________________________________________
MSHA PUBLIC HEARING                    )
			                        )
PROPOSED RULE ON EMERGENCY EVACUATIONS )
                                       )
_______________________________________)




























Pages:	1 through 77

Place:	Grand Junction, Colorado

Date:     February 6, 2003

     __________________________________________
 1   MSHA PUBLIC HEARING                       )

 2   PROPOSED RULE ON EMERGENCY EVACUATIONS    )
             
 3   __________________________________________)

     GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
 4   ---------------------------------------------------- 

 5   REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT -- February 6, 2003 

 6   ---------------------------------------------------- 

 7   HEARING PANEL:

 8   WILLIAM CROCCO

 9   EDWARD SEXAUER
10   MARVIN W. NICHOLS, SR., Moderator
11   JENNIFER HONOR 
12   CARL LUNDGREN 
13   ---------------------------------------------------- 
14                  The above-entitled cause came on for 
15   Public hearing at the Holiday Inn Conference Room, 755 
16   Horizon Drive; Grand Junction, Colorado on February 6, 
17   2003. 
18   
19   
20   
21   
20   
22   
23   
24
25

                      P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S             
                 (The following proceedings were had at 8:59 
                 a.m)
 1   
 2               MR. NICHOLS:  Good morning, everybody.  If 
 3   we could take a seat, we'll get started here.
 4               Good morning, again.  My name is Marvin 
 5   Nichols.  I am the Director of the Office of Standards 
 6   and Variances for the Mine Safety and Health 
 7   Administration.
 8               I have some of my other colleagues here with 
 9   me today.  Carl Lundgren at the back desk.  He is an 
10   economist with my office.  Jennifer Honor.  Jennifer is 
11   with the Solicitor's office.  She is one of our many 
12   in-house lawyers.  Ed Sexauer.  Ed is acting Deputy 
13   Director of my office.  And Bill Crocco, who is the 
14   Chief Accident Investigations Manager for coal mine 
15   safety and health.  
16               On behalf of Dave Lauriski, the Assistant 
17   Secretary of Labor for mine safety and health, I want to 
18   welcome all of you here today.  This is the second of 
19   four hearings we have scheduled on the proposed rule for 
20   emergency evacuations for underground coal mines.
21               The purpose of these hearings is to obtain 
22   comments from interested members of the public on the 
23   proposed rule for emergency evacuation.  We will use 
24   these comments to determine the best way to assure that 
25   underground coal miners will be protected during a mine 


 1   emergency.
 2               (An off-the-record discussion was had.)
 3               The first of our hearings was this past 
 4   Tuesday, the 4th, over in Lexington, Kentucky.  We have 
 5   two other hearings scheduled next week.  We will be in 
 6   Charleston, West Virginia on February 11; that's 
 7   Tuesday.  And Pittsburg, Pennsylvania on February 13th;  
 8   that's Thursday.
 9               The initial announcement of these four 
10   rule-making hearings was published in the Federal 
11   Register on December 12, 2002.  Copies of this Federal 
12   Register document are available in the room back at the 
13   sign-in table.
14               The proposed rule that is the subject of 
15   these hearings is identical to the Emergency Temporary 
16   Standard published on December 12, 2002.  The proposed 
17   rule would establish requirements for mine evacuations 
18   in response to mine fires, explosion, and gas or water 
19   inundation emergencies.
20               I'd like to give you some background which 
21   led us here today.  Under the Section 101(b) of the 
22   Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 the secretary 
23   has the authority to issue an emergency temporary 
24   standard if it is determined that miners are exposed to 
25   grave danger from exposure to substances or agents 

 1  determined to be toxic or physically harmful, or to 
 2   other hazards, and that such emergency standard is 
 3   necessary to protect miners from such danger.
 4               On December 12, 2002, MSHA issued an 
 5   emergency temporary standard in response to the grave 
 6   dangers which miners are exposed to during fires, 
 7   explosion, and gas or water inundation emergencies.      
 8              The recent death of 14 miners at two 
 9   underground coal mines punctuates the need for MSHA to 
10   address proper training and mine emergency evacuation 
11   procedures.
12               The emergency temporary standard was 
13   effective immediately upon publication, and is effective 
14   until superseded.  Under the Mine Act, the secretary 
15   shall have nine months from the date of publication of 
16   the emergency temporary standard to promulgate a 
17   mandatory health and safety standard which will 
18   supersede the emergency temporary standard.
19               By law, the emergency standard shall also 
20   operate as the proposed rule.  That proposed rule is the 
21   subject of this rule making.  We are here today to 
22   receive comments on MSHA's proposed rule for emergency 
23   evacuation and to get your impressions on how the 
24   regulation has worked since it was issued December 12th, 
25   2002.

 1              The major provisions of the proposed rule 
 2   would require, one, operators of our underground coal 
 3   mines would designate for each shift that miners are 
 4   working underground, a responsible person in attendance 
 5   at the mine to take charge during mine fire, explosion, 
 6   and gas or water inundation emergencies.
 7               Two.  The designated responsible person must 
 8   have current knowledge of various mine systems that 
 9   protect the safety and health of miners.
10               Three.  The responsible person must initiate 
11   and conduct an immediate mine evacuation where there is 
12   a mine emergency which presents an imminent danger to 
13   miners due to fire, explosion, or gas or water 
14   inundation.
15               Four.  Only properly trained and equipped 
16   persons who are necessary to respond to a mine emergency 
17   may remain underground.
18               Five.  The existing requirements for a 
19   program of instruction for firefighting and evacuation 
20   would be expanded to address not only fires, but also 
21   explosions, and gas or water inundation emergencies.
22               Six.  Part 48 training requirements would be 
23   revised to reflect that the annual refresher training 
24   includes a review of mine fire, explosion, and gas or 
25   water inundation emergency evacuation and firefighting 


 1   plans in effect at the nine.  
 2               So far, MSHA has received several comments 
 3   on the proposed rule.  One commenter recommended that we 
 4   expand coverage of the rule to include metal and 
 5   nonmetal mines.
 6               Another commenter supported portions of the 
 7   rule, but felt that some portions were ambiguous and 
 8   allowed MSHA too much leeway to second guess operator 
 9   decisions on whether to evacuate.
10               Finally, the commenter felt that the 
11   proposed rule fosters the idea that the first step in a 
12   mine emergency is always to evacuate the mine.
13               The remaining two commenters offered a 
14   series of suggestions on how to improve the proposed 
15   rule.  We have posted all of these on our web page at 
16   www.MSHA.gov. 
17               As I mentioned, we had the public meeting in 
18   Lexington, Kentucky on Tuesday; and we will get those 
19   comments up on the web site as soon as we get the 
20   transcript.
21               The issues surrounding the safety and health 
22   of miners are important to MSHA.  We will use the 
23   information provided by you and all the commenters to 
24   help us decide how to best proceed through this rule 
25   making.


 1               These four hearings will give miners, mine 
 2   operators, and their representatives, and other 
 3   interested parties an opportunity to present their views 
 4   on this proposed rule.
 5               The format of this public hearing will be as 
 6   follows.  Formal Rules of Evidence will not apply, and 
 7   this hearing will be conducted in an informal manner.
 8               While this rule has been in place a little 
 9   less than two months, we have developed several 
10   questions and answers that the field has passed up to 
11   us, primarily the lawyers and Bill Crocco and Coal Mine 
12   Safety and Health.  That's still a work in progress with 
13   local issues.  
14               What we tried to do was develop a standard 
15   that dealt with, what we felt like, was a grave danger; 
16   and that was to get a person designated to manage a mine 
17   emergency; be sure the person was properly equipped; and 
18   that the miners always knew who this person was; and to 
19   update the current evacuation plan that only deal with 
20   firefighting, to include explosions and gas and water 
21   inundation.
22               We are still dealing with questions that are 
23   being brought up from the field, and that's kind of a 
24   work in progress.
25               What we want to do at these hearings is try 


 1   to get all of the issues out on the table, and probably 
 2   the final rule will have to still address some of the 
 3   questions that remain.
 4               Those of you who have signed up to speak 
 5   will make your presentations first.  After all speakers 
 6   are finished, others can request to speak; and when the 
 7   last speaker is finished, we will conclude this public 
 8   hearing.
 9               If you wish to present any written 
10   statements or information today, please clearly identify 
11   your material.  When you give it to me, I will identify 
12   the material by the title as submitted.  You may also 
13   submit comments following the meeting.  Please submit 
14   them to MSHA by February 28th, 2003, which is the close 
15   of the post-hearing comment period.
16               Comments may be submitted to MSHA by 
17   electronic mail at comments@MSHA.gov, or by fax at 
18   202-693-9441, or by regular mail or hand delivery to 
19   MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at 
20   1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2352, Arlington, Virginia.
21               A verbatim transcript of this public hearing 
22   will be available upon request.  If you want a personal 
23   copy of the meeting transcript, please make arrangements 
24   with the court reporter, or you may view it on MSHA's 
25   web site.  It will be posted on the web site shortly 

 
 1   after this public meeting.
 2               We will begin with the persons who have 
 3   requested to speak.  When you come up to speak, please 
 4   clearly state your name, your organization, and spell 
 5   your name so we are sure to get it right for the record.
 6               Our first presenter will be Larry Huestis 
 7   with UMWA?
 8               THE SPEAKER:  My name is Larry Huestis.  
 9   That's spelled H-u-e-s-t-i-s, and I represent the United 
10   Mine Workers international union.  I would like to read 
11   some things I'd like to be inserted into the record 
12   presented by my office and to the committee.
13               The UMWA is concerned that this action does 
14   not adequate address the problems miners face should an 
15   emergency situation arise.  The emergency rule fails to 
16   address improvements in addition to mine emergencies 
17   response identified during the disaster investigation at 
18   the Jim Walters Number 5 mine disaster, and additional 
19   regulation is needed.
20               The union review of the emergency standard 
21   and current language in the appropriate sections of 30 
22   CFR found the following changes have been made.
23               Part 48.8.  Annual refresher training of 
24   miners, minimum courses of instruction, hours of 
25   instruction, was amended to require a review of roof and 


