23 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Yes, sir. 20 1 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Thank you. 2 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Thank you. 3 MR. THOMAS TOMB: I have one 4 question also -- 5 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Yes, sir. 6 MR. THOMAS TOMB: -- just to 7 clarify. My understanding from what you said 8 to Mr. Saseen, you only have water scrubbers as 9 control system. 10 MR. GLENN PIERSON: On the face 11 equipment. 12 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Is there any other 13 control technology used for diesel particulate 14 in your mine that you know of? 15 MR. GLENN PIERSON: We have a dry- 16 filter system, but not on the face equipment. 17 It's just a regular filter. 18 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Paper filter? 19 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Yes, sir. 20 MR. THOMAS TOMB: How many pieces of 21 equipment are equipped with that? 22 MR. GLENN PIERSON: It's mostly the 23 diesel locomotives and probably half a dozen or 21 1 so. 2 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you. 3 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Thank you. 4 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Our next presenter 5 will be Mr. Woods: 6 MR. JAMES WOODS: Good morning. 7 James Woods, J-a-m-e-s W-o-o-d-s, UMWA local 8 1928. 9 I, like Glenn, have been to several 10 of diesel hearings that MSHA has held across 11 the country in the 90s. We lobbied for diesel 12 regs; MSHA did give us a few regs that helped 13 miners over the country. 14 As far as the proposed rule, MSHA's 15 preamble to the proposed rule indicates that a 16 total of 3,000 pieces of equipment, diesel 17 equipment, operates in underground coal mines 18 today. Out of those 3,000 pieces of diesel 19 equipment, approximately 500 pieces are in-by 20 equipment, approximately 500 pieces are labeled 21 as heavy duty. 22 This leaves a total of 2,000 pieces 23 of equipment -- or two-thirds of the amount -- 22 1 excuse me -- not -- excuse me -- that's not 2 considered in the rule. This means that people 3 like myself will be exposed to diesel 4 particulate matter of approximately 2,000 5 pieces of equipment, if this equipment is 6 permitted to operate without filters. 7 This is like the Government's attempt 8 to limit harmful and dangerous emissions in the 9 air. The only difference is we can't buy 10 emission credits. The only thing you're 11 allowing them to do is change the light duty, 12 heavy duty, or inby on the machines. If this 13 rule is adopted as proposed by MSHA, then that 14 means we will have approximately 2,000 pieces 15 of equipment in the country today that's 16 labeled light duty, that wouldn't need any kind 17 of filtration on them at all. 18 One of our fears, and there are many, 19 is that exposure to diesel exhaust will lead to 20 the next black-lung epidemic. We've been 21 working in Alabama for the last 25 years with 22 diesel-powered equipment. We've been asking 23 MSHA for the last 20 years, that I know of, to 23 1 help us out, to give our people some way that 2 we can live with underground diesel-powered 3 equipment. 4 Twenty-five years later, here we are 5 proposing a proposed rule that's only going to 6 address, as I mentioned before, 1,000 pieces of 7 equipment out of approximately 3,000 pieces, 8 and that's to date, and they're still adding 9 up. 10 I work for Jim Walter Number 3 11 Mines. At Jim Walter Number 3 Mine, there are 12 approximately 30 pieces of what MSHA would call 13 light-duty equipment in underground coal mine. 14 Excuse me. Some of your own test an analysis 15 of underground coal mines that have diesel- 16 powered equipment have -- the analysis prove 17 that when exposed to just half of the dose 18 that's actually found that the mine air, some 19 studies go as far as showing 900 out of 1,000 20 coal mines in a health risk. 21 In 1996, UMW, AMAX (phonetic) Coal 22 Company, the Coal Association, and the Bureau 23 of Deep Mine Safety, along with several other 24 1 people, reached an agreement on regulation for 2 the use of diesel-powered equipment in 3 Pennsylvania. 4 The question to the Panel I have: If 5 Pennsylvania can adopt regulations that the 6 majority of the people agree protects coal 7 miners, reduces their risk of diesel emission, 8 why can't Alabama and the rest of the country? 9 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you very 10 much. State your name for the reporter. 11 MR. RONALD FORD: My name is Ronald 12 Ford. Mr. Woods -- 13 MR. JAMES WOODS: Uh-huh (yes). 14 MR. RONALD FORD: -- at the Jim 15 Walter Number 3 Mine, you said you had 30 16 pieces of light-duty equipment. Do you know 17 about the total number of diesel pieces that 18 you have? 19 MR. JAMES WOODS: The total number of 20 -- as MSHA propose as light duty. 21 MR. RONALD FORD: No. Total -- 22 MR. JAMES WOODS: The total number of 23 diesel-powered equipment that's on the ground? 25 1 MR. RONALD FORD: Yes. 2 MR. JAMES WOODS: No, sir, I don't 3 have a total number of that, but there are 4 many. We operate solely on the diesel-powered 5 equipment for coal hauling, track hauling. 6 MR. RONALD FORD: Can you give us 7 some examples of how this light-duty equipment, 8 these 30 pieces, present problems to the miners 9 in the mine? What type of equipment this is 10 and what are the problems that you're facing 11 with it? 12 MR. JAMES WOODS: Sure. 13 Approximately, at Number 3 -- and I can only 14 speak for Number 3 -- approximately 25 pieces 15 are manbuggies, manhaulers. We have Low Tracs, 16 what we call Low Tracs -- in the industry, I 17 don't know what they call them, but they're Low 18 Tracs, something like forklifts, where you 19 unload material with. 20 Also Number 3 Mine is on the 1105 and 21 the 326 Petition that allows better intake 22 air. Our primary intake is traffic, where all 23 the diesel equipment runs; that intake runs 26 1 directly into the face. You've got some 2 sections with as many as four diesel ramcars on 3 them, running at all times, as my brother 4 stated. Along with the intake air -- and these 5 diesel emissions from the manbuses, any piece 6 of equipment that MSHA has labeled outby or 7 light duty, those emissions come directly to 8 the face area. If that answers your question. 9 MR. RONALD FORD: So, some of the 10 light-duty equipment is not transporting rock 11 or coal, but it may be transporting equipment 12 that is very heavy, therefore, is under heavy 13 load. 14 MR. JAMES WOODS: Well, I think those 15 would be motors that I would guess would follow 16 under the heavy-duty definition that MSHA has 17 prescribed as. 18 MR. RONALD FORD: Thank you. 19 MR. BOB HANEY: Bob Haney. Mr. 20 Woods, the previous speaker said that you have 21 several pieces of equipment with dry-filtration 22 systems at your mine. 23 MR. JAMES WOODS: Uh-huh (yes). 27 1 MR. BOB HANEY: Do you know how long 2 the filters last on those systems before they 3 have to be changed? 4 MR. JAMES WOODS: No, I don't. No, I 5 don't. I would hate to try to speculate on 6 that, because I'm not in that particular frame 7 of checking that, but -- I couldn't say. 8 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thomas Tomb. I 9 have a couple of questions. On your 10 manbuggies, you said you have 25 of them that 11 operate. 12 MR. JAMES WOODS: Approximately, 25 13 manbuses. 14 MR. THOMAS TOMB: How are they used? 15 Are they running most of the time? During a 16 shift? Do they run two hours out of a shift? 17 Or do you have any kind of an estimation on 18 that? 19 MR. JAMES WOODS: It's -- it's pretty 20 much hard to say. They run -- they're 21 manhaulers, they haul the crews into the 22 section, but also they are used to bring 23 supplies in from the kickbacks along the 28 1 section track, pushing cars in to the end of 2 the track to be unloaded. I think they are 3 rated at something like a five ton locomotive. 4 So, in the definition in the proposed rule, you 5 could use those, as prescribed, as light duty 6 to push heavy loads, and they wouldn't have to 7 come under the proposed rule. 8 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do they get used a 9 lot during the shift? 10 MR. JAMES WOODS: Sure. 11 MR. THOMAS TOMB: All of them are 12 running. 13 MR. JAMES WOODS: Now, all of them 14 do. Not run at the same time. You probably 15 wouldn't have that, but you have a significant 16 amount of equipment on the track all during the 17 8-hour period. Sure. 18 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do you have any 19 knowledge of the maintenance program of the 20 equipment on your mines? Is there a regular 21 maintenance program performed on it? 22 MR. JAMES WOODS: We do have a 23 maintenance program, but I couldn't specify. 29 1 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Thank you 2 very much. 3 Our next presenter will be Mr. 4 Sawyer: 5 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: William Sawyer, 6 S-a-w-y-e-r, Hacksaw. 7 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Pardon? 8 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Hacksaw is what 9 they call me. Everybody knows me by it. 10 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. 11 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: I have a few 12 questions, and I'm familiar with the two guys 13 that's already spoke here, because I worked in 14 their mines some. But I have questions and 15 then maybe a few comments. But one is the 16 concern for the diesel emissions particulate 17 that are in neutral entries where you have 18 outby equipment both heavy and light duty 19 running and there's little to no ventilation. 20 And, as our brothers from Jim Walter, 21 they have intake air or theirs. All right. On 22 our sections we go into, there's intake air on 23 ours, so, you know, we know in November '99, 30 1 that the vent regs on diesel will pick up 2 ventilation for any equipment coming in, 3 staying in prolonged period of time on the 4 sections, that's intake air. 5 But my question is: Have y'all 6 considered about neutral entries where your 7 belt and tractors are in adjacent entries and 8 they're not separated and they're running 9 pretty much continuously, heavy, which is our 10 motors pulling longhaul material, or, you know, 11 heavy stuff; add a little parts and jeeps -- 12 and electricians use two jeeps, and such as 13 that. 14 Okay. Back in the '90s, when they 15 were talking about those hearings, there was a 16 Dr. Cantrell that was doing test on diesel. 17 From what I understood then, and I still don't 18 get too many good answers about it -- coal dust 19 particles and diesel particulate have a 20 tendency to combine. All right. When you're 21 sampling, do y'all have an adequate means to 22 separate those two, because both of them is 23 really a concern to miners, because both of 31 1 them cause lung disease? 2 And in that same scenario, when 3 you're checking for that 95 percent free, and 4 that's what it's boiling down to, can you 5 separate them to see which is which? 6 Also -- oh, I left my glasses back 7 there. I can't read my own writing. We have 8 the wetbed-scrubber system on our ramcars. We 9 got into this -- we've had diesels probably 10 longer than my brothers here, except maybe 11 Number 3 -- and we have a paper filter plus -- 12 it's on the outby side of our wetbed scrubber. 13 They help. You know, it's obvious from the 14 man's reaction they help. But how, as me, 15 Hacksaw, a safety committeeman, know how much 16 particulate is being put out. 17 You know, what tests are being used, 18 which we do our PPM test regular. We even went 19 into the PPM test on outby light and heavy, 20 we're doing it now, so we won't get caught in 21 November '99, not doing it. And we know what 22 they're putting out, and we're observing the 23 engine, and when they start reaching a 32 1 threshold that's concerned to us, the company 2 changes them out. They do do maintenance on 3 them continually on the wetbed scrubber. 4 The filters, I'll tell you about the 5 filters, and our safety rep here knows a whole 6 lot more about them. But when we started off 7 with them, they guaranteed three shifts; 8 wouldn't do it. Then they said two shifts; a 9 little bit better, but not good enough. We've 10 even tried to recycle them; take them out, 11 clean them, bring them back in; no good. So, 12 now we change them each shift, each eight-hour 13 shift. And it does help. 14 But still how much particulate is 15 being out. We know what the manufactures told 16 us the filters would do theirself, and we know 17 the scrubbers, the wetbed scrubbers -- I 18 believe back then Jeff was at the meeting. I 19 believe when the wetbed scrubber comes off the 20 production line and it has totally been covered 21 in maintenance, it is around a 90, 95 percent 22 particulate-free system, but it has to be 23 continually maintained in that condition or it 33 1 starts dropping. 2 Okay. Back to the same question: 3 How do I know how much particulate is coming 4 out? What tests are available? What machines 5 or testing equipment? And I know Dr. Cantrell 6 was running tests on ramcar operators at that 7 particular time, and he was running it strictly 8 on them, and my question was: How about the 9 men that are on the face and the particulate 10 off these ramcars is covering the pin crew, the 11 scoop crew, and everybody, but they were 12 testing just operators, which run away from the 13 emissions part time. Now, under the new regs, 14 we take check point. At the loading point that 15 diesel is setting under a load, unloading, and 16 also on our return where everything on the 17 section is coming off. That's a little bit 18 better than it was back in the '90s. 19 This is just questions on the 20 particulate, and if y'all could enlighten me a 21 little bit, I'd thank you. 22 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Thank you. 23 Any questions? 34 1 I'll just go ahead and address your 2 questions. I'm not sure I remember all of your 3 questions. I think the main pertinent question 4 was -- 5 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: The separation. 6 MR. THOMAS TOMB: The mix of coal 7 dust and diesel particulate I think was your 8 main question. 9 This rule that requires filters is 10 going to reduce the amount of diesel 11 particulate coming out. The test would be 12 performed in a laboratory setting. It wouldn't 13 be performed underground. So, the efficiency 14 that you get is going to remove the diesel 15 particulate. 16 Now, for every residual diesel 17 particulate, the five percent that would still 18 be coming out, would still be mixed with the 19 coal dust in the environment, and it would be 20 sampled. As an example, if you did a 21 respirable dust sample for coal mine dust 22 exposure, you would get both -- that diesel 23 part would be included in your respirable dust 35 1 sample. 2 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: That's what we 3 get now. 4 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay, yes, that's 5 right. So, I don't know if that really answers 6 your question. But you would be separating it 7 underground from what I thought you're question 8 was. 9 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: It would 10 strictly be in the laboratory to separate and 11 determine which coal -- 12 MR. THOMAS TOMB: No separation. 13 It's just going to be how much is removed from 14 the exhaust. Okay? That's what it would be. 15 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: The second one 16 is about the equipment; whether heavy outby or 17 light duty outby in neutral entries where there 18 is very little ventilation. You know, they're 19 running pretty consistent in there, and you do 20 have a buildup, even if you get the equipment 21 at it's best at 95 percent. They stay in these 22 areas for long periods of time, and is there 23 going to be some regulation that will improve 36 1 the ventilation. I know there's going to be to 2 improve the engines. 3 MR. THOMAS TOMB: That's addressed 4 in the diesel safety rule. And I believe those 5 regulations go into affect next year, requiring 6 specify ventilation. 7 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: For the proposed 8 engine -- 9 MR. THOMAS TOMB: For the engine, 10 yes, and it would cover the neutrals also. 11 Thank you very much for your comments 12 and questions. 13 Our next presenter will be Mr. Caply: 14 Did I pronounce that correctly? 15 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: Yes. My first is 16 Denny, D-e-n-n-y; second name is Capley, 17 C-a-p-l-e-y. I belong to local 2245, United 18 Mine Workers of America, Woodville, Alabama. 19 I brought my glasses with me and now 20 I got to find them. I work at Jim Walter 21 Number 4 Mine underground. 22 My job is driving a diesel engine 23 ramcar. On July -- in July of 1993, I was 37 1 exposed to hot disease exhaust fumes while 2 riding a mantrip from the bottom to section 3 3 in the west part of the mine. As a result of 4 my exposure to the hot diesel exhaust fumes, I 5 developed pneumonia and had a fever to reach 6 102. 7 Today a have a hacking cough on many 8 occasions, and approximately 18 months ago, 9 X-ray showed that I have a spot on one of my 10 lungs. And I got wrote here: Recent studies 11 have found that 900 out of 1,000 miners could 12 get lung cancer from diesel particulate 13 exposure. 14 I think it is essential that a 15 filtration system capable of removing, on the 16 average, of at least 95 percent of diesel 17 particulate matter by mass be phased in as soon 18 as possible on all underground diesel-powered 19 machines. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. THOMAS TOMB: I'm trying to make 22 some notes here. Any questions. 23 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Sir, does your 38 1 ramcar have any filtration systems on it now? 2 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: Yes. But don't 3 forget, I was on a mantrip when this exposure 4 to the hot diesel exhaust fumes came -- I was 5 driving from the bottom going to our section. 6 I just want to make sure you understood. 7 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Right. Your 8 ramcar has a wet scrubber system on it? 9 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: Yes. 10 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: And it has the 11 filter added on downstream; correct, the paper 12 filter? 13 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: Don't have. 14 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: I'm sorry. 15 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: Don't have a 16 filter. 17 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: It does not have a 18 filter, a paper filter? 19 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: No. 20 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Okay. Thank you. 21 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Mr. Caply, was 22 this exposure, was this like a one-time 23 exposure, or was this like over a week or a 39 1 month or? 2 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: This particular 3 time when I got -- overcome with these fumes, 4 it was later determined, I think, that there 5 was a leak in the exhaust system. So, it was a 6 one time -- 7 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Exposure that this 8 happened. 9 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: -- exposure and I 10 got sick on it. 11 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do you know if, in 12 your mine, maintenance is performed on your 13 diesel equipment? Do they have a good 14 maintenance program? 15 MR. DENNY CAPLEY: It's better now 16 than it has been, but there's still some room 17 for improvement. 18 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any other 19 questions? Thank you very much. Excuse me for 20 taking some time to make some notes. 21 Our next presenter will be Mr. 22 Brackner: 23 MR. JIM BRACKNER: I'm Jim Brackner, 40 1 J-i-m B-r-a-c-k-n-e-r. I'm a safety 2 committeemen of the United Mine Workers of 3 America, local 2405; employee at Jim Walter 4 Number 4 Mine. 5 We received our first piece of diesel 6 equipment in the mid-80s. Since then, we've -- 7 well, currently we have 63 pieces of 8 underground diesel equipment. We have numerous 9 complaints from miners about the equipments 10 smoking excessively. You've already heard 11 we've had a member that's been overexposed to 12 diesel exhaust. 13 According to MSHA's proposed rule, 14 over half of our equipment is going to be 15 covered. The proposed rule, to me, is good, 16 but it falls short of providing our miners with 17 protection they deserve. 18 We'd like to see the DPM filters on 19 all of the diesel equipment: heavy duty and 20 light duty. We don't, we don't want to have 21 anybody else have the same problems that Mr. 22 Capley has had, on these strong regulations. 23 I expect the coal operators to 41 1 testify that they can control DPM through the 2 use of ventilation. I can't see that 3 happening. We get citation upon citation now 4 where we don't have adequate ventilation 5 underground in our mine. 6 I'm afraid if we go to something like 7 that, that, you know, we will end up with 8 something similar to the respirable dust 9 sampler. That on days that the equipment is 10 to be sampled, those days will be different 11 from normal operating days, which is the way it 12 is with a lot of respirable dust sample. 13 The best protection for miners, to 14 us, would be for each and every piece of diesel 15 equipment underground to be filtered. 16 That's all. 17 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any questions? 18 MR. BOB HANEY: Yes. How much 19 airflow do you typically have on a section? 20 MR. JIM BRACKNER: It varies; 21 anywhere from 30,000 to 60-70,000. 22 MR. BOB HANEY: Okay. Thank you. 23 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Jon. 42 1 MR. JON KOGUT: I think you said that 2 you, as the safety committeeman, received 3 complaints of excessive smoke. Can you expand 4 on that a little bit and give me some idea how 5 frequently you receive complaints? And you're 6 talking about visible black smoke. 7 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Visible smoke, 8 yes. 9 MR. JOHN KOGUT: How often do you get 10 complaints like that? 11 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Very often. It's 12 nothing unusual to receive a complaint every 13 day of some piece of equipment smoking: 14 burning their eyes, causing cough, having sore 15 throat. 16 MR. JON KOGUT: Do people normally 17 complain when there is any visible smoke or 18 just, in their opinion, when the smoke is 19 excessive -- you used the word "excessive"? 20 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Our people aren't 21 bad to complain about just any little bit of 22 smoke. You know, normally when they complain, 23 it's excessive. 43 1 MR. JON KOGUT: So, what, on the 2 average, how many complaints would you say you 3 get a week? 4 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Five or six. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do you have a 6 maintenance program for the equipment in your 7 mine? 8 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Yes, we do. 9 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Even after the 10 equipment is maintained, do you know whether 11 there is still black smoke? 12 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Yes, sir. As a 13 matter of fact, a lot of times after it's sent 14 outside for reworking, sent back underground, 15 that's when we have our biggest problem. 16 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. How many 17 pieces of equipment in your mine currently are 18 filtered? 19 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Only on our 20 ramcars, which is about -- there's probably 21 roughly 28, 29 of those, I guess. No, there's 22 less than -- there's 18. 23 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do you have another 44 1 question, Bob? 2 MR. BOB HANEY: Yes. That 30 to 3 -70,000 CFM is that on each side of the 4 section, so you have between 60 and -140,000 on 5 section. 6 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Yes. 7 MR. BOB HANEY: How many ramcars do 8 you particularly run? 9 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Anywhere from two 10 to four. 11 MR. BOB HANEY: And they're the -- 12 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Jeffrey. 13 MR. BOB HANEY: Jeffrey 4110? 14 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Yes, sir. 15 MR. BOB HANEY: The last speaker said 16 you didn't have filters on your ramcars. 17 MR. JIM BRACKNER: We have a wet 18 scrubber. 19 MR. BOB HANEY: Well, the wet 20 scrubber is all that you have. 21 MR. THOMAS TOMB: That's all you have 22 is just the wet scrubber? 23 MR. JIM BRACKNER: That's right. 45 1 MR. BOB HANEY: You don't have paper 2 filters on them? 3 MR. JIM BRACKNER: As far as I know 4 we don't. 5 MR. BOB HANEY: Okay. Thank you. 6 MR. JIM BRACKNER: While we're at it, 7 I'd like to ask a question also. Diesel 8 locomotives, would that be considered heavy 9 duty or light-duty equipment? 10 MR. BOB HANEY: Is it pushing loads 11 of coal? 12 MR. JIM BRACKNER: No. Long-haul 13 equipment. 14 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Heavy duty. 15 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Thank you. 16 MR. THOMAS TOMB: One more question, 17 sir. Mr. Saseen. 18 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Is your fleet of 19 diesel relatively older fleet or newer fleet or 20 mixed? 21 MR. JIM BRACKNER: It's mixed. 22 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Mixed? 23 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Yes. 46 1 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: The complaints 2 you get on the black smoke, smoke coming from 3 them, is that generally more in the ramcars or 4 your light-duty type of equipment? 5 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Mostly from the 6 manbuses and the Eimco diesel locomotive. 7 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Do you know what 8 kind of mantrips those are? Automotive pick-up 9 trucks or are they like AL or ALE? 10 MR. JIM BRACKNER: They're rated the 11 5 ton locomotive, similar, I guess, to what Mr. 12 Woods has in his mine. 13 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: So, most of the 14 complaints are coming from the light duty? 15 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Well, from the 16 Eimco diesel locomotive, which you said was 17 considered heavy duty also. That's where 18 probably we receive most of the complaints. 19 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Okay. Thank you. 20 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: One more 21 question, if you don't mind. William McKinney. 22 I assume from the comment about the 23 locomotives that you do have a longwall at your 47 1 mine? 2 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Yes, sir. Two of 3 them. 4 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: Do you see 5 more of a problem with the diesel equipment 6 when you're setting up along a longwall section 7 or when you're recovering a longwall section or 8 are those instances of a concern to y'all? 9 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Well, we see 10 problems on a regular basis. Our problems are 11 not confined to one time. The first time when 12 a longwall is being set up or removed, we have 13 problems with our equipment smoking regularly. 14 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: Thank you. 15 MR. THOMAS TOMB: If we have to call 16 you back more than seven times, we give you a 17 seat at the table. 18 Thank you very much for your 19 comments. 20 Our next presenter will be Mr. -- 21 C-a-g -- 22 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Cagle. 23 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Cagle. I'm sorry. 48 1 I'll let you spell it. 2 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE. Good morning. 3 My name Dwight Cagle, UMWA, local 2397, Jim 4 Walter Number 7. D-w-i-g-h-t C-a-g-l-e. I'm 5 also a safety member. 6 At our mine, we have 12 to 15 7 ramcars, Deutz MWM 916 engines in them. Also 8 8 to 10 of these cars are running around the 9 clock, six to seven days a week. We also have, 10 as far as the Low Trac that he was talking 11 about, we carry the Isuzu C242 cylinder 56 12 horsepower, they're outback, and they're 13 equipped with catalytic converters, which they 14 may take out some particulates, but they put 15 out the black smoke, just like the ramcars do. 16 Now, our ramcars are equipped with 17 the wet scrubber. Also in our mines we have 18 seven Brookville locomotives 413 Deutz engine, 19 2 Eimcos with Deutz engines; also we have one 20 diesel piner (phonetic), two diesel air 21 compressor. 22 And getting back to the longwall 23 move, generally longwall move, we have four to 49 1 six locomotives running around the clock all in 2 shifts in the same split of air. And this is 3 around the clock until the wall is set up. We 4 have a total of about 35 diesel pieces at our 5 mine. 6 Our evidence shows that the approval 7 plate on this equipment for the particulate is 8 4,000 SI -- and versus 1,500 for -- that's for 9 one motor. This is not even -- 10 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Could you repeat, 11 please? 12 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Sir? 13 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Could you just 14 repeat what you said? 15 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: The approval plate 16 on these engines is 4,000, is proved at 4,000 17 CFM -- 18 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. 19 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Okay. And to get 20 the particulate -- 21 MR. THOMAS TOMB: The particulate 22 index is -- 23 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Right, 1,500 50 1 that's a little over twice as much CFM on that. 2 And during these longwall move -- this don't 3 even count the manbuses and jeeps in the same 4 split of air. I have worked on these longwall 5 moves and a lot of our people has complained of 6 sever headaches, and you can taste the diesel 7 and the soot. 8 Also in our mines when we get close 9 to running out of space for a wall, they turn 10 our section into two-barrel entries, which is 11 850 foot long to 1,000 foot long. And you're 12 talking about putting two and three ramcars 13 running 8-, 10-, 12-, 16-hour shifts. They put 14 out a lot of emissions. 15 One car we had a lot of trouble with 16 in this two-barrel entry that, you know, we 17 have a pretty good maintenance program on ours; 18 we change our filters weekly, air filters and 19 all, we do CO test, but I look through our 20 record books where we register this, and either 21 our record keeping is not good or we are 22 falling back on our checking, may be it's 23 because we only have one CO checker, and most 51 1 of the time the battery down is on it and you 2 have to have it charged. It's a carbon 3 monoxide checker Model 262 with a pump SP202. 4 Manbuses, we are assigned manbuses 5 most of the time they are -- it's a poor 6 maintenance program on it. They want the 7 section electrician to take care of them. They 8 send them outside, but you may get one number 9 bus today and tomorrow you may get another 10 number and you don't know what's been done on 11 it. Poor record keeping on those. 12 So at our mine, like I said, we -- 13 one ramcar, like I was talking about, CO 14 checking on it was 1,200 then it got on up to 15 2,000, and 2,500 you couldn't see a ramcar at 16 2,500 because of smoke emissions. 17 That's all I got. 18 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Thank you 19 very much. Any questions. 20 MR. RONALD FORD: Mr. Cagle, you've 21 mentioned problems with the mobile equipment, 22 diesel-powered equipment. Have you had any 23 problems with the two pieces of diesel air 52 1 compressors and, if so, can you tell us what 2 they were? 3 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Well, in our 4 mines, we have to keep someone with these air 5 compressors, you know. I think they're bought 6 out in Utah. We've got water hooked up to them 7 for sprinkling, filters, and maintenance on 8 them. Usually, they are just sent all over the 9 mines, and, you know, they send them out, air 10 filters never get changed; there's no kind of 11 scrubber on those, as far emissions. 12 MR. RONALD FORD: Has anybody 13 complained of any problems with the air 14 compressors -- 15 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Yes. We -- 16 MR. RONALD FORD: -- or being around 17 them? 18 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: We have severe 19 headaches. 20 MR. RONALD FORD: Thank you. 21 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any other questions? 22 MR. BOB HANEY: Mr. Cagle, how much 23 airflow do you have on your sections at Jim 53 1 Walter Number 7? 2 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Minimum 20,000. 3 Usually, we get 25, -30,000. 4 MR. BOB HANEY: And that's in each 5 side of the section? 6 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Yes. 7 MR. BOB HANEY: Thank you. 8 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: Mr. Cagle, I 9 have one question, and then I'll let you sit 10 down. 11 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Okay. 12 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: You mentioned in 13 your testimony that the record keeping was 14 poor. 15 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Yes, ma'am. 16 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: Can you expand a 17 little bit on that? Is that there is missing 18 information, or that the information that is 19 recorded is inadequate? I mean, could you 20 explain a little bit? 21 MR. JAMES WOODS: Okay. We have what 22 you call a permissibility book that we register 23 our CO checking, what it reads on the gauge and 54 1 our CO test. I reviewed the books this week, 2 and a lot of them hasn't been put in. I don't 3 know if they tested them and didn't put them in 4 or what, but it's a violation of the law. And 5 I talked to our coordinators and they're 6 supposed to get on top of it. 7 And another problem with the CO 8 checker, it's readily available, but usually 9 it's dead. If that answers your questions. 10 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: Thank you. 11 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Who's responsible 12 for making those checks in your mine? 13 MR. DWIGHT CAGLE: Usually, section 14 electricians. 15 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Section 16 electricians. Thank you. 17 Our next presenter will be Mr. 18 Parker. 19 MR. RICKY PARKER: Good morning. 20 My name is Ricky Parker, R-i-c-k-y P-a-r-k-e-r. 21 I'm a member of the UMWA, local 2368, Chairman 22 of the Safety Committee, and I've worked at Jim 23 Walter Number 5 Mine, for approximately 19 55 1 years. 2 In the 19 years that I have worked at 3 that mine, I have been a miner for 4 approximately 15 years of my job there. After 5 working on a mine, I have since then become a 6 ramcar operator. At our mine we have 7 approximately 32 pieces of equipment, 8 diesel-powered equipment with our diesel 9 ramcars on the face being Jeffrey 4110, which 10 have only a wetbed scrubber system, as far as 11 exhaust. We have approximately five 12 diesel-powered locomotives outby; five being 13 Eimco, one being Brookville. And we have 11 14 diesel-powered mantrips at that mine. 15 On many occasions, we have been cited 16 on our mantrips, diesel-powered mantrips, which 17 are Hagar mantrips, exhaust pipes not being 18 hooked up, broken into, what have you. We have 19 been cited at our mine: scrub systems on our 20 ramcars being jumped out, especially the Wagner 21 type. We have some Wagner type -- excuse me, 22 I didn't mention that -- Wagner diesel 23 ramcars. 56 1 In 1993, we had an explosion in our 2 mine, which was not in any extent as to what 3 caused the explosion. But after the 4 investigation, it was found that two of the 5 scrubber systems on two of the ramcars on that 6 section was jumped out. Being a mine operator 7 for that many years, I was at that mine when we 8 totally ran electric cars, and I saw the diesel 9 ramcars come into place at that mine, I have 10 experienced effects of the sickness, burning of 11 the eyes when the diesel equipment come to the 12 face. 13 Being a ramcar operator now myself, I 14 have seen -- at our mine we have some of the 15 newest equipment, with the Jeffrey 4110 16 ramcars, which is a far superior piece of 17 equipment than the Wagner that we used 20 years 18 at that mine. But still in conjunction with 19 that equipment as new as it is, there are still 20 many problems with this ramcar due to us 21 totally relying on ventilation to dilute the 22 diesel particulate matter, to render in 23 harmless. 57 1 When we take our test on the feeder, 2 we backup on the feeder and start to dump your 3 load, and you have your foreman in front with a 4 410 spotter taking a CO check and a NO2 check. 5 The only time that you have to report any 6 problems is if you find a problem with that, 7 you know, with your examination of the 8 spotter. 9 We feel that is not a reliable way to 10 exam this equipment, because we are underneath 11 the mine getting a load, the exhaust is 12 therefore being turned around, coming straight 13 on you, in your face. 14 We have a mine operator at that mine 15 that can take off two weeks for vacation -- and 16 he's had respiratory problems, after equipment, 17 diesel equipment was brought into that line -- 18 he can take off for two weeks vacation, come 19 back -- after that two weeks, he felt pretty 20 good, his respiratory problems would straighten 21 up, but at the very instant that he gets back 22 in the face of diesel-powered equipment, it 23 starts up again, his respiratory problems will 58 1 flare up again, coughing, sore throat, numerous 2 problems in his chest. 3 With the reports that the test that's 4 been conducting by NIOSH, where it states that 5 900 out of 1,000 miners can come down with lung 6 cancer for exposure to diesel particulate 7 matter, and due to the years of experience that 8 I've had being inby on face areas, running 9 diesel ramcar, it really frightens me as a 10 person that has been there in the face most of 11 the time, being exposed to the DPM. 12 It wasn't a short period of time ago 13 that we had an inspector riding a manbus in on 14 our mainline track that cited the company due 15 to the smoke that was coming off of that diesel 16 mantrip. We have had numerous citations issued 17 in our mine because of maintenance, lack of 18 maintenance. We've had people come into the 19 safety office, our brothers and sisters, 20 complain of sore throats, burning of the eyes, 21 breathing problems, where our diesel 22 locomotives outby have been hauling supplies, 23 60 ton continuous miners, where it takes two -- 59 1 at least two if not three diesel locomotives to 2 push it in our mine on our track system. We 3 have a plan where we can take extended cuts 4 from our mine, which is 25 foot. When you have 5 two, three, pieces of diesel-powered equipment 6 running, I mean, wide-open as you can, trying 7 to produce as much coal as you can. 8 It is mind-boggling also in 9 conjunction with your outby piece of equipment 10 smoking come in on people on face; it's 11 mind-boggling how we cannot -- we haven't in 12 the past -- or not come up with a better 13 filtering system to render these diesel 14 particulates harmless on our people. 15 I commend the state of Pennsylvania 16 for going that extra step to protect their 17 miners underground and to take that extra step 18 to render this diesel particulate matter 19 harmless. 20 We -- all the testing that is being 21 done in California in the EPA and the type of 22 dry systems available, I would like to take 23 this moment to ask you to, please, initiate 60 1 this proposed rule as quick as possible, to 2 render this diesel particulate harmless for our 3 brothers and sisters underground. 4 That's all. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you, Mr. 6 Parker. Any questions? 7 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: You mentioned 8 your mantrip model type. 9 MR. RICKY PARKER: It's a Hagar 10 mantrip. 11 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Do you know what 12 type engine is in there? 13 MR. RICKY PARKER: Deutz. 14 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Deutz. Okay. 15 MR. BOB HANEY: You said you run two 16 to three ramcars on the section. 17 MR. RICKY PARKER: Yes, sir, 18 continuously. 19 MR. BOB HANEY: And do you know what 20 the air flow on your section is there at 21 Number -- 22 MR. RICKY PARKER: In our face areas, 23 sir, we are required to have at least 215 for 61 1 an extended cut. 2 MR. THOMAS TOMB: How much? 3 MR. RICKY PARKER: 21,500 CFP. 4 MR. BOB HANEY: That's at the end of 5 your -- 6 MR. RICKY PARKER: End of the line. 7 MR. BOB HANEY: Okay. 8 MR. RICKY PARKER: We sometimes have 9 in excess of that 26 to -30,000 with -- in the 10 last open crosscut 50 to -60,000. But in 11 conjunction with that, when you have three 12 diesel-powered locomotives outside in the outby 13 entries that's pushing an enormous amount of 14 weight, and you have manbuses that are 15 continuously running on our track with pumps 16 going to the different location, you have 17 foremen running in and out of the mine, you 18 have parts being transported continuously, 19 because that's a major -- that's our only 20 source of transportation is our track system. 21 And with all of that coming from outby onto the 22 sections, well, in conjunction with the 23 diesel-powered ramcars -- I've been on the 62 1 sections; I've seen the smoke come out of the 2 sections. People -- you know, I've been sick 3 before off of it. It's really scary and 4 something has got to be done or we're going to 5 have a bad case of a black-lung type epidemic 6 in this state. 7 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: I'm going to 8 assume you are using an exhaust, an wine 9 (phonetic) curtain on your face; right? 10 MR. RICKY PARKER: Yes, sir 11 MR. JON KOGUT: How many different 12 manbuses did you say you use at the mine? 13 MR. RICKY PARKER: We have 14 approximately 11 manbuses. 15 MR. JON KOGUT: And is there a 16 regular maintenance program? 17 MR. RICKY PARKER: Yes, sir. There 18 is a regular maintenance program. We have a 19 type of PM system that is to be gone over every 20 day on these manbuses and the locomotives. 21 MR. JON KOGUT: When you see the 22 visible smoke from the manbuses, do you see 23 that on all of the manbuses or just certain 63 1 ones. 2 MR. RICKY PARKER: Well, it's like 3 anything, when you have a new manbus come in, 4 you know, very little any hours on that engine, 5 it's going to be clear-burning motor. When you 6 crank the manbus up, you can see the puff of 7 black smoke come out the side of the mantrip. 8 When you crank up the diesel locomotives -- our 9 locomotives have no filter-type system on the 10 exhaust, the exhaust is straight from the motor 11 itself, and you'll see the black smoke come out 12 of it. And we may get so many hours on them 13 they won't start burning oil. 14 So, you know, we look forward to the 15 new diesel regs that are pertained to the outby 16 equipment. 17 MR. JON KOGUT: But specifically on 18 the manbuses -- I'm not sure I quite understood 19 your answer. Did you say that you see the 20 black smoke from all of them when you crank 21 them up? 22 MR. RICKY PARKER: Yes, sir. 23 Virtually, all of them when you crank them up. 64 1 Manbuses that have more hours on them than 2 others, you can see the smoke. That's one 3 reason we've been cited by MSHA is the smoke 4 that's being visible. 5 MR. JON KOGUT: Did you say that 6 you've only been cited once for that? 7 MR. RICKY PARKER: No, sir. Numerous 8 times. 9 MR. JON KOGUT: Specifically for -- 10 MR. RICKY PARKER: One, for instance, 11 when the inspector was riding the bus himself. 12 MR. JON KOGUT: I see. Did you see 13 any relationship between the maintenance that 14 is performed on these manbuses and the smoke 15 that's visible? 16 MR. RICKY PARKER: Yes, sir. On 17 numerous occasions, as being a safety 18 committeeman at that mine and chairman of the 19 safety committee, I have brought forth to the 20 attention of the company that there is a 21 problem with the manbus smoking, exhaust pipe 22 being broken away. They were supposed to 23 direct the exhaust pipe occupants of the 65 1 manbus. On many occasions, the lack of 2 maintenance has been a problem. Whereas, if a 3 machine is gone over every day, like it should 4 be, things will be noticed and the proper 5 attention should be diverted towards that 6 equipment, send it outside, get it corrected, 7 and get it back underground, so it's safe to 8 use underground. 9 MR. JON KOGUT: Are the manbuses used 10 for hauling equipment? Is that what it's used 11 for? 12 MR. RICKY PARKER: Manbuses primarily 13 are used to haul supplies, workers, small 14 pumps, stuff like that. 15 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: Mr. Parker, how 16 many diesel mechanics do you have at the mine? 17 MR. RICKY PARKER: Well, ma'am, on a 18 routine basis, all of our diesel shop is 19 outside, we would have two on day shift. They 20 primarily work on diesel equipment on day shift 21 right now. And our mine runs 24 hours a day. 22 And that's one of the things that we brought to 23 the company's attention. There's no way that 66 1 they can maintain this equipment in a proper 2 fashion with the manpower available at that 3 mine. 4 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: And what type of 5 training do they get to work on this diesel 6 equipment at your mine? 7 MR. RICKY PARKER: They are certified 8 by Jim Walter, as far as being trained. We 9 have a committeeman at our mine that hopefully 10 will get to speak here shortly that is 11 certified in diesel-powered equipment, and he 12 can hopefully enlighten you further. 