In the Matter of: ) ) PROPOSED RULE: DIESEL PARTICULATE ) MATTER EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND ) COAL MINERS ) Pages: 1 through 165 Place: Mount Vernon, Illinois Date: December 15, 1998 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED RULE: DIESEL ) PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE OF ) UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS ) Ramada Inn Mt. Vernon, Illinois Tuesday, December 15, 1998 The hearing began, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m. BEFORE: THOMAS TOMB, Moderator APPEARANCES: PAMELA KING SANDRA WESDOCK JON KOGUT ROBERT HANEY GEORGE SASEEN RONALD FORD WILLIAM MC KINNEY P R O C E E D I N G S MR. TOMB: Before we get started, I have an opening statement that I'd like to read for the record. My name is Thomas Tomb. I am the Chief, Dust Division, at MSHA's Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I will be the moderator at this public hearing on MSHA's proposed rule addressing diesel particulate matters in underground coal mines. Personally, and on behalf of Assistant Secretary J. Davitt McAteer, I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to each of you for being here today and for your input. With me on the panel today from MSHA are Jon Kogut from the Office of Program Evaluation & Information Resources, George Saseen from the Approval Certification Center, Robert Haney from the Environmental Assessment and Contaminate Control Branch of the Dust Division, Sandra Wesdock from the Office of the Solicitor and William McKinney from the Mine Safety and Health Academy. We have Ronald Ford and Pamela King from the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. This hearing is being held in accordance with Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety & Health Act of 1977. As is the practice of this agency, formal rules of evidence will not apply. We are making a verbatim transcript of this hearing. It will be made an official part of the rulemaking record. The hearing transcript, along with all of the comments that MSHA has received to date on the proposed rule will be available to you for review. If you want to get a copy of the hearing transcript, you have to get it on your own by making arrangements with the court reporter. We value your comments. MSHA will accept -- are there enough chairs? Would you see about getting some additional chairs, maybe, brought in? Just in case. Thanks. We value your comments. MSHA will accept written comment and other data from anyone, including those of you who do not present an oral statement. You may present written comments to Pamela King during the hearing or send them to Carol Jones, Acting Director of Office of Standards, Regulations & Variances at the address that has been listed in the hearing notice. We will include them in the rulemaking record. If you feel you need to modify your comments or wish to submit additional comments following the hearing, the record will stay open until February 16, 1999. You are encouraged to submit to MSHA a copy of your comments on computer disk. Your comments are essential in helping MSHA develop the most appropriate rule to foster safety and health in our nation's mines. We appreciate your views on this rulemaking and assure you that your comments, whether written or oral, will be considered by MSHA in finalizing this rule. In another rulemaking on October 29, 1998, we published the proposed rule to address diesel particulate matter exposure of underground metal and non-metal miners. The comment period for that proposed rule will close on February 26, 1999. Hearings for the metal and non-metal proposal will be announced in a future Federal Register notice. You may obtain copies of that proposal by downloading it from MSHA's web site at www.msha.gov or by calling the Office of Standards, Regulations & Variances at (703) 235-1910. However, the scope of this hearing today is limited to the April 9, 1998 proposed rule addressing diesel particulate matter, exposure of underground miners. This is the third of four public hearings to be held on this proposed rule. The first was held in Salt Lake City on November 17, 1998, the second was held in Beckley, West Virginia on November 19, 1998 and the fourth will be held in Birmingham on December 17, 1998. Information regarding these hearings is published in the Federal Register on October 19. It can also be obtained from MSHA's web site on the Internet and there are a few copies of that notice available here today if you want to pick one up. On April 9, 1998, MSHA published a proposed rule that would reduce the risk to underground coal miners of serious health hazards that are associated with exposures to high concentrations of diesel particulate material. Diesel particulate matter is a very small particle in diesel exhaust. Underground miners are exposed to far higher concentrations of this fine particulate than any other group of workers. The best available evidence indicates that such high exposures put these miners at excess risk of a variety of adverse health effects, including lung cancer. The comment period for the proposed rule is scheduled to close on August 7, 1998. However, due to requests from the mining community, the Agency extended the comment period for an additional 60 days until October 9, 1998. The proposed rule would require the following: Proposed Paragraph 72.500 would require the installation and maintenance of high efficiency particulate filters on the most polluting types of diesel equipment and underground coal mines. It would require that, beginning 18 months after the date the rule is promulgated, any piece of permissible diesel-powered equipment operated in an underground coal mine must be equipped with a system capable of removing, on average, at least 95 percent of the mass of the DPM emitted from the engine. Additionally, 30 months after the rule is promulgated, any non-permissible piece of heavy duty, and I stress heavy duty diesel powered equipment operated in underground coal mines be equipped with a system capable of removing, on average, at least 95 percent of the mass of the diesel particulate material emitted from the engine. Any exhaust after-treatment device installed to reduce the emissions of diesel particulate matter would be required to be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. The proposal also sets forth the Agency's requirements for determining whether a system is capable of removing, on average, at least 95 percent of diesel particulate matter by mass. It states that a filtration system must be tested by comparing the results of emission test of an engine with and without the filtration system in place. Proposed Paragraph 72.510 is a training requirement which lists the pertinent areas in which instructions must occur. The training is to be provided annually in all mines using diesel-powered equipment and is to provide without charge to the miner the training. It also includes provisions on record retention, access and transfer. And, finally, proposed amendment to Paragraph 75.371 would amend existing Paragraph 75.371, which is the mine ventilation plan contents to add one new requirement to an underground coal mine's ventilation control plant. The additional information is limited, but is critical to the control of diesel particulate matter. The proposal would require the ventilation plant to contain a list of the diesel-powered units used by the mine operator, together with information about each unit's emission control or filtration system. Details relative to the efficiency of this system and the methods used to establish the efficiency of this system for removing diesel particulate matter must be included. Any amendments to a mine's ventilation plan must, of course, also follow requirements of 30 CFR 75.370, which is the mine's ventilation plan submission approval requirements. MSHA received comments from various sectors of the mining community and has preliminarily reviewed the comments it has received thus far. MSHA would particularly like additional input from the mining community regarding specific alternative approaches discussed in the economic feasibility section of the preamble. As you might recall, the options discussed include establishing a concentration limit for DPM in this section, requiring filters on some light duty equipment and looking at the filter and the engine as a package that has to meet a particular emission standard, instead of requiring that all engines be equipped with a high-efficiency filter. The Agency is also interested in obtaining as many examples as possible of the specific situation in individual mines. This could include the composition of the diesel plate, what controls cannot be utilized due to special conditions and any studies of alternative controls you might have used for the computer work sheet. We also seek information about the availability and cost of various control technologies that are being developed. In other words, such things as high-efficiency ceramic filters. Also, experience with the use of available controls and information that would help us evaluate alternative approaches for underground coal mines. We would also like to hear about any unusual situations that might warrant the application of special provisions. The Agency welcomes comments on any topics on which we should provide initial guidance, as well as any alternative practices which MSHA should accept for compliance before various provisions of the rule go into effect. Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires each Federal agency to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions and to prepare an environmental impact statement on major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On July 14, 1998, MSHA published notice in the Federal Register that announced its preliminary determination that the proposed rule would have no significant environmental impact. The comment period was scheduled to close on August 10, 1998, however, MSHA extended that comment period until October 9, 1998. The record will remain open as stated in the Public Hearing Notice until February 16, 1999, to allow proposed hearing comments and data submissions. MSHA views these rulemaking activities as extremely important and knows that your participation is also a reflection of the importance you associate with the rulemaking. To insure that an adequate record is made during this proceeding, when you present your oral statements or otherwise address the panel, I ask that you come to the podium and clearly state your name, spell your name and state the name of the organization that you represent. It is my intent that during this hearing, anyone who wishes to speak will be given an opportunity. Anyone who has not previously asked for time to speak needs to tell us of their intention to do so by signing the request to speak sheet and let us know how much time you need. And, I he the sheet up here now, so when we have a break or at lunchtime, if anybody knows they want to make a presentation, see me and you can put your name of the sheet. I will attempt to recognize all speakers in the order in which they have requested to speak. As the moderator, if necessary, I reserve the right to modify the order of presentation in the interest of fairness. I doubt that will be necessary, but I also may exercise discretion to exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious material. And, in order to clarify certain points, the panel may ask questions of the speakers. Before we get started, we'll get some more chairs brought in, in case people show up. (Pause.) MR. TOMB: Let me remind you, if anybody is leaving the room, you better be careful getting out of there. Okay, to get started, the first person I have signed up to make a presentation is Joe Urban, is that correct, sir? MR. URBAN: Yes. First of all, my name is Joe Urban, U-R-B-A-N. I'm with the United Mine Workers. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come and address this distinguished committee on an issue that I feel that United Mine Workers should give testimony today to influence you to the fact that they are dead serious about what they're talking about today. I appreciate the opportunity to come here, on behalf of the mine workers in the Midwest Region. The Midwest Region comprises some 12 states here in the Midwestern United States. Mainly we have miners here today from the states of Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois. I thank you for their opportunity to articulate to you some of the first hand problems of which most of them have been facing, especially here in the state of Illinois, since 1989. On October 19, 1998, the Department of Labor published in the Federal Register, Volume 63, Number 201, Proposed Rules, 30 CFR Parts 72 and 75, Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Coal Miners. MSHA published a proposed rule to reduce the risk to underground coal miners of serious health hazards that are associated with exposure to high concentrations of diesel particulate matter or DPM. DPM is a very small, small particles in diesel exhaust. Underground miners are exposed to far higher concentrations of this fine particulate than any other group of workers. The best available evidence indicates that such high exposures put these miners at excess risk of a variety of adverse health effects, including lung cancer. The proposed rule for underground coal mines would require that mine operators install and maintain high- efficiency filtration systems on certain types of diesel- powered equipment. Underground coal mine operators would also be required to train miners about the hazards of DPM exposure. According to my understanding of the proposed rule, it would require all permissible or inby and heavy- duty non-permissible, outby, diesel-powered equipment to be equipped with a filtration system capable of removing, on average, at least 95 percent diesel particulate matter by mass. Now, according to my information, there is approximately 3,000 pieces of diesel-powered equipment in the underground coal mines in the United States. Of that total of 3,000, the rule would only impact approximately 1,000 pieces of diesel-powered equipment. That being 500 pieces of permissible equipment used inby and 500 pieces of non-permissible, heavy-duty equipment used outby. This only represents 33 1/3 percent of the total diesel-powered equipment used in the underground coal mines. In MSHA's introductory paragraph, for the reason of going to the rulemaking process, MSHA suggests that there are necessary and sufficient reasons to control miner's exposure to DPM. It refers to the "best available evidence," a key provision in Section 101(a)(6)(A) of the Mine Act. This portion of the Mine Act does not say the best possible evidence. It refers to the best available evidence, an implicit recognition that there are limits on all scientific information. It goes on to refer to "...lifetime of DPM exposures at concentrations we presently find in underground mines face a significant risk of material impairment of their health." The objective of MSHA's standards-setting authority is to ensure that miners can work for the "...period of their entire working life..." without material impairment of their health or functional capacity. This objection is addressed in the opening paragraph. According to recent reports on the health effects from diesel exhaust, in March, 1998, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Report's heading stated, Predicted lung cancer risk among miners exposed to diesel exhaust particles, and I've included that in your packet as Exhibit 5. After analyzing several studies on the health effects of diesel exhaust, the NIOSH report found the risk of miners developing and dying from lung cancer from exposure to diesel particulate matter, DPM, extremely high. The study cites that upwards of nearly 900 in 1,000 miners exposed to small doses, 1 mg. per cubic meter of DPM over a working lifetime, has a risk of lung cancer. The NIOSH study noted the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision on health standard case, cited that one death in 1,000 as being a significant level of risk. The NIOSH study estimated that reducing the miner's risk to one in 1,000, using the highest risk levels, would have an associated DPM exposure level of about .001 mg. per cubic meter. Here in Illinois, diesel-powered equipment used in underground coal mines have been present from approximately 1989 till present. We are still here today on the eve of the first decade of using diesel-powered equipment underground and we still have not seen sufficient light of day to realize the vitally needed protection the miners need. I recall when the first piece of diesel-powered equipment went underground in a UMWA-represented coal mine. I made the statement then and it appears as though that statement will hold true, "That diesel-powered equipment used underground in coal mines, unregulated, would ultimately end up being the coal miners' 'asbestos' of the year 2000." On April 22 and 23, 1998, there was a news article from the California Scientific Review Panel. Their report on diesel exhaust stated, the scientific panel found after nine years of review that diesel exhaust is a serious cancer danger, with estimates of thousands dying from the disease. A high rate of lung cancer was cited. The scientific panel chairman said diesel exhaust contains to the most toxic set of constituents that you could ever find. The article notes that diesel exhaust contains more than 40 compounds that have been declared carcinogenic. The report cites other health effects from diesel exhaust. Well, imagine that. And another news article dated April 10, 1998, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report released April 9, 1998, stating that diesel exhaust, even at low levels, are likely to cause a risk of cancer and other respiratory diseases. Now, normally, I try to be a reasonable professional individual, but it would appear to me that if the United States of America can create a "Clean Air Act" and an "Environmental Protection Agency" for everybody working above ground, then I believe that it is time to create those entities for underground coal mines. That way, at least coal miners would have a fighting chance of surviving. Now, the operators are going to tell you they will not have any problems keeping exposure to a minimum, because they will have all the air that they want to utilize in order to keep the exhaust diluted. You will hear today testimony from the miners themselves, concerning how well the operators keep ventilation intact. You will also hear how there are numerous places within a coal mine where it is impossible, if not impracticable, to try and maintain ventilation everywhere there is a piece of non-permissible equipment. In order to have air continuously going over a piece of diesel-powered, non-permissible heavy-duty equipment is totally absurd. There is no way imaginable that that can be accomplished. How would you control, direct, regulate any of the ventilation? If MSHA truly believes that the operators indeed can achieve this, then I want to be the one that sells you one of those cars that perhaps maybe even some of you may already own, that has the capabilities of the driver and passenger having a means of controlling their own temperature environment from where they sit. Give me a break, they're only five feet apart. And, if you believe that, then I'll throw in some seaside property in Arizona. In order to keep the record straight, I wish to submit to the committee as an exhibit a copy of citations of which I had requested from MSHA, and this will be Exhibit 2. The citations are for the MSHA fiscal years of 1996, 1997 and the first quarter of 1998. The citations cover nine underground coal mines in the state of Illinois. There were 443 citations issued concerning ventilation quantity and/or quality. Of the 443 citations issued for the approximately two-year period, 414 of the those citations were violations of 30 CFR 75.370(a)(1), which requires the operators to have and follow and approved ventilation for their specific mine. We're talking about out of a total of 443 citations, 93 percent of the citations issued in those two categories alone were for violations of the ventilation plan. In the exhibit, you will find a breakdown of each of the categories the citations fall under. Also, you will find a breakdown by mine MSHA ID number of each of the citations issued at each of the nine mines. The miners of whom will speak today will be sharing these citations with you as they speak. It is important that MSHA review all the citations to "know" how well the operators maintain their ventilation in their coal mines. It is very difficult for me to understand why MSHA would go to all the trouble it has in order to promulgate regulations and not at least make an attempt to reduce exposure for all miners. It is strange, though, how just a year ago, here in District 8 of MSHA, MSHA was doing all it could to help the operators come into compliance with the diesel-powered permissible equipment base requirements. It even went to the extent to offer operators the option of removing the diesel-powered permissible equipment, inby, away from the face by removing those items of which made it permissible. Therefore, it did not have to meet the criteria of being permissible anymore, because the operators removed whatever it was that was required and made it a piece of diesel-powered non-permissible equipment, heavy duty equipment, so as to keep the operators from being required to add additional ventilation to the last open cross cut of the working sector. Now, the Agency is only addressing one third of the total problem. On what does MSHA base its reasoning that by providing additional protection to only one third of the equipment, that that will provide any additional protection to miners? Does MSHA need to be reminded that in an underground coal mine, the people are working in an enclosed atmosphere, to a great extent? Where does MSHA think most of the diesel-powered equipment is used at? It certainly is not at the working face. Please do not misunderstand me. I appreciate the fact that MSHA is making an attempt to fix the problem. But, in this case, you cannot fix only a portion of the problem. Ask anyone who has been in a coma where there were not any diesel-powered equipment in the mine and has gone to a coal mine where the diesel is used, and they will tell you that they can smell it as soon as they get on the immediate bottom area of the mine. Why? If you have diesel-powered equipment that does not have filtration systems that we're talking about, especially with the proposed rule, we're going to have the continuous presence of exhaust residue and particulate matter lingering and floating around in the atmosphere, and especially in those areas that we call dead air space. I can't believe that we're here, almost ten years after we began using diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines, and still we have to argue over what the necessary remedies should be. And, even after studying the scientific studies for nine years. I testified before a committee in Chicago, Illinois whenever the first diesel regulations were being formulated. At that hearing, I told the committee of which Mrs. Pat Silvey was the chairperson, that it appeared that MSHA was more interested in trying to be a buffer between the operators and the mine workers. That same theology appears prevalent today, as well. We must have the necessary protection uniformly applied throughout the entire coal mine. It does little good to only fix a small portion of the problem. A Band-Aid will not take care of the larger problem. If MSHA does not hear the cries of the coal miners this time concerning all the problems associated with the use of diesel-powered equipment used in the underground coal mines, then the miners themselves will have to go out and purchase something that will help them, such as this right here, gentlemen. Another subject for us to discuss is the issue of economics. I know that you have a responsibility to insure that you do not create burdensome requirements on the operators. But, if this committee allows operators to use the economic crutch that they are so fond of, then shame on you. Because I know there are several miners of whom are here today, even in this crowd, that will testify to you that even though they are close to being out of a job, that if they were given a choice to have the protection they need from the diesel exhaust, or to lose their job, I am confident that they will tell you that at least if they lose their job due to the economic hardship created by having to comply with the requirement of providing the necessary filtration systems for all mines, that at least they would still be alive and hopefully have their health and be capable of looking for another job somewhere else. The union wishes to share with the committee a report conducted by NIOSH on Predicted Lung Cancer Risk Among Miners Exposed to Diesel Exhaust Particles. Once the committee reads the report, I'm sure that the final conclusion of which should be unanimous, is one that the committee will totally agree that the proposed rule making being conducted here today definitely does not even provide a minimal decrease in the risk potential of deadly diesel particulate matter to the miners. I strongly believe that the Department of Labor, of which is a Federal Government Agency, and MSHA, being a branch of that Agency, has the responsibility of being the point guard in providing essential protection to