1 1 OPENING STATEMENT 2 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 3 JULY 19, 2007, PUBLIC HEARING 4 EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD-SEALING 5 OF ABANDONED AREAS 6 MS. SILVEY: Good morning. 7 AUDIENCE: Good morning. 8 MS. SILVEY: Before we start 9 the record. 10 (Whereupon, an off the 11 record discussion 12 occurred.) 13 MS. SILVEY: Again, good 14 morning. My name is Patricia W. 15 Silvey. I am the director of the 16 Department of Labor, Mine Safety and 17 Health Administration, Office of 18 Standards, Regulations, and Variances. 19 I will be the moderator of 20 this public hearing on MSHA'S 21 emergency temporary standard, or ETS, 22 for sealing abandoned areas in 23 underground coal mines. 2 1 On behalf of Richard E. 2 Stickler, the Assistant Secretary of 3 Labor for Mine Safety and Health, I 4 want to welcome all of you here today. 5 The members of the panel are 6 to my left John Urosek of MSHA's 7 Pittsburgh Safety and Health 8 Technology Center; Deborah Green who 9 is our attorney on this project with 10 the Office of Solicitor, the 11 Department of Labor. 12 And William Baughman who is 13 the Regulatory Specialist in my 14 office. To my right, Eric Sherer. 15 Eric is from the office of Coal Mine 16 of Health and Safety. And to his 17 right, Robert Stone who is the Chief 18 Economist in my office. 19 Before we start this hearing 20 this morning, I would like to ask if 21 you would join with me in a moment of 22 silence in memory of the miners who 23 lost their lives in the Sago, the 3 1 Aracoma, and the Darby Mine explosions 2 in 2006. And all of the miners who 3 lost their lives in 2006 as well as 4 the miners who have died in mine 5 accidents so far this year. 6 So, right now, if you would 7 join me in a moment of silence. 8 (Everybody in silence.) Thank you. 9 This is the fourth and last hearing on 10 the Emergency Temporary Standard. As 11 many of you know, the first hearing 12 was held in Morgantown, West Virginia 13 on July 10th. The second in 14 Lexington, Kentucky on July 12th. The 15 third hearing was in Denver on July 16 17th. 17 In the back of the room, we 18 have copies of the Emergency Temporary 19 Standard and the Federal Register 20 notice extending the comment period to 21 August 17. The purpose of these 22 hearings is to receive information 23 from the public that will help us 4 1 evaluate the requirements in the 2 emergency temporary standard and 3 produce a final rule that protects 4 miners from hazards associated with 5 sealed abandoned areas. 6 We will use data and 7 information gained from these hearings 8 to help us craft a rule that responds 9 to the needs and concerns of the 10 mining public, so that the provisions 11 of the ETS can be implemented in the 12 safest and most effective and 13 appropriate manner. 14 We published the emergency 15 temporary standard in response to the 16 grave danger that miners face when 17 underground seals separating abandoned 18 areas from active workings fail. Seal 19 failures at the Sago and Darby No. 1 20 Mine in 2006 raised awareness of the 21 problems with construction and design 22 of alternative seals. MSHA 23 investigated these and other failures 5 1 of alternative seals and conducted 2 in-mine evaluations of these seals. 3 MSHA also reviewed the history of 4 seals in this country as well as other 5 countries. 6 On February 8, 2007, NIOSH 7 issued a draft report titled 8 "Explosion Pressure Design Criteria 9 for New Seals in U.S. Coal Mines." 10 The report makes recommendations for 11 seal design criteria, which would 12 reduce the risk of seal failure due to 13 explosions in abandoned areas of 14 underground coal mines. 15 Based on MSHA's accident 16 investigation reports, the draft NIOSH 17 report, MSHA's in-mine seal 18 evaluations, and the review of 19 technical literature, MSHA has 20 tentatively determined that new 21 standards are necessary to immediately 22 protect miners from hazards associated 23 with sealed areas. The emergency 6 1 temporary standard addresses seal: 2 strength; design and installation; 3 construction and repair; sampling and 4 monitoring and training. 5 This ETS was issued in 6 accordance with section 101(b) of the 7 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 8 1977 (Mine Act) and Section 10 of the 9 Mine Improvement and New Emergency 10 Response (MINER) Act of 2006. Under 11 section 101(b), the ETS is effective 12 until superseded by a mandatory 13 standard. A mandatory standard must 14 be published no later than nine months 15 after publication of the ETS. The ETS 16 also serves as the proposed rule and 17 commences the regular rulemaking 18 process. 