PUBLIC HEARING:  PROPOSED RULE    )
DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER         )
EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND COAL      )
MINERS                            )

Pages:  1 through 231

Place:  Beaver, West Virginia

Date:   November 19, 1998                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
     
     
     PUBLIC HEARING:  PROPOSED RULE    )
     DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER             )
     EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND COAL          )
     MINERS            )
     
     
     
                                       National Mine Health And
                                       Safety Academy
                                       Airport Road
                                       Beaver, West Virginia
       
                                       Thursday,
                                       November 19, 1998
     
                   The public hearing convened, pursuant to the
     
     notice, at 9:08 a.m.
     
                   MODERATOR:  THOMAS TOMB
     
                   APPEARANCES:
     
                   Department of Labor
                   Mine Safety and Health Administration
                   4015 Wilson Boulevard
                   Room 631
                   Arlington, Virginia  22203
                   (703) 235-1910
     
                   THOMAS TOMB, Moderator
                   JON KOGUT
                   GEORGE SASEEN
                   ROBERT HANEY
                   SANDRA WESDOCK
                   WILLIAM MCKINNEY
                   RONALD FORD
                   PAMELA KING
     
                              P R O C E E D I N G S
        MODERATOR TOMB:  My name is Thomas Tomb.  I'm
     Chief of the Dust Division of MSHA's Pittsburgh Safety and
     Health Technology Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I
     will be the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's
     proposed rule, adjusting diesel particulate matter exposure
     of underground coal miners.  Personally, and on behalf of
     Assistant Secretary J. Devitt McIntyre, I would like to take
     this opportunity to express our appreciation to each of you
     for being here today and for your input.
      With me on the panel today from MSHA are Jon Kogut from
     the Office of Program Evaluation and Information Resources;
     George Saseen from the Approval and Certification Center;
     Robert Haney from the Pittsburgh Safety and Health
     Technology Centers, Environmental Assessment and Contaminant
     Control Branch; Sandra Wesdock from the Office of the
     Solicitor; William McKinney from the Mine Safety and Health
     Academy; Ronald Ford 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 Safety and Health Act of
     1977.  As is a 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 the rule-making record.  The hearing transcript,
     along with all of the comments that MSHA has received today
     on the proposed rule, will be available for your review.  If
     you want to get a copy of the hearing transcript for your
     own use, however, you must make your own 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 during this hearing or send
     them to Carol Jones, Acting Director, Office of Standards,
     Regulations and Variances in our Arlington office.  The
     address for the Arlington office is also in the notice for
     this hearing.  We will include them in the rule-making
     record.  If you feel you need to modify your comments or
     wish to submit additional comments following the hearing,
     the record will stay open until February 16, 1999.  You are
     encouraged to submit to MSHA a copy of your comments on
     computer disk.
        Your comments are essential in helping MSHA
     develop the most appropriate rule that fosters safety and
     health in our nation's minds.  We appreciate your views on
     this rule-making and assure you that your comments, whether
     written or oral, will be considered by MSHA in finalizing
     this rule.
        In another rule-making on October 29, 1998, we
     published a proposed rule to address diesel particulate
     matter exposure of underground metal and non-metal miners. 
     The comment period for that proposed rule will close on
     February 26, 1999.  Hearings for the metal and non-metal
     proposal will be announced in the future in the Federal
     Register.  You may obtain copies of that proposal by
     downloading it from MSHA's website at www.msha.gov or by
     calling the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances
     at (703) 235-1910.
        However, the scope of this hearing today is
     limited to the April 9, 1998 proposed rule addressing diesel
     particulate matter exposure of underground coal miners. 
     This hearing is the second of four public hearings to be
     held on a proposed rule.  The first was held in Salt Lake
     City, Utah on November 17, 1998.  We will hold the third
     hearing on December 15, 1998 in Mt. Vernon, Illinois and the
     fourth of the final hearings on December 17, 1998 in
     Birmingham, Alabama.  Information regarding these hearings
     is published in the Federal Register on October 19 and can
     also be obtained from MSHA's website on the Internet.    And
     also, there are a few copies of that notice available here
     today that you can pick up, if you would like a copy.
        On April 9, 1998, MSHA published a proposed rule
     that would reduce the risk to underground coal 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
     concentration 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 comment period for the proposed rule was
     scheduled to close on August 7, 1998.  However, due to
     requests from the mining community, the Agency extended the
     comment period for an additional 60 days, until October 9,
     1998.
        The proposed rule would require the following: 
     Proposed paragraph 72.500 would require the installation and
     maintenance of high efficiency, particularly filters, and
     the most polluting types of diesel equipment in underground
     coal mines.  It would require that beginning 18 months after
     the date that the rule is promulgated, any piece of
     permissible -- and I stress permissible -- diesel-powered
     equipment operated in an underground coal mine must be
     equipped with a system capable of removing on average at
     least 95 percent of the mass of the diesel particulate
     matter emitted from the engine.
        Additionally, beginning 30 months after the rule
     is promulgated, any non-permissible piece of heavy-duty
     diesel-powered equipment operated in an underground coal
     mine be equipped with a system capable of removing on
     average at least 95 percent of the mass of the diesel
     particulate material emitted from the engine.  Any exhaust
     after treatment device installed to reduce the emission of
     DPM would be required to be maintained in accordance with
     the manufacturer's specifications.
        The proposal also sets forth the Agency's
     requirements for determining whether a system is capable of
     removing on average at least 95 percent of diesel
     particulate matter by mass.  It states that a filtration
     system must be tested by comparing the results of an
     emission test of an engine with and without the filtration
     system installed.
        Proposed paragraph 72.510 is a training
     requirement, which lists the pertinent areas in which
     instruction must occur.  The training is to be provided
     annually in all mines using diesel-powered equipment and is
     to be provided without charge to the miner.  It also
     includes provisions on the records retention, access, and
     transfer.
        And finally, proposed amendment to paragraph
     75.371 would amend existing paragraph 75.371, which is a
     ventilation requirement, to add one new requirement to an
     underground coal mine's ventilation control plant.  The
     additional information is limited, but it is critical to the
     control of diesel particulate matter.  The proposal would
     require the ventilation plan to contain a list of diesel-
     powered units used by the mine operator, together with
     information about each unit's emission control or filtration
     system.  Details relative to the efficiency of the system
     and the methods used to establish the efficiency of the
     system for removing DPM must also be included.  Any
     amendments to a mine's ventilation plan must, of course,
     also fall within the requirements of 30 CFR 75.370, which is
     the mine's ventilation plan submission and approval
     requirements.
        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,
     the options discussed include:  establishing a concentration
     limit for DPM in this sector; requiring filters on some
     light duty equipment; and looking at the filter and engine
     as a package that has to meet a particular emission
     standard, instead of requiring that all engines be equipped
     with just a high efficiency filter.
        The Agency is also interested in obtaining many
     examples -- as many examples as possible of the specific
     situation in individual mines.  This could include the
     composition of the diesel fleet, what controls cannot be
     utilized due to special conditions, and any studies of
     alternative controls you might have used that could be used
     for the computer spreadsheet.  We also seek information
     about the availability and cost of various control
     technologies that are being developed, such as high
     efficiency ceramic filters; also, experience with the use of
     available controls and information that will help us
     evaluate alternative approaches for underground coal mines. 
     We would like also 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.  Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act
     of 1969 requires each federal agency to consider the
     environmental effects of proposed actions and to prepare an
     environmental impact statement on whether actions
     significantly affecting the quality of the human
     environment.
        On July 14, 1998, MSHA published a notice in the
     Federal Register that announced its preliminary
     determination that the proposed rule will have no
     significant environmental impact.  The comment period was
     scheduled to close on August 10, 1998.  However, MSHA
     extended the comment period until October 9, 1998.  The
     record will remain open, as stated in the public hearing
     notice, until February 16, 1999, to allow for post-hearing
     comments and data submission.
        MSHA views these rule-making activities as
     extremely important and knows that your participation is
     also a reflection of the importance your association is with
     this rule-making.  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 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 is outside the door of the auditorium. 
     Also, tell us how much time you would need to make your
     presentation.
        We are scheduled to go until 5:00 p.m. today.  Of
     course, we can 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 interest
     of fairness.  And the way that I intend to do this is I
     would like you to limit your presentation to 30 minutes, to
     give everybody an opportunity to speak.  And when everybody
     has spoken, if you haven't finished your presentation in 30
     minutes, then you'll be given an opportunity to continue
     with your presentation.
        We have three or four people that have pre-
     scheduled, that I have listed here, to start the
     presentation.  So if there are no -- okay, I'd like to start
     the hearing by having the first presenter, who would be from
     the United Mine Workers of America, and I don't know who
     that will be, but -- Jeff?
        The first person to make a presentation will be
     Dr. James Weeks, from the UMWA.
        MR. WEEKS:  Good morning.  My name is Jim Weeks. 
     I'm an associated professor at the School of Public Health
     at George Washington University and I'm speaking here on
     behalf of the United Mine Workers.
        First of all, let me congratulate MSHA on two
     matters, one of which is responsive to the question that
     your raised about an exposure limit.  In this rule, you did
     not propose an exposure limit.  I think that's appropriate,
     at this point.
        My concern with proposing an exposure limit is
     that it would bring scientists and lawyers and economists
     and so on to the floor, in what could be a very lengthy and
     tedious debate over what the exposure limit should be.  I
     think the critical need, at this point, is not to have that
     debate and not to try and set an exposure limit.  But the
     critical need now is to reduce exposure that already exists. 
     I think eventually, obviously, we do need an exposure limit,
     but I don't think we should hold up this rule-making, in
     order to try and accomplish that now.
        I think what you've done in proposing emission
     controls for in-by and some out-by equipment is appropriate. 
     It's a common sense approach.  It takes feasible and
     effective control technology, requires it on these engines,
     and in so doing, will reduce exposure.
        There are some problems with the way you've done
     that.  I think some of our members will elaborate on those. 
     And I think the answer to your second question, which is
     whether light duty out-by equipment should be required to
     have the emission controls, I think the answer to that is
     yes.  I think we should do that, because -- well, that will
     be explained later by others.
        This issue of a potential delay is of serious
     concern here.  Let me just note that the diesel advisory
     committee in 1987, I believe it was, recommended that the
     Agency set rules for exposure.  That was 11 years ago.  And
     I think during that time, people have encountered exposure
     to diesel particulate matter that really much of it could
     have been avoided.
        Now, my second area that I'd like to congratulate
     you on is on the risk assessment that was in the preamble to
     the rule.  I think this risk assessment was thorough.  It
     was balanced.  I think it accurately characterized the
     strengths and weaknesses of the scientific data, and I think
     it was responsive to the requirements of the Act.  I think
     it forms a very good and solid foundation for us to go ahead
     with this rule and any other rule-making that follows on.
        Now, let me highlight -- what I would like to do
     is to highlight some features of the data and characterize
     it in a way in which we see the data.  First of all, let me
     say that I think the scientific data is coherent and, in
     fact, is remarkably coherent.  Many had characterized that
     data as inconsistent, as inconclusive, and so on.  I don't
     agree with that approach.  I think it is coherent.
        What I mean by that is that -- well, let me
     explain.  The level of risk that comes out of the scientific
     data, the relative risk measures are in the neighborhood of
     -- some go as high as four to five, which is very, very
     high; most of them are under two; some around 1.5.  As
     measures of relative risk go, these are not overwhelming
     levels.  Two pack-a-day smoking, for example, I think the
     risk is around four.  Normal is one.  So that's one feature
     of the data that stands out.
        The second is that there are many weaknesses in
     the data.  Exposure to diesel particulate matter of other
     workers that has been -- that has occurred in the past has
     been measured in a few studies, estimated in most.  But, in
     terms of having an accurate assessment of what workers have
     been exposed to over the 20 years or so that they need to
     have been studied, we really don't know what that is with a
     great deal of certainty.  There are some very good
     estimates, but they remain estimates.  So that is one of the
     weaknesses of the existing data.
        The other is, like other -- and the way that would
     manifest itself is that there will be some bias.  There will
     be some misclassification.  And the risk estimates may be
     biased upward or downward, depending on the specifics of the
     data.  The other feature of the data is that like all
     epidemiologic studies, there is a certain amount of random
     noise that creates a standard deviation and confidence into
     those above and below during the estimates.
        Now, these two features together, the moderate
     level of risk and the presence of uncertainty, practically
     guarantees that there will be some studies that are
     negative; that will have their lower confidence interval
     below one, and there are many studies like that.  I do not
     believe that those studies are inconsistent with the
     positive studies.  On the contrary, I think they all point
     to this moderate level of risk measured in -- as the
     relative risk is concerned.
        The data are also coherent in the sense that when
     we look at other ways in which chemicals cause cancer, there
     are many other systems of evaluating that, diesel
     particulate matter comes up causing -- or having results
     that are consistent with causing cancer.  It's a product of
     combustion.  There are many other products of combustion
     that also cause cancer:  smoking, for example; coke oven
     emissions; roofing tar; chimney soot; and recently the
     byproducts of grilling hamburger also has been noted as
     carcinogenic.
        Diesel exhaust is exactly like these -- not
     exactly, but it's very, very similar.  It's in the same
     class.  So that on that basis alone, we have reason to
     suspect it as causing cancer.  Secondly, in the various
     other tests systems using cells -- individual cells in
     culture, it's positive in those systems, as well, both with
     bacterial cells and mammalian cells.  It's positive when
     tested in laboratory animals, primarily rats.  So, we have 
     -- and interestingly enough, the shape of the curve -- the
     effect curve in rats is very similar to the shape in human
     beings; that is, it tends to appear fairly late in the life
     of a rat, fairly late in the life of human beings.  So, the
     data is coherent in that respect, as well.
        There are some unanswered questions about the
     data.  One is we do not know the disease mechanism by which
     cancer is caused.  But, we don't know the disease mechanism
     by which smoking causes cancer.  We don't know the disease
     mechanism by which exposure to coke oven emission causes
     cancer.  We don't know the mechanism for asbestos and
     cancer.  We don't know it for vinyl chloride monomer and
     cancer, and so on.  This has not prevented us from moving
     ahead and saying we need to treat this material as a
     potential carcinogen and will work out many of these
     scientific details later.  The knowledge of disease
     mechanism would help us understand the disease process, but
     the absence of that knowledge should not prevent us from
     moving ahead.
        Another unanswered question has to do with the
     health effect of small particles, of which diesel
     particulate is almost entirely small particles.  That
     research is going ahead primarily in the environmental
     field, where the high concentrations of small particles are
     associated with a variety of ill effects, including cancer,
     shortened mortality from other causes, asthma, and some
     other effects.  That remains to be researched.  And we're
     looking at the data, as it exists now, on the effect of
     small particles.
        So there is risk.  There is a -- the data is
     coherent.  And I think there are indeed some unanswered
     questions, but I don't think they should prevent us from
     moving ahead.
        Now, the other point that I would like to make is
     that when we take the data and ask of the data the question,
     well, what's a safe level, and we apply essentially state-
     of-the-art risk assessment methods that were summarized, I
     think, in the preamble, and apply that to these data, we
     come up with -- apply that to these data, along with the
     criteria that was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in
     the Benzene decision, and would apply that to these data, we
     come up with estimates of a safe level that are somewhere
     between 50 and 200 micrograms per cubic meter.  That's .05
     to .2 milligrams per cubic meter, to use the scale that is
     used in mining.  Now -- so that's -- and in addition to
     that, the American Conference Governmental Industrial
     Hygienists has suggested a TLB of 150 milligrams, which is
     in that range -- it's in that same range.
        And if we look at current levels of exposure that
     you had documented in the preamble, they are much, much
     higher than these estimates of what a safe level is.  And
     that's true almost across the board.  I mean, you take
     whatever estimate there is of a safe level, it's much lower
     than exposure.  Now, that circumstance right there, using
     state-of-the-art risk assessment methodology, combined with
     current levels of exposure, really requires that we take
     action now that's going to reduce that exposure, especially
     in an industry where we worked for 25, 30 years to control
     dust in coal mines.  We should not be adding additional
     sources of respirable particulate matter.
        Now, a reasonable question that one might ask is
     that how do we get from the moderate level of risk that I
     talked about in the epidemiologic study to the high level of
     risk that comes from combining the risk assessment with the
     criteria.  And I think the answer to that comes from the
     disease that we're concerned with, which is lung cancer. 
     Lung cancer is the most common -- the most common cause of
     death from cancer is lung cancer, by far.  It's true in both
     men and women, at this point.
        Secondly, lung cancer -- almost without exception,
     most people that are diagnosed with lung cancer have died
     within five years.  85 to 90 percent of those people have
     died within five years.  So, it is a substantial public
     health problem already.  If we add to that risk --
     additional risk a small number times a large number will
     give you -- could give, and in this case does give you a
     large number.  That's kind of the thinking that I want to
     suggest to you, so that we get to that high level of risk
     from -- because it is lung cancer that we're trying to
     prevent.
        Now, the third matter is that controls -- emission
     controls are feasible technically, economically, and they're
     effective.  So, the situation that we see is that there is
     fairly coherent data that shows there's a risk.  When you
     measure that risk, it's very high.  And there are feasible
     and effective controls.  That seems to me to be a pretty
     straight and clear case that we need to do something now to
     reduce exposure.
        Let me make one other comment about the issue of
     feasibility.  In this State, feasibility of meeting the
     requirements of any diesel rule is a foregone conclusion. 
     Mines in West Virginia and in Pennsylvania and Ohio, I
     should mention, are among the most productive mines in the
     world and none of them use diesel-powered equipment.  So,
     there are alternatives.  If mine operators find that diesel
     equipment is too expensive to operate, no one is requiring
     that they do it, and it's not essential, and there are
     viable alternatives for them to use.  So, in a way, the
     question of feasibility, as I mentioned, is something of a
     foregone conclusion.  It's already demonstrated this right
     before us, at the present time.
        So, let me just briefly summarize here.  I think
     the data is coherent.  There is a high risk.  There are
     feasible and effective controls.  And I think the
     requirements of the Act, in Section 101 that you referred
     to, have been met.  And I think exposure needs to come down
     as soon as possible.
        Now, do you want to take questions -- or do I want
     to take questions?
        MODERATOR TOMB:  We'll see if we have any
     questions we'd like to ask.  Does anybody have any
     questions?  Jon?
        MR. KOGUT:  I just wanted to clarify the middle
     point that you made about the high risk, in view of the --
     what you said, that the relative risks that have been
     established are not extraordinarily high, but I think you
     said that they range from something like four, in some
     cases, down to about 1.5.  I think the average in the
     studies that we're looking at here were actually closer to
     1.4.
        MR. WEEKS:  Right.  Yes, that's true.
        MR. KOGUT:  It said that the excess relative risk
     is 1.4.  And the way I'm interpreting your point, and
     correct me if I'm wrong, is that since you're starting out
     with a large background number of lung cancers in the
     population already, that when you multiply that large number
     by a 40 percent excess, that that's a substantial number of
     lung cancers.  Is that the point you're making?
        MR. WEEKS:  Yes, that's the point I was trying to
     make.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Any other questions?  Thank you,
     Dr. Weeks.
        MR. WEEKS:  Sure.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Our next presenter will be a Mr.
     Bob Knisley from UMWA, Local 1501.
        MR. KNISLEY:  I don't want you to panic.  I'm not
     going to read all of this.
        Good morning.  My name is Robert Knisley.  I'm an
     underground coal miner, employed at Consol, Number 95,
     Robinson Run Mine.  I have 25 years experience and it's all
     at this location.  My mine is represented by the United Mine
     Workers of America and I hold a position on that local's
     health and safety committee, and I've held that position for
     15 years.
        I thank you for the opportunity this morning of
     addressing you.  I can't tell you how many times I and other
     rank and file miners have stood before such panels in the
     past.  We have stood before men and women who, in my
     opinion, have listened to our remarks with deaf or, in many
     cases, an unsympathetic ear.
        It appears that there are real challenges in the
     coal industry.  It seems that the laws which protect the men
     and women in the coal industry of today are being attacked
     on many sides.  I stand here today and challenge not only
     this panel, but any panel, which would diminish the
     standards of health and safety in the coal mines of this
     nation, that you will meet an unmovable force.  We, as coal
     miners, are resolved to fight any ill-conceived, profit
     increasing, or safety diminishing plans by the coal
     companies.
        We also put you on notice today that we demand
     fair and thoughtful treatment by such panels, whose actions
     directly influence the working lives of the people in the
     coal industry.  Your actions, as well as ours, will be held
     up to public scrutiny.  None of us will any longer have that
     luxury of getting lost in enmity.  We plan to humanize these
     panels and make the members accountable for the actions that
     they take.
        And even though my remarks so far, I think, have
     had an antagonistic tone, I don't apologize.  But, if you'll
     allow me, I would like to try to explain.  The mine at which
     I work is located in north central West Virginia, near
     Farmington.  This was a site of a mine disaster in 1968,
     which claimed 78 lives and led directly to the Mine Act of
     1969.  The people who died at the Farmington mine paid
     dearly for the safety protections, which we all enjoy today. 
     They paid with their blood.  This is why we will never allow
     an assault on these protections for coal miners without a
     fight.
        Oftentimes, it appears that it's a losing battle,
     but we have remained optimistic.  We have not lost heart. 
     Like the small boy locked in a room full of horse manure,
     who happily digs through this unpleasant mess, we say to
     you, just as the small boy said, there has to be a pony in
     here someplace.  The bottom line:  we won't, and you
     shouldn't, sacrifice health and safety, because companies
     tell you the cost of this safety is too high.  I say to them
     and to you:  our safety is not for sale at any price.
        We now face the challenge of allowing diesel
     equipment in underground coal mines in West Virginia.  And
     contrary to what you have been told, we do not necessarily
     disagree with this.  What we do demand is that we implement
     -- excuse me, I lost my place -- what we do demand is that
     the implementation will grant the high safety and health
     standards.  No longer can anyone afford the luxury of being
     reactive to the problems posed by diesel.  We must find
     someway to take a realistic look at the safety and health
     problems and deal with them.  I think these kind of
     gatherings will help this process.
        Not forgetting the dynamics of the coal industry
     today, we cannot escape the realities:  diesel poses a real
     health and safety problem to underground coal miners.  Since
     there appears to be little sympathy for our concern at the
     State level, we ask that we be given a fair hearing here. 
     At my mine, we average well over 500 federal citations a
     year.  Many of these violations concern coal dust and
     ventilation.  How can we add additional pollutants into the
     working atmosphere of coal miners without first demanding
     that the strictest controls are in place and then demanding
     that they are enforced.
        It seems ironic to me that we have such a cavalier
     attitude with protecting the very air that miners must
     breath every day for up to 10 hours, and yet politicians
     make clean air -- or put clean air at the top of their
     agenda.  At the very least, we must demand that diesel
     equipment be equipped with the very best filters and also
     demand that these filters be maintained.  To the cooperation
     of industry, manufacturing, and coal miners, technology has
     been developed to filter particulate matter from the exhaust
     of diesel equipment.  We must take steps to demand that the
     filters set a limit for 95 percent efficiency for all
     underground equipment, whether it be in-by or out-by.  We
     must tailor any standard to afford the maximum protection to
     coal miners.
        We have only to look at your own government
     documentation to understand the concern of underground coal
     miners.  There exists a real danger to the health and safety
     of these miners, when they are exposed to diesel particulate
     matter.  NIOSH and laboratory studies has indicated that it
     is possible to have 900 of 1,000 coal miners dying of lung
     cancer after a lifetime exposure to diesel exhaust
     particulate matter.
        Keeping this fact in mind, why has that stated in
     the preamble to the proposed rule, that the rule would not
     require light duty out-by equipment to be filtered.  This
     would mean that 2,000 of the approximate 3,000 pieces of
     diesel equipment in the nation's underground coal mines
     would be permitted to operate without filters.
        I think we all see a problem, one which could be
     life threatening.  We must be realistic when we set the
     standard for exposure to diesel exhaust particulate matter. 
     Costs cannot be the only consideration.  Never again can we
     ignore a health risk, which could develop into another black
     lung.  Morally, each of us must all do what we can to meet
     our obligations.
        As members of our health and safety committee, we
     must point out health problems that affect our members. 
     You, as participants in this rule-making process, are bound
     by law to enact standards which afford us the largest
     measure of protections.  It is unacceptable for you or for
     us to be guided in our deliberations only by the cost of
     such protections.
        We stand at the threshold of a major change in the
     mining industry.  Rank and file miners are not afraid at the
     coming changes.  We have seen the coal mines go from
     production levels of 10,000 tons per day to well over 30,000
     ton per day.  This has been mostly from the introduction of
     mining methods.  The change came with many problems of dust
     and ventilation controls.  These problems were met and, for
     the most part, overcame when the health and safety of the
     miners was made priority.
        We stand at a unique time in the history of the
     coal mining industry in this country.  We also stand here
     with some tough choices to make.  What kind of future do we
     want to leave for the future generations of coal miners?  I
     hope that five, ten, twenty years down the road, we can each
     be proud of the decisions we make today.  Future coal miners
     will hold us accountable.  We must be able to look at them
     straight in the eye and tell them that our actions were
     motivated by sound, scientific information, and with the
     desire to afford them the greatest measure of protection, as
     diesel equipment was expanded in the industry.  How could we
     not hang our heads in shame if we had to tell a future coal
     miner that there was a time we could have protected his
     health, but the cost of this protection was too high.  God
     forgive us all if this was ever to come to pass.
        And that does conclude my prepared remarks.  And I
     would like to submit this for part of the record.
        I notice -- you notice me clearing this box of --
     box down front.  What this is is the citations at our coal
     mine.  This isn't 20 years worth, 10 years worth.  What
     you're looking at here is four years worth of federal
     citations, and that's not even state citations.  I don't
     bring this as an indictment for anybody.  It's a visual aid
     to let you know that we have a real problem in the industry. 
     The reality is that compliance is a real problem.  But what
     -- how much worse would it have been if we hadn't had these
     standards in place to protect us.  And I'd be happy to
     answer any questions.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Knisley.  Any
     questions?  I have one question, if you don't mind.  Just
     succinctly, from what you've presented, I think your main
     point is that the proposal falls short from the standpoint
     of all equipment needs filtered.
        MR. KNISLEY:  Yes, sir.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  That's your main --
        MR. KNISLEY:  I think if I understood what was
     presented in the preamble, what was proposed, what we're
     going to do, we're going to leave two-thirds of the
     industry, as far as diesel equipment, unfiltered.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay, that's your point.
        MR. KNISLEY:  And then what we're going to do,
     we're going to try and take care of this problem with
     ventilation.  Well, you know, from my coal mine -- there's a
     lot of things happening in the industry.  Like, my mine has
     went to three headings.   Right now, we have to dump over --
     well over 100,000 CFM at the start of the section, so we
     even have enough minimum air at the face.  So, where is this
     velocity?  Where is this air going to come from, with the
     changes -- other changes taking place in the industry?
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay; fine.  Thank you, very
     much.
        MR. KNISLEY:  Thank you, sir.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  The next presenter will be Mr.
     Randy Bedilion -- did I pronounce that correctly -- from
     UMWA Local 2300.
        MR. BEDILION:  That's close. You got it a lot
     closer than a lot of other people did.
        Good morning.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  What did I get wrong?
        MR. BEDILION:  Pronunciation, but my wife --
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Oh, I'm sorry; okay.
        MR. BEDILION:  -- she mispronounces it once in a
     while.
        I'm Randy Bedilion from Local 2300.  I'm not much
     of a speaker, I'll tell you that now.  We have a --
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Can you spell your name, please?
        MR. BEDILION:  B-e-d-I-l-I-o-n.  Right now, we
     have one piece of diesel underground.  It's a Brookville
     locomotive.  I'm a mechanic underground and I've done the
     100 hour test.  This piece of equipment, even with the
     filter system that's on it, which I think -- my first point
     is, it's a must.  Anytime we've got a piece of diesel
     underground, I think it's a must that we have this filter
     system on it.
        Even with the filter system on it, we've had --
     the fumes of the heat off of it, or whatever, we've had
     people get sick.  I don't think ventilation is an answer. 
     We've got a pretty competent mine, as far as management. 
     This is the last three years ventilation only.  Citations we
     have had written from MSHA.  I've traveled a lot with MSHA's
     inspectors and we're at a point where, in our mine,
     ventilation, it's a must, I mean, but as far as the answer,
     I don't believe in that.  We've had so many just breakdowns
     in the system.
        As far as the filtration, if we had anything less
     than what we've got now, at least 95 percent, I think that
     would be like a fall back.  As far as the safety and health
     of my brothers and sisters, I don't think that would be --
     the answer is filters.  We've got to have the filters.  This
     is the bottom line.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  You have any questions?
        MR. HANEY:  How frequently do you have to change
     the filters?
        MR. BEDILION:  The air filters?  You're talking
     the air --
        MR. HANEY:  The exhaust filters.
        MR. BEDILION:  The exhaust filters, I would say
     every -- I think it was like every fourth or fifth 100 hour
     test.
        MR. HANEY:  Okay.  And about how long does it take
     to change those filters?
        MR. BEDILION:  Probably 20 minutes.
        MR. HANEY:  Okay, thank you.
        MR. SASEEN:  Did you -- did I miss, did you state
     what mine you --
        MR. BEDILION:  Cumberland mine.
        MR. SASEEN:  Cumberland, okay.
        MR. BEDILION:  It's out in western Pennsylvania.
        MR. FORD:  Would you, by any chance, know the
     purchase price of installation to put that filter on that
     piece of equipment?
        MR. BEDILION:  No, I wouldn't.  I know it's -- I
     know it's costly, but it's not worth our lives, you know.
        MR. FORD:  Sure.
        MR. BEDILION:  We're a lot more priceless than
     what that stupid filter system is.
        MR. FORD:  All right.  Are you the one in charge
     of maintaining that filter like on an annual basis?
        MR. BEDILION:  Not myself, personally, all the
     time.  I mean, we have other mechanics underground that are
     trained, you know, for the service -- the 100 hour service.
        MR. FORD:  Okay.  Can you talk about what is
     involved in maintaining that filter on like an annual basis,
     I mean, besides just changing the filter?
        MR. BEDILION:  In maintaining?
        MR. FORD:  Yes.
        MR. BEDILION:  As in what matter?
        MR. FORD:  Keeping it running in the best
     efficient shape that it should be running.
        MR. BEDILION:  The 100 hour service, the diesel
     particulates are checked visually.  I mean, you know,
     whenever -- whenever the 100 hour test is done on it, the
     gauges, which are on there for back pressure -- there's a
     multitude of things that just have to be checked with that
     100 hour test.  But the -- probably in testing the diesel
     particulate, on the exhaust, that's probably one of the best
     test.
        MR. FORD:  I've just got one more question.  How
     much do the filters cost, do you know?
        MR. BEDILION:  I have no idea.  That's a
     management problem.
        MR. FORD:  Thank you.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  I have one question, Randy.  How
     do you -- you said you tested for the particulate, is that
     just a visual observation?
        MR. BEDILION:  No.  The instrument -- I've been
