PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED RULE TO ADDRESS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TECHNICAL STUDY PANEL ON FLAME RESISTANT CONVEYOR BELTS, FIRE PREVENTION AND DETECTION, AND THE USE OF AIR FROM THE BELT ENTRY **** **** AUGUST 21, 2008 9:00 A.M. **** **** HILTON SUITES LEXINGTON GREEN LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY **** **** 1 MODERATOR 2 Ms. Patricia W. Silvey Director, Mine Safety and Health Administration 3 Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances 4 PANEL MEMBERS: 6 Mr. Michael Hockenberry Mr. Ronald Schell 7 Mr. William Francart Mr. Michael Kalich 8 Mr. Matthew Ward 9 * * * * * * * * 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 MS. SILVEY: Good morning. My name 2 is Patricia W. Silvey, the Director of the Mine Safety 3 and Health Administration's Office of Standards, 4 Regulations, and Variances. I will be the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's Proposed Rule to Address 6 the Recommendation of the Technical Study Panel, or the 7 TSP, on Flame Resistant Conveyor Belts, Fire Prevention 8 and Detection, and The Use of Air From the Belt Entry. 9 On behalf of Richard E. Stickler, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for MSHA, I want to 11 welcome all of you here today. At this point I would 12 like to, just as we have passed the one-year 13 anniversary of the accident at Crandall Canyon, I would 14 ask if you-all would pause with me for a moment of silence in memory of the miners who lost their lives in 16 that accident, as well as the workers who lost their 17 lives trying to rescue them. And as all of you know, 18 MSHA lost one of its own employees in that accident. 19 So in memory of those workers and the rescuers, and in memory of all of the miners who lost 21 their lives in mining accidents so far this year in 22 this nation's mines and throughout the world, I would 23 ask if you would pause with me for a moment of silence. 24 (Moment of silence observed.) Thank you. At this point I would COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 like to introduce the members of the MSHA panel. To my 2 right is Ronald Schell. And Ron, as some of you may 3 know, retired from MSHA a few years ago, a retired MSHA 4 employee who came back to help us on a few of the expedited regulatory projects that we have. And Ron is 6 the team leader of this project. To his right is 7 Michael Hockenberry, and Mike is with the Office of 8 Technical Support, the Approval and Certification 9 Center. To my left is William Francart and he 11 is with the Office of Technical Support. To his left 12 is Mike Kalich, and Mike is with the Office of Coal 13 Mine Health and Safety. And to his left is Matthew 14 Ward, and he is with the Office of the Solicitor, the Division of Mine Safety and Health. In other words, 16 he's our lawyer on the project. 17 This is the second of four public 18 hearings on the proposed rule. And we will hold the 19 remaining hearings in Charleston, West Virginia on August 26th and in Birmingham, Alabama on August 28th. 21 The comment period for the proposal, as many of you 22 know, ends on September 8th. MSHA must receive your 23 comments by 12 midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time 24 on that date. You can view all comments on the agency's website at www.msha.gov. And we have a few COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 copies of the proposed rule in the back of the room if 2 you wish to have a copy. 3 I would also like to note at this 4 point that we have --we are going to be extending the time for the comment period on the request for 6 information on smoke density and toxicity. And the 7 extension of the --the official extension of time will 8 appear in today's Federal Register and the time will be 9 extended to September the 8th, 2008. Section 11 of the Mine Improvement 11 and New Emergency Response, or the MINER Act of 2006 12 requires that the Technical Study Panel be established. 13 The TSP issued its report in December of 2007. The 14 proposal is consistent with the TSP's recommendations. At this point I want to summarize some of the more 16 significant provisions and issues in the proposal. 17 The proposal would establish a new 18 Part 14 and require that conveyor belts in underground 19 coal mines meet the agency's Belt Evaluation Laboratory Test or BELT Test. In addition, it would revise MSHA's 21 quality assurance audit and record-keeping 22 requirements. MSHA requests comments on the proposed 23 five-year retention period for approval holders to 24 retain conveyor belt sales records. The proposal would allow applicants for approval, approval holders, and COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 those seeking extensions a one-year period to gain 2 approval of the new conveyor belt or to transition to 3 approval of the new belt. During this period, approval 4 holders could apply for an existing Part 18 acceptance or a new Part 14 approval. After one year, all 6 approvals would be processed under the new Part 14. 7 The agency solicits comments on the impact of the 8 one-year transition period on manufacturer's 9 inventories. Under the proposal, a period of one 11 year --for a period of one year mine operators could 12 purchase conveyor belts accepted under existing Part 18 13 or approved under new Part 14. After one year, the 14 operator would be required to purchase belts meeting the requirements of proposed Part 14. Under the 16 proposal, operators would be permitted to use existing 17 inventory until replacement is necessary. 18 The proposal would require that 19 miners assigned tasks as Atmospheric Monitoring System or AMS operators be qualified before they perform these 21 duties and that AMS operators demonstrate proficiency 22 to MSHA inspectors. It would require existing AMS 23 operators to become qualified. To assist operators 24 with training programs, MSHA intends to develop a model training plan. The proposal would require that an AMS COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 operator's duties be a primary responsibility, specify 2 the contents of annual retraining, and require AMS 3 operators to travel underground every six months. The 4 proposal would require a two-month delayed effective date for operators to submit AMS training plans. 6 The proposal would apply to all 7 underground mines --underground coal mines and require 8 an airlock where the air pressure differential between 9 air courses creates a static force exceeding 125 pounds on closed personnel doors along escapeways. MSHA 11 solicits comment on other suitable pressures and on the 12 number and cost of airlocks that would be required 13 under the proposal. Under the proposal, operators 14 would have a three-month period to establish airlocks. The proposal would require that the 16 use of air from a belt entry to ventilate the working 17 section be permitted only when evaluated and approved 18 by the district manager in the ventilation plan. In 19 the ventilation plan the operator would have to provide information that the use of air from the belt entry 21 affords at least the same measure of protection where 22 belt hauling entrances are not used to ventilate 23 working sections. 24 MSHA proposes to allow mine operators currently using air from the belt entry to ventilate COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 working sections three months to submit a revision to 2 the ventilation plan to the district manager. If the 3 MSHA district manager does not approve the use of air 4 from the belt entry to ventilate working sections, a citation would be issued for failure to have an 6 approved plan. MSHA would not revoke the plan until 7 completion of current mining. The agency solicits 8 comments on this proposed process. 9 The proposal would establish a minimum air velocity of 50 feet per minute in mines 11 that do not use air from the belt entry to ventilate 12 the working section. It would establish a minimum of a 13 hundred feet per minute and a maximum of a thousand 14 feet per minute air velocity in mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections. These 16 proposed velocities assure that the contaminants of a 17 fire are carried downwind to carbon monoxide sensors. 18 Under the proposal, where these 19 velocities cannot be maintained, adjustments may be approved in the mine ventilation plan. The proposal 21 includes a twelve-month delayed effective date for this 22 provision. The proposal would require that where 23 miners on the working section are on a reduced 24 respirable coal mine substandard, below 1.0 milligrams per cubic feet of air, the average concentration of COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 respirable dust in the belt entrance must be at or 2 below the lowest applicable respirable dust standard on 3 that section. The agency solicits comments on this 4 proposal. The proposal would require that smoke 6 sensors be installed in areas where air from the belt 7 entry is used to ventilate working sections. This 8 provision would become effective one year after the 9 Secretary has determined that smoke sensors are available to detect fires in underground coal mines. 