DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

              MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

                    PUBLIC MEETING - TRAINING



                            Thursday, 

                        December 17, 1998



                         Doubletree Hotel

                        222 North Vineyard

                       Ontario, California








          

  




Pages:  1 through 133

Place:  Ontario, California

Date:   December 17, 1998                             DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                    MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
                          PUBLIC MEETING - TRAINING
        
                                  Thursday, 
                              December 17, 1998
        
                               Doubletree Hotel
                              222 North Vineyard
                             Ontario, California
        
        
        
        
        
        
        BEFORE:
        
        Chairperson Kathy Alejandro
        Rodric M. Breland
        Kevin Burns
        Roslyn Fountain
        
                                          I N D E X
        
                                                                 Page
        
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. C. DUANE NIESEN                            9
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. TONY SERPAS                               46
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. MALCOLME DRIGGS                           64
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. PETER WARD                                69
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. DANNY LOWE                                79
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. PHIL GAYNOR                               90
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. LARRY NELSON                             100
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD DE ATLEY                         107
        
        STATEMENT OF MR. GERN HALLENBECK                          117
        
        
        
        
        
        
                                    P R O C E E D I N G S
                                                          (8:15 a.m.)
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Good morning.  My name is
        Kathy Alejandro.  I am with Metal and Non-Metal Mine Safety
        and Health, Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
        Department of Labor and on behalf of the Mine Safety and
        Health Administration I would like welcome you the fifth of
        seven public meetings on regulations for miner safety and
        health training.
                         These meetings are intended to give individuals
        and organizations including miners and their representatives
        and mine operators both large and small an opportunity to
        present their views on the types of requirements that will
        result in the most effective miner safety and health
        training.  These regulations would be appled at those
        nonmetal surface mines where MSHA currently cannot enforce
        existing training requirements.
                         I would like to take this opportunity to introduce
        the members of the MSHA panel are here with me this morning.
                         To my left is Roslyn Fontaine who is with MSHA's
        office of standards, regulations, and variances.  To my
        immediate right is Kevin Burns who is also with Metal and
        Non- metal Safety and Health.  And to my far right is Ron
        Breland who is the western operations manager of the newly
        formed Educational Field Services within MSHA.
                         Since 1979 MSHA has been guided by a rider to its
        appropriations.  The restriction currently states that:
                                          . . . none of the funds appropriated . . . shall
                         be obligated or expended to carry out section 115
                         of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
                         or to carry out that portion of section 104(g)1 of
                         such Act relating to the enforcement of any
                         training requirements, with respect to shell
                         dredging, or with respect to any sand, gravel,
                         surface stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate,
                         or surface limestone mine.  
                         In the Omnibus Budget passed by Congress on
        October 21, 1998, MSHA  was directed to:
                                          . . . work with the affected industries, mine
                         operators, workers, labor organizations, and other
                         affected and interested parties to promulgate
                         final training regulations for the affected
                         industries by September 30, 1999.  It is
                         understood that these regulations are to be based
                         on a draft submitted to MSHA by the Coalition {for
                         Effective Miner Training} no later than February
                         1, 1999.
                         MSHA expects to publish a proposed regulation in
        the Federal Register some time in early spring of 1999.
                         The regulations that MSHA will be developing must
        include the minimum requirements in Section 115 of the
        Federal Mine Safety and Healthy Act of 1977 (Mine Act).  To
        summarize those requirements:  Section 115 provides that
        every mine operator shall have a health and safety training
        program that is approved by the Secretary of Labor, and that
        complies with certain requirements.  Section 115 specifies
        that surface miners are to receive no less than 24 hours of
        new miner training, no less than eight hours of refresher
        training annually, and task training for new work
        assignments.  Section 115 also requires that the training
        cover specific subject areas; provides that training is to
        be conducted during normal work hours at normal rates of
        pay; requires that miners be reimbursed for additional costs
        they incur incidental to this training; and provides that
        mine operators must maintain miners' training certificates
        and furnish such records to the miners.
                         In addition, MSHA is looking for suggestions and
        comments as to how best to achieve effective miner safety
        and health training, consistent with the Mine Act, including
        any additional requirements that should be included in the
        proposed rule, and most importantly why.
                         Four meetings have already been held in
        Northbrook, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Albany, New York;
        and Portland, Oregon.  Two other public meetings will be
        held at other locations on the week after New Year's in
        Dallas and Atlanta, Georgia; and this is designed to give as
        many individuals and organizations as possible an
        opportunity to present their views.
                         This meeting will be conducted in an informal
        manner, and a court reporter is making a transcript of the
        proceedings.  Anyone who has not signed up in advance to
        speak at the meeting and who wishes to do so should sign up
        on the speakers' list which is currently located on this
        table but it will be available for you at a break.  We also
        ask that everyone who is here today, whether or not you wish
        to speak, to sign the attendance sheet which is located on
        the small table on as you immediately as you come into the
        room.  
                         Anyone who wishes may also submit written
        statements and information to us either during the course of
        this meeting or afterwards and we will include these
        submissions as part of the record as a proposed rule is
        developed.
                         Although there is no formal deadline for
        submitting written comments I would strongly encourage you
        to submit anything that you wish to be considered by no
        later than February 1, 1999, to ensure that your comments
        are fully considered as we develop the proposed rule.  If
        you, the comments should be sent to, if you've got a copy of
        the meeting notice, sent to the Office of Standards,
        Regulations, and Variances; and the address is in the
        meeting notice, but I can give you that address later if you
        need it.
                         Although we are most interested in what you have
        to say to us, we will also attempt to answer any questions
        that you may have as the meeting proceeds to clarify the
        process or whatever, what the purpose of this meeting is.
                         MSHA is specifically interested in comments that
        address certain areas, although we certainly strongly
        encourage you to comment on any issue related to miner
        safety and health training at currently exempt mines.  These
        issues were outlined in the November 3rd Federal Register
        notice that announced the scheduled of public meetings, and
        I will give you a brief summary of these issues right now.
                                          Should certain terms, including "new Miner" and
                         "experienced miner" be defined?
                                          Which subjects should be taught before a new miner
                         is assigned work, even if the work is done under
                         close supervision?
                                          Should training for inexperienced miners be given
                         all at once, or over a period of time, such as
                         several weeks or months?
                                          Should supervisors be subject to the same training
                         requirements as miners?
                                          Should task training be required whenever a miner
                         receives a work assignment that involves new and
                         unfamiliar tasks?
                                          Should specific subject areas be covered during
                         annual refresher training?  If so, what subject
                         areas should be included?
                                          Can the eight hours of annual refresher training
                         required by the Mine Act be completed in segments
                         of training lasting less than 30 minutes?
                                          Should the records of training be kept by the mine
                         operator at the mine site, or can they be kept at
                         other locations?
                                          And then finally, should there be minimum
                         qualifications for persons who conduct miner
                         training?  If so, what type of qualifications are
                         appropriate?
                         I would now like to introduce the first speaker
        this morning.  We ask that all speakers state and spell
        their names for the court reporter before beginning their
        presentation.  And I would like to thank you all very much
        for coming.  Thank you.
                         The first speaker on our list is Duane Niesen from
        CAL OSHA.  And you can either stand at the podium if you
        wish or sit at the table, whichever is, you are most
        comfortable with.
                         MR. NIESEN:  Better stand as to prove I can.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                       STATEMENT OF MR. C. DUANE NIESEN
                         MR. NIESEN:  My name is first initial C. Duane, D-
        U-A-N-E, Niesen, N-I-E-S-E-N.  And I have to say if I knew I
        was going to be first I'd have called later or something
        like that.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                         MR. NIESEN:  I work the State of California, I'm
        in the 40th year of state employment and I work for CAL
        OSHA.  I've been with them for 25 years.  I work for CAL
        OSHA's mining and tunneling unit which includes the unit
        that I supervise which is a mine safety unit.  My unit
        carries out a state grant assisted program for training
        miners. 
                         The people that I supervise, my trainers and
        myself, on occasion reached about 2500 miners and
        contractors per year which MSHA based training.  Some of it
        is the regular new miners' training, the eight hour
        refresher; and lately MSHA instructor training, supervisor
        training, and some specially tailored courses to fit
        specific mine operators' requirements.
                         I've been in this particular unit for about three
        years.  I was with water resources for about 15 years,
        bringing water to sunny southern California where we now
        enjoy it down here.
                         I've been CAL OSHA since its inception in 1973.  I
        spent 10 years in the field as a compliance inspector in all
        industries in California.  I spent 12 years as a district
        manager in Sacramento, California supervising a staff of
        about 12 industrial hygienist and safety engineers making
        inspections in that district.  I've been involved in one
        type of training or other during all that time.  I was
        especially involved in the inception of what's called
        California's Injury and Illness Prevention Program found in
        California Code of Regulations 3203 which includes also: 
        Training requirement for the State of California enforced by
        CAL OSHA.
                         I'm here this morning to give the views of my unit
        on training for miners in general and to address those
        particular questions found in the Federal Register
        specifically.
                         First of all CAL OSHA believes that training is
        absolutely essential.  I think that the MSHA recognized that
        in 1977 by the Mine Act and by its promulgation in Part 48
        by making it a specification standard.
                         California miners are also subject to CAL OSHA
        regulation in the training area that's addressed by 3203(a)7
        which is a performance oriented standard but it also
        compliments MSHA's specification oriented standard in Part
        48.
                         Because of the nature of the industry, training I
        think is the single most important factor in preventing
        accidents and injuries.  California mining industry is its
        second most dangerous occupation following timber falling
        which is rather small.  California has about 700 active
        mines, 11 or 12,000 active miners and innumerable
        contractors which we're also concerned with now.
                         California's 3203 is a performance oriented
        standard and it is rather broad because it applies to all of
        the California industries from logging to banking.  It
        contains a training requirement that employees must be
        trained in the hazards specifically found in their job
        assignments.  MSHA's Part 48 is most specification oriented
        because it is a standard aimed at a specific industry and I
        think rightly so.
                         There's not much secret about what harms and kills
        miners.  MSHA has done quite a good job in quantifying that,
        keeping track of it, we know the basic problems.  Therefore,
        a specification standard is applicable and Part 48
        enumerates that.
                         I'd like to speak to a couple of the ideas that
        I've heard.  One that individual mine operators should pick
        and choice the subject matter that applies only to their
        mine sites.  I think that is in general unwise because the
        certificate issued by MSHA applies to all mines in the
        United States.  
                         The subject matter contained in Part 48 which is
        pretty much on point when it comes to those things which
        injure miners in general, is true to a certain extent in all
        mine sites especially in California; not just sand and
        gravel, not just underground gold, but major hazards
        enumerated in those training requirements are pretty much
        universally applicable.
                         If individual companies are encouraged to train
        only in those areas that affect their particular mine sites,
        the miners who transfer or move to other jobs will be ill
        prepared for the hazards they run into at other mine sites. 
        And since this certificate as it stands now at least, is
        applicable everywhere.  Those miners should be basically
        grounded in the well known and well documented hazards that
        occur at most mine sites.
                         I've always believed and believe today that sand
        and gravel and the other exempted industries certainly need
        safety training as much as anybody else and I think
        statistics will bear that out.
                         There are certain parts of part 48 which have been
        called too restrictive.  One is the approval of an
        individual mine safety plan, training plan for each mine and
        there may be room for some loosening of that particular
        requirement.  CAL OSHA requires in a parallel requirement
        that it be sort of tailored to the operation that is found
        in any place of employment and that's been successfully in
        the mine.
                         We believe that CAL OSHA's 3203 and part 48
        provide a basic minimum standard for mine safety training. 
        There are people that I have run into in training at mine
        sites who believe that that is the end of the requirement
        and I think it's something like marriage, if you think
        that's the end of it when you go into it, you're sadly
        mistaken and you're going to be in for a pretty rough
        lesson.  
                         I think Part 48 and basic safety training in any
        industry is a minimum basic preparation to prepare new
        employees to face the hazards they're going to run into on
        any particular site.  
                         Mines present certain well recognized hazards and
        to allow a new employee to go to work in a mine site without
        basic grounding in certain hazard recognition and hazard
        mitigation issues both defies the intent of Part 48 but it
        also runs afoul of CAL OSHA's 3203.  It's not allowed, not
        even in any industry at all.
                         And so some of the issues I'm going to speak to
        are based on these basic opinion, I suppose.
                         What I'd like to do now is go down these questions
        very briefly and give an answer and little bit of
        explanation of why we think like we do.
                                          Number one is should certain terms, new miners,
                         and experienced miner be defined, if so how should
                         these terms be defined.
                         As an enforcer of governmental regulation for 30
        odd years, yes, those terms should be very definitely
        defined.  Without definition any regulation is practically
        unenforceable.  I've had all of these impressed upon me in
        the last 25 years.  Any regulation which uses specific terms
        must define those terms.  In fact the definitions sometimes
        determine exactly what those regulations mean and how they
        are applied.  Without them the regulations are pretty much
        meaningless.
                         The miner, new miner, experienced miner are pretty
        well defined now in Part 48.  I really don't see any major
        problems there.  MSHA has a program policy manual which
        further explains some of the regulation and if there is any
        doubt about what those terms really mean or any explanation
        necessary it could certainly be brought out in that
        publication, but they are pretty well defined now and they
        should be kept.
                                          Question two is which of these subjects should be
                         taught before a new miner is assigned work, even
                         if the work is done under close supervision.  
                         As I said before mine hazards and things that
        injure miners are pretty well defined.  People know what
        they are.  Now I've seen any number of MSHA's charts, pie
        charts, bar charts, statistics and all that; California runs
        their own and what hurts miners is not a secret.  Therefore,
        I believe that certain subjects should be mandated in this
        basic fundamental minimal training standard to prepare a new
        person to go to work in a mine.
                         I think there's a proposal out for part 46 on this
        subject matter and the one I saw, pretty much parallels part
        48.  Part 48 seems to address those issues that MSHA has
        identified as being the primary ones for mine safety.  Those
        things that hurt miners.  
                         Two exceptions in the proposal in part 46 that I
        read, let me read down the list.  
                         Statutory rights of miners I think that should be
        included.  Use of self rescue or respiratory devises as
        appropriate.  And we all know that we don't teach self
        rescuer operation for above ground operations like sand and
        gravel.  I don't think that's done anywhere.  I doubt that
        MSHA enforces it out here.  Certainly it's not applicable.  
                         Hazard recognition, that's pretty broad.  It can
        include anything in there.  Unfortunately because it is so
        broad sometimes it's not paid attention to in enough detail. 
        Emergency procedures, that's another broad category. 
        Electrical hazards, very broad.  
                         First aid, MSHA has a very specific requirement on
        first aid for miners.  I don't think it's misunderstood,
        it's pretty plain.  
                         One thing that's not mentioned in the part 46
        proposal that I saw is powered haulies and traffic safety,
        that's the number one killer nationwide in mines.  I think
        that should be specifically singled out, make sure it's not
        missed because those hazards are present on almost all mine
        sites that I'm aware of.  Since it is such a prominent
        subject as far as mine injury and fatalities concerned, it
        should be specifically singled out.
                         Another one which I think should be singled out is
        ground control because in California especially in sand and
        gravel operations that's a very important subject which
        injures a lot of miners.  
                         Walk around training, mine specific, that's in
        part 48 now and I think that's essential.  You can't learn
        all this in the classroom.  I'm the last one to suggest that
        you can.  The classroom as I said before is a basic