19 As stated earlier, we will 20 use the information provided by you to 21 help us decide how best to craft the 22 final rule. The preamble to the rule 23 discusses the provisions of the ETS 7 1 and includes a number of specific 2 requests for comment and information. 3 As you address the provisions of the 4 ETS or any specific requests for 5 information, either in your comments 6 to us today or in written comments 7 sent to us in Arlington, please, be as 8 specific as possible with respect to 9 the impact on mine safety and health, 10 mining conditions, and the feasibility 11 of implementation. At this point, I 12 want to reiterate the specific 13 requests for comment and information 14 that we included in the preamble to 15 the ETS. 16 In the ETS, MSHA considered 17 a performance-based approach to the 18 strength requirement for seals. 19 However, MSHA includes specific 20 pounds-per-square-inch numbers when 21 referring to the strength of seals as 22 the agency believes this represents a 23 more appropriate approach. MSHA is 8 1 interested in receiving comments on 2 the Agency's approach to the strength 3 requirement for seals. 4 MSHA is also interested in 5 receiving comments on the 6 appropriateness of the three-tiered 7 approach to seal strength in the ETS 8 and the strategy in the ETS for 9 addressing seal strength greater than 10 120 psi. As you know, under the ETS, 11 new seals must be constructed and 12 maintained to withstand: A 50 psi 13 overpressure when the atmosphere in 14 the sealed area is monitored and is 15 maintained inert. 16 A 120 psi overpressure if 17 the atmosphere is not monitored and is 18 not maintained inert. Or an 19 overpressure greater than 120 if the 20 atmosphere is not monitored and is not 21 maintained inert and certain other 22 specified conditions are met. 23 And those conditions are 9 1 pressure pilot or the likelihood of 2 detonation and homogenous atmosphere 3 throughout the sealed area. 4 MSHA requests comments on 5 the appropriateness of the Agency's 6 strategy for addressing Seal strength 7 greater than 120 psi. If commenters 8 believe a different regulatory 9 approach should be developed for the 10 final rule, the Agency would like 11 commenters to provide the detailed for 12 such a strategy; the rationale for 13 such a strategy; and the feasibility 14 of using such a strategy. 15 MSHA seeks the views of the 16 mining community regarding whether 17 there are effective alternatives to 18 the requirements in the ETS with 19 respect to providing the most 20 appropriate and protective action for 21 miners exposed to hazards of existing 22 sealed areas. 23 Most alternative seals 10 1 constructed before July 2006 were 2 constructed to withstand a static 3 horizontal pressure of 20 psi. MSHA 4 considered requiring mine operators to 5 remove the existing seals and replace 6 them with seals that withstand at 7 least 50 psi. MSHA also considered 8 whether to require mine operators to 9 build new seals out by existing seals 10 or to structurally reinforce them. 11 At this point, MSHA believes 12 that replacing existing seals is 13 impractical, and in some instances, 14 may introduce additional hazards. 15 MSHA seeks comments on the feasibility 16 of including in the final rule a 17 requirement that existing seals be 18 removed and replaced with a higher 19 strength seal. 20 MSHA also considered whether 21 to require mine operators to reinforce 22 existing seals. The Agency is 23 concerned with the feasibility of this 11 1 option and whether such a requirement 2 could expose miners to greater 3 hazards. MSHA, however, will continue 4 to explore technological advances that 5 address feasible and safe methods to 6 reinforce existing seals in 7 underground coal mines. 8 Commenters are encouraged to 9 submit information and supporting 10 data, regarding new technological 11 advances to reinforce seal strength. 12 MSHA believes that the 13 sampling strategy in the ETS will 14 yield results that reflect a 15 reasonable representation of the 16 atmosphere in a sealed area. MSHA 17 requests comments addressing the 18 sampling approach in the ETS. The 19 Agency is particularly interested in 20 comments concerning sampling, the 21 sampling frequency, including sampling 22 only when a seal is outgassing. The 23 Agency requests comments on whether 12 1 another approach is more appropriate 2 such as when the seal is ingassing. 3 MSHA also requests comments, 4 information, and experiences 5 concerning sampling sealed areas. 