 1   ground control plans, procedures for controlling and 
 2   maintaining ventilation, and the mine emergency and 
 3   evacuation plan as part of the miners retraining.        
 4               MSHA's commentary on the rule also indicates 
 5   the training of the new emergency evacuation procedure 
 6   under Part 48 does not have to be conducted by an 
 7   MSHA-approved instructor.  That, however, conflicts with 
 8   Part 48.4 which specifies training is to be by approved 
 9   instructors.
10               Training on emergency evacuation procedures 
11   are not specified for the task of hazard training.  Part 
12   75.1501, emergency evacuation, was added as a new 
13   section.  Those provisions expand on the provisions 
14   contained in part 75.1600-1 which requires a responsible 
15   person to respond to mine emergencies.
16               The new procedures or the new provisions 
17   require responsive person to take charge during mine 
18   emergencies.  Mine emergencies were nearly -- newly 
19   defined as a fire, explosion, gas or water inundation.  
20   The new rule requires the responsible person to have 
21   knowledge of the assigned location and expected 
22   movements of the miners underground.
23               (The reporter interrupted and asked the 
24   speaker to read his material more slowly.)
25               The new rule requires the responsible 


 1   person to have knowledge of the assigned location and 
 2   expected movement of miners underground, the operations 
 3   of the mine ventilation system, location of escapeway, 
 4   mine communications system, and any mine monitoring 
 5   system used in the mine emergency and firefighting 
 6   program of instruction.
 7               The new rule requires the responsible person 
 8   to initiate a mine evacuation when mine emergency 
 9   presents an immediate danger to miners from fire, 
10   explosion, gas or water inundation.  Only properly 
11   trained and equipped persons essential to the emergency 
12   response can remain underground.
13               It required that the operator instruct all 
14   miners of the emergency rule by December 19th, 2002, 
15   along with informing miners of the identity of the 
16   responsible person for the miners work shift; and if 
17   changed, miners are to be informed of the identity 
18   before the start of their work shift.
19               The investigation into the Jim Walters 
20   Number 5 mine disaster found a number of flaws in the 
21   firefighting and evacuation plan.  And several 
22   improvements were made to address those.  While this new 
23   section contains increased protections for miners, it, 
24   however, fails to meet the needs as identified during 
25   the Jim Walters Number 5 disaster investigation.


 1               The standards do not address emergencies 
 2   during idle shifts, communications, atmospheric systems 
 3   in place during emergencies, defining what a properly 
 4   trained and equipped person is, the equipment such as 
 5   methane, carbon monoxide detectors on hand for emergency 
 6   responders, accurate tracking of miners designated of a 
 7   responsible person underground to manage the emergency,  
 8   training and situation simulation of the responsible 
 9   persons, expanded training for those responding and 
10   available of emergency transportation.
11               The rule should not limit emergencies to 
12   those identified.  It should cover any emergency.  MSHA 
13   also has informed the industry that the responsible 
14   person is not required to remain on the surface.  That 
15   could quickly turn an emergency response into a disaster 
16   in the responsible person becomes a victim of the 
17   emergency.
18               Part 75.1101-23 program of instructions,  
19   location and use of firefighting equipment, location of 
20   escapeways, exits and routes of travel.  Evacuation 
21   procedures, fire drills was redesignated as 75.1502, 
22   mine emergency evacuation and firefighting programs of 
23   instruction.
24               The changes in the revised section address 
25   mine emergencies and mine emergency evacuation as 


 1   opposed to fires and fire drills.
 2               The new rule calls for mine emergency 
 3   evacuation drills instead of fire drills.  While 
 4   increased drills are needed for emergencies, fire drills 
 5   should still be required and beefed up.  The rule does 
 6   not specify what is required in the emergency drills. 
 7   They should include improved hands-on firefighting, a 
 8   self-contained self-rescue training and simulated 
 9   emergency rescue evaluations.
10               Drills should also be conducted during 
11   fully-staffed and partially-staffed shifts which would 
12   include idle shifts.  Drills must also involve the 
13   responsible person.
14               Problems found with firefighting and 
15   evacuation plan at the Jim Walters Number 5 mine likely 
16   exist in plans in other mines, and improvements made in 
17   the Jim Walters plan, and those recommended, should be 
18   addressed in all plans to improve safety for miners.
19               The emergency rule should be changed to 
20   require those.  The emergency evacuation plan 
21   improvements and those recommended at Jim Walters Number 
22   5 are contained in pages 113 and 114 of the union's 
23   report of the June -- Jim Walters Number 5 mine 
24   disaster.
25               Other improvements affecting both mine 


 1   emergencies and preventions are found on pages 112 
 2   through 123.  Those improvements should also be pursued 
 3   through the emergency rule making including 
 4   communication systems, page 114; mine-wide atmosphere 
 5   monitoring, page 117; protection of sectional electrical 
 6   equipment, page 119; improvements in the battery design, 
 7   page 119; quantity and quality in distribution of 
 8   methane, multiple gas detectors, page 121.  The 
 9   temporary emergency rule fails to address those 
10   problems.
11               Mr. Nichols, I believe you have a copy of 
12   the mine workers report?
13               MR. NICHOLS:  Yes, I do. 
14               THE SPEAKER:  I don't have it with me to 
15   give it, but I think you have it. 
16               MR. NICHOLS:  Yes, we do. 
17               THE SPEAKER:  So those references to those 
18   pages on those documents.
19               That's all I have to address the panel.
20               MR. NICHOLS:  Larry, are you asking we make 
21   that report part of the record?
22               THE SPEAKER:  Yes. 
23               MR. NICHOLS:  Larry, we may have some 
24   questions for you.  Get back over here.  He wants to 
25   talk fast and get out of here.


 1               Do any of you guys have questions for Larry?  
 2               MR. CROCCO:  I have one question, Larry.  
 3   You may not know the answer.  It sounded like you are 
 4   under the impression that this rule does not apply 
 5   during idle shifts or nonproducing shifts; is that 
 6   right?
 7               THE SPEAKER:  That's my understanding; and 
 8   also that, you know, the responsible individual, you 
 9   know, where his location and where he must be located, I 
10   guess we have a difference, but, yes you are right; we 
11   don't believe it covers idle and off shifts.
12               MR. CROCCO:  Why do you say that?
13               THE SPEAKER:  That's just from what I have 
14   been told.
15               MR. CROCCO:  Okay. 
16               MR. NICHOLS:  There is another issue 
17   starting to surface here.  It will be clearer as we work 
18   through the rest of these hearings.  The way this 
19   rule-making process works is we issued the emergency 
20   temporary standard that we thought would deal with the 
21   most immediate concerns of a grave danger; that was 
22   getting a person designated that was responsible for 
23   evacuating the mine and managing -- help manage the 
24   emergency, also getting the plans upgraded to include 
25   these other issues, such as explosions, gas and water 


 1   inundation, and the Part 48 training.
 2               The law requires that we use that for the 
 3   proposed rule.  And as we work through the rule-making 
 4   process on the proposed rule, the law will not allow us 
 5   to deal with issues that weren't raised in that proposed 
 6   rule.  It's the Administrative Procedure Act that 
 7   governs rule making.
 8               If you haven't talked about something in 
 9   your proposed rule, you can't go -- you have to consider 
10   the comments as some kind of natural outgrowth of the 
11   issues you raised.  Battery design, SESRs.  We will have 
12   to weigh this as we go on.  I don't know if that's 
13   beyond the scope of this rule making or...  So we are 
14   going to have to weigh that.
15               Do you want to say anything else, Jennifer, 
16   about that.
17               MS. HONOR:  I think I would piggyback on 
18   that by saying that if we could try to streamline your 
19   comments to focus on the major provisions of the rule.  
20   That certainly isn't to discount any other concerns that 
21   you may have.  I just think there is probably a more 
22   appropriate venue or a better manner to discuss any of 
23   your other concerns.
24               But for this public hearing here, we should 
25   try to focus on the provisions that we have here in this 


 1   document. 
 2               MR. NICHOLS:  We will take all of the 
 3   comments.  We are interested in all of the comments.
 4               MS. HONOR:  Right. 
 5               MR. NICHOLS:  But I am just trying to let 
 6   you know what parameters we have to work with as far as 
 7   developing this final rule. 
 8               THE SPEAKER:  And I'm sure my organization 
 9   will -- may have a difference of opinion there, and you 
10   will probably be hearing from them as far as your 
11   interpretation, their interpretation.  So as long as 
12   what I have got and given you today is on record.
13               MR. NICHOLS:  Yeah. 
14               THE SPEAKER:  And I'm sure through the rest 
15   of the hearings you will be hearing more.  Some of the 
16   actual day-to-day mine operations, we have some of our 
17   local members who got in here just a little before -- or 
18   a little after the hearing started.  So maybe if there 
19   is any questions, I'll talk to them about maybe 
20   answering those questions or giving them somewhat of a 
21   chance to answer some of your questions. 
22               MR. NICHOLS:  Yeah.  They are all good 
23   issues that we are very interested in.  Thanks, Larry.   
24               MS. HONOR:  Thank you.
25               MR. NICHOLS:  The next presenter will be 


 1   Linc Derick with 20-Mile Coal Company.
 2               MR. DERICK:  My name is R. Lincoln Derick,  
 3   L-i-n-c-o-l-n, Derick, D-e-r-i-c-k, with 20-Mile Coal 
 4   Company.  
 5               Our parent company, REG American Coal has 
 6   made formal comments on these regulations, so I want to 
 7   make some comments that relate more to our effort at 
 8   20-Mile Coal Company.  And some are general comments.  
 9   With your statement, Mr. Nichols, I will clarify which 
10   ones aren't in the scope of the regulations.
11               Two issues arose out of this.  First, there 
12   is commenting on the agreement or content of the 
13   regulations; and the other, more important issue, is 
14   they are regulations, and the compliance effort in 
15   assuring whether we are currently in compliance with the 
16   intent of the regulations, regardless of whether we 
17   agree with some of them.
18               In reviewing them, we made comments ourself, 
19   which I'll read some of them, but more importantly is 
20   that in talking to the responsible persons and people 
21   that become spell responsible persons, of what are their 
22   opinions, after receiving the training in the new 
23   regulations, what are their hesitations or concerns over 
24   the regulations themselves, since they are the ones that 
25   we all need to walk in the responsible person's shoes 


 1   when we are looking at these.
 2               Prior to really discussing concerns of the 
 3   responsible persons and just looking at comments, 
 4   Section 75.1501, the responsible person shall have 
 5   current knowledge.  Designating one person on each shift 
 6   to be in charge is feasible.  However, determining a 
 7   level of knowledge and proficiency of each designated 
 8   person is going to be very difficult.
 9               (The reporter asked the speaker to use the 
10   microphone.)
11               THE SPEAKER:  Is it to the level that 
12   currently exists where a supervisor is deemed 
13   responsible enough to amend a shift underground, knowing 
14   that a vast support system is available through the 
15   entire mine management system; or does that person have 
16   such an extensive knowledge that they could manage an 
17   emergency by themselves?
18               I might interject here from, a different 
19   scope, as we all learn, it takes a village to raise a 
20   kid.  It takes everybody to manage a mine emergency, not 
21   one person.
22               When a spell person is used to cover for an 
23   absent normally assigned person, that person is 
24   generally chosen for their level of responsibility, but 
25   that person must rely on in-place systems and management 


