UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Public Meeting: Mine Safety and Health Administration Pages: 1 through 160 Place: Portland, Oregon Date: December 15, 1998 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Public Meeting: Mine Safety and Health Administration Tuesday, December 15, 1998 Embassy Suites Oak Room 7900 N.E. 2nd Ave. Portland, Oregon The above-entitled matter began at 8:05 p.m. pursuant to notice. MEMBERS OF THE MSHA PANEL: KATHY ALEJANDRO, Chairperson ROSLYN FONTAINE KEVIN BURNS ROD BRELAND I N D E X PRESENTERS: PAGE: RICH ANGSTROM 8 STEVE MOATS 20 BOB POTTS 63 PETE ZAGAR 85 DAVID GRIFFIN 88 ED SINNER 112 MIKE FALLON 121 JOCK DALTON 135 DAVID CHAVEZ 142 P R O C E E D I N G S 8:05 a.m. MS. ALEJANDRO: My name is Kathy Alejandro, and I am with metal and nonmetal mine safety and health with the Mine Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, and on behalf of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, I would like to welcome you to the fourth of seven public meetings on regulations for miner safety and health training. These meetings are intended to give individuals and organizations, including miners and their representatives and mine operators, both large and small, an opportunity to present their views on the types of requirements that will result in the most effective miner safety and health training. These regulations would apply at those nonmetal surface mines where MSHA currently cannot enforce existing training requirements. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the members of the MSHA panel who are here with me this morning. To my left is Rosalyn Fontaine of the office of standards, regulation and variances with MSHA. To my immediate right is Kevin Burns, who is also with metal and nonmetal mine safety and health. To my far right is Rod Breland who is the western operations manager of the newly formed educational field services with MSHA. Since 1979 MSHA has been guided by a rider to its appropriations. The restriction currently states: "none of the funds appropriate shall be obligated or expended to carry out section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 or to carry out that portion of section 104(g)(1) of such Act relating to the enforcement of any training requirements, with respect to shell dredging, or with respect to any sand, gravel, surface stone, surface, clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface limestone mine." In the Omnibus Budget passed by Congress on October 21, 1998, MSHA was directed to: "work with the affected industries, mine operators, workers, labor organizations, and other affected and interested parties to promulgate final training regulations for the affected industries by September 30, 1999. It is understood that these regulations are to be based on a draft submitted to MSHA by the Coalition for Effective Miner Training no later than February 1, 1999." MSHA expects to publish a proposed regulation in the Federal Register sometime in the early spring of 1999. The regulations that MSHA will be developing must include the minimum requirements in section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. To summarize those requirements: Section 115 provides that every mine operator shall have a health and safety training program that is approved by the Secretary of Labor and that complies with certain requirements. Section 115 specifies that surface miners are to receive no less than 24 hours of new miner training, no less than eight hours of refresher training annually, and task training for new work assignments. Section 115 also requires that the training cover specific subject areas; provides the training is to be conducted during normal work hours at normal rates of pay; requires that miners be reimbursed for additional costs they incur incidental to this training; and provides that mine operators must maintain miners' training certificates and furnish such records to the miners. In addition, MSHA is looking for suggestions and comments as to how best to achieve effective miner safety and health training consistent with the Mine Act, including any additional requirements that should be included in the proposed rule, and most importantly, why. Three public meetings were held last week on this subject in Northbrook, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; and Albany, New York. Other public meetings have been scheduled in three other locations in the coming weeks, including Ontario, California, later this week; and Dallas, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia, after Christmas. These meetings are intended to give as many individuals as possible and organizations an opportunity to present their views. This meeting will be conducted in an informal manner, and a court reporter is making a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Anyone who has not signed up in advance to speak at the meeting and who wishes to do so should sign up on the speakers' list, which is currently located on this table, but I'll be asking if there's anyone here who wishes to speak who has not signed up. We also ask that everyone who is here today, whether or not you wish to speak, to sign the attendance sheet which I believe is now back on the little table in the back of the room. Anyone who wishes may also submit written statements and information to us during the course of this meeting, and we will include this as part of the record when a proposed rule is developed. You may also send us written comments after the meeting has concluded if you wish. Although there is no formal deadline for these written submissions, I would encourage you to submit anything that you wish to be considered on or before February 1st of 1999 to insure that your opinions are taken into account as we develop the proposed rule. Although we are most interested in what you have to say to us, we will also attempt to answer any questions you may have to clarify the process and the purpose of this meeting. We are specifically interested in comments on certain issues and certain areas, although we certainly encourage you to comment on any issue related to miner safety and health training at currently exempt mines. These issues were outlined in the November 3rd Federal Register notice that announced the schedule of public meetings, and I'm going to summarize these issues briefly for you now. Should certain terms, including "new miner" and "experienced miner" be defined? Which subjects should be taught before a new miner is assigned work, even if the work is done under close supervision? Should training for inexperienced miners be given all at once or over a period of time, such as several weeks or months? Should supervisors be subject to the same training requirements as miners? Should task training be required whenever a miner receives a work assignment that involves new and unfamiliar tasks? Should specific subject areas be covered during annual refresher training? If so, what subject areas should be included? Can the eight hours of annual refresher training required by the Mine Act be completed in segments of training lasting less than 30 minutes? Should the records of training be kept by the mine operator at the mine site, or can they be kept at other locations? Finally, should there be minimum qualifications for persons who conduct miner training? If so, what minimum qualifications are appropriate? I would now like to introduce the first speaker this morning. We ask that all speakers state and spell their names for the court reporter before beginning their presentation. Thank you very much. We have one speaker signed up this morning, although I certainly hope that others of you in the audience will choose to participate. Mr. Rick Angstrom from OCAPA has signed up to speak. Mr. Angstrom, could you -- I mean, you can either work at the podium or if you'd prefer to sit down and -- okay, great. RICH ANGSTROM MR. ANGSTROM: Good morning. My name is Rich Angstrom. I'm the managing director for the Oregon Concrete Aggregate Producers Association, and with me is Steve Moats. He works for Morris Brothers, and he'll be here helping out in answering any questions that you might have during the course of the discussion. MS. ALEJANDRO: Great. MR. ANGSTROM: OCAPA is the local trade association that deals with the sand and gravel industries. We work with the legislature and the different government agencies in promoting our industry and working with them on regulations, et cetera, as they come down, and obviously, we're also an association that does an awful lot of training for the membership. Safety, obviously, is one of the most important aspects of life in general but certainly for the miners and mining industry. Nobody -- as I've gone around and talked to folks and have attended various meetings with MSHA, education or, excuse me, safety has always been a primary focus for our membership here. Unfortunately, we've had a few deaths within Oregon over a period of years, one not too long ago that happened to one of our members, and these are things that we want to avoid happening and have appreciated working with MSHA and some of the training activities that we have to effectuate that. One of the things I did want to say to this group, Oregon, we've kind of done -- we've been working with MSHA in providing an annual training course for the members. Last year we did one that had about 250 attendees in it, and it covered a range of topics that MSHA and OCAPA and our membership put together and thought was important. One of the things that we want to make sure that happens, as you folks look at the rule -- and I've read through the rule, and I think it allows for this, as you define operator, and it would include associations for training -- is to allow the Oregon model to continue to happen. For the annual refresher course, it's actually been a pretty good tool. We work with the MSHA folks, and we set up training seminars around the state, so the operators don't have to travel very far, and it's more accommodating to them. We don't do it as a profit or as a profit center for the association. We do it to basically cover costs, and it's a service to our members, and that's because of our commitment to the safety of the mine workers out there. So to recap that point, it's important that as you guys develop the rule that you leave it open enough for different associations and different folks to be able to do training. I understand that there's no question that the initial training for the employee really needs to be at the site. He really needs to be out there and have the walk around and have the hands on at the particular location. The benefit for the different state associations or, for that matter, maybe even some states may choose to hire -- you know, have a private -- one of the educational services out there do the training, but in the initial phase, we all agree that the miner needs to be out there walking around the site and see what the hazards are and have the pointed out to him and have those kinds of orientations done. I think it would be very helpful, as I've thought about this topic, to have -- and one of the things that hopefully you can get some funding for as you develop this is have a videotape or something like that put together for the miners out there to go through certain hazards that they need to look for. You know, it doesn't need to be an eight- hour videotape, but certainly a videotape that the different employers can show their new miners to help in the orientation process. I think one of the difficult challenges that you folks have is you have mines of all different sizes, and you have the really small ones, and I mean literally we have some folks here that are one or two or three mine operators that are members of ours. They're sitting right here. And then we have operators that are the biggest in the state and growing, and it creates a particular challenge for you guys in devising a set of rules that's fair. When you think about the small folks that are out there, when you require an eight-hour annual training, you essentially shut down that operation for a day, and that's pretty expensive, and we're a margin business obviously. It's something that you folks need to balance out when you come up with these rules and be sensitive to the fact that some folks can absorb that a lot easier. Others it's a little more challenging and be patient in working with folks. I wanted to say one thing is I've been a prosecutor for the last eight years, and I have a very rich experience in enforcement, and when you start talking about enforcement, there's many ways of approaching enforcement, and I can tell you as a young DA, boy, I went by the book. I actually have the experience of being a forest practices officer, so I actually was kind of in the police officer's role for a while, also, but, you know, I just went by the book, and I hammered everybody as they came in, and it was pretty blind to where people were at and their condition. I think as I matured and moved up the ladder -- I ended up being a senior prosecutor, and I've handled everything from aggravated murder cases all the way on down -- is you get a little different sense for people's perspectives of where they're at in life, and not every enforcement -- it doesn't always have to be -- it can be tailor made for the individual. When we're talking about training and especially when you start talking about enforcement of training, which is what this is going to ultimately lead to, we only have some general