13 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: Thank you. 14 MR. RICKY PARKER: You're welcome. 15 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Sir, you 16 mentioned about CO and NO2 readings in the 17 feeder. 18 MR. RICKY PARKER: Yes, sir. 19 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Do you have any 20 idea what kind of levels are typically there 21 when you have your ramcars in that area. 22 MR. RICKY PARKER: The only time that 23 I can comment on, sir, is like when we do a 67 1 bimonthly inspection, and I take a reading 2 myself of that ramcar. Other than that, you 3 have a foreman that gets in front of the 4 machine and he's holding the instrument in 5 front of him -- and I have taken on occasion to 6 ask him what it is reading. And on occasion he 7 has acknowledged me, he'll show it me or tell 8 me what it is reading. Other than that, I 9 really can't say what is coming out of the 10 machine itself. 11 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: What kinds of 12 levels when he showed it to you? 13 MR. RICKY PARKER: Well, you know, 14 you have a warning level. When you get 50 of 15 CO, take it out of service or 5 NO2, and you 16 have a warning level which is 25 CO 2 and a 17 half, NO2. On occasions, I have seen the 18 warning level be invoked as far as 25 on the CO 19 and 2.5 on the NO2; other times I've seen, 20 especially in older ramcars, upwards over 40 21 PPM on the CO and upward levels of over two and 22 a half above the warning level on the NO2. 23 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Thank you. 68 1 MR. RICKY PARKER: You're welcome. 2 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any other 3 questions? Thank you very much Mr. Parker. 4 Our next presenter Mr. Pate. I'm not 5 sure if I'm pronouncing it right. Jeffrey 6 Pate. 7 MR. JEFFREY PATE: I wish to pass at 8 this time after all of that. 9 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Did I 10 mispronounce it? 11 MR. JEFFREY PATE: It's Pate, 12 P-a-t-e. 13 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Oh, P-a-t-e. I'm 14 sorry. 15 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Excuse me, can I 16 take his place -- 17 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Sure. 18 MR. GARY TRAMELL: -- if he don't 19 want to. 20 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: What's your 21 name? 22 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Gary Tramell. 23 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: Can you spell 69 1 that, please? 2 MR. GARY TRAMELL: G-a-r-y 3 T-r-a-m-e-l-l. 4 My name is Gary Tramell, G-a-r-y 5 T-r-a-m-e-l-l, local 2368 safety committeeman. 6 I work at Jim Walter Number 5, Brookwood, 7 Alabama. 8 One of my main concerns is I read in 9 some of your literature about these 10 high-pressured mines, and I've been listening, 11 too; each one of have asked a question about 12 the velocity of how many -- could we fit the 13 air inby the diesel pieces of equipment. 14 At Number 5 Mines, we've got areas 15 that are called dead areas; there would be 16 little or no air. And these pieces of 17 equipment on sections when they are changing 18 and waiting on one to load up and pull out, 19 they sit in a dead area with the engine running 20 and there would be little to no air. And those 21 operators are getting the particulates there. 22 At Number 5 Mines, we're probably 23 unique because we've got a faulthill (phonetic) 70 1 that probably runs somewhere in the 2 neighborhood 1,500, 2,000 feet, and it's on a 3 steep grade. When you get two motors with five 4 cars of tons of materials and things going into 5 the mines, these motors -- I've been there and 6 I've seen it, they are trying to push as hard 7 as -- you know the little train that just keeps 8 on chugging -- well, these things are trying to 9 pull that hill, and they smoke and you can't 10 hardly see the next operator, which is about 11 five cars up. 12 Those engines go through a lot of 13 wear and tear there. It's really hard to keep 14 them up. 15 Just like Ricky told you, I am in 16 maintenance. And at Number 5 Mines, I'm 17 certified in diesel equipment. The outby 18 motors -- there's one outby electrician at our 19 mine, and his job is to take care of all of the 20 beltlines, do as much as he can on the outby 21 equipment, take care of all the pumps, just 22 numerous jobs, which really there's not enough 23 underground maintenance on these outby pieces 71 1 of equipment. 2 Just like I said, we try to work on 3 them, but we got to keep the mines running and 4 we got to keep that running. 5 As far as types of diesel fuels, we 6 had a problem -- and, you know, when we first 7 went into diesel -- it's been 15 years ago or 8 maybe 12 -- we had diesel fuels that wasn't 9 colored. In other words, they wasn't bygrad 10 grad A, grad B, onroad or offroad diesel fuels. 11 And what we was having was a lot of motormen 12 crying that the fumes burning them, a lot of 13 motorman getting sick -- because I've been 14 there and had other motorman coming to me and 15 telling me something is just wrong. 16 And what I was finding out at that 17 time was the people outside was getting mixed 18 up on what grad of fuel. They were sending a 19 lower grad fuel down underground, which it 20 should have been a higher grad fuel. And we've 21 got that straightened out. I hope, and I hope 22 we don't go back to it. But now we use 23 different colored mixtures in our diesel fuels 72 1 to make sure that it's adequate. 2 But there for a long time, we had 3 miners that were really complaining of sickness 4 and nose burns and eye burns. 5 And just like I said, when I was 6 certified, I had a one-week course at Jim 7 Walter Training Center. I think that's 8 supposed to be recertified effort once a year, 9 just like electrical retraining. And I haven't 10 been there to get that training again; it's 11 coming up soon. That's about the only question 12 I've got. 13 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any questions? 14 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Yes, sir. When 15 the study of the mechanic -- like if you have 16 fuel pump problems on the engines, do you send 17 them out? Do they have a rep come in, or do 18 you try to do any of that work? 19 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Are you talking 20 about fuel pumps? 21 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Fuel pumps. 22 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Most of the time 23 we will send them out. We've been trained to 73 1 do that, but with the extent of training that 2 we got -- you can go to the school and not 3 being a diesel mechanic -- I'm not a certified 4 diesel mechanic. I'm just trained in diesel 5 rigs and how to do the work on the underground 6 equipment. They did give us some training in 7 adjusting the burn, after-burn of an engine. 8 And just like I said, if you don't use it every 9 day, you lose it. 10 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: So, most of it -- 11 if there's problems you send -- 12 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Most of the time 13 we send it out. 14 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: -- send the 15 engines out? 16 MR. BOB HANEY: Bob Haney. The dead 17 area you mentioned is that along the big 18 crosscut, you said you run? 19 MR. GARY TRAMELL: That's on the main 20 intake track. 21 MR. BOB HANEY: On your sections, do 22 you have a big piller in the middle? 23 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Say that again. 74 1 MR. BOB HANEY: On the sections -- 2 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Yes. We have 3 large pillers that you get out of the way, so 4 the one that you're loading will come out. 5 MR. BOB HANEY: Right. While he's 6 sitting in that crosscut? 7 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Right. He'll sit 8 there with his motor running for when that one 9 passes him, and he gets back in against the 10 miners as quick as can. 11 MR. BOB HANEY: Thank you. 12 MR. THOMAS TOMB: How much time does 13 he usually sit there? 14 MR. GARY TRAMELL: It depends on -- a 15 lot of times a very short while, and then 16 sometimes a matter of 15 to 20 minutes. It's 17 according to if the miner gases out or they 18 have to extend the line -- 19 MR. THOMAS TOMB: If it's a long 20 period -- 21 MR. GARY TRAMELL: -- numerous 22 things. 23 MR. THOMAS TOMB: If it's a long 75 1 period of time, do they turn it off, turn the 2 machine off? 3 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Sometimes they 4 will, if they know what's happening. 5 Sometimes, you know, it's according to how 6 far back they are, they'll leave them running 7 until they say, Well, they're just not going to 8 come back, so then they will. It all depends 9 on if they're communicating with each other. 10 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do they always stay 11 with the machine? 12 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Yes. They need 13 to. 14 MR. RONALD FORD: If someone 15 complains of black smoke coming out, do you go 16 out and check out the machine? 17 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Yes, sir. 18 MR. RONALD FORD: And what do you do? 19 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Well, what our 20 ramcars are equipped with is magnahelic 21 (phonetic) gauges; one for the intake, and one 22 for the exhaust. And, usually, if that 23 magnahelic gauge goes out of range, then that's 76 1 kind of a single that your filters or your 2 scrubbers are not doing it's job. 3 MR. RONALD FORD: Do you ever just 4 take the machine out of service, just because 5 it's got black smoke coming out of it? 6 MR. GARY TRAMELL: I'm not on the 7 section. I haven't worked sections in a long 8 time. But as far as the motorman and stuff, if 9 they complain about it enough, then the 10 supervisor might or he might not. You're 11 always short of equipment. And they'll try to 12 run that thing as much as they can. 13 MR. THOMAS TOMB: One other question. 14 Do you have any on your surface shops, in your 15 service shop area? Is it well ventilated or do 16 you have any problems with ventilation in that 17 area? 18 MR. GARY TRAMELL: It's open door. 19 It's got two big doors opened. And as far as 20 ventilation, I don't think there's any fans on 21 it, and I think when it gets winter time, 22 they're going to pull in them doors there. 23 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Well, does that 77 1 cause a problem? 2 MR. GARY TRAMELL: Myself, they 3 haven't complained to me, as a safety member. 4 I don't know if they've had problems. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do you work there, 6 in the shop? 7 MR. GARY TRAMELL: No, I don't. I 8 work underground. I'm an underground certified 9 electrician. 10 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any other 11 questions? Thank you very much. What I'd like 12 to do now is take a 15-minute break. 13 14 (Whereupon a 15-minute recess was taken, 15 after which the following proceedings were 16 had:) 17 18 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay, if we could 19 get started again, please. 20 Our next presenter Mr. Sartain. 21 Chuck is going to go first. 22 Our next presenter is Chuck Stewart: 23 MR. CHUCK STEWART: Good morning. My 78 1 name is Chuck Stewart, C-h-u-c-k S-t-e-w-a-r-t. 2 I'm Mine Manager of Jim Walter Resources Number 3 7 Mine. I'm accompanied today by Dale Byram, 4 Manager of Safety; Larry Jordan, Coordinator of 5 Diesel Maintenance Training; Ted Sartain, 6 Senior Ventilation Engineer. We express our 7 gratitude to Ms. Jones and the Committee for 8 the opportunity to participate today in the 9 rule-making process. 10 We appear on behalf of Jim Walter 11 Resources, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Walter 12 Industries, which owns and operates four deep, 13 underground coal mines in west-central Alabama. 14 Jim Walter Resources produces approximately 15 eight million tons annually and employs around 16 2,000 people. 17 The four mines operate in the Blue 18 Creek seam and range in depth from 1,300 to 19 2,200 feet. 20 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. My 21 battery is dead and my machine is not recording 22 the data. 23 MR. CHUCK STEWART: Where do you want 79 1 to start? 2 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Just start over 3 again. So, she will have a complete record. 4 MR. CHUCK STEWART: Mr. Chairman and 5 members of the committee, my name is Chuck 6 Stewart, C-h-u-c-k S-t-e-w-a-r-t. I'm the Mine 7 Manager of Jim Walter Resources, Number 7 Mine. 8 I'm accompanied today by Dale Byram, Manager of 9 Safety; Larry Jordan, Coordinator of Diesel 10 Maintenance Training; and Ted Sartain, Senior 11 Ventilation Engineer. We express our gratitude 12 to Ms. Jones and the Committee for the 13 opportunity to participate today in the rule- 14 making process. 15 We appear on behalf of Jim Walter 16 Resources, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Walter 17 Industries, which owns and operates four deep 18 underground coal mines in west-central 19 Alabama. Jim Walter Resources produces 20 approximately eight million tons annually and 21 employs around 2,000 people. 22 The four mines operate in the Blue 23 Creek seam and range in depth from 1,300 feet 80 1 to 2,200 feet deep. The coal is soft, highly 2 fractured and very gassy. Therefore, 3 ventilation is a crucial aspect of our daily 4 operations. In fact, fresh air enters each of 5 our mines at rates ranging from 1.8 to 3.6 6 million cubic feet per minute, requiring between 7 9,000 to 14,000 fan horsepower, respectively. 8 Although Jim Walter Resources has 9 been utilizing diesel-powered air compressors 10 underground since the late 1970s, the first 11 piece of self-propelled, diesel-powered 12 equipment was introduced to a Jim Walter mine 13 in 1984. The employment of that first 14 rail-mounted personnel carrier opened our eyes 15 to the superiority of diesel-power over battery 16 or trolley-powered. Today Jim Walter operates 17 around 200 diesel-powered machines 18 underground. Breaking these 200 units down 19 into category, we have approximately 70 inby 20 units, 30 heavy-duty outby units, and about 100 21 light-duty outby units. 22 There are numerous reasons why Jim 23 Walter Resources and many other coal operators 81 1 have converted their haulage and support fleets 2 to diesel power. These include: improved 3 safety, reliability, versatility, and 4 availability. Reflecting back to when all of 5 our mantrips were battery powered, weak 6 batteries often resulted in coasting or pushing 7 the manbus to the section charger. 8 If an incident occurred early in the 9 shift requiring immediate evacuation, that crew 10 probably would have had a problem getting out 11 in a timely manner. However, diesel-powered 12 mantrips are almost always available, which is 13 a valuable asset in not only production, but 14 more importantly in emergency situations. 15 Having been involved in the evacuation and 16 recovery of three mine fires, I cannot 17 overstate the importance of the availability 18 and reliability provided by diesel equipment. 19 During the 1986 gob fire at Number 3 20 Mine, I remember trying to gather additional 21 fire-fighting equipment on a battery-operated 22 jeep that was going dead, wondering if I was 23 going to get back to the fire. But much more 82 1 important was the fact I would have had to walk 2 three to five miles to get back outside the 3 mine if things suddenly turned worse. 4 It's also quite possible that our Number 5 5 Mine would be sealed today had our outby 6 fleet been electric powered, during the fire of 7 1995. 8 We strongly believe that 9 diesel-powered equipment in our coal mines 10 provides distinct operational and safety 11 advantages and can be operated without 12 compromising the health and safety of our 13 workers. While there has been occasions -- 14 occasional cases of excessive smoke due to 15 engine malfunction or incidental disruptions in 16 ventilation, these incidents are few and far 17 between and are corrected in a timely manner. 18 Jim Walter Resources utilizes the 19 cleanest burning engines available and probably 20 has the highest ventilation rates of any coal 21 mine in the country. At Number 7 Mine, where I 22 work, fresh air enters the mine at the rate of 23 3.4 million cubic feet per minute, and the 83 1 average airflow in the last open crosscut is 2 around 55,000 CFM. That's ten times the 3 name-plate requirement for gaseous emissions on 4 our ramcars. Airflow on our outby haulage ways 5 typically exceeds 100,000 CFM. MSHA's proposed 6 rule does not credit the operators' ability to 7 dilute and render harmless diesel particulate 8 matter in way of ventilation. 9 We realize that MSHA's received 10 comments suggesting that particulate filters be 11 required on all equipment, including equipment 12 classified as "light duty". Readings from our 13 mine-wide monitoring system indicate that CO 14 concentrations at the section belt tailpieces 15 normally stay around one part per million, 16 which is an indicator that outby diesel 17 equipment contributes only a small amount of 18 contaminants to the overall air stream. 19 We believe that safe exposure levels 20 can be maintained by applying an integrated 21 approach that involves: engine and fuel 22 selection, maintenance, training, ventilation, 23 and which may or may not include the need for 84 1 exhaust after-treatment. 2 Prior to final rule, safe exposure 3 levels for diesel particulate matter should be 4 scientifically established and operators should 5 be given the flexibility to use any of the 6 available options, including those outlined in 7 MSHA's Toolbox, to achieve compliance. 8 UCLA basketball coach John Wooden 9 once said, "All progress involves change, but 10 not all change is progress." This statement 11 summarizes our concern that MSHA is trying to 12 solve a problem that it claim to perceive, but 13 does not fully understand. 14 At this time I will turn this over to 15 Dale Byram. 16 MR. DALE BYRAM: My name is Dale 17 Byram, and I'm Manager of Safety and Training, 18 Jim Walter Resources. 19 In the preamble MSHA cites several 20 studies to justify the need to limit miners' 21 exposure to the DPM, and Jim Walter maintains 22 that MSHA has failed at this particular point 23 in time to substantiate through the studies 85 1 that current level, exposure levels, of the DPM 2 do place our miners at risk. We believe that 3 the current diesel regulations have appropriate 4 guidelines to test and to insure the immediate 5 health and the safety of our miners. However, 6 at Jim Walter Resources, we support and 7 encourage the research to determine if there 8 are exposure limits there that should be set, 9 because we don't want anything in our mine that 10 could create a health hazard for any of our 11 miners. 12 We understand the difficulties of 13 developing rules that unquestionably insure the 14 health and safety of the miner, while at the 15 same time giving reasonable consideration to 16 the operators trying to implement these new 17 rules. The intent of the proposed rules is to 18 insure the health and safety of the miner, and 19 we support this concept completely, yet the 20 procedures appear to be a bit excessive and 21 some burdensome to the industry. 22 We understand that NIOSH and NCI are 23 currently conducting a comprehensive study 86 1 involving the medical histories underground 2 miners in both metal and nonmetal mines. The 3 result of the study, when complete, will 4 constitute probably the best available 5 information, and this should be considered in 6 the risk assessments prior promulgation of the 7 rule. 8 I'd like to speak if I could about 9 two particular cases that I'm aware of to where 10 a workman's compensation situation developed 11 from exposure to diesel, to a diesel fuel. 12 You've already heard from Mr. Capley, and he 13 certainly is one of our employees and he went 14 through this event. 15 We had another employee at one of our 16 mines, Number 5 Mine, and he has a history of 17 similar reactions requiring medical treatments 18 with various other respiratory irritants, such 19 as smoke from an electrical fire, and them from 20 another situation from a chemical degreaser. 21 Co-workers in the same atmosphere at the time 22 that this gentleman had these separate 23 episodes, did not suffer the same adverse 87 1 reactions. 2 In review of this particular 3 situation, we would like for this not to be 4 generalized. This episode should be looked at 5 specifically. You know, is it possible that it 6 resulted from the individual's specific nature 7 of the idiosyncracy of his lungs that respond 8 to any type of a respiratory irritant or some 9 other intolerant chemical in the air. 10 Moreover, we cannot concluded from 11 that one case of an individual. This 12 particular individual involved should not 13 substantiate the fact that diesel particulates 14 or diesel fumes can create this type of a 15 problem for any employee. 16 In reference back to Mr. Capley, I 17 think we heard with Mr. Capley -- and he can 18 correct me, please do, if I'm wrong on this -- 19 that there had been a problem recognized in 20 review with that exhaust system on that 21 particular piece of equipment, and Mr. Capley 22 suffered lung irritation, which did progress 23 into pneumonia. And we regret this, as we do 88 1 any injury or illness that may take place in 2 our mines with any of our employees. 3 As Chuck mentioned earlier, we've 4 been operating diesel-powered equipment 5 underground for about 20 years. And for the 6 past several years, we've had about 200 pieces 7 of diesel equipment. Our medical records do 8 not suggest that we have chronic health 9 problems that's resulted from the exposure of 10 this diesel equipment or diesel exhaust. As in 11 the past, the medical history of Jim Walter's 12 employees, underground miners, will continue to 13 be monitored for signs of work-related health 14 risks. 15 JWR has always accepted it's 16 responsibility to provide a healthy work 17 environment, and agrees that safe levels of the 18 DPM, once determined, must be maintained. At 19 this point, we're not convinced that the DPM 20 exposure levels in our mines are placing our 21 miners at a health risk that warrants such 22 stringent requirements in the proposed rule. 23 Listed in the preamble to the 89 1 proposed rule, is that there is yet a reliable 2 and accurate sampling device that can detect 3 the DPM at low levels. Based upon that 4 admission, we question, then, the credibility 5 of all the data, when you look at research that 6 we have in the Boriac (phonetic) case to where 7 it contradicts some of the epidemiology results 8 that was listed in the papers. Then we feel 9 that there is such contradiction out there that 10 we, as an industry, and the UMWA and the 11 agencies who work together to try and determine 12 what is adequate, what is for our people. 