 1   support.  The responsible person is most likely going to 
 2   be underground at the time of a mine emergency, and many 
 3   of the duties that this regulation addresses may have to 
 4   be performed by other personnel.
 5               B of that says shall initiate and conduct an 
 6   immediate mine evacuation when there is a mine 
 7   emergency.  Does this mean that miners that are in by 
 8   the affected area evacuate, or the entire mine evacuate?  
 9   It should only apply to miners who are affected by the 
10   imminent danger.  The decision to evacuate the entire 
11   mine must be made according to the emergency that is 
12   arising.
13               In the occurrence of an unplanned fire 
14   underground, is an imminent danger condition in that 
15   immediate area, but may be resolved in a short time 
16   frame and simple manner that does not risk other areas 
17   of the mine.
18               Only properly trained and equipped persons 
19   essential to mine emergency may remain underground. This 
20   is confusing, as is this to be construed as mine rescue 
21   personnel, since current requirements allow for 
22   designated miners for the fire-fighting evacuation plan 
23   may be used.
24               Requirements for a trained mine rescue team 
25   member are the only defined persons in the current 


 1   regulations that define levels of training.  Previous 
 2   MSHA regulations attempted to define proper mine rescue 
 3   training and member qualifications, helped cause a 
 4   drastic reduction in the number of teams that could meet 
 5   the new definition.
 6               This regulation may provide that same 
 7   potential negative impact even though the intention is 
 8   to improve safety.  We have a fully-trained fire brigade 
 9   that receives as much training, or more, as our mine 
10   rescue teams.
11               However, there are situations where they 
12   have not been allowed to go underground during a mine 
13   fire after MSHA has issued a K order, unless they also 
14   meet all of the requirements of a rescue mine team 
15   member.
16               Secretary 75.1502 states that endangered 
17   miners due to fire.  The type of fire or gas or water 
18   inundation must be defined.  That could be considered to 
19   be a mine-wide emergency.  Seals could rupture that let 
20   out low oxygen.  You could have minor water breakage.  
21   The intent of how severe the mine emergency is pretty 
22   broad, to say gas or water inundation.  That could be 
23   gas or water inundation in a small area or could 
24   endanger a large area of the mine.
25               Evacuation of all miners not required for a 


 1   mine emergency response.  This seems to be sometimes 
 2   contradictory to having only trained personnel, which at 
 3   that point would insinuate only mine rescue team members 
 4   meet that qualification.
 5               These next two are general comments.  REG 
 6   20-mile has used the PED system for years, and several 
 7   years ago we were approached by NIOSH whether we would 
 8   be a test mine for a two-way PED system which would 
 9   allow communications back.
10               As we understand it, funding, somewhere in 
11   the process of the NIOSH or MSHA, stopped that project, 
12   and we would wish that to be reconsidered.  The PED 
13   system has been a major improvement of mine 
14   communications, especially now if the responsible person 
15   is to try to make communications back outside.
16               We have also been working with NIOSH for 
17   many years about needed research on the safety of 
18   fighting a major fire with large foam generator 
19   firefighting effort.  To date we have been frustrated 
20   that there is -- that research has not moved forward 
21   into fighting a fire, up dip, down dip; the gases that 
22   would come on the offside of a fire, especially if a 
23   foam generator fire effort was in place.
24               These are unknowns, and raise problems 
25   during firefighting because they remain unknown.  We 


 1   have been doing quite a bit of research on NIOSH on 
 2   steeply pitching firefighting, but it is with little 
 3   interest from most of the mine safety industry.
 4               I would like to think that the responsible 
 5   person could come to a point where somebody could 
 6   quickly quiz me to see if I meet the intent of what's 
 7   required of a responsible person.  In turn, I think 
 8   anybody at the mine could be quickly quizzed to see if 
 9   they meet that definition.
10               The new belt air regulation proposals are 
11   stressing the qualifications and training of the 
12   atmospheric monitoring attendant on the surface.  I 
13   would hope that if that regulation is approved, or even 
14   in the current form, that there is a responsible person 
15   outside to react to an AMS system and knows how to 
16   evacuate the mine, that one call from the responsible 
17   person to that attendant ordering a mine evacuation 
18   would suffice that he fulfilled his duty as ordering a 
19   mine evacuation.
20               The concern is the responsible person 
21   shouldn't have to go back and make numerous calls to the 
22   surface to find out if the evacuation is being carried 
23   out.  His duty may be to address the emergency.
24               The question would arise if people do 
25   participate in mine emergency fire drills, does that 


 1   constitute that they are trained to address a mine 
 2   emergency and stay in their work area to combat a mine 
 3   fire or other emergency.  Or is it ensuing or inferring 
 4   that additional training is needed.
 5               We have been doing lots of hands-on training 
 6   over the years on 150-pound wheel units, fire 
 7   extinguishers, foam generators, but that we have always 
 8   believed is above the normal training of a mine fire 
 9   drill.
10               That question is going to come up that what 
11   is the definition of "trained".  I think the speaker 
12   before talked to that, too.  Is it hands on; is it going 
13   to second guess the person who is handling a mine 
14   emergency, and it's the first time they have used a fire 
15   hose, a extinguisher, that we would like to see that 
16   clarified as to does it still meet the definition of 
17   trained.
18               One of the examples in the justification of 
19   these rules was on an on-section emergency response.  I 
20   think we would have all thought that that construed 
21   those people were trained by their fire drills.
22               We need to be careful to not underreact to 
23   an emergency by not accepting a reasonable risk.  Two 
24   coal fire plants in northwest Colorado both have a rule 
25   of one person with one extinguisher for a fire is the 


 1   maximum effort that can be given to combat an emergency.  
 2   If that person fails, then a total power plant 
 3   evacuation occurs, and a local volunteer fire department 
 4   is called in to take over.
 5               One of these power plants is the largest in 
 6   the state of Colorado.  What would happen to personnel 
 7   trapped by the fire if only one extinguisher is 
 8   exhausted.
 9               This is beginning to sound familiar with 
10   these new regulations.  Who do we call in the mining 
11   industry?
12               The concern of the regulations 
13   concentrating on evacuations are starting to hit at the 
14   most reasonable course of action, if you are the 
15   responsible person, is to evacuate and run.  I believe 
16   we need to ask this; at what level may one employee put 
17   his or her life at risk to save a fellow employee, 
18   possibly by performing a task or an effort that he or 
19   she is not adequately trained at.
20               I think we need to address that situation.  
21   A lot of people have put their lives on the line for 
22   fellow miners, and sometimes it is not strictly done by 
23   the book.  When -- we need to really think of the 
24   industry we are in.
25               We must address these regulations first by 


 1   putting ourselves in the shoes of the responsible 
 2   person.  A large mine is unfortunate to experience a 
 3   major disaster.  Is it reasonable that MSHA does not 
 4   find any fault in some aspect of that responsible 
 5   person?  The responsible persons are feeling that this 
 6   is a no-win situation other than to evacuate the mine.
 7               I really want to -- we have offered today to 
 8   the State of Colorado, that we would like to be a 
 9   training facility for developing material for what is a 
10   competent and responsible person.  It has been pretty 
11   easy in these regulations to list what that responsible 
12   person should know, but I don't know of any one aspect 
13   of those that any one person meets that total 
14   qualification.
15               When we are into mine emergencies, best 
16   effort is sometimes the best we are going to get.
17               I appreciate the opportunity to speak.  As I 
18   say, our company has made more formal comments on this 
19   subject.
20               Thank you.
21               MR. NICHOLS:  Anything you want to leave 
22   with us? 
23               THE SPEAKER:  Not really. 
24               MR. NICHOLS:  Any questions?
25               MR. CROCCO:  You Talked a little bit about 


 1   the credit system.  At 20-Mile is every miner equipped 
 2   with a PED receiver, or just certain of the personnel.
 3               THE SPEAKER:  We are purchasing so many a 
 4   month, but to date every fire boss, every belt man, EMT, 
 5   any supervisor, anybody that works in remote areas has 
 6   one.  But it doesn't make sense at this point in time 
 7   that a continuous miner crew, everybody on there have 
 8   one.
 9               The system is used extensively.  The nice 
10   thing about the PED system is it is not just an 
11   emergency device that we see in too many disasters.  
12   Sometimes units that aren't used on a regular basis 
13   fail.  It is a regular communication tool.  So you are 
14   testing it dozens of times every shift.
15               MR. CROCCO:  Can you talk a little bit about 
16   the cost and the effectiveness of that system in your 
17   experience. 
18               THE SPEAKER:  I'm not sure of the cost.  We 
19   have been able to maintain it with an atmospheric 
20   monitor attendant, with training.  We have been able to 
21   self-maintain the units.
22               I don't believe we would ever have any 
23   negative comment about whether it was worth the 
24   installation.  It has been extremely reliable.  The 
25   responsible person that I was working with last weekend 


 1   on this, concerns was it is not going to work if I'm 
 2   walking the tailgate out; if I'm back in some areas of 
 3   the bleeder.
 4               We have expanded different antennas of it, 
 5   but you can't get 100 percent mine coverage.  And his 
 6   concern is what do I do now when I want to walk the 
 7   tailgate.
 8               My comment is, then you need to then make 
 9   other responsible persons or the attendant outside aware 
10   that you are going to be out of communications for a 
11   certain length of time.
12               But if we could just look at the impact, 
13   first at what safety is this going to give all miners, I 
14   think that's the number one thing to look at.  But then 
15   the other is what is this doing to that responsible 
16   person.  Running a mine 7 days a week, 365 days a year, 
17   you are not going to have every shift the person you 
18   intended to have on that shift.
19               When you get into this, our mine runs an 
20   extremely complicated mine monitoring system coupled 
21   with mine process controls, our on-site gas 
22   chromatograph; and to think that what we feel is a mine 
23   management oversight of a mine emergency, to think we 
24   can bring every person up to full knowledge of our gas 
25   chromatograph program, alternative escapeways out of the 


 1   mine, of which we have many that are not designated -- 
 2    that's what I want to start working on, is what level 
 3   can I give responsible persons in training, to where if 
 4   they understand what we give, then a failure outside of 
 5   that area is a failure of the training system, not a 
 6   failure of that person.
 7               Because these are the heart of our mine 
 8   emergency people, is this responsible person.
 9               MR. CROCCO:  The secondary communication 
10   system such as the PED, is this something you would 
11   recommend for every mine or something that is needed? 
12               THE SPEAKER:  Other mines may have other 
13   systems which may be more effective.
14               MR. CROCCO:  But just as a secondary 
15   communication system, is that something that's needed, 
16   in your opinion? 
17               THE SPEAKER:  I would say it's advisable.  I 
18   wouldn't say it's needed.  That could get down to a 
19   small mine having an exhaustive system.  I think the 
20   complexity of the mine probably drives that.
21               But like I say, we were pretty excited over 
22   potentially being a NIOSH research center with the 
23   two-way PED.  We are currently creating with NIOSH on 
24   emergency training and firefighting development areas, 
25   and these have been created in effect for over six years 