11 These sensors would be in addition to carbon monoxide 12 sensors. MSHA will provide notice when the sensors are 13 available. MSHA solicit comments on this approach to 14 requiring smoke sensors. The proposal would establish new 16 requirements for lifelines in underground bituminous 17 and anthracite coal mines. It would require that 18 lifelines and escapeways have tactile signals to 19 identify impediments to travel, SCSR caches, personnel doors to adjacent escapeways, and refuge alternatives. 21 The proposed rule which has a six-month delayed 22 effective date would also require nationwide 23 standardization of all tactile signals. Under the 24 proposal each of the signals would be distinguishable from other markings. The agency specifically solicits COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 comments on alternative tactile signal markers. 2 And on that issue, we heard comment 3 in Salt Lake City on that requirement and I'll talk a 4 little bit more about it later. The proposal would require that the primary escapeway have a higher 6 ventilation pressure than the belt entrance. Under the 7 proposal, the operator can submit an alternative in the 8 mine ventilation plan to protect the integrity of the 9 primary escapeway. The proposal would apply to all mines using belt haulage and would have a six-month 11 delayed effective date. 12 The proposal would discontinue the 13 use of point-type heat sensors and require the use of 14 carbon monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all underground coal mines. The proposal 16 requires that all point-type heat sensors, except those 17 used to activate fire suppression systems, be replaced 18 with carbon monoxide sensors within twelve months of 19 the effective date of the final rule. MSHA is proposing that the warning 21 level for carbon monoxide sensors be ten parts per 22 billion above the ambient level. The agency is 23 soliciting comments on this proposed level. The 24 proposal would be Proposed 75.1731, would be a new requirement for a belt entry and belt conveyor COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 maintenance applicable to all underground coal mines 2 using belt haulage. 3 The proposed rule would require that 4 damaged rollers and other malfunctioning components be immediately repaired or replaced, require conveyor 6 belts to be properly aligned, prohibit the accumulation 7 of non-combustible materials in the belt entry, and 8 require that splicing of any approved conveyor belt 9 maintain the flame resistant properties of the belt. This proposal would include a 11 two-month delayed effective date. MSHA has estimated 12 the economic impact of the proposal and has included a 13 discussion of the cost, benefits, and paperwork 14 requirements in the preamble to the proposal and in the Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis, or the PREA. 16 The PREA contains estimated supporting data on costs 17 and benefits. 18 The agency is also soliciting 19 comments on the following: MSHA is considering including a specific requirement in the final rule that 21 the operator make changes or adjustments to reduce the 22 concentration of methane present in the belt entry as 23 measured 200 feet outby the section loading point. At 24 this point in the rulemaking, MSHA is considering requiring that operators take action when methane is COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 between a range of 0.5 and 1.0 percent. MSHA is 2 soliciting comments on the appropriateness of such a 3 standard, and on the specific level at which changes or 4 adjustments should be made. MSHA has proposed a requirement that point-feed regulators must be equipped 6 with a means to be remotely closed, however, the agency 7 has not included a requirement for providing a means 8 for reopening the regulator as recommended by the TSP. 9 This is because MSHA believes that once evacuation is complete, the need for remote reopening of the 11 regulator will be rare. The agency solicits comments 12 on whether a requirement to remotely reopen the 13 regulator should be included in the final rule and the 14 reasons why such a requirement should be included. MSHA requests comments on all 16 proposed delayed effective dates. MSHA also solicits 17 comments on all of the estimates of cost and benefits 18 in the preamble and in the PREA and on the data and 19 assumptions that the agency used to develop the proposed estimates. 21 As you address these provisions, 22 either in your testimony to us today or in your written 23 comments, and I want to underscore this point, as many 24 of you have heard me say before, please be as specific as possible and include in your comments your suggested COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 alternatives, your suggested rationale for such 2 alternatives, the safety and health benefits to miners, 3 technological and economic feasibility considerations, 4 and data to support your comments. The agency will use your specific information to help evaluate the 6 requirements in the proposal and produce a final rule 7 that will improve safety and health for underground 8 coal miners in a manner that is responsive to the needs 9 and concerns of the mining public. As many of you know, this hearing 11 will be conducted in an informal manner, formal rules 12 of evidence will not apply. The panel may ask 13 questions of the witnesses and the witnesses may ask 14 questions of the panel. MSHA will make a transcript of the hearing available on the agency's website within 16 one week of the hearing. 17 And as most of you also know, time is 18 of the essence in developing the final rule which must 19 be finalized by December 31, 2008. If you wish to present written 21 statements or information today, please clearly 22 identify your material and give it to the court 23 reporter. We ask that every one in attendance, if you 24 would please sign an attendance sheet in the back of the room. COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 We will now begin today's hearing. 2 If you would, please begin by clearly stating your name 3 and organization and spelling your name for the court 4 reporter, this will assure that we have an accurate record. 6 And before we get to our first 7 speaker today, I mentioned to you that we had gotten 8 some comments in Salt Lake on the requirement for the 9 tactile signal escapeways. And Ron remembered, I have to say that, I didn't remember to bring these but he 11 did, so that's why you always have people working as a 12 team. And as all of you know, too, the Emergency Mine 13 Evacuation Rule requires that we have directional 14 indicators in the escapeways. And that rule was the rule that was published in December of '06. 16 And in that rule we said if the cones 17 are used, the cones would be so that the tapered end 18 points inby. So therefore --we didn't at that point 19 require that cones be used. But in any event, if cones were used they would be this way on the lifeline in the 21 escapeway and, you know, miners would be going out this 22 way (indicating). 23 Then in this rule, the Technical 24 Study Panel recommended that these indicators be standardized. And so what we did is we said that the COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 cones would be used, the tapered end would be pointing 2 inby, two cones would represent impediments to travel, 3 four cones would represent personnel doors, and six 4 cones would represent SCSR caches. And we also said that these would be back-to-back. Now I'm trying to 6 remember the proposal as we have it. And these two and 7 four and six respectively would be back-to-back. 8 Then we said that this spiral --what 9 did we call this spiral, I call it, would indicate the location of the refuge alternative. So in Salt Lake 11 City we have some --we got some comments. And people 12 can go to the transcript and read it. And the general 13 substance of the comments was for us --people would 14 like us to rethink this and to just make sure that we weren't too complicated and that miners in an escape 16 situation, in a smoke-filled environment, you know, 17 maybe you don't have time to be thinking about and 18 counting, et cetera, et cetera. And to just think 19 about how the requirement for locating all of the signals, and also think about what the signals should 21 be. I guess that's a good summary of the substance. 