PROPOSED RULE:  Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of
        Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners
        
        
        
        
        
                                       
                                       
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        Pages:  1 through 147
        
        Place:  St. Louis, Missouri
        
        Date:   May 25, 1999
                                       
                                       
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
                          MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
                              PUBLIC HEARING
        
        PROPOSED RULE:  Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of
        Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners
        
                                        I N D E X
        PRESENTERS:                                     PAGE NO.
        Chris Bryan, Safety Manager
        Martin Marietta Materials .....................    10
        
        H. John Head
        Harding Lawson Associates .....................    14
        
        Bruce M. Bertram, Technical Director
        Salt Institute ................................    25
        
        Richard L. Wilson, Director of Manufacturing
        Morton Salt Division/Morton International .....    38
        
        Dean Roderique, Health & Safety Manager
        Morton International ..........................    68
        
        C. C. Patel, Mining Engineering Manager
        Morton Salt Division/Morton International .....    75
             
        Mike Kaszniak, Health & Safety Director
        IMC Global ....................................    87
        
        Mike Dunn, Superintendent of Operations
        Konka Western Stone ...........................   124
        
        Dan Foltyniewicz, Risk Manager
        Aggregate Producers Risk Management Assoc .....   134
        
        Howard Stever, Manager of Mine Engineering
        Mississippi Lime Company ......................   141                           P R O C E E D I N G
                                            (8:35 a.m.)
                  MR. TOMB:   Good morning.  I have an opening
        statement that I'd like to read into the record before
        we start.  
                  My name is Thomas Tomb.  I am the Chief, Dust
        Division of the Pittsburgh Health Technology Center, in
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  I will be the moderator for
        this public hearing on MSHA's proposed rule addressing
        diesel particulate matter exposure of underground metal
        and nonmetal miners.
                  Personally, and on behalf of Assistant
        Secretary J. Davitt McAteer, I would like to take this
        opportunity to express our appreciation to each of you
        for being here today and for participating in the
        development of this rule.  With me on the panel today
        from MSHA are:  Jon Kogut, from the Office of Program
        Evaluation and Information Resources; George Saseen,
        from Technical Support; Sandra Wesdock, from the Office
        of the Solicitor; Pete Turcic, from the Metal and
        Nonmetal Safety and Health and Pamela King, from the
        Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances.
                  This hearing is being held in accordance with
        Section 101 of the Federal Mine and Safety and Health
        Act of 1997.  As is the practice of this Agency, formal
        rules of evidence will not apply.
                  We are making a verbatim transcript of this
        hearing.  It will be made an official part of this
        rulemaking record.  The hearing transcript, along with
        all of the comments that MSHA has received to date on
        the proposed rule, will be available to you for review. 
        If you want to get a copy of the hearing transcript for
        your own use, however, you must make the arrangements
        with the reporter.
                  We value your comments.  MSHA will accept
        written comment and other data from anyone, including
        those of you who do not present an oral statement.  You
        may submit written comments to Pamela King, who is on
        the panel here, during this hearing or send them to
        Carol Jones, Acting Director, Office of Standards,
        Regulations and Variances, at the address you have
        listed in the hearing notice.  We will include them in
        the rulemaking record.  If you feel you need to modify
        your comments or wish to submit additional comments
        following this hearing, the record will stay open until
        July 26, 1999.  You are encouraged to submit to MSHA a
        copy of your comments on computer disk, if possible.
                  Your comments are essential in helping MSHA
        develop the most appropriate rule that fosters safety
        and health in our Nation's mines.  We appreciate your
        views on this rulemaking and assure you that your
        comments, whether written or oral, will be considered by
        MSHA in finalizing this rule.
                  In April 1998, MSHA published a proposed rule
        to address exposure to diesel particulate matter in
        underground coal mines.  Hearings were held in 1998 and
        the rulemaking record will close on July 26th, for that
        rulemaking.
                  The scope of this hearing today is limited to
        the October 29, 1998 proposed rule published to address
        diesel particulate matter exposure of underground metal
        and nonmetal miners.  This hearing is the third of four
        public hearings to be held on the proposed rule.  The
        first hearing was held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on May
        11th; the second was in Albuquerque, New Mexico on May
        13th, and the fourth will be in Knoxville, Tennessee on
        May 27th.
                  On October 29, 1998, MSHA published a proposed
        rule that would establish new health standards for
        underground metal and nonmetal mines that use equipment
        powered by diesel engines.
                  The proposed rule was designed to reduce the
        risks to underground metal and nonmetal miners of
        serious health hazards that are associated with exposure
        to high concentrations of diesel particulate matter. 
        Diesel particulate matter is a very small particle in
        diesel exhaust.  Underground miners are exposed to far
        higher concentrations of this fine particulate than any
        other group of workers.  The best available evidence
        indicates that such high exposures puts these miners at
        excess risk of a variety of adverse health effects,
        including lung cancer.
                  The proposed rule for underground metal and
        nonmetal mines would establish a concentration limit for
        diesel particulate matter, and require mine operators to
        use engineering and work practice controls to reduce
        diesel particulate matter to that limit.  Underground
        metal and nonmetal mine operators would also be required
        to implement certain "best practice" work controls
        similar to those already required of underground coal
        mine operators under MSHA's 1996 diesel equipment rule. 
        Additionally, operators would be required to train
        miners about the hazards of diesel particulate matter
        exposure.
                  Specifically, the proposed rule would require
        that the diesel particulate matter concentrations in
        underground metal and nonmetal mines be limited to about
        200 micrograms per cubic meter of air.  Operators would
        be able to select whatever combination of engineering
        and work practice controls that they want, to keep the
        dpm concentration in the mine below that limit.  The
        concentration limit would be implemented in two stages. 
        An interim limit that would go into effect following
        eighteen months of education and technical assistance by
        MSHA, and a final limit after five years.  MSHA sampling
        would be used to determine compliance.  The proposal for
        this sector would also require that all underground
        metal and nonmetal mines using diesel-powered equipment
        observe a set of "best practices' to reduce engine
        emissions, such as the use of low-sulfur fuel.
                  The comment period on the proposed rule was
        scheduled to close on February 26, 1999.  However, in
        response to requests from the public for additional time
        to prepare their comments, and with additional data
        added to the rulemaking record by MSHA, the Agency
        extended the public comment period until April 30, 1999.
                  The Agency welcomes your comments on the
        significance of the material already in the record, and
        any information that can supplement the record.  For
        example, we welcome comments on:  additional information
        on existing and projected exposures to diesel
        particulate matter and to other fine particulates in
        various mining environments; the health risks associated
        with exposure to diesel particulate matter; on the costs
        to miners, their families and their employers of the
        various health problems linked to diesel particulate
        matter exposure; or additional benefits to be expected
        from reducing diesel particulate matter exposure.  The
        rulemaking record will remain open for submission of
        post-hearing comments, until July 26, 1999.
                  MSHA has received comments from various
        sectors of the mining community and has preliminarily
        reviewed the comments it has received thus far.  MSHA
        would particularly like additional input from the mining
        community regarding specific alternative approaches
        discussed in the economic feasibility section of the
        preamble.  As you might recall, some of the alternatives
        considered by MSHA included:  an approach that would
        limit worker exposure rather than limiting particulate
        concentration; a lower limit; shortening the time frame
        to go to the final limit; more stringent work practices
        and engine controls; and requiring particular filters on
        all equipment.  
                  The Agency is also interested in obtaining as
        many examples as possible of specific situations in
        individual mines; for example, the composition of the
        diesel fleet, what controls cannot be utilized due to
        special conditions, and any studies of alternative
        controls you might have evaluated using MSHA's
        computerized Estimator.  We would also like to hear
        about any unusual situations that might warrant the
        application of special provisions.
                  The Agency welcomes comments on any topics on
        which we should provide initial guidance, as well as any
        alternative practices which MSHA should accept for
        compliance before various provisions of the rule go into
        effect.
                  MSHA views these rulemaking activities as
        extremely important and knows that your participation is
        also a reflection of the importance you associate with
        this rulemaking.  To ensure that an adequate record is
        made during this proceeding, when you present your oral
        statements or otherwise address the panel, I ask that
        you come to the podium and clearly state your name,
        spell your name, and state the name of the organization
        that you represent.
                  It is my intent that during this hearing,
        anyone who wishes to speak will be given an opportunity. 
        Anyone who has not previously asked for time to speak
        needs to tell us of their intention to do so by signing
        the Request to Speak Sheet; which was outside the door
        and I think has been brought in, so you need to tell us
        if you want to speak.  And also, we need to know how
        much time you need for your presentation.  Time will be
        allocated for you to speak after the scheduled speakers. 
        We are scheduled to go until 5 p.m. today.  Of course,
        we will call a halt if we run out of speakers.
                  I will attempt to recognize all speakers in
        the order in which they request to speak.  However, as
        the moderator, I reserve the right to modify the order
        of presentation in the interest of fairness.  I doubt
        that it will be necessary, but I also may exercise
        discretion to exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious
        material, and, in order to clarify certain points, the
        panel may ask questions of the presenters.
                  This morning, our first presentation is going
        to be made by Martin Marietta Aviation, and it will be
        made by Chris Bryan.
                 CHRIS BRYAN - MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS
                  MR. BRYAN:   Good morning.  My name is Chris
        Bryan, C-H-R-I-S  B-R-Y-A-N.  And 
             with me is John Head of Harding Lawson Associates. 
        I'm representing Martin Marietta Materials,
        headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina and the
        National Stone Association.  I'm the Manager of Safety
        for Martin Marietta Materials, I'm also the Chairman of
        the Diesel Subcommittee of the Safety and Health
        Committee for the National Stone Association.
                  Martin Marietta is the second largest producer
        of aggregates and building materials in the U.S.  We
        currently operate more than 250 quarries, sand and
        gravel pits, underground mines, and distribution yards
        throughout the country, employing more than 5,600 people
        in 25 states.
                  Martin Marietta is the single largest operator
        of underground metal/nonmetal mines in the U.S., with a
        total of twelve underground stone mines located in
        Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia. 
        These mines employ more than 400 employees.  Average of
        thirty-five miners at each underground mine, ranging
        from a low of eleven miners to a high of seventy-five
        miners.
                  Each of these underground limestone mines,
        operating independently, are "Small businesses" as
        defined by the Small Business Administration, less than
        500 employees.  Four of these mines are "Small mines" as
        defined by MSHA, less than twenty miners.
                  Martin Marietta operates 190 pieces of diesel
        powered equipment in its underground mines.  Of these
        120, 63% have, -- of these 120 or 63% have diesel
        engines that are larger than 150 hp, 89 have diesel
        engines that are larger than 300 hp.
                  Mr. Head of Harding Lawson Associates will
        discuss the anticipated cost implications for the stone
        industry in general.  However, I can state that the cost
        of compliance with the rule as proposed would have a
        large impact on my company.  With respect to competing
        operations, some, as a result of this proposed rule, may
        become noncompetitive; others, serving markets where
        surface reserves are not available, may have to
        significantly increase prices resulting in a negative
        impact on the local communities.
                  As the Chairman of the National Stone
        Association's Diesel Subcommittee, I would also like to
        comment more broadly on behalf of the members of that
        association.
                  The National Stone Association, based in
        Washington, D.C., is a trade association that represents
        more than 680 member companies and approximately 75,000
        working men and women in the aggregates industry.  In
        total, it's members operate forty-three underground
        stone mines, owned by twenty-two different companies,
        with a total employment of approximately 1300 miners. 
        Led by its member companies, the NSA, along with other
        trade associations, producers, and labor unions, working
        through the Coalition for Effective Miner Training, have
        engaged in a cooperative effort with the Mine Safety and
        Health Administration to develop training standards for
        surface stone and sand and gravel mines.  I believe this
        demonstrates a willingness to work with the agency to
        promote regulations that effectively improve the health
        and safety of all of our employees.
                  Both NSA and my company, Martin Marietta
        Materials, endorse the comments submitted by the
        National Mining Association and the MARG Diesel
        Coalition.  We believe that the conclusion linking
        diesel particulate exposure with elevated risk of cancer
        in underground metal/nonmetal miners remains unproven. 
        We further believe that the current NIOSH 5040 method
        for measuring diesel particulate exposures in the
        atmosphere of underground metal/nonmetal mines is
        uncertain at best.  Thus, we request the agency stay
        action on the proposed rule until, (a) a clear link can
        be demonstrated between diesel particulate exposure and
        elevated risk of cancer in underground miners, and (b) a
        reliable and accurate method of measuring diesel
        particulate becomes available.
                  There are two further issues I would like to
        present to the panel:
             (1)  Underground mines are more friendly to the
        environment than quarries.  The U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency has recognized this fact by exempting
        underground mines from Part 000 Point Source Emission
        standards.  We believe that the Mine Safety and Health
        Administration has not undertaken its statutory
        obligations to coordinate its action in this proposed
        rule with other affected agencies.
             (2)  We will submit comments on the actual language
        in the proposed rule and on the individual standards
        themselves in our written response to the agency before
        the close of the record in July.  Should not be
        construed as an endorsement of the rule itself.  We are
        merely submitting these comments in the event that the
        agency will, at some point in the future, overcome the
        two shortfalls in its present process, namely the lack
        of scientific basis and the inability to measure diesel
        particulate accurately in the underground environment.
                  I would like to thank the panel for its
        attention and for giving me the opportunity to
        participate in the rulemaking process.  With that, I'll
        turn it over to John Head.
                                 (Pause) 
                 H. JOHN HEAD - HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
                  MR. HEAD:   My name is John Head, I work with
        Harding Lawson Associates.  I'm representing the
        National Stone Association today in the comments on this
        proposed rule of diesel particulate.
                  My comments are going to be on behalf of the
        National Stone Association, with data abstracted from a
        more general study that I presented in Salt Lake City on
        the industry in general.  It's comments on the
        regulatory flexibility analysis.  The study was
        sponsored by the National Mining Association, with the
        National Stone Association, the Salt Institute and the
        MARG Diesel Coalition.
                  Some of this is going to be a little bit
        repetitive for the people that were in Salt Lake City,
        but I'll run through it relatively quickly.  The study
        to analyze the regulatory flexibility analysis consisted
        of a survey of all underground metal and nonmetal mines,
        discussions with manufacturers and mine operators,
        suppliers of after-treatment devices and so on, a review
        of published materials and then, we estimated revised
        costs for the various control measures.
                  The analysis process itself, consisted of
        computerizing the survey data, plugging it into a
        compliance cost model.  We only looked at those three
        standards, (57.5060), paragraph a and paragraph b, and
        (57.5067).  Those are the three standards that deal with
        either replacement engines, which is (5067), or with
        issues to control diesel particulate matter, which are
        the first two.  We developed an annualized compliance
        cost using the model based, -- and I emphasize, using
        the same parameters, using the same format as that in
        the preliminary regulatory economic analysis.  We
        calculated the initial compliance cost by taking the
        total cost figure and factoring those to a net present
        value.
                  The analysis was not exhaustive, it was not, -
        - didn't take into account some issues.  Things like,
        lost productivity during the time when equipment is down
        for upgrades and so on.  Didn't take into account
        additional manpower needed, both for operations and
        maintenance; training and record keeping costs,
        equipment resale costs; one time expenditures, such as a
        new service shaft; and the maintenance costs associated
        with increased ventilation flows, things like the higher
        pressures involved, and the higher flow rates.
                  General conclusions, again, presented in Salt
        Lake City; this is just a rehash of those.  We believe
        MSHA underestimated the numbers of diesel units in use,
        and the assumption of engines costs did not take into
        account the difficulty of converting old engines with
        the newer clean-burning units, and the significant
        difficulties most mines will face in improving and
        significantly upgrading their ventilation systems.
                  Turning now specifically to the stone
        industry.  Stone is just over 50%.  Eighty-eight of the
        175 mines that we determined are underground mines that
        are still active in the U.S.  So, it's the largest
        single segment.  By stone mines, I'm including the
        aggregate operations, the limestone and (indiscernible)
        mines, but also the granite, the lime producers and
        marble.  It's a fairly small fraction of the large
        mines, but an overwhelming fraction of the small mines,
        as defined by MSHA, less than twenty employees.  In
        fact, nearly 80% of the fifty-three small mines in the
        U.S. are stone mines.  
                  Turning now to the employment in those stone
        mines.  Only 19% of all 18,000 underground
        metal/nonmetal miners are employed in stone.  Sixteen
        percent are in the large mines, but, again, a
        disproportionate number of those miners employed in the
        small mines are in the stone industry.  The really
        astonishing figures to me are the bottom two, the
        thirty-one mines that employ fifteen or fewer, and
        thirteen mines that have ten or fewer employees.  Very
        small operations.  There are some that go down as small
        as four.  
                  Again, the numbers are slightly skewed.  The
        four largest mines produce lime.  The lime producers
        have large workforces associated generally with their
        kalium burning operation.  So, maybe they're not
        representative truly of the underground stone producers,
        because these are people that actually work on surface
        in the kalium operations.  Nevertheless, those numbers
        are factored into this analysis.  
                  Primary conclusions of the stone analysis:
        that the stone mining industry will bear a heavy burden
        in terms of compliance costs.  Possibly even a
        disproportionate burden.  And there are questions as to
        whether the MSHA preliminary regulatory economic
        analysis has adequately addressed the issue of
        compliance costs as they relate to small businesses.
                  This (indicating) is a very busy slide, but if
        I can walk you through it.  Looking at diesel units in
        underground stone mines.  First of all, we'll look at
        the total in all underground metal/nonmetal mines. 
        MSHA's economical analysis just over 4,000 total.  The
        actual results, representing about 60% response from all
        mines, shows almost that number.  If it's factored up
        based on the number of responses to the actual number of
        mines, that goes up to about 6,000.  Stone mines
        represent about a third, -- a little bit over a third. 
        I mean,-- for give me, a quarter, -- my math never was
        very good understand, -- about a quarter of all mines. 
        Diesel units per mine, relatively few, but the issue is
        miners per diesel unit.  MSHA's economic analysis
        assumed about four miners per diesel unit.  And in the
        stone industry if you prorate it depending on the
        responses to the total number of mines in the group,
        that goes to two.  So, there are actually twice as many
        units per miner in the stone industry.  It's a heavy
        user of diesel equipment per miner.  
                  MR. TOMB:   Can you leave that up there?
                  MR. HEAD:   Certainly.
                  MR. TOMB:   Go over that again, on average
        miners per diesel unit, -- your point?
                  MR. HEAD:   In MSHA's economic analysis calls
        for about a quarter of a unit per miner.  This
        (indicating) doubles.  There are relatively more units
