1 1 2 3 4 5 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 6 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 7 EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD-SEALING OF ABANDONED AREAS 8 JULY 17, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING 9 DENVER, COLORADO 10 11 12 13 Panel members: 14 WILLIAM BAUGHMAN 15 JAVIER ROMANACH 16 CLETE STEPHAN 17 PATRICIA W. SILVEY 18 ERIK SHERER 19 ROBERT STONE 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 MS. SILVEY: Can we get started, please. 2 Good morning. My name is Patricia W. Silvey. I am 3 the Director of the Mine Safety and Health 4 Administration's Office of Standards, Regulations, 5 and Variances. I will be the moderator of this 6 public hearing on MSHA's emergency temporary 7 standard, or ETS, for sealing abandoned areas in 8 underground coal mines. 9 On behalf of Richard E. Stickler, 10 Assistant Secretary of Labor for MSHA, I want to 11 welcome all of you here today. 12 The members of the MSHA panel, and I 13 must say who were instrumental in preparing this, 14 developing this ETS, I will introduce them at this 15 time. To my left is Clete Stephan with MSHA's 16 Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center; 17 Javier Romanach, and he's our lawyer on the project. 18 William Baughman, who is with my office, the 19 Regulatory Specialist. To my right is Erik Sherer. 20 Erik is with Coal Mine Safety and Health, and to his 21 right is Robert Stone, and Robert is the Economist 22 in my office. 23 I would also like to introduce a couple 24 of people in the audience who were very pivotal in 25 helping to develop this project. Deborah Green, who 3 1 is also our lawyer, and I mentioned last week, we 2 got to have a little humor before we start. I 3 mentioned to some other people who had their 4 attorneys with them that I had my attorneys with me, 5 so for all of the attorneys in the audience don't 6 think anything and I said I had good attorneys too, 7 by the way. 8 And with Deborah, sitting back there 9 with Deborah is Dennis Wintowski, and he's with our 10 field Coal Mine Safety and Health District. 11 Before we start this hearing this 12 morning I would like to ask all of you if you 13 wouldn't mind, please, to join me in a moment of 14 silence for the miners who died in the Sago and the 15 Darby accidents and for all the miners who died 16 during 2006 and the miners who died so far this 17 year, 2007, so if you would join me, please, in a 18 moment of silence. 19 Thank you. As some of you know, this is 20 the third of four hearings on the emergency 21 temporary standard. The first hearing was held in 22 Morgantown on July 10th; the second hearing in 23 Lexington on July 12th. The next hearing will be 24 held in Birmingham, Alabama, on July 19th. In the 25 back of the room we should have copies of the ETS 4 1 and the Federal Register notice extending the 2 comments period to August 17th. 3 The purpose of these hearings is to 4 receive information from the public that will help 5 us evaluate the requirements in the Emergency 6 Temporary Standard and produce a final rule that 7 protects miners from hazards associated with sealed 8 abandoned areas. We will also use the data and 9 information gained from these hearings to help us 10 craft a rule that responds to the needs and concerns 11 of the mining public so that the provisions can be 12 implemented in the most safe, effective and 13 appropriate manner. 14 We published the Emergency Temporary 15 Standard in response to the grave dangers that 16 miners face when underground seals separating 17 abandoned areas from active workings fail. Seal 18 failures at the Sago mine and the Darby No. 1 mine 19 in 2006 raised awareness of the problems with 20 construction and design of alternative seals. MSHA 21 investigated these and other failures of alternative 22 seals and conducted in-mine evaluations of these 23 seals. MSHA also reviewed the history of seals in 24 the United States as well as other countries. 25 On February the 8th, 2007, NIOSH issued 5 1 a draft reported titled "Explosion Pressure Design 2 Criteria for New Seals in U.S. Coal Mines." The 3 report makes recommendations for seal design 4 criteria which would reduce the risk of seal failure 5 due to explosions in abandoned areas of underground 6 coal mines. 7 Based on MSHA's accident investigation 8 reports, the draft NIOSH report, MSHA's in-mine seal 9 evaluations and review of technical literature, MSHA 10 has tentatively determined that new standards are 11 necessary to immediately protect miners from hazards 12 associated with sealed areas. 13 The Emergency Temporary Standard 14 addresses seal strength, design and installation; 15 construction and repair, sampling and monitoring and 16 training. 17 This ETS was issued in accordance with 18 section 101(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 19 Act of 1077, or the Mine Act and Section 10 of the 20 Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) 21 Act of 2006. Under Section 101(b) of the Mine Act, 22 the ETS is effective and superseded by a mandatory 23 standard and, as most of you know, a mandatory 24 standard must be published no later than nine months 25 after publication of the ETS. 6 1 The ETS also serves as the Agency's 2 proposed rule and commences the regular rule-making 3 process. 4 As stated earlier, we will use the 5 information provided by you to help us decide how 6 best to craft the final rule. The preamble to the 7 rule discusses the provisions of the ETS and also 8 includes a number of specific requests for comments 9 and information. As you address the provisions of 10 the ETS and any of the specific requests for 11 comments either in your comments to us today or 12 those sent to us in Arlington, please be as specific 13 as possible with respect to the impact on miner 14 safety and health, mining conditions and the 15 feasibility of implementation. 16 At this point I want to reiterate the 17 specific requests for comments and information that 18 we included in the preamble to the ETS. 19 In the ETS, MSHA considered a 20 performance-based approach to the strength 21 requirement for seals. However, MSHA includes 22 specific pounds-per-square-inch numbers when 23 referring to the strength of seals in the ETS as the 24 Agency believes this represents a more appropriate 25 approach. MSHA is interested in receiving comments 7 1 on the Agency's approach to the strength requirement 2 for seals. 3 MSHA is also interested in receiving 4 comments on the appropriateness of a three-tier 5 approach to seal strength and the ETS and the 6 strategy in the ETS for addressing seal strength 7 greater than 120 psi. Under Section 75.335)a) of 8 the ETS, new seals must be constructed and 9 maintained to withstand a 50 psi overpressure when 10 the atmosphere in the sealed area is monitored and 11 is maintained inert; 120 psi overpressure if the 12 atmosphere is not monitored and maintained inert or 13 an overpressure greater than 120 if the atmosphere 14 is not monitored, not maintained inert and other 15 specified conditions are met, and those conditions 16 include, as many of you know, pressure piling, the 17 likelihood of a detonation and homogeneous 18 atmosphere throughout the sealed area we include in 19 the ETS. 20 MSHA requests comments on the 21 appropriateness of the Agency's strategy for 22 addressing seal strength greater than 120 psi. If 23 commenters believe a different regulatory approach 24 should be developed for the final rule, MSHA would 25 like commenters to provide the details for such a 8 1 strategy, the rationale for such a strategy, and 2 feasibility of using such a strategy. 3 MSHA seeks the views of the mining 4 community regarding whether there are other 5 effective alternatives to the requirements in the 6 ETS with respect to providing the most appropriate 7 and protective action for miners exposed to seal 8 hazards. Commenters should provide supporting data 9 and specific alternatives, including information on 10 technological and cost implications. 11 Most alternative seals constructed 12 before July 2006 were constructed to withstand a 13 static horizontal pressure of 20 psi. MSHA 14 considered requiring mine operators to remove the 15 existing seals and replace them with seals that 16 would stand at least 50 psi overpressure. MSHA also 17 considered whether to require mine operators to 18 build new seals out by the existing seals or 19 structurally reinforce them. At this time MSHA 20 believes that replacing existing seals is 21 impractical and in some instances may introduce 22 additional safety hazards. MSHA seeks comments on 23 the feasibility of including in the final rule a 24 requirement that existing seals be removed and 25 replaced with a high strength seal. 9 1 MSHA also considered whether to require 2 mine operators to reinforce existing seals. The 3 Agency is concerned with the feasibility of this 4 option and whether such a requirement could expose 5 miners to greater hazards. MSHA, however, will 6 continue to explore technological advances 7 addressing feasible and safe methods to reinforce 8 existing seals in underground coal mines. 9 Commenters are encouraged to submit information and 10 supporting data regarding new technologies that 11 reinforce seal strength. 12 MSHA believes that the sampling strategy 13 in the ETS will yield results that reflect a 14 reasonable representation of the atmosphere in the 15 sealed area. MSHA requests comments addressing the 16 sampling approach in this ETS. The Agency is 17 particularly interested in comments concerning 18 sampling, and the sampling frequency, including 19 sampling only when a seal is outgassing. MSHA also 20 requests comments on whether another approach is 21 more appropriate for the final rule such as when the 22 seal is ingassed. 23 MSHA also requests comments, information 24 and experiences of the mining community concerning 25 sampling sealed areas. 10 1 In the ETS, mine operators must develop 2 a sampling protocol to be included in the 3 ventilation plan and submitted to the district 4 manager for approval. The ETS requires the mine 5 operator to implement the action plan specified in 6 the sampling protocol or to withdraw all persons 7 from the affected areas when specified 8 concentrations are encountered. Action plans must 9 provide protection to miners equivalent to 10 withdrawal and address the hazards presented and 11 actions taken when gas samples reach levels 12 indicated in the ETS. 13 Historically, when methane levels 14 reached 4.5 percent in active areas of mines, miners 15 were withdrawn from the areas that were dangerous 16 due to the high concentrations of methane. 17 MSHA requests comments on this approach 18 and whether this provides adequate protection of our 19 mines. Commenters are encouraged to submit specific 20 language with supporting data for MSHA to consider 21 for development of a final rule. 22 MSHA is soliciting comments to 23 establishing a sampling baseline. The ETS requires 24 that mine operator specify procedures in the 25 protocol to establish a baseline analysis of oxygen 11 1 and methane concentrations at each sampling point 2 over a 14-day sampling period. The baseline must be 3 established after the atmosphere in the sealed area 4 is inert or the trend reaches equilibrium. MSHA is 5 particularly interested in comments concerning the 6 establishment of a baseline. 7 MSHA also requests comments, information 8 and experience with sampling, including data, 9 analytical information, establishment of equilibrium 10 and trends. 11 The Agency is requesting comments on the 12 appropriateness of the requirement concerning the 13 use of open flames or arc associated with cutting 14 and soldering activities within 150 feet of a seal 15 and the feasibility of this requirement. 16 The Agency suggests that commenters 17 provide specific rationale in support of their 18 position and any alternatives, if applicable. 19 The ETS requires each newly constructed 20 seal to have at least two sampling pipes. One 21 sampling pipe must extend into the sealed area 22 approximately 15 feet; the second sampling pipe must 23 extend into the middle of the intersection with the 24 first connecting crosscut. The ETS affords some 25 flexibility to placement of the sampling pipe to 12 1 allow more accurate sampling strategies to better 2 protect miners. Therefore, the ETS requires that 3 the location of sampling points be specified in the 4 protocol provided under the ETS. The Agency 5 requests comments regarding the appropriate number 6 and location of sampling pipes for the final rule. 7 The ETS requires that 8 corrosion-resistant water drainage system be 9 installed in the seal at the lowest elevation within 10 the set of seals, and that seals not impound water. 11 MSHA requests comments on this requirement for water 12 drainage systems, including effective alternatives 13 for a final rule. 14 MSHA requests comments on the 15 appropriateness of the ventilation plan contents. 16 As you know, the ETS requires that certain 17 information be included in the ventilation plan. 18 The Agency asks whether additional information 19 should be included. 20 When submitting information supporting 21 your positions, please include data related to 22 projected costs and technological feasibility. 23 The ETS requires removal of insulated 24 cables from the area to be sealed and removal of 25 metallic objects through or across seals. MSHA 13 1 believes that removal of the insulated cables and 2 metallic objects through or across seals is feasible 3 and will not involve significant technical or 4 practical problems. The Agency, however, solicits 5 comments on these measures. 6 MSHA is also requesting comments on the 7 scope and possible alternatives concerning site 8 preparation, examinations, training and 9 notifications related to the Agency regarding 10 construction and repair of seals. 