UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MINE SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION HEARING ON PROPOSED RULE FOR HIGHVOLTAGE CONTINUOUS MINING MACHINE NOVEMBER 4, 2004 9 A.M. LITTLE AMERICA HOTEL 500 SOUTH MAIN STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 A.M. Panel: Rebecca J. Smith, Mediator Sandra Wesdock Ronald Ford Ron Stahlhut Elio L. Checca Salwa ElBassioni Robert Boring Susan Miles Speakers: William Farrar Tain Curtis Jeffrey Anderson PROCEEDINGS 9 a.m. November 4, 2004    MS. SMITH: Good morning. My name is Becky Smith. I'm a deputy director of MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, and on behalf of Dave Loriski, assistant secretary of labor for Mine Safety & Health, I'd like to welcome all of you here this morning for this public hearing. This is the first of four hearings. The other hearings will be held as follows: On November the 16th in Birmingham, Alabama; on November the 18th in Lexington, Kentucky; and on November the 30th in Morgantown, West Virginia. The purpose of these hearings is to obtain input from the public on a proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register on July the 16th, 2004. A modified hearing location and date notice as well as the extension of the posthearing comment period was published in the Federal Register on August the 12th. We have copies of these documents at the registration in the back if you need them. The proposed rule we are addressing today would include construction and design requirements for approval of highvoltage continuous mining machine under MSHA's regulations found at 30 CFR, Part 18, and mandatory safety standards for highvoltage miners in underground coal mines under 30 CFR, Subpart I of Part 75. The proposed rule would also amend Subpart K of Part 75 to allow the use of such machines in permissible areas of underground coal mines. I'd like to introduce others here from MSHA here with me today on this panel. On my left is Larry Checca. Larry is the chairman of this regulatory development committee and is with our technicalsupport organization. Salwa ElBassioni is from our coal mine safety and health organization. Bob Boring is from our technicalsupport organization. Ron Stahlhut is from our coal mine safety and health organization. Ron Ford is from our office of standards and Sandra Wesdock is from our solicitor's office. The back table, you've met Susan Miles, she's also from our standards office. This hearing is being held in accordance with Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and as is the practice of MSHA, formal rules of evidence will not apply, therefore, cross examination of the hearing panel will not be allowed but the panel may explain and clarify provisions of the proposed rule. As moderator of this public hearing, I reserve the right to limit the amount of time each speaker is given as well as the questions of the hearing panel. Those of you who have notified us in advance of your intent to speak, will be allowed to make your presentations first and I will call on the speakers in the order that requests were made. Following these presentations, others who request an opportunity to speak will be allowed to do so. We invite all interested parties to present their views at this hearing and if you are sitting in the audience now and wish to speak, please sign in at the registration table. We will remain in session today until everyone who desires to speak has had an opportunity to do so. Also, if you are not speaking today, we would like for you to sign the attendance sheet at the back of the room so we have an accurate record of today's attendance at the hearing. We will accept written comments and information at this hearing from any interested party, including those who are not speaking. When I call on you to speak, please come to the speaker's table and begin your presentation by identifying yourself and your affiliation for the record. If you have a prepared statement or any supporting documents you would like to submit for the record, please leave a copy with us today. You can give written comments on this hearing to us today or you can send them to office  MSHA's office of standards electronically by facsimile, by regular mail, or hand delivery using the address information in the Federal Register notice. The posthearing comment period on this proposed rule will end on December the 10th and submissions must be received by that date. A verbatim transcript of this hearing will be made part of the record and it will be posted on MSHA's Web site. If you would like a copy sooner, you can make your own arrangements with the court reporter. The company information is available at the registration table. Before the speakers begin their testimony this morning, I would like to give you some background on the proposed rule we are addressing today. The mining industry has been moving toward the use of highvoltage continuous mining machines to increase productivity. This efficiency can be accomplished with a minimal increase in machine size. When paired with more efficient roof bolting and section haulage equipment, a highvoltage continuous mining machine can increase production over a low or mediumvoltage continuous mining