MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION + + + + + DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND METAL AND NONMETAL MINERS PUBLIC HEARING + + + + + MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006 + + + + + The public hearing was held at the Little America Hotel, Salt Lake City, Utah, Ed Sexauer presiding. PRESENT: ED SEXAUER Chief of the Regulation Development Division in the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA JIM PETRIE District Manager, Northeastern District for Metal and Nonmetal, Chair of the Diesel Particulate Matter Rulemaking Committee, MSHA DORIS CASH Metal and Nonmetal Health Division, MSHA GEORGE SASEEN Technical Support Directorate, MSHA BILL POMROY Metal and Nonmetal North Central District, MSHA DEBORAH GREEN Office of the Solicitor for Mine Safety and Health PRESENT: (CONT.) WILLIAM BAUGHMAN Regulatory Specialist, Regulation Development Division in the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, MSHA CARL LUNDGREN Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA I-N-D-E-X Opening Remarks, Ed Sexauer, Chief of the Regulation Development Division in the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA 4 Overview of the Proposed Rule, Jim Petrie, Chairman of the Diesel Particulate Committee 14 SPEAKERS: Bill Ferdinand, Director, Environment, Health and Safety for the North American Region of Barrick Gold Corporation 20 Richard Tucker, Newmont Mining Corporation 40 Steve Wood, Stillwater Mining Company 46 Mike Crum, FMC 94 Fred Fox, Kennesott 104 Mark Good, Kennesott 113 David Graham, MARG 147 David Ortlieb, United Steelworkers 167 Brad Shorey, United Steelworkers Local 11-0001 173 Mike Simpson, United Steelworkers Local 11-0001 174 Brent Chamberlain, Queenstake Resources 201 Adjourn 223 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S (Time not given.) MR. SEXAUER: Good morning. My name is Edward Sexauer. I am the Chief of the Regulatory Development Division of the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Mine Safety and Health Administration and I will be the moderator for today's public hearing. On behalf of David G. Dye, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health, I want to welcome all of you here today. In memory of the 12 miners who perished last week in the tragedy at the Sago Mine, let us begin the hearing with a moment of silence. (Pause.) Thank you. The purpose of this hearing is to obtain input from the public on MSHA's proposed rule published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2005, addressing Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners. Joining me on the hearing panel today are on my right, Jim Petrie, who is the district manager of MSHA's Northeastern District for Metal and Nonmetal and Chair of the Diesel Particulate Matter Rulemaking Committee; Doris Cash with MSHA's Metal and Nonmetal Health Division; William Baughman who is with the MSHA Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. On my left is Deborah Green with the Office of the Solicitor for Mine Safety and health; George Saseen with MSHA's Technical Support Directorate; and Bill Pomroy from MSHA's Metal and Nonmetal North Central District. Also, from Office of Standards in the audience is Carl Lundgren who is an economist with our office. Let me reemphasize that our purpose for being here today is to obtain your views on the September 7, 2005 proposed rule. This hearing is being held in accordance with Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. As is the practice of this Agency, formal rules of evidence will not apply. Therefore, cross examination of the hearing panel will not be allowed, but the hearing panel may explain and clarify provisions of the proposed rule. Members of the public will not be permitted to cross examine speakers. Also, as moderator of this public hearing, I reserve the right to limit the amount of time each speaker is given as well as questions of the hearing panel. Those of you who have notified MSHA in advance of your intent to speak will be allowed to make your presentations first. I will call speakers in the order that requests were made. Following these presentations, others who request an opportunity to speak will be allowed to do so. We invite all interested parties to present their views on this rulemaking at this hearing, and if you wish to speak, please be sure to sign in at the registration table. I believe I have that list up here now. You can just let me know later if you intend to speak and your name is not on the list. We will remain in session today until everyone has an opportunity to speak, if you desire to speak. Also, if you are not signing up to speak today, we would like you to sign the general sign-in sheet, just outside the room, so that we have an accurate record of attendance of today's hearings. We will accept written comments and data at this hearing from any interested party, including those who are not speaking at the hearings. You can give written comments on this hearing to me today, or you can send them to MSHA's Office of Standards electronically, by fax, by regular mail or hand delivery, using the address information listed in the Federal Register notices. We have copies of the Federal Register document, again, on the table just outside the door, if you'd like to have a copy. This is the second of four hearings. The first was held in Arlington, Virginia on January 5. The remaining will be January 11, 2006 in Kansas City, Missouri; and January 13, 2006 in Louisville, Kentucky. The post-hearing comment period will end on January 27, 2006. A transcript of the hearing will be made part of the record and it will be posted on our website, at www.msha.gov. We hope to post this transcript in approximately one week from today. Before I begin, I would like to give you some background on the proposed rule we are addressing today. On January 19, 2001, we published a final rule addressing the health hazards to underground metal and nonmetal miners from exposure to diesel particulate matter or DPM. The rule established new health standards for these miners by requiring, among other things, use of engineering and work practice controls to reduce DPM to prescribed limits. It set an interim and final DPM concentration limit in the underground metal and nonmetal mining environment with staggered effective dates for implementation of the concentration limits. The interim concentration limit of 400 total carbon micrograms per cubic meter was to become effective on July 20, 2002. The final concentration limit of 160 total carbon micrograms per cubic meter was scheduled to become effective on January 20, 2006. On January 29, 2001, several mining trade associations and individual mine operators challenged the final rule. The United Steelworkers of America intervened in the case, which is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The parties agreed to resolve their differences through settlement negotiations with us and we delayed the effective date of certain provisions of the standard. On July 5, 2001, as a result of Phase 1 settlement negotiations, we published two notices in the Federal Register. One notice delayed the effective of Section 57.5066(b) relating to tagging requirements in the maintenance standard. The second notice proposed a rule to make limited revisions to Section 57.5066(b) and added a new paragraph to Section 57.5067(b) "Engines" regarding the definition of the term "introduced." We published the final rule on February 27, 2002. Phase 2 of the settlement agreement was finalized on July 15, 2002 as a written agreement. Under the agreement, the interim concentration limit of 400 total carbon micrograms per cubic meter became effective on July 20, 2002. We afforded mine operators one year to develop and implement good-faith compliance strategies to meet the interim concentration limit, and we agreed to provide compliance assistance during this one-year period. We also agreed to propose rulemaking on several other disputed provisions of the 2001 final rule. The legal challenge to the rule was stayed pending completion of additional rulemaking. On September 25, 2002, we published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ANPRM. We noted in the ANPRM that the scope of the rulemaking was limited to the terms of the Second Partial Settlement Agreement and posed a new series of questions to the mining community related to the 2001 final rule. We also stated our intent to propose a rule to revise the surrogate for the interim and final concentration limits and to propose a DPM control scheme similar to that included in our longstanding hierarchy of controls used in our air quality standards for metal and nonmetal mines and that's l56/57.5001 through 5006. In addition, we stated that we would consider technological and economic feasibility for the underground metal and nonmetal mining industry to comply with revised interim and final DPM limits. We determined at that time that some mine operators had begun to implement control technology on their underground diesel-powered equipment. Therefore, we requested additional information on current experiences with availability of control technology, installation of control technology, effectiveness of control technology to reduce DPM levels, and cost implications of compliance with the 2001 final rule. On July 20, 2003, we began full enforcement of the interim concentration limit of 400 total carbon micrograms per cubic meter. Our enforcement policy was also based on the terms of the second partial settlement agreement and includes the use of elemental carbon, EC, as an analyte to ensure that a citation based on the 400 total carbon concentration limit is valid and not the result of interferences. The policy was discussed with the DPM litigants and stakeholders on July 17, 2003. In response to our publication of the ANPRM, some commenters recommended that propose separate rulemakings for revising the interim and final concentration limits to give us an opportunity to gather further information to establish a final DPM limit, particularly regarding feasibility. In the subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking, NPRM, published on August 14, 2003, we concurred with these commenters and notified the public in the NPRM that we would propose a separate rulemaking to amend the existing final concentration limit of 160 total carbon micrograms per cubic meter. We also requested comments on an appropriate final DPM limit and solicited additional information on feasibility. The proposed rule also addressed the interim concentration limit by proposing a comparable Permissible Exposure Limit, or PEL, of 308 microgram per cubic meter based on the Elemental Carbon surrogate and included a number of other provisions. On June 6, 2005, we published the final rule revising the interim concentration limit. This rule changed the interim concentration limit of 400 micrograms per cubic meter measured by TC to a comparable PEL of 308 micrograms per cubic meter measured by EC. The rule requires our longstanding hierarchy of controls that is used for our other exposure-based health standards at metal and nonmetal mines, but retains the prohibition on rotation of miners for compliance. Furthermore, the rule, among other things, requires us to consider economic as well as technological feasibility in determining if operators qualify for an extension of time in which to meet the final DPM limit, and deletes the requirement for a control plan. Currently, the following provisions of the DPM standard are effective: 57.5060(a), establishing the interim PEL of 308 micrograms of EC per cubic meter of air which is comparable in effect to 400 micrograms of TC per cubic meter of air; Section 57.5060(d), addressing control requirements; 57.5060(e), prohibiting rotation of miners for compliance with the DPM standard; 57.5061, compliance determinations; 57.5065, fueling practices; 57.5066, maintenance standards; 57.5067, engines; 57.5070, miner training; 57.5071, exposure monitoring; and 57.5075, diesel particulate records. On September 7, 2005, we proposed a rule to phase in the final DPM limit because we are concerned that there may be feasibility issues for some mines to meet that limit by January 20, 2006. Accordingly, we proposed a five-year phase-in period and noted our intent to initiate a separate rulemaking to convert the final DPM limit from a total carbon limit to an elemental carbon or EC limit. We set hearing dates and a deadline for receiving comments on the September 7, 2005 proposed rule with the expectation that we would complete the rulemaking to phase in the final DPM limit before January 20, 2006. After publication of the September 7, 2005 proposed rule, we received a request from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, USW, for more time to comment on the proposed rule. The USW explained that Hurricane Katrina had placed demands on their resources that prevented them from participating effectively in the rulemaking under the current schedule for hearings and comments. We recognize the USW's need to devote resources to respond to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the impact that would have on their participation under the established timetable. We also received a request from the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, NSSGA, for additional time to comment on the proposed rule and for an additional public hearing in Arlington, Virginia. Accordingly, due to requests from the USW and NSSGA, we published a notice on September 9, 2005 that changed the public hearing dates from September 2005, to January 2006 and extended the public comment period from October 14, 2005 to January 27, 2006. In addition, on September 19, 2005, we published a notice in the Federal Register temporarily delaying the applicability date for Section 57.5060(b) published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2001 from January 20, 2006 to May 20, 2006, to provide sufficient time to complete the September 7, 2005 proposal to amend the 2001 DPM rule. At this time, Jim Petrie, the Chairman of the Diesel Particulate Committee, will present a short overview of the proposed rule, and after Jim's presentation I will begin calling speakers. MR. PETRIE: If my voice gives out during this presentation, I may pass the ball here to Bill Pomroy to fill in for me, but this proposal is fairly narrow in scope. It would revise the effective date of the final DPM limit and delete the existing provision that restricts newer mines from applying for extensions of time for meeting the final limit. Additionally, we request public comment on a number of significant issues including the appropriateness of including in a final rule a provision for medical evaluation of miners required to wear respirators and the transfer of miners who are unable to wear them. And the appropriate factor for converting the final limit from total carbon to elemental carbon although, as Ed said, MSHA will address this in a separate rulemaking. Regarding revising the effective date of the final DPM limit, the proposed rule would gradually phase in the 2001 DPM final concentration limit of 160 micrograms of total carbon over a period of five years until a final limit of 160 micrograms is reached in January 2011. The current interim limit of 308 micrograms of elemental carbon will remain in effect until May 20, 2006. Thereafter, the first phase-in final limit which would be the same as the current limit of 308 micrograms EC would be effective until January 20, 2007. The final limits would be reduced each year through January 20, 2011 as follows: on January 2007, it would be reduced to 350 TC; January 2008, 300 TC; January 2009, 250 TC; January 2010, 200 TC; and January 2011, it would reach the final limit of 160 TC. The preamble to the proposed rule includes extensive discussion on MSHA's 2001 assumptions