     trying to think since last night what the name of that
     instrument is -- that is put on the exhaust and -- it's
     carbon monoxide is what it's testing for.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Oh, okay.
        MR. BEDILION:  Because, it tracks the same thing
     as, you know -- the same way as --
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Yeah, okay.
        MR. BEDILION:  But, I can't think of the
     instrument, but the -- in the 100 hour test, there is an
     untreated check on the exhaust and the treated check with
     the exhaust.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.
        MR. BEDILION:  And as far as the instrument, I
     can't think of the name of it now.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  Well, I thought it was
     particulate you were looking at.  That clarifies it when you
     said it's CO.
        Okay, one more question -- just one more:  When
     that filter was put on, how did the diesel mechanics, in
     your mind -- how were they trained in learning how to keep
     that filter -- I mean, that system maintained?  Did like a
     manufacturer come and put the system on and then also gave
     training?  
        MR. BEDILION:  Yeah.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Or did you have to go out and the
     mine paid for the training?
        MR. BEDILION:  No.  There was an eight hour
     operator's training that was given to us.  And then the
     maintenance people, which is myself, I'm a mechanic, we were
     given the additional eight hours.  And we had a guy from
     Brookville, which manufactured the diesel.  They came down
     and schooled us on the service of the machine.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  So the total hours of
     training, I'm confused, was 16 hours?
        MR. BEDILION:  Yes, sir.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  And all of those were given by
     the manufacturer?
        MR. BEDILION:  Yeah.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay, thank you.
        MR. BEDILION:  Do you want these?
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Yes, I'll take those.  Thank you,
     Mr. Bedilion.
        All right, that limits the 30-minute time for the
     UMWA.  And what I'd like to do right now is have Mr. George
     Ellis from Pennsylvania Coal Association make his
     presentation.
        MR. ELLIS:  Thank you.  Good morning.  May name is
     George Ellis, E-l-l-I-s, and I am president of Pennsylvania
     Coal Association.  With me today are members of PCA's tech
     committee -- safety committee, excuse me, who will help
     answer any of your questions following my testimony.  These
     individuals include:  Bob Dubreck, who is vice president of
     operations with Tanoma Mining Company and he also serves as
     PCA's representative to the technical advisory committee on
     diesel-powered equipment, which was created under the Act,
     182 Pennsylvania law; also, John Galleck, who is manager of
     safety with Cypress Emerald; Larry Patts, who is assistant
     to the vice president for safety and Consol, Inc.; and Henry
     Moore, with Buchanan Ingersoll, who serves as PCA's counsel
     on safety matters.
        PCA is a trade association, organized and
     operating under the laws of Pennsylvania, representing both
     surface and underground producers of bituminous coal in
     Pennsylvania.  Our members produced over 75 percent of the
     coal annually mined in Pennsylvania and over 90 percent of
     the coal mined by underground methods.  We also represent
     associate members companies, including equipment
     manufacturing companies and other organizations that serve
     the mining industry.
        The intent of this rule is to establish new health
     standards for underground coal mines that use equipment
     powered by diesel engines.  PCA member companies have a
     substantial interest in the outcome of the proposal, both in
     terms of safety and reducing worker exposure to high
     concentrations of diesel particulate matter and creating a
     feasible regulatory program that is conducive to the use of
     diesel engines in underground coal mines.  We, therefore,
     appreciate this opportunity to comment.
        Coal supplies nearly 60 percent of the electricity
     generated in Pennsylvania.  At the same time, deep coal
     mines in the Commonwealth are a major industrial user of
     electricity, to power everything from rail-bound trollies
     for carrying men, to conveyer belts, continuous mining
     equipment, and other heavy machinery.  But sole reliance on
     electric-powered equipment in deep mines to unearth coal
     came at a price.  This was especially true for Pennsylvania
     underground mine operators who, prior to 1996, were unable
     to take advantage of the power, mobility, flexibility, and
     safety benefits of using diesel equipment at their mines, as
     an alternative to electric-powered equipment.
        While diesel-powered equipment gained popularity
     in underground mines nationwide, its use in Pennsylvania's
     bituminous mines was precluded by a de facto regulatory ban,
     putting Pennsylvania operators at a safety and competitive
     disadvantage with mine operators in other coal producing
     states that were allowed to utilize such equipment.  Diesel
     usage steadily increased outside Pennsylvania over the past
     20 years, with approximately 3,000 units now operating in
     underground coal mines.
        Why the trend to diesel from traditional electric-
     or battery-powered underground mining equipment?  The answer
     is simple:  safety and competitiveness.  From the safety
     standpoint, diesel has reduced the risks attended with the
     use of electrical equipment by eliminating the need for
     trolley wires, trolley poles, and trailing cables.  Injuries
     and accidents, like shocks, burns, and fires, are minimized. 
     The additional injuries resulting from being struck by
     trolley pulls or tripping over trailing cables are removed
     from the mine and work place.  Indeed, a 1984 Penn State
     University study presented at a Society of Mining Engineers
     meeting in Denver, Colorado, concluded that many accidents
     could have been prevented through the use of diesel
     equipment, which provides a significant potential for
     improved mine safety.
        In support of its proposed rule for diesel-powered
     equipment, MSHA also recognized the safety advantages of
     diesels, issuing the following statement in the initial
     impact assessment and regulatory flexibility analysis in
     October of 1989:  "MSHA reviewed its data files to determine
     whether there were any accidents, other than fires, that
     would be considered unique to diesel-powered equipment.  
     Fatality and injury abstracts from 1987 through '89 were
     reviewed for the 116 underground coal mines using diesel-
     powered equipment in 1988.  Of these, there were no injuries
     unique to diesel-powered equipment that occurred in 1987,
     there were only three injuries unique to this equipment that
     occurred in 1988, and there was only one injury unique to
     the equipment that occurred in '89."
        MSHA also acknowledged, in promulgating its final
     rules on approval and safety requirements for diesel
     equipment, that diesel-powered equipment does not have the
     inherent electrocution hazards of the electric-powered
     equipment.  Also, according to MSHA's electric hazard
     awareness program, electrocution comprises about eight
     percent of the fatalities in mining, and between 1970 to
     1986, there were 102 fatalities from electrocutions in
     underground mines.  Trailing cables, trolley wires, and
     mobile electric equipment accounted for 49.9 percent, or
     almost half of these fatalities.
        Also, a 1994 Bureau of Mines report by Temco and
     Cassel reported that hall entries were the most likely
     locations for fires that resulted in fatalities; and that
     between 1970 and 1989, trolley wires were directly
     responsible for 40 of the 82 hall entry fires.  In fact, the
     Matheys mine, a major southwestern Pennsylvania underground
     mine, has experienced three fires as a result of trolley
     wires, two of which caused the mine to be shut down for a
     substantial period of time.
        Use of diesel equipment obviously reduces or
     eliminates these risks and provides the versatility and
     flexibility to reduce the risk from other hazards, such as
     material and large equipment handling.  Diesel-powered
     equipment also has a number of productivity advantages and
     operational benefits over electrically-powered equipment. 
     The use of diesels underground promotes more productivity
     than electrical equipment, owing to its greater safety,
     power, mobility, and flexibility.
        Diesel use does not restrict the mining plans or
     mining cycle, because operations are not hampered by cable
     length or time consuming power moves.  Diesels provide
     greater flexibility in underground travel routes and make
     equipment moves from one area of a mine to another more
     efficient.  Compared to battery-powered mining equipment
     often used in smaller underground coal operations, diesels
     can haul coal more efficiently over longer distance, provide
     more power to mine coal, and eliminate time consuming
     battery change-out time.  Moreover, because of its
     flexibility, the use of diesel equipment for handling
     supplies and other materials reduces the number of material
     handling injuries.
        Diesel-powered supply equipment, like mining
     systems in recent years, provides the mine operator with
     another tool to compete in today's coal market.  PCA has
     long believed that this tool should be available to
     Pennsylvania operators.  It was against this backdrop that
     PCA sought to pursue a legislative remedy in the 1995-96
     Pennsylvania legislative session that would allow for diesel
     usage in the Commonwealth, without compromise to health and
     safety in the workplace.
        Prior to 1996, only three coal producing states --
     Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio -- did not allow
     diesel equipment to be used in underground coal mines. 
     Unlike the other two states, the Pennsylvania mining law did
     not contain an absolute statutory prohibition against the
     use of diesel combustion engines in underground coal mines. 
     Under the prior Pennsylvania mining law, diesel engines
     would be permitted, provided the request for such equipment
     was approved by the secretary of the Department of
     Environmental Protection.  However, despite requests made by
     a number of Pennsylvania mining companies to use diesels,
     they were never approved by the secretary for various
     reasons.  So, in effect, we had a regulatory ban on the use
     of diesels.
        At this point, I want to clarify for the record
     two points relative to the Pennsylvania law explained in the
     preamble to this proposal that may be misconstrued by the
     reader.  The first is the reference on page 17503, which
     implies that the Pennsylvania law had banned the use of
     diesels.  There was no statutory ban in Pennsylvania.
        Also on the same page, the vehicle for the
     Pennsylvania diesel law is identified as Senate Bill 1643. 
     This is also wrong.  The correct cite is House Bill 2828. 
     While this last point may seem unimportant to some, I can
     assure you that pride of authorship is not viewed as a
     trivial issue among Pennsylvania legislatures.
        The last Pennsylvania coal company to submit an
     application under the old Pennsylvania law for use of diesel
     engines was the Cypress Coal Company, which operates two
     underground coal mines in Green County, Pennsylvania and in
     Cumberland.  Cypress filed a diesel emission's management
     plan with the department on October 23, 1995.  This
     submission was also presented to the UMW locals at both
     mines and the UMWA international representatives.  Cypress
     and the union negotiated the content of the diesel plan.
        In early January, 1996, the UMWA submitted a
     counterproposal to Cypress, almost 100 percent consisting of
     the Cypress plan, but written in statutory language. 
     Although PCA knew of the ongoing negotiations with the UMWA,
     since it was an isolated occurrence that involved just a
     regulatory use of diesels by one company, we were not
     directly involved.  But, at this juncture, since the playing
     field was elevated to a legislative point, Cypress formally
     brought the issue to PCA for its consideration, since it
     became an industry-wide issue.  Thereafter, the negotiations
     were between PCA and the UMWA.  About 10 months later, the
     bill allowing the use of diesel-powered equipment was signed
     into law as Act 182 in 1996.
        At about the same time the Pennsylvania diesel
     bill was becoming law, MSHA issued its diesel-powered
     equipment final regulations on October 25, 1996.  Please
     keep in mind that the parties in Pennsylvania were not privy
     to the contents of MSHA's final rules, at the time of
     negotiations.  Act 82 contains the most stringent diesel
     particulate emission standards in the world.  Its
     requirements exceed those proposed in the MSHA draft rule. 
     By not knowing the direction in which federal regulators
     were headed on this issue, Pennsylvania now faces the
     possibility of having State program requirements exceeding
     federal standards.  If this occurs, Pennsylvania operators
     will be essentially troubled by the same competitive
     imbalance that they faced concerning diesel uses prior to
     1996.
        PCA hopes to address, in concert with the United
     Mine Workers of America, our disadvantageous competitive
     position with the Pennsylvania legislature in the next
     session.  Our purpose today is to convey to you the problems
     that Pennsylvania operators are encountering with the
     Pennsylvania law and to strongly caution against using this
     law as the basis for a national standard.
        Act 182 specifically addresses diesel particulate
     matter.  The State did not set a limit on the exposure of
     miners to DPM, nor did it establish a limit on the
     concentration of DPM in the deep coal mines.  Rather, they
     approached the issue by imposing controls that would limit
     DPM emissions at the source.
        First, all diesel engines used in underground coal
     mines in Pennsylvania must be MSHA approved engines with an
     exhaust, emissions control and conditioning system that
     meets certain tests.  Among these are DPM emissions from
     each engine no greater than an average concentration of 12
     milligrams per cubic meter of air, diluted by 50 percent of
     the MSHA approved plate ventilation for that diesel engine. 
     In addition, any exhaust emission control and conditioning
     system must include a diesel particulate matter filter
     capable of an average of 95 percent or greater reduction of
     DPM emissions.  The law also requires the use of an
     oxidation catalytic converter.
        Thus the Pennsylvania statute envisions the use of
     high-emitting engines and then the use of after-treatment
     devices that significantly reduce what particulates are
     emitted from these engines.  The Pennsylvania law also has a
     number of other requirements to encourage the safe use of
     diesel-powered equipment.  Many of these parallel the
     requirements in the MSHA proposed rule.  Like MSHA's
     requirements, they, too, can result in reducing minor
     exposure to diesel particulate, for example, regular
     maintenance of diesel engines by qualified personnel and
     equipment operator examinations.
        The requirements in the Pennsylvania law take into
     account the need to maintain the after-treatment devices
     required to control DPM.  Unfortunately, since the
     Pennsylvania law was negotiated at a time when there was no
     federal rule and was based on limited data and experience,
     it's become so restrictive that it actually discourages the
     use of diesel engines.  Furthermore, some of its
     requirements may not be realistically obtainable.  In
     hindsight, the 95 percent filter requirement on all diesel
     engines is too tight a standard and does not allow for the
     integration of other components to enhance the system.
        Among the major problems which we've identified
     with the Pennsylvania law are:  (1) implementation of a 95
     percent filter efficiency on all diesel equipment relative
     to the reduction of DPM is not currently possible on a
     consistent, repeatable basis.  Only one manufacturer
     proposes to have such a filter and its performance has not
     been measured over a long period of time.  Reliance on the
     standard is also an impediment to cleaner fuel and cleaner
     engines.  Ironically, the filter works best with less
     cleaned engines and fuel.  This is a point conceded by the
     manufacturer.  As you get cleaner engines and fuels, the
     filter may not meet the 95 percent standard, since it is
     easier to reduce the amount of particulate on an engine
     producing a greater amount of particulate than on an engine
     that runs clean.  Using this standard, really, is a
     deterrent to new technology or cleaner engines, because
     manufacturers recognize the inherent technical difficulties
     of reducing particulate from engines that already run clean.
        The second concern is reliance on a .12 standard,
     as we believe it's not realistic.  There is no existing
     system that has repeatedly met this standard and which has
     been in use for any significant period of time.
        Finally, out-by diesel equipment, as with out-by
     electrical equipment, should not be subject to surface
     temperature controls.  Temperature limitations preclude the
     use of certain type of filtering systems, which would also
     effectively reduce DPM.  Also, the ISO eight test does not
     appear to be representative of normal operation of diesel
     engines in an underground mine and a different test may be
     needed.
        Perhaps the best illustration of the shortcomings
     of the Pennsylvania law is the fact that after being in
     effect for almost two years, there are only two diesel-
     powered 2010 locomotives operating in Pennsylvania
     underground mines at this time.  The incentives to have more
     diesel-powered equipment are the safety and productivity
     aspects of diesel equipments.  That's what I said prior.
        Recognizing that these goals should not be
     achieved at the expense of the miner's health, the coal
     industry in Pennsylvania has not grasped the opportunity to
     implement the use of diesel equipment, because of the
     stringent nature and unrealistic parameters of the
     Pennsylvania law.  This is unfortunate and not an intended
     outcome of Act 182.  To derive the many benefits gained by
     the use of diesels, PCA supports revisions to the
     Pennsylvania diesel law.  During the next legislative
     session in Pennsylvania, we intend to sit down with the UMW
     to determine if we can come up with a unified approach to
     refine the law to make it more realistic and usable, without
     adversely affecting the worker's health.
        The diesel bill signed into law in December of '96
     was essentially based upon the use of the dry systems
     technology after-treatment control device.  But, it also
     incorporated many aspects of an overall diesel emissions
     management plan, such as clean engines, fuel quality, and
     maintenance requirements.  By recognizing these other
     emission management concepts, the Pennsylvania diesel law
     recognizes and implements the concept of an integrated
     approach.  PCA now views the additional requirement of a 95
     percent efficiency filter as unnecessary and prefers that it
     be replaced in any new legislation with the integrated
     approach concept.  As alluded to earlier, the Pennsylvania
     law and the MSHA proposed rule need to create the proper
     incentives to encourage more, not less, diesel-powered
     equipment usage in underground coal mines, without placing
     the miner at risk to health impairment.  Again, we will
     continue to work with the UMWA on achieving these goals in
     Pennsylvania.
        Based on Pennsylvania's experience with this
     issue, we recommend that any federal rule on diesel-powered
     equipment consider the following:  First, as an alternative
     to the proposed 95 percent emission reduction requirement, 
     adopt an integrated system.  It involves a combination of
     measures, including a practical laboratory DPM standard and
     various options on how to effectively meet the standard. 
     These options would include cleaner burning engines, lower
     sulfur fuel, after-treatment devices, ventilation, and
     training.  If an integrated approach is not adopted, any
     incentive to stretch and improve technology towards the use
     of cleaner diesel engines will be absent.  Adoption of a
     filter rule only discourages the technology.
        Second, any regulation should not impose
     additional future requirements.  To require a DPM filter at
     a 95 percent efficiency in two years may be unrealistic,
     since there are no guarantees that such technology will
     exist.  Moreover, an integrated system will create a better
     environment for the workers, rather than "a dirty engine,"
     with a 95 percent efficiency filter.  Equipment
     manufacturers are finding it nearly impossible to meet a 95
     percent filter efficiency at a .12 DPM standard.  The goal
     of any rule or legislation must be to reduce worker exposure
     to DPM levels, while providing the operator with the ability
     and flexibility to meet that goal through the use of an
     integrated system.  Finally, maintain the current regulatory
     requirements between heavy and light diesel-powered
     equipment.
        PCA thanks MSHA for its opportunity to present
     testimony and we'd be happy to try and answer any questions.
     As I told you before the start, I will be submitting these
     comments in a more refined packet.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Ellis.  Any
     questions?
        MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Ellis, the two diesels, are they
     the same engine -- the two machines, do they contain the
     same engine?
        MR. ELLIS:  I'm going to let John Galleck answer
     that.
        MR. GALLECK:  George, yes, they are.
        MR. SASEEN:  Do you know which engines they are?
        MR. GALLECK:  CAT engine 3306.  They're all --
     both locomotives are duplicates.  They're exactly the same.
        MR. SASEEN:  It's a 3306 CAT engine?
        MR. GALLECK:  Yes, it is.
        MR. SASEEN:  Okay.  You mentioned that -- what you
     called the "practical lab standard," can you offer -- you
     said in lieu of the ISO 8178, is there a -- is there some
     data you can present to us, as an alternative?
        MR. GALLECK:  Anybody else want to answer that
     one?
        MR. PATTS:  Yes, Larry Patts, and I think we'll
     hear some testimony further on it in the hearing here today,
     that will suggest a practical lab standard and there will be
     comments filed to the rule-making before the comment period
     closes on a practical lab standard.
        MR. SASEEN:  Can you share with us, the committee,
     the data on how you -- the data that was used to meet the 95
     percent filter to the 3306 and also how you met your .l2? 
     Can that be --
        MR. GALLECK:  I believe that data will eventually
     be submitted through other sources.
        MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
        MR. HANEY:  Do you have any comparison between
     cost to the locomotive that you have with the dry systems
     and the same locomotive without the dry systems?
        MR. GALLECK:  Bob, I would have only just the
     general pricing differential.  But, I couldn't say that
     that's accurate, because, obviously, Brookville's pricing
     through us may be more beneficial to us, since we were
     providing them their first venture into Pennsylvania.  So,
     I'd like to believe we negotiated a tight price.  But,
     you're looking at probably in the low 30's -- for an
     additional system, 25 to 30,000, depending on all the add-
     ons and what all there is involved with Pennsylvania,
     keeping in mind Pennsylvania had other standards that may
     not be necessary under federal standards.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Do you know of any other -- do
     you know how many filter systems have been tested, other
     than -- are there other filter systems that have been tested
     and have failed?  Or are these the only two that ever been
     tested?
        MR. DUBRECK:  There is a problem that we have with
     the 95 percent efficiency on the filter.  I believe, in a
     larger degree, even the union would agree with this.  What
     you've got is this -- you know, we're in a difficult
     situation here, you are also -- nobody knows what the DPM
     standard should be.  Anyone in here that can tell me or you
     that they do, I don't believe that.  I don't believe it's
     scientific.
        We're all engineers in here.  We're all
     intelligent people.  There hasn't been enough research done
     on it.  I sure as heck don't know what the DPM standard
     should be.  You know, metal or non-metal, they tell me .4
     and, you know, .164 here, NIAS might tell me .15,
     Pennsylvania said .12.  I don't know what that standard is. 
     I think it's very important that the health and safety of
     the miner be protected.  But at what standard that is, I
     don't know.  I don't think anybody knows.
        When you come -- if you had a DPM standard and you
     have the leeway to reach that standard, then you can use
     engineering controls and other methods, such as engines,
     after-treatment systems, fuels, training, maintenance, to
     meet the standard.  But, if the federal law sticks to a 95
     percent efficient filter, I think you're making a tremendous
     mistake.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  That wasn't my question, though.
        MR. DUBRECK:  Okay.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  My question specifically was: 
     You have two filter systems, I understand, that have been
     approved and are in use, right?  Have there been other ones
     submitted for approval that haven't been approved?
        MR. DUBRECK:  No.  What you got into is the
     original engine was tested in WVU, with the DST system, an
     MWM engine, and it was 95 percent efficient filter, okay. 
     The 3306 PCAs that Cumberland used, by engineering methods
     and filtering manufacture data, the TAC committee approved
     that engine with that filter and that system for underground
     use, because we felt it would meet the .12 standard, okay.
        It hasn't been in test for any long period of
     time.  It hasn't been in use for any long period of time,
     okay.  What happens when you meet that standard of a 95
     percent efficiency, it cuts out all future technology.  That
     filter will not work.  If you're going to a new 3306 cleaner
     engine, that filter will not meet 95 percent.  So what
     you've done now is, there's no hope for us ever to get to
     cleaner engines.  There's no hope for us ever to get to
     cleaner fuels, because nobody, to my knowledge, with cleaner
     engines and cleaner fuels can meet 95 percent, okay.
        We've had manufacturers come to us --
        MODERATOR TOMB:  It still doesn't answer my
     question.  There's no other -- nobody has taken just a paper
     filter and put it on the end of a scrubber and tested it?
        MR. DUBRECK:  No.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.
        MR. DUBRECK:  Well, we've had --
        MR. ELLIS:  At least for application in
     Pennsylvania.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Pennsylvania, okay.  That's my
     question.
        MR. DUBRECK:  We've had other people come to us
     with different technologies that meet a 91 percent filter
     efficiency at a .08 standard.  Yet, we cannot approve that,
     because it doesn't meet the filter efficiency.  You will get
     into the same situation in federal law, if you stick with
     that 95 percent filter efficiency.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  Let me -- I'd like to ask
     another question.  Can the .12 be met?  I guess from what
     you just said, it can.  The .12 can be met or even lower can
     be met, using the combined technology?
        MR. DUBRECK:  Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Using a 90 percent filter and
     cleaner engine and doing all these other things, you can get
     down to below the .12 --
        MR. DUBRECK:  Well, two were approved at .12.  We
     have -- a manufacturer came to us just last week, I don't
     have the data in hand, but his testing in West Virginia, he
     said he could meet a 91 percent and a .08 something.  I
     forget the exact -- I mean, what ought to be important,
     though, is what the guy is breathing.  That's what's
     important.  Electricity in these lights, we really don't
     care how it gets here, just so it's here.  The miner
     underground, he cares what he's breathing.  Surely, you have
     to have leeway to meet that in an integrated approach or
     you're going to force him to not have the best possible
     situation.
        MR. GALLECK:  Let me clarify one other point.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  As you speak, could you clarify
     for the record who is speaking, so --
        MR. GALLECK:  Oh, I'm sorry.  This is John
     Galleck, Cypress Emerald.  One clarification is that the
     Pennsylvania law also includes a 50 percent of the
     ventilation rate of the MSHA standard for that engine size
     and, obviously, that was made prior to.  As George said
     earlier, we were not aware that you were changing the law to
     part seven.  So, our numbers, just for clarification, like
     Bob said, we met a .12 at 50 percent of the old part 32
     standard.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.
        MR. ELLIS:  This is George Ellis.  I'm not quite
     sure, in response to your question, Mr. Tomb, that any of us
     here can definitely say that cannot any other approach meet
     a .12 or a less than .12 standard.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  From what your presentation has
     sort of precluded, that you couldn't even get down to -- it
     was very difficult to meet the .12, because you have got a
     95 percent efficient --
        MR. ELLIS:  That's right.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  -- you're having trouble.
        MR. ELLIS:  That's right.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  And then -- I'm sorry, your name,
     sir?
        MR. DUBRECK:  Bob Dubreck.  I'm with the TAC
     committee.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  When you were talking, and
     he mentioned that he could get down to .08, 90 percent --
        MR. DUBRECK:  And that's on a smaller engine.  The
     net result is, what does a person breath?  What is he going
     to see in his lungs?  And surely, the operators has to have
     the ability to use the means available to him, to reach that
     goal.  That has to be the ultimate goal, what does the guy
     breath.  It has to be, not a 95 percent efficient filter.
        MR. SASEEN:  Bob, just when you said that the
     system had a 91 percent filter and a .08 lab standard, was
     that with part 32, 50 percent air or the part seven name
     plate air?
        MR. DUBRECK:  I'm not certain.
        MR. SASEEN:  I'm sorry?
        MR. DUBRECK:  I'm not certain.
        MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
        MR. DUBRECK:  It was a small piece of out-by
     equipment, with a subfilter and some other mechanisms on it. 
     Now, you now -- and when we went to New York, up at the
     Climber, you know, you heard guys up there talk about
     ceramic filters and they can come up -- you know, and then
     they'd see the 302 temperature of the Pennsylvania law.
        So, what you've got to watch is that you don't
     prevent yourself from down the road using the best
     technology, the cleanest engines, the cleanest fuels.  And
     the net result again has to be, what is that man in the coal
     mine breathing?  That's the end result.  And that's what we
     all got to look at in any legislation.  And if we preclude
     by legislation, somewhat like has happened in Pennsylvania,
     that there's no diesels can be used in the mine.
        I've got on that committee, because I wanted to
     put diesels in Tanoma.  I had none, because I don't know of
     anything that I can put in there that meets the statutes. 
     But, I do remember fellows what trolley wire is.  Guys in
     this room remember what trolley wire is, and equipment fires
     moving equipment, the wire on the bottom and evacuating
     people.  And I think you have to keep that mind.  I think
     diesels are very important, as long as the health and safety
     of the miner is protected, in moving this industry forward
     versus the old systems existing.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.
        MR. SASEEN:  Bob, can -- and I know you remember
     the Pennsylvania technical committee -- can you supply our
     committee the data that was used to approve that engine, to
     meet the Pennsylvania?  Now, I know -- I'm asking you as a
     member of the PA technical committee, versus TAC.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Are you talking about the Cypress
     --
        MR. DUBRECK:  The Brookville proposal?
        MR. SASEEN:  Right.  Can that be made available to
     this committee?
        MR. DUBRECK:  I don't know why not.
        MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
        MR. DUBRECK:  From my personal point of view, I
     don't know why not.
        MR. SASEEN:  Well, if you can, we'd be interested.
        MR. DUBRECK:  Yes.
        MR. SASEEN:  Thank you.
        MR. DUBRECK:  I'll see if I can do that.
        MR. SASEEN:  Thank you.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you, very much.
        MR. GALLECK:  Would you guys mind -- this is John
     Galleck, again -- if I just clarified a couple of points
     that were made earlier --
        MODERATOR TOMB:  No, go ahead.
        MR. GALLECK:  -- for one minute?  I think there is
     a mistake on a filter life.  Our typical filter life for the
     DPM filter is 50 to 70 hours, just a clarification point,
     rather than putting it in a written record later.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Instead of the 500 that was --
        MR. GALLECK:  Yeah.  Okay, thank you.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  I know some people are standing
     up.  Maybe it's a good time to take a 15-minute break.  But,
     please be back here exactly 10 to 11:00.  Thank you.
        (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Before we get started, one of the
     panel members would like to ask a question of the last
     speakers.  I'm not sure which one he wants to ask a question
     to, but he would like to ask a question to clarify a point.
        MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Galleck -- I think our bladders
     kind of overruled my thinking process here -- could you give
     me what the -- do you know what the cost of the filter is on
     the Brookville?
        MR. GALLECK:  Individual filter?
        MR. SASEEN:  Individual filter, when you change
     it.
        MR. GALLECK:  Roughly, $80 a filter.
        MR. SASEEN:  I'm sorry?
        MR. GALLECK:  Roughly, $80 a filter.
        MR. SASEEN:  Eighty dollars a filter.  Is that
     specific to that system?
        MR. GALLECK:  That's the only system we have,
     George, so I would suspect it would be a sliding scale,
     depending on the size of it and what engine application it
     would go with.
        MR. SASEEN:  Thanks a lot.
        MR. GALLECK:  You're welcome.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you.  Alright, our next
     speaker will be Mr. Chris Hamilton from the West Virginia
     Coal Association.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
     panelists.  I am Chris Hamilton, vice president of the West
     Virginia Coal Association.  Today, I appear before you as a
     representative of the West Virginia Diesel Commission.  I am
     joined by Dr. Pramod Thakur of Consolidation Coal and Mr.
     Ken Perdue of Piston Coal, along with myself, comprise the
     industry or management contingent of the Commission.
        Before I proceed, I would like to, on behalf of
     our group and the West Virginia Coal Association, concur
     with the initial comments made by Mr. George Ellis, not
     necessarily all the exchange between the panel and members
     of Mr. Ellis' contingent.  But, we do concur with his
     initial comments regarding the competitive advantages, the
     safety advantages, and the economics, and general aspects
     and advantages of operating diesel equipment.  We are one of
     the states here in West Virginia that heretofore has
     prohibited the use of diesel and we anxiously await the days
     that we can be on the same level playing field with the rest
     of the nation.  We urge you to accelerate the finalization
     of these final -- of these proposed rules.  We believe that
     that will aid our cause, as well as the other states that
     currently don't use diesel.
        I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ellis, with
     respect to the competitive -- the point of competitive
     disadvantage that he feels that he is currently in.  As the
     State of West Virginia, we just assume men should not tinker
     with that and send more and more production south of that
     Pennsylvania border to West Virginia.
        Over the past 18 months or so -- I already hear
     the hecklers; I probably ought to proceed.  Over the past 18
     months or so, we have been involved here in West Virginia,
     in a state initiative, a process very similar to MSHA's
     current rule-making subject to today's hearing.  As
     representatives of the West Virginia Diesel Commission, we
     have also been working towards comprehensive rules governing
     the use of diesel equipment underground coal mines,
     including the establishment of performance-based standards
     for the control of diesel particulate matter and emission
     control and conditioning systems.
        We welcome this opportunity to share our findings
     and research with MSHA.  We believe our experiences to date
     are both enlightening and scientifically based and will
     serve as a meaningful contribution to this proceeding and to
     this process.  We also look forward to forging a partnership
     with MSHA on this topic, as a commission, in years to come,
     as we work to continuously improve our state rules, as new
     technologies are developed, which prove effective.  We view
     the current task before us as a preliminary or initial one,
     to set to bar on a reasonable and practical level, so then
     we can continuously research, update, and revise those
     rules, as new technologies are proven effective.  We hope
     that MSHA shares that goal and premise, as well.
        Our shared goal of providing maximum health and
     safety protection for miners with an acceptable, feasible
     cost in technological parameters is now in sight.  And we
     submit to you that that can be accomplished, while
     optimizing operational flexibility, by allowing mines to
     take full advantage of existing complex ventilation systems,
     existing engineering controls, along with existing and new
     and developing technologies.
        Before proceeding, some background may be in
     order.  On April 10, 1997, the West Virginia legislature
     enacted the West Virginia Diesel Act, thereby creating the
     West Virginia Diesel Commission and setting forth an
     administrative vehicle to allow and regulate the use of
     diesel equipment in underground coal mines here in West
     Virginia.  The Commission is specifically charged with
     developing rules and regulations governing diesel usage,
     which will address everything from equipment testing and
     approval, to all the various safety aspects and test