machine. These highvoltage machines use less electrical current and permit the use of smaller cables. Smaller cables are easier to handle and can reduce injuries to miners. MSHA's existing regulation, 30 CFR 75.1002, applies to the use of electrical equipment and conductors. This regulation does not allow the use of highvoltage conductors or cables in or inby the last open crosscut or within 150 feet of pillar workings except for highvoltage longwalls. Consequently, at the time the rule was published, mine operators had submitted 38 petitions for modification that MSHA had granted to use highvoltage continuous mining machines. Since the proposed rule was published, mine operators have submitted additional petitions, some of which MSHA has granted. In developing this proposed rule, we reviewed the granted petitions for modification. The proposed rule includes most of the provisions from granted petitions for modification as well as some new safety provisions with enhanced safety protections from fire, explosion, and shock hazards. The proposed rule would improve the design requirements for highvoltage continuous mining machines consistent with existing requirements, accommodate new design technology that is practical and lessen burdens on the mining community associated with the petition for modification process, while preserving safety and health protection for miners. To date we've received five comments on this proposed rule and you can look at these comments on our Web site. Our purpose here today, then, is to receive further information on this proposed rule. Our first speaker this morning will be William Farrar. Good morning. MR. FARRAR: Good morning. I'm Bill Farrar from UMWA. I've worked in the coal mines 29 years, safety committee for 15, and that's about it. Oh, I work for Energy West. Okay. My concerns on the highvoltage miner, I've heard that they're trying to make it to 4160, I want it limited to 2400 volts, vulcanized splices only, no tape splices because you can't keep moisture out of the tape splice. And I would like to have the  require the operator to contact MSHA on any faults that ends with the cable blowing up because with high voltage  I've been a mechanic for  since '77. High voltage  they don't make any device quick enough to trip on high voltage before it blows up. We've had highvoltage cables with PLM plugs, you get moisture in it, blow up, hundred feet apart. That's why I'd like to see where we can track any cables that blow up, if there is a written record on any of these highvoltage miners that's had this kind of fault. And that's about all of my comments. PANEL MEMBER: Can I ask you a question? Why do you want to limit to less  or 2300, 2400 volts instead of  MR. FARRAR: The higher the voltage, the more potential on blowing up, I believe, in working with power. When you have a fault, it's going to be more severe of an explosion when they do blow up  PANEL MEMBER: Do you have  MR. FARRAR:  more of a chance of somebody getting hurt. PANEL MEMBER: Do you have some experience that you could share with us of some examples of when that would be the case? Do you have information or data that would help us? MR. FARRAR: Well, like I say, I've worked in the mines. When you have  I've seen high voltage  when you move power, we used to splice a highvoltage cable, 4160, if there was a fault there, when they kicked that power on, it blew up, it didn't just trip at the transformer, you know. The devices are good but they're not quick enough to stop the explosion where the fault is. And that's why I'm concerned. You know, the higher the voltage, the more when people's handling that cable, the more severe the accident's going to be if it happens. MR. BORING: This is Bob Boring, sir, I do have a question for you. On the 4160volt cable that you have experience with, was that going to permissible equipment or other type of equipment in the mine? MR. FARRAR: Well, when I've seen it happen personally, that's when we've just been  we used to run 4160 just to our power centers, it's not in permissible equipment. MR. BORING: Okay. MR. FARRAR: Now we're running 1470 power in our mine, but I'm saying the higher the voltage, the bigger the explosion's going to be when it does fault. MR. BORING: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Are there any other questions from panel members of Mr. Farrar? PANEL MEMBER: I've got one on his  MS. SMITH: Okay. Ron. PANEL MEMBER: Could you clarify, you said on the splices something about vulcanized splices only? MR. FARRAR: Yes. PANEL MEMBER: Were you referring to cable repairs as well? MR. FARRAR: Cable repairs because you can't keep water out of a taped splice. Like I say, I've been a mechanic for a long time and it's impossible. PANEL MEMBER: You just mentioned splices, I wanted to clarify that you were including the  MR. FARRAR: Yes. MS. SMITH: Further questions? Mr. Farrar, we appreciate your testimony, thank you very much. Our next speaker is Tain Curtis. MR. CURTIS: My name's Tain Curtis, Tain, and I'm the safety committee chairman for Local 1769 at the Deer Creek mine, I'm employed by Energy West. I represent approximately 268 miners at the mine and we produce 4 million tons, 4millionplus tons a year and we have three continuous