        grounding in basic subject matter.  
                         Walk around training should be adaptable and
        adapted to the specific hazards and operations found on a
        mine site.  This is very parallel to 3203 which requires
        specific training for those job site hazards encountered on
        any job.
                         The last one, number ten, that I would recommend
        is health hazards that's a very, very broad category.  But
        in California and especially in the sand and gravel
        industry, I think they, that should specifically include at
        least an orientation on silica hazards.  Silica is largely
        ignored in California by CAL OSHA, wrongly so.
                         I believe that the 24-hour new miner requirement
        and for underground people with 40-hour is a pretty good
        basic start.  I see no reason in changing that.  There might
        be a modification possible.  
                         In our experience and like I said my particular
        unit reaches about 2500 miners a year in California, a
        certain time needs to be allotted for this basic information
        to be gotten across to miners really before they're
        introduced to the mine environment.  
                         Hazards exist the first day they work on the job. 
        Putting it off for 90 days of six months, putting off a
        basic training I think would do miners a disservice.  They
        are not going to be properly prepared.  At least eight hours
        initially training, I would recommend 16, two days, and the
        other 24 hour, or a portion of the 24 hour requirement could
        certainly be done by walk around training, first aid
        training, specific hazard training, job orientation, or
        whatever.  But to get these basic subjects across in any
        kind of a learnable fashion.  I would that that is going to
        take at least an eight hour block or a 16 hour block,
        preferably before a miner goes to work.
                         There again this is a minimum standard.  That
        first block of training should not be an end, it should only
        be a beginning.
                                          Question three, should training for inexperienced
                         miners be given all at once, or over a period of
                         time.  
                         I think I asked that just a minute ago.  Certain
        basic training should be given before miners are sent out to
        work.  CAL OSHA also enforces this under 3203 regardless of
        the job.  An employee, especially a new employee should be
        oriented, taught what the hazards are, taught to learn to
        avoid them, taught to understand the basics of the
        regulations regarding them.
                         The most hazardous the industry, the more intense
        and possibly the longer the training has to be.  A brand new
        logger is not going to be allowed out in the woods without
        close supervision and also a sit-down session.  None is
        specified by length of time but prudent operators are going
        to sit that person down and train that person in the basics
        whether it takes an hour or three days.  To turn a new
        employee loose in a hazards environment is not prudent, it's
        not profitable.
                         I've heard some people say that training should be
        broken down in very small increments because the adult
        attention span can't handle very long sessions.  I think
        it's an insult to the miner, myself.  
                         I've seen a lot of them and I've seen a lot of
        training in other situations.  Adults, as any instructional
        technologist will tell you, have longer attention span than
        children and they learn well when they learn things that
        they need to know.  And if these training session can be
        made value to the miner.
                         The miner is certainly smart to know that it's a
        need to know thing and that miner is going to stay awake. 
        And running through training records and personal
        associations with about 7,000 miners in the last three years
        I'd say, less than one percent have fallen asleep.  Almost
        all of them have stayed awake during the whole thing whether
        it's eight hours or 24 or sometimes 40; and over and above
        that they made significant contributions to the training
        sessions in the process.  
                         Keeping people awake is largely a function of how
        the training is and subject matter, and this is important
        subject matter and if we're going to specify something that
        we really want to tough on, let's tough on the training. 
        Let's have MSHA, state grants, EFS get in here and push some
        good stuff and some good people.  People can stay awake.
                         Should supervisor be subject to the same training
        requirements as miners?  
                         I'm not sure but in California there is no
        requirement you have to be smart to be a supervisor.  It's
        certainly desirable but I think it will bear out in my
        experience over 25 years of accident investigation,
        supervisors are just as prone to injury and hazards on the
        job as anybody else, sometimes more so.  
                         In fact some supervisors, none here I'm sure, get
        the attitude that they're bullet prove because they are
        supervisors and they don't need training.  And that's a
        fallacy, I can speak from experience.
                                          Number five, should training be required whenever
                         a miner receives a work assignment that involves
                         new and unfamiliar tasks.
                         My opinion is yes they should.  It makes good
        sense.  If you're going to run into a new situation or a new
        machine or a new hazard that you be instructed in the safe
        operation and the safe behavior associated with that task.
                         CAL OSHA requires this.  I don't think it has to
        be hard and fast.  I don't think there has to be a set time
        involved because tasks and operations and new processes vary
        so much, it should be up to the operator of the mine to
        properly orient that person but again new training is
        important.
                                          Should specific subject areas be covered during
                         annual refresher training, if so what subject
                         areas should be included?  
                         Well if you're going to give trainees basic
        training in the first place with subject matter dictated
        certainly pertinent subject matter should be also
        incorporated in refresher training.  
                         Required under part 48 now and in, probably 75
        percent of our training that we give to miners in California
        includes, is refresher training and it has been my
        experience that those miners need it.  They need to be
        refreshed.  Not just miners, in any industry.  
                         It's a human peculiarity I suppose that when you
        get around a job for a long time you become complacent.  You
        forget some of the basics.  It's true with any profession
        with any area of learning.  You're concentrating on your
        job, you're concentrating on a particular are and you need
        to be refreshed in the reason that you're there, the overall
        safety hazards, the things that you might not see in your
        day to day tasks that may be important to your safety and
        health.  And so certain subject matters, yes, should be
        included in the refresher training.  
                         Now the argument is well we get tired of this
        after five or six years of the same old videos, same old
        instructor, and all that.  That is not a fault of the
        training requirement, rather a fault of the administration
        of the training.
                         I'm sure that I've been guilty of that same thing,
        too.  We have certain subject matter that we have to cover,
        it is a consistent struggle to try to find new ways to bring
        it across, but then that's a training problem, not
        necessarily a subject matter problem.  Because the same
        subject matters injure miners and kill mines day after day,
        year after year.  As soon as that stops I'd be all for
        changing the requirements but it's not stopped and I doubt
        if it will.
                                          Can the eight hours of annual refresher training
                         required by the Mine Act be completed in segments
                         of training lasting less than 30 minutes?
                         It has been my experience over 30 years that
        important subject matter and safety and health of miners
        certainly is important, it's life and death, cannot really
        be introduced or refreshed on a particular subject in a very
        short time such as tail-gate sessions.
                         I've had a great experience in the construction
        industry, more than 30 odd years.  Tail-gate sessions are a
        great way to meet the rather loose training requirements of
        most of other regulatory agencies including CAL OSHA.  I've
        seen hundreds of them, they last from three minutes to ten
        minutes and usually they are lip-service to the subject
        matter.  They don't do the employees much good.  They are
        only done to satisfy someone's record that they be done
        every ten working days or so as CAL OSHA requires
        construction.  
                         Same is true in the mining industry.  If you're
        going to teach somebody something, you need a reasonable
        time to explore the subject, get feedback and so forth.  And
        so I think 30 minutes which I believe now is the MSHA
        minimum, is a good minimum.  Underneath that lip service
        will be paid, employees won't be properly prepared.  A
        record will only be created.  Nothing effective will really
        be gotten across.
                         I think tail-gate sessions are necessary for day
        to day operations, reminders, suggestions, input, and
        dialogue; but for basic training I don't think 30 minutes
        any too much.
                                          Should records of training be kept by the mine
                         operator at the mine site or should the
                         regulations allow records to be kept at other
                         locations?
                         You've got permanent records, pertinent records to
        a mining operation where else should they be kept.  CAL OSHA
        had a great amount of bitter experience in this area as far
        as training records, injury records, and so forth like that. 
        We require that they be kept at the principle place of
        employment.
                         The reason is if they are kept somewhere else it's
        going to waste the mine operator's time going to get them. 
        It's going to waste the regulator's time waiting for them. 
        It's going to result in a lot more citations, a lot more
        litigation, and it is not effective.
                         These training records, and I've seen some that
        are small and some are big, there really isn't any volume
        requirement.  Some of the bigger ones are some of the least
        effective.  If they affect the safety and the health of the
        workers and they reflect an ongoing effort at training and
        the well being of the employees, why should they not be kept
        at a mine site.
                         You keep them in a binder, you can keep them in a
        file folder, you can keep in a lock box in a pickup truck as
        long as they are there, there are a lot of other records
        which are required by CAL OSHA to be kept at an employment
        site, and training records are really not that big.
                         I've heard a lot of argument for about seven years
        now effective records need not take up a whole room or a
        whole file cabinet or a whole briefcase for that matter.
                         So, I think it would be safe, less time consuming,
        less expensive for the mine operator both and the regulatory
        agency to keep them where they belong.  To keep them where
        they are permanent, pertinent, pardon me.
                                          Number nine, I think is the last one.  Should
                         there be minimum qualifications for persons who
                         conduct miner training, if so what kind of
                         qualifications are appropriate.
                         Wow!  One of the big gripes about refresher
        training is that it's dull.  If you open it up to anybody
        what guarantee is there that it's not continue to be dull
        and there's also no guarantee that you're even going to
        cover pertinent subject matter.
                         There should be some minimum qualification, again,
        for instructors.  Right now there is determined by MSHA,
        it's determined I believe right now by the training
        specialists as far as I know in the district office.  And
        from what I understand of the process it is a, comes out of
        an evaluation of the trainer's mining experience and the
        trainer's instructional experience.
                         In general I think it's a pretty good idea.  A
        certificate is issued.  I could be engraved, it's kind of
        not to fancy, maybe you could improve on that.  But, it
        tells an instructor what he or she is allowed to instruct,
        and I think that's a reasonably good basic rule.
                         We have seen in California in general industry
        anybody be allowed to administer training, any company
        person, any supervisor, and there is certainly no guarantee
        that those people are going to be qualified in the first
        place, interesting enough to keep the trainees awake in the
        second place, or if the adhere to the subject matter that's
        pertinent in the third place.  
                         Some minimum qualification for instructors,
        whether they be company instructors, state grant instructors
        like we are, MSHA instructors, or private consultants should
        be met.  That you want to change the qualifications, make
        them more pertinent or whatever that may be applicable, I
        don't know, but know minimum standard should be met.
                         The instructor's certificate is as good as any. 
        As I understand it here, Mr. Tobin (ph), I've worked with
        him, we've given quite a few instructor preparatory training
        courses in the past year and he evaluates I believe on the
        two factors that I mentioned; mine experience or mine
        education or mine training and instructional experience.  I
        think both are necessary.
                         I've gone through all kinds of instructional
        experience, my people have and I've taught it myself in the
        last three years.  A certain amount of that is necessary. 
        You need a good instructor.  In fact this whole thing is
        really meaningless if you don't get people who convey the
        message, inspire the trainees, keep them awake so that they
        can get all that together, and get feedback.  Otherwise the
        entire requirement is, means nothing at all.
                         And so in general in closing, I'd say that we
        believe that a structure is necessary for the fundamentals. 
        The fundamentals should be communicated, at least a certain
        portion of them, before a new miner is allowed to work. 
        That refresher training should be exactly that.  It should
        cover the important things that a miner needs to know to
        stay alive.  And that especially the people who administer
        this kind of training should be some how certificated or
        judged worthy or educated or meet some minimum requirement
        or minimum judgement that they can first of all cover the
        subject matter, and secondly, do it in a meaningful matter.
                         Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Niesen, I have a
        couple of follow up questions and other members of the panel
        may also have a couple of questions.
                         Earlier in your remarks you made some reference to
        the fact that, you know, there's this push for site specific
        training and you indicated some concern with the idea that,
        I mean, as miners may move from one to site to other, if you
        get too mine specific then they may be ill prepared for the
        hazards at their new mine site.
                         Could you expand on that a little bit and
        particularly what impact that concern should have on any
        requirements that we may put in, in part 46?
                         MR. NIESEN:  Okay.  I think in the mining industry
        and in all industries as I said before a basic orientation
        or training in the basic subject matter where the main
        hazards, however you'd like to phrase it, is necessary.
                         In addition to that, as I said that's a starting
        point.  In addition to that site specific or mine specific
        or task specific training should be given and that's an
        ongoing thing I think.  
                         It is under the administration of CAL OSHA's
        training requirements and that has to be done mine by mine. 
        I think the basic subject matter in part 48 with which I'm
        most familiar is a transferable knowledge.  Mine specific
        training is not going to be.  
                         So that the basic building blocks that go along
        which is a certificate are going to be generally applicable
        in a lot of areas, a lot of mine sites.  And so that should
        be retained.
                         The mine specifics portion of it which is required
        now by part 48 but I hope that's a very basic starting point
        is an ongoing thing.  And when a miner transfer that is
        going to have to be started again or redone at the new mine
        site even between companies.  Every mine site is different.  
                         In fact every mine site changes from one month to
        the next as we all know.  And so that is going to have to be
        somehow addressed when a miner changes jobs, I think now
        there is a requirement in part 48 for an experienced, a
        person who transfers, the training requirements are less,
        supposedly he already had his basic training done but he's
        going to get new training at a new site.  I think that's
        perfectly good concept.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  But you're not saying that
        for the 24 hours of new miner training that's required that,
        I mean, site specific training cannot be used in part to
        satisfy that 24 hour requirement?
                         MR. NIESEN:  No, that should be included in that
        24 hour --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                         MR. NIESEN:  -- requirement.  Yeah, I think it is
        now and I think it is a valuable thing.  Yeah.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Okay.  And one
        other thing that you said.  You referenced that the approval
        process of training plans, approval by MSHA, and you
        indicated, I wasn't really quite sure what you were saying
        about the, you know, the current approval process under part
        48 and what your recommendations might be for our new
        training regulation.
                         MR. NIESEN:  Okay, as I understand it now each
        mine has to submit a training plan to be approved by the
        local MSHA office --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Right.
                         MR. NIESEN:  -- specific office.  I've not found
        that to be, first of all carried out, and secondly, very
        effective.
                         CAL OSHA has a performance oriented thing that you
        have to have a training plan devised for your particular
        operation.  I think it would be a good idea maybe, well, or
        acceptable I guess, to give a little bit more room there for
        individual operators to develop their own training plans
        which include the basic building blocks again but
        necessarily have them approved specifically.  They're there,
        they should be on the site for an inspector.  
                         Certainly they can be challenged or modified by,
        by whatever it is necessary.  But to check in with MSHA
        every time you change, or change instructors and I believe
        that's being changed now.  I'm not sure.
                         I think it's superfluous.  I think it's not done -
        -
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  So you, I mean your
        experience has been that MSHA approval so to speak hasn't
        really added much value to the process?
                         MR. NIESEN:  Not specific.  The frame work is
        there.  If they meet the frame during an inspection I think
        that should be adequate.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Is that because the people
        who are doing the reviewing of the plans maybe don't have
        the expertise or the experience to really give good feedback
        to an operator or you think that, you know, mine operators
        should have the ability to devise their plans and if they're
        grossly inadequate, I mean, an inspector could make that
        determination during a regular inspection?
                         MR. NIESEN:  Yeah, I have no doubt about the
        expertise of the people who review the plans but then you're
        reviewing a plan, you're not reviewing the whole situation.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  The implementation of the
        plan?
                         MR. NIESEN:  Probably a mine operator and I'll
        certainly say that mine operators and mine employees know
        their business best and if they have certain guidelines
        which are already there, to develop a plan that fits their
        site and be open to inspection, I wouldn't think that
        anymore would be necessary.  
                         I don't mean to imply that MSHA reviewers don't
        know a good plan when they see it, but a plan is only a plan
        --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                         MR. NIESEN:  -- when it's on paper.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Do you have --
                         MR. BRELAND:  Mr. Niesen, just to follow up on a
        couple things and make sure I understood what you were
        suggesting.
                         When you talked about the basic requirements being
        covered, some of the issues that have been brought up to us
        before like the requirement to teach explosives for example
        in sand and gravel, some of those things of that nature that
        might not apply certainly to that particular mine site; are