13 Also, missing from the risk 14 assessment equation is a scientifically-based 15 exposure limit. If sufficient evidence existed 16 to determine a quantifiable exposure level 17 presenting a health threat, we feel that NOISH, 18 ACGIH, and EPA, or some other agency would have 19 already established a PEL. To our knowledge, 20 this conclusive evidence does not yet exist. 21 Until that point and time, again, we should 22 work together and combine our efforts to 23 determine what these safe levels are. 90 1 Thank you. At this time I'd like to 2 bring Mr. Larry Jordan to the stand. 3 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, my 4 name is Larry Jordan, L-a-r-r-y J-o-r-d-a-n. 5 I'm Coordinator of Diesel Maintenance Training 6 for Jim Walter Resources. One of my primary 7 functions at Jim Walter Resources is 8 administering the underground diesel 9 qualification training and safety retraining 10 programs for all personnel that maintain diesel 11 equipment. 12 In addition, I'm involved with the 13 underground diesel compliance monitoring for 14 all four mines. I also work with several 15 committees in developing fire suppression 16 systems, on-board CO monitoring on inby and 17 outby equipment, and other systems relating to 18 existing MSHA requirements for underground 19 diesel-powered equipment. 20 A few years ago a man named Nobert 21 Paas introduced to the industry a product he 22 developed and currently sells called the DST 23 System, processing technology. Initially, he 91 1 claimed that the DST System, which is a 2 dry-system exhaust heat exchanger that 3 incorporates the use of a disposable 4 particulate filter, was capable of removing 5 more than 95 percent of a particle matter from 6 the engine exhaust. He also claimed that this 7 technology was applicable to the variety of 8 engines used in underground coal mines. 9 Although at that time I believe it had only 10 been tested on one particular engine. More 11 recent testing indicates that the DST System 12 can only be relied upon to provide 95 percent 13 reduction of the DPM. 14 The proposed rule is obviously based 15 on the premise that the DST, or similar device, 16 would be employed by the operators to achieve 17 compliance. Based upon that assumption, Jim 18 Walter Resources estimates the cost of 19 compliance to be at least 5,575,000. This 20 figure only represents the cost to retrofit the 21 existing 100 machines effected by this rule and 22 was derived from the estimate that of 36,500 23 per unit to retrofit 70 inby machines, and 92 1 64,000 per unit to retrofit the 30 2 locomotives. 3 The locomotive issue is the most 4 troublesome because retrofitting may require 5 engine replacement and major frame modification 6 to provide enough space to accommodate the DST 7 and after-treatment device. 8 In addition, to retrofit cost, we 9 estimate the annual filter replacement to be at 10 lest 10,000 per machine, which equates to 1 11 million per year. These figures are based on 12 the three-shift filter life, however, we know 13 that a local coal mine, which utilizes the 14 disposable filters on ramcars, changes the 15 filters on a shiftly basis -- and I think that 16 was stated earlier. Changing filters three 17 times as often, will obviously costs three 18 times as much, to say nothing of the down-time 19 cost involved. Worse still, if MSHA mandates 20 the proposed rule for all the underground 21 diesel-powered equipment, including light duty 22 outby equipment, all the cost at JWR to 23 retrofit and maintain all the equipment will 93 1 double. 2 This is an exorbitant price to pay to 3 apply an unproven technology to solve a problem 4 that may not even exist. 5 Since MSHA issued the advance notice 6 of the proposed rulemaking, in '92, there's 7 been a flurry of activity in the area of 8 exhaust after-treatment development; however, 9 it seems that all have fallen short of the 95 10 percent mark. Our observation is that existing 11 technology is probably only capable of 12 providing reliable capture efficiencies in a 13 range of 60 to 80 percent. 14 I have information from NETT 15 Technologies, 3M Particulate Technologies, CEP 16 Products, Engelhard Emission Control Products, 17 and Johnson Matthey Environmental Products, all 18 admitting that the efficiency of the their 19 products is well below the 95 range that would 20 be required. 21 Also there is some inherent problems 22 associate with the use of disposable 23 after-treatment filters, such as a potential 94 1 fire hazard. Another area to consider with 2 after-treatment filters is the possible damage 3 that could result to the engine when the filter 4 begin to restrict the amount of airflow into 5 the combustion chamber. Improper airflow will 6 affect the engine components, such as valves, 7 injectors, and pistons, and these components 8 will show excessive carbon buildup. 9 Excessive carbon buildup will in turn 10 result in contamination of the lubricant. 11 Ultimately, contamination of the lubricant will 12 likely affect engine performance, ironically 13 producing higher CO and DPM levels. 14 MSHA's proposed rule is neither 15 technology nor economically feasible at this 16 time. Current after-treatment technology is 17 simply not capable of providing the 95 percent 18 capture efficiency required by the proposed 19 rule. Moreover, MSHA has grossly 20 underestimated cost of applying high-efficiency 21 filtration to the vast amount of existing 22 equipment subject to the proposed rule. 23 While all of these issues are being 95 1 resolved, JWR will continue to provide a sound 2 diesel maintenance training program that 3 promotes optimum engine performance. 4 Now I'd like to introduce Ted. 5 MR. TED SARTAIN: Hello, my name is 6 Ted Sartain, S-a-r-t-a-i-n. I'm the Senior 7 Ventilation Engineer at Jim Walter Resources 8 and also service the Company's delegate on the 9 National Mining Association's Diesel Task 10 Group, of which I have been an active 11 participant for past ten years. I'd like to 12 just take a few more minutes to summarize our 13 company's position on the proposed rule. 14 We maintain that diesel-powered 15 equipment offers distinct safety and 16 operational advantages over most of its 17 electrically powered counterparts. We strongly 18 believe that continued use of underground 19 diesel-powered equipment is essential for the 20 viability of the U.S. Coal industry in the very 21 competitive world market. The industry can 22 ill-afford over-restrictive and unduly 23 burdensome regulations, which could potentially 96 1 eliminate the use of diesel engines 2 underground. 3 The filter requirement that MSHA is 4 proposing is one of the primary components of 5 the Pennsylvania State Law, which has resulted 6 with two exception in the continued absence of 7 underground diesel equipment in that state. 8 Concerning the long-term health risk 9 associated with DPM, the jury is still out, 10 which is the reason why a PEL does not exist 11 today. JWR contends that the best available 12 evidence does not support MSHA's theory that 13 the current underground exposure to diesel 14 particulate matter place miners at risk of 15 material impairment of health or functional 16 capacity. In view of today's time constraints, 17 we have elected not to address the health risk 18 issue in full detail, but refer you to the 19 forthcoming post-hearing comments to have 20 National Mining Association, which we fully 21 sport. 22 On the issue of feasibility, as Larry 23 discussed earlier, this proposed rule is 97 1 neither technologically nor economically 2 feasible. The agency has obviously 3 overestimated the capability of current 4 after-treatment technology, and we feel grossly 5 underestimates the cost to apply it. 6 Also by simply mandating a single 7 method of control technology, the agency fails 8 to promote other available industrial hygiene 9 practices. Sound industrial hygiene requires 10 three ingredients: a scientifically-based 11 exposure limit, an accurate and reliable 12 personal sampling method, and an integrated 13 approach to control exposure. 14 This proposed rule contains none of 15 these elements and quite frankly flies in the 16 face of sound industrial hygiene. 17 JWR realizes that as diesel usage 18 continues to increase, miners' exposure to the 19 exhaust contaminants must be maintained at safe 20 levels. However, MSHA should exercise prudence 21 in their endeavor to regulate diesel 22 particulate exposures. We encourage MSHA to 23 support efforts like th ongoing NIOSH/NCI 98 1 study, to determine exactly what the maximum 2 safe exposure level is, and to continue 3 research to develop an accurate and reliable 4 personal sampling method for use in underground 5 coal mines. Then adopt a performance-based, 6 integrated approach that is both 7 technologically and economically feasible and 8 will insure the highest level of protection to 9 the miner. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you. I don't 12 know whether the panel knows, but all these 13 gentlemen that have responded, any question to 14 their presentation. Any question? 15 MR. TED SARTAIN: You can give us 16 your questions, and we can decide who best to 17 answer them. 18 MR. JON KOGUT: I have a couple of 19 questions, first of all that relate to the 20 written comments that Mr. Sartain submitted 21 prior to this hearing. Well, maybe before I 22 get to that, I think you said that the first 23 mobile diesel equipment was introduced in any 99 1 of the Jim Walter Mines in Alabama in 1987. Is 2 that right? 3 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I think it was 4 '84. 5 MR. JON KOGUT: '84. And give you -- 6 give us some idea of once that introduction 7 began how rapidly the process of dieselization 8 took place until you reached your current 9 levels? 10 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I think to give 11 you an accurate account, we would need to go 12 back and we could pull up the records and tell 13 you exactly when the equipment -- you know, got 14 each one, such as ramcars, locomotives, 15 rhombuses. I think we started basically 16 improving our haulage, rhombus fleet -- 17 MR. TED SARTAIN: Our outby fleet was 18 first, and then at a later date, I would say, 19 probably late '80s or early '90s, we began to 20 introduce diesel-face haulage equipment. 21 MR. JON KOGUT: You began to 22 introduce it, and then how rapidly -- 23 MR. TED SARTAIN: I would just 100 1 consider it a steady increase. I don't think 2 we just overwhelmingly introduced a large group 3 in a short time frame. I think it would be 4 best to categorize it as a steady increase over 5 the past 15 years or so. 6 MR. JON KOGUT: So, when would you 7 say you achieved your current level of 8 dieselization? 9 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I think it 10 continues to grow incrementally, but probably 11 the last couple of years. And we can give you 12 more accurate information. 13 MR. JON KOGUT: If it would be 14 possible for you to do that, I would very much 15 appreciate your submitting that for the 16 hearings. But in any case, you say that you 17 didn't introduce this equipment all at once in 18 the mid-'80s, so that in the case of lung 19 cancer, for example, which has a rather 20 notoriously long latent period, which sometimes 21 doesn't appear for 20 years after exposure. Is 22 it correct for us to assume that many of the 23 workers that are exposed to the diesel 101 1 equipment in your mines have not been exposed 2 for anywhere near 20 years? Is that right? 3 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I think most of 4 them would have been exposed to some part, you 5 know, to some percentage of diesel exposure. 6 It may have been one manbus that ran the 7 intakes, and it's just gradually increased 8 through the years. I'd have to agree as the 9 years have grown, the amount of exposure has 10 probably increased because of more equipment. 11 MR. TED SARTAIN: However, as some 12 have mentioned, we are doing things better 13 today, than we did 15 years ago, especially 14 since the adoption of the Federal Health and 15 Safety Regulations for diesel-powered equipment 16 used underground; better maintenance, better 17 training, better field selection, engine 18 selection. I think all of that has to be 19 considered. I don't think we can simply assume 20 that since diesel usage has incrementally 21 increased with time that exposure has also 22 followed that same trend, because we obviously 23 do things better today than we did 15 or 20 102 1 years ago. 2 MR. JON KOGUT: Well, my main intent 3 in asking that question and in asking you to 4 try to provide us with some sort of historical 5 record of the progression of the dieselization 6 is that in the written comments that you've 7 submitted, you made a statement that to date -- 8 I'm quoting now -- "To date the medical history 9 of our employees does not include a single case 10 of lung cancer, chronic illness, or material of 11 impairment of health due to exposure to diesel 12 exhaust." And in order for us to assess the 13 significance of that claim, I think we need to 14 know -- we need to have some idea of how long 15 the workers in your mines have actually been 16 exposed to diesel and to what extent. So, if 17 you could give -- 18 MR. TED SARTAIN: We will try to give 19 you some type of historical account. 20 MR. JON KOGUT: The other thing is 21 that in reference to that same statement, when 22 you say that there hasn't been any indication 23 of a single case of lung cancer or chronic 103 1 illness or a material impairment, do you mean 2 that that none of the workers in any of your 3 mines have exhibited any lung cancer, there 4 have been no cases of lung cancer that have 5 developed in any of the workers at your mine? 6 What do you mean exactly? 7 MR. DALE BYRAM: I guess, when I made 8 reference earlier to the two individual cases 9 related to workman's comp, to my knowledge, 10 that's the only two workman's comp cases that 11 we've had -- 12 MR. JON KOGUT: Was there -- 13 MR. DALE BYRAM: I'll get to the 14 cancer question -- workman's comp cases 15 compensable to anything related to diesel 16 particulate or fumes in the respiratory 17 As far as carcinogen -- and looking at the 18 state of Alabama -- my concern is where cancer 19 where is one of the third leading causes of 20 death in Alabama, and has been so for over ten 21 years, we will -- when we employ 2,000 people, 22 on the average, say over the last ten years, 23 then we'll definitely have some employees who 104 1 will unfortunately suffer cancer, but to be 2 able tie that to a diesel incident, I think we 3 would first have to have a diesel workman's 4 comp incident, and then have physicians to 5 determine whether cancer was a result of that. 6 But to I guess and go back and answer 7 your question, I personally know no such 8 connection at this point and time. Now, Mr. 9 Capely made references to the fact that he has 10 been diagnosed with a spot on his lung -- and, 11 you know, I don't know anything about that -- I 12 certainly do not question Mr. Capely at all. 13 But to be able to say that there's been a 14 connection to the two, I think with his 15 comment, we can't guarantee that that's 16 happened. 17 MR. JON KOGUT: Well, the statement 18 doesn't exactly say that you haven't been able 19 to guarantee that there's a connection with 20 diesel exhaust. What it says, that there has 21 been no case of material impairment, and, in 22 particular, lung cancer due to diesel exhaust. 23 But now you're saying that probably there have 105 1 been cases of lung cancer -- 2 MR. DALE BYRAM: I -- 3 MR. JON KOGUT: What I hear you 4 saying is that you have no way of knowing 5 whether those were due to diesel exhaust or 6 not. 7 MR. DALE BYRAM: I think that 8 medically -- that medically, there would have 9 to be a diagnoses given from a physician, with 10 someone who has cancer, that says it was 11 directly related to, or even possibly strongly 12 related to the diesel particulate or to the 13 exposure to diesel for anybody to be able to 14 connect the two. 15 And then I said -- if you don't mind 16 to clarify, to try and put this in perspective. 17 In the state of Alabama, for several years, 18 cancer has been one of top three leading causes 19 of death. In a company that employs 2,000 20 people, on the average for the last ten years, 21 we certainly have unfortunately had some people 22 that have been diagnosed with lung cancer. But 23 to say that they have been directly related to 106 1 a diesel issue, I have to say, "No. I'm not 2 aware of any cases," because again the only way 3 that you would see a connection would be if it 4 was tied in as some form of a workman's comp, 5 work-related illness. That would be diagnosed 6 by a physician as to the connection. Is that 7 -- am I wrong in thinking that? 8 MR. JON KOGUT: No. I just think 9 that what you're saying varies slightly 10 different from the implication of the sentence, 11 as you have it here. 12 MR. DALE BYRAM: I think the 13 implication says that we have not had any 14 history. Is that right? 15 MR. JON KOGUT: Well, I'll read it 16 again. It says, "To date, the medical history 17 of our employees does not indicate a single 18 case of lung cancer, chronic illness or 19 material impairment of health due to exposure 20 to diesel exhaust." And if I might interpret 21 what you're saying, you don't have any direct 22 evidence that any of these cases are due to 23 diesel exhaust? 107 1 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Or not? 2 MR. JON KOGUT: Or not -- 3 MR. DALE BYRAM: I'm sorry. 4 MR. JON KOGUT: I gather from that 5 you also don't have any direct evidence that 6 any of the case that you've observed are not 7 from the diesel exhaust. 8 MR. DALE BYRAM: I guess that would 9 have to be -- I guess, in a way, I really don't 10 know how to respond to that, other than to say, 11 you know, you're asking me to prove that they 12 are or not -- 13 MR. JON KOGUT: No. I'm not asking 14 you to prove anything. I'm just asking you -- 15 MR. DALE BYRAM: Okay. Let me carry 16 this a step further in another direction, if 17 you don't mind. Unless an employee came to us 18 and disclosed that he has lung cancer and that 19 he felt that it was related to the diesel, the 20 company would not have any knowledge of that, 21 and due to patient confidentiality, even in the 22 claims and insurance departments, if they were 23 paying claims associate with cancer, lung 108 1 cancer, whatever, they couldn't assume and we 2 couldn't assume. It would have to be a direct 3 claim and then a diagnosis. 4 I guess to go back and try and 5 finally answer your question. At this point in 6 time, I do not know of any situation to where 7 -- and again I'll have to make reference to 8 workmens' compensation because that's where you 9 would have your related illness tied into a 10 company, the records, to where we have a lung 11 cancer situation directly related to or 12 indirectly related to diesel emissions. 13 MR. JON KOGUT: Okay. And apart from 14 the question of lung cancer, what about other 15 -- what about chronic respiratory diseases? 16 Have you experienced some instances of chronic 17 respiratory diseases among workers at your 18 mines? 19 MR. DALE BYRAM: Okay. I heard our 20 co-workers make reference to the effects that 21 they have suffered or that they have seen other 22 co-workers suffered, but to be statistically 23 correct, the only two workman's comp 109 1 compensable cases that I'm aware of where the 2 two that I made reference to. 3 So, if a guy or a lady has a problem, 4 and they bring it to us and they want to go to 5 the doctor, then certainly we will send them to 6 the doctor. We will never fail in that. I'm 7 not aware of any other cases that are 8 compensable other than the two that I made 9 reference to. 10 So, does it exist? I don't know. 11 MR. THOMAS TOMB: I'd like to tack on 12 a question similar to what Jon is leading to 13 here. Mr. Byram, in your presentation, I'm not 14 sure that I got the words exactly right, but 15 you indicated that your miners are monitored 16 for health risk. And my question is: What do 17 you have in place that monitors the miners for 18 health risk? 19 MR. DALE BYRAM: Just being generally 20 aware of any kind of a pattern that may 21 develop. Again -- 22 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Using what kind of 23 data? 110 1 MR. DALE BYRAM: You have to go off 2 of it, if it's work-related illness, you'd have 3 to go off of your reports to your safety 4 departments or your workman's compensation. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: You're getting back 6 to the workman's compensation? 7 MR. DALE BYRAM: Yes, sir. There 8 again there has to be some kind of a pattern to 9 develop to the point that if a pattern 10 develops, then there's a problem somewhere, and 11 you have to go to the root of the cause to 12 correct the problem. 13 MR. JON KOGUT: I just have maybe 14 one other comment, it's not really a question, 15 but may be you could address my comment. A 16 couple of you, I think, mentioned or implied 17 that the jury is still out on diesel 18 particulate. I just wanted to mention a couple 19 of events that have occurred, since the time 20 that we published this proposal, that aren't 21 really documented in the proposed rule. 22 The first one is that in the proposed 23 rule, we mentioned that the state of California 111 1 was looking at diesel exhaust at that time and 2 seeing if it should be classified as a toxic 3 air contaminant. Since the time of this 4 publication, the scientific advisory to the 5 California Air Resources, which is part of the 6 California EPA, unanimously recommended that 7 diesel exhaust -- that was their initial 8 recommendation was listed as a toxic air 9 contaminant in the state of California. And 10 that recommendation was ultimately adopted by 11 the California EPA with one modification, which 12 was that they changed the -- they changed it 13 from diesel exhaust to diesel particulate. So, 14 the state of Alabama now as of August 27th, 15 1998, has identified diesel particulate as a 16 toxic air contaminant. 17 And the second thing that's happened 18 since we published the proposed rule: Is that 19 the Federal Advisory Board to the National 20 Toxicology Program, scientific advisory board 21 to the National Toxicology Program, which is 22 the U.S. Government Agency that maintains the 23 National list of carcinogens, has recommended 112 1 that diesel exhaust be listed as a carcinogen 2 on that list. That particular recommendation 3 still needs to get approval from the secretary 4 of health and human services. 5 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I have a question 6 for you. Have they established permissibility 7 levels or threshold limits for this exposure? 8 MR. JON KOGUT: In the state of 9 California the advisory board concluded that 10 there was no evidence that there was any safe 11 level for diesel particulate. 12 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I wonder if this 13 is the same group that list rock dust as a 14 possible carcinogen also. 15 MR. JON KOGUT: Not to my knowledge. 