1

 1            

 2                       

 3     MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

 4     PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RULE 

 5          FOR REFUGE ALTERNATIVES FOR 

 6            UNDERGROUND COAL MINES

 7            

 8            

 9                

10                AUGUST 7, 2008

11                   9:00 A.M.

12                SHERATON HOTEL

13       2101 RICHARD ARRINGTON JR. BLVD.

14              BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

15                       

16                       

17  

18  

19  

20  

21  REPORTED BY:  Dana Gordon

22                Certified Court Reporter

23                and Notary Public

24                       

25                       

                                                                   2

 1         A P P E A R A N C E S       

 2                       

 3  MODERATOR:

 4        Patricia Silvey

 5  

 6  PANEL MEMBERS:

 7        Howard Epperly

 8        Regina Powers

 9        Pamela King

10        Eric Sherer

11        Steve Turow   

12                

13                

14     

15            

16            

17            

18            

19            

20            

21            

22            

23     

24            

25                

                                                                   3

 1             P R O C E E D I N G S

 2            MS. SILVEY:  Good morning.  My 

 3  name is Patricia W. Silvey.  I am the 

 4  director of the Mine Safety and Health 

 5  Administration's office of standards, 

 6  regulations and variances.  I will be the 

 7  moderator for this public hearing on MSHA's 

 8  proposed rule for refuge alternatives for 

 9  underground coal mines.

10            On behalf of Richard E. Stickler, 

11  the acting assistant secretary of labor for 

12  Mine Safety and Health, I would like to 

13  welcome all of you to today's hearing.

14            At this point, I would like to, 

15  if you would, please -- as we remember now, 

16  being that it happened one year ago 

17  yesterday, as we remember the one-year 

18  anniversary of that tragic mine accident at 

19  Crandall Canyon, I would like it if you 

20  would pause with me for a moment of silence 

21  in memory of the dedicated miners and the 

22  heroic efforts of the three rescuers who 

23  lost their lives in the Crandall Canyon 

24  accident, including one of MSHA's own.

25            And as we did in Lexington on 

                                                                   4

 1  Tuesday, I would also like to remember as we 

 2  come back to Alabama the miners who lost 

 3  their lives some now seven years ago, I 

 4  guess now -- nearly seven years ago in the 

 5  Jim Walter Number Five accident.

 6            So, if you all would pause with 

 7  me for a moment of silence.

 8            (A moment of silence was

 9             observed.)

10            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you very much.

11            And I probably -- I should have 

12  added, too, as we reflected and paused, the 

13  memory of the many -- of all the miners who 

14  have lost their lives so far this year and 

15  throughout America's history and also the 

16  ones who toil in the mines and have lost 

17  their lives throughout the world.  So, thank 

18  you.

19             At this point, I would like to 

20  introduce the members of the MSHA panel.

21            On my right is Howard Epperly who 

22  is -- Howard is the team leader of the -- 

23  our committee who is responsible for 

24  drafting the proposal that was in the June 

25  Federal Register.  And he is with the 

                                                                   5

 1  Approval and Certification Center of MSHA's 

 2  office of technical support.

 3            To his right is Regina Powers.  

 4  Regina is an economist with the Department 

 5  of Labor, office of the assistant secretary 

 6  for policy, and she has -- and that office 

 7  has been so kind and gracious as to allow 

 8  her to be detailed to our office to help us 

 9  compute this project.

10            And to her right is Pamela King, 

11  and she is a senior regulatory specialist in 

12  my office.

13            To my left, Eric Sherer.  Eric is 

14  with the Office of Coal Mine Safety and 

15  Health, and to his left is Steve Turow.  

16  Steve is with the Department of Labor, 

17  Office of the Solicitors.  And our -- the 

18  solicitors office that supports our office, 

19  the division of Mine Safety and Health.

20            This is the fourth and last 

21  public hearing on this proposed rule.  As 

22  many of you know, we started out in Salt 

23  Lake City; then in Charleston, West Virginia 

24  on July 31 and Lexington on last Tuesday and 

25  this hearing today in Birmingham.

                                                                   6

 1            The comment period for the 

 2  proposal closes on August 18th and MSHA must 

 3  receive your comments by midnight eastern 

 4  daylight savings time on that date.

 5            You can view the comments on the 

 6  Agency's website at www.msha.gov.  And I 

 7  believe we have some copies of the proposed 

 8  rule in the back of the room.

 9            As many of you know, the proposal 

10  would implement the provisions of Section 13 

11  of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency 

12  Response or the MINER Act of 2006.  The 

13  MINER Act requires -- required that the 

14  National Institute for Occupational Safety 

15  and Health or NIOSH conduct research on 

16  refuge alternatives.  NIOSH issued its 

17  report in January of 2008.

18            MSHA's proposed rule is based on 

19  the Agency's data and experience, 

20  recommendations from the NIOSH report, 

21  research on available and developing 

22  technology and regulations of several 

23  states.

24            Before I start to discuss the 

25  proposal, I want to reiterate and underscore 

                                                                   7

 1  an important mine emergency principle 

 2  embodied by both MSHA and the mining 

 3  community.  It is a principle that is 

 4  longstanding that in the event of a mine 

 5  emergency underground the first line of 

 6  defense is for the miner to try to escape.  

 7  Only if escape is impossible would the 

 8  provisions of this proposal come into play.

 9            Under the proposed rule a refuge 

10  alternative would provide a protected, 

11  secure space with an isolated atmosphere 

12  that creates a life-sustaining environment 

13  to protect miners and assist them with 

14  escape in the event of a mine emergency.

15            The proposed rule allows the use 

16  of several types of refuge alternatives and 

17  includes requirements that the manufacturer 

18  or third party test the refuge alternative 

19  and its components prior to obtaining MSHA 

20  approval.  

21            Under the proposal three types of 

22  refuge alternatives would be allowed:  A 

23  pre-fabricated self-contained unit, a secure 

24  space constructed in place and materials 

25  pre-positioned for miners to use to 

                                                                   8

 1  construct a secure space.

 2            Some of the major provisions of 

 3  the proposal are:  Refuge alternatives would 

 4  need at least 15 square feet of floor space 

 5  and 60 cubic feet of volume per person.

 6            The capacity of refuge 

 7  alternatives near the working section would 

 8  be the maximum number of persons that can be 

 9  expected.

10            The capacity of refuge 

11  alternatives in an outby area would be the 

12  maximum number of persons assigned to work 

13  in that area.

14            Refuge alternatives would be 

15  located between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet 

16  from the working face and where mechanized 

17  mining equipment is being installed or 

18  removed.  For outby areas refuge 

19  alternatives would be located within one 

20  hour traveling distance.  However, the 

21  operator may request and the district 

22  manager may approve a different location 

23  based on an assessment of the risks to 

24  persons in outby areas.

25            Refuge alternatives and their 

                                                                   9

 1  components would need to sustain persons for 

 2  96 hours or 48 hours if advance arrangements 

 3  are made for additional supplies, 

 4  particularly air, from the surface.

 5            Food, water, lighting, sanitation 

 6  and a two-way communication system would be 

 7  provided -- would need to be provided.

 8            Refuge alternatives approved by 

 9  the states or by MSHA in the emergency 

10  response plan or in the ERP prior to the 

11  promulgation of the final rule would be 

12  allowed until replaced or a 10-year maximum 

13  and refuge alternative components approved 

14  by the states or by MSHA in the ERP would be 

15  allowed until replaced or a five-year 

16  maximum.

17            The location, capability and 

18  capacity of refuge alternatives would be 

19  addressed in the written ERP.

20            Training of miners to locate, 

21  transport, activate, use and maintain refuge 

22  alternatives would be integrated into 

23  existing quarterly drills and annual 

24  expectations training.

25            Pre-shift examinations of refuge 

                                                                   10

 1  alternatives would be required.

 2            Refuge alternatives would need to 

 3  be located on mine maps.

 4            MSHA has estimated the economic 

 5  impact of the proposed rule and has included 

 6  a discussion of the costs, benefits and 

 7  paperwork required in the preamble to the 

 8  proposal and the Preliminary Regulatory 

 9  Economic Analysis or PREA.  The PREA 

10  contains estimated supporting data on costs 

11  and benefits.

12            The preamble addresses the 

13  provisions in the rule and includes a 

14  complete discussion of a number of specific 

15  requests for comments, but I would like to 

16  highlight some of these requests for 

17  comments that MSHA asks for the additional 

18  information on.

19            First, the estimated service life 

20  of pre-fabricated self-contained refuge 

21  alternatives and the estimated service life 

22  of components.

23            The proposed definition for 

24  breathable oxygen as 99 percent pure oxygen 

25  with no harmful impurities.  Also, the 

                                                                   11

 1  proposed minimum of 96 hours of breathable 

 2  air.

 3            The sources of heat generation 

 4  within a refuge alternative, methods for 

 5  mitigating heat stress and heatstroke and 

 6  methods for measuring heat stress on persons 

 7  occupying refuge alternatives.  The proposed 

 8  rule would require that the apparent 

 9  temperature within refuge alternatives in 

10  use at full capacity not exceed 95 degrees 

11  Fahrenheit.  And I would like to note that 

12  footnotes one and two in the preamble should 

13  have cited to the NIOSH as the basis for the 

14  Agency's proposal on apparent temperature.

15            We also ask for comments on 

16  whether a requirement that refuge 

17  alternatives be designed with a means to 

18  signal rescuers on the surface should be 

19  added in the final rule.  Such a requirement 

20  would assure that rescuers on the surface 

21  could be contacted if the communications 

22  systems become inoperable.  Also, whether 

23  the final rule should include a requirement 

24  that the manufacturer design refuge 

25  alternatives with a means to signal 

                                                                   12

 1  underground rescuers with a homing device.  

 2  This would assure that rescuers could detect 

 3  the trapped miners within the mine.

 4            The safety standards that -- in 

 5  the proposal would require that a refuge 

 6  alternative provide a two-way communication 

 7  facility.  That is part of the mine 

 8  communication system which can be used from 

 9  inside the refuge alternative and an 

10  additional system as defined in the 

11  operator's approved ERP.  I would like to 

12  clarify that the proposed approval 

13  requirement should reflect the same 

14  requirements as the proposed safety 

15  standard.

16            We also ask for comments on the 

17  types, sources and magnitude of lighting 

18  needed for refuge alternatives.  And on that 

19  issue, footnote three in the preamble should 

20  have cited pages 124 and 125 from the August 

21  23rd, 1999 revision to the Department of 

22  Defense standard.

23            We also ask for comments on the 

24  proposed minimum space and volume 

25  requirements and the feasibility of using 

                                                                   13

 1  certain types of refuge alternatives in low 

 2  seam coal mines.

 3            The proposed minimum flow rate of 

 4  12.5 cubic feet per minute of breathable air 

 5  for each miner.

 6            We also ask for comments on the 

 7  proposed setting for pressure relief and 

 8  whether a high pressure relief should be 

 9  required.  The proposal would require that 

10  fans or compressors provide positive 

11  pressure and an automatic means to assure 

12  that the pressure is relieved in refuge 

13  alternative at 0.25 psi above mine 

14  atmospheric pressure.

15            We also ask for comments on the 

16  proposed requirement that carbon monoxide 

17  detectors for compressors or fans at the 

18  surface provide automatic and visual alarms 

19  if carbon monoxide levels in supplied air 

20  exceed 10 parts per million.

21            The visual damage that would be 

22  revealed during pre-shift examinations.  The 

23  proposed rule would require that refuge 

24  alternatives be designed to provide a means 

25  to indicate unauthorized entry or tampering 

                                                                   14

 1  and allow for a pre-shift examination of 

 2  critical components without entering the 

 3  structure.  The Agency is concerned with the 

 4  feasibility and practicality of visually 

 5  checking the status of refuge alternatives 

 6  without having to enter the structure or 

 7  break the tamper-evident seal.

 8            We ask for comments on the 

 9  proposed requirement for located refuge 

10  alternatives in inby areas as well as the 

11  alternate provision discussed in the 

12  preamble that would allow that refuge 

13  alternatives in these areas be located up to 

14  4,000 feet from the working face depending 

15  on mine specific conditions, if they are 

16  connected to the surface with boreholes.

17            The proposed approach to the 

18  capacity of refuge alternatives in inby and 

19  outby areas -- and we've gotten comments on 

20  that issue -- and the proposed approach to 

21  locating refuge alternatives in inby areas 

22  including minimum and maximum distances.

23            Whether the final rule should 

24  contain a requirement that advanced 

25  arrangements specified in the ERP include a 

                                                                   15

 1  method for assuring that there will be a 

 2  suitable means to connect the drilled hole 

 3  to the refuge alternative and that the 

 4  connection can be made within 10 minutes.

 5            We request comments on the 

 6  proposed training requirements for persons 

 7  assigned to examine, transport and maintain 

 8  and repair refuge alternatives and 

 9  components and whether it would be more 

10  appropriate to include this training 

11  requirement in Part 48 of the training 

12  requirements.

13            And finally we ask for comments 

14  on -- and very significantly on the proposed 

15  approach to annual expectations training in 

16  construction; where applicable, the 

17  activation, use -- and the use of refuge 

18  alternatives and their components.  And 

19  comments -- we would be pleased if comments 

20  would address the proposed strategy and 

21  proposed elements of such training.

22            The Agency is also soliciting 

23  comments on the proposed information 

24  collection requirements.  And on that issue 

25  if you would provide comments on all data 

                                                                   16

 1  and assumptions the Agency used to develop 

 2  its estimates as well as the estimates of 

 3  costs and benefits in the proposal.

 4            As you address these provisions 

 5  either in your testimony to us today or in 

 6  your written comments, please be as specific 

 7  as possible.  And I have underscored this at 

 8  every hearing and I cannot underscore this 

 9  enough.  If you would please include 

10  specific -- your specific suggested 

11  alternatives, your specific rationale, 

12  safety and health -- if you would cover 

13  safety and health benefits to miners, any 

14  technological and economic feasibility 

15  considerations and data to support your 

16  comments.  This -- the Agency will use this 

17  information, and the more specific your 

18  information is the better it will be to us.  

19  We will use it to help evaluate the 

20  requirements in the proposal and produce a 

21  final rule that will improve safety and 

22  health for underground coal miners in the 

23  event of a mine emergency in a manner that 

24  is responsive to the needs and concerns of 

25  the mining public.

                                                                   17

 1            The hearing, as many of you know, 

 2  will be conducted in an informal manner and 

 3  formal rules of evidence will not apply.  

 4  The panel may ask questions of the 

 5  witnesses.  The witnesses may ask questions 

 6  of the panel.

 7            MSHA will make a transcript of 

 8  the hearing available on the Agency's 

 9  website within one week of the hearing.  And 

10  as most of you know -- and I can't 

11  underscore this enough -- time will be of 

12  the essence in developing the final rule, 

13  which must be finalized by December 31, 

14  2008.

