UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
           
                                 + + + + +
           
                            DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
           
                                 + + + + +
           
                   MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
           
                                 + + + + +
           
                            PUBLIC HEARING RE:
                INTERIM FINAL RULE FOR HAZARD COMMUNICATION
                          IN THE MINING INDUSTRY
           
                                 + + + + +
           
                                 THURSDAY,
                            SEPTEMBER 27, 2001
           
                                 + + + + +
           
           
                 The Public Hearing was held at the National
           Mine Health and Safety Academy Auditorium, 1301
           Airport Road, Beaver, West Virginia, at 9:00 a.m.,
           Ernest Teaster, Moderator, presiding.
           
           PANELISTS:
           
                 ERNIE TEASTER, MODERATOR, Administrator, Metal
                       and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health
                 RICHARD FEEHAN, Educational Policy Development
                 DEBORAH GREEN, Solicitor's Office
                 CAROL JONES, Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety
           and
                       Health
                 ROBERT SNASHALL, Solicitor's Office
                 CHERIE HUTCHISON, Office of Standards,
                       Regulations, and Variances
                 PHAN PHUC, Office of Standards, Regulations,
           and
                       Variances                                 I-N-D-E-X
           
           Opening Statements - Moderator Teaster . . . . . . 4
           
           Testimony of Gary Trout. . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Timothy Miller  . . . . . . . . . . .28
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Larry Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Donald Keith. . . . . . . . . . . . .40
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Larry Huestis . . . . . . . . . . . .50
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Andrew Laferty. . . . . . . . . . . .73
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Wayne Conaway . . . . . . . . . . . .83
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Terry Richardson. . . . . . . . . . .89
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Bob Morris. . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Charles Miller. . . . . . . . . . . 113
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Scott Irwin . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of John Ely. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Dwayne Barton . . . . . . . . . . . 142
           
           Testimony of Danny Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of David Bradley . . . . . . . . . . . 149
           United Mine Workers
           
           
                             I-N-D-E-X (Cont.)
           
           Testimony of Samuel Johnson. . . . . . . . . . . 151
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Tom Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Mike Browning . . . . . . . . . . . 168
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Edward Yevincy. . . . . . . . . . . 178
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Tim Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
           United Mine Workers
           