     monitoring found in MSHA's existing rules, as well as
     deciding which diesel units, if any, should be equipped with
     particulate filters.  The Commission's rules are also to
     include performance standards for particulate filters,
     stated as an average percentage for the reduction of DPM.
        To serve as a resource for our efforts and to
     guide the Commission to meeting its mandate, West Virginia
     University has been appropriated over $150,000 by the West
     Virginia legislature to test diesel exhaust controls, as
     well as an array of diesel particulate filters.  The work of
     the University is intended to provide the technical support
     and data necessary for the Commission to make decisions,
     which are grounded in scientific fact, and to also assist us
     in driving at appropriate levels of collection efficiencies
     and related standards for emission controls and conditioning
     systems.  Dr. Thakur, with me today, will discuss some of
     the work of the University and put that into practical
     application.  In addition, a copy of the WVU work plan and
     study results will also be submitted with our written
     comments, following today's hearing.
        Allow me to point out, however, that the
     University tested a total of four different engines and an
     assortment of configurations of available control devices,
     including the widely publicized DST system.  In fact, I
     believe tests were run on approximately 27 different engine
     filter configurations or thereabouts.  The range of
     collection efficiency of ceramic filters and oxidation
     catalysts combined fell between a low of 65 percent and a
     high of 78 percent.  The highest collection efficiency
     obtained using the ISO's eight-mode test was 81 percent, and
     that was the second of a series of tests that was conducted
     with the DST system.
        The 95 percent requirement proposed by MSHA was
     not achieved by any of the configurations:  ceramic filters,
     DST system, oxidation catalysts with filters, catalyzed
     filters, filters and traps, and a variety of orders and
     configurations.  Of all the tests that were run, the highest
     that was achieved there was 81 percent.  We're submitting
     that document, the work study, the plan, the technical
     analysis, and background for your use and examination, as
     you continue your mandate of finalizing these rules.
        Although the Commission, itself, has not finalized
     its rule-making, the industry representatives have developed
     an approach worthy of consideration by MSHA.  This approach
     represents a departure from the across-the-board requirement
     proposed by MSHA, that all machines used in in-by areas and
     those which are classified as heavy duty be equipped with
     particulate filters that are 95 percent effective in the
     removal of DPM.  Based on the tests performed by WVU, this
     level of collection efficiency is unreasonably high and is
     simply not substantiated by reliable data.
        MSHA's proposed rule contains several additional
     fallacies, which are evident to us.  First, the rigid
     across-the-board 95 percent requirement could easily result
     in varying levels of the volume of DPM emitted from diesel
     equipment.  It is conceivable that one machine with a
     particulate filter of 95 percent efficiency could yield an
     overall greater amount of diesel particulate mass than the
     exhaust of an unfiltered machine.  MSHA's proposal also
     fails to take into account viable options and engineering
     controls, which would otherwise be available to mine
     operators to maintain low-levels of DPM in the mine
     environment and further neglects to consider the unique
     environmental features of each mine.
        Additionally, we have, as previously stated,
     serious reservations of the 95 percent collection efficiency
     of MSHA's proposed rule.  Frankly, we don't believe it's
     achievable with available technology.
        I would also point out that it may even be a
     regressive standard, as stated so eloquently by Mr. George
     Ellis:  garbage in, garbage out.  If you have dirty engines,
     dirty fuel, you could easily achieve a 95 percent efficiency
     with a variety of instruments and devices.  As we move
     towards the next -- the newer generations of diesel engines,
     fuel additives, which help decrease overall emission levels,
     it's going to be harder and harder to sustain those higher
     percentages in the overall removal of DPM -- garbage in,
     garbage out.
        In fact, we -- the University, and I'll let the
     report speak for itself, has also done some tests and the
     original test on the DST, we understand, was done with a
     higher sulfur-containing fuel that currently is prohibited. 
     When we tested the different fuels at the University that
     contained a varying sulfur content, there was a fluctuation
     in the overall results.  If I'm not mistaken, again the
     report will verify, I believe it was on the order of 12 to
     15 percent difference in the collection efficiency.
        We have a proposal which we'll briefly outline,
     and Dr. Thakur is prepared to cover it in greater detail
     than I.  But, our proposal, on the other hand, does
     establish new lab diesel particulate standard.  We are
     proposing a .5 milligram per cubic meter standard, which
     must be met by all diesel equipment, as the equipment is
     configured, before approval is granted for underground use. 
     A .5 milligram standard, according to our research, is more
     realistic, can be defended from a human health standpoint,
     and is technologically feasible with available control
     devices.
        The term "as configured" is significant, and it is
     central to our integrated approach, which is embodied within
     our proposal.  And the term "as configured," as used within
     our proposal, means each type of diesel equipment, together
     with all emission controls and conditioning devices, if any,
     which are proposed for use in any underground mine.  And we
     specify, if any, because I think EPA is driving this issue
     from the on-road engine design, and we feel confident within
     a very short period of time, we will see engines alone, very
     expensive, may not be designed or intended for all the duty
     cycles and all the workloads that they might be subjected
     to.  But, we think that they will be here, when an engine
     alone, combined with the fuel and perhaps fuel additives,
     will result in a clean-burning engine to the -- on the order
     of magnitude of where we have placed our initial standard.
        So, you have to ask what significance is it if it
     has a filter on it, and further more, what significance is
     the collection efficiency of the filter, if you're achieving
     an acceptable DPM level?  Based on this in-lab test, all
     diesel equipment will bear an approval plate containing the
     specified CFM rate, as equipment is configured to maintain a
     .5 milligram particulate standard.
        This approach recognizes that the control of DPM
     may be enhanced or adequately addressed with mine
     ventilation, clean burning engines, or by using higher
     quality fuel, along with fuel additives.  It factors the
     specific conditions of each mine, along with the specific
     type diesel units and their intended application to the
     regulatory scheme.  It also allows mine operators to
     carefully select and implement the most appropriate cost-
     effective control technologies among a greater variety of
     reliable and commercially-available devices.  Moreover, it
     provides for an unprecedented higher level of protection for
     miners than what currently exists anywhere in the nation,
     for that matter, the world.  We, frankly, view
     Pennsylvania's standard equivalent to our previous
     prohibition against using diesel equipment here in West
     Virginia.
        This approach is also consistent with MSHA's
     integrated approach found in its October 25, 1996 final
     rule, addressing the approval exhaust gas monitoring and the
     safety aspects of diesel equipment, which we contend also
     goes along way, in and of itself, towards reducing miners'
     exposure to DPM and underground coal mines.  It's also
     compatible with MSHA's toolbox initiative, which advocates
     the consideration and application of not one, but a variety
     of appropriate alternatives.
        Although we appear today as members of the West
     Virginia Diesel Commission, the regulatory approach outlined
     herein, which will be elaborated on by Dr. Thakur, is fully
     embraced by the member companies of the West Virginia Coal
     Association, which collectively account for over 90 percent
     of the State's 180 million annual tons.  The West Virginia
     Coal Association also represents equipment manufacturers,
     who are extremely and have been extremely involved in our
     process and in the formulation of this position.
        To summarize, we encourage MSHA to modify its
     proposed rule by eliminating the across-the-board
     boilerplate requirement, that all face machines and certain
     out-by units be equipped with particulate filters capable of
     achieving a 95 percent collection efficiency.  In lieu
     thereof, we recommend that all -- and heavy duty machines be
     equipped with emission control devices or configured to
     achieve a .5 milligram standard and to additionally provide
     mine operators with alternatives from MSHA's toolbox
     approach to assist with compliance demands.  We would
     further recommend that particulate filters achieve a minimum
     collection efficiency of 70 percent, which is consistent
     with the technical test and data obtained from the West
     Virginia University project.
        As members of the Commission, we look forward to
     working with MSHA in the future.  And at this time, if it
     pleases the panel, I will turn the podium over to Dr. Pramod
     Thakur.  Thank you.
        Dr. Thakur will be using the slide projector.  He
     has a few slides he'd like to share with the panel and
     audience.
        (Pause.)
        DR. THAKUR:  Mr. Chairman, members of the panel,
     my name is Pramod Thakur.  That's the last name on the
     display and it's spelled correctly.  But, I have to
     apologize to Kenny.  His name is not spelled correctly. 
     It's P-e-r-d-u-e.
        This morning, you heard from the Pennsylvania
     Commission -- Coal Commission -- Association, I mean, and
     Mr. Hamilton correctly introduced the subject.  We -- all of
     us, we agree, at least on one aspect, that diesel engines
     are good for the mine, for safety, as well as for preventing
     injury.  We also agree that the best approach to control the
     ill effects of diesel, if any, is to take a systematic or
     integrated approach.  I intend to submit to you an
     alternative scheme this morning, which I believe is perhaps
     the best approach in the world.
        I might add a few things in this regard.  My
     interest in diesel engine goes a long time back.  I wrote a
     piece, this is 24 years back, on exactly this subject, how
     do you dilute the diesel exhaust emissions in the mines, to
     keep it below safety levels, or TLV, test limit values?
        The Commission -- and I'd like to express my
     gratitude to the other members of this Commission, Gary
     Trout, Danny Odell, and Rick Glover.  All six of us, we felt
     that we would be remiss if we did not create scientific data
     before we begin to play with numbers or methodology to
     control DPM, diesel particulate matter, or any other species
     of diesel exhaust in the mines.
        And the Commission, with the help from the
     legislature and West Virginia University, has been able to
     accomplish this goal.  And I reiterate what Chris said
     earlier, the data you're going to see today and the approach
     you're going to see today is unique and, at the same time,
     without being too modest, the best approach there is.  It's
     better than MSHA.  It's better than Pennsylvania.  It's
     better than European, Australian, Canadian.  I have been
     everywhere, talked to everybody.  I want to say, in the
     State of West Virginia, that we have the best scheme that I
     know of.  That's not to say someday, somebody can't do any
     better.  But, today, what you're going to hear from me is by
     far the best way we can protect our people.
        Alright.  Why do we want diesel?  You heard
     already, so I go quickly through it.  Number one, like
     George Ellis said, safety in the mines.  Diesel engines were
     introduced in Europe 70 years back for one and only one
     reason.  The mines got deeper and gassy and there was the
     risk of mine explosion.  If you look at the local history
     alone, the coal company I served had 18 fatalities in the
     last 24 years, because of trolley wire.  My main job is to
     get gas out from the mines.  And I'm very proud to say that
     with the help of everybody, including rank and file, we have
     been able to avoid the incidents mentioned earlier in 1968. 
     With God's grace, we shall keep the mines safe just like
     that.  There is no absolute guarantee, but we'll try our
     best.  That is my biggest motivation for diesel in the
     mines.
        The second thing, I design mine ventilation for a
     job.  Those of you who know, somebody mentioned about three
     entry system.  Trolley wire restricts your air velocity in
     one entry.  You have to regulate the intake to prevent
     leakage and what not.  The net result is reduced quantity of
     air of the face.  Diesel can eliminate that and we can
     provide much better ventilation at the face, and that is my
     second safety concern or safety reasoning for introducing
     diesel in the mines.
        Injury prevents on what's covered already, so I'll
     get away from it.  You can carry a 50 pound load better with
     equipment rather than in hand, and that's all you would save
     back, especially if you're as old as I am.
        Mining remains somewhat an unforgiving
     environment, like logging or flying or military.  And I
     think by improving productivity -- I look at it like this
     way, get used to exposure for that kind of environment and,
     again, safeguard the health of the people and the safety of
     that person.  Because, I completely agree with the comments
     made by the rank and file, the life and health of the
     individual in the mine is perhaps more -- not perhaps -- it
     is the most important thing for us.
        There are some concerns about the use of diesel,
     and they're very good concerns and I think we should address
     them, and I intend to.   Health effects of diesel:  what are
     they?  Let's look at it.  If you look at the diesel exhaust,
     it basically consists of carbon monoxide, oxides of
     nitrogen, unburnt hydrocarbon.  People tell me that DPM
     gives them running eyes and chokes their throat.  DPM has
     nothing to do with it.  Unburnt hydrocarbon is your culprit,
     sulfur oxides and, of course, DPM.
        When you talk about control, you should talk about
     the entire thing.  Although we cannot address all of them,
     but I just want you to keep one thing in mind:  that by
     trying to control one, you may make the other one worse. 
     For example, from George and Bob and Gene Davis, carbon
     monoxide, Pennsylvania law demands the reduction to 100 ppm
     in the tailpipe.  It's counterproductive, because if you
     have that low CO in the tailpipe and you use a catalyzer
     filter to control it, you have a whole lot more particulate
     emission.  Sulfur oxides go up.  What's worse, the oxides of
     nitrogen can go up, you know.  You've got to have your
     balance, once again, and a systematic approach to control
     it.
        We're going to talk about DPM only, because we
     don't have time for other stuff today, and others have no
     problem.  Let me assure you, that we will show they can very
     easily be controlled by the device we recommend in the State
     of West Virginia.
        Diesel particulate matter, henceforth called DPM,
     is nothing but solid carbon, elemental carbon.  Over that
     small piece of carbon, you have liquid and other solid
     hydrocarbons.  They are known as -- some of them are known
     as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.  They could be of a
     nitrate, you know.  And these are the things, if they were
     present in high enough concentration, could damage human
     health.  And our job should be to minimize the concentration
     of these things to the level that it cannot hurt anybody.
        Drinking water has some chemicals, very powerful
     toxins, but the city supply makes sure that the
     concentrations are so low that they cannot hurt human
     health.  Sulfate is a big culprit, you know.  And our study
     at WVU will find almost half of the DPM is by way sulfate. 
     So, if we can somehow reduce sulfate, we have a cheap -- a
     tremendous gain in our efficiency.
        So what exactly is the approach?  The way we
     configure -- we use Chris' word, he created it -- we start
     with clean engines.  Now, you hear about the EPA and all
     those things that are on highway engines.  I wish we had
     engines like that.  I will share with you what I got back
     from George, MSHA, their numbers.  In general, today, the
     engines we're going to use in our mines, let's say 150 horse
     engine or locomotives, MWM or GAP 3304 for the second cars,
     59 horse engine, or out-by porter buses, 43 horse engines,
     all these engines typically when we tested them at WVU, and
     they repeat what MSHA had said.  You know, I'm very glad to
     see an agreement between the two labs -- are generally below
     .3 grams per bhp hour.  If you multiply that by the
     horsepower of the engine, you're going to get the emission
     of DPM from that engine per hour and that tells you how
     clean the engine is.  Clean sulfur fuel, .05.  That's 500
     parts per million.
        The Commission insisted, and both sides agree on
     this thing, that we should provide a protective mechanism
     called oxidation catalyst or a catalytic converter on each
     and every piece of equipment -- diesel equipment going in
     the mines.  Adequate ventilation, I insist on it.  And we
     will provide soot filter on heavy-duty large engines which
     produce more DPM per hour.  Whatever comes out with this
     scheme becomes our ambient DPM concentration level.
        Now, earlier, somebody mentioned about what Dr.
     Riggs talked about the health risks of diesel.  If you look
     around the world and look at the literature, you'll find
     half the people say it's dangerous; half the people say,
     well, I haven't seen any epidemiological evidence.  In a
     situation like, if you cannot come up with a medical
     standard, it behooves us to have a technical standard. 
     Knowing what we know, looking at things we have, engines,
     control technology, ventilations, whatever we can achieve --
     I agree with Bob Dubreck, that the most important thing is
     what the guys working in the mines inhale.  Well, we've got
     to minimize it, and that's the key -- I mean, the core of my
     presentation.
        You look at these engines.  These are data from
     Tridelphia and Statistic Lab.  They range from .271 to .306.
        This is called permissible.  The emissions are a
     little higher in here, because they had to mix one percent
     methane with it, you know.  The numbers, again, range from
     .193 to .26.  There are many other engines.  I believe 17
     engines.  They range anywhere from .19 to .3.
        And that's why I say that the clean engine should
     be defined as anything less than .3 gram per bhp hour
     sulfur.  I'll make a generic statement:  the lower the
     sulfur, the lower the DPM emissions.  Once again --
     remember, too much of a good thing can be bad.  Lower the
     sulfur, when you go to almost no sulfur, like less than five
     parts per minute, you lose the lubricity in the fuel.  Your
     engine life maybe significantly curtailed.
        We don't have any good data from WVU right now. 
     And Chris, I might as well tell you, they're asking for some
     more money, so we can continue with the work.  That's
     between you and Rick Glover.  But, I'm sure it will
     influence you to have the -- we should be able to continue
     with this work.  The limit really is that this FT or by-
     diesel that's almost free of sulfur, they are very
     expensive.  But, we don't have good data yet on them, as to
     how much good they really do.  Engine manufacturers, they
     ought to tell us what impact that low sulfur is going to
     have on the valves and the life of the engine itself. 
     Incidently, this fuel, with five parts per million sulfur or
     less, down to .4, is available at around four times the cost
     of the diesel that you have today.
        Okay.  This is really my trump card, oxidation
     catalyst, you know.  We believe -- we, the Commissioners of
     West Virginia for diesel equipment, believe that it should
     be an integral part of all coal mine diesel engines. 
     Because what it does -- look at the benefits that you derive
     out of it.  People talk about 95 percent collection of DPM. 
     DPM is not going to kill you today or tomorrow.  But, this
     stuff here, it will kill you in a minute.  Why not control
     that, too?  We intend to.
        A well-designed oxidation catalyst will do 80 to
     95 percent CO reduction; hydrocarbons, which make your eyes
     water and throat choke, 85 to 90 percent; even diesel
     particulate matter, 25 to 35 percent.  This is for -- Mr.
     Chairman and the panel -- this is for the existing
     equipment.  An amount of 14 manufacturers have oxidation
     catalysts right now.  We have tried only three of them.  And
     they, themselves, had met on a scale of one to 10, they are
     somewhat around six and seven.  The position varies
     depending on whom you ask.
        So, there is a scope for improvement.  Next week,
     I have a meeting with Johnson, Mathey, and Deguesse.  They
     claim they can reduce 50 parts per million -- older control,
     very good.  There is hardly any drop -- pressure drop across
     it.  Because you put something at the end of the tailpipe
     and you have a lot of pressure drop, again, it becomes
     counterproductive.  Sure, you can get 95 percent with
     something that would choke the engine to death.  That's,
     again, counterproductive.  That's not the right thing to do,
     because it becomes counterproductive.
        This thing does not have any pressure drop, so
     there is no fuel penalty.  There is no excessive emission of
     CO or particulate matter.  The liability?  Very good. 
     Durability?  Over 5,000 hours.  How do I know it?  Because,
     we have been using it for 14 years and we know it, in the
     State of Virginia.
        Let me give you a brief outline of certain
     filters, what they talk about.  And you heard about all
     kinds of filtration systems, you know.  There are two kinds,
     basically:  high temperature and low temperature.  In high
     temperature, there are some paper, except they are not like
     paper.  They're made of bolsilitate or quartz.  They are not
     available commercially.
        The longest history we have, again going over the
     four continents, you know -- Australia, Europe, Asia, and
     North America -- you have ceramic filters.  Hundreds and
     thousands of them are in use today, as I speak to you, and
     their performance history is very well known and I'll share
     that with you.  The one problem that this filter system is,
     it's made of stuff called cardioright.  It's ceramic.  It's
     not really hardy.  It can't take very high thermal distress. 
     We're trying to develop something based on silicone carbide,
     they're doing it in New York, and that will be perhaps the
     ideal answer.
        Low temperature filter, you get the exhaust, cool
     it, and go through ordinary cellulose paper, which you can
     buy for $80, $250.  If you're a partner with the
     manufacturer -- probably, John, you can get for $80 -- go to
     another partner, they claim a cost of $140.  Well, that's
     the nature of the world, you know.
        Comparing them -- now, by comparing them, I'm not
     trying to slide one system over the other.  I think, just
     like Chris said earlier, that people should have total
     choice to achieve the goal.  But, I just want to point out
     the good things and bad things, whatever you call them now. 
     It's paper filter, cellulose paper, you need a heat
     extender.  It's big, bulky, and very expensive.  Almost 20
     grand per cost is a heat extender.  You don't need a ceramic
     -- I mean, a heat exchanger for a ceramic filter.  Cost: 
     somebody said if you go from like say small engines, like 30
     horse to 150 horse, this is the cost of the equipment. 
     Installation will be extra.
        Ceramic, $35,000.  Size is very large.  Large
     equipment can afford to have this system.  There are two
     manufacturers right now, DSD and -- what's the other one,
     John Smith -- Flame Tip.  Jeffrey is marketing it in this
     country.  Ceramics are small and compact; typically, about
     six to 12-inch in diameter, six to twelve inch in length.
        Maintenance, people claim 70 hours life.  It all
     depends on the duty cycle.  I've seen some people change
     them in eight hours.  Ceramics typically last 2,000 hours. 
     Again, these are average numbers.  There could be some lower
     and there could be some higher.
        Collection efficiency, based on what I know, it
     could be variable, depending on which stage of the paper you
     check:  brand new filter, put it in, like after 33 or 60
     hours, operating at MWM.  Efficiencies go up to 70 percent. 
     Paper plugs up in 10-12 hours; it then goes up.  You want to
     get 95 percent, I can tell you how.  Plug it for 16 hours,
     so you'll get 95 percent.  But is that the way to work?  No.
        Here, it's constant, 70 to 90 percent.  The
     important thing to note here is that there are some systems
     that give only 68 percent like you said.  There are systems,
     you heard only give 90 percent.  The vast majority of them
     are in the range of 75 to 80 percent, and that's what I
     probably claim as the average deficiency for ceramic system. 
     When we design something, we design on that basis, not on
     either extreme.
        Okay.  Ventilation we have to have in mines, for a
     variety of other reasons, other than diesel, such as
     methane.  I don't have to tell you what it does, if you
     don't have enough air.  You all know it already.
        I've got some numbers.  I have been rightfully
     accused that I only deal with the large mines, you know. 
     But, these are some average numbers, fellows, which came
     from a variety of sources, you know.  The three that I'm
     going to consider, I'm going to walk you through with the
     typical combination of engines.  So, what we can achieve
     with the air we have, with the engine we have, with the
     control technology that we have, which we can run
     systematically without worry.  What we can really achieve
     and what exactly .5 in the lab means for the guy in the mine
     who is breathing it, you know.  So, that's the whole intent
     of my paper.
        Just remember these numbers.  In the mines, I
     believe a well ventilated mine can have 95 in air.  In the
     section -- at the section mouth, you can have 40,000.  There
     are sections with more than 100,000.  On an average, that's
     what you got.  And in-by, you have about 20,000.  And if
     these numbers appear too high, you can accuse me of being a
     little spoiled working for large mines, you know.  You can
     do it, too, and I'm guilty.  But, you can modify the
     numbers.  This is just a number.
        After doing a lot of forward and backward
     calculations, we felt, the industry Commissioners, that
     taking all the mines in the State of West Virginia, large
     and small, we believe that we can do in the lab 0.5
     milligram cubic meter.  That was as configured, the engine
     worked eight hours and the specified amount of airway grown
     on it, it cannot create more than .5 milligram per cubic
     meter of DPM concentration.
        What do we need to do?  Okay.  It's a very
     interrelated thing, you know, and lots of variations are
     possible.  And if you can show me something better than
     this, then I'll immediately pack myself.  But, this is what
     you can do.  In my observation, a catalyst and a catalyzer,
     all heavy-duty equipment out-by -- I'm sorry, it's defined a
     little differently -- but basic criterion here is that when
     you install this thing, it should be able to regenerate. 
     The temperatures should be high enough -- all diesel
     engines, small and big ones, if they had to do the cycle,
     can develop a very high temperature and work successfully. 
     But, in general, in the mine, things above 60, it would
     probably be able to regenerate with some degree of
     confidence, you know.  I mean, you may have situations there
     when it would not regenerate, and it creates a problem. 
     But, we put a limit there, that anything above 60, except on
     cars and locomotive, they'll be able to regenerate.  We will
     provide an oxidation catalyst, simply because we don't want
     to have that CO and other stuff floating in the air there.
        So, if you accept this premise, I'm going to walk
     you through and show you a number of combination of engines
     -- oh, one more thing now.  This came straight out of my
     Ph.D. thesis -- I have done this a long time back --
     800:75:50 rule adequate, you know, and I'll discuss with you
     is more than adequate, you know.  So, we propose 100:75:50
     rule, which means first engine in similar equipment, 100
     percent air, West Virginia name plate, which typically is
     going to be higher than inside.  The inside, I will accept
     that.  The second engine, 75 percent of that.  The third
     engine and fourth, so on, 50 percent of the air.
        Now, I have purposely digressed a little bit from
     West Virginia producing state, just to see if we provide the
     mixed amount of air -- I mean, that might not be rational. 
     What is it we can achieve?  And that's why I'm slightly on
     the high side on ventilation and you'll have to kind of
     forgive me for that, you know.  And we applied the model
     everywhere.  In-by and out-by, I believe we should have
     100:75:50 rule, whatever we have, as long as it's working.
        Let's talk about the typical situation.  In the
     large mine, you have two locomotives at the shaft bottom,
     six portal busses, and two jeeps.  They have a requirement
     for .5 milligrams, works out to 68,000 CFM.  If you have
     that much air and the engine starts working eight hours that
     shift, you cannot have it create more than .5 milligram.
        And a different calculation --
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Excuse me, can you wrap up in
     about five minutes, Dr. Thakur?
        DR. THAKUR:  Okay.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Otherwise, we can take it up for
     the end.
        DR. THAKUR:  Alright.  This other calculation --
     let's skip it, let's go to the next one.
        One locomotive, one portal bus, two jeeps, 33,000,
     again, well within the 45 in there we had.
        Next one, please.  Let's just skip the next one.
        Two separate parts working there, typically about
     94 to 100 horse, about 14,500 in air.  You have that there.
        Next one, please.  Calculation -- let's just skip
     it.
        Alright.  I said, the question people ask me:  If
     we have an instant figure of .5 milligram in the lab, going
     to Bob Dubreck's question, what is it that the guys inherit
     in the mines?  I wish we had an instrument that can just
     pull in the air and say that this is the DPM, you know.  We
     don't have that.  There are indirect ways to calculate it,
     you know, or estimate it -- more like estimate, you know. 
     Look at the cycle.  Portal buses and jeeps, the vast
     majority of equipment in the mines, somebody said about two-
     thirds, they work only about two hours.  In fact, they have
     been consolidated about 67 minutes per shift.  You don't
     have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the engine can
     create .5 milligram in eight hours work and if it works only
     two hours, it's definitely less than .5.
        Next one, please.  The second safety factor is
     this -- this was proposed a long time back, 30 years back,
     by a guy named Holtz and Bob Dolgen, two well-recognized
     ventilation experts.  You may think that engines stays,
     they'll say, and air is blown on it.  That's not the case. 
     An engine is moving all the time.  If the head is moving at
     200 feet per minute, and the engine is moving at 800 feet
     per minute, the actual ventilation there -- effective
     ventilation is 1,000 feet -- 1,000 feet per minute times the
     cross-section.  And if the cross-section is 100, that's
     100,000 air.  If they're moving in the same direction, then
     it's 800 minus 200, it's about 60,000 air, you know.  This
     is how exactly they drafted the -- this is signed.  This is
     a fact, you know.  But for -- what you call for approving
     the deal, they never used this equation developed by Holtz
     and Dolgen and verified by me in my thesis.
        Next one, please.  You've got the third 50 factor. 
     Remember, I talked about multiple engine working in the same
     respect.  I have my thesis here, anybody can borrow a copy
     and see it from Penn State.  Actually, on quantity, you
     need, first one 800 percent; second one, 130; 106 for the
     third one.  Look at the extra air we have provided.  What
     did that do?  It lowers that .5 to something lower than .5.
        Next one, please.  The last, and not the least,
     is, you might have seen it in your own home, whenever you
     have a hot shirt coming out from somewhere and you've got
     cold surfaces, it gets deposited.  What I'm trying to say,
     diesel exhaust, DPM, in particular, do not stay in the air
     forever.  They get deposited on the sides of the airway and
     when any other object comes into contact.
        The net result, fellows -- next one, please; I'm
     almost done, Tom.  The conclusion is that based on the
     state-of-the-art technology for DPM control and existing
     ventilation rates we can achieve in our mines in West
     Virginia, achievable DPM level, in ISO eight-mode test in
     the lab, is .5 milligrams.  The factors I discussed with
     you, they indicate that the actual DPM concentration will be
     much less than .5.  And the built-in safety factors
     compensate for aiding the engines.  It is a fact that as the
     engines get old, that emissions get worse.  Of course, we're
     going to be checking it; good maintenance can avoid it. 
     But, the built-in safety factors take care of it.
        The next slide, please.  In concluding my topic,
     if I -- if I did not highlight certain areas where I think
     improvements are possible, and I would encourage and solicit
     help from each and everyone who can make these things
     better, because that will make our mines safe.  That will
     make our workers healthier, make engines cleaner.
        With a small market, Mr. Chairman, and we cannot
     go and demand from TAC or companies that make engines that
     can give me, say, .2 or .1 range, rather than .3, but if we
     open the market, open the gate, and begin to install these
     engines and we immediately save three or four thousand in
     the community of mining people, we may be able to demand and
     get cleaner engines, you know.
        I will say the number two point, develop fuels
     with good lubricity and low sulfur.  Third, the ceramic
     systems, as I said, you know, if you demand that CO be
     reduced to 100 parts per million, they will have to use very
     high amount of platinum, the equipment becomes
     counterproductive.  So, let's have a balance there and make
     the body of the system strong, so it won't be cracked in its
     use.
        And the last recommendation I have, that if you
     insist on using low-temperature paper filter, think about
     air cooling.  Mine air is quite cold, compared to diesel
     exhaust.  And you can use that mine air to cut down the
     size.  I don't know for sure, but I think you can cut down
     the cost.
        So, this is basically my proposal and I'll be glad
     to answer any questions that you may have, to the best of my
     capacity.  If not, my fellow Commissioners will help.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  Thank you, Dr. Thakur. 
     Why don't we start with George.
        MR. SASEEN:  Chris?
        MR. HAMILTON:  Yes.
        MR. SASEEN:  You mentioned that WVU tested 27
     engine filter combinations.  Was a larger scrubber with a
     pleated paper medium system tested?
        MR. HAMILTON:  Not that I'm aware of, no.
        MR. SASEEN:  Is there any plans by the West
     Virginia Commission to look at that type of system, since,
     you know, a lot of the permissible systems in use in the
     United States, you know, is a large scrubber-based system,
     at this time?
        MR. HAMILTON:  It's been discussed.  There are no
     concrete plans that are before us to have that tested.
        MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
        MR. HAMILTON:  It's envisioned that the Commission
     is going to have some perpetuity with this.  We're going to
     -- we are charged, once we have an initial set of rules in
     place, to continuously work to raise the bar, as new and new
     technologies and innovations are developed and some of the
     older technologies are refined and improved.  You know, the
     $150,000 grant, there was some in-kind contribution,
     probably raise that in the neighborhood of a quarter of a
     million dollars.  You know, we wanted to take those
     technologies that have been available for some time, that
     are in use around the country, as well as some of the ones
     that were on the drawing board, and get those tested and
     factor those into our initial standard setting process.
        MR. SASEEN:  Thank you.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  You done, George?
        MR. SASEEN:  Yes.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Ron?
        MR. FORD:  Yes.  Mr. Thakur, in one of your
     slides, you showed a $30,000-45,000 figure for the paper
     filter.  Is that the DST dry system?
        DR. THAKUR:  A similar dry system based on heat
     exchange and cooling, and that's an approximate price.  I'm
     not a manufacturer.
        MR. FORD:  And that price is the purchase plus
     installation?
        DR. THAKUR:  No.  As I said, that's the cost of
     the equipment.  Installation would be extra.
        MR. FORD:  Okay.  But, I thought that in Salt Lake
     City, where we had the first hearing which you attended,
     that I asked about their DST system, and they said it costs
     $36,500, and they said that was purchase and installation.
        DR. THAKUR:  You also recall that was for a 94
     horse engine.  And the speaker later made a comment, the
     bigger the size, the higher the cost, you know.
        MR. FORD:  Okay.  So, what size horse power are we
     looking for just the purchase price in your slide of
     $30,000-45,000?
        DR. THAKUR:  Ron, it's not fair to pinpoint that
     question on me.  I don't manufacture these things.  I only
     buy them.
        MR. HAMILTON:  I can add that there is a West
     Virginia equipment manufacturer that has a dry scrubber type
     system that's incorporated, Ron.  I'm not sure it's in
     operation.  But, they have used the figure of $61,000 for
     the cost and installation of that device.
        MR. FORD:  Thank you.
        MR. HANEY:  Dr. Thakur, in your slide for
     oxidation catalytic converter, you showed a 25 to 35 percent
     reduction in DPM, and that's consistent with the values I've
     seen for oxidation catalytic converters operated over 250
     degrees centigrade.  Do you have any information or data on
     the performance of the oxidation catalytic converters at