6 In the ETS, mine operators 7 must develop a sampling protocol to be 8 included in the ventilation plan and 9 submitted to the District Manager. 10 The ETS requires the mine operator to 11 implement the action plan specified in 12 the sampling protocol or withdraw all 13 persons from the affected area when 14 specified concentrations are 15 encountered. 16 Historically, when methane 17 levels reach 4.5 percent in active 18 areas, miners were withdrawn from the 19 areas that were dangerous due to high 20 concentrations of methane. MSHA 21 requests comments on this approach and 22 whether it provides adequate 23 protection for miners. 13 1 MSHA is soliciting comments 2 concerning issues related to 3 establishing a sampling baseline. The 4 ETS requires that the mine operator 5 specify procedures in the protocol to 6 establish a baseline analysis of 7 oxygen and methane concentration at 8 each sampling point over a 14-day 9 sampling period. The baseline must be 10 established after the atmosphere in 11 the sealed area is inert or the trend 12 reaches equilibrium. MSHA is 13 particularly interested in comments 14 concerning the establishment of a 15 baseline. The Agency requests 16 information, experiences with sampling 17 of sealed areas, including data, 18 analytical information, and the 19 establishment of equilibrium, and 20 trends. 21 The Agency requests comments 22 on the appropriateness of the 23 requirement regarding the use of open 14 1 flames or arc associated with, cutting 2 and soldering activities within 150 3 feet of a seal and the feasibility of 4 this requirement. The Agency suggests 5 that commenters provide specific 6 rationale in support of their 7 position, and include alternatives, if 8 applicable. 9 The ETS requires each newly 10 constructed seal to have at least two 11 sampling pipes. One pipe must extend 12 into the sealed area approximately 15 13 feet. The others must extend into the 14 middle of the intersection with the 15 first connecting crosscut. The ETS 16 affords flexibility to mine operators 17 for the placement of the sampling end 18 to allow more accurate sampling 19 strategies to better protect miners; 20 therefore, the ETS requires the 21 location of sampling points to be 22 specified in the protocol provided. 23 The Agency requests comments regarding 15 1 the appropriate number and location of 2 sampling pipes for a final rule. 3 The ETS requires that a 4 corrosion-resistant, water drainage 5 system be installed in the seal at the 6 lowest elevation within the set of 7 seals, and that seals not impound 8 water. MSHA requests comments on this 9 requirement for water drainage 10 systems, including effective 11 alternatives for final rule. 12 MSHA requests comments on 13 the appropriateness of the ventilation 14 plan contents and whether additional 15 information should be included. When 16 submitting information supporting your 17 positions, please, include data 18 related to projected cost and 19 technological feasibility. 20 As you know, the ETS 21 requires removal of insulated cables 22 from the area to be sealed and removal 23 of metallic objects through or across 16 1 seals. The Agency believes that 2 removal of insulated cables and 3 metallic objects through or across 4 seals is feasible and will not involve 5 significant technical or practical 6 problems. But the Agency solicits 7 comments on this provision. 8 MSHA is also requesting 9 comments on the scope and possible 10 alternatives concerning site 11 preparation, examinations of the 12 sealed area, training, and 13 notification to the Agency related to 14 the construction and repair of seals. 15 MSHA has prepared a 16 Regulatory Economic Analysis for the 17 ETS. The Regulatory Economic Analysis 18 contains estimated supporting cost 19 data. MSHA requests comments on all 20 the estimates of costs and benefits 21 presented in the ETS and the 22 Regulatory Economic Analysis. 23 To date, the Agency has 17 1 received one comment on the ETS, and I 2 believe it's still one comment. You 3 can view the comment on the Agency's 4 website at www.msha.gov under the 5 section entitled "rules and 6 regulations." The Agency has also 7 answered a number of compliance 8 questions from the public, covering a 9 wide range of issues on the ETS. 10 These questions and answers are posted 11 on MSHA's Seals Single Source Page. 12 As many of you know, the 13 format for this public hearing will be 14 as follows: Formal rules of evidence 15 will not apply, and the hearing will 16 be conducted in an informal manner. 17 Presentations may be limited to 20 18 minutes at the discretion of the 19 moderator. The panel may ask 20 questions of the witnesses, and the 21 witnesses may ask questions of the 22 panel. 