22 And as I said, for more detail or if 23 people have questions on this, they should ask us. One 24 of the things, in talking about this one of the things that made me think about, and I'd like to say it now, COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 and that is to iterate and reiterate, and that is in 2 terms of in an escape --in a mine emergency situation, 3 in an escape situation, the longstanding principle and 4 it is a principle that I wish to underscore now and reiterate, is that the first line of defense is for the 6 miner to escape the mine. And only if the miner cannot 7 escape underground then would other alternatives come 8 into play. 9 So that's when I said I was going to talk a little bit about that, that's what I would like 11 to do. So would anybody like to add anything? So now 12 we are ready for today's hearing. And our first 13 speaker will be William Caylor with the Kentucky Coal 14 Association. Mr. Caylor. MR. CAYLOR: Madam Chairperson, 16 distinguished members of the committee, my name is Bill 17 Caylor, I'm President of the Kentucky Coal Association. 18 The Kentucky Coal Association is a 19 trade association comprised of surface and underground operations in both the eastern and western Kentucky 21 coal fields. Our members mine a major portion of 22 Kentucky's coal. The Kentucky coal industry is a 23 modern high-tech industry which takes great pride in 24 workplace safety. We have seen dramatic safety improvements in the coal miner's workplace over the COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 years. Our fatalities have continued to decline and we 2 believe we will see a year with no fatalities very 3 soon. Our workplace injuries are comparable to the 4 average Kentucky worker. We have fewer injuries than construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and a host of 6 other occupations. 7 And on the first page I've listed two 8 tables. These tables are different because the US 9 Bureau of Labor Standards changed or mixed and matched the categories, so I had to take it from '96 to 2002 11 and beginning in 2003 to 2006 I had to change the 12 categories. But you can see in the table to the left, 13 I did an average, because in any statistics you have a 14 jagged line so I just did an average. But the average injuries for the 16 period 1996 to 2002, you can see for manufacturing, 17 construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing, coal 18 mining, private industry, which is the average Kentucky 19 worker --now, this is for Kentucky only --but it ought to hold true nationally as well, you can see the 21 injury rates. 22 Now, if you look at the table to the 23 right, you can see where they added health care and 24 social assistance, and they seem to have the highest average injury rate as any other worker, especially in COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 Kentucky. But you will notice manufacturing in the 2 first table to the left was 13.2 rate where the second 3 from 2003 to 2006 it went down to 8.7. Coal mining had 4 an injury rate of 8.21 and it went down to 6.1. The average private industry, the average worker on the 6 injury rate in the '96 to 2002 time period was 8.21 and 7 it went down to 6.0. 8 One thing I'd like to point out is 9 that with the exception of agriculture, forestry, and fishing, and they added hunting to it so that probably 11 is what skewed that one, you are seeing in all 12 workplaces the average injury rate going down which is 13 a very, very positive message that we need to get out. 14 So not just in coal, but every industry is getting safer. 16 And when you listen to the news press 17 a lot of times you think just the opposite and it's 18 very frustrating. 2007 was the lowest year for 19 fatalities in Kentucky. We were very proud of that year, that was a record year. Miners become safer from 21 injuries, illnesses and death as improved safety 22 technologies are developed and adapted by the mining 23 industry. From the decade 1920 to 1929 about 1,614 24 Kentucky miners were killed on the job. During the 1990s decade 116 mining fatalities were recorded. COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 For the first time since 1980 there 2 were no underground fatalities in 2007. And that went 3 from a period of time from around November the 4th 4 of '06 until about a month ago. So it went for longer than a period of a year where we had no underground 6 fatalities in Kentucky. And during 2007 we only had 7 two surface mining fatalities. So 2007 was a record 8 year for safety in Kentucky, we only had two fatalities 9 and both of them were surface. This year to date we've had two surface fatalities and we've had one 11 underground fatality, which should not have occurred. 12 Other sectors of industry may employ 13 more people but it's still important to note that the 14 number of fatalities each year is lower than the coal mines and many other Kentucky workplaces. So there you 16 see a chart which just has the average fatalities 17 during the period of 2003 to 2006 for the different 18 industry categories in Kentucky. And you can see that 19 Kentucky is way down the list. Now, what this doesn't show, and I 21 always like to clarify, this does not show the fatality 22 rate. A lot of times the fatality rate may be higher. 23 It's hard for me to get the fatality rate charts when I 24 go to the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics. But they don't seem to list it, but it seems that we're maybe in COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 the category of a policeman or cab driver in terms of 2 fatality rates. It will vary each year. I know '06 3 was a bad year across the country, and the fatality 4 rate nationally was horrid compared to a lot of other businesses and industry. 6 This just shows you an example of the 7 average total number of fatalities in Kentucky, and yet 8 the news print will publish and focus on the coal 9 industry when there's a fatality. Yet when there's a fatality in manufacturing, construction, and other 11 industries it seems to be buried. And sometimes you 12 seem to have an inherent bias against the coal industry 13 by the news press and it shouldn't be that way. 14 I don't think they recognize the kind of improvements that we're seeing across the board in 16 the coal industry. The next graph you will see is just 17 a statistical chart that shows a jagged line on 18 statistics on the number of fatalities that we've had 19 per year from 1950 down to 2007. And a great deal, and you can see if you did a trend line, the trend line 21 obviously would be coming down on that. 22 A great deal of credit goes to 23 federal and state mine safety agencies as well as a 24 commitment to safety from coal companies. We should never miss an opportunity to inform the news press of COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 our impressive safety record. 2 And I might add, there's another 3 significant credit that goes to the United Mine Workers 4 Of America, and we have Butch Oldham sitting back here representing the UMWA, and I know Butch is excellent 6 when it comes to reading the regulations, making 7 suggestions on improvements, and I'd like to thank 8 Butch for his hard work in that regard. He does --I 9 think he does an excellent job. So it's really a team approach to safety and we're all on the same team. 11 As an industry, we are committed to 12 making belt air ventilation a viable option. As you 13 will note in our comments, we would express some 14 frustrations over the process, training requirements, definitions, and over some of the specifications for 16 belt air ventilation. Our intent is to improve the 17 function and sustainability of belt air ventilation. 18 Any quick solution to a problem brings inherent 19 logistical problems. These belt air ventilation changes can be expensive and may be a long way away 21 from perfection. What we strive for are pragmatic 22 solutions that can improve and evolve over time without 23 unnecessary major financial expenditures. 24 The issues we highlight do not argue against safety of our miners, rather our comments argue COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 for building better and sustainable belt air 2 ventilation systems. Please keep this in mind when 3 considering our comments. 4 Now, the following are our general concerns with the proposed belt air ventilation rule. 6 General comment is considering the number of belts in 7 operation, the number of tons of coal being produced, 8 and the general lack of belt air problems, we question 9 whether many of the restrictive provisions are warranted for safety purposes. What's in place today 11 seems to be working fairly well. Failures have 12 generally not been caused by the lack of sensors. We 13 feel in many situations the problems simply do not 14 justify some of the proposals. How many belt fires and fatalities have we seen in the last ten years? Belt 16 air was not the issue in the Aracoma incident, sole 17 issue, it was one of several issues that came together. 18 These new provisions simply make it more difficult for 19 coal mines to use belt air, which we feel is a proven safe alternative. 