PUBLIC HEARING FOR ) ) PROPOSED NOISE STANDARDS ) Pages: 1 through 114 Place: Beaver, West Virginia Date: May 6, 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARING FOR ) ) PROPOSED NOISE STANDARDS ) Auditorium National Mine Safety and Health Academy 1301 Airport Road Beaver, West Virginia Tuesday, May 6, 1997 The parties met, pursuant to the notice of the Moderator, at 9:10 a.m. BEFORE: ROBERT THAXTON Moderator APPEARANCES: MSHA Panel: JAMES CARTER, Metal and Nonmetal VICTORIA PILATE, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances MARVIN NICHOLS, Health Division MICHAEL VALOSKI, Office of Technical Support JACK POWASNIK, Solicitor's Office ROSLYN FONTAINE, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances P R O C E E D I N G S MR. NICHOLS: Good morning, everybody, and welcome to MSHA's public hearing on our noise standard for metal and nonmetal and coal mining. Let me introduce the rest of the panel. On my left, Jim Carter, with Metal and Nonmetal. Victoria Pilate, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. Roslyn Fontaine, down on the other end, also from the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. Jack Powasnik -- I ought to let Jack introduce himself. I have a little -- MR. POWASNIK: Powasnik. MR. NICHOLS: Powasnik -- ah, from the Solicitor's Office. And Mike Valoski, from the Office of Tech Support. We're here today to listen to your comments on the December 17, 1996, proposed rule revising certain portions of the existing health standards for noise exposure in coal and metal and nonmetal mines. The hearings are being held in accordance with Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. As is the practice of the Agency, formal rules of evidence will not apply at this hearing. Let me give you some background on the proposed rule that we're here to talk about today. MSHA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 4, 1989, as part of the Agency's ongoing review of its health -- of its safety and health standards. The Agency's existing noise standards, which were promulgated more than 20 years ago, are inadequate to prevent the occurrence of occupational noise-induced hearing loss among miners. In the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Agency solicited information for revision of the noise standards for coal and metal and nonmetal mines. The comment period was closed on July 15, 1990. On December 17, 1996, in response to information received on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MSHA published the proposed standard. The Agency has developed a proposal that it estimates can reduce by two-thirds the number of miners currently projected to suffer a hearing loss, but which it estimates can be implemented at a cost of less than nine million dollars to the mining industry as a whole. The focus of the proposal is on the use of -- on the use of the most effective means to control noise: engineering controls to eliminate the noise or administrative controls -- for example, rotating miner duties to eliminate noise exposure whenever feasible. The proposed standard would retain the existing permissible exposure level, the PEL. It would also establish a new action level of an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBa. If a miner is exposed -- if a miner's exposure exceeds the PEL, the proposal would require that the mine operator use feasible engineering and administrative controls to reduce noise exposure to the PEL. If engineering and administrative controls do not reduce the miner's noise exposure to the PEL, the operator must use those controls to lower exposure to as close to the PEL as is feasibly achievable. In addition, the operator would have to provide any exposed miner annual audiometric examinations, properly fitted hearing protection and ensure that the miner takes the annual audiometric examination and uses such protection. The comment period was extended from February 18, 1997, to April 21, 1997, due to requests from the mining community. MSHA has received a broad range of comments from over 60 different interests, which included mine operators, industry trade associations, organized labor, colleges and universities, and noise equipment manufacturers. The comments addressed the primary provisions of the proposed rule, such as the action level, the PEL, methods of compliance, exposure monitoring and audiometric testing. Let me talk for a few minutes about the provisions of the proposed rule. Exposure to noise is measure under proposed Section 62.120. The proposed section would require that a miner's noise exposure not be adjusted for the use of hearing protectors, that a miner's noise exposure integrate all sound levels from 80 dBa to at least 130 dBa during the miner's full work shift, and that the current 5 dB exchange rate to measure the level of the miner's noise exposure would continue to be used. An action level of 85 dBa during any work shift or, equivalently, a dose of 50 percent, would also be established under the proposed rule. For miners who are exposed to the 85 dBa action level, the proposed rule does not require the use of engineering and administrative controls. Rather, operators would be required to provide personal hearing protection upon a miner's request, annual employee training, and enrollment in a hearing conservation program. The proposed rule would also retain the existing PEL of 90 dBa, requiring that no miner be exposed to noise exceeding a time-weighted average of 90 dBa during any work shift or, equivalently, a dose of 100 percent. While the PEL would not change, the action level required if noise exposure exceeds the PEL are different from the current requirements. MSHA's existing metal and nonmetal noise standards, for example, already require the use of feasible engineering or administrative controls when a miner's noise exposure exceeds the PEL. The existing standards, however, do not require the mine operator to post the procedures for any administrative controls used, to conduct specific training, or to enroll miners in a hearing conservation program. Under MSHA's current coal mining standard, a citation is not issued when a miner's exposure exceeds the PEL if appropriate hearing protection is being used by the miners. In the event of a violation of the coal mining standard, operators are required to promptly institute engineering and/or administrative controls and to submit to MSHA a plan for the administration of a continuing effective hearing conservation program. The proposed rule would establish a hierarchy of controls for all miners when exposed -- when exposure exceeds the PEL. In addition, other aspects of the rule increase protection to miners and further reduce the potential for hearing loss. Under the proposal, mine operators must first utilize all feasible engineering and administrative controls to reduce sound levels to the PEL before relying on other controls to protect against hearing loss. Furthermore, an operator would be required to ensure that miner whose exposure exceeds the PEL takes the hearing examination offered through enrollment in a hearing conservation program. Under proposed Section 62.120(f), MSHA would require operators to establish a system of monitoring which effectively evaluates each miner's noise exposure. The proposal would also require that within 15 calendar days of determining that a miner's exposure exceeded the action level, the PEL, the dual hearing protection level, or the ceiling level, the mine operator must notify the miner in writing of the overexposure and the corrective action being taken pursuant to Section 103(c) of the Mine Act. The proposed rule also provides for hearing protection and training. Under proposed Section 62.125, miners would be given a choice from at least one muff type or one plug type hearing protector. Under Section 62.130, miners would be given the required training. Additionally, under proposed Section 62.140, operators would be required to offer base line audiograms to miners enrolled in a hearing conservation program; that is, when a miner's exposure exceeds the action level. Prior to conducting the base line audiogram, operators will be required to make certain that miners have at least a 14-hour period where there are no -- where they are not exposed to workplace noise. Use of hearing protectors as a substitute for this quiet period would be prohibited. The proposed rule would also require mine operators to offer a valid audiogram at intervals not exceeding 12 months for as long as the miner remains in the hearing conservation program. Proposed Section 62.150 would require the operator to assure that all audiometric testing is conducted in accordance with scientifically validated procedures. MSHA would also require that audiometric test records be maintained at the mine site for the duration of the affected miner's employment, plus at least six months thereafter. Under proposed Section 62.160, operators would have 30 days in which to obtain audiometric test results and interpretations. Additionally, under proposed Section 62.180 -- let me reread that. I kind of messed it up. Under proposed Section 62.160, operators would have 30 days in which to obtain audiometric test results and interpretations. Additionally, under proposed Section 62.180, MSHA would require that, unless a physician or audiologist determines that a standard threshold shift is neither work-related nor aggravated by occupational noise exposure within 30 calendar days of receiving evidence of a standard threshold shift or results of a retest confirming a standard threshold shift, the operator must do the following: one, retrain the miner. Two, allow the minor to select a hearing protector or a different hearing protector. And, three, review the effectiveness of any engineering and administrative controls to identify and correct any deficiencies. Proposed Section 62.150 would require that within 10 working days of receiving the results of an audiogram or receiving the results of a follow-up evaluation, the operator will notify the miner in writing of the results and interpretation of the audiometric test, including: one, any finding of a standard threshold shift or a reportable hearing loss; and, two, if applicable, the need and reasons for any further testing or evaluation. And finally, the proposed rule would require that the operator provide the miner, upon termination of employment, with a copy of all records that the operator is required to maintain under this part without cost to the miner. This the first of six hearings that we'll be having. We will also receive comment and testimony on the proposed rule in St. Louis, Missouri, on May 8; in Denver, Colorado on May 13; in Las Vegas, Nevada, on May 15; in Atlanta, Georgia, on May 28; and in Washington, D.C., on May 30. All the hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end at 5 p.m., but, if necessary, the MSHA panel will, you know, stay as long as anybody wants to comment. Now, I want to turn the hearing over to Bob Thaxton. I think I missed Bob in my first introduction here, but Bob is on my staff back in our headquarters office, in our Health Division, and he will moderate the rest of the hearing. Thank you. MODERATOR THAXTON: Good morning. As Marvin just stated, my name is Bob Thaxton. I'm with MSHA's Coal Mine Safety and Health Division and I will be the moderator for today's hearing. MSHA views these hearings -- ah, rule activities as extremely important. And we realize that your presence here indicates that you also are very concerned about this rulemaking. To ensure that we have an adequate record that is made during this proceeding, when you present your oral statements or otherwise address the Panel, we would ask that you approach the podium that's in the center, state your name, spell your name, and then state the organization or your affiliation. The order of presentation for the public statements will be in the order in which we received requests. And that order for today will be as follows: Steve Moss will be first, followed by Gerald Ellison, Hank Bailess -- VOICE ONE: He's not here. MODERATOR THAXTON: He's not here? Jim Bennett, Reggie Sizemore, Jim Bias, Keith Casto, Ron Fluty, Bobby Little, Brent Dillon, John Poindexter, Jackie Cook and Gary Trout. VOICE TWO: Ron Fluty and Bobby Little have sent myself and another person as a substitute. MODERATOR THAXTON: When it comes time for their presentations, if you would, please, come to my far right, to Ros Fontaine, and sign the speaker's list, please. VOICE TWO: Okay, thank you. MODERATOR THAXTON: In addition, we have 17 other persons that have signed up to make presentations during this hearing. They have asked, though, that those presentations will not begin until 4 p.m. today, so there may be a time lag between presentations today, that we will adjourn for a short period of time and then come back for the second tier of this presentation. The 17 people that will be presenting this afternoon are: Bill Cox, Tony -- I can't pronounce this name, so I'll spell it -- P-I-S-S-O-S -- Pissos. Brad Liston, Roger Sparks, Wendall Huhn, Lloyd Smith, Robert Shain, Lewis Stollings, Charles Williams, Terry Lewis, Mark Cochran, Dave Hooper, Tony King, Paul Walker, Jeff King, Larry Rosner -- Rosser, and Dennis O'Dell. And as we said, those people have asked to begin their presentations after four o'clock today. It is MSHA's intent that all persons who wish to make -- to speak will be given the opportunity to do so. Anyone who has not previously signed up to make a presentation or -- and speak to the Panel, we encourage you to go ahead and sign up now. Again, if you would, come to see Ms. Fontaine, on my far right, and sign the speaker's list. Due to the request to hold hearings at four o'clock for the last 17 names that I gave, anybody that's in the audience that was not listed as a speaker and wishes to address the Panel, we will allow time for that at the end of the people that have signed up for this morning's session. The Chair will attempt to recognize all speakers in the order in which they requested to speak. If necessary, though, the Chair reserves the right to modify the order of presentation in the interest of fairness. Also, as the moderator, I may exercise discretion to include irrelevant or unduly repetitious material. And, in order to clarify certain points, the Panel may ask questions of the speakers. MSHA will accept written comment and other appropriate date on the proposal from any interested party, including those who will not present oral statements. Written comments may be submitted to Roslyn Fontaine during this hearing or sent to Patricia Silvey, Director of MSHA's Office of Standards, at the address listed in the hearing notice. All comments are important to the Agency. Should anyone desire to modify their comments or submit additional comments following the hearing, the record will remain open until June 20, 1997. If possible, the Agency would appreciate getting your comments on a disk. The comments are essential to helping MSHA develop the most appropriate rule that improves the health of the nation's miners. MSHA has received extensive comments on the proposed rule. We appreciate the constructive criticism and the hard and careful thought which your comments represent. On behalf of the Assistant Secretary Davitt McAteer and MSHA, I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to each of you for being here today and for your input. We look forward to your continued participation in this rulemaking activity. Before we begin with the first speaker -- in addition, a verbatim transcript of this hearing is being taken. It will be made an official part of the rulemaking record. The hearing transcript, along with all the comments that MSHA has received to date on the proposed rule, will be available for review by the public. If you wish a personal copy of the hearing transcript, however, you can make your own arrangements with the reporter. Again, before we start the first oral presentation, I would remind you to please sign the sign-up sheet at the back of the room, whether you're making a presentation or not. It is simply an attendance sheet. Again, if your name doesn't show up on the list of speakers and you wish to make a presentation to the panel, please come see Ms. Fontaine and sign that sheet. If you're making a presentation to the Panel, if you have copies of data or material, please present that to the Committee at the time that you come forward to make your presentation. With that, we'd like to begin with our first speaker. And the first speaker is Steve Moss. Mr. Moss? (No response.) Mr. Moss is not here? Okay, the next speaker on the list is Gerald Ellison. MR. ELLISON: My name is Gerald Ellison -- G-E-R-A-L-D E-L-L-I-S-O-N -- and I represent the United Mine Workers. Ah, first of all, I'd like to thank the Panel for giving me the opportunity to speak about this subject. I have 24 years' mining experience, four of that being underground; the rest being in the preparations plant -- preparation plant, which I currently work at. Ah, I have been on this same plant since it was built. And when the plant was originally built, we did have noise suppression built right into it. We had rubber-lined chutes. Ah, we had lead-lined curtains that suppressed the noise and -- and everything was engineered in to suppress the noise that we had. Since then, ah, all that has deteriorated. It's not been replaced. Where we once had rubber-lined chutes, we've got steel chutes now. And the noise has increased dramatic -- dramatically. Ah, over the, ah, time, I guess these noise regulations have changed and have gotten lax and -- and the company has gotten lax with, ah, keeping noise down as well. Ah, working on a preparation plant, you, ah, have