PUBLIC HEARING 30 CFR SECTION 75.403 ETS - MAINTENANCE OF INCOMBUSTIBLE CONTENT OF ROCK DUST IN UNDERGROUND COAL MINES OCTOBER 28, 2010 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA BEFORE: Patricia Silvey, Director of the Mine Safety and Health Admininstration Office of Standards Kevin Burns, Educational Policy and Development Gregory Fetty, Coal Mine Safety and Health Mario Distasio, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances Deborah Green, Office of the Solicitor P R O C E E D I N G S MS. SILVEY: Good morning. My name is Patricia W. Silvey and I'm the director of the Office of Standards for the Mine Safety and Health Administration the Department of Labor. I will be the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard which I will refer to as an ETS on the Maintenance of Incombustible Content of Rock Dust in Underground Coal Mines. On behalf of Assistant Secretary Joseph A. Main, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, I want to welcome all of you to this hearing today. At this point, I'd like to introduce the members of the MSHA panel. To my left is Kevin Burns with Educational Policy and Development; Gregory Fetty who is with Coal Mine Safety and Health. To my right Mario Distasio who is with my office and to his right Deborah Green who is our attorney on the project, and she's with the Office of the Solicitor the Division of Mine Safety. At this point, I would like it if you would stand and join me in a moment of silence for all the miners who have lost their lives in mining accidents so far this year, both coal and metal and non-metal, and I ask that as we remember them, that you think about and lift up their families. (A moment of silence was observed) MS. SILVEY: Thank you. As some of you know, this is the second of four hearings on the Emergency Temporary Standard. The first hearing was Tuesday in St. Louis. That's October 26th. The third hearing will be in Lexington, Kentucky on November 16th and the fourth hearing will be in Charleston, West Virginia on November 18th. The purpose of these hearings, as many of you know who have participated in MSHA's rulemakings over the years, is to receive information from the public that will help us evaluate requirements in the ETS and develop a final rule that protects miners from hazards associated with coal dust explosions. We will also use the data and information gained from these hearings to help us develop a final rule that responds to the needs and concerns of the mining public so that the requirements of the final rule can be implemented in the most effective and appropriate manner. The ETS was issued in accordance with Section 101(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Under Section 101(b), the ETS is effective until superseded by a mandatory standard and in accordance with the mine act, the mandatory standard must be issued no later than nine months after publication of the ETS. The ETS also serves as the proposed rule as most of you know and commences the regular rulemaking process. Mine operators apply rock dust in underground bituminous coal mines to reduce the explosion potential of coal dust and other dust generated during mining operations. Effective rock dust application is essential to protect miners from the potential of a coal dust explosion or if one occurs, to reduce its severity. MSHA established a standard based on the Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969 that required mine operators to maintain at least 80 percent incombustible content of the combined coal dust, rock dust and other dust in return airways. In all other areas of the mine, the combined dust needed to contain at least 65 percent incombustible content. MSHA determined that revising the standard for maintenance of incombustible content of rock dust is necessary to immediately protect miners from hazards of coal dust explosions. This determination is based on MSHA's accident investigation reports of mine explosions in intake air courses that involved coal dust, and those were embodied in a report by Dubaniewicz 2009, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or NIOSH's report of investigations 9679 by Cashdollar and others 2010, and the title of it is Recommendations for a New Rock Dusting Standard to Prevent Coal Dust Explosions in Intake Airways and MSHA's own experience and data. MSHA has estimated the economic impact of the ETS and has included a discussion of the costs and benefits in the preamble. As stated earlier, we will use the information provided by you to help us decide how to develop a final rule. The preamble to the ETS discusses the requirements of the ETS and also includes several requests for comment and information. As you address the requirements of the ETS and any specific requests for comment that we have made, either in comments to us today or those sent to us in Arlington, please be as specific as possible with respect to the impact on miner safety and health, specific mining conditions and feasibility of implementation. That will be very important. At this point, I want to reiterate the specific request for comments and information. MSHA solicits comments from the mining community regarding the increase in incombustible content of dust in air courses where methane is present. The ETS requires an additional 0.4 percent total incombustible content or TIC for each 0.1 percent of methane where methane is present in any ventilating current. Please include the rationale and supporting documentation for any suggested alternative compliance methods. MSHA requests comments on all the estimates of costs and benefits, including net benefits presented in this ETS. Specifically, MSHA requests comments on the agency's benefit estimates as well as supporting data. MSHA solicits information from the mining community that would enable a more specific analysis of costs which could include the costs of additional rock dust, increased labor needed to apply the rock dust and any additional equipment that would be necessary such pod dusters, trickle dusters, finger dusters and scoop batteries. For equipment, please include the type, the number of pieces, costs and expected service life. Please explain whether mining methods would affect the costs such as longwall compared to nonlongwall mining. To date, the agency has received one comment on the ETS. You can view comments on the agency's website at www.msha.gov under the section entitled Rules and Regulations. The post-hearing comment period for the proposal closes on December 20th 2010 and MSHA must receive your comments by midnight Eastern Standard Time on that date. You may submit comments following this hearing by any of the methods identified in the ETS. The hearing as many of you know will be conducted in an informal manner. Cross-examination and formal rules of evidence will not apply. The panel may ask questions of the speakers. The speakers may ask questions of the panel. MSHA will make a transcript of the hearing available on the agency's website within one week of each hearing. If you wish to present written statements or information today, please clearly identify your material and give a copy to the court reporter. We also ask that those in attendance sign the attendance sheet in the back of the room. We also have additional copies of the ETS available should anyone need a copy. Please begin by clearly stating