the working men and women of this great country. The Federal Government should be setting the highest standard of providing protection in order to guide individual states in adopting similar protection. But, instead we find that the Federal Government is more concerned with creating only minimal standards for our nation. Fortunately, we do have some states in our great nation that will not settle with providing only minimal protection. One such state is the great state of Pennsylvania. They have at least had the foresight to know that providing minimal protection does nothing at all other than to pacify business interest groups. I wish to refer you to the Bituminous Coal Mining Laws of Pennsylvania for Underground Mines, which is Exhibit 6 in your packet. Article II-A, Diesel Powered Equipment, Section 201-A, Underground Use (a), which states: "Underground use of inby and outby diesel-powered equipment, including mobile equipment, stationary equipment and equipment of all horsepower ratings may only be approved, operated and maintained as provided in this article, except for emergency fire fighting equipment to be used specifically for that purpose." And, under Section 203-A, Exhaust Emissions Control, (b) states: "The exhaust emissions control and conditioning system shall include the following: 1) a diesel particulate matter filter capable of an average of 95 percent or greater reduction of DPM emissions." MSHA, with this proposed rule making, has an opportunity, at the least, to follow the guidance of the state of Pennsylvania in promulgating rules that will be in conformity with the state of Pennsylvania and create a uniformity for all the other states. And, if you still wish to debate the economics of the issue, if Pennsylvania can provide this type of protection and stay in business, then so can the rest of the United States. MSHA has a redemptionary opportunity here. Do not ignore it nor let it slip away. MSHA needs to take full advantage of this opportunity. I wish to submit to the committee several manufacturers of whom have a wide range of DPM filters and filtration systems available on the market today. That's in your packet as Exhibit 7. I feel that if MSHA would take a close look at what these manufacturers have to offer the mining community, MSHA will determine that the relatively low cost of these products far outweighs the sky-rocketing costs associated in providing medical treatment after someone has been debilitated due to the excessive exposure to DPM. I sincerely appreciate your undivided attention during my presentation. Before I close and turn it over to the other miners, I have a personal story that I want to relate to the committee and this is a true story. There was this little boy that used to get up early in the morning and this little boy couldn't tell time yet. And, he would go to the couch and he would climb up on the back of the couch and he would look out the picture window and he would wait. And, eh would wait for dad to come home. His dad worked third shift at the mines. Although he couldn't tell time, he could tell by the position of the hands on the face about what time dad was supposed to be home, and sure enough, as soon as that car would pull up, the little boy would jump down off the couch, open the door and run out on the porch, run down that sidewalk and he would grab daddy's hand and he would grab that bucket, cause he knew there was something in that bucket for him. Now, it didn't matter if it was an apple or an orange, half a sandwich, half a cake. Whatever was in that bucket was the greatest thing that he had ever had. One day, that little boy was waiting there for dad to come home. Mom was in the kitchen and the phone rang, and the little boy didn't think too much about it, because sometimes dad worked over. And, just was thinking that maybe today dad was working over. So, he waited a few minutes longer, and he heard a noise come from the kitchen. And, he turned to look and mom was sitting in the chair crying. And, he went to mom and he said, mom, don't worry. Dad will be home. He's just working over. And, she had to pick her little boy up, put him on her lap and say, son, Daddy's not coming home today. Daddy's been killed in the mine. Now, I tell you committee this story for two reasons. One, that story is true, cause the dad that was killed was mine and I was that little boy. And, the second thing, you have the responsibility, you have the position that you have today because of people's lives. I pray that you do the right thing. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Urban. Are there any questions? (Pause.) MR. TOMB: Okay, thank you very much. The next speaker will be Mr. Hicks. MR. HICKS: Good morning. My name is Bob Hicks, H-I-C-K-S. I'm a safety committeeman with the United Mine Workers Local 2412 at the Peabody Coal Company, Marissa Mine, here in the state of Illinois. I guess the first thing I need to do is thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for allowing us to gather today to be able to tell you some of the things that are near and dear to our hearts and a real problem we feel like that we need to do all we can do to try and get rectified. I've got to tell you, I'm not very comfortable doing this. MR. TOMB: That makes too of us. MR. HICKS: I'm scared shiftless, you know, but as uncomfortable as it is, I know that it's very important and I understand that it's something that needs to be done, so I'll try to suck it up. I can guarantee you I'll be real quick here. I guess first of all, the one thing like I said before, I am a safety committeeman, and I'd like to think that I'm an expert in some of the health and safety facets of my job as a committeeman and with the contract and with different things. But, I've got to tell you that when it comes to diesel and diesel regulations and diesel particulates and things of that matter, I feel real inadequate. Actually, I've got some stuff back there about this thick that's just totally overwhelming to me. There's so much information that's available, and at the same time, with the feeling of being overwhelmed by information, I also feel real confused because of a lack of -- I won't say a lack of action, but maybe a postponing of some action on some part by something as strong and as demanding as the Federal Government. Along with the idea of being overwhelmed and confused, I also know that I don't have a lot of expertise in this, but I do have, I think, and I think the people that know me will tell you that I have a lot of common sense and knowing some of the things that I do know, it's real hard for me to try and apply my common sense to the problems that we're facing. It would just on the fact that the timeline has been so long and nothing seems to be set in concrete and so many people are at risk because of the situation that we're in. Okay, let me start a little bit with our mine. I've got a list here of the, a total list of the diesel equipment that we use at our mine, and according to this list, we have 55 pieces of diesel equipment in our mine on the underground, that we use in the underground. We have nine pieces that we use on the surface. Of those 55 pieces we use underground, we have 15 different uses for them in all kinds of different areas. According to my figures, anyhow, only three of those are what can be termed as permissible equipment. The rest of it is to be used strictly outby, and it ranges from everything from a diesel scoop to forklifts to pick up trucks, mantrips. We've even got a little diesel-powered shovel that we clean the belt line with. Kind of a cute thing, but different things that we do. Okay, and in those different pieces of equipment, we have seven different manufacturers, of which they use four different engine makers in sum totalling the different types of machines. You know, that's a lot of things to try to keep up with. I would think that would require, again, my common sense kicks in and says, we've got all these different machines with different uses and they've all got special requirements and they using different places, different things. So, I'm sure we've got a lot of training for the guys that keep this in working condition, or the best working condition they can. And, I don't feel like that's the case, either. We've got some diesel training for people that do that type of stuff, but any one of them will tell you that they don't feel like it's very adequate, either. We also have -- I've got a stack here and this is from 1996, '97 and '98. They have citations issued at our mine, a total of 67 citations that were in violation of the ventilation plan. Of those 67, 19 of them are for calendar year 1998, as of the first of this month. So, I don't know what's been happening since then, but that's a substantial amount, that's 19 of 67 in this year alone. So, that again, that tells me, my common sense kicks in and says, you know, if we're depending so heavily under the new proposed regulations that the mine atmosphere will ventilate in a proper way to use that as a control for the contaminants and the particulates in the diesel exhaust, and we're having that much trouble just keeping air at the face, which everybody knows in a coal mine, that's your main concern, then we might have a problem doing that on an outby situation. With some of the different things, like I said before that we have, the 15 different uses of our equipment, one of them is something we call a nurse truck or it's actually it's a diesel tank truck. What is it? It's a delivery truck for hydraulic oil and gear oil that we use for lubrication purposes and hydraulic purposes in the actual production units at our mine. And, the truck itself is used in a, always in a situation, it being non-permissible, of course, it's out by the face, but it's always used in the outby areas of the production units or in the outby areas of the mine, and that being basically either dead air or minimal amount of movement in the air. And, we've always had problems with the truck and people being, complaining about the fact that they didn't think the truck was right. That any time they used it in outby, the areas of a production unit, that there was always a visible haze in the air, a pretty bad smell in that area. People were getting headaches, they were feeling dizzy, and the complaints, we finally did some checks and eventually -- well, it kind of took a little bit of time, but it got to the point where it was out of compliance. They worked on the truck, got it back into compliance and I guess the truck to this day is probably still legal, but we still have the same concerns about the haze, about the smell. People in the area still get headaches and still feel dizzy, nauseated, things like that, and we're to the point now where we're seeing a lot of problems with people developing respiratory problems. Not necessarily asthma, not necessarily bronchitis, but at least asthma-like symptoms, bronchitis-like symptoms, and things even as serious as nosebleeds and such. And, the problem that we're having is that not only are they developing, but they're getting to the point where they're almost becoming chronic problems. And, we have not had diesel equipment at our mine that long. One of the real things, I guess, that's puzzling to me is that I can remember back in -- maybe someone might know -- I don't actually know the date, but I know it was at least mid or late '70s that we were doing studies on diesels and talking about, you know, the health hazards involved and things like that in a mine environment. And, after this lengthy study, you know, 20 years almost, of trying to determine the health risk that miners were put into every day, I believe Joe said that we have been using it in the state of Illinois since 1989, but with basically no regulations in place at all, or very little. We had the opportunity at our mine to kind of be a pioneer and I was involved in it, so I can personally relay it to you, but we were the first mine in the country to apply for and receive approval for the 1227 2,400 volt Joy miners to be used at the face, the high voltage miners to be used at the face. And, it was a lengthy process. I think we moved through the process pretty quickly, with maybe six or seven months that it took for the actual approval, but the thing that kept sticking in my mind and again, I don't know a whole lot about technical stuff, but my common sense kept telling me, you know, and I realize this is probably a little bit different but not really that much different, the fact that we couldn't -- why can't we just take and buy a 2,400 volt miner from Joy Manufacturing and bring it to the mines, bring it on the face and start loading coal with it and then figure out what the problems are, and then maybe we can write some regulations and guidelines for a few, some things like that and that would be fine. But, we couldn't do that because we had to get prior approval. But, basically, that's what we've done with our diesel equipment, at least in my opinion, is that somebody decided, you know, that this was a good thing for us to use and I'm not knocking diesels. Probably it's their life savers in present situations. But, we decided, someone decided that we're going to use them. We decided to use them, we're bringing them in, we've been using them for years, and to this date, we still don't have any significant regulations or guidelines so far as the diesel particulates. And, the problem that we've got is that people that have been using the equipment or even just been working in the environment, the captive environment of the underground coal mines, have been exposed to it every shift of every day that they've worked. And, again, I apologize for -- I wish I could quote you CFR Part such and such, paragraph, but I can't do that. But, I know for a fact that with the evidence that can be produced, that has been done with different states and stuff, that there are definite health risks. We've been using the machinery for a long time. We haven't basically done, we've done nothing to this point, and we don't want to see anybody drop the ball because we're closer now than we ever have been, but at the same time, you know, it's not a done deal yet, so we've got problems that we still need to face. So, I guess what I'm trying to say in summing everything up is that if you can paraphrase the advertisement for the Army on TV, you know, not necessarily be all you can be, but at least in this case, we're begging you, do all you can do. That's all we ask. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Hicks. Does anybody have any questions? Jon? MR. KOGUT: First, are all the sections of your mine continuous sections? MR. HICKS: Yes, yes. MR. KOGUT: You said that diesel equipment, in some cases, could be a life saver. Could you explain what you meant by that? MR. HICKS: Well, I don't necessarily mean life so far as actual work, but getting a job done. For example, instead of, in a new development area, where a production unit is going to go in, you develop like a stud panel where that machinery is going to be going. And, instead of coming in and having to bring a miner across the mine and grade off for ventilation purposes, overcast and things like that, lots of times, they can come in with a big permissible diesel scoop and work in that area, and that's a heavy-duty enough, powerful enough machine that it can do the work and save a lot of man hours and a lot of effort by using that machine rather than something else that's less affordable. MR. TOMB: Sandra? MS. WESDOCK: Mr. Hicks, do know approximately your mine has been using diesel equipment? MR. HICKS: About five years. AUDIENCE VOICE: Since '91. MS. WESDOCK: Since 1991. MR. HICKS: Since 1991, so about five years. MS. WESDOCK: Thank you. MR. HICKS: That doesn't add up, though. I guess it must be about seven years. MR. SASEEN: Mr. Hicks, the three permissible units you said you have, what sort of work do they do? What type of machine are they? MR. HICKS: They're Wagner diesel scoops. MR. SASEEN: They're scoops? MR. HICKS: And, the reason they -- I believe the reason, the theory for having them there is for like if you've got falls in the intakes and things. It's permissible to take them up into that area, or in, like I was speaking about, like the development of the new areas, you can actually go, you know, to the space, through the isolation curtain, into the actual intake air with them and use them in that fashion. MR. SASEEN: So, they're not continuously used? MR. HICKS: No. MR. SASEEN: On a workday? MR. HICKS: No, not in that situation. But, they are outby, using them in the same thing, to clean up falls, to clean up roadways, to haul material, to just about everything. They're a very versatile, very useful piece of machine. MR. SASEEN: Your inventory, could you provide us with that, a copy of that? I mean, I'd like you to submit it? MR. HICKS: Yes, I can do that. This is the only one I've got. I got it from, borrowed it from somebody, so it's not, you know, it's not a secret list here. MR. SASEEN: Okay, thank you, sir. MR. MC KINNEY: Do you know if any -- you mentioned earlier, guys coming down what appeared like a pneumonia type of an illness or something. Are they reporting these at the mines on the 7001 for occupational illnesses? Are miners losing work from these types of conditions or is it just something that they're coming down with and then not missing any work days? MR. HICKS: I really don't know, to be honest with you. So far as my personal knowledge, I don't know of anyone that's done that. I really didn't know that that was -- the problem, I think, if you decide to do something like that, then there's kind of a burden of proof and, you know, sometimes that's a problem. MR. TOMB: Ron, did you have a question? MR. FORD: Just one question. It seems like, Mr. Hicks, you're saying that most of the problems with diesels in your particular mine, your situation, is from outbys? MR. HICKS: Yeah, basically, because we don't have anything that we use on a regular basis, inby, that's correct. You know, and the problem is, with the outby areas, if you're out on the main line, quality roads, we've got all kinds of air up there. That's the way things are designed. But, when you get into areas that are off the beaten path, so to speak, or back into developmental areas and things, they're not ventilated nearly as well. MR. FORD: So, the problem in the outby is that the reason is just because you don't have enough air? But, if you were getting enough air, would things be okay? MR. HICKS: I doubt it. I don't know that you can -- when I say that we've got all kinds of air on the main haulage roads, I guess what I'm saying is that so far as being able to dilute and move the exhaust away, yeah, I'd say that in itself probably works, but so far as actually being safe, I don't have any idea. But, at least it's better than the dead air areas, where there is no, you know, or little movement, and everything just kind of hangs in like a ball. MR. FORD: Sure. MR. TOMB: I have a couple of questions. You mentioned something in your presentation about the training being inadequate. Are you talking bout the mechanics that service the equipment? MR. HICKS: Yeah. MR. TOMB: These mechanics that you're specifically talking about, they don't feel their training is really good for servicing the equipment? MR. HICKS: Right. MR. TOMB: And, I know Mr. Saseen has asked you for your list of equipment. It looks like you really have a good list. I don't know whether you can do this for us, but I think it would really be helpful if you could take each one of those pieces of equipment and tell us what it's used for, whether you feel that it would come under the listing of heavy duty equipment or not heavy duty equipment, and give us sort of a time that the equipment is actually in use. For instance, I was just in a mine the other day. They had a diesel personnel carrier took us in and out of the mine. The thing sat the rest of the day. Okay, that's the type of data we're looking for. So, if you could sort of approximate the time the equipment is used and whether you would think it would come under or not under the heavy duty classification. I hope you could do that, you know, if you can. MR. HICKS: I don't see a big problem. If I'm not familiar, I'll just, you know, get information from others that are. MR. TOMB: It really would help us to have the information, if you could give it to us. MR. HICKS: You bet. Be glad to. MR. HANEY: On your sections, typically how many entries are they developed with? MR. HICKS: I think like if you're in rooms or non-mainlines, I think it's seven is the normal. MR. HANEY: How many of those would be intakes and how many of those entries -- MR. HICKS: Usually one intake, one return. MR. HANEY: So, you'd have five neutral entries? MR. HICKS: Five neutral entries, yeah. MR. HANEY: Is that belt air used to ventilate the face of your mine? MR. HICKS: No. MR. TOMB: Okay, thank you very much. Very good presentation. The next speaker will be Mr. Goodwin. MR. GOODWIN: Good morning, Tom. My name is James Goodwin and I'm a miner's rep from Western Kentucky. MR. TOMB: Would you spell that, sir? MR. GOODWIN: G-O-O-D-W-I-N. MR. TOMB: Thank you. MR. GOODWIN: I'm a miner's rep at Ohio 11 Mine. Ohio 11 Mine is owned by Island Creek Coal Company, Consol, Inc. It's an underground coal mine. And, I'm deeply concerned for the miner's health. I feel that we need laws that would require all diesel-powered equipment used in coal mines to be filtered to provide miners with adequate protection from exposure to diesel particulate matter. I have with me here approximately 200 citations which were issued for Ohio 11 Mine in the last 22 months, and all of these are on ventilation. With this amount of citations, there's no way to expect that ventilation would remove enough of the diesel particulate matters in the mine air. On one occasion recently, myself and two other miners were installing a high voltage cable using a low track. The exhaust was so strong that all of us got a real bad headache, even though we were only exposed for like 15 to 20 minutes. But, it stayed with us for the rest of the shift. Then, once we got outside and got into some good air, then, of course, we got to feeling better. But, I feel that, you know, we need protection from diesel particulate matter. I thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Goodwin, how many pieces of diesel equipment do you have in your mine? MR. GOODWIN: I believe we have something like 30, close to 30. MR. TOMB: That's all used outby? MR. GOODWIN: Yeah. We have two Wagner diesel scoops that are permissible, but there again, they're used only for supplying. We don't have tracks. We use the diesels to pull the flat cars in and out. A lot of our equipment is the small rib-runners, as we call them, where the mechanics use to travel to and from, and then we have, I think, eight personnel carriers that haul about 11 men. And, like he said a few moments ago, they were only used to haul the men in and sat for the day and then bring the men out. MR. TOMB: Could you provide us with a list of the type of equipment you have in the mine and also what, in your opinion, you know, from its use, whether it be considered heavy-duty equipment or not and the time it would operate? Is that too much of a problem? MR. GOODWIN: Not at all. MR. TOMB: Okay, if you could send that to us, it sure would help. MR. GOODWIN: And, also, I'd like to give you these citations, too. MR. TOMB: All right, thank you. MR. GOODWIN: To review. MR. TOMB: Thank you very much. Thank you. If you can't have it today, you could mail it to us. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Mr. Mann. MR. MANN: Good morning. My name is James Mann. I'm a safety committeeman from Local Union 1071 in the same mine, Ohio No. 11, Nortonville, Kentucky. I work in the same mine that Mr. Goodwin works, and as he stated, in less than two years, we've received approximately 200 citations on our ventilation. If we can't maintain our ventilation for our units or our belts, how can we ever maintain our ventilation to render these gases harmless from the exhaust, gases from our pieces of equipment? I'm an electrician. I work with the mechanics at the mine that perform the maintenance and does the servicing on the diesel equipment. We have no one certain person whose job it is to service the diesel equipment. Thus, it gets done when we can work it in, when there's nothing else that is pressing. Servicing and regularly scheduled maintenance is pretty well on the priority list at our mine. As Jim said, we have approximately 30 pieces of underground equipment. He stated we have two permissible diesel scoops. We have only one that is permissible, but it's used outby. Most of our present testing that's done is done with the engine idling. Of course, we check for seals, you know, too. But, the largest or the biggest majority of your exhaust things come when the equipment is accelerating. That, to me, needs to be tested or some way of testing that. Possibly with the DPM filtration system, it would render that problem or just take it away, you know, if we could remove the DPM's. And, I strongly urge you to require a DPM filtration system on all the equipment, not just the face equipment, the inby, the permissible or the heavy duty. But, we have some equipment down there that probably has 20, 25 horsepower that's considered heavy duty. It's a small, low track. We have some that's much larger than that, that is all light duty. I don't know where the justice is in the rating of the heavy duty and light duty, but I thank you for your time. If you have any questions? MR. TOMB: Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you very much. Our next speaker will be a Mr. Dunn. MR. DUNN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Dunn. That's D-U-N-N. I work for Peabody Coal Company, Camp No. 1. I'm chairman of the Safety Committee, Local 1798. At Camp 1, we have 53 pieces of underground diesel equipment. Six are heavy duty and the rest are considered light duty equipment. Peabody started using diesel equipment around 1988 and some of that diesel equipment is still in use today and requires a lot of maintenance. The local union worked with Peabody and Camp 1 management to develop a maintenance program for our mantrips. These are eight diesel buckets and we -- when we go back and check these maintenance records, we still find that these mantrips are not being maintained properly and operating conditions, because of lack of maintenance and the training of people that are working on this equipment. It's a big problem, this equipment. It's old and it takes a lot of maintenance, and we don't have anybody at our mine trained to maintain this equipment properly. And, for the remaining equipment, there's no maintenance program whatsoever. Our regular maintenance program for like changing oil, requiring filter change, which is -- we're still working on that. We can't give that today. Some of the problems that we found with our diesel equipment are high emissions. We found exhaust systems have been altered, so accurate readings can't be taken. This is done by drilling holes in exhaust pipes. We don't get an exact reading of the flow of the exhaust. We found defusures, a place on the end of the exhaust pipes where your emissions are, instead of getting a direct flow, they go every which way. You can't get an accurate reading on those. We found that we've got one piece of equipment where the exhaust is run through the bumper and the drilled holes all across the bumper. One side would have larger holes and the other side would be real small. When the man took his readings, you know, you weren't getting an accurate reading of what was going on. At one time, we had welders on diesel equipment, and this equipment would be taken into areas of the mine where the ventilation would be less, like you were talking about on your main lines, and on your tracking, you have a lot of ventilation. But, in areas where you have to do work on headers, there's not that much air. And, these welders had to be, the engines had to be revved at real high RPM's. You're getting a lot of emissions out of those motors. They're in low ventilated areas and they're exposed. We have a lot of people that have had headaches with those, make them sick. It's just, you know, with ventilation, you can't control it everywhere. I mean, you're going to get into areas of the mine where the ventilation is just not as great and it's not something that you turn a switch on and turn a lot of air in there. At one time, we had a diesel generator and this was used to move equipment down our tracks, our main lines. And, this was an area where there was a lot of air. This generator put out so much emission that one man was made so sick that he had missed a day's work, gone to the doctor and missed a day's work, and the company paid him for that day. So, they knew that this made him sick. All the equipment that I'm referring to is light duty equipment. We have no, we have six pieces of heavy equipment in our mine, heavy duty, that's classified as heavy duty equipment. The rest is light duty. Two-thirds of the 53 pieces are run 90 percent of the time at the mine outby. So, all this equipment -- MR. TOMB: During the shift, timewise, 90 percent of those total -- MR. DUNN: We have diesel mantrips that bring the people back and forth from the face, but there are six units and there's six pieces of equipment. The rest of it is run. I don't understand the reasoning for light duty and heavy duty equipment. If one of the reasons is ventilation for controlling these emissions. Ventilation is a variable and can change and in the past two years, we've had 64 violations on our ventilation plan. I'd like to give these to you. MR. TOMB: Thank you. MR. DUNN: I believe that this shows that at times, we had problems with ventilation. You know, it's not a continuous problem, but at times, it does occur. If the light duty equipment was required a particulate, designed to reduce particulate emission to an average of 95 percent, I think it would better protect the miners and the risk of exposure and the possible lung cancer causing particulates. In closing, I'd like to commend MSHA for holding these hearings and to give coal miners who are exposed to these hazards a chance to give their opinions on these problems. I'd like to say that we're not opposed to diesel equipment in the mines. As a matter of fact, I believe that one of the reasons that we're working today is because of diesel equipment. But, it has to be regulated. It's a tool, but we must protect the miners who use it, and in my opinion, there should be one standard that requires the diesel particulate filter that will reduce the particulate emissions by an average of 95 percent to protect the miners from those hazards. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you. MR. DUNN: Also, I have a copy of the equipment. Do you want that? MR. TOMB: Any questions? Are you familiar enough with the use of this equipment that you could put that on this list for it? The use of it? MR. DUNN: Yes. MR. TOMB: In other words, actually, you have about 47 piece of equipment here that you said are all light duty. MR. DUNN: Right, we have six locomotives -- and we have locomotives and they're listed on there. It's listed on there. MR. TOMB: You have mantrips? MR. DUNN: Mantrips, right. All these are light duty, except for locomotives. MR. TOMB: Looks like you have more than six locomotives on there, though? MR. DUNN: No, here they are, locomotives. One, two, three, four, five and then most of these are all mantrips. But, see, some of these mantrips are not actual mantrips that's used for hauling people back and forth to the face. They're used by mechanics all through the mines, used by belt mechanics, they're used by foremen to travel back and forth in the mines. Of the mines -- MR. TOMB: It would help if you only speak from the podium so that we get it on the record, okay. MR. DUNN: The mine I work at is some slope to the furthest unit is 13 miles. So, we have 13 miles of conveyor and that's a lot of -- you know, that's a lot of area to cover. And, when you have problems throughout the mine, you have to be able to get there and get there quickly. Sometimes if your belts go down, you have a piece of equipment down, you're running back and forth for parts to fix that equipment. Coming and going out at different times. It's, that equipment is used all throughout the shift. Sometimes, you know, welders run it. But, that's what, the locomotives are considered heavy, but two-thirds of that equipment is run all during the shift. MR. TOMB: Okay, I just need what's on here. You don't need to supply anything else. Thank you very much. Our next speaker will be Mr. Becker. Was that right, sir? MR. BECKER: Yes, sir. My name is Clyde Becker, B-E-C-K-E-R. I'm Local President at Peabody Marissa Mine, United Mine Workers Local 2412. I'm from the same mine that Mr. Hicks is from. I will not repeat a lot of the things that he did, although I agreed with all of the statements that he has mentioned. But, one of the issues that, and I will answer one of the questions that the panel asked Mr. Hicks, and that was, for the people that have respiratory problems, how do they go about being compensated or how do they fill out a form? Respiratory problems and we have, in the last two months, two gentlemen that have missed work due to respiratory problems. Very difficult and it's not like a piece of rock falling on you and hitting you, something happens immediately, and that is an accident and causes you to miss work. Respiratory problems in the coal mines from black lung or from diesel emissions come over a period of time. It's something that doesn't occur in a moment. And, those are very difficult in management and insurance companies fight those with everything they possibly can. It's very difficult for the individual to prove those things have occurred, because there's not one single occurrence that caused that problem for you to have. It comes over a period of time, different symptoms, many symptoms from nose bleeds, coughing, irritations in the eyes, throat and breathing problems. Those are very difficult to tie together all those symptoms to tie together, to say that they came from that one sort of issue. MR. BECKER: -- occurrence that caused that problem for you to have that comes over a period of time. Different symptoms, many symptoms from nose bleeds, coughing, irritations in the eyes, throat and breathing problems. Those are very difficult to tie together. All those symptoms to tie together to say that they came from that one certain issue. And that is diesel emission. But the single thing that is very alarming us that the people that has these symptoms are people that are actually operating that equipment maintaining are working in that area where diesel equipment is being operated. Our mechanics and our operators of our diesel equipment at the mines are the ones, and seems to be the only ones that has these respiratory problems, the eye problems, migraine headaches and things of that nature. So, what we feel is very important is some type of filtering system on all equipment used in underground coal mines. Do not separate and think that heavy equipment emits more of those particulates than light equipment. In Marisa Mine of all the -- of the 55 pieces of equipment, I can assure you that the light duty equipment is maintained and ran and used 95 to 96 percent of the entire shift. And that those are the equipment that is actually producing all the haze, the smell, the odor, the problems that we have at Marisa Mine. We still have one other gentleman from the mine that will address some of the other issues, but those are the problems that as far as health problems that we see dealing with diesel equipment. With that, I will close and answer any questions. MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Becker. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BECKER: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Our next speaker will be Mr. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm David Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. I'm from Local 5179 in -- Mine over in Southern Indiana. It's a surface mine. I just want to come to ask you, don't take surface mining lightly. We've had diesel equipment for years. And the problems in coming out that's being proven that the diesel is causing lung problems. We would ask you to look at our surface mining more closely to see if we've had -- it would have these problems. And that's all. MR. TOMB: Okay. Anyone, have any questions? MR. HANEY: What do you mean by service mining? MR. WILLIAMS: It's strip mining. MR. HANEY: Surface mining? MR. WILLIAMS: Surface mining, yes. MR. HANEY: I though you said service. Surface, okay. MR. SASEEN: How many pieces of diesel do you have? MR. WILLIAMS: At our mine we probably got close to 50 or 60 tractor, bulldozers, fans, all these trucks and different things. MR. TOMB: Let me just ask a question about that. What areas do you feel are the problems of surface mining? MR. WILLIAMS: Diesel mechanics in their garage areas that haul these trucks. While you're sitting there by the loader getting loaded, your fumes are all around you. It comes in the cab. MR. TOMB: Are the cabs usually conditioned? MR. WILLIAMS: Most of them are, but most of -- you know, they'll get leaks around the doors. And they'll come in, you know -- the fumes will come in somehow. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Our next presenter will be Mr. Kunkel. MR. KUNKEL: My name is Don Kunkel, K-U-N-K-E-L. I'm with the United Mineworkers, Local 15. I'm chairman of the safety committee. I'm from -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What mine, sir? MR. KUNKEL: -- to begin with, we've got approximately 25 pieces of diesel equipment. Two of them are permissible and two of them are lube trucks, which is heavy duty. And these lube trucks do have motor part welders on them, which works off of their engine. And we have four other personnel carriers that also have the welders that are powered by the diesel engine. One diesel generator for moving equipment in and out of the mine. And these -- whenever you run these welders and stuff, you know, you've got to have the motor wound up, and it does put out lots of emissions. And if we're using the diesel generator moving equipment in and out, you can get so far in the mine, approximately two miles or so, you have to -- for your neutral air. And -- that you're using for the diesel generator to get enough air across it to -- where you can stand it. In the last approximately two years, we've had approximately 12 citations, and I can get you copies of those if you request them, concerning ventilation. And I would say half of those are in the neutral area, isolation curtain and so forth. Getting torn down and being left like that. And also, people are real bad about coming in on the light duty equipment and personal carriers and stuff like that and they just leave them run. They think they're only going to be there for one or two minutes, but that usually turns into 10 or 15 minutes. They get side-tracked. That equipment's left there running. And if your isolation curtain's got a hole in it, then everything drafting into your work area. And as the other gentlemen have stated, most anyone you can talk to, your light duty equipment gets the least of the maintenance that it really should have. And we feel that all the light duty, especially the lube trucks, need to be 95 percent particulate removable filters on there. Anyone, have any questions? MR. SASEEN: The generator, do you know approximately what size horsepower that generator is? MR. KUNKEL: I can get you the information if you need it. MR. SASEEN: If you would, please. MR. KUNKEL: It's just brand new. We've only had it -- it's only been in service about approximately three months, but they've used it several times. MR. SASEEN: Okay. MR. KUNKEL: But I'll get you the information. MR. SASEEN: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Oldham will be our next presenter. MR. OLDHAM: My name is Edgar Oldham, Jr. O-L-D-H-A-M. I'm a representative for the United Mineworkers of America. And Mr. Chairman, and distinguished panel members, I appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak before you today. You know, I was sitting there thinking while we was sitting in this room, you know, the first thing that I'd kind of like to ask the Committee is if someone walked up to you and said, "I want you to enter this room," and there were signs on it that said it was contaminated with known chemicals such as benzine, dioxin, formaldehyde, arsenic, mercury compounds, inorganic lead and styrene, and they had little ventilation fans that you know, you would hopefully -- would pull the air out of the room and supposed to ventilate it. You know, or you have opportunity to put on a filter that you knew would prevent you from getting any of those contaminants in your body, you know, which one would you do? You know, would you walk in there, not knowing how much you were going to be exposed to once the door was closed behind you? You know, this is exactly what you're asking the coal miners all across this country to do, if every piece of diesel equipment that goes underground isn't filtered, and if we don't provide adequate ventilation to operate this equipment in. You know, I know the coal operators are telling you they can provide adequate ventilation to dilute and render harmless the chemicals produced by diesel equipment. But the fact is, they aren't properly ventilating mines today. And as you already have received some copies of ventilations, of violations that prove it's -- you know, ventilation in itself cannot be relied upon to work. We continue to find instances where problems occur with diesel emissions, where the operators try to manipulate the system in attempt to prevent a person from getting an adequate sample off the diesel exhaust. And also, you know, I was involved with this. And it was at the one mine where I was called upon that was having a problem with emissions continually going out of compliance on the diesel mantrip. And like you said, the company couldn't figure out the problem. So, their answer was to install an exhaust pipe across the back of the mantrip and to drill holes all across the pipe and then install the exhaust pipe into the larger pipe where you couldn't find the flow exhaust to obtain an adequate sample. And you know, we raised the issue about that, that it wasn't something that come from the manufacturer. That the company installed it, and it wasn't proper. They ended up removing that pipe, but then they had the manufacturer come back and install pipe on future pieces of equipment that they purchased that's got holes in it. So, you know, it come from the manufacturer now installed with what they call a diffuser. And it's nothing more than an attempt to prevent you from getting a good sample of the exhaust. Another instance, like you said, they drilled holes in the exhaust pipe underneath the diesel mantrip to relieve some of the pressure coming out of the tail of the exhaust. And this was intended to dilute underneath the mantrip, so you couldn't get a bad example. And we had to get the State and Federal involved with that, and they made them install a new exhaust pipe. But you know, that was just something that we couldn't fix the problem, so let's just find another answer. And like you said, another thing they're doing is installing a deflector at the end of the exhaust pipe in order to prevent you from testing emissions in the flow of the exhaust. And now, it seems like, you know, this issue was also raised, and now deflectors are coming out on the ends of exhaust pipes on new pieces of diesel equipment from the manufacturer. So, you know, it's something from the manufacturer now that's just a way and an attempt to keep you from getting an emissions test. You know, with manipulations like this going on, it's no different then it is with the duct sampling program, because someone is always trying to get around the system by not doing what's right, and miners suffer from it. There are filters available, and we suggest that the very least, installing a filter capable of removing at least 80 percent of diesel particulate matter on every new piece of diesel equipment used underground immediately, upon the publication date of the Final Rule. And within one year after the publication date of the Final Rule, each diesel engine used underground should be equipped with a filtration system capable of an 80 percent reduction in diesel particulate matter. And within two years after the publication date of the Final Rule, each new diesel engine that is taken underground should be equipped with a filtration system capable of on an average of 95 percent or greater of diesel particulate matters. Another issue that I'm having a hard time trying to understand is how the Agency came up with the heavy and light duty classifications of diesel-fired engines. As an individual who has done mechanic work all of their life, it would appear to me that it would have been simpler to categorize the equipment by horsepower ratings, combined with its intended use, and not just its intended use. I don't understand how you can have a diesel engine rated at 100 plus horsepower and one rated at 20 horsepower, and the 20 horsepower engine would be considered heavy duty, and the 100 plus horsepower engine would be considered light duty. Surely, the Agency doesn't believe the 100 plus horsepower engine emits less emissions than the 20 horsepower engine does. Even though it is my belief that everything should be filtered, if the Final Rule doesn't provide this, then the Agency needs to look at the heavy and light duty category because again, your method won't provide the needed protections that miners deserve. Another item I'm having a hard time understanding, is the Proposed Rule 751908. In the definition of heavy duty equipment, it states that: "Machines used to transport portable diesel fuel transportation units or portable lube units would be classified as heavy duty. If, for example, a vehicle such as the diesel Hummer" -- and we know we've got some of them in underground mines down in Alabama and various places, was supposed to be just used to transport people. And under the proposed rule, it will be considered light duty. But if a company decided to use it one time to transport a portable lube unit to a section, would it change its classification, or what would happen? You know, I don't know. In my opinion, the Agency has left too many gray areas when it comes to classifying equipment, which is another reason why all diesel equipment should be filtered and in the timeframe as outlined in the UMWA comments. Another thing that comes to my mind when you talk about the outer areas, was that at the Ohio 11 Mine. -- at the face. A lot of times they have problems keeping -- on the duct lines. And it's common with the roadways. So, what do they do? They hang a curtain up to block the air to force it over to the belt land where they can get their 50 feet a minute, which would be in compliance. But what's that doing to the diesel equipment? You know, I believe you're providing and boxing in and having dead areas on your roadway by doing that. It can't be providing good and adequate ventilation up the travelway. So, you know, I think that's a problem and it's one that needs to be looked at and addressed. You know, as the brother from the surface also talked about, I would like to mention the surface miners. You know, if the Agency develops a sampling procedure for diesel particulate matter, then it should apply to all miners, both surface and underground. The surface miners shouldn't be left behind like they have been in the dust sampling. Until recently as the Agency began to focus on the dust problems at surface mines -- and this shouldn't happen -- what's happening for diesel particulate matter or any other diesel legislation that could apply to surface mines. And like you said, MSHA may want to visit some of the diesel shops and especially during the winter months, to see for themselves just what miners in the shops are being exposed to. Another issue that I'd like to just talk about is including the specifications of the diesel engines and listing the diesel equipment in the mine ventilation plans, because I'm hearing you know, that some people are not wanting to list those specifications in the mine ventilation plan or on the equipment list and stuff. So, you know, this should be done so the miners and their -- miners representatives will have a place that they can go to to find out, you know, what these specifications are, what the air readings are or the requirements for the ventilations. And just have somewhere where they can go to find this information out, and to know, you know, just how many pieces of equipment are being utilized at the mines, because that's the only way they'd know. You know, if you go to a job and you work there every day and you go to one section, you don't really know a lot of times how many pieces of equipment at's your mine. So, you know, they need to know, you know, what's being used at the mine. And also, I have copies, which two of the people couldn't make it today, but these are two mines. They're relatively small mines, but in about a two-year period, a total of 87 violations on ventilation at these two operations. And you know, I'd like to submit these to the Committee. MR. TOMB: Are these ventilation violations? MR. OLDHAM: Ventilation only. MR. TOMB: Only. MR. OLDHAM: So, those are totally ventilation violations at operations at the Sebree No. 1 Mine and the Martwick Mine in Kentucky. And you know, in closing, I'd just like to say that I don't read anywhere in the Act where Congress declared a diesel engine of this most precious resource, but it did, in fact, declare our miners. Therefore, if the technology is available to protect miners from the pollutants emitted from diesel exhaust, then I truly feel the Agency is charged with providing that protection. The technology is here. It's available, and it should be utilized because it's the right thing to do, and the miners across this country deserve it. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you. MR. OLDHAM: Now, I'll take any questions that you have. MR. TOMB: Questions? Mr. Ford? MR. FORD: Yes. Concerning the list of diesel- powered equipment, what about if there was a standard that said that that list with all pertinent information should be kept at the mine or a central location, but not in the mine ventilation plans? Do you think there'd be a problem with that kind of a standard? MR. OLDHAM: It may not be as long as it was made available to the represented miners. MR. FORD: Right, with a condition saying that it would be made available to a miner's rep or MSHA personnel. MR. OLDHAM: Yes. But my only problem is -- I mean, in understanding what the big deal, they're providing it in the ventilation plans today. So, you know, why not continue the practice of what they're doing? MR. FORD: Okay, thank you. MR. TOMB: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. What I'd like to do is take a -- and I'd ask you for your cooperation in this because we're going to have -- I don't know if you're going to eat here or not, but it's going to be a tough day in the restaurant today. And I think they're serving from 11:30 -- 11:00 to 12:30. But what I'd like to do is take a 10-minute break, get a stretch, come back here at 11:00 and then go for another 50 minutes. And then we'll go to lunch, and we'll come back here at 1:00 and go for the rest of the afternoon. Is that okay? Does that make sense to everybody? Let's take a 10-minute break. (Whereupon, a short break was taken.) MR. TOMB: If we can get back to the presentations. Our next presenter will be a Mr. Klausing. MR. KLAUSING: My name is Tom Klausing. K-L-A-U-S-I-N-G, Sr. I work for Old Ben Ziegler Mine No. 11 at Corville, Illinois. We have approximately 36 pieces of diesel equipment underground, two service centers, which are considered heavy duty, eight pick-ups, 13 mantrips, two rovers, six flatbed trucks, full scoops and one diesel rockduster. Been in mines approximately since 1989, 1990 till this day. I just entered in as record, 26 ventilation citations and 16 on dust control. And basically entered them to give you some kind of an idea that management can't even control or monitor the ventilation or dust, let alone the diesel problem that we've been having. As far as testing on the equipment, management does the testing. Whether it's done properly or not, we're nine chances out of ten, we're not around there unless MSHA inspectors is around there at the same time that management's doing the testing or the MSHA's inspectors testing. Maintenance on equipment is as needed, basically, changing the filters. If they quit running, they start blowing out black smoke and they only end up changing the filter. Ziegler Old Ben Coal Company is notorious for the lack of maintenance on anything. As far as my understanding, almost every coal mine's that way. The health problems that we've been having at the mine as far as the people complaining about the diesel smoke is where you're in a confined area. The pod duster is a prime example. You're hose dusting, the diesel motor is blowing right back onto the operator, and the pod -- the guy that's running the hose duster, of course, is in on the belt line somewhere. But we have talked to management, tried to get the -- reroute the exhaust on the diesel pod duster. So far, we've not succeeded on that yet. I just kind of bring this up. You can take it however you want to. I know many of you probably either drove here in a truck, car or whatever, and you've seen semis on the road. And you probably followed some of them, and you've seen the black soot that comes out of these semi- trucks. Well, it's similar underground. But you can't really see that black soot underground because of the -- either the lighting or whatever, you know. But if you would pull up behind one of them diesel scoops or mantrip or whatever, you'll see a blue haze behind that, usually, with the headlights or something. And that's what we've got to put up with. And that's what we're here today to ask you to do all you can do for us. So, that's all I've got. Any questions? MR. TOMB: Jon? MR. KOGUT: I don't know if I heard you correctly, but did you say that the maintenance procedure was to change filters whenever the black soot became visible? MR. KLAUSING: Maintenance on most of the equipment underground on diesel equipment, as a matter of fact any equipment, is as needed, basically. MR. KOGUT: But do you use filters on some of your equipment? MR. KLAUSING: I'm talking about air filters. MR. KOGUT: Oh, you're talking about air filters? MR. KLAUSING: Yeah. We don't have -- all these are non-permissible equipment. That repeats what I told you about. MR. TOMB: Are any of those pieces of equipment classified as heavy duty? MR. KLAUSING: Yeah, the two service centers that I just told you about. MR. TOMB: Okay. Only the two? MR. KLAUSING: Two service centers. They're in on the units. They're not permissible. They have to -- MR. TOMB: Yes. But they're classified as heavy duty? MR. KLAUSING: Yes. MR. TOMB: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. MR. KLAUSING: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Our next presenter will be Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: My name's Larry Todd, T-O-D-D, United Mineworkers, Local 2412. I work at the Peabody Marisa Mine. A few of my colleagues already spoke to you, so I won't give you the facts and figures. Put yourself in the position as everybody's been behind the buses in the big city and everything else. You roll your windows up. It doesn't do much good. And that's what we work with eight hours, ten hours, particularly, at our mines. We're on 10-hour shifts. And separate your in-by and out-by. Out-by is past the last couple of -- So, we've got equipment that works in the sections, what you deem as a light duty -- four or five hours. Two or three people run them, so you've got equipment that works in the section itself. And to make another little story, and I've told other people. Since the '93 strike when we tried to get more diesel equipment, we don't have them little mice running around anymore, whether they got out or it's coincidence or what, unless the lab rats told them that they tested. But I just wanted to make a couple of comments, and I appreciate your time. MR. TOMB: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions? Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Todd. Our next presenter will be Mr. Tollston. Okay, Mr. Tollston is not here. Then, we'll go with Mr. Deppe. MR. DEPPE: My name is Dave Deppe, D-E-P-P-E, UMWA. I work at -- well, I worked at 41392 --. Presently laid off. I've been a mechanic for 23 years at the mines. It's a surface mine, and I'd like to address the problems we have at a surface mine. In the winter time when you close the doors, if you have anything in the shop running, it fills the shop full of smoke. You can't hardly even see. And it makes your eyes water, your throat sore. And I don't see how the underground people can stand anything that's not filtered, because I can go outside and get a breath of fresh air if I need to. We have ventilation fans, but nobody wants to turn them on because it sucks all the heat out of the garage. And as far as what I've heard on the testing procedure in the automotive sector, when they test for hydrocarbons and stuff, they run a sniffer up the tailpipe to measure what exhaust gases are. I don't know how you'd get an accurate test by just holding such a thing behind the exhaust. And I want to thank you for your time. MR. TOMB: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions? MR. SASEEN: Yes. How many, in a typical time in the shop, how many pieces of diesel would be in your shop? MR. DEPPE: At one time? MR. SASEEN: Yes. MR. DEPPE: Oh, you might have -- when we were in production, there may be 17 pieces of equipment at one time, not all running, but at least they're there. MR. SASEEN: Okay. MR. DEPPE: It doesn't take very long for say, 150-ton hauling truck to fill the shop full a smoke with the door shut. MR. SASEEN: I was going to say these are mostly large haul trucks or loaders that are being serviced? MR. DEPPE: Yes. MR. KOGUT: Okay. MR. TOMB: You had a question? MR. KOGUT: How much of the time do you estimate that the equipment is actually running in the shop? MR. DEPPE: Most of it's for diagnosis time or testing time on something that's -- it wouldn't be very long. But I've seen anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes of time running. But it probably takes about an average of five minutes to fill the shop full of smoke. MR. TOMB: You don't make any provisions for exhausting the exhaust? MR. DEPPE: No. They installed three exhaust fans. They're in the roof of the building. But like I said, in the winter time, you suck every bit of the heat out of the garage if you run that. MR. TOMB: There's no tail pipe exhaust? MR. DEPPE: No, there's nothing, nothing at all. MR. TOMB: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Deppe. Our next presenter will be Mr. Kellerman. MR. KELLERMAN: I feel my comments have already been addressed. MR. TOMB: Okay. Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: Good morning. My name is Tim Miller, M-I-L-L-E-R. I'm the local president of Local 5138, Lone Star Energy. You'll notice today here as you have a lot of mine workers here, these mine workers are here because they don't have the fear of speaking out because they have union protection. I work at a mine that was non-union for 50 years. We've been union for one year. So, this is our first go-around to have the ability to speak out. And I'm here today to speak out on behalf of all coal miners, because if you didn't have the fear of the non- union miner from losing his job, this room couldn't hold everybody that could be here. So, just please remember that all underground mines have this diesel equipment. And we've had it since 1981 in our mine. We've been exposed to it for years and years and years. We didn't have the ability to speak out until now. But you will notice that your room will have plenty of foremen and company officials from those non-union mines. But again, you won't notice those non-union employees here because of fear of losing their jobs. I'd like to move on. I started in the coal mines in 1979. And when I first started in the mines, I started like I said, in the non-union mines. And safety was pretty lax, but I did notice a steady improvement as MSHA -- like the '69 Safety Health Act. We started following that and getting better, and things were improving. But then we had the diesel equipment, and it come into the mine. And the '69 Health -- Mine Safety Health Act, one thing it insured was that there would be no section that would be on the same -- with another section. I think we all understand that here on the panel is what I'm saying. You would have fresh intake air that would be delivered to each individual section and no -- would go across another section. Our mine is a long wall mine. We have three continuous miner units and a long wall. We have approximately 39 pieces of diesel equipment. A small portion, probably eight, nine, heavy duty, the rest, what you guys consider light duty equipment. Our mine is ventilated through the supply row. The intake air comes right directly down the supply row. Okay? This is where all the diesel equipment motivates out by the units. My point that I'm trying to make is that every piece of diesel equipment that operates on our supply row is all that diesel -- all that diesel fumes and smoke's taken directly to the men. Okay? Every bit of it. So, when I look at the '69 Health Act and think about the individual with fresh intake air, like it was when I started in the mines in '79, we had fresh intake air. It was uncontaminated air. It was fresh air. The intake was timbered all the way, but it was fresh air. But it's not anymore. In this day and age, with the plans that we have in our mine, you have contaminated air from the word go. And every man in that mine that works in that mine is breathing all this diesel. And whether it be close -- whether you're close or not, really doesn't matter. I, myself, spent about four hours behind a diesel yesterday, and I have a sore throat today, sore tonsils, runny nose and all the symptoms that everyone has. And there's no way to get away from them. You operate a piece of equipment, close quarters like, that's going to happen. You know, it's like Mr. Oldham said. You know, you just go figure. If you get behind a tailpipe, you know, it's going to kill you eventually, whether slow death or quick death. I'd also like to talk about some of the dilution factors and the height of coals and intake air. We work in a mine that's approximately seven to eight feet in height. And with all this height and with all the air we have, we have plenty of intake air, there's no doubt. But that doesn't dilute the exhaust. You know, that exhaust again, it carries on down the airways and goes to each and every man in the working section. And that's one thing that you heard all the mineworkers here today talk about, is -- you know, you've got light duty and what we call, so-called heavy duty. And I can't understand all of it is going right up our sinuses and down our lungs. So, what's the difference? I just can't see that. I just want to also touch on some personal experiences I've had myself. On our long wall, we have a three entry system. If any of you understand what I'm saying, we maintain three entries. And we basically make territory -- three miner units for the long wall. And when we're setting the long wall up -- and when I say setting it up, you know, when we're moving into a new block of coal, we have basically one travelway in and out that we can take equipment in and out except for near the long wall. I witnessed myself before this instance, 14 pieces of diesel equipment on one section. That's in one air course separated from the other units, 14 pieces. Only two or three may be heavy duty, and the rest again, what's so- called light duty. But the guys come to me -- I didn't announce my position. I'm the local president of 5138. They come to me and tell me of the situations of the burning nose and the burning eyes and problems. We've had the Department of Mines and Minerals come in before and maybe shut everything down but one scoop. But we all know, just like you said, Mr. Chairman, you were at a mine that the bus took you to a section, and it was parked all day. I'm sure it was parked all day while you were there. But when you're not there, it's no different when the MSHA inspectors are not there. We know what goes on. It's business as usual. And these guys come to me to complain about the sensitive areas of breathing this dust. They constantly have lung irritations, but it seems like that you know, we continue to ignore the situation. And that's what we're here today for is to make sure that we understand that we can't -- as coal miners see the difference in heavy duty or light duty, it all emits the noxious gases. We all know that. I think we're all under the understanding of that. We know the CO, the NO, the NO2. We know what it'll do to you. So, I can't understand why we're even here, like the other gentleman in front of me said. We have basically -- we have diesel equipment in every area of our mines, not just in small areas or undefined areas. Like some of the guys before us have talked about their diesel equipment is in isolated areas where they have neutrals, we don't have them. There's a big problem with that. We have fresh flow intake, and we maintain our well. I can't complain. Our people do a good job at ventilation. We have to. We have a long wall. We have a lot of ventilation. But we still do have those areas where equipment is in areas that are lowly ventilated, but we do have a lot of people there that have been sick with diesel equipment. And as far as what you tell us here today about being able to fill certain forms, that's never been done that I know of at our company. But our company employs about somewhere in the neighborhood of roughly -- our mine -- the Baker Mine is about 350 people. And I've always felt from day one that these 350 people, including myself, were basically guinea pigs. No one knows what this diesel is going to do to us. But some day, I guess my grandchildren will. That's all I have. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you. Any questions? I just have one. Is it possible for you to provide us with a list of the equipment and the time that it operates? This is just data we'd like to have from the mines using diesel equipment. MR. MILLER: What I'd like to request -- I have no problem with that. We have company officials here from my mines, and they're very familiar with that. And when they speak, I'd like for you to ask, you know, where we can compare what they say the application of the equipment is and the time it's used in a day. MR. TOMB: Well, I don't quite understand. MR. MILLER: Okay. We have company officials here. MR. TOMB: Yes, uh-huh. MR. MILLER: Okay. I don't know if they're going to speak or not. MR. TOMB: Oh, okay. MR. MILLER: But if they speak, they're here, they can probably offer you that information. MR. TOMB: Oh, okay. Very good. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Thank you. MR. TOMB: I'm not sure of this next name, Mr. Tuttle? MR. TREVIAL: I have no comment. MR. TOMB: Did I get the name right? MR. TREVIAL: Trevial. Trevial. MR. TOMB: Trevial. Okay, I'm sorry. Mr. Steve Bruk. MR. BRUK: My name is Steve Bruk, and I'm a local safety committeeman in Local 15 -- MR. TOMB: Would you spell that for the record? MR. BRUK: My last name? MR. TOMB: Yes. MR. BRUK: B-R-U-K. MR. TOMB: Thank you. MR. BRUK: And I just have one question is all I have. Is when these MSHA inspectors start to -- they're provided with a list of all the diesel equipment on a property. Okay? Mysteriously, when it comes time for them to make -- to inspect this diesel equipment, if a company knows that a particular piece of equipment is out of compliance, it disappears. So, my question is to you, why does MSHA allow this condition to exist? Why doesn't the inspector demand to see a particular piece of equipment? Because if he doesn't inspect it, it doesn't get fixed. And that's all I have. MR. TOMB: Okay. I'm not sure I can answer your question at this particular time. I'll ask that question now, and I'm sure it gets back to what an inspector procedure is from that district office. Okay? So, I'd just have to ask that question for you. I'm sorry I can't give you the answer right now to that question. MR. BRUK: Okay. Thank you. MR. TOMB: But I guess your issue is that there is a procedure when inspectors come in to inspect the equipment, but many times, in your opinion, what's polluting equipment -- the equipment that is polluting, okay, is not in operation at the time when needing an inspection, therefore, it doesn't get inspected. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lumas? MR. LUMAS: My name is Mark Lumas, chairman of the safety committee, Wabash Mine, Local 1791. I do have a list and an average furnished to me by management on the run time on heavy and light duty equipment. On an average weekday on a shift, which is our day shift, we have approximately 36 hours of mantrip planned, which consists of Isuzu pick-up trucks and Wallace diesel mantrips, four-seaters, five-seaters, diesel, which all have the same engine. MR. TOMB: This would be light duty equipment? MR. LUMAS: These would be considered light duty. And there again, I cannot understand how you can differentiate the difference between a light duty and heavy duty. My opinion is they should be all classified as one, and that being heavy duty, because pick-up trucks are used to haul small parts, which can consist of motors off Meyers diesel pump, off of different various equipment. And these pick-ups -- and also may I state that we have -- we went to -- fault. And we have an entry that's on a 17 percent grade. And you have to run these vehicles in low gear in order to make it up this, which in my opinion, puts a full load on your engine. We also have CLAs or -- they're a versatile piece of equipment. They have a set of forks on those that you can use for maintenance, unload supplies, various things. They also come with a scoop bucket. Okay, now, according to MSHA, when you have the scoop bucket on it for cleaning belt lines for cleaning up -- those are considered heavy duty. When you put the forks on those, those are considered light duty. Now, I can take and put those forks on there and I can put that engine under a heavier load with the forks on it, than I can with the bucket on it. Also, that -- also pertains to -- we have -- supply tractors. The side scenario falls through there when they're pulling a diesel fuel tank with 500 gallons of diesel fuel, 500 gallons of hydraulic fuel, antifreeze, these are only fifth wheel, they're considered heavy duty. Now, I can take that same tractor, pull its supply car so the roofbolts, roofblades, timbers, crosscars, and that engine is put under the same load, that according to MSHA, heavy duty and light duty. We have Jeffrey diesel ramcars, which are considered heavy duty used on our continuous line sections for hauling coal. Now, the CLAs factor the amount of hours, they'll run on -- I'm talking one shift now. They possibly ran an average of five hours, okay? And so, we have a total of light duty time between the mantrips and the CLAs of approximately 34 percent. Ramcars we run approximately 52 hours. And this is with -- we ran four ram -- we had two continuous mining sections. So, we run eight ramcars. Let's see. At approximately six and a half operating hours. The Gattman tow tractors, we run approximately 14 hours. We have diesel Wagner scoops that are ran approximately nine and half hours. And then we have a diesel grader and a diesel roofbolter, which are run approximately five hours. So, we have a total of 80 and a half hours, which is 66 percent heavy duty time in one shift. And I have those broke down. Those are broke down in shifts -- for production shifts and also for idle shifts. I have a total for -- we work idle work on weekends, Saturdays and Sundays, plus our production time. I have a total hours run time for light duty equipment, I have 525 and a half hours or 36 percent. I have 922 and a half hours, total heavy duty time or 64 percent. We have -- but we have the same -- all of us here, we have all repeated -- we have the same problems. Maintenance is a problem. We do have -- some of our equipment does have exhaust filters, particularly exhaust filters. In my opinion, all diesel equipment needs some sort of filtration system, and whether it be considered heavy duty, light duty. They all emit the diesel particulate, which can be cancer-causing and a hazard to our health. So, my plea is that MSHA will consider all the facts presented here today and that we can all come to a compromise for the health and safety of our miners. And we represent all miners, non-union, as well as union. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Lumas. Any questions? George? MR. SASEEN: Yeah. On those Jeffrey permissible units, do they have water scrubbers, or are they just the -- system? MR. LUMAS: Water. And we are testing a new DST dry scrubber. We have one ramcar that does have the new dry scrubber, and we have one ramcar that's out for rebuild that will come back with the dry scrubber. MR. SASEEN: Okay. On the one you're using, how much filter life are you getting on the machine? MR. LUMAS: I think approximately 20 hours. MR. SASEEN: Okay. And -- MR. LUMAS: Now -- excuse me. Now, with some of our exhaust filters, we have had some problems. We've had some --. In the last two months, there have been I believe about four instances where we've had the exhaust filter catch on fire due to lack of maintenance. MR. SASEEN: Was that on a DST? MR. LUMAS: No, that's on water scrubber. MR. SASEEN: Oh, so you did have some exhaust filters on some water scrubbers? MR. LUMAS: Yes, we do. MR. SASEEN: And how many units? MR. LUMAS: We have approximately eight ramcars, with one -- MR. SASEEN: With filters. I'm sorry. MR. LUMAS: All eight of them have the -- MR. SASEEN: Filters. MR. LUMAS: -- exhaust filters. MR. SASEEN: And they're all water scrubbers? MR. LUMAS: Except for the one. MR. SASEEN: Except for the one. MR. LUMAS: It still has an exhaust filter. MR. SASEEN: Okay. That's the dry system? MR. LUMAS: Right. MR. SASEEN: Okay. You said about 20 hours. Is that for the wet systems that you're getting an average? MR. LUMAS: Yes. MR. SASEEN: Okay. MR. LUMAS: They are getting some longer life out of the filter on the dry scrubber system. Now, approximately what the difference is right off-hand, I can't tell you that. MR. SASEEN: And they have the CAT engines, do you know, or is it MWM? MR. LUMAS: I honestly don't know. MR. SASEEN: Like 4114s? MR. LUMAS: 4110s. MR. SASEEN: 4110s. I have the MW on there. How long does it take to change the filters? Do you have an idea? MR. LUMAS: I'm going to say 10 minutes, you know, I mean, if you have to go get your filter. If you have the filter readily available. MR. SASEEN: Do you know what the cost for those filters are? MR. LUMAS: No, I do not. MR. SASEEN: Okay, thank you. MR. TOMB: Any other questions? MR. FORD: Yes. Sir, I've got one quick question. Can you tell us what type -- if there was any training that mechanics in the mine received concerning these filters? MR. LUMAS: In the last year, due to MSHA regulations, all of our mechanics have been trained in maintenance of car diesel equipment. MR. FORD: Okay. What about specifically the filters, especially the dry system? MR. LUMAS: Yes. They were -- because that is a new system and they were trained in the maintenance of the dry scrubber system. MR. FORD: Okay. Do you know like how that took place? Was it the people in the mine themselves, or did like a manufacturer come in and give that training? MR. LUMAS: Well, the company I work for, they were instrumental in developing the dry scrubber system. And they were trained internally. MR. FORD: Okay, thank you. MR. TOMB: I have one question for clarification. Maybe I heard you wrong before. I thought when you made your presentation, you said that you had similar type problems what other people had, including maintenance problems -- MR. LUMAS: Correct -- MR. TOMB: -- in your mine. Now -- and you just said that everybody has been trained in maintenance and everything. So, can you elaborate maybe a little bit on the other problems you're talking about? MR. LUMAS: Well, our mine is -- you know, we're unlike any other -- I mean, we're like -- just like the rest of the mines. A year and a half ago, we had a massive layoff and massive cutbacks. But as everyone that's worked in a coal mine, they don't like to repair things until absolutely that piece of equipment will just no longer motivate. And production is number one on the list. Cost is another thing. If you can run a piece of equipment for any length of time, then we're saving without doing any maintenance to it. MR. TOMB: Do you have a regular maintenance program? MR. LUMAS: Well, they will tell you that they have a regular maintenance program, let me put it that way. Now, as far as following their maintenance program, they will also tell you that they have a wash program to clean equipment. Yes, they do have these plans. Now, ask me if they use those plans -- utilize those plans. In my opinion, no. MR. TOMB: Okay. So, what you're saying then is the people have been trained, though. You have trained people and so forth. MR. LUMAS: Yes. MR. TOMB: When the maintenance is done and so forth is another story I think is what you're saying. MR. LUMAS: Correct. MR. TOMB: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Price will be our next presenter. MR. PRICE: My name is Gil Price, and I'm from Local 2412. And Price is P-R-I-C-E. Everybody's touching on a lot of the same stuff. And it's because of the same problems at all the mines. One of the things that they mention -- I'm not going to reiterate on everything they mention. I'm going to try to bring some new stuff here. For one thing, a mantrip -- your mantrips are always operated in the neutral. They're not considered heavy equipment, but they put out just as much diesel emissions as everything else does. They're under a load. They're usually going fast to get in a unit and fast to get out. And the one thing nobody mentions, and it's always bothered me, is that when you've got a piece of diesel equipment that comes in the mine and you say, "We're going to regulate that this machine's going to be in compliance with the Federal law," you have a base number for your CO emissions on the machine. And that number is taken at the mine when it gets underground. And that's what you have to keep that machine in compliance with. Who says that number is in compliance? Nobody does. Nobody regulates that. If you check that machine and that machine's out of compliance when it gets there, it remains out of compliance the entire time it's at the mine. You don't regulate the numbers on that. You tell us to take a base number there and that's going to be your compliance number. So, if it's out of compliance when we get it, it's always out of compliance. So, we're breathing that stuff with no regulation on it. And that's the CO of the exhaust that's killing people. Then, you've got -- the Federal law says within the neutrals, you have to have a movement of air. These machines are operating always in the neutral. And if you've got diesel scoops or service centers and that, and they break down in the unit or just out by the units, then they're repaired right there. Now, they're in the neutral. So, all you have is a movement of air, which is not enough air to dispense the diesel emissions or the exhaust and whoever the operator are, the repairman's working on them is right there in that neutral with that, with just a movement of air. So, they're breathing that fumes the entire time. If it takes 15 minutes to fix it or if it's got a fuel problem, you got to bleed the lines and that, and it takes you three hours to fix it, you're breathing those fumes in neutral with no air. The carcinogens in there -- you know, the study by the Cancer Institute -- they did one in '88 -- last part of '88, first part of '89. And they concluded that the fumes contained particulates that were carcinogenic to human beings. And in March, I think of this year, in Evansville, Indiana, MSHA gave a two-day seminar up there for vendors and anybody wanting to attend on diesel emissions. And they gave us a book in there that had a chart in it. You were there. I saw you there. Remember the chart? The chart, whenever it was written or drawn up, the underground coal miner was basically off the chart when the chart was made. Now, most of the time when you make a chart, you've got room for improvement and room to get worse. Well, we left a lot of room for improvement there, but we didn't leave the underground coal miner any room to get any worse then he was at that time. We were almost off the chart. So, we were breathing basically as much as you thought we could breathe in. And I haven't seen any change in that. But what I did see was a 15-year study that was conclusive with the hazards of particulate matter. And the only relief I have from that is that the Board still has that under review. But people touched on -- you know, you have diesel particular matter, it's been determined can cause upper respiratory infections and migraine headaches, cancer, lung disease and heart disease. Now, you have an opportunity and you're in a position to help these people not to breath this stuff, and why it took this long for a review -- I understand how red tape works, and I'm very understanding of how the Government works. But I don't understand why it takes 15 years to help people quit breathing stuff that's killing them. And I, for one, I don't -- I don't really know what phosphorous smells like. I know if I saw my kid playing with it, I'd slap him. Or lead or zinc or arsenic or creosol. Creosol stinks, I know that. But all these carcinogens are in these diesel emissions, and we're breathing them every day. And we've got guys in our mines that's got upper respiratory infections, guys that got coughs. I'm being treated right now for migraine headaches because I work on these things all the time. And the triglycerides in my system are supposed to be around 200. Right now, they're 677. This is an ongoing thing with me, and I've been breathing this and I've been raising hell about it for a couple years now, but one of these days I'll get somebody to listen. But there's 40 carcinogenic materials in diesel exhaust they say, as a survey of April 9, 1998 in that California report, but nobody tells me how many particulates are in a gallon of diesel fuel. I have no idea. I don't really know what percentage of each carcinogen is in a gallon of diesel fuel. We burn 60,000 a year -- gallons. Since we've had the diesels, we burn 420 to 480 gallons of diesel fuel. So, I don't know how much of it we breathe, and I don't know how many people are sick on account of it. But you know, the system says that a two-cylinder engine which a gentleman touched on, is heavy equipment, depending on what it's on. And a four-cylinder diesel engine is not heavy equipment. It doesn't make any difference. Your light duty or your light maintenance is running in neutral because it's not heavy duty, you know. And it's putting out just as much fumes, but it's in neutral where you don't have the air. You don't have 35,000 -- you might have 35,000 on the intake sometimes, 9,000 on the return, but in neutral you've got movement. You're breathing the same amount of fumes in there as you're diluting anywhere else. You have to pass over the machine to dilute it. But in the neutrals, nobody cares if something is broke down in the neutrals and you're breathing that stuff and you end up sick from it. You people have an opportunity to do something really good here. And this should have been done -- I'm not laying any blame or trying to piss anybody off, although that's what I'm really best at, but for 15 years you've been reviewing something. Now, I'm a great shopper because if I look at something for five minutes and I don't like it, I don't buy it. But it don't take me five minutes to decide if it's something good or not. But 15 years is way too long, and we've got people sick, and we probably had people die from it. I checked these machines, and if a filter goes bad or gets clogged up, it coughs and sputters and makes you sick. Your throat hurts and that, and if you don't work on it -- if you don't know what's wrong with it, then if you're conscientious about it, you might tell your boss when he leaves that day, "Hey, that thing's really put out a lot of smoke." But if the next guy gets on it and he's the laborer or an operator, whatever, he don't normally run that machine, he gets on it and he thinks it's supposed to be that way. Well, if it had a base number of 456 parts per million CO when you checked it and it came underground, and now it's got 400, you think, "Well, hell, that's in compliance." But you don't know if it was in compliance when it came underground. You're breathing this stuff, and there's no way for you to know. Nobody ever regulated what a safe number was on exhaust. They said, "Take a check. If it gets higher than that, put it back in compliance." And that's all I've got. MR. TOMB: Thank you. Do you have any questions? MR. SASEEN: Mr. Price, I don't know if I missed this at the beginning. You're a mechanic? MR. PRICE: Yeah. MR. SASEEN: Okay. In the neutrals, you said you're doing a lot of work on the scene to break down. Is there any way of removing in your situation moving from the man working, like piping it somewhere else? MR. PRICE: There's really no way to do that. You could move it unless it's a fuel problem, or we've got electric solenoids that pull in the fuel systems on the machines. And if that solenoid's broke, you've got to put one on it, and you've got to adjust it, so that when you start, your hold circuit is tied in with your start circuit. So, you've got to adjust that solenoid so that it drops off when you shut the machine off, holds in when you try to start it. So, you adjust it right there. And some of those machines, I know for a fact when they came there, they could not possibly have been decent enough for a human being to breathe. So, because we took a base number and said, "This is what we're going to go by," that's what we still go by. And there's not very many. And I'm not laying blame. I'm not. I'm lucky where I work at. If I have a problem, usually it don't take anybody very long to get tired of listening to me. So, I can go in and holler about it for awhile, you know, and they'll fix it or will do something with it. But this is an ongoing problem. And a lot of times we can't move a machine to a rush of intake air. We can't take them in the intake to begin with. So, wherever you're working on that, most of the time we're in the neutrals. And if we're in the shop working on them, there's exhaust fans in there. We've only got two in one bay, and we've got a six-bay shop. But if you're working on it here, a lot -- the guy that works with me, he's had four upper respiratory infections this year, and he's never been sick before, never had a problem. I haven't missed a day of work since back in the '80s. But I leave now and I go to the hospital and have blood work done and then I come back to work. Takes about an hour and a half. And I'm trying to get figured out what's wrong with me and what's wrong with him and what's wrong with Chris Wisnick, but I'm pretty sure I know. It's what we're breathing. You know, you don't want to blame anybody, but then you get aggravated because a review goes on. I mean, if I were -- if you pick up a paper and you say, "The National Cancer Institute says this." Well, they put it on packs of cigarettes and everybody went "Shit" and threw them out, you know. A lot of people did, you know. Some didn't. But the point I'm trying to make is when a National Cancer Institute does a study and review and they said, "This is hazardous to your health," and they give it to a group of people that's governing your health and safety underground, and they review it for 15 years or 10 years, and it's still under review, you know, it pisses me off. But I don't know what it does to everybody else. I'm sure it don't make you very happy, you know. MR. TOMB: It gave me gray hair. MR. PRICE: It gave you gray hair. What about this? I think I'm sick from it. I think other people are sick from it. If you've got a chance to do something good here, don't pass it up. These stipulations on the numbers, I'm saying, on the base numbers should have been on those machines for they ever came underground. They really should have. I'll answer any questions, because I know just basically everything. MR. TOMB: Thank you for your presentation. MR. PRICE: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Okay. As pre-planned, why don't we take our lunch break now and get back here if we can about ten to one, so we can get started right at one o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing recessed to reconvene at 12:50 p.m., this same day, Monday, December 15, 1998.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N MR. TOMB: Our next presenter will be Mr. Filkins. MR. FILKINS: My name is Melvin Filkins, F-I-L-K- I-N-S. I'm with Local 1545, and I work at the Wren Lake Consol Mine. At our mine we've got fifty-eight pieces of diesel equipment, and I've got you eighty citations in the last two and a half years here, on ventilation at our mine. One of the biggest problems at our mine is, -- we've got a long wall mine; sitting up the long wall. I get more complaints on guys with sick headaches, eyes burning and sore throats, with the long wall set up, because you've got your diesel equipment moving in and out of there all the time, -- equipment. And I think it would be very poor just to put the filters on the heavy-duty equipment when we've got a lot of light-duty equipment at that mine. We need it on all the equipment. I get migraine headaches now, which I never did get. And I asked my doctor about it and he said, "Probably in that diesel fumes it will cause you to have a migraine headache". And they're no fun. That's basically about all I've got to say, as compared to what the man before me said. MR. TOMB: Okay. Any questions? MR. MCKINNEY: Do you all have the same types of problems on the recovery, when you're doing the long wall recovery, as you do from your setups? MR. FILKINS: Not as much on the recovery, because it's back out at the mouth of the unit, so you've got more air going out there, and you've got less, you know, diesel equipment coming in. The recovery is hauling into the, -- MR. MCKINNEY: So, it's a lot worse on the setups than it is on the recovery? MR. FILKINS: Yes. MR. TOMB: How much light-duty equipment is used in the setup? MR. FILKINS: Well, we've got all kind of light- duty equipment coming in and out of there all the time. We've got a lot of, -- MR. TOMB: I mean, used in the mine, or just, -- I'm talking about the setup only? MR. FILKINS: You've got the scooters, you know, that the foreman and stuff drive, and the mechanics and stuff drive. So you've got quite a bit of equipment going in and out of there. And you've got, -- we've got four Gatlin tractors, and that would be like two on that side. And you've got four diesel scoops, Wagner Scoops, that come in there. MR. TOMB: Those would be heavy-duty though, right? MR. FILKINS: Yeah, but they're all outby equipment now, because they took the scrubbers off the scoops we got. MR. TOMB: Okay. Any other questions? (No Verbal Response) MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Filkins. MR. FILKINS: I'd like to give you these, -- these citations. MR. TOMB: Thank you. Is it too much trouble to ask you to submit that equipment that you use, and its use, and its time of use? MR. FILKINS: I can try to get it for you. MR. TOMB: Can you? MR. FILKINS: Yes sir. MR. TOMB: I'd appreciate that if you could. Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: My name's Dan Brown, B-R-O-W-N. I work at Wren Lake Mine. I'm the Safety Committeeman for Local 1545. A lot of the things that have been said here today, it seems like those guys are working at my mine. You know, it's just the same repetition of the exact same things that are happening. I've heard you ask several times about the seven thousand. The reason you probably won't see any seven thousand, when it comes to diesel it's just like, -- you don't anything with black lung. You know, it's something that's not gonna happen immediately. But it is happening. I've sent a list of names to Mr. McAteer, about a hundred and thirty people that have health concerns from migraine headaches, from heartaches, to whatever. The studies that MSHA and different other agencies have done, tell you that the miner is exposed to ten times greater DPM than any other industry. Two hundred times greater than places such as Los Angeles. The facts speak for themselves. It's time to do something. The long wall setups seem to be our biggest concern. There's times that you couldn't see the distance of this room and everything. And as far as being in compliance, we'd be in compliance with each piece of equipment. When you take ten pieces of equipment, twenty pieces of equipment into areas with about 9,000 cubic foot of air, all the air there is to ventilate it, you've got a problem. The maintenance; we have a pretty good maintenance program at our mine. I will have to say that. We change filters regularly, change oil, that type of thing. You asked about the training. Under MSHA's guidelines, what is the proper training? Basically, all they have to do is say this is a scoop, -- this is a diesel scoop, if they have no problems they comply with your regulations. So, the things that we've learned, we've learned on our own through different people. The filters, we change weekly, it protects the motor. Nothing protects me. The raw emission tests we think, twenty-five hundred parts per million, can't exceed that. You won't find a piece of equipment (indiscernible) for twenty-five hundred parts per million. So, something needs to be done to protect those people, now. Like Melvin said, we have fifty some odd pieces of equipment, they were bought to use. They do not sit idle. You asked for percentages of time. They use them every time there's a warm body to put on them. So, they're being used constantly. There's just, -- the ventilation violations that we've got prove that the ventilation is out of compliance, or we wouldn't, - - or MSHA wouldn't have wrote these citations. So, something needs to be done here to protect the miners. And I believe it's your responsibility to make sure that's done. That's basically all I've got. MR. TOMB: Okay. Any questions? (No Verbal Response) MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Russell. MR. RUSSELL: My name is Terry Russell; T-E-R-R-Y R-U-S-S-E-L-L. I'm a Pit Committeeman for Local 1545. I worked for Consolidated Coal, Wren Lake Mine. I'm an Alternate Safety Man at the Nelson (phonetic) Portal, -- we're a two portal mine. And in the safety man's absence and on his behalf, I'm recognized by the company to represent the miners. So, I do travel with inspectors; I see these citations on ventilation because I am a radisman (phonetic) and that is my job, ventilation. The outby, inby question I know has been probably addressed too much here today, but to me, if you were there, it could never be addressed too much. My number question as a pit committeemen, that I cannot, -- I have trouble dealing with, is when people come to me, especially during a long wall move, and they say, "Do I have to stay in this? Do I have to work here?" And when I check with the Federal man and the company itself, and the only thing I can come back and say is, "They're in compliance, they're not gonna do anymore then they have to do, and that's obvious". They don't do anymore than they have to do. And if they're in compliance that's what you're gonna have to do, you're gonna have to stay there. And if you could just imagine the only air that you can breathe is gonna come through that door right there. That's it. Outside that door is all kind of contaminates from the diesel equipment, inby and out. It don't make any difference, you're still breathing. The face equipment, it's gonna be over here (indicating). You're still breathing everything that comes through that door. And basically, that's what we're talking about on light-duty equipment. Our mantrips are capable of carrying eleven people. Then we have five seat, four seaters and two seat diesel equipment for management, maintenance, pumpers and what have you, different classifications. And they're run all during the day. Material is hauled all during the day. When they come by that last split of air if you're inside, you're breathing it. If they're in there dropping a trailer at number 6 crosscut and you're at (40), believe me, you know it. We have actually had people have to come off the facia (phonetic) before because the seal monitors on the belt has went off at fifteen parts per million, because something was being operated outby, and we didn't know what was going on. People have had to stop production because of the emissions that we have had to breath from this equipment. Not inby, not at the face, maybe not heavy duty, because the concentration of diesel equipment in the last split of air that you're breathing. I know a friend of mine who's a mine examiner, and during one of the long wall moves he was taking air readings that we had. There's spots in a single entry system where you're gonna have more air movement than you will in others. And a number of complaints on, -- "Do we have to work here?" You know, it "Makes me sick. I've got a headache". And I can speak first-hand, 'cause I have had to leave the room due to a headache and exposure to diesel. And this examiner came to me. I tried to go to the Federal. Something as simple, maybe, -- I said, "Well, can you do something on the ground's obnoxious fumes?" And MSHA told me that there's nothing in the law. For cutting and welding, I could cite them, but not for diesel emissions. Now, they may be in compliance, they may be legal, but when your eyes water and your throat burns, something's the matter. And it's not, -- it doesn't give you much consolation when you have to turn to somebody and say, "They're in compliance and there's nothing we can do". Now, the operators are not gonna do anymore than they're forced to do. And you have the opportunity today to set the standards that's gonna affect the quality of our lives long after we retire; if we live that long. And I feel very strongly, because one of my number one questions is not job security it is this environment that we have to work in. And there's too many things that we cannot control to let something go by that we can control. And you can control this right here. Or you can make a good start. Everybody would appreciate your help. That's all I've got to say. MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Russell. Any questions? Bob. MR. HANEY: Yes. At Wren Lake, how many entries are used in your overall development? MR. RUSSELL: Three. MR. HANEY: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Anyone else? MR. SASEEN: Yeah. You said there was a, -- how many personal mantrips? MR. RUSSELL: I don't know the breakdown. Are mantrips are eleven person capacity. MR. SASEEN: Do you know what type of vehicle that is? MR. RUSSELL: ALE(s). MR. SASEEN: ALE(s). MR. RUSSELL: So, they're all concentrating on the bottom, that's probably your, -- you've got as much air as you're gonna have anywhere in the mine. And at shift change when they're leaving the bottom, you're starting those things up, they're sitting end to end. You're breathing everything that happens right there. That exhaust and that mantrip in front of you is right in your face. And if you talk about air, if all the air is coming this way and you're following a scoop, I don't care how much air it is, when they're blowing all that emission right in your face, I don't care what kind of air you're breathing, you're getting it, and you're getting a lot of it. We've got one entry that we travel in. When you have to pull on a crosscut to let another piece of equipment by, then you're in dead air. There's nothing going through there. And you're also breathing bad air. There is no place to put it that it doesn't affect someone. The only thing that we can do is hopefully clean it up. MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? (No Verbal Response) MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Russell. The next presenter will be Mr. Main. MR. MAIN: Pass those out back through there. This is a good place to start. My name is Joe Main, and I am the Administrator of Health and Safety for the United Mine Workers of America. I've spent a lifetime on the subject that we have today before this public hearing. And I would first like to thank MSHA for finally moving forward with the promulgation of a rule that addresses a very critical problem in the lives of many miners in this country. And as I start this, I think it's important to meditate on what that bumper sticker that we just passed out means; "Black Lung: Make It Disappear." We've been wrestling with a disease amongst coal miners in this country since coal was mined, -- since coal had began to be mined in the United States of America. And we have spent an enormous amount of time trying to figure out a way to prevent miners from contracting a disease from mining that coal, which is black lung. And it's unfortunate as we stand here today, to say that we have failed that mission, and we failed it for a variety of reasons. Would anybody know on the panel, the number of black lung claims filed in the year 1997, in the United States of America? Have any idea what the number is? (No Verbal Response) MR. MAIN: Would you believe nearly seven thousand, five hundred claims filed with the