1 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON MINE RESCUE TEAMS 2 AND MINE RESCUE TEAM EQUIPMENT 3 4 November 1, 2007 5 9:00 a.m. 6 7 8 9 10 CAPTION 11 12 The Mine Safety and Health 13 Administration held a Public Hearing 14 on their proposal for Mine Rescue 15 TEAMS and Mine Rescue Team Equpiment 16 on November 1, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. at 17 the Sheraton Hotel, 2101 Richard 18 Arrington Jr. Boulevard, Birmingham, 19 Alabama. The above hearing was 20 transcribed by Susan Bell, CCR#14, 21 Notary Public in and for the State of 22 Alabama. 23 2 1 PANEL MEMBERS 2 3 Patricia W. Silvey, Director of the 4 Office of Standards, Regulations, and 5 Variances for MSHA 6 7 Cherie A. Hutchison, MSHA Office 8 9 Matthew C. Ward, Attorney with the 10 Office of the Solicitor 11 12 Michael G. Kalich, Office of Coal 13 Mine Safety & Health and Team Leader 14 for this project 15 16 Dr. Jeffrey H. Kravitz, MSHA 17 Technical Support Center in 18 Pittsburgh 19 20 Phuc T. Phan, Economist at MSHA 21 22 William (Bill) Wilson, Metal 23 Non-Metal Mines Health & Safety 3 1 PROCEEDING 2 3 MS. SILVEY: Good morning. 4 My name is Patricia W. Silvey. I am 5 the Director of the Mine Safety and 6 Health Administration's Office of 7 Standards, Regulations and Variances. 8 I will be the moderator of this 9 public hearing on the MSHA's proposal 10 for Mine Rescue TEAMS. 11 On behalf of Richard E. 12 Stickler, Assistant Secretary of 13 Labor for Mine Safety and Health, I 14 want to welcome all of you here 15 today. 16 The MSHA members of the panel 17 who are principally responsible for 18 drafting the proposal -- and I might 19 add, before I start introducing them, 20 that some of the members of the panel 21 have many years of practical mine 22 experience doing Mine Rescue TEAMS 23 work. 4 1 That was particularly 2 important as the Agency started out 3 to draft a regulation dealing with 4 Mine Rescue TEAMS. So I just want to 5 make sure that people are aware of 6 that. 7 To my left is Michael Kalich, 8 and he is with the Office of Coal 9 Mine Health and Safety. To his left 10 is William (Bill) Wilson with the 11 Office of Metal Non-Metal Mines 12 Health and Safety. To his left is 13 Jeffrey Kravitz, who is with the 14 Office of Technical Support in 15 Pittsburgh Center. 16 To my right, is Cheri 17 Hutchison, who is in my office. To 18 her right, is Matt Ward, who is our 19 lawyer on the project with the Office 20 of the Solicitor. To his right, is 21 Phuc Phan, who is an Economist in my 22 office. 23 Before we start the hearing 5 1 this morning, I would like it if you 2 would join me in a moment of silence 3 in memory of the miners and rescuers 4 who have lost their lives in mine 5 accidents; particularly, the recent 6 tragedy at Crandall Canyon. So, if 7 you would, join me in a moment of 8 silence. 9 (A moment of silence was 10 observed.) 11 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. 12 This is the last of four 13 public hearings on this proposal. As 14 many of you know, we held the first 15 hearing in Salt Lake City, Utah on 16 October 23rd; the second hearing in 17 Lexington on October 25th; the third 18 one this past Tuesday in Charleston; 19 today's hearing is the last and final 20 hearing. 21 We will be holding a public 22 hearing on the Mine Rescue Team 23 Equipment proposal. It says "this 6 1 afternoon;" but, as soon as I 2 conclude this hearing, I will convene 3 the Mine Rescue Team Equipment Public 4 Hearing in this same room. 5 Obviously, we are holding the two 6 public hearings on the same day so 7 that persons interested in both 8 hearings can attend. 9 The Mine Rescue TEAMS 10 proposal applies only to underground 11 coal mines. We have copies of the 12 "Federal Register" that contains the 13 proposal on the table with the 14 attendance sheets. 15 The comment period for 16 proposal ends on November 9th. MSHA 17 must receive your comments by 18 midnight Eastern Standard Time 19 November 9th. This is 20 significantly -- this is the first 21 time that we have announced a time 22 zone in the "Federal Register" for 23 receipt of comments. To avoid any 7 1 confusion and for clarity, we want to 2 let everybody know that when we say 3 "November 9th," that means midnight 4 Eastern Standard Time. 5 As of October 30th, we have 6 received three comments in the 7 proposal, and that's not unusual 8 because most people wait until the 9 last minute to put in their written 10 comments. 11 You can view the comments on 12 MSHA's website, at www.msha.gov on 13 the Rules and Regulations. 14 The proposal would implement 15 the provisions of Section 4 of the 16 Mine Improvement and New Emergency 17 Response (MINER) Act of 2006, which 18 strengthens training requirements and 19 addresses composition, availability, 20 and certification requirements for 21 coal mine rescue teams. 22 The purpose of these hearings 23 is to receive information from the 8 1 public that will help us evaluate the 2 requirements in the proposal and 3 produce a final rule that will 4 improve overall mine rescue service, 5 mine emergency response time, mine 6 rescue team effectiveness, and the 7 quality of mine rescue team training. 8 The proposal discusses the 9 provisions in the rule and includes a 10 number of specific requests for 11 information. As you address the 12 provisions, either in your testimony 13 here today or in written comments, 14 please be as specific as possible. 15 I can't underscore that 16 enough. You will hear me saying that 17 over and over. Be as specific as 18 possible about how the changes would 19 affect the safety and health of 20 miners and mine rescue team members. 21 MSHA also requests detailed 22 information and data on costs and 23 feasibility of implementing the 9 1 provisions. 2 I will now reiterate the 3 specific requests for information 4 that are in the preamble to the 5 proposal. 6 MSHA requests comments on the 7 proposed reorganization of 30 CFR 8 part 49 and on the approach taken. 9 The Agency requests comments on the 10 designation of the existing standards 11 as subpart A for underground metal 12 and nonmetal mines and the creation 13 of a new, separate subpart B 14 containing both the existing 15 standards and the proposed new MINER 16 Act provisions for underground coal 17 mines. 18 Expect as provided in the 19 MINER Act -- and I will underscore 20 this, too -- MSHA did not propose 21 changes to the existing standards. 22 MSHA is proposing that team 23 members of State-sponsored teams who 10 1 are full-time State employees may 2 substitute their regular job 3 experience for 50 percent of the 4 training requirements. MSHA requests 5 comments regarding the types of State 6 relationships with teams and team 7 members that will qualify the team 8 members as employees and the team as 9 "State sponsored." 10 The Agency is proposing that 11 mine rescue teams be available at the 12 mine within one hour from the mine 13 rescue station. That, of course, is 14 in accordance with the MINER Act. 15 MSHA solicits comments on 16 whether some existing stations may 17 need to be moved to meet this 18 requirement. 19 To assist in developing our 20 regulatory economic analysis, the 21 Agency would like to know how many 22 additional mine rescue stations would 23 be needed to comply with the new 11 1 requirement. Where would the new 2 rescue stations be located? Do any 3 stations have to be moved? 4 The Agency also solicits 5 comments on whether mine operators, 6 State agencies, or other entities 7 will encounter any difficulties in 8 meeting this requirement. MSHA asks 9 that the commenter include specific 10 feasibility information; such as, 11 cost or technical capability, in 12 support of their position. 13 MSHA requests comments on the 14 proposed 64-hour training 15 requirement. Specifically, whether 16 the proposed hours of training should 17 be increased or decreased in the 18 final rule. 19 The existing annual training 20 requirement, as you know, is 40 21 hours. The commenter should address 22 the rationale for any amount of 23 training, type of training, the 12 1 number of hours of training that 2 should be required for specific 3 activities, and the impact of such a 4 requirement on the mining industry's 5 ability to form additional mine 6 rescue teams or retain current mine 7 rescue team members. 8 The proposal requires mine 9 rescue teams to train at each mine 10 serviced by the team. Under the 11 MINER Act, teams serving mines with 12 36 or fewer employees -- and the 13 MINER Act refers to these mines as 14 small mines -- must train at each 15 covered mine semi-annually. 16 Mine-site teams and State- 17 sponsored teams, which are required 18 to train at large mines annually, 19 would have to train at small mines 20 semi- annually if they service a 21 small mine. 22 Contract mine rescue teams 23 would have to train quarterly at each 13 1 of the large mines they service. 2 Composite teams would have to train 3 semi-annually at each of the large 4 mines they service. 5 MSHA invites comments 6 regarding the training. MSHA also 7 requests comments on whether the 8 training at the mine service needs to 9 be conducted underground. 10 The Agency solicits comments 11 regarding the types of teams that are 12 available to mines having 36 or fewer 13 employees and whether these mines 14 should be able to use other types of 15 teams; such as, the composite team, 16 consisting of one team member from 17 each covered mine rather than two 18 team members from each covered mine 19 as required by the MINER Act. 20 Would additional mine rescue 21 teams be needed to comply with the 22 new requirement for teams to train at 23 each covered mine? What would be the 14 1 make-up and composition of new teams? 2 The commenter should explain 3 any suggested alternatives; 4 including, supporting documentation 5 and data. 6 As I stated at the outset -- 7 you heard me say you'll probably hear 8 this a lot this morning -- please be 9 as specific as possible regarding any 10 suggested alternatives that you might 11 have. If you have information on 12 your particular situation, as far as 13 the impact of the proposal, please be 14 as specific as possible regarding the 15 impact on your particular situation. 16 The proposal requires 17 underground coal mine operators to 18 provide certified mine rescue teams 19 and includes criteria for certifying 20 a mine rescue team. 21 The proposal would require 22 each mine operator to submit an 23 annual statement to the District 15 1 Manager certifying the qualification 2 of the Mine's mine rescue teams. To 3 make this certification less 4 burdensome, the Agency developed a 5 form that can be filed on line. 6 MSHA welcomes any suggestions 7 on the form and requests comments and 8 recommendations for other 9 alternatives for certification of 10 mine rescue teams. 