regarding technological feasibility; our current concerns and tentative beliefs which question these assumptions; implementation issues with available control technology; and our proposed assessment of the availability of alternative control technologies. MSHA requested that commenters address these and issues related to the scope of the proposed rule. Regarding limitations on extensions of time for meeting the final limit, the proposal would delete 5060(c)(3)(i). The 2001 rule restricted MSHA from granting extensions to a mine operator, if diesel powered equipment was not used in the mine prior to October 29, 1998. This was because diesel-powered equipment prior to the date of the notice of the proposed rulemaking could experience compliance difficulties relating to such factors as the basic mine design, use of older equipment with high DPM emissions and other factors. Also, we believe that mines opening after October 29, 1998 would be using equipment with cleaner engines that would have less difficulty meeting the final concentration limit. Presently, MSHA believes that this restriction is unnecessary since applications for extensions are voluntary and the test for granting an extension is similar to that of enforcing existing 57.5060(d) for hierarchy of controls. The preamble discussion clarifies that we will begin to consider granting extensions due to technological or economic constraints for the initial final PEL of 308 micrograms of elemental carbon in the January 2006 date. That has been extended now to May 20, 2006. MSHA requested comments on the effects of the deleting the requirement, the number of miners affected if the provisions were eliminated and whether the elimination would result in a reduction of health protection for miners. Regarding requests for comments on medical evaluation and transfer, specific comments are requested on whether the final rule should provide for medical evaluation of miners who must wear respirators and transfer of those miners who are deemed medically unable to wear them. In the preamble to the proposed rule, MSHA included a specific example of regulatory language that could be included in a final rule and requested extensive comments regarding the following issues: whether the final rule should contain provisions for medical evaluation and transfer of miners; whether the mine operators should be required to notify the District Manager of the health professional's evaluation and that the miner will be transferred; whether MSHA should include in the rule a specific time frame for transferring the miner; whether the mine operator should have to maintain a record of the medical evaluation and if so, for how long should the record be maintained; whether the provision include protection of medical confidentiality, cost to the mine operators for implementing such a requirement and other relevant information and data. Regarding our request for comments on developing an appropriate conversion factor, MSHA will initiate separate rulemaking to determine what the correct total carbon to elemental carbon conversion factor will be for the phased-in final limits. In the interim, MSHA wants your comments on data for establishing an appropriate conversion factor and time period for the phase in of the final limit, technological implementation issues and the cost and benefits of the rule. Also, we are interested in your views on any other scientific approaches for converting the existing total carbon limit to an appropriate elemental carbon limit. If MSHA does not complete the rulemaking to convert the final limits before January 20, 2007, the Agency is considering using the current 1.3 conversion factor that we used to establish the interim diesel particulate PEL of 308 elemental carbon to convert the phased-in final DPM total carbon limits to elemental carbon equivalents. Regarding economic feasibility, MSHA stated in a preamble to the proposed rule that the Agency intended to use the entire rulemaking record supporting the 2001 final rule and new information gathered during the recent rulemaking to promulgate the new interim PEL. This data suggests that few mines would experience economic feasibility problems in meeting the interim limit, however, MSHA is interested in gathering more information on economic feasibility implications, especially in light of recent technological developments, leaving the Agency to propose a phased-in approach to meeting the ultimate final limit of 160 micrograms. Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Thank you, Jim. Before I call the first speaker, let me just note for purposes of your planning, we have 10 speakers signed up to speak with an average time of maybe 15 minutes and a few questions following that. That tells me that we'll probably be going until lunch time and of course, we'll stay here as long as there are people who have testimony they care to offer. I am planning on taking two breaks this morning, one at approximately 10:15 to 10:30, a short break, maybe 10 minutes or so; and then probably another break, more or less, around 11:30. And then we'll probably continue based on the number speaks -- until we complete at that point. It probably won't be necessary, based on the number of speakers signed up to take a break for lunch and then come back, although that certainly that can change, depending on how the morning progresses. The first speaker is Bill Ferdinand. And I would ask all the speakers, when they come up to the speaker's table to identify yourself and your affiliation for the record. And if you do have a prepared statement, if you would have an extra copy, if you would leave a copy with me afterwards, I'd appreciate that. MR. FERDINAND: Good morning. My name is Bill Ferdinand. I am the Director of Environmental, Health and Safety for the North American Region for Barrick Gold Corporation. I appreciate the opportunity to present information relative to this important issue today. Barrick conducts underground gold mining operations at its Goldstrike operations in northern Nevada that are subject to the MSHA regulations, including the diesel particulate rules. Goldstrike Operations include two underground mines, Meikle and Rodeo. Currently, Barrick's Goldstrike Operations employ 686 underground miners and support personnel. Our underground Goldstrike Operations produced more than half a million ounces of gold in 2005. Barrick has closed followed the development of the diesel particulate regulations. This is an important issue for our company and for our employees. Our corporate policy is that sound safety and occupational health management practices are in the best interests of our company, our employees, our shareholders and the communities in which we live. As I will explain, we have taken significant steps toward reducing diesel particulate concentrations in our Goldstrike Operations. However, we do not believe that further reductions are warranted by health evidence or achievable with technology that is currently available or expected to become available within the next few years. Barrick will be providing detailed comments in response to the issues raised in the September 7, 2005 Federal Register notice. My statement today will address those concerns which we feel are most significant and will provide a summary of Barrick's experiences with efforts to achieve the proposed final standards. First, and most importantly, we urge that Barrick adopt the current interim personal exposure limit of 308 micrograms per cubic meter EC as the final standard and defer any further reductions in the regulatory PEL pending further research to develop an adequate scientific basis for further reductions and to determine whether further reductions are technologically and economically feasible. Our view of the record to date is that it does not include sufficient evidence to support reductions below the current limit. We are also convinced that based on the data in the record and our own experience at Goldstrike, that the proposed final limit of 160 micrograms per cubic meter EC is not technologically or economically feasible within the foreseeable future. While we will comment on many of the issues raised in September 7, 2005 rulemaking, these comments should be considered in this context: MSHA should not adopt any rule which reduces the PEL below the current level. MSHA has requested that commenters address whether certain assumptions underlying the 2001 rule were correct. Our experience over the past five years has shown that the initial assumptions were incorrect in at least three areas. First, the 2001 rulemaking overestimated the technological advances in diesel engines and particulate filters. Compliance with standards below the current interim level limit will require significant breakthroughs in technology to provide either lower emission engines or more effective filters, yet the technology has changed little since 2001, and there is no reason to believe that dramatic changes will occur in the next five years. In fact, we believe that because the majority of the underground mining market is shifting to other areas such as South America, Asia and other non-U.S. markets, and there is little incentive for manufacturers to develop new and costly control technologies for application only in the United States. Second, the 2001 rulemaking assumed a more rapid replacement of diesel equipment than has occurred. The cost estimates supporting the 2001 rulemaking assume that by the effective date of the final limit, 50 percent of the diesel equipment in underground mines would have new EPA Tier I or Tier II engines. Based on our experience, this assumption was too optimistic. While most of our mine equipment, LHD, loaders and haulers, have Tier I or Tier II engines, more than two-thirds of our utility equipment such as forklifts, tractors, bobcats and so on, do not. At the Goldstrike operations, since 2001, approximately 28 engine change-outs have occurred and another 20 pieces of equipment have been purchased with the new Tier I, Tier II rated engines. While we believe that replacement of the older engines holds promise for reducing diesel particulate emissions, it will not occur quickly enough to achieve the reductions on the schedule contained in the proposed rule. Finally, MSHA's 2001 cost estimates did not account for the rapid and unexpected rise in diesel fuel costs, which will dramatically affect the cost of compliance with the 160 micrograms per cubic meter EC proposed final standard. In 2001, diesel costs were approximately $1.40 per gallon. Current diesel prices are in the range of $2.39 per gallon, an increase of over 70 percent. Available control technologies, particularly filters, reduce horsepower and increase fuel consumption to accomplish the same work. The Agency's cost estimates should be reworked to acknowledge current diesel fuel prices. Under current price conditions, control technologies that increase fuel consumption are likely to render ore reserves uneconomic and may, in fact, shorten mine life. MSHA has requested comments on whether it is technologically or economically feasible for operators to meet the 160 micrograms per cubic meter proposed final standard. Our experience at Goldstrike since 2001 demonstrates to us that it is not. Our efforts to significantly reduce the diesel particulates in the underground work environment have met with limited success using new technology coupled with enhancing present control technologies. Barrick has tested regenerative filters, increased the number of engines meeting Tier I, Tier II requirements, significantly increased ventilation and implemented new high maintenance standards. Taken together, these efforts have allowed us to meet the interim standard. We have reduced diesel particulates that were commonly in the range of 600 to 800 micrograms per cubic meter TC in 2001 to levels today that typically range from 250 to 450 micrograms per cubic meter TC. To meet the interim standards, we have increased our ventilation from 800,000 CFM in 2002 to over one million CFM by the year 2004. And we have increased nearly 1.5 million CFM this year to effectively double our air volume moving through the mine to meet this interim limit. During the same period, we have significantly increased maintenance programs and replaced engines with EPA Tier I, Tier II engines. We have also modified mine designs to minimize DPM concentrations and we have installed a number of environmental caps. Our estimates of the total cost of measures taken to achieve compliance with the current interim standard is approximately $1.68 million annually, in total, $8.4 since the Year 2001. Our experience indicates that MSHA's 2001 cost estimates underestimate the cost of compliance. At this time, we are unable to prepare a cost estimate for compliance with the 160 micrograms per cubic meter EC proposed final standards, because we cannot reasonably describe control technologies or methodologies that would be effective for the Goldstrike operations. Our ventilation is near its capacity. Further increases are likely to create fugitive dust issues for hauling equipment. Replacement of the remaining mining utility equipment with Tier I, Tier II engines would not achieve the 160 micrograms per cubic meter EC proposed final standards. Further, we have not identified filters that would be effective for our sites. We have tested an active regeneration DPF system, specifically DCL Minex Black Suitout Filter on our Tamrack (Phonetic) 1400 which is an 8-yard scoop over an 8-month period. Because of filter limitations, the scoop was only operated for seven to eight hours per shift before back pressures increased the cause for filter regeneration. This rendered the equipment unusable for the remainder of our normal 11-hour production shift. The active regeneration system was determined to be impractical because it was not effective for the entire shift and could not be regenerated between shifts. Regeneration took anywhere from 2 to 5 hours. As I mentioned, we have installed six loaders with environmental cabs to decrease exposure to diesel particulate matters and achieve other work environment considerations such as dust and noise reduction. We anticipate by the end of 2011 that 65 percent of our mine and support equipment will have been fitted with environmental cabs. So in other words, out of the 100 units, 65 units will have added these cabs. We expect that the environmental cabs will be effective, but only for those who work within the cabs. Thus, we do not believe this is an effective strategy for meeting the 160 micrograms per cubic meter EC proposed final standards throughout the workplace. In addition, environmental cabs are tremendously expensive. It is estimated that the replacement of this equipment, along with the cabs, will ultimately cost $49 million. We are investing in environmental cabs because they provide us with additional benefits beyond the protection from diesel particulate matters. They are not a cost-effective means of meeting the proposed final standards. Ultimately, if the reductions are implemented, as proposed, we view respirators as the only effective means of ensuring compliance. We estimate that in the early years of the phased reduction of the proposed rule, approximately 56 percent of underground miners would require respirators and that meeting 160 micrograms per cubic meter EC proposed final standard will require 70 percent of our underground miners to wear respirators. We appreciate that the Agency acknowledges that it will take substantial time to achieve any further reductions in diesel particulate concentrations. However, it is our view that the five-year phase in with arbitrary annual 50 microgram reductions is not practical because there's no technology available that would allow us to meet the final limit. Barick and other operators will be forced to design and implement a new plan every year to meet