In the Matter of: ) ) MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION ) ) PUBLIC MEETING ) ) MINE RESCUE TEAM REGULATIONS ) Pages: 1 through 99 Place: Beaver, West Virginia Date: March 28, 2002 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR In the Matter of: ) ) MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION ) ) PUBLIC MEETING ) ) MINE RESCUE TEAM REGULATIONS ) United States Department of Labor MSHA 1301 Airport Road Beaver, West Virginia Thursday March 28, 2002 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened, pursuant to Notice, at 9:07 a.m. PRESIDING OFFICIAL: JOSEPH W. PAVLOVICH, District Manager United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Coal Mine Safety and Health District Seven HC 66, Box 1699 Barbourville, Kentucky 41702 (606) 546-5123 Fax: (606) 546-5245 P R O C E E D I N G S 9:07 a.m. MR. PAVLOVICH: Well, good morning, and I appreciate everybody coming to the meeting. We have an excellent turn-out, and probably if we had known we were going to have this many, we would have reserved the Red Room downstairs. But I'm certainly glad to see so many faces and so many people here. And we hope to get a lot of good comments and suggestions. Let me go ahead and start out. We have an opening statement that I'd like to read, that's prepared. I usually don't like to read anything, but for the record we will try and stay as close as possible. And after that, we will begin with our speakers and commenters, and then maybe have an open discussion near the end of the session. For those of you that don't know me, I'm Joe Pavlovich. I'm the District Manager with Coal in District Seven, in Barbourville, Kentucky. And with me up front is Eddie Lopez. Eddie is the Accident Investigations Program Manager for Metal/Nonmetal. And I guess your Acting Assistant -- MR. LOPEZ: Acting somebody. MR. PAVLOVICH: -- Deputy Administrator right now, okay, all right. We are here on behalf of Dave Lauriski, who is the Assistant Secretary of Labor. And he certainly wanted to welcome everybody here today, and unfortunately he couldn't be here with us. The purpose of this meeting is to gather ideas and suggestions from the mining community on the current state, quality, and preparedness of mine rescue teams. The ideas and suggestions will be considered by MSHA in determining what actions can be taken to improve mine rescue capabilities. Formal rules of evidence do not apply, and this meeting will be conducted in an informal manner. Although with the microphones at the speakers' table, it doesn't appear to be that way, but we'll do it as informally as we can. Those of you who have notified MSHA in advance of your intent to speak or signed up today to speak can make your presentations first. After all scheduled speakers have finished, others can present additional information or ideas. When the last speaker is finished, we will open up for a general discussion. If you wish to present any written statements or information today, please clearly identify them. When you give them to me, we will identify them by the title as submitted. You may also submit comments following the meeting. We would like to receive all comments within 30 days, by April 26, 2002, so that we can fully consider them. So after this meeting, if you'd like to send in some additional comments or some written comments to us, please do that within 30 days, and we'll certainly give them full consideration. And we would appreciate any of those comments that you have. A verbatim transcript of the meeting is being taken, and it will be made available, upon request, to the public. If you want a personal copy of the meeting transcript, please make arrangements with the reporter. However, we will post a transcript on MSHA's website within five days after this meeting. So if you are interested, please check on our website. Additionally, an attendance sheet is on the table at the entrance to the room, so you may register your presence. Before we begin, I'll give some background about why we are here today. In the wake of several mine disasters, Congress promulgated the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Congress believed the ready availability of mine rescue capability in the event of an accident would be vital to protect miners. Accordingly, 115(e) of the Mine Act required the Secretary of Labor to publish regulations requiring that mine rescue teams be available for rescue and recovery work at each underground mine. Section 115(e) also allowed mine operators to make cooperative arrangements to provide for the availability of mine rescue teams. On July 3, 1980, MSHA promulgated a new Part 49, in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that included requirements for mine rescue teams in the coal, metal, and nonmetal mining industries. The purpose of the rule was to implement 115(e) of the Mine Act by ensuring the availability of rescue teams at underground mines in case of an emergency. The existing regulation generally requires: One. Two mine rescue teams per mine, and allowed outside coverage teams. Two. Five member rescue teams, with one alternate. Three. Team members to have a minimum of one year underground mine experience within the past five years. An initial 20-hour training course in the care, use, and maintenance of the type of breathing apparatus used by the mine rescue team, and a 40-hour annual refresher training course, four hours each month or eight hours every two months. And a minimum of one year underground mine experience in the past five years for instructors. In 1995, MSHA hosted a Mine Emergency Preparedness Conference here at the Academy. Attendees included Mine Rescue Association members, mine rescue team trainers and captains, operators, state and federal government officials, educators, international representatives, representatives of labor. One outcome of this conference was the establishment of a committee to study the issues identified at the conference, and to make recommendations to MSHA on ways to address those issues. The committee identified a number of needs to improve the mining industry's ability to deal swiftly and effectively with mine emergencies. Some of these were the need to increase the numbers of qualified mine rescue personnel, improve the availability of trained mine rescue teams, assure the quality of contract teams, and provide incentives for mine operators to maintain mine rescue teams. In 1998, MSHA established the Mine Rescue Team Initiative Committee to investigate a decline in the number of available mine rescue teams, to make recommendations for maintaining the quality of existing mine rescue teams, and to emphasize MSHA's commitment to mine rescue. MSHA conducted interviews with industry and labor and state agencies to gather input from all facets of the mining community. Given the passage of time since the committee completed its work, and Dave Lauriski's interest in this matter, we are conducting this meeting to gather current ideas and suggestions concerning mine rescue capabilities and preparedness. This meeting will give mine operators, miners, and their representatives, and other interested parties an opportunity to present their views on the actions that can be taken to result in more effective mine rescue team capabilities. We are specifically interested in comments addressing the following issues, although you are encouraged to comment on any relevant issues relating to mine rescue teams. The information received will help us determine the most effective way to address the changing needs of the underground mining industry and its mine rescue team capability. The first one is availability of mine rescue teams. And the question we would like some response on is, how can mine operators be encouraged to provide for more mine rescue team capability. The second is mine rescue team membership. How should an individual's employment history in underground mining affect that individual's ability to serve on a rescue team? Third is training for mine rescue team members. Should additional training be required for a former mine rescue team member who rejoins a team which still uses the same breathing apparatus? Should there be joint training of mine rescue teams not located at the same rescue station? For mine rescue teams not located at the same rescue station, how many hours of joint training would be required? Should both teams participate concurrently in MSHA-supported mine rescue contests or MSHA emergency response drills, or MERDs? Should teams that participate in an MSHA-supported mine rescue contest, or MERD, exercise earn training credit for each participating member? Instructor qualifications. How should an individual's employment history in underground mining affect that individual's ability to serve as a mine rescue team instructor? Availability. The equipment availability, maintenance, and testing requirements. Comments from the mining community have suggested that the cost associated with the current equipment requirements prevents some mine operators from establishing a mine rescue team. In light of today's mine rescue team needs, what type, amount, maintenance, and testing of equipment are appropriate to ensure the same level of protection for miners? Incentives. The recommendation was received by the Agency to consider an incentive in the form of penalty reductions for mine operators that establish and maintain mine rescue teams. The Agency believes this type of incentive would be prohibited by the Mine Act. We would, however, welcome suggestions on other types of incentives which would encourage operators to establish their own mine rescue teams. We will accept comments on these and any other issues relevant to mine rescue capabilities and preparedness. I have been asked whether we are undertaking a rule-making on mine rescue teams. The issues surrounding mine rescue teams are important to Mr. Lauriski. We intend to use the information gathered at this meeting, along with the other information we have received in the past, to help us decide how best to proceed. We would consider rule-making as a possibility, and are open to hearing your views. As I stated earlier, we will begin with persons who have requested to speak. Following their presentations, those of you who have signed up today will also be allowed to speak. And to ensure that we obtain an accurate record, when you speak, please begin by clearly stating your name and organization. All right. Our first speaker today is Joe Main, with the United Mine Workers of America. Joe, if you would like to come up here to the microphone. MR. MAIN: Thank you, Joe. My name is Joe Main, and I am the Administrator of Health and Safety for the United Mine Workers of America. I'm probably going to do sort of a summary today, Joe, because one of the problems I think myself and others may have faced is that this came up on fairly short notice. I just found out a couple weeks ago that, you know, the meeting was going to be held. And for most of us working these days with a ton of things on our deck, it's hard to, you know, sit down fairly quickly and put all this together. And having said that, I am going to reserve some responses until we have a chance to look -- THE REPORTER: Excuse me. Can we get you to speak closer into the mike? They cannot hear you in the back. MR. PAVLOVICH: They can't hear you in the back, Joe. MR. MAIN: Okay. Can you hear me now? MR. PAVLOVICH: Why don't we have you pull it closer to you? MR. MAIN: I'll try to keep that as close as I can. But I will do a summary today, and then do some follow-up later on with more details. Because some of the issues raised in here, we haven't sat down and taken the kind of look at it that we need to. And additionally, I think there is information that you may have that would be beneficial for us to get before we provide some final responses. The questionnaire that was done by MSHA I think about two or three years ago? MR. PAVLOVICH: Yes. MR. MAIN: I don't think we've got the, you know, the feedback on that, and it would be helpful to have that to take a look at what's going on and any updated information that you may have regarding that. I know you surveyed rescue teams and this whole rescue issue across the country. That would be helpful to have. I have been involved in this issue for many, many years. I've had the opportunity to work with many rescue teams across the country, and, you know, from Wilford to the Greenwich explosion. Most recently I spent about three months or more at the Jim Walters Number Five Mine. And I think that's given me an opportunity to have a good appreciation for what we have out there. And having looked at the rescue team structure and capabilities in this country over the last several years, and trying to keep up to speed with what's going on, I think it's given us at least an opportunity to have a good eyesight of what's out there. We have attended a number of conferences that's been held on this subject, going back into the early nineties, and was one of the parties that urged the past Assistant Secretary McIntyre to start focusing on this problem right after he took office. Both the Mine Workers and the BCOA had jointly urged attention by MSHA on a situation we thought was in serious need of some change and repair. We saw a number of mine rescue teams across the country being eliminated. With the downsizing of mines, for one reason. And another was a cost factor, where coal mines -- and I'm going to talk particularly of coal mines in my remarks -- where coal mines had, because of like the financial, or the market conditions, rather, started cutting costs. And one entity that was cut was mine rescue teams at coal mines. I remember various mines used to have two teams, that evolved into a one-team operation. I think you'll find that as the standard today. Mostly mines that do have a rescue team that is a mine-based team is a single, a single team. And there are some back-ups or substitutes they have. But we have lost a lot of teams over the years. I know the last data that I have, and I just saw the sheet that was passed around today, that we had about 124 teams in 1997 throughout the United States. And according to this sheet that I just got this morning, it appears that we've got, if I'm reading this right, about 118 teams, which I would, I'd like to have the background information on those, what these teams are. Because I think that's important to this whole discussion. The data we had from 1997 had a breakdown of, you know, where the team was, what it consisted of, which separated out the mine-based teams from the state teams, the contract teams. So I'm not really sure what these numbers mean in terms of the 118 teams. How many of those are still mine-based teams? I think that's a critical issue in this discussion, and has been for many, many years. And as we came to these meetings, we have came here with that as being the most important issue that we think faces the industry and MSHA with regard to mine rescue capabilities in this country. And that we have this deterioration of the numbers of rescue teams, and we have the deterioration, we believe, in the quality of teams that exist, because of the different types of teams that are being created that are allowed to fit the so-called letter of the law, as far as contract teams or association teams. And when you get down to the bare bones issue here, when