        you saying that you still think that should be a basic
        requirement because they may go to a mine that could have
        that?
                         MR. NIESEN:  I'm sorry, my, explosive, did use --
                         MR. BRELAND:  Well you said the minimum subjects.
                         MR. NIESEN:  Okay.
                         MR. BRELAND:  That are in the present Part 48, you
        know, carrying it, I think is what I understood you to say
        and then you talked some about the training plans being more
        flexible and site specific.  So I guess I just want to make
        sure I understood what you were, you were suggesting.
                         MR. NIESEN:  Okay, that's a good example because I
        also regulate explosive licensing in California so I'm
        familiar with the subject matter and it's not always used. 
        You're right.
                         It takes very little time to include that or
        mention it at least or mention that there is such an animal. 
        What the local requirements are under general hazard
        training.  If an explosive operation becomes part of your
        mine operation, at a mine you're working at; certainly you
        need more.
                         There are certain subject matters which I think
        can be minimized and I think there's room in the
        nomenclature at least of part 48 for a lot of flexibility. 
        Hazards training may or may not included explosives.  If
        it's not used there, then not much time should be spent on
        it.  Certainly we don't teach self rescuer for service
        operations.
                         I think, as I read it, and I'm an old bureaucrat,
        forgive me, there's a lot of room in there for
        interpretation so long as the enforcement doesn't get picky. 
        Now I've heard that think, too, for 25 years.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Uh-huh.
                         MR. NIESEN:  Against me, too.  Hard to believe I
        know, but --
                         And so the enforcement makes the rule also.  But I
        think there's enough room in there for mine operators to
        include some of the basic things that, that kill mines and
        tailor them to their operation.  It certainly is with 3203. 
        I think there's enough room in there in part 48.
                         I don't believe, I think the subject matter should
        be mentioned.  I think there should be certain orientations,
        I'm aware that it's communicated that these things exist
        because the transferability of the specific.  At some sand
        and gravel mines in California do use explosives and where
        that, the basic orientation to a new miner should include a
        certain amount because of this universal applicability of
        the training proof.  
                         How much is going to depend I think on the
        operators' judgment and the conditions at a particular mine. 
        But certain subject matters I believe still should be
        covered, and maybe minimally but at least covered.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Now, well to follow up on that one
        problem could be that the person if you have certified to
        instruct at a mine site may not have the expertise in some
        of those, that type of subject material that would, couldn't
        do much more than an overview of some general stuff, so that
        might have been provided by somebody, you know.  So I guess
        again the issue is when we're looking at list of basic
        subjects, should there be a caveats for a subject that
        doesn't apply to a mine operator or a mine specific
        operation?
                         MR. NIESEN:  I don't see any harm in giving them
        some room --
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                         MR. NIESEN:  -- if that's what you're looking for. 
        Yeah, because that's, that's going to be true all, no single
        instructor, no single course is going to cover everything
        anyway.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                         MR. NIESEN:  That's --
                         MR. BRELAND:  One other thing you talked about was
        it sounded it you believed the minimum of eight hours and
        preferably 16 hours was that prior to actual starting on the
        assigned work and the other to follow up with that do you
        have some sort of time limit you think is reasonable to
        complete a 24 hours for a new miner?
                         MR. NIESEN:  I think that, in my personal opinion,
        16 hours for service new miner is enough, not too much.  I
        think that should be given fairly soon.  I'm, I am not for
        having it wait six months because that miner is out there
        exposed to the entire mine site, perhaps a few days.  If
        this training is necessary at all, why wait.  The miner is
        exposed to hazard, if he's not prepared to deal with the
        hazard then he's going to be at risk.  And so really don't
        think that a long period is wise.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And I want to make sure I
        really understood on the record keeping, you're suggesting
        that all records of training for annual refresher, new
        miner, and such be kept at the mine site, somewhere at the
        mine site?
                         MR. NIESEN:  That's what I believe.  Maybe I'm
        totally in the dark here, I don't see that they're big.  The
        records that I've seen for CAL OSHA, that's one of the
        comments or one of the problems there, can be fit in a very
        small book.  They don't have to be huge.  
                         From what I've seen at mine sites the records of
        initial training and refresher training and the certificates
        are evidence certainly for, outward evidence at least,
        copies of those things really don't take up much room.  
                         I know it's another record keeping requirement but
        the alternative is to keep them somewhere else and an
        inspector shows up and says okay show me the training on
        this person who's involved in this accident, they're not
        there, they have to be gotten somewhere, the mine operator's
        time is wasted, the inspector's time is wasted.  
                         Sometimes there are misunderstandings.  The
        citation gets issued because they're not there.  It ends up
        in some sort of litigation.  I've been through literally
        dozens of these things with CAL OSHA.  It's
        counterproductive.  
                         And so if the records are there on site and
        they're pertinent, it's over and done with right there and
        you're on.  And for that reason alone I think they should be
        kept on the site.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  Thank you.  And then on the
        certification of instructors, you were suggesting that there
        be a development of minimum standards for qualifications. 
        Would that be, you talked some about a training plan having
        a basic outline and that it should be at mine site, mine
        specific?  Were you also proposing that there be a like a
        list of things that would be required for minimal background
        and experience and education for instructors?
                         MR. NIESEN:  Well this is more less MSHA's
        training requirement and MSHA has a standard of sort at
        least now.  I think and I guess it's really not codified and
        maybe it doesn't have to be.  But there should be some
        investigation into a trainer's basic knowledge which is his
        mining instruction or experience, and whether or not he has
        any kind of experience or training in how to deliver that
        knowledge.  
                         And I think it's done now, perhaps what we have is
        adequate.  The certificate is issued as I understand it and
        I have one, after an evaluation of these particular subject
        areas, one good thing about the, I guess the broad
        parameters of that particular thing is that anybody can
        become an instructor.  
                         If you've got a good miner who can handle it, who
        wants to do it, and is properly grounded in experience and
        had been given a few pointers on how to deliver
        instructional sessions, that miner can become an instructor
        now.  I see no problem with that.  I don't think that you
        have to go to school to be an instructor, in fact that may
        even restrict your ability.  But there should be a system by
        which you are qualified or certified or whatever word you
        would like to put it, based on what you know and how you can
        deliver it.
                         Now maybe the one we have, the system we've got
        now is perfectly adequate.  I'm not suggesting any new
        parameters be put on that.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, thank you.  I just wanted to
        make sure I understood.  Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Do you have a question?
                         MR. BURNS:  Yeah, I do.
                         Did you state that OSHA or CAL OSHA has training
        requirements, is that correct?
                         MR. NIESEN:  I can only speak for CAL OSHA and
        that's in California, that's what's enforced.  Yeah, we do.
                         MR. BURNS:  And do you evaluate that training or
        do you, I mean, do you, is there an enforcement mechanism
        that, in the statute?
                         MR. NIESEN:  Yeah.  California Code of Regulations
        are what's called the California Safety Orders and section
        3203(a)7 is a training requirement and it is a performance
        oriented standard.  
                         And this came into effect in its present form in
        1991.  That any employer must have a written training
        program.  It doesn't have to be approved by anybody in
        advance, but it must be written and in place at anyplace of
        employment whether or not you've got one or more employees.
                         And, that training program as we normally refer to
        as a training program, must address the hazards encountered
        by employees at that particular business or job site.  That
        there be certain training given at certain intervals and the
        training is not always, training intervals of the subject
        matter is not dictated, it's left up to the individual
        industry because it's a very broad standard.  And, that
        records of that training must be kept.  
                         Now there are certain exceptions for small
        employers about record keeping, but in general those are the
        requirements of the California training regulation.
                         MR. BURNS:  So you would, your inspectors would be
        in the mines and evaluating those training records, is that
        correct?
                         MR. NIESEN:  My safety unit which also inspects
        mines as does MSHA now, does at least by policy inspect each
        employer including mines for an adequate training policy. 
        Now if the mine operator has chosen to do MSHA's Part 48
        training, certificated, and so forth like that; we accept
        that as satisfying CAL OSHA's training requirement at mine
        sites.
                         MR. BURNS:  What about, what about for the
        industries present here today?
                         MR. NIESEN:  I'm sorry, I'm --
                         MR. BURNS:  What about for the industries present
        here today that may not follow Part 48 but they're doing
        other training, how do you evaluate that?
                         MR. NIESEN:  We would probably look at that as we
        do in any other industry, however, we might look at it a
        little bit more closely because they are in the mining
        community, we have another standard which although it's not
        enforced is still law.  
                         Let me say this that I know quite a few, what I
        call progressive sand and gravel operators who exceed part
        48 but if the training program addresses the hazards to
        which the employees are exposed is in written structured
        form and is faithfully administered then they are in
        compliance.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  How, you indicated that,
        you know, a paper review of a program is not going to tell
        you very much or if anything about how good it is in its
        implementation.  Do you all do some kind of evaluation of
        how well those training programs are administered, and if
        so, I mean, how would you go about looking at that?
                         MR. NIESEN:  The basic regulation for training
        program which is 3203 has seven parts.  Each part of that
        thing must be in writing in general.  There are a couple of
        exceptions.
                         It addresses who is in charge of the training or
        the safety effort by name and position, what system there is
        for self-inspection and the uncovering of hazards on any job
        site, a system of correction of those hazards, and in-house
        investigation, accident investigation procedure, a way to
        convey information to and from employees about safety and
        health matters and, how it is enforced internally, and the
        training requirement.  I think that's seven.
                         We look for the form of any employers' IPP we call
        it, injury and illness prevention program.  We weren't
        satisfied with safety program we had to add more syllables
        in there.  
                         In general for that structure and its
        applicability.  Normally, or a lot of times we'll get
        involved in this with accident investigations.  We will look
        into the circumstances surrounding the accident and we will
        go immediately to the training records to find out if that
        employee was properly and thoroughly trained in the
        operation.  If it's not it is going to result in a citation
        probably for the accident and for the lack of training
        program.
                         This has been the most, single most cited safety
        order in CAL OSHA's history, especially since 1991, its
        inception, a lot of controversy.
                         To me, personally, and I've been around a long
        time, it is the single or it could be the single most
        effective regulation for the safety and health of workers
        period, if properly administered and that's a big if.  And
        the same thing with mine training, if it's not properly
        administered, faithfully administered, it is of no value.
                         But we do rugously enforce it.  We look for
        structure, it's only dictated by those broad seven
        performance oriented parameters.  But we look at it in
        detail in almost every inspection we make in the mining
        industry and out.
                         MR. BURNS:  Could you, could you give me the full
        cite for that standard?  I have 3203 but --
                         MR. NIESEN:  I'll give you a copy of it if you've
        got a copy machine.  It's CCR -- 8 CCR Title 8 California
        Code of Regulations 3203.
                         MR. BURNS:  I should be able to get that off the
        Internet.
                         MR. NIESEN:  I've got one.  You can get it off the 
        Internet, I've got on here in my, I'll give it to you for
        free.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I'll accept that.
                         MR. NIESEN:  But, yeah it's been in effect since
        July 1st, 1991, and I say it's one of the most
        controversial, one of the most cited section, but I think
        also one of the most effective in the long run.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay.  I can get a copy out here at
        the desk, I appreciate it.
                         Did you also indicate that, you gave the example
        of the logging industry and they provide anywhere from one
        hour to two days of training before they start work
        depending upon the operation, is that correct?
                         MR. NIESEN:  Yeah.  Now this training requirement
        in 3203(a)7 does not specify any particular time --
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay.
                         MR. NIESEN:  -- nor subject matter.  But, it is
        enforced and I've had 25 years of enforcement with CAL OSHA
        in all industries.  Logging and construction were my
        specialties.
                         That the training length is going to vary
        according to the hazard of the industry, the complexity of
        the industry, and so forth.  And the problem with not, a
        non-specification standard, performance standard from an
        enforcement perceptive is that your opinion as an inspector
        may differ from the employer's perceptive, especially if it
        comes down to a fatality or something like that.  
                         It gives rise to a lot of citation which are not
        always upheld and a lot of litigation at the Appeals level,
        that is necessary I guess with a performance oriented
        broadly applied standard.  
                         But we look at the industry, we look at the
        hazards, look at the situation, and then we look at the
        amount and subject matter of training; and make a judgment
        on whether or not the standard was complied with or not.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay.  The other question I had for
        you, this comes up a lot of the other meetings, the standard
        gravel and aggregates industry in a lot of cases they are
        very integrated companies.  They have, they go right up
        through the construction area.  But you also have workers go
        back and forth between construction and aggregates.
                         Does, do you take that into account, I mean, if
        you have someone coming from the construction industry into
        the mining industry and they have, perhaps says he's got, he
        or she has 20 years of experience working around bulldozers,
        all kinds of equipment; it seems that that person may not
        need as much training as some person right out of high
        school or college that has no experience.
                         Is that taken into account in your performance --
                         MR. NIESEN:  That's a good point.  If you have a
        person who's a heavy equipment operator, and has had
        evidence of training somewhere, experience and I hate to say
        this because I'm old and I've got a lot of it, it's not
        necessarily a good trainer.
                         MR. BURNS:  Yeah, might not be good experience.
                         MR. NIESEN:  That's right.  I've talked to a lot
        of people who had all their fingers and toes and eyes as
        matter of luck or a lot of angels, whatever way you like to
        go.  
                         And so, some habits learned from experience are
        bad.  I've got two.  I'm not even going to tell you what
        they are.  But, I don't know, that's a hard question to
        answer.  
                         If you have had certain basic training in heavy
        equipment which is used at another site, certainly you don't
        need to be put to sleep by starting at the bottom.  I'm not
        a good enough administrator to figure out exactly how to
        word that in a rule.
                         But, yeah, there could be some exceptions to that
        especially among industries that trade people or among like
        I say large industries who have sand and gravel operations
        and construction.  I know of several, and the ones I know
        of, Granite, Tikert (ph); a lot of those operators have a
        pretty good internal program for taking care of that.  How
        to codify it, I'm not sure.
                         MR. BURNS:  Yeah, I appreciate that.  I'm trying
        to figure out how to codify that too.
                         MR. NIESEN:  Better you than me.
                         MR. BURNS:  That's all the questions I have for
        you.  I don't know if Roz has anything.
                         MS. FONTAINE:  No.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
        Niesen.
                         MR. NIESEN:  Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  The next speaker that we
        have on our list is Tony Serpas from Granite Rock Company.
                         STATEMENT OF MR. TONY SERPAS
                         MR. SERPAS:  Good morning.  My name is Tony
        Serpas, spelled, T-O-N-Y, S-E-R-P-A-S.  I'm manager for
        Safety and Health Services for Granite Rock Company.  Our
        main office is located in Wattsonville, California;
        approximately 100 miles south of San Francisco. 
                         We very much appreciate the opportunity to speak
        on this very important matter.
                         Granite Rock is a medium sized business, family
        owned, supplying building materials to the south bay region. 
        We have a crushed granite operation that's been in
        continuance operation since before 1900.  Currently owned by
        the company since it was incorporated February 14th, 1900.
                         At this mine site we employee approximately 65 to
        75 people throughout the year.  We also have two additional
        sand mines, one sand and gravel pit, and one portable
        crushing operation.  Each of these mines, additional mines
        employee anywhere from two to eight people.
                         Our philosophy as defined in our nine corporate
        objectives requires safety above all else and constant
        improvement.  Granite Rock has won the Malcolm Baldridge
        National Quality Award and also California's equivalent the
        Golden Award.  At Granite Rock we have provided part 48
        training for all of our miners.  
                         I'd like to address the points as Mr. Niesen did
        as were requested in the Federal Register announcement.  But
        I'd like to say first that the views that I'm going to
        express are primarily those of myself and Granite Rock.
                                          The first issue that was listed was under
                         definitions of new miner and experienced miner.  
                         In our particular situation, it's my experience at
        least as safety and health manager for Granite Rock for nine
        years, that the majority of our people come to us either
        from construction or another industry.  So therefore all of
        our people are new miners to us.
                         But to answer your question, yes.  I think we need
        to have definitions defined clearly so that we understand
        how they should be applied.  
                         And I would suggest that the definition of a new
        miner is a person that has not received the required new
        miner MSHA acceptable training as defined in section 152
        subparagraph (a) sub-2 of the Federal Mine and Safety Health
        Act of 1977 and mine site work experience of less than one
        year.