21 Provisions for blowing systems: 22 There should be provisions for blowing systems. There 23 is no distinction between blowing and exhausting in 24 these proposed rules. The effective dates: The demand will COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 override supply regarding non-combustible conveyor 2 belts, et cetera, other items that will be required 3 under this new rule. We've seen this problem with the 4 SCSR. If so, what's the next step for compliance. So that is a concern sometimes when we cannot get a piece 6 of equipment and material in a timely manner. 7 The next comment is under Section 8 75.323, Action for Excessive Methane. Under the 9 preamble of 73.323 on Page 35035, it speaks to lowering the methane level to 0.5 percent. We feel the 11 allowable limit for methane in the belt entry should 12 remain at one percent. Operators should be required to 13 take action when the methane level is one percent. 14 Operators are allowed 0.8 percent on the intake but why reduce it in the belt entry. There are other 16 provisions to handle this. MSHA simply has not given 17 strong enough reasons for lowering the methane 18 percentage. We feel the methane level should be left 19 as it is. There is no reason under the current law to deviate. 21 Under Section 75.333(c)(4), operators 22 should be allowed options such as reducing mandoor 23 size, providing a flap or sliding door to reduce the 24 static pressure below 125 pounds in lieu of installing an airlock. There could be a substantial number of COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 airlocks required to be installed along main 2 ventilation and close to fans. Why is MSHA even using 3 the 125 pound limit? It can be expensive and there are 4 many doors that would have to be installed. Many doors are located in very remote locations. We feel this 6 should be addressed on a plan basis. 7 In the preamble on Page 35036 Section 8 75.350(a)(2) states, quote: "Where the district 9 manager approves such a plan, carbon monoxide sensor spacing would have to be reduced to no greater than 350 11 feet." We feel that 500 feet would be more appropriate 12 spacing for CO sensors if the velocity along the belt 13 is less than 50 feet per minute. We're not sure how 14 the 350 feet figure was justified. We also question how to interpret where the measurement point of 50 cfm 16 is tested. 17 Section 75.351(q)(1) requires the AMS 18 operator to receive much the same training as the 19 responsible person. Why is the duplication necessary and why would this training be needed for personnel who 21 monitor the AMS system when the mine is idle. We do 22 not feel it is necessary for the AMS operator to travel 23 underground every six months. Nothing requires the 24 operator to be trained and certified as an underground miner and there is no explanation as to what the COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 underground trip is to accomplish. It is doubtful this 2 would provide useful information if the operator is not 3 an experienced underground minor. There is a lot of 4 training for the AMS operator. The AMS operator may not be as experienced as others in the mine when 6 traveling through the mine. Should the AMS operator be 7 certified? The responsible person is on site at all 8 times. There are many situations where the AMS 9 operator simply won't understand a situation around him. Who would develop the training program for the 11 AMS operator? Will testing be required in the final 12 regulation? In Section 11.03, MSHA tests and quizzes 13 people on their jobs. 14 Under Section 75.351(q)(3), why is the training record required to be maintained for two 16 years when other record retention, except for seals, is 17 only required to be retained for one year? This 18 section needs to be consistent with other training 19 records. Under 75.352(f), does this apply to 21 all mines or only to those that use belt air to 22 ventilate the face? 23 Under Section 75.1103-4(a)(1)(i), one 24 sensor should be allowed to monitor a belt exchange consisting of a drive, a take-up, and a tailpiece if COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 all are in the same ventilation stream including a 2 turn. Mining plans and conditions could require that 3 there would be more than a hundred feet between the 4 units. Additional sensors would be unnecessary duplication and would require additional maintenance 6 and could be the source of false alarms. 7 Under 75.1103-4(a)(1)(iii), there is 8 no guidance as to the length of the belt where 9 ventilation is less than 50 parts per million --or feet per million before sensors are required to be 11 spaced 350 feet. Items such as these should be 12 addressed in a ventilation plan approval process. 13 Section 75.1103-4(a)(1)(iv) would 14 require unnecessary sensors for little information return. This should be handled in the plan approval 16 process. 17 Section 75.1103-5(a)(2) of the 18 proposed rule uses the term, quote, "assigned post of 19 duty", end quote, which is not defined and needs to be defined to eliminate conflicts in interpretation. 21 Section 75.1105(a)(2)(iii) in the 22 preamble uses the term, quote, "at the manned surface 23 location," end quote. This needs clarification. 24 Section 75.1103-5(d) & (e) both use the term quote, "immediately", end quote in regards to COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 actions that could take longer to accomplish than 2 fifteen minutes and could result in enforcement action. 3 This needs to be taken into consideration for the final 4 rule. Section 75.1103-5(f)(1) would require 6 the verbal notification of personnel in addition to the 7 automatic warning by the system. Is duplication 8 necessary? 9 Section 75.1103-5(f)(1) requires withdrawing affected personnel to a safe location 11 immediately with the receipt of the system warning. 12 This would be a problem with alarms and currently is 13 only done with an alarm with a warning being 14 investigated. Section 75.1103-8(a) requires sensor 16 and warning device systems to be examined each shift. 17 The proposal states inspections and maintenance are to 18 be done by a qualified person. Is shift exam to be 19 done by a qualified person? Are belt examiners qualified? Both terms "examined" and "inspection" are 21 used with no distinction. 22 Section 75.1731 is full of issues. 23 Many terms are undefined and many requirements are very 24 impractical. What does the word "damaged" mean? "Immediately repaired and replaced" may be practically COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 impossible. Why does it have to be immediately? It is 2 possible to keep conveyor belts --it is impossible to 3 keep conveyor belts properly aligned at all times. 4 Surely this was not the intent of this subsection. The term "non-combustible materials" 6 can mean many items which have no bearing on safety. 7 For example, rock dust would qualify as a 8 non-combustible material as well as a host of other 9 items. Requiring "splicing of any approved conveyor belt" to maintain flame resistant properties may be 11 difficult at this time. When splicing materials which 12 function properly are available this requirement could 13 be feasible. Splices must be durable and they can 14 constitute only a fraction of the length of the conveyor belt. 16 What's the --now the question is 17 what's the next step to safer mines? And this is what 18 I touched on at the last public hearing, and this will 19 deviate from the belt air ventilation issue today, but the number of fatalities and injuries in Kentucky's 21 coal mines continued to decline. However, the industry 22 has not yet reached the goal of zero fatalities. 23 Behavior modification is the key to ensuring miners 24 know and want to do their work in a safe manner. To affect behavior modification takes COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 time, commitment, and money. The Federal Mine Safety 2 and Health Administration is charged with the primary 3 responsibility of enforcing safety laws in coal mines. 4 Kentucky recently adopted its own enforcement laws duplicating the federal effort. Can't our valuable 6 resources be better used to improve miner safety? We 7 think yes. 8 Kentucky mine safety authorities' 9 primary role should be miner training and education, although inspectors should retain the power to close an 11 unsafe mine. Writing a citation which duplicates one 12 written by a federal agency doesn't make the mine a 13 safer workplace. But activities to observe the miner 14 and correct unsafe work habits can lead to safe mines. As teachers rather than policemen, 16 state inspectors could improve safety. They can teach 17 the importance of working safely to avoid injuries 18 which impact not just the miner, but his family and his 19 employer as well by placing emphasis on training and education instead of duplicating federal roles, the 21 state safety agency can help achieve our goal of zero 22 fatalities. 23 And that concludes my remarks. I'll 24 be happy to try to answer any questions. Thank you very much. COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 MS. SILVEY: Thank you, Mr. Caylor. 