        of diesel equipment per miner.  Or the reverse,
        obviously, fewer miners per unit.
                  MR. TOMB:   Does that mean less units are
        running at one time then?
                  MR. HEAD:   No, I think what that means is
        that all diesel, -- all stone mines use diesel equipment
        and use it extensively, whereas a lot of other
        metal/nonmetal mines may use electric equipment, for
        example (indiscernible) and only use diesel for oreage
        (phonetic) or things of that nature.
                  The top two lines in each of these categories
        are the numbers that I presented in Salt Lake City.  And
        what I've done is I've added the costs for the stone
        industry specifically.  That is not as dramatic as the
        next slide that I'm going to show, if I may.  We can
        come back to this in a minute.  
                  If you look at the costs per miner, costs per
        miner go up significantly with the stone industry.  So,
        again, the impact on the stone industry and on the
        individual stone operation is likely to be very high. 
        And, again, to rehash, one of the primary conclusions,
        we believe this is very germane to some of the Small
        Business Administration analysis that may be missing
        from the economic analysis that MSHA did.  
                  That concludes my presentation.  If there are
        any questions for either me or Mr. Bryan, we'd be happy
        to take them.
                  MR. TOMB:   John, why don't we go back up to
        the, --
                                 (Pause)
                  MR. TOMB:   Thank you very much for your
        presentation.  You have any questions?
                  MR. HEAD:   Mr. Chairman, if I may make a
        point.  Because I didn't go through my slides in a
        verbatim fashion, would it be appropriate for a copy of
        the slides themselves to be included in the transcript
        itself?
                  MR. TOMB:   Yes, they will be.
                  MR. HEAD:   Thank you, sir.
                  MR. TURCIC:   I have a question.
                  MR. TOMB:   Pete.
                  MR. TURCIC:   John, I have a question on your
        analysis.  In looking at the, -- when you estimated 
        the, -- particularly the replacement cost, --
                  MR. HEAD:   Yes sir.
                  MR. TURCIC:   -- for the engines, how did you
        factor in that, -- or what kind of factor did you apply
        that the requirements for the approval are basically the
        same requirements and the same tests that are involved
        in EPA off-road requirements?  Did you factor in that
        those engines need approved, -- need evaluated for EPA
        purposes, anyhow?  Was that factored in, and if so, how
        long of a time period did you show, you know, until all
        the engines that you can buy will have gone through the
        tests that are required by the rule?
                  MR. HEAD:   I did not consider any issues
        related to the EPA style of clean-burning engines, --
        the EPA approved units.  I'm not sure that the EPA rules
        do apply to equipment used in underground mines.
                  MR. TURCIC:   But the question goes to, -- I
        mean, I'm not aware of any manufacturers that only make
        engines for underground mining.  And these engines
        typically are off-road engines.  So, since EPA has a
        time schedule for all engines that are off-road engines,
        I'm just wondering if that was factored in somehow into
        the cost analysis?
                  MR. HEAD:   The specifics of the analysis, no,
        that, -- again, the EPA issue has not been factored in. 
        The primary model for developing and deriving these
        numbers was taken directly from that model used in
        MSHA's economic analysis, in terms of engine replacement
        schedules and things of that nature.  
                  MR. TOMB:   Any other questions?
                           (No Verbal Response)
                  MR. TOMB:   I'd like to ask Mr. Bryan, -- is
        it Bryan?
                  MR. BRYAN:   Yes.
                  MR. TOMB:   All right.  In your statement you
        mentioned the inability of the, I guess, the MARG 5040
        method to provide a method for analyzing diesel
        particulate samples.  And I was wondering if you had
        some data to support that, and if it could be shared
        with the committee?
                  MR. BRYAN:   I'd just revert that to John.
                  MR. HEAD:   We undertook some testing on
        behalf of Martin Marietta, and there is some suspicion
        that cigarette smoking influenced some of the readings. 
        We don't have any firm precision on what effect it had,
        but there was some question as to whether cigarette
        smoking did actually bias some readings.  And I think
        more generally, the comment was in relation to endorsing
        those comments by the National Mining Association and
        MARG, who have put into the record very significant
        reservations about the 5040 Method.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  In the stone mines were
        there samples as part of that study that was discussed
        in the last hearing, were samples collected in your
        mine, -- in the stone mines for that?
                  MR. HEAD:   Yes sir.
                  MR. TOMB:   They were?
                  MR. HEAD:   Yes sir.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Now, your reservation on the, --
        so that I understand, -- on the 5040 Method, is it 
        that, -- as a method to determine the amount of diesel
        particulate, or is it a method, -- or is your
        reservation that it doesn't accurately determine the
        amount of total carbon?  I mean, that could be two
        different, -- that could be two totally different and
        distinct things.
                  MR. HEAD:   I think we have to go back to the
        experts in this field, Pete.  You know, there have been
        people that have done exhaustive studies and that
        evidence has been read into the record, and, you know,
        we stand by that.  If you're asking the two of us do we
        have any specifics?  No, we do not.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you for your
        presentation.  Our next presenter is going to be Mr.
        David Septual (phonetic) from the Nevada Mining
        Association.
                  MR. SCHEIDIG:   As I mentioned in Albuquerque,
        to Mr. Tomb, -- I'm Paul Scheidig, -- we're not going
        to, -- we don't plan to make a testimony yet, today.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. SCHEIDIG:   It depends on how this goes. 
        But I will be making a presentation in Knoxville, later
        this week.  So, we just didn't have anything prepared
        for today, but we reserved a spot just in case we had
        something.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  When you said, "It depends
        on how this goes," what, --
                  MR. SCHEIDIG:   Well, like in Albuquerque,
        there were a couple of questions that came up, so, I
        took the opportunity to go to the podium then.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  I thought there was
        something hidden here.
                  MR. SCHEIDIG:   No.  A couple have come up
        already, so I might take that opportunity as well. 
        We'll see.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thanks, Dave (sic).
                  MR. KOGUT:   Would you please give your name
        and affiliation, for the record?
                  MR. SCHEIDIG:   I think I did.  Paul Scheidig,
        S-C-H-E-I-D-I-G.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay, I'm going to move you down
        to the bottom of the list, okay?
                  MR. SCHEIDIG:   Okay.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  The next presenter then,
        would be Mr. Bertram, from the Salt Institute.
                  MR. BERTRAM:   You caught me by surprise.
                  MR. TOMB:   Take your time.
                                 (Pause)
                      BRUCE BERTRAM - SALT INSTITUTE
                  MR. BERTRAM:   My name is Bruce Bertram, B-E-
        R-T-R-A-M.  And I'm Technical Director with the Salt
        Institute in Alexandria, Virginia.  The Salt Institute
        is the association of the major North American and
        world-wide salt producers.  We represent five U.S. salt
        producers with nine underground mines in the United
        States.  Salt Institute member companies are vitally
        concerned about the safety and health of their
        employees.  They refuse to compromise on the issue of
        safe and healthy working conditions.  As evidence of
        that concern, the Salt Institute maintains a safety
        performance database.  This data base includes three
        separate incidence rates for occupational illnesses and
        injuries.  These data show that reportable incidents,
        lost time incidents, and work days lost have declined
        significantly during the past twenty years and more. 
        Diesel particulate matter exposure of employees is lower
        now than in the past due to the use of low-sulfur fuel,
        the introduction of newer technology engines, and
        improvements in ventilation.  These reductions in dpm
        exposure have occurred as a result of normal operating
        improvements.  The mining of rock salt itself is vital
        to safety.  The largest single use of rock salt is for
        pavement deicing, ensuring driver safety and continued
        mobility during winter operation of Snowbelt streets and
        highways.
                  The Salt Institute opposes MSHA's proposed
        rule on diesel particulate matter.  The association
        between dpm levels and human health is not well
        understood.  There is no scientific basis at this time
        for correlating dpm exposure to lung cancer in humans,
        as MSHA contends.  Even MSHA acknowledges in its
        Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis that the
        scientific evidence may not be sufficient to generate
        conclusive, dose-response estimates.  In addition, no
        scientific evidence supports the exposure level of 160
        micrograms per meter total carbon.  In fact, there is
        widespread disagreement in the scientific community
        about the health effects of dpm exposure.  Many
        scientists are concerned about the lack of data
        correlating dpm exposure in mines to lung cancer in
        humans.  These opinions were reported to be evident
        during the March 7th through 9th Health Effects
        Institute Workshop.
                  Dr. Peter Valberg, of Grady (phonetic)
        Incorporation, recently Commended on the science in his
        critique of the analysis used by the ACGIH to recommend
        a threshold limit value for diesel exhaust.  With regard
        to the rat studies, Dr. Valberg says ACGIH "Rightfully
        does not use data from rats exposed by chronic
        inhalation to diesel exhaust".  But, ACGIH incorrectly
        says that the concern is extrapolation from animals to
        humans, rather than the irrelevance to humans of rat
        responses at high concentrations.  Dr. Valberg says that
        ACGIH doesn't put dpm exposures into perspective with
        the actual dose received.  He calculates that an
        occupational exposure to 500 micrograms per cubic meter
        diesel exhaust yields a mutagenic dose equivalent to
        smoking approximately one cigarette per month.  He also
        says that a dose-response cannot be demonstrated in the
        epidemiological studies.  He compared information on the
        reported lung cancer risk against estimated diesel
        exhaust concentrations for various occupations.  He
        found two orders of magnitude difference in potential
        diesel exhaust particle exposure.  However, the reported
        relative risks cluster in a very narrow range.  Dr.
        Valberg states that ACGIH's proposed TLV is inconsistent
        with other regulations and recommendations.  He notes
        specifically that the ACGIH TLV is far much more
        stringent than EPA's National Ambient Air Quality
        Standard for PM 2.5.  Thus, ACGIH's TLV requires air in
        the workplace to be cleaner than ambient air.  According
        to Dr. Valberg, EPA's 65 micrograms per cubic meter is
        equivalent to an occupational level of 660 micrograms
        per cubic meter.
                  Current research by the National Institute of
        Occupational Safety and Health and the National Cancer
        Institute, when completed, will provide a better
        scientific understanding of the relationship between dpm
        and miners' health.  Two Salt Institute member companies
        are participating in the study.
                  MSHA's economic impact and technical
        feasibility estimates are inadequate.  Preliminary
        review by Salt Institute member companies, and estimates
        by Harding Lawson Associates, indicates MSHA's
        compliance cost estimates and economic impacts are
        understated by a factor of at least three.  Harding
        Lawson Associates, as reported during the May 11th
        hearing and again today, studied the costs of compliance
        associated with MSHA's proposed rule.  They found that
        total annual and annualized costs to the metal and
        nonmetal mining industry would be fifty-eight million
        dollars, compared to MSHA's estimate of twenty million
        dollars.  Harding Lawson found that total annualized and
        annual costs for the salt mining industry alone would be
        far more than 6.1 million dollars.  Even without data
        for one large mine and one small mine, which are not
        included in the study.  The Salt Institute's Statistical
        Report Analysis shows 11.8 million metric tons of rock
        salt sold by Salt Institute member companies during
        1998.  The additional annualized costs of far more than
        6.1 million dollars will adversely affect the U.S. salt
        industry's competitiveness.  The high costs necessary to
        comply with MSHA's proposed rule would make the U.S.
        less competitive with offshore salt producers.  It will
        result in a loss of jobs.  During the past five years,
        imports of salt to the U.S. averaged about nine million
        metric tons per year, reaching 10.6 million metric tons
        during 1996.  Offshore salt producers can import solar
        salt and rock salt to the U.S., in direct competition
        with U.S. rock salt producers.  One South American
        country exported to the U.S an average of 1.5 million
        metric tons during the past five years, with a high of
        2.65 million metric tons during 1996.  Thus offshore
        producer can quickly increase salt exports to meet
        demand, and to capitalize on higher production costs in
        the U.S.
                  Costs to government highway agencies and other
        consumers of rock salt would rise.  Additional costs
        created by this proposed rule will be absorbed
        unnecessarily by taxpayers and consumers with no
        substantiated health benefits to miners.
                  The mining industry has questions about the
        technology to reduce dpm concentrations to MSHA's
        proposed level of 160 micrograms per cubic meter. 
        Research currently underway by a Canadian Diesel
        Elimination Program may answer these questions. 
        Research results will provide data on the effectiveness
        of various methods of reducing diesel engine emissions
        and on the accuracy and reliability of dpm sampling
        techniques.
                  Potential health benefits to miners by
        reducing dpm concentrations are unknown and
        unsubstantiated.  Moreover, as noted, compliance costs
        are higher than estimated by MSHA.  Average dpm
        concentrations in metal/nonmetal mines today,
        specifically salt, are lower than MSHA's indicated
        average of 830 micrograms per metric meter.  That number
        is based on testing conducted during the early 1990(s). 
        Two Salt Institute member companies indicates that
        current average dpm concentrations in mines today, the
        benefit-to-cost ratio will be substantially lower than
        estimated by MSHA.
                  As noted earlier, NIOSH Analytical Method 5040
        for measuring dpm concentrations reportedly is not
        accurate for determining levels of total carbon.  MSHA
        and NIOSH must further develop this test so it is
        reliable and accurate.  Salt Institute member companies
        will offer more specific comments on it.
                  Because of the facts presented in my comments
        and those by other mine operators and mining
        associations, MSHA should set no dpm limit until the
        NIOSH/NCI study and the Canadian DEEP research are
        completed.  MSHA should wait until NIOSH, NCI, MSHA and
        industry scientists agree that a scientifically sound
        basis exists for a dpm exposure limit.  During the
        interim, MSHA should develop an accurate method to
        determine dpm exposure levels, further MSHA should
        obtain current data on actual underground dpm exposure
        levels in mines.  When this information is available,
        MSHA should review dpm concentrations, based on the new
        data, and determine whether a dpm rule is required.
                  I appreciate the opportunity to present our
        views on this matter.  We support the comments of IMC
        Salt and Morton Salt, the MARG Group and the Harding
        Lawson presentation earlier, with National Stone.  
                  The Salt Institute intends to submit post-
        hearing comments, and may make a request to make further
        comments at the hearing in Nashville (sic), should time
        be available.  And that concludes my comments.
                  MR. TOMB:   Thank you very much, Mr. Bertram. 
        Questions?
                  MR. SASEEN:   Mr. Bertram, can you supply 
        any, -- the types of, -- you talked about you had modern
        engines, -- newer engines in your machines, are those in
        your larger engine class, or is that in your smaller
        types of vehicles?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   I'm going to defer that
        question to other Salt Institute members who will be
        testifying.  I have no specific data on that, but our
        member companies do.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Okay, I'll just have to follow-
        up.  Are you aware that there's been a use of the
        Estimator with these newer engines to see what types of
        levels the Estimator estimates, that we presented in the
        preamble?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   I'm not aware of whether 
        that, -- I suspect the answer's yes, but I'm not, -- I 
        cannot conclude.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Thank you.
                  MR. TOMB:   Pete?
                  MR. KOGUT:   Mr. Bertram, you spoke of the
        data that had been collected in salt mines, -- I believe
        you said during the mid-'90(s) on diesel particulate
        levels.  Are you going to be making that data available
        to the committee?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   The data I referred to were the
        data that MSHA has, based on testing in I think, the
        late '80(s) and the early '90(s), and Salt Institute
        member companies have more recent data that they've
        developed, I think partly on a NIOSH study, and that
        information will be available from that.
                  MR. KOGUT:   What I'm referring to is the data
        you said that showed levels considerably lower than the
        average that we had in the mines that we sampled, across
        all different metal/nonmetal mines.  within those mines
        that we sampled we had an average underground to be 830. 
        So, are you saying that the data that you were referring
        to showed a level considerably lower than that for the
        subset of those mines that were salt mines?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   Yes.  I'm saying that our
        member companies are reporting to us that they are
        finding levels lower than the 830 average reported by
        MSHA.
                  MR. KOGUT:   But that would, --
                  MR. BERTRAM:   Current levels.
                  MR. KOGUT:   -- right.  But that would just
        apply to salt mines?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   Salt mines, that's correct. 
        I'm not aware of what the other metal/nonmetal mines
        are.
                  MR. TURCIC:   You referred to the data from
        the NCI study, right?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   Yes.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Okay, that's what I thought.
                  MR. KOGUT:   You also, in paraphrasing Dr.
        Valberg, you, -- and I'm paraphrasing your, I guess,
        quotation of him, saying that the relative risks for
        exposed workers tend to cluster in a very narrow range. 
        And I think that you made, -- the same point was made in
        some of the written, -- pre-hearing written comments
        that I saw.  I think in connection to that, I want to
        point out that the, -- although the overall relative
        risks in studies on occupational cohorts and case
        control studies on occupational, -- although the overall
        relative risks tend to cluster at a level between 1.3
        and 1.5, in those studies, -- and there aren't very many
        of them, that looked at miners, there were several
        instances in which the relative risks for miners, which,
        -- underground miners, which might be expected to have
        a, -- or we expect to have a much higher level of
        exposure, did show a somewhat higher relative risk than
        that range of 1.3 to 1.5.  And, in particular, I'm
        looking at Tables III-4 and III-5 from the notice,
        Federal Register Notice.  In Boffetta, et al., 1988,
        there was a statistically significant result reported
        for miners of 2., -- a relative risk of 2.67, and that
        was a smoking adjusted result.  And then, in Table III.5
        (sic), Benhamou, et al., reported a relative risk of
        2.14 for miners.  That, again, was smoking adjusted
        result.  Lerchen, et al., 1987, reported an odds ratio
        of 2.1 for underground non-uranium miners.  Again,
        adjusted for smoking.  And Swanson, et al., 1993,
        reported an odds ratio of 5.03 for mining machine
        operators.  In our reading of the literature, the
        limited results that have been reported for mining does
        seem to be somewhat higher than what's typical of other
        occupations.  So, I think that Dr. Valberg's comments
        were probably directed not specific, -- in those
        comments that you referred to, were not really directly
        specifically towards mining and the exposure levels that
        we're seeing in mining, but to occupational exposures in
        general.  Would you care to respond to that?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   I'm not an epidemiologist and
        I'm merely reflecting what Dr. Valberg has said in his
        critique of the ACGIH proposal.  So, I cannot do that
        either way.
                  MR. TOMB:   I have one question.  Unless I
        misunderstood your presentation, you talked about the
        Salt Industry making measurements in their mines.  Do
        you know what, --
                  MR. BERTRAM:   On levels?
                  MR. TOMB:   Yes, on levels.  
                  MR. BERTRAM:   I'm aware that since the rule
        has come out some of our member companies have
        determined levels of dpm in mines.  In part, in
        conjunction with the NIOSH study.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Well, the NIOSH study used
        Method 5040.  Is that what the Salt Industry used also?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   I believe the Salt Industry has
        used other tests as well, but I will have to defer that
        question to specific comments by our members.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  We'd be interested in any
        information the Salt Industries had with respect to, --
        specifically, the Salt Industry had with respect to
        Method 5040.
                  MR. BERTRAM:   I expect that will be covered.
                  MR. TOMB:   Yeah.  Okay.  Thank you very much.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Tom.
                  MR. TOMB:   Oh, one more question.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Did the two sets of data, the
        one back in the '80(s) and then more recent data which
        showed a drop in dpm levels.  Are you prepared to
        present any information on what the diesel fleet was
        then and is now, as a comparison of seeing what clean
        engine technology can or has provided in your salt
        mines?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   You mean to provide lists of
        equipment?
                  MR. SASEEN:   Yes, if there is lists, --
                  MR. BERTRAM:   A list of engines and that type
        of thing?
                  MR. SASEEN:   Yes.  You know, loaders and
        trucks then versus now, to see possibly a correlation of
        direct, you know, dpm reductions from new engine
        technologies?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   I expect that data are