the lower and interim levels and maintain compliance with the regulatory standards. Focusing on annual short-term reductions is not effective or efficient. The annual reductions will also increase the time and effort devoted to preparing, submitting, reviewing and approving extensions. If the Agency ultimately determines to go forward with lower standards, we believe that MSHA should reevaluate information regarding technology and economic feasibility to reduce the number of phases and to extend the time frame for compliance with the final standards. For example, the Agency might consider two phases over an eight-year period, establishing a lower interim standard after the first four years and requiring compliance with the final standard at the end of the eight years. That concludes my comments. We do appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this and I'd be more than happy to take any comments or questions. MS. GREEN: Before the others ask questions, could you just repeat what you just said about the appropriate phase-in period of the final -- because we're looking for information on alternative phase-in periods. That's one of the issues we want more information on. What was your recommendation? MR. FERDINAND: We would like to -- if MSHA is going to proceed along those lines, we would rather have two phase-in periods. The reasons for that, rather than annual ones, is because the technology limit is not out there such that you're going to reduce those incremental levels. And even if it was, talk about the cost to do so would be prohibitive. So what we would propose, if MSHA proceeds, is to have a phase-in period after four years and then a final limit after the eighth year. MS. GREEN: And did you have a recommendation for what the first phase-in limit would be, or the next phase-in limit would be after four years? MR. FERDINAND: No, we don't. We would prefer to keep the current interim standard, but if MSHA would proceed, we would have to take a further evaluation and come up with those. MS. GREEN: Okay. MR. SEXAUER: Doris? MS. CASH: I had a question about the -- I believe you said you had replaced 28 engines during that time? MR. FERDINAND: Yes ma'am. MS. CASH: What -- is that what your normal rate of replacement would be for your fleet? Or what would be? I mean can you tell me what you would normally be doing for turnover rates? MR. FERDINAND: Normally, what we would normally do, we took the tact that this standard was going to come up and thus, since those engines were scheduled for replacement, we went ahead and scheduled those with the new Tier I, Tier II compliance engines. They could have been reworked, but it was our position that we went ahead and spent the money at this point to see if we could meet the 400 micrograms per cubic meter TC limit. MS. CASH: Okay, so let me see if I'm hearing you right. You would normally, that would be on the same schedule as you normally would have either rebuilt or replaced the engines and you went with the replacement to meet the higher -- MR. FERDINAND: That's correct. MS. CASH: All right. And that's out of your fleet of 100 units? MR. FERDINAND: We have 114 currently. At the end of our mine life because of retirement, we scheduled to have 100. MS. CASH: Okay. And what I would ask is we are interested in any cost information you can give us, any information on any of the testing that you've done and I would ask if you can submit that to us, we have until January 27th to get your written comments in and it would be beneficial to us if you can share that information with us. MR. FERDINAND: Yes. The available information that we have will be included in the final comments. MS. CASH: Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Any other questions on this side? Jim? MR. PETRIE: You had mentioned that we didn't account for rapid increases in diesel fuel costs and that filters may be a factor in increasing fuel consumption. Have you seen a decrease in fuel consumption with newer engines, newer equipment and have you tried any types of alternate fuels? MR. FERDINAND: We have not tried any alternate fuels and I really can't tell you if we actually have lessened our unit consumption. I would not think that we have and the fact that during that same period of time we have actually increased the number of units operating, so that's -- it would be a guess on my part if we had reduced our consumption, but I don't know that for a fact. MR. PETRIE: Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: George? MR. SASEEN: You mentioned you started out with levels around 600 to 800 and then could you maybe in your written comments maybe clarify or like with each type of technology, did you see more significant reductions? Because I think you said you ended up down around the 200 to 400 range that you're currently operating at right now. MR. FERDINAND: Yes, when we first started into this program, we looked at very much like other operators is to test technology. After we tested for eight months in the Year 2001, we didn't think, based on our experience and the experience of other operators that it was going to occur. So we took the tact at that point let's look at existing control technologies that we can implement, improving our maintenance program, including -- improving our ventilation systems, that those might be the best means to really enhance and lower the levels within the mine. So the bulk of those reductions were, in fact, due to those primary considerations of ventilation and improved maintenance programs. MR. SASEEN: Also, you mentioned on that you put a DCL active system, filter system on a scoop. What size scoop was that? MR. FERDINAND: It was an eight-yard scoop. MR. SASEEN: Production or clean up? MR. FERDINAND: It was production. MR. SASEEN: Production? MR. FERDINAND: It was production, yes. MR. SASEEN: And do you know what engine is in that scoop? MR. FERDINAND: If you can bear with me I can take a look see. It was a 300 horsepower Detroit engine. MR. SASEEN: I assume -- is that electronic? MR. FERDINAND: I believe so, but I'm not positive. MR. SASEEN: Maybe if you can clarify that because I guess you're saying you got 7 and 8 hours per shift versus you need almost 11 hours. MR. FERDINAND: We need 11 hours, yes. MR. SASEEN: Okay. Did you look into change in the size of the filter? MR. FERDINAND: No, we didn't. MR. SASEEN: Or doublings? MR. FERDINAND: We looked at different methodologies, as far as swapping equipment out, shift changes, schedule changes in its operation, but in the scheme of things it didn't work out. MR. SASEEN: Okay, and it was just on one scoop you tried it? MR. FERDINAND: Yes. MR. SASEEN: Yes, if you could clarify in your written comments if that was an electronic engine and maybe the age of it. MR. FERDINAND: I will. MR. SASEEN: Thank you. MR. FERDINAND: You bet. MR. : A couple of questions. You mentioned your annual compliance costs, $1.68 millions annually. I wonder in your written comments if you could itemize that cost so we know what amount of money is going to what control technologies. Also that the total cost over the total period of compliance back to 2001, itemize that. I think it was -- MR. FERDINAND: $8.4. MR. : Something, yeah. If that could be itemized that would be helpful. MR. FERDINAND: We can. MR. : Also, do you have any miners now that are required to wear respirators, say for dust or some other -- MR. FERDINAND: We do. Anybody who is underground at our operations we do provide them with a pulmonary function check to make sure that they are capable of wearing those and there are areas in the mines that have elevated readings, so we do have certain entities who do wear respirators. MR. : So you're now doing some form of medical evaluation for those miners? MR. FERDINAND: All miners who go underground, we do that as a matter of fact, regardless. If you're underground, we do that. MR. : Do you know right offhand if any of those miners have been found unable to wear respirators? MR. FERDINAND: To my knowledge, no. MR. : Okay, no you don't know or no -- MR. FERDINAND: No. To my knowledge, none have been found unable to wear the respirators. MR. : Thank you. MR. : Just a quick follow-up question. On that DCL unit, could you provide us some specific costs, what it costs you to purchase it, install it, being an active system, what the costs were to maintain it? MR. FERDINAND: Yes, we will. MR. : And for how long you actually operated it. MR. FERDINAND: Yes. MR. : Okay, thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Deborah? MS. GREEN: As a follow-up question to Bill Pomroy's question about medical evaluation, would it be feasible for you to give us some cost information on how much that program -- how much expenditures you have to put forth for a medical evaluation program? MR. FERDINAND: Yes. We can provide that information. MS. GREEN: Thank you. MR. : Just another question concerning one of the three comments that you made about some assumptions that were wrong in the original 2001 rule. And it has to do with the rapid replacement of engines, that the engines are not being replaced rapidly enough and you mentioned that you have done quite a bit of engine replacement in the larger production equipment, but not so much in the smaller utility equipment, the bobcats and tractors and so on. I'm just wondering if you'd know or could you estimate or maybe could you include in the written comments what percentage of the total utilized horsepower underground is the larger production equipment, the loaders and trucks versus the smaller utility equipment and also approximate hours per shift of usage of the larger equipment, production equipment, loaders and trucks, versus the utility equipment. MR. FERDINAND: Yes, we can. That's important to note in the fact that the utility equipment may be only used for one, maybe two hours a day and that's why those efforts have not been at replacing those types of engines because they're not being utilized as often as the production mine equipment. MR. : You had also mentioned that your ventilation has almost doubled since 2001 and I wonder if you could indicate in your written comments the specific nature of those ventilation upgrades, you know additional shafts or did you just repower existing fans, specifically what was the nature of the ventilation upgrades, both major ventilation upgrades, system-wide, as well as auxiliary ventilation systems. MR. FERDINAND: Absolutely. MR. : Thanks. MR. : Regarding your pulmonary evaluations, with what frequency are they conducted or are they just during the pre-employment exams, or do you do them annually? MR. FERDINAND: I think that they're done annually. MR. : Annually. Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: I believe that's all the questions we have, Bill. I want to thank you for your presentation. MR. FERDINAND: I'll get you a copy. MR. SEXAUER: Thank you. Our next speaker is Richard Tucker. MR. TUCKER: Good morning. My name is Richard Tucker. I'm the Regional Health and Safety Manager for Newmont Mining Corporation in Northern Nevada. We welcome and appreciate the opportunity to express our comments at this time. We feel that the proposed diesel particulate matter exposure underground with metal and nonmetal mines is a very important subject that we should discuss. Newmont is a major mining company and utilizes diesel equipment in its underground mines. We have four operating underground mines in Northern Nevada. We have a few basic statements to make in this cover letter, then we'll proceed to respond to specific questions asked in the notice. And those specific answers will be addressed in our written comments. For the reasons set out, our answers to a number of specific questions will refer back to this information that I provided in public comment. First off, we feel there should be no further reduction in the DPM standard. There's no legal, scientifically sound basis for lowering the existing standard. The September 7, 2005 proposed rule is proceeding on assumptions that are invalid. Because of these invalid assumptions, many of the specific questions that MSHA poses are impossible to answer in logical manner at this time, without accepting erroneous assumptions upon which they are based. To the extent that these comments address those questions, it is always with the caveat that there should be no further reduction in the DPM standard. Some of the assumptions that we feel are incorrect are as follows and again, these are incorrect assumptions. There is a valid scientific health-related basis for PDL lower than the settlement level of 400 micrograms per cubic meter total carbon as modified to 308 micrograms per cubic meter elemental carbon. Another one we feel is incorrect is -- an incorrect assumption is that achieving the 308 micrograms per cubic meter standard is technologically feasible in all or most mines. Additionally, achieving the 308 micrograms per cubic meter standard is economically feasible in all or most mines. We feel that that is inaccurate. Achieving the 160 micrograms per cubic meter total carbon standard will become technologically feasible within a relatively short period of time. We feel that that's not going to be possible also. Achieving the 160 micrograms per cubic meter total carbon standard will become economically feasible within the time frame allotted by the standard. Each of these assumptions is incorrect, we feel, and there taints the entire rulemaking process. We feel like those items need to be reviewed and additional work and study done on those before final rule is established. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act Section 101(A)(6)(a) provides that the Secretary, in promulgating mandatory standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, will set standards which most adequately ensure that on the basis of the best available evidence that no miner will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity, even if such miner has regular exposure to hazards dealt with by such standard and for the period of his working life. The best available scientifically sound evidence does not indicate that miners will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity if regularly exposed to elemental carbon or total carbon fraction of diesel particulate matter at the current level of 308. As MSHA acknowledged in the preamble to the rule, the scientific community has not yet widely accepted any exposure response relationship between the amount of DPM exposure and the likelihood of adverse health outcomes. MSHA reviewed and updated its risk-assessment on June 6, 2005 rule amendments and concluded that no change was warranted. The NIOSH study currently underway is designed to help address that question and any effort to reduce the current standard prior to the completion and evaluation of that study is premature and is not in compliance with the law. The latest available scientific data in the field shows that it is neither technologically or economically possible for all mines affected by the current regulation to meet that standard. This is discussed further in our comments on feasibility and will be addressed in our written comments. Given that the current standard cannot meet feasibility for further reduction of this standard would violate provisions as we are not able to attain that standard at this time. And again, we will provide written comments on the questions that MSHA has solicited to us and provide those written comments to you. I thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and will take any questions at this time. MR. SEXAUER: Does anyone on the panel have a question? Jim? MR. PETRIE: Is Newmont current complying with the 308 microgram elemental carbon limit and if so, by what technology are you using to do that? MR. TUCKER: To answer that question, I'll say that we are doing everything that we can to meet the standard and our current estimate is that we're meeting the standard 30 percent of the time. We have replaced a number of cabs in our pieces of diesel equipment, also increased ventilation. We've done testing on different filters and have changed some of our mining sequences in order to help provide less exposure to diesel. MR. SEXAUER: George? MR. SASEEN: You just mentioned you have tried some filter technology. Could you provide in your written comment, maybe some specific examples of the type of engines that you put them on, what type of issues you had with them, positive, negative and any costs associated with implementation of those filters? MR. TUCKER: Yes, I'd be happy to provide that to you. Just in brief, we've had difficulties with filters because of the size of the filters and the length of time that they actually go without regeneration and it's quite a maintenance problem we found in dealing with the filters, but I will provide that information to you. MR. SEXAUER: Any other questions? Jim. MR. PETRIE: Does Newmont have any type of medical evaluation they do for workers that are required to wear respirators, either for diesel or dust or other contaminants? MR. TUCKER: Yes. We currently have a medical evaluation program in place that was established for dust. MR. PETRIE: And are those evaluations done annually or during pre-employment physicals? MR. TUCKER: Both. They are done during pre-employment physicals and then annually thereafter. MR. PETRIE: Okay, thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Thank you, Richard. MR. TUCKER: Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Our next speaker is Steve Wood. MR. WOOD: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. I've also brought Buck Chamberlain with me, for those of you who haven't met Buck. I'm the corporate safety director with Stillwater Mining Company. We operate two underground plating and platinum mines in South Central Montana. Buck is the industrial hygienist at our Stillwater Mine. We welcome the opportunity to speak with you this morning, appreciate MSHA's willingness to acknowledge that there is some need to converse and discuss the issues that pertain to the diesel rule and as most of you have known, Stillwater has been very participated in this issue. We urge MSHA at this time to act in this rulemaking to delete or revoke the permissible exposure limit of 160 micrograms per cubic meter of air and adopt the 308 interim limit as a final regulated standard. Stillwater appreciates the Agency's proposed phase-in of the final rule because it allows for technological advancements and time for us to comply. However, the phase-in approach to the final rule, DPM concentration, does not rectify the error in the rule which includes the lack of scientific justification, economic and technological feasibility and an appropriate TC/EC conversion factor. The rule is simply not feasible for the majority of the mines' operators to meet and the appropriateness of the phase-in approach still does not diminish the inability of most mine operators to comply with the final exposure limit. As MSHA is aware, Stillwater has been a leader in the cooperative effort and good faith efforts of industry, labor and the Agency to conduct research aimed to help develop and test DPM reduction technologies. We are committed to further protection of our health and safety of our miners and we welcome further opportunities to continue our cooperative research efforts. Consistent with our commitment, we have just recently completed another joint research project with NIOSH in support of the metal/nonmetal diesel partnership. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability of DPM control technologies for the Stillwater fleet. As many of you know, the isolated zone studies that were conducted at Stillwater previously provided -- and we previously provided comment on those studies and they were basically conducted at the Stillwater mine and we made our facilities and our personnel and our resources available to the partnership, in an effort to identify potential solutions that would benefit not only our company, but also with our industry partners, to help us all gain a better understanding of the difficulties in complying with this rule. These studies provided significant insight into the viability of diesel particulate filter systems, diesel oxidation catalyst converters and fuel form relations in reducing the concentration of DPM in an underground mining environment. While the Phase I study was well suited for its initial objective, it provided no reliable data to indicate that the selected filter technologies would, in fact, provide the necessary reduction of DPM in an actual mining environment. Thus, the Phase II case study was agreed upon in an effort to provide this relevant information. The Phase II case study report explains and applies the lessons of the Phase I study and provides critical safety and feasibility information regarding the use of DPS systems in actual mining conditions. The Phase II study demonstrated the technological limitations that mines will encounter during attempted DPM reductions efforts in the actual mining cycle. Equipment failures and performance below that obtained during the isolated zone testing and as advertised by manufacturers were commonplace and will be repeated as the technologies are deployed elsewhere. Moreover, the Phase II case study could only indicate or include those pieces of equipment for which a DPS system could be retrofitted. This category of diesel equipment represents only a small fraction of the total Stillwater fleet. The Phase III study, selected control technologies including seven alternative fuel formulations and four filtration systems. These were tested to evaluate the effectiveness of the technologies for controlling DPM and gaseous emissions for underground diesel-powered equipment. Again, the study was well suited for its initial objective in an in situ environment, but provided no insight as to how effectively the selective filter technologies and alternative fuels would control DPM in the actual mining application. The isolated zone proved the dangers inherent to promulgating a rule and mandating technology changes before feasibility and safety is proven. As reported in the Phase II case study, the very technology that justified MSHA's feasibility determinations for the rule and appear promising in the isolated zone Phase I, produced such high levels of NO2 in actual mining conditions that the miners were withdrawn and the test was stopped prematurely. The condition was also present during specific DPM control tests and portions of all the isolated zone studies which led to the premature ending of some testing. The experience gained in the isolated zones is extremely relevant to this rulemaking. It determined that after-market exhaust treatments would not ensure compliance to the final rule. It identified that two identical pieces of equipment may not be able to utilize DPS because of different duty cycles. It identified that only a small portion of the Stillwater diesel fleet was capable of successfully using the passive regeneration type systems. It identified the DPM controls have the potential to produce the hazardous conditions such as high NO2 levels. It also identified the selection and the implementation of the proper DPM control systems as more complex and extensive than previously considered. Finally, it concluded that additional research and testing was needed to evaluate the applicability of DPM controls for the entire fleet. NIOSH and the metal/nonmetal diesel partnership conducted a study in November of this year of 2005 at the Stillwater mine to review gas related to the applicability of after-market DPM controls applied to our existing fleet. The study was conducted to gain better understanding of potential barriers to the application of after-market DPM control technologies. Equipment was classified into basic categories on the applicability of the equipment being suited for the installation of either a passive or an active regeneration system. The appropriateness of these controls was determined by reviewing the work-area geometry where the equipment would be operated, the duty cycle, the thermal profile and the back pressure limitations, along with the physical visibility obstructions that could occur for the operator and if the controls would be likely to produce other hazardous gaseous emissions. The study classified our equipment into three categories, whether or not they were likely applications, potential applications or unlikely applications. The final report of this study has not been completed, but will be presented at our DPM partnership meeting on January 19th of this year. The study identifies the complexity that mine operators are going to experience when evaluating effective DPM controls and applying after-market controls to the existing fleet. DPM control solutions need to be evaluated on a practical case-by-case basis for each mine operator, mining method, duty cycle, and for the specific type of equipment. It's simply not a matter of fixing or selecting a DPF and installing it on a piece of equipment. Research and testing of DPF regeneration systems has concluded that passive regeneration systems are preferred over active regeneration systems. A fit and forget method of the passive regeneration system has proven more reliable and functional for the Stillwater fleet with high duty cycles. Thermal profiling is conducted on equipment to determine the duty cycle and ensure the compatibility of the passive regeneration system to the equipment. However, currently, 25 passive regeneration systems have been installed on underground mining equipment and additional profiling is being conducted. Our practical experiences with equipment that have the capability to operate the passive regeneration systems indicate this type of control can reduce these DPM exhaust emissions. Average operating life for the passive regeneration systems utilized at Stillwater is 3,000 to 4,000 hours at a cost ranging from $7,000 to $8500 per unit. At these costs, annual expenditure to install and maintain regeneration systems for the 82 identified units would be $656,000. The number of units suited for passive regeneration systems continues to be the minority when compared to the total equipment fleet. The majority of the Stillwater fleet is not compatible with the passive regeneration due to low duty cycle or low exhaust temperatures that do not support passive regeneration. For equipment not compatible with passive regeneration systems, active regeneration systems have been researched and tested at Stillwater. The costs of these systems have ranged from $8,000 to $11,000 per unit. The systems tested have been primarily off-board regeneration systems due to the lack of feasibility and practicality for an on-board system. Practical experience with active regeneration system has not indicated these control's options are economically feasible for Stillwater diesel fleet. Initial operating time before the unit is required to be removed and placed on regeneration is at best 10 to 15 hours, however, experience has shown that this can be as little as four hours before off-board regeneration is required. The equipment identified for use with active regeneration systems has been limited to equipment that is parked on the surface at the end of the shift. Unfortunately, not all equipment can logistically be brought to the surface for regeneration. For those units that must be regenerated underground, additional excavations to house the regeneration equipment and to provide parking during regeneration would be required. These additional excavations are neither practical or economically feasible. Additionally, moving equipment to the regeneration station is time consuming, unproductive and cost prohibitive. Stillwater's DPM reduction plan placed high expectations on the use of disposable filter elements to reduce DPM exposures. These filter elements were installed on 89 pieces of equipment, primarily located in the lower off shaft at the mine. The equipment identified for the installation of the filters was primarily of low DD cycle, low thermal profile and equipment that is not suited for either passive or active regeneration systems. The effectiveness of these disposable filters was estimated to reduce DPM by approximately 60 to 65 percent. Unfortunately, practical experience with these filters prove to be discouraging when the operating life of the filter became the primary concern. The average operating life ranged from 4 to 10 hours, requiring filters to be discarded and replaced every two shifts. Filter installation had to be positioned within the confines of the engine department to improve operator visibility and to reduce accidental damage. The physical dimensions of the canister and filter were evaluated and a size was selected that met the requirements for installing the unit within the operating compartment. Unfortunately, only one supplier was identified who was willing to develop a filter size for the Stillwater application. Other suppliers recommended larger filters used in tandem that would need to be installed outside of the engine compartment and on top of the equipment frame. This installation already subjected the canister to accidental damage and obstructed the visibility of the operator. Additional challenges encountered were a higher number of filters that burned out, causing the seals and media to be ineffective at capturing the particulate matter. It was concluded that the exhaust temperatures, even though not high enough to be compatible for passive or active regeneration systems, did exceed the maximum temperature limits of the disposable filter. The disposable filters are rated for 650 degrees Fahrenheit and technically have the potential to work with many pieces of equipment. However, these controls are also limited by the amount of DPM they can store. Information provided by the supplier and research done by the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory indicated the 10-inch diameter filter has the capacity of 8 grams of DPM per inch of filter length. Beyond this loading rate, the back pressure will rise quickly and the potential for hot spots or burn outs will increase. The number and size of filters required was calculated based on 10 hours of run time between replacements. Few units have the space available for the filter or have the potential to exceed the 650 degree Fahrenheit limit during normal operations. The use of disposable filters in parallel, due to its particulate load and the cost of -- let me back up just one second, excuse me. The use of disposable filters has proven to be cost prohibitive and as an example, I would share with you a Toyota pickup which we run several in the mine, would require two filters to be used in parallel due to the particulate load of these trucks at a cost of $200 per filter, the annual cost to maintain filters on the truck is estimated to be between -- right at $40,000 per unit. The intent of the metal/nonmetal diesel partnership study was to identify the appropriate DPM control for the Stillwater fleet as it exists currently. The table which I'll provide to you in written comment represents the results of this study. Results are divided into three categories of control applicability. As the results indicated, 29 percent of the Stillwater underground fleet is applicable for either passive -- for either a passive regeneration or an active regeneration system. Forty-nine percent of the Stillwater fleet was categorized as having potential where additional information was needed to determine the applicability of installing a passive or active regeneration system. And 23 percent of the Stillwater fleet is not suited to have either a passive or active regeneration system installed. Stillwater is committed to continue its research on the equipment identified as potential