communications. We have, ah, phones over the whole surface area. Many times, we're required to wear two-way radios, so -- and, ah, communications is -- is a vital part of safety. Ah, you need to be able to hear when someone is -- is, ah, paging you or call you. And sometimes, at our plant, ah, the noise is -- is such that you can't even you're being called. Ah, we have a backup plan for that. Ah, a lot of times when people can't hear theirselves (sic) being called on the phone or the radio, they have a siren that they blow, which -- and it's real loud as well. So, ah, communications is a -- is a big part of, ah, a plant operation. Like I said, it has a -- a great safety factor. And if you can't hear -- if you can't hear those communications, you -- you've got a lot of problems sometimes. And -- and it could -- ah, it could be a hazard. Ah, sometimes the communications theirself (sic) -- we have radios and equipment that -- that, ah, you know, there's constantly chatter on. We have -- we have trucks coming in on the job that, ah, you're just continually bard- -- bombarded with noise. Ah, I had the opportunity yesterday to look at the last noise survey that -- that our company had. We only had one area of our whole surface facility that, ah, would have met today's standard, which was 82. The rest of the areas were all in the 90s and the 100 dBa's. So, you can see, ah, if -- if this -- if these regs were in place right now, they -- they wouldn't be in violat- -- they would be in violation about everywhere. Ah, with the current regulations, which our company policy is the same thing. They say, well, you need to wear ear plugs or ear muffs. There are problems with those, too. I think you all have -- have already sensed that the people just aren't wearing them, and they aren't. Ah, with ear muffs, you -- you -- we've tried several brands. You can't get ear muffs that will fit your ears good without interfering with your hard hat. There's just -- just not -- not room for both. So, a lot of people that -- that would like to wear ear muffs can't. The ear plugs, ah, a lot of people can't -- ah, I'd say not "don't", but "can't" wear them, because, ah, there's a coating or something on them that some people are allergic to. You wear ear plugs one day; you have a sore throat the next day. Ah, so we have a lot of people that, ah, will tear up tissue paper and cram that in their ears. Cigarette butts, anything like that. So, I'd -- that's what you've got out there now. Ah, like I said, a lot of people just don't wear them because of the inconvenience. Ah, you have other problems that -- that indirectly contribute to -- to noise problems as well. A good example would be in a piece of heavy equipment -- say, the air conditioner goes out. You're not going to stay in there in 120 degree heat, so you're going to open the doors. When you open the doors, you're opening up to noise and dust. So, a lot of times, ah, this equipment, ah -- ah, isn't maintained to where you can keep the -- the noise down, ah, as well as the dust. Ah, as -- as our industry becomes more and more mechanized, we're going to have more and more noise. As I said, our plant, ah, was built in the early '70s. Since then, it has been added on many, many times. More machinery. Ah, you've got more machinery crammed in, ah -- ah, increasingly smaller space, which is, there -- there, again, more noise. Most of the -- the men that I work with, ah, we've had physicals from time to time and most of them that I know of have had a hearing loss increase every physical that they've taken. Most of them just tell us, well, that's natural because you're in that industrial range. Ah, I guess some -- some would say it's because of our age as well. But, ah, it's a real problem out there. And, ah, most -- most of us have had the hearing loss, that are compensated with hearing aids, and which most don't wear. You know, we don't want to wear hearing aids. We want to just keep our hearing that we've got. So, I would -- I would urge you to, ah, set up a system that would let -- allow MSHA to monitor this program. I would urge you to -- to drop the dBa's down to where they once were, where that -- you know, we don't have to continue to suffer these hearing losses. Ah, most of us now are -- are within sight of retirement and we would like to go have a retirement where we're not, ah, strapped down with hearing aids and we wouldn't be able to hear as well. Ah, once again, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak. MODERATOR THAXTON: Thank you, Mr. Ellison. Our next speaker is Jim Bennett. MR. BENNETT: Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here and to, ah -- ah, be able to represent some of the needs of the coal miners. My name is James Bennett. That's J-A-M-E-S B-E-N-N-E-T-T. I represent the UMWA. I'm an employee of Meadow River Coal Company. That's a Pittston, ah, operation in Fayette County, here in West Virginia. Ah, I have looked at the regulations that MSHA proposed. And, ah, I am not a -- a audiologist (sic) I believe is the proper word that you, ah, described that person that, ah, knows about hearing losses and problems. I'm a coal miner. I've been a coal miner ever since I got out of the service in 1973. Ah, I do know that I have experienced some hearing loss. Ah, I have been to the doctor. I have had my hearing checked. Ah, you get behind a little glass wall. They hit a sound. They tell you to push a button. Ah, to me it all sounded like static. I pushed the button because the girl would look in the window and say, "Can't you hear anything?" And I'd push the button, you know, to -- I wanted to do the test. I didn't want to look like I was a moron setting in there on a stool. So, when I came out of the chamber and, ah, they apparently went over the examination and they told me, they said, "Well, Mr. Bennett," they said, "you have some high frequency losses, but it's nothing really to be concerned about because those pitches are higher than what you normally, ah, communicate with people with." And I thought, well, you know, that's cool. So, ah, I -- I can hear. I can hear the news. Ah, I can hear the radio in my truck, when I turn it up rather loud. Only last night, I had rented a movie and I was setting there at the house and the children came in, doing their homework, "Dad, what's wrong?" And I said, "Well, nothing's wrong. Why?" "Can you not turn the TV down? We're trying to do our homework." And I said, "Hey, I -- I rented the movie. I'd like to listen to it." And, ah, you know, it's -- it's just, ah, an aggravation. Ah, it's not like that, ah -- ah, it's detrimental to your life, but it's an aggravation to you as you experience your life. Ah, I'm, ah, classified as a utility man there in the coal mines and I do different types of work. Ah, I, ah, work in the face -- I work out by -- and, ah, I do everything from run a motor to run a roof bolt machine. I always wear a necklace-type ear protection system. Ah, it has the two plugs you put in your ears. Ah, I find that more comfortable for me to wear because, ah, it's not like twisting the little piece of foam rubber and stick it in your ear and leave it all day long. You know, if you want to say something, you have to pull it out and stick it in your pocket. I can just unloosen them and let them go around my neck. And it's so important, when you're on a roof bolt machine, that you communicate, ah, with the person that you're working with. Ah, occasionally, you're watching the top and you can see a crack in the top that your buddy can't see. Now, we have a respirator on. We have safety glasses on. And now we've got these ear protection, ah, device on. And it's hard to communicate. Ah, normally, you just do it by signalling with your hands. Ah, but even when you turn the machine off, you back out of the place, you're setting down to each lunch, you just hear a -- a roar in your head. Ah, the other -- the other day, I, ah, was experiencing some sinus problems. And, ah, the ear plugs were really irritating me. So, I thought, well, I just won't wear them today. At night, when I went -- got home, I woke up at about two o'clock in the morning and shook my wife and said, "Honey, answer the phone." She said, "The phone's not ringing." I said, "Why, I've heard it ring three times. I know it is." I laid back down and I could hear this ringing in my ears. And I -- you know, the next morning, as I was having breakfast, I thought, well, why would this happen? I remembered, I hadn't worn my ear plugs. But, the thing of it is, is we need more help than -- and the proposal that you folks have -- have laid out before us are -- are great. But, ah -- and I -- I acknowledge that, you know, it's -- it's an improvement. But we need more improvement. Ah, I'm -- I have been in the mines, like I said, for over 20 years. To my knowledge, I have never had a sound test taken on, ah, the equipment as I operated it. Now, at my mines, they -- they do sounding -- ah, the sound test on the equipment. I -- I suppose -- I hear they do. I have never experienced it. But even if you're at a belt head out by, if you're shoveling belt, a lot of times, I -- I'll take my ear plugs and put them in, because just the continuous running of the belt. Ah, you know, there's -- there's no silence. It's just a continuous noise that, ah, that just, you know -- like I said, a coal miner for less of -- ah, for lack of a better expression, just wears your ears out. And, ah, I -- I appreciate the opportunity that you've given us to come before you this morning and, ah, to, ah, to give our version. But I -- I would appreciate it even more if you would, ah, let, ah, some other officials besides the officials of the company monitor this noise. You know, we have to rely on them so much for, ah, dust samples. Now, for noise samples. And, ah, we -- we need a different monitoring, ah, division so that we can put more faith in it. We -- it's not -- I'm not standing up here saying that the people I work with are unfair, that they, ah -- that they might cheat on the exam or whatever. But I would -- I would put more, ah, faith in another organization, rather than being self-monitored by the company. I thank you for your time this morning and I hope my few broken words have said something that might be of benefit to the mining industry. Thank you. MODERATOR THAXTON: Thank you, Mr. Bennett. And as we've stated, all comments are important to us, so please, we do accept the terms and the situations that you are in. Our next speaker is Reggie Sizemore. MR. SIZEMORE: Thank you. Ah, my name is Reggie Sizemore. That's R-E-G-G-I-E S-I-Z-E-M-O-R-E. I'm a member of the United Mine Workers. I have been for 25 years. I've worked underground for all the 25 years. And I'm not a very good speaker or anything, but I've got enough concern is the reason why I'd like to be up here and express a little bit of it. I, too, have a hearing loss already. And I hate the thought of having to wear ear plugs (sic) or some device to help my hearing the rest of my life. You know, have to take care of it and keep it stuck in my ear and everything. And, also, I hate the thoughts of having to work in a working environment to where you have to wear ear plugs. Because, here you are, you're handling them with your dirty hands all day long, taking them in and out, replacing them and everything. And, ah, as -- it seems like, as the -- the years goes (sic) on, the equipment in the mines, it keeps getting louder and louder. We right now have scrubber miners. they have two 30-horsepower scrubbers on them and both of them run continuously. And, ah, we have two fans on our section, because we have blowing ventilation. They're 50-horsepower fans. You can't hear one another talk anywhere on our sections anymore. You can't communicate with people anymore. And, ah, if somebody tries to get ahold of your section with the phone, our phone is located down in our feeder and it has a -- a warning light or a light, a strobe light on it, and it has an alarm on it. But if you're not close to it, you know, you can't see the light. You can't hear the alarm or anything. And then, if somebody happens to be by there that does see it or hear it, they have to go down their intake air -- ah, airway somewhere to another phone and talk with people outside or another part of the mines because you can't stand on the section and -- and, ah, communicate with anybody. So -- and, also, you know, our company, they don't do the noise levels theirself (sic). They hired some other individual come in (sic). And like the other gentleman said, we never hear the results from it. We don't know what they are. So, we'd like for MSHA to do this. And then, that way, they would give us reports back. We would know what it is. But, furthermore, we would like for you guys to help us do something to make management do something with the heavy -- the heavy-duty machinery that they're bringing in the coal mines now to make it quieter. To where we don't have to have -- ah, wear hearing protection all the time. So we can communicate with one another. So, that's pretty much all I've got to say. And -- and, ah, I thank you very much for allowing me to speak. MODERATOR THAXTON: Thank you, Mr. Sizemore. Our next speaker is Jim Bias. VOICE THREE: Jim Bias isn't coming. MODERATOR THAXTON: Keith Casto. (Continued on next page.) // // // // // MR. CASTO: I wish you all a good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Keith Casto, and that's K-E-I-T-H C-A-S-T-O, and I'm a member of the UMWA. Our mine was recently bought out, and the new company sent all of its newly acquired employees for a physical. To my surprise, the gentleman, after giving the hearing test, opened the booth and told me that I had some hearing loss in my right ear. He took the head phones and held it to my left ear, and asked me if I could hear it. I said, yes. And then he put it against my right ear, and I couldn't. I took the head phones and I put it back against my right ear again, and I couldn't hear it. I did that myself, because I couldn't believe that I couldn't hear this. It was odd. I have 21 years in underground mining, running roof bolters, continuous miners, and just about any other piece of underground equipment. I am concerned about wearing hearing aides, and ear plugs are a must, but I am against them. We had a fellow miner running a operators side of a Fletcher double-head roof bolter with no hearing protection, while his partner was wearing protection, and the unprotected miner heard the rib behind him break, and ran. The rib was 33 feet long. His partner never heard it, and he was wearing the hearing protection, and he didn't hear a thing, but the other one did. His partner never heard it, and the rib fell upon the victim, and the gentleman is totally disabled now. He didn't catch it, and he ran for it, but he didn't make it. There should be no reason why equipment should be hearing friendly. When you buy a new car, there isn't ear plugs or muffs laying in a front seat. If there were, you couldn't hear a horn, or a warning, or the stereo. Let's please keep it as safe as possible. I thank you. If there is any questions, I'd be happy to address them. MR. THAXTON: Thank you. The next speaker is Mr. Stanley. MR. STANLEY: Good morning. Thank you for letting us address you this morning. I had very late notice on this, and I am ill-prepared for this. I don't know if anyone has noticed -- and I hope that you can hear me -- I've got my hearing aides in. I've been a coal miner for about 16-and-a-half years, and for one year this was on the surface. MR. THAXTON: Excuse me, but could you state your name and affiliation, Mr. Stanley. MR. STANLEY: I'm sorry. Phil Stanley, P-H-I-L S-T-A-N-L-E-Y, United Mine Workers of America. I didn't have my hearing aides in when you were talking. Like I said, I noticed that my hearing was -- I was reading lips a lot, and I wasn't hearing bird sings anymore. I think the first time that I noticed it the most was with a lady in our church choir. I could see her, and she could get up there, but I couldn't hear her. I hunted a lot, and just like being in the woods, and I would hear people, and I heard this deer coming around this way, but I had never heard a deer in the woods in my life. And I went to the company -- they had their own clinic -- and they did a hearing test on me, and said that I was okay. And I didn't take their word for it, and I went to another doctor, and they sent me from there to a compensation doctor, and I now have hearing aides. And I am thankful that I do have the hearing aides for hearing. I wish I had my hearing instead of the aides, because I can't wear them very often. I can't wear them at work, and you can't wear them around a lot of electrical equipment, and you can't talk on the phone with them. And you get under power lines -- and I tried to kill a snake last year in my garden, and it wasn't there. I thought I was being eaten up by a rattle snake, and it was my hearing aide. The gentleman made a comment a while ago about a man getting killed by not hearing a rib role. I want to relate to you a story. A few years ago I came to work early, and I went upon the number two section, and caught the pinning up for another roof. I worked on three, but I went to two, and I caught the pinning up, and I came back outside at the regular start time, and a friend of mine was sitting there. He was the roof bolter on that section, and I said, now, Larry, that's a good top up there, and he said, oh, you're a good man, Phil. I said that's good top, and there is about two inches or so of that rock that you had better watch. It is sloughing off a little bit. And at that time there was no regulation on us wearing hearing protection. It had never been determined that we needed hearing