        available.  I don't have it, but I can discuss that with
        our member companies and see if they can produce it.  It
        may even be coming out in some of the testimony.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Okay.  Thank you.
                  MR. TOMB:   Thank you very much for your
        presentation.
                                 (Pause)
                  MR. TOMB:   Thank you, Mr. Bertram.  Okay. 
        Our next presenter will be Mr. Wilson, from the, --
        Morton Salt.
                  MR. WILSON:   There are three presenters, --
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. WILSON:   -- myself and two others.
                                 (Pause)
                  MR. WILSON:   All set?
                  MR. TOMB:   Uh-huh (positive utterance). 
        State your name for the record.
                  MR. WILSON:   All right.
                  RICHARD WILSON - MORTON SALT DIVISION 
                  MR. WILSON:   Ladies and gentlemen, I am
        Richard Wilson, W-I-L-S-O-N, Director of Manufacturing
        for Mining operations for the Morton Salt Division of
        Morton International, Inc.  Morton welcomes the
        opportunity to comment on MSHA's Proposed Rule Diesel
        Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and
        Nonmetal Miners.
                  Morton Salt operates its mines in accordance
        with all rules and regulations and with the safety and
        health of our employees as a paramount concern.  My
        following comments reflects comments before the end of
        the comment period.  
                  We appreciate MSHA's decision to extend the
        comment period.  We look forward to continued
        participation in this rulemaking effort.  
                  Morton is proud of its contribution to public
        safety.  Salt saves lives by significantly reducing the
        number of highway accidents in snowbelt areas.  
             We are also proud of our focus on the commitment to
        continuous improvements in the safety of our mines
        including the improvement of the mine atmospheres. 
        Morton operates three underground salt mine in the U.S.,
        three in Canada and one in Europe. 
                  Morton's three underground salt mines in the
        U. S. are located at Weeks Island, Louisiana, Grand
        Saline, Texas; and Fairport, Ohio.  Weeks is a multi-
        level benched room and pillar mine, situated in a salt
        dome, serviced by two vertical shafts with ramps between
        two levels. 
                  Diesel-powered equipment was introduced in the
        late 1950(s).  The equipment has been changed over the
        years to larger, more efficient vehicles.  There are
        fifty-two diesel-powered vehicles in the fleet, with
        4,886 total horsepower.  The largest single units are
        LHD(s) with 475 hp each.
                  Equipment has been purchased with the cleanest
        engines available.  An extensive test was run using
        ceramic filters on two LHD(s) in the early 1990(s), but
        these did not prove to be reliable or cost effective.  A
        new 400 hp ventilation fan was installed in 1988 to
        increase the airflow from 240 to 430, 000 CFM.
                  The small Grand Saline mine in eastern Texas
        was started by Morton in 1931.  Similar to Weeks, it,
        too, is in a salt dome, but consists only of one benched
        room and pillar level.  Diesel equipment has been used
        since 1972.  There are nineteen diesel-powered vehicles
        in the equipment fleet, with 2,355 total hp.
                  The largest engine, 370 hp, is on a Condor
        high-lift platform vehicle used for inspection and
        scaling.  Replacement equipment is specified with the
        cleanest engines available.
                  The Fairport mine in northeastern Ohio started
        production in 1960 and has always run diesel equipment. 
        It is Morton's deepest mine at 2,000' fleet with a
        single room and pillar level.  The mine has a large
        fleet, which has evolved from a truck loader operation
        to LHD(s).  
                  The mine has tried many different engines and
        all new equipment is purchased with the cleanest burning
        engines available.  There are fifty-seven diesel-powered
        vehicles in the underground equipment fleet, with 6,504
        total hp.  The largest engine, 375 hp, is used on
        LHD(s).
                  In 1990, a roofbolter was equipped with a
        ceramic filter, which ran unsuccessfully for just over a
        year.  The duty cycle of the filter was not aggressive
        enough to create enough heat to regenerate the filter. 
        This mine has no further opportunity for ventilation
        capacity improvements short of sinking a new, larger
        shaft.
                  We have a number of comments regarding the
        major issues in the proposed rule.  There are many
        reasons why Morton believes that implementation of this
        rule, or any other diesel rule, should be deferred.  As
        we speak, two of Morton's mines are voluntarily
        participating in an extensive study of the potential
        health effects of DPM on underground miners.
                  This study is being conducted by the National
        Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the
        National Cancer Institute.  This study will produce
        initial reports starting next year and be completed at
        least on year before MSHA's proposed final limit for dpm
        in the mine atmosphere. 
                  Although other studies have been conducted on
        the health effects of diesel exposure, these previous
        health studies have been inconclusive regarding risk and
        they have not generated sufficient data to support a
        dose/response relationship.
                  For this reason Morton believes that rule-
        making is premature and should be deferred until the
        NIOSH/NCI study is completed.  Until this study is
        completed, it is impossible to determine if an exposure
        limit is needed, and if such a limit is needed, what
        would be a proper exposure limit.
                  All of the previous studies on dpm have failed
        to isolate confounding factors such as smoking and
        background carbonates, thereby failing to establish any
        direct link between dpm and lung cancer or other
        diseases.  This is particularly true of the Garshick
        Study of railroad workers, which was severely criticized
        at the 1999 Health Effects Institute Workshop.  
                  Moreover, many of the studies report no health
        effects whatsoever.  Morton, through its National Mining
        Association and MARG affiliations, will provide MSHA
        with more detailed comments on the scientific issues and
        a critique of these studies used by MSHA to support the
        proposed rule-making.
                  Morton is also concerned about MSHA's
        establishment of a diesel particulate standard because
        we believe MSHA does not have sufficient data available
        on the actual exposure level in mines.  We think MSHA's
        database is very small, outdated and inaccurate due to
        analysis method.  
                  We think that MSHA should focus on the
        continued development and validation of a diesel
        particulate sampling and analysis method and then
        develop a national database identifying and quantifying
        the level of dpm exposure in the nation's mines.
                  Once an accurate sampling method is
        established, we suggest that MSHA perform annual
        sampling in all mine-exposed job classifications over
        the next three years.  The cost of developing this
        database is small when compared to the costs of moving
        forward with an ill-conceived rule based on insufficient
        data.  
                  Given the lack of scientific evidence, it
        seems only fair that we as a nation have the facts in
        front of us before we curtail production, import more
        foreign minerals, eliminate good paying jobs and damage
        the communities where these mines are located.
                  Morton believes the current standards for the
        gaseous components of the mine atmosphere are
        protective.  If there are miners with poor ventilation,
        poor engine maintenance, and poor environmental
        conditions, MSHA can use its existing air quality
        standards to effect significant changes now.  
                  However, we are concerned that diesel
        particulate matter may yet be proven harmful.  With this
        in mind, we have recently sampled or are sampling the
        remainder of our mines, including those in Canada and
        Europe.  No one, including MSHA, knows what a safe or
        unsafe level of diesel particulate is.
                  MSHA's justification for a standard 160
        micrograms is flawed because it is based on 1988 ACGIH
        recommendation for which no dose/response analysis
        exists and which is unrealistic.  To make matters worse,
        ACGIH recently modified their recommendation to 50
        micrograms.  The latter concentration is approximately
        the level found in the ambient air in Cleveland, site of
        one of our mines and similar to the levels found in many
        major areas.
                  It is Morton's position that the Proposed Rule
        sets a dpm standard that is not achievable.  Morton has
        difficulty in understanding how some mines are going to
        comply with the proposed standard of 160 micrograms. 
        Air quality monitoring by the EPA Office of Air Quality
        Planning and Standards in two urban areas shows 50
        micrograms as an average of the mean particulate matter
        levels.
                  The maximum ambient level registered was 172
        micrograms.  MSHA, in its Estimator, has acknowledged
        this fact and has allowed an environmental background
        level of 50 micrograms in the calculations.  In
        addition, scientists have found a background
        interference of 53 micrograms from the filter media used
        in the NIOSH 5040 Method.  
                  NIOSH Method 5040 could also add another 48
        micrograms to the measurements due to error based on 160
        standard with its inherent +/- 30% inaccuracy.  All of
        these factors add up to at least a 151 micrograms
        background and error level that the mines have no
        control over.
                  Morton has the following comments regarding
        the NIOSH 5040 Method for measuring dpm.  The very basis
        of determining compliance with the Proposed Rule,
        measurement of total carbon with the NIOSH 5040 Method,
        has been proven by our participation in the NIOSH study,
        to be unreliable and very difficult.
                  NIOSH and MARG sampling and analysis has
        demonstrated that the method is complex and even highly
        skilled technicians cannot distinguish between diesel
        exhaust carbon, natural occurring carbons in the ores
        and other sources of carbon compounds.  NMA and MARG
        technical experts will provide written comments on this
        issue.  Morton has reviewed their comments and agrees
        with their conclusions.
                  It is Morton's position that the Proposed Rule
        is not economically feasible.  The Proposed Rule will do
        substantial economic damage to the nation's mining
        industry, and in particular, the salt industry. 
        Enactment of the Proposed Rule will force mines to
        divert scarce financial resources away from vital
        health, safety, productivity and maintenance
        improvements.
                  Within the salt industry, the expenses related
        to complying with the Proposed Rule will certainly
        result in the loss of jobs to foreign competition.  The
        estimated initial cost of the Proposed Rule for our
        three U.S. mines is approximately twenty million dollars
        and one of our mines may still have to limit production
        to meet the rule.  If an additional shaft were required
        at one of our mines, its additional cost would be
        fifteen to twenty million dollars.
                  Under the Proposed Rule, even mines with
        relatively low dpm concentrations will incur substantial
        expense to ensure that they are in compliance with what
        is now a purely arbitrary rule.  The Rule will use a
        single sample that does not measure personal exposure
        and has been shown to measure confounding carbonates as
        diesel particulate, such as cigarette smoke and shale.
                  MSHA, in its Estimator, has assumed that even
        on low emission engines, after-treatment would reduce
        particulate emissions by 65-95%.  This is misleading. 
        In fact, one of our major equipment suppliers does not
        even recommend exhaust after-treatment devices on their
        low emission engines.
                  MSHA's benefit analysis is based on a five-
        fold decrease in dpm concentration from an average  830
        micrograms to 160.  This benefit analysis appears
        flawed, at least in Morton's case, since actual testing
        in our mines indicates that the average dpm levels are
        significantly lower that MSHA's average.  
                  The additional improvements to achieve
        compliance with this arbitrary rule will be costly and
        accomplish very little incremental reduction in dpm
        exposure.
                  As we have stated, Morton has been very active
        in improving our mine atmospheres.  All diesel equipment
        runs on low sulfur fuel and we follow the manufacturer's
        recommendation on maintenance of our equipment.  Morton
        is an active participant in the NIOSH study.  We are
        currently considering participation in a test in
        cooperation with Lubrizol and Caterpillar that uses a
        blend of water, additives and diesel fuel for lowering
        emissions.  
                  We are also discussing testing with the
        University of Minnesota, Michigan Tech and NIOSH to
        measure levels of nanoparticles in the exhaust of old
        and new diesel engines in our mines.  We've tested
        ceramic filters in the early 1990(s) and continue to
        monitor this technology for future utilization.  
                  We are a DEEP member and we are actively
        involved in their studies regarding engine maintenance
        as well as the use of catalysts and particulate filters
        in diesel.  Morton has maintained an internal diesel
        committee, which monitors worldwide diesel technology
        progress to help us stay abreast of new developments. 
        We purchase the latest generation of clean engine
        technology in underground equipment.  We have added
        ventilation capacity at out Fairport, Ohio, and Weeks
        Island, Louisiana, mines.
                  The dpm exposure in Morton mines for
        production miners ranges from 60 micrograms to 490
        micrograms in tests carried out during the last year. 
        Like Morton, many U.S. mines are making good progress at
        improving their mine atmospheres.  If the NIOSH/NCI
        study determines that dpm matter must be regulated in
        the future, Morton asks MSHA to look at an alternative
        standard that would not put an unreasonable burden on
        mines yet will still provide an improved working
        environment for miners.
                  Regarding future diesel regulation, if it is
        required, Morton would suggest consideration of the
        following points.  A single sample is not a valid
        compliance test.  The Proposed Rule states that MSHA
        will determine compliance based on a single area sample
        result.  A single sample result is not accurate enough
        for such purposes due to the variability of dpm
        concentrations within the mine as well as inaccuracies
        with sampling equipment and analysis.  
                  Between using only a single sample and it
        taking weeks to get lab results, this method will not be
        very helpful in correcting problems.  A more practical
        approach is to base any requirements on at least several
        samples taken at various times.  Morton is concerned
        that with only four commercial labs currently performing
        the complex dpm analysis in the U.S., that analysis will
        not be timely.  
                  It is our experience that any lab can and does
        make occasional mistakes.  It is totally unrealistic to
        believe that corrective actions should be initiated
        based on the results of one test alone.  A standard
        practice should be to retest with sufficient samples to
        validate the result.
                  Regarding the requirement that our employees
        be allowed to observe sampling on company time we are
        opposed to this requirement because it is nonproductive. 
        We will support a requirement to post results by job
        classification on employee bulletin boards.  Operations
        should not be cited for the posting of sample results
        which are greater than the allowable limit.  We also
        disagree with giving test information to miner's
        representative or other interested parties since this
        information is private.
                  Regarding restrictions on the sulfur content
        in diesel fuel, Morton agrees with the use of low sulfur
        fuels and has used them for years.
                  Regarding training, we agree with the
        requirement for training of employees in methods and
        procedures to minimize diesel exposure if it is
        incorporated in the Part 48 training.  Similarly,
        procedures for minimizing exposure can be handled within
        57.14100 (sic) pre-shaft inspections.
                  MSHA has strict and explicit regulations
        regarding the use of PPE for safety of miners.  Personal
        protective equipment can be effective in reducing dpm
        exposure.  This is particularly true if a mine has not
        been able to lower exposure using other means.  The use
        of personal protective equipment should be allowed to
        comply with any future regulation.
                  Regarding EPA certification and maintenance
        standards, mine operators should be given the option of
        using EPA-certified engines.  MSHA should drop its plan
        to certify engines.  Duplicate certification is
        unnecessary.  In fact, the requirement for engine
        certification and the requirement for mines to meet
        specified particulate levels impose a double standard on
        mine operators without adding benefits.  
                  Morton agrees that equipment should be
        maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
        specifications as outlined in the Proposed Rule.  The
        manufacturer's latest maintenance practices should be
        considered best practices.
                  We agree with minimizing engine idling in 
        mines, but we believe the Proposed Rule needs more
        specific guidelines on what constitutes idling under
        normal mining operations.
                  Morton does not believe that a mine should be
        evacuated on the basis of dpm non-compliance,
        particularly if it is based on one non-compliant sample. 
        Given that diesel particulate has not been proven to be
        an acute hazard, a mine should not be shut down on this
        basis.
                  That concludes Morton's specific comments
        regarding the Rule as proposed.  As I stated earlier,
        detailed comments will be submitted in writing before
        the July 26th deadline.  Morton is a member of the
        National Mining Association, MARG and the Salt
        Institute.  We have read and reviewed their comments
        and, for the record, we support the testimony and
        comments of these organizations.
                  In conclusion, Morton is committed to being an
        industry leader through the continuous improvement of
        safety and health performance.  Employee health and
        safety commitment is fundamental to the company's
        business strategy, and is integrated into all
        operational activities.  
                  As an organization, nothing is more important
        than the health and safety of our employees, and Morton
        recognizes that all injuries, work-induced illnesses can
        be prevented through training, safe work practices,
        sound engineering, hard work and the implementation of a
        sound industrial hygiene and occupational health
        program.  
                  This commitment and the overall safety effort
        have paid dividends to all Morton employees.  Between
        1994 and 1997, workplace injuries at Morton were reduced
        50%.  One of our mines was recently, -- has exceeded one
        million man hours without a lost time accident and is a
        recent Sentinels Of Safety Award Winner.  
                  Another one of our mines is currently working
        with over two million hours without a lost time
        accident.  This mine has twice exceeded two million lost
        time free hour records in the 1990(s), a salt industry
        record.  Morton is committed to continuing improvement
        in our safety and health program.
                  The Proposed Rule is not based on sound
        science and existing studies do not support any
        arbitrary limit on dpm exposure.  Let's let science
        establish a need for a limit and if one is required,.
        let's let science determine what that limit should be. 
        Thank you.
                  MR. TOMB:   Thank you for your comments.  Do
        you think it's better to take questions, or wait 
        'til, --
                  MR. WILSON:   You want to hear from all three
        of us and then do it, or whichever?
                  MR. KOGUT:   If it's all right with you, 
        I'd, --
                  MR. TOMB:   You'd like to do some now?
                  MR. KOGUT:   Yes.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  I just want to take this
        opportunity to tell you that I think you made a good
        presentation from the standpoint of addressing specifics
        in the Proposed Rule, and I think that was very good and
        we appreciate that.  Okay, Jon, do you have a, --
                  MR. KOGUT:   Yeah.  One thing I want to
        clarify is that you stated in your presentation that
        MSHA's justification for a standard of 160 micrograms
        per cubic meter is based on a 1988 ACGIH recommendation. 
        And I think a reasonably careful reading of the proposal
        will reveal no such basing.  It certainly wasn't our
        intention to base our proposed limit on the ACGIH limit. 
        It was developed independently.  The rational behind the
        limit that we proposed, was meant to represent the
        highest degree of reduction in existing levels that we
        thought to be technologically feasible.  So, it's really
        a feasibility-based limit, and in that context we
        certainly appreciate your comments related to the
        feasibility of achieving that kind of reduction.  But
        that was the rationale behind the limit.  It was meant
        to be the level that we thought was technologically
        achievable.
                  MR. WILSON:   It's remarkable they're so
        close.  I guess, you know, we read into it that you were
        leaning on ACGIH.
                  MR. KOGUT:   That really wasn't the case.
                  MR. WILSON:   I understand.
                  MR. TOMB:   I just want to make one comment
        with respect to that, and to emphasize that, -- also,
        that in the work that we did, the Estimator was used to
        try and really get, -- to confirm what we found in
        mines, and to what could be done using technology that's
        available to control dust or diesel particulates.
                  MR. WILSON:   One of our presentations here
        this morning is in detail on the Estimator.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Let's see, I think I had one
        other question before the other presentations.  Give me
        a moment to find it.
                  MR. TURCIC:   I have one quick question.  The
        comment you made on the proposal to use a single sample,
        is your concern that it's a, -- that a single sample is
        being used, or is the concern that the structure of the
        rule sets the environmental level as opposed to an
        exposure level?
                  MR. WILSON:   Really both.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Both?
                  MR. WILSON:   We have a problem with one
        sample.  The problems that, -- whether one sample could
        be representative, and also the fact that we think that
        it needs to be a personal exposure.  That the
        regulation, -- that's really what we care about.
                  MR. TOMB:   You're saying you would like a
        personal exposure measurement and a triggering, --
                                (Laughter)
                  MR. TOMB:   -- okay.  Can I quote you that, --
                  MR. WILSON:   For the record?
                  MR. TOMB:   -- yeah.  I'm going to write that
        down then.  Go ahead.
                  MR. KOGUT:   I found my, -- the note for my
        other question, -- or my question, since the previous
        thing wasn't really a question.  You said that the, --
        that 50 micrograms per cubic meter is approximately the
        level found in ambient air in Cleveland.  Now, that 50