your name and organization and spell your name for the court reporter so that we will have an accurate record. And now we will begin today's hearing, and our first speaker will be Tom Wilson representing the United Mine Workers of America. MR. WILSON: Good morning. My name is Thomas Wilson, UMWA International representative. I want to welcome the panel to Alabama and I want to start by first describing Alabama coal mining through my eyes. I believe Alabama mines represent the deepest vertical shaft mines on the North American continent, the gassiest coal mines on the North American continent. I believe them to be the dustiest mines. The grindability of our coal, especially when we're talking about the Blue Creek, Black Creek and Mary Lee seams, you can actually take some coal off the coal rib and just work it in your hands for about five minutes and when you open your hand, you'll have a handful of dust, coal dust. It's just an extremely soft coal. I believe the Alabama mines have the greatest ventilation quantities probably in this nation. I believe throughout my career, which is 30 plus years now, Alabama mines have had over -- more ignitions than the rest of the nation combined. We have massive floor heaving going on from the pressures associated with the depths that we're mining at and we also have a common occurrence of coal pillar yielding. So you may have a coal pillar that's properly rock dusted one day and it yields busting off that coal face leaving you with a raw coal pillar and pulverized coal on the footwall or mine floor. So with all these factors, this subject is very important to the Alabama coal miners. We support and applaud the emergency standard and would request that it rolls over and becomes a permanent standard which is, I believe, the purpose of these hearings. Late last week I was talking about this emergency standard with a local miner and his words to me was the devil is in the detail, Tom Wilson. He said the devil is in the details. The more I thought about that, the more I realized there's a lot of truth in what he was saying. One of the things I want to spend time this morning doing is talking about some of those details. My purpose in testifying today is to gain all that we can for the miners' safety and to do that, there are some important details that I'd ask this panel to go back and pay attention to and address in that final rule. I want to start by saying that I agree that the current rule represented a grave danger to the nation's miners in that it did not take into consideration the many changes in mining technology, equipment and methods of mining since the 1920s. As I reviewed the Federal Register, all through the Federal Register, there are references similar to the fact that rock dust must be effectively applied. That word "effectively," you see it time and time again throughout the Register, and that's one of the first areas I want to talk about. I want to talk about some areas where we don't see that effectively applied and we often end up with less than what the intent of the law is. The first example that comes to my mind would be a longwall tailgate where a longwall shearer has cut across that thousand-plus face generating all that coal dust and it busts out at the tailgate leaving that accumulation at the immediate tailgate entry which we've never cleaned up. You know, that accumulation stays. And I think it's very important for this standard to have the effect, the desired effect that we're after that operators across the land address those immediate tailgate entries. Another area would be our longwall bleeder entries. Over the years, MSHA has approved or allowed operators to design bleeder entries that maybe a whole bank of longwall panels will connect to that one bleeder entry. So a bleeder entry gets quite long, gets quite remote in distance. And what's very common in Alabama bleeders backing up to what I was talking about the pillars yielding is those pillars back in those areas will yield and you'll have raw coal ribs with fresh sloughage, coal accumulation and no mechanism to get it dusted. These same bleeder entries contain -- often contain high levels of methane. One thing I don't have possession of, but MSHA has access to it is the numerous miners' testimony that was taken in the James Cheney fatality. James Cheney is a miner that died November 23rd 2009 at Jim Walters Number 7 Mine. He was back in a wrap-around bleeder and died from -- the coroner's report was heat. Many miners testified in that fatality investigation, both open testimony and also confidential, but those miners testified that this was an area where they have commonly seen five percent of methane and above when working back in there. That's also an area where we've seen excessive floor heaving. We've seen the yielding of the coal pillars. So it's an area that was -- when we went in for investigation was very black in color, coal ribs and coal sloughage and accumulation, not rock dusted. So as we go forward, this is a very important area that we ask be addressed, that these areas be maintained, that the design of the systems include the planning to maintain these areas safe. Because like I just mentioned, they're an area that carry high volumes of methane. The testimony -- MSHA has got the testimony. The miners came forth and gave it, and I just ask that MSHA address those as they go forward. One of the questions in the program said 80 percent TIC in return airways is still sufficient and appropriate, and I accept NIOSH's finding that that's sufficient and appropriate, but it's very important that we address rib sloughage, bleeder entries, tailgate entries, and it backs up to that language that it must be effectively applied. One thing I was not clear on, obviously being in the gassiest mines in the nation, I'm in favor of increasing that rock dust level as the methane goes up, but I'm not clear in my mind and I'd like for the panel to address how that can effectively work for the miners and not be an after-the-fact scenario. The way I read the standard, you first have to have the methane before you can have the increase in the rock dust. Is that correct? MS. SILVEY: That's correct. Well, the way it is to be applied is that for every 0.1 percent of methane. So a tenth of a percent of methane, there has to be an increase of .4 percent TIC. So -- I always have to do the calculation myself, but for an example, if there were an additional one percent of methane, then there would have to be an additional four percent of the total incombustible content. MR. WILSON: Okay. One percent return would be 84 percent -- MS. SILVEY: Eighty-four percent. MR. WILSON: -- rock dust what we're looking at. MS. SILVEY: That's right, what you're looking at. MR. WILSON: Does that apply for bleeders also? MS. SILVEY: It's all areas, right. MR. WILSON: So that's going to be based on an inspector's methane check that day compared to a rock duster. MR. FETTY: It's going to be a conforming change, Tom. It's going to be the same way we're doing it right now. The only difference is we're changing the regulation. Where 65 percent is required in intakes right now, we're making 80 everywhere. But just like now if we were -- well, I can't say now because the ETS is in effect, but previously if we would have found like say two-tenths in an intake, then we would have to take into consideration the methane