miner sections and a longwall section. Again, I pose the question: Why 4160 instead of the 2400? The potential of 4160  we've had people hurt at our mine with a PLM plug blowing apart and that individual is no longer able to work underground. He was hit with a nip when it blew out of the end of a transformer. Again, that was nonpermissible equipment. And we have had a lot of cable trouble with our longwall and that is a highvoltage longwall. The difference being, on a longwall the cables are run in tracks and are protected from any kind of mechanical damage that can  usually can ensure, they're also protected from the individuals that work on the face. What you're proposing is a longwall  is a highvoltage cable with the same potential as the longwall cable running up without those same protections and exposing people to handling these cables. I'm  granted we're proposing that you put out a protection, highvoltage gloves, you know, we  I work in a coal mine, we have hazardous conditions, wet conditions. I don't know how long highvoltage gloves would hold up in those kind of conditions. My experience with highvoltage gloves is limited but I know linemen use them all the time, but they don't handle dirty cable at the same time like we would in the coal mine. So my proposal is to limit it to what it is. I'm not aware of the technology available for a 4160 miner, I don't know if one's available on the market to even buy so we're proposing something that technology would have to catch up with. And I can understand why that's a proposal, but at the same time we have diesel particulate filters and the industry has still not caught up with them. So I just don't see the point in going that way when we don't have to. I'm not aware  most mines don't have a miner helper. We still have miner helpers at Deer Creek, and his sole responsibility is to watch the cable and to keep it protected. Most mines now don't have miner helpers, I feel that that's an added safety feature that would be detrimental if it wasn't there to have a person watching the cable because this last little bit, the cable would be exposed, where it enters the miner and runs back the first crosscut, the way I understand the proposal. So having that miner helper would be a big plus and a big safety factor in both prolonging the life of the cable and also keeping equipment and other damages from occurring to it. Splices, right now the proposal you're saying has no limit on the number of splices and would be able to use tape splices. We still get violations at our coal mine by inspectors finding moisture in splices and we use the tapewrap splices that  granted a lot of it is on mobile equipment that does get more movement with a cable reel, but it still doesn't keep out all the moisture. And I find that most accidents happen by little breakdowns, small breakdowns in the safety precautions that are there. And I feel that if you keep the splices with taped splices on them, those little breakdowns, added up to several, could cause a potentially hazardous situation. The vulcanizing of splices is the only way that I know that guarantees and assures a hundred percent  well, maybe not even a hundred percent, to keep the moisture out. And I do know that they have equipment available for vulcanizing splices that you wouldn't have to take the miner clear out of the coal mine, the cable clear out to do it anymore, but I necessarily wouldn't be opposed to a kind of a  a number  limiting the number of splices on a cable because every time you splice a cable, the resistance in the cable would go up. I mean, we do make mechanically sound splices but it's still a weak link in the chain on that cable. Again, you know, the high voltage, I know of one individual where a PLM plug blew apart on a miner  or on a longwall transformer, and I'm not sure what the voltage was but it was probably more than 4160, and that individual has retired from the coalmining industry because of injuries sustained. So I'm not necessarily opposed to the technology and the higher production because I understand that's what pays my paycheck, and the people I represent, you know, we want  we want the technology. We find that technology is important to mining coal but we would like the technology to be sound before it's imposed upon us. And I understand the 24,000volt miner  or 2400volt miner is sound technology, has proven itself. Again, I  what Bill said about recordkeeping, we have no way of knowing what goes on at other coal mines with the highvoltage miner unless we personally know those mines and can get that information from them. Being able to track that kind of stuff, you know, from this standpoint, we could go back and look at violations and those kind of things and accident reports, but if the accident isn't serious, if it's a near miss, there's no kind of recordkeeping that goes on. So that's about it. I appreciate the opportunity of coming today and you guys coming to hear our concerns. MS. SMITH: Salwa, please. MR. ELBASSIONI: I'm Salwa ElBassioni. I have two questions. What voltage is your longwall? MR. CURTIS: Our longwall is limited to the 2400 volts and I believe that's  I think it's a 2,000volt system but I'm not sure. MR. ELBASSIONI: And for recordkeeping, I