        microgram per cubic meter level you say is in Cleveland,
        is that total respirable dust or is it a measure of
        diesel particulate, or what precisely is that a measure
        of?
                  MR. WILSON:   Let me tell you where we got it.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Okay.
                  MR. WILSON:   We did get it off the EPA web
        site, on the web.  And I really don't know the basis of
        it.  We could look up that information for you and
        comment further for you, what the basis of that is.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Right.  Because clearly there
        would be, -- you know, make a big difference if that
        refers to diesel particulate or all total particulate.
                  MR. WILSON:   I suspect it's total.  I think
        that that's the way the tables were set up.  But, we'll
        do some research on that for you and clarify that in our
        July 26th comments.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Okay.  And by the EPA web site,
        are you referring to the web site for the ambient air
        particulate standards, or are you talking about a web
        site having to do with their proposed diesel particulate
        limits?
                  MR. WILSON:   No, it,  -- let me give you, --
        when we comment in writing, let me give you the specific
        reference.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Okay.  Thank you.
                  MR. WILSON:   You're welcome.
                  MR. TOMB:   I have a comment with respect to
        the area similar to where these questions are coming
        from, where you say, "We have recently sampled," or "a
        sampling of the remainder of our mines, including those
        in Canada and Europe".  And I guess my question is, what
        sampling methods are you using to, --
                  MR. WILSON:   (5040).
                  MR. TOMB:   (5040), okay.  Another thing, --
        I'm not sure whether I'm accurate in this, but somewhere
        in here I think you alluded to problems with the method
        with respect to samples that NIOSH has collected; you
        weren't happy with those results, -- or I forget how you
        phrased it exactly.
                  MR. WILSON:   Let me explain.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. WILSON:   Along with MARG, who we are a
        member of, we did a parallel study, -- parallel
        samplings, parallel analysis, with the NIOSH people. 
        When they were in our mine taking samples, we were
        taking parallel samples.
                  MR. TOMB:   Uh-huh (positive utterance).
                  MR. WILSON:   And used the 5040 Method at
        Clayton, near Detroit, to analyze those samples.  It's
        really, -- the difficulties that we saw, that MARG saw,
        in their round of sampling that we refer to, we went on
        after that, -- and that was at our Ohio mine, -- we went
        on to do our other two mines in a similar fashion, and
        see the same thing.
                  MR. TOMB:   With NIOSH?  I mean, are you
        saying side-by-side with NIOSH?
                  MR. WILSON:   At Pierpont, Ohio.
                  MR. TOMB:   Only at that mine?  Okay.
                  MR. WILSON:   Yes.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay, do you have, --
                  MR. WILSON:   Then we went on to do our other
        two mines, -- our other two U.S. mines, using the same
        methods.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. WILSON:   And through that process is
        where we saw the problems.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Are you, -- I'm sorry.  Are you
        taking side-by-side samples there, also?
                  MR. WILSON:   No.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Okay.  I was just wondering 
        if, --
                  MR. WILSON:   NIOSH has not been, -- on those
        sites.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Okay.
                  MR. TOMB:   Did your samples compare with
        NIOSH's samples at the one mine where you did a
        comparison, or didn't they compare? 
                  MR. WILSON:   We have just received the NIOSH
        data, and we haven't analyzed that at the moment.  Just
        yesterday.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Would you be able to provide us
        with those data as part of this record?
                  MR. WILSON:   Our data that we took?
                  MR. KOGUT:   In addition, it might be, -- for
        the purpose of this rulemaking it might be more
        efficient for us to get the NIOSH data that you would be
        comparing, in conjunction with the data that you've
        collected, so, --
                  MR. WILSON:   I assume you have the NIOSH, --
        or will have the NIOSH data?  I mean, if you're asking
        for our, --
                  MR. TOMB:   We don't have it now, and whether
        we will have it, I don't know.  So, we'll try and get
        it, but I don't know whether we'll have it.
                  MR. WILSON:   I mean, Morton, I believe will
        supply our own data.  I mean, you're welcome to that. 
        We're giving that to our employees, so, you're welcome
        to have it.  We'll supply that with our July 26th
        submission.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Good morning, Mr. Wilson.  I
        just have a few questions.  You testified that an
        extensive test was done using ceramic filters and two
        LHD(s) in the early '90(s).
                  MR. WILSON:   Yes ma'am.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Would you be able to submit the
        results of those tests?
                  MR. WILSON:   I could supply you with some
        kind of write-up, our results of it, yes.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   And you said later on that due
        to the results of those tests that you're continuing to
        monitor this technology?
                  MR. WILSON:   Yes ma'am.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Are you like, running tests,
        or, -- how are you monitoring?
                  MR. WILSON:   Basically, the literature, --
        developments in the literature, both in North America
        and Europe.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Okay.
                  MR. WILSON:   We have considered further tests
        of those filters, and have as recently as several months
        ago talked with suppliers again about possible
        additional testing.  We haven't moved forward on that at
        the moment.
                  MR. PATEL:   We are also trying the additive
        testing.
                  MR. TOMB:   George.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Mr. Wilson, I have several
        questions.
                  MR. TOMB:   Were you done, Sandra?
                  MS. WESDOCK:   No.
                  MR. TOMB:   Oh, I'm sorry Sandra.
                  MR. SASEEN:   I'm sorry.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   That's okay.
                  MR. TOMB:   Finish your question.  I'm sorry.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   And you also, -- you stated
        that you are sampling the remainder of your mines,
        including those in Canada and Europe.  And I take it
        that you're using (5040) in those samplings?
                  MR. WILSON:   I'd have to confirm that for
        you.  Definitely in the U.S.  I don't know, I can't tell
        you in U.S. and Canada, what method is being used.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Okay.  And you will be
        submitting to us those results?
                  MR. WILSON:   Canadian and European results?
                  MS. WESDOCK:   No, the U.S.
                  MR. WILSON:   The U.S., yes ma'am.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Okay.  One more, I think.  I
        believe I'm done.  Go ahead, George.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Okay.  Thank you.  Mr. Wilson,
        on that roofbolter you said that was unsuccessful with
        the ceramic that had the duty-cycle, do you know if that
        roofbolter is going to be included in that DEEP project
        to, -- in case to look at the possible passive or off-
        board type regenerations?
                  MR. WILSON:   Do you mean for the future?
                  MR. SASEEN:   Well, with this DEEP Project
        running, do you know if they're going to look at a
        system, -- you said that the on-board system failed,
        which I assume is the active because of the duty-cycle
        from your statement.  Do you know if they're going to
        look at that roofbolter-type equipment with either
        passive or off-board-type regeneration as part of that
        study?
                  MR. WILSON:   There's been some talk, but it
        just hasn't progressed far enough to tell you anything
        bench order.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Okay.  You made a statement that
        a, -- one of your suppliers recommended against exhaust
        after treatment controls on your low emissions engines. 
        Do you know what the specific complaint was, -- or why
        the, -- I mean, specifically, why you shouldn't use
        them?  That was on page, -- the top of page 8.
                  MR. WILSON:   Let me give you a little
        background.  In our normal replacement of equipment
        we're looking at replacement of an LHD for our Ohio
        mine, and in talking to Elvin Stone (phonetic)
        Caterpillar, who is the supplier that proposed, LHD, it
        has Caterpillar's latest Huey electronically controlled
        engine, clean-burning engine.  We specifically inquired
        as to the availability, and could they provide it with
        a sub-filter, a particulate filter.  Not only did they
        not want to do it, they really would not do it, they
        would not supply it that way.  And I think, if I
        remember right, maybe, -- and Pat can add something to
        this, it was a particulate, -- a particle size concern
        of theirs that the emissions of the proposed low clean-
        burning engine were, you know, -- that the filter would
        not be effective in further reducing its emissions.  If
        I remember that right. 
                  MR. PATEL:   Yes, the particle that, -- being
        captured by the sub-filters have already been reduced by
        a low emission engine, and that's why they do not
        recommend.  Also, at those temperatures in that low
        emission engine would be running at about 700
        fahrenheit, while the diesel engine requires about 900
        degrees fahrenheit.  And that was the other thing that
        the, -- reason that they would not recommend using a
        sub-filter on that unit.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Could you submit that for the
        record?
                  MR. WILSON:   Yes, I think we have the write-
        up.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Either in a letter or, --
                  MR. WILSON:   I think we do have it in
        writing.
                  MR. SASEEN:   You said you estimated the
        initial cost of the proposed rule for the U.S., -- your
        three U.S. mines, approximately $20,000,000.00.  Could
        you give a breakdown of what that entails, as far as
        what costs are in to make up that $20,000,000.00?  Can
        you supply that before the end of the rule?
                  MR. WILSON:   In our written comments?
                  MR. SASEEN:   In your written comments.
                  MR. WILSON:   We'll try to comment on that for
        you.
                  MR. SASEEN:   'Cause it looks like you're
        saying you're, -- from 60 to 490 micrograms per cubic
        meter, based on your measurements last year?
                  MR. WILSON:   Uh-huh (positive utterance).
                  MR. SASEEN:   And so, does that $20,000,000.00
        take it down to the (160), and what's involved in that?
                  MR. WILSON:   You know, one of the things to
        keep in mind is that to get to those levels, which are
        already under the (830) average, we've used more
        ventilation, we have used some clean-burning engines, we
        have been using the low sulfur fuels, we have been using
        the advance maintenance practices.  We've already used
        up a lot of the bullets to get to this thing and we're
        not there.  So, the investment for even approaching the
        (160) is going to be very high for very little change. 
        And especially, -- and our point, -- and really, our
        point goes to, you know, on a (160) number that, you
        know, we feel strongly is arbitrary.  
                  MR. SASEEN:   But you do look like you're at
        the (500) intermediate level right now?
                  MR. WILSON:   Uh-huh (positive utterance).
                  MR. SASEEN:   Based on your data.
                  MR. WILSON:   Yes, that's true.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Just one final question.  You've
        mentioned about the EPA certification of engines, and we
        asked for comments on that.  Do you feel that, -- does
        Morton feel that there, -- whether it be EPA certified,
        or MSHA certified, that there should be a requirement
        for some sort of certification with an engine to come in
        underground versus something that's never been tested?
                  MR. WILSON:   Well, if there is an exposure
        based standard, I guarantee you that all the mines in
        the country are going to be doing everything they can,
        because it's gonna take that to get down to that low
        level.  And I don't know that there has to be a
        certification system as such.  I mean, I think EPA
        already has a bunch of things in the works, and for
        sure, MSHA doesn't need another set.  And I think that,
        you know, all of us will be buying these clean-burning
        engines.  It's just gonna have to be.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Okay, thank you.
                  MR. WILSON:   You're welcome.
                  MR. TOMB:   I'd just like to make one comment
        from what you said.  And I think right now it's
        important to realize that you have to consider, -- we
        have to consider feasibility when we propose this.  And
        I think a lot of the, -- not a lot, some of the comments
        you've made specifically address the feasibility issue. 
        All right, and I think it's important to get data that
        says, "We can't get down to (200), you know, it's not
        feasible".  I mean, that's, --
                  MR. WILSON:   Mr. Patel, is gonna testify
        about the Estimator, and he may give you a little more
        help on that issue.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you.
                  MR. WILSON:   You're welcome.
                  MR. TOMB:   Oh, one other question.  I forgot
        to ask the one I wanted.  And George might have
        addressed it but I was looking some place else here.  In
        your range of measurements you said you, -- and you came
        up with measurements 60 to 490 micrograms per cubic
        meter, can you give me some idea how many measurements
        those were, and, -- I mean, that's a range, and were
        they more weighted at (200) or (400), or were, --
                  MR. PATEL:   You're talking about (60) to
        (80).
                  MR. WILSON:   Is that per miner?  Is that
        total?
                  MR. PATEL:   Per mine.
                  MR. WILSON:   Per mine, oh.
                  MR. TOMB:   Are you going to talk about this
        in your presentation?
                  MR. PATEL:   Not about the, -- how many
        samples we took.
                  MR. TOMB:   Oh, okay.  Okay.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   And that information is being
        correlated right now for a future report.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   So, it's being prepared.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay, good.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   Along with the NIOSH
        information that we just received.
                  MR. TOMB:   Excellent.  Okay, that answers my
        question.  Thank you.
                  MR. WILSON:   You're welcome.
                  DEAN RODERIQUE - MORTON INTERNATIONAL
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   Good morning.  My name is
        Dean Roderique, that's R-O-D-E-R-I-Q-U-E.
                  Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the
        opportunity to compliment the testimony provided by the
        Morton Salt Group.  My name is Dean Roderique, and I am
        the Corporate Health and Safety Manager for Morton
        International.  My department provides the majority of
        the Industrial Hygiene monitoring evaluations for the
        Morton Salt Group.  I am a Certified Industrial
        Hygienist in Comprehensive Practice, and I am also a
        Certified Safety Professional, also in Comprehensive
        Practice, and I've been working in the Occupational
        Safety and Health field for approximately twenty years
        now.  My testimony today is focused on the Industrial
        Hygiene aspects of the proposed diesel particulate rule.
                  MSHA is proposing the use of total carbon as
        the exposure measure, and we know that total carbon is
        made up of a variety of materials, such as organic
        carbon, water, and sulfuric acid.  The NIOSH 5040
        protocol measures elemental carbon and is not intended
        to measure total carbon, and the use of this method
        would lend to interference in the metal and nonmetal
        mines, due to natural occurring carbonate materials.  It
        is important that these interferences, such as the
        carbonates and non-diesel particulates, are identified,
        measured, and subtracted out of the final results so
        only the diesel particulate is being measured.  I
        believe another disturbing aspect of the NIOSH 5040
        method is the inability to have a common elemental
        carbon standard for the laboratory analysis.  Without a
        standard, laboratories have no basis, other than
        standard operating procedures, for ensuring accuracies,
        and this will lead to high variability in results from
        laboratory to laboratory.
                  In further discussion of both of the proposed
        sampling analysis, the submicrometer and respirable dust
        pose potential sampling errors that could overestimate
        diesel particulate exposure levels.  The potential for
        error in the submicrometer method is that the assumption
        is made that all particulate under one micron is diesel
        particulate, and in metal/nonmetal mines this is not
        always the case.  In the proposed rule, MSHA readily
        admits to this limitation and states, 
                            "Because submicrometer respirable
                  particulate can contain particulate
                  material other than diesel
                  particulate, measurements can be
                  subject to interferences from other
                  submicrometer particulate material."
        The respirable combustible dust sampling method is based
        on heating of the combustible carbon in the respirable
        dust sample.  The samples are weighed, and after
        heating, the samples are weighed again to yield the
        respirable combustible dust result.  Once again, the
        concern with this method is the potential errors that
        can result.  Along with respirable dust particulate,
        other compounds can be found in the mines, such as oil
        mist, unburned diesel fuel, and hydraulic oil, and these
        compounds may cause the exposure to diesel particulate
        to be overestimated.  This finding is identified in
        works published by Grenier and Gangal, 1998, and in
        review of a similar work by Gangal and Dainty in 1993.
        It was stated that estimates for non-diesel particulate
        components in the respirable dust actually vary between
        ten and fifty percent.  Once again, the variability in
        sample analysis can play a significant role in
        identifying the exposure levels.
                  The use of area monitoring for compliance and
        miner exposure determinations is certainly not an
        industrial hygiene method that I can concur with.  The
        MSHA area sampling protocol can be put anywhere in the
        mine and will not accurately measure the level of
        personal exposure.  Our sampling in mines certainly
        supports and verifies this.  Personal monitoring and
        full shift monitoring is the only accurate way that MSHA
        can define and evaluate exposures.  In many research and
        investigative studies, -- some I've participated in, --
        NIOSH has used and advocated the use of personal samples
        over the years as the only accurate way to evaluate
        employee exposures.  To provide a good indication of a
        mine worker's exposure, we must sample in the breathing
        zone of the worker and, when possible, always conduct
        full shift sampling.
                  In conclusion to my above comments, I believe
        it is very important for additional work to be done
        prior to any regulation to identify a better sampling
        method and sampling analysis for gathering accurate
        employee exposure information.  Personal sampling is
        preferred to area sampling for providing meaningful
        employee exposure information to be shared with the
        employee.  As noted above, the interferences and
        sampling variability must be eliminated or accounted for
        to better understand and control diesel particulates. 
        Without this, the industrial hygiene sampling outlined
        in this proposed rule will provide us with little useful
        information and tend only to confuse the real issue of
        working on reducing and controlling diesel exhaust in
        our mines.
                  I would like to thank MSHA for this
        opportunity to present Morton's industrial hygiene
        comments on this very important issue.  Thank you.
                  MR. TOMB:   Thank you.  Any questions?
                           (No Verbal Response)
                  MR. TOMB:   I have one.  If your boss came to
        you and said, "I want you to go out and tell me what my
        people are exposed to, with respect to diesel
        particulate in the mines," what, or how would you do
        that with what's out there today?
                  MR. RODERIQUE:  First of all, I'd have to do a
        research on the analytical methods available.  And
        certainly, that's why we're using the NIOSH 5040 method
        right now, because that's what's available.  We've found
        in our testing, -- we found some interferences, salt
        kell in particular, we've seen some organic carbon still
        in this area.  We know, -- and we have to refine that
        and we have to work on it.  We have to get a method that
        will work for us without the complications and
        interferences.  
                  So, first of all, we can look at what's out
        there, you look at it, you evaluate it, -- you know,
        you've got to do your recognition evaluation and
        control.  So, right now, you know, I think we've
        recognized something to monitor, like you've just
        mentioned, we're still in the evaluation.  What can we
        use to properly evaluate this?  I don't believe we're
        there yet.  We need to continue to work on it.  You may
        look at me and say, "Dean, do you have an answer for
        me?"  No, I don't.  I know there's a lot of people
        working on and they're continuing to work on it.  What
        we need to come up with a tried and true method, so when
        we look at a miner in the face and say, "This is the
        result," we'll know what we're talking about without the
        variability.  So, like I said, I think we're in the
        recognition stage, working on the evaluation, and that's
        how I would go after that.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay, thank you.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   You're welcome.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Do you have any specifics, Dean,
        in which you were, -- where you point out that the NIOSH
        method measures elemental carbon and is not intended to
        measure the total carbon?  Is there any information you
        could submit for the record that would, you know, expand
        on that?
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   We are going to make our
        final comments at the end, and I believe, you know, with
        the NIOSH information that we have, and the
        presentations that we've seen, in particular, the recent
        Navastar (phonetic) presentation, we provide those
        copies.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Okay, great.
                  MR. TOMB:   One other question.  In the
        samples that have been collected in your mines, has it
        been possible to identify and correct for the
        interferences that you've mentioned that are potentially
        there?  Such as carbonates and things like that?
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   I'm not prepared to answer
        that question, but in review of literature, you know,
        the acid washing in particular, we've seen, -- there is
        a considerable amount of err there, at least I've been
        reading around 50%.  So, you know, I'm a State of