 1   in both subjects.
 2               MR. NICHOLS:  When have you last heard from 
 3   NIOSH?
 4               THE SPEAKER:  On the two-way PED? 
 5               MR. NICHOLS:  Yes. 
 6               THE SPEAKER:  It has probably been over a 
 7   year.  I'm not sure -- whether that was a technology gap 
 8   or an expenditure gap.
 9               MR. SEXAUER:  I have a little bit of a cold 
10   so bear with me.  We have heard a lot of comments on the 
11   responsible person and whether that person should be on 
12   the surface or underground.  What we've heard at the 
13   other hearing was testimony that the responsible person 
14   should be on the surface, but have enough familiarity 
15   and be underground frequently enough so that they know 
16   the conditions of the mine underground and are current.  
17               What's your view on that subject?
18               THE SPEAKER:  The responsible person is 
19   going to have to be the person that is most in charge of 
20   the workforce, and that is -- that could get to where a 
21   person with less qualifications then be deemed the 
22   responsible person.  A responsible atmospheric 
23   monitoring system attendant may be completely capable of 
24   doing, implementing and following the mine emergency 
25   plans, but may not have a thorough understanding of the 


 1   underground.
 2               If you are going to say one person is 
 3   responsible for what the regulations say, that's going 
 4   to have to be a person that has no barriers of where he 
 5   is at, he or she.  It is either underground doing their 
 6   duties, which is where they would most likely be where 
 7   they are at; or if they are outside, they could still 
 8   fulfill that, just as the regulations are proposed.
 9               Now we have already received local 
10   inspectors comments that we could be forced to have a 
11   second person, a second responsible person, one outside 
12   and one underground.  That is enforcing past the intent 
13   of the temporary standard or the proposed regulations.
14               However, having a responsible person on the 
15   surface to manage an atmospheric monitoring system 
16   should be able to meet a portion of what is needed 
17   during a mine emergency.  They are not capable to direct 
18   the activity of addressing the mine emergency, and 
19   that's going to fall to the responsible person.  If the 
20   responsible person is outside, the more likely place he 
21   is going to go is immediately to the emergency, is to go 
22   underground to the emergency, hoping that the evacuation 
23   is taking place per his order.
24               There is a lot of difference the way you 
25   read those now.  Some people are saying, are they 


 1   obligated to assure the evacuation has adequately been 
 2   done, when they may be at the scene of the emergency.
 3               We evacuate our mine probably at least once 
 4   a quarter for either an unknown CO event, power outage 
 5   on fans, so we have a pretty good idea of the 
 6   effectiveness of when we say evacuate the mine.  It is 
 7   not only during real emergencies that that occurs.  It's 
 8   kind of like the PED system.  If you use it everyday, 
 9   you know it works when you need it for an emergency.
10               If you regularly evacuate your mine for 
11   numerous reasons, you have a pretty good sense, and our 
12   responsible persons have enough confidence that if they 
13   give the order to evacuate, it will happen.
14               Will it be perfect?  Are they responsible if 
15   it's not perfect?  They want the assurance that if they 
16   make the decision to evacuate, that they met their 
17   requirement.  Now granted if they ran into people who 
18   weren't evacuated underground, then they would have 
19   additional responsibilities.  But in a large mine you 
20   can't know everything that is occurring everywhere.
21               My confidence that an adequate evacuation is 
22   ongoing is not going to wait until there is an 
23   emergency.  It's what do we do when there is one that we 
24   should evacuate.  We issued the evacuation order.
25               And what does happen is our atmospheric 


 1   monitor attendants do not have to have any approval to 
 2   call an evacuation.  If the communications fail during a 
 3   high CO, they have the capability of shutting the entire 
 4   belt system down right from their location, and have 
 5   done so maybe every other couple of years we have a 
 6   situation where communications is lost, and we have 
 7   unaccounted CO, and we have evacuated the mine.
 8               MR. SEXAUER:  Do you feel comfortable that 
 9   you can identify a responsible person at your mine?
10               THE SPEAKER:  Yes.  Yes, we do that and 
11   their name is posted at each shift.
12               MR. SEXAUER:  We heard comments that posting 
13   perhaps is not adequate notice.  What's your thought on 
14   that?
15               THE SPEAKER:   I mean our training -- we 
16   have informed everybody the duties of the responsible 
17   person.  We have also more concentrated on their 
18   responsibility to assure they looked to see who that 
19   responsible person is, that they carry some 
20   responsibilities themselves in this, in mines that have 
21   six, eight shift changes a day, the responsible person 
22   who is coming on next.
23               Even short of -- we have been told 
24   inspectors will start quizzing people underground in two 
25   ways.  They will walk up to a miner underground and say 


 1   who is the responsible person, and they are also saying 
 2   they will see somebody in the remote area of the mine 
 3   and get on the mine phone and call the surface and say 
 4   have the responsible person call me and tell me where 
 5   this person is at at this time.
 6               I don't believe these are really the intent 
 7   of these regulations, but when you have that going 
 8   through your workforce, you can imagine the nervousness 
 9   of the responsible persons at this point in time, 
10   because they don't know what they are going to get hit 
11   with.
12               And these are, quote, responsible persons.   
13               I have to agree that we should not have 
14   anybody underground that you don't have somebody that is 
15   responsible enough to manage those people.
16               MR. CROCCO:  Has that been a particular 
17   problem, trying to keep track of people underground? 
18               THE SPEAKER:   Certain, people, yes.  There 
19   are shop people that are going underground to do their 
20   weekly permissibility on diesel equipment and outlie 
21   equipment and knowing their general whereabouts and what 
22   they are intended to do that shift.
23               We have very formal shift meetings, but when 
24   you look at a large mine -- I don't think the 
25   regulations really specify you know the exact 


 1   whereabouts of all people.  It is the intended locations 
 2   of people.
 3               It's harder for people that are in the 
 4   management structure, that are above the responsible 
 5   person, to make sure they understand they have an 
 6   obligation to let a responsible person, that has got 
 7   their name on the board, know where they are going.      
 8               Because that's one thing that is probably a 
 9   little bit different is higher levels of management that 
10   are used to going anywhere in the mine to do their job.  
11               MR. CROCCO:  Let me ask you one more 
12   question.  We had some comment earlier this week about 
13   transportation being unavailable on working sections.  
14   You know, shift change-out, the man-trip would pick up 
15   the next crew or could leave for some purpose during the 
16   shift, leaving those people without transportation.
17               Do you have any opinion on whether a 
18   man-trip transportation ought to be maintained at 
19   working sections whenever miners are up there?
20               THE SPEAKER:  We don't have an absolute that 
21   it won't occur, but our recommendations are there should 
22   always be emergency transportation, even to -- we train 
23   our people that if they have a CO warning that allows 
24   investigation -- I mean it would allow the same as a fan 
25   outage; a crew has to cease production, assemble at the 


 1   loading point to prepare for evacuation.
 2               But the law from that allows the 
 3   investigation to go on without evacuation.  Our 
 4   recommendation there is that their man-trip never leaves 
 5   to do; that if there is only one man-trip, the whole 
 6   crew goes to investigate the cause of it.
 7               Technically the regulations don't require 
 8   that.  This is just looking out for your miners in these 
 9   situations.  Having it be a mandatory -- I guess I 
10   wouldn't really have a negative opinion of saying this 
11   person should have transportation out of the mine.  You 
12   don't want to go back in to get them if you don't have 
13   to.
14               MR. SEXAUER:  Are you aware of any way of 
15   distinguishing underground phone traffic from outside 
16   the mine or other locations during an emergency where 
17   the responsible person may be located on the surface?
18               THE SPEAKER:   You mean they are aware where 
19   the call is coming from?
20               MR. SEXAUER:  So they can screen calls and 
21   deal with calls.
22               THE SPEAKER:   I don't believe we have that 
23   capability.  I believe probably a stern order of keep 
24   this to emergency communication only -- I don't think 
25   you would have to go any further than that to get normal 


 1   chatter stopped, the same way we have a rule on a 
 2   man-trip that it has flashing lights; you always yield 
 3   to it, because you don't know what somebody is telling 
 4   you.  There is an emergency.
 5               We don't have like an identification system.  
 6   Or if you did that, you may be screening out -- you 
 7   would have to be able to screen it -- if you screen the 
 8   calls, then there may be another emergency or person 
 9   trying to help on that emergency, and they are screened 
10   away from it.
11               So I think the proper thing there would be 
12   people be trained, if you know there is an emergency of 
13   any injury, you just shut up. 
14               MR. NICHOLS:  The way that came up was in a 
15   discussion about what happened with trying to manage 
16   that emergency at Jim Walters Number 5, that you had 
17   outside calls coming in, and people couldn't deal with 
18   communications on the mine side for interested outsiders 
19   calling in.  That was kind of the root of that 
20   discussion. 
21               THE SPEAKER:  So you are talking about 
22   interference with calls other than from the underground?
23               MR. NICHOLS:  Yeah.
24               THE SPEAKER:  To me, that would be simple to 
25   handle.  You don't answer the outside calls.  We have 


 1   special lines that people don't know the number, so they 
 2   can't tie our system up for emergency reasons. 
 3               MR. NICHOLS:  Anything else? 
 4               Thanks.
 5               Larry, I forgot to ask you if you wanted to 
 6   leave your presentation with us.
 7               THE SPEAKER:  I will get you a copy.
 8               MR. NICHOLS:  The next presenter will be 
 9   Tain Curtis with UMWA.
10               THE SPEAKER:  Tain Curtis, T-a-i-n, 
11   C-u-r-t-i-s.  I am the Safety Committee Chairman of UMWA 
12   Local 1769 at the Deer Creek Mine in Huntington, Utah.   
13               I have 22 years varied experience in 
14   underground coal mining.  I am also a volunteer fireman 
15   and EMT in our county ambulance service.  I am a member 
16   of our mine rescue team and captain of our second team, 
17   and I represent 250 members of our local.
18               I appreciate the opportunity to voice our 
19   comments at this time.
20               We grieve with the families of the miners 
21   who have lost their lives that has brought the need for 
22   this regulation.  I agree with MSHA that there is a 
23   need.
24               The first I would like to address is about 
25   the responsible person.  As a volunteer fireman, I have 


 1   been trained to follow certain guidelines during an 
 2   emergency.  Emergency services have an incident 
 3   commander for emergencies that happen in our 
 4   communities.
 5               There are several things we can learn from 
 6   following these guidelines while at the same time be 
 7   flexible for each specific mine site application.  These 
 8   guidelines are readily available from any emergency 
 9   services, a generally generic outline that leaves room 
10   for the needs of the mine to fill in.
11               At the same time, if something like this is 
12   adopted by MSHA, then each plan can be approved on an 
13   individual basis by just following the guidelines set 
14   forth.
15               The second point I would like to address is 
16   the areas of the standards that are vague about training 
17   of miners.
18               What exactly does MSHA expect the operator 
19   to do to train miners?  Also the possibility of 
20   accepting outside agencies and the training they do.  An 
21   example is the training firefighters do to be a 
22   firefighter 1 qualified.  This training is extensive and 
23   have several applications that cross over to mining.
24               It also gives hand on experience in 
25   firefighting in a wide variety of situations.


