1

            1

            2

            3

            4

            5                   DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

            6            MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

            7   EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD-SEALING OF ABANDONED AREAS

            8                 JULY 17, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING

            9                      DENVER, COLORADO

           10

           11

           12

           13   Panel members:

           14   WILLIAM BAUGHMAN

           15   JAVIER ROMANACH

           16   CLETE STEPHAN

           17   PATRICIA W. SILVEY

           18   ERIK SHERER

           19   ROBERT STONE

           20

           21

           22

           23

           24

           25

                                                                   2

            1               MS. SILVEY:  Can we get started, please.

            2   Good morning.  My name is Patricia W. Silvey.  I am

            3   the Director of the Mine Safety and Health

            4   Administration's Office of Standards, Regulations,

            5   and Variances.  I will be the moderator of this

            6   public hearing on MSHA's emergency temporary

            7   standard, or ETS, for sealing abandoned areas in

            8   underground coal mines.

            9               On behalf of Richard E. Stickler,

           10   Assistant Secretary of Labor for MSHA, I want to

           11   welcome all of you here today.

           12               The members of the MSHA panel, and I

           13   must say who were instrumental in preparing this,

           14   developing this ETS, I will introduce them at this

           15   time.  To my left is Clete Stephan with MSHA's

           16   Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center;

           17   Javier Romanach, and he's our lawyer on the project.

           18   William Baughman, who is with my office, the

           19   Regulatory Specialist.  To my right is Erik Sherer.

           20   Erik is with Coal Mine Safety and Health, and to his

           21   right is Robert Stone, and Robert is the Economist

           22   in my office.

           23               I would also like to introduce a couple

           24   of people in the audience who were very pivotal in

           25   helping to develop this project.  Deborah Green, who

                                                                   3

            1   is also our lawyer, and I mentioned last week, we

            2   got to have a little humor before we start.  I

            3   mentioned to some other people who had their

            4   attorneys with them that I had my attorneys with me,

            5   so for all of the attorneys in the audience don't

            6   think anything and I said I had good attorneys too,

            7   by the way.

            8               And with Deborah, sitting back there

            9   with Deborah is Dennis Wintowski, and he's with our

           10   field Coal Mine Safety and Health District.

           11               Before we start this hearing this

           12   morning I would like to ask all of you if you

           13   wouldn't mind, please, to join me in a moment of

           14   silence for the miners who died in the Sago and the

           15   Darby accidents and for all the miners who died

           16   during 2006 and the miners who died so far this

           17   year, 2007, so if you would join me, please, in a

           18   moment of silence.

           19               Thank you.  As some of you know, this is

           20   the third of four hearings on the emergency

           21   temporary standard.  The first hearing was held in

           22   Morgantown on July 10th; the second hearing in

           23   Lexington on July 12th.  The next hearing will be

           24   held in Birmingham, Alabama, on July 19th.  In the

           25   back of the room we should have copies of the ETS

                                                                   4

            1   and the Federal Register notice extending the

            2   comments period to August 17th.

            3               The purpose of these hearings is to

            4   receive information from the public that will help

            5   us evaluate the requirements in the Emergency

            6   Temporary Standard and produce a final rule that

            7   protects miners from hazards associated with sealed

            8   abandoned areas.  We will also use the data and

            9   information gained from these hearings to help us

           10   craft a rule that responds to the needs and concerns

           11   of the mining public so that the provisions can be

           12   implemented in the most safe, effective and

           13   appropriate manner.

           14               We published the Emergency Temporary

           15   Standard in response to the grave dangers that

           16   miners face when underground seals separating

           17   abandoned areas from active workings fail.  Seal

           18   failures at the Sago mine and the Darby No. 1 mine

           19   in 2006 raised awareness of the problems with

           20   construction and design of alternative seals.  MSHA

           21   investigated these and other failures of alternative

           22   seals and conducted in-mine evaluations of these

           23   seals.  MSHA also reviewed the history of seals in

           24   the United States as well as other countries.

           25               On February the 8th, 2007, NIOSH issued

                                                                   5

            1   a draft reported titled "Explosion Pressure Design

            2   Criteria for New Seals in U.S. Coal Mines."  The

            3   report makes recommendations for seal design

            4   criteria which would reduce the risk of seal failure

            5   due to explosions in abandoned areas of underground

            6   coal mines.

            7               Based on MSHA's accident investigation

            8   reports, the draft NIOSH report, MSHA's in-mine seal

            9   evaluations and review of technical literature, MSHA

           10   has tentatively determined that new standards are

           11   necessary to immediately protect miners from hazards

           12   associated with sealed areas.

           13               The Emergency Temporary Standard

           14   addresses seal strength, design and installation;

           15   construction and repair, sampling and monitoring and

           16   training.

           17               This ETS was issued in accordance with

           18   section 101(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health

           19   Act of 1077, or the Mine Act and Section 10 of the

           20   Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER)

           21   Act of 2006.  Under Section 101(b) of the Mine Act,

           22   the ETS is effective and superseded by a mandatory

           23   standard and, as most of you know, a mandatory

           24   standard must be published no later than nine months

           25   after publication of the ETS.

                                                                   6

            1               The ETS also serves as the Agency's

            2   proposed rule and commences the regular rule-making

            3   process.

            4               As stated earlier, we will use the

            5   information provided by you to help us decide how

            6   best to craft the final rule.  The preamble to the

            7   rule discusses the provisions of the ETS and also

            8   includes a number of specific requests for comments

            9   and information.  As you address the provisions of

           10   the ETS and any of the specific requests for

           11   comments either in your comments to us today or

           12   those sent to us in Arlington, please be as specific

           13   as possible with respect to the impact on miner

           14   safety and health, mining conditions and the

           15   feasibility of implementation.

           16               At this point I want to reiterate the

           17   specific requests for comments and information that

           18   we included in the preamble to the ETS.

           19               In the ETS, MSHA considered a

           20   performance-based approach to the strength

           21   requirement for seals.  However, MSHA includes

           22   specific pounds-per-square-inch numbers when

           23   referring to the strength of seals in the ETS as the

           24   Agency believes this represents a more appropriate

           25   approach.  MSHA is interested in receiving comments

                                                                   7

            1   on the Agency's approach to the strength requirement

            2   for seals.

            3               MSHA is also interested in receiving

            4   comments on the appropriateness of a three-tier

            5   approach to seal strength and the ETS and the

            6   strategy in the ETS for addressing seal strength

            7   greater than 120 psi.  Under Section 75.335)a) of

            8   the ETS, new seals must be constructed and

            9   maintained to withstand a 50 psi overpressure when

           10   the atmosphere in the sealed area is monitored and

           11   is maintained inert; 120 psi overpressure if the

           12   atmosphere is not monitored and maintained inert or

           13   an overpressure greater than 120 if the atmosphere

           14   is not monitored, not maintained inert and other

           15   specified conditions are met, and those conditions

           16   include, as many of you know, pressure piling, the

           17   likelihood of a detonation and homogeneous

           18   atmosphere throughout the sealed area we include in

           19   the ETS.

           20               MSHA requests comments on the

           21   appropriateness of the Agency's strategy for

           22   addressing seal strength greater than 120 psi.  If

           23   commenters believe a different regulatory approach

           24   should be developed for the final rule, MSHA would

           25   like commenters to provide the details for such a

                                                                   8

            1   strategy, the rationale for such a strategy, and

            2   feasibility of using such a strategy.

            3               MSHA seeks the views of the mining

            4   community regarding whether there are other

            5   effective alternatives to the requirements in the

            6   ETS with respect to providing the most appropriate

            7   and protective action for miners exposed to seal

            8   hazards.  Commenters should provide supporting data

            9   and specific alternatives, including information on

           10   technological and cost implications.

           11               Most alternative seals constructed

           12   before July 2006 were constructed to withstand a

           13   static horizontal pressure of 20 psi.  MSHA

           14   considered requiring mine operators to remove the

           15   existing seals and replace them with seals that

           16   would stand at least 50 psi overpressure.  MSHA also

           17   considered whether to require mine operators to

           18   build new seals out by the existing seals or

           19   structurally reinforce them.  At this time MSHA

           20   believes that replacing existing seals is

           21   impractical and in some instances may introduce

           22   additional safety hazards.  MSHA seeks comments on

           23   the feasibility of including in the final rule a

           24   requirement that existing seals be removed and

           25   replaced with a high strength seal.

                                                                   9

            1               MSHA also considered whether to require

            2   mine operators to reinforce existing seals.  The

            3   Agency is concerned with the feasibility of this

            4   option and whether such a requirement could expose

            5   miners to greater hazards.  MSHA, however, will

            6   continue to explore technological advances

            7   addressing feasible and safe methods to reinforce

            8   existing seals in underground coal mines.

            9   Commenters are encouraged to submit information and

           10   supporting data regarding new technologies that

           11   reinforce seal strength.

           12               MSHA believes that the sampling strategy

           13   in the ETS will yield results that reflect a

           14   reasonable representation of the atmosphere in the

           15   sealed area.  MSHA requests comments addressing the

           16   sampling approach in this ETS.  The Agency is

           17   particularly interested in comments concerning

           18   sampling, and the sampling frequency, including

           19   sampling only when a seal is outgassing.  MSHA also

           20   requests comments on whether another approach is

           21   more appropriate for the final rule such as when the

           22   seal is ingassed.

           23               MSHA also requests comments, information

           24   and experiences of the mining community concerning

           25   sampling sealed areas.

                                                                  10

            1               In the ETS, mine operators must develop

            2   a sampling protocol to be included in the

            3   ventilation plan and submitted to the district

            4   manager for approval.  The ETS requires the mine

            5   operator to implement the action plan specified in

            6   the sampling protocol or to withdraw all persons

            7   from the affected areas when specified

            8   concentrations are encountered.  Action plans must

            9   provide protection to miners equivalent to

           10   withdrawal and address the hazards presented and

           11   actions taken when gas samples reach levels

           12   indicated in the ETS.

           13               Historically, when methane levels

           14   reached 4.5 percent in active areas of mines, miners

           15   were withdrawn from the areas that were dangerous

           16   due to the high concentrations of methane.

           17               MSHA requests comments on this approach

           18   and whether this provides adequate protection of our

           19   mines.  Commenters are encouraged to submit specific

           20   language with supporting data for MSHA to consider

           21   for development of a final rule.

           22               MSHA is soliciting comments to

           23   establishing a sampling baseline.  The ETS requires

           24   that mine operator specify procedures in the

           25   protocol to establish a baseline analysis of oxygen

                                                                  11

            1   and methane concentrations at each sampling point

            2   over a 14-day sampling period.  The baseline must be

            3   established after the atmosphere in the sealed area

            4   is inert or the trend reaches equilibrium.  MSHA is

            5   particularly interested in comments concerning the

            6   establishment of a baseline.

            7               MSHA also requests comments, information

            8   and experience with sampling, including data,

            9   analytical information, establishment of equilibrium

           10   and trends.

           11               The Agency is requesting comments on the

           12   appropriateness of the requirement concerning the

           13   use of open flames or arc associated with cutting

           14   and soldering activities within 150 feet of a seal

           15   and the feasibility of this requirement.

           16               The Agency suggests that commenters

           17   provide specific rationale in support of their

           18   position and any alternatives, if applicable.

           19               The ETS requires each newly constructed

           20   seal to have at least two sampling pipes.  One

           21   sampling pipe must extend into the sealed area

           22   approximately 15 feet; the second sampling pipe must

           23   extend into the middle of the intersection with the

           24   first connecting crosscut.  The ETS affords some

           25   flexibility to placement of the sampling pipe to

                                                                  12

            1   allow more accurate sampling strategies to better

            2   protect miners.  Therefore, the ETS requires that

            3   the location of sampling points be specified in the

            4   protocol provided under the ETS.  The Agency

            5   requests comments regarding the appropriate number

            6   and location of sampling pipes for the final rule.

            7               The ETS requires that

            8   corrosion-resistant water drainage system be

            9   installed in the seal at the lowest elevation within

           10   the set of seals, and that seals not impound water.

           11   MSHA requests comments on this requirement for water

           12   drainage systems, including effective alternatives

           13   for a final rule.

           14               MSHA requests comments on the

           15   appropriateness of the ventilation plan contents.

           16   As you know, the ETS requires that certain

           17   information be included in the ventilation plan.

           18   The Agency asks whether additional information

           19   should be included.

           20               When submitting information supporting

           21   your positions, please include data related to

           22   projected costs and technological feasibility.

           23               The ETS requires removal of insulated

           24   cables from the area to be sealed and removal of

           25   metallic objects through or across seals.  MSHA

                                                                  13

            1   believes that removal of the insulated cables and

            2   metallic objects through or across seals is feasible

            3   and will not involve significant technical or

            4   practical problems.  The Agency, however, solicits

            5   comments on these measures.

            6               MSHA is also requesting comments on the

            7   scope and possible alternatives concerning site

            8   preparation, examinations, training and

            9   notifications related to the Agency regarding

           10   construction and repair of seals.

           11               MSHA has prepared a Regulatory Economic

           12   Analysis for the ETS.  The Regulatory Economic

           13   Analysis contains the Agency's estimated supporting

           14   cost data.  MSHA requests comments on all of the

           15   estimates of costs and benefits presented in the ETS

           16   and in the REA.