15            If you wish to present written 

16  statements or information today, please 

17  clearly identify your material and give a 

18  copy to the court reporter.  You may also 

19  submit comments following this hearing by 

20  any of the methods identified in the 

21  proposal.  And we would also ask -- I think 

22  many of you have done so already.  Those of 

23  you in attendance, if you will sign -- we 

24  have an attendance sheet in the back.

25             If you have a hard copy or 

                                                                   18

 1  electronic version of your presentation -- 

 2  and I think I mentioned that we would 

 3  appreciate it if you would give it to -- a 

 4  copy to the reporter.

 5            Please begin by clearly stating 

 6  your name and organization and I would ask 

 7  you if you would spell your name for the 

 8  court reporter so that we have an accurate 

 9  record.

10            And now we will begin today's 

11  hearing, and our first speaker is I believe 

12  James Rau with MineARC Systems.

13            MR. RAU:  It's R-a-u.  Thank you, 

14  Ms. Silvey.

15            My name is James Rau, and I'm the 

16  manager for MineARC Systems in the United 

17  States.  MineARC Systems have been 

18  designing, manufacturing and selling refuge 

19  chambers since 1995.  MineARC has in excess 

20  of 450 refuge chambers in more than 20 

21  countries including the Solid Energy Coal 

22  Mine in New Zealand for the past three and a 

23  half years.

24            MineARC's metal/non-metal refuge 

25  chambers have been rigorously tested and 

                                                                   19

 1  used in real life emergencies with no 

 2  injuries.  The first of these was in April 

 3  of 2006 at the St. Ives coal mine where it 

 4  was used to rescue nine miners, and the last 

 5  was in October of 2007 with 54 miners 

 6  rescued at the Kanowna Belle coal mine in 

 7  Western Australia.

 8            It is this experience that has 

 9  given our company the expertise and 

10  knowledge to determine the fundamental 

11  requirements for safe entrapment inside of a 

12  closed space such as a refuge chamber.

13            While there are many sections of 

14  this proposal that MineARC is willing and 

15  able to assist on, today I'm choosing to 

16  concentrate on one single specification for 

17  the proposed ruling.  Under section 7.504, 

18  Refuge Alternatives and Components, General 

19  Requirements, it states, "The proposed rule 

20  would require that an application include 

21  test results and calculations to demonstrate 

22  that the apparent temperature within the 

23  refuge alternative would not exceed 95 

24  degrees Fahrenheit when used in conjunction 

25  with required components and fully 

                                                                   20

 1  occupied."

 2            For those here whom are not 

 3  familiar with the severity of heat buildup 

 4  inside a confined space due to metabolic 

 5  heat, I will mention a couple of examples.  

 6  In the infamous Black Hole of Calcutta 

 7  incident, 123 of the 186 British soldiers 

 8  died when imprisoned for only one night in a 

 9  dungeon.

10            In 2006 I personally had the 

11  opportunity to meet with a university 

12  student from the University of Santiago in 

13  Chile.  She explained through an interpreter 

14  how a mining company had decided to conduct 

15  a test on a scrubber system for evaluating 

16  its CO2 removal efficiency.  The company 

17  enclosed eight university students in a 

18  freight container and in less than 12 hours 

19  had hospitalized four of them due to heat 

20  stress.

21            Make no mistake, it is very 

22  common to misjudge the severity of heat 

23  buildup inside a refuge chamber.

24            I have personally been involved 

25  in multiple refuge chamber tests as well as 

                                                                   21

 1  actual refuge chamber use in my mining 

 2  career.  Some of these tests have been 

 3  without the use of cooling systems.  These 

 4  tests are generally short to avoid serious 

 5  injury to the test subjects.

 6            Integral to the safe operation of 

 7  a refuge chamber is a cooling system for 

 8  combating metabolic heat buildup.  

 9  Uncontrolled, metabolic heat buildup can 

10  lead to heatstroke and possible fatalities.  

11  MSHA's proposed ruling supports this claim 

12  in stating:  "Medical evidence revealed the 

13  values of approaching or exceeding 105 

14  Fahrenheit apparent temperature would be 

15  life-threatening."

16            The ruling proposes a maximum 

17  internal apparent temperature of 95 degrees 

18  but omits a maximum external ambient 

19  temperature that the chamber must operate 

20  under.  The proposed ruling does correctly 

21  state that ambient temperature in a refuge 

22  alternative is affected by the mine 

23  temperature.  More appropriately, though, it 

24  is the single most important factor in 

25  determining the rate of heat transfer to the 

                                                                   22

 1  outside of a refuge chamber.  It is 

 2  therefore critical for design and testing 

 3  purposes that the final ruling specify a 

 4  maximum ambient mine temperature that the 

 5  refuge chamber must operate under.

 6            Utilizing generally accepted 

 7  engineering practices, this value would be a 

 8  maximum expected temperature of the mine in 

 9  an emergency situation with an appropriate 

10  factor of safety.

11            The State of West Virginia has 

12  already approved refuge chambers without 

13  cooling systems.  Identical to the MSHA 

14  proposed ruling, the West Virginia 

15  regulation specifies the maximum internal 

16  apparent temperature of 95 degrees 

17  Fahrenheit.

18            Approved manufacturers 

19  demonstrated compliance by computation and 

20  experimentation using an assumed ambient 

21  mine temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit.  

22  The 55 degree value chosen is an assumed 

23  average temperature at the face for a West 

24  Virginia coal mine.  This value does not 

25  consider possible temperature increases in 

                                                                   23

 1  an emergency situation from loss of 

 2  ventilation, fire or an explosion.  It is 

 3  extremely confusing from an engineering 

 4  standpoint why an average value would be 

 5  used with no safety factor.

 6            I would like to give a similar 

 7  analogy.  It would be like designing a 

 8  bridge that can only hold the average number 

 9  of cars expected to be on that bridge during 

10  one day.  MineARC as a company made a 

11  decision that this stipulation did not meet 

12  our own internal safety requirements and 

13  hence, we did not seek approval in West 

14  Virginia.

15            The recent NIOSH simulated 

16  testing of West Virginia approved refuge 

17  chambers provided partial evidence of the 

18  inability of some of these chambers to 

19  maintain internal temperatures below the 

20  specified criteria.  This testing was 

21  conducted at Lake Lynn mine at approximately 

22  60 degrees Fahrenheit.  This is in spite of 

23  the fact that the simulated testing 

24  potentially underestimated the heat buildup 

25  inside of the refuge chamber by 20 to 30 

                                                                   24

 1  percent if human occupants had been used.

 2            Regardless, these chambers have 

 3  been approved in emergency response plans by 

 4  MSHA and are currently being installed in 

 5  coal mines across the U.S.

 6            I would like to quote Randall 

 7  Harris who is the technical advisor to the 

 8  West Virginia Mine Safety Technology Task 

 9  Force in his presentation last week in 

10  Charleston.  And I quote:  "The task force 

11  was focused on the mining conditions in West 

12  Virginia.  We did not attempt to develop 

13  solutions that were universally applicable.  

14  Many vendors and experts from outside the 

15  U.S. presented forceful positions 

16  concerning, for instance, the ability of a 

17  shelter to maintain an internal temperature 

18  without mechanical cooling, which while 

19  valid in many mining environments were not 

20  applicable to the conditions of West 

21  Virginia."

22            Clearly this statement verifies 

23  that the West Virginia approved chambers 

24  have not been designed for the use of 

25  ambient conditions exceeding 55 degrees 

                                                                   25

 1  Fahrenheit.

 2            I, however, would challenge Randy 

 3  and his opinion that it is not applicable to 

 4  West Virginia.  Even a small increase in 

 5  ambient temperature would render these 

 6  chambers unable to meet the specified 

 7  criteria.  In some instances a 10 degree 

 8  Fahrenheit increase could potentially 

 9  endanger the lives of the occupants.  From 

10  survey data collected by MSHA and displayed 

11  in the NIOSH report, there are some West 

12  Virginia mines that can have maximum 

13  temperatures of 69 degrees Fahrenheit.

14            I would therefore challenge the 

15  task force to use the same logic that they 

16  used to specify that a refuge chamber should 

17  not be required to sustain an overpressure 

18  above which there is not likely to be human 

19  survivals.  That value is approximately 10 

20  psi and they set a value of 15 psi.

21            If we were to use this analogy 

22  and apply it to temperature, the maximum 

23  temperature a human can survive outside of a 

24  refuge chamber for extended periods would be 

25  approximately 130 degrees Fahrenheit.  

                                                                   26

 1  Therefore, a refuge chamber should be able 

 2  to operate up to this external temperature.

 3            Under section 7.501 of the MSHA 

 4  proposed ruling it states, "Refuge 

 5  alternatives that states have approved and 

 6  those that MSHA has accepted in approved 

 7  emergency response plans would meet the 

 8  requirements of this proposed ruling."  This 

 9  statement can only be interpreted as MSHA 

10  ignoring operational deficiencies in 

11  currently approved chambers.

12            The proposed rule correctly 

13  points out there's currently no permissible 

14  air conditioning equipment which will 

15  overcome the heat buildup in underground 

16  coal mines.  Nevertheless, several refuge 

17  chamber manufacturers are currently 

18  developing intrinsically safe cooling 

19  systems.

20            MineARC Systems believe that we 

21  have resolved this issue without the use of 

22  a conventional electrically powered air 

23  conditioning system.  This system is to be 

24  tested in a coal mine by the Mine Rescue 

25  Board of New South Wales with human 

                                                                   27

 1  occupants.

 2            We encourage MSHA to meet and 

 3  consult with MineARC and other manufacturers 

 4  to determine at what stage of development 

 5  their solutions are for this problem.

 6            To provide MSHA with as much 

 7  information as possible in regards to heat 

 8  buildup inside of a refuge chamber, MineARC 

 9  Systems commissioned an independent man 

10  test.  This was a response to the proposed 

11  ruling.

12            The purpose of the test was to 

13  determine the heat buildup inside of a steel 

14  refuge chamber with an average external 

15  temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit.  This 

16  ambient mine temperature is equivalent to 

17  temperatures found in many coal mines in the 

18  U.S. and in most mines in the State of 

19  Alabama.

20            The test was conducted with six 

21  people in an eight-person MineARC refuge 

22  chamber.  As per the MSHA proposed ruling, 

23  each occupant had approximately 60 feet 

24  cubes of volume and 15 feet squared of floor 

25  space.  With an average external temperature 

                                                                   28

 1  of 80 degrees Fahrenheit, the internal 

 2  apparent temperature of the refuge chamber 

 3  reached a staggering 143 degrees Fahrenheit 

 4  in just 128 minutes.  These conditions are 

 5  considered extreme and life-threatening for 

 6  extended durations.

 7            I've brought with me a few copies 

 8  of this report for any interested persons in 

 9  the audience or alternatively please visit 

10  the MSHA website and download your own copy 

11  under the sections -- comment sections.

12            Thank you.

13            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.  I have a 

14  few comments and questions, and I'm sure 

15  some of my colleagues do also.  And thank 

16  you for your comments.

17            First of all, in going back to 

18  your -- and at the beginning you gave us -- 

19  you talked about heat buildup in a confined 

20  space and you gave the example of eight 

21  people in a freight container.

22            MR. RAU:  Yes.

23            MS. SILVEY:  Yes.  Would you 

24  repeat that part of your -- again?

25            MR. RAU:  Yeah, I can explain it.

                                                                   29

 1            MS. SILVEY:  Yeah.

 2            MR. RAU:  The situation was -- I 

 3  was actually at an expo in Santiago and we 

 4  were displaying one of our hard rock refuge 

 5  chambers and a girl came in and she was 

 6  speaking with one of our distributors.  And 

 7  the distributor came and grabbed me and said 

 8  you've got to hear about this.

 9            And she had explained that -- she 

10  was interested because she saw the cooling 

11  system inside of our refuge chamber.  Our 

12  conventional metal/non-metal refuge chambers 

13  use a battery backup system with a standard 

14  split system air conditioner.

15            She saw it and she said I was 

16  involved in this test.  One of the mining 

17  companies came along.  They plucked eight 

18  students who needed the money out of the 

19  university and they were involved in the 

20  test.

21            And what they did was they put a 

22  scrubbing system inside a freight container 

23  and then they sealed it so they could 

24  monitor the CO2 expiration and the 

25  efficiency of the CO2 scrubber.

                                                                   30

 1            MS. SILVEY:  And how big was this 

 2  freight container?  

 3            MR. RAU:  A standard 20 foot 

 4  freight container.

 5            MS. SILVEY:  So, it was not    

 6  the -- it did not meet the size of the --

 7            MR. RAU:  With eight people it 

 8  would have gone -- it would have far 

 9  exceeded the size on a 20 foot -- it's a 20 

10  foot by 8 foot.

11            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.

12            MR. RAU:  Yeah, it would have far 

13  exceeded it.  It would be close to -- it 

14  would probably be double.  It would be 

15  somewhere in the vicinity of 120 feet cube 

16  per person.

17            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  So, your 

18  suggestion is for a maximum external ambient 

19  temperature, recognizing, as sort of was 

20  implicit in your -- in your comments, that 

21  the external ambient temperature in the 

22  mines are going to vary throughout the 

23  United States and even sometimes within 

24  certain -- the same geographical area 

25  depending on the conditions in the mine.  Do 

                                                                   31

 1  you have a suggestion for how that should be 

 2  addressed?  

 3            MR. RAU:  Well, as I said, if you 

 4  use -- if you use the same logic that the 

 5  task force used in terms of allowing the 

 6  inflatable shelters, which was the -- beyond  

 7  10 -- at 10 psi your lungs will collapse 

 8  from an explosion.  So, you can sustain -- 

 9  when we design -- 

10            MS. SILVEY:  Well, I guess I'm 

11  asking you do you have a suggestion for how 

12  we should address the maximum external 

13  ambient temperature?  

14            MR. RAU:  I think it should be up 

15  to what you can reasonably survive outside 

16  of the refuge chamber.  So, if there's an 

17  explosion and there's a fire and you're 

18  outside of that refuge chamber and you're 

19  traveling to it, if you can still survive in 

20  the ambient mine conditions, you should have 

21  an opportunity to get inside that chamber.  

22  That temperature is about 130 degrees 

23  Fahrenheit.

24            MS. SILVEY:  I'm not --

25            MR. RAU:  Am I missing the 

                                                                   32

 1  question?  

 2            MS. SILVEY:  I guess I'm saying 

 3  for certain -- we've got to draft a 

 4  regulation --

 5            MR. RAU:  Yeah.

 6            MS. SILVEY:  -- that will apply 

 7  to a variety of mining conditions.  And I 

 8  guess I'm asking you if you say we did 

 9  not -- in the proposed rule we did not 

10  address this factor, even though, as you 

11  said, we spoke about it, but we did not 

12  address it as a requirement, do you have -- 

13  and you don't have to provide that to me 

14  right now, but do you have a suggestion of 

15  how such a rule would be crafted to address 

16  that issue?  

17            MR. RAU:  As I said, it depends 

18  whether you want to use a prescriptive 

19  measure and say they must operate up to 130 

20  or you use a risk assessment base.  And you 

21  know, typically I'm in favor of risk 

22  assessment base because one --

23            MS. SILVEY:  That's where -- this 

24  is where I'm trying to go.