11 The proposal requires mine 12 rescue teams to participate in two 13 local mine rescue contests each year. 14 MSHA developed criteria for local 15 mine rescue contests and requests 16 comments on the proposed criteria. 17 The Agency solicits comments 18 on whether there should be a minimum 19 amount of annual training prescribed 20 for contest judges. The Agency is 21 considering allowing an attendance at 22 training on contest rules and 23 interpretations to satisfy the 16 1 requirement for annual training for 2 judges. 3 MSHA requests comments on 4 this approach or whether some other 5 training is more appropriate. 6 The proposal would allow 7 other training that provides an 8 equivalent realistic simulation 9 exercise; such as, Mine Emergency 10 Response Development, (MERD) drills, 11 to substitute for participation in a 12 local mine rescue contest. MSHA 13 requests comments on this 14 alternative. 15 MSHA has prepared a 16 Preliminary Regulatory Economic 17 Analysis for the proposal, which 18 contains estimated supporting data on 19 costs and benefits. MSHA estimated 20 that the proposal would result in 28 21 additional mine rescue stations, 56 22 additional mine rescue teams, and no 23 change in the level of service 17 1 provided by State-sponsored teams and 2 stations. 3 MSHA estimated a total annual 4 compliance cost of 3.1 million 5 dollars. MSHA requests comments on 6 all of the assumptions and data used 7 in deriving the cost estimates. 8 This hearing will be 9 conducted in an informal manner, and 10 formal rules of evidence will not 11 apply. The panel may ask questions 12 of the witnesses. The witnesses may 13 ask questions of the panel. However, 14 cross-examination, as you know -- 15 many of you -- is not allowed. 16 MSHA will make a transcript 17 of the hearing and post it on the 18 Agency's website within one or two 19 weeks after the conclusion of this 20 hearing. 21 If you wish to present 22 written statements or information 23 today, please clearly identify your 18 1 material and give it to one of the 2 panel members. 3 You may also submit comments 4 following this public hearing by any 5 of the methods listed in the "Federal 6 Register Notice." To be considered, 7 as I said earlier, the Agency must 8 receive your comments by November 9 9th. 10 We ask everyone in attendance 11 this morning to sign the attendance 12 sheet. If you plan to testify, we 13 ask that you sign the speakers list. 14 If you have a hard copy or an 15 electronic version of your 16 presentation, please provide it to 17 the court reporter. 18 We will now hear from those 19 who signed up to speak. If you 20 would, please begin by clearly 21 stating your name and spelling it for 22 the reporter so that the reporter -- 23 we have an accurate record. 19 1 Our first speaker today is -- 2 I'm trying to remember because I 3 don't see the list. I think it's Ken 4 Russell. It's Ken Russell from 5 Bevill State Community College, 6 Sumiton campus. 7 MR. RUSSELL: My name is Ken 8 Russell; K-e-n, R-u-s-s-e-l-l. 9 On behalf of Bevill State 10 Community College and our President, 11 Neil Morrison, we thank you for this 12 opportunity to speak today. 13 We applaud the efforts of the 14 Mine Safety and Health Administration 15 on improving the safety of mines and 16 mining, and especially Section 4 of 17 the MINER Act. 18 Any time there can be an 19 improvement on mine emergency 20 response time, improved team 21 effectiveness, and increased quantity 22 and quality of mine rescue team 23 training, we should seize that 20 1 moment. However, we do wish that 2 more input had been sought from 3 institutions such as ours and from 4 industry before the final passage of 5 the MINER Act. 6 We are convinced a better and 7 more workable law could have resulted 8 from a broader spectrum of input from 9 individuals, the mine rescue 10 community nationwide, institutions, 11 and coal companies with actual 12 experience in emergency mine rescue 13 situations. 14 Bevill State has housed and 15 been responsible for equipping and 16 training the two State of Alabama 17 mine rescue teams for over 25 years. 18 One of our teams is made up entirely 19 of state mine inspectors, and the 20 other is made up of volunteers from 21 several of the mines which we are 22 responsible for covering. A 23 composite team. 21 1 During the intervening 25 2 years, our teams have participated in 3 several fire fighting, rescue, and 4 recovery operations. We know mine 5 rescue. This district knows mine 6 rescue. 7 We were never afforded an 8 opportunity to speak, other than the 9 hearings. No one asked for any 10 information. No one solicited any 11 comments or a panel. We feel like 12 this district and other districts 13 across the nation in the mine rescue 14 community know mine rescue. 15 If you'll refer to Part 16 49.11, the chart on page 51-332, the 17 note at the bottom of the chart -- 18 I'll begin with that -- it states: 19 "Team members of State-sponsored 20 teams who are full-time State 21 employees whose primary job duties 22 include inspecting underground mines 23 for compliance with State safety laws 22 1 or training mine rescue teams or 2 conducting mine safety training or 3 other similar duties that would 4 enhance their mine rescue knowledge 5 may substitute for regular job 6 experience or 50 percent of the 7 training requirements for non-State 8 employee mine rescue team members." 9 We believe that the proposed 10 requirement allowing the 50 percent 11 reduction in training requirements 12 for teams made up of State inspectors 13 should definitely apply to the mine- 14 site portion of the training, since 15 these individuals will already 16 possess extensive knowledge of these 17 locations; but we do not believe the 18 other training requirements should be 19 halved. 20 The time spent in wearing an 21 apparatus is essential for conditions 22 for an actual situation and should 23 not be reduced. 23 1 Pertaining to 49.12(f), the 2 one-hour travel time, I would like to 3 read to you a letter that I had to 4 send out to a mine superintendent of 5 a mine that we provide coverage for. 6 I will leave the name of the mine 7 out. It's addressed to the mine 8 superintendent. 9 "Due to the new MINER Act 10 requirements for underground coal 11 mine operators and mine rescue teams, 12 Bevill State Community College, 13 representing the State of Alabama, 14 will no longer be able to provide 15 mine rescue coverage for blank mining 16 effective December 15th, 2007. The 17 coverage cannot be extended for 18 reasons stated in 30 CFR Part 19 49-12(f). No mine served by a mine 20 rescue team shall be located more 21 than one-hour ground travel time from 22 the mine rescue station with which 23 the rescue team is associated. A 24 1 satellite station is not a feasible 2 option because of the cost to 3 maintain two rescue stations, and any 4 moves further east from its current 5 location would place the current 6 station outside of the one-hour 7 ground travel time for other mines 8 within the mine rescue coverage 9 area." 10 There is a new mine that will 11 be starting up within three miles of 12 this same location. We traveled this 13 route from the station to this 14 particular mine twice. One time, it 15 was an hour and 16 minute. One time, 16 it was an hour and 13 minutes. 17 So, with that said, we would 18 like to comment on that reduction in 19 allotted ground travel time on 20 station to covered mines. Why was 21 this time halved? What evidence 22 exists that two hours is not a 23 workable time? What recent situation 25 1 has been exacerbated by team arrival 2 within two hours? 3 Again, we in the mine rescue 4 community also know that if teams 5 were on site within one hour, would 6 the MSHA Control Rescue Fire Fighting 7 Recovery Command Center be 8 sufficiently functional or staffed to 9 permit team entry? 10 We understand the desire to 11 establish more teams and more 12 stations; but, considering the 13 additional cost of the difficulty of 14 maintaining remote stations, is it 15 not just as likely that some 16 organizations might decide to simply 17 decline to support remote mines? 18 It is our belief these well- 19 intentioned regulations may actually 20 reduce the number of teams, stations, 21 and mines. It is highly possible 22 that some states will decide to 23 eliminate their state teams rather 26 1 than face increased costs and drastic 2 increases in the amount of time away 3 from other duties their employees 4 would face. 5 At the last sentence of this 6 letter that I wrote, I did make this 7 statement. "I will petition the 8 District Manager in MSHA District 11 9 to grant us a waiver so that we may 10 continue the coverage for your mine." 11 We are asking that the MSHA 12 District Manager be granted the 13 authority to grant waivers on the 14 one-hour ground travel time from mine 15 rescue stations in certain given 16 situations. 17 Part 48-18, concerning 18 training for mine rescue teams. This 19 is a question. If personnel are 20 available with extensive mine rescue 21 experience and knowledge who have 22 passed the required physical 23 examination and have maintained the 27 1 necessary apparatus time but have not 2 participated in competition, not a 3 part of the team members, are these 4 people going to be denied the 5 opportunity to contribute in an 6 actual situation? 7 By that, I mean, there are 8 people who have experience and 9 expertise. I have over 27 years of 10 experience in mine rescue. I have 11 been in every situation, I guess, 12 that is out there. Would I be denied 13 entry by an overzealous MSHA 14 inspector because I have not competed 15 in two competitions? 16 There are certain people who 17 have skills; such as, paramedics, 18 ventilation engineers, people with 19 electrical backgrounds and electrical 20 engineering backgrounds. If they 21 keep their allotted time of mine 22 rescue training up and meet the 23 requirements of the physical, would 28 1 they be excluded from the entrance of 2 a mine in a disaster? 3 We feel there are individuals 4 with expertise at all locations that 5 could be utilized that are not 6 current team members. 7 Part 49-20, requirements for 8 all coal mines and requirements for 9 composite teams. I would like to 10 present a scenario using our current 11 situation as a starting point. 12 I want you to remember I have 13 one fully staffed state inspector 14 team of eight. I have one fully 15 staffed composite team of eight. 16 They are all made up of experienced 17 team members. They have been where 18 the wars are fought. 19 Suppose we are responsible 20 for the coverage of 15 mines? We are 21 not in this state yet. The State of 22 Kentucky does. The State of West 23 Virginia does. Probably more than 29 1 that. 2 The new regulations require 3 that we add two more team members 4 from the other mines being covered. 5 If I covered 15 mines, that would be 6 30 people, which could bring our team 7 totals as it stands right now, as a 8 composite team and an inspector team, 9 to a total of 38. 