     temperatures below 250 degrees, where your light-duty
     equipment would normally be operated?
        DR. THAKUR:  No.
        MS. WESDOCK:  Will you be able to submit copies of
     your slide for the record, as well as copies of your
     testimony?
        DR. THAKUR:  Yes.
        MS. WESDOCK:  Thank you.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Dr. Thakur, could you also
     include a copy of your thesis, if you -- that was part of
     that, also?
        DR. THAKUR:  You'll have to pay for that.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  We're not done, yet. 
     Okay, Jon?
        MR. KOGUT:  In the filtration efficiency testing
     that was done at West Virginia University, did you make
     comparative measurements with and without the filter of the
     diesel particulate size distributions and/or the numbers of
     particles --
        DR. THAKUR:  Jon, say it again.  I'm sorry, I
     missed your question.
        MR. KOGUT:  In the testing that was done at West
     Virginia University, did you take measurements --
     comparative measurements of the size distribution of the
     diesel particulate with and without the filters and/or
     measurements of the numbers of particles -- number of diesel
     particles?
        DR. THAKUR:  It was not the intent of the
     Commission to measure the size distribution.  Our only
     concern was on a mass basis, the total exhaust system, what
     efficiency we can get.  Now, you will have to ask the
     University if they have any data.  In fact, Dan Carter is
     here and he can answer that question.
        MR. KOGUT:  So, you're saying that they may have
     made such measurements, although that wasn't the primary
     purpose of the study?
        DR. THAKUR:  It was not the primary purpose of our
     study, right Chris?
        MR. HAMILTON:  That is correct.
        MR. KOGUT:  But there may have been some
     measurements?
        MR. HAMILTON:  Could have been, yes.
        MR. KOGUT:  And one other question to Dr. Thakur. 
     You -- I think before you put the slides up, you mentioned
     the 500 level and you implied that that would be a safe
     level, 500 milligrams per cubic meter, that that would be a
     safe level.
        DR. THAKUR:  No, no, no.  I have no idea what is
     safe.  I am a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  What I
     said, whatever we don't have, it's common in the industry
     that when you cannot come up with a medical standard to say
     about the health of workers, it is proper and fair to take a
     technical approach.  And generally, as you know, there are
     two kinds of standards:  MAK and TAK -- correct me, I don't
     know what you call it.  What I talked about is what is
     technologically achievable.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  I guess I have a question on
     that, then.  Are you saying that you think that the lowest
     level that can be technologically achievable is 500 or .5
     milligrams per cubic meter?
        DR. THAKUR:  In the lab.  And I tried very hard to
     explain that the ambient air concentration because of the
     four safety factors would be less.  I wish there was a way
     to measure it and tell you exactly how much less it's going
     to be.  The only thing you can factor in is the duty cycle. 
     If it works only half the time, it's going to be .25.  If
     it's going to work less than that, then it's going to be
     less than .25.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  But, if you make -- if you make
     an assumption that there are no safety factors in that
     level, that's the level that would then be achieved at the
     mine, correct?
        DR. THAKUR:  I'm saying that's a straightforward
     calculation.  The engine works eight hours, if configured
     with the amount of ventilation we provide in the West
     Virginia State.  It cannot create more than .5.  Now, I use
     that engine only for half the time.  So, it automatically
     comes down.  The duty cycle is a very big denomination to
     cut down the lab value to a lower value for ambient
     concentration.  And then other things were there, the effect
     of ventilation is one of them, deposition of particles, the
     third one, and excess air built-in, the 100:75:50, I would
     say it's going to be much lower.  But, I wish I could tell
     you exactly how much lower.  I don't know.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.
        MR. SASEEN:  The .5 that your -- that the
     Commission comes forth, is that based on the lab -- the ISO
     eight-point test?
        DR. THAKUR:  Yes.
        MR. SASEEN:  Have you considered any other test
     cycles?
        DR. THAKUR:  Well, I haven't.  I have asked engine
     manufacturers to suggest if there's a better way to
     replicate the mining duty.  So far, George, nobody has come
     up with anything better than I have, so we ignored them. 
     There are some questions about mode one, as you know very
     well.  But, I am not competent to answer that question.
        MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay, thank you, very much.  I
     think, at this time, we ought to take a lunch break and be
     back here at 1:00.
        MR. WILLIS:  One of the problems is that, and I
     bring it up, and I don't mean to antagonize the Committee,
     and I have all respect for -- worked closely with him for
     almost 30 years, but as the speakers have been speaking, we,
     understanding they were going 30 minutes at a time, and now
     it's going two hours one group and half an hour for the
     other group, but so be it, I'll go ahead and proceed.
        MR. TOMB:  Mr. Willis, could you give your name,
     spell your name, and who you represent.
        MR. WILLIS:  Yes, I will.  My name is William, W-
     I-L-L-I-A-M, Bolts, B-O-L-T-S, Willis, W-I-L-L-I-S.  And I'm
     currently employed by Counten Industries/AEI, whoever they
     are.  I am a safety committeeman, representing Local Union
     8843.  We have two underground mines operating currently. 
     One was, one's a section working mine, the other one's a
     four section working mine.  We have 900 members in our local
     union, that includes retirees.  Prior to the job I'm
     presently holding, I worked for the State of West Virginia
     for eight years as the Assistant Commissioner of Energy, and
     also as an Administrator of Mine Rescue and Training.  Prior
     to that, I worked for the International Union of United Mine
     Workers of America for a little over nine years as a safety
     inspector, and also an international representative.
        Through these experiences, I will share some of my
     personal experiences with diesel equipment, and also with
     agencies, as well as mine management dealing with safety
     issues.  As a brother's spoken briefly before about
     violations that have been written at his mine, currently at
     our mines, our two mines, we've had 416 violations written
     year to date.  I've brought a few of those with me today. 
     Here they are, year to date.  Of course, we know inspectors
     are not at the mine every day, and that number would be who
     knows what if they were there every day.  It's my
     understanding that they spend approximately on inspection
     two hours a day at the mine.  Average.
        On my travels as a safety inspector for the United
     Mine Workers of America, I've been in mines that have diesel
     equipment.  And one thing that, as miners, we know, that
     when we're exposed to dust hazards, noise hazards or diesel
     hazards, we are the first to know.  And it was apparent to
     me, the first diesel mine that I went it, it was in the
     western part of the United States, once getting around that
     diesel equipment I immediately starting getting a headache. 
     And through those headaches, I didn't need a carbon monoxide
     detector.  In knew that there was some problem there.  After
     discussing that with some of the miners, they said their
     heads weren't hurting.  And I think it gets back to the
     simple situation, and I hate to offend my brother, Ms.
     Knuckles that smokes, but that also makes my head hurt.  So
     I know that the carbon monoxide that's coming from that is
     killing me slowly.  My dad died of black lung, added with
     that he smoked cigarettes, and died of cancer.  So I know
     what's taking place.
        With all the testimony that's been given today,
     I'll give you one example of a mine that we went in in New
     Mexico.  I was the lead person for the UMW at that time.  We
     had an administrative law judge with us.  We were looking
     into the two entry system, and through that they had diesel
     equipment in that mine.  On the belt lines, of course, you
     know that the monitoring system has to be changed, and the
     CO detectors have to placed where, from your ambient level
     of exposure to your miners, there are levels that are high,
     and high high.  As most of you will know on the panel, and
     many of you here in the audience today, once that high high
     alarm is met, then there's procedures that you would go by
     to remove people from the mine.
        On that day when we were in the mine, this is
     documented, and I'm sure Mr. Duncan can get you those
     records, 58 times those alarms went off while we had the
     judge in the mines.  Fifty-eight times.  Not one time were
     we notified that those high high alarms went off.  Fifty-
     eight times.  Each of those instances were recorded and
     documented by the company's records.  And are in the records
     at headquarters in Washington, DC of the UMWA.  
        As we look at those cases, and as we look at the
     scrubbers not being maintained properly, everything that the
     good doctor spoke of just a minute ago, and I'm not downing
     him in any way for his statistics.  All those statistics
     that he was giving, as I see as a rank and file miner, was
     when things are perfect.  We know violations are written
     every day, every single day, on scrubbers not working
     properly.  On people being exposed to dust.  Ventilation
     systems not being kept up.  So what we're asking, as rank
     and file miners, is that you go to the most stringent thing,
     the most stringent way of filtering the system.  Yes, it's
     what's in my lungs, that's what it comes down to, is what I
     am exposed to.  And however that may occur, we don't care. 
     As long as it does occur.  And its maintained properly.  
        But through history, and I'll add this one thing
     as a caveat to my opening experience, I'm an adjunct
     instructor at West Virginia University Institute of
     Technology on labor and management relations.  I've been
     teaching it the past four years.  And as we look at these
     things in my mine rescue background, that what takes place,
     there's a cause and effect for all of these things.  To
     bring diesel into the mines, and that's why the mine workers
     have fought it.  We're not fighting diesel in itself.  You
     know, if you just take diesel and spill it, you just cut it
     in half and the first part of us die.  We don't want to die. 
     And that's the reason we're here today.  We don't want to
     die from these fumes that we know we'll be exposed to.  That
     we know it's not going to be kept up.  That we know, and I'm
     not saying this to the gentlemen to keep asking how much
     does this cost, how much does this cost.  And I guess
     everyone on the panel works for MSHA.  We don't care how
     much it costs.  And I don't think MSHA should, either.  And
     if takes whatever amount of money, X amount of dollars to
     protect us, the rank and file miners, that what it costs. 
     And number, and it sort of upsets me to hear that, someone
     from MSHA asking how much does it cost.  I don't know the
     purpose in that, and I may be way off base and I apologize
     if I am, if there's a reason besides protecting miners.  If
     that's the reason, so be it.  Ask how much it costs.  It
     doesn't make any different to me, as long as we're
     protected.
        There's emissions for cars in California that
     everybody else doesn't have in West Virginia and across the
     United States.  Maybe the Californians are a lot smarter
     than we are.  Maybe we're dying a slow death that way, also. 
     But through with the dust and noise and now diesel, and in
     West Virginia, yes, we have fought it.  And I've been on the
     Coal Mine Board of Health and Safety when we've discussed
     these issues, appointed by three different governors for the
     State of West Virginia, and discussion these issues.  When I
     left the Board, Rick Glover replaced me on the Board.  I
     worked with Chris Hamilton many years as far as working on
     health and safety issues.  We need to continue to work on
     those issues, and the hearing like this today.
        And one point about this hearing today. 
     Notification.  Our Local Union did not receive any
     notification from MSHA about these hearings today.  We got
     notification from Rick Glover.  Now, that's fine to say Rick
     Glover's my representative.  Rick Glover is one of my best
     friends.  Rick Glover has a lot of jobs to do.  I shouldn't
     be dependent on Rick Glover and find out about these
     hearings three days ago, and then having to work to 2:00
     a.m. in the morning and then come up here and be required to
     work tonight.  That's unfair to the rank and file miners. 
     That's probably the reason you don't have more rank and file
     miners here than you have, because they weren't notified. 
     And you truly can't blame that on the International, or the
     Districts.  We should be getting notified ourselves.  I'm
     sure you've notified every coal company that there was a
     hearing here today.  Our Local Union wasn't notified.  And
     that upsets me.  That bothers me.
        I think another thing that we need, we have a part
     90 for health, for exposure to dust.  We needed a part 91. 
     I'll just use part 91 as a reference.  We don't need to wait
     until we have a body, someone a good doctor like this has
     found that they've been exposed to diesel fumes, and now we
     have a body.  We need some regulations now.  We need a part
     91.  After we find someone dead, yeah, we'll have a part 91
     then.  We need it now.  People have been exposed all across
     the United States to diesel fumes for years and year and
     years.  But West Virginia's fought it.  And I'm proud of
     them.  And I'm proud to be in West Virginia fighting those. 
     If it's right, if it doesn't, the exposure's not there, we
     don't have a problem with it.  But we need to do something
     about it.
        The health issues as Jim Weeks, and Jim Weeks is a
     colleague of mine and has been for several years.  Jim, I
     know has worked many hours, and Dr. Kerr before him, working
     on as far as the health and safety concerns of the miners. 
     And I commend them for their work.  But as we look at this,
     and as I'm winding down my presentation, which is brief in
     length, and also in writing, and also I'll make comments
     later on because notification just wasn't here, as far as
     the Local Unions are concerned, and especially for me as a
     rank and file miner.  Now, at other times, yes.  When I
     worked with International I had plenty of time to work on a
     presentation.  Yes, as an official for the State of West
     Virginia, I had time to do it and I could request that the
     people working under me or through someone else that worked
     for me, would have time for a presentation and research and
     so forth.  But if it's 95 percentile that we need, or
     whatever it may be, and cost is certainly not the concerning
     factor on this rank and file miner.  Today with me, we have
     the president of our Local, which is not an underground
     miner.  But he's concerned enough to be here, that we're
     protected.  And also to say to committeeman Bob Van Meter
     here, and Ms. Knuckles here with us, Jim Mill's president of
     the Local.  
      Just last week we were called to the Mine Safety
     Committee because of ventilation problems.  We went to the
     mine, we made an inspection, and we found the ventilation
     problems.  We called MSHA in.  MSHA wrote a violation.  I'll
     give you another instance.  I ought to, let me add a little
     bit to that one.  When we got to the section, the dust, the
     scrubber had not been cleaned on the day shift.  Well, whose
     fault is that?  You call it the miner's fault.  Whose fault
     is it?  It comes back to mine management.  And we did
     chastise the miners for not cleaning the scrubber system. 
     If we do have diesel, there should be a cutoff just like on
     a methane monitor.  When those exposure limits, or how much
     particulates are coming out of that system, that machine
     should shut down, shut itself down.  Don't leave it on the
     poor miner, where's he's got to blister all, and worry about
     after having a 105C complaint and maybe getting his job back
     six months from now.  Or maybe not getting it at all.  No,
     that's not what we want.  We want something there that will
     shut the machine down and stop it before it gets to that
     point.  Don't leave it on the poor rank and file miner to
     say, hey, I may be sold out tomorrow.  My job's in jeopardy. 
     Yeah, I can do this and I can do that.  Rank and file miners
     won't do it, and they're not doing it now.
        In the month of October, we were called to the
     small mine that I mentioned to you.  We went there on a
     safety inspection.  We were making the inspection, no
     ventilation.  And the good doctor, he showed some
     ventilation, how much ventilation's on a section.  If we can
     find that ventilation in our mines, we'd be blessed to have
     that.  We don't have that.  And that would be that much more
     exposure than we have.  But what we found on this
     inspection, we found that the operation running roof bolt
     machine with very little or no air.  Wouldn't even turn an
     anemometer working in the place.  We asked mine management
     to shut the piece of equipment down and get air in the
     place.  No response.  No response whatsoever, until they
     finished on the bolding cycle.  We filed and complaint on
     that, and yes MSHA came in.  And I'm proud of MSHA.  My
     brother's an MSHA inspector.  They came in, they wrote a
     violation up on what we found.  And then, when we started
     researching what had happened, the miners said, well, they
     don't bold on cycles.  So why should we hang curtain and put
     that much more dust on us?  And that's going to be the same
     thing as diesel.  It's going to be the very same thing.  If
     we don't have the control, just like on the continuous
     miner, where that piece of equipment was shut down, it won't
     happen.  History shows it.  Violation shows it.  One brother
     that spoke earlier, 500 violations a year.  And if MSHA was
     in there more than what they are, it would be 5,000
     violations a year. 
        So, I think it behooves us all to do something
     different.  And yes, we do need more education for our
     miners.  Yes, we do need more education for the agencies
     working with the miners, and especially the rank and file. 
     I've been on both ends, so I know.  And I'm proud to be
     here, the rank and file miner today.  I thank you for the
     opportunity to speak today.  And Rick, I thank you for
     telling us about this hearing.  Three days.  And that's a
     big notice for Rick, because I know Rick's work schedule. 
     Because I used to have that same job he has.  But we sure
     wasn't given notification.  If that's notification to the
     rank and file, we need to do something about it.  Any
     questions?
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Willis.
        MR. WILLIS:  Have you got something?  I'm ready.
        MR. TOMB:  OK.  Thank you very much.  Are you
     going to submit a copy?
        MR. WILLIS:  I'll submit a copy, sir, yes.
        MR. TOMB:  OK.  Thank you.
        MR. WILLIS:  Just give me time, I didn't know
     about the meeting.
        MR. TOMB:  OK, yeah.
        MR. WILLIS:  Thank you.
        MR. TOMB:  OK.  Now we'll take our lunch break,
     and why don't we try to be back here at five after 1:00.
        (Whereupon, the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
     at 1:00 p.m. this same day, Thursday, November 19, 1998.)
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //             A F T E R N O O N  S E S S I O N
                                                 1:10 p.m.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  The person to make the next
     presentation will be Larry Steinhoff.
        MR. STEINHOFF:  Hello.  May name is Larry
     Steinhoff, S-t-e-I-n-h-o-f-f.  I'm the chairman of the
     Safety Commission, also vice president of Local 2258, and we
     have a mine in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania.
        There's a couple of things:  right now, I'm a mine
     examiner, with 25 years experience, 20 of which are to
     dealing with mines.  I have also been a member of the Mine
     Rescue Team and also the Fire Team.
        We had a safety grievance filed May of this year
     on operating a diesel locomotive in an area that didn't run
     out of the air velocity.  From the grievance settlement came
     a survey to mine ventilation, which I performed myself, and
     I'll leave this with the Committee.  We've had numerous
     ventilation violations to MSHA.  And as a mine examiner, I
     see this everyday, every shift:  walls leaking, doors left
     open, that the face is not being ventilated.
        We have a concern with the added risk and the
     hazards involved with diesel.  We know that technology is
     moving ahead.  But, this is a hazard that you can't see what
     happens from the diesel fumes.  You can absorb it.  You can
     only smell it, either by instruments used to test it.
        We had a lot of problems with other elements
     coming into the mines, resin, polyurethane glue, oils, now
     diesel fuel.  It's my opinion that ventilation alone will
     not dilute the diesel particulates.
        Daily, when I come out of the mine from my
     examinations, I enter into the record books any hazards that
     I find.  The training that our mine was supposed to have for
     the diesel, I am a mine examiner and also chairman of the
     Safety Committee, I've never received that training, as a
     lot of people have not.
        The law has been effect for almost 30 years and
     for some reason management can't comply with these laws, and
     I'm afraid of what's going to happen down the road with
     implementation of new laws.
        We had a situation in our mine several weeks ago. 
     The motor that operated the diesel, had left it idled in a
     long lost section almost an hour.  The whole crew had to
     smell the fumes off this diesel.  Now, our motors, we were
     the first ones that took advantage to have the diesel motor. 
     Ours is only a year old and already we're having problems
     with it.
        We want the best the technology has to offer for
     our brothers and sisters.  We don't sit in offices; we work
     underground.  We work in this environment everyday.  We work
     eight, ten, twelve hour shifts, six days a week.  Multiply
     it times 20, 30, 40 years, that's the time we spend
     underground.
        Our concern is real and we do not wish to be used
     as guinea pigs for companies to make more profit or expense.
     When it comes to people's lives, the cost of filters should
     not even be a consideration.  And also, we have on order, it
     should be arriving within any day, two more diesel motors,
     one for our mine and one for the Cumberland mine in
     Waynesburg.
        And that's basically all I have.  And the copies
     of citations and safety grievance, I'll leave with you.  Do
     you have any questions?
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you, very much, Mr.
     Steinhoff.  Okay, thank you.  You got off easy.
        Our next presentation will be made by Mr. Bobby
     Little.
        MR. LITTLE:  My name is Bobby Little, L-I-t-t-l-e. 
     I'm not a public speaker.  I just have some concerns here of
     my own.
        My local presently has about 200 ventilation
     violations right here, in the last two years at our mine
     site, Maribone Development.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  What mine was that, please?
        MR. LITTLE:  Maribone Development, southern West
     Virginia.  We don't have diesel right now.  West Virginia
     doesn't.  As you know, in January, they're talking about
     one.
        I think one of the big factors that this Board is
     looking at, and I think most of the union people in here see
     that, is its feasibility.  I've got two grand -- I mean,
     I've got two dollars, and each one of them remembered our
     grandpas.  Both our grandpas died of lung cancer.  You tell
     me feasibility, what it means to me:  my dad and my father-
     in-law.  You tell me feasibility, what it would cost me now
     to let my -- to have -- for them to share their
     grandchildren's life or their children's life.  My dad died,
     I was pretty fortunate, I was 20 years old.  I had younger
     brothers and sisters that wasn't so fortunate, 12 years old.
        Lung cancer is a personal matter.  These operators
     and this big industry is here telling you, you've got to
     rule on the benefit for them.  You need to think about the
     working people, because we're the ones -- we're the ones
     that are going to die with lung cancer.
        When they asked me to speak -- you know, we come
     as a group -- and I did a little research on the Internet
     about diesel particulate matter and carcinogens and things
     like that.  And they said, Bobby would be best to speak. 
     But, you know, I can't tell you nothing that these engineers
     haven't already told you that you don't already know.
        I can give you some memories.  All I have is some
     memories of my father dying, trying to eat baby food,
     because he had cancer; my father-in-law dying; and the pain
     my brothers and sisters went through and I went through. 
     That's the personal side of this that, I think, everybody is
     overlooking.
        And I think you're looking at, well, is it going
     to be cost effective.  You know, what's cost effective to me
     right now?  What would you give to see your grandchildren? 
     Would you put risk of lung cancer?  I want to ask you not to
     judge me by the color of my lungs.  I don't think it's fair
     that you can judge me by the color of my lungs.
        I think you need to look at each individual and
     what is best.  I think it's your obligation to do that.  I
     think it's your obligation, whoever set this panel up or
     however how this works -- I don't know -- I don't know all
     the details of this.  But, I think you're obligated to the
     workers, the people that you're going to put up there, to do
     the safest possible way.
        It may be -- I heard someone say it may be
     recessive.  Well, maybe we didn't need the diesel 25 years
     too early -- 25 years ago.  It's not the best engine, but
     maybe we don't need it.  Maybe it's not safe.  Why do you
     put your miners at risk?  Why do you put yourself at risk?
        This is a federal building.  Can anyone smoke
     here?  I don't think so.  Why?  Secondhand smoke.  You go
     outside and take a break.  Secondhand smoke, it does have
     it, if you smoke a small cigarette.  So, what's the
     difference in a big engine and a small engine throwing off
     the fumes off on you?  It don't say if you have a filter in
     a cigarette or if you have a smokeless cigarette.
        You know, there's -- I think there's a double
     standard that we're trying to push here and I think industry
     is pushing it.  I think that we're doing an injustice to the
     miners, if we don't look at every law and push every law
     that we can and regulate.  It's not often that the people
     will tell you to try to regulate something.  But, I'm asking
     you to regulate diesel underground, where they cannot.
        I mean, I want to see my grandkids, since my dad
     didn't get to do it.  And I'm sure you want your grandkids
     to spend time with you.  I kind of lost my place, because it
     kind of gets -- it is personal and I'm sorry.
        You know, I come here and I thought, well, maybe I
     could educate -- maybe I can say something, you know, about
     secondhand smoke.  The same case were done -- basically,
     what I read, were done on secondhand smoke, was done on
     diesel exhaust.  And secondhand smoke was determined that a
     19 percent increase from secondhand smoke increase lung
     cancer.  Well, diesel fumes was even higher than that.  It
     didn't give a percentage on that.  But, it's so easy for
     secondhand smoke to be considered bad and diesel, yet, for
     industry, because it's a money maker.
        You know, the only feasibility thing is here, is
     if the companies, if you put all the restrictions on diesel
     that you can possibly put on it and make it as safe as you
     can, then they have a feasibility thing:  should they use
     diesel, should they use electrical, or should they use
     battery.  And if I can stand here and tell you I can buy one
     piece of equipment and save tenfold on my accidents, for
     instance -- as someone here said, you know, the accident
     rate goes really way down, that's a big concern of
     management -- and, yet, I don't want to put $100,000 extra
     on that one piece of equipment, I don't think that the
     accident rate has anything to do with it.
        And I thank you for your time.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you.
        MR. LITTLE:  And I want to ask you again not to
     judge me by the color of my lungs.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Little.  Wait and
     see if there are any questions.  Okay, thank you, very much.
        Is there a Gene Davis?
        MR. DAVIS:  Yes, there is.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Okay.  You're up.
        MR. DAVIS:  Allow me to introduce myself:  my name
     is Gene Davis and I'm the labor representative on the
     Technical Advisor Committee on Diesel-Powered Equipment in
     the State of Pennsylvania.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Who are you?
        MR. DAVIS:  Bob Dubreck's cohort.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Spell your name, please?
        (Laughter.)
        MR. DAVIS:  I think you ought to be able to handle
     that one.
        First, when I heard MSHA had proposed a diesel
     rule that required 95 percent reduction in diesel
     particulate matter, I thought, finally, MSHA had put
     together a rule that would protect the health, as well as
     the safety, of our nations coal miners.  However, that
     feeling quickly subsided, as I read through the proposed
     rule and realized that the only equipment that would be
     required to be filtered with high efficiency filters would
     be inby and heavy-duty outby equipment.  This was not only -
     - this will only require filtering about one-third of the
     3,000 pieces of diesel equipment presently underground. 
     That means that two-thirds, or 2,000 pieces of all DPM-
     emitting equipment will not be affected by this rule.
        This is ridiculous, especially if you take into
     consideration how MSHA determines whether a piece of
     equipment is deemed as heavy duty or light duty.  It is not
     done by horsepower rating or duty cycle.  A lot of
     consideration is given as to what this piece of equipment
     will haul.
        Under the current guidelines, it will be possible
     for the same piece of diesel-powered equipment that is the
     same make and model and horsepower rating to be deemed as
     heavy duty in one mine and light duty in yet another mine. 
     This means that only one of these pieces would have to be
     filtered under this proposed rule, even though both of these
     engines emit the same amount of diesel particulate matter.
        A couple of years ago, the State of Pennsylvania
     dealt with this very same problem, but took a slightly
     different approach, and that is simply stated, diesel
     engines require a high efficiency filter across-the-board. 
     It doesn't matter horsepower rating, duty cycle, or what it
     hauls.
        I believe this is the only approach that we can
     take, at this time, with all the uncertainty of health
     effects of diesel exhaust and with all the arguments of what
     concentration of DPM poses a hazard to the worker's health
     and the fact that MSHA admits that coal miner exposure to
     diesel exhaust is 10 times higher than the average worker. 
     It would be ludicrous to institute anything except across-
     the-board filtering of all diesel-powered equipment,
     regardless of horsepower rating, regardless of duty cycle,
     and regardless of what it hauls.
        To assure you that this is not only my belief, I
     would like to present the conclusions of the Bird study,
     which was a study of diesel-powered equipment in tunnel
     sites in Europe.  And, basically, you can pull this off the
     Internet.  I imagine some of you have it.  I would just like
     to read a few of the conclusions off of this study.
        Number one:  neither reformulated fuel, nor new
     lubricants, nor oxidation catalytic converters permit
     significant curtailment of particulate emissions.  Further,
     engine development holds no promise to effectively curtail
     the ultra fine particulates emissions through improved fuel
     mixture preparation and combustions.  Hot gas filters are
     now able to dependably curtail the ultra fine particulates
     concentration in exhaust gas by a factor of 100 to 1,000. 
     This is valid for particulates of all sizes, down to the
     range of 10 nanometers.
        The filter technology is, therefore, technically
     feasible, controllable in the fuel, and cost effective. 
     Thus, all three requisites are fulfilled for wide scale
     employment of this technology for improving the respiratory
     air quality at tunnel sites and, therefore, protect the
     occupational health of the employees.  As you can see, the
     study agrees with my position of across-the-board filters.
        I would also like to talk a little bit about
     concentration limits on diesel particulate matter, or should
     I say the lack of concentration limits.  While reading
     through the preamble, I noticed that MSHA has been studying
     in-mine measurement of diesel particulate matter.  I do not
     believe this technology is anywhere near being perfected to
     the point that it is usable as a tool for measuring in-mine
     concentration of DPM.
        I believe the only sensible approach to this would
     be to test the diesel engine and filter package and said an
     in-lab standard, as Pennsylvania did.  This standard should
     not exceed .12 -- and I repeat, .12 milligrams for cubic
     meter, when diluted by the approved MSHA ventilating
     quantity, and only the ventilated quantity for that piece of
     diesel-powered equipment.
        I do not support the use of any additional
     ventilation quantities to be used in the calculation of this
     in-lab standard.  It does not make sense to allow the coal
     operators to use an inflated ventilator quantity to meet
     this standard, when we all know this additional air will not
     be available at all times, during normal operations.  I'm
     referring to such pieces of equipment as scoops,
     locomotives, shuttle cars, and many others, which spend much
     of their normal working days switching in and out of dead
     ended crosscuts, interlock doors, and various other areas,
     where it is impossible to have even the ventilating quantity
     flowing over these pieces of equipment, let alone any
     additional air.  This is a fact that is well known by
     everyone that is involved with underground diesel and it is
     a fact that is ignored by everyone that is involved with
     underground diesels.
        I realize the .12 standard is a fairly low
     concentration limit.  However, you must remember this is an
     in-lab test with fairly new equipment, under pristine
     laboratory conditions.  Therefore, this standard must be
     kept as low as -- at its lowest readily attainable level. 
     With the experience we have had in Pennsylvania in the last
     two years, I believe .12 is the lowest readily attainable
     level, at this time.
        However, I do not believe the .12 standard should
     stand as a benchmark forever.  I am not convinced that
     worker's health will not be compromised even at this low
     level.  This is why I am suggesting that the question of
     filter efficiency and diesel particulate matter
     concentration limits be revisited regularly, as technology
     improves.
        I know most of you are thinking that I have
     outlined -- the things I have outlined are not feasible,
     because they are very cost prohibitive to this industry. 
     Nonetheless, I believe, if diesel exhaust is left unfiltered
     and untreated, the medical costs years from now will
     certainly be cost prohibitive to this industry, which then
     must pay those medical expenses; and certainly cost
     prohibitive to its workers, who will be suffering from
     diesel-related problems; and to their families, who will be
     watching them suffer.
        This will be the real cost to the industry, not
     only in dollars and cents, but also in the health of its
     workers.  It will be appalling for the coal industry, on the
     hills of the black lung issue, to ask this of its workers
     again.
        I'm not going to say that MSHA should adopt the
     Pennsylvania rule and I'm not going to say the Pennsylvania
     rule is perfect.  However, it is one that does protect the
     coal miners of Pennsylvania and, at the same time, it is
     pushing technology, which is where any new rule should be. 
     For if you can meet today's rule with yesterday's
     technology, with no technology at all, have you then -- have
     you then given these workers the full protection they are to
     be afforded under the Mine Act?  Or better yet, have you
     given these workers the full protection they deserve as
     members of the human race?
        That's all I have from my prepared comment. 
     However, I do have a couple of things I'd like to go over
     that I've heard this morning and like to comment on.  Number
     one, the .12 standard, I guess, has been kicked around in
     Pennsylvania and listening to Chris Hamilton and Pramod
     Thakur, they do not believe it's readily attainable.  But to
     tell you the truth, we have the 3306 PCNA CAT, 150
     horsepower in Pennsylvania.  Right now, I believe that 95
     percent is questionable on that engine; the .12 has never
     been questioned on that engine.  We have the original test
     of the MWM Deutz 916(b).  There, again, the 95 percent
     probably is questionable, but because it's a .25 sulfur
     versus a .05 sulfur.  But even at the different sulfur
     levels, the .12 has never been questioned.
        I also have an unofficial copy here.  This was a
     test run at WVU, I imagine fairly recently.  This is with
     harp gas ceramic monolith wall filter.  And this was on a
     list of LPU, which is -- I am not sure of the horsepower
     rating.  It was somewhere between 14 and 19.  I'm not quite
     positive what it was.  But, it did achieve a 90.95 percent
     efficiency and it will meet the .12.  I'll submit that,
     George.  I know if you run down the numbers, you'll see that
     it does meet the .12, with either part 32 or part seven, I
     believe.  So, it is attainable, I think.  It's readily
     attainable.  The .12 can be met.
        A couple of other things:  seal reduction.  I
     don't know if we got on to seal reduction.  I promoted it a
     little bit.  But, to tell you the truth, Bob Dubreck can
     back me up on this, we did a test last year of a 3306 PCNA
     for Pennsylvania, the first one that went in, and the CO --
     raw CO coming out of that engine, at that time, was like 168
     parts per million, untreated.  The treated side, I believe
     settled in around 15 to 16, and actually settled as low as
     11 and 12.  So, I don't know where that is a problem right
     now.  It seems like that one has been -- the Pennsylvania