 1               Also, there is a provision for the use of 
 2   PEDs to contact miners who work outlie and travel 
 3   several areas of the mine during each shift, such as 
 4   roving line mechanics and fire bosses.  This needs 
 5   looked into; and if feasible, implemented in plans for 
 6   mines that have a PED system.  We have a PED system, and 
 7   all people who work outlie and anybody who needs to be 
 8   contacted in an emergency have a PED with them.
 9               The third point is the thought process that 
10   needs to happen during a disaster.  In the first moments 
11   of a disaster, it is critical that important decisions 
12   be made.  Today, thankfully, there are few disasters 
13   that happen, but the experience one gains from these 
14   real-life tragedies is priceless.
15               So how do we get experience to miners on 
16   using a thought process so critical in evaluating and 
17   making decisions.  MSHA has a way to evaluate this 
18   all-important process, but not all mines participate in 
19   these training exercises.  They are mine rescue 
20   contests.
21               This gives MSHA an opportunity to evaluate a 
22   mine facility to respond to emergencies.  I don't have a 
23   plan or an incentive to give to other mines to see the 
24   invaluable experience they can gain in mine rescue 
25   contests, but would encourage MSHA to look into this, 


 1   because I know that there is a thought process that 
 2   needs to be gone through to make critical decisions in a 
 3   time of disaster when it is important to react in ways 
 4   that, one, saves lives; two, minimizes the disaster; 
 5   and, three, keep people working in a safe environment 
 6   and let coal miners do what they do best, mine coal.
 7               Again, I appreciate the opportunity of 
 8   voicing our comments at this time and the time and 
 9   effort you have put into it.
10               MR. NICHOLS:  Thanks, Tain.  Do you want to 
11   leave us anything?
12               THE SPEAKER:   No.  I don't think you could 
13   understand my handwriting.
14               MR. SEXAUER:  I have a question.  You talk 
15   about the incident commander and certain flexibility in 
16   certain guidelines.  I would be interested in seeing 
17   what those guidelines would be.  Is it possible to get a 
18   copy of the guidelines, and have you submit them for the 
19   report?
20               THE SPEAKER:  I could.  I could get what our 
21   department has.  I have been to extensive training 
22   through firefighter academies that have these 
23   guidelines.  Each individual one is maybe a little bit 
24   different, but they all follow -- the basic guideline is 
25   your incident commander, and when somebody more 


 1   qualified comes onto the scene, he becomes the incident 
 2   commander.
 3               The same could be used in a coal mine 
 4   application.  The responsible person on the surface 
 5   would understand all of the things he needs to do to 
 6   evacuate the coal mine, but at the same time somebody 
 7   with more expertise may come in to the command center 
 8   and take over the operation from him. 
 9               These guidelines are general and generic, 
10   but I think the application they could be given for coal 
11   mine application is great.
12               MR. SEXAUER:  I would like to see those. 
13               THE SPEAKER:  I will try to get a copy and 
14   e-mail them or something.  I guess you guys are at MSHA.  
15               MR. SEXAUER:  I will get the address for you 
16   right now. 
17               MR. NICHOLS:   Anything else?
18               That's all of the people we have signed up 
19   on the sign-in sheet to make comments.  If anybody else 
20   wants -- you don't have to be signed in to come up and 
21   make comments.  
22               Anybody else? 
23               We are going to stay around here for a while 
24   this morning in case people are traveling in that have 
25   not made it yet.


 1               Let me tell you what's going to happen with 
 2   the rule making process that we bring this to closure 
 3   with.  When we started the process back in December, we 
 4   knew a couple things, that 14 miners had died in coal 
 5   mines, not as a result of a first explosion, but as the 
 6   result of a second explosion.  And that those miners up 
 7   at Q Creek had experienced a really close call, 18 
 8   miners.
 9               The idea was to cause people to have 
10   somebody in charge to evacuate a mine, not leave people 
11   underground to get killed or injured by subsequent 
12   explosions, mine explosions.  We knew that the current 
13   evacuation plan only dealt with firefighting, and we 
14   wanted to upgrade those to include explosions and gas 
15   and water inundation.
16               We wanted people to know who the designated 
17   responsible person was.  We wanted people dealing with 
18   mine emergencies to have the proper equipment.  We had 
19   gotten word that people had gone into areas without even 
20   a methane detector.
21               So we wanted those things addressed.  We 
22   felt like the emergency temporary standard was a good 
23   start for that.  But there are a lot of issues.  I know 
24   we have heard a lot today.  We heard a lot Tuesday.  We 
25   will hear a lot more next Tuesday and Thursday.  And we 


 1   have gotten written comments, and we will continue to 
 2   get those.
 3               Our goal is to develop the best practical 
 4   mine emergency standard that we can develop.  I mean 
 5   it's got to be something that's practical and 
 6   understood, and that's our goal.  And what we want to do 
 7   is take all of the comments we get from the public and 
 8   try to develop such a rule.
 9               So we are going to take a break here.  
10   Anybody else have anything they want to say? 
11               We will take a break, and we will come back 
12   in here about 10:30 in case other people show up.
13   But we appreciate all of you folks coming in, and we 
14   appreciate your comments.  So we will move on from here.
15               By law, we have to have this standard 
16   finalized by September.  Anytime you issue an emergency 
17   temporary standard, the law requires that you finalize 
18   the regulation within nine months.  That would take us 
19   to September.
20               So thanks.
21               (The proceeding was in recess until 10:30 
22   a.m.)
23               MR. NICHOLS:  Let's go ahead and have a seat 
24   and get started back.
25               We have a couple a takers while we were on 


 1   break.  Mark Byers.  Mark Byers with UMWA.
 2               THE SPEAKER:  That's B-y-e-r-s.
 3               I just have a couple comments on -- that 
 4   Linc Derick brought up.  That was the man-trip section.  
 5   I really feel that it's important to have them in there 
 6   all of the time because the workers a lot of times are 
 7   in by where a potential problem might arise.  And 
 8   although there are other alternate escapeways, the 
 9   fastest way out is with a man trip.
10               That's the only thing I wanted to comment 
11   on.
12               MR. NICHOLS:  Anybody have any questions? 
13               Okay, Mark.  Thanks.
14               We have up next Greg Mele with Blue Mountain 
15   Energy.
16               THE SPEAKER:  My name is Gregory P. Mele, 
17   M-e-l-e.  I am the safety manager for Blue Mountain 
18   Energy for Eldorado coal mine.  I didn't really come 
19   prepared to comment.  But as you spoke earlier, Mark, 
20   you touched a little bit on impressions of how the 
21   standard is actually working now.  Link made some 
22   comment to that.
23               We had the inspector -- I guess it was the 
24   first time they came out, we seen them this year, and 
25   wanted to go to a page phone and call the responsible 


 1   person, and did that.  The responsible person answered 
 2   the phone within nine minutes.  To him that was 
 3   satisfactory.
 4               I believe the standard implies immediately, 
 5   be there immediately to start a mine evacuation.  What 
 6   is immediately?  The immediate tenor of this standard 
 7   is, when we are talking about responsible person, is to 
 8   have your most knowledgeable person on that shift that 
 9   really takes charge of that shift is going to be the 
10   responsible person.
11               At first we decided we would designate that 
12   by title.  We were instructed by that inspector that 
13   that was not sufficient, that we would have to do that 
14   by name.  I don't really believe that, so that's a 
15   situation that needs to be addressed.
16               About three times during that same shift I 
17   went to a page phone and called the responsible person.  
18   All three times the responsible person on shift did 
19   answer the phone within that ten-minute period.  If he 
20   didn't, I'm sure we probably would have received a 
21   citation.
22               Now I had a discussion with the inspector, 
23   and I said who determines ten minutes.  He said right 
24   now I believe that's reasonable.  I said how about the 
25   guy that's behind you and says he better pick that phone 


 1   up right now and answer that.
 2               So we are going to get into a consistency 
 3   problem with the time frame.  
 4               Right now we have got a responsible -- our 
 5   shift foremen are our designated responsible person.  We 
 6   do have an atmospheric monitoring system.  We have a 
 7   personnel locator in our operation center 20 hours a 
 8   day, and then our warehouseman has that for four hours a 
 9   day.
10               The intent is that shift foreman is going to 
11   be responsible because he is acting on that shift.  Our 
12   operations person, past stoppages we have had -- in our 
13   area right now we have had some bad frost, so we have 
14   had to evacuate several times due to having to shut the 
15   fan down.
16               That person in our operation center calls 
17   that evacuation.  It's not uncommon, and they will 
18   address that.
19               I guess we need to -- if we are going -- 
20   first of all, are we going to designate by title, which 
21   gives us that right; or are we going to have to name 
22   that person?  That's an important issue that has to be 
23   addressed.
24               Then I guess I'm not sure where the 
25   inspector is, at this point, getting their guidance and 


 1   direction, because there are questions and answers that 
 2   tell you pretty much a few of the items that have to be 
 3   addressed.
 4               And I'm going against that concept right 
 5   now.  So the way it's being dealt with right now, our 
 6   shift foreman, our responsible person, Greg, what do you 
 7   want us to do when MSHA is on site; do we have to sit by 
 8   this phone?  Absolutely not.  You go about your daily 
 9   routine.
10               What if I have to go in a bleeder?  Then you 
11   let someone know where you are going, and how long it 
12   might be.  At that point they want to redesignate 
13   somebody to fill that vacancy.
14               That's another question that has to be 
15   answered.  If he is going to be gone very long, do you 
16   have to let somebody else know, Mr. Section person, you 
17   are now the responsible person?  How much time is 
18   allocated to get ahold of everybody underground now and 
19   say, hey, the responsible person is the section foreman?  
20               I don't think that's the intent of that 
21   standard either.
22               So I guess there needs to be some more 
23   thought process that goes into this that can really be 
24   identified who is going to be in charge and how long can 
25   they be away from the phone.