        Missouri guy, show me.  I don't have that information in
        front of me, so I don't want to make those comments. 
        But I have read that up to 50% with the acid washing is
        still not going to eliminate that 100%.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  This is a favor now.  Could
        you supply that information to us on, -- what you're
        referring to, where they're referencing the 50%?
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   That is going to be commented
        on with the MARG group.  And Dr. Cole will be making
        comments on that.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Okay, that will be great. 
        Thank you very much.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   You're welcome.
                    C. C. PATEL - MORTON SALT DIVISION
                  MR. PATEL:   I'm Pat Patel, P-A-T-E-L, Manager
        of Mining Engineering for the Morton Salt Division of
        Morton International, Incorporation.  In continuation of
        the previous Morton testimony, I would like to discuss
        the use of the MSHA Estimator.  Morton has attempted to
        use MSHA Estimator to calculate what we have to do to
        bring our exposure limits below those in the proposed
        rule.
                  Our Weeks Island Mine has a measured level of
        230 micrograms of total carbon, with the ventilation
        rate of 165 cfm/hp.  The estimated diesel horsepower
        usage per shift is approximately 2300.  This mine has
        475 hp LHD(s) with clean-burning engines.  Our Fairport
        Mine has a measured level of 490 micrograms of total
        carbon with the ventilation rate of 100 cfm/hp.  It uses
        approximately 1950 diesel horsepower per shift.  The
        ventilation in both mines has been upgraded to optimum
        levels.  These reported total carbon levels are assumed
        to be accurate and do not consider known interferences.
                  MSHA has developed a model for estimation of
        diesel particulate concentration in an underground mine. 
        The reduction in these concentrations is achieved
        through control measures including additional
        ventilation, low emission engines, after-treatment
        devices, horsepower reductions, and shortened work
        hours.  The model offers two alternative methods for
        determining the control measures necessary to achieve
        compliance.  The first approach starts with a measured
        dpm concentration level and subsequently reduces the
        level with the aforementioned control measures.  The
        second approach develops a concentration level by
        estimating emissions from existing engines and hours
        used in a shift.
                  Morton made several assumptions in using the
        estimator.  Engine emission rates for the existing and
        new engines were based on MSHA's given range for
        different types of engines.  Catalytic convertor
        efficiency was assumed in the mid-range of the MSHA
        numbers, while the soot filter efficiency was assumed at
        the higher end of the MSHA suggested range.  We have
        multiplied the measured readings by 1.3 to allow for the
        5040 method variation.  The thirty percent is the error
        factor we experienced in our mines using the 5040
        method.
                  The Estimator shows what level of after-
        treatment and engine replacement would be necessary to
        meet the proposed rule limits.  In our calculations, we
        used both alternatives, measured and estimated, to
        compare exposure levels.  Our findings were:  The Weeks
        Island Mine has one of the lowest exposure levels of any
        of the mines in the NIOSH study.  All equipment in the
        mine is diesel powered and ventilation provides a
        significantly higher cfm/hp ratio.  Despite these
        advantages, the model indicates that Morton will be
        required to fit every piece of machinery with a
        catalytic convertor and a soot filter to comply with the
        proposed final level based on the measured initial
        level.  With a measured level of 490 micrograms and
        approximately 100 cfm/hp at the Fairport Mine, the model
        would require replacing all engines, if not required to
        replace entire machines, and installing catalytic
        convertors and soot filters on all equipment except
        transportation vehicles, which is pick-ups and tractors
        and whatever.  Even with these changes, Fairport does
        not meet the 160 microgram limit.  Despite dpm levels
        which are thirty percent and sixty percent below the
        MSHA's stated average level of 830 micrograms, the model
        suggests dramatic and costly measures to comply with the
        proposed rule.  Since 830 micrograms is stated as MSHA
        average level, we question how any mine with higher
        levels of dpm will meet the final standard of 160
        micrograms.
                  MSHA suggests that the measured sample level
        approach is better because it is an actual number.  We
        question this because we do not have sufficient data and
        measurement will vary from location to location in a
        mine.  These results will also vary by the day of a week
        and time to time.  This is why Morton is opposed to
        citing an operator based on a single shift sample level
        over the limit.  These findings have raised the
        following questions regarding the calculated final
        levels:   How would one assign accurate duty cycle to
        each piece of machinery including transportation
        vehicles, if you use your estimated level?  Which
        alternative, measured or estimated, should a mine use to
        plan a control strategy?
                  The Estimator allows for an environmental
        background level of 50 micrograms, but does not allow
        for the 5040 method precision variation and the filter
        media interference.  Our testing, according to
        independent expert analysis, indicates the 5040 method
        precision to be within plus or minus thirty percent and
        for this reason, we have increased the measured levels
        by thirty percent.  Our experts have also found that the
        filter media used in the NIOSH parallel sampling showed
        a background level of 53 micrograms, which MSHA has not
        allowed for in the Estimator.
                  Each older engine must be tested for an
        accurate emission rate to input accurate data for use of
        the estimator.
                  Our conclusions based on using the MSHA
        estimator for two of our mines are as follows:  First,
        the Estimator is only as good as the accuracy of the
        input data.  Assumptions on horsepower usage, duty
        cycle, and emission levels of old engines are difficult
        to estimate accurately.  
                  Second, in order to insure the compliance, a
        company must use the most conservative method for
        developing a control strategy.  
                  Third, using the Estimator at our lowest
        exposure level, which is Weeks Island, would require us
        to change out all the large engines even though we are
        only 80 micrograms above the limit.  Yet, when we change
        out these engines, the reductions is only from 164
        micrograms to 156 micrograms.  This is a large
        investment for the minor reduction obtained.
                  Fourth, according to the Estimator, it would
        be difficult, if not impossible, to meet the standard at
        an exposure level higher than 830 micrograms, even after
        replacing old engines and installing catalytic
        convertors and soot filters on all major pieces of
        machinery.  Indeed, at the Fairport Mine where exposure
        level is only 490 micrograms, we will be faced with a
        thirty percent reduction in tonnage, the construction of
        a twenty million dollar shaft or an unknown multi-
        million dollar conversion to electrics to meet the
        proposed rule.
                  Fifth, it will be impractical to use soot
        filters on light-duty-cycle engines; as an example,
        roofbolters, powder rigs, cleanup FEL(s), because of the
        low exhaust temperature, -- let me back up.  It will be
        impractical to use soot filters on light-duty-cycle
        engines because of the low exposure temperature, and
        therefore, complying with the standard may not be
        possible without major fleet changes.  The cost for
        these major changes would have a significantly higher
        cost impact than that calculated by the National Mining
        Association's independent consultant.
                  And finally, the Estimator should contain
        provisions for filter media interference, local ambient
        background, other confounders, such as smoking and
        carbonaceous ores specific to the local mine.  That
        concludes my point.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you for your
        presentation.  Any questions?
                  MR. TURCIC:   I have one.  In your conclusion
        where you talked about the plus or minus 30% of the
        sampling method, it would be helpful if you could
        explain how you came up with the 30%?
                  MR. PATEL:   Okay.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Is that the total accuracy that
        you're assuming, or is that just the precision?  And,
        you know, how you did it, so we have some idea of 
        what, --
                  MR. PATEL:   When we sampled the mine with
        NIOSH and turned over those samples, to plaintiff (sic),
        we had Boric (phonetic), -- Boric Company was putting
        all the data together.  And according to the data of the
        four or five mines that we have in the NIOSH study,
        where my group is concerned, they have told us that they
        have found variations of plus/minus 30%.
                  MR. TURCIC:   So, it's really, -- that's based
        on actual side-by-side type sampling?
                  MR. PATEL:   Yes.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Okay.
                  MR. KOGUT:   I think we'd appreciate it in
        your post-hearing comments so we can clarify how that
        30% was derived, because the way you've stated it just
        now, it sounds like that was the maximum deviation that
        was found within a range.
                  MR. PATEL:   Again, I suppose that the
        comments that will be provided on behalf of the Mining
        Association and MARG, that information will be included
        in that.
                  MR. TOMB:   One other question relative to the
        sampling, and this has been discussed in the preceding
        presentations also.  And it kept being brought up that
        the filters that are used have a background of 53
        micrograms per cubic meter.  In a standard analytical
        procedure where you have a blank, wouldn't that be
        subtracted off the sample determination?
                  MR. PATEL:   At the Weeks Island Mine we were
        told that it was corrected for it, at the Fairport Mine
        it was not corrected.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  But, I'm just asking if
        that wouldn't be the typical procedure that would be
        used to correct that?  That's not gonna be something
        that, -- I mean, that's an easy interference to correct
        for, --
                  MR. PATEL:   Right.
                  MR. TOMB:   -- of all the ones that you've
        talked about?
                  MR. PATEL:   Yeah.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   Yeah, we always submit
        blanks.  That was a problem in a previous sample, -- a
        problem.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. WILSON:   That (53) was an average.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   It was a variable.
                  MR. TOMB:   Well, it can be variable, but, --
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   Right.
                  MR. TOMB:   -- with a set of, -- if you have a
        blank that goes with the sample you've collected,
        certainly the analytical procedure requires for
        subtracting that off.  You understand what I'm saying? 
        It's assumed that whatever variability you have on that
        blank is also applying to the filter.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:    The blanks have been
        variable and that's been one of the concerns, -- the
        previous concern that Pat was eluding to was there was
        no blanks associated with them, were not corrected for.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   Okay?
                  MR. TOMB:   Yeah, okay.  Well, I just, -- I
        mean, I kept seeing that, and I didn't know whether, -- 
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   Right.
                  MR. TOMB:   -- I mean, the standard procedure
        would be to subtract that off any sample that you had.
                  MR. RODERIQUE:   Yes.
                  MR. TOMB:   So, on the Estimator, I think it
        would be very helpful if you could provide, -- you don't
        have to do it for all of them, but take one of your
        examples and just provide the specifics on the
        assumptions that you made in working through the
        Estimator.  Sort of like what's in the preamble now, but
        it will be specific for your mine, so that we could take
        a look at that.  And, you know, then we could look at
        the ventilation figure that you applied and the
        efficiencies you applied to the equipment and, -- I
        mean, although you've mentioned them in here, it would
        help us if you could take that and just give us, -- just
        let us see the values you plugged in.
                  MR. PATEL:   We intend to do that for our
        calculations, with explanation as to how we arrived at
        those.
                  MR. TOMB:   Yeah.  That would be excellent if
        we could have that.  Okay, I think that's all the
        questions I have.  Okay, George.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Either Mr. Wilson or, -- and I
        kind of asked it when I asked you about the
        $20,000,000.00 cost to breakdown of what's in, -- you
        know, for going from your current levels down to (160). 
        It looks like you've done a lot of engine changeover,
        because it keeps, -- the theme keeps coming through that
        Morton has done a lot on buying the latest engines for
        the vehicles.  Will you be specific in there on like
        what the retrofit costs were, when you have to go from
        one engine to another engine?  Or, you know, how much
        costs is involved in machinery to put that in?  'Cause
        sometimes it's an easy, you know, pull one bolt and bolt
        one in, and sometimes it's a major cost, -- you know,
        more costs to put a different engine in.  Will we see
        some of that data?
                  MR. PATEL:   We have, while estimating the
        costs, we assumed that both the engines we can just
        replace.  Although, there was some engineering that
        would be required for our fleet.  But we also know that
        at one of our mines that we asked for engine replacement
        from a dealer, and the cost was like, over a
        $150,000,00.  So, at that point, the question comes,
        whether we replace the machines or replace the engines. 
        And we have to go through all that detail to select a
        detailed estimated fee.
                  MR. WILSON:   You know, George, if we have an
        LHD that costs, say, $900,000.00, and I've got a 
        sink, -- well, first of all, I have to attempt to get
        from the manufacturer the engineering to reconfigure
        that engine compartment for a different engine.  We've
        had difficulty getting that.  Some machines you can do
        that.  An attempt about a year ago, or maybe two years
        ago, to get an engine manufacturer to, -- or a machine
        manufacturer to devout the engineering time just to
        design that modification, we couldn't get that to
        happen.  So, assuming that you could get the engineering
        done, just the field change in an old machine, let's say
        that half its useful life is gone and I'm gonna spend
        $150,000.00 or something on a half-used up machine.  I
        mean, I think mines are going to change-out large parts
        of their fleet, really, in the time that a standard, you
        know, would be implemented toward the five year or
        whatever it might end up being.  I think the costs, --
        you know, of just thinking that we're going to swap
        engines like we're swapping shoes or something, is very
        shortsighted.  I've been to mine managers at a couple of
        these mines and I've tried to make some of these changes
        with Maintenance Departments, with contractors, and the
        end result of changing out an engine or a component, and
        not having a completely factory made machine, can be a
        real bastard situation, to be frank.  It's not something
        that a manager looks forward to running a fleet that's
        been modified extensively.  It's difficult.  The
        reliability, if the availability of the equipment is
        bad.  So, I think Morton is probably looking at, --
        we're gonna have to change fleets, not just change
        engines.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Just a quick, -- you kind of
        mentioned, -- do you have kind of an estimated, -- what
        the life of the machines are, the LHD(s) and trucks,
        from Morton's viewpoint?
                  MR. WILSON:   We could give you some feel for
        that in our written comments, but I would say, just if
        you want it off the top of my head, about, --
                  MR. SASEEN:   No, written is fine.
                  MR. WILSON:   -- okay, then I'll do that for
        you.
                  MR. SASEEN:   Okay.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you for your
        presentation.  The behind the scene comments up here is
        that we need to take a fifteen minute break.  So, why
        don't we take a fifteen minute break.
                  (Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the hearing was
        recessed, to reconvene this same day at 11:05 a.m.)
                  MR. TOMB:   Our next presenter will be Mr.
        Kaszniak from IMC Global.
                       MARK KASZNIAK  - IMC GLOBAL
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Thank you, Chairman, and
        members of the MSHA panel.  I am Mark Kaszniak, that's
        K-A-S-Z-N-I-A-K, I'm the Director of Health and Safety
        for IMC Global.
                  IMC Global appreciates this opportunity to
        appear today to present its views on MSHA's proposed
        rule on Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of
        Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners.
                  IMC Global has already submitted to MSHA
        preliminary written comments dated April 30, 1999, on
        the proposed rule and plans on filing supplemental
        written comments by the close of the rulemaking record
        on July 26, 1999.  IMC Global is also an active member
        in several industry and trade groups, such as the
        National Mining Association, the Salt Institute, the
        MARG Diesel Coalition, and the DEEP program, and thus
        supports the oral testimony and written comments already
        provided or to be provided by these entities.
                  IMC Global is one of the world's leading
        producers of phosphate and potash crop nutrients, animal
        feed ingredients, salt, and soda ash with annual
        revenues of approximately three billion dollars and
        approximately 10,000 employees working in U.S.,
        Canadian, European, and Australian mining and
        manufacturing locations.
                  Our corporation has a number of producing
        underground shaft and solution potash and salt mines, as
        well as producing surface phosphate and soda ash mines. 
        Three underground U.S. mines are subject to the Federal
        Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and thus would be
        directly affected by the proposed rule.
                  As MSHA is aware, IMC Global has been
        interested in the subject of employee exposures to
        diesel particulate matter in underground metal/nonmetal
        mines for a number of years.  For over twenty years, IMC
        has worked cooperatively with MSHA on various projects
        related to air quality issues in underground mines.  In
        the last ten years, these cooperative projects have
        included diesel particulate matter.  The most recent
        examples are:  In 1996, MSHA sampled for diesel
        particulate matter using respirable combustible dust,
        submicron impactor, and elemental carbon sampling
        methods in one of IMC's underground potash mines.
                  In 1997, MSHA and IMC conducted a study to
        evaluate the effectiveness of oxidation catalytic
        converters in underground mining operation.
                  And as recently as in 1998, IMC participated
        in the development of MSHA's Diesel Toolbox.  
                  Moreover, IMC Global has been active in the
        United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, in other
        areas pertaining to diesel exhaust and particulate where
        MSHA might not be aware.  A summary of our activities in
        these areas are as follows:  In the U.S., IMC Global has
        two mines participating in the joint NIOSH/NCI cancer
        mortality study.  Furthermore, some of our underground
        mines have developed sophisticated engine maintenance
        programs that include periodic engine emissions testing. 
        One mine is even testing engines using a dynamometer to
        measure emissions under load after diesel engines are
        rebuilt.
                  In Canada, our IMC Kalium business unit is
        participating as a member and financial contributor to
        the research being performed by the Diesel Emissions
        Elimination Program, also known as (DEEP).  In addition,
        we have worked cooperatively with the Mines Inspectorate
        of the Occupational Safety and Health Division in the
        Province of Saskatchewan to evaluate different methods
        of monitoring diesel particulates in underground mines.
                  In the United Kingdom, our IMC Salt business
        unit is working cooperatively with the Mines Branch of
        the Health and Safety Executive on sampling diesel
        particulates using coulometric analysis and is currently
        investigating a correlation between those samples and
        optical density readings of filters.
                  Today I intend to confine my comments to three
        specific areas of the proposed rule:  (1) The human
        epidemiological evidence; (2) the Genotoxicological
        evidence; and (3) the determination of exposure
        concentrations for various occupations presented in the
        proposed rule.
                  As pertaining to the Human Epidemiological
        Evidence:  While IMC Global shares MSHA's concerns about
        the possible health effects to underground
        metal/nonmetal miners of exposures to diesel particulate
        matter, IMC Global believes that the Agency's action to
        regulate dpm exposures at this time is premature and is
        not based on sound scientific evidence.  After reading
        and critically reviewing most of the forty-three
        epidemiological studies that MSHA has cited in the
        proposed rule, IMC Global also believes that the Agency
        has failed to establish a relationship between exposure
        to diesel particulate matter and lung cancer.
                  Recent research and critical review by noted
        scientists and epidemiologists has shown that the
        underlying animal and human data in these cancer studies
        has serious flaws and/or biases.  IMC Global knows that
        MSHA is also aware of the limitations in this data based
        on statements contained in the proposed rule and
        attendance by the Agency's representatives of the Health
        Effects Institute's Diesel Workshop held in March of
        this year at Stone Mountain, Georgia, where the
        limitations of these studies were discussed at length.
                  I will provide specific examples to highlight
        our concerns pertaining to this issue:  First, the
        results of the two comprehensive "independent" meta-
        analyzes that MSHA states in the proposed rule that the
        Agency is relying on as its basis for showing lung
        cancer effects in humans are biased, have critical flaws
        and are not truly independent.  For example, both meta-
        analyses suffer from publication and selection biases
        because they both used only studies published in the
        literature, excluded certain studies without adequate
        explanation and did not include other relevant studies,
        especially those pertaining to miners.  Both studies
        acknowledge that exposure misclassifications are a
        potential source of error as no diesel exposures were
        actually measured in any study analyzed under either of
        these meta-analyses.  Both meta-analyses do not
        adequately control smoking as a major confounder as some
        of the studies analyzed did not determine smoking
        status, while others did not adequately control for it. 
        The two meta-analyses fail to show a linear dose-
        response relationship, which argues against a link
        between lung cancer and diesel particulate matter