16 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Sandra. 17 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: I think it was 18 Mr. Sartain. You talked about the proposal 19 being economically and technologically 20 infeasible. Did the company do an analysis or 21 a study? What data are you using to support 22 your statement that the proposal is infeasible, 23 and if you have, you know, the data pertaining 113 1 to your company, would you be able to submit it 2 for the record? 3 MR. TED SARTAIN: Yes, we have some 4 quotations from vendors on exhaust 5 after-treatment cost, retrofit cost. And that 6 was the data that was used in Larry's 7 statements that we estimate retrofit; for 8 instance, the DST System to the equipment that 9 would be affected by the rule is in excess of 10 $5 million. That's just a lump-sum cost 11 initially within the 18 month, or whatever, 12 time frame that we would be required to get 13 those systems in place, not to mention the fact 14 that filter replacement cost, with the 15 disposable filter replacement cost, are 16 estimated to be -- and these estimates are 17 based on data like the gentlemen from T&M 18 stated that they change filters once a shift. 19 Our estimates were based on manufacture claims 20 that you can get three shifts life out of a 21 filter, and they extrapolated out to $10,000 22 per machine, per year. A hundred machine that 23 Jim Walter Resources would be affected would 114 1 result in a million dollars just in filter 2 replacement cost itself. Those numbers that 3 Larry used were from quotations and from real 4 experiences. 5 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: Have you 6 submitted that for the record? 7 MR. TED SARTAIN: Well, Larry's 8 comments contained -- 9 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Quotations I made 10 is -- 11 MR. TED SARTAIN: -- contain those 12 numbers, but we can submit further information 13 with the quotation in our post-hearing 14 comments. 15 MS. SANDRA WESDOCK: And could we 16 have copies of your testimony, today's 17 testimony? 18 MR. RONALD FORD: I think what we're 19 trying -- or at least I'd like to see possibly 20 is: You quoted the numbers 36, -46,000, can we 21 get the derivations that arrives to those 22 numbers, as written out like on a piece of 23 paper, not now, but sometime later submitted to 115 1 us. 2 MR. TED SARTAIN: Yes, sir. 3 MR. RONALD FORD: I'd like to talk a 4 little bit about those numbers now. And I 5 guess most of my questions might go to Mr. 6 Gordan (sic), but anybody can answer them. Mr. 7 Jordan, excuse me. The 36,000 per unit for the 8 inby -- and again the 46,000 per unit for the 9 outby, that's an average cost for the machine? 10 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Pretty much so. 11 We've got part of that information was from 12 Norbert Paas' information that he had given is 13 that retrofit each piece of equipment, the 14 biggest part. 15 MR. TED SARTAIN: The 64,000 came 16 from a quotation we received this week from a 17 vendor that we do business with on locomotives, 18 and that was a cost estimate or a quotation, if 19 you will, on what he sees the cost associated 20 with adding a DST System to a locomotive, which 21 would include an engine change and a major 22 frame modification. 23 MR. LARRY JORDAN: That's something 116 1 we've already looked into what it would take to 2 give them that such device on our equipment. 3 MR. RONALD FORD: That would answer 4 some of the questions I have coming up. Let's 5 go back a little bit. The 36,000, that's the 6 cost of purchasing the -- 7 MR. TED SARTAIN: That's a quotation 8 for an installed DST System or retrofit on a 9 existing 4110 ramcar. 10 MR. RONALD FORD: That includes not 11 only the purchase price of the equipment, but 12 also any frame modification and instillation 13 cost. 14 MR. TED SARTAIN: That's correct. 15 MR. RONALD FORD: Does anything else 16 have to be put on that machine besides the 17 filter. I mean, you have to modify the frame, 18 but can you tell about 36,000? Do you have to 19 redo the radiator or -- 20 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Yes. The radiator 21 will have to be changed and also there are some 22 safety shut-down systems that would have to be 23 applied to our existing units to check the 117 1 system out as it's being used. Another thing 2 that will have to be put on there is an attempt 3 shut-down device that be required, and there 4 would be some changes in some of the other 5 safety shut-down systems on the equipment, as 6 what we are using right now is what we would 7 have to go to. 8 MR. RONALD FORD: Okay. So, my 9 understanding is that for the 36,000 that would 10 have to be done is the radiator change, safety 11 system shut-down systems, frame modification, 12 and the DST filter; and no change to the engine 13 or nothing to the engine. 14 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Well, on the 15 intake and exhaust manifold would also have to 16 be changed. 17 MR. RONALD FORD: Okay. Let's go to 18 $46,000, again that's an average price per unit 19 per outby piece of equipment. 20 MR. TED SARTAIN: It's 64. 21 MR. RONALD FORD: I'm sorry. It's 22 64. 23 MR. LARRY JORDAN: 64, yes. 118 1 MR. RONALD FORD: And as Mr. Sartain 2 said, I guess, the 64,000 is related to fitting 3 a locomotive with a DST System, and again some 4 changes to the engine and frame modification. 5 MR. TED SARTAIN: That's correct. 6 MR. RONALD FORD: Now, that's a 7 heavy-duty piece type of equipment. Right? 8 MR. TED SARTAIN: Yes, sir. 9 MR. RONALD FORD: Let's first stick 10 with that first of that. Does anything else 11 have to be done that encompasses that $64,000 12 besides what I just mentioned? 13 MR. TED SARTAIN: If I recall 14 correctly the quotation included all the 15 necessary changes required to accommodate the 16 DST System. I'm not at this point familiar 17 with all the details that would be required, 18 but we can provide that with the quotation 19 information in our subsequent comment. 20 MR. RONALD FORD: And again, we're 21 talking about purchasing of the equipment and 22 installing it? 23 MR. TED SARTAIN: Correct. 119 1 MR. RONALD FORD: Now, I'm just a 2 little bit confused here in that the 64,000 was 3 per unit outby price, which is average, which I 4 thought would encompass heavy duty -- and I 5 guess I thought maybe light duty, but you're 6 talking about heavy duty -- 7 MR. TED SARTAIN: We're talking about 8 what in relationship to the proposal. 9 MR. RONALD FORD: I want to ask some 10 questions about the $10,000, which Mr. Sartain 11 has already entered some of that. Again that 12 $10,000 is the maintenance cost of the DST 13 System for one year on one machine. 14 MR. TED SARTAIN: That's estimated 15 cost for the filters alone; does not include 16 labor. It's based on three shifts per filter. 17 MR. RONALD FORD: Right, right. But 18 based on changing of the filter -- 19 MR. TED SARTAIN: It's somewhere 20 between 30 and -40 dollars per filter at a 21 frequency of three shifts per filter. What's 22 disturbing is, we're hearing that the filter 23 life could be reduced to possibly one shift per 120 1 filter, which would triple that cost. 2 MR. RONALD FORD: I understand. 3 You're saying that 10,000 is based on the three 4 shifts. 5 MR. TED SARTAIN: Yes, sir. 6 MR. RONALD FORD: And 30 to 40 7 dollars cost per filter. 8 MR. TED SARTAIN: Yes, sir. 9 MR. RONALD FORD: And it does not 10 include the labor to change that filter. 11 MR. TED SARTAIN: Right. 12 MR. RONALD FORD: That doesn't matter 13 whether it's inby or outby piece of equipment; 14 it's the same $10,000. 15 MR. TED SARTAIN: Correct. 16 MR. RONALD FORD: You mentioned early 17 -- I don't know if you can answer this question 18 -- but you mentioned earlier that the cost of 19 the 5.6 million that's all four mines, 20 equipment in all four mines. Right? 21 MR. TED SARTAIN: Correct. 22 MR. RONALD FORD: And then you 23 produce eight million tons annually, for all 121 1 four mines. 2 MR. TED SARTAIN: Yes. 3 MR. RONALD FORD: Can you tell me, on 4 an average, what is the average price for a ton 5 of coal that you get when you sell that? 6 MR. TED SARTAIN: No, sir, I don't 7 that. 8 MR. RONALD FORD: Anyway you can 9 supply that? 10 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I'd have to check 11 with my boss first. 12 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 15 MR. RONALD FORD: You don't know or 16 can you tell me what percentage of your total 17 revenue is related to operating, maintenance, 18 and taxes? 19 MR. CHUCK STEWART: Can you say that 20 one more time? 21 MR. RONALD FORD: What percentage of 22 your total revenues is related to operating, 23 maintenance, and taxes? 122 1 MR. CHUCK STEWART: No, not right off 2 the bat I can't. 3 MR. RONALD FORD: Can you think about 4 maybe supplying that information, if it's 5 possible to get? 6 MR. TED SARTAIN: Yes, we will look 7 into that. 8 MR. CHUCK STEWART: One more time, so 9 I can make sure I get this down exactly the way 10 you want it. What percent of -- 11 MR. RONALD FORD: What percent of 12 your total revenues is related to operating and 13 maintenance cost and taxes. 14 MR. CHUCK STEWART: Operating and 15 what? 16 MR. RONALD FORD: Operating and 17 maintenance. 18 MR. CHUCK STEWART: Thank you. 19 MR. RONALD FORD: And I've just got 20 one last area, or just one question, I hope. I 21 didn't understand a little bit about when, I 22 think Mr. Gordan (sic), Jordan talked about the 23 problems with the disposal of the filters. Is 123 1 the problem that it's a fire hazard if the 2 filter is not changed and it's still on the 3 machine? 4 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Yes. If any of 5 the safety devices were to fail, like temp 6 shutdown, which is required to put the filter 7 on. If that system fails, then there is a 8 potential for a fire. Now, we have to look 9 back at the he water-exhaust-scrubber tank that 10 we are using, if something happens to the flow 11 of water into the system, and the temp shutdown 12 does fail, there is a potential there for fire 13 hazard. 14 MR. RONALD FORD: Okay. But what 15 we're talking -- what I'm trying to get at is 16 that's a problem when the filter is still on 17 the machine? Right? 18 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Yes, sir. 19 MR. RONALD FORD: But the way you 20 termed is as a "disposable" a problem with 21 disposal of the filter. When the filter is 22 actually taken off the machine, you don't have 23 a problem -- you don't foresee any problem with 124 1 disposing it? 2 MR. LARRY JORDAN: After it's taken 3 off the machine, there's proper handling; 4 that's about the only problem I foresee, you 5 know, in disposing the filter. 6 MR. RONALD FORD: Let me ask one 7 additional question. You have filters on the 8 machines now. Right? 9 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Intake filters. 10 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: I have one 11 question. I think probably Mr. Byram would 12 answer it. You obviously had two occupational- 13 illness claims have been filed, 7001 forms have 14 been filled out for the two incidents that you 15 indicate were compensable. Have you had any 16 other 7001 forms filled out for any other 17 occupational illnesses that someone has alleged 18 has occurred, as a result of being exposed to 19 diesel particulate or diesel exhaust? 20 MR. DALE BYRAM: I would have to say 21 that's a possibility. And what we would do is 22 we can go back and check our records and 23 provide that to you. But to my knowledge right 125 1 this particular point in time, I'm not -- I 2 personally am not aware of it, but that doesn't 3 mean there's not a potential to exist. We're 4 talking about four separate with four safety 5 supervisors that would handle those records at 6 each mine. 7 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: But other than 8 the only two compensable claims, those are the 9 only two that you are aware of -- 10 MR. DALE BYRAM: That I'm aware of. 11 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: -- right now? 12 MR. DALE BYRAM: Yes, sir. 13 MR. BOB HANEY: Mr. Byram, you had 14 mentioned that you disagree with our analysis 15 of 17 epidemiology studies that show an 16 increased risk of cancer with exposure to 17 diesel. Is that your opinion, or do you have 18 some studies that would support that? 19 MR. DALE BYRAM: I do not have 20 studies. I was using a comparison Boriac 21 studies from Yale University to where they made 22 reference to questioning the selectiveness of 23 the material that was used to create that 126 1 statement in the proposed regs. And the 2 position that I'm taking on it is if we have 3 two recognizable groups or agencies that have 4 done research and they're in opposition with 5 each other, then further research must be done 6 to identify accurately what we are trying to 7 deal with. And then once we do that, then set 8 the appropriate levels. 9 MR. BOB HANEY: Could you provide us 10 information on the that Boriac study? 11 MR. DALE BYRAM: Certainly, yes. We 12 have it; we can do that. May I ask a question? 13 Excuse me, go ahead. 14 MR. BOB HANEY: I was going to ask a 15 few questions to Mr. Jordan. How often do you 16 have to rebuild the diesel engines that you 17 have? 18 MR. LARRY JORDAN: It's dependent 19 upon the maintenance that the engines get. 20 Normally, an engine should last around 8,000 21 hours, which could, you know, equate to a year, 22 year and a half, just according to how long 23 they've been used and run, and what kind of 127 1 maintenance that they do get. 2 MR. BOB HANEY: Okay. And do you 3 have any idea what the cost of rebuilding that 4 engines is? 5 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Rebuilding the 916 6 engine right now, just the engine itself, is 7 anywhere from 12 to -14,000, just for the 8 engine rebuild, not including any add-on 9 equipment. 10 MR. BOB HANEY: You had mentioned 11 that you have some reservations about the DST 12 being an unproven technology. What about the 13 wet scrubber with the filters, which are 14 commonly used in other Alabama mines? 15 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Ask that question 16 again, if you would, please. 17 MR. BOB HANEY: You had stated some 18 reservations about the DST System being an 19 unproven technology. What are your feelings 20 about using the wet scrubber systems with 21 filters that are currently being used in other 22 Alabama mines? 23 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Well, if you look 128 1 back at the statement that, I believe, the guy 2 made from T&M that the manufactures did claim 3 about 20 hours of usage for that particular 4 filter. Realistically, if you look at it, it's 5 boiling down to around eight hours of use 6 that's about all you get before it really 7 starts choking the machine off and you start 8 having problems. 9 So, instead of getting three-shift 10 use out of it, you're looking at one shift, 11 which in turn equates to down in equipment and 12 it also equates to more labor cost that would 13 be involved. 14 So, my personal opinion that, you 15 know, there's probably other -- research is 16 being done out there that we might be able, in 17 the future, to look at other type of cleaning 18 devices that would be a lot more -- or 19 realistically to clean the engines. 20 MR. BOB HANEY: You had mentioned the 21 $5 million cost for -- initial cost for all of 22 the engines. Typically, what time frame would 23 you amortize that cost over? 129 1 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Well, if you're 2 looking at approximately 100 units in an 3 18-month time frame, I don't really believe it 4 would be enough, because getting just the parts 5 to, you know, comply in 18 months would be -- I 6 think would be something that we would really 7 have to look into. As you well know at this 8 day and time, manufacturers just don't keep 9 components and stock parts like it used to be. 10 MR. BOB HANEY: I'm sorry. You 11 misunderstood the question. 12 MR. TED SARTAIN: I'm not sure we're 13 capable of answering. That's more of an 14 accounting question, and I'm not sure what time 15 frame that would be capitalized over. 16 I know most -- I can say this: Most 17 of the expenditures and things we have to 18 purchase to comply with the '96 health and 19 safety regs for diesel use were placed on cost, 20 they were just an up-front cost they went 21 directly -- they were not capitalized. And 22 that approached a million dollars within the 23 first few months of that regulation being 130 1 enforced. 2 MR. BOB HANEY: Mr. Stewart, as far 3 as the usage of the outby equipment, we've 4 heard other people say that it's used almost 5 regularly for the full shift. Would you 6 characterize it in the same way? 7 MR. CHUCK STEWART: No. I think 8 that's too general. I think there is some 9 equipment that transports a crew to a section, 10 may sit there the whole shift, as other crews 11 that maybe transporting supervisor and bosses 12 around that may run the majority of the shift. 13 Without some type of study, I don't think I can 14 give you a percentage of which units may run 15 full shifts, which ones don't. But I think 16 they have a mixture. 17 MR. BOB HANEY: And Mr. Sartain, 18 we've heard that you run between two and four 19 ramcars on a section at a time. Does the 20 airflow remain constant, or when you run four 21 ramcars, do you have more airflow than when you 22 run two ramcars? 23 MR. TED SARTAIN: The airflow pretty 131 1 much remains constant, but maintains that 2 sufficient level regardless of how many ramcars 3 we have. We already have in our ventilation 4 plan the minimum requirements for various 5 numbers or various scenarios of diesel 6 equipment operating at any given time. But 7 most of time that which is normally provided 8 for the purpose of diluting methane in a face 9 will accommodate three or four ramcars 10 operating simultaneously. 11 MR. JON KOGUT: Just a follow-up 12 question to what you just said. You said there 13 was a sufficient amount of air in your 14 ventilation plan to dilute up to four ramcars. 15 When you say "sufficient" can you explain? 16 MR. TED SARTAIN: The gas -- 17 MR. JON KOGUT: The gas hits -- 18 MR. TED SARTAIN: -- hits the 19 emission's requirement to the current safety. 20 MR. JON KOGUT: Can you give us some 21 idea what that would bring the particulate 22 emissions down to? 23 MR. TED SARTAIN: No, sir. 132 1 MR. THOMAS TOMB: I have a follow-up 2 question on that also. I think Mr. Stewart, 3 you said that your mine gets 50,000 CFM, the 4 last crosscut? 5 MR. CHUCK STEWART: That was the 6 average for the Number 7 Mine. 7 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Yes, okay. Because 8 other comments today implied that for other 9 mines, it might be less than, like 20,000. Is 10 that -- 11 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I can speak for 12 Number 7. 13 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Your comments were 14 only for number 7. 15 MR. CHUCK STEWART: Yes, sir. 16 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any other 17 questions? 18 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: I think this will 19 go to Mr. Jordan. Sir, did you receive any 20 cost for upgrading or adding the filters, from 21 Jeffrey, on adding filters to current fleet of 22 4110 ramcars? 23 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Yes, sir. 133 1 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Could you supply 2 us with those cost? 3 MR. LARRY JORDAN: I believe the cost 4 was approximately $5,500 per unit, and that's 5 not including labor, that's just the cost of 6 add-on equipment. 7 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Could you, maybe, 8 possibly estimate or supplies us, you know, 9 what the labor cost would be? 10 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Yes, sir. 11 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Thank you. 12 Also, Mr. Jordan, you mentioned in 13 your presentation, you talked with various 14 aftertreatment manufacturers, and you got kind 15 of a range of current technology from 60 to 80 16 percent filtration. Could you share that data 17 with us from those manufacturers? 18 MR. LARRY JORDAN: Yes, sir. 19 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Okay. Thank you. 20 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any other 21 questions? Do you need any clarifications on 22 the things that we asked for? 23 MR. DALE BYRAM: Yes, sir, if you 134 1 don't mind. 2 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. 3 MR. TED SARTAIN: Since we found out 4 we can ask questions. 5 MR. CHUCK STEWART: I learned a lot 6 from Hacksaw while ago. 7 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Just remember, the 8 seventh time, you come up on the panel. 9 MR. DALE BYRAM: If I understand you, 10 sir, correctly, you said that the state of 11 California had a made a final decision, saying 12 that diesel particulate, in reference, to 13 diesel particulate that there was no safe 14 exposure level? 15 MR. JON KOGUT: They didn't make that 16 -- no, I'm sorry I may have misstated. That 17 they didn't make an explicit statement to that 18 effect. What they did was adopt an exposure 19 response curve. So, they based their 20 conclusion that diesel was a toxic air 21 contaminant on a dose response that included no 22 threshold. 23 MR. DALE BYRAM: And that same 135 1 research is being reviewed by the Secretary of 2 Health and Human Services. 3 MR. JON KOGUT: I don't know that 4 it's the same research. It's the U.S. 5 Secretary of Health and Human Services. The 6 listing as a toxic air contaminant was the -- 7 excuse me -- state of California Environmental 8 Protection Agency in the state of California. 9 So that's an independent determination. 10 MR. DALE BYRAM: Okay. 11 MR. TED SARTAIN: Is that information 12 published to where we can -- 13 MR. THOMAS TOMB: You can get that -- 14 MR. TED SARTAIN: Is it on your 15 website? 16 MR. THOMAS TOMB: -- on the website. 17 Yes. It's under -- 18 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Diesel net has 19 some information. 20 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Diesel net also has 21 some information on that. 22 MR. TED SARTAIN: I think we are 23 done. 136 1 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you 2 gentlemen. And really the information if you 3 could supply to us what we asked for -- this 4 is all things that are going to be used in 5 consideration of the rule. 6 MR. CHUCK STEWART: Can I make one 7 file statement? 8 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Sure. 9 MR. CHUCK STEWART: And there's been 10 a lot of questions and that's the purpose of 11 these and I appreciate that. This is for 12 clarification for both sides. You know, I've 13 got to employees here, and I want to make sure 14 they understand where our position is. You 15 know, we're not coming in here today and saying 16 that exposure to DPM is safe. We question 17 "What is a safe level." We've questioned 18 whether there is systems out there that provide 19 95 percent reduction that would meet the 20 regulations. And we question whether there are 21 not other tools that can be used once a safe 22 level is determined to achieve those rates. 