protection. At eight o'clock that morning, Larry ate a pack of M&M's or peanuts. At eight o'clock every morning Larry did that, and he put his ear plugs in. He was the only man there that wore ear plugs. At one o'clock, a piece of that rock killed Larry. Now, I don't know that he would have heard that if he hadn't had his ear protection in. And right now, even though I have lost a lot of my hearing, and I had to have hearing aides, and if I had known at that time that the roof bolters and the miners were doing this to my hearing, I would have wore hearing protection sometimes. And a lot of the times I wouldn't have, because I had to depend on my hearing to save my live many times. Even though it was bad. I would hear that rib crack that I couldn't see that was behind me. Or I would hear that piece of sand stone start to rip, and it gave me enough warning to get out of there. Or I would hear a timber break on a pillar section, and it would tell me that something is going on. Now, there is variances. If you put hearing protection on or in, it changes the tones. That's how I tested my hearing aides up enough. I put my hand over it, and it makes a beep. This makes a different type of beep. It is a different frequency; and when you put hearing protection in or on, it changes. It disguises sound. A lot of times you are fooled, and you think you hear something that you don't. And the other day my wife -- I came home from work, and I she said, Phil, the baby bed, the side or the part that slides up and down, it won't stay up. And I thought, well, I had three options there. I could go up there and I can tie the baby in. He is 20 months old, and he is wild as a buck. Or I can put the mattress on the floor, and he will hit on that when he comes out, or I can fix the dawg gone thing. And I chose the latter, and I think that's what we need to do. We need to quit disguising the problem, and fix the problem. We've got Stealth Bombers out there that can't be detected by radar, and surely a nation that can do that, we can tone down the noise level of this equipment. Once again, I thank you. MR. THAXTON: Thank you. MS. PILATE: I have a question. MR. STANLEY: Yes, Ma'am? MS. PILATE: I am the economist responsible for doing the cost estimates, and I would like to ask you about the audiometric test that you took and you paid for. MR. THAXTON: Excuse me, but can you come back to the podium, please. MR. STANLEY: Would you repeat that, Ma'am? MS. PILATE: I am the economist responsible for doing the cost estimates, and I would like to ask you some questions about the audiometric test that you took and paid for yourself. MR. STANLEY: I didn't pay for it myself. I hope you didn't misunderstand. The company -- I went to the company's -- they have their own clinic, and I went to that and had a hearing test done. And they said that it was okay, or they never in any way indicated that I needed hearing aides. But I didn't take their word for it. Then I went to another physician. I have insurance. I mean, I don't know what it cost. They from there contacted Workers Comp and they sent me to a physician, who said -- or a Workers Comp doctor, who said, yes, I did have a hearing loss due to the environment, an occupational hearing loss. I didn't mean to indicate that I paid for it myself. But my insurance did, which I, in-turn, paid for by my labor. MS. PILATE: All right. Were you actually given an audiometric test, the audiogram? MR. STANLEY: Yes, I was. MS. PILATE: Okay. How long did that take? MR. STANLEY: Oh, Ma'am, I couldn't tell you for sure. I went through a battery of tests. It probably took me six months from the time they said that I had a hearing loss before I got my hearing aides. MS. PILATE: Okay. Thank you. MR. STANLEY: You're welcome. MR. THAXTON: Thank you. Our next speaker is Bobby Little. MR. J. STANLEY: Hi. My name is Joseph Stanley, J-O-S-E-P-H S-T-A-N-L-E-Y. First of all, I would like to say that I am not a professional speaker of any type and you will realize that as I go along here. I am a coal miner, and I work for a company called Merribone Development Company. I am currently a health and safety representative on my shift for the UMWA, and I'm glad that I am here today also to speak on this subject. I work on a preparation plant, and I have worked on a preparation plant for almost 17 years. I have six months underground experience, and I have been to a preparation plant and I have been there ever since. Mr. Ellison, who spoke first, his story is a lot similar to mine. Our preparation plant was built in late 1968, early 1970, and when our preparation plant was built, we also incorporated a lot of noise reduction items in our preparation plant. In particular a lot of rubber lining in the chutes where the coal hits at transfer points, and the linings on the chutes themselves that absorb that vibration. That is long gone. When those products wore out, especially in the later '80s, as those linings started to wear, we started replacing those with metal, AR plate, which increased the sound dramatically. And as that wore out, we're going to ceramic. We're currently using ceramic lined chutes in about 85 percent of our applications, and all are new chutes that were installed last year. All of those were ceramic lined. And ceramic, as I'm sure the majority of you people are aware of, is a real hard compound that is similar to glass, and it has unbelievable wear strength, but it also reflects noise, just like steel would. I am a preparation plant mechanic, and every area of our preparation plant is out of compliance based on the current standards. Some of our areas in my opinion are out of compliance even with hearing protection, and I do wear hearing protection, and have wore hearing protection religiously. But I also have been tested by Dr. Thoma in Huntington, West Virginia, that was paid for and recommended by my insurance company, because I went to the clinic also, and they referred me to him. And I have experienced some high frequency loss at the upper levels was their terminology. But not enough to be awarded any compensation Now, I don't want to lose my hearing, and I wear my hearing protection religiously. My understanding of the current noise reduction standard is that when they come in, and I have asked that hearing levels be established or read at our plant. And when they came in and read those levels, he explained to me that it is an average. In other words, if I wear that device for six-and-a-half hours, it also takes into account any break time or any off time that I have off that floor. Now, that's fine and dandy up until about three months ago, when we got new management, and a particular supervisor said that from now on you will spend a full shift on that floor. We have a preparation plant where any part of that plant can be taken down at any time. You will have like four screens in a row out there on one circuit, and they can take any one of those circuits down, and I have to go out there and work in that noise. Now, we are talking about a preparation plant that has noise levels in excess of 130 in a couple of areas. But all, all floors that we work on are at least a hundred. So, if I add the hearing protection with the number 28 ear plug, I'm right at borderline. Now, I don't know if you guys understand how loud this is or not. A 250cc dirt bike motorcycle six feet away from you at full throttle produces 82 decibels. Now, that means that I'm working within six feet of a motorcycle running at full throttle. That's with ear protection in. It's just too loud, and it is getting louder and louder. Now, if I have that average, and my superintendent is going to make me stay out there that full eight hours -- before they didn't mind you taking a break. You could stay out there a couple of hours, and then they would let you come in. But now all of a sudden they have taken this hard nose attitude that you are going to stay out there for the full shift, except for your lunch, and they put the watch on you for your lunch hour. That's fine and dandy, but that is going to put us out of compliance. What we are going to do is we are going to have a whole industry out of compliance, and how are we going to comply with that? These people are right. A lot of these people do not wear hearing protection. A lot of people can't wear it. It is like a phobia or something. It's like if I am working next to a piece of equipment, and I can't talk to this person right here at full voice, and if he can't hear a word I'm saying unless I am within 12 inches of him, how am I supposed to communicate with him? I'm changing out frames, and I'm changing out -- I'm using cutting and welding equipment. We are pulling major pieces of equipment. We are pulling decks out twice the size of that table that weigh thousands of pounds, using fork trucks, and using chain ratchets, and using chain hoist, and I'm working right beside a man who cannot hear a word that I'm saying. We currently requested -- we have two-way radios that can be only worn by that working group, and no one else can interfere. They are absolutely right. When they tried to page you in the plant -- there is lots of areas in the plant that you can't even hear. But what is frightening is when on a Sunday, which I am on a 4D5 maintenance crew, and I'm in the area of that phone, of that speaker, which is 24 inches in diameter, a speaker phone 24 inches in diameter in several areas of our plant. On a Sunday, you won't believe how loud that is. When that plant is not running, you cannot believe the volume that that speaker puts out. But you can't even hear them page you when that plant is running. If the people -- I wear my hearing protection, but I know that a lot of people don't. I know people that I work with every day that do not wear it. I know those people have hearing loss. You see those people reading your lips. When we do get shop time, when the plant is not actually broken, and we go out to the shop to fabricate a pipe, or to make up a guard, or something along that nature, then you can see that those people can't hear you. If you're not looking directly at them, and when you address them, it just goes by them, or they catch a part of it. They will say, oh, what did you say. They have hearing loss. A lot of our people at our operation have hear loss. Compensation doesn't cover hearing loss. Worker's Compensation, they will give you a set of hearing aides, but that doesn't cover any loss, because you have to be over 50 percent. You have to be totally disabled because of that loss in order to collect from compensation; and with the rules and the regulations of West Virginia's compensation system now, I don't expect anybody to get anything. But the UMWA has given you written comments on what they would like to see in this regulation, and those are the comments that myself and I'm sure all the other gentleman from the UMWA would like to see adopted. Now, maybe you can't do them all, but I think we can do a lot better than what is in this proposal. He's right. When you go buy a new car, or a new truck, or a big diesel off-road piece of equipment -- you see these tractor trailers driving around every day, and you don't see hearing plugs on the front seat, or a pair of ear muffs. Maybe we can't do that, but we can do something that is a lot better than what is proposed, or what we currently have. There is a lot of pressure -- I don't know how many non-union people are here to comment on this, but there is a lot. I was a non-union employee for about 13 years. Let me tell you, if you're non-union, you don't ask questions about hearing. You don't tell them that you need hearing aides or do that. You go out there and you do your job, and you don't have the right to stand up here and ask like a UMWA employee does. You have a company appointed, Miner's Representative, in a non-UMWA job, in a non-union job. I will tell you that for a fact, because we had it for 13 years. Miner's Representatives at a lot of non-union places don't exist other than somebody that they want the company to go with the inspector when they come, and that will tell the company's side of it, and not the working man's side of it. We have the right to our contract, and through that act that the UMWA is not afraid to ask be enforced to protect these miners, and hearing loss, and hearing problems, and noise, and the increase in the noise level of production, of all production equipment -- underground and on the surface -- is a problem. When that coal is hitting against a rubber lined chute, it doesn't make as much noise as when they put that AR plate in there. And underground you have a lot of transfer points, where that big rock, or the byte patterns are a lot bigger than they used to be because they are trying to eliminate the fines. That means bigger material, and the larger the material, the harder it hits against that area, because we are getting it at the prep plant. The same thing. But I wish you would adopt the written comments that the UMWA has submitted to you, and I wish that if you can't do that, that you would do much more than you do in the current proposed regulation. And I agree that $9 million is a pretty reasonable cost to enforce this. I think that's the number that I read to implement this that it would cost. I think we could do a lot better than that with a lot less than $9 million. But if it takes more than $9 million, hey -- my brother. This is my brother who just talked. He's right. He can't hear. We got hunting with him, and he doesn't hear the things that I do. He has great eyesight and stuff. If you're not looking at him, and if he doesn't have those hearing aides in, a lot of times he can't hear what you're saying. Me and him rode up here together in the car this morning. We live in the same town. If I turned the radio on, he couldn't hear anything I was hearing, because the background noise was interrupting it. But we need to address this situation. You've got a whole group of employees now. The average miner -- UMWA miner -- is approximately 43 years old now. All of us are going to be retired in probably or hopefully within the next 10 years or so, and all of us are going to be leaving out of here with hearing loss. We're going to have a whole work force -- and I'm sure that it's just not in the mining industry, but it's in other industries also, because they are just not taking the time to make the noise reductions on this equipment that we know they can. Thank you very much. MR. THAXTON: Excuse me. You said that you didn't get Worker's Comp and your brother did? MR. J. STANLEY: That's correct. MR. THAXTON: Okay. Thank you. The next speaker is Brent Dillon. MR. DILLON: Good morning. I thank the panel for letting me speak. My name is Brett Dillon, and that's B-R-E-T-T D-I-L-L-O-N. Okay. We have before us a proposed noise standard. I support what the panel has done, but I also totally support the comments the UMW has submitted to the panel. I think there can be more done than what the panel has recommended. I represent the UMWA, and I work underground, and have been an underground miner for 21 years. This is not my first time speaking before a panel. I just see new faces, and just a different panel, and just different items to talk about. The thing that really concerns me is administrative controls and engineering controls. To me, engineering controls can be done; it just may cost a little more. Administrative controls is real simple. If you're wearing hearing aides, and it is not enough to cut the noise down to keep from harming your ears, then you stick a set of ear muffs on over the ear plugs. Well, I'm going to tell you that I can't wear ear plugs. They hurt my ears, and they cause my ears to ache, and they cause me to break out, and have sores on my ears. I can't stand to touch my ears after wearing ear plugs for only a few minutes. I know you guys probably are in an office most of the time, but have you ever heard of fluorescent lights start buzzing? Does it really aggravate you? Well, we have to live with that day in and day out because our ears buzz from working around noise. I went over to the doctor over it, and I filed a claim for occupational hearing loss, which is caused occupational illness. Well, I was checked by the doctor and the audiologist, and they said, yes, I do have a hearing loss, but it's a non-compensable hearing loss. And that means not even hearing aides. But yet if there is any kind of background noise going on or anything, and my wife or my children speak to me, I can't hear them. I said, huh, what did you say. Excuse me. Which I do that pretty regular. I mean, it's easy to hear in here. We've got speakers and everything, but it's not always that way. Another thing about wearing ear plugs or ear muffs is that I work underground, and I know a couple of gentleman spoke about being able to hear what is going on. Sure, there is always noises going on. There is pieces of machinery running, but if you have ear plugs in, or ear muffs, it is going to cut down some of that sound. And you can't extinguish the difference from a piece of machinery approaching you as the same as a piece of machinery running not far from you. So, if you can't hear that machine approaching you, then you may not be able to get out of the way, and they may not see you, and they may run over you. Or if you are a roof bolter, or a miner operator, or something like that, you need to be able to listen to what is going on. You need to be able to listen to your roof. A lot of times your roof will pop, crack, and it gives you warnings of what is about to happen. Sometimes you are about to have the roof fall, or a rib roll, and if you can't hear it, then, yes, you can be killed or seriously injured. Myself, I like to hear what is going on so that I know when to get out of there. Again, I would like to thank you for the time, but I don't think that the proposed standard is enough. I think we could go more on the UMWA's proposal and their comments. It would help us a lot more. There is nothing wrong with companies making a profit. If they didn't make a profit, a lot of us wouldn't have jobs at all. So, yes, I want them to make profits. But I don't want them to make enormous profits at our expense. Sure, they can spend a little bit of money to take care of us while we're making money for them. But the plan is now to produce more, and make more money, and the heck with the workers. You know, we are easily replaced. We are just a number, and as time goes on, more and more we are just a number. I thank you very much for your time. MS. PILATE: I have a question. You spoke of having an audiometric test with an audiogram? MR. DILLON: Yes, Ma'am. MS. PILATE: How long ago was that? MR. DILLON: Approximately five years ago. MS. PILATE: Do you remember how much it cost? MR. DILLON: No, Ma'am, because I didn't pay for it. It was paid for under Worker's Comp. MS. PILATE: Do you remember how long it took? MR. DILLON: It probably took me two hours to go through it. MS. PILATE: Thank you. MR. THAXTON: Thank you, Mr. Dillon. The next speaker is John Poindexter. MR. POINDEXTER: Good morning. My name is John Poindexter, and that's J-O-H-N P-O-I-N-D-E-X-T-E-R. I'm here to speak on a small aspect of the noise of a coal mine, which is the long wall. We have two at our coal mine. The noise levels there have increased three times greater in the last 15 years due to automation and different length of your plow panels. We have a computation that has three 200 horsepower pumps that provide the pressure for the face. These pumps are as we call, they go on stroke. They are set for a specific pressure each, and the three pumps will vary between five to eight seconds constantly with this high noise. 