comments on the actual proposals, but obviously if our folks don't comply with those rules, there's going to be enforcement aspects of it that come from it. My concern is what I've been seeing in this particular state is a less desire to work with the membership or the miners and help improve mine conditions and more just slap down any citation no matter how trivial it is. You know, in a sense, I'm worried that we're going to see that with the training end of it, too, and I would hope that there would be some direction or guidance from Washington down to the local folks that you really do need to decide when there is a really significant violation. I know substantial and -- significant and substantial is the criteria, but it appears to me that one of the things, if you're really trying to promote safety and trying to work with folks to promote safety -- and what we're talking about here is saving lives -- that if there are small violations out there that folks have a period of time to correct them before they come back and are rechecked, and if they haven't fixed those minor violations, then they get the citation. Obviously if somebody has a significant and substantial safety violation that they should know, there should be no excuse, but I've seen citations coming in and members talking about that for things that have been overlooked in the past for years, and all of a sudden we're having folks getting cited with 144 citations for not having covers on light bulbs that are, you know, 40 feet in the air in the shops and things like that. What it's doing is it's creating a very harsh atmosphere. It's starting to become -- instead of a cooperative effort in promoting safety, it's becoming us versus them a little bit, and we want to move away from that and back to the more partnership type of issue or type of relationship. I know when you wear all hats, when you're the enforcement agency and you're the regulator, it's very, very difficult to do that. As a matter of fact, in this state we tend to have separated out some of that. We have examples where that's not the case. Like DEQ, they wear both those hats, but, for instance, in the fish and wildlife area, we have the enforcement provision, and then we have the regulatory provision, and they keep them separate, because it's hard for a regulator to wear that hat and develop the relationships and to help improve safety out there when they come in and they wear that OSP or that cop hat at the same time, and our folks know that. So I know that this again is coming back -- at some point it's going to come back to enforcement, lifting that and making sure people do the training, and I think that's appropriate, but I think that you need to engage common sense and understand you have big operators, you have small operators, you have new miners, you have people that hold hats, and that the enforcement person needs to have a little bit of perspective and discretion out there in looking at where things are at. There are some things that you have to be very consistent on, and obviously, significant and substantial violations are things that need consistency. As far as the rules themselves, I've had a chance to read through them, and I think they actually are very good. It sounds like you guys have done a lot of work talking with folks in the mining industry to make sure that the proposed rules for training are well thought out and many sides taken into account, and I can tell some of that appears to have already been done. MS. ALEJANDRO: Are you talking about the draft? MR. ANGSTROM: The draft rules. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. That's the earlier draft from the Coalition. MR. ANGSTROM: I'm talking -- oh, is that -- okay. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. We haven't actually -- MSHA has not developed anything, but there have been a couple of drafts from the Coalition, which is the organization that is going to be submitting their final draft proposed rule to us before February 1st. So I mean, we're, you know, charged by Congress to use that as a basis for the proposed rule that we come up with, but we did not actually -- MSHA did not develop what you've got. MR. ANGSTROM: Right. I had -- was it a resolution from Congress that's in the back here? MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. MR. ANGSTROM: Okay. Yes. I read that, and I thought that this was something put together. As a matter of fact, I thought it had some language in there that it was supposed to be done -- the second sentence, "The conferees are pleased that the industry, the Coalition for Effective Minor Training, MSHA, both acknowledge that the current training regulations do not address" -- I'm not sure exactly where it's at. I thought this was a more of a joint -- some kind of joint -- MS. ALEJANDRO: No, no. MR. ANGSTROM: Joint document. Well, it's a good starting place. Let me just say that. Thank you for that clarification. One of the things, as I've talked to our membership, that we want to make sure happens, and that is the paperwork issue. We spend a lot of time filling out paperwork for all sorts of agencies, and what we don't need is a whole bunch more paperwork to fill out, but what we do need is we need some consistency in the paperwork. So when Dalton Sand & Gravel that's right over here fills out the form, it's the same form that Morris Brothers fills out that's sitting next to me, and that's going from your small to your big, and I think that's going to be -- one, it's fair to all the folks. One of the things from the business side that's very important is we like to know what's expected of us and to have all the rules kind of laid out, so there's no ambiguity in those kinds of things. So the comment that I've been hearing is at least that the paperwork needs to be consistent among the operators and that it would be best -- and I don't know if this is something -- how you guys would do this, but we think it would be something that you folks would put together since you're going to be developing the rules. The paperwork to report at the same time should be developed at the same -- along at the same time. MS. ALEJANDRO: Are you talking about the actual forms? MR. ANGSTROM: Yeah, that the folks would be filing and putting in the employee file. As I read through this at least -- and I'm going from this -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. ANGSTROM: -- is where my comments were based. There's lot of requirements that paperwork be filled out for this activity or this training or that training, and frankly, if you think about it, if you're going to come in and you're going to enforce some kind of training rule, there's got to be some way to be able to do that, right? And what needs to be done there is consistency, and hopefully you guys would do that, so you don't have a bunch of forms. What you'll find is you'll have some folks that will have real elaborate forms and some folks that will just fill something out handwritten on a scrap piece of paper and throw it in the file some place, and I think that would be -- I think that would lead to some enforcement problems as well as some consistency problems in making sure training is done uniformly around the state. The one thing is on the -- referring to this again, that there be compliance within 60 days -- let's see, the 24 hours would be -- 24-hour training would be done within 60 days, and the first eight hours would be done before the person is put out on the site, and the remaining 16 would be done sometime in that 60-day period. The comments I've heard on that issue -- and you think kind of wearing your employer hat, and I came out kind on the government side, and we had our probation period for six -- you know, it was kind of that six-month period. You didn't know if you were going to be on or be off, and people during that probation period tend to -- when the probation period is up, usually you have a good sense of who is going to stay and who is not, and that tends to be the time where people are let go. Sometimes, you know, it's not going to work out earlier than that. It would be an expense, and it seems to me that the best approach to that would be within the reasonable probation period. I know some people have a year. I don't know if that's reasonable, but I certainly think six months to get that other 24 hours or 16 hours of training in so the employer knows that he's going to actually keep that person on board. Now, he can do it sooner than that if he knows this is a good employee. What you do, do by doing that, you may have kind of a collateral effect of having an employer making a determination, well, you know, I'm going to waste two more days and pay this guy for nothing, and instead of working with the guy, you know, the new employee and trying to, you know, see if it's just kind of a new -- you know, he's new to the mining industry and it's taking him a while to get on, they may make some decisions earlier. They may not be as fair to the new employee himself. So it appears to me that a probation period, it needs to kind of match that probation period, and 60 days, that seems kind of arbitrary and odd. I don't know what your guys' thoughts were on that. That might be useful for the folks here to know what the thought process was on that. The other thing on that is that the timing of this rule is fairly important, and to take someone out for two days during June when the construction season is booming is one thing to finish off the training. It's another thing to do it in January and February when the rains come and we're all kind of sitting a little bit idle, and frankly, that's how we try to do our programs here at OCAPA is during that idle time, so we're not disruptive in the mining process. When this rule comes into effect in September, all of a sudden you're going to find that folks are going to have to start complying within 60 days getting those 24 hours in right in the -- that really is the heat. I mean, you know, usually you got all of those construction projects getting backed right up into September, October, November. You know, everything gets kind of mad in the construction industry right around that period of time, and then to pull somebody, you know, basically -- and I got to say this, too. When you pull someone out, give them training, you know, it may six people to run a crew for a mining operation. You pull a person out to do that, you shut that operation down, or you're going to have to do, you know, some other -- find some other alternative to that, but there is that kind of collateral consequence, and folks just don't have extra people hanging around to come in for someone, you know, for the training period. Let's see, I think I covered my points. I wanted for just a second just to ask Steve Moats sitting next to me if I've left out anything or if he's had any comments. STEVE MOATS MR. MOATS: The only -- speak down here? My comment would be in that new miner training would task training be in addition to the 24 hours of new miner training? MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. I mean, I think that that's generally the way that we've looked at it traditionally, I mean in part 48, is that there's specific requirements for initial training, 24 hours, eight hours of annual refresher and then task training on top of that for new tasks. So I think that, you know -- I mean, we can talk about it, but I mean, I certainly have been thinking this task training is something that's separate and apart from annual refresher retraining. MR. MOATS: Okay. Are you going to get the rest of these, certification of trainer? MR. ANGSTROM: Go ahead. MR. MOATS: The other question that comes to mind is certifying our trainees. If we truly go site specific -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Right. MR. MOATS: -- obviously we have to have what you bring up, competent trainers -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Right. MR. MOATS: -- and would that be training sessions through your people through your training education that you're going to bring into Oregon? MS. ALEJANDRO: Well, I mean, that's wide open, I mean, because the Act itself does not have minimum requirements for qualifications for people who provide training. MR. MOATS: Yes. MS. ALEJANDRO: So as far as, you know, when we're talking about this rule, I mean, we've got a lot of flexibility, and I can tell you -- I mean, in the three meetings that we've had up till now, I mean, we've had a pretty wide range of comments. Some people believe that the model ought to be what's done under part 48 right now, which is, you know, formal approval, instructor approval process. I mean, other people have been very strong in saying that they think that the best training is going to be given by those people who are on site who are familiar with the operation, and then if you impose too many requirements on people, you know, in those categories, then you're going to make it very hard for them to give effective training. And I mean essentially -- I mean, you're saying -- you know, you could say that it's a competent person, and there's no formal approval process. MR. MOATS: Right. MS. ALEJANDRO: So I mean, it's really been all over the map. So I mean, you know, we would appreciate you addressing that issue. MR. MOATS: One of the things that we've done -- and I can't speak for everybody in here, but we went through supervisor training with your people in early nineties, and we have been putting on this function since '90, and your people have signed -- we have two basically qualified trainers in our company that have been signed off by your people, and our question is obviously if we go to each site and we got to incremental training, that's a full-time job for one or two trainers for as many sites as we have. So, you know, if you compound that in 30-minute increments over a course of the year for refresher training course, you know, times that by 16, like I said, that is going to be very difficult. So I would encourage MSHA to put on a certificate of training course for the supervisors so that we can do -- so we are qualified and competent in task training and documentation and be more site specific if that's the way that we choose to do this. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. All right. Do you have anything else? I've got a couple questions actually if you have nothing further. MS. ANGSTROM: I'm done with my list. MR. MOATS: Go ahead with -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Excuse me? MR. ANGSTROM: You had a question? MS. ALEJANDRO: Oh, okay. Mr. Angstrom, you said that your organization provides annual training for your members? MR. ANGSTROM: Right. MS. ALEJANDRO: Is it annual refresher training for miners? Is that what you're talking about? MR. ANGSTROM: What we did last year, because of a couple of deaths that happened and I think a request from our members, is we put on a training course in combination with MSHA that lasted a day throughout various parts of the state, and total there was 250 miners that attended it, and it was a good way of dealing with -- from our perspective, a good way of dealing with the annual requirement that MSHA or under -- that's in the rules themselves. I know they're not being enforced, but it's within the rule, and my point was that what we didn't want is for you to adopt a rule that would prevent that kind of thing. It's easy for the state association, who represents a broad spectrum -- and we have like 95 percent of the folks within our association -- to hit a broad -- you know, hit a broad number, a broad -- we could have a broad coverage working with MSHA and the state association, and we bring in speakers and do all of those kinds of things to cover certain topics that are worked out, whether it's through a committee or with MSHA themselves. We sit down and talk with the different operators what seems to be of issue. For instance, I think I brought a copy of it. It's probably sitting back there, but I actually brought a copy of the agenda from our last -- let me just, if I might, hand you guys a copy of this. MS. ALEJANDRO: Sure, yes. We'll put it in the record. MR. ANGSTROM: I only have four copies. MS. ALEJANDRO: That's all right. MR. ANGSTROM: And, you know, these topics would change obviously from year to year, you know, whatever seems to be the hot issues around the country. MS. ALEJANDRO: Right. MR. ANGSTROM: But it's a good way of just covering -- you know, getting to a whole bunch of folks, and this was the first year we did it, and we had 250. I'm sure -- and we're going to continue. As a matter of fact, we've got other programs scheduled that start, I think, in February, either in January or February. You know, we're starting do other mine safety programs, the next year series, and what we do is we tour around the state, so we don't just do it in one isolated location, and we go to different places so it's convenient for the folks to come in, and, you know, they're close to home. They don't have a lot of travel time and expenses renting hotel rooms and things of that nature. It's working out very well. What we don't want is something -- for some rule to prevent that. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. I guess that was my next question. Just out of curiosity, I mean, what kind of requirement were you thinking might preclude that? I mean -- MR. ANGSTROM: Well, I noticed in here that it doesn't seem -- it seems like when you talk about parties eligible to conduct training, you've included associations of mine operations within that. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. ANGSTROM: And I think we're covered, but, you know, that's draft. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. So you're basically saying -- I mean, to the extent that the rule lists out who is eligible to provide training that you don't want it to be so restrictive to make it impossible for you to do the kinds of things that you've already done? MR. ANGSTROM: You know, there's lots of collateral benefits when the state associations work with MSHA. That's kind of that partnering, you know -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Right. MR. ANGSTROM: -- and just kind of pulling in the same direction, and it's a lot better than head butting, and it just creates a better atmosphere for the miners in general. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. I had a couple of other questions, and I'm sure that other people on the panel have a couple questions. You indicated that you believe that the initial training -- and I guess you're talking about the 24 hours of initial new miner -- MR. ANGSTROM: Right. MS. ALEJANDRO: -- training -- was best provided at the mine site. I mean, are you saying all of it should be provided at the mine site, I mean some component of it should be, or I mean, are you saying the classroom training is not an important part of the initial miner training? I guess I'm just looking for you to -- MR. ANGSTROM: No, no. MS. ALEJANDRO: Can you expand on that? MR. ANGSTROM: We're not -- this is just -- I'm speaking from my perspective and after visiting with folks, and I'm sure there's lots of different perspectives out there. What I'm saying is that a large component of that initial 24-month or 24-hour training component needs to be at the site. The person really needs to be out there walking around looking at stuff, having the hazards pointed out to them, sitting down meeting, you know, who the staff are and who folks are and what's, you know, the command system for that particular company. Some things like if it's the first aid training and those kinds of things could be done elsewhere -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. ANGSTROM: -- within that 24 months, but, you know, we're all sensitive to the fact that if you're going to -- if you're really talking about saving lives and preventing injury, it needs to be out there where the person can kind of see what's up and have that kind of hands on with the staff at the mine itself. On that question, do you have any --? MR. MOATS: I'd just like to add one thing for the small miners is for our staffing, we have a training education department corporately, and it's easy for us to go through the orientation and documentation process for the initial eight hours, and after that, it's more of a supervised, hands-on training at the site. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. MR. MOATS: You know, pertains to their job, and, you know, talking with some of the smaller operators, they don't have anything. So, you know, this is why Rich is asking on behalf of all of us miners here in Oregon that we have consistent, formal documentation that we can all fill out that your inspectors, when they come on site and they want to see our paperwork, we're all on the same page. So I would hope that we would do that. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. Actually, my next question is on that issue. I mean, you seem to be saying, you know, you want a standard form so everybody knows what the requirements are and there's no uncertainty and its consistent. I mean, there are others who would argue that they want the flexibility, you know, to come up with their own method of keeping records, and just so long as it's got the minimum information that the rule might require, it doesn't really matter. They like to have, you know, the ability to keep their records the way they choose. I mean, do you have any comments on that? MR. ANGSTROM: It can be both. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. ANGSTROM: You know, obviously somebody -- if you guys devise a form to have folks fill out that covers all of those particular criteria -- MS. ALEJANDRO: So you're looking for us maybe to give you all a form that you can choose to use if you want to but you don't have to? MR. ANGSTROM: If the operator chooses not to, he still has to comply with the requirements. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. ANGSTROM: And that doesn't mean that forms aren't evolutionary, and you wouldn't take comments and maybe see a way of reducing paperwork that the operators over time would come up with. I mean, that's good government from our perspective, but, you know, so if the company is large enough and doesn't like the type of bond that you put your form on that they could choose to do it differently as long as they cover all of the criteria that are listed in the rule, but I think where I'm really getting at is I don't think you're going to -- the big operators like maybe Morris Brothers, who has a training person, may do that, but I can't tell you Dalton Rock would use your form. MS. ALEJANDRO: Right. MR. ANGSTROM: I can tell you a lot of the smaller folks would use your form because they know it's safe. They know if they fill it out, they're going to be protected. MS. ALEJANDRO: Right, right. MR. ANGSTROM: You know, they're digging rock. You know, the smaller guys are out -- they're the miners. They're the owner, operator and miner all at the same time. It's a little different in the bigger companies. MS. ALEJANDRO: I have one more question, and there may be others from the panel. You touched on the issue of, you know, once the rule is published and our deadline is September 30, 1999, then, you know, there's going to be some time for the industry to come into compliance, and that is one of the issues that has come up at some of our earlier meetings, how long beyond the date of the publication in the Federal Register of a final rule should we allow for the industry to come into compliance with whatever rules we come up with. Now, obviously, that's going to depend to a certain extent on what these final rules look like, but I mean, just as a general matter, I mean, do you have any sense for what an appropriate time period compliance deadline would be for these training rules? (Pause.) MR. ANGSTROM: Yes. We kibitzed on that issue. It seems to me -- because the discussion I talked about earlier about the timing of September 1st or 30th or whatever it was -- MS. ALEJANDRO: The 30th, yes. MR. ANGSTROM: -- is not great timing from the industry's perspective -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Right. MR. ANGSTROM: -- but the 1st of March would be an appropriate time. It would give the folks at least the winter, and really it should be done, you know, the end of December, January, February time frame. MS. ALEJANDRO: So you're talking at least six months past or about six months past the date of publication? MR. ANGSTROM: Yes. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay, all right. I don't have any. Do you? MR. BURNS: Yes, a couple. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay, Kevin. MR. BURNS: I guess a couple things. I looked through your seminar format, and I think it looks pretty good, and I certainly think we don't want to discourage this sort of training. As a matter of fact, I think we want -- most people would want to encourage this sort of training. Now, Rod can probably address this better because he's going to be in charge of the education field service group for MSHA. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We're having an awful hard time hearing. MR. BURNS: Okay. Real tough? Okay. And I'm sure Rod would -- like I said, he can address that, but I would envision this as the sort of thing that Rod's group wants to do. Is that correct? MR. BRELAND: Yes, that's right. MR. BURNS: So we're certainly not going to preclude that, because this is really something that I think -- if this went on everywhere, I think we would be very happy, so I like that format, and whoever participated in putting that together, you know, I commend them, because I think it looks very good. The issue of the new miner training and occurring at the mine site, I think we would certainly encourage that, and that was pretty much envisioned in the Mine Act, also, if you look at the discussion. They talked about the importance of training the miners in the environment in which they're going to work, and I agree with you there are certain things that can be done in the classroom and maybe better in the classroom like first aid or things like that. Certainly miners' rights can be done in the classroom, but in reality, almost everything can be done at the mine site and done effectively. So we're not going to discourage that, and I think in a lot of cases that's the most appropriate place to do it. MR. ANGSTROM: Well, I want to -- can I make a comment on that? MR. BURNS: Sure. MR. ANGSTROM: I'll probably get in trouble from some folks over this comment, but there's a difference in learning abstract and hands on, concrete, concrete learning. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Very quiet. MR. ANGSTROM: Okay. I'm sorry. I'll yell. I'm trying not to get myself in trouble, so I tone down. MR. BURNS: Yes, there you go. MS. ALEJANDRO: You won't get yourself in trouble. MR. BURNS: I worked for an association, too, so I understand where you're coming from. MR. ANGSTROM: Many of the miners are -- you know, they're not -- how do I want to say it? They're not the most sophisticated folks in the world, and they're not abstract thinkers from my hands-on dealing with a lot of them, and I'm not talking about necessarily the owners, but the guys that are actually out there, and that hands-on learning is going to be the most effective way of teaching them that, teaching them the material that they need to know to protect themselves. It's one thing to learn in a classroom, but as we all know -- I don't know if this is on. This is as loud as I can talk. As we all know, you know, the problem with classroom learning is folks' attention span and how long you can put them in a room, in a closed room and show them things where they're going to really learn the material and be able to apply it. That's one way of learning, you know, and I'm not very good that way, frankly. The best way for me to learn is to see someone do it and get out there with my hands and do it, and, you know, the classroom thing, you know, you got to cover that stuff, but I can tell you the retention of that is the first ten minutes, and people really wane after that. MR. BURNS: I agree. I mean, you can talk about blind spots as much as you want in a classroom, but it seems to me if you take someone and put them in a haul truck or in some sort of loader and let them actually see what that person can see, even if that takes five minutes, that's much more effective than talking about it for an hour for most people. It would be for me. So I agree with that. I guess -- and I think Kathy covered most of what I wanted to talk about. I guess one of the things I'm hearing is that you would recommend that the proposed rule include the records -- the format for the records that will be required so that people can comment on that. MR. ANGSTROM: Yes. MR. BURNS: Okay. And naturally, I personally don't see anything why we couldn't put a form in there that someone can fill out if they wish, you know, with a pen or a format that someone can put in some sort of data base system on their computer, and it would spit out the same information. So I think that's also what you were suggesting, and that would also allow one operator to know what -- you know, if they're hiring somebody that works somewhere else, they have a better idea of what that person actually had versus right now they really don't know. I imagine some people retrain miners just because they're not really confident what that person had in the first place. As far as the effective date, I guess there's a number of effective dates that I would envision through this final rule. One would be, you know, when would you have to have a plan and instructors and something put together, and then there would be an effective date to have the eight hours completed, and it seems to me that we couldn't say you don't have to train new miners for a year. I mean, I just don't imagine that we could say that. I don't think -- I don't necessarily think that's what people were suggesting. Is that accurate? MR. ANGSTROM: Yes, that's accurate. It would be -- you couldn't -- when somebody comes on as a new miner, they need that initial training right up-front. MR. BURNS: Okay. I just wanted to clear that up. It is a -- I mean, it is a broader issue than just saying six months, because there's all kinds of other elements involved at least the way I see it. MR. ANGSTROM: One of the things that -- I'm glad you said that, because, you know, I hadn't quite separated out in my mind that there's all the different effective dates, too, and there are. MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. ANGSTROM: And one of them that Steve was telling me about on the way down here is well, when this goes into effect, when do you have to get that annual renewal in. Do you got until next September 1 before you -- or September 30th before you have to get that done, or do you have to get it done within, you know, that short time period after the law goes into effect? That annual refresher course, you know, when is the time for folks to get that done? Do they have a year from that point to get that in for the experienced miner? I don't know. I mean, we would think it would be a year. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. I mean, obviously, that would be something that would have to be specified, you know, made pretty clear in the rule as far as, you know, what point do these requirements kick in and what, you know, time frame are you talking about, so that needs to be addressed. MR. BURNS: Yes, and we've asked that at some of the other hearings. I think, you know, we want to try to share what we heard at the other hearings, too, or at the other meetings. Sorry. But we asked the question of some of the state grants people, and they indicated that they really could not do -- some of the states grants people indicated that they could not do the annual refresher training in 90 days for everybody in the state, so we're not looking to overburden the system, and I don't want to -- I wouldn't envision having an effective date for the various things that would make it more difficult to do the new miner training for the new miners, because I think that's the most important. So I think based upon what we hear, we're going to have come up with a good logical reasoning, you know, behind these effective dates. MR. ANGSTROM: One of the things I think that will help -- one of the things that I think will help facilitate that is while you're in the development phase of this that the field folks at MSHA are out there working with folks and looking at the training programs that they have -- some of the folks have in place, and, you know, you can start that transition. It doesn't have to be September 30th. It could be in the interim here from February 1 on, and I think the folks at MSHA, the field folks out there or their supervisors, should be open to looking at different training programs that some of the members do have and see if that would be -- if they would comply with the rules that are being proposed, because that certainly gives those operators that are already having training programs in place a chance to change those and get them into compliance with what the rule will be way beforehand. MR. BURNS: Okay. I think that's a good comment, and I think we ought to do that, and I think Rod is probably going to be doing that. I hate to speak for Rod, and I don't want to plan out his next year's work. I just wanted to answer one of your questions. As far as, you know, where did the 60 days come from, you know, for the final 16, when part 48 was proposed, it was proposed to require 24 hours before they started work, and the 60 days -- the best -- I could not find any real, you know, rational reason why that 60 days came up, but it was suggested in the comments or in that rule making that perhaps 60 days should be allowed to finish the following 16. I'm reasonably certain that it's not based upon any sort of research or anything like that. It was a number that some group came up with, and it was agreed upon in part 48, but originally part 48 as proposed did not allow any -- it required the 24 right up-front. I don't know if that helps you out. That is where it came from. It came from the part 48 rule making. MR. ANGSTROM: I kind of suspected it might have been some kind of compromise discussion, because I would envision that folks would want the 24 hours, you know, right up-front, and it just appeared that 60 days was arbitrary and probably was a compromise from what would have made sense. I mean, what makes sense to me is you either do it up-front or you do it within the probation period. Both of those have rational explanations for them. MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. ANGSTROM: Sixty days doesn't. MR. BURNS: If I remember correctly, the probationary period and turnover was part of the rationale for that 60 days. I can pull out the record and send that to you if you want, but I'm pretty sure that that was what was discussed in the rule making, that that 60 days was needed because, you know, the person may not even work for more than a week, and you shouldn't be training somebody for three days when they might not make it through the week, and that was part of the record I'm fairly certain. I guess your suggestion is that 60 days doesn't -- maybe that was true 20 years ago, but today it's more -- the probationary periods are more like six months. MR. ANGSTROM: Yes. I mean, you know, labor law is such that people have a reasonable period of time, and the employer should have a reasonable time to work with the individual to see if he's going to be somebody he's going to keep before he makes a bigger step and investment. You know, some folks say -- I think it's interesting to listen to the discussion. Some folks thing 24 hours is not a lot of hours, and then there's other folks -- and I tend to fall in that camp -- that aren't so far from college who remember having three-hour courses through the whole semester where I didn't put 24 hours into them, and they were pretty intensive, and actually 24 hours of course work is hard. The hard part of making it all up- front, I think, from the learning perspective is if you make it all up-front and you crowd it in too much, you reduce the person's ability to learn it, and sometimes hour blocks are a lot more effective training, and that's why we -- you know, that's why we train people on hour blocks than having 24 hours, three days -- you know, the first three days kind of thing. In this kind of scenario, if you stretch it out, you could -- the person could do it in -- or the company could do those 24 hours over that six-month block and put them into those hour kinds of segments where they can work it into their schedule a little bit better and actually have a lot more effective training. I mean, nothing is worse than sitting at a three-day seminar and hoping that the coffee pot is full, and I noticed you guys didn't have any back there. MS. ALEJANDRO: No. We don't have the budget for it. MR. BURNS: We weren't planning on this lasting 24 hours. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes, that's right. MR. BURNS: If it does, we'll have to get some coffee. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. MR. BURNS: I guess on that matter, if Morris Brothers or someone through your association -- if you have some sort of outline on new miners' training, how it could be spread out over that period of time, I think that would help if you submitted that to the record rather than just, you know, discussing this in the abstract. I think that would be very helpful, and it should help us in formatting the proposed rule. MR. MOATS: Kevin, we have always encouraged MSHA to participate in helping us put together these annual refresher training courses. We have a full-fledged video department. You know, I recommended to John Widows the other day that if it -- we were talking about this documentation, and if they needed assistance that we would help provide that if needed, because we do clearly want everybody to be on the same level of enforcement as us folks but on the same -- like I said before with the small miners, it's very difficult. A lot of the small miners are owner- operators, so it is tough for them. MR. ANGSTROM: I think I said 24 month again, and I meant hour. MR. BURNS: Yes. MS. ALEJANDRO: We understand. Yes, we understand. MR. ANGSTROM: I said it a couple times. MR. BURNS: That's all right. I've done that myself. Once you start making a mistake like that, it just keeps coming back up. MR. ANGSTROM: It keeps coming. MR. BURNS: I'll turn it over to Rod. MR. BRELAND: Okay. Yes, I have a few things I'd like to follow up on. One, you mentioned, Mr. Angstrom, early that you were suggesting we might follow the Oregon model. Is that a -- do you have a formal model that you're talking about, or is that -- MR. ANGSTROM: Well, it's not a -- I don't know if I would call it a formal model, but I think it's a good recipe of how MSHA and industry can work in a cooperative fashion, and I think that's a model. MR. BRELAND: Okay. MR. ANGSTROM: I think anytime you have a public- private partnership that's effective and it's training 250 people its first time out in a cooperative effort, you have a recipe for a good model. MR. BRELAND: Okay, thank you. Was this the February session was the first time that you had a joint effort between MSHA and industry? MR. MOATS: No. We've done it for three years. MR. ANGSTROM: First time I'm aware of it. MR. BRELAND: I'm sorry. MR. ANGSTROM: You have that history. MR. MOATS: We've been actually doing joint ventures with MSHA for, I'm going to recollect, clear back five, six years ago. At first we did it in-house with our own people and you folks, and then we opened it up the last two years to all the miners. We were somewhat criticized even in-house from our people for allowing other operators being that we were the ones putting on the training session with MSHA. So actually the history behind this is we've always asked MSHA to participate in our training seminars but not be the trainers. In the last three years we have asked them to put on a portion of the training, and I'd like to clear that up, but last year was the first year that we partnered with OCAPA and MSHA only that put on four different seminars last year throughout the state. MR. BRELAND: Okay. You did four of them last year. I see this list. I agree with Kevin Burns that this, you know, looks like a good agenda, and it looks -- I recognize some names, and