found at the time the inspector cut the sample, so we're going to conform to our existing policy. MS. SILVEY: But really, what it means is for everybody here -- I'll answer that, and I think we probably have some operators in the audience. What it means is that if there's this .1 percent present or greater than .1 percent present, in a perfect world -- we know the world is not perfect, but in a perfect world, operators would know of the presence of methane before MSHA. You said the inspector. You know what I mean? So if there's methane present, then that 80 percent has to be increased by that value in the ETS. So as I see it, theoretically the operators would do that when they're doing the rock dusting whether the inspector came there or not. I know what you're saying probably from the standpoint of what would the inspector look at, but I'm saying if the operator comes in that morning and knows that in this particular work in place, entry or whatever there's .1 percent or greater of methane present, then that additional total incombustible content has to be applied for the rock dust. MR. WILSON: Gregory, not to beat a dead horse, but my concern is back to the -- you know, you made the comment it's like we're doing it now and my concern is like that bleeder entry where all the ribs had sloughed off, busted off, had all that accumulation, at one point that bleeder was checked and found to be in compliance, but as that longwall mined out, it was a wrap-around bleeder, that compliance changed. MR. FETTY: Right, because it was no longer an intake or return air course. I understand. MR. WILSON: And we started running high volumes of methane through it and we had black coal ribs and coal sloughage on the floor. I want to just make sure that for the miners to get the safety that's needed, we need to -- whether through policy or through the regulation, we need to address that. MS. SILVEY: We did -- and I hope that everybody has seen them. We did issue a Program Information Bulletin as well as a Procedure Instruction Letter. The Procedure Instruction Letter is issued? And that's giving new direction and information to the mining community as well as to our own inspectors about paying attention to some of the things that you're talking about and looking at and putting increased emphasis on the rock dust and areas where we want the inspectors to look at and where we want the mine operators as well to look at. MR. WILSON: I want to address that MSHA had solicited comments about the application of this for small mines, and over a 30-plus-year career which I've worked in different sizes of mines during that 30 years and I've also inspected small mines, medium mines and large mines. During those 30 years, the failure to rock dust effectively was seen. The size of the mine wasn't the -- You could see failure to effectively rock dust in any size of coal mines, so I'm rising in support of this being applied across the board. Small mines, large mines, all mines need this standard. I'm also concerned -- and this comes back to the MSHA policy. I believe MSHA's current policy is that you survey to the section loading point. And again, I want to talk about Alabama mine designs. That loading point could be 500 to a thousand feet from your deepest penetration, so quite a distance. And one thing that -- In recent weeks under the emergency standard, you can visually see the improvements in our Alabama coal mines, but the area where we have the majority of our ignitions, which is at our face areas, is still one of our weaker points from that loading point inby, and we need that area rock dusted as well. I'll share with the panel -- This is a recent inspection. This was a recent inspection done just in the last couple of weeks, but based on visual observation, the entire section needs rock dust applied to the roof, rib and footwall all entries, all crosscuts. So we're still finding sections inby the loading point where the intent was to rock dust that section in bulk on the weekend. And that's good to do it on the weekend, but an ignition or an explosion could occur prior to and good intentions don't always pan out. So we definitely need on a continuous basis that rock dust applied inby the loading point. And I'll leave a copy of that inspection report with the panel. That brings -- Does the policy extend inby the loading point? Will it work for the miners inby the loading point? MS. SILVEY: It requires all areas to be rock dusted, and I want to -- then you can add anything to it. I talked about these policy memos, Program Information Bulletin P10-18. I don't know if some of you -- I hope all of you have seen it issued on September 21st 2010 as well as -- and that was for the mining public, Program Information Bulletin and Procedure Instruction Letter 110-5-16 issued on October 14th 2010. And I want to just talk just a minute from the Program Information Bulletin, and it talks about the areas that MSHA wanted the mining community to focus on; the areas downwind of belt transfer, the returns of active sections, the tailgates of longwalls and the bleeder entries. And these places often require continuous rock dusting with bulk dusters, trickle dusters or a high-pressure rock dusting machine to maintain the required incombustible content levels and suppress float coal dust accumulation. And then it goes on to talk about what the mine operators should do. The Procedure Instruction Letter, as most of you know, those instructions are instructions for our inspectors generally, and in these instructions -- and we call that a PIL and we tell our inspectors what to do during regular inspection, to take spot -- excuse me, selective spot sampling. And as Greg said, it says that they should continue to sample the incombustible content as required by MSHA's existing policy and procedures, including sampling to within 50 feet of the tail piece. And then it goes on to talk about how the inspectors should take the selective spot sampling and it talks about places, especially longwall tailgate entries and areas -- excuse me. Especially along areas containing seals. Inspectors should begin sampling near the active faces and in areas containing ignition sources such as conveyor belt drives and conveyor belt entries as these pose the greatest potential for methane and coal dust explosions. Do you want to add anything? MR. FETTY: No. The only thing I was going to -- I was just going to address your comment, Tom, as far as sampling up to the tail piece. That's addressed in the General Inspection Procedures Handbook. That's what we're required to do to complete an E01 in its entirety, but the inspector always has the right to conduct selective spot sampling wherever he thinks rock dust may be inadequate because the existing 75.402 already required rock dust to be applied within 40 feet of the face. So that's kind of our position on that. MS. SILVEY: But I would ask everybody if you have not seen this Procedure Instruction Letter and Program Information Bulletin, please get it and look at it because it should be posted on MSHA's website. MS. GREEN: It is posted. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. MS. GREEN: They both are. MR. WILSON: My final comment -- and this also ties into rock dusting inby the section loading point. Linda Rasovich Parsons provided you with an excerpt out of the UMWA's Accident Investigation Report into the Jim Walter Resources Number 5 coal mine disaster. And on Page 70 of that report the middle page, there's a paragraph that reads, "When the investigation team was able to examine the mine after the explosions, digging into the path material on the mine floor, the dust in the last open long crosscut in the Number 4 section appeared black with little evidence of rock dust. Heavy coking was found in the same area as well as in the heading leading to the face of Number 3 entry." I was with Joe Main the day he dug into that footwall looking for bands of rock dust, and as the report indicated, there wasn't any. We just need to make sure that inby that loading point -- That's where we have the ignitions at. That's where things can most readily get out of control in a very fast order. That's where our miners need -- we need to make sure they get that 80 percent rock dust. With that, I appreciate your time. I'll be glad to answer any questions. MS. SILVEY: Well, we appreciate your comments and your testimony and we do have the comments in our record in Arlington, so we will pay close attention to those. And I don't think we have any questions. Thank you. MR. WILSON: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Is there anybody else who wishes to comment or testify? Yes, sir. Come on up. MR. LINN: My name is Noble, N-O-B-L-E, Linn, L-I-N-N. I work for Jim Walter Resources Number 4 Mine and I'm a safety committeeman for UMWA Local 2245 District 20. I've been a coal miner since the 26th of April 1977. UMWA Local 2245 is grateful that MSHA has finally realized the importance and the need for additional rock dust in underground areas of bituminous coal mines. According to the ETS, the compliance date for newly-mined areas is October the 7th 2010 if there is no mention of new enforcement policies. Historically quarterly does survey stop outby the feeder or tail piece. Spot dust surveys inby the loading point are infrequent at best. The quarterly dust survey should go up to and include the last open crosscut and spot dust surveys inby the feeder should be done on a regular and frequent basis. Most ignitions occur inby the feeder in the face area where coal is mined, yet MSHA in the past has been reluctant to cross this boundary and enforce the old laws. How will they enforce the new law without going inby the feeder or tail piece? Under the Coal Act of 1969, it states, "Where methane is present in any ventilating current, the percent of incombustible content of such combined dust shall be increased 1.0 and 0.4 percent for each 0.1 percent of methane where 65 and 80 percent respectfully of incombustibles are required." In over 30 years, I've never seen a citation with that on it. It's never been done to my knowledge. I've never seen an inspector write a citation for violation of the 65 percent incombustible content because of the presence of methane in an intake entry inby the feeder. The new ETS of 80 percent in newly-mined areas will not happen without MSHA's involvement inby the feeder. Traditionally, MSHA inspectors have judged whether any place inby the feeder had adequate rock dust was by visual observation and personal opinion. Even though MSHA inspectors try to remain unbiased, they can be influenced by their own past, whether it be as an hourly employee or as a foreman for the company. The simple act of pulling out the dust pan and paint brush and doing an actual spot survey with a check for methane would be much more accurate and could be used in determining a degree of negligence for violations inby the feeder area if a violation were so found. MSHA's rock dusting standard in 30 CFR 75.402 requires that all underground areas of a coal mine be rock dusted to within 40 feet of all working faces and that all crosscuts that are less than 40 feet from a working face be rock dusted, but MSHA has got to take the final step and step inby the feeder and enforce the new law. It hasn't been enforced in years and it's not being enforced now. Without enforcement between the feeder and the face, we have gained nothing. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak? Yes, sir. MR. JOLLY: My name is Gary Jolly, G-A-R-Y, J-O-L-L-Y. I'm a United Mine Worker representative for Local 1948. I'm a little bit unprepared for this. I only found out about this meeting two days ago. I've been kind of busy. I'm also a State Mine Board member for the State of Alabama. We've been in the middle of our test, so I'm not prepared, so I'm just going to speak from the heart. I'm a fire boss at Shoal Creek Mine Drummond Company. I've been with them 35 years and one of my -- well, I've got two areas of concern, and one of them is our returns because I pre-shift them a lot on our weekly exams. Shoal Creek is an underlaid seam of coal, so we have areas on hilltops and places that the dust accumulates in our returns more than some areas. Some of these areas are really hard to rock dust, so I am concerned about our returns. I've been in eight ignitions and two explosions at the Shoal Creek Mines, so I can attest to how important rock dust is. All our guys that I represent are in favor of these new standards. I wish I'd had time to prepare more, but like I said, I'm just going to speak from the heart. Our return areas, we have had ignitions in one of our -- which is sealed off now, but one of our return areas had a pump cable several years ago ignite and of course, we had the explosion in our return. Several hundred feet everything just -- burned cables, anything. So the returns at Shoal Creek where these longwalls are mined is dusty areas. You've got longwall dumping in these returns. You've got the miner sections dumping in these returns. It's a real crucial area in these returns. And as Brother Tom Wilson spoke about, our bleeder areas, our bleeder areas are hard to get to. Some of them take as much as five and a half, six hours just to pre-shift them to make your weekly exam. So that is another concern that I have is just returns. But another area of concern is our intakes. We have multiple intakes. Most areas of the mines are -- in our intakes, we have one roadway. Some areas, because of the underlaid seam, we have a secondary roadway so traffic won't meet. These areas are not being rock dusted. Accumulation of coal dust and gob in these areas are existing, but we only rock dust the main areas. My concern is that these areas are all common, so these areas need to be rock dusted. Sixty-five to 80 percent, 15 percent is not a really large increase as far as I'm concerned to maintain. And like I said before, all our guys are in favor of more rock dust because Shoal Creek is one of the hottest mines in this area, deep mines. Everybody knows about the water conditions, which our water conditions are -- we are mining away from our water conditions, so that means more dust. So I would really like to see MSHA step up their efforts on these areas of concern. And I apologize for not being more ready for this meeting, but I really appreciate your time in letting me speak to you. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you very much. Does anybody else wish to testify? MR. CAGLE: Good morning. Welcome y'all to town. My name is Dwight Cagle, D-W-I-G-H-T, C-A-G-L-E, from Local 2397 of UMWA, safety committee at Jim Walter Number 7 Mines. I'd like to touch on a few things that I've been involved in and I'd like to thank everybody that was involved in putting together this Emergency Temporary Standard for Maintenance of the Incombustible Contents of the Rock Dust in Underground Coal Mines. I'd just like to touch on a few things on the sections of our mine that have been cited in the past at Jim Walter Number 7 and in the past year. 75.400, the month of February we had nine citations. In March we had two, April ten, July two, August six, September four, October 13 and one 75.403 out of compliance on combustible on the sampling that was taken September the 10th. As we see, we're up, they cite, then they drop down and then we're back up again. We can all see why we need the standards to put out more dust to prevent any further tragedies such as Upper Big Branch of Jim Walter Number 5, which we're in the same seam as 5, one of the gassiest mines in the world and due to the high velocity of air, it spreads this float coal dust throughout the mines. Like I said, I've been in the bleeders Mr. Wilson was talking about. I helped investigate the Cheney death, so I know what was in there. And right now we're in a longwall move, the same event that happened at Number 5. It was in a longwall move. So in order to keep the dust down, it needs to be 80 percent. And this coal is some of the softest dustiest coal. Our coal just pulverizes, goes into dust, just sloughs off the ribs, float dust, and the velocity of air can carry it a long way down the entry, especially tailgate entry. When you've got 100,000 blowing down it, it carries a long way and you can't get back to it, so they need to be putting out the dust before. He talked about the cost of rock dust and equipment to put it out. That is the cheapest form of prevention of an explosion. Save the mine and the people. That is the cheapest. They could spend millions on miners, longwalls, ram cars. Dust, that is the cheapest way to prevent all this. Ignitions, we was having so many ignitions on one of our sections it was around the clock. MSHA was scared to release it because they'd have to turn around and go back due to the zone, water, sprays. That's why you need the dust in the face, need it inby the tail piece. We need the dust. We need to put it out. In closing, 80 percent, I can't believe anybody who cares about the safety of the underground coal miners in this country would comment against 80 percent. I cannot believe that if they're concerned about the safety of the mines and the miners. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. MR. ENGLAND: My name is Fred England, F-R-E-D, E-N-G-L-A-N-D. I'm a safety committeeman UMWA Local 1948 Shoal Creek Mine Drummond Company. I'd like to echo some of the same comments that have already been made. One is on bleeder entries. I can't speak for all mines or other companies, but what I've witnessed myself, as these bleeder entries are developed, there's poor maintenance I guess what you call it. But anyway, they drive these bleeder entries up and they're usually -- in the real world, it's hustle, hustle, hurry up, get through so we can get our longwall running. And the final pushes and everything, there's inadequate cleaning and maintenance as far as pushing up excess coal, sloughage and a minimum amount of rock dust applied before these longwalls start mining. And once you -- or once they do that, it's hard to get back into the bleeder entries to apply more dust without some kind of -- I know they make rock dust systems that you could run them through these bleeder entries and pump rock dust in there from the track or main line or some place that's easy to gain access to with a tank duster or whatever. You may want to look at some of those systems and recommend them for operators to use. That would help a lot as far as maintaining the dust in our bleeder entries. The same thing as what we call can line entries or tailgate entries. Once the mining operation starts, there's not anything you can do about the pressure. That's part of mining, especially when you're pulling pillars or longwall. The pressure causes your ribs to slough off and break and that exposes raw coal. You also have -- I'm not sure what everybody's standards are, but I'd say at least 100,000 CFM of air going down the longwall face during mining, and the purpose of that is to render harmless any gases and dust. It carries that dust. I know we're covered up with water sprays and all that, but there's still dust that is dumping into that tailgate entry, and it's the same way at the bleeder. Once it's developed and rock dusted and they start to longwall, there's really not any way to get in there to apply anymore dust without adding additional pod dusters or some kind of a rock dust system, and that will be -- you're sending dust, float dust and methane into that area. It's designed that way. That's the way it works. But as they're mining, your dust, as far as the incombustibility of it, it's going to be going downhill and if you don't apply more to go with it, you're going to be bad out of compliance. On our intake entries, the mine I work at, it's unique from most of the other ones. Most other mines you have track, a track entry and a belt entry and things are a little different, but at Shoal Creek, we don't have any track. All of our equipment is mobile diesel equipment. This equipment, the way the engines are designed to cool, they blow hot air through the radiator and it drives stuff out big time. The roadways, just general traffic on our roadways generates a tremendous amount of dust, float dust. You can rock dust our intake entries and one shift of crews changing shifts hauling materials in and out of the mines, just regular ordinary everyday goings on, and I would be willing to say that you wouldn't be able to tell it had been rock dusted. It generates that much dust and it's suspended and collects on the ribs and you will have float dust on rock dusted surfaces. If you took a sample of them, it's going to be hard to come up with the 65 percent, much less 80, so -- But I'm not saying that we don't need the 80. I'm all for it, but there's also -- in our intake entry, they have gobbed worlds of just old dust and coal where they cleaned up ribs. There's trash, garbage, old belt. It's hard to describe without just actually seeing what I'm talking about. But the roadways that you're traveling to get in and out, they keep it open. If you try to turn in a crosscut somewhere to let other traffic pass, you've got to ride for three or four crosscuts either way to find an open hole because just about every hole there is gobbed out with something. That tubing, fiberglass tubing, there's enough of that stuff there to reach across the state of Alabama probably. All of that stuff, if you had an ignition or an explosion and the dust from all of that gob gets suspended in the air, it's going to blow Shoal Creek off the face of the map. And it is very poorly rock dusted. It's just bad. The off entries, Brother Gary was talking about some places we have a secondary roadway. Those entries are intake entries and even though there's two of them, they both ought to be rock dusted to the 80 percent, crosscuts and all. Not just the main heading entries, but any crosscuts, breaks or whatever you want to call it that connect the two entries. The whole thing needs to be up to that 80 percent standard. And I myself, as far as all the gob and trash, any kind of combustible material, coal or trash ought to be non-existent. Now, I know you've got some places where they may have to designate a hole for belt, rollers, things of this nature, oil stations. I'm not talking about that. This here is just old mud and coal and stuff that they've cleaned up from some place and just pile it in a crosscut and leave it. In my opinion, all that needs to be gone. As far as the rock dust standards, I want to echo the same thing everybody else has said. I'm in favor of it. The old-timers that trained me 30 something years ago told me son, the only ways to rock dust is to leave it in a bag and don't put it out. So far in 30 something years, that's got me by. We put out what rock dust we can get ahold of, and you can't get too much. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. MR. FETTY: I have a question real quick. Do you all have trickle dusters on your longwall tailgates? Do you continuously dust your tailgates as the shearer retreats? MR. ENGLAND: There's a trickle duster system that's kept in the -- it's hung on the monorail system out there and it does put dust mainly in the gob in behind the shields, and it may be -- it may be supposed to dust down at the tailgate, too. I really -- I'm not familiar enough with the longwall. I make the bleeder entries and the can line entries and all. I try to stay away from that longwall all I can. MR. FETTY: Okay. Thank you. MR. ENGLAND: The sections, our miner sections, we have -- we don't use curtain or belt or anything like that to ventilate our faces with. They have the exhaust fan systems and use fiberglass tubing ductwork, and behind those exhaust fans in the returns we have a trickle duster on our miner sections that is supposed to dump out 50 feet behind those fans. That helps, but even on the miner sections, that ductwork that's supposed to be ventilating the face, actually, all it is is a scrubber. If they're cutting rock, it's sucking all that dust out of the air and it's dumping it in that return. They do -- They have rock dusters on the roof bolting machines. When they get through pinning, supporting the roof, they rock dust with it. I don't know if that thing there would hold enough dust to be able to apply 80 percent coal to dust on it, but may have to increase the size of them dusters on the roof bolters. But anyway, like I said you can't get too much rock dust. If something happens, it's better to have too much than not enough. I don't know if I answered your question. MR. FETTY: Yes, sir, you did. Thank you. MR. ENGLAND: I give it a good old country boy try. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Next person? Anybody else would like to testify? MR. COTTINGHAM: My name is Antonio Cottingham, A-N-T-O-N-I-O, C-O-T-T-I-N-G-H-A-M. I work for Oak Grove Coal Mine, UMWA Local 2133. We have a seven-and-a-half-hour bleeder wall. We don't get a lot of dust in there. All the guys are for the 80 percent rule. Here's the thing. MSHA got to enforce those roads to put 80 percent in those returns. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Would anybody else like to testify? Yes, sir. MR. WHITTAM: Good morning. My name is Haydn, H-A-Y-D-N. Last name is Whittam, W-H-I-T-T-A-M. I represent the BASF Chemical Company. I'm going to come at this from a slightly different perspective, but I want to echo everybody's thoughts here today that the rock dust rule as I understand it is a welcomed change to the industry. Over the past ten years or so, I've been involved in the coal industry. I've been underground many many times. I'm not prepared to actually speak today, but I wanted to bring up a couple of points. Regarding inspection, I recently attended a large coal company's safety meeting at their request, and they reviewed in the room with all of their assistant superintendents the results of violations that they had received related to dust, dust-related violations. And as they went down the list of their mines -- and there's quite a few mines in this family of a very large coal company, a very large producer of underground coal. Not here in the state of Alabama by the way. But some mines had zero violations over the same period where other mines had 13 to 15 violations in that same time period. So I asked how is it that some mines are so good at controlling all of the issues surrounding rock dusting and being in compliance and some mines seem to be so challenged in maintaining compliance? And the answer was all of the mines are challenged to maintain compliance, but the enforcement and inspection is different in the mines. So it's clear that even before this standard that the issue of compliance in rock dusting is a challenge to the mines, and they recognize that. Their employees are calling out for better standards and better performance. I listened to Fred England's testimony a while ago and as appropriate, I will say that the BASF Company has spent in recent years a great deal of time and energy in trying to make this issue perform better. We like to say at BASF that we don't -- we don't make rock dusting, but we have found a way to make rock dusting better with a patented process. It's a brand new process. And I'm not here to make a sales pitch, but I would like to invite MSHA and the mining community in the room to investigate and evaluate this process with us. Our testing and our initial trials have been very positive, and what we have done has been able to change the way rock dust is applied through a chemical process. There's an additive involved, and we linked up with a large manufacturer of equipment here in Alabama that has been very effective in producing a systemic approach. BASF's technology is in the chemical process that takes place. And this is by the way very easily adapted to existing slurry dusters. All types of dusting mechanisms that are in place can be upgraded, modified at a very low cost to apply far greater levels and thicknesses of liftable float dust in a way that we think, based on this rule change especially, can be very important. So we invite MSHA -- and we've also begun some preliminary work with NIOSH to introduce the solution. We hope that other companies are joining this fight to improve the technology in rock dusting. It's an important process. That's about it. I want to thank you. MS. SILVEY: At some point about one minute into your testimony, I sort of deduced where you were coming from. But I would like to ask you, you said it is a system -- it allows, I guess, a systems approach to the application of rock dust, so do you have any literature on how you apply this? I mean, so you can visually see what you're talking about? MR. WHITTAM: Absolutely. Yeah. We'll be happy to provide you with -- MS. SILVEY: If you could do that. MR. WHITTAM: -- a complete -- I mean, this is still an unfolding innovation. MS. SILVEY: Okay. So it's not -- MR. WHITTAM: Well, it is market ready. MS. SILVEY: Is it commercially available? MR. WHITTAM: It's commercially available. MS. SILVEY: If you have any literature on it, we would appreciate that, if you would send that to us before the record closes, you know, one of the four methods I talked about earlier. And if you need -- Obviously, I think you know that -- you're familiar with the Federal Register. We would appreciate that. MR. WHITTAM: Ms. Silvey, I'll be happy to do that and what I'll do is arrange to e-mail pertinent information to the panel and then anyone in the audience can contact me during the break and make sure I get that information out to everybody. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Does anybody else have any questions? MR. WHITTAM: You'll have questions from that point. And please, we welcome you to get in further contact with us. MS. SILVEY: All right. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to testify? Yes, sir. Come on. MR. WELDON: Good morning. My name is Joe Weldon, J-O-E, W-E-L-D-O-N. I'm chairman of the safety committee Local 1948 Shoal Creek Mine Drummond Company. I want to start by saying I do support the 80 percent rock dusting and also, I support more rock dusting inby the loading point. Because of our situation in our mines, we don't have track haulages that Fred and others have alluded to. Our roadways are substantially dusty, and that intake air travels to the face. By that intake air traveling from the roadways to the face, you already have accumulations going inby the loading point. So I am in favor of more dust and standards being looked at inby the loading point. Also, too, our mine is unique and some of the other mines have started using some of these systems that I'm fixing to talk to as well. Air induction points. You have point feeds and you have air induction points. Are y'all familiar with those? MR. FETTY: I am. I'm sure Kevin is. MR. WELDON: Point feeds is ventilating. Air induction point is introducing more air to a ventilated area. That's the way I understand it. But we have air induction points on our intake air systems on the main roadways on your main intakes. And like I say, in light of us having rubber-tired haulage, those areas where the induction points are or the point feeds are, when the air splits and goes on the belt, now you have even dustier belt lines plus you have your intake air going in the face dusty. So those areas we really have to watch and make sure that they introduce even more rock dust into those areas where your air induction points are or your point feeds are. So those areas are critical in light of our situation with rubber-tired haulage. So I would ask that you would look also at the air induction points and the point feeds in taking into consideration the amount of dust that needs to be applied in these areas as well as our bleeders because initially -- and I want to get to the bleeders, too. Initially when you rock dust the bleeders, that's usually it. And I'm just echoing what Fred and others have alluded to, but that they would take into consideration the air induction points and your point feed systems and inby the loading points. And with that, if y'all have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them if I can. MS. SILVEY: No. Thank you. MR. WELDON: Thank you very much. MS. SILVEY: Does anybody else wish to testify? MR. TURNER: Good morning. Thank you for coming to Alabama and Roll Tide. My name is Larry Turner, L-A-R-R-Y, T-U-R-N-E-R. I'm the safety rep Local Union 2245 employed at Jim Walter Number 4. I want to thank you for even considering more rock dust in our coal mines, not only in my mines, but in the nation. As we see as part of your Federal Register report here, nothing has been done since the '20s. I don't know if there's anyone in here that was born in the '20s. I think it's a long time coming and most people would -- I have a hard time arguing that fact that since 1920 nothing has been done to help and support our efforts in the coal mines to reduce the amount of combustible material that's produced. And as your report says -- and I won't read it, but I found an excerpt in there talking about how that MSHA along with NIOSH has come up with knowing that our mining efforts now, we mine more coal than we've ever mined with fewer people than we used to mine it with and it's pulverized in much smaller entities as this proof gives. I find it interesting that -- I believe -- in my personal experience, I believe that it is difficult to even get our standards up to 65 percent as some of the standards are being -- or some of the inspection ways have been done in our mines, in our particular mines. Explosion after explosion in our history of coal mining has probably shown that we're not doing a very good job at reducing the amount of combustible material in our coal mines. I do stand in favor and represent several hundred men at our mines of making that 80 percent instead of 65. My question to you as a panel and to the country is do you have a way to make sure that this 80 percent is conformed to? I've been a part of many dust samplings, band samplings and those sorts of things. I've not ever been -- In my 20 plus years of mining, I've not ever been part of a sampling or band sampling inby the feeder, inby the loading point. It's usually a visual. It's usually someone's opinion, and someone that's been in mining for a long time, myself or others, can have a pretty good opinion of that. But I understand from NIOSH that there is a real-time way of now testing combustible material. It may not be perfected as of yet. Some people agree that it is effective and it is a hundred percent effective. Some may not, and I don't think it's been introduced as a tool yet for MSHA to use. But I would like to see something -- You know, we take band samples and several weeks go by, maybe even more than a month go by before we know that that area is out of compliance. That doesn't help me today to know that a month ago the area we just mined past was not 65 percent or now 80 percent. So I know that technology is not complete and maybe not -- I understand it is complete, but maybe it's not complete as far as MSHA is concerned. But my feeling is I need to know now today in mining how to protect my miners at my mines, not a month from now was it sufficient or in my eyes -- you know, I've fire bossed a lot in our mines and my opinion is that it's gray in color and it's those sorts of things and it wouldn't pass, but that's only my opinion. I don't have a way to test that at the time nor do your inspectors have a way to test that. So as a lot of people maybe more eloquently have put it, the question is inby the loading point in my opinion. Now, the propagation can start there and go outby, and I understand that. I understand that we want to snuff that out before it propagates. I was privileged to be in Upper Big Branch Mines and be part of the United Mine Workers' inspection there, and I see firsthand the devastation of a long area that has been exploded and had propagated and too at Number 5 mines as well, Jim Walter. So my concern -- Without beating a dead horse, my concern is how are you going to in real-time enforce this 80 percent rule when in my opinion, just a lonely coal miner trying to do the best that he can do for the miners that he represents, enforce this 80 percent when in my opinion we're not doing a real good job of enforcing the 65 percent? I applaud this. I applaud this paper that NIOSH wrote together with lots of other entities and NIOSH coming to the forefront and MSHA coming to the forefront. But my question is we need real-time implementations, we need ways to either photograph it, test it in real-time and to know that this area is either in compliance or not in compliance today, within minutes or within an hour or so, not within weeks or months. In closing, I would like to express just something maybe personal. I'm glad to see Richard Gates, our district manager, here and others, other representatives. I'm kind of saddened by the lack of interest from Jim Walters upper management not being present. Either they know that this is going to be implemented and never changed and they're ready to get on the bandwagon and comply or they're not very interested in this part of it. That's just a personal comment that I would like to obviously become part of the record. So we're ready to band together with you as United Mine Workers for this 80 percent rule, but I need to know and need to know that we have tools and a way to enforce this 80 percent rule, not just on what could happen months from now when the longwall has passed that area and it's already caved in and we can't go back there and rock dust that again. And we need help in the face where most ignitions and most ignition sources are to make sure that those areas as well are rock dusted with this type percentage. Thank you very much. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. I just have -- I don't have any questions, but I have a few comments, a comment on your testimony. First of all, we appreciate it. Second of all, the device to which you refer about providing real-time information -- and for the benefit of everybody in here, and I'm sure everybody doesn't even need my benefit. They probably already know it -- is the coal dust explosibility meter, or we refer to it as CDEM. I think, now, that it is -- as I said, CDEM, I do not believe it is commercially available. I think NIOSH is still doing some type of testing with it as well as we are working with NIOSH. I do think that, as you said, when it's perfected and commercially available, the goal is for it to give real-time measurements. On the issue of real-time measurements for rock dust sampling, we, MSHA, assistant secretary Main, Joe Main has put in place a process now, a procedure whereby there will be more expedited processing of the samples, of the rock dust samples today so that the results -- as you said, if something is rock dusted today, as you go forward two weeks from now, you know, and you pass that and everything, how would that affect you today? So the process that we've put in place is to give more expedited sampling results. That's one thing. The second thing I would like to reiterate -- and you heard me say it earlier. The two -- the Program Information Bulletin and the Procedure Instruction Letter for our own inspectors which highlight the areas that have to be looked at by the operators; i.e., that is, the areas to look at in terms of where rock dust applications as well as when our inspectors go to do their inspections, the areas that they need to look at and the sampling that they need to do. So those things. And I would draw your attention to -- As I said, both the PIB and the PIL are on MSHA's website and I draw your attention to looking at both of them and looking at some of the areas we highlighted which are some of the areas that you brought to our attention here today, tailgate entries, bleeder entries and a few others, tailgate entries, bleeder entries, active faces and seals. So those things I would ask you to look at. Does anybody else want to add anything to what I said? Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Maybe this is a good place to take a break. We'll take a 10-minute break and reconvene in ten minutes. (A recess was taken) MS. SILVEY: At this point, we will reconvene the Mine Safety and Health Administration's public hearing on the Emergency Temporary Standard Maintenance of Incombustible Content of Rock Dust in Underground Coal Mines. And now we will take our next speaker, whoever wishes to testify next. Yes, sir. MR. WILKERSON: Good morning. My name is Shan Wilkerson, S-H-A-N, W-I-L-K-E-R-S-O-N. I've got a couple of comments I'd like to make today. The first one is I applaud y'all for coming down here and taking our comments and taking them back with you. We hope we do a good job. The other comment I've got, our Local up there, 1926, we stand in favor of this and hope all mines big and small will comply with this, and I think all the mines should, not just the big ones, but all of them. And with that, I'd like to say that also I bring the voice of my entire Local down here in saying we stand in favor of this. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to testify? Yes, sir. MR. WHITLOW: My name is Phillip Whitlow, P-H-I-L-L-I-P, W-H-I-T-L-O-W. I work at North River Number 1 Mine, Chevron Mining, Local 1926 safety committee. Since this has come out, our company has been very proactive in getting with the program, but we do have some problems still with the dust. Our mine is a track mine and we have common entries and the off track entries is somewhat neglected. That's our areas we really need to look on, especially around our belts and our haulage ways, but I'd like to say that every one of our Local is for this and is backing this. We appreciate y'all pushing for this, and that's all I've got to say. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Anybody else? Does anybody else wish to testify? If there's nobody else who wishes to testify, at this time, I will -- We are going to be here just for -- So that everybody knows, we're going to be here until at least 1:00, but if there's nobody else who wishes to testify at this time, I am going to at least tentatively conclude the hearing. Before I conclude, I would like to say on behalf of MSHA, on behalf of Assistant Secretary Joe Main that we appreciate everybody who joined us today at this hearing. We appreciate those of you who spoke and provided your comments and testimony to us and we appreciate those of you who attended the hearing who may not have spoken, but who attended because that shows us that you have an interest in the hearing. I want to reiterate a couple of things. I would like to draw your attention again to the Program Information Bulletin on rock dust on this ETS, the Procedure Instruction Letter. Both are on our website and I ask you to look at them. I would also like to remind you that we have two hearings remaining in Lexington, Kentucky on November 16th and on November 18th in Charleston, West Virginia and that the post-hearing comment period closes on December 20th. So if you have additional comments that you would like to -- information that you would like to submit to us, please submit them by any one of the methods listed in the Federal Register notice in any one of the methods to any one of the addresses listed in the Federal Register notice, submit them to us by December the 20th. And with that, if nobody else has any testimony, again, we appreciate your being here today and on behalf of the panel, I would like to conclude the hearing. Thank you. (END OF PROCEEDINGS) C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ALABAMA ) JEFFERSON COUNTY ) I hereby certify that the above and foregoing proceedings were taken down by me in stenotype and were reduced to computer print under my supervision, and that the foregoing represents a true and correct transcript of the foregoing proceedings that were had on the above date. I further certify that I am neither of counsel nor of kin to the parties to the action, nor am I in anywise interested in the result of said cause. ______________________________ Nancy S. Holland, Commissioner RPR, CSR, ACCR #185 ?? ?? ?? ?? 2