           17               To date, MSHA has received one comment

           18   on this emergency temporary standard.  You can view

           19   comments, and I do believe you can view this one

           20   comment now on the Agency's website at www.msha.gov

           21   under the section entitled Rules and Regulations.

           22               MSHA has answered a number of compliance

           23   questions from the public concerning a range of

           24   issues in the ETS.  These questions and answers are

           25   posted on MSHA's Seals Single Source Page, and I

                                                                  14

            1   believe we are in the process -- I said this last

            2   week -- you know, you find yourself saying certain

            3   things over and over, but I believe we are in the

            4   process of getting a third set of compliance

            5   questions out right now.  They should be out soon.

            6               As many of you have who have attended

            7   these public hearings with us know, the format is as

            8   follows:  Formal rules of evidence will not apply

            9   and this hearing will be conducted in an informal

           10   manner.  Presentations may be limited to 20 minutes

           11   at the discretion of the moderator.  The panel may

           12   ask questions of the witnesses and the witnesses may

           13   ask questions of the panel.

           14               Those of you who have notified MSHA of

           15   your intent to speak or have signed up today will

           16   make your presentations first.  After that, others

           17   can request to speak.  If you wish to present

           18   written statements or information today, please

           19   clearly identify your material, but you may also

           20   submit comments following this public hearing.  You

           21   must submit them to us by August 17th, the close of

           22   the comments period, and they may be submitted by

           23   any one of the methods identified in the ETS.

           24               MSHA will post the transcripts from the

           25   public hearings on our website.  Each transcript

                                                                  15

            1   should be posted there approximately one week after

            2   the completion of the hearing.  I called the office

            3   this morning and I'm told that the transcript from

            4   Morgantown is in, so it should be posted shortly.

            5               And at this point, before I make my last

            6   statement, before people speak, I do want to iterate

            7   to people, and I say again, we appreciate the people

            8   here who are in attendance and who will speak, but

            9   also those who are in attendance and who may not

           10   have signed up to speak, we appreciate your interest

           11   in this rule-making, but I do encourage persons, if

           12   they have information to say to us, to submit to

           13   you, to give to us, to please submit it in written

           14   form.  You can send an e-mail to me and it's going

           15   to be considered as part of this rule-making record,

           16   but if you have something to say to me that you want

           17   to be considered in this rule-making, send it to us

           18   through the methods that we have identified in the

           19   ETS, and I can't stress that strong enough really.

           20               We will begin now with the persons who

           21   requested to speak.  Please, if you would, begin by

           22   clearly stating your name and organization and to

           23   make certain that we can get an accurate record and

           24   also if you would, spell your name for the reporter.

           25               Our first speaker today will be Robert

                                                                  16

            1   Koch with the Colorado Mining Association.

            2               MR. KOCH:  Good morning.  I have three

            3   extra copies of what I'm going to say here.

            4               Good morning.  My name is Bob Koch,

            5   K-O-C-H.  I'm the chief engineer at Oxbow Mining,

            6   Elk Creek Mine in Somerset, Colorado.  I have been

            7   asked to speak this morning on behalf of the

            8   Colorado Mining Association.

            9               The Colorado Mining Association

           10   appreciates the comments on the sealing of abandoned

           11   areas Emergency Temporary Standard issued on May 22,

           12   2007.  CMA is an industry association, founded in

           13   1876, whose more than 700 members include the

           14   producers of coal and other minerals in Colorado and

           15   throughout the west.  All active coal mines in

           16   Colorado are members of the CMA.  Colorado is also a

           17   significant underground coal producing state, with

           18   seven active underground mines.

           19               The ETS, as written, does not give

           20   adequate consideration to the sealing requirements

           21   of western United States coal mines.  In Colorado,

           22   mines are primarily longwall operations which,

           23   unlike most operations in the eastern United States,

           24   install seals on an almost continuous basis as the

           25   longwall retreats.  This process of progressive

                                                                  17

            1   sealing is utilized to reduce the potential for

            2   spontaneous combustion in the active gob and upon

            3   completion of the panel, to isolate that gob from

            4   subsequent active gob areas.  These seals, commonly

            5   referred to as "gob isolation seals," are necessary

            6   to insure miner safety in mines that have a

            7   propensity for spontaneous combustion.  There are

            8   serious issues with the ETS requirements for seal

            9   design, construction, certification, sampling, and

           10   inerting which affect most western underground coal

           11   mines.

           12               None of the seals currently approved by

           13   MSHA are applicable to Colorado mines.  These seals

           14   are approved for heights less than those typically

           15   mined in Colorado, or they are designed for areas

           16   that will not be subject to significant convergence.

           17   Gob isolation seals are certainly subjected to

           18   significant convergence.

           19               Some mines in Colorado are electing to

           20   install 50 psi seals and monitor the gob.  Others

           21   are choosing to install 120 psi seals and eliminate

           22   the need to sample the gob.  In either case, with

           23   current longwall advance rates gob isolation seals

           24   are often installed every three days or less.   Seal

           25   designs must consider the need to constructing seals

                                                                  18

            1   in a timely manner to avoid longwall production

            2   delays.   At times, delays in longwall advance  have

            3   caused significant roof control issues.

            4   Complicated seal designs which take excessive time

            5   to install are infeasible for gob isolation seal

            6   applications.  For example, the currently MSHA

            7   approved seals containing steel reinforcement cannot

            8   be built timely, will expose miners needlessly to

            9   side abutment loading as the longwall retreats, and

           10   will subject the longwall face to increasing ground

           11   pressures as the face waits for seal construction to

           12   be completed.

           13               Pumped seals properly engineered are

           14   acceptable to the Colorado mines.  However, it must

           15   be stressed that a proper engineering design does

           16   not include excessive thickness.   Seal

           17   manufacturers report that MSHA's Technical Support

           18   group and NIOSH have taken an excessive conservative

           19   approach in multiple design parameters.  For

           20   example, Minova TekSeals are under consideration

           21   with a safety factor compounded with conservative

           22   material shear strength, conservative compressive

           23   strength, and ignoring the benefit of convergence on

           24   the plug seal.  Combine these design factors to a

           25   seal strength that has been conservatively increased

                                                                  19

            1   to insure its resilience to an explosion, and the

            2   result is a seal strength that far exceeds its

            3   intended purpose, an over-design which yields a seal

            4   thickness that is impractical for gob isolation

            5   seals.  MSHA must approve seals that meet the 50 psi

            6   or 120 psi requirements without over-design that

            7   renders the seal impractical for gob isolation

            8   applications.

            9               Section 75.227(a)(2) as written requires

           10   removal of metallic objects which includes roof and

           11   rib support materials at a seal location.  Many

           12   Colorado mines with higher seam thickness have well

           13   established practices or roof control plans that

           14   require primary roof and rib support in the form of

           15   wire screen and bolts to adequately protect miners

           16   from the dangers of roof and/or rib sloughage.

           17   Removal of any of this protection not only exposes

           18   miners to potentially adverse ground conditions, but

           19   will likely reduce the integrity of the roof and

           20   ribs at the perimeter of the seal.  The potential

           21   for serious injury is far greater in removing this

           22   support than the remote chance of an electrical

           23   current entering the gob through this grounded

           24   material.

           25               In fact, there has already been at least

                                                                  20

            1   one accident at a Colorado mine involving the

            2   removal of wire mesh at a seal location.  Further,

            3   the exclusion of sampling tubes, water traps, and

            4   metal form ties from this requirement is

            5   inconsistent in that the regulation does allow

            6   certain electrical conductors to penetrate the seal.

            7   The rule does not address de-gas, inerting, or

            8   pre-sealing ventilation pipes that may be needed to

            9   effectively control the gob atmosphere.

           10               It should also be noted that the report

           11   of investigation on the Sago mine explosion stated

           12   that bolts and mesh were well grounded at regular

           13   intervals to the roof of the sealed area, and,

           14   therefore, would not support a large voltage

           15   potential.

           16               Section 75.337(a)(2) should be

           17   re-written to prohibit only those metallic items not

           18   required for ground support, installation of seals,

           19   and monitoring and/or control of the atmosphere

           20   behind the seals.

           21               The requirement of Section 75.335(d) to

           22   install at least two sampling pipes in each seal is

           23   excessive and impractical.  First, since sampling is

           24   not required at every seal in a set of seals, there

           25   is no logical reason to require tubes in all seals.

                                                                  21

            1   Second, gob isolation seals are installed in

            2   crosscuts immediately behind the longwall face.   It

            3   is therefore impossible to meet the requirement to

            4   extend one tube into the center of the first

            5   connecting crosscut in by the seal as that

            6   intersection will no longer exist once the longwall

            7   mines pass the crosscut where the seal must be

            8   installed.  Installing sampling tubes near the

            9   intersection is not practical as crosscut conditions

           10   often quickly deteriorate on the gob side of the

           11   seal.   Clearly, this requirement does not consider

           12   gob isolation sealing applications in western mines

           13   and Section 75.335(d) should be re-written to

           14   eliminate sampling tubes from gob isolation seals.

           15               I want to digress here just a minute and

           16   speak on above behalf of the Elk mine.  There's a

           17   Section 75.364(b)(4) which requires examination of

           18   all seals along the returns and that causes an issue

           19   in coal mines that have abutment pressures out in

           20   front of the tailgate in that we are asked to

           21   inspect those seals clear up to the face.  We are

           22   not required to inspect anything behind the face,

           23   but to the face they must be inspected and

           24   oftentimes those seal conditions in the area

           25   approaching those seals, when you get the abutment

                                                                  22

            1   pressure in the tailgate makes examination of those

            2   seals that are perhaps maybe going to be passed that

            3   day anyway very difficult to examine, if not

            4   impractical and unsafe to examine.  We will include

            5   written comments later on this particular point, but

            6   we believe it is an issue that ought to be addressed

            7   and can be addressed as part of this ETS to handle

            8   examination of seals within that source, the

            9   abutment pressure on the tailgate.

           10               Okay.  Back to my CMA comments.

           11               Requiring a professional engineer to

           12   conduct or have oversight of seal installation is

           13   impractical in most mines, especially mines

           14   utilizing gob isolation seals.  A professional

           15   engineer would need to be at the construction of

           16   every seal to insure that all parameters are mete

           17   before certifying the seal.  Colorado mines

           18   utilizing progressive sealing may install over 100

           19   seals annually, with the seals being installed on

           20   every shift.  The number of seals and the timing of

           21   seal installation make this requirement impractical.

           22   In addition, many mines, especially smaller

           23   operations, do not have a professional engineer on

           24   staff.  Further, the certification of the seal

           25   construction by a certified person supervising the

                                                                  23

            1   construction, the countersigning of seal

            2   installation and repair inspections by the mine

            3   foreman, and the certification by a senior mine

            4   management official make a professional engineering

            5   certification redundant and unnecessary.   Section

            6   75.336(b)(2) should be eliminated.

            7               Section 75.335(b)(1) requires daily

            8   examinations and, if necessary, an alternative plan

            9   when seals ingas on a regular basis.  However, seals

           10   can be ingassing without being a concern when the

           11   pressure differential across the seal is small, the

           12   seal is in good condition, the leakage is minimal,

           13   and the gob remains inert.  Slight leakage, assumed

           14   only by the measured pressure differential, may not

           15   be sufficient to affect the inert nature of the gob

           16   behind the seal.  In these cases, neither increased

           17   sampling or examinations, nor an alternative plan,

           18   are necessary.  Section 75.335(b)(1) should be

           19   amended in the third sentence to begin, quote, if a

           20   seal is ingassing during the weekly examination, and

           21   the sample collected shows a change in the inertness

           22   of the gob atmosphere, end quote.

           23               The concentrations for an inert

           24   atmosphere as defined in Section 75.335(b)(3)

           25   include a safety factor to allow for inaccuracies in

                                                                  24

            1   certain detection equipment.  While this may be

            2   appropriate for hand-held devices, it is unnecessary

            3   for gas chromatograph sampling.  The regulation

            4   should provide for a tighter range when gas

            5   chromatograph samples are taken.  The atmosphere

            6   should be considered inert when the oxygen

            7   concentration is less than 12%; the methane

            8   concentration is less than 5%; or the methane

            9   concentration is greater than 15%.  Given that

           10   methane concentrations of up to 4.5% have been

           11   allowed in bleeders without the need for an action

           12   plan, there is no need to require an action plan for

           13   concentrations as low as 3%.

           14               Section 75.336(b)(3)(iii)(B) requires

           15   the operator to provide information for approval in

           16   the ventilation plan for safety precautions taken

           17   prior to seals achieving full design strength.

           18   NIOSH has recommended miners be withdrawn from the

           19   affected area until seals reach design strength and

           20   the gas mixture in the sealed areas reaches an inert

           21   status.  MSHA concurs with this in its June 11, 2007

           22   issuance of Seal ETS Compliance Assistance Questions

           23   and Answers by requiring withdrawal from the

           24   affected area.  Accordingly, even if nitrogen is

           25   injected to accelerate getting the sealed atmosphere

                                                                  25

            1   to inert status, there remains the issue of cure

            2   time on concrete, mortar, and/or lightweight cement.

