1 1 2 3 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RULE 5 FOR REFUGE ALTERNATIVES FOR 6 UNDERGROUND COAL MINES 7 8 9 10 AUGUST 7, 2008 11 9:00 A.M. 12 SHERATON HOTEL 13 2101 RICHARD ARRINGTON JR. BLVD. 14 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REPORTED BY: Dana Gordon 22 Certified Court Reporter 23 and Notary Public 24 25 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 MODERATOR: 4 Patricia Silvey 5 6 PANEL MEMBERS: 7 Howard Epperly 8 Regina Powers 9 Pamela King 10 Eric Sherer 11 Steve Turow 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MS. SILVEY: Good morning. My 3 name is Patricia W. Silvey. I am the 4 director of the Mine Safety and Health 5 Administration's office of standards, 6 regulations and variances. I will be the 7 moderator for this public hearing on MSHA's 8 proposed rule for refuge alternatives for 9 underground coal mines. 10 On behalf of Richard E. Stickler, 11 the acting assistant secretary of labor for 12 Mine Safety and Health, I would like to 13 welcome all of you to today's hearing. 14 At this point, I would like to, 15 if you would, please -- as we remember now, 16 being that it happened one year ago 17 yesterday, as we remember the one-year 18 anniversary of that tragic mine accident at 19 Crandall Canyon, I would like it if you 20 would pause with me for a moment of silence 21 in memory of the dedicated miners and the 22 heroic efforts of the three rescuers who 23 lost their lives in the Crandall Canyon 24 accident, including one of MSHA's own. 25 And as we did in Lexington on 4 1 Tuesday, I would also like to remember as we 2 come back to Alabama the miners who lost 3 their lives some now seven years ago, I 4 guess now -- nearly seven years ago in the 5 Jim Walter Number Five accident. 6 So, if you all would pause with 7 me for a moment of silence. 8 (A moment of silence was 9 observed.) 10 MS. SILVEY: Thank you very much. 11 And I probably -- I should have 12 added, too, as we reflected and paused, the 13 memory of the many -- of all the miners who 14 have lost their lives so far this year and 15 throughout America's history and also the 16 ones who toil in the mines and have lost 17 their lives throughout the world. So, thank 18 you. 19 At this point, I would like to 20 introduce the members of the MSHA panel. 21 On my right is Howard Epperly who 22 is -- Howard is the team leader of the -- 23 our committee who is responsible for 24 drafting the proposal that was in the June 25 Federal Register. And he is with the 5 1 Approval and Certification Center of MSHA's 2 office of technical support. 3 To his right is Regina Powers. 4 Regina is an economist with the Department 5 of Labor, office of the assistant secretary 6 for policy, and she has -- and that office 7 has been so kind and gracious as to allow 8 her to be detailed to our office to help us 9 compute this project. 10 And to her right is Pamela King, 11 and she is a senior regulatory specialist in 12 my office. 13 To my left, Eric Sherer. Eric is 14 with the Office of Coal Mine Safety and 15 Health, and to his left is Steve Turow. 16 Steve is with the Department of Labor, 17 Office of the Solicitors. And our -- the 18 solicitors office that supports our office, 19 the division of Mine Safety and Health. 20 This is the fourth and last 21 public hearing on this proposed rule. As 22 many of you know, we started out in Salt 23 Lake City; then in Charleston, West Virginia 24 on July 31 and Lexington on last Tuesday and 25 this hearing today in Birmingham. 6 1 The comment period for the 2 proposal closes on August 18th and MSHA must 3 receive your comments by midnight eastern 4 daylight savings time on that date. 5 You can view the comments on the 6 Agency's website at www.msha.gov. And I 7 believe we have some copies of the proposed 8 rule in the back of the room. 9 As many of you know, the proposal 10 would implement the provisions of Section 13 11 of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency 12 Response or the MINER Act of 2006. The 13 MINER Act requires -- required that the 14 National Institute for Occupational Safety 15 and Health or NIOSH conduct research on 16 refuge alternatives. NIOSH issued its 17 report in January of 2008. 18 MSHA's proposed rule is based on 19 the Agency's data and experience, 20 recommendations from the NIOSH report, 21 research on available and developing 22 technology and regulations of several 23 states. 24 Before I start to discuss the 25 proposal, I want to reiterate and underscore 7 1 an important mine emergency principle 2 embodied by both MSHA and the mining 3 community. It is a principle that is 4 longstanding that in the event of a mine 5 emergency underground the first line of 6 defense is for the miner to try to escape. 7 Only if escape is impossible would the 8 provisions of this proposal come into play. 9 Under the proposed rule a refuge 10 alternative would provide a protected, 11 secure space with an isolated atmosphere 12 that creates a life-sustaining environment 13 to protect miners and assist them with 14 escape in the event of a mine emergency. 15 The proposed rule allows the use 16 of several types of refuge alternatives and 17 includes requirements that the manufacturer 18 or third party test the refuge alternative 19 and its components prior to obtaining MSHA 20 approval. 21 Under the proposal three types of 22 refuge alternatives would be allowed: A 23 pre-fabricated self-contained unit, a secure 24 space constructed in place and materials 25 pre-positioned for miners to use to 8 1 construct a secure space. 2 Some of the major provisions of 3 the proposal are: Refuge alternatives would 4 need at least 15 square feet of floor space 5 and 60 cubic feet of volume per person. 6 The capacity of refuge 7 alternatives near the working section would 8 be the maximum number of persons that can be 9 expected. 10 The capacity of refuge 11 alternatives in an outby area would be the 12 maximum number of persons assigned to work 13 in that area. 14 Refuge alternatives would be 15 located between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet 16 from the working face and where mechanized 17 mining equipment is being installed or 18 removed. For outby areas refuge 19 alternatives would be located within one 20 hour traveling distance. However, the 21 operator may request and the district 22 manager may approve a different location 23 based on an assessment of the risks to 24 persons in outby areas. 25 Refuge alternatives and their 9 1 components would need to sustain persons for 2 96 hours or 48 hours if advance arrangements 3 are made for additional supplies, 4 particularly air, from the surface. 5 Food, water, lighting, sanitation 6 and a two-way communication system would be 7 provided -- would need to be provided. 8 Refuge alternatives approved by 9 the states or by MSHA in the emergency 10 response plan or in the ERP prior to the 11 promulgation of the final rule would be 12 allowed until replaced or a 10-year maximum 13 and refuge alternative components approved 14 by the states or by MSHA in the ERP would be 15 allowed until replaced or a five-year 16 maximum. 17 The location, capability and 18 capacity of refuge alternatives would be 19 addressed in the written ERP. 20 Training of miners to locate, 21 transport, activate, use and maintain refuge 22 alternatives would be integrated into 23 existing quarterly drills and annual 24 expectations training. 25 Pre-shift examinations of refuge 10 1 alternatives would be required. 2 Refuge alternatives would need to 3 be located on mine maps. 4 MSHA has estimated the economic 5 impact of the proposed rule and has included 6 a discussion of the costs, benefits and 7 paperwork required in the preamble to the 8 proposal and the Preliminary Regulatory 9 Economic Analysis or PREA. The PREA 10 contains estimated supporting data on costs 11 and benefits. 12 The preamble addresses the 13 provisions in the rule and includes a 14 complete discussion of a number of specific 15 requests for comments, but I would like to 16 highlight some of these requests for 17 comments that MSHA asks for the additional 18 information on. 19 First, the estimated service life 20 of pre-fabricated self-contained refuge 21 alternatives and the estimated service life 22 of components. 23 The proposed definition for 24 breathable oxygen as 99 percent pure oxygen 25 with no harmful impurities. Also, the 11 1 proposed minimum of 96 hours of breathable 2 air. 3 The sources of heat generation 4 within a refuge alternative, methods for 5 mitigating heat stress and heatstroke and 6 methods for measuring heat stress on persons 7 occupying refuge alternatives. The proposed 8 rule would require that the apparent 9 temperature within refuge alternatives in 10 use at full capacity not exceed 95 degrees 11 Fahrenheit. And I would like to note that 12 footnotes one and two in the preamble should 13 have cited to the NIOSH as the basis for the 14 Agency's proposal on apparent temperature. 15 We also ask for comments on 16 whether a requirement that refuge 17 alternatives be designed with a means to 18 signal rescuers on the surface should be 19 added in the final rule. Such a requirement 20 would assure that rescuers on the surface 21 could be contacted if the communications 22 systems become inoperable. Also, whether 23 the final rule should include a requirement 24 that the manufacturer design refuge 25 alternatives with a means to signal 12 1 underground rescuers with a homing device. 2 This would assure that rescuers could detect 3 the trapped miners within the mine. 4 The safety standards that -- in 5 the proposal would require that a refuge 6 alternative provide a two-way communication 7 facility. That is part of the mine 8 communication system which can be used from 9 inside the refuge alternative and an 10 additional system as defined in the 11 operator's approved ERP. I would like to 12 clarify that the proposed approval 13 requirement should reflect the same 14 requirements as the proposed safety 15 standard. 16 We also ask for comments on the 17 types, sources and magnitude of lighting 18 needed for refuge alternatives. And on that 19 issue, footnote three in the preamble should 20 have cited pages 124 and 125 from the August 21 23rd, 1999 revision to the Department of 22 Defense standard. 23 We also ask for comments on the 24 proposed minimum space and volume 25 requirements and the feasibility of using 13 1 certain types of refuge alternatives in low 2 seam coal mines. 3 The proposed minimum flow rate of 4 12.5 cubic feet per minute of breathable air 5 for each miner. 6 We also ask for comments on the 7 proposed setting for pressure relief and 8 whether a high pressure relief should be 9 required. The proposal would require that 10 fans or compressors provide positive 11 pressure and an automatic means to assure 12 that the pressure is relieved in refuge 13 alternative at 0.25 psi above mine 14 atmospheric pressure. 15 We also ask for comments on the 16 proposed requirement that carbon monoxide 17 detectors for compressors or fans at the 18 surface provide automatic and visual alarms 19 if carbon monoxide levels in supplied air 20 exceed 10 parts per million. 21 The visual damage that would be 22 revealed during pre-shift examinations. The 23 proposed rule would require that refuge 24 alternatives be designed to provide a means 25 to indicate unauthorized entry or tampering 14 1 and allow for a pre-shift examination of 2 critical components without entering the 3 structure. The Agency is concerned with the 4 feasibility and practicality of visually 5 checking the status of refuge alternatives 6 without having to enter the structure or 7 break the tamper-evident seal. 8 We ask for comments on the 9 proposed requirement for located refuge 10 alternatives in inby areas as well as the 11 alternate provision discussed in the 12 preamble that would allow that refuge 13 alternatives in these areas be located up to 14 4,000 feet from the working face depending 15 on mine specific conditions, if they are 16 connected to the surface with boreholes. 17 The proposed approach to the 18 capacity of refuge alternatives in inby and 19 outby areas -- and we've gotten comments on 20 that issue -- and the proposed approach to 21 locating refuge alternatives in inby areas 22 including minimum and maximum distances. 23 Whether the final rule should 24 contain a requirement that advanced 25 arrangements specified in the ERP include a 15 1 method for assuring that there will be a 2 suitable means to connect the drilled hole 3 to the refuge alternative and that the 4 connection can be made within 10 minutes. 5 We request comments on the 6 proposed training requirements for persons 7 assigned to examine, transport and maintain 8 and repair refuge alternatives and 9 components and whether it would be more 10 appropriate to include this training 11 requirement in Part 48 of the training 12 requirements. 13 And finally we ask for comments 14 on -- and very significantly on the proposed 15 approach to annual expectations training in 16 construction; where applicable, the 17 activation, use -- and the use of refuge 18 alternatives and their components. And 19 comments -- we would be pleased if comments 20 would address the proposed strategy and 21 proposed elements of such training. 22 The Agency is also soliciting 23 comments on the proposed information 24 collection requirements. And on that issue 25 if you would provide comments on all data 16 1 and assumptions the Agency used to develop 2 its estimates as well as the estimates of 3 costs and benefits in the proposal. 4 As you address these provisions 5 either in your testimony to us today or in 6 your written comments, please be as specific 7 as possible. And I have underscored this at 8 every hearing and I cannot underscore this 9 enough. If you would please include 10 specific -- your specific suggested 11 alternatives, your specific rationale, 12 safety and health -- if you would cover 13 safety and health benefits to miners, any 14 technological and economic feasibility 15 considerations and data to support your 16 comments. This -- the Agency will use this 17 information, and the more specific your 18 information is the better it will be to us. 19 We will use it to help evaluate the 20 requirements in the proposal and produce a 21 final rule that will improve safety and 22 health for underground coal miners in the 23 event of a mine emergency in a manner that 24 is responsive to the needs and concerns of 25 the mining public. 17 1 The hearing, as many of you know, 2 will be conducted in an informal manner and 3 formal rules of evidence will not apply. 4 The panel may ask questions of the 5 witnesses. The witnesses may ask questions 6 of the panel. 7 MSHA will make a transcript of 8 the hearing available on the Agency's 9 website within one week of the hearing. And 10 as most of you know -- and I can't 11 underscore this enough -- time will be of 12 the essence in developing the final rule, 13 which must be finalized by December 31, 14 2008. 