     law will allow no more than 100 in a tailpipe.  And even at
     idle, this engine only did 82, I believe it was.  So, there
     is no problem with that.
        Also, listening this morning, I hear that a
     standard of .5 has been thrown around with no technology. 
     But in the same breath, that .5, I understand the ceramic
     filter, which I've just proven can do 90 percent, cost
     $3,000 to $5,000, and you get 2,000 hours out of it.  You
     take that 70 to 90 percent reduction and you throw it on
     that .5, put your ventilating quantity to it, I don't
     believe we're far off the .12 right there.
        So, one thing Pennsylvania has done, it has pushed
     this technology.  Three years ago, this same filter was
     going 70 percent.  It's doing 90.95 percent right now. 
     That's where we need to be.
        Are there any questions?
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Davis.  We have a
     question.
        MR. DAVIS:  Oh, you have a question?
        MODERATOR TOMB:  I'm sorry.
        MR. DAVIS:  You said thank you, and I was ready to
     sit down.
        (Laughter.)
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you for your presentation.
        MR. SASEEN:  Now, that list of data, what test
     cycle was it ran with?
        MR. DAVIS:  That was the standard study.  It was
     the ISO 8178.
        MR. SASEEN:  And with 120 microgram -- .12, is the
     standard -- what test cycle would you be proposing with
     that?
        MR. DAVIS:  I believe we'd have to use the ISO
     again, because there's just nothing else out there, George. 
     I know that we got into a discussion a few -- a while back
     in New York on that, with someone from Southwest Lab.  But,
     until something else is proven out there, the ISO is the
     only thing we have to go by.  Is it the best test?  It's the
     best test, at this point in time.
        Three years ago, prior to Pennsylvania, there,
     again, the ISO was not even a factor.  I believe MSHA was
     using the old 39 point test.  So, at least the ISO puts us
     on a level base with the rest of the world, actually.  You
     know, it's an international standard and that's the best to
     use, at this point in time, in my opinion.
        MR. SASEEN:  And how about with the LPU test, the
     fuel that we used?
        MR. DAVIS:  The fuel was B-2, .05 sulfur fuel.  It
     was regular B-2 fuel.  And I guess that's what caused some
     of the problem with Pennsylvania, the fact that the original
     test on the MWM 916 was run with .25 sulfur fuel, which, at
     that time, was over-the-road sulfur fuel.  And that standard
     had moved down.  And that has caused an -- we'll say that we
     are now looking at the 95 percent efficiency in
     Pennsylvania.  You know, we have a couple of pieces out
     there.  We have a couple more pieces that can readily meet
     the .12, but cannot meet the 95.  And to tell you the truth,
     I don't know, at this point in time, that 95 is need.  I
     believe we may be able to lower that a little bit.
        What you have to look back is when Pennsylvania
     created its rule, .25 sulfur fuel was out there.  There was
     no way you could meet .12 without a 95 or greater reduction. 
     You know, that was -- that was the feeling out there.  That
     sort of happened three years ago, when we put this together. 
     So, since there's not as much particulate coming out of that
     engine, we do not have to gather 95 percent or greater now
     to get to the .12 level.
        MR. SASEEN:  Thank you.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you.  Anything other
     questions?
        MR. HANEY:  You mentioned air quantity.  Were you
     referring to the part 36 air quantity or the part seven air
     quantity?
        MR. DAVIS:  Well, seeing how I'm from
     Pennsylvania, from Pennsylvania, we're look at part 32,
     which is outby.  Yeah, part seven is what we're looking at
     there.  That has to be the ventilating quantity for part
     seven, factored in on the grams per horsepower, and that
     would give you the concentration level that we're looking
     for.
        MR. HANEY:  That's the gaseous quantity?
        MR. DAVIS:  Right.
        MR. HANEY:  The .12, that is based on your -- part
     32 air quantity?
        MR. DAVIS:  Yeah, it is in Pennsylvania, at this
     point in time.  That will probably be straightened up within
     the next six to eight months, and it has to be.
        MS. WESDOCK:  Mr. Davis, I believe you were going
     to give us your testimony, right?
        MR. DAVIS:  Yeah, I'll -- I have a copy of the
     Pennsylvania State rule that I want to put in.  It's Article
     2(a), Act 182, and that test from WVU.  Although it's an
     unofficial test, it does show hot gas filters, and the Bird
     study, which we'll put those in for you.
        MS. WESDOCK:  Thank you.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  We have another question.
        MR. DAVIS:  Anything else?
        MR. KOGUT:  Is what you submitting to the record
     the complete report on the Bird study?
        MR. DAVIS:  It's what came off -- I don't believe
     it's complete.  This is a rundown.  If you need the complete
     study, I have a phone number to get you the complete study. 
     But, this is a rundown of what they tested, five filters. 
     And, basically, what the Bird study was, they wanted to
     reduce particulate emissions in tunnel sites and they tried
     five ways.  They tried to reformulate in fuel, they tried
     newer engines, they tried hot gas filters, and it's all --
     catalytic converters were one.  And they go through each
     step in here and, basically, what is says is the highest
     curtailment of particulates is with the hot gas filter right
     now.
        MR. KOGUT:  Okay.  If you're submitting this
     summary, could you identify what the website was?  What the
     source of --
        MR. DAVIS:  Sure, dieselnet.com.  You can pull it
     off of there.
        MR. KOGUT:  And then if --
        MR. DAVIS:  It's on here.  That's where I got it.
        MR. KOGUT:  Would you also consider submitting to
     us, as post-hearing comments, the text of the -- the full
     text of the Bird study?
        MR. DAVIS:  Sure.
        MR. KOGUT:  I also have another question or
     clarification.  Were you proposing that the 1.2 --
        MR. DAVIS:  Point 12.  Don't get that wrong.
        MR. KOGUT:  I'm sorry, the .12 criterion be
     substituted for the 95 percent --
        MR. DAVIS:  No, sir.
        MR. KOGUT:  -- efficiency criterion?
        MR. DAVIS:  I am saying the .12 is the basic mark
     we hang our hat on, at this time.  And if we can do that
     with 95 percent, fine.  But, if we can do that without 95
     percent, I'm willing to say that's fine, also.
        MR. KOGUT:  Okay.  But, then --
        MR. DAVIS:  I will hang my hat on the .12.
        MR. KOGUT:  Right.  So the results of these tests,
     you said, were a little over 90 percent efficiency?
        MR. DAVIS:  Yes, it was 90.95.
        MR. KOGUT:  So, effectively, you would be
     substituting the .12 --
        MR. DAVIS:  No, sir.  Effectively, I would be
     substituting the 90 for the 95 percent and keeping the .12
     in the Pennsylvania rule.
        MR. KOGUT:  That's what I'm getting at.  So,
     you're endorsing a 90 --
        MR. DAVIS:  I'm endorsing a new lab standard of
     .12 milligram for cubic meter instead of 95 percent
     reduction.
        MR. KOGUT:  With or without a benchmark of 90
     percent filter efficiency?
        MR. DAVIS:  Well, I -- there should be -- what I'm
     saying is across-the-board filter, okay, and that may go as
     low as 85 percent.  If you can do it at 85 percent, fine. 
     If you can meet the .12 at 85 percent, I don't have a
     problem with that.  You know, across-the-board filtering and
     a .12 in-lab standard, that is the two things I think I've
     tried to make clear to you, okay.
        MR. KOGUT:  So, there would be no -- what you're
     recommending --
        MR. DAVIS:  We're recommending there would be
     absolutely no criteria on reduction of the filter alone,
     right.
        MR. KOGUT:  Just -- you're just saying that there
     should be a filter, regardless of --
        MR. DAVIS:  It absolutely has to be a filter to
     get to the .12.  You're not going to do it without a filter.
        MR. SASEEN:  That uses ventilating air?
        MR. DAVIS:  That uses the ventilating quantity --
     MSHA's ventilating plate, and that's all.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Any other questions?  Thank you,
     very much.
        Our next presenter will be Mr. Robert Kurczak.
        MR. KURCZAK:  My name is Robert Kurczak and I
     represent Local 1570.  That's a Federal II mine.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Can you spell your name, sir,
     please, for the record?
        MR. KURCZAK:  K-u-r-c-z-a-k.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you.
        MR. KURCZAK:  You have to excuse my voice, I've
     had a real bad sore throat.
        I represent Local 1570.  It's a Federal II mine
     and they are operated by MSHA Associated.  This is a
     division of Peabody.  And I've been a miner for over 23
     years and I presently serve on Mine Health and Safety
     Committee.  And I have a few comments for you.
        The first one, I feel that all diesel equipment
     brought into an underground mine should be filtered, inby or
     out.  And the main reason for this is all outby air
     eventually goes to the working face.  If you're familiar
     with mine workings, it will make it there.  Anything that's
     inby is going to be exposed to anything that's outby.  And
     they say they can't safely filter them.  I've got four
     companies here, anywhere from 98 to 90 percent through
     filtering, there are different types to help reduce the
     filtering.
        And the second is maintenance, and it's been
     stated here that a diesel engine has to be maintained to
     operate properly.  In fact, it's going to run dirty.  And
     I'm speaking from my mind, which I have no knowledge of
     diesel.  We've never had it and hopefully never do.  But,
     I've worked in maintenance and I'm going to tell you for a
     fact that equipment is ran until it won't run any longer. 
     When it breaks, they fix it.  And I don't see any change
     with diesel.  Just because it says it has to be maintained
     to work properly, they will run it until it drops.
        Ventilation:  we have nine violations here, all of
     them ventilation, from the last three years from this mine. 
     The most recent one I just pulled off the board three days
     ago.  This is a test violation, 2.2, which is over the
     standard.  Also in the last two weeks, we've had a problem
     with methane, and it's all because of ventilation.  We don't
     have the air to get rid of the methane.  So, I don't think
     you're going to be able to get rid of diesel particulates
     with ventilation.  It's just not going to happen, at least
     not at this mine.
        And you talked about engineering controls, that
     was mentioned.  And I just went to a NIOSH study hearing and
     it mentioned engineering controls.  Right now, we're worried
     about air protection in lieu of engineering controls.  That
     seems to be the standard.  Instead of going out and trying
     to get engineering to lower it, we do it another way.  You
     see, I'll wear a respiratory instead of getting rid of the
     particulates.  I have to wear this thing.  So, I don't think
     that's going to work either.  There's no proof that it's
     working now.  I don't think it will work in the future.
        And safety was mentioned.  Whether you have diesel
     or electric, your safety factor is going to be the same. 
     You've got moving equipment in a coal mine.  You can find
     what kind of filter that you like with a diesel.  The same
     thing is still there.  You have all the same hazards.  You
     just have a different hazard put in with diesel.
        With the trolley, we run a three-entry system. 
     Our trolley is in our main intake air course.  We've
     initiated safeguards.  We make checks.  We've never had a
     problem with this system.  So, I don't understand why the
     trolley is a big thing.  If it's properly maintained and the
     safeguards are in there, the trolley works fine.
        And trade activity:  West Virginia is one of
     either two or three underground producing coal states in the
     nation.  Where diesel is going to make a difference, I don't
     know.  Is it going to make us number two?
        In closing, I'd like to say that I'd rather trip
     over a trolley cable than I would die of lung cancer.  Any
     questions?
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Do you have any questions?  Thank
     you for your presentation.
        The next presenter will be Larry Kuharcik.
        MR. KUHARCIK:  Hello.  My name is Larry Kuharcik,
     K-u-h-a-r-c-i-k.  I'm a union coal miner.  I work at the
     Blakesville II mine.  Consolidation Coal owns it, northern
     West Virginia.  Come this May, I'll be there 27 years.  I'm
     an active member of the Mine Health and Safety Committee.  I
     travel with MSHA and state mine inspectors quite often.
        Since November 1, 1995 until November 13th last
     week, just the other day, three years, two weeks, we've had
     226 federal citations written on ventilations at the
     Blakesville II mine, nine of these citations so serious they
     are either D-1 or D-2 citations.  We have a problem with
     ventilation in our coal mine.  There's no doubt about it.
        Now, it's sad, but true, after all of these years,
     we have never eliminated black lung.  The ventilation is not
     there yet.  We still have black lung in our coal mine. 
     That's a true fact.  Now, the coal company is telling me, a 
     mine with about 226 violations in a three-year period for
     ventilation, is telling me on my outby diesel equipment that
     I don't need a filter, due to the fact that they will
     ventilate for me.  Now, you see what I'm thinking:  they
     can't ventilate what we have now; how are they going to
     ventilate diesel equipment without filters.
        We need filters on all diesel equipment.  And the
     reason being, I'll explain that to you.  Our coal mine, we
     have three sections and one mine wall.  We are developed for
     an on-wall setup.  Our sections are four entry.  We only
     inject air upper intake escapeway from our trap entry, down
     the belt, down the return, of course.
        So, we have 350 union men working on mining, just
     a little over 100 per shift, excluding the prep plant.  Four
     sections, eight men per shift, that's 32 men per shift on a
     section.  Everybody else is outby, running in and out. 
     There's no eight-hour workday at Blakesville II.  And they
     were talking about their surveys was based on an eight-hour
     workday.  We don't have an eight-hour workday on our
     production crews.  They're in there nine to ten hours a day. 
     The way our mine is set up, they go in and park their portal
     bus.  That's true, that bus sits; that's true.
        If it was a diesel bus, it's down.  But, if we
     have all of the other diesel equipment outby that's not inby
     or heavy-duty outby without filters -- such as myself, I run
     a track motor, or rock dusters, or masons.  They all have
     motors, mobiles, jeeps.  We're constantly running in and out
     on these sections all day long doing a job, this section,
     that section.  If it was diesel without filters, those
     particulates, we're running in and out all day, the air is
     going straight to the face of the miners mining coal. 
     That's where the air is going.
        So, where's the fumes and particulates going not
     filtered?  They're going right on the working miner.  They
     have no other place to go.  They're going to travel with the
     air force.  And we constantly going in and out all day long,
     all shifts at our coal mine.  So, we do need filters on all
     equipment, in my opinion, to protect us.
        I told you our mine and methods.  Ladies and
     gentlemen, you're looking at a coal miner standing in front
     of you, going to be 30 years pretty soon.  A couple of
     years, I'll have 30 years.  Nineteen-sixty-two, I lost my
     grandpap to lung disease from working in a coal mine. 
     Nineteen-nine-three, my own father had a whole lung removed
     in Pittsburgh from working in it.  You know, you're looking
     at someone who lived through the devastation the family goes
     through from lung disease from living in a coal mine family.
        Personally, I've been to Charleston twice and they
     tell me my lungs are clear.  I'm thankful.  But, people that
     think controls, such as yourself, got to make the decisions
     and the laws that ensure that I can work out the rest of my
     career, and my union brothers and fellow workers can also
     work, in the safest, possible atmosphere we can provide.  By
     doing that, we need filters on the equipment.
        You can't tell me that the environment and the
     atmosphere would be better with filters than without
     filters.  I listened to Dr. Thakur there and Mr. Ellis, Mr.
     Hamilton, they stood here and told us of all these tests
     that were done and all these labs at WVU and Pittsburgh or
     wherever.  I wonder how many of those tests were done in a
     confined environment.  I work six days a week in an
     environment six to seven foot high, 14 to 16 foot wide.  I
     wonder how many of these tests were done in an environment
     that enclosed, with air coming up on you, the particulates
     coming over top of you.  Or was them tests done out in a lab
     where it's open space, not an enclosed rectangle.  I believe
     there would be a big difference.
        They were done with clean engines.  Coal mine
     isn't clean.  Coal mine is by way, shape, and form as a
     clean place and the equipment is dirty.  They were done in
     excellent conditions.  They weren't done in coal mines, as
     experiments, these tests.
        So, I'll tell you, Pam, Sandy, John, George, and
     the rest of you gentlemen up there, I urge you to please
     don't pass anything, unless -- unless it has written in
     there that we will have filters on every piece of diesel
     equipment in underground coal mines.
        Thank you.  Any questions?
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you for your presentation. 
     Any questions?
        Our next presenter will be Larry Tolliver.
        MR. TOLLIVER:  Hello.  My name is Larry Tolliver. 
     I'm UMWA.  I work at Local 1713, U.S. Steel Mine.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Could you spell your name,
     please?
        MR. TOLLIVER:  Tolliver, T-o-l-l-i-v-e-r.
        I was invited to come up here and talk about this
     diesel that's going on.  I do not know a whole lot about it,
     until I got looking at some of the things and listened to
     people up here.  And what I have heard today, it's kind of
     amazed me at some of the things that have been brought out. 
     Like I was listening to the Pennsylvania people here today
     talk about the diesel.  One thing that they brought out that
     kind of worried me was they made a statement about the
     electrical system inside the mines, that they could not keep
     that up to make it safe for the workers.
        We've had that in place for years.  But, during
     all that time, they have not been able to ensure the safety
     of the people that works for them.  But, now, they want to
     throw something new into the coal industry in the diesel
     that we do not know what the effects is on the people that
     work.  And if they cannot guarantee the safety of the people
     that's working for them now under the system they have in
     place now, it scares me to death of what will come out from
     the new systems now.
        We, at U.S. Steel -- one of the things, too, I've
     been listening, I kind of thought that our mines was bad on
     citations.  We had a run of citations for the last one year
     and ten months from MSHA on the ventilations.  And the
     ventilation, they come up to 72, what we've had for the
     ventilation citations.  And I kind of thought that was bad
     in our operation.  But listening to the people of these
     other companies today, that works at the same size mines
     that I work at, which we employ 400 and some people, I see
     that my mines are not that bad.  And what these other people
     are putting up with and having to go through would
     absolutely scare me to death, if that was at U.S. Steel,
     because of the methane we have in our mines.
        We run two long walls and two miner sections right
     now.  And our mines is very deep mines.  Some of our
     sections, they would be about two miles long, when we set up
     a panel, start pulling back with the longwalls.  And the
     ventilation we have to have in our mines to get rid of the
     methane, which we still have methane problems, and with the
     air we have and the equipment we have in our mines -- like
     our rail equipment, the last count that I had, we had 60
     some piece of rail equipment that is on the track daily,
     every shift.
        Now, you take into count, when you get to the
     sections, you park the rack.  But, now, we have so many
     outby people on our day shift.  We have approximately I'd
     say 180 people who works the day shift.  So, when you take
     into consideration there, the jeeps that are moving on the
     outside, if those were diesel, you would probably have, at
     any given time, maybe 20 pieces of equipment moving on the
     track.  And all of that diesel, if it was diesel, would be
     eventually working its way into the face of where the people
     are working.
        And what I have heard here today, I cannot see how
     we can safeguard people with the law that we have.  And like
     I said, that scares me.  Because just like I heard one of
     our brothers make a comment a minute ago about black lung,
     we don't have black lung under control, ladies and
     gentlemen.  It still is there.  The operators don't want to
     admit it, but it is there.  There are laws passed by our
     Congress and stuff that protects them and it don't protect
     us.
        You know, all I would ask today is that this panel
     -- I know you all have been in this a long time and I am new
     at this -- but protect us.  Protect the rest of the people. 
     Because, I'm here as a union person today, but there are so
     many workers out here that don't belong to a union that
     works in the coal mines that don't have the protection that
     I have from the rest of the union people.
        And the inspectors, we have inspectors daily. 
     Some of these other mines, they might be there a week every
     quarter and that's it.  And I know for myself, at U.S.
     Steel, if it wasn't for the union officials and us keeping
     an upper hand, that U.S. Steel would get around them, too,
     in my opinion.  But we have the support to back us up and we
     can keep a hand on them.  But, other people don't.
        In my closing, I'd like to say, just for you all
     to just take into consideration the workers -- not the
     companies, the workers.  And I thank you, very much.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Tolliver.
        Our next presenter will be Mr. James Bennett.
        MR. BENNETT:  Good evening.  My name is James
     Bennett, J-a-m-e-s, B-e-n-n-e-t-t.  I'm here as a
     representative for the United Mine Workers.  I'm a member of
     Local 6207.  And it's my -- I consider it a privilege to be
     able to talk to you folks this evening.  And even though I
     work in the mines in West Virginia, where diesel equipment
     has not been allowed to be used up until this time, at least
     it's in consideration, at this time, I have many concerns as
     to the outcome of what the diesel equipment in the
     underground mines might bring forth to my health and miners,
     who might, in the future, work in the mines.
        I'm concerned to the point that with the rules and
     regulations that the mines have to work under, with federal
     and state regulations, it's hard for the companies to comply
     to those rules and regulations.  I have a few copies of
     citations here that have been issued at my mines -- the
     mines where I work; I don't own it.  But, anyway, there have
     been 15 violations in the time period of April, 1996 until
     September, 1998, and these were violations for ventilation
     problems, all stating that the approved ventilation plan was
     not being complied with.
        And, you know, it's not like the law has changed
     from day-to-day.  We know that once the regs are handed
     down, that they're going to be - they're going to stay that
     way until some other regulation takes its place.  So, it's
     not like that, you know, well, we didn't know the regulation
     was like that this week.  These regulations have always been
     the same, but still, yet, there has to be citations written,
     because the company can't seem to keep those regulations
     enforced.
        Some of these violations include discrepancies
     from check curtains down in the face, which would be --
     probably the company people would say, well, that's the
     workers fault because it's not up.  And I may have to say, I
     agree with that, but to permanent stoppings down, you know,
     in the outby crosscuts.  I run a bolting machine.  I try to
     -- my partner and I that work together on the bolting
     machine, we try to keep the curtains up.  Well, most
     general, we do, because we don't -- the boss that I have is
     pretty rough and he'll give us a talking to, if we don't. 
     But, I can't go back and make sure that after we get a set
     of crosscuts finished up, that somebody is back there
     delivering cinder blocks and building up ventilation
     stoppings.
        But, anyway, it's my concern that if just a thing
     that is simple as that, to keep ventilation up in the face
     for the working places, how hard is it going to be to keep
     ventilation up to par outby for these diesel equipment that
     is being run?  If we can't keep a sufficient amount of air
     in the face where the working man is, how do we know that in
     the future, if we have to increase the volume of air, that
     we can keep it outby to ventilate the outby equipment?
        According to the inspectors evaluation of these
     violations, they could resolve an injury or illness expected
     to be at least lost workdays or restrict duty.  I have these
     violations here and I will submit them to you as exhibits,
     if you would be interested in having them.
        At the mines where I work, currently, we have a
     isolated intake entry to provide air to the working faces. 
     I have heard through the mine management that in the near
     future, we're going to change to belt air.  Of course, at
     that time, they'll have to change their monitoring systems
     and things, I understand.  But, I just wondered, then, if
     that belt air, which the belts and the track run side-by-
     side in the same entry, if the diesel emissions are going to
     be blowed up on the men in the working face, if it comes to
     a point that in West Virginia, we have diesel equipment
     underground.
        A lot of the statistics that some of these
     gentlemen have talked about this morning is way above my
     head.  I'm not an educated person, but I do know that
     working in the coal mines can be hazardous to your health,
     through rock falls, through contaminated air, and different
     measures that can take effect upon your health and safety.
        It's my concern that if we can -- we've been
     existing in West Virginia for a long time now, with the
     electric-powered trolley and equipment.  We've been existing
     with battery-powered equipment in the face area.  And I just
     can't see where it's really a necessity for the companies to
     become -- or to remain competitive and convert to diesel
     equipment.
        Everybody likes to have a big fat pocketbook. 
     Probably my wife is worse than anybody else.  But, you know,
     sometimes, I tell her, I say, hey, look, our budget just
     don't provide for that.  And I think the companies need to
     take a real strong look at what their budget will provide
     for.  Seems to me like it would be easier to exist on what
     you're doing now, than have to invest a lot more money in
     your equipment, just to say that it improves their
     competitiveness.
        As far as safety is concerned, at my mines, I
     don't think that we have a big problem with safety.  On
     track, we have two main mine motors and, as well as I can
     calculate, about nine portal buses.  We have only had one
     accident, a severe accident that I can think of, where two
     portal buses run into each other.  But, possibly, that could
     have happened whether they were either electric powered or
     diesel powered.  I would like to see the equipment in West
     Virginia remain as either diesel -- or excuse me -- electric
     powered or battery powered and that diesel wasn't even
     presented in the mines in West Virginia.
        Although it's my understanding that through the
     legislative process, that probably it will be.  And under
     those circumstances, I would like for as strict of laws to
     be -- to be implied in that legislative as what is possible,
     to provide the better health and the safety for the workers.
     It's my opinion that each and every piece of equipment be
     filtered to the greatest extent available, at the time that
     this law may be taken into consideration.
        I really don't have much more to say, because I
     feel like some of these fellows from Pennsylvania and
     different areas that have worked in mines where diesel
     equipment is being used probably has a lot more experience
     and situations that they can relate to.  I'm sure you don't
     have any questions for me.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  Well, let's see.  Does anybody
     have any questions?  Okay.  Thank you, very much for your
     presentation.
        Our next presenter will be Dan Carder from the
     West Virginia University.
        MODERATOR TOMB:  It's Dan Carder, C-a-r-d-e-r.
        When I was originally asked to come speak here
     today, we weren't sure whether or not we were willing to
     make a full presentation of data or whether I would just
     make the data available for any questions or comments that
     needed to be made.  I've got some slides -- overheads of the
     finalized data from all of the reports for the West Virginia
     Diesel Commission, if you'd like to view that.
        (Pause.)
        MR. CARDER:  First of all, I'd like to commend
     MSHA and the panel for undertaking such a monumental task as
     legislating a DPM content or level for in-use mines.  And
     the reason I'm saying that is working at the University,
     we've done quite a bit of testing for in-use, on highway and
     off highway, diesel engines.  And the evolutionary path that
     on highway is taking in legislating the amount of diesel
     particulate in gram per mile or gram per break force per
     hour is a task, in itself.  And as you all know, there's a
     lot more pollution air above ground than there is in the
     mining environment.  I, personally, have never been
     underground.  Denny keeps telling me that he's going to take
     me down sometime, but I've never been able to do that, yet.
        Some of you may know my advisor, Dr. Myrtle
     Godham.  He's probably the person responsible for obtaining
     the research for the regional diesel study at West Virginia
     University and also for the development of the National
     Center for Mining, Engines and Safety.  When we set out to
     develop the center, our objectives are shown here, to
     improve the working conditions in West Virginia mines
     through safe, efficient, effective, and economically viable
     technologies, which reduce emissions from engines and
     enhance the productivity and operating efficiency.
        We also wanted to provide technical assistance and
     reliable, quantitative information to the Commission.  We
     also wanted to provide a way to conduct need-based R&D
     programs, in consultations with the Commission, and to
     provide technical assistance and training to personnel
     involved in the operation, testing, and maintenance of mine
     engines in West Virginia mines.
        I'll briefly put up the two most activities
     performed under the '97-98 diesel study and the '98-99.  I
     believe Chris Hamilton eluded to the number of tests and
     combinations that we did use.  You can see here the basis
     was MWM 916, which was the same engine that was used for the
     research study that ended up being quite instrumental in the
     development of the DPM standards for Pennsylvania.  I would
     also like to stress that WVU didn't enter into that research
     program, knowing that it was going to have that impact.  It
     was a Bureau of Mine study that was basically a research
     study for a graduate thesis.
        That engine was used to test the difference
     between high sulfur and low sulfur fuel.  I believe Gene
     Davis mentioned the change in the sulfur levels of diesel
     fuel for on road and I wanted to support him, and that is
     indeed the case, .25 used to be the standard for on highway
     and that has improved now to the .05 percent.
        We did a test on the Caterpillar 3306, with the
     following combinations, basically a DST and a clean air
     system; the Isuzu C-240; and a Lister-Petter LPU-2.  During
     the program, we've also been working with development of
     paper traps, exhaust gas recirculation for an ox reduction,
     microwave trap for generation.  And probably the thing that
     I'm most excited about is, and one of the issues I would
     impress upon MSHA, is the development of a portable mini-
     dilution tunnel system for in-field measurements of diesel
     particulate matter.
        We are in agreement with many others that it's one
     thing to test the engine and to develop DPM standards in
     cell.  To develop such a cart you can take into the mines at
     basically the drop of a hat would be very beneficial, in
     developing standards, in developing systems, and also in
     inspection and maintenance programs.
        The '98-99 study, again, continued.  We did do --
     I believe one of the panel members asked earlier about some
     particle sizing.  We did do particle sizing on the Isuzu C-
     240, outfitted with various combinations of the exhaust
     after-treatment devices.  We have not made that public, yet. 
     The Diesel Commission and the diesel study didn't find -- or
     wasn't interested, yet, in size selective measurements and
     size selective gravimetric reporting.  So, we have the
     capability.  We have TMs, SMPSs, LPIs, and we are using them
     daily.  We have the data and we're still correlating.  And
     that may be something that we could submit after this
     meeting.  We -- after finishing the C-240 test, we received
     the Lister-Petter engine, after a correction and then
     retested it again with the Acme seal system.
        In order to save time, I'm not going to go through
     all of these slides.  I was going to throw up quickly the
     DPM graphs for each engine.  This is particulate mass
     emission rates for the MWMD-916, using the .25 percent
     sulfur and the .05 percent sulfur.  And I've got a chart
     here across-the board.  The way it averaged for the ISO 8178
     was about a 22 percent reduction in PM emission levels
     between the high sulfur and low sulfur.  I'm saying .25
     percent.  The actual value when we had the fuel tested, it
     was .37 percent and the low sulfur was .04 percent.  Well,
     this is pretty much in line with that.  I believe there's
     quite a few published studies from Europe on the same
     reduction and sulfur content, and they were seeing somewhere
     15 to 20 percent reduction.
        This is a graph of the CAT 3306 test, bare engine,
     DST clean air system, which was a catalyzed particulate
     filter.  And the DST system, again, since we had the luxury
     of testing the DST system on the MWM, we had in our minds a
     level of performance that we felt that the system should
     obtain.  After the original set of tests, you can see that
     we -- there was, indeed, a problem.  We called the
     manufacturer -- the equipment manufacturer and they came to
     make repairs.  After the first set of repairs, we checked
     again and I stopped the test after mode two.  Although it
     wasn't a complete eight mode, again, we felt that it wasn't
     at the correct level of performance.
        After the repair, we retested.  This was also
     after -- thank you, Dr. Tucker -- this was after an engine
     checkup by a licensed Caterpillar mechanic.  And we
     performed the eight mode again.  You can see that most of
     the modes did -- it did perform quite well, whereas modes
     one and two, there were still problems.  Being that the
     study was set up as -- bring the equipment here and tested,
     in order to test and to sample viable current technologies,
     we didn't get into development work.  However, after the
     fact, we started looking at the results and you can see that
     the efficiency levels seem to be very closely related to the
     temperature -- exit temperature of the exhaust gas from the
     system.
        I would like to make a note, I'm not trying to
     draw conclusions.  I have no vested interest toward either
     side.  But, there was a significant difference between the
     setup of the 3306 and the MWMD-916, and that the D-916 had a
     water jacket and manifold and different catalyst
     formulations, as well as different catalyst locations.  And
     further checking with Fleetguard, they did relate to us that
     at levels of 300 -- around 300 degrees, some of the binding
     agents used in some of these filters could have problems in
     letting smaller particle sizes escape -- again, drawing no
     conclusions.
        The Isuzu engine C-240 was tested with a number of
     configurations.  We performed a full eight mode with the
     Rohmac DCL system, which was a catalyst -- oxidation
     catalyst, catalyzed soot filter combination.  And we
     reversed order, then, of the catalyst and soot filter,
     performed the test.  And then, we did some testing with
     simply catalyst only and the system with a path flex paper
     filter at the end.
        I've got some -- I'm sure the reports have been
     made available of reduction efficiencies.  The Rohmac system
     originally obtained 67.7 percent.  And since we couldn't --
     since the eight mode test wasn't performed on the other --
     the Rohmac reverse order or the catalyst only, we couldn't
     do a weighted eight mode average, obviously.
        Again, not a part of the funded study, WVU took it
     upon itself to do some work with particle sizing and
     alternates, exotic low sulfur fuels.  We used Fischer Trips,
     Singas process fuel, and basically ran similar combinations. 
     You can see the results.  We ran only four mode tests. 
     Again, you know, this wasn't a part of the study, just to
     generate a data base.  And we did see -- I believe the
     difference between Fischer Trip fuel and the D-2, we saw
     some fairly significant figures of about 40 percent
     reduction -- 40-45 percent reduction, I believe, in PM
     between the D-2 fuel and Fischer Trips fuel on a bar engine. 
     And, again, that was in line with some of the other reports
     I've seen on Fischer Trips fuels.
        The last engine we'll go over is the Lister-Petter
     LPU-2.  The original LPU-2 test, as you can see, the Rohmac
     DCL-1, there is a significant -- or marked problem with
     modes one and five.  This led us to believe that there was
     perhaps a fuel in rate problem with the engine.  We
     contacted both Rohmac and Lister-Petter and had the engine
     corrected.  We had an altitude correction performed on the
     engine and brought it back.
        During this first test, we assumed that there was
     a failure in the trap assembly, because of back pressure
     measurements that were taken during the test.  When we
     received the engine back -- we received the engine after the