2 I'm sure I have some comments and I'm sure maybe some 3 others of us do also. 4 At the outset, let me reiterate and give our appreciation to something that you said, and 6 that is that the approach to safety is a team approach. 7 And it is, indeed, a team approach and we at MSHA 8 appreciate always the combined efforts of industry, 9 labor, and the states in the things that --and the innovative efforts and practices that they all take 11 together in helping to improve safety. So that's the 12 first thing I would like to say. 13 With respect to some of your specific 14 comments, and one of the things you-all heard me say today is that to please be as specific as you can. And 16 when you do give us your comments, if you would, and 17 sometimes I know it's easier depending on certain 18 provisions, it's easier than maybe with other 19 provisions but if you would do --if you would provide specific comments and your specific rationale we would 21 appreciate that. 22 Looking at your comment on actions 23 for excessive methane and your statement is that --and 24 we ask a question on that, whether that level, the range should be between 0.5, as I said in my opening COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 statement, and 1.0 percent. And your comment is that 2 it should be --operators should be required to take 3 action when the methane level is at the current level 4 of 1.0 percent. I would like to suggest to you, and I 6 don't know whether you have any intention to provide 7 any additional comments before the comment period 8 closes, but if you do, if you would provide us with 9 rationale as to why it should remain at one percent. Now, in all candor and honesty with you, you say to us 11 that we simply have not given strong enough reasons for 12 lowering the methane percentage, but if you would like, 13 if anybody in here wishes to comment on that, and you 14 would like it to stay at one percent, I would ask you if you could provide specific definitive rationale as 16 to support your suggestion. 17 MR. CAYLOR: I think that comment 18 came from --there are different levels that are tested 19 in different areas. And it was more a consistency comment than trying to do the rationale. We will get 21 back to you and try to expand upon that. 22 Because I was talking to Michael 23 before this process began, it's easy to criticize and 24 say I don't like this, but the difficult job, the really difficult job is offering constructive COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 criticism, not just criticism. But giving a reason, a 2 suggestion, an alternative that would work. And I know 3 we have our faults and we do that. And I apologize and 4 we will try to get back to you. MS. SILVEY: No, I would say that to 6 you and anybody else in the room. I think I say 7 that --people hear me say the same thing hearing after 8 hearing. So, no. No. We don't take it as --no need 9 to apologize. MR. CAYLOR: I just realized that, 11 you know, we're a lot of times guilty as charged. 12 MS. SILVEY: On the issue of 13 ventilation controls, and we did ask, I asked in the 14 opening statement how many --we wanted comments on the number of airlocks as well as the cost. And here you 16 say that could be a substantial number. But from your 17 members, and now I'm talking about members of the 18 Kentucky Coal Association, if somehow you could --I 19 don't know if it's possible, but do a survey or something and see if they have a suggestion on how many 21 airlocks would need to be installed, if at all 22 possible --if they have an estimate. Those of you who 23 have looked at the Regulatory Economic Analysis, we 24 included an estimate in there. So you could let us know whether you think our estimate is right on target, COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 whether you think it's low, or whether you think it's 2 high. 3 On the question of AMS, atmospheric 4 monitoring system operator's training, as you recalled in my opening statement I said that MSHA intends to 6 develop --you have a question, who will develop the 7 training program for the AMS operator? Well, as with 8 any training obligation, as with any training 9 provision, the obligation is on the operator to develop the training program. But we did state that we were 11 going to develop a model training program and we would 12 make that model training program available to the 13 entire mining community. 14 Then you asked --I would like to the best I can answer the questions that are asked of us 16 also, you asked would testing be required in the final 17 regulation? The only thing I can say is what was in 18 the proposed rule, and the proposed rule did not 19 include a testing component. Then this other comment you have, in Section 1103, MSHA tests and quizzes 21 people --I didn't understand that myself, your comment 22 here in Section 1103, MSHA tests and quizzes people on 23 their jobs. 24 MR. CAYLOR: Well, I think that was a little bit more of a follow-up on the training. It COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 might have been some frustrations where they've seen 2 MSHA coming out and talking to individuals about the 3 Diversity Action Plan, you know, do you understand it? 4 And it may be a question where you sit people down in a room and you give them training and you think you have 6 relayed the correct training to them and you think 7 they've assimilated it and then they walk away --like 8 any classroom, somebody will get an A or an F on a 9 grade they were tested. Sometimes it just doesn't sink in to certain people and we're seeing a trend where 11 MSHA will actually question miners on what they should 12 do under emergency situations. And they don't know 13 when they've been given training, and that's a little 14 bit of a frustrating situation. I don't know what to do about it. 16 MS. SILVEY: What section are you 17 talking about when you say 1103, what are you --that's 18 on page? 19 MR. CAYLOR: I'll have to get back on you. I've got a different page, but I'll get back to 21 you. 22 MS. SILVEY: This question you asked, 23 under Section 75.352(f), does this apply to all mines 24 or only to those that use belt air to ventilate the face? And that's under Actions and Response to AMS COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 Malfunction, Alert, or Alarm Signals. And I think 2 that's under --that's only mines that use AMS. 3 MR. CAYLOR: Okay. 4 MS. SILVEY: So that would only be that. On 1103-8(a), Automatic Fire Warning Devices; 6 Actions and Response. On this one you asked a 7 question, is the shift exam --this is for the new 8 requirement for carbon monoxide sensors. And you say 9 the proposal states inspections and maintenance are to be done by a qualified person. Is the shift exam to be 11 done by a qualified person? And Bill can answer that, 12 if you could answer that. 13 MR. FRANCART: We would think, Mr. 14 Caylor, that that would be done as part of the preshift and on-shift examinations. So it would be a qualified 16 person but it wouldn't have to be. But we would expect 17 it to be done at the same time. 18 MS. SILVEY: Maintenance of belt 19 conveyors and belt conveyor entries, and in the proposed rule we included that --we included it in 21 response to the Technical Study Panel recommendations 22 but thought that was a significant provision to improve 23 belt maintenance. But you say that it is full of 24 issues. And many of the terms are undefined. And I would --you asked about damaged and immediately. What COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 I would say here, and I will say that to everybody, but 2 if you have different suggestions then you provide them 3 to us. 4 I think that there we intend --for some terms we intend, I think, the common Webster's 6 dictionary term of damage and immediately. And I mean 7 we know what damaged is, I think some of us know, and 8 immediately. And sometimes it may depend on the 9 circumstances. So if you have a different definition 11 or a different suggestion, then you let us know. But 12 I'm saying to you, when you asked what is a damaged 13 roller, I mean for the people that you have in the 14 mines doing this type of work and looking at them and maintaining them and maintaining the belt, I think if 16 they get to the belt and they see a damaged roller, 17 generally speaking, if they've done that --if they're 18 experienced in doing that, they will know what a 19 damaged roller is or what --and then --sometimes when we say repair immediately, that's a funny thing. And 21 there, I think, our intent in the proposal was to 22 articulate the dictionary term of immediately. It 23 means right away, as soon as possible. But some people 24 would say to us, and I've heard this, well, we don't want you to necessarily be so prescriptive and tell us COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 exactly what you want. So that's what I would say to 2 you today, what our intent is. 3 But if you have some suggestions for 4 us, you know, that we should define damage and it should be defined as this, damage should be defined as 6 this, or immediately should be defined as that, feel 7 free to let us know that. 8 MR. CAYLOR: We'll try to furnish 9 that because they had a lot of terms in there that raised questions. We'll try to get you at least a 11 proposed definition. 