15 If you wish to present written 16 statements or information today, please 17 clearly identify your material and give a 18 copy to the court reporter. You may also 19 submit comments following this hearing by 20 any of the methods identified in the 21 proposal. And we would also ask -- I think 22 many of you have done so already. Those of 23 you in attendance, if you will sign -- we 24 have an attendance sheet in the back. 25 If you have a hard copy or 18 1 electronic version of your presentation -- 2 and I think I mentioned that we would 3 appreciate it if you would give it to -- a 4 copy to the reporter. 5 Please begin by clearly stating 6 your name and organization and I would ask 7 you if you would spell your name for the 8 court reporter so that we have an accurate 9 record. 10 And now we will begin today's 11 hearing, and our first speaker is I believe 12 James Rau with MineARC Systems. 13 MR. RAU: It's R-a-u. Thank you, 14 Ms. Silvey. 15 My name is James Rau, and I'm the 16 manager for MineARC Systems in the United 17 States. MineARC Systems have been 18 designing, manufacturing and selling refuge 19 chambers since 1995. MineARC has in excess 20 of 450 refuge chambers in more than 20 21 countries including the Solid Energy Coal 22 Mine in New Zealand for the past three and a 23 half years. 24 MineARC's metal/non-metal refuge 25 chambers have been rigorously tested and 19 1 used in real life emergencies with no 2 injuries. The first of these was in April 3 of 2006 at the St. Ives coal mine where it 4 was used to rescue nine miners, and the last 5 was in October of 2007 with 54 miners 6 rescued at the Kanowna Belle coal mine in 7 Western Australia. 8 It is this experience that has 9 given our company the expertise and 10 knowledge to determine the fundamental 11 requirements for safe entrapment inside of a 12 closed space such as a refuge chamber. 13 While there are many sections of 14 this proposal that MineARC is willing and 15 able to assist on, today I'm choosing to 16 concentrate on one single specification for 17 the proposed ruling. Under section 7.504, 18 Refuge Alternatives and Components, General 19 Requirements, it states, "The proposed rule 20 would require that an application include 21 test results and calculations to demonstrate 22 that the apparent temperature within the 23 refuge alternative would not exceed 95 24 degrees Fahrenheit when used in conjunction 25 with required components and fully 20 1 occupied." 2 For those here whom are not 3 familiar with the severity of heat buildup 4 inside a confined space due to metabolic 5 heat, I will mention a couple of examples. 6 In the infamous Black Hole of Calcutta 7 incident, 123 of the 186 British soldiers 8 died when imprisoned for only one night in a 9 dungeon. 10 In 2006 I personally had the 11 opportunity to meet with a university 12 student from the University of Santiago in 13 Chile. She explained through an interpreter 14 how a mining company had decided to conduct 15 a test on a scrubber system for evaluating 16 its CO2 removal efficiency. The company 17 enclosed eight university students in a 18 freight container and in less than 12 hours 19 had hospitalized four of them due to heat 20 stress. 21 Make no mistake, it is very 22 common to misjudge the severity of heat 23 buildup inside a refuge chamber. 24 I have personally been involved 25 in multiple refuge chamber tests as well as 21 1 actual refuge chamber use in my mining 2 career. Some of these tests have been 3 without the use of cooling systems. These 4 tests are generally short to avoid serious 5 injury to the test subjects. 6 Integral to the safe operation of 7 a refuge chamber is a cooling system for 8 combating metabolic heat buildup. 9 Uncontrolled, metabolic heat buildup can 10 lead to heatstroke and possible fatalities. 11 MSHA's proposed ruling supports this claim 12 in stating: "Medical evidence revealed the 13 values of approaching or exceeding 105 14 Fahrenheit apparent temperature would be 15 life-threatening." 16 The ruling proposes a maximum 17 internal apparent temperature of 95 degrees 18 but omits a maximum external ambient 19 temperature that the chamber must operate 20 under. The proposed ruling does correctly 21 state that ambient temperature in a refuge 22 alternative is affected by the mine 23 temperature. More appropriately, though, it 24 is the single most important factor in 25 determining the rate of heat transfer to the 22 1 outside of a refuge chamber. It is 2 therefore critical for design and testing 3 purposes that the final ruling specify a 4 maximum ambient mine temperature that the 5 refuge chamber must operate under. 6 Utilizing generally accepted 7 engineering practices, this value would be a 8 maximum expected temperature of the mine in 9 an emergency situation with an appropriate 10 factor of safety. 11 The State of West Virginia has 12 already approved refuge chambers without 13 cooling systems. Identical to the MSHA 14 proposed ruling, the West Virginia 15 regulation specifies the maximum internal 16 apparent temperature of 95 degrees 17 Fahrenheit. 18 Approved manufacturers 19 demonstrated compliance by computation and 20 experimentation using an assumed ambient 21 mine temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit. 22 The 55 degree value chosen is an assumed 23 average temperature at the face for a West 24 Virginia coal mine. This value does not 25 consider possible temperature increases in 23 1 an emergency situation from loss of 2 ventilation, fire or an explosion. It is 3 extremely confusing from an engineering 4 standpoint why an average value would be 5 used with no safety factor. 6 I would like to give a similar 7 analogy. It would be like designing a 8 bridge that can only hold the average number 9 of cars expected to be on that bridge during 10 one day. MineARC as a company made a 11 decision that this stipulation did not meet 12 our own internal safety requirements and 13 hence, we did not seek approval in West 14 Virginia. 15 The recent NIOSH simulated 16 testing of West Virginia approved refuge 17 chambers provided partial evidence of the 18 inability of some of these chambers to 19 maintain internal temperatures below the 20 specified criteria. This testing was 21 conducted at Lake Lynn mine at approximately 22 60 degrees Fahrenheit. This is in spite of 23 the fact that the simulated testing 24 potentially underestimated the heat buildup 25 inside of the refuge chamber by 20 to 30 24 1 percent if human occupants had been used. 2 Regardless, these chambers have 3 been approved in emergency response plans by 4 MSHA and are currently being installed in 5 coal mines across the U.S. 6 I would like to quote Randall 7 Harris who is the technical advisor to the 8 West Virginia Mine Safety Technology Task 9 Force in his presentation last week in 10 Charleston. And I quote: "The task force 11 was focused on the mining conditions in West 12 Virginia. We did not attempt to develop 13 solutions that were universally applicable. 14 Many vendors and experts from outside the 15 U.S. presented forceful positions 16 concerning, for instance, the ability of a 17 shelter to maintain an internal temperature 18 without mechanical cooling, which while 19 valid in many mining environments were not 20 applicable to the conditions of West 21 Virginia." 22 Clearly this statement verifies 23 that the West Virginia approved chambers 24 have not been designed for the use of 25 ambient conditions exceeding 55 degrees 25 1 Fahrenheit. 2 I, however, would challenge Randy 3 and his opinion that it is not applicable to 4 West Virginia. Even a small increase in 5 ambient temperature would render these 6 chambers unable to meet the specified 7 criteria. In some instances a 10 degree 8 Fahrenheit increase could potentially 9 endanger the lives of the occupants. From 10 survey data collected by MSHA and displayed 11 in the NIOSH report, there are some West 12 Virginia mines that can have maximum 13 temperatures of 69 degrees Fahrenheit. 14 I would therefore challenge the 15 task force to use the same logic that they 16 used to specify that a refuge chamber should 17 not be required to sustain an overpressure 18 above which there is not likely to be human 19 survivals. That value is approximately 10 20 psi and they set a value of 15 psi. 21 If we were to use this analogy 22 and apply it to temperature, the maximum 23 temperature a human can survive outside of a 24 refuge chamber for extended periods would be 25 approximately 130 degrees Fahrenheit. 26 1 Therefore, a refuge chamber should be able 2 to operate up to this external temperature. 3 Under section 7.501 of the MSHA 4 proposed ruling it states, "Refuge 5 alternatives that states have approved and 6 those that MSHA has accepted in approved 7 emergency response plans would meet the 8 requirements of this proposed ruling." This 9 statement can only be interpreted as MSHA 10 ignoring operational deficiencies in 11 currently approved chambers. 12 The proposed rule correctly 13 points out there's currently no permissible 14 air conditioning equipment which will 15 overcome the heat buildup in underground 16 coal mines. Nevertheless, several refuge 17 chamber manufacturers are currently 18 developing intrinsically safe cooling 19 systems. 20 MineARC Systems believe that we 21 have resolved this issue without the use of 22 a conventional electrically powered air 23 conditioning system. This system is to be 24 tested in a coal mine by the Mine Rescue 25 Board of New South Wales with human 27 1 occupants. 2 We encourage MSHA to meet and 3 consult with MineARC and other manufacturers 4 to determine at what stage of development 5 their solutions are for this problem. 6 To provide MSHA with as much 7 information as possible in regards to heat 8 buildup inside of a refuge chamber, MineARC 9 Systems commissioned an independent man 10 test. This was a response to the proposed 11 ruling. 12 The purpose of the test was to 13 determine the heat buildup inside of a steel 14 refuge chamber with an average external 15 temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit. This 16 ambient mine temperature is equivalent to 17 temperatures found in many coal mines in the 18 U.S. and in most mines in the State of 19 Alabama. 20 The test was conducted with six 21 people in an eight-person MineARC refuge 22 chamber. As per the MSHA proposed ruling, 23 each occupant had approximately 60 feet 24 cubes of volume and 15 feet squared of floor 25 space. With an average external temperature 28 1 of 80 degrees Fahrenheit, the internal 2 apparent temperature of the refuge chamber 3 reached a staggering 143 degrees Fahrenheit 4 in just 128 minutes. These conditions are 5 considered extreme and life-threatening for 6 extended durations. 7 I've brought with me a few copies 8 of this report for any interested persons in 9 the audience or alternatively please visit 10 the MSHA website and download your own copy 11 under the sections -- comment sections. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. I have a 14 few comments and questions, and I'm sure 15 some of my colleagues do also. And thank 16 you for your comments. 17 First of all, in going back to 18 your -- and at the beginning you gave us -- 19 you talked about heat buildup in a confined 20 space and you gave the example of eight 21 people in a freight container. 22 MR. RAU: Yes. 23 MS. SILVEY: Yes. Would you 24 repeat that part of your -- again? 25 MR. RAU: Yeah, I can explain it. 29 1 MS. SILVEY: Yeah. 2 MR. RAU: The situation was -- I 3 was actually at an expo in Santiago and we 4 were displaying one of our hard rock refuge 5 chambers and a girl came in and she was 6 speaking with one of our distributors. And 7 the distributor came and grabbed me and said 8 you've got to hear about this. 9 And she had explained that -- she 10 was interested because she saw the cooling 11 system inside of our refuge chamber. Our 12 conventional metal/non-metal refuge chambers 13 use a battery backup system with a standard 14 split system air conditioner. 15 She saw it and she said I was 16 involved in this test. One of the mining 17 companies came along. They plucked eight 18 students who needed the money out of the 19 university and they were involved in the 20 test. 21 And what they did was they put a 22 scrubbing system inside a freight container 23 and then they sealed it so they could 24 monitor the CO2 expiration and the 25 efficiency of the CO2 scrubber. 30 1 MS. SILVEY: And how big was this 2 freight container? 3 MR. RAU: A standard 20 foot 4 freight container. 5 MS. SILVEY: So, it was not 6 the -- it did not meet the size of the -- 7 MR. RAU: With eight people it 8 would have gone -- it would have far 9 exceeded the size on a 20 foot -- it's a 20 10 foot by 8 foot. 11 MS. SILVEY: Okay. 12 MR. RAU: Yeah, it would have far 13 exceeded it. It would be close to -- it 14 would probably be double. It would be 15 somewhere in the vicinity of 120 feet cube 16 per person. 17 MS. SILVEY: Okay. So, your 18 suggestion is for a maximum external ambient 19 temperature, recognizing, as sort of was 20 implicit in your -- in your comments, that 21 the external ambient temperature in the 22 mines are going to vary throughout the 23 United States and even sometimes within 24 certain -- the same geographical area 25 depending on the conditions in the mine. Do 31 1 you have a suggestion for how that should be 2 addressed? 3 MR. RAU: Well, as I said, if you 4 use -- if you use the same logic that the 5 task force used in terms of allowing the 6 inflatable shelters, which was the -- beyond 7 10 -- at 10 psi your lungs will collapse 8 from an explosion. So, you can sustain -- 9 when we design -- 10 MS. SILVEY: Well, I guess I'm 11 asking you do you have a suggestion for how 12 we should address the maximum external 13 ambient temperature? 14 MR. RAU: I think it should be up 15 to what you can reasonably survive outside 16 of the refuge chamber. So, if there's an 17 explosion and there's a fire and you're 18 outside of that refuge chamber and you're 19 traveling to it, if you can still survive in 20 the ambient mine conditions, you should have 21 an opportunity to get inside that chamber. 22 That temperature is about 130 degrees 23 Fahrenheit. 24 MS. SILVEY: I'm not -- 25 MR. RAU: Am I missing the 32 1 question? 2 MS. SILVEY: I guess I'm saying 3 for certain -- we've got to draft a 4 regulation -- 5 MR. RAU: Yeah. 6 MS. SILVEY: -- that will apply 7 to a variety of mining conditions. And I 8 guess I'm asking you if you say we did 9 not -- in the proposed rule we did not 10 address this factor, even though, as you 11 said, we spoke about it, but we did not 12 address it as a requirement, do you have -- 13 and you don't have to provide that to me 14 right now, but do you have a suggestion of 15 how such a rule would be crafted to address 16 that issue? 