some I don't, so does that mean there was a mixture of industry and MSHA personnel instructing here at the presentation? MR. ANGSTROM: Yes, there was. MR. BRELAND: Okay, that's good. Also, I remember from a visit out here a few years back that Morris Sand & Gravel did have some training programs that were pretty advanced, I thought, for what I'd seen around the country in some areas, but you also had a mentoring program if I recall. Is that how you foresee tying in the spreading out of some of this training, the 24-hour training? MR. MOATS: As a mater of fact, we just had a discussion last week at our managers' meeting that we have a mentor driver, top drum program that is through our ready- mix department. We are truly going to expand that into our crushing facilities, our mine properties. It's just a start. It's not that we have been lax in our training at our company, but we want to take it to the next step. We want to get videos, do more site specific and more emergency response type actions that we haven't really done a lot in the past. MR. BRELAND: Okay. Do you presently do tracking or documentation of the training that people receive and keep a record of it? MR. MOATS: Yes, we do. MR. BRELAND: Okay. I'm just kind of following my notes along as this discussion came out. One of the things that came up some was on the enforcement issue, and, of course, my particular group would not be in enforcement, this educational field service group, but the issue you brought up about some discretion and some guidance, do you have some suggestions that you're talking about from an enforcement perspective that you're proposing to make? MR. ANGSTROM: Enforcement tends to be -- how it's applied tends to be an individual -- tends to be tied more to the individual than one might think. There's no question that the laws are such -- and they're probably shades of gray within them and interpretations within them, but really from my experience in enforcement, what I've seen is that every officer that's out there doing enforcement handles situations differently. Some are very command and control, and some are very compassionate in how they deal with things, and I'm not saying one way is right or one way is wrong. I will say that if you take a posture that you're going to make an us-versus-them kind of situation, you're going to -- it's going to be a lot tougher to achieve your goal, and hopefully the goal is to improve safety and protect lives out in the mine, and, you know, there's the old analogy, it's easier to draw a bee to honey than it is to vinegar, and I can tell you that this is a group of folks that perceive those kinds of -- that kind of mentality and enforcement as a challenge, and they get very defensive and loggerheads, you know, with the agency, and those things spill over into all the other activities. That relationship spills over everywhere. It will spill over into education. It spills over to the regulatory folks, and it's not a very good way of partnering with an agency that should -- it's chief role should be regulatory and achieving the results, you know, the result of getting folks trained and help with -- improve safety out there. Let me say this, because I think this will be a little clearer if I say it this direction. There are probably about 80 percent of the people will do what's right because it's the right thing to do. There's going to be always 10 or 15 percent are going to do what's right because there's a law that says you have to do it. There's always -- no matter what you do, there's always going to be 5 percent of the folks that you're going to have take enforcement. Enforcement is a very important component of any regulatory scheme. It's just the way human nature is. I spent the last eight years dealing with the 5 percent, so, you know, it seems like -- at that point it seemed like that was the majority of it from my perspective, but I know in reality that's not the case. If the agency takes a perspective that 100 percent of the population out there requires enforcement, they're going to create a problem for themselves as well as really not achieving the message and achieving the goals that should be priority to them, and so the enforcement person that's out there in the field needs to understand that and needs to understand when it's time to come down on somebody that needs to be come down on and when it's time to say, hey, listen, we've got two weeks, get this fixed, I'm going to be back, and if it's not fixed, you're going to get a citation, you know, something of that nature. Still you're doing your job but achieving the safety perspective that you need, and then everybody walks away from that feeling good. We've achieved the goal of putting that cover over that light bulb, and we did it without having to do an enforcement action with whatever -- I know it's not court time, but court time, you know, with all of those collateral expenses that go along with it, and the partnering that you do with the operator is tremendous. You'll get a lot more from him in the long term as far as cooperation and help than if you take that necessarily strict enforcement perspective. MR. BRELAND: Okay. Well, just to follow up on it a little bit. I wasn't really addressing some of the safety issues that you might have been issued citations on. You think maybe we're a little too restrictive. We're looking at this rule as trying to make it as performance oriented as possible allowing flexibility. That makes a lot of areas subjective, and that if we get into an issue of compliance, if you have thoughts on that like certain subjects may be not acceptable not to have been done, certain subjects we could allow more time that would carry a lesser kind of violation or there's a difference in say issuing an order for somebody on training for an issue that's not maybe safety related but part of the required subject, if you have thoughts on that, you should put that in, you know, and submit that. That's what I was talking about. MR. ANGSTROM: I would, and I'll do that, but I think I'm going to wait till you guys actually have your draft rule -- MR. BRELAND: Okay. MR. ANGSTROM: -- and then I'll make those comments, because then I can actually sit down and say, you know, here's going to be your gray area where people are going to get into a rub, and you need to think of how you're going to handle that from an enforcement perspective. Since this is not your draft rule, it would be premature to comment. MR. BRELAND: Okay. Another issue that you didn't bring up was on training plans and any submissions or not you had about the paperwork issue on being consistent. Do you have thoughts on training plans being at the mine sites submitted, not submitted or what? MR. ANGSTROM: I'm going to turn it -- do you have thoughts on that, Steve? MR. MOATS: Rod, could you clarify that? I don't quite understand what you're -- MR. BRELAND: Well, presently under part 48 there is a requirement to submit training plans for approval and that you train in accordance to those. Any training program would have to have some sort of outline. I assume you have an outline. You have subjects that you cover that go even beyond the requirements of the Act or present part 48. So I guess the issue I'm asking is that do you have an idea what you would do about submitting your training outline, plan, whatever you would want to call it? MR. MOATS: You know, once, again, we're working with the MSHA folks. We at least at Morris Brothers have always asked for their assistance, because who makes better trainers than the people that are enforcing the regulations, so that helps us. It also brings the awareness up of what's out there, what are some of the hot topics that are happening not only in Oregon but through the nation. So I think we have been the front runners asking for approval, is this good enough, is this good enough, and the response that we get back is that we don't have any formal training outlines, guidelines, you read the book as well as I read the book, but surely we definitely would like to help develop a training program that would satisfy your needs and our needs. MR. BRELAND: Okay. MR. ANGSTROM: There's an opportunity there again for you folks to -- as you put together all of this stuff, to kind of come up with what maybe you think might be the model training plan, something fairly simple to give the smaller operator something to go from. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. I mean, there is a -- I think Rod is trying -- well, I may be mistaken, but I mean, there is the issue of MSHA approval. I mean, the Act provides that the program, the training plan shall be approved by the Secretary of Labor, and so there's an issue there, well, what exactly should that look like. I mean, we've heard people say they have no problem with submitting a plan for approval to MSHA, to the district manager up- front. Other people seem comfortable with the idea of, you know, putting in what you need to put in, in your program, and then when the mine inspector comes to the mine site, I mean, he could take a look at the plan at that point and make a determination as to whether it looks like it fits the bill or not. I mean, obviously, other people are uncomfortable with the idea of, you know, different inspectors at different times coming in and making a subjective determination. So I don't know whether that was -- MR. BRELAND: Yes, that's where I was head. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. MR. BRELAND: And one thing and some suggestions have been that we might provide say a generic outline or guide -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Right. MR. BRELAND: -- for you to follow where you augment that with more site specific needs whether it be the task training or some other site specific kind of issues. So you should be considering that when you're looking at trying to reduce paperwork or make things consistent and avoid too much objectivity with somebody else that comes along, so that's why I was bringing it up. MR. MOATS: I'd like to add one more suggestion is definitely from our standpoint at Morris Brothers we would not like to have it be Oregon MSHA/Morris Brothers' plan. We would like to incorporate all the miners that wanted to participate in a formal training program that would -- I mean, I don't know these folks out here, but there's a lot of other people that are doing training, too, so it's not just to exclusively have us help MSHA in any program. MR. BRELAND: Okay. And then another issue on the paperwork where you talked about the guidelines -- and I think Kathy addressed it pretty well on the flexibility. We've had some people suggest that they could E-mail or fax. The fact is we are in the process of developing an electronic training plan that will be available on the Internet, available with inspectors probably, certainly with our educational field people, where they could help a small operator, you know, fill in a plan that could be submitted and copied for them and that type of thing, but that whole issue needs to be thought about what goes back and forth and whether it should be deemed approved if you're following generally the guidelines, you know, so that's an issue you have to consider. One other thing on the delay or what we call the 8-16 split that we presently have now for the 60 days to complete the 24 hour. I did hear you say that eight hours up-front would seem reasonable. Are you talking about if that's at the site actually assigning? Typically an individual would be under close supervision the first eight hours. Some minimum things that they had to be covered? I'm not sure I understood what you meant. MR. ANGSTROM: Go ahead. MR. MOATS: I can only speak for our company, but the first eight hours of training is basically a supervised -- I mean, this individual doesn't even lift a finger that day, so it is solely eight hours of training to fulfill all the requirements under part 48, which they are now. Also, my understanding is that part 48 is going to be altered -- the alteration is going to be under part 46 now. Is that -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. The intention is -- I mean, we're not taking part 48 and amending it. I mean, we're starting a whole new part, separate part for the exempt industries, I mean, and it's going to be separate and apart from part 48. I mean, we have been getting some suggestions from some people saying there are certain things in part 48 that they like and they want us to carry over, but, you know, aside from the minimum requirements in section 115, I mean, we're pretty much starting from scratch as far as what goes in there. MR. MOATS: The only other comment I'd like to make, Rod, is eight hours in even one setting in a new miner, it goes right over the top of his head. It's more -- even though you have initial eight hours of training, the next 16 hours is refreshing his memory of what you just trained him in eight hours, plus the individual job duty and responsibility that that individual is going to have. MR. BRELAND: Well, yes. I want to make it clear that we're up here being objective about it. We're not saying it should be eight hours. We're asking what you think because you had talked about an initial eight hours seemed reasonable, but I wasn't sure what you meant. Is half of that going to be site specific? Is there going to be some formal subjects covered like classroom type and then some field or at the mine? You know, that would be something that the industry as a whole would need some flexibility on, but it would have to be addressed. I mean, the small two-man sand and gravel that's hiring a seasonal employee may have to treat that different than a large company with a fairly formal program. MR. MOATS: Yes. MR. BRELAND: So that's what I was getting at. MR. MOATS: I personally like the flexibility of the incremental training. I would hate to cut that out and the remaining 16 hours, but if it was for the full 24 hours in a given period of time, we're definitely open for that. We probably -- the only way we would change our policy is if it was mandated by law. MR. BRELAND: Okay. I'll try to pin you down one more time. Are you saying that you don't propose any set hours prior to actually going to the mine site for training? MR. MOATS: I say -- I personally would speak for our company. I would say, yes, you have to have a certain amount of set hours, especially for a new miner. In our opinion, it's -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Well, how much would that be? I mean, and just to put this in context, I mean, at some of the other meetings, I mean, we have people coming up and saying there isn't that much to our operation. I mean, you know, eight hours before you get started working, I mean, that's, you know, too much for our particular operation. MR. MOATS: For the things that we cover outside of -- I would say we need a minimum of four hours for our group to go through our orientation, and then the rest of that is -- you know, it's location, you know, site specific, just hop in the pickup, these are the boundaries, but, yeah, as far as our classroom, it's a four hour. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. BURNS: I guess I didn't want to -- if other people here, you know, have an opinion on this, because I think this has been an issue that's been discussed quite a bit at the other meetings, and just following what's under part 48 now, it says provided eight hours of training, shall in all cases be given the new miners before they are assigned work duties, and then it states, the following portion shall be included in the eight hours of training, introduction to work environment, hazard recognition, safety and health aspects of the tasks to be assigned. Okay. Now, what was suggested at some of the other meetings was that -- you know, particularly a real small sand and gravel operation that what's stated in here for eight hours in their particular operation may only take two hours to do it effectively, and so we really haven't heard enough, I believe, from the really small operations. So I would really like to hear from some of the small operators here how -- you know, what they feel is appropriate to do effective training versus -- because what we would like in the end is that the compliance training is the same as the effective miner training, and in order to do that, I think we really do need to hear from the smaller operators. I can only try to envision what it's like working with my three brothers and figuring out how I'm going to train them, but it would be helpful if we hear from those people with that in mind, that if you're going to have someone sit in the classroom for eight hours -- I mean, if that's the way rule came out and they're just all glassy-eyed after two hours, I don't think we've achieved anything except for compliance training. MR. MOATS: Yes. Kevin, I might add one more thing to the draft that I seen, and I would agree with that, that first aid, I think, should be pulled out of that, because it is a lengthy training class, and for new miners, you know, we have people on board. I think we all have people on board that are first aid trained, CPR trained. I agree with that. MR. BURNS: Okay. MS. ALEJANDRO: You mean as part of the initial training that's given before they can start work or just as part of the initial miner training at all? MR. MOATS: Yes. I'd like to pull it from the initial training -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes, because I'm thinking that that's one of the -- that's in the Act. I mean that first aid -- MR. MOATS: Okay. MS. ALEJANDRO: -- is one of the subjects that's in the Act, and I don't -- you know, I mean, if it's in there, I'm pretty sure it's -- MR. BURNS: Yes, it is. MR. MOATS: Yes, it is. MS. ALEJANDRO: You know, we are in a position where we would need to include it, because I mean, it's in the statute. MR. ANGSTROM: In the -- I got the statute in front of me, and it talks about the 24 hours of training and includes the first aid. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. MR. ANGSTROM: I don't know if folks actually -- how many folks have gone through the first aid training. I've done it several times. It's a big course. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: It's eight hours. MR. ANGSTROM: Yes. It takes a day. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: But that's a third of the component if you're going to do it right. MR. MOATS: For the first go around. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: That's right. MR. MOATS: Yes. MR. BURNS: Yes. And I guess along what you suggested, it was suggested at some of the other meetings that that first aid not be required before they start work, but it could be better if they wait till there's a scheduled class where there's a lot of miners from various mines that can attend that and get that first aid training from someone that's really qualified to do the first aid training rather than just get it from whoever is the best person at the mine who may not be that good as a trainer on that particular subject. MR. MOATS: Right. MR. BURNS: Is that what you're suggesting, too? MR. MOATS: Yes, and first aid training is required under part 56 but not for every miner. So maybe a company chooses not to train everybody that works on the mine property. MR. BRELAND: One of the things you might consider in the comment period is -- as Kathy's pointed out, that's in the Act, and we would be obligated to pay attention to what's in the Act, but you could say what you would think would be an appropriate amount of the kind -- even if it's an introduction into first aid, as a part of that initial session, and it might be an overview of what they ought to be planning to take, and these are just things you've got to consider, because we can't choose to ignore requirements in the Act when we're developing the rule, but that would be helpful if you have some ideas on it. There are some short versions. I mean, Red Cross does a two-hour course, I think. There are some shorter versions, and it might be something to consider and just think about that. One other thing on the issue of the 8-16 split is the turnover issue with a lot of seasonal operations, and I think you've hit on that a little bit where you have your down period of time in the winter months. Do you have a feel for your industry or at least your company? What kind of turnover do you have? Do these people work year round, most of your employees, or do you have some that typically come every season, or do you have a kind of regular turnover percentage that are new to the company ever year? MR. MOATS: At least speaking for Morris Brothers, we have only a few operations that shut down seasonally six to eight weeks, but outside of that, I can't speak for these people. MR. BRELAND: So you're pretty steady. That's fine. You only can just what you know. And then one other thing on the competent person. You talked about you have presently two within your own company that are certified or approved MSHA instructors, I assume. Were you proposing that based on somebody's job as say a site foreman or superintendent or whatever you call your person-in-charge at the mine that they be designated competent or defined to do instruction? MR. MOATS: I'm going to let Rich here define "competent," but if you tag the responsibility to a supervisor, that supervisor may have only been with you a short period of time, and that's difficult for him to be specific to our operation. So we -- well, I mean, we don't have a whole lot of turnover, but I can see that if we just tag a foreman, supervisor, superintendent or location manager -- but "competent" has been a very loose term even from your enforcement people. MR. BRELAND: Well, what have you -- I mean, when I say "competent," have you got an idea how you would want to select or qualifications you would expect for somebody to be able to do the instruction? I might have been misleading you when I said a superintendent. That's kind of what a lot of people tend to go to, but if you are to select somebody at a site as a person that the operator would consider competent to teach these subjects or maybe they have some portions they can do and others, would you have some way of expecting that they demonstrate that they can teach? A lot of times a very experienced equipment operator is not a good instructor. On the other hand, lesser experienced might be a very good instructor, so that's what I'm getting at. MR. MOATS: For the industry, "competent" works well for us, because -- but if it's -- but from a practical standpoint, MSHA used to put on a supervisors' training course that -- there are probably people in here that have attended that, and it wasn't a certification training, but they actually put on a supervisors' training course that helped describe some of the areas and responsibilities of the supervisor, and that's becoming more of a fear in our people. MR. BRELAND: Okay. And then just one other thing. You said that you thought we should help with a supervisory type course, and I guess that follows up on that, but just to clarify, you know, we think that we should be helpful, and especially this educational field service group will be out there, but we're going to be a small group, and there's no way that we're going to be able to provide all the training. We would hope to provide a lot of guidance, but we wouldn't be able to replace and do the training that everybody is going to need, but providing guidance is something we'd like to do. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone here who would like to speak? Okay. I think what we're going to do is take a 15-minute break before we -- and when we come back, you know, think about maybe things that you would like to comment on. We'll give you a short summary of the other issues that have come up at the other meetings, and also, if you have not signed the attendance sheet in the back, I would ask you to do so, and I will also bring the speaker sheet back if you decide you want to sign up and speak. (Short recess.) MS. ALEJANDRO: Back on the record. The next speaker who is signed up is Bob Potts of Welson Construction. Mr. Potts, when you come up, could you spell your name for the court reporter? (Pause.) I guess there has been at least one person who has asked for the address where to send in written comments, and we can give -- if you need the address -- if you've got a copy of the Notice of Hearing or Notice of Meeting -- and I believe there were a couple copies back there, but maybe they're gone. The Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at MSHA in Arlington, the address is given there, and that is the address to send it to, but if you don't have a copy of that notice or you don't know the address, I mean, just feel free to come up to the -- you know, whatever this is, this table, at a break or at the end of the meeting and we'll give that information to you. Mr. Potts? BOB POTTS MR. POTTS: Yes. My name is Bob Potts, B-o-b P-o-t-t-s. I just had a couple of short questions about the training rider. One is I'm not a very eloquent speaker. I'm a crusher hand. I don't -- MS. ALEJANDRO: That's okay. MR. POTTS: I don't talk very well in front of people, but, for instance, we're a highway contractor running two portable rock crushers. Be doing, for instance, a seven-mile highway job, the rock crushing would be the mining, actual mining of the aggregates, the production of the aggregate makes up 30 percent of the job. The way I understand the rider, for instance, a theoretical situation, a loader operator, my stockpile operator doesn't show up that day, I could not go over to another part of the operation and pull an untrained loader operator and mine trained loader operator off that operation and bring him into the crusher without having at least a prior eight-hour training course with him, mining training course. Is that correct? MS. ALEJANDRO: I would say no. I mean, at this point no, because the question that we're going to need to answer as we develop the rule that would apply to that operation is we've got -- I mean, 24 hours of initial miner training has got to be given to your miners. I mean, that's something that has got to be in the rule because that's something that's in the Mine Act, but how many -- one of the issues that we need to address is how much training -- you know, I mean, whether it's an hour's or subject area, if any, needs to be given to a miner before he actually starts working an operation. So I mean, the Mine Act doesn't set any minimums for that, but part 48 currently requires eight hours of training before a miner can start work, and one of the questions we have to answer here is, do we, you know, go along with that eight hours that's in part 48, or is there, you know, a lesser number of hours that we're going to require, or maybe we just, you know, forget about hours altogether and, you know, talk about, you know, covering certain subject areas. So I guess -- you know, I don't know whether that answers your question, but