     altitude adjustment, the bare engine -- I don't have a graph
     here comparing the two bare engines -- but bare engine
     fueling rate had decreased by one-and-a-half times for mode
     one, which are rated 100 test.
        With the engine -- the engines already fitted with
     the Rohmac DCL system now obtained pretty marked reductions. 
     I believe the results have been eluded to.  The ISO 8178,
     I've got the results here in a table form, produced a 90.9
     percent reduction in particulate matter and a DPM level of
     .180 grams per hour.  And just in summary, the fuel type was
     D-2, .05 percent sulfur.  The ISO 8178 eight mode test, the
     weighted eight mode average was .180 grams per hour.  I'm
     sure you can see the math.  I'm just going to scoot it up a
     bit.
        And according to the Pennsylvania regs, I believe
     with the 8178 test, your to obtain a .06 milligram per cubic
     meter, with 50 percent -- oh, I'm sorry -- with 100 percent
     name plate air.  For this MSHA certification, the air is
     2000 CFM.
        As part of the study, we've reached the point
     where we need to make recommendations for future work.  And
     in line with, I believe, what the labor side of the
     Commission presented earlier, an integrated approach of an
     engine fuel after-treatment system package needs to be
     developed, where we look at cleaner engines, improved
     oxidation catalyst, and particular trap designs and
     subsequent coding formulations, and also the advanced fuels.
     I believe that if you were to take a step back and look
     before the Pennsylvania regulations came out, I don't think
     you would have had much interest generated from either the
     catalyst manufacturers or the engine manufacturers, to look
     into developing a package for end-use -- for mining engines,
     obviously, to the engine manufacturers.  It's a very small
     market.  But once the demand is there, I believe that the
     supply will come.  And it would be a step in the right
     direction.
        For our short-term research topics more testing
     needs to be performed on current in-use engines, explore the
     benefits of the ultra low sulfur fuels.  Incorporate state
     of the art catalyst formulations.  We've already ben in
     contact with catalyst manufacturers and packaging
     manufacturers, DeGuesse, Johnson Mathey, trying to generate
     interest in developing systems.  So far, for the catalyst
     trap manufacturers we've looked -- we've been getting
     material from DCL and from clean air systems.  And there has
     been a really a limited activity from -- from that industry. 
     Explore all alternative after-treatment systems.  
        We've worked with Ruhmac to develop a system that
     could be used with the catalyst trap systems in order to
     limit the amount of sulphation in the traps.  And -- and
     catalyst so that you could use these engines with the higher
     sulfur fuel.  Continue our tests with the on-line and off-
     line microwave generations.  Use the lab for engine
     certification in order to check certification.  And provide
     technical assistance and training to the miners and
     supervisors.  
        Some of the topics not mentioned here, the
     university does a significant amount of cycle development
     and that's something that I personally believe warrants
     looking into.  I don't know -- as has been mentioned earlier
     -- how representative the 8-mode test is of the normal
     mining duty chart.  And you know, through data logging,
     that's something that could be developed.  And in addition,
     the on-site portable particulate sampling device, you could
     use it to sample exhaust emission at engine exhaust out,
     connecting and using it in correlation with a personal
     hygiene cyclone, such as the Godham Screen Cyclone to sample
     mining air would be another avenue to explore.  
        So there is a -- I think we just tapped the tip of
     the iceberg.  There's many -- we don't need to stop here.  I
     think that this is just the beginning and again I would like
     to commend MSHA trying to tackle such a problem.  It truly
     is a very difficult task.  Thank you.  (Pause.)  I have
     copies of the results available and I'm sure that if you
     could contact myself or Dr. Godham we could give you
     something besides transparencies.
        MR. TOMB:  Would you take it upon yourself to see
     that we got copies mailed in to us?
        MR. CARDER:  Sure, sure.
        MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Are there any questions?  John
     does.
        MR. KOGUT:  You said that you would be able to
     make available to us the size distribution data that you
     compiled?
        MR. CARDER:  Yeah, again, I'm kind of a peon at
     this stage.  I can talk to Dr. Godham.  I know that
     sometimes projects tend to overlap one another and we don't
     want to use the term piggyback with university officials
     around.  But there is some of that that goes on.  And I
     don't know if some of the size measurements were done in
     part for another project.  But if there's no conflict with
     release, we would be more than happy to release that.
        MR. KOGUT:  Would you like us to contact you
     separately about that?
        MR. CARDER:  That would be very -- if you could
     contact Dr. Godham, I could give you his phone number or
     whatever.  That would probably be the best way to get those.
        MR. KOGUT:  And did you also -- were the size
     distribution measurements based on mass concentrations and
     different size --
        MR. CARDER:  They were based on particle count and
     we did with S&PS.  And we did do some Moody measurements, so
     we did have size selective impact or type --
        MR. KOGUT:  And also particle counts.
        MR. CARDER:  Yes.
        MR. KOGUT:   Could you describe the
     instrumentation that was used to make the size --
        MR. CARDER:  Yeah, the sizing information was done
     using an S&PS, submicro and particle sizer.  I'm not sure if
     you're familiar with it.
        MR. KOGUT:  What's its principal?
        MR. CARDER:  The principal is to pass diluted
     exhaust around a charged rod with sheet there.  Then by
     varying the charge on the rod, you can change the --
        MR. TOMB:  Like a mobility analyzer?
        MR. CARDER:                    Exactly.  Same thing.  Same
     thing.
        MR. TOMB:  Did you want to ask a question?
        MR. SASEEN:  Dan, on all these data tests that you
     have done, LPUs, C240, what type tunnel system are you
     using?
        MR. CARDER:  Full flow dilution tunnel.  Eighteen
     inch, stainless steel.
        MR. SASEEN:  Double dilution?
        MR. CARDER:  Yeah, constant volume.
        MR. SASEEN:  Yeah.
        MR. CARDER:  Secondary dilution.  We weren't -- we
     weren't adding secondary dilution there.  We were simply
     sampling into a secondary tunnel as per CFR 40, CFR 30.
        MR. SASEEN:  How far along are you on your
     portable?
        MR. CARDER:  We've been doing correlation studies
     with the full flow tunnel.  So the -- I would say the -- the
     system we have right now, I don't know.  I would have
     serious reservations about taking it into a mine.  We are
     developing another part as we speak that we should be
     correlating probably the months of December and January that
     would be rigorous enough to take anywhere.  In a mine, you
     know, in field to do offer testing, whatever.  So, you know,
     within the next year, we could definitely doing in-mine
     testing.
        MR. SASEEN:  Have you given any thought to how you
     unload the engines and the machines?
        MR. CARDER:  Sure.  Probably water break dinos
     depending upon how accessible the output of the engine is. 
     Some of the engines you can partially load with cata --
     sorry, with torque converters.  Some hydraulic pumps. 
     Depending on the device obviously.  It's very device
     specific.  And probably some of the data logging, if other
     cycles were developed for testing, that might lead in giving
     you a test procedure that would more easily -- that would
     provide a means more easily to load the engine.  If you
     didn't have to reach rated 100 or _intermediate 100, you
     know, for a sustained period of time, perhaps yod could
     develop alternative ways.
        MR. SASEEN:  That work, when you saw that number
     that was possibly the binder of the paper filter, around 300
     degrees.  Do you have any plans to follow up on that
     research? 
        MR. CARDER:  We spoke with Fleet Guard and Fleet
     Guard was interested in looking into that.  Dr. Godham has -
     - he has a student, I believe, looking at different filter
     materials and then trying to develop a test section that we
     can heat, and very glossy and, you know, temperature
     gradients.  Passing it through and then seeding the flow. 
     So we'll have to see.
        MR. SASEEN:  One part of the question is, does Dr.
     Godham have any plans or any additional test cycles that we
     could be looking at or any proposals for these filter
     determinations are?
        MR. CARDER: I don't know if he's looking at any
     other test cycles right now.  We recently obtained the
     Offred Study from Carve to do offred testing on some of the
     above-ground rubber tired loaders, scrapers, cranes, stuff
     like that.  And we will be doing pretty extensive data
     logging of such devices to get torque load, engine speed,
     that type of thing.  And with what we learn from there and
     with the instrumentation that obviously we are going to have
     to purchase from there, that would be something that we
     could use in to, you know, perhaps logging some -- some
     equipment that's being used currently in the mines in order
     to develop the cycle that would be representative.
        MR. TOMB:  Thanks, Dan.
        MR. CARDER:  Sure.
        MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Thank you, Mr.
     Carder.  Okay, our next presenter will be Mr. Al  Palmer.
        MR. PALMER:  Yes, my name is Al Palmer.  I'm from
     1713 Local UMWA.  My biggest concern like I said is the
     ventilation in the coal mines.  The operators do not
     maintain in a manner that they should.  Not only two months
     ago we had a equipment move of people Inby.  We had a state
     violation written on this.  The state would not rule on it
     in a manner that they said that we did not have two separate
     escapeways.  They do not want to define on it because of the
     point feed that we have at the mines.  When the company was
     asked to do studies on if this would -- the escapeways were
     isolated, you know, in a matter of ventilation, they refused
     to smoke it because they knew they would get the air in
     there.  As Mr. Tolliver said, I came from the same local he
     did, we've had 72 ventilation violations in the past year
     and 10 months.  Twenty-eight permissibility violations. 
     That shows that they do not maintain in a manner that they
     should.
              One of the ventilation violations that they had or
     one of the violations concerning this was on 30 different
     occasions they didn't -- management did not sign or counter-
     sign books in a manner to where if the examiner had reported
     conditions that could have been hazardous in the
     ventilation, they never even took the opportunity to look at
     the book, to counter-sign the books to take corrective
     measures on these cites that the examiners had made. 
     Therefore they have shown that they do not -- it doesn't
     really concern them.  You know, they are there to make
     money, to run it.  So, therefore, I think if we put anything
     less than the strictest measures on these people to where
     that they will stay within the guidelines, then we are doing
     our people an injustice.  If we let them take the outby
     equipment without filters, and trust in them to use
     ventilation to keep it off of us, it's not going to happen. 
     Even in the face -- we have what we call blowing
     ventilation, it's a proven fact we've got it in violations
     that on several occasions they have found that the air is
     recirculated.  
        I was told this morning the difference between
     accumulation and an over-exposure to it seeing what, you
     know, I took it as recirculating, you were reaccumulating. 
     But what you're doing is you're just over-exposure.  The
     particulants that make it if to the face, if they were
     filtered down and you're recirculating air, then you are
     getting more exposure than you should.  Like I said anything
     less than the maximum we could put on this, you know, we're
     doing our people injustice.  Just like people said before
     and I truly believe this, how many of you have been
     underground?  You know, were in a confined area?  You know
     you follow diesel equipment down the road on the highways. 
     I know even with your air conditioning systems and stuff you
     still smell it.  And that's probably, you know, high tech
     cars and stuff we've got now, they keep a lot of stuff out
     but they don't keep it out.  So picture yourself in a
     confined area, picture your children in a confined area with
     this stuff in there with them, and tell me if you could
     sleep at night knowing that you had this stuff coming in on
     your kids.  And that's all I've got to say.
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Any questions?  Thank you
     very much.  (Pause.)  Okay, our next presenter will be Mr.
     Phil Nine.  
        MR. NINE:  My name is Phillip Nine, N-i-n-e, Local
     1702, Blacksville Number 2.  I have 25 years underground
     coal mine experience at Blacksville.  The first thing I want
     to talk about is our maintenance program.
        Our maintenance on electric and battery-powered
     outback equipment is very poor.  So there's no reason to
     believe the diesel equipment will be treated any different
     whenever its brought underground.  When our safety committee
     has a safety inspection to where we tour once a month and
     inspect the coal mines, we sometimes inspect the equipment
     itself.  Whenever we inspect the equipment, the rail
     equipment, we usually tag 80% of it and down until it is
     fixed.  
        We want the best filtering system on all equipment
     available, regardless of the cost.  Whenever the diesel
     equipment comes into the West Virginia coal mines, we want
     it to come in clean, not to clean it up after its in
     operation.  Thank you.
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Do you have any questions? 
     Okay, thank you very much.  Our next presenter will be Mr.
     Gerald Ellison.
        MR. ELLISON:  My name is Gerald Ellison, E-l-l-i-
     s-o-n.  I represent Local 6207, Meadow River Mine.  And I'm
     Chairman of the Health and Safety Committee there.
        MR. TOMB:  Is that here in West Virginia?
        MR. ELLISON:  Yes, sir.
        MR. TOMB:  It is, okay.
        MR. ELLISON:  Forty miles from here.
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you.
        MR. ELLISON:  We've had the diesel debate in this
     state for a little bit less than two years and so a lot of
     this stuff is kind of new -- new to us and I'm sure a lot of
     these other people that spoke here today know a lot more
     about it than I do.  I do know it's a highly technical,
     highly, or high maintenance system.  And I also know that
     our industry in the past has had problems in compliance with
     ventilation we've talked a lot about today.  Some of the --
     some of the citations that some of these other people have
     brought up, this kind of boggles my mind.  Our mine is
     nowhere near that, but I think there's been enough of it, we
     do know that there's a problem with compliance.  
        And as you well notice, ventilation just simply
     doesn't work 100% all the time.  You have factors like the
     roof holes, stoppings get accidentally knocked out.  There's
     -- there's hundreds of things that could happen to
     ventilation in the coal mine that lots of time goes unaware
     for long periods of time.  And if we have this diesel
     equipment giving off these emissions, there's going to be
     sometimes when the ventilation is just not going to be
     adequate.  That's just -- that's a fact of life that I think
     all of us understand.  
        When I started to read some of these reports and
     stuff on the diesel equipment, I was -- I was very amazed
     that one NIOSH report that said that possibly one -- 900 out
     of 1,000 -- every 1,000 coal miners could come down with
     cancer because of these emissions.  And I thought maybe the
     figures were wrong.  Now I double-checked it and they're
     not.  That's -- to me, that's a very bad situation there.  
        Other reports that said the same thing as well
     besides the NIOSH report was California Scientific Review
     Panel said pretty much the same thing, that these emissions
     are full of carcinogens and -- and
     *Tape 5B is playing backwards
        MS. LESTER:  Well, the only thing that it's used
     for is, we have man buses plus we have diesel transit _____
     supplies.  It's my understanding that the way the rules are
     wrote up, if they -- if it doesn't carry coal or whatever,
     you know, a heavy load, then it's not going to come under
     those regulations.  Is that true?
        MR. TOMB:  Not exactly.  
        MS. LESTER:  Could you explain that to me?
        MR. TOMB:  Do you want to explain that, George,
     what's specific heavy-duty from -- ?
        MR. SASEEN: Let's say a house rocket coal and has
     hydraulics on it and --
        MR. TOMB:  Can be used in the long wall move.
        MR. SASEEN:  And is used in the long wall move.
        MS. LESTER:  So the only time --
        MR. SASEEN:  That's heavy-duty equipment.
        MS. LESTER:  So the only time the trans would fall
     under that was when they're being used for long wall moves,
     right?
        MR. SASEEN:  Well, if they were -- if its used for
     long wall moves, then they are considered heavy-duty
     equipment.
        MS. LESTER:  Okay.  You mentioned --
        MR. SASEEN:  Move units.
        MR. TOMB:  You mentioned earlier that they take
     some of the equipment that's in the shop and you mentioned
     filters.  Are any of the equipment that you use in
     underground, are they currently used in the after-treatment
     filters or are you talking about air filters for the intake
     air?
        MS. LESTER:  The air filters.  I'm -- I'm not sure
     if they've got the after-treatment filters on.  But I know,
     like I said the guys have told me that they've took a man to
     change filters -- filters out on the property and they'd be
     put back in service until they get them on the property,
     take them back in and do the maintenance.
        MR. TOMB:  No more questions?  Okay, thank you
     very much.  At this time I would like to take a 15 minute
     break.  So 3:15 we will reconvene.
        (Whereupon, a recess was taken until 3:15.)
        MR. TOMB:  Back on the record.  Our next speaker
     will be Wayne Conaway.
        MR. CONAWAY:  Ladies and gentlemen.  My name is
     Wayne Conaway, C-o-n-a-w-a-y, a mine health and safety
     committeeman at Deliveries Mine, Local 9909, North Central
     West Virginia.  Very first thing I do have to say is
     absolutely no piece of diesel equipment should be allowed in
     an underground coal mine unless it has a filtering system on
     it.
        You know, the average miner in a lifetime of 35
     years of service breathes in anywhere from 1-1/2 to 1.6
     cubic feet of air.  And I'm talking contaminated air.
        MR. TOMB:  Can you hear in the back?
        VOICE:  No.
        MR. TOMB:  Would you turn the microphone on?
        VOICE:  Is it on?
        MR. TOMB:  It's on.  It's on the back of it.
        MR. CONAWAY:  This is on.
        MR. TOMB:  You're going to have to hold it a
     little closer.
        MR. CONAWAY:  How about that?
        MR. TOMB:  Yes.
        MR. CONAWAY:  Like I was saying before, we as a
     coal miner, I would say an average coal miner, if there is
     such a thing, we breathe in after a 35 year period, little
     better than one and a half million cubic feet of air,
     contaminated air, fiber dust, fumes, vapors from chemical
     exposure.  And to actually be considering putting diesel
     equipment underground without a filtering system is totally
     just -- its unbelievable.
        Human lung can only take so much.  There is a --
     right now we know of at least 40 carcinogenic compounds that
     are in diesel exhausts.  It was mentioned a little bit
     earlier in testimony of a type of poly -- poly-nuclear
     aromatic hydrocarbon, the PAHs.  It was failed to mention
     that there is a brand new compound that's a nitrate aversion
     of this that was found just last year.  
        The Suzuki Company in Japan, which is a very large
     company, they had their chemists do some tests.  The
     chemists found that this nitrate aversion of the PAHs
     actually -- how is it produced?  It's a compound that has
     reactions by burning of the fuel and nitric oxides that take
     place on the surface of the hydrocarbon particulate itself. 
     And they found that this actual compound rated the highest
     score ever tested on the Ames test.  And for those that
     aren't familiar with the Ames test, it's a standard measure
     of a cancer causing potential of toxic chemicals.  And,
     believe it or not, the number two most powerful compound
     known as far as a mutogen, is this.  The number two is also
     part of diesel exhaust.  Can we actually live with this?  I
     think not.
        You know, there's a few things I heard earlier
     that kind of upset me a little bit.  And its comments on as
     far as the 95% filtering maybe will limit the technology
     part of engines, fuels.  I've been in the coal business
     since I was 18 years old and I'm really not that gullible to
     believe that if a new engine comes out, new fuel comes out,
     they won't throw away what they have and buy this new stuff. 
     It's not going to happen.
        Another thing is the classification which
     considers a light duty equipment.  There are no -- by
     definition or ratings, that's fine.  But by definition and
     coal mining, there's no such thing as a light duty piece of
     equipment.  That piece of equipment, if it's there, it's
     going to be overloaded period.  The more overloading you do,
     the higher exhaust is going to come off of it.
        One little scenario I'd like for you to think of. 
     Going back to these 40 different carcinogenic compounds. 
     Put yourself in a room, I'll give you 20,000 cubic foot of
     air, and we'll bring a jar in with 40 compounds.  Before I
     take that lid off, would you like me to have a filter on it
     or have it be non-filtered?  Thanks.  Do you have any
     questions?
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you for your presentation.  Yeah,
     I have one question.  Do you work -- it wasn't clear to me,
     do you work in a diesel mine?
        MR. CONAWAY:  No, I don't.  North Central West
     Virginia.
        MR. TOMB:  Oh, okay, okay.  I didn't know.  I
     guess my question that I was going to ask you if you worked
     in was, you said that -- is it your opinion that all outby
     equipment is operated all the time?
        MR. CONAWAY:  What I'm going to say, when it is
     used, it's going to be used to its fullest potential and
     above that.  It's going to be over-exerted regardless of the
     situation.  They are not going to just say, well, you know,
     we've only got 2,000 pounds you can lift with this.
        MR. TOMB:  Oh, I see what you're saying.
        MR. CONAWAY:  No, if it's there, it's going to be
     used to its max.
        MR. TOMB:  You're saying duty cycle?
        MR. CONAWAY:  Yes.
        MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Thank you.  The next person for
     presentation is Mr. John Hale.
        MR. HALE:  My name is John Hale, H-a-l-e, Safety
     Representative, United Mineworkers of America, Local 2283. 
     I work the Plumfit Number 1 Mine, Rochester and Pittsburgh
     Coal Company.  It's a subsidiary consol.  I've heard many
     things said here today.  Most of it's to do with long walls. 
     I worked with 38 to 45 inch coal seam.  I'm not working in
     the seven, eight, nine foot scene.  I'm a bed rock duster. 
     I'm back in the returns.  I have to eat every bit of that
     rock dust, coal dust, silica, everything that's common in
     that return, I'm eating it.  Nobody's telling me that you
     are going to give me a respirator that will filter all this
     garbage out.  What you might as well do right now, today, is
     sign my death certificate.  Because that's what you guys are
     going to do to us if you don't put a stop to this.  My mine,
     in the past, from January of '96 to September of '98, 102
     citations on ventilation.  This is unreal.  It's time we
     start cracking down on some of this other stuff before we
     start letting diesels in.  That's all I have to say.
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Do we have any questions? 
     Okay, thank you for your presentation, Hale.  Our next
     presenter will be Mr. Jon Hitchings.
        MR. HITCHINGS:  My name is Jon Hitchings, J-o-n H-
     i-t-c-h-i-n-g-s.  United Mineworker Local 600 R&B Coal.  We
     were bought by Consol Early Number 1 Mine.  We don't have
     diesel in our mine, we don't want diesel in our mine.  We
     probably won't have it due to the life of our mine, but that
     doesn't mean that I can't come here and fight for everybody
     else and try to make them have a safe environment.  I
     listened to these coal operators talking about the costs,
     the safety of the miners.  Well there's another part to
     that.  Its called the health and safety of these miners. 
     And nobody said that, just the miners.  Nobody said a word
     about the health.  They are always saying the safety miners,
     electrical equipment versus the diesel, the safety, the
     safety.  What about my lungs.  You know, I'll probably never
     see diesel where I work.  I'm 36 years old.  I'm hoping to
     go someplace else that might have diesel.  What about my
     lungs?  You don't seem worried about it.  He doesn't seem
     worried about.  The only ones that are worried about it is
     me and my union brothers and sisters.  And I think it's time
     like everybody else is saying, you need to crack down and do
     your job the best that you can do and quit weighing the odds
     on the cost, okay.  This is America.  There's people out
     there that will cut each other's throats to build this
     equipment, to make this equipment.  They will undersell each
     other in a heartbeat to stay in business.  Because that's
     what these coal companies are doing now to each other.  So I
     know they can do it.  
        Where I work, where all these guys work, it's a
     competitive market out there.  When these diesels come in,
     if they do and I pray to God that they are maintained, the
     filters, the best that they can be.  The technology is
     there, why not use it.  Why listen to that about the costs
     of maintaining this.  I don't buy that.  They bought Joey
     Miners, scrubbers, extended cuts, these things cost a lot of
     money, they are using them.  But that was to their
     advantage.  Now this is something that is to their
     advantage, too.  But they don't -- they don't seem like they
     want to worry about the worker.  They're complaining about
     the costs, the cost.  My life, my lungs, all these people in
     here, you can't put a dollar figure on that.  And that's
     what really upsets me by listening to these operators on
     anything that they're saying is there's a dollar figure
     involved.  They've been in business a long time.  If they're
     going to take that chance, they're going to take it whether
     the equipment costs millions of dollars or a hundred
     thousand dollars.  They are going to do that.  They have
     been business, they plan on staying in business. 
        As far as citations, I have numerous citations on
     ventilation just like everybody else has.  Outby equipment,
     I hear the light duty Outby equipment -- if something breaks
     down inby and you need that piece of equipment that's
     supposed to be outby, there is no barriers in there. 
     They'll use it.  And it will stay there until one of you or
     an inspector comes in there and catches them.  That's the
     honest to God truth.  They'll use it.  So why not make the
     standard all the same.  Filter everything, use the best
     technology you have and then there is no excuses.  And then
     I have piece of mind knowing that whoever is using that or
     wherever I am at, that I can count on that equipment being
     right.  That I don't have to worry about an inspector
     showing up to make sure that they're doing it right.  I am
     supposed to be doing my job wherever I'm at, working safe,
     paying attention to my job.  I shouldn't have to worry about
     what I'm breathing.  Especially if I can't see it.  Now I
     can understand being where if I see smoke or whatever.  But
     if I can't see it, how do I know?  I hear about the strict
     as the PA diesel rules are, I heard the same thing with
     respirable dust and silica.  We'll never survive, they are
     putting us out of business.  We're doing it.  We're
     scrubbing.  We're cleaning the air.  They are doing it.  It
     seems like they -- they want to do that as the excuse that
     you people are going to put them out of business.  But yet
     they are still mining the coal.  And more coal now than 10,
     15 years ago and we're still doing it.  Black lung is
     getting to be something of the past as far as what I see in
     the mines.  And that's because of you people protecting us. 
     So I'm asking you, please, keep protecting us.  Weigh the
     odds.  Only weigh the odds in the -- the human life's favor
     versus the dollar figure.  (Pause.)  And that's -- that's
     all I have.  Like I said, a lot of these guys covered pretty
     much what I had to say.
        MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Are you going to leave that with
     us?
        MR. HITCHINGS:  Yeah.
        MR. TOMB:  Okay, thank you.  Do we have any
     questions?  Thank you very much.  Our next presenter will be
     Mr. Allen Qualls. 
        MR. QUALLS:  My name is Allen Qualls, A-l-l-e-n Q-
     u-a-l-l-s.  I've just got a few statements to make.  I've
     done seen enough slide projection and charts and I would
     just like to give you a little bit of my work history.  I am
     28 years UMWA.  I've been in every facet of face mining. 
     I've mined most of my -- well all of my underground was here
     in Raleigh County, low seams of coal.  I've been subjected
     to equipment, electrical equipment with motors.  The
     Fahrenheit degree on those motors got so hot you couldn't
     even touch them.  Somebody mentioned hydraulics a minute
     ago.  The hydraulic oils in those engines -- I mean those
     motors and stuff, the fumes off of it will actually choke
     you.  I'm outside surface employee now at a preparation
     plant.  I believe it might be the last one here in Raleigh
     County.  Previous employers -- four employers have filed
     bankruptcy on this operation.  We're under bankruptcy now. 
     Some of these statements these people have made about
     getting material or product, product comes first.
        I'd like to address you people concerning diesel
     fuel.  I guess I have surfaced more equipment with diesel
     fuel than anybody in this room since I've been on service. 
     The operation I work at now has a train that runs diesel. 
     Four dozers that run diesel.  As high as three end loaders
     that run diesel.  And I want to tell you that I've got it on
     me, I've had to work around it, and smell it all day long. 
     This is the diesel fuel.  My concern, since I'm not
     underground but I've been there, is to the containing the
     transportation of this fuel to this equipment and people
     just having to just smell diesel fuel.
        I went home several times after driving a rock yuk
     with the fumes coming up through the floor boards of a
     dozer, my eyeballs, popping, my head popping.  I'm sorry
     that I didn't get an education.  That I have to be one of
     these miners who makes this fossil fuel, or provides this
     fossil fuel for everybody to have the luxury of.
        I've seen a lot of people here today that are
     dressed very well, they are called doctors and got degrees. 
     I've seen graphs and charts.  Probably couldn't -- a
     battleship couldn't hold them out.  But if Ross Perot, if
     them graphs and charts would have been right, Ross Perot
     should have been our president, because that's what he went
     by.  Those statements I'm making are kind of, you know, just
     down to earth.  I'm the guy that works in the field.  I'm
     the guy that has to work around this equipment, smell it.  I
     don't think there's any scrubber system or any filter system
     that you could come up with that wouldn't break down in
     field use, especially in low coal.
        Now, somebody spoke about tunneling, salt flats,
     salt mines, something like that, I don't know.  But the
     volume is there they are talking about.  I remember very
     well, the law used to be 3,000 feet cfm in the fact, 9,000
     in the last open cross-cut.  This was in the 70's.  We got
     repeatedly violation -- repeated violations.  We couldn't
     even keep enough in.  They were talking about 20 -- somebody
     here had 20 cfm's.  I couldn't imagine blowing your head
     off.  Let's be realistic about it.
        Give you a good example.  I was up on Blueridge
     Parkway just the other day.  This has nothing to do with
     mining.  Ridge on both sides.  Beautiful God's country.  I
     was following a Mercedes Benz.  Like to choke me to death. 
     For miles we couldn't pass.  Time we got around that little
     vehicle, now this is an expensive vehicle, isn't it?  But
     that's a good example.  You couldn't confine this stuff
     underground.  You crawl around in there on your hands and
     your knees.  That lady that spoke here a minute ago.  This
     outby equipment to -- I don't know, I don't even know the
     laws are now.  Like I said, I'm surface man.  But the
     dealings I have to deal with diesel fuel and equipment that
     uses it, it -- it's plum pitiful.  So I don't know that.  
        I've heard a lot of people speak about the West
     Virginia University.  I would like to ask somebody
     something.  The gypsy moth is still giving us a terrible
     fit.  We've been doing studies on that 15 years.  These
     little lady bugs that's crawling in everybody's house? 
     We've been studying that.  We don't -- what I've heard here
     today in this hearing, I don't see anything that's concrete
     or certified for the placement of this equipment in the
     mines.  As I said, I wish I had gotten an education.  I
     don't know that my grandchildren might be in mining.  I
     would hate the thought of them having to handle, be around
     diesel fuel, diesel fumes in their occupation.  Thank you
     very much.
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Do you have any questions? 
     Okay, thank you very much.  Our next presenter will be Mr.
     Kennedy. Mr. Max Kennedy.
        MR. KENNEDY:  Good afternoon.  My name is Max
     Kennedy, M-a-x K-e-n-n-e-d-y.  I'm here -- I'm an
     International Health and Safety Rep for United Mineworkers
     assigned to Virginia.  I'm here today to speak to you as a
     member of Virginia's Coal Mine Safety Board.  Our -- our
     Coal Mine Safety Board in Virginia is the regulatory work
     group for the Division of Mines.  
        The Board is undertaking the task that you have
     before you today at the state level.  And our process has
     progressed to the point where we will schedule public
     hearings in the near future.  But what I would like to say
     is that this -- our Board has wrestled and had presentations
     on different aspects of diesel equipment used in Virginia's
     mines for the past 16 months.  As a result of those
     presentations, we -- we've adopted language that was, above
     board, an improvement on existing regulation that we had
     until MSHA finally issued the proposed rule.  When -- when
     the proposed rule was issued this year, the Division of
     Mines went back and drafted language and I'll get into that
     a little bit later on.  But this -- this put us back as far
     as requiring after-treatment exhaust packages which we were
     intending to do.  And that puts the federal agency and the
     state agency, when we were going to require assistance to
     protect miner's health and safety, at odds.  
        But, our task at hand today depends on what you do
     at the state level in Virginia.  Because most of that is
     going to hinge on the specific requirements, heavy duty
     versus light duty has become a factor because what we
     intended was all equipment, as far as after-treatment
     packages in Virginia, whether it be inby or outby.  But
     since the agency, MSHA, has proposed a specific definition
     for inby and outby, heavy duty versus light duty, that's put
     us at a disadvantage to clean up some of the equipment that
     we have.  In Virginia, 80% of the equipment is outby
     equipment.  And that's going to cause us some problems
     trying to clean up some of the older equipment that we have
     with this proposed regulation.  
        In the mid-1980's, diesel came in the coal mines
     in Virginia as a result of the action of the General
     Assembly.  Thereafter, Pittston Coal Company, Westmoreland
     Coal Company, went out and bought inby face equipment,
     production equipment.  These were fitted, they were
     permissible equipment, but they were fitted with water
     scrubbers, flame arrestors.  The miners were told that those
     were scrubbers.  That that was what that was for.  They
     didn't -- they didn't really tell them what -- that it was a
     flame arrestor.  
        During -- during that mid-80's, the two- year
     period there between '85 and '88, the miners on those
     production crews became ill.  Visibility became a factor. 
     The blue haze in the cross cuts, they couldn't see.  And
     finally, production dropped.  Those coal companies decided,
     made a management decision to remove that face equipment
     because it was not productive because the miners couldn't
     deal with it.  It even got to the point where they were
     putting dish washing liquid in the scrubbing box so that it
     would mask the fumes, as miners call it, that was coming
     from the exhaust.  And they told them that would take care
     of it.  And which it didn't and therefore, that's how the
     production equipment was removed.  It was not removed by the
     agencies.  It was removed voluntarily by the employees there
     because of production.  The -- since that period of time,
     most of the equipment in Virginia is used outby for
     personnel carriers, supply motors, trans, that's the extent
     of that today.  
        From that period of time when those miners were
     being exposed and that face equipment was being used, the
     outcry went back to the General Assembly.  The General
     Assembly at that time formed a joint subcommittee in 1988 to
     study the effects of using diesel engines in underground
     mines.  And the thrust of that committee and recommendations
     was that the United States Secretary of Labor be requested
     to expedite the research, design and testing of particulate
     measuring devices, and diesel engine particulate filters for
     use in underground coal mines.  Okay, that -- that -- that
     was done.  The Secretary at that time was Ann, oh, I can't
     pronounce it, but the report I'll submit it.  
        The thrust of that report was to the Secretary,
     the committee recommends appropriate regulation by two
     means.  First, the agency should implement a system to
     control the amount of diesel particulate matter where diesel
     equipment is used underground.  Ideally, this regulatory
     scheme should be implemented, a system to monitor and
     control diesel particulate.  That's 10 years ago.  And we're
     still here trying to deal with that issue.  