didn't quite understand your comment on that. Are you saying that what we're requiring as recordkeeping is not sufficient or what exactly were you referring to? MR. CURTIS: No. For us to  as I was surfing the Net trying to get information to come here today and talk about it, I can find no information on how other mines  the cable was holding up or anything like that, so for recordkeeping, if you have a highvoltage cable or a nearmiss accident, if you would  if that was mandatory that that would be a record kept  you know, I don't necessarily care what mine it happened at or who was involved or what the circumstances was, but if there was a way I could find that out, then I'd have a better understanding today of what's going on with these highvoltage miners. And it's a big concern for us to go into something that we haven't had experience with and we rely on you guys to make those judgment calls. So that's what was meant by that, if there was a way that the record could be established for me to go and retrieve that information. MR. CHECCA: You had a comment on  this is Larry Checca. You had a comment on the miner helper. Are you suggesting that we put something like that in the rule to require a miner helper or why did you bring it up? MR. CURTIS: Well, my concern with the miner helper is that most mines don't have a miner helper anymore. We still have them at our mine and we still have problems with the cable. My concern is that a mine that doesn't have a miner helper with a highvoltage miner being used, you know, what precautions  you know, what human precautions is there to watch the cable? I don't know if you're familiar with the new remotes for the miner. We've got  recently got new remotes for our miners and the miner operators hate them because all their concentration is on the remote, trying to get the remote to multitask. They wouldn't have any attention to pay  any time left to pay attention to a cable. I mean, they do stop and  when we're backing up and pulling forward a little bit, they do pay attention, don't get me wrong, but with a miner helper, you have got somebody there and I don't want  I don't want to tell you how to propose that, but I feel strongly that if you're going to have a highvoltage miner, you need somebody up there to watch the cable, to keep track of what's going on with the equipment coming in and out. His attention's not on the remote. His attention isn't necessarily on the conditions, the adverse conditions that you're mining in. I mean, we're approaching 22, 2300foot of cover and the conditions that we're mining in in one section now is atrocious with the ribs. And it's just  it's too much for one person to have all the responsibility. And when we're talking about the safety of that one person, it would be good to have another person there. But I have no idea how to tell you to accomplish that. MR. CHECCA: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Any other questions? Ron. MR. STAHLHUT: Yeah. Excuse me. This is Ron Stahlhut. You mentioned that you had a highvoltage longwall and you had cable trouble on the longwall. Was there any specific instances there, have you got any clarification on that? I guess we're just curious. MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm not sure of any instances where the cable's blown up, you know, but, like I said, on the longwall, the cable that runs through the shear, down the pan line is all protected in the Bretby. The cable that runs from the transformer to the head gate is all protected in a monorail system that people don't get into. And I'm just saying, with all these protections in place, we have still damaged cable, whether something's fell in against the Bretby and when it's pulled across it, it cut into it or something like that, with all these precautions in place, we have still had cable problems, you know, and in my mind, I don't understand how you could do the same thing for a miner that we do for the longwall  for a CM, that we do for the longwall in protecting the cable. So my concern would be we still have problems with these protections, how are you going to eliminate that without them? MR. STAHLHUT: I was just needing some clarification there. I didn't know if there was any specific instances, I was only trying to  MR. CURTIS: No. No. I know that we've had trouble with our cable going to the shear and usually it's caused because of rock falling in on the Bretby and pulling it across the Bretby or something like that. MR. STAHLHUT: Okay. Were you done there? MR. CURTIS: Yeah. MR. STAHLHUT: My next question, I guess, for clarification for me, what was your recommendation on the highvoltage gloves? You talked about the highvoltage gloves, were you  could you clarify, were you for or against, I guess, or what? MR. CURTIS: Well, my concern with highvoltage gloves and my  I'm a mechanic at the mine or have been and I've been used  I've used highvoltage gloves when we're doing a power move and grounding out the leads. My concern with them is  they're quite nice, they're really nice. Well, if I'm handling a cable that's wet and got  dragging through the dirt and it's got mud attached to it and small pieces of coal, these really nice gloves, how good are they going to be under