                         Of course, an experienced miner would be a person
        that has received the training as stated and has had more
        than one year of experience.
                         In addition thought I would suggest that any
        experienced miner that is not current with his eight hour
        annual refresher training as required in section 115(a)3 of
        the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and any
        appropriate task training for the task to be performed that
        he was hired for, should receive the appropriate task
        training before performing work and receive an eight hour
        annual refresher training within 30 days from the date the
        individual starts work at this new mine site.
                                          You also asked under new miner training, which
                         training subjects should be taught before a new
                         miner is assigned work even if the work is done
                         under close supervision.
                         And again with the exception of first aid training
        as spoken to by Mr. Niesen, I believe that all subjects
        listed in section 115(a)2 of the Federal Mine Safety and
        Health Act should be taught before a new miner is assigned
        work.
                         Currently Granite Rock trains every miner in basic
        first aid and CPR.  This training is conducted by a vendor
        who provides a certified Red Cross instructor for basic
        first aid and CPR.
                                          Should training for inexperienced miners be given
                         all at once or over a period of time such as
                         several weeks or months.
                         Now we believe that ideally as soon as the
        required training can be accomplished the better.  However,
        we believe that at least at a minimum a block of six to
        eight hours should be completed before any work is started
        with the remainder of the required training accomplished
        within 60 days.
                                          Should this decision, referring to when and how to
                         train a new miner, be left to the discretion of
                         the mine operator.
                         Well, again, we feel it's best to perform the
        training before a person starts to work but we believe also
        that there needs to be some type of flexibility to determine
        the best way to accomplish this training for the individual
        within the time limitations as listed above.  That is within
        the 60 days.
                         This is because today's technology provides many
        forms of acceptable training platforms whether it be now in
        the new computer/electronic age, videos, one on one
        training, or some other form.  We believe that we're in the
        best position really to determine the most effective type of
        training and method that would suit each of our individual
        operations.
                         As I said we have a portable plant that has five
        people.  Their office is a pickup truck of the supervisor
        going around to different locations.  Of course, at our
        larger mining site we have more opportunity to do other
        things.
                                          You also asked what are the advantages and
                         disadvantages of spreading training over an
                         extended period of time.
                         Well I believe first of all one advantage is to
        allow the miner to absorb the training a little bit at a
        time to let the individual comprehend what he's doing.
                         Also it gives flexibility to the operator to be
        able to accomplish this training.
                         The big disadvantage to that, of course, is that a
        new miner may encounter a hazard that he has not been
        trained for or not completing the training as required.
                                          It was asked should supervisors be subject to the
                         same training requirements as miners.
                         Of course.  Supervisors should receive the
        training as well as other safety related topics such as how
        to conduct effective safety meetings, how to make individual
        safety evaluations, and how to motivate people to work
        safely among other items.
                                          Should training be required whenever a miner
                         receives a work assignment that involves a new and
                         unfamiliar task.
                         I think that goes without saying.  Again any new
        task, the individual should be aware of the hazards
        associated with that new task.  
                                          Task training, should specific subject areas be
                         covered during annual refresher training, if so
                         what subject areas should be included.
                         I agree with Mr. Niesen, that the required subject
        areas should be designed to provide hazard recognition and
        safe working procedures that are appropriate to the task to
        be performed in individual mine sites, particular to that
        mine site.
                                          In reference to annual refresher training, can the
                         eight hours of annual refresher training required
                         by the Mine Act be complete in segments of
                         training less than 30 minutes.
                         Yes, I believe that there are some topics that in
        fact can be trained in less than 30 minutes, but it depends
        on the topic and the method of instruction.  Again whether
        it's a video presentation, a computer interactive media, a
        one on one training by a trainer; but whatever the training
        method is used it must be effective to educate and modify
        the individual's behavior regarding health and safety.
                                          In regard to the training certificates, should the
                         records of training be kept by the mine operated
                         mine site or should the regulation allow records
                         to be kept at other locations.
                         In our operation we have small operations and
        large operations.  And I personally would like to have
        flexibility to maintain the records at our main office
        facility.
                         I understand what Mr. Niesen was saying about
        having them available, but particularly with our new
        electronic age all of our locations are tied in with one
        another.  It doesn't take very long to get a, the required
        information to an inspector at such time of the requirement.
                         Again, if the mine office is a pickup, even though
        you might have current training records, how far and how
        much information can you keep in the pickup.  But I believe
        that the response is that if the operator can produce the
        records in a timely manner to an authorized representative
        or to an associate safety engineer, really there shouldn't
        be any reason why they can't maintained at another location
        other than at the mine site although we do that currently.
                                          The qualification of instructors, should there be
                         a minimum qualification for persons to conduct
                         miner training, if so what kind of qualifications
                         are appropriate.
                         Again, I agree with Mr. Niesen that the most
        important part of training programs, of trainers is that
        they need to be effective to provide all the required
        information, to instruct and motivate the individual to
        understand all health and safety concerns of the individual
        task and individual mine site.
                         One of the largest factors in that of course is
        the instructor.  And again I'm not sure how you quantify or
        regulate, what makes that instructor a competent person. 
        Whether it be experience.  Whether it be going to a class. 
        I think I agree a lot with California's standpoint, that the
        performance aspect is really more important than the paper
        qualifications that a person may have.
                         As I stated earlier there are now many training
        platforms available including the state funded programs,
        contract vendors.  I do my own part 48 training.  I have
        been certified as a MSHA instructor, gone through the
        program.  And I believe that the mine operator really is in,
        probably, the best position to establish the quality of that
        training.  At least he should be in a position to make sure
        that that's training, that's for his best interest as well
        as the interest of his people.
                         Another point I think that needs to be addressed
        is that even though we might have a training program with
        certain designated people as certified instructors of
        training, I know that even though I might have been involved
        or I have been involved in mine training for about 12 years
        and in safety training in different forms for over 30 years,
        that there are some specific jobs at the mine site that I'm
        not really an expert at.  
                         I have a good basic understanding of the hazards
        there but I do have at most of my mine sites some people
        that have as many as 20 to 30 years doing a particular job
        and if that individual is motivated and has a desire to
        share some of that experience.  I think it could be a lot
        better received by the new miner than somebody like myself
        standing up there and trying to tell them something that I'm
        really not an expert on.
                         And that's basically my comments.  And, again, we
        appreciate the time and the ability to, to give our input. 
        We think it's very important particularly that the, since
        the programs and the concept is going to start to be
        enforced that we understand what is going to be required and
        how we have to, or what we have to do to meet the
        requirements of the law for an enforcement standpoint.
                         Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Serpas, I have a
        couple of follow-ups and others may as well.
                         You, one of the last things that you said was the
        fact that you've got people at your operations who have got
        expertise and experience and, you know, specific areas and
        although you are the MSHA approved trainer, I mean, there's
        other people who have got much, you know, greater in depth
        knowledge of topics that you may want to cover as part of
        your training.
                         Do you have any recommendations or suggestions as
        far as how we might handle that?  I mean, are you saying
        that those people should be under different kinds of
        requirements as far as approval of instructor or do you have
        any recommendations as to how that might be handled?
                         MR. SERPAS:  Again, that's a difficult point to
        codify.  I think first of all it has to be done on an
        individual aspect because, just because I might have an
        electrician that has 30 years of experience if he doesn't
        want to do the training he's not going to be an effective
        trainer.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Right.
                         MR. SERPAS:  You know, so it almost particularly
        people that I would use incidentally in my training program
        I think have to be taken on a case by case basis.  And I
        don't think it's necessarily important for that person to go
        through a 40 hour instructor training course to be able to
        impart some of that valuable knowledge and experience that
        he's had or she has had --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.
                         MR. SERPAS:  -- to impart that to the new miners. 
        But I think the attitude of the individual, his demonstrated
        concern for safety performance, and safety record really
        establish his ability to be able to do that.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.
                         MR. SERPAS:  And I best can do that by knowing the
        individual, by talking to the individual, and by really
        knowing if, you know, let him do it once and see how he does
        and then go from there.
                         And again I don't know how you codify that.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  As far as record
        keeping, you advocated some flexibility as far as where
        those records might be kept and you indicated that, you
        know, centralized location might work if, and that you would
        be able to produce records --
                         MR. SERPAS:  That's right.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  -- fairly quickly upon
        request.  I mean, we've heard comments along these lines as
        we've worked our way across the country that, you know, I
        mean, a lot of people have gone to computerized record
        keeping, et cetera.  
                         If in fact we were to do something like that, I
        mean require records to be kept centrally but require that
        they be presented or made available within a certain minimum
        period of time, I mean, how quickly at your operation, I
        mean, if someone were to ask for those records could they be
        made available?
                         MR. SERPAS:  With exception of our portable
        operation and one of our newer mine sites, all of our mine
        sites are networked to the main office.  And it would be
        just a matter of minutes --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  By computer?
                         MR. SERPAS:  -- to e-mail a file.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  And then finally
        you didn't touch on this but, and if you, you know, I don't
        want to put you on the spot, but as far as training program
        approval, I mean as you may know section 115 requires that a
        training program be approved by the Secretary of Labor and I
        just wanted to get your feelings on how that might, I mean,
        what a good approach to that approval process might be.
                         MR. SERPAS:  Well, I think that there has to be a
        starting point and that starting point could be providing a
        written plan to the MSHA for review.  
                         But, again, I think that the employer needs the
        flexibility to be able to modify and change that plan as
        mine site conditions change, as operation change within the
        mine site.  So I think that there has to be an ability to
        have both.
                    CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  So, you're, I mean, you're
        saying subsequent revisions, I mean, we need to be a little
        bit more flexibility on what process there is --
                         MR. SERPAS:  That's my opinion --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  -- as the training plan
        needs to be changed?
                         MR. SERPAS:  Right.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  Rod?
                         MR. BRELAND:  Yeah, I had a couple of things.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Or Kevin?
                         MR. BRELAND:  Just a follow-up on that line of
        thought with the training plan.
                         If you were, you talked about having the records
        kept at a main office, would you propose the same thing with
        the training plan?  Any why I'm asking is it's an issue
        everybody is going to need to deal with but if somebody was
        to go to the mine site and look and see if your training
        plan for the specific mine site was relevant for that mine
        site, would you want to have one of those at the mine?
                         MR. SERPAS:  Well, I would but again right now
        that's almost a moot point because I am the MSHA trainer.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Uh-huh.
                         MR. SERPAS:  And I do our part 48 training for all
        of our mine sites.  So, of course I have that with me and I
        have it for each, each mine site.
                         MR. BRELAND:  That was another question I was
        going to ask.  It sounds like you have probably
        approximately 100 employees all together.
                         MR. SERPAS:  Well, right now we're probably
        between all of our six actual locations, about 135.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And, but you're the only
        person certified as an instructor.
                         MR. SERPAS:  At the current time.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Would you envision, you mentioned
        some people at the sites and it would be understandable that
        it would have specific skills and abilities to teach, but
        would be thinking that under a proposed regulation maybe you
        should have somebody at each site certified or would that be
        what you would want to do?
                         MR. SERPAS:  We've talked about that's a
        possibility.  Again it's a determinant on the people at the
        mine site.  First of all their interest and their desire to
        want to do this and then getting them qualified.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Yeah.  And then the issue on
        competent instructors is going to be a big one, I'm sure
        qualified however you would want to define that.
                         But also an issue of if this person is well
        experienced and qualified at least by the background and
        training, again people are talking about may not make them a
        good trainer.  
                         Do you have any suggestions on remedies for that
        if it's found they can't demonstrate that they're not good
        trainers?
                         MR. SERPAS:  Well probably in that situation
        they'd fall back to plan A and that I'd be doing it till we
        could find somebody else.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Or they would have to have to some
        sort of follow up training or --
                         MR. SERPAS:  Absolutely.  I mean, again I think
        Mr, Niesen really has the key that that could best
        demonstrated by the performance and sitting in on their
        classes and --
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                         MR. SERPAS:  -- each one our training sessions are
        evaluated individually by the participants in our class and
        their comments and suggestions and how they rate the
        instructor as well.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, that's a good idea.  And then
        one other issue on the record keeping, you said that you
        thought the less than 30 minutes time frame for some would
        be good.
                         Were you talking about annual refresher or the
        type of training that might need to be tracked for record
        keeping purposes and if so who would you propose doing that?
                         MR. SERPAS:  I think that can be established in a
        simple database.  
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That's all I have.  Thank
        you.
                         MR. BURNS:  I guess you currently do use other
        people that aren't necessarily qualified based on the, I
        guess, either they're doing it with your supervision or your
        --
                         MR. SERPAS:  Right now the only other people that
        --
                         MR. BURNS:  You're familiar with their abilities I
        guess?
                         MR. SERPAS:  Not at the current time.  The only
        other people that we use to do training would be somebody
        from CAL OSHA's Mine and Tunnelling Training Unit to do our
        part 48 training.
                         MR. BURNS:  I mean, that's been suggested at other
        meetings that certainly there are very good people like what
        you talked about that you're not just going to turn them
        loose but that they certainly be able to comment and provide
        some effective training on something they have, you know,
        first hand --
                         MR. SERPAS:  Right.
                         MR. BURNS:  -- knowledge on.
                         MR. SERPAS:  First aid is probably the other
        exception that we do now, we use someone else and again we
        train all of our people first aid and CPR.
                         MR. BURNS:  Do you, does the amount of training
        that you provide to a new miner vary from, from say your two
        person sand and gravel to your big quarry?
                         MR. SERPAS:  No.
                         MR. BURNS:  It's the same --
                         MR. SERPAS:  Well they all essentially receive
        that minimum.  There might be some people that need a little
        bit extra, if they're not an experienced in their task, then
        their task training might go longer, but all of them receive
        the minimum of 24 hours.
                         MR. BURNS:  No, but I mean, that the, you had
        mentioned six to eight hours of training before they start
        some type of work.
                         MR. SERPAS:  No, I'm proposing that if you had a
        regulation or standard --
                         MR. BURNS:  Oh.
                         MR. SERPAS:  -- that it be directed that way. 
        Normally we try to block out, to start with either an eight
        or 16 hour to start with and then augment it with the task
        training.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay.  That's all the questions I
        have.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  I think Roz has got a
        couple of questions.
                         MS. FONTAINE:  Yes.  The agency is responsible for
        developing a regulatory flexibility analysis to determine
        the costs and benefits of the proposed rule.  Based on your
        experience could be give me a ballpark figure of what it
        cost to train your employees at the small mines versus your
        larger mines?
                         MR. SERPAS:  Gosh.  I'm not sure I can do that now
        off the top of my head --
                         MS. FONTAINE:  Okay.
                         MR. SERPAS:  -- because a lot of it goes into the
        time that I've developed in putting my training together and
        the resources that I use in all of our operations.  Plus the
        time, you know, the hourly figure of the individual
        themselves or herself.
                         MS. FONTAINE:  Okay.  Would you be willing to
        submit it at a later date?
                         MR. SERPAS:  Sure.
                         MS. FONTAINE:  Okay.
                         MR. SERPAS:  Give me a card and I'll try to put
        that together --
