BEFORE THE MSHA PANEL * * * * * * * * * IN RE: MINE RESCUE TEAMS EQUIPMENT PUBLIC HEARING * * * * * * * * * BEFORE: PATRICIA W. SILVEY, Chair Michael Kalich, Member John Urosek, Member Cherie Hutchison, Member Matt Ward, Esquire, Member Phuc Phan, Member William Wilson, Member HEARING: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:00 p.m. LOCATION: Civic Center Room 105 200 Civic Center Drive Charleston, WV WITNESSES: Jeffery Stanchek Reporter: Autumn D. Furby Any reproduction of this transcript is prohibited without authorization by the certifying agency. I N D E X OPENING REMARKS By Chair 4 - 11 STATEMENT By Mr. Stanchek 11 - 14 CLOSING REMARKS By Chair 14 - 19 CERTIFICATE 20 E X H I B I T S Page Number Description Offered MSHA-1 Mine Rescue Team Equipment Public Hearing Opening Statement 11 P R O C E E D I N G S ------------------------------------------------------ CHAIR: Okay. Let's get started, please. Good afternoon. My name is Patricia W. Silvey. I'm the director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. I will be the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's proposal for mine rescue team equipment. On behalf of Assistant Secretary of Labor Richard E. Stickler, I want to welcome all of you here today. The members of the MSHA panel who are primarily responsible for drafting this proposal are, to my left, William "Bill" Wilson, who is with the Office of Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health. To his left, Mike Kalich, Office of Coal Mine Health and Safety. And to his left, John Urosek, who is with the Office of Technical Support, the Pittsburgh center. On my right, Cherie Hutchison with my office, Matt Ward with the --- our attorney on the project with the Solicitor's Office, and Mr. Phan, who is an economist in my office. Before we start the hearing this afternoon, I would invite you to join me in a moment of silence in memory of all miners and rescuers who have lost their lives in mine accidents, and particularly the more recent tragic events at Crandall Canyon. So if you would join me in a moment of silence. MOMENT OF SILENCE CHAIR: Thank you. And while we did that moment of silence in memory of the catastrophic --- unfortunate, catastrophic events that we've had, I want to stress and recognize that mine rescue teams and the members, and quite honestly, many other miners serve a critical role in many of the not catastrophic events that happen, but emergency events nevertheless. And there's a need to have an emergency response. And so we recognize that the role goes much further than just --- than the catastrophic events that happen to happen. Those are the ones that we see on the news all the time and the ones that we hear about. But the many more events that happen on an every day-by-day basis that mine rescue teams and their members have to be ready for at any point in time, they are equally as important. This is the third of four public hearings on the proposal. We held the first hearing in Salt Lake City last Tuesday, the second one in Lexington on Thursday, and the fourth one will be in Birmingham, Alabama on November 1. We are holding two public hearings on the same day so that persons interested in both hearings can attend. The mine rescue team equipment proposal applies to all underground mines, metal and nonmetal and coal. In the back of the room, we have copies of the Federal Register that contains the proposal. The comment period for the proposal ends on November 9th. And we must receive comments by midnight Eastern Standard Time on that date. And as of October 25th, MSHA received four comments on the proposal. You can view the comments on the agency's website at www.msha.gov under the section entitled rules and regulations. And right now, our schedule requires us to finalize the mine rescue team equipment regulation by February of '08. The proposal addresses mine rescue team equipment at mine rescue stations serving underground coal and metal/nonmetal mines. MSHA proposes to amend the existing standards to reflect advances in mine rescue team equipment technology. It is critical that mine rescue team members be provided with the latest in protective equipment so that they can safely and effectively carry out their mission. The purpose of these hearings is to receive information from the public that will help us evaluate the requirements in the proposal and produce a final rule that enhances team safety and effectiveness. The preamble to the proposal discusses the rule's provisions and includes a number of specific requests for information. The agency requests information on all of the provisions and on the validity of the agency's assumptions in the cost estimates. As you address the provisions, either in your testimony to us today or in your written comments, please be as specific as possible about how these changes would affect the safety and health of mines and mine rescue team members. The agency also requests detailed information and data on the costs and feasibility of implementing the provisions. At this point, I'd like to summarize the substantive changes in the proposal. The proposal upgrades and enhances certain types of equipment required at mine rescue stations and increases the amount of critical supplies that must be available. The proposal would upgrade requirements for self-contained breathing apparatus, SCBAs, from a two-hour to a four-hour device. MSHA determined that all mine rescue stations in the United States currently have the four-hour