11 MSHA has prepared a Regulatory Economic 12 Analysis for the ETS. The Regulatory Economic 13 Analysis contains the Agency's estimated supporting 14 cost data. MSHA requests comments on all of the 15 estimates of costs and benefits presented in the ETS 16 and in the REA. 17 To date, MSHA has received one comment 18 on this emergency temporary standard. You can view 19 comments, and I do believe you can view this one 20 comment now on the Agency's website at www.msha.gov 21 under the section entitled Rules and Regulations. 22 MSHA has answered a number of compliance 23 questions from the public concerning a range of 24 issues in the ETS. These questions and answers are 25 posted on MSHA's Seals Single Source Page, and I 14 1 believe we are in the process -- I said this last 2 week -- you know, you find yourself saying certain 3 things over and over, but I believe we are in the 4 process of getting a third set of compliance 5 questions out right now. They should be out soon. 6 As many of you have who have attended 7 these public hearings with us know, the format is as 8 follows: Formal rules of evidence will not apply 9 and this hearing will be conducted in an informal 10 manner. Presentations may be limited to 20 minutes 11 at the discretion of the moderator. The panel may 12 ask questions of the witnesses and the witnesses may 13 ask questions of the panel. 14 Those of you who have notified MSHA of 15 your intent to speak or have signed up today will 16 make your presentations first. After that, others 17 can request to speak. If you wish to present 18 written statements or information today, please 19 clearly identify your material, but you may also 20 submit comments following this public hearing. You 21 must submit them to us by August 17th, the close of 22 the comments period, and they may be submitted by 23 any one of the methods identified in the ETS. 24 MSHA will post the transcripts from the 25 public hearings on our website. Each transcript 15 1 should be posted there approximately one week after 2 the completion of the hearing. I called the office 3 this morning and I'm told that the transcript from 4 Morgantown is in, so it should be posted shortly. 5 And at this point, before I make my last 6 statement, before people speak, I do want to iterate 7 to people, and I say again, we appreciate the people 8 here who are in attendance and who will speak, but 9 also those who are in attendance and who may not 10 have signed up to speak, we appreciate your interest 11 in this rule-making, but I do encourage persons, if 12 they have information to say to us, to submit to 13 you, to give to us, to please submit it in written 14 form. You can send an e-mail to me and it's going 15 to be considered as part of this rule-making record, 16 but if you have something to say to me that you want 17 to be considered in this rule-making, send it to us 18 through the methods that we have identified in the 19 ETS, and I can't stress that strong enough really. 20 We will begin now with the persons who 21 requested to speak. Please, if you would, begin by 22 clearly stating your name and organization and to 23 make certain that we can get an accurate record and 24 also if you would, spell your name for the reporter. 25 Our first speaker today will be Robert 16 1 Koch with the Colorado Mining Association. 2 MR. KOCH: Good morning. I have three 3 extra copies of what I'm going to say here. 4 Good morning. My name is Bob Koch, 5 K-O-C-H. I'm the chief engineer at Oxbow Mining, 6 Elk Creek Mine in Somerset, Colorado. I have been 7 asked to speak this morning on behalf of the 8 Colorado Mining Association. 9 The Colorado Mining Association 10 appreciates the comments on the sealing of abandoned 11 areas Emergency Temporary Standard issued on May 22, 12 2007. CMA is an industry association, founded in 13 1876, whose more than 700 members include the 14 producers of coal and other minerals in Colorado and 15 throughout the west. All active coal mines in 16 Colorado are members of the CMA. Colorado is also a 17 significant underground coal producing state, with 18 seven active underground mines. 19 The ETS, as written, does not give 20 adequate consideration to the sealing requirements 21 of western United States coal mines. In Colorado, 22 mines are primarily longwall operations which, 23 unlike most operations in the eastern United States, 24 install seals on an almost continuous basis as the 25 longwall retreats. This process of progressive 17 1 sealing is utilized to reduce the potential for 2 spontaneous combustion in the active gob and upon 3 completion of the panel, to isolate that gob from 4 subsequent active gob areas. These seals, commonly 5 referred to as "gob isolation seals," are necessary 6 to insure miner safety in mines that have a 7 propensity for spontaneous combustion. There are 8 serious issues with the ETS requirements for seal 9 design, construction, certification, sampling, and 10 inerting which affect most western underground coal 11 mines. 12 None of the seals currently approved by 13 MSHA are applicable to Colorado mines. These seals 14 are approved for heights less than those typically 15 mined in Colorado, or they are designed for areas 16 that will not be subject to significant convergence. 17 Gob isolation seals are certainly subjected to 18 significant convergence. 19 Some mines in Colorado are electing to 20 install 50 psi seals and monitor the gob. Others 21 are choosing to install 120 psi seals and eliminate 22 the need to sample the gob. In either case, with 23 current longwall advance rates gob isolation seals 24 are often installed every three days or less. Seal 25 designs must consider the need to constructing seals 18 1 in a timely manner to avoid longwall production 2 delays. At times, delays in longwall advance have 3 caused significant roof control issues. 4 Complicated seal designs which take excessive time 5 to install are infeasible for gob isolation seal 6 applications. For example, the currently MSHA 7 approved seals containing steel reinforcement cannot 8 be built timely, will expose miners needlessly to 9 side abutment loading as the longwall retreats, and 10 will subject the longwall face to increasing ground 11 pressures as the face waits for seal construction to 12 be completed. 13 Pumped seals properly engineered are 14 acceptable to the Colorado mines. However, it must 15 be stressed that a proper engineering design does 16 not include excessive thickness. Seal 17 manufacturers report that MSHA's Technical Support 18 group and NIOSH have taken an excessive conservative 19 approach in multiple design parameters. For 20 example, Minova TekSeals are under consideration 21 with a safety factor compounded with conservative 22 material shear strength, conservative compressive 23 strength, and ignoring the benefit of convergence on 24 the plug seal. Combine these design factors to a 25 seal strength that has been conservatively increased 19 1 to insure its resilience to an explosion, and the 2 result is a seal strength that far exceeds its 3 intended purpose, an over-design which yields a seal 4 thickness that is impractical for gob isolation 5 seals. MSHA must approve seals that meet the 50 psi 6 or 120 psi requirements without over-design that 7 renders the seal impractical for gob isolation 8 applications. 9 Section 75.227(a)(2) as written requires 10 removal of metallic objects which includes roof and 11 rib support materials at a seal location. Many 12 Colorado mines with higher seam thickness have well 13 established practices or roof control plans that 14 require primary roof and rib support in the form of 15 wire screen and bolts to adequately protect miners 16 from the dangers of roof and/or rib sloughage. 17 Removal of any of this protection not only exposes 18 miners to potentially adverse ground conditions, but 19 will likely reduce the integrity of the roof and 20 ribs at the perimeter of the seal. The potential 21 for serious injury is far greater in removing this 22 support than the remote chance of an electrical 23 current entering the gob through this grounded 24 material. 25 In fact, there has already been at least 20 1 one accident at a Colorado mine involving the 2 removal of wire mesh at a seal location. Further, 3 the exclusion of sampling tubes, water traps, and 4 metal form ties from this requirement is 5 inconsistent in that the regulation does allow 6 certain electrical conductors to penetrate the seal. 7 The rule does not address de-gas, inerting, or 8 pre-sealing ventilation pipes that may be needed to 9 effectively control the gob atmosphere. 10 It should also be noted that the report 11 of investigation on the Sago mine explosion stated 12 that bolts and mesh were well grounded at regular 13 intervals to the roof of the sealed area, and, 14 therefore, would not support a large voltage 15 potential. 16 Section 75.337(a)(2) should be 17 re-written to prohibit only those metallic items not 18 required for ground support, installation of seals, 19 and monitoring and/or control of the atmosphere 20 behind the seals. 21 The requirement of Section 75.335(d) to 22 install at least two sampling pipes in each seal is 23 excessive and impractical. First, since sampling is 24 not required at every seal in a set of seals, there 25 is no logical reason to require tubes in all seals. 21 1 Second, gob isolation seals are installed in 2 crosscuts immediately behind the longwall face. It 3 is therefore impossible to meet the requirement to 4 extend one tube into the center of the first 5 connecting crosscut in by the seal as that 6 intersection will no longer exist once the longwall 7 mines pass the crosscut where the seal must be 8 installed. Installing sampling tubes near the 9 intersection is not practical as crosscut conditions 10 often quickly deteriorate on the gob side of the 11 seal. Clearly, this requirement does not consider 12 gob isolation sealing applications in western mines 13 and Section 75.335(d) should be re-written to 14 eliminate sampling tubes from gob isolation seals. 15 I want to digress here just a minute and 16 speak on above behalf of the Elk mine. There's a 17 Section 75.364(b)(4) which requires examination of 18 all seals along the returns and that causes an issue 19 in coal mines that have abutment pressures out in 20 front of the tailgate in that we are asked to 21 inspect those seals clear up to the face. We are 22 not required to inspect anything behind the face, 23 but to the face they must be inspected and 24 oftentimes those seal conditions in the area 25 approaching those seals, when you get the abutment 22 1 pressure in the tailgate makes examination of those 2 seals that are perhaps maybe going to be passed that 3 day anyway very difficult to examine, if not 4 impractical and unsafe to examine. We will include 5 written comments later on this particular point, but 6 we believe it is an issue that ought to be addressed 7 and can be addressed as part of this ETS to handle 8 examination of seals within that source, the 9 abutment pressure on the tailgate. 10 Okay. Back to my CMA comments. 11 Requiring a professional engineer to 12 conduct or have oversight of seal installation is 13 impractical in most mines, especially mines 14 utilizing gob isolation seals. A professional 15 engineer would need to be at the construction of 16 every seal to insure that all parameters are mete 17 before certifying the seal. Colorado mines 18 utilizing progressive sealing may install over 100 19 seals annually, with the seals being installed on 20 every shift. The number of seals and the timing of 21 seal installation make this requirement impractical. 22 In addition, many mines, especially smaller 23 operations, do not have a professional engineer on 24 staff. Further, the certification of the seal 25 construction by a certified person supervising the 23 1 construction, the countersigning of seal 2 installation and repair inspections by the mine 3 foreman, and the certification by a senior mine 4 management official make a professional engineering 5 certification redundant and unnecessary. Section 6 75.336(b)(2) should be eliminated. 7 Section 75.335(b)(1) requires daily 8 examinations and, if necessary, an alternative plan 9 when seals ingas on a regular basis. However, seals 10 can be ingassing without being a concern when the 11 pressure differential across the seal is small, the 12 seal is in good condition, the leakage is minimal, 13 and the gob remains inert. Slight leakage, assumed 14 only by the measured pressure differential, may not 15 be sufficient to affect the inert nature of the gob 16 behind the seal. In these cases, neither increased 17 sampling or examinations, nor an alternative plan, 18 are necessary. Section 75.335(b)(1) should be 19 amended in the third sentence to begin, quote, if a 20 seal is ingassing during the weekly examination, and 21 the sample collected shows a change in the inertness 22 of the gob atmosphere, end quote. 23 The concentrations for an inert 24 atmosphere as defined in Section 75.335(b)(3) 25 include a safety factor to allow for inaccuracies in 24 1 certain detection equipment. While this may be 2 appropriate for hand-held devices, it is unnecessary 3 for gas chromatograph sampling. The regulation 4 should provide for a tighter range when gas 5 chromatograph samples are taken. The atmosphere 6 should be considered inert when the oxygen 7 concentration is less than 12%; the methane 8 concentration is less than 5%; or the methane 9 concentration is greater than 15%. Given that 10 methane concentrations of up to 4.5% have been 11 allowed in bleeders without the need for an action 12 plan, there is no need to require an action plan for 13 concentrations as low as 3%. 14 Section 75.336(b)(3)(iii)(B) requires 15 the operator to provide information for approval in 16 the ventilation plan for safety precautions taken 17 prior to seals achieving full design strength. 18 NIOSH has recommended miners be withdrawn from the 19 affected area until seals reach design strength and 20 the gas mixture in the sealed areas reaches an inert 21 status. MSHA concurs with this in its June 11, 2007 22 issuance of Seal ETS Compliance Assistance Questions 23 and Answers by requiring withdrawal from the 24 affected area. Accordingly, even if nitrogen is 25 injected to accelerate getting the sealed atmosphere 25 1 to inert status, there remains the issue of cure 2 time on concrete, mortar, and/or lightweight cement. 