10 years ago this pump station was located at the mouth of our sections and away from the long wall face. So, now they are moved within the approximate vicinity, a hundred feet from the head operator of the long wall, where he sits in a compartment, and it is an open compartment, with a canopy. He has a belt line that runs right beside of him constantly, with metal splicers coming across the rollers. A hundred feet from him, he has a stage loader and pressure 250 horsepower motor, and which is constantly on a whine. The stage loader has a chain approximately 300 foot long that runs constantly, and that is a metal to metal sound. If you have never heard that, it's quite loud. He also has to monitor all of the phone calls from the surface, which is also located in his deck. He monitors all calls that comes from the face located in his deck. The tail piece operator is closer to the sound of the stage loader, because he is at the stage loader itself, where it dumps on the belt line. He hears this noise. Anyone in the jack line, we have a head jack setter, and a tail jack setter. We have three mechanics in the line, and myself, which I am presently face fire boss. We have a face conveyor and plow chains that are approximately 510 meters long each, and that are constantly running. This is a metal-to-metal sound. We're constantly subjected to the falls of the roof behind the shields, which at any time the shields move, the roof will cave. You have metal gilding due to pressure, which is just a sound of a sledge hammer hitting metal. You have self-contained units, which are SCUs, stationed on every shield in the face. They will vary from 129 to approximately 159. These have audio warnings on them, and at any time that shield for any purpose moves, even to just push the face, this high pitch from this audible warning is activated. And that whole set of shields, which can vary from 20 to 25, if you are in this area, you are constantly subjected to that noise. The start up of the long wall -- any time it is shut down for any reason, and starts back up, has a high pitch warning sound. It is a signal that goes through all the face phones on the line to the end of the line, which is five of the loudest sounds you probably will ever hear. Everyone on the long wall has the opportunity for any type hearing protection that is available. Most of them don't wear them for the same reasons that the other members of the nine workers have stated. The ones that do wear them have became so adapted to the environment that they can't hear the audible warnings with those on. Any head operator at the coal mine, you can sit down and attempt to have a conversation to him, but his famous words are, "what did you say", because he can't hear you. And like the rest of these people, I encourage you to look at the UMWA's proposal. I have been associated on this long wall for the past 18 years. To my knowledge, I have only saw one hearing test conducted. It was at the stage loader itself, and when I asked the gentleman how much it was, he said it was too high. No numbers. Just too high. So, the problem is there, and I for one just feel that it is being covered up, because as I said, the noise on these long walls, this noise level would change dramatically depending on the production, and the more production, the more noise. So, I thank you for your time. MR. THAXTON: Mr. Poindexter, I have one question for you, please. You mentioned the numbers of 129 to 159 as the readings on the shields with the self-contained units. Was that pressure or was that dba? MR. POINDEXTER: Are you talking about the length of the face line as being 129 to 159? MR. THAXTON: Yes. MR. POINDEXTER: That would be the difference in the length of your long wall face. MR. THAXTON: Those were the lengths that you have encountered at your particular long wall? MR. POINDEXTER: Right. MR. THAXTON: Okay. Thank you. MR. J. STANLEY: This lady, the economist -- I have some information, I believe, for the economist who said she was in charge of the economics of it. Pertaining to the audio test, and the -- MR. THAXTON: Excuse me, but please state your name, first, for the record? MR. J. STANLEY: Joseph Stanley, and I am with the MWA, health and safety, Merribone Development Company. I can tell you that Harts Clinic, Valley Health Systems, in Hamlen, West Virginia, charges approximately $190 to test you, and do an audio test and a black lung test. Now, what portion of that is devoted to the audio, I'm not sure, but that includes x-rays, a breathing test, an examination by a doctor, and the trip into the booth for the hearing test. That may be helpful. MR. THAXTON: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I wonder if I could put my name at the end of the list here before we break. MR. THAXTON: Yes. We'll come back to you then. The next speaker on the list is Jackie Cook. MR. COOK: Good morning, Board. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to come up here and speak before this board. My name is Jackie Cook, J-A-C-K-I-E C-O-O-K, and I am presently employed at a coal mine in Lynn County, which is Number 16 Long Branch Mining, small one section contract mine. I started in the mines on September 29th, 1972. I have yet to have the first -- any part of any kind of the noise sound device run in the industry. I have served on several different jobs in the industry. I have had positions such as general inside assistant mine foreman, and down to the coal hog operator, general labor, whatever. I've did a lot of jobs. But I have yet to see MSHA or anyone to do that, or to make any kind of evaluation or anything on any type of noise. But when I started in the mines in '72, I decided that I was going to move to a job closer to home in '74, and I quit that job that I went to in Allen Creek, and went to a job in '74 in Bethlehem. Well, that mine worked six months and laid me off. They had a lot of labor problems and stuff, and they shut the mine down. Well, when I was laid off from that mine, I had only been there a short period of time. We are talking about 29 months here for a total of underground mining experience. I go to another mine, or a couple of mines as a matter of fact; Westmoreland Coal Company, a small contract mine that Doug Bill owned, and I couldn't pass the physical examination due to a high frequency loss of hearing. Well, I thought the company was giving me the run around with the short period of time that I had in the mines. So, I go to a Dr. Thoma in Huntington, an audiologist, to confirm that, and I also had those exams run which my insurance paid for. I have no knowledge of the costs of those. But I take from that then that my career in mining is over with. So, I go back to the company that I was presently employed for to another mine site to talk to the personnel man about filling out some disability papers and getting on disability. Well, the man was Mike Vickers, and he said, well, we don't want to do that. Let's fill out an application for this new mine that we've got up the road up here. I said, okay, Mike, I'll do that. I filled out the application, and they sent me for a physical examination. They never gave me any hearing exam. From that date to this, either the superintendent at that mine, or the division manager or somebody, has either owned or operated every mine that I have went to since. So, I have yet to take a physical examination on any kind of hearing exam. I do have a high frequency loss of hearing, and I took it before the Compensation Board, and I was denied any right to any claim. It wasn't bad enough to collect any benefits on. But, you know, even the present thoughts we have are not working at all. But the proposals that we have before us now that MSHA has approved won't work neither, because I did serve as a mine manager, and I know what they do and what they don't do. Even just to shift off a little bit. They switched a dust sampling over to the mine sites, and we stayed off compliance on this, and we are off compliance right now. But I can also show you violations here that was wrote, where our mine managers tampered with the dust samples. What readings they took in was bogus readings, and violations were wrote and prove in fact what I'm saying, and today they are taking dust samples still yet, and they are still tampering with them. And they have not done learned how to work the new electronic machines to get by with the dust samples today. The only true accurate readings we can get is when MSHA comes in and does them, and every time they come in and do them, we are out of compliance. So, this noise standard is a fine standard to go by, but it still is a little bit lenient for the coal operators to have to live by, because there is things -- with my experience that I have had in management and in the union, too, that can be done to cut those noises down by even cutting some old pieces of belts that are laying around and mounting them across the top of those machines and stuff. It is not no great expense to cut noise down on equipment. But it is a serious problem, and getting back to what I was going to talk about here, anyhow, I have several friends that is retired from the coal industry. You know, most of them retired at age 55. One of my buddies is 65 now, and I have been hunting and fishing with him for the last 24 years. Along about when he got 53 years old, he started talking to me about his hearing problem. Well, as time went on, it got -- his condition got worse. Well, this year, come hunting season, he comes to me and wants to know if I know of anybody that can go hunting with him so that he will be able to have a view of the turkey while he's calling. People's are not even able to hunt after they spend 20 to 25 years in the mines. I mean, it pretty much destroys a lot of their enjoyment that they get out of life because of the noise that we have in the industry today, and because of the hearing losses that it has caused. I mean, you take someone like me, and after 28 to 30 months, they have a high loss of hearing, and the doctors even said that it was due to industry related. I've got papers, you know, on that to back me, which I should have brought with me. But the union's -- the UMWA's proposal that they have laid before you all to go with the one that you got that will keep it in MSHA's hands, and see that it is enforced, would be the best plan that could be brought forward for any industry. Because you cannot rely on no company to enforce any part of any type issue, because like some of the other brothers said here this morning, when you go to work for a company this dam time, and I have worked for several different companies, you are just a number working in this company. And if you can't no longer produce and perform, and in the capacity that they want you to, they are figuring out a way to get rid of you. If you miss too much work, they are figuring out a way to get rid of you, and due to health conditions, or due to hearing loss, or whatever. But also at the mine site that I work at, we've had six accidents, which is on the records at MSHA, due to roofs falling out. All of our employees do wear ear plugs, because all of our equipment is out of compliance on noise. Without question, it is all out. They all wear ear plugs. All right. We are putting up 10 to 12 foot point anchor bolts, and it was a shell top before we can get into sand rock top to hold that. Well, they have to wear their ear plugs to run a roof bolters, and to run the miner, or whatever job they do. In my job, I run a coal hauler, and it is the most loudest piece of machine underground. But these accidents that we've had, these five or six accidents that we've had in the past 18 months, is due to a piece of slate falling out between the bolts and hitting these individuals. If they hadn't had their ear plugs in, there is a possibility that they could have heard that rock breaking, and started to fall, and moved before it hits them. Here just recently a mine inspector, Danny Meadows, was there making a run, and a superintendent, and myself, and the mine inspector was traveling down an intake airway, and a piece of slate was loose hanging out there, and I could see it. The superintendent had his ear plugs in, and he didn't hear it or see it, and I hollered and asked him to move, and if it hadn't been for me seeing and asking him to move, he would probably not be working today. But those ear plugs, I brought them with me, and if any of you all would like to try and set them on, and see what it feels like, and go to work at four o'clock in the morning, and start working at 6:00, and get off at 4:00 in the afternoon, and wear then 10 hours a day, see what it is like. I've got several pair with me back here if you would like to try them. I know that I've had office jobs, and it didn't bother me to put a man in there doing this stuff because I have been in the office. I was only underground two hours a day when I was sitting in the office for an eight hour a day job. I was sitting in the office for six hours a day doing paperwork, and that didn't bother me a bit to put that man in there doing it. But when you get in there and actually do or perform these duties, and get involved on what is going on, and have to wear these ear plugs day in and day out just to survive so you can have a little bit of hearing so you can go home and hear a little bit and watch t.v. or whatever, it is pretty much ridiculous that we have been so lax on it over the past 24 years. It's a serious problem, and the UMWA has come up with some good things on the paper here, and if you all would accept that, then turn it back go MHSA, and let MHSA take control of it, and see that it is enforced, it will be of great benefit to all the employees in the industry today. And I want to thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak. MR. THAXTON: Do you have any documents that you would care to leave with us? MR. COOK: I'll make you copies of them if you would like to see them, on the violations and the illegal things that the companies do. I can make you copies of them, but I wouldn't give you my only copy. MR. THAXTON: I don't want to take your only copy, but if you care to make copies of those and present them to us, we would be glad to accept those then. MR. COOK: Okay. Thank you again. MR. POWASNIK: Mr. Cook, you could leave the hearing protection if you would like. MR. COOK: Okay. MR. POWASNIK: You can submit that into the record. MR. COOK: Okay. This is the necklace type hearing plugs, which the brother over here spoke about earlier that works real good, and the best there is actually to use. But if you use this type here, and if you're working in dirt, and get grease on your hands, you twist that up and put it in your ear. But then you have got your ears full of dirt, and you have to go and get them flushed out about every six months with this type here. This type here does not block out any noise. But this type here, the company I work for, and at the mine site that I work at, they will not furnish them because they are pretty expensive. So, I've got a guy I know at Madison Ready-Mix in Madison that furnishes these for me. MR. THAXTON: Thank you. Okay. Our next speaker is Gary Trout. MR. TROUT: Good morning. My name is Gary Trout, G-A-R-Y T-R-O-U-T. I'm a health and safety representative for the United Mine Workers of America. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the panel members for allowing me to express my personal opinion on the proposed standards, and so as not to take up too much of your time, I'll try and be as brief as possible. An overall evaluation of the proposed standards indicates a definite improvement over the noise program. Some of these improvements include the following. The proposed rule establishes an action level on a time based average exposure above 85 dba, which would require the operator to provide training to the exposed miner. Also under the proposed rule, mine operators must monitor the exposure to noise, and inform exposed miners annually if they are above the action level. Another improvement under the proposed rule is when the miner's exposure to noise exceeds the permissible exposure limit. The operator must use all feasible engineering and administrative controls to reduce the miner's exposure to the permissible exposure limit. Also at the time the weight average of an eight hour shift will not affect, or not be affected by the extended work shifts, since the noise exposure will be measured for the entire shift. These are improvements which will help the miner. Although the proposed rule appears to provide clear improvements over current noise standards, much of this is subverted by the lack of sound agency monitoring and enforcement requirements. As I stand before you today, I can honestly say there are some operators who will go to great measures to improve the noise exposure for their employees because they care about safety in the work place. But unfortunately there are some operators who just don't care. The most damaging aspect of the proposed rule is the fact that it is performance oriented, or in other words, self-enforced by the operator. The operators will be solely responsible for establishing a system of monitoring noise, and taking appropriate action under the rules whenever they find themselves out of compliance. The proposed rule of monitoring noise is an invitation to abuse. You can compare this rule with the regulation covering the monitoring of respirable dust, and we all know what happened there. Furthermore, MSHA's rule will be limited to taking their own measurements whenever they deem it appropriate, and checking the operator's records at the mine site for compliance. I do not foresee some operators admitting they have a noise problem, and self-imposing costly engineering controls. Therefore, I feel that the proposed rule should require MSHA to do all noise sampling, and again I thank you for your time. MR. THAXTON: Okay. Thank you. I think we will go back now to Mr. Jim Bias. MR. BIAS: My name is Jim Bass, J-I-M B-I-A-S. As some of you here know and realize, I've got a big mouth. There is a lot of people though out there today that can't hear even my big mouth, especially some of the people that I work with. I have been working in the underground coal mines since 1974. I've held jobs from a general laborer to a central control operator at a prep plant. So, I've had experience in different atmospheres of noise, from long wall machinery, to -- and as the gentleman was talking about there -- the vibrators in the prep plant. I would like to touch on some things that my friend touched on as well, and I'd like to explain just a little bit. How many of you all here on this panel are from West Virginia? (A raise of hands.) MR. BIAS: Just one? Well, the rest of us in here and you as well know about the self-auditing bill that just came up in our legislature to let companies and chemical companies audit themselves, and say, well, we've messed up, and so I slap myself on the wrist. I'm good. I don't have to report to nobody. Well, some of the proposals here -- and some of these coal operators that are even represented here today, and that may be speaking this afternoon that that's what they want. They want MSHA out of the way completely, and they don't want them to have any say so at all in the monitoring, and they will take care of it themselves. So, if they are out of compliance, who are they to report to? Their President? Their CEO? So, they are out of harm's way there. So, in this the mine operators must monitor some of the good things that are needed in this program that are being proposed, and that the mine operators must monitor exposure to noise, and inform exposed miners annually. And it is above the action level, and under what some of the operators want MSHA to do is to not even do this, and not even tell the individual that he is exposed to higher than 90 dba's, and the proposal that is here now that should be enforced and hopefully this panel will take into consideration that it would be -- that the noise exposure level would be dropped to 80 or 85 dba's that you are required to be exposed to. Also, one of the things that is negative about this, and that you hear about, is that they said, well, some of the smaller operators need to be phased in at a later date because of the economic values to that operation, and they can't comply all at once. A hearing loss is a hearing loss, and no matter if it is to a small operator, or to someone that works for a larger operation, because as well as you, and myself, and others in here, we would like to hear our grandchildren say their first words, or speak to us and say papa, or mama. We want to hear those words. We don't want to have to be deaf and have to rely on as the brother was talking about, on someone else helping them to hear while they are hunting. I like to hear my grandchildren, and I don't have any grandchildren yet. One of these days, lord willing, I'll have grandchildren. But I want to be able to hear my grandchildren's first words, and I, too, have a hearing loss of the high frequency range. And people today in these proposals that the operators want for them, is or them to -- their bottom line is the bucks, is the dollar bill. Under these proposals the operators will no longer be required to report the results of their noise surveys to MSHA. Instead, a record is maintained at the mine site, and made available to the agency's authorized representatives; and this is a reflection to MSHA with some of the inspectors that they have. Some are not fully trained in all the records that are available that they are asking for. Sometimes from the studies that I have done at different operations, and talking to different miners' representatives, a lot of the authorized representatives of the Secretary do not know all the records that they are required or have access to. So, this is one proposal there that needs to be stricken out just so the operators can keep hid all the higher exposure levels. Like the gentleman was talking about the face conveyor chain on a long wall. It is a continuous running piece of machinery. It runs in some places 24 hours a day, six days a week. There is a constant grinding of metal to metal, and pumps running constantly 24 hours a day, and exposure levels to different types of noise, and crushers that are at the head gate area of these long walls; and belt tails that these long walls were -- the belt line that has mechanical splicers in them continually come and run continually through this tail piece, and making noise. Continuous miners at the mines where I particularly work at Eagle and Energy, and it is a subsidiary of A.T. Massey. But we are a U.M.W.A. mines, and I thank god for that. But we have Joy miners, and I myself back in the early '80s contacted the Jeffrey Corporation about their noise level of their miners, and how the noise level got louder, and louder, and louder. There are standards out there that can be engineered into these mining equipment, especially the continuous miners and the shuttle cars, and these long wall machines. Even the prep plants. There are engineering standards out there today that can be met if they are made or enforced under some of the new proposals that will be there. The continuous miners, the 14 CM and 15 CM Joy Miners that are at my operation where I work, they have a scrubber that is set at 6500 CFM blowing out air of the back of that machinery, and it has a 30 horsepower motor on it that runs this fan. So, you can imagine -- and someone -- Brett there referred to a buzzing of lights that you hear in your office or wherever you are at. Well, you think about standing behind this continuous miner there with a remote control in your hand to operate that machine, and it is making this noise approximately seven hours out of the eight hours that you are there. And hearing protection that you have that Jackie presented to you there, some work, and some do not. I for one have some that I have on my hard hat and that I have since taken off, and went to a different type and that just pull down. They were the muff type, and they worked pretty good, but a lot of people do not use these because of the inconvenience, and because of health hazards, and there are health hazards in some of these pieces of hearing equipment. But the things that can be done, and should be done, and should be recommended by this panel you have heard here today. And they are also in written proposals from the United Mine Workers and our people. So, I would like for this panel to think about, if nothing else, if nothing else about how and why we should allow a coal operator that was entrusted to sample the respirable dust standards in the industry for approximately 25 years, and in that 25 years they messed it up, and cheated, and lied. So, you think they are going to say, well, now we are going to be very honest with you; and I want to read you something here if I may. Under these proposals, there is 14 words, 14 words that is used to cover the whole thing. And it says, "Operators shall establish a system of monitoring which effectively evaluates each miner's noise exposure." That's all. The rest of them -- now, when you talk about dust standards, you've got -- well, I will just read some of it. "Compared to the regulations covering monitoring respirable dust, four pages on when, on how, under what conditions, and who does the sampling, all of these are for respirable dust." And the there is five pages on the sampling method, and on how to take the samples and things that you should do. Now, the proposed rules on monitoring noise is an invitation that has been perpetuating fraud for 25 years. So, today I not only ask that you protect my hearing, and have the new laws, proposed laws to be enforced, and enforced stringently so that I would have the opportunity, like you will, to hear your grandchildren say, hi, mama, hi, papa. I love you, mama. I love you, papa. When you can't hear that, it's a word of difference. Thank you very much. MR. THAXTON: Thank you. We have one additional person that has signed up, Mr. James Linville. MR. LINVILLE: My name is James Linville, J-A-M-E-S L-I-N-V-I-L-L-E. I am representing the UMWA, and I am the Chairman of the Mine Health and Safety Committee on our job. I work for Hobet Mining in Boone County, West Virginia. I have worked for them for approximately 15 years. I started my mining career working construction, and later I worked for Pittston Coal Company in a preparation plant, and I held positions as a welder, a breaker/builder operator, and I am currently holding a physician as a welder for Hobet Mining. I have a hearing loss. I wear hearing aides. I can't begin to tell you how much of a discomfort that is, and how much embarrassment I have experienced over the years of not being able to hear a conversation, or how many times I have asked someone to repeat what they have said. It has caused much conflict between my wife and I. She is a very special lady. She has stayed with me for 30 years, and I guess she sees some good in me. But we have had a lot of conversations about my hearing, and the inability to hear her, and for a while she thought it was the fact that I didn't want to hear her or whatever, but it wasn't that. I have difficulty listening to a radio, especially with background noise or following conversations on the t.v. or on the movie screen. I wear hearing aides when I am off work, and that helps quite a bit. I went to my family doctor, and had a hearing test done, and after it was determined that it was work related, and I filed a Workmen's Compensation claim. And it took me approximately a year to get my hearing aides. I was sent to a company doctor, and his audiogram was quite different from my family doctor's, and later Workmen's Comp sent me to another doctor that they recommended, which was in line with my family doctor. And after a year I was fitted up with a pair of hearing aides, and by the way I did pay for my initial examination, and as well as I can remember it, it was about $175. And it was a little bit higher than a standard examination because the doctor had to fill out Workmen's Compensation papers, and they compensated for that. After I was fitted with my hearing aides, I came back out and it was pretty early in the morning, and I looked at my wife and I said what is wrong with those birds. She said, well, what do you mean. I said, man, they're hollering and they're chirping, an they're carrying on. She said they were doing that when we went in there. You know how birds act up in the spring. And I began to realize how beneficial my hearing aides were to me at that moment. I was hearing things that I hadn't heard in a long time. Later that day our son, about 22 years old, had received his income tax check, and he decided that he wanted to treat his dad and mom out to dinner. He had never done that before. So, we went to a Chinese restaurant, and they brought something out. I don't remember what it was, but it was very crunchy. And when I put that in my mouth and started chewing it, it sounded as if I was chewing up glass. So, right away I became aware of the disadvantages of wearing a hearing aide. It doesn't produce a natural sound. The sounds that I hear are very annoying to me sometimes, like someone banging the dishes, and there are a lot of sounds like that that are not reproduced in a true manner. It's very uncomfortable. You find yourself turning your hearing aides up and down quite a bit. Of course, I can't wear my hearing aides when I'm working because I'm involved as a welder, and I'm exposed to too much noise. And sometimes I will be cutting and I've got a pair of goggles on that kind of limits your vision, and it's like tunnel vision, and you see straight ahead. And I'm glad that I'm not a spooky person, because a lot of times people walk right up on me, and I don't know that they are there until -- I can't hear them coming. I have wore my ear plugs for many, many years, and I don't think the ear plugs prevent you from obtaining a hearing loss. It helps, but I don't think it does the job that they are supposed to do. We need better protection. When I worked in a coal preparation plant, and this was prior to 1982, at that time they did have the real thick rubber padding inside the chutes that the gentlemen were explaining to you earlier. And at that time I noticed that the fasteners that held this in the chute were coming loose, and I noticed also that the companies were replacing this rubber padding with steel, which wore a lot better and was less trouble for their maintenance crew to keep up. So, some of the things that these gentlemen are telling you, I have seen them myself in the mining industry. On a job on the strip, we have in our line of duty as a welder, sometimes if a piece of equipment goes down, like a 494 Besar series, the main object is to get that piece of equipment back up as quickly as possible. You will have several trucks, six or eight, and sometimes more trucks hauling from that piece of equipment, and you are not being productive if you have got people who are sometimes sitting there waiting for that piece of equipment to come back up. So, the maintenance crew, they make a large effort to get this piece of equipment up as quickly as possible; and what this means a lot of times is that you have three welding trucks sitting there. One welding truck we have has two 600 amp Lincoln Welders on it, and the other ones have one. And all these welding machines are running at the same time. It is very noisy. And when we first go on to a piece of equipment, we will see several cracks in a small area, and so we are working within 10 feet of each other, and there will be two or three people air-arcing at the same time. After we air-arc out the crack, which is a very noisy process. You can't carry on a conversation with an air-arc there, and it's a process where you use your electric welder, and you actually melt metal, and then you press the air trigger, and it blows that metal out, and it makes a sound that is very uncomfortable. You can't stand to be near it without any hearing protection. And after that is completed, then we start our welding process, and we have what is called an air slagger that we use to bust that slag out of the weld, and it is very noisy also. So, you have three people and sometimes four people working in a small proximity using air chippers. Sometimes that is at the same time and alternating. It depends on what stage they're in. So, that is some of the problems that we have working on the surface. Also, sometimes equipment is running when we are working on it. It's locked out in a position where you can't move because of any personal harm that motors or whatever are still running, and it is very noisy to be around. We have a 72 cubic yard drag line on our job. Sometimes it is required that we go into the house compartment where the generators and the electric sets are, and perform maintenance, and it is very, very noisy. Of course, they have a sign there that tells you to wear your hearing protection, and we do, but it is still noisy. And if you are required to talk to someone, and I am not exaggerating a bit, you have to get up within two or three inches of their ear and shout at them before they can hear you. And sometimes if they have a hearing problem, they can't really understand what you're saying. So, we depend on sign language, and reading lips, and things like that. (Continued on next page.) // // // // // MR. LINVILLE (Cont'd.): The people we work with -- some have had had hearing tests and