            3   At least twice each year in most Colorado mines when

            4   longwall panels are sealed, a suspension of

            5   production for up to 28 days may be inevitable with

            6   this constraint.  Considering the volume of longwall

            7   coal produced in Colorado and across the United

            8   States where progressive sealing is utilized, the

            9   halting of production mine-wide for multiple moves

           10   annually will have a substantial negative impact on

           11   our nation's energy supply.  Additionally, the

           12   economic burden placed on mine operations while

           13   mines are idled for extended periods will negatively

           14   affect the economic well-being of employees,

           15   suppliers, and entire communities.

           16               This approach by MSHA treats a non-inert

           17   atmosphere and uncured seals as an imminent danger

           18   by requiring the withdrawal of miners.  For an

           19   actual imminent danger to exist, in addition to an

           20   explosive mixture of methane there must be an

           21   ignition source present with a reasonable

           22   expectation of the ignition source creating an

           23   explosion.  Sealed areas contain no likely ignition

           24   sources, thus an imminent danger is not present and

           25   miners should not be required to withdraw.  Also, if

                                                                  26

            1   an inert mixture is present, uncured seals do not

            2   present an imminent danger as there is no explosion

            3   potential.  Therefore, MSHA should not require

            4   withdrawal of miners during the inerting and curing

            5   processes.

            6               The prohibition of welding, cutting, and

            7   soldering with an arc or flame within 150 feet of a

            8   seal as stated in Section 75.335(c) is unreasonable

            9   and should be eliminated.  With progressive sealing,

           10   the longwall face and associated equipment is

           11   frequently within 150 feet of the adjacent gob

           12   isolation seals.  Repairs to this equipment

           13   sometimes requires the uses of welding or cutting.

           14   The existing statutory provisions of Section

           15   75.1106, along with the requirements of PPL P06-V-1

           16   provide adequate protection for miners conducting

           17   welding and cutting on the longwall face.  In

           18   addition, the significant quantity of air

           19   ventilating a longwall face is sufficient to prevent

           20   any tailgate gob isolation seal leakage from ever

           21   reaching the welding or cutting operations on the

           22   face.

           23               In the preamble to the ETS, comments

           24   were solicited regarding replacement of existing

           25   seals.  Replacing existing seals is often

                                                                  27

            1   impractical due to access constraints.  It can also

            2   be extremely unsafe with miners exposed to inert gob

            3   air mixing with fresh air, roof control problems

            4   brought on by increases in abutment pressures in the

            5   seal areas, and substantial hand-carrying of seal

            6   construction materials to remote locations.  Unless

            7   a seal is in disrepair, replacing of seals should be

            8   discouraged.

            9               In closing, the ETS as written attempts

           10   to standardize the installation of seals throughout

           11   the industry.  An unintended consequence is that it

           12   removes all flexibility of MSHA district managers to

           13   deal with local mines on a case-by-case basis and

           14   using the district's knowledge of the mining

           15   operations to best handle mine conditions and

           16   operating systems to authorize the most effective

           17   sealing program.

           18               Thank you for the opportunity to speak

           19   on behalf of the Colorado Mining Association and its

           20   member mining operations.  CMA will be preparing

           21   additional written comments and will submit them

           22   prior to the August 17, 2007 deadline.

           23               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.  First of all,

           24   I'm struck by your comments at the end and for

           25   everybody here, I give you credit.  You called it an

                                                                  28

            1   unintended consequence and we appreciate your

            2   labeling it like that, but you said you thought the

            3   ETS was an attempt to standardize the installation.

            4               Now, I would say to that, and I said

            5   this earlier, the ETS as is presently constructed is

            6   written to have seal approval.  The process is a

            7   two-step process and the first process is approval

            8   by the design application by our office of tech

            9   support and the operator can send in a design for

           10   application of 50 psi, 150 psi, or if the case ever

           11   came up and had to be greater -- I'm sorry -- 120,

           12   excuse me -- if the case ever came up greater than

           13   120 psi seal.  But the second step would be to take

           14   a specific design application and to install it in

           15   the mine and there the operator would indeed work

           16   with the district manager in the installation

           17   process, and that process would be, the particular

           18   seal installation would be dependent on particular

           19   mining conditions, so I think we do indeed know that

           20   the district manager is going to have to play a role

           21   in this seal implementation, but to get back to

           22   your -- to get back to the first part of your

           23   comment about the gob isolation seals, and I know

           24   that you are all dealing when the PIB was in effect

           25   last year, so you all are dealing with this issue

                                                                  29

            1   right now and you said that some of the things that,

            2   or some of the problems that you all have is in

            3   terms of the designs have to be constructed in a

            4   timely manner.  Some of the delays that you -- are

            5   you encountering delays right now?  In your mind

            6   now, you are using -- you said some operators are

            7   choosing 50 psi, some are choosing 120.  Have you

            8   had any problems in getting those approved, the

            9   designs approved?

           10               MR. KOCH:  The seals that are in use

           11   right now are not approved on the list as shown, the

           12   approved seals that are approved by MSHA now, but

           13   the problem is we are waiting on manufacturer's

           14   development approval of the seals of the type we are

           15   installing.

           16               MS. SILVEY:  So the type --

           17               MR. KOCH:  The problem is, the ETS came

           18   out, okay, and it required action right now, but the

           19   mines were in operation and needed to be able to

           20   install seals as they went.  They had to continue

           21   installing.  We installed thicker seals but we have

           22   been installing those and awaiting the process of

           23   the manufacturer getting approval on the seal so

           24   that we can get that thing approved.

           25               MS. SILVEY:  So the seals that you are

                                                                  30

            1   installing are awaiting approval now?

            2               MR. KOCH:  Yes.

            3               MS. SILVEY:  Okay.

            4               MR. KOCH:  I'm only speaking on behalf

            5   of the miners.

            6               MS. SILVEY:  On that issue you are

            7   speaking on.

            8               MR. KOCH:  On that issue, yes.

            9               MS. SILVEY:  This comment made here on

           10   the second page and the first full paragraph, for

           11   example, the currently MSHA approved seals

           12   containing steel reinforcement cannot be built

           13   timely, will expose miners needlessly to side

           14   abutment loading as the longwall retreats and will

           15   subject the longwall face to increase in ground

           16   pressures.

           17               Now, these are the seal designs that I

           18   guess we have on our website which contain steel

           19   reinforcement.

           20               MR. KOCH:  Yeah.  The idea of going in

           21   behind the longwall face into a crosscut and drilling

           22   into the roof and floor to install the bars that are

           23   included in these seals, the time it would take to do

           24   that, the exposure of people, once that is passed you

           25   have some waiting going on.  You want to get in and get

                                                                  31

            1   the seal built and get out of there.  The time it would

            2   take to do that, the seal cannot be built until the

            3   longwall passes.  You need that ventilation path on the

            4   longwall face.  Once that passes, it is when you would

            5   build that.  The time it would take to construct that

            6   seal may force us to sit and wait by the time you get

            7   all the rebar and get it formed up and built and the

            8   longwall would sit there and the longwall can load up

            9   when it is sitting there idle.

           10               MS. SILVEY:  So what you have now does

           11   not contain steel reenforcement?

           12               MR. SHERER:  One question.  Isn't it

           13   possible to do most of that preparation before the

           14   longwall gets there, even during the development

           15   phase of the longwall panel such as drilling the

           16   holes, putting in some rebar that can be stubbed

           17   off?

           18               MR. KOCH:  I think the problem you have

           19   with that is you -- a couple things.  In that

           20   crosscut, if you would install rebar in the fall,

           21   that's an active accessway under the longwall face

           22   and it would create stumbling hazards.  Also, if you

           23   just pre-drill it, there's ground movement that

           24   takes place that would potentially shift where you

           25   certainly, you get floor movement.  It tends to

                                                                  32

            1   occur in a lot of our mines, and any kind of

            2   movement on the roof may make it impossible to get

            3   into the holes once they are drilled ahead of time.

            4               MR. SHERER:  The floor stubbing and

            5   such, don't you have such height that you can put in

            6   a small protected device such as cable across that

            7   we tend to use in the surface mines?

            8               MR. KOCH:  I can't rule that out.

            9               MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  And this is not new

           10   to us, so that everybody knows, hearing about some

           11   of the issues that the western mines have out here

           12   and with the gob isolation seals, but in terms of

           13   any of your conclusions in here, when you said that

           14   you talk about impact on miner safety and health,

           15   I've got a few more specific comments.

           16               You talk about the impracticality, any

           17   issues related to impractical aspects as they relate

           18   to the mines, I would ask you to be as specific as

           19   you can.  I think you said you might follow up with

           20   written comments, but be as specific as you can in

           21   the written comments.  That will be useful to us as

           22   we go forward in developing the final rule.

           23               With respect to the sampling pipes, you

           24   said that, your recommendation I should say, is that

           25   we should eliminate the sampling, you said tubes.  I

                                                                  33

            1   guess pipes from the gob isolation seals, so with

            2   respect to sampling pipes, are you -- what are you

            3   doing now?

            4               MR. KOCH:  Mines are putting sampling

            5   tubes in.  They are putting in two tubes, one that

            6   goes in the 15 and the other goes over close to the

            7   intersection, but we know those will be fruitless in

            8   very short time.

            9               MS. SILVEY:  I want to clarify.  With

           10   respect to your recommendation, are you recommending

           11   that we eliminate from gob isolation seals both

           12   pipes or one?

           13               MR. KOCH:  I will be honest with that.

           14   We had discussions within our association and

           15   different companies have variations on that.  At the

           16   very least we believe the one that goes in gob

           17   should be eliminated.  Oxbow Mines believes that the

           18   gob isolation seals do not need to have any sampling

           19   pipes in them and in our mind in particular we get

           20   an accurate representation at the front end and back

           21   end of the panel that we have sealed.  We go inert

           22   very quickly.  It's usually -- methane is not one of

           23   those things bordering on 15 or 20 percent.  It's

           24   usually going up to the 50, 60, 70, 80, and the

           25   oxygen goes down to one or two percent.  In those

                                                                  34

            1   particular cases you are not going to see any

            2   fluctuations along, in that panel.  We just don't

            3   see it, and our mine has done a sampling for years

            4   on a monthly basis, so we know what we've got in

            5   those panels.

            6               MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  On your comment

            7   concerning elimination of the requirement for

            8   professional engineers to conduct off-site of the

            9   seal installation, you said that you recommend that

           10   that provision be eliminated.

           11               MR. KOCH:  Yes, ma'am.

           12               MS. SILVEY:  You did say that it was

           13   redundant and unnecessary, so is your reason that it

           14   be eliminated mainly that it is redundant and

           15   unnecessary, or is it that it's impractical?

           16               MR. KOCH:  Both.

           17               MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  With respect to --

           18   when you are recommending something to be

           19   eliminated, and I say this for everybody, if you are

           20   saying that it's impractical, then I want you to be

           21   real specific with me.  Include as specific a

           22   rationale as possible with respect to both of those,

           23   but particularly the impracticality of doing it, if

           24   you could be as specific as possible.

           25               MR. KOCH:  The key there is, you know,

                                                                  35

            1   with normal sealing of panel say when you are mining

            2   a zone out, you are going to seal it off.  That's a

            3   quick process to go in and put three or four seals

            4   across a panel and then decide you are going to seal

            5   it up.  Then it becomes a specific project and an

            6   engineer could have oversight on that, but with

            7   these gob isolation seals they are going in every

            8   day.  They might be put in on the day shift, the

            9   swing shift.  They may be pumped on graveyard shift.

           10   To have an engineer that has to be out there, and no

           11   professional engineer is going to sign off without

           12   going out to see that it's done right, he is not

           13   going to do it, and to require that person to be

           14   there any one of three shifts that day, including

           15   weekends, it's just very impractical and not

           16   feasible to work with, and that's the point we're

           17   trying to make.

           18               MS. SILVEY:  On page four of your

           19   comments, the first paragraph you talk about the

           20   economic burden placed on mine operations while

           21   mines are idled for extended periods of time and

           22   that they would negatively affect the economic

           23   well-being, and just for the -- and you link that to

           24   the time that it takes for, you said that sometimes

           25   you might have to suspend production for up to

                                                                  36

            1   28 days.  I would ask, if possible, that if you

            2   would, when you talk about the economic burden, if

            3   you would provide specific cost data, if you could.

            4               MR. KOCH:  We --

            5               MS. SILVEY:  Do what you can.  With

            6   conclusions, you have to follow up conclusions with

            7   specific information.

            8               MR. KOCH:  Yes, ma'am.

            9               MS. SILVEY:  With respect to the next

           10   paragraph you say MSHA should not require withdrawal

           11   of miners during the early and curing processes.  If

           12   at all possible, would you include what you would

           13   recommend as an alternative, or if you know it right

           14   now, but if you don't, if you could include it in

           15   your comments.

           16               MR. KOCH:  We could address that.

           17               MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  And that's really,

           18   you know, I appreciate your comments.  That's all I

           19   have.

           20               MR. SHERER:  I have a couple.

           21               First of all, I want to thank you for

           22   your comments.  You said something that was a bit of

           23   concern to me.  You spoke about the problem with

           24   abutment pressures on the seals for the weekly exam

           25   under 364.

                                                                  37

            1               MR. KOCH:  Yes.

            2               MR. SHERER:  What concerns me, is that

            3   not also adjacent to your tailgate escapeway?