25            MR. RAU:  One shoe doesn't fit 

                                                                   33

 1  all --

 2            MS. SILVEY:  No.

 3            MR. RAU: -- with refuge chambers.  

 4  And on a mine by mine case, you need to sit 

 5  down and do a 10 based risk assessment and 

 6  look at, okay, what is the maximum external 

 7  temperatures that we could conceivably have 

 8  here.  And obviously that's going to be in 

 9  summer months.  And then we need to allow 

10  for loss of power.  The first thing you do 

11  in an emergency, if you have an explosion, 

12  the power gets shut down.  You lose your 

13  ventilation system.  How much is that 

14  reasonably going to increase that 

15  temperature?  

16            MS. SILVEY:  You also spoke about 

17  the cooling systems and you said that you 

18  all, MineARC is resolving this issue 

19  without -- if I heard you correctly, without 

20  an air conditioner system and you are now 

21  testing that.  Do you have -- when do you 

22  anticipate that the testing will be 

23  complete?  

24            MR. RAU:  They're actually 

25  running -- they've already run a series of 

                                                                   34

 1  tests on it.  They're running another man 

 2  test, in-house test this Saturday.  They'll 

 3  be running an independent test the following 

 4  week and then it will be taken from there to 

 5  a coal mine.  And the New South Wales Coal 

 6  Mine Rescue Board will actually test it in a 

 7  coal mine with mine employees.

 8            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.

 9            MR. EPPERLY:  It's 

10  non-electrical?  

11            MR. RAU:  Correct.  There are -- 

12  there are other manufacturers, though, that 

13  are developing -- I mean, I speak to other 

14  manufacturers on a regular basis and I know 

15  that they're working on the same issues.

16            MS. SILVEY:  Yeah.  And then I 

17  wrote a comment here.  So, you're going to 

18  have to help me.  I guess it was with  

19  respect -- I know what it was now.  That 

20  test that -- and I guess you might have been 

21  one of the subjects yourself, the 

22  eight-person heat test.  And were all the 

23  requirements consistent with the MSHA 

24  proposal in the test you conducted that 

25  yielded the apparent temperature of 143 

                                                                   35

 1  degrees --

 2            MR. RAU:  Yes.

 3            MS. SILVEY:  -- or whatever it 

 4  was?  

 5            MR. RAU:  We developed a testing 

 6  protocol of the proposed legislation.

 7            MS. SILVEY:  So, everything else 

 8  was consistent with every -- 

 9            MR. RAU:  Correct.

10            MS. SILVEY:  The CO scrubber, all 

11  of that?  

12            MR. RAU:  Correct.

13            MS. SILVEY:  I don't think I have 

14  any more.  Do you have anything?  

15            MR. EPPERLY:  On the reference 

16  you made to the NIOSH testing and you 

17  mentioned 20 to 30 percent without human 

18  subject testing, could you explain that a 

19  little more, what you meant by that?  

20            MR. RAU:  What they did when 

21  they -- they set up the protocol -- just 

22  to -- to give you a very quick understanding 

23  of the mechanisms of heat dissipation inside 

24  of a refuge chamber, you have a person 

25  sitting inside.  They generate metabolic 

                                                                   36

 1  heat.  That heat is made up into sensible 

 2  and latent components.  You then have 

 3  radiant heat transfers from that person to 

 4  the air.  You have convective heat transfer 

 5  through your conductive medium, whether it's 

 6  an inflatable tent or a steel and then from 

 7  that material to outside, convection again.  

 8  So, that is the key mechanism there.  It's 

 9  not so much the material you use as the air 

10  inside which is the issue.

11            Now, with the testing that they 

12  set up, they were simulating human 

13  conditions.  As soon as you put people 

14  inside of an enclosed space, you have a 

15  finite amount of water vapor.  As you 

16  expire, each person typically every hour 

17  will expire 30 mils of water vapor per hour.

18            On top of that you are sweating.  

19  As the temperature increases inside of the 

20  refuge chamber and the humidity goes up, 

21  initially when your body is at rest you're 

22  using -- you're evaporative cooling as you 

23  sweat.  As it gets hotter, you lose that 

24  ability to evaporatively cool.  So, radiant 

25  cooling takes over and becomes the larger 

                                                                   37

 1  percentage.

 2            What they did is they didn't 

 3  allow for two things.  One, they didn't 

 4  allow for the sweat rates.  They 

 5  underestimated when they injected the water 

 6  vapor into the chamber probably by about 

 7  1,000 percent.  They allowed only for 

 8  expired air.  They didn't allow for any 

 9  sweat rates.

10            And I can testify having sat in 

11  these refuge chambers during heat tests that 

12  it's like you're in a swimming pool.  The 

13  water is dripping off the roof.  People are 

14  constantly sweating.  And you need to allow 

15  for that because it goes into the air.

16            The other issue is that when they 

17  injected that water vapor into the chamber, 

18  they injected it in at the ambient mine 

19  temperature.  When you expire, you expire 

20  air at 95 degrees Fahrenheit.  That is where 

21  they underestimated by 20 to 30 percent.  

22  Coupled with the fact that they didn't 

23  inject enough water moisture into the actual 

24  environment, the actual result could have 

25  been worse.

                                                                   38

 1            I mean, it was proven -- the 

 2  interesting thing was that NIOSH actually -- 

 3  or it might have been Foster-Miller, but 

 4  they contracted Raytheon to do computational 

 5  modeling on the Lake Lynn testing and they 

 6  identified it.  They said, hey, you've made 

 7  a mistake here.  You didn't inject the 

 8  moisture into the environment at the correct 

 9  temperature.

10            Instead of leaving the results 

11  where they should have been, they called up 

12  NIOSH and said, did you inject it at the 

13  mine temperature?  And they said, yes.  Then 

14  what they did was they went back into their 

15  computational model and put an assumption in 

16  that it was injected in at the mine 

17  temperature.

18            It's like it's -- you know, it's 

19  voodoo engineering.  It's not what the 

20  results should have been.  It's matching the 

21  computational modeling to the actual 

22  testing.

23            MR. EPPERLY:  The measurements 

24  you made in the chamber in your tests, what 

25  instrumentation -- or how did you measure 

                                                                   39

 1  the apparent temperature?  

 2            MR. RAU:  We had a -- we had 

 3  contracted an independent company to come in 

 4  and they used a series of different 

 5  measuring equipment.  I'm not sure of the 

 6  actual models.  It's all in the report.  And 

 7  we were logging carbon dioxide, oxygen, 

 8  carbon monoxide, dry-bulb, wet-bulb, 

 9  relative humidity inside.

10            And we took that and we used the 

11  same formula that West Virginia was using, 

12  put it all into spreadsheets and then we 

13  also compared it against some other indices 

14  as well, the heat stress indices, wet-bulb 

15  globe, just to basically to see if we 

16  changed the indices what would the results 

17  be.

18            You're dealing with extreme 

19  temperatures.  100 percent humidity and 95 

20  degrees Fahrenheit.  You cannot sustain 

21  those temperatures for long.  We physically 

22  had to send our employees home after the two 

23  hours of testing.

24            MS. SILVEY:  Does Australia 

25  require that these refuge chambers be 

                                                                   40

 1  approved?

 2            MR. RAU:  Australia on the coal 

 3  side --

 4            MS. SILVEY:  On the coal side, 

 5  right.  

 6            MR. RAU:  Yeah.  On the coal side 

 7  we've been using -- 

 8            MS. SILVEY:  I know about -- I 

 9  suspect I know about the non-coal side.  So, 

10  I'm talking about the coal side.

11            MR. RAU:  On the coal side it's 

12  really -- it's a new market as per here.  

13  We've always used the -- the Drager quick 

14  fill stations and that's been the typical 

15  evacuation route.  Refuge chambers haven't 

16  been used on the coal side in Australia.

17            It's only coming in -- the miners 

18  will write a guideline in Australia.  We 

19  avoid prescriptive measures.  We    

20  typically -- a legislation is set up to be 

21  non-prescriptive.  So, the reason being that 

22  everything should be risk assessed.  What it 

23  is good for one mine -- if you say -- just a 

24  very simple explanation:  You've got an 

25  explosives magazine and you've got one ton 

                                                                   41

 1  of explosives and you say you can't smoke 

 2  within 10 yards, that doesn't mean if you've 

 3  got 100 tons that it should be 10 yards.  

 4  You need to assess your risk, control it and 

 5  deem what the standard will be.

 6            MS. SILVEY:  So then with respect 

 7  to the mines -- the underground coal mines 

 8  in Australia, percentage-wise how many have 

 9  refuge chambers now?  

10            MR. RAU:  None.  They're all 

11  using --

12            MS. SILVEY:  None?

13            MR. RAU:  They're all using the 

14  Drager system.

15            MS. SILVEY:  So, none have -- 

16            MR. RAU:  None.

17            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.

18            MR. RAU:  Actually, I shall stand 

19  corrected.  There's probably -- there's one 

20  mine in Queensland which is called Grass 

21  Tree and they've got three.  They're -- 

22  again, they're not used as refuge chambers.  

23  They're not termed "refuge chambers".  

24  They're termed "changeover stations".  And 

25  it's the exact same scenario with our 

                                                                   42

 1  customer in -- in New Zealand.

 2            MS. SILVEY:  Yeah.  I was going 

 3  to -- that's the next thing I was going to 

 4  ask you.  And I know you said in terms of 

 5  coal and I'm talking about coal.  Where are 

 6  your units used now?  

 7            MR. RAU:  Solid Energy is the 

 8  only one.  The unit we have just recently 

 9  designed is a new unit.  It's going through 

10  testing.  It hasn't been sold to any coal 

11  miners.

12            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.

13            MR. RAU:  The mine in New 

14  Zealand, Solid Energy uses one of our 

15  existing hydrophiles in a non-intrinsically 

16  required area.

17            MS. SILVEY:  Sure.

18            MR. EPPERLY:  The coal mines, you 

19  mentioned the two, what was the supplied 

20  air -- if you know, the supplied air system 

21  for those particular chambers?  

22            MR. RAU:  They ran off of three 

23  separate breathable air systems and on the 

24  first one -- the first being the compressed 

25  air, which obviously the coal mines here 

                                                                   43

 1  don't have.  The second is a medical oxygen 

 2  in conjunction with a carbon monoxide, 

 3  carbon dioxide scrubber; and then the third 

 4  system is a sodium chlorate oxygen kennel.

 5            What we found in those incidents 

 6  was, though, that within the first hour they 

 7  lost power and compressed air.  So, they 

 8  were sitting completely autonomous in a 

 9  standalone using the medical oxygen and the 

10  scrubbing systems.

11            MS. SILVEY:  And I might be 

12  asking you a question now that you can't 

13  answer.  I suspect not, but if you can't, 

14  then don't -- feel free not to.  Do you have 

15  any -- you talked about the fact that you -- 

16  you all did not feel comfortable submitting 

17  your unit to West Virginia.  Do you all have 

18  any plans -- future plans for submitting an 

19  approval let's say to MSHA, anything to MSHA 

20  for approval?  

21            MR. RAU:  Yes.  I mean, we would 

22  feel comfortable submitting to MSHA now -- 

23  sorry.  To West Virginia now because we'll 

24  know -- we know that our chamber will 

25  operate under a range of conditions.  We're 

                                                                   44

 1  not going to make the assumption that each 

 2  miner is going to be 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

 3            MS. SILVEY:  I understand.

 4            MR. RAU:  I mean, we could have 

 5  delivered something to the market very 

 6  quickly.

 7            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.  Okay.  I 

 8  don't have -- do you have anything?

 9            MS. POWERS:  The economists might 

10  be interested in contacting you at a later 

11  point.

12            MR. RAU:  I just -- can I ask a 

13  question?  

14            MS. SILVEY:  Yes.

15            MR. RAU:  Right from the --

16            MS. SILVEY:  I said you could.

17            MR. RAU:  Right from the outset 

18  you said that this needed to go through 

19  December 31st.

20            MS. SILVEY:  Yes, I did.

21            MR. RAU:  I'm urging you to not 

22  make the same mistake as what I believe West 

23  Virginia did in terms of putting deadlines 

24  on things which take time to resolve.

25            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  I can   

                                                                   45

 1  answer -- I mean, I will speak to that.  

 2  Maybe not answer it, but in that I said it 

 3  needed to go through and clearly -- and I 

 4  think I said this in Lexington.  I said it 

 5  in Charleston and I hope I said it in Salt 

 6  Lake that we will do -- and I think I said 

 7  it this morning.  We will do the best job we 

 8  can to craft the best reg we can by December 

 9  31st that responds -- and we appreciate 

10  everybody's comments and their attendance.  

11  To respond to, as I put it, the needs and 

12  the concerns of the mining public to try to 

13  craft the most safe rule that we can.

14            Now, recognizing that we have a 

15  deadline -- and the deadline is not one we 

16  put on ourselves.  It was one put on us by 

17  the United States, by the -- it's a 

18  statutory deadline.  And when you've got a 

19  statutory deadline, unless the statutory 

20  deadline moves, there's not much that we can 

21  do about it.

22            But I think everybody has heard 

23  me say it and I will say it on the record 

24  and off the record that we will try to come 

25  up with the best rule we can.  And believe 

                                                                   46

 1  you me, I mean, you know, within the 

 2  constraints that we have and -- and we'll do 

 3  what we can and we'll look at all the data 

 4  that we have.  And that's probably -- I 

 5  said, you know, to somebody one time before, 

 6  there are no guarantees in life, but you do 

 7  the best you can.  And we will do that and 

 8  we will -- at this point in time we'll try 

 9  to meet our deadline because we have an 

10  obligation to do that.

11            MR. RAU:  I think it would be 

12  very interesting just from a collecting 

13  exercise to get -- you know, you've got a 

14  lot of great manufacturers here and we're 

15  not the only manufacturer who is trying to 

16  resolve this issue and everyone here has 

17  altruistic motives.  The important thing 

18  here is the miners, making it a safer 

19  environment.  I think if you put a lot of 

20  the manufacturers together, you could hash 

21  out a lot of these issues in a very short 

22  time frame to meet that deadline.

23            You know, what I saw in the West 

24  Virginia process was that it was all very 

25  isolated, people being very protective.

                                                                   47

 1            MS. SILVEY:  That's why we're 

 2  asking everybody -- I think we have other 

 3  manufacturers in here and we are asking 

 4  everybody for their comments.  So, if people 

 5  would provide -- and you heard me say 

 6  earlier be as specific as you can.  The more 

 7  specific you are the -- that becomes very 

 8  useful to us.  So, we will -- and we will be 

 9  guided accordingly and try to do our best.  

10  I promise you that.  

11            MR. RAU:  I will go back and 

12  write other comments on other sections.  

13  I've only focused on this because I believe 

14  it's the most important, but I'll go back 

15  and go through and offer suggestions in all 

16  areas and put it through our business.