           Testimony of Stan Stemkowski . . . . . . . . . . 205
           United Mine Workers                           P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
                                                    (8:44 a.m.)
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Good morning, and
           welcome to MSHA's public hearing on the Interim Final
           Rule for hazard communications in the mining industry.
                       I'm Ernie Teaster, administrator for metal
           and non-metal, and I will be your moderator here
           today.  The members of today's panel are Bob Snashall
           from the Solicitor's Office, Richard Feehan, from our
           office of standards, regulations, and variances,
           Cherie Hutchison, who is from our office of standards,
           regulations, and variances; Carol Jones from metal,
           non-metal, and Phan Phuc, from the office of
           standards, regulations, and variances.
                       We are here to listen to your comments on
           the hazard communications Interim Final Rule, which we
           published on October 3rd last year.  We are holding
           this Hearing in accordance with section 101 of the
           Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
                       As is our practice, we will conduct the
           Hearing in an informal manner.  During the proceeding
           panel members may ask questions of the presenters.
                       Although formal rules of evidence will not
           apply, we will be taking a verbatim transcript of the
           Hearing, and we will make it a part of the official
           rulemaking record.
                       The Hearing transcript will be made
           available for public, review by the public, along with
           all comments and data that MSHA has received to date.
                       The entire rulemaking record, of course,
           is available at our office in Arlington, Virginia.  If
           you wish a personal copy of the Hearing transcript,
           please make your own arrangements with the Court
           Reporter.
                       Now let me briefly give you some of the
           background on the Interim Final Rule, and highlight
           its major provisions.  Following that I will share
           with you some of our reaction to some of the comments
           received thus far.
                       On November 2nd, 1987, the United Mine
           Workers of America, and the United Steel Workers of
           America jointly petitioned MSHA to adapt OSHA's health
           communication standard, hazard communication standard
           to both coal and metal, and non-metal mines, and
           propose it for the mining industry. 
                       They based their petition on the need for
           miners to be better informed about chemical hazards,
           and that miners working at both surface and
           underground coal and metal, and non-metal mines, are
           exposed to a variety of hazardous chemicals.
                       On March 30, 1988, in response to this
           petition, MSHA published an advance notice to proposed
           rulemaking on hazard communication for the mining
           industry. 
                       In this notice we indicated that we would
           use the OSHA hazard communication standard as a basis
           for our standard, and requested specific comments on
           a number of related issues. 
                       We published a notice of proposed
           rulemaking on hazard communication on November 2nd,
           1990, and held three public Hearings in October 1991. 
           The record closed January 31st, 1992.
                       Interim comments on our advance notice of
           proposed rulemaking and proposed rule, commenters
           represented both small and large mining companies,
           individual miners, a variety of trade associations,
           state mining associations, chemical and equipment
           manufacturers, national and local unions, members of
           Congress, and other federal agencies. 
                       We reopened the rulemaking record on March
           30th, 1999, requesting comments on the impact of the
           proposed rule on the environment, small mines, state,
           local, and tribal governments, and health and safety
           of children.
                       The National Environmental Policy Act, and
           most recent statutes, and Executive Orders, included
           requirements for us to evaluate the impact of a
           regulatory action in these areas.
                       At that time we also requested comments on
           the information collection, and paperwork requirements
           of certain provisions of the proposal, now considered
           as an informational collection burden under the
           expanded definition of information under the Paperwork
           Reduction Act of 1995.
                       We received seven comments to the limited
           reopening of the rulemaking record, primarily from
           trade associations, and labor organizations.  The
           rulemaking record closed June 1, 1999.
                       On June 3rd, 2000, we published an Interim
           Final Rule on hazard communication, with an effective
           date of October 3, 2001.  October 3rd, 2001.
                       We gave commenters until November the
           17th, 2000, to submit comments.  The Interim Final
           Rule specifically requested comments on the plain
           language format, and the content of the Interim Final
           Rule.
                       Non-operators experience under OSHA's
           hazard communications standards, and any changes in
           the mining industry since the publication of the
           proposed rule.
                       On December 7th, 2000, we personally spoke
           with, or emailed all commenters, and other interested
           persons, telling them of our decision to hold a public
           Hearing in Washington, D.C., on December 14th, 2000.
                       The Public Notice of the Hearing appeared
           in the Federal Register on December 11th, 2000.  We
           received 22 written comments on the Interim Final Rule
           and heard testimony from six persons at the Public
           Hearing on December 14th, 2000.
                       Commenters objected to what they
           considered to be an inadequate comment period, and an
           inadequate notice of a Hearing.  These commenters
           stated that they did not have sufficient time to fully
           analyze the impact of the Interim Final Rule, which
           affected their ability to develop and submit
           meaningful comments.
                       They also stated that many operators were
           unable to testify at the Hearing, because they did not
           have enough time to prepare testimony, and make plans
           to attend the Hearing. 
                       Members of the mining community have also
           stated that because this is the first time MSHA
           promulgated an Interim Final Rule, there is some
           confusion about their compliance obligations.
                       The National Miners Association, and the
           National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, have
           asked for a delay in the effective date of the Interim
           Final Rule until we respond to their previous comments
           submitted on it.
                       A number of mine operators and trade
           associations challenged the hazard communication
           Interim Final Rule in the US Court of Appeals, and the
           United Mine Workers of America, and the United Steel
           Workers of America have intervened in that litigation.
                       Now I will briefly highlight the six major
           provisions of the Rule.  Hazard determination.  The
           hazard communication Interim Final Rule requires mine
           operators to identify the chemicals at their mines,
           and determine if they present a physical, or a health
           hazard to the miners, based on the chemical's label
           and material safety data sheet referred to as MSDS
           sheet, or on a review of the scientific evidence.
                       Under the Interim Final Rule for the
           purpose of hazard communication, MSHA considers a
           chemical hazard, and subject to the hazard
           communication rule, if it is listed at any one of the
           following four recognized authorities or sources.
                       Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations,
           chapter 1.  The American Conference on Government and
           Industrial Hygienist, threshold limit values, and
           biological exposure indices.
                       The National Toxicology program annual
           report on carcinogens, and both of those would have
           been the latest edition under the Interim Final Rule. 
           The International Agency for Research on Cancer,
           mammograms, or supplements.
                       The hazard communications program.  The
           hazard communication Interim Final Rule requires mine
           operators to develop, implement, and maintain a
           written program to establish a hazard communication
           program. 
                       The program must include procedures for
           implementing hazard communication through labeling,
           MSDSs, and training of miners.  A list of hazardous
           chemicals known to be present at the mine, and a
           description of how mine operators will inform miners
           of the chemical hazards present in non-routine tasks,
           or of chemicals in unlabeled pipes and containers.
                       If the mine has more than one operator, or
           has an independent contractor on-site, the hazard
           communication program also would have to describe how
           the mine operator would inform other operators about
           the chemical hazards and protective measures needed.
                       Container labeling.  A label is an
           immediate warning about a chemical's most serious
           hazards.  The hazard communication Interim Final Rule
           requires mine operators to ensure that containers of
           hazardous chemicals are marked, tagged, or labeled
           with the identity of the hazardous chemical, and
           appropriate hazard warning.  The label must be in
           english and prominently displayed.
                       I would like to clarify one point about
           the labeling requirements.  Practically speaking very
           little labeling is required.  You only have to label
           stationery process containers, and temporary portable
           containers, and then only under some circumstances.
                       Chemicals coming onto mine property are
           almost always labeled.  They would not have to relabel
           them unless the existing label becomes unreadable.
                       You would not have to label containers of
           raw material being mined or milled by their own mine
           property.  You would not have to label mine products
           that go off a mine property.
                       You would have to provide the labeling
           information to downstream users upon request. 
                       Material safety data sheets.  A chemical's
           material safety data sheet provides comprehensive
           technical and emergency information.  It is a
           reference document for mine operators, exposed miners,
           health professionals, and firefighters, or other
           public safety workers.
                       The Hazard Communication Interim Final
           Rule requires mine operators to have an MSDS for each
           hazardous chemical at the mine.  Mine operators should
           already have MSDSs provided by the supplier for those
           chemicals brought to the mine.
                       The MSDSs must be accessible in the work
           area where the chemical is present or in a central
           location immediately accessible to miners in an
           emergency.
                       HAZCOM training.  The Hazard Communication
           Interim Final Rule requires mine operators to
           establish a training program to ensure that miners
           understand the hazards of each chemical in their work
           area, the information on MSDSs, and labels, and how to
           access this information when needed, and what measures
           they can take to protect themselves from harmful
           exposure.
                       Under the Interim Final Rule mine
           operators have the flexibility of combining the
           training requirements for the hazard communication
           with existing part 46 and part 48 training. 
                       The Interim Final Rule does not require
           mine operators to have an independent training program
           separate from part 46 and part 48 training. 
                       Mine operators already cover some of the
           above information in their current training program. 
           If so they do not have to retrain miners about the
           same information. 
                       We designed the hazard communication
           training requirements to be integrated into the
           existing training program for miners.
                       Making HAZCOM information available.  The
           HAZCOM, the Hazard Communication Interim Final Rule
           requires mine operators to provide miners, their
           designated representative, MSHA, and NIOSH, with
           access to the materials that are part of the hazard
           communication program. 
                       These include the program itself, the list
           of hazardous chemicals, labeling information, MSDSs,
           training materials, and any other material associated
           with the program. 
                       Mine operators do not have to provide
           copies of the training materials purchased for use in
           training sessions, such as videos.  Also mine
           operators do not have to disclose the identity of a
           trade secret chemical, except where there is a
           compelling medical or occupational health need.
                       I will now share with you our thoughts on
           some of the comments we've received on the Interim
           Final Rule. 
                       Commenters representing the aggregate
           industry argued strenuously that the Hazard
           Communication Rule is unnecessary, and that the
           aggregate industry should be exempt from the Rule.
                       The HAZCOM Rule does not duplicate other
           MSHA standards, it augments, supplements, and
           complements these existing standards.  The Rule
           specifically deals with chemicals and chemical
           exposure.
                       Chemicals may be used in any mine,
           including those in the aggregate industry.  There have
           been hundreds of chemical burns in the aggregate
           industry.  Chemical burns can occur on any part of the
           body.
                       Skin burns may require multiple skin
           grafts, and require repeated hospitalization.  Eye
           burns can be serious and result in permanent loss of
           eyesight.
                       We believe the burden of small mines is
           less than some commenters stated.  First, small mines
           typically use far fewer chemicals than large mines. 
           And in many cases no new chemicals. 
                       Second, small mines typically use
           chemicals in small quantities, and for shorter periods
           of time, similar to household use.
                       Third, many of the chemicals used at small
           mines are not covered by the Rule.  For example, soaps
           used for washing hands are cosmetic, and are exempt. 
           A can of spray paint is a consumer product, and exempt
           when used in small quantities, intermittently.
                       The length of exposure, as well as the
           amount, is really the determining factor.  A can of
           spray paint only lasts a short time.  Glue, or
           adhesive, when used intermittently in small
           quantities, are exempt.
                       Again, the length of exposure, as well as
           the amount, is the determining factor in whether or
           not a consumer product is exempt.  We recognize,
           however, that not all mines are likely to use a wide
           range of chemicals. 
                       Although we cannot exempt the aggregate
           industry from hazard communication, as we said, there
           are steps we can take to minimize the burden of the
           Rule. 
                       For example, we intend to make extensive
           compliance assistance visits, and conduct extensive
           outreach.  We also will be finalizing a compliance
           guide to help operators and miners understand the
           application of the HAZCOM final rule.
                       We are developing a variety of compliance
           aides, such as a model HAZCOM program, a training
           video for mine operators about determining chemical
           hazards, and a training video for miners about
           chemical hazards reading the MSDS.
                       A draft of MSHA's Compliance Guide has
           been on the MSHA website for months.  If you refer to
           the Compliance Guide, many of these issues are
           explained.
                       If you have any question in these areas,
           send them by email to comments@msha.gov, or the Office
           of Standards at the address listed in the Hearing
           Notice.
                       We will use these questions to clarify
           your responsibilities and include additional or better
           examples in the compliance guide.  
                       As a rule of thumb, however, if you are in
           compliance with OSHA's Rule, you will be in compliance
           with MSHA's Rule.
                       In the same vein, mine operators may
           obtain help from organizations that have developed
           generic guides to help OSHA's health communication
           standard, because HAZCOM contains the same basic
           requirements.
                       We will provide links, on our website, to
           some organizations which have developed a variety of
           generic HAZCOM material.  While it will remain the
           responsibility of each operator to develop and
           implement a HAZCOM program, and to have MSDSs, to the
           extent possible we will help you establish a hazard
           communication program, if requested.
                       We have already taken other steps in
           revising our Interim Final Rule to make it easier for
           mine operators to comply, without reducing the
           projections afforded by the Rule. 
                       We are considering the final substantive
           changes to the Interim Final Rule in response to
           commenters concerns.  We are also considering several
           non-substantive changes to clarify our intent and
           correct errors based on the commenters perspectives
           and questions. 
                       Under hazard determination we may revise
           a reference to the American Conference of
           Government/Industrial Hygienist, the National
           Toxicology Program, and the International Agency of
           Research on Cancer, from those considered in
           determining if a chemical is a hazard, and if a
           chemical is carcinogenic.
                       One option we are considering, in
           determining whether a chemical is a hazard, is to
           refer to the 2001 editions of the American Conference
           of Governmental/Industrial Hygienists, TLV booklet,
           and the International Agency for Research of Cancer,
           and the National Toxicology Program.
                       In determining whether a chemical is
           carcinogenic, we are considering referring only to the
           2001 editions of the National Toxicology Program and
           the International Agency for Research of Cancer.
                       We had expected the use of the American
           Conference of Government/Industrial Hygienist, the
           National Toxicology Program, and the International
           Agency for Research on Cancer list, to reduce the
           burden on the mine operator, because the miners use
           relatively few hazardous chemicals for which they
           would have to develop an MSDS and label.
                       Commenters objected to the use of these
           listings, stating that the organizations which
           compiled them, offer no opportunity for public
           comment.  They impose unknown future requirements by
           citing the latest edition, and they violate
           regulations governing incorporation by reference.
                       We are hoping to consider alternatives,
           where the impact of the alternative would not reduce
           protection afforded miners by the Interim Final Rule.
                       Concerning labels and MSDSs, commenters
           requested additional language to clarify that the
           designated responsible person mentioned on the labels
           and MSDSs, can be the mine operator. 
                       Accordingly we are considering changing
           these provisions to read the name, address, and
           telephone number of the operator, or a responsible
           person who can provide that information. 
                       Concerning the availability of the MSDSs,
           commenters asked that we increase compliance
           flexibility, and recognize that MSDSs may be stored in
           a computer.
                       In response we are considering modifying
           the requirement to have MSDSs available for each
           hazardous chemical before using it, requiring the
           operator have an MSDS available for each hazardous
           chemical which they use.
                       MSHA is also considering accepting a list
           of OSHA PELs on MSDS as an alternative to listing the
           MSHA PEL.  This would facilitate the use of widespread
           existing MSDSs, and reduce costs by eliminating the
           need to develop additional MSDSs.
                       In response to comments concerning hazard
           communication training, we are considering changing
           the language from requiring the operator to train the
           miner whenever introducing a new hazardous chemical
           into the miner's work area, to requiring training when
           the operator introduces a new chemical hazard into the
           miner's work area.
                       This change would clarify MSHA's intent
           that when a new chemical is introduced, additional
           training is required, only if the hazards change. 
           This is the intent, as discussed in the preamble of
           the Interim Final Rule. 
                       Also, in response to comments, we are
           considering revising the definition of health hazards. 
           The Interim Final Rule defines health hazard to
           include chemicals that damage the nervous system,
           including psychological, or behavioral problems.
                       We are considering deleting the phrase
           psychological or behavioral problems.  We are also
           considering adding the criteria toxic, or highly
           toxic, to more closely conform to the language to that
           in OSHA's hazard communication standard. 
                       The Hazard Communication Interim Final
           Rule is an information and training standard that
           requires mine operators to know about the chemicals at
           their mines, and to inform miners about the risk
           associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals, the
           safety measures implemented at the mine to control
           exposures, and safe work practice.
                 The Hazard Communication Interim Final Rule does
           not restrict chemical use, require control, or set
           exposure limits.
                       We will publish our response to the
           written comments, including those comments received
           today at this Hearing, in the preamble to the Hazard
           Communication Final Rule.
                       We will consider all comments contained in
           the rulemaking record from the publication of the
           advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on March 30th,
           1998, through the close of the record on October 17th,
           2001, in a development of this final rule.
                       You may submit written comments to me
           during the Hearing, or send them to the address listed
           in the Hearing Notice.  We will also accept additional
           written comments, and other appropriate data, on this
           Final Rulemaking from any interested parties,
           including those who do not present oral statements. 
                       All comments and data submitted to MSHA,
           including that submitted to me, today, will be
           included in the rulemaking record.  The record will
           remain open until October 17th, 2001, for the
           submission of post-hearing comments.
                       We ask that you please sign the attendance
           sheet at the back, where you enter the room.  If you
           have not done so, we ask you to do that during the
           first break.
                       And if there is anyone that wants to speak
           we have our sign-up sheet at the back of the room, we
           would ask you to please sign up.
                       We will begin with the folks that have
           signed up in advance, to speak.  If there is time, and
           we will make time, at the end of that any one in the
           audience who wants to come up and make a statement
           will be able to do so.
                       We will ask that anyone that has a
           statement, or a comment, that they come to the podium
           to speak.  We will continue the Hearing until all
           speakers have the opportunity to address the panel.
                       Should it be necessary to be extended
           beyond 5 o'clock we will stay as long as we need to,
           so that all that choose to do so, will have an
           opportunity to speak. 
                       This concludes my opening statement.  We
           will now start with the speakers.  Our first speaker
           of the day is Gary Trout, from the United Mine Workers
           District 29.
                       MR. TROUT:  Good morning.   My name is
           Gary Trout, I'm from the United Mine Workers of
           America Local Union 1335.
                       On October 3rd of 2000, after years of
           delay, MSHA finally issued an Interim Final Rule,
           which would provide safeguards for miners against
           harmful chemicals in the workplace.
                       This rule would have went into effect
           October of 2001.  On August 28th, 2001 MSHA stopped
           this HAZCOM rule from going into effect.  By doing
           this MSHA has thrown the entire HAZCOM Rule wide open
           for comments, and to date, soliciting comments on any
           issue relevant to the rulemaking. 
                       In our opinion, or in my opinion I should
           say, this severely weakens the rule that was out there
           for adoption, that should have went into effect.
                       You know, as I looked at the Rule, and
           looked at what OSHA already has, and OSHA has had a
           HAZCOM Rule for years, I think it is a shame that our
           miners, myself, my brothers and sisters, have to work
           in chemicals, or around chemicals that could cause
           various health effects. 
                       Joe Carter and I just recently was asked
           to come down to a doctor's office and visit some of
           our miners that are his patients.  And those folks had
           worked at preparation plants, and those folks had
           severe health, damage to their health. 
                       They had anything from Parkinson's-like
           disease, to various other nerve disorders.  And it was
           real -- an awakening experience for myself, and Joe,
           to see these folks in that condition.
                       And, you know, some folks would make the
           argument that these folks might have gotten these
           diseases from elsewhere, but two of those folks, one
           individual had worked at a preparation plant handling
           various chemicals.  
                       And when he got disabled to where he
           couldn't work any more, another individual took his
           place, and both of those individuals have the same
           symptoms now, after working at the same job
           occupation.
                       And, you know, it is just a shame that we
           can't provide the miners, I should say our miners,
           with the same protection that OSHA has for their
           workers.
                       It is my understanding that MSHA, in their
           opening statement, announced that they were going to
           look really hard at a lot of the objections posed by
           the mine operators. 
                       Myself, my brothers and my sisters, you
           know, we have objections too.  And those objections
           are that every day we are exposed to various types of
           chemicals.  And some of those chemicals could cause
           cancer.
                       And, ladies and gentlemen of the panel, I
           don't know whether any of you all have ever seen
           anyone who has died from cancer, but it is not a real
           pretty sight.
                       My father in law, who has over 35 years'
           experience around the mines, and around preparation
           plants, just recently, about a year and a half ago,
           died of cancer.  And that was very long suffering, and
           it just wasn't a very pretty sight.
                       And, you know, we've got a lot of miners
           up there that are exposed to these chemicals.  And,
           you know, I would just ask that each one of you look
           around and consider some of these individuals who have
           had serious injuries, and some who have possibly even
           died from chemical exposures.
                       And here today you are going to hear other
           testimony from individuals who has actually gotten
           burnt by chemicals working around preparation plants. 
                       And if you could just put yourself in
           their place, would you like to give up the job that
           you have and trade places with those folks, and be
           exposed to those chemicals that you know, that there
           is data out there, that some of these chemicals can
           cause cancer, and would expose your own self to
           cancer.
                       You know, it is my opinion that the HAZCOM
           rule should be put into effect, should have been put
           into effect on October 3rd of 2001, and I think that
           this rule, even though it is not perfect, it might
           very well have protected, and give our members
           protection from various types of chemicals. 
                       You know, I think that the access, that
           MSHA is there to protect miners, I think that MSHA
           should be enforcing the laws, and not delaying the
           implementation of these rules so that it could protect
           our miners.
                       In closing I would just ask each one of
           you, I would like to leave you with this question in
           mind.  As you contemplate this rule, how many miners
           must be injured or die before we can get a chemical
           exposure, of chemical exposure, before we can get a
           HAZMAT rule implemented.  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Gary, if I might, when
           you and Mr. Carter visited the doctor, do you know
           what chemicals that these miners were supposedly
           exposed to?
                       MR. TROUT:  I can have Dr. Kasincko
           probably get that information to you, Ernie.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Okay.
                       MR. TROUT:  It was flocculent, but I don't
           know the specific chemicals.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Gary you, I know, get
           around to a lot of different mines.  Are you familiar
           with to what extent Part 48 training is provided to
           the miners under the annual refresher training that
           deal specifically with hazards, chemical hazards at
           their operations?
                       MR. TROUT:  I know the retraining that I
           attend at various operations, you know, normally there
           is very little, if any, given.  At the ones that I
           have attended.
                       You know, it is kind of a hush hush
           situation that, you know, nobody wants to get into. 
           The only way that any of our members can get any
           information is basically trying to force the issue to
           get any type of MSDS sheets, or anything of that
           nature.  It is real hard to do, Ernie, real hard.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Okay, thanks.  Some of
           the mine operators currently get MSDSs.  Are you aware
           of that? 
                       MR. TROUT:  Yes.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  And do you know if
           there is a request, do the miners normally request to
           see those, and whether or not those are made available
           to the miners?
                       MR. TROUT:  I don't think it is made
           available to the miners, straightforward.  I think
           that normally they have to make a request.  And my
           experience has been, when they make a request, a lot
           of times they don't get a sufficient MSDS sheet.
                       A lot of times they will have like maybe
           half of it there, and some of it be gone, it doesn't
           go into any details toward the chemicals that might be
           involved in there, about the reactions that may occur
           if you are overexposed to it.
                       Any type of treatment that might be
           necessary if you are overexposed, it doesn't go into
           any of that kind of detail.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Okay, thank you.  Our
           next speaker will be Timothy Miller, United Mine
           Workers Local 9177.
                       MR. MILLER:  Good morning, Panel.  I am
           Timothy Miller, I have worked in the mines for 26
           years, I'm presently employed with Peabody Coal at
           their Rocklake preparation plant. 
                       And at our plant alone there is probably
           in excess of 12 chemicals that not everyone comes in
           contact, but is used on the job site, each and every
           day.  Sheets are available on some, but they are not
           very extensive into what we can do after we've been
           exposed, or anything of that nature.
                       I would like to read some notes, or
           something I wrote down.  We need to have the right to
           know what we are working with, at all times.  We need
           to be able to force our employers to use a chemical
           that is after if it is available, even if our employer
           has to pay more for it.
                       We need more training on each chemical,
           and all dangers involved with using it.  I would like
           to see a law put into effect that would force
           employers to have a data sheet that would be sent with
           an employee to the emergency room, or doctor's office,
           in the event one comes in contact with the hazardous
           chemical.
                       We need some training for our employees to
           be able to administer proper first aid to coworkers
           who have been exposed to hazardous chemicals before
           being sent for medical assistance.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Tim, are the
           chemicals, you said there are probably 12 used at your
           operation?
                       MR. MILLER:  Yes, sir. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Has the company made
           the miners aware of what those 12 chemicals are?
                       MR. MILLER:  Only if you ask, and then
           what we are given out is like the chemical makeup, not
           exactly what it is, what the long-term effect is, to
           look out for signs, like if a skin irritation starts,
           that it is an exposure, and that you need medical
           attention, or something. 
                       And even our employers, I don't really
           feel that they are aware of what dangers are involved
           with each of the chemicals. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  The information that
           you get related to the hazards associated with these
           chemicals, and the type of chemicals, does that come
           as part of your part 48 training, or is that something
           that is passed on to you as you perform various tasks?
                       MR. MILLER:  It is passed on to you, if
           you ask.  It is not automatically, before you start a
           new task, or a new job, you are not enlightened as to,
           you know, they just say this is what you use this for,
           they don't inform you, unless you ask, or you research
           it yourself, as to what that it can do to you, and
           what that it can do if it is mixed with something else
           incorrectly. 
                       Or what the long term effect is if you are
           exposed to it on a daily basis.  Or when we change
           from one chemical company to the other,  you know, you
           might be getting basically the same thing, but they
           make it up in a different process, and use some other
           chemical in making that. 
                       And that if we change our data sheets, are
           sort of slow about getting revitalized, and stuff.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Do you have any
           knowledge of any injuries that has occurred at the
           preparation plant where you work?
                       MR. MILLER:  Yes, sir.  I've seen chemical
           burns on skin, I've seen people suffer with watery
           eyes, or burn in their throat from being around
           different things, and cleaning.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Do you think these
           injuries were a result of the lack of knowledge of
           what exposures they were --
                       MR. MILLER:  Yes, sir.  And I think that
           the employers have a lack of knowledge, too.  I feel
           that they really need to research what they are
           bringing on the job, prior to bringing it.
                       And if there is something out there,
           better and cheaper, for the employer, even though that
           it is not as available as what they are getting, or
           maybe not from the supplier they have a contract with,
           we need to try to get a hold of that, and put that
           into effect.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  In your experience do
           miners commonly use MSDSs?
                       MR. MILLER:  Yes, sir.  Some do, some
           don't.  Where I'm at we have quite a bit of people
           that have worked underground, went into the
           preparation plant, they are not familiar with a lot of
           things.
                       And a lot of people are proud and are
           ashamed to ask.  And, you know, unless someone forces
           the employer to sort of school them in this, even
           though they might not come in contact with it but once
           a week, or something, at least give them some
           knowledge and be more informative about what they are
           using.
                       I've got a buddy that is a doctor.  A lot
           of times he gets people in, they tell him, I've been
           exposed to this.  Well, he doesn't know what that is. 
           And then it is a big bunch of red tape to try to find
           out what exactly that is, that he was exposed to.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Tim.
                       MR. MILLER:  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Larry Lee of United Mine Workers Local 1332.
                       MR. LEE:  Hello, good morning.  My name is
           Larry Lee, I work for Pittsburgh and Midway, out in
           New Mexico and Arizona, we are on the Navajo
           reservation, and we are a surface mine.
                       Out there we deal with a lot of dust, we
           have haul roads, and we have dump trucks and haul
           trucks that haul coal, and there is a lot of dust out
           there, and that is what we deal with every day.
                       And our Local is 1332, and the reason I
           came up before you guys, is we should make this HAZCOM
           a rule, a policy, let's make it a policy for the
           mines, either underground, surface, or aggregate.
                       And after all these years I think it
           should be made a policy.  So miners will know what
           they are dealing with, and mine operators, they will
           give us information on what we use out there, as
           HAZCOM.
                       And I know we deal with a lot of hazmat
           products out there, and some of these products we
           don't know what it is, but we use them every day, and
           we ask the management what it is, but they don't tell
           us, because it is not a rule, and we don't go through
           training for that. 
                       We go through training but they just give
           us a little overview of what it is, and I would like
           them to make it a full training process, that way we
           know what is in there, what the contents are in the
           MSDS sheets, and all that stuff. 
                       Because the other places where I worked
           before they have a training program that they give
           these chemicals about, and all that, because they have
           a rule.  But in the mining area they don't have that
           rule.
                       So I guess it is up to you guys to make it
           a rule, and all that.  That is why we came up here
           testifying before here, and giving an overview of what
           we think it is, and what we think should be done.
                       And over there at the mine, where I work,
           we have a chemical that is called penzzupress, we use
           it to mix it with water, and spray it on the haul
           road.  And we don't know what is in there, they don't
           tell us, there is no MSDS sheet about what the
           chemical is.
                       We tried talking to the management for the
           full page on there, or a full chart, but they don't do
           that, because they say it is not harmful, they won't
           do anything.  But we use it anyway.  Our people are
           exposed to it, our truck drivers.
                       They get it on their skin, and their
           clothes, and they come up to me and say, how come you
           are not doing anything about that?  Because over there
           I'm the safety chairman, so I try to work with the
           management. 
                       I ask them and it seems like they don't
           know, either, it is not a rule, and they don't have to
           worry about it.  And we use that stuff like three
           times a night for our haul roads.  We spray it on the
           haul road, and we mix it with water like 20 to 1, or
           whatever they tell us.  
                       They might say 5 to 1 or 10 to 1.  We try
           to mix it that way, and that stuff is dirty, it is
           sticky, it looks like tar.  And these guys are exposed
           to it almost daily.
                       And we don't know what is in that stuff. 
           All they tell us is that it is safe, and unharmful,
           and all that.  But then we put it on the road and the
           dust comes around, it blows it off, and we have people
           around the area, and they don't know what it is.
                       And we have people that have livestock
           around the area, and I think they should be made aware
           of what we use out there, what kind of harmful or harm
           that that stuff we use out there, I think they should
           be made aware of.
                       Because we have had people around there
           that live, that have animals, and livestock.  So I
           think this should be made a rule, and I think the mine
           operators should be aware of what they use out there,
           and let their miners know what is harmful, and what
           can kill them, or what can -- all the stuff that goes
           on.
                       I've heard miners that are commenting
           about that,  and I think it should be made into a
           policy, and all that.  That is why we are up here, in
           front of you guys, trying to testify and after all
           these years, and also the chemicals we use, solvents,
           whatever we use out there, hazmat, that they should
           all be labeled, instead of just saying chemical
           distillants.
                       We don't know what it is.  It can be
           anything.  I think it should be labeled, this is what
           it can do to you, or if you get it on yourself, or on
           your clothes.
                       So I guess all I'm saying is let's make it
           a rule and go from there.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Larry, you said that
           you asked for the information on this chemical that
           you used to spray the water, and the company wouldn't
           share any information with you, or they didn't have
           any information? 
                       MR. LEE:  They had the information, but
           they don't want to go deep into it and say, this is
           what it will do to you, or what --
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  So they do have the
           information, but don't share it with you.  Do you know
           if there is any other incidents where that type of
           chemical, or other types of chemicals that they had
           the information, and the miners requested it, and were
           not allowed to get that information? 
                       MR. LEE:  I tried to talk to the
           management, put MSDS sheets out there where people can
           read it, they don't do it.  And all they say is it is
           down in the warehouse, but we don't have time to go
           down there and read it.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  You also mentioned
           some other close by workers that maybe were covered
           under OSHA, where they had this information. 
                       Do you know if the miners regularly
           requested to review that information? 
                       MR. LEE:  I don't think so, not to my
           knowledge. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Okay.
                       MR. LEE:  And that penzzupress, we will
           use that on the haul roads, and then there is another
           chemical, mat chloride, we use that too.  And that
           stuff we don't have information on it too.  All they
           have is MSDS sheets, and that is all they can tell us.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  The dust suppressant that
           you mix with water, to use on the haul roads, does it
           come from a container that is labeled?
                       MR. LEE:  No, that stuff is like a big
           water tank, the truck comes in and just pumps it in
           there.  There is no label or anything on it.  The only
           thing it says on there is penzzupress, that is all.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  It says what? 
                       MR. LEE:  Penzzupress, P-E-N-Z-Z-U-P-R-E-
           S-S.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  And so there is no -- you
           have no information as to what this stuff contains?
                       MR. LEE:  No, as miners working there, we
           don't have any information. 
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  It is brought in, in bulk,
           pumped -- just verifying.  It is brought in, in bulk,
           pumped into a tank.  The only thing the tank says is
           the name of the product?
                       MR. LEE:  Uh hum.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  And you use the
           suppressant out at the tank, and mix it with water,
           and --
                       MR. LEE:  Yes.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  -- spray it --
                       MR. LEE:  Spray it on the haul roads.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  -- on the roads?
                       MR. SNASHALL:  Larry, you said that you
           don't get much training except a little review of what
           it is.  That little review you get, could you say
           something more about that, what little do they give
           you? 
                       MR. LEE:  We have an annual retraining, we
           call that.  That is the only place they give it to us.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  Not on task, when you are
           assigned a new job?
                       MR. LEE:  During that retraining we might
           not even have that stuff, and we don't know it,
           because the retraining is usually in the winter, and
           we don't use that in the winter.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  And in your retraining what
           is the nature of the training, what is the information
           that they give you? 
                       MR. LEE:  It is like first aid, then
           annual retraining, like haul roads, and equipment
           operation.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  On the chemicals, on your
           annual retraining, do they get into chemical hazards
           in your annual retraining?
                       MR. LEE:  Not that much.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  Okay, thank you.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Larry, could you come
           back?  We have one other question. 
                       MR. PHUC:  How much time do the operator
           take to do annual refresher training? 
                       MR. LEE:  Usually it is a full shift.
                       MR. PHUC:  Full shift is 8 hours?
                       MR. LEE:  Yes.
                       MR. PHUC:  And HAZCOM is not part of the
           training? 
                       MR. LEE:  It is part of the training, but
           it is just a little bit.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  About how much?
                       MR. LEE:  Maybe half an hour.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Sorry, Larry, thanks.
                       Our next speaker is Donald Keith, from
           United Mine Workers Local 1620.
                       MR. KEITH:  Hello.  My name is Donald
           Keith, and I'm from the Arizona Navajo Reservation,
           and as you can see I'm a Native American, just like
           Larry is.   
                       And there is four or five of us that is
           here today, and we are all gone into mining business,
           and I work for Peabody Coal Energy, Local 1620, in
           Arizona.
                       The way I'm concerned about this is if I
           may elaborate a little bit into the things that my
           Native American people are experiencing out there in
           the West.
                       As we all know that Native American people
           has been neglected quite a bit, going into anything
           that has been brought into the United States, what we
           consider United States, and we call it our Native
           American States.
                       Going back to the time of the wars, of the
           big wars, World War II in that sense, you know, people
           were -- a lot of my people were in need of jobs, so
           they went underground to become uranium miners.
                       And we all found out about, what, 20, 30
           years how harmful, how dangerous this is to human
           body, and because the nature that these people were
           illiterate in english, and not knowing what was all in
           those chemicals at the time, now people are out there
           suffering with cancer, and the dangerous amount of
           things that they've experienced.
                       And a lot of my people are, again, without
           medical facilities, or diagnosed with cancer.  And to
           continue with that, during the Vietnam War a lot of us
           had gone into Vietnam, and exposed to Agent Orange.
                       Here, again, no knowledge of what was we
           were involved in.  I have a brother in law, my nieces,
           they have been exposed to this, because their father
           was in contact with agent orange.  Now my niece, I see
           her hands and they are all swollen up, sores, because
           people that supposed to have this knowledge, they are
           not bringing out to the people the amount of dangers
           they are being exposed to.
                       I've seen some of my people, again, like
           Larry and me, safety committee chairman, and I have
           some rank and file members come up to me and ask me
           the things that they are exposed to.
                       You know, I have some people that are
           doing blastings, and shootings, and we call them
           shooters, and they have been in contact with different
           type of chemicals, and you can see that their hands
           have gotten sores, and they have been given time out
           to have their hands heal.
                       They have been to, again, bad medical
           facilities, and they don't know what is causing it. 
           But they say they have handled those shooters, and
           things that they use to explode, for explosive.
                       They have been in contact, they are given
           a different type of gloves.  But here, again, we don't
           know that the gloves is doing them any good.  But I
           know of three or four different cases now that a lot
           of these old miners because, here again, they didn't
           have the opportunity to have gone to school, and they
           don't know what they were in contact with, with
           management bringing all these type of different types
           of chemicals onto the mine property, and people are
           getting into it, being exposed to it.
                       And now they are suffering from hands they
           can hardly use any more. And without the knowledge,
           you know, had this chemical that is being brought on
           to the mine site, had they been labeled, and having a
           history of what it could cause, what it could do
           further down the road, and had these guys been taught,
           even if the management, I don't think the management
           -- I don't think they even have the knowledge of what
           these things are, when they bring these chemicals on
           to the mine site.
                       So that the management doesn't have the
           knowledge, how are they going to relate to their, to
           us miners about what dangerous effect it can cause us.
                       Yes, we do have these training courses,
           but all it is, is just numbers, statistics about
           things, and an 8 hour annual retraining, you don't
           have the time to get these out to people. 
                       You have so many other things that is
           involved in your 8 hour annual retraining, so that
           stuff usually doesn't come up to surface.
                       So, you know, I'm thinking about, my mouth
           is getting dry.  But I don't know why these people are
           giving these type of things, and it is not required to
           have these people given the knowledge to -- thank you,
           I appreciate that. 
                       But we should be informed of these things,
           and you know, we have a history where we have to get
           our people educated and into a society.  Back then, a
           long time ago, our people were taken off the
           reservation to be educated into a society where we all
           could speak a common language. 
                       And now that some of us have been
           educated, now there is this type of chemicals that has
           been brought out, and they don't even have it labeled
           to let us know what it can do to us.
                       I don't know where the problem is, but had
           MSHA brought this on long before, I think we could
           have been, us educated people could have in turn told
           -- we would have had the knowledge to tell our people
           what is going on, and they would have a different
           point of view about things right now.
                       Things are just so much into just making
           production, making more money for everybody, and the
           Native Americans are getting kicked around and without
           knowledge of these type of things, I don't know how it
           is going to affect us down the road.
                       I spent, all these excuses, we have heard