10 Will we have to release our 11 highly experienced team members to 12 make room for those other two team 13 members representing each mine? Does 14 this also mean that we would have to 15 maintain 38 apparatus? 16 We feel that we need to visit 17 the mines twice a year and meeting 18 with a liaison, one or two people at 19 each mine site that could show us the 20 ventilation, show the roof control 21 plan, show us the escapeways, all the 22 pertinent information about 23 transportation, all of those things. 30 1 It is not necessary to displace team 2 members as we have them now. 3 Who will pay for these 4 people? Who will pay for their time? 5 Do you see how unworkable a situation 6 some of these new requirements could 7 create? 8 It's been our experience -- 9 again, the mine rescue community, if 10 you check nationwide, during several 11 actual situations -- that there are 12 personnel out there available at the 13 mine that provide knowledge and could 14 be a liaison person to the mine 15 rescue teams during these events. 16 That's all I have. 17 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. 18 First of all, Mr. Russell, 19 let me say for everybody here that we 20 at MSHA recognize the long and 21 significant and necessary service and 22 the tradition of mine rescue teams in 23 this country; and we appreciate that. 31 1 At every hearing that I have had so 2 far, at some point during the 3 hearing, I have said words to that 4 effect. 5 So, by proposing these 6 regulations -- and I will say this 7 now -- and I'm going to repeat 8 something that I said at the first 9 hearing we had, the Salt Lake City 10 hearing. We did not intend to take 11 any action that would negatively 12 impact mine rescue team service or 13 mine rescue team members or mine 14 rescue teams; but -- and I know you 15 understand that. 16 Obviously, Alabama has it's 17 congressmen in Congress and it's two 18 senators. You understand that the 19 Congress passed and the President 20 signed the MINER Act. 21 MSHA had to do what it could 22 to try to give meaning to the MINER 23 Act and regulations and do the best 32 1 job we could in proposing the 2 regulations and yet allowing the 3 public, and particularly the mine 4 rescue team community -- see, that's 5 the community personally affected by 6 these regulations -- to allow the 7 public to have input into them. 8 So we tried to find a way 9 where we could give meaning to the 10 MINER Act, what Congress did and the 11 President signed; but, at the same 12 time, we tried to effectuate a 13 situation where we would allow that 14 long wonderful and necessary 15 tradition of mine rescue service to 16 go on. 17 That's where we are. That's 18 why we're here in Alabama today. So 19 I just want to say that at the 20 outset. We appreciate what you're 21 doing and what your college is doing 22 and what everybody in this room who 23 is involved in mine rescue is doing. 33 1 We never -- and another 2 thing. We never want the occasion to 3 arise where we need mine rescue 4 teams, but sometimes we do. 5 Sometimes the occasion is like it was 6 at Crandall Canyon or unfortunately 7 like it was here in Alabama at Jim 8 Walters a few years ago. 9 Then, sometimes, it's not so 10 disastrous a situation. It may be a 11 lesser catastrophic accident, but 12 still the mine rescue team is just as 13 necessary in all those situations. 14 So, before I go further, I 15 did not want to leave this hearing 16 without make that statement on behalf 17 of the panel here, and on behalf of 18 MSHA, quite honestly. 19 We appreciate your comments, 20 too. I have a few things that I 21 would like to ask you about what you 22 said, and maybe the panel members 23 might have a few questions. 34 1 With respect to the State of 2 Alabama, I'm glad to hear the 3 information that you said about the 4 State of Alabama teams. With respect 5 to the State of Alabama's two teams, 6 you all are the designated primary 7 team coverage for how many mines in 8 Alabama? 9 MR. RUSSELL: Right now, we 10 cover five mines. We are the primary 11 and the backup on three of those 12 mines. 13 MS. SILVEY: Okay. 14 MR. RUSSELL: And we are the 15 backup on the other two. 16 MS. SILVEY: Okay. You said 17 that one is all state inspectors, and 18 the second one is like a composite 19 team? 20 MR. RUSSELL: Yes. They are 21 made up of -- it's not exactly two 22 from each mine. They're made up from 23 those particular mines; but that's 35 1 not all that we cover, though. 2 MS. SILVEY: Let me ask you 3 another thing. In terms of the ones 4 that you cover, as to the MINER Act 5 -- and I said that in my opening 6 statement about the designation now 7 of the 36 or fewer for the small 8 mines and 37 or greater for the large 9 mines. 10 Are all of yours in one 11 category? 12 MR. RUSSELL: No. We have 13 one small mine. 14 MS. SILVEY: Under the MINER 15 Act categorization? 16 MS. RUSSELL: Yes, ma'am. 17 MS. SILVEY: Okay. The 18 letter that you provided -- and 19 that's very useful. That's the kind 20 of information that we need from 21 everybody here. 22 Even if you don't want to 23 testify today, if you don't want to 36 1 come forward, if you have the same 2 kind of impact that Mr. Russell had, 3 if you would, let us know. Send it 4 to us before November the 9th before 5 the record closes. 6 That is the specific kind of 7 information that we need to direct us 8 if we have to do something 9 differently. If we have to do 10 something differently, we need to 11 know the impact, the specific impact. 12 That's the only kind of 13 information that I can take forward 14 to say that this has impacted these 15 people. This is going to cause a 16 change. That's the kind of 17 information that we need. 18 MR. RUSSELL: Patricia, could 19 I add some to that? 20 MS. SILVEY: Yes. 21 MR. RUSSELL: There is a new 22 mine that is starting up very near 23 there. I'm sure it will start out as 37 1 a small mine, less than 36. They 2 will still need the coverage. 3 MS. SILVEY: Right. 4 MR. RUSSELL: Like I said, we 5 were an hour and 13 minutes one way, 6 and coming back it was an hour and 16 7 minutes. It could be more at peak 8 traffic time. I'm just telling you 9 that's the time frame. 10 Would we still respond? Yes, 11 we would still respond, of course; 12 but we would not be listed as their 13 primary and secondary teams. They 14 would have to do something under the 15 MINER Act. 16 MS. SILVEY: Okay. Well, I'm 17 getting to that. That's a good -- 18 that's the next thing I was getting 19 to. 20 For the mine, you read from 21 the letter, you are no longer able to 22 provide coverage. I've got several 23 questions. Was that the only -- is 38 1 that the only mine that you've had to 2 send a letter that you would have to 3 terminate your coverage, as of 4 December whatever date? 5 MR. RUSSELL: We technically, 6 actually, thought there may have been 7 two. We exceeded the speed limits. 8 So I would have been given several 9 tickets. 10 I have approached an MSHA 11 supervisor, and he's willing to do 12 this, to ride in a patrol car with us 13 if we need to, or whatever, to try 14 and beat the hour and 13 minutes. 15 That's a technicality that's in the 16 MINER Act that we could get around. 17 It doesn't say -- whatever. 18 I can assure you our mine 19 rescue truck will not make it in an 20 hour and 13 minutes to that location; 21 but, us in a car or us in a patrol 22 car, we could get police escorts any 23 time. We could have it on all the 39 1 plans, if necessary. We can do all 2 these things, and we're willing to do 3 that. 4 We thought there may be one 5 other mine. We made it under that 6 time limit. Right now, there's just 7 one. Again, there's another mine 8 starting up there. 9 I don't want to discourage -- 10 part of my job -- we manage grants. 11 I know you're familiar with the wired 12 initiative and all these work force 13 developments. 14 MS. SILVEY: Yes, I am. 15 MR. RUSSELL: That's what 16 we're all about. I don't think -- 17 you have one Governmental Agency 18 saying "Put people to work" -- 19 MS. SILVEY: Right. 20 MR. RUSSELL: -- and then we 21 are putting them out of work in 22 another one. 23 MS. SILVEY: No. You're 40 1 exactly right. I just read the 2 Assistant Secretary for Employment 3 Training Administration is presenting 4 testimony on the state of workers in 5 the energy sector, and that includes 6 mines. 7 So you are exactly right. 8 She was talking about the wired 9 initiative. So I understand what 10 you're saying. You're right. 11 So the mine, though, that you 12 didn't call the name on that you 13 terminated -- that you were telling 14 them, informing them, what size was 15 that mine? 16 MR. RUSSELL: They have in 17 the neighborhood of, I think, about 18 50 to 53 employees. 19 MS. SILVEY: Now, what will 20 that mine do? 21 MR. RUSSELL: That is the 22 question. 23 MS. SILVEY: I want everybody 41 1 -- all these questions I'm asking 2 Mr. Russell, if people are similarly 3 situated and have like situations, I 4 would really be most appreciative, if 5 you are impacted, if you would 6 provide specifics about some of the 7 same things he's telling us now. 8 When you say that, what 9 options do they have, though? 10 MR. RUSSELL: The options 11 they have are, one, going out of 12 business. 13 MS. SPIVEY: But that doesn't 14 seem to be a viable. 15 MR. RUSSELL: It could be if 16 they're struggling now -- and I don't 17 know what their status is, but small 18 mines work on not quite the budgets 19 that larger mines do. If they're 20 struggling to put 12 apparatus and 12 21 team members, they don't have the 22 personnel to do that, again, we could 23 not -- we ourselves cannot afford a 42 1 satellite station. 2 MS. SPIVEY: When you say you 3 can't afford a satellite station, you 4 mean setting up -- 5 MR. RUSSELL: The State of 6 Alabama can't purchase 12 units. I 7 mean, it's -- a replica of our 8 station that we have now is just 9 unfeasible, and maintaining that 10 station on an annual basis just 11 couldn't be done. 12 MS. SILVEY: Okay. 13 MR. RUSSELL: So the options 14 they have -- I'm asking you what 15 options are y'all giving them? When 16 I'm an hour and 13 minutes away with 17 a police escort, we could probably 18 cut some of that off; but it will 19 still be more than an hour. 20 Again, one thing I want you 21 to understand is, in every situation 22 requiring mine emergency, there was 23 really nothing wrong with the 43 1 two-hour law. I know we have a law 2 we have to work with now. 3 MS. SILVEY: I understand. 4 MR. RUSSELL: Even just -- 5 this law has done nothing to improve 6 response time. It has done nothing 7 to improve response time. 8 I can assure you that in West 9 Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, 10 Pennsylvania, and Alabama we are 11 aware of that. It has done nothing 12 to improve response time. 13 It's hurting these small 14 operations that can't afford these 15 things, and it would discourage 16 entrepreneurs from investing in coal 17 mines or starting new developments. 