        Then, NIOSH releases a report in 1988.  And the
     thrust of that report.  NIOSH recommends that producers of
     diesel engines disseminate this current information to their
     customers and that users of diesel-powered equipment
     disseminate this current information to the workers.  NIOSH
     also recommends that professional and trade associations and
     unions inform their members of the new findings of potential
     carcinogenic hazards of exposure to diesel engine emissions. 
     And that all available preventive efforts, including
     available engineering controls, work practices, be
     vigorously implemented to minimize exposure of workers to
     diesel exhaust.  And, again, that was 10 years ago.  
        And as -- as Virginia progressed, and I have been
     a member of that Board for 6-1/2 years, through four
     governors.  We had progressed to the point where our
     regulations read at the first part of this year and I'll
     read it to you, that and this is, General Requirements Part
     I, Diesel Equipment Approval.  Diesel-powered equipment will
     not be permitted underground without approval, period. 
     Approval shall be conditioned upon compliance with these
     regulations and be establishing that diesel equipment used
     in underground coal mines be equipped with the most up-to-
     date, approved, available diesel engine exhaust after-
     treatment packages that control emission levels in the
     surrounding mine environment.  That was our regulation up
     until the agency released its proposed regulations.  
        And at that time, we had a comparison of Virginia
     regulations versus MSHA regulations.  That was our proposal
     versus what was on the decks with MSHA.  Well since MSHA is
     the lead agency on regulations, the Division of Mines in
     Virginia went back to draft a proposal that would set forth
     the guidelines of this paragraph.  So what we got in return
     after April 16, 1998, was an identical draft proposal which
     superseded what I just read to you that we adopted in -- in
     -- prior to April of the current proposal that MSHA had,
     which is a reduction of not filtering all pieces of
     equipment but heavy duty and outby -- heavy duty outby.  
        So, that really -- that really bothers me as a
     member of a committee such as you have before you of six
     years worth of work trying to improve Virginia's diesel
     equipment.  And now we are going to end up with all of the
     80% of the equipment that we were trying to do something
     with in Virginia that, if this regulation goes through and
     it doesn't address that, then the miners such as the lady
     that spoke to you, Linda Lester, her mine will not adversely
     be affected by this.  But I will submit this for the record
     and I'll answer any questions you may have.
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Any questions?  
        MS. WESDOCK:  Mr. Kennedy, I have one question for
     you.  I think the mike is off.  Do you feel that this
     proposal will be restricting Virginia from implementing a
     more stricter proposal.  Why do you feel that way?
        MR. KENNEDY:  Its the politics of legislating. 
     Usually a state agency will take the federal agency's lead
     on regulatory actions.  Because in the industry, there is
     always a cry of duplication.  Duplicate inspections,
     duplicate sets of regulations.  And that has been the case. 
     As far as Virginia, what -- what instituted this regulatory
     review was the fact that we had an Executive Order from the
     governor at that time to review all regulations in Virginia. 
     So that opened up the process to where we could go in and
     try to fix some of the things in the regulation to try and
     address the -- the emissions that were in our underground
     coal mines because of diesel equipment.
        Under that regulation -- I mean under the
     Executive Order, it specifically says that, you know, we
     aren't supposed to duplicate.  If we're duplicating federal
     regulation, then it needs to be omitted.  So now that we've
     proposed something that was more stringent, then the federal
     agency comes back and says that, you know, with the reg
     that's less stringent, then the state agency is not going to
     do that.  They are not going to take the more stringent --
     even though I'm a member of that Board, I only have one vote
     as far as requiring that.  And our Board set-up is three
     members from labor, three members from industry and three
     citizens at-large.  That's basically how that's going to
     work.  Unless you require something more stringent than what
     you have on the proposals as far as its been released so
     far.
        MS. WESDOCK:  Just to clarify, the -- the federal
     law does not pre-empt the state law.  Okay, so you -- so
     Virginia can have a stricter law.  It just can't have a more
     -- I mean a less stricter law than the federal.  But if they
     were to decide to pass, you know, in the future a law
     regarding diesel, it can be stricter than the federal law. 
     We don't pre-empt that.
        MR. KENNEDY:  The -- the state agency in Virginia,
     as far as the regulatory process, takes MSHA's lead.  So
     what it's going to boil down to is whatever this committee
     comes up with the final rule, then that's what the -- the
     Coal Miner's Safety Board in Virginia is going to have the
     exact same language.  So, you know, what I'm saying is we
     had everything covered.  Inby, outby, heavy duty, light duty
     until this proposal came at mid-year.  And, you know, like I
     said we have to go through the administrative process act
     which calls for public hearings and that will be
     forthcoming.  And then it will be finalized and sent to the
     governor for approval.  And whatever this Board does, then
     it's going to affect the State of Virginia.
        MR. TOMB:  Rob.
        MR. HANEY:  Did you have any exposure measurements
     outby areas of Virginia coal mines?
        MR. KENNEDY:  They are different levels depending
     upon the ventilation systems.  Most of the mines in Virginia
     now, except for the one Consol mine that we have as far as
     represented by the United Mineworkers, has a unique, vast,
     complex ventilation system with two sets of bag cot fans
     that -- that have millions of cubic feet of air going into
     the mines.  But most of the mines in Virginia are smaller
     hilltop mines with limited ventilation.  And those are the
     mines that have the outby equipment for transportation and
     transportation of supplies and materials.  Those are the
     problems.  Some of the Pittston mines are good examples. 
     They have problems and are being cited because of their
     ventilation and quantities outby.  And -- and those areas
     which are in our regulations now, our diesel regulations
     State of Virginia requires -- requirements are a little bit
     higher than what MSHA requires as far as quantities and
     numbers of pieces of equipment which you will see in the
     comparison.  But, for the most part in Virginia, the smaller
     mines are the problem mines.  And all the vast number that
     make up the largest amount of the typical mines in Virginia
     with diesel equipment in them.
        MR. HANEY:  Okay, the question was, did you have
     any diesel particulate exposure measurements?
        MR. KENNEDY:  No.  No, sir.  I do not.
        MR. HANEY:  Okay, thank you.
        MR. SASEEN:  Did you ever have any -- did they
     ever more filters on water scrubbers back when they had the
     face equipment.
        MR. KENNEDY:  I don't -- I don't think they did. 
     I don't think they did.  The only thing they did was as far
     as the eye irritant and the sore throat irritant, they just
     added some kind of detergent to the -- to the scrubber to
     mask the diesel emissions.  And it just got to the point
     where the miners couldn't produce coal because of visibility
     and also the -- the illness that they had while working. 
     And then it was the operator just decided to take it out of
     the mine.  And that was the case and has been the case in
     Virginia with the unfiltered raw diesel exhaust.
        MR. SASEEN:  Thank you.
        MR. TOMB:  One other question.  Are you submitting
     a copy of the proposed -- what you proposed into the record?
        MR. KENNEDY:  Yes.
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.
        MR. KENNEDY:  Thank you.
        MR. TOMB:  The next presentation will be made by
     Mr. David Bowling.
        MR. BOWLING:  My name is David Bowling, that's B-
     o-w-l-i-n-g.  I'm Manager of Mechanical Engineering for ALE
     Corporation.  We're just outside of Beckley.  ALE
     Corporation appreciates the opportunity to be here today and
     offer comments regarding the proposed rule.  
        We realize a great deal of time and effort has
     been expended by MSHA and others involved in the process to
     gather and interpret information and determine methods that
     will provide the safest and most healthful environment for
     our nation's coal miners.  Without the miners and their
     skills, it would be impossible for our mines to operate. 
     And the large number of us who depend on the coal mines for
     our livelihood would be looking at a drastic change in our
     lives.
        We in the mining community must also realize that
     we continue to have this opportunity to earn a living
     because the product we provide has market value.  In recent
     years, foreign competition and cost of operation have
     continued to make it difficult for domestic coal companies
     to remain profitable.  We must all look at ways that we can
     help keep our coal market competitive or face the reality
     that many of us may need to look for another means of making
     a living.  The challenge is to ensure safety while
     maintaining production and profitability.  
        The main points of concern to ALE Corporation in
     the proposed rule are in the application of Part 72.500,
     Diesel Particulate Filtration Systems.  Our first point is
     the practicality of a system capable of removing, on average
     at least 95% of diesel particulate matter by mass.  Over the
     past two years, a great deal of research has been done in
     this regard by members of the West Virginia Diesel
     Commission and interested miners -- members of the mining
     community.
        As a result of the test and research conducted,
     members of the Commission and industry felt that it was
     reasonable and more attainable to have -- I'm sorry.  As a
     result of the test and research conducted, members of the
     Commission and the industry felt that a reasonable and more
     attainable number was 70%.  Though technology continues to
     advance in the direction of cleaner systems, we do not feel
     that sufficient evidence exists that 95% is a number that
     can be consistently and repeatedly attained by any
     filtration system available for use in our machines.
        Our second point is cost.  At ALE Corporation, we
     have recently been exploring the possibility of making one
     of our underground mobile product which is currently
     approved for outby use permissible for inby use.  The
     machine would require a scrubber or something similar.  The
     current price of the non-permissible machine without such a
     system is around $70,000.  The cost on the available systems
     that we have priced, will increase the selling price in the
     range of $50,000.  This cost added to the additional cost
     associated with having the machine approved could possibly
     be justified on a piece of inby equipment that is fully
     permissible.  
        However, depending on the machine's configuration,
     it may come under the Part 75.1908A definition for heavy
     duty outby equipment.  If the proposed rule, and 95%
     requirement are put into effect, the exhaust treatment
     system will be required and the price of the machine
     currently selling for $70,000 will jump to $120,000, an
     increase of 71%.  This cost increase could be avoided
     without sacrificing site -- without sacrificing safety.  If
     the proposed rule took into account the use of more
     efficient engines and increases in ventilation rates.  To a
     small operator, this could easily mean the difference
     between buying or not buying a piece of equipment that could
     help make their operation more productive and less
     expensive, and most importantly, safer.
        We appreciate that MSHA recognizes that light duty
     outby equipment does not require such drastic measures as
     those recommended for inby permissible and heavy duty outby
     equipment.  The difference in duty cycles and typically
     lower horsepowers involved make this a very wise decision. 
     We ask MSHA to take these issues into account and rethink
     the proposed rule in regard to the 95% particulate removal
     and reconsider its position on credit for increased
     ventilation rates and higher engine efficiency.  Thank you.
        MR. TOMB:  Any questions?  
        MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Bowling, can you tell me what
     engine you were considering going from non-permissible to
     permissible unit?
        MR. BOWLING:  We are looking at Isuzu QD-100.
        MR. SASEEN:  QD-100?
        MR. BOWLING:  Yes.
        MR. TOMB:  I'm thinking.  I lost my track when he
     asked that question.  Oh, on your 70% filter that you
     mentioned.  What type of filter is that?
        MR. BOWLING:  We're just -- at this point we
     haven't actually picked the filter --
        MR. TOMB:  What are you basing your -- what are
     your maximum --
        MR. BOWLING:  The 70%?
        MR. TOMB:  Yes.
        MR. BOWLING:  The findings of the West Virginia
     Diesel Commission studies.
        MR. TOMB:  What was presented here today?
        MR. BOWLING:  Yes.
        MR. TOMB:  Very good.  Thank you, Mr. Bowling.
        MR. FORD:  I have a question.  On this scrubber,
     does this have a paper filter?
        MR. BOWLING:  It would have to have a paper
     filter, yes.
        MR. TOMB:  Go ahead.
        MR. HANEY:  In selecting of the engine, have you
     considered the MSHA PI's in your choice of engine for that
     piece of equipment?
        MR. BOWLING:  MSHA PI's?
        MR. HANEY:  Particulate indexes?
        MR. BOWLING:  Yes.  I've tried to -- there's a
     limitation on the machine due to size and what's currently
     available as far as the inby units.  And the engines that
     are available are quite large.
        MR. HANEY:  Well, I was just wondering because you
     picked an engine with twice the PI of any other engine out
     there.
        MR. BOWLING:  Oh, yes.  It's also the smallest.
        MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  You're going to
     submit a copy of your testimony?
        MR. BOWLING:  That will be fine.
        MR. TOMB:  And thank you very much for your
     presentation, Mr. Bowling.  Our next presenter will be Mr.
     Smith for Jeffrey Mining Products.
        MR. SMITH:  Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman.  I
     would like the opportunity to spell my name.  I really
     appreciate it.  (Laughter.)  J-o-h-n S-m-i-t-h.  Most people
     ask me to prove it and not to spell it.  I have been
     employed by Jeffrey Manufacturing off and on for about 30
     years.  Jeffrey is the manufacturer of permissible diesel
     underground equipment.  In the interim, I was operating for
     a company called Getman who manufactures primarily outby
     non-permissible equipment.  I have 30 years experience in
     both types of machinery, directly involved in designing
     engine treatment systems, for treatment and after treatment
     systems.  
        Jeffrey currently manufactures both wet and dry
     scrubbing systems that apply to the engines which Dr. Thakur
     pointed out.  Basically there are only two manufacturers of
     permissible engines that are used regularly today and that's
     Caterpillar and MWM Duetz.  There are two Caterpillar models
     used regularly and one Duetz model.  One thing the industry
     is faced with today, these engines are old technology,
     antiquated engines.  They have no electronic controls, they
     have no turbo-charging.  They are low pressure fuel
     injection.  And the reason is that's what we've used for the
     last 40 years.  
        A bomb was just dropped on the industry recently. 
     Next month is the last year the MWM Duetz will be produced. 
     The reason came from Duetz saying they only produce 6,000 of
     these engines worldwide and they are selling just around 60
     of them in the United States.  And that's not enough for an
     engine manufacturer to continue manufacturing an engine,
     even though its been a very clean engine, a very reliable
     engine.  We're faced with the opportunity of finding new
     engines, particularly in the 100 horsepower, low profile. 
     There is none immediately available which is approved.
        So we have two directions to go.  We can find
     another old-fashioned, perhaps a much dirtier engine, which
     will certainly make getting a 95% filter target pretty easy. 
     Or we can look at newer technologies.  The high pressure
     fuel injection.  That atomizes the fuel to a much finer
     extent, meaning you get more complete burning, less
     particulate matter.  Electronic controls on the engine on
     the fuel injection rack.  This has never been permitted
     previously.  And turbo-charging to find a way of controlling
     the surface temperature of a turbo-charger.  With this new
     engine technology, we can reduce particulate matter probably
     by two-thirds.  But now if we start with a filter which
     hasn't been designed yet, a 95% efficient filter, now all of
     a sudden if we try with this new engine technology, it may
     only be a 30% emission filter.  The filter regulation will
     put us out.  
        If we decide to establish a target in milligrams
     or micrograms per cubic meter, then we are not penalized for
     using new technology for developing new cleaner engines
     keeping particulate matter down in the mines which is the
     critical thing.  Plus using an engine which is available. 
     Perhaps the biggest problem we face today is that the mining
     industry cannot drive the engine manufacturers.  As an
     example, Hercules built an engine a while back.  It was
     ideal.  It was a horizontally opposed six.  Now Hercules is
     a small engine builder.  And we said, this is the perfect
     engine for us.  Its got the pre-combustion chamber for low
     emissions, its got the right dimensions.  We would like to
     use this engine in mining.  Of course we need a water-cooled
     manifold and a few other accessories on it.  And they said,
     fine, we would be happy to, how many engines would you use? 
     And I said, well, we as a company would use probably 25 or
     30.  The industry would probably use 75 to 100.  And they
     said, let's see a hundred a week, that would probably give
     us about the right production for a year.  And I said, no,
     I'm talking about the total production per year.  They
     smiled and said it was nice meeting you.  We cannot drive
     the engine manufacturers.  We have to use what's available. 
     The engine manufacturers today are putting their efforts
     behind transportation engines.  This is where the market is. 
     This is where the new technology is.  If we are going to
     stay up with the new technology, we have to follow them. 
     Unfortunately, we can't be a leader.  The only thing we lead
     in is flame-proofing technology from an existing engine.  We
     take the engine they've already built and we flame-proof it. 
     That we can do.  Because they are not interested.  That's a
     small quantity operation.  
        So basically the point I'm getting to, we've got
     to stay up with the new technology.  We've got to keep
     introducing cleaner engines.  We are not going to do it if
     we're hampered by a 95% filter requirement to develop a new
     filter that only works on dirty engines.  We will gain, if
     we have a grams per cubic meter target to shoot for.  I
     might point out that either one is difficult to measure
     underground.  Whether you are doing a particulate coming out
     of an engine or the delta particulate across the filter, its
     primarily laboratory stuff.  It probably will not be
     maintained underground.  But you can come close to
     maintaining it.  So I think with laboratory tests, we will
     be able to achieve a fairly low gram per cubic meter
     standard, but certainly never the 95% filter efficiency.  
        I had a couple other points that I wanted to
     address and they came from comments on the panel, since I
     have designed both wet and dry scrubbers for several
     different engines.  People were talking about the cost of a
     wet scrubber system or the cost of a filtration system which
     requires cooling the exhaust before you get there if you're
     going to have any high efficiency.  And the figures were
     quoted, and rightly so.  I heard good figures today from 30
     to $35,000 additional for the smaller system to $60,000 for
     the larger system.
        This is really making a non-permissible machine a
     permissible machine.  This is not just adding a filtration
     system to it.  You are talking about heavy duty outby.  You
     don't need all the thermal shut-downs and what have you
     involved.  This could probably be done at a much lower cost. 
     It just hasn't been done yet.  If you have a permissible
     machine, you are going to add a filter to it.  It has 50 or
     60% of the requirements already in place.  Now you simply
     have the development of the filter, the temperature controls
     added to existing shut-downs which have to be done.  This
     can be done at a relatively low cost. 
        Now I get to another point is timing.  Like I say,
     Jeffrey and the United States in coal have about 300
     machines out there.  Four different generations.  You're
     saying 18 months to convert machines after promulgation to a
     new filtration system and what have you.  This is a
     reasonable figure for the current production machines.  If
     we would have to go back and revisit machines made 10, 15,
     20 years ago, develop prototypes for testing of the old
     machines, yes, the cost is high.  But there is no way that
     can be done concurrently because there aren't that many
     experts in the field to develop these systems.  There's a
     handful of experts.  And they can't be addressing five or
     six different machines at the same time.  So I'm saying that
     the 18 months is probably reasonable for current production
     machines.  It isn't reasonable for catching up with all the
     machines in the field.  My best guess is 30 to 36 months to
     catch up with 75% of the machines in the field.
        MR. TOMB:  What -- what was that figure?
        MR. SMITH:  I'm guessing.
        MR. TOMB:  I know.
        MR. SMITH:  Thirty to thirty-six months would get
     about 75% of the machines.  And the other 25 would probably
     end up being scrapped.  They are probably 20, 25 years old
     and they have been rebuilt three or four times and the
     economic viability probably isn't there to achieve that. 
     And with outby equipment we are looking at 30 months.  I
     haven't started yet to address, other than just the general
     thought, exhaust cooling methods and scrubbing methods to
     get temperatures down to where a paper filter can be used. 
     And you're not going to achieve these percentages with
     ceramic or any other newer material today.  When I say
     paper, I'm talking about fibrous, throw-away type of
     elements.  Paper is, of course, a misnomer when you're
     talking about high temperature filters that are primarily
     polyester and fiberglass.  They look like paper, they feel
     like paper, you can't tear it.  And there are other
     materials available.
        I think I may have had another question which I
     wanted to address.  That was a question that came up earlier
     on catalytic converters.  I can't recall who asked that
     question specifically.  If anything had been done with
     testing catalytic converters on light duty outby equipment,
     I'm talking about efficiency or thermal efficiency.  As you
     know, a catalytic converter does not operate well at all
     until it achieves a certain temperature.  Now they are
     getting lower.  Generally you get 80 to 90% catalytic action
     efficiency in the range of 650 to 850 degrees F.  Most of
     your light duty equipment, all we're doing is we're scaling
     the size down.  That equipment generally is transport
     equipment.  It moves from place to place and it's using its
     small horsepower under fairly heavy load.  It's generating
     high temperatures for a period of time which can make it
     efficient.  When it is sitting there idling, the catalytic
     converter does nothing.  
        Locomotives are ideal for catalytic converters. 
     The long hauls, high loads, high temperatures.  The worst
     catalytic converter use is in face equipment.  It -- they
     are virtually useless.  Now you run into temperature
     control.  You have water jacket and manifold cooling the
     exhaust.  You have -- you have to water jacket or insulate
     the catalytic converter.  And now the temperatures on a
     machine which may go 200 to 500 feet maximum distance, they
     never get up to the 600 to 850 degrees F.  Many times they
     are sitting around 250 to 300.  Catalytic converters are
     absolutely useless at these temperatures.  So it's really
     the face equipment is the problem, not the light duty
     equipment makes use of catalytic converters.
        I think I may have addressed virtually the
     questions that the panel had previously.  So I have no other
     comments to make.
        MR. TOMB:  Thank you very much.  Any questions? 
     George, go ahead.
        MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Smith, I presume.
        MR. SMITH:  (Laughter.)  Thanks, George.
        MR. SASEEN:  Could you give us the cost of adding
     the paper, pleated type filter to your current production,
     what scrubber systems.
        MR. SMITH:  The wet scrubber system and it's just
     going to be rough.  I've been totally in engineering for the
     past few years and not involved in the marketing.  But
     basically, what it entails, I can tell you that better.  We
     have the second generation electronic shut-down already
     programmed to receive the temperature sensor.  It entails
     adding a special pipe.  It is a fairly elaborate pipe that
     has a water trap in it and a temperature sensor.  We have an
     exhaust gas sampling port in it.  And we have an addition to
     the water scrubber which is a dryer.  This means the
     scrubber can't be changed in the field.  We have to exchange
     scrubbers.  It has to be remanufactured to add the dryer to
     it so that the filter element doesn't become sopping wet and
     fail to function.  And then it has a grill modification to
     the vehicle because the filter now sticks out the front of
     the machine and basically a diffuser.  So basically the
     parts are relatively simple.  I would take a stab and say
     $3,500 would supply the parts.  The labor, its modification
     labor.  They wouldn't need a new bumper grill arrangement. 
     They could go in with a torch and modify and flame cut. 
     That's probably going to be $500 or $600 to do that.  So
     basically, you aren't looking at a great deal of expense to
     modify and existing piece of permissible equipment.
        MR. SASEEN:  Would that be on the MWM or on the
     CAT 3306?
        MR. SMITH:  That would be on the MWM and probably
     the old 3306 in the 4114 models.  It would be very similar
     in cost.  In the new system, which is a dry system, both on
     the MWM and the 3306 basically, this depends on what the
     regulation ends up being.  If its 95%, to retrofit that may
     be a problem.  If we are doing it with the existing filters,
     its already a part of those machines.  The filter is part of
     the approval.  So there is a filter but like Dr. Thakur
     said, as the engine gets old and decrepit and starts burning
     oil, the rate efficiency goes up.  As the filter gets dirty,
     filter efficiency numbers go up.  So if we're looking at
     efficiency percent of capture, there may have to be quite a
     bit of redesign involved if we stay with something like
     that, like the 95%.  Did that answer it, George.
        MR. SASEEN:  Yes.
        MR. TOMB:  Ron? 
        MR. FORD:  That wet scrubber, $3,500 for parts and
     %600 for labor, that's putting it on a -- a -- equipment
     that is already permissible?
        MR. SMITH:  Yes, that's correct.
        MR. FORD:  Okay.
        MR. SMITH:  And that filter --
        MR. FORD:  Efficiency air would be what?
        MR. SMITH:  I'm sorry?
        MR. FORD:  What would be the efficiency rating?
        MR. SMITH:  We would guess, and we had some bad
     efficiency numbers and this is just a guess.  We have been
     able to hit with the complete system over 90%.  But that's
     not the filter.  That's the complete system.  This has a
     water scrubber on it, mind you.  And the water scrubber will
     remove 30 t 35% of particulate before it ever gets to the
     filter.  But that is the top limit that has been achieved. 
     More realistically, I think we would find this actually
     lower than that.  Without the water scrubber, of course you
     would have to use a different media.  Because you could use
     low temperature media, low cost media with the water
     scrubber.  With a dry scrubber, you can't.  You have to use
     a high cost media.  This is where you use the polyester
     fiberglass material.  This is the $120 filter as opposed to
     the $40 filter.
        MR. FORD:  Is that a price range, $3,500 about the
     same if you were going to put it onto a piece of outby
     equipment?
        MR. SMITH:  I can only take a stab.  I'm no expert
     on the price and somebody might (interference to the tape). 
     If I were to develop the system for outby, it would be a
     totally different type of system.  It would use hot exhaust
     manifolds, hot exhaust pipes.  It would probably have either
     a water bath or air-to-air heat exchanger, probably some
     outside agitation method, maybe a hydraulic pump, and a
     filter system and that would probably be in the range of $10
     to $12,000.  That's off the top of my head.
        MR. FORD:  Do you make filtration systems for what
     we talked about -- I mean your company, that is -- for
     changing a non-permissible machine to a permissible?
        MR. SMITH:  Yes.
        MR. FORD:  And what's the cost there?
        MR. SMITH:  The cost there is for the MWM engine. 
     Again, this is past history since that engine probably we'll
     have enough to sell the machines through next year and then
     we're out of business with that engine.  But using that
     engine going from non-permissible to permissible and
     filtered, is going to be in the neighborhood of $40,000. 
     Maybe slightly under that, $35 to $40.  
        MR. FORD:  And we're just talking the purchase
     cost here, not the installation?
        MR. SMITH:  That's correct.
        MR. FORD:  I'm sorry, staying with the $12,000
     also for the outby?
        MR. SMITH:  Yes, that's correct.
        MR. FORD:  Okay.  Let me ask you a different type
     of question.  How many manufacturers are there, if you know
     this answer, of wet and dry scrubber systems.
        MR. SMITH:  Well, I know of in the United States,
     two manufacturers of dry systems.  And that's Jeffrey who
     uses flame technology and the DST that you've heard about.
        MR. FORD:  So, if any type of rule came out
     concerning systems like these to be put on diesel equipment
     in the United States, there would basically be two
     manufacturers to service the U.S. market.
        MR. SMITH:  That is correct.
        MR. FORD:  Can you comment on it at all, maybe you
     can't, but on what would this do to the -- it doesn't seem
     to me it would be very competitive in driving down the
     prices that are being quoted here.  Is there something I'm
     not seeing?
        MR. SMITH:  No, actually I would think that most
     of this has been give-away because we translate it in the
     price of the machine.  We don't sell -- I take that back, we
     do when we have sold power packs which are flame proof.  We
     sold them to several manufacturers, utility vehicle
     manufacturers.  This is not the price they would pay nor the
     price they would resell it for.  What I'm looking at is the
     price for us to put it on our own equipment.  
        Now the permissible equipment we have sells for
     between $275,000 to $300 -- call if $400,000.  So basically,
     this is simply an added cost to that figure.  And this has
     really nothing to do with the competitive nature.  The dry
     scrubber and I've got on record several places  where this
     is not the fantasy.  The wet scrubber has an awful lot of
     advantages to it.  Its older technology, it's been around
     for a long time, but they are having troubles in Australia
     with dry scrubbers right now.  Simply because the generate
     such a tremendous amount of heat in the mine where they're
     working in Queensland and their temperatures -- their
     ambient temperatures in the mine are 400 -- 40 degrees C. 
     And you have dry scrubbers putting out tremendous volumes.  
        I won't to into the BTU load.  But they were
     raising the ambient temperature at 40 degrees C five
     degrees.  And in Fahrenheit, that's going tom from 112
     degrees F up to 130.  And down the mine it's just unbearable
     conditions.  The wet scrubber does not have this condition
     because much of the heat goes into heat of evaporation. 
     That's the transfer into the water itself.  And then the
     fact that when the water evaporates, it cools.  So the wet
     scrubber doesn't require this tremendous fan.  It doesn't
     take the horsepower of a dry system.  It does require more
     maintenance.  So there are tradeoffs.  Not that the wet
     system Is the fantasy.  Or there's a hybrid system they are
     using tin the U.K. which may have some advantages.  There
     are quite a few manufacturers of wet systems.
        MR. FORD:  Yes, I didn't talk about any foreign
     manufacturers, but one -- one last question about the
     $40,000 figure for making the dry system.  Could you tell me
     the efficiency rating there?
        MR. SMITH:  I'm sorry, what kind of rating?
        MR. FORD:  The efficiency rating.  What would that
     be?
        MR. SMITH:  We're talking about filters?
        MR. FORD:  Yes.
        MR. SMITH:  Or the complete system?  Well the
     filter itself, I would guess on an average, even though we
     could probably peak around 90.  On an average it would
     probably be in the 80 to 85% range.  
        MR. FORD:  Thank you.
        MR. SMITH:  And the wet system is higher.
        MR. HANEY:  You said that 95% filters haven't been
     designed.  Did you mean they haven't been designed or they
     haven't been packaged?
        MR. SMITH:  They have not been made practical.
        MR. HANEY:  Okay.
        MR. SMITH:  Yes, you are correct on that.  They
     have not been packaged.  This media which will do with large
     sheets of media which cannot be folded because it cracks and
     if you could make a large set of screens, they could float. 
     This efficiency could not be put on a mobile piece of
     equipment.
        MR. HANEY:  And if you would give a higher
     efficiency, what would that do?  Could you design the engine
     so it wouldn't have an adverse reaction on the back
     pressure?
        MR. SMITH:  All you have to do when you have more
     efficiency in the filter is get more area, basically.  And
     the more area is the -- what determines what the back
     pressure is going to be.  Now, as it begins to plug up and
     you throw this filter away.  Now you've gone from a $40
     filter to a $400 filter.  And if you have to throw two of
     them away each shift, it becomes a little impractical.  And
     that's quite possibly what it would amount to.  
        What we have found and this is a note of
     ratification, at seal level, our current filter on our large
     machine is $120 filter.  They can get 5-1/2 to 8 shifts out
     of it before they change it.  And basically it is a throw-
     away.  Even though there are people who have washed the
     filters and put them back in service for shorter life.  At
     high altitudes and we were running 
     *(Tape 6B  Tape is dragging.)
            MR. McKINNEY:  You're going to lose door change,
     right?
            MR. SMITH:  Yes.
            MR. McKINNEY:  And there had been one that looked
     very favorable that was using new technology, however, it
     wasn't quite suitable.  Do you foresee anything that's on
     the new horizon that -- that is going to be able to use a
     new technology and be retrofitted for the toxin?
            MR. SMITH:  That's a very good question because
     it's one that I've been pondering with for the last eight
     months since we were told the MWM would no longer be
     manufactured because of small line.  And since then I have
     approached people like Caterpillar, Perkins, Isuzu, MWM
     Brazil and we even brought one of these -- MWM Brazil is not
     Duetz.  When MWM worldwide which is Manheim Work and Motors
     or Motor Perkins and Manheim, I guess, the German company
     that designed this engine.  When they sold out to Duetz, the
     took the American distributorship, sold it out to the Duetz
     organizations and moved to Atlanta.  In Germany, they sold
     it out, but their licensee and company in Brazil stayed
     there, stayed independent.  So we still have MWM Brazil,
     sort of operating on their own.  Very similar designs, of
     course.  They modernized this type of engine some time ago
     and, but its still an old-fashioned engine.    This is a
     direct injection engine which is dirtier than the MWM 9166
     we have been using.  But with filter, it filtered awful
     good.  And it's a compact engine, it has more modern
     features to it.  But Duetz themselves, they would have to
     tell you what their plans are.  All I can do is say I've
     argued with them at all levels to get their attention.  
            They have developed a new line of engines not for
     the mining industry because we're such an insignificant part
     of it.  But for general industry as a whole, these engines
     use common rail fuel injectors with high pressure.  When I
     talk about high pressure, we're going from 100, 150 feet
     PSI, what we use today, to 6,000 PSI.  So now they can
     really atomize it in the altitude.  This is one of the new
     technologies we need.  It's only available in this new
     engine and other people's new engines.
            The turbo-charging is a technology that's been
     around for a long time.  Turbo-charging and after-cooling
     work very well, but turbo-charging -- turbo-chargers must
     run hot like catalytic converters must run hot.  But for
     surface temperature control, as required by MSHA, we have to
     find a way of cooling it.  We are going to lose some of the
     efficiency, but maybe if we insulate properly, we can
     minimize the efficiency loss and have surface temperature
     control, turbo-charging and after cooling.  
            And, of course, electronic controls.  Nobody will
     build a brand new engine today unless it does have
     electronic fuel controls.  That's critical to change the
     timing, to adjust the amount of fuel for thermal conditions,
     for altitude and we can't use those today because basically
     they are not explosion proof. And most of them include them
     right in the engine or they'll put an LTV lineal solenoid on
     the back of the fuel rack.  We have to find a way to encase
     that in an explosion proof box.  Not that it can't be done,
     but I think that -- and approval of certification has
     expressed willingness to work with us on this.  But these
     are the new technologies that we need.  And here is a brand
     new engine built by Duetz, perfect application, probably
     only a third the output of particulate.  But it requires a
     cooperative effort to achieve an approval for it.