           all different kinds of excuses, just to procrastinate
           things, instead of preventing of these types of
           things, which has been prolonged.
                       And the economic factor there, that is the
           total loss, and so to be trained, and to have the
           knowledge, and also the management to have the
           knowledge to make these things available to us to help
           us with our health more effective.
                       I don't understand why this is being
           brought up and then shut down, and continue to let it
           sit there without any kind of effort being made to a
           law.
                       I think that we really do need to bring
           these concerns out to the people.  And not only am I
           talk about the miners, I'm also talking about people,
           like Larry said, we use these different types of
           chemicals on our roads.
                       And when we have all these different types
           of miners being exposed to, say on these big drag
           lines machines, the welders are -- when they heat up
           different type of toxic, and they are being exposed to
           different types of toxins, and they don't know what
           that is.  Some of these people get nauseated so they
           have to be relieved of their job for three or four
           hours before they can continue again.
                       And, here again, there is no knowledge of
           what we are all involved in, here.  So I've always --
           I went up to my management and asked them what they
           are going to do about that?  Again, they don't have
           the knowledge either.
                       And the people that are building these
           different type of chemicals and bringing them on the
           mine sites, I think they should be made aware to what
           they are doing, what they are bringing out.
                       So in terms, they, my management can have
           the knowledge to where they can let us know what we
           are involved in.
                       So basically I guess what we are saying
           is, why is it taking this long of a time to put a
           label on a barrel.  You know, it is simple, people
           make these things, they know what they are putting in
           all that stuff.
                       All they've got to do is write down what
           is in there, what the long-term effects are going to
           be, how it is going to hurt you.  You know, us Native
           Americans, we don't have the very thing -- we don't
           have the basic things, like running waters, stuff like
           that. 
                       And so all these chemicals that are left
           on-site, you know, we have a rain, and it gets on to
           different atmospheric, it is airborne, some of them
           are run into different type of water that is being
           where our livestocks are using up, drinking this
           water, eating these plants. 
                       So in an essence what I'm saying here is
           that whether it is the miners, or the people that are
           living around there, that are exposed to it.  Because
           they use their livestocks for food, and those
           livestocks drink out of that same water that is
           contaminated from these different type of chemicals,
           you know? 
                       And we have no knowledge of what is all
           out there.  A long time ago we were -- you know,
           people took our land and our water away from us, and
           they took our mountains away.  Now they are coming
           back and taking our rocks, and using all this kind of
           different type of chemicals. 
                       I don't know whether there is an excuse
           for it, not label these things, or why we have to go
           through this type of course again.  And, you know, I'm
           very concerned about it, and my people are concerned
           about it. 
                       And I think that this stuff needs to be
           labeled, it needs to be brought up, and it needs to be
           informed all the people what it is about.  And I think
           as long as we are -- have an excuse to procrastinate,
           and to prolong these type of accidents, it needs to be
           stopped, simple as that. 
                       You know, all you have to do is people
           that make these things, they just need to put it in
           writing and say, these are the dangerous effects.  It
           could help a lot of people's lives later on down the
           road.
                       And I am concerned about this thing.  And,
           again, I say that yes, we do need to have these things
           labeled so we have an understanding of what we are all
           doing.  And I thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  One thing, Donald, on
           the -- you mentioned the miners that were exposed to
           the chemicals associated with the explosives.
                       Did you say that the operator did not have
           the knowledge as to what chemicals were in there that
           may --
                       MR. KEITH:  No, they do not have the
           knowledge, because we did ask what is in that.  The
           guys that have these sores in their hands, are asking
           me to talk to them, and I ask why are these people
           getting those sores on their hand?  And they had no
           knowledge. 
                       And with poor medical facilities out
           there, and these people are, they don't have the
           education, so they are just living with it now.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  So prior to this
           occurring, did the company require gloves to be worn?
                       MR. KEITH:  No, no.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Just after this? 
                       MR. KEITH:  Yes, people started getting
           sores, so then they started providing different type
           of gloves.  But we don't know if that glove is going
           to protect their hands, because they already got sores
           in their hands, it is probably entered their immune
           system, and it is probably too late, you know? 
                       So whether you provide them with gloves
           after the fact, what good is it, you know? 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Did they, did the
           company -- do you have knowledge of whether the
           company had changed types of explosives that they
           used?
                       MR. KEITH:  The company is always trying
           to change different things to make it more efficient
           for their means of production.  It is not -- they are
           not looking at the health and the welfare of the
           people, they are looking at production. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  The OSHA rule which
           applies to most of the, other than mining, and they
           are required to provide labels.  So we have
           anticipated, under the drafting of our rule, that most
           of the labeling will be done by the manufacturer, and
           it will be there, in place, when it arrives on mine
           property.
                       Are you telling me that this is coming to
           the property with no labels, most of this stuff? 
                       MR. KEITH:  Probably, because we have no
           knowledge of, and the mine managers don't even know
           what they are bringing in.  But my problem here, my --
           I don't understand why it is taking this long.
                       I mean, if OSHA had this into law 12 years
           ago, and here we are still trying to implement
           something that has been out there for years and years,
           and here we are just having prolonging.
                       I don't know what type of excuse it is,
           but it is not on the law yet.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Donald.
                       MR. KEITH:  I think you guys.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Larry Huestis, the United Mine Workers.
                       MR. HUESTIS:  Good morning panel.  I'm
           Larry Huestis, I do the surface inspections for the
           United Mine Workers International in the western
           United States.  I'm also a past member, or current
           member of Local 1972 out of Sheridan, Wyoming, that is
           my home.
                       I have some personal experiences with some
           different chemicals that I was going to talk to you
           about.  But I have heard quite a few different
           questions, and I guess I would like to get into some
           of your questions you've asked some of the other
           speakers, from my experience going down to the Navajo
           Nation, for instance, doing safety inspections. 
                       Also, I guess maybe the Panel, I would ask
           them to really try to put themselves in a miner's
           shoes.  And I'm going to ask you to think about, for
           instance, I was hired at Decker Coal as a mechanic in
           1978.
                       And about 1983, '84, in that time frame,
           as a mechanic I was asked to, you know, repair things
           like brakes on Euclid 170s.  so I would take the wheel
           motors off the 170s.
                       And it became a very common practice.  The
           electricians, we seen they had some chemicals that
           really worked good for electrical cleaning.  Boy, that
           took the grease off, it evaporated, so they didn't
           have dirt, grease, and stuff on their contacts.
                       Well, the mechanics, and with the
           knowledge and the blessing of management, we started
           getting this stuff in, in 55 gallon barrels.  So if
           you were working on a brake system, you would go get
           a five gallon bucket, you would get your air hose
           hooked up, you had to basically a suction device set
           up in -- and it wasn't good enough, the ones you could
           buy, you had to use the three quarter inch pipe, so
           you could suck that five gallon bucket out in about
           three minutes, and you could put a lot of this
           chemical to get the grease off the brakes if you had
           a bad wheel seal, or if you were trying to get to even
           the nuts and the bolts to take something apart.
                       And there was enough of this chemical in
           the air that if you used it for a minute and a half,
           you wouldn't be able to see the other end of this
           auditorium.  And we didn't know what this stuff was. 
           It was nice and cool, you could put your hands in it,
           but boy it would clean things.
                       And I guess my point being, there is a
           chemical, and if that chemical is produced, or brought
           on to the mine site for a situation, that may not be
           what it is only used for.  That, if I remember right,
           was carbon tetrachloride.
                       I have used that in six by six areas,
           contained area, in the back of these trucks, that
           today if I had to try to even get in that hole I
           couldn't make it.  But to get in there, and then take
           a five gallon bucket of this stuff and clean the
           contacts, clean out the brake areas, to get those
           wheel motors off so that you could get in and take the
           pinion and the sun gear out of there, so you could
           take the rest of the wheel motor apart, that was a
           common practice.
                       I rolled out of that hole too many times
           and getting sick to my stomach, light-headed, and I
           just decided, myself, I have to find out more about
           it.  So I went and started asking the electricians,
           what really is this stuff?  It is good stuff, but what
           the heck is it?
                       Well, we start digging.  And yes, it is a
           cancer causer.  They no longer have it out there.  But
           what my point being is, again, it was not put out on
           that mine site to be used to the type of a situation
           we were using it.
                       So when there is a chemical brought out to
           a property, there is going to be, and I'm sure in a
           lot of cases it is definitely abused.  So the
           warnings, and the labels for a can of what we would
           call, and you could probably go to Wal-Mart and buy
           contact cleaner.  Well, that is a little spray can,
           but I have seen it being used and put in the air over
           20 gallons of it, in probably less than 15, 20
           minutes.
                       And not just exposing the person that was
           using it, but 25 other people working in the area.  It
           was a very big-time practice.  I don't know the long
           term effects of this.  I know it is -- it wasn't very
           smart on my part, and it definitely wasn't very smart
           on Decker Coal's management part to see this practice
           and to continue to let it go.
                       So there are a couple of points here.  Is
           there going to be abuse, or a possibility of abuse of
           chemicals?  Yes.  If somebody can find some chemical
           that will do something, and they don't really have the
           knowledge of how harmful this can be.
                       At the same time we, as workers, a lot of
           time depend on our management people to know what is
           good or bad for us, or they should have been told from
           their supervisor, or whoever purchased this, that it
           should be safe.
                       So there is a sort of a blind trust put in
           here to the system.  Now, I guess since I grew up a
           little bit, and hopefully got a little smarter, I find
           out from digging into this, there is sometimes people
           out there, that are in management, that do know these
           things.
                       But then it becomes a portion of what is
           best for the bottom line, do they always look out for
           the betterment and the health and safety of their
           employees? 
                                   (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
                       went off the record at 10:20 a.m. and
                       went back on the record at 11:40 a.m.)
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  We are now set up to
           continue the Hearing on HAZCOM.  For those that are
           here, who would like to sit in on it, we would like to
           start back.  We have everything set up on a temporary
           basis.
                       We will go back on the record now.  We
           have had a power failure, we will try to get through
           with the speaker that was speaking at the time of the
           power failure.
                       And if that works we will continue to take
           testimony, if not we will delay, after this speaker,
           we will return to the auditorium.
                       But we do want to try this and see how it
           works.  Larry Huestis will continue on with his
           testimony.  He was testifying at the time of the power
           failure.
                       MR. HUESTIS:  I was testifying on using
           the carbon tetrachloride as a solvent degreaser.
                       One of the points I wanted to make sure
           that the Panel understood is that once the company, or
           once somebody came to have the knowledge that this
           isn't good stuff, that we had been abusing it, and to
           even take it out in a bulk form, you know, there is no
           more MSDS sheets left at Decker Coal.
                       Once the chemical is gone, the MSDS sheets
           are gone.  And another thing on the use of, and I
           guess I would say some possibilities of abuse of,
           these different chemicals, is that the management
           people at Decker Coal, the foremen, and even the
           safety people that, and purchasing agents, I think it
           was very well known what kind of abuse was being used
           with this chemical. 
                       And, you know, they didn't have the
           training to recognize that hazard.  I don't blame
           them, I believe they were lacking the knowledge that
           it could be that hazardous and cancerous.
                       But that is my own personal experience
           with, I guess I would say, the chemicals, the lack of
           knowledge on them, the abuse of them, and those --
           that chemical was used like that.  It was mixed with
           solvents at the same time.
                       So when you get solvents mixed with that,
           you know, what other kind of forms of hazards have you
           created?  
                       The other things I would like to testify
           on, and I maybe ask the Panel to ask some of the
           questions to me that were asked of other members that
           were up here.
                       Because, again, I work for the Mine
           Workers, I do safety inspections to the surface mines
           in the west.  And I just wanted to go over a couple of
           things that I've experienced doing those types of
           inspections. 
                       There was a question asked about how
           available MSDS sheets are.  And I will give you a
           couple of examples.  Peabody Coal, the Big Sky mine,
           I was doing an inspection there.
                       And as I was inspecting the shop, they had
           just received a 55 gallon barrel of antifreeze.  And
           it was marked caterpillar.  And then it had the, it
           was called coolant, and then it had the trade, or the
           numbers, Caterpillar numbers. 
                       They just received it in, and they told me
           that Caterpillar went to their own type coolants, a
           new coolant.  And I said, do you have the MSDS sheets
           on it?  And they said yes.
                       I said, I would like to look at it.  So we
           had to leave the shop, go over to the safety
           supervisor's office.  He had about four books of MSDS
           sheets, three ring binders, some of them up to six
           inches thick.  And he said, it should be in here
           somewhere.
                       So we start looking.  We can't find it. 
           We can find some antifreeze, but it wasn't, the
           numbers didn't match, it wasn't Caterpillar
           antifreeze, it might have been Prestone.
                       So he says, well, let's just forget about
           looking in the books.  I will get on my computer.  So
           he gets on his computer, he gets into the Peabody data
           base.  He can't seem to find it.
                       So we go to a different place on the
           internet, looking for the information, Caterpillar. 
           Finally he says, well, if we don't have it here, we
           should have it in the warehouse.
                       We go to the warehouse, we can't find it. 
           So we end up calling a Caterpillar dealership, and
           they faxed it to us.  So I started asking questions
           and concerns for our members, come on company, this is
           a little bit ridiculous.
                       If we just had somebody get a bunch of
           this splashed in their face, their eyes, how are they
           going to get to your office way over here, another
           building up two flights of steps?
                       And I said, when we were talking, you
           mentioned this room gets locked up at 4:30 in the
           afternoon.  And he says, yes, I guess I never thought
           about the other shifts not being able to get that. 
           But he says, they do have that access, or the
           information in the warehouse.
                       I says, we didn't find it.  And so I said,
           are they going to be able to get a hold of
           Caterpillar, run through the same process as we did,
           and if Caterpillar is closed, what are these people
           supposed to do?
                       You know, it is -- I think there is a
           misconception out there that when you say the
           companies have the MSDS sheets, they do?  In probably
           most cases try to find that information, there is not
           a company that sets their books up the same, whether
           it is getting alphabetized by the trade name, the
           chemical names, that is not the total answer on how
           these chemicals are being treated at the job site.
                       So once you go out and really ask, and
           push, you have to push to get this information from
           the company.  You have to be consistent.  That we got
           faxed to us, and it probably took two and a half
           hours.
                       Another incident was with PNM Coal.  We
           heard, my union brother Larry Lee talking about, and
           I can't remember the chemical name, but the dust
           control chemical.
                       He was -- I can't remember on their bulk
           tank if it just said danger, or if it had the actual
           chemical in it.  But it is, that tank was probably at
           least a 3,000 gallon tank that they brought in from
           the bulk trucks, pumped into the tank, put into the
           water trucks, mixed with the water.
                       Well, as I started asking questions about
           that, and some of our members, that they had been
           using these chemicals for a couple of years.  They had
           a favorite little fishing pond.  All the fish are
           dead. 
                       And they are telling our members this
           stuff is safe.  So I started pushing again.  Well,
           let's see the MSDS sheets on these different
           chemicals.  We left that place four hours later, I
           still did not get that information. 
                       So when you think, and when you are asking
           our members, have you asked for MSDS sheet, a lot of
           times they ask and then they will get it for you, and
           we went all the way around to four different offices
           that day at PNM, and still did not receive that
           information. 
                       And I have a lot of papers  thrown at me
           and says, I think this is it.  I says, why doesn't it
           say exactly the chemical?  You know, are we talking
           the same thing, or is it one that you used three weeks
           ago?
                       Nobody could answer those questions.  So
           it is -- the system that is in place right now, it is
           not working very well.  So don't hinge your decisions
           on that we've got a good system. 
                       You've got a system, to me, that is not
           enforced.  It is a system that does not work.  And I
           think that you hear from industry, as we've got them
           here, all they have to do is ask.
                       I have been with members when they have
           asked.  And I have heard foremen say, it is around
           here somewhere, you are just trying to screw around
           and not go to work, you are trying to use this
           information, to know if it is safe, so you don't do
           it.
                       And then at the same time the other
           response is, damn it, it has been safe, we have been
           using this stuff for the last two years.  Well, you
           have new people coming in that may be from a truck
           driver into the shop as a laborer, and then he is
           being exposed to these chemicals that he doesn't know
           what has been there for two years, what came in last
           week, what is good, what is bad, how much stuff,
           protective clothing he has to use.
                       I mean, I've seen it from battery acid. 
           And then do a safety inspection, seeing the way
           different people use bulk battery acid to fill
           batteries.  No eye protection, no clothing protection,
           nothing.
                       And doing the safety inspection, with the
           safety company people, maybe the shop foreman will
           come around the corner see this.  I say, hey buddy,
           we've got to have some better protection gear.  Don't
           you understand how you should be handling this stuff?
                       Then right away the foreman will say,
           we've told them.  And I've got the individual and I
           say, what kind of training you've got?  Well, I've
           just been in here for two weeks, I didn't know that
           this wasn't anything more than water.
                       So there is the loopholes in the training. 
           When you get hazardous training in your annual
           refresher course, they show you some films on chemical
           burns, different things like that, what kind of, what
           can your lungs look like.
                       But what is taking place here, they are
           not saying this chemical that we use at this mine can
           do this.  They give the chemical name, people don't
           connect it.  Whether it is this cleaning solvent, or
           anything. 
                       So there is a big gap in the annual
           refresher.  These are the things you've got on the
           books now.  They are not working the way I believe a
           lot of people in MSHA, I mean, it is different from
           what you guys are believing in the action, and what is
           taking place in the field.
                       Everybody knows what starting fluid is,
           what its purpose is.  But I don't know how many cans
           of starting fluid I found in vehicles in the
           summertime, in the cab, on the back of a truck, by the
           cases.
                       Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure
           out they are not using this starting fluid to start a
           piece of equipment in July.  You ask the foreman, you
           ask the company safety person, why are you guys even
           letting this out of the warehouse?  You know it is
           being abused for a cleaner.
                       And I get the response, oh no, it isn't. 
           Well, before I leave there I found two or three
           mechanics using it for a cleaner.  It is things that
           are, I think, some companies will tell you we are
           doing our best to get that under control.
                       I tell you what, if a company wants that
           under control they can control it.  They don't need to
           check that stuff out.  They can give training. 
                       I go to the mechanics and say, have you
           ever seen this stuff blow up?  Do you know what is
           going to happen if this is in your cab and it blows? 
           You are going to die.  Didn't know that. 
                       So there is a -- even now it is training,
           training, training, and the companies will hide behind
           that.  That true message is not getting out because
           the company doesn't feel that it is to their best
           betterment to get it out.
                       So that in the Navajo Nation, Peabody
           Coal, Black Mesa, not Black Mesa, I'm sorry, the
           Consol Mine, we talk about these chemicals being used
           on the roads.
                       Now, if you go to Cante Mine, it is a
           total different situation because this is the only
           mine I've ever been out where the haul road is a
           county road.  You can be going down the haul road,
           following a 200 ton truck, and it is following a one
           ton pickup with a bunch of hay on it, and four kids
           riding on top of the haystack.
                       And here is the dust coming off of these
           trucks.  If they just watered it now we've got a
           liquid mud that is splashing upside the truck, the
           hay, and the kids.
                       I mean, we don't know what is in all these
           chemicals.  But I know it killed fish over in, and
           even management said yes, it killed the fish over at
           PNM, outside of Window Rock, Arizona.
                       So there is chemicals out there that are
           being abused, the companies are not furnishing the
           MSDS sheets so that they do what the law is intended
           it.
                       So if I get some of this stuff in my eyes
           I can turn around and find a quick remedy of how I'm
           supposed to take care of it.  If I've got to look for
           three hours, whatever damage is done, is done.
                       And if my co-workers, and this is not --
           really, I think you need to talk to some of your
           agents, and I think they will tell you that when they
           go to look for the MSDS sheets, look and see how much
           dust are on the cover of those.  They are not being
           used.
                       The foreman, the company people, and this
           is who our members rely on, is this stuff safe?  And
           if you push it then you are labeled as a troublemaker. 
           And these are union mines, guys.
                       Now, I know what kind of intimidation is
           used in the non-union operations.  You can just
           multiply it by a lot of numbers. 
                       And this is, again, you are doing laws for
           union, non-union people.  We want the non-union people
           protected.  But I know that the fear and intimidation
           for standing up for your safety rights, I've talked to
           too many non-union people.  
                       They are told, I open my mouth, I can look
           for a job.  That intimidation, even though there is
           laws against it, it takes place day, after day, after
           day.
                       In the big city of Gillette, Wyoming,
           where there is a lot of them.  And a lot of big name
           companies.  These companies know how to run a safe
           operation.  I'm telling you, they have chose not to,
           in a lot of cases.  They will cut the corners.
                       And I guess  I will stop my testimony
           there, and be more than glad to answer any questions. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Larry, just to
           clarify, it is not our intent, and hopefully we are
           not doing that, that what we have out there in place
           is acceptable.
                       What we are trying, to get some
           information from those that have had some experience,
           some commenters are making the statements that miners
           would not use these MSDSs, if they were available. 
                       And what we are trying to do is to get
           some information as to whether or not that is the
           case.  It may be accurate in some cases, it may not be
           in others.  But that is why we are asking the
           question, is that in the fact the way it is, or is it
           partially right, or never right?  That kind of stuff.
                       It is not in any way justify what we are
           doing as being acceptable.  Now, these voluminous
           MSDSs that you identified, and couldn't locate the one
           you were looking for, do you know if there was more
           MSDSs for chemicals that were not at the mine, or was
           all of those chemicals at that mine?
                       MR. HUESTIS:  No, at the particular one
           that I'm thinking about, the Peabody Mine at Big Sky,
           in that incident we found, and I even asked that
           question, how many of these MSDS sheets are
           representing chemicals that are no longer even on the
           mine site?
                       He said, they are scattered in and out of
           here.  So this particular safety department they said,
           we will go through this every once in a while and
           clean them out.  But to my knowledge, and from how he
           answered that question to me is, yes, there were MSDS
           sheets that were there, that were chemicals that were
           probably more likely not on the mine site.
                       And I guess my point being, in talking to
           you about the MSDS sheets, and the members, our
           members trying to get those MSDS sheets, again you
           know, I think with the Rule coming, if we can get the
           Rule in, I think we can finally get some -- a little
           bit more serious to the coal companies, and treat this
           better, and the training that will be available, that
           our members and other miners will turn around and not
           be intimidated, but to really understand the true
           dangers of misusing, abusing, or grabbing a spray can
           of something that they don't know what it is, and
           spraying it on a piece of hot metal to cool it down,
           instead of a glass of water.
                       It is -- their training, hopefully the
           training will raise in quality so that they will bring
           it to what these chemicals really, and the harm that
           are being used today, but the training will start to
           connect the dots, connecting it with this can can
           produce this. 
                       And at the same time, hopefully, we will
           bring up the knowledge of the safety departments
           within the coal companies, and their purchasing
           agents, that they will get safer chemicals, and what
           their knowledge, it will come down so that everybody
           starts paying a lot closer attention to it.
                       So I'm hoping that my testimony here
           pertains to some of the things that are wrong in the
           past, and where decisions to try to improve things, is
           that we've got some problems over here that still
           have, need a lot of improvement.
                       But the Rule, itself, will hopefully cure
           some of that, and the need for the Rule.  You know, it
           is way past due, way past due.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Larry, in your
           experience and training with Part 48, are you aware of
           any training that took place where the MSDSs were used
           as part of the training? 
                       MR. HUESTIS:  Yes, personally for me I
           can't remember years ago at Decker they did.  And they
           said you can find them at the warehouse.  That is
           about the training, right there.  Here they are, this
           is what they look like, you can find them in the
           triple ring binder, and they should be over in the
           north corner.  That is your training. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  No discussion on the
           specific hazards?
                       MR. HUESTIS:  No, no discussion from this
           is an MSDS sheet of a can of WD40, her is what you can
           experience if you abuse it, if you are using it too
           much.  You should not use it for this, this is what it
           is bought for, intended to use as.
                       That sort of training for this type of
           chemical, no.  It is, here is the MSDS sheet for a can
           of WD-40.  It just happened to be the one the safety
           guy brought out of a book.
                       But they didn't get into the hazards of
           it.  You know, that particular sheet they probably
           read it over, said, this is what it can do.
                       MS. JONES:  And you feel that they were
           meeting the requirements of Part 48 by what they were
           doing?
                       MR. HUESTIS:  I think they were meeting
           the minimum requirements. 
                       MS. JONES:  And it was too general, is
           that what you are saying?
                       MR. HUESTIS:  Very much too general.  And
           at the same time, like I mentioned, showing a video. 
           That is a generic video.  And it didn't tie it to the
           particular different chemicals that were used at that
           mine site.
                       So, yes, it is a general meeting the
           minimum requirement of the law.  And at the same time
           I think part of the problem is, and has been, that the
           safety people of these companies are not educated
           about the seriousness of these chemicals. 
                       MS. JONES:  We heard a number of
           arguments, primarily earlier this week, that this was
           just redundant to what was already on the books, as
           far as regulations. 
                       Would you care to comment on that? 
                       MR. HUESTIS:  I don't think it is
           redundant at all.  It is -- I think it needs to be
           done.  There is, I'm thinking with the HAZCOM Rule,
           and how to communicate these hazards as a part of
           itself, will get these coal companies, and the
           industry as a whole, to understand how serious it is.
                       Until that gets through, they are going to
           skirt by the minimum, the very bottom minimum, on your
           training.  So part of the whole rulemaking process,
           the content of the process, you know, and I'm not
           pleased with everything I read in it, because I don't
           believe it has enough penalties to it for these
           companies. 
                       They can skate by too easy, yet.  But at
           least by the Rule itself, will bring up the
           seriousness of the chemicals for everybody.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  Larry, you mentioned that,
           about annual refresher training, and deficiencies, in
           your view, of annual refresher training. 
                       Would those remarks also extend to task
           training when miners get task training in particular
           jobs, they are supposed to be trained on the health
           and safety aspects of those jobs; have the companies
           included, in relation to the health and safety aspect
           training, have they included hazard chemical training
           as well? 
                       MR. HUESTIS:  From my own personal
           experience, and again working at Decker Coal for ten
           years as a mechanic, I have never been given a task
           training on how to use solvent, or when I'm working on
           something, how to use starting fluids, what to do with
           these cans of things that you could probably buy at
           Wal-Mart at the job site.
                       Any other -- I cannot think of any
           chemical that we had come in there that I was told
           this is how you use this chemical.  Now, Caterpillar
           uses a lot of different types of epoxies for seals,
           and stuff like that.  I have never received training
           on that. 
                       And those, you know, all I can say,
           speaking from my experience, as far as my own personal
           task training, the answer is if there has been, it has
           been so very little, I can't remember it.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Larry.
                       MR. HUESTIS:  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Can we go off for just
           a minute?
                                   (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
                       went off the record at 12:06 p.m.  and
                       went back on the record at 12:07 p.m.)
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Back on.  Our next
           speaker is going to be Andrew Laferty.
                       MR. LAFERTY:  My name is Andrew Laferty,
           I work for Bluestone Industries at a prep plant in
           Keystone, West Virginia.  I'm a union safety
           committeeman.  I have 33 years of experience of being
           underground, the rest at the plant. 
                       I've been, since I've been at the plant I
           have worked with every chemical that is around the
           plant.  I was a filter operator for roughly seven
           years.  When I first started, nobody told me these
           chemicals are going to hurt you.  All I was told was
           how to mix them into the system. 
                       I asked one of my foremen one time, I
           said, well this hurt you if you get it on you?  He
           said, it is not supposed to.  We had another chemical
           there that we used, you mixed with water, it had an
           odor to it, or it would burn you, burn your eyes if
           you breathe it very long.
                       He said it was basically potato starch, it
           shouldn't hurt you.  We have absolutely no training on
           these chemicals, at all.  They just -- anybody that
           goes into these jobs, all you are told is how to mix
           them.
                       We run different grades of coal, sometimes
           two or three times each shift.  The man that is in
           charge of this has to go change these chemicals back
           and forth, add or subtract whatever he needs.
                       They never trained, and the eight hour
           refresher we have each year, they show you a little
           bit about chemical burns, but most of it is nothing
           that we actually work with.  They just -- nobody is
           told what is going to happen if you put too much of
           this in.
                       They just say if you don't put enough our
           coal is not going to be right.  Don't worry if you put
           too much, if it spills, because we have -- below our
           cleaning plant that catch all of our water, our
           runoff.
                       Sometimes there is a lot of rainwater, and
           this goes into a stream, a public stream.  They don't
           -- one time we had a -- we had this large coal pile,
           and the dust went right in this little town.  The coal
           dust was bad, so they brought a chemical in, in a
           black barrel.  It had a corrosive sticker on it, it
           had some numbers stamped on it.
                       They said put four, put 20 gallons of this
           into 2,400 gallons of water, and we will spray it on
           the coal pile.  The machine we used was broken, it
           didn't work right.  Nobody said it would hurt you, or
           wouldn't hurt you.
                       We had to wear, well all we had were rags,
           we didn't even have a mask, we had to wear this over
           our face.  And when we finished we were all,
           everybody, anybody that used this machine was soaking
           wet.  You had to go change your clothes.
                       It would dry and it would become very
           sticky.  We had people, right now, that on these jobs,
           they don't know -- well, they abuse it, I guess would
           be the word.  They put too many chemicals in.
                       Sometimes, I've moved now, I'm a dryer
           attendant, and supposedly we have been told this is an
           alcohol diesel fuel mixture that we use to float our
           coal.
                       Sometimes when I do my dryer checks, we
           have a heat dryer, I'm afraid to open the little
           inspection door for fear that there might be an
           explosion, because there are so many of these
           chemicals in the system. 
                       You can smell them just out walking around
           anywhere.  We definitely need some kind of a law, or
           something, that would enforce some training.  None of
           us are trained, we have never been trained on any of
           these.
                       I'm really surprised that somebody hasn't
           gotten seriously hurt with it.  I, one time myself,
           got something on me at work.  I don't know what it
           was, it caused a rash on the upper part of my body. 
           I was in -- I have been in two different states to
           three different skin specialists, and they just give
           me whatever they've got.  Sometimes it takes care of
           it, sometimes it doesn't.  It goes away, it comes
           back.
                       But a couple of years ago we have two
           large storage containers.  Well, we actually have
           three.  But sometimes somebody fails to keep records,
           and they run out.
                       So the chemical company will bring in two
           or three barrels, whatever is needed, probably, to do
           until the next day.  We get chemicals in chlorine
           buckets.  They are not chlorine, it is some form of a
           liquid.
                       The barrels come in and they have a
           flammable sticker on them, or a corrosive sticker on
           them.  You open the barrel, if it smells like what you
           used yesterday, go ahead and put some in the system. 
                       Another guy and myself had to move a
           couple of these barrels one evening.  And somebody had
           opened one, and hadn't closed it, which we were at
           fault for not checking it.  But when we moved it some
           of this liquid came out and got on us.
                       Well, it had a terrible odor, and both of
           us got it on our hands, and we got rash, and burning. 
           The other guy asked the superintendent for a data
           sheet, and he says, it is around here somewhere, I
           will find it for you.
                       Well, the next day he gave me this data
           sheet, he gave me four papers supposedly on this
           particular chemical that we got on us.  And it was
           four pages of the same page.  And it told us nothing
           about what to do about it.  If we were chemists or
           something we could have probably understood what that
           paper read.
                       But we had no idea of what we were even
           looking at.  And if the laws don't pass, they need to
           be enforced real well.  I don't know, but as far as
           I've been told, you know, you can request these sheets
           from where we work.
                       But like the one I requested, I got it the
           next day, and it still didn't tell me anything we
           needed to know about it.  And we need a good law, and
           we need to get enforcement of that law to keep people,
           make things a little bit safer for people. 
                       Because I, myself, have had chemicals on
           just about every part of my body.  And some of them
           are okay, some of them cause problems, some of them
           don't.
                       But we just do our jobs, and I've had
           comments made to me, personally, that I brought it to
           the attention of some of our inspectors, and a couple
           of days later I have had comments made to me, you need
           to learn to appreciate your job a little more.
                       So most people that we work with don't say
           much, you just go on and do what you are doing, and
           not worry about it.  There is no enforcement at all
           with our chemicals at the place that I work, at all.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Some of the barrels
           were identified as flammable.  Was there not any label
           identifying what the --
                       MR. LAFERTY:  It had something stamped on
           it, but --
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  But I'm talking about
           information that would identify what the chemicals
           were.
                       MR. LAFERTY:  When they bring us chemicals
           they have, I think some of them Saturday, as a matter
           of fact, they have some ten gallon plastic buckets,
           and the only thing on the outside of this buckets is
           chlorine tablets.
                       Well, I took the top off of one of these,
           and it has this chemical in it.  I assume it was what
           we call flocculent, but as far --
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  It was different than
           what was identified on the label?
                       MR. LAFERTY:  Oh, yes, it said chlorine
           tablets, but it was a liquid, a white thick looking
           liquid.  We also -- we use muriatic acid to clean some
           cables on our aerial tram that we have.
                       Well, when we get ready to do this, if you
           -- I guess if you wanted a pair of safety glasses they
           would probably give you those.  But nobody says, they
           just say be careful.
                       We put this acid in a five gallon bucket,
           we put this cable down in the acid, the end of the
           cable  that we are going to use, and we take a cutting
           torch and stick down in this acid, and aerate it to
           clean this steel cable.
                       Well, when we are done with that one we
           put it in another bucket with vinegar and soda to
           neutralize the acid.  And nobody really says, they
           just say be careful.  I guess that is enough.  So far
           it has been.
                       But we take -- when they finish with them,
           they carry them back in this one little location that
           they store, and just stick the lid on them, and they
           are probably there today.  We used them three or four
           weeks ago.  Next time we need them they will still be
           there.  It is just a plain white bucket.  And muriatic
           acid is really dangerous. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  How many miners --
                       MR. LAFERTY:  There were 31.  Two weeks
           ago they had a small cut-off, laid off six of us, six
           of the younger men.  I had -- when I signed off of
           that job, and took a new one, the boy that got the
           floater job was 24 years old.
                       A week or two into the job he came to me
           one night, in the bathhouse, and he said I got that,
           he said I got that alcohol on my face and hands
           tonight, it burnt me.  But will it hurt me?  And I had
           to look at him and say, Scott, I don't know.  They
           told me it wouldn't hurt me.  That is all I could tell
           him.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  You have any idea of
           how many injuries that have occurred at the mine, say,
           in the last two or three years, as far as reportable
           injuries?
                       MR. LAFERTY:  Most people it is usually
           their hands or their face.  Most people put something
           on it, go on about your business.  Nothing is ever
           really said about it.
                       We've -- I can't really -- we have several
           men that have to wear gloves when they work, latex
           gloves.  As a matter of fact I used to wear them
           myself when I done this job, because there is so much
           that we are around, your hands stay irritated.
                       Some of the guys their hands bleed, they
           peel, and they are just -- they are in really bad
           shape.  But it is just that nobody really says it is
           an accident on the job, they just don't -- I've got
           severe dermatitis, or something, you know? 
                       Nobody really ever tried to collect any,
           to my knowledge, the safety committee job, I've only
           been on it a couple of years.  Prior to that I just
           done my job and don't make waves, do your thing.
                       MR. PHUC:  You mentioned intimidation by
           the mine operators.  Can you comment on the number of
           injuries that went unreported, that people just didn't
           report it because of the fear of their --
                       MR. LAFERTY:  I would imagine every man
           that has done that job has had a chemical on his
           person.  And these guys, you just -- you know, you
           just do your job and go on.  I mean, that is it.  You
           might talk about it in the bathhouse to some of your
           buddies, or something.  I got something on me today,
           my hands are all itchy and burning.
                       We, you know, we are a union job, but we
           are still really restricted, I guess you would call
           it, to what we can speak out about.  I'm sure I will
           be in trouble over this when I get home.  That is
           okay, that is fine with me.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Okay, Andrew, thank
           you very much.
                       MR. LAFERTY:  You are welcome.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Wayne Conaway, from United Mine Workers.
                                   (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
                       went off the record at 12:22  and went
                       back on the record at 1:00 p.m.)
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  We will now continue
           with the afternoon session.
                       Our first speaker is Wayne Conaway, with
           United Mine Workers.
                       MR. CONAWAY:  My name is Wayne Conaway,
           I've been an underground miner for 25 years, local
           9909, safety committee person, Consol employee. 
                       Half of my working career, so far, has
           been trying to get something on this hazard
           communication.  And that is a long time.  Congress
           required MSHA that our health and safety be first
           priority.  They said that 25 years ago.
                       So I think 14 years doesn't, in my mind,
           constitute first priority.  I've had a friend pass
           away, just as recently as six months ago, 46 years
           old, he told me within a couple weeks of his passing
           away, he said there is no question in my mind what is
           killing me.
                       He says, from all the times I had to work
           on the long wall in that emulsion.  He said, of course
           it is not there now, because they did finally find out
           it was bad.  46 years old, it is a little bit too
           late. 
                       And I'm kind of glad that I was able to
           hear a few other testimonies before I was able to
           speak, because after listening to some of the
           questions you've been asking, as far as Part 48, and
           after viewing the video yesterday, it seems to me that
           you've already pretty much come up with something that
           all mine operators can do as a minimum is show this
           video, in your Part 48, and that is going to apply
           with the law.
                       Gentlemen, ladies, that is not going to be
           enough.  There are way too many things that we have to
           look at when it comes to hazard communication. 
                       You have disposals, clean-up, spill
           containment, evacuations.  The MSDS, first aid
           handling that type of thing, PPE, and there is just
           not enough time in the Part 48s.
                       And I don't know if you really know for
           sure, or not, because I -- ever since I've been in
           Part 48 classes I've never, ever seen an MSHA
           inspector monitoring it to see if everything is
           actually in that criteria, in general.
                       Because I think if you had actually had
           anyone -- and I've talked to a few people, and no one
           has ever seen an inspector at a Part 48 course.  And
           that would probably also be changed, you know, if it
           was really looked at hard, let alone trying to put
           this in on top of it.
                       The people that are, that you are relying
           on to feed us information and training, they do not
           have it.  Just to give you a good example, last
           February we got a new safety supervisor. 
                       He was 25 years old, he had worked two
           years underground with the engineering department as
           a surveyor.  In February they contacted him and said
           you are the new safety supervisor.  He has absolutely
           no idea about general safety, let alone hazard
           communication. 
                       Just on general safety matters he has to
           come to me, or to someone else.  So I can only imagine
           what it is going to be like when he has to deal with
           any type of chemicals. 
                       We've talked a lot about MSDS sheets. 
           They are on the mine site, usually inaccessible.  Day
           shift people, you know, if you want to go in and find
           them yes, they are there, but you are going to have to
           find them on your own.
                       The door is locked on the other two
           shifts.  The majority, and I strongly say majority of
           the people, have no idea what an MSDS sheet is, or how
           to actually obtain the information that is on it. 
           They have to regurgitate it, it is just not there.
                       Luckily I have an education in that, to
           where I kind of oversee some things, you know, that
           are top priority.  Because this has been kind of a
           passion with me for quite a few years.  Because I
           actually worked underground for 20 years before I went
           to get a degree in safety and environmental
           engineering. 
                       So I know that this is a problem.  We have
           people, another very good example that upset me
           greatly, I was laid off for a period of about a year. 
           I come back, I notice these small containers of foam
           sealant that they use to seal stoppings, and what not.
                 