18 MS. SILVEY: I hear you. 19 Now, when you went on to talk 20 about asking the District Manager 21 here in District 11 for a waiver -- 22 MR. RUSSELL: I have not -- I 23 said I would petition. I have not 44 1 petitioned yet. 2 MS. SILVEY: Yeah, I 3 understand. 4 MR. RUSSELL: But I will. 5 MS. SILVEY: What I was going 6 to say is -- and I want everybody 7 else to think about this -- are you 8 -- how can I say this? If you could, 9 please provide specific criteria 10 like; list, if you can, one criteria 11 or more than one criteria under what 12 conditions that you think a waiver 13 ought to be granted. 14 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, ma'am. I 15 will add those comments and get those 16 in by November 9th. 17 MS. SILVEY: Yes. Everybody 18 else in here, too. If you have a 19 similar situation, you do that, too. 20 That would be helpful. 21 The other thing I want to say 22 is that you talked about maybe not 23 every member of the team being able 45 1 to participate in local contests. 2 If you all recall, from the 3 opening statement, I did say that we 4 included in the proposal some 5 alternatives to local contests; such 6 as, MERD drills and realistic 7 simulation training. 8 We have heard testimony at 9 some of the other public hearings 10 from mine rescue teams that 11 participated in certain simulated 12 training, smoke training. They gave 13 us examples of certain training. 14 So, if you all have certain 15 training like that, that you think 16 would provide a reasonable 17 alternative to contests, then, 18 include that, too. 19 MR. RUSSELL: With these non- 20 team members, could we provide a list 21 of those names that are affiliated 22 with our teams that we feel like 23 could provide expertise or that would 46 1 not be active team members but would 2 be -- they would take physicals and 3 they would keep the current 4 requirements for mine rescue 5 apparatus, the wearing of the 6 apparatus, the donning of the 7 apparatus and those kinds of things 8 but not compete. We could just do 9 some things with them at the mine 10 sites when we do the underground 11 visits and when we do things like 12 that. 13 I just don't want to get in a 14 situation where there could be people 15 missing somewhere -- and we have mine 16 rescue teams that are quite capable, 17 but then there are those in this 18 district and other districts across 19 this country that have expertise that 20 would be valuable -- invaluable in 21 those types of situations, and they 22 need to be a part of a team. 23 MS. SILVEY: Okay. So what 47 1 you are talking about -- do the 2 members that you are talking about -- 3 you say "I know they wear the 4 apparatus." They have certain 5 maybe -- you know, I'm just making 6 this up. They may be trained EMTs. 7 MR. RUSSELL: There you go. 8 MS. SILVEY: They have maybe 9 certain expertise. 10 MR. RUSSELL: They have 11 certain skills that set them apart -- 12 MS. SILVEY: Certain skills, 13 I understand that. 14 MR. RUSSELL: -- and their 15 experience factor that they have been 16 in about every situation there is. I 17 don't want for these people to be 18 excluded during the first three days 19 of an event if their expertise could 20 be used. 21 MS. SILVEY: But do they 22 participate in any kind of other -- I 23 assume they participate in some other 48 1 kind of emergency training. 2 MR. RUSSELL: These people 3 that I'm speaking of, they're around 4 mine rescue. They set up problems, 5 or they're helping -- I'll use myself 6 as an example. 7 I'm the Director of Training 8 at the Alabama Mine Training 9 Consortium or the Mine Academy in 10 Mine Technology at Bevill State. I'm 11 technically the head of the mine 12 rescue portion of it, also. That's a 13 part under me. I've had a lot of 14 experience. 15 If a particular mine had an 16 event and it required -- there were 17 missing people or something like 18 that, I would want to be a part of 19 that portion of it because I feel 20 like I have that expertise and 21 knowledge. 22 There are other people in 23 this district -- and I could name 49 1 names, and you would know exactly who 2 I'm talking about -- in the area who 3 are mine rescue, are savvy and around 4 it all the time. It's a part of 5 their life. 6 I just don't want them or 7 myself to be excluded from anything 8 like that because we all know the 9 risks associated with mine rescue, 10 and that's a part of it. 11 That's just a portion, those 12 skilled people that are not team 13 members. We would provide a list of 14 maybe -- there wouldn't be probably 15 over three or four from us that we 16 would do that way. 17 There may be other mining 18 companies or other industries that 19 would want the same thing that would 20 list engineers or pumping 21 specialists. Not everybody can pump. 22 Shoal Creek, in this state, can pump 23 water. They know how to do it. 50 1 I'm just saying there are 2 people with expertise out there that 3 you need to utilize whenever 4 possible. Just because they're not 5 on a team at this particular time, 6 they have had all the experience in 7 mine rescue training and apparatus 8 training in different situations; and 9 I think we should include them. 10 MS. SILVEY: Okay. That's 11 really, I think, all that I have. 12 Do you all have anything? 13 MR. KALICH: I've got a 14 question. 15 You mentioned -- you talked 16 about certain credits for state 17 inspectors. 18 MR. RUSSELL: Yes. 19 MR. KALICH: You felt that 20 that was good for the underground 21 training but not other portions of 22 the training -- 23 MR. RUSSELL: Right. 51 1 MR. KALICH: To give a 2 credit. 3 Would you expound on that a 4 little bit? 5 MR. RUSSELL: I just feel 6 like they need to don that apparatus 7 at all times because that is part of 8 the training, whether it's in the 9 heat, those requirements -- there are 10 only eight hours every two months. I 11 don't think we need to shorten that 12 time on training. 13 The mine site training, they 14 are there way more than in this 15 state. I accuse our inspectors of 16 being there every three weeks and are 17 technically there every 45 days. So 18 they are at these mine sites. So 19 they see that because they're there. 20 I just feel like the 21 training, as a group in the comradery 22 phase of it and in the training 23 competition phase, they need to be a 52 1 part of that. 2 MR. KALICH: Going to the 3 one-hour travel time, you suggested a 4 District Manager be able to grant a 5 waiver to the one-hour travel time. 6 As Pat has asked, if you would, give 7 us some specific alternatives. 8 MR. RUSSELL: I replied that 9 I will have that to her by November 10 9th, and the written comments. 11 MR. WILSON: This is a two- 12 part question. You said the State of 13 Alabama could not afford to establish 14 a new station, it's not feasible. 15 How much would it cost for you -- for 16 the State of Alabama to buy the 17 equipment, buy the building, lease 18 the build, roughly; and how much is 19 it annually to maintain it? 20 MR. RUSSELL: I have really 21 not run all those figures. I know 22 what it costs to maintain for two 23 units. We're replacing our units. 53 1 We are going through a phase of 2 replacement. 3 I purchased two units at 4 about $18,500. I'm buying spare 5 parts. All of those things for this 6 year's budget. 7 It's $87,000 to maintain the 8 units that we currently have. That 9 does not include all the other 10 things, like the gas detectors. 11 We feel like we try to go 12 above and beyond on equipment, as far 13 as having boots, coveralls, hard 14 hats, and belts that we can load into 15 the truck right there that have their 16 size and their name and everything 17 they want in there. 18 We have first aid equipment. 19 We have everything that you could 20 possibly use in a mine rescue event 21 because we realized at some of the 22 mines we would be self-sustaining. 23 So we would have to have everything 54 1 there is. 2 So the answer that question 3 is: I can get you figures. 4 MR. WILSON: Approximate 5 figures. Could you submit them? 6 MR. RUSSELL: I can tell you 7 what it costs to maintain our team. 8 It's $240,000 a year. That's what it 9 costs to maintain two teams in the 10 State of Alabama. 11 We have absolutely nothing in 12 the budget. We are squeaking the 13 last month of the year. 14 MR. WILSON: If you could, 15 provide that cost and the costs to 16 establish a new station. We've 17 received some estimates, but I want 18 to make sure we have a broad 19 spectrum. 20 MR. RUSSELL: I looked at 21 some of those estimates that you 22 have. I don't agree with those. I 23 don't know where all those came from. 55 1 MS. SILVEY: If you remember, 2 I said that in the opening statement, 3 to comment on MSHA's estimates in 4 deriving the cost estimates. If 5 anybody has different cost numbers or 6 different assumptions, if we used the 7 wrong assumptions, just let us know. 8 MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Wilson, I 9 will get you those numbers. 10 MR. WILSON: Thank you. 11 MR. RUSSELL: At least by 12 November 9th. You have given me a 13 lot of homework. 14 MS. SILVEY: We've given it 15 to everybody. Everybody that has the 16 courage to come up to the microphone 17 is getting a lot of homework. Not 18 everybody is coming up here. 19 MR. RUSSELL: I understand. 20 MS. SILVEY: I probably 21 shouldn't have said that because that 22 means that the people who don't come 23 up to the microphone -- it's not that 56 1 they don't have courage. 2 We may be getting written 3 comments from people who don't come 4 up to the microphone, either. A lot 5 of times, that's what happens. 6 Anymore comments? 7 Thank you very much. 8 MR. RUSSELL: Ms. Patricia, 9 I'd like to say one thing. Roll 10 Tide. 11 MS. SILVEY: Roll Tide. 12 1969. It's been a long time. 13 Next, then, I think -- we 14 don't have a listed speaker, but 15 Mr. Byram, are you testifying? 16 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 17 MS. SILVEY: Okay. 18 MR. BYRAM: Good morning. My 19 name is Dale Byram; D-a-l-e, 20 B-y-r-a-m. 21 I work with Jim Walter 22 Resources in Brookwood, Alabama. I 23 do appreciate the opportunity to 57 1 speak with you today on such an 2 important issue as mine rescue. 3 What I would like to do is 4 just read my comments that I 5 presented Ms. Silvey with, and then I 6 will be glad to entertain any 7 questions or comments that you may 8 have. 9 The Department of Labor, Mine 10 Safety and Health Administration's 11 Mine Rescue Teams and Equipment; 12 Proposed Rules will have varying 13 effects on teams and operators. 14 We reviewed the proposed 15 regulation with two basic positions. 16 First, how would it affect the safety 17 and efficiency of our Jim Walter Mine 18 Rescue Teams? Secondly, how would it 19 affect our nations mine rescue teams? 