others haven't. But if you've been exposed to noise and you went through what I've been through, you can recognize the signs of hearing loss. People ask you to repeat several times what you've said. If you don't get someone's attention, they don't know that you're talking to them to start with. So what we've learned to do, to communicate better in the workplace, we address. We say hey Bob and whatever his name is to get his attention first and then we talked to him. We find out that helps a lot. But these are things you have to learn to do or compensate for the hearing loss. The company I work for is a very, very safety conscientious company, have been in the past. They've done a lot to help us out, things that we need, respirators to control the dust or keep us from breathing the air-arc smoke, carbon smoke that comes from it. They've been helpful in providing those for us. They've been helpful in providing ear plugs. You'll find them on the buses, on manned trips, in the machinery, in the shuttles and bag lines. And there's no question if you need some, they'll get them for you. But I'm wondering if what we've been supplied with which is the EAR plug. It's supposed to be one of the best in the industry. Is it really doing us that much good? I mean, it's doing us some good, but I've still got a hearing loss as a result of wearing those over the years. I don't think it's been sufficient. Economics plays a big part in our company that we work for. Recently, we h been in the past the money making company of Ashland Coal. And some of you may have been reading the newspapers. In the last year or so, we've lost $7 million on our job. Not so much as a result of the working force as it is change in mining conditions. We've moved from east side of Mud River to the west side of Mud River. In the process of moving, production has suffered because the equipment had to travel a long distance without being productive. We're feeling that crunch. The company has tightened up in a lot of ways. They don't seem to be quite as safety conscious as they were. I guess they're trying to survive. And I'm wondering what kind of effect that's going to have on our safety on our job in the future. I'm very thankful also to be a member of the UMWA. And if you look about, I don't think you'll find too many people here who are going to talk to you today that don't have the union backing them up. I'm very thankful for MSHA. We have some good inspectors on our job that are really conscientious about safety and they work with us and we work with them and we've got a good working relationship. And if we didn't have MSHA backing us up, supporting us and enforcing the laws, it would be a pretty tough place for us to work out there, not to say anything at all about our health and safety that would suffer as a result of them not being there. We would like to encourage MSHA to continue to monitor the noise levels and enforce the noise levels at our operations. I'm old enough that I have grandchildren. And I think I might have heard them say I love you that first time only because my wife told me they were talking and we were listening. But there are a lot of things they say that I can't hear. I've got a little girl that's eight years old and sometimes I have to ask her what she said. It's embarrassing. It's something that the miners shouldn't have to go through. They should have good enough hearing protection, rulings and regulations that they won't have to suffer a hearing loss. I'm very thankful that you've allowed me to speak today. I'm glad to be a part of trying to rewrite the laws going will help other people prevent them from having a hearing loss. Thank you, very much. Are there any questions? MS. PILATE: I have two questions. MR. LINVILLE: Yes. MS. PILATE: The audiometric exam that you spoke of, the $175 figure. How long ago did you take that exam? MR. LINVILLE: I started my first examination in 1994. And then later about six months later, I was sent to a company doctor for an audiogram which was quite different from my family doctor. Then I'd say maybe three months later I was sent for examination by the workman's compensation to their doctor. And their doctor's examination agreed with my family doctor. MS. PILATE: For the three tests that you took, what was the average time that you were actually in there taking the exam? MR. LINVILLE: I'd say approximately 2 to 2 1/2 hours. MS. PILATE: Thank you. MR. LINVILLE: Thank you MR. THAXTON: We have been going for approximately two hours. So at this time, we would like to take a short break. It seems like we're getting several people are getting a little antsy. And we're sitting on metal chairs up here with no padding. So at this time, we'd like to take a 20 minute break. It is now ten minutes after 11:00. So we will be back at 11:30. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MR. THAXTON: If there is anybody outside that cares to come back in, we're ready to start again. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MR. THAXTON: We do have one additional speaker for this morning. Mr. Joe Garcia. I'm sorry, Steve Garcia. I'm sorry, we have a Joe Garcia that works for us. I apologize for that. MR. GARCIA: That's all right. I've been telling inspectors for years that he's my uncle. Okay. My name is Stephen Garcia. I'm with Eastern Associated Coal Corporation, the Vice President of Safety. Appreciate being here today with you all. My initial comments concerning these proposed noise regulations will be general in nature and not complete. MR. THAXTON: Could you spell your name for the record, please? MR. GARCIA: G-A-R-C-I-A. MR. THAXTON: Thank you. MR. GARCIA: Stephen, S-T-E-P-H-E-N. Okay. One thing I would like to comment in three general areas in my opinion the law does not take into consideration: non-work hearing loss, the positive impact of hearing protection, the economic impact of the proposed regs. First off, an example of the non-work hearing loss in Section 62.110 definitions. The definition of reportable hearing loss and standard threshold shift, STS. I believe that it fails to recognize hearing loss due to non-occupational causes such as motorcycles, lawn mowing, hunting, military service, farming, sports type shooting, homework shop activities, ear disease or audiometric abnormalities, some of which has been testified to already here this morning. Second point, positive impact of hearing protection. I believe if we are truly interested in protecting miner's hearing, then the law should require using all controls available, one of which is hearing protection. One of those positive controls should be, and I repeat hearing protection. If the miner is given hearing protection and is properly trained in the use of hearing protectors and properly trained in the maintenance of hearing protection, then hearing protection will show again that it is a very protective method. Our records at a first glance as a company support this fact. Another side benefit of hearing protection, it is economically feasible. In addition to being effective control, sorry to repeat myself there. It is an economical control and I think when we consider hearing protection that we should also apply another rule, the common sense rule. If it works, use it. OSHA uses hearing protection and it allows for the adjustment based on the use of hearing protectors. Why can't we? Third part, the economic impact and there are other economic impacts. I choose to talk about cost as it relates to prep plants. In my opinion, there needs to be an in-depth study to the negative economic impacts that these proposed regulations will deliver to the coal industry and its miners. Let me give you two examples as to why I feel the way I do. We hired an acoustic and noise expert to evaluate two dissimilar prep plants based on near or close to compliance with the proposed regulations. This study considered individual engineering controls, economic impact and noise reduction considerations. Example one, prep plant one, and I quote just a part of the report rather than to bore everybody with all the details here. This is a quote. If it is assumed that employees make a random walk throughout the prep plant on a they make each round, but follow the same general path, it is not likely that significant reductions in the TWA will occur. Even if half the noise resources were controlled or correctly if half the total sound power was reduced, this would yield a 3 dBa reduction which would be extremely expensive. If another half of the sources, i.e., three-fourths of the total were controlled so that the total sound power was one-fourth of the original, an additional 3 dBa reduction would occur for a grand total of six dBa. Unless major reductions of 10 to 15 dBa are achieved throughout the plant for all sources, the cost will be high with very limited benefits as in noise reduction. The cost to achieve a dBa reduction throughout would be prohibitive. To give you some numbers as to what that first 3 dBa would cost, it would be a minimum of $275,000 approximately. And it may or may not deliver a 3 dBa reduction. Second example, prep plan two. Quote again, "If noise controls were to be attempted on this plant, it would be less expensive to tear the plant down, remove the equipment and rebuilt it. The only real hope for a facility like this would be more automation and remote sensors." Now, this is a report by an outside independent consultant who is an acoustic type sound expert. He did not give a cost on that side of the issue for tearing that prep plant down, but I would assure you it would be in the millions. Millions. Plural. Second quote of his report in closure, it says "An honest appraisal of both facilities were made and the conclusion is that the controls would be prohibitively expensive in some. In not many cases, technical barriers exist which make controls difficult until the equipment manufacturers explore and find ways to reduce the noise of their equipment. Meaningful reductions are not likely to occur. In closing, I'd like to ask that we recognize the impact of loss due to non-related work issues. And somehow I think there's a flaw that we have to look at that and study that. I think we need to add the common sense factor of hearing protection and technology that we currently have in here today. And some people in this room today testified that it is working in some place and locations. From an economic perspective, I think we need to look at a complete economic analysis and reevaluate the current economic analysis that was done for these regulations. Thank you. Any questions? MR. VALOSKI: I have one. You said or actually it's a request for additional information. You said your records show that HPDs are working. MR. GARCIA: I said initial gloss, our initial look at the records for hearing loss claims show a flat line and I'm assuming that the hearing protection is working because of that fact. MR. VALOSKI: Okay. MS. PILATE: I would ask that you submit the report that you have for our record. MR. GARCIA: I would be willing to do that if you send me a business card and I'll send you a letter of confidentiality and be more than happy to do that once that's received. Any other questions? MR. THAXTON: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. GARCIA: Thank you. MR. THAXTON: At this time, that completes all the people that have signed up to make a presentation to the panel. We'd like to ask now if there is anyone in the audience that has not previously made their wishes known to address panel. If there's anyone present that cares to make an address to the panel. Yes, sir? VOICE 5: I'd like to make a presentation to the panel. MR. THAXTON: Do you wish to do that now? Or we can do it after lunch. VOICE 5: Whatever's convenient for you. MR. THAXTON: You will be available after. Given the hour and the time that the cafeteria is available here at this facility for lunch, we'll break now for lunch and return at 1:15? And at that time in the meantime if you would come forward and sign our sheet, we will make arrangements. Then you'll be presenting after lunch. At this time, we'll adjourn then for lunch. Thank you. (Whereupon a lunch break was taken from 11:54 a.m. to 1:18 p.m.) A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N [1:18 p.m.] MR. THAXTON: Okay. We'd like to reopen the hearings for this afternoon. I'd like to remind everybody that's present for the hearings that you do sign the sheet at the back of the room. That does not indicate that you wish to make a presentation. It's only to acknowledge and register that you attended the hearings. So if anybody is present who did not sign that sheet on the back table, we'd ask if you would, please, sign that sheet. We have two speakers that have signed up from the morning session. We'll start out with Edward Moss. And again, I'd remind the speakers please state your name, the organization that you represent and then spell your name please. MR. MOSS: Mr. Chairman, my name is Edward Moss, E-D-W-A-R-D, M-O-S-S. I represent Bituminous Safety Services which is a small health and safety consultant company that provides services to the small and medium size mining operations in Northern West Virginia, Southwest Pennsylvania and Western Maryland coal fields. And I provide health and safety related work activities to the underground and surface industry as well as the metal and non-metal industry. Now, I did not intend to speak today. And so my remarks I have put together in an extemporaneous fashion and there may be some rambling thoughts here. But I think there are some things that need to be said. First of all, I've been following this rule since its first initial publication and I'd like to pass some information onto the panel in regard to what I've discovered in regard to costs relating to surface operations because that's my primary area of interest at this time. Using my data that I've collected in performing noise surveys and also MSHA data that I was able to collect on the same surface mine operations, performed by MSHA inspectors where I either used Freedom of Information Act information or the cooperation of field office representatives. Under the proposed rule of the mining operations that I currently service, 50 percent of the workforce will be required to be enrolled in a hearing conservation plan. And, of course, that hearing conservation hearing plan will be triggered by a dose level of 50 percent. At least ten percent of the equipment operators will exceed the permissible exposure level or the 100 percent dose level. Now, in terms of cost, I view the $9 million figure that MSHA's quoted in terms of the economic impact as grossly understated. For example, hearing conservation hearing exams according to what I have been able to determine in contacting audiology clinics and things like that will run anywhere between $50 and $150. Add to that the expense of compensating the miner during the examination process, the cost of the record keeping process, reporting and that at least is going to double the initial cost of the hearing conservation examination, the hearing test. Now, in regard to mobile equipment that exceeds the PEL level, I contacted a CAT dealer and tried to get a determination as to what the cost would be to replace the sound suppression material in certain makes and models of mobil equipment, such as loaders and dosers and pieces of mobile equipment that are commonly used in the surface industry and surface of the underground industry. I could not get an exact figure, but in regard to the conversations I had, it was apparent to me that if we went through a complete replacement of the sound suppression cab, that is the sound suppression material in the cab of mobile equipment, muffler systems, this is going to range anywhere between $2,500 and $5,000 per machine. Using the present rule and the language of the rule where it says engineering control using current applicable technology, this will place an overbearing expense on some of the small mine operators. In fact, a couple of the companies I work for could literally be placed out of service. They could not economically absorb the cost of this and still be competitive. Further, what bothers me in the current rule is it says current applicable technology. It doesn't seem as though it has an apparent closure. It doesn't seem like the loop can close. Where does current applicable technology end? If you give me enough money, I could engineer every work position to under 50 percent dose level. The federal government doesn't have that much money. And certainly the coal industry doesn't have that much money. Now, lastly and what is even more bothersome about the rule is the language that says when reasonable engineering controls have been attempted and they're still above the PEL level, then hearing protection can be used. Now, when I make an attempt to explain this to miners in my classes, I sort of get a two-phased reaction. First of all, they get a glazed look over their face and then they start to scratch their heads and then they start to laugh. And the reason why they start to laugh is that they know that hearing protection under the current rule is acceptable under the front end and magically it becomes acceptable on the back end under the new proposed rule. Now, how can it be acceptable now on the front end of the rule and we incorporate engineering controls and hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars and that doesn't work? Now we're going to incorporate it on the end portion of the enforcement process. I would entertain any questions from the panel. MR. THAXTON: You said 50 percent of the workforce would exceed the ADCP or the action level and 10 percent of equipment would exceed the PEL. Could you amplify on those? Did you