fellow Government for black lung disability claims in the year 1997. This year I don't know what the number will be, but if it follows like the last few years it's gonna be about the same ballpark. Could you imagine that we're standing here in this country of ours, mining coal and still causing that miners to at least believe they have the disease? That's outrageous. And I think we've all lost sight of the fact that there is human beings that are affected by the kind of occupational exposures that these people work in. And I would say that everybody sitting on this panel if you believe for a minute that you'd be one of those seven thousand, you'd be doing something about it. And I think that you ought to be doing something about it. You wouldn't want to be one of those victims. Unfortunately, as I say, we have failed somewhere in the system. We have turned a death ear to miners who've complained the kind of corruption and practice that's going on in the coal mines that led a lot of those miners to get the disease. And it's about time we stop that and take a different approach. And say, "We're not gonna tolerate this anymore. We're gonna start taking corrective actions to prevent people from getting those kind of diseases. And if we can, we're gonna start doing that before they get exposed." When you look at black lung, and you look at diesel, what does that represent? If you believe even half of the medical evidence that's out there; and I believe far more than half, it tells you that we have a population of miners that has over the last twenty years, been subject to another disease that can be even more crippling and deadly than black lung disease. It can give you lung cancer. That's not Joe Main saying that. That's not some coal miner just saying out of the blue, that's the case, that's what the scientific evidence has brought us to. And that scientific evidence says that the worst case scenario here, based on the recent NIOSH Reports that nearly nine hundred out of a thousand miners exposed to about 1 milligram per cubic meter of this particulate matter, can expect to get lung cancer over the lifetime of working in the mine. Now, to me, it's outrageous that we have today, miners exposed to such levels of diesel particulate matter. I mean, think about that. The worst case scenario according to the NIOSH Study says that nine hundred out of a thousand could get lung cancer over their working lifetime. Would anybody in this room want to go work in an occupation that would have such a risk that you're faced with? And if you were placed in that, wouldn't you be the first to say, "Whoa, we're going to halt this kind of exposure to working class people in this country until we can fix it". Unfortunately, what's happened to us in diesel, is the same thing that happened to coal miners with their exposure to coal dust. You made it until enough people get sick, then you've got to do something about it. The difference between diesel and black lung is that we don't have to build that long history like we did with black lung. And if there's anybody that believes that coal miners don't get black lung from breathing coal dust, I think that you need to probably seek another profession. I think there's enough statistical evidence to show that there's a correlation between breathing all that dusty material that comes off of coal and ruins your lungs. Now, there's some that argue that that's cigarette smoke that causes that and not coal dust, but I think most miners really know what the truth of the matter is, and a lot of professionals know what the truth of the matter is. The truth of the matter also is, that when you're breathing diesel particulate matter it takes a time of accumulating that particulate in your body to actually do damage. There's those that argue, "You know, hey, we should have all these bodies laying around here now if this was that serious". Well, I think if you look at history, what it's gonna tell you is that in coal mines there hasn't been that much exposure to diesel particulate matter. And I remember back in the early 1970(s) when we had somewhere around seventy-five to a hundred pieces of diesel equipment in the coal mines in this country. And what happened is, -- and you can look at the different time-lines, but in the early '80(s) there was a proliferation up to this date, of diesel equipment being used in mines. And now we're setting, according to interest data, somewhere around three thousand pieces of equipment now being used throughout the country. So, we've had a limited amount of exposure. And I think as Joe Urban pointed out, I remember when the Wabash Mine became the front runner of putting diesel equipment in the coal mines here in the State of Illinois. And I remember when they bought this one beautiful piece of diesel equipment and told the mine workers, "Don't worry folks, we're not gonna dieselize these mines, we just need a few pieces in here". I remember those days. And I remember one thing is that that was not true. What we wound up with at the Wabash Mine before the smoke cleared, I think we was up pushing over a hundred and forty, hundred and fifty pieces of diesel equipment at that one coal mine. So miners learned not to trust what people have to say about what they would be exposed to. And those miners at Wabash learned a very hard lesson in life. But the exposure here started in the 1980(s), and I guess it was around '87, '86, whatever the year was. And so, we've had a limited amount of time. But we've had, I think, an enormous amount of exposure of miners in the Illinois mines. And I think likewise in miners, -- to miners in Kentucky, to miners in Alabama, to miners in the west, Utah. And if anybody thinks that exposure has been good to them, I'd like to hear the evidence of that. And I would like to understand how, as a Government, realized that we've already screwed up so many miner's chest in this country, -- I mean, ruined their lungs, and but damage, -- placed damage on their heart. Because the heart basically, has to start carrying a larger load as they have to breath from the ill effect of the coal dust disease. And now we've dumped, -- that ain't enough, we've got to dump some of this DPM down there too, and we'll cause another reaction, to cause them to have lung cancer. And in all honestly folks, that's exactly what we've done here. I think it's time that rational people grab a hold of this issue and make some sound decisions to start helping coal miners for a change, as opposed to let's argue over this for another fifteen years. I came to conference, I think it was here, for one of the three that we did some years back, and this whole debate over miner's exposure to diesel emissions, and I sat at that conference. I am tired of arguing about the rat studies, because what we've got ourself caught up in for those detractors that don't want the issue dealt with. We could argue the scientific validity of what, -- every one of those studies until we all die. While coal miners are out there sucking down DPM, if that's the course that we chose. The miner workers chose to say, "Enough is enough. We're not gonna get into debate over the peculiarities of one study versus another study". We have seen enough evidence here to make it clear to us that this stuff makes miners sick. And if they breath enough of it, it will kill them. It's as simple as that. Unfortunately, there are those that want to continue to wrestle with the technical questions of exactly what was the population. How is it segregated, and all this thing. We're not interested in that anymore. And the coal miners are not interested in that anymore, either. And they've had a hard time trying to figure out why, for the last twenty years we have engaged ourselves in that debate and not moved forward. I'm very happy that we're here today. And I'm very happy that we've got this whole issue elevated to the point they're about ready to issue a rule. The problem is, if we don't issue the right rule, we're gonna have a batch of miners out there that are still exposed to diesel particulate at levels that will give them lung cancer. And while there is some discussion about leaving out of the equation here the light-duty equipment, I think if MSHA does that, what they're doing, they're dooming a lot of coal miners. And they're gonna cause a lot of coal miners to wind up with lung cancer. As a result of failure to take action to issue a rule that protects those miners. As I travel throughout the country and talking to coal miners about what they saw as the biggest problem that they were faced with in their lives, the issue of diesel came up almost immediately in any crowd that I went into where diesel equipment is used. The pollutants that come out those tail pipes that they have to breath has been something that they have realized a long time ago was unhealthy for them, and despite those that say, "This really don't exist that way," does, in fact, exist that way. And miners who are working in outby areas, -- for example, I was at the Show Creek Mine (phonetic) in Alabama about a month, month and a half ago, and was walking out of the bath house, this miner comes up to me and he says, "Mr. Main, can you give me some help filing a compensation case?" And I said, "What's the case over?" And he says, "Working around this diesel equipment. Sick, I've got an asthmatic condition now that I can't even breath, and every time I'm around it just like, destroys my respiratory system". And he said, "The last time they put me working in the belt entry with the forklift. Not enough air". And he said, "It made me so sick I couldn't breath. And I've got to have help". That's the realities of coal miners that people try to ignore and say, "That really doesn't exist". That does exist. The problem these miners have pointed out too, is getting documentation of all these illnesses is such a moving target it's, -- I can be standing here have an ill effect breathing; which I do from a cold right now, but from some other exposure I had that I may not be able to figure out the cause or the time, you know, exposure problems that you run into. And the problem we have in coal mines too, which we all realize, it's just not diesel, and it's just not coal dust that ruins the respiratory system, we've got a gad of chemicals that's scattered throughout the mines right now that is causing immense harm to miners. Iso-synase (phonetic(. I'm sure you've heard of that, and I'm sure you understand that Iso-synase is wildly used through the mining industry. I've had a raft of cases come across my desk where miners' respiratory systems have been adversely affected by their exposure to Iso-synase. And to the point they get sensitized, to the point they can't even be around it and the reaction goes far worse when they are. Those are the realities of life. And, you know, you step back and say, "We're dealing with a confined space problem here folks". I mean, this isn't out in the open air where you've got, you know, a mound of wind coming through diluting all these problems, you know, down to where they're not affecting miners. This is real stuff in a confined space that miners are stuck into. So the effect of the respiratory system is just not diesel, it's coal dust, it's Iso-synase, a wrath of other chemicals. But this is just another one we add we add on the pot. I think the testimony that we have submitted in the initial comments, -- and I'm not gonna get into a lot of those details today, but were very well founded, and this is the way things are in the industry. And we have provided recommendations on how that rule needs to be fixed to really do justice to helping coal miners. But I'm gonna touch on a couple of things that's in that rule. We've heard a lot of criticism from the industry about you can't reach a 95 percent diesel particulate filter. Well, we believe we've done that in Pennsylvania. We have a law that says that, and as far as we're concerned it is very doable. We've seen a lot of resistance from the industry to try to achieve that. I mean, it's like what we saw is, "Fight it tooth and nail, but don't let anybody proclaim there's a 95 percent filter out there". And I think there's an obvious reason for that. The industry, quite frankly, don't want to have to spend the money to do that. I think the risks are so high, as far as the health of coal miners, that that equation should be evaluated based on what is the risk, you know, that's being placed on miners by staking a claim to that argument? What we said in our proposal is, "Okay. You know, for the first short period of time let's go to an 80 percent filter performance". And we've seen a variety of filters out there that meets that. And then, eventually reached the 95 percent performance, which we think is giving them a little bit of lead time to build a better mousetrap if they want to try to do that. We believe that there is filtering capability that's available out there, and one of the things that we found as we started to deal with this issue was that there's a lot of companies that sell filters throughout the world, that put it on equipment. We're not reinventing the wheel here somewhere, we're looking at existing technology that's able to do these things. We're looking at diesel equipment too, that operates in these outby areas, that as many miners have attested to that's where the bulk of it is now. I think according to MSHA stats we pulled out, there's something like two thousand out of three thousand pieces of equipment that's so-called outby equipment that miners are exposed to all the time. And I think the miners ask a very logical question, is, "Why don't you protect us as much from that light-duty equipment, as you do from the heavy-duty equipment, -- inby equipment?" Now, when you look at some of the polluting factors of some of this equipment, you can have exempted from the control some of the most polluting equipment that you've got in a coal mine, just because it's classed as light-duty of where it's used at. And we do have problems with some of these areas where we have common belt intake entries where, you know, the air flow is limited. We have areas of belt lines that all kind of equipment is used from time to time to slow velocity. But those are not the only problem we have. There's a variety of different situations you have in coal mines where in the outby area you're not guaranteed the kind of air flow. And as part of the comments that we did submit, I think we've pointed out some of the situations where you would have a piece of a diesel equipment that would not even nearly bring down the diesel particulate levels to that level that NIOSH referred to, that 1 milligram exposure in their study. And I point out, looking at the DPM that comes off of a Caterpillar 3306 engine, if you look at the outby air quality for those engines I think it's seventy-five hundred. That's not for each one, that's for everything that's out there. Now, if you have four of those (3306(s)) stacked up back to back as far as the DPM production goes, you would have a situation where you would have seventy-five hundred CFM, 'cause that's all you're required outby. But the production levels, it would take, -- and I'm gonna use some figures off the top of my head, these may not be totally accurate. But I know we used an example of just two engines like that, instead of seventy-five hundred CFM on two engines, I think to get the DPM down to a range that was in the 1 milligram; which we do not agree will protect miners at all, would take forty-six thousand CFM of quarry. Those are the realities of life, when we talk about "Do we have enough air?" We do not have enough air in the coal mines to dilute down diesel particulate to protect coal miners. And when you look at this wolf from the standpoint is that you can have five, six, seven pieces of diesel equipment stacked up, and you only have to meet the plate reading of outby equipment of the highest piece, where is the science, and where is the protection there? It does not exist. The science is not there that will support any belief that miners would have the DPM controlled to a safe level. Well, these miners that are here today, are like a lot of miners I've met with over the years. And what they represent is a voice from the mines that says, "We want this problem fixed". And I think they've been very polite and very straightforward here about what the circumstances are to mines, when, in fact, maybe we ought to be a little bit louder and more rambunctious than what we are. We're hopeful that this rule does get fixed, and does get fixed right. But I think they've waited far too long to get the answer from the Agency. You know, when we built the Pennsylvania law that's been talked about, and we addressed that in our comments, when we put together that law we did a creative thing. We brought in coal miners from mines that used diesel equipment, like the Wabash Mine, the Imprinter's Energy Mine (phonetic), we bought my management folks in, and we sat down and we had an open discussion about "What is really wrong with how we use diesel equipment in coal mines?" And we built a standard based on that open discussion, understanding of what those problems. And the miners, like the miners that talked here today, and the company folks you were there, agreed with that, we do a very poor job managing, -- or maintaining diesel equipment, in particular, the outby equipment that, you know, we can just run, you know, in and out the mine. We don't always have air there to control these circumstances, to dilute all these gases and particulates down, and there is a lack of understanding and application of that understanding about how we can have cleaner burning engines, cleaner engines as a whole, you know, in coal mines. And so, when that standard was built, it was built based on the premise that we needed to fix those things in the right way that would actually protect coal miners. So, what we did is, we applied control technologies to fix the problem. So, whenever the maintenance got a little bit poor, at least it was trapping in the particulate, as far as particulate goes. Whenever the ventilation got a little weak, at least it was trapping the particulate that's coming out of that exhaust system. And when all the other systems failed, at least we had something in there to trap that particulate if the intake air filter got a little plugged up or whatever the case may be. We also put diagnostic systems on there to give machine operators the kind of information they needed to let me know there was a problem in the system so maintenance could take place. We also set some specific performance standards for that equipment. And that Pennsylvania law, I think, serves as a great model to identify the kind of decision-making that needed to take place if you're truly gonna protect coal miners, and not rely on one MSHA inspector coming in and looking for this moving target of equipment that may be hidden, or maybe instead of ten pieces, he finds two pieces when he does his test, or relying on all these other things that miners have really found to be a failure in the system. Control technology was the answer then, and control technology is the answer now. We also found one other thing, too, is that you ought to have some other kind of performance standard other than just putting a filter on a piece of equipment. And we realize the difficulty of doing in mine testing, so what we required as part of the Pennsylvania law was a lab test of the equipment before it could get approval to show that it would perform in a certain way. And it would limit, with the filters that was being used, the DPM to a level that we felt would protect the miners. And in particular, what we were able to define was a system that limited the DPM production to .12 milligram per cubic meter. And that was a test parameter that we set in Pennsylvania. And we believe that's a good standard for the rest of the world as well. And we need to limit that in a way that has, at least some control equipment over that equipment before it ever goes to the mine; it will perform in such a way to keep DPM down, and that we have filters on that equipment that will in essence, control that to a meaningful level to keep miners from being exposed. One of the miners that was gonna be here today, Geri Pensky (phonetic), who was one of the miners that worked with us as part of that Labor Management Work Group, -- and it was the Labor Management Work Group that put the Pennsylvania law together. Unfortunately, she had a death in the family and she's gonna be submitting, I understand, some written testimony for the record to define some of the same things that I've talked to you about. As far as sampling, one of the things that has been raised in these discussions is, "What about in mine sampling, as opposed to engineering controls, as a method of dealing with diesel particulate matter?" I will pass around some documents that I think are very pertinent. (Pause) MR. MAIN: Has sampling in the mines worked to protect coal miners? As a starting point, I suggest that it has not. And not only do I suggest that, there is a mound of evidence that says that sampling for exposure of miners to those things in the environment they agree that can make them sick, as a means to prevent them from getting sick, has not worked in the coal mining industry. And the first document that I have given you is, is a list of all the criminal convictions and guilty pleas regarding dust fraud that has occurred in the United States, that has been, -- at least, went through the judicial system with some end result. There's over a hundred and sixty companies and/or individuals on the attached list, from 1991 through 1997, that have been criminally convicted or pled guilty to fraudulent coal dust sampling in the United States. I believe that if you'll look at the history of the Coal Mine Act, there is not a single other type of violation of the Act that is anywhere equal to the number of violations or the number of criminal convictions rather, that have been made in the dust fraud, -- for dust fraud in dust sampling. Not another single standard of the Mine Act has had anywhere near the number of criminal cases, criminal convictions, as this one single issue. Also, I've provided you with a copy of the Louisville Courier Journal series that was ran in April of 1998. And what this describes is, -- for those who haven't read it yet, -- and I want to make sure that these are officially placed in the record. What this story is about is an in depth investigation into dust sampling in the Appalachian coal mines, and particularly in the State of Kentucky. And what the investigation disclosed was that there was just rampant fraudulent dust sampling taking place in these Appalachian mines that this article covered. And it was such an open issue that we even had company officials, ex-company officials give information to the reporter for the story of, "Yeah, we did it. We did it to make a profit". Had exposed miners to unhealthy levels of coal dust, cheating the dust sampling system to make money off of coal. There's a lot of stories about the victims in here. There's one that's dying, -- if you'll look at the "Cheating on dust tests is widespread". I know this fellow. I don't know if you folks have ever met him or not, Les Blevins. Anybody know Les Blevins, on the panel? (No Verbal Response) MR. MAIN: I spent some time with Les Blevins, and this is a victim who at forty-five years old his life is over; waiting for lung transplants; ready to die. And one of the reasons why is, that the system failed to protect Les Blevins, and he became so sick that his life on this earth, and he knows it, is very short. There's another story in here about a miner who had worked in Kentucky, his name was Terry Howard, and Howard died in 1995, as a result of silicosis, -- or from silicosis, at the age of forty-five, and is survived by his wife and his children. And for those that knew of Terry Howard, they would tell you that it was one of the most tragic deaths that any individual ever went through in their life. There's other stories in here about other miners. I'm talking about miners, you know, early forties, dying of these diseases. I personally met a lot of these miners that have become ill from diseases. Larry Hattin worked in the mines in West Virginia. The story about Larry is in here, who also has lung diseases. Numerous miners that have not made it through their working career because they were exposed to a disease of which this Government failed to control, which really, the mine operator exposed them to without adequate controls, and in cases, as these miners attest to, bent the law and lied about the conditions that they were exposed to, in order to grant favorable enforcement activity from the Government, and produce a lot of coal. And I say that in respect to these are the same people today, you know, people who said, "Don't believe this stuff, this didn't happen to these miners. These miners, -- it wasn't the dust". That's malarkey, they were. But you have some of the same folks running around today saying, "Don't believe all this stuff about the dangers of diesel particulate matter that these miners breath, it's not that bad. And air takes care of all these problems". That's not true. And if we're not wise enough to figure it out, there's gonna be a lot of miners like the Les Blevins in here, only the story's not gonna be black lung, it's gonna be lung cancer. We're gonna be submitting a lot more information before the record closes, so I'm not gonna hit a lot of these things in any depth. But, you know, about three or four points I want