17            MS. SILVEY:  We appreciate that.  

18  Thank you.

19            MR. RAU:  Thank you.

20            MS. SILVEY:  Our next speaker 

21  will be Noble Linn, United Mine Worker, Jim 

22  Walter Number Four.  Mr. Linn.

23            MR. LINN:  Linn, L-i-n-n.  I 

24  totally agree with Mr. Rau's statement that 

25  one shoe doesn't fit all.

                                                                   48

 1            In regards to the effects of what 

 2  heat will have upon Alabama coal miners I 

 3  believe there are too many variables to 

 4  consider in order to precisely calculate the 

 5  apparent temperature of a group of miners 

 6  confined in a refuge alternative 2,000 feet 

 7  underground from this room or from any other 

 8  room in the State of Alabama.

 9            I believe the only true way to 

10  actually know the combined effects of air 

11  movement, heat and humidity on the human 

12  body is through actual human testing in an 

13  Alabama coal mine on Alabama coal miners in 

14  their own environment.

15            In MSHA's own words on page 142, 

16  middle of the third column and I quote:  

17  Body heat is a primary heat source in a 

18  refuge alternative and the humidity will 

19  likely be high in such a sealed 

20  environment.  The carbon dioxide absorption 

21  process also generates heat and humidity.  

22  There's currently no permissible air 

23  conditioning equipment which will overcome 

24  this problem in underground coal mines, end 

25  quote.

                                                                   49

 1            MSHA's use of the phrase "the 

 2  humidity will likely be high" is such a 

 3  general statement that it only reinforces 

 4  their admission that there is a problem with 

 5  no equipment to solve it.  This problem can 

 6  only be solved in our opinion through actual 

 7  human testing.

 8            This testing must be done under 

 9  the direct supervision of MSHA, the 

10  representatives of the miners, the 

11  manufacturers of these systems, state 

12  agencies, representatives of all related 

13  fields of study and science from all major 

14  universities and the representatives of the 

15  coal companies.

16            Only actual human testing will 

17  provide the information that is needed to 

18  work and solve this problem.  It will 

19  provide the data that will reveal the 

20  unforeseen problems that no one thought of.  

21  It will provide proper procedures through 

22  actual hands-on training.  It will be a 

23  great opportunity for all interested parties 

24  to provide and gather valuable information 

25  that can be used for the present and study 

                                                                   50

 1  for the future -- for the future of the coal 

 2  mining industry and most importantly, for 

 3  the future of Alabama coal miners.

 4            Thank you.

 5            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you, Mr. Linn.

 6            Our next speaker is Jim Yates, 

 7  UMWA, Jim Walter Number Four.

 8            MR. YATES:  Good morning.

 9            MS. SILVEY:  Good morning.

10            MR. YATES:  Jimmy, J-i-m-m-y, 

11  Yates, Y-a-t-e-s.

12            I'm addressing the concerns of 

13  the pre-shift examination.  MSHA requests 

14  specific comments on the visual damage that 

15  would be revealed during the pre-shift 

16  examinations.  The Agency is concerned with 

17  the feasibility and the practicality of 

18  checking the status of the refuge 

19  alternatives without having to enter the 

20  structure or break the tampering-evident 

21  seal.

22            The practice of visually 

23  examining equipment on a routine basis is 

24  the essential first step in ensuring it is 

25  in operational condition.  These exams could 

                                                                   51

 1  reveal any number of problems that may 

 2  exist.  Properly trained examiners would be 

 3  able to detect potentially dangerous 

 4  conditions that could result from collision 

 5  with other equipment or damage sustained 

 6  while moving these refuges.  These could be 

 7  as minor as a shear bolt or a dent on 

 8  something that could be comprising the 

 9  chamber's functionality.

10            The Agency's concern that a 

11  visual check may not be effective without 

12  access to the inner workings of the unit are 

13  unfounded.  Doing these pre-shift exams may 

14  lead to additional examinations and repairs 

15  that could remove the unit from service 

16  until completed.  The union strongly 

17  supports the practice of performing a 

18  pre-shift examination on all refuge 

19  chambers.

20            And also, don't we have the 

21  technology to have a type of gauge of some 

22  sort on the outside of the chamber to check 

23  the O2 level, for instance?

24            Thank you.

25            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  So, you are 

                                                                   52

 1  suggesting that there be some way of 

 2  checking the -- pre-shift checking the 

 3  refuge alternative from the outside without 

 4  having to enter the refuge alternative?

 5            MR. YATES:  Yes, ma'am.

 6            MS. SILVEY:  We also got some 

 7  comments during this -- these past two weeks 

 8  from some commenters who said that the 

 9  refuge chamber, refuge alternative may not 

10  need to be checked on a daily basis, but 

11  alternatively could be checked as 

12  recommended by the manufacturer.  Do you 

13  have any comment on that?

14            MR. YATES:  I would say the -- we 

15  would -- I would think that we would want to 

16  go beyond the manufacturer's recommendations 

17  as far as examinations are concerned.  I 

18  would think maybe not on a daily basis, but 

19  on like a weekly examination route.  Now, if 

20  the manufacturer says a week at a time, I 

21  would want to do something just a tad 

22  better.

23            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.

24            MR. SHERER:  I have a question.

25            MR. YATES:  Yes, sir.

                                                                   53

 1            MR. SHERER:  I would like to 

 2  clarify something, Mr. Yates.

 3            You mentioned that you support 

 4  pre-shift exams and then you also mentioned 

 5  that you support weekly exams.  Is the 

 6  weekly in addition to the pre-shift?  Is 

 7  that what you meant?

 8            MR. YATES:  What I mean -- I 

 9  think we do need a pre-shift examination, 

10  yes, sir.

11            MR. SHERER:  Thank you.

12            MR. YATES:  Thank you.

13            MS. SILVEY:  Our next speaker is 

14  Dale Byram, Jim Walter Resources.

15            MR. BYRAM:  Thank you.  My name 

16  is Dale Byram, B-y-r-a-m, and I work with 

17  Jim Walter Resources in Brookwood, Alabama.  

18  And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 

19  the panel and I also appreciate everyone 

20  that's taken the time today to come and 

21  share their thoughts about something that is 

22  as important as mine safety.

23             In recent years terms such as 

24  "forced technology" and "offers of promise" 

25  has been associated with mandates, PIBs and 

                                                                   54

 1  other regulatory actions.  I'm convinced 

 2  that the intentions were honorable and 

 3  direct and that they were all directed 

 4  towards moving to improving mine safety and 

 5  helping to ensure the survivability of our 

 6  miners.  Yet mandating the use of refuge 

 7  alternatives that are clearly unproven and 

 8  lack human testing for the required duration 

 9  of 96 hours in our environment in Alabama is 

10  more life-threatening than it is life 

11  saving.

12            Alabama has unique conditions.  

13  As a matter of fact, this morning in 

14  Birmingham one of the local television 

15  stations reported that it was 80 degrees 

16  outside with 87 percent humidity.  If you 

17  use a heat index chart, that's an apparent 

18  temperature of 90 degrees.  And as most of 

19  you know, that's only five degrees below the 

20  maximum apparent temperature that we're 

21  trying to maintain in our refuge 

22  alternatives.  Probably by now it's even 

23  above that.  Again, Alabama has unique 

24  circumstances and unique temperatures.

25            At Jim Walter in our mines our 

                                                                   55

 1  ambient temperature averages 76 degrees.  

 2  And even though these conditions again are 

 3  unique to Alabama, a group of escaping 

 4  miners, whether they be in Utah or whether 

 5  they be in Alabama, once they retreat into a 

 6  refuge alternative and close the door, they 

 7  then begin to experience similar 

 8  environmental changes.  You will see rapid 

 9  temperature increase and you will see rapid 

10  humidity increase.  And these two factors 

11  together, as has been said earlier by some 

12  of the commenters, directly affects the 

13  body's ability to control and maintain a 

14  survivable temperature.

15            The preamble stated that 

16  temperatures that reach 105 degrees is 

17  life-threatening and that the apparent 

18  temperature of 95 is the maximum that you 

19  recommend to stay within the refuge 

20  alternative.

21            At present we know of no rescue 

22  alternative that can meet that requirement 

23  in Alabama and recommend continued testing 

24  before being required to knowingly install 

25  rescue alternatives that will risk a life 

                                                                   56

 1  rather than to save a life.  And I make 

 2  those -- those comments directly towards 

 3  7.504.

 4            You asked for comments I think on 

 5  the expectations training under 75.1504, and 

 6  we recognize the value and support 

 7  expectations training and believe that this 

 8  is the way we need to move in the future.  I 

 9  don't know what the reg's intent or the 

10  panel's intent would be, but we would like 

11  the freedom to use simulators or -- or 

12  training panels rather than the entire 

13  containment.  If our company chooses to use 

14  containment, a unit, then we would like the 

15  ability to use, again, simulators and 

16  training panels.

17            This would take less space.  It 

18  would be more conducive to training our 

19  miners to use the critical applications of 

20  these units to where they can -- it becomes 

21  second nature if they have to open or deploy 

22  the unit and then enter the unit.

23            Under 75.1507, one of the areas 

24  that is referenced is the minimum amount of 

25  calories of food and water for the -- for 

                                                                   57

 1  the survivors or the escaping miners that 

 2  may be entrapped within the refuge 

 3  alternative.  When you do research on this, 

 4  when you look at Coast Guard approved 

 5  survival packets and products and things, 

 6  you see a variance of calories that are 

 7  needed.

 8            And we want to take care of our 

 9  miners.  That's unquestionable.  Space 

10  apparently is a valuable commodity within a 

11  refuge chamber.  I would like to see a range 

12  of appropriate caloric intake rather than 

13  2,000.

14            The other issue that's important 

15  to us that also reflects the results that's 

16  been identified before from previous 

17  speakers is where your body continues to 

18  sweat and lose its fluid compartment or 

19  depletes its fluid compartment.  In the 

20  proposed reg it talks about 2.25 quartz of 

21  water per person.  In a 15-man containment, 

22  this could be about 35 gallons of water that 

23  would have to be there.

24            One of the things that happens 

25  when the body begins to sweat, it begins to 

                                                                   58

 1  lose electrolytes which are vital not only 

 2  in the maintenance of the fluids in the 

 3  body, but it even goes into the functioning 

 4  of the heart.  I would like for the panel to 

 5  consider electrolyte substitutes as part of 

 6  this fluid requirement within the chamber.  

 7  I think this would help to extend someone's 

 8  survivability.

 9            Ms. Silvey talked about potential 

10  light sources.  We have found that chemical 

11  light sticks, kind of the break and shake 

12  light offers an opportunity to provide an 

13  ambient light.  They're small in their 

14  size.  You can get them that last a varied 

15  number of hours from four all the way 

16  through 12 hours.  That's not a 

17  recommendation, but that's just a suggestion 

18  for something for the panel to look into.  

19  They're non-toxic.  It would not cause a 

20  problem within the barricade.

21            My comments were general, but our 

22  concerns are great.  We have very little 

23  faith that our miners can survive in a 

24  refuge chamber in an Alabama temperature for 

25  96 hours with what's available to us at this 

                                                                   59

 1  point.

 2            We're open to your suggestions 

 3  and we're open to work with any of the 

 4  agencies or the manufacturers to try and 

 5  develop a unit that can help to improve the 

 6  survivability of our miners.  Thank you.

 7            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.  I don't 

 8  really know -- you state first of all, 

 9  Mr. Byram, that your comments were general, 

10  but your concerns great or something to that 

11  effect.  And if you -- I take it that either 

12  through Jim Walter or some other forum if 

13  you all -- if you have more specific 

14  comments, to provide them before the comment 

15  period closes on the 18th, if you will do 

16  that.  And I take it then that you all do 

17  not have any refuge chambers underground 

18  now.

19            MR. BYRAM:  We have refuge 

20  chambers on order.  We haven't received them 

21  from the manufacturer.  We have barricade 

22  kits that we developed underground that have 

23  the food and the water, but they do not have 

24  oxygen capabilities.

25            I would like just to expand on 

                                                                   60

 1  something, if I could.  We researched 

 2  various ways to comply with providing our 

 3  miners with 96 hours of breathable air.  We 

 4  looked at inflatable walls.  We looked at 

 5  building with building material and sealing 

 6  the walls with purging capabilities.  We 

 7  looked at everything that we could because 

 8  we felt that if we could build the 

 9  containment, that it would allow us to 

10  isolate a larger area to help dissipate 

11  heat, that the roof rib and footwall would 

12  be more efficient in doing that than being 

13  inside of this containment.

14            When we thought about everything 

15  involved, then we recognized that we stood 

16  to lose miners in a hostile environment 

17  attempting to build and purge an area than 

18  if we could more easily and quickly go to a 

19  containment, drop a door, turn a few valves, 

20  let it deploy and get into the airlock.

21            But we had to make a choice 

22  because the reg demanded that we put    

23  their -- these chambers underground, which 

24  we want to protect our miners.  Don't 

25  misunderstand that.  But we had to make a 

                                                                   61

 1  choice on how we can provide the best chance 

 2  for survival up front and then try and let 

 3  our mine rescue teams reach these people and 

 4  remove them before they -- the 30 to 40 

 5  hours.

 6            In our conditions with the 

 7  containments that are available we do not 

 8  believe that our miners can survive the full 

 9  96 hours.

10            MS. SILVEY:  Excuse me a minute.

11            MR. EPPERLY:  I had a question.

12            MR. BYRAM:  Yes, sir.

13            MR. EPPERLY:  The things that you 

14  considered, did you consider built in place, 

15  the second option and how that -- 

16            MR. BYRAM:  You mean a fixed room 

17  underground?

18            MR. EPPERLY:  Yes.

19            MR. BYRAM:  We have that at one 

20  of our locations.

21            MR. EPPERLY:  And do you feel 

22  that that would meet the apparent 

23  temperature proposed in -- 

24            MR. BYRAM:  I think that it has a 

25  greater chance of success.  The problem with 

                                                                   62

 1  that is it's a fixed location and as a mine 

 2  operates and moves, you're continually 

 3  having to move your containments.  And at 

 4  roughly 2,000 feet to continually bore holes 

 5  and things like that just isn't a good 

 6  alternative.

 7            MR. EPPERLY:  What about without 

 8  a borehole?  Did you consider moving the 

 9  materials, the oxygen and the CO2 scrubbing?

10            MR. BYRAM:  We have looked at CO2 

11  scrubbing.  We have looked at oxygen 

12  containment and purge oxygen.  The 

13  configuration was the -- equal to the same 

14  size as a containment and then you would 

15  have to build.  And there again, the 

16  timeliness -- if you're involved in a 

17  situation and having to build -- we felt 

18  like just going with a containment offered 

19  the best of all the options, the lessor of 

20  the evils.  Although one of our mine sites, 

21  Number Four mine has an underground waiting 

22  station near an exit.