12 MS. SILVEY: Would anybody else like 13 to add anything to what I said? You had something. 14 MR. SCHELL: Mr. Caylor, the provision for blowing systems, I was just a little 16 confused, what part of our proposal raised the issue of 17 blowing versus exhaust in ventilation? 18 MR. CAYLOR: Ron, I'll give you an 19 honest answer, that came from one of our people and I wasn't quite sure on that as well. But I will try to 21 get a clarification on that for you. 22 MR. SCHELL: I just wanted to make 23 sure I understood your concern. 24 MR. FRANCART: Mr. Caylor, one of your questions, you asked about the 350 foot sensor COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 spacing when velocities are less than 50 feet per 2 minute. And that spacing requirement came from NIOSH 3 research that was conducted quite a few years ago now, 4 that wasn't just haphazardly selected. So there is some research basis behind that number, and we can 6 provide that report to you if you'd like to have a 7 copy. 8 MR. CAYLOR: I'd appreciate that if 9 you could. MS. SILVEY: It is probably in the 11 list of references. 12 MR. CAYLOR: Okay. 13 MS. SILVEY: We have a list of 14 references that we used to support the proposal. MR. CAYLOR: When we were making our 16 comments, a lot of times a lot of our people don't have 17 access to that type of information so that's why -18 just about how the comments are generated. 19 MR. FRANCART: You also had a question about where the 125 pound limit came from for 21 the airlock door? That was proposed by the Technical 22 Study Panel as a number to use. If you have some other 23 research or information that would show us another 24 value, maybe better than 125 pounds, we would like to know about that. But that was strictly from the TSP COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 recommendation. 2 MR. CAYLOR: A lot of times we would 3 like to have --we always encourage the agency to try 4 to build in flexibility because a lot of times there may be a situation where you need flexibility down the 6 road. You think we've written a perfect rule but 7 sometimes there's a situation that doesn't quite fit 8 into that. We'd like to see as much flexibility built 9 in, maybe 125 pound would not be adequate in certain situations but maybe in most. Where we could maybe 11 work it in our plan or have some flexibility. 12 MR. FRANCART: One thing we did try 13 to do in the preamble is specify that there were 14 options in changing the sizes in providing the flaps and sliders to accommodate that pressure. So I think 16 in the preamble it's clear that we do have some 17 provisions in there to account for that. 18 MS. SILVEY: On the issue of 19 effective dates, Mr. Caylor, you said that the demand will override supply regarding non-combustible conveyor 21 belts. I'm assuming you mean the new belt -22 MR. CAYLOR: It could be like the 23 SCSRs, they may not be able to supply them as quickly 24 as -MS. SILVEY: Well, we only require COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 under the proposal, let me put it this way, under the 2 proposal the new belt would only be required when the 3 existing belt needed to be replaced. So it's not 4 exactly the same as SCSRs in that you have to go out and purchase the SCSRs every so many feet depending on 6 the table we had in the rule. So this one is mine 7 operators would be purchasing the --when their 8 existing inventories was required to be replaced, 9 that's the set-up as presently it is under the proposed rule. 11 MR. CAYLOR: Correct. But we went 12 through a stretch about three years ago when we had 13 problems getting rubber tires because China was buying 14 up every tire that wasn't --so we just wanted to make sure that --a lot of times there may be some 16 flexibility, if we got an order in, we cannot get it in 17 immediately, they'll promise to have it in three months 18 but we need to have maybe some flexibility if that 19 situation does arise. It shouldn't, as you mentioned. MS. SILVEY: It's not exactly the 21 same. Right. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? 22 MR. KALICH: Yes. 351(q)(3), the 23 training record, you say that we're asking it be kept 24 for two years instead of one year. And that's just to verify that the previous year's training has been done COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 since the training is only required to be done on an 2 annual basis. And that was the rationale behind that. 3 MS. SILVEY: Okay. Well, I think 4 that's it then. We appreciate very much your comments and testimony, and if you are providing us additional 6 comments before September the 8th we appreciate very 7 much if you can touch on some of the things we talked 8 about this morning. But we do appreciate the comments 9 you made. MR. CAYLOR: We'll try our best to 11 get additional comments. And I appreciate it very 12 much. Thank you for your attention. 13 MS. SILVEY: Our next speaker will be 14 Edgar Oldham with the UMWA, I almost said Butch, but he had written his name down. 16 MR. OLDHAM: My name is Edgar Oldham, 17 O-L-D-H-A-M, Jr. I'm with United Mine Workers of 18 America. And Madam Chairwoman, distinguished panel 19 members, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. It's going to be brief, what I have to say. But I agree 21 with the comments that the United Mine Workers have 22 submitted and will be submitting further comments at a 23 later date. 24 What I'd like to just talk about is a couple of experiences I've had with the belt fires and COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 problems that we've had with the belt air. 2 And one of the things that I'd like 3 to comment on is 75.380(f) where you mention that the 4 intake entry primary escape will be maintained as the highest pressure entry. But the problem we have with 6 that, and we deal with it when we go in the mines, say 7 you have got a pressure of ten in the belt entry and 8 it's 10.1 in the intake, that's the higher pressure. 9 You have a fire we all know what a fire does, it increases that pressure in those entries and, 11 therefore, it may not end up being the higher pressure 12 entry by the time that fire gets going. 13 So I'd like to see at least a high 14 enough number that will ensure the integrity of that primary escapeway to be set instead of just saying it's 16 to be maintained as a higher pressure entry. I've 17 dealt with it at the mines many a times splitting 18 hairs. And you know, as long as that 0.1 is there the 19 company is going to say that's all we're required to have. But we all know, you get in a fire situation 21 those pressures are going to change and change quick. 22 So I think we need a number, that 23 wouldn't be adequate, and I don't really have a 24 suggestion right now of what that number might be. But at least something --ventilation people could say, you COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 know, run some programs and stuff and say here is, you 2 know, what we feel like --if we had a fire this might 3 be what the pressure would end up. 4 MS. SILVEY: So instead of saying higher, you are saying a specific amount higher? 6 MR. OLDHAM: Yes. 7 MS. SILVEY: But as you said, you 8 don't have a recommendation for what that should be? 9 MR. OLDHAM: Not at this time. MS. SILVEY: And I'm sure the UMWA 11 will be submitting written comments. If you have a 12 recommendation for what a specific level higher should 13 be, if you would include that in your comments. 14 MR. OLDHAM: We will. MS. SILVEY: Okay. 16 MR. OLDHAM: Also, with the increased 17 air pressures or air on these belt lines, I've seen 18 many a time it's created another situation for us and 19 that's dust problems and spillage problems, especially around overcast/undercast where the belt intersects. 21 We've had a mine, it was a ground 22 three mine, we had a dust problem there once they went 23 to the belt air. They had to clean it every shift 24 because the amount of air that was on the belt, that they put on there, so you know, we swapped one problem COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 for another. And we had to actually have a person 2 shovel that area every shift. 3 So you know, I think they ought to 4 have to do surveys and if they can't keep that dust on the belt and keep the coal --I mean it was even 6 blowing pieces of coal off the belt. So I mean it 7 increased the pressure that much and that air coming 8 through there, and those restrictive areas causes 9 problems. You know, you have got an area that's cribbed out a lot, it causes problems. 