23 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you very much 137 1 for your comments. 2 I know it's sort of late and running 3 into our lunch time here, but we have three 4 more presenters that look like -- that the time 5 should not run us too much longer. So, what I 6 propose is to go ahead and have these three 7 people make their presentation before we take a 8 lunch break. 9 Our next presenter will be Mr. Patts: 10 MR. Larry Patts: Thank you Mr. 11 Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the panel. 12 My name is Larry Patts, P-a-t-t-s, and I'm a 13 representative of Consol, Incorporated. 14 Consol believes in the use of 15 diesel-powered equipment in underground mines 16 must be encouraged. After a thorough analysis 17 in several states, we conclude safety can be 18 enhanced by using diesel-powered equipment 19 underground without introducing a new health 20 hazard for our employees. 21 In very large underground mines, 22 where coal is transported by conveyer belt, the 23 power option for choice for the movement of 138 1 personnel and supplies is diesel. It is our 2 opinion the introduction of diesel-powered 3 equipment has been a significant contributor 4 to the improvement and safety performance in 5 underground coal mining during past decade. 6 Since 1972, 18 Consol employees have 7 died, as a direct result of the exposed 8 overhead direct current trolly line. There 9 have been many other fatalities and serious 10 accidents in the American coal industry similar 11 to Consol's. 12 The use of diesel equipment -- and I 13 mean here: locomotives, mantrips and jeeps 14 eliminates the trolly wire and the trolly pole. 15 If diesel had been used, all of the 18-Consol 16 fatalities could have been eliminated. 17 The use of diesel shuttle cars 18 eliminates the trailing cables, as a result, 19 the tripping hazards and the injuries caused 20 from struck by the cable can be eliminated, 21 along with the electrical accidents and fires 22 caused by the cable. 23 Electrical equipment apparatus, such 139 1 as trolly poles and trailing cables contribute 2 to a number of injuries, where the cause is 3 nonelectrical. For example, injuries have been 4 caused when the trolly pole became and 5 disengaged from the wire and struck the 6 operator. Even more serious were the fires and 7 ignitions, which have been caused by electrical 8 equipment. 9 Consol experienced such an incident 10 in 1972, when a carrier moving equipment in the 11 mine came in contact with the trolly wire, a 12 fire resulted and nine men lost their lives. 13 As just one example of the potential 14 for fire from the trolly wire, a major 15 southwestern Pennsylvania coal mine experienced 16 at least three fires from the trolly wire; two 17 of which caused the mine to be shutdown for 18 substantial periods of time, at great economic 19 loss to the community. 20 Another example is from southwestern 21 Virginia, where a part of the trolly wire 22 ignited gas from an underground pipeline. Now, 23 fortunately no fatalities in this incident, but 140 1 the mine was closed, resulting in a loss of 2 jobs and economic hardship. 3 Battery-powered equipment is used in 4 many mines for the transportation of men and 5 supplies, and as scoops for cleanup work and 6 miscellaneous jobs. Battery equipment like 7 diesel equipment can eliminate the trolly wire 8 and the trailing cables. However, battery 9 equipment also has well-known hazards, which 10 have caused numerous injuries. Batteries 11 produce hydrogen gas, which have caused 12 explosions underground, sparks from batteries 13 have also caused methane ignitions underground, 14 such as the Schocia (phonetic) Mine disaster. 15 Other injuries have been the result with 16 battery acid and the physical handling of 17 batteries. 18 Diesel equipment does have the 19 potential to significantly reduce injuries by 20 eliminating electrical components, such as the 21 trolly wire, the trolly pole, and trailing 22 cables. 23 Various concerns have been expressed 141 1 about the potential hazards created by diesel 2 equipment. Many of these concerns have 3 resulted from a lack of knowledge about the 4 design and the operation of diesel. 5 The items most frequently mentioned 6 is the possible increase in fire hazard and 7 ignition hazard, resulting from hot exhaust 8 gases and hot services. Strict MSHA and State 9 regulation guard against potential fires in the 10 face and outby areas of the coal mine. 11 In the face area, the equipment is 12 designed to pull the diesel exhaust and then 13 quickly dilute it with air. Potentially hot 14 surfaces, such as the exhaust manifold and the 15 exhaust pipe are fully water jacketed in order 16 to prevent the emission of coal dust or diesel 17 fuel. 18 Rigid permissibility tests are also 19 required by MSHA approval. As with face 20 equipment, MSHA and State regulations also 21 govern the use of outby diesel-haulage 22 equipment. 23 As in the case of electrical 142 1 equipment, which does not have to pass 2 explosion tests or eliminate hot surfaces, 3 regulations for diesel outby haulage equipment 4 are not as stringent as those for face 5 equipment. 6 MSHA has recently promulgated even 7 more comprehensive safety regulation for the 8 design, approval, and use of diesel equipment 9 in underground coal mines. And by this 10 reference, I mean the October 1996 regulations. 11 Fuel storage and handling is another 12 concern with diesel equipment. MSHA, in its 13 latest diesel regulations, provide stringent 14 standards for fuel storage and handling. Many 15 of the standards are already enforced by state 16 agencies where diesels are used. Most of the 17 regulations are simply normal precautions one 18 would take when handling flammable hydraulic 19 oil. 20 Underground fuel storage units must 21 be well ventilated to prevent leaks. The units 22 must be kept in well-ventilated locations with 23 the air not allowed to pass through the active 143 1 ways. 2 The charging stations for battery 3 powered also require such ventilation. The 4 fire protection must also be supplied at 5 refueling points, as well as incombustible 6 material for absorbing spilled fuel. 7 Personnel must be trained in 8 refueling and storage procedures, and only 9 those qualified personnel allowed to perform 10 such active. 11 The National Institute of 12 Occupational Safety and Health has determined 13 diesel particulate matter to be potential human 14 carcinogen. Recent studies have established 15 causal relationships between long-term 16 relatively high-concentration exposure to DPM 17 and lung tumors in rats, and a slight infer 18 increased risk to the development of lung 19 tumors in humans. 20 Present State and Federal regulatory 21 agencies are proved ventilation and equipment 22 maintenance plans are in place to prevent such 23 high concentration exposures in underground 144 1 coal mines. 2 The use of diesel outby-haulage 3 equipment can improve mine ventilation. In 4 mines using trolly wire, the significant 5 ventilation problems have been associated with 6 required isolated intake, escapeway and 7 regulated track entry. 8 The final results are man-made 9 restrictions on both the isolated intake and 10 track air courses, to insure positive air 11 movement to the face areas. 12 Typically, in mines where track air 13 velocities are limited by MSHA regulations to 14 250 feet per minute. Air tends to flow up the 15 isolated intake and reverses into the track 16 entry. To prevent this occurrence, the 17 isolated escapeway, as well the track, must be 18 regulate. 19 However, with the diesel system -- 20 and with this situation, all intake air is 21 restricted and the overall ventilation is, 22 therefore, reduced. 23 However, with the diesel system, 145 1 restrictions caused by entry isolation can be 2 removed and the intake air would be completely 3 unrestricted. The result is a more overall or 4 positive air flow to the working faces. 5 This also provides for better shaft 6 utilization. 7 In summary, the safety advantages 8 brought about by diesel equipment, definitely 9 outweigh the possible disadvantages. Hot 10 surfaces, exhaust, and other possible emission 11 sources are controlled by MSHA regulations and 12 rigid permissibility tests. 13 Fuel storage and handling require 14 care and training. However, normally 15 precautions associated with flammable hydraulic 16 oil are sufficient to prevent such hazards and 17 spillage and fires. 18 Diesel equipment does have the 19 potential to significantly reduce injuries. 20 Many injuries are related to electrical 21 components, as I mentioned the trolly wire, the 22 trolly pole. They can eliminated with diesel 23 locomotives, personnel carries, and shuttle 146 1 bus. 2 Elimination of the trolly wire also 3 improves the overall mine ventilation providing 4 a highly significant advantage in -- system. 5 This should never be underestimated. Console 6 believes that introduction of diesel equipment 7 into coal mines has been a significant 8 contributor to improvement in safety 9 performance in American underground coal mines 10 during the last decade. 11 Consol also believes that the 12 expanded use of diesel equipment will continue 13 to improve the safety performance of 14 underground coal mines in the future. We 15 believe that MSHA's proposed regulation to 16 require 95 percent efficiency for DPM on all 17 permissible and heavy-duty nonpermissible 18 diesel equipment is unwarranted and 19 impractical. 20 Recent laboratory testing are 21 currently available, DPM filter confirm that 95 22 percent filter efficiency is not practically 23 achievable. Consol advocates an integrated 147 1 approach to control exposure to diesel exhaust, 2 using low-emission engines, low-sulfur fuels, 3 catalytic converters, diesel engine maintenance 4 programs, and ventilation. 5 MSHA has also proposed this method to 6 reduce exposure to diesel exhaust in their 7 Toolbox approach. However, if filters are 8 mandated, the incentive to lower exposure, 9 using such tools is eliminated. Under the 10 present MSHA proposal, the Toolbox contains 11 only one tool, and that is after-treatment 12 devices. 13 During the past decade Consol has 14 proven that diesel equipment in underground 15 coal mines can be operated without sacrificing 16 miners' health while improving their safety. 17 State as well as Federal regulations governing 18 the approval and use of such diesel equipment 19 have proven adequate to insure safe and 20 healthful use by responsible operators. 21 Additional requirements imposed on the 22 use of diesel will discourage the use of diesel 23 equipment and will promote the use of trolly 148 1 equipment, which has in the past proven less 2 safe to our employees. 3 I'd like to thank you for the 4 opportunity to speak this morning. Thank you. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you. 6 MR. BOB HANEY: Mr. Patts, do you 7 know of any inference by the engine 8 manufacturers to produce a lower emission 9 permissible engine? 10 MR. LARRY PATTS: I know for a fact 11 that it is difficult for -- with a quantity of 12 engines that are used for the engine 13 manufacturers to get approval on even lower 14 emissions engines. I don't of any specific 15 efforts going on right now to produce lower 16 emission engines. 17 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Mr. Patts, do you 18 have any -- you mentioned 95 percent was, in 19 your opinion, from data, unachievable. Do you 20 have a range of filter efficiency that could be 21 supported by data that could be achievable? 22 MR. LARRY PATTS: I believe the data 23 that was submitted and the work was done at the 149 1 West Virginia University will show a range of 2 filter efficiency probably between 70 and 80 3 percent. 4 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Thank you. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay, thank you 6 very much. 7 Our next representor will be Dr. 8 Pramod Thakur: 9 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: My name is Pramod 10 Thakur. I have a bad throat. I gave you may 11 card, so you can read from my card what my name 12 is. 13 I just wanted to offer a few 14 gratifications. I want to thank the gentlemen 15 and the committee to let me attend all these 16 four hearings and speak whenever I wanted to 17 highlight something. 18 I have heard on these four meetings 19 how people have suffered from the diesel 20 exhaust. And if I enlighten all that I heard 21 properly; I hear two problems: Instantaneous 22 problems, like watering of eyes, irritation in 23 the throat, headache, and things like that. 150 1 And it had often been mentioned that we could 2 do something to eliminate these symptoms. 3 I would like to offer to the 4 Committee that all these symptoms are related 5 to the gasses components of the diesel exhaust, 6 and in all probability DPM has nothing to do 7 with it. This is not to say that this would be 8 complacent about the longer-term health factor 9 about the particulates in the diesel, but I 10 would just like to clarify. And it also helps 11 us in planning our new strategy: How do we 12 make diesel engines helpful and safe in our 13 mines. 14 Picking up on what Larry said, you 15 know, I think there is no question in the 16 mines, in labor, or industry that this is a 17 safer piece of equipment for our underground 18 mines, particularly in gassy mines. So, how do 19 we tackle this problem? We buildup on what I 20 submitted to you in Beckley. I'd like to say 21 that solution lies not so much in installing a 22 filter on every piece of diesel equipment and 23 installing a well-designed oxidation catalyst 151 1 or catalyst converter. And the reason I say so 2 -- because I have talked and I have seen with 3 results for a year and a half at -- and 4 Commissioner of West Virginia Coal Commission 5 in West Virginia. I have seen the opportunity 6 to look at firsthand. results 7 I am very interested, Mr. Chairman 8 and members of the committee, with the 9 performance of the oxidation catalytic. For 10 example, it takes out 90 percent of carbon 11 monoxide, 95 percent of unburned hydrocarbons, 12 which gives you watering eyes, irritation in 13 the throat. Perhaps the most important thing 14 it does -- analyze it, but the carbon factor on 15 which you get some chemicals called polynuclear 16 hydrocarbons. Coal particle is no more 17 dangerous -- or soot particle is not more 18 dangerous than the coal dust, but the potential 19 for damaging human beings is a lot more fragile 20 vapors classified as class 32 SPAH. Wouldn't 21 you be happy to know that his oxidation 22 catalyst will burn 95 percent PAH and convert 23 it into water, a harmless CO2. 152 1 Now, the current results that I have, 2 it reduces 25 to 35 percent of the particulate. 3 And I cannot tell how much of carbon and how 4 much of this SOF, which soluble -- containing 5 all the harmful ingredients, but it does -- if 6 you follow the trend, I think it does remove 7 most of the things which are immediately 8 harmful to people and that will hurt people in 9 long range. 10 And in the same breath, I'd like to 11 add, we're not quite done with the development 12 of oxidation catalyst; some of the 13 manufacturers' name we heard like Johnson 14 Matthey, Engelhard. We're working to enhance 15 the performance of this. But I just want to 16 offer my recommendations that to all of them 17 asking for a filter for every single unit, we 18 should be asking for an oxidation catalyst, 19 which will do whole lot more good than a fuel 20 duct 10. From practical experience I can tell 21 you, you install that DST filter on a unit and 22 you don't have an oxidation catalyst, you're 23 still not there. I've been there, I've 153 1 stood by the engine, I've had my experience 2 directly; I didn't read any book. And this is 3 again really emphasizing the things I said. 4 The second thing I would like to 5 submit to, and it's not enough to criticize, 6 but I think it will offer some solution as 7 well. I'd like to reemphasize at that point 8 and time when we don't have an instrument to 9 distinguish the coal dust, like somebody was 10 asking, and DPM in the mines. Perhaps to best 11 maintain uniformity and some degree of control 12 throughout the Nation, and, of course, in the 13 individual states, would be to accept the 14 proposal prepared by the West Virginia Vehicle 15 (phonetic) Equipment Commission, take the 16 integrated approach, use the cleanest engine -- 17 you ask, How clean the engine is? Right now if 18 you go into the market, a very small consumer 19 -- the way you define a clean engine is the 20 specific DHPR. The number from data from 21 Georgia Lab is .2 and .3 that's all we can get, 22 for haulage engine you can .1, but we cannot 23 get .1 for a small consumer like us. Nobody 154 1 would go and develop such engines. That's what 2 this Deutz 916 engine, very clean -- I'm sorry. 3 916 MWM, was bought by Deutz. They manufacture 4 6,000 they sell only 60, so what they did, they 5 stop manufacturing anymore. 6 How do you go about it? It's just 7 like they say, You can't hire a person without 8 experience, then how do you get experience 9 unless you get hired. 10 If you open up the door and we start 11 using things like Jim Walter is doing and other 12 areas of the country, where we have gassy mines 13 or we have concerns for adjustments. Then at 14 one stage we may have enough -- to go 15 collectively and say, Okay, we're going to buy 16 five haulage units and give us engines that's 17 maybe .1 gram. 18 So, I submit to you to help us like 19 U.S. Army helps those people that don't have 20 any experience. 21 My throat is dry; you'll have to bare 22 with me. Like I say, just to complete the 23 thought, I said, that the best way to certify 155 1 the diesel equipment would be to start with 2 clean engine, and use the oxidation catalyst in 3 different part of the equipment, and then 4 specify sufficient amount of air, when you can 5 provide that and anybody in the mine violation, 6 and many of sitting there, I know that for a 7 long time; nobody has to tell you, you already 8 know that what you have, you don't have enough 9 air. If you don't enough air, you have no 10 recourse, but to use a filter; like heavy-duty 11 equipment, outby and inby equipment. 12 And I think in West Virginia -- and I 13 can be corrected by Jeff here -- an industry, 14 both to accept this outline of this approach, 15 this protocol. The only difference is: We are 16 saying .5, and somebody is asking for .1 and 17 .2. And my answer to that is that I try to 18 investigate: Can we achieve .1 and 2? There 19 are only two ways you can get .1 and 2. If you 20 have commercially available system that could 21 give you 95 percent plus, you could, or if you 22 had engines with a very low emission, less 23 than. 1 gram per HPH, to the best of my 156 1 knowledge, or last year and a half effort 2 indicate that we don't have such engines; we 3 don't have such engines. So, we have to have a 4 number we can live with, which is technically 5 crucial. 6 I would again say that we should 7 leave the door open. We should immediately 8 remove this trolly wire hazard by introducing 9 diesel. And we should leave the door open for 10 improvement in all areas, as a large buyer 11 industry that we can negotiate with 12 manufacturers to get cleaner engines. We 13 should encourage the research in blending with 14 -- other sources like FT, or ultralow sulfur 15 fuel. And study their impact on engine life, 16 because if you reduce the sulfur to almost 17 nothing, engine life is obtained. 18 So, we should ask manufacturers to 19 recommend to us the right equipment here, which 20 would minimize the use of DPM and yet will 21 expand the life of the engine. 22 To repeat again: We should continue 23 to improve the performance of oxidation 157 1 catalyst. It's just a nice thing -- I cannot 2 overemphasize the importance of this. 3 And last, but not the least, I think 4 in some cases we will need certain filters. 5 The ones we have right now, they are not ideal. 6 DST, for example, is too large for small 7 equipment, neither does it delivers to promise 8 95 percent in all cases. 9 Filters can be improved too. So, Tom 10 I will address it to -- if MSHA has fundings, 11 you should it encourage in this area -- this 12 may seem out of line, but I strongly feel that 13 there is room for improvement and some day we 14 can have a system we can all be happy with. 15 Thank you again for giving me the 16 opportunity. 17 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you Dr. 18 Thakur. Any questions. 19 MR. GEORGE SASEEN. Dr. Thakur, 20 refresh memory, but the catalyst converter 21 studies done at WVU, was that submitted in 22 Beckley? Is that all -- 23 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: Yes. 158 1 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: -- part of that? 2 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: Yes, it's in the 3 record. Twenty-five to 35 percent, but there 4 are other -- and you know me, I don't trust 5 anybody. I like to have -- well, like anybody 6 else, I like to have duplicates. You have one 7 data form and apply the law on the basis of 8 that. I want to have several repetitions. 9 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any other 10 questions? 11 MR. JON KOGUT: Dr. Thakur, you said 12 that in your opinion that the acute effects of 13 diesel exhaust -- and I think you singled out 14 or you mentioned specifically eye irritation -- 15 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: Yes. 16 MR. JON KOGUT: -- were attributable 17 to the gaseous component rather than the 18 particulate. 19 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: Yes. 20 MR. JON KOGUT: Were you referring to 21 all of the acute responses that have that we 22 discussed in the risk assessment, or are you 23 referring specifically to eye irritation. 159 1 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: Well, Jon, you 2 know I'm not a medical doctor, so don't ask me 3 difficult questions. The symptoms -- I've been 4 in the mines for 30 years and I have seen a lot 5 of problems. I would -- it's my best judgment 6 that all the acute problems like eye 7 irritation, throat irritations, possible 8 headaches, you know, is probably gaseous 9 components. I have exposure to CO, NO enough 10 that I don't like to see that. I have seen 11 people dying out of CO and NO2. I base my 12 judgment on that. 13 As far as DPM is concerned, yes, it 14 is no different from coal dust. So, that's 15 your chronic problem. And like many members 16 said here, we certainly would like to know some 17 day what is a safe level. Right now my 18 position is -- or in at least in West Virginia 19 is that minimize particulate to the minimum, we 20 can minimize. 