17 MR. RAU: As I said, it depends 18 whether you want to use a prescriptive 19 measure and say they must operate up to 130 20 or you use a risk assessment base. And you 21 know, typically I'm in favor of risk 22 assessment base because one -- 23 MS. SILVEY: That's where -- this 24 is where I'm trying to go. 25 MR. RAU: One shoe doesn't fit 33 1 all -- 2 MS. SILVEY: No. 3 MR. RAU: -- with refuge chambers. 4 And on a mine by mine case, you need to sit 5 down and do a 10 based risk assessment and 6 look at, okay, what is the maximum external 7 temperatures that we could conceivably have 8 here. And obviously that's going to be in 9 summer months. And then we need to allow 10 for loss of power. The first thing you do 11 in an emergency, if you have an explosion, 12 the power gets shut down. You lose your 13 ventilation system. How much is that 14 reasonably going to increase that 15 temperature? 16 MS. SILVEY: You also spoke about 17 the cooling systems and you said that you 18 all, MineARC is resolving this issue 19 without -- if I heard you correctly, without 20 an air conditioner system and you are now 21 testing that. Do you have -- when do you 22 anticipate that the testing will be 23 complete? 24 MR. RAU: They're actually 25 running -- they've already run a series of 34 1 tests on it. They're running another man 2 test, in-house test this Saturday. They'll 3 be running an independent test the following 4 week and then it will be taken from there to 5 a coal mine. And the New South Wales Coal 6 Mine Rescue Board will actually test it in a 7 coal mine with mine employees. 8 MS. SILVEY: Okay. 9 MR. EPPERLY: It's 10 non-electrical? 11 MR. RAU: Correct. There are -- 12 there are other manufacturers, though, that 13 are developing -- I mean, I speak to other 14 manufacturers on a regular basis and I know 15 that they're working on the same issues. 16 MS. SILVEY: Yeah. And then I 17 wrote a comment here. So, you're going to 18 have to help me. I guess it was with 19 respect -- I know what it was now. That 20 test that -- and I guess you might have been 21 one of the subjects yourself, the 22 eight-person heat test. And were all the 23 requirements consistent with the MSHA 24 proposal in the test you conducted that 25 yielded the apparent temperature of 143 35 1 degrees -- 2 MR. RAU: Yes. 3 MS. SILVEY: -- or whatever it 4 was? 5 MR. RAU: We developed a testing 6 protocol of the proposed legislation. 7 MS. SILVEY: So, everything else 8 was consistent with every -- 9 MR. RAU: Correct. 10 MS. SILVEY: The CO scrubber, all 11 of that? 12 MR. RAU: Correct. 13 MS. SILVEY: I don't think I have 14 any more. Do you have anything? 15 MR. EPPERLY: On the reference 16 you made to the NIOSH testing and you 17 mentioned 20 to 30 percent without human 18 subject testing, could you explain that a 19 little more, what you meant by that? 20 MR. RAU: What they did when 21 they -- they set up the protocol -- just 22 to -- to give you a very quick understanding 23 of the mechanisms of heat dissipation inside 24 of a refuge chamber, you have a person 25 sitting inside. They generate metabolic 36 1 heat. That heat is made up into sensible 2 and latent components. You then have 3 radiant heat transfers from that person to 4 the air. You have convective heat transfer 5 through your conductive medium, whether it's 6 an inflatable tent or a steel and then from 7 that material to outside, convection again. 8 So, that is the key mechanism there. It's 9 not so much the material you use as the air 10 inside which is the issue. 11 Now, with the testing that they 12 set up, they were simulating human 13 conditions. As soon as you put people 14 inside of an enclosed space, you have a 15 finite amount of water vapor. As you 16 expire, each person typically every hour 17 will expire 30 mils of water vapor per hour. 18 On top of that you are sweating. 19 As the temperature increases inside of the 20 refuge chamber and the humidity goes up, 21 initially when your body is at rest you're 22 using -- you're evaporative cooling as you 23 sweat. As it gets hotter, you lose that 24 ability to evaporatively cool. So, radiant 25 cooling takes over and becomes the larger 37 1 percentage. 2 What they did is they didn't 3 allow for two things. One, they didn't 4 allow for the sweat rates. They 5 underestimated when they injected the water 6 vapor into the chamber probably by about 7 1,000 percent. They allowed only for 8 expired air. They didn't allow for any 9 sweat rates. 10 And I can testify having sat in 11 these refuge chambers during heat tests that 12 it's like you're in a swimming pool. The 13 water is dripping off the roof. People are 14 constantly sweating. And you need to allow 15 for that because it goes into the air. 16 The other issue is that when they 17 injected that water vapor into the chamber, 18 they injected it in at the ambient mine 19 temperature. When you expire, you expire 20 air at 95 degrees Fahrenheit. That is where 21 they underestimated by 20 to 30 percent. 22 Coupled with the fact that they didn't 23 inject enough water moisture into the actual 24 environment, the actual result could have 25 been worse. 38 1 I mean, it was proven -- the 2 interesting thing was that NIOSH actually -- 3 or it might have been Foster-Miller, but 4 they contracted Raytheon to do computational 5 modeling on the Lake Lynn testing and they 6 identified it. They said, hey, you've made 7 a mistake here. You didn't inject the 8 moisture into the environment at the correct 9 temperature. 10 Instead of leaving the results 11 where they should have been, they called up 12 NIOSH and said, did you inject it at the 13 mine temperature? And they said, yes. Then 14 what they did was they went back into their 15 computational model and put an assumption in 16 that it was injected in at the mine 17 temperature. 18 It's like it's -- you know, it's 19 voodoo engineering. It's not what the 20 results should have been. It's matching the 21 computational modeling to the actual 22 testing. 23 MR. EPPERLY: The measurements 24 you made in the chamber in your tests, what 25 instrumentation -- or how did you measure 39 1 the apparent temperature? 2 MR. RAU: We had a -- we had 3 contracted an independent company to come in 4 and they used a series of different 5 measuring equipment. I'm not sure of the 6 actual models. It's all in the report. And 7 we were logging carbon dioxide, oxygen, 8 carbon monoxide, dry-bulb, wet-bulb, 9 relative humidity inside. 10 And we took that and we used the 11 same formula that West Virginia was using, 12 put it all into spreadsheets and then we 13 also compared it against some other indices 14 as well, the heat stress indices, wet-bulb 15 globe, just to basically to see if we 16 changed the indices what would the results 17 be. 18 You're dealing with extreme 19 temperatures. 100 percent humidity and 95 20 degrees Fahrenheit. You cannot sustain 21 those temperatures for long. We physically 22 had to send our employees home after the two 23 hours of testing. 24 MS. SILVEY: Does Australia 25 require that these refuge chambers be 40 1 approved? 2 MR. RAU: Australia on the coal 3 side -- 4 MS. SILVEY: On the coal side, 5 right. 6 MR. RAU: Yeah. On the coal side 7 we've been using -- 8 MS. SILVEY: I know about -- I 9 suspect I know about the non-coal side. So, 10 I'm talking about the coal side. 11 MR. RAU: On the coal side it's 12 really -- it's a new market as per here. 13 We've always used the -- the Drager quick 14 fill stations and that's been the typical 15 evacuation route. Refuge chambers haven't 16 been used on the coal side in Australia. 17 It's only coming in -- the miners 18 will write a guideline in Australia. We 19 avoid prescriptive measures. We 20 typically -- a legislation is set up to be 21 non-prescriptive. So, the reason being that 22 everything should be risk assessed. What it 23 is good for one mine -- if you say -- just a 24 very simple explanation: You've got an 25 explosives magazine and you've got one ton 41 1 of explosives and you say you can't smoke 2 within 10 yards, that doesn't mean if you've 3 got 100 tons that it should be 10 yards. 4 You need to assess your risk, control it and 5 deem what the standard will be. 6 MS. SILVEY: So then with respect 7 to the mines -- the underground coal mines 8 in Australia, percentage-wise how many have 9 refuge chambers now? 10 MR. RAU: None. They're all 11 using -- 12 MS. SILVEY: None? 13 MR. RAU: They're all using the 14 Drager system. 15 MS. SILVEY: So, none have -- 16 MR. RAU: None. 17 MS. SILVEY: Okay. 18 MR. RAU: Actually, I shall stand 19 corrected. There's probably -- there's one 20 mine in Queensland which is called Grass 21 Tree and they've got three. They're -- 22 again, they're not used as refuge chambers. 23 They're not termed "refuge chambers". 24 They're termed "changeover stations". And 25 it's the exact same scenario with our 42 1 customer in -- in New Zealand. 2 MS. SILVEY: Yeah. I was going 3 to -- that's the next thing I was going to 4 ask you. And I know you said in terms of 5 coal and I'm talking about coal. Where are 6 your units used now? 7 MR. RAU: Solid Energy is the 8 only one. The unit we have just recently 9 designed is a new unit. It's going through 10 testing. It hasn't been sold to any coal 11 miners. 12 MS. SILVEY: Okay. 13 MR. RAU: The mine in New 14 Zealand, Solid Energy uses one of our 15 existing hydrophiles in a non-intrinsically 16 required area. 17 MS. SILVEY: Sure. 18 MR. EPPERLY: The coal mines, you 19 mentioned the two, what was the supplied 20 air -- if you know, the supplied air system 21 for those particular chambers? 22 MR. RAU: They ran off of three 23 separate breathable air systems and on the 24 first one -- the first being the compressed 25 air, which obviously the coal mines here 43 1 don't have. The second is a medical oxygen 2 in conjunction with a carbon monoxide, 3 carbon dioxide scrubber; and then the third 4 system is a sodium chlorate oxygen kennel. 5 What we found in those incidents 6 was, though, that within the first hour they 7 lost power and compressed air. So, they 8 were sitting completely autonomous in a 9 standalone using the medical oxygen and the 10 scrubbing systems. 11 MS. SILVEY: And I might be 12 asking you a question now that you can't 13 answer. I suspect not, but if you can't, 14 then don't -- feel free not to. Do you have 15 any -- you talked about the fact that you -- 16 you all did not feel comfortable submitting 17 your unit to West Virginia. Do you all have 18 any plans -- future plans for submitting an 19 approval let's say to MSHA, anything to MSHA 20 for approval? 21 MR. RAU: Yes. I mean, we would 22 feel comfortable submitting to MSHA now -- 23 sorry. To West Virginia now because we'll 24 know -- we know that our chamber will 25 operate under a range of conditions. We're 44 1 not going to make the assumption that each 2 miner is going to be 55 degrees Fahrenheit. 3 MS. SILVEY: I understand. 4 MR. RAU: I mean, we could have 5 delivered something to the market very 6 quickly. 7 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Okay. I 8 don't have -- do you have anything? 9 MS. POWERS: The economists might 10 be interested in contacting you at a later 11 point. 12 MR. RAU: I just -- can I ask a 13 question? 14 MS. SILVEY: Yes. 15 MR. RAU: Right from the -- 16 MS. SILVEY: I said you could. 17 MR. RAU: Right from the outset 18 you said that this needed to go through 19 December 31st. 20 MS. SILVEY: Yes, I did. 21 MR. RAU: I'm urging you to not 22 make the same mistake as what I believe West 23 Virginia did in terms of putting deadlines 24 on things which take time to resolve. 25 MS. SILVEY: Okay. I can 45 1 answer -- I mean, I will speak to that. 2 Maybe not answer it, but in that I said it 3 needed to go through and clearly -- and I 4 think I said this in Lexington. I said it 5 in Charleston and I hope I said it in Salt 6 Lake that we will do -- and I think I said 7 it this morning. We will do the best job we 8 can to craft the best reg we can by December 9 31st that responds -- and we appreciate 10 everybody's comments and their attendance. 11 To respond to, as I put it, the needs and 12 the concerns of the mining public to try to 13 craft the most safe rule that we can. 14 Now, recognizing that we have a 15 deadline -- and the deadline is not one we 16 put on ourselves. It was one put on us by 17 the United States, by the -- it's a 18 statutory deadline. And when you've got a 19 statutory deadline, unless the statutory 20 deadline moves, there's not much that we can 21 do about it. 22 But I think everybody has heard 23 me say it and I will say it on the record 24 and off the record that we will try to come 25 up with the best rule we can. And believe 46 1 you me, I mean, you know, within the 2 constraints that we have and -- and we'll do 3 what we can and we'll look at all the data 4 that we have. And that's probably -- I 5 said, you know, to somebody one time before, 6 there are no guarantees in life, but you do 7 the best you can. And we will do that and 8 we will -- at this point in time we'll try 9 to meet our deadline because we have an 10 obligation to do that. 11 MR. RAU: I think it would be 12 very interesting just from a collecting 13 exercise to get -- you know, you've got a 14 lot of great manufacturers here and we're 15 not the only manufacturer who is trying to 16 resolve this issue and everyone here has 17 altruistic motives. The important thing 18 here is the miners, making it a safer 19 environment. I think if you put a lot of 20 the manufacturers together, you could hash 21 out a lot of these issues in a very short 22 time frame to meet that deadline. 23 You know, what I saw in the West 24 Virginia process was that it was all very 25 isolated, people being very protective. 47 1 MS. SILVEY: That's why we're 2 asking everybody -- I think we have other 3 manufacturers in here and we are asking 4 everybody for their comments. So, if people 5 would provide -- and you heard me say 6 earlier be as specific as you can. The more 7 specific you are the -- that becomes very 8 useful to us. So, we will -- and we will be 9 guided accordingly and try to do our best. 10 I promise you that. 11 MR. RAU: I will go back and 12 write other comments on other sections. 13 I've only focused on this because I believe 14 it's the most important, but I'll go back 15 and go through and offer suggestions in all 16 areas and put it through our business. 17 MS. SILVEY: We appreciate that. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. RAU: Thank you. 20 MS. SILVEY: Our next speaker 21 will be Noble Linn, United Mine Worker, Jim 22 Walter Number Four. Mr. Linn. 23 MR. LINN: Linn, L-i-n-n. I 24 totally agree with Mr. Rau's statement that 25 one shoe doesn't fit all. 48 1 In regards to the effects of what 2 heat will have upon Alabama coal miners I 3 believe there are too many variables to 4 consider in order to precisely calculate the 5 apparent temperature of a group of miners 6 confined in a refuge alternative 2,000 feet 7 underground from this room or from any other 8 room in the State of Alabama. 