that's sort of where we are right now. MR. POTTS: I feel those are questions that need to be addressed, and -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Do you have any -- I mean, do you have any particular opinions on that? MR. POTTS: Yes, I do. Most reputable highway contracting companies that I worked with -- I've been in the industry for approximately 20 years now -- will not take an incompetent person and trust them with a half a million dollar machine such as a loader, dozer. So normally those people have training on the equipment before they ever step on a mine site, or maybe they got the training at a mine site. I know our company is very -- we're very safety orientated, a safety program already in place with half hour toolbox safety meetings roughly given by a competent person. Would that act as part of the 24-hour training if it could be given in a year's period? We have the problem with turnover, as you guys were stating earlier, where one of our next jobs will be on the Utah border from Idaho to Utah. The nearest cities are Salt Lake and Portland, basically, Salt Lake and Twin Falls. To go onto -- for instance, we're on a portable plant. We don't always know for sure what each operation, mining operation is going to entail until we are there. For one instance -- for one source and instance, we may use one loader operator. For the next source, it may be six truck drivers, so a company such as ours, I foresee you have to have trained a large amount of people for the versatility to go to different areas and different sources. We'll move a plant nine times, ten times a year. I can understand the eight hours training. Personally, I'd like to see it approximately two to three hours of a classroom type setting and then close supervised work for the next five hours with some record taking of that to where -- that's more task specific, and then the next 16 hours being covered in a safety meeting type situation where you are covering the broad band of topics, the miners' rights, and it could be an ongoing thing. One person that may be on the site may not get his full 24 hours in a year because he may only be on site two months; for instance, a truck driver that going to stockpile, we may use him for two months in that operation. Then he may be on a highway crew for nine months hauling dirt to a fill site. Short of training everybody in the company with 24 hours of MSHA training, shutting down and giving them 24 hours up-front, I don't see the feasibility of being able to not have an ongoing training program such as a half hour safety meeting given by a competent person. I know in our operation now I'm the supervisor for them. I have to have eight hours OSHA competency course, 16-hour crane certification, about 16 hours a year first aid. So basically in a year's time I have about a week and a half of training through different organizations, so I can work, and a confined spaces course given by OSHA. I feel personally that MSHA -- maybe the competent person should have an eight-hour course or something to say these are the topics that need to be discussed, so that us being as a competent person knows what the topics are. As somebody brought up earlier, I see a lot of enforcement personnel from MSHA. There's a large varying degree of what is and isn't right. So if something is mandated, it needs to be black and white, this is what you need to do. I've looked up on your Internet site your first aid, for example. If you look at that on the Internet site, it says you'll learn how to bandage and access your emergency response systems and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and this is what you'll be taught in your first aid course to be certifiable for first aid. If this is mandated, this is what I feel we need. We need to know what needs to be there for us. There's safety, and for what I see, safety in a mine situation varies greatly from one mine could be water problems. You'd have to address water. There's maybe high walls. Portable plant, we get to see a lot of different things in different areas, and each side is site specific, and it's usually up to the competent person during a safety meeting or during the time you're there, as they see problems arise that have to be addressed, they should be pulling the crew in on their weekly safety meeting and saying, hey, you know, these high walls have to keep it berm or the life vests are by the ponds, wear them. Whatever needs to be addressed at a certain mine, I think that training is more important than pulling a miner in or an operator into a meeting and saying, here's your 24 hours training, now go to it. To me, it's far more important to be on the site and say, you know, there's a high wall, if you don't keep a berm up, you're going to fall asleep and back off of it and die. That, to me, is more important than being able to show somebody videos, and they're going to sleep through half of it and say I got 24 hours and good- bye. That's about all I had. MS. ALEJANDRO: Mr. Potts, I've got a couple questions. You didn't raise this issue when you were talking about your site, but it's an issue that's been raised by other people in some of the other meetings. Do the people who are -- some or all of the people who work for you, do they get training required by OSHA regulations? MR. POTTS: The OSHA regulation, as far as I know, is that there shall be a competent person, OSHA-competent person on site. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. POTTS: On all job sites. MS. ALEJANDRO: All right. MR. POTTS: Yes, our company has an OSHA competent person on all job sites. I'm one of them. I probably go on an OSHA -- take care of an OSHA job site once a year, but, yes, I am card carrying, and yeah, that's the way our company feels. MS. ALEJANDRO: But the employees don't get OSHA required training? MR. POTTS: They get safety meetings weekly. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. POTTS: Yes. MS. ALEJANDRO: How long are those usually? MR. POTTS: Usually last a half hour. Some show videos. We tried to put together in our job site books a 52-week program, basically 52 topics, because I know as a supervisor in the field, sometimes you can only talk about fire extinguishers so long, and so we have some tools that have been put out -- I don't even know where we got them -- that help give these half-hour meetings. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. I mean, do your employees typically, I mean, you know, spend time on mine sites and also spend time on, you know, construction sites, OSHA regulated construction sites? Do you have a lot of intermixing? MR. POTTS: Yes, we do. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. MR. POTTS: And that's where I see our biggest problem coming in. For instance, as I came off a job and we moved to a new site, instead of using one loader to stockpile off a crusher, I'm now using six truck drivers. Well, truck drivers are a pretty round and round bunch anyway. They don't -- they move around a lot, and so it would put a certain group of people out of work basically because they do not have their mine training. I would have to go down the list and say, yes, you can work here, no, you can't. It would be a very big managerial headache as far as -- for instance, like I say, you're out in a remote area. You've got your crew trained, and they have their 24-hour training. Well, I need another loader operator for a day to help out here. I can't move you on site even though you've run loader for 25 years, a very competent loader operator, but you're not MSHA -- you have not had your mine safety training. To me, that's a big managerial headache. It's just one more check you have to have against the name to go to a site to work, and yet that person could have attended safety meetings that covers a lot of the same things MSHA covers. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. Those would be the OSHA safety talks? MR. POTTS: Just safety talks, safety glasses, fire extinguishers, seat belts. I mean, these are things that you will cover in an OSHA meeting, too. They're required by both of us, but I guess the labeling of the meeting would have to maybe company-wide cover -- I don't know how to address all that totally, but I think it does need addressed. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. I have one other question, and some of the other people on the panel may have a question, and I just want to clarify something that you said. You said that the individuals who provide training should have like an eight-hour course. I mean, is what you're saying, I mean, people who are going to be giving this training to miners that you think it's appropriate to have them have some kind of training in how to give training? I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. MR. POTTS: I guess to me the person giving the training should know what they -- an agenda that they need to know what they are training. MS. ALEJANDRO: Okay. You mean as far as as the subject? MR. POTTS: As far as a subject matter. They need some training, and myself included. I've read most of the rules that pertain to me, I hope. Usually the inspectors can tell me which ones I missed. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. MR. POTTS: But there are a lot of rules there that the person on site addressing the safety meeting should be a competent person, and I feel that there's probably some training or some type of -- and eight hours to me seems like a lot, but some type of training for that person, and I really feel personally that it should be given by MSHA to where -- and made at the local offices to where it's available without a lot of cost. If you're going to do the -- I don't know. There's a lot of different ways to look at it -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. MR. POTTS: -- but the person doing the training should be competent in the field well enough to train. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. I mean, we've had some people say that the rule should be flexible enough to let people who are good or, you know, knowledgeable and have experience in certain areas give training on that particular subject, you know, period. Other people have said, you know, you need to use that experience, but in order to make sure that people know how to give training, they need to get, you know, some kind of a short course on how to make a presentation and, you know, how to get a point across, I guess, to an audience. And then there are other people, you know, on the other end who think that, you know, there needs to be a formal MSHA approval for instructors like there is under part 48, so it's all over the map right now. Okay. Do you have any questions? MR. BRELAND: Just a couple things. I assume when you said that you might get another loader operator that would be like out of a batch plant or hot mix plant or something? MR. POTTS: Yes. MR. BRELAND: That also works for you? MR. POTTS: Yes. MR. BRELAND: Okay. And then you've already made a determination on the qualification of this equipment operator, I assume, when you hired them, and that's what you're talking about now. You just want to cross lines, basically still doing the same work, just in a different location. MR. POTTS: That's correct. That's where I see a big problem. MR. BRELAND: Also, you talked about the truck drivers, when you use them, that they might only be there a couple of months, and I guess the question would be -- a significant number of our (Indiscernible) fatalities are contract truck drivers that come on mine sites and one thing or another happens to them. How would you propose that we would try to get training to those people? Assume they don't work for you. You hire them as a subcontractor. MR. POTTS: No, that's not true. MR. BRELAND: They do work for you? MR. POTTS: No. We have -- for instance, we have 26 trucks, 20, 30 trucks in the fleet. One job may not require any haulage to pile other than a loader going to stockpile. The next job may require I take five trucks out of the fleet, and I'll use those five trucks to haul to a pile. MR. BRELAND: Well, was your understanding then that maybe they'd have to have 24 hours of each mine site they go to? MR. POTTS: No. It would be my understanding to work for the company at my mine site, at any mine site, they would have to have 24 hours training. That truck driver may not work -- truck drivers are seasonal in Idaho. I'm from Idaho. We work seasonally. It seems like the older truck drivers are out doing other things, hauling to a roadway if you're building a highway, for instance, a fill, whatever, on a highway job, hauling from stockpile to a job site, but I'll take five of these truck drivers and haul to a stockpile site. Now, I can't do that -- even though they're competent truck drivers, they may have worked for us the previous seven months hauling to different sites, but then I have to have MSHA training on these five truck drivers, whether it be a three hour plus the five hours of supervised watching them, which I wouldn't have a problem doing that site specific, but --. MR. BRELAND: You're saying that they actually work permanently for the company -- MR. POTTS: Yes. MR. BRELAND: -- but you only use them as you need to based on weather or whatever seasonal -- MR. POTTS: For the crusher part of it. MR. BRELAND: For the crushing part. MR. POTTS: The crushing, mining operations you only need the truck drivers -- use them as you need them. MR. BRELAND: If they had their 24 hours of training, if they went to a mine