20 Our comments reflect both 21 positions. With respect to the 22 Panel's request for specifics, some 23 of our answers are generalized; but I 58 1 will go back and try to expand if you 2 ask questions related to that. 3 Under Part 49.12(B)(f), 4 Availability of Mine Rescue Teams, it 5 reads: "No mine served by a mine 6 rescue team shall be located more 7 than one hour ground travel time from 8 the mine rescue station with which 9 the team is associated." 10 We recognize the value of 11 rapid response and believe that one 12 hour or less response time from a 13 mine rescue station to a covered mine 14 is a realistic goal. Yet, at this 15 particular point in our industry, we 16 do not believe that there is an 17 infrastructure in place to meet this 18 requirement. 19 We believe that a variance 20 with reasonable time lines should be 21 granted to operators who cannot 22 currently meet this part of the 23 regulation. 59 1 Even when seeking a variance, 2 they should be held to a maximum of 3 two hours ground travel time, as 4 currently listed in the reg, with 5 efforts directed towards compliance 6 within a reasonable time frame. 7 Also, under 49.12(g), 8 Availability of Mine Rescue Teams, 9 the last sentence in the section 10 reads: "The requirement that mine 11 rescue teams be available shall not 12 apply when teams are participating in 13 mine rescue contests or providing 14 services to another mine." 15 The purpose of the MINER Act 16 was to improve the health, safety, 17 and survivability of our miners. We 18 strongly disagree with this position. 19 JWR knows the value of having 20 teams to assist with another Mine's 21 emergency; and we recognize that 22 participating in mine rescue contests 23 builds confidence, team work, and 60 1 instinctive moves that will be used 2 in an actual event; but we cannot 3 validate leaving our miners 4 unprotected for these reasons. 5 Reconsideration should be given to 6 this area of the proposed regulation. 7 The next section I will skip. 8 We will come back to it on equipment. 9 49-20, Requirements for All 10 Coal Mines. Composite Teams. Jim 11 Walter has three mine rescue teams, 12 one of which is a composite team. 13 We can agree with and comply 14 pretty much with the way this 15 regulation was written. 16 Looking at a contract team 17 issue, though, where other teams in 18 the country or other mines in the 19 country will be affected, we polled 20 our teams and found that even though 21 there is benefit to having someone 22 with a team that knows the contract 23 mine, unanimously, our teams felt 61 1 more confident in having a 2 knowledgeable person available on 3 each shift at the contract mine to 4 accurately brief the teams rather 5 than trying to incorporate a contract 6 team member into our existing teams 7 that work well together. 8 75.1501, Emergency 9 Evacuation. 75.1502 reads: "The 10 responsible person shall be trained 11 annually in mine emergency response. 12 Training shall include knowledge in 13 the following" -- and there is a list 14 of things; such as, organizing a 15 command center, directing fire 16 fighting personnel, and deploying 17 fire fighting equipment. 18 "Training shall include 19 knowledge in the following" means to 20 us that this person will be informed 21 of these actions, yet their 22 responsibility will remain clearly as 23 listed that they are to direct the 62 1 emergency evacuation of the mine. 2 We found it a bit confusing. 3 When we read it the first time, we 4 took issue with way it was written 5 because we thought that our 6 responsible person was being given 7 these additional responsibilities. 8 It's our request that the 9 Panel consider clarifying this so 10 that other operators, especially new 11 operators, will not have that 12 confusion. That responsible person 13 has a very vital job. 14 Finally, I have two areas for 15 topics that were not covered in the 16 regulation that we would like to 17 present for consideration. 18 Increased Emergency Medical 19 Training for Mine Rescue Team 20 Members. In every mine rescue event, 21 teams will be faced with a 22 possibility of a team member down; 23 such as, what happened at Crandall 63 1 Canyon. In those events, where teams 2 were searching for missing miners, 3 the chance for needed emergency care 4 was even more evident -- Jim Walter, 5 Sago, Alma, and others -- yet there 6 is no provision in this regulation to 7 meet this identified need. 8 All mine rescue team members 9 should be trained to a minimum 10 standard; such as, a DOT First 11 Responder. In addition, as with the 12 mine rescue equipment that we'll talk 13 about later today, there should be 14 emergency care equipment available 15 for these team members to use at the 16 fresh air base or at other strategic 17 locations. 18 Lastly, Special Skills 19 Provision. The regulation outlines 20 the physical requirements, training, 21 and competition requirements 22 necessary to be an active mine rescue 23 team member. During many rescue 64 1 operations, we have used individuals 2 who have special skills to meet 3 critical needs. These individuals 4 have been mine rescue trained 5 paramedics, ventilation technicians, 6 and pumpers. 7 The regulation, as written, 8 fails to recognize this group of 9 individuals who bring value to an 10 emergency. 11 Consideration should be given 12 to expanding the regulation to 13 provide opportunity for these 14 individuals to be used. In addition, 15 to facilitate the process prior to an 16 emergency, some form of preapproval 17 should be available through the 18 District Manager. 19 The preapproval could 20 incorporate a review of the 21 individual's background, his mine 22 rescue training, and his physical. 23 Mine rescue is an invaluable 65 1 asset. We owe it to our teams and to 2 the operators and miners to develop 3 regulations that protect them and 4 help to enhance their chances for 5 success. 6 Thank you. 7 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. 8 Mr. Byram, with respect to 9 the Jim Walters teams, you 10 mentioned -- I had down here first I 11 was going to ask you: How many teams 12 do you have? I think -- 13 MR. BYRAM: We have three 14 teams. 15 MS. SILVEY: They service how 16 many mines? 17 MR. BYRAM: Two. 18 MS. SILVEY: The three teams 19 service the two mines? 20 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 21 MS. SILVEY: Right now, you 22 are able to meet the one-hour 23 requirement? 66 1 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 2 MS. SILVEY: Okay. I'm going 3 to go through your testimony a little 4 bit. 5 With respect to that sentence 6 you talked about, the last -- I just 7 want to clarify something. The last 8 sentence in 49.12(g), that was a 9 sentence that's in the existing 10 regulation, just so everybody knows. 11 At some point along the way, 12 I started putting in the opening 13 statement that this proposal did not 14 change the existing regulation. The 15 goal of MSHA was to implement the 16 MINER Act in the proposal and not to 17 change the existing regulation. 18 Not to disagree with what you 19 said, that even if mine rescue teams 20 are away at an emergency or are 21 participating in contests or 22 providing services to another mine, 23 the members still need service. 67 1 This sentence -- I've been 2 there at MSHA so long, I did the 3 original regulation. So I remember 4 this sentence. This sentence was put 5 in there in direct response to 6 comments at that time, 19 whatever it 7 was, when the Mine Rescue Regulation 8 was done, '80, I think. 9 It was put in there for 10 persons who felt like the mine should 11 not be penalized, with respect to the 12 two-team provision, if the teams were 13 away providing service to another 14 mine. 15 So that's why that 16 sentence -- just so everybody knows, 17 that's why that sentence was put in 18 there. So, not to disagree with you; 19 but that was put in the initial 20 regulation in direct response to 21 comments. 22 With respect to -- you are 23 exactly right. I want to say that. 68 1 I'm glad you included that in your 2 comment, with respect to the duties 3 of the responsible person. 4 The proposal said that the 5 responsible person shall be trained 6 in these activities; organizing a 7 command center, directing fire 8 fighting personal, deploying fire 9 fighting equipment. It says 10 "trained." It doesn't say "take on." 11 I'm glad you pointed that 12 out. Several other people who 13 commented thought that these were all 14 the duties of the responsible person, 15 but it said, "Shall be trained in 16 those things." We will make sure we 17 clarify that in the final ruling. 18 Mr. Russell talked about this 19 somewhat, too. You said, "The topics 20 that are not covered by the 21 regulation." For my own information, 22 the Department of Transportation 23 First Responder Standard or 69 1 Regulation, I assume that that 2 requires training in certain due 3 procedures or provisions or whatever? 4 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 5 MS. SILVEY: About how long 6 is that training? 7 MR. BYRAM: It's a 40-hour 8 training program. 9 MS. SILVEY: Oh, it's a 40- 10 hour training program? 11 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. It's 12 above -- 13 MS. SILVEY: I was going to 14 ask you -- and I know you're going to 15 tell me what it is, but does it go -- 16 it goes beyond the training that we 17 require for the MINER Act in our 18 regulation? 19 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. As a 20 matter of fact, I think on the back 21 of that handout, I have a copy of the 22 "National Curriculum" cover page. 23 MR. WILSON: I think other 70 1 organizations -- I think American Red 2 Cross or others have 60 hours. So 3 different organizations have 4 different requirements. 5 I'm a former First Responder 6 myself. It depends on the 7 organization as to how long. The 8 training is a little different, a 9 little more or less in depth in 10 certain areas. 11 MR. BYRAM: We got permission 12 to do certain variations on our 13 training for our team. We took 14 delivering babies and put more trauma 15 methods. 16 Seriously, it's far more 17 viable to a mine rescue team need. 18 We are mine rescue team members. We 19 respond to emergencies. 20 We have team members and have 21 experienced team members down in 22 hostile environments. You've got to 23 have the training to take care of 71 1 that guy and get him back to a fresh 2 air base, beyond just grab and drag; 3 and we can do this. 4 MS. SILVEY: With respect to 5 the special skills, I want to make 6 sure that I, and maybe some of the 7 panel members, clearly understand 8 what you're saying. 9 Are you saying that these 10 certain designated persons with this 11 special expertise should be available 12 for the team but not necessarily one 13 of the five members and an alternate? 