            4               MR. KOCH:  Yes, but the tailgate

            5   escapeway is supported with cans or other

            6   supplemental support out in front of the abutment as

            7   the phase advances.  It is already in that

            8   particular entry, but it's getting over a couple

            9   breaks over those seals that the pressures can

           10   deteriorate.  Say in that particular case your

           11   tailgate is number three.  Seals are between No. 1

           12   and No. 2 entry.  You are putting in supplemental

           13   support in that tailgate to insure safe route

           14   travelway for those people off the base, but

           15   occasionally those conditions deteriorate over and

           16   from the face when you have a combination of side

           17   abutment pressures from the previously mined panel

           18   and the front that are developing, it is in that

           19   area where those abutment pressures exist that it's

           20   very difficult at times and troublesome to get

           21   somebody over there to try to get up to that seal.

           22               MR. SHERER:  Could you not add

           23   supplemental support to the seal area?

           24               MR. KOCH:  The seal itself, but not

           25   every crosscut.

                                                                  38

            1               MR. SHERER:  Thank you.  Another thing

            2   you spoke about was the sample issue and one thing

            3   that was very interesting, you spoke about how your

            4   sealed area seemed to be fairly homogeneous.  You

            5   obviously have not seen much variation between the

            6   different seal locations as far as the methane

            7   content or the oxygen content.  Is that true?

            8               MR. KOCH:  We seal each panel

            9   individually and each one has its own atmosphere and

           10   they can have a little difference to them and

           11   depending which mains they are up against and how

           12   we're pulling the gas from them.

           13               MR. SHERER:  I got the impression, or

           14   you were talking about between each seal you didn't

           15   see much difference.  Is that true?

           16               MR. KOCH:  Well, up to this point and in

           17   each set of seals there's only one, any seal that we

           18   have done in the past you are only projecting one

           19   tube in each set of seals.

           20               MR. SHERER:  Thank you.

           21               You mentioned several things about

           22   imminent dangers and withdrawals.  Do you construct

           23   these gob isolation seals primarily for spontaneous

           24   combustion control?

           25               MR. KOCH:  The primary purpose of isolating

                                                                  39

            1   each panel individually is to eliminate the oxygen from

            2   getting to that gob and creating spontaneous combustion

            3   issues.  The seals are constructed -- until you get to

            4   the end of the panel, then they become seals.

            5               MR. SHERER:  Isn't spontaneous

            6   combustion a potential emission source?

            7               MR. KOCH:  Only in the proper

            8   atmosphere.

            9               MR. SHERER:  Okay.  Thank you.

           10               Another issue that you discussed was the

           11   withdrawal of miners during the curing period for

           12   the seals.  Have you examined accelerators for the

           13   concrete and such?

           14               MR. KOCH:  We have inquired to our

           15   pumpable seal people.  I believe they may be working

           16   in that regard to try and do something.  I have not

           17   heard of anything at this point that's available.

           18               MR. SHERER:  Thank you.

           19               MR. STEPHAN:  I have a question for you.

           20   You discussed the range or MSHA tightening the range

           21   where they would require atmospheres.  You mentioned

           22   methane in the five to 15 percent range and oxygen

           23   above the 12 percent.  My question goes to how many

           24   of those underground mines actually have a gas

           25   chromatograph on site, and if it is not on site, how

                                                                  40

            1   many of them have access to one otherwise?

            2               MR. KOCH:  I can't speak on behalf of

            3   the other mines.  We have one.  The mine across the

            4   street has their own laboratory on site.  I cannot

            5   speak for the other mines in Colorado.

            6               MR. STEPHAN:  So if other mines did not

            7   have a gas chromatograph on-site, your comments,

            8   they still may be applicable?

            9               MR. KOCH:  I would say that the law may

           10   want to reflect both cases.  My personal viewpoint,

           11   if you address the gasability of a gas chromatograph

           12   to allow a tightening of that range.

           13               MR. STEPHAN:  Thank you.

           14               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you, Mr. Koch.  And,

           15   again, we appreciate your participation.

           16               MR. KOCH:  Thank you.

           17               Our next speaker will be Chris Barbee

           18   with Miners IUOE Local 953, New Mexico.

           19               MR. BARBEE:  Thank you to the panel for

           20   having this discussion forum available to us.

           21   Unfortunately, I have only been able to rescue one

           22   copy of this printout and as soon as I am done I

           23   will provide you with a copy.

           24               Chris Barbee, B-A-R-B-E-E.  I am a

           25   miners representative from the IUOE Local 953, which

                                                                  41

            1   is the International Union of Operating Engineers in

            2   the state of New Mexico, representing miners

            3   employed at the San Juan South mine in Waterflow,

            4   New Mexico.  I have a few brief comments and a few

            5   written comments that I will just submit with the

            6   other comments as several of the minor technical

            7   points, if you could call them that, were submitted

            8   under the investigations done by NIOSH and those are

            9   obviously already a part of this investigation and

           10   what-have-you, but I will include them for your

           11   reference as well.

           12               The point on the Emergency Temporary

           13   Standard on sealing of abandoned areas for

           14   underground coal mines.  I and another couple of

           15   representatives of miners that are with me here

           16   today are representing miners on behalf of the

           17   International Union of Operating Engineers, Local

           18   953 in the San Juan underground mine in Waterflow,

           19   New Mexico.  The Agency's attention to the safety

           20   needs of America's coal miners in respect to the

           21   effectiveness of seals used to isolate abandoned

           22   areas of coal mines is both welcomed and timely.

           23   Clearly, the events in the recent past that have

           24   promulgated the legislation that will soon affect

           25   all coal mine operators and coal miners, are in need

                                                                  42

            1   of remedy.

            2               I have previously sent comments on the

            3   results of their NIOSH work in this area and have

            4   received their comments in return.  I have included

            5   my previous comments on this report with the

            6   submittal presented to you today.  My comments today

            7   will be to encourage the Agency and operators to

            8   continue the dialog about safety and to promote the

            9   development of technologies that will increase the

           10   safety of miners and not burden the Agency,

           11   operators, or the miners unduly.

           12               My comments include the following:

           13               1.  As may seem self-evident, the key to

           14   accident prevention is just that, prevention.  The

           15   creation of regimes of protection to give resistance

           16   to forces generated in the event of an explosion in

           17   a sealed area of a coal mine would be greatly

           18   welcomed by those witnessing such an event, if it

           19   were to occur.  Unfortunately, this methodology only

           20   gives resistance to the explosion.  Prevention of

           21   such an explosion would seem to be the wiser

           22   pursuit.  In examination of mine explosion disasters

           23   in the recent past, it would seem that knowledge of

           24   the dangerous concentrations of an explosive mixture

           25   coupled with a definite response plan to such

                                                                  43

            1   concentrations as well as an active program of gob

            2   gas management could have lessened the effects noted

            3   so well in the national press.

            4               An active program of monitoring, gob gas

            5   management, and a related action plan should be

            6   included in all mine ventilation plans.   Examples

            7   of this process exist both in the United States coal

            8   industry as well as internationally.  Experience

            9   gained from those operators who monitor and manage

           10   gob gasses, both domestic and abroad, should be

           11   examined thoroughly for incorporation into

           12   ventilation plans in the United States.  Not all

           13   U.S. mines would be in need of the highest levels of

           14   management, but lessons could be learned.

           15               Point 2.  An effective action plan for

           16   response to explosive mixtures, the indicator gasses

           17   associated with heating events in gob coal, or a

           18   fire would be tremendously effective in the

           19   prevention of a mine explosion disaster.

           20   Utilization of an action plan depends, however, on

           21   one single factor more than any other:  Timeliness.

           22   Timely information about the state of a gob gas

           23   mixture is obviously not easy to obtain.  Technology

           24   has offered systems that can provide this data on a

           25   far more timely basis than the statutory bag sample

                                                                  44

            1   can provide.  One manufacturer offers their system

            2   under what is commonly called a tube bundle system.

            3   The technology exists in all its component forms for

            4   other uses in other industries.  A greater level of

            5   acceptance on the part of MSHA for use of such

            6   systems could greatly increase the safety of miners

            7   thorough an action plan geared to respond to the

            8   specific needs of each mine and their unique gas

            9   production characteristics.

           10               Although not a true realtime AMS system,

           11   it is far more timely than bag samples.  Such

           12   systems should be thoroughly examined for acceptance

           13   as a second level AMS system that a mine operator

           14   could use to maintain proper and safe atmospheres

           15   for their workers as required by law.

           16               Point No. 3.  As a necessity can be the

           17   mother of invention, the full implementation of the

           18   requirements of this ETS and other aspects of the

           19   Miner Act, it would seem that ideas could generate

           20   synergies that would greatly increase the safety and

           21   productivity of America's coal mining industry.  An

           22   effective forum of the presentation and examination

           23   of new technologies should be promoted.  Such a

           24   forum would include input from manufacturers, mine

           25   operators, MSHA, and the coal miners themselves.

                                                                  45

            1   These are all the key stake holders in the coal mine

            2   safety process and all of their inputs should be

            3   given examination in a timely fashion in an equal

            4   setting.

            5               Thank you for your time and attention to

            6   this issue.

            7               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.  I only have one

            8   comment, Mr. Barbee, and that is when you were

            9   talking about having timely information, and that is

           10   very critical, you mentioned, and I'm not -- I don't

           11   know that you mentioned the name of it, a gas

           12   analysis system.  I think you called it a two bag

           13   system, not quite an AMS system but MSHA could --

           14   you want to see greater acceptance of this on the

           15   part of MSHA.  Can I ask you what that system is,

           16   the name of the system?

           17               MR. BARBEE:  The system that I was

           18   referencing by name is a generic descriptive term.

           19   I don't think that's the actual name that the

           20   manufacturer uses.  It's more of a functional

           21   description.  It was the Tube Bundle System and the

           22   bag portion was in reference to what historically is

           23   required for bag samples.  A brief overview of this

           24   particular system is basically a vacuum pump that

           25   sits in a remote location, a tube that is bundled

                                                                  46

            1   together with other tubes that leads to, for

            2   instance, a sample tube or sample pipe that goes

            3   into a sealed area.  You turn the vacuum pump on.

            4   It draws atmospheric gas from the sealed area and

            5   presents it to a gas chromatograph.  It basically

            6   does the same thing as a bag sample regimen except

            7   it does it on a more timely basis, which gives you

            8   greater opportunity to respond to anything out of

            9   order, that you find out of the ordinary.

           10               That particular system was referenced in

           11   an attempt to show merely one example of

           12   technologies that are there that with increased

           13   safety and particularly the timely response to

           14   situations that may come up, and not to endorse or

           15   deny that particular system.  That's one example of

           16   things that can be of a great deal of benefit over

           17   and above what is currently statutorily required.

           18               MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  Thank you.  Okay.

           19   Thank you, Mr. Barbee.

           20               MR. BARBEE:  Thank you very much.

           21               MS. SILVEY:  Our next speaker is

           22   Jim Cooper with Oxbow Mining Company.

           23               MR. COOPER:  Jim Cooper, C-O-O-P-E-R,

           24   and I work for Oxbow Mining LLC located in Somerset,

           25   Colorado.

                                                                  47

            1               Our mine was started in 2002.  It is

            2   about six million tons a year.  A couple of the

            3   questions that Mr. Sherer -- is that correct -- a

            4   couple of the questions you asked a few minutes ago

            5   was pretty interesting.

            6               As far as we doing the floor, the floor

            7   is not the same.  We operate usually at least 50 or

            8   a hundred plus feet of cover.  I guess if I drilled

            9   the roof in the floor and tried to match rebar holes

           10   later, I don't think I would have any match

           11   whatsoever.

           12               Another question, and I don't think I

           13   can add much to the comments that have already been

           14   made today, but I would just sort of like to touch

           15   on the point.

           16               Another question that you asked is

           17   significant in our mind and I think it's pretty

           18   standard in the west and you talked about inspecting

           19   the gobs close to the face.  That was something that

           20   Bob brought up.  Our plan and MSHA's approved plan

           21   is to require that supports at 800 feet out in front

           22   of the face on the tailgate to keep people from

           23   working close to a longwall face.  I think it's

           24   fairly significant as far as approaching the seals

           25   within 800 feet of the face if you are not to be

                                                                  48

            1   working to put roof supports in.  And the seal, you

            2   know, I think you probably understood from what Bob

            3   was saying.  The seals that we are talking about are

            4   between one and two entry and one no longer exists.

            5               As I said, I appreciate the opportunity

            6   and I really participated in the -- our company did

            7   in the CMA's presentation and I don't think there's

            8   much more that I can add and, certainly, I'm not at

            9   a level today as the MSHA engineers who have already

           10   been working on the seals.  We have had a lot of

           11   concerns about the construction of the seals and the

           12   conservative approach that was being taken.  We

           13   talked a few minutes ago with Bob about if you

           14   waited 28 days to cure a seal, what would that

           15   impact be on the mine.  I don't think the mine would

           16   exist.  We build seals every 30 day in our mine.  We

           17   advance 52 feet a day on the average and our

           18   crosscuts are 200 feet or every third or fourth day,

           19   three and a third day we are building a seal, and if

           20   you were to evacuate the mine for seal time, for age

           21   time or curing time every 28 days, you just wouldn't

           22   be operating is what it amounts to.  You would be

           23   leaving ventilated open gob areas and at least I saw

           24   one representative from district nine here.  I do

           25   believe that the miners, mine owners and MSHA in

                                                                  49

            1   this district are all of the same opinion, that we

            2   don't want to leave that open and particularly the

            3   North Fork Valley mines where our mine is located.

            4   History as to the Somerset town claims to be a

            5   mining town since 1896 I think is the sign that you

            6   enter the town and the story is told that not a

            7   single one of those mines that have ever existed in

            8   that valley has existed without a mine fire.