those conditions? I know linemen use them but the linemen, they're up on a pole, they're not in the mud, they're not handling cable that's got grit on it and rock on it that would be able to damage the gloves. These are all the things that a miner helper, a miner operator handling a cable would be exposed to even wearing gloves. How tough would they be, enough to withstand those rigors? And then another thing that was brought up  I don't know how you're familiar with coal miners, they get wet, everything goes down on the kitchen light, gets put underneath the heat light to dry out, you know, I don't know how the gloves would stand up, even an apron or tongs or something like that, you know, that would stand up to the rigors of being in the face. That's my concern. MR. STAHLHUT: One more thing, if you're finished there. MR. CHECCA: Can I interject here? MR. STAHLHUT: Yeah, go ahead. MR. CHECCA: Larry Checca. What is your suggestion then, that we don't require gloves? MR. CURTIS: No. I  again, I don't have an answer for you. All I have is a concern that  I wasn't able to get any information on the highvoltage miners or some of the experiences of other miners so I have a concern that a highvoltage glove that I've used wouldn't stand up to the rigors of the face environment in the conditions  we have some sections that are relatively wet and, you know, I always  you know, it's easy to pick up stray currents in wet  and what good would a glove do if you're wet up to your elbows, you know, I . . . MS. SMITH: Are you finished? MR. STAHLHUT: Okay. One more question. You made a comment toward the end there about the miners having new remotes, continuous miners, do you have any idea what type of remotes these were or how they're different? MR. CURTIS: They're the new ones that Joy has, it has a deadman on the bottom that takes a  you have to push the button with each hand. MR. STAHLHUT: Okay. MR. CURTIS: So when you're tramming or multitasking, unless you've got six fingers on one hand that can be on top of the remote, it's hard to multitask. MR. STAHLHUT: I think you're referring to the TX2. MR. CURTIS: Yeah, I'm not sure what the model is. MR. STAHLHUT: I was just curious. I just wanted to  you were mentioning that and I just wanted  MR. CURTIS: Yeah, Mr. Anderson may know because he's more familiar with that and he'll speak after me. MR. CHECCA: Okay. One last question and I'll let you go. Larry Checca again. In the preamble we talk about the installation of the trailing cable from the power center down to the last open crosscut. The original petitions, a number of them, required the cable to be hung, supported, and then we had a petition that we received that was a lowcoal petition and we looked at the aspect of really we're not protecting cable in the lowcoal situation if it's being hung, so as an alternative we put in the petition to use an unused entry. And we're asking for comments from the public on their thoughts on this issue and maybe other ways of doing this. Do you have any thoughts in that area? MR. CURTIS: Well, I can understand how an unused entry would be an advantage in being able to just run the cable up an unused entry. I've seen shuttle cars climb a rib to get a hung cable and I don't know if it's a  if it's an operator failure or what or just something that happened, but, you know, it doesn't matter  if I can put this in a polite manner. It doesn't matter what you do to some equipment in a coal mine, a coal miner's going to be the one operating it and you can't protect it from some of us. It scares me the way some people do things. And they're good miners, don't get me wrong. But an unused entry would be a big advantage because then you'd have that available. Right now we mine with a twoentry petition, we run two entries. There is no unused entry. There's not an unused crosscut for several thousand feet so the availability of that with a  with some twoentry petition would be void, I mean there would be no unused entry. So maybe that would be detrimental to a twoentry system because, you know, like  again, I'm not opposed to the technology, I'm just  I want to have a safe environment and the people I represent want to have a safe environment. And, again, we're not opposed to it. We like technology, you know, it makes our jobs easier. The lighter cables is a big plus. Go from a numbertwo cable to a four aught cable, just kills your back. So those are all good pluses, but what are you going to trade off to accomplish them? And most of the splices you'd be handling would be in that last little bit, you know, there again, you know, that's  that's why I think that a taped splice  or some technology that may be out there that we don't know about yet  a tape splice with the cable moving, you know, even though the raw rubber vulcanizes itself, it still has a lot of movement and there's still a lot of room for error. MS. SMITH: All right. Sandra. MS. WESDOCK: Hi. My name is Sandra Wesdock and I was wondering whether you had any comments regarding existing 1850  18.53, which is the section designed for longwalls and proposed 18.54, which is for the high wall. We raised a question in the preamble regarding whether we should combine both sections, those two provisions because they