9 I believe the only true way to 10 actually know the combined effects of air 11 movement, heat and humidity on the human 12 body is through actual human testing in an 13 Alabama coal mine on Alabama coal miners in 14 their own environment. 15 In MSHA's own words on page 142, 16 middle of the third column and I quote: 17 Body heat is a primary heat source in a 18 refuge alternative and the humidity will 19 likely be high in such a sealed 20 environment. The carbon dioxide absorption 21 process also generates heat and humidity. 22 There's currently no permissible air 23 conditioning equipment which will overcome 24 this problem in underground coal mines, end 25 quote. 49 1 MSHA's use of the phrase "the 2 humidity will likely be high" is such a 3 general statement that it only reinforces 4 their admission that there is a problem with 5 no equipment to solve it. This problem can 6 only be solved in our opinion through actual 7 human testing. 8 This testing must be done under 9 the direct supervision of MSHA, the 10 representatives of the miners, the 11 manufacturers of these systems, state 12 agencies, representatives of all related 13 fields of study and science from all major 14 universities and the representatives of the 15 coal companies. 16 Only actual human testing will 17 provide the information that is needed to 18 work and solve this problem. It will 19 provide the data that will reveal the 20 unforeseen problems that no one thought of. 21 It will provide proper procedures through 22 actual hands-on training. It will be a 23 great opportunity for all interested parties 24 to provide and gather valuable information 25 that can be used for the present and study 50 1 for the future -- for the future of the coal 2 mining industry and most importantly, for 3 the future of Alabama coal miners. 4 Thank you. 5 MS. SILVEY: Thank you, Mr. Linn. 6 Our next speaker is Jim Yates, 7 UMWA, Jim Walter Number Four. 8 MR. YATES: Good morning. 9 MS. SILVEY: Good morning. 10 MR. YATES: Jimmy, J-i-m-m-y, 11 Yates, Y-a-t-e-s. 12 I'm addressing the concerns of 13 the pre-shift examination. MSHA requests 14 specific comments on the visual damage that 15 would be revealed during the pre-shift 16 examinations. The Agency is concerned with 17 the feasibility and the practicality of 18 checking the status of the refuge 19 alternatives without having to enter the 20 structure or break the tampering-evident 21 seal. 22 The practice of visually 23 examining equipment on a routine basis is 24 the essential first step in ensuring it is 25 in operational condition. These exams could 51 1 reveal any number of problems that may 2 exist. Properly trained examiners would be 3 able to detect potentially dangerous 4 conditions that could result from collision 5 with other equipment or damage sustained 6 while moving these refuges. These could be 7 as minor as a shear bolt or a dent on 8 something that could be comprising the 9 chamber's functionality. 10 The Agency's concern that a 11 visual check may not be effective without 12 access to the inner workings of the unit are 13 unfounded. Doing these pre-shift exams may 14 lead to additional examinations and repairs 15 that could remove the unit from service 16 until completed. The union strongly 17 supports the practice of performing a 18 pre-shift examination on all refuge 19 chambers. 20 And also, don't we have the 21 technology to have a type of gauge of some 22 sort on the outside of the chamber to check 23 the O2 level, for instance? 24 Thank you. 25 MS. SILVEY: Okay. So, you are 52 1 suggesting that there be some way of 2 checking the -- pre-shift checking the 3 refuge alternative from the outside without 4 having to enter the refuge alternative? 5 MR. YATES: Yes, ma'am. 6 MS. SILVEY: We also got some 7 comments during this -- these past two weeks 8 from some commenters who said that the 9 refuge chamber, refuge alternative may not 10 need to be checked on a daily basis, but 11 alternatively could be checked as 12 recommended by the manufacturer. Do you 13 have any comment on that? 14 MR. YATES: I would say the -- we 15 would -- I would think that we would want to 16 go beyond the manufacturer's recommendations 17 as far as examinations are concerned. I 18 would think maybe not on a daily basis, but 19 on like a weekly examination route. Now, if 20 the manufacturer says a week at a time, I 21 would want to do something just a tad 22 better. 23 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. 24 MR. SHERER: I have a question. 25 MR. YATES: Yes, sir. 53 1 MR. SHERER: I would like to 2 clarify something, Mr. Yates. 3 You mentioned that you support 4 pre-shift exams and then you also mentioned 5 that you support weekly exams. Is the 6 weekly in addition to the pre-shift? Is 7 that what you meant? 8 MR. YATES: What I mean -- I 9 think we do need a pre-shift examination, 10 yes, sir. 11 MR. SHERER: Thank you. 12 MR. YATES: Thank you. 13 MS. SILVEY: Our next speaker is 14 Dale Byram, Jim Walter Resources. 15 MR. BYRAM: Thank you. My name 16 is Dale Byram, B-y-r-a-m, and I work with 17 Jim Walter Resources in Brookwood, Alabama. 18 And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 19 the panel and I also appreciate everyone 20 that's taken the time today to come and 21 share their thoughts about something that is 22 as important as mine safety. 23 In recent years terms such as 24 "forced technology" and "offers of promise" 25 has been associated with mandates, PIBs and 54 1 other regulatory actions. I'm convinced 2 that the intentions were honorable and 3 direct and that they were all directed 4 towards moving to improving mine safety and 5 helping to ensure the survivability of our 6 miners. Yet mandating the use of refuge 7 alternatives that are clearly unproven and 8 lack human testing for the required duration 9 of 96 hours in our environment in Alabama is 10 more life-threatening than it is life 11 saving. 12 Alabama has unique conditions. 13 As a matter of fact, this morning in 14 Birmingham one of the local television 15 stations reported that it was 80 degrees 16 outside with 87 percent humidity. If you 17 use a heat index chart, that's an apparent 18 temperature of 90 degrees. And as most of 19 you know, that's only five degrees below the 20 maximum apparent temperature that we're 21 trying to maintain in our refuge 22 alternatives. Probably by now it's even 23 above that. Again, Alabama has unique 24 circumstances and unique temperatures. 25 At Jim Walter in our mines our 55 1 ambient temperature averages 76 degrees. 2 And even though these conditions again are 3 unique to Alabama, a group of escaping 4 miners, whether they be in Utah or whether 5 they be in Alabama, once they retreat into a 6 refuge alternative and close the door, they 7 then begin to experience similar 8 environmental changes. You will see rapid 9 temperature increase and you will see rapid 10 humidity increase. And these two factors 11 together, as has been said earlier by some 12 of the commenters, directly affects the 13 body's ability to control and maintain a 14 survivable temperature. 15 The preamble stated that 16 temperatures that reach 105 degrees is 17 life-threatening and that the apparent 18 temperature of 95 is the maximum that you 19 recommend to stay within the refuge 20 alternative. 21 At present we know of no rescue 22 alternative that can meet that requirement 23 in Alabama and recommend continued testing 24 before being required to knowingly install 25 rescue alternatives that will risk a life 56 1 rather than to save a life. And I make 2 those -- those comments directly towards 3 7.504. 4 You asked for comments I think on 5 the expectations training under 75.1504, and 6 we recognize the value and support 7 expectations training and believe that this 8 is the way we need to move in the future. I 9 don't know what the reg's intent or the 10 panel's intent would be, but we would like 11 the freedom to use simulators or -- or 12 training panels rather than the entire 13 containment. If our company chooses to use 14 containment, a unit, then we would like the 15 ability to use, again, simulators and 16 training panels. 17 This would take less space. It 18 would be more conducive to training our 19 miners to use the critical applications of 20 these units to where they can -- it becomes 21 second nature if they have to open or deploy 22 the unit and then enter the unit. 23 Under 75.1507, one of the areas 24 that is referenced is the minimum amount of 25 calories of food and water for the -- for 57 1 the survivors or the escaping miners that 2 may be entrapped within the refuge 3 alternative. When you do research on this, 4 when you look at Coast Guard approved 5 survival packets and products and things, 6 you see a variance of calories that are 7 needed. 8 And we want to take care of our 9 miners. That's unquestionable. Space 10 apparently is a valuable commodity within a 11 refuge chamber. I would like to see a range 12 of appropriate caloric intake rather than 13 2,000. 14 The other issue that's important 15 to us that also reflects the results that's 16 been identified before from previous 17 speakers is where your body continues to 18 sweat and lose its fluid compartment or 19 depletes its fluid compartment. In the 20 proposed reg it talks about 2.25 quartz of 21 water per person. In a 15-man containment, 22 this could be about 35 gallons of water that 23 would have to be there. 24 One of the things that happens 25 when the body begins to sweat, it begins to 58 1 lose electrolytes which are vital not only 2 in the maintenance of the fluids in the 3 body, but it even goes into the functioning 4 of the heart. I would like for the panel to 5 consider electrolyte substitutes as part of 6 this fluid requirement within the chamber. 7 I think this would help to extend someone's 8 survivability. 9 Ms. Silvey talked about potential 10 light sources. We have found that chemical 11 light sticks, kind of the break and shake 12 light offers an opportunity to provide an 13 ambient light. They're small in their 14 size. You can get them that last a varied 15 number of hours from four all the way 16 through 12 hours. That's not a 17 recommendation, but that's just a suggestion 18 for something for the panel to look into. 19 They're non-toxic. It would not cause a 20 problem within the barricade. 21 My comments were general, but our 22 concerns are great. We have very little 23 faith that our miners can survive in a 24 refuge chamber in an Alabama temperature for 25 96 hours with what's available to us at this 59 1 point. 2 We're open to your suggestions 3 and we're open to work with any of the 4 agencies or the manufacturers to try and 5 develop a unit that can help to improve the 6 survivability of our miners. Thank you. 7 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. I don't 8 really know -- you state first of all, 9 Mr. Byram, that your comments were general, 10 but your concerns great or something to that 11 effect. And if you -- I take it that either 12 through Jim Walter or some other forum if 13 you all -- if you have more specific 14 comments, to provide them before the comment 15 period closes on the 18th, if you will do 16 that. And I take it then that you all do 17 not have any refuge chambers underground 18 now. 19 MR. BYRAM: We have refuge 20 chambers on order. We haven't received them 21 from the manufacturer. We have barricade 22 kits that we developed underground that have 23 the food and the water, but they do not have 24 oxygen capabilities. 25 I would like just to expand on 60 1 something, if I could. We researched 2 various ways to comply with providing our 3 miners with 96 hours of breathable air. We 4 looked at inflatable walls. We looked at 5 building with building material and sealing 6 the walls with purging capabilities. We 7 looked at everything that we could because 8 we felt that if we could build the 9 containment, that it would allow us to 10 isolate a larger area to help dissipate 11 heat, that the roof rib and footwall would 12 be more efficient in doing that than being 13 inside of this containment. 14 When we thought about everything 15 involved, then we recognized that we stood 16 to lose miners in a hostile environment 17 attempting to build and purge an area than 18 if we could more easily and quickly go to a 19 containment, drop a door, turn a few valves, 20 let it deploy and get into the airlock. 21 But we had to make a choice 22 because the reg demanded that we put 23 their -- these chambers underground, which 24 we want to protect our miners. Don't 25 misunderstand that. But we had to make a 61 1 choice on how we can provide the best chance 2 for survival up front and then try and let 3 our mine rescue teams reach these people and 4 remove them before they -- the 30 to 40 5 hours. 6 In our conditions with the 7 containments that are available we do not 8 believe that our miners can survive the full 9 96 hours. 10 MS. SILVEY: Excuse me a minute. 11 MR. EPPERLY: I had a question. 12 MR. BYRAM: Yes, sir. 13 MR. EPPERLY: The things that you 14 considered, did you consider built in place, 15 the second option and how that -- 16 MR. BYRAM: You mean a fixed room 17 underground? 18 MR. EPPERLY: Yes. 19 MR. BYRAM: We have that at one 20 of our locations. 21 MR. EPPERLY: And do you feel 22 that that would meet the apparent 23 temperature proposed in -- 24 MR. BYRAM: I think that it has a 25 greater chance of success. The problem with 62 1 that is it's a fixed location and as a mine 2 operates and moves, you're continually 3 having to move your containments. And at 4 roughly 2,000 feet to continually bore holes 5 and things like that just isn't a good 6 alternative. 7 MR. EPPERLY: What about without 8 a borehole? Did you consider moving the 9 materials, the oxygen and the CO2 scrubbing? 10 MR. BYRAM: We have looked at CO2 11 scrubbing. We have looked at oxygen 12 containment and purge oxygen. The 13 configuration was the -- equal to the same 14 size as a containment and then you would 15 have to build. And there again, the 16 timeliness -- if you're involved in a 17 situation and having to build -- we felt 18 like just going with a containment offered 19 the best of all the options, the lessor of 20 the evils. Although one of our mine sites, 21 Number Four mine has an underground waiting 22 station near an exit. 23 MS. SILVEY: I want to follow up 24 on your comment, Mr. Byram, about the 25 training. One of the things we 63 1 contemplated -- and I'm saying this for 2 everybody -- in the proposed rule was that 3 the -- and not that we mandated this, but 4 that if operators so chose, they could 5 integrate the training into the existing -- 6 and I'm sure all of you all are familiar 7 with the emergency mine evacuation rule 8 that we put in place on December 6th of 9 '06 and -- or it may have been December the 10 8th, but one of those days. And where we 11 require the quarterly drill training and 12 annual expectations training on 13 self-contained self-rescue devices. 