measure X number of pieces of equipment? MR. MOSS: I don't have my data in front of me, but I would venture to say that just about every Cat D9-G dozer is going to be above the 90 dBa level. Some of your larger Cat 992C or 992A loaders that are rock loaders, they're all going to be above 90. Some of the drills are going to be above 90. Some of the loaders, some of the older loaders are going to be above 90. Preparation plants, there's going to be, there are areas in preparation plants that are going to be consistently above 90. MR. THAXTON: Are you willing to provide your survey data to the panel? MR. MOSS: I'll collect as much of that data and present it to you at your convenience. MR. THAXTON: Do you have the address? It's the address that's in the Federal Register notice. If you can forward that information to Pat Silvy with the Office of Standards, it would be appreciated. MR. MOSS: I'll be glad to. MR. THAXTON: Any other questions? MS. PILATE: I have one. Are you aware that the cost estimates do include record keeping costs as well as wage costs? MR. MOSS: I am and I think they're understated. MR. THAXTON: You think the wages, the hourly cost or what exactly? MR. MOSS: Well, I'm saying that the figures that are calculated in terms of the estimated costs are not accurate in terms of what they truly are going to be once the rule is fully enforced. MS. PILATE: It might be helpful if you write down specifically what you have in mind and submit that. MR. MOSS: Okay. MR. THAXTON: Okay. Thank you, very much. The next speaker is Linda Lester. MS. LESTER: Good afternoon. I appreciate you all letting me speak before the board here. My name is Linda Lester, L-I-N-D-A, L-E-S-T-E-R. And I represent the United Mine Workers. I went in a coal mine in 1979 at the age of 18 years old. I worked in a shaft mine. It's 1,550 feet deep in Southwest Virginia. I've been a roof bolster for nine years. I've been on a continuous miner, belt conveyors, long wall and numerous other jobs during my mining experience. I wear hearing protection and have had numerous ear infections from the wearing of hearing protection. My ears feel as if they're stopped up most of the time. I don't hunt. I do mow my lawn and watch tv. I'm associated with all the other outside world, but I still feel that a lot of the noise and stuff I've been subjected to in the mines and from mining equipment has caused the pressure and stuff that I feel in my ears most of the time. My son frequently asks why the tv's on or the radio's on so loud. The only way I can productively watch a tv show is to have the volume turned up to be able to hear any conversation going on, on the tv. In March of 1996, I was required to have a return to work physical which included a hearing test. The hearing test was given to me by a nurse which was approximately ten minutes that it took her to test my hearing. I asked her the results of it and she said that it was fine. And the one thing that I would urge you to do, you know, I went through the proposal that MSHA brought down and all laws, rules and regulations are only as good as the enforcement agency make them. You know, it's just like out here on the road. We've got to speed limit of 65. But if we don't have troopers and people enforcing that, then you've got run away people going down the interstate. I would strongly urge that you would look at the enforcement of this. If given to the coal companies, it will be just like the dust procedure. It will be tampered with and the miners won't benefit a great deal from whatever comes out of this. And I also know that economics will play a strong argument in these hearings and in these regulations, but the one thing I would ask is how do you put a price on someone's hearing? You know, where down the road do you compensate. Just like myself, I'm 35 years old. I don't have grandchildren yet. And I have a hard time hearing my son. Another 10, 15 years, what's going to compensate me for the fact that I have to wear hearing aids or something else due to being in an environment that is extremely too noisy for a person to have to work in. And I thank you very much for your time. MR. THAXTON: Thank you, very much. That concludes the people that we have on our list as signing up to address the panel at this time. As I've said before, we do have a list of approximately 17 people that have asked to address the panel around 4:00 o'clock today. At this time, I'd ask if there are any people in the audience that would like to address the panel at this time. If you have not signed up, come forward at this time and you can sign the sheet and you can make your presentation. And also, if there is anyone present that is on the agenda for the 4:00 o'clock timeframe, if they'd care to make their presentation at this time, they are welcome to as well. No one. The time right now is 1:35. The panel will take a break then until 2:30. We will reconvene at 2:30 to determine if there are any other interested parties present that would like to address the panel. If at that time there are no people present that would like to address the panel, we will adjourn again, recess again rather, until 3:30. At 3:30, we will return and stay here until the group that is asked to make their presentations starting at approximately 4:00 o'clock have completed all of their presentations. Any questions related to that? Okay. At this time, we will recess and report back, the panel will be back in session then at 2:30. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MR. THAXTON: Okay. The time is now is 2:35. We are going to go back on the record and we will ask if there are any people, persons present that would like to sign up now to make a presentation to the panel. With no persons present that would like to make presentations at this time, the hearing panel will recess then until 3:30 at which time we will come back and reopen the hearings and we'll stay in session then until the group that is coming in at 4:00 o'clock has had ample time to make their presentations. Thank you. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MR. THAXTON: We'll go back on the record. It is 3:35. At this time, I don't see any new faces in the audience. As a matter of fact, I see very few faces in the audience. The panel will stay here until such time as other people show up. We will actually show the record again, hold it in recess until other people show up. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MR. THAXTON: Okay. We'll go back on the record. We understand now that of the list of 17 persons that were going to testify this afternoon, we now have five persons that will actually be doing presentations today. So those people are present at this time. So at this time we'll start with the first person to present would be Bill Cox. Mr. Cox, we would ask that as you come forward that you state your name, spell your name and then state your affiliation at the beginning before you make your presentation, please. MR. COX: I'm Bill Cox. I work at Windsor Coal. I'm an inside mechanic. I've been there 20 years. I've come to the hearing to state my -- MR. THAXTON: Please spell your name. MR. COX: Bill Cox, B-I-L-L, C-O-X. MR. THAXTON: Okay. Thank you. MR. COX: I wanted to state my opinion on the hearing protection and what is being decided. What I see in the mines, we've loaded more coal in the past year. It has become noisier. We need to make some changes. I feel that if we spend time and engineering, we can improve the systems that are out there to protect us. The hearing protection that's available to us doesn't work all the time. The operators, if they were to maintain records and be in charge of doing the testing, it would become a problem, basically because they're in business to mine coal. They need assistance with that through UMW, through the MSHA office so the system can work and we can all be involved. That's all I have to say. MR. THAXTON: Thank you. The next person on the list is Tony -- I won't pronounce your last name. P-I-S-S-O-S. And the reason that we asked you to come forward and ask you to state your name and spell it is for recorder so that we make sure that we have an accurate record. MR. PISSOS: My name is Tony Mike Pissos, Safety Committee. I worked in the mine for 32 years, 10 years at Console, 22 years at Windsor. I've worked on boulders. The noise level is very, very loud. The fan noise is very loud too. I've been around belt heads and the noise is bad there too. I've been around stage loaders too. I'm having trouble hearing too. I wear ear plugs, but ear plugs ain't doing the job that they're supposed to do. I think the company should let the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1970 stay with the MSHA. Let the company spend the money on getting better engineering control on the fan, boulders, stage loaders and at the preparation plants, crusher housers, dozers, et cetera. MR. THAXTON: Okay. Thank you. The next speaker is Roger Sparks. MR. SPARKS: Roger Sparks, R-O-G-E-R, S-P-A-R-K-S. I work at the Windsor Coal Company and have been an underground miner for 23 years. Everyone should remember the problems that occurred in some of the coal companies when they were able to police their own dust problems. That is why I'm very much opposed to letting the coal companies have total control over their noise surveys. Everyone knows books and records can and probably will be falsified in some cases. What we need to do is spend more money on technology to solve the problem and no more money on ear plugs. MR. THAXTON: Okay. Thank you. The next speaker is Tom Kacsmar. MR. KACSMAR: My name is Tom Kacsmar, K-A-C-S-M-A-R. And I'm employed at Windsor Coal Company at West Liberty, West Virginia as a roof bolster. I have worked 34 1/2 years in underground mines as a foreman and UMWA hourly employee. I am testifying today because we still have problems with noise in regard to roof bolting machines, auxiliary fans, continuous miners, stage loader areas, loading machines and also other areas. I feel very strongly that giving the coal company control of noise sampling would be very bad for the health of working miners. I also feel that the coal company's answer to noise problems is more ear protection in these types of solutions instead of less noisy equipment and better technology. I also feel that the coal companies should do what they do best and that is mine coal and let MSHA do what they do best, enforce the laws and take care of the noise sampling. After all, some of the coal companies couldn't be trusted with dust sampling in the past. So how can we be expected to trust them if they have control of noise sampling? Thank you. MR. THAXTON: Thank you. Okay. Our last speaker is Dennis O'Dell. MR. O'DELL: My name is Dennis O'Dell, D-E-N-N-I-S, O-'-D-E-L-L. I am the International Health and Safety Representative of the United Mine Workers. The area that I cover is Northern West Virginia as well as Ohio. In looking at the proposed rule for the noise exposure, there are some of the issues that I found in the proposed noise standard which are cause for concern. One of those concerns is the performance oriented rule. The one issue that should be of greatest concern is the fact that this rule is performance oriented or self-enforced by the operators. MSHA indicates in the preamble on page 66357, Question 17 that the mine operators are required to establish a system of monitoring which effectively evaluates each miner's noise exposure. It points out that specific requirements for biannual noise surveys, calibration reports, survey reports and survey certification now applicable to the coal sector would be revoked, significantly reducing costs and paperwork burdens. In other words, it would be up to the operator to monitor their own noise levels according to a mine specific plan unlike the current rule which requires noise survey to be conducted at intervals of at least every six months and reported to MSHA and the Department of Health and Human Services as required under 30 CFR 70.508 and 71.803. Under the proposed rule, the mine operator would voluntarily comply with the administrative and engineering control requirements whenever they find themselves out of compliance. Although the current rule is similar in regard that the operator must self-monitor their noise levels, experience with the operator's widespread cheating in the dust monitoring program should be enough said to prove that self-monitoring programs do not work and the new rule should eliminate this kind of practice. MSHA's role will be limited to taking their own measurements when they deem appropriate to check on the effectiveness of an operator's monitoring program. The miner's representative is not provided a role to participate in the program and will be limited to walk around rights with MSHA when they check on the operator's program. Under the instrument calibration and record keeping, this proposed rule eliminates all requirements for instrument calibration and record keeping of such tests. Section 70.506 of the current standards set forth the requirements for noise exposure measurements procedures, instrument settings and calibration. Paragraph d(4) and e(2) requires a record to be kept of the date and the name of the individual and organization performing annual calibrations of personal noise, decimeters and sound level meters. The proposed rule eliminates these requirements. The preamble points out that although calibration requirements are not specifically mandated in a proposal, good industrial hygiene practice dictates that any instrumentation used for determining a worker's occupational exposure to a contaminant, in this case noise, be calibrated. And that can be found on page 66417 in the first column. Like the rationale used in the ventilation regulations regarding calibration of instruments, MSHA believes that the operator has an obligation to maintain these instruments in proper working order and will do so voluntarily. Likewise, the proposed rule does not include specific procedural requirements for conducting audiometric tests calibrating audiometers and qualifying audiometric test rooms. However, I'm not as concerned about this and the reason being because I'm to assume that this is to be done and performed by certified professionals. The new proposal eliminates reporting requirements. Under the current rule, the noise survey conducted by the operator every six months and supplemental surveys conducted when they are out of compliance must be reported to MSHA and the Department of Health and Human Services is found in 30 CFR 70.508 and 71.803 on a specific form. MSHA uses these reports to issue a notice of violation. Under the proposed rule, 62.125(f)(2), whenever a miner's noise exposure is determined to exceed the actio level, the permissible exposure level, the dual hearing protection level or the ceiling level and a miner has not received notification of exposure at such level within the prior 12 months, the operator must then notify the operator in writing of the exposure prior of the exposure and corrective action being taken within 15 calendar days. There is no requirement for the operator to provide this information to MSHA, but instead must maintain a copy of such notification at the mine site for the duration of the effective miner's exposure above the action level for at least a period of six months thereafter. It will then be up to the MSHA inspector to review these records during his regular or spot inspection. And what I fear is that these records will be lost in the shuffle when the inspectors make their inspections. There are so many other records, plans, et cetera, that an inspector must review prior to inspection, I believe the noise exposure records could easily fall to the bottom of this list as much of our health and safety issues do. In addition, these records must only be maintained while the miner's exposure level is out of compliance and for six months thereafter. Then they can just disappear. If the inspector does not make his inspection during the period the record is maintained, then he'll have no way of checking the history of a particular miner's noise exposure. NIOSH has made some recommendations in the past and you even point out in the preamble that NIOSH is considering whether the evidence on noise since 1972 warrants a chance in its recommendations. In some cases, NIOSH is considering reiterating its prior recommendations and in other cases it's considering changing its recommendations. MSHA is determined that it would not be appropriate to delay publication of this proposed rule to await the possible issuance of a new NIOSH criteria document. It also goes on to say that should a new criteria document be issued before MSHA promulgates the final rule, it will, of course, consider the NIOSH recommendations. I've been informed that NIOSH recommendations have been completed. And one of the recommendations made by NIOSH which was ignored by MSHA's concerns, the correction factor to audiometric test results for the presbycusis which is a progressive lost of hearing acuity associated with the aging process. I hope I pronounced that right and didn't mess it up too bad. Presbycusis, is that right? MR. POWASNIK: Presbycusis. MR. O'DELL: Presbycusis. Thank you. MSHA has proposed to permit operators to adjust audiometric test results for presbycusis before determining whether an STS or a portable hearing loss has occurred. And that's referred to on Question 27. NIOSH's reasoning for this recommendation is discussed in the preamble on page 66370. It points out NIOSH recommends that age correction not be applied to an individual's audiogram for the calculation of a significant threshold shift. Although many people experience some decrease in hearing sensitivity with age, age