3 At least twice each year in most Colorado mines when 4 longwall panels are sealed, a suspension of 5 production for up to 28 days may be inevitable with 6 this constraint. Considering the volume of longwall 7 coal produced in Colorado and across the United 8 States where progressive sealing is utilized, the 9 halting of production mine-wide for multiple moves 10 annually will have a substantial negative impact on 11 our nation's energy supply. Additionally, the 12 economic burden placed on mine operations while 13 mines are idled for extended periods will negatively 14 affect the economic well-being of employees, 15 suppliers, and entire communities. 16 This approach by MSHA treats a non-inert 17 atmosphere and uncured seals as an imminent danger 18 by requiring the withdrawal of miners. For an 19 actual imminent danger to exist, in addition to an 20 explosive mixture of methane there must be an 21 ignition source present with a reasonable 22 expectation of the ignition source creating an 23 explosion. Sealed areas contain no likely ignition 24 sources, thus an imminent danger is not present and 25 miners should not be required to withdraw. Also, if 26 1 an inert mixture is present, uncured seals do not 2 present an imminent danger as there is no explosion 3 potential. Therefore, MSHA should not require 4 withdrawal of miners during the inerting and curing 5 processes. 6 The prohibition of welding, cutting, and 7 soldering with an arc or flame within 150 feet of a 8 seal as stated in Section 75.335(c) is unreasonable 9 and should be eliminated. With progressive sealing, 10 the longwall face and associated equipment is 11 frequently within 150 feet of the adjacent gob 12 isolation seals. Repairs to this equipment 13 sometimes requires the uses of welding or cutting. 14 The existing statutory provisions of Section 15 75.1106, along with the requirements of PPL P06-V-1 16 provide adequate protection for miners conducting 17 welding and cutting on the longwall face. In 18 addition, the significant quantity of air 19 ventilating a longwall face is sufficient to prevent 20 any tailgate gob isolation seal leakage from ever 21 reaching the welding or cutting operations on the 22 face. 23 In the preamble to the ETS, comments 24 were solicited regarding replacement of existing 25 seals. Replacing existing seals is often 27 1 impractical due to access constraints. It can also 2 be extremely unsafe with miners exposed to inert gob 3 air mixing with fresh air, roof control problems 4 brought on by increases in abutment pressures in the 5 seal areas, and substantial hand-carrying of seal 6 construction materials to remote locations. Unless 7 a seal is in disrepair, replacing of seals should be 8 discouraged. 9 In closing, the ETS as written attempts 10 to standardize the installation of seals throughout 11 the industry. An unintended consequence is that it 12 removes all flexibility of MSHA district managers to 13 deal with local mines on a case-by-case basis and 14 using the district's knowledge of the mining 15 operations to best handle mine conditions and 16 operating systems to authorize the most effective 17 sealing program. 18 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 19 on behalf of the Colorado Mining Association and its 20 member mining operations. CMA will be preparing 21 additional written comments and will submit them 22 prior to the August 17, 2007 deadline. 23 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. First of all, 24 I'm struck by your comments at the end and for 25 everybody here, I give you credit. You called it an 28 1 unintended consequence and we appreciate your 2 labeling it like that, but you said you thought the 3 ETS was an attempt to standardize the installation. 4 Now, I would say to that, and I said 5 this earlier, the ETS as is presently constructed is 6 written to have seal approval. The process is a 7 two-step process and the first process is approval 8 by the design application by our office of tech 9 support and the operator can send in a design for 10 application of 50 psi, 150 psi, or if the case ever 11 came up and had to be greater -- I'm sorry -- 120, 12 excuse me -- if the case ever came up greater than 13 120 psi seal. But the second step would be to take 14 a specific design application and to install it in 15 the mine and there the operator would indeed work 16 with the district manager in the installation 17 process, and that process would be, the particular 18 seal installation would be dependent on particular 19 mining conditions, so I think we do indeed know that 20 the district manager is going to have to play a role 21 in this seal implementation, but to get back to 22 your -- to get back to the first part of your 23 comment about the gob isolation seals, and I know 24 that you are all dealing when the PIB was in effect 25 last year, so you all are dealing with this issue 29 1 right now and you said that some of the things that, 2 or some of the problems that you all have is in 3 terms of the designs have to be constructed in a 4 timely manner. Some of the delays that you -- are 5 you encountering delays right now? In your mind 6 now, you are using -- you said some operators are 7 choosing 50 psi, some are choosing 120. Have you 8 had any problems in getting those approved, the 9 designs approved? 10 MR. KOCH: The seals that are in use 11 right now are not approved on the list as shown, the 12 approved seals that are approved by MSHA now, but 13 the problem is we are waiting on manufacturer's 14 development approval of the seals of the type we are 15 installing. 16 MS. SILVEY: So the type -- 17 MR. KOCH: The problem is, the ETS came 18 out, okay, and it required action right now, but the 19 mines were in operation and needed to be able to 20 install seals as they went. They had to continue 21 installing. We installed thicker seals but we have 22 been installing those and awaiting the process of 23 the manufacturer getting approval on the seal so 24 that we can get that thing approved. 25 MS. SILVEY: So the seals that you are 30 1 installing are awaiting approval now? 2 MR. KOCH: Yes. 3 MS. SILVEY: Okay. 4 MR. KOCH: I'm only speaking on behalf 5 of the miners. 6 MS. SILVEY: On that issue you are 7 speaking on. 8 MR. KOCH: On that issue, yes. 9 MS. SILVEY: This comment made here on 10 the second page and the first full paragraph, for 11 example, the currently MSHA approved seals 12 containing steel reinforcement cannot be built 13 timely, will expose miners needlessly to side 14 abutment loading as the longwall retreats and will 15 subject the longwall face to increase in ground 16 pressures. 17 Now, these are the seal designs that I 18 guess we have on our website which contain steel 19 reinforcement. 20 MR. KOCH: Yeah. The idea of going in 21 behind the longwall face into a crosscut and drilling 22 into the roof and floor to install the bars that are 23 included in these seals, the time it would take to do 24 that, the exposure of people, once that is passed you 25 have some waiting going on. You want to get in and get 31 1 the seal built and get out of there. The time it would 2 take to do that, the seal cannot be built until the 3 longwall passes. You need that ventilation path on the 4 longwall face. Once that passes, it is when you would 5 build that. The time it would take to construct that 6 seal may force us to sit and wait by the time you get 7 all the rebar and get it formed up and built and the 8 longwall would sit there and the longwall can load up 9 when it is sitting there idle. 10 MS. SILVEY: So what you have now does 11 not contain steel reenforcement? 12 MR. SHERER: One question. Isn't it 13 possible to do most of that preparation before the 14 longwall gets there, even during the development 15 phase of the longwall panel such as drilling the 16 holes, putting in some rebar that can be stubbed 17 off? 18 MR. KOCH: I think the problem you have 19 with that is you -- a couple things. In that 20 crosscut, if you would install rebar in the fall, 21 that's an active accessway under the longwall face 22 and it would create stumbling hazards. Also, if you 23 just pre-drill it, there's ground movement that 24 takes place that would potentially shift where you 25 certainly, you get floor movement. It tends to 32 1 occur in a lot of our mines, and any kind of 2 movement on the roof may make it impossible to get 3 into the holes once they are drilled ahead of time. 4 MR. SHERER: The floor stubbing and 5 such, don't you have such height that you can put in 6 a small protected device such as cable across that 7 we tend to use in the surface mines? 8 MR. KOCH: I can't rule that out. 9 MS. SILVEY: Okay. And this is not new 10 to us, so that everybody knows, hearing about some 11 of the issues that the western mines have out here 12 and with the gob isolation seals, but in terms of 13 any of your conclusions in here, when you said that 14 you talk about impact on miner safety and health, 15 I've got a few more specific comments. 16 You talk about the impracticality, any 17 issues related to impractical aspects as they relate 18 to the mines, I would ask you to be as specific as 19 you can. I think you said you might follow up with 20 written comments, but be as specific as you can in 21 the written comments. That will be useful to us as 22 we go forward in developing the final rule. 23 With respect to the sampling pipes, you 24 said that, your recommendation I should say, is that 25 we should eliminate the sampling, you said tubes. I 33 1 guess pipes from the gob isolation seals, so with 2 respect to sampling pipes, are you -- what are you 3 doing now? 4 MR. KOCH: Mines are putting sampling 5 tubes in. They are putting in two tubes, one that 6 goes in the 15 and the other goes over close to the 7 intersection, but we know those will be fruitless in 8 very short time. 9 MS. SILVEY: I want to clarify. With 10 respect to your recommendation, are you recommending 11 that we eliminate from gob isolation seals both 12 pipes or one? 13 MR. KOCH: I will be honest with that. 14 We had discussions within our association and 15 different companies have variations on that. At the 16 very least we believe the one that goes in gob 17 should be eliminated. Oxbow Mines believes that the 18 gob isolation seals do not need to have any sampling 19 pipes in them and in our mind in particular we get 20 an accurate representation at the front end and back 21 end of the panel that we have sealed. We go inert 22 very quickly. It's usually -- methane is not one of 23 those things bordering on 15 or 20 percent. It's 24 usually going up to the 50, 60, 70, 80, and the 25 oxygen goes down to one or two percent. In those 34 1 particular cases you are not going to see any 2 fluctuations along, in that panel. We just don't 3 see it, and our mine has done a sampling for years 4 on a monthly basis, so we know what we've got in 5 those panels. 6 MS. SILVEY: Okay. On your comment 7 concerning elimination of the requirement for 8 professional engineers to conduct off-site of the 9 seal installation, you said that you recommend that 10 that provision be eliminated. 11 MR. KOCH: Yes, ma'am. 12 MS. SILVEY: You did say that it was 13 redundant and unnecessary, so is your reason that it 14 be eliminated mainly that it is redundant and 15 unnecessary, or is it that it's impractical? 16 MR. KOCH: Both. 17 MS. SILVEY: Okay. With respect to -- 18 when you are recommending something to be 19 eliminated, and I say this for everybody, if you are 20 saying that it's impractical, then I want you to be 21 real specific with me. Include as specific a 22 rationale as possible with respect to both of those, 23 but particularly the impracticality of doing it, if 24 you could be as specific as possible. 25 MR. KOCH: The key there is, you know, 35 1 with normal sealing of panel say when you are mining 2 a zone out, you are going to seal it off. That's a 3 quick process to go in and put three or four seals 4 across a panel and then decide you are going to seal 5 it up. Then it becomes a specific project and an 6 engineer could have oversight on that, but with 7 these gob isolation seals they are going in every 8 day. They might be put in on the day shift, the 9 swing shift. They may be pumped on graveyard shift. 10 To have an engineer that has to be out there, and no 11 professional engineer is going to sign off without 12 going out to see that it's done right, he is not 13 going to do it, and to require that person to be 14 there any one of three shifts that day, including 15 weekends, it's just very impractical and not 16 feasible to work with, and that's the point we're 17 trying to make. 18 MS. SILVEY: On page four of your 19 comments, the first paragraph you talk about the 20 economic burden placed on mine operations while 21 mines are idled for extended periods of time and 22 that they would negatively affect the economic 23 well-being, and just for the -- and you link that to 24 the time that it takes for, you said that sometimes 25 you might have to suspend production for up to 36 1 28 days. I would ask, if possible, that if you 2 would, when you talk about the economic burden, if 3 you would provide specific cost data, if you could. 4 MR. KOCH: We -- 5 MS. SILVEY: Do what you can. With 6 conclusions, you have to follow up conclusions with 7 specific information. 8 MR. KOCH: Yes, ma'am. 9 MS. SILVEY: With respect to the next 10 paragraph you say MSHA should not require withdrawal 11 of miners during the early and curing processes. If 12 at all possible, would you include what you would 13 recommend as an alternative, or if you know it right 14 now, but if you don't, if you could include it in 15 your comments. 16 MR. KOCH: We could address that. 17 MS. SILVEY: Okay. And that's really, 18 you know, I appreciate your comments. That's all I 19 have. 20 MR. SHERER: I have a couple. 