14 So, one of the things in building 15 on that, we thought that the operators might 16 integrate the refuge alternative training 17 into that quarterly drill training and the 18 annual expectations training for the SCSRs. 19 Have you thought about the training and 20 contemplated how -- how you would structure 21 your program on that training? 22 MR. BYRAM: We haven't decided 23 yet, Ms. Silvey. We're still giving -- 24 we're having discussions and consideration. 25 Expectations training is realistic training. 64 1 MS. SILVEY: Yes. 2 MR. BYRAM: I think that it's 3 vital for the success for whatever device 4 you're trying to teach our miners to use. 5 Again, I think that rather than have a full 6 sized unit to where the entire canopy has to 7 be deployed and things like that -- I don't 8 think that's necessary, but I do think the 9 critical function such as the immediate 10 deployment, the controls that you turn on 11 and how you would interact within the 12 airlock and turn your oxygen system on and 13 everything, I think that's -- that is a 14 necessity and I think that should be done 15 annually in expectations training. 16 And I really don't want to -- my 17 guys that have to deal with all the 18 expectations training now and self-rescuers, 19 that's not a quick thing. It takes probably 20 45 minutes per miner to get -- or per class 21 to get through this. 22 But I -- for me personally I 23 think that when we get these units in our 24 mine, we need to have that as a separate 25 training entity so it's not confused with 65 1 other training issues. 2 MS. SILVEY: Okay. Thank you 3 very much. 4 At this point, is there anybody 5 else in the audience who wishes to make 6 comment? 7 (A hand is raised.) 8 MS. SILVEY: Yes, sir. 9 MR. GREEN: My name is Randall 10 Green, G-r-e-e-n, and I'm representing the 11 United Mine Workers, Local 1948. And I just 12 wanted to make three comments on the 13 chambers. 14 We are glad to see that we've got 15 standards coming down to get these chambers 16 in the mines. I know there's a lot of 17 comments today on how we're going to sustain 18 it and the atmosphere control and stuff like 19 that, but once we get a start in the mines, 20 I think technology will follow to improve 21 it. 22 One thing that's an option, which 23 our mines employ, is a breathable air hole, 24 breathable boreholes that we have now. I 25 think that's one option that can be used 66 1 with the chambers at this time. In most of 2 the mines in the country these boreholes can 3 be -- can continue to be drilled and we can 4 hook breathable air holes for ventilation to 5 the units. But at the same time, with the 6 technology that we have already available, 7 the environmental controls in the units must 8 be provided as a backup also, the best that 9 technology has. So, we support that. 10 Also, if you think about this, 11 this gives the miners a chance to try to 12 escape, which would be our first option. 13 They'll have the opportunity to stop at 14 these chambers with their rescue units. 15 They have their self-contained rescue units 16 on and they have to change these units. And 17 that's been a big question. This will allow 18 the miners possibly to enter these chambers, 19 exchange their units in a safe environment 20 in a controlled area, then they can proceed 21 on if they have the opportunity. 22 But in situations where -- if 23 they have communication and to know that 24 they can't travel any further, this will 25 give them the best practical opportunity for 67 1 survival. 2 And we don't know what happens in 3 explosions. We could have mine fires and 4 different things like this. And I do 5 believe this is going to enhance -- and I 6 think that particularly with the breathable 7 air holes and the compressor systems that 8 we're already using in our mines and using 9 the breathable air holes is in compliance, 10 but having these self-contained units will 11 keep your -- your supply. It will give you 12 extra air to store for the self-contained 13 rescue units for the miners that we have and 14 it will just put the miner in a better 15 situation for survival at this time. 16 And I think that this is some of 17 the comments from our people in our mines. 18 Thank you. Is there any other questions? 19 MS. SILVEY: I don't have any. 20 Thank you, Mr. Green. Is there anybody else 21 who wishes to speak? 22 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Good morning. 23 MS. SILVEY: Good morning. 24 MR. BLANKENSHIP: My name is 25 James Blankenship, B-l-a-n-k-e-n-s-h-i-p, 68 1 president of United Mine Workers, Local 2 2245. I work at Jim Walter Resources Number 3 Four mine. 4 I forgot one piece of paper. 5 Excuse me. 6 Some of the questions I had today 7 have been answered, and one of them was the 8 air conditioned units that were approved in 9 Canada and Australia. I was under the 10 assumption they were used in the mining 11 industry in those areas, which I found out 12 today that they're not. 13 And the gentleman from MineARC, 14 he talked about 80 degrees Fahrenheit in 15 Alabama. Not at Jim Walter Four. We're in 16 the 90 degrees, high 90s in some areas in 17 that mine. The humidity inside those 18 chambers would be 100 percent. We all know 19 what the heat index would be. That's 20 something we've got to really look at. 21 Pre-shift examinations, I 22 definitely think that should be part of the 23 rules because as we move, these units have 24 got to be moved or got to be pulled out, 25 they've got to be moved backed. And in the 69 1 mines they run up to it with a scoop, hook 2 the track up to it, drag it down through 3 there and put it back in place. They need 4 to be looked at every shift, every pre-shift 5 examination to make sure they're usable if 6 we need them. 7 Training, we do the SCR swapovers 8 in a room sitting in a chair and we swap 9 over. That's my opinion. That's my -- 10 that's my opinion. I know that's what's 11 approved and what is to be done, but I don't 12 think it gives me or the miner actually 13 what's going to happen to him underground. 14 If we don't do training that's 15 hands-on in a condition like they're going 16 to have in an explosion with these chambers, 17 then we're basically wasting time. So, I 18 think that needs to be part of it. Not 19 outside in the shop, not in a room. 20 Underground in an area with a cap lamp with 21 the lamp out, blowed out, whatever; 22 Hollywood smoke, the whole nine yards. I 23 think that needs to be part of the SCSR 24 training, too, but that's another story for 25 another day. 70 1 If we don't do that, it's like 2 driving a car. You can study the book and 3 take the test, the driver's manual and make 4 a hundred, but you can't drive that car 5 until you get behind the wheel. 6 You can know the evacuation plan 7 inside and out. You can know it word for 8 word, page for page, but if you don't do it 9 hands-on, you're not going to know what to 10 do when an emergency happens because you're 11 not calm. Everything is happening around 12 you. You're worried. You've got to be able 13 to -- it's got to be instinct. You've got 14 to be able to go up to that machine, turn 15 the valves and know exactly what it is. 16 It's just like running the 17 equipment underground. We've got mine 18 operators that can do it with their eyes 19 shut because they've done it for years. 20 They know where all the levers are. They 21 know what it is. We've got to have that 22 same training. 23 The evac plans, that goes along 24 with the training. We go over our plan 25 regularly, but unless you do it, it doesn't 71 1 work. We've had an occasion at our location 2 three times where our evac plan failed. 3 Because we read it, everybody knew what it 4 said, but when it came time to do it, humans 5 took over. I mean, worrying and excitement 6 and everything took over and it didn't 7 work. We didn't get people out of the mines 8 in a timely manner. We had to go back and 9 get people. People made decisions that they 10 weren't going to go where they were supposed 11 to go because we haven't had any 12 actual we're going to do it today and it's 13 going to be out here and here's the 14 training. That's got to be part of this 15 rule. 16 We've got to make sure that it -- 17 if we need them -- I hope to God we never 18 do -- people know how to use them when they 19 get to them. Thank you. 20 Now, with that said, we'll move 21 right along. 22 Before today when I was given 23 this thing I wasn't aware of any human 24 testing on refuge chambers, but thank God 25 for the Internet. I found out that there 72 1 was some human testing in 1993 and '94. A 2 company called Rimer Alco did human testing 3 on their -- I'm trying to think of the 4 name. I lost the name of it now. Tommy 5 Knocker refuge chambers. 6 They picked six people to go into 7 a 10-man chamber. They picked people that 8 were non-smokers, no medical, no medicine to 9 take, people with normal heart rates, normal 10 lung capacity. And I don't know about where 11 y'all work, but that's not the people like 12 me. They're like me. They're fat boys. 13 And -- and ladies. I hate to say that, but 14 they are. They take medicine. They smoke. 15 They did that test for 24 hours and not 48 16 or not 96. 17 If we're going to do testing, I 18 think we need to do it. It's got to be for 19 the entire duration. It's got to be a mix 20 of people, weight, whole nine yards and 21 we've got to do it for the 96 hours. 22 You know, Strata Products came to 23 Jim Walter Resources Training Center to give 24 a demonstration of their product and to do a 25 question and answer. 73 1 Ben Loggin was the chairman of 2 our safety committee at that time. He asked 3 the rep could we use the chambers in Alabama 4 with our heat and humidity. The rep didn't 5 want to answer, but he did. I give him 6 credit for that. He said, it would be like 7 getting in a death trap. The chamber 8 wouldn't last 24 hours. And that's true. 9 With the heat and humidity, we probably 10 wouldn't get 24 hours out of it. 11 Jim Walter Resources in the 12 meeting we had with mine manager Keith 13 Shalvey informed myself and the safety 14 committee that we were going to buy the 15 Strata Products 25-man fresh air bay kit. I 16 questioned him about it and knowing what we 17 know about the humidity and the heat, he 18 replied, I know we can't use them, but they 19 comply with the letter of the law. It's a 20 true statement. It does comply with the 21 letter of the law, but it doesn't comply 22 with the intent of the law, which is to make 23 people safe, make the miners safe down 24 there. 25 Mr. Shalvey also told me that he 74 1 would inform the miners not to use them, 2 which I am too. I'm going to tell them 3 don't get in that thing. 4 He said that if we had an 5 individual hurt, couldn't get out of the 6 mines or getting that individual out was a 7 risk to other miners, that one person could 8 probably get in that chamber and -- and make 9 it, which I don't know. He might can. I 10 have no idea about the one person, but 11 that's still not the intent of the law. 12 I sent Strata Products three 13 different e-mails asking them about their 14 chambers and their powerless cooling 15 system. I asked them how it worked, what 16 temperature would it -- would it maintain 17 if -- in the chamber, if the chambers were 18 being tested in Alabama with our heat and 19 humidity; and if so, when, where and what 20 was the results. I have yet to have any 21 response back from Strata Products. 22 I did some research on my own, 23 and this is the question that got answered 24 today. In Canada and Australia there's 25 chambers with cooling systems, but I was 75 1 under the impression it was coal and they're 2 not. I found that out today. This same 3 company sells chambers in the United States 4 and that was one of the reasons I was 5 wondering. MineARC being one of them. 6 Back to the testing, the Rimer 7 Alco -- I'm going to have to spell this. 8 I'm not sure how to pronounce it. It's 9 R-i-m-e-r A-l-c-o. And their research lab 10 was Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, Canada. That's 11 who did the two -- the two tests, one in '93 12 and one in '94. 13 And again, the one in '94, they 14 did it with the mine rescue team, which will 15 have to be a little more physically fit than 16 a normal miner. It's not a cross-section of 17 the workforce. 18 Some of their criteria was they 19 had to have, like I said, normal heart rate, 20 lung rate, no physical -- physiological 21 problems, no phobias. We've probably got 22 people that's afraid to get in a confined 23 space. We've got to deal with that. We 24 can't say, well, you stand outside and 25 you'll be okay. We've got take all that 76 1 into consideration when we do these tests. 2 In their tests it rates 100 3 percent humidity in less than one hour with 4 the temperature of 20 degrees, 25 degrees 5 Centigrade, which is about 75 degrees 6 Fahrenheit. That's West Virginia 7 temperatures. That's not Alabama 8 temperatures. And I know because I worked 9 in both places. I know what the mines are 10 like in West Virginia. 11 Like I said, in Alabama it will 12 be 90 degrees probably right now, you know, 13 at 10:30 in the morning. And we all know 14 the danger of heatstroke. 15 There's a -- I don't know if 16 y'all have got this. A man by the name of 17 Jim Dean from -- the director of West 18 Virginia Mine and Safety Health Training. 19 I've got a report that I think he sent to 20 y'all and gave to y'all one time. And on 21 his report on page five he says, "I am 22 pleased to see that the proposed rule 23 appears to grandfather state approved units 24 to meet the requirements of the proposed 25 rule. I would like to ask MSHA to consider 77 1 if there needs to be any difference from the 2 West Virginia program. I understand why 3 there may be a need to -- a need for 4 specifications to accommodate for original 5 ambient temperatures. That isn't a true 6 statement. What works in West Virginia is 7 not going to work in Alabama. There's no 8 way on earth it is going to work. 9 And he asked to keep -- consider 10 their model as a -- their program as a model 11 for the nation. I don't. I don't agree 12 with that statement. I don't want -- you 13 know, we need to stand on our own. We need 14 to be testing in Alabama. We need to do it 15 right here in these coal mines where it's 16 going to be used. It might work in West 17 Virginia. I don't know. I wasn't part of 18 that, but it doesn't need to be the model 19 that we all go by. 20 And if you look on page seven of 21 his report he says, on page 34157 of the 22 proposed rule, MSHA states the Agency would 23 require this training to exposes the miners 24 to the expected heat and humidity conditions 25 in the refuge chamber. And I believe that 78 1 miners should certainly be informed that 2 conditions within the refuge alternative or 3 shelter may be uncomfortable, but certainly 4 not life-threatening and do not belive that 5 exposing thousands of miners to some high 6 unknown temperature and humidity is 7 necessary or advisable. 