            9               I have been at Oxbow seven years.  We

           10   have had ours.  The very first panel they pulled

           11   with a brand new longwall, that was prior to me.  It

           12   is a common thing that we deal with out here.

           13               But to go on, I do believe that the

           14   rule-making process that we have gone through since

           15   '06 has left both miners and MSHA at least in our

           16   district a little confused.  Right off the bat we

           17   had no seals, and I understand you could do solid

           18   block seals.  That's not something we could do.  We

           19   attempted to do that and, number one, they don't

           20   stay in.  They weren't there for four days and the

           21   convergence seals we have and your question to Bob,

           22   I think I had the graph in my briefcase, but I

           23   couldn't find it, but where we are on seals, I do

           24   not believe that there is an approved seal in our

           25   district.  That's what -- I don't believe that.  I

                                                                  50

            1   have checked with all the miners.  Every one of them

            2   and some people had some temporary response so they

            3   could continue, yes.  We submitted in October at

            4   least, it might have been September.  Like I said, I

            5   don't have that that in my briefcase.  We had our

            6   first response in June of '07.  We certainly didn't

            7   watch it.  We have been doing seals --

            8               MS. SILVEY:  I hear you.

            9               MR. COOPER:  We had one Omega block

           10   seal.  We replaced it immediately.  We had -- we

           11   took our other seals along the main line that

           12   isolate individual panels in the mine.  We started

           13   building the Mitchell Barick (phonetic) seal in

           14   front of our seal and our seal is the one that's for

           15   the safety of our people and it is the one that we

           16   trust.  The Mitchell Barick was for our inspector so

           17   that they didn't have to get into knee graph is what

           18   it amounted to, and so we did that throughout the

           19   mine.  Today we have 109 active seals, so the seal

           20   issue is extremely major to us and I tell you that I

           21   can't add to the comments that were already made but

           22   I'm here to stress the importance is what it amounts

           23   to.

           24               So for the -- for a long time both the

           25   miners, coal miners and MSHA inspectors in our

                                                                  51

            1   district in my opinion is in a real bind because

            2   they couldn't do anything for us because they didn't

            3   have any standards to go by and, you know, it put

            4   friction where in my opinion friction didn't need to

            5   be, because I think that it takes every one of us to

            6   run a safe line.

            7               I heard the comment earlier is that the

            8   action plan needs to be, and I won't exactly quote

            9   the right words, but equivalent to evacuation.  I

           10   don't think that such a thing as equivalent plan to

           11   evacuation exists, and in the 1970s when we were all

           12   getting, still getting used to the '69 rules, I

           13   think the favorite cartoon that I saw in mines was

           14   the safe mine is a closed mine that nobody enters

           15   the portals of and neither the miners or MSHA has a

           16   job and, again, that's a poor joke and it's things

           17   that we live with in our past that we are trying to

           18   live down today and trying to put more emphasis on

           19   it.

           20               Monitoring the sampling.  I think that's

           21   very complicated.  I do believe that most of the

           22   mines, the deep operating mines in the state of

           23   Colorado does have their own chromatograph.  I know

           24   we are in -- our three mines are within six miles

           25   from end to end of each other.  All three of us have

                                                                  52

            1   chromatographs.  I think the big question that I

            2   have heard a lot of people talking about is not how

            3   we are good as sampling monitors but how is MSHA

            4   going to sample a monitor, and that's very critical

            5   that we need to know to even set our systems up.  We

            6   are a continuous monitoring program and we have it

            7   not because it is required but because we initiated

            8   it ourselves and it's because that first 26 million

            9   dollar longwall, this was back in '97, when the

           10   thing caught on fire and the mine was closed for a

           11   year, the people at that mine said never again do we

           12   want to go into that situation, so the system is in.

           13   It was in place when I got there and I have heard

           14   people comment that it is the most complete that

           15   they have run into in several places.

           16               Atmosphere.  I think MSHA and miners

           17   have been consistently in agreement with that since

           18   I have been in the mine since 1970.  It's over 15,

           19   it's under 5, and it's less than 12 percent and

           20   that's been an accepted thing by MSHA since I have

           21   been in the industry and that has been since the

           22   early seventies.

           23               Prohibited welding and cutting and

           24   soldering, you can't do without those functions on

           25   an operating longwall and I do believe that's a real

                                                                  53

            1   critical thing.  I have read very briefly the MSHA

            2   investigation on Darby and I don't believe that with

            3   the welding and cutting was a problem.  The problem

            4   was that the people that were in didn't follow the

            5   regulations and the rules that were already in

            6   place.  That's what miners have to do.  We operate

            7   in a -- a young HR guy who said this a couple weeks

            8   ago and it is one of the first times in all the

            9   years that I have been in mines that I have heard

           10   that we operate in a hazardous atmosphere and if we

           11   don't pay particular attention to it and do it

           12   right, then it becomes an unsafe atmosphere, and I

           13   do believe in this.

           14               You asked that coal miners do,

           15   underground coal miners do exactly that.  Some of

           16   the concerns as far as -- not too many of us, and I

           17   don't think any of the engineers at our mine are

           18   true structural design engineers and we were talking

           19   earlier about structurally designing the seals.  I

           20   doubt if we could tell any of your people how to in

           21   particular design that seal, but we do believe that

           22   it is overly conservative.

           23               Now, then, a structural design engineer,

           24   a professional engineer who is tested and has his

           25   certification, his job is to design.  Again, it is

                                                                  54

            1   the miners and training that is the job, the

            2   installation job, the construction job.  We go

            3   through the steps and get to a senior mine manager,

            4   certifying the seal design.  I don't quite -- I

            5   think we have to define what the word certifies

            6   mean.  If he's countersigning, then he can do that.

            7   Can he certify that seal?  I don't think so.  I

            8   wonder if we are looking for scapegoats or people to

            9   point fingers at.  I think the mining committee has

           10   already done that to both MSHA and operators and I'm

           11   talking about the senate committee that was very

           12   important for them to enact a so-called Miner's

           13   No. 1 Act and to do it on the anniversary of the

           14   Miner's No. 1 Act.  Some of the comments that have

           15   been in publications that I have read that they may

           16   both be coal miners and about MSHA is very confusing

           17   to me, very disturbing, and it doesn't get the job

           18   done for the safety of the miners, and that's a very

           19   important thing.   It doesn't have anything to do

           20   with really I don't believe the emergency standards

           21   that you are talking about here.

           22               In closing, I would like to say that I

           23   think this nation, and I don't think the majority of

           24   people in the nation believe this, but I think the

           25   majority of coal miners believe this, is that what

                                                                  55

            1   we do about the product we produce is extremely

            2   important to this nation and going forward we will

            3   produce more than 50 percent of the energy that's

            4   produced in the nation.  It's very important to our

            5   standard of living that we have gotten comfortable

            6   with and I think it also adds to the national

            7   security that we're -- that we're faced with every

            8   day, and I think the majority of coal mining people

            9   understand that.  I don't think the majority of the

           10   population in the U.S. understands that.

           11               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you for your comments

           12   and we will have some specific comments in prior to

           13   August 17th.  Thank you for this.  Thank you,

           14   Mr. Cooper, and I want to underscore, as I said, you

           15   will have specific comments in to us before

           16   August 17th.

           17               MR. COOPER:  Yes, ma'am.

           18               MS. SILVEY:  I have just a couple of

           19   further comments to what you said and so you told me

           20   you don't think that you all have, that there's an

           21   approved seal in your district.  I will tell you one

           22   thing.  I do promise that when we go back we are

           23   going to check on the status of the seals, whatever,

           24   seal applications that we have in I guess I should

           25   say seal requests that we have in from district

                                                                  56

            1   nine.

            2               MR. COOPER:  Ma'am, just a short four

            3   weeks ago I think it was that this -- this is

            4   mid-July and time flies, but I was here in Denver

            5   meeting with MSHA and I had a chart and I surveyed

            6   all the underground mines operating in the west and

            7   some of them have temporary supply approvals, as I

            8   have said.  They are stated as temporary.  Ours was

            9   one of the ones that were submitted I think it was

           10   last October 4th and we had no answer.  I think our

           11   district, after finding that out, got us one and the

           12   answer was no is what the answer was.

           13               MS. SILVEY:  I understand.  And you

           14   asked appropriately, you said one of the equally

           15   critical questions is -- you might not have said it

           16   like that, but how is MSHA going to sample a mine,

           17   and that is critical and I said this last week and

           18   so, you know, if somebody were here from last week

           19   they could prove me wrong today because we are in

           20   the process of developing a procedure instruction

           21   that would deal with MSHA samplings and I thought

           22   that it would be out by now and I don't think it is

           23   out today, but I think it should be out soon.  I

           24   don't think it is out, but it should be out soon, so

           25   when we go back I will also, and I promise that to

                                                                  57

            1   everybody here, I will check on the status of that

            2   that deals with MSHA samplings so that people are

            3   put on notice exactly how MSHA plans to sample

            4   seals.

            5               MR. COOPER:  That would be very

            6   important to us if we had it, you know, to make

            7   proper comments by the 17th.  That way we know what

            8   we need to step up to.  Plus, the previous speakers

            9   that had commented about the new system, I think

           10   that the good that's coming out of a lot of things

           11   that has happened in the last two years is that

           12   people are scratching their heads today and trying

           13   to figure out what is out there and what is needed.

           14               We laugh in our location about the

           15   communication issue.  I mean, day one in the mines

           16   for me communication was a problem, and we are

           17   talking about wireless communication and I see ads

           18   in the publications that say we have a wireless

           19   communication we have just tested in the mines of

           20   West Virginia.  It is not a wireless communications.

           21   It still has buyers.  Those signals don't turn

           22   corners, but the laughable part is you won't have a

           23   wireless communication at our location.  We have no

           24   cell phone service, so you can leave your cell phone

           25   at home.  We don't use them because they don't work,

                                                                  58

            1   so if we don't even have cell phone service, it's

            2   sort of for our miners, about 300 employees, it's

            3   sort of a kick to get them going on it.  Well, how

            4   are we going to do this when we can't even get cell

            5   phone service up here?

            6               Those are things -- we tripled our

            7   communication system and run it back to the office

            8   and that way it has a full circle.  If it's broke

            9   some place, it's still open some place else.  We do

           10   have the so-called wireless system underground, but

           11   that has wires every 1500 feet to the transmitters,

           12   but that is some of the things that is coming out

           13   that is extremely good for all of us.

           14               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.

           15               MR. COOPER:  Thank you.

           16               MR. SHERER:  Actually, I have a couple

           17   comments.  First of all, I want to thank you for

           18   your comments, Mr. Cooper.  They were quite

           19   informative.  You spoke about the 28 day waiting

           20   period between each seal.  You said you construct a

           21   seal about every three or four days.  I don't think

           22   those would be considered seals.

           23               MR. COOPER:  Until we seal off the end.

           24               MR. SHERER:  The 28 days would just

           25   apply to maybe the last few seals.  Is that true?

                                                                  59

            1               MR. COOPER:  Yes, and at the end of that

            2   thing, only one in the series of what we have done,

            3   I think we wound up doing 13 seals in three days, so

            4   it is a lot of seals, but as I say, we have 109

            5   active seals right now, active seals right now is

            6   109, and I do believe that there's so much

            7   difference in the east and west.  I have worked in

            8   Alabama.  I worked in Kentucky and West Virginia,

            9   and I worked in Pennsylvania and I have worked out

           10   here and there's a big difference in how seals are

           11   used, what they mean.  And, you know, you can talk

           12   about pre-doing certain work before you get there

           13   and if you are doing six seals in a year or 24 seals

           14   in a year that may be one way of looking at things.

           15   If you are doing seals every three and a half to

           16   four days, that's a whole different way of looking

           17   at things and also I think that in design of seals,

           18   I said I can't compete with that design,engineer,

           19   but he also may need to spend a little time in the

           20   atmosphere and environment that coal miners has to

           21   do that construction in.  From a design and putting

           22   something together, by the guy that has to do it

           23   with his hands, those two things have to match.  We

           24   can talk about all the training we want to but when

           25   we get to that end, if the design is not applicable

                                                                  60

            1   to the atmosphere, then, you know, it's just not

            2   going to work.

            3               One thing I would say is that I heard

            4   you say that MSHA initially designed -- decided that

            5   replacing seals was not the right way to go.  I do

            6   believe that that's a site-specific decision and

            7   that hopefully we as coal miners and operators will

            8   decide that particular seal needs to be replaced a

            9   long time before anybody from MSHA would tell us to

           10   replace it.

           11               You also mentioned, and I did not cover

           12   it and I had it on the list, that you talked about

           13   removing steel and conductive material in seals.

           14   That is something that we are extremely opposed to

           15   and I understand where it comes from, but we use

           16   both a real strong wire mesh for roof and rib

           17   support.  We use pans as well as bolts and cable

           18   bolts and so on and we are going to, our employees

           19   are going to have a major problem if that's part of

           20   the requirement.