14 Are you saying that they should be 15 available so the team can call on 16 them if they need to? What exactly 17 are you saying? 18 MR. BYRAM: Okay. That may 19 be a good way to look at it. I think 20 Jeff -- I could yield to him, as many 21 emergency responses as he has been 22 involved in. There is always a need 23 for some special expertise during an 72 1 event. 2 The way the reg is 3 structured -- Ken and I have talked 4 about this; and other operators have, 5 too. The way the reg is structured, 6 we believe that it would prevent a 7 person such as Ken or myself from 8 being involved in the actual hands-on 9 rescue effort because we are not 10 affiliated with a formalized active 11 team that's competing. 12 MS. SILVEY: I see. 13 MR. BYRAM: That shouldn't 14 negate our wearing the apparatus for 15 two hours as outlined in the other 16 parts of the reg, and for physical 17 requirements and things like that. 18 We are missing a available tool. 19 MR. WILSON: Because we are 20 missing one certain aspect of a 21 requirement of the total mine rescue 22 team. 23 MR. BYRAM: Part of a total 73 1 rescue effort, yeah. They wouldn't 2 necessarily be tied to a team, but 3 they would be mine rescue trained and 4 approved to be able to function. 5 The reason I put in for 6 preapproval is, like Ken said -- as 7 y'all know, the first two days of an 8 event are critical times. The first 9 10 hours is a critical time. 10 In trying to get this worked 11 out, sometimes in the heat of the 12 battle, it's a hard thing to do. It 13 needs to be able to be preapproved 14 and accepted. 15 MR. WILSON: You and 16 Mr. Russell talked about attendance 17 at local contests. I guess, as I 18 understand what you all are saying, 19 it's the least important of these 20 requirements. If these consultants 21 or skilled people did everything 22 else, met all the other requirements 23 but attended a local contest, they 74 1 should be allowed to participate. 2 MR. BYRAM: Yeah. They would 3 meet all the other requirements but 4 not necessarily be affiliated with a 5 team, per se, like one of the six 6 working team members. 7 MS. SILVEY: It almost seems 8 to me that maybe what you're saying 9 is that the teams should have access 10 to persons with special expertise if 11 they need those persons. 12 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 13 MR. KALICH: Would you 14 suggest that special person replace a 15 team member or accompany a team? 16 MR. BYRAM: Accompany a team. 17 MS. SILVEY: That's what it 18 sounds like to me. If anybody wants 19 to clarify that, if Mr. Russell wants 20 to come back, I'm just trying to 21 figure out what you mean. 22 Anybody else? 23 MR. KRAVITZ: If you've got 75 1 requirements from the two teams and 2 the team members have the criteria 3 here, they are basically ancillary 4 people. Other people are actually 5 participating in the emergency. If 6 they still have the hazard training 7 and still go underground, it's up to 8 the command center to participate 9 with special skills. 10 MR. BYRAM: That's good to 11 know. We were concerned that by the 12 rewriting if the reg, it might 13 prevent that, unless it was addressed 14 specifically. 15 MR. KRAVITZ: If you can 16 identify instances where it might 17 hinder people from participating, we 18 would like to know that. 19 MR. BYRAM: Okay. 20 MR. KRAVITZ: For your three 21 teams, did you provide coverage for 22 any other mines? 23 MR. BYRAM: No, we do not. I 76 1 appreciate you bringing that up 2 because I want to make reference to 3 something Pat talked to Mr. Russell 4 about. 5 That unnamed mine in question 6 is 57 minutes from our mine rescue 7 station. 8 MS. SILVEY: Is that right? 9 MR. BYRAM: 57 minutes. 10 That's on the edge, isn't it? 11 However -- 12 MS. SILVEY: But you all -- 13 MR. BYRAM: -- we don't 14 contract services. Now, would we 15 respond if that mine -- 16 MS. SILVEY: You would. 17 MR. BYRAM: In a heartbeat. 18 What happens is when an 19 operator elects to contract to -- an 20 operator elects to contract. That's 21 out of his realm of normal business 22 practice. You just subjected your 23 teams to hazards you chose to do, and 77 1 I don't know that that's a position 2 that an operator needs to be put 3 into. 4 If a variance could be given 5 to where there's time to work through 6 these things, then we would certainly 7 support that kind of legislation. 8 MR. KALICH: You had 9 mentioned about the First Responder 10 training and emergency care 11 equipment. If you would, submit what 12 type of equipment you would like to 13 see for the team and exactly what 14 type of training you would like to 15 see and how many team members. Do 16 you suggest the entire team? 17 MR. BYRAM: We have looked at 18 that, Mike. We initially had said 19 three team members per team. 20 MR. KALICH: If you would, 21 submit that to us so we can have that 22 on the record. 23 MR. WILSON: I would defer to 78 1 Pat, but I would think the equipment 2 you suggested might go into the 3 equipment portion later on. I don't 4 know. 5 MS. SILVEY: This is fine. 6 What you did here is fine on that 7 issue because what you're doing is 8 you're bringing it up within the 9 context of the mine rescue team. You 10 see it as an additional requirement 11 for the team. 12 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 13 MS. SILVEY: That's fine. 14 Anything else? 15 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Byram, 16 very much. 17 Is there anybody else who 18 wishes to make a comment or provide 19 testimony? Anybody else in the 20 audience have additional comments or 21 testimony? 22 Nobody else. Okay. If 23 nobody else, then, wishes to testify, 79 1 I will conclude this Mine Safety and 2 Health Administration's Public 3 Hearing on Mine Rescue Teams. 4 As I do so, I want to thank 5 everybody that came today, the 6 persons who testified and provided us 7 with valuable information and those 8 who attended and may not have 9 testified but showed that they had an 10 interest in the proceedings. 11 I do want to reiterate, too, 12 just so people know because people 13 have expressed different thoughts to 14 us about this, this proposal in no 15 way was intended to reflect any 16 negativity about the current mine 17 rescue team situation. In each of 18 the unfortunate events that we have 19 had to suffer through over the last 20 several years, I think the mine 21 rescue teams responded admirably, 22 quickly, and beyond reproach. 23 I think anybody in MSHA and 80 1 anybody in the mining community will 2 say that. So we say, again, thank 3 you. 4 As I said, we have the MINER 5 Act. We've got the proposal, and 6 we're going to do the best we can to 7 craft a final rule that implements 8 the MINER Act but does so in a manner 9 that continues that long and 10 important tradition of mine rescue 11 team service in this country. 12 I ask that anybody who has 13 specific impact along the lines of 14 those offered by Mr. Russell and 15 Mr. Byram, if you would, submit your 16 comments to us before November 9th. 17 Anybody who testified today and said 18 they would provide additional 19 information, if you would, do 20 likewise. 21 At this time, we appreciate 22 your coming, and we appreciate your 23 testimony. The Mine Safety and 81 1 Health Administration Public Hearing 2 on the Proposal on Mine Rescue Teams 3 and Underground Coal Mines is now 4 concluded. Thank you. 5 (Recess.) 6 MS. SILVEY: Good morning. 7 My name is Patricia W. Silvey. I'm 8 the Director of the Mine Safety and 9 Health Administration's Office of 10 Standards. I will be the moderator 11 of this public hearing on MSHA's 12 proposal for Mine Rescue Team 13 Equipment. 14 On behalf of Richard E. 15 Stickler, the Assistant Secretary of 16 Labor for Mine Safety and Health, I 17 want to welcome all of you here. 18 The MSHA members of the 19 panel -- and these are the persons 20 who are principally responsible for 21 the drafting of this proposal -- are, 22 on my left: William (Bill) Wilson, 23 with Metal and Non-Metal Mine Safety 82 1 and Health and the team leader for 2 the project; Michael Kalich, with the 3 Office of Coal Mine Safety and 4 Health; and Jeffrey Kravitz, with the 5 Office of Technical Support at the 6 Tech Support Center in Pittsburgh. 7 On my right, is Cheri 8 Hutchison from my office; Matt Ward, 9 an attorney with the Office of the 10 Solicitor; and Mr. Phuc Phan, who is 11 an Economist in my office. 12 Before we start the hearing, 13 as we normally do, I would like to 14 ask you to join me in a moment of 15 silence in memory of all of the 16 miners and rescuers who lost their 17 lives in mine accidents throughout 18 this country; particularly, those at 19 the recent tragic accident at 20 Crandall Canyon. So, right now, if 21 you would join me in a moment of 22 silence, I would appreciate it. 23 (A moment of silence was 83 1 observed.) 2 MS. SILVEY: Thank you very 3 much. 4 Before I proceed further, 5 also, I want to say that our agency, 6 the Labor Department, appreciates 7 very much the sacrifices and the 8 altruistic service. I don't think we 9 can put enough terms to the type of 10 service that is provided by mine 11 rescue team members. 12 We do very much appreciate -- 13 that is a necessary service; and we 14 very much appreciate the effort, the 15 service, and the many sacrifices made 16 by mine rescue teams and their 17 members. 18 This is the last of four 19 public hearings that we've held on 20 this proposal. The first one was in 21 Salt Lake City, Utah on October 23rd. 22 The second one was in Lexington, 23 Kentucky on October 25th. The third 84 1 one was this past Tuesday in 2 Charleston, West Virginia. 3 Of course, we are holding 4 both hearings on the same day so that 5 persons interested in both rulings 6 can attend. 7 Significantly, the Mine 8 Rescue Team Equipment Proposed Rule 9 applies to all underground mines; 10 metal, non-metal, and coal. We have 11 copies of the "Federal Register" that 12 contains this proposal on the table 13 with the attendance sheets. 14 Also, I would like to ask 15 you -- and I hope we have separate 16 attendance sheets for Mine Rescue 17 Team Equipment Rule. Even if you 18 signed the attendance sheet for the 19 Mine Rescue TEAMS Proposal, if you 20 would, please sign a separate 21 attendance sheet for this proposal, 22 the equipment one, because these are 23 two separate rules; and we are making 85 1 two separate rule-making records. 2 The comment period for the 3 proposal ends on November 9th. We 4 must receive your comments by 5 midnight Eastern Standard Time on 6 that date. 7 As of October 30th, we have 8 received five comments. You can view 9 the comments on the Agency's website 10 at www.msha.gov, under the section 11 Rules and Regulations. 12 This proposal addresses Mine 13 Rescue Team Equipment at mine rescue 14 stations serving underground coal and 15 metal and non-metal mines. MSHA 16 proposes to amend the existing 17 standard to reflect advances in Mine 18 Rescue Team Equipment Technology. 