8 I disagree with that statement, 9 too. We've got to know what's in there. We 10 can't just assume that that's okay. We 11 can't tell an individual, well, you're going 12 to be all right. It's supposed to be 135 13 degrees in there. They're not going to be 14 okay. 15 We need to be honest and up front 16 with everybody that goes in there. We need 17 to make sure that when they get in that 18 chamber that it's safe, that the temperature 19 is going to be where they can last 96 hours 20 to get to them. 21 And he said, how does MSHA know 22 what the expected condition within the 23 refuge alternative will be? The only way we 24 can do that is testing. We can't assume 25 anything. I know we can do figures and 79 1 graphs and charts and maybe be close, but we 2 can't assume what's going on until we do it. 3 It says, based upon my 4 understanding, a range of a temperature of X 5 with a range of relative humidity readings 6 of Y will result in an ambient temperature 7 of 95 degrees Fahrenheit. 8 I just happen to have some index 9 charts. To get a 95 degree heat, it would 10 be 88 degrees with a humidity of 60. It's 11 worse than that today outside in the street 12 in Alabama. If you -- if you had a 13 temperature X of 98, you have to have a 14 humidity below 40 to be in the 95 range. At 15 98 and 40, it's 105 degrees Fahrenheit. And 16 if it's 60 or 65, it's in the 128 to 134 17 range, which is dead according to the 18 relative humidity chart, the heat index. 19 And I can give this to you, if 20 you want it. Of course, it's on the 21 Internet. Above 130 you're in trouble. 22 You're in trouble, big trouble. 23 On page 145 in the middle column 24 MSHA talks about 95 degrees Fahrenheit. It 25 should not exceed that. Now, we need to 80 1 make sure that that happens, that it stays 2 at that level, whatever it takes to do it to 3 get to that level. 4 Now I'm going to talk about a 5 few more things a little bit today. 6 On page 146, minimal spacing. 7 NIOSH recommended 85 cubic feet, but the 8 rules say 60 cubic feet. Look at me. I'm 9 300 plus pounds. I need that 85 feet. And 10 three of my safety -- or two of them are the 11 same size I am. They're pretty healthy. 12 And that's -- a lot of workers in our mine 13 are like that. We need the extra -- extra 14 footage. We don't need to be cut down. 15 I know NIOSH says that's not a 16 recommended -- recommendation not considered 17 absolute, but they had a reason to get 85 18 feet. We shouldn't cut that down to 60. 19 Make it 85 feet, cubic feet. 20 On our cage at the mine it calls 21 for 65 people to get on that cage and go 22 down. When I hired in in 1980, I was about 23 190 pounds. If 65 of us get on there, right 24 now we're having to suck it up and get close 25 because we're all a little bigger. 81 1 The same thing in that refuge 2 chamber. We don't need to make it smaller. 3 85 feet is what we need; at least 85, if not 4 more. 5 If you go to page 157 -- 156, 6 157, it talks about training and I think -- 7 I gave the lady this disc. This is 8 something I found from Queensland. It's a 9 gentleman by the name of David Cliff and he 10 works for Queensland. They actually went 11 into the mines along with I think some of 12 the industry people and everything and said 13 we're here and you've got a disaster. 14 Nobody underground knew that it wasn't true, 15 so they could -- they could see how their 16 program worked. 17 It's an 83-page report, but it 18 was good. They had people actually -- they 19 evacuated like they were supposed to. They 20 had people actually -- I think it said 17 of 21 them got in the chamber and stayed. 22 That needs to be part of this 23 plan. That's something that needs to 24 happen. 25 If you can plan -- if you -- like 82 1 we do our generator checks. If we know what 2 we're doing and everything is laying there 3 for you, you use it and that's it. Call me 4 on the phone and tell me we've got a fire 5 and tell me to go to it. That's a little 6 bit different. 7 That's a good report and I ask 8 you to look at it and play it and see if we 9 can't incorporate some of that into our 10 plans as far as training and making sure 11 that when something happens we are best 12 qualified to handle the problem. 13 Page 158 talks about distance 14 from 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet on the working 15 face or where equipment is being installed. 16 You might as well take the 1,000 feet out. 17 Because if you give an individual or an 18 operator one or 2,000, it's going to be 19 2,000 feet. I'm telling you. I think it 20 should be 1,000 as a maximum, not a minimum. 21 If you've got a shear operator on 22 the tailgate and you've got a refuge chamber 23 1,000 feet out from that face, he's probably 24 a half a mile from that refuge chamber. It 25 needs to be closer. 1,000 feet should be 83 1 the minimum, not the maximum. It should be 2 closer, especially on the longwall because 3 on the tailgate that adds another thousand 4 feet or so to it to get back to that 5 chamber. 6 Something that affects me 7 personally is the outby area. That's where 8 I work. We need to make sure that we've got 9 these chambers in locations where 10 individuals can get to them reasonably. 11 I'll give you a good example. 12 They don't need to be small chambers. I 13 know some of the report talks about belt 14 cleaners and all that stuff. Monday 15 evening -- on Monday day shift our west A 16 belt went down. West B didn't shut down. 17 It gobbed out huge. We had about 25 or 30 18 people there working on that gob pile to get 19 the belt running. 20 If we had a refuge chamber there 21 that would accommodate what normally would 22 be on that belt, which would be probably 23 four or five people, and something happened, 24 well, the best five would get in and the 25 other 20 couldn't. We need to make sure 84 1 that we can cover all aspects of what's 2 happening, what could happen. Because they 3 even brought people off the section out 4 there. They brought about five, six or 5 seven of them off the section to help clean 6 that mess up until we could get the belts 7 back running. 8 If something would have happened, 9 the toughest five would have got in the 10 chamber and the weakest 20 would have stayed 11 out is what it boiled down to. We don't 12 need to say we'll put a chamber that's 13 got -- that can hold four or five people. 14 Because we change out the faces. The belt 15 cleaners change out the same way on the main 16 headers. So, you'll have more there during 17 a shift change than you will during the 18 regular shift usually. You need to keep 19 that in consideration when you put this 20 final -- final rule in the plans. 21 Also, you know, it gives you -- 22 on page 159 it talks about -- it gives a 23 company two -- two ways they can figure out 24 where to put them rescue chambers. 25 One, they can do a test of 85 1 walking the people 30 minutes and all that 2 stuff; or two, they can use the -- the 3 diagram y'all have got in there, which is -- 4 at our height it would be about 5,700 feet. 5 We did a test at our locations. 6 I don't agree with how they got to it. We 7 put our SCRs I think at 6,700 feet. They 8 walked people 30 minutes and that's what 9 they got. I don't personally think they did 10 a cross-section of our work force. They did 11 take women. They did take young and old, 12 but I don't think they took people with bad 13 knees and bad backs and stuff like that. 14 Our safety -- we had a safety 15 committee member at that time, Jeremy Eaton, 16 about 28 year olds. He didn't last 30 17 minutes to start with. He didn't get 18 nowhere near 6,700 feet. Put a second one. 19 He didn't last 30 minutes. He got about 20 3,500 feet. 21 I think we need to have a plan 22 that says here's where you'll put it. Not 23 leave it open for interpretation or 24 whatever. If 5,700 feet is what you think 25 it should be, that's what it should be, not 86 1 67 or 72 or whatever another mine site can 2 do. We need to be uniform. We don't need 3 to leave these rules open for 4 interpretation. You need to say, here's 5 what we're going to do and here is where 6 we're going to put it. 7 Also, I don't think the rules 8 should allow for any interpretation from any 9 individual. And I'm talking about district 10 managers. If there's something going to be 11 done, it should be done in here. And the 12 reason I say that is that one district 13 manager in one district sees it this way and 14 you'll have one in another district that 15 sees it another way and we have no uniform 16 system. 17 So, we should takes the reference 18 of district managers out of this thing 19 completely and go by what the rules say. 20 Don't allow -- don't allow, well, because of 21 such and such we're going to do this. Well, 22 because -- we basically don't want to do 23 what the rule says and we'll apply for a 24 modification or whatever. We don't need to 25 do that. We're talking about people's 87 1 lives. 2 I guess that's all I've got is to 3 ask you to think about what you've heard 4 today. Alabama is a different world than 5 the rest of the coal industry due to our 6 heat and humidity. What's going to work up 7 north or out west is not going to work here. 8 And I will be glad -- I would be 9 glad to get with these manufacturers and 10 let's get our heads together with the 11 industry and the operators and get rescue 12 chambers that will work. 13 I'm also against building. I 14 don't think that in the heat of a problem 15 the individuals could get it built like it 16 should be or get it built in time to protect 17 them. I just don't think that's -- I think 18 that's wrong in my opinion. I don't think 19 it should be part of the rules. 20 And if you've got any questions, 21 I'll be glad to try to answer them for you. 22 MS. SILVEY: I have a couple. 23 MR. BLANKENSHIP: I was afraid of 24 that. 25 MS. SILVEY: Don't be afraid of 88 1 it because you figured it. 2 With respect to the space, we 3 have gotten a lot of comments on the space 4 requirement -- proposed requirement for the 5 chamber, the 60 feet volume. And you 6 mentioned the NIOSH recommendation in the 7 NIOSH report, even though NIOSH said it 8 wasn't hard and fast. I forget their exact 9 wording, but something like that. 10 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes, ma'am. 11 MS. SILVEY: And you said that 12 you believe that -- in that and even more. 13 If you would, please -- and I -- because we 14 have gotten -- and all you've got to do is 15 read the transcript and probably ultimately 16 look at comments. They -- they are -- they 17 run the gamut when you start looking at 18 them. 19 West Virginia, the state -- I 20 won't say the state. The West Virginia task 21 force members. Let me be specific. And 22 even some of them said they were speaking on 23 their own, but they did say they were going 24 to submit comments before the comment period 25 closed. 89 1 They made certain 2 recommendations. Others have made other 3 recommendations. Manufacturers have made 4 certain recommendations. And so with 5 respect to your recommendation today -- and 6 you don't have to do it today and I suspect 7 that the International is going to submit 8 comments before the comment period closes, 9 but if you would specifically include, as I 10 mentioned in my opening statement, your 11 specific rationale for your recommendation 12 on the space. And if you could, you could 13 specifically tie it to safety and health 14 benefits for mines. 15 Now, mind you, I know you know 16 this. I heard every word you said. So, I 17 understood what you said. But if you would 18 specifically -- if you would do that, then 19 we would appreciate that. 20 With respect to what you said 21 on -- Mr. Blankenship, on the distance, one 22 of the things -- and I'll say this to 23 everybody. You know, we -- and we're in 24 this position and -- so, it's the position 25 that we find ourselves in. We've got a lot 90 1 of -- often times competing comments and 2 conflicting comments. On the distance we've 3 really got a lot of comments there, too. 4 If you would -- but -- and you 5 said on the distances that the -- I guess 6 the thousand feet -- you -- you lean toward 7 the lessor distance, if possible. 8 MR. BLANKENSHIP: As being a 9 maximum. 10 MS. SILVEY: Right. 11 MR. BLANKENSHIP: And like I 12 said, the longwall is a prime example. 13 You've got the shear operator and -- and a 14 longwall helper and there could be a 15 mechanic or an electrician on the tailgate. 16 That's at our place 1,0000 feet or more. 17 And if you've got this 2,000 feet, then 18 they're 3,000 plus getting back to it, which 19 is over a half a mile to the rescue chamber. 20 MS. SILVEY: I think everybody 21 knows that and that will be taken into 22 consideration and not the recommendation in 23 the NIOSH report. And I think we explained 24 in the preamble that we took into 25 consideration the refuge chamber and the -- 91 1 you know, may -- may -- in the event of an 2 explosion, may -- the possibility of it 3 being affected by the blast and -- and a 4 number of different things. 5 So, when you give your 6 recommendation on the -- on the location -- 7 and I did mention that in my opening 8 statement, too. If you would put into your 9 recommendation any and all factors that you 10 think relate to the consideration of the 11 location, that -- we'd appreciate that. 12 MR. EPPERLY: If you could speak 13 to both sections, the developing miner 14 section and the longwall, too. 15 MS. SILVEY: That's -- that's 16 good, yeah. Because they may have 17 different -- 18 MR. BLANKENSHIP: I'll do that. 19 MS. SILVEY: Different, you 20 know -- the earlier gentleman, Mr. Rau 21 talked about performance oriented -- he may 22 not have used the term "performance 23 oriented". And you used it somewhat when 24 you said -- when you used the risk 25 assessment approach and you said Alabama 92 1 mines may be different than West Virginia 2 mines. 3 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Definitely. 4 MS. SILVEY: So, see, what I find 5 myself hearing -- and that is just so you 6 all know what -- and I want to be a little 7 humorous and say what an integral position 8 we're in. I really think I'm in and -- but 9 I'm just saying that. That's a little -- 10 y'all bear with me. That's a little humor 11 here. 12 On the one hand, we hear you say, 13 you know, you want us to take us the risk 14 assessment approach and we -- we recognize 15 that. The mines are reflective of a whole 16 lot of conditions, a lot of geographical 17 conditions and a lot of other kinds of 18 conditions. 19 And then on the other hand, 20 sometimes you say but you want us to be 21 prescriptive and tell you exactly what 22 you -- you know, what you have to do. 23 So, to some extent we are in a 24 position where we have to weigh and balance 25 a lot of different recommendations and a lot 93 1 of different opinions. And that's why one 2 of the things I've consistently said is when 3 you give your -- your recommendation for you 4 to be as specific as you can with respect to 5 the rationale behind your recommendation. 