23            MS. SILVEY:  I want to follow up 

24  on your comment, Mr. Byram, about the 

25  training.  One of the things we 

                                                                   63

 1  contemplated -- and I'm saying this for 

 2  everybody -- in the proposed rule was that 

 3  the -- and not that we mandated this, but 

 4  that if operators so chose, they could 

 5  integrate the training into the existing -- 

 6  and I'm sure all of you all are familiar 

 7  with the emergency mine evacuation rule  

 8  that we put in place on December 6th of 

 9  '06 and -- or it may have been December the 

10  8th, but one of those days.  And where we 

11  require the quarterly drill training and 

12  annual expectations training on 

13  self-contained self-rescue devices.

14            So, one of the things in building 

15  on that, we thought that the operators might 

16  integrate the refuge alternative training 

17  into that quarterly drill training and the 

18  annual expectations training for the SCSRs.  

19  Have you thought about the training and 

20  contemplated how -- how you would structure 

21  your program on that training?

22            MR. BYRAM:  We haven't decided 

23  yet, Ms. Silvey.  We're still giving -- 

24  we're having discussions and consideration.  

25  Expectations training is realistic training.

                                                                   64

 1            MS. SILVEY:  Yes.

 2            MR. BYRAM:  I think that it's 

 3  vital for the success for whatever device 

 4  you're trying to teach our miners to use.  

 5  Again, I think that rather than have a full 

 6  sized unit to where the entire canopy has to 

 7  be deployed and things like that -- I don't 

 8  think that's necessary, but I do think the 

 9  critical function such as the immediate 

10  deployment, the controls that you turn on 

11  and how you would interact within the 

12  airlock and turn your oxygen system on and 

13  everything, I think that's -- that is a 

14  necessity and I think that should be done 

15  annually in expectations training.

16            And I really don't want to -- my 

17  guys that have to deal with all the 

18  expectations training now and self-rescuers, 

19  that's not a quick thing.  It takes probably 

20  45 minutes per miner to get -- or per class 

21  to get through this.

22            But I -- for me personally I 

23  think that when we get these units in our 

24  mine, we need to have that as a separate 

25  training entity so it's not confused with 

                                                                   65

 1  other training issues.

 2            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  Thank you 

 3  very much.

 4             At this point, is there anybody 

 5  else in the audience who wishes to make 

 6  comment?

 7            (A hand is raised.) 

 8            MS. SILVEY:  Yes, sir.

 9            MR. GREEN:  My name is Randall 

10  Green, G-r-e-e-n, and I'm representing the 

11  United Mine Workers, Local 1948.  And I just 

12  wanted to make three comments on the 

13  chambers.

14            We are glad to see that we've got 

15  standards coming down to get these chambers 

16  in the mines.  I know there's a lot of 

17  comments today on how we're going to sustain 

18  it and the atmosphere control and stuff like 

19  that, but once we get a start in the mines, 

20  I think technology will follow to improve 

21  it.

22            One thing that's an option, which 

23  our mines employ, is a breathable air hole, 

24  breathable boreholes that we have now.  I 

25  think that's one option that can be used 

                                                                   66

 1  with the chambers at this time.  In most of 

 2  the mines in the country these boreholes can 

 3  be -- can continue to be drilled and we can 

 4  hook breathable air holes for ventilation to 

 5  the units.  But at the same time, with the 

 6  technology that we have already available, 

 7  the environmental controls in the units must 

 8  be provided as a backup also, the best that 

 9  technology has.  So, we support that.

10            Also, if you think about this, 

11  this gives the miners a chance to try to 

12  escape, which would be our first option.  

13  They'll have the opportunity to stop at 

14  these chambers with their rescue units.  

15  They have their self-contained rescue units 

16  on and they have to change these units.  And 

17  that's been a big question.  This will allow 

18  the miners possibly to enter these chambers, 

19  exchange their units in a safe environment 

20  in a controlled area, then they can proceed 

21  on if they have the opportunity.

22            But in situations where -- if 

23  they have communication and to know that 

24  they can't travel any further, this will 

25  give them the best practical opportunity for 

                                                                   67

 1  survival.

 2            And we don't know what happens in 

 3  explosions.  We could have mine fires and 

 4  different things like this.  And I do 

 5  believe this is going to enhance -- and I 

 6  think that particularly with the breathable 

 7  air holes and the compressor systems that 

 8  we're already using in our mines and using 

 9  the breathable air holes is in compliance, 

10  but having these self-contained units will 

11  keep your -- your supply.  It will give you 

12  extra air to store for the self-contained 

13  rescue units for the miners that we have and 

14  it will just put the miner in a better 

15  situation for survival at this time.

16            And I think that this is some of 

17  the comments from our people in our mines.  

18  Thank you.  Is there any other questions?

19            MS. SILVEY:  I don't have any.  

20  Thank you, Mr. Green.  Is there anybody else 

21  who wishes to speak?

22            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Good morning.

23            MS. SILVEY:  Good morning.

24            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  My name is 

25  James Blankenship, B-l-a-n-k-e-n-s-h-i-p, 

                                                                   68

 1  president of United Mine Workers, Local 

 2  2245.  I work at Jim Walter Resources Number 

 3  Four mine.

 4            I forgot one piece of paper.  

 5  Excuse me.

 6            Some of the questions I had today 

 7  have been answered, and one of them was the 

 8  air conditioned units that were approved in 

 9  Canada and Australia.  I was under the 

10  assumption they were used in the mining 

11  industry in those areas, which I found out 

12  today that they're not.

13            And the gentleman from MineARC, 

14  he talked about 80 degrees Fahrenheit in 

15  Alabama.  Not at Jim Walter Four.  We're in 

16  the 90 degrees, high 90s in some areas in 

17  that mine.  The humidity inside those 

18  chambers would be 100 percent.  We all know 

19  what the heat index would be.  That's 

20  something we've got to really look at.

21            Pre-shift examinations, I 

22  definitely think that should be part of the 

23  rules because as we move, these units have 

24  got to be moved or got to be pulled out, 

25  they've got to be moved backed.  And in the 

                                                                   69

 1  mines they run up to it with a scoop, hook 

 2  the track up to it, drag it down through 

 3  there and put it back in place.  They need 

 4  to be looked at every shift, every pre-shift 

 5  examination to make sure they're usable if 

 6  we need them.

 7            Training, we do the SCR swapovers 

 8  in a room sitting in a chair and we swap 

 9  over.  That's my opinion.  That's my -- 

10  that's my opinion.  I know that's what's 

11  approved and what is to be done, but I don't 

12  think it gives me or the miner actually 

13  what's going to happen to him underground.

14            If we don't do training that's 

15  hands-on in a condition like they're going 

16  to have in an explosion with these chambers, 

17  then we're basically wasting time.  So, I 

18  think that needs to be part of it.  Not 

19  outside in the shop, not in a room.  

20  Underground in an area with a cap lamp with 

21  the lamp out, blowed out, whatever; 

22  Hollywood smoke, the whole nine yards.  I 

23  think that needs to be part of the SCSR 

24  training, too, but that's another story for 

25  another day.

                                                                   70

 1            If we don't do that, it's like 

 2  driving a car.  You can study the book and 

 3  take the test, the driver's manual and make 

 4  a hundred, but you can't drive that car 

 5  until you get behind the wheel.

 6            You can know the evacuation plan 

 7  inside and out.  You can know it word for 

 8  word, page for page, but if you don't do it 

 9  hands-on, you're not going to know what to 

10  do when an emergency happens because you're 

11  not calm.  Everything is happening around 

12  you.  You're worried.  You've got to be able 

13  to -- it's got to be instinct.  You've got 

14  to be able to go up to that machine, turn 

15  the valves and know exactly what it is.

16            It's just like running the 

17  equipment underground.  We've got mine 

18  operators that can do it with their eyes 

19  shut because they've done it for years.  

20  They know where all the levers are.  They 

21  know what it is.  We've got to have that 

22  same training.

23            The evac plans, that goes along 

24  with the training.  We go over our plan 

25  regularly, but unless you do it, it doesn't 

                                                                   71

 1  work.  We've had an occasion at our location 

 2  three times where our evac plan failed.  

 3  Because we read it, everybody knew what it 

 4  said, but when it came time to do it, humans 

 5  took over.  I mean, worrying and excitement 

 6  and everything took over and it didn't 

 7  work.  We didn't get people out of the mines 

 8  in a timely manner.  We had to go back and 

 9  get people.  People made decisions that they 

10  weren't going to go where they were supposed 

11  to go because we haven't had any 

12  actual we're going to do it today and it's 

13  going to be out here and here's the 

14  training.  That's got to be part of this 

15  rule.

16            We've got to make sure that it -- 

17  if we need them -- I hope to God we never 

18  do -- people know how to use them when they 

19  get to them.  Thank you.

20            Now, with that said, we'll move 

21  right along.

22             Before today when I was given 

23  this thing I wasn't aware of any human 

24  testing on refuge chambers, but thank God 

25  for the Internet.  I found out that there 

                                                                   72

 1  was some human testing in 1993 and '94.  A 

 2  company called Rimer Alco did human testing 

 3  on their -- I'm trying to think of the 

 4  name.  I lost the name of it now.  Tommy 

 5  Knocker refuge chambers.

 6            They picked six people to go into 

 7  a 10-man chamber.  They picked people that 

 8  were non-smokers, no medical, no medicine to 

 9  take, people with normal heart rates, normal 

10  lung capacity.  And I don't know about where 

11  y'all work, but that's not the people like 

12  me.  They're like me.  They're fat boys.  

13  And -- and ladies.  I hate to say that, but 

14  they are.  They take medicine.  They smoke.  

15  They did that test for 24 hours and not 48 

16  or not 96.

17            If we're going to do testing, I 

18  think we need to do it.  It's got to be for 

19  the entire duration.  It's got to be a mix 

20  of people, weight, whole nine yards and 

21  we've got to do it for the 96 hours.

22            You know, Strata Products came to 

23  Jim Walter Resources Training Center to give 

24  a demonstration of their product and to do a 

25  question and answer.

                                                                   73

 1            Ben Loggin was the chairman of 

 2  our safety committee at that time.  He asked 

 3  the rep could we use the chambers in Alabama 

 4  with our heat and humidity.  The rep didn't 

 5  want to answer, but he did.  I give him 

 6  credit for that.  He said, it would be like 

 7  getting in a death trap.  The chamber 

 8  wouldn't last 24 hours.  And that's true.  

 9  With the heat and humidity, we probably 

10  wouldn't get 24 hours out of it.

11            Jim Walter Resources in the 

12  meeting we had with mine manager Keith 

13  Shalvey informed myself and the safety 

14  committee that we were going to buy the 

15  Strata Products 25-man fresh air bay kit.  I 

16  questioned him about it and knowing what we 

17  know about the humidity and the heat, he 

18  replied, I know we can't use them, but they 

19  comply with the letter of the law.  It's a 

20  true statement.  It does comply with the 

21  letter of the law, but it doesn't comply 

22  with the intent of the law, which is to make 

23  people safe, make the miners safe down 

24  there.

25            Mr. Shalvey also told me that he 

                                                                   74

 1  would inform the miners not to use them, 

 2  which I am too.  I'm going to tell them 

 3  don't get in that thing.

 4            He said that if we had an 

 5  individual hurt, couldn't get out of the 

 6  mines or getting that individual out was a 

 7  risk to other miners, that one person could 

 8  probably get in that chamber and -- and make 

 9  it, which I don't know.  He might can.  I 

10  have no idea about the one person, but 

11  that's still not the intent of the law.

12            I sent Strata Products three 

13  different e-mails asking them about their 

14  chambers and their powerless cooling 

15  system.  I asked them how it worked, what 

16  temperature would it -- would it maintain  

17  if -- in the chamber, if the chambers were 

18  being tested in Alabama with our heat and 

19  humidity; and if so, when, where and what 

20  was the results.  I have yet to have any 

21  response back from Strata Products.

22            I did some research on my own, 

23  and this is the question that got answered 

24  today.  In Canada and Australia there's 

25  chambers with cooling systems, but I was 

                                                                   75

 1  under the impression it was coal and they're 

 2  not.  I found that out today.  This same 

 3  company sells chambers in the United States 

 4  and that was one of the reasons I was 

 5  wondering.  MineARC being one of them.

 6            Back to the testing, the Rimer    

 7  Alco -- I'm going to have to spell this.  

 8  I'm not sure how to pronounce it.  It's 

 9  R-i-m-e-r A-l-c-o.  And their research lab 

10  was Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, Canada.  That's 

11  who did the two -- the two tests, one in '93 

12  and one in '94.

13            And again, the one in '94, they 

14  did it with the mine rescue team, which will 

15  have to be a little more physically fit than 

16  a normal miner.  It's not a cross-section of 

17  the workforce.

18            Some of their criteria was they 

19  had to have, like I said, normal heart rate, 

20  lung rate, no physical -- physiological 

21  problems, no phobias.  We've probably got 

22  people that's afraid to get in a confined 

23  space.  We've got to deal with that.  We 

24  can't say, well, you stand outside and 

25  you'll be okay.  We've got take all that 

                                                                   76

 1  into consideration when we do these tests.

 2            In their tests it rates 100 

 3  percent humidity in less than one hour with 

 4  the temperature of 20 degrees, 25 degrees 

 5  Centigrade, which is about 75 degrees 

 6  Fahrenheit.  That's West Virginia 

 7  temperatures.  That's not Alabama 

 8  temperatures.  And I know because I worked 

 9  in both places.  I know what the mines are 

10  like in West Virginia.

11            Like I said, in Alabama it will 

12  be 90 degrees probably right now, you know, 

13  at 10:30 in the morning.  And we all know 

14  the danger of heatstroke.

15            There's a -- I don't know if 

16  y'all have got this.  A man by the name of 

17  Jim Dean from -- the director of West 

18  Virginia Mine and Safety Health Training.  

19  I've got a report that I think he sent to 

20  y'all and gave to y'all one time.  And on 

21  his report on page five he says, "I am 

22  pleased to see that the proposed rule 

23  appears to grandfather state approved units 

24  to meet the requirements of the proposed 

25  rule.  I would like to ask MSHA to consider 

                                                                   77

 1  if there needs to be any difference from the 

 2  West Virginia program.  I understand why 

 3  there may be a need to -- a need for 

 4  specifications to accommodate for original 

 5  ambient temperatures.  That isn't a true 

 6  statement.  What works in West Virginia is 

 7  not going to work in Alabama.  There's no 

 8  way on earth it is going to work.

 9            And he asked to keep -- consider 

10  their model as a -- their program as a model 

11  for the nation.  I don't.  I don't agree 

12  with that statement.  I don't want -- you 

13  know, we need to stand on our own.  We need 

14  to be testing in Alabama.  We need to do it 

15  right here in these coal mines where it's 

16  going to be used.  It might work in West 

17  Virginia.  I don't know.  I wasn't part of 

18  that, but it doesn't need to be the model 

19  that we all go by.