to determine if effective controls can, in fact, be identified. You asked about alternative fuels. Stillwater is presently using number one diesel and has started receiving shipments of ultra-low sulfur fuel. While ultra-low sulphur fuels have shown negligible reduction in DPM, the proven benefits indicate that ultra-low sulfur has the potential to improve DPF efficiency and reduce the potential for runaway regeneration. The utilization of ultra-low sulfur fuel at Stillwater will continue. Stillwater continues to research and negotiate with its regional suppliers on the availability of other alternative fuels, primarily biodiesel. We ran limited tests of biodiesel at the Stillwater mine and it has shown potential in reducing DPM concentrations. However, the availability of receiving biodiesel has proven difficult. No manufacturers of biodiesel have been located in the proximity of the mine, making availability for delivery a significant concern. In addition to availability, cold weather concerns were evaluated to determine the necessary storage requirements to reduce the potential for the fuel to gel. Because regional suppliers do not have the capability to manage, store, blend and transport in heated containers, on-site storage was evaluated. A cost analysis concerning on-site storage was conducted with the regional supplier and proved cost prohibitive. Currently, this option is not economically feasible and time is needed for manufacturers to construct distribution centers closer to mines or alternatives must be identified to make alternative fuels more economic. Water emulsion fuels were also tested in the Isozone studies. We saw significant effect of engine performance during these tests. Engine equipment operators indicated during the testing that these fuels had a significant reduction of horsepower. Stillwater has not conducted any future or any additional tests of water emulsion fuels. With regard to environmental cabs, feasibility of cabs within the Stillwater operations has been a huge issue, not only for DPM, but also for noise. The ability to install cabs on all equipment is neither feasible nor practical within our mine, due to the geometric constraints. Some cabs have been installed, however, on equipment that can be constrained and restricted to a specific mining location. These constraints minimize equipment utilization and operational flexibility, but is used when possible. Since 2001, Stillwater has performed a proactive engine campaign to replace the higher DPM emitting engines with the newer EPA Tier I and Tier II rated engines. To date, 68 percent of the underground equipment meets the U.S. EPA Tier I or Tier II rating. In addition to replacing older engines, Stillwater has been upgrading newer existing engines by installing electronic EMR II governors. This proactive approach of replacing and upgrading engines has indicated an impact on reducing DPM concentrations. Stillwater has also tested the newly available Tier III engines. Currently, one Tier III engine is being operated at the mine and three additional engines are expected to arrive in late January. In conjunction with the engine replacement programs, Stillwater has been involved in an extensive emission monitoring and engine-tuning program. This program provides knowledge of how the equipment is running and ensures that the engine is performing within optimal emissions parameters. The longer the engine stays in its optimal parameters, the more efficient the engines run, which potentially has an impact on the amount of particulate that the engine emits. As far as ventilation is concerned, both the Stillwater and East Boulder Mine have completed major ventilation upgrades. Both currently have additional ventilation raises being developed to surface that will further support the reduction of DPM. However, even with these significant enhancements, compliance to the DPM regulation cannot be guaranteed. Since 2002 to present, the Stillwater mine has increased ventilation, CFM, from 766,000 to 1.212 million CFM. The East Boulder mine has increased ventilation from 135,000 CFM to 215,000 CFM. The East Boulder mine has just recently completed another ventilation raise to surface, has one in progress that's scheduled to be completed by mid-year. With regard to the conversion factor, it is apparent that MSHA also has a concern about the complexity of developing an appropriate conversion factor in order to determine the correct TC to EC relationship. Stillwater believes that additional research is needed in order to determine an appropriate conversion factor. Recent evidence indicates that the EC to TC relationship may change depending on various dynamics such as fuel type, DPM control technologies being utilized and engine duty cycle. The relationship between elemental carbon and total carbon as DPM concentrations are reduced remains unclear. Additional research is needed to determine the appropriate variability and to what extent the error factor for EC compliance determination must be increased as the DPM limits decrease. As mentioned by an earlier speaker, Section 101(a)(9) of the Mine Act, due to the premature promulgation of this rule, no available scientific evidence exists that determines any health related effects with DPM exposures at any level. The current limits lack the scientific certainty that DPM poses any health related diseases. It is because of this uncertainty that MSHA needs to delete the 160 final PEL and permanently adopt the 308 interim limit as the final regulated number. The NIOSH/NCI study of possible DPM related health effects is coming to conclusion, and should give evidence if DPM is correlated with any adverse health effect. MSHA has chosen not to wait for the outcome of this study and intends to promulgate the DPM rule without the justified scientific evidence of adverse health effects. By doing so, MSHA has not met the requirements of Section 101(a)(6)(A) which states the Secretary, in promulgating mandatory standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall set standards which most adequately assure on the basis of the best available evidence that no miner will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such miner has regular exposure to the hazards dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life. Development of mandatory standards under this subsection shall be based upon research, demonstrations, equipment and other such information as much be appropriate. In addition to the attainment of the highest degree of health and safety protection for the miner, some considerations shall be the latest available scientific data in the field, the feasibility of the standards, and experience gained under this and other health and safety laws. Whenever practicable, the mandatory health or safety standard promulgated shall be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the performance desired. MSHA is encouraged to postpone this DPM regulation until this valuable study is completed and the results of the study can be evaluated. This study is critical to help identify the appropriate exposure limit. With regard to respiratory protection, Stillwater is committed to providing a safe and healthy environment for its employees. Unfortunately, this DPM rule has posed a significant burden on the workforce with the requirements of respiratory protection. Even with its extensive effort to reduce DPM exposures miners are currently being required to wear respirators. Based on internal DPM personal sampling 60 percent of the samples exceeds the 308 exposure limit and 99 percent of internal samples exceed the 160 final PEL. Although exposures have decreased, over 50 percent since the 2001 rule was promulgated, Stillwater continues to have significant challenges to comply with the 308 interim rule. Currently, miners are required to wear respirators during certain tasks, such as operating LHDs and haul trucks that have proven to be a significant course of DPM exposure. Based on these internal samples, the use of respiratory protection would increase and ultimately be required by nearly all miners through the entire work force as the rule continues through the proposed multi-year phase-in, ultimately to the 160 final PEL. This requires usage of respirators is not practical and would significantly burden the miner. Stillwater is concerned that if respirator usage were to be mandatory throughout the entire mine, miners' acceptance of the rule and the ability to safely remain productive would be severely compromised. With regard to transfer rights and transfer of miners, the transfer of miners unable to be medically cleared to wear a respirator needs to continue to be managed by the mine operator and through its collective bargaining agreement when in unionized operations. In the event that an employee cannot meet the requirements of wearing a respirator while performing their duties and there is no available work that the restricted employee is qualified to perform, the employee should be considered medically unfit for duty. The employment of such employees may be terminated subject to the provisions of the applicable company policy collective bargaining agreement and/or state and federal law. In the event that an employee cannot meet the requirements of wearing a respirator while performing their duties and there is available position in which the person is qualified, the employee should be transferred to the existing position and that's available to him. This employee should then receive pay at the rate of pay for the new job classification. As the proposed rule stands currently, a single sample collected is adequate basis for determining compliance. In the event that the sample exceeds the PEL, the affected miner is required to be properly fitted and trained for a respirator. Stillwater believes that anytime the average of three samples taken by MSHA indicates the PEL has been exceeded for more than one month in any year, and MSHA determines that exposures are likely to remain above the applicable level, overexposed miners should be entitled to exercise their right to wear a respirator. With regard to extensions, the Isozone study results indicate that each mine had unique challenges to comply with the DPM rule and current technology may not be available to reduce DPM concentrations to the final limit. Stillwater believes that when a mine demonstrates a "good faith" attempt to reduce DPM exposure levels, but needs additional time to comply, the mine should be granted a one-year renewal extension, special extension of time to work towards compliance. Stillwater also recommends that until feasible control devices are demonstrated to be effective and commercially available for current in-mine equipment, the operator should be granted a special extension. Stillwater agrees with MSHA that extensions need to be granted and managed by the District Manager, but would also request a final written determination of both the District Manager and the Administrator for metal and nonmetal should the operator be denied an extension. Special extensions should also be granted for the entire mine or a portion of the mine. Pending the outcome of MSHA considerations of an application for special extension, the PEL previously in effect or the previously granted special extension should remain in effect. This would ensure that regular communications continue throughout the DPM reduction efforts with the mine operator. These special extensions should be granted until such time when feasible, effective controls are readily available to industry. MSHA would be allowed, within the provision, to review evidence of good faith efforts toward compliance during the extension period. MSHA should also be part of these efforts in the form of compliance assistance and information sharing. MSHA should also grant repeated special extensions as long as the operator demonstrates good faith efforts to reduce DPM levels. Stillwater also urges MSHA to provide clarity in the rule for how the special extensions will be granted and how feasibility determinations will be made. Technological and economic feasibility. Technology and economic feasibility determinations are perhaps the greatest barriers to the promulgation of a supportable and effective DPM rule. The availability of DPM control technology that MSHA was certain would be available by January 2006 has not been adequate to reduce DPM concentrations to meet the 308 microgram interim rule or the 160 final rule. The potential availability of additional controls during the multi-year phased-in period is not guaranteed as well. Industry cannot rely on what might be available to them in the future. This statement is probably best supported by the actual procurement, installation and replacement costs of DPM controls being significantly greater than MSHA estimated in their feasibility work. Even with the incurred costs and efforts associated with reducing DPM exposures, Stillwater has not yet been able to find any feasible means for compliance to the 308 microgram interim rule or the 160 final PEL. In conclusion, Stillwater Mining Company maintains its commitment to provide a safe and healthful work environment for its employees. However, following extensive research, analysis and the implementation of available feasible control technologies, the company still cannot guarantee full compliance with the 308 microgram interim limit in all circumstances. As a positive result, Stillwater has, in fact, reduced its exposures by nearly 50 percent. SMC has worked diligently to identify and implement economic and technologically feasible controls to comply with the 160 final PEL, but unfortunately is still unable to attain ultimately control. Again, the staggered phased-in approach for effective dates to the final DPM concentration does not rectify the error in the rule, which includes lack of scientific justification, economical and technological feasibility and the appropriate TC to EC conversion factor. In conclusion, we urge expedited action by MSHA to complete the rulemaking consistent with the interim settlement agreement including first, the deletion of the 160 microgram final PEL; second, the permanent adoption of the 308 microgram interim rule; third, the adoption of the compliance extension provisions for the 308 limit to permit yearly applications and extensions based on feasibility issues; and four, adoption of personal protective equipment and administrative control options, to supplement engineering controls, pursuant to existing standards and policy; and then lastly, provide a clear explanation of the process for granting special extensions and incorporate this into the final rule. We thank you for your time and I'd like to welcome any questions you may have. MR. SEXAUER: Jim, do you have a question? MR. PETRIE: As with the other speakers, what medical evaluation procedures does Stillwater have and with what frequency are they conducted? And would you be able to provide some cost information on the cost of any medical evaluations that you do? MR. WOOD: Sure will. Medical evaluations are conducted annually, prior to being placed on respiratory protection program and annually thereafter. MR. PETRIE: I would appreciate if you could provide some cost information on that. MR. WOOD: We will in our final written. MR. SEXAUER: Doris? MS. CASH: Yes. You said you had looked at a biodiesel and had some problems with the costs on it being prohibitive. Could you provide me written comments, and explanation of that so that we'll have that cost information for our own economic analysis? MR. WOOD: We will. MS. CASH: We'll look at them and that will be helpful. MR. WOOD: Will do. MS. CASH: Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: George? MR. SASEEN: Yes. You said you had 25 passive systems that were installed on vehicles. Can you elaborate on what type of vehicles they are? Are they currently still on