           21               Again, I would say we average 1700.  We

           22   don't particularly agree with the statement that

           23   we're exposed to lightning with those particular

           24   safety issues at that point and we believe that

           25   removing that is extremely more hazardous to our

                                                                  61

            1   people and each of our miners than the lightning

            2   potential would be.  I think in all the explosions

            3   that I have heard MSHA speak of, there was only two

            4   that we maybe think that was the case, that it was,

            5   that lightning was a source.

            6               MR. SHERER:  Actually, over half have

            7   been attributed to lightning.

            8               MR. COOPER:  Over half of the 12 since

            9   '82?

           10               MR. SHERER:  Yes.  I think I counted

           11   them up.

           12               MR. COOPER:  I apologize.  Your numbers

           13   are more accurate than mine, I suppose.

           14               MR. SHERER:  A couple more comments,

           15   Mr. Cooper.

           16               I would suggest that you speak with the

           17   people at the Orange Bally (phonetic) mine that your

           18   company may be associated with.  There was a bore

           19   hole, electrical bore hole into that mine that did

           20   suffer a lightning strike back in the early '90s.

           21   It was about 1500 feet deep, as best I can remember.

           22   The comments you made were very pertinent and I

           23   certainly appreciate your candid responses to those.

           24               MR. COOPER:  I would tell you that I

           25   believe that bore holes are a lot different from the

                                                                  62

            1   roof support that we're talking about on seals

            2   underground, but it does relate and I understand

            3   from my statement about the lightning associated

            4   one, but, again, I tend to apply that to leaving

            5   electrical cable in a gob or our roof support is

            6   breaching the seal and not to the bore

            7   installations, and I have heard the same thing

            8   happens on gas wells that I remember.

            9               MR. SHERER:  One last comment.  Have you

           10   any experience with the fiberglass mesh?  I think

           11   there's products out there, for some of the roof and

           12   rib support.

           13               MR. COOPER:  We use a fiberglass mesh

           14   material, and I'm not sure fiberglass is right, but

           15   it is a fabric.  We use that, but we have not used

           16   it as standard support through the mines, not.  I

           17   don't have experience with that.

           18               MR. SHERER:  That's one thing that we

           19   have been discussing as possibly using certain

           20   things where you know you are going to build seals.

           21   Maybe you can use that type of product just in that

           22   local area.

           23               MR. COOPER:  That's a new one too.

           24   Thank you.

           25               MS. SILVEY:  I want to clarify

                                                                  63

            1   something.  Mr. Cooper talked about my earlier

            2   comment about what I said about existing seals and I

            3   think, and I won't look down at exactly what I said,

            4   but in the ETS and the preamble I said we consider

            5   replacing existing seals, replacing all seals or

            6   just wholesale asking that all seals be reinforced

            7   and we rejected that idea because as a wholesale

            8   matter we felt like in some instances to require

            9   that would create additional safety hazards.

           10               Now, that does not rule out the fact

           11   that in particular instances like this goes to your

           12   comment saying it should be left to the individual

           13   mines, if the defective seals are encountered, if a

           14   mine operator encounters a defective seal, then the

           15   rule clearly requires that they be repaired and

           16   reinforced as necessary or replaced with a high

           17   strength seal, so that is the makeup of the rule.

           18   We just didn't on an all-out basis require that all

           19   seals be replaced.

           20               MR. COOPER:   My statement may not have

           21   been very clear, and I was trying to applaud the

           22   fact that you did just exactly that and I believe

           23   that if an operator or an MSHA person finds a

           24   defective seal, then the damaged seal will need to

           25   be replaced and it would have to meet the standards.

                                                                  64

            1               MS. SILVEY:  Right.  Let me just ask

            2   one -- bear with me, you all.

            3               Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper.

            4               At this point can we take a five-minute

            5   break, please?   If nobody wants to take a break, I

            6   can go on.

            7               (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

            8               MS. SILVEY:  Can we get started?  Before

            9   we get started, I would like to make a request of

           10   anybody who is speaking from here on, and that is if

           11   you do have written material, if you would read your

           12   written material somewhat, maybe slower than you

           13   normally do, just to make sure we have an accurate

           14   record, and I know I tend to talk fast myself so I'm

           15   probably the first guilty person, but if you would

           16   talk a little slower if you have written material.

           17               At this point we will hear from our next

           18   speaker, Ralph Sanich, Interwest Mining Company.

           19               MR. SANICH:  Good morning.  My name is

           20   Ralph Sanich, S-A-N-I-C-H, and I'm here today on

           21   behalf of Interwest Mining and its subsidiaries and

           22   I have the following comments:

           23               Interwest Mining Company and its

           24   subsidiaries offer the following comments to the

           25   Mine Safety and Health Administration regarding

                                                                  65

            1   Emergency Temporary Standards for sealing of

            2   abandoned areas published May 22, 2007.

            3               MSHA requests comments from the mining

            4   community on the appropriateness of the strategy of

            5   this ETS for addressing seal strength greater than

            6   120 psi.

            7               Interwest Mining Company suggests that

            8   MSHA allow mining companies to investigate future

            9   technologies and alternative methodologies such as

           10   weak-walls, the installation of baffles, et cetera,

           11   to provide blast wave mitigation prior to explosions

           12   encountering the seals.

           13               MSHA specifically solicits comments on

           14   the Agency's approach to the strength requirements

           15   for seals.

           16               Interwest Mining Company would suggest

           17   that rather that increasing seal design

           18   requirements, MSHA should allow mines to conduct a

           19   risk analysis of the specific area to be sealed.

           20   Some mines historically do not liberate methane.

           21   These mines should not be held to the same standard

           22   as mines that liberate large amount of methane.  If

           23   the atmosphere to be isolated behind a set of seals

           24   is to be inerted and/or is known based upon mine

           25   history that the sealed area will never achieve an

                                                                  66

            1   explosive mixture, then there is no rationale to

            2   increase the seal strength requirements.  Instead,

            3   mine history, monitoring of the sealed area and the

            4   ability to inert the seal atmosphere should dictate

            5   seal design strength requirements.

            6               MSHA asked for comments on the

            7   appropriateness of the three-tiered approach to seal

            8   strength in the ETS.

            9               As stated in our previous comment,

           10   Interwest Mining Company suggests that rather than

           11   increasing seal strength design requirements, MSHA

           12   should allow mines to conduct a risk analysis of the

           13   specific area to be sealed.  Some mines, again,

           14   historically do not liberate methane and should not

           15   be held to that same standard as mines that liberate

           16   large amounts of methane.

           17               MSHA seeks comments on the feasibility,

           18   including in the final rule a requirement that

           19   existing seals be removed and replaced with higher

           20   strength seals.  Interwest Mining Company does not

           21   agree with the removal of existing seals for higher

           22   strength seals.  It does not make any sense to

           23   potentially expose miners to an atmosphere and

           24   potentially introduce oxygen into a sealed area

           25   which may contain methane and could expose the

                                                                  67

            1   miners to an explosive mixture.

            2               Additionally, existing seals, sealed

            3   areas which do not contain explosive mixtures do not

            4   benefit from a construction of a higher strength

            5   seal as a factor of the safety for an explosion of

            6   120 psi seal versus a factor of safety for a 20 psi

            7   seal are the same if no explosion is possible.

            8               MSHA is requesting comments addressing

            9   the sampling of approach in this ETS:  Sampling and

           10   sampling frequency only when a seal is outgassed.

           11   Interwest Mining Company believes that sampling

           12   frequency should be determined by site-specific mine

           13   conditions, mine history, and approved by the

           14   district manager.  For example, a mine that has no

           15   history of methane should not be required to sample

           16   weekly.  If historical data determines that the mine

           17   does not produce methane, the district manager may

           18   approve a different sampling procedure such as

           19   monthly, quarterly, et cetera.

           20               There's another sampling approach more

           21   appropriate for the final rule, such as when the

           22   seal is ingassing.

           23               Interwest Mining Company does not

           24   believe there is a need to sample seals that are

           25   ingassing.  Again, if a mine does not have a history

                                                                  68

            1   of methane liberation, sampling should not be

            2   required.

            3               MSHA requests information and

            4   experiences for the mining community concerning

            5   sampling sealed areas.

            6               Interwest Mining Company believes that

            7   specific conditions at the mine would require

            8   different sampling procedures.  A mine with a

            9   complex ventilation system, one that has a blowing

           10   and exhausting fans, will have a different effect

           11   than a mine that is only on an exhausting or a

           12   blowing system.  Again, we believe that the

           13   historical information should be utilized to

           14   determine sampling intervals.

           15               MSHA is requesting comments from the

           16   mining community on the appropriateness of the ETS

           17   requirements regarding open flames associated with

           18   welding, cutting, and soldering activities within

           19   150 feet of the seal and the feasibility of this

           20   requirement.

           21               Interwest Mining Company does not agree

           22   with this ETS requirement.  There are some instances

           23   that seals be built on the intake or next to belts

           24   or belt drives and other situations.  Cutting and

           25   welding should be allowed if air quality checks are

                                                                  69

            1   made and the methane and oxygen are continually

            2   monitored.

            3               MSHA requests comments regarding the

            4   appropriate number and location of sampling pipes

            5   for the final rule and Interwest Mining Company

            6   believes that one seal in a set of seals should be

            7   designated for sampling and be provided with

            8   sampling pipes; however, the appropriate number and

            9   location of sampling pipes should be based upon

           10   site-specific mine conditions and historical

           11   experience

           12               MSHA requests comments from the mining

           13   community on the ETS requirement for water drainage

           14   systems for seals, including effective alternatives

           15   for the final rule.

           16               We believe that MSHA should define what

           17   is impounding water.  Some water behind a seal would

           18   not pose a problem.  Seals and sets of seals could

           19   be constructed to allow water to flow to the lowest

           20   area, and the seal built in the location would

           21   contain the water drainage system.  Again, this

           22   should be determined on a site-by-site or a

           23   site-specific basis.

           24               MSHA solicits comments regarding the

           25   removal of insulated cables and metallic objects

                                                                  70

            1   through or across seals is feasible and will not

            2   involve significant technical or practical problems.

            3               We agree with the removal the cables and

            4   tracks and other metal objects across or through the

            5   seal.

            6               Interwest Mining Company disagrees with

            7   removal of all cables from the sealed area.  This

            8   could create a hazardous condition.  For example,

            9   bleeder systems that generate large quantities of

           10   water require pumping systems be maintained up to

           11   the final sealing process.  Taking the time to

           12   remove all pumping and monitoring communication

           13   cables, et cetera, prior to the final sealing

           14   process would allow the bleeding process to flood

           15   and potentially block ventilation resulting in

           16   methane buildup or other hazardous conditions.  This

           17   would create a greater hazard to our employees than

           18   the potential danger of a lightning strike.

           19   Grounding the cable to the mine strata or other

           20   alternatives could be a more effective way to deal

           21   with cables left behind.

           22               Interwest Mining Company would like to

           23   thank you, the panel, for your time in allowing us

           24   to come in during these hearings.

           25               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you, Mr. Sanich.  I

                                                                  71

            1   heard, and this comment is for everybody here too,

            2   because we heard this comment before and I can't

            3   exactly -- I think we heard it in Morgantown and I'm

            4   not sure exactly whether we heard it in Lexington,

            5   but I know we heard it in Morgantown from a number

            6   of operators who suggested that mines that did not

            7   liberate methane, there was no need to require,

            8   include certain of the requirements for them and

            9   that there should be a risk analysis and based on --

           10   they should be allowed to do a risk analysis and

           11   based on that risk analysis then that would dictate

           12   what the requirements should be.

           13               I have two points on that.  One, and I

           14   probably should have asked some of them and really I

           15   hope it gets back to some of them.

           16               When you say not liberate methane, and

           17   I'm assuming that you mean do not liberate large

           18   quantities of methane, or you tell me what you mean

           19   when you say do not liberate methane, your mines do

           20   not liberate methane.

           21               MR. SANICH:  I guess I would say our

           22   mines are in a peculiar situation because one of the

           23   two mines that we currently are operating the

           24   underground mines, liberates basically no methane.

           25               MS. SILVEY:  Basically you mean you have

                                                                  72

            1   never had a measurement of methane?

            2               MR. SANICH:  Maybe three, four,

            3   five-tenths methane over the years, so we are in a

            4   different situation than let's say than most mines

            5   are, and that's why we believe that a risk analysis

            6   of our mines is more appropriate because, you know,

            7   again, a 50 psi seal, if you have an area that's

            8   inert and will more than likely always be inert,

            9   20 psi seal would be just as safe.

           10               MS. SILVEY:  I want to get clarification

           11   of what the commenters mean when they say no

           12   methane.

           13               Now, you say low.  You have two mines.

           14   What does the other one -- let's get to the one, the

           15   three-tenths, four-tenths or whatever you said.  Is

           16   that -- how long have you been -- what is the trend

           17   for that?  I mean, how long a period of time has it

           18   been always giving that amount?

           19               MR. SANICH:  The one mine that we are

           20   operating in Utah currently, to my knowledge, and I

           21   would only be speaking just based off what I

           22   understand, they have never in probably close to

           23   30 years have had a methane issue to where, and I

           24   will go as far as to say five-tenths the methane

           25   that probably would be the maximum that they have

                                                                  73

            1   seen.