21 First of all, I want to thank you for 22 your comments. You said something that was a bit of 23 concern to me. You spoke about the problem with 24 abutment pressures on the seals for the weekly exam 25 under 364. 37 1 MR. KOCH: Yes. 2 MR. SHERER: What concerns me, is that 3 not also adjacent to your tailgate escapeway? 4 MR. KOCH: Yes, but the tailgate 5 escapeway is supported with cans or other 6 supplemental support out in front of the abutment as 7 the phase advances. It is already in that 8 particular entry, but it's getting over a couple 9 breaks over those seals that the pressures can 10 deteriorate. Say in that particular case your 11 tailgate is number three. Seals are between No. 1 12 and No. 2 entry. You are putting in supplemental 13 support in that tailgate to insure safe route 14 travelway for those people off the base, but 15 occasionally those conditions deteriorate over and 16 from the face when you have a combination of side 17 abutment pressures from the previously mined panel 18 and the front that are developing, it is in that 19 area where those abutment pressures exist that it's 20 very difficult at times and troublesome to get 21 somebody over there to try to get up to that seal. 22 MR. SHERER: Could you not add 23 supplemental support to the seal area? 24 MR. KOCH: The seal itself, but not 25 every crosscut. 38 1 MR. SHERER: Thank you. Another thing 2 you spoke about was the sample issue and one thing 3 that was very interesting, you spoke about how your 4 sealed area seemed to be fairly homogeneous. You 5 obviously have not seen much variation between the 6 different seal locations as far as the methane 7 content or the oxygen content. Is that true? 8 MR. KOCH: We seal each panel 9 individually and each one has its own atmosphere and 10 they can have a little difference to them and 11 depending which mains they are up against and how 12 we're pulling the gas from them. 13 MR. SHERER: I got the impression, or 14 you were talking about between each seal you didn't 15 see much difference. Is that true? 16 MR. KOCH: Well, up to this point and in 17 each set of seals there's only one, any seal that we 18 have done in the past you are only projecting one 19 tube in each set of seals. 20 MR. SHERER: Thank you. 21 You mentioned several things about 22 imminent dangers and withdrawals. Do you construct 23 these gob isolation seals primarily for spontaneous 24 combustion control? 25 MR. KOCH: The primary purpose of isolating 39 1 each panel individually is to eliminate the oxygen from 2 getting to that gob and creating spontaneous combustion 3 issues. The seals are constructed -- until you get to 4 the end of the panel, then they become seals. 5 MR. SHERER: Isn't spontaneous 6 combustion a potential emission source? 7 MR. KOCH: Only in the proper 8 atmosphere. 9 MR. SHERER: Okay. Thank you. 10 Another issue that you discussed was the 11 withdrawal of miners during the curing period for 12 the seals. Have you examined accelerators for the 13 concrete and such? 14 MR. KOCH: We have inquired to our 15 pumpable seal people. I believe they may be working 16 in that regard to try and do something. I have not 17 heard of anything at this point that's available. 18 MR. SHERER: Thank you. 19 MR. STEPHAN: I have a question for you. 20 You discussed the range or MSHA tightening the range 21 where they would require atmospheres. You mentioned 22 methane in the five to 15 percent range and oxygen 23 above the 12 percent. My question goes to how many 24 of those underground mines actually have a gas 25 chromatograph on site, and if it is not on site, how 40 1 many of them have access to one otherwise? 2 MR. KOCH: I can't speak on behalf of 3 the other mines. We have one. The mine across the 4 street has their own laboratory on site. I cannot 5 speak for the other mines in Colorado. 6 MR. STEPHAN: So if other mines did not 7 have a gas chromatograph on-site, your comments, 8 they still may be applicable? 9 MR. KOCH: I would say that the law may 10 want to reflect both cases. My personal viewpoint, 11 if you address the gasability of a gas chromatograph 12 to allow a tightening of that range. 13 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. 14 MS. SILVEY: Thank you, Mr. Koch. And, 15 again, we appreciate your participation. 16 MR. KOCH: Thank you. 17 Our next speaker will be Chris Barbee 18 with Miners IUOE Local 953, New Mexico. 19 MR. BARBEE: Thank you to the panel for 20 having this discussion forum available to us. 21 Unfortunately, I have only been able to rescue one 22 copy of this printout and as soon as I am done I 23 will provide you with a copy. 24 Chris Barbee, B-A-R-B-E-E. I am a 25 miners representative from the IUOE Local 953, which 41 1 is the International Union of Operating Engineers in 2 the state of New Mexico, representing miners 3 employed at the San Juan South mine in Waterflow, 4 New Mexico. I have a few brief comments and a few 5 written comments that I will just submit with the 6 other comments as several of the minor technical 7 points, if you could call them that, were submitted 8 under the investigations done by NIOSH and those are 9 obviously already a part of this investigation and 10 what-have-you, but I will include them for your 11 reference as well. 12 The point on the Emergency Temporary 13 Standard on sealing of abandoned areas for 14 underground coal mines. I and another couple of 15 representatives of miners that are with me here 16 today are representing miners on behalf of the 17 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 953 in the San Juan underground mine in Waterflow, 19 New Mexico. The Agency's attention to the safety 20 needs of America's coal miners in respect to the 21 effectiveness of seals used to isolate abandoned 22 areas of coal mines is both welcomed and timely. 23 Clearly, the events in the recent past that have 24 promulgated the legislation that will soon affect 25 all coal mine operators and coal miners, are in need 42 1 of remedy. 2 I have previously sent comments on the 3 results of their NIOSH work in this area and have 4 received their comments in return. I have included 5 my previous comments on this report with the 6 submittal presented to you today. My comments today 7 will be to encourage the Agency and operators to 8 continue the dialog about safety and to promote the 9 development of technologies that will increase the 10 safety of miners and not burden the Agency, 11 operators, or the miners unduly. 12 My comments include the following: 13 1. As may seem self-evident, the key to 14 accident prevention is just that, prevention. The 15 creation of regimes of protection to give resistance 16 to forces generated in the event of an explosion in 17 a sealed area of a coal mine would be greatly 18 welcomed by those witnessing such an event, if it 19 were to occur. Unfortunately, this methodology only 20 gives resistance to the explosion. Prevention of 21 such an explosion would seem to be the wiser 22 pursuit. In examination of mine explosion disasters 23 in the recent past, it would seem that knowledge of 24 the dangerous concentrations of an explosive mixture 25 coupled with a definite response plan to such 43 1 concentrations as well as an active program of gob 2 gas management could have lessened the effects noted 3 so well in the national press. 4 An active program of monitoring, gob gas 5 management, and a related action plan should be 6 included in all mine ventilation plans. Examples 7 of this process exist both in the United States coal 8 industry as well as internationally. Experience 9 gained from those operators who monitor and manage 10 gob gasses, both domestic and abroad, should be 11 examined thoroughly for incorporation into 12 ventilation plans in the United States. Not all 13 U.S. mines would be in need of the highest levels of 14 management, but lessons could be learned. 15 Point 2. An effective action plan for 16 response to explosive mixtures, the indicator gasses 17 associated with heating events in gob coal, or a 18 fire would be tremendously effective in the 19 prevention of a mine explosion disaster. 20 Utilization of an action plan depends, however, on 21 one single factor more than any other: Timeliness. 22 Timely information about the state of a gob gas 23 mixture is obviously not easy to obtain. Technology 24 has offered systems that can provide this data on a 25 far more timely basis than the statutory bag sample 44 1 can provide. One manufacturer offers their system 2 under what is commonly called a tube bundle system. 3 The technology exists in all its component forms for 4 other uses in other industries. A greater level of 5 acceptance on the part of MSHA for use of such 6 systems could greatly increase the safety of miners 7 thorough an action plan geared to respond to the 8 specific needs of each mine and their unique gas 9 production characteristics. 10 Although not a true realtime AMS system, 11 it is far more timely than bag samples. Such 12 systems should be thoroughly examined for acceptance 13 as a second level AMS system that a mine operator 14 could use to maintain proper and safe atmospheres 15 for their workers as required by law. 16 Point No. 3. As a necessity can be the 17 mother of invention, the full implementation of the 18 requirements of this ETS and other aspects of the 19 Miner Act, it would seem that ideas could generate 20 synergies that would greatly increase the safety and 21 productivity of America's coal mining industry. An 22 effective forum of the presentation and examination 23 of new technologies should be promoted. Such a 24 forum would include input from manufacturers, mine 25 operators, MSHA, and the coal miners themselves. 45 1 These are all the key stake holders in the coal mine 2 safety process and all of their inputs should be 3 given examination in a timely fashion in an equal 4 setting. 5 Thank you for your time and attention to 6 this issue. 7 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. I only have one 8 comment, Mr. Barbee, and that is when you were 9 talking about having timely information, and that is 10 very critical, you mentioned, and I'm not -- I don't 11 know that you mentioned the name of it, a gas 12 analysis system. I think you called it a two bag 13 system, not quite an AMS system but MSHA could -- 14 you want to see greater acceptance of this on the 15 part of MSHA. Can I ask you what that system is, 16 the name of the system? 17 MR. BARBEE: The system that I was 18 referencing by name is a generic descriptive term. 19 I don't think that's the actual name that the 20 manufacturer uses. It's more of a functional 21 description. It was the Tube Bundle System and the 22 bag portion was in reference to what historically is 23 required for bag samples. A brief overview of this 24 particular system is basically a vacuum pump that 25 sits in a remote location, a tube that is bundled 46 1 together with other tubes that leads to, for 2 instance, a sample tube or sample pipe that goes 3 into a sealed area. You turn the vacuum pump on. 4 It draws atmospheric gas from the sealed area and 5 presents it to a gas chromatograph. It basically 6 does the same thing as a bag sample regimen except 7 it does it on a more timely basis, which gives you 8 greater opportunity to respond to anything out of 9 order, that you find out of the ordinary. 10 That particular system was referenced in 11 an attempt to show merely one example of 12 technologies that are there that with increased 13 safety and particularly the timely response to 14 situations that may come up, and not to endorse or 15 deny that particular system. That's one example of 16 things that can be of a great deal of benefit over 17 and above what is currently statutorily required. 18 MS. SILVEY: Okay. Thank you. Okay. 19 Thank you, Mr. Barbee. 20 MR. BARBEE: Thank you very much. 21 MS. SILVEY: Our next speaker is 22 Jim Cooper with Oxbow Mining Company. 23 MR. COOPER: Jim Cooper, C-O-O-P-E-R, 24 and I work for Oxbow Mining LLC located in Somerset, 25 Colorado. 47 1 Our mine was started in 2002. It is 2 about six million tons a year. A couple of the 3 questions that Mr. Sherer -- is that correct -- a 4 couple of the questions you asked a few minutes ago 5 was pretty interesting. 6 As far as we doing the floor, the floor 7 is not the same. We operate usually at least 50 or 8 a hundred plus feet of cover. I guess if I drilled 9 the roof in the floor and tried to match rebar holes 10 later, I don't think I would have any match 11 whatsoever. 12 Another question, and I don't think I 13 can add much to the comments that have already been 14 made today, but I would just sort of like to touch 15 on the point. 16 Another question that you asked is 17 significant in our mind and I think it's pretty 18 standard in the west and you talked about inspecting 19 the gobs close to the face. That was something that 20 Bob brought up. Our plan and MSHA's approved plan 21 is to require that supports at 800 feet out in front 22 of the face on the tailgate to keep people from 23 working close to a longwall face. I think it's 24 fairly significant as far as approaching the seals 25 within 800 feet of the face if you are not to be 48 1 working to put roof supports in. And the seal, you 2 know, I think you probably understood from what Bob 3 was saying. The seals that we are talking about are 4 between one and two entry and one no longer exists. 