there, running today? MR. WOOD: The passive sit traps (Phonetic) are placed on our haulage fleet, our haul trucks. They have an engine that's a 1013. They do have a high duty cycle, high thermal T30 rating, so we are seeing success as far as those pieces of equipment. MR. SASEEN: And they're still running today? MR. WOOD: Correct. MR. SASEEN: And you said 3,000 to 4,000 hours. Was that combined or is that each? MR. WOOD: That's each. MR. SASEEN: Each unit is -- MR. WOOD: Three to four thousand hours each unit. MR. SASEEN: Today, still today. MR. WOOD: George, it's interesting. It's application related. It has to do with thermal cycle and the ability to regenerate as you well know. This particular fleet runs fairly steadily throughout the entire work shift and does generate thermal cycles that are supportive of running a passive regeneration system. Small amount of our fleet when you look at our fleet in its entirety, we're running well over 300 pieces in the mine and we're looking at 25 that are suited for -- MR. SASEEN: What size haul trucks are they? MR. WOOD: MTI60. MR. SASEEN: And have you seen a change with the install of these 25, have you seen a specific drop in DPM levels associated with the installation of those? MR. WOOD: You folks are aware of the size and complexity of the Stillwater mine and it's a dynamic mine. Things are changing and moving all the time, equipment is being utilized in various locations. We've seen accumulative reduction by nearly 50 percent when you take the ventilation upgrades, the active and passive filters that are being utilized, the somewhat ineffective but whatever result we got from the diesel, the disposable filter elements. Cumulatively, we've seen a reduction. It's very hard for me to say that we've seen a noticeable reduction with the active filters based on the way that they're utilized and the dynamics of not only the ventilation system, but the travel that these trucks take up and down our ramp systems and along grades, all which ways. MR. SASEEN: How about the miners? Have they given you any feedback on what the ones working around to be operators driving those vehicles? Can they tell a difference? MR. WOOD: There's been a noticeable reduction in the atmosphere of our mine. You can see that the air is clean. And what that means and specifically what that tells us, I'm not sure, but exchanging engines for cleaning burner engines, tuning these engines, operator awareness and participation and operating equipment in a fashion that reduces DPM overloading as well, all these things and working in concert with one another has had an effect of making the circumstances much better and much improved and noticeable improvement. I couldn't tell you with one particular control solution had an effect by in and of itself would have been noticeable, just don't know. Everything working in conjunction with one another has had a positive effective. That, in fact, is part of the role. That is probably the most difficult part of the problem, identifying exactly what's working, what's not working, the various duty cycles and thermal cycles that are generated in the way that our equipment is operated, makes this a very complex issue for us. MR. SASEEN: Okay, on the active systems, what type of machines -- again, what type of machines? Are they currently still operating with success? MR. WOOD: Yes, the active systems were placed on -- currently, about five utility vehicles. They did not have a duty cycle that would support a passive system. We did place DCL Titans on them. We do -- we initially had limited success. Like we said, it was about 10 hours before regeneration, but right now we're down to about four hours before these pieces of equipment need to get regenerated. MR. SASEEN: And what type of engines are in those? MR. WOOD: They'll be Deutsche 1013s. You mentioned in a statement that any time that you can fit and forget, so to speak, a filter or a control on a piece of equipment, you're much better off, if you're able to do so. Anything that requires individual interaction with regard to taking an off-board regeneration reactor unit and regenerating it or changing a disposal filter or any of those kinds of things, it seems like we have less success managing those than we do with an active type system. It's just unfortunate that it's just such a small fraction of our total fleet that's able to be suited or fitted for an active system. MR. SASEEN: Active or passive? MR. WOOD: Passive, I'm sorry. MR. SASEEN: Passive, thank you. You said on the active systems you're seeing less hours between regeneration? MR. WOOD: Yes. MR. SASEEN: Have you identified engine condition or maintenance or filter? MR. WOOD: That's right now currently being researched and looked at is why we're seeing this degradation as far as these systems is what's currently being looked at right now. MR. SASEEN: If you do have some information by the close of the comment period, we'd appreciate if you could provide us with that, to give us a history there. MR. WOOD: I think a lot of it is subject to operators, how an operator actually runs the equipment. I mean not intentionally or unintentionally, just how the person happens to operate. Those that seem to be operating at a higher RPM and generating a higher exhaust temperature, seem to cause those active systems to last a little bit longer before they're needing to be regenerated. MR. SASEEN: And just one, it goes to the disposables again, the 89 pieces, are they still currently installed? MR. WOOD: For the most part. We will be making a decision to get rid of -- get those off relatively soon. We're trying to find another solution for the small equipment load cycle type equipment. At the time, first of the year actually, first of 2005, we thought that those may offer some real potential to that fleet and have since determined that they've been not nearly as effective as we would hope. MR. SASEEN: And they are mostly on the Toyota pickup trucks? MR. WOOD: They're on a lot more than trucks. We've put them on just about any kind of utility vehicle or employee transport vehicle that we have. MR. SASEEN: And the main reason, I mean you said there were 4 to 10 hours. You just don't feel that's significant enough? MR. WOOD: No, they burn out. You get a spike in exhaust temperature that will exceed the 650 degrees Fahrenheit that will cause them to burn through, the loading or unexpected loading of particulate on the filter will cause the filter to burn through. The operator, who's dependent upon a back pressure indicator to tell them when it's time to change, will not see a rise in back pressure, due to the fact that the filter is burned through and so therefore they're not doing anything effectively, but yet, there's no indication to the operator that there's a problem or something needs to be changed. And this could happen very, very quickly or it can actually take a few hours before it happens, but -- MR. SASEEN: Just a final question, have you looked into exhaust gas cooling prior to those filters? MR. WOOD: Not that I'm aware of. MR. SASEEN: Thank you. MR. WOOD: You bet. MR. SEXAUER: Bill? MR. POMROY: Just a question. You mentioned that the passive filters have a life of their own, 3,000 to 4,000 hours. What is the typical failure mode at that point? What causes them to fail? MR. WOOD: Many things from a crack -- and I don't know what would cause that and so -- MR. POMROY: Do you know what your schedule is for cleaning the filters, for removing the ash? MR. WOOD: As far as maintenance on the filters themselves, that's just barely starting to get effective, as far as what type of time frame we want to go in there. I think the initial time frame right now is going to be about every 500 hours before we go in there and do clean those. MR. POMROY: So you are cleaning them now, probably around that -- MR. WOOD: That is what's been decided at this point. MR. POMROY: How about on the active filters, how often are those cleaned of the ash? MR. WOOD: Active filters right now are just pretty much being an evaluation test phase and we haven't done anything to the schedule. MR. POMROY: How much fuel do you buy every year for the two mines, for East Boulder and Stillwater together? A guess or maybe you could include that in the written comments. MR. WOOD: I can get that to you. I believe it's just over 200,000 gallons is what I'm thinking. MR. POMROY: Okay, for the two mines together. Where do you store your fuel now? MR. WOOD: On site. MR. POMROY: I mean underground or surface? MR. WOOD: On surface. MR. POMROY: No underground storage at all? MR. WOOD: There are satellite storage facilities that are set up throughout the mine, but the bulk of storage is on surface. MR. POMROY: And that's outdoor tanks, buried tanks, above-ground tanks? MR. WOOD: Above-ground tanks. MR. POMROY: How much is stored underground? Is it just batch tanks? MR. WOOD: Don't know -- yeah, I don't know. MR. POMROY: Do you drop that down bore holes or do you haul it in? MR. WOOD: We take it in in totes, drive it in. MR. POMROY: Okay. A couple questions about that Spokane NIOSH study. You had indicated 29 percent of the fleet was suitable for passive filters, 49 percent had potential and 23 percent was not suitable for either passive or active. Do you know what the breakdown is by horsepower, rather than just by unit? MR. WOOD: Yes, we will provide that to you. MR. POMROY: Also, I'm not sure how to say this, but could you also include in that response an indication of hours of usage per shift as well as horsepower so that you get some idea of how many grams per shift of DPM production would be suitable for filters, would have potential for filtration and would be not suitable. MR. WOOD: I think you'll see a table in that in the final report that will be presented on January 19th to the partnership as well. MR. POMROY: To take into account both the horsepower and the hours of usage per shift. MR. WOOD: Yes. MR. POMROY: Okay. A couple questions about the ventilation. MR. SEXAUER: Let me just interrupt here for a second. We're running considerable over the time period where I said we would take a break. What I propose is that we take a 10-minute break right now and come back and finish up our questions, if that's acceptable to you? MR. WOOD: You bet. MR. SEXAUER: Let's take a break for -- I have 10:43 until maybe 10:53 and we'll come back promptly at 10:53. Off the record. (Off the record.) MR. SEXAUER: Okay, we're back on the record. I think Jim, you have a question? MR. PETRIE: Yes, just a few more on your respiratory protection program. Do you have an estimate on the number of miners under your current program that you found unable to wear respirators and if you could, provide us with that information as well as an estimate of how many might there be under the final rule? MR. WOOD: I'll include it the final -- MR. PETRIE: Okay, so you'll be submitting that information? MR. WOOD: We'll submit that. MR. PETRIE: Okay. Just a few more questions then. Do you have any miners that currently are wearing powered air purifying respirators or non-negative type pressure respirators? MR. WOOD: Not for DPM. MR. PETRIE: Not for DPM. Okay. And if you have had miners that could not wear a respirator, what does your company currently do with them? Do they offer transfer or are they terminated? MR. WOOD: We haven't had as yet. We had one individual who may have been close and chose to retire. It was time for him to retire anyway. Currently, if a person is qualified and there's an available position for which is he is, can fulfill the requirements of the job, and unable to wear a respirator that's required in his regular position, he would be transferred into that position and paid at the rate of the new classification that he's transferred to. If there was no available position or position for which he's qualified for, he would be then placed into a situation where it would be with our human resources group as -- using our collective bargaining agreement as a tool to determine what would be done with it. MR. PETRIE: Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Doris? MS. CASH: Yes. You said that there was a certain percentage of your miners that currently are required to wear respirators when they're in the positions where your own testing has shown that they might be over-exposed. Could you please include that information also as to what you think your current information is as to the number of miners that are now wearing respirators? MR. WOOD: Okay. The other thing along with that too, Doris, I think it's very important that we capture as well is this conversation around the single sampling determination, to put a person into a respirator. We've had persons who are working in job classifications where multiple internal samples have indicated that person would not be over-exposed. However, on a given day, dependent upon activity and other things going on in the area, a sample may come up or could come up over-exposed, a single sample. Our practice has been when that sample indicates a person is over-exposed, we fit them and put them into a respirator. Probably, not the best practice. Probably, should have multiple samples that need to be taken to make that determination. Let me back up and clarify that just a little bit. That's the practice that we use internally. We take multiple samples to determine those jobs or those job tasks where a person's exposures are significant enough to put them in a respirator. They exceed the interim rule. When MSHA comes in and does a sample, the single sample that they take if indicative of an over-exposure that person then is put into a respirator, if there's an over-exposure. That's my concern. I think that it's very important that we recognize and realize that mine conditions and things are going to change. The mines are dynamic and on any given day a single sample could indicate a potential over-exposure. Is that person then at any significant health risk? I don't think so because there aren't any studies that indicate that he would be. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to put the person into a respirator based on that one over-exposure. I would much prefer to see what we recommended, three samples taken, prior to making the determination, three of MSHA's samples taken that show an over-exposure, prior to putting a person into a respirator. Seems to make more sense to me. There's more scientific basis for that at that point. MR. SEXAUER: Deborah, do you have a follow up question? MS. CASH: In reference to the multiple samples being taken for purposes of placing a miner in the respiratory protection program, I just need you to clarify that you're not speaking in terms of multiple samples for making the determination that the miner is over-exposed, but the purpose of the multiple samples would be for whether or not you need to have that miner wear a respirator? MR. WOOD: That's correct. MS. CASH: Okay. MR. WOOD: That is correct. Can I give you an example of that? MS. CASH: Yes. I was going to ask you that in your written comments that you submit, could you provide the Agency with a scheme for how we could implement that or how we could put that in a regulation? I would appreciate it, and some specifics about what we should be doing for purposes of if we were adopt that type of scheme? MR. WOOD: We will. MS. CASH: Okay, so I want to clarify one other thing for purposes of your comments, so we would have the single sample for purposes of determining whether the miner is over-exposed, and then if the miner is over-exposed and the miner has not been placed in a respirator beforehand, the citation would be issued or if the miner is in a respirator, and other feasible controls could be provided, you would still get a citation, but the bottom line is the citation is issued for that, but you would like some intervention or some other type of additional sampling from the Agency before you are required to place that miner in a respirator? MR. WOOD: That is correct. MS. CASH: Okay. MR. SEXAUER: William? MR. BAUGHMAN: Hi. If you have any information that you could provide about what prompted you to make thees recommendations, that would be helpful as well about -- if you have any special studies with respect to what you might recommend, as well as any recent or historical information about with respect to occupations and miners and how many replicates or how many times they were over-exposed or may indicate over-exposure. MR. SEXAUER: Any other questions? A couple more questions here. What is your company's procedure for monitoring NO2 exposures of equipment operators? MR. WOOD: We place gas testing equipment on them. It would be either be an ITX or TMX, full-shift samples. MR. SEXAUER: And then what? If you look at that monitor and when the monitor goes to what level, then what do you do? MR. WOOD: We haven't seen anything as far as initial time weighted average exposures. With the initial testing on some of these highly catalyzed suit traps and that stuff, during the research, it was during that time where we saw the spikes of NO2 and at that point we disconcluded all of the testing and stopped from there. MR. SEXAUER: Your procedure just for normal, routine production operations though is that you do have an ITX or a TMX on each piece of equipment? MR. WOOD: No. MR. SEXAUER: No. Just for the research? MR. WOOD: Yes. MR. SEXAUER: Okay. Let's see, do all of the engines that have filters attached, are they provided with back pressure gauges? MR. WOOD: Yes, they are. MR. SEXAUER: The Toyota pickups that you mentioned had fabric filters, the synthetic media filters, are those really like a Miller technology modified Land Cruiser or is it more of a production Toyota pickup? MR. WOOD: It's a Miller technology. MR. SEXAUER: It's a Miller technology. You buy those from Miller. MR. WOOD: We do. MR. SEXAUER: Do you know what engine is installed in those? (Pause.) MR. WOOD: It just says 1DZ11. MR. SEXAUER: Okay. MR. WOOD: And 1HC. MR. SEXAUER: 1HC. Could you get a breakdown of how many you have of the 1HC versus the other engine? MR. WOOD: Yes. MR. SEXAUER: Just a couple questions about the biodiesel, too. Where is the closest biodiesel production facility to Stillwater, do you know? MR. WOOD: There are more than one available to us, none of them seem to -- nothing that we can depend upon. We've been working with Senex (Phonetic), a local distributor and refiner in Billings. They're highly interested in developing some sort of market, commercial market for biodiesel in the area, where they would choose to pick this fuel up, I just don't know. The difficulty, as I mentioned, has been finding a way to transport and store enough biodiesel that can remain on site during the cold winter months. There's no way to transport biodiesel from any facility, even Billings or Columbus that can get it on site without having the effects of this gelling causing some difficulty and float difficulties because there aren't transport vehicles that are heated. So what we were looking at was to try and find a way to develop the infrastructure at Stillwater, the storage facilities at the mine where during the warm months it could be transported to site and remain on site, either put into the underground environment or remain on surface and heated, so that during the winter months, we wouldn't have to worry about availability. That's the storage method that was preferred and the one that proved to be -- not cost effective at present. MR. SEXAUER: Your current fuel deliveries are in just in 8,000-gallon semi-trucks? MR. WOOD: Yes. MR. SEXAUER: And they come out of Billings? MR. WOOD: Out of Columbus. MR. SEXAUER: Columbus. MR. WOOD: Yes. MR. SEXAUER: Let's see, what steps has Stillwater taken since the MSHA tech support evaluation of your ventilation system to improve installation of auxiliary ventilation systems to ensure proper operation over time, but those auxiliary systems? MR. WOOD: We've gone to -- we changed our blast bag, what we call it, the bag that's carried up toward the working phase. We have improved upon the connections of the auxiliary fans. We have an auditing process in place that audits the connections themselves to make sure that they're being maintained adequately. There have been a number of upgrades that have occurred, probably since your last visit as well. In fact, I can't remember the exact timing. I believe that the initial bore hole to surface was already in when you folks were there in our upper west. We have a second one scheduled for this year as well and multiple number of internal bore hole systems that have been established in our lower off-shaft areas of the mine as well. But mainly, I think, probably the most effective has been oversight and attention paid to audits and inspections to improve that capability. MR. POMROY: If you could detail those procedures in the written comments that would be real helpful. You've mentioned about 68 percent of your engines are either Tier I or Tier II compliant. I'm just wondering do you know offhand or maybe you could include in the written comments what percentage are Tier II as opposed to a combination of Tier I and Tier II? MR. WOOD: We'll get that for you. MR. POMROY: I think that's all I have. MR. SEXAUER: Just to -- I forgot to ask, on the passes ceramic systems, can you say which manufacturer you're using or what model? MR. WOOD: The majority of them is Englehart (Phonetic), as far as models, I don't know. MR. SEXAUER : But they're Englehart, okay. I think that's it. To follow up with Bill's, on those different Tier I and Tier II, if you could identify the type of machines that they're installed in and then you said you're having several Tier III engines delivered? MR. WOOD: We have one currently on site. We should have three more here at the end of this month. MR. SEXAUER: Are you continuing your engine emissions check, routine engine loads? MR. WOOD: Yes. MR. SEXAUER: Can you supply us with any information, current information on how that's been going? Okay? MR. WOOD: What was the question? MR. SEXAUER: On the repeat engine load test, the emissions check that you do, I think you were doing it at your 250 hour checks, if you can provide us some update information on how that process has been going? MR. WOOD: Yes. MR. SEXAUER: Thank you. We have one more question over here. MR. : Your diesel fuel that you currently receive, is it stored on the surface, underground, both? MR. WOOD: Both storage is on the surface and individual totes are taken underground. MR. : Do you know what the storage capacity is in each area roughly? MR. WOOD: No, I don't. I can provide that. MR. : If you can provide that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Steve, Buck, thank you very much. MR. WOOD: Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Our next speaker is Mike Crum. MR. CRUM: My name is Mike Crum. I'm with FMC Corporation out of Green River, Wyoming. I'm an industrial hygienist there with FMC. FMC will compile written comments and submit them for the record. FMC also supports MARG's position regarding the proposed rule. We are current MARG members. It is difficult to comprehend that this rule has maintained its complexion even though MSHA admitted mistakes and errors of the rulemaking process within the Federal Register. These Agency errors are significant and substantial enough for the Agency to do the right thing and delete the 160 microgram final limit from rulemaking. Even with the deletion, MSHA will have a non-science based health standard to which many mines will struggle to maintain compliance with the 400 microgram limit. MSHA's sampling data tells a very erroneous story to those looking at compliance with the interim final limit and the proposed final limit. The sampling data underestimates current exposures. Sampling data currently reflects the true problems with any enforcement relying on a single shift sample. Control technology that was supposed to be the silver bullet, has yet to be effective for mine operators to effectively meet standards. These DPFs have not been completely effective for large equipment and work to assist operators with low horsepower engines has yet to begin within the partnership. Even though this is a technology-driving standard, in the last five years technology has not even caught up with the 400 microgram standard, let alone the 160 microgram standard. So why would anyone believe that technology will respond favorably within the next five years? This technology has been worked on steadily by government agency, being NIOSH, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars without yielding a favorable result. NIOSH, with all their experts, scientists, research budget and labs, has not been able to determine an effective control technology. Mine operators participating in these partnerships, have been willing to open their mines for research in good faith and again have not produced favorable results, speaking specifically of the NIOSH case study, the Isozone study, etcetera. Respiratory protection in our operation will be very expensive and challenging. Statistics show that roughly 4 percent of any given population will not be cleared for negative pressure respirator use. In our mind, this percentage is low, primarily due to age. This brings a case, our respirator costs will increase from roughly $28 to over $700, which would include medical monitoring and different respiratory protection. We will submit comments for the rulemaking process to the record. We have actively participated with the MARG Group and the NIOSH partnership, or DPM partnership and we'll continue to do so. We look forward to any opportunities that we may have to participate in number one, permissible equipment controls, as well as low duty cycle controls. And that's all I have. Thank you. Any questions? MR. SEXAUER: Doris? MS. GREEN: Yes. You said that you anticipate your respiratory protection costs and I assume that's per miner would increase from $28 to over $700. Could you give us some information on what those costs would be and why the -- what the increase would be? And what the different type of respirators would be that you would be going to? MR. CRUM: I will include that in the comments, but just for the record, should we start to see miners who cannot be medically cleared with foreign negative pressure, half face mask, we would indeed due to our leanness of our operation, we would be required to go to probably a powered-air purifying respirator. We would have to install battery charging stations. Those items aren't cheap. MS. GREEN: Okay. MR. CRUM: And we're looking at roughly 60 percent of our population as -- our sampling data shows that we are roughly 60 percent in compliance with the 400 and we are roughly 85 percent out of compliance with the 160 microgram standard. MS. GREEN: All right, thank you. And could you also include that information if you haven't already in your written comments? MR. CRUM: We will submit that to MSHA again, yes. MS. GREEN: Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: George? MR. SASEEN: Yes, Mike, you made a statement, I'll give you a chance if you want to clarify it, you said DPF filters were not effective and I believe you said the high horsepower engines, you made that in your statement. MR. CRUM: I did. And I based -- MR. SASEEN: Can you clarify that as to what -- MR. CRUM: I will. I've been involved with the NIOSH studies for a number of years, up until moving to Green River. The concern I have is we do have the potential for runaway regeneration for our operation being gassy mine. That's probably not a real good fit for our operation. The other potential that is there, that has been proven is the elevated NO2 exposures which are a known health hazard. The primary concern there obviously is the miners' health. Secondary concern there is once the ceiling limit is reached, those miners can have no further exposure. Any time you burn a diesel engine, you get some NO2 exposure. What do you do with those guys? You bring them to the surface. So miner health, number one. Lost production, number two. It's a cost to both parties. MR. SASEEN: So you're pretty much to the ceramic -- MR. CRUM: To the ceramic catalyzed filters, yes, that's correct. MR. SASEEN: At your own mine, have you looked at any other alternative filtering systems? MR. CRUM: We have evaluated both passive and active filters on our duty cycles and thermal logging, we just can't do it. Our equipment doesn't run in the right ranges. Again, we have permissible equipment, so that poses its own challenges to us. The disposal filters, again, we concern ourselves with the burn through and the flammability issues that they do pose that have been seen in the past. So right now, our primary focus is on alternative fuels and maintenance practices. We have in the last two years begun doing our emissions controls testing and during our major long-haul moves, we have instituted bio fuels. Even with the bio fuels, we have not seen compliance to the 160 standard where every piece of equipment within that section is operated using bio fuel. MR. SASEEN: On your disposables, have you tried any heat exchange or technology up front? MR. CRUM: We have not yet. MR. SASEEN: Do you have any plans to? Or could you share any schemes with us? MR. CRUM: I can within comments. MR. SASEEN: That's fine. MR. CRUM: I don't have that. MR. SASEEN: Right, I appreciate that. If you could do that within comments, that's fine. Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Bill? MR. POMROY: A question about your use of the bio fuels. You're only using the bio fuels during long mobiles (Phonetic)? MR. CRUM: That is our major, once every 12 to 18 month major exposure where we could feasibly see the 600 microgram exposure. That is a choice we made a couple years back to implement the bio fuel during those moves where very large horsepower engines for hauling shields and that is primarily our usage right now, although we intend to expand that as we work through some details on fuel storage, fuel segregation, testing protocols, etcetera. MR. POMROY: In your written comments, could you maybe include some details about where that fuel comes from and what the costs are compared to ordinary number two or number one? What do you normally run, number one or number two? MR. CRUM: I believe we run on number one. MR. POMROY: Also, the bio fuel that you use, do you know what the blend is? MR. CRUM: I don't off the top of my head. I don't have that data. MR. POMROY: Can you get us that information, too, what is the blend of the bio fuel with the standard. MR. CRUM: I will. MR. POMROY: Do you have any cold weather issues with the use of the bio fuels, if your long mobiles (Phonetic) happen to happen in January -- MR. CRUM: Just icy highways because everything we have is stored underground. MR. POMROY: You store it all underground anyway. Okay. MR. SEXAUER: Jim? MR. PETRIE: Yes. Do you currently have a medical evaluation program for risk evaluation? MR. CRUM: Yes, we do. MR. PETRIE: With what frequency are they conducted? MR. CRUM: Annually for those that require respiratory protection. MR. PETRIE: Would you be able to provide us with some cost information on that in the record? MR. CRUM: Absolutely. MR. PETRIE: Comments. And do any of your miners currently wear powered air purifying respirators? MR. CRUM: Yes, our miners that operate the long wall. MR. PETRIE: And if you could provide some cost information on that, we'd appreciate it as well. Have you had miners that have been unable to wear any type of respiratory protection and if so, what have you done with those miners? MR. CRUM: Negative pressure respirators, yes, we have. Fortunately, for us, with medical treatment, they were able to get that clearance to wear negative pressure masks, although one thing you have to understand with our operation, we have