20            And if you look on page seven of 

21  his report he says, on page 34157 of the 

22  proposed rule, MSHA states the Agency would 

23  require this training to exposes the miners 

24  to the expected heat and humidity conditions 

25  in the refuge chamber.  And I believe that 

                                                                   78

 1  miners should certainly be informed that 

 2  conditions within the refuge alternative or 

 3  shelter may be uncomfortable, but certainly 

 4  not life-threatening and do not belive that 

 5  exposing thousands of miners to some high 

 6  unknown temperature and humidity is 

 7  necessary or advisable.

 8            I disagree with that statement, 

 9  too.  We've got to know what's in there.  We 

10  can't just assume that that's okay.  We 

11  can't tell an individual, well, you're going 

12  to be all right.  It's supposed to be 135 

13  degrees in there.  They're not going to be 

14  okay.

15            We need to be honest and up front 

16  with everybody that goes in there.  We need 

17  to make sure that when they get in that 

18  chamber that it's safe, that the temperature 

19  is going to be where they can last 96 hours 

20  to get to them.

21            And he said, how does MSHA know 

22  what the expected condition within the 

23  refuge alternative will be?  The only way we 

24  can do that is testing.  We can't assume 

25  anything.  I know we can do figures and 

                                                                   79

 1  graphs and charts and maybe be close, but we 

 2  can't assume what's going on until we do it.

 3            It says, based upon my 

 4  understanding, a range of a temperature of X 

 5  with a range of relative humidity readings 

 6  of Y will result in an ambient temperature 

 7  of 95 degrees Fahrenheit.

 8            I just happen to have some index 

 9  charts.  To get a 95 degree heat, it would 

10  be 88 degrees with a humidity of 60.  It's 

11  worse than that today outside in the street 

12  in Alabama.  If you -- if you had a 

13  temperature X of 98, you have to have a 

14  humidity below 40 to be in the 95 range.  At 

15  98 and 40, it's 105 degrees Fahrenheit.  And 

16  if it's 60 or 65, it's in the 128 to 134 

17  range, which is dead according to the 

18  relative humidity chart, the heat index.

19            And I can give this to you, if 

20  you want it.  Of course, it's on the 

21  Internet.  Above 130 you're in trouble.  

22  You're in trouble, big trouble.

23            On page 145 in the middle column 

24  MSHA talks about 95 degrees Fahrenheit.  It 

25  should not exceed that.  Now, we need to 

                                                                   80

 1  make sure that that happens, that it stays 

 2  at that level, whatever it takes to do it to 

 3  get to that level.

 4             Now I'm going to talk about a 

 5  few more things a little bit today.

 6            On page 146, minimal spacing.  

 7  NIOSH recommended 85 cubic feet, but the 

 8  rules say 60 cubic feet.  Look at me.  I'm 

 9  300 plus pounds.  I need that 85 feet.  And 

10  three of my safety -- or two of them are the 

11  same size I am.  They're pretty healthy.  

12  And that's -- a lot of workers in our mine 

13  are like that.  We need the extra -- extra 

14  footage.  We don't need to be cut down.

15            I know NIOSH says that's not a 

16  recommended -- recommendation not considered 

17  absolute, but they had a reason to get 85 

18  feet.  We shouldn't cut that down to 60.  

19  Make it 85 feet, cubic feet.

20            On our cage at the mine it calls 

21  for 65 people to get on that cage and go 

22  down.  When I hired in in 1980, I was about 

23  190 pounds.  If 65 of us get on there, right 

24  now we're having to suck it up and get close 

25  because we're all a little bigger.

                                                                   81

 1            The same thing in that refuge 

 2  chamber.  We don't need to make it smaller.  

 3  85 feet is what we need; at least 85, if not 

 4  more.

 5            If you go to page 157 -- 156, 

 6  157, it talks about training and I think -- 

 7  I gave the lady this disc.  This is 

 8  something I found from Queensland.  It's a 

 9  gentleman by the name of David Cliff and he 

10  works for Queensland.  They actually went 

11  into the mines along with I think some of 

12  the industry people and everything and said 

13  we're here and you've got a disaster.  

14  Nobody underground knew that it wasn't true, 

15  so they could -- they could see how their 

16  program worked.

17            It's an 83-page report, but it 

18  was good.  They had people actually -- they 

19  evacuated like they were supposed to.  They 

20  had people actually -- I think it said 17 of 

21  them got in the chamber and stayed.

22            That needs to be part of this 

23  plan.  That's something that needs to 

24  happen.

25            If you can plan -- if you -- like 

                                                                   82

 1  we do our generator checks.  If we know what 

 2  we're doing and everything is laying there 

 3  for you, you use it and that's it.  Call me 

 4  on the phone and tell me we've got a fire 

 5  and tell me to go to it.  That's a little 

 6  bit different.

 7            That's a good report and I ask 

 8  you to look at it and play it and see if we 

 9  can't incorporate some of that into our 

10  plans as far as training and making sure 

11  that when something happens we are best 

12  qualified to handle the problem.

13            Page 158 talks about distance 

14  from 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet on the working 

15  face or where equipment is being installed.  

16  You might as well take the 1,000 feet out.  

17  Because if you give an individual or an 

18  operator one or 2,000, it's going to be 

19  2,000 feet.  I'm telling you.  I think it 

20  should be 1,000 as a maximum, not a minimum.

21            If you've got a shear operator on 

22  the tailgate and you've got a refuge chamber 

23  1,000 feet out from that face, he's probably 

24  a half a mile from that refuge chamber.  It 

25  needs to be closer.  1,000 feet should be 

                                                                   83

 1  the minimum, not the maximum.  It should be 

 2  closer, especially on the longwall because 

 3  on the tailgate that adds another thousand 

 4  feet or so to it to get back to that 

 5  chamber.

 6            Something that affects me 

 7  personally is the outby area.  That's where 

 8  I work.  We need to make sure that we've got 

 9  these chambers in locations where 

10  individuals can get to them reasonably.

11            I'll give you a good example.  

12  They don't need to be small chambers.  I 

13  know some of the report talks about belt 

14  cleaners and all that stuff.  Monday 

15  evening -- on Monday day shift our west A  

16  belt went down.  West B didn't shut down.  

17  It gobbed out huge.  We had about 25 or 30 

18  people there working on that gob pile to get 

19  the belt running.

20            If we had a refuge chamber there 

21  that would accommodate what normally would 

22  be on that belt, which would be probably 

23  four or five people, and something happened, 

24  well, the best five would get in and the 

25  other 20 couldn't.  We need to make sure 

                                                                   84

 1  that we can cover all aspects of what's 

 2  happening, what could happen.  Because they 

 3  even brought people off the section out 

 4  there.  They brought about five, six or 

 5  seven of them off the section to help clean 

 6  that mess up until we could get the belts 

 7  back running.

 8            If something would have happened, 

 9  the toughest five would have got in the 

10  chamber and the weakest 20 would have stayed 

11  out is what it boiled down to.  We don't 

12  need to say we'll put a chamber that's    

13  got -- that can hold four or five people.  

14  Because we change out the faces.  The belt 

15  cleaners change out the same way on the main 

16  headers.  So, you'll have more there during 

17  a shift change than you will during the 

18  regular shift usually.  You need to keep 

19  that in consideration when you put this 

20  final -- final rule in the plans.

21            Also, you know, it gives you -- 

22  on page 159 it talks about -- it gives a 

23  company two -- two ways they can figure out 

24  where to put them rescue chambers.

25            One, they can do a test of 

                                                                   85

 1  walking the people 30 minutes and all that 

 2  stuff; or two, they can use the -- the 

 3  diagram y'all have got in there, which is -- 

 4  at our height it would be about 5,700 feet.

 5            We did a test at our locations.  

 6  I don't agree with how they got to it.  We 

 7  put our SCRs I think at 6,700 feet.  They 

 8  walked people 30 minutes and that's what 

 9  they got.  I don't personally think they did 

10  a cross-section of our work force.  They did 

11  take women.  They did take young and old, 

12  but I don't think they took people with bad 

13  knees and bad backs and stuff like that.

14            Our safety -- we had a safety 

15  committee member at that time, Jeremy Eaton, 

16  about 28 year olds.  He didn't last 30 

17  minutes to start with.  He didn't get 

18  nowhere near 6,700 feet.  Put a second one.  

19  He didn't last 30 minutes.  He got about 

20  3,500 feet.

21            I think we need to have a plan 

22  that says here's where you'll put it.  Not 

23  leave it open for interpretation or 

24  whatever.  If 5,700 feet is what you think 

25  it should be, that's what it should be, not 

                                                                   86

 1  67 or 72 or whatever another mine site can 

 2  do.  We need to be uniform.  We don't need 

 3  to leave these rules open for 

 4  interpretation.  You need to say, here's 

 5  what we're going to do and here is where 

 6  we're going to put it.

 7            Also, I don't think the rules 

 8  should allow for any interpretation from any 

 9  individual.  And I'm talking about district 

10  managers.  If there's something going to be 

11  done, it should be done in here.  And the 

12  reason I say that is that one district 

13  manager in one district sees it this way and 

14  you'll have one in another district that 

15  sees it another way and we have no uniform 

16  system.

17            So, we should takes the reference 

18  of district managers out of this thing 

19  completely and go by what the rules say.  

20  Don't allow -- don't allow, well, because of 

21  such and such we're going to do this.  Well, 

22  because -- we basically don't want to do 

23  what the rule says and we'll apply for a 

24  modification or whatever.  We don't need to 

25  do that.  We're talking about people's 

                                                                   87

 1  lives.

 2            I guess that's all I've got is to 

 3  ask you to think about what you've heard 

 4  today.  Alabama is a different world than 

 5  the rest of the coal industry due to our 

 6  heat and humidity.  What's going to work up 

 7  north or out west is not going to work here.

 8            And I will be glad -- I would be 

 9  glad to get with these manufacturers and 

10  let's get our heads together with the 

11  industry and the operators and get rescue 

12  chambers that will work.

13            I'm also against building.  I 

14  don't think that in the heat of a problem 

15  the individuals could get it built like it 

16  should be or get it built in time to protect 

17  them.  I just don't think that's -- I think 

18  that's wrong in my opinion.  I don't think 

19  it should be part of the rules.

20            And if you've got any questions, 

21  I'll be glad to try to answer them for you.

22            MS. SILVEY:  I have a couple.

23            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  I was afraid of 

24  that.

25            MS. SILVEY:  Don't be afraid of 

                                                                   88

 1  it because you figured it.

 2            With respect to the space, we 

 3  have gotten a lot of comments on the space 

 4  requirement -- proposed requirement for the 

 5  chamber, the 60 feet volume.  And you 

 6  mentioned the NIOSH recommendation in the 

 7  NIOSH report, even though NIOSH said it 

 8  wasn't hard and fast.  I forget their exact 

 9  wording, but something like that.

10            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Yes, ma'am.

11            MS. SILVEY:  And you said that 

12  you believe that -- in that and even more.  

13  If you would, please -- and I -- because we 

14  have gotten -- and all you've got to do is 

15  read the transcript and probably ultimately 

16  look at comments.  They -- they are -- they 

17  run the gamut when you start looking at 

18  them.

19            West Virginia, the state -- I 

20  won't say the state.  The West Virginia task 

21  force members.  Let me be specific.  And 

22  even some of them said they were speaking on 

23  their own, but they did say they were going 

24  to submit comments before the comment period 

25  closed.

                                                                   89

 1            They made certain 

 2  recommendations.  Others have made other 

 3  recommendations.  Manufacturers have made 

 4  certain recommendations.  And so with 

 5  respect to your recommendation today -- and 

 6  you don't have to do it today and I suspect 

 7  that the International is going to submit 

 8  comments before the comment period closes, 

 9  but if you would specifically include, as I 

10  mentioned in my opening statement, your 

11  specific rationale for your recommendation 

12  on the space.  And if you could, you could 

13  specifically tie it to safety and health 

14  benefits for mines.

15            Now, mind you, I know you know 

16  this.  I heard every word you said.  So, I 

17  understood what you said.  But if you would 

18  specifically -- if you would do that, then 

19  we would appreciate that.

20            With respect to what you said 

21  on -- Mr. Blankenship, on the distance, one 

22  of the things -- and I'll say this to 

23  everybody.  You know, we -- and we're in 

24  this position and -- so, it's the position 

25  that we find ourselves in.  We've got a lot 

                                                                   90

 1  of -- often times competing comments and 

 2  conflicting comments.  On the distance we've 

 3  really got a lot of comments there, too.

 4            If you would -- but -- and you 

 5  said on the distances that the -- I guess 

 6  the thousand feet -- you -- you lean toward 

 7  the lessor distance, if possible.

 8            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  As being a 

 9  maximum.

10            MS. SILVEY:  Right.

11            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  And like I 

12  said, the longwall is a prime example.  

13  You've got the shear operator and -- and a 

14  longwall helper and there could be a 

15  mechanic or an electrician on the tailgate.  

16  That's at our place 1,0000 feet or more.  

17  And if you've got this 2,000 feet, then 

18  they're 3,000 plus getting back to it, which 

19  is over a half a mile to the rescue chamber.

20            MS. SILVEY:  I think everybody 

21  knows that and that will be taken into 

22  consideration and not the recommendation in 

23  the NIOSH report.  And I think we explained 

24  in the preamble that we took into 

25  consideration the refuge chamber and the -- 

                                                                   91

 1  you know, may -- may -- in the event of an 

 2  explosion, may -- the possibility of it 

 3  being affected by the blast and -- and a 

 4  number of different things.

 5            So, when you give your 

 6  recommendation on the -- on the location -- 

 7  and I did mention that in my opening 

 8  statement, too.  If you would put into your 

 9  recommendation any and all factors that you 

10  think relate to the consideration of the 

11  location, that -- we'd appreciate that.

12            MR. EPPERLY:  If you could speak 

13  to both sections, the developing miner 

14  section and the longwall, too.

15            MS. SILVEY:  That's -- that's 

16  good, yeah.  Because they may have 

17  different --

18            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  I'll do that.

19            MS. SILVEY:  Different, you   

20  know -- the earlier gentleman, Mr. Rau 

21  talked about performance oriented -- he may 

22  not have used the term "performance 

23  oriented".  And you used it somewhat when 

24  you said -- when you used the risk 

25  assessment approach and you said Alabama 

                                                                   92

 1  mines may be different than West Virginia 

 2  mines.

 3            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Definitely.

 4            MS. SILVEY:  So, see, what I find 

 5  myself hearing -- and that is just so you 

 6  all know what -- and I want to be a little 

 7  humorous and say what an integral position 

 8  we're in.  I really think I'm in and -- but 

 9  I'm just saying that.  That's a little -- 

10  y'all bear with me.  That's a little humor 

11  here.

12            On the one hand, we hear you say, 

13  you know, you want us to take us the risk 

14  assessment approach and we -- we recognize 

15  that.  The mines are reflective of a whole 

16  lot of conditions, a lot of geographical 

17  conditions and a lot of other kinds of 

18  conditions.

19            And then on the other hand, 

20  sometimes you say but you want us to be 

21  prescriptive and tell you exactly what    

22  you -- you know, what you have to do.

23            So, to some extent we are in a 

24  position where we have to weigh and balance 

25  a lot of different recommendations and a lot 

                                                                   93

 1  of different opinions.  And that's why one 

 2  of the things I've consistently said is when 

 3  you give your -- your recommendation for you 

 4  to be as specific as you can with respect to 

 5  the rationale behind your recommendation.

 6            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Well, let me 

 7  make a comment then on the testing part.  

 8  Once we do the testing, once we know 

 9  exactly -- once we do it in one of these 

10  coal mines and the -- if the temperature and 

11  the humidity got too high, then, of course, 

12  if people get out of it, we will know that.  

13  We will know what they have to do.

14            At that point, after the test is 

15  done, then we could be specific.  We could 

16  say here's what you've got to do because we 

17  know what is going to happen in Jim Walter 

18  Four and Seven.  This is it.  We know    

19  what -- we know what time we're going to 

20  reach 100 percent humidity.  We know what it 

21  is outside.  We know what it is 

22  underground.  It's hot underground at Jim 

23  Walter Four.  There's a place that will take 

24  your breath it's so hot.

25            We can do that, once we do the 

                                                                   94

 1  tests.  That's the key thing.  Then we get 

 2  the results.  And then we can get rules and 

 3  say, okay, Jim Walter Four, this is what 

 4  you've got to have.  Manufacturer, company, 

 5  union, this is what you've got to have.  We 

 6  know because we've tested it here.

 7            Mine equipment at two locations, 

 8  some of it works -- some types work at Seven 

 9  and won't work at Four and vice versa.  So, 

10  the chamber needs to be the same way.

11            We've got roof bolters that we 

12  swap around and haul them back and forth 

13  like kindling wood because they wouldn't 

14  work at Seven but they would work at Four 

15  and vice versa.

16            The chamber is going to be the 

17  same way.  We've got to make sure that it's 

18  specific to that mine site.  We've got to do 

19  tests at those mine sites.  We can't just 

20  say, well, because they tested it at Oak 

21  Grove mines, it's good for Alabama because 

22  we're different.

23            And once we do that, I can tell 

24  you exactly what we've got to have here or 

25  you can tell me because we'll know the exact 

                                                                   95

 1  numbers and exact figures.  I hope I got a 

 2  little bit of your question.

 3            MS. SILVEY:  Yeah.  And I'm sure 

 4  I'll hear a little more from you all.

 5            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Probably.

 6            MR. EPPERLY:  You mentioned there 

 7  were three types of alternatives:  

 8  Pre-fabricated, build in place and then the 

 9  one I think you were referring to is built 

10  after an event.

11            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Right.

12            MR. EPPERLY:  Is that the one you 

13  mean?  You didn't mean the second one as 

14  build in place?  

15            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Well, I don't 

16  know if the second one is build in place or 

17  be there to start with.  I personally think 

18  that the ones -- the skids or the -- or the 

19  solid chambers is the best.  I don't think 

20  the other two -- definitely not when you've 

21  got to build yourself after it happens is 

22  not realistic at all.  It's not going to be 

23  good because there's going to be so much 

24  going on, dealing with injuries and worrying 

25  about getting out of the place and -- and I 

                                                                   96

 1  just don't think you can build an area that 

 2  would be safe to be in.

 3            And the one that's pre-built, I'm 

 4  not sure they would be there to start with, 

 5  you know, if something drastic happened.  I 

 6  just don't feel comfortable with those two 

 7  situations.

 8            I feel more comfortable with, you 

 9  know, the skid or the hard shell, hard 

10  shell.

11            MS. SILVEY:  Mr. Blankenship, you 

12  made reference to several sources, 

13  references in your -- some of which as you 

14  recounted were Internet sites and I know we 

15  all have access to the Internet, but if you 

16  would please get -- provide those to us, we 

17  would appreciate it, the references that you 

18  cited.  Because I think you cited a couple 

19  of reports and a couple of things from the 

20  Internet.  So, you can either give those to 

21  us today or just provide them to us before 

22  the record closes.  I'm sure the reporter 

23  got some of them, but just so we can make 

24  sure we are talking about the same thing.

25            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  I'll probably 

                                                                   97

 1  have to get the exact website to you.

 2            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  That will be 

 3  fine.

 4            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  This -- 

 5  everything should be on here about this 

 6  website.

 7            MS. SILVEY:  We appreciate that.  

 8  Okay.

 9            MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Thank you.  

10            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you very  

11  much.

12            At this time, should we take a 

13  10-minute break and come back?  Let's take a 

14  10-minute break.  10 minutes, please.  

15            (A break was taken at 10:54 a.m.

16             and the hearing resumed at

17             11:16 a.m.) 

18            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  We will now 

19  continue the Mine Safety and Health 

20  Administration's public hearing on the 

21  Agency's proposed rule for underground coal 

22  mines for refuge alternatives for 

23  underground coal mines.

24            And our next speaker will be Tom 

25  Wilson with the United Mine Workers of 

                                                                   98

 1  America.  Mr. Wilson.

 2            MR. WILSON:  Thomas Wilson, 

 3  United Mine Workers of America, 

 4  International Union.

 5            I rise in support of refuge 

 6  alternatives for underground coal mines.

 7            With that said, we must encourage 

 8  that MSHA direct this towards air 

 9  conditioned refuge chambers.  Not only does 

10  this proposed rule not provide for air 

11  cooled chambers, but I believe there are 

12  other areas where the proposal also 

13  demonstrates a lack of understanding for a 

14  problem with the temperatures.

15            For example, on page 334145, the 

16  middle column, it states that MSHA 

17  recognizes that body heat and heat generated 

18  by chemical reaction; i.e., CO2 scrubbing 

19  chemicals are inherent heat-producing 

20  sources within a refuge alternative.  The 

21  ambient temperature in a refuge alternative 

22  also is affected by the mine temperature 

23  compounded by high humidity in a sealed 

24  environment.  High humidity reduces a body's 

25  ability to regulate temperatures by 

                                                                   99

 1  sweating, which could result in a 

 2  dangerously elevated internal body 

 3  temperature.

 4            Later on in that column it says, 

 5  MSHA requests specific comments on the 

 6  apparent temperature and mitigation of heat 

 7  stress and heatstroke.  I believe there's a 

 8  recognition that there's a serious problem 

 9  with temperature in these chambers, but at 

10  the same time, there has a been a reluctance 

11  to require the fix, which would be air 

12  conditioned chambers.  We seriously need air 

13  conditioned chambers in the mining industry.

14            Also, in all cases we need cold 

15  packs to be required to help treat for heat 

16  stress and heatstroke.  I'm not just talking 

17  about the -- the few that would be in the 

18  first aid kit.  They need to be analyzed as 

19  to how many man unit it's going to be and 

20  for how long they're planning to stay and 

21  you need to up the supply of cold packs in 

22  these chambers.

23            Another example would be on page 

24  34146, again, the middle column where MSHA 

25  actually downsizes the space that's required 

                                                                   100

 1  for a rescue chamber.  I definitely oppose 

 2  downsizing.  That is directly related to 

 3  heat.  And the larger is better as far as 

 4  controlling the heat.  So, under MSHA's 

 5  scenario of the 60, that just complicates 

 6  the heat -- heat problem even more.  So, I 

 7  would ask that MSHA would go back and 

 8  review.  And again, larger is better.

 9            On page 34142 of the proposed 

10  rule it states -- and this is in the middle 

11  column -- refuge alternatives that states 

12  have approved and those that MSHA has 

13  accepted in approved ERPs would meet the 

14  requirements of this proposed rule.  I 

15  disagree with that, and I want to discuss 

16  briefly some of the things I've seen in 

17  inspecting what's -- what's been put in 

18  place to try to comply with this rule.

19            I was at a mine last week and 

20  walked up to an emergency supply box that 

21  came up to here (indicating) on me.  It took 

22  both hands to open the lid on it.  Once I 

23  opened the lid, there was no latch or device 

24  to hold the lid open.  A man virtually had 

25  to stay there and hold it.

                                                                   101

 1            You couldn't reach in for any 

 2  supplies because you was holding the lid.  

 3  Most of the supplies were out of reach.  

 4  Even if you tried to bend over the top of 

 5  the box, you couldn't get to the bottom of 

 6  the box to get the supplies out.  The 

 7  supplies were not organized.  It is just a 

 8  huge metal box built out in the shop and the 

 9  supplies thrown in it to try to comply with 

10  the law -- or to try to get by with 

11  complying with the law.

12            I've gone to these and -- where 

13  they're actually drilling in some of the 

14  Alabama mines.  And one thing that has to be 

15  considered that I don't believe is at this 

16  point -- I've seen drill holes that's missed 

17  the crosscut that they were supposed to be 

18  in.  They haven't totally missed it, but the 

19  drill hole was exactly where you needed to 

20  build the wall at.  And it was because they 

21  had driven the entry off and they had to go 

22  back and slab it.

23            So, actually by not having a 

24  requirement as to where that hole is at in 

25  that crosscut or the proximity for that hole 

                                                                   102

 1  in that crosscut, you're going to allow for 

 2  non-functional alternatives in this 

 3  proposal.

 4             There was no site preparation.  

 5  And I'm going to get -- get into that more   

 6  late -- later, but some things that would 

 7  have been beneficial had they had to use 

 8  that crosscut is simply to scoop -- just 

 9  simply dumped that huge metal box and -- in 

10  a crosscut that's got a hole in the top and 

11  that's it.  No site preparation whatsoever.  

12  I've also seen those crosscuts where the 

13  supplies are dropped off as being previously 

14  used as rest rooms.

15            And this is currently what the 

16  industry is doing, and I would encourage 

17  that the emergency rule be better refined so 

18  that after this becomes effective, those are 

19  not the type of scenarios that we're dealing 

20  with.

21            Refuge alternative components 

22  that require on-site construction should be 

23  eliminated from these rules.  During an 

24  emergency, the miner first off is basically 

25  in shock and going through a lot of trauma.  

                                                                   103

 1  He then exhausts himself from trying to 

 2  escape checking out all his different 

 3  alternatives.  Then he has to return to the 

 4  shelter.  And at that point he's under great 

 5  stress.  That's not the time to start 

 6  breaking out the tools and constructing a 

 7  chamber.  And we shouldn't even expect a man 

 8  under those conditions to perform that 

 9  task.  This approach is wrong and I would 

10  ask that you eliminate it from the rule.

11            There's some scenarios that I'm 

12  not sure are covered by the rule, and I just 

13  want to lay out these scenarios and -- for 

14  the panel to consider.  And I think we've 

15  heard one previous speaker talking about 

16  when a belt header gobbed out.  It is not 

17  uncommon in Alabama mines to have large 

18  underground construction projects going on.  

19  We've got several of those scenarios going 

20  on right now as we speak.

21            I know the language does say 

22  where mechanized mining equipment is being 

23  installed or taken out, but I'm not really 

24  sure what the legal definition of that is, 

25  whether that's a working section or whether 

                                                                   104

 1  it's outby and you're building a major 

 2  bunker project and have a large, three 

 3  shifts a day construction company 

 4  underground building that bunker project.  

 5  To not cover those types of scenarios is 

 6  wrong.  And that is a common thing in the 

 7  industry.

 8            Another scenario that is present 

 9  in some of the Alabama mines is outsourcing 

10  of work.  That's where you take any section 

11  of what's normally required as far as 

12  continuing production and outsourcing it to 

13  a different company.  Those guys aren't 

14  working for the coal company.  They're 

15  working for an individual -- their 

16  individual boss.

17            Those guys go in and -- wherever 

18  the project may be and are required -- and 

19  they're large numbers, too.  We're not 

20  talking one or two additional folks.  We're 

21  talking a large number crew going in and 

22  having to do this outsource work.

23            I think any company that's doing 

24  outsourcing of work must demonstrate how 

25  they're going to equally apply and provide 

                                                                   105

 1  this protection for their miners.  Because 

 2  if we don't -- if we don't address the 

 3  outsourcing problem -- I think James said 

 4  it while ago.  The biggest men are going to 

 5  get in the chamber.  The rest are going to 

 6  die.  And that's a serious concern that 

 7  needs to be addressed in this rule.  As I 

 8  read the rule, I didn't believe that either 

 9  one of those scenarios were covered.

10            I know that this panel has 

11  previously received comments that instead 

12  of 96 hours it be reduced to 48 hours.  I'm 

13  in favor of the 96 plus hours for these 

14  rescue chambers.  And one of the specific 

15  reasons -- from a rescue and recovery 

16  perspective, putting a 48-hour clock on 

17  rescuers on a command center will 

18  definitely lead to improper decisions.  So, 

19  I strongly support the 96 hour plus time 

20  for a rescue chamber.

21             I too have read the comments 

22  suggesting that the West Virginia model 

23  should be the model for the country and I 

24  disagree with that.  I don't think the West 

25  Virginia model works for -- for Alabama.  I 

                                                                   106

 1  don't agree with the 42 hours.  I believe 

 2  that rescue chambers should be placed in 

 3  crosscuts to minimize the direct forces 

 4  from an explosion.

 5            Also in the West Virginia 

 6  comment, the commenter stated that one of 

 7  the reasons for West Virginia deciding to 

 8  go to -- my understanding of his comments, 

 9  one of the reasons for deciding to go to 

10  the 48 hours, since the tragedies in West 

11  Virginia, they had seen an increase in the 

12  number of mine rescue teams and ultimately 

13  can provide a faster response, a 48-hour 

14  time frame response.

15            That's not the case in Alabama.  

16  We've got an unusual mine rescue scenario 

17  currently in Alabama where over the recent 

18  years we have not seen an increase.  We've 

19  seen a decrease in the number of mine 

20  rescue teams.  There's four mines, three of 

21  them being non-union mines in the state 

22  that's covered by the two state teams.  And 

23  those state teams routinely travel to 

24  competitions, which I know by the letter of 

25  the law is legal and they don't have to 

                                                                   107

 1  have mine rescue coverage during 

 2  competition.  But it exposes the miners to 

 3  a much longer time period of being able to 

 4  respond to a mine rescue emergency.

 5            As of today, this is August the 

 6  7th, the mine rescue teams for the Drummond 

 7  Coal Company, Warrior Investment, Corinth 

 8  Mining, Shelby Mining and Tacoa Mine -- 

 9  minerals are all out of state in Virginia 

10  at mine rescue contests.  That will again 

11  occur at the last of the month from August 

12  the 25th through the 28th, plus travel 

13  time.

14            So, that's an additional reason 

15  48 hours is just an unreasonable time for 

16  rescue chambers.  We need at least 96 plus 

17  hours in those chambers.

18             Some areas that MSHA asked for 

19  comments:  On page 34145, the third column 

20  it states, "MSHA requests comments on 

21  including a requirement that refuge 

22  alternatives be designed with a means to 

23  signal rescuers on the surface."  I guess 

24  my comment on that is as long as it doesn't 

25  slow down the implementation of good 

                                                                   108

 1  chambers into the industry, that would be a 

 2  nice feature to have.