 1               We currently don't have a PED system.  We 
 2   have looked at PEDs, and we have looked at some other 
 3   alternative devices.  We are a small operation right 
 4   now, and don't know that we will purchase one, but it's 
 5   something that we have looked at over the last couple of 
 6   years.
 7               I just wanted to give you our thoughts of 
 8   how it's being dealt with right now, and that's all of 
 9   the comments I have. 
10               MR. NICHOLS:  Bill, while we do these Qs and 
11   As, we send them to all of the district, right?
12               MR. CROCCO:  Yes, we have.  I think what we 
13   have said on that, Greg, is like in your case, if you 
14   want to say the responsible person is the mine foreman 
15   for your plan or whatever, that's just fine, as long as 
16   the miners know who that person is for their shift.
17               You can say it's the mine foreman, but the 
18   miners ought to know who the mine foreman is for their 
19   shift.  That's the way we've answered that in the past. 
20               THE SPEAKER:  We don't have a problem with 
21   that.  That's the way we do it.  But the question and 
22   answer says by title or name.  We are small -- we have 
23   three shift foreman.  All the people know who those 
24   shift foreman are.
25               If those people happen to be off, we would 


 1   redesignate someone and put them on the board.
 2               MR.  CROCCO:  That would be fine.
 3               THE SPEAKER:  Another impression we had is 
 4   your shift foreman shouldn't be your responsible person.  
 5               MR. CROCCO:  Let me ask you about that.  You 
 6   use the shift foreman for the responsible person, and 
 7   you have heard the comments that that person should be 
 8   required to remain on the surface.  Could you see that 
 9   damaging the overall safety of your operation if those 
10   people could not go in the mine, but had to remain on 
11   the surface to perform this function; or do you think 
12   that there is a benefit if they do go in the mine, 
13   travel in the mine, see what conditions are?
14               Do you have any thoughts on that?
15               THE SPEAKER:   My personal opinion is that 
16   the shift foreman cannot be outside.  His job is to run 
17   the shift.  That's his primary obligation.  There is 
18   some fire bossing that he is required to do.  Our 
19   responsible person could not remain on the surface.
20               I really don't think he should remain on the 
21   surface.  He is your key man at your operation.  If 
22   something happens, he is capable of making the call to 
23   start the evacuation, and our people are competent 
24   enough in our operation center to start the evacuation; 
25   I am comfortable that would be fine.


 1               He is going to go to the heart of the 
 2   emergency.  I think that will be the case in most of the 
 3   coal mines.  That responsible person is going to be the 
 4   key person on that shift, and he is going to respond to 
 5   that emergency.  So I don't think he could be a person 
 6   who sits out by a telephone, no.
 7               MR. CROCCO:  I think what Greg is saying, 
 8   too, in some cases our enforcement action might not be 
 9   matching up with the Qs and As.
10               THE SPEAKER:  Absolutely.  We have had some 
11   casual conversations about it.  It's just been -- the 
12   timing has been right that he has been within that 
13   ten-minute time frame.  If not, I'm sure we might be 
14   having a few different problems with it.  But it really 
15   needs to be spelled out how it's going to be handled. 
16               MR. CROCCO:  I don't think we ever talked 
17   about a particular time frame.  I believe in the 
18   questions and answers it says he can go underground 
19   provided he has ready access to communications, such as 
20   there are phones along the travelway, along the belt, if 
21   he were traveling throughout the mine.  He might be in a 
22   vehicle.  Of course there is telephones there.  So he 
23   would have access to communications, and that's what was 
24   intended.
25               But in the rule -- or the questions and 


 1   answers, there is not a specific number of minutes 
 2   allowed.
 3               THE SPEAKER:  And we understand that.  
 4   That's what I am saying; is this just his judgment that 
 5   that's reasonable?  When it says should be able to 
 6   immediately start an evacuation, what does "immediately" 
 7   mean?  
 8               So in your scenario you are saying the rules 
 9   says now, what is immediately?  Because from point A to 
10   point B is going to take some time, you know, before he 
11   answers a page or he has to make a page.
12               MR. CROCCO:  I think once he gets the 
13   information, has enough information to assess the 
14   situation and determine in his mind that evacuation is 
15   necessary, he initiates it then immediately.
16               In other words, he doesn't call more senior 
17   people off site at home to get their approval and that 
18   sort of thing.  This person is empowered, based on the 
19   conditions he sees, to initiate evacuation if he 
20   determines that an imminent danger exists endangering 
21   the mine.  That's what's intended. 
22               THE SPEAKER:  I agree with the intent of 
23   that.  But it says he is going to be responsible.  When 
24   off-site people arrive, you have a vast amount of 
25   knowledge out there within your operations, that are 


 1   home sometimes during the night when that phone call is 
 2   made.
 3               When we get to the site, inevitably we are 
 4   going to take over for that responsible person, higher 
 5   management, which is, in my opinion, fine.  That's 
 6   probably the way it's going to be dealt with.
 7               But I guess the problem with this 
 8   "immediately" is it's being taken right now that that 
 9   immediately is that he will be by the phone to wait for 
10   that phone message that, hey, we have got a problem, you 
11   need to start an evacuation.
12               As you are saying right now, I don't believe 
13   that's the intent of the standard.  I guess that's one 
14   of the big questions that needs to be dealt with and 
15   answered before the final rule comes out.
16               MR. CROCCO:  Well, we can do something about 
17   that.
18               MR. NICHOLS:  Do you have an idea of what 
19   your definition of immediate would be?
20               THE SPEAKER:  To me immediate is right away, 
21   but I just don't think that's going to happen immediate.
22   I mean he is not going to be notified immediate.  They 
23   are by the phone systems on and off all day.  They 
24   answer pages all day long at our mine, and I know they 
25   do at a lot of other mines.  He is going to be able to 


 1   notified.
 2               So how much time is going to be allowed to 
 3   notify that guy?  There is no telling if he goes to walk 
 4   a bleeder, then that's going to take him 30 minutes.     
 5               MR. CROCCO:  If he is going to go walk a 
 6   bleeder and be out of touch for an extended period, then 
 7   you have to use an alternate responsible person, at 
 8   least for that period. 
 9               THE SPEAKER:  That's fine.  Then he makes a 
10   decision -- they find a problem in the bleeder; he has 
11   to look at it.  Now we notify operations; call a 
12   section; John Doe is now the responsible person.
13               Now how do you go about notifying all of 
14   your outlie people that you have a new responsible 
15   person that may -- that may not get to them before the 
16   other responsible person is back in charge?  
17               MR. CROCCO:  I think you make your best 
18   attempt, using the communication systems you have 
19   available, to notify the people of the situation. 
20               THE SPEAKER:  I think that's done now.  It 
21   gets down to when you get inspectors on site, how is 
22   that going to be enforced?  That opens another door for 
23   paper work.
24               MR. CROCCO:  The intent of the rule was not 
25   to set up a Gestapo situation to enforce rules.  Some of 


 1   these little details you bring out, we anticipated we 
 2   would have to iron out before the final rule comes out, 
 3   and we will try and do that, and we will do the best we 
 4   can to make it work in the interim.
 5               But you have to realize we need your 
 6   comments and suggestions so we can work these things out 
 7   before the final rule is published. 
 8               THE SPEAKER:  That's why I decided to make 
 9   comments just on what's happening in the interim now.  
10   Those are the little things that could get you into 
11   trouble. 
12               MR. NICHOLS:  What we might have to do is 
13   what we have done with a lot of other regs, is have what 
14   you can deal with in the regulation, but then keep 
15   expanding those Qs and As as clarification.  We have 
16   done it in ventilation.  We have done it with haz com.  
17   We have done it with other rules.
18               THE SPEAKER:  If it is better for our 
19   miners, I think all companies would like to do that.  I 
20   don't think there is an issue with that.
21               MR. NICHOLS:  That's what we are trying to 
22   say with these hearings.  Less than two months ago we 
23   knew some things, that people were getting killed by 
24   second explosions.
25               We had assumed that although the evacuation 


 1   plan talked about firefighting; that if you had an 
 2   explosion, people would evacuate the mine.  That's not 
 3   necessarily the case.
 4               So we knew those things needed to be dealt 
 5   with.  But all of the definitions on what's "immediate" 
 6   and some of the other issues that we have heard raised,  
 7   it's like Bill said, we are just going to have to work 
 8   through this, through the rule making, and also any 
 9   compliance guide or assistance that we can do.
10               Okay, Greg.  Thanks.
11               Anybody else?  Come on up.
12               THE SPEAKER:  I'm Vince Conkle, C-o-n-k-l-e,  
13   Local Union President of Blue Mountain Energy Mining.
14               The discussion seems to be whether this 
15   responsible person is inside or outside.  To me, the 
16   responsible person should be an underground person, but 
17   the instant he is notified of a situation, should go to 
18   the outside, mainly because all of the resources -- you 
19   have all of your resources; you have your firefighting 
20   equipment; you have MSHA; you can contact the people you 
21   need from the outside, where you can't, in our mine, 
22   from the underground.
23               I work in the operations, so to speak.  I am 
24   the warehouse person who takes over conspec on 
25   graveyard.  I'm poorly trained.  I know the basics of 


 1   this operation, but I would need more training -- to 
 2   bring up a scenario, if there is a problem, I would need 
 3   more training, and then I could call the responsible 
 4   person that you have a problem that he might not know 
 5   of, and at that time I believe he should go to the 
 6   outside and direct his operations from there.
 7               I mean this is the situation at our mine.
 8               The regular operations people, even during 
 9   the day shift and swing shift, I don't believe are 
10   qualified to make calls underground either.  But they 
11   would probably be qualified to notify the responsible 
12   person you have a problem; and then, I believe, like I 
13   say, there again, the responsible person should come 
14   outside and start making calls from there. 
15               MR. NICHOLS:  Does anyone want to react to 
16   that?  Okay then.  Thanks.
17               Anybody else?  Come on up.
18               THE SPEAKER:  Kevin Tuttle, T-u-t-t-l-e.  
19   Just a couple of concerns we had.  One is the regulation 
20   states -- 
21               (The reporter asked the speaker to speak 
22   up.)
23               -- people would be properly equipped or 
24   trained.  That's a pretty vague statement.
25               If you are going to want us to train or 