                       Well, if you've all read the back of the
           box, it told you right then and there exactly, you
           must use a respirator, without question.  Because all
           the cancer causing agents in it.
                       I asked the company, I said, do you have
           respirators for these people that have been using
           these things?  Well, no.  I said, I suggest you get
           some before anything else has been used.  They said,
           okay, we will get some.
                       About three days later they said we got
           the respirators, we are going to start using that
           again.  I said, I would like to see the respirator. 
           They brought out charcoal filters for respirable dust,
           instead of an organic filter for that mask.
                       If they can't handle something that small,
           and you guys don't enforce it, do the job that they
           actually required you to do, the companies are going
           to do just as normal, very minimal.
                       Because what really upsets me is Wal-Mart
           employees understand HAZCOM much more than coal
           miners.  And it is embarrassing to me, and it should
           be embarrassing to you.
                       It seems like every year things keep
           getting easier for the coal companies, by regulations,
           but it is always at our expense.  We need to get back
           to basics.  Treat us as your first priority.
                       And I think if you do that you will find
           out that we have to get this thing through, because
           there is too many people dying and we don't need it.
                       Are there any questions? 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  What kind of
           background and/or training do you think an individual
           would need to present chemical hazard training at a
           mine?
                       MR. CONAWAY:  As far as overall
           background, each person, as a rule, will have to work
           with a specific chemical or maybe chemicals in one
           area.  Because it is usually not that diversified
           where your chemicals are spread all over.
                       You know, you use one chemical for one
           application.  The people that is using those
           applicated chemicals for that area, they need to know,
           like I said, as far as if they spill it how to clean
           it up, how it should be disposed of.  There is going
           to be first aid which will be accountable for
           different types of situations. 
                       You know, you just can't treat each
           chemical burn, or whatever, the same way.  Putting a
           fire out with a chemical spill, you cannot put it out
           the same way.  You are going to have a certain way of
           emergency response, do we have to get fire trucks.
                       You know, just a general program.  You
           need to enforce an actual program, not just say I want
           you guys to be able to do -- each operator to do this,
           or do that.  They need to come up with a specific
           program. 
                       Because, like I said, just a few odds and
           ends is not going to work, not going to get it.  And
           we really need to make the coal companies be
           accountable.
                       Because it seems like, to me, every time
           we are giving them such a minimal obligation to do
           anything, that that is exactly what they are sliding
           by on.  And no one is really backing it up, and
           checking on it, to see if they are actually doing what
           they say they are doing.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Do you have a feel for
           the number of chemicals that is used at your
           operation?
                       MR. CONAWAY:  Being as I work underground,
           no.  Because the bulk of the chemicals are at the prep
           plant.  But I have a person that will be speaking,
           that works at my mine, that does work outside, and he
           may be able to give you more information on that. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Do you have a feel for
           the number of, and kinds of injuries that is occurring
           at your operation?
                       MR. CONAWAY:  Sadly to say more so tumors,
           cancers, than injuries.  A gentleman, probably, could
           have passed away today, I'm not sure.  I spoke to him
           a week ago, he cannot even get out of his bed now.
                       They all seem to be in a field
           mechanically, as a rule, where they are around
           petroleum products.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Wayne.
                       Our next speaker is Terry Richardson, from
           United Mine Workers.
                       MR. RICHARDSON:  Good afternoon.  I'm a
           representative from District 2, local 1998, do mostly
           surface construction.  
                       I'm here on behalf of my union brothers
           and sisters to recommend the removal of the language
           that allows operators to classify only those chemicals
           used under normal circumstances, or foreseeable
           emergencies, as hazardous. 
                       The fact is most situations could be
           construed to fall under two categories, abnormal
           conditions, and unforeseen emergencies.
                       Understanding that basic premise operators
           could effectively claim the Rule did not apply to any
           given situation.  Taking this necessary action will
           greatly enhance the Rule's ability to effectively
           protect miners.
                       The lack of prescriptive language will
           allow operators to avoid notifying workers of the
           presence of a hazard, and still be in compliance. 
           Also the reference to non-routine tasks must be
           eliminated in the Rule. 
                       Miners need, and have the right to be made
           more aware of the presence of chemicals at the mine,
           regardless of the frequency of their use.  I'm
           currently serving as safety committeeman for our local
           union, and for the employees of the company that I
           work for.   
                       I'm also grievance man for these men. 
           Frankly I feel we as minors have been grieved.  Ladies
           and gentlemen, I have been working around chemicals,
           and chemical plants for quite a while, and dealt with
           OSHA's HAZCOM standards. 
                       And I can't understand why in 14 years you
           haven't implemented a plan of your own.  We all have
           a responsibility to these miners to ensure a safe and
           healthy environment for them to work in.
                       So I think we ought to quit with the
           bureaucratic bias, and get this Rule into effect now.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Terry.
                       MR. RICHARDSON:  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Bob Morris, United Mine Workers.
                       MR. MORRIS:  Good afternoon, Mr.
           Moderator, and Panel members.  My name is Bob Morris,
           I'm currently serving as a mine safety committeeman at
           Leverage Mine, District 31, Consolidation Coal
           Company. 
                       I have 27 years working in the mine.  The
           last 12 years I've been employed in the surface in the
           leverage preparation plant.  Wayne Conaway alluded to
           me speaking about certain chemicals, and I will do
           that later on in the presentation.
                       Since 1989, I will just preface my remarks
           with some background, we have been debating the Rule
           based upon the standard that OSHA currently uses.
                       On October 3rd, 2000, MSHA was supposed to
           issue their Interim Final Rule, and it was supposed to
           go into force by October 3rd, 2001.  On August 28th,
           2001, MSHA stayed the issuance of the Rule, this would
           have implemented the Final Rule effective June 2002.
                       By staying this Interim Final Rule MSHA
           has opened the door to more needless comment and
           debate.  We have had 14 years to debate this issue. 
           And it seems like they've opened the door strictly to
           hear the operator's side of the question, to talk
           about a Rule to protect the working miner.
                       If in the past 14 years the operators
           couldn't have come up with questions, and presented
           their side, there is something really wrong, they
           don't have a side, here.
                       MSHA failed to implement the Rule to
           provide the miners with basic protection.  The Interim
           Final Rule was scheduled to be placed into full force
           by August 3rd, 2001, it did not go far enough in my
           opinion, to protect the working miners, but at least
           it was a step in the right direction.
                       It had several shortcomings, and I'm going
           to try to outline them, briefly.  First, it failed to
           notify and identify miners exposed to carcinogenic
           chemicals. 
                       Operators were not required, secondly, to
           satisfy the miners that they were being exposed to
           certain hazards, they did not have to notify them.
                       MSDS labels are available on some
           chemicals, some chemicals are not.  We use a myriad of
           chemicals on the preparation plant, and you can ask me
           about each one, I will go over some of them, the major
           ones used.
                       We've -- the new Rule did not require the
           mine operator to be the responsible party for training
           and compliance with the Rule.  By reopening the Rule
           to debate, it is my opinion that the Agency announced
           plans to address a list of the mine operator's
           objections. 
                       The mine operators have had 14 years to
           list their objections, and if they haven't done so,
           that is their problem.  Mine operators, fourth,
           another point I wanted to make, the mine operators
           cannot be the party allowed to make the determination
           on what is or is not a hazard.  That is the same as
           asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
                       Because most of the people that I have
           worked for in the 27 years, especially on the last 12
           years on the preparation plant, have no more idea how
           to read an MSDS label, or how to interpret it, or how
           to train anybody in the proper use of the chemical
           that they are using.
                       MSHA was mandated by Congress, under the
           Act, as a regulatory agency, and in my opinion we are
           becoming an advisory agency to the mining industry. 
                       MSHA's has abdicated its primary role, and
           that was protecting the most precious resource in the
           mining industry, and that being the miner.
                       I will give you several examples.  Wayne
           alluded to some individuals that had become sick as a
           result of working with chemicals, I'm going to give
           you specific names.
                       First was Mike Renick.  Mike passed away
           about six months ago.  He left a wife and two
           children.  Mike worked on the long wall system back
           when the long walls were first being brought on the
           site by Consolidation Coal Company at Four States
           Mine.
                       They used an oil that was called solcenic
           oil.  I don't know if any of you are familiar with it. 
           Initially when we started using solcenic oil on the
           long wall sections, there was no warning labels on the
           cans, they came in five gallon cans, it had an ID
           number on the can, and the people that worked
           maintenance routinely would use it to wash grease off
           their hands at the end of the shift.
                       And after five or six years of using this
           chemical on the property, the warning labels appeared
           on it that it was a cancer causing agent, and it was
           absorbed through the skin.
                       Mike died approximately six months ago
           from a brain tumor.  His oncologist stated,
           categorically, that Mike was exposed to some chemical
           that was commonly used in the oil fields.  And I don't
           know what the exact use in the oil fields would be.
                       Secondly, the other individual, he is
           currently, he is a real good friend of mine, his name
           is Chuck Sommers.  Chuck got sick approximately 18
           months ago, he had a brain tumor, exactly the same
           type of tumor that Mike had.
                       His doctor, he had the same oncologist,
           and he told Chuck that it was highly unusual to see
           this type of tumor.  He said, again, he cited that
           this was a tumor that they only see among people who
           work in oil fields.
                       And Chuck has worked for the past 15 years
           on the preparation plant.  And I will cite three other
           instances.  One was Leonard Myers.  Leonard was
           working one day, we use a, it is called stone hard. 
           It is a powder chemical that you mix, and it is used
           as a liner in chutes, and various other things on the
           preparation plants. 
                       Leonard had to get down inside of what is
           called a three way jig distributor.  It is a small
           type vessel, to do the work that he was doing.  He was
           in there approximately 8 hours.  When he came out his
           eyes were almost swollen completely shut from the
           fumes off of it.
                       A lot of the work that we do in the plant
           is typically in confined spaces, and where you can't
           get away from the fumes, specially the chemical that
           you are using is producing any kind of fumes, you
           cannot get away from it, you can't escape it.
                       Another friend of mine worked underground,
           John Sliger.  We had -- he passed away in 1986.  John
           was a bigger man than me, weighed probably 260.  When
           he died he weighed 89 pounds.
                       He was exposed to a chemical that we used
           on the coarse coal slurry system that we had
           underground at Leverage at the time, it was called
           chromate.  Chromate was used to increase the wearing
           properties of the inside, on the inside of the pipes
           in the slurry system. 
                       This chromate came in 55 gallon drums, and
           what you had to do, you had to add it into a hopper
           that fed into the piping, into the slurry.  And you
           always end up getting it on you.
                       The big barrels never carried a warning
           label on them anywhere.  After about four or five
           years of using it, then the labels started to appear,
           that it was absorbed, it was a chemical that was, that
           you could not have on your skin, you were supposed to
           wear protective clothing to even handle it.  John died
           in 1986, like I said, he was down to 89 pounds.
                       Last I will refer to my own self.  I have
           worked as an electrician on the plant for the last
           almost 12 years now.  And just before we shut down
           here recently, I was working as a plant operator.
                       Well, I had several occasions, one as an
           electrician, my electrical foreman had sent me, we had
           a train load-out station, and where the conduit came
           down through the metal floor of the building, it was
           rusting and deteriorating.  And to try to buy us some
           more time for having to completely redo it, one
           morning I went to work, he gave me a gallon can of
           paint, and a paintbrush, and he said, I want you to go
           down and sand, brush that off as good as you can, to
           get the dirt from around it, and then I want you to
           paint this on it.
                       Well, this building was approximately 20
           feet by 20 feet.  And there was no way, there was one
           door that you could open on it, that was the only
           ventilation I could get in the building. 
                       I used it for about two hours, to complete
           the job that I was supposed to do.  By the time that
           I finished, I started getting real light-headed,
           dizzy, went outside to sit down in the fresh air, it
           was wintertime.
                       I got back up to the plant, and for a week
           after that it was just like  I had a chemical cold. 
           And so the foreman, I asked him, what was that stuff
           that I was using, Barry?  And he said it is PVC paint. 
           He said there is nothing wrong with using it.
                       I said, you know, I told him what had
           happened to me, and everything, and he said there is
           another can of it.  This can had no warning label on
           it, brand new can.  They had another can in our
           storage area.  I went and got it, and it said minimal
           exposure to this chemical, to only be used in well
           ventilated areas, minimal exposure could cause severe
           brain damage.
                       And this, like I said, this is just one
           other example.  Then another time they had, I don't
           know if any of you have any prep plant background.  We
           had what they call a densitometer.  And they are
           mounted on the outside of the pipes, in the plant,
           coming off the heavy media pumps, which in turn pump
           to heavy media vessels.
                       And essentially what it does, it measures
           the density of the material going through the pipe. 
           There are signs up that say, caution radioactive
           material.
                       The foreman sent me and another mechanic
           to help two gentlemen who came down there from a firm
           in Pittsburgh, to work on this pipe.  And there were
           chemical, and it says radioactive element.
                       Here I am, I am wearing a t-shirt, and a
           pair of bib overalls, my buddy is dressed just about
           like me. These two guys, I noticed they didn't have
           any tools, and I asked the foreman, don't they need
           any tools to work with?  Well, he told us what we
           needed to get.
                       He said, meet them up on the second floor,
           and you will have to give them a hand for a couple of
           hours.  And the guy, when they come walking in, they
           had on suits with hoods on them, and it looked like a
           visor that they could see through. 
                       And I asked the guy, I said, what are
           those suits for?  He said, because we are working
           around this material.  And I said, those aren't lead
           lined suits, are they?  And he said, yes, they are. 
           And I said, me and my buddy, are we at any risk here? 
           And I said, he told me, he said, no we do it every
           day.  This is not that much exposure for you.
                       And I asked him, I said, how do you
           measure what amount of exposure level we have here? 
           I said, do you have a geiger counter?  He said, yes. 
           He pulled out, it pegged the geiger counter.  And so
           this is another example, this is a chemical, a
           radioactive chemical. 
                       Then just mechanics routinely used, like
           I used the PVC paint as an electrician.  I will go
           over some of the chemicals that we use in the plant.
                       We use an antifreeze at the train load out
           station.  And what they do, they put it in suspension,
           spray it into the rail cars before they load the coal
           in the wintertime, and they call that freeze release
           treating the cars.
                       And this chemical, I mean, it is an
           antifreeze, probably a methyl alcohol based, and I'm
           not sure what it is.  I've never seen a data sheet on
           it.
                       We use a reagent in the fine coal
           processing part of our plant.  It is called a frother,
           it is used in conjunction with diesel fuel, and pumped
           in by pumps, into large tanks.  And what it basically
           does, it recovers the fine coal particles, puts them
           in a suspension, and then goes through a filtering
           system, and on to the belt line.  It is also toxic.
                       We no longer use the chromate, but it was
           used at our mine in times past.  We use an agent
           called flocculent.  And it is used in the water
           system, it goes to our thickener.  And I don't even
           know what the properties are on it, I've never seen a
           data sheet on it.
                       Then underground, from time to time, they
           use a substance called rock lock.  And they drill in
           the top, and inject this to bind the coal strata
           together when they are having problems with the coal
           at the top.
                       It is called a methyl sico cyanate.  I'm
           sure most of you have heard of it. And I've never,
           ever heard anybody tell the people when it was being
           used in a section, or long wall panel, that they
           shouldn't be downwind from this.   It does go into a
           suspension in the air.
                       Wayne spoke about the foam sealant that we
           use.  Leverage mine had a fire in 1999, and we went
           back into the mine, we did a lot of temporary
           stoppings, where we sprayed this foam material on the
           stoppings as a sealant.
                       And, like he said, they did not provide
           the people with the proper respirators, they used it
           with open faced, with nothing on.
                       And Wayne spoke about the Part 48.  I have
           been through Part 48 training approximately, due to
           the number of layoffs that we have had at Leverage
           Mine, probably 32 times.  
                       I have never yet heard any mention of
           hazardous materials, or hazardous chemicals in the
           workplace, not one time.
                       Another problem too, that you encounter,
           is that chemical suppliers, even if you had an MSDS
           sheet on the chemical.  Consol is just like any other
           company, the bottom line is what drives this country,
           and everybody knows that. 
                       They have to try to stay as competitive as
           possible.  So from time to time they shift suppliers. 
           The chemicals may be similar, but not the same.
                       So you couldn't go by what the data sheet
           that you had on that particular chemical when they
           changed it to another supplier.
                       Leverage Mine, we have a thermal dryer. 
           We use a number of chemicals there, that aren't
           common.  We use a caustic system.  I don't know if --
           if any of you have any knowledge of this, what I'm
           talking about. 
                       And it is to dry, we had a problem with
           the Clean Air Act, with the quality of what was coming
           out of the thermal dryer.  It is a coal-fired dryer. 
           And they went to a caustic system there, and they use
           another chemical that they spray on the coal once it
           comes through the dryer, and goes onto the belt line.
                       And there is a data sheet, it is on a tank
           about 60 feet tall, and it is about 20 feet up.  I
           can't see it, I can barely see the paper here, without
           glasses.
                       Lastly we routinely use a substance called
           Electro Clean.  And it is used, mostly it is the
           electricians are the ones that use it.  A lot of
           mechanics will get a hold of it, and they will use it
           as a degreaser.
                       And for a year, at Leverage Mine it was
           banned, it wasn't allowed on the property.  And when
           we came back to work this time, we came back July 21st
           of 1990, I take that back, July 21st of the year 2000,
           we came back, it was back again and being used on a
           regular basis.
                       And it clearly states on the can that it
           is a carcinogenic.  I will conclude with that, I will
           answer any questions that you have.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Bob.  Bob,
           this PVC paint that you used, how long ago was that? 
                       MR. MORRIS:  Two years.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Two years.  And that
           container had no label identify any --
                       MR. MORRIS:  The first one that they gave
           me had no label at all on it.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  The --
                       MR. MORRIS:  They just buy it in bulk. 
           They might ship in 20 gallons of it, if they are
           anticipating a lot of work.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  So they took that from
           a bigger container and put it in a small one?
                       MR. MORRIS:  No, it comes in a gallon can. 
           That particular can had no label on it, that is what
           I'm saying.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  The miners that you
           referenced, the one that passed away in '86, was he
           actively employed at the time of his death?
                       MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Do you know whether
           that was reported as a --
                       MR. MORRIS:  There was a lawsuit filed. 
           I don't know what the disposition of the litigation
           was.  It was filed by his wife against Consolidation
           Coal Company, against the manufacturer that made the
           chromate.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  What I'm trying to get
           at here is, the operator is required to file a Part 50
           report of an occupational illness, or injury, if they
           were employed at the time, in case of an occupational
           illness, if it was diagnosed, or an award or
           compensation was made, they have to file a report
           under Part 50, to the Agency. 
                       And I was just wanting to know if there is
           any way that maybe, if they did file that information,
           that information would be available to us, and would
           be quite useful for us if we could back and review it.
                       MR. MORRIS:  I don't know if there was a
           Part 50 form filed.  John's wife filed the lawsuit
           following his death.  I don't think they had started
           anything on it prior to that. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  The other two miners
           that you referenced, were they actively employed just
           immediately prior to the --
                       MR. MORRIS:  Mike Renick had been off
           approximately two years, after he became ill.  And I
           think he lived maybe two and a half years total.  And
           it was -- I have never talked to his wife.
                       Mike came by my home one morning, we were
           close friends, we worked together as electricians,
           underground, before I went outside.  He came by my
           home one morning, rang the doorbell, I just go out of
           bed.
                       I went to answer the door, and I heard a
           voice, I didn't even know who it was.  His head was
           swollen so large, you know, from the -- he had
           undergone chemotherapy three or four times.  And he
           needed me to fill out some paperwork so that he could
           try to get his pension.
                       And Chuck Summers, I saw Chuck about three
           weeks ago, he has been sick probably close to two
           years right now.  And he has no use of the left side
           of his body.  He is blind on the left side, he lost
           his sight on the left side.
                       And then, let me see, who else was it? 
           There is another one in there, I think that I missed,
           John Vincent.  John  is off, John was a person that
           never drank alcohol in his life.  Right now he is on
           a liver transplant list.
                       John was a mechanic, worked on the long
           wall, was one of these guys that worked with solcenic
           oil.  And I'm sure there are others out there that we
           don't even know about.
                       I know that Robinson Ruaon Mine, I think
           they had 20 plus people off, right now, that are dying
           with cancer.  In fact we had asked NIOSH to do a study
           at our mine and at Robinson Roan.
                       Dennis O'Dell, the international safety
           rep in district 31 was taking care of that.  I don't
           know where that ended up at.  And I know several of
           those people have passed away.
                       I don't know any of these individuals by
           name, they work at a different mine.  It is
           Consolidation Coal Company, also.  And I'm not citing
           Consol, you know, any more than any other operator.
                       I mean, it is a business.  And, you know,
           and I'm not -- I would be the last one to say that I
           want to do something punitive to the employer that I
           work for, because that is my livelihood.
                       But what I'm saying is that MSHA needs to
           take a hard look, you know, before they promulgate
           another Act, here, this is a serious issue, and it has
           been for a long time.
                       And the sad part is, you know, from the
           time that somebody might be exposed to the chemical
           hazard, and to the time the symptoms show up, it might
           be ten years, you know? 
                       A cancer doesn't just form and grow in a
           matter of a couple of days after an exposure to a
           chemical agent.  And these people, I would say that
           there are a lot of people that have died, through the
           years, that have been exposed to chemicals, and we've
           basically had no protection in the workplace.
                       For some odd reason the coal industry in
           West Virginia, I will cite West Virginia because I'm
           from here.  The coal industry in West Virginia was
           exempt from the standards.  All the other industries
           in the states were covered but us.
                       And all we are asking MSHA to do is to
           give us some protection.  Give us at least what OSHA
           does for the rest of the workers in this country.
                       MS. JONES:  I would like to ask just one
           more little detail.  You were talking about the use of
           methyl iso cyanate.  Could you describe, in a little
           more detail, how that is used, and how the exposures
           happen there, with that? 
                       MR. MORRIS:  It is injected, they drill
           into the top, the top strata, inject it under
           pressure.  It is almost like a resin, and it is
           injected under pressure.  And what it does, it goes
           out into the various layers of the strata, they will
           all come together.
                       Hence, I guess, that is where they got the
           name rock lock.  But in doing that it also, I don't
           know what the word is that I'm looking for here, it
           becomes airborne.  The fumes off of it.
                       Alabama had a severe problem with it
           several years back, where they had some miners -- one
           exposure, they had to cease working, their lungs were
           gone.  And I'm saying if we are using chemicals like
           this, then we need to make the people that are doing
           the work aware of it.
                       You can't, you know, most miners aren't
           going to go into the superintendent's office, that is
           where they keep all the things at the prep plant, and
           say, I want to see an MSDS data sheet, I want to know
           what I'm working with here.  They are just not going
           to do it.
                       The mine operator is going to have to make
           it a part of our training that we have a right to know
           what we are using, and we have a right to ask to be
           protected.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  I think you may have
           alluded to this earlier, and just didn't by name.  But
           is West Virginia miners covered under Right to Know?
                       MR. MORRIS:  We are not covered like the
           other industries in the state.  I mean, I worked on a
           plant for two or three years, and I handled various
           chemicals, you know, even diesel fuel is dangerous
           when it is absorbed through the skin into the blood
           stream.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  We have had some comment to
           the effect that miners, if they are working with
           chemical solvents, they should wear gloves, and if
           something has fumes, that they should have
           ventilation, and there is a generic instruction, based
           on common sense, that people should operate on.
                       Do you have any reaction to that? 
                       MR. MORRIS:  You are saying that --
                       MR. SNASHALL:  In other words that --
                       MR. MORRIS:  -- the miners should --
                       MR. SNASHALL:  -- there is common sense.
                       MR. MORRIS:  Just common sense that I
           should know that I'm working with a chemical, and I
           should -- I don't know, that is putting it back on the
           miner to provide his own protection.
                       You know, I mean, that is not something
           that we have the leeway to do.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  Do you have any sense that
           people, if they are, for example if you are painting,
           and I was a painter at one point, okay?
                       MR. MORRIS:  Okay.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  So you, one of the things
           is you have, you don't paint in a confined space,
           generally.  Or you look for some ventilation.
                       The point of the, I guess of the comment
           we've had before, is that a lot of this stuff can be
           picked up by common sense precautions, it doesn't need
           a lot of detail.
                       Do you have any reaction to that?  Or is
           a significant amount of exposure subtle, and really is
           beyond what people can reasonably expect to know
           quickly, that something may be wrong, or could happen
           to them?
                       MR. MORRIS:  Well, I think a lot of the
           time, you know, just like a mechanic on a plant may
           use that PVC paint.  He may use it today, and may
           never use it again for a year.  Then somebody like an
           electrician may use it every day.
                       I mean, I've painted for years, and I
           would have never dreamed, I've never used a paint that
           would have done what that did to me.  I would have had
           no reason.
                       You know, there is an implied feeling on
           the part of the workers that, you know, my employers
           shouldn't be exposing me to something that is going to
           kill me.  I think that is a reasonable assumption.
                       Maybe not in the legal sense, but in a
           moral sense.  You know, I should reasonably be able to
           expect to go home at the end of the day, to my family,
           and not have to worry about what I may have been
           exposed to, either through my skin, through breathing
           it.
                       You know, we deal in an atmosphere where
           we deal with a lot of dust, anyway.  A miner is
           exposed, at best, to a dust hazard, and to silica
           hazard.  And why should you have to assume that when
           you go on a job site, that something that is done
           maybe two or three times in your whole mining career,
           could potentially cause, you know, fatal consequence
           20 years down the road.
                       I mean, I never -- I think I have an
           obligation, I'm not bashful when it comes to using
           something now.  But I learned the hard way.
                       MR. FEEHAN:  Do you know of, or can you
           tell us, the percentage of unreported injuries that
           are chemically related, do you have a sense of that,
           Bob?
                       MR. MORRIS:  No.  And I will tell you for
           one reason why.  At our mine, and I'm sure it is the
           same at other Consol operations, at Peabody, or PNM,
           or wherever, they do not want -- they discourage you
           even turning in a normal accident.  I mean browbeat
           you.
                       If somebody gets hurt at our mine, the
           superintendent will be calling them in the next hour. 
           You know, it is your fault, you were the employee, you
           were doing something wrong, or you wouldn't have been
           hurt.  It is no different with a chemical. 
                       I think just about anybody in the room
           here, I can't speak for every company, and I wouldn't
           try to, but I would say that, you know, they are
           basically the same, they operate the same.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Bob, we appreciate you
           sharing your testimony, and your story.  And we do
           sympathize with the families that lost their loved
           ones, and we appreciate you coming forward.
                       MR. MORRIS:  All right, thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Charles Miller, United Mine Workers.
                       MR. MILLER:  I'm Charles Miller, I work
           for Consol, I'm a union member, and I have been for 32
           years, and I'm a safety committeeman at that local.
                       There are a few comments I would like to
           make, and then if you have any questions, you could
           ask me.
                       I would like to see MSHA make a rule on
           this HAZCOM, so that it is actually made for
           everybody.  The people who work there, the people who
           know what is going on, and no grey areas.
                       I find that through all these years of
           seeing what happened to people, and hearing all these
           things, that something has to be done, and not ten
           years from now, because of all these exposures we've
           had now.
                       And I think to eliminate these operators
           from making all these determinations, this rule has to
           be done now, as soon as possible.  It is a shame that
           it has taken so many years now to resolve this
           problem.
                       And I don't think we should have to wait
           any longer for other people to get sick and say, I
           can't work today, or I can't go tomorrow, because I've
           got cancer now, or I got burnt too bad.
                       I don't think any of this should happen to
           us, or you, or anybody else, just from the chemicals
           that actually I don't think, in my opinion, should
           even be there.
                       If that stuff is going to hurt our people,
           we shouldn't be using it.  They should find some way
           to train, or whatever, to eliminate all that kind of
           stuff.
                       I mean, they were trying to do that with
           dust control, and with noise, things like that, that
           people are trying to get control of.  I mean, it
           shouldn't take all these years, back in the '40s and