breathing apparatus. The proposal would increase the required number of extra oxygen bottles from one additional to two additional bottles to provide an added measure of safety for mine rescue teams during time-sensitive rescue operations. The proposal would increase the amount of liquid air, liquid oxygen, pressurized oxygen or oxygen-generating chemicals, and carbon dioxide absorbent chemicals to maintain the self-contained breathing apparatus for eight hours rather than the existing six hours. Because the industry practice is to stock these supplies in bulk, MSHA assumed and estimated that there are no costs associated with this requirement. But we specifically request comments on the agency's estimate. The proposal would require mine rescue stations to be equipped with four gas detectors appropriate for each gas which may be encountered at the mines served. If methane, oxygen or carbon monoxide may be encountered, the gas detector must measure concentrations of methane from 0 to 100 percent per volume, oxygen from 0 to at least 20 percent of volume, and carbon monoxide from 0 parts per million to at least 10,000 parts per million. MSHA is particularly interested in comments on its assumption that all mine rescue stations, including those serving non-gassy metal and nonmetal mines would choose to purchase four multi-gas detectors with multiple assessor heads rather than four single-gas detectors for each gas likely to be encountered. The proposal would delete the existing requirements for flame safety lamps and oxygen indicators due to advances in gas detector technology. These outdated devices could still be used, however, as a backup. Mine rescue teams have relied on self-contained self rescue devices, SCSRs as we know them, or self-contained breathing apparatuses, SCBAs, to revive or help survivors breathe during rescue operations. These devices are heavy and may not be appropriate for unconscious persons or those who have stopped breathing. Lightweight oxygen resuscitators, weighing about six pounds with the oxygen bottle, are now available through at least one manufacturer. MSHA requests comments on whether an oxygen resuscitator should be required at the mine rescue station for use by mine rescue teams. MSHA's estimated costs for compliance with this proposal are contained in the preamble. There is no separate preliminary regulatory economic analysis for the proposal. MSHA estimated a total annual compliance cost of $237,000 for underground coal mines and $131,000 for underground metal and nonmetal mines. The cost estimate supports the agency's finding that the proposal is economically feasible. MSHA requests comments on the assumptions and data used in deriving the agency's estimates. This hearing will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. The panel may ask questions of the witnesses, and the witnesses may ask questions of the panel. However, we will note Cross Examination is not allowed. MSHA will make a transcript of the hearing, and the transcript --- and post it on the agency's website. The transcript should be available within one to two weeks upon the conclusion of this hearing. If you wish to present written statements or information, please clearly identify your material and give it to one of the panel members. You may also submit comments following the public hearing, by any method listed in the proposal. And as mentioned, comments must be received by November 9. We ask everyone in attendance this afternoon to sign the attendance sheet. And I must point out to you that since this is a separate hearing, I'd ask you to bear with us and sign this separate --- even if you signed this morning, to sign the attendance sheet for this hearing. If you have a hard copy --- if you plan to speak and you have a hard copy or electronic version of your presentation, please provide the court reporter with a copy. We will now hear from those who signed up to speak. And as usual, please clearly state your name and organization and spell your name for the reporter. And although we had some persons and organizations signed up, they no longer remain signed up. I see all of them --- they have X's by their names. But I think that Mr. Stanchek would like to make some comments. MR. STANCHEK: Thank you. CHAIR: So Mr. Stanchek ---? (MSHA Exhibit One marked for identification.) MR. STANCHEK: Once again, my name is Jeffrey Stanchek. I represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Bureau of Mine Safety. I am the chief of emergency response and training. Currently, once again, I have submitted a cost analysis of the program and the price of equipment which we intend to comply with the upcoming law. I have a few comments. My first comment is --- I'm not seeing that in the reg there. Can a coal mine rescue station and a non-coal mine rescue station serve the same function? In other words, can we serve a mine which is non-coal within the hour and also a coal mine which is also from the same rescue station? That's going to be one of our questions that we need to have ---. CHAIR: Okay. Rephrase your question again now. I mean, let me --- say what you said. MR. STANCHEK: Can a rescue station serve both the non-coal and the coal --- CHAIR: Okay. MR. STANCHEK: --- region? CHAIR: Okay. MR. STANCHEK: The question of where the team --- how the team is made up will be answered at a later date. I understand that also. CHAIR: Right. MR. STANCHEK: Okay. And that's what we're looking at. CHAIR: Okay. MR. STANCHEK: All right. So that's one