19 It is critical that mine 20 rescue team members be provided with 21 the latest in protective equipment so 22 that they can safely and effectively 23 carry out their mission. 86 1 The purpose of the hearing is 2 to receive information from the 3 public that will help MSHA evaluate 4 the requirements in the proposal and 5 produce a final rule that enhances 6 team safety and effectiveness. 7 The preamble to the proposal 8 discusses the provisions and the rule 9 and includes a number of specific 10 requests for information. MSHA 11 requests comments on all of the 12 proposed equipment provisions and on 13 the validity of the Agency's 14 assumption in deriving cost 15 estimates. 16 As you address these 17 provisions, either in your testimony 18 here today or in your written 19 comments, please be as specific as 20 possible about how these changes 21 would affect the safety and health of 22 miners and mine rescue team members. 23 MSHA also requests detailed 87 1 information and data on the cost and 2 feasibility of implementing the 3 provision. 4 I want to summarize the 5 substantive changes in the proposal. 6 The Mine Rescue Team Equipment 7 Proposal upgrades and enhances 8 certain types of equipment required 9 in mine rescue stations and increases 10 the amount of critical supplies that 11 must be available. 12 The proposal would upgrade 13 requirements for self-contained 14 breathing apparatus, SCBA, from a 15 two- hour to a four-hour device. 16 MSHA determined that all mine rescue 17 stations in the United States 18 currently have the four-hour 19 breathing apparatus. 20 The proposal would increase 21 the required number of extra oxygen 22 bottles from one additional bottle to 23 two additional bottles to provide an 88 1 added measure of safety for mine 2 rescue teams during time-sensitive 3 rescue operations. 4 The proposal would increase 5 the amount of liquid air, liquid 6 oxygen, pressurized oxygen, or 7 oxygen-generated chemicals and carbon 8 dioxide-absorbable chemicals to 9 maintain self-contained breathing 10 apparatus for eight hours rather than 11 the existing six hours because 12 industry practice is to stock these 13 supplies in bulk. 14 MSHA assumes that there are 15 no costs associated with the 16 requirements, but specifically 17 requests comments on the Agency's 18 assumption. 19 The proposal would require 20 mine rescue stations to be equipped 21 with full gas detectors appropriate 22 for each gas which may be encountered 23 at the mine served. If methane, 89 1 oxygen, or carbon monoxide may be 2 encountered, a gas detector must 3 measure the concentration of methane 4 from 0 percent to 100 percent of 5 volume, oxygen from 0 percent to at 6 least 20 percent of volume, and 7 carbon monoxide from 0 parts per 8 million to at least 10,000 parts per 9 million. 10 MSHA is particularly 11 interested in comments on its 12 assumption that all mine rescue 13 stations, including those serving 14 non-gassy, metal, and non-metal mines 15 would choose to purchase four 16 multi-gas detectors with multiple 17 sensor heads rather than four 18 single-gas detectors for each gas 19 likely to be encountered. 20 The proposal would delete the 21 existing requirements for flame 22 safety lamps and oxygen indicators 23 due to advances in gas detector 90 1 technology. These outdated devices 2 could still be used as a backup. 3 Mine rescue teams have relied 4 on self-contained self-rescue 5 devices, SCSRs, or self-containing 6 breathing apparatuses, SCBAs, to 7 revive or help survivors breath 8 during rescue operations. 9 These devices are heavy and 10 may not be appropriate for 11 unconscious persons or those who have 12 stopped breathing. Lightweight 13 oxygen resuscitators weighing about 14 six pounds with the oxygen bottle are 15 now available through at least one 16 manufacturer. 17 MSHA requests comments on 18 whether an oxygen resuscitator should 19 be required at a mine rescue station 20 by a mine rescue team. 21 MSHA's estimated cost for 22 compliance with the proposal are 23 contained in the preamble. There is 91 1 no separate preliminary regulatory 2 economic analysis. 3 MSHA estimated a total and 4 in-compliance cost of $237,000 for 5 underground coal mines and $131,000 6 for underground metal and non-metal 7 mines. This cost estimate supports 8 our finding that the proposal is 9 economically feasible. 10 MSHA requests comments on all 11 of the assumptions and data used in 12 deriving the Agency's estimate. 13 The hearing will be conducted 14 in an informal manner. Formal rules 15 of evidence will not apply. 16 The Panel may ask questions 17 of the witnesses, and the witnesses 18 may ask questions of the Panel. 19 Cross-examination is not allowed. 20 MSHA will make a transcript 21 of the hearing and post it on the 22 Agency's website within one to two 23 weeks after the completion of the 92 1 hearing. 2 If you wish to present 3 written statements or information, 4 please clearly identify your material 5 and give it to one of the panel 6 members. 7 You may also submit comments 8 following this public hearing by any 9 of the methods listed in the 10 proposal. As I said earlier, to be 11 considered, the Agency must receive 12 your comments by November 9th. 13 We ask everyone in attendance 14 to sign the attendance sheet. If you 15 plan to testify, please sign the 16 speakers list. 17 If you have a hard copy or an 18 electronic version of the 19 presentation, please provide a copy 20 to the court reporter. 21 We will now hear from those 22 signed up to speak. Please start by 23 stating your name and organization 93 1 and spelling your name for the 2 reporter. 3 Our first speaker today -- on 4 my list, I have Mr. Russell; but I 5 don't know if you intend to speak on 6 the equipment. 7 MR. RUSSELL: No. 8 MS. SILVEY: I wasn't quite 9 sure. You don't intend to speak. 10 I think Mr. Byram intends to 11 speak. You can come up at this time. 12 MR. BYRAM: Hello. My name 13 Dale Byram; D-a-l-e, B-y-r-a-m. I 14 work with Jim Walter Resources in 15 Alabama. 16 Thank you for this 17 opportunity to speak. I have just a 18 few brief comments about mine rescue 19 equipment, beginning at 49.15, Mine 20 Rescue Station, through 49.16, 21 Equipment and Maintenance 22 Requirements. 23 49.16(a)(3) was a bit 94 1 confusing to us. The regulation 2 reads: "Two extra fully charged 3 oxygen bottles for every six 4 self-contained breathing apparatus." 5 Our question is: What was 6 the intent of the regulation? Is it 7 to have two extra bottles per 8 apparatus for a total of twelve extra 9 bottles; or is it for the six 10 apparatus to have two additional 11 bottles for a total of eight? 12 MS. SILVEY: I will answer 13 that. 14 MR. BYRAM: We continued on 15 in my written copy that you have. We 16 say that depending on what the answer 17 is, we believe that there should be a 18 minimum of one extra bottle for each 19 of the six apparatuses. 20 We are concerned that our 21 teams could get -- again, our teams 22 aren't really affected by this at Jim 23 Walter because we have ample supplies 95 1 of the bottles for apparatuses. 2 Looking down the road for new 3 teams and teams that may find 4 themselves in rural areas, we believe 5 it's more efficient for the teams to 6 have one extra bottle per apparatus. 7 49.15(c) reads: "Mine rescue 8 station shall provide a proper 9 storage environment to assure 10 equipment readiness for immediate 11 use." 12 We agree that the storage 13 environment must protect our 14 equipment for immediate use, yet we 15 would like consideration related to 16 two specific pieces of equipment. 17 These are as follows: 18 49.16(a)(5) reads: "Twelve 19 permissible cap lamps and charging 20 rack." Instead of housing twelve cap 21 lamps at a mine rescue station where 22 they will seldom be used -- at least 23 we hope that's the case -- 96 1 consideration should be given to 2 allow credit for teams that have 3 access to multiple cap lamps at a 4 covered mine. 5 We believe that the 6 maintenance and the reliability of 7 the lamps from the covered mine is 8 better than the lamps stored for a 9 long period of time at a rescue 10 station. 11 Equally so, 49.16(a)(16) 12 reads: "Four gas detectors 13 appropriate for each type of gas that 14 may be encountered at the mine 15 served." The same consideration 16 should be given for accessibility of 17 gas detection equipment when it can 18 be proven that the required detectors 19 are available at the covered mine. 20 Again, we believe that the 21 maintenance of these pieces of 22 equipment where a mine or a mine 23 rescue team can prove that they have 97 1 access to ample numbers would be a 2 good consideration for the teams. 3 That's the end of my comments 4 on equipment. 5 MS. SILVEY: Okay. Thank 6 you. 7 To go back to your comments, 8 actually, all the proposal did was 9 change the one extra bottle in the 10 existing regulation to two extra 11 bottles. Maybe the existing 12 regulation could have been a little 13 better clarified. It says: "One 14 extra fully charged oxygen bottle for 15 every six breathing apparatuses." We 16 made it two extra bottles for every 17 six breathing apparatuses. So that 18 really meant two extra for six. 19 MR. BYRAM: For a total of 20 eight bottles. 21 MS. SILVEY: No. For a total 22 of four bottles per station. Two for 23 every six. 98 1 MR. BYRAM: For each team, 2 yes, ma'am. 3 MS. SILVEY: Right. You 4 follow? That was -- just so 5 everybody understands, that was the 6 intent of the regulation. All we did 7 was substitute "two" for "one." 8 The existing rule right now 9 is one for every six. So you would 10 have to have two, a total of two at 11 the station. So, instead of having 12 two, you would have to have four. 13 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 14 MS. SILVEY: Okay. Just so 15 you know. I understand what you 16 said; but, just so everybody 17 understands, that's what we meant. 18 Now, your next comment on 19 mine rescue stations and the proper 20 storage -- I hate saying this. This 21 is the legalistic part that I don't 22 like saying. That's an existing 23 regulation. We didn't propose any 99 1 change in that one. 2 So, theoretically, at this 3 point, what I'm supposed to say is: 4 That's beyond the scope of the rule 5 making. I understand what you're 6 saying, but we didn't propose any 7 change to that one. 8 The next one, on the gas 9 detectors, you were saying -- we did 10 propose a change to that one; but 11 your comment is going to where the 12 gas detector is to be stored, as 13 opposed to making a comment on the 14 type of gas detector that we 15 required. 16 I have a comment I want to 17 ask you; and that is: At your mine 18 rescue station, do you all use 19 multi-gas detectors? 20 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 21 MS. SILVEY: That measure the 22 specific percentages that we included 23 in the proposal? 