            2               MS. SILVEY:  What about the other mine?

            3               MR. SANICH:  That's a newer mine and we

            4   have not seen any methane in that mine as well.

            5   Traces, let's say.

            6               MS. SILVEY:  The question I have is,

            7   with respect to this risk analysis, and you included

            8   some factors, being sure you included some factors

            9   in here.  You gave the history of methane and you

           10   gave the mine history and certain other things, the

           11   ability to inert the sealed atmosphere, but when you

           12   are talking about a recommendation, if you are

           13   suggesting that we make certain requirements based

           14   on risk analysis, I would like it if you could be

           15   very specific with respect to how you would do that,

           16   the parameters to be included in certain, in such a

           17   risk analysis, and that is how you are going to do

           18   it, how it is going to be evaluated, what is going

           19   to be included in it.  It's got to be laid out.  It

           20   just can't be you telling me you are going to do a

           21   risk analysis.

           22               MR. SANICH:  And we would more than

           23   likely submit additional comments that would clarify

           24   that.

           25               MS. SILVEY:  I would like it very much

                                                                  74

            1   if you would clarify that.

            2               MR. SHERER:  I have a couple comments.

            3               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.

            4               MR. SHERER:  Thank you for your input,

            5   Mr. Sanich.

            6               One thing you mentioned that I would

            7   like to explore a bit, you mentioned that you had

            8   seals on intake next to belt lines.  Is that

            9   correct?

           10               MR. SANICH:  I didn't say we had them.

           11   I said there is the potential that there could be

           12   seals built to where they were on the intakes and

           13   they had to be examined basically on a pre-shift.

           14               MR. SHERER:  That worries me in that we

           15   have a requirement for stopping between belt lines

           16   and intake.

           17               MR. SANICH:  Let me rephrase that.  It

           18   would be 150 feet of a belt drive.

           19               MR. SHERER:  Have you read the preamble

           20   which lets you do that?  We use the same method that

           21   we use for permissible equipment and active gobs and

           22   it is a string that we call the string line method.

           23   You take a string and stretch it out and within 150

           24   feet of that it lets you use the separation provided

           25   by that stopping line for determining whether you

                                                                  75

            1   could weld or not.  I think that most of what you

            2   are intimating to be problems may go away under that

            3   approach.

            4               MR. SANICH:  That may be true.

            5               MR. SHERER:  Thank you.

            6               Another issue that Mrs. Silvey spoke

            7   about is low methane, and you mentioned

            8   three-tenths, four-tenths, five-tenths.  Was that in

            9   sealed areas or was that in active, ventilated

           10   areas?

           11               MR. SANICH:  Primarily I would tell you

           12   that for the most part the methane that we have seen

           13   is, I will say in active areas.  It just kind of

           14   comes and goes.  It will go for a long time without

           15   seeing anything at all, meaning zero, and then there

           16   will be just a hit or miss occasion where you see

           17   something, but as far as us sampling our sealed

           18   areas, I would say that we have typically seen

           19   methane concentrations less than three-tenths.  It

           20   could be zero.

           21               MR. SHERER:  Sure.

           22               Are you aware that Sago was a low

           23   methane liberation mine?

           24               MR. SANICH:  Yes.

           25               MR. SHERER:  Okay.  Thank you.

                                                                  76

            1               MS. SILVEY:  Mr. Sanich, I have one

            2   other comment.  On your comments with respect to

            3   sampling pipes, and as you noted, ETS requires two

            4   pipes and I say it for everybody, the location of

            5   the pipes earlier.  Your recommendation is that the

            6   appropriate number and location be based on

            7   site-specific conditions but do you or your company

            8   agree that that should be the two pipes as laid out?

            9   You didn't comment about that, as laid out in the

           10   ETS, the location of the two pipes that the ETS

           11   specifies.  What is your opinion on that?

           12               MR. SANICH:  Again, my opinion would be

           13   that I would agree with the comments to, especially

           14   the Colorado Mining Association because, again, with

           15   the type of gates and gobs that we have, I think to

           16   the extended or the longer pipe would more than

           17   likely get damaged and there would be basically no

           18   opportunity to go in and replace or repair that

           19   pipe.

           20               MS. SILVEY:  So that comment was to

           21   eliminate the pipe from the gob isolation seals.

           22   Okay.  I just wanted to clarify that.

           23               Okay.  Thank you.

           24               MR. STEPHAN:  I would just like to ask

           25   you real quick again about this 150 feet and open

                                                                  77

            1   flames, the welding and cutting issue and if testing

            2   were to suggest that sparks or hot metal from the

            3   welding or cutting operation could perhaps extend or

            4   jump 15 or 20 feet, would you be more likely to be

            5   in favor of a standard that specifies a number less

            6   than 150 feet, perhaps 20 feet, or would that make

            7   things --

            8               MR. SANICH:  This is me speaking and not

            9   my company, but I would say that I don't think a

           10   distance specification is really the way to go

           11   because, again, it's kind of a prescriptive versus

           12   what are you really dealing with at that particular

           13   location, so it's why I say I'm more favored to

           14   utilizing the technology of an electronic instrument

           15   that could give you constant readout while you are

           16   performing the job that you are doing, that cutting,

           17   welding, et cetera.

           18               MS. SILVEY:  I understand the position

           19   that you would take with that, but I'm thinking in

           20   terms of what happened at the Darby mines.  If they

           21   had such a piece, it would have told them that

           22   welding was okay because they didn't have -- because

           23   there were specifications that said the no welding

           24   on or near seals or within ten or twenty feet of

           25   seals, then that would have been something different

                                                                  78

            1   that could have prevented Darby.  Just looking from

            2   that perspective.

            3               MR. SANICH:  It seems like that would be

            4   a sensible approach.

            5               MR. STEPHAN:  Thank you.

            6               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you, Mr. Sanich.

            7               Our next speaker is Craig Watson with

            8   VHP.

            9               MR. WATSON:  Good morning.  My name is

           10   Craig Watson, W-A-T-S-O-N.  I'm also an underground

           11   coal miner for VHP, San Juan Mine South, Waterflow,

           12   New Mexico.  I represent 230 plus coal miners and I

           13   have some general comments from them in reference to

           14   seal construction, materials and monitoring and some

           15   general safety philosophies that we have at our

           16   mine.

           17               You already heard from Chris Barbee and

           18   I echo much of his sentiments, and I won't restate

           19   those.  The miners have some concerns, though.

           20               First of all, I applaud and they applaud

           21   your effort and time and commitment to helping make

           22   them safe and allow them to work and prosper and

           23   support their families and they are very, very aware

           24   of the risks and hazards of coal mines.  Those

           25   really have not changed over the last hundred years.

                                                                  79

            1   The only things that we have between us and those

            2   risks are the ability to manage, identify and

            3   mitigate these risks, both with technology,

            4   training, management and culture.

            5               MS. SILVEY:  Excuse me.  Please, you are

            6   doing real good.  I mean, I don't want to interrupt

            7   your thoughts, but can everybody hear him?  I'm

            8   sorry.  I hate to ask you.  It looked like some

            9   people were straining to hear you.

           10               MR. WATSON:  Should I start again or

           11   keep going?

           12               MS. SILVEY:  Keep going.

           13               MR. WATSON:  Okay.  Again, the risks in

           14   the coal mine that we incur, and we see have not

           15   changed in the last hundred years.  The risks and

           16   hazards are still there and the only thing between

           17   us and those hazards are training and technology and

           18   our ability to identify, manage, and mitigate these

           19   risks and some of that is the culture and the miners

           20   that do the work.  This is the objective of my

           21   presentation this morning is some of the concerns

           22   that they have from an actual hands-on application

           23   of seal construction and handling and the peace of

           24   mind and information as far as monitoring our gob

           25   gasses and to deal with the issues as they arise

                                                                  80

            1   sufficiently and safely and consistently.

            2               As I mentioned, though, they do very

            3   much appreciate your time and effort and resources

            4   to help them keep their jobs and work safely and

            5   support their families.

            6               Specifically, in dealing with seal

            7   construction, whatever the end result of your effort

            8   as far as whatever the end result of seal

            9   construction, a 50 psi seal or 120 or whatever the

           10   value is, at some point please do consider that

           11   whatever you design, whatever you agree upon,

           12   someone has to build it and when they are building

           13   it they have to have the material hauled in and

           14   prepare the site and so many times now in the coal

           15   mine we see injuries, minor or moderate involving

           16   lifting, twisting and carrying of materials.

           17               Don't misunderstand me.  The coal miners

           18   very much want to build whatever you want to build

           19   for safety.  175, 20 steps, we don't care.  We will

           20   deal with whatever we have to, but it must be

           21   efficient and it must be consistent and it is labor

           22   intensive and it does involve backs and knees and

           23   ankles and physical work, so having said that,

           24   please consider those when we do final designs and

           25   final law to affect what we build.

                                                                  81

            1               The miners have conveyed to me an

            2   important fact.  In our mind we are very aware of

            3   our gob gasses and we have the ability to monitor

            4   and there's someone continually monitoring these gob

            5   gasses and control, and if we have an issue they get

            6   on the radio and call somebody who works on the crew

            7   and say Craig, take that meter, verify and take a

            8   bag sample, and so if they are working somewhere

            9   else in the mine, they know that someone is taking

           10   care of this safety concern.

           11               We know it's back there.  If it is not

           12   in parameter range, we like to go and check it.  If

           13   we need to, we add more oxygen and we inert it, but

           14   the point is that we are aware of our mine gasses.

           15   We don't take it for granted, and we manage them and

           16   the peace of mind that we have with our miners

           17   because of this is important.  It allows them to

           18   concentrate on their tasks at hand and help keep

           19   them safe, and that's an important fact.  Our mine

           20   is relatively new and a lot of miners are brand new

           21   to the mining industry.  We have always done it this

           22   way.  At the same time, we're always analyzing and

           23   scrutinizing what we do and how we do it to make it

           24   better, which is an important fact.  If something is

           25   better or more safe, we do it.

                                                                  82

            1               The miners that said they like the idea

            2   of having two sampling pipes in the seals, two is

            3   twice as good as one.  If we lose one from gob

            4   cave-in, we could have the other one, so they like

            5   the idea of having two.

            6               So, this is a broad spectrum.  Those are

            7   the comments that were conveyed to me.  Materials,

            8   handling, and ability to sample and manage our gob

            9   gasses.

           10               That's all I have for you.  Thank you so

           11   much for your time.

           12               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you very much,

           13   Mr. Watson.  On your sample, since they said they

           14   call you sometimes, do you all have a chromatograph

           15   at your mine?

           16               MR. WATSON:  Yes, we do.

           17               MS. SILVEY:  I figured you did.  Okay.

           18   I have no other comments.

           19               MR. SHERER:  Thank you, Mr. Watson.

           20               You mentioned that you are continuously

           21   monitoring your gob atmosphere.  Do you know how

           22   often that sample is?  Is it once an hour, once a

           23   day?

           24               MR. WATSON:  I may have misspoke.  I

           25   think it is a 15-minute sampling, but I believe they

                                                                  83

            1   can actually lock on any one point at any one time.

            2   I believe that's true.  I believe it is a 15-minute

            3   cycle.  I did not write it down.

            4               MS. SILVEY:  Do you all have an AMS

            5   system?

            6               MR. WATSON:  Yes, ma'am, AMS system,

            7   tube sampling and, of course, our hand-held.

            8               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you very much,

            9   Mr. Watson.

           10               MR. WATSON:  Thank you.

           11               MS. SILVEY:  At this point, is there

           12   anybody else in the audience who either wishes to

           13   make comment or make additional comments if you

           14   spoke earlier, so feel free to do so.  Yes?

           15               MR. KOCH:  I have a couple comments if I

           16   may.

           17               MS. SILVEY:  Mr. Koch.

           18               MR. KOCH:  I'm glutton for punishment

           19   here this morning.

           20               I wish to comment on a couple things.

           21   We talked about the rebar and the floor.  I would go

           22   a little further on that in that there were a couple

           23   people who approached me at the break and that's

           24   that that entry that goes over to the face needs to

           25   be kept accessible for equipment to move in and out,

                                                                  84

            1   the ability to carry cans in for roof support, and

            2   it is really impractical to try to put any rebar in

            3   that floor ahead of time.  Those bars are going to

            4   spray in different directions.

            5               I would also like to point out on that

            6   that I don't believe there is any currently approved

            7   seals that have that rebar in there that don't also

            8   say it's not applicable for convergence locations

            9   where your convergence, and I believe there's a

           10   statement that says that convergence, that's not

           11   applicable to those locations.  I believe it may

           12   conceal but they are only approved up to eight-foot

           13   high and that would be inapplicable as well for the

           14   western coal miners, so, anyway, also, there is, in

           15   the Friday, June 8th ETS it talks about do I have to

           16   sample the sealed area in the Friday June 8, 2007

           17   ETS questions and answers.  One question, No. 7 is

           18   do I have to sample the sealed atmosphere using both

           19   sampling pipes in each new seal.  The answer is

           20   during the 14-day sampling period the seal

           21   atmosphere must be done through both sampling pipes

           22   in each seal.  The comment I would like to make, if

           23   you think about that, with gob isolation seals where

           24   you have just sealed, there could be as many as 50

           25   seals coming into play there.  If we were to sample

                                                                  85

            1   one out of two tubes for 14 days over 15 seals --

            2   over 50 seals -- that would be 1400 samples that

            3   would need to be taken in that two-week period.