5 As I said, I appreciate the opportunity 6 and I really participated in the -- our company did 7 in the CMA's presentation and I don't think there's 8 much more that I can add and, certainly, I'm not at 9 a level today as the MSHA engineers who have already 10 been working on the seals. We have had a lot of 11 concerns about the construction of the seals and the 12 conservative approach that was being taken. We 13 talked a few minutes ago with Bob about if you 14 waited 28 days to cure a seal, what would that 15 impact be on the mine. I don't think the mine would 16 exist. We build seals every 30 day in our mine. We 17 advance 52 feet a day on the average and our 18 crosscuts are 200 feet or every third or fourth day, 19 three and a third day we are building a seal, and if 20 you were to evacuate the mine for seal time, for age 21 time or curing time every 28 days, you just wouldn't 22 be operating is what it amounts to. You would be 23 leaving ventilated open gob areas and at least I saw 24 one representative from district nine here. I do 25 believe that the miners, mine owners and MSHA in 49 1 this district are all of the same opinion, that we 2 don't want to leave that open and particularly the 3 North Fork Valley mines where our mine is located. 4 History as to the Somerset town claims to be a 5 mining town since 1896 I think is the sign that you 6 enter the town and the story is told that not a 7 single one of those mines that have ever existed in 8 that valley has existed without a mine fire. 9 I have been at Oxbow seven years. We 10 have had ours. The very first panel they pulled 11 with a brand new longwall, that was prior to me. It 12 is a common thing that we deal with out here. 13 But to go on, I do believe that the 14 rule-making process that we have gone through since 15 '06 has left both miners and MSHA at least in our 16 district a little confused. Right off the bat we 17 had no seals, and I understand you could do solid 18 block seals. That's not something we could do. We 19 attempted to do that and, number one, they don't 20 stay in. They weren't there for four days and the 21 convergence seals we have and your question to Bob, 22 I think I had the graph in my briefcase, but I 23 couldn't find it, but where we are on seals, I do 24 not believe that there is an approved seal in our 25 district. That's what -- I don't believe that. I 50 1 have checked with all the miners. Every one of them 2 and some people had some temporary response so they 3 could continue, yes. We submitted in October at 4 least, it might have been September. Like I said, I 5 don't have that that in my briefcase. We had our 6 first response in June of '07. We certainly didn't 7 watch it. We have been doing seals -- 8 MS. SILVEY: I hear you. 9 MR. COOPER: We had one Omega block 10 seal. We replaced it immediately. We had -- we 11 took our other seals along the main line that 12 isolate individual panels in the mine. We started 13 building the Mitchell Barick (phonetic) seal in 14 front of our seal and our seal is the one that's for 15 the safety of our people and it is the one that we 16 trust. The Mitchell Barick was for our inspector so 17 that they didn't have to get into knee graph is what 18 it amounted to, and so we did that throughout the 19 mine. Today we have 109 active seals, so the seal 20 issue is extremely major to us and I tell you that I 21 can't add to the comments that were already made but 22 I'm here to stress the importance is what it amounts 23 to. 24 So for the -- for a long time both the 25 miners, coal miners and MSHA inspectors in our 51 1 district in my opinion is in a real bind because 2 they couldn't do anything for us because they didn't 3 have any standards to go by and, you know, it put 4 friction where in my opinion friction didn't need to 5 be, because I think that it takes every one of us to 6 run a safe line. 7 I heard the comment earlier is that the 8 action plan needs to be, and I won't exactly quote 9 the right words, but equivalent to evacuation. I 10 don't think that such a thing as equivalent plan to 11 evacuation exists, and in the 1970s when we were all 12 getting, still getting used to the '69 rules, I 13 think the favorite cartoon that I saw in mines was 14 the safe mine is a closed mine that nobody enters 15 the portals of and neither the miners or MSHA has a 16 job and, again, that's a poor joke and it's things 17 that we live with in our past that we are trying to 18 live down today and trying to put more emphasis on 19 it. 20 Monitoring the sampling. I think that's 21 very complicated. I do believe that most of the 22 mines, the deep operating mines in the state of 23 Colorado does have their own chromatograph. I know 24 we are in -- our three mines are within six miles 25 from end to end of each other. All three of us have 52 1 chromatographs. I think the big question that I 2 have heard a lot of people talking about is not how 3 we are good as sampling monitors but how is MSHA 4 going to sample a monitor, and that's very critical 5 that we need to know to even set our systems up. We 6 are a continuous monitoring program and we have it 7 not because it is required but because we initiated 8 it ourselves and it's because that first 26 million 9 dollar longwall, this was back in '97, when the 10 thing caught on fire and the mine was closed for a 11 year, the people at that mine said never again do we 12 want to go into that situation, so the system is in. 13 It was in place when I got there and I have heard 14 people comment that it is the most complete that 15 they have run into in several places. 16 Atmosphere. I think MSHA and miners 17 have been consistently in agreement with that since 18 I have been in the mine since 1970. It's over 15, 19 it's under 5, and it's less than 12 percent and 20 that's been an accepted thing by MSHA since I have 21 been in the industry and that has been since the 22 early seventies. 23 Prohibited welding and cutting and 24 soldering, you can't do without those functions on 25 an operating longwall and I do believe that's a real 53 1 critical thing. I have read very briefly the MSHA 2 investigation on Darby and I don't believe that with 3 the welding and cutting was a problem. The problem 4 was that the people that were in didn't follow the 5 regulations and the rules that were already in 6 place. That's what miners have to do. We operate 7 in a -- a young HR guy who said this a couple weeks 8 ago and it is one of the first times in all the 9 years that I have been in mines that I have heard 10 that we operate in a hazardous atmosphere and if we 11 don't pay particular attention to it and do it 12 right, then it becomes an unsafe atmosphere, and I 13 do believe in this. 14 You asked that coal miners do, 15 underground coal miners do exactly that. Some of 16 the concerns as far as -- not too many of us, and I 17 don't think any of the engineers at our mine are 18 true structural design engineers and we were talking 19 earlier about structurally designing the seals. I 20 doubt if we could tell any of your people how to in 21 particular design that seal, but we do believe that 22 it is overly conservative. 23 Now, then, a structural design engineer, 24 a professional engineer who is tested and has his 25 certification, his job is to design. Again, it is 54 1 the miners and training that is the job, the 2 installation job, the construction job. We go 3 through the steps and get to a senior mine manager, 4 certifying the seal design. I don't quite -- I 5 think we have to define what the word certifies 6 mean. If he's countersigning, then he can do that. 7 Can he certify that seal? I don't think so. I 8 wonder if we are looking for scapegoats or people to 9 point fingers at. I think the mining committee has 10 already done that to both MSHA and operators and I'm 11 talking about the senate committee that was very 12 important for them to enact a so-called Miner's 13 No. 1 Act and to do it on the anniversary of the 14 Miner's No. 1 Act. Some of the comments that have 15 been in publications that I have read that they may 16 both be coal miners and about MSHA is very confusing 17 to me, very disturbing, and it doesn't get the job 18 done for the safety of the miners, and that's a very 19 important thing. It doesn't have anything to do 20 with really I don't believe the emergency standards 21 that you are talking about here. 22 In closing, I would like to say that I 23 think this nation, and I don't think the majority of 24 people in the nation believe this, but I think the 25 majority of coal miners believe this, is that what 55 1 we do about the product we produce is extremely 2 important to this nation and going forward we will 3 produce more than 50 percent of the energy that's 4 produced in the nation. It's very important to our 5 standard of living that we have gotten comfortable 6 with and I think it also adds to the national 7 security that we're -- that we're faced with every 8 day, and I think the majority of coal mining people 9 understand that. I don't think the majority of the 10 population in the U.S. understands that. 11 MS. SILVEY: Thank you for your comments 12 and we will have some specific comments in prior to 13 August 17th. Thank you for this. Thank you, 14 Mr. Cooper, and I want to underscore, as I said, you 15 will have specific comments in to us before 16 August 17th. 17 MR. COOPER: Yes, ma'am. 18 MS. SILVEY: I have just a couple of 19 further comments to what you said and so you told me 20 you don't think that you all have, that there's an 21 approved seal in your district. I will tell you one 22 thing. I do promise that when we go back we are 23 going to check on the status of the seals, whatever, 24 seal applications that we have in I guess I should 25 say seal requests that we have in from district 56 1 nine. 2 MR. COOPER: Ma'am, just a short four 3 weeks ago I think it was that this -- this is 4 mid-July and time flies, but I was here in Denver 5 meeting with MSHA and I had a chart and I surveyed 6 all the underground mines operating in the west and 7 some of them have temporary supply approvals, as I 8 have said. They are stated as temporary. Ours was 9 one of the ones that were submitted I think it was 10 last October 4th and we had no answer. I think our 11 district, after finding that out, got us one and the 12 answer was no is what the answer was. 13 MS. SILVEY: I understand. And you 14 asked appropriately, you said one of the equally 15 critical questions is -- you might not have said it 16 like that, but how is MSHA going to sample a mine, 17 and that is critical and I said this last week and 18 so, you know, if somebody were here from last week 19 they could prove me wrong today because we are in 20 the process of developing a procedure instruction 21 that would deal with MSHA samplings and I thought 22 that it would be out by now and I don't think it is 23 out today, but I think it should be out soon. I 24 don't think it is out, but it should be out soon, so 25 when we go back I will also, and I promise that to 57 1 everybody here, I will check on the status of that 2 that deals with MSHA samplings so that people are 3 put on notice exactly how MSHA plans to sample 4 seals. 5 MR. COOPER: That would be very 6 important to us if we had it, you know, to make 7 proper comments by the 17th. That way we know what 8 we need to step up to. Plus, the previous speakers 9 that had commented about the new system, I think 10 that the good that's coming out of a lot of things 11 that has happened in the last two years is that 12 people are scratching their heads today and trying 13 to figure out what is out there and what is needed. 14 We laugh in our location about the 15 communication issue. I mean, day one in the mines 16 for me communication was a problem, and we are 17 talking about wireless communication and I see ads 18 in the publications that say we have a wireless 19 communication we have just tested in the mines of 20 West Virginia. It is not a wireless communications. 21 It still has buyers. Those signals don't turn 22 corners, but the laughable part is you won't have a 23 wireless communication at our location. We have no 24 cell phone service, so you can leave your cell phone 25 at home. We don't use them because they don't work, 58 1 so if we don't even have cell phone service, it's 2 sort of for our miners, about 300 employees, it's 3 sort of a kick to get them going on it. Well, how 4 are we going to do this when we can't even get cell 5 phone service up here? 6 Those are things -- we tripled our 7 communication system and run it back to the office 8 and that way it has a full circle. If it's broke 9 some place, it's still open some place else. We do 10 have the so-called wireless system underground, but 11 that has wires every 1500 feet to the transmitters, 12 but that is some of the things that is coming out 13 that is extremely good for all of us. 14 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. 15 MR. COOPER: Thank you. 16 MR. SHERER: Actually, I have a couple 17 comments. First of all, I want to thank you for 18 your comments, Mr. Cooper. They were quite 19 informative. You spoke about the 28 day waiting 20 period between each seal. You said you construct a 21 seal about every three or four days. I don't think 22 those would be considered seals. 23 MR. COOPER: Until we seal off the end. 24 MR. SHERER: The 28 days would just 25 apply to maybe the last few seals. Is that true? 59 1 MR. COOPER: Yes, and at the end of that 2 thing, only one in the series of what we have done, 3 I think we wound up doing 13 seals in three days, so 4 it is a lot of seals, but as I say, we have 109 5 active seals right now, active seals right now is 6 109, and I do believe that there's so much 7 difference in the east and west. I have worked in 8 Alabama. I worked in Kentucky and West Virginia, 9 and I worked in Pennsylvania and I have worked out 10 here and there's a big difference in how seals are 11 used, what they mean. And, you know, you can talk 12 about pre-doing certain work before you get there 13 and if you are doing six seals in a year or 24 seals 14 in a year that may be one way of looking at things. 