                         MS. FONTAINE:  I will.
                         MR. SERPAS:  -- and send it to you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
        Serpas.
                         MR. SERPAS:  Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  We don't have anyone else
        signed up to speak but is there anyone out there who would
        like to -- okay, I think what we're going to do is take a
        short break and when we come back we'll pick up.
                         One other thing that we will do before we finish
        is give you short of a short summary of some of the other
        comments that we've gotten at some of the other meetings
        just to give you some idea of what, what subjects have been
        touched on.
                         So why don't we take 15 minutes?
                         (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay we're going to get
        started here in a minute or two if you could take your
        seats.
                         (Pause.)
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  The next speaker that we
        have on our list is Malcome Driggs from the Operating
        Engineers Training Trust.
                       STATEMENT OF MR. MALCOLME DRIGGS
                         MR. DRIGGS:  Well, good morning, MSHA.  I'd like,
        this will be very brief but I'd like to thank you for this
        opportunity.
                         One thing I'd like to say I'm in total and
        complete support of every that Mr. Niesen presented but I do
        have one, only one suggestion.
                         First of all as you said my name is Malcome Driggs
        and I'm, have been curriculum coordinator for the
        International Union of Operating Engineer, the Operating
        Engineers Training Trust, and served on the CAL OSHA
        advisory board for many years.
                         One thing seemed to be unanswered and that is how
        to evaluate these instructors.  I think, this is just a
        small recommendation, but the local community colleges in
        this area have issued packets for a number of years to
        evaluate the instructors.  And this is done by instructions
        that are on the packets itself which could be issued by MSHA
        and it outlines a proxy that is or a person in the class
        room that is designated by the instructor.  
                         And that instructor or that individual then passes
        these evaluation forms to each individual in the classroom
        and then that process is evaluated on each one of these
        forms, put back in the packet and then signed by this
        individual across the seal and then that in turn would be
        turned back into MSHA.
                         I personally don't know any better way after my 30
        years of experience that I've seen performed where you get a
        more accurate sense of what is happening and of the
        knowledge that is being imparted and/or the way that that
        information is being imparted to the students whether they
        be tradesmen or in any other fashion.  Of course, the
        Operating Engineers Training Trust trains both people in
        mining, tunnelling, general construction, heavy equipment
        operations; but we have used this process for some time and
        find it very, very useful.  And then an evaluation is done
        by the community college and letters sent back to the
        instructor which gives him an idea of where he can improve.
                         So, I just thought I'd bring that to, to your
        attention and since Mr. Niesen did such a great job as he
        usually does for the mining and tunnelling unit here in the
        State of California, I would again say that I'm in total and
        complete support of each and everything he said and each and
        every element he covered.
                         Thank you very much.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Driggs, I have a
        follow- up question.  You indicated that this feedback would
        go back to the, goes back to the instructor I guess and the
        idea is that it lets him know areas where he might improve
        or things that he might change as far as how he goes about
        giving this training.
                         Do you recommend that more than that should happen
        if appropriate?  I mean, if in fact you've got an instructor
        who, I mean, it's not a question of you need to tighten up
        here or, you know, adjust this a little bit but someone who
        maybe is falling way short of where he or she needs to be,
        should that information be used for other purposes such --
                         MR. DRIGGS:  Well it should also, of course, also
        be a determining factor in whether or not this person is
        qualified or should even being teaching at all. 
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                         MR. DRIGGS:  Granted that is the ultimate judgment
        involved here but --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Does it work like that now
        ever?
                         MR. DRIGGS:  Absolutely.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                         MR. DRIGGS:  Absolutely.  But I think that the
        more often, much more often is winds up being a positive
        thing rather than a negative thing because remember you
        already had pre-qualifications in the present standards.  
                         So I think some degree of training, like I said, I
        was in total and complete approval of what Mr. Niesen was
        saying and that as he said also required some judgement as
        to whether or not the person was qualified before they ever
        began.  But, all instructors have their high points and
        their low points.  
                         Not, not excluding their high points and low
        points as the instruction for each class is concerned but
        also in each element of instruction.
                         So it seems to help in both ways involving that. 
        But I think a good instructor is really a main point
        whenever teaching a subject matter.  Just to have
        instruction for instruction sake not being done well, many
        people in this industry sat there and listened to someone
        who had no ability in instructing and fell asleep and the
        safety instruction had absolutely no value whatsoever.
                         So it's important and if we're going to move ahead
        and do something in the interest of safety that's going to
        work and we're requiring some training then it better be
        training that works or don't do it at all.  And, that can
        only be done on an ongoing basis rather than a short term
        basis.  And this process seems to have very positive long
        term affects on instructions and the individual improvement
        of the instructor.
                         MR. BRELAND:  The only question I'd have is on the
        feedback that did the short term sessions like 30 minutes or
        less, are you talking about an evaluation form every, every
        session?  Is that what you would be recommending?
                         MR. DRIGGS:  Well, I'm going to commit myself on
        this, this question but I personally think if it's less than 
        an hour why do it.
                         MR. BRELAND:  That's fine.
                         MR. DRIGGS:  The, the information whether it be
        lock out, tag out, whether it be conveyer safety, classifier
        safety; there are a lot of elements here that need to be
        covered in the interest of safety of the employee and, and
        if you can't give anymore than or an hour devotion to it I
        think you're really 
                         MR. BRELAND:  The only question I'd have is on the
        feedback if they did the short term sessions, like 30
        minutes or less, are you talking about an evaluation form
        for every session?  Is that what you would be recommending?
                         MR. DRIGGS:  Well, I'm going to commit myself on
        this question, but I personally thing if it's less than an
        hour, why do it?  
                         MR. BRELAND:  That's fine.
                         MR. DRIGGS:  The information, whether it be lock-
        out, tag-out, whether it be conveyor safety, classifier
        safety, there are a lot of elements here that need to be
        covered in the interest of safety of the employee and if you
        can't give any more than an hour devotion to it, I think
        you're really on the light end.  It -- you need to put more
        work into your curriculum.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                         MR. DRIGGS:  That's my own viewpoint.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, thank you.
                         MR. DRIGGS:  Thank you.
                         MR. BRELAND:  I have no other questions.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
        Driggs.  The next speaker on our list is Peter Ward from
        Hanson Aggregates.
                         STATEMENT OF MR. PETER WARD
                         MR. WARD:  Good morning, I'm Peter Ward.  I'm with
        Hanson Aggregates.  That's P-e-t-e-r, W-a-r-d.  In spite of
        the teasing from Kevin I am in fact an American and have a
        $95.00 receipt to prove it.  Just to let you know why I
        think we have a voice to listen to on this subject, this
        year we will accumulate in the region of 15 million work
        hours.  We have 200 locations and 8,000 employees.  
                         We produce in excess of 100 million tons.  We take
        training seriously.  Our group total case incident rate is
        around 2.8 and our LTI, I think, is about 1.3.  I haven't
        got prepared notes, but I wanted to address some of the
        questions that had come up earlier.  I find myself pretty
        well in agreement with Duane Niesen.  I think he had some
        excellent points and the thing about this meeting is there
        is no contention.  Whatever we have is good and we're trying
        to work a way to make it better.  
                         I'm on the various NSA committees and clearly NSA
        is part of SEMA, but standing outside that for a minute and
        speaking as a larger producer, I don't care whether we have
        Part 46 or 48, we're in compliance either way.  Would I
        prefer a more focused training?   Yes, but most of the
        larger producers are already well in excess of either
        requirement.  
                         Training is the crux of the problem.  Whether it's
        part 46 or Part 48, the same organizations will either be in
        compliance or they'll be out of compliance.  MSHA, to a
        large extent is responsible through in fact the dual
        standards of inspection and enforcement between the larger
        and the smaller operators and that's a point we bring up
        many times and it's relevant to bring it up now.
                         We typically have 30 to 40 documented hours, 5023. 
        It's appropriate training and it's documented. 
        Qualifications of the trainee is a significant point.  The
        general training, I think, needs to be done by a certified
        instructor because typically they'll have the communication
        skill.  What I would say is if it was necessary for me to
        take 80 hours to get my blue card, and I come away worried
        with how little I know, I think is wrong but MSHA will
        sanction one-day training sessions to get a blue card.  I
        mean, that's outrageous and it devalues the certification
        process.  
                         Task training may be best carried out by a
        competent person who may or may not be a certified
        instructor but in any event, that training should be
        documented and it should be able to form part of a 5023. 
        Record keeping just to address one that came up, if we had
        two or three companies it wouldn't really matter but we have
        over 200 coast to coast.  I think that the training records
        should be on site.  We can say you electronically have them
        at a corporate office.
                         The training, the records, the information should
        be resident on the site.  I think they should be seen as a
        water tight cohesive unit with the training records
        available for inspection.  We would -- we, in fact, submit
        our mine training plans.  East of the Mississippi they tend
        to keep them.  I understand in California they tend to send
        them back, but we've got them.  If you have a fatality,
        you're going to have to have the documents.  We just assume
        that it's in force and in fact, we wouldn't care as a
        corporation whether there was a process of voluntary
        compliance that you come around and inspect.
                         Once again, it goes back to the dual standards.  
        The smaller operators will always -- not always, will be the
        ones probably out of compliance but they know it doesn't
        matter because they'll get cut slack in the event of an
        inspection.  The cost of training was brought up.  There is
        no cost of training.  There's a high cost of not training. 
        Our labor burden has been brought down by 40 cents an hour
        since we have had an aggressive training program.  
                         When our TCI was nine, our cost per ton -- cost
        per hour, beg your pardon, was 55 cents.  It's currently
        less than 12 cents.  So we say that an aggressive training
        plan is a competitive edge, not a cost and we have the
        documents and we do share them at NSA meetings or anywhere
        else.  And these are  four-year progressive records that
        we're glad to share with anyone that wants to talk about the
        cost of training.
                         In terms of definitions, close supervision needs
        to be, I think defined.  Is close constant supervision,
        constant attendance?  Duane was right, that a lot of these
        citations are fought on technicalities and definitions, I
        think, need to be, you know, clearly spelled out.  48
        doesn't do a bad job anyway, but if we're going to introduce
        new ones, I think they need to be understood.
                         I wish I had come better prepared for that but I
        just wanted to address some questions that had been raised. 
        If I could go off on a slight tangent for one minute to
        address Duane Niesen's comment on silica.  We have in the
        last 18 months spent $150,000.00 testing all our locations
        with outside certified industrial hygienist.  We have only
        found one location out of compliance and that was in a
        testing lab in Oregon.  
                         I believe our industry has a bigger problem
        proving compliance than it has, in fact, in complying.  So I
        would urge people that haven't actually got into testing yet
        to get in.  The water isn't as cold as you think and the
        problem isn't as severe as some people would have us
        believe.  And I'll answer any questions.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Do you have questions?
                         MR. BRELAND:  Yeah.  Peter on the issue of the
        certification, I want to make sure I understood what you
        were talking about.  You said you took 80 hours to become
        certified and you were opposed to some short circuit one-day
        session to certify future people.
                         MR. WARD:  I am.  I think the one-day sessions may
        be good if they are for refresher but people go to the one-
        day refreshers and come away with a blue card and you know,
        I don't claim kin to Einstein but it took me 80 hours to
        realize how little I knew.  If somebody can walk away in one
        day with a blue card and feel competent to instruct, they're
        a whole lot brighter than me.
                         MR. BRELAND:  I think the present MSHA
        instructor's course varies I've heard from three days to
        five days.  Does that sound right?  Is that what you're
        talking about?
                         MR. WARD:  But there are one day -- Kevin, you and
        I had this discussion.  There are one-day courses where
        people will walk away with a card.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                         MR. WARD:  And if you want to stamp it out, count
        on my vote.
                         MR. BRELAND:  No, I just wanted to make sure I
        understood what you were about because there are a lot of, I
        believe, around the country and it was discussed earlier
        this morning, some are submitting, you know, resume type
        background applications for certification and some have been
        given at least provisional approvals based on that.
                         MR. WARD:  Well, the resume type doesn't let you
        know whether the person has communication skills and I think
        that should be part of the test.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. 
        Actually, we're just trying to get it out so that it's all
        considered.  
                         MR. WARD:  I just feel that if we're going to have
        certified instructors there ought to be a clear level of
        what constitutes and what is on that agenda and it goes
        beyond pure product knowledge.  There has to be the ability
        to deliver that knowledge, impart that knowledge, and that's
        not always given.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Do you think there should be a
        different level for requirement for those that might have
        the approval authority to certify others than obviously,
        those that are just doing some instruction?
                         MR. WARD:  Well, that's a good question.  Really,
        if MSHA is going to pass the -- certify the instructors,
        then I don't think I ought to suggest how MSHA runs its
        house, but if that was the question.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Well, presently we use a lot of --
        in the country there's a lot of state organizations that do
        a good job of instructor training and they do some
        certification in some areas and there are some others
        around.  I guess if you stop and think all of a sudden if we
        have eight or 10,000 operations that come into some training
        requirements, there's going to be a definite need for some
        method of certifying, if that's the requirement,
        instructors.  And I was just asking if you have some ideas
        on that.
                         MR. WARD:  I'd rather come back in writing than
        just shoot from the hip on that but training is such a
        serious issue, I'd rather not just give you a knee jerk.  If
        you wish I'll give you some suggestions in writing at a
        later date.
                         MR. BRELAND:  That would be good if you would do
        that.
                         MR. WARD:  And I'll, in fact, go to our 20 safety
        directors and ask them what they would expect because they
        are the folks that have to suffer from good or bad, you
        know, certification levels.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                         MR. WARD:  Give me 60 days, I'll have an answer
        from our safety directors.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, I think Kathy is going to go
        over our schedules a little but probably the sooner the
        better on the comments.
                         MR. WARD:  Well, I'll be at the Dallas meeting,
        sir.  I'm going to keep turning up like a bad penny, so I'll
        have something for you then.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, thank you.
                         MR. BURNS:  I have maybe one long question for
        you.  Your lost time injury rate went from 1.3 to 9.0.  They
        you have some costs.
                         MR. WARD:  It went the other way.
                         MR. BURNS:  Correct, sorry about that.  Sorry
        about that.  How much of that -- because I know that you've
        done a lot of supervisor training at the same time. 
                         MR. WARD:  Yeah.
                         MR. BURNS:  How much of that reduction, if you
        can, do you account to the supervisor training?
                         MR. WARD:  When I was switched from engineering to
        the safety I found that most people were blissfully unaware
        of the laws that govern their trade and they were genuinely
        offended when MSHA gave them a citation 30 CFR 14.100 that
        have found that brakes have to work.  So instead of sending
        from the bottom up, we took every superintendent east of the
        Mississippi, put them on a 40-hour course and had them
        certified as MSHA instructors.  
                         They weren't necessarily equipped with the skills
        to impart, but at least they knew what was expected.  The
        second year we took the foremen and the next level and each
        year we cut down through the ranks.  And we used primarily
        North Carolina Department of Labor, which is a federally
        funded program, probably the best in the country and that's
        borne out by the fact that 16 states were represented there
        over the last two years and each state that came in had
        their own state programs.
                         So North Carolina does have probably the Cadillac
        program and I'll just run that commercial for Carolina.  I
        mean, it was a good program.  It kind of spoiled us for some
        of the others.  But the certification has to be from the top
        down.  Our philosophy has been that we teach the employees
        the laws that govern their trade and then we hold them
        accountable. The training, when I say it cut down through
        the ranks, that's a non-judgmental statement, but in terms
        of skill levels and education levels, each year we go
        deeper.  We have not yet found a level where Part 5648
        training has not been valuable.  In fact, the lower we went
        down through the ranks the more rewarding some of that
        training has been and that has been a surprise to some.
                         You modify the training, you might break it into
        smaller sessions.  Some of those people haven't sat in a
        classroom in 30 years, and therefore, I think you can break
        it down into, you know, 30 minute sessions, a smoke break,
        come back in, just modify it for the audience but there is
        no level where it isn't valuable.
                         MR. BURNS:  Would you be able to submit some of
        those cost numbers that you talked about?
                         MR. WARD:  I'm sure the board will approve it and
        I will be glad to do that, yes.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay, thanks.  That's all the
        questions I have.  I'll probably think of some more for
        Dallas.
                         MR. WARD:  I'll be there.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
        Ward.
                         MR. WARD:  Thank you
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  The next speaker on our
        list is Danny Lowe from Kaiser Cement.