           killed a lot of people, well I think we should have
           done this, I think we should have made some changes in
           this law.
                       I mean, I don't want to go home and tell
           my kids, I'm so sick I can't work no more.  You know,
           I don't want to do that.  And I don't want other
           people to have to go through that, or some of the
           stories you hear.
                       As MSHA has, for a long time now, turned
           its back on us, through Congressional mandates to
           protect all these miners, I think that MSHA is on the
           back road for that.  I think you should have been out
           on a bandwagon and told these companies, this is what
           we are going to do, and this is the law, and this is
           how it has to be.  No loopholes, no grey areas,
           nothing.
                       Then I have a few other things I want to
           talk about.  The reasons why I'm talking about this
           for our miners' sake, is that under your Federal
           Register you had stated, and expressed concern that
           you had not had sufficient time to fully analyze the
           Interim Final Rule, to develop and submit meaningful
           comments, and you cannot -- and it cannot compare to
           the thousands of miners who continue to suffer the
           effects of exposure to hazardous substances.
                       And then by your own admission there have
           been, from 1990, through 1999, there have been an
           excess of 2,000 chemical burns, about half of which
           were lost time injuries.
                       And in some other things, there were 400
           poisonings among this all these chemicals.  And then
           MSHA has decided to turn a deaf ear on the miners of
           the nation.  I believe that MSHA has given the
           operators plenty of time to ensure compliance with
           these rules.          
                       The miners believe that MSHA has caved in
           to the pressures of the operators involving the
           administration at the expense of these miners.  It is
           time that MSHA has given the miners the benefits of
           HAZCOM. 
                       And I personally think that when all this
           is done, and you try to do the right thing, that you
           --
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Charles, just for a
           point of clarification, in my opening statement I said
           that the industry had made allegations that they had
           not had time to analyze the Interim Final Rule, and
           have enough time to analyze it so they could submit
           meaningful comments.  
                       It wasn't that we said that, that they
           didn't have time to do it.  That was something that
           the operators had submitted in their comments, as far
           as going forward with --
                       MR. MILLER:  But they are the ones that
           use the chemicals, not you or I.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Right.
                       MR. MILLER:  I mean, they know what they
           are using, and what they want to use.
                       Then I heard other comments about, people
           are saying that these companies know what is in these
           chemicals, and they are not affording the information. 
           Then I heard you brought up Part 48.
                       If you sat through one of those classes,
           in an 8 hour period, for all the things that is in
           that mandate now, under Part 48, you don't get to all
           the things that could hurt you.
                       They will give you some warnings and tell
           you, or give you a little short film, and tell you
           that is what that is.
                       In the 32 years of all these trainings
           that I've had, on different things, they never ever
           hit at all these different things that can happen to
           you, that don't go under an unsupported roof, or if it
           gets too dusty, get some water, things like that. 
                       But you are talking about something else
           that you can get through your skin, you know, what is
           the proper stuff, what do you use to make this stuff
           not hurt you.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Well, the intent of
           the Interim Final Rule is so the operator can identify
           what hazards that you could potentially be exposed to,
           and then share that information to you, through some
           training program, and make this information available
           through labeling, and through the MSDSs, as well as
           the training. 
                       So the whole thing, that is the purpose so
           they would be able to do that. 
                       MR. PHUC:  Would you be able to provide a
           data, the injury data that you just mentioned?
                       MR. MILLER:  On the accidents?
                       MR. PHUC:  Yes.
                       MR. MILLER:  I didn't write that down, I
           think --
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  I think he just took
           their own data. 
                       MR. PHUC:  Okay.
                       MR. MILLER:  I read that through the MSHA
           register, it had that. 
                       MR. PHUC:  Okay, I was just wondering
           where you got that data from.
                       MR. FEEHAN:  Do you have an idea of how
           many injuries are unreported?
                       MR. MILLER:  At my mine?
                       MR. FEEHAN:  Chemically related injuries.
                       MR. MILLER:  I had one.
                       MR. FEEHAN:  Did you? 
                       MR. MILLER:  Yes.  I have a burn on my
           back.  Actually it looks like a skin rash, but it is
           a burn.  And it burnt for a while, now it is just a
           big scar.
                       I know a person that hasn't been working,
           he got solcenic oil in his blood system, and he is
           ruined, he hasn't worked for two years now.
                       MR. FEEHAN:  That has not been reported?
                       MR. MILLER:  I don't think it has.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Why would you not
           report that, if it was an injury that --
                       MR. MILLER:  Well, it didn't come on until
           like four or five days afterwards, this rash that I
           have.  I mean I couldn't say that happened at work. 
           Do you know what I mean?  Because they wouldn't accept
           that as an accident, then.  But it come on me
           afterwards.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Okay.  Would you come
           to the podium and identify yourself for the record,
           and we can get you in?
                       MR. MORRIS:  I am Bob Morris, I was up
           here previously.  Probably one of the reasons why, you
           know you asked him why he wouldn't report an accident
           like that, you only have like 24 hours to report an
           accident before you leave mine property.
                       So a lot of people they will get hurt,
           burned or whatever, and they will say, it is not going
           to amount to anything.  Two or three days later it may
           come as a problem, but you can't go back and back date
           it, and claim that it is a loss time injury, or
           whatever. 
                       It happens constantly, believe me. 
                       MR. MILLER:  We have a lot of people
           complain about itching, and they will use rubber
           gloves, and some of the things that they have, and
           still get the stuff on their skin, they itch and
           everything else.
                       MS. JONES:  I just wanted to go back to a
           point that you made early on about trying to eliminate
           hazards in mining, and perhaps substituting less
           hazardous chemicals for -- making a substitution.
                       Do you feel, or are you of the opinion
           that the hazard communication standard, which would
           provide the knowledge to both the mine operator, and
           the miner, might lead to substitutions like that? 
                       MR. MILLER:  I think if they could find
           something else that would be better, that would be
           less harmful to you, yes I think it would be a good
           idea.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  You mentioned annual
           refresher, and this I've asked before, with another
           speaker.  Have you been task trained in the health
           aspects of the task which would include exposure to
           chemicals?
                       MR. MILLER:  The only thing that they
           showed us in the last few years was a little film for
           about eight minutes, ten minutes, on some of the
           things you do.
                       But, you know, it is not like if you
           looked at the film, and you didn't know anything about
           it, you wouldn't know what to do.  That is the kind of
           films that they show you, because they don't have
           enough time in an 8 hour period to teach all the
           things they have to teach.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  But before, if you were to
           be assigned a new task, there is, separate from the
           eight hours?
                       MR. MILLER:  I've already asked questions,
           and they don't know, they don't know what to tell you. 
           That is the kind of answer they will tell you, I don't
           know.  Then they will make a call and try to find out
           from somebody else.  That is what happens.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Charles, do you know
           what kind of chemical you got on your back?  Did you
           know when you got a chemical? 
                       MR. MILLER:  I didn't realize anything
           that it was, until afterward.  It was, like I said, a
           week.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  And you have no idea
           what chemical you were working with?
                       MR. MILLER:  They have this milk oil, they
           call it.  It is fire resistant oil, it is a white oil
           that I think is 80 or 90 percent water, and ten
           percent some kind of petroleum product.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Water emulsion?
                       MR. MILLER:  Yes.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you Charles,
           appreciate it.
                       Our next speaker is Craig Irwin from
           United Mine Workers, Local 93.
                       MR. IRWIN:  How are you doing, my name is
           Scott Irwin, Local 93, I'm on development of mining. 
           I have been working in the mining industry for 21
           years, started out with a truck dump operator, grease
           truck, grader, dozers, went up to the slate for 13
           years, now I'm back on the strip on a dozer.
                       I have various experience with all these
           things, with the chemicals that we have, when I was at
           the Temple, not very much, but the men that we work
           with, my buddy back there gave me a few notes on a few
           of the chemicals, I didn't know what they was.
                       You say you take the common sense approach
           to these things.  All of us have common sense.  But
           when we are being led to believe that there is no
           danger, we believe there is no danger. 
                       When we are told by the authority, or the
           people that we work for, that there is no danger, we
           assume there is no danger.  I am here today to say
           this HAZCOM rule needs to be effective, it needs to be
           implemented immediately, and enforced just as
           rigorously as you possibly can.
                       The film we seen yesterday, my experience
           since we've been union, we went union in '93, I never
           had any of this training.  You talk about Part 48
           training, I see in the Code where it doesn't have any
           hazmat training in it.
                       You've got four hours of first aid, you've
           got ground control plans, you've got the safe
           operation of trucks and haulage.  You get your
           definition of where you are going in the mine, and
           stuff.
                       And I notice this year we had a fatality,
           one of our foremen, and that took up most of our
           annual retraining.  I think training is an important
           part.
                       Before I ever came up here to the Academy,
           there is a lot of things that I did, that I didn't
           know that I was supposed to not do.  The Academy has
           helped me really well, and I think training is a
           continuous thing that we need to learn, and to improve
           upon.
                       Because, as you said, your experience with
           your painting career, yes, you are aware of these
           things.  But I'm not aware of that.  I buy something
           at the store I assume that it is safe for me to use.
                       Sometimes I read the thing, sometimes I
           don't.  But we've had four, three people that has died
           in our plant, and as far as I know it has not been
           reported as job related.  
                       I think that some of our widows are trying
           to prove that it was job related.  But we've had two
           with cancer, they are dead, one with leukemia, dead. 
           We have another one that is not working out with a
           brain tumor.
                       That is four people out of approximately
           42 people that has got these things.  The 13 years
           experience I had up on the slate dump, they call it
           magnetite, the slurry impoundment.
                       And these are some of the things that go
           into the slurry impoundment.  The perk, the ionic,
           ammonia, caustic soda, soda ashes, and cationic.  What
           kind of chemical is in there mixed together, is
           creating in that sediment pond?
                       And that sediment pond, we pump it into
           the front, the slurry drop out, the water go back to
           the back, they pump it off, it goes into the other
           sediment ponds, then they treat it with something.  I
           don't know what it is, it is another chemical. 
                       And also when it come back down, they pump
           it back to the temple to reuse that water, they
           rehandle that water.  We are washing floors down, we
           are washing the ceilings down, and also it is treated
           for us to take our showers in.
                       A lot of the guys down at work, another
           man that is retired experienced great rashes on his
           body.  And several times the health department has
           came and give us a water advisory when they came to
           check the water, that it was not up to standard. 
                       So we has to stay on top of these things. 
           If you don't have a law, or a rule in effect, that
           says specifically that you are going to train your
           men, my company is not going to train me.
                       And I am a firm believer, and I am so glad
           that I have had opportunity with the UMWA, to be in
           classes, to be trained.  And when you go back to your
           men, and you try to explain the things that we learn
           here at the Academy, they think that you are just
           carrying on.
                       I don't know what it is, I guess it is the
           human factor.  That they think, well you just think
           you've got a little knowledge, and we don't need to do
           this. 
                       A lot of people go in with masks.  I know
           one incident one time, we had an ammonia tank to
           burst, rupture, whatever it was.  Some of our men
           almost didn't get out of the tipple.
                       And my understanding of this, right now,
           this is second-hand, I don't know if you are going to
           take it or not, but I'm going to tell it to you
           anyway, the two masks we got is our floc man, is our
           chemical men, the ones that mixes stuff up to put it
           out to the tanks to do the sediment, this, that, and
           the other.
                       Well, you have two masks.  When the
           ammonia came in, they provided two masks, and them two
           guys got it locked up in their locker.  I mean, what
           good is that going to do me if something or another,
           if my piece of equipment tore up, they have the right
           to temporary assignment to do any job that I'm capable
           of doing.
                       But do they give me everything?  They
           said, yes, this control puts it up, this control puts
           it down.  But what else -- sometimes we don't look
           beyond ourselves, we look for something down the road
           that is going to hurt us.
                       But that thing is right beside of us is
           going to hurt.  I heard one testimony talked about the
           starting fluid.  That is bad stuff.  And when I get in
           my cab I make sure it is out of my cab.  But it is
           back in the next day.
                       You tell the men but somehow or another it
           is not getting done.  Me, personally, I don't direct
           that workforce.  If you give a regulation and a rule
           for the company to enforce these things, I think it
           would go a whole lot better.
                       And this is human.  I had a lot of
           inspectors tell me, and I find it to be true, I am my
           own worst enemy.  I say, well, I can get in there and
           I can paint that in a couple of minutes, and I won't
           be exposed long.
                       Well, I can make one more trip, I have a
           hydraulic leak, but I can make one trip, it would be
           good enough to do another.  So that is where we need
           continuous training, eight hour annual refresher is
           not enough, my friend.
                       Because it is short, it is sweet, and
           sometimes, like I said, with the seriousness of the
           accident, we had a foreman killed, sometimes a topic
           like that will take over the annual retraining.
                       And I'm sure they try to do the best they
           can, but I think that the thing is continuous
           education is what we need, and I sort of like one of
           the things that MSHA did a few years ago, it was
           called CAPs, compliance assistance program. 
                       He showed our operators a lot of things
           they were doing wrong.  They was filling out books
           wrong, they was doing a lot of things that they wasn't
           supposed to be doing, a lot of things was corrected.
                       But somehow or another it don't trickle
           down to the workforce, some way or another.  And like
           I said, I'm finished, I don't know what else to say. 
           I say let's implement the Rule, let's get it on there.
                       You are protecting other people, other
           industry, protect me, I'm my own worst enemy.  Help
           me, I need help.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Craig. 
           Just a clarification.  The existing Part 46 and Part
           48, part 46 for those of you that may not know, is a
           training requirement for the aggregate industry.  It
           is a separate training regulation just for that
           segment of the industry. 
                       But both of them have a requirement that
           just says that they will train the miners in the
           hazards to which they are exposed.  And we get some
           comments that says that that training is where they
           cover this chemical hazards training, is where the
           hazards that the miners are exposed to.
                       I just say that to clarify, because there
           is no specific requirement in there that says that you
           have to do this or that.   But just the general
           subject of hazards.  At least that is my understanding
           of it.
                       MR. IRWIN:  It is not happening.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  I think we are
           starting to get that picture.
                       MS. JONES:  I just want to clarify one
           thing.  When you were going through the components of
           the material that is used in your settlement ponds,
           what was the first component that you mentioned?
                       MR. IRWIN:  Perk, P-E-R-K, perk. 
           Magnetite was what -- I tell you, that is another
           little story, too.
                       Three of us worked up there 13 year.  I'm
           glad you reminded me of that.  Phil Opana has had
           about 18 inches of his guts took out because he had
           chrones disease, and colitis.  Gary Munsy is busted. 
           These are all the guys I worked with for 13 years.  I
           have been diagnosed with arthritis colitis.
                       And I don't know if that is industry or
           not, but three out of four working in the same area,
           I don't know what that is.  And, like I said, all that
           stuff is gathered together at one time.
                       And when I was at the tipple, it wasn't
           nothing, if a vessel got stopped up the boss said get
           it cleaned out, it wasn't nothing for me to jump in,
           up to my waist, getting that cleaned out.
                       Did I asses all the hazard?  Maybe I
           didn't, maybe I don't have common sense like a regular
           man does.  But I assumed there was no danger there. 
           And I guess you know what that made me, when I
           assumed, don't you? 
                       I'm finished.  You get me started on
           something else I will talk all day.
                       MR. FEEHAN:  The perk, do you know what
           the, what that actually is, is it perchlorethylene, is
           that what you are -- 
                       MS. JONES:  That is what I was wondering,
           is that what it is?
                       MR. IRWIN:  Yes.
                       MR. FEEHAN:  Yes.  Do you know of
           unreported injuries, chemically related injuries?
                       MR. IRWIN:  Myself personally, no.  That
           is why I tell my people to report everything that
           comes to.  I even instruct them to go out if they have
           to.  That way you have a record.
                       Because these guys going home, like they
           said earlier, we think we are doing the company a
           favor, but we are just hurting ourselves.  And we need
           MSHA to help us, we need training. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Craig, we thank you.
                       Our next speaker is John, and I can't make
           this out real clearly, but it looks like Early, it is
           from UMAW local 2300.
                       MR. ELY:  My name is John Ely, United Mine
           Workers of America, health and safety committee, Local
           2,300, Cumberland Mine, Pennsylvania.
                       I have 25 years working underground.  I
           guess I will just start out reading what I've written
           here, and then I will take some questions, and maybe
           elaborate a little bit.
                       Common sense is something that is
           important, and should have already been put into
           place.  Many people are currently being exposed to,
           due to the lack of urgency to get this Rule into
           place.
                       To me a hazardous chemical is a hazardous
           chemical.  They are dangerous by their very nature. 
           The dose is very important, just as a drug is
           important to be taken in its proper dose.
                       As we all know, an overdose of anything
           can be fatal.  In our particular mine we use a
           particular chemical which contains carcinogenics,
           which they spoke about earlier, which is the glue into
           the roof.
                       I think that is a common thing in the mine
           industry today.  Our employees are exposed to this on
           a regular basis, not only when pumping it into the
           roof, but during the handling of the 55 gallon drums,
           that could be from the folks outside when they are
           loaded, to the men underground, as it is taken to the
           section.
                       We requested MSHA to come in and do a test
           in an airborne state.  They used dust pumps, they
           didn't really even have the proper equipment to test
           that for us.  And that is one other issue, I think,
           that MSHA needs to beef up on, is maybe some testing
           equipment.  So they really couldn't give us an
           accurate statement as to what was in the air.
                       On this training issue, I say training is
           done only to appease the law.  If additional training
           is needed, let's force the operator to do so.  Very
           little, if any, hazard training is done in our annual
           retraining.
                       One of my suggestions would be to
           standardize the MSDS sheets.  I don't think that was
           in your film that you had, that actually mentioned
           that the MSDS sheets were not a standardized type of
           a format, you know? 
                       And much like the papers we fill out, like
           if we fire a boss, or whatever type sheets you might
           have, it would make it much easier to look down there
           and see exactly what the hazards were, maybe what the
           treatment for a burn, or something like that. 
                       I think that is very important to
           standardize those sheets.  And like I talked to a
           gentleman, in one of our many breaks, we were talking
           about as far as the training, we didn't even know what
           these gentlemen were talking about. 
                       It has become so redundant over the years,
           I've had like probably 25 to 26 classes of this
           retraining, and I really believe in my own heart that
           the company does the minimum to say that they've done
           it.
                       And there are some cases where you
           actually need more.  Right now we've got the diesel
           regulations in Pennsylvania, which are the best in the
           country.  And even at that, we don't like them.
                       We are forcing our people, we have to
           actually force the company to train people to run the
           diesels.  I mean, we can't even get them to do it.
                       And everything is done to the minimum. 
           And I have oftentimes thought that.  And training,
           I've often time used our mind at work, we are not the
           dummer work force, but we are more ignorant than we
           were in the past, because we are not being exposed to
           training.
                       New equipment coming in, hazards, this
           type of thing.  I mean, it kind of give you a blanket
           statement, yes you have hazards in the mine.  But we
           need to have more specifics.  We are not really as
           dumb as some people might think we are.
                       Actually the mining industry is a proud
           industry, and United Mine Workers is a proud group of
           men that really just want what is fair for all of us.
                       And someone mentioned earlier, I mean,
           what we do directly affects the non-union miners, too. 
           I mean, they are still human.  We still have to look
           out for everyone's best interest.
                       So actually we are kind of like the sacred
           lamb, I think, for a lot of them at times, to bring
           these issues to light.
                       As Mr. Trout asked you earlier, please put
           yourselves in our shoes, and make a decision based on
           the facts, they are very evident.  I'm sure some of
           these things are maybe new to you folks, that you've
           heard today, and I would hope that you would take
           those in consideration.
                       And one last comment, as I heard you say
           in the opening remarks, several times, that the Rule
           could put a burden on the operator, at some point in
           time.  You did say that, right?
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  That is what the
           operators are saying.
                       MR. ELY:  Right.  I know you didn't say
           it, but you are saying what the operator said.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Correct. 
                       MR. ELY:  Well, I would like to go on the
           record and make the comment that I will guarantee you,
           without a good rule put in place, our miners and our
           families will have a greater burden than the operator
           ever dreamed of.  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Any questions? 
                       MR. PHUC:  You mentioned that we should
           standardize the MSDS sheets?
                       MR. ELY:  Yes, sir. 
                       MR. PHUC:  And what is the reasoning
           behind that? 
                       MR. ELY:  Well, you know, usually when
           someone gets hurt, or they are exposed, it is like an
           emergency type situation.  And I could add that maybe
           making them readily available. 
                       Because someone mentioned before, maybe
           after the midnight shift the doors might be locked,
           that type of thing.
                       You need to go in where you can open up,
           and on the first line it is going to say the chemical,
           the second line is going to say the reaction, the
           third line is going to say the treatment, maybe the
           emergency phone numbers. 
                       I'm sure you've dealt with a lot of
           paperwork, and it is much easier to be able to go down
           and read, and have an idea of what is on the first
           page, second page, or third page.
                       I have read a lot of them, and every one
           of them is different. 
                       MR. PHUC:  Right.
                       MR. ELY:  I mean, it is just a suggestion. 
           But I think that anything is standardized that is that
           important. 
                       MR. PHUC:  But the few that you have seen,
           are they -- I mean, how is the language, is it easily
           understandable?
                       MR. ELY:  Yes, you can read it, but you
           have to search through it to find out what exactly you
           are looking for, and was it easily understandable.  I
           would say yes, but at the same time I think it needs
           to be put in layman's terms.
                       I mean, I'm not a chemist, I'm pretty
           impressed with some of these guys the way they can say
           these things.  I don't even attempt to do that. 
                       But, you know, I need to know exactly what
           it is going to do to me, you know?   But I think, when
           I say standardized, I basically mean the format, you
           know, one through ten, this, this, and this type of a
           thing.  That way you can look at it and -- do you know
           what I'm saying?
                       MR. PHUC:  Okay.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  John, does the mine
           operator has MSDSs at the mine?
                       MR. ELY:  Yes, sir, they do, for the
           biggest part.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  And have you reviewed
           any of those?
                       MR. ELY:  Yes, we have.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Are they in a
           relatively sequential order of some kind, that you can
           go find what you want with relative ease?
                       MR. ELY:  I don't know if they would be in
           a sequential order.  However, they are available in a
           binder type book, it is in the safety department. 
                       But, once again, they are primarily going
           to be locked up in the afternoon to midnight shift. 
           I think they do need to be made really accessible,
           more so.
                       And, like I said, when you look through
           it, it is not like a Cabellos book, where you have the
           bows, and the rifles, and the clothing in the back. 
           Do you know what I'm saying?  It is like, you've got
           everything all over the place.
                       Like you might have one chemical here for
           the prep plant, and you might have one over here for
           aerosol cans.  It is just real unorganized.  And, like
           you said, if someone got burnt, and you are trying to
           find something real quick, it is going to add to the
           mess, you know, trying to find it.
                       I think you know what I'm trying to say. 
           I'm not exactly sure how to do it.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Under what
           circumstances do you go look at the MSDSs? 
                       MR. ELY:  We had a situation a while back
           where they are adding a chemical to our water supply,
           I believe it is called Polo, it smells like orange. 
           It is a wetting agent that they put in our water.
                       We looked over it for that.  And, once
           again, the information was sketchy, at best.  And we
           have been trying to get more information on that. 
           That was the last instance I can remember looking at
           it.
                       And we do use the foam to spray over
           casks, and seals underground.  And we are constantly
           fighting for respirators for the folks for that, and
           the right type of respirator. 
                       Once again we have the same problem, they
           want to buy the cheapest thing on the market.  Once
           again, they are going to appease the law and say yes,
           we have respirators.  It is an age old fight.
                       But that is the last time I can recall
           looking at them.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  The chemicals that you
           use, and this goes specifically to this chemical that
           has this orange, or citric type ingredient, does it
           have a label on it?
                       MR. ELY:  Yes, it does.  But it is hard to
           get, because they put that in outside, up above our
           prep plant, in our yard.  And it comes in huge
           barrels.  And it is very --
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  So it just goes into
           the water system, as it goes underground? 
                       MR. ELY:  The entire water system, yes. 
           Not directly handled.  And it is diluted drastically. 
           I don't know what it is.  It is a very, very small
           amount.  But you can smell it.
                       And we've looked at it, and it does --
           like I said, it is sketchy, at best.  And, once again,
           you are not dealing with a brain surgeon here, you
           know? 
                       I mean, I try to do my best, but I can't
           read some of that stuff.  And that is another thing. 
           I think it needs to be written so the average guy can
           read it.  I'm doing my best but sometimes it is hard. 
                       We are doing it in our best interest, you
           know, but it is hard to keep up with.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Based on your
           knowledge does the miners themselves request to look
           at those MSDSs?
                       MR. ELY:  Yes, they do.  In this
           particular case they have, and they continue to do so. 
           I have yet to convince them that it is not going to
           kill them somewhere down the line, to be honest with
           you.
                       I mean, it is still a concern in our mind. 
           And we have to get that under control.  I mean, it is
           still an issue, I will put it that way.
                       MR. FEEHAN:  I am going to ask the same
           question. 
                       MR. ELY:  Okay, I will give you the same
           answer.
                       MR. FEEHAN:  Do you know of unreported
           chemically reported injuries, and can you quantify it?
                       MR. ELY:  I can't really say of any
           unreported chemically related injuries, I can't.  I
           would like to think that we have none, because I just
           don't think we do at this point.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  John, we appreciate
           it.
                       MR. ELY:  Sure, thank you for your time.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Let's go off the
           record, Ed.
                                   (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
                       went off the record at 2:14 p.m.  and
                       went back on the record at 2:38 p.m.)
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Dwayne Barton, he is a coal miner.
                       MR. BARTON:  Thank you.  In opening I
           would like to thank the Panel for allowing me the time
           to speak here to you today.
                       My name is Dwayne Barton, and I work for
           New Brunswick Coal Limited.  I come from the East
           Coast of Canada.  There I serve on the safety
           committee, and I'm a recording secretary for the local
           union.  I've been a mine worker for 24 years.
                       I've just recently been reelected to my
           second term on Village Council.  I've had the
           opportunity and the honor to come down here for the
           past ten years, to learn in this great facility that
           you have here in the United States of America.
                       And behind me all these Americans are my
           friends, they have been my friends for a long time.
                       The other night at supper there was a
           discussion going on about a Hearing here today, the
           one that you are having here today.  And I said to
           someone, what is the Hearing about?  They said,
           hazmat.
                       I said, what is hazmat?  They said, that
           is a system that they are trying to put into place for
           -- to deal with hazardous chemicals in the worksite. 
           I said, you are pulling my leg.  They said, no, no. 
           I said, you don't have that in place yet?
                       In Canada we have been under the WHMIS
           program for the past 20 years.  WHMIS, which is
           spelled W-H-M-I-S, is the workplace hazardous
           materials information system. 
                       It is a system that deals with everything
           that is made in Canada, and shipped out to companies. 
           The company is responsible for providing -- the
           manufacturer is responsible for providing the
           companies with the information on everything they ship
           us.
                       They have to tell us, first of all, what
           is in the product, what the name of the product is;
           what are the possible harmful effects from the
           product; what protective safety equipment do we need
           to use this product, and what could we do if an
           accident happens while using this product.  Plus a 1-
           800 number that we can get information that we are not
           sure of.
                       I hope what I'm saying here this afternoon
           will help you in making your decision to protect the
           coal miners of the United States.  And I hope the
           United States government does catch up to Canada in
           their program to protect them from chemicals. 
                       I don't know what kind of a cost you can
           put on human life.  I would like to say this, I hope
           I don't offend anybody.  But on September 11th you
           guys suffered a terrible, terrible thing here in the
           United States.  Six thousand people lost their lives
           in the blink of an eye.