are very similar or whether we should keep them separate. And I was wondering if you had any comments on that. MR. CURTIS: Well, I think being able to write a petition and get equipment approved is a wonderful thing but I don't necessarily think that the law should be rewrote so you don't have to write a petition or you shouldn't be able to combine two areas of the law that deal with different things. If they're similar, it probably wouldn't have an effect. But one of the things I don't understand is, you know, this is going to affect 38 miners or CM units in the United States that are working now today with a petition. And I take it they're successful but, you know, when you go to combine the areas of the law, sometimes that's not a good thing because there is differences. I mean, we wouldn't be able to combine the highvoltage longwall with the highvoltage miner section, but the high wall and the longwall, you know, you may could. I'm not familiar enough with the high wall to be able to answer that. MS. SMITH: Mr. Curtis, thank you very much for your testimony. MR. CURTIS: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Our next speaker is Jeff Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Ms. Smith, ladies and gentlemen. MS. SMITH: Good morning. MR. ANDERSON: I'm Jeff Anderson and I also work at the Deer Creek coal mine for Energy West Mining. I've been employed there for 25 years minus a couple of years in Iraq, but  which makes it even more interesting. A couple of concerns I'd like to bring up. First of all, there are some definite advantages to a highvoltage miner as far as productivity, the advantages of the lower current that we'd be exposed to, those sort of things. One thing that was mentioned, too, was cable sizing. Having talked with our maintenance superintendent, because he's looked at this highvoltage longwall, our cable size will not change. So that's not an advantage to us. We currently are on a two aught cable to our 950volt miners and with a highvoltage miner, that would stay the same because it would be increased horsepower of the miner. He's looking to gaining approximately 250 horsepower on that  on a highvoltage miner. A lot of the other safety precautions have been taken for this miner, as far as the separation of high voltage from the low, mediumvoltage controls, is excellent. I'm more in favor of the insulating boards and, you know, the grounded metal dividers, you know, that either way protects the miners from accidentally getting into that highvoltage section and also with the disconnects it will deenergize that piece of equipment if the highvoltage departments are entered into. Another area I'd like to talk about is, as we talk about handling the cable, I see a lot of  in this petition where they've taken a lot of precautions to safeguard the cable. You just talked with Tain about an unused entry, he talked to you about we run a twoentry system for our longwall. No possible way we could use an unused entry in hanging a cable to the last open, we do have the height to do that. That is excellent. But, you know, from our power center to that last open, I see a lot of precaution you've taken to guard the highvoltage cable and to protect it. My concern is from that last open crosscut to the continuous miner. That's where that cable is exposed to the most damage, it's the most wear and tears on the cable there, that's where it's handled. That's where men are exposed to handling that cable. They talked about splicing in that area, again, our tape splice in a wet area  and we currently have a very wet section in our mine, which I think it would be very impractical to run this type of machine. I don't think the machine would run, as far as the safeguards that are put in place to protect it as far as cable damage and the grounding and that sort of stuff, the lookahead circuits, all of that, with the damage that occurs with our current mining practices, you know, I think we either need some better training in our practice of handling that cable or that cable needs to have some kind of a cable handler attached to the machine to deal with that cable to keep  as far as that goes. Along with handling cable, you know, it talks about using aprons, tongs, highvoltage gloves. See, I also use highvoltage gloves in pulling disconnects and different things like that but the use of those gloves is very limited. We  currently we inspect those gloves every 30 days. If we're going to use those gloves that continually, they need to be inspected more frequently. You know, 30 days on something that somebody uses every day on a tenhour shift, not near adequate enough. Again, with the splicing, like I say, they talked about the tape splices, the inadequacy of the tape splices. You know, a tape splice is good when it's first made but after you've drug it on the ground for some time, that's what damages and hurts your cables and your splices. And it also talks about the movement of the cable, that the only thing that can move that energized cable is the actual machine that it is supplying power to. You know, current practice in our mine, we're allowed 750 feet of cable or 800 feet of cable on the miner, it's one continuous loop, you know, back beyond the power center to the