                         STATEMENT OF MR. DANNY LOWE
                         MR. LOWE:  Good morning.  My name is Danny Lowe,
        l-o-w-e, common spelling of Danny, D-a-n-n-y.  I appreciate
        the opportunity to be before this committee to have some
        input on the proposed Part 46 regulations.  Some of my
        concerns are from my facility, my industry which is one of
        the ones that, I hate to use the word exempt, because we
        have never been exempt from the Part 48 regulations.  MSHA,
        however, has been prohibited from enforcing those
        regulations.
                         Now, I've been at our site for a year and a half,
        been in the mining industry for about 10 years.  I came out
        of the gold mining industry from Nevada over to California
        about 18 months ago into an industry that basically took the
        attitude if MSHA couldn't enforce the regulations, we're not
        going to do it in its entirety.  To my advantage, I have an
        administration that is very  proactive in safety and very
        supportive from the vice president of operations or the
        president of our company to our on-site VP of operations to
        my boss and we set forth to be very aggressive in meeting
        Part 48 regulations.  
                         My concern is when MSHA has announced that they
        were going to lift the budget rider on enforcement.  Some of
        my areas of concern are for our contractors that come on
        site during major shut-downs to do maintenance work. 
        They'll be coming onto a mine site and when the budget rider
        is lifted and MSHA has enforcement, we had these temporary
        people to be on site for up to 30 days, during the shutdown,
        doing work, maintenance work.  If by chance an MSHA
        inspector were to come to a site to do an inspection during
        that time and had the authority to enforce the training
        regulation, where do these contractors, outside contractors
        obtain training?
                         Now granted here in the State of California, Duane
        Niesen's group, which we use heavily to train our own
        people, can only do so much and in certain situations we
        have contractors from Texas, from Montana coming onto a mine
        site to do work that are very specialized in certain types
        of operations.  Now, if they're going to have to meet Part
        48 training regulations, where are they going to get this
        training?  
                         They don't normally work on a mine site.  They're
        very competent, very proficient and very professional at
        what they do, but an MSHA inspector says, "Let me see your
        5023 training form or your new miner or annual refresher
        training", and they can't produce it, then citations are
        going to be written.   
                         Also, at our facility in Cupratino, California, we
        probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 6100 trucks
        coming in and out of our facility, in our rock plant, in our
        cement operation, picking up our product, delivering to our
        customers.  In accordance with Part 48, they are there on a
        regular basis.  They come, they go to one specific point. 
        More often than not, they never get out of their truck
        except to go get a weigh ticket or something of that nature. 
        They're not actively involved in the mining process other
        than the receiving of product.  
                         Here again, if this rider is lifted, MSHA
        inspectors are giving enforcement for training and stop a
        truck driver and want to see this documentation, another
        citation is going to be written.  And I would like to see
        some language pointed towards, you know, if we do specific
        hazard training for these type of people coming in that only
        have one place to go in and out of the facility, on a
        regular basis, then they would meet the intent of the
        regulation.
                         Now, we do a very, very good job of training our
        own employees and we require training of our contractors
        that are on our property on a regular basis.  And we're one
        of the very few in industry that do this and have been
        proactive in doing it, but these are some of the other
        concerns I have.
                         As far as the training plan, as Peter stated and
        we are part of Hansen Aggregates, we are owned by them, when
        Leo Hayden was in the Western District Office and I came on
        board at Kaiser Cement, I set about to do our training plan. 
        I called Leo and I said, "I'm going to send this over here
        for your approval".  He said, "Don't bother, I'll send it
        right back", because they couldn't expend any funds for
        that, so it sits on my desk.
                         As far as instructors I think we have a very
        competent team of 13 instructors certified by MSHA in our
        facility, one of which is my boss who is an
        instructor/trainer.  And we set about getting these people
        certified by picking competent people throughout our
        facility that have good communication skills.  We went
        through that selection process brought an outsider from the
        gold mining industry in to do our training.  He's an
        instructor/training, as well, and we did it in three days
        and we used those to satisfy Part 48 regulations at our
        facility.  
                         Those were just my concerns with those kind of
        people coming onto our facility, not necessarily our normal
        employees in our work force but those that augment and our
        customers that come and pick up our product.  
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Are you done?
                         MR. LOWE:  Yes, ma'am.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Oh, okay.  I've got a
        couple questions.
                         MR. LOWE:  Okay.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  You talk about these
        outside contractors who come on during down times --
                         MR. LOWE:  Shutdown.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  -- to do maintenance. 
        Does your company give them any kind of site specific hazard
        training before they come on?
                         MR. LOWE:  We do hazard training when they come on
        as a group.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                         MR. LOWE:  We have a very good contractor handbook
        that we've developed and pass out to them.  They sit down in
        my office with me for about an hour and we go over our lock-
        out, tag-out, general hazards, our rules and our
        expectations of them as a guest on our facility.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.
                         MR. LOWE:  That's done with every contractor
        during the shut-down.  Then in specific areas, whether it be
        the quarry, the pack house, wherever they are, they'll go
        through a site specific hazard training.  
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Does the contract that you
        have with these contractors, does it address responsibility
        for safety and health training?
                         MR. LOWE:  Well, what it is, is a general proviso
        that they will stay in compliance with all federal and local
        laws.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay, okay. 
                         MR. LOWE:  But here again, realistically, where do
        they go to get the training?
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  You're talking about the
        fact that the resources for providing training are not
        there?  Is that your concern?
                         MR. LOWE:  Absolutely, other than Cal-DOSH mining
        and tunnelling.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay, do these contractors
        typically or the contractor employees typically have any
        kind of OSHA safety training?
                         MR. LOWE:  Some do, some don't, depending on what
        they do.  If we get a group -- suppose we need a group of 10
        dump trucks in there to haul something out of the way,
        that's all they're doing.  A loader is loading them. 
        They're going up, dumping.  They never get out of their
        truck.  They're never on the site.  They're just driving on
        our property.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.
                         MR. LOWE:  And they're well-versed in the hazards
        and they know that our equipment has the right of way and
        that kind of stuff.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  You were talking
        about the truck drivers.  Are those customers typically?
                         MR. LOWE:  We consider them out customers because
        they're coming in and picking up our product, whether it's
        bulk cement, sand, gravel, rock, whatever.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  And they're employed by
        the company who is going to be ultimately using the product?
                         MR. LOWE:  Receiving the product.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay, so they come no your
        site a lot of times.  I mean, they don't even bother to get
        out of -- I mean, there's no reason for them to get out of
        the truck.
                         MR. LOWE:  The way our systems are automated with
        the bulk cement drivers, they have to get out of the truck. 
        We have engineered, designed, developed and put in place a
        rack system that they crawl up under, so if they fall they
        have something to grab hold of to open their lids.  They
        drive around to a bulk loading area, drive up under, they're
        loaded.  The same thing on the way out, they go up under the
        lid closing rack, close it, hit the scales and they're gone. 
        And we're in the process even now as we speak modifying our
        bulk load-out to where they don't even have to get out
        there. 
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.  So those truck
        drivers typically wouldn't be getting any kind of hazard
        training from you.  I mean, they just --
                         MR. LOWE:  No.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  How long typically would
        they be on property at, you know --
                         MR. LOWE:  Fifteen-minute turnaround time.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.  All right.  
                         MR. LOWE:  By what my concern is, if -- the way
        the regulations are written now, that if they're on that
        mine site regularly and the policy program manual I think
        states more than five consecutive days in an annual year,
        then an MSHA inspector can stop every one of those and write
        them a citation for not having Part 48 training.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Well, we've been getting a
        number of comments on the issue of categories of employees,
        I mean, people who are on the mine site for various reasons
        and what levels of training are appropriate for them.
                         MR. LOWE:  Right.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  But with respect to the
        outside contractors, I mean, your point is that there's no
        training available for these people.
                         MR. LOWE:  There is no place that they can go get
        training.  Now, at our facility, now that we have gone
        through and all of our people -- our normal employees have
        met the requirements of Part 48, we are now using Cal-DOSH
        money in tunnelling instructors, we're using our facilities,
        our training facilities at our site and allowing contractors
        to come in and get this training there.
                         We're not paying them to do it.  They're having to
        pay their own people but it's still at a cost to our company
        to do this as well as the State of California and MSHA to do
        it.  I think we're one of the most proactive companies in
        that regard in this industry, at least in this geographical
        area because there's no other outlet for them.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.  That's all I
        have.  Do you have --
                         MR. BRELAND:  Just a couple.  You said 6100 trucks
        in what time period was that?
                         MR. LOWE:  In a month.
                         MR. BRELAND:  In a month?
                         MR. LOWE:  That's both in our rock plant -- we
        have a rock plant operation as well as production of cement
        at our facility.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Are they typically regular
        customers, if you will?
                         MR. LOWE:  Yes, sir.
                         MR. BRELAND:  It's not like they're not familiar
        with coming to mine sites, a good portion of them.
                         MR. LOWE:  They don't even think that they're on a
        mine site in the areas they go to.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, and you said you don't do
        anything presently.  I mean, do you give them -- do they
        have to sign some sort of release when they come in?  Are
        they directed to any particular place?
                         MR. LOWE:  No, sir.
                         MR. BRELAND:  They don't have to go through a
        gate, per se, then?
                         MR. LOWE:  They do go through a security gate and
        then they to go their respective load-out areas, load and
        go.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, and that's about all the
        interaction they have with anybody on site.
                         MR. LOWE:  That's it.  They grab a ticket and
        they're out the gate.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then you talked about the
        contractors that come on site for varying times of maybe
        some significant repairs, up to 30 days or longer.
                         MR. LOWE:  Yes, sir, we have an annual shut-down.
                         MR. BRELAND:  But that you do a pretty formal kind
        of introduction of hazard training or whatever it takes in
        the areas that they're going to be going to.
                         MR. LOWE:  Yes, sir.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Is that formalized?  Do you have it
        written?
                         MR. LOWE:  Yes, sir.
                         MR. BRELAND:  And when you have them go out on
        certain site areas and there might be some transfer of
        instruction.  Like you might do the first part and then it
        goes to whoever they're going to be working with?
                         MR. LOWE:  It usually falls to the supervisor
        supervising that area during the shutdown.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  That's all I have.
                         MR. LOWE:  Thank you.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Thank you.
                         MR. BURNS:  The three days of instructor training
        that your competent people or competent instructors receive,
        did that -- was that three days of how to make proper
        presentations or did that also include subject matter
        training?
                         MR. LOWE:  It was basically a three-day class in
        getting training across, how do I articulate to you what we
        need you to know?  It was done -- there was some segments in
        the preparation of how to teach a subject as well.  It was
        videoed and critiqued by the class as well as the
        instructor.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay, and then I guess just on the
        truck issue, what kind of requirements for training do truck
        -- do the truck operators have under construction or under
        OSHA?  Do you know?
                         MR. LOWE:  No, other than what the Federal Motor
        Carrier Safety Act provides, for a person to hold a
        commercial driver's license, I know of no other regulations,
        whether it's OSHA or MSHA, other than those in Part 48 and
        regular -- coming on to a mine site on a regular occurrence.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay, that's all the questions I have.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
        Lowe.
                         MR. LOWE:  Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  The next speaker on the
        list is Phil Gaynor from Kaiser Cement.
                         STATEMENT OF MR. PHIL GAYNOR
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Good morning.  My name is Phil
        Gaynor.  The spelling is G-a-y-n-o-r, first name is P-h-i-l,
        or Philip, if you will, one L to be precise.  Good morning. 
        I've been in this industry close to 25 years now.  I've been
        in it long enough that I still remember MESA, Mine
        Enforcement Safety Administration which was the precursor to
        MSHA.  Prior to that we had whatever other agencies there
        were.
                         I find it most belaboring and troublesome that
        some 20 years after the MSHA Act comes into place we still
        don't know what a miner is or a new miner or an experienced
        miner or any kind of miner you'd like to discuss.  That
        bothers me and if we can't define a miner how would we ever
        approach defining training requirements.  I find it most
        interesting that the government says, "You must have trained
        people".  Fine, what constitutes a trained person?
                         If I want to go get a college degree, I get a
        catalog from the school and it says, "Here's the hours, the
        classes, the whatever you must have to get this degree".  I
        have an agency enforcing requirements against me telling me
        that I must train people but they don't tell me what I must
        train.  More importantly than that, they don't really tell
        me the requirements of an instructor to train the people. 
        I'm a certified MSHA instructor.  I have a couple of college
        degrees and whole lots of experience.
                         That doesn't make me necessarily a great
        instructor.  It just says I might know something.  It's
        troublesome to me that I can't tell you when someone on my
        facility is trained because I don't know the requirements. 
        So I think the agency itself should tell us what core
        requirements are.  If I get a driver's license, that's
        honored from state to state to state because there's core
        requirements; to know where the brake is, to know how to
        read a speed limit sign, et cetera.  
                         The most important training I think I received
        after that is site specific. If I'm driving in the north, I
        probably know how to drive in snow and ice.  If I'm driving
        in the southern states, I probably understand how to operate
        a car in the heat.  There are different requirements given
        different conditions for where we are.  I think it's very
        important that we should know what training requirements
        are.  I think that's a very shortcoming of the Act.  I'm
        probably one of the few people in the industry that it
        bothers a lot that we have a rider on Part 48.  In fact, I
        think it's an indictment against us as an agency and as an
        industry that we don't enforce training of people within our
        facilities.
                         There's a reason Part 48 is in there.  It's
        contrary to a lot of people's belief.  Training is not a
        cost, as you heard Peter Ward say earlier.  It is a
        competitive advantage.  We meet and exceed in all cases the
        training requirements at the facility I operate in in
        Cupratino, California.  We have 225 employees, approximately
        15 instructors and all of the people on site have been in
        training and we continue to train.  We will continue to do
        that.  Our problem now is what do we do with contractors.  
                         Contractors have no outlet for training.  They
        come on our facility, they're expected to meet training
        requirements and we can't tell them what those requirements
        are.  I've made my case on that.  I would like to see us
        expand training through the agency, define it, so that we
        can go to our community junior colleges and other places, so
        that we can put our employees there if we so choose, or
        people that we want to use in our industry have an outlet to
        gain access to the training that's required. 
                         I'll make one other -- two other points.  One, it
        bothers me that the agency that operates under the Act of
        1977 would distinguish between what they do with an operator
        that's big as versus what they do with an operator that's
        small.  If I have a siteable offense in my plant, why does
        that carry a larger monetary fine for me than it does a
        small operator?  I would contend that an employee of any
        company that is exposed to a hazard, there is no
        differentiation in the price tag to that exposure.  I find
        that an indictment against this agency, that they would say
        because I'm a big operator, I get to pay more because I've
        exposed someone to a hazard.  A hazard is a hazard.
                         And lastly, I would address trucks.  It was spoken
        briefly a moment ago by Danny, operators coming on and off
        the facility.  We recently expensed a large amount of money
        to protect drivers as they climb up on the trailers of
        vehicles to open lids, close lids, whatever.  I find it most
        interesting that your kissing cousin agency, the Department
        of Transportation, blesses those trailers as they're
        manufactured with the egress up and away from those hatches
        without enclosed cages or whatever to protect drivers.  
                         What difference does it make if a piece of
        equipment is on a mine site or off of a mine site; it's
        either safe or it's not.  If MSHA says it's not safe for
        those drivers to be up there, I would recommend our
        government agencies talk with one another and resolve that
        as an issue and not put it on industry in particular the
        mining industry.  Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Mr. Gaynor, I have one
        question.  You were making the point that you know, MSHA
        needs to be, I guess specific for mine operators who are
        going to be required to comply with these requirements as
        far as what a trained miner is, I mean, what exactly has to
        be done in order for someone to be considered to be trained. 
        Now, one of the challenges that we're facing in coming up
        with a regulation for the industries where we're currently
        not able to enforce is coming up with requirements that will
        work for very, very small operations with very few employees
        and maybe not a, you know, institutionalized safety program
        but will also work for the larger operations where probably
        training and compliance with Part 48 is already being given. 
        