 3            The next paragraph MSHA requests 

 4  comments on including a requirement that 

 5  the manufacturer design refuge alternatives 

 6  with a means to signal underground rescuers 

 7  with a homing device.  Again, as long as it 

 8  doesn't slow down the process of getting 

 9  rescue chambers in the mining industry.  I 

10  don't know -- it would be interesting to 

11  hear from manufacturers on how difficult 

12  that would be and whether it would cause 

13  any delays.

14            With that, I'll take any 

15  questions the panel may have.

16            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you, Tom.  I 

17  have a few comments and I'm not sure I have 

18  any questions, but we'll see.

19            With respect -- just -- just one 

20  minute.  Bear with me one minute.

21            I have a few comments to make 

22  and these comments go not just to you, 

23  Mr. Wilson, they sort of go to everybody in 

24  here.

25            The first -- because you 

                                                                   109

 1  mentioned a few things like the device -- 

 2  now I'm starting at the end, the last thing 

 3  you said.  We asked for comments on whether 

 4  there should be some device designed where 

 5  you could signal rescuers -- rescuers on 

 6  the surface and alternatively where -- a 

 7  device also where the mine rescue team 

 8  could signal the rescuers underground.

 9            One of the things I want to 

10  ask -- and I guess this is particularly 

11  directed to the manufacturers because, as 

12  you said, this -- and to see if that -- if 

13  those two types of devices that we talked 

14  about in the opening statement, the -- the 

15  refuge chambers that you all are either, 

16  one, in the process or you've already 

17  designed, if those types of devices are -- 

18  could be -- are they, one, included on the 

19  chambers that you have; or can they be 

20  expected to be included on chambers that 

21  you are in the process of designing?

22            So, I think that probably more 

23  appropriately -- that question probably 

24  more appropriately goes to the 

25  manufacturers.  So, if you all would please 

                                                                   110

 1  address that question.

 2            The second thing I want to say 

 3  is -- and you know, I might even say this 

 4  again before we close the record.  The 

 5  issue of temperature, you all know we -- 

 6  and we proposed a requirement for internal 

 7  apparent -- inside apparent temperature.

 8            The issue of external ambient, 

 9  the mine temperature, if you would 

10  please -- and I'm asking everybody, 

11  manufacturers, operators, miners alike; 

12  states, if a state happens to read this 

13  transcript and hear that, if you would 

14  please include -- if you have a suggestion 

15  on that issue -- one, a suggestion on it; 

16  two, if you could be more specific, a 

17  suggestion on how -- what MSHA should -- 

18  how MSHA should address it, what MSHA 

19  should do with respect to it, to that 

20  issue; three, your specific rationale for 

21  your suggestions.

22            Now, that might be asking you 

23  for a lot, but I'm -- I'm putting on the 

24  record and putting on notice -- putting 

25  people on notice that we would like, if at 

                                                                   111

 1  all possible, if you could address that 

 2  before the comment period closes on August 

 3  the 18th.

 4             With respect to your comment, 

 5  Mr. Wilson, that MSHA downsized space, 

 6  I'm -- I'm going to fill in the rest of 

 7  your comments and read between the lines.  

 8  And I assume that you said MSHA downsized 

 9  space -- and I think maybe Mr. Blankenship 

10  spoke to it -- because we used 60 cubic 

11  feet as opposed to 85 cubic feet in the 

12  NIOSH report.

13            I couldn't -- I didn't --

14            MR. WILSON:  Yes, ma'am.

15            MS. SILVEY:  -- understand how 

16  we downsized space otherwise.  But I'm 

17  going to say the same thing to you that 

18  I've said to everybody else and that is -- 

19  you said larger is better.  But if you 

20  would please -- with respect to a specific 

21  recommendation, if you would please include 

22  safety and health benefits for whatever 

23  recommendation that you make if you make 

24  any additional comments to us before the 

25  record closes.

                                                                   112

 1            You made a few comments, Tom, 

 2  about the emergency supply boxes and the 

 3  drill holes and the site preparation.  You 

 4  know, some -- some that were going on in 

 5  your mines -- at least maybe in one of the 

 6  mines that may not have been sort of up to 

 7  specifications.  And I guess I just want to 

 8  ask with respect to them, did you all -- 

 9  did you all complain about them to the 

10  operator?

11            MR. WILSON:  We had discussions 

12  about it.

13            MS. SILVEY:  You had -- okay.  

14  That's a better way of putting it.  Did you 

15  have discussions about it?  So, were things 

16  resolved then?

17            MR. WILSON:  No, ma'am.

18            MS. SILVEY:  Oh, well, okay.  I 

19  was looking for yes to that one.  But 

20  anyway, that's all right.  Okay.

21            So, you all are in ongoing 

22  discussions on that, I take it.  Okay.

23            The next thing I wanted to 

24  comment on was with respect to the size, 

25  and you talked about certain things that go 

                                                                   113

 1  on in the mine and you had some concerns 

 2  about where mechanized mining equipment is 

 3  being installed or -- and that was -- or 

 4  installed or removed.  As many of you know, 

 5  in terms of a definition of the word -- 

 6  that was included -- we included that in 

 7  terms of structuring the capacity for inby 

 8  refuge alternatives.  And it was supposed 

 9  to include where people are working in the 

10  working section or where mechanized mining 

11  equipment is being installed or removed.  

12  That size is supposed to be taken into 

13  consideration to accommodate those persons 

14  just so -- and that's clear to everybody.  

15  That was our intent.  And I think that was 

16  pretty clear in the -- in the proposal.

17            And then you talked about the -- 

18  okay.  That's what I -- and we also talked 

19  about -- you talked about a lot of 

20  outsourcing in Alabama mines.  And we also 

21  said that -- that the capacity should be 

22  enough to accommodate persons working near 

23  the sections and we included surveyors, 

24  vendors and so -- and other persons who 

25  work near the section.

                                                                   114

 1            So, I think we put it -- we did 

 2  talk about accommodating persons working -- 

 3  I think we -- we talked about accommodating 

 4  all of the persons you just spoke -- you 

 5  spoke about here today and if you read in 

 6  the preamble, we did speak about those 

 7  people.

 8            I think that's all I have.  

 9  Those are all the comments I have right 

10  now.  Do you have anything?  

11            MR. EPPERLY:  No.

12            MR. WILSON:  Thank you.

13            MS. SILVEY:  Wait a minute.  

14  Just a minute.

15            All right.  Thank you.

16            At this point, does anybody else 

17  wish to make any comment?

18            (Mr. Rau raises his hand.)

19            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  Mr. Rau.  

20  Wait.  I'm sorry.  Before I take you, 

21  Mr. Rau, I knew I had -- I saw you, believe 

22  me.

23            Mr. Byram, could I ask you to 

24  please come up for a few minutes?  I have a 

25  few more comments I have to ask you.  Then 

                                                                   115

 1  we'll take you, Mr. Rau.

 2            It dawned on me, Mr. Byram, 

 3  after you finished your testimony -- if you 

 4  don't mind, I wanted to further ask you 

 5  about the borehole situation that you all 

 6  have.  And if you would just explain to me 

 7  a little bit about where you have -- right 

 8  now do you have them in terms of providing, 

 9  you know, either breathable air or a source 

10  of refuge; where you have them, any 

11  issues -- and just the conditions under 

12  which you have them, any issues associated 

13  therewith or anything like that, if you 

14  would, please.

15            MR. BYRAM:  We have one that's 

16  located in our Number Four mine.

17            MS. SILVEY:  One borehole now?  

18            MR. BYRAM:  One borehole.  It's 

19  in a -- into a waiting station that's 

20  located near an exit point for the mine, an 

21  emergency exit shaft.  It's large enough to 

22  accommodate a large number of employees.  

23  It has food, water, first aid equipment and 

24  things like that.

25            In our application with the 

                                                                   116

 1  terrain that's over our mines and the depth 

 2  of our mines, it's not feasible for us to 

 3  use that option of being able to drill 

 4  within 48 hours to reach a certain point.  

 5  One, you -- you have to look at the 

 6  terrain.  You also may have -- as the mines 

 7  progress and expand, you may find yourself 

 8  under a slurry pond or a lake and there's 

 9  no way to drill through that given point.  

10  The --

11            MS. SILVEY:  But the --

12            MR. BYRAM:  Ma'am?  

13            MS. SILVEY:  I'm sorry to 

14  interrupt you.

15            MR. BYRAM:  That's okay.

16            MS. SILVEY:  But that one 

17  borehole that  have, you don't think -- 

18  you don't see the possibility of 

19  advancing it, of moving it?

20            MR. BYRAM:  You can move and set 

21  up another borehole, but when we try and 

22  look at the reg in a timely manner, looking 

23  at what's best for the miner and how 

24  expedient we could get to and use that as 

25  an option, there is -- I do understand that 

                                                                   117

 1  there is a mine in our state that uses that 

 2  as an option.  But it won't work for us.

 3            It takes us -- it could take us 

 4  24 hours to just reach and prep a site; and 

 5  then the 2,000 feet to drill, we could not 

 6  get to them in 48 hours to provide 

 7  breathable air.  For us it's just not an 

 8  option.  It's -- it's a good adjunct where 

 9  it is and we plan on looking at making more 

10  but not to comply with the law.

11            MR. EPPERLY:  Did you consider 

12  extending the pipe underground from the 

13  borehole?

14            MR. BYRAM:  We had discussed 

15  that, but you have to be able to protect 

16  the pipe and that's another challenge in 

17  itself.

18            MS. SILVEY:  Okay.  I appreciate 

19  you coming back.  I wanted to get a look 

20  at -- a better understanding of how that 

21  was at least currently being used.  And if 

22  any other operators are in this audience or 

23  miners for that matter and you have any 

24  additional comments on the boreholes, if 

25  you would provide those to us before the 

                                                                   118

 1  record closes on August 18th, we would 

 2  appreciate that.  Thank you.

 3            Okay.  Mr. Rau.

 4            MR. RAU:  Thank you, Ms. Silvey.

 5            Just quickly going back to what 

 6  Tom was saying and also the question you 

 7  asked in regards to ambient temperature, is 

 8  it possible just thinking outside of the 

 9  box here to put a subsequent request for 

10  information to accompany this which asks 

11  mining operations around the U.S., 

12  specifically all coal mining operations to 

13  collect temperature data for use in terms 

14  of determining what these specified ambient 

15  temperatures should be?

16            I'm sure it would only take a 

17  matter of moments to send a guy down on a 

18  shift to the face, have him record with a 

19  monitor dry-bulb, wet-bulb convection and 

20  have that information sent back to MSHA so 

21  you can get a database of what the actual 

22  temperatures are in various states.

23            MS. SILVEY:  The answer -- the 

24  short answer to that is yes.  There's -- 

25  you can always do, you know, a lot of 

                                                                   119

 1  things.  And there may be alternative ways 

 2  we can get information on ambient 

 3  temperature -- mine temperatures for mines 

 4  in the U.S., underground coal mines in the 

 5  U.S.

 6            So, recognizing, as I've said to 

 7  everybody earlier and I'm going to say that 

 8  again one more time, that we are required 

 9  by law to issue this final rule by December 

10  the 31st.  So, to some extent we do have 

11  some constraints on us, but we are going to 

12  try to deal with the best data framework 

13  that we can have.

14            So, whatever information people 

15  would like to send in to us that relates to 

16  this issue, we will be more than pleased to 

17  get it and then we will just try to reach 

18  out and address this.  And as I said 

19  earlier, any ideas that you have will be 

20  useful.

21            And that was an idea, but the 

22  thing -- the issue with doing an RFI -- an 

23  RFI is a regulatory document.  And so you 

24  have to put a time limit -- you have to put 

25  it in the Federal Register in a -- with a 

                                                                   120

 1  time constraint period on it and that type 

 2  of thing.

 3            So, there may be an alternative 

 4  way of doing it that we can deal with 

 5  addressing this issue, but we appreciate 

 6  whatever ideas that people have.

 7            MR. EPPERLY:  Foster-Miller in 

 8  their docket has information in a December 

 9  '07 report related to ambient temperatures 

10  in different regions throughout the 

11  country.  So, you can comment to those, 

12  too, or everyone in the U.S. can comment to 

13  those numbers that are in a chart, in a 

14  table.

15            MR. RAU:  I've actually -- I've 

16  spoken to Greg Campbell who collated those 

17  results.  And in most instances -- for 

18  instance, in West Virginia the information 

19  came from three mines and that's it.  So, 

20  it wasn't really a representative data.

21            I mean, I'm hoping that the 

22  mining industry here would reach out and 

23  say, you know, this is important and 

24  provide -- I'm not sure what the 

25  stipulation is here, but typically in 

                                                                   121

 1  Australia we do quarterly ventilation 

 2  surveys, particularly in the hotter 

 3  months.  So, you're in that period right 

 4  now.  There's probably mining companies 

 5  around the country doing ventilation 

 6  surveys as we speak and it would simply be 

 7  a matter of them providing that 

 8  information.

 9            MS. SILVEY:  I think we probably 

10  have the wherewithal to get some of that -- 

11  most of that information.

12            MR. RAU:  Thank you.

13            MS. SILVEY:  Thank you.  Does 

14  anybody else have any comment -- additional 

15  comments that they would like to make?

16            (No response.)

17            MS. SILVEY:  Anybody else?

18            (No response.)

19            MS. SILVEY:  If nobody else has 

20  any comment or testimony that they would 

21  like to provide at today's public hearing, 

22  then I would like to say on behalf of MSHA 

23  and our acting assistant secretary that we 

24  appreciate very much your attendance here 

25  today.

                                                                   122

 1            For those of you who came and 

 2  did not make a comment, we appreciate your 

 3  interest in the public hearing today.  For 

 4  those of you who did testify, I want you to 

 5  know how very much we appreciate that.  And 

 6  for those of you who testified and promised 

 7  additional supporting material, we look 

 8  forward to getting that before the record 

 9  closes on August the 18th.

10            At this time, there being nobody 

11  else who wishes to comment, I'm going to 

12  conclude the Mine Safety and Health 

13  Administration's public hearing on the 

14  Agency's proposed rule on refuge 

15  alternatives for underground coal mining.  

16  Thank you.  

17             END OF PROCEEDINGS 

18            (The MSHA Public Hearing

19             concluded at 11:55 a.m.)

20         

21         

22         

23         

24         

25         

                                                                   123

 1            C E R T I F I C A T E

 2                       

 3  STATE OF ALABAMA )

 4  JEFFERSON COUNTY )

 5  

 6           I hereby certify that the above

 7  and foregoing hearing was taken down

 8  by me in stenotype, and the questions and

 9  answers thereto were reduced to computer

10  print under my supervision, and that the

11  foregoing represents a true and correct 

12  transcript of the deposition given by 

13  said witness upon said hearing.

14  

15           I further certify that I am 

16  neither of counsel nor of kin to the 

17  parties to the action, nor am I in 

18  anywise interested in the result of said 

19  cause.

20                       

21        ______________________________
          Dana Gordon, Commissioner
22         ACCR #146

23         

24         

25