        exposure, especially due to the orders of magnitude
        exposure ranges studied.  Finally, the meta-analyses are
        not truly independent, even though they were published
        by, -- one was published by a state agency, while the
        other was published in a peer-reviewed journal, because
        they share a co-author, and both studies were funded by
        the State of California.
                  MSHA has reviewed certain cohort and case-
        control studies in the proposed rule, but has failed to
        adequately discuss criticisms to positive studies as
        well as discuss other studies that show no link between
        diesel particulate exposure and cancer.  In IMC Global's
        review of the scientific literature, we found a number
        of valid studies that should be reviewed by MSHA in
        order to present a balanced picture of the human
        epidemiological data.  A listing of these studies is
        contained in our preliminary written comments to the
        Agency.
                  MSHA has quoted only those peer-reviewed
        studies in the scientific literature in the proposed
        rule that support the Agency's position, while either
        not identifying or dismissing the views of other authors
        who hold contrary opinions.  In our review of the
        scientific literature, IMC Global easily found several
        researchers, organizations, such as the World Health
        Organization and even the National Cancer Institute, and
        even courts that warn about not adequately controlling
        confounders, especially smoking, and the problem with
        relying on studies with relative risks less than 2.0. 
        Based on this information, the epidemiological studies
        that MSHA cites as showing a relationship between lung
        cancer and diesel particulate matter exposure might, in
        fact, be actually showing an artificial association and
        a level of relative risk due simply to natural
        variation, not a cancer effect.
                  At the recent MSHA dpm public hearing in
        Albuquerque, New Mexico, a member of the MSHA panel
        cited six cohort and/or case-control studies that the
        Agency now appears to be relying upon as these studies
        seem to show a relative risk greater than 2.0.  Of the
        six studies mentioned by MSHA at the Albuquerque
        meeting, four were discounted by MSHA in the proposed
        rule as either not being statistically significant;
        given little weight due to potential confounding by
        occupational exposures by other carcinogens; or
        discounted because they had very few cases and the
        extent of diesel exposure was not reported.  Prior to
        this hearing, IMC Global has had the opportunity to
        obtain and thoroughly review four of the six studies
        mentioned by MSHA at the Albuquerque meeting.  The
        results of our review are as follows:  The study of
        Lerchen, et al. entitled "Lung Cancer and Occupation in
        New Mexico," is a familiar one, as we have active mining
        operations in that state.  While the study shows an odds
        ratio of 2.1 for copper, lead, zinc, gold, and silver,
        molybdenum, coal, clay, and potash miners corrected for
        age, ethnicity, and smoking, the study population was
        relatively small; four cases with twenty controls, and
        the 95 percent confidence level ranges from 1.0 percent
        to 4.1 percent.  As the confidence level includes 1.0,
        this shows that the quality of the data is not good
        enough to determine whether there is an increase,
        decrease, or no change in the risk.  I would also like
        to point out that there are probably exposure
        misclassification errors in this study, as the odds
        ratio for subjects exposed solely to diesel exhaust
        fumes was calculated to be only 0.6, ranging from 0.2 to
        1.6, of the 95 percent classification, -- excuse me, --
        95 percent confidence level, with a total of seven cases
        and thirteen controls for all industries studied.
                  The study by Waxweiler et al. entitled
        "Mortality of Potash Workers" is also familiar to IMC
        Global, as we have many active underground potash mines. 
        This study brings up two key facts:  First, the study
        states that no causes of death were significantly
        different between miners who worked in dieselized mines
        and those who worked in other mines.  Second, the study
        indicates that not only do a higher percent of potash
        workers smoke, but that they smoke at a heavier rate
        than United States males.  This factor alone would be
        expected to increase the number of deaths due to cancer,
        but a lack of excess lung cancer by potash workers was
        demonstrated in this study.
                  The study by Benhamou et al. entitled
        "Occupational Risk Factors of Lung Cancer in A French
        Case-Control Study" includes a category of miners and
        quarrymen.  The study appears to be well-adjusted for
        smoking as a confounder.  While the relative risk was
        reported as 2.14 with a ninety-five percent confidence
        level ranging from 1.07 to 4.31, we note that only one
        or two controls were used for each case.  In fact, for
        the miners and quarrymen category, only twenty controls
        were used for the twenty-two cases of observed disease. 
        IMC Global believes that this study suffers from control
        bias with respect to the miners and quarrymen category
        as the normal ratio of cases to controls is normally one
        to four.
                  The study by Boffetta et al. entitled "Diesel
        Exhaust Exposure and Mortality Among Males in the
        American Cancer Society Prospective Study," also
        includes a miner category of some 2,034 subjects. 
        Smoking was treated in a simplistic way in this study by
        using three categories: smokers, ex-smokers, and non-
        smokers.  The relative risk for miners is given as 2.67
        with a ninety-five percent confidence level ranging from
        1.63 to 4.37.  However, a percentage of miners who did
        not state that they had diesel exhaust exposure was
        44.2%.  Thus, IMC Global considers that this study, with
        respect to miners, suffers from exposure
        misclassification errors and a lack of control for a
        major confounder, namely, smoking.  The authors of this
        study acknowledge that the unknown diesel exposure
        status may introduce a substantial bias.
                  5.   Of course, the previous listed studies
        suffer from the same flaw as all human epidemiological
        studies to date, in that they all lack actual exposure
        data to diesel exhaust and thus the potential for
        misclassification of exposure groups.  We just don't
        know the levels of exposure, and we also don't know for
        what periods of time people were being exposed or not
        being exposed.
                  MSHA is relying on other case-control studies
        that are biased.  For example, MSHA cites the "Garshick
        Railroad Studies" as two of the most comprehensive,
        complete, and well-controlled studies available that
        also took care to address potential confounding by
        tobacco smoke and asbestos.  However, a reanalysis of
        these studies by the EPA, other researchers, and even
        Dr. Garshick himself, have revealed many flaws.  Upon
        reanalysis, all have concluded that the reported
        positive dose-response association was a consequence of
        the modeling assumptions made, rather than being implied
        by the data.
                  Based on the examples that I have just
        provided, IMC Global believes that the best conclusion
        that MSHA can draw from the available human
        epidemiological evidence is that any relationship
        between exposure to diesel particulates and lung cancer
        is unclear.  Many of the studies cited in the proposed
        rule are either not statistically significant or contain
        serious flaws and biases.  No amount of number crunching
        using meta-analysis techniques can overcome the
        limitations of an inadequate or a flawed study.  IMC
        Global believes that the current NIOSH/NCI cancer
        mortality study will resolve many of the shortcomings in
        the previous human epidemiological literature and
        encourages MSHA to wait until preliminary results are
        published before issuing a final rule on diesel
        particulate matter.
                  In the interim, IMC Global encourages MSHA to
        perform formal quantitative tests or develop a model for
        a quantitative risk assessment using all available human
        epidemiological data.  Key data sets should be
        reanalyzed using model-free statistical methods and/or
        very flexible classes of models to avoid model bias. 
        The results from any model used to estimate a
        quantitative effect of diesel particulate matter
        exposure on lung cancer risk should then be published in
        the Federal Register with a full set of model
        diagnostics indicating how well it fits the data to
        which it has been applied, especially in comparison to
        other models.  This will allow for adequate review by
        mining companies, researchers, and epidemiologists
        interested in this issue.
                  In regards to the Genotoxicological Evidence: 
        After reviewing the genotoxicological studies cited in
        the proposed rule and conducting our own literature
        search, IMC Global believes that MSHA is relying on
        studies that are flawed and biased.  I will again
        provide examples to illustrate our concerns:  Production
        of tumors in rats exposed to diesel particulate matter
        is a result of lung overload, a phenomenon unique to the
        rat lung, as opposed to the lungs of other rodents and
        mammals.  Theories that the overload phenomenon "mask"
        the potential of carcinogenicity in either rats or
        humans as MSHA has suggested in the proposed rule are
        now being discounted by researchers as evidenced by the
        remarks last year by the Clean Air Science Advisory
        Board in reviewing the EPA's diesel health effect
        document.
                  The studies conducted by Wallace, Keane, and
        Gu, cited by MSHA in the proposed rule showing that the
        diesel exhaust particulates can be extracted in the lung
        via laboratory experiments using simulated body tissues
        have been challenged by parallel studies from other
        laboratories showing that organic materials dissociate
        from particles much more slowly in vivo than when
        extracted by organic solvents in vitro and the serum and
        tissue cytosols significantly reduce the cytotoxicity of
        diesel particle extracts.
                  The studies conducted by Wallace cited by MSHA
        in the proposed rule using aged diesel samples from the
        inside tail pipes do not simulate the real character of
        particles formed during the actual combustion process
        because other researchers have discovered newly formed
        mutagens that were not present in the fresh examples.
                  Recent 1997 studies on DNA adducts in
        underground miners showed no association between DNA
        adduct elevations and diesel particulate exposures
        despite the evidence presented by MSHA in the proposed
        rule for garage workers, bus workers, and diesel
        forklift drivers using older studies.
                  Based on the examples I have just provided,
        IMC Global believes that inconsistent data from recent
        studies shows that it is premature for MSHA to draw
        conclusions based on current DNA adduct research and
        that the unrealistic character of the in vitro
        experiments and the rat overload mechanism cannot be
        used to support MSHA's case for a casual connection
        between lung cancer and exposure to diesel exhaust
        particulate in animal studies.  IMC Global believes that
        further research is needed to show the effects of diesel
        exhaust particulate of the human body.
                  With regard to the Determination of Exposure
        Concentrations for Various Occupations:  In the proposed
        rule, MSHA has developed a bar graph (Figure III-4)
        comparing the range of average diesel particulate
        exposures between dock workers, truck drivers, railroad
        workers, underground coal miners, underground
        metal/nonmetal miners, surface miners, and ambient air. 
        After a careful review of Figure III-4 and the
        assumptions MSHA used to develop it, IMC Global is
        concerned that MSHA is applying an "apples to oranges"
        approach when trying to compare underground miner
        exposures to diesel particulate matter to that of other
        occupations.
                  IMC Global does not agree with MSHA's blanket
        assertion that submicrometer elemental carbon
        constitutes approximately fifty percent by mass of the
        whole diesel particulate.  Rather, the percentage of
        elemental carbon in total diesel particulate matter
        fluctuates.  Major contributors to this fluctuation are:
        engine type, duty cycle, fuel, lube oil consumption,
        state of engine maintenance and the presence or absence
        of an emission control devices.  Further, the mass
        percentage that MSHA is using for the submicrometer
        elemental carbon is based solely on measurements taken
        in underground coal mines.  MSHA has presented no
        evidence in the proposed rule showing that this mass
        percentage holds true for diesel engines used on docks,
        in trucks hauling loads over roadways, in railroad
        engines pulling trains, in underground metal/nonmetal
        mines, in surface mines, or in ambient air.
                  In fact, elemental carbon mass percentages in
        diesel particulate matter vary between 38% and 85% based
        on estimates by Birch and Carey, developers of the NIOSH
        5040 Method.  Recent research in Korea shows that diesel
        particulate emissions between on-road diesel equipment
        and underground mining diesel equipment varies by at
        least a factor of three and is directly related to
        engine speed.  Based on this information, MSHA's
        estimates in Figure III-4 of the proposed rule are
        untrue and misleading.
                  Furthermore, the information presented by MSHA
        concerning employee exposure levels in the twenty-five
        metal/nonmetal mines using RCD and submicrometer
        sampling and analysis methods is also suspect.
                  First, MSHA has sampled twenty-five of 260
        (9.6%) of all metal/nonmetal mines using either the RCD
        or submicrometer sampling methods to determine diesel
        particulate matter exposures.  Commodities represented
        in this sampling included only salt, limestone, potash,
        soda ash, trona, gypsum, copper, lead, and zinc.  As
        MSHA has estimated in the proposed rule, there are
        thirty-five different nonmetal commodities being mined
        alone, not to mention all the metals.  IMC Global
        questions how this sampling can be representative of the
        entire metal/nonmetal mining sector.  MSHA has not even
        gathered enough data to have a single diesel particulate
        matter measurement for each type of commodity being
        mined underground.
                  Second, the two mines monitored using the
        submicrometer sampling method may have errors over 20%
        because the submicrometer respirable particulate can
        contain particulate material that is not diesel
        particulate.  Limited sampling conducted in underground
        nonmetal mines (i.e. shale, soda ash, and quartzite) has
        shown that mass concentration size distributions are not
        primarily bipolar like in coal mines.
                  Third, the RCD sample results from the other
        twenty-three mines may have errors up to 50% due to
        interference, as some types of mineral dusts are
        suspected to interfere with the ashing method.  Further
        research by CANMET is needed before this problem can be
        resolved.
                  Fourth, 23% of the samples taken in
        underground metal/nonmetal mines were area samples
        rather than breathing zone samples.  Research has shown
        that, due to stratification in underground mines, the
        concentration of diesel particulate matter in
        underground openings will be affected by the location of
        the sampling instruments.  If accurate measures of
        employee exposures are needed for risk assessments,
        personal sampling needs to be conducted in the miners'
        breathing zone.  NIOSH has advocated personal over area
        sampling since at least 1977 for exactly this reason.
                  IMC Global believes that it is MSHA's burden
        to prove to the regulated community that the data
        collected by the agency during the risk assessment is
        correct, repeatable, verifiable, and free from
        significant errors.  In the area of exposure
        concentrations, the Agency has failed to do this.  Thus,
        IMC Global recommends that the Agency do the following:
        Perform additional employee personal exposure monitoring
        in the metal/nonmetal mining sector to show that diesel
        particulate matter exposures are representative of the
        entire industry, not just a smattering of the mines,
        before promulgating regulations that will affect the
        entire industry.
                  Use better sampling methods for obtaining
        personal exposure monitoring data.  The methods used to
        date in the past are non-specific to diesel particulate
        and introduce unacceptable sampling and analytical
        errors, which make them unreliable.
                  Evaluate the impact of ore interference on the
        sampling method used for gathering diesel particulate
        matter exposure data.  Many mined nonmetal ores are
        likely to produce interference based on carbon-based ore
        compositions or particle size distributions.  A valid
        sampling method must be available for all metal/nonmetal
        commodities.
                  Obtain a better correlation between diesel
        particulate mass and elemental carbon before attempting
        to make comparisons across occupations.  Researchers
        have shown that the mass percentage of elemental carbon
        in diesel particulate matter is not constant, but a
        function of many variables.  Additional research,
        measurements, and statistical analysis is needed before
        an accurate correlation can be established.
                  In closing, IMC Global believes that MSHA,
        NIOSH, and the mining companies need to work together to
        procure new data and abandon the misapplication of old
        outdated studies containing erroneous information,
        critical flaws, and biases.  We all need to learn more
        about diesel particulate matter generation, employee
        exposures, potential health implications, sampling
        techniques, and control technologies.  IMC Global stands
        ready to work with MSHA to develop a more realistic
        strategy based on sound science than what is currently
        being proposed.  Thank you.
                  MR. TOMB:   Thank you for your presentation. 
        Questions?
                  MR. KOGUT:   Yeah.  I want to thank you for
        both your presentation and for the pre-hearing comments
        which you submitted, which I found to be, -- it seemed
        like a lot of thought and work went into them, and
        really appreciate all the detailed effort that you put
        into preparing those comments.  I do have a few
        questions and request for some clarification.  Let me
        start with some of the things you said later in the
        presentation and then work backwards.  One is that, --
        and this is on something, -- a question or a request for
        clarification that I have, not just from you, but from
        various other presenters that have made this a sort of
        theme in several of the presentations.  And they said
        that NIOSH for many, many years has advocated the use of
        personal samples as opposed to area samples, and also, I
        think some of the presenters also went a little beyond
        that and said that they advocated the use of multiple
        samples as opposed to single samples.  Do you have, --
        or could you submit something into the record that shows
        the context in which those sorts of recommendations were
        made?  In other words, were they, -- when NIOSH has made
        those sorts of recommendations were they talking about
        sampling done with the objective of enforcing a FEL, or
        were they talking about sampling that was done, -- that
        should be done in support of establishing or evaluating
        a health risk or doing a risk assessment?  In other
        words, were they trying, -- were they talking about
        using, -- advocating personal as opposed to area samples
        for the purpose of establishing miners, -- estimating
        lifetime exposure in order to establish a health risk,
        which is really quite a different objective from the
        objective of enforcing a limit once it's been
        established?  Or more generally, the objective of
        protecting a miner?  In other words, I see two quite
        different objectives there, one is to protect an
        individual miner to make sure that his lifetime exposure
        level never exceeds some certain amount, for which it
        might be more, -- certainly more justifiable to set an
        area limit because of the area is limited below a
        certain level, then you are ensuring that any miner
        working in that area, that his personal samples would
        not exceed that limit.  So it's a more conservative way
        of protecting a miner than personal sampling, which
        might not be feasible in an enforcement context in some
        cases.  So, do you have any knowledge of NIOSH's
        objective when they made these sorts of recommendations?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Yes, and we'll be happy to
        provide those types of details in our final submissions.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Okay.  And I'd also ask some of
        the other commentors (sic) that have made similar
        statements about NIOSH, whether they could provide us
        with any actual references where NIOSH has advocated
        personal or multiple samples, as opposed to single or
        area samples for enforcement purposes.  Then, again,
        working my way sort of backwards through your
        presentation, you 
        made, -- both in your presentation and in your written
        comments, you discussed Figure III-4 in the proposal and
        made the point that in working up the comparison in that
        figure, we, -- MSHA based the conversion for some of the
        occupations in which the original measurements were done
        in elemental carbon units in order to convert those to
        diesel particulate we used an average ratio of two to
        one for diesel particulate to elemental carbon.  And I'm
        not quite sure I understand the relevance of your
        comments about the variability in elemental carbon to
        diesel particulate, which I think that as you're aware,
        the Agency recognizes that variability, and that was one
        of the reasons why we chose total carbon rather than
        elemental carbon as the method that we were proposing. 
        But even granting that there could be a great deal of
        variability in the ratio, depending on the duty-cycle or
        the operating conditions of the equipment, even if the,
        -- even if there is a great deal of variability in the
        ratio, still taken over a period of time there's still
        an average in that variability, so that the, -- you
        know, the ratio might vary as you said, from 35% to 85%,
        but that's still consistent with the possibility that on
        average the ratio is approximately 50%.  So that in
        comparing exposures between different industries, it
        still seems to me that, -- you know, you could make some
        sense of the concept of using that ration as a
        conversion factor if all you're doing is comparing the
        average dpm concentration to which miners in different
        industries are exposed.  That would be a comparison of
        the average concentration.  So, I'm not sure I
        understand the relevance of any variability that you
        might see?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Well, with regard to the
        relevance, -- and we can provide further comments in our
        final comments, the problem that we have faced, -- that
        IMC Global as well as you face, is that, you know, data
        for different types of diesel engines just aren't
        published in terms of the amount of particulate matter
        actually being emitted.  In fact, we have tried to
        obtain information from our mining diesel engine
        manufacturers on some of the particulate matter
        displaced in some of these engines and it's just not
        readily available.  Either they have not monitored for
        them themselves, or they don't know.  Those estimates I
        provided were based on the research done by Birch and