100 1 MR. BYRAM: We have those on 2 order, but it doesn't do that at this 3 point in time. 4 MS. SILVEY: Oh, yours don't 5 have it right now. 6 MR. BYRAM: We have them at 7 the mine site, though. 8 MS. SILVEY: Yes. But you 9 have them on order for the stations? 10 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 11 MS. SILVEY: Right. Okay. 12 I think we got enough comment 13 in the record, I believe, on costs 14 for these detectors. 15 If you all -- as you just 16 said, you all have the mult-gas 17 detectors. 18 I don't know if there are any 19 metal/non-metal operators here or 20 not. I did want to ask, if there 21 were any, a couple of questions on 22 that issue from the metal/non-metal 23 operators; but I'll get to that. 101 1 MR. BYRAM: One of the things 2 that we anticipate is that with the 3 new regulations and sampling 4 requirements, you will see these 5 detectors now available. 6 MS. SILVEY: Right. Yeah, we 7 heard that, too. 8 I do have a question, though, 9 because I heard some information at 10 another public hearing on the oxygen 11 resuscitators. As you all know, we 12 didn't require that; but we raised 13 that issue in the preamble, that this 14 light-weight resuscitator is now 15 available from at least one 16 manufacturer. 17 I want to ask you, Mr. Byram: 18 Does Alabama have any specific 19 requirement relative to the use of 20 oxygen resuscitators in an emergency 21 situation? 22 MR. BYRAM: They do, as far 23 as the Emergency Medical Services 102 1 Systems. 2 What I would recommend is 3 that the Panel could query any 4 State's Department of public Health 5 Division for their requirements on 6 oxygen. You may see variances across 7 the country, but it's the EMS 8 division for the Department of Public 9 Health; and each state would have 10 that. 11 For me to -- I can give you 12 my understanding of it, but I would 13 rather it be specific as to what the 14 State says. 15 MS. SILVEY: Okay. I agree. 16 Yeah. 17 MR. WILSON: You talked about 18 -- you suggested that credit be given 19 -- instead of the station having gas 20 detectors, the covered mine would 21 have those detectors; and we would 22 give credit for that. 23 Isn't it possible that might 103 1 be an issue, though, where a covered 2 mine might have X-type gas detectors; 3 and the team -- I'm concerned -- I 4 would be a little concerned about 5 whether the team would receive 6 adequate training on those types of 7 detectors if they were located at the 8 covered mine versus at the station. 9 I appreciate what you said 10 about the maintenance at the station, 11 and they may not be -- they might be 12 a different type. That's my only 13 concern. 14 MR. BYRAM: I'm speaking from 15 Jim Walter's perspective where we 16 have in-house teams. They're the 17 guys from the mines that use those 18 detectors. 19 That's why we put the 20 statement in "where it could be 21 proven it would be adequate." 22 MR. WILSON: Okay. That's a 23 good point. There are some teams in 104 1 covered mines that are not in your 2 situation that would encounter 3 different types of detectors. 4 MR. BYRAM: Yes, sir. I can 5 see where -- I can see how that can 6 be a problem for them. 7 MR. WILSON: That's a good 8 comment. 9 MS. SILVEY: Anything 10 further? 11 So you understand now on the 12 oxygen what the requirement is. 13 Is there -- do you all see 14 any costs related to that 15 requirement? 16 MR. BYRAM: If you don't 17 mind, I'm just going to kind of 18 generalize some things. 19 One is, we would go back to 20 the State to see what level of 21 training is required to be able to 22 apply oxygen because in some states, 23 oxygen is considered a drug. You 105 1 can't -- I would be concerned to say 2 "Okay, everybody, get oxygen units; 3 and put them on the patients." 4 MS. SILVEY: No. I'm sorry. 5 I'm talking about the cost of the 6 oxygen bottles. 7 MR. BYRAM: Oh, the bottles? 8 MS. SILVEY: Yes. 9 MR. BYRAM: That shouldn't be 10 an issue for a team. 11 If you're going to be 12 developing a mine rescue team, 13 there's going to be some significant 14 dollars involved. A couple of extra 15 bottles is no big deal. 16 MS. HUTCHISON: How much do 17 they cost? 18 MR. BYRAM: We have some 19 vendors here that sell them. They 20 would be the ones that could give you 21 that specific price. 22 You're looking somewhere -- 23 if you started a brand new team, you 106 1 would be looking at $350,000 plus, if 2 you did 12 apparatuses, bottles, RZ 3 detectors, and everything. 4 MR. WILSON: Including the 5 training? 6 MR. BYRAM: No. 7 MR. WILSON: And not 8 personnel costs? 9 MR. BYRAM: No. 10 MR. WILSON: You're talking 11 about building and storage? 12 MR. BYRAM: If you look at 13 the average mine -- well, again, I 14 don't want to get into vendors areas. 15 The type of apparatus that we 16 use, you're looking at about $9,000 17 something per unit. Then you have 18 the tester, which is of significant 19 cost. Then you have extra parts that 20 are a significant cost. Then you 21 have all the other associated costs. 22 MR. WILSON: So the $350,000 23 is just the equipment; the building; 107 1 the trailer, perhaps; whatever, 2 roughly? 3 MR. BYRAM: It just depends 4 on whatever someone would -- 5 MR. WILSON: And training and 6 personnel costs and annual 7 maintenance costs are above that? 8 MR. BYRAM: We spend probably 9 between -- we spend at Jim Walter 10 Resources probably between $400,000 11 and $450,000 a year on mine rescue. 12 MS. SILVEY: Let me ask you 13 something. In terms of your 14 situation, do you all have a separate 15 facility for the station? 16 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. 17 MS. SILVEY: Is it pertinent 18 to the mine site? 19 MR. BYRAM: Yes, ma'am. It's 20 housed at our training center, which 21 is centrally located. 22 MS. SILVEY: It's housed in 23 the training center. Okay. Right. 108 1 I got it. That makes sense. 2 MS. HUTCHISON: That's what 3 you spend on mine rescue after you 4 already have the equipment and you 5 already have the station? 6 MR. BYRAM: Well, you have 7 equipment maintenance issues through 8 the year. 9 When you look at -- you see, 10 in Alabama, we're not close to 11 anything other than a few local 12 contests. So, if our teams compete 13 in other additional contests, we're 14 sending teams away for a week. 15 Kentucky has a contest that 16 is relatively close, but our teams 17 end up going to Beckley. Some of 18 them go to St. Clairsville. You're 19 looking at a $3,000 to $5,000 cost 20 per contest just for the travel 21 associated with it. 22 Individual companies, however 23 their employee structure is set, 109 1 their insurance and things like that, 2 it all costs a certain amount per day 3 per person. 4 I think Jim Walter does more 5 training by far than the minimum 6 requirement. 7 MS. SILVEY: I understand. 8 Okay. 9 MR. PHAN: You said that it 10 will cost you about $350,000 to start 11 a team. I think that there are 12 some -- you just mentioned that you 13 do above some of the requirements. 14 So, when we do a cost estimate, we 15 need to make sure we don't factor in 16 the extra that you go beyond the 17 requirement. 18 Also, if you can, break down 19 the 350 on how you came up with -- 20 MR. BYRAM: What I would 21 really rather do is -- we recommend 22 that you would talk to the vendors. 23 There are only a few vendors in the 110 1 country that you can rely on to 2 provide mine rescue equipment. 3 That would be your most 4 accurate way to get the costs -- just 5 the base costs of starting mine 6 rescue teams. 7 MR. PHAN: Okay. 8 MS. SILVEY: Anybody in the 9 audience, also, if you have the costs 10 associated with -- the equipment is 11 one thing; but, if you have -- and 12 Mr. Russell talked about that this 13 morning in a different way; but he 14 made the point. 15 If you have cost associated 16 with, for example, a facility, and 17 then you've got separate costs -- 18 Mr. Byram just noted the training, 19 and then you've got the annual cost 20 to train. If you all -- if you have 21 your own information on that, that 22 would be useful to provide to us. 23 MR. BYRAM: This will vary 111 1 from state to state. 2 MS. SILVEY: Yes. 3 MR. BYRAM: Because if you 4 live in West Virginia, you've got a 5 lot of contests close by; and you 6 don't have to travel. 7 MS. SILVEY: Right. Anything 8 else? 9 Okay. Thank you very much. 10 We appreciate it. 11 Now, I was going to ask: Is 12 there any metal and non-metal 13 operators in the audience? 14 (No response.) 15 MS. SILVEY: Any operators of 16 underground metal or non-metal mines? 17 (No response.) 18 MS. SILVEY: Is there anybody 19 else who wishes to make a comment? 20 (No response.) 21 MS. SILVEY: If nobody else 22 wishes to make a comment, then I want 23 to say, again, that we appreciate 112 1 your coming here today. We 2 appreciate the testimony that we got. 3 We appreciate the people who came and 4 attended the hearing and have an 5 interest in the rule making. 6 We will take your comments 7 and testimony and try to develop a 8 final rule that updates the equipment 9 and provides for at least the best 10 most appropriate mine rescue 11 equipment technology that is 12 available so that the mine rescue 13 teams can be protected as best as 14 possible. 15 I will therefore conclude 16 this hearing at this time. I will 17 let the record show that the Panel 18 will be here at 2:00 o'clock in case 19 persons come who have not been here 20 before and intend to provide 21 testimony at 2:00 o'clock. 22 At this time this hearing is 23 concluded. 113 1 (Lunch recess.) 2 MS. SILVEY: We will now 3 reconvene the Mine Safety and Health 4 Administration's Public Hearing on 5 the Agency's Mine Rescue Team 6 Equipment Proposal. 7 There not being any persons 8 in the audience at this time who wish 9 to speak, I will now conclude the 10 Mine Safety and Health 11 Administration's Public Hearing on 12 the Mine Rescue Team Equipment 13 Proposal. The hearing is now 14 concluded. 15 (Whereupon, the hearing 16 concluded at 2:15 p.m. on Thursday, 17 November 1, 2007.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 114 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF ALABAMA ) 3 4 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) 5 6 I hereby certify that the above and 7 foregoing deposition was taken down by me 8 in stenotype and the questions and answers 9 thereto were transcribed by means of 10 computer-aided transcription, and that the 11 foregoing represents a true and correct 12 transcript of the testimony given by and 13 witness upon said hearing. 14 I further certify that I am neither 15 of counsel, nor kin to the parties to the 16 action, nor am I in anyway interested in 17 the result of said cause named in said 18 caption. 19 20 Susan Bell, Commissioner 21 Certified Court Reporter 22 ACCR#14-Expires: 9/30/08 23 Commission Expires: 10/10