21 MR. JON KOGUT: Okay. Well, in 22 response to that, you know, your opinion about 23 the acute effects, I just want to point out 160 1 that there is body of evidence that relates 2 diesel particulates specifically to acute 3 responses. And I'm just going to quote a 4 sentence out of the proposed rule. It appears 5 on page 17530 of the Federal Register Notice. 6 It says that "There have been a number of 7 recent studies indicating that DPM exposures 8 can induce bronchial inflammation and 9 respiratory immunological allergic responses in 10 humans. These are reviewed in Perterson and 11 Saxon, in 1996, and Diaz-Sanchex, 1997." 12 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: I'm not aware of 13 it. I'm just speaking from practical 14 experience in the mines. 15 MR. THOMAS TOMB: I have one 16 question. In your recommendation for diesel 17 catalyst converters, there's a presentation 18 made in Beckley by, I think, a Mr. Smith, that 19 questioned that application because of the 20 operating temperature in the engines in a lot 21 of the places in the mines? 22 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: Mr. Chairman 23 whenever a manufacturer makes a comment about 161 1 technology, you can suspect some personal 2 bias. Mr. Smith makes a system where they 3 don't have oxidation catalyst as compared to 4 DST. They sell that equipment without the 5 benefit of oxidation catalyst, simply because 6 they cannot provide, they cannot refute the 7 scientific data -- that tremendous job -- what 8 did you say? Gaseous toxic agents in the 9 diesel exhaust. 10 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Thank you. 11 DR. PRAMOD THAKUR: Thank you again. 12 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Our next presenter 13 will be Mr. Cauvle? 14 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: Yes, sir. My name 15 is Mike Cauvle, M-i-k-e C-a-u-v-l-e. I'm the 16 UMWA member on the safety committee for U.S. 17 Steel Mining, with 30 years experience. 18 Okay. I work at Concord preparation 19 plant, which is not covered under this law. 20 Inside our plant we have forklifts and Bobcats, 21 which are diesel, with no scrubbers; we don't 22 make no test and no test is required. We have 23 three bulldozers, two front-end loaders that 162 1 puts out exhaust, depending on the location of 2 equipment and the wind comes through the 3 windows and the doors and all. I personally 4 work at the thermodryer, where we use diesel to 5 spray on the coal to ignite our fire to begin 6 with and throughout the day, you have to add 7 diesel to maintain your fire. 8 We have in the winter time, we have 9 different type heaters, but we have some 10 heaters in our plant that's called Salamanders 11 (phonetic) all it is, it's just basically 12 diesel burning if barrel is what is amounts to, 13 it puts out black smoke at times. 14 We add diesel to our water system 15 inside the plant for flotation -- I know this 16 is getting away from actually burning of it, 17 but the pumps and all makes the diesel hot. 18 And inside our plant at times, you have your 19 eyes burning, you have headaches, and shortness 20 of breath. 21 We've had roughly 10 to 12 miners in 22 the last ten years that I know of come down 23 with cancer. And I was just wondering -- 163 1 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Ten to 12 miners in 2 the last -- 3 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: Ten years. 4 MR. THOMAS TOMB: -- ten years. 5 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: And I was just 6 wondering roughly what can y'all do to help the 7 miners that work outside on this diesel 8 problem. 9 And that's it. Thank you. 10 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any questions. I 11 guess I have one question. All this equipment 12 that you talked about, your Bobcats, and so 13 forth, are these all operating in the open 14 environment? 15 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: I'm sorry. What 16 now? 17 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Yes. On the 18 equipment that you said at your service 19 operation, is this equipment all operating in 20 open environment? 21 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: The rock trucks, 22 the front-end loaders, and bulldozers are, but 23 the Bobcats and the forklift and all work right 164 1 inside the building, and elevators, you know, 2 lifting equipment. 3 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do they have any 4 kind of control equipment on them? 5 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: Sir? 6 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Do they have any 7 kind of control equipment on them? 8 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: No, sir. Just like 9 a Bobcat or a forklift you see in a warehouse. 10 MR. THOMAS TOMB: There's not 11 converters or anything on them? 12 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: No, sir, none 13 whatsoever. 14 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: Approximately, 15 how many people work at your freight plant. 16 You said you had 10 to 20 cases of cancer -- 17 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: Probably from -- 18 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: -- how many 19 people work there? 20 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: Sixty-two People 21 work at the prep plant on three shifts. But 22 now some of them at this point is done retired. 23 My father had colon cancer, and he's already 165 1 retired, which that's been with the last two 2 years. President of our local, Mr. Ray Pate, 3 has had had kidney any cancer, in the last ten 4 years. He's here today. 5 I'm not saying that all of this has 6 to do with diesel, but when you have that many 7 people in that small group, you know, something 8 is causing it. Thank you. 9 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Is maintenance on 10 this equipment done indoors, in the garage, or 11 is it done on the outside? 12 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: Pretty much inside. 13 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Is there anything 14 that -- is the exhaust emitted inside, or do 15 they try to pipe it to the inside? 16 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: It's inside. 17 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: It stays inside? 18 MR. MIKE CAUVLE: Yes, sir. And when 19 it's running, it's inside. When you crank it 20 up and you get smoke, when you moving it, they 21 smoke. You know because it's -- we've never 22 thought that much about it. You know, like I 23 said, it's been an inside issue, but now -- and 166 1 you opened the door up awhile ago about when 2 you asked a question about the outside people. 3 And like I said, I can see where we might be 4 having a real problem. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Thank you 6 very much. Is there anybody else at this time 7 that would like to make a presentation. Okay, 8 Mr. Duncan. 9 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Good afternoon. 10 My name is Jeffrey A. Duncan. I gave you my 11 business card. I'm the Deputy Administrator of 12 the Department of Occupational Health and 13 Safety for United Mine Workers of America. 14 I just want to touch on a few things 15 today. I'd like to clear up some things that 16 may have been misunderstood, may have been 17 misrepresented. But before I start, I would 18 like to thank this Panel for permitting me to 19 share my comments today, and I'd also like to 20 thank the Panel and the Agency for taking this 21 important rulemaking on. 22 I will submit to the record, prior to 23 February 16th, final written comments from the 167 1 United Mine Workers. But some of the things 2 that I've heard here and the two other hearings 3 that I attended and got a report back from Mt. 4 Vernon here kind of left me puzzled about some 5 things. 6 I've heard mine operators say that 7 they would like to be given the flexibility to 8 use the integrated approach to control diesel 9 particulate exposure. They want to use one or 10 more of the measures contained in the MSHA 11 Toolbox. They want to be able to pick and 12 choose which of those measures that will apply. 13 And, you know, I've a little bit of a problem 14 with just a random approach. 15 I think it would be very difficult to 16 verify and very difficult to enforce. But I 17 guess, the thing that puzzles me the most about 18 what the operators have said: They keep 19 saying, Give us the flexibility. My question 20 to the operators is: What's stopping you from 21 doing it right now. The Toolbox has been out 22 there for quite some time. Most of that stuff 23 came from that meeting the Beckley, West 168 1 Virginia, but the Toolbox has been published. 2 There is absolutely no regulation that 3 prohibits the operators from using what is in 4 that Toolbox right now. All those other 5 things. I don't think a lot of them are being 6 used. 7 As with ventilation and fuel quality 8 and maintenance and clean burning engines, I 9 don't think those things are stand-alone 10 methods for controlling diesel particulate 11 matter. And I don't think they can always be 12 relied on. Clean burning engines, if they're 13 not maintained are going to produce a lot of 14 diesel particulate. It will emit the higher 15 levels DPM. If ventilation -- and we've heard 16 a lot of information in the four public 17 hearings from mines about how we can't rely on 18 ventilation, and there's got to hundreds, maybe 19 thousands of citations that have been entered 20 into the record; ventilation citation. 21 We really can't rely on ventilation 22 to protect miners. If we have a series of 23 engine faults, if we've got a restriction in 169 1 the intake, that can cause particulate 2 emissions to increase. But the one thing that 3 kind of serves as the catchall is that filter 4 that the exhaust has to pass through 5 immediately before it's emitted into the mine 6 atmosphere. Excuse me, I think I'm getting dry 7 like Dr. Thakur. 8 We do agree with the integrated 9 approach to control this diesel particulate 10 matter. But the fact of the matter is we 11 believe that the -- an integrated approach, a 12 fully integrated approach includes a 13 requirement for diesel particulate filters on 14 every piece of diesel-powered equipment. And 15 that's where -- and, you know, I really 16 appreciate everything that, you know, MSHA has 17 done this rulemaking. I just wish you would 18 have gone further. I don't think you quite got 19 to where you need to be. And, you know, if we 20 filter one-third of all diesel in underground 21 coal mines, and leave the other two-thirds out 22 there, then we're certainly not where we need 23 to be. 170 1 Clearly, you've heard a lot of 2 testimony from miners that have talked about 3 maintenance being a problem. Maintenance is an 4 even bigger problem for outby equipment, 5 because there is no requirements for 6 permissibility test. MSHA inspectors don't 7 inspect outby equipment for permissibility. 8 And often times outby equipment -- and this 9 hasn't changed for 20 years. It was like this 10 when I first started in an underground coal 11 mine. Outby equipment gets operated until it 12 breaks, then it gets repaired. 13 So, we need to make sure that we're 14 doing something to protect miners from the 15 emissions coming off of those outby-diesel 16 engines. 17 I heard Mr. Patts' comments earlier, 18 and he stressed the fact that diesel eliminates 19 trolly. I found out after the Beckley hearing, 20 talking to one of the miners that works at VP 8 21 Mine that they've had diesel-powered equipment 22 in the VP 8 Mine, Consol Mine, for quite some 23 time and still have energized trolly wire. So, 171 1 it doesn't necessarily eliminate trolly. And, 2 I guess, that raises another safety concern of 3 mine when we've got diesel fuel being 4 transported in a mine that's got a trolly 5 wire. So, it isn't necessarily an either/or. 6 Miners have also addressed the issue of 7 what MSHA Considers as light duty not 8 permissible diesel-powered equipment. And I 9 could tell by the question that several of you 10 were real interested in this question. The 11 issue about how often it's run and how hard it 12 gets run, what kind of load it's placed under. 13 I think that the answer that you got from the 14 miners is that light-duty outby or light-duty 15 nonpermissible diesel-powered equipment is run 16 often and it's run hard. 17 We really need to consider that when 18 you prepare the final rule. It doesn't get run 19 for only brief periods of time each shifts, and 20 it's not operated at low speed and with little 21 or no load. 22 I understand that at least one of the 23 public hearings there was an issue raised about 172 1 a Rohmac ceramic- type system, and how the type 2 system sat in a lab at West Virginia University 3 for two or three months. This was part of the 4 West Virginia Diesel Equipment Commission 5 study. My response to that is: Were real 6 anxious to get that thing tested. As a matter 7 of fact, on a few occasions, I contacted Dr. 8 Giedum (phonetic) myself and asked him about 9 the status of the test and why the engine 10 wasn't being tested. It was on the original 11 work-plan, February 1. And come to the find 12 out that some of the operators had been be 13 contact with Dr. Giedum and made adjustments to 14 the work-plan, they kind of pushed it back 15 somewhat. 16 I think that Rohmac, and there maybe 17 some other exhaust after-treatment 18 manufacturers are up and coming. I think that, 19 you know, they're producing a good product, 20 that product, from what I understand, is going 21 to be the subject of a meeting in Pennsylvania 22 next Wednesday; I believe it's the 23rd. I 23 think, from what I understand is correct, that 173 1 Rohmac is going to approach the West Virginia 2 Diesel Technical Advisory Committee and may 3 even be in a position to submit something for 4 approval. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: West Virginia or 6 Pennsylvania? 7 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Pennsylvania. I 8 think the meeting is Uniontown, Pennsylvania, 9 on the 23rd. And there's also a -- I've heard 10 each and everyone of these hearings that, you 11 know, there's only two pieces of diesel-powered 12 equipment in Pennsylvania, and right now that's 13 accurate. I'll say this first: When it comes 14 into Pennsylvania; it's going to come in the 15 right way, and we are not going to hurt minors 16 with it. 17 But I'd also like to share with you 18 that there's a company -- Bob Murray, I believe 19 the name of the operation is CRG; it's near 20 Black Lick, Pennsylvania. And they're in the 21 process right now of getting a DST-equipped MWM 22 Deutz ready for approval in Pennsylvania. And 23 this isn't a big operators. I think the mine 174 1 probably employees about 30 or 40 miners, maybe 2 a growing operation. But there is going to be 3 more diesel-powered equipment in Pennsylvania. 4 There may be some things and the Pennsylvania 5 Legislation that need adjusted. For instance, 6 the ventilation rates that we use for 7 Pennsylvania rely on old MSHA regulations. 8 But miners in Pennsylvania when diesel 9 equipment is issued are going to be protected. 10 Now, Cyprus (phonetic) operates the 11 Emerly and Cumberland (phonetic) Mines in 12 Pennsylvania. They've indicated to me several 13 times, over the that several months that they 14 also intend to bring more diesels into their 15 operations. 16 And there is one other operator that 17 I would consider a large operator in 18 Pennsylvania. We used to have three, now 19 there's only two. But I was told -- I was told 20 emphatically that that operator would never 21 purchase a DST, and I don't think it had 22 anything to do with -- anything more than the 23 technology, a partner in that technology is 175 1 another coal operator. 2 I got just a few other things I'd 3 like to run one through. I understand there's 4 been some comments made about the -- some 5 complaints about the requirement for the diesel 6 -- or information you put into the ventilation 7 plan, and I think that's absolutely necessary. 8 The requirements -- and they didn't -- you 9 know, I reviewed those requirements; they 10 didn't seem extreme to me. I think that 11 clearly, like the respirable dust 12 requirements, that we need to be able to track 13 that information and track it through the 14 ventilation plan. I think that if it's in the 15 plan, then everybody should be aware of what 16 the requirements are. 17 I've also heard that the training 18 requirements are too broad. And I'm not sure I 19 understand that. In Pennsylvania -- and I 20 believe that the Pennsylvania Legislation was 21 submitted at an earlier public hearing, maybe a 22 couple of them. But in Pennsylvania we got 23 very specific about training for both the 176 1 operators and mechanics. 2 The requirements in this regulation, 3 I believe, are, you know, much less strict than 4 what we did in Pennsylvania. I think that the 5 information -- and there's only about four 6 things that they're really required to cover, 7 and I think they're all important. I think the 8 miners should know what health risk associated 9 with exposure to diesel particulate matter 10 are. I think that they should be aware of the 11 methods that are used in the mine to control 12 diesel particulate. 13 I think they should know who's 14 responsible for maintaining the controls. And 15 I think they should be trained on the actions 16 that they personally have to take to assure 17 that those controls are working. 18 In response to -- I think Bob had a 19 question that I really wanted to clear up or 20 statement that he made. Give he just one 21 minute here. Bob, you mentioned for outby 22 equipment that the outby ventilation 23 requirements would be taken care of by the 177 1 diesel-safety standards. That is a problem, 2 that is a problem. And the reason it's a 3 problem is that the ventilation requirements 4 for operation of multiple units of 5 diesel-powered equipment on working sections 6 than in areas where recognized mining equipment 7 is being installed and removed. They are 8 established in 30 CFR part 75.4.5 G have -- 9 that's 100 percent, 100 percent, 100 percent 10 rule. But unlike those requirements for 11 diesel-powered equipment that's operated outby, 12 there are no additional requirements requiring 13 more air than the amount required for a single 14 unit of diesel-powered equipment. On multiple 15 pieces of diesel-powered equipment are used 16 outby the section loading point. Even though, 17 many of the same basic engines are used to 18 power both inby and outby diesel-powered 19 equipment, the standard makes a distinction and 20 requires much less air for the machines 21 operated outby. 22 And since we are talking about 23 ventilation in outby equipment, when we look at 178 1 the diesel particulate index, we see another 2 significant weakness in the ventilation 3 requirements for diesel-powered equipment. MSHA 4 regulations establish approval 5 plate-ventilation rates for all diesel engines 6 used in underground coal mines. The approval 7 plate-ventilation rates are calculated on the 8 basis of the quantity of air necessary to 9 dilute of the gaseous components of the 10 emissions to levels established by the 11 regulations. The approval-plate rates do not 12 address a pollution of diesel particulate 13 matter. 14 And as mentioned in the preamble to 15 the proposed rule, the particulate guide index 16 is a guide for the mining industry to use, to 17 compare engines. The particulate index 18 provides a comparison based on the quantity of 19 air that would be required to dilute the 20 particulate emissions to a concentration of 21 one milligram per cubic meter. 22 Now, I've heard a lot of people say 23 that, you know, no one has set a PEL, and I 179 1 agree. And I don't know that, you know, we are 2 in a position to set an a PEL. But I would 3 like to believe that if we were going to set a 4 PEL right now, right today, that it wouldn't be 5 1.0 milligram per cubic meter. I mean, that is 6 such a high concentration. And we can do so 7 much better. And I think all of the evidence 8 -- and Dr. Weeks summarized it in his comments. 9 I think all the evidence indicates the 10 concentrations that miners are exposed to 11 should be much lower, emphatically protected. 12 But, anyway, on the particulate index 13 does not establish the exposure level. It does 14 provide a simply methodology for comparing 15 particulate emissions. And if we use the air 16 quantity requirements for comparing diesel 17 particulate emissions, using those, is a method 18 that we can -- that can easily be used by the 19 industry to make a comparison of the engine. 20 The weakness in the ventilation 21 requirements is revealed in the comparative 22 approval-plate ventilation rates with the 23 particulate index. On the ventilation 180 1 requirements, in 75325, only make ventilation 2 requirements fixed by the approval-plate 3 ventilation rate. In many cases, the 4 particulate index indicates the quantities two 5 to three times higher than necessary to just 6 dilute the particulate down to one milligram. 7 Without particulate filters, this can 8 cause a situation where miners are exposed to 9 very high concentrations to diesel particulate. 10 This problem is compounded, when we consider 11 that the ventilation regulations for multiple 12 units of light-duty diesel-powered equipment 13 that are operated outby the working section, 14 only require the approval-plate ventilation 15 rate of one unit to be provided. To just of 16 kind of give you an example, if we were to use 17 example of two light duties tractors -- and 18 light duty only by MSHA definition in the Cat 19 3306 -- the ventilation regulations, if those 20 two pieces of equipment where operated in the 21 same entry, in the same split of air, the 22 ventilation requirement would be 7500 CFM, 23 using the particulate index -- and by the way 181 1 the particulate index is 23,000 CFM for a Cat 2 3306 150-horsepower diesel engine. These got 3 particulate index, just to get to 1.0 milligram, 4 would require 46,000 CFM of air. And that's 5 pretty huge difference. And, you know, I think 6 that even if the equipment isn't operated eight 7 hours a day or eight hours a shift, that the 8 levels are so high, and the ventilation 9 requirements are so low, that we are not even 10 coming close to protecting miners. 11 Another thing I'd like to encourage 12 the Panel to look at is an on-board engine 13 performance and diagnostic system. I don't 14 think this is a high-cost item, but I think it 15 does -- particularly where we are requiring 16 filters, I think it does pay some benefits. 17 You know most miners are not diesel-engine 18 mechanics. They don't have the tools to 19 analyze diesel engine's performance, but you 20 give them a couple of simple tools in their 21 cab, they can tell a lot about the operation or 22 how the engine's operating. 23 You know certainly -- and there are 182 1 some gauges that are routinely provided. 