you have a mine emergency, are you going to have the quality teams there, at strength, well-trained, well-skilled, to go in and carry out the emergency response? I think we're getting dangerously close to a situation where that's no longer a guarantee. And I'm going to give you a couple, couple situations and a couple reasons where I think that's the case. The last two major mine emergencies that we had in the east probably, where there's been a large use of mine rescue teams, has probably been the Loverage Mine, where you had the fire, I think it was in June of 2000. And the Jim Walters Number Five Mine disaster last year. We were probably really fortunate in those two cases, because we probably had some of the best base teams and most experienced teams that was available to respond to those. In CONSOL's case, CONSOL probably has the largest number of mine rescue teams in the country. I would say when you look at those numbers, that would be my guess. And was probably the best-equipped, or one of the best-equipped companies with a mine rescue team to respond to an emergency. In the Jim Walters Number Five Mine situation, I think you had, again, the company that maintains a team at every mine, which they had their three mines with rescue teams, plus the large mines that was in the general vicinity, which was Shell Creek, Oak Grove, and North River, had quality teams that were well-experienced and capable. And you had a state team structure that's different than what we have in some of the other models. Which, and I think that's something we all need to look at. When we talk about state teams, what is it that really exists here. But, and their state teams was made up of employees of Jim Walters, Shell Creek, and P&M, that I think had a lot of experience and practice. They was, you know, kept up to speed, and was prepared to respond to mine emergencies. So you had a core group of teams that was close by, that was ready to respond. And I don't think that's the case when you start looking outside the CONSOL Loverage model and the Jim Walters model, should you have a mine emergency occur at a mine that has no mine rescue teams, that has no rescue capability that exists. I worry about, having been involved in those situations, about having quality teams there to do the recovery work, and quality teams to back up the teams who are actually in doing the work. I know if I was on the team on an advance in the precarious situations we place the teams in, and had to rely on a team that I had no real knowledge if they had any experience or, that the quality was there for them to respond, I would be very, very concerned about that. And I think teams ought to be. But as you walk through what's happening in the industry is that when you have a mine emergency, and you have lives in danger, you're going to have responsible teams responding. But I think once that, the recovery of the victims takes place, you have a different set of rules that exists, that a mine operator is not going to easily subject their teams to continue the process of rehabbing a mine or, or putting the mine back in some kind of control where it can go back in a mining operation. And I think there's a lot of us that understand why they do that. You know, sitting in the same situation, we'd probably be making the same decisions. At CONSOL you had a situation where you had a large number of teams that could go in and do the mine recovery work with rescue teams. At Jim Walters, whenever the other teams left, which was the other companies', after we completed the recovery of the victims, you still had a base of Jim Walter teams that was there, that was capable trained to continue the recovery process. You also had teams that knew that mine, and knew the conditions of the mine, going in from the outset. But as the transition left for them to take over the recovery operations, you know, they had a pretty good handle on that mine. Take a mine that does not have that mine rescue team presence at that mine, that knows those things, and is able to take over whenever the rescue teams do leave. Where do we go? And I think that's a concern that we all should have, because that's a reality, and it is going to hit us somewhere someday. One of the concerns we have, too, with the depleted rescue team structure in this country is the reliance on the using of miners to do what was traditionally mine rescue work. And when you think through where we were at 20 years ago, we had the number of teams that was available to go in and, and do the necessary work to at least put enough patches back on the mine, that we could get the miners in to pick up from there. We've got ourselves in a situation where we're so thin on mine rescue teams that the reliance is becoming greater and greater on coal miners to go in and do what was, used to be mine rescue work. And that has created a few problems that we've had to deal with and work through. And I think it's unfair to the miners to have them placed in a situation where they have to go in and do mine rescue-type work, and they haven't had the training and the skill development to do that. I think it's putting them too much at risk, and we've got to figure out how to rectify that problem. The contract teams that exist throughout the country, I think there's different models of those. I'm very concerned about those that exist for the purpose of paper compliance. I think the expectations of all miners in any coal mine should be that there is a well-skilled, well-developed rescue team to come to get me out of this coal mine if something happens here. And I think, to those mine rescue teams that go to those mines, they have to have the comfort that while I'm there doing rescue work, that I have a quality, well-skilled, well-capable rescue team that's backing me up in case I run into problems, and I need rescue team assistance. I don't think that we have that throughout this country today because of the way that the rescue teams have moved from being the company-based teams that we used to have years ago, to these modified versions of teams, that I don't know that we even understand sometimes how they're even structured, or you know, how they operate or exist. And I think when you move away from that mine rescue team, company- or mine-based structure, you lose a lot of intelligence that you would surely love to have should a mine emergency take place, of those quick decisions that you've got to make. You know, those things that you need to know very quickly so you don't put people in harm's way. When you have rescue teams stationed at mines that practice, that understand their mine, I think that is a bit of intelligence that's worth its weight in gold when an emergency strikes. And when you don't have that, and you have new people coming in that hasn't got a clue about a mine, trying to do the quick rescue and recovery work, that's got to go scramble to try to find somebody or find some way to put that information together, it is not a good place for rescue teams to be. We've got battery equipment that's strung through coal mines today that's used, that has a potential to be an igniter of methane, for example. And having that scattered in there is where you have disrupted ventilation, and not knowing what you have, where it's at, or how that may be a potential to trigger an explosion. I mean, there's a whole variety of things that, that people really need to know and have accessible that I think that they may not have if they don't have rescue teams and that kind of thinking in place. There's quite a few things that I'm, like I said, I'm not going to get them all today, that get us beyond even those boundaries. How you train, what kind of equipment that you need to have on the teams. We'll respond to those later. But I think the fundamental problem that we've been wrestling with here since the mid-nineties has been one of how do we get these quality rescue teams back that we used to have, in a way that we can all feel comfortable that we've got a good base across this country to work with? And one thing we all know it comes down to, a matter of money. It costs, I understand, about $250,000 a year to maintain a well-trained, well-equipped rescue team. Some companies make that commitment, have those teams in place, and pay the money. Some don't. I think it's unfair for those who do to have to shoulder the load, quite frankly. And I think there is a large number that don't shoulder that load to the point that that's part of our problem here, that we've had the deterioration in the rescue team structure. And we've got to figure out a way to fix that. We support any reasonable incentives to get us there. We would urge the Government to provide some help to help beef up financially the rescue team structure in this country. And we're very open-minded about how we get there. But we've got to come up with some way to take care of this funding problem. Because, as I say, it is a matter of money. We look forward to working with folks that are seriously interested in addressing this problem. And we would hope that, as we walk out of here, the priority of all the issues on the table is the rebuilding of the rescue team structure, to have quality teams that exist in large numbers to take care of any emergency that we would envision, throughout the country. Well-skilled, well-trained, and ready to take care of business. Thank you very much. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Joe. We appreciate your comments. Our next speaker is Ed Rudder. Ed is with Rivertown Coal Production. Virgil, did you pass these out? Did you say? MR. BROWN: A couple of them. MR. PAVLOVICH: Okay. MR. BROWN: Not to everyone. MR. RUDDER: It's a little bit difficult to hear back there, so I'll try to speak as loud as I can. MR. PAVLOVICH: You're probably going to need to pull that microphone right up in front. MR. RUDDER: Okay. I put most of my stuff together last night. I was like Joe; I didn't have a lot of time to prepare this. MR. PAVLOVICH: Ed, would you -- MR. RUDDER: My name is Ed Rudder. MR. PAVLOVICH: -- spell it, please? MR. RUDDER: R-U-D-D-E-R. I'm the Safety Manager at Rock Spring Development in East Lynn, West Virginia. And I'm the trainer of the newly-formed RAG, Rivertown Coal Production mine rescue team. I have 20 years' mine rescue experience, and have participated in four actual rescue and recovery operations. Our company, RAG, presently has two competing teams in Colorado, two competing teams in Pennsylvania. And these teams have been a part of the mine rescue community for many years. With the addition of the two new teams in West Virginia, our company, RAG, will have six teams across the country when this is put together. Our team was given approval in December of 2001, with the belief that having our own teams, and not relying on a contractor that operates as a for-profit company, could better serve our West Virginia employees. We have been acquiring BG 174-A machines from the Willow Creek Mine in Utah over the past two months. We've had to refurbish many of the machines with new parts and pieces, at a cost of around $1300 each. We estimate that we will spend about $52,000 this year to get our mine rescue station up and legal, and to have all our team members trained as required. This is not counting what the cost of the BG 174 machines would be. But we understood at the time we formed the team, that in 2005 or 2006, I'm not sure on which those, that new apparatuses would have to be purchased, at a cost of nearly $72,000. Of all the members we now have, only four have any mine rescue training. They came through other mines in our area. With this in mind, we have been training on non-scheduled days off, and our initial training began in late February, and to date it has not been completed. So we're still in the process of trying to get our station up and our people trained. As you already know, many items must be addressed just to have a mine rescue team, from training to maintaining the station, and maintaining the apparatuses to the contest logistics, to establishing a maintaining a training field, to off-site training, to underground training. The list is endless of things that we're having, we're having to do it all. Many teams across the nation have been established for years. Their members have years of experience, and they receive many hours over the required amount of training. While other teams train only the time that is required. But either way, the cost of training is in real dollars. It costs money to put these, to do this. When our company established our team, we really had to do a reality check in order for things to happen. We had to accept that we could pay for training, that we would have to pay for training. We had to accept that we would maintain the apparatuses to the highest standard. We had to accept that we would maintain the rescue station to the letter of the law. And we have to appreciate the fact that we would receive citations from both industry and the state if we were not following the guidelines, even though we had already spent thousands of dollars for up to date. In order for MSHA to help our industry improve mine rescue capabilities, then I feel that they must take that same reality check. MSHA needs to be aggressive in their thinking, and understand that in the near future all mine rescue teams will be placed in a situation where they must have new breathing apparatuses. A lot have already purchased, but a lot haven't. At a cost of over $75,000 to furnish new equipment, we will most likely see the end of many rescue teams across this nation. Without help, the companies simply will not be financially able to maintain this expense, along with the current expenses to train and maintain those stations that they currently now have. MSHA needs to recognize those companies that have established mine rescue teams with a discount similar to Part 100.3, with the good faith abatement. This criteria provides a 30-percent reduction in the penalty amount where the operator abates the violation in the time set. This would offset some of the cost and keep companies motivated to having mine rescue teams. Another suggestion is, MSHA has state grant money that is distributed each year to 44 states and the Navajo Nation. In 2002 there will be $7.8 million distributed out. MSHA could purchase this new equipment that was mentioned earlier, and either award it to the states where established teams are located, or lease it back at a nominal cost. Either way, costs could be curtailed greatly. Companies that have mine rescue teams understand the training requirements, as stated earlier. Some do more than others. That will never change. The ever-increasing expense that companies have to endure on maintaining these stations and apparatuses must somehow be shared with MSHA. There are presently 14 teams in West Virginia. I think that's state teams. One has to wonder how many will exist when forced to purchase new equipment in only three years. In closing, I want to thank you for the time to listen to these comments, and know that we sincerely do appreciate the opportunity to present our opinions. Thank you. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Ed. Appreciate it. Okay, our next speaker is Joe Lamonica, with the Bituminous Coal Operators Association. Joe? MR. LAMONICA: Good morning. Joe Lamonica, L-A-M-O-N-I-C-A, retired, Aiken, South Carolina, representing BCOA. My comments are going to be somewhat scrambled. I, as with Joe, have been trying to address this issue for quite a few years, and becoming very repetitive on some of the comments. But I think we have to look at two things here. One is the survival of mine rescue, and the maintaining of viable teams. And the other is possible revision of Part 49. And I see those as two different issues. A strategy that we, as the mining community -- and I might add that I'm only addressing coal, because that's the only thing I know about, but I'm sure a lot of this applies to the metal and nonmetal sector. But a strategy on how we, as an industry, can have good mine rescue capability. And then whatever grows out of that, possible revisions to Part 49. We will have some responses from our members, also, that will be much more detailed. My comments are going to be somewhat general in nature. I might add that I did hear from a few people who could not participate in this meeting because of the timing. This was a bad week for them because of religious holidays, but hopefully they'll be able to submit their comments. It's a matter of the number of mines reduced, and the aging of the work force. I think back in 1990 we took a look, and the average age of a miner was about 50 years of age. And that has a significant impact on their ability to serve on mine rescue teams. In 1985, when, which was the last contest on my watch when I was with the Agency, there were 106 mine rescue teams participating at the national contest: 28 first-aid, 62 bench. Last year, the national had 38 mine rescue teams participating. That's a 64-percent reduction. Fifteen first-aid, that's a 46-percent reduction; 37 bench, that's a 40-percent reduction, since 1985. And it's this trend that we've been very concerned about, and what can we do about it. We've had many meetings, and the Agency has responded to those meetings. And I appreciate Secretary Lauriski getting this aired again and moving again. Because we were somewhat discouraged that what we had to say sort of fell on deaf ears. I realize that the Agency has a lot on its plate and you have to prioritize. But for those of us who have seen the benefits of mine rescue, there is very little that is as important as this. And I think that the recent event in Alabama sort of reiterates that. Times have changed. We are into a new century. The last century, or at the beginning of the last century, we saw where we had a situation of a first-aid meet at Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that filled up the ballpark. We don't have that now. But we have the beginning of a new century, and now we have to sort of take a look at where are we going with this century, and how does mine rescue fit into the mining industry. We have got to rethink; things are just not the same. I look at it as emergency preparedness. And there are four elements to that. The first is prevention. We need to design our mines -- and this is what we try to do -- to prevent having an emergency. We do that through ventilation, we do it through roof control. We do it through intrinsic safety. All those things. The design of the mine is to prevent is to prevent an emergency. The second thing, the second element of emergency preparedness, is detection. What gives us that early warning that maybe something might be going wrong? And we have, we've gotten much more sophisticated. We're beyond the days of the canary. We're using methane monitors, detectors, ventilation, read-outs, ground movement, the whole nine yards. And we're getting better at it. We could stand to have some more improvement, but we're getting much better at it. But that's the second line of emergency preparedness, the detection. The third element is first response. And this applies mainly when you have a fire. If we can hit the fire at its incipient stage, that goes a long way in preventing personal injury, loss of the mine, damage to the mine, resource losses. And the best people to be the first responders are the work crew. I don't know that we've paid enough attention to this area of first responders. But what training do our crews have to be able to respond? And do a good job without putting themselves in harm's way. Do we have turn-out gear available for first responders? Do they have the training of fire brigade, for instance? Are the water systems adequate to be able to sustain a first response? Things of this nature I think we might have to reexamine. Fire brigades may be a more formal thing that what I'm thinking about. But the ability of a crew, if a fire breaks out on their section, of them being able to attack that and get it under control before things get out of hand. But then we have the situation where, okay, things have gotten out of hand. And then we need a sustained response. And that's where traditionally mine rescue comes in. That's why the regulations talk about a two-hour response time. And you have to put the teams together, and you have got to have a plan, and you have to do the needful. I guess the, in looking at these four elements, one of the things we have to be mindful of, what is the weakest link in those four elements. And we just have to keep refining until we can shore up whatever our weak links may be. Let me jump to mine rescue contests. I have been involved in quite a few national contests, but only from a management standpoint. The dedication of people in MSHA to putting on the mine rescue contests -- and I've also been to the metal and nonmetal contests -- this is unsurpassed, this effort that you folks in MSHA have put into this thing. They are to be complimented. But when we have the number of teams that are participating dwindling, then you're going to have a hard time justifying that level of effort. And I'm afraid that the local and regional contests are suffering the same fate. It's very expensive to send people to the contests. And that gets me to where I'm going, which is what I see as the three elements that could go a long way in solving this problem. The first is money. The second is money. And the third is more money. How are we going to do that? How can we bolster the local and regional mine rescue contests? How can we entice operators to, to those who have teams, to maintain them; those who don't have teams, to think about it? The announcement -- and Joe, you read this thing on the incentive, about the recommendation that was received by the Agency to consider an incentive in the form of penalty reductions. The recommendation was much broader than that. We were, we were looking for anything possible, be it penalty reductions, the gentleman mentioned about good-faith credits. We would like to think that our members strive to not have citations. Therefore, we don't see the rate of return if we reduce our violations. But there were other things that were mentioned, such as tax credits. Looking at the state grant program. Or anything out there, be it from training, to just, there is no, no boundaries on what that could be. It's okay for us to try to recommend some things. But I think that we need a lot of help from the Agency in identifying what can be done. We can make suggestions. But if the answer back is well, no, you can't do that -- I've said just as recently as this morning that when I hire a lawyer, I want to tell him okay, this is what I want to do, how do I do it. I don't want him to say well, what do you want to do, and then tell me no, you can't do that. So I need that help in what is it that I can do. Because that's going to remove a lot of the problems that we are talking about today. We need to have quality teams. We need to have a level that will get us out of a jam in the event that we have a mine emergency. It's already been mentioned that it costs about $250,000 to maintain a competitive team. It's a matter of our companies are faced with a huge expenditure to replace their equipment over the next couple years. And it's going to be a deterrent. When I was Safety Director for a coal company, I was required to justify why we were spending money for mine rescue teams. And I was able to sell it on the basis that it was the cheapest insurance policy that they could possibly have. I also made the observation that, that people who served on mine rescue teams and later moved on to management positions -- foremen, and superintendents, and general mine managers -- those who were on mine rescue teams, they brought a, they brought a safety element with them to their work. And I thought those were better-run mines. If it was up to me, every mine superintendent in this country would have had to have been on a mine rescue team before he could be a mine superintendent. But, you know, that's just a personal observation. There were some efforts that were done by the National Mine Rescue Association and the Veterans of Mine Rescue. They addressed some issues. I think they generated what position papers or issuance papers. And I would hope that some of those will be able to be entered into the record. They may have a representative speaking down here today, I don't know. But I think that that would be helpful. One of the issues that we were also concerned about was the liability of mine rescue team members who are visiting a mine at the invitation of, of the, a host mine. And then somebody gets hurt. So we're into this legal liability crap. And how do you deal with that? Well, the efforts of the Association, they generated a, a letter, an agreement-type form that companies can look at and perhaps engage in. And they've addressed some other issues that I think might be helpful for this deliberation. I know I have bounced around. Sorry about that. But that's the extent of my comments for now. Thank you. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Joe. We appreciate it. Okay, our next speaker is Elizabeth Chamberlin, with CONSOL Energy. Elizabeth? MS. CHAMBERLIN: I'm Elizabeth Chamberlin. I'm Safety Director with CONSOL Energy, Inc. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today. The CONSOL Coal Group currently has a number of mine rescue teams located at its various mine sites. Over the years, these teams have been a source of pride and comfort for our employees, and for our company. Therefore, I would like to start my comments by recognizing their efforts, and the hard work and dedication exhibited by the industry's mine rescue teams and trainers as a whole across the United States. Many of these team members have been active in mine rescue for much of their lengthy mining careers. I'd also like to recognize the unselfish commitment and contributions that I've seen made by MSHA and State Representatives, the equipment manufacturers, and other parties who have been instrumental in bringing about the mine rescue competitions, and assisting in the training of the industry's mine rescue teams. I mention this because we are at a crossroads in this industry, and we cannot let these dedicated folks down at this point in time. In the face of the disaster on Mine 11, our mine rescue teams and those many other mining companies, the Government agencies, and the suppliers rose to the occasion. They offered their services for search and rescue and disaster recovery. Their willingness and ability to serve in the face of this terrible disaster is a concrete example, I believe, of the quality and underlying soundness of our mine rescue team structure in the United States. Therefore, in our estimation, the Part 49 regulations are not in need of modification at this time. We believe that any changes that might need to be made can be made in the way of technical guidance or under the policy. While the changes raised in the, or the issues raised in the 1995 conference remain today, some of these issues have become much more acute, as you have heard from previous speakers. Particularly the loss of teams that we are observing. If you simply look back at participation at the national mine rescue competitions, you can see the seriousness of this problem. There were 122 teams in 1977. Last year, at the 2001 competition, we observed 38 teams in participation. The loss of the mine-sponsored teams may well be exacerbated, you've heard the other speakers mention, in the very near future, as many of these teams are confronted with the replacement of apparatuses that will no longer be supported by the manufacturer. In addition, while new technology is being developed to assist mine rescue teams, it may be cost-prohibitive for many individual teams to maintain. Therefore, the overriding need, as we see it, to be addressed is to, is for support, particularly financial support, to maintain and expand the mine-site rescue teams. This need will solve the serious problem of the dwindling numbers of teams. And in turn, it will also resolve many, if not all, of the other outstanding concerns that have been voiced with regard to emergency preparedness. Again, as I say, we don't believe that revision of Part 49 is the answer to this problem. It does appear to us, however, that an avenue does exist under the Mine Act to provide some financial support to mines maintaining mine rescue teams. So we are puzzled by the Agency's conclusion that the Mine Act prohibits an incentive in the form of a penalty reduction for mine operators who establish and maintain teams. Section 110(i) of the Mine Act clearly recognizes that the assessment of a civil penalty must take into account, among other criteria, the gravity of the violation charged. Now, gravity determinations are based on the likelihood of injury, and they are also based on the severity of the injury. Obviously, the presence of a mine rescue team on site unquestionably impacts on these factors. And therefore, it should be an appropriate basis for penalty reduction, under the Mine Act as it is written, and clearly within the contemplation of its authors. Such a penalty reduction would mirror, in my mind, the reduction currently provided for good-faith abatement, another penalty criteria under Section 110(i) of the Act. The same considerations may well apply with regard to the negligence determination, and are worthy of MSHA consideration. This may not be the total answer to the problem, but it would be a start. If, upon further review, the Agency again determines that penalty reductions are not possible, then we would suggest that perhaps the Agency needs to act in accordance with the Assistant Secretary's initiatives, and form a team with members from the mining community at large to explore various alternatives that you have heard discussed here, such as tax credits or educational grants, as other avenues to support our mine rescue teams. Finally, we would like to note that the absence of any reference in the Public Hearing Notice to the liability and workers' compensation issues that do relate to mine rescue teams. I would suggest that MSHA should be taking the lead in providing some guidance to the states on the adoption of uniform Good Samaritan legislation, which would eliminate these obstacles in large part, and would assure unfettered cooperation at times of crisis when mine rescue teams have to cross state boundaries to lend assistance to sister mining sites. That is the conclusion of my statement, and I thank you for your time. MR. PAVLOVICH: Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth. Why don't we take about a 10-minute break? I think they brought some more coffee in there. And then we will resume with our next speaker. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MR. PAVLOVICH: Our next speaker is Dale Byram, with Jim Walter Resources. Dale? And Dale, they have requested, the people in the back of the room, that you really talk loudly into the microphone. Because apparently when we turn or move a little bit, it doesn't pick up real well. Or if you want to use this podium up here where you can face the group, you can do that, too. As soon as Mary gets out of the way. Thank you, Mary. State your name, and spell it, Dale, and your company. MR. BYRAM: Okay. My name is Dale Byram, B-Y-R-A-M. I am General Manager of Safety and Training at Jim Walter Resources in Alabama. As many of you have already experienced in the past, and most recently us, we recognize the value of mine rescue. And we appreciate all the assistance that was given to us in our recent event at Number Five Mine. Within a matter of hours, we had received phone calls from all over the country offering assistance. And we know that they would have been there had we requested them. We had the benefit of having trained teams in the state of Alabama. We had three Jim Walter teams, and then another team made up of our EMS personnel. We had the assistance of Drummond Shell Creek, USX Oak Grove -- is that better? Can you all hear me okay back there? USX Oak Grove, P&M North River, the two State of Alabama Mine Rescue Teams, and the MSHA MEU group. Every one of them were fantastic and gave unconditionally to help us meet our need. We also had the support of the United Mine Workers. Joe and his guys spent a lot of time with us. And the state of Alabama. And many, many vendors supplied us to help us during this event. So I guess from that perspective, we recognize and support anything that's associated with improving mine rescue, not only in the state of Alabama and at Jim Walter Resources, but in the country. A couple of issues I'd like to bring up. One is education and training. Through these recent events over the last few years, I think that I would like to ask MSHA to partner with the different companies who have had mine rescue events, to identify best practices and areas for improvement, that we could maybe reconsider how we are training our teams. And let's identify, as times have changed and needs have changed, to be able to improve through, again, education and training the capabilities of our teams. Another thing that I would like to ask MSHA to do would consider reviewing the MERD exercises to also bring it more up to date with current events, and to focus on best practices. We know enough now to know that if we will invest in our teams, it will come back to you if you ever are faced with the circumstance. The other thing that I'd like to bring up is, and I agree with several of the other presenters, that unfortunately bottom line drives a lot of things. And we need some form of an incentive to help the companies who not only house in-house mine rescue teams, but also these companies who use contract teams or who are just looking down the road to trying to start their own teams. Because there is a certain level of a financial burden that everybody is affected by. We would like to see the opportunity pursued about a percentage incentive for certain levels of citations, too. But yet, we would ask MSHA, if this is not acceptable, would MSHA develop a list of incentives that we could look at and review? Because we're at a point now to where we have identified what's important to us, and so we would like MSHA to identify other options that we might look at. In competition, competition develops instinctive moves for our teams. In the past several years we have made improvements. You now debrief your teams when they come off the field. A lot of our local contests are working multiple teams together at the fresh air base. And this is actually what you do in a real circumstance. We would like to see more of this continue. I would also like MSHA to consider a request that they do, and even though you do these, training seminars. But let's change this again to identify specific needs. Just for an example, let's have a three-day training seminar/contest combination. There's no trophies given away, there's no winners. Give us a mine rescue problem. Let our teams work it. Bring us all back together. Talk about how most of the teams approached this problem, what was good, what was bad. What was the objective of the contest. During that time, have training seminars with various topics that are specific to mine rescue team needs. Those that are out by the fresh air base, and those that are in by the fresh air base. We will be providing some other written comments over the next several days. That's all I have right now. Thank you. MR. PAVLOVICH: Okay, thank you, Dale. Our next speaker is Jim Vicini with Arch Coal. Jim? MR. VICINI: Thank you. Is that loud enough? MR. PAVLOVICH: No. MR. VICINI: You want me to get over there? MR. PAVLOVICH: You're going to have to lean way up close there. Okay. MR. VICINI: Okay, thank you. My name is Jim Vicini. That's V-I-C-I-N-I. I'm Manager of Safety for Laurel Mountain Processing, a subsidiary of Arch Coal. I've been working in the coal industry for approximately 32 years, and have been involved in mine rescue for 30 years as either a team member or trainer. I've worked in several rescue attempts, including mine fires, explosions, and a major disaster. I've served as an officer and Board member of more than one smoke-eater's post in Kentucky and Virginia, and am currently a member of the National Mine Rescue Permanent Rules Committee, and have served on the National Executive Committee. Upon receiving the notice for this meeting, I immediately knew that I wanted to respond to the questions. Because it's obvious from my background that mine rescue is important to me personally, as well as important to our company. I attended the Mine Emergency Preparedness Conference in 1995, and I can remember that a lot of good ideas and suggestions were brought up as to why mine rescue teams were declining, and what could be done to help the situation. That was seven years ago. Seven years later, teams have continued to decline, and little, if anything, has been done to help the situation. Let me say before I continue that it's encouraging to see that you recognize that there is a problem with the number and quality of teams in the country. And I believe that there is a problem. If a disaster happened today in some parts of the country, I doubt that we would be able to effectively respond in a timely manner. And if more than one disaster occurred at the same time in the country, where would we be? Hopefully we won't have a disaster, let alone multiple disasters. But I think it's in our best interest to be prepared in case. In response to the questions in the notice, I think there are three key issues, much like what's already been mentioned, but I'll address them again. And to me, those are education, training, and financial assistance. Education. The mining community needs to be educated to understand how devastating a mine fire or explosion can be. Many of us know and understand, but many do not. MSHA can help communicate this by using data from past disasters and mine fires to educate the mining community in what can happen if you are not prepared. How many fires have happened that have devastated companies, families, and communities? And how many of those mines were never opened again? In comparison, there are a lot of mines that were saved, or that had small fires that never got to be big fires because the companies had properly-trained people and properly-equipped mine rescue teams. Training. Mine rescue competitions are the most effective means of training that there is, in my opinion. People get more out of the training when competing against others, because everyone wants to be the best. And you can be measured when you're in competition. MSHA and the various state agencies have done a good job in the past in conducting these contests, and I encourage you to continue them. I have seen the number of contests decline also in line with the decline of teams. The rules that are used in competition need to be improved, to be more in lien with actual mine rescue work. But that is an ongoing situation, and should be, as has been, directed to the National Contest Directors. I think that Part 49 needs to be rewritten or adjusted to relax the training constraints and qualifications. First, teams that train for hundreds of hours during the contest season should not be required to train four hours a month or eight hours every other month in the off season. There should be a minimum amount of annual training, and once that's achieved, that should be enough. And currently, that's 40 hours. Also, the underground training requirements should be a minimum number of hours annually, instead of every six months. Secondly, in training, once a person has been trained, he or she is trained. Just because that person is not actively on a team doesn't mean that he or she has forgotten all the training that they have received through the years of training. We have quite a few people that have gone through years of training, and have changed jobs or been promoted, et cetera, that can still perform in an emergency, if needed. But they are not on an active team. I think that there should be a minimal refresher outline to use in order to utilize these people if needed. Financial assistance. The public notice referred to incentives. We don't need incentives to do what's right. The incentive for all of us is not losing lives, not losing our companies or jobs, and not devastating families and communities. However, fielding a mine rescue team requires a considerable amount of money. And this places a strain on companies that are competing in an already very difficult marketplace. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if Company A spends a quarter of a million dollars a year on mine rescue capabilities, and Company B doesn't, who has the edge in a tight market. Again, most of us here are already willing to do this, and are doing it. But if money were available to at least offset the cost, or some of the cost, it would be a tremendous help, and also justification for other companies to start teams. Our company just recently bought six new apparatus, and the cost was just over $40,000. A new oxygen pump costs around $10,000. And most companies are facing these same costs because the predominant apparatus, the BG 174-A, is becoming obsolete. I understand that a reduction in penalties may not be possible due to the Mine Act. But I think that MSHA could do a survey to estimate the cost of maintaining mine rescue teams and budget money to provide assistance to companies that maintain teams for emergency coverage. Similar to how states are provided financial assistance in providing training and education. Before closing, I want to commend MSHA for the outstanding job in conducting the National Mine Rescue Advancement and First Aid Contest in Louisville, Kentucky last year. Being on the Rules Committee, I can appreciate all the dedication and hard work that many of you put in to get the job done. And it was a job well done. These efforts do more than most people realize in providing valuable training. It was quite an undertaking, and very well organized. Again, these same suggestions were made seven years ago to the previous Administration. And let's not wait seven more years to act. Miners' lives may depend on it. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Jim. Okay, our next speaker is Dave Hamm, with the State of Arizona Mine Inspection Unit. Dave? Are you going to try that one, too? MR. HAMM: I am going to speak loud. MR. PAVLOVICH: All right. MR. HAMM: My name is David Hamm, H-A-M-M. I am the Chief Deputy Inspector for Arizona, and I also represent the Arizona Mine Emergency Association. I am here on behalf of the Association, and certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak. We do have a prepared statement, and a lot of it is redundant, so I am going to stick to the issues that haven't been addressed yet. Arizona certainly recognizes that mine rescue has some regional needs. All regions don't require the same level of mine rescue. And so I'd like to read this statement that was prepared by the Association. We believe a blend of local resources, such as fire departments and search and rescue organizations and active mine rescue teams, can be achieved. Team captains and co-captains must remain the responsibility of the mine operator. Support positions could be filled with trained personnel from other professional organizations. In the 1980s, Arizona operated a volunteer mine rescue program using Sheriff's Departments, search and rescue departments, and local fire departments. The program experienced some failures, but also offered some successes. One main obstacle we experienced with the non-miner was the lack of knowledge of the underground environment and the terminology used to describe the underground environment. The groups, particularly the search and rescue groups and some of the fire departments, showed great potential. Their abilities, skills, knowledge, and desire was the main reason these people could work well in certain roles on a mine rescue team. Changing the qualifications and restrictions in Part 49 to be an on underground team combined with continued training, exposure to the underground environment, we believe effective, and useful teams could be built using these resources. And addressing the specific question about joint training, we believe that this should be encouraged, but not necessarily enforced by regulators. Offering grant monies to mine rescue organizations could encourage more challenges for the teams. Grant funding could open up several opportunities for centralized mine rescue training facilities. Some of these areas of expertise not required in underground rescue but used in surface rescues could be incorporated, such as high-angle rope rescues. More and more teams in the west are responding to the ever-present abandoned-mine rescue. In some cases the teams cannot participate because of challenges presented by the old, abandoned workings. With proper funding and training at a central training facility, teams could broaden their ability and skills to enter these workings. Of course, this area opens up the issue of liability on a non-active mining property, perhaps another issue for another day. Although with MSHA's focus on abandoned mine fatalities, this liability challenge should and could be addressed and met. Along the lines of liability, underground mines that have shut down have left behind valuable resources. All of the men and women who served on mine rescue teams now stand idle. They cannot participate because of workman's comp issues. Funding into a centralized training facility may need to include the means to provide insurance for trained mine rescue professionals wanting to continue to serve on a team. Technical skills recognized by MSHA should and could be a proud achievement for teams. Being high-angle certified, low-angle certified, HAZMAT response, collapsed building entry certified, like FEMA, are just a few of areas our teams could set goals to achieve. Team achievements could be worn on the team's diggers