11 But Crown Point was definitely one of 12 them that we had a series of problems with dust once 13 they used belt air, not only for the mine for the 14 spillage problem, but also for the people having to go in those areas and deal with that dust. 16 And I know a lot of the mines say 17 well, just put a dust mask on. Well, if you have seen 18 some of the dust masks that you have seen on the mines 19 it's the little mask with the little rubber band around it, it doesn't have a good seal around it, it's not 21 worth 15 cents. It doesn't have a good seal around it. 22 And also, the other dust masks that were out in the 23 industry that were supposedly so good, with some of the 24 lawsuits that's out here now over these dust masks, that actually don't protect people as they say they COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 did. And there's several lawsuits going on right now 2 with --and I won't name the companies' names but 3 they're out there. 4 And I was even reading the paper on one of them that said this dust mask was 65 percent 6 efficient. Well, me as miner sits there and looks at 7 that and says, well, those smaller particles that are 8 injected into the lungs, is that the 35 percent I'm 9 breathing? Am I just putting this mask on thinking I'm protected and I'm really not? So the increased dust 11 problems is another issue for miners out there with 12 belt air and having to work in the air. 13 The AMS system, the operator and 14 responsible person on the surface, in my opinion they shouldn't be one in the same. And in a lot of these 16 mines they are. And in a lot of these small mines 17 they're usually the security guard sometimes. So the 18 AMS and the responsible person should not be the same 19 person on the surface. Especially in an emergency. And I think at Jim Walter No. 5 we 21 seen what the AMS operator and responsible person being 22 one in the same did. It caused a lot of confusion, 23 caused some problems, and we just feel like that should 24 be separate people. And also, the training of the AMS operator, I know Bill said, you know, don't really see COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 a need for that person going underground, but we do see 2 a need. At least if that person is familiar with the 3 areas and stuff that's underground --and maybe every 4 six months may not be enough. He may should have to go even more often that that to familiarize himself and 6 know when he's looking at the AMS system that he knows, 7 you know, what he's looking at and the area that he's 8 trying to tell these people to escape from. So that is 9 one of them. And also the training of the AMS 11 operator, they should have extensive training because 12 they're the person on the surface that's trying to get 13 miners out from underground. And in an emergency 14 situation those miners need all of the help they can get. So I think the AMS operator in a lot of these 16 places don't have enough training and they should have 17 more training. 18 You talked about the lifelines, at 19 first when we was discussed a little bit about that, you know, do you have two, three, four? And it is a 21 problem. But it's also a problem if miners are trying 22 to escape and they pass up an SCSR station or an escape 23 door or something where they could get out. So my 24 answer to that probably is training, training, training. The more we train miners, the better COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 familiar they become with the system and, you know, it 2 may not just take one eight-hour annual retraining a 3 year, it may take a little extra effort on everybody's 4 part to train these miners that here's the system, when you come to this one, it's a door; when you come to 6 this one, that's where you get your extra SCSRs. 7 And in a smoke-filled environment, 8 you know, they're blind, they might as well be a blind 9 person because they can't see and they're relying on that lifeline, and they're relying on a system that's 11 in place that's going to lead them if they need more 12 oxygen and need additional SCSR to escape to get to 13 that point. 14 So maybe those are better ideas than what we're giving them credit for. But I think with 16 the proper training and with miners escaping that are 17 tethered together somebody is going to realize, hey, 18 we're at this point, we need to pick up some additional 19 SCSRs or we need to check and see if we can get through a door and escape somewhere else. 21 So I thought a little bit about that 22 and I'm not so sure that's not a bad idea, or at least 23 some type of system that stops them to that point. 24 Ohio 11 belt fire, I'd like to talk a little bit about that because the placement of the CO COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 monitor is very critical. I didn't realize how 2 critical it was until we had the fire at Ohio 11 and 3 the sensor that was there within a hundred feet of the 4 fire didn't pick it up for one reason only. They was using belt air but they also had another entry that run 6 parallel with it and air was coming through that entry 7 and the sensor was located right on the corner of that 8 entry and fresh air was coming across there and the 9 smoke was going around behind the belt. So they didn't even pick it up until the next sensor down a thousand 11 feet away. 12 And they was looking for the fire at 13 a thousand feet away and actually it was right almost 14 at the air. And when we got to the fire and stuff how critical it was, we picked the CO sensor off --and 16 they had it hung on a timber and the smoke was --it 17 was hanging on the back side of that timber, not out in 18 the open air, picked it up, moved it over one foot out 19 into the air and the alarm went off. So I know that sensor placement is 21 critical. And I'd like to make sure that either a 22 smoke test is done or something --or at least a 23 requirement that these sensors are held or hung up out 24 in the open where they can do their job and pick it up like it's supposed to. I believe in the AMS system. I COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 think they're a good system, but if they're improperly installed then they're not worth the money that they're putting in them. So that is something I think is critical and I harp on it every time I go to the mines, where are these sensors located? Because I seen how that one --they could have responded a lot quicker had that sensor been located, say, over the center of the belt or at least next to the belt out in the open air. And at this time that's all I have unless you have any questions. I appreciate it. MS. SILVEY: On your comments on belt air, so I take it that you have --I say you have, but you are in some belt air mines, I mean you work in some belt air mines? MR. OLDHAM: Yes, I've had some mines that were belt air, yes. MS. SILVEY: You had some. MR. OLDHAM: They have since closed. MS. SILVEY: So are you familiar with any now working, do you work around any now? MR. OLDHAM: No. MS. SILVEY: Not now? MR. OLDHAM: No. MS. SILVEY: All right. I won't ask COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 any further questions in regard to that. So the ones 2 you did work in have closed? 3 MR. OLDHAM: Yes. 4 MS. SILVEY: Okay. I don't think I have anything else. Okay. Thank you very much. 6 MR. OLDHAM: Appreciate it. 7 MS. SILVEY: At this point we can 8 take a ten-minute break and then if everybody could 9 come back in ten minutes and we will proceed. So take a ten-minute break. 11 (A brief break is taken.) 12 MS. SILVEY: At this point we will 13 reconvene the Mine Safety and Health Administration's 14 Public Hearing on the Agency's Proposed Rule that would Implement the Recommendation of the Technical Study 16 Panel on Improved Fire Resistant Conveyor Belt, Fire 17 Prevention and Detection, and the Use of Belt Air in 18 Underground Coal Mines. 19 I would like to ask now if there is anybody else who wishes to make comment, additional 21 comment or testimony? Anybody else? Any additional 22 questions? Anybody has a question? Yes, sir. 23 MR. PORTER: I've got a question. 24 MS. SILVEY: Can you come to the -MR. PORTER: My name is Gary Porter. COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 I'm vice president of sales with Price Rubber 2 Corporation in Montgomery, Alabama. We manufacture 3 conveyor belts. 4 My question is, I was reading over some of the guidelines in here, especially about the 6 testing and audit procedures proposed in the proposal. 7 One of my questions is, we are an American 8 manufacturer, one of the only privately-held belt 9 manufacturers in the United States now. The audit procedures and stuff that we would be exposed to, what 11 are your proposals or how are they going to be handled 12 for foreign manufacturers, people in China, Korea, that 13 are currently selling belt in the United States, are 14 they going to be held to the same audit standards? Are you going to be sending people over there to audit 16 their records as you audit ours? I think that's one of 17 the questions that needs to be raised. 