2 Excuse me. They need to be able to determine 3 the engine speed, naturally, and the operating 4 hours. But when we start looking at things 5 like total intake and restriction and total 6 exhaust-back pressure, the exhaust/gas 7 temperature, engine oil pressure, temperature 8 -- engine oil temperature, I think that, you 9 know, for a miner that, you know, that can see 10 a red line -- and these are any gauges that I'm 11 speaking of, like what you have in your 12 automobile. 13 But if he can see when that thing is 14 going out of range, it tells him that he needs 15 to seek out a maintenance person, and he needs 16 to have the system checked out. 17 Now, if the intake restriction is too 18 great, we are going to have a fuel situation, 19 and we are going to increase the particulate. 20 If the back pressure is too great -- actually, 21 I think the operators would like to hear this 22 -- but a back-pressure gauge would tell them -- 23 would warn the equipment operator before the 183 1 back pressure gets so great that it actually 2 damages the engine. 3 But I honestly think that the 4 on-board engine performance diagnostic system 5 is relatively simple. A thing that we can put 6 on diesel equipment that it will help provide 7 some protection to miners. 8 I think that pretty much -- well, 9 actually, there are just a couple of things. 10 I'd like to say for the record that this is a 11 legal proceeding under the Mine Act and that 12 all miners that are here, have a legal right 13 and, as a matter of fact, a protected right to 14 come here and offer comments. We've had 15 several do that. But I would like to caution 16 anybody, because we have had some situations 17 where miners have been retaliated against for 18 offering testimony at different proceedings. 19 But I would like to caution everyone that this 20 is a protected activity, and section 105 C of 21 the Mine Act protects miners of such 22 retaliation. 23 I'm ready for some questions. 184 1 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you Mr. 2 Duncan. Questions? I guess there are no 3 question. Thank you very much. 4 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Thank you. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Is there anybody 6 else in the audience that would like to take 7 this opportunity before we close the meeting to 8 make a statement or presentation? 9 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: If you allow me, 10 sir, one more chance. It's like everything 11 else, when you sit here and listen, some things 12 come back to you. I'm William Sawyer, local 13 1926. I'd like to apologize to Dr. Cantrell 14 for not recognizing him. I believe he's played 15 a big part in getting our regs set up for our 16 diesels now. 17 MR. THOMAS TOMB: When you mentioned 18 his name, he slumped down in the chair there. 19 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Second, I've 20 also noticed a change of heart in Dr. Thakur. 21 I believe it was in '95, that he did not have 22 any confidence in the dry-bed system and now I 23 hear him promoting catalytic converts, so 185 1 that's a plus. 2 Also in that hearing up there, there 3 was a brother from Canada that questioned a 4 member of the Panel that was a representative 5 of Mr. McAteer and the Canadians keep a record 6 of their coal miners. If they died during 7 their work years or after their work years, 8 they know what caused. 9 It came up about workman's comp, our 10 miners in Alabama -- and this is not offensive, 11 but we were ignorant to the fact of the results 12 of diesel until all of these tests started 13 coming out. So, naturally, we wouldn't go 14 report sick if we came down with some kind of 15 -- like me, I've got bronchitis continuously. 16 I have acute bronchitis occasionally, and I 17 also have bronchial asthma that I used to 18 didn't have. Okay. And I've got a stack of 19 medical records on it this think (indicating) 20 but I'm unique situation. I've been exposed to 21 three things that causes this and nobody knows 22 what caused it is. Is there any plans of that 23 were if people -- if we did have a rash of 186 1 cancer deaths, which I believe we have 2 different type cancers, that we would have a 3 record of peopling passing away with cancer. 4 You know lung cancer is the main issue that 5 I've heard today, but there is also, I believe, 6 two other type of cancer that are linked to the 7 results of diesel particulate. I think kidney 8 is one and there's another one. 9 So, is there any plans for that? 10 Another question, and I'm sorry, but these 11 things are coming. I asked some of these 12 questions in '94, '95, and I'm still without 13 answer, or even to take into consideration. 14 Another thing I happen to hear: the 15 burning eyes, the irritated throat, the 16 irritated lungs, but I haven't heard sleepiness 17 or becoming sleepy while you're operating 18 these diesels. And it is a fact -- and if my 19 brothers could testify again, they would say 20 sleepiness is one of the major things while 21 you're running diesel equipment. We have no 22 record of miners that have had wrecks after 23 they have got their shifts. We have had 187 1 records of miners falling asleep operating this 2 equipment. 3 The fifth thing is training. Now, I 4 happen to participate in the training under the 5 regs for diesel now. And I know what I'm 6 suppose to check, as to what the regs require, 7 but, as brother Jeff said, I don't believe it's 8 sufficient. The main concern we are looking at 9 to see if that equipment engine is getting into 10 a danger state. And it's being done, but as 11 far as the diesel particulate, the smoke is 12 there. The diesel smoke is there. And when it 13 gets to a point where people complain about it, 14 that's when it becomes an issue. But is our 15 training adequate, as to our regs? 16 The last thing I would ask that I 17 told you -- you know, y'all are the Panel and 18 y'all are listening to the testimony, and I 19 would ask that y'all do an adequate job, not 20 that you're not. But I've been asking were the 21 Federal Government -- and I recall your 22 recollection back to '68, '69, '70, '71, and 23 '72 -- sprayed in Vietnam. People died from 188 1 it, but at the time it was a good thing. 2 Second, there was a more common thing 3 Rock Loc (phonetic), which was a good thing, 4 but then after it was a good thing, peoples' 5 health started getting involved. 6 Diesel, diesels are good, but they 7 have to be to where they're not a hazard to the 8 miners. We put diesels in the mines without 9 thorough investigation, research, and test of 10 this equipment. We are far above where we 11 were, but are we far enough. 12 I asked a question in '94 and '95 13 from an environmental man that was concerned 14 about the mines -- and I've heard it asked 15 today -- When you get this diesel equipment at 16 95 percent diesel particulate free, and that 17 five percent that's still out there, how long 18 does it take for that to hurt a man? I don't 19 think there's an answer to that, are there? 20 So, consider all things, and make our 21 mines a safe place for our brother and sisters 22 to work. As I stated up there in that hearing 23 -- at that time my son was getting ready to 189 1 enter the field of labor. At that time, I 2 would not have had him go into mining because 3 of all of the hazard. Diesel is a hazard. The 4 test show that diesel can cause human harm. 5 Please research, and when you come up 6 with findings on these rules, have diesel to 7 where I it is a safe piece of equipment that 8 can run in our mines and not damage our 9 health. 10 I thank you. 11 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Would you like to 12 answer his questions? 13 MR. WILLIAM McKINNEY: Chances are 14 your sleepiness is caused by carbon monoxide. 15 MR. THOMAS TOMB: I didn't quite 16 understand what you were -- I thought it was a 17 question about other cancers besides lung 18 cancer. 19 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Well, back then 20 NIOSH had a study of diesels that were kind of 21 being ignored that the did a study, I believe, 22 back in the late '60s or in the '70s. There 23 was a book that was up there. But MSHA wanted 190 1 to do their own studies, and rightfully so, 2 because I've worked under NIOSH law, too. Were 3 they not -- I may be wrong, but if I'm not far 4 off, there were different types of cancer 5 associated -- or risk of cancers associated 6 with diesel particulate. 7 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Well, there are -- 8 is the question whether there were different 9 types of cancer? 10 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Apart from -- 11 MR. THOMAS TOMB: There has been some 12 -- I'd say, the way that the risk assessment 13 that we published characterizes is that it's 14 not conclusive evidence. There has been some 15 association and some studies of exposure to 16 diesel emissions with bladder cancer, but the 17 conclusion of the risk assessment was that that 18 evidence was not strong enough to led you us to 19 identify bladder cancer as something caused by 20 exposure to diesel particulate. 21 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: What I was 22 talking about, they did their studies on like 23 diesel mechanic workshops outside. It had to 191 1 do with all -- you know in bus terminals, where 2 they did the studies on the bus and all. But I 3 remembered that there was more than just lung 4 cancer that were mentioned in that study. 5 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Right. There have 6 been -- in many of the studies that have been 7 carried out, the authors of the studies have 8 looked a variety of different effects, not just 9 lung cancer, but other forms of cancer and 10 other conditions that might be developed, and 11 those are addressed in the risk assessment, but 12 the attentive conclusion that MSHA came to, 13 after reviewing all of these studies, was that 14 the only form of cancer for which there is 15 strong evidence that there's an association 16 with that is caused by exposure to diesel 17 emissions is lung cancer. 18 Now, it might be that there is an 19 effect on other forms of cancer, also, but 20 there isn't strong evidence showing that. 21 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Substantial 22 evidence showing that? 23 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Yes. 192 1 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: See, as a rep 2 for miners that concerns me, because in '94, 3 '95. They didn't want to take the rat test to 4 go by for what it would cause on humans. And 5 y'all may remember the statement. I believe, 6 weren't you on the Panel up at Beckley? 7 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Yes. 8 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: And I said, 9 Let's don't throw our rats away, because the 10 whole human system is based on the studies on 11 rats. But that -- I'm sorry if I was wrong, 12 but I knew there was month cancers mentioned in 13 that study and that was seven years ago, five 14 years ago. And I knew there was more cancer 15 study, and all I heard today was lung, which I 16 haven't read any of the studies since then, so 17 I thank you for your clarification. 18 MR. THOMAS TOMB: A couple of 19 comments with respect to questions or comments 20 you made. I think there is a cancer registry 21 in this Country that tracks all people that get 22 cancer and gets information with occupation and 23 things like that. So, there is there a cancer 193 1 registry for that. 2 Also one point is concerning your 3 effect of the five percent diesel that's left. 4 I think it's important to realize -- and this 5 is in the preamble -- that this rule is a 6 feasibility rule. And we are trying to get the 7 occupational exposure of miners down to where 8 other occupational exposures are. And this 9 rule in no way is intended to get rid of all 10 diesel particulate in the mining environment. 11 So, I stress that this is a feasibility rule, 12 what we are attempting here. 13 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: I also 14 understand when you get to the five percent 15 ventilation and do a lot more damage to it than 16 it can at the 35, 40 percent. You've got less 17 you have to worry about. I was wondering, we 18 don't have results of what that five would 19 cause over a long time of periods, whether it 20 causes anything or not. 21 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Well, you have 22 range of risk assessment out there and somebody 23 keeps mentioning 900 and 1,000, which I think 194 1 is an exorbitantly high risk factor that's 2 being thrown around here. But we don't know 3 what that is, but again the point is: This is 4 a feasibility rule. 5 And I didn't understand one point 6 that you were trying to make relative to, is 7 the training adequate? I'm not sure I 8 understood what you were trying to say. 9 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Okay. On that 10 -- I do the outby training under the '97 regs 11 on the light duty and the heavy duty. And the 12 training for that -- and like I say, we did 13 install a catalytic converter on one of our 14 diesels to see what it would do. And it 15 improved, as far as the smoke, but still we 16 don't know what kind of particulates are coming 17 out. As our electricians -- and what I 18 understood that you don't get certified to do 19 what's under the regs, you become qualified 20 with adequate training. And we not have 21 certified diesel mechanics underground. Now, 22 we're a little better than our brother at Jim 23 Walter because we have an underground motor pit 195 1 that has electricians that pulls this equipment 2 in weekly and checks it, as to what the regs of 3 '97 require. 4 They have to send it outside, but 5 for diesel mechanic work on that engine, other 6 than -- and this is even on our sections other 7 than changing heads out, setting the latches to 8 valves. You can change the injector pump out, 9 but you can't go in and adjust that pump, 10 because it's preadjusted and got a lid seal on 11 it. The only thin you have to worry about is 12 the timing. You have to depend on whoever 13 sends that injection out, that it's right. in 14 As brother Jeff said, when they come 15 up on this condition they don't know. The only 16 thing that the miners know is when it starts 17 irritating them, in whatever way, in their 18 eyes, their throat, whatever, or if the smoke 19 gets so bad that they can't stand it. 20 MR. THOMAS TOMB: But I still don't 21 understand your point about training. Are you 22 saying miners should be trained on how to fix 23 the engine? 196 1 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: No, because 2 that's diesel mechanics. 3 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Right. Okay. 4 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: I understand it 5 goes outside to be rebuilt, but as far as the 6 training on what -- and all the electrician 7 does is the mechanic work, too, in our mines, 8 other than going into the internal part of the 9 engine. They understand that when they're 10 taught that 2,500 parts per minute is the limit 11 you pull the engine out of service. They 12 understand that if this engine starts changing 13 weekly, that it's time to call somebody's 14 attention, because something is going wrong in 15 it. They understand that if the intake air 16 indicator starts loading up, that the engine is 17 not getting sufficient air. But, as far as 18 going into the training, of what's coming up in 19 if '99 regs, I don't believe there's training 20 in that. As far as the amounts of air the 21 engine has not got to have and everything to do 22 with keeping this engine in as good 23 condition -- 197 1 MR. THOMAS TOMB: You mean in our 2 regulation, is that what you're talking about? 3 Or are you saying that should be in there is 4 that what you think? 5 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: For the people 6 that works ON it. 7 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Oh, for maintenance 8 personnel. Is there any other questions? 9 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: You said you put 10 Tally (phonetic) converter on an engine. What 11 kind of vehicle was it? 12 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Jeffrey, it was 13 a Jeffrey motor in it. 14 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Ramcar? 15 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: No. It was a 16 diesel motor, locomotive for the northern 17 miners, locomotives. 18 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Any other 19 questions. We answered your questions 20 hopefully a little bit. 21 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Yes, sir. 22 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Thank you, 23 very much. 198 1 MR. WILLIAM SAWYER: Thank you. 2 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you. One 3 more time. Yes. 4 MR. JIM BRACKNER: Mr. Chairman, I'm 5 Jim Brackner, local 2245. And I also brought 6 copies of some ventilation of citations, and 7 also citations where we were cited for 8 equipment -- diesel equipment not being 9 maintained and in safe operating condition. I 10 would like to enter these into the record. 11 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. Going 12 twice? Yes. 13 MR. GLENN PIERSON: One more question 14 for me. Glenn Pierson, local 1928. I was just 15 curious -- I don't know if I read it, heard it, 16 or assumed it, but in the intake side of -- air 17 intake on the diesel equipment, if methane is 18 present in atmosphere, in the mine atmosphere, 19 which is it is in our mines. Does that not 20 make the engine run richer and the particulate 21 level even higher than normally as it be tested 22 in a laboratory environment? 23 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: We do test the 199 1 permissibility engines with 1 percent methane 2 in the laboratory. So, when you see 3 ventilation rate on the plate in the 4 particulate index, that is account for -- that 5 number raised with that engine running with one 6 percent methane in the intake of engine, so we 7 account for that. 8 MR. GLENN PIERSON: Thank you. 9 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Three times? 10 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Just one 11 verification. 12 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Okay. 13 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: He is only 14 testing the permissible engines. 15 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: That's right. 16 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Now, as a matter 17 of fact -- and I'm going to make an assumption 18 that here in Alabama, we've got some of the 19 hottest, most gaseous mines in the country that 20 in some of those outby areas, we're operating 21 nonpermissible equipment, where there is 22 methane gas present. 23 Similar to northern West Virginia and 200 1 Virginia and some other places where we've got 2 a lot of methane. Now, you are not testing -- 3 you're approval testing for gassy emissions 4 does not include methane for permissible 5 equipment. Correct? 6 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: We approve the 7 engines to the engine manufacture either as 8 category A, which is for use in permissible 9 vehicles where permissible vehicles are 10 required. And category B, where nonpermissible 11 -- or where nonpermissible -- or -- yeah, 12 nonpermissible electrical equipment is 13 required. So, the approval -- the usage comes 14 down to the district, it's enforcement on 15 whether that equipment is allowed. But the 16 nonpermissible is not tested -- 17 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: And -- and we can 18 operate nonpermissible equipment in areas where 19 there are smaller amounts of methane present -- 20 and it happens. 21 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: That's an 22 unfortunate assure. 23 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: And in some 201 1 places, you know, we may occasionally see, you 2 know, 8- or 9-tenths, which is very close to 3 the level where nonpermissible equipment, you 4 know, would not be allowed to operate. But -- 5 or for a National level for methane, I should 6 say, whether it's permissible is not, but 7 that's not factored into the approval and 8 that's the point I wanted to make sure we were 9 clear on. That's not factored into the 10 approval of nonpermissible equipment. 11 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: That's correct. 12 And methane will have an effect on engines out 13 of emissions -- it acts as additional fuel. 14 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: The one that I 15 think is most best example is the Isuzu 2D 100. 16 Nonpermissible application, I believe the 17 particulate index is 8,500 CFM. And the 18 permissible application is 50,000. Is that 19 correct? 20 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: That's the PI. 21 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Yeah, that's 22 what I said. 23 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Yes. 202 1 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: That's with only 2 one percent of methane difference. Right? 3 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: And what's varied 4 in that is -- back that engine off a couple 5 percent on power and that PI is down to about 6 10,000. 7 MR. JEFFREY SASEEN: As a matter of 8 fact, it's -- that's -- at the approval -- 9 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Yes -- 10 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Set up -- set up 11 as approval. 12 MR. GEORGE SASEEN: Right. 13 MR. JEFFREY DUNCAN: Thank you. 14 MR. THOMAS TOMB: Thank you, Mr. 15 Duncan. Did you have a comment, Bob. 16 MR. THOMAS TOMB: I'll start again. 17 Would anybody else like to make a comment 18 before we close the meeting? Okay. 19 I want to thank you all for 20 participating and for your interest and for 21 taking the time to come here and participate in 22 this meeting. We appreciate it, and anybody 23 that has agreed to submit additional 203 1 information to us, I would appreciate it if you 2 would get it to us as soon as possible. 3 Absolutely no later February 16th, 1999. And I 4 want to wish you all a safe trip back and have 5 a nice Christmas. 6 Thank you. 7 8 9 10 (This public hearing for the proposed 11 rule: Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure 12 of underground Coal Miners, was concluded, 13 at approximately 2:45, Thursday, 14 December 17, 1998.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE DOCKET NO.: N/A CASE TITLE: Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure HEARING DATE: December 17, 1998 LOCATION: Birmingham, Alabama I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the United States Department of Labor. Date: December 17, 1998 Stephanie Wray Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation Suite 600 1220 L Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005