correction cannot be accurately applied to audiograms in determining an individual's significant threshold shift because the data on age related hearing losses describe only the statistical distributions in populations. Thus, the median hearing loss attributable to presbycusis for a given age group will not be generalizable to the presbycusis experienced by an individual in that age group. MSHA's argument for age correction has been that the employer should not be penalized for hearing losses due to aging. Because the agency points out that there is a significant risk of material impairment from noise exposure at or above TWA-8 of 85 dBa's. But it would be too costly to industry to achieve this level and consequently set the standards at 90 dBa. It's unfair to provide any other means of artificially reducing the noise survey results. One of the other concerns I had was the training requirements. Under this proposal, whenever a miner's noise exposure exceeds the action level, as specified in 62.120(b), the operator must provide training. In the preamble, Question 22 asks whether this training can be covered in the regular Part 48 annual retraining. The Agency makes a strong argument as to why sufficient training cannot be provided in normal Part 48 training, but then agrees that it can be done. The argument they make against this policy states MSHA has determined that the requirements of Par 38 do not provide adequate noise training for those miners of whom exposure is clearly a problem. Most current Part 48 training is neither comprehensive enough to provide such monitors with the level of education needed for the proper use of hearing protection devices, nor in the case of noisy mines, detailed enough to reduce sound levels. Contrary to this argument, the Agency goes on to say, nevertheless, MSHA believes compliance with this proposal can in many cases be fulfilled at the same time as scheduled Part 48 training. The argument does not make good sense. The mining community has complained for decades that there is insufficient time to cover the mandated topics in the Part 48 training now. It is totally unreasonable to believe the sufficient time could be provided to properly cover the material that should be included in the special noise training which will become so important. The permissible exposure level. The proposed rule sets a 90 dBa permissible exposure level. The level which mine operators are required to use all engineering and administrative controls feasible to reduce the noise to the PEO. However, MSHA admits that it has concluded that there is a significant risk of material impairment from noise exposures at or above a TWA-8 of 85 dBa. The Agency rationalizes that they could not require PEO of 85 dBa because it would require about two-thirds of the mining industry to use engineering and administrative controls to reduce current exposures and would be too costly. We heard a gentleman this morning speaking about the cost that would occur at the Peabody facility. It would be cheaper to tear a plant down and rebuild it than it would to make those changes possible. I think he gave you another figure of one plant that it would cost $275,000 to reduce the dBa level by thee I think if possible. I personally feel, as well as the miners that have to work in those conditions, that our hearing is worth $275,000. Although, the PEL is set at a higher level, other provisions, such as the correction factor are in the regulations to further reduce the compliance level for the operator. If there is a significant risk factor at 85 dBa, then I as well as the miners feel that this should be reflected. Another area which I read that I had a problem with was in the definition of small mines. The proposed rule indicates that exemptions to the rule were being considered for small operations. The preamble states that the proposal would require a mine operator to use only such engineering controls as are technologically feasible and to use only such engineering and administrative controls as are economically feasible for that mine operator. In determining economic feasibility, MSHA points to the Commission history. The Commission has ruled that MSHA must assess the cost of the control are disproportionate to the expected benefits and whether the costs are so great that it is irrational to require its use to achieve those results. In addition, MSHA points out that they are considering whether to use fewer than 20 miners as a definition of small mines for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Discussion in the preamble on page 66368 indicates for the rulemaking regulatory flexibility analysis, the Agency is using fewer than 20 employees. In addition to the SBA's definition of fewer than 500 as required by the RFA, MSHA presently is consulting, from my understanding, with the SBA's Office of the Chief Counsel for advocacy in order to determine an appropriate definition to propose to the public for comment in the future. It goes on to state, the Agency has not established a definition of small entity for the purposes of the final rule. If the agency is considering the SBA's definition of fewer than 500, most of the coal mines in operation would fall under this category. We need to address this issues to make sure that this does not happen. A large coal mine in this day and age employs 300 miners. That's a large coal mine. In an other location, MSHA indicated that it is proposing that the new standard not take effect for a period of one year in order to accommodate small operations. And you'll find that on page 66362. This morning and this afternoon you heard testimony and experience. You heard testimony from miners that were emotional. The reason being is because we now know it's time for a change so that all of us don't leave the industry with deaf ears. We know that this can be done. As well as representing coal mines, I also represent non-coal operations. And these operations are covered under OSHA standards. And it amazes me how one agency can set regulations and standards that the industry has shown they can comply and this has been going on for several years. The coal operators will argue with this Agency that they cannot comply. And I'm telling you here and now that the equipment in the plants that I inspect have the same potential to be as noisy as our underground equipment has been. You have two regulatory agencies. You have OSHA. You have MSHA. We have the same industrial exposure hazard which is noise, which is deafening. So I think we should have the same regulatory protection and enforcement. It's already been proven that it's possible to do. Some companies I will agree have good hearing conservation programs, but in many instances it's not enforced. And testimony today has showed you the best conservation plans that we have, have failed because we still have hearing impaired monitors. That sits real uneasy in a lot of people's guts. It's easy to hear from us, but as you saw this morning we had a guy that had hearing aids. And when he took them out outside, when I listened to him talk [walks away from mike] I'm sure all you could do was read my lips. It wasn't easy to make out what I was saying. And we have brothers that wake up everyday with that experience. And, yes, it's emotional. And, yes, it doesn't sit well. And it's an issue we found hard to stomach. And we have an opportunity today to do something about that. We had an issue some time ago about dust and proper fitting and some of you may have been on that panel with proper fitting respirators and whatnot to keep dust out. I wish you could tell me what a proper fitted hearing protection is, who does that. When should they be changed? Are ear muffs the answer? Ear muffs are installed on miners's hats. And then all they do is they pull them down. Miners are required to wear respirators and are required to wear glasses. And glasses do not allow ear muffs to fit tightly against you. So, therefore, you have some leakage and some noise escapes and gets in and still deafens those ears. We heard of the problems this morning discussed on ear plugs. They get dirty. They have different levels of protection. Do they know what level of protection they need? Are they properly fitted? Do they irritate? As we heard some of the miners, I think Brett testified this morning they irritate him. He can't stand the off balance. There's a part in there that suggests possibly dual hearing protection. So now you want us to put ear plugs in and ear muffs over top of that. And as I spoke to you in the back of the room, all you could do was see my lips move. Now, you magnify that with noise, magnify that with adverse roof conditions or work conditions and with the machinery running and the air blowing across you, you can't hear it. You can't communicate. That's a potential. That's a potential for a disaster. That's a potential for a fatality. Communications are the only thing that we can use underground. That's the only means we have of making sure that a miner's not ran over, or that a piece of rock doesn't fall on his head. On the surface facilities, we have the same problem with large pieces of equipment. We have gentlemen in cabs of large dozers and trucks and there's a lot of noise that they have to overcome and they have a little two way radio that they use for communications. Or a guy standing on the ground behind that big truck who has to listen for that backup alarm so that he doesn't get run over because the operator can't see him because he's out of sight. Dual hearing protection is not the answer, not in a day and age when you have technology which you can use, engineering controls to block out some of the excessive noise. I requested from MSHA the operator's reports on their noise surveys. And they ranged from a pretty good report in-depth to a report that simply stated the name of the company, with a handwritten note saying we're in compliance period. That's it. We're in compliance. No record of what was done, what tests were taken, just a little piece of paper with the miner's name, if it was done by the operator or somebody that they contracted out to do that with a note saying Mom's Coal Mine is in compliance, John Doe, period. Now, think about that for a minute. Think about if that same company, that same operator, were allowed to police this type of activity theirselves. You're going to get thousands of notes, if you get that. And those notes will be left at the coal mining site saying we're in compliance period. And maybe they'll be checked and maybe they won't. Maybe this month we're down, our production's down by 30,000 tons. So we may get the health survey in. We may not get it. But that's the possibility and that's the things that may happen. That's why you're here today. That's why you saw so many miners here this morning. That's why you see the miners here this afternoon. Not only to protect other union miners, but also the unfortunate miners from our non-union operations that have no voice to show you their concerns. It is emotional to many of us because it's personal. We have fathers. We have grandfathers. We have uncles, brothers, sisters. We have ourselves that can no longer hear the robins singing in the morning, the simplest things that people with good hearing take for granted until that hearing is lost. I would hope that you take the UMWA's comments and adopt those changes we suggested to make this a good regulation for all mankind concerned. Look at our concerns in this manner. I don't know if any of you have ever bought a used car before or not, but it's quite an experience. You go to a used car dealer and he tells you this is the perfect automobile for you. Nothing wrong with it. Excellent condition, low mileage, driven only on Sundays. And you're to believe what that guy is telling you is true. But in some cases you may pick the phone up and call the previous owner. And the previous owner has a completely different story. The seals leak. The brake lines are bad. There's a number of things. That's the reason I got rid of that piece of junk. It needs fixed. It's broken. It's bad. I got rid of it. We're that previous owner. We work with the equipment. We're there on a day-to-day basis. We're there 10 to 12 hours a day. We know what problems need fixed and we know the rest of the story and I hope you'll take that into consideration. I have a couple of questions before I tie up, and I appreciate your courtesy in sitting here today. I would just question as to why it has taken so long for us to get to this point. 1983, OSHA hearing conservation amendment. 1983 this was done. OSHA's a Department of Labor. MSHA's a Department of Labor. MSHA's not the Department of Mine Operators. There's a report that says that audiologists predict that by the end of the year 2,000 as many people could be wearing hearing aids as now wear contact lenses. That's a scary thought. It is believed that weaker hearing is a part of aging, but there are many studies, and I would like to submit some of these articles to you when I finish. The studies show that those living in low noise environments tend to have very little hearing loss in old age. What does that tell us? There's a theory that the standard should protect the lifetime hearing of 90 percent of works. But what this theory is assuming is that a worker will have 16 hours of quiet to recover. And that's an unlikely assumption. And the reason for that being is because most miners work today an average of ten hours a day, six days a week. And when they leave that, I don't know about you guys, but a lot of us have kids at home and you have sibling rivalry. You have loud arguments. You have loud music, fancy sophisticated CDs. It's not quiet time. Realistically, the real worlds is it's not quiet time. We don't have that time to recover in which the study assumes that we do have. Other effects of noise. People who must endure loud environments may risk more than their ears. There are studies that show they can suffer elevated levels of cholesterol and more stomach and intestinal ulcers, higher blood pressure, and more heartbeat abnormalities than people who live and work in quieter environments. I have a couple of reports here which I'd like to submit. It's kind of funny. This is a report that most of you may be aware of. It's a hearing conservation for the mineral industry -- the mining industry. The United States Department of the Interior. And it talks about much of the things that we talked about today. It talks about reducing those levels that damage not only the environment, but the people that live in the environment. Some good stuff here. There's an article about noise, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. The gentleman's name was John Barry and he submitted an articles about problems and enforcement, problems of noise exposure, the enforcement of occupational noise standard. And one of the things that he summarized with in his conclusion is to rely upon ear protection in the absence of a continuing effective hearing conservation program is immoral as well as illegal. Here's another hearing conservation amendment that I would like to submit. There's an interesting article here also out of Reader's Digest. Reader's Digest. Can you imagine that? Everyday over five million Americans are exposed on the job to at least 90 dB's. The safety standard is an ideal because noise effects each individual differently. And I'd like to submit this, but I'd like you also to promise that you'll look at this information and read it. Just don't file it somewhere please. Also, I have some plans and programs from some of the different areas that I represent as far as the mines go. You might find it interesting and it addresses the mandatory hearing protection policy at some of the mines such as Consol, Southern Ohio, AAP, those places. But when you read this, it looks real good on paper and the philosophy of it is excellent, but the enforcement's not there. It's something that's not followed up. It's something that is lax attitude at best. It just doesn't work because it's not enforced to work. And with that, gentlemen, ladies, I thank you for your time and your patience. I appreciate everything. MR. THAXTON: Okay. And you are going to submit those reports to us? MR. O'DELL: Yes. MR. THAXTON: Okay. If you can give those to Ms. Fontaine, they will be included as part of the record. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. O'Dell. At this time, that concludes the number of people that were actually on our listing. I'll again make the offer if there is anyone present in the audience that has not had the opportunity to speak and wishes to do so, please come forward at this time to Ms. Fontaine on my far right, identify yourself and sign the speaker sheet and you'll be permitted to address the panel at that time. Okay. There's no further speakers at this moment. The panel will stay in session and stay here until 5:00 o'clock in case anybody else happens to walk in to address the panel. We will be here. We do not plan to recess the hearings until 5:00 o'clock this evening. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MR. THAXTON: The time now is 5:00 o'clock. The auditorium is completely empty except for the panel. We take it at that point that there are no further people to make comments. Therefore, we adjourn this hearing. (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE DOCKET NO.: N/A CASE TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED NOISE STANDARDS HEARING DATE: May 6, 1997 LOCATION: Beaver, West Virginia I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Date: May 6, 1997 Gary A. Sabel Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation Suite 600 1220 L Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005