In the Matter of:                  )
                                   )
COAL DIESEL PARTICULATE EXPOSURE   )
OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS         )

Pages:  1 through 169

Place:  Salt Lake City, Utah

Date:   November 17, 1998                   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                                 MSHA
     
     
     COAL DIESEL PARTICULATE EXPOSURE  )
     OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS        )
                                       
     
     
                                       Room 250-7
                                       Salt Palace Court Center
                                       100 S.W. Temple
                                       Salt Lake City, Utah
       
                                       Tuesday,
                                       November 17, 1998
     
                   The hearing began, pursuant to notice, at 9:00
     a.m.
     
                   BEFORE:  THOMAS TOMB, Moderator
                          
     
                   APPEARANCES:
     
                   PAMELA KING
                   SANDRA WESDOCK
                   JON KOGUT
                   ROBERT THAXTON
                   ROBERT HANEY
                   GEORGE SASEEN
                   RONALD FORD
     
                   PANELISTS:
     
                   MICHAEL PEELISH
                   DAVID BEERBOWER
                   NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
     
                   JAMES CEAL, Local 2176
                   BRAD ALLEN, Local 1984
                   UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
     
     
                   ENERGY WEST MINING COMPANY                         P R O C E E D I N G S
                   MR. TOMB:  I guess about everybody has arrived and
     I'd like to get started.  I want to welcome you all here to
     this hearing.  My name is Thomas Tomb and I'm Chief of the
     Dust Division of MSHA's Pittsburgh Safety & Health
     Technology Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I will be
     the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's proposed rule
     addressing Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground
     Coal Miners.
                   I have a short statement here that I would like to
     read into the public record before we get started. 
     Personally and on behalf of Assistant Secretary Jay Devitt
     Lagatier, I would like to take this opportunity to express
     our appreciation to each of you for your being here today
     and for your input.
                   With me on the panel today from MSHA are Jon
     Kogut, from the Office of Program Evaluation and Information
     Resources, Denver, Colorado.  We have George Saseen from the
     Approval and Certification Center in Tridelphia, West
     Virginia; Robert Haney, who is the Chief of the
     Environmental Assessment and Contaminant Control Branch in
     the Pittsburgh Safety & Health Technology Center in
     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  We have Sandra Wesdock from the
     Office of the Solicitor in Arlington, Virginia.  We have
     Robert Thaxton from the Coal Mine Safety and Health, Health
     Division in Arlington, Virginia and we have Ronald Ford and
     Pamela King from the Office of Standards, Regulations and
     Variances in Arlington, Virginia.
                   In the audience, we also have several people from
     Arlington.  That is, Carol Jones, who is the Acting Director
     of the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, and
     Deborah Jones -- Green, I'm sorry, Deborah.  I'm glad you
     can't talk today, now.  Deborah Green who is with the Office
     of the Solicitor in Arlington.  Can you correct that in your
     transcript?
                   (Laughter.)
                   MR. TOMB:  This hearing is being held in
     accordance with Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and
     Health Act of 1977.  As is the practice of this Agency,
     formal rules of evidence will not apply.
                   We are making a verbatim transcript of this
     hearing.  It will be made an official part of the rulemaking
     record.  The hearing transcript, along with all of the
     comments that MSHA has received to date on the proposed rule
     will be available for your review.
                   If you want to get a copy of the hearing
     transcript for you own use, however, you must make your
     arrangements with the court reporter. 
                   We value your comments.  MSHA will accept written
     comments and other data from anyone, including those of you
     who do not present an oral statement.  You may submit
     written comments to Pam King, whom I've introduced, or to
     Carol Jones, whom I've introduced as Acting Director of the
     Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, at the
     address that is listed in the notice for the hearing.
                   We will include them in the rulemaking record.  If
     you feel you need to modify your comments or wish to submit
     additional comments following the hearing, the record will
     stay open until February 16, 1999.  You are encouraged to
     submit to MSHA a copy of our comments on computer disk.  I'd
     like to emphasize that, because that makes our job a lot
     easier.
                   Your comments are essential in helping MSHA
     develop the most appropriate rule that fosters safety and
     health in our nation's mines.  We appreciate your views on
     this rulemaking and assure that your comments, whether
     written or oral, will be considered by MSHA in finalizing
     this rule.
                   In another rulemaking that came out on October 29,
     1998, we published the proposed rule to address diesel
     particulate matter exposure of underground metal and non-
     metal mines.  The comment period for that proposed rule will
     close on February 26, 1999.  Hearings for the metal and non-
     metal proposal will be announced in the future Federal
     Register notice.  You may obtain copies of that proposal by
     downloading it from MSHA's website, which is www.msha.gov,
     or by calling the Office of Standards, Regulations and
     Variances at (703) 235-1910.  
                   However, the scope of this hearing today is
     limited to the April 9, 1998 proposed rule addressing diesel
     particulate exposure of underground coal miners.  This
     hearing is the first of four public hearings to be held on
     the proposed rule.  We plan to hold the second hearing later
     this week in Beckley, West Virginia on Thursday, at the Mine
     Safety and Health Academy in Beckley, West Virginia.  we
     will hold the third hearing on December 15, 1998 in Mt.
     Vernon, Illinois and the fourth and final hearing on
     December 17, 1998 in Birmingham, Alabama.  Information
     regarding these hearings was published in the Federal
     Register on October 19 and can also be obtained from MSHA's
     website on the Internet.  And, there are a few copies
     available here, if you want to pick one up here.
                   On April 9, 1998, MSHA published the proposed rule
     that would reduce the risk in underground coal miners of
     serious health hazards that are associated with exposure to
     high concentrations of diesel particulate matter.  Diesel
     particular matter is a very small particle in diesel
     exhaust.  Underground miners are exposed to far higher
     concentrations of this fine particulate than any other group
     of workers.  
                   The best available evidence indicates that such
     high exposure puts these miners at excess risk of a variety
     of adverse health effects, including lung cancer.  The
     comment period for the proposed rule was scheduled to close
     on August 7, 1998.  However, due to requests from the mining
     community, the Agency extended the comment period for an
     additional 60 days, and this was until October 9, 1998.  
                   This proposed rule would require the following: 
     Proposed paragraph 72.500 would require the installation and
     maintenance of high efficiency particulate filters on the
     most polluting types of diesel equipment and underground
     coal mines.  It would require that beginning 18 months after
     the date this rule was promulgated, any piece of permissible
     diesel-powered equipment -- and I stress permissible --
     operated in an underground coal mine, must be equipped with
     a system capable of removing, on average, at least 95
     percent of the mass of the diesel particulate matter emitted
     from the engine.
                   Additionally, beginning 30 months after the rule
     is promulgated, any non-permissible piece of heavy duty
     diesel-powered equipment operated in an underground coal
     mine must be equipped with a system capable of removing, on
     average, at least 95 percent of the mass of the DPM emitted
     from the engine.
                   Any exhaust after-treatment device installed to
     reduce the emission of DPM would be required to be
     maintained in accordance with manufacturer specifications.
                   The proposal also sets forth the Agency
     requirements for determining whether a system is capable of
     removing, on average, at least 95 percent of diesel
     particulate matter by mass.  It states that a filtration
     system must be tested by comparing the results of emission
     tests of an engine with and without the filtration systems
     in place.
                   Proposed paragraph 72.510 is a training
     requirement which lists the pertinent areas in which
     instruction must occur.  The training is to be provided
     annually in all mines, using diesel-powered equipment, and
     it is to be provided without charge to the miners.  It also
     includes provisions on records retention, access and
     transfer.
                   And, finally, proposed amendment to paragraph
     75.371 would amend existing paragraph 75.371, which is the
     mine ventilation plan contents, which would add one new
     requirement to an underground mine ventilation control plan. 
     The additional information is limited, but it is critical to
     the control of diesel particulate matter.  The proposal
     would require the ventilation plan to contain a list of the
     diesel powered units used by the mine operator, together
     with information about each units emission control or
     filtration system.
                   Details relative to the efficiency of the system
     and the method used to establish the efficiency of the
     system for removing diesel particulate matter are to be
     included.  Any amendments to a mine's ventilation plan, of
     course, must also follow requirements of 30 CFR 75.370,
     which are the submission and approval requirements to the
     mine ventilation plan.
                   MSHA received comments from various sectors of the
     mining community and has preliminarily reviewed the comments
     it has received thus far.  MSHA would particularly like
     additional input from the mining community regarding
     specific alternative approaches discussed in the economic
     feasibility section of the preamble.  As you might recall,
     the options discussed include establishing a concentration
     limit for diesel particulate matter in this sector, the coal
     sector; requiring filters on some light-duty equipment; and
     looking at the filter and the engine as a package that has
     to meet a particular emission standard, instead of requiring
     that all engines be equipped with a high-efficiency filter.
                   The Agency is also interested in obtaining as many
     examples as possible of the specific situation in individual
     mines.  This could include the composition of the diesel
     fleet, what controls cannot be utilized due to special
     conditions, and any studies of alternative controls you
     might have used for the computer spreadsheet that we have
     put into the preamble of the proposed rule.
                   We also seek information about the availability
     and costs of various control technologies that are being
     developed, such as high-efficiency ceramic filters.  Also,
     experience with the use of available controls and
     information that will help us evaluate alternative
     approaches for underground coal mines.  We would also like
     to hear about any unusual situations that might warrant the
     application of special provisions.
                   The Agency welcomes comments on any topics on
     which we should provide initial guidance, as well as any
     alternative practices which MSHA should accept for
     compliance before various provisions of the rule go into
     effect.
                   Additionally, the National Environmental Policy
     Act of 1969 requires each federal agency to consider the
     environmental effects of proposed actions and to prepare an
     environmental impact statement, a major action significantly
     affecting the quality of the human environment.  On July 14,
     1998, MSHA published a notice in the Federal Register that
     announced its preliminary determination that the proposed
     rule would have no significant environmental impact.  The
     comment period was scheduled to close on August 10, 1998. 
     However, MSHA extended the comment period until October 9,
     1998 and the record will remain open as stated in this
     public hearing notice until February 16, 1999, to allow for
     post-hearing comments and data submission.
                   MSHA views these rulemaking activities as
     extremely important and knows that your participation is
     also a reflection of the importance you associate with the
     rulemaking.  To insure that an adequate record is made
     during this proceeding, when you present your oral statement
     or otherwise address the panel, I ask that you come to the
     front table here, clearly state your name, spell your name
     and state the name of the organization you represent.
                   The way we were going to handle this today, we've
     had several, three, lists of people that have asked for time
     to present.  They will be given first come, first
     presentation privileges.  They will be done in 30 minute
     intervals, and if there's more time required, and then we
     will repeat and most people will be able to come back and
     represent.
                   After that time, we have a list of people that
     have signed in at the door to make presentations and we'll
     take them in the order that the signees signed the sign-in
     sheet.  It is my intent that during this hearing, anyone who
     wishes to speak will be given an opportunity.  Anyone who
     has not previously asked for time to speak needs to tell us
     of your intention to do so by signing the request sheet, and
     as all of you know, I'm sure by now, that that's in the back
     of the room.
                   Time will be allowed, allocated for you to speak
     after the scheduled speaker.  We are scheduled to go until 5
     p.m. today.  Of course, we will call a halt if we run out of
     speakers. 
                   I will attempt to recognize all speakers in the
     order in which they requested to speak.  However, as the
     moderator, I reserve the right to modify the order of
     presentation in the interest of fairness.  I doubt that it
     will be necessary, but I also may exercise discretion to
     irrelevant or unduly repetitious material.  And, in order to
     clarify certain points, the panel may ask questions of the
     speakers.
                   I might also add for some of you that are not
     familiar with the facility here, is that there are restrooms
     directly at the bottom of the escalator out here and there
     are also vending machines also on that main floor.  With
     that, I would like to call our first speaker this morning,
     which will be the National Mining Association.
                   MR. PEELISH:  Mr. Chairman and members of the
     Committee, I am Michael Peelish.  That's spelled P-E-E-L-I-
     S-H, Director of Safety for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company. 
     With me is David Beerbower, spelled B-E-E-R-B-O-W-E-R, Vice
     President for Safety with Peabody Group.  Joining us are
     Bruce Watzman and Michael Duffy from the National Mining
     Association.
                   Today, we appear before you representing the
     members of the NMA who produce the vast majority of coal
     produced annually in the U.S.  Further, NMA member-companies
     manufacture the equipment and systems which are the subject
     of this rulemaking.  As such, the NMA has a keen level of
     interest in these proceedings as they will, in large part,
     determine what equipment and under what conditions, diesel-
     powered equipment will continue to be used in underground
     coal mines.
                   Let us be clear at the outset, we are convinced
     that diesel-powered equipment is not only safe for us in
     underground coal mines, but has significantly improved
     safety in our coal mines.  
                   Our testimony today will focus primarily on two
     aspects of the Agency's proposed rule.  First, we will
     comment on the proposed requirement that certain categories
     of equipment used in underground coal mines be equipped with
     an after-treatment filtration system, capable of removing 95
     percent of the DPM emitted. 
                   Second, we will comment on the Agency's economic
     analysis that accompanies the proposal.  Prior to the end of
     the comment period, we will provide more extensive comments
     on the Agency's risk assessment and we will provide an
     alternative, which will afford miners greater health
     protection within the current limits of technology and
     economics.
                   Diesel Particulate Matter -- Need to Control
     Exposures.  MSHA and its predecessors have promulgated
     standards applicable to diesel as far back as 1944 to
     control gaseous emissions.  MSHA began its recent activity
     addressing the use of diesel-powered equipment on October 6,
     1987, when the Agency established an Advisory Committee on
     Standards and Regulations for Diesel-Powered Equipment in
     Underground Coal Mines.  That was the Diesel Advisory
     Committee.  The Diesel Advisory Committee issued its report
     to the Secretary of Labor in July, 1988.  Based on the
     Diesel Advisory Committee's report, MSHA issued proposed
     rules for the Approval Requirements for Diesel-Powered
     Machines and Approval, Exposure Monitoring and Safety
     Requirements for the Use of Diesel-Powered Equipment in
     Underground Coal Mining.  The rule was published in the
     Federal Register on October 4, 1989.  These rules became
     final on October 25, 1996, with complete implementation
     required by November 25, 1999.
                   The 1996 final rule primarily addressed the
     diesel-powered machine approval, ambient monitoring for
     certain diesel emissions components, and safety use issues. 
     To some extent, the 1996 final rule did address health
     issues by focusing on how to improve diesel emissions
     through cleaner engines verified by engine emissions
     testing, better fuel quality, better maintenance
     specifications and training requirements and monitoring for
     emission gases.
                   While MSHA was still considering the machine
     approval and safety use issues, it issued an advance notice
     of proposed rulemaking on a Permissible Exposure Limit for
     DPM.  The rule was published in the Federal Register on
     January 6, 1992.  In the preamble to the 1992 advance
     notice, MSHA noted that the Diesel Advisory Committee made
     "several research proposals to the Secretary, because they
     recognized the difficulty in implementing the
     recommendations based on the body of scientific knowledge
     that existed at the time of the report.  The committee
     recommended that the Secretary request the National
     Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the
     Bureau of Mines give the highest authority to research in
     the development of sampling methods and devices for DPM.  
              In addition, the committee concluded that in the
     absence of adequate information regarding DPM exposure
     levels at which health effects accrue, more research is
     needed."
                   From these recommendations, MSHA set in motion
     four initiatives.  Two of these initiatives pertained to DPM
     measuring devices and exposure levels.  One pertained to
     risk assessments utilizing animal studies and correlating
     and modeling these studies to humans, and the last pertained
     to diesel emissions control technologies.
                   The first emission regarding exposure levels, MSHA
     has provided data noting ranges of average DPM exposures
     observed at various mines for underground and surface
     miners, compared to range of average exposures reported for
     other occupations and for ambient air.  While much has been
     said about the high-end concentrations that have been found,
     it must be noted that the average exposures are .644 mg/m3
     in underground coal mines.  Even these are actually upper
     bound estimates for DPM, because the sampling devices
     measure everything below .8 micrometers, including coal dust
     and rock dust. 
                   Beyond this, however, we are uncertain about the
     data's credibility, since the data was gathered by emissions
     monitoring devices later discredited by MSHA in the
     preamble.  Quite frankly, we are confused by MSHA's
     inconsistencies concerning emissions measuring devices and
     techniques.
                   Regarding DPM devices, by MSHA's own admission in
     the preamble, its research work has not produced an
     instrument that provides reliable and accurate measurement
     capabilities in underground coal mines.  Relative to the
     developing emissions control technology, MSHA has done some
     work in this area, but it remains unclear whether any of
     these technologies meet a 95 percent efficiency standard. 
     By MSHA's own admission, the nature of the rule is
     "technology forcing."  We will discuss this in greater
     detail later.
                   The only tangible results produced by MSHA for use
     by the mine operator to address diesel emissions are set
     forth in the MSHA publication "Practical Ways to Reduce
     Exposure to Diesel Exhaust in Mining - A Toolbox." 
     Unfortunately for the mine operator, MSHA completely ignores
     its own "Toolbox" by proposing a rule that does not allow
     engine manufacturers or mine operators the benefit of any of
     its tools.  Rather, the Agency has decided to mandate an
     across-the-board system efficiency rating.  The MSHA toolbox
     would tend to support the concept that mine operators should
     be allowed to choose the combination of controls that best
     suits their operations, versus a restrictive and mandated
     efficiency rating standard.
                   Relative to the risk assessment, what has really
     changed since 1992?  Simply put, nothing has changed  MSHA
     has failed to initiate any scientifically based research on
     humans or follow up on previous research performed by NIOSH,
     the former Bureau of Mines, and MSHA in the late 1970's and
     early 80's in the western coal mines, using actual coal
     miners.
                   Rather, MSHA has based its risk assessment on a
     collection of epidemiological studies whose reliability is
     of questionable value.  Moreover, the reliance on animal
     bioassays and, particularly, those involving rats, has been
     called into question by researchers throughout the world. 
     Simply put, we know today that rats cannot be relied upon to
     estimate human exposure and response mechanisms.  Both the
     EPA and the California Air Resource Board rejected this as
     the basis for regulating diesel exposure.  As noted
     previously, we will provide additional comments on these
     aspects in our written comments.
                   Perhaps the most useful scientific study is
     currently underway between NIOSH and the National Cancer
     Institute.  Rather than wait for preliminary or final
     results of this study, MSHA has elected to issue a proposed
     rule that establishes an extremely stringent standard.  We
     are advised that you will receive testimony regarding the
     NIOSH/NCI study.  We support the efforts of the companies
     involved in that study and would again urge the Agency to
     await the results of that investigation before promulgating
     final rules.
                   While seven years may be too long in the Agency's
     eyes, we must note with some irony the years we've been
     awaiting rules regarding the use of belt air to ventilate
     working places and high-voltage electrical standards.  In
     any case, however, we understand that interim reports from
     the study will be made available.  It behooves the Agency to
     consider these as it proceeds with this important
     initiative.
                   The industry's approach throughout the prior
     advisory committee and rulemaking efforts has been to assure
     reasonable and justifiable approval, use standards, and
     health standards for diesel-powered equipment utilized in
     underground coal mines.  Indeed, the safety and operational
     advantages afforded by the use of diesel-powered equipment
     have been unquestionably demonstrated over years of steadily
     increasing use of this equipment in underground coal mining.
                   Many of the concerns raised by MSHA, the coal
     miners and the coal mining industry during the proceedings
     of the Diesel Advisory Committee and the October 4, 1989
     proposed rule have been addressed in the 1996 final rule. 
     Indeed, the missing factor in the management of diesel
     emissions equation pertains to the health risk.  However,
     before MSHA proceeds with this critical aspect of the
     solution, it should support its approach with sound
     scientific data.  In the industry's opinion, MSHA has failed
     to do so.
                   NMA member companies believe that it simply makes
     common sense to manage a business on the premise that an
     ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.  MSHA
     has not met the legal standard to justify proposing such
     extreme measures to manage DPM emissions.  In doing so, MSHA
     has tied one hand behind the operator's back by not allowing
     the operator the opportunity to use all available resources
     as those set forth in MSHA's Toolbox.  The definition of an
     unreasonable rule is MSHA requiring mine operators to meet
     one of the most stringent diesel emission standards in the
     world, without the use of all available resources such as
     clean engines, high fuel quality, ventilation, and greater
     variety of reliable, commercially available after-treatment
     devices.
                   Section 72.500(a)   The proposed rule as reflected
     in Section 75.200(a) is premised on the availability of
     reliable, commercially available after-treatment devices
     capable of removing 95 percent of the DPM emitted from the
     engine.  NMA is confused as to how MSHA is defining "...a
     filtration device capable of removing an average of 95
     percent or greater by mass of DPM."  If MSHA is saying that
     the filtration devices must show 95 percent efficiency
     regardless of the type of particle test dust used or
     sampling device or sampling techniques, then several
     manufacturers' published reports have made claims that their
     filtration devices attain a 95 percent efficiency rating. 
     If, however, MSHA is saying that the filtration device is,
     instead, an entire system tested under ISO-8 Mode steady
     state test procedures while emitting DPM, then arguably,
     only one manufacturer currently meets that standard, and
     then only for one engine package.  NMA is assuming the
     latter situation applies to these proposed rules and further
     is assuming that Dry Systems Technology, Dry Systems, is the
     only filtration device anticipated by the proposed standard.
                   DST Dry Systems has undergone several emissions
     tests required by the proposed rule and is currently
     installed on two permissible diesel units believed to meet
     the proposed standard.  To NMA's knowledge, other than DST
     Dry Systems, no other equipment or after-treatment
     manufacturers claim they have passed the tests envisioned in
     the proposed rule 72.500(d).  This being the case, our
     review of the economic analysis, which Dave will discuss
     shortly, is predicated on the belief that operators would be
     required to use the DST Dry System, assuming it can 
     universally meet the proposed rule.
                   Before turning to the economic analysis, however,
     we think it is important to set the record straight
     regarding the availability, reliability, and technical
     feasibility of after-treatment devices to comply with the 95
     percent emission reduction requirement.  Quite simply, we
     have been unable to substantiate the Agency's contention
     that such devices are feasible and available.
                   Just the opposite has been found.  While DST Dry
     Systems has proven successful under limited testing and in
     some applications, it has not been found to be universally
     applicable to all mining equipment.  In this regard, we
     would ask that a study conducted by West Virginia University
     for the West Virginia Diesel Equipment Commission be made a
     part of the record.
                   The Agency's blind reliance on manufacturers'
     claims of efficiency ignores the testing methodologies
     employed and their inapplicability to the environment in
     which these devices will operate -- underground coal mines. 
     To promulgate a regulation whose bases are manufacturers'
     claims of efficiency using latex particles or monodispersed
     liquid particulate matter as the testing medium is both ill
     advised and inaccurate.  For example, a paper filter tested
     in the laboratory may have 95 percent efficiency based on
     the number of particles, but the efficiency may go down to
     75 to 80 when tested on polydispersed diesel exhaust on a
     mass basis.  The Agency's rush to judgment to complete this
     rulemaking has made a mockery of science-based rulemaking
     and calls into question the validity of the Agency's
     rulemaking process.  Are we to tel our miners that the
     systems used will protect their health when the sources for
     that determination are tests that have no relationship to
     the mining environment?
                   The preamble to the proposed rule speaks
     extensively to the question of feasibility.  Missing from
     the discussion because of timing is a reference to the
     decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
     National Mining Association and Alabama Coal Association v.
     Secretary of Labor and issued on September 4, 1998.  We
     believe this decision is directly on point and must be
     considered as the Agency drafts a final rule.  That decision
     specifically addresses the issue of feasibility under the
     Mine Act vis a vis that same concept under the OSHA statute. 
     "Feasibility under OSHA means technological and economic
     feasibility... We believe the Mine Act term 'feasibility'
     includes these concepts as well, but we do not otherwise
     address the applicability of OSHA." 
                   Thus, when MSHA and the public address the concept
     of feasibility in this proceeding, they must be guided by
     case law arising under the OSHA Act as well as the Mine Act. 
     That principle is echoed in the text of the Mine Act itself. 
     For example, Section 106(a) of the Mine Act, briefly
     summarized, requires that in promulgating a mandatory health
     standard, the Secretary must first identify a hazard and
     quantify that hazard, i.e., determine whether unregulated
     working life exposure to the hazard is significant enough to
     cause a miner to "suffer material impairment of health or
     physical capacity."  Both the identification and
     quantification of the risk must be based upon "the best
     available evidence."  While the health and safety of miners
     are of paramount consideration, the Secretary must also
     consider the feasibility of a proposed standard, as well as
     experienced gained under the Mine Act and other safety and
     health laws, most obviously, of course, the OSHA statute.
                   While issues relating to material impairment and
     best available evidence have yet to be extensively addressed
     by the Courts in terms of the Mine Act, these issues or
     their close analogues have been extensively addressed in the
     OSHA context.  Many of the principles derived in those cases
     can and should be applied to issues arising in this proposed
     rule.  Indeed, MSHA refers to a number of OSHA cases in the
     preamble as justification for some of the rulemaking
     decisions it has made.  With respect to the issue of
     feasibility, however, the Eleventh Circuit's decision, cited
     above, requires that MSHA follow whatever judicial guidance
     that has arisen under the OSHA rulemaking activity.
                   It is well established that for each standard it
     wishes to promulgate, OSHA must find that (1) at present
     exposure levels, a significant risk of material impairment
     exists, (2) the standard is technologically feasible, and
     (3) the standard is economically feasible.  Rather than take
     the time now, our written comments will outline the Courts'
     treatment of this key rulemaking issue.
                   Keeping those principles in mind, however, we will
     now focus on how MSHA has addressed them in the proposed
     rule.
                   NMA takes issue with several assertions by MSHA as
     to its regulatory responsibilities under 101(a)(6)(A) of the
     Mine Act.  For instance, in its analysis of feasibility,
     MSHA states, "Courts do not expect hard and precise
     predictions from agencies regarding feasibility.  Congress
     intended for the 'arbitrary and capricious standard' to be
     applied in judicial review of MSHA rulemaking.  Under this
     standard, MSHA need only base its predictions on reasonable
     inferences drawn from the existing facts."
                   The holding of the Eleventh Circuit in the AFL-CIO
     v. OSHA air quality decision, which is referenced in the
     preamble, however, requires a harder look at the Secretary's
     actions than under the more deferential arbitrary and
     capricious standard of Section 551 of the Administrative
     Procedures Act.  This is an important distinction that must
     be considered, particularly when that same Circuit has
     recently ruled that feasibility under the Mine Act is
     comparable to that concept under the OSHA Act.  Accordingly,
     MSHA's conclusions with respect to both technological and
     economic feasibility must be subjected to a harder look. 
     When subjected to such scrutiny, we believe the Agency's
     proposition that feasible technology capable of meeting the
     proposed 95 percent emission reduction requirement fails to
     meet the tests outlined by the Court.
                   This is not to say that we cannot and should not
     do more -- we can and we should.  But, let's not create a
     false sense of security.  There are limitations on what can
     be accomplished, given the technology available today. 
     Given what we know today, we cannot equip diesel-powered
     equipment using underground mines in the time frame provided
     with reliable after-treatment systems capable of removing 95
     percent of the DPM.  That being said, it is time we all
     focus on achieving realistic goals to further reduce miner
     exposure to DPM, while we continue efforts to develop new
     emission control technologies.
                   At this point, Dave Beerbower will provide you
     with preliminary comments on the Regulatory Economic
     Analysis.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  Thank you, Mike.  As previously
     noted, I am Dave Beerbower, Vice President of Safety for the
     Peabody Group.  Peabody is the largest coal producer in the
     nation, and we operate mines in nine states and annually
     produce approximately 160 million tons of coal for shipment
     to customers.  Currently we operate diesel-powered equipment
     at four of our underground coal mines, however, we
     anticipate that this will increase as diesel-powered
     equipment is introduced in West Virginia.
                   As Mike mentioned, we have reviewed the Agency's
     preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis and find it to be
     flawed.  As stated earlier, NMA does not agree with MSHA's
     approach to managing diesel emission.  However, we feel
     compelled to comment on the statements contained in the
     Regulatory Analysis.
                   NMA believes that if reliable after-treatment
     devices that meet the proposed 95 percent collection
     efficiency are available, the initial cost of the proposed
     rule will be at least six times greater than that assumed by
     MSHA.  MSHA's assumption of initial costs to retrofit
     permissible units is $3,378,000.  Assuming the use of the
     DST Dry Systems, the initial cost to the industry is more
     like $20,622,500.  And, I will discuss this later at how we
     arrived at that cost estimate.
                   MSHA needs to explain how the discount rate is
     applied to monies that will be expended in the current year,
     although equipment may be amortized over several years. 
     Further, MSHA needs to explain how long the industry will be
     required to spend approximately $10 million per year.  MSHA
     has made assumptions about the useful life of equipment.  To
     assure that these assumptions are reasonable, can MSHA
     provide a useful life schedule for the equipment considered
     in its assessment?
                   MSHA's economic analysis looks at the coal
     industry as a whole, when, in fact, the proposed rule
     impacts only 173 underground coal mines.  Thus, portions of
     MSHA's analysis, when it uses an industry-wide data, needs
     to be modified to accurately reflect only those underground
     coal mines utilizing diesel-powered equipment.  For
     instance, if the proposed rule considers only 173 mines,
     then the financial impact on this segment of the industry
     are much greater than MSHA would make it appear.  In the
     absence of this, the analysis unfairly characterizes the
     true economic impact of that segment using diesel-powered
     equipment.
                   On page 37 of the Preliminary Regulatory Economic
     Analysis, MSHA states that there are 567 permissible pieces
     of diesel-powered equipment, of which 10 percent already
     have after-treatment devices that meet the regulation.  We
     do not know the basis for MSHA's assumption and would ask
     that this be provided.  
                   Base on our assumption that DST Dry Systems is the
     only technology capable of meeting the proposal's after-
     treatment criteria, only two of the 567 machines have after-
     treatment devices that may meet the 95 percent efficiency
     requirement under Part 7.89.  Also, the cost estimates for
     the after-treatment devices are inaccurate.  Assuming DST
     Dry Systems has the technology capable of achieving 95
     percent reduction, the following implementation costs would
     be incurred for a Jeffrey 4110 Ramcar 94 horsepower
     permissible diesel engine package.  The cost may vary
     significantly for larger engines and do not consider all
     structural modifications that may need to be made in various
     types of equipment.   And, that permissible retrofit cost is
     $36,500 per unit.
                   It's different on OEM costs and we'll highlight
     some of that now.  By all estimates, some additional costs
     above currently approved and used technology will be
     associated with new permissible equipment.  The question is,
     how much?  NMA would estimate that if DST Dry Systems are
     mandated on all future diesel units versus existing water
     scrubber technology, then the additional costs, including
     hardware costs and excluding design and applied engineering
     and installation costs, would range from $1,000 to $5,000,
     depending on the horsepower of the engine package.  It is
     not accurate, realistic or genuine for MSHA to state that
     all a mine operator has to do is place a filter in the
     exhaust stream of an existing permissible diesel unit to be
     in compliance with the regulation.
                   Based upon these facts, MSHA's initial compliance
     cost calculations would be modified as follows.  For large
     and small mines, there are 565 permissible pieces times
     $36,500, for those retrofits, $20,622,500.
                   The cost of initial compliance would be the same
     for large mines as well as small mines, since the after-
     treatment technology would be the same applied to the
     selected engines, regardless of the mine size.  Based upon
     operating experience, the ongoing operating costs for
     exhaust filters can range up to $10 for operating hour, plus
     the cost of labor to change the filters.  This is
     considerably higher than the costs assumed by MSHA in its
     analysis.
                   We must also make note of our disagreement with
     MSHA's assumptions of small versus large mine operating
     hours.  In truth, to remain competitive, both large and
     small mines must operate comparable hours.  As such, the
     costs attributable to OEM must be revised to reflect
     comparable operating hours.
                   As a note, NMA does not believe MSHA should
     annualize the initial costs, since those dollars are spent
     immediately to comply with the proposed rule.  The impact to
     cash flows is immediate and this should be the standard used
     by MSHA.
                   Under Part 75.500(b), MSHA's assumptions
     concerning the upgrading of and ongoing maintenance for the
     non-permissible, heavy-duty diesel units are reasonable.  
                   Now, we'll turn to the issue of certification
     costs for engine or equipment manufacturers.  Relative to
     the cost of certification, NMA finds it difficult to believe
     that certification costs for the entire manufacturing
     industry only amount to $14,000 annually.  To certify the
     first DST Dry System diesel-powered package costs in excess
     of $50,000, with subsequent certifications costing slightly
     less.
                   Further, the rule effectively requires diesel
     emissions testing conducted under Part 7.89, to provide the
     efficiency rating of 95 percent, but MSHA does not appear to
     have factored in this cost.  The emissions test alone for
     diesel-powered package systems can cost around $25,000.  To
     certify an engine according to Part 7 without an after-
     treatment device cost in excess of $28,000 as recent --
     excuse me, let me try that again.  To certify an engine
     according to Part 7 without an after-treatment device, costs
     in excess of $28,000 as recent experience has proved to mine
     operators.  Also, MSHA should not annualize the
     certification costs, since these costs are expensed in the
     year incurred, that is, at the time the certification work
     is performed.  Thus, the initial cost will be significantly
     higher to the manufacturers.  In fact, the proposed rule is
     a technology forcing regulation, will incite manufacturers
     to conduct certification testing in order to market new
     technology to the industry.  Thus, MSHA can anticipate a
     flurry of activity by manufacturers.
                   MSHA's assumptions do not consider the time and
     costs incurred by engine and after-treatment manufacturers
     and mine operators to develop technology to meet the DPM
     standard.  Specific manufacturer and operator costs are not
     provided in these comments.  However, speaking from general
     experience among the NMA members, large financial
     commitments, several hundred of thousands of dollars
     annually by after-treatment manufacturers alone, are made in
     the research and development area.  Quite frankly, this is
     an area where MSHA has not done enough with its
     knowledgeable personnel and research facility.
                   The industry would welcome the opportunity to
     develop with MSHA a research and development program that
     encourages sound scientific research of feasible
     technologies in the various aspects of diesel emissions
     management.
                   Now, we'll turn to the issue of time frame for
     compliance.
                   MR. TOMB:  Is this all you have to do, is the next
     few pages?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  Another area where we find the
     analysis to be incorrect is in the area of the time frames
     required for compliance.  We believe MSHA is too optimistic
     and will cause confusion among operators, miners and
     equipment manufacturers.  For example, using a popular
     diesel-powered unit in the industry, the Jeffrey Ramcar, as
     a case study, it's estimated it would take, at best, 42
     months to convert 85 percent of the existing fleet.  The
     existing fleet of Jeffrey Ramcars is about 300, or more than
     50 percent of the existing permissible diesel units.  This
     time frame considers time required for certification of the
     after-treatment technology under Part 7.89, since that has
     not been accomplished for these units.  
                   MSHA assumes that once a diesel power package is
     completely certified, multiple units can be converted
     simultaneously, which is an unreasonable expectation.  To
     address these concerns, we would propose at least 48 months
     for the permissible diesel units and 60 months for non-
     permissible diesel units.  This would be more reasonable and
     allow adequate time for manufacturers, mine operators and
     rebuilt facilities to properly get their arms around an
     orderly, industry-wide conversion program.  Such a realistic
     time frame is fully supported by the legislative history of
     the Mine Act.
                   While Congress, acknowledging that MSHA may issue
     so-called technology forcing standards, it also recognized
     the reality of such standards and they must be given
     adequate time for implementation.
                   "Where substantial outlays are needed in order to
     allow industry to reach the permissible limits necessary to
     protect miners, other regulatory strategies are available to
     accommodate economic feasibility and health
     considerations... includ[ing] delaying implementation of
     certain provisions or requirements of standards in order to
     allow sufficient time for engineering controls..."
                   We will skip over a little bit and speed it up
     here.  On the quantification for benefits, you will be able
     to read our comments, but we are looking at the NIOSH/NCI
     study and want to particularly talk about, for MSHA,
     particularly, within its own files, the research information
     on the impact of diesel emissions based upon the work done
     in conjunction with NIOSH and the Bureau of Mines and MSHA,
     themselves, and several western coal operators.
                   This medical surveillance research was conducted
     between '79 and '81 in Colorado and Utah, on coal miners
     operating diesel equipment in underground mines.  The
     project plan involved gathering exposure levels, x-rays,
     lung function tests and a questionnaire.  And, we would ask
     where is that information?  It doesn't appear to be part of
     the rulemaking, and we would ask that it be brought forward.
                   We are also attaching an appendix that talks about
     compliance with NEPA, for your consumption.
                   In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we reiterate that it
     is essential that the Agency permit operators to employ an
     integrated approach, to provide the flexibility required to
     reach DPM in underground coal mines.  The utility of such an
     approach has been recognized in several peer-reviewed papers
     and journal articles, authored by MSHA technical staff.  An
     integrated approach would allow operators to use all the
     tools in the toolbox in order to attain the highest degree
     of safety and health that is feasible.  The Agency's recent
     semi-annual regulatory agenda highlighted the need to
     "explore new approaches to achieve our regulatory goals at
     lower costs and with greater flexibility for the regulated
     community."  We support this objective and believe the
     adoption of an integrated approach will meet this objective. 
     Thank you and we'll be happy to answer any of your
     questions.
                   MR. TOMB:  I have one question.  Does this
     complete NMA's presentation or you're going to still have
     more after?  
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:  This is it, completed?  Okay.
                   Okay, Sandra?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Mr. Peelish?  Hi.  I have one
     question.  I don't have a list of what we have in our
     records -- we're making records right now -- with me, and I
     was wondering, has NMA completed the, you know, the
     comments, a copy of this West Virginia University Commission
     Study that you identified --
                   MR. PEELISH:  I think we just submitted to Mr.
     Strom the copy of that.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Okay, okay, thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Mike?
                   MR. SASEEN:  Mike, you mentioned -- are you going
     to make the West Virginia data available?  I think you
     provided some?  No, you didn't, that's right.  But, you hope
     to make WB's data available?
                   MR. PEELISH:  Yes.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Is there any other data you're aware
     of that can be presented, that's been tested on the 95
     percent, on the filter system?
                   MR. PEELISH:  On the DST System?
                   MR. SASEEN:  Yes.
                   MR. PEELISH:  The original data that supported the
     implementation of diesel equipment in Pennsylvania, from
     March of 1995, I think was submitted when you had your
     workshop.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. PEELISH:  I need to resubmit that for the
     record, but it has been previously submitted.  In fact, I
     think at the workshop.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, then that's different from this
     that you stated in here?
                   MR. PEELISH:  That's different than the final
     report of the West Virginia Diesel Commission, that's
     correct.  Those are two separate reports.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, is there any other data that
     you're aware of that can be submitted?
                   MR. PEELISH:  At this time, through NMA, no.  We
     have not done our own independent testing to support the
     comments.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Ron?
                   MR. FORD:  Yes, my name is Ron Ford and Mr.
     Peelish, I have two questions for you and then the rest for
     Mr. Beerbower.  
                   On page four of your comments, you made the
     statement that while DST is proving successful in a limited
     testing and in some applications, it has not been found to
     be universally applicable to all mining equipment.  Can you
     just talk a little bit about what your experience is to what
     equipment it is applicable to now, that you know of?
                   MR. PEELISH:  My involvement with DST is quite
     personal.  Cyprus Amax Minerals, Cyprus Amax Coal Company is
     one of the general partners that developed the technology. 
     The test that I referred to in addressing Mr. Saseen was a
     test that was done on an NWM contingent package.  The report
     that was filed by the West Virginia University shows that
     that exceeded 95 percent.
                   The applicability of that standard, of the 95
     percent standard, then became then apparent in Pennsylvania,
     in their statutory language.  
                   We have only tested at West Virginia the NWM
     package.  However, in Pennsylvania, they have accepted --
     the technical advisory committee has accepted those tests
     for purposes of accessibility to other engines.  There have
     been some tests done on other engines by DST, however, we
     have not made that testing data publicly available yet.
                   Other than that and the West Virginia report by
     the Commission, by the West Virginia Diesel Commission
     Study, which showed a DST drive system was used on a 3306
     Caterpillar engine, 150 horsepower, those are the only
     systems that NMA will provide evidence for the testimony on. 
                   DST partnership is another issue and I wouldn't
     want to get into that right now.  I will wait for those
     comments to be submitted.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  On page six, again at the
     bottom, a statement that was made, "Given what we know
     today, we cannot retrofit diesel-powered equipment used in
     the underground coal mines with reliable after-treatment
     systems capable of removing 95 percent of the DPM's."  Could
     you comment on whether or not there is a level that you
     think you could meet in efficiency level?
                   MR. PEELISH:  I think you can meet 95 percent. 
     It's from one to one report.  The question becomes, does the
     universal, is the applicability of that technology
     universally on all the equipment, without having to run the
     test?
                   Again, speaking as kind of the partner in DST, we
     believe that it's capable.  There, and it may -- there are
     some members who believe it is not capable, and on all
     packages universally, and we have the test results to show
     that.  That's where I think it's incumbent upon OSHA, and
     we've noted it in here, the people that you had, the
     knowledgeable people that you have and the facilities that
     you have to do more of that testing and to verify these
     systems.
                   MR. FORD:  Thank you.  
                   Mr. Beerbower, can we start on page seven?  In the
     mode of trying to help us get a better economic analysis,
     I'd ask you to please help me with these questions.  
                   At the top, you say currently that we offer a
     diesel-powered equipment underground at four of our mines. 
     Do you have any sort of control technologies on any of those
     equipment currently, or have you ever had it in the past,
     and what's your experience with it?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  We currently do not have any of
     the Dry System Technology installed in any of our equipment. 
     We do have catalytic convertors on some and wet scrubbers on
     others.
                   MR. FORD:  Have you done any testing or anything
     of what DPM is removed?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  We have not.  We have not.
                   MR. FORD:  On that same page, under industry
     profile, I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding. 
     Are you saying that the number that MSHA went forward with
     in their economic analysis of 173 coal mines that utilized
     diesel equipment is incorrect, and there are more mines, or
     are you saying that maybe that may be a correct mine number
     now, but in the future, we haven't assessed what the diesels
     that could go into mines that are not using?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  We're saying that you have spread
     the cost of the conversion across the whole industry, when,
     in fact, it only affects 173 mines.  So, that it really is
     higher for the mines that are utilizing diesel equipment
     currently.
                   MR. FORD:  On page eight, you talk about the costs
     for permissible equipment, the retrofit cost of $36,500 and
     you call this implementation costs.  Is the $36,500, is that
     purchase and installation costs?  I'm trying to get an idea
     of what the definition of implementation costs?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  That's total costs, installed
     cost.
                   MR. FORD:  So, that's system purchase, the system
     installed?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  Yes.
                   MR. FORD:  So, does that encompass, that doesn't
     encompass what you talk about later as the cost to figure
     out how to redesign it onto the system?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  There are many pieces of
     equipment, for instance, large locomotives and track
     locomotives may have to have major frame alterations to get
     the DST System installed.  We have not -- and really cannot
     -- figure out a cost, although we did hear yesterday from
     one of our members that the cost, for instance, of a Petito
     Mule, to be retrofitted with DST costs upwards, between
     $50,000 and $60,000 for that, because it did require
     mainframe modifications.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay, now, that $50,000 to $60,000,
     you're talking then, not only purchase and installation, but
     also, the time it takes in the office to figure out how to
     redesign this?
                   MR. PEELISH:  I don't know -- I think that was
     more a hardware cost.  The cost of putting it in the
     machine.  The design costs and the flat engineering cost, I
     don't see anywhere --
                   MR. FORD:  That's what I'm trying to get at.  So,
     the $50,000 you just quoted and the $36,500 is just purchase
     and installation?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  Yes, and modification of the
     original piece of equipment, so that it would accept that,
     the DST technology.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Do you have any idea of what it
     might cost to sit down and redesign this?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  No, we don't, but, I mean, that
     cost needs to be considered.  I would guess, particularly
     with a major reconfiguration of a frame of a piece of
     equipment, you're talking upwards of $20,000, I would think.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay, so, do you have an idea how MSHA
     might go about trying to find out how to determine such
     costs?  Could you supply us with data from maybe some of
     your mine companies that would stipulate what their cost is
     for doing this?
                   MR. PEELISH:  If I might answer that, the only
     system that has been retrofitted for a permissible unit is
     the 4110.  The Ramcar.  That's the reason you see the
     $36,500.  That's a fairly certain cost.  But, to do a
     locomotive or Petito Mule or a Wager Scoop, nobody's done it
     yet.  But, I think the costs, from our experience, is going
     to be in excess of the $36,500.  Because, number one,
     they're large units, the engines are larger.  This is a 94
     horse power unit.  Those are going to be significantly
     larger, so the costs are going to be greater.  I think
     $36,500 is your bottom number.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  I think one thing we want to point
     out is that if you're talking about larger engines than
     this, the retrofit cost is going to be higher than $36,500 -
     -
                   MR. FORD:  Right, right.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  -- even if there are not
     structural changes.
                   MR. FORD:  It seems to be left on here for
     something less than 150 horsepower, the purchase and
     installation, you're saying would be around $36,500.  For
     something greater than 150 horsepower, if you just purchase
     installation, would be $50,000 to $60,000?
                   MR. PEELISH:  For greater than 94 horsepower, not
     150.  That $36,500 applies to a 94.
                   MR. FORD:  And, something greater than 94 would be
     $50,000 to $60,000?
                   MR. PEELISH:  It would be more.  The question is
     how much, because nobody has actually done the structural
     work on a retrofit yet.
                   MR. FORD:  On the figure that you talked about for
     the $50,000, $60,000 machine, what horsepower is that?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  One hundred fifty we computed.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay, so as we go down, we see, you
     talk about additional costs.  But, in talking about
     additional costs, I'm a little bit confused.  You say that
     includes hardware costs and that includes design and applied
     engineering and installation costs.  What --
                   MR. PEELISH:  This is on now, the OEM side, that
     when an OEM -- right now, the current technology that's used
     are water scrubbers.  So, above the cost of a water
     scrubber, there's going to be some additional cost to put
     DST in an existing, or in a new unit, that currently would
     use water scrub technology.
                   So, we're saying that above what you currently pay
     -- if you go out right now and pay for a water scrub after-
     treatment device, you're going to pay that.  So, DST now is
     in their on early invasive versus the water scrubber, and
     you're going to pay X costs, an additional $1,000 to $5,000
     for a 94 horsepower equipment type of deal.
                   MR. FORD:  That $1,000 to $5,000 additional, so
     it's not that much different --
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  When you compare it to water
     scrubbers, it's some, and again, that's where that --
                   MR. FORD:  It's a little bit different, but from
     our workshops, I remember back, that was one of my
     questions.  They said it was very little different cost if
     you're doing it on OEM equipment.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  And, again, that's for 94 horse,
     so maybe it will be different as you go up.
                   MR. FORD:  Well, is the difference significant?
                   MR. PEELISH:  It can be, because the cost of the -
     - primary cost is associated with the heat exchange, and
     when you have to pay straight -- it can be costly.
                   MR. TOMB:  Go ahead.
                   MR. FORD:  Let's talk about the operating
     experience would range up to $10 per hour.  Can we have, if
     you have some documents which show how you got that $10 per
     hour?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  We don't have any with us, but we
     can get them to you.
                   MR. FORD:  Oh, yes, okay, thank you.  Also, on
     page nine, you talk about cost to manufacturers for
     certifying the system.  Do you have any idea of when a
     system gets certified and then eventually they're sold right
     over to the -- there are a number of systems that are sold,
     or even engines that are sold, what that additional add-on
     cost would be?  It certainly wouldn't be this high, because
     all these costs are spread over a large number of engines,
     more engines than one.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  Well, you know, one of the points
     that we're making here is that that's an upfront cost and we
     recognize that you amortize that over the whole, over the
     course of the engine life.  And, in fact, what happens with
     whoever it is that manufactures the engine and getting it
     certified, it is day one.  So, we think that you need to
     take another look at how you amortized those costs.
                   MR. FORD:  Right.  This is a cost that's an
     upfront cost to the manufacturers and eventually, it will be
     stretched through to the line operators over a number of
     engines, which would not be a greater cost than we have
     here, correct?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  That's correct.  The additional
     units would not cost that much.
                   MR. FORD:  The last question I have is, we do get
     into this research and development area in the last
     paragraph, which we touched on earlier in the questions.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  I'm sorry, where?
                   MR. FORD:  The last paragraph on page nine.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  I'm sorry, our page numbers are
     different.  You're talking about inserted stationery?
                   MR. FORD:  Yes.
                   MR. PEELISH:  Mr. Ford, let me just add one point. 
     On the cost that the certification, we're assuming it's paid
     by the manufacturer of the engine or the manufacturer of the
     technology.  We're going through an issue right now with
     respect to the industry to comply with the November 25, 1999
     deadline, where manufacturers of engines are saying, we're
     not going to do it.  We're not going to certify engines,
     because the marketplace isn't there for it.  Yet, the
     operators still have existing equipment that has those
     engines in it and we're having to go back and pay ourselves
     to have these engines certified.
                   Now, we can't submit the certification because we
     don't own the engine.  Therefore, we're incurring
     approximately $28,000 per engine package right now to get it
     certified, where, in 1996, in MSHA's economic impact
     assessment, they never assumed that.  
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  And, quite frankly, we didn't
     either.
                   MR. PEELISH:  We got, you know, we've all been
     kind of stunned by this.  Now, we're working towards that. 
     There's a huge cost in this that I don't think MSHA
     estimated.  We'll try to give you some numbers relative to
     what it would take to certify these costs.  Yes, these
     things get amortized, but frankly, I don't think you ever
     get your money back.
                   MR. FORD:  So, if I can reiterate what you're
     saying, you're saying that sometimes engine manufacturers
     won't do that certification part, it's not worth it for
     them.  So, the actual mine operator himself has to go into
     MSHA and pay for all these upfront costs?
                   MR. PEELISH:  Yeah, we pay for the engine
     manufacturer to go to find a third-party consultant to
     certify an engine and we pick up the tab, the cost of his
     operators, but yet, the engine manufacturer will get the
     certification.
                   MR. FORD:  So, it's not one particular mine that's
     paying these dollars, it's, you get a certification for a
     particular model and then the NMA, as an association, pays -
     -
                   MR. PEELISH:  Well, quite frankly, it's been
     individual companies who are undertaking this to do it
     themselves.  And, it's not anything against the MSHA
     certification process.  That's not the issue.  The issue is
     that there were assumptions made that aren't now accurate
     and we don't want to go down that same path again in these
     rules, okay, because I think there's a lot more costs
     associated.
                   Then, there's again the whole issue that some
     manufacturers are just flatly denying any certification of
     any engines.  And, we're going to lose some mining engines
     based on this rule.
                   MR. FORD:  That's all I have.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Mike, is DST going to be prepared to
     submit any additional data from their customers?  I know
     you're representing NMA here.
                   MR. PEELISH:  I guess we'll have to see what the
     final -- is.  I haven't drafted them and don't know what
     they're going to say yet.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
                   MR. PEELISH:  Another thing that I'd ask MSHA is
     that on the issues of the exposure studies that were done in
     Utah and Colorado in the late 70's and early 80's, we would
     like to get that data if there's still data that exists. 
     We're scouring our mines where these tests were done and a
     lot of it's old stuff and we can't find it.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  There were quite extensive x-ray
     studies and air --
                   MR. TOMB:  I don't think there were particulate
     measurements made, though, were there?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  I'm not sure.  But, there were
     lung capacity studies done and those type of things.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, we have a couple more questions. 
     Sorry.
                   MR. HANEY:  On the filter efficiencies, are you
     saying that other commercial systems do not meet 95 percent,
     or that they haven't been tested?
                   MR. PEELISH:  We're saying those are 7.89 and
     where the ISO-8 study state test, that's the only one that's
     passed that test.  And, again, there's some argument as to
     whether it has or not.  It isn't a DST Dry Systems.
                   The other filtration devices that have been
     claimed to have passed that have not been done pursuant to
     that test, so right there, to certify those other filters,
     they've got to go through a whole listing of testing, just
     to certify that they do meet the 7.89.
                   MR. TOMB:  Are we talking paper filters or other?
                   MR. PEELISH:  Or any filter, any filtration
     device.
                   MR. HANEY:  And, what is different with the DST
     System that would make it better or worse than other
     commercial systems out there?
                   MR. PEELISH:  That's a hard -- I guess I don't
     know that I want to get into why we're better or worse or
     anything like that.  Now I think it's just a matter of the
     efficiency of paper filters and being able to reduce your
     temperature to where a paper filter can act in the capacity
     that they would act, which is a very high efficiency, no
     infiltration.  That's probably the primary difference.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  The West Virginia study has
     comparisons with some of the other filtration units out
     there, so I would encourage you to take a look at that.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, Jon, any other questions?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Mr. Peelish, at the bottom of my page
     six, you stated that given what we know today, we cannot
     retrofit diesel-powered equipment used in the underground
     coal mines with reliable treatment systems capable of
     removing 95 percent of the DPM.  That being said, at a time
     when we all focus on achieving realistic goals to further
     reduce miner exposure, does that constitute a suggestion
     that MSHA require something less than 95 percent of
     efficiency, or are you prepared to make more specific
     suggestions about what we should do as an alternative?
                   MR. PEELISH:  I think what we are prepared to do
     is, we are going to submit addition comments on the
     alternative and I think it would be best for us to explain
     all of that in our original comments versus right now
     there's no need to speculate as to what that might be.
                   MR. TOMB:  I guess that leads me to -- I have two
     questions I wanted to ask.  One, on your retrofit costs you
     talked about, how often do you do a rebuild on a machine and
     when they do that, if they retrofit it with a, something
     like a DST System, what kind of additional costs are we
     talking about there?  Is it the same as OEM?  That was sort
     of brought out in our workshops, also, to do this was not
     tremendously expensive, if you're going to rebuild, for
     instance.
                   MR. PEELISH:  Well, that would be the $36,500,
     Tom, because what you have to do -- that's what we did with
     these.  They were scheduled to rebuild.  We didn't put them 
     out just to put DST on them.  They were scheduled rebuilds. 
     We went in, and that was the package, the dealer package,
     cost $36,500, with the entire retrofit.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, but then, that $36,500, then,
     though, is the difference between if you went back and did a
     whole -- there's a difference cost in there, not just
     $36,500 to be tacked onto it?
                   MR. PEELISH:  Well, no, the $36,500 would be the
     cost.  That would be the cost just to put that diesel down,
     that power package in.  Now, if I've got to do other things
     that were not attributable to this retrofit for the
     emissions, those aren't added in the $36,500.  Now, if I had
     to redo brakes or redo --
                   MR. TOMB:  Right, okay.
                   MR. PEELISH:  That's all different.  That's not
     included in the $36,500.
                   MR. TOMB:  Well, yeah, how often would you be
     doing rebuilds on equipment?
                   MR. PEELISH:  On the engine, or on the equipment
     itself?
                   MR. TOMB:  On the engine?
                   MR. PEELISH:  Just off the top of my head, Tom,
     I'm going to say every 4,000 hours or so.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Okay, my other question is, it
     gets back a little bit to what Jon was alluding to there. 
     In your conclusions, maybe you answered this, but I just
     want to clarify it.  You indicate that the Agency should
     permit operators to employ an integrated approach to
     reducing diesel particulates and I guess the question is,
     are you going to submit something as a preferable, what you
     think is a way to go to do that?  You're going to come back
     in that?
                   MR. PEELISH:  Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:  You're not going to discuss that here,
     or are you going to discuss it in another meeting?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  We're not prepared to discuss it
     here.  We're still formulating that plan.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  We're just not ready to bring it
     forward.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, but you are going to come forward
     with that?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  We will have it before the end of
     the comment period.
                   MR. TOMB:  I think that would be very helpful. 
     And, I think Ron Ford has one more question.
                   MR. FORD:  Just one additional question.  Mr.
     Beerbower, on the $36,500, not today, but after the hearing,
     can you supply us with like a written document showing the
     detailed numbers of how you get to $36,500?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  Not having DST, I'm going to defer
     to Mike on that, since he's the expert on it.
                   MR. PEELISH:  Let me discuss that with the DST. 
     Part of that is -- I mean, that is a sum number.  How we
     break that down is somewhat proprietary, but that is a total
     number.
                   MR. FORD:  I only ask that because it would just
     help us to try and understand, get a better understanding of
     where these numbers come from --
                   MR. PEELISH:  Sure.
                   MR. FORD:  -- and help us to get more correct
     figures into our final package.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  I want to thank you for your comments. 
     Oh, I'm sorry.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Sorry, just following what Ron said,
     on the last page of your testimony, page nine, you talk
     about the equipment manufacturers' certification costs. 
     Without getting into any detail, you stated that, "Specific
     manufacturer and operator costs are not provided in these
     comments.  However, speaking from general experience among
     the NMA members, large financial commitments are made in the
     research and development area."  Would you be willing, in
     your post-hearing comments, you know, to submit some figures
     or something to give us an idea?
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  That's a pretty fluid number. 
     What it does, you know, that number keeps growing and I know
     Mike has experienced this in their development work and so
     have many of the other manufacturers, that that is an
     evolving cost.  But, it is a very high number.  Whether
     they're going to be willing to share those actual numbers
     with you --
                   MS. WESDOCK:  I understand.
                   MR. BEERBOWER:  -- we'll ask, we'll see.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Thank you for
     your input.
                   Okay, next we'll have the United Mine Workers of
     America and I think the presentation will be made by Jeff
     Duncan?  No?  Okay, I'm sorry.  Oh, the list?  Okay.
                   We'll first hear from, and if I pronounce these
     names incorrectly, please correct me, James Ceal.  Mr. Ceal
     is from UMWA, Local Union 2176.
                   MR. CEAL:  Good morning.  My name is James Ceal,
     C-E-A-L, and I'm a miner rep, United Mine Workers, Local
     2176.  I work at Trail Mountain Mine at Orangeville, Utah.
                   I just want to bring some information to you this
     morning.  I'll be as brief as possible and give someone else
     a chance.  I worked in the mines, although I've now mined
     for 18 years.  I've been at the same work all this time. 
     I've seen the increase in the use of diesel equipment in our
     mines and over these past 18 years, and I won't say that
     they definitely are not production oriented.  They're
     definitely necessary to produce the kind of coal that we
     need to produce, that the nation needs from us.
                   What I would like to point out to you is that
     you're using the diesel equipment in these closed loops of
     ventilation.  I would like to identify some physical
     distresses that I've experienced myself.  I've had other
     miners experience the same kind of distresses, so I've
     condensed this all down for you.   Some of the stresses you
     actually can feel -- you don't need a gauge to measure this
     -- your burning eyes, nose, throat, your chest irritation. 
     The more you're exposed to, the higher this goes.  This
     includes headaches and nausea and some lasting congestion,
     depending on how long you've been exposed per shift or per
     week.
                   The men I represent have experienced more cold-
     like symptoms, especially over the past, I would say, eight
     to ten years, when diesel has really peaked and we no longer
     really use much of anything else.  They've, we've all been
     exposed to atmospheres that you can actually see and taste,
     black, reddish-brown atmosphere.  Now, earlier, someone
     mentioned laboratory rats.  We feel like laboratory rats
     that, in the future, when this is all said and done, it will
     prove out what we're saying now, but it may be too late for
     us unless something is done immediately.  And, we have an
     opportunity now.  
                   When you're actually working in a mine around this
     equipment, it does help you a lot, but everything that comes
     out of the exhaust is going past the people working, because
     the ventilation system is circulating in one direction at
     all times.  So, no matter what you do, everything that comes
     out of that exhaust and people that are there by the
     airstream get exposed to everything.
                   Ventilation alone is not sufficient to alleviate
     this, because those particulate matters will hang together,
     much like a cloud, rather than get loose and fan out and
     just move along.  And, in all of this, I've heard the NIOSH
     study that everyone is probably familiar with, with all the
     cancer-causing agents that they've identified in diesel
     exhaust alone, it's pretty scary.
                   I'd like to address the costs.  Yes, there will be
     some initial costs, monetary costs involved in replicating
     the equipment that's used in the industry, not only in the
     company I work for, but all other companies.  But, that cost
     will eventually be absorbed, and I'm sure that with just the
     ability to compete in this country, the manufacturers will
     be supporters of the systems, once they begin to see that
     that's what it's going to be like, that's how we're going to
     use it.  I'm sure that their competitive nature will bring
     these costs closer to what we -- it will bring them down to
     where we can live with them.
                   But, the cost that I would like to address was the
     cost, the human cost.  What are medical costs in the future
     going to cost to treat the guys that have come down with the
     diseases, the heart disease, the cancers, the lung diseases,
     other organ diseases that will surely show up in the future? 
     What's the medical cost of that going to be?  
                   I'd like to touch base on the asbestos work.  That
     was a great project when this country needed it, and
     everyone knows what happened to those people, the people
     that were actually affected.  It's too late for them.  They
     died young.
                   The same thing is going to happen to miners of our
     time.  Our lives are going to be shortened, our time with
     our families are going to be shortened, unless something is
     done about this.  So, I'd like you all to think a little bit
     on the human cost if something's not done real soon.  And,
     with that, I'll leave it to my colleagues so we can give
     them a chance to speak.  I thank you for your time.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Ceal.  We have one
     question, please?
                   MR. HANEY:  At Trail Mountain, are they using
     diesel --
                   MR. CEAL:  No, we don't use diesel -- we do use
     large scoops, diesel mantraps.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Do you know what size engines that
     you use in those?
                   MR. CEAL:  Not off the top of my head.  
                   MR. SASEEN:  They're mostly scoops, you said?
                   MR. CEAL:  Mm-hmm, scoops and pick ups of a sort. 
     I can submit that information to you later, if you would
     like me to?
                   MR. SASEEN:  Yes, that would be good for the
     committee to have an understanding of what equipment.  Thank
     you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you very much for your comments. 
     Next, Mr. Allen, from Local 1984.
                   MR. ALLEN:  Hello.  As you all know, my name is
     Brad Allen, spelled B-R-A-D, A-L-L-E-N.  I'm with District
     22, Local 1984, another miner.  I'm currently Safety
     Committee Chairman, Miner's Rep, at the Deserelda Mine. 
     I've been mining for ten years and at the Deserelda Mine, we
     run diesel scoops, generators, air compressors and other
     various outlay equipment.  Primarily, we're man-hauled,
     material-hauled, clean faces and especially low -- we don't
     use exposed diesel.
                   Based on several studies conducted by the U.S.
     EPA, California EPA, NIOSH and several independent entities,
     it is known to the mining community and MSHA that DPM is
     known to contain cancer-causing carcinogens.  Therefore,
     MSHA has a responsibility to create a rule that will
     adequately protect the industry's most valuable asset, the
     miner.  The proposed rule doesn't contain provision for
     light-duty outlay equipment, which is the source of
     approximately two-thirds of the diesel particulate produced
     in mining.  We need protection from all these pieces of
     equipment, which produce carcinogenic smoke.
                   The Pennsylvania rule would be an excellent model
     for MSHA to follow.  To provide an average concentration of
     0.12 milligrams per cubic liter of air of DPM's, a DPM
     filter, which are readily available from a variety of
     suppliers, capable of 95 percent or more reduction of DPM,
     as well as a number of other specific detections, such as
     on-board diagnostic equipment, the use of low-volatile fuel
     and scheduled maintenance programs that can remove the
     diesel equipment from service if it is out of compliance.
                   In addition to ventilation parameters. now, since
     we're on the topic of ventilation, I want to say that this
     is a good supplementary control of DPM, but cannot be relied
     upon for total control of the carcinogenic compounds. 
     Operators may or may not provide adequate ventilation over
     diesels.  Our miners have received a citation for inadequate
     ventilation over a scoop cleaning the feeder.  I have also
     seen, during our last one, four diesel scoops running hard
     in a low-velocity entry and the smoke from that was so thick
     I could barely see 30 feet in front of me, and it was
     causing a burning sensation to my eyes, nose and throat and
     head.
                   We are confined to these entries and are forced to
     breathe this kind of "air."  That's why MSHA needs a law to
     control the smoke at the source, on the equipment. 
     Implementing a quality DPM emission control program would be
     much more cost effective for operators relying on diesels,
     versus converting to a non-diesel status or the probable
     medical expenses of treating employees for lung cancer or
     other respiratory illnesses.
                   Studies show that between two and 870 per 1,000
     miners are at risk of dying from lung cancer and/or they
     will have some problems.
                   MR. ALLEN:  At current levels of exposure.  In a
     ruling on benzine, one death in one thousand was identified
     by the U.S. Supreme Court as being a significant level of
     risk.  Based on this alone, we know this is an unacceptable
     level of human sacrifice.  I hope that the diesel
     particulate will not be the "black lung" of this generation
     of miners.
                   Last of all, as technology advances MSHA needs to
     look at advancing the diesel rules to insure the protection
     of the industry's most valuable asset, the miners.  I also
     have copies of the Pennsylvania rules and relevant study to
     present to you for the record.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Allen.  Any questions? 
     Go ahead.
                   MR. HANEY:  Are any of the scoops being used for
     permissible scoops?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Yes.  
                   MR. HANEY:  And do they have any after treatment
     on them?
                   MR. ALLEN:  Water scrapes.
                   MR. TOMB:  If you would leave the things that you
     were going to turn in with Ms. King.
                   Okay.  Our next presenter will be Mr. Curtis from
     Local 1769.
                   MR. CURTIS:  My name is Tain Curtis.  T-A-I-N 
     C-U-R-T-I-S.  I'm the safety committee chairman of UNWA
     Local 1769 up at the Deercreek Mine.  I have 18 years of
     experience in the mining industry.  Our mine's operated by
     Energy West Mining and employees 206 miners who are members
     of our local.
                   The information that I have available to me does
     show that there's a potential risk with particles of diesel
     exhaust.  So, basically, we need to address it now before
     it's too late.
                   I encourage the industry to seriously look into
     the matter and set safety levels to protect miners to
     adequately set up laws to better guarantee are health and
     safety so we can live long productive lives.
                   Our biggest exposure to diesel particularly is
     during long haul moves.  Diesel equipment is used
     extensively.  Everyone working in these areas know of the
     discomfort diesel smoke causes, throat irritation, chest and
     lung discomforts, headache and other ailments.  We feel if
     these, when exposed to these conditions, we don't know the
     exposure or the problems that we are exposed to when we're
     not exposed to these conditions but still in the coal mining
     environment.
                   The dinosaurs became extinct because the
     environment changed drastically.  I understand the financial
     burdens these two standards will place on the operators.  I
     don't want us to become extinct because of the financial
     burdens and the changes made.  But at the same time, our
     health environment with the diesel, particularly that's so
     bad to our health, there needs to be ways to make these
     improvements to benefit both parties in the long run.
                   As Chairman of the Safety Committee at Deercreek,
     I encourage the use of whatever measures need to be utilized
     to make our workplace a healthier place to be.  We need to
     look at all the options that technology offers us today. 
     Exhaust filter technologies, additives to fuels, better
     diesel engines and anything else that is available and best
     use them to our needs now in the present, but remain open
     minded at whatever avenues the new technology lie ahead of
     us and be able to implement that new technology in the
     future.
                   These hearings today will effect the way my health
     will be when I retire.  I'm a father of four and have a wife
     that I hope to retire with and see my children raised.  
                   I solicit our attention into the matter of diesel
     particular matter to better protect my health and safety in
     the close environment of an underground coal mine.  At our
     mine, we are operating at this time to start testing of a
     new scheduled 24 pieces of equipment under conditions that
     will be sufficient to do the work.  We don't know what these
     results will be, but I'm optimistic as how they'll affect us
     in the future.
                   I appreciate the opportunity to address you this
     day and look forward to a better tomorrow for us all.  Thank
     you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any questions?  Go ahead.
                   MR. HANEY:  The equipment use on long haul moves,
     is any of it equipped with after treatment devices?
                   MR. CURTIS:  Yes, it's permissible scrubbers.
                   MR. TOMB:  And what's the testing of new
     equipment?  I sort of missed that.
                   MR. CURTIS:  Well, it's dry filter -- similar to
     the technology we talked about today.
                   MR. TOMB:  DST?
                   MR. CURTIS:  DST.  It's not them but the operator,
     Energy West, has been looking at and working with, and I
     don't have any --
                   MR. TOMB:  Is that on one piece of equipment?
                   MR. CURTIS:  Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:  One piece of equipment.
                   MR. CURTIS:  But it'll be used the way all the
     other pieces of equipment of the miner use.  So, I believe
     it'll be an accurate test.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Does that have a filter media on that
     piece of equipment?
                   MR. CURTIS:  Yes.  It has a paper filter.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Paper.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Thank you very much.
                   MR. CURTIS:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  A Mr. Farrer?
                   MR. FARRER:  It's Farrer.
                   MR. TOMB:  Farrer.  Okay.  From Local 1769.
                   MR. FARRER:  Yes.  I'm Bill Farrer from -- it's 
     F-A-R-R-E-R from Local 1769.  I'm a member of the Safety
     Committee.  I'm a classified diesel mechanic and have been
     for the last seven years, in different mines owned by Energy
     West, a subsidiary of Pacific Corp.
                   I've worked 23 and a half years at this mine.  I'm
     44 years old.  I plan on working till 62.  That'll give me
     41 years in this environment that we're talking about.  
                   I believe that we need to have some new
     regulations.  And the regulations shouldn't keep clear of
     just not the heavy duty equipment but the light duty.  I
     brought this up at a meeting in Grand Junction.
                   I was up at the mine at Deer Creek a couple of
     years ago when they had the University of Michigan come in
     and test on the new machines comparable to what we're
     testing emissions with now.  And some of the biggest
     polluters were the man trips and personnel carriers.  On
     stalled speeds, they were producing up to close to 4,000
     parts per million CO, compared to bigger equipment.  The max
     was about 4,000 on some of the other big equipment.
                   When the new regs come out, I'd like to see at
     least half to test every diesel engine that goes under. 
     Whether we have to scrub them or not, we should at least be
     testing them because if we get some that's out, you know,
     the operator could say just run it.  That happens a lot. 
     Just like me, when we used to have to test them before these
     new regs came in, we had to do a CO, NO2 test on everything
     that is running under there on the new regulations just on
     the heavy duty equipment.  
                   So, they can take anything they want in the mines. 
     You know, I'm not just saying any mine.  That there's no way
     to shut them down.  And I brought this up at the meetings in
     Grand Junction.  And what they told me, well, in '99 when
     the new regulations, they're going to have to monitor the
     face.  So, they'll know how much is in the air.  
                   But there's a lot of guys that work around this
     equipment.  We've got air compressors.  We've got welders. 
     We've got little Bobcats that move coal.  I've seen them
     take 4,000 on the ECOM meters right now.  And we're
     breathing this stuff.  So, I'd like to see at least in the
     new regulations, we've got to test all the diesel that's
     under there to keep the standard.
                   And the piece of equipment Tain was talking about
     is 3306 Wagner and it has a dry scrubber.  The guy that's
     designing it is Bruce Spence of Grand Junction, Colorado. 
     And they're working with the company and they're trying to
     do a test on them.
                   That's about all I got, really.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Any questions?  Okay.  Let's
     take Ron first.
                   MR. FORD:  You said you were a diesel mechanic. 
     At your mine, do you have any scheduled maintenance on
     diesel-powered equipment?  Is it like a routine schedule
     maintenance?  Could you tell us how that works?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yeah, we do a 100 hour service on it. 
     The operators do a pre-inspection check every day.  They
     change their filters, check everything.  But every 100 hours
     the machines get serviced -- complete service.
                   MR. FORD:  So, a major maintenance is done every
     100 hours?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yes.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Is there any kind of a schedule
     set up or program set up whereby the machine is colluding in
     any way?  There's some type of way to get it into service? 
     What happens there?
                   MR. FERRER:  All's we got -- we have to check the
     heavy duty with a ECOM.  The light duty there's no emissions
     check or nothing.  If that gets up to 2,500 parts, we've got
     to pull it out of service.  That's all we've got.  
                   But you know, they can keep records and see how
     the engine is wearing or whatever by these ECOM tests.
                   MR. FORD:  They can keep records?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yes, the company.  Weekly, we have to
     do permissibility.  We do install them and check the
     emissions on the big equipment.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  And I've just got one more
     question.  And that is, concerning the after treatment
     devices or control technology that are concerned with DPM
     removal, diesel particulate removal, are you trained in any
     way to do service on those systems?
                   MR. FERRER:  No.  The one that we've got up here
     now, they've only run it a couple shifts.  I don't know why
     because we've had it up there a couple of months.  We're
     supposed to be testing it, so probably, you know, it could
     have helped us out on these hearings if we would have been. 
     But no, I've not been trained on them.
                   MR. FORD:  So, if any of that equipment came into
     your mine, you would need to be trained as a mechanic?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yes.
                   MR. FORD:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  John?
                   MR. KOGUT:  When you're servicing these diesel
     equipment, roughly what portion of the time is the equipment
     running?
                   MR. FERRER:  When we're servicing them?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yeah.  Do you ever -- do you have it
     running when you're servicing it to some extent, or is it
     always just shut off?
                   MR. FERRER:  It's always shut off when we're
     servicing.  When we're doing the test, we're exposed to a
     lot of CO, because you know, you've got them stalled out to
     the max out on ECOM.  That's two to four minutes you're
     standing back there, 600 parts.
                   MR. KOGUT:  You mean, when you're doing the
     emissions testing?
                   MR. FERRER:  Emission test.
                   MR. KOGUT:  And what percentage of your time would
     you say in involved doing emission testing?
                   MR. FERRER:  The guy that does most of
     permissibilities, a weekend worker, and he does that
     probably two -- he works three days, probably half the time
     he's doing emission tests, I'd imagine.
                   MR. KOGUT:  In half the time that he's there?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yes.
                   MR. KOGUT:  And is there some sort of a specially
     ventilated facility in which that's done?
                   MR. FERRER:  Well, we live where it's cold.  It's
     in the shop or in the mine.  No, it's not being performed
     like a shed out in the open air to where he's not getting
     the emissions.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Thank you.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Ferrer, this Wagner you spoke of,
     is that a scoop?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yeah.
                   MR. SASEEN:  And does that have a filter?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yes.  It's got a paper filter.  They
     -- alls I've heard about it, you know, run it a couple of
     shifts, it's run great, real low CO when you're running the
     max.  But when they're idling it, they plug them up because
     it's not hot enough to burn it off in their PTX, I guess,
     before it gets to the filter.
                   MR. SASEEN:  And can you say from experience, it's
     probably limited, is there definitely a difference in air
     quality when the filter is on versus not ont?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yeah, you can stand behind it and
     breathe it right out of tail pipe practically.  Pat Worthy's
     behind me for Energy West.  Maybe you can talk him into
     coming up and telling you a little bit about it.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Thanks.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  I have one question, Bill.  Can
     you -- you know, you talk about the light duty equipment and
     how you think it should be filtered also, can you sort of
     give us some relative operating times for that equipment
     versus what's defined as heavy duty equipment?
                   MR. FERRER:  Well, I know -- okay.  Man trips.  We
     got three crews in that mine on each shift.  They've got two
     miner sections, one long haul section.  So, that takes care
     of three pieces of equipment.  We've probably got 45 to 50
     pick-ups out there.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  But are these all -- these
     aren't operating for the full shift, are they?
                   MR. FERRER:  No.  The only ones that don't I would
     say is the man trips.  They take the crews in.  They shut
     them off, and they start them up and bring them out.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  That's about an hour, an hour
     and a half?
                   MR. FERRER:  About an hour probably.
                   MR. TOMB:  But two hours a day probably?
                   MR. FERRER:  Yeah.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. FERRER:  But the rest of the equipment --
     there's people running around that mine all the time.  I
     mean, that's what I'm saying this light duty stuff, there's
     fire bosses going all over the mine.  There's diesel
     mechanics that went on breakdowns, you know.  There's
     punters.  There's bosses traveling all over.  Belt
     mechanics.  Breathing that air that's in the mine that these
     trucks are buzzing around in, that air's going into the
     sections, and them guys are breathing it.  That's the way I
     look at it.  
                   That's why I say we ought to at least be checking
     them, whether we have to put filters on them or not was
     another thing.  If we check them, we can tell them we're
     getting too high of emissions out of them and pull them out
     of service.
                   MR. TOMB:  You think that once the check is made
     that they can be -- whatever has to be done to them,
     maintained or tuned or whatever done, that gets them back
     into a condition where they can be used that way without
     filtering them?
                   MR. FERRER:  Well, I wouldn't dare say that.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. FERRER:  What I've noticed since we haven't
     had the check and the stuff up there, we used to put the
     catalytic converters on our Isuzus and stuff.  When we
     change an exhaust system, we don't even put them back on
     now, because we don't need them.  We don't have to check
     them.
                   MR. TOMB:  Because of the safety rule?
                   MR. FERRER:  Well, you guys just changed the rules
     that just came into effect.  That one we don't have to check
     anymore.  So, that's what I'm bringing to the panel.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Any other questions?  Thank you
     very much for your comments.
                   Mr. Hampton from Local 1984?  I'm sorry, Bill.
                   MR. HAMPTON:  My name is Monty Hampton, M-O-N-T-Y 
     H-A-M-P-T-O-N.  I'm from Local 1984 UNWA.  I've been with
     Des Auto Mine for approximately six and a half years.  I'm a
     diesel -- not diesel.  But I'm a mechanical electrician out
     there.  A safety committeeman.
                   And I feel that we need to get a lot stricter on
     the diesel.  We run diesel in and around the mining sections
     and long haul loops.  And we do have diesel man trips, which
     is running around the mine all the time.  And it concerns me
     because -- since the new regs came in, we haven't go to any
     lengths to correct the problems with our emissions on the
     man trips, especially the scoops.  We kind of got a control
     on them because they're being checked weekly.  
                   Your out by equipment, there's no check on.  The
     scoops as far as being rebuilt or anything, we've got one
     scoop we've had for years that's never been out for a
     rebuild or anything.  And the man trips, they just -- we run
     them till they don't run no more.
                   And it seem like we need to get a handle on it. 
     And as far as the laws, I think we need to go with
     Pennsylvania laws.  They seem to be pretty strict.  And I
     think we need to do the same thing out here.  
                   And we keep hearing about cost.  Well, to me a
     person's life is far more greater than the cost of repairing
     equipment.  And I just think we need to get more of a handle
     on it.  And that's pretty much all I had to say.  Appreciate
     your time.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any questions? 
                   MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Hampton, as a mechanic, do you do
     work on the engine itself, or is that contracted out to like
     a dealer -- engineer/manufacturer, dealer?
                   MR. HAMPTON:  We really don't do much work on the
     engine itself other than just to, you know, changing
     alternators or something like that.  But as far as the
     injectors or the fuel system, we don't work on it.
                   MR. SASEEN:  If there is a problem, who do you
     call?
                   MR. HAMPTON:  We have a diesel mechanic.
                   MR. SASEEN:  An the mine or --
                   MR. HAMPTON:  At the mine.
                   MR. TOMB:  I guess this question is similar to the
     previous one I asked.  But on your man trips, you say
     they're running all the time.  Is this again -- are they
     operating eight hours or six hours or at the beginning of
     the shift and the end of the shift, or just how are they
     operating?
                   MR. HAMPTON:  We have man trips that's running
     around the mine all the time.  We have John Deere tractors
     that's running around the mine all time.  And we have a
     middle section that's running back and forth all the time in
     the section.  And we have Wagner scoops that's running
     around all the time.
                   MR. TOMB:  What are the John Deere tractors used
     for?
                   MR. HAMPTON:  They were used for hauling material.
                   MR. TOMB:  Is that considered light duty
     equipment?
                   MR. HAMPTON:  Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Thank you.
                   Okay.  At this time if I could take a 10 minute
     break, and when we come back what I'd like to do is have
     Energy West make their presentation, and then we'll go back
     and pick up with presentations by the United Mine Workers. 
     Thank you.
                   (Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
                   MR. TOMB:  Change in schedule.  We're going to
     continue with the UMWA presentations.  We have only two
     more.  And then we'll go to Energy West presentation.
                   We'll now have a presentation by Mr. Montgomery
     from Local 2176.
                   MR. MONTGOMERY:  My name is Cameron Montgomery.  
     C-A-M-E-R-O-N, first name.  M-O-N-T-G-O-M-E-R-Y, last name.
                   I'm a safety committeemen for Local Union 2176 out
     of Orangeville, Utah.  I work for Energy West Mining
     Company.  I've got two years experience underground at
     Kaiser Steel.  Worked at Valley Camp, Utah for four years. 
     And I've been at Energy West Mining for just under 14 years. 
     So, I've got about 19 years in the mining industry.
                   I like my job.  It's a good job.  It pays the
     bills.  I raise my family out of the wages I make up there. 
     I need to be an efficient, productive, safe coalminer.  My
     company's got to make money to employ me.  I know these
     things.
                   When -- at Valley Camp we experimented one time. 
     It's been years ago.  I was running a continuous miner and
     we brought in three Jeffrey diesel shuttle cars behind a
     miner and pretty well stunk out the place.  The section was
     bad.  Visibility was poor.  Diesel particulate matter was
     terrible in a section.
                   Personally, I've had bronchitis about five times
     and sinusitis so many times I can't even count them anymore. 
     Worked on over 40 long haul moves in a row as we'd move the
     long haul from panel to panel for Energy West Mining Company
     on a Wagner LST5S20X, 25X, 30X.  We keep getting bigger,
     better, more break horsepower machines to move bigger, more
     efficient heavier stuff around on a long haul move. 
                   So, I've worked all these long haul moves. 
     Visibility is usually poor because you got two, three, four,
     five hand pieces of heavy duty equipment in one locale.  Our
     company's and the union's worked together by using some
     administrative controls to limit the number of types of
     diesel equipment in the area. 
                   The law mentions in various areas of event regs
     carrier way, render harmless, dilute, coal dust, rock dust,
     diesel.  You can't do it with diesel.  You're in a close
     circuit.  It's going to dilute a little bit, but even the
     equipment operating out by is going to effect you in working
     a section because that air's coming over you.  You're
     breathing it.  It might be in diminished quantity, but
     you're breathing some contaminants no matter where you're at
     when they're operating diesel equipment in the mine.
                   The best way to cure that is to take care of it at
     the pipe where it comes out of the exhaust of the diesel, in
     my opinion.  All this information I'm giving you is
     empirical data.  I'm not a rocket scientist.  I'm a coal
     miner.
                   Long haul moves.  Poor visibility, lot of orange
     10, NO, CO.  Visibility's poor.  No one's -- a lot of
     people's mentioned sore, dry throats.  Real common
     occurrence with running this stuff continuously for a week
     or two weeks steady moving long hauls.
                   Nobody's mentioned anything about -- we seem to
     separate pneumoconiosis, silicosis, dust, rock dust, quartz,
     silica, diesel.  When you're running one of these pieces of
     equipment, you're going down a coal mine after it.  Exhaust
     is blowing rock dust off the ribs.  You're picking up coal
     dust off the ribs off the top.  You're running over -- we
     have gravel in our coal mine, the same as silica, quartz. 
     It's rock.  You're mixing all that stuff in a dust bowl.  It
     reminds me of Snoopy and Linus walking around, if you recall
     that.  You know, he's always walking around in a cloud of
     dust.  That's how it is when you're running a piece of
     diesel equipment.
                   Ten years ago I read industrial hygienist reports. 
     I've got a boxful of them at the house on the carcinogens in
     diesel exhaust.  For years we've know that there's not one
     good thing that comes out of a tailpipe of a diesel for the
     human body.  There's not.  We know this.  We talk about
     time.  We talk about more tests, meanwhile coalminers have
     been working underground inhaling this stuff.  Okay?  
                   The railroad did a thing and it's been 10 years
     ago at a union meeting that I read industrial hygienist
     report from some pretty good people I understand in the
     industry on what the rail workers went through when they
     changed from steam locomotives to diesel.  And cancer rates
     in their employees increased significantly.  I'm not going
     to mention a bunch of statistics and stuff like that.  But
     they found years ago that they were having problems with
     people inhaling diesel fumes.
                   We need diesel in the coal mines.  The mobility,
     logistics-wise, it's great.  I worked at Kaiser Steel back
     in 1979 and '80, all electric.  Electric battery cars kind
     of move shil.  If you run out of juice, you were down.  I
     mean, you ain't going anywhere.  Very slow, very lethargic
     way of moving equipment around.  The mobility of diesel
     equipment's great.
                   But you got a whole generation of miners right
     here that are the guinea pigs for this diesel stuff.  The
     guy from Consel and Peabody mentioned costs.  Costs are
     important, but they mention costs 30 to probably 50 times
     during the course.  Not one time did anyone mention the
     health and safety of a coalminer in the underground workings
     of a coal mine.
                   Now, I imagine if there CEO is probably not down
     in the mine as much as I am.  I do probably 60 hours roughly
     a week in a coal mine.
                   I'd like to comment on the rule.  I think MSHA's
     made steps in the right direction through the last few
     years.  I've been to all kinds of informational meetings in
     Grand Junction, Colorado on diesel equipment, on heat
     exchangers, on cleaning them up, surface temperatures. 
     Better fuel.  Cleaner burning motors.  I think the motor
     burns cleaner, puts out less contaminants if you get better
     fuel or sulfur fuel, less contaminants.  
                   That's a step in the right direction.  It really
     is.  But it's almost too little, too late.  What do we got
     to do?  Supply you guys with a bunch of corpses?  Whip up
     some good statistical data on what diesel does to people? 
     You know, in the asbestos industry, black lung silicosis in
     the mining industry, you literally -- we waited for people
     to die to decide whether it was healthy or unhealthy to use
     this type of equipment or expose people to this type of
     stuff.
                   As I said, I like my job.  I try to be a safe
     coalminer.  I went up there to work and make money.  I
     didn't go up there to die for anybody.
                   These gentlemen back here mentioned being
     affiliated with DST and their scrubbers.  There's a lot of
     technology out there.  There's no doubt that there's
     improvements that could be made in technology, cost
     efficiency and the scrubbing capabilities.  No doubt.  We,
     as an industry, should have demanded this stuff 10 years
     ago, and then we'd be in the second, third, fourth
     generation of technology that's better and above we're
     looking at dealing with now.  Sure, it's imperfect.  No
     doubt.  Everything is imperfect.
                   My -- just being curious, I'm wondering why the
     gentlemen that's involved in DST don't have any of these --
     put on any of their mining equipment, just out of curiosity
     to see what it did.  Or to me, it seems that lowering the
     contaminants a little bit is better than not lowering them
     at all.  Cutting your exposure rates and times for your
     individuals working underground.
                   And we mentioned costs.  Hey, costs are important. 
     We've got to be cost efficient productive.  It's a tight
     market out there.  But the mention of $36,500, $50,000,
     $60,000 for a petite muhl. I work on a U4D longhaul prop
     right now.  That petite muhl is probably the one piece of
     equipment that needs scrubbing before anything because of
     the negative effect of the people working in by it, in an
     extraction phase, removing a long haul.
                   What are the costs of say $60,000 to retrofit a
     petite muhl?  That's a chunk of change.  But what are the
     costs of the local community, the state and Federal
     Government, families of people that are literally going to
     be dying from too much exposure to this stuff?  I mean, your
     $36,500 to retrofit an outfit is minuscule into the cost of
     curing cancer for one patient.  
                   You know, we don't know how many people are going
     to get this stuff.  We've got all these great estimates, one
     in a thousand.  The Supreme Court seen some concern in the
     one in a thousand number.  I guarantee it's going to be a
     lot higher than one in a thousand.
                   One the gentleman on the panel mentioned face
     haulers.  I work at Energy West Turner Mountain Mine.  We
     don't use any kind of diesel for hauling equipment.  But as
     I said earlier, that there's a lot of equipment that's
     running out in a mine.  I've been involved in ambient
     studies with MSHA tech reps and stuff in our two entry
     petition many times.  And you can see the CO, NO, SO2, CO2
     spikes is equipment goes by, yet alone the residual --
     what's left, slowly comes out the return, and you can
     actually elevate certain areas of the mine by a piece of
     equipment in the past 15, 20 minutes.  You know, the dust
     might be gone and the other stuff might be gone, but the
     gases are still trailing along behind it.
                   I just want to thank you for the opportunity of
     being here and talking.  You guys obviously are concerned. 
     You're here.  And if there's any questions I can help you
     with, feel free.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Montgomery.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Is a petite muhl does that have a --
     is that permissible?
                   MR. MONTGOMERY:  Yes.  Schedule 30, part 36.
                   MR. SASEEN:  It has a wet system on it, a water
     scrubber?
                   MR. MONTGOMERY:  Yes, yes.  And most of the
     Wagners we've gone through 20, 25Xs.  We're now up to 30Xs. 
     They do all have wet scrubbers on them.  
                   And I've got to tell you.  Our company, we've
     experimented with Calgar different soaps to add to the
     water.  And I believe they're trying to make an effort in
     the area to reduce contaminants the air.  But we need to
     strive to do better in the industry without financially
     tripping us.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Has there been any efforts to put
     like a paper filter, in your experience, on any wet system
     in your mind?
                   MR. MONTGOMERY:  The first mention I've ever heard
     of a paper filter was at the Deer Creek Mine, which is our
     sister coal mine.  Same company operates it.  They're
     experimenting right now, and obviously, it hasn't gotten too
     far along that.  
                   So, I don't know too much about it.  I've read a
     lot of information on different scrubbing setups.
                   MR. FORD:  So, my understanding is that there's no
     face haulage equipment.  That is the problem.  That the
     problem with diesels is mainly on the out by equipment that
     you're having?
                   MR. MONTGOMERY:  No. It's mostly heavy duty
     equipment.  We've limiting the number of type that goes in
     an air course.  We're running two entry systems, one way in,
     one way out during development, or during the longhaul
     phase, you've got your belt, is an intake, as well as your
     intake.  And it's going down the face and returning outside
     the side of the face.
                   But in our development sessions, they do run some
     diesel scoops for mostly material supply in a production
     section developing longhaul.  And we've had problems with
     them in that in a two entry section, running bratage for
     tubing and return fast, that it's really tough to be mining
     in an adjacent entry if you've only got two of them and
     being supplying a roof holder in the entry next to it and
     have the proper CFM over that type of equipment.  If you're
     with me on that.
                   MR. FORD:  What type of equipment are you talking
     about where you can have up to five pieces in one area?
                   MR. MONTGOMERY:  Mostly intersections they'll do
     the administrative controls in our two-entry position. 
     We're limited by CFM the number of equipment.  And we bounce
     around with a 100 percent approval label for the first two,
     75, 50/50.  But the limit it by CFM.  If you've got the CFM
     to have four or five pieces of equipment in a single split,
     they'll be there.  And each piece of equipment restricts the
     air course just a little more, raises ambient temperature
     due to the heat of the engine and the hydraulics of the
     equipment.  And when you get a bunch of them stacked on top
     of each other, conditions seem to get a lot worse, as far as
     visibility contaminant-wise.
                   We've had experiences -- we run a lot of Dodge man
     trips, personnel carriers.  They're a Dodge machine.  Got
     Cummins diesel motor on it, sheet metal box, roll cage to
     haul the people in and out of the mine. 
                   Now, I work in Utah.  It's cold part of the year. 
     Diesel doesn't have a real good affinity to cold weather. 
     They'll fire those man trips up a little early to defrost
     the windows and get the cab warm.  I've experienced times
     when I got my mind forming filling out papers, and
     occasionally carried detection equipment, 270s, 310s, 410s,
     CO260s, 240.  And I've seen CO alarms in the riding
     compartment of these Dodge man trips from starting them up. 
     Diesel seemed to run cleaner when they reached ambient
     temperature, but on initial starts, you're pumping out a lot
     of black soot and contaminants until they reach operating
     temperature.
                   And I believe people are negative affected.  A few
     people that I know is not really that great a problem have
     gotten sick to their stomach and a little bit nauseous being
     exposed to too much of that.
                   MR. FORD:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  I am was just curious.  You said
     that your mine -- they use administrative controls.
                   MR. MONTGOMERY:  Yes.
                   MR. WESDOCK:  Could you tell me -- I mean, what
     type?
                   MR. MONTGOMERY:  I was involved as a mine health
     safety committeemen in the two entry position.  And we've
     adopted administrative controls by definition is limiting
     the type and quantity of diesel equipment in a particular
     air strip, I believe is about as close as I can give you on
     that.
                   MR. WESDOCK:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr.
     Montgomery for your comments.
                   Next, will be Mr. Linville from Local 1307.
                   MR. LINVILLE:  Good morning.  I'm Kenneth
     Linville, 
     L-I-N-V-I-L-L-E.  I'm Safety Committeeman for Local 1307,
     Timmer, Wyoming.  I work for Pittsburgh Midway Coal Mining
     Company for 22 and a half years.  
                   We are a surface mine but we do have problems
     there.  And I was wondering if I could enlighten you a
     little bit on our problems.  In the enclosed areas of our
     shops for adequate ventilation, we have approximately 90
     miners that are mechanics.  And I'll give you a little bit
     of a background on what they do.  
                   Inside these shops, sometimes the weather
     conditions are such that you can't open the doors to get
     proper ventilation such as when it's 20 below to 40 below
     zero and that time.  Part of the shop is old and it doesn't
     have adequate ventilation.  That's where the build-up
     problem comes from.
                   Whenever you're test loading a diesel electric
     truck, that's a load box, you're placing the engine under
     full power over a period of time, trying to set up the
     electrical drive on the trucks.  Not only that, the diesel's
     setting up your fuel pumps and stuff like that to get
     everything to coincide to work together.  It could take up
     to three hours and you're spewing this fuel -- smoke out, in
     this enclosed area within adequate ventilation.
                   I've gone in there at times to pick up a piece of
     equipment when the smoke's so bad my eyes are burning, tears
     running out of my eyes, my nose is burning, trying to get
     that piece of equipment out of that shop.  I don't know how
     the other people stand to stay in there, but I'm just in
     there for a short period of time, 10 to 15 minutes.  The
     mechanics work anywhere from eight to twelve hours depending
     on when they come in, so they're exposed to it at quite an
     expensive period of time.  
                   There could be more than one test going on a
     different piece of equipment.  We're running 240 ton cap
     trucks.  We're running D -- it's either -- they're
     Caterpillar R10Ns I think is what they are.  We're running
     blades in there, 16G blades, running R170 Euclid trucks.  A
     lot of this equipment has 16 cylinder engines.  They put out
     17 -- between 1,700 and 2,300 horsepower.  They burn
     approximately 75 plus gallons of fuel an hour.  So, if it
     takes you two or three hours to set up one of those trucks,
     you're spewing out a lot of diesel fuel or diesel smoke in
     that area.  And you can't get the smoke out of the shop in
     the proper manner.
                   So, these are some of our problems.  Also, and
     when you're testing, you're testing your hydraulic system. 
     You have to have the engine running.  You test your
     transmission, you have to have your engine running.  When I
     go back and say, testing transmission, I'm talking about a
     cab truck with a six speed automatic.  The other truck's a
     170 Euclids.  They're diesel electric.
                   Sometimes when you're assembling the pieces of
     equipment on some of these trucks, you have to have the
     engine running, so that creates smoke and stuff in that
     truck and there's a build-up in the shop.  
                   Other problems that we have is malfunctioning
     equipment.  We're talking about turbochargers, fuel
     injectors, pumps, air induction systems.  There's a lot
     more.  Too many to mention.  I'll just go with those.
                   This improper burning creates an improper burning
     of fuel which is a real black smoke that builds up inside
     the building and it doesn't take very long to really just
     pollute the whole place.  It takes a long time to get that
     smoke out of there.
                   I want to go on to the surface equipment, where we
     have problems with surface equipment such as trucks in the
     cabs are not sealed good.  Again, that comes back into
     weather conditions, where sometimes you'll have your exhaust
     pipes are cracked.  Some of them are deteriorated. 
     Sometimes they use a flex pipe, which is not a very good
     pipe to use on your exhaust.  It creates a leak.  Comes up
     underneath cabs, up on around them and it seeps inside.  
                   A lot of our trucks are over 15 years old, so the
     weather stripping's bad.  The channel around the windows are
     bad.  Windows that didn't recut because they don't use
     factory windows.  They recut windows.  Sometimes they're not
     cut adequately, which creates a leakage.  So, you know, coal
     dust will come in or fumes or anything like that.
                   Those things -- and when you can't get around and
     move around in those trucks and you're sitting there getting
     loaded, and it takes a period of time to load one of those
     trucks, about eight to nine minutes, you're sitting there
     with that smoke and stuff coming up and your eyes are
     burning.  Some people have been nauseated.  I've had two
     people come up to me in the last few weeks with this
     problem, and we're trying to get it fixed up right now,
     trying to get the trucks fixed up.  Some of its due to the
     engines are real bad.  They need to be replaced.  Company
     doesn't want to replace them.
                   One of them was a split pipe coming off of the
     turbocharger going back to the exhaust.  And people were
     just running for whatever reason.  I don't know.  But when I
     got on it, I shut the truck down and we got it fixed.
                   But there's things like that that do happen and
     you got to understand that when you're sitting there and
     you've got one of those 16 cylinder engines pumping up
     around you and you don't have wind to take it away from you,
     it just keeps coming up in that cabin and makes you sick.
                   When I talk about weather inversions, I want to
     talk about the pit itself.  Our pit's about a mile and a
     quarter wide to about almost a mile deep back, and
     approximately 1,100 feet deep.  And sometimes down there,
     we'll have at least two dozers running, a drill running, a
     rubber tire dozer running, front end loader running, and
     anywhere from six to ten trucks.  Depends if have a shovel
     down in there.  
                   And when you get a weather inversion, that diesel
     smoke and dust and stuff just hangs down inside that pit. 
     There's no wind or anything to come to suck it up out of
     there.  It's just stagnant.  In the winter time, in
     graveyard shifts, it creates a hazardous scene and
     breathing, stuff like that.  
                   Being a truck driver, I kind of get a little bit
     lucky because I can get up out of there for a few minutes,
     but I return right back down there.  But there's people in
     the rubber tire dozers, drills and stuff like that, are
     trapped down in there and spend a full eight hours in that
     area around those fumes.
                   Those are a few of the things that my local would
     like you people to understand, and we'd like to bring
     forward to you.  Although, we are a surface mine, we do have
     problems with diesel smoke.  They can be fixed.  And we
     would like for you to at least listen to us and think about
     us when you go on with what you're doing.  But there are
     problems.  
                   I'll just it off right there.  If anybody has any
     questions, I'll try to answer them.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Jon has a question?
                   MR. KOGUT:  In the enclosed shops that you were
     talking about, is there any system for exhausting to the
     outside air?
                   MR. LINVILLE:  Yeah, the shops are -- the
     particular shop I'm talking about what built back in the
     '60s.  They have a real slow turbine fan.  And it's not just
     actually -- I think those could be changed to bring in --
     suck that air out, but there's so slow, and they've never
     ever changed it.  You know, I know it's brought up before,
     but it's never been taken care of.
                   MR. KOGUT:  So, it's just an exhaust fan for the
     entire area.  Is there any kind of a hood system?
                   MR. LINVILLE:  Are you talking about a dome?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yeah, something that you would place
     over.  Anything specific to the piece of equipment where the
     exhaust --
                   MR. LINVILLE:  To hook to the exhaust system and
     be exhausted out?  
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yeah.
                   MR. LINVILLE:  No.  Well, sometimes, you know,
     your trucks that are different heights, the exhaust comes --
     sometimes it comes through the bed, the exhaust outside. 
     Some of them -- the new cab trucks, they have two exhaust
     pipes coming out the side which could be retrofitted with
     like a hose or something to shoot it outside.
                   Some of that's -- sometimes you have the bed in
     the air, you know, which creates a -- you have to come down
     underneath.  You have tripping.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Have you identified this problem just
     in one of the shops?
                   MR. LINVILLE:  Well, we have one shop, and it
     started out.  They just kept building on from, you know,
     from 1960 on up till now.
                   MR. KOGUT:  What about the other shops?
                   MR. LINVILLE:  We have a brand new shop that was
     built.  It was just completed a couple years ago, and I
     think it'll cycle the air out in approximately eight to nine
     minutes.
                   MR. KOGUT:  So, as far as you're concerned, do you
     think that the problem in this one shop, the older shop,
     that that could be addressed by improving the ventilation
     system?
                   MR. LINVILLE:  Oh, absolutely, yeah.  If you could
     put in some fans, something similar to the one that we got
     in the new shop that you recycle the air within 10 minutes
     would make a tremendous amount of difference.
                   You sit up there and think about the truck that
     sometimes it may take you up to two to three hours under a
     test load to get the thing working, and you're running 75
     gallons of fuel through there an hour, that's a lot of
     smoke.
                   MR. TOMB:  Are you done?  I guess one question
     that I had, Ken, is if -- it sounds like other than the shop
     area -- all right, that you're talking a lot of maintenance
     problems that are causing the exposure problem.  Is that a
     fair assessment?
                   MR. LINVILLE:  Within the trucks itself?
                   MR. TOMB:  Yes, right.
                   MR. LINVILLE:  And the cabs?
                   MR. TOMB:  Yeah.
                   MR. LINVILLE:  Yes, uh-huh.  We keep on them
     trying to get the window stripping and stuff updated.  And
     you have to do that all the time.  But I've never seem them
     -- in my 22 and a half years, I've never seen them change
     the window channel, you know, and stuff like that.  And
     sometimes the windows are cut not correctly, even the
     windshield.  And they've gone as far as to put -- it's not a
     caulking compound, but it's like a gasket seal up in the
     corners because the glass just wasn't cut right.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  We thank you for your comments.
                   MR. LINVILLE:  All right.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  We appreciate it.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Our next presentation will be by
     Energy West.
                   MR. TATTON:  Good morning, Mr. Moderator, Ladies
     and Gentlemen.  We appreciate the opportunity to present
     testimony today on the provisions of MSHA's proposed rules -
     -
                   MR. TOMB:  Excuse me, one moment.  You want to
     give your name?
                   MR. TATTON:  I will.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  I'm sorry.
                   MR. TATTON:  On the provisions of MSHA's proposed
     rules "Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground
     Coal Miners."  
                   I am Randy Tatton, Manager of Health and Safety at
     Interwest Mining Company.  And with me is Kevin Tuttle,
     Manager of Health Safety and Training at Energy West Mining
     Company.  We submit this joint testimony in behalf of our
     company, which operates two large underground coal mines in
     southeastern Utah.  This business unit employs five hundred
     miners and produces approximately eight million tons of coal
     annually.  Diesel equipment has been operated safely and
     economically at Energy West's mines for more than 20 years.
                   It is our objective to provide each employee with
     a safe and healthful work place and to achieve excellence in
     our business activities through continual improvement.  The
     safe and efficient use of diesel equipment is critical for
     us to accomplish this goal.
                   The intent of the Agency's proposal is to reduce
     the health hazards that may be associated with exposure to
     diesel particulate matter.  Energy West Mining Company fully
     supports this effort if we're confident that the
     requirements are well-founded, reasonable, cost effective
     and feasible.  At this point, we do not believe that to be
     the case.  We submit these comments for your consideration
     prior to the finalization of the proposed rule.
                   MSHA has relied upon several studies to justify
     its conclusions that exposure to diesel particulate matter
     contained in diesel exhaust causes significant health risk. 
     This has been done notwithstanding the fact, by its own
     admission in the preamble, that most of the evidence in
     those studies is relatively weak.  We have many doubts about
     the conclusions of those studies.  Specifically, they do not
     positively demonstrate health risk to miners.
                   We believe the Agency has chosen to ignore data
     that could provide a valuable insight into the present
     health status of miners.  Employees at Energy West Mining
     Company and other operations in the West have worked in
     excess of 20 years with exposure to diesel exhaust.  These
     are baseline tests, chest x-rays, and lung function tests
     that could provide an understanding of their present health
     status.  It must be noted that we have not seen evidence of
     respiratory tract disease, especially cancer.
                   This proposed rule would require mine operators to
     install filtration systems with a particulate removal
     efficiency of at least 95% on permissible and non-
     permissible heavy duty equipment.  We do not believe that
     current technology used is capable of achieving this type of
     efficiency.  Data that is currently available indicates that
     efficiency rates are well below 95 percent when using an
     eight-mode test cycle.
                   Our experience at Energy West Mining Company is
     that high altitude has an extreme effect upon the
     performance of these types of filtration systems and overall
     engine performance.  We do not believe that devices that
     would be required by this proposal have been tested
     sufficiently at high elevation or in actual mine conditions
     to determine how they will perform.  The Agency must take
     this into consideration prior to the development of a final
     rule, because the vast majority of diesel equipment used in
     the mining industry is located in geographical areas where
     high elevation is a factor.
                   The implementation of a regulation that mandates a
     single design-based questionable and unproven technology to
     control diesel particulate is not feasible.
                   Energy West Mining Company strongly suggests that
     this regulation, when finalized, provides mine operators
     with an integrated approach to the control of diesel
     particulate.  MSHA has expended substantial time and money
     developing the publication "Practical Ways to Reduce
     Exposure to Diesel Exhaust in Mining - A Tool Box."  The
     Agency is not proposing a rule that does not allow mine
     operators the benefit of these tools and mandates only one
     means by which to comply.
                   This proposal provides no flexibility for mine
     operators to act on a very complex issue.  It provides no
     incentive for mine operators or engine and mine equipment
     manufacturers to create new methods to control diesel
     particulate other than filtration systems.  It discourages
     the development of new technologies, which may be more
     effective to control diesel particulate or that may be more
     cost effective.
                   Energy West Mining Company supports regulations
     that adopt an integrated performance-based approach to
     control diesel particulate.  The final rule must afford mine
     operators flexibility to chose the most cost effective,
     feasible combination of controls.  For example, cleaner
     burning engines, low sulfur fuel, oxidation of catalysts,
     ventilation, filtration systems and administrative controls.
                   We will work closely with the National Mining
     Association in an effort to develop an alternative approach
     that will afford miners great health protection.  We will
     provide comments and recommendations on this approach prior
     to the end of the comment period.
                   We also contend that the proposed 18-month period
     from the rules finalization to the effective date of the
     initial requirements is unreasonably short.  The final
     regulation must provide mine operators sufficient time to
     obtain new equipment, retrofit existing equipment and to
     implement the use of such equipment into the miners.  Based
     on previous experience, we have found that the installation
     of one dry particulate filter can take several weeks.
                   Energy West Mining Company presently owns and
     operates 57 permissible and 12 heavy duty non-permissible
     pieces of diesel powered equipment.  All of this equipment
     under the present proposal would require retrofit with a 95%
     efficient filtration system.  With utilization of presently
     available technology, each filtration system would have to
     incorporate the use of a paper filter.
                   Cost estimates of presently available filtration
     systems are:  Installed Cost on permissible unit - $36,500.
                   Note:  This cost is representative of a typical
     100hp application.  Costs are certainly much more for higher
     horsepower installation or retrofits when structured
     modifications are necessary.
                   Installed Cost on a Non-permissible heavy duty
     unit approximately $25,000.
                   Energy West Mining Company operates each unit
     about 3,500 hours annually.  We have limited experience
     using paper filters in conjunction with this type of
     filtration device.  Based upon demonstrated costs and
     experience at other coal mining companies that have used
     paper filters in similar applications, we estimate that
     costs can be a high as $10.00 per operating hour.
                   Based upon these estimates, the costs at Energy
     West Mining Company for compliance with this proposal would
     be $2,380,500 for the retrofit of presently owned equipment
     and potentially an additional $2,415,000 annually for filter
     replacement plus labor costs for changing the filters.
                   We feel that MSHA has grossly underestimated the
     economic impact this proposed regulation, specifically, 75-
     500(a) and (b) will have on this industry.
                   Mr. Tuttle will continue with some additional
     testimony.
                   MR. TUTTLE:  I'd like to provide comments to the
     mine ventilation plan comment and the health training.
                   Mine ventilation plans are a very important part
     of mining and contain information specific to each
     operation.  Plans should be small, easy to read and
     understandable.  The trend for ventilation plans is to
     become larger with complicated contents that are subject to
     interpretation.  The approval process becomes labor
     intensive for MSHA and mine operators.  Efforts should be
     made to reduce the size of plans instead of adding more
     information that could be addressed in the regulation.
                   We encourage MSHA to look at this proposed
     regulation closely.  Will it reduce paper work for MSHA and
     companies, or will it just be another portion of a large
     document called a "Ventilation Plan?"  MSHA has the ability
     and opportunity in this rulemaking to simplify the process.
                   This proposal requires that the operator provide
     "a list" of diesel-powered units used by the mine operator
     together with information about any unit's emission control
     of filtration system.  We feel this list can be addressed in
     this proposed regulation by:  (1) requiring a copy be made
     available at the mine site, (2) posting at the minute site,
     or (3) other acceptable means that would make the list
     available to interested persons.  This approach would allow
     the list to be updated without going through the plan
     approval process.
                   We encourage MSHA to look at this portion of the
     proposed rule and to consider the impact it would have on
     the plan process.  We oppose requiring this list being part
     of the ventilation plan.
                   This proposal requires that all miners reasonably
     expected to be exposed to diesel particulate on the property
     to be trained annually.  This language is confusing and too
     all encompassing.  This could be interpreted in the
     strictest sense to mean a one time exposure once a year. 
     The Agency should revise this section to insure clarity.
                   MSHA has proposed that the operators train minors
     in the health risks associated with exposure to diesel
     particulate matter.  When reading this proposed regulation,
     several questions come to mind such as one, what are the
     specific health risk MSHA proposes on which the operators
     train?  Two, are the health risks those identified in the
     preamble, such as sensory irritations and respiratory
     symptoms serious enough to distract or disable miners, death
     from cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary or respiratory causes,
     or lung cancer?  Three, are the health risks those
     identified by an Agency, or will it just be those that have
     definitely been demonstrated with good science?
                   Training needs to be meaningful, and the material
     must be understandable.  If an instructor feels unsure of
     what is required in training sessions, learning will suffer.
                   If there are ambiguities in a regulation, then
     MSHA must make the regulation clear.  The Agency needs to be
     specific about what they want or they will spend their time
     interpreting question in an other "Questions and Answer"
     document like those on other regulations that were not ready
     to be enacted.  If a regulation is vague, it will only cause
     misinterpretation and non-compliance problems.  We urge MSHA
     to look closer at this proposed regulation and focus on how
     a company could comply with a regulation having so many
     unanswered questions.
                   Energy West Mining Company plans to submit
     additional information prior to the closing of the comment
     period that will recommend an alternate approach to this
     proposal.  We do not agree that MSHA has appropriately
     evaluated the health risks associated with exposure to
     diesel particulate matters in underground coal mines,
     although we do not accept that it is medically advisable to
     take action to limit the exposure of underground miners.  
                   We recommend that the Agency proceed with a
     performance-based final rule that is economically and
     technologically feasible.  The final regulation must not
     incorporate a design-based approach that requires only high
     efficiency filtration system.
                   We appreciate the opportunity we have been
     afforded today to provide this testimony and will gladly
     entertain questions, if there are any.
                   MR. TOMB:  Jon?
                   MR. KOGUT:  I take it from what you just said you
     weren't necessarily opposing including information about
     health risks in the training.  But you were really
     addressing the question of what health risks would be
     addressed?  
                   In your subsequent submission, are you going to be
     making recommendations to that effect as to what health
     risks you would propose that we address?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yeah, I would probably address some
     of those.  It's just, you know, the preamble identified some
     health risks.  But is that all inclusive?  When you get to a
     training situation and you start training, if I'm monitored
     by an MSHA inspector, and he says, "You're not covering the
     health risks.  You've not given me help on identifying what
     health risks you're talking about."
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yeah.  I guess my question is, will
     you be giving us some suggestions or recommendations as to
     what you think should be included in that kind of training?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yeah.
                   MR. KOGUT:  I have another question, which -- or
     it's not -- yeah, it's a question, but also a statement.
                   You said that the Agency has ignored some relevant
     epidemiological data.  And I just want to make clear for the
     record that the Agency did not deliberately ignore any
     relevant data.  If we overlooked some data, it was by
     oversight, not by any kind of a deliberate action.  So, that
     if you are aware or have some epidemiological data or
     references to epidemiological studies that we didn't
     include, we would be very grateful to have you give us those
     references and any data that you might have in your
     operations that we would take into account.
                   MR. TOMB:  George?
                   MR. SASEEN:  My understanding from some previous
     speakers is that have an experimental Wagner scoop at your
     facility, at one of your mines?
                   MR. TATTON:  Glad you asked that question, because
     I intended to clarify for the record a little bit about that
     system and the arrangement.  
                   Energy West Mining has for about three years now
     worked in a cooperative effort, both financially and by
     donating our machines and our mines with two different
     companies, Getlin Corporation and Cooling Systems
     International out of Grand Junction, Colorado.
                   In fact, there's a company that's been formed that
     would hope at some point to be able to not only develop a
     system, but to market a system that might be available in
     the industry.  The name of that company is Diesel Treatment,
     Inc.  
                   And at this point, as alluded to by some of the
     other people making testimony, we have a three and a half
     Wagner scoop at our Deer Creek mine that is in the process
     of doing some testing of that system.  
                   There was also testimony to the effect that we
     haven't used the machine much, and there's a valid reason
     for that.  The particular filter that is in place on the
     machine does not have approval to be used in the -- by
     application.  So, it essentially makes a machine that is
     very limited in its ability to do work for it.  It has an
     LHD or it has a bucket.  And so, it's essentially a machine
     that only can be used to haul gravel in the mine and so on.
                   Another problem is that we had a memorandum of
     understanding with our union folks at the mine that at least
     at this point, would preclude the use of that machine to
     entry system.  Therefore, it also makes the machine that
     doesn't have the ability to haul materials into the mine.
                   We're in a process right now whereby we're putting
     a larger bucket on the machine, and we're working up a
     protocol and have been in communication with our friends in
     the union.  And would hope to be able to come an
     understanding that would give us the ability to use that
     machine in our two entry systems.  And also at that point,
     the ability to use it every shift in the process of hauling
     our materials into the mines.  And so, we can give that a
     real good test.
                   Are there any other questions?  That's essentially
     where that system is now?
                   MR. TOMB:  Is that something that's going to be
     coming up in the short term?  I guess if there is some
     information that you could share with the Committee, that'll
     be before the end of the comment, that --
                   MR. TATTON:  We have done some preliminary testing
     on the emission.  And indications are that they would be
     similar to some of the other filters that are on the market. 
     I can tell right now it's not 95 percent.  There's still a
     lot of work to be done.
                   As far as the timeframe for the machine, it's a
     machine that would have to go through the approval process
     to get Schedule 31 approval.  And we all know how long that
     takes.  And so, it is a ways down the road.
                   MR. TOMB:  Were those laboratory tests that you're
     saying you don't think will meet the 95 percent, or is that
     in-line tests?
                   MR. TATTON:  They were actually tested or
     conducted in a shop.  They were conducted with the aid of
     Michigan Tech and Dr. Don Johnson.  So, we feel confident
     that the testing is pretty good.  They were not -- there are
     no in-lab tests for that.
                   MR. TOMB:  In-line, you mean?
                   MR. TATTON:  Huh?
                   MR. TOMB:  In-line tests, are you saying, or in-
     lab?
                   MR. TATTON:  No, they were in shop.
                   MR. TOMB:  In shop.
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Can you share that data with the
     Committee?
                   MR. TATTON:  I can't at this point.  I'd be glad
     to put some information on a final comment.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. TATTON:  But I'm just not in a position right
     now.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Well, yeah.  The final comment.  Can
     you also include some cost information of --
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes.
                   MR. SASEEN:  I think you stated $36,000 for 100
     horsepower.  Is that with that system, or is that with
     another?
                   MR. TATTON:  There had not been any firm costs
     developed as of yet.  I will try to provide some estimates
     what that may be in our final comment.
                   MR. SASEEN:  And you also gave the 25K for non-
     permissible.  Could you also maybe --
                   MR. TATTON:  Actually, we took that figure from
     the preamble and MSHA's estimate of what those costs are. 
     And then I think those costs are reasonable.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Ron?
                   MR. FORD:  I guess just to clarify again, the
     $36,500 -- when you talked about that cost, you talked about
     it as an installation cost.  But you mean also that's
     purchase and installation?
                   MR. TATTON:  We've had some quotes, and to the
     best of our knowledge, that would be installed cost for, as
     alluded to in other testimony, a 94 horsepower engine. 
     We've also talked to companies that have talked about costs
     considerably higher than that where that different
     application was involved and so on.  We believe that to be
     the cost -- the installed cost for a typical 94 horsepower
     engine.  We certainly believe the cost would be much higher
     than that for some of the equipment we have in our mine.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  So, the cost -- the $36,500 to
     you for a 100 horsepower permissible equipment for dry
     system is just installation costs?
                   MR. TATTON:  Oh, no.  That's the cost of the
     hardware.
                   MR. FORD:  Everything.  And you said of course for
     a higher horse power, it's be greater.  Do you have any idea
     of what that would be, or do you have any information at all
     to help us on that?
                   MR. TATTON:  I do not.
                   MR. FORD:  Again, is there any way to get you to
     supply some time later a written document to us, of the
     details of the $36,500 and how you got to that figure?
                   MR. TATTON:  I essentially got that figure based
     on estimates in our work with the National Mine Association
     and also in talking with Mr. Paas and getting quotes on that
     price.  That's essentially where we got the price.
                   MR. FORD:  Is that the same answer for the $10 per
     hour, because NMA has the same quote.
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes, it is.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Is there any way we can get
     detail on the statement that you made that it would cost $2
     million for your mines just to retrofit?
                   MR. TATTON:  That's simply a calculation based on
     a number of equipment we have in that cost.  $36,500 for
     permissible and $25,000 for an after treatment application.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  How about the $2 million for the
     filter replacement and labor?  Can we get the detail on
     that?
                   MR. TATTON:  The detail again on that is just
     considering the number of pieces of equipment we have times
     3,500 hours that we use in equipment each year and
     considering $10 per hour for a filter.
                   MR. FORD:  So, it's just the hours times the $10
     per hour?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  So, the 3,500 hours is on a
     piece of equipment?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  So, you would take the hours
     times the $10 times the number of pieces of equipment, and
     that would give you your $2 million plus for filter
     replacement and labor?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes.
                   MR. FORD:  And finally, I have one last question. 
     You haven't mentioned any research or developmental costs. 
     Do you have any experience with what those costs to date?
                   MR. TATTON:  You know, I will be glad to supply at
     least our best estimate of those costs in our final comment. 
     I don't have those costs here today.
                   MR. FORD:  Is that comment you're talking about
     would be a written comment?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes, sir.
                   MR. FORD:  If you could do that, it'd be helpful.
                   MR. TATTON:  We will do that.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  George?
                   MR. SASEEN:  You just mentioned a statement that
     your high altitude has effect on the filtration systems?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Do you have any data that you can
     share with us to support that?
                   MR. TATTON:  I don't have any particular data.  I
     just have -- that's based on our experience.  We have in the
     past tried catalytic converters.  And you know, our engines
     are typically a 150 horsepower engine.  And our elevation
     would derate it to about 100 horsepower.  And that causes
     some problems with the use of that type of filtration.
                   MR. SASEEN:  But that was done with catalytic
     converters or with paper filters?
                   MR. TATTON:  We have never used any paper filters
     in our operation.
                   MR. SASEEN:  How about ceramic?
                   MR. TATTON:  Did some real basic testing.  Also,
     it was problematic.  
                   And I would like to mention at this point, we have
     the machine.  It's going to be delivered to our property
     very soon.  It's a Getman road grater.  It'll have a ceramic
     trap on it.  We're hopeful that that -- the duty cycle on
     that machine will be such that we can get some regeneration
     of that trap.  And that will right in our property and we'll
     be doing an evaluation on that also in the near future.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Would you be able to share any of
     that data with us within the comment period?
                   MR. TATTON:  I really question if we'll be able to
     produce that data by February 15.  But the machine's not on
     our property yet.
                   MR. TOMB:  I have another question by Mr. Thaxton.
                   MR. THAXTON:  You brought up in your presentation
     that you would prefer that the Agency would allow you to
     make use of all the tools that have been brought forth in
     the publications, "Our Toolbox" as it's referred to.  
                   If you were allowed to go that route of using any
     of the tools, any or all of them, would you be able to
     submit to us in your comments that followed, what level of
     reduction you would expect then to achieve in relation to
     reduction of these particular from the use of any or all
     controls that are available to you in your toolboxes?  And
     also then, if you can follow along with that, would you also
     be able to address which tools you consider from your
     standpoint with your operations which ones you would
     consider feasible for your operation?
                   MR. TATTON:  I think I can provide some comments
     and we'll talk about which ones would be feasible.  The
     other question that you alluded to essentially is asking,
     can we -- you know, do we know that standard should be, or
     what that particular system would be capable of
     accomplishing?  I don't know that we'll be able to do that
     by the end of the comment period.
                   MR. THAXTON:  What I'm looking at is basically if
     you're combining two or three things that are in the
     toolbox, would you expect to see a 70, 80, 90 percent
     reduction in these particular matters that you're generating
     from your particular pieces of equipment through the
     application of multiple controls?
                   MR. TATTON:  I don't think I could really answer
     that question, Mr. Thaxton, unless that test was done in a
     lab taking into consideration all those controls in parallel
     and what that reduction would be.
                   MR. THAXTON:  Okay.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  I have a question from Kevin. 
     I'd like clarification on your comment relative to the
     information.  I'm not sure I understood what you said about
     putting the information into the ventilation control plan.
                   MR. TUTTLE:  Well, I deal with the ventilation
     control plan.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. TUTTLE:  And every time I have to submit a
     submittal to MSHA, the union has 10 days to comment.  Then
     we ship it off.  It takes three or four, five months
     sometimes.  On this, 
     probably -- maybe not that long.  Then, you get it back.  By
     that time, we may have another change on that.  So, it's a
     continual round of process between us and MSHA trying to
     deal with the ventilation --
                   MR. TOMB:  So, you're saying this will -- having
     this information will compound that process?
                   MR. TUTTLE:  Yes.  It's going to be just another
     loop there.  It's going to cause paperwork for you.  It's
     going to cause paperwork for me.  There's other ways to deal
     with this.  Put it in the regulation.  If you want the
     information, say that we'll supply you the information or
     we'll post it or we'll make it available to you.  Why put it
     in the process that you have to have it approved every time
     you go through this?  Every time I want to change something,
     I got to --
                   MR. TOMB:  I understand.
                   MR. TUTTLE:  It just really, really balls up the
     work.  There's different ways to address it in the
     regulation, is all I'm saying.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  I didn't understand.  I have a
     different question from Sandra.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  I was just curious.  Has Energy West
     used MSHA's estimator, the computer spec sheet?  Any idea if
     it's going to be used?
                   MR. TATTON:  I'm not sure I understand.  You mean,
     as far as the economic costs?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  With the technology that is
     available or how much that DPM emissions be used to reduce? 
     Because you were saying that in your testimony that you
     didn't think it was feasible, you know, within the 18 months
     to put the filters and all the stuff.  You were talking
     about how that really isn't feasible and how -- I was just
     wondering if Energy West had done any type of use of that
     estimator as far as the controls.
                   MR. TATTON:  We did not use the estimator.  If I
     can allude back to our experience in the installation of a
     dry particulate scrubbed on the three and a half diesel
     Wagner.  We do know how long that took.  We know how much
     additional fabrication work was necessary to do that.  And
     based on that, we think that it's going to take an awful lot
     of time to retrofit the number of pieces of equipment, not
     only in Energy West, but throughout this country.  There's a
     tremendous amount of work involved with the installation of
     one of these systems.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  And another thing, could you give us
     copies of your testimony?
                   MR. TATTON:  Sure.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Thank you.
                   MR. FORD:  I have one follow-up question.  You
     talked about earlier the 3,500 hours per machine.  That
     encompasses both permissible and non-permissible.  Right?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes.
                   MR. FORD:  That's an average figure.  Do you know
     on average what would be the hour per machine for non-
     permissible?
                   MR. TATTON:  It's around that for both.  We use --
                   MR. FORD:  The same.
                   MR. TATTON:  The permissible machines, if
     anything, would probably be higher, but I don't know that
     there's a lot of distinction.  They would be close to the
     same amount of hours.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Bob?
                   MR. HANEY:  A previous person testified that they
     rebuild machines about every 4,000 hours.  Do you have any
     idea what the operation time is on your machines prior to
     rebuilding?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yes, I do, because when that question
     came up I asked the gentleman next to me that knows that
     very well.  Typically, we will completely rebuild a machine
     every four or five years.  Now, if it's necessary and we
     have engine failures or engine deterioration, that may
     happen.  Engines may be replaced in the interim.  Does that
     answer the question?
                   MR. HANEY:  So, you're more in the neighborhood of
     15,000 hours?
                   MR. TATTON:  Yeah.
                   MR. TOMB:  I just have one last comment.  I'm not
     sure whether this gets at what Sandra was asking.  But
     Sandra said and what Bob asked for in getting down to a
     level with different applications of different technology,
     maybe the estimator would be a good place to start to
     estimate that.  In other words, if you have the technology
     that you know that have some efficiencies -- multiple
     technologies, getting a different efficiencies, if you
     plugged them into the estimator knowing the approximate
     outputs of your equipment in grams per horsepower hour than
     maybe you could estimate what those lower levels would be.
                   Okay.  Any other questions?  I thank you for your
     comments.  They were all very good.  They'll certainly be
     considered.  Thank you.
                   What I have in front of me is we have three
     presentations left.  And they look like they're probably
     going to be less than an hour, so what I think we'll do, we
     won't stop for lunch.  We'll just go ahead and proceed with
     those.
                   The next one that I would like to have presented
     would be from Mr. Heiser?
                   MR. HEISER:  Heiser.
                   MR. TOMB:  Heiser.  I'm sorry.  I know it's
     getting close to lunch time.  And I hope you can do it on an
     empty stomach.
                   MR. HEISER:  I'd rather do it now than afterwards.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Thank you.
                   MR. HEISER:  First of all, good morning, ladies
     and gentlemen.  Afternoon now.
                   First of all, let me introduce myself.  My name is
     Rowdy Heiser.  I'm a line safety engineer with FMC
     Corporation in Green River, Wyoming.  And I'm pleased to
     testify today on behalf of the MARG Diesel Coalition
     concerning MSHA's Proposed Rule governing diesel particulate
     exposure in underground coal mines, 63 Fed. Reg. 17492
     (April 9, 1998.)
                   MARG is a coalition comprised of underground non-
     metal mine operators and other entities who are interested
     in the regulation of diesel particulate and the potential
     health effects of diesel exhaust in humans.  Many of MARG's
     members operate mines that are the subject of an ongoing
     collaborative study by the National Institute for
     Occupational Safety and Health ("NIOSH") and the National
     Cancer Institute ("NCI") that is designed to measure diesel
     exhaust exposure in underground non-metal miners and to
     evaluate the past and current health effects of this cohort
     of workers.
                   MARG and its individual member companies plan to
     comment in detail concerning MSHA's newly proposed
     regulation governing diesel particulate matter in
     underground metal/non-metal mines, 63 Fed. Reg 58104
     (October 29, 1998), and we reserve the right to submit
     additional written material concerning the coal sector
     proposal.  Today's testimony focuses on MSHA's failure to
     provide a sound scientific basis for the proposed rules.
                   As MSHA is well aware, earlier this year, NIOSH
     and NCI finally began data collection for its six-year
     multi-faceted study of diesel exhaust exposure in non-metal
     miners, which is intended to determine whether such exposure
     causes illnesses.  The goal of the multi-million dollar
     project are one, to evaluate mortality with regard to diesel
     exhaust exposure; two, to determine whether mortality
     increases to the level of diesel exposure; and three, to
     evaluate the association between measured levels of diesel
     exhaust and components in the air, metabolite in the urine,
     and DNA adducts in bronchial and blood cells.  All suspected
     disease endpoints are being studied, including lung cancer.  
                   The study includes the following components:
                   Retrospective cohort mortality study:  The cohort
     for this phase is comprised of approximately 8,200 non-metal
     miners from 10 underground mines who were employed for at
     least one year during the period from the date of
     dieselization until December 31, 1996.  Vital status will be
     determined, and cause of death will be obtained from death
     certificates.
                   Nested case-control study:  This study will be
     based on deaths ascertained during the follow-up stage of
     the cohort mortality study.  Four controls will be selected
     for each case from among members of the cohort, and
     information on confounding factors will be gained from
     interviews.
                   Biomarker study:  This study is designed to
     examine whether exposed workers have detectable levels of
     nitro-PAH metabolites in their urine and nitro-PAH DNA
     adducts in a spectrum of tissues, and to relate those levels
     to airborne exposures.
                   MESA enforcement, together with information on
     diesel usage and other surrogate measures, will be utilized
     to construct estimates of personal exposure for the cohort
     mortality and nested case-control studies.  Such
     measurements include:  elemental carbon, submicrometer
     combustible dust, submiscrometer particulate, organic
     fraction of the exhaust, NO, NO2, CO, CO2, nitropolycyclic
     aromatic hydrocarbons (nitro-PAHs) and respirable and total
     particulate.  
                   These measures are being collected because NIOSH
     and NCI recognize that there is no definitive substance
     which serve as a surrogate for diesel particulate matter
     exposure and the researcher's hope to determine which
     substance best correlates with identifiable diesel exhaust
     exposure.  Also, sampling techniques and equipment used to
     gather exposure data in the past and present are still
     experimental, thus resulting in inconclusive data used to
     justify regulations.
                   NIOSH/NCI's protocol for this study clearly
     identifies the problem with MSHA's assumption concerning
     health effects.  In short, "although diesel exhaust has been
     classified as a probable carcinogen by IARC and as a
     possible carcinogen by NIOSH, the risk of lung cancer is
     humans is still not well defined."  NIOSH admits the same
     conclusions for all of the suspected disease endpoints.
                   The Government researchers observed that in view
     of the inconclusive findings in animals, there is a clear
     need for more information on the effect of diesel exhaust
     exposure in humans."  The protocol concluded that the
     "existing studies have many weaknesses," including use of
     crude indicators for diesel exhaust exposure, no historical
     quantitative measurements of diesel exhaust, short latent
     period, low exposure levels and small numbers of
     observations.
                   In the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 57
     Fed. Reg. 500, January 6, 1992, that preceded the current
     proposal MSHA quoted the Diesel Advisory Committee's finding
     that more research was needed because of the absence of
     adequate information regarding the permissible exposure
     limits at which health effects accrue.  Prior to initiating
     the rulemaking, MSHA has asked NIOSH to perform a risk
     assessment for exposure to diesel particulate and between
     1988 and 1991, either studies and/or papers were developed
     by NIOSH, Bureau of Mines, and MSHA researchers addressing
     the health effects and/or sampling and measurement
     techniques for diesel particulate.
                   As recently as last year, NIOSH and NCI thoroughly
     reviewed the existing scientific literature before making
     these findings and concluded that the human health effects
     of diesel were not known.  Therefore, admittedly flawed
     scientific studies are the source of MSHA's "strong
     evidence" of an increased risk of lung cancer, 63 Fed. Reg.
     17540, and serve as the scientific basis for the proposed,
     draconian diesel exhaust rule.  
                   MSHA has selectively presented studies supporting
     its conclusion while ignoring other research that refutes
     its findings.  The Agency also has disregarded the recent
     conclusion of Dr. Debra Silverman, lead researcher on the
     NIOSH/NCI diesel study:  "The repeated finding of small
     effects, coupled with the absence of quantitative data on
     historical exposure, precludes a causal interpretation."
                   The mining operations involved in he NIOSH/NCI
     study are participating cooperatively with Governmental
     researchers because we share their desire to obtain
     definitive information as to whether or not diesel exhaust
     exposure presents health hazards to underground miners.  Our
     participation has resulted in extensive disruption to our
     mine sites and has cost the industry millions on dollars in
     non-reimbursed expenses for such items as:  review and
     copying of hundreds of thousands of non-statutorily required
     personnel, medial and business documents; sampling and
     exposure monitoring; accompanying the researchers for their
     personal safety; and review of the comments concerning
     NIOSH/NCI's many revisions to the protocol.
                   The "best available evidence, "as determined by
     NIOSH, the agency charged with scientific research under the
     Mine Act, indicates that significant health risks have not
     been demonstrated to warrant MSHA's strict regulation of
     diesel equipment use and exhaust exposure within our
     industry.  If such a significant risk had already been
     established, there would be no basis for NISOH/NCI to
     continue its work using millions of taxpayers' dollars.  
                   Similarly, there would be no need for our
     companies to suffer the disruption and considerable expense
     associated with the NIOSH/NCI endeavor if the verdict is
     already in concerning the health effects of diesel.  If,
     however, MSHA agrees with NIOSH that the science is by no
     means clear that diesel exhaust has any adverse health
     effects in humans, then the Agency should suspend this
     rulemaking until such time as NIOSH/NCI complete the work
     and have had the opportunity to process the results and
     submit them to independent peer review.
                   Although MARG acknowledges that MSHA does not have
     to be 100 percent certain of a health risk before proceeding
     with regulation, in light of the uncertain scientific basis
     for the proposed rule and the ongoing industry-specific
     research by NIOSH/NCI, we urge the Agency to exercise
     restraint.  Implementation of this proposal would impose
     highly expensive workplace modifications on mining
     operations, that might turn out to be entirely wrong or
     unnecessary based upon NIOSH/NCI's findings, which should be
     available in five years, with interim reports expected
     within two years.  The basis for MSHA's proposal, therefore,
     is inherently flawed and the proposal should be suspended
     until more definitive information is available on this
     important issue.
                   Thank you for your consideration of these
     comments.
                   MR. TOMB:  Jon?
                   MR. KOGUT:  You said that MSHA has ignored
     research findings.  Could you submit to us exactly what
     you're referring to?
                   MR. HEISER:  We intend to submit in detail the
     answers to specifically all of those.
                   MR. KOGUT:  And the time to submit that would
     probably be in non-metal -- metal, non-metal.
                   MR. HEISER:  There is some information on that
     that will be submitted from other parties.  We may also. 
     I'm not sure of the status of that at the moment.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Is this published research?
                   MR. HEISER:  Yes, it is.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  You'll be submitting it for this
     rulemaking or --
                   MR. HEISER:  There is some information on that for
     this rulemaking.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Okay.  But you also will be
     submitting --
                   MR. HEISER:  For the metal/non-metal rulemaking,
     right.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Ron?
                   MR. FORD:  I just have one question.  Concerning
     the statement that implementation of this proposed rule
     would impose highly expensive workplace modifications on
     mining operations.
                   Do you have any details of costs or work papers
     that detail what those costs are?
                   MR. HEISER:  Not with me, right now I don't.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Could you supply those papers
     with the detailed information showing those costs to us?
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  Again, the applicability to the
     coal mine regulations specifically I don't think we have,
     the non-metal/metal operations.  We will provide those in
     the follow-up for the rules.
                   MR. FORD:  So, here we're talking just about the
     costs as it concerns for the metal/non-metal.
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  We're concerned with the basis --
     total basis of any diesel regulations.
                   MR. FORD:  Right.  And these detailed costs you're
     willing to supply later on when we talk about the metal/non-
     metal?
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  Right.  We intend to look into
     that in more detail.
                   MR. FORD:  Thank you.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  But the costs that you are talking
     about in your testimony right now are regarding metal/non-
     metal alone, or just coal?
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  They apply to both?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Oh, both.  So, you have some
     information then right now regarding the cost for coal. 
     Correct?
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  No.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  No?
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  We do not represent any coal
     mines.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  So, your testimony regarding the
     cost is based on --
                   MR. HEISER:  Our testimony regarding the cost is
     based simply on referencing our equipment list and
     registering our equipment and receiving it to the coal mine
     and
     metal/non-metal side.  Those are the costs we look at.
                   MR. TOMB:  Tom, some more questions?
                   MR. FORD:  Sure.  Again, just to follow up, I'm
     not sure I understand.  You're saying the cost that you have
     for -- these costs about expensive workplace modification
     would be applicable to coal, as well as metal and non-metal?
                   MR. HEISER:  Are you on the third page?
                   MR. FORD:  Well, my page has no numbers on it.
                   MR. HEISER:  Let me make sure of the page you are
     referring to and make sure I can answer the question
     properly.
                   "Similarly, there would be no need for our
     companies to suffer the disruption and considerable expense
     associated with the NIOSH/NCI endeavor if the verdict is
     already in concerning the health effects of diesel." 
                   Is that what you're referring to?
                   MR. FORD:  No.
                   MR. HEISER:  No.  Okay.
                   MR. FORD:  Next to the last page.  It's the last
     paragraph, and it's the sentence that starts in the last
     paragraph, "Implementation of this proposal would impose
     highly expensive workplace modifications on mining
     operations that might turn out to be entirely wrong or
     unnecessary based upon NIOSH/NCI's findings, which should be
     available in five years, within interim reports expected
     within two years."
                   My question originally was, do you have any
     documentation that shows what these expensive workplace
     modifications would be?  And I thought that you answered
     they'd be similar to coal and metal/non-metal.
                   MR. HEISER:  To answer that question, do I have
     any documentation?  The answer is no, not at this time. 
     What we're referring to as expensive workplace modification
     would be the thing that we would have to do to our diesel
     equipment similar to coal to produce 95 percent efficiency. 
     Those -- there would be some expenses associated with that,
     similar to some of the testimony from this morning.
                   MR. FORD:  Oh, I see.  I see.  So, you're saying
     that some of the testimony that's applied today on cost,
     would be similar to your situation, but you don't have any
     actual data for the metal/non-metal?
                   MR. HEISER:  No.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  I have a couple questions.  I guess
     it's on the third from the last page.  Okay?  Last paragraph
     where you state:  "The "best available evidence," as
     determined by NIOSH indicates that no significant health
     risks have been demonstrated to warrant MSHA's strict
     regulation of diesel equipment."  
                   And I don't know what the reference is for that,
     but I thought NIOSH has listed this as a probable human
     carcinogen, and they have that out in their published bullet
     50.  So, I'm just wondering what the basis for that is.
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  Well, the basis is that they have
     not established any levels -- action levels or -- well
     again, analysis of the publications that led into that
     conclusion which leads us to disagree with them and you on
     your conclusion.  
                   MR. TOMB:  That there is no significant health
     risk from exposure to diesel particulate?  Is that what
     you're saying?
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  It has not been effectively shown
     at this time..
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  And I guess the next thing that
     you have here that you might want to address is that,
     although it's not in our proposed rule for coal mine
     exposures, but for metal/non-metal exposures which is in the
     document that I think to come out on October 29, was that
     the California Environmental Agency as identified diesel
     particulate as a toxic air contaminant.  And this conclusion
     was unanimously adopted by the California Air Resources
     Board and signed at the review panel.
                   And so, I think, maybe you want to address that
     also.
                   MR. HEISER:  Sure.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Because what I interpret you
     saying here is that there's not a scientific body of
     evidence that demonstrates this is a hazard.  And I'm not
     sure the Committee would agree with you on that.
                   MR. HEISER:  Well, that's fine but we have the
     NIOSH/NCI 
     study going on right now.
                   MR. TOMB:  Well, I don't think the NIOSH/NCI study
     is the overall -- going to be the overall concluding thing
     on whether there's a problem or not.  I think it would just
     be another study along with other epidemiological evidence
     to support --
                   MR. PRITCHARD:  But it is on the subjects you are
     attempting to regulate, which is probably the best cohort
     that we can have.  And it's ongoing at this moment and it's
     a pretty intensive study.
                   We believe that any action by the agency at this
     is premature based on that study going on.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Well, you might want to address
     the California Resources.
                   MR. HEISER:  Do you have a question?
                   MR. TOMB:  No.
                   MR. HEISER:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you very much for your comments.
                   Our next presentation will be by Michael Block, if
     he's still here.  Black.  Block.
                   MR. BLOCK:  That's right.  Block.
                   MR. TOMB:  Block.  Okay.  From the Engine
     Manufacturers Association.
                   MR. BLOCK:  Good afternoon.  I'm Michael Block.  
     B-L-O-C-K from the Engine Manufacturers Association.  With
     me is Joe Unseth from Deutz Corporation.
                   I'm here to speak today on behalf of the Engine
     Manufacturers Association.  EMA members include the major
     manufacturers of engines used to power the equipment used in
     the underground coal mine that are covered under the
     proposed MSHA rulemaking being considered here today.
                   Well, Engine Manufacturers is not directly
     regulated under the MSHA proposed rule.  That rule would
     impose significant requirements on engines and mining
     equipment, and would directly impact Engine Manufacturers'
     customers.  Those customers will be looking to EMA members,
     in particular, Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel Corporation,
     Deutz Cabod and Isuzu for assistance in meeting the proposed
     requirements.  As such, EMA is eager to insure that any
     requirements adopted by MSHA are technologically feasible
     and cost effective in reducing particular concentration.  
                   On October 8, 1998, EMA submitted written comments
     in response to the MSHA proposed rule.  In those comments,
     EMA raised a number of questions with the health effects
     information which MSHA cited and used to justify and support
     their proposal.
                   While EMA believes there are many uncertainties
     regarding health effects of diesel particulate, we are
     sensitive to these concerns and support efforts in improving
     the environmental conditions in underground coal mines and
     support requirements that will reduce diesel particulate
     concentration.
                   Unfortunately, the requirements under the MSHA
     proposal limits the options available to mine operators and
     provides no assurance that concentrations of diesel
     particulate will be reduced to quantifiable levels.  MSHA's
     proposed rule specifies the design standard rather than a
     performance standard as a means to control diesel
     particulate exposure.  The proposal would require the
     installation and use of filtration systems with a
     particulate removable efficiency of at least 95 percent.
                   This approach is flawed not only because it limits
     potential solutions to the reduction of diesel particulate
     to a single technology, but also because that single
     technology is an unproven one.  Laboratory tests conducted
     by West Virginia University on a number of after treatment
     systems showed filtration efficiencies range between
     approximately 40 and 80 percent, a far cry from the 95
     percent specified under the MSHA proposal.
                   Over approximately the past 20 years, the diesel
     engine industry has made significant achievements in
     reducing both NAAQS and particular emissions.  As reflected
     in exceptionally stringent new emission standards for
     engines used both in on highway and non-road applications,
     diesel engine manufacturers have been successful in reducing
     NAAQS emissions by over 70 percent, and particulate
     emissions by over 90 percent of unregulated laws.
                   The engine proposal fails to recognize that this
     achievement and the future achievements in emission
     reduction that are anticipated, can form the basis for a
     technologically feasible and cost effective regulation based
     on a reasonable emissions performance-based requirement.
                   In contrast to a design-based approach, interest
     should MSHA should adopt performance-based approach, which
     would provide flexibility for mine operators to choose the
     most effective combination of engine technology, after
     treatment technology, improved fuels and mine ventilation
     available, yet insure measurable levels of particulate
     reduction.  Such an approach, which is detailed in our
     written comments would require tailpipe particulate
     emissions to be considered in determining ventilation
     requirements.
                   Specifically, EMA recommends that the mine
     ventilation be determined by the ventilation rate for agent
     emissions or some factor times the particulate index,
     whichever is greater.  This approach will build upon MSHA's
     existing laboratory-based approval process and will give
     mine operators flexibility in achieving air quality goals
     through a cost effective proven combination of low emitting
     engines, current and future after treatment technology,
     improved fuels and/or mine ventilation.
                   Rather than promoting a single, unproven after-
     treatment technology, EMA's approach would encourage use of
     existing technologies and stimulate further development of
     new engine after treatment fuels and ventilation
     technologies.  Those increased flexibilities would allow
     engine manufacturers, after treatment suppliers and mine
     operators to work towards the most cost effective solutions
     to reduce diesel particulate concentrations in mine.
                   MSHA currently limits sulfur content in diesel
     fuel to .05 percent by weight.  In order to insure
     flexibility in reducing diesel particulate concentrations,
     MSHA must continue to regulate fuel sulfur content by
     requiring the use of the lowest sulfur fuel readily
     available.  This is essential for the effective use of after
     treatment technology.
                   EMA is committed to reducing engine emissions
     regardless of where the engine is operated.  In underground
     coal mines in particular, EMA realizes the need for an
     integrated, flexible, cost effective approach that can
     utilize proven technologies to achieve measurable results.  
                   EMA's proposed performance-based approach provides
     that opportunity without unnecessarily burdening mine
     operators or relying on unproven technology.  EMA and its
     members will work cooperatively with MSHA and the owners and
     users of mining equipment to develop an effective regulation
     to reduce particulate matter in underground coal mines.
                   Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I'll
     try and answer questions you may have.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Michael, are the engine manufacturers
     prepared to approve some permissible engines?
                   MR. BLOCK:  They're in a form already approved,
     but not under this regulation.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Better Europe technology.
                   MR. BLOCK:  You want to answer that one or --
                   MR. UNSETH:  As it was mentioned earlier, it comes 
     down --- a lot of it depends on just what the demand is for
     those engines.  Can the engine manufacturers get an adequate
     return on the investment required to develop those engines
     and certify.  
                   And you are correct that all the permissible
     engines currently certified are all old technology.  And I'd
     say that it's worth discussing what can be done to add --
     provide incentive to the engine manufacturers for newer
     technology.
                   MR. BLOCK:  I have a broad perspective answer to
     that question, also.  Using kind of a broad-based approach,
     maximizes flexibility and doesn't rely on one particular
     design would ultimately I think be a better shot at trying
     to get lower emissions.  But I think if it's going to
     happen, I think there's a better opportunity to have it in
     the context as we're suggesting here than perhaps just the
     design piece.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Paul?
                   MR. HANEY:  So, you're saying that these engines
     that have had a 90 percent reduction in particulate, they're
     not the engines that are currently being used in mining?
                   MR. BLOCK:  I think some of them are currently
     being used because I think a lot of the engines that are
     being used in mining are certified to EPA requirements.
                   MR. HANEY:  Excuse me, the permissible engines.
                   MR. BLOCK:  I think for permissible, it's probably
     not the case based on Mr. Jones.  I think a lot of the
     permissible engines are older technology engines.  And lot
     of those engines -- a lot of the newer technology engines
     have not gone through the certification process as being a
     permissible engine.
                   So again, I'm thinking more in terms of -- when I
     made the statement, it wasn't necessarily those engines are
     necessarily used in the mines in a broad-base sense.  I
     think some of them are.  Certainly newer technology engines
     that are out in the field in general, whether they're used
     in mines or whether they're used in non-mining applications,
     I've seen dramatic reductions in particulate from
     unregulated levels.
                   I think there's an opportunity to use a lot of the
     latest technology engines as part of a broad-based
     flexibility approach to solving the problem of diesel
     particulate concentrations in mines.
                   MR. HANEY:  But what would the incentive to get
     those for permissibility use?
                   MR. BLOCK:  That's the key.  I'm not sure there is
     an incentive.  It's difficult marketing permissible.  But
     another way of I guess answering that question, though, is
     what is the guarantee that for an older technology engine --
     say, permissible engine, which clearly has a higher engine
     out emissions rating, that the 95 percent filter, if you
     could find one, would still give you clean exhaust, clean
     diesel.
                   If you're starting with a dirty package, it's
     extremely difficult to say that you're going to reduce
     concentrations to an acceptable level.  Ninety-five percent
     of dirty would still be dirty.  And that I think that is
     where the concern we have in the MSHA proposal lies.  What
     we're suggesting is part of a broad-based approach.  Try and
     start with a clean product.  And I realize that there are
     certain economic problems, perhaps, on the permissible side
     of things.
                   MR. HANEY:  On the permissible side, though, it
     seems like that there's no incentive to use a clean engine
     then we still have -- if we're still using a dirty engine
     even with less, possibly clean-up, if we go to less
     efficient filters.
                   MR. BLOCK:  But if you go to some kind of a
     performance-based standard, whatever that might be that has
     to be met that would require non-permissible or permissible,
     then at least you have a suite of options you can choose
     from.  I don't think the option is to just say stay where
     you are.  But you have more of a suite of options which
     would apply permissible, albeit more difficult, but it would
     still apply to permissible and non-permissible.  And that's
     what we're suggesting?
                   MR. HANEY:  My understanding is that the current
     engines are in the neighborhood of .03 grams per horsepower
     hour emissions for the indirect injection.  How much cleaner
     can you get using the new technology?
                   MR. BLOCK:  That's a difficult question to ask for
     a number of reasons, most logically being of course, that
     there are different engine technologies out, and there are
     different -- when you give a number, whether it's .3 or
     whatever it is.  If you look, for example, at the latest EPA
     regulations coming out, those regulations -- those
     requirements are extremely power specific.  So, the
     challenge of getting perhaps naturally aspirated, a smaller
     engine can meet -- is more of a challenge than the turbo-
     charged ones.  If you give it absolute numbers, it's
     extremely difficult.
                   To apply a number to future technologies is again,
     also, very much up to the manufacturer and somewhat, I
     guess, proprietary.  But I think there are -- there are
     marginal compound reduction stipulated in EPA regulations. 
     The numbers have to come down.  But those numbers have to be
     within those guidelines, and I think they'll be dramatic. 
     But to assign where you go from now to there, is very
     difficult.
                   Other than I think they're significant, and then I
     think the MSHA is part of the proposal should account for
     that and take that into consideration as part of the suite
     of options.
                   MR. UNSETH:  There is extremely wide variety of
     engine technology certified for MSHA and for EPA.  And for
     EPA that particulate -- eight mode particulate data is all
     public -- published information.  And if you -- if you
     looked at the public EPA certification data, you'd see
     particulate -- eight mode particulate ranging from probably
     .08 to .3.  It's all over depending on the engine
     technology.
                   MR. BLOCK:  If I could maybe add one more thing,
     and that is kind of picking up on my last comment about EMA
     would like to work with MSHA and the mine operators and so
     on.  I think a way to answer your question might be that
     there are a number of technologies out there, both now and
     projected, not just engine out, but after treatment and so
     on that I think could be utilized as a means of reducing
     thicker concentration.  And we would be able to work with
     you and perhaps provide some information as part of this
     process to maybe give you a better sense of where the
     numbers might be, both now and for future technology.
                   And I think the key is the cooperative effort in
     trying to develop -- trying to get some information to you
     all, but I think it would give you a better sense of what
     some realistic numbers are.
                   MR. HANEY:  Are you going to submit of those with
     your comments?
                   MR. BLOCK:  We'll probably submit -- we're still
     kind of formulating what our post-hearing comments -- we can
     certainly provide I think, at least some information.  I've
     got to go back and talk to my members, but I think some
     information.  Give some direction where we think some of the
     opportunities are.  We've done that in some other
     rulemakings already, just in terms of projections, where we
     think after treatment technologies and engine emission --
     engine out emission technologies are going.  We can try and
     provide those as part of our post-hearing comments.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Would you be able to provide
     information on the size distributions of these particles
     that are emitted by the new engines?  In addition to
     comparing the concentrations by mass, could you also draw
     comparisons by surface area or by particle counts?
                   MR. BLOCK:  Probably couldn't necessarily come up
     with a definitive answer to that or a definitive number, I
     should say.  And the reason for that is the main -- it
     sounds like you're speaking from reading some of the
     material that an awful lot of work is going on.  We're doing
     a lot of work in cooperating with EPA in trying to get a
     better understanding of particle characterization and size. 
     And this kind of whole area -- and I -- we can certainly
     direct you to where that is and to where that comes out in
     terms of coming up with a definitive number.  I don't think
     anyone here can answer those questions yet.
                   MR. KOGUT:  I wasn't really asking for a
     definitive number, but rather just some guidance or
     information on what studies you have that might not be
     available to us or that aren't in the current published
     literature.
                   MR. BLOCK:  I don't know if there's anything else. 
     Well, the answer to the question is yes.  I can certainly --
     I'd be willing -- be happy to go back and look and see.  In
     fact, on our Web site, we've got kind of a connection to as
     many of the various activities that are going on with
     particle research.  And there's also an EPA Web site, which
     also has kind of links.  And we're actually working
     cooperatively with EPA on an international scale to develop
     a link series of Web sites where at least you can get on and
     find out what people in the world are doing as far as
     particle research.
                   And to my knowledge, almost all the research is
     being done, whether it's completed or not completed, at
     least it's being announced, if you will.  I can certainly
     direct you all to that.  I'd be happy to do that.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Are engine manufacturers doing that
     research that you know of, or is this other laboratories
     that are doing it separately?
                   MR. BLOCK:  I don't know.  I suspect, but don't
     know for sure if other engine manufacturers are doing it.  A
     lot of that may be proprietary or within their own kind of
     product finding.  
                   I know that there's work being done by the
     Environmental Protection Agency which we're working with on
     a cooperative program out of their laboratory in Ann Arbor. 
     And there's quite a bit of work that's being done through
     independent laboratories with the cooperation of
     manufacturers in Europe.  There's an awful lot of work being
     done in England on this and issues being done through the
     UK.  And this information is being cooperatively shared.
                   Do you want to add to that?
                   MR. UNSETH:  I'd just say it's a topic that's
     really in its infancy.  And I think it'll be several years
     before it's -- there's a lot of good data.
                   MR. TOMB:  Yeah.  We're talking about nano
     particles.
                   MR. BLOCK:  But I'd be happy to talk to you
     afterwards and give you some information on at least where
     to start looking.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Michael, you mentioned about sulfur
     levels.  From the EPA point, do you have any indications --
     are they preparing to lower the national down?  I mean, is
     that in the works?
                   MR. BLOCK:  Yeah, we're pretty -- I can give you a
     very, very brief background.  We actually had a meeting with
     EPA officials back in I think it was October,
     September/October, to formally ask them to initiate
     rulemaking to lower fuel sulfur content.  We've talked
     enough and have the cooperative work the manufacturers of
     after market -- of add-on after treatment devices,
     especially catalysts.  And every indication is that a lot of
     the stuff will be just a whole lot more efficient and
     successful with low fuel sulfur.
                   So, we've asked the EPA.  And EPA has responded
     positively in trying to initiate -- to form a rulemaking to
     try and reduce sulfur levels.  They've done quite a bit of
     work in the gasoline side already.
                   ARB, Air Resources Board, supports us on this. 
     And they kind of feel the need to do it cooperatively with
     EPA, which kind of makes sense.  So, it would be nice to try
     and get a national low fuel sulfur.  We haven't done that. 
     We've already started that initiative, and so far the
     response has been reasonably positive.  It's not something
     you can do overnight obviously.  But directionally, it is
     what we want to do.  It's the direction in Europe right now.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Do you guys have a level in mind?
                   MR. BLOCK:  I mean, initially 30 BPM is a level
     that wer seek in informal discussions with a lot of the
     aftermarket manufacturers would be after treatment.  Excuse
     me.  Not after market.  After treatment manufactures.  Seems
     to be a level to try and get some realistic numbers.
                   I suppose the smart answer is to say the lower the
     better, but I realize that there's a threshold for that. 
     The numbers that we've put in some of our public comments on
     other rulemakings for the EPA has been 30 BPM.
                   MR. TOMB:  Ron has a question.
                   MR. FORD:  Yes, Mr. Block, comments were made
     today concerning equipment manufacturer certification costs. 
     Can I please ask in your post-hearing comments, can you
     comment on where you believe that these costs are correct,
     and where you believe they are different in your estimation? 
     And if they're different, can you state in your comments
     what you think they would be?
                   MR. BLOCK:  We can go back and review cost
     assessments that were given.  I certainly think that we can
     try to put together some engine certifications projected
     costs.  I might speak for my members and say that we could
     project that beyond that because it is not my personal
     expertise, but certainly from an engine perspective, we can
     comment on that.  Sure.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Thank you.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Just for clarification, right now the
     national sulfur is 500 parts per million or .05.  And we're
     going to 30, which would be .003.  Right?  
                   MR. BLOCK:  That's right.  Well, the high is 500. 
     But in reality that varies with the fuel batch.  But yeah,
     we're talking about significant reductions.  Absolutely.
                   A lot of this is longer term, but a lot of this is
     still needed in order to get some of the after treatment
     devices to work.  We're not suggesting 30 BPM tomorrow.  But
     we're suggesting that it's part of EPA's long range
     direction, but it's part of the rulemaking process.  As they
     start requiring stricter and stricter emission requirements
     whether it's among ins or any kind of diesel equipment,
     there needs to be a corresponding review of the fuel sulfur,
     otherwise the levels that they're asking diesel engine
     manufacturers to adhere to, just won't be realistic.
                   MR. TOMB:  What kind of cost increase per gallon -
     -
                   MR. BLOCK:  That's subject to debate.  And
     obviously, I think it's probably a question of fuel
     manufacturers need to grapple with the actual refineries. 
     And we started talking --
                   MR. TOMB:  You have no idea on that at all?
                   MR. BLOCK:  I don't have a figure.  I've heard a
     lot of different figures, and I think there needs to be a
     careful review of those numbers.  I don't have the numbers.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Mike, would this be just on highway,
     or are we talking non-road fuel, also?
                   MR. BLOCK:  The initial impetus is on highway, but
     I think what we're talking about is really coming up with a
     fuel that is for non-highway as well.  And the reason for
     that, of course, is that as you're all well aware, EPA has
     already promulgated and will continue to promulgate stricter
     and stricter non-road requirements that ultimately at some
     point, whether it's near term or not so near term.  The
     timeframe is getting is getting depressed and it's going to
     happen quick.  And therefore, in addition the lower fuel
     sulfur content is happening.
                   MR. TOMB:  We have, I think, another question. 
     Jon?
                   MR. KOGUT:  Prior to their final conclusion
     identifying diesel particulate as a toxic air contaminant,
     the California Environmental Protection Agency initially
     proposed to identify a diesel exhaust as a toxic air
     contaminant.  And I believe that elicited a considerable
     amount of opposition from the Equipment Manufacturers
     Association.
                   My impression is -- my understanding is that after
     considerable amount of discussion in which the EMA was
     involved, it was after this discussion that the proposed
     identification of diesel exhaust was changed to
     identification of diesel particulate.  What I'm not clear
     about is to what extent that that final conclusion had the
     endorsement of the EMA.  So, could you clarify that?
                   MR. BLOCK:  To the extent that I was involved, and
     it wasn't all that much on that particular issue -- I mean,
     on that particular rulemaking, if you want to call it.  It
     wasn't a rulemaking but and initiative by OEHA.
                   MR. KOGUT:  By who?
                   MR. BLOCK:  By --
                   MR. KOGUT:  The Office of Environmental Hazard
     Assessment.
                   MR. BLOCK:  OEHA is the acronym, but it's a part
     of ARB.  I think our notion was that diesel exhaust is a
     very complex mixture.  And to try and characterize all the
     diesel exhaust I think you lose sight of what the whole
     purpose behind the program was or behind the whole
     initiative, at least in our mind, which is to try and
     isolate that part of diesel exhaust which we feel may be
     toxic.  
                   Not so much to identify it and walk away from it
     and to go on to something else, but to identify something so
     that engine manufacturers can start applying focused
     research.  And it was felt very strongly by our members that
     focused research should be now with all people involved
     because with limited evidence that people hold -- but rather
     focus on PM as a means for engine manufacturers to be able
     to focus in reducing PM.  And that was a very broad brush
     way.  Our motivation for trying to get that process so that
     ARB lists diesel PM as toxic air contaminant as opposed to -
     -
                   MR. KOGUT:  Does the EMA endorse that conclusion
     as it apply to PM?
                   MR. BLOCK:  EMA -- well, EMA endorses the process
     of work to try and reduce PM levels.  I'll leave it at that. 
     I think there's still -- EMA is still questioning and
     wanting to see more work done on links.  We said that in a
     lot of our testimony, the links between PM and what it would
     cost.  Having said that, we as engine manufacturers don't
     want to walk away from trying to reduce PM.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Thank you very
     much.
                   MR. BLOCK:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  For your input.
                   All right.  Next and I think our last presenter is
     Mr. Jensen.  And I'm not sure what NUMA is.  
                   MR. JENSEN:  That stands for Non-Union Miners of
     America.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.
                   MR. JENSEN:  My name is Gary Jensen.  J-E-N-S-E-N. 
     I've been a coal miner for 25 years.  
                   Unlike many of those that have talked ahead of me,
     I have had experience in diesel coal haulage base equipment. 
     The mine which I work, Supco Mine, utilizes diesel coal
     haulage at the face.  And unlike many, I have not
     experienced the headaches, the watering of the eyes, the
     cold-like symptoms and walking around in this cloud of
     smoke.  Maybe it's because of the maintenance programs. 
     Maybe it's because of complying with ventilation.
                   My feeling is that MSHA should terminate this
     proposal -- rule in the proposal stage.  A colleague that's
     a non-metal mining association, made a statement at one
     time.  He says, "If you torture the data long enough, you
     can get it to say what you want."  And I think that is what
     is happening with the diesel particulate standard.
                   We are basing this on what has happened with rat
     studies.  And I think it is what we have done to these rats
     is tortured them.  We've put them in and we have taken and
     exposed them to a diesel exhaust emissions, diesel
     particulate matter.  According to the Health Effect
     Institute in its technical report, it states that the
     concentrations that these rats have been exposed to have
     been approximately three orders of magnitude higher than
     current estimates of the average atmospheric conditions. 
     The report also states that prolonged exposure to diesel
     emissions does not produce lung tumors in hamsters and in
     mice.
                   We suggest -- it goes and says, "We suggest that
     the species specific factor plays a critical role in the
     indication of lung tumors by diesel emissions.  And I
     believe in that -- in the study that is referred to, the
     hamsters and mice was thrown out because they did not show
     the tumors that these have.  
                   I have been a participant in the NIOSH study that
     NIOSH conducted back in the early '80s in regard to the
     chest x-rays and all that.  And I still participate in the
     volunteer chest x-ray program.  And after 25 years, I have
     not shown any effects.
                   I'd like to make reference to the 1977 Rochette
     Report, where it makes reference to a study made by the UMWA
     concerning underground diesel usage in their geographic
     districts.  And this revealed that the Denver district,
     which encompasses the states of Washington, Montana,
     Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Alaska, and which
     counts for 95 percent of all dieselized coal mines in the
     U.S. had the lowest relative risk rate of death from all
     causes, all cancers and all cardiovascular diseases.
                   The railroad study that was mentioned earlier, I
     think if you go back and you look at that railroad study,
     many -- a lot of the results of that was done from death
     reports and questionnaires that was given out to the
     families on deceased people.  
                   But I feel that before proposing a rule on diesel
     particulate matter, there needs to be evidence that there is
     a health hazard.  And if there is a health hazard to diesel
     particulate matter, I feel that the U.S. Government should
     make this mandatory on -- for everybody.  They should
     protect all of that are at that table, as well as me, the
     miner.  You, your larger cities are probably exposed to
     higher concentrations than what we are underground.
                   Much of the equipment that we use meets EPA
     requirements.  I don't see a need for additional -- all this
     additional stuff.  And as I said before, we use ventilation
     maintenance programs to keep the equipment in compliance,
     and we take care of these on each one of our sections as
     required by law.  
                   Under the new diesel regulations, we're required
     to take NO and CO readings in the sections in the last open
     crosscuts and at our feeder breakers.  And if we exceed a 25
     percent -- excuse me, 50 percent of the TLV for CO or NO, we
     need to make changes.  And even with our outlying equipment
     operating, yes, all of that goes downwind, but we still do
     not exceed the action level in our working sections.
                   I don't know how you -- it was stated that this
     diesel equipment as it's operating going down these hallage
     ways
     stirs up all kinds of dust.  I would like to see what
     battery-powered equipment, how it controls this dust along
     these same hallage ways.
                   I think that any piece of equipment that is
     upgrading the hallage way will stir up dust.  That's why we
     have ventilation plants.  Ventilation plants has to take
     into consideration all of the equipment that you use in the
     mine.
                   I'd like to comment on the training proposal.  If
     I was a mine that did not operate diesel equipment, I'd be
     very concerned about this rule.  Because the way that it
     says, it says under 72510 Miner Health Training, it says,
     "All miners at mines covered by this subpart, who can
     reasonably be expected to be exposed to diesel emissions on
     that property shall be trained annually."  And then it goes
     on from this.
                   Okay.  In that rule, miners -- okay.  The
     definition of miners.  Many of the people that come on the
     mine site, let's say, for instance, I think that this could
     be construed to mean that I don't have any diesel on the
     property, yet the cull is hauled off by semi-trucks.  That
     diesel is coming on to the mine property.  That is expose --
     in looking at this, that is exposing these people to this
     diesel exhaust.  They are on the mine property.
                   I don't think that is a very good or very
     reasonable proposal.  And I think that that should also be
     terminated in this proposal rule -- in this proposed rule --
     in the proposal stage.
                   In closing, I think that there are laws already in
     place for the safe operation of diesel equipment in
     underground mines.  Some of these are 75321, air quality. 
     That's a requirement that we have to maintain the air
     quality in our mines.  Okay?  It doesn't discriminate
     against diesel equipment.  It says no matter where this
     source is coming from, you will do this.
                   And then also, under part 701900 on the action
     level, if you exceed the action level for CO and NO, then
     you will take action.
                   Another comment.  Before -- it's my feeling that
     before MSHA proposes a rule, that they should be confident
     in making this rule.  And in the proposed rule, in the
     preamble, it asks for comments.  Said the proposed rule part
     4 of this preamble reviews each provision of the propose
     rule.  Part 5 discusses the economic and technical
     feasibility of the proposed rule.  And Part 6 reviews the
     projected impacts of the proposed rule.  And the Agency
     would welcome comments on each of these topics.
                   Even in Part 4 of that proposed rule in the
     preamble, the Agency makes the comments -- it says, "First,
     the Agency is not confident that there is a measurement
     method for DPM that would provide accurate, consistent and
     verifiable results at lower concentration levels in
     underground mines."  If that's the case -- if MSHA's not
     confident in proposing the MSHA rules, then why are we
     proposing the rule?
                   I thank you for your time, and I thank you for
     this opportunity to make these comments.  And will follow up
     with comments before the February 16 deadline.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Jensen.  Any questions? 
     Jon?
                   MR. KOGUT:  To address your last question first, I
     think it's important to distinguish between the rule that we
     proposed here.  And one of the possibilities that we
     considered -- one of the alternatives that we considered
     which is a performance-based standard that would involve
     setting a limit on the concentration of diesel particulate
     in underground coal mines.  
                   And this statement that you just alluded to about
     a lack of confidence in measurement techniques in
     underground coal mines was what led to the Agency, really,
     to reject that particular alternative for the time being,
     although we're still considering it in the light of any
     additional information we might receive.
                   But that's why we didn't propose at this time
     establishing an exposure limit.  It was because of the
     difficulties that we saw in measuring diesel particulate in
     underground coal mines.
                   I have also a question for you.  You referred to
     an HEI report in which there was a comparison drawn between
     the concentrations to which rats were exposed in various
     studies and atmospheric conditions in the atmosphere.  Is
     the report that you're referring to the 1995 report that was
     edited by Nels?
                   MR. JENSEN:  Dr. Kathryn Nels.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Yes.  Is that the report you're
     referring to?
                   MR. JENSEN:  Yes.
                   MR. KOGUT:  And the comparison that was drawn
     there I believe was not to atmospheric conditions in an
     underground mine.  Isn't that correct?  The statement the
     levels to which rats were subjected was three orders of
     magnitude higher than atmospheric conditions.  I believe
     those atmospheric conditions were atmospheric conditions in
     the ambient atmosphere outside of mines.
                   MR. JENSEN:  And that vis-a-vis, did not state
     where the -- where it was at.  But it did talk about that we
     should not draw any conclusions from the rat study and
     because of the amount that they was exposed to, it could
     have been lung overload.  It talks about that.
                   I don't have it right here in front of me, but it
     talks about the exposure being that a lot of the results was
     because of the way the testing was done and the amount that
     the rats was exposed to actually overloaded the lungs, and
     you know --
                   MR. KOGUT:  You don't recall that they made any
     statement comparing the exposure levels for rats, as
     compared to exposure levels for underground coalminers?
                   MR. JENSEN:  I don't know that it specifically
     related it with underground coalminers, as it did just to
     diesel particulate matter.  It does state that it is based
     mostly on species.  The rat species tend to develop the
     tumors, whereas other species may not even exposed to the
     same.
                   MR. TOMB:  Bob?
                   MR. HANEY:  Is Supco currently using filters on
     after treatment devices?
                   MR. JENSEN:  All we use is water scrubbers.
                   MR. HANEY:  I know at one time you did use
     filters.  Do you know when they stopped using them?
                   MR. JENSEN:  I don't know that Supco ever started
     using filters on our equipment.  On our out by equipment,
     most of our out by equipment is equipment that is -- can be
     used, you know, in highway use.  And we do have some that in
     some of our -- the scoops and that which is used in out by,
     but we do not have any filters on them, no.
                   MR. HANEY:  Did you say what your specific
     occupation was at the mine?
                   MR. JENSEN:  My specific occupation right now is
     safety and health supervisor or safety and compliance
     supervisor.
                   MR. HANEY:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Anybody else?  Thank you, Mr. Jensen
     for your comments.
                   That pretty much concludes the names that I have
     on my list.  Is there anybody that came in late and didn't
     sign the list, or anybody that would like to make or offer
     some additional comments at this time?
                   MR. OLSEN:  Yes.  My name is Bill Olsen.  O-L-S-E-
     N.  I'm safety director at Mount Coal Company's West Elk
     Mine in Somerset, Colorado.
                   MR. TOMB:  I'm sorry.  You're safety --
                   MR. OLSEN:  Safety director.
                   MR. TOMB:  Safety director.  I'm sorry.
                   MR. OLSEN:  We appreciate the opportunity to
     comment on the proposed rule for diesel particulate matter. 
     Mountain Coal Company has approximately 290 employees, and
     the production of approximately six million tons in a
     consistent loss time and recordable incident rate far below
     the national average for underground bituminous coal mines.
                   Since the mine opened in 1982, diesel powered
     equipment has been used continuously for face harvest in
     mine outly support function, supply and transportation.  In
     addition to utilizing non-mandated mission reducing testing
     technology, the company has participated in various diesel
     monitoring and evaluation programs coordinated by the Bureau
     of Mines and MSHA-sponsored workshops.
                   We fully support the development and use of proven
     and competitive technology that will improve the overall
     health and safety of the miners.  
                   For comments for part 72500, which requires
     permissible equipment to be equipped with a system capable
     of removing at least 95 percent of the diesel particulate
     matter, to our knowledge, only one manufacturer of diesel
     particulate filtration systems claimed his filtration system
     is capable of at least 95 percent effective removal.  It's
     unknown whether or not this testing was in compliance with
     30 CFR 7.89.  Other particulate filter systems on the market
     may or may not meet the 95 percent removal criteria.
                   Ceramic filter systems have not performed well,
     from either a practical or efficiency standpoint.  With the
     unknown capability of all the available filtration systems,
     it appears the regulation is forcing technology to comply
     with the standard that may not be achievable.  If the one
     filtration system truly meets the proposed removal criteria,
     the regulation forces all companies to use a single system,
     thereby eliminating in competition.
                   With a single source, coal companies are at the
     mercy of the vendor in regards to price and availability. 
     Once installed, operators may be reluctant to change to
     newer filtration systems due to the extensive costs
     associated with retrofitting the existing equipment, now in
     the range between 35,000 and 50,000 depending upon the size
     of the engine.
                   Our current use of a wet scrubber and paper filter
     on permissible diesel equipment has reduced overall
     emissions in the working section.  MSHA states in the
     preamble, that such a system is only capable of removing up
     to 90 percent of the diesel particulate matter.  
                   If the intent of the regulation to improve overall
     health and safety of the miners, where it has some arbitrary
     reduction, that not being 95 percent.  They can only be
     achieved by using a dry scrubber and paper filter.  Had the
     dry scrubber and paper filter been proven effective at
     elevations above 6,000 feet without undue reduction on
     horsepower.
                   Had the dry scrubber and paper filter been proven
     to insure equivalent equipment availability?  It's our
     understanding that the dry scrubber and paper filter cannot
     effectively operate at higher elevations or operate for any
     extended period of time without major maintenance and
     equipment down time.
                   In regards to requiring the particular system on
     non-permissible equipment.  With the existing technology, it
     appears that the regulation will require all heavy duty
     equipment to basically be permissible.  Surface exhaust
     temperatures of existing, non-permissible equipment will not
     permit the safe use of paper filters.  Therefore, heat
     exchangers or equivalent means will need to be installed on
     all heavy duty non-permissible equipment.
                   In response to Part B on the testing requirement,
     if the engine is already emitting very low concentrations of
     diesel particulate matter, how can 95 percent efficiency
     removal be obtained?  The efficiency of the filtration
     system is certainly dependent on the type and performance of
     the engine on which a filter system is used.  Due to this
     dependency, a system may or may not achieve the 95 percent
     efficiency on other types of engines and even engines of the
     same type but with different performance characteristics.
                   In response to 72510, which is miner health
     training that requires covering the health risks associated
     with diesel particulate matter.  The proposed rule could be
     interpreted that any miner who enters the property,
     regardless if it's underground or at the surface of an
     underground coal mine, would have to be trained if they were
     exposed to the diesel emissions, no matter how short or long
     the duration may be, simply because they fall into the
     definition of miner.  Such a requirement would create a
     significant burden on the operator due to the amount of time
     required to perform such training for people with very short
     or limited exposures.
                   As to the content of the training, which viewpoint
     of the controversial issue would be presented.  What if the
     operator chooses not to use the material that was supposedly
     being developed by MSHA?  Has sufficient and after evidence
     then provided that consistently indicates diesel particulate
     is a health hazard.  If so, at what concentration?  And if
     at a certain concentration, how would the diesel particulate
     matter accurately measure?
                   In response to 72510A(3) which requires
     identification of personnel responsible for maintaining
     these controls.  We feel that identifying individuals who
     are responsible for maintaining emission controls of the
     diesel powered equipment at a particular mine serves no
     useful purpose.  Why are these individuals being singled out
     for the remaining workforce?  We do not agree with giving
     out the names of individual miners to anyone who is simply
     exposed to diesel emissions at the mine.
                   As far as 72510A(4) on the action the miner must
     take to insure the controls operated as intended.  We feel
     that the actions miners must take to insure the controls
     operate as intended, appears to be more accurate for task
     training, rather than broad-based training for individuals
     that are simply exposed to diesel particulates.  If miners
     do not operate the equipment, such training should not be
     required.
                   As far as the mine ventilation plan, 75371, we
     feel that this is vague and overly burdensome.  Requiring
     information about the emission control or filtration system,
     may unnecessarily complicate the ventilation plan due to the
     volume of material that may be required to be included in
     the plan.
                   Exhaustive detailed technical specifications are
     not needed if it's to be easily understood by all miners. 
     Addendums will need to be submitted for each new piece of
     equipment which would delay the use of the equipment due to
     the excessive lag time typically seen between the submittal
     date and the approval date.  Loaner diesel equipment that's
     obtained from other mines or other vendors would not be able
     to be used until the addendum was approved.  This delay
     could result in a diminution to safety to miners in specific
     cases, such as the retrieval of buried equipment due to
     earth falling.
                   Those are my comments.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Any questions?
                   MR. HANEY:  Mr. Olsen, are you currently using
     filters on your permissible equipment?
                   MR. OLSEN:  Yes, it's a wet scrubber with a paper
     filter system.
                   MR. HANEY:  Do you have any information related to
     cost?  Did you retrofit those?
                   MR. OLSEN:  Yes.
                   MR. HANEY:  Do you have any information related to
     the cost of retrofitting that equipment?
                   MR. OLSEN:  I don't have that with me.  That was
     given out at the workshop in Salt Lake, and the costs were
     covered.  I do not have that with me.
                   MR. FORD:  Is it possible to also supply that?
                   MR. OLSEN:  I can provide that.
                   MR. FORD:  Thank you.
                   MR. HANEY:  You mentioned loaner equipment
     relative to the requirements of the ventilation plan.  Do
     you also rent equipment for specific applications?
                   MR. OLSEN:  Yes, that can be done.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Olsen, you made the statement
     that I believe paper filters cannot operate at the higher
     altitudes.  What altitude are you operating your machines at
     right now?  Your water scrubbers and filters?
                   MR. OLSEN:  No, my comment was, as the DST system,
     for example, improvement, we do operate with paper filters. 
     Our portal is roughly at 6,700 feet.  My question was on the
     other system that supposedly meets the 95 percent removal
     criteria.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.  So, you're operating at 6,500
     feet with the water scrubber filter -- paper filter
     combination?
                   MR. OLSEN:  Yes.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. HANEY:  And what horsepower were you running
     those engines?
                   MR. OLSEN:  We run the 4114, so those are 150 rate
     at the 100 horsepower.
                   MR. SASEEN:  I'm sorry.  What was the rating?
                   MR. OLSEN:  They are 3306 Cat engines, so they're
     rated at 150 horsepower.  But at higher elevations, they'd
     be graded.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. FORD:  When you supply the cost -- I mean, the
     data concerning the installation and purchase cost of the
     wet scrubbers and filters, can you also supply your annual
     maintenance costs?
                   MR. OLSEN:  I don't know how that is necessarily
     broken down.  I can see if that's available or not.
                   MR. FORD:  If you have it.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Could you clarify your comment on your
     interpretation of the proposed rule relative to giving out
     the names of everybody that's exposed to diesel particulate. 
     I'm not sure I understood.
                   MR. OLSEN:  Part of the law requires you to
     basically give out the name of the individual or individuals
     responsible for maintaining the diesel equipment.
                   MR. TOMB:  To other people in your organization so
     they know?
                   MR. OLSEN:  My understanding of that would require
     that anybody that falls under the definition of a minor
     exposed to that, it would fall in that category.  So, that
     could be anybody that comes onto the property.
                   MR. TOMB:  You mean -- okay, okay.  It's your
     interpretation of really what means.
                   MR. OLSEN:  If I singled out an individual miner.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Any other comments?  Okay. 
     Thank you very much.
                   MR. OLSEN:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  I'm sorry I didn't have your name on
     that list.
                   MR. OLSEN:  No, I didn't sign up.
                   MR. TOMB:  Oh, okay.  I'm glad you came prepared,
     though.
                   Is there anybody else that would like to make
     comments before we close?  
                   Okay.  I have one request to make, a general
     comment from the panel here.  Jon?
                   MR. KOGUT:  A number of the commenters have
     expressed a preference for a performance-based standard as
     opposed to a design-based standard.  And specifically
     stating that the rules that were put out in the Toolbox by
     specifying filters, that we weren't enabling mining
     companies to use all the tools in the Toolbox to me what
     would be a performance-based standard.  
                   And in view of that preference that's been
     expressed by several of the commenters, I want to reiterate
     a request that was made in the proposal on page 17495 of
     Federal Register 64 No. 68, in which we MSHA would welcome
     comments as to whether the Agency should also consider
     restricting exposure of underground coalminers to all fine
     particulates regardless of the source.  
                   And the reason that I bring that up in this
     context, is that in view of the difficulties that MSHA has
     recognized in measuring diesel particulates, particularly in
     making specific measurements of diesel particulate in
     underground coal mines, I would recommend that comments in
     whatever post-hearing comments they might submit to us,
     would address the issue of how they would respond to a
     regulation which limited all fine particulates regardless of
     their source, which would perhaps be an easier thing for
     MSHA to measure.
                   And this is especially important I think in view
     of the fact that some of the health effects that have been
     identified not specific to diesel particulate, but seem to
     be associated with fine particulates in general.  So, I
     would just like to make the request in the post-hearing
     comments that you might submit to address that question.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Okay.  I would
     like to personally close this meeting then, and thank you
     all for coming and participating.  And if you want, I'd
     appreciate that if you haven't turned in comments in
     writing, and you will still have the opportunity to do that
     before February 16.  And so, I wish that you take that
     opportunity if need be to get those comments in to us. 
     Thank you.
                   (Whereupon, a 1:35 p.m., the hearing concluded.)
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //                        REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     
     DOCKET NO.:        N/A
     CASE TITLE:        IN RE:  COAL DIESEL PARTICULATE EXPOSURE  
     HEARING DATE:      November 17, 1998
     LOCATION: Salt Lake City, Utah
     
         I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are
     contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes
     reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the
     United States of Labor.
     
     
                        Date:  November 17, 1998
     
                         Mardeane Neilson    
                        Official Reporter
                        Heritage Reporting Corporation
                        Suite 600
                        1220 L Street, N. W.
                        Washington, D. C.  20005