face. They can pull 3 or 400 feet of cable at one time, puts a lot of stress on the cable so that's something I think that  there was a time, you know, our cable was always ahead of the power center and that's where it should be, that way we're not subjecting that cable to quite the stress that it would have pulling at those longer distances. Once you start pulling cables around a corner or two to go from one face to another, that's a lot of stress to the cable and you have a lot of failure in splices when that happens. And as Bill talked about, you know, our current system, you know, we're looking at milliseconds to trip this miner. Even with milliseconds I've seen highvoltage PLM plugs on our twelve four seventy, moisture or whatever, tracking in those plugs, you energize that plug, it comes apart, it will move that plug and the cable across the 20foot entry. Since then, you know, we've come up with provisions to protect that from going across the entry, but that's the capability of that kind of a fault. So I think the last part of that, you know, my concern's that last hundred, 150 feet of cable where the men are handling it, that's what we need to protect. Again, we talked about wet areas, you know, all the things we do, like Tain talked, take a set of highvoltage gloves, my concern would be, you know, they'd go throw them under a 500watt heat light to dry those gloves out. What effect is that going to have on those gloves? And also, you know, the highvoltage gloves we have now with the gloves and the insula  and the shells for those gloves, you know, you may as well put on a pair of boxing gloves to handle that cable, they're really impractical, I feel, for that type of use, just because of the size and bulkiness of them. I think I've covered about everything I have written down here. I believe that's all I have. MS. SMITH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Salwa. MR. ELBASSIONI: My name is Salwa, I have a question. You said you're concerned about the cable from the last open crosscut inby the last 250 feet of the cable and you suggested the use of the cable handlers, what kind of cable handlers are you referring to? MR. ANDERSON: I know in the past they've had something attached to the machine itself, whether  you know, I don't know what would be practical, but if you talk about our highvoltage longwall, all that's in a Bretby, it's well protected, no one ever handles that cable. I don't know what the answer is as far as a design feature to add to a machine to help handle that cable. You know, highvoltage cable, when it faults, it's not just a little spark or a little smoke, it comes apart. Say you have a splice come apart, it does, you know. And I just think that the highvoltage gloves and stuff like that is really impractical and there should be an alternative means of handling that cable, whether it's a new design to add to the miner to help keep that miner  you know, the cable out of the way if the shuttle car's coming in to be loaded, you know, that's where you're going to see a lot of damages. Currently, you know, shuttle cars run over the cable. Shuttle cars run into that cable onto the back of the miner. That's where a lot of the damage occurs. MR. ELBASSIONI: Are you proposing to use a higher dielectric strength for the gloves or are you proposing to eliminate the need for gloves or exactly  I'm not sure I'm following what  MR. ANDERSON: Not necessarily eliminate them, you know, if the protections were there to safeguard the miners without the gloves, that would be wonderful. I mean, you do work  I do a lot of work as a mechanic and people don't like to get their hands dirty just as a nature, I take my gloves off. And I feel miners, you know, they'll rather use a lighterweight glove to handle this cable than, you know, currently what we have, it's really bulky and I don't think it's practical. But, yes, there needs to be some type of protection there still, not totally eliminate, you know, the protection. MS. SMITH: Any other questions for Mr. Anderson? Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Do we have any other individuals who would like to present testimony at this time? What we're going to do is we're going to go off the record for probably about 45 minutes, let's say until about 10:30. We'll come back on the record to see if we have other speakers who are interested in presenting testimony at that time. And if not, then we'll close the record at that time. So at this point we're going to go off the record then. Thank you. (Off the record.) MS. SMITH: I'd like to go back on the record at this point in time and ask if there's anyone else in the audience who would like to give further testimony at this point in time? Given that there are no further speakers, I'm going to officially close the record on this public hearing. Thank you very much for coming. I'd also like to remind those of you here, that we will have another public hearing this afternoon starting at one o'clock and that public hearing will have to do with low and mediumvoltage dieselpowered electric generators and that public hearing will start at one o'clock. Thank you very much. (A.M. Proceedings were concluded.) ?? NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com