                       That is a terrible thing.  And because it
           all happened at once it received world-wide news, and
           should have.  We should be aware that there are
           terrorists out there.
                       But in the 20 years that the Canadians
           have been protected by WHMIS, there is a good
           possibility that 6,000 Americans died from using
           chemicals on the work site.  And I think it is time
           that the United States government put their program
           into place, and protected the lives of the miners here
           in the United States of America.  Thank you. 
                       (Applause.)
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  No questions. 
                       MR. BARTON:  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Danny Smith, United Mine Workers of America.
                       MR. SMITH:  My name is Danny Smith, I've
           been a United Mine Workers of America member as an
           employee of U.S. Steel, number 50 mine, for 25 years.
                       I have seen much new technology come to
           the coal mines during those years, including the
           widespread use of chemicals.  Today I'm here to speak
           on the hazard communication rule that we so
           desperately need in our industry today.
                       In today's business world the right to
           information is at a premium.  However, in our
           industry, this obviously does not apply.
                       We, as a workforce, have been trying to
           obtain a fair hazard communication rule since November
           2nd, 1987.  Thus far this struggle has been very one-
           sided.
                       MSHA has had numerous opportunities to put
           this rule into effect.  I would very much like to
           express my concern about just some of the language in
           our proposed rule, such as operator, or chemical
           manufacturers not being held responsible for
           inaccurate labeling and material safety data sheets.
                       We are being exposed to chemicals that we
           are not familiar with, nor do we know what toxic
           effects they may have on our health, or on the
           environment.  
                       We also need to know specifically what
           first aid treatment to administer to ourselves, or our
           coworkers, in case of exposure to these chemicals. 
                       This problem of not knowing these
           chemicals, or their ill effects, will only grow as
           technology advances, and we are introduced to new
           chemicals regularly in our workplace.
                       I have been in two information gathering
           type meetings with MSHA in the past three months.  I
           have been quoted some of Mr. Lorenski's, the assistant
           secretary's goals for our industry for the next four
           years.
                       He would like to have a 15 percent
           decrease in accidents and fatalities in each year,
           during this time frame.  We need this rule in order to
           eliminate, or greatly reduce, the risk of injuries or
           deaths relating to chemical exposure.
                       I have seen my employer apply for, and
           receive, changes to MSHA regulations and plans, very
           routinely.  MSHA representatives always seem very
           receptive to the employer's ideas.
                       It concerns me greatly that employees
           cannot receive needed information about the hazards
           that we are exposed to daily.
                       In closing, I would like to say that ours
           is the only industry in West Virginia that this
           crucial information is being withheld from.  This has
           been a hot and cold issue for almost 14 years, and
           continues to be so.
                       If we aren't truly working to prevent
           injuries and deaths, by enacting this rule, once and
           for all, then I feel the matter should be completely
           dropped, without the pretense of later consideration,
           and being shoved back on a back shelf, as has been the
           practice thus far.
                       Thank you for your time and patience in
           hearing my concerns.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Danny. 
           Danny, are you aware of any injuries that resulted
           from chemical --
                       MR. BARTON:  No, sir, honestly I can't say
           I've -- I can't honestly say that I have ever heard of
           any at our mines.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  How many miners do you
           have? 
                       MR. BARTON:  Close to 500.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  500.
                       MR. BARTON:  I'm an underground employee
           and I've considered for years moving into our
           preparation plant.  But after hearing what my union
           brothers and sisters are telling me about the
           chemicals there, you know, I'm kind of hesitant to go
           there now.
                       And I've been a safety committeeman for
           only three months, and I've already experienced one
           opportunity to deal with hazardous chemicals in that
           we were at our plant, on a different problem one day,
           and one of the mechanics come up to me and ask me
           about a particular chemical that they used.  And I
           think it was the one that somebody said it was Floc,
           and he said he had asked for an MSDS sheet for it.
                       And it had been three days and the
           employee had not afforded him that sheet.  So myself
           as a safety committeeman, and another safety
           committeeman, went to the company's safety person and
           asked for this.  And they said they did not have it on
           the premises, but they would afford him one.
                       So two days later they came up with the
           sheet, the fellow called us and told us he had
           received the sheet on it.  But, you know, I can relate
           to a lot of the chemicals that they are talking about
           using underground, as I don't know the exact name of
           the chemicals, but the type that they glue the top
           with.
                       And we have sealed part of our mines off,
           and they use a chemical similar to this when they
           build the seals to put around it, to stop any leakage
           through our seals, when we seal part of the mines off.
                       And as far as the Part 48 training, I've
           had it for 24 years, and I can't remember any
           relations, you know, referring to the hazardous
           chemicals. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Danny.
                       MR. BARTON:  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Daniel Bradley, United Mine Workers.
                       MR. BRADLEY:  That is David Bradley.  My
           name is David Bradley, and I work for Peabody Coal
           Company in Boone County, West Virginia, and I'm a prep
           plant utility man on the day shift.
                       In our prep plant we have stationary tanks
           that we have floc, frother, kerosene, and other
           chemicals I'm really not sure of, to be honest. 
                       These are marked as hazardous chemicals,
           but as far as any kind of data sheets, the data sheets
           and MSDS sheets are over our heads to really get
           anything out of.
                       I mean, you can look at it, and I'm not a
           chemist like everybody else.  They will use big words
           that we don't know what they are.  Most of the people
           that use it, the fine coal circuit operators, know
           what they do, and what they are used for.
                       But to me they are not labeled right, and
           they need to be labeled in a safer manner.  And I
           think everybody should be trained on exactly what we
           have, and what it will do.
                       Besides that I have a little story to tell
           about our supervisor asked me, like I said I'm a
           utility man, which I'm all over the plant, do
           different things.  And he asked me to take the bobcat
           with the forks and go up and remove a 55 gallon drum,
           he said it is the only drum sitting there, behind the
           coal lab, and take it up to an old haul road that we
           use, where we have abandoned equipment, a junkyard
           basically.
                       So I got the bobcat and took it up there,
           and he said be real careful with it.  It had never
           been opened, it wasn't labeled, nothing on it.  And I
           noticed the bottom of the drum, it was on a wooden
           pallet, I noticed the bottom of the drum was rusted,
           it wasn't leaking, I made sure of that, because I
           didn't know what it was.
                       And I took it up to the haul road, and set
           it out in the middle of a field, and I brought it
           back.  And when I came back I was curious, it was
           quite a trip.  So I went up and asked the coal lab man
           what it was, and he said he thought it was perc, which
           I didn't have any idea at the time what perc was.
                       So he started explaining to me exaCtly
           what perc was.  And I went to my supervisor and asked
           him for MSDS sheet on it, and he pulled it out, which
           I didn't look at it, he didn't hand it to me to look
           at.  He pulled it out, and he pronounced a name this
           long, you know? 
                       And he said it is used to float coal.  But
           after today, and I've talked to several people that is
           more knowledgeable on this than what I am, it is
           pretty bad stuff.  And I've handled it several times
           like that. 
                       And about a week or two after I had moved
           that we had a state mine inspector come on the
           property.  So somehow he found out about the 55 gallon
           drum.  I can't tell you where from.
                       But he managed to go up there and look at
           it, and ordered it to be taken to the warehouse, in a
           fenced off area that we have there, that we store
           different things.
                       So it was there, never was labeled, and
           probably a week later, I'm in the warehouse various
           times during the day, and about a week later it
           disappeared, never saw it again.  I don't know where
           it went.
                       But something like that needs to be, you
           know, taken care of.  If there is a hazardous chemical
           on the property I think everybody should be aware of
           what it does, aware of what chemicals are involved in
           all the processes of the plants.
                       Not one person, not the person that is
           handling the chemicals, per se, is the fine coal
           circuit man.  But I have to handle the chemicals
           because of my job as a utility man.  And everyone
           should know about them, because they are all around
           it, every day, 24 hours a day.
                       And that is pretty much it.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  David, how long ago
           was this? 
                       MR. BRADLEY:  This was, I would say,
           probably six months ago, six to eight months ago.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  And there was no label
           on that drum?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  No, no label.  There was a
           label that was on the drum, and it was probably four
           inches square, that was paper, that was stuck on
           there.  And through the weather it had deteriorated,
           and you couldn't read it to see what it was, or
           whatever. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  And do you have any
           idea how long it had been there?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  No, not exactly.  The man at
           the coal lab that actually uses it, after I spoke with
           him, he told me it had been there a while.  And he
           doesn't use it on a regular basis.  But it was there. 
           And, of course, the bottom was rusted, it wasn't
           leaking, but it showed signs of deterioration on the
           metal.
                       And he explained to me that since he used
           it, and he was probably the most knowledgeable person
           of it, I asked him what he did with it, and he said it
           was used to float coal. 
                       And he said whenever he used it, he would
           use an apron that was made out of a rubber material
           with the arms, and they were just like a doctor's
           jacket, or whatever, that you slip your arms through,
           and ties up behind the neck, rubber gloves, and the
           apron comes down here to cover him there.
                       And he handles the material.  And he said
           at one time, and it didn't happen at that particular
           site, that he had spilled some on his boot.  And he
           said he immediately went and washed it off of his work
           boot.  And through the day, as he went on, he didn't
           change shoes, and didn't change socks.  And when he
           got home in the evening, that the top layer of skin
           had been burned off of his foot like a blister, and he
           had ended up missing work.
                       But our coal samplers, our contractors,
           which I'm sure that, you know, like it didn't happen
           on that site, but it was just something that happened,
           and it was something I thought that should have been,
           you know, if it happened any time it is a terrible
           thing.  And a chemical like that is -- it doesn't need
           to be around the mines and not labeled.
                       And set aside, you know, out beside a road
           where if you get it in the water table, it could get
           on anyone, and especially with the drum in that
           condition.
                       MS. JONES:  Excuse me, did the fellow who
           had the rubber apron on, also have a respirator on?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  Yes, yes, ma'am, he did. 
           And in our 8 hour retraining classes that we have, we
           always take, they try to break it up to accommodate
           everyone on the job.
                       We have deep mines, prep plant, and we
           have a small strip job. And they try to cover
           everything.  The safety department does a real fine
           job there.  And if you need any information they will
           give it to you. 
                       And, to be honest with you, I didn't
           really know that the situation with the chemical, the
           laws and stuff, wasn't in effect, and wasn't covered
           by MSHA. 
                       But I'm sure that anything that I need,
           that would be in a reasonable manner, they would
           probably do to help, you know? 
                       But it is just like any other thing,
           companies aren't going to, and my company included,
           they are not going to do anything to spend a whole lot
           of money, I mean, in great amounts of money, to do
           anything unless there is a real hazard, which there is
           a long-term hazard, I'm sure, after listening to
           everyone today, there is a long-term hazard. 
                       And the way we look at MSHA is when we see
           an MSHA mine inspector pull on-site it is like a
           knight in shining armor coming up.  I mean, we really
           look up to MSHA.  And if we have a problem that we
           can't get fixed, we can always go to that man, and if
           he writes it up, if it is a violation, or
           recommendation, that is one thing we can count on.
                       They are mostly stand-up people, and we
           are hoping you all are going to be stand-up people on
           this.  You know, we hope you are.
                       MR. PHUC:  Excuse me, I have a question. 
           Who usually conducts the part 48 training in your
           mine?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  The safety department. 
                       MR. PHUC:  The safety department.  So
           there is not like a contractor coming in?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  No.  As a matter of fact all
           the safety, the department, in our division they
           usually get together, and they have a real, it is a
           real informative 8  hour retraining.  Like I said,
           they try to break it down, and try to cover the
           things.
                       But we usually on the hazard materials, it
           is usually a 45 minute to an hour, to each class, and
           it is covered, like for truck haulages an hour, hazard
           materials is an hour.
                       But as far as the hazard materials go, I
           have been there for 25 years, and the only thing that
           I can remember covered in an hour's time, is always
           wear rubber gloves, glasses, respirators.
                       And a lot of times, you know, just like
           everybody else, you can go to the supply house and
           they say, well, we don't have that kind of respirator,
           you are going to have to use this one.
                       And I know it is not, you might not be
           exposed to it for about 15 or 20 minutes, but it is 15
           or 20 minutes I don't want to be exposed to it.  And
           I will remove myself from the job if it comes to that,
           now.
                       And I'm sure that anybody with a little
           bit of common sense, I'm sure they will too, now.  And
           should before.
                       MR. PHUC:  And how big is your mine?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  At the prep plant we
           probably have 30 people.  And I know at the deep
           mines, altogether, probably over 100.
                       MR. PHUC:  Okay, thanks.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  In your annual refresher
           training do they cover dust and noise?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  Yes, ma'am.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Okay, so they do cover
           that? 
                       MR. BRADLEY:  Yes, ma'am.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  And they cover hazardous
           materials in general, just not specific ones?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  Right.  They will cover
           stuff like WD-40, stuff that, you know, that people
           use every day, spray cans of paint, minor stuff like
           that.  And most of the people that are teaching the
           class, and this is one thing that concerns me more
           than anything, is the instructors at the class, I
           mean, are college educated people, they are well
           informed people. 
                       But they don't have any idea what the
           chemicals at our prep plant are, and what they are
           used for.  And to be honest, the people that actually
           use it, don't really know what it is, and what it is
           used for.
                       They know the names, and they have a, just
           a real small idea of what it is.  But as far as being
           in-depth, they are just like everyone else.  I think
           that is one of the reasons that the company, I think
           it is -- I don't want to say they are stupid.
                       But ignorance is the type of thing where
           you are not informed about it, and if it doesn't
           concern you, you don't worry about it.  So nobody has
           ever brought it up.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  How do you train new
           miners about the chemical hazards, say you have a new
           employee come to your prep plant? 
                       MR. BRADLEY:  We haven't had a new
           employee there forever.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Really?
                       MR. BRADLEY:  Yes, as a matter of fact we
           have lost several.  It is like everywhere else, there
           has been reduction in work force, and cut back.  And
           unless they are actually put specifically on that job,
           as far as being task trained on hazardous materials,
           they are done a general task training job on the job
           itself.
                       But as far as the chemicals go, like I
           said, I don't think the supervisors even know, you
           know, exactly what is going on.  And it is a sad thing
           that they don't.
                       I mean, if I was on a job like that, I
           would want to know.  And now that I know what I know
           now, I will find out.  I'll find out what it is.  If
           I do have to go the manufacturer, because I will go to
           the safety department and get a list to find out.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, David.
                       MR. BRADLEY:  You are welcome.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Samuel Johnson, United Mine Workers.
                       MR. JOHNSON:  Hello.  My name is Samuel
           Johnson, I'm with the 1332 local, and I'm employed
           with the United Mine Workers.  I'm with Peabody Coal
           in New Mexico.
                       What I understand, I like to bring up,
           this about what we are talking about everything, you
           know, the point of view how I see this whole thing. 
           We can be talking, and talking, and even trying to beg
           you guys to, ask you guys to make a change.
                       But, you know, it is up to you as a panel
           to decide what is good for us or not.  I'm not well
           educated, or I'm not a good speaker, or anything like
           that.  But just by reading what I've read, I feel I
           understand, and I would like to bring it to a point
           that what are we waiting for?
                       Like our senators and congressmen are
           saying, what is -- we are going to have start thinking
           the unthinkable, and start doing the unthinkable.
                       And our nation knows, it was brought up
           that some unlabeled chemicals were going to be used in
           these air crop spraying machines.  It is -- this issue
           is a big problem, which what do we, what does it take
           to happen, to make us wonder?  These things could
           happen, a disaster.  Are we waiting for a disaster to
           happen?
                       I feel if we don't do anything today, or
           in our time, I wouldn't be able to forgive myself
           saying that I never did try to make a change.  And all
           I'm asking is we  would like to make this change, to
           prevent any type of disaster from happening, before it
           is too late.
                       Let's not have this incident happen in our
           time, that is what I'm asking.  That is all.  I'm not
           asking for much of your time, that is just my concern,
           from my point of view, where this whole thing is a
           bigger issue than we are asking, unlabeled chemicals
           coming to our nation from overseas, you know? 
                       By the time we find out what it is, it is
           too late.  That is all.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Sam.
                       Our next speaker is Tom Baker, United Mine
           Workers.
                       MR. BAKER:  My name is Tom Baker, I'm --
           I worked 33 years in a surface mine in southeastern
           Ohio.  I'm on the safety committee, also the mine
           committee. 
                       A few things I wanted to touch on have
           already been covered, so I will make it a little short
           here, to keep things moving.
                       Under the current writing of the Rule mine
           operators are required to prepare labels for any
           hazardous chemical produced at the mine.  However, the
           Rule should also require the operator to place the
           label on all containers that are used to store or
           transport such material.
                       The UMWA is also very concerned with the
           Agency's decision to allow a three month delay in
           updating these labels.  Operators must be aware of
           what substances that they are creating at the time of
           production.  Delaying any labels, delaying any
           labeling update simply places miners at risk.
                       A few things.  One thing in particular I
           want to talk about is the AMFO.  AMFO was, a man by
           the name of the late Timothy McVeigh's weapon of
           choice in Oklahoma City.  Most of the surface
           operations use this product.  It is ammonium nitrate
           and fuel oil.
                       When detonated, or fired in anything but
           a perfect explosion, AMFO creates a hazardous gas, it
           is an orange cloud of smoke.  It spread out wide, no
           matter where you are at.  Where we work at we are
           surrounding by thousands of acres of reclaimed land.
                       This hazardous gas spreads out, it will
           stop engines from running in vehicles.  You just can't
           hardly breathe it.  We have MSDS on fuel oil, and
           ammonium nitrate, but there has been a lot of talk,
           even some talk of research on the gas that is
           produced.  We have nothing, there is nothing yet.
                       I've been involved, I was involved with it
           for 22 years  of my 33 that I worked out there.  I
           have a lung fungus myself, I can't directly attribute
           that to working around ammonium nitrate.
                       People I have worked with have had
           chemical burns from handling the nitrate, especially
           in the summertime when it is hot, their hands and arms
           burned, have gotten burnt.  In some cases they've had
           to take time off.
                       I guess talking about the poisonous gas,
           we have created a chemical, or a chemical reaction. 
           I wanted to talk some about the prep plant, it has
           been pretty well covered.
                       In my workplace we have three cancer
           cases.  One has passed away, one is on medical leave,
           will never return, and one is now working with daily
           medication.
                       The recycling of the water, the process of
           cleaning the sludge, the byproduct of the clean coal,
           those are the different phases, is treated, pumped up
           on the hill to the impoundment, floats down to our
           clean pond, so to speak, back to the prep plant, and
           the water is reused.
                       The only thing we don't do with that
           water, we don't drink it.  That has already been
           covered.  But the solvents we use for cleaning, we mix
           with oil and grease, we've created a chemical,
           chemical reaction.
                       Used grease is stored in barrels, some of
           them are marked hazardous material, some are not
           marked at all, they are picked up by an outside
           contractor.  There is nothing on the truck, any
           labeling or anything on the truck that hauls the
           grease away.
                       So short and sweet, that is what I want to
           talk about today.  And I hope we can come up with
           something that everybody can live with.  Help us
           miners working now, help our children, and the people
           that work in the mines later, if there is mines to
           work at in years to come.  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Tom. 
                       Tom, the three miners that you mentioned,
           that had contracted cancer, was there any connection
           back with those diseases, back to their occupation?
                       MR. BAKER:  No, there wasn't.  But they
           were all three --
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Were they working at
           the time they were diagnosed with cancer?
                       MR. BAKER:  Yes, they were.   One is still
           working, one has passed away, and one --
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  One of the speakers
           earlier made a reference back that the doctor had said
           that it was as a result of some handling of chemicals. 
           Do you know if that was the case here?
                       MR. BAKER:  That has never, I've never
           heard that with our people.  It is the same as the
           floc, it is a magnetite.  But I've never heard that it
           was directly connected with the chemical. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  And were these three
           miners exposed to essentially the same type of
           chemical? 
                       MR. BAKER:  Exactly.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Over a prolonged
           period?
                       MR. BAKER:  Ten to twenty years.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  The Interim Final Rule
           required that portable temporary transport containers
           for hazardous chemicals did not, or it stated that
           they did not have to be labeled if the person knew
           what was in them.
                       And I was just wondering, when you were
           talking about storage and transport containers, if you
           were talking about these single use, or the small
           transport containers that miners use when they take
           chemicals as part of their job, to use?
                       MR. BAKER:  Are you talking about the used
           grease that I was referring to, that was picked up by
           --
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  No, I'm not, I'm talking
           about -- well, when you were speaking earlier, you
           were talking about labels, and that storage and
           transport containers need labels too, any labels that
           were produced at the mine.
                       And I was wondering about, say, the grease
           before it is used, unused grease, unlabeled hydraulic
           fluid, lubricants.
                       MR. BAKER:  They are labeled what they
           are.  As far as the hazards, no.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  So in your experience
           these chemicals are already labeled when they are
           taken to be used by the individual miner?
                       MR. BAKER:  No.  On the hazards?  They are
           labeled hydraulic oil, bearing grease, motor oil.  But
           they are not -- the information on the hazards of the
           material, no.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Okay.  So would it be
           sufficient, or adequate in your estimation, or
           experience, that if the container said -- I don't
           know, grease, or hydraulic fluid, that the miners
           would know the hazards without them being listed on
           the container?
                       MR. BAKER:  Not really.  It is something
           you don't drink, or put on your face for makeup.  No,
           as far as the -- and we do have MSDS sheets on these
           things.
                       But, like I said, you use a solvent to
           clean grease, or hydraulic oil, or something like
           that.  Have we created another chemical, have we
           created a chemical reaction once we've cleaned this,
           the hydraulic oil or the grease, have we created
           something new here?  That is what I was saying, more.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Okay. Another question
           about storage and transport.  The Interim Final Rule
           also does not require the labeling of storage
           containers for the mineral being mined, or milled,
           while it is on mine property.
                       Were you intending that those be labeled
           as well? 
                       MR. BAKER:  Yes.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Like coal, or sand, or --
                       MR. BAKER:  No, not -- I was thinking
           more, the fellow referred earlier to say that water
           treatments on the road coming in, stuff like that. 
           What was put on the road, and it is worked into the
           air, it is airborne.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  So you weren't referring
           to the raw materials, you were referring to chemicals
           that are produced by mixing other materials, or
           reactions?
                       MR. BAKER:  Reactions, yes.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Thank you. 
                       MR. BAKER:  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Tom.
                       Our next speaker is Mike Browning, United
           Mine Workers.
                       MR. BROWNING:  Hello, I'm Mike Browning,
           I'm from Local 9177.
                       You stand around and think about some of
           these things these people said.  I have sat here and
           listened to this today.  If we reflect back every one
           of us knows people that has had cancer.
                       A number of us have known people that have
           had several different diseases.  And I have heard
           questions up here today that several times, how come
           you have not filled out an accident report out on
           this? 
                       Well, myself, I've experienced this
           myself.  I had an eye problem.  Both of my eyes were
           covering over.  It looked like I had pink eye in both
           eyes.  I went to my doctor and he told me, he said,
           one of his first questions to me were, what work
           environment are you in?
                       So, to me, that tells me he suspects that
           some kind of chemical is causing my problem.  This
           went on for a three or four month period.  I didn't
           know what was causing my problem.
                       He finally sent me to a specialist, and he
           checked my eyes, and he couldn't figure out what was
           causing the problem.  So he sent me back to my doctor,
           and through time and effort I finally figured out what
           was causing my eye problem.  It was a cleaner in an
           aerosol can.
                       It was a citrus orange all purpose
           cleaner.  I quit using that cleaner.  I'm a mobile
           equipment operator, and I was using it to clean the
           inside of my vehicle, my truck.  When I quit using t
           product my eye problem went away.
                       And I've had another problem.  I used to
           shower at the bathhouse.  I broke out in a rash.  They
           treat the water there.  I can no longer shower at that
           bathhouse because the water breaks me out, because it
           is treated with chemicals. 
                       I've heard all my union brothers and
           sisters say today, they have poured their hearts out
           here, these are things that -- it is tough teaching
           every one of us, and it has made us more aware of our
           environment around us.
                       We have been led into a false sense of
           security at our workplaces, that these chemicals will
           not hurt us.  And when we don't fill out accident
           reports it was because we don't know what has caused
           the accident.
                       And by the time we figure it out, or find
           out what is causing it, it is too late, we have been
           exposed to these chemicals.  I feel that is why we
           need these stiff regulations. 
                       I have a friend right now that is dying of
           cancer.  He has probably got three or four months to
           live.  And he is one of my coworkers.  All these
           chemicals that these guys have talked about today, I
           have been exposed to.
                       What is this going to do to me?  When it
           shows up, what am I going to be able to do about it? 
           If I would have had information on these chemicals,
           and knew the hazards of these chemicals, I could have
           protected myself.
                       But I didn't know the hazards, I don't
           know what is going on.  That is why we need a new,
           stiff regulation to stop these chemicals. 
                       I do mobile equipment work.  Our plant is
           idle on Mondays, I do maintenance work on Mondays.  I
           go in, I can't shower at the bathhouse.  I go home, my
           clothes are filthy.
                       My grandbabies come up to me.  What am I
           doing to my babies?  We are asking you all for help,
           and we want you to please help us in this, and get
           something done.  Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Mike. 
           Mike, if we could, the chemical that you was using,
           the orange spray that cleaned the inside of your
           vehicle, did that have any type of label on it?
                       MR. BROWNING:  It has labeling.  I'm a
           coal miner, I don't understand the labeling on it. 
           And even if I read it, it has a caution on it.  I have
           a false sense of security, they are not going to hurt
           me, they are not going to give me something that is
           going to hurt me.  But they are.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  It only affected your
           eyes?
                       MR. BROWNING:  They thought that I had
           glaucoma, they thought I was going blind, and it was
           the chemical. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  But it only affected
           your eyes?
                       MR. BROWNING:  Just my eyes.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Was there anything on
           there that mentioned about the potential damage or
           irritation to the eyes?
                       MR. BROWNING:  It is the same as all
           aerosol cans, use in a well ventilated area.  You can
           open your doors on your truck, you clean your truck
           when you have time to clean it.  If you are waiting on
           a load, you may be able to clean that truck.
                       That is part of our work order every day,
           clean your equipment.  We will provide you with stuff
           to clean your equipment.  Since then I've went to a
           furniture polish for mine, I won't use that stuff any
           more. 
                       We use ammonia-based window cleaners in
           cabs of trucks, enclosed cabs.  These cabs are to be
           sealed and kept sealed because of dust protection. 
           But yet they are still telling us use this product to
           clean this.  They don't care if they put us in a
           hazardous position, for the simple reason that there
           is nothing to make them to.
                       If we don't get a law, or something, we
           are going to kill ourselves slowly.  We've got an
           opportunity here to do something, to change this.  And
           if we don't change it, like some of the other guys
           said, we have failed.
                       I know you all are here working for us. 
           Every one of us are safety committeeman, or mine
           committeeman.  Everyone of us have got people that we
           are working for.  We are here for basically the same
           goal, to help protect our coworkers, and fellow
           americans, and anybody else that it might help.
                       And I love my family as much as anybody
           does.  And I hate to think that I was the cause of one
           of them getting a disease because I carried it home
           from work.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Yes, I appreciate
           that, and understand that, Mike.  And we are trying to
           get as much information as we can to draft this rule,
           and draft something that is going to be helpful and
           meaningful.
                       And any questions that we ask is to
           clarify and to expand on.  Just like I ask about the
           reading of this label, not to say it was your fault,
           I was just trying to find out, are these labels giving