 1   equip our people, you need to let us know what you are 
 2   talking about.  There are four different scenarios to 
 3   train and equip for.  It is a vague statement.  It needs 
 4   to be clarified somewhat so we can do proper training to 
 5   address what you want on that.
 6               Second would be imminent danger.  Our 
 7   interpretation of imminent danger or imminent situation 
 8   falls back on the definition of imminent danger, which 
 9   is trying to address something before it actually 
10   happens.
11               If we have a situation that's already 
12   happened, then you make a determination whether it's of 
13   an imminent nature.
14               So I think you need to take a look at what 
15   are you referring to when you talk about an imminent 
16   nature.
17               Also, you talk about responsible person; and 
18   in my mind, a responsible person is going to be one 
19   that's going to react initially.  I can guarantee you in 
20   almost every situation, this person is going to be 
21   relieved, or the decisions made will be by somebody 
22   different than him shortly after that situation arises.  
23               You will have mine management who have 
24   greater knowledge probably.  The responsible person is 
25   probably the one who should take immediate action to 


 1   start that process, but that process will eventually be 
 2   taken over by somebody senior that will come to the 
 3   operation.
 4               So there should be some allowances for that, 
 5   because that is going to happen.
 6               MR. CROCCO:  Do you think that's not allowed 
 7   by the rules right now?
 8               THE SPEAKER:  If I have to clear of 
 9   everything through my responsible person, notify 
10   everybody underground that I have changed my responsible 
11   person, which to me is almost impossible to contact 
12   everybody underground.  I have an emergency evacuation 
13   going on.  I have got somebody else coming up and taking 
14   responsibility, I'm not going to contact people 
15   underground I have made a change.  I have people in 
16   motion.
17               I can satisfy the law by saying, okay, this 
18   is still my responsible person and work everything I 
19   have through him, this is who I'm going to contact, but 
20   that person is not going to be making decisions 
21   pertaining to that mine.
22               That's all I have.
23               MR. NICHOLS:  Could you say for the record 
24   your organization? 
25               THE SPEAKER:  Energy West Mining Company.  I 


 1   am the manager of safety, Kevin Tuttle, T-u-t-t-l-e.
 2               MR. CROCCO:  On that properly trained and 
 3   equipped, if you look at the preamble, and it talks 
 4   about the Jim Walters case where the rescuers, the other 
 5   miners, attempted to go up into the area after the 
 6   initial explosion, and they did so without any kind of 
 7   gas detectors, methometers or any kind of equipment that 
 8   would be necessary to go into an atmosphere like that.
 9               It's an outgrowth of that accident right 
10   there.  And in most cases we thought that the equipment 
11   and training would be obvious to some extent, depending 
12   on the condition you were dealing with, like if you were 
13   going into an unknown atmosphere, you would want 
14   multigas detectors with those people, and people should 
15   know how to use them.
16               If you are setting up a foam generator, the 
17   person being sent to do that should be somebody that's 
18   familiar with it and knows how to use it.  It shouldn't 
19   be a guy who has never seen one before.  That's what was 
20   intended by that. 
21               THE SPEAKER:  I understand through 
22   conversations what your intent was.
23               Let's say I have an explosion.  Properly 
24   equipped and trained, who do I send in there?  Do I have 
25   to wait for mine rescue personnel to arrive?  Are they 


 1   properly trained.  Can they be under the supervision of 
 2   somebody who has gas detection?  Does every person on 
 3   that team going in there have to be trained on gas 
 4   detection?  
 5               We have people going into a situation where 
 6   we have people going in to fight a fire.  We are not 
 7   going to have 100 units for gas detection.  If we have 
 8   somebody in charge with gas detection instruments, who 
 9   is in charge of that, who is making decisions for that, 
10   who is in charge of that group going in there to fight 
11   the fire, then I think that's prudent, that decisions 
12   are being made soundly with people with gas detection 
13   instruments.
14               But to say everyone is going to be properly 
15   equipped and trained, I can see somebody coming back and 
16   saying everybody has to have an instrument with them.  
17   Everybody has to have proper training.
18               If I have got support people going in there, 
19   I can only have a certain amount of people fighting a 
20   fire.  I'm going to have to have multiple people back 
21   there supporting.  The people in there are going to be 
22   useless.  Are they going to be properly trained and 
23   equipped to transport materials in for firefighting?  
24   How far do you want to take this?  
25               I think you need to explain what you want as 


 1   far as properly equipped and trained.  Is it on a 
 2   case-by-case scenario, properly equipped for explosion, 
 3   properly equipped for firefighting?  To me, if I am 
 4   going to be properly equipped, I ought to have at least 
 5   a gas detection instrument to go in, and knowledge of 
 6   ventilation or something like that.
 7               Just to say I will be properly equipped and 
 8   trained, I can open that up about as far as you want to 
 9   take it, and so can an inspector, and then we are going 
10   to get into a battle about what is properly equipped and 
11   trained.  You need to look at that issue.
12               What are you looking at?  If you talk about 
13   somebody goes into an explosion, they will be properly 
14   equipped, then say they will be properly equipped with 
15   gas detection equipment for explosion.  
16               MR. CROCCO:  It's hard to say that in 
17   advance.  It may be only mine rescue people would be 
18   equipped to go in there.  It's hard to be too specific.
19               THE SPEAKER:  It's hard on my side to be 
20   specific what I'm going to train my people when MSHA 
21   comes up and says what have you trained and equipped 
22   your people with.
23               It opens up the other way also.  Our people, 
24   in my mind, are properly trained.  We have gone through 
25   training with people in annual training for years.  I 


 1   think they have an understanding of fighting of fire or 
 2   explosion or something like that.
 3               I agree before someone goes in they ought to 
 4   have proper gas detection equipment.  If you want to 
 5   leave that left up to the company, we can make that 
 6   decision.  But if you are going to make specifics, then 
 7   you need to let us know what specifics you want. 
 8               MR. NICHOLS:  With the definition of 
 9   imminent danger, we tried to put some definition into 
10   it.  If ventilation is affected.
11               It is not that you could have a particular 
12   situation in the mine -- Bill, you will have to help me 
13   with this.  But the ventilation system; what are other 
14   examples?
15               MR. CROCCO:  Well, in the Jim Walters case 
16   again, it was known after the first explosion that key 
17   ventilation controls were out, possible fire arcing at 
18   the battery, danger of second explosion; imminent 
19   danger, in other words, in that case.
20               You know, what you have there is a condition 
21   that could endanger miners due to some unknown condition 
22   or some known conditions. 
23               THE SPEAKER:  I can live with the definition 
24   of imminent danger.  But if it gets into legal issues, 
25   is your definition of imminent danger wanting to cover 


 1   what you want to cover?  That's all I am saying.  You 
 2   need to take a look at that.  
 3               If I have imminent danger in there, it may 
 4   not strictly meet that requirement of imminent danger, 
 5   but I think I know what imminent danger is, and I will 
 6   respond to that in that manner.  Just make sure that 
 7   both -- we may have something that may be an imminent 
 8   danger that does not meet the definition of imminent 
 9   danger per the regulation.
10               MR. CROCCO:  Do you think some other wording 
11   would be appropriate?
12               THE SPEAKER:  I'm not sure if it doesn't. 
13               MR. NICHOLS:  I think the lawyers are going 
14   to make us stick with "imminent danger". 
15               THE SPEAKER:  I can live with that.
16               MS. HONOR:  I just wanted to point out the 
17   definition of imminent danger is not something we 
18   created for this.  It is contained in the Mine Act. 
19               THE SPEAKER:  It is a condition that 
20   happened before you could respond to it.  If I have a 
21   fire, I already have got a situation I'm responding to.  
22   If you want to look at something I'm  going to do in 
23   response to that, I already have a situation that's 
24   happened.  Imminent danger is something I address before 
25   it happens. 


 1               MR. NICHOLS:  I think we understand your 
 2   dilemma there. 
 3               THE SPEAKER:  I can live with it.  I was 
 4   just making you aware of it. 
 5               MR. NICHOLS:  Thank you.
 6               Anybody else?  Come on up.
 7               THE SPEAKER:  My name is Kerry, K-e-r-r-y,  
 8   last name Hales, H-a-l-e-s.  I'm the general mine 
 9   foreman, BHP New Mexico Coal, San Juan mine.
10               I think there is a couple of issues here 
11   that kind of crossover each other.  I know if you look 
12   back at the Willow Creek explosion in '99, the shift 
13   foreman, who I believe the shift foreman is the person 
14   to be in charge of the shift and it needs to be that 
15   way, but he was actually on the face and in the initial 
16   explosion.
17               So that left us in the monitor room a young 
18   man who basically was on restricted duty, knew enough 
19   really to acknowledge alarms and make a phone call, and 
20   I think that's what happens throughout the industry.
21               We spend all kinds of money on a PED system, 
22   communication system, AMS system, conspec, whatever; and 
23   the people that actually are in the control room, 
24   monitor room, report the trains for the most part.
25               Like at our mine right now we have a PED 


 1   system, which I fully believe is totally saving lives.  
 2   We also have a very good radio system, paging phones, 
 3   all of these things.  Plus we run an AMS system, two 
 4   bundle, a lot of innovative monitor systems to a control 
 5   room that is mostly staffed with a technician that 
 6   understands the system.
 7               I just feel like that's a piece that needs 
 8   to be included, his training or some kind of 
 9   qualifications for that person.
10               Mines are staffing those with security 
11   people and warehouse people who have a lot of other 
12   things to do.  There are just all kinds of things that 
13   are going on, and I don't think they are qualified to 
14   respond or really understand what's going on with the 
15   monitor systems.
16               MR. CROCCO:  The reason, Kerry, that was 
17   structured like it is, for this responsible person to 
18   say that he has a working knowledge of these underground 
19   systems, is to ensure that, you know, the security guard 
20   or person in the CO room would not be named that person.  
21               It has to be somebody for this responsible 
22   person in the EPS that has a working knowledge of the 
23   underground mine, ventilation escapeways, and those 
24   sorts of things.  But that's a good point. 
25               THE SPEAKER:  The shift foreman or mine 


 1   foreman has to be that person; I agree.  But there 
 2   should be some kind of standard of what training is 
 3   given to people who are actually in the control room or 
 4   the monitor room, so that the shift foreman is receiving 
 5   accurate information.
 6               Or if something happens to him, that person 
 7   at least knows enough about the system to get ahold of 
 8   somebody and at least be able to tell them what they 
 9   have.  Then call them and say you have a CO warning over 
10   here, when there could be all kinds of stuff showing up 
11   on the system, ventilation or things, that maybe haven't 
12   reached warning or alarm.  But there are things that 
13   happen that they should be able to recognize. 
14               MR. NICHOLS:  Thanks.  Anybody else? 
15               Come on back up.
16               THE SPEAKER:  Linc Derick again.  You have 
17   my name.
18               Just one comment of a possible solution for 
19   what Greg Mele brought up.  The current regulations also 
20   give the provision that any employee can call for an 
21   evacuation.
22               So it would seem responsible of the 
23   responsible person, that if he was going to be out of 
24   touch, that it would be a correct action to call the 
25   communication outside that's required in all mines, 