        Carey on the 5040 Method, and those were just based on a
        very limited data set using different levels.  In
        actuality, we don't know what the percentages are.  That
        was the range of limited areas that Birch and Carey
        looked at, and we have some more limited evidence with
        trucks on the highway, because emissions have been
        tested by EPA for a great deal of time.  But when you're
        talking about fork-lift trucks and other different types
        of exposure we really don't know where that data is.  If
        you have that data I would certainly like to see it.  I
        haven't been able to find any of it.  We've been looking
        for it.  IMC Global is a crop nutrient producer, we have
        vehicles on the road, we are vastly interested in dpm
        research in our corporation because we do a lot of
        transportation of corp nutrients throughout the country. 
        In affects all areas of our business, not just our
        mining area.  And so, we have been researching this area
        for a fairly long period of time and keeping up with
        EPA's research in this area, and we talk to engine
        manufacturers and the data just isn't available.  And
        so, without knowing what the actual numbers are it's
        very hard for me to, you know, get a warm, comfortable
        feeling around your estimates, because I can't go back
        and independently verify that information from some
        other way.
                  MR. KOGUT:   But indicated that you do have
        available, -- do you have any data that shows that 50%
        as an average is wildly wrong?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   I can't vouch for the 50% as
        an average.  I don't know if that's a true average or
        not.  I mean, because we've had a very hard time finding
        that data.  And thus, you know, we think you made a leap
        of faith in the proposed rule picking the 50%.  You had
        to figure out something, it seemed like it might be a
        good idea at the time, but we're questioning it because,
        like I said, we've tried to independently verify that
        information and tried to look at those exposure levels,
        and the biggest problem with diesel studies as you know,
        is the lack of exposure measurements.  Without knowing
        what people are exposed to it's very hard to classify
        the risks.  That's a problem that you face in writing
        the proposed rule, it's a problem that we face in a
        practical end of trying to protect our worker.  We're
        just as interested in this as you are, and we have been
        wrestling with this issue on many fronts and don't have
        any clear answers.  If you have other data that you used
        to develop your estimates, maybe you'd be willing to
        share that with us, and maybe we would all have a better
        understanding of how that calculation came to be.
                  MR. KOGUT:   I think what data we have is
        certainly, you know, available.  We tried to make it
        available in the proposal, and we'll certainly make any
        other data that we have available to anyone interested. 
        You mentioned in your re-review of the six studies that
        I had mentioned in Albuquerque, you said that you
        looked, -- and I think you were talking about the
        Boffetta Study, where it said that, -- you know, you
        said that 40%, -- 46% or 47% of the miner category they
        estimated in the study as not having been exposed to
        diesel?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   They did not answer the
        questionnaire as to whether or not they had exposure to
        diesel.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Right.  So, it's unknown, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   It's unknown for 44% of the
        study cohort whether they had any diesel exposure or
        not.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Okay.  And the relative risk
        though for miners, including that 44%, is that what it
        is?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   That's correct.
                  MR. KOGUT:   For which the diesel exposure was
        uncertain, came out to be 2.67.  You said that because
        it was uncertain for that 44% that that biased the
        study.  Now, it seems natural to suspect that at least
        part of that 44% was not exposed to diesel?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:    And that's the key area
        there.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Right.
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   If a significant portion of
        that 44% was not exposed, other lifestyle factors could
        have presented, and that's one of the key limitations of
        Boffetta material.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Well, I think the way that it
        seems to be natural to interpret that, is that if up to
        44% was not exposed to diesel, then yes, that biases the
        study result, but it seems to me that it biases it
        downward, because you have a certain fraction of that
        population that probably was not exposed to diesel, and
        yet, you have a relative risk of 2.67.  If it were
        limited then, to only those workers that were exposed to
        diesel, then one would expect the relative risk to be
        even higher than 2.67, isn't that right?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   I believe if you read the
        Boffetta Study closely you will find that his relative
        risk calculation excluded that 44% of folks who did not
        respond to the questionnaire with regards to diesel
        exposure.  As I understood it.
                  MR. KOGUT:   There was another section of the
        report that compared workers in general, across all
        classifications that were exposed to diesel, -- that
        reported exposure to diesel, as opposed to the ones that
        answered the questionnaire but were not exposed to
        diesel.  I'll certainly go back and reread to see if, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   And we'll try to clarify it in
        our final comments what, -- you know, what our concerns
        are there.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Okay.  You mentioned in your
        talk, and you also listed in the pre-hearing comments,
        you said that there were a number of studies that had
        negative results, that we didn't take into account in
        the proposal.  Were you referring to the list on page 18
        of your, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Yes, that's our preliminary
        comments, we'll have more with our final comments. We're
        still actively researching in this area.  As you know,
        literature is hard to come by sometimes, especially when
        you're depending on libraries for searching down data.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Yeah.  There's two of the papers
        that you have listed I found troubling that you listed
        them as, -- first of all, I found them real, -- I didn't
        understand what you meant that we didn't take those into
        account, since those studies are listed in the tables of
        study, -- there are forty-three that we did take into
        account.  So, what did you mean by that?  I mean, what
        did you mean by saying that we didn't take them into
        account?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   In terms of listing them in
        the table versus discussing them in the preamble.  I
        mean, as you would know as well as I do, the studies
        that we referenced there, have minor cohort, -- or minor
        divisions sub-populations, if you will, as part of their
        analysis.  And it seems to me that if you're trying to
        regulate miners then you need to, you know,
        realistically look at all the data that's related to
        miners and get away from railroad workers and dock
        workers and other people in terms of what is the effect,
        -- to help the effect in the mining industry.  And so,
        we have been trying to compile that information
        ourselves internally, 'cause like I said, we are
        interested in this issue.  It's a very difficult task,
        we don't have a lot of people to devout to it, but we
        try our best to stay on top of the literature.  And we
        believe there needs to be expanded discussion of all of
        the miner studies.  Some of bee introduced in the
        record, obviously, post-publication of the proposal, the
        New South Wales work and stuff like that, that was added
        after that, and the Rich Coal Miner Studies and stuff
        like that.  So.
                  MR. KOGUT:   These studies that you listed on
        that page there, referenced, are not miner studies,
        they're just studies that you listed as being negative. 
        And when we made the statement in the preamble that
        thirty-eight out of forty-three studies showed some
        positive association, we were including the negative
        studies in that forty-three, as well as the positive
        ones.
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Okay.
                  MR. KOGUT:   But, also, one of those studies
        is Howe, et al, 1983, which you listed as being a
        negative study, but in our table we listed, -- are it's
        showing a relative risk of 1.2 for possibly exposed
        workers, and a relative risk of 1.35 for probably
        exposed workers.  So, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:    And relative risk less than
        two are not indicative of a disease, so.
                  MR. KOGUT:   In an individual study.  I might
        agree with that if you had one study that showed a
        relatively small relative risk.  That wouldn't be very
        strong evidence of anything.  But if you have a lot of
        studies that, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Obviously, that's where you
        and I have a point of disagreement, --
                  MR. KOGUT:   Yeah.  Okay.
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   -- in the epidemiological
        circle.
                  MR. KOGUT:   But that issue is addressed in
        the preamble.  I mean, the issue of having multiple
        studies.
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   We understand is addressed and
        we were just trying to tactfully point out that we
        disagree with it.
                                (Laughter)
                  MR. KOGUT:   Another one that you have on that
        list of studies that you said that we didn't take into
        account was Wong, et al., 1985.  And you say that that
        study, -- you listed it as a negative study because it
        found a deficit for lung cancer in the overall cohort in
        a statistically significant deficient for lung cancer in
        the less than five year duration group.  Now, as I'm
        sure you know, five, -- exposures of less than five
        years has been found in the general literature to not to
        be sufficient to show a response for lung cancer as an
        end point.  And in fact, that study for the people with
        more than twenty years exposure showed a standardized
        mortality ratio uncorrected for healthy worker effect or
        anything that was greater than one.  So, while it's not
        a significantly significant result, it's still, -- I
        don't think it's quite right to characterize it as
        negative result, do you?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   I'll have to go back and look
        at that.  Right now those details of the lung study
        escape me.  I can't remember forty-three different
        epidemiological studies and the effects of each one.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Yeah, certainly.  But I guess my
        question is, what are the criteria by which you
        considered these studies that you list to be negative
        studies?  
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   We will provide that within
        our final comments.  We'll address that issue, --
                  MR. KOGUT:   Okay.
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   -- and our viewpoint, as to
        how we believe the Agency should consider that evidence. 
                  MR. KOGUT:   There's one other clarification
        that I wanted to ask you to provide.  Do you want to ask
        if anybody else has questions while I'm looking for
        that?
                  MR. TOMB:   I had two questions maybe I could
        ask you.  If I can phrase them correctly.  Area versus
        personal sampling, you mentioned that it's recommended
        to do personal sampling, and with respect to that
        comment would you envision the personal samples to be
        higher or lower than the area samples, if those
        measurements were made?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   That's a very interesting
        question.  I mean, there are a lot of factors that need
        to be taken into account in terms of, number one, the
        position of the diesel exhaust on the unit compared to
        where the miner is working, and what the effect of the
        mine ventilation stratification is in the mine.  It
        seems to me that that is a complex engineering, you
        know, ventilation-type issue, and I don't know if I
        could even answer that question for you, sir.  I 
        mean, --
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  I guess the other point
        that you made is to do a lot more sampling in different
        types of mines, I think was one of your points that you
        discussed in your presentation.  And the reason, -- I
        guess what I'm asking is, what is the reason, -- what's
        your main reason for that?  Do you think that the
        average that has been established with 10% of the
        operations that we looked at underestimate or
        overestimates the conditions that would be out there?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   It's hard for me to speculate
        on the entire mining industry.  I know primarily potash
        and salt.  In salt and potash areas, based on our, you
        know, NCI work and the NIOSH study we are showing lower
        levels than the studies that you reference in the
        proposed rule.  I don't know if that's because of the
        age or your data versus, -- and we worked together on
        putting some of together in outline.  And so, I mean we
        both know what the results are.  And I don't know what
        the ventilation is like.  I don't get into all the other
        different mining commodities to see what their
        ventilation is like, and what their use of diesel is
        versus non-diesel, what their horsepower ratings or
        their engines are.  So, it's very difficult for me to
        speculate in an area other than, --
                  MR. TOMB:   What was your basis for that
        recommendation?  I mean, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   The basis for that
        recommendation I think is the newer charge of lining the
        entire regulatory community.  And if I was producing a
        commodity that you had not sampled, then I would
        question whether or not you had a right to deregulate me
        based on your limited sampling test.
                  MR. TOMB:   Regardless of whether the
        contaminates that you're sampling for is a hazard or not
        a hazard?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   I don't quite understand?
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Well, if diesel particulate
        is a hazard, okay, then, -- whether it's a feasibility
        limit I guess, or a health protection limit, okay, does
        that make a difference on where it's found, in the
        commodity of where it's sampled?  I guess that's my
        question to get back at the reason that I would have to
        go out and sample all two hundred and fifty operations,
        which is what I assumed that you, -- what I sort of took
        from your, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Well, I didn't say you had to
        go out and monitor all two hundred and fifty, I said you
        need to, -- you need to have a representative number. 
        And I certainly think you'd want to monitor all the
        commodities being mined, --
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   -- to have good data to be
        able to promulgate a rule across the whole sector.
                  MR. TURCIC:   What are some of the factors
        that you're, -- what I'm hearing you say is, that
        because of the limited number of samples there is also a
        potential issue on what is feasible in many of those
        deposits?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   That is a potential issue,
        yes.
                  MR. TURCIC:   What factors would you factor in
        on determining the feasibility that may be, -- you know,
        that may, -- there may be a hole in the data with a lack
        of sampling?  
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   (No verbal response.)
                  MR. TURCIC:   And if you'll just think about
        that and maybe, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Let me think about that and
        address it in our final comments.  You're catching me
        off-guard here without being able to giving it any
        adequate thought.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Yeah.
                  MR. KOGUT:   I found what I wanted the
        clarification about.  On page 19 of your pre-hearing
        comments, in the middle of the page you said that "MSHA
        states that at least forty-three of the epidemiological
        studies have been published examining the
        relationships," and so forth.  And then you go on to
        paraphrase MSHA's position that, -- or quote, the fact
        that thirty-eight of the forty-three studies showed any
        excess risk of lung cancer, it may itself be a
        significant result, even if the evidence in most of the
        thirty-eight studies is relatively weak.  MSHA then
        explains in a footnote that a high proportion of
        positive studies is statistically significant, according
        to the Two-Tailed Sign Test (phonetic), and so forth. 
        It's not clear whether you're taking issue with, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   No, I was just laying the
        background for the issue and, --
                  MR. KOGUT:   Are you disagreeing with MSHA's
        position about that, or are you agreeing, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   We will clarify that in our
        final comments.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Okay.  And then one other
        clarification.  You say that the two meta-analysis that
        we rely heavily on, the one by Buiatti, et al., and
        Lipsett and Alexeeff, don't address publication bias, --
        or I suppose you mean sufficiently address, because both
        of them do go through an attempt at addressing it by
        means of funnel plots, and one of the two also looks at
        subsets of different studies organized in different
        ways, and tries to address it that way.  In your post-
        hearing comments could you be a bit more specific about
        the shortcomings as you see them, --
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   Sure.
                  MR. KOGUT:   -- in the way that those two
        studies addressed publication bias, and what more they
        might have, -- what more could be done in order to
        address it, than what they did, in fact, do?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   All right.  No problem.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr.
        Kaszniak.  I appreciate your input into the proposed
        rule.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Mr. Kaszniak, do you have more
        copies of that testimony?
                  MR. KASZNIAK:   (Provides requested copies.)
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Thank you.
                  MR. TOMB:   Our next presenter is Mr.
        Henderickson from the Illinois Association of Aggregate
        Producers.
                     MIKE DUNN - KONKA WESTERN STONE
                  MR. DUNN:   A little switch in the schedule
        here.  My name is Mike Dunn, D-U-N-N.  I'm the General
        Superintendent of Operations for Konka Western Stone,
        North Aurora Property.  It is a underground mine about
        40 miles west of Chicago.  We started this mine in 1993,
        January of 1993.  We employ eighteen people.  We are a
        relatively small company, small operator, we produce
        about 1.1 million tons a year out of this mine.  
                  In reading this proposed rule I have a few
        questions and comments for you.  You express a concern
        about the additive effects on the body with regard to
        the typical gases associated with the mines, -- these
        aren't static gas necessarily, but from the results of
        the operation of the mine.  For example, carbon
        monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, nitrous
        dioxide.  And the possibility of diesel particulate
        matter being integrated with the equation that should
        result in below unity, unless you'd be in violation. 
        The dpm acts differently on the body than these other
        elements.  It is already pretty difficult at any point
        in time and any place within the mine, -- any time
        during the operations of maintaining, -- routinely
        maintaining below unity.  Most of the time it's doable. 
        We use pretty sound ventilation practices, we use low-
        sulfur diesel and such.  But, nevertheless, if you
        introduce another factor here, from some of the
        elements, -- considering some of the elements of mining
        daily activities, as I say, it is, -- it would be pretty
        common for any particular work area to become in
        violation with these additive effects being greater than
        unity.  
                  So, when you consider the dpm, I question if
        you are mixing apples and oranges in this equation,
        because if, -- for the analogy, -- or simple analogy;
        I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy, so bear with me here a
        second.  If a doctor tells me, "Mike, you're way
        overweight, I need to put you on a strict diet.  You're
        limited to 1500 calories per day".  Now, if I say to
        him, "Okay, Doc, if it's going to affect my smoking," --
        I don't smoke myself, but let's say I do.  So, he says,
        "Well, if you're a smoker I have to consider those
        affects, so now I'm going to limit you to 1000 calories
        per day and three cigarettes".  See, they're two very
        different effects on the body.  I don't see how they
        could be looked upon as being additive.  So, I question
        the logic there.  That just escapes me.  
                  Now, if I cite in here page 58156, there's a
        study cited here, Heinrich, Iwai, --
                  MR. TOMB:   I'm sorry, what page was that,
        sir?
                  MR. DUNN:   (58156).
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. DUNN:   Under Roman Numeral III.2.c.i.B. 
        Anyway, these studies in 1996 conclude, 
                            "Therefore, dpm, rather than the
                  gaseous fraction of diesel exhaust,
                  is assumed to be the agent
                  associated with an excess risk of
                  lung cancer."
        Now, these other elements, the Co, and Co2, these are
        all gaseous.  Here, they are excluding the gaseous
        fraction of diesel exhaust, only looking at the dpm. 
        So, that's why I really take, -- I really question using
        this dpm with the additive effects of these other gases
        associated with producing a mine.
                  MR. TURCIC:   Could I ask you where you are
        arriving at the conclusion that the intent is to use the
        additive formula and include diesel particulate into the
        additive formula?  Because that was never the intent,
        and I'm not aware of anywhere where that is even
        insinuated in the proposal.
                  MR. DUNN:   But I wonder if it doesn't open
        the door to such things?  That's my concern.  You start
        with this, --
                  MR. TURCIC:   That is not the intent, and that
        never has been the intent.
                  MR. DUNN:   -- and you go with this.  But, I
        represent, -- I mean, you know, this is my
        interpretations and comments from this, okay?
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay, that's your concern.  Okay,
        I see where you're coming from.
                  MR. DUNN:   All right.  Now, like I said, I
        represent a relatively small operation.  We only have 80
        acres.  We don't have several thousand acres.  For mine
        property it's fairly small.  We mine underground, so we
        are pretty limited.  We stay within our property limits. 
        If you look at the elements of mining, what you need to
        produce, a sizeable amount of rock to make the place
        economically viable, and you may not know, in hard rock
        the elements of mining can be a lot different than coal. 
        You have drilling, the rock bolting, the rock scaling,
        explosives loading, mucking, so you have a number of
        elements there.  Now, you need to produce or shoot, --
        blast, a certain number of working phases a day to
        produce the tonnage.  Now, rules of thumb here, if you