or uniforms using icons or simple language. Anyone observing the team in competition or training would see first-hand the skill level a team member or team had achieved. In comment about equipment availability, maintenance, and testing requirement, there is no doubt that small- and medium-sized mines have a difficult and often financially-impossible challenge with the mandate of Part 49. Arizona recognized this nearly from the beginning of the MSHA Act of 1977. The Arizona Mien Emergency Association was designed to approach this very issue. We have the largest supply of mine rescue equipment in the western United States. Our goal is to make the equipment and training available to the small- and medium-sized operators at a real bargain. The slowdown of underground metal and nonmetal mining, combined with the dynamics, evolution, and expense of mine rescue equipment is threatening our existence. Currently we have over 200 of the BG 174-As, and only enough of the new positive-pressure units to make up four teams. With Draeger's announcement of discontinuing service and parts for the BG 174-A as the near future, we have been vigorous in our efforts to make the transition to the new units. This is expensive, time-consuming, and economically impractical for a struggling non-profit association with fewer and fewer active mine members. The bottom line is, eventually we may not have a large cache of equipment, but our goal and focus will remain the same. And that is to provide what equipment we have to the mining community at a bargain discount price, and continue to provide training. In my 25-plus years of experience with mine rescue, developing new teams, new programs, and promoting competition, I've discovered it costs more than it should cost, and it takes longer than it should take. The equipment available to underground mining is the best of the best. The manufacturers have responded to the industry's need, and have developed more cost-efficient units that are lighter, safer, and user-friendly. And they certainly should be applauded for their endeavor. We would like to see more effort put into the robotics industry to reduce the exposure of teams to mine rescue fire hazards. And we certainly believe that needs to be pursued and researched further. In Arizona we would like to see more grant money opportunities. This is to offset the expense of buying mine rescue equipment. Furthermore, grant monies would help promote and properly fund mine rescue on many fronts. We would use these types of funds to increase the skill and training of our teams and the teams from other areas looking for new challenges. The MSHA modules have been trained to death with no changes in 20-plus years. To be honest, that gets kind of boring. We need to increase the stakes. And you can do that by providing new opportunities, and being recognized for what efforts have been employed and accomplished. As I mentioned earlier, expanding modules to include high-angle rope rescues and HAZMAT response would draw new blood into the mind rescue arena. Being able to wear and show off your achievements and skill level would help restore pride in the ranks of the aging mine rescue professional. And additionally, the new mine rescue recruit would see the opportunities available to stick it out and remain as a member of an elite mine rescue team. These programs will take big bucks and sustained funding. The support of Uncle Sam will be critical to help us achieve the level of protection that our miners deserve. We certainly recognize that MERD and competition is some of the greatest training that is available to all teams right now, and we certainly would encourage Jim Shaw to put the MERD on the road, and shake down some of these associations and find out where the shortcomings are before they really need to be exercised. We would also like to see a training facility in the west. As it stands today, Beckley is the premiere flagship for underground training, and it costs a lot of money to get our teams from the west out to the east. Having something centrally located, in Colorado or Wyoming or Arizona, would certainly help our teams train out west. And I think that's about it. Thank you. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Dave. Our next speaker is Rick Hickman with Morton Salt. Rick? MR. HICKMAN: My name is Rick Hickman, H-I-C-K-M-A-N, Safety Manager with Morton Salt. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you, because it only happened about five minutes ago. I think one of the advantages that I've been lucky to have in mine rescue is in the last seven years, I have been in the metal/nonmetal field of mine rescue. Prior to that, it was 20-plus years in coal. I love mine rescue. I'll probably ask that I be buried with a McKay, and Chemox, and a BG 174. Having said that, I think one of the things that we're missing, and I'm speaking from my experience in both avenues, one of them is not only dollars -- you know, the bean counters of the world push what we do, whether we want to believe it or not. And I have found that out being with the company that I have. I have, up until last month, two mine rescue teams, 14 personnel other than myself, to be able to move to deal with that. The Northern Mine Rescue Association had 10 teams in our regional contest. This year, we may have four teams. We might have five. I just talked with Joe Dink and invited the metal/nonmetal national team to compete, so we might end up with six. Not only are dollars a factor, I think one of the biggest factors is personnel. Example. Morton Salt, our mine operates 24 hours a day. We are out under Lake Erie. We try to mine 66-68 hundred tons of salt a day. To do that, we have X number of hourly employees. But due to downsizing, my maintenance staff -- and I use the term "my," because that's my organization -- my maintenance supervisory staff is three foremen and one supervisor. One per shift, and one supervisor. My foreman staff to run the mining department -- and for you guys in coal, consider this. You're moving from a five-entry section and five faces, depending on the cuts you're taking, to our mines has nine entry panels, 50 foot high, 20 foot high, 280-foot centers, and the foreman has to cover several acres, 30- to 40-some faces. So I have four foremen and two supervisors. Now, of that group of people, one of those maintenance people is on my team, and three of those foremen are on my team. So it's not only dollars and sense, as who does the job when I am doing my eight-hour monthly training. Who does the job when I am practicing for a contest, or God forbid we go to help out somewhere. So I think one of the issues that, you know -- and I don't know if the Agency can help support that, but I know that that is a problem out there. And I don't think I would be just speaking just for metal/nonmetal, that's probably with everybody in coal, because I just left coal seven years ago. I think another thing is the aging. If you look around the room, there's a lot of old folks in here like me and you. And what is it out there that attracts the younger person to be on MNM rescue? What is in it for him as a young person? Okay, that's out there. I think one of the things that need to be addressed, and again I reserve, based on a five-minute notice, to put something together more efficiently, Joe and Eddie. I think we need to look at training other than contests. We have battled for years, and still battling and will continue to battle, unless we address, we want the contest to be reality. I've always thought of, as a contest, as the fun side of beating yourself up and learning what it is you're supposed to learn. It's good PR. Your team is out there, you carry the trophy. And it's nice to walk up in front of a group, isn't it, Virgil, and say, "I beat you guys." Okay. That's the fun part. But getting to the reality part, what have we done with that? Okay. And we look at trying to have the contests. Maybe we only need to have a contest once every five years. You know, mine rescue teams don't exist for a contest. That's my viewpoint. We don't exist for a contest. And we spend all of our effort training for contests. Come on, let's stop and think. How much time do we spend in contests, and as training do we spend here? But yet we also say, well, we're learning things that we can use there. Are we really? Is that being looked at closely enough? You know, is the contest part of it that important? And if it is, let's do something different. The term out there that I use is green-light thinking. Another term is get out of the box. You know, turn it around 180 degrees. Cross-training has been mentioned a couple times. I currently have my guys learning some rope work, a lot of confined space stuff. That's out there. It can be applicable to mine rescue. Look at other groups within the arena that can provide training to you as a team. I know back a few years ago, back, there he is, Jerry Buddy and I fuss a lot about bringing guys down here to the lab and what we're doing in the training. But Jerry put together a problem that, you know, your team is called out in the town that you live in because two kids are lost in a sewer drain. Somebody mentioned the 9/11 incident in New York. At our Association meeting, I had all of my teams, my teams in our association, stand up and vow and declare they would go to New York if anybody called. Okay. So look at some other areas out there. I think another thing along the training scenario is, right across the street here is one of the finest facilities that's out there. My personal opinion says that it's not staffed the way it should be, as far as numbers of people, to do some things. What happens over there, there's a lot more can happen. And I would like to see that expanded for not just coal, but all the other teams. And the last thing I want to say is probably not going to be very popular. But I personally believe in it, and I have friends on the coal side and I have friends on the metal/nonmetal side. Right now, Morton Salt Fairport Mine, as far as I know, is the only metal/nonmetal team that is competing in a coal contest in this country. And as long as I'm Safety Manager at Fairport Mines, Morton Salt, they're going to continue to do that. And you know what? I can be done. And I say this for this reason. I think that metal/nonmetal and coal mine rescue should be combined. If not for the contest, for training purposes. The miners in this industry -- remember, if it's not mined, it's grown. And our miners out there, if they work in a zinc mine, a silver mine, a copper mine, or a coal mine, or a salt mine, those people are suffering because we are not providing them the experience and the knowledge that might be just down the street. But because it's a coal mine, I'm not going to talk to them or deal with them. Or because it's a metal/nonmetal mine, I'm not going to talk with them or deal with them. As I said, I've had the experience luckily to be involved on both sides of the fence. There's a lot of knowledge in the metal/nonmetal world. There is a lot of knowledge in the coal world. Both of those in mine rescue. And I think we need to look at some things that are there. Can it be done? Absolutely. When I bring the team that I have down here, it's a salt mine, they deal with the rules. But when I try to train them, I'm not training contest, I'm training mine rescue, procedure, firefighting. And you know what? I have some coal teams in Ohio that want to come with us. So I think that's an area that needs to be looked at, if not for a contest, but for training purposes, cross-training. Okay? I thank you for your time. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Rick. Next is Robert McGee with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety. Robert? MR. McGEE: My name is Robert McGee, M-C-G-E-E. I'm the Emergency Response and Training Section Chief for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mien Safety. On behalf of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety, I would first like to thank Mr. Lauriski for providing this forum on the subject of mine rescue and emergency preparedness. Mine workers and operators alike in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are all too familiar with the tragedies associated with mine disasters. Any opportunity to continue to make improvements in this area is both welcomed and encouraged. In 1979, in anticipation of Part 49, Deep Mine Safety laid the foundation of our existing mine rescue program. Bearing the responsibility for the health and safety of underground miners in Pennsylvania, the Bureau has recognized that our role as educators is at least equal to, if not greater than, our duty to enforce the mining law. In Pennsylvania, requirements of Part 49 are met either by company-trained teams at larger operations, or through written agreement with the Bureau of Deep Mine Safety. At present, we provide complete Part 49 services for 82 percent of our bituminous mines, 91 percent of our metal and nonmetal operations, and 100 percent of anthracite mines. Our diversity has provided numerous challenges over the years which have helped, and continue to help, us to improve. Having said that, I'd like to make a few comments on the issues outlined in Mr. Lauriski's letter dated March 7, 2002, from the Bureau of Deep Mine Safety. Regarding the availability of mine rescue teams, we feel that all mining could be better served by MSHA funding all or part of the costs related to emergency preparedness. These costs, which include the purchase and maintenance of items required by Part 49, as well as the costs associated with the training of mine rescue teams, limits the number of operations that could consider such an undertaking. In Pennsylvania, for example, the cost of required maintenance of equipment at our three mine rescue stations over a recent 10-year period totalled approximately $500,000. Membership on mine rescue teams has been a very dynamic process, with many experienced mine rescue members retiring or no longer participating as team members. This loss of experience and the lack of readily-available and interested miners to take their place has been dramatic. Although BDMS believes that mine rescue team membership must include a work history of working in an underground mine, there may be some benefit in revisiting the employment history requirement described in paragraph 49.2(c) of the standard. The knowledge gained through working in the underground environment is essential. However, the present time frame requirements may exclude some individuals who have the desire, physical attributes, and aptitude to become effective mine rescue team members. The training of mine rescue team members is quite prescriptive in the statute. The initial 20-hour requirement is not waived, even for experienced miners who have had a break in service. This could result in these experienced team members not rejoining the ranks because of the time commitment placed on the operator. One possible solution could be that requalification is accomplished through a practical exam and/or demonstration of the individual's knowledge of mine rescue apparatus and principles. Pennsylvania is unique in the three types of mining represented. Cross-training is conducted at every opportunity, as we routinely conduct MERD programs at mines of our participants and underground laboratories maintained by MSHA and NIOSH. These exercises are conducted at least two times per year, and are counted toward Part 49 training. We agree that the Part 48 requirements could be satisfied by this type of training. Additionally, we would suggest that operators not overlook mine rescue personnel as a resource to enhance other training programs. For example, mine rescue trainees could be utilized in a company's annual refresher program for subjects such as emergency response, gas detection, communications, firefighting, first aid. Mine rescue team instructors need to have a vast amount of knowledge in the logistics of conducting mine emergency operations. Qualifications which limit the pool of possible instructors should be understood and evaluated. Certainly the knowledge of underground mining methods, equipment, and technologies, as well as practical underground experience, should be part of the required elements for an effective instructor. It should not, however, eliminate the use of mining engineers and other technical personnel, for the purpose of training miners in the principles of mine rescue. Mine rescue has evolved from a program pioneered by the U.S. Bureau of Mines' mine rescue teams who were employed by the Government. Part 49 prescribes the way, but does not provide the means to assure the nation's mines are adequately equipped with the specialized training and equipment needed to protect the rescuers. It has been noted earlier that if the equipment was provided by the Government, this could remove some obstacles from those wanting to have the capabilities, but lacking the resources. The economics of mining drives many decisions of those attempting to do business in the global arena. Any policy or rule that provides resources to stabilize and complement mine rescue training efforts is encouraged. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please feel free to visit our website for specific information on the Commonwealth's mine rescue program. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you. Okay, thank you, Bob. Our next speaker is Kent Armstrong. And Kent, I guess you had something on power-point you wanted to show. So while you are setting that up, if you want to take and stretch your legs, or use the bathroom real quick, or grab another cup of coffee, we'll take about five minutes until we come back. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MR. PAVLOVICH: Our next speaker is Kent Armstrong, with Draeger Safety. Kent? MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. Kent Armstrong, A-R-M-S-T-R-O-N-G, Kent, K-E-N-T. I am the Business Unit Manager for Mining and Mining Products for Draeger Safety within the NAFTA Region. That includes Canada, the U.S., Mexico, and Central America. I'd like to clarify a few issues while I'm here, that primarily being the BG 174. In 1998, our Market Manager, Mary Dawn, and I visited Germany for a business unit meeting within the mining groups. That included people from South Africa, Australia, South America, the NAFTA Region, Europe, both Central Europe, Russia, et cetera, to discuss the BG 174. And what our position had to be. We were told by our very senior management and our production people at Draeger that it would be very difficult to continue on making spare parts and making equipment to equip the BG 174 much longer. The outside manufacturers that make certain dies, that make certain parts, that make certain pieces would have to replace these dies at a very, very expensive cost. They could not see this as a worthwhile endeavor to continue on doing that, both in an economic situation and within business operations at Draeger. We, as a group, sat down in 1998 and said we have to look after the industry that we had out there. We estimated worldwide we had close to 38,000 BG 174s in service, and 174-As. We had to look after the industry. That gave us, we said, until 1996, at the end of 1996, to our manufacturers, that they will continue to make parts and supply us parts that we can sell to the industry. Giving you eight years to maintain, make financial investments, do what you have to do to make a changeover. It was too costly for Draeger and our outside suppliers to continue to make those parts. So by the end of 1996, Draeger will continue to manufacture parts. Where does that put the teams in respect to this? We will do every effort to maintain the supply of parts within Draeger, through to 1996, have them available. After that date, it's up to the industry and what's available on the marketplace at that time. When that's past, that's up to the supply and demand and what has been made at Draeger after that point. So we're making a stand at that point. Yes? VOICE: Two-thousand-six. MR. ARMSTRONG: Oh, 2006. Sorry, 2006. Nineteen-ninety-eight to 2006. I'll get into the right millennium here. Two-thousand-six, the end of 2006 will be the end of the supply of spare parts. Okay? So let's get that clarified right here, right now. That's in stone. That is not apparently going to change. It will not change. Okay. I'd like to thank Mr. Lauriski, Joe, and Ed for having us here today and having an opportunity to speak to the group. I'd like to bring up a few issues regarding the manufacturer's point of view, and maybe some comments that we can add into the future of mine rescue. A little history. There is the Draeger NAFTA Region which we are responsible for, which we continually work with. Our operation started in 1989, headquartered in Germany, research and design, gas detection, warning systems, breathing protection, and filter technology. Right now we have about 8200 employees worldwide, and roughly a billion, $1.2 billion in U.S. dollar sales per year. In 1989, in 1889, Draeger formed in Lubeck, Germany with seven employees. The first patent was a, believe it or not, was a valve to pressurize beer vessels. In 1984, Draeger developed the first closed-circuit respiratory protection apparatus for miners using carbon dioxide absorbers. In 1984, Draeger wins an award at the St. Louis World's Fair for anesthesia machines. Draeger has two divisions; basically, safety and medical. In 1915, Draeger sold the New York Fire Department its, it equipped it with the Draeger breathing apparatus, 1915. In 1910 we developed dive rescue units for submarine crews. We did the first dive simulators back in 1911. In '33 we developed the CO meter with electrical data transmission. And in 1939, mine rescue teams are called Draegermen. The Draegermen appeared in the first Superman comic, in 1939. In '47 was, we developed the first iron lung for the treatment of polio. Draeger pioneered that process. In '51, the first portable incubators in hospitals were developed within our Medical Group. Where we started in 1977, the Draeger time line at National Draeger, Draeger America Subsidiary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, serving the coal mining industries and industries in the region. Our rebreather technology, 1904 is the first rebreather. In '63, the 174-A, the LAR-5 diving apparatus, and the BG 4 rebreather in 2000. Equipping a mine rescue team. A lot of points were made up about the cost. We understand the needs. We would really like to, I'd like to relate this to Draeger as a company, worldwide, recognize those concerns. When I speak about having concerns about equipping a team, we had a gentleman visit a few years ago from South Africa, a mine rescue competition, a gentleman by the name of Christor DeClerk. Christor is the Manager of Mine Rescue, South Africa. Christor had a very serious concern regarding our timeline between 1998 and 2006, because he had to replace 1,400 BG 174s. He is replacing them on a reorganizational scheme of going back to 1,000 BG 4s. Ontario Mine Rescue, Ontario is now looking at purchasing 405 units to replace 525 units. Close to $3 million of replacement costs. They had to go to their organizations, they have to go to their mining groups and come up with an awful lot of money. We had to give them that timeline. We had to partner with them. We had to show them the benefits and show them the costs of where they could save money, and what is the long-term effect of going to the BG-4. I'd like to say right now, as Christor set up his timeline, he has now received 700 BG 4s of his total 1,000. He is taking the three-year plan to put them into implementation. He has over 1200 mine rescue volunteers that he has to train as part of that program to put in. So those are major costs, especially when the Rand has been devalued by nearly 20 percent in the last two years, against the U.S. dollar, and now the Euro. So that's a major undertaking that had to take place. We recognize that. That's why we gave the timeline of eight years, giving the organizations and companies hopefully time to assess their financial situation, and start preparing for the future. We see it at Draeger, along with our distributors, the CSC Corporation, our distributors in the east, DXP Safety Master in the west, as a partnership with the mining companies and the mining organizations, the state and the federal organizations, to be part of this transitional period involving training, implementation, and looking at other avenues to support the cost of mine rescue. I hope you can see this. But what we had is a basic, if you were starting, we had a gentleman from West Virginia mention that he had just started a team. This is broken down in a quotation form. If you had nothing, if you were just opening your doors, you were going into a mine, you were going to start up, this is what you basically need for 14 apparatuses. Which comes out to $122,802.30. All right, that's for the coffee after. That's what, basic-line cost if you went out and said I'm going to start off buying everything new. Now, for people that would be having 174 teams, the cylinders on the BG 174 are used on the BG 4, so you don't have to replace the cylinder. That cost is relieved. You don't have to buy new face pieces, because you can use the same face pieces by changing the front housing connection, so that cost is removed. So if you presently have equipment in place, we can reduce that off that, that cost there. Now, what I did was I took a lease option. We see a lot more organizations. We see fire services, we see many more organizations traditionally not getting into leasing to be buying fire trucks on lease, to be buying breathing apparatuses on lease, over a longer period of time, amortizing the dollars. So I broke it basically out into 36 months, approximate monthly payment, and a 60-month. You will see up there, for the $122,000, that monthly payment of $2,636.02 over the 60 months, and a buy-out of one dollar at the end, the equipment is owned by the mining company. Remembering that if you have your cylinders in place, you have your face pieces -- and this isn't off the top -- we probably could take $20,000 off that. Let's say we run with a figure of $100,000 for 14 apparatuses. That would come down to probably $2200 or $2300 a month for 60 months, the equipment's yours. So if you were talking about financing, you were talking about going out and acquiring new equipment, if you budgeted on a monthly basis, on a yearly basis, over five years you could be up and running. We also have a rental program at Draeger and Draeger Pittsburgh. Also, this can be coordinated through our local distribution. We will call CCBAs, which is closed-circuit breathing apparatuses, SCBAs, gas detection, and portable instruments. We heard the cost of coming to the academy and bringing apparatuses, if you're doing that, going to places such as this. We have a full rental program at Draeger where you can rent it by the day, week, or month. We'll ship it to the site that you will primarily be using it at. And this also can be as back-up equipment, et cetera, when you're in a mine emergency session. All this equipment is ready to go, tested, on the shelf, can be utilized at any time. So you can add that into your criteria when you're looking at planning and mine rescue emergency back-up systems. Certification and training. Draeger took a more active role about four years ago with mining and mining products in the United States. One of our areas of concern was the level of, of training, the level of certification, both on the BG 174-A and the BG 4. Through our methods of distribution in the past, they had, the distributor had issued, had not issued certain certificates of training. We worry about this a lot at Draeger. We are in a position of liability when training and certifying people. Also, under our ISO program, is we issue certifications for the individuals being trained. So it's very critical that we raise the level within this country of the people that are trained to a level to maintain the equipment in a proper manner. We saw in the past where, at certain mining companies and mining operations, there had been a traditional history of one gentleman retired, but he had trained the next guy; and that guy had gone on to another job. So he trained somebody else. And in the whole transition, as you know, something was lost in the translation. Very critical that we got on board and we got onto our programs, and we raised the level of this certification. And I'd just like to touch on that briefly. Level one is where we come in with your basic mine rescue team members, and we do a use-care-maintenance. That covers setting up, using the apparatus, caring for the apparatus, washing, reassembling, and putting back together. The area that we're really trying to raise is the level two, which is a two-year certified course, which includes everything of level one, plus complete component testing, repair, and service. This is what we call the bench testing. Without it, we can't use bench testing, we have to use levels of certification. This is what our benchmen, or this is what we say our benchpeople should be qualified to a certified level to do. Okay? We have to be aware. We have offered training programs. We offer training programs on the sale of apparatuses to go in and make sure that the people that are maintaining these apparatuses, that are going to the mine sites, that are going to the mine emergencies, have the competency to properly maintain the equipment to Draeger's specifications, as the manufacturer. Thank you. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Kent. Our next speaker is Bob Peluso. And Bob will be representing today the National Mine Rescue Association. Bob? MR. PELUSO: My name is Bob Peluso, P-E-L-U-S-O. And on behalf of the National Mine Rescue Association and the Veterans of Mine Rescue for the Pittsburgh District, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity. The National Mine Rescue Association was started in 1924, and maintains 12 posts throughout the United States. The Veterans of Mine Rescue of Pittsburgh District was founded in 1928. The object, the mission of the organizations are for the advancement of the science and engineering practices related to the prevention and control of mine fires and explosions, the safety and effective methods of mine rescue and recovery operations following mine fires and explosions, the professional improvement of its members, and the encouragement of social activities among persons who have been engaged in mine rescue and recovery operations. One of the major efforts of the National Mine Rescue Association and the Veterans over the last several years has been to address several issues. The first issue was lifelines. And what we have looked at in that issue was the different techniques, and also the communication associated with lifelines. The second issue we investigated was the incident command system. And that addressed the management of an emergency situation using flow charts to show how, how the work should be coordinated; and also, it brought out to the fact that maybe in addressing new regulations, there would be a requirement for management to be trained. And this is being done right now in several locations. I could tell you for -- and I think you know this -- a lot of the districts do that type of training for the management. Also, I know in the state of Pennsylvania, they require management to attend one of those two sessions that were mentioned earlier. The third issue that was developed by the Veterans and the National Mine Rescue Association dealt with fire brigades. That addressed the issue of first responders, the type of equipment, the training, and the conduct of fire brigades. And the fourth issue paper that we developed was the mutual aid agreement. And the mutual aid agreement dealt with issues that had been raised by other speakers on liability. And this particular issue says that in order to have a program for mine rescue where there is cooperation between two different organizations, two different mining organizations, that a contract would be required to serve as the basis for that mutual agreement. All of these issues that I just discussed are available on our website: www.miningorganizations.org. I want to mention one other activity that we've been involved in in the last several years. Working with some high-tech computer program people, we developed a demonstration CD that could be used to train mine rescue team members. We demonstrated this at our, at our national meeting two years ago, and with rather successful results. The funding for such an operation is, is considerable. And what we'd like to do is recommend that the Agency, both MSHA and NIOSH, look into the possibility of using this type of training in their programs. Also, there are a couple of issues that, that are not the National Mine Rescue Association and/or the Veterans, but we've addressed them in some fashion, that I'd like to bring out today. And one has to do with the funding. I'd like to point out that the Federal Emergency Management Agency provides funds for different organizations throughout the United States. And those organizations are responders to occurrences like 9/11. And so that's, there is a possibility that the Agency can work out some kind of relationship for funding through FEMA. One other final point, and that deals with what's going on in the rest of the world. There are foreign countries that have addressed these issues, and some of their programs should be investigated. Also, I've viewed several contests in foreign countries. And their contests are significantly more complicated than contests that are in the U.S. I think the United States would merit, would benefit from the merits of some of these efforts. Again, on behalf of the National Mine Rescue Association and the Veterans, thank you for this opportunity. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Bob. Let me make an announcement before we continue. We mentioned that we would accept written comments for a 30-day period. And those can be sent to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. And that address is 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, 22203. Or if you'd like to email comments in, they can be sent to comments, C-O-M-M-E-N-T-S, @msha.gov, G-O-V. Okay? And we also intend to make -- yes, Rick? MR. HICKMAN: Joe, is there any attention to, on either of those, presented to the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, is there attention to any one particular -- MR. PAVLOVICH: No. No, it'll go directly to that department. And what we intend to do is any of these submitted comments, so that we could make those also public, will be available on MSHA's website. Okay. That was the last speaker that we had signed up. I would like to ask, is anyone else in the audience interested in coming up and giving us any comments or suggestions or ideas? And we certainly would encourage that. MR. DAVIS: Very briefly, Wayne Davis, state of Virginia. A lot of the comments has already been covered. Some things I see as a state agency in MSHA we need to get on board with, before I say anything else, is that why does anybody want to be a mine rescue member? If you really look at what is facing you as a member, it really don't make sense, does it? But several years back, under National Mine Rescue Rules, there's a little emblem right down on the bottom of the right side, that said, "A Special Breed." And you have to be a special breed to even fathom being a person involved in this. Because when you think of yourself, what you're facing if you've got a disaster, you've got to go underground to try to rescue somebody, dead or alive, and you have a family at home. You're putting your life in that danger. And without a doubt, you are a special breed. And I think we should comment on that. Why do you stay with it 20, 30 years? Because, like our firefighters in New York, I mean, how many did we lose? And yet today, we have firefighters that would do the same. And even in here today, if we leave here today and go down the road, and you see a home on fire, and there was a life in there, who would not stop and risk your life to save theirs? With that said, I think there's three things that we face today as far as mine rescue. It's cost. It's the age of the members that we have; we're old. And it's the resources that are available. Like Mr. Hickman said, if I have three foremen, and I have to use two of them one day to practice, that takes away from my resources of the livelihood to even have the team. Next thing is education and training, which was, already has been spoken to, and I'll briefly speak on it. As far as mine rescue training, there's two areas that we need to address. One of them, as problem designers in mine rescue, MSHA state trainers, are we going to step it up a notch? Or are we going to continue to do what we're doing? Are we going to bring in the command centers, fresh air base, brief/debrief, inner problems or on the training fields? Are we going to do that? What's reality? There's a limit to the problems in which we can bring reality into those. But we can step them up a notch and bring the absolutely most reality into those problems that we can. And we can do this by command centers, briefing and debriefing, having teams work together. Put as much into it as we can. Also, with that, our MERD exercises. Underground MERD exercises. Of course, in the state of Virginia we had two of those last year. And the knowledge that just the teams obtained from one problem to the next was unreal. Not only that, but every one of these that we put on, it's not only the teams that really gets the knowledge, it's the company, the management, state and federal, just figuring out what to do, and to get organized. Every one of these that I've ever been to, and still present, getting organized up front just to get underground is a major task. And then when you put four or five different entities in that organization, it makes it rough, it makes it tougher. But if you want to do what we're going to be faced with, try your underground MERD. Organize it, set it up just like a real disaster. And everybody will learn. Not only that, within the training -- of course, we can look at Part 49, and we can look at Part 48, too -- every time an individual is away from the mines for mine rescue training, of course Mr. Vicini's already addressed it, about giving the maximum credit for that mine rescue training that you can get, whether it's a contest, whether it's on the practice field at the mine, get the maximum credit. I know we're required eight hours every two months. Every six months you're required underground. Within that year, you know, January to December, annual, give it the maximum credit. If you can carry it over, if you practice for a contest and you go to two or three contests, that can be designed to suit emergency situation. Give a credit if we carry it over to another month, or another two or three months, within that year give the maximum credits that are available. Not only to 49 for the rescue teams, but let's carry it back over into 48. If we can arrange that training to do some of those refresher parts, ventilation, whatever is required in your training plan, let's give them credit -- four, six hours, if it's eight hours -- give them credit for Part 48 for your refresher. That takes that individual and puts him back where he needs to be that day, where he'd have to be in training. Also those team members. If we can carry training over for months, within that year, that puts him back where he needs to be. Also within that training, whether you have to evaluate it or not, if it's in mine rescue problems, design the problems that it meets some of that criteria, not only for Part 49 but for Part 48. I've heard state grants mentioned. MSHA giving incentives, funding, the cost to maintain a rescue team. Members away from their jobs for that training, for contests, for whatever. Not only that, but incentives for younger people. If you go to a contest, probably the average age, I have no idea, but I would say it's 40 and above. Where are the younger people at? What's the incentives for those to get in there? Not only that, if we could have grants available, what is available out there? What could be available? Where could you go to get some money? Not only to maintain the equipment, the supplies, but give that operator some money for having a team. Distribute it up. Make it available. If a new member, if you was to get a new member, and they are far and few between, quality of training -- of course, Joe mentioned quality of training. It's been mentioned several times in here today, about cross-training, metal/nonmetal with the underground. That's a highly possibility, good possibility. A lot of things in your firefighting, as far as your fire departments, can carry over. But as far as your quality training, if we can step our training up a notch where we need to be, make it mine-related, make it disaster-related, the quality will be there. Now, how do we get members involved to get into that quality training? Teams have declined since '85. Of course, you've already heard the number how far. I remember in the nationals in the early eighties, first-come, first-served basis. They cut you off if you didn't sign up. And a lot of times you was limited to one team per company. Now they beg you to come, because there's nobody out there. If we address the problem. Of course, as mines goes out of business, those companies that had teams are no longer, don't own it, no longer even have operations. In speaking to what can we do, I would look at several things. Are there special funds available? If there are, where can we find them? How do we go about writing grants to get them? Or what do we do to get them? Ways to give the maximum credit for the training that you receive, Part 48 or Part 49. Is there a need to update Part 49? We talked about a member may be on a team for 20 years. He may go somewhere else for a year or two. Has all the qualifications in the world. But when he comes back, does he have to go back through that 20 hours again? Is there some way that that can be rewritten to give partial training to him to get him back to active? Does MSHA have a contingency plan if more rescue teams goes out? Especially in the state of Virginia, that we cover a lot of operations with state-designated teams that are contracted from other organizations within the state, companies that have mine rescue teams. If all those teams goes out in the requirement, is there a contingency plan to deal with that? And the last thing I will speak to is, I've talked to training, is there a way -- and Jim talked on this earlier -- is there a way to carry contest training over to, not within that two-month frame, can it be legally or can it be addressed that those hours can be carried on that year towards the end of the year for training, and the members actually don't have to come and train? They can carry that training over? Thank you for your time. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Wayne. Appreciate it. I saw someone else. Gerald, was that you had your hand up? Oh, okay. This gentleman back here. MR. UNDERWOOD: Thank you. My name is Kim Underwood. That is K-I-M, U-N-D-E-R-W-O-O-D. And I am with the State of Illinois Office of Mines and Minerals, Department of Natural Resources. And currently I have the title of Supervisor of Training and Education for the state. And I have had a number of titles in the past, and worked in the mining industry starting in 1974. I was a rank-and-file member, and then in various management positions, with Zeigler Coal Company, and for seven years was on a mine rescue team. And currently, of course, I'm in charge of the state's training. And I just wanted to make a couple of comments, because we are, I think we're all on the same page, but maybe taking a little bit different approach. But in the state of Illinois, in the early 1900s, state law established that we put together rescue stations around the state. So at one time we had six, right now we currently have four mine rescue stations in the state of Illinois. All four of those are fully equipped, two of them with the Draeger apparatuses, two of them have the bio-marine packs. We have the latest equipment. We have, of course, everything that we would ever need, the trucks, et cetera. At two of our stations, Benton and our Springfield Station, we have two rescue teams at each operation. All four of our stations do have a full-time superintendent. Each person is well qualified in mine rescue. They have come out of the mining industry, have a mining background. At the one station in Benton, we have all of our state rescue, or I'm sorry, our state mine inspectors are on that rescue team, cross-trained in a number of things, from HAZMAT to, we have seismic equipment if we have an earthquake in -- southern Illinois, as some of you may know, is on a fault, if we have an earthquake situation. We do rappelling. Some of it sounds like maybe we are out of our realm. But a few years ago, when some teenagers were lost in a cave, the smiles on their parents' face when our rescue team came walking them out of that cave was something I think that everybody still remembers. So we feel pretty good about that. I guess you could say we just contract out. We cover every mine in the state of Illinois. Every mine there has a letter from us that we cover them for mine rescue. Some of them still, of course, have their own mine rescue teams, and some very good ones. But they are dwindling, and it's a concern. And my concern is more of a quality issue, too, of trying to get our teams up and going, making sure that they are the best that they can be. We've gone, in the last few years, I can remember in 1985 when we probably had 30 mine rescue teams sponsored by the coal companies in Illinois. Last year at our rescue contest we had 12 teams compete, four were out of state. So we only had eight in