                         Now, in light of the fact that you think we need
        to be specific about what these requirements are, how -- do
        you have any suggestions for how we might approach that
        while giving the flexibility that seems to be maybe
        necessary given the, you know, the array of operations that
        we're going to be regulating?
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Again, I will talk generically to
        your question if I understand it right.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  All right.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Whether I'm tall, short, heavy, not
        heavy, ugly, pretty, whatever, if I want a driver's license,
        I have to meet a certain expectation.  I think the agency
        needs to define what they think is a core training
        requirement and whether I'm a large operator or a small
        operator, if that's the minimum requirement, then whoever
        you are, you must meet it.  I would be happy to submit a
        document at some point or be part of a guiding committee to
        work towards those qualifications, but irrespective of size,
        I think it should apply to one and all, whatever that is.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  How would you go about
        defining what that is?  I mean, are you talking in terms of,
        you know, specific subject areas that must be covered and
        certain minimum period of time that must be spent in those
        subject areas or should it be more performance oriented?  I
        guess, you know, I'm just trying to -- looking for ideas as
        far as how we might approach something like that.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Well, certainly it needs to be
        performance driven probably as a basis for whatever we're
        doing.  I'm not so much concerned about the time as I am the
        content and the qualifications.  If I had a precise answer,
        I'm sure the agency would have used it by now.  We've got 20
        years plus experience with MSHA and it's still not settled
        and I find that very troublesome.  
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Uh-huh.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  I don't have a specific answer to be
        more pointed.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay, all right.  Well, I
        appreciate your remarks.  
                         MR. BRELAND:  Just to follow up a little bit on
        the same issue, you had mentioned the core requirements
        being defined but you also gave an analogy of the icy
        conditions and the weathers and talked about some
        differences or at least I think that's what -- were you
        talking about the same issue of having some basic core
        requirements that would always be the same and some other
        possible things that ought to be considered?  Is that what
        you're proposing?
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  You know, if you know how to
        operate a front end loader, it doesn't really make too much
        difference where you are, you can run that front end loader. 
                         MR. BRELAND:  Right.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  But now let me introduce some
        specific conditions from one facility to the next.  I'm in a
        congested area, I'm on a hilly area.  I'm loading open
        trucks, some with single trailers, some with doubles.  There
        are several other things that become site specific in terms
        of doing a job function.  But in terms of operating a
        loader, it's a very generic type of thing. 
                         So those become your core requirements, and then
        your site specific training is what am I going to encounter
        in the facility that I'm in.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, you also referenced tying in
        possibly with if you had good definitions of core
        requirements with community colleges.  So I would assume
        from that you're talking about certainly more basic,
        normally more basic type subjects than you would say
        operating a front end loader.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Most colleges can't do that.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  That's correct and we wouldn't expect
        them to.  But if we wanted to teach first aid or we wanted
        to teach an understanding of the MSHA Act or Cal-OSHA
        guidelines or whatever state you might find yourself
        operating in, there are certain classroom type things that
        could be taken care of that would meet training
        requirements.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, that's all I had but I would
        encourage you and as Kathy Alejandro would, that if you have
        some suggestions or written comments that you should submit
        them for those definitions.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Be happy to.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Thank you.
                         MR. BURNS:  Would you -- I guess just from
        listening to you, you would distinguish between an
        experienced miner and a trained miner.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  I might.  I'm not sure what you have
        as a definition, Kevin, so it makes it hard for me to say I
        would do that.
                         MR. BURNS:  No, that's what I'm asking because I
        mean, you could have someone that's very experienced but
        because of, you know, the bad habits they picked up, they
        might actually need more intensive training than somebody
        else.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Yeah, let me give you, I guess maybe
        a little different perspective on it, Kevin, from my view. 
        If I take someone to a driver's license clinic, they're
        about 16 years old and if they do well on their testing,
        they get a driver's license and they can operate a vehicle
        anywhere in this country.  And I've been operating -- let's
        just say I've got 40 years of experience in driving a car. 
                         Now, without knowing much else, would you prefer
        to ride with me in the LA traffic or would you rather ride
        with a 16-year old that just got that license?  We're both
        trained.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay, I mean, that's what I was asking
        if you do -- it sounded to me that you were -- 
                         MR. GAYNOR:  There's a tremendous difference
        between being trained and experienced.  You can be both
        trained and experienced but you're not necessarily
        experienced.  There is a difference.  The agency hasn't
        bothered to define that for us.  So I find it very
        troublesome that if you can't define to me what a miner is,
        how can you expect me to train them?
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay, and part of the difficulty with
        the definition of miner you see is this whole contractor
        issue.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  And as you draw on your
        experience with the National Stone Association which I'm
        familiar with, you have benefits of both sides of the
        street, if you will, and you understand the dilemma and as
        an operator I want not only trained employees, I want them
        to be experienced.  
                         I have a hard time distinguishing quite often
        between a competent person and an instructor.  I contend
        that a competent person may not know how to tell me what he
        knows, but he's quite capable of being a good miner.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay.  That's all I have, thank you
        very much.
                         MR. GAYNOR:  Surely.  Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.  
        The next speaker on our list is Larry Nelson from the
        Arizona Mine Inspector.
                        STATEMENT OF MR. LARRY NELSON
                         MR. NELSON:  My name is Larry Nelson and I'm with
        the Arizona Mine Inspector's office and we are recipients of
        grants under MSHA and we have a little over 500 active
        mining operations, building operations and we train about in
        excess of 3500 people a year.
                         I think we have a big investment in the training
        regulations and I think we're really concerned about some of
        the things that are going on and basically we've always felt
        that, you know, the training regulations is an investment in
        your employee and I don't think it is a cost.  I think it's
        actually an investment where you gain, you have better
        production, you have better attitude of the employees.
                         So going along with Phil Gaynor, I kind of
        agreement 100 percent with what the man was talking about. 
        He understands that the people need to be trained.  MSHA
        needs to define, in my opinion, what the requirements are
        and what they should be.  What is a miner?  What are they're
        training certification requirements?  And I've heard a lot
        of comments up here about the certification of an instructor
        and people seem to have some problems with it.
                         Currently, everybody that instructs or teaches
        under MSHA regulations does not have to be an MSHA
        instructor.   As long as they are under the direction and
        the material provided is reviewed by a certified instructor
        and under his direction, I don't see any problem with that
        as it is now and I think that we need to have an MSHA
        certification for an instructor.  I think currently what we
        do, we have an instructor training course and we put it on,
        it's a three-day course. 
                         We don't certify anyone.  MSHA does.  We make a
        recommendation.  But we won't allow a person to take that
        course unless he gives us a resume and shows us he has a
        mining background to begin with, has some mining
        understanding, has some previous supervisory leadership type
        qualities.  Then we will allow him to take the course and
        then we recommend him to MSHA as a certified instructor.
                         The areas that haven't been covered is what I
        think -- like the eight-hour -- I think it should be a
        minimum of eight hour instructions for a new employee.  I
        think in the aggregate business and particularly there is a
        problem because there is a big turnover.  But I do believe
        they need that eight hours annual refresher, eight-hour
        initial training and then give the small operator that has a
        big turnover employment a little bit of leeway, give him 30
        to 45 days to finish the initial training for non --
        inexperienced miner.  But again, I don't think we should go
        60, 90 go beyond that point because, again, I believe it's
        an investment.  
                         And once you feel that that employee is going to
        stay with you and he's going to be there more than the end
        of the first 30 days, he should complete the rest of the
        training.  The training records, I think there should be
        some allowance for -- if the mine operation or the
        individual mine site has a computer with modem and is
        connected to the main office where they have records or if
        they have a working fax and the records could be faxed
        immediately, should allow that, but if you don't have the
        other -- you know, that electronic connection with your main
        office and have it working, they should have to have the
        records on site.
                         Again, people have brought up the fact that how is
        the MSHA instructor or the state inspector going to know if
        the men are trained or not, if they don't have some records
        on site.  And again, the training plan, I think it should be
        there for review and I think on the training plan, any
        training plan should be reviewed by MSHA to see if it has
        the content.  If you want to make changes, I don't think you
        should have to wait for review.  You can mail it to the MSHA
        office, allow them to review it.  If they have comments,
        they'll tell you about it.
                         If they don't, you go on about your business with
        it.  That's about all -- oh, the one other item was that
        Danny Lowe brought up about drivers and everything.  In
        Arizona -- and I was surprised what he said about operators
        coming on site without any type of training.  In Arizona,
        the Arizona Mine Inspector's office and MSHA do not allow
        truck drivers, vendors to go on a mine site without some
        training.  They have to have that initial hazard recognition
        and 90 percent of them have a small card.  They go over it
        with the mine operator, the vendor, the hazard that he will
        be exposed to when he delivers his product or he picks up a
        load of rock.
                         And the route is laid out very specific to where
        he can go and where he can't go.  He signs the card.  The
        card file is put into the security gate and I think that's
        100 percent because I do know that MSHA has issued several
        citations for that at mine operators for not doing that
        initial training and I didn't know they allowed that in
        California.  I was very surprised.  That's all the comments
        I have.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Larry, I had a couple that I just
        wanted to follow up on; one on the minimum eight hours that
        you were saying you thought ought to be initial
        irregardless, did you have an idea on the types of subjects
        you would expect always before they start and the others
        that would be allowed in that eight --
                         MR. NELSON:  Any area that he's going to be
        exposed to a hazard should be covered.  I think some initial
        hazard recognition, basic electrical if he's going to be
        around anything electrical, basic traffic control if he's
        going to be exposed to that, but initially the things that
        he's going to be exposed to should be covered.  And it could
        be very generic in some respects but anything that that
        individual is going to be exposed to a hazard.
                         If he's a front end loader, he should get some
        general information about a front end loader.  If he is a
        mechanic or custodian, whatever he might -- I mean,
        custodial people, whatever he might be, some of those
        subjects should be covered and I think possibly some initial
        first aid.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, thank you.  And then also you
        talked about the records and allow some flexibility of they
        had the capability of getting a copy right away.  Some of
        the issues that have come up in other meetings in discussion
        is what about the cross-over people that might, say
        occasionally be a loader operator at the batch plant who,
        all of a sudden, is now on a mine site under MSHA
        jurisdiction and their records?  Those you might say they're
        probably going to receive the same training as others
        because they would be with the same company.  
                         But you could have the roving mechanic whose
        records might not be with them or how would you propose to
        handle that guy that might be visiting one of many of say 20
        plants in an area?
                         MR. NELSON:  Well, I think that that individual,
        say if he's an experienced man, that he should have the 5023
        in his possession, that he's had annual refresher and then
        they want to get more specific.  I mean, that would be the
        initial thing that the inspector would want to know that at
        least he has some training, he has his annual refresher.  If
        he's a new employee, he ought to have the 5023 saying he has
        the 24 hours.  And anything beyond that, specific task, I
        don't think it would be difficult to get that.  
                         But I do think that individuals that are roaming
        or have been over -- and I don't think that if you're out of
        MSHA's jurisdiction and they want to assign you into an area
        that is, I don't think that's an excuse.  You know, he has
        to have the training just like anybody else.  A new hire has
        to have it.  If he transfers from a hot plant or ready mix,
        then he needs to have the training regardless of whether
        he's under MSHA's jurisdiction or not at his previous
        employment.  When he goes over there, he has to have the
        training, that's what I believe.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.  And then just one other
        question; on the training plan to make sure I understood
        what you were suggesting, that if they had a training plan
        that they submitted, that it should be assumed approved
        unless they had some feedback that it needed additional?
                         MR. NELSON:  Well, what I think would be a good
        way to do it was they send in a training plan for approval,
        the initial one.  I think MSHA should look at it to see if
        it has the content and that's an educational thing for both
        parties.  That individual will have known by the end of the
        process of approval what has to be required in the plan. 
        And then if he wants to make additional changes as time goes
        by, he mails them into the location where he has the initial
        approval.  They review that and if they have a problem with
        it, they'll let him know.
                         If they don't, go on about his business.  He don't
        have to sit and wait to see if it's -- get a letter back
        from MSHA to see if he can make that improvement because,
        you know, overnight things can change your situation and if
        you don't have your training plan, you really legally can't
        do it.  So I think you could say, "Hey, here's a letter, I'm
        going to make this change tomorrow or next week.  If you
        have a problem with it, you let me know about it, but I'm
        going to go ahead and make this change for this period of
        time".  
                         I think that a flexibility should be allowed and
        then MSHA would still have the opportunity to review it and
        if they have a problem with it, they'll tell him so.
                         MR. BURNS:  All right, thank you.  That's all I
        have.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
        Nelson.  
                         MR. NELSON:  All right.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  The next speaker we have
        on our list and forgive me if I mispronounce it, is Richard
        De Atley of West Coast Aggregates.
                      STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD DE ATLEY
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Good morning.  I'm happy to be here
        and discuss something that's very important to our industry
        and definitely I'm very much in favor of Part 46 and
        thoughtful removal of the Part 48 rider.  By the way the
        last name is spelled D-e, capital A-t-l-e-y, De Atley, first
        name Richard.    
                    I'm going to be a little shotgun in my comments in that
        all these other illustrious gentlemen have addressed several
        of the things that I wanted to bring up.  There are a couple
        of them that -- by the way, we're a Bay Area operation,
        three quarries and two sand and gravel operations.  
                         Having been in the metals mining part of our, I
        guess you'd call it this part of our industry, too, like the
        gentleman from Kaiser, I know what Part 48 training is all
        about and have one of those blue cards also for the
        convenience of training our people when I was out in what
        was gold mining operations.  The problem that we had in the
        use of Part 48 when we were -- when I was in the metals end
        of things, was probably the time.  
                         As I recall, it's been awhile, there was a certain
        time put on each item and I felt in a lot of those cases it
        was excessive.  Particularly out there was a high turnover
        situation and you -- as I recall underground was 48 hours
        and surface was 24 hours.  That's a lot -- it's something we
        want to do and we did, but some of it was just killing time. 
        It wasn't effective and I'm trying to say I think I'd like
        to see the operators, all of us operators, submit our own
        plans and put what we think are the proper times associated
        with it. 
                         Our local -- we're actually owned by a company
        based in Portland, Oregon, but our local operations probably
        have manpower of up to 10 people.  And it's hard to take
        them as a group because you've got run the place.  So some
        of the ideas or some of the things that I'd like to throw
        out here is primarily one is -- that hasn't been brought up
        is that any safety meetings should be applied towards that
        24 hours.  
                         And that would be under -- I think the other
        gentleman from Kaiser, we've got quite a few gentlemen from
        Kaiser here today or Hansen and Kaiser, that the core issues
        are probably covered in safety meetings because you're
        talking to all the operators on the site.  
                         The other thing that again, the gentleman from
        Kaiser brought up was people coming on the site, they
        referred to subcontractors, I have it down here in my notes
        a big star after it as something I wanted to definitely
        emphasize, where I call service people, such as the guy that
        fixes the dozer, the loader, the whatever.  They always
        change.  Maybe with a very large operation they have a
        service guy dedicated to that particular company or site. 
        Otherwise, they're new, they are right on the site and how
        do you handle them.  
                         It's something that I think the hazard training
        would cover myself, but I think it should be looked into in
        great depth.  I did read over the proposed -- the National
        Aggregate and National Stone's proposed plan, proposed rule,
        I guess is the right way, Part 46.  It's not very specific
        yet.  I think it needs more meat to it as to how you handle
        servicemen, subcontractors or just the occasional visitor. 
        As to the truckers, our policy is we have signs in several
        spots that say, "Don't get out of the truck", and I've
        always assumed this was an MSHA rule and I think it is. 
                         So we consider them encapsulated so that they
        don't require the training, but it's -- we very definitely
        enforce the don't get out of the truck rule.  A couple other
        shotgun things; experienced as opposed to new, again, from
        the metals mining experience, we definitely had a lot of
        experienced people and you may have learned bad habits but
        you were experienced and that is a big, big step forward
        over new.  
                         I advocate certainly the eight hours, six to eight
        hours with new.  Experience, though, I really have a problem
        with, and this is maybe a bad experience, but overkill with
        reviewing actually stuff that he knows.  Site specific
        safety hazards are to me the most important factor.  If you
        know how to operate a loader, you're experienced and you
        know how to operate a loader, but you've got to know the
        congestion on the site and all those sorts of things.  
                         Again, I apologize if I'm kind of all over the
        board here.   And definitely, I'd say the records should be
        on site.  To me it's just -- it's probably too confusing
        otherwise.  I can see personnel records that aren't on site
        but the training, I think is necessary to be one site,
        certainly my recommendation.  And I would hope and I think
        as I read the proposed Part 46 that the operator can submit
        his plan.  We definitely have our own plan and it's a take-
        off on Part 48 because of my background.  So naturally, I'm
        going to do what is familiar to me.
                         But I -- the submission of our own plan and the
        approval by MSHA or the Department of Labor, I think you
        mentioned the Secretary of Labor has to put his -- if that's
        the route that MSHA goes, has to put their stamp of approval
        on, on the operator's plan.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Yeah, I mean the Act
        specifically says that the training plan or program has got
        to be approved by the Secretary of Labor.  Now, you know,
        exactly what that is going to look like, I mean, I think
        that there's a variety of different approaches that we could
        take but you know, that is one of the minimum requirements
        in the Act and I mean, we're trying to figure out how to
        satisfy that minimum requirement.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  And along with that is that the
        operator put down what he feels are the time requirements
        for that particular aspect of training.  Again, I've only
        cursorily read the proposed Act and I think MSHA will tell
        us what they want in the program, but again, I ask that we
        be given the liberty of telling what we think is necessary. 
        And that's probably about the extent of my comments.
                         Again, most or not again but in areas other than
        the very large operators, sites tend to be on the small side
        with a 10 -- say 10 to 15 max people that need training.  So
        I just look for any comments that you have.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Actually, Mr. De Atley,
        I've got one question.  One of the issues you raised was a
        topic that we've heard a lot about as we work our way across
        on these meetings, you refer to them as service people but,
        I mean, these contractor employees who may not be, you know,
        directly involved in the extraction or processing process
        but come on to the site for various reasons, to provide
        services, do you have any suggestions, and this is -- I
        mean, this is a loaded big question, and if you don't want
        to answer, you don't have to, any suggestions for, you know,
        how we might categorize different types of employees?  I
        mean, should it be by function and you know, after we figure
        out what the categories are, I mean, what kind of types of
        training would be appropriate?
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  I think by area they enter.  You
        know, are they right in the pit, in the crushing area or
        those sorts of things.  If they're going to the fuel dock
        area, that's a different area.  I would say by area is how I
        would --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  And the hazards that
        they're exposed to.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Correct, right.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Okay.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Just to follow up a little bit on
        that same issue, I want to make sure I understood what you
        were suggesting on the service maintenance type worker. 
        That the operator would be expected to do the hazard type
        training specific to the area they're going but you -- were
        you saying you didn't think that the contractor should have
        the other training that was say core subjects maybe provided
        by their own company or somewhere else?
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Yeah, I think that's really what I
        am saying, that he's probably not going to be -- or he may
        be, this could be the case, he could maybe not be operating
        a loader and only doing welding, let's say or something of
        that nature; the hazards of the area he's in and the type of
        thing he's doing and that may be core.  I mean, some of it
        is core for sure but he doesn't have to go through the whole
        thing I guess is what I'm --
                         MR. BRELAND:  Well, what -- I guess I probably
        didn't ask it very clearly but --
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Oh, okay.
                         MR. BRELAND:  -- what I meant is would you expect
        that if you contracted and hired a service organization to
        send a maintenance person out or somebody out, that they
        would have been trained in required subjects outside of what
        you need to do at your own specific site that would relate
        to the hazards they might be exposed to?  Obviously you're
        not going to train them to be equipment operator if you
        hired them to come out and operate equipment or to do some
        sort of maintenance.  But you would expect to do hazard
        training, I assume for the areas they're going to be in and
        that they would be trained on their own somewhere else.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Yeah, I think I understand what
        you're saying.  I guess I may not totally understand what
        you're saying.  The -- one of the other gentlemen said,
        well, where can they be trained or where is the facility to
        train them?  There is none at this point other than if their
        employer, which is a contractor who may work at mines all