        have, -- we drill and blast, so if you have a particular
        drill, drill jumbo, you need at least fifteen phases to
        keep that thing active.  All these elements in the
        mining sequence, which is essentially like an assembly
        line because they follow each other, these elements,
        there's a few things to control here.  One is, you want
        to keep the equipment fairly close to each other so the
        phases that you shoot at the end of every shift are, --
        as close as possible, some close proximity.  Now,
        equipment breaks down, you have delays, one element of
        the mining scheme gets done a whole lot quicker than
        typical, for various reasons.  Equipment costs a lot of
        money, you have to keep the equipment and the people
        producing stone.  And I might add that our average
        selling price for a cost per ton of stone is not $40.00
        or $27.00 or anything like that, it is $5.15.  So, keep
        that in mind, your economic considerations.  It's $5.15
        for a ton.  
                  So, back to keeping the equipment and people
        busy, what are you gonna do?  The foreman's gonna send
        the drill from here, to back over here, in very close
        proximity perhaps, to where the roofbolter is or the
        scales.  So, now, we have very high potential for having
        a number of pieces of equipment in close proximity of
        each other.  And you know what happens there.  Really
        the only other choice is perhaps shutting elements of
        the shift down early.  That really impacts the
        efficiency; impacts the economic viability.  Being a
        small mine you just do not have the kinds of options the
        much larger operation might have.  A larger operation
        may have eighty phases to go through, -- spread out. 
        They'll have numerous air splits; numerous vent shafts. 
        We have one entry, which is a decline edit, we have one
        ventilation exhaust shaft.  That's a suitable size as
        raise board through hard rock.  The cost is significant. 
        If we have to increase our ventilation two or threefold,
        we're talking about additional shafts, or larger shafts,
        which would have to be filled and blasted.  And the
        price of construction goes way up with that.  
                  Few other comments.  We did participate in
        MSHA tech support gathering data for the dpm
        concentrations.  I'm sure you're all familiar with this
        (indicating) particular graph here of all the sites,
        this is the metal/nonmetal mines.  I believe we're (K). 
        Can't swear to it, but it looks like the data they
        gathered matches (K) here.  Which bears real well when
        you consider these others.  I'm kind of happy with that. 
        But if you look at the graph and you examine the range
        of data at any of these particular mines, --
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Excuse me, Mr. Dunn.  Could you
        read the name of that table, the numbers for the
        reporter.
                  MR. DUNN:   The page number?
                  MS. WESDOCK:   The table.
                  MR. TOMB:   The figure.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   The figure.  That figure
        number.
                  MR. DUNN:   Oh.  Okay, here it is.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Thank you.
                  MR. DUNN:   Figure III-2.  Yeah.  So, --
                  MR. TOMB:   What's the name of your mine, sir?
                  MR. DUNN:   The name of the mine?
                  MR. TOMB:   Yeah.
                  MR. DUNN:   It's the Galena Plattville, of
        Konka (phonetic) Western Stone.
                  MR. TOMB:   I was just trying to check and see
        if that's your name.
                  MR. DUNN:   Well, it's supposed to be
        anonymous anyway, so I mean, I don't care.
                  MR. KOGUT:   It's public information, and we
        provided that to the, --
                  MR. DUNN:   The point is we're down here.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. DUNN:   Compared to everybody else.  But
        if you look at the range of data for each mine, just
        roughly, you might say the deviation from the mean is
        greater than 300 micrograms per cubic meter.  Okay. 
        Now, if you go to a maximum of 160 micrograms per cubic
        meter, it's the limit.  Now, you're talking about a
        range of zero, which is the lowest you can go, zero, to
        160, and that's a pretty tight tolerance.  Do you see
        what I'm getting at?
                  MR. TOMB:   Well, just let me clarify one
        thing.  With respect to that table you'd be looking at
        200, not 160 for dpm.
                  MR. DUNN:   Even so, okay, 200.
                  MR. TOMB:   Yeah.  That's okay.  You're
        looking at it.
                  MR. DUNN:   Okay, you're right.  So, if the
        variation within any particular mine of the dpm, --
        variation of the dpm that you could measure, is greater
        than 300 micrograms per cubic meter, now you're 
        going, -- if 200 is the limit, so it's 200, that's a
        very tight tolerance.  That's why I say, on any
        particular day, any particular time or place within the
        mine an inspector could come in there and test and
        you're in violation, period.  It's a very tough thing. 
        If the analogy were to be driving down the highway, the
        speed limit is 55 miles an hour and the state trooper to
        himself says, "Well, if I allow a tolerance of 5 miles
        an hour, how many people am I gonna pull over at the end
        of the day?"  He's going from (55) to (60), anything
        above that, he's gonna nail you.  As opposed to maybe
        more realistic, -- I don't want to say that.  Maybe
        another state trooper who might say, "Well, inaccuracies
        of the speedometer; how much traffic is going down the
        lanes, et cetera, et cetera, I'm going to allow (68). 
        Anything over (68) that I clock, I'm gonna pull the guy
        over".  And I think there's gonna be a whole lot of
        difference in the number of people each of these state
        troopers pull over.  It's the tolerance that we're
        looking here, the limits.  And, of course, that's in the
        pretext of safety, what they're doing.
                  Now, the one last comment I have, is there was
        talk earlier about the 200 micrograms per cubic meter
        limit is the perceived limit of technology, -- I guess
        the highest allowable level that technology can probably
        achieve.  When I look at this report though, and I look
        at Figure III-3, following the other figure, this is the
        dpm measured, -- the ranges measured in surface mines,
        and it sure looks to me that the highest dpm here is
        curiously enough right around 200 dpm.  So I contend
        that the driving force is, "Let's make the underground
        mines have the same limits of exposure to their workers
        in diesel equipment as the surface mines".  That's how I
        read this report.  "Let's make it even."  Ignoring that
        a mine is a confined space.  Ignoring that the air
        quality, -- the change of air cannot match what you have
        on the surface.  But this is, -- one of the major
        questions to my mind is, is this indeed, where the 200
        micrograms per cubic meter comes from, regardless of the
        rhetoric about the technical achievements, --
        technological achievements?  Or is it just a great
        coincidence that the surface mines experience this
        exposure of (200)?  And that's the comments I have.
                  MR. TOMB:   Were you going to make a
        presentation, too?
                            DAN FOLTYNIEWICZ 
             AGGREGATE PRODUCERS RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
                  MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:   My name is Dan
        Foltyniewicz, and that's spelled, F-O-L-T-Y-N-I-E-W-I-C-
        Z.
                  MR. TOMB:   Now, wait a minute.
                  MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:   It's probably going to be
        longer than my presentation.  
                                (Laughter)
                  MR. TOMB:   Will you repeat that please?  I'm
        sorry.
                  MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:   D-A-N.  It's F as in
        Frank, O-L-T as in Tom, Y-N-I-E-W-I-C as Charlie, Z as
        zebra.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. FOLTYNIEWICZ:   And you addressed the one
        concern that we had.  I'm with the Aggregate Producers
        Risk Management Association, and I'm the Risk Manager. 
        And that was the concern about the cumulative additive
        effect.  So, that was a big part of it.  But at the same
        time I'd like to address the fact that the Salt
        Institute, Morton, IMC Global, that they did an
        excellent job presenting a lot of the material that we
        were concerned about being presented.  Certainly one
        thing as a risk manager, the concern that we have was
        that the health and safety for a miner at a small
        operation would be the same things that would be in
        concern for the health and safety at a large operation. 
        Yet, at the same time, if a rule is bad for one, chances
        are it's bad for the other.  Certainly, we don't want to
        see jobs eliminated because of an economic factor based
        on incomplete data or research.  I concur with the
        gentleman about the twenty-five samplings that were
        tested.  Because if I'm doing my doctoral study I know
        that if I'm doing a random sampling and there are two
        hundred and plus samples that I must take, and I take a
        random sample of only 1/10 of that for my doctoral
        thesis, how valid is that study?  So that's a
        consideration that hopefully will be entering into play
        here.  
                  Also, for those people that may lose jobs
        based on this rule, will there be outreach, out-job-
        placement for those people that do lose jobs?  Small
        mines are affected.  And certainly a consideration is
        cost per unit.  From a small operation, our cost per
        unit can be very affected by what comes into play.  If
        it's new machinery, if it's additional testing,
        whatever.
                  So, finally, hopefully this rulemaking process
        that MSHA will consider, that there is outside influence
        from foreign markets that may take over based on the
        decision, what MSHA comes up with.  And that concludes
        it.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Did you say your name was
        Mike?  I'm sorry.
                  MR. DUNN:   Mike, yes.
                  MR. TOMB:   Mike?  Mike, okay.  I didn't write
        it down.  First of all, I'd like to comment.  One thing
        with respect to, -- I don't think you got your question
        answered.  But the underground level that was proposed,
        okay, was not based on what levels are in surface mines. 
        All right.  And I think you've been here during the
        whole meeting, and as I said before, the Agency
        attempted to look at the feasibility of a number for
        underground mining operations.  And that's what the
        Agency has proposed as, -- they felt in looking at, --
        what is in here, the rationale that's in here, is what
        the Agency came up with as a proposed feasible level
        that can be achieved.  Now, we've heard a lot of
        comments today on, -- addressing whether that level is a
        feasible level or not, and I think we have to look at
        that data.
                  I'd like to ask you a couple of questions
        though, if you don't mind?
                  MR. DUNN:   Okay.
                  MR. TOMB:   I think we did, -- if I remember,
        I think you said you were at the Galena Mine?
                  MR. DUNN:   Galena Plattville, yes.
                  MR. TOMB:   And I think we, -- that was one of
        the mines where we collected samples to evaluate the
        Estimator that we used, -- that's discussed in here. 
        But can you tell me, like, how many men you have in your
        operation?
                  MR. DUNN:   With supervision and such, it's
        eighteen.
                  MR. TOMB:   Eighteen people.  And how many
        pieces of equipment, -- how many miners?  I'm sorry.
                  MR. DUNN:   Oh, miners, -- well, now we get
        into, -- we actually have four miners during the day
        that actually mine.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. DUNN:   We have three, four, -- and a
        supervisor on the night shift that produce the rock, two
        support people are mechanics, and they go up and down.
                  MR. TOMB:   You're talking about four people a
        shift?
                  MR. DUNN:   In and out of the mine.  Yeah, who
        actually are, you know doing the drilling and blasting
        and such, yeah.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  How many vehicles, -- how
        many diesel engine vehicles do you have?
                  MR. DUNN:   Well, we have, -- actually there's
        quite a bit.  We don't have anything that's electric. 
        We have two drills and one bench drill.  Let me just
        kind of enumerate here, I'm thinking.  Twenty-one, I
        guess.  Twenty-one pieces.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  So, you have twenty-one
        pieces.  And if I remember correctly, -- and I haven't
        looked at this for awhile, but all of that equipment
        doesn't operate at one time, does it?
                  MR. DUNN:   No.  No, because we have three, --
        four pieces would be for the night shift, --
                  MR. TOMB:   I mean the way you cycled it, it
        seemed to me if I remember from when we went through
        that that all those, --
                  MR. DUNN:   Well, not necessarily.  I mean,
        out of these, -- what did I say, twenty-one, you've got
        four particularly running the night shift, so that goes
        out.  The others are run at the same time.
                  MR. DUNN:   Oh, they're all running on the, --
                  MR. DUNN:   All running at the same time, with
        the exception of I'll say two others, which are back up
        machines, primarily.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  
                  MR. DUNN:   They have run, but not on a
        routine basis with these others.
                  MR. TOMB:   Now, approximately how much air do
        you have?
                  MR. DUNN:   We have 230,000 cfm.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                  MR. DUNN:   And we have, --
                  MR. TOMB:   And your levels are quite low if
        (K) was a value there.
                  MR. DUNN:   We have a very, -- it's efficient
        in the sense that if you go by cfm per horsepower it's
        really much lower than your one or two hundred.
                  MR. TOMB:   Yeah.
                  MR. DUNN:   Or (200), anyway.
                  MR. KOGUT:   Can you tell me the name of the
        mine again, 'cause maybe I can actually identify, --
                  MR. DUNN:   Galena Plattville.
                  MR. KOGUT:   It's mine V as in Victor.
                  MR. DUNN:   (G)?
                  MR. KOGUT:   (V), yeah.
                  MR. DUNN:   All right.  Well, there, -- I
        thought our range was better than that, but that's okay.
                  MR. TOMB:   Actually, they're better.
                  MR. KOGUT:   No, that's not right.  No.  I'm
        sorry, that's not right.  It's Mine N, as in nose.  It's
        still good.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Do you have any other
        questions?  I really thank you for the information here.
                  MR. DUNN:   My pleasure.
                  MR. TOMB:   I appreciate your coming.  And I
        also appreciate your working with us to get information
        on your mine, too.
                  MR. DUNN:   Well, it benefits us, too.  I'd do
        it anytime.
                  MR. TOMB:   Thank you.  Our next presenter
        will be, -- and I have a hard time here.  We have one
        more person to go, which is ten minutes.  Mr. Dawn, --
        is it Segman (phonetic)?
                  MR. SEGMAN:   My comments have already been
        addressed this morning.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  And Mr. Shyet (phonetic),
        you want to make a presentation?
                  MR. SHYET:   No, we'll supply comments for the
        record later.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Very good.  Okay, well that
        concludes all the speakers we have listed here.  Is
        there anybody else in the audience that would like to
        make a presentation?
                           (No Verbal Response)
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  At this time then we'll go
        off the record and we'll take a break for lunch.  And
        then, what we plan on doing is coming back to see if
        anybody, -- we'll come back in an hour to see if anybody
        else shows up that would be coming for the afternoon to
        make a presentation.  1:30, we'll come back at 1:30.
                  (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was
        recessed, to reconvene this same day at 1:40 p.m.)
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay, we're gonna go back on the
        record now.  Our next presenter will be Mr. Howard
        Stever, from Mississippi Lime Company.  Is that right,
        Stever?
                  MR. STEVER:   Stever.
                  MR. TOMB:   Stever, okay.  Thank you.
                 HOWARD STEVER - MISSISSIPPI LIME COMPANY
                  MR. STEVER:   My name is Howard Stever, I'm
        the Manager of Mine Engineering for Mississippi Lime
        Company.
                  MS. WESDOCK:   Is that turned on?  Is that on,
        do you know?
                                 (Pause)
                  MR. STEVER:   I'll just hold it.  Can you hear
        me?
                  MS. KING:   Would you spell your name, please?
                  MR. STEVER:   My last name is S-T-E-V-E-R. 
        Again, I'm the Manager of Mine Engineering with the
        Mississippi Lime Company.  We're an underground
        limestone producer, for the purpose of making lime, in
        St. Genevieve, Missouri.  And I'd just like to make a
        couple of comments about engine conversion.  That was
        touched on briefly this morning as a way of trying to
        meet the new proposed standards.  We have done some
        research and in some of the conversation this morning it
        was touched on, the possibility of getting a new engine
        and just sticking that in place.  And I guess I'd just
        like to say something about some experience that we had
        this last year sort of along those lines.  We use large
        50 ton rock trucks underground in our limestone mine. 
        The model that we have primarily, is a Pay Hauler 350C. 
        It's a 50 ton rock truck.  We wanted to be a little bit
        proactive in trying to address the needs that could come
        to pass under the new regulations.  And it was decided
        that we would put some money in our capital budget to
        try and do an engine conversion, to take an older
        Cumming's engine and replace it with either a
        Caterpillar 3408E or a Cumming's QSK-19.  We received
        quotations from our local suppliers that ranged between
        $85 and over $100,000.00 to complete this project.  As
        we got into and learned more about it, we read about the
        proposed approval process where the new engines would
        need to be approved by MSHA.  In talking with both
        companies and Caterpillar, neither of these two engines
        that I've spoke about have been approved at this point. 
        And in talking with the manufacturers from these two
        companies they seem to be a little bit perplexed by this
        possible approval process.  Evidently, the two engines
        have been approved by the EPA, and they've asked me,
        and, of course, I've asked them to go back the other way
        and talk to their people as to whether or not they would
        be interested in applying for an MSHA approval if one is
        needed.  
                  But at this time, we had money approved in our
        budget and we are not going to go forward with this
        project because of uncertainty related to the approval
        process.  There is an engine, -- one engine on the
        approved list, it's the Detroit Diesel DeDeck (phonetic)
        8V2000, which is in the same size range as the engines
        that we are using in our trucks.  But in my
        conversations with the people at the Pay Hauler
        Corporation they have never used this engine in one of
        their trucks before, so they told me it would be
        somewhere between a year and a half to two years before
        they would have opportunity to develop all the
        engineering work and the electrical harnesses and things
        that are necessary to make this type of a conversion. 
        So, we're in a situation here where we kind of want to
        get a jump on things and get a little bit of a start in
        trying to improve our situation underground, and we're
        sort of stifled by the process as it exists right now.
                  We've also talked with Caterpillar about some
        older Cat trucks that we have, four of them that are
        used underground, and got an answer from them that they
        didn't feel that the number of trucks that would be
        involved in our case, and possibly in the industry,
        would justify the engineering work that would have to be
        done to support conversion from the old engine to a
        newer, more cleaner burning engine.  And we got
        basically the same answer from people at Kamatsu-
        Dresser, when we talked to them about the engines that
        we have in the Dresser 570 Loaders that we use
        underground.  So, I just wanted to pass that on to you,
        that especially with some of the larger equipment; these
        engines are around 650 hp; our mine is a little bit
        unique in that we do a lot of the same things
        underground that people do in surface quarry.  We have
        that same type of equipment.  So, we're faced with some
        challenges there, and we wanted to get an early start on
        it and we've kind of run into some problems.  So, I'm
        not sure how that relates to all of this, but the engine
        conversion issue is one that I think is going to need a
        lot of work.  That's all of my comments.
                  MR. TOMB:   Can I ask you one question?
                  MR. STEVER:   Yes sir.
                  MR. TOMB:   Out of that $85 - $100,000.00,
        what was the price out of that, do you know?
                  MR. STEVER:   A new engine would be $40 -
        $45,000.00.
                  MR. TOMB:   Forty to $45,000.00.
                  MR. STEVER:   Yes sir.
                  MR. TOMB:   How many of these vehicles do you
        use, -- do you have?
                  MR. STEVER:   We have nine Pay Hauler Trucks
        and five, 570 Loaders.
                  MR. TOMB:   Any other questions?
                           (No Verbal Response)
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you very much for
        your input.  Is there anybody in the audience that would
        like to make a presentation at this time?
                           (No Verbal Response)
                  MR. TOMB:   Do you want to start the process
        over again, Mr. Bertram?
                  MR. BERTRAM:   I'll pass.
                  MR. TOMB:   Okay.  I guess we'll go off the
        record at this point.  
                  (Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the hearing was
        recessed, to reconvene this same day at 3:05 p.m.)
                  MR. TOMB:   I just want to say that we're back
        on the record at 3:05 and nobody else has showed up to
        make a presentation relative to the Proposed Rule for
        diesel particulate exposures for underground
        metal/nonmetal miners.  So the record is being closed. 
        We're here in St. Louis.  Thank you.
                  (Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the hearing was
        concluded.)
        //
        //
        //
        //
        //
        //
                                  REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
        
                  I,  DEBORAH CARTER                      ,
        reporter, hereby certify that the foregoing transcript
        consisting of 146   pages is a complete, true, and
        accurate transcript of the testimony indicated, held on 
        May 25, 1999 at  The Holiday Inn Hotel, 811 North Ninth
        Street, St. Louis, Missouri
        In the Matter of:  The Public Hearing Re: Diesel
        Particulate Matter For Metal and Nonmetal Mines;
        Proposed Rule                    
                  I further certify that this proceeding was
        recorded by me, and that the foregoing transcript has
        been prepared under my direction.
        
                                       Date:  May 25, 1999       
        
        
                                       Deborah Carter            
                                       Official Reporter
                                       Heritage Reporting Corp.
                                       1220 L Street, N.W.
                                       Washington, D.C. 20005