6 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, let me 7 make a comment then on the testing part. 8 Once we do the testing, once we know 9 exactly -- once we do it in one of these 10 coal mines and the -- if the temperature and 11 the humidity got too high, then, of course, 12 if people get out of it, we will know that. 13 We will know what they have to do. 14 At that point, after the test is 15 done, then we could be specific. We could 16 say here's what you've got to do because we 17 know what is going to happen in Jim Walter 18 Four and Seven. This is it. We know 19 what -- we know what time we're going to 20 reach 100 percent humidity. We know what it 21 is outside. We know what it is 22 underground. It's hot underground at Jim 23 Walter Four. There's a place that will take 24 your breath it's so hot. 25 We can do that, once we do the 94 1 tests. That's the key thing. Then we get 2 the results. And then we can get rules and 3 say, okay, Jim Walter Four, this is what 4 you've got to have. Manufacturer, company, 5 union, this is what you've got to have. We 6 know because we've tested it here. 7 Mine equipment at two locations, 8 some of it works -- some types work at Seven 9 and won't work at Four and vice versa. So, 10 the chamber needs to be the same way. 11 We've got roof bolters that we 12 swap around and haul them back and forth 13 like kindling wood because they wouldn't 14 work at Seven but they would work at Four 15 and vice versa. 16 The chamber is going to be the 17 same way. We've got to make sure that it's 18 specific to that mine site. We've got to do 19 tests at those mine sites. We can't just 20 say, well, because they tested it at Oak 21 Grove mines, it's good for Alabama because 22 we're different. 23 And once we do that, I can tell 24 you exactly what we've got to have here or 25 you can tell me because we'll know the exact 95 1 numbers and exact figures. I hope I got a 2 little bit of your question. 3 MS. SILVEY: Yeah. And I'm sure 4 I'll hear a little more from you all. 5 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Probably. 6 MR. EPPERLY: You mentioned there 7 were three types of alternatives: 8 Pre-fabricated, build in place and then the 9 one I think you were referring to is built 10 after an event. 11 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Right. 12 MR. EPPERLY: Is that the one you 13 mean? You didn't mean the second one as 14 build in place? 15 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Well, I don't 16 know if the second one is build in place or 17 be there to start with. I personally think 18 that the ones -- the skids or the -- or the 19 solid chambers is the best. I don't think 20 the other two -- definitely not when you've 21 got to build yourself after it happens is 22 not realistic at all. It's not going to be 23 good because there's going to be so much 24 going on, dealing with injuries and worrying 25 about getting out of the place and -- and I 96 1 just don't think you can build an area that 2 would be safe to be in. 3 And the one that's pre-built, I'm 4 not sure they would be there to start with, 5 you know, if something drastic happened. I 6 just don't feel comfortable with those two 7 situations. 8 I feel more comfortable with, you 9 know, the skid or the hard shell, hard 10 shell. 11 MS. SILVEY: Mr. Blankenship, you 12 made reference to several sources, 13 references in your -- some of which as you 14 recounted were Internet sites and I know we 15 all have access to the Internet, but if you 16 would please get -- provide those to us, we 17 would appreciate it, the references that you 18 cited. Because I think you cited a couple 19 of reports and a couple of things from the 20 Internet. So, you can either give those to 21 us today or just provide them to us before 22 the record closes. I'm sure the reporter 23 got some of them, but just so we can make 24 sure we are talking about the same thing. 25 MR. BLANKENSHIP: I'll probably 97 1 have to get the exact website to you. 2 MS. SILVEY: Okay. That will be 3 fine. 4 MR. BLANKENSHIP: This -- 5 everything should be on here about this 6 website. 7 MS. SILVEY: We appreciate that. 8 Okay. 9 MR. BLANKENSHIP: Thank you. 10 MS. SILVEY: Thank you very 11 much. 12 At this time, should we take a 13 10-minute break and come back? Let's take a 14 10-minute break. 10 minutes, please. 15 (A break was taken at 10:54 a.m. 16 and the hearing resumed at 17 11:16 a.m.) 18 MS. SILVEY: Okay. We will now 19 continue the Mine Safety and Health 20 Administration's public hearing on the 21 Agency's proposed rule for underground coal 22 mines for refuge alternatives for 23 underground coal mines. 24 And our next speaker will be Tom 25 Wilson with the United Mine Workers of 98 1 America. Mr. Wilson. 2 MR. WILSON: Thomas Wilson, 3 United Mine Workers of America, 4 International Union. 5 I rise in support of refuge 6 alternatives for underground coal mines. 7 With that said, we must encourage 8 that MSHA direct this towards air 9 conditioned refuge chambers. Not only does 10 this proposed rule not provide for air 11 cooled chambers, but I believe there are 12 other areas where the proposal also 13 demonstrates a lack of understanding for a 14 problem with the temperatures. 15 For example, on page 334145, the 16 middle column, it states that MSHA 17 recognizes that body heat and heat generated 18 by chemical reaction; i.e., CO2 scrubbing 19 chemicals are inherent heat-producing 20 sources within a refuge alternative. The 21 ambient temperature in a refuge alternative 22 also is affected by the mine temperature 23 compounded by high humidity in a sealed 24 environment. High humidity reduces a body's 25 ability to regulate temperatures by 99 1 sweating, which could result in a 2 dangerously elevated internal body 3 temperature. 4 Later on in that column it says, 5 MSHA requests specific comments on the 6 apparent temperature and mitigation of heat 7 stress and heatstroke. I believe there's a 8 recognition that there's a serious problem 9 with temperature in these chambers, but at 10 the same time, there has a been a reluctance 11 to require the fix, which would be air 12 conditioned chambers. We seriously need air 13 conditioned chambers in the mining industry. 14 Also, in all cases we need cold 15 packs to be required to help treat for heat 16 stress and heatstroke. I'm not just talking 17 about the -- the few that would be in the 18 first aid kit. They need to be analyzed as 19 to how many man unit it's going to be and 20 for how long they're planning to stay and 21 you need to up the supply of cold packs in 22 these chambers. 23 Another example would be on page 24 34146, again, the middle column where MSHA 25 actually downsizes the space that's required 100 1 for a rescue chamber. I definitely oppose 2 downsizing. That is directly related to 3 heat. And the larger is better as far as 4 controlling the heat. So, under MSHA's 5 scenario of the 60, that just complicates 6 the heat -- heat problem even more. So, I 7 would ask that MSHA would go back and 8 review. And again, larger is better. 9 On page 34142 of the proposed 10 rule it states -- and this is in the middle 11 column -- refuge alternatives that states 12 have approved and those that MSHA has 13 accepted in approved ERPs would meet the 14 requirements of this proposed rule. I 15 disagree with that, and I want to discuss 16 briefly some of the things I've seen in 17 inspecting what's -- what's been put in 18 place to try to comply with this rule. 19 I was at a mine last week and 20 walked up to an emergency supply box that 21 came up to here (indicating) on me. It took 22 both hands to open the lid on it. Once I 23 opened the lid, there was no latch or device 24 to hold the lid open. A man virtually had 25 to stay there and hold it. 101 1 You couldn't reach in for any 2 supplies because you was holding the lid. 3 Most of the supplies were out of reach. 4 Even if you tried to bend over the top of 5 the box, you couldn't get to the bottom of 6 the box to get the supplies out. The 7 supplies were not organized. It is just a 8 huge metal box built out in the shop and the 9 supplies thrown in it to try to comply with 10 the law -- or to try to get by with 11 complying with the law. 12 I've gone to these and -- where 13 they're actually drilling in some of the 14 Alabama mines. And one thing that has to be 15 considered that I don't believe is at this 16 point -- I've seen drill holes that's missed 17 the crosscut that they were supposed to be 18 in. They haven't totally missed it, but the 19 drill hole was exactly where you needed to 20 build the wall at. And it was because they 21 had driven the entry off and they had to go 22 back and slab it. 23 So, actually by not having a 24 requirement as to where that hole is at in 25 that crosscut or the proximity for that hole 102 1 in that crosscut, you're going to allow for 2 non-functional alternatives in this 3 proposal. 4 There was no site preparation. 5 And I'm going to get -- get into that more 6 late -- later, but some things that would 7 have been beneficial had they had to use 8 that crosscut is simply to scoop -- just 9 simply dumped that huge metal box and -- in 10 a crosscut that's got a hole in the top and 11 that's it. No site preparation whatsoever. 12 I've also seen those crosscuts where the 13 supplies are dropped off as being previously 14 used as rest rooms. 15 And this is currently what the 16 industry is doing, and I would encourage 17 that the emergency rule be better refined so 18 that after this becomes effective, those are 19 not the type of scenarios that we're dealing 20 with. 21 Refuge alternative components 22 that require on-site construction should be 23 eliminated from these rules. During an 24 emergency, the miner first off is basically 25 in shock and going through a lot of trauma. 103 1 He then exhausts himself from trying to 2 escape checking out all his different 3 alternatives. Then he has to return to the 4 shelter. And at that point he's under great 5 stress. That's not the time to start 6 breaking out the tools and constructing a 7 chamber. And we shouldn't even expect a man 8 under those conditions to perform that 9 task. This approach is wrong and I would 10 ask that you eliminate it from the rule. 11 There's some scenarios that I'm 12 not sure are covered by the rule, and I just 13 want to lay out these scenarios and -- for 14 the panel to consider. And I think we've 15 heard one previous speaker talking about 16 when a belt header gobbed out. It is not 17 uncommon in Alabama mines to have large 18 underground construction projects going on. 19 We've got several of those scenarios going 20 on right now as we speak. 21 I know the language does say 22 where mechanized mining equipment is being 23 installed or taken out, but I'm not really 24 sure what the legal definition of that is, 25 whether that's a working section or whether 104 1 it's outby and you're building a major 2 bunker project and have a large, three 3 shifts a day construction company 4 underground building that bunker project. 5 To not cover those types of scenarios is 6 wrong. And that is a common thing in the 7 industry. 8 Another scenario that is present 9 in some of the Alabama mines is outsourcing 10 of work. That's where you take any section 11 of what's normally required as far as 12 continuing production and outsourcing it to 13 a different company. Those guys aren't 14 working for the coal company. They're 15 working for an individual -- their 16 individual boss. 17 Those guys go in and -- wherever 18 the project may be and are required -- and 19 they're large numbers, too. We're not 20 talking one or two additional folks. We're 21 talking a large number crew going in and 22 having to do this outsource work. 23 I think any company that's doing 24 outsourcing of work must demonstrate how 25 they're going to equally apply and provide 105 1 this protection for their miners. Because 2 if we don't -- if we don't address the 3 outsourcing problem -- I think James said 4 it while ago. The biggest men are going to 5 get in the chamber. The rest are going to 6 die. And that's a serious concern that 7 needs to be addressed in this rule. As I 8 read the rule, I didn't believe that either 9 one of those scenarios were covered. 10 I know that this panel has 11 previously received comments that instead 12 of 96 hours it be reduced to 48 hours. I'm 13 in favor of the 96 plus hours for these 14 rescue chambers. And one of the specific 15 reasons -- from a rescue and recovery 16 perspective, putting a 48-hour clock on 17 rescuers on a command center will 18 definitely lead to improper decisions. So, 19 I strongly support the 96 hour plus time 20 for a rescue chamber. 21 I too have read the comments 22 suggesting that the West Virginia model 23 should be the model for the country and I 24 disagree with that. I don't think the West 25 Virginia model works for -- for Alabama. I 106 1 don't agree with the 42 hours. I believe 2 that rescue chambers should be placed in 3 crosscuts to minimize the direct forces 4 from an explosion. 5 Also in the West Virginia 6 comment, the commenter stated that one of 7 the reasons for West Virginia deciding to 8 go to -- my understanding of his comments, 9 one of the reasons for deciding to go to 10 the 48 hours, since the tragedies in West 11 Virginia, they had seen an increase in the 12 number of mine rescue teams and ultimately 13 can provide a faster response, a 48-hour 14 time frame response. 15 That's not the case in Alabama. 16 We've got an unusual mine rescue scenario 17 currently in Alabama where over the recent 18 years we have not seen an increase. We've 19 seen a decrease in the number of mine 20 rescue teams. There's four mines, three of 21 them being non-union mines in the state 22 that's covered by the two state teams. And 23 those state teams routinely travel to 24 competitions, which I know by the letter of 25 the law is legal and they don't have to 107 1 have mine rescue coverage during 2 competition. But it exposes the miners to 3 a much longer time period of being able to 4 respond to a mine rescue emergency. 5 As of today, this is August the 6 7th, the mine rescue teams for the Drummond 7 Coal Company, Warrior Investment, Corinth 8 Mining, Shelby Mining and Tacoa Mine -- 9 minerals are all out of state in Virginia 10 at mine rescue contests. That will again 11 occur at the last of the month from August 12 the 25th through the 28th, plus travel 13 time. 14 So, that's an additional reason 15 48 hours is just an unreasonable time for 16 rescue chambers. We need at least 96 plus 17 hours in those chambers. 