 1   notify strictly that person that they may be out of 
 2   touch a half hour walking the bleeders.
 3               And if that persons says I have notified CM 
 4   foreman John Doe that he is responsible and has all of 
 5   my authority, then he shouldn't have to notify the rest 
 6   of the mine, because then, since that outside 
 7   communication person was notified by the responsible 
 8   person that he has designated an alternative; then that 
 9   alternative calls outside communication and says 
10   evacuate, they are going to treat that as a full 
11   authority of the responsible person.
12               I can understand the reason of the 
13   responsible person, instead of just leaving it solely as 
14   anybody has that authority, because a person may not 
15   fully understand is it really an imminent danger or am I 
16   overreacting.
17               So having everybody have the authority to 
18   evacuate a mine, plus having a responsible person that 
19   is knowledgeable enough, that if someone else calls and 
20   says this is what's going on, that he interjects we need 
21   to evacuate the mine.
22               It would seem like that would be something 
23   in a question and answer in the final regs that could 
24   address the situation of the responsible person being 
25   temporarily out of communications and still meet the 


 1   intent of the law.
 2               It could also be so stated that the person 
 3   he is designating as an alternate may have to also 
 4   realize that if he can't interpret the scale and 
 5   determine whether it needs evacuation, he overreacts and 
 6   evacuates, that he is not fully up on of every phase 
 7   that the responsible person is.
 8               And it would seem like that that could get 
 9   us to a reasonable understanding of what the intent of 
10   the regulations were, that if a responsible person took 
11   that much action to so notify the outside communication 
12   person who is his alternate, and the alternate was so 
13   notified by the shift supervisor or the responsible 
14   person, then I would think that that should address the 
15   concerns that we have met the law.
16               MR. CROCCO:  Well, if I understand you 
17   right, I'm not sure that would meet the intent of the 
18   rule.  The rule was intended that every miner know who 
19   the responsible person was for the shift that he is 
20   working on.
21               In your example, I don't see anything wrong, 
22   if the responsible person is going to be out of touch 
23   for a couple of hours, calling the controller moderator 
24   and saying I am going to be in the bleeder two hours; 
25   notify the sections and any other regular working places 


 1   that so and so is going to be the responsible person 
 2   until noon.
 3               I mean that would be just fine.  I don't see 
 4   anything wrong with that.
 5               But I don't think another person could be 
 6   named for an extended period and nobody be notified 
 7   except the CO room operator.  I'm not sure that would 
 8   meet the rule. 
 9               THE SPEAKER:  If your normal evacuation 
10   would come from the outside communication person, that's 
11   the normal practice, then the only difference would be 
12   that instead of the responsible person telling that 
13   person to cause an evacuation, it would be a designated 
14   alternate.
15               Now if the mine was so used to that, that 
16   the only one they would accept the evacuation was from 
17   the designated person, then you are almost in violation 
18   of the regulation of anybody can call for the 
19   evacuation.
20               These are real-world situations for the 
21   responsible person checking on somebody in the bleeders 
22   or getting in touch with somebody out of communications, 
23   but it seems like that would meet the intent that there 
24   is a responsible person mandated to cause an evacuation 
25   versus every other miner having the authority to cause 


 1   an evacuation; that person has the responsibility to 
 2   insist that it's done.
 3               I think as long as that's addressed, that it 
 4   should address the intent of the regulation.
 5               MR. CROCCO:  As long as the alternate has 
 6   that authority and people know who it is, that's just 
 7   fine. 
 8               THE SPEAKER:  And it's the people know who 
 9   it is is going to be right back...  
10               With that statement, an inspector would take 
11   that that communication person outside had better ensure 
12   that he or she has notified every single person 
13   underground.
14               One exception would be treated as a 
15   violation the way the mines are being inspected.
16               MR. CROCCO:  I see your problem, but, again, 
17   it seems like to me you make your best effort to do that 
18   and see that it happens.  Maybe before everyone is 
19   notified the original responsible person is now back out 
20   of a bleeder and back on duty.
21               It was never set up to be a Gestapo-type 
22   regulation.  The intention is clear, and as long as 
23   there is a best effort to get that done, I don't see why 
24   there would be any problem.  I understand what you are 
25   saying. 


 1               THE SPEAKER:  Because of the seriousness of 
 2   the regulation and what their intent is to improve.
 3               On the other side, being an MSHA inspector, 
 4   it's pretty reasonable to say I have the ability to test 
 5   the system before an emergency, so it's reasonable to 
 6   say then I will quiz people if they know who the 
 7   responsible person is.
 8               It's reasonable for one to say I will test 
 9   the system.  Once they test it, and all of a sudden 
10   there is a failure, five people out in a certain area 
11   didn't know there was a switch of the responsible 
12   person, couldn't get ahold of the responsible person, 
13   then that inspector is caught in a trap of:  Did I test 
14   a system, and now I have found a citable condition; or 
15   do we treat it as a training situation.  
16               That is the real world, something the 
17   inspectors say this is.  The emergency system can be 
18   tested at any time.  I believe the intent of this 
19   regulation is that there is a responsible person for 
20   every shift, and a responsible person that would so take 
21   the action of notifying a communication center and his 
22   alternate for a short period of time would be deemed a 
23   very responsible action.
24               And I think that needs to be considered.  If 
25   not now in the current temporary standard, in the final 


 1   standard.
 2               I would hope if somebody did that and 
 3   something happened in that period, that responsible 
 4   person would say you acted contrary to the regulation by 
 5   calling out and telling them you were going to be in the 
 6   bleeders for 30 minutes, that you so notified Joe Brown 
 7   that he is the responsible person with his authority.
 8   I would take that and hope that in the future that is 
 9   viewed as responsible action.
10               Thank you.
11               MR. NICHOLS:  Thanks, Linc.
12               Anybody else?  Anybody that has been up 
13   before, want to come up and add anything? 
14               THE SPEAKER:  My name is Gordon Larson, 
15   L-a-r-s-e-n.  I work at Energy West Mining at Deer Creek 
16   mine.  I am on the safety committee.  Also a mine rescue 
17   member for several years.
18               Mine might be a comment more than anything 
19   else.  We have talked a lot about the training of the 
20   people that are going to be going in and fighting fires 
21   and whether they are going to be trained and equipped 
22   and all of that.
23               I'd like to comment just a little bit about 
24   the training that's going to happen at annual retraining 
25   for the miners.


 1               First off, I would like to applaud MSHA for 
 2   recognizing this problem that exists and trying to do 
 3   something about it.
 4               Knowing miners the way I do though, and 
 5   seeing their attitudes, maybe is a good word for it, at 
 6   annual retraining, I'm not sure that you will get a lot 
 7   of miners who will want to take time out of their lives 
 8   to go be adequately trained to fight a fire, but in the 
 9   mining industry there has never been a shortage, once a 
10   disaster of any kind happens, that there is never a 
11   shortage of people willing to volunteer.  
12               My concern maybe is do we need to stick some 
13   kind of guidelines on the training that's being done on 
14   our annual refresher course for the average miner who is 
15   probably not going to want to volunteer to be trained to 
16   fight a fire or respond to a disaster, but is also going 
17   to feel a responsibility to go and help his fellow 
18   miners, much like what happened at Jim Walters.
19               I think we need to put a special emphasis, 
20   at least at the start of it this process, on training 
21   all of the miners to the fact that when they are called 
22   for, evacuation, emergency evacuation because of an 
23   imminent danger, that the best thing for them to do in 
24   helping maybe, will be to go ahead and evacuate, and 
25   then see what they can do from the surface.


 1               To kind of back up what Kevin was talking 
 2   about a little bit, I think there will be a lot of jobs, 
 3   even in a serious mine fire, that the average miner, who 
 4   doesn't want to be trained and doesn't want to be front 
 5   line help, will be able to do.
 6               I would like to see the guidelines at least 
 7   set up a little bit where the person who wants to 
 8   volunteer to help as much as he can, but doesn't want to 
 9   go that extra step and be trained as a firefighter, to 
10   be able to stay in the mine or return to the mine to 
11   help bring materials, equipment, oxygen bottles, 
12   whatever it's going to take, more firefighting 
13   equipment, help in any way that they can.
14               That's all.
15               MR. NICHOLS:  Thanks, Gordon.
16               I'm not sure we ever felt like there was a 
17   real problem with firefighting once you get the miners 
18   out of the mine and regroup and go back to fighting the 
19   fire.  There is plenty of good, capable mine rescue 
20   teams.
21               The problem we are trying to get at with the 
22   rule is somebody needs to make a decision on this 
23   emergency situation to evacuate the mine and get back 
24   and take a look and regroup, rather than have people 
25   that aren't equipped, to run in, as hard as it is not to 


 1   want to go back in and try to do rescue work, but be 
 2   prepared to do it.
 3               That's what we were trying to get at with 
 4   this rule.
 5               Do you guys want to add anything? 
 6               Anybody else?  Anybody want to add to their 
 7   previous comment? 
 8               We are going to stay around here until at 
 9   least noon in case, as I said earlier, people are 
10   traveling in.  If we do not have anyone else show up 
11   wanting to give us comments, we will end this around 
12   noon.
13               Thanks everybody for showing up.  Thanks for 
14   your comments.
15               (The proceeding was in recess until 11:58 
16   a.m.)
17               MR. NICHOLS:  It's 12 o'clock noon.  Does 
18   anybody else want to present comments? 
19               Okay.  That concludes the meeting.  Thanks.
20               (The proceeding was concluded at 12:00 
21   noon.)
22   //
23   //
24   //
25   //


 1                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 
 2             I, Teresa A. Copley, Certified Reporter, State 
 3   of Colorado, do hereby certify that I was present and 
 4   recorded the foregoing proceedings in stenotypy; that 
 5   thereafter it was reduced by computer-aided 
 6   transcription; that the foregoing transcript is a true 
 7   and accurate transcript of my stenotype notes.
 8             Dated this _______ day of ________________, 
 9   2003.
10   
11                        ______________________ 
12                        TERESA A. COPLEY, CSR 
13   
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
25   
??



 

 

	TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS







	HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
	Official Reporters
	1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600
	Washington, D.C.  20005-4018
	(202) 628-4888
	hrc@concentric.net





	Heritage Reporting Corporation
	(202) 628-4888