15 If you are doing seals every three and a half to 16 four days, that's a whole different way of looking 17 at things and also I think that in design of seals, 18 I said I can't compete with that design,engineer, 19 but he also may need to spend a little time in the 20 atmosphere and environment that coal miners has to 21 do that construction in. From a design and putting 22 something together, by the guy that has to do it 23 with his hands, those two things have to match. We 24 can talk about all the training we want to but when 25 we get to that end, if the design is not applicable 60 1 to the atmosphere, then, you know, it's just not 2 going to work. 3 One thing I would say is that I heard 4 you say that MSHA initially designed -- decided that 5 replacing seals was not the right way to go. I do 6 believe that that's a site-specific decision and 7 that hopefully we as coal miners and operators will 8 decide that particular seal needs to be replaced a 9 long time before anybody from MSHA would tell us to 10 replace it. 11 You also mentioned, and I did not cover 12 it and I had it on the list, that you talked about 13 removing steel and conductive material in seals. 14 That is something that we are extremely opposed to 15 and I understand where it comes from, but we use 16 both a real strong wire mesh for roof and rib 17 support. We use pans as well as bolts and cable 18 bolts and so on and we are going to, our employees 19 are going to have a major problem if that's part of 20 the requirement. 21 Again, I would say we average 1700. We 22 don't particularly agree with the statement that 23 we're exposed to lightning with those particular 24 safety issues at that point and we believe that 25 removing that is extremely more hazardous to our 61 1 people and each of our miners than the lightning 2 potential would be. I think in all the explosions 3 that I have heard MSHA speak of, there was only two 4 that we maybe think that was the case, that it was, 5 that lightning was a source. 6 MR. SHERER: Actually, over half have 7 been attributed to lightning. 8 MR. COOPER: Over half of the 12 since 9 '82? 10 MR. SHERER: Yes. I think I counted 11 them up. 12 MR. COOPER: I apologize. Your numbers 13 are more accurate than mine, I suppose. 14 MR. SHERER: A couple more comments, 15 Mr. Cooper. 16 I would suggest that you speak with the 17 people at the Orange Bally (phonetic) mine that your 18 company may be associated with. There was a bore 19 hole, electrical bore hole into that mine that did 20 suffer a lightning strike back in the early '90s. 21 It was about 1500 feet deep, as best I can remember. 22 The comments you made were very pertinent and I 23 certainly appreciate your candid responses to those. 24 MR. COOPER: I would tell you that I 25 believe that bore holes are a lot different from the 62 1 roof support that we're talking about on seals 2 underground, but it does relate and I understand 3 from my statement about the lightning associated 4 one, but, again, I tend to apply that to leaving 5 electrical cable in a gob or our roof support is 6 breaching the seal and not to the bore 7 installations, and I have heard the same thing 8 happens on gas wells that I remember. 9 MR. SHERER: One last comment. Have you 10 any experience with the fiberglass mesh? I think 11 there's products out there, for some of the roof and 12 rib support. 13 MR. COOPER: We use a fiberglass mesh 14 material, and I'm not sure fiberglass is right, but 15 it is a fabric. We use that, but we have not used 16 it as standard support through the mines, not. I 17 don't have experience with that. 18 MR. SHERER: That's one thing that we 19 have been discussing as possibly using certain 20 things where you know you are going to build seals. 21 Maybe you can use that type of product just in that 22 local area. 23 MR. COOPER: That's a new one too. 24 Thank you. 25 MS. SILVEY: I want to clarify 63 1 something. Mr. Cooper talked about my earlier 2 comment about what I said about existing seals and I 3 think, and I won't look down at exactly what I said, 4 but in the ETS and the preamble I said we consider 5 replacing existing seals, replacing all seals or 6 just wholesale asking that all seals be reinforced 7 and we rejected that idea because as a wholesale 8 matter we felt like in some instances to require 9 that would create additional safety hazards. 10 Now, that does not rule out the fact 11 that in particular instances like this goes to your 12 comment saying it should be left to the individual 13 mines, if the defective seals are encountered, if a 14 mine operator encounters a defective seal, then the 15 rule clearly requires that they be repaired and 16 reinforced as necessary or replaced with a high 17 strength seal, so that is the makeup of the rule. 18 We just didn't on an all-out basis require that all 19 seals be replaced. 20 MR. COOPER: My statement may not have 21 been very clear, and I was trying to applaud the 22 fact that you did just exactly that and I believe 23 that if an operator or an MSHA person finds a 24 defective seal, then the damaged seal will need to 25 be replaced and it would have to meet the standards. 64 1 MS. SILVEY: Right. Let me just ask 2 one -- bear with me, you all. 3 Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper. 4 At this point can we take a five-minute 5 break, please? If nobody wants to take a break, I 6 can go on. 7 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 8 MS. SILVEY: Can we get started? Before 9 we get started, I would like to make a request of 10 anybody who is speaking from here on, and that is if 11 you do have written material, if you would read your 12 written material somewhat, maybe slower than you 13 normally do, just to make sure we have an accurate 14 record, and I know I tend to talk fast myself so I'm 15 probably the first guilty person, but if you would 16 talk a little slower if you have written material. 17 At this point we will hear from our next 18 speaker, Ralph Sanich, Interwest Mining Company. 19 MR. SANICH: Good morning. My name is 20 Ralph Sanich, S-A-N-I-C-H, and I'm here today on 21 behalf of Interwest Mining and its subsidiaries and 22 I have the following comments: 23 Interwest Mining Company and its 24 subsidiaries offer the following comments to the 25 Mine Safety and Health Administration regarding 65 1 Emergency Temporary Standards for sealing of 2 abandoned areas published May 22, 2007. 3 MSHA requests comments from the mining 4 community on the appropriateness of the strategy of 5 this ETS for addressing seal strength greater than 6 120 psi. 7 Interwest Mining Company suggests that 8 MSHA allow mining companies to investigate future 9 technologies and alternative methodologies such as 10 weak-walls, the installation of baffles, et cetera, 11 to provide blast wave mitigation prior to explosions 12 encountering the seals. 13 MSHA specifically solicits comments on 14 the Agency's approach to the strength requirements 15 for seals. 16 Interwest Mining Company would suggest 17 that rather that increasing seal design 18 requirements, MSHA should allow mines to conduct a 19 risk analysis of the specific area to be sealed. 20 Some mines historically do not liberate methane. 21 These mines should not be held to the same standard 22 as mines that liberate large amount of methane. If 23 the atmosphere to be isolated behind a set of seals 24 is to be inerted and/or is known based upon mine 25 history that the sealed area will never achieve an 66 1 explosive mixture, then there is no rationale to 2 increase the seal strength requirements. Instead, 3 mine history, monitoring of the sealed area and the 4 ability to inert the seal atmosphere should dictate 5 seal design strength requirements. 6 MSHA asked for comments on the 7 appropriateness of the three-tiered approach to seal 8 strength in the ETS. 9 As stated in our previous comment, 10 Interwest Mining Company suggests that rather than 11 increasing seal strength design requirements, MSHA 12 should allow mines to conduct a risk analysis of the 13 specific area to be sealed. Some mines, again, 14 historically do not liberate methane and should not 15 be held to that same standard as mines that liberate 16 large amounts of methane. 17 MSHA seeks comments on the feasibility, 18 including in the final rule a requirement that 19 existing seals be removed and replaced with higher 20 strength seals. Interwest Mining Company does not 21 agree with the removal of existing seals for higher 22 strength seals. It does not make any sense to 23 potentially expose miners to an atmosphere and 24 potentially introduce oxygen into a sealed area 25 which may contain methane and could expose the 67 1 miners to an explosive mixture. 2 Additionally, existing seals, sealed 3 areas which do not contain explosive mixtures do not 4 benefit from a construction of a higher strength 5 seal as a factor of the safety for an explosion of 6 120 psi seal versus a factor of safety for a 20 psi 7 seal are the same if no explosion is possible. 8 MSHA is requesting comments addressing 9 the sampling of approach in this ETS: Sampling and 10 sampling frequency only when a seal is outgassed. 11 Interwest Mining Company believes that sampling 12 frequency should be determined by site-specific mine 13 conditions, mine history, and approved by the 14 district manager. For example, a mine that has no 15 history of methane should not be required to sample 16 weekly. If historical data determines that the mine 17 does not produce methane, the district manager may 18 approve a different sampling procedure such as 19 monthly, quarterly, et cetera. 20 There's another sampling approach more 21 appropriate for the final rule, such as when the 22 seal is ingassing. 23 Interwest Mining Company does not 24 believe there is a need to sample seals that are 25 ingassing. Again, if a mine does not have a history 68 1 of methane liberation, sampling should not be 2 required. 3 MSHA requests information and 4 experiences for the mining community concerning 5 sampling sealed areas. 6 Interwest Mining Company believes that 7 specific conditions at the mine would require 8 different sampling procedures. A mine with a 9 complex ventilation system, one that has a blowing 10 and exhausting fans, will have a different effect 11 than a mine that is only on an exhausting or a 12 blowing system. Again, we believe that the 13 historical information should be utilized to 14 determine sampling intervals. 15 MSHA is requesting comments from the 16 mining community on the appropriateness of the ETS 17 requirements regarding open flames associated with 18 welding, cutting, and soldering activities within 19 150 feet of the seal and the feasibility of this 20 requirement. 21 Interwest Mining Company does not agree 22 with this ETS requirement. There are some instances 23 that seals be built on the intake or next to belts 24 or belt drives and other situations. Cutting and 25 welding should be allowed if air quality checks are 69 1 made and the methane and oxygen are continually 2 monitored. 3 MSHA requests comments regarding the 4 appropriate number and location of sampling pipes 5 for the final rule and Interwest Mining Company 6 believes that one seal in a set of seals should be 7 designated for sampling and be provided with 8 sampling pipes; however, the appropriate number and 9 location of sampling pipes should be based upon 10 site-specific mine conditions and historical 11 experience 12 MSHA requests comments from the mining 13 community on the ETS requirement for water drainage 14 systems for seals, including effective alternatives 15 for the final rule. 16 We believe that MSHA should define what 17 is impounding water. Some water behind a seal would 18 not pose a problem. Seals and sets of seals could 19 be constructed to allow water to flow to the lowest 20 area, and the seal built in the location would 21 contain the water drainage system. Again, this 22 should be determined on a site-by-site or a 23 site-specific basis. 24 MSHA solicits comments regarding the 25 removal of insulated cables and metallic objects 70 1 through or across seals is feasible and will not 2 involve significant technical or practical problems. 3 We agree with the removal the cables and 4 tracks and other metal objects across or through the 5 seal. 6 Interwest Mining Company disagrees with 7 removal of all cables from the sealed area. This 8 could create a hazardous condition. For example, 9 bleeder systems that generate large quantities of 10 water require pumping systems be maintained up to 11 the final sealing process. Taking the time to 12 remove all pumping and monitoring communication 13 cables, et cetera, prior to the final sealing 14 process would allow the bleeding process to flood 15 and potentially block ventilation resulting in 16 methane buildup or other hazardous conditions. This 17 would create a greater hazard to our employees than 18 the potential danger of a lightning strike. 19 Grounding the cable to the mine strata or other 20 alternatives could be a more effective way to deal 21 with cables left behind. 22 Interwest Mining Company would like to 23 thank you, the panel, for your time in allowing us 24 to come in during these hearings. 25 MS. SILVEY: Thank you, Mr. Sanich. I 71 1 heard, and this comment is for everybody here too, 2 because we heard this comment before and I can't 3 exactly -- I think we heard it in Morgantown and I'm 4 not sure exactly whether we heard it in Lexington, 5 but I know we heard it in Morgantown from a number 6 of operators who suggested that mines that did not 7 liberate methane, there was no need to require, 8 include certain of the requirements for them and 9 that there should be a risk analysis and based on -- 10 they should be allowed to do a risk analysis and 11 based on that risk analysis then that would dictate 12 what the requirements should be. 13 I have two points on that. One, and I 14 probably should have asked some of them and really I 15 hope it gets back to some of them. 16 When you say not liberate methane, and 17 I'm assuming that you mean do not liberate large 18 quantities of methane, or you tell me what you mean 19 when you say do not liberate methane, your mines do 20 not liberate methane. 21 MR. SANICH: I guess I would say our 22 mines are in a peculiar situation because one of the 23 two mines that we currently are operating the 24 underground mines, liberates basically no methane. 25 MS. SILVEY: Basically you mean you have 72 1 never had a measurement of methane? 