state. And of those eight, I speculate we're going to lose two this year. The lady that commented from CONSOL, our Renn Lake Mine down there is at an idle status starting later in the summer. I would speculate that they probably won't be around to compete. I've not heard that officially, but we have another large mine in the state that's already indicated that they're going to back off of a lot of their mine rescue training. So that may just put us down to six additional teams in the state. The team from Renn Lake, CONSOL last year was our state champions. In 1999 our Marissa Peabody Mine was -- Marissa Mine is now closed -- were national champions. We have lost a lot of expertise. Where are we going to pick that up? I'm not quite sure yet. But we're making an effort to try to do that. We are talking, just as a point of thought, we're talking with some of the mines that currently do have rescue teams, but are discussing slowing down their efforts with mine rescue. We are discussing with them about picking up the slack, of being more proactive with first responder teams. Some of this goes along, I think, with other comments from the gentleman with the BCOA. But we're actually in discussions with people about the fact that they would, if they're going to back off on their mine rescue teams, if they would give us a number of their mine rescue team members for us to take and put on our state team. We would -- then, of course, there are some other issues there. One, of course, as everybody has talked about, funding. But we would take the approach that the state would come up with some more money, along with the coal operator, to do additional training, better quality training. I think a number of things that we've discussed here today, you've got some great ideas. The gentleman from the salt mine indicated that work in metal/nonmetal and coal, I think any time we're inclusive, we're all going to win, we're going to get ahead. I think the gentleman from Jim Walters Resources talked about a training contest type of thing, which I've always thought would work. I mean, we all do the war games, as I call it. And how well that prepares us, it's probably as good as it can be. I think the facility out here that's been mentioned is a piece of the training that everybody should go through. And I'm hoping that we'll get our state teams out here in the next year, from Illinois. But I think that, as we go through this process, I hope that while we're all here, I hope that MSHA makes sure they talk to specific team members and people that are actually, the guys that are out there. I don't want to call them the grunts, I've heard them called that, but the people in the trenches that are doing the work, that maybe can help with some of their thoughts and ideas on what we can do and how we can better enhance mine rescue training, and provide for more and better quality teams. Mine rescue personnel, as indicated, they usually, they seem to be the cream of the crop and they rise to the top. They get into better positions with their companies. You take any given day and you take 15, 16 people away from a mining operation, it gets pretty difficult. A lot of operators I've talked to, the budget, the money isn't as big a problem with them; for them, it's the fact of people away from the mine. That losing those people and that day of production. And then from my end of it, and I throw this spin onto it, it causes a ripple effect. Because when they're gone from the mine, you've got to fill in with another person. And we do have a lot of new miners coming in. And so now we're having a situation there of a safety concern, of somebody coming in and maybe doing a job that they're not always familiar with. I will say that's my opinion, and I should have said at the start. Let me say that these are probably all my opinions, and these aren't the official position of the state of Illinois, okay? So I'll throw that in there. I would like to mention, though, something that somebody indicated about the MSHA grants. And it was probably, I lose track of time, 12 or 15 years ago, when my counterpart, who was, at that time he was the Assistant Director of Surface Safety in the State of Illinois, Sam Vancil, set up a meeting in Mount Vernon with Mr. Main. That's the first time I met Joe. I don't know if we've run across each other since; I think we probably have a time or two. But at that time, that meeting was to discuss the MSHA grant funding. Everybody was nervous about trying -- let me retract that. Different entities around the country were very nervous about trying to attempt to get additional funding for that grant. And with Joe's help, and I will give him most of the credit there, our appropriations were increased. About that time, though, I believe every other state, or several other states found this little pot of gold that we had kind of kept secret for a while, and got on board with this. I would say that the MSHA state grants is a big portion of why the state of Illinois has first-rate equipment. We have been able to utilize that grant, along with what we get from our state appropriations. And we have excellent equipment. But it came from that grant. And so with Joe's help, we were able to do that. Maybe we are at a point in time where we need to start looking at that. I know we all point to MSHA and say, hey, you're the guys, you need to do it. But they need some help. I mean, in Illinois we have got a gentleman named Dennis Hastert, who is Speaker of the House. I am sure that maybe we could get with him. We've got another one, Congressman Ray LaHood, who seems to be fairly influential in some cases. And I think if we make our case, and this year being an election year for a lot of people, it may help everybody's cause in here, because it just seems that it only makes sense that we try to focus on some things and increase some budgets in some areas where it's needed. I think if we take a nationwide approach -- we all know what happened in 9/11. Everybody was ready to jump on board and dig in. I think if we take a nationwide approach. I don't know if we've got an answer to coming back with more teams. But certainly we can have an impact on the quality of teams. And maybe along with that quality, once we get that, some people will realize how important this is and how solid these efforts are from these people, and maybe we will get some more numbers out there. So with that, I would just like to say thank you. I appreciate you allowing me to take a couple minutes. And we have a website, I don't have the website number, in the state of Illinois. But my phone number is (217) 782-7676. And if there's anything I can help you with, or in Illinois, we go through our channels there. Department of Natural Resources, they're very proactive on the political scene. So if there's anything we can help anybody with that's trying to maybe maximize their funding, et cetera, we'd be probably glad to help with that. So thank you. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Kim. Anyone else that would like to give us any comments or suggestions? Okay. Let me just, before we close things out, there were some numbers referenced earlier and some other things. And I know many of you would like to provide some written comments. And I don't think everybody got a copy of this sheet. But some of the information that was referenced, we did a survey, and I want to compliment Virgil Brown on some of the work that he has done on compiling information on rescue teams. If any of you look at the MSHA website, look at the mine rescue area, and you'll see that every team that we know of in the country that is providing coverage, and those that even are not providing coverage, is listed on that website. With contact persons, type of apparatus, a lot of other additional information. And I want to commend Virgil on that, because he does that survey by telephone every year to some probably 300 operations, 250, somewhere in that range. The numbers that we took about, sometime in 2000 were coal teams, we had 133 teams that were covering 837 mines. Of those teams, 133 teams, 71 of them were funded by companies, which is just over -- pardon me? Can I repeat it? Yes. A hundred and 33 coal teams covering at that time 837 mines. Seventy-one of those were company-funded teams. So the remainder of those were some organization or state or a private mine rescue station that was selling services or contracting services. The company-funded teams provided services for 235 mines. So the 71 company-funded teams covered 235 of the underground mines. Which meant that about 600 were covered by a non-company team, or the majority of mines were covered by non-company-funded teams. We also poll how many teams participate in some kind of a contest or an exercise, a MERD exercise, other than, something other than just the normal four hours a month or eight hours every two months. And of those 133 teams in coal, 75 were participating. So about half. On the metal/nonmetal side, Virgil did the same poll, came up with 116 teams covering a total of 259 mines, underground mines. And again, there probably are many more underground metal mines that don't have mine rescue coverage because they fall into one of the alternate coverage zones. But 116 teams covered 259 mines, which is a significantly different ratio than the coal side. Of that 116, 99 were company-funded, or the good majority were company-funded. And those company-funded teams covered 219 of the 259 mines. Metal also had a better ratio of participating teams, as we said, participating in contests, with 84 teams that participated in some exercise other than normal, than the normal type of training. Now, I don't have all that same information for the year 2000, but we'll cover what we have for that. And we could very easily get that information; we just don't have it with us. But for 2000, the total teams in coal are down to 118. So you can see, in two years we went from 133 -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Two-thousand-two. MR. PAVLOVICH: What did I say? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Two-thousand. MR. PAVLOVICH: I'm sorry. So from 2000 with 133 teams, in 2002 we went to 118. So you can see a significant drop in teams over a two-year period. And our number of competition teams or teams that participated in an exercise went from 75 down to 66. So again, that's a significant drop. On the metal side, for 2002, we're still showing 116 teams, which basically -- well, not basically, it stayed the same. Although in 2001, you had an increase to 128, and then it dropped back to 116 in 2002. So 2000 in metal, 116 teams; 2001, 128; and 2002, back to 116. The teams that competed in some kind of a competition for metal was 86, which was an increase of, by two over a two-year period. Now, I realize if we look at those numbers and some of the comments that were made, we have several stations out there that are meeting the Part 49 requirement of two teams per station. And I know we also have several, say, non-coverage stations that are located at mines that have one team. And basically, Part 49 says if you don't have two teams, you're not a coverage station. So the teams, for example the ones in Kentucky, the state that I'm now most familiar with, there are five teams at mines that can't even use their own team as a coverage team for their own mine, because they are a one-team station. And we'll entertain any comments in that area, if anyone would wish to comment on that. I guess not. Okay. All right, anything you want to add, Eddie? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, I think it's all been said. MR. PAVLOVICH: Okay. Joe? MR. MAIN: I see we are getting ready to close up here. I just want to make two comments before we do. One is that I have had the personal opportunity to work with rescue teams over the last several years. And it has been pointed out, they're a special breed of folks. And I know Dale Byram has been asked this question, I have, many times, of why do those guys do that. And it is something that we didn't spend a lot of time here on, that we're getting less folks that answer that call. We have a situation where most of the mining community is what you see in this room, about the same age as are sitting here. And I think it's something that we do, as we fix this problem, we have to figure that out. And I know, when I look at my rescue teams, we had a dinner down there, and everybody had their hats off. Wasn't a whole lot of folks with a lot of hair, was there, Dale? I mean, and that was a crew that we relied on in Alabama that signifies where we're at. And another five, six, seven years from now, you know, we're going to be hurting. And one thing connected with the Alabama experience. Although I pointed out we had, I think, some of the highest-quality folks doing one of the best jobs around, we exhausted every pound of mine rescue resource that we had in Alabama to get that done. And there was days that Dale and some of us had to deal with some tired soldiers, and we had to do a little bit of shuffling around just to keep that exercise going with what we had there. So even in the best of circumstances, we scraped the bottom of the barrel, I think, to get that done. And my last comment is that, as many of us have said, we've been doing this, these conferences, I think my first one was back in the early nineties. Talking about the same things. We do have to figure out some way to bring all of this to a solution, and I think rather quickly, and put something on a track that brings some finality to saving the mine rescue teams that we have, beefing up the team structure, getting quality back in the programs, getting quality training, relooking at the whole training model. I think that's something that we really need to do. It is a cost-cost-cost issue. And I sit back and say why does one company spend $250,000 and try to do the right thing, and others don't? And, you know, they sort of win if they don't have a mine emergency. I mean, that's not a good way to have the system running. We've got to figure out a way to bring parity across the board so you don't have those folks who are doing the right thing paying the, you know, paying the real price for this. But we're going to do whatever we can to fix this problem. We owe it to the miners, we owe it to the rescue teams that's out there that we depend on every day. And we owe it to ourselves, because we're going to be in a heck of a mess here if we don't figure out a solution to this. Thank you. MR. PAVLOVICH: Thank you, Joe. Okay, with that, I certainly appreciate your attendance today, and your comments, and the participation that we had. And I think we had a good group here. As I said, we'll post this. We'll also be expecting several more comments in the next 30 days. And I thank you all for attending. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the meeting was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE DOCKET NO.: N/A CASE TITLE: MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC MEETING HEARING DATE: March 28, 2002 LOCATION: Beaver, West Virginia I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the Department of Health and Human Services. Date: March 28, 2002 Mary Ann Francis Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation Suite 600 1220 L Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005-4018