of my comments. Now, the way --- my second comment is going to be on the makeup of our rescue stations. We're going to have two rescue stations, one in Ebensburg and one in Marion Center. And they're going to have four teams. It's going to be one station. However, we're going to designate it for the coal. Ebensburg north to comply with these mine visits so there's not so many mines to visit, like seven mines in the Ebensburg North Region, seven mines in the Ebensburg South Region. Now, that is four rescue teams. Now, according to the reg, it says there should --- there shall be two detectors per team, a total of four detectors per station. Now, does that mean I need eight detectors for that rescue station, or can I get away with four detectors for that station? Is everybody aware of what I just ---? CHAIR: Yes. MR. STANCHEK: Because once again, then we're doubling our money there, and I'm hoping, you know, that we'll only have one incident at a time. And once again, that's not only one station. That's times two, because Marion Center will be the same predicament where it'll be Marion Center North with two rescue stations, Marion Center --- or excuse me, two rescue teams, Marion Center South. And that is to accommodate the mine visits, you know, so that way we're not just traveling all around, just taking --- you know, doing that. So once again, that will be in the written comments supplied by the Bureau by the 9th. But that's something for the panel, you know, to think about also to take back. CHAIR: Thank you. OFF RECORD DISCUSSION CHAIR: Okay. Did the Commonwealth have any comment on the assumption that we would --- that the agency used to derive in its cost estimate that the stations would choose to purchase multi-gas detectors as opposed to single-gas detectors? MR. STANCHEK: No, we have no problem with that. CHAIR: So you think our assumption was right? Is that what you're saying? MR. STANCHEK: Yeah. We realize that --- I've been an advocate for a long time myself that the detectors that are currently being used in mine rescue were inadequate for mine rescue. The detectors basically had been used out there --- were basically for safety monitoring for the regular workforce, which is the current detectors they use underground. And it was clearly needed for the mine rescue teams to actually function underground --- they needed a more reliable detector, like an infrared or these ---. CHAIR: The high range and --- the ones that give you the high range the lowest? MR. STANCHEK: Right. CHAIR: But I guess what I'm asking is, do you agree with our assumption that the persons who are doing the purchasing will purchase the multi-gas detectors --- MR. STANCHEK: Yes. CHAIR: --- as opposed to single-gas? MR. STANCHEK: Yes. CHAIR: Okay. Yes. Okay. We will put an answer to your questions. We will clarify that in the final ruling. And I think we will do it satisfactorily. MR. STANCHEK: Thank you. CHAIR: You know, sometimes you ---. MR. WILSON: For both of your questions. CHAIR: Yes. MR. STANCHEK: Excuse me? CHAIR: For both. MR. WILSON: Both. CHAIR: We will clarify both of them in the final rule. Is there anybody else ---? MR. WILSON: I just wanted to clarify one of your questions. The second question, you talked about a station with multiple teams. That's a single station? MR. STANCHEK: It's one station. However, if you can see, we're splitting it, you know, north and south. There'll be enough BG apparatuses for that --- there will be enough communication equipment per team. However, it's that ruling of two detectors per team. Are you following what I'm getting at? It's either going to be four or eight. CHAIR: I understand. MR. STANCHEK: That's a significant cost increase. CHAIR: I understand the question. Okay. Yes. Did you have any --- make sure any more clarification that you want to ---? MR. STANCHEK: No. That's what we needed. CHAIR: Okay. We will address it. MR. STANCHEK: Thank you. CHAIR: Okay. Is there anybody else who wishes to make comments? Anybody else who wishes to make comments? At this point, if nobody else wishes to make comment, I'm going to not conclude here. I'm going to defer this hearing for a little --- for a few minutes. And we will --- I will start it back in about half an hour, nearly two o'clock. So this hearing is postponed, is stopped until two o'clock. RECESS TAKEN CHAIR: We will now reconvene the Mine Safety and Health Administration's public hearing on the mine rescue team equipment proposal. Is there anybody here who wishes to make additional comment or testimony? Anybody else who wishes to make additional testimony, comment? If not, then I will conclude this hearing on the Mine Safety and Health Administration's proposal on mine rescue team equipment. As I do so, I would like to express our appreciation for all of you who attended the hearing, for those of who spoke, for those of you who may not have spoken but who show --- who came and who showed that you have an interest in the rulemaking. Those of you who intend to send us additional comment and testimony before the record closes on November 9, I would ask you to please do so by 12:00 midnight Eastern Standard Time November 9th. And as I said earlier, please be as specific as possible in any of your comments. That will help us as we move forward with the final ruling. Again, thank you. * * * * * * * * HEARING CONCLUDED AT 2:05 P.M. * * * * * * * * 19 Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908 Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908