very little exposure underground that would require respirator use with the exception of what's pending with the diesel rule. MR. PETRIE: Okay, thank you. MR. SEXAUER: Mike, thank you very much. MR. CRUM: Thank you. MR. SEXAUER: If I may, Steve, Steve Wood, we have one more question we wanted to ask you, if you don't mind. George? MR. SASEEN: In your written comments, you talked about exploring the bio diesel. What percentage of blend were you planning on starting to use at Stillwater? What's your strategy? MR. WOOD: We ran a test for a little over a quarter. We brought in what we were able to obtain. It started out with a five, B-5 blend. We started out extremely low just because we wanted to try to reduce or minimize as much of the solvent effect as we possibly could and not have an influx of plugged filters all of a sudden. MR. SASEEN: Right. MR. WOOD: And work our way up to a B-20 blend and actually determined that the test was successful and it became an availability issue at that point, were we going to be able to continue with utilization of biodiesel based on our inability to receive the product. So we got to B-20. If it were available and if it were cost effective, we would probably want to continue to increase that as well. MR. SASEEN: But there's no plans right now or are you just looking at the -- MR. WOOD: A lot of discussion going on. We're working with a number of folks which I can detail for you in our comment as well, trying to make it more available to us and working with some folks in Idaho and Department of Energy and others as well, trying to make it available to us. MR. SASEEN: All right, thanks. Sorry to have to bring you back up. MR. WOOD: No problem. MR. SEXAUER: Fred Fox and Mark Good. MR. FOX: Good morning, my name is Fred Fox. I'm the Director of Health Safety Environment for Kennecott Minerals which is located here in Salt Lake City. With me I have Mark Good who is the Senior Mine Engineer up at the Greens Creek Mine, located near Juneau, Alaska. And may I be the first to welcome everyone here to Salt Lake City. And I hope during your short time you have an enjoyable stay. I've provided our comments, written comments to each panel member and in doing so maybe I'll go over what we've provided and I hope then just to paraphrase so we don't spend a lot of time in the testimony. I plan just to go over more of the general administrative issues, some history involving Kennecott and basically a background of our involvement in the rulemaking and then I'll ask Mark to stand up and correct me when I'm wrong, of course, but also to talk about the programs up at the Greens Creek Mine on the engineering and administrative work that's being done on feasibility. MR. SEXAUER: Let me just say for the record that the document that you've given us we'll put into the record and it's clearly identified on the first page of it, it has your name, Fred D. Fox, Director, HSE, Kennecott Minerals Company and further down it has the name Mark Good, Senior Mine Engineer, Kennecott Greens Creek Mine. MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. If you want to go back to the first chart that we've included, we will present in this, in the written testimony here attachment 1 which covers all the samples we've taken to date, starting back in 2000 up to the more recent samples. Looks like it was December 31, 2000. On attachment 2, we include a summary of the feasible engineering controls used at the Greens Creek Mine. You'll see a table there along with a number of footnotes and hopefully we can refer to those during Mark's testimony, as well as attachment 3, indicating the ventilation system at the Greens Creek mine, mainly focusing on the cascading ventilation system that we have in place today. Attachment 4 includes a table, as well as a graph, and the table goes through all the samples taken, along with the area and most importantly the elemental carbon and the total carbon concentrations and these are not, and I have to repeat this, not all personal samples. So you'll see some numbers that vary considerably, based on where the location and the type of sample taken. And finally, Attachment 5, we've included what we intend to do this year in moving forward with our diesel control plan. So with that, on behalf of Kennecott, we want to thank MSHA and really everyone in this room and outside that's been involved, in continuing to address this complex and challenging regulatory burden. I think we all recognize it as a burden on both sides, to comply with the standards that really were rushed in, we believe over five years ago, and I think we've heard earlier, well ahead of the science and technology, able to adequately define and address them. Now we also plan to submit written comments by the January 27th deadline. Well, maybe not ironically, but Mark and I both were sitting just up the street a little bit over two years ago at the University Park Hotel and as we put together our comments for today, we obviously went back and looked -- what did we saw two years, four months ago? And unfortunately, our testimony hasn't changed a great deal from what we presented then. The regulations required and continue to require corrections and amendments that were discussed during Mr. Moderator's description of the preamble. And I'll just maybe highlight some of the things that happened over the last five years. And of course, there's been temporary postponements of the rules, industry petitions for review, delays, settlement discussions, joint studies, additional rulemaking. There's been two partial settlement discussions. New information, a lot of new information on the technical and economic feasibility of meeting the rules. So I just emphasize, we are moving forward, but it's been a struggle over the last five years, obviously. Yet, as mentioned earlier, there's much more information to come, very important information. And I'm speaking of the NIOSH NCI study on health effects and probably other studies as well that we need to really get completed, including the Stillwater study and evaluated. Within this five-year period, Kennecott has actively participated in the rulemaking process, primarily focusing on implementing DPM rules to reduce exposures to our miners. That's the most important thing, I guess why we're all here. And Mark will describe what has been done at Greens Creek, addressing the engineering and administrative controls, tried there and deemed feasible. And that's, I think, real important as we've heard earlier and we'll probably hear later on today. There's a lot going on, but we really want to focus on what is deemed feasible. However, despite our best efforts, compliance with the interim limit which was 400 and now 308 EC, is considered feasible at best and I'm speaking specifically at the Greens Creek Mine, and that's our only underground mine that Kennecott Mines owns. We are unable to reach this final limit and that's why we provided the graph of Attachment 1. You can see there has been progress, quite a bit of progress made, but we're still unable to reach the final limit, the 308 at all times in all places of the mine and at best that's where we're at, but we feel we're unable to reach the final limit and do not believe compliance with the proposed phase-in limits can achieve at all times and at all locations in the Greens Creek Mine -- can be achieved at all times, at all locations. We can go out and we can sample and we can hit and get below the limits on one day, in one area of the mine and on the same day in another area of the mine we just won't be as lucky. And it has to do with the site-specific conditions up at the mine which Mark will talk about. This was our position way back when we started in January 2001. And I was telling Mark, we didn't really know a lot about this. We kind of just grabbed at certain things and back in January 2001 in another hearing in Salt Lake City, we testified it was kind of -- sort of a grab, or an unknown if we could even meet the proposed 400 limit and that was our position then and this is our position now. We feel a lot has been done and progress has been made, but again, just meeting what we'll call the interim limit at best is feasible, but not at all locations and at all times in the mine. And when we get down to the 160 proposed limit, it just gets even more concerting to us. We have worked hard to implement the rules and we'll continue to work with MSHA, NIOSH and the diesel partnership. We do look forward to new technology and to implement controls that are feasible for site-specific conditions at the mine. And as you are aware and heard this morning, Greens Creek is not alone in its efforts to deal with this regulatory challenge. The staggered effective dates over the five-year period for the final limit may help some mines to comply, but we still remain very concerned that we will not be able to comply with the staggered proposed limits. MSHA's position on feasibility does not reflect consideration of current complications with respect to implementation of controls. MSHA has acknowledged, we believe, that it has limited in-mine documentation on effective DPM control technology. And this is, we think, the reasons for extending and staggering the effective dates for the final limit. We're encouraged by this, but because the current state of DPM control technology and site-specific conditions at the Greens Creek Mine and specifically the narrow openings, the cascading ventilation system and the mining equipment and methods used, we believe will not be able to comply with the final limit. Because of this and because of the overwhelming weight of evidence submitted into rulemaking record that supports the deletion of the final limit as infeasible, as applied to the Greens Creek mine, we once again respectfully request that MSHA delete the final limit. Absent the deletion of this limit, the process of obtaining special extensions for additional time to meet the final limit is critical to continue compliance up at the Greens Creek Mine, very critical. Special extensions will be necessary to enable continued compliance for the proposed rules. Because of this, there's a need, we believe, for a formalized procedure to grant special extensions. Compliance for the DPM rules will be dependent upon Greens Creek receiving additional time to take actions to minimize exposures to DPM, such as maintaining controls and implementing a respiratory protection program. The need for special extensions is evident and we agreed that the decision to grant them shall be made by the District Manager, but under a more formal procedure addressing specific time frames, documented reasons for approval or denial and as mentioned earlier, means for appealing a decision of the District Manager to the Administrator. Clarifications of a special extension can be approved for each applicable staggered limit and that a one-year extension, that the one-year extension tolls the subsequent yearly limit because we do believe because the annual extensions doesn't give much time to bring forth more technology, so as we're moving forward and we will continue to move forward, but we believe that that should toll that particular limit until it's met by implementing controls during the special extension. And without more formal procedures in place for granting the special extensions, we see potential problems addressing applicability. Is it for a specific area in the mine or is it for an entire mine? That was brought up a little bit earlier. We see the burden of proof is overwhelmingly placed on the operator without the benefit of appeal or recourse. And I'm speaking of the proposed rules as they sit now. With that, I'll ask Mark to now discuss the site-specific issues on feasibility in implementing controls at the Greens Creek Mine. We can take questions -- MR. SEXAUER: Fred, before we do that, I just want to state for the benefit of those in the audience the document that you've submitted to us at the beginning of your testimony, we will be scanning it and posting it on our web page and everyone will have access to those charts that are included in there and that will appear on our web page, just following the transcript. MR. FOX: Okay, great. MR. GOOD: To pick up where Fred left off there, we want to talk a little bit about the feasible engineering controls that we've applied to this point and maybe speak to some of the infeasibilities as well. At the Greens Creek Mine, we've taken kind of like a multi-pronged approach in terms of trying to come into compliance with the DPM regulations. Our first kick at the cat, as it were, was to try to put filters on the equipment as best we could and determine which piece of equipment was going to be applicable for it, so our first stabs at it were met with some levels of success and a lot of levels with failures. But we've kind of refined things to the point now where we're a little bit more comfortable on applying acid filters on some of the equipment that we've got. The mining equipment that we have in the fleet, effectively totals 83 pieces of equipment at this point of which 17 of them are haul trucks, mainly the big loaders or the heavy haulers, rather. We've got 13 loaders of different sizes, the predominant production fleet is a total of 450 or 1250. It's a 300 horsepower piece of equipment. We've got a number of those. And then we've got some smaller ancillary loaders as well for the Bobcats and the like. We also have 13 utility vehicles, powder trucks, scissor trucks, boom trucks and that type of thing. They typically run around 150 horse. We've got six graders and other kind of smaller utility things like forklifts and the like. A whole fleet of tractors, 50 horsepower, Kabota (Phonetic) tractors and then we've got a number of drills, both production jumbos and bolters. Those ones typically are running about 85 to 100 horse diesel engines. The filter technology we started playing around with in 2000 and that was basically before much was known about filters at that point, so we kicked off our trials with those and ended up with some failures on it. The filters were loading up back pressuring and that type of thing. We worked with the manufacturer to try to determine solutions to that, came up with some solutions in terms of insulating exhaust lines and wrapping the canisters with insulation, as well as the mounting of the tail pipes and that type of thing. And we finally came up with a combination that worked for us and to this point we've installed virtually all of our heavy hauler fleet with passive filters. They're working okay at this point and we have one active filtration system on a Caterpillar engine 3306, elephant stone loader that's working as well. We're still working towards the applications of filters on the low-duty cycle or the small equipment fleet. We haven't come up with anything as yet that's going to be feasible for us at this point. We're still trialing this. We're going to be testing some active filtration systems on a couple of our powder trucks. That will be happening this upcoming year and we'll probably talk to that at the end of the session here. But as yet, the active filtration system is still an open question to us as to how effective and how applicable it's going to be fleet wide. I don't want to go through this verbatim because you've got it in front of you, so I'm just going to scan through quickly and -- the feasibility of equipment, medium to low duty cycle engines with the pass of an active filtration system we're looking at. Logistical problems with that, I think, as a former speaker alluded to was parking lots or regeneration stations spread out throughout the mine. That's obviously going to provide a lot of logistical problems for people trying to relocate the equipment up to a place where you can plug it in or regenerate it or basically haul the filters off board and regenerate them that way. Those are not going to be pa