18 If we here in the United States are 19 required to keep these records and you-all come in and do audits on an annual basis or as needed, as required 21 in the proposal, are you-all going to be sending people 22 to China or Korea or Pakistan or India to do these same 23 types of things? 24 MS. SILVEY: I think the proposal set up the audit procedures, and they are the same audit COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 procedures we have for any products that we approve 2 now. And if I believe we said at least --no more than 3 once a year, I think it said -4 MR. PORTER: Right. MS. SILVEY: --that the facility 6 could be subject to audit when MSHA notified the 7 approval holder. And then we gave the parameters under 8 which we would audit, and the type of records we could 9 come in and see the process and look at the records and that type of thing. 11 And I would --at this point I would 12 say that we would do that for any manufacturer, whether 13 the manufacturer is located in Montgomery, Alabama or 14 Washington D.C. or China, as you said, the People's Republic of China. So that's what we would do. 16 MR. PORTER: Are you still going to 17 be carrying the same thing that 1865 does that 18 basically manufacturers are the ones that submit belts 19 for approval and only manufacturers, because I've noticed on some of the recent stuff that you-all have 21 posted on the acceptances under 1865, now there are 22 companies listed that aren't manufacturers that are 23 actually trading companies with addresses in Miami or 24 stuff like that that are actually importing belt. MS. SILVEY: It's not limited just to COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 manufacturers, the regulations says the applicant, and 2 the manufacturer could be the applicant or some other 3 entity could be the applicant, and it's been that way 4 for awhile. Not solely to the manufacturers. And sometimes we use the term third party, and the third 6 party, it could be the manufacturer and applicant or 7 third party. So I'm just saying to you, it's not 8 solely limited to just manufacturer. 9 MR. PORTER: I think that's all I've got. I was just trying to peruse some of the 11 information in there on the approval process and - 12 13 your company? 14 Corporation. 16 17 MS. SILVEY: MR. PORTER: MS. SILVEY: MR. PORTER: What was the name of Price Rubber So you manufacture - We manufacture conveyor 18 belt for the coal industry now, and we do have our 19 acceptances on the current standards. I know that with the new standards there could be a possibility of belt 21 prices skyrocketing because of the new requirements for 22 flame resistance currently -23 MS. SILVEY: Are you-all planning to 24 get into the new process? MR. PORTER: We are currently working COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 on some stuff right now. Neoprene seems to be the best 2 fit and it is quite a bit more expensive than what is 3 currently being used with the SPRs right now. And it 4 is in a lot shorter supply. That could pose some problems with supply down the road with everybody 6 trying to go over --if everybody uses neoprene for the 7 rubber. 8 MS. SILVEY: When you say quite a bit 9 more expensive, in a percentage of what? MR. PORTER: It's about three times 11 the cost of SPR. Whereas a 36-inch wide belt right now 12 might be $30 a foot, with the new neoprene belts it 13 could be $60, $90 a foot. 14 MS. SILVEY: Are you going to be submitting additional written comments? 16 MR. PORTER: I am. I wasn't prepared 17 to do this today but just some things came up. 18 MS. SILVEY: No, I appreciate that. 19 I was going to ask you did you have any specific comments on provisions in the proposal? 21 MR. PORTER: I will be sending a 22 letter in and addressing those specifics when I have 23 more time to review the documentation. 24 MS. SILVEY: That's one of the things I was going to ask you about, if you would comment COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 specifically on the provision then with splicing. 2 MR. PORTER: Yes, I can do that too. 3 All right. 4 MS. SILVEY: I appreciate it very much. Anybody else have --would anybody else -6 MR. LOVITZ: I've got a question. 7 MS. SILVEY: Thank you, please. 8 MR. LOVITZ: I'm Jerry Lovitz. I'm 9 the territory manager for Fenner Dunlop. We're a manufacturer of conveyor belt and we're based in 11 Atlanta, Georgia. I really wasn't prepared to ask 12 questions but one thing did come to mind. 13 We mentioned splice kits or splicing 14 materials for conveyor belts and, of course, with the new regulation the cover shock on conveyor belt it's 16 going to have to change to meet the new regulations. 17 I'm just curious about splicing materials, you know, 18 splice kits, they contain cover shock, and I'm just 19 wondering if they're going to --splicing kits or splicing materials are going to have to be certified 21 like the conveyor belt? 22 MS. SILVEY: I think that's a good 23 question. 24 MR. LOVITZ: Of course, we do manufacture splice kits also. COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 MS. SILVEY: I was going to ask you, 2 first, do you make a recommendation with your belts -3 do you make a recommendation for how splices are to be 4 done, I assume? MR. LOVITZ: Absolutely. We have 6 different compounds for different applications in 7 underground coal mining which all meet specifications 8 and, they will meet the new spec too. But our splice 9 kit materials match exactly the compound on the belt itself. I was just wondering. 11 And there's a lot of companies out 12 there that make bulk materials that don't match, and I 13 was just curious if there would be a certification 14 process for the splice materials. MS. SILVEY: As I said, I think 16 that's a good question and that's --in terms of 17 uniformly having a splice kit requirement. I don't 18 know that we have one at this time but that's something 19 we have taken --that's one of the reasons, one of the things I was getting to that we would be interested in 21 comments on that. And we'll look more into that also. 22 MR. LOVITZ: We have a team in place, 23 our technical department has been working with MSHA and 24 attending all of the hearings and public meetings. And I'll pass that on to that group and make sure our COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 comments are submitted. 2 MS. SILVEY: That's one of the things 3 I was --when Mr. Porter came I was saying if anybody 4 has any comments on it I would be interested in it. But we appreciate the question. 6 MR. LOVITZ: Okay. 7 MS. SILVEY: I knew eventually it was 8 going to come up anyway. 9 MR. LOVITZ: Okay. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Does anybody 11 else have any comments? Questions or comments? If 12 nobody else has any questions or any additional comment 13 then I would like to say that we appreciate those of 14 you today who provided comment and testimony. For those of you who didn't, we 16 appreciate your attending this hearing because the fact 17 that you came and attended shows that you have an 18 interest in this rule making. As we all know, the 19 comment period closes September the 8th and then we have to proceed with the development of the final rule 21 by December 31st. 22 A number of issues have been raised. 23 For those of you who commented today and who would tend 24 to provide additional comment before the record closes, we appreciate that very much. We appreciate you being COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 1 very specific with your suggestions, with the rationale 2 for your suggestions, as we said earlier, the data to 3 support your suggestions. And where you can be 4 specific, please do so and provide alternatives. If we propose something and you 6 disagree with it, if you would provide your suggested 7 alternative. We will do our best to take the comments 8 and suggestions and the testimony from today's hearing 9 to craft a rule that provides the most effective safety and health for underground coal miners and it does so 11 in a manner that's responsive to the needs and concerns 12 of the mining public. 13 Again, thank you so much for your 14 attendance and at this point we will conclude today's hearing. 16 (Whereupon the hearing was concluded.) 17 18 19 COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE 21 22 23 24 1 STATE OF KENTUCKY ) 2 COUNTY OF FAYETTE ) 3 4 I, SUSAN R. ELSENSOHN, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, State of Kentucky at Large, 6 certify that said testimony was taken down in stenotype 7 by me and later reduced to typewriting, by computer, 8 under my direction. 9 My commission expires: September 5, 2010. 11 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set 12 my hand and seal of office on this the day 13 of , 2008. 14 SUSAN R. ELSENSOHN 16 Certified Court Reporter Certification No. 95010 17 Notary Public, State-at-Large 18 19 21 22 23 24 COLLINS & HUGHES REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICE