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

Pages:  1 through 165

Place:  Mount Vernon, Illinois

Date:   December 15, 1998                   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
     
     
     PROPOSED RULE:  DIESEL            )
     PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE OF    )
     UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS           )
     
     
                                       Ramada Inn
                                       Mt. Vernon, Illinois
       
                                       Tuesday,
                                       December 15, 1998
     
                   The hearing began, pursuant to notice, at 9:05
     a.m.
     
                   BEFORE:  THOMAS TOMB, Moderator
                          
     
                   APPEARANCES:
     
                   PAMELA KING
                   SANDRA WESDOCK
                   JON KOGUT
                   ROBERT HANEY
                   GEORGE SASEEN
                   RONALD FORD
                   WILLIAM MC KINNEY
     
     
                   
                              P R O C E E D I N G S
                   MR. TOMB:  Before we get started, I have an
     opening statement that I'd like to read for the record.  My
     name is Thomas Tomb.  I am the Chief, Dust Division, at
     MSHA's Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center,
     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  I will be the moderator at this
     public hearing on MSHA's proposed rule addressing diesel
     particulate matters in underground coal mines.
                   Personally, and on behalf of Assistant Secretary
     J. Davitt McAteer, I would like to take this opportunity to
     express our appreciation to each of you for being here today
     and for your input.
                   With me on the panel today from MSHA are Jon Kogut
     from the Office of Program Evaluation & Information
     Resources, George Saseen from the Approval Certification
     Center, Robert Haney from the Environmental Assessment and
     Contaminate Control Branch of the Dust Division, Sandra
     Wesdock from the Office of the Solicitor and William
     McKinney from the Mine Safety and Health Academy.  We have
     Ronald Ford and Pamela King from the Office of Standards,
     Regulations and Variances.
                   This hearing is being held in accordance with
     Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety & 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 to you for review.  If you want to get a
     copy of the hearing transcript, you have to get it on your
     own by making arrangements with the court reporter.
                   We value your comments.  MSHA will accept -- are
     there enough chairs?   Would you see about getting some
     additional chairs, maybe, brought in?  Just in case. 
     Thanks.
                   We value your comments.  MSHA will accept written
     comment and other data from anyone, including those of you
     who do not present an oral statement.  You may present
     written comments to Pamela King during the hearing or send
     them to Carol Jones, Acting Director of Office of Standards,
     Regulations & Variances at the address that has been listed
     in the hearing notice.  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 your comments
     on computer disk.  Your comments are essential in helping
     MSHA develop the most appropriate rule to foster safety and
     health in our nation's mines.  We appreciate your views on
     this rulemaking and assure you that your comments, whether
     written or oral, will be considered by MSHA in finalizing
     this rule.
                   In another rulemaking on October 29, 1998, we
     published the proposed rule to address diesel particulate
     matter exposure of underground metal and non-metal miners. 
     The comment period for that proposed rule will close on
     February 26, 1999.  Hearings for the metal and non-metal
     proposal will be announced in a future Federal Register
     notice.  You may obtain copies of that proposal by
     downloading it from MSHA's web site at www.msha.gov or by
     calling the Office of Standards, Regulations & Variances at
     (703) 235-1910.
                   However, the scope of this hearing today is
     limited to the April 9, 1998 proposed rule addressing diesel
     particulate matter, exposure of underground miners.  This is
     the third of four public hearings to be held on this
     proposed rule.  The first was held in Salt Lake City on
     November 17, 1998, the second was held in Beckley, West
     Virginia on November 19, 1998 and the fourth will be held in
     Birmingham on December 17, 1998.
                   Information regarding these hearings is published
     in the Federal Register on October 19.  It can also be
     obtained from MSHA's web site on the Internet and there are
     a few copies of that notice available here today if you want
     to pick one up.
                   On April 9, 1998, MSHA published a proposed rule
     that would reduce the risk to underground coal miners of
     serious health hazards that are associated with exposures to
     high concentrations of diesel particulate material.  Diesel
     particulate 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 exposures put these miners at excess risk of a variety
     of adverse health effects, including lung cancer.  The
     comment period for the proposed rule is scheduled to close
     on August 7, 1998.  However, due to requests from the mining
     community, the Agency extended the comment period for an
     additional 60 days until October 9, 1998.
                   The proposed rule would require the following: 
     Proposed Paragraph 72.500 would require the installation and
     maintenance of high efficiency particulate filters on the
     most polluting types of diesel equipment and underground
     coal mines.  It would require that, beginning 18 months
     after the date the rule is promulgated, any piece of
     permissible diesel-powered equipment operated in an
     underground coal mine must be equipped with a system capable
     of removing, on average, at least 95 percent of the mass of
     the DPM emitted from the engine.  Additionally, 30 months
     after the rule is promulgated, any non-permissible piece of
     heavy duty, and I stress heavy duty diesel powered equipment
     operated in underground coal mines be equipped with a system
     capable of removing, on average, at least 95 percent of the
     mass of the diesel particulate material emitted from the
     engine.
                   Any exhaust after-treatment device installed to
     reduce the emissions of diesel particulate matter would be
     required to be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's
     specifications.  The proposal also sets forth the Agency's
     requirements for determining whether a system is capable of
     removing, on average, at least 95 percent of diesel
     particulate matter by mass.  It states that a filtration
     system must be tested by comparing the results of emission
     test of an engine with and without the filtration system in
     place.
                   Proposed Paragraph 72.510 is a training
     requirement which lists the pertinent areas in which
     instructions must occur.  The training is to be provided
     annually in all mines using diesel-powered equipment and is
     to provide without charge to the miner the training.  It
     also includes provisions on record 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 to add one new requirement to
     an underground coal mine's ventilation control plant.  The
     additional information is limited, but is critical to the
     control of diesel particulate matter.  The proposal would
     require the ventilation plant to contain a list of the
     diesel-powered units used by the mine operator, together
     with information about each unit's emission control or
     filtration system.
                   Details relative to the efficiency of this system
     and the methods used to establish the efficiency of this
     system for removing diesel particulate matter must be
     included.  Any amendments to a mine's ventilation plan must,
     of course, also follow requirements of 30 CFR 75.370, which
     is the mine's ventilation plan submission approval
     requirements.
                   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 DPM in this section, 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
     plate, what controls cannot be utilized due to special
     conditions and any studies of alternative controls you might
     have used for the computer work sheet.
                   We also seek information about the availability
     and cost of various control technologies that are being
     developed.  In other words, such things as high-efficiency
     ceramic filters.  Also, experience with the use of available
     controls and information that would 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 on major actions
     significantly affecting the quality of the human
     environment.  On July 14, 1998, MSHA published 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 that comment period until October 9, 1998.  The
     record will remain open as stated in the Public Hearing
     Notice until February 16, 1999, to allow proposed hearing
     comments and data submissions.
                   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
     statements or otherwise address the panel, I ask that you
     come to the podium and clearly state your name, spell your
     name and state the name of the organization that you
     represent.
                   It is my intent that during this hearing, anyone
     who wishes to speak will be given an opportunity.  Anyone
     who has not previously asked for time to speak needs to tell
     us of their intention to do so by signing the request to
     speak sheet and let us know how much time you need.   And, I
     he the sheet up here now, so when we have a break or at
     lunchtime, if anybody knows they want to make a
     presentation, see me and you can put your name of the sheet.
                   I will attempt to recognize all speakers in the
     order in which they have requested to speak.  As the
     moderator, if necessary, I reserve the right to modify the
     order of presentation in the interest of fairness.  I doubt
     that will be necessary, but I also may exercise discretion
     to exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious material.  And,
     in order to clarify certain points, the panel may ask
     questions of the speakers.
                   Before we get started, we'll get some more chairs
     brought in, in case people show up.
                   (Pause.)
                   MR. TOMB:  Let me remind you, if anybody is
     leaving the room, you better be careful getting out of
     there.  Okay, to get started, the first person I have signed
     up to make a presentation is Joe Urban, is that correct,
     sir?
                   MR. URBAN:  Yes.  First of all, my name is Joe
     Urban, U-R-B-A-N.  I'm with the United Mine Workers.  Mr.
     Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come and address
     this distinguished committee on an issue that I feel that
     United Mine Workers should give testimony today to influence
     you to the fact that they are dead serious about what
     they're talking about today.
                   I appreciate the opportunity to come here, on
     behalf of the mine workers in the Midwest Region.  The
     Midwest Region comprises some 12 states here in the
     Midwestern United States.  Mainly we have miners here today
     from the states of Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois.  I thank
     you for their opportunity to articulate to you some of the
     first hand problems of which most of them have been facing,
     especially here in the state of Illinois, since 1989.
                   On October 19, 1998, the Department of Labor
     published in the Federal Register, Volume 63, Number 201,
     Proposed Rules, 30 CFR Parts 72 and 75, Diesel Particulate
     Matter Exposure of Underground Coal Miners.
                   MSHA published a proposed rule to reduce the risk
     to underground coal miners of serious health hazards that
     are associated with exposure to high concentrations of
     diesel particulate matter or DPM.  DPM is a very small,
     small particles 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 exposures put
     these miners at excess risk of a variety of adverse health
     effects, including lung cancer.
                   The proposed rule for underground coal mines would
     require that mine operators install and maintain high-
     efficiency filtration systems on certain types of diesel-
     powered equipment.  Underground coal mine operators would
     also be required to train miners about the hazards of DPM
     exposure.
                   According to my understanding of the proposed
     rule, it would require all permissible or inby and heavy-
     duty non-permissible, outby, diesel-powered equipment to be
     equipped with a filtration system capable of removing, on
     average, at least 95 percent diesel particulate matter by
     mass.
                   Now, according to my information, there is
     approximately 3,000 pieces of diesel-powered equipment in
     the underground coal mines in the United States.  Of that
     total of 3,000, the rule would only impact approximately
     1,000 pieces of diesel-powered equipment.  That being 500
     pieces of permissible equipment used inby and 500 pieces of
     non-permissible, heavy-duty equipment used outby.  This only
     represents 33 1/3 percent of the total diesel-powered
     equipment used in the underground coal mines.
                   In MSHA's introductory paragraph, for the reason
     of going to the rulemaking process, MSHA suggests that there
     are necessary and sufficient reasons to control miner's
     exposure to DPM.  It refers to the "best available
     evidence," a key provision in Section 101(a)(6)(A) of the
     Mine Act.  This portion of the Mine Act does not say the
     best possible evidence.  It refers to the best available
     evidence, an implicit recognition that there are limits on
     all scientific information.  
                   It goes on to refer to "...lifetime of DPM
     exposures at concentrations we presently find in underground
     mines face a significant risk of material impairment of
     their health."  The objective of MSHA's standards-setting
     authority is to ensure that miners can work for the
     "...period of their entire working life..." without material
     impairment of their health or functional capacity.  This
     objection is addressed in the opening paragraph.
                   According to recent reports on the health effects
     from diesel exhaust, in March, 1998, the National Institute
     of Occupational Safety and Health Report's heading stated,
     Predicted lung cancer risk among miners exposed to diesel
     exhaust particles, and I've included that in your packet as
     Exhibit 5.
                   After analyzing several studies on the health
     effects of diesel exhaust, the NIOSH report found the risk
     of miners developing and dying from lung cancer from
     exposure to diesel particulate matter, DPM, extremely high. 
     The study cites that upwards of nearly 900 in 1,000 miners
     exposed to small doses, 1 mg. per cubic meter of DPM over a
     working lifetime, has a risk of lung cancer.  The NIOSH
     study noted the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision on health
     standard case, cited that one death in 1,000 as being a
     significant level of risk.  The NIOSH study estimated that
     reducing the miner's risk to one in 1,000, using the highest
     risk levels, would have an associated DPM exposure level of
     about .001 mg. per cubic meter.
                   Here in Illinois, diesel-powered equipment used in
     underground coal mines have been present from approximately
     1989 till present.  We are still here today on the eve of
     the first decade of using diesel-powered equipment
     underground and we still have not seen sufficient light of
     day to realize the vitally needed protection the miners
     need.
                   I recall when the first piece of diesel-powered
     equipment went underground in a UMWA-represented coal mine. 
     I made the statement then and it appears as though that
     statement will hold true, "That diesel-powered equipment
     used underground in coal mines, unregulated, would
     ultimately end up being the coal miners' 'asbestos' of the
     year 2000."
                   On April 22 and 23, 1998, there was a news article
     from the California Scientific Review Panel.  Their report
     on diesel exhaust stated, the scientific panel found after
     nine years of review that diesel exhaust is a serious cancer
     danger, with estimates of thousands dying from the disease. 
     A high rate of lung cancer was cited.  The scientific panel
     chairman said diesel exhaust contains to the most toxic set
     of constituents that you could ever find.  The article notes
     that diesel exhaust contains more than 40 compounds that
     have been declared carcinogenic.  The report cites other
     health effects from diesel exhaust.  Well, imagine that.
                   And another news article dated April 10, 1998, an
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report released
     April 9, 1998, stating that diesel exhaust, even at low
     levels, are likely to cause a risk of cancer and other
     respiratory diseases.
                   Now, normally, I try to be a reasonable
     professional individual, but it would appear to me that if
     the United States of America can create a "Clean Air Act"
     and an "Environmental Protection Agency" for everybody
     working above ground, then I believe that it is time to
     create those entities for underground coal mines.  That way,
     at least coal miners would have a fighting chance of
     surviving.
                   Now, the operators are going to tell you they will
     not have any problems keeping exposure to a minimum, because
     they will have all the air that they want to utilize in
     order to keep the exhaust diluted.  You will hear today
     testimony from the miners themselves, concerning how well
     the operators keep ventilation intact.  You will also hear
     how there are numerous places within a coal mine where it is
     impossible, if not impracticable, to try and maintain
     ventilation everywhere there is a piece of non-permissible
     equipment.  
                   In order to have air continuously going over a
     piece of diesel-powered, non-permissible heavy-duty
     equipment is totally absurd.  There is no way imaginable
     that that can be accomplished.  How would you control,
     direct, regulate any of the ventilation?  If MSHA truly
     believes that the operators indeed can achieve this, then I
     want to be the one that sells you one of those cars that
     perhaps maybe even some of you may already own, that has the
     capabilities of the driver and passenger having a means of
     controlling their own temperature environment from where
     they sit.  Give me a break, they're only five feet apart. 
     And, if you believe that, then I'll throw in some seaside
     property in Arizona.
                   In order to keep the record straight, I wish to
     submit to the committee as an exhibit a copy of citations of
     which I had requested from MSHA, and this will be Exhibit 2. 
     The citations are for the MSHA fiscal years of 1996, 1997
     and the first quarter of 1998.  The citations cover nine
     underground coal mines in the state of Illinois.  There were
     443 citations issued concerning ventilation quantity and/or
     quality.  Of the 443 citations issued for the approximately
     two-year period, 414 of the those citations were violations
     of 30 CFR 75.370(a)(1), which requires the operators to have
     and follow and approved ventilation for their specific mine.
                   We're talking about out of a total of 443
     citations, 93 percent of the citations issued in those two
     categories alone were for violations of the ventilation
     plan.  In the exhibit, you will find a breakdown of each of
     the categories the citations fall under.  Also, you will
     find a breakdown by mine MSHA ID number of each of the
     citations issued at each of the nine mines.  The miners of
     whom will speak today will be sharing these citations with
     you as they speak.  It is important that MSHA review all the
     citations to "know" how well the operators maintain their
     ventilation in their coal mines.
                   It is very difficult for me to understand why MSHA
     would go to all the trouble it has in order to promulgate
     regulations and not at least make an attempt to reduce
     exposure for all miners.  It is strange, though, how just a
     year ago, here in District 8 of MSHA, MSHA was doing all it
     could to help the operators come into compliance with the
     diesel-powered permissible equipment base requirements.  It
     even went to the extent to offer operators the option of
     removing the diesel-powered permissible equipment, inby,
     away from the face by removing those items of which made it
     permissible.  Therefore, it did not have to meet the
     criteria of being permissible anymore, because the operators
     removed whatever it was that was required and made it a
     piece of diesel-powered non-permissible equipment, heavy
     duty equipment, so as to keep the operators from being
     required to add additional ventilation to the last open
     cross cut of the working sector.
                   Now, the Agency is only addressing one third of
     the total problem.  On what does MSHA base its reasoning
     that by providing additional protection to only one third of
     the equipment, that that will provide any additional
     protection to miners?  Does MSHA need to be reminded that in
     an underground coal mine, the people are working in an
     enclosed atmosphere, to a great extent?  Where does MSHA
     think most of the diesel-powered equipment is used at?  It
     certainly is not at the working face.
                   Please do not misunderstand me.  I appreciate the
     fact that MSHA is making an attempt to fix the problem. 
     But, in this case, you cannot fix only a portion of the
     problem.  Ask anyone who has been in a coma where there were
     not any diesel-powered equipment in the mine and has gone to
     a coal mine where the diesel is used, and they will tell you
     that they can smell it as soon as they get on the immediate
     bottom area of the mine.  Why?
                   If you have diesel-powered equipment that does not
     have filtration systems that we're talking about, especially
     with the proposed rule, we're going to have the continuous
     presence of exhaust residue and particulate matter lingering
     and floating around in the atmosphere, and especially in
     those areas that we call dead air space.
                   I can't believe that we're here, almost ten years
     after we began using diesel-powered equipment in underground
     coal mines, and still we have to argue over what the
     necessary remedies should be.  And, even after studying the
     scientific studies for nine years.  I testified before a
     committee in Chicago, Illinois whenever the first diesel
     regulations were being formulated.  At that hearing, I told
     the committee of which Mrs. Pat Silvey was the chairperson,
     that it appeared that MSHA was more interested in trying to
     be a buffer between the operators and the mine workers.
                   That same theology appears prevalent today, as
     well.  We must have the necessary protection uniformly
     applied throughout the entire coal mine.  It does little
     good to only fix a small portion of the problem.  A Band-Aid
     will not take care of the larger problem.  If MSHA does not
     hear the cries of the coal miners this time concerning all
     the problems associated with the use of diesel-powered
     equipment used in the underground coal mines, then the
     miners themselves will have to go out and purchase something
     that will help them, such as this right here, gentlemen.  
                   Another subject for us to discuss is the issue of
     economics.  I know that you have a responsibility to insure
     that you do not create burdensome requirements on the
     operators.  But, if this committee allows operators to use
     the economic crutch that they are so fond of, then shame on
     you.  Because I know there are several miners of whom are
     here today, even in this crowd, that will testify to you
     that even though they are close to being out of a job, that
     if they were given a choice to have the protection they need
     from the diesel exhaust, or to lose their job, I am
     confident that they will tell you that at least if they lose
     their job due to the economic hardship created by having to
     comply with the requirement of providing the necessary
     filtration systems for all mines, that at least they would
     still be alive and hopefully have their health and be
     capable of looking for another job somewhere else.
                   The union wishes to share with the committee a
     report conducted by NIOSH on Predicted Lung Cancer Risk
     Among Miners Exposed to Diesel Exhaust Particles.  Once the
     committee reads the report, I'm sure that the final
     conclusion of which should be unanimous, is one that the
     committee will totally agree that the proposed rule making
     being conducted here today definitely does not even provide
     a minimal decrease in the risk potential of deadly diesel
     particulate matter to the miners.
                   I strongly believe that the Department of Labor,
     of which is a Federal Government Agency, and MSHA, being a
     branch of that Agency, has the responsibility of being the
     point guard in providing essential protection to the working
     men and women of this great country.  The Federal Government
     should be setting the highest standard of providing
     protection in order to guide individual states in adopting
     similar protection.  But, instead we find that the Federal
     Government is more concerned with creating only minimal
     standards for our nation.  
                   Fortunately, we do have some states in our great
     nation that will not settle with providing only minimal
     protection.  One such state is the great state of
     Pennsylvania.  They have at least had the foresight to know
     that providing minimal protection does nothing at all other
     than to pacify business interest groups.  I wish to refer
     you to the Bituminous Coal Mining Laws of Pennsylvania for
     Underground Mines, which is Exhibit 6 in your packet. 
     Article II-A, Diesel Powered Equipment, Section 201-A,
     Underground Use (a), which states:  "Underground use of inby
     and outby diesel-powered equipment, including mobile
     equipment, stationary equipment and equipment of all
     horsepower ratings may only be approved, operated and
     maintained as provided in this article, except for emergency
     fire fighting equipment to be used specifically for that
     purpose."
                   And, under Section 203-A, Exhaust Emissions
     Control, (b) states:  "The exhaust emissions control and
     conditioning system shall include the following:  1) a
     diesel particulate matter filter capable of an average of 95
     percent or greater reduction of DPM emissions."
                   MSHA, with this proposed rule making, has an
     opportunity, at the least, to follow the guidance of the
     state of Pennsylvania in promulgating rules that will be in
     conformity with the state of Pennsylvania and create a
     uniformity for all the other states.  And, if you still wish
     to debate the economics of the issue, if Pennsylvania can
     provide this type of protection and stay in business, then
     so can the rest of the United States.
                   MSHA has a redemptionary opportunity here.  Do not
     ignore it nor let it slip away.  MSHA needs to take full
     advantage of this opportunity.
                   I wish to submit to the committee several
     manufacturers of whom have a wide range of DPM filters and
     filtration systems available on the market today.  That's in
     your packet as Exhibit 7.  I feel that if MSHA would take a
     close look at what these manufacturers have to offer the
     mining community, MSHA will determine that the relatively
     low cost of these products far outweighs the sky-rocketing
     costs associated in providing medical treatment after
     someone has been debilitated due to the excessive exposure
     to DPM.
                   I sincerely appreciate your undivided attention
     during my presentation.  Before I close and turn it over to
     the other miners, I have a personal story that I want to
     relate to the committee and this is a true story.  There was
     this little boy that used to get up early in the morning and
     this little boy couldn't tell time yet.  And, he would go to
     the couch and he would climb up on the back of the couch and
     he would look out the picture window and he would wait. 
     And, eh would wait for dad to come home.  His dad worked
     third shift at the mines.  Although he couldn't tell time,
     he could tell by the position of the hands on the face about
     what time dad was supposed to be home, and sure enough, as
     soon as that car would pull up, the little boy would jump
     down off the couch, open the door and run out on the porch,
     run down that sidewalk and he would grab daddy's hand and he
     would grab that bucket, cause he knew there was something in
     that bucket for him.
                   Now, it didn't matter if it was an apple or an
     orange, half a sandwich, half a cake.  Whatever was in that
     bucket was the greatest thing that he had ever had.  One
     day, that little boy was waiting there for dad to come home. 
     Mom was in the kitchen and the phone rang, and the little
     boy didn't think too much about it, because sometimes dad
     worked over.  And, just was thinking that maybe today dad
     was working over.  So, he waited a few minutes longer, and
     he heard a noise come from the kitchen.  And, he turned to
     look and mom was sitting in the chair crying.  And, he went
     to mom and he said, mom, don't worry.  Dad will be home. 
     He's just working over.
                   And, she had to pick her little boy up, put him on
     her lap and say, son, Daddy's not coming home today. 
     Daddy's been killed in the mine.  Now, I tell you committee
     this story for two reasons.  One, that story is true, cause
     the dad that was killed was mine and I was that little boy. 
     And, the second thing, you have the responsibility, you have
     the position that you have today because of people's lives. 
     I pray that you do the right thing.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Urban.  Are there any
     questions?
                   (Pause.)
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, thank you very much.  The next
     speaker will be Mr. Hicks.
                   MR. HICKS:  Good morning.  My name is Bob Hicks,
     H-I-C-K-S.  I'm a safety committeeman with the United Mine
     Workers Local 2412 at the Peabody Coal Company, Marissa
     Mine, here in the state of Illinois.  I guess the first
     thing I need to do is thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members
     of the committee, for allowing us to gather today to be able
     to tell you some of the things that are near and dear to our
     hearts and a real problem we feel like that we need to do
     all we can do to try and get rectified.
                   I've got to tell you, I'm not very comfortable
     doing this.
                   MR. TOMB:  That makes too of us.
                   MR. HICKS:  I'm scared shiftless, you know, but as
     uncomfortable as it is, I know that it's very important and
     I understand that it's something that needs to be done, so
     I'll try to suck it up.  I can guarantee you I'll be real
     quick here.
                   I guess first of all, the one thing like I said
     before, I am a safety committeeman, and I'd like to think
     that I'm an expert in some of the health and safety facets
     of my job as a committeeman and with the contract and with
     different things.  But, I've got to tell you that when it
     comes to diesel and diesel regulations and diesel
     particulates and things of that matter, I feel real
     inadequate.
                   Actually, I've got some stuff back there about
     this thick that's just totally overwhelming to me.  There's
     so much information that's available, and at the same time,
     with the feeling of being overwhelmed by information, I also
     feel real confused because of a lack of -- I won't say a
     lack of action, but maybe a postponing of some action on
     some part by something as strong and as demanding as the
     Federal Government.
                   Along with the idea of being overwhelmed and
     confused, I also know that I don't have a lot of expertise
     in this, but I do have, I think, and I think the people that
     know me will tell you that I have a lot of common sense and
     knowing some of the things that I do know, it's real hard
     for me to try and apply my common sense to the problems that
     we're facing.  It would just on the fact that the timeline
     has been so long and nothing seems to be set in concrete and
     so many people are at risk because of the situation that
     we're in.
                   Okay, let me start a little bit with our mine. 
     I've got a list here of the, a total list of the diesel
     equipment that we use at our mine, and according to this
     list, we have 55 pieces of diesel equipment in our mine on
     the underground, that we use in the underground.  We have
     nine pieces that we use on the surface.  Of those 55 pieces
     we use underground, we have 15 different uses for them in
     all kinds of different areas.
                   According to my figures, anyhow, only three of
     those are what can be termed as permissible equipment.  The
     rest of it is to be used strictly outby, and it ranges from
     everything from a diesel scoop to forklifts to pick up
     trucks, mantrips.  We've even got a little diesel-powered
     shovel that we clean the belt line with.  Kind of a cute
     thing, but different things that we do.
                   Okay, and in those different pieces of equipment,
     we have seven different manufacturers, of which they use
     four different engine makers in sum totalling the different
     types of machines.  You know, that's a lot of things to try
     to keep up with.  I would think that would require, again,
     my common sense kicks in and says, we've got all these
     different machines with different uses and they've all got
     special requirements and they using different places,
     different things.  So, I'm sure we've got a lot of training
     for the guys that keep this in working condition, or the
     best working condition they can.  And, I don't feel like
     that's the case, either.  We've got some diesel training for
     people that do that type of stuff, but any one of them will
     tell you that they don't feel like it's very adequate,
     either.
                   We also have -- I've got a stack here and this is
     from 1996, '97 and '98.  They have citations issued at our
     mine, a total of 67 citations that were in violation of the
     ventilation plan.  Of those 67, 19 of them are for calendar
     year 1998, as of the first of this month.  So, I don't know
     what's been happening since then, but that's a substantial
     amount, that's 19 of 67 in this year alone.
                   So, that again, that tells me, my common sense
     kicks in and says, you know, if we're depending so heavily
     under the new proposed regulations that the mine atmosphere
     will ventilate in a proper way to use that as a control for
     the contaminants and the particulates in the diesel exhaust,
     and we're having that much trouble just keeping air at the
     face, which everybody knows in a coal mine, that's your main
     concern, then we might have a problem doing that on an outby
     situation.
                   With some of the different things, like I said
     before that we have, the 15 different uses of our equipment,
     one of them is something we call a nurse truck or it's
     actually it's a diesel tank truck.  What is it?  It's a
     delivery truck for hydraulic oil and gear oil that we use
     for lubrication purposes and hydraulic purposes in the
     actual production units at our mine.
                   And, the truck itself is used in a, always in a
     situation, it being non-permissible, of course, it's out by
     the face, but it's always used in the outby areas of the
     production units or in the outby areas of the mine, and that
     being basically either dead air or minimal amount of
     movement in the air.  And, we've always had problems with
     the truck and people being, complaining about the fact that
     they didn't think the truck was right.  That any time they
     used it in outby, the areas of a production unit, that there
     was always a visible haze in the air, a pretty bad smell in
     that area.  People were getting headaches, they were feeling
     dizzy, and the complaints, we finally did some checks and
     eventually -- well, it kind of took a little bit of time,
     but it got to the point where it was out of compliance. 
     They worked on the truck, got it back into compliance and I
     guess the truck to this day is probably still legal, but we
     still have the same concerns about the haze, about the
     smell.  People in the area still get headaches and still
     feel dizzy, nauseated, things like that, and we're to the
     point now where we're seeing a lot of problems with people
     developing respiratory problems.  Not necessarily asthma,
     not necessarily bronchitis, but at least asthma-like
     symptoms, bronchitis-like symptoms, and things even as
     serious as nosebleeds and such.
                   And, the problem that we're having is that not
     only are they developing, but they're getting to the point
     where they're almost becoming chronic problems.  And, we
     have not had diesel equipment at our mine that long.
                   One of the real things, I guess, that's puzzling
     to me is that I can remember back in -- maybe someone might
     know -- I don't actually know the date, but I know it was at
     least mid or late '70s that we were doing studies on diesels
     and talking about, you know, the health hazards involved and
     things like that in a mine environment.  And, after this
     lengthy study, you know, 20 years almost, of trying to
     determine the health risk that miners were put into every
     day, I believe Joe said that we have been using it in the
     state of Illinois since 1989, but with basically no
     regulations in place at all, or very little.  
                   We had the opportunity at our mine to kind of be a
     pioneer and I was involved in it, so I can personally relay
     it to you, but we were the first mine in the country to
     apply for and receive approval for the 1227 2,400 volt Joy
     miners to be used at the face, the high voltage miners to be
     used at the face.  
                   And, it was a lengthy process.  I think we moved
     through the process pretty quickly, with maybe six or seven
     months that it took for the actual approval, but the thing
     that kept sticking in my mind and again, I don't know a
     whole lot about technical stuff, but my common sense kept
     telling me, you know, and I realize this is probably a
     little bit different but not really that much different, the
     fact that we couldn't -- why can't we just take and buy a
     2,400 volt miner from Joy Manufacturing and bring it to the
     mines, bring it on the face and start loading coal with it
     and then figure out what the problems are, and then maybe we
     can write some regulations and guidelines for a few, some
     things like that and that would be fine.
                   But, we couldn't do that because we had to get
     prior approval.  But, basically, that's what we've done with
     our diesel equipment, at least in my opinion, is that
     somebody decided, you know, that this was a good thing for
     us to use and I'm not knocking diesels.  Probably it's their
     life savers in present situations. 
                   But, we decided, someone decided that we're going
     to use them.  We decided to use them, we're bringing them
     in, we've been using them for years, and to this date, we
     still don't have any significant regulations or guidelines
     so far as the diesel particulates.  And, the problem that
     we've got is that people that have been using the equipment
     or even just been working in the environment, the captive
     environment of the underground coal mines, have been exposed
     to it every shift of every day that they've worked. 
                   And, again, I apologize for -- I wish I could
     quote you CFR Part such and such, paragraph, but I can't do
     that.  But, I know for a fact that with the evidence that
     can be produced, that has been done with different states
     and stuff, that there are definite health risks.  We've been
     using the machinery for a long time.  We haven't basically
     done, we've done nothing to this point, and we don't want to
     see anybody drop the ball because we're closer now than we
     ever have been, but at the same time, you know, it's not a
     done deal yet, so we've got problems that we still need to
     face.
                   So, I guess what I'm trying to say in summing
     everything up is that if you can paraphrase the
     advertisement for the Army on TV, you know, not necessarily
     be all you can be, but at least in this case, we're begging
     you, do all you can do.  That's all we ask.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Hicks.  Does anybody
     have any questions?  Jon?
                   MR. KOGUT:  First, are all the sections of your
     mine continuous sections?
                   MR. HICKS:  Yes, yes.
                   MR. KOGUT:  You said that diesel equipment, in
     some cases, could be a life saver.  Could you explain what
     you meant by that?
                   MR. HICKS:  Well, I don't necessarily mean life so
     far as actual work, but getting a job done.  For example,
     instead of, in a new development area, where a production
     unit is going to go in, you develop like a stud panel where
     that machinery is going to be going.
                   And, instead of coming in and having to bring a
     miner across the mine and grade off for ventilation
     purposes, overcast and things like that, lots of times, they
     can come in with a big permissible diesel scoop and work in
     that area, and that's a heavy-duty enough, powerful enough
     machine that it can do the work and save a lot of man hours
     and a lot of effort by using that machine rather than
     something else that's less affordable.
                   MR. TOMB:  Sandra?
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Mr. Hicks, do know approximately
     your mine has been using diesel equipment?
                   MR. HICKS:  About five years.
                   AUDIENCE VOICE:  Since '91.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Since 1991.
                   MR. HICKS:  Since 1991, so about five years.
                   MS. WESDOCK:  Thank you.
                   MR. HICKS:  That doesn't add up, though.  I guess
     it must be about seven years.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Hicks, the three permissible
     units you said you have, what sort of work do they do?  What
     type of machine are they?
                   MR. HICKS:  They're Wagner diesel scoops.
                   MR. SASEEN:  They're scoops?
                   MR. HICKS:  And, the reason they -- I believe the
     reason, the theory for having them there is for like if
     you've got falls in the intakes and things.  It's
     permissible to take them up into that area, or in, like I
     was speaking about, like the development of the new areas,
     you can actually go, you know, to the space, through the
     isolation curtain, into the actual intake air with them and
     use them in that fashion.
                   MR. SASEEN:  So, they're not continuously used?
                   MR. HICKS:  No.
                   MR. SASEEN:  On a workday?
                   MR. HICKS:  No, not in that situation.  But, they
     are outby, using them in the same thing, to clean up falls,
     to clean up roadways, to haul material, to just about
     everything.  They're a very versatile, very useful piece of
     machine.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Your inventory, could you provide us
     with that, a copy of that?  I mean, I'd like you to submit
     it?
                   MR. HICKS:  Yes, I can do that.  This is the only
     one I've got.  I got it from, borrowed it from somebody, so
     it's not, you know, it's not a secret list here.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you, sir.
                   MR. MC KINNEY:  Do you know if any -- you
     mentioned earlier, guys coming down what appeared like a
     pneumonia type of an illness or something.  Are they
     reporting these at the mines on the 7001 for occupational
     illnesses?  Are miners losing work from these types of
     conditions or is it just something that they're coming down
     with and then not missing any work days?
                   MR. HICKS:  I really don't know, to be honest with
     you.  So far as my personal knowledge, I don't know of
     anyone that's done that.  I really didn't know that that was
     -- the problem, I think, if you decide to do something like
     that, then there's kind of a burden of proof and, you know,
     sometimes that's a problem.
                   MR. TOMB:  Ron, did you have a question?
                   MR. FORD:  Just one question.  It seems like, Mr.
     Hicks, you're saying that most of the problems with diesels
     in your particular mine, your situation, is from outbys?
                   MR. HICKS:  Yeah, basically, because we don't have
     anything that we use on a regular basis, inby, that's
     correct.  You know, and the problem is, with the outby
     areas, if you're out on the main line, quality roads, we've
     got all kinds of air up there.  That's the way things are
     designed.
                   But, when you get into areas that are off the
     beaten path, so to speak, or back into developmental areas
     and things, they're not ventilated nearly as well.
                   MR. FORD:  So, the problem in the outby is that
     the reason is just because you don't have enough air?  But,
     if you were getting enough air, would things be okay?
                   MR. HICKS:  I doubt it.  I don't know that you can
     -- when I say that we've got all kinds of air on the main
     haulage roads, I guess what I'm saying is that so far as
     being able to dilute and move the exhaust away, yeah, I'd
     say that in itself probably works, but so far as actually
     being safe, I don't have any idea.
                   But, at least it's better than the dead air areas,
     where there is no, you know, or little movement, and
     everything just kind of hangs in like a ball.
                   MR. FORD:  Sure.
                   MR. TOMB:  I have a couple of questions.  You
     mentioned something in your presentation about the training
     being inadequate.  Are you talking bout the mechanics that
     service the equipment?
                   MR. HICKS:  Yeah.
                   MR. TOMB:  These mechanics that you're
     specifically talking about, they don't feel their training
     is really good for servicing the equipment?
                   MR. HICKS:  Right.
                   MR. TOMB:  And, I know Mr. Saseen has asked you
     for your list of equipment.  It looks like you really have a
     good list.  I don't know whether you can do this for us, but
     I think it would really be helpful if you could take each
     one of those pieces of equipment and tell us what it's used
     for, whether you feel that it would come under the listing
     of heavy duty equipment or not heavy duty equipment, and
     give us sort of a time that the equipment is actually in
     use.  For instance, I was just in a mine the other day. 
     They had a diesel personnel carrier took us in and out of
     the mine.  The thing sat the rest of the day.  Okay, that's
     the type of data we're looking for.
                   So, if you could sort of approximate the time the
     equipment is used and whether you would think it would come
     under or not under the heavy duty classification.  I hope
     you could do that, you know, if you can.
                   MR. HICKS:  I don't see a big problem.  If I'm not
     familiar, I'll just, you know, get information from others
     that are.
                   MR. TOMB:  It really would help us to have the
     information, if you could give it to us.
                   MR. HICKS:  You bet.  Be glad to.
                   MR. HANEY:  On your sections, typically how many
     entries are they developed with?
                   MR. HICKS:  I think like if you're in rooms or
     non-mainlines, I think it's seven is the normal.
                   MR. HANEY:  How many of those would be intakes and
     how many of those entries -- 
                   MR. HICKS:  Usually one intake, one return.
                   MR. HANEY:  So, you'd have five neutral entries?
                   MR. HICKS:  Five neutral entries, yeah.
                   MR. HANEY:  Is that belt air used to ventilate the
     face of your mine?
                   MR. HICKS:  No.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, thank you very much.  Very good
     presentation.
                   The next speaker will be Mr. Goodwin.
                   MR. GOODWIN:  Good morning, Tom.  My name is James
     Goodwin and I'm a miner's rep from Western Kentucky.
                   MR. TOMB:  Would you spell that, sir?
                   MR. GOODWIN:  G-O-O-D-W-I-N.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.
                   MR. GOODWIN:  I'm a miner's rep at Ohio 11 Mine. 
     Ohio 11 Mine is owned by Island Creek Coal Company, Consol,
     Inc.  It's an underground coal mine.  And, I'm deeply
     concerned for the miner's health.  I feel that we need laws
     that would require all diesel-powered equipment used in coal
     mines to be filtered to provide miners with adequate
     protection from exposure to diesel particulate matter.
                   I have with me here approximately 200 citations
     which were issued for Ohio 11 Mine in the last 22 months,
     and all of these are on ventilation.  With this amount of
     citations, there's no way to expect that ventilation would
     remove enough of the diesel particulate matters in the mine
     air.
                   On one occasion recently, myself and two other
     miners were installing a high voltage cable using a low
     track.  The exhaust was so strong that all of us got a real
     bad headache, even though we were only exposed for like 15
     to 20 minutes.  But, it stayed with us for the rest of the
     shift.  Then, once we got outside and got into some good
     air, then, of course, we got to feeling better.
                   But, I feel that, you know, we need protection
     from diesel particulate matter.  I thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Any questions?  Mr.
     Goodwin, how many pieces of diesel equipment do you have in
     your mine?
                   MR. GOODWIN:  I believe we have something like 30,
     close to 30.
                   MR. TOMB:  That's all used outby?
                   MR. GOODWIN:  Yeah.  We have two Wagner diesel
     scoops that are permissible, but there again, they're used
     only for supplying.  We don't have tracks.  We use the
     diesels to pull the flat cars in and out.
                   A lot of our equipment is the small rib-runners,
     as we call them, where the mechanics use to travel to and
     from, and then we have, I think, eight personnel carriers
     that haul about 11 men.  And, like he said a few moments
     ago, they were only used to haul the men in and sat for the
     day and then bring the men out.
                   MR. TOMB:  Could you provide us with a list of the
     type of equipment you have in the mine and also what, in
     your opinion, you know, from its use, whether it be
     considered heavy-duty equipment or not and the time it would
     operate?  Is that too much of a problem?
                   MR. GOODWIN:  Not at all.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, if you could send that to us, it
     sure would help.
                   MR. GOODWIN:  And, also, I'd like to give you
     these citations, too.
                   MR. TOMB:  All right, thank you.
                   MR. GOODWIN:  To review.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  If
     you can't have it today, you could mail it to us.  Thank
     you.
                   Our next speaker will be Mr. Mann.
                   MR. MANN:  Good morning.  My name is James Mann. 
     I'm a safety committeeman from Local Union 1071 in the same
     mine, Ohio No. 11, Nortonville, Kentucky.  I work in the
     same mine that Mr. Goodwin works, and as he stated, in less
     than two years, we've received approximately 200 citations
     on our ventilation.
                   If we can't maintain our ventilation for our units
     or our belts, how can we ever maintain our ventilation to
     render these gases harmless from the exhaust, gases from our
     pieces of equipment?  I'm an electrician.  I work with the
     mechanics at the mine that perform the maintenance and does
     the servicing on the diesel equipment.  We have no one
     certain person whose job it is to service the diesel
     equipment.
                   Thus, it gets done when we can work it in, when
     there's nothing else that is pressing.  Servicing and
     regularly scheduled maintenance is pretty well on the
     priority list at our mine.  As Jim said, we have
     approximately 30 pieces of underground equipment.  He stated
     we have two permissible diesel scoops.  We have only one
     that is permissible, but it's used outby.
                   Most of our present testing that's done is done
     with the engine idling.  Of course, we check for seals, you
     know, too.  But, the largest or the biggest majority of your
     exhaust things come when the equipment is accelerating. 
     That, to me, needs to be tested or some way of testing that.
     Possibly with the DPM filtration system, it would render
     that problem or just take it away, you know, if we could
     remove the DPM's.
                   And, I strongly urge you to require a DPM
     filtration system on all the equipment, not just the face
     equipment, the inby, the permissible or the heavy duty. 
     But, we have some equipment down there that probably has 20,
     25 horsepower that's considered heavy duty.  It's a small,
     low track.  We have some that's much larger than that, that
     is all light duty.  I don't know where the justice is in the
     rating of the heavy duty and light duty, but I thank you for
     your time.  If you have any questions?
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Any questions?  Okay, thank
     you very much.
                   Our next speaker will be a Mr. Dunn.
                   MR. DUNN:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman.  My name is
     Jim Dunn.  That's D-U-N-N.  I work for Peabody Coal Company,
     Camp No. 1.  I'm chairman of the Safety Committee, Local
     1798.  At Camp 1, we have 53 pieces of underground diesel
     equipment.  Six are heavy duty and the rest are considered
     light duty equipment.
                   Peabody started using diesel equipment around 1988
     and some of that diesel equipment is still in use today and
     requires a lot of maintenance.  The local union worked with
     Peabody and Camp 1 management to develop a maintenance
     program for our mantrips.  These are eight diesel buckets
     and we -- when we go back and check these maintenance
     records, we still find that these mantrips are not being
     maintained properly and operating conditions, because of
     lack of maintenance and the training of people that are
     working on this equipment.  It's a big problem, this
     equipment.  It's old and it takes a lot of maintenance, and
     we don't have anybody at our mine trained to maintain this
     equipment properly.
                   And, for the remaining equipment, there's no
     maintenance program whatsoever.  Our regular maintenance
     program for like changing oil, requiring filter change,
     which is -- we're still working on that.  We can't give that
     today.
                   Some of the problems that we found with our diesel
     equipment are high emissions.  We found exhaust systems have
     been altered, so accurate readings can't be taken.  This is
     done by drilling holes in exhaust pipes.  We don't get an
     exact reading of the flow of the exhaust.  We found
     defusures, a place on the end of the exhaust pipes where
     your emissions are, instead of getting a direct flow, they
     go every which way.  You can't get an accurate reading on
     those.
                   We found that we've got one piece of equipment
     where the exhaust is run through the bumper and the drilled
     holes all across the bumper.  One side would have larger
     holes and the other side would be real small.  When the man
     took his readings, you know, you weren't getting an accurate
     reading of what was going on.
                   At one time, we had welders on diesel equipment,
     and this equipment would be taken into areas of the mine
     where the ventilation would be less, like you were talking
     about on your main lines, and on your tracking, you have a
     lot of ventilation.  But, in areas where you have to do work
     on headers, there's not that much air.  And, these welders
     had to be, the engines had to be revved at real high RPM's. 
     You're getting a lot of emissions out of those motors. 
     They're in low ventilated areas and they're exposed.  We
     have a lot of people that have had headaches with those,
     make them sick.  It's just, you know, with ventilation, you
     can't control it everywhere.  I mean, you're going to get
     into areas of the mine where the ventilation is just not as
     great and it's not something that you turn a switch on and
     turn a lot of air in there.  
                   At one time, we had a diesel generator and this
     was used to move equipment down our tracks, our main lines. 
     And, this was an area where there was a lot of air.  This
     generator put out so much emission that one man was made so
     sick that he had missed a day's work, gone to the doctor and
     missed a day's work, and the company paid him for that day. 
     So, they knew that this made him sick.
                   All the equipment that I'm referring to is light
     duty equipment.  We have no, we have six pieces of heavy
     equipment in our mine, heavy duty, that's classified as
     heavy duty equipment.  The rest is light duty.
                   Two-thirds of the 53 pieces are run 90 percent of
     the time at the mine outby.  So, all this equipment --
                   MR. TOMB:  During the shift, timewise, 90 percent 
     of those total --
                   MR. DUNN:  We have diesel mantrips that bring the
     people back and forth from the face, but there are six units
     and there's six pieces of equipment.  The rest of it is run.
                   I don't understand the reasoning for light duty
     and heavy duty equipment.  If one of the reasons is
     ventilation for controlling these emissions.  Ventilation is
     a variable and can change and in the past two years, we've
     had 64 violations on our ventilation plan.  I'd like to give
     these to you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.
                   MR. DUNN:  I believe that this shows that at
     times, we had problems with ventilation.  You know, it's not
     a continuous problem, but at times, it does occur.  If the
     light duty equipment was required a particulate, designed to
     reduce particulate emission to an average of 95 percent, I
     think it would better protect the miners and the risk of
     exposure and the possible lung cancer causing particulates.
                   In closing, I'd like to commend MSHA for holding
     these hearings and to give coal miners who are exposed to
     these hazards a chance to give their opinions on these
     problems.  I'd like to say that we're not opposed to diesel
     equipment in the mines.  As a matter of fact, I believe that
     one of the reasons that we're working today is because of
     diesel equipment.  But, it has to be regulated.  It's a
     tool, but we must protect the miners who use it, and in my
     opinion, there should be one standard that requires the
     diesel particulate filter that will reduce the particulate
     emissions by an average of 95 percent to protect the miners
     from those hazards.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.
                   MR. DUNN:  Also, I have a copy of the equipment. 
     Do you want that?
                   MR. TOMB:  Any questions?  Are you familiar enough
     with the use of this equipment that you could put that on
     this list for it?  The use of it?
                   MR. DUNN:  Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:  In other words, actually, you have
     about 47 piece of equipment here that you said are all light
     duty.
                   MR. DUNN:  Right, we have six locomotives -- and
     we have locomotives and they're listed on there.  It's
     listed on there.  
                   MR. TOMB:  You have mantrips?
                   MR. DUNN:  Mantrips, right.  All these are light
     duty, except for locomotives.
                   MR. TOMB:  Looks like you have more than six
     locomotives on there, though?
                   MR. DUNN:  No, here they are, locomotives.  One,
     two, three, four, five and then most of these are all
     mantrips.  But, see, some of these mantrips are not actual
     mantrips that's used for hauling people back and forth to
     the face.  They're used by mechanics all through the mines,
     used by belt mechanics, they're used by foremen to travel
     back and forth in the mines.  Of the mines --
                   MR. TOMB:  It would help if you only speak from
     the podium so that we get it on the record, okay.
                   MR. DUNN:  The mine I work at is some slope to the
     furthest unit is 13 miles.  So, we have 13 miles of conveyor
     and that's a lot of -- you know, that's a lot of area to
     cover.  And, when you have problems throughout the mine, you
     have to be able to get there and get there quickly. 
     Sometimes if your belts go down, you have a piece of
     equipment down, you're running back and forth for parts to
     fix that equipment.  Coming and going out at different
     times.  It's, that equipment is used all throughout the
     shift.
                   Sometimes, you know, welders run it.  But, that's
     what, the locomotives are considered heavy, but two-thirds
     of that equipment is run all during the shift.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, I just need what's on here.  You
     don't need to supply anything else.  Thank you very much.
                   Our next speaker will be Mr. Becker.  Was that
     right, sir?
                   MR. BECKER:  Yes, sir.  My name is Clyde Becker,
     B-E-C-K-E-R.  I'm Local President at Peabody Marissa Mine,
     United Mine Workers Local 2412.  I'm from the same mine that
     Mr. Hicks is from.  I will not repeat a lot of the things
     that he did, although I agreed with all of the statements
     that he has mentioned.  But, one of the issues that, and I
     will answer one of the questions that the panel asked Mr.
     Hicks, and that was, for the people that have respiratory
     problems, how do they go about being compensated or how do
     they fill out a form? 
                   Respiratory problems and we have, in the last two
     months, two gentlemen that have missed work due to
     respiratory problems.  Very difficult and it's not like a
     piece of rock falling on you and hitting you, something
     happens immediately, and that is an accident and causes you
     to miss work.
                   Respiratory problems in the coal mines from black
     lung or from diesel emissions come over a period of time. 
     It's something that doesn't occur in a moment.  And, those
     are very difficult in management and insurance companies
     fight those with everything they possibly can.  It's very
     difficult for the individual to prove those things have
     occurred, because there's not one single occurrence that
     caused that problem for you to have.  It comes over a period
     of time, different symptoms, many symptoms from nose bleeds,
     coughing, irritations in the eyes, throat and breathing
     problems.  Those are very difficult to tie together all
     those symptoms to tie together, to say that they came from
     that one sort of issue.
                   MR. BECKER:  -- occurrence that caused that
     problem for you to have that comes over a period of time. 
     Different symptoms, many symptoms from nose bleeds,
     coughing, irritations in the eyes, throat and breathing
     problems.  Those are very difficult to tie together.  All
     those symptoms to tie together to say that they came from
     that one certain issue.  And that is diesel emission.
                   But the single thing that is very alarming us that
     the people that has these symptoms are people that are
     actually operating that equipment maintaining are working in
     that area where diesel equipment is being operated.  Our
     mechanics and our operators of our diesel equipment at the
     mines are the ones, and seems to be the only ones that has
     these respiratory problems, the eye problems, migraine
     headaches and things of that nature.
                   So, what we feel is very important is some type of
     filtering system on all equipment used in underground coal
     mines.  Do not separate and think that heavy equipment emits
     more of those particulates than light equipment.  In Marisa
     Mine of all the -- of the 55 pieces of equipment, I can
     assure you that the light duty equipment is maintained and
     ran and used 95 to 96 percent of the entire shift.  And that
     those are the equipment that is actually producing all the
     haze, the smell, the odor, the problems that we have at
     Marisa Mine.
                   We still have one other gentleman from the mine
     that will address some of the other issues, but those are
     the problems that as far as health problems that we see
     dealing with diesel equipment.  
                   With that, I will close and answer any questions.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Becker.  Any questions? 
     Okay.  Thank you very much.
                   MR. BECKER:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Our next speaker will be Mr. Williams.
                   MR. WILLIAMS:  I'm David Williams, 
     W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.  I'm from Local 5179 in -- Mine over in
     Southern Indiana.  It's a surface mine.  
                   I just want to come to ask you, don't take surface
     mining lightly.  We've had diesel equipment for years.  And
     the problems in coming out that's being proven that the
     diesel is causing lung problems.  
                   We would ask you to look at our surface mining
     more closely to see if we've had -- it would have these
     problems.  And that's all.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Anyone, have any questions?
                   MR. HANEY:  What do you mean by service mining?
                   MR. WILLIAMS:  It's strip mining.
                   MR. HANEY:  Surface mining?
                   MR. WILLIAMS:  Surface mining, yes.
                   MR. HANEY:  I though you said service.  Surface,
     okay.
                   MR. SASEEN:  How many pieces of diesel do you
     have?
                   MR. WILLIAMS:  At our mine we probably got close
     to 50 or 60 tractor, bulldozers, fans, all these trucks and
     different things.
                   MR. TOMB:  Let me just ask a question about that. 
     What areas do you feel are the problems of surface mining?
                   MR. WILLIAMS:  Diesel mechanics in their garage
     areas that haul these trucks.  While you're sitting there by
     the loader getting loaded, your fumes are all around you. 
     It comes in the cab.
                   MR. TOMB:  Are the cabs usually conditioned?
                   MR. WILLIAMS:  Most of them are, but most of --
     you know, they'll get leaks around the doors.  And they'll
     come in, you know -- the fumes will come in somehow.
                   Okay.  Any other questions?  Okay.  Thank you very
     much.
                   MR. WILLIAMS:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Our next presenter will be Mr. Kunkel.
                   MR. KUNKEL:  My name is Don Kunkel, K-U-N-K-E-L. 
     I'm with the United Mineworkers, Local 15. I'm chairman of
     the safety committee.  I'm from --
                   UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What mine, sir?
                   MR. KUNKEL: -- to begin with, we've got
     approximately 25 pieces of diesel equipment.  Two of them
     are permissible and two of them are lube trucks, which is
     heavy duty.  And these lube trucks do have motor part
     welders on them, which works off of their engine.
                   And we have four other personnel carriers that
     also have the welders that are powered by the diesel engine. 
     One diesel generator for moving equipment in and out of the
     mine.
                   And these -- whenever you run these welders and
     stuff, you know, you've got to have the motor wound up, and
     it does put out lots of emissions.  And if we're using the
     diesel generator moving equipment in and out, you can get so
     far in the mine, approximately two miles or so, you have to
     -- for your neutral air.  And -- that you're using for the
     diesel generator to get enough air across it to -- where you
     can stand it.
                   In the last approximately two years, we've had
     approximately 12 citations, and I can get you copies of
     those if you request them, concerning ventilation.  And I
     would say half of those are in the neutral area, isolation
     curtain and so forth.  Getting torn down and being left like
     that.  
                   And also, people are real bad about coming in on
     the light duty equipment and personal carriers and stuff
     like that and they just leave them run.  They think they're
     only going to be there for one or two minutes, but that
     usually turns into 10 or 15 minutes.  They get side-tracked. 
     That equipment's left there running.  
                   And if your isolation curtain's got a hole in it,
     then everything drafting into your work area.
                   And as the other gentlemen have stated, most
     anyone you can talk to, your light duty equipment gets the
     least of the maintenance that it really should have.  And we
     feel that all the light duty, especially the lube trucks,
     need to be 95 percent particulate removable filters on
     there.
                   Anyone, have any questions?
                   MR. SASEEN:  The generator, do you know
     approximately what size horsepower that generator is?
                   MR. KUNKEL:  I can get you the information if you
     need it.
                   MR. SASEEN:  If you would, please.
                   MR. KUNKEL:  It's just brand new.  We've only had
     it -- it's only been in service about approximately three
     months, but they've used it several times.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. KUNKEL:  But I'll get you the information.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Okay, thank you
     very much.
                   Mr. Oldham will be our next presenter.
                   MR. OLDHAM:  My name is Edgar Oldham, Jr. 
     O-L-D-H-A-M.  I'm a representative for the United
     Mineworkers of America.  And Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
     panel members, I appreciate the opportunity to come here and
     speak before you today.
                   You know, I was sitting there thinking while we
     was sitting in this room, you know, the first thing that I'd
     kind of like to ask the Committee is if someone walked up to
     you and said, "I want you to enter this room," and there
     were signs on it that said it was contaminated with known
     chemicals such as benzine, dioxin, formaldehyde, arsenic,
     mercury compounds, inorganic lead and styrene, and they had
     little ventilation fans that you know, you would 
     hopefully -- would pull the air out of the room and supposed
     to ventilate it.  
                   You know, or you have opportunity to put on a
     filter that you knew would prevent you from getting any of
     those contaminants in your body, you know, which one would
     you do?  You know, would you walk in there, not knowing how
     much you were going to be exposed to once the door was
     closed behind you?  
                   You know, this is exactly what you're asking the
     coal miners all across this country to do, if every piece of
     diesel equipment that goes underground isn't filtered, and
     if we don't provide adequate ventilation to operate this
     equipment in.  You know, I know the coal operators are
     telling you they can provide adequate ventilation to dilute
     and render harmless the chemicals produced by diesel
     equipment.  
                   But the fact is, they aren't properly ventilating
     mines today.  And as you already have received some copies
     of ventilations, of violations that prove it's -- you know,
     ventilation in itself cannot be relied upon to work.
                   We continue to find instances where problems occur
     with diesel emissions, where the operators try to manipulate
     the system in attempt to prevent a person from getting an
     adequate sample off the diesel exhaust.  And also, you know,
     I was involved with this.  And it was at the one mine where
     I was called upon that was having a problem with emissions
     continually going out of compliance on the diesel mantrip. 
     And like you said, the company couldn't figure out the
     problem.  
                   So, their answer was to install an exhaust pipe
     across the back of the mantrip and to drill holes all across
     the pipe and then install the exhaust pipe into the larger
     pipe where you couldn't find the flow exhaust to obtain an
     adequate sample.  And you know, we raised the issue about
     that, that it wasn't something that come from the
     manufacturer.  That the company installed it, and it wasn't
     proper.  
                   They ended up removing that pipe, but then they
     had the manufacturer come back and install pipe on future
     pieces of equipment that they purchased that's got holes in
     it.  So, you know, it come from the manufacturer now
     installed with what they call a diffuser.  And it's nothing
     more than an attempt to prevent you from getting a good
     sample of the exhaust.
                   Another instance, like you said, they drilled
     holes in the exhaust pipe underneath the diesel mantrip to
     relieve some of the pressure coming out of the tail of the
     exhaust.  And this was intended to dilute underneath the
     mantrip, so you couldn't get a bad example.  And we had to
     get the State and Federal involved with that, and they made
     them install a new exhaust pipe.  But you know, that was
     just something that we couldn't fix the problem, so let's
     just find another answer.
                   And like you said, another thing they're doing is
     installing a deflector at the end of the exhaust pipe in
     order to prevent you from testing emissions in the flow of
     the exhaust.  And now, it seems like, you know, this issue
     was also raised, and now deflectors are coming out on the
     ends of exhaust pipes on new pieces of diesel equipment from
     the manufacturer.
                   So, you know, it's something from the manufacturer
     now that's just a way and an attempt to keep you from
     getting an emissions test.  You know, with manipulations
     like this going on, it's no different then it is with the
     duct sampling program, because someone is always trying to
     get around the system by not doing what's right, and miners
     suffer from it.
                   There are filters available, and we suggest that
     the very least, installing a filter capable of removing at
     least 80 percent of diesel particulate matter on every new
     piece of diesel equipment used underground immediately, upon
     the publication date of the Final Rule.  And within one year
     after the publication date of the Final Rule, each diesel
     engine used underground should be equipped with a filtration
     system capable of an 80 percent reduction in diesel
     particulate matter.  
                   And within two years after the publication date of
     the Final Rule, each new diesel engine that is taken
     underground should be equipped with a filtration system
     capable of on an average of 95 percent or greater of diesel
     particulate matters.
                   Another issue that I'm having a hard time trying
     to understand is how the Agency came up with the heavy and
     light duty classifications of diesel-fired engines.  As an
     individual who has done mechanic work all of their life, it
     would appear to me that it would have been simpler to
     categorize the equipment by horsepower ratings, combined
     with its intended use, and not just its intended use.
                   I don't understand how you can have a diesel
     engine rated at 100 plus horsepower and one rated at 20
     horsepower, and the 20 horsepower engine would be considered
     heavy duty, and the 100 plus horsepower engine would be
     considered light duty.  Surely, the Agency doesn't believe
     the 100 plus horsepower engine emits less emissions than the
     20 horsepower engine does.
                   Even though it is my belief that everything should
     be filtered, if the Final Rule doesn't provide this, then
     the Agency needs to look at the heavy and light duty
     category because again, your method won't provide the needed
     protections that miners deserve.
                   Another item I'm having a hard time understanding,
     is the Proposed Rule 751908.  In the definition of heavy
     duty equipment, it states that:  "Machines used to transport
     portable diesel fuel transportation units or portable lube
     units would be classified as heavy duty.  If, for example, a
     vehicle such as the diesel Hummer" -- and we know we've got
     some of them in underground mines down in Alabama and
     various places, was supposed to be just used to transport
     people.  And under the proposed rule, it will be considered
     light duty.  
                   But if a company decided to use it one time to
     transport a portable lube unit to a section, would it change
     its classification, or what would happen?  You know, I don't
     know.
                   In my opinion, the Agency has left too many gray
     areas when it comes to classifying equipment, which is
     another reason why all diesel equipment should be filtered
     and in the timeframe as outlined in the UMWA comments.
                   Another thing that comes to my mind when you talk
     about the outer areas, was that at the Ohio 11 Mine.  -- at
     the face.  A lot of times they have problems keeping -- on
     the duct lines.  And it's common with the roadways.  So,
     what do they do?  They hang a curtain up to block the air to
     force it over to the belt land where they can get their 50
     feet a minute, which would be in compliance.  But what's
     that doing to the diesel equipment?  
                   You know, I believe you're providing and boxing in
     and having dead areas on your roadway by doing that.  It
     can't be providing good and adequate ventilation up the
     travelway.  So, you know, I think that's a problem and it's
     one that needs to be looked at and addressed.
                   You know, as the brother from the surface also
     talked about, I would like to mention the surface miners. 
     You know, if the Agency develops a sampling procedure for
     diesel particulate matter, then it should apply to all
     miners, both surface and underground.  
                   The surface miners shouldn't be left behind like
     they have been in the dust sampling.
                   Until recently as the Agency began to focus on the
     dust problems at surface mines -- and this shouldn't happen
     -- what's happening for diesel particulate matter or any
     other diesel legislation that could apply to surface mines.
                   And like you said, MSHA may want to visit some of
     the diesel shops and especially during the winter months, to
     see for themselves just what miners in the shops are being
     exposed to.
                   Another issue that I'd like to just talk about is
     including the specifications of the diesel engines and
     listing the diesel equipment in the mine ventilation plans,
     because I'm hearing you know, that some people are not
     wanting to list those specifications in the mine ventilation
     plan or on the equipment list and stuff.  
                   So, you know, this should be done so the miners
     and their -- miners representatives will have a place that
     they can go to to find out, you know, what these
     specifications are, what the air readings are or the
     requirements for the ventilations.  And just have somewhere 
     where they can go to find this information out, and to know,
     you know, just how many pieces of equipment are being
     utilized at the mines, because that's the only way they'd
     know.  
                   You know, if you go to a job and you work there
     every day and you go to one section, you don't really know a
     lot of times how many pieces of equipment at's your mine. 
     So, you know, they need to know, you know, what's being used
     at the mine.
                   And also, I have copies, which two of the people
     couldn't make it today, but these are two mines.  They're
     relatively small mines, but in about a two-year period, a
     total of 87 violations on ventilation at these two
     operations.  And you know, I'd like to submit these to the
     Committee.
                   MR. TOMB:  Are these ventilation violations?
                   MR. OLDHAM:  Ventilation only.
                   MR. TOMB:  Only.
                   MR. OLDHAM:  So, those are totally ventilation
     violations at operations at the Sebree No. 1 Mine and the
     Martwick Mine in Kentucky.
                   And you know, in closing, I'd just like to say
     that I don't read anywhere in the Act where Congress
     declared a diesel engine of this most precious resource, but
     it did, in fact, declare our miners.  Therefore, if the
     technology is available to protect miners from the
     pollutants emitted from diesel exhaust, then I truly feel
     the Agency is charged with providing that protection.  
                   The technology is here.  It's available, and it
     should be utilized because it's the right thing to do, and
     the miners across this country deserve it.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.
                   MR. OLDHAM:  Now, I'll take any questions that you
     have.
                   MR. TOMB:  Questions?  Mr. Ford?
                   MR. FORD:  Yes.  Concerning the list of diesel-
     powered equipment, what about if there was a standard that
     said that that list with all pertinent information should be
     kept at the mine or a central location, but not in the mine
     ventilation plans?  Do you think there'd be a problem with
     that kind of a standard?
                   MR. OLDHAM:  It may not be as long as it was made
     available to the represented miners.
                   MR. FORD:  Right, with a condition saying that it
     would be made available to a miner's rep or MSHA personnel.
                   MR. OLDHAM:  Yes.  But my only problem is -- I
     mean, in understanding what the big deal, they're providing
     it in the ventilation plans today.  So, you know, why not
     continue the practice of what they're doing?
                   MR. FORD:  Okay, thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Okay, thank you
     very much.
                   What I'd like to do is take a -- and I'd ask you
     for your cooperation in this because we're going to have --
     I don't know if you're going to eat here or not, but it's
     going to be a tough day in the restaurant today.  And I
     think they're serving from 11:30 -- 11:00 to 12:30.
                   But what I'd like to do is take a 10-minute break,
     get a stretch, come back here at 11:00 and then go for
     another 50 minutes.  And then we'll go to lunch, and we'll
     come back here at 1:00 and go for the rest of the afternoon.
                   Is that okay?  Does that make sense to everybody? 
     Let's take a 10-minute break.
                   (Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
                   MR. TOMB:  If we can get back to the
     presentations.  Our next presenter will be a Mr. Klausing.
                   MR. KLAUSING:  My name is Tom Klausing.  
     K-L-A-U-S-I-N-G, Sr.  I work for Old Ben Ziegler Mine No. 11
     at Corville, Illinois.
                   We have approximately 36 pieces of diesel
     equipment underground, two service centers, which are
     considered heavy duty, eight pick-ups, 13 mantrips, two
     rovers, six flatbed trucks, full scoops and one diesel
     rockduster.
                   Been in mines approximately since 1989, 1990 till
     this day.  I just entered in as record, 26 ventilation
     citations and 16 on dust control.  And basically entered
     them to give you some kind of an idea that management can't
     even control or monitor the ventilation or dust, let alone
     the diesel problem that we've been having.
                   As far as testing on the equipment, management
     does the testing.  Whether it's done properly or not, we're
     nine chances out of ten, we're not around there unless MSHA
     inspectors is around there at the same time that
     management's doing the testing or the MSHA's inspectors
     testing.
                   Maintenance on equipment is as needed, basically, 
     changing the filters.  If they quit running, they start
     blowing out black smoke and they only end up changing the
     filter. 
                   Ziegler Old Ben Coal Company is notorious for the
     lack of maintenance on anything.  As far as my
     understanding, almost every coal mine's that way.
                   The health problems that we've been having at the
     mine as far as the people complaining about the diesel smoke
     is where you're in a confined area.  The pod duster is a
     prime example.  You're hose dusting, the diesel motor is
     blowing right back onto the operator, and the pod -- the guy
     that's running the hose duster, of course, is in on the belt
     line somewhere.  
                   But we have talked to management, tried to get the
     -- reroute the exhaust on the diesel pod duster.  So far,
     we've not succeeded on that yet.
                   I just kind of bring this up.  You can take it
     however you want to.  I know many of you probably either
     drove here in a truck, car or whatever, and you've seen
     semis on the road.  And you probably followed some of them,
     and you've seen the black soot that comes out of these semi-
     trucks.
                   Well, it's similar underground.  But you can't
     really see that black soot underground because of the --
     either the lighting or whatever, you know.  But if you would
     pull up behind one of them diesel scoops or mantrip or
     whatever, you'll see a blue haze behind that, usually, with
     the headlights or something.  And that's what we've got to
     put up with.  
                   And that's what we're here today to ask you to do
     all you can do for us.  So, that's all I've got.  Any
     questions?
                   MR. TOMB:  Jon?
                   MR. KOGUT:  I don't know if I heard you correctly,
     but did you say that the maintenance procedure was to change
     filters whenever the black soot became visible?
                   MR. KLAUSING:  Maintenance on most of the
     equipment underground on diesel equipment, as a matter of
     fact any equipment, is as needed, basically.
                   MR. KOGUT:  But do you use filters on some of your
     equipment?
                   MR. KLAUSING:  I'm talking about air filters.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Oh, you're talking about air filters?
                   MR. KLAUSING:  Yeah.  We don't have -- all these
     are non-permissible equipment.  That repeats what I told you
     about.
                   MR. TOMB:  Are any of those pieces of equipment
     classified as heavy duty?
                   MR. KLAUSING:  Yeah, the two service centers that
     I just told you about.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Only the two?
                   MR. KLAUSING:  Two service centers.  They're in on
     the units.  They're not permissible.  They have to --
                   MR. TOMB:  Yes.  But they're classified as heavy
     duty?
                   MR. KLAUSING:  Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?  Okay, thank you
     very much.
                   MR. KLAUSING:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Our next presenter will be Mr. Todd.
                   MR. TODD:  My name's Larry Todd, T-O-D-D, United
     Mineworkers, Local 2412.
                   I work at the Peabody Marisa Mine.  A few of my
     colleagues already spoke to you, so I won't give you the
     facts and figures.
                   Put yourself in the position as everybody's been
     behind the buses in the big city and everything else.  You
     roll your windows up.  It doesn't do much good.  And that's
     what we work with eight hours, ten hours, particularly, at
     our mines.  We're on 10-hour shifts.
                   And separate your in-by and out-by.  Out-by is
     past the last couple of -- So, we've got equipment that
     works in the sections, what you deem as a light duty -- four
     or five hours.  Two or three people run them, so you've got
     equipment that works in the section itself.
                   And to make another little story, and I've told
     other people.  Since the '93 strike when we tried to get
     more diesel equipment, we don't have them little mice
     running around anymore, whether they got out or it's
     coincidence or what, unless the lab rats told them that they
     tested.
                   But I just wanted to make a couple of comments,
     and I appreciate your time.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, thank you very much.  Any
     questions?  Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Todd.
                   Our next presenter will be Mr. Tollston.  Okay,
     Mr. Tollston is not here.
                   Then, we'll go with Mr. Deppe.
                   MR. DEPPE:  My name is Dave Deppe, D-E-P-P-E,
     UMWA.  I work at -- well, I worked at 41392 --.  Presently
     laid off.  I've been a mechanic for 23 years at the mines. 
     It's a surface mine, and I'd like to address the problems we
     have at a surface mine.
                   In the winter time when you close the doors, if
     you have anything in the shop running, it fills the shop
     full of smoke.  You can't hardly even see.  And it makes
     your eyes water, your throat sore.  And I don't see how the
     underground people can stand anything that's not filtered,
     because I can go outside and get a breath of fresh air if I
     need to.  We have ventilation fans, but nobody wants to turn
     them on because it sucks all the heat out of the garage.
                   And as far as what I've heard on the testing
     procedure in the automotive sector, when they test for
     hydrocarbons and stuff, they run a sniffer up the tailpipe
     to measure what exhaust gases are.  I don't know how you'd
     get an accurate test by just holding such a thing behind the
     exhaust.
                   And I want to thank you for your time.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, thank you very much.  Any
     questions? 
                   MR. SASEEN:  Yes.  How many, in a typical time in
     the shop, how many pieces of diesel would be in your shop?
                   MR. DEPPE:  At one time?
                   MR. SASEEN:  Yes.
                   MR. DEPPE:  Oh, you might have -- when we were in
     production, there may be 17 pieces of equipment at one time,
     not all running, but at least they're there.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. DEPPE:  It doesn't take very long for say,
     150-ton hauling truck to fill the shop full a smoke with the
     door shut.
                   MR. SASEEN:  I was going to say these are mostly
     large haul trucks or loaders that are being serviced?
                   MR. DEPPE:  Yes.
                   MR. KOGUT:  Okay.
                   MR. TOMB:  You had a question?
                   MR. KOGUT:  How much of the time do you estimate
     that the equipment is actually running in the shop?
                   MR. DEPPE:  Most of it's for diagnosis time or
     testing time on something that's -- it wouldn't be very
     long.  But I've seen anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes of time
     running.  But it probably takes about an average of five
     minutes to fill the shop full of smoke.
                   MR. TOMB:  You don't make any provisions for
     exhausting the exhaust?
                   MR. DEPPE:  No.  They installed three exhaust
     fans.  They're in the roof of the building.  But like I
     said, in the winter time, you suck every bit of the heat out
     of the garage if you run that.
                   MR. TOMB:  There's no tail pipe exhaust?
                   MR. DEPPE:  No, there's nothing, nothing at all.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Deppe.  
                   Our next presenter will be Mr. Kellerman.
                   MR. KELLERMAN:  I feel my comments have already
     been addressed.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Mr. Miller?
                   MR. MILLER:  Good morning.  My name is Tim Miller,
     M-I-L-L-E-R.  I'm the local president of Local 5138, Lone
     Star Energy. 
                   You'll notice today here as you have a lot of mine
     workers here, these mine workers are here because they don't
     have the fear of speaking out because they have union
     protection.  I work at a mine that was non-union for 50
     years.  We've been union for one year.  So, this is our
     first go-around to have the ability to speak out.
                   And I'm here today to speak out on behalf of all
     coal miners, because if you didn't have the fear of the non-
     union miner from losing his job, this room couldn't hold
     everybody that could be here.  
                   So, just please remember that all underground
     mines have this diesel equipment.  
                   And we've had it since 1981 in our mine.  We've
     been exposed to it for years and years and years.  We didn't
     have the ability to speak out until now.  But you will
     notice that your room will have plenty of foremen and
     company officials from those non-union mines.  But again,
     you won't notice those non-union employees here because of
     fear of losing their jobs.
                   I'd like to move on.  I started in the coal mines
     in 1979.  And when I first started in the mines, I started
     like I said, in the non-union mines.  And safety was pretty
     lax, but I did notice a steady improvement as MSHA -- like
     the '69 Safety Health Act.  We started following that and
     getting better, and things were improving.  But then we had
     the diesel equipment, and it come into the mine.
                   And the '69 Health -- Mine Safety Health Act, one
     thing it insured was that there would be no section that
     would be on the same -- with another section.  I think we
     all understand that here on the panel is what I'm saying.
                   You would have fresh intake air that would be
     delivered to each individual section and no -- would go
     across another section. 
                   Our mine is a long wall mine.  We have three
     continuous miner units and a long wall.  We have
     approximately 39 pieces of diesel equipment.  A small
     portion, probably eight, nine, heavy duty, the rest, what
     you guys consider light duty equipment.
                   Our mine is ventilated through the supply row. 
     The intake air comes right directly down the supply row. 
     Okay?  This is where all the diesel equipment motivates out
     by the units.
                   My point that I'm trying to make is that every
     piece of diesel equipment that operates on our supply row is
     all that diesel -- all that diesel fumes and smoke's taken
     directly to the men.  Okay?  Every bit of it.  So, when I
     look at the '69 Health Act and think about the individual
     with fresh intake air, like it was when I started in the
     mines in '79, we had fresh intake air.  It was
     uncontaminated air.  It was fresh air.  The intake was
     timbered all the way, but it was fresh air.  But it's not
     anymore.  
                   In this day and age, with the plans that we have
     in our mine, you have contaminated air from the word go. 
     And every man in that mine that works in that mine is
     breathing all this diesel.  And whether it be close --
     whether you're close or not, really doesn't matter.  
                   I, myself, spent about four hours behind a diesel
     yesterday, and I have a sore throat today, sore tonsils,
     runny nose and all the symptoms that everyone has.  And
     there's no way to get away from them.
                   You operate a piece of equipment, close quarters
     like, that's going to happen.  You know, it's like Mr.
     Oldham said.  You know, you just go figure.  If you get
     behind a tailpipe, you know, it's going to kill you
     eventually, whether slow death or quick death.
                   I'd also like to talk about some of the dilution
     factors and the height of coals and intake air.  We work in
     a mine that's approximately seven to eight feet in height. 
     And with all this height and with all the air we have, we
     have plenty of intake air, there's no doubt.  But that
     doesn't dilute the exhaust.  You know, that exhaust again,
     it carries on down the airways and goes to each and every
     man in the working section.  
                   And that's one thing that you heard all the
     mineworkers here today talk about, is -- you know, you've
     got light duty and what we call, so-called heavy duty.  And
     I can't understand all of it is going right up our sinuses
     and down our lungs.  So, what's the difference?  I just
     can't see that.
                   I just want to also touch on some personal
     experiences I've had myself.  On our long wall, we have a
     three entry system.  If any of you understand what I'm
     saying, we maintain three entries.  And we basically make
     territory -- three miner units for the long wall.  
                   And when we're setting the long wall up -- and
     when I say setting it up, you know, when we're moving into a
     new block of coal, we have basically one travelway in and
     out that we can take equipment in and out except for near
     the long wall.
                   I witnessed myself before this instance, 14 pieces
     of diesel equipment on one section.  That's in one air
     course separated from the other units, 14 pieces.  Only two
     or three may be heavy duty, and the rest again, what's so-
     called light duty.
                   But the guys come to me -- I didn't announce my
     position.  I'm the local president of 5138.  They come to me
     and tell me of the situations of the burning nose and the
     burning eyes and problems.
                   We've had the Department of Mines and Minerals
     come in before and maybe shut everything down but one scoop. 
     But we all know, just like you said, Mr. Chairman, you were
     at a mine that the bus took you to a section, and it was
     parked all day.  I'm sure it was parked all day while you
     were there.  But when you're not there, it's no different
     when the MSHA inspectors are not there.  We know what goes
     on.  It's business as usual.
                   And these guys come to me to complain about the
     sensitive areas of breathing this dust.  They constantly
     have lung irritations, but it seems like that you know, we
     continue to ignore the situation.  And that's what we're
     here today for is to make sure that we understand that we
     can't -- as coal miners see the difference in heavy duty or
     light duty, it all emits the noxious gases.  We all know
     that.  I think we're all under the understanding of that. 
     We know the CO, the NO, the NO2.  We know what it'll do to
     you.  So, I can't understand why we're even here, like the
     other gentleman in front of me said.
                   We have basically -- we have diesel equipment in
     every area of our mines, not just in small areas or
     undefined areas.  Like some of the guys before us have
     talked about their diesel equipment is in isolated areas
     where they have neutrals, we don't have them.  There's a big
     problem with that.  We have fresh flow intake, and we
     maintain our well.  I can't complain.  Our people do a good
     job at ventilation.  We have to.  We have a long wall.  We
     have a lot of ventilation.  
                   But we still do have those areas where equipment
     is in areas that are lowly ventilated, but we do have a lot
     of people there that have been sick with diesel equipment.  
                   And as far as what you tell us here today about
     being able to fill certain forms, that's never been done
     that I know of at our company.  But our company employs
     about somewhere in the neighborhood of roughly -- our 
     mine -- the Baker Mine is about 350 people.  And I've always
     felt from day one that these 350 people, including myself,
     were basically guinea pigs.  No one knows what this diesel
     is going to do to us.  But some day, I guess my
     grandchildren will.  
                   That's all I have.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Any questions?  I just have
     one.  Is it possible for you to provide us with a list of
     the equipment and the time that it operates?  This is just
     data we'd like to have from the mines using diesel
     equipment.
                   MR. MILLER:  What I'd like to request -- I have no
     problem with that.  We have company officials here from my
     mines, and they're very familiar with that.  And when they
     speak, I'd like for you to ask, you know, where we can
     compare what they say the application of the equipment is
     and the time it's used in a day.
                   MR. TOMB:  Well, I don't quite understand.
                   MR. MILLER:  Okay.  We have company officials
     here.
                   MR. TOMB:  Yes, uh-huh.
                   MR. MILLER:  Okay.  I don't know if they're going
     to speak or not.  
                   MR. TOMB:  Oh, okay.
                   MR. MILLER:  But if they speak, they're here, they
     can probably offer you that information.
                   MR. TOMB:  Oh, okay.  Very good.  Thank you very
     much.
                   MR. MILLER:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  I'm not sure of this next name, Mr.
     Tuttle?
                   MR. TREVIAL:  I have no comment.
                   MR. TOMB:  Did I get the name right?
                   MR. TREVIAL:  Trevial.  Trevial.
                   MR. TOMB:  Trevial.  Okay, I'm sorry.  Mr. Steve
     Bruk.
                   MR. BRUK:  My name is Steve Bruk, and I'm a local
     safety committeeman in Local 15 --
                   MR. TOMB:  Would you spell that for the record?
                   MR. BRUK:  My last name?
                   MR. TOMB:  Yes.
                   MR. BRUK:  B-R-U-K.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.
                   MR. BRUK:  And I just have one question is all I
     have.  Is when these MSHA inspectors start to -- they're
     provided with a list of all the diesel equipment on a
     property.  Okay?  Mysteriously, when it comes time for them
     to make -- to inspect this diesel equipment, if a company
     knows that a particular piece of equipment is out of
     compliance, it disappears.
                   So, my question is to you, why does MSHA allow
     this condition to exist?  Why doesn't the inspector demand
     to see a particular piece of equipment?  Because if he
     doesn't inspect it, it doesn't get fixed.
                   And that's all I have.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  I'm not sure I can answer your
     question at this particular time.  I'll ask that question
     now, and I'm sure it gets back to what an inspector
     procedure is from that district office.  Okay?  So, I'd just
     have to ask that question for you.  I'm sorry I can't give
     you the answer right now to that question.
                   MR. BRUK:  Okay.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  But I guess your issue is that there is
     a procedure when inspectors come in to inspect the
     equipment, but many times, in your opinion, what's polluting
     equipment -- the equipment that is polluting, okay, is not
     in operation at the time when needing an inspection,
     therefore, it doesn't get inspected.  Okay.  Thank you.
                   Mr. Lumas?
                   MR. LUMAS:  My name is Mark Lumas, chairman of the
     safety committee, Wabash Mine, Local 1791.  
                   I do have a list and an average furnished to me by
     management on the run time on heavy and light duty
     equipment.  On an average weekday on a shift, which is our
     day shift, we have approximately 36 hours of mantrip
     planned, which consists of Isuzu pick-up trucks and Wallace
     diesel mantrips, four-seaters, five-seaters, diesel, which
     all have the same engine.
                   MR. TOMB:  This would be light duty equipment?
                   MR. LUMAS:  These would be considered light duty.
     And there again, I cannot understand how you can
     differentiate the difference between a light duty and heavy
     duty.  My opinion is they should be all classified as one,
     and that being heavy duty, because pick-up trucks are used
     to haul small parts, which can consist of motors off Meyers
     diesel pump, off of different various equipment.  
                   And these pick-ups -- and also may I state that we
     have -- we went to -- fault.  And we have an entry that's on
     a 17 percent grade.  And you have to run these vehicles in
     low gear in order to make it up this, which in my opinion,
     puts a full load on your engine.
                   We also have CLAs or -- they're a versatile piece
     of equipment.  They have a set of forks on those that you
     can use for maintenance, unload supplies, various things. 
     They also come with a scoop bucket.  
                   Okay, now, according to MSHA, when you have the
     scoop bucket on it for cleaning belt lines for cleaning 
     up -- those are considered heavy duty.  When you put the
     forks on those, those are considered light duty.  
                   Now, I can take and put those forks on there and I
     can put that engine under a heavier load with the forks on
     it, than I can with the bucket on it.
                   Also, that -- also pertains to -- we have --
     supply tractors.  The side scenario falls through there when
     they're pulling a diesel fuel tank with 500 gallons of
     diesel fuel, 500 gallons of hydraulic fuel, antifreeze,
     these are only fifth wheel, they're considered heavy duty.
                   Now, I can take that same tractor, pull its supply
     car so the roofbolts, roofblades, timbers, crosscars, and
     that engine is put under the same load, that according to
     MSHA, heavy duty and light duty.
                   We have Jeffrey diesel ramcars, which are
     considered heavy duty used on our continuous line sections
     for hauling coal.  Now, the CLAs factor the amount of hours,
     they'll run on -- I'm talking one shift now.  They possibly
     ran an average of five hours, okay?  And so, we have a total
     of light duty time between the mantrips and the CLAs of
     approximately 34 percent.
                   Ramcars we run approximately 52 hours.  And this
     is with -- we ran four ram -- we had two continuous mining
     sections.  So, we run eight ramcars.  Let's see.  At
     approximately six and a half operating hours.
                   The Gattman tow tractors, we run approximately 14
     hours.  We have diesel Wagner scoops that are ran
     approximately nine and half hours.  And then we have a
     diesel grader and a diesel roofbolter, which are run
     approximately five hours.
                   So, we have a total of 80 and a half hours, which
     is 66 percent heavy duty time in one shift.  And I have
     those broke down.  Those are broke down in shifts -- for
     production shifts and also for idle shifts.
                   I have a total for -- we work idle work on
     weekends, Saturdays and Sundays, plus our production time. 
     I have a total hours run time for light duty equipment, I
     have 525 and a half hours or 36 percent.  I have 922 and a
     half hours, total heavy duty time or 64 percent.
                   We have -- but we have the same -- all of us here,
     we have all repeated -- we have the same problems. 
     Maintenance is a problem.  We do have -- some of our
     equipment does have exhaust filters, particularly exhaust
     filters.  In my opinion, all diesel equipment needs some
     sort of filtration system, and whether it be considered
     heavy duty, light duty.  They all emit the diesel
     particulate, which can be cancer-causing and a hazard to our
     health.
                   So, my plea is that MSHA will consider all the
     facts presented here today and that we can all come to a
     compromise for the health and safety of our miners.  And we
     represent all miners, non-union, as well as union.  Thank
     you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you, Mr. Lumas.  Any questions? 
     George?
                   MR. SASEEN:  Yeah.  On those Jeffrey permissible
     units, do they have water scrubbers, or are they just the --
     system?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Water.  And we are testing a new DST
     dry scrubber.  We have one ramcar that does have the new dry
     scrubber, and we have one ramcar that's out for rebuild that
     will come back with the dry scrubber.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.  On the one you're using, how
     much filter life are you getting on the machine?
                   MR. LUMAS:  I think approximately 20 hours.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.  And --
                   MR. LUMAS:  Now -- excuse me.  Now, with some of
     our exhaust filters, we have had some problems.  We've had
     some --.  In the last two months, there have been I believe
     about four instances where we've had the exhaust filter
     catch on fire due to lack of maintenance.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Was that on a DST?
                   MR. LUMAS:  No, that's on water scrubber.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Oh, so you did have some exhaust
     filters on some water scrubbers?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Yes, we do.
                   MR. SASEEN:  And how many units?
                   MR. LUMAS:  We have approximately eight ramcars,
     with one --
                   MR. SASEEN:  With filters.  I'm sorry.
                   MR. LUMAS:  All eight of them have the --
                   MR. SASEEN:  Filters.
                   MR. LUMAS:  -- exhaust filters.
                   MR. SASEEN:  And they're all water scrubbers?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Except for the one.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Except for the one.
                   MR. LUMAS:  It still has an exhaust filter.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.  That's the dry system?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Right.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.  You said about 20 hours.  Is
     that for the wet systems that you're getting an average?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Yes.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.
                   MR. LUMAS:  They are getting some longer life out
     of the filter on the dry scrubber system.  Now,
     approximately what the difference is right off-hand, I can't
     tell you that.
                   MR. SASEEN:  And they have the CAT engines, do you
     know, or is it MWM?
                   MR. LUMAS:  I honestly don't know.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Like 4114s?
                   MR. LUMAS:  4110s.
                   MR. SASEEN:  4110s.  I have the MW on there.  How
     long does it take to change the filters?  Do you have an
     idea?
                   MR. LUMAS:  I'm going to say 10 minutes, you know,
     I mean, if you have to go get your filter.  If you have the
     filter readily available.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Do you know what the cost for those
     filters are?
                   MR. LUMAS:  No, I do not.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay, thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Any other questions?
                   MR. FORD:  Yes.  Sir, I've got one quick question. 
     Can you tell us what type -- if there was any training that
     mechanics in the mine received concerning these filters?
                   MR. LUMAS:  In the last year, due to MSHA
     regulations, all of our mechanics have been trained in
     maintenance of car diesel equipment.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  What about specifically the
     filters, especially the dry system?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Yes.  They were -- because that is a
     new system and they were trained in the maintenance of the
     dry scrubber system.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay.  Do you know like how that took
     place?  Was it the people in the mine themselves, or did
     like a manufacturer come in and give that training?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Well, the company I work for, they
     were instrumental in developing the dry scrubber system. 
     And they were trained internally.
                   MR. FORD:  Okay, thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  I have one question for clarification. 
     Maybe I heard you wrong before.  I thought when you made
     your presentation, you said that you had similar type
     problems what other people had, including maintenance
     problems --
                   MR. LUMAS:  Correct --
                   MR. TOMB:  -- in your mine.  Now -- and you just
     said that everybody has been trained in maintenance and
     everything.  So, can you elaborate maybe a little bit on the
     other problems you're talking about?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Well, our mine is -- you know, we're
     unlike any other -- I mean, we're like -- just like the rest
     of the mines.
                   A year and a half ago, we had a massive layoff and
     massive cutbacks.  But as everyone that's worked in a coal
     mine, they don't like to repair things until absolutely that
     piece of equipment will just no longer motivate.  
                   And production is number one on the list.  Cost is
     another thing.  If you can run a piece of equipment for any
     length of time, then we're saving without doing any
     maintenance to it.
                   MR. TOMB:  Do you have a regular maintenance
     program?
                   MR. LUMAS:  Well, they will tell you that they
     have a regular maintenance program, let me put it that way.
     Now, as far as following their maintenance program, they
     will also tell you that they have a wash program to clean
     equipment.  Yes, they do have these plans.  Now, ask me if
     they use those plans -- utilize those plans.  In my opinion,
     no.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  So, what you're saying then is
     the people have been trained, though.  You have trained
     people and so forth.
                   MR. LUMAS:  Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:  When the maintenance is done and so
     forth is another story I think is what you're saying.
                   MR. LUMAS:  Correct.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  Any other questions?  Thank you.
                   Mr. Price will be our next presenter.
                   MR. PRICE:  My name is Gil Price, and I'm from
     Local 2412.  And Price is P-R-I-C-E.
                   Everybody's touching on a lot of the same stuff. 
     And it's because of the same problems at all the mines.  
                   One of the things that they mention -- I'm not
     going to reiterate on everything they mention.  I'm going to
     try to bring some new stuff here.  
                   For one thing, a mantrip -- your mantrips are
     always operated in the neutral.  They're not considered
     heavy equipment, but they put out just as much diesel
     emissions as everything else does.  They're under a load. 
     They're usually going fast to get in a unit and fast to get
     out.  
                   And the one thing nobody mentions, and it's always
     bothered me, is that when you've got a piece of diesel
     equipment that comes in the mine and you say, "We're going
     to regulate that this machine's going to be in compliance
     with the Federal law," you have a base number for your CO
     emissions on the machine.  And that number is taken at the
     mine when it gets underground.  And that's what you have to
     keep that machine in compliance with.
                   Who says that number is in compliance?  Nobody
     does.  Nobody regulates that.  If you check that machine and
     that machine's out of compliance when it gets there, it
     remains out of compliance the entire time it's at the mine. 
     You don't regulate the numbers on that.  You tell us to take
     a base number there and that's going to be your compliance
     number.
                   So, if it's out of compliance when we get it, it's
     always out of compliance.  So, we're breathing that stuff
     with no regulation on it.  And that's the CO of the exhaust
     that's killing people.
                   Then, you've got -- the Federal law says within
     the neutrals, you have to have a movement of air.  These
     machines are operating always in the neutral.  And if you've
     got diesel scoops or service centers and that, and they
     break down in the unit or just out by the units, then
     they're repaired right there.
                   Now, they're in the neutral.  So, all you have is
     a movement of air, which is not enough air to dispense the
     diesel emissions or the exhaust and whoever the operator
     are, the repairman's working on them is right there in that
     neutral with that, with just a movement of air.  So, they're
     breathing that fumes the entire time.  If it takes 15
     minutes to fix it or if it's got a fuel problem, you got to
     bleed the lines and that, and it takes you three hours to
     fix it, you're breathing those fumes in neutral with no air.
                   The carcinogens in there -- you know, the study by
     the Cancer Institute -- they did one in '88 -- last part of
     '88, first part of '89.  And they concluded that the fumes
     contained particulates that were carcinogenic to human
     beings.  
                   And in March, I think of this year, in Evansville,
     Indiana, MSHA gave a two-day seminar up there for vendors
     and anybody wanting to attend on diesel emissions.  And they
     gave us a book in there that had a chart in it.  You were
     there.  I saw you there.  Remember the chart?  The chart,
     whenever it was written or drawn up, the underground coal
     miner was basically off the chart when the chart was made.
                   Now, most of the time when you make a chart,
     you've got room for improvement and room to get worse. 
     Well, we left a lot of room for improvement there, but we
     didn't leave the underground coal miner any room to get any
     worse then he was at that time.  We were almost off the
     chart.  So, we were breathing basically as much as you
     thought we could breathe in.  And I haven't seen any change
     in that.
                   But what I did see was a 15-year study that was
     conclusive with the hazards of particulate matter.  And the
     only relief I have from that is that the Board still has
     that under review.  
                   But people touched on -- you know, you have diesel
     particular matter, it's been determined can cause upper
     respiratory infections and migraine headaches, cancer, lung
     disease and heart disease.  Now, you have an opportunity and
     you're in a position to help these people not to breath this
     stuff, and why it took this long for a review -- I
     understand how red tape works, and I'm very understanding of
     how the Government works.  But I don't understand why it
     takes 15 years to help people quit breathing stuff that's
     killing them.
                   And I, for one, I don't -- I don't really know
     what phosphorous smells like.  I know if I saw my kid
     playing with it, I'd slap him.  Or lead or zinc or arsenic
     or creosol.  Creosol stinks, I know that.  But all these
     carcinogens are in these diesel emissions, and we're
     breathing them every day.
                   And we've got guys in our mines that's got upper
     respiratory infections, guys that got coughs.  I'm being
     treated right now for migraine headaches because I work on
     these things all the time.  And the triglycerides in my
     system are supposed to be around 200.  Right now, they're
     677.  This is an ongoing thing with me, and I've been
     breathing this and I've been raising hell about it for a
     couple years now, but one of these days I'll get somebody to
     listen.
                   But there's 40 carcinogenic materials in diesel
     exhaust they say, as a survey of April 9, 1998 in that
     California report, but nobody tells me how many particulates
     are in a gallon of diesel fuel.  I have no idea.  I don't
     really know what percentage of each carcinogen is in a
     gallon of diesel fuel.  We burn 60,000 a year -- gallons. 
     Since we've had the diesels, we burn 420 to 480 gallons of
     diesel fuel.  So, I don't know how much of it we breathe,
     and I don't know how many people are sick on account of it.
                   But you know, the system says that a two-cylinder
     engine which a gentleman touched on, is heavy equipment,
     depending on what it's on.  And a four-cylinder diesel
     engine is not heavy equipment.  
                   It doesn't make any difference.  Your light duty
     or your light maintenance is running in neutral because it's
     not heavy duty, you know.  And it's putting out just as much
     fumes, but it's in neutral where you don't have the air. 
     You don't have 35,000 -- you might have 35,000 on the intake
     sometimes, 9,000 on the return, but in neutral you've got
     movement.  
                   You're breathing the same amount of fumes in there
     as you're diluting anywhere else.  You have to pass over the
     machine to dilute it.  But in the neutrals, nobody cares if
     something is broke down in the neutrals and you're breathing
     that stuff and you end up sick from it.
                   You people have an opportunity to do something
     really good here.  And this should have been done -- I'm not
     laying any blame or trying to piss anybody off, although
     that's what I'm really best at, but for 15 years you've been
     reviewing something.
                   Now, I'm a great shopper because if I look at
     something for five minutes and I don't like it, I don't buy
     it.  But it don't take me five minutes to decide if it's
     something good or not.  But 15 years is way too long, and
     we've got people sick, and we probably had people die from
     it.
                   I checked these machines, and if a filter goes bad
     or gets clogged up, it coughs and sputters and makes you
     sick.  Your throat hurts and that, and if you don't work on
     it -- if you don't know what's wrong with it, then if you're
     conscientious about it, you might tell your boss when he
     leaves that day, "Hey, that thing's really put out a lot of
     smoke."  But if the next guy gets on it and he's the laborer
     or an operator, whatever, he don't normally run that
     machine, he gets on it and he thinks it's supposed to be
     that way.
                   Well, if it had a base number of 456 parts per
     million CO when you checked it and it came underground, and
     now it's got 400, you think, "Well, hell, that's in
     compliance."  But you don't know if it was in compliance
     when it came underground.  You're breathing this stuff, and
     there's no way for you to know.  
                   Nobody ever regulated what a safe number was on
     exhaust.  They said, "Take a check.  If it gets higher than
     that, put it back in compliance."
                   And that's all I've got.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you.  Do you have any questions?
                   MR. SASEEN:  Mr. Price, I don't know if I missed
     this at the beginning.  You're a mechanic?
                   MR. PRICE:  Yeah.
                   MR. SASEEN:  Okay.  In the neutrals, you said
     you're doing a lot of work on the scene to break down.  Is
     there any way of removing in your situation moving from the
     man working, like piping it somewhere else?
                   MR. PRICE:  There's really no way to do that.  You
     could move it unless it's a fuel problem, or we've got
     electric solenoids that pull in the fuel systems on the
     machines.  And if that solenoid's broke, you've got to put
     one on it, and you've got to adjust it, so that when you
     start, your hold circuit is tied in with your start circuit. 
     So, you've got to adjust that solenoid so that it drops off
     when you shut the machine off, holds in when you try to
     start it.  So, you adjust it right there.
                   And some of those machines, I know for a fact when
     they came there, they could not possibly have been decent
     enough for a human being to breathe.  So, because we took a
     base number and said, "This is what we're going to go by,"
     that's what we still go by.
                   And there's not very many.  And I'm not laying
     blame.  I'm not.  I'm lucky where I work at.  If I have a
     problem, usually it don't take anybody very long to get
     tired of listening to me.  So, I can go in and holler about
     it for awhile, you know, and they'll fix it or will do
     something with it.
                   But this is an ongoing problem.  And a lot of
     times we can't move a machine to a rush of intake air.  We
     can't take them in the intake to begin with.  So, wherever
     you're working on that, most of the time we're in the
     neutrals.  And if we're in the shop working on them, there's
     exhaust fans in there.  We've only got two in one bay, and
     we've got a six-bay shop.  
                   But if you're working on it here, a lot -- the guy
     that works with me, he's had four upper respiratory
     infections this year, and he's never been sick before, never
     had a problem.  I haven't missed a day of work since back in
     the '80s.  But I leave now and I go to the hospital and have
     blood work done and then I come back to work.  Takes about
     an hour and a half.  And I'm trying to get figured out
     what's wrong with me and what's wrong with him and what's
     wrong with Chris Wisnick, but I'm pretty sure I know.  It's
     what we're breathing.
                   You know, you don't want to blame anybody, but
     then you get aggravated because a review goes on.  I mean,
     if I were -- if you pick up a paper and you say, "The
     National Cancer Institute says this."  Well, they put it on
     packs of cigarettes and everybody went "Shit" and threw them
     out, you know.  A lot of people did, you know.  Some didn't.
                   But the point I'm trying to make is when a
     National Cancer Institute does a study and review and they
     said, "This is hazardous to your health," and they give it
     to a group of people that's governing your health and safety
     underground, and they review it for 15 years or 10 years,
     and it's still under review, you know, it pisses me off. 
     But I don't know what it does to everybody else.  I'm sure
     it don't make you very happy, you know.
                   MR. TOMB:  It gave me gray hair.
                   MR. PRICE:  It gave you gray hair.  What about
     this?
                   I think I'm sick from it.  I think other people
     are sick from it.  If you've got a chance to do something
     good here, don't pass it up.  
                   These stipulations on the numbers, I'm saying, on
     the base numbers should have been on those machines for they
     ever came underground.  They really should have.
                   I'll answer any questions, because I know just
     basically everything.
                   MR. TOMB:  Thank you for your presentation.
                   MR. PRICE:  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:  Okay.  As pre-planned, why don't we
     take our lunch break now and get back here if we can about
     ten to one, so we can get started right at one o'clock.
                   (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing recessed to
     reconvene at 12:50 p.m., this same day, Monday, December 15,
     1998.)
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //                   A F T E R N O O N   S E S S I O N
                   MR. TOMB:   Our next presenter will be Mr.
     Filkins.
                   MR. FILKINS:  My name is Melvin Filkins, F-I-L-K-
     I-N-S.  I'm with Local 1545, and I work at the Wren Lake
     Consol Mine.  At our mine we've got fifty-eight pieces of
     diesel equipment, and I've got you eighty citations in the
     last two and a half years here, on ventilation at our mine. 
                   One of the biggest problems at our mine is, --
     we've got a long wall mine; sitting up the long wall.  I get
     more complaints on guys with sick headaches, eyes burning
     and sore throats, with the long wall set up, because you've
     got your diesel equipment moving in and out of there all the
     time, -- equipment.  And I think it would be very poor just
     to put the filters on the heavy-duty equipment when we've
     got a lot of light-duty equipment at that mine.  We need it
     on all the equipment.  
                   I get migraine headaches now, which I never did
     get.  And I asked my doctor about it and he said, "Probably
     in that diesel fumes it will cause you to have a migraine
     headache".  And they're no fun.
                   That's basically about all I've got to say, as
     compared to what the man before me said.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Any questions?
                   MR. MCKINNEY:   Do you all have the same types of
     problems on the recovery, when you're doing the long wall
     recovery, as you do from your setups?
                   MR. FILKINS:   Not as much on the recovery,
     because it's back out at the mouth of the unit, so you've
     got more air going out there, and you've got less, you know,
     diesel equipment coming in.  The recovery is hauling into
     the, --
                   MR. MCKINNEY:   So, it's a lot worse on the setups
     than it is on the recovery?
                   MR. FILKINS:   Yes.
                   MR. TOMB:   How much light-duty equipment is used
     in the setup?
                   MR. FILKINS:   Well, we've got all kind of light-
     duty equipment coming in and out of there all the time. 
     We've got a lot of, --
                   MR. TOMB:   I mean, used in the mine, or 
     just, -- I'm talking about the setup only?
                   MR. FILKINS:   You've got the scooters, you know,
     that the foreman and stuff drive, and the mechanics and
     stuff drive.  So you've got quite a bit of equipment going
     in and out of there.  And you've got, -- we've got four
     Gatlin tractors, and that would be like two on that side. 
     And you've got four diesel scoops, Wagner Scoops, that come
     in there.
                   MR. TOMB:   Those would be heavy-duty though,
     right?
                   MR. FILKINS:   Yeah, but they're all outby
     equipment now, because they took the scrubbers off the
     scoops we got.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Any other questions?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr.
     Filkins.
                   MR. FILKINS:  I'd like to give you these, -- these
     citations.
                   MR. TOMB:   Thank you.  Is it too much trouble to
     ask you to submit that equipment that you use, and its use,
     and its time of use?
                   MR. FILKINS:   I can try to get it for you.
                   MR. TOMB:   Can you?
                   MR. FILKINS:  Yes sir.
                   MR. TOMB:   I'd appreciate that if you could.  Mr.
     Brown.
                   MR. BROWN:   My name's Dan Brown, B-R-O-W-N.  I
     work at Wren Lake Mine.  I'm the Safety Committeeman for
     Local 1545.  A lot of the things that have been said here
     today, it seems like those guys are working at my mine.  You
     know, it's just the same repetition of the exact same things
     that are happening.  I've heard you ask several times about
     the seven thousand.  The reason you probably won't see any
     seven thousand, when it comes to diesel it's just like, --
     you don't anything with black lung.  You know, it's
     something that's not gonna happen immediately.  But it is
     happening.  
                   I've sent a list of names to Mr. McAteer, about a
     hundred and thirty people that have health concerns from
     migraine headaches, from heartaches, to whatever.  The
     studies that MSHA and different other agencies have done,
     tell you that the miner is exposed to ten times greater DPM
     than any other industry.  Two hundred times greater than
     places such as Los Angeles.  The facts speak for themselves. 
     It's time to do something.  
                   The long wall setups seem to be our biggest
     concern.  There's times that you couldn't see the distance
     of this room and everything.  And as far as being in
     compliance, we'd be in compliance with each piece of
     equipment.  When you take ten pieces of equipment, twenty
     pieces of equipment into areas with about 9,000 cubic foot
     of air, all the air there is to ventilate it, you've got a
     problem.
                   The maintenance; we have a pretty good maintenance
     program at our mine.  I will have to say that.  We change
     filters regularly, change oil, that type of thing.  
                   You asked about the training.  Under MSHA's
     guidelines, what is the proper training?  Basically, all
     they have to do is say this is a scoop, -- this is a diesel
     scoop, if they have no problems they comply with your
     regulations.  
                   So, the things that we've learned, we've learned
     on our own through different people.  The filters, we change
     weekly, it protects the motor.  Nothing protects me.  The
     raw emission tests we think, twenty-five hundred parts per
     million, can't exceed that.  You won't find a piece of
     equipment (indiscernible) for twenty-five hundred parts per
     million.  So, something needs to be done to protect those
     people, now.  Like Melvin said, we have fifty some odd
     pieces of equipment, they were bought to use.  They do not
     sit idle.  You asked for percentages of time.  They use them
     every time there's a warm body to put on them.  So, they're
     being used constantly.  There's 
     just, -- the ventilation violations that we've got prove
     that the ventilation is out of compliance, or we wouldn't, -
     - or MSHA wouldn't have wrote these citations.  So,
     something needs to be done here to protect the miners.  And
     I believe it's your responsibility to make sure that's done. 
     That's basically all I've got.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Any questions?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you very much.  Mr.
     Russell.
                   MR. RUSSELL:   My name is Terry Russell; T-E-R-R-Y 
     R-U-S-S-E-L-L.  I'm a Pit Committeeman for Local 1545.  I
     worked for Consolidated Coal, Wren Lake Mine.  
                   I'm an Alternate Safety Man at the Nelson
     (phonetic) Portal, -- we're a two portal mine.  And in the
     safety man's absence and on his behalf, I'm recognized by
     the company to represent the miners.  So, I do travel with
     inspectors; I see these citations on ventilation because I
     am a radisman (phonetic) and that is my job, ventilation.  
                   The outby, inby question I know has been probably
     addressed too much here today, but to me, if you were there,
     it could never be addressed too much.  My number question as
     a pit committeemen, that I 
     cannot, -- I have trouble dealing with, is when people come
     to me, especially during a long wall move, and they say, "Do
     I have to stay in this?  Do I have to work here?"  And when
     I check with the Federal man and the company itself, and the
     only thing I can come back and say is, "They're in
     compliance, they're not gonna do anymore then they have to
     do, and that's obvious".  They don't do anymore than they
     have to do.  And if they're in compliance that's what you're
     gonna have to do, you're gonna have to stay there.  And if
     you could just imagine the only air that you can breathe is
     gonna come through that door right there.  That's it. 
     Outside that door is all kind of contaminates from the
     diesel equipment, inby and out.  It don't make any
     difference, you're still breathing.
                   The face equipment, it's gonna be over here
     (indicating).  You're still breathing everything that comes
     through that door.  And basically, that's what we're talking
     about on light-duty equipment.  
                   Our mantrips are capable of carrying eleven
     people.  Then we have five seat, four seaters and two seat
     diesel equipment for management, maintenance, pumpers and
     what have you, different classifications.  And they're run
     all during the day.  Material is hauled all during the day. 
     When they come by that last split of air if you're inside,
     you're breathing it.  If they're in there dropping a trailer
     at number 6 crosscut and you're at (40), believe me, you
     know it.  We have actually had people have to come off the
     facia (phonetic) before because the seal monitors on the
     belt has went off at fifteen parts per million, because
     something was being operated outby, and we didn't know what
     was going on.  People have had to stop production because of
     the emissions that we have had to breath from this
     equipment.  Not inby, not at the face, maybe not heavy duty,
     because the concentration of diesel equipment in the last
     split of air that you're breathing.  
                   I know a friend of mine who's a mine examiner, and
     during one of the long wall moves he was taking air readings
     that we had.  There's spots in a single entry system where
     you're gonna have more air movement than you will in others. 
     And a number of complaints on, -- "Do we have to work here?" 
     You know, it "Makes me sick.  I've got a headache".  And I
     can speak first-hand, 'cause I have had to leave the room
     due to a headache and exposure to diesel.  And this examiner
     came to me.  I tried to go to the Federal.  Something as
     simple, maybe, -- I said, "Well, can you do something on the
     ground's obnoxious fumes?"  And MSHA told me that there's
     nothing in the law.  For cutting and welding, I could cite
     them, but not for diesel emissions.  Now, they may be in
     compliance, they may be legal, but when your eyes water and
     your throat burns, something's the matter.  And it's not, --
     it doesn't give you much consolation when you have to turn
     to somebody and say, "They're in compliance and there's
     nothing we can do".  
                   Now, the operators are not gonna do anymore than
     they're forced to do.  And you have the opportunity today to
     set the standards that's gonna affect the quality of our
     lives long after we retire; if we live that long.  And I
     feel very strongly, because one of my number one questions
     is not job security it is this environment that we have to
     work in.  And there's too many things that we cannot control
     to let something go by that we can control.  And you can
     control this right here.  Or you can make a good start. 
     Everybody would appreciate your help.  That's all I've got
     to say.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Russell.  Any
     questions?  Bob.
                   MR. HANEY:   Yes.  At Wren Lake, how many entries
     are used in your overall development?
                   MR. RUSSELL:   Three.
                   MR. HANEY:   Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:   Anyone else?
                   MR. SASEEN:   Yeah.  You said there was a, -- how
     many personal mantrips?
                   MR. RUSSELL:   I don't know the breakdown.  Are
     mantrips are eleven person capacity.
                   MR. SASEEN:   Do you know what type of vehicle
     that is?
                   MR. RUSSELL:   ALE(s).
                   MR. SASEEN:   ALE(s).
                   MR. RUSSELL:   So, they're all concentrating on
     the bottom, that's probably your, -- you've got as much air
     as you're gonna have anywhere in the mine.  And at shift
     change when they're leaving the bottom, you're starting
     those things up, they're sitting end to end.  You're
     breathing everything that happens right there.  That exhaust
     and that mantrip in front of you is right in your face.  And
     if you talk about air, if all the air is coming this way and
     you're following a scoop, I don't care how much air it is,
     when they're blowing all that emission right in your face, I
     don't care what kind of air you're breathing, you're getting
     it, and you're getting a lot of it.  We've got one entry
     that we travel in.  When you have to pull on a crosscut to
     let another piece of equipment by, then you're in dead air. 
     There's nothing going through there.  And you're also
     breathing bad air.  There is no place to put it that it
     doesn't affect someone.  The only thing that we can do is
     hopefully clean it up.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you.  Any other
     questions?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Russell.  The
     next presenter will be Mr. Main.
                   MR. MAIN:   Pass those out back through there. 
     This is a good place to start.  My name is Joe Main, and I
     am the Administrator of Health and Safety for the United
     Mine Workers of America.  I've spent a lifetime on the
     subject that we have today before this public hearing.  And
     I would first like to thank MSHA for finally moving forward
     with the promulgation of a rule that addresses a very
     critical problem in the lives of many miners in this
     country. 
                   And as I start this, I think it's important to
     meditate on what that bumper sticker that we just passed out
     means; "Black Lung: Make It Disappear."  We've been
     wrestling with a disease amongst coal miners in this country
     since coal was mined, -- since coal had began to be mined in
     the United States of America.  And we have spent an enormous
     amount of time trying to figure out a way to prevent miners
     from contracting a disease from mining that coal, which is
     black lung.  And it's unfortunate as we stand here today, to
     say that we have failed that mission, and we failed it for a
     variety of reasons.  Would anybody know on the panel, the
     number of black lung claims filed in the year 1997, in the
     United States of America?  Have any idea what the number is?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. MAIN:   Would you believe nearly seven
     thousand, five hundred claims filed with the fellow
     Government for black lung disability claims in the year
     1997.  This year I don't know what the number will be, but
     if it follows like the last few years it's gonna be about
     the same ballpark.  Could you imagine that we're standing
     here in this country of ours, mining coal and still causing
     that miners to at least believe they have the disease? 
     That's outrageous.  And I think we've all lost sight of the
     fact that there is human beings that are affected by the
     kind of occupational exposures that these people work in. 
     And I would say that everybody sitting on this panel if you
     believe for a minute that you'd be one of those seven
     thousand, you'd be doing something about it.  And I think
     that you ought to be doing something about it.  You wouldn't
     want to be one of those victims.  
                   Unfortunately, as I say, we have failed somewhere
     in the system.  We have turned a death ear to miners who've
     complained the kind of corruption and practice that's going
     on in the coal mines that led a lot of those miners to get
     the disease.  And it's about time we stop that and take a
     different approach.  And say, "We're not gonna tolerate this
     anymore.  We're gonna start taking corrective actions to
     prevent people from getting those kind of diseases.  And if
     we can, we're gonna start doing that before they get
     exposed."  When you look at black lung, and you look at
     diesel, what does that represent?  If you believe even half
     of the medical evidence that's out there; and I believe far
     more than half, it tells you that we have a population of
     miners that has over the last twenty years, been subject to
     another disease that can be even more crippling and deadly
     than black lung disease.  It can give you lung cancer. 
     That's not Joe Main saying that.  That's not some coal miner
     just saying out of the blue, that's the case, that's what
     the scientific evidence has brought us to.  And that
     scientific evidence says that the worst case scenario here,
     based on the recent NIOSH Reports that nearly nine hundred
     out of a thousand miners exposed to about 1 milligram per
     cubic meter of this particulate matter, can expect to get
     lung cancer over the lifetime of working in the mine.  Now,
     to me, it's outrageous that we have today, miners exposed to
     such levels of diesel particulate matter.  I mean, think
     about that.  The worst case scenario according to the NIOSH
     Study says that nine hundred out of a thousand could get
     lung cancer over their working lifetime.  Would anybody in
     this room want to go work in an occupation that would have
     such a risk that you're faced with?  And if you were placed
     in that, wouldn't you be the first to say, "Whoa, we're
     going to halt this kind of exposure to working class people
     in this country until we can fix it".  Unfortunately, what's
     happened to us in diesel, is the same thing that happened to
     coal miners with their exposure to coal dust.  You made it
     until enough people get sick, then you've got to do
     something about it.  The difference between diesel and black
     lung is that we don't have to build that long history like
     we did with black lung.  And if there's anybody that
     believes that coal miners don't get black lung from
     breathing coal dust, I think that you need to probably seek
     another profession.  I think there's enough statistical
     evidence to show that there's a correlation between
     breathing all that dusty material that comes off of coal and
     ruins your lungs.  Now, there's some that argue that that's
     cigarette smoke that causes that and not coal dust, but I
     think most miners really know what the truth of the matter
     is, and a lot of professionals know what the truth of the
     matter is.
                   The truth of the matter also is, that when you're
     breathing diesel particulate matter it takes a time of
     accumulating that particulate in your body to actually do
     damage.  There's those that argue, "You know, hey, we should
     have all these bodies laying around here now if this was
     that serious".  Well, I think if you look at history, what
     it's gonna tell you is that in coal mines there hasn't been
     that much exposure to diesel particulate matter.  And I
     remember back in the early 1970(s) when we had somewhere
     around seventy-five to a hundred pieces of diesel equipment
     in the coal mines in this country.  And what happened is, --
     and you can look at the different time-lines, but in the
     early '80(s) there was a proliferation up to this date, of
     diesel equipment being used in mines.  And now we're
     setting, according to interest data, somewhere around three
     thousand pieces of equipment now being used throughout the
     country.  So, we've had a limited amount of exposure.  And I
     think as Joe Urban pointed out, I remember when the Wabash
     Mine became the front runner of putting diesel equipment in
     the coal mines here in the State of Illinois.  And I
     remember when they bought this one beautiful piece of diesel
     equipment and told the mine workers, "Don't worry folks,
     we're not gonna dieselize these mines, we just need a few
     pieces in here".  I remember those days.  And I remember one
     thing is that that was not true. What we wound up with at
     the Wabash Mine before the smoke cleared, I think we was up
     pushing over a hundred and forty, hundred and fifty pieces
     of diesel equipment at that one coal mine.  So miners
     learned not to trust what people have to say about what they
     would be exposed to.  And those miners at Wabash learned a
     very hard lesson in life.  
                   But the exposure here started in the 1980(s), and
     I guess it was around '87, '86, whatever the year was.  And
     so, we've had a limited amount of time.  But we've had, I
     think, an enormous amount of exposure of miners in the
     Illinois mines.  And I think likewise in miners, -- to
     miners in Kentucky, to miners in Alabama, to miners in the
     west, Utah.  And if anybody thinks that exposure has been
     good to them, I'd like to hear the evidence of that.  And I
     would like to understand how, as a Government, realized that
     we've already screwed up so many miner's chest in this
     country, -- I mean, ruined their lungs, and but damage, --
     placed damage on their heart.  Because the heart basically,
     has to start carrying a larger load as they have to breath
     from the ill effect of the coal dust disease.  And now we've
     dumped, -- that ain't enough, we've got to dump some of this
     DPM down there too, and we'll cause another reaction, to
     cause them to have lung cancer.  And in all honestly folks,
     that's exactly what we've done here.  
                   I think it's time that rational people grab a hold
     of this issue and make some sound decisions to start helping
     coal miners for a change, as opposed to let's argue over
     this for another fifteen years.
                   I came to conference, I think it was here, for one
     of the three that we did some years back, and this whole
     debate over miner's exposure to diesel emissions, and I sat
     at that conference.  I am tired of arguing about the rat
     studies, because what we've got ourself caught up in for
     those detractors that don't want the issue dealt with.  We
     could argue the scientific validity of what, -- every one of
     those studies until we all die.  While coal miners are out
     there sucking down DPM, if that's the course that we chose. 
     The miner workers chose to say, "Enough is enough.  We're
     not gonna get into debate over the peculiarities of one
     study versus another study".  We have seen enough evidence
     here to make it clear to us that this stuff makes miners
     sick.  And if they breath enough of it, it will kill them. 
     It's as simple as that.  Unfortunately, there are those that
     want to continue to wrestle with the technical questions of
     exactly what was the population.  How is it segregated, and
     all this thing.  We're not interested in that anymore.  And
     the coal miners are not interested in that anymore, either. 
     And they've had a hard time trying to figure out why, for
     the last twenty years we have engaged ourselves in that
     debate and not moved forward.  
                   I'm very happy that we're here today.  And I'm
     very happy that we've got this whole issue elevated to the
     point they're about ready to issue a rule.  The problem is,
     if we don't issue the right rule, we're gonna have a batch
     of miners out there that are still exposed to diesel
     particulate at levels that will give them lung cancer.  And
     while there is some discussion about leaving out of the
     equation here the light-duty equipment, I think if MSHA does
     that, what they're doing, they're dooming a lot of coal
     miners.  And they're gonna cause a lot of coal miners to
     wind up with lung cancer.  As a result of failure to take
     action to issue a rule that protects those miners. 
                   As I travel throughout the country and talking to
     coal miners about what they saw as the biggest problem that
     they were faced with in their lives, the issue of diesel
     came up almost immediately in any crowd that I went into
     where diesel equipment is used.  The pollutants that come
     out those tail pipes that they have to breath has been
     something that they have realized a long time ago was
     unhealthy for them, and despite those that say, "This really
     don't exist that way," does, in fact, exist that way.  And
     miners who are working in outby areas, -- for example, I was
     at the Show Creek Mine (phonetic) in Alabama about a month,
     month and a half ago, and was walking out of the bath house,
     this miner comes up to me and he says, "Mr. Main, can you
     give me some help filing a compensation case?"  And I said,
     "What's the case over?"  And he says, "Working around this
     diesel equipment.  Sick, I've got an asthmatic condition now
     that I can't even breath, and every time I'm around it just
     like, destroys my respiratory system". And he said, "The
     last time they put me working in the belt entry with the
     forklift.  Not enough air".  And he said, "It made me so
     sick I couldn't breath.  And I've got to have help".  That's
     the realities of coal miners that people try to ignore and
     say, "That really doesn't exist".  That does exist.  The
     problem these miners have pointed out too, is getting
     documentation of all these illnesses is such a moving target
     it's, -- I can be standing here have an ill effect
     breathing; which I do from a cold right now, but from some
     other exposure I had that I may not be able to figure out
     the cause or the time, you know, exposure problems that you
     run into.  And the problem we have in coal mines too, which
     we all realize, it's just not diesel, and it's just not coal
     dust that ruins the respiratory system, we've got a gad of
     chemicals that's scattered throughout the mines right now
     that is causing immense harm to miners.  Iso-synase
     (phonetic(.  I'm sure you've heard of that, and I'm sure you
     understand that Iso-synase is wildly used through the mining
     industry.  I've had a raft of cases come across my desk
     where miners' respiratory systems have been adversely
     affected by their exposure to Iso-synase.  And to the point
     they get sensitized, to the point they can't even be around
     it and the reaction goes far worse when they are.  Those are
     the realities of life.  And, you know, you step back and
     say, "We're dealing with a confined space problem here
     folks".  I mean, this isn't out in the open air where you've
     got, you know, a mound of wind coming through diluting all
     these problems, you know, down to where they're not
     affecting miners.  This is real stuff in a confined space
     that miners are stuck into.  
                   So the effect of the respiratory system is just
     not diesel, it's coal dust, it's Iso-synase, a wrath of
     other chemicals.  But this is just another one we add we add
     on the pot.  
                   I think the testimony that we have submitted in
     the initial comments, -- and I'm not gonna get into a lot of
     those details today, but were very well founded, and this is
     the way things are in the industry.  And we have provided
     recommendations on how that rule needs to be fixed to really
     do justice to helping coal miners.  
                   But I'm gonna touch on a couple of things that's
     in that rule.  We've heard a lot of criticism from the
     industry about you can't reach a 95 percent diesel
     particulate filter.  Well, we believe we've done that in
     Pennsylvania.  We have a law that says that, and as far as
     we're concerned it is very doable.  We've seen a lot of
     resistance from the industry to try to achieve that.  I
     mean, it's like what we saw is, "Fight it tooth and nail,
     but don't let anybody proclaim there's a 95 percent filter
     out there".  And I think there's an obvious reason for that. 
     The industry, quite frankly, don't want to have to spend the
     money to do that.  I think the risks are so high, as far as
     the health of coal miners, that that equation should be
     evaluated based on what is the risk, you know, that's being
     placed on miners by staking a claim to that argument?  What
     we said in our proposal is, "Okay.  You know, for the first
     short period of time let's go to an 80 percent filter
     performance".  And we've seen a variety of filters out there
     that meets that.  And then, eventually reached the 95
     percent performance, which we think is giving them a little
     bit of lead time to build a better mousetrap if they want to
     try to do that.  We believe that there is filtering
     capability that's available out there, and one of the things
     that we found as we started to deal with this issue was that
     there's a lot of companies that sell filters throughout the
     world, that put it on equipment.  We're not reinventing the
     wheel here somewhere, we're looking at existing technology
     that's able to do these things.  We're looking at diesel
     equipment too, that operates in these outby areas, that as
     many miners have attested to that's where the bulk of it is
     now.  I think according to MSHA stats we pulled out, there's
     something like two thousand out of three thousand pieces of
     equipment that's so-called outby equipment that miners are
     exposed to all the time.  And I think the miners ask a very
     logical question, is, "Why don't you protect us as much from
     that light-duty equipment, as you do from the heavy-duty
     equipment, -- inby equipment?"  Now, when you look at some
     of the polluting factors of some of this equipment, you can
     have exempted from the control some of the most polluting
     equipment that you've got in a coal mine, just because it's
     classed as light-duty of where it's used at.  And we do have
     problems with some of these areas where we have common belt
     intake entries where, you know, the air flow is limited.  We
     have areas of belt lines that all kind of equipment is used
     from time to time to slow velocity.  But those are not the
     only problem we have.  There's a variety of different
     situations you have in coal mines where in the outby area
     you're not guaranteed the kind of air flow.  And as part of
     the comments that we did submit, I think we've pointed out
     some of the situations where you would have a piece of a
     diesel equipment that would not even nearly bring down the
     diesel particulate levels to that level that NIOSH referred
     to, that 1 milligram exposure in their study.  And I point
     out, looking at the DPM that comes off of a Caterpillar 3306
     engine, if you look at the outby air quality for those
     engines I think it's seventy-five hundred.  That's not for
     each one, that's for everything that's out there.  Now, if
     you have four of those (3306(s)) stacked up back to back as
     far as the DPM production goes, you would have a situation
     where you would have seventy-five hundred CFM, 'cause that's
     all you're required outby.  But the production levels, it
     would take, -- and I'm gonna use some figures off the top of
     my head, these may not be totally accurate.  But I know we
     used an example of just two engines like that, instead of
     seventy-five hundred CFM on two engines, I think to get the
     DPM down to a range that was in the 1 milligram; which we do
     not agree will protect miners at all, would take forty-six
     thousand CFM of quarry.
                   Those are the realities of life, when we talk
     about "Do we have enough air?"  We do not have enough air in
     the coal mines to dilute down diesel particulate to protect
     coal miners.  And when you look at this wolf from the
     standpoint is that you can have five, six, seven pieces of
     diesel equipment stacked up, and you only have to meet the
     plate reading of outby equipment of the highest piece, where
     is the science, and where is the protection there?  It does
     not exist.  The science is not there that will support any
     belief that miners would have the DPM controlled to a safe
     level.  
                   Well, these miners that are here today, are like a
     lot of miners I've met with over the years.  And what they
     represent is a voice from the mines that says, "We want this
     problem fixed".  And I think they've been very polite and
     very straightforward here about what the circumstances are
     to mines, when, in fact, maybe we ought to be a little bit
     louder and more rambunctious than what we are.  We're
     hopeful that this rule does get fixed, and does get fixed
     right.  But I think they've waited far too long to get the
     answer from the Agency.
                   You know, when we built the Pennsylvania law
     that's been talked about, and we addressed that in our
     comments, when we put together that law we did a creative
     thing.  We brought in coal miners from mines that used
     diesel equipment, like the Wabash Mine, the Imprinter's
     Energy Mine (phonetic), we bought my management folks in,
     and we sat down and we had an open discussion about "What is
     really wrong with how we use diesel equipment in coal
     mines?"  And we built a standard based on that open
     discussion, understanding of what those problems.  And the
     miners, like the miners that talked here today, and the
     company folks you were there, agreed with that, we do a very
     poor job managing, -- or maintaining diesel equipment, in
     particular, the outby equipment that, you know, we can just
     run, you know, in and out the mine.  We don't always have
     air there to control these circumstances, to dilute all
     these gases and particulates down, and there is a lack of
     understanding and application of that understanding about
     how we can have cleaner burning engines, cleaner engines as
     a whole, you know, in coal mines.  And so, when that
     standard was built, it was built based on the premise that
     we needed to fix those things in the right way that would
     actually protect coal miners.  So, what we did is, we
     applied control technologies to fix the problem.  So,
     whenever the maintenance got a little bit poor, at least it
     was trapping in the particulate, as far as particulate goes. 
     Whenever the ventilation got a little weak, at least it was
     trapping the particulate that's coming out of that exhaust
     system.  And when all the other systems failed, at least we
     had something in there to trap that particulate if the
     intake air filter got a little plugged up or whatever the
     case may be.  We also put diagnostic systems on there to
     give machine operators the kind of information they needed
     to let me know there was a problem in the system so
     maintenance could take place.  We also set some specific
     performance standards for that equipment.  
                   And that Pennsylvania law, I think, serves as a
     great model to identify the kind of decision-making that
     needed to take place if you're truly gonna protect coal
     miners, and not rely on one MSHA inspector coming in and
     looking for this moving target of equipment that may be
     hidden, or maybe instead of ten pieces, he finds two pieces
     when he does his test, or relying on all these other things
     that miners have really found to be a failure in the system. 
     Control technology was the answer then, and control
     technology is the answer now.
                   We also found one other thing, too, is that you
     ought to have some other kind of performance standard other
     than just putting a filter on a piece of equipment.  And we
     realize the difficulty of doing in mine testing, so what we
     required as part of the Pennsylvania law was a lab test of
     the equipment before it could get approval to show that it
     would perform in a certain way.  And it would limit, with
     the filters that was being used, the DPM to a level that we
     felt would protect the miners.  And in particular, what we
     were able to define was a system that limited the DPM
     production to .12 milligram per cubic meter.  And that was a
     test parameter that we set in Pennsylvania.  And we believe
     that's a good standard for the rest of the world as well. 
     And we need to limit that in a way that has, at least some
     control equipment over that equipment before it ever goes to
     the mine; it will perform in such a way to keep DPM down,
     and that we have filters on that equipment that will in
     essence, control that to a meaningful level to keep miners
     from being exposed.  
                   One of the miners that was gonna be here today,
     Geri Pensky (phonetic), who was one of the miners that
     worked with us as part of that Labor Management Work Group,
     -- and it was the Labor Management Work Group that put the
     Pennsylvania law together.  Unfortunately, she had a death
     in the family and she's gonna be submitting, I understand,
     some written testimony for the record to define some of the
     same things that I've talked to you about.  
                   As far as sampling, one of the things that has
     been raised in these discussions is, "What about in mine
     sampling, as opposed to engineering controls, as a method of
     dealing with diesel particulate matter?"  I will pass around
     some documents that I think are very pertinent.
                                (Pause)
                   MR. MAIN:   Has sampling in the mines worked to
     protect coal miners?  As a starting point, I suggest that it
     has not.  And not only do I suggest that, there is a mound
     of evidence that says that sampling for exposure of miners
     to those things in the environment they agree that can make
     them sick, as a means to prevent them from getting sick, has
     not worked in the coal mining industry.  
                   And the first document that I have given you is,
     is a list of all the criminal convictions and guilty pleas
     regarding dust fraud that has occurred in the United States,
     that has been, -- at least, went through the judicial system
     with some end result.  There's over a hundred and sixty
     companies and/or individuals on the attached list, from 1991
     through 1997, that have been criminally convicted or pled
     guilty to fraudulent coal dust sampling in the United
     States.  I believe that if you'll look at the history of the
     Coal Mine Act, there is not a single other type of violation
     of the Act that is anywhere equal to the number of
     violations or the number of criminal convictions rather,
     that have been made in the dust fraud, -- for dust fraud in
     dust sampling.  Not another single standard of the Mine Act
     has had anywhere near the number of criminal cases, criminal
     convictions, as this one single issue.
                   Also, I've provided you with a copy of the
     Louisville Courier Journal series that was ran in April of
     1998.  And what this describes is, -- for those who haven't
     read it yet, -- and I want to make sure that these are
     officially placed in the record.  What this story is about
     is an in depth investigation into dust sampling in the
     Appalachian coal mines, and particularly in the State of
     Kentucky.  And what the investigation disclosed was that
     there was just rampant fraudulent dust sampling taking place
     in these Appalachian mines that this article covered.  And
     it was such an open issue that we even had company
     officials, ex-company officials give information to the
     reporter for the story of, "Yeah, we did it.  We did it to
     make a profit".  Had exposed miners to unhealthy levels of
     coal dust, cheating the dust sampling system to make money
     off of coal.  
                   There's a lot of stories about the victims in
     here.  There's one that's dying, -- if you'll look at the
     "Cheating on dust tests is widespread".  I know this fellow. 
     I don't know if you folks have ever met him or not, Les
     Blevins.  Anybody know Les Blevins, on the panel?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. MAIN:   I spent some time with Les Blevins,
     and this is a victim who at forty-five years old his life is
     over; waiting for lung transplants; ready to die.  And one
     of the reasons why is, that the system failed to protect Les
     Blevins, and he became so sick that his life on this earth,
     and he knows it, is very short.  
                   There's another story in here about a miner who
     had worked in Kentucky, his name was Terry Howard, and
     Howard died in 1995, as a result of silicosis, -- or from
     silicosis, at the age of forty-five, and is survived by his
     wife and his children.  And for those that knew of Terry
     Howard, they would tell you that it was one of the most
     tragic deaths that any individual ever went through in their
     life.  
                   There's other stories in here about other miners. 
     I'm talking about miners, you know, early forties, dying of
     these diseases.  I personally met a lot of these miners that
     have become ill from diseases.  Larry Hattin worked in the
     mines in West Virginia.  The story about Larry is in here,
     who also has lung diseases.  Numerous miners that have not
     made it through their working career because they were
     exposed to a disease of which this Government failed to
     control, which really, the mine operator exposed them to
     without adequate controls, and in cases, as these miners
     attest to, bent the law and lied about the conditions that
     they were exposed to, in order to grant favorable
     enforcement activity from the Government, and produce a lot
     of coal.  And I say that in respect to these are the same
     people today, you know, people who said, "Don't believe this
     stuff, this didn't happen to these miners.  These miners, --
     it wasn't the dust".  That's malarkey, they were.  But you
     have some of the same folks running around today saying,
     "Don't believe all this stuff about the dangers of diesel
     particulate matter that these miners breath, it's not that
     bad.  And air takes care of all these problems".  That's not
     true.  And if we're not wise enough to figure it out,
     there's gonna be a lot of miners like the Les Blevins in
     here, only the story's not gonna be black lung, it's gonna
     be lung cancer.  
                   We're gonna be submitting a lot more information
     before the record closes, so I'm not gonna hit a lot of
     these things in any depth.  But, you know, about three or
     four points I want to make before I close.  
                   There has been some discussion about what should
     be in the plans.  This is an issue, if you look at our
     proposal, that outlines certain testing that has to take
     place, certain certifications that need to place for proper
     a proper diesel filter particulate system to work.  We
     believe that what we proposed needs to be in that rule.  And
     we also believe that that needs to be part of the plan.  So,
     you know, we get in a situation here where other things that
     may tie around how that diesel equipment is used, to ensure
     that it's used the way it is, that it should be part of the
     approved plan that can be incorporated in that, and not just
     some document.
                   There's been some discussion, I understand in the
     previous hearings, about letting, -- "Gee, just let us use
     the Toolbox approach".  And for those who don't know what
     the Toolbox is, it's a document put out by MSHA based on the
     conferences that were held some three or four years ago,
     that talked about some of the improvements that we could
     make in diesel equipment that's being used, which some of
     those booklets laying on the table are.  Well, you know what
     my reaction to those books would be?  They're not using them
     now.  I mean, I would hope to God with all we know about the
     dangers of all these gases and particulate coming out the
     tail pipes of diesel equipment that we don't have operators
     saying, "Gee, just let me do that".  What they should be
     saying is, "Gee, we're doing that," okay, given the
     seriousness and the nature of the disease that their
     employees face.  I don't think that miners can be protected
     by a Toolbox booklet.  If anybody on this panel thinks so, I
     think it would be wise for you to lay out to us why you
     think that you could.  What the Toolbox approach is, is a
     general guide of things that responsible industry folks
     should be doing to protect their miners.  And as we all
     know, there are some operators that do a lot better job at
     protecting the miners than others do.  And as we all know, -
     - and you take that case of those miners that's in that
     newspaper, like the Terry (sic) Hattin's of the world, the
     Les Blevins' of the world, who did not have the benefit of
     working for a responsible employer who destroyed their life
     and took their life away from them.  That's the reality in
     the coal industry.  And that's the reality that everybody
     has to understand.  This is not an industry of which we can
     do things that may stretch protection or stretch the law,
     and there is no real harm.  We're talking about when you do
     those kind of things, stretch and bend the law, somebody's
     gonna get hurt.  And somebody gets hurt in real way.  So, I
     think the message here is that we need real rules and not
     Toolbox guidelines as a way to protect these miners.  
                   The one point, too, that I need to raise is, is
     that this whole debate has gotten very vicious.  And I've
     been in it for about twenty years, and I just want to make
     sure that as the miners walk away from here today they have
     engaged in a protected activity under the Mine Act, and
     anybody that would try to retaliate against them has to
     understand that that is a violation of the Mine Act to do
     that.  Unfortunately, we've had some recent cases where mine
     operators have went after miners who have engaged in
     protective activity and discriminated against them, and
     that's unfortunate.  But I just wanted to remind everyone
     here that that is a right that these miners have, and a
     protection guaranteed by the Mine Act.  And I'm sure that
     MSHA would be very, -- look very ill upon anybody that tried
     to discriminate against any miner who did participate.
                   Personally, for myself, it's been probably even
     higher than that.  I even, -- this whole diesel debate's
     gotten to the point that one of the highest industry
     officials have went to my boss and tried to get me fired
     over it.  Hard to believe, but that's just how serious this
     whole issue is.  That, of course, didn't work.  But it has
     made me understand what stretches, what depths some of the
     industry will go to to try to stop the Government from
     acting to protect coal miners against something that is so
     inevitable to so many of them, that will shorten their life
     and kill them that, you know, it's sort of outrageous that
     that conduct takes place.  
                   I'm gonna close by saying that we'll have a lot
     more comments to make for the record.  These miners have
     asked you, pleaded with you, to make a decision so they quit
     getting sick in the mines, so they don't wind up being one
     of those statistics that says, "John Doe got lung cancer
     from breathing diesel particulate matter in coal mines," and
     set a rule that really works, and don't piecemeal it, and
     don't just take out a third of the diesel equipment and say,
     "We'll tinker with that," deal with the whole issue.  And if
     an operator wants to use equipment, they ought to have the
     moral fortitude about them to put the right protection on
     there before they stick that in the working environment of
     the miner.    
              The State of Pennsylvania, until they implemented the
     Pennsylvania Diesel Law, didn't allow that.  The State of
     West Virginia continues to disallow that.  The State of Ohio
     continues to disallow that.  The States of West Virginia and
     Pennsylvania are two producing coal states, they all have
     coal mines, and some of them are doing quite well.  And a
     lot of them, like I say, very few mines in Pennsylvania have
     diesel equipment.  None in West Virginia does.  And those
     that say, "Gee, if we don't get this it's gonna put us out
     of work," is poppycock.  For those that want to do it, well,
     they have to pay the price to protect their miners to do
     that.  And we believe that the time has come to quit arguing
     over the rap debates.  I'm sick of looking coal miners in
     the eye that's forty-five years of old, and looking at coal
     operators that abuse those folks and just walked away from
     them.  'Cause there's a whole lot of them walking around in
     this world.  You should go down to East Kentucky if you want
     to see a whole batch of cripples and people that can't
     breath anymore.  And it's time that someone in this industry
     stand up to the freaking plate and be responsible for what
     they're doing to people.  Thank you very much.
                   MR. TOMB:   Thank you, Mr. Main.  You have any
     questions?
                   MS. WESDOCK:   Mr. Main, can I have a copy of the
     newspaper?  I didn't get one.
                   MR. MAIN:   Oh, okay, there's, -- if you're short
     any of that, I can make sure I get you some additional
     copies.  Anybody else need one?
                                (Pause)
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Main.  Thank
     you.  Our next presenter will be a Mr. Jourdan.
                   MR. JOURDAN:   Good afternoon.  My name is Sean
     Jourdan, S-E-A-N  J-O-U-R-D-A-N.  I am an Environmental
     Engineer with the Mississippi Lime Company, a limestone mine
     located in St. Genevieve, Missouri.  I am pleased to testify
     today on behalf of the MARG Diesel Coalition concerning
     MSHA's proposed rule governing diesel particulate exposure
     in underground coal mines.  
                   MARG is a coalition comprised of underground
     nonmetal mine operators and other entities who are
     interested in the regulation of diesel particulate and the
     potential health effects of diesel exhaust in humans.  May
     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 nonmetal miners and to
     evaluate the past and current health effects on 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/nonmetal mines.  And we reserve the right
     to submit additional written materials concerning the coal
     sector's proposal.  Today's testimony, however, focuses on
     MSHA's failure to provide a sound basis for those proposed
     rules.  
                   As MSHA is well aware, earlier in this year NIOSH
     and NCI finally began data collection for its six year,
     multifaceted study of diesel exhaust exposure in nonmetal
     miners, which is intended to determine whether such exposure
     causes illnesses.  The goal of this multimillion dollar
     project are:  (1) to evaluate mortality with regard to
     diesel exhaust exposure; (2) to determine whether mortality
     increases in relation to the level of diesel exposure; and
     (3) to evaluate the association between measured levels of
     diesel exhaust components in the air, metabolites in the
     urine, and DNA adducts in bronchial and blood cells.  All
     suspected disease endpoints are being studied, including
     lung cancer.  This study includes the following components:
                   A retrospective cohort mortality study:  The
     cohort for this phase is comprised of approximately eight
     thousand, two hundred non-metal miners from ten underground
     mines who were employed for at least one year during the
     period from the date of mine dieselization until December
     30, 1996.  Vital status will be determined, and cause of
     death will be obtained from death certificates.
                   A 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
     these interviews.
                   Biomarker study:  This study is designed to
     examine whether exposed workers have detectable levels of
     nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, also known as nitro-
     PAH metabolites in their urine and nitro-PAH DNA adducts in
     a spectrum of tissues, and to relate these levels to
     airborne exposures.
                   Information from industrial hygiene surveys at
     each mine, and data from past surveys and MSHA 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, submicrometer
     particulate, organic fraction of the exhaust, NO, NO(2), CO,
     CO(2), nitro-PAH(s) and respirable and total particulate. 
     These measures are being collected because NIOSH and NCI
     recognize that there is no definitive substance which serves
     as a surrogate for diesel particulate matter exposure and
     the researchers hope to determine which substances best
     correlates with identifiable diesel exhaust exposure.  
                   NIOSH/NCI's proposal for this study clearly
     identifies the problem with MSHA's assumptions concerning
     health effects.  In short, -- and I quote,
                                 "Although diesel exhaust has been
                   classified as a possible carcinogen by
                   IARC and as a possible carcinogen by
                   NIOSH, the risk of lung cancer in humans
                   is still not well defined".
     NIOSH admits the same conclusion for all of the suspected
     disease endpoints.  the Government researchers observed
     that, in view of the inconclusive findings in animal
     studies, "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 a
     small number of observations.
                   In the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
     preceded the current proposal, MSHA quoted the Diesel
     Advisory Committee's findings 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 had asked NIOSH to
     perform a risk assessment for exposure to diesel
     particulate, and between 1988 and 1991, eight studies and/or
     papers were developed by NIOSH, the 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 well known.  Therefore, admittedly flawed
     scientific studies are the source of MSHA's "strong
     evidence" of an increased risk of lung cancer, and serve as
     a scientific basis for the purposed, draconian diesel
     exhaust rule.  MSHA has selectively presented studies
     supporting its conclusion while ignoring other research that
     refutes its findings.  The agency has also has disregarded
     the recent conclusion of Dr. Debra Silverman, lead
     researcher on the NIOSH/NCI diesel study:  When she states,
     "The repeated findings of small effects, coupled with the
     absence of quantitative data on historical exposure,
     precludes a causal interpretation."
              The mining operations involved in the NIOSH/NCI study
     are participating cooperatively with government 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 in our
     mine sites and has cost the industry millions of dollars in
     non-reimbursed expenses for such items as: reviewing and
     copying of hundreds of thousands of non-statutorily required
     personnel, medical and business documents; sampling and
     exposure monitoring; accompanying the researchers for their
     personal safety; and, review of and comments concerning
     NIOSH/NCI's many revisions of their protocol.
              The "best available evidence," as determined by NIOSH
     (the agency charged with the 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 has already been
     established, there would be no basis for NIOSH/NCI to
     continue to work with millions of taxpayer's dollars. 
     Similarly, there would 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 the rulemaking until such time as
     NIOSH/NCI complete their work and have had the opportunity
     to process the results and submit them to an independent
     peer review.
              Although MARG acknowledges the 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 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 very important issue.
     
                   That's all I have to say.  Thank you very much for
     your consideration of these comments.  Any questions?
                   MR. TOMB:   Thank you, Mr. Jourdan.  Any
     questions?  Jon.
                   MR. KOGUT:   You said that MSHA in its risk
     assessment had ignored some studies that tended to refute
     the conclusion that diesel particulate posed a significant
     health risk.  Do you have a list of those studies?
                   MR. JOURDAN:   No, I don't.  I don't.  But I know
     there's been some significant studies done, at least in
     other countries.  I can think of Australia, for one.  But I
     don't have, --
                   MR. KOGUT:   Can you send us as part of a post-
     hearing comments, a list of the studies that you believe
     we've ignored?
                   MR. JOURDAN:   That's no problem.
                   MR. TOMB:   Any other questions?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. TOMB:   Thank you very much, Mr. Jourdan.
                   MR. JOURDAN:   Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:   Our next presenter will be Mr.
     McWhorter.  Did I pronounce that correctly, sir?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Yes.  Thank you very much.  I'll
     try to be brief.  My name is P. L. McWhorter, sometimes
     known as Judge.  I am Vice-President of Phillips Machine
     Service in Beckley, West Virginia.  
                   MR. TOMB:   Would you spell your name, please,
     sir?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   M-C-W-H-O-R-T-E-R.  
                   MR. TOMB:   Thank you.
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   This is certainly a complex
     subject.  A lot of us have spent a great deal of time and
     effort on it.  I would start off by saying that I am going
     to address, and want to focus on just one portion of the
     proposed regulations, and that is the call for a "95 percent
     filter efficiency".
                   I would state that in my opinion there can be
     improvements in a coal mine, -- in a coal mine diesel
     operation, if you will, and there certainly should be
     exhaust improvements.  In fact, our company is currently
     building a, -- well, not, -- we have built one prototype
     machine.  We are prepared to go beyond that, in which we
     incorporate what is the existing state of the art of filter
     efficiency, if you want to use that term.  However, having
     said that, and feeling very confident that we can meet
     almost any standards that are called for, I still would like
     to ask the Agency to get rid of the term 95 percent,
     specifically.  Why am I concerned about 95 percent? 
     Actually, one of my concerns is, -- and I'm an old timer,
     I've been around this business for awhile, is my concern
     that by so doing I think that we're going to stop some
     technological advances.  An example, over-the-road
     technology in diesel engine technology is way ahead of
     anything that we use in the coal mine.  We are prohibited
     currently, from utilizing those engines that are much
     cleaner, in many ways, than the engines that we're allowed
     to use underground.  Particularly in the permissible
     engines.  One of the challenges is that if we retain the
     requirement for 95 percent efficiency, -- I'll try to phrase
     it another way.  Ninety-five percent is reasonably easy to
     attain when you have a relatively dirty engine.  If
     technology advances and we use extraordinary clean engines,
     such as are used in surface technology now, we will have a
     heck of a time trying to get 95 percent of the contaminants
     that are already at a low level out of the system.  So, I
     think that the, -- I think we're better served to have a
     more realistic number that doesn't stop that technological
     advance.  
                   To give you some idea of how difficult it is to
     attain, as some of you know, we have been working
     extensively in West Virginia, to try to arrive at a mutually
     agreeable; and I'll call it that, set of regulations that, -
     - for diesel operation.  And, frankly, it has been, -- in
     this process we have tested many diesel engines, many
     filters, and that the so-called filter business is more
     complex than, -- and I'm sure a filter, as many of you know,
     it's a combination of whether or not catalytic converters
     are used in conjunction with a so-called filter.  But in
     that process it has been very difficult to obtain laboratory
     results that everyone is happy with.  The laboratory that
     has been used is a West Virginia University Laboratory, a
     state of the art facility, very professional.  Nonetheless,
     some of the data that has come out has been very difficult
     for lots of folks to live with.  In fact, actually, the
     engine that is currently used in two of the pieces of the
     equipment that are really at this point, I think, the only
     two that are used in Pennsylvania, specifically, did not
     pass the tests that were carried out.  I say, "the engine,"
     the engine and filter combination did not really pass, due
     to the nature, probably, of the laboratory tests.  But,
     nonetheless, that was the standard upon which this
     performance was measured.  It's a good combination, it works
     well, I'm sure it's doing a fine job in Pennsylvania.  But
     if it were really held to the test, -- or to the current, --
     or the required level of tests, I doubt if it could really
     pass it.  At least the tests that we used in West Virginia. 
                   There are other details, I think, that I won't get
     into, but for those who have made a study of the existing
     several sources of catalytic converters and that sort of
     thing, there is considerable variation in the manner in
     which the percentages are determined.  In some cases it's
     done by, -- on a mass basis, a weight basis.  In other cases
     it's done by a percentage of particulate count, -- or
     particle count, I should say.  And there are some built-in
     discrepancies in the technology that is used.  
                   I guess if I have to, -- I think that it's
     probably appropriate to have some sort of percentage in the
     regulations.  I think if I personally were going to write a
     regulation I think I would call for something in the 70 to
     80 percent regulation.  I think that any manufacturer,
     frankly, who's worth his salt, who wants to be competitive,
     will strive to go way beyond that.  And, frankly, he will
     use his ability to, -- at least in laboratory, attain that,
     as a means of selling his product.  But I think that
     something in the 70 to 80 percent range is something that
     the industry and you, MSHA, can live with.  As we trend
     toward (95), frankly, we'll all spend a lot of time and
     agony trying to defend the indefensible.  That's all I have. 
     Thank you very much.
                   MR. TOMB:   Thank you.  Any questions?
                   MR. FORD:   I'm a bit confused about your
     statement.  You said, "The company is building the state of
     the art efficiency machine"?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Yes.
                   MR. FORD:   What's that mean?  Are you building a
     machine with a, --
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Yes.
                   MR. FORD:   -- filter, or, --
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   We are building a, -- we have
     built, a diesel electric shuttle car, which utilizes the DST
     system, -- the first generation DST system.  What is first
     generation?  First generation DST system which is the system
     that was approved up until, what, early last year.  It did
     not incorporate a catalytic converter.  Now, the subsequent,
     so-called second generation does, indeed, incorporate a
     catalytic converter.  It is our plan that on subsequent
     machines we would incorporate the now approved catalytic
     converter in conjunction with the heat exchanger type DST
     system.  And we use this on the MWM engine, and that
     combination is, -- I think I'm safe to say, about the
     cleanest combination thus far known to MSHA.  So, that's why
     I called it the state of the art.
                   MR. FORD:   So, you took a shuttle car and you're
     putting on it the DST system?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Uh-huh (positive utterance).
                   MR. FORD:   Can you tell me just to put on that, -
     - would this system be a permissible?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Yes.
                   MR. FORD:   Okay.  Would you tell me what it would
     cost to put on that DST system, purchasing it and
     installation?  The range?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Oh, bear in mind that the system
     includes, -- it is, indeed, a system.  It isn't just a heat
     exchanger, and it is not just a catalytic converter.  It is
     that, which is necessary to cool it, so it does incorporate
     a radiator, it does incorporate safety shut downs and some
     other devices that are necessary.  If I had to throw a rough
     number together I'd guess on that particular machine sixty
     to seventy thousand dollars, probably.
                   MR. FORD:   Okay.  What's the horsepower?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   That is (88), as it was tested. 
     The MSHA approval for that particular is at (88).
                   MR. FORD:   Okay.  Thank you.
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:   We've got another question, please,
     sir.
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Yes sir.
                   MR. KOGUT:   You identified it as a problem with
     the approach that we tentatively took in the proposed rule
     of a requiring 95 percent filtration, that that would, -- I
     gathered from what you said, that you thought that that
     would be technology inhibiting in some sense.
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Yes.
                   MR. KOGUT:   And argument for that is that
     cleaner, -- that it's more difficult to achieve any fixed
     filtration rate with cleaner engines than with, -- and yet,
     you apparently endorsed using a requirement of using
     something like 80 percent.  I don't understand why that
     argument wouldn't apply in both cases?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   All right.  Thank you for the
     question.  There are all sorts of diesel equipment used in a
     coal mine.  Our particular machine lends itself to the use
     of this particular size engine, and this particular
     configuration of scrubber, filter, what have you.  
                   MR. KOGUT:   When you say, "your engine, --
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Our particular configuration.
                   MR. KOGUT:   You mean on the shuttle car?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   My concern is, -- excuse me?
                   MR. KOGUT:   You mean on the shuttle car?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Yes, on this particular size
     machine.  It's a big machine that has room to put things in
     it.  My concern is that this, as I understand it, is an
     across the board requirement.  And some of these, -- to
     attain that, with other engine combinations, on other pieces
     of equipment, could be impractical, if not impossible.
                   MR. KOGUT:   When you say, "attain that," you mean
     attain 95 percent?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Ninety-five percent.  Ninety-five
     percent.  I think what you're doing in establishing some
     sort of efficiency level is probably necessary, but, -- as
     part of the overall mix.  But I think that, -- as far as I'm
     concerned, the MWM engine with our diesel package is right
     at the edge of the state of the art.  And under the very
     best of laboratory conditions, yes, it will get 95 percent,
     okay?  But that is truly laboratory.  I have reason to think
     that many other engines, even when used with the DST system
     will probably have, -- will have difficulty getting up to
     that, -- you know, in acetonic things, as you get closer and
     closer to 100 percent it gets infinitely more difficult. 
     And I'm just trying to say it's impractical.  It won't
     happen.  It will be very limiting.
                   MR. KOGUT:   When you, -- well, you also mentioned
     that there are different ways of evaluating the efficiency,
     of course.  And what we had proposed was 95 percent
     reduction by mass.  In your view, does the diminishing
     return increase difficulty in achieving that 95 percent with
     so-called cleaner engines, does that apply when the
     filtration efficiency is measured on a, -- on the basis of
     number of particles, as well as by mass?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   It wouldn't, I should think, in a
     reasonable range.  But as you get closer and closer to 100
     percent it could make a difference, maybe, you know, a few
     percent one way or another.  Yeah, uh-huh (positive
     utterance).  I think that's kind of a detail.  I just want
     us not to get hung up on that detail.  
                   MR. MCKINNEY:   As I understand from the hearing
     we had in Beckley, the MWM engine is no longer gonna be
     available because of simply there's no market for the
     engine.  Do you see any engines that are out there that are
     available now, using some of the cleaner technologies that
     are gonna be available to you guys to put these packages
     together with?
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Well, of course, in that same
     horsepower range there is available the Caterpillar 3304
     right now.  It's not as clean, not as efficient, but we
     could certainly, -- I'm confident that we could filter it
     very well, all that sort of thing.  I prefer not to use it,
     there's some space and size configurations.  There exists a,
     -- in fact, it was initially suggested to me by MSHA, to
     look into this.  There exists a group in Brazil that were
     originally part of MWM, have 
     since, -- MWM was purchased by Deutsche (phonetic), and the
     Brazilian group spun off and actually had been a major
     manufacturer of engines for many years.  They've sent me a
     CD rom and all sorts of things; quite an impressive
     operation.  And they make a, -- they make that engine.  They
     make an engine virtually like the MWM 916, with the
     exception that it is not indirect ignition, or injection,
     and it does not have water cooled exhaust manifold.  But
     these things are not beyond the range of, -- that sort of
     thing could be, -- those modifications could be made.  So, I
     have some hope that we will be able to, -- if the market
     develops, that we will have an alternative source for that
     engine.  
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you very much.
                   MR. MCWHORTER:   Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:   Our next presenter will be Mr. Larry
     Patts.
                   MR. PATTS:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and
     gentlemen of the panel.  My name is Larry Patts, P-A-T-T-S,
     and I'm with Consol, Incorporate, Corporate Safety
     Department.  I just wanted to make a few very brief comments
     this afternoon, particularly in respect to references made
     to the Pennsylvania law.  
                   As a resident of the great State; thank you, by
     the way, -- great State of Pennsylvania, and an indirect
     participant in the PA diesel process, I feel that it's
     necessary to address several comments which were made in
     reference to the Pennsylvania law. 
                   As the members of the panel heard this afternoon,
     miners want the use of diesel equipment.  What they don't
     want is to suffer health effects from DPM. Earlier, Mr.
     Urban submitted the PA law as a pattern for the Federal
     rule.  But the PA law is so restrictive that only two pieces
     of equipment in Pennsylvania are operating today.  This is
     since February of 1997, when the PA law went into effect. 
     It is questionable as to whether these two sole units of
     equipment meet the 95 percent filter efficiency, which is
     mandated by Pennsylvania.  Such stringency effectively
     prohibits the use of diesel equipment, which we believe is
     very necessary to eliminate trolley wires and trailing
     cables, and the fatalities and injuries that go with trolley
     wire and trailing cables.  
                   I'll give you an example.  At one of our mines in
     Pennsylvania, we've tried for over a year and a half to get
     one piece of diesel equipment approved for use under the PA
     requirements, and we cannot do it as of yet.  And we have
     had the help of several manufacturers and many people
     involved in this, and can't get that one piece approved as
     of this date.  
                   Mr. Urban also made a reference to economics.  And
     he said that economics is not a problem with the PA law,
     because the PA mines are still in operation, they're not
     going out of business.  I don't know how this could be
     determined when there's only two pieces of equipment in
     operation in the entire State of Pennsylvania?  I would
     remind the panel further, that Cypress, who was co-author of
     the Pennsylvania law, has already given testimony to the
     panel that the PA law is too restrictive and that it needs
     revisions in order to be a workable law, and made
     recommendations as to the adoption of an integrated approach
     in Pennsylvania.  Meaning the use of clean engines, clean
     fuel, ventilation and so forth, in order to achieve a
     certain standard.  
                   I would hope that MSHA can learn from the
     experience in Pennsylvania that has been gained over the
     past two years and benefit from it.  That's all I have.
                   MR. TOMB:   Thank you.  Any questions?  
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. TOMB:   Mr. Patts, could you possibly
     elaborate a little bit on what's involved, -- or what
     Consol's been involved with in trying to get an approval on
     an engine in Pennsylvania?
                   MR. PATTS:   I sure can.  What we've tried to do
     is, -- our Dielworth (phonetic) Mine, in particular, needs a
     piece of equipment to clean along the belt line.  If not,
     you've got to have men in there with picks and shovels,
     shoveling the material that sluff off the rib and is
     compacted against the rib.  You have to pick and shovel
     that, loosen it and shovel it onto the belt.  We have wanted
     to get a small unit called a Microtracks (phonetic). 
     There's a manufacturer in Pennsylvania, -- or Maryland,
     rather, by the name of Romack (phonetic), that manufactures
     this equipment.  And it is really a diesel engine operating
     a hydraulic power pack assembly, which you can put different
     devices on.  One is a digging shovel.  
                   MR. TOMB:   What's the size of that unit?
                   MR. PATTS:   Maximum width is 30 to 36 inches, I
     believe.
                   MR. TOMB:   No, I mean the horsepower of it?
                   MR. PATTS:   Oh, horsepower?
                   MR. TOMB:   Yeah, uh-huh (positive utterance).
                   MR. PATTS:   Nominal 15 horsepower, 15 to 20
     horsepower unit.  And we have had the manufacturer try
     several different filters on this equipment.  Realizing this
     is a piece of small outby equipment and certainly cannot
     accept a system which would have a large heat exchanger on
     it and a dry paper filter.  It couldn't accept it both
     physically nor economically, because of the prices you've
     heard with such systems.  They have tried several different
     ceramic type filters and different filter arrangements and
     combinations of catalytic converters, and as of this date,
     still cannot meet the stringent 95 percent requirement of
     Pennsylvania law.
                   MR. TOMB:   Is the engine manufacturer doing this,
     -- trying these things?
                   MR. PATTS:   The engine manufacturer is doing it. 
     Excuse me.  Not the engine manufacturer, the equipment
     manufacturer.
                   MR. TOMB:   The equipment manufacturer.
                   MR. MCKINNEY:   What type of reductions have they
     gotten down to, using some of the ceramics?
                   MR. PATTS:   Ceramics, they have got as high as 90
     percent.  However, that's one piece of equipment under
     isolated conditions, and they did, in fact, -- the engine is
     derated in order to gain that type of efficiency from a
     filter.  It's being rated in order to get the DPM emitted
     down so that the efficiency can go up.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  The other question I wanted to
     ask, and I forgot when you finished before.  But who's doing
     the testing of the engines to determine the efficiency?
                   MR. PATTS:   This testing just happened to be one
     of the engines that was tested under the West Virginia, --
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.
                   MR. PATTS:   -- system, -- under the West Virginia
     proposal.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you.
                   MR. PATTS:   Thank you. 
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  That pretty much concludes the
     list of speakers that I have.  And what I'd like to do is, -
     - I have by popular demand, that we need a recess of about
     fifteen minutes.  Then I'd like to come back and if there's
     anybody that would like to make a presentation that hasn't
     signed up, give those people the opportunity to speak.  And
     if not, then this meeting will probably be concluded.  You
     might, if you want to come up at the break, give your names
     while we take this break.
                   (Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the hearing was
     recessed, to reconvene this same day at 2:35 p.m.)
                   MR. TOMB:   I only have one additional name from a
     person that would like to several additional comments from
     their other presentation, Mr. Main.
                   MR. MAIN:   Thank you.  My name's Joe Main. 
     Again, from the United Mine Workers.  A couple of things I'd
     like to raise.  When we were developing the model for
     Pennsylvania, and we talked to a lot of miners, and I heard
     it here today from some of the miners that testified, the
     same situation, in trying to use water scrubbers with
     filters sometimes there is a problem there.  And the fire
     problem results I think when they run the, -- they run water
     dry in the scrubbers and it lets all the heat go through,
     which is a maintenance problem.  That's the reason that when
     we saw the performance of the dry systems, and with heat
     exchanger it did two things.  It provided a constant cooling
     system, and secondly, the maintenance, -- I mean, it reduced
     the maintenance immensely.  And I know there are some mines
     out here, I think Wabash, if anybody's left from the Wabash,
     is, -- you know, they've got one of the DST systems in, and
     they're getting another one, which they talk about today. 
     And we're gonna get some more, you know, information on
     that.  
                   With respect to Pennsylvania, you know, whether
     this is true or not, I don't, but there's some people who
     just refuse to buy a product off of another coal company
     that has control.  And that's Cypress (phonetic), I guess,
     controls the DST system, and some people may not like to buy
     things off of Cypress.  That's their problem, I don't know. 
     But they do have systems that has been tested and approved,
     or at least they're still standing approved to meet the kind
     of standard we're talking about. 
                   With respect to a system that was mentioned today,
     I was really surprised to hear that there have been this
     length of time trying to get the DST, -- or the system that
     was being developed, by Romax, -- Romack, out of, -- if it's
     the same system that I saw pull into a parking lot and run,
     -- about, -- this goes back five, six months at WVU.  And we
     have been pounding, -- or had been pounding on Dr. Godden
     (phonetic) to get the thing in to get it tested.  Now, we're
     gonna go back and check the record on this one, but my
     information that was coming to me is that it was getting
     backed up behind other testing and research to be done at
     WVU, and it wasn't the matter of just getting in there and
     just getting all these tests.   And if that's not true, I
     want to get a verification on.  But the information we had
     is it wasn't getting in the test lab to be tested.  And we
     had talked to Romack ourself about "When are you guys gonna
     get it tested?"  And they were complaining about the backlog
     of the other tests that was being done as part of the WVU
     research program that we had committed to the legislature. 
     And what was happening down there, we tested a lot of
     different equipment, different filters, different equipment
     types, and that just happened to be one that was on the
     list.  So, it may be an unfair characterization, and we need
     to get the facts to this committee that, in fact, it wasn't
     delayed because of all these tests.  It may have been
     delayed because it just didn't get into the testing room. 
     And I'll be the first willing to clarify the record if the
     information we've had, which comes straight out of the WVU
     is not correct.  
                   I do think that there is, -- if the industry
     thought today that they had to meet the standards that we're
     talking about, I think we'd see a lot more R & P being done
     to get there, then what we're seeing today.  I'm convinced
     of that.  One of the things that I think has happened as we
     tried to work the Pennsylvania model, and try to develop a
     rule similar to, -- or in West Virginia rather, and try to
     work a rule similar to Pennsylvania was, there seemed to
     have been those in the industry that was resisting having
     certain kind of research done.  And we had, --
     unfortunately, had to deal with that.  And I've been
     disturbed by that.  If you build it, they will come.  If you
     set the standard, they'll meet it, I think is a clear
     message here.
                   A couple of other items too, is that miners don't
     believe that some folks who have not had the experience, --
     the ill fortunate, I would say, to work around diesel
     equipment really understands what that's like.  And we had
     toyed with the thought of bringing a piece of diesel
     equipment emitting the kind of pollutants that you're
     talking about into the hearing room.  And we figured we'd
     probably run into, -- the laws probably wouldn't permit you
     guys to be exposed to that.  You know, they would protect
     you from the diesel exhaust,  you know, unlike coal miners. 
     But, I think that the, -- what the committee ought to do, if
     they can do that, is to set up some of these schemes that
     some of these miners are talking about and set up a meeting
     where you are experiencing some of the same kinds of diesel
     exposure that they've related.  And I think that what we
     ought to do, is we ought to have this room and let us set it
     up based on a true mine experience.  And as soon as you guys
     leave, and as soon as anybody on this committee leaves, we
     set that as, "Okay, that's the worst case scenario we're
     gonna go as far any kind of exposure to diesel".  And I say
     that really because I think there is a lack of understanding
     about some of the real circumstances that miners have to
     face.  It was sort of like that miner that I talked about at
     Show Creek that just became sick and maybe some kind of
     permanent illness as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust. 
     But he's just using a forklift in a belt entry.  Those
     things are common.  Those are light-duty, common equipments
     that run these days.  
                   We'll probably be taking a look at the record,
     submit some more comments with respect to some of the issues
     that was raised here today.  And I'll be providing those
     before the record closes.  Do you have any questions?
                   MR. HANEY:   I have one.  Does anybody have, --
     can we have one, -- any?
                   MR. TOMB:   (Positive gesture.)
                   MR. HANEY:   You mentioned the testing that West
     Virginia, you know, has been doing on this.  Do you know how
     many units that, -- different units or different engines
     that they have tested, other than the two that have been
     approved and possibly this, -- what did you call this last
     one?
                   MR. MAIN:   Romack?
                   MR. HANEY:   Romack, yeah.
                   MR. MAIN:   I don't know, but we can get you the
     list.  Because I think as far as the West Virginia research
     program that was run from the monies that was appropriated
     in West Virginia, there is a documentation I know of those,
     that we have, and I can get those two you.  The Romack test,
     I know our folks had talked to WVU about, -- I think about
     two weeks ago, and from what I understand, I mean, the tests
     that I thought was the first real run-through that they did
     with the system that we saw pulling in there some months
     ago, came very, very close to meeting the PA standard.  And,
     again, I'm gonna go back and figure out what the
     differences, -- what I heard today, as to what we heard out
     of West Virginia.  Because it appears that they had
     something that's, you know, fairly close to meeting the
     current PA law. 
                   Oh, one other point too, I want to raise is, in
     our proposal, what we have offered is an approach that the
     .12 would be met with a combination of other things,
     including a, -- as a starting point for the first round, an
     80 percent filter efficiency, and utilizing to meet the .12,
     twice the ventilating current plate rating.  Which the
     current PA law really sets that at one, or at the plate
     level, .12.
                   MR. HANEY:   What's the genesis of the .12?
                   MR. MAIN:   Well, the genesis is that believe that
     that's the range that we need to getting into to protect
     miners.  We believe that that's an achievable range based on
     test results that have been conducted to get us there.  We
     can do better than that, but we believe that technology
     gives us the ability to get there.  And the problem we have
     is that we realize that, -- two things, one is that when
     that equipment in it's perfect condition is tested and goes
     into a mine, its operation's gonna deteriorate to the
     system.  Okay, you're not gonna have that perfect world of
     which to test.  So we're really not even gonna achieve a .12
     in the actual operations.  But with a filter capacity to
     filter out 95 percent, then we figure we're fairly close to
     catch as much of that contaminant as we can.  We also
     realize that we can't do real in-line tests at the levels
     we're talking about.  And when you look at the other
     contaminants in the environment, you know, it does pose
     other problems.  We've also said that you need to do tail
     pipe testing when you do testing.  The same was addressed
     here by others today, in its undiluted form.  
                   And the other point I'll raise on the DST systems,
     the first DST systems did, in fact, come with a, -- without
     a catalytic converter.  We have found that once the catalyst
     was added to that system, -- and it's been tested on some
     different pieces of equipment thus far, but I think the Cat
     3306 test, which was done at the Brookfield Plant in
     Pennsylvania, -- which we will provide you folks a copy of a
     tape on, had substantially reduced the carbon monoxide out
     of the system.  And I don't know what a 3306 engine is? 
     Probably about a four hundred part CO coming off the very
     exhaust, about a 150 horse engine.  And the catalytic
     converter applied to that, operating about medium speed was,
     -- we had a tail pipe undiluted gas of about thirteen to
     nineteen parts per million.  So, that second system that was
     referred to today, we think has remarkably helped clean up,
     you know, some of the gases that should be part of another
     standard that should be moving fairly quickly.
                   MR. TOMB:   Bob.
                   MR. HANEY:   Your point was, that's a laboratory
     index that includes air flow, filter efficiency and engine
     emissions?
                   MR. MAIN:   It is based on the ISO test, with .12
     at no more than twice the plate rating, whatever, -- if you
     had ten thousand, you'd use that, -- hypothetically, if you
     had a five thousand plate reading you could have up to ten
     thousand to bring those, -- the actual contaminates with
     that dilution, whatever that dilution, up to that level then
     of .12.
                   MR. HANEY:   But that is a laboratory test?
                   MR. MAIN:   That is a laboratory test.  And you've
     got to test these systems.  I mean, you've got to have some
     understanding about what you're doing.  And, again, you
     can't get that test, we don't think, with today's
     instrumentation in a coal mine.  Which poses 
     a, -- you know, we had sought early on an in-mine test,
     because we thought that's what we needed to do.  But after
     talking to a lot of miners and looking at this whole animal,
     I think that would be the worst thing, -- at least, you
     know, in a coal mine, that we could do.  But we do need to
     develop the instrumentation.  
                   MR. TOMB:   So, that level, that .12 level, is
     dependent on proper ventilation over that machine, also?
                   MR. MAIN:   Yeah.  In part, ventilation.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay. 
                   MR. MAIN:   Okay.
                   MR. TOMB:    Any other questions?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you.  We have one more
     request for comment.  Mr. Thakur, -- Dr. Thakur, I'm sorry.
                   DR. THAKUR:   That's all right.  Mr. Chairman,
     thank you.  For the record, my name is Pramod Thakur.  P, as
     in Peter, R-A-M-O-D, and the last name is Thakur, T, as in
     Tom, H-A-K-U-R.  I'm a Research Associate with Consol, Inc.,
     based in Morgantown, West Virginia.  I'm also a duly
     appointed Commissioner in the State of West Virginia, by the
     Governor of West Virginia, to write the regulations for the
     safe use of diesel in underground coal mines.  
                   Some of the questions were asked here, and I think
     Joe was trying his best to answer.  I just want to
     supplement what Joe said.  In the WVU West Virginia
     Commission test program, we had four engines tested. 
     Starting on the high side, we have CAT-3306, 150 horse; MWM-
     916, nominal 94, derated to 88; Iszu C-240, a 57 horse
     engine, and the last one was LPU-2, 16.2 nominal horsepower. 
     The only engine that could accommodate, -- of the large size
     engines, the hundred and fifty horse and eighty-eighty horse
     MWM, were done with DST.  And we had some problems with the
     manufacturer of the equipment once the (indiscernible)
     technology correctly uncertified it.  The best we got with
     Cat-3306 was 81.8 percent.  It is in the records, by the
     way, that were given to you at Beckley.
                   MR. TOMB:   Was that the presentation by Mr.
     Carter?
                   DR. THAKUR:   No.  Yes, yes.
                   MR. TOMB:   Yeah, okay.
                   DR. THAKUR:   Yeah.  And the numbers are there,
     but just for the sake of this audience here, I thought it
     was proper for me, since I am here, to share this with you. 
     Somebody asked me a question, "How they got 95 percent, you
     know, with MWM".  And I believe, -- it's on the record
     again, in our discussions with my Industrial Labor
     Commissioners, it was conveyed to us that testing was going
     on.  And the one way you measure how flat that trimter
     (phonetic) is looking at the delta view (phonetic), from the
     intake of the engine to the discharge at 40 inch which end
     of the filter.  And this has already developed almost 30
     inches of water.  And that is the stage we got, -- or
     bigger, -- this was done three years back, it's not the part
     of testing under the Commissioner's charge, it was done for
     somebody else, you know.  In our experiment we ran all kinds
     of things, DST system, three different kinds of ceramic
     systems, a variety of oxides and catalyst, and perhaps about
     twenty-eight different combinations.  And it ran from 42
     percent on the low side, with the DST system, to as high as
     90 percent with a combination of oxides and catalyst, and a
     catalyzed filter.  But the majority of data is between 70
     and 80 percent, you know.
                   So, if we're gonna give a chance for people to
     maximize the use of diesel engines in the coal mines, --
     again, mind you, I come from a state where we have very
     gassy mines.  In Consol in the last twenty years we have had
     eighteen fatalities.  And God forbid if it happens again,
     because we have those trolley wires.  Just to stop and
     think, if we had these in our mines, and if I came to Joe or
     somebody else and ask, "I want to introduce naked wires in
     the mine, gassy mines, carrying 600 bolt DC, what are my
     chances of getting approval for that, or agreement?"  None. 
                   I have devoted my whole in making mines safe by
     taking the gas out and keeping the dust out.  I am
     convinced, absolutely convinced, that diesel engines are
     safer.  It's not perfect.  But I'm like many other speakers
     here, I think we should leave the door open for further
     research, for further improvement, because you never know
     what we can achieve the next day.  I didn't know that there
     a fuel that's available with only five parts per million
     sulfur.  I found out only the other month here, you know. 
     Now, one of the problems we have with catalytic filters, Mr.
     Chairman, that the way the CFR 30 defines DPM, -- maybe you
     guys wrote it, anything that comes out on that filter is
     DPM, (indiscernible).  More than half off of the sulfate is
     not carbon.  And it does not, -- I mean, it's not as clean
     as water, but it's not as bad as so-called DPM, you know. 
     So, what if we can cut down the sulfur in fuel?  It will
     make tremendous improvement.  We've just found it.  So, I'm
     just saying, you know, that there are a lot of opportunities
     to do work, but in the interim, we shouldn't wait to
     introduce diesel in our mines, because it's for the sake of
     safety.  We can fight, we can litigate, we can bicker
     around, four, five, six 
     years, -- we can litigate it for five years or so, you know,
     but what if something like black lung, or maltase (phonetic)
     or DP(5) in Virginia happens?  I have seen too many people
     die in the mines.  Permitted, it is no different than hourly
     workers and salaried workers, they're all my children,
     brothers, or whatever, you know.  I have great rapport with
     the Union, in District 31, when I took the gas out from the
     mines.  And I come from that kind of relationship to
     advocate for the sake of mines, -- safety of the mines and
     safety of workers.  Let's have some kind of good agreement,
     get the equipment in, make the mines safe, leave the door
     open for continued development.  Some of the problems I have
     heard, I'd like to address in Birmingham.  They are very
     easy to take care of, like burning of eyes, choking of
     throat, you know.  A lot of progress has been made in the
     past year and a half.  We've spent nearly a half a million
     dollars, Mr. Chairman, on it, you know.  So, there are some
     people who are spending money on research, you know, and one
     of them is my company, Consol, Inc., the other is the State
     of West Virginia.  Thank you.
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you.  Any questions?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Thank you, Dr. Thakur.  Is
     there anybody in the audience that would like to have this
     opportunity to make a short or long presentation?
                              (Laughter)
                   MR. TOMB:   Any presentation?
                         (No Verbal Response)
                   MR. TOMB:   Okay.  Well, I want to thank you all
     for coming, and especially those who participated.  I think
     we got a lot of good information, a lot of food for thought,
     and we're certainly gonna consider all the information we
     got in developing these rules.  Thank you for your
     participation.  This meeting is closed.
                   (Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was
     concluded.)
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //                        REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
     
     DOCKET NO.:        N/A
     CASE TITLE:        Diesel Particulate Matter
     HEARING DATE:      December 15, 1998
     LOCATION: Mt. Vernon, Illinois
     
         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 Department of Labor.
     
     
                        Date:  December 15, 1998
     
                          Deborah Carter      
                        Official Reporter
                        Heritage Reporting Corporation
                        Suite 600
                        1220 L Street, N. W.
                        Washington, D. C.  20005