        the time, does something about it.  I'm still probably not
        registering with what you're saying.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Actually, I guess there's two types;
        those that might say service certain kinds of equipment,
        large manufacturer of equipment, they'll have their own
        people that go out at your request and do servicing of
        transmissions, whatever it might be, do some sort of work at
        the site.  Those people typically are doing training, I
        think, now in most places and they come to the mind sites. 
        They do their annual refresher and what have you and they
        get site specific when they go to mines.  In a lot of cases
        they're doing that, maybe not so much in your areas but I
        know they do that in operations, gold operations where they
        go on site routinely.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Yeah, I would say that's probably
        more the case.  I don't -- I mean, I'm thinking of like the
        local Caterpillar or something like that where he comes to
        work on the heavy equipment, I don't think he's been through
        any kind of mine safety training.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, it probably depends on what
        areas they are in, but considering that, what would you
        propose if they were required to do training for the
        operations that are now exempt, how would you propose
        dealing with those type of routine service people?
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  You'd certainly have to, I think,
        pare it down as to time.  Again, I keep coming back to this
        time issue.  I don't know whether you hand out a booklet and
        you sit there and watch them read it, make sure they read it
        and then they sign a form that says they acknowledge they've
        read it or -- I don't probably have a genuine answer to
        that.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, all right, thank you.
                         MR. BURNS:  I guess I just wanted to ask you a
        question along the lines with what Rod was talking about.  I
        guess from the standpoint if you bring a manufacturer in or
        somebody to change a tire on a loader and say it's near the
        high wall, you'd expect to train that individual to --
        concerning the hazards of the high wall and the mine itself. 
        You wouldn't expect to have to tell them how to change the
        tire safely.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  That's really I think where we're
        going with this, is that that's the hazard -- to me that's
        the hazard training, the specific site hazard training.  He
        probably knows the danger of changing tires, which the big
        equipment tires are a very dangerous thing to change if you
        don't know what you're doing.  Yeah, I'd say that's -- I
        still see it is just mainly specific site hazard training.
                         MR. BURNS:  And then I guess we've heard a lot
        about, you know, training as an investment today, so I guess
        from the standpoint of say the truck drivers coming on your
        property, your investment in training would be such so that
        that truck driver can go through the property, go where they
        have to get the material and leave the property and his --
        the investment you would put in that training is to make
        sure that that person doesn't hurt himself or any of your
        employees but it shouldn't go beyond that.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Yeah, that the -- to me the
        employees, our employees are trained well enough that they
        don't make it dangerous for him, you know, by the operation
        of the loader for instance or truck or, you know, he's
        looking backwards or those sorts of things.  Yeah, I'd say
        it's -- I consider, as I said before, he's encapsulated and
        it's up to the mine operator to make sure that while he's in
        that capsule that cab, that he's safe.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay, thank you very much.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr. -
        - oh, sorry, Roslyn has got a couple questions.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Okay.
                         MR. FOUNTAIN:  I was just wondering if you could
        give me an estimate of what it costs you to train your
        employees on an annual basis?
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  The other gentleman had a per ton
        figure.  I really don't -- I really don't have an answer to
        that.  I don't think it's excessive.  The training itself is
        not to me the expense.  It's the time required.  It's all
        well-spent time and necessary time but that's where the
        dollars are at -- add up and that's of course, what I'm
        supposed to be calculating but the -- any of the materials
        or the -- or the instructor's time is insignificant.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
        De Atley.  
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  We have one more person
        who is on the speaker's list, Gern Hallenbeck of California
        Portland Cement.  And again, I apologize if I have
        mispronounced.
                       STATEMENT OF MR. GERN HALLENBECK
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  No, you did a pretty good job
        with that, thank you.  I want to thank you for the
        opportunity to come up and to speak about a few things.  The
        first thing I'm going to do is just vent a little bit in
        that it seems that every time something comes out about
        accidents and the high rate of accidents we're the bad guys. 
        We're the ones that are sitting out there.  You can't
        enforce the training, so we're not doing the training.  And
        I feel we're getting a bad rap over that.  I don't feel that
        that's true because a majority of us in the industry are
        doing that training and to the extent sometimes even
        exceeding that training and I don't think we have a problem
        with doing the training because we can see the benefits from
        it. 
                         So it's just that sometimes every time that comes
        out and we hear some letters and, you know, we're having
        fatalities, now it's those guys that don't do the training. 
        And I'm not saying it's not because of not doing the
        training but I think as a whole the industry, and I'm
        speaking for the cement industry, is as a whole we are in
        compliance in doing that training.  Now, could we use some
        better guidance in doing that?  Yeah, probably so.  Anybody
        can use a little bit better guidance but a couple of the
        things that were brought into this that I was concerned with
        when we talk about contractor training and that's when a lot
        of us have a big problem with bringing in these outside
        contractors during major shutdowns for the biggest part, how
        do we really control the type of training that they have
        because in the regulations, it just says that they will
        have, quote, "comprehensive training", and it doesn't break
        it down any farther than that.  It just says comprehensive
        training.
                         It doesn't say how long, how much or really what
        that content is going to be, so to what extent did we
        require that to be done?  Now, as a whole I think in our
        particular area down in the high desert and the cement
        plants in the area have really made a commitment to require
        them to have that comprehensive training and show us that
        they've had that MSHA training before they come on site or
        all those people that you're going to be bringing in we want
        to see proof that you have, in fact, had that training.  
                         And it's been a struggle over the last five years
        that I've been working this particular safety aspect.  I've
        been in the cement industry for over 30 years and I've been
        an MSHA instructor since 1986.  So I know some of the pains
        that I've gone through personally and in talking with
        others, what they have to go through to get these
        contractors trained and to stay on top of it.  It's a full
        time job, especially when you have a major outage and you
        may have as many as three or 400 contractors on site when
        normally maybe your full compliment is only 100 or 150
        people. 
                         So it's really a full time job in taking care of
        that but I think we're doing a pretty good job in that and I
        really don't think we're getting the credit that it takes
        when you have four, five, 600 people on a site and you walk
        away at the end of a 15 or 20-day outage and you have zero
        accidents.  We don't get the credit for that.  So that's
        just my venting portion of it.  
                         But in talking about training, we talked about who
        can and who cannot train.  Well, when we talk about task
        training it says that a competent person is capable to task
        train.  Well, why can't we use that same competent person to
        augment our other training as long as he comes under the
        umbrella or the auspices of that course director or which
        would be that head trainer because you have one person that
        signs that 5000 form and then that's that person who is
        actually an MSHA instructor himself.  Can he watch and guide
        what that other person is doing?  Well, sure he can.  He's
        supposed to be there for the course anyway and watching
        everything that's going on.  
                         Well, why don't we use the resources we have in
        house.  Use -- like in my particular situation I have three
        licensed blasters on site.  Well, why can't I use that
        supervisor who is a licensed blaster to come in and teach a
        portion of that explosion portion of my MSHA class for new
        miners or even use him as a refresher.  The same way with my
        electricians, as long as he's under my control and I'm
        dictating exactly what he teaches and cease that, well, then
        maybe we can use them in that respect.  
                         And then I won't elaborate, we've already went
        over quite a bit about truck drivers coming on site and
        having to protect them from falling of their own trucks to
        where it comes to the point on some sites they say, "You
        know, before you come on site, you open your truck.  You
        drive on, you load up, you get off our site and close the
        truck".  That's what it's leading to.  And now simply
        because why is it legal in one place and not legal and we've
        went through all of that.  
                         So that's so much for my venting and my position
        on task training.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Do you have --
                         MR. BRELAND:  Just on the -- make sure I
        understood on the trainers that you were talking about, some
        people doing task training that aren't necessarily certified
        and make sure I understood what you meant about allowing
        additional training to be done by uncertified people but
        that are under some supervision or guidance --
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  Yes.
                         MR. BRELAND:  -- by like say yourself or somebody
        that's been certified --
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  Yes.
                         MR. BRELAND:  -- and would that -- did you have in
        mind -- how would you do that monitoring?  Would that be
        that you had to be in attendance at all classes, some random
        numbers or how would you police that yourself?
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  I would think that in order for
        you to be able to diligently monitor anybody you have to be
        present there.  
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay.
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  So if you're going to have him do
        a portion of, let's say the explosion portion of a new miner
        training which is going to take anywhere from 30 to 45
        minutes or an hour, within that section there, and sure,
        you're not training them to be an explosive expert but what
        you're doing is you're giving them an oversight of what goes
        on, what takes place and the hazards involved in that
        blasting situation, who better to do that than the actual
        person that directs that.            
                    But now, in order to make sure that all his points are
        getting across, well, then you're there to monitor his
        particular portion of that class.  So, yes, you have to be
        there for that.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, I just wanted to make sure I
        understood that's what you meant.
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  Okay.
                         MR. BRELAND:  All right, thank you.
                         MR. BURNS:  Yeah, I just had a follow-up on that. 
        I mean, under -- I don't really -- I kind of agree with you
        on that but I was also going to say, you know, there's lots
        of ways to learn how to do things.  One of them is learning
        by doing it.  So you see at some point in time say that
        blaster, at some point in time you shouldn't have to observe
        him.  Is that correct?  
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  Well, I would think that --
                         MR. BURNS:  I mean, he could develop into a very
        qualified competent trainer just by doing the training all
        the time and learning while he's doing it.
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  I would think that -- and I think
        a point was made earlier, that I think that if you have
        those competent people, then you have a personal obligation
        to maybe pursue them becoming expertise in that area and
        maybe pursuing becoming an MSHA instructor and then at that
        time, you wouldn't have to monitor them.  But as long as you
        have someone that is  not an instructor and taking those
        courses, then I think that you have an obligation to your
        people to make sure that the information has come across
        correctly.
                         MR. BURNS:  Okay.
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  One point I would like to add, on
        the training session though about instructors, and there's
        no real provisions for it, is that the assumption is the
        more you teach the better you get.  Well, that's not always
        true and there is no provisions for like instructor
        refreshers or anything, nothing to go to that will help us
        maybe just to sit down as instructors and to get together
        and say, "Okay, how do you do this", or, "What's some of the
        new things that we have to start getting information out
        to", because sometimes the information isn't real
        forthcoming.  
                         I'm sure as hard as you try the information
        doesn't get to mine sites as well as it should and it's
        interesting that even this meeting today I didn't find out
        about it unless it was through an organization that I
        belonged had sent me some information on it.  I did not
        receive direct information to the mine site about this
        meeting.  
                         MR. BURNS:  Just one more on the training, on the
        task training do you monitor that, too?
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  No, I do not monitor the task
        training since that is basically done by a competent person. 
        Now, I'm at a site where I have 145 people.  And so it's
        really fairly easy for me to get around and make sure that
        when I receive those task training slips from the -- usually
        the supervisors is doing that, that I'll have in the course
        of time the opportunity to observe those individuals doing
        their job in a normal manner.
                         MR. BURNS:  So you do some follow-up type of
        evaluation.
                         MR. HALLENBECK:  Yes.
                         MR. BRELAND:  Okay, thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you very much, Mr.
        Hallenbeck.  We have reached the end of the list of people
        who have signed up to speak up but I'm going to ask is there
        anyone here who has not spoken who now wishes to get up and
        offer their remarks?  All right, is there anybody here who
        has already spoken who would like to get up and make some
        additional remarks?  Okay.
                         Why I'm going to do is give you just a short
        summary of the issues that have been raised at the other
        meetings.   I think probably most of them you've already
        heard something at this meeting, and then also give you a
        short summary of what we think our schedule is going to look
        like in the coming months as we work to get a final rule out
        by the deadline.  We have gotten a lot of comments on the
        whole issue of contractors and there's kind of two issues
        sort of wrapped up in that.  One of them is who should be
        responsible for insuring that contractor employees have the
        requisite training.
                         We've had a number of comments that the mine
        operator should provide the site specific hazard training to
        contractors who come onto the property but that the
        contractors themselves should be responsible for insuring
        that their employees have got the comprehensive training
        that is required.  Also, I mean, we've touched upon this
        issue here today, what types of training are appropriate,
        depending on what the individual employee may be doing at
        the mine site.  
                         There's you know, categories of employees, you
        know, delivery people such as truck drivers or other types
        of individuals who come onto the property for short periods
        of time and their exposure to hazards may be limited.  Those
        -- some of the comments have been those employees clearly
        need to be treated differently than employees who are more
        directly exposed to mine hazards.
                         We have gotten a lot of comments on how much
        initial miner training should be required before a miner is
        allowed to start work.  A lot of people have advocated that
        we take the approach that's taken under Part 48 where eight
        hours of the initial training is given before the miner can
        work on the mine site; whereas we have had several people,
        particularly those from very small operations who have
        indicated that eight hours is too much for their operation. 
        That there just is not that much to their operations.  There
        aren't that many hazards.  That there really is not a lot to
        cover to warrant eight hours of the initial training.
                         We have gotten a lot of comments on the fact that
        annual refresher training that is offered in periods shorter
        than 30 minutes should be allowed and should be considered
        in complying with the eight-hour annual training.  We have
        also heard and you've heard that here today that 30 minutes
        should be the minimum.  Anything shorter than 30 minutes
        simply cannot be of very much use.  
                         One of the themes that has kind of run through the
        comments that we've gotten as we've worked our way through
        these meetings is that encouraging that any rule that we
        come up with allow flexibility to operators in formulating
        their training programs and reducing the necessary
        administrative burden as much as possible.  We have gotten a
        lot of comment advocating that flexibility be allowed in
        where records are kept.  I would say probably here more than
        at any of the other meetings we've gotten more people
        getting up saying that records should be kept at the mine
        site.  I would say for the meeting leading up to this, most
        people have advocated allowing centralized record keeping
        with the record to be provided upon request to the MSHA
        inspector within, you know, some specified minimum period of
        time.
                         One of the other issues that has been raised is
        how much time after a final rule is published should be
        allowed for the industry to come into compliance with the
        requirements.  Now, of course, the amount of time given for
        compliance is going to depend to a large extent on exactly
        what kind of requirements are going to be in the final rule. 
         And it's premature, obviously, for us to give anybody any
        idea of what this rule is going to look like, but we have
        had several people who advocated that at least a year should
        be given past the publication date for the industry to come
        into compliance.  I believe we had one person who said that
        six months would be appropriate.
                         That pretty much covers it.  Did I miss anything?
        Okay, and as far as the schedule I would say -- as I
        mentioned earlier, we have got two additional meetings that
        are set in Atlanta and in Dallas the week of January 5th. 
        We are expecting to get a final draft proposed rule from the
        coalition for effective miner training on or before February
        1st of 1999.  After that date, we will be working very
        vigorously on preparing a proposed rule for publication in
        the Federal Register.  
                         Once the rule goes out of MSHA, I mean, it's got
        to the go to the main Department of Labor for review and
        also go to the Office of Management and Budget for review,
        but we are optimistically hoping to get the rule published
        in the Federal Register some time in the early spring,
        hopefully March and at the latest April.  After the proposed
        rule is in the Federal Register, we typically will have
        public hearings similar in format to the format today to
        allow interested people to come in and comment on what's in
        the proposed rule.
                         It's not clear where these hearings are going to
        be or how many but if I had to predict, I'd say we're
        probably going to have at least two.  The time factor is
        going to determine how many and where they're going to be. 
        I mean, obviously, we're working on a very tight time
        schedule and we want to give as many people the opportunity
        to come in and tell us what they think about the proposed
        rule but on the other hand, I mean, we also have got to
        finish this process up fairly quickly.  
                         So I mean, I would say a minimum of two and time
        permitting, I mean, we would obviously like to offer more
        than those but a notice will go in the Federal Register
        announcing the dates and locations of those hearings.  There
        will also be -- you know, the comment period will be open, I
        mean, if you would like to comment, but are going to be able
        to attend one of the public hearings, you are able to submit
        in writing your comments and you know, deadlines will be
        established for those written comments to be submitted. 
                         After the comment period is closed then we will
        develop a final rule and we obviously would like to get that
        done as quickly as possible while giving, you know, the
        necessary amount of time and consideration to all of the
        comments but we need to get that published no later than
        September 30th of 1999 because that is the deadline that the
        Congress has established for us.  
                         So having said that, I would again encourage you
        if there are additional things that you would like to offer,
        to submit written comments to us.  Again, I would encourage
        you to make those submissions before February 1st of 1999. 
        If you need an address, I mean, if you don't have a copy of
        the meeting notice, come up after we close the meeting and
        we can give you an address.  It is the Office of Standards,
        Regulations and Variance with MSHA.  So if you know what the
        address is for that office, you know where to send those
        comments. 
                         One other thing I'd like to add; MSHA does have a
        home page on the Internet.  The address is www.MSHA.gov. 
        MSHA is obviously M-S-H-A.  There's a button on the home
        page, it's called training regulations.  If you click on
        that, we're trying to keep -- you know, keep up to date on
        what's going on on here and, you know, relevant documents,
        et cetera, we're going to be posting on the -- on our home
        page.  So you might want to take a look at that at regular
        intervals to see, you know, whether there's been any new
        developments.
                         I think that's all I have to say.  If anybody --
        oh, somebody's got their hand raised.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  (Inaudible)
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Sir, could you come up to
        the front because the Court Reporter is not going to be able
        to -- and I don't know what happened to the -- okay, good.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  You were talking about developing a
        final rule by September 30th of '99.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  That's correct.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Is there going to be some kind of -
        - what's the wording I'm looking for, schedule of
        implementation?
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Well, I mean, I think I
        touched on that earlier.  Obviously, one of the big
        decisions that we're going to have to make is how much time
        after the final rule is published do we allow for the
        industry to come into compliance.  And so as I said, I mean,
        some people have advocated that assuming that the final rule
        is published in the Federal Register on September 30th of
        1999, that we are not going to start to enforce whatever
        requirements are in that regulation until September 30th of
        the year 2000.  
                         Now, obviously that's something that we're going
        to have to decide how we're going to approach it, whether we
        have a, you know, an across the board compliance deadline or
        whether we, you know, fashion it depending on what
        particular requirements are involved, I mean, some
        requirements may go into effect sooner than other
        requirements.  I mean, those are all issues that need to be
        addressed as we formulate this rule and obviously, I mean,
        if you've got some feelings about that, you know, we would
        like to know what your suggestions may be. 
                         I mean, you can submit that in writing if you're
        not prepared to address it today and again, I mean, that
        will certainly be an issue in the public hearings that we
        hold after the proposed rule is published.
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  Well, particularly if the operator
        is allowed to submit his plan for approval by the Secretary
        of Labor or whatever --
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Right, right, I mean, we
        obviously -- whatever it is that operators are going to be
        required to do, I mean, it behooves us to set reasonable
        deadlines for them to meet the requirements that are
        established.  I mean, obviously we want to get this underway
        as quickly as possible because we think miner safety and
        health training is extremely important and although a lot of
        people are providing training, I mean, I think there are
        some operators out there that are providing minimum or non-
        existent training.  
                         However, I mean, this is -- you know, for some
        people it's starting from scratch and we want to accommodate
        the needs of the industry as we make this work.  
                         MR. DE ATLEY:  I agree.  Thank you.
                         CHAIRPERSON ALEJANDRO:  Thank you.  Anything else,
        any other comments?  Okay, I would like to thank you all
        very much for coming and I would particularly like to thank
        the people who provided us with presentations.  If you have
        any questions after the meeting, feel free to come up here. 
        If you need addresses or other information, come and see us
        and again, thank you very much.
                         (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the above-entitled
        matter concluded.)
        //
        //                        REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     
     DOCKET NO.:        N/A
     CASE TITLE:        PUBLIC MEETING - TRAINING
     HEARING DATE:      December 17, 1998
     LOCATION: Ontario, California
     
         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
     United States Department of Labor.
     
     
                        Date:  December 17, 1998
     
                          John Hankel       
                        Official Reporter
                        Heritage Reporting Corporation
                        Suite 600
                        1220 L Street, N. W.
                        Washington, D. C.  20005