2 MR. SANICH: Maybe three, four, 3 five-tenths methane over the years, so we are in a 4 different situation than let's say than most mines 5 are, and that's why we believe that a risk analysis 6 of our mines is more appropriate because, you know, 7 again, a 50 psi seal, if you have an area that's 8 inert and will more than likely always be inert, 9 20 psi seal would be just as safe. 10 MS. SILVEY: I want to get clarification 11 of what the commenters mean when they say no 12 methane. 13 Now, you say low. You have two mines. 14 What does the other one -- let's get to the one, the 15 three-tenths, four-tenths or whatever you said. Is 16 that -- how long have you been -- what is the trend 17 for that? I mean, how long a period of time has it 18 been always giving that amount? 19 MR. SANICH: The one mine that we are 20 operating in Utah currently, to my knowledge, and I 21 would only be speaking just based off what I 22 understand, they have never in probably close to 23 30 years have had a methane issue to where, and I 24 will go as far as to say five-tenths the methane 25 that probably would be the maximum that they have 73 1 seen. 2 MS. SILVEY: What about the other mine? 3 MR. SANICH: That's a newer mine and we 4 have not seen any methane in that mine as well. 5 Traces, let's say. 6 MS. SILVEY: The question I have is, 7 with respect to this risk analysis, and you included 8 some factors, being sure you included some factors 9 in here. You gave the history of methane and you 10 gave the mine history and certain other things, the 11 ability to inert the sealed atmosphere, but when you 12 are talking about a recommendation, if you are 13 suggesting that we make certain requirements based 14 on risk analysis, I would like it if you could be 15 very specific with respect to how you would do that, 16 the parameters to be included in certain, in such a 17 risk analysis, and that is how you are going to do 18 it, how it is going to be evaluated, what is going 19 to be included in it. It's got to be laid out. It 20 just can't be you telling me you are going to do a 21 risk analysis. 22 MR. SANICH: And we would more than 23 likely submit additional comments that would clarify 24 that. 25 MS. SILVEY: I would like it very much 74 1 if you would clarify that. 2 MR. SHERER: I have a couple comments. 3 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. 4 MR. SHERER: Thank you for your input, 5 Mr. Sanich. 6 One thing you mentioned that I would 7 like to explore a bit, you mentioned that you had 8 seals on intake next to belt lines. Is that 9 correct? 10 MR. SANICH: I didn't say we had them. 11 I said there is the potential that there could be 12 seals built to where they were on the intakes and 13 they had to be examined basically on a pre-shift. 14 MR. SHERER: That worries me in that we 15 have a requirement for stopping between belt lines 16 and intake. 17 MR. SANICH: Let me rephrase that. It 18 would be 150 feet of a belt drive. 19 MR. SHERER: Have you read the preamble 20 which lets you do that? We use the same method that 21 we use for permissible equipment and active gobs and 22 it is a string that we call the string line method. 23 You take a string and stretch it out and within 150 24 feet of that it lets you use the separation provided 25 by that stopping line for determining whether you 75 1 could weld or not. I think that most of what you 2 are intimating to be problems may go away under that 3 approach. 4 MR. SANICH: That may be true. 5 MR. SHERER: Thank you. 6 Another issue that Mrs. Silvey spoke 7 about is low methane, and you mentioned 8 three-tenths, four-tenths, five-tenths. Was that in 9 sealed areas or was that in active, ventilated 10 areas? 11 MR. SANICH: Primarily I would tell you 12 that for the most part the methane that we have seen 13 is, I will say in active areas. It just kind of 14 comes and goes. It will go for a long time without 15 seeing anything at all, meaning zero, and then there 16 will be just a hit or miss occasion where you see 17 something, but as far as us sampling our sealed 18 areas, I would say that we have typically seen 19 methane concentrations less than three-tenths. It 20 could be zero. 21 MR. SHERER: Sure. 22 Are you aware that Sago was a low 23 methane liberation mine? 24 MR. SANICH: Yes. 25 MR. SHERER: Okay. Thank you. 76 1 MS. SILVEY: Mr. Sanich, I have one 2 other comment. On your comments with respect to 3 sampling pipes, and as you noted, ETS requires two 4 pipes and I say it for everybody, the location of 5 the pipes earlier. Your recommendation is that the 6 appropriate number and location be based on 7 site-specific conditions but do you or your company 8 agree that that should be the two pipes as laid out? 9 You didn't comment about that, as laid out in the 10 ETS, the location of the two pipes that the ETS 11 specifies. What is your opinion on that? 12 MR. SANICH: Again, my opinion would be 13 that I would agree with the comments to, especially 14 the Colorado Mining Association because, again, with 15 the type of gates and gobs that we have, I think to 16 the extended or the longer pipe would more than 17 likely get damaged and there would be basically no 18 opportunity to go in and replace or repair that 19 pipe. 20 MS. SILVEY: So that comment was to 21 eliminate the pipe from the gob isolation seals. 22 Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. 23 Okay. Thank you. 24 MR. STEPHAN: I would just like to ask 25 you real quick again about this 150 feet and open 77 1 flames, the welding and cutting issue and if testing 2 were to suggest that sparks or hot metal from the 3 welding or cutting operation could perhaps extend or 4 jump 15 or 20 feet, would you be more likely to be 5 in favor of a standard that specifies a number less 6 than 150 feet, perhaps 20 feet, or would that make 7 things -- 8 MR. SANICH: This is me speaking and not 9 my company, but I would say that I don't think a 10 distance specification is really the way to go 11 because, again, it's kind of a prescriptive versus 12 what are you really dealing with at that particular 13 location, so it's why I say I'm more favored to 14 utilizing the technology of an electronic instrument 15 that could give you constant readout while you are 16 performing the job that you are doing, that cutting, 17 welding, et cetera. 18 MS. SILVEY: I understand the position 19 that you would take with that, but I'm thinking in 20 terms of what happened at the Darby mines. If they 21 had such a piece, it would have told them that 22 welding was okay because they didn't have -- because 23 there were specifications that said the no welding 24 on or near seals or within ten or twenty feet of 25 seals, then that would have been something different 78 1 that could have prevented Darby. Just looking from 2 that perspective. 3 MR. SANICH: It seems like that would be 4 a sensible approach. 5 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. 6 MS. SILVEY: Thank you, Mr. Sanich. 7 Our next speaker is Craig Watson with 8 VHP. 9 MR. WATSON: Good morning. My name is 10 Craig Watson, W-A-T-S-O-N. I'm also an underground 11 coal miner for VHP, San Juan Mine South, Waterflow, 12 New Mexico. I represent 230 plus coal miners and I 13 have some general comments from them in reference to 14 seal construction, materials and monitoring and some 15 general safety philosophies that we have at our 16 mine. 17 You already heard from Chris Barbee and 18 I echo much of his sentiments, and I won't restate 19 those. The miners have some concerns, though. 20 First of all, I applaud and they applaud 21 your effort and time and commitment to helping make 22 them safe and allow them to work and prosper and 23 support their families and they are very, very aware 24 of the risks and hazards of coal mines. Those 25 really have not changed over the last hundred years. 79 1 The only things that we have between us and those 2 risks are the ability to manage, identify and 3 mitigate these risks, both with technology, 4 training, management and culture. 5 MS. SILVEY: Excuse me. Please, you are 6 doing real good. I mean, I don't want to interrupt 7 your thoughts, but can everybody hear him? I'm 8 sorry. I hate to ask you. It looked like some 9 people were straining to hear you. 10 MR. WATSON: Should I start again or 11 keep going? 12 MS. SILVEY: Keep going. 13 MR. WATSON: Okay. Again, the risks in 14 the coal mine that we incur, and we see have not 15 changed in the last hundred years. The risks and 16 hazards are still there and the only thing between 17 us and those hazards are training and technology and 18 our ability to identify, manage, and mitigate these 19 risks and some of that is the culture and the miners 20 that do the work. This is the objective of my 21 presentation this morning is some of the concerns 22 that they have from an actual hands-on application 23 of seal construction and handling and the peace of 24 mind and information as far as monitoring our gob 25 gasses and to deal with the issues as they arise 80 1 sufficiently and safely and consistently. 2 As I mentioned, though, they do very 3 much appreciate your time and effort and resources 4 to help them keep their jobs and work safely and 5 support their families. 6 Specifically, in dealing with seal 7 construction, whatever the end result of your effort 8 as far as whatever the end result of seal 9 construction, a 50 psi seal or 120 or whatever the 10 value is, at some point please do consider that 11 whatever you design, whatever you agree upon, 12 someone has to build it and when they are building 13 it they have to have the material hauled in and 14 prepare the site and so many times now in the coal 15 mine we see injuries, minor or moderate involving 16 lifting, twisting and carrying of materials. 17 Don't misunderstand me. The coal miners 18 very much want to build whatever you want to build 19 for safety. 175, 20 steps, we don't care. We will 20 deal with whatever we have to, but it must be 21 efficient and it must be consistent and it is labor 22 intensive and it does involve backs and knees and 23 ankles and physical work, so having said that, 24 please consider those when we do final designs and 25 final law to affect what we build. 81 1 The miners have conveyed to me an 2 important fact. In our mind we are very aware of 3 our gob gasses and we have the ability to monitor 4 and there's someone continually monitoring these gob 5 gasses and control, and if we have an issue they get 6 on the radio and call somebody who works on the crew 7 and say Craig, take that meter, verify and take a 8 bag sample, and so if they are working somewhere 9 else in the mine, they know that someone is taking 10 care of this safety concern. 11 We know it's back there. If it is not 12 in parameter range, we like to go and check it. If 13 we need to, we add more oxygen and we inert it, but 14 the point is that we are aware of our mine gasses. 15 We don't take it for granted, and we manage them and 16 the peace of mind that we have with our miners 17 because of this is important. It allows them to 18 concentrate on their tasks at hand and help keep 19 them safe, and that's an important fact. Our mine 20 is relatively new and a lot of miners are brand new 21 to the mining industry. We have always done it this 22 way. At the same time, we're always analyzing and 23 scrutinizing what we do and how we do it to make it 24 better, which is an important fact. If something is 25 better or more safe, we do it. 82 1 The miners that said they like the idea 2 of having two sampling pipes in the seals, two is 3 twice as good as one. If we lose one from gob 4 cave-in, we could have the other one, so they like 5 the idea of having two. 6 So, this is a broad spectrum. Those are 7 the comments that were conveyed to me. Materials, 8 handling, and ability to sample and manage our gob 9 gasses. 10 That's all I have for you. Thank you so 11 much for your time. 12 MS. SILVEY: Thank you very much, 13 Mr. Watson. On your sample, since they said they 14 call you sometimes, do you all have a chromatograph 15 at your mine? 16 MR. WATSON: Yes, we do. 17 MS. SILVEY: I figured you did. Okay. 18 I have no other comments. 19 MR. SHERER: Thank you, Mr. Watson. 20 You mentioned that you are continuously 21 monitoring your gob atmosphere. Do you know how 22 often that sample is? Is it once an hour, once a 23 day? 24 MR. WATSON: I may have misspoke. I 25 think it is a 15-minute sampling, but I believe they 83 1 can actually lock on any one point at any one time. 2 I believe that's true. I believe it is a 15-minute 3 cycle. I did not write it down. 4 MS. SILVEY: Do you all have an AMS 5 system? 6 MR. WATSON: Yes, ma'am, AMS system, 7 tube sampling and, of course, our hand-held. 8 MS. SILVEY: Thank you very much, 9 Mr. Watson. 10 MR. WATSON: Thank you. 11 MS. SILVEY: At this point, is there 12 anybody else in the audience who either wishes to 13 make comment or make additional comments if you 14 spoke earlier, so feel free to do so. Yes? 15 MR. KOCH: I have a couple comments if I 16 may. 17 MS. SILVEY: Mr. Koch. 18 MR. KOCH: I'm glutton for punishment 19 here this morning. 20 I wish to comment on a couple things. 21 We talked about the rebar and the floor. I would go 22 a little further on that in that there were a couple 23 people who approached me at the break and that's 24 that that entry that goes over to the face needs to 25 be kept accessible for equipment to move in and out, 84 1 the ability to carry cans in for roof support, and 2 it is really impractical to try to put any rebar in 3 that floor ahead of time. Those bars are going to 4 spray in different directions. 