18 Some areas that MSHA asked for 19 comments: On page 34145, the third column 20 it states, "MSHA requests comments on 21 including a requirement that refuge 22 alternatives be designed with a means to 23 signal rescuers on the surface." I guess 24 my comment on that is as long as it doesn't 25 slow down the implementation of good 108 1 chambers into the industry, that would be a 2 nice feature to have. 3 The next paragraph MSHA requests 4 comments on including a requirement that 5 the manufacturer design refuge alternatives 6 with a means to signal underground rescuers 7 with a homing device. Again, as long as it 8 doesn't slow down the process of getting 9 rescue chambers in the mining industry. I 10 don't know -- it would be interesting to 11 hear from manufacturers on how difficult 12 that would be and whether it would cause 13 any delays. 14 With that, I'll take any 15 questions the panel may have. 16 MS. SILVEY: Thank you, Tom. I 17 have a few comments and I'm not sure I have 18 any questions, but we'll see. 19 With respect -- just -- just one 20 minute. Bear with me one minute. 21 I have a few comments to make 22 and these comments go not just to you, 23 Mr. Wilson, they sort of go to everybody in 24 here. 25 The first -- because you 109 1 mentioned a few things like the device -- 2 now I'm starting at the end, the last thing 3 you said. We asked for comments on whether 4 there should be some device designed where 5 you could signal rescuers -- rescuers on 6 the surface and alternatively where -- a 7 device also where the mine rescue team 8 could signal the rescuers underground. 9 One of the things I want to 10 ask -- and I guess this is particularly 11 directed to the manufacturers because, as 12 you said, this -- and to see if that -- if 13 those two types of devices that we talked 14 about in the opening statement, the -- the 15 refuge chambers that you all are either, 16 one, in the process or you've already 17 designed, if those types of devices are -- 18 could be -- are they, one, included on the 19 chambers that you have; or can they be 20 expected to be included on chambers that 21 you are in the process of designing? 22 So, I think that probably more 23 appropriately -- that question probably 24 more appropriately goes to the 25 manufacturers. So, if you all would please 110 1 address that question. 2 The second thing I want to say 3 is -- and you know, I might even say this 4 again before we close the record. The 5 issue of temperature, you all know we -- 6 and we proposed a requirement for internal 7 apparent -- inside apparent temperature. 8 The issue of external ambient, 9 the mine temperature, if you would 10 please -- and I'm asking everybody, 11 manufacturers, operators, miners alike; 12 states, if a state happens to read this 13 transcript and hear that, if you would 14 please include -- if you have a suggestion 15 on that issue -- one, a suggestion on it; 16 two, if you could be more specific, a 17 suggestion on how -- what MSHA should -- 18 how MSHA should address it, what MSHA 19 should do with respect to it, to that 20 issue; three, your specific rationale for 21 your suggestions. 22 Now, that might be asking you 23 for a lot, but I'm -- I'm putting on the 24 record and putting on notice -- putting 25 people on notice that we would like, if at 111 1 all possible, if you could address that 2 before the comment period closes on August 3 the 18th. 4 With respect to your comment, 5 Mr. Wilson, that MSHA downsized space, 6 I'm -- I'm going to fill in the rest of 7 your comments and read between the lines. 8 And I assume that you said MSHA downsized 9 space -- and I think maybe Mr. Blankenship 10 spoke to it -- because we used 60 cubic 11 feet as opposed to 85 cubic feet in the 12 NIOSH report. 13 I couldn't -- I didn't -- 14 MR. WILSON: Yes, ma'am. 15 MS. SILVEY: -- understand how 16 we downsized space otherwise. But I'm 17 going to say the same thing to you that 18 I've said to everybody else and that is -- 19 you said larger is better. But if you 20 would please -- with respect to a specific 21 recommendation, if you would please include 22 safety and health benefits for whatever 23 recommendation that you make if you make 24 any additional comments to us before the 25 record closes. 112 1 You made a few comments, Tom, 2 about the emergency supply boxes and the 3 drill holes and the site preparation. You 4 know, some -- some that were going on in 5 your mines -- at least maybe in one of the 6 mines that may not have been sort of up to 7 specifications. And I guess I just want to 8 ask with respect to them, did you all -- 9 did you all complain about them to the 10 operator? 11 MR. WILSON: We had discussions 12 about it. 13 MS. SILVEY: You had -- okay. 14 That's a better way of putting it. Did you 15 have discussions about it? So, were things 16 resolved then? 17 MR. WILSON: No, ma'am. 18 MS. SILVEY: Oh, well, okay. I 19 was looking for yes to that one. But 20 anyway, that's all right. Okay. 21 So, you all are in ongoing 22 discussions on that, I take it. Okay. 23 The next thing I wanted to 24 comment on was with respect to the size, 25 and you talked about certain things that go 113 1 on in the mine and you had some concerns 2 about where mechanized mining equipment is 3 being installed or -- and that was -- or 4 installed or removed. As many of you know, 5 in terms of a definition of the word -- 6 that was included -- we included that in 7 terms of structuring the capacity for inby 8 refuge alternatives. And it was supposed 9 to include where people are working in the 10 working section or where mechanized mining 11 equipment is being installed or removed. 12 That size is supposed to be taken into 13 consideration to accommodate those persons 14 just so -- and that's clear to everybody. 15 That was our intent. And I think that was 16 pretty clear in the -- in the proposal. 17 And then you talked about the -- 18 okay. That's what I -- and we also talked 19 about -- you talked about a lot of 20 outsourcing in Alabama mines. And we also 21 said that -- that the capacity should be 22 enough to accommodate persons working near 23 the sections and we included surveyors, 24 vendors and so -- and other persons who 25 work near the section. 114 1 So, I think we put it -- we did 2 talk about accommodating persons working -- 3 I think we -- we talked about accommodating 4 all of the persons you just spoke -- you 5 spoke about here today and if you read in 6 the preamble, we did speak about those 7 people. 8 I think that's all I have. 9 Those are all the comments I have right 10 now. Do you have anything? 11 MR. EPPERLY: No. 12 MR. WILSON: Thank you. 13 MS. SILVEY: Wait a minute. 14 Just a minute. 15 All right. Thank you. 16 At this point, does anybody else 17 wish to make any comment? 18 (Mr. Rau raises his hand.) 19 MS. SILVEY: Okay. Mr. Rau. 20 Wait. I'm sorry. Before I take you, 21 Mr. Rau, I knew I had -- I saw you, believe 22 me. 23 Mr. Byram, could I ask you to 24 please come up for a few minutes? I have a 25 few more comments I have to ask you. Then 115 1 we'll take you, Mr. Rau. 2 It dawned on me, Mr. Byram, 3 after you finished your testimony -- if you 4 don't mind, I wanted to further ask you 5 about the borehole situation that you all 6 have. And if you would just explain to me 7 a little bit about where you have -- right 8 now do you have them in terms of providing, 9 you know, either breathable air or a source 10 of refuge; where you have them, any 11 issues -- and just the conditions under 12 which you have them, any issues associated 13 therewith or anything like that, if you 14 would, please. 15 MR. BYRAM: We have one that's 16 located in our Number Four mine. 17 MS. SILVEY: One borehole now? 18 MR. BYRAM: One borehole. It's 19 in a -- into a waiting station that's 20 located near an exit point for the mine, an 21 emergency exit shaft. It's large enough to 22 accommodate a large number of employees. 23 It has food, water, first aid equipment and 24 things like that. 25 In our application with the 116 1 terrain that's over our mines and the depth 2 of our mines, it's not feasible for us to 3 use that option of being able to drill 4 within 48 hours to reach a certain point. 5 One, you -- you have to look at the 6 terrain. You also may have -- as the mines 7 progress and expand, you may find yourself 8 under a slurry pond or a lake and there's 9 no way to drill through that given point. 10 The -- 11 MS. SILVEY: But the -- 12 MR. BYRAM: Ma'am? 13 MS. SILVEY: I'm sorry to 14 interrupt you. 15 MR. BYRAM: That's okay. 16 MS. SILVEY: But that one 17 borehole that have, you don't think -- 18 you don't see the possibility of 19 advancing it, of moving it? 20 MR. BYRAM: You can move and set 21 up another borehole, but when we try and 22 look at the reg in a timely manner, looking 23 at what's best for the miner and how 24 expedient we could get to and use that as 25 an option, there is -- I do understand that 117 1 there is a mine in our state that uses that 2 as an option. But it won't work for us. 3 It takes us -- it could take us 4 24 hours to just reach and prep a site; and 5 then the 2,000 feet to drill, we could not 6 get to them in 48 hours to provide 7 breathable air. For us it's just not an 8 option. It's -- it's a good adjunct where 9 it is and we plan on looking at making more 10 but not to comply with the law. 11 MR. EPPERLY: Did you consider 12 extending the pipe underground from the 13 borehole? 14 MR. BYRAM: We had discussed 15 that, but you have to be able to protect 16 the pipe and that's another challenge in 17 itself. 18 MS. SILVEY: Okay. I appreciate 19 you coming back. I wanted to get a look 20 at -- a better understanding of how that 21 was at least currently being used. And if 22 any other operators are in this audience or 23 miners for that matter and you have any 24 additional comments on the boreholes, if 25 you would provide those to us before the 118 1 record closes on August 18th, we would 2 appreciate that. Thank you. 3 Okay. Mr. Rau. 4 MR. RAU: Thank you, Ms. Silvey. 5 Just quickly going back to what 6 Tom was saying and also the question you 7 asked in regards to ambient temperature, is 8 it possible just thinking outside of the 9 box here to put a subsequent request for 10 information to accompany this which asks 11 mining operations around the U.S., 12 specifically all coal mining operations to 13 collect temperature data for use in terms 14 of determining what these specified ambient 15 temperatures should be? 16 I'm sure it would only take a 17 matter of moments to send a guy down on a 18 shift to the face, have him record with a 19 monitor dry-bulb, wet-bulb convection and 20 have that information sent back to MSHA so 21 you can get a database of what the actual 22 temperatures are in various states. 23 MS. SILVEY: The answer -- the 24 short answer to that is yes. There's -- 25 you can always do, you know, a lot of 119 1 things. And there may be alternative ways 2 we can get information on ambient 3 temperature -- mine temperatures for mines 4 in the U.S., underground coal mines in the 5 U.S. 6 So, recognizing, as I've said to 7 everybody earlier and I'm going to say that 8 again one more time, that we are required 9 by law to issue this final rule by December 10 the 31st. So, to some extent we do have 11 some constraints on us, but we are going to 12 try to deal with the best data framework 13 that we can have. 14 So, whatever information people 15 would like to send in to us that relates to 16 this issue, we will be more than pleased to 17 get it and then we will just try to reach 18 out and address this. And as I said 19 earlier, any ideas that you have will be 20 useful. 21 And that was an idea, but the 22 thing -- the issue with doing an RFI -- an 23 RFI is a regulatory document. And so you 24 have to put a time limit -- you have to put 25 it in the Federal Register in a -- with a 120 1 time constraint period on it and that type 2 of thing. 3 So, there may be an alternative 4 way of doing it that we can deal with 5 addressing this issue, but we appreciate 6 whatever ideas that people have. 7 MR. EPPERLY: Foster-Miller in 8 their docket has information in a December 9 '07 report related to ambient temperatures 10 in different regions throughout the 11 country. So, you can comment to those, 12 too, or everyone in the U.S. can comment to 13 those numbers that are in a chart, in a 14 table. 15 MR. RAU: I've actually -- I've 16 spoken to Greg Campbell who collated those 17 results. And in most instances -- for 18 instance, in West Virginia the information 19 came from three mines and that's it. So, 20 it wasn't really a representative data. 21 I mean, I'm hoping that the 22 mining industry here would reach out and 23 say, you know, this is important and 24 provide -- I'm not sure what the 25 stipulation is here, but typically in 121 1 Australia we do quarterly ventilation 2 surveys, particularly in the hotter 3 months. So, you're in that period right 4 now. There's probably mining companies 5 around the country doing ventilation 6 surveys as we speak and it would simply be 7 a matter of them providing that 8 information. 9 MS. SILVEY: I think we probably 10 have the wherewithal to get some of that -- 11 most of that information. 12 MR. RAU: Thank you. 13 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Does 14 anybody else have any comment -- additional 15 comments that they would like to make? 16 (No response.) 17 MS. SILVEY: Anybody else? 18 (No response.) 19 MS. SILVEY: If nobody else has 20 any comment or testimony that they would 21 like to provide at today's public hearing, 22 then I would like to say on behalf of MSHA 23 and our acting assistant secretary that we 24 appreciate very much your attendance here 25 today. 122 1 For those of you who came and 2 did not make a comment, we appreciate your 3 interest in the public hearing today. For 4 those of you who did testify, I want you to 5 know how very much we appreciate that. And 6 for those of you who testified and promised 7 additional supporting material, we look 8 forward to getting that before the record 9 closes on August the 18th. 10 At this time, there being nobody 11 else who wishes to comment, I'm going to 12 conclude the Mine Safety and Health 13 Administration's public hearing on the 14 Agency's proposed rule on refuge 15 alternatives for underground coal mining. 16 Thank you. 17 END OF PROCEEDINGS 18 (The MSHA Public Hearing 19 concluded at 11:55 a.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 STATE OF ALABAMA ) 4 JEFFERSON COUNTY ) 5 6 I hereby certify that the above 7 and foregoing hearing was taken down 8 by me in stenotype, and the questions and 9 answers thereto were reduced to computer 10 print under my supervision, and that the 11 foregoing represents a true and correct 12 transcript of the deposition given by 13 said witness upon said hearing. 14 15 I further certify that I am 16 neither of counsel nor of kin to the 17 parties to the action, nor am I in 18 anywise interested in the result of said 19 cause. 20 21 ______________________________ Dana Gordon, Commissioner 22 ACCR #146 23 24 25