           us the information that we need to protect ourselves?
                       MR. BROWNING:  No.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  I think it may be in
           concert with the labels, with the MSDS sheets, and the
           training, collectively, that we can get the
           information that we need.
                       MR. BROWNING:  It is so bad that it's got
           to where if they got an empty container, and they need
           a chemical, antifreeze is a common thing where we
           work, they will take a blue ink pen and write
           antifreeze on top of a can.
                       They will fill those cans up and store it,
           sometimes on the top of, over our bathhouse, or over
           the mine office.  You go up those steps when you need
           antifreeze.  If there is none, if somebody has used
           all the antifreeze in that area, they will grab one of
           the white buckets, write in there antifreeze on top of
           it, that is what you get.
                       It is -- it may be our fault because we
           have let it go for so long.  And we are there trying
           to make a living.  We are going to do what we can to
           support and feed our families.
                       But I don't want to be put in a hazardous
           situation to support my family, if I can keep from it.
                       MR. PHUC:  Was your injury reported? 
                       MR. BROWNING:  No.  That is what I thought
           I just explained.  Instead of the company having to
           pay compensation, which I didn't miss any work with
           this, but it cost me a lot of my time, and it cost me
           a lot of my money, and a lot of travel expenses, that
           I had to pay for a chemical or a situation that they
           put me in.
                       And if we had a stringent law that would
           tell me, and I've heard some stuff on these training
           classes, they try to cram so much into an 8 hour
           training class, there is no way we can go over this.
                       As I hear these other guys talk about
           they've not had any hazard training, we just hired a
           new guy where I work.  I done the task training for
           some of the equipment he was running.  And other
           employees, coworkers, done some more of his task
           training. 
                       What was done was what I  knew.  I didn't
           know that I needed to task train him on hazardous
           conditions, because I wasn't aware of it.  This trip
           to the Mine Academy, if I don't get nothing else out
           of it, has been worth it, because I have learned a
           little bit about hazardous materials, and their
           effects.  
                       And I hope that there is no more delay on
           this, that we can get this law into effect, and get it
           settled, not only for our sakes, but for our kids'
           sakes, and our family, and our coworkers.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you Mike.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  The hazard communication
           standard, for the most part, would not cover consumer
           products such as you described, a window cleaner,
           citrus orange, things like that that are used, just
           like you would, in a normal household.
                       Our supposition was that the label on the
           container, as required by the consumer product safety
           commission, would contain enough information to help
           you protect yourself. 
                       And since that does not seem to be the
           case, how would you suggest that we remedy that
           situation?  I want to, first of all, affirm that it is
           very true that many people think that a consumer
           product is safe just because they sell it in little
           cans, and it has a label.
                       There are some extremely toxic chemicals
           in these little consumer products that are all around
           the mines.  And -- but this hazard communication
           standard does not address them unless they are used in
           greater quantity, or more frequently than a normal
           household use.
                       MR. BROWNING:  We work in a dusty
           environment, and these containers are used every
           shift, by each individual employee that drives that
           truck.  That is a whole lot more than what you do in
           a house.
                       And as far as these chemicals, I think
           anything that may harm me, or anyone else, should be
           listed as hazardous.  We talked about glue earlier, I
           think you said that was exempt from this policy. 
                       They had made, a couple of Mondays ago,
           they glued ceramic in ceramic chutes for the coal to
           keep from wearing the chutes out.  We was having a
           problem at our plant with those chutes stopping up.
                       They had me take a hammer and break the
           ceramic out of there.  Then I had to take a cutting
           torch and cut through the glue, with the torch, and
           the metal.  What kind of gas did I create?  I don't
           know, because we have no sheets on it.
                       And I've heard you say that you want to
           exempt certain things from this.  This is where I say
           that any chemical that is a potential hazard should be
           covered under this agreement.
                       This is a common practice, I'm sure many
           of my coworkers have done the same thing.  We are
           creating gases, we have no idea.  Then after I cut it
           out, I took a welding rod, and welded over the rest of
           the area, and it heated the rest of the glue up around
           that area.
                       And this was all on a 12 hour shift.  I
           probably spent 10 hours in that chute, welding in
           that, whatever fumes may have come off of there.  I
           want to be able to see what that is going to do to me
           before I'm put in that environment.
                       That is why I think any hazardous chemical
           that is used in a mining operation, or anywhere,
           should be listed as hazard, not exempt anything from
           it.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Mike.
                       MR. BROWNING:  Thank you all for your
           patience.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Our next speaker is
           Edward Yevincy of the UMWA.
                       MR. YEVINCY:  Good afternoon.  My name is
           Edward Yevincy, local 2470.  I have been employed in
           the mining industry for 22 years.  My employer is
           Peabody Coal Company.  The operation is Canton 9
           preparation plant. 
                       My concerns are dealing with MSDS sheets. 
           The company keeps the MSDS sheets on some of the
           chemicals they use.  I'm not sure about all the
           chemicals they use.
                       This information is kept in the safety
           supervisor's office, and that is not made readily
           available to us at certain times of the day.  I was
           informed of this because I'm the chairman of the
           safety committee. 
                       They told me they keep this information
           here, so they informed me, because I'm the chairman. 
           I don't know if the rest of the employees are aware of
           where the MSDS sheets are located.
                       The company also changes distributors of
           the chemicals.  Sometimes they can get it through a
           different company at a cheaper price, so they change
           distributors.  I don't know if the chemical
           composition is made up the same as the previous
           chemical we had.
                       And they also use the same MSDS sheets
           with the new chemical that came with the old
           chemicals. 
                       Another problem is that some of the
           employees I work with can't read.  And the company has
           made no effort to read these MSDS sheets to these
           people that can't read, that have to use them.
                       Myself I think that every new chemical in
           the preparation plant, and every existing chemical
           that has an MSDS sheet, should be read to the
           employees, and made readily available to all
           employees. 
                       Thank you. 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Ed, you said that the
           operators should read these MSDSs to folks that can't
           read.
                       MR. YEVINCY:  Yes.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Are the other folks,
           are the other miners reading them?
                       MR. YEVINCY:  Some may be, not to my
           knowledge, very few has.  The only reason I'm aware of
           them, like I said, is because I'm chairman of the
           safety committee.  But I don't know that all of them
           are reading them.
                       And I know some of them have been set to
           use these chemicals, or products, and they can't read. 
           So I know that the company people haven't went down
           there and read these off to them, what this contains,
           what cautions you are supposed to use.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Have you personally read
           any MSDS sheets?
                       MR. YEVINCY:  Yes.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Do you find them difficult
           to understand? 
                       MR. YEVINCY:  Yes.  Certain chemicals are
           difficult to understand, terminology I'm not familiar
           with, certain aspects of them, I don't understand
           them, you know?  I pretty much can.
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Did you see the video that
           Richard showed yesterday?
                       MR. YEVINCY:  No, I did not.
                       (Unmiked participant.)
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  I was just wondering if
           that helped you understand what the terms on the MSDS
           meant.
                       MR. SNASHALL:  Have you received, under
           part 48, training in hazardous chemicals? 
                       MR. YEVINCY:  I have been employed 22
           years with Peabody and to my knowledge never in annual
           retraining have we went over anything to do with
           chemical hazards, other than radioactive material that
           we have located in our preparation plant. 
                       MR. SNASHALL:  And what about task
           training, has there been anything in the health
           aspects?
                       MR. YEVINCY:  No, not on hazardous
           materials, no.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Just broaden that to
           any training.  Have you had training in hazards
           associated with chemicals? 
                       MR. YEVINCY:  If it is any at all, it was
           very brief, and I can't recall any myself.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Okay.  Thank you, Ed.
                       Our next speaker, and the last one that is
           signed up is Tim Baker, from United Mine Workers.
                       MR. BAKER:  I would like to thank you for
           having the hearing, and allowing the concerns of a
           whole lot of miners be heard.
                       I think there are some misconceptions
           here.  And before I get into any major comments I
           would like to make a few brief comments on what I've
           heard.
                       You know, we have continued, or you've
           continued to say how many times have you become aware
           of a chemical accident, and we have heard a few of
           those.
                       But I think we are missing the point here. 
           We will deal with a chemical accident, whether it is
           a spill, or whatever it is, and somebody is burnt, is
           one thing.  The major point here also is that after
           working with this stuff for 20 years, what do I have.
                       Latent effects are not an accident that
           happened today, they are not an accident that happened
           three times over the course of a career.  They are
           what I breathe for 20 years.
                       They are what my employer brought into a
           plant, told me I was going to use, and have to use to
           get a job done.  And I have no idea what it is, I
           really have no idea what it is.
                       So we need to look past this particular
           incident that occurred today, I need to know what
           happened from the careers of these guys, and for
           myself.     
                       And I guess before I get too far along, I
           should introduce myself.  I am Tim Baker, I'm the
           Deputy Administrator of Occupational Health and Safety
           for the United Mine Workers.
                       Joe Main sends his apologies, he would
           have liked to have been here, but obviously other
           matters took him away.
                       The other thing I think that we miss is,
           we talk a lot about common sense.  For any of you who
           have worked in the mining industry, miners generally
           speaking aren't allowed to have a whole lot of common
           sense on the job site.  Like it or not, it is a fact.
                       You are told what to do, and when to do
           it, and how to do it, and there is not a whole lot of
           leeway here to say, gee, I wonder what effect that is
           going to have.
                       You know, a lot of things happen in an 8,
           or 10, or 12 hour shift that you have to keep that
           production going.  And, you know, we have tried for
           years to convince operators that they need to hire us
           from the neck up, as well as the neck down, but a lot
           of them still don't believe it.  And that is a matter
           of fact.
                       And I'm glad that we are finally seeing,
           after 14 years, I'm glad somebody is finally seeing
           that we are not getting hazard training, and haven't
           been getting hazard training.  And I have been in the
           industry 25 years, and I can say, without a doubt, I
           have never been trained.
                       In the 16 years I  spent underground, I
           was never trained on the hazards of any chemical.  So
           I don't think it should be a surprise.  I don't think
           it should be a surprise at all.
                       What I think I want to focus on now, I
           want to read some comments that I have already
           prepared, and I will try to make it brief.  But I
           think the issue is extremely important, and I think
           that when you look at where we are at, from 1987, we
           are no closer to a rule right now, than we were in
           1987.
                       Because while we have this magic data out
           there, of June of 2002, something tells me we had a
           magic date of October 3rd, 2001.  And I have to be
           honest with you.  I'm disgusted with this whole
           process.
                       This process has been one of delay, and in
           my opinion, one of some deceit.  We were told what we
           were going to get.  We have never hidden the fact that
           we weren't necessarily happy with the whole package. 
           That we believed that it needed to be stronger.  That
           we building that the Interim Final Rule needed to have
           more projections.
                       We have never made that a secret.  But we
           are also kind of realist.  We said, you know, we will
           take what we can get at this point, and work for
           something better.
                       And now you jerked the rug out from under
           us again.  Frankly I don't believe MSHA when they tell
           me that in June 2002 there is going to be a rule, I
           don't believe you.
                       And until that rule is in effect, I find
           it hard to establish any faith along those lines.  We
           have guys out here, and if you look, this may be
           enough guys to run a typical prep plant in a 24 hour
           period.
                       These guys are handling chemicals day in
           and day out.  With that number, with what we've seen,
           out of those 40 people you are going to have some
           anomalies that just don't occur in nature.
                       You are going to have people that have
           neurological damage that we can't explain.  You are
           going to have an incident rate in Parkinson's disease,
           or Parkinson's syndrome, that is way past the national
           average.
                       You are going to have cancers that you
           don't normally see from prep plant workers.  That is
           the only thing they have in common, they don't golf at
           the same golf course, and drink the same water all the
           time.
                       The commonality is where they work.  And
           I think that we have procrastinated long enough, we
           have played the game long enough.  And we, frankly,
           have appeased the operators long enough.  It is time
           to get a Rule.
                       The history of HAZCOM does date back to
           November of 1987 when the President of the UMWA, and
           the United Steel Workers of America requested MSHA to
           promulgate a rule to protect miners from hazardous
           chemicals and compounds.
                       Presidents Trumka and Williams cited
           specific instances where miners were exposed to
           chemical compounds resulting in serious injuries and
           health effects.  And highlighted a series of chemicals
           found at the mine site that could seriously impact
           miners health and safety. 
                       In almost every instance miners were never
           aware of the substances they were handling, or the
           risk that those substances presented.  The Agency did
           respond four years later -- I'm sorry, three years
           later, in 1990, when it published a notice of proposed
           rulemaking. 
                       Public hearings were subsequently held at
           three locations, miners, representatives and miners,
           operators and interested parties expressed their
           respective opinion on the need for the rule, and the
           scope.
                       The Agency officially closed the Rule
           January 31st, 1992.  Efforts to promulgate this much
           needed rule remained dormant until 1999, when the
           Agency reopened.
                       The Agency sought input to the effect that
           regulatory mandates and executive orders.  And I think
           that it is important to note that that is exactly what
           you asked for.  That is all you asked for in 1999,
           what impact did these things have in the rule we are
           going to propose.
                       The record closed again, and the record
           closed in December 19th, 2000.  We anticipated a rule
           in October of 2001.  Nearly 14 years after the Agency
           had been petitioned by the Mine Workers, and the Steel
           Workers, they anticipated a rule would be designed to
           reduce exposure to hazardous chemicals and compounds.
                       Since that time the union has made efforts
           to prepare its membership for the application of this
           rule.  The UMWA was under the impression that while
           some operators were unhappy with the scope of the
           rule, they too were preparing to implement it.
                       Unfortunately that was not the case. 
           Instead of addressing the issues contained in the
           standard, and adopting plans to protect miners from
           unnecessary exposures, some operators worked to delay
           the much needed safeguards.  
                       Sadly MSHA mad no real effort to resolve
           the issues through litigation.  Their failure to make
           necessary efforts to implement a rule have once again
           left miners the victim.
                       Despite the objections of the original
           petitioning parties, and other interested groups, the
           Agency has given mine operators what they were
           unsuccessful in attaining in March of 1999, blocking
           projections from miners, and reopening the Rule for
           continued debate.
                       The Agency's granting of this request is
           totally contrary to the previous statement of October
           3rd, 2000, when the Agency stated, substantive
           rulemaking issues, and regulatory alternatives have
           not changed since the close of the record in 1992. 
           And the evidence in the rulemaking record is current. 
           And those were the statements of Marvin Nichols.
                       Despite that fact the Agency has decided
           to continue this rulemaking history, instead of making
           history with a HAZCOM rule.  The UMWA has, out of
           necessity, participated in every aspect of this
           process to date.
                       The union will continue to strongly
           express the need to protect workers from chemical
           exposures, and at the same time raise our objections
           to delaying tactics.
                       The UMWA will continue to seek, through
           whatever legal means available, to end this history of
           operator denial.  The procrastination concerning this
           rule, on behalf of the nation's miners, and their
           health and safety, is intolerable.
                       We have talked, for some time, and you
           have heard a lot of people talk about the delays.  And
           I think that there is a lot of frustration in this
           room.  And maybe there is frustration on the Panel, I
           don't know the feeling of how that works.
                       But there were two reasons, the Agency
           gave two reasons for reopening this rule.  And I have
           to be honest with you, they are disingenuous, at best,
           to suggest that one of the reasons being that
           operators had not had sufficient time to prepare
           comments, and review the Interim Final Rule before
           comments were submitted in 1999, is absolutely
           ridiculous.
                       I would have thought, and I would have
           hoped it would have been a little bit more creative
           than that.  But to suggest that they were not
           prepared?  This thing started in 1987.  They had
           plenty of time to get their act together.
                       Then to also suggest that the other reason
           for reopening the Rule was to make more clear to the
           operators what they had to do for compliance purposes. 
           Again, what have they been doing, where have they been
           at? 
                       They know what chemicals they are buying. 
           They know what substances they are bringing to that
           property.  This is a basic a right to know as anything
           else.
                       These individuals behind me work every day
           with these substances, and have no clue as to what
           they are.  I mean, we've delayed it long enough.
                       And to open it on those two basis is
           really something that I look at and I think, you know
           what?  Sometimes I can't read an MSDS sheet, and I
           will be honest with you, sometimes I don't understand
           that.  But that struck me as we are being played off
           as stupid.
                       Do you honestly expect us to stand here
           and believe that that is a rational reason for
           reopening this rule, they didn't know what to do for
           compliance?  Well, in my estimation, if they don't
           know what to do with compliance, you put the Rule in
           effect, and you send an inspector out, and you write
           them enough tickets, they will figure out what to do
           with compliance in a big hurry.
                       That is a reality, that is how the system
           works.  I have said it before at hearings, and I will
           say it again.  The reason this industry is not back in
           1945, is because MSHA has promulgated rules that won't
           allow that to happen.
                       If they could get along without hanging
           curtains, if they could get along without much
           ventilation, and if they could get along without
           controlling methane, because there was no rule, and no
           inspector, and nobody to write a ticket, they would be
           doing the same thing today that they did in 1940, or
           in 1969, when Farmington exploded.  They would be
           doing the same things.
                       My concern also about the Rule is the fact
           that I'm afraid that there is not enough teeth in this
           thing.  I'm afraid that an operator has too many
           loopholes, and too many ways to escape.  We have heard
           people talk about, you know, routine and foreseen
           emergency, routine tasks, and foreseen emergencies.
                       You know, I can honestly, with very few
           exceptions, see how we can construe just about
           anything to be non-routine, and we can construe
           anything to be kind of an unforeseen emergency that
           occurred.
                       I think that that is a major loophole, I
           think we need to close that loop.  We need to look at
           how we are going to get correct information on MSDS
           sheets. 
                       And I think that is a pretty basic thing
           that we need to discuss.  We have MSDS sheets that
           could arrive on mine property that are incorrect.  And
           the Rule basically alludes to the fact that that could
           happen.
                       I mean, it says that you won't hold the
           operator responsible if the MSDS sheet is incorrect. 
           And I just brought, you know, whatever it is onto the
           site, and now the MSDS sheets -- who are we going to
           hold responsible here?  That is what I want to know.
                       I have 40 miners working at the prep
           plant, I have 400 of them underground.  I have an MSDS
           sheet that is absolutely worthless.  And the operator
           is not liable. And I guess I can basically understand
           the logic when you say, he bought the product, he
           didn't create it, right?
                       I can understand that logic.  On the other
           hand somebody has to be held responsible, and MSHA
           cannot do anything about the guy that manufactured
           this stuff, you are not going to reach that far to get
           them.
                       What you have to do, whether it is
           labeling, or MSDS sheets, whether the Agency likes it
           or not, somebody is going to have to get written up. 
           And the only person that can be is the operator.
                       I guarantee you, you write a ticket, and
           he is not going to buy chemicals from somebody that
           gives him a bad MSDS sheet.  I mean, that is pretty
           simple logic.
                       So we need to -- we need to look at that. 
           Also when we begin to discuss what is hazardous, what
           isn't hazardous, first of all let's cut the operator
           out of this.  I'm not so sure I want my operator,
           where I used to work at R&P Coal and they are not in
           business anymore, I'm not sure I want any of those
           folks determining for me what is a hazard and what is
           not.
                       I want somebody out there that is with a
           little bit of objectivity, just somebody that doesn't
           necessarily have a pony in the race.  It is just going
           to tell me this is the hazard that you are facing.
                       So we need to eliminate that.  And we need
           to be honest about what a hazardous chemical is.  And
           when you are dealing with this stuff, any chemical is
           a hazard.  I mean, medication, like somebody said
           before, medication is a hazard, chemicals are a
           hazard.  It just depends on the dose.
                       If you get the right dose you are cured,
           no problem, it is great.  If you get the wrong dose,
           you are just as dead as anybody else would be.
                       So when they bring it in, if it is a
           chemical, it is a hazard.  And it goes to all those
           things like WD-40, and Windex, and all those other
           things.  Because you know what?  At the mine we don't
           use them the same way, and we don't use them in the
           same quantity.
                       You know, if you think about this
           logically, when was the last time you went through
           five gallons of WD-40 in your household?  I probably
           have a couple of cans I've had for a couple of years. 
           But you will go through five gallons in that shop, or
           in that prep plant, or underground, in absolutely no
           time at all.
                       It may last a week, if you are lucky.  So
           we are using huge amounts.  But Consumer Product
           Safety Commission doesn't deal with the conditions
           that I live with. They are not at the mine, they don't
           understand what that product is being used for.
                       I'm dumping WD-40 on hot surfaces, I'm
           creating vapors.  We need to have some kind of
           labeling, we need to have some kind of control over
           what is going on.
                       And to be honest with you there is a lot
           of folks out there that don't see a problem with doing
           that, they've done it for years.  They've never had
           hazard training tell them not to.  We need to look at
           those things, we need to be realists about how those
           things occur.
                       I think enough has been said, I guess,
           about training the trainers.  If I'm going to have
           somebody train me on the hazards of chemicals, I want
           to make sure they know what they are talking about. 
                       I would imagine there may be a few health
           and safety directors out there, for some of these
           operations, that understand some of these things.  But
           by and large they are coal miners, too.  They came
           from the same place we came from, have a little more
           training maybe here and there, but they are not going
           to know what those chemicals are.  They are not going
           to understand how to explain them to you. 
                       So they need to have training before they
           give us training.  Retraining, 8 hour retraining is a
           sensitive issue.  We need 8 hour retraining,
           absolutely.  I'm thinking maybe when we get all this
           stuff heaped on top  of it, we might look at 16 hours
           of retraining, because we are dealing with ventilation
           plans, we are dealing with roof control plans, we are
           dealing with ground control plans, we are dealing with
           first aid, we are dealing with all these issues. 
                       And let's be realists about this.  You
           can't fit it in, in 8 hours.  So we may need to
           address those things.
                       Labeling of any container should be
           required.  I don't care if the 55 gallon drum, or a,
           you know, two pint bucket you are going to carry
           things around in.  And the Rule says, you know, you
           can have a portable container that doesn't have to be
           labeled, provided you keep it with you at all times,
           or you use it all by the end of the shift.
                       You have to be at the mine to understand
           that that guy is not going to necessarily be able to
           keep track of that, for that entire shift.  I mean, if
           I'm working over here on a dozer, and I have a bucket
           of whatever chemical it may be, sitting beside me, and
           I'm going to use it to wash this thing down, and that
           drag line goes down, I know where I'm going, and I'm
           not going to pick that bucket up to get it, because
           the boss is going to come and get me and tell me, get
           out there, the drag line is not running, we are not
           loading coal, the heck with the dozer, okay?
                       I mean, and we are not going to pick it
           up.  I don't understand the -- and I don't understand
           this, and maybe somebody can enlighten me.  But I
           don't understand what is the big deal of having a
           label on a portable container.  I don't understand
           that.  You use it for the same thing every time, and
           instead of maybe having three portable containers that
           you can switch out for 12 chemicals, buy 12 portable
           containers, and put a sticker on it, folks.  I mean,
           it is not that tough.
                       We also believe that any chemicals that
           leave the property should be labeled, should have an
           MSDS sheet.  Whatever they happen to create.  And I'm
           not talking raw coal, and I'm not talking sand.  But
           if there are chemicals in the soups that they make
           there, that they have to get off-site, and it doesn't
           necessarily go through a settling pond, anything that
           they send out there that is a chemical hazard should
           be labeled, anything downstream should have a label on
           it.
                       People should understand what we are
           producing out there, and sending to them.  And we
           need, we truly need to look at that. 
                       Briefly, I guess, we deal with some of the
           regulations of the EPA because you say that things
           that are regulated by the EPA aren't necessarily
           regulated here.  And I would, without getting into
           great detail, I would suggest that somebody look into
           the application of biosolids on these reclamation
           projects. 
                       And, you know, biosolids sludge is a big
           ticket item and Pennsylvania produces, you know,
           millions of tons, and I think New York produces
           millions of tons.  And now we have our guys spreading
           this stuff on the fields for growing grass, growing
           crops, growing whatever they happen to be farming at
           the time.
                       There are heavy metals in this stuff,
           there is bacteria in this stuff.  We need to look at
           what we are putting out there as far as a biohazard is
           concerned.
                       I could probably go on longer, but I
           think, to be honest with you, most of these guys have
           just about covered every issue.  I would like to try
           to tie things together, and let you know that while I
           can honestly say that there is nobody on this panel
           that I have animosity towards.  
                       You are doing your job, and I think some
           of you do it well, and the others that I don't know
           I'm guessing you do it well.  I think the Agency, as
           a whole, has frustrated us, on numerous occasions. 
           And they frustrated us on this rule on more than one
           occasion, and they've delayed it.
                       And, let's be honest, we wouldn't have
           gotten the thing out in 1999 if we hadn't filed a
           lawsuit.  We are just asking for a little help here.
                       If we could do this on our own, I would be
           honest with you, if we could do this on our own, we
           would do it.  But we don't have that ability.  We need
           something that is out there.
                       And, Lord knows, I deal mostly with coal
           operators, and I have not had one of them come to me
           and saying, Tim, we are the ones bitching about this. 
            Because they would tell me straight up.
                       Now, I don't know what the aggregate
           industry is doing, but if it is not the coal industry,
           it has to be sand and gravel, and somebody else.  They
           need just as much protection as these coal miners
           sitting behind me, they are going to deal with the
           same stuff.
                       They have to get with the program at some
           point, and they just need to do that.  We just need
           the Rule, it is as basic as that.  We need the Rule. 
           We are not happy with it, I've given suggestions on
           how to tighten it up.
                       I would ask you to take those suggestions
           back, because I would be honest with you, in the
           opening that you gave, Ernie, I didn't see one
           suggestion.  I did not see one suggestion that the
           union made the last time it gave comments.
                       I have seen suggestions that the operator
           gave, but I didn't see any of ours.  And I think that
           is a little disheartening.  I think that it becomes
           clearer and clearer why the Rule is reopened, and we
           are disappointed with that fact.
                       And with that I will entertain any
           questions. I hope I haven't run on too long.  But the
           issue has a life of its own in some respects.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you, Tim.  No,
           you have not run on too long.  Just to clarify, my
           understanding of the Rule is, in the use of WD-40,
           when you use this thing, as you indicated, that that
           would clearly fall under the Rule, that that is
           certainly outside the use of a normal household
           consumer type thing.
                       MR. BAKER:  Well, and maybe I can -- and
           if that is true, that is fine.  But maybe we can look
           at, and what you need to look at is the case for
           solcenic at this point.  And I think somebody
           mentioned that before.  You know it is an antifreeze
           that they use in the hydraulic jacks.
                       Now, that is not going to be regulated
           from the way I understand this rule.  But I would
           suggest that you look at those situations where I have
           at least 20 cases of cancer, whether it is liver
           cancer, or kidney cancer. 
                       Whatever those things are, I mean, we have
           a problem with this.  And I'm not sure that it is the
           solcenic, per se.  Now they are telling me that they
           have done a survey, they don't believe it is solcenic,
           but they believe it is the fungicide that they put in
           the solcenic.
                       To me, you know, you've lost me when you
           talk about solcenic, generally.  But we need to look
           at those things.  We are spilling a million and a half
           gallons of that stuff, underground every year, at that
           mine.  And I have 20 cases of strange cancer, organ
           cancer.
                       Those things need to be regulated, those
           things need to be tied up.  And I could be wrong, but
           this is an antifreeze.  We are talking all they are
           using it for is an antifreeze.  The concentrations may
           be less than what you would normally use daily in your
           car, where you would be around if you put it in your
           car.  But we are dumping a bunch of it.
                       So, you know, I just believe there are a
           lot of loopholes we need to tie up.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Tim, one other
           question.  What do you think the qualifications of the
           person providing the training on the chemical hazards
           should possess, background training? 
                       MR. BAKER:  Well, you know, I would like
           to say I would like to have an engineer or somebody do
           it, you know, like a Dr. Weeks, or something.  But we
           have to be realists about how we train those folks.
                 
                       But I think that these companies could
           certainly get their safety inspectors, or trainers, or
           whoever they are going to have, because usually it is
           the safety inspector at the mine that runs the
           training. 
                       Send them to a class with a Weeks, or a
           PhD, or somebody that understands chemicals, and at
           the same time, and Lord knows I'm fortunate to deal
           with Jim, somebody that can explain it in real basic
           terms, and real layman's terms, so they understand it,
           and then bring that information back.
                       And I'm not faulting the guy at the mine. 
           I mean, he is doing his best, I'm sure, to get the
           information out.  But he -- listen, maybe he does
           understand those 26 letter words, but I sure can't. 
           And we just need to get someone that does to explain
           it to him simply, and we can go on with training. 
                       And I think that could be, you know, if
           you have a relationship with some of these folks, and
           you bring a new chemical in, it wouldn't be a problem
           for you to pick up the phone, as a safety guy, and
           call the guy over there and say, what is this stuff,
           and what do I need to know about it?  And relay that
           to your own workers.  
                 
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Yes. I think it is
           important, a lot of us have never learned those big
           words, or exactly what all is contained in them.  I
           think the important things we know is how to use this
           safely, and what effect that can have on us, what we
           need to do to protect ourselves, rather than trying to
           -- we may all fail that test if we have to pronounce
           all them words when we come out of the training. 
                       MR. BAKER:  Yes, you know, that is
           certainly a major part of it.  And, you know,
           understanding not only what it is, but being specific.
                       And I think somebody earlier mentioned
           petroleum distillates.  That is a thousand different
           things.  What is that?  That could be any one of a
           thousand different compounds.  You know, diesel fuel,
           what is it?
                       Having something like that on an MSDS
           sheet is generally useless. I mean, what do I do to
           control that?  But having basic information that is
           easy for them to understand, and what they do if there
           is a spill, or what they do if there is an accident.
                       Basic layman's terms need to be out there,
           you know?  I mean, if it just says call the fire
           department on the bottom, we know how to do that, you
           know what I mean?  Don't touch, call the fire
           department.  Not a long drawn out dissertation, like
           I'm giving now.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Thank you Tim.
                       MR. BAKER:  I thank you very much.  And we
           do very much appreciate speaking here.  We appreciate
           your indulgence, and hope that you go away with an
           understanding of just what our level of concern is,
           thank you. 
                       MS. HUTCHISON:  Are you going to leave a
           copy of your statement? 
                       MR. BAKER:  No, I will submit a copy, and
           some of it will be contained in there, but this is the
           working draft, and I'm not going to leave that, okay?
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  That is fine.
                       MR. BAKER:  Thank you. 
                       (Applause.)
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  Is there anyone else
           that has not signed up, that would like to speak?  You
           can come forward and identify yourself, we would
           appreciate it.
                       MR. STEMKOWSKI:  Believe me, this is
           totally -- I want to apologize to Mr. Baker.  I don't
           know anyone here but Mr. Baker, only by telephone, and
           a fellow I came from eastern Ohio with.
                       My name is Stan Stemkowski, I'm from Local
           1506.  I have 32 years mining experience with
           Consolidation Coal Company.  I am on the safety
           committee, probably for the last six or seven years.
                       I wasn't going to say a word here today. 
           I was asked yesterday, this week in class, if I would
           like to speak, and I was so timid, I said no.  Never
           done this before.
                       But having sat here and listened to these
           people, and I have seen that they are not as
           professional, probably as I am, at least I'm not
           afraid to get up here.  I think they've all done a
           fantastic job.
                       But I could not go home without putting
           two cents' worth in here.  If my wife was here, which
           she is back in the room she would probably say, oh,
           no.
                       But Part 48, I heard you talk about that. 
           And I'm not versed at this, and believe me this is not
           rehearsed.  In my 32 years with having gone to the
           annual retraining, and I have seen you people ask
           several people about that Part 48.
                       That annual retraining we've gotten it
           every year, faithfully, and I believe they've always
           tried their best.  But as far as hazmat, and hazardous
           chemicals, I'm here to tell you we have gotten very
           little to none.  And I mean that from the bottom of my
           heart.
                       And I can't speak for the other mines, but
           I've got 32 years at Consol, I started as a field
           mechanic, I worked as a regular mechanic, I've been a
           truck driver, I've been a certified welder, used a lot
           of chemicals, WD-40, on the shovel, I work on the
           silver spade, we probably go through a case of WD-40
           a week.
                       Other spray cans of stuff I don't know the
           chemical ingredients.  There is a cutter solvent that
           we use to wash off the nozzles of the spray guns that
           we put dope on the gearing, and stuff, I don't know
           what the chemical is in there.  I have never been told
           the hazards of it, I've never been told to wear a mask
           when I use it, I've never even been told to use
           gloves.
                       Yes, common sense tells me to use gloves
           because it is messy, okay?  Here is how strong that
           stuff is.  I was wearing a hard hat, we always wear a
           hard hat, that is standard procedure.  You don't go on
           Consol property without a hard hat, glasses, and
           gloves, and hard toes.
                       Those doggone, that can of stuff there is
           so strong, it gets on your glasses, it cleans it off
           good.  Had a horrible hard hat, couldn't rub it off,
           couldn't wash it with regular solvent.  I thought it
           cuts that grease off that nozzle, that doggone thing,
           I'm going to use it on there.
                       So I sprayed it on my hard hat and it
           cleaned it beautifully.  I said, this is the stuff to
           clean it with.  After one week my hard hat fell
           totally apart.  I'm standing here to tell you that. 
                       Now, it had stress cracks in it, I grant
           you.  But I've cleaned it with a lot of things before,
           other type cleaners, and I don't know what it did. 
           But after sitting and listening to those people, stuff
           like this, and I was not forewarned how -- I grant
           you, there is a label on the can, you know, caution
           this, caution that.  But I never dreamt that it was
           that strong that it would do something like that. 
                       And I'm thinking, if it is going to ruin
           my hard hat, what is it going to do to me?  Nobody
           ever said, Stan be careful with that stuff.  I don't
           think I could add much more, other than what these
           people put in.
                       Like I've said, they have done their
           homework.  Some of them are just like me, they come up
           here out of their heart, and that is where I'm
           speaking to you people, out of my heart.  Never heard
           of this law coming into effect, or this ruling, until
           I come down here.
                       This is the first year I've been to the
           Academy.  Believe me, I've learned a lot this week,
           especially about how things work here.  And I will say
           one more thing.
                       Being on the safety committee for the last
           six or seven years, every time an MSHA man shows up,
           that is like the police, buddy, we are going to go in,
           and we are going to inspect this place, and Consol
           does respect what they have to say, and we get their
           attention.
                       So therefore I respect if you people come
           down and help us to get some compliance for this sort
           of thing.  I don't know what is involved in the
           procedure, or whatever. 
                       And, once again, I want to apologize to
           Mr. Baker.  What, another speaker?  I was supposed to
           finish here.  But I just felt my heart, I had to come
           up here and put my two cents' worth in.
                       If there is any questions that I could
           answer for you, I don't know what I could, but I will
           try.
                       MODERATOR TEASTER:  We appreciate you
           coming up.  I'm sure Tim don't mind you coming up.
                       We appreciate all the comments that we
           received here today.  Hopefully they are going to be
           all taking into consideration when we draft this final
           rule, and we are going to come out a rule that is
           going to do the job that it is intended to do.
                       The record, I will remind you, does close
           on October 17th of this year. We encourage all of you
           that would like to submit comments, to submit them to
           the Agency.  They will be included with the comments
           that we got on the record here today, and they will
           all be taken into consideration in drafting the final
           rule.
                       We have five other public Hearings that
           will be held on this rule.  Four of them will be next
           week.  One will be in Dallas on Tuesday, and on the
           same date there will be one in Salt Lake City.  And
           then on Thursday of next week there will be two held,
           one in Reno, Nevada, and the other one in Birmingham,
           Alabama.
                       The following week I think it is on the
           10th of October, it will be the seventh and final
           Hearing on this Interim Final Rule.  And we welcome
           you to attend, to participate in any of those Hearings
           that are remaining.
                       And, again, any comments you've got,
           please submit them to us, and they will be given due
           consideration.
                       And with that we will close the record. 
           And thanks, all of you, for coming.
                       (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m. the above-
           entitled matter was concluded.)