5 I would also like to point out on that 6 that I don't believe there is any currently approved 7 seals that have that rebar in there that don't also 8 say it's not applicable for convergence locations 9 where your convergence, and I believe there's a 10 statement that says that convergence, that's not 11 applicable to those locations. I believe it may 12 conceal but they are only approved up to eight-foot 13 high and that would be inapplicable as well for the 14 western coal miners, so, anyway, also, there is, in 15 the Friday, June 8th ETS it talks about do I have to 16 sample the sealed area in the Friday June 8, 2007 17 ETS questions and answers. One question, No. 7 is 18 do I have to sample the sealed atmosphere using both 19 sampling pipes in each new seal. The answer is 20 during the 14-day sampling period the seal 21 atmosphere must be done through both sampling pipes 22 in each seal. The comment I would like to make, if 23 you think about that, with gob isolation seals where 24 you have just sealed, there could be as many as 50 25 seals coming into play there. If we were to sample 85 1 one out of two tubes for 14 days over 15 seals -- 2 over 50 seals -- that would be 1400 samples that 3 would need to be taken in that two-week period. 4 Obviously, that's not a practical thing to be doing, 5 so I think the regulations need to address the gob 6 items. It is another example where I don't believe 7 gob isolation seals are properly addressed. 8 I had heard a comment that there is some 9 new compliance questions and answers coming out. 10 That might be an opportunity to put some 11 clarification on what really makes sense. 12 MR. SHERER: I have a comment. Thank 13 you, again, Mr. Koch. 14 I was just suggesting a possible 15 approach for any of the rebar. The one concern I 16 have is you say that rebar is not applicable anyway, 17 so I guess it is a moot point. 18 MR. KOCH: I don't think it is 19 applicable. The seals that are there right now that 20 have been designed so far that are approved so far 21 have rebar in them are not applicable in the mines 22 to show convergence. 23 MR. SHERER: So it is a moot point? 24 MR. KOCH: Yes, but -- 25 MR. SHERER: Thank you. 86 1 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Thank you, 2 Mr. Koch. 3 Is there anybody else who wishes to make 4 comments? 5 MR. COOPER: Can we ask a question? 6 MS. SILVEY: Can you come to the mike? 7 MR. COOPER: I'm loud anyway. 8 I would just like to ask Mr. Stephan. I 9 didn't quite understand your statement a while ago 10 when you were asking about distance, 5 to 20 feet 11 from a seal and what happened in Sago. I didn't 12 understand that statement. 13 MR. STEPHAN: The Darby mine, the 14 explosion that resulted in the five fatalities, two 15 men went to the seal for the purpose of cutting a 16 strap, a metal strap that, you know, was from the 17 active side to the inactive side and it was the 18 belief of the Darby investigation team that the 19 purpose of them going there was to cut that strap 20 and on the active side of the seals the atmosphere 21 would have been a fine atmosphere. There would not 22 have been explosive concentrations of methane there 23 at all, so when they made their measurements of the 24 atmosphere, it would have seemed okay to them, so 25 they began their cutting process but as a part of 87 1 the investigation some cutting experiments were done 2 at the NIOSH Lakeland facility on those exact types 3 of metal straps where they are kind of corrugated 4 and there's channels in there and they actually 5 blocked off the passage of sparks through any means 6 at all except for along those channels and during 7 the cutting process, you know how the sparks are 8 flying all over the place, some sparks flew through 9 the channel underneath the roof that they would have 10 had there and shot into the side that would have 11 been the sealed side for a distance of 15 to 12 20 feet, and it was just -- 13 MR. COOPER: That's what I didn't 14 understand. 15 MR. STEPHAN: If we established that 16 distance -- 17 MR. COOPER: Very clearly, I do believe 18 that we have regulations already in place as far as 19 any welding or anything in the atmosphere, the 20 active atmosphere, and I didn't quite understand the 21 statement when you brought Darby up because I had 22 read that and I did not gather that that particular 23 incident, those regulations were followed from the 24 MSHA investigation. Thank you. 25 MR. STEPHAN: You are welcome. 88 1 MS. SILVEY: Is there anybody else that 2 wishes to make comments? Well, if nobody else here 3 present wishes to make comments or provide 4 testimony, what I'm going to do now is tentatively 5 bring this hearing to a close and as I do so I want 6 to again thank you all for your participation in 7 this important rule-making process. 8 Again, I want to thank those of you who 9 came here today and just showed us by your presence 10 that you are interested in the rule-making process, 11 although you may not have testified. For those of 12 you who testified, on behalf, as I said earlier, the 13 assistant secretary and all of us who have been 14 involved in this process, we appreciate very much 15 your testimony. For those of you who promised that 16 you were going to submit your testimony with 17 additional written comments and specific information 18 where we asked you, we will look forward to getting 19 those to us in Arlington before the record closes on 20 August 17th. Those specific comments will be very 21 useful and where you made conclusions, if I can ask 22 you if you can follow it up with specific 23 parameters, specific support for your conclusions, 24 if you made any economic sort of conclusions, 25 specific data in support of that, that will be very 89 1 useful for us in crafting the final rule and so we 2 will, you know, we may see some people in Birmingham 3 on Thursday and then the record closes on 4 August 17th and we will begin the job of developing 5 the final rule, which we hope to have done by 6 February of '08. 7 I would now tentatively close the 8 hearing. We will be here at 1:00 o'clock in case, 9 because the Federal Register notice said 9:00 to 10 5:00, we will come back at 1:00 in case that there's 11 anybody who came in maybe thinking that they could 12 come in for the afternoon session and we would be 13 here. 14 We will come back here just in case 15 there's anybody else, but if nobody is here at that 16 time, we will consider the hearing officially 17 closed. Thank you all. 18 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.) 19 MS. SILVEY: At this time we will 20 reconvene the Mine Safety and Health 21 Administration's public hearing on sealing of 22 abandoned areas in underground coal mines. 23 Our first speaker, as you heard me this 24 morning, those you who wish to speak, if you would 25 please spell your name, speak clearly and spell your 90 1 name for the reporter. 2 Our first speaker for this afternoon's 3 hearing is -- excuse me, please. I don't have the 4 speaker list, do I? 5 Our first speaker is Tom Kay with United 6 Mine Workers of America at Energy West. Mr. Kay? 7 MR. KAY: Thank you. Tom Kay, K-A-Y. 8 I'm a representative of the miners of Local 7269, 9 Energy West Mining. We have a few comments we would 10 like to make on the new seal regulations. 11 We think it's not practical replacing 12 all seals already in. We got about 120 seals in our 13 mine and the cost of that would be enormous for our 14 company and for the workers also. We also don't 15 agree with having to remove all cables from sealed 16 areas. We're -- we got about 25 underfoot covering 17 over us and we really don't think that lightning can 18 come down and strike us with that much cover. If it 19 did, I think I would be sitting a little bit 20 differently around some people underground, but we 21 think, you know, we try to get all the cables we can 22 out of our sealed areas. Sometimes it's impractical 23 to get them. Removing the metals like the mesh, we 24 do do that in our mines. We cut it out. Some mines 25 you got to take into consideration in the roof 91 1 control plant the mesh is in there. If they do cut 2 it out, it would be a violation. 3 Removing rip pins from a sealed area, 4 you are just exposing miners to dangers in that 5 it's, you know, we put them in there for support and 6 you get a guy over there trying to take them out, I 7 think it would cause more of a hazard. 8 And one other thing, welding within 150 9 feet of a seal. And that's -- I disagree with that 10 and so do the people at our mine. We do have a belt 11 line that does run past seals and if it caves off, 12 it breaks down, we have to cut on it, repair the 13 area, whatever. What are we going to do? You know, 14 we take the measures with seals, we monitor them, 15 you know, we have instruments. We check for gas and 16 then, you know, I just think this 150 foot thing, I 17 mean, it might be good for some other place, but 18 like in our coal mine, when I talked to Patricia a 19 few minutes ago, our mine is the one they talked 20 earlier about not having any gas. We did 14-day 21 samplings on our seals, zero percent methane. I 22 think, you know, we need to, you guys need to take a 23 little bit stronger look on that 150 foot. That's 24 all I got. 25 MS. SILVEY: Thank you very much. We 92 1 appreciate your comments. 2 With respect to your comments that it's 3 impractical to get all cable, can you tell me 4 exactly what you do now? Since the ETS has been in 5 effect, do you remove some cables? Give me an 6 example of when it's impractical to remove a cable. 7 MR. KAY: What if you have a roofer fall 8 on a cable. How are you going to go in and get it? 9 You can seethe end sticking out but you are going to 10 go underneath an unsupported top to try to get it 11 out. 12 Or what if there is too much water? You 13 know, our mine is a wet mine. I mean, it is a real 14 wet mine and, you know, we come up under these 15 conditions sometimes, you know. When you are 16 retreating out of there, you go seal an area off, 17 you got power off, you are coming out. You know, 18 you are trying to bring cables out as fast as you 19 can. Your pump is out. You know, we don't try to 20 leave a lot of things back in a sealed area because, 21 you know, you never know what could happen back 22 there really. And, you know, we're very safety 23 conscious at our mine and we try to remove all of 24 our trash out of it and we do a very good job at our 25 mine. 93 1 MS. SILVEY: That's my only comment. 2 MR. SHERER: Several comments. Thank 3 you for your comments. 4 When you seal along the belt, do you 5 have a stopping line in between? 6 MR. KAY: No. 7 MR. SHERER: You actually have the belt 8 line up against the seals? 9 MR. KAY: No. The belt line runs in the 10 entry where the seals are. 11 MR. SHERER: Thank you. 12 MR. KAY: They are ventilated, you know. 13 MR. SHERER: Sure. 14 Another question for you. You say you 15 have areas where you can't get all of the cable out 16 of the area to be sealed, but you remove as much as 17 you can. 18 MR. KAY: We try to remove as much as 19 possible. When we pull out of an area to get ready 20 to seal it, you know, cable costs money. 21 MR. SHERER: Sure. 22 MR. KAY: So, you know, we are trying to 23 get everything out of there to save costs, but under 24 some circumstances, you are not going to be able to 25 get them out. 94 1 MR. SHERER: We have actually published 2 a compliance assistance question that says we want 3 you to remove as much cable as practicable. We 4 don't want anybody to go under unsupported roofs or 5 do anything like that, so I think we probably 6 answered your concern there. 7 MR. KAY: I just wanted to go on record 8 about that. 9 MS. SILVEY: That's good. Thank you. 10 Thank you very much. 11 Next -- our next speaker will be Brandon 12 Sinclair, United Mine Workers, Energy West. 13 MR. SANICH: Good afternoon. My name is 14 Randy Sinclair, S-I-N-C-L-A-I-R. I'm a union worker 15 at the Deer Creek mine in Utah. We have some 16 comments about the -- being miner friendly when 17 we're talking about constructing all these seals and 18 we, if we have to, we build all of them. You are 19 talking about a lot of costs and a lot of backs 20 breaking, carrying back to the old seal for miners, 21 and the 150 foot, we have a lot of areas in our mine 22 with our large intake will be closer than a hundred 23 fifty foot from the seals and if something would 24 need to be welded or anything, we got to be able to 25 fix it and we have a lot of places where the seals 95 1 are within that range. In fact, 50-foot, most of 2 them. 3 Tom took care of most of what I wanted 4 to say. 5 Retrieving of cables. Like Tom said, we 6 get most of them out. There's a lot of costs 7 involved in getting them out safely and we try and 8 do what we can to get them cables out. Like Tom 9 said, there is no way you are going to get all the 10 cables for the bleeder going behind the longwall and 11 stuff. You are not going to be able to get all them 12 cables out and I would, like I said, he covered what 13 I was going to say and I thank you for your time. 14 MS. SILVEY: Okay, Mr. Sinclair. Thank 15 you very much. Thank you for your time. We 16 appreciate your comments. 17 MR. SINCLAIR: Okay. 18 MS. SILVEY: I guess for the sake -- I 19 will ask again. Is there anybody else who wishes to 20 make any comments? Okay. If there is not anybody 21 else who wishes to make any additional comments for 22 this public hearing, again, for those who came, we 23 appreciate the people who provided comments and 24 testimony to MSHA, and as you heard me say this 25 morning, we will move forward in developing the 96 1 final rule. 2 If you want to make additional comments 3 to us before the record closes on August 17th, I 4 encourage you to do so. At this point, we will now 5 conclude the Mine Safety and Health Administration 6 public hearing on seals. Thank you very much. 7 (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 8 1:10 p.m.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 1 CERTIFICATE WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT 2 STATE OF COLORADO ) 3 COUNTY OF DENVER ) 4 5 I, ANDREA FINE, Registered Professional 6 Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 7 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings 8 and that the transcript is a true and complete 9 record of my stenographic notes. 10 11 Dated this _____ day of _________________, 12 2007. 13 14 _____________________ ANDREA FINE, RPR 15 My Commission Expires: 16 March 1, 2008 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25