site, you would only see them needing a site specific. You talked about the different kinds of hazard, whether it be water or high walls and what have you. So I guess that would be -- you know, we'd have some concerns if we had people that essentially never got trained. That's what you said. You might have them two months, and they may never have a reason to get the 24 hours. You mean in the year or in -- MR. POTTS: That's what I'm asking. MR. BRELAND: Okay. MR. POTTS: You know, do we take every -- basically 80 percent of our employees, even though 50 percent of them -- out of 150 to 200 people, I may use 40 people a year. How many of the employees we hire every year do I need to give 24-hour training to? I may -- you know, I understand the core group will get it, you know, your operators on the job site that would stay with the plants all the time, but the support personnel that come in and out a lot -- MR. BRELAND: Did you say you had about 25 truck drivers all the time? MR. POTTS: Yes. MR. BRELAND: And is there a percentage of those that turnover that changes every year? MR. POTTS: Oh, I'm sure in our business we have probably a 30 percent turnover a year. MR. BRELAND: So it would be the 30 percent that you'd be needing to deal with to get the 24 hours every year. MR. POTTS: Every year. MR. BRELAND: There would be some new group of people that would need it if -- MR. POTTS: Every year. MR. BRELAND: Okay. I'm just trying -- MR. POTTS: I mean, there again, I'm wondering is if our OSHA safety meetings, MSHA safety meetings -- if our safety meetings that we have throughout the company every week would suffice to cover part of this 24-hour training. MR. BRELAND: That's been brought up at least one other time -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. MR. BRELAND: -- that I'm aware of where they want some -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Kind of, you know -- MR. BRELAND: --reprocipocal type of agreement -- MS. ALEJANDRO: Right. MR. BRELAND: -- where we would accept their training and they accept our MSHA required training and OSHA, and that's what, I guess, you're proposing. MR. POTTS: Yes. MR. BRELAND: If you're doing OSHA's required subject training or meetings, could that be part of that. MR. POTTS: Yes. MR. BRELAND: Okay. MR. POTTS: And I don't know if it's a true OSHA requirement. I know our company just does it, and I'm just wondering if that would suffice to cover a large part of this MSHA training. MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. Well, I mean, that's something that has been brought up a couple of times, and, you know, people are training to satisfy OSHA requirements and, you know, whether it would be possible for the rule to be flexible enough to, you know, have that training, OSHA training counted to satisfy the MSHA requirements, so we'll, you know -- MR. BURNS: I think we'll have to look at that. The OSHA rule is set up -- I mean, OSHA is set up somewhat differently than MSHA. They don't have a part 48. The individual OSHA standards require training, you know, on say guarding and things like that, and it doesn't specify time, but OSHA also has another requirement that the supervisor, you know, go through -- you know, have a ten-hour part, so it's more geared towards having a supervisor that's trained under the OSHA requirements, and then also that they train the individuals as they come into contact with hazards or before they come into certain hazards. But my experience with the OSHA training is there an awful lot of crossover between hazards. So what you're suggesting, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done that way, because you're going to give your people at the OSHA plant the fall protection just like you will the miners, so there's certain types of training that I would certainly see there should be some crossover, so I can't give you an answer to the question you're raising, because it is somewhat of a tight issue, but we will try to figure that out, because I think it's important. It's obvious to me that you want to train these people properly, but you don't want to be put in a position where you're do an awful lot of training that's not -- that you don't feel is necessary and won't have any end result except the fact that you had to train people. MR. POTTS: Well, that and I don't want to be in a position if an inspector showed up and said who do you have working here and who is trained not be able to make the two lists match, and I just -- I've been through haz training courses, first aid training courses, and all these courses take a certain amount of time, and personally, as a person in these training courses, you spend about 80 percent of it sleeping because you just sit there and drug on and drug on and drug on. Forty-hour haz training course could be done in about 15 hours if it was just done, and I've been in that position, and it's just -- I have nothing against training people, but I feel that they have to be on site part of the time at least to see what the hazards are. Some sites -- a high wall to a lot of sites may not have any meaning at all to some people. To where on other sites a high wall is a very, very big part of their job they have to worry about. MR. BRELAND: Just one other follow up on the loader operator. Again, because you move so much, that nine or ten times a year, which is pretty often, would it be just about every time that you move that there would be some occasion you need to crossover somebody for fill in, for help? MR. POTTS: Virtually every time I move, I will probably crossover on each plant three people if I were to take an average, yes. MR. BRELAND: Like what kind of three besides a loader operator? MR. POTTS: For instance, one source you may use one D-9 end dozer. Another source you may use two. When I bring in the second one, whoever is running it on the job, they'll come with their dozer. Well, in this instance, if they don't have the MSHA training, obviously their dozer can't go with them or they can't come with it. MR. BRELAND: It's almost always a mobile equipment operator of some sort? MR. POTTS: Mobile equipment operator. Normally speaking, my plant operator, my plant personnel are with the plant, and they would through safety meetings -- and I would hope we could grandfather in some of these people a little bit. I don't know how you take a guy that's been through 20 years of running a rock crusher and then all of a sudden say you need eight hours training to -- I think they need -- you know, the eight hours training doesn't hurt anybody, but they've heard most of it before. MR. BURNS: I think the training plan that has been put together by the industry group that was mentioned before, that does talk about grandfathering, you know, current mine employees, and then they require, you know, the eight hours annual refresher within a certain period of time. I'm still trying to figure out what to do about this crossover, and you're always -- because of the turnover issue, you're always going to have a certain number of people that don't have that 24 hours of training, and what you're proposing is that they get some sort of new amount of training up-front, they get supervised work, and then the rest is filled in through the safety talks. MR. POTTS: That would be my proposal. MR. BURNS: And certainly the task training would fill in for any new tasks or new hazards they'd be exposed to? MR. POTTS: Yes. MR. BURNS: Okay. MR. POTTS: I think that's very important on any mine site, especially a new one. You have new hazards and new tasks on a lot of sites, and I mean, if you go from an alluvial gravel pit, for instance, to a quarry source, you're put in a job that you haven't run, a jaw operator, there's a lot of task training involved with that that a person may not have been around before, but there's -- that's my biggest concern is moving from site to site on a portable plant is keeping people there trained without having to have a full-time trainer somewhere to train them. We're a small company. I mean, that's hard to justify a full-time trainer on staff. MR. BRELAND: Thank you, Mr. Potts. MR. BURNS: You know, like I said, we will try to address this, and the proposed rule will probably be put out in the spring, and I hope -- you know, we'll try to make sure we send you a copy. Did your company receive a letter concerning these public meetings? MR. POTTS: Yes, I did. That's why I'm here. Yes, I get one or two of them. We have two portable plants. MR. BURNS: Okay. Because I'm curious about that, because you know how mailing lists are. They're constant work to keep them updated, but I would be interested in your input on this issue once the proposal comes out or if you have any thoughts on it before the proposal comes out, if you would like to either submit them directly to us or through an association also. MR. POTTS: Well, and then real quickly on the same token -- I realize MSHA's budget restrictions. You're always short handed like all of us, and I know in our field office, for instance, they didn't even know anything about the meeting. I was asking some guys, some of our field office people if they were going and don't even know nothing about it, but for training, I hear some of these guys talking about training in conjunction with their MSHA people. As far as I know, that's never been offered in our area, and I've talked to them about it on more than one occasion. We've had, as mandated, I think, the last two years due to fatalities, a short 15-minute talk by an inspector at different times, twice in the last two years, show up just one day and give a short lunch break talk about the fatalities and things, but as far as any formal training given by MSHA, we've not had any. I would be interested in that. MR. BURNS: Is there a period in the year when that would be most effective from the standpoint that people would be more available? MR. POTTS: January, February, just like the rest of the world here, I imagine. MR. BRELAND: I was just going to add. You said you're from Idaho, and a little bit of background on what my role will be as western operations manager, we are in the process of -- we've done a lot of selections, and we are going to place a training specialist in Boise, in the Boise field office. I don't know if that's close to where you're at. MR. POTTS: Yes. MR. BRELAND: That person will be assigned to try to assist as much -- we want to get to mine sites as much as we can. We're going to put one in Bellevue, Washington, as well, one in Arizona, one in Southern California. So we are trying to spread these people out some to help provide some assistance and on-site assistance and not just the walk-and- talk type stuff. We'll be not in an enforcement mode but in a training and safety program assistance kind of mode. MR. POTTS: Well, I think as far as fatalities and the work in the mine, I feel that training and the -- good training would save more fatalities than enforcement ever does, because I know me as a -- myself as a mine operator, I try to practice good safety practices, and you get an enforcer out there that can be very, very petty and give you two citations -- just as I heard earlier, a light bulb 40 feet in the air that's unguarded or something. You know, I would lot rather see somebody coming in willing to work with us and say, here's your problems, site-specific problems, and, you know, obviously you've not addressed them at all, have some enforcement, but if you've tried to address all your problems, maybe educate us a little more on what needs to be addressed. We can all read the rule book, and we try to cover all the rules, but there's a lot of them there. For myself anyway, that's the way I feel. MR. BURNS: Any other? MS. ALEJANDRO: Yes. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Potts. The next speakers that we have signed up -- I believe they're coming up together -- Pete -- and I apologize for the pronunciation. Pete Zagar and Dave Griffin from Eugene Sand & Gravel. (Pause.) If you could, spell your name for the court reporter. PETE ZAGAR MR. ZAGAR: My name is Pete Zagar, Z-a-g-a-r, and this is David Griffin, spelled G-r-i-f-f-i-n, and I'm the production superintendent at Eugene Sand & Gravel in Eugene, Oregon, and David is our safety director, and we'd like to kind of present what we're doing right now, and I'm also the environmental chair for OCAPA. So what I'd like to describe briefly -- and then I'll turn it over to Dave -- is what we're doing, and I'd like to say a couple of things. One of the things that I've recognized out there in Oregon -- and I can only speak for Oregon, but we have several -- more than several companies that already have very good training modules in place that follow 48, and we believe ours is one of them. One of the things that I'm going to propose that I would like to see done -- and I don't know if it's feasible or not -- is for the larger companies to make these boilerplate plans, if you will, available to the smaller operators. We're perfectly willing to loan a copy of ours out to anybody who wants to review it as a boilerplate, assuming that what we have is acceptable MSHA. Actually, what we have here is acceptable to MSHA. Back in 1996 we submitted a copy of our plan to the Albany field office, and in turn, that copy was submitted to Vacaville and although at that time they don't have the funding to officially approve it, they did review it, and they gave it their blessing. So it has been endorsed, and actually, the gentleman who endorsed that was Leo Hayden down there in Vacaville