            MR. TOMB:  That was a long 10 minute presentation.
            MR. SMITH:  I'm sorry about that.  (Laughter.)  
            MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Okay, we'd like
     to thank you for the information you provided.  And, thank
     you.  That's all the presenters that I have on the sheets
     that I have.  Is there anybody else who would like to make a
     presentation who was like overlooked or hasn't put in their
     name?  (Pause.)  Did I overlook you or you didn't put in
     your name?
            MR. O'DELL:  I thought I had signed up, but I
     didn't.
            MR. TOMB:  Oh, you didn't?  Okay.
            MR. O'DELL:  My name is Dennis O'Dell, D-e-n-n-i-s
     O, apostrophe, capital D-e-l-l.  And I'll try to make this
     quick because I know everybody wants to get out here.  The
     areas that I cover are northern West Virginia, the State of
     Ohio and part of Pennsylvania.  I have 22 years mining
     experience.  I received my education from West Virginia
     Wesleyan College in Fairmont State in elementary education. 
     I've also received additional training, 400 hours from the
     National Mine Academy in subjects ranging of all underground
     surface mine.  Certified in the State of West Virginia as a
     foreman, Mine Foreman Fireboss, Certified Shop Foreman,
     Certified Surface Blaster.  And I'm also a member of the
     Diesel Commission, West Virginia Diesel Commission.  Was
     appointed by Governor Underwood in 1997 and my term expires
     in the year 2001.
            I came before you today to ask that what we have
     thus far failed to do is to guarantee the protection of the
     health and safety of all the miners.  In this year of 1998,
     almost 30 years after the '69 Act, we need to remember that
     the agency's main goal, the operator's main goal and our
     main goal is to protect the mine's most valuable resource
     and that's the miner.  I would also like to maybe try to
     clear some things that were said today as a reflective of
     part of the Diesel Commission.  I hope you don't
     misunderstand or you did not misunderstand when those quotes
     were being made that was made from the operator's side of
     the Diesel Commission, not the side that represented the
     labor on the Diesel Commission.
            Hearing all the comments given before you, you've
     heard testimony by the operators that it can't be done. 
     Ninety-five percent is unreasonable, technology is not there
     and many other arguments, not only from the operator's
     standpoint but some of the manufacturer's standpoint.  And I
     know that because I've heard the same arguments on my
     position as the West Virginia Diesel Commissioner.  
            In those meetings that we held in the eight or
     nine months that we met, we were told by the operators
     initially that a .3 dpm standard was sufficient and that a
     70% efficiency filter would also be sufficient.  Today I
     heard from Dr. Thakur and Chris that that .03 has not grown
     to a .05 dpm standard.  We argued that the standard should
     be the same as the PA rule based on the testing, improving
     technology of what Pennsylvania has adopted in their law. 
     We argued that the health effects that the diesel
     particulate matter cause based on test and research done by
     numerous people and also by NIOSH.  
            Today we heard control the problem that affects
     eyes that affects the throat, let's worry about that today. 
     Cancer is a long term and that kind of thinking scares me. 
     We must go by science and available we were told.  So when
     we ask them to show us what test, what science, or what
     technology proved that a .03 diesel particulate matter
     standards, I guess now a .05 dpm standard, and a 70% filer
     efficiency was the best we could do, they had none.  I'm
     telling you, when we sat in the room and we talked about
     this, this is how it panned out.  
            There was nothing more than a convenience number
     on their part based on who they represent.  If you take the
     air quality that a larger mine can produce, then you take
     the air qualities that a small mine can produce and you
     average out those numbers, this is the number they came up
     with that will allow them to use diesel in underground coal
     mines without filters and try to control the dpm with air or
     ventilation.  There is no science to that, there is no
     safety factors put into that.  It's just nothing more than a
     mere convenience.  And guess what, you've heard testimony
     today that they can't control the methane, they can't
     control the dust with ventilation without being violated. 
     We had many miners line up today and tell you the numerous,
     numerous violations written at their mines on ventilation
     violations.  And now they want to throw diesel in the mine. 
            Well I submit to you today that MSHA is on the
     right track, but MSHA has also failed.  You suggest a 95%
     efficient filter on inby equipment and heavy duty outby
     equipment.  But what you failed to really address was a
     standard or a proposed rule for the remaining two-thirds of
     the equipment used in the mines.  Somehow two-thirds of the
     equipment that will be used in a coal mine fell through the
     cracks.  Two-thirds of the equipment.  That's a large number
     that the miners will be, if this proposed rule is adopted,
     still exposed to.  Two-thirds of the equipment spewing out
     cancer causing contaminants in the air.                  Oh,
     but I guess we need to be sure that we don't bog the
     operators down with a rule that will be an economic
     hardship.  If its one thing that I've learned since I became
     an International Health and Safety Rep, it is a big
     adjustment for me to go from a rank and file miner to
     International Health and Safety Representative.  I'm
     somewhat of an emotional person with people that I have
     close ties with.  Families that I've seen die in the coal
     mines.  See, I come from the area.  My wife lived at the
     Number 9 coal camp.  She lost a cousin in the Number 9 mine. 
     Her father was going to work when the Number 9 mine
     exploded.  I worked with people at Robin's Run mine who had
     family members that they lost at the Number 9 mine.  So it's
     a very emotional, very emotional issue.  Both my
     grandfathers died of black lung.  They were coal miners.
            And sometimes what I've learned as I've come on
     staff as an International Health and Safety Representative,
     that a lot of rules and regulations are boiled down to an
     economic issue.  It can't be an economic hardship on
     anybody.  The cost factor.  And it's tough for me to take. 
     So I asked myself and I ask you to ask yourself the same
     questions that are running through my mind.  Because,
     really, I'm coal miner.  I mean I'm just a coal miner.  What
     is the human life worth?  We can't put a cost on that.  What
     kind of cost will this have on the state's compensation
     department, with the claims that will be processed.  How
     much of a cost will be on the operator with the health
     coverages when miners are being treated for illnesses caused
     by diesel particulate matter.  What about the losses because
     anybody and everybody can get a lawyer for anything.  So
     what about those lawsuits filed by a family member for a
     wrongful death that could have been prevented if they were
     adequately protected with something in the mine.
            You'll hear and read test results of our
     Commission at WVU what was done, and I caution you to
     understand this.  These tests were conducted on a small
     piece of the pie, due to what equipment was made available
     to the University, by the funds available and by those
     gracious donations by the coal operators.  And you'll find
     some traumas as well as some failures in these tests.  If
     you'll look at these tests and you take some time to talk to
     the people who helped conduct the test.  And I hope you
     follow-up with what you said you were going to do today. 
     That you talk to Dr. Godham.  I would invite you to talk to
     Dan some more.  Dan was a key man in doing those tests. 
     They'll tell you why some of those things failed, because of
     faulty equipment, because of the time factor, because of not
     being able to get the equipment in there, or what we needed
     to do our testing.  I mean this whole thing was crammed in
     our laps in an eight or nine month period of hurry-up,
     hurry-up, hurry-up, let's get a standard and do this
     testing.  And that's almost impossible to do.  Look at the
     test results.  Some people look at the promising end.  The
     test results on the LPU2.  Note the dpm on that is actually
     20% lower than the PA standard.  And also recognize that
     this is one of the dirtiest engines out there today.  But
     they made something work because somebody had a dream to do
     something to help protect the health and safety of the
     miners.  
            I would ask you to go the internet.  I've got an
     18 year old daughter and a 10 year old daughter that has
     taught me this wonderful thing about an internet computer. 
     I didn't have the luxury when I was in college in basic
     computer, but not like our kids today.  So they take me to
     our computer at the house and they get me on the internet
     and they say what do you want to look at, Dad.  And I say,
     let me look at some diesel.  So we searched.  And my 10 year
     old and my 18 old year.  And lo and behold we pull up this
     page of dieselnet dot com.  It's amazing what's on there. 
     You would be surprised at the information.  The vast of
     information out there in the world, not in our little corner
     of West Virginia where we had a limited amount of things to
     work with, but the vast number of filters, equipment, what's
     being done across the whole universe on diesels.  Just on
     that little screen.  And you can pull that stuff up.
            Truthfully I bet, if we would all really agree,
     the best exposure level to dpm is no exposure at all. 
     Everyone in this room, I'm sure, is concerned.  And we all
     should be concerned.  I have documents that I was going to
     give to you today, but probably most of those documents were
     turned in.  Here's an IEFF from off of the diesel net. 
     IEFF, Department of Occupational Health and Safety.  And it
     summarizes.  And it says, the conclusive body of evidence
     that documents that carcinogenic, the tumorogenic,
     mutonogenic potential of diesel exhaust.  There's evidence
     that supports the conclusion that human exposure to diesel
     exhaust may have an association with the development of lung
     cancer.
            I've got a report here from -- that's amazing,
     OSHA.  OSHA is looking at diesel.  Diesel exhaust is a
     persuasive airborne contaminant in the workplace where
     diesel powered equipment is used.  Due to expanding use of
     diesel equipment, more and more workers are exposed to
     diesel exhaust.  Over a million workers exposed to diesel
     exhaust face the risk of adverse health effects ranging from
     headaches to nausea, to cancer and respiratory disease.  And
     those type of workers are mine workers, bridge and tunnel
     workers, railroad workers, loading dock workers, truck
     drivers, material handling machine operators, farm workers,
     auto, truck, bus maintenance garage workers, and employees. 
     And they say in this report the studies show exposed workers
     have an elevated risk of lung cancer.
            Here's an interesting one, Mobilizing The Region
     Publication, The New York Assembly Hearing.  And they had
     this hearing and it was to dump diesel.  The New York State
     Assembly Environmental Conservation and Corporation
     Committee investigated health impacts of diesel soot and New
     York City transit continued purchase of diesel buses. 
     Testimony by public health experts by Harlem Hospital, the
     Columbia University School of Public Health and the New York
     University Medical Center outlined compelling reasons to ban
     diesel buses.  And the reason they say it is because the
     particulates from the buses are small enough to lose
     respiratory defense mechanism, they are highly toxic and are
     admitted to breathing levels.  The Commissioner from the DEP
     reports that even the most modern buses emit nine times the
     particulate soot as a natural gas bus. 
            You've heard reports today from individuals about
     what the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
     Health Report says on the risk assessment.  The California
     Scientific Review Panel, April 23, 1998, you've heard what
     that says.  April 10, 1998, the U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  You've heard reports of what they said. 
     The Vert Study that was brought up today.  It's very, very
     interesting.  I hope you take the time to read it.  And if
     you'll notice in its conclusion -- I'd like to read this
     real quick to you.  Neither reformulated fuel nor new
     lubricants, nor oxidation catalytic converters permit
     sufficient entailment by the particulate emissions.  Further
     engine development hold no promise to effectively curtail
     the ultrafine particle emissions through improved fuel
     mixture preparation and combustion.  Gas filters are now
     able to indespondently curtail the ultrafine particulates
     concentration in exhaust gas by a factor of 100 to 1,000. 
     This is valid for particulates of all sizes down to the
     range of 10 nanometers per smoke.  Iron and serum based fuel
     additives reinforce particular trap technology.  They
     curtail the raw emissions and together with the traps, do
     not form secondary emissions such as ash emissions.  They
     also do not form dioxins and furates.  The filter technology
     is therefore technically feasible, controllable in the field
     and cost effective.  Read this please.  Read the whole
     report.  It's very, very interesting.
            Another report, I don't know if its been submitted
     but I'm going to submit all of this at the end -- when I'm
     done.  This is Diesel Exhaust Hazards by the Windsor
     Occupational Safety and Health Council.  And it goes into
     detail why they think diesel exhaust is hazardous to people
     in the work places.  And I'm not going to read it.  I will
     submit it if you'll promise somebody will take a look at it,
     because I know it's getting -- it's 5 o'clock and the
     whistle is blowing.  
            But let me just real quickly and briefly finish up
     with this.  And this is a story about the struggle for a
     safe workplace.  And this is what we're all about.  This is
     what you're about, this is what I'm about.  And I hope that
     the manufacturers and the coal companies are about this. 
     It's being able to have a safe workplace.  Two of the major
     obstacles faced by workers in their fight for a safe
     workplace are the difficulties they face in convincing
     management of the harmful effects of certain substances and
     achieving positive action as a result of these findings.  
            At the Windsor Salt Mines, for example, the diesel
     emissions were so thick at times, that it literally hung in
     the air like fog.  Workers were complaining of eye and
     throat irritation, coughing up black spitum, and
     experiencing unusual tiredness and headaches.  They knew
     something was wrong, but turning suspicion into proof was a
     very long and often discouraging process.  Even more
     frustrating, however, was their battle to get management to
     do something about these conditions.  Even though workers'
     research led to some very alarming discoveries.  The miners'
     fight really began, and get this, 1963 when the union
     committee lodged a formal complaint about the smoke -- the
     smoke to the company and to the Department of Mines.  They
     were told that the smoke problem was a seasonal thing.  That
     increased humidity in the summer was making the situation
     worse, and that with a simple adjustment of a fan or the
     relocation of a bulkhead, the matter would take care of
     itself.  
            Since that time, scientists at the Environmental
     Protection Agency in the U.S. have learned that various
     components of diesel exhaust such as the polynuclear
     aeromatics, aldahydes and benzopyrene are known to be
     respira -- are know to be respirable with the increased
     incidents of lung, nasal and skin cancer.  You heard about
     the Ames test.  They found in respirator filters and the
     soot was found to be actively mutanogenic, that is the
     diesel particulate altered DNA in living cells created a
     condition which may cause cancer and birth defects.  
            Frustrated, repeated attempts to convince the
     company the smoke rule was a problem failed.  They didn't
     get any improvements and when the poor air quality forced
     workers to go to the surface for fresh air, they were
     accused of staging illegal wildcat strikes and were ordered
     back to work.  Finally, 1977, 14 years after they first
     brought this to their attention, 14 years the first formal
     complaint had been lodged, the miners called in the Ministry
     of Labor and insisted that air quality test be carried out. 
     The government representative test only for carbon monoxide
     and nitrogen dioxide, gases that are known to cause harm if
     breathed in concentrated doses.
            Respirators aren't any protection against this. 
     They found out that wearing respirators, it still passed
     through this.  And it goes on.  And it just says that they
     continued to this day -- to this day from 1963 to battle
     this problem without any -- anything happening to help them. 
     As a member of the West Virginia Diesel Commission, I ask
     you this.  Let us not fall short and have the same stories
     repeated of our failure.  I support the proposed rule as
     long as it addresses every piece of equipment that is used
     in the mines.  
            And on another note I would like to clear up and
     no disrespect to the people that spoke before me, but
     something my Dad always taught me being a simple -- simple
     way of thinking.  Have you ever heard the old saying that
     the customer is always right?  If coal operators are saying
     that they think a .05 dpm and a 70% filter is the best that
     can be achieved, and if I'm a manufacturer, that's probably
     the best I'm going to do because I don't want to buck my
     customer.  I don't want to tick him off to where I'm going
     to lose business.  The customer is always right.  The
     customer is saying a .05 dpm, 70% efficiency.  That's what
     we want.  We don't want MSHA's 95% efficiency rule, we want
     a 70% efficiency rule.  We want a .05 dpm standard.  You
     hear what I'm saying?  This is what we want.  
            The only way we can overcome that is that if you
     make the regulations and you say it has to be better, you
     say it has to be done on all equipment, you say it has to
     have a .12 dpm standard, you say that it has to be 95%
     efficient.  And I guarantee you -- I guarantee you we'll
     have it.  We'll have it tomorrow.  And it will be cheap. 
     There will be people out there breaking their necks to get
     it.  We got it today, we got it today.  You've heard of PA,
     how they have different equipment.  They told you only two
     manufacturers have a 95% filter efficiency, I'm going to
     submit information to you today that shows you that's not
     true.  There's more out there.  But it's not in this little
     corner of West Virginia.  You've got to look, you've got to
     search.
            Because of the PA low and this proposed rule and
     anticipation that it may pass, its pushed a few people,
     that's pushed a few people to do something to help the
     health and safety of the mine.  Those people are going to
     benefit.  They are going to be on top of the game.  And if
     that rule passes, and God I hope it does, there's not going
     to be a problem.  There's not going to be a problem with
     competitiveness.  People will make it.  It's just like the
     old movie, if you build it, they will come.  You've got to
     build it to make them come.  You have to make them do it or
     they won't invest the time or the money.  I appreciate your
     time and I thank you for letting me speak to you today.
            MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. O'Dell.  Any questions?
            MR. O'DELL:  Probably can we go home.
            MR. TOMB:  All right.  Thank you very much for
     your input.
            MR. O'DELL:  I'll -- I'll get this sorted out and
     I will give it to you.
            MR. TOMB:  I want to thank all of you that are
     remaining here for coming.  Before -- before it closes, is
     there anybody else that would like to make a presentation?
            MR. CASTO:  I'm sure everybody's tired but I would
     like to give some evidence as a conclusion --
            MR. TOMB:  Please come to the podium and give your
     name.
            MR. CASTO:  My name is Keith Casto and I really
     want to make this brief.  I know you all's tired and I know
     we are too.  
            MR. TOMB:  Let me get your name, sir?
            MR. CASTO:  Casto, C-a-s-t-o, Keith.  I work at
     Eagle Energy Mine Number 1 at Van, West Virginia.  That's
     A.T. Massey.  I'm the UMWA Safety Committeeman at Local 633. 
     After the fiscal year of 1998, ventilation wise we had
     roughly 43 violations from MSHA over ventilation.  That's
     anything from stoppings damage to anything from curtains
     torn down to inadequate ventilation around the miners to
     whatever.  It's a little bit of everything.  I know
     everybody's tired, and I would just like to present this as
     evidence.  I would like for you all to look at it.  They
     keep hollering put more air on it, it will be okay.  Well,
     we can't keep the air right we've got now.  And I would like
     to present this as evidence if I could.
            MR. TOMB:  Okay, thank you very much.
            MR. CASTO:  Thank you.
            MR. TOMB:  Is there anybody else?  Yes.
            (Pause.)
            MR. GLOVER:  Thank you, my name is Rick Glover, G-
     l-o-v-e-r.  I am a representative of United Mineworkers.  I
     also served as one of the co-chairmen of the West Virginia
     Diesel Commission.  I had not signed your list and I hope
     that I don't hold you too long.  But I spent two and a half
     hours in here this morning kind of waiting to see and
     unbeknowing to me, I didn't know that three of our Diesel
     Commission members was going to give a presentation of the
     West Virginia Diesel Commission.  So I do feel obligated to
     come up as interested and share with you our concerns that
     the authorship of that presentation was not labor.
            As Dennis said to you, it went from different
     levels of diesel particulate matter to today 8.5.  We also
     heard today about 18 months that the Diesel Commission has
     been playing with this.  I could be wrong, I stand to be
     corrected if I am, the last time we met with June 12th.  We
     encouraged the industry for us to keep meeting at that time
     and try to work towards a goal of improving technology and
     make it available.  
            Now, let me just share something with you.  And
     you can say, well, that's your opinion which I think there
     has been a lot of opinion shared here today.  And I also
     didn't know there were so many smart people in this room
     today.  But if you will focus on the experts and what
     they're telling you about the coal miners or anyone exposed
     to diesel, what they should be breathing is moot of what you
     have heard today.  With the exception of how we can achieve
     those standards.  
            Don't listen to Rick Glover because I am not an
     expert.  I do know NIOSH is, I know OSHA is.  I know there
     have been tremendous studies in California.  I know that
     they have been proven that the carcinogenics of diesel
     particulate material will kill you.  I sat back and I
     listened about the hazards of electricity, trailing cables,
     trolley wires, local equipment.  Do you know something, as I
     enter a coal mine I look at that trolley.  And I know that
     trolley will kill me.  And I know how to protect myself from
     getting killed from that trolley.  A trailing cable.  I know
     that a trailing cable will hurt me.  And its in my control,
     most of the time, to keep from getting hurt.  As long as I'm
     not pressured by economics to go, go, go.  And that's what
     takes place here in southern West Virginia. 
            There is more pressure on coal miners right today
     in my 30 years of being in the coal industry.  But short of
     that, those hazards I know and I can protect myself.  But
     you know something, diesel, I cannot protect myself from.  I
     have to depend on what you people decide.  Or the West
     Virginia Diesel Commission.  So keep that in mind when we
     talk about the hazards that coal miners and how industry
     wants to protect these coal miners.  We've got to get this
     electricity out of the coal mines like you've heard today.
            But we want to get something out there to you that
     when it bites it kills you, you just don't know you're being
     bit.  So once you all come to a point that you all start
     deliberations among yourself, I ask of you to look at the
     experts of what levels miners should be exposed to, and not
     the economic benefits of what the industry wants.
            Now, spinning off on the economics, they told you
     how they could pay for this after-treatment devices.  They
     told you that they could be more productive.  I could stand
     here and tell you that one of the most productive coal
     miners in the world, right here in southern West Virginia
     and northern West Virginia, bar none.  We're competitive. 
     We're not losing markets.  Think about it.  Or show us where
     we lost the markets.  I've been told if you work regular, if
     you hustle, then you have a job forever.  What we've done is
     we've worked ourselves out of job.  We're producing three
     times as much coal with about a third of the workers.  Think
     about it.  We are competitive.
            Now, let's talk about diesel itself.  We've got a
     couple of options.  Its not like we're on the verge of
     losing an industry or jobs here in this country.  There is
     better equipment and there is trolly wire and there is
     trailing cables and we're competitive.  We do not want
     diesel coming to our state that is not protected with after-
     treatment devices.  Now, let me share -- and I've got 30
     minutes I guess.  So whenever I start running over my 30
     minutes you tell me.  Because I sat two and a half hours
     today and listened to management go on.  
            So -- but anyway, short of that, the economics
     that develops from diesel, and that's how we'll pay for it
     is by the efficiency of these after-treatment devices.  We
     will, if we put our treatment devices on, we'll save on
     workmen's compensation.  Because as some of these others, my
     grandfather died from black lung, not from diesel I don't
     think because I don't think he was exposed to it.  My father
     and my mother's father.  And we suffered.  And we're not
     asking anything of this panel that I don't think we're
     entitled to.  I think everyone should be entitled to air
     that they can breathe and feel comfortable that they will
     have a longevity of life.  Not because somebody in the coal
     industry says a .05 is safe for coal miners.  
            And if you check the records, I can't tell you how
     many coal miners died from cancer, but I can tell you its
     out there.  And probably if you search hard enough, you'll
     see that it's higher than the national average.  And you can
     say well that's from black lung.  It's  hard to tell what
     its from.  MSHA's long overdue, in all honesty, in
     addressing the health issues, they've been behind.  I really
     appreciate this panel to be honest with you.  I appreciate
     standing here before this panel.  I appreciate and its an
     honor for me to stand here and point out our concerns.  That
     we do not want diesel to come into our state without after-
     treatment devices.
            Now let's talk about the .12 just for a second. 
     And I'm only going to introduce one document so if you all
     want my testimony, you're just going to listen to whatever
     you've got set up there.  No I am going to introduce an
     official document.  As Dennis said, PA come out with the
     regulations, everybody said, Aw hell, we don't like that,
     excuse the language.  We can't achieve that.  But I would
     say if you talk to Jeffrey, the reason that they have flame
     tech is because they were trying to achieve the levels in
     Pennsylvania.  If you ask Patts, he would probably tell you
     the same thing.  If you ask Ruhmac and I've listened today,
     and let me just go over this because I want to make official
     document because someone say it's unofficially turned in. 
     This is Dr. Godham's signature on this.  There was a
     company, as Dennis said, that was very interested in
     achieving something helpful for this industry.  And I don't
     think anyone is more helpful than Dan over there from West
     Virginia University that's trying to deal with what he had
     to deal with.  
            But here's a letter to me and its in reference to
     the LPU2 engine using diesel, number 2.5 sulfur.  And it's
     using an after-treatment device.  And, you know, this is on
     a smaller engine as you've heard about too.  You know the 19
     or 14 they derated it.  This shows you what we can achieve
     if we want to.  Node 1, .71; Node 2, .245; Node 3 is an .06;
     Node 7, .10; .5, .000, .o2, .1.  Coming out with a total
     weighted average of .18.  That's pretty well close when we
     talk about outby equipment of .12.  Not exactly there but it
     can be achieved.  Also you've got a 90.95% efficiency.  I
     don't know what this product costs but it was engineered
     because of what we were trying to do and the manufacturers
     were trying to get a market.  Same thing as Jeffrey, same
     thing as Patts, and same thing as a whole lot of other
     people.
            I'll share with you as a member of that Board,
     that the manufacturers come up to me and said one day.  They
     said Rick, you know you all had some concerns that we
     realized.  And it referred back to what Dennis said about
     customers.  They said we are controlled by this 10 foot
     gorilla.  And what they were telling me is they would like
     to do what we was asking.  But they were being controlled by
     10 foot gorilla which is the coal industry that buys their
     products.  So if we don't set this standard by the experts,
     whether it's a .12 or .15, go by the experts of what's
     achievable.  Getting to the efficiency of the filters to be
     honest with you myself, an 80, 85% of filters is
     satisfactory to me.  
            So let's talk about what are filters for.  It's to
     catch the by-products of combustion, bpm.  All right.  As I
     heard here by some of them, the dirtier it is, the more
     efficiency you get.  Well, if you put a filter on there and
     you've got a clean burning engine, that means you're going
     to have a longer life for that filter to last.  But more
     important than that, what is that filter for?  Its to let
     you know what your engine is doing.  Because if you don't
     change that filter, you're going to create back pressure. 
     You're either going to blow your engine up or you're going
     to create enough back pressure to where it will shut down if
     you put the right sensors on it.  That's the reason we want
     filters.  So when something malfunctions, its a catch-all.
            Not I list the technology, how this would hinder
     technology today.  But let me tell you what hasn't been said
     today about hindering technology.  How does a filter prevent
     you from not creating greater technology.  We have for one a
     petition for modification.  It hasn't even been mentioned in
     this room today.  Let's say if we had a standard of a .15
     with 80% efficiency, and as the guy I think from Joy -- I
     mean not Joy, from Jeffrey, I apologize -- stated, that
     there's electrical injectors.  I don't know what all that
     stuff is.  Let's say if it comes out.  Why can't they
     petition?  Why can't they petition and say, hey, we can meet
     that standard.  We can get to .12.  Then they come out with
     another device later about a filter.  Well we don't need it
     because we've got this shutdown, this measure now.  CO will
     shut your machine down.  It will tell you what the diesel
     particulate will so it's going to shut it down.  Your coal
     miners are really exposed.  
            How do we lessen the degree of safety?  Now you're
     probably sitting there wondering well, you're on that Diesel
     Commission in West Virginia.  What are you all going to do? 
     I told you what we done.  We quit meeting on June 12th.  We
     quite meeting on June 12th and pretty well give up on trying
     to achieve this goal.  So I have a lot of respect for you
     people on this panel.  We are short of time, there's a lot
     of hard work went into it.  I have my personal feelings of
     why it shut down and I won't say too much on that.  
            But in closing, I do ask you, in all sincerity,
     and I've been there.  Like I said, I dealt with it for nine
     months and it was one of the most complex issues.  Please
     don't look at the economics in a sense that you are going to
     give higher than what the experts recommend.  I don't want
     my son or my daughter or anyone else in my family to die
     from lung cancer.  I watched my Mom die from lung cancer, I
     watched my Dad.  And I can tell you that he wasn't -- ever
     got federal black lung.  He asked me to do one thing before
     he died.  And think about.  Now here's a man that's passed
     away, is to have an autopsy done his lungs that he would
     never know whether it killed him or not, but some unjust
     system but maybe and I have no -- or he has no dependents at
     home so there's no money to collect, that it would clear our
     minds that he had black lung because he suffered.  And guess
     what that autopsy come back as?  That he had black lung.
            Now, think about that in a sense of long term
     effects in our children and future coal miners.  Probably,
     if I'd go back to the mines, I got 10 years left in me at
     the most.  Probably never will because I don't have a job. 
     But there' generations that will be coming on.  We can say
     well we'll address this later.  It won't be addressed.  It
     will be addressed when you all say this is the level.  
            And in close, I am supposed to say this about the
     Diesel Commission.  It's made up of three labor
     representatives, its made up three industry.  We're probably
     going to end up with a diesel regulation here in this state. 
      Because when we come to an impasses as we did, we will be
     going to arbitration to resolve our issues.  Now we may win
     that, I think we have a pretty good shot at success.  We
     will try to protect the miners as much as we can.  In think
     you all are sitting in a better position because I think you
     all got some experience in health.  I know Ron does.  I
     don't a lot of individuals.  I know George a little bit. 
     You've got a golden opportunity.  Whether we phase this in
     or we do it all at once, it can be achieved.  If there's any
     questions I'll be glad to answer them and I do want to
     submit this.  It has Dr. Godham's signature on it.  It was
     sent to me, but in turn I guess you could say I would assume
     this is an official document on that LPU test and that new
     Ruhmac system.  I would encourage you to go look at that
     system.  It is adaptable.  It is something that's feasible,
     it's practical to do.  And I think there's already been
     incentives for this industry to move in a direction of
     protecting coal miners health.  
            And in closing, unless there's any questions, you
     know, I appreciate, as I say, standing here before you and
     also standing here saying what I honestly believe from my
     heart.  I am more of the fortunate ones.  I work for this
     organization.  I'm not in and out of these coal mines
     everyday.  I'm probably about the same way you all are.  I
     have been in diesel mines and I hate to, be honest with you,
     make my living in a coal mine with diesel and breathing that
     day in and day out.  I don't think no one In this room does. 
     I think its been great today where no one has been smoking. 
     I feel we have breathed today good air.  And I think the
     coal miners are entitled to that also.  And I thank you
     unless there are any questions.
            MR. SASEEN:  Rick, can you share, does the labor
     side of the West Virginia Commission have recommendations
     that you could share with us?
            MR. GLOVER:  I'm sorry, what did you say?
            MR. SASEEN:  Does the labor side of the West
     Virginia Commission have recommendations that you could
     present to the -- or share with our group?
            MR. GLOVER:  Yes.  What we can do and I think Jeff
     will be on the last best offers, we did a -- that's entirely
     up to Jeff.
            MR. SASEEN:  okay, thank you.  And just for the
     record, can -- you gave those levels from the LPU2 test,
     could you state what those levels were?
            MR. GLOVER:  What mode?
            MR. SASEEN:  Levels were in the units?
            MR. GLOVER:  Do you mean what mode?
            MR. SASEEN:  The units.
            MR. GLOVER:  I don't exactly understand what you
     mean by units.
            MR. SASEEN:  Unit .71, the --
            MR. GLOVER:  Oh, okay, yes.  This would be your
     grams per brake horsepower.
            MR. SASEEN:  Grams per brake horsepower?  Okay,
     thank you, just for the record.  Thank you.
            MR. GLOVER:  Yeah, its the Rumach D2.  It's a new
     system they came out with.  Pretty innovative, pretty
     impressive.  I think that you all ought to look at it.
            MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Thank you, Mr.
     Glover.  Let me go one more time.  Do we have anybody else
     that would like to make a presentation before I close the
     meeting.
            MR. DUNCAN:  Jeff Duncan, United Mineworkers.  I'm
     not going to speak.  (Laughter.)  Dan just straightened me
     out.  The units of measurement on the document that Rick
     submitted is grams per hour.
            MR. TOMB:  All right, I would like to again thank
     you for coming to this hearing today and providing this
     valuable input that we certainly will use in helping to
     finalize our rule.  I want to remind you that the record is
     open until February 16, 1999 so that you -- if you have any
     additional comments or have any re-thoughts on what occurred
     here today, you can submit those comments for the record up
     until that date.  I appreciate your coming.  Thank you very
     much.  This meeting is closed.
            (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30
     p.m.)  
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //                        REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     
     DOCKET NO.:        N/A
     CASE TITLE:        PROPOSED RULE DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER 
     HEARING DATE:      November 19, 1998
     LOCATION: Beaver, West Virginia
     
         I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are
     contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes
     reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the
     Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration.
     
     
                        Date:  November 19, 1998
     
                          Rebecca Back       
                        Official Reporter
                        Heritage Reporting Corporation
                        Suite 600
                        1220 L Street, N. W.
                        Washington, D. C.  20005