to make before I close. There has been some discussion about what should be in the plans. This is an issue, if you look at our proposal, that outlines certain testing that has to take place, certain certifications that need to place for proper a proper diesel filter particulate system to work. We believe that what we proposed needs to be in that rule. And we also believe that that needs to be part of the plan. So, you know, we get in a situation here where other things that may tie around how that diesel equipment is used, to ensure that it's used the way it is, that it should be part of the approved plan that can be incorporated in that, and not just some document. There's been some discussion, I understand in the previous hearings, about letting, -- "Gee, just let us use the Toolbox approach". And for those who don't know what the Toolbox is, it's a document put out by MSHA based on the conferences that were held some three or four years ago, that talked about some of the improvements that we could make in diesel equipment that's being used, which some of those booklets laying on the table are. Well, you know what my reaction to those books would be? They're not using them now. I mean, I would hope to God with all we know about the dangers of all these gases and particulate coming out the tail pipes of diesel equipment that we don't have operators saying, "Gee, just let me do that". What they should be saying is, "Gee, we're doing that," okay, given the seriousness and the nature of the disease that their employees face. I don't think that miners can be protected by a Toolbox booklet. If anybody on this panel thinks so, I think it would be wise for you to lay out to us why you think that you could. What the Toolbox approach is, is a general guide of things that responsible industry folks should be doing to protect their miners. And as we all know, there are some operators that do a lot better job at protecting the miners than others do. And as we all know, - - and you take that case of those miners that's in that newspaper, like the Terry (sic) Hattin's of the world, the Les Blevins' of the world, who did not have the benefit of working for a responsible employer who destroyed their life and took their life away from them. That's the reality in the coal industry. And that's the reality that everybody has to understand. This is not an industry of which we can do things that may stretch protection or stretch the law, and there is no real harm. We're talking about when you do those kind of things, stretch and bend the law, somebody's gonna get hurt. And somebody gets hurt in real way. So, I think the message here is that we need real rules and not Toolbox guidelines as a way to protect these miners. The one point, too, that I need to raise is, is that this whole debate has gotten very vicious. And I've been in it for about twenty years, and I just want to make sure that as the miners walk away from here today they have engaged in a protected activity under the Mine Act, and anybody that would try to retaliate against them has to understand that that is a violation of the Mine Act to do that. Unfortunately, we've had some recent cases where mine operators have went after miners who have engaged in protective activity and discriminated against them, and that's unfortunate. But I just wanted to remind everyone here that that is a right that these miners have, and a protection guaranteed by the Mine Act. And I'm sure that MSHA would be very, -- look very ill upon anybody that tried to discriminate against any miner who did participate. Personally, for myself, it's been probably even higher than that. I even, -- this whole diesel debate's gotten to the point that one of the highest industry officials have went to my boss and tried to get me fired over it. Hard to believe, but that's just how serious this whole issue is. That, of course, didn't work. But it has made me understand what stretches, what depths some of the industry will go to to try to stop the Government from acting to protect coal miners against something that is so inevitable to so many of them, that will shorten their life and kill them that, you know, it's sort of outrageous that that conduct takes place. I'm gonna close by saying that we'll have a lot more comments to make for the record. These miners have asked you, pleaded with you, to make a decision so they quit getting sick in the mines, so they don't wind up being one of those statistics that says, "John Doe got lung cancer from breathing diesel particulate matter in coal mines," and set a rule that really works, and don't piecemeal it, and don't just take out a third of the diesel equipment and say, "We'll tinker with that," deal with the whole issue. And if an operator wants to use equipment, they ought to have the moral fortitude about them to put the right protection on there before they stick that in the working environment of the miner. The State of Pennsylvania, until they implemented the Pennsylvania Diesel Law, didn't allow that. The State of West Virginia continues to disallow that. The State of Ohio continues to disallow that. The States of West Virginia and Pennsylvania are two producing coal states, they all have coal mines, and some of them are doing quite well. And a lot of them, like I say, very few mines in Pennsylvania have diesel equipment. None in West Virginia does. And those that say, "Gee, if we don't get this it's gonna put us out of work," is poppycock. For those that want to do it, well, they have to pay the price to protect their miners to do that. And we believe that the time has come to quit arguing over the rap debates. I'm sick of looking coal miners in the eye that's forty-five years of old, and looking at coal operators that abuse those folks and just walked away from them. 'Cause there's a whole lot of them walking around in this world. You should go down to East Kentucky if you want to see a whole batch of cripples and people that can't breath anymore. And it's time that someone in this industry stand up to the freaking plate and be responsible for what they're doing to people. Thank you very much. MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Main. You have any questions? MS. WESDOCK: Mr. Main, can I have a copy of the newspaper? I didn't get one. MR. MAIN: Oh, okay, there's, -- if you're short any of that, I can make sure I get you some additional copies. Anybody else need one? (Pause) MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Main. Thank you. Our next presenter will be a Mr. Jourdan. MR. JOURDAN: Good afternoon. My name is Sean Jourdan, S-E-A-N J-O-U-R-D-A-N. I am an Environmental Engineer with the Mississippi Lime Company, a limestone mine located in St. Genevieve, Missouri. I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the MARG Diesel Coalition concerning MSHA's proposed rule governing diesel particulate exposure in underground coal mines. MARG is a coalition comprised of underground nonmetal mine operators and other entities who are interested in the regulation of diesel particulate and the potential health effects of diesel exhaust in humans. May of MARG's members operate mines that are the subject of an ongoing collaborative study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), that is designed to measure diesel exhaust exposure in underground nonmetal miners and to evaluate the past and current health effects on this cohort of workers. MARG and its individual member companies plan to comment in detail concerning MSHA's newly proposed regulation governing diesel particulate matter in underground metal/nonmetal mines. And we reserve the right to submit additional written materials concerning the coal sector's proposal. Today's testimony, however, focuses on MSHA's failure to provide a sound basis for those proposed rules. As MSHA is well aware, earlier in this year NIOSH and NCI finally began data collection for its six year, multifaceted study of diesel exhaust exposure in nonmetal miners, which is intended to determine whether such exposure causes illnesses. The goal of this multimillion dollar project are: (1) to evaluate mortality with regard to diesel exhaust exposure; (2) to determine whether mortality increases in relation to the level of diesel exposure; and (3) to evaluate the association between measured levels of diesel exhaust components in the air, metabolites in the urine, and DNA adducts in bronchial and blood cells. All suspected disease endpoints are being studied, including lung cancer. This study includes the following components: A retrospective cohort mortality study: The cohort for this phase is comprised of approximately eight thousand, two hundred non-metal miners from ten underground mines who were employed for at least one year during the period from the date of mine dieselization until December 30, 1996. Vital status will be determined, and cause of death will be obtained from death certificates. A nested case control study: This study will be based on deaths ascertained during the follow-up stage of the cohort mortality study. four controls will be selected for each case from among members of the cohort, and information on confounding factors will be gained from these interviews. Biomarker study: This study is designed to examine whether exposed workers have detectable levels of nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, also known as nitro- PAH metabolites in their urine and nitro-PAH DNA adducts in a spectrum of tissues, and to relate these levels to airborne exposures. Information from industrial hygiene surveys at each mine, and data from past surveys and MSHA enforcement, together with information on diesel usage and other surrogate measures, will be utilized to construct estimates of personal exposure for the cohort mortality and nested case-control studies. Such measurements include: elemental carbon, submicrometer combustible dust, submicrometer particulate, organic fraction of the exhaust, NO, NO(2), CO, CO(2), nitro-PAH(s) and respirable and total particulate. These measures are being collected because NIOSH and NCI recognize that there is no definitive substance which serves as a surrogate for diesel particulate matter exposure and the researchers hope to determine which substances best correlates with identifiable diesel exhaust exposure. NIOSH/NCI's proposal for this study clearly identifies the problem with MSHA's assumptions concerning health effects. In short, -- and I quote, "Although diesel exhaust has been classified as a possible carcinogen by IARC and as a possible carcinogen by NIOSH, the risk of lung cancer in humans is still not well defined". NIOSH admits the same conclusion for all of the suspected disease endpoints. the Government researchers observed that, in view of the inconclusive findings in animal studies, "There is a clear need for more information on the effect of diesel exhaust exposure in humans". The protocol concluded that "The existing studies have many weaknesses," including use of crude indicators for diesel exhaust exposure, no historical quantitative measurements of diesel exhaust, short latent period, low exposure levels and a small number of observations. In the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that preceded the current proposal, MSHA quoted the Diesel Advisory Committee's findings that more research was needed because of the absence of adequate information regarding the permissible exposure limits at which health effects accrue. Prior to initiating the rulemaking, MSHA had asked NIOSH to perform a risk assessment for exposure to diesel particulate, and between 1988 and 1991, eight studies and/or papers were developed by NIOSH, the Bureau of Mines, and MSHA researchers, addressing the health effects and/or sampling and measurement techniques for diesel particulate. As recently as last year, NIOSH and NCI thoroughly reviewed the existing scientific literature before making these findings and concluded that the human health effects of diesel were not well known. Therefore, admittedly flawed scientific studies are the source of MSHA's "strong evidence" of an increased risk of lung cancer, and serve as a scientific basis for the purposed, draconian diesel exhaust rule. MSHA has selectively presented studies supporting its conclusion while ignoring other research that refutes its findings. The agency has also has disregarded the recent conclusion of Dr. Debra Silverman, lead researcher on the NIOSH/NCI diesel study: When she states, "The repeated findings of small effects, coupled with the absence of quantitative data on historical exposure, precludes a causal interpretation." The mining operations involved in the NIOSH/NCI study are participating cooperatively with government researchers because we share their desire to obtain definitive information as to whether or not diesel exhaust exposure presents health hazards to underground miners. Our participation has resulted in extensive disruption in our mine sites and has cost the industry millions of dollars in non-reimbursed expenses for such items as: reviewing and copying of hundreds of thousands of non-statutorily required personnel, medical and business documents; sampling and exposure monitoring; accompanying the researchers for their personal safety; and, review of and comments concerning NIOSH/NCI's many revisions of their protocol. The "best available evidence," as determined by NIOSH (the agency charged with the scientific research under the Mine Act) indicates that significant health risks have not been demonstrated to warrant MSHA's strict regulation of diesel equipment use and exhaust exposure within our industry. If such a significant risk has already been established, there would be no basis for NIOSH/NCI to continue to work with millions of taxpayer's dollars. Similarly, there would no need for our companies to suffer the disruption and considerable expense associated with the NIOSH/NCI endeavor if the verdict is already in concerning the health effects of diesel. If however, MSHA agrees with NIOSH that the science is by no means clear that diesel exhaust has any adverse health effects in humans, then the agency should suspend the rulemaking until such time as NIOSH/NCI complete their work and have had the opportunity to process the results and submit them to an independent peer review. Although MARG acknowledges the MSHA does not have to be 100 percent certain of a health risk before proceeding with regulation, in light of the uncertain scientific basis for the proposed rule and ongoing industry-specific research by NIOSH/NCI, we urge the agency to exercise restraint. Implementation of this proposal would impose highly expensive workplace modifications on mining operations, that might turn out to be entirely wrong or unnecessary based upon NIOSH/NCI's findings, which should be available in five years, with interim reports expected within two years. The basis for MSHA's proposal, therefore, is inherently flawed and the proposal should be suspended until more definitive information is available on this very important issue. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments. Any questions? MR. TOMB: Thank you, Mr. Jourdan. Any questions? Jon. MR. KOGUT: You said that MSHA in its risk assessment had ignored some studies that tended to refute the conclusion that diesel particulate posed a significant health risk. Do you have a list of those studies? MR. JOURDAN: No, I don't. I don't. But I know there's been some significant studies done, at least in other countries. I can think of Australia, for one. But I don't have, -- MR. KOGUT: Can you send us as part of a post- hearing comments, a list of the studies that you believe we've ignored? MR. JOURDAN: That's no problem. MR. TOMB: Any other questions? (No Verbal Response) MR. TOMB: Thank you very much, Mr. Jourdan. MR. JOURDAN: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Our next presenter will be Mr. McWhorter. Did I pronounce that correctly, sir? MR. MCWHORTER: Yes. Thank you very much. I'll try to be brief. My name is P. L. McWhorter, sometimes known as Judge. I am Vice-President of Phillips Machine Service in Beckley, West Virginia. MR. TOMB: Would you spell your name, please, sir? MR. MCWHORTER: M-C-W-H-O-R-T-E-R. MR. TOMB: Thank you. MR. MCWHORTER: This is certainly a complex subject. A lot of us have spent a great deal of time and effort on it. I would start off by saying that I am going to address, and want to focus on just one portion of the proposed regulations, and that is the call for a "95 percent filter efficiency". I would state that in my opinion there can be improvements in a coal mine, -- in a coal mine diesel operation, if you will, and there certainly should be exhaust improvements. In fact, our company is currently building a, -- well, not, -- we have built one prototype machine. We are prepared to go beyond that, in which we incorporate what is the existing state of the art of filter efficiency, if you want to use that term. However, having said that, and feeling very confident that we can meet almost any standards that are called for, I still would like to ask the Agency to get rid of the term 95 percent, specifically. Why am I concerned about 95 percent? Actually, one of my concerns is, -- and I'm an old timer, I've been around this business for awhile, is my concern that by so doing I think that we're going to stop some technological advances. An example, over-the-road technology in diesel engine technology is way ahead of anything that we use in the coal mine. We are prohibited currently, from utilizing those engines that are much cleaner, in many ways, than the engines that we're allowed to use underground. Particularly in the permissible engines. One of the challenges is that if we retain the requirement for 95 percent efficiency, -- I'll try to phrase it another way. Ninety-five percent is reasonably easy to attain when you have a relatively dirty engine. If technology advances and we use extraordinary clean engines, such as are used in surface technology now, we will have a heck of a time trying to get 95 percent of the contaminants that are already at a low level out of the system. So, I think that the, -- I think we're better served to have a more realistic number that doesn't stop that technological advance. To give you some idea of how difficult it is to attain, as some of you know, we have been working extensively in West Virginia, to try to arrive at a mutually agreeable; and I'll call it that, set of regulations that, - - for diesel operation. And, frankly, it has been, -- in this process we have tested many diesel engines, many filters, and that the so-called filter business is more complex than, -- and I'm sure a filter, as many of you know, it's a combination of whether or not catalytic converters are used in conjunction with a so-called filter. But in that process it has been very difficult to obtain laboratory results that everyone is happy with. The laboratory that has been used is a West Virginia University Laboratory, a state of the art facility, very professional. Nonetheless, some of the data that has come out has been very difficult for lots of folks to live with. In fact, actually, the engine that is currently used in two of the pieces of the equipment that are really at this point, I think, the only two that are used in Pennsylvania, specifically, did not pass the tests that were carried out. I say, "the engine," the engine and filter combination did not really pass, due to the nature, probably, of the laboratory tests. But, nonetheless, that was the standard upon which this performance was measured. It's a good combination, it works well, I'm sure it's doing a fine job in Pennsylvania. But if it were really held to the test, -- or to the current, -- or the required level of tests, I doubt if it could really pass it. At least the tests that we used in West Virginia. There are other details, I think, that I won't get into, but for those who have made a study of the existing several sources of catalytic converters and that sort of thing, there is considerable variation in the manner in which the percentages are determined. In some cases it's done by, -- on a mass basis, a weight basis. In other cases it's done by a percentage of particulate count, -- or particle count, I should say. And there are some built-in discrepancies in the technology that is used. I guess if I have to, -- I think that it's probably appropriate to have some sort of percentage in the regulations. I think if I personally were going to write a regulation I think I would call for something in the 70 to 80 percent regulation. I think that any manufacturer, frankly, who's worth his salt, who wants to be competitive, will strive to go way beyond that. And, frankly, he will use his ability to, -- at least in laboratory, attain that, as a means of selling his product. But I think that something in the 70 to 80 percent range is something that the industry and you, MSHA, can live with. As we trend toward (95), frankly, we'll all spend a lot of time and agony trying to defend the indefensible. That's all I have. Thank you very much. MR. TOMB: Thank you. Any questions? MR. FORD: I'm a bit confused about your statement. You said, "The company is building the state of the art efficiency machine"? MR. MCWHORTER: Yes. MR. FORD: What's that mean? Are you building a machine with a, -- MR. MCWHORTER: Yes. MR. FORD: -- filter, or, -- MR. MCWHORTER: We are building a, -- we have built, a diesel electric shuttle car, which utilizes the DST system, -- the first generation DST system. What is first generation? First generation DST system which is the system that was approved up until, what, early last year. It did not incorporate a catalytic converter. Now, the subsequent, so-called second generation does, indeed, incorporate a catalytic converter. It is our plan that on subsequent machines we would incorporate the now approved catalytic converter in conjunction with the heat exchanger type DST system. And we use this on the MWM engine, and that combination is, -- I think I'm safe to say, about the cleanest combination thus far known to MSHA. So, that's why I called it the state of the art. MR. FORD: So, you took a shuttle car and you're putting on it the DST system? MR. MCWHORTER: Uh-huh (positive utterance). MR. FORD: Can you tell me just to put on that, - - would this system be a permissible? MR. MCWHORTER: Yes. MR. FORD: Okay. Would you tell me what it would cost to put on that DST system, purchasing it and installation? The range? MR. MCWHORTER: Oh, bear in mind that the system includes, -- it is, indeed, a system. It isn't just a heat exchanger, and it is not just a catalytic converter. It is that, which is necessary to cool it, so it does incorporate a radiator, it does incorporate safety shut downs and some other devices that are necessary. If I had to throw a rough number together I'd guess on that particular machine sixty to seventy thousand dollars, probably. MR. FORD: Okay. What's the horsepower? MR. MCWHORTER: That is (88), as it was tested. The MSHA approval for that particular is at (88). MR. FORD: Okay. Thank you. MR. MCWHORTER: Thank you. MR. TOMB: We've got another question, please, sir. MR. MCWHORTER: Yes sir. MR. KOGUT: You identified it as a problem with the approach that we tentatively took in the proposed rule of a requiring 95 percent filtration, that that would, -- I gathered from what you said, that you thought that that would be technology inhibiting in some sense. MR. MCWHORTER: Yes. MR. KOGUT: And argument for that is that cleaner, -- that it's more difficult to achieve any fixed filtration rate with cleaner engines than with, -- and yet, you apparently endorsed using a requirement of using something like 80 percent. I don't understand why that argument wouldn't apply in both cases? MR. MCWHORTER: All right. Thank you for the question. There are all sorts of diesel equipment used in a coal mine. Our particular machine lends itself to the use of this particular size engine, and this particular configuration of scrubber, filter, what have you. MR. KOGUT: When you say, "your engine, -- MR. MCWHORTER: Our particular configuration. MR. KOGUT: You mean on the shuttle car? MR. MCWHORTER: My concern is, -- excuse me? MR. KOGUT: You mean on the shuttle car? MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, on this particular size machine. It's a big machine that has room to put things in it. My concern is that this, as I understand it, is an across the board requirement. And some of these, -- to attain that, with other engine combinations, on other pieces of equipment, could be impractical, if not impossible. MR. KOGUT: When you say, "attain that," you mean attain 95 percent? MR. MCWHORTER: Ninety-five percent. Ninety-five percent. I think what you're doing in establishing some sort of efficiency level is probably necessary, but, -- as part of the overall mix. But I think that, -- as far as I'm concerned, the MWM engine with our diesel package is right at the edge of the state of the art. And under the very best of laboratory conditions, yes, it will get 95 percent, okay? But that is truly laboratory. I have reason to think that many other engines, even when used with the DST system will probably have, -- will have difficulty getting up to that, -- you know, in acetonic things, as you get closer and closer to 100 percent it gets infinitely more difficult. And I'm just trying to say it's impractical. It won't happen. It will be very limiting. MR. KOGUT: When you, -- well, you also mentioned that there are different ways of evaluating the efficiency, of course. And what we had proposed was 95 percent reduction by mass. In your