            4   Obviously, that's not a practical thing to be doing,

            5   so I think the regulations need to address the gob

            6   items.  It is another example where I don't believe

            7   gob isolation seals are properly addressed.

            8               I had heard a comment that there is some

            9   new compliance questions and answers coming out.

           10   That might be an opportunity to put some

           11   clarification on what really makes sense.

           12               MR. SHERER:  I have a comment.  Thank

           13   you, again, Mr. Koch.

           14               I was just suggesting a possible

           15   approach for any of the rebar.  The one concern I

           16   have is you say that rebar is not applicable anyway,

           17   so I guess it is a moot point.

           18               MR. KOCH:  I don't think it is

           19   applicable.  The seals that are there right now that

           20   have been designed so far that are approved so far

           21   have rebar in them are not applicable in the mines

           22   to show convergence.

           23               MR. SHERER:  So it is a moot point?

           24               MR. KOCH:  Yes, but --

           25               MR. SHERER:  Thank you.

                                                                  86

            1               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.  Thank you,

            2   Mr. Koch.

            3               Is there anybody else who wishes to make

            4   comments?

            5               MR. COOPER:  Can we ask a question?

            6               MS. SILVEY:  Can you come to the mike?

            7               MR. COOPER:  I'm loud anyway.

            8               I would just like to ask Mr. Stephan.  I

            9   didn't quite understand your statement a while ago

           10   when you were asking about distance, 5 to 20 feet

           11   from a seal and what happened in Sago.  I didn't

           12   understand that statement.

           13               MR. STEPHAN:  The Darby mine, the

           14   explosion that resulted in the five fatalities, two

           15   men went to the seal for the purpose of cutting a

           16   strap, a metal strap that, you know, was from the

           17   active side to the inactive side and it was the

           18   belief of the Darby investigation team that the

           19   purpose of them going there was to cut that strap

           20   and on the active side of the seals the atmosphere

           21   would have been a fine atmosphere.  There would not

           22   have been explosive concentrations of methane there

           23   at all, so when they made their measurements of the

           24   atmosphere, it would have seemed okay to them, so

           25   they began their cutting process but as a part of

                                                                  87

            1   the investigation some cutting experiments were done

            2   at the NIOSH Lakeland facility on those exact types

            3   of metal straps where they are kind of corrugated

            4   and there's channels in there and they actually

            5   blocked off the passage of sparks through any means

            6   at all except for along those channels and during

            7   the cutting process, you know how the sparks are

            8   flying all over the place, some sparks flew through

            9   the channel underneath the roof that they would have

           10   had there and shot into the side that would have

           11   been the sealed side for a distance of 15 to

           12   20 feet, and it was just --

           13               MR. COOPER:  That's what I didn't

           14   understand.

           15               MR. STEPHAN:  If we established that

           16   distance --

           17               MR. COOPER:  Very clearly, I do believe

           18   that we have regulations already in place as far as

           19   any welding or anything in the atmosphere, the

           20   active atmosphere, and I didn't quite understand the

           21   statement when you brought Darby up because I had

           22   read that and I did not gather that that particular

           23   incident, those regulations were followed from the

           24   MSHA investigation.  Thank you.

           25               MR. STEPHAN:  You are welcome.

                                                                  88

            1               MS. SILVEY:  Is there anybody else that

            2   wishes to make comments?  Well, if nobody else here

            3   present wishes to make comments or provide

            4   testimony, what I'm going to do now is tentatively

            5   bring this hearing to a close and as I do so I want

            6   to again thank you all for your participation in

            7   this important rule-making process.

            8               Again, I want to thank those of you who

            9   came here today and just showed us by your presence

           10   that you are interested in the rule-making process,

           11   although you may not have testified.  For those of

           12   you who testified, on behalf, as I said earlier, the

           13   assistant secretary and all of us who have been

           14   involved in this process, we appreciate very much

           15   your testimony.  For those of you who promised that

           16   you were going to submit your testimony with

           17   additional written comments and specific information

           18   where we asked you, we will look forward to getting

           19   those to us in Arlington before the record closes on

           20   August 17th.  Those specific comments will be very

           21   useful and where you made conclusions, if I can ask

           22   you if you can follow it up with specific

           23   parameters, specific support for your conclusions,

           24   if you made any economic sort of conclusions,

           25   specific data in support of that, that will be very

                                                                  89

            1   useful for us in crafting the final rule and so we

            2   will, you know, we may see some people in Birmingham

            3   on Thursday and then the record closes on

            4   August 17th and we will begin the job of developing

            5   the final rule, which we hope to have done by

            6   February of '08.

            7               I would now tentatively close the

            8   hearing.  We will be here at 1:00 o'clock in case,

            9   because the Federal Register notice said 9:00 to

           10   5:00, we will come back at 1:00 in case that there's

           11   anybody who came in maybe thinking that they could

           12   come in for the afternoon session and we would be

           13   here.

           14               We will come back here just in case

           15   there's anybody else, but if nobody is here at that

           16   time, we will consider the hearing officially

           17   closed.  Thank you all.

           18               (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.)

           19               MS. SILVEY:  At this time we will

           20   reconvene the Mine Safety and Health

           21   Administration's public hearing on sealing of

           22   abandoned areas in underground coal mines.

           23               Our first speaker, as you heard me this

           24   morning, those you who wish to speak, if you would

           25   please spell your name, speak clearly and spell your

                                                                  90

            1   name for the reporter.

            2               Our first speaker for this afternoon's

            3   hearing is -- excuse me, please.  I don't have the

            4   speaker list, do I?

            5               Our first speaker is Tom Kay with United

            6   Mine Workers of America at Energy West.  Mr. Kay?

            7               MR. KAY:  Thank you.  Tom Kay, K-A-Y.

            8   I'm a representative of the miners of Local 7269,

            9   Energy West Mining.  We have a few comments we would

           10   like to make on the new seal regulations.

           11               We think it's not practical replacing

           12   all seals already in.  We got about 120 seals in our

           13   mine and the cost of that would be enormous for our

           14   company and for the workers also.  We also don't

           15   agree with having to remove all cables from sealed

           16   areas.  We're -- we got about 25 underfoot covering

           17   over us and we really don't think that lightning can

           18   come down and strike us with that much cover.  If it

           19   did, I think I would be sitting a little bit

           20   differently around some people underground, but we

           21   think, you know, we try to get all the cables we can

           22   out of our sealed areas.  Sometimes it's impractical

           23   to get them.  Removing the metals like the mesh, we

           24   do do that in our mines.  We cut it out.  Some mines

           25   you got to take into consideration in the roof

                                                                  91

            1   control plant the mesh is in there.  If they do cut

            2   it out, it would be a violation.

            3               Removing rip pins from a sealed area,

            4   you are just exposing miners to dangers in that

            5   it's, you know, we put them in there for support and

            6   you get a guy over there trying to take them out, I

            7   think it would cause more of a hazard.

            8               And one other thing, welding within 150

            9   feet of a seal.  And that's -- I disagree with that

           10   and so do the people at our mine.  We do have a belt

           11   line that does run past seals and if it caves off,

           12   it breaks down, we have to cut on it, repair the

           13   area, whatever.  What are we going to do?  You know,

           14   we take the measures with seals, we monitor them,

           15   you know, we have instruments.  We check for gas and

           16   then, you know, I just think this 150 foot thing, I

           17   mean, it might be good for some other place, but

           18   like in our coal mine, when I talked to Patricia a

           19   few minutes ago, our mine is the one they talked

           20   earlier about not having any gas.  We did 14-day

           21   samplings on our seals, zero percent methane.  I

           22   think, you know, we need to, you guys need to take a

           23   little bit stronger look on that 150 foot.  That's

           24   all I got.

           25               MS. SILVEY:  Thank you very much.  We

                                                                  92

            1   appreciate your comments.

            2               With respect to your comments that it's

            3   impractical to get all cable, can you tell me

            4   exactly what you do now?  Since the ETS has been in

            5   effect, do you remove some cables?  Give me an

            6   example of when it's impractical to remove a cable.

            7               MR. KAY:  What if you have a roofer fall

            8   on a cable.  How are you going to go in and get it?

            9   You can seethe end sticking out but you are going to

           10   go underneath an unsupported top to try to get it

           11   out.

           12               Or what if there is too much water?  You

           13   know, our mine is a wet mine.  I mean, it is a real

           14   wet mine and, you know, we come up under these

           15   conditions sometimes, you know.  When you are

           16   retreating out of there, you go seal an area off,

           17   you got power off, you are coming out.  You know,

           18   you are trying to bring cables out as fast as you

           19   can.  Your pump is out.  You know, we don't try to

           20   leave a lot of things back in a sealed area because,

           21   you know, you never know what could happen back

           22   there really.  And, you know, we're very safety

           23   conscious at our mine and we try to remove all of

           24   our trash out of it and we do a very good job at our

           25   mine.

                                                                  93

            1               MS. SILVEY:  That's my only comment.

            2               MR. SHERER:  Several comments.  Thank

            3   you for your comments.

            4               When you seal along the belt, do you

            5   have a stopping line in between?

            6               MR. KAY:  No.

            7               MR. SHERER:  You actually have the belt

            8   line up against the seals?

            9               MR. KAY:  No.  The belt line runs in the

           10   entry where the seals are.

           11               MR. SHERER:  Thank you.

           12               MR. KAY:  They are ventilated, you know.

           13               MR. SHERER:  Sure.

           14               Another question for you.  You say you

           15   have areas where you can't get all of the cable out

           16   of the area to be sealed, but you remove as much as

           17   you can.

           18               MR. KAY:  We try to remove as much as

           19   possible.  When we pull out of an area to get ready

           20   to seal it, you know, cable costs money.

           21               MR. SHERER:  Sure.

           22               MR. KAY:  So, you know, we are trying to

           23   get everything out of there to save costs, but under

           24   some circumstances, you are not going to be able to

           25   get them out.

                                                                  94

            1               MR. SHERER:  We have actually published

            2   a compliance assistance question that says we want

            3   you to remove as much cable as practicable.  We

            4   don't want anybody to go under unsupported roofs or

            5   do anything like that, so I think we probably

            6   answered your concern there.

            7               MR. KAY:  I just wanted to go on record

            8   about that.

            9               MS. SILVEY:  That's good.  Thank you.

           10   Thank you very much.

           11               Next -- our next speaker will be Brandon

           12   Sinclair, United Mine Workers, Energy West.

           13               MR. SANICH:  Good afternoon.  My name is

           14   Randy Sinclair, S-I-N-C-L-A-I-R.  I'm a union worker

           15   at the Deer Creek mine in Utah.  We have some

           16   comments about the -- being miner friendly when

           17   we're talking about constructing all these seals and

           18   we, if we have to, we build all of them.  You are

           19   talking about a lot of costs and a lot of backs

           20   breaking, carrying back to the old seal for miners,

           21   and the 150 foot, we have a lot of areas in our mine

           22   with our large intake will be closer than a hundred

           23   fifty foot from the seals and if something would

           24   need to be welded or anything, we got to be able to

           25   fix it and we have a lot of places where the seals

                                                                  95

            1   are within that range.  In fact, 50-foot, most of

            2   them.

            3               Tom took care of most of what I wanted

            4   to say.

            5               Retrieving of cables.  Like Tom said, we

            6   get most of them out.  There's a lot of costs

            7   involved in getting them out safely and we try and

            8   do what we can to get them cables out.  Like Tom

            9   said, there is no way you are going to get all the

           10   cables for the bleeder going behind the longwall and

           11   stuff.  You are not going to be able to get all them

           12   cables out and I would, like I said, he covered what

           13   I was going to say and I thank you for your time.

           14               MS. SILVEY:  Okay, Mr. Sinclair.  Thank

           15   you very much.  Thank you for your time.  We

           16   appreciate your comments.

           17               MR. SINCLAIR:  Okay.

           18               MS. SILVEY:  I guess for the sake -- I

           19   will ask again.  Is there anybody else who wishes to

           20   make any comments?  Okay.  If there is not anybody

           21   else who wishes to make any additional comments for

           22   this public hearing, again, for those who came, we

           23   appreciate the people who provided comments and

           24   testimony to MSHA, and as you heard me say this

           25   morning, we will move forward in developing the

                                                                  96

            1   final rule.

            2               If you want to make additional comments

            3   to us before the record closes on August 17th, I

            4   encourage you to do so.  At this point, we will now

            5   conclude the Mine Safety and Health Administration

            6   public hearing on seals.  Thank you very much.

            7               (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at

            8   1:10 p.m.)

            9

           10

           11

           12

           13

           14

           15

           16

           17

           18

           19

           20

           21

           22

           23

           24

           25

                                                                  97

            1             CERTIFICATE WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT

            2
                STATE OF COLORADO  )
            3
                COUNTY OF DENVER  )
            4

            5               I, ANDREA FINE, Registered Professional

            6   Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did

            7   stenographically report the foregoing proceedings

            8   and that the transcript is a true and complete

            9   record of my stenographic notes.

           10

           11         Dated this _____ day of _________________,

           12   2007.

           13

           14                        _____________________
                                     ANDREA FINE, RPR
           15
                                     My Commission Expires:
           16                        March 1, 2008

           17

           18

           19

           20

           21

           22

           23

           24

           25