view, does the diminishing return increase difficulty in achieving that 95 percent with so-called cleaner engines, does that apply when the filtration efficiency is measured on a, -- on the basis of number of particles, as well as by mass? MR. MCWHORTER: It wouldn't, I should think, in a reasonable range. But as you get closer and closer to 100 percent it could make a difference, maybe, you know, a few percent one way or another. Yeah, uh-huh (positive utterance). I think that's kind of a detail. I just want us not to get hung up on that detail. MR. MCKINNEY: As I understand from the hearing we had in Beckley, the MWM engine is no longer gonna be available because of simply there's no market for the engine. Do you see any engines that are out there that are available now, using some of the cleaner technologies that are gonna be available to you guys to put these packages together with? MR. MCWHORTER: Well, of course, in that same horsepower range there is available the Caterpillar 3304 right now. It's not as clean, not as efficient, but we could certainly, -- I'm confident that we could filter it very well, all that sort of thing. I prefer not to use it, there's some space and size configurations. There exists a, -- in fact, it was initially suggested to me by MSHA, to look into this. There exists a group in Brazil that were originally part of MWM, have since, -- MWM was purchased by Deutsche (phonetic), and the Brazilian group spun off and actually had been a major manufacturer of engines for many years. They've sent me a CD rom and all sorts of things; quite an impressive operation. And they make a, -- they make that engine. They make an engine virtually like the MWM 916, with the exception that it is not indirect ignition, or injection, and it does not have water cooled exhaust manifold. But these things are not beyond the range of, -- that sort of thing could be, -- those modifications could be made. So, I have some hope that we will be able to, -- if the market develops, that we will have an alternative source for that engine. MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MCWHORTER: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Our next presenter will be Mr. Larry Patts. MR. PATTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the panel. My name is Larry Patts, P-A-T-T-S, and I'm with Consol, Incorporate, Corporate Safety Department. I just wanted to make a few very brief comments this afternoon, particularly in respect to references made to the Pennsylvania law. As a resident of the great State; thank you, by the way, -- great State of Pennsylvania, and an indirect participant in the PA diesel process, I feel that it's necessary to address several comments which were made in reference to the Pennsylvania law. As the members of the panel heard this afternoon, miners want the use of diesel equipment. What they don't want is to suffer health effects from DPM. Earlier, Mr. Urban submitted the PA law as a pattern for the Federal rule. But the PA law is so restrictive that only two pieces of equipment in Pennsylvania are operating today. This is since February of 1997, when the PA law went into effect. It is questionable as to whether these two sole units of equipment meet the 95 percent filter efficiency, which is mandated by Pennsylvania. Such stringency effectively prohibits the use of diesel equipment, which we believe is very necessary to eliminate trolley wires and trailing cables, and the fatalities and injuries that go with trolley wire and trailing cables. I'll give you an example. At one of our mines in Pennsylvania, we've tried for over a year and a half to get one piece of diesel equipment approved for use under the PA requirements, and we cannot do it as of yet. And we have had the help of several manufacturers and many people involved in this, and can't get that one piece approved as of this date. Mr. Urban also made a reference to economics. And he said that economics is not a problem with the PA law, because the PA mines are still in operation, they're not going out of business. I don't know how this could be determined when there's only two pieces of equipment in operation in the entire State of Pennsylvania? I would remind the panel further, that Cypress, who was co-author of the Pennsylvania law, has already given testimony to the panel that the PA law is too restrictive and that it needs revisions in order to be a workable law, and made recommendations as to the adoption of an integrated approach in Pennsylvania. Meaning the use of clean engines, clean fuel, ventilation and so forth, in order to achieve a certain standard. I would hope that MSHA can learn from the experience in Pennsylvania that has been gained over the past two years and benefit from it. That's all I have. MR. TOMB: Thank you. Any questions? (No Verbal Response) MR. TOMB: Mr. Patts, could you possibly elaborate a little bit on what's involved, -- or what Consol's been involved with in trying to get an approval on an engine in Pennsylvania? MR. PATTS: I sure can. What we've tried to do is, -- our Dielworth (phonetic) Mine, in particular, needs a piece of equipment to clean along the belt line. If not, you've got to have men in there with picks and shovels, shoveling the material that sluff off the rib and is compacted against the rib. You have to pick and shovel that, loosen it and shovel it onto the belt. We have wanted to get a small unit called a Microtracks (phonetic). There's a manufacturer in Pennsylvania, -- or Maryland, rather, by the name of Romack (phonetic), that manufactures this equipment. And it is really a diesel engine operating a hydraulic power pack assembly, which you can put different devices on. One is a digging shovel. MR. TOMB: What's the size of that unit? MR. PATTS: Maximum width is 30 to 36 inches, I believe. MR. TOMB: No, I mean the horsepower of it? MR. PATTS: Oh, horsepower? MR. TOMB: Yeah, uh-huh (positive utterance). MR. PATTS: Nominal 15 horsepower, 15 to 20 horsepower unit. And we have had the manufacturer try several different filters on this equipment. Realizing this is a piece of small outby equipment and certainly cannot accept a system which would have a large heat exchanger on it and a dry paper filter. It couldn't accept it both physically nor economically, because of the prices you've heard with such systems. They have tried several different ceramic type filters and different filter arrangements and combinations of catalytic converters, and as of this date, still cannot meet the stringent 95 percent requirement of Pennsylvania law. MR. TOMB: Is the engine manufacturer doing this, -- trying these things? MR. PATTS: The engine manufacturer is doing it. Excuse me. Not the engine manufacturer, the equipment manufacturer. MR. TOMB: The equipment manufacturer. MR. MCKINNEY: What type of reductions have they gotten down to, using some of the ceramics? MR. PATTS: Ceramics, they have got as high as 90 percent. However, that's one piece of equipment under isolated conditions, and they did, in fact, -- the engine is derated in order to gain that type of efficiency from a filter. It's being rated in order to get the DPM emitted down so that the efficiency can go up. MR. TOMB: Okay. The other question I wanted to ask, and I forgot when you finished before. But who's doing the testing of the engines to determine the efficiency? MR. PATTS: This testing just happened to be one of the engines that was tested under the West Virginia, -- MR. TOMB: Okay. MR. PATTS: -- system, -- under the West Virginia proposal. MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you. MR. PATTS: Thank you. MR. TOMB: Okay. That pretty much concludes the list of speakers that I have. And what I'd like to do is, - - I have by popular demand, that we need a recess of about fifteen minutes. Then I'd like to come back and if there's anybody that would like to make a presentation that hasn't signed up, give those people the opportunity to speak. And if not, then this meeting will probably be concluded. You might, if you want to come up at the break, give your names while we take this break. (Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene this same day at 2:35 p.m.) MR. TOMB: I only have one additional name from a person that would like to several additional comments from their other presentation, Mr. Main. MR. MAIN: Thank you. My name's Joe Main. Again, from the United Mine Workers. A couple of things I'd like to raise. When we were developing the model for Pennsylvania, and we talked to a lot of miners, and I heard it here today from some of the miners that testified, the same situation, in trying to use water scrubbers with filters sometimes there is a problem there. And the fire problem results I think when they run the, -- they run water dry in the scrubbers and it lets all the heat go through, which is a maintenance problem. That's the reason that when we saw the performance of the dry systems, and with heat exchanger it did two things. It provided a constant cooling system, and secondly, the maintenance, -- I mean, it reduced the maintenance immensely. And I know there are some mines out here, I think Wabash, if anybody's left from the Wabash, is, -- you know, they've got one of the DST systems in, and they're getting another one, which they talk about today. And we're gonna get some more, you know, information on that. With respect to Pennsylvania, you know, whether this is true or not, I don't, but there's some people who just refuse to buy a product off of another coal company that has control. And that's Cypress (phonetic), I guess, controls the DST system, and some people may not like to buy things off of Cypress. That's their problem, I don't know. But they do have systems that has been tested and approved, or at least they're still standing approved to meet the kind of standard we're talking about. With respect to a system that was mentioned today, I was really surprised to hear that there have been this length of time trying to get the DST, -- or the system that was being developed, by Romax, -- Romack, out of, -- if it's the same system that I saw pull into a parking lot and run, -- about, -- this goes back five, six months at WVU. And we have been pounding, -- or had been pounding on Dr. Godden (phonetic) to get the thing in to get it tested. Now, we're gonna go back and check the record on this one, but my information that was coming to me is that it was getting backed up behind other testing and research to be done at WVU, and it wasn't the matter of just getting in there and just getting all these tests. And if that's not true, I want to get a verification on. But the information we had is it wasn't getting in the test lab to be tested. And we had talked to Romack ourself about "When are you guys gonna get it tested?" And they were complaining about the backlog of the other tests that was being done as part of the WVU research program that we had committed to the legislature. And what was happening down there, we tested a lot of different equipment, different filters, different equipment types, and that just happened to be one that was on the list. So, it may be an unfair characterization, and we need to get the facts to this committee that, in fact, it wasn't delayed because of all these tests. It may have been delayed because it just didn't get into the testing room. And I'll be the first willing to clarify the record if the information we've had, which comes straight out of the WVU is not correct. I do think that there is, -- if the industry thought today that they had to meet the standards that we're talking about, I think we'd see a lot more R & P being done to get there, then what we're seeing today. I'm convinced of that. One of the things that I think has happened as we tried to work the Pennsylvania model, and try to develop a rule similar to, -- or in West Virginia rather, and try to work a rule similar to Pennsylvania was, there seemed to have been those in the industry that was resisting having certain kind of research done. And we had, -- unfortunately, had to deal with that. And I've been disturbed by that. If you build it, they will come. If you set the standard, they'll meet it, I think is a clear message here. A couple of other items too, is that miners don't believe that some folks who have not had the experience, -- the ill fortunate, I would say, to work around diesel equipment really understands what that's like. And we had toyed with the thought of bringing a piece of diesel equipment emitting the kind of pollutants that you're talking about into the hearing room. And we figured we'd probably run into, -- the laws probably wouldn't permit you guys to be exposed to that. You know, they would protect you from the diesel exhaust, you know, unlike coal miners. But, I think that the, -- what the committee ought to do, if they can do that, is to set up some of these schemes that some of these miners are talking about and set up a meeting where you are experiencing some of the same kinds of diesel exposure that they've related. And I think that what we ought to do, is we ought to have this room and let us set it up based on a true mine experience. And as soon as you guys leave, and as soon as anybody on this committee leaves, we set that as, "Okay, that's the worst case scenario we're gonna go as far any kind of exposure to diesel". And I say that really because I think there is a lack of understanding about some of the real circumstances that miners have to face. It was sort of like that miner that I talked about at Show Creek that just became sick and maybe some kind of permanent illness as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust. But he's just using a forklift in a belt entry. Those things are common. Those are light-duty, common equipments that run these days. We'll probably be taking a look at the record, submit some more comments with respect to some of the issues that was raised here today. And I'll be providing those before the record closes. Do you have any questions? MR. HANEY: I have one. Does anybody have, -- can we have one, -- any? MR. TOMB: (Positive gesture.) MR. HANEY: You mentioned the testing that West Virginia, you know, has been doing on this. Do you know how many units that, -- different units or different engines that they have tested, other than the two that have been approved and possibly this, -- what did you call this last one? MR. MAIN: Romack? MR. HANEY: Romack, yeah. MR. MAIN: I don't know, but we can get you the list. Because I think as far as the West Virginia research program that was run from the monies that was appropriated in West Virginia, there is a documentation I know of those, that we have, and I can get those two you. The Romack test, I know our folks had talked to WVU about, -- I think about two weeks ago, and from what I understand, I mean, the tests that I thought was the first real run-through that they did with the system that we saw pulling in there some months ago, came very, very close to meeting the PA standard. And, again, I'm gonna go back and figure out what the differences, -- what I heard today, as to what we heard out of West Virginia. Because it appears that they had something that's, you know, fairly close to meeting the current PA law. Oh, one other point too, I want to raise is, in our proposal, what we have offered is an approach that the .12 would be met with a combination of other things, including a, -- as a starting point for the first round, an 80 percent filter efficiency, and utilizing to meet the .12, twice the ventilating current plate rating. Which the current PA law really sets that at one, or at the plate level, .12. MR. HANEY: What's the genesis of the .12? MR. MAIN: Well, the genesis is that believe that that's the range that we need to getting into to protect miners. We believe that that's an achievable range based on test results that have been conducted to get us there. We can do better than that, but we believe that technology gives us the ability to get there. And the problem we have is that we realize that, -- two things, one is that when that equipment in it's perfect condition is tested and goes into a mine, its operation's gonna deteriorate to the system. Okay, you're not gonna have that perfect world of which to test. So we're really not even gonna achieve a .12 in the actual operations. But with a filter capacity to filter out 95 percent, then we figure we're fairly close to catch as much of that contaminant as we can. We also realize that we can't do real in-line tests at the levels we're talking about. And when you look at the other contaminants in the environment, you know, it does pose other problems. We've also said that you need to do tail pipe testing when you do testing. The same was addressed here by others today, in its undiluted form. And the other point I'll raise on the DST systems, the first DST systems did, in fact, come with a, -- without a catalytic converter. We have found that once the catalyst was added to that system, -- and it's been tested on some different pieces of equipment thus far, but I think the Cat 3306 test, which was done at the Brookfield Plant in Pennsylvania, -- which we will provide you folks a copy of a tape on, had substantially reduced the carbon monoxide out of the system. And I don't know what a 3306 engine is? Probably about a four hundred part CO coming off the very exhaust, about a 150 horse engine. And the catalytic converter applied to that, operating about medium speed was, -- we had a tail pipe undiluted gas of about thirteen to nineteen parts per million. So, that second system that was referred to today, we think has remarkably helped clean up, you know, some of the gases that should be part of another standard that should be moving fairly quickly. MR. TOMB: Bob. MR. HANEY: Your point was, that's a laboratory index that includes air flow, filter efficiency and engine emissions? MR. MAIN: It is based on the ISO test, with .12 at no more than twice the plate rating, whatever, -- if you had ten thousand, you'd use that, -- hypothetically, if you had a five thousand plate reading you could have up to ten thousand to bring those, -- the actual contaminates with that dilution, whatever that dilution, up to that level then of .12. MR. HANEY: But that is a laboratory test? MR. MAIN: That is a laboratory test. And you've got to test these systems. I mean, you've got to have some understanding about what you're doing. And, again, you can't get that test, we don't think, with today's instrumentation in a coal mine. Which poses a, -- you know, we had sought early on an in-mine test, because we thought that's what we needed to do. But after talking to a lot of miners and looking at this whole animal, I think that would be the worst thing, -- at least, you know, in a coal mine, that we could do. But we do need to develop the instrumentation. MR. TOMB: So, that level, that .12 level, is dependent on proper ventilation over that machine, also? MR. MAIN: Yeah. In part, ventilation. MR. TOMB: Okay. MR. MAIN: Okay. MR. TOMB: Any other questions? (No Verbal Response) MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you. We have one more request for comment. Mr. Thakur, -- Dr. Thakur, I'm sorry. DR. THAKUR: That's all right. Mr. Chairman, thank you. For the record, my name is Pramod Thakur. P, as in Peter, R-A-M-O-D, and the last name is Thakur, T, as in Tom, H-A-K-U-R. I'm a Research Associate with Consol, Inc., based in Morgantown, West Virginia. I'm also a duly appointed Commissioner in the State of West Virginia, by the Governor of West Virginia, to write the regulations for the safe use of diesel in underground coal mines. Some of the questions were asked here, and I think Joe was trying his best to answer. I just want to supplement what Joe said. In the WVU West Virginia Commission test program, we had four engines tested. Starting on the high side, we have CAT-3306, 150 horse; MWM- 916, nominal 94, derated to 88; Iszu C-240, a 57 horse engine, and the last one was LPU-2, 16.2 nominal horsepower. The only engine that could accommodate, -- of the large size engines, the hundred and fifty horse and eighty-eighty horse MWM, were done with DST. And we had some problems with the manufacturer of the equipment once the (indiscernible) technology correctly uncertified it. The best we got with Cat-3306 was 81.8 percent. It is in the records, by the way, that were given to you at Beckley. MR. TOMB: Was that the presentation by Mr. Carter? DR. THAKUR: No. Yes, yes. MR. TOMB: Yeah, okay. DR. THAKUR: Yeah. And the numbers are there, but just for the sake of this audience here, I thought it was proper for me, since I am here, to share this with you. Somebody asked me a question, "How they got 95 percent, you know, with MWM". And I believe, -- it's on the record again, in our discussions with my Industrial Labor Commissioners, it was conveyed to us that testing was going on. And the one way you measure how flat that trimter (phonetic) is looking at the delta view (phonetic), from the intake of the engine to the discharge at 40 inch which end of the filter. And this has already developed almost 30 inches of water. And that is the stage we got, -- or bigger, -- this was done three years back, it's not the part of testing under the Commissioner's charge, it was done for somebody else, you know. In our experiment we ran all kinds of things, DST system, three different kinds of ceramic systems, a variety of oxides and catalyst, and perhaps about twenty-eight different combinations. And it ran from 42 percent on the low side, with the DST system, to as high as 90 percent with a combination of oxides and catalyst, and a catalyzed filter. But the majority of data is between 70 and 80 percent, you know. So, if we're gonna give a chance for people to maximize the use of diesel engines in the coal mines, -- again, mind you, I come from a state where we have very gassy mines. In Consol in the last twenty years we have had eighteen fatalities. And God forbid if it happens again, because we have those trolley wires. Just to stop and think, if we had these in our mines, and if I came to Joe or somebody else and ask, "I want to introduce naked wires in the mine, gassy mines, carrying 600 bolt DC, what are my chances of getting approval for that, or agreement?" None. I have devoted my whole in making mines safe by taking the gas out and keeping the dust out. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that diesel engines are safer. It's not perfect. But I'm like many other speakers here, I think we should leave the door open for further research, for further improvement, because you never know what we can achieve the next day. I didn't know that there a fuel that's available with only five parts per million sulfur. I found out only the other month here, you know. Now, one of the problems we have with catalytic filters, Mr. Chairman, that the way the CFR 30 defines DPM, -- maybe you guys wrote it, anything that comes out on that filter is DPM, (indiscernible). More than half off of the sulfate is not carbon. And it does not, -- I mean, it's not as clean as water, but it's not as bad as so-called DPM, you know. So, what if we can cut down the sulfur in fuel? It will make tremendous improvement. We've just found it. So, I'm just saying, you know, that there are a lot of opportunities to do work, but in the interim, we shouldn't wait to introduce diesel in our mines, because it's for the sake of safety. We can fight, we can litigate, we can bicker around, four, five, six years, -- we can litigate it for five years or so, you know, but what if something like black lung, or maltase (phonetic) or DP(5) in Virginia happens? I have seen too many people die in the mines. Permitted, it is no different than hourly workers and salaried workers, they're all my children, brothers, or whatever, you know. I have great rapport with the Union, in District 31, when I took the gas out from the mines. And I come from that kind of relationship to advocate for the sake of mines, -- safety of the mines and safety of workers. Let's have some kind of good agreement, get the equipment in, make the mines safe, leave the door open for continued development. Some of the problems I have heard, I'd like to address in Birmingham. They are very easy to take care of, like burning of eyes, choking of throat, you know. A lot of progress has been made in the past year and a half. We've spent nearly a half a million dollars, Mr. Chairman, on it, you know. So, there are some people who are spending money on research, you know, and one of them is my company, Consol, Inc., the other is the State of West Virginia. Thank you. MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? (No Verbal Response) MR. TOMB: Okay. Thank you, Dr. Thakur. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to have this opportunity to make a short or long presentation? (Laughter) MR. TOMB: Any presentation? (No Verbal Response) MR. TOMB: Okay. Well, I want to thank you all for coming, and especially those who participated. I think we got a lot of good information, a lot of food for thought, and we're certainly gonna consider all the information we got in developing these rules. Thank you for your participation. This meeting is closed. (Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE DOCKET NO.: N/A CASE TITLE: Diesel Particulate Matter HEARING DATE: December 15, 1998 LOCATION: Mt. Vernon, Illinois 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 United States Department of Labor. Date: December 15, 1998 Deborah Carter Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation Suite 600 1220 L Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005