23 Those of you who notified 18 1 MSHA in advance, I don't think we'll 2 have any problems with having time 3 today though. If you wish to present 4 written statements or information, 5 please, clearly identify your 6 material. You may also submit 7 comments following this hearing. 8 And as stated earlier, 9 comments must be submitted to MSHA by 10 August 17th, which is the close of the 11 comment period. And comments may be 12 submitted by any method identified in 13 the ETS. 14 MSHA will post transcripts 15 from the public hearings on the 16 Agency's website. Each transcript 17 should be posted approximately one 18 week after completion of the hearing. 19 We will now begin today's 20 hearing with persons who have 21 requested to speak. Please, begin by 22 clearly stating your name and 23 organization to make certain we have 19 1 an accurate record. Also, if you 2 would spell your name for the 3 reporter. And now, our first speaker 4 is Tom McNider with Jim Walter 5 Resources. And I think he's here. He 6 is. 7 MR. MCNIDER: Well, first of 8 all, I heard John wasn't going to be 9 here. I hear I'm it; is that true? 10 MS. SILVEY: I don't know, 11 we'll see. We have to see what 12 happens after you testify. People 13 might be moved to say something. 14 MR. MCNIDER: They probably 15 will. How are you-all? 16 MS. SILVEY: How are you 17 doing? 18 MR. MCNIDER: First of all I 19 -- and I guess this is on? 20 MS. SILVEY: Yeah. Make 21 sure you talk into the mic. 22 MR. MCNIDER: I apologize 23 for cutting it right here. I don't 20 1 know whether I held the panel up or 2 not. But, anyway, you know, I'm here 3 to speak. I'm Tom McNider, 4 M-C-N-I-D-E-R, Jim Walter Resources. 5 I'm here today to comment concerning 6 the ETS, sealing of abandoned areas on 7 the temporary standard that was issued 8 May 22nd, 2007. 9 And first, I'd like to start 10 out by saying that, we understand the 11 reason MSHA feels the need to issue 12 the final rule or rule for the use to 13 isolate abandoned areas. But that, we 14 are concerned that through pressure, 15 they've issued a rule in haste without 16 thoroughly considering all the 17 parameters. 18 Entry requested suggestions 19 from the industry concerning such 20 things as monitoring of existing seals 21 but when offered, ignored them in the 22 final rule. 23 I was part of the NMA and 21 1 Dixie Wade Committees that met with 2 MSHA on various times. I don't know 3 have the dates. But they were at 4 least one meeting in Washington and 5 then, there was other correspondence 6 that I think was giving to MSHA 7 concerning this rule. 8 MSHA requested suggestions 9 from industry concerning such things 10 as monitoring of existing seals, but 11 when offered, ignored them in the 12 final rule. Industry met with MSHA in 13 Arlington to talk about the need for 14 proper sampling protocol and the need 15 in industry for instruments that can 16 accurately measure gases from sealed 17 areas. But here again, MSHA has 18 ignored these requests. 19 And I believe even today, 20 there's no official -- or I won't say 21 official -- but guidelines as to how 22 to collect samples from sealed areas, 23 instruments to properly measure sealed 22 1 areas. And a general training that 2 industry could use that would assist 3 industry in how to adequately evaluate 4 sealed areas. 5 And that is a major, even 6 for MSHA, that has been a major 7 concern. There have been numerous 8 sampling areas in the field that has 9 inadvertently caused problems of mines 10 to be shut down when this was not a 11 warranty. 12 We're amazed that MSHA is 13 trying to evaluate the explosive 14 nature of sealed abandoned areas, was 15 not even recognized all the gases that 16 must be considered to determine these 17 close in nature of a gob. 18 The final rule requires the 19 operator to measure oxygen and 20 methane, but does not require 21 measuring CO2, the gas derived from 22 low temperature oxidation. And I'm 23 sure many of the ones on the panel, I 23 1 know John is familiar with this, Eric 2 probably. 3 As you get low levels of 4 oxidation, you derive blackdamp, which 5 is a depletion of oxygen and increase 6 in CO2. CO2 is an inert gas, and even 7 though methane and oxygen might be in 8 the action range of 3 to 20 percent 9 methane and above 10 percent oxygen or 10 even appear to be explosive or may 11 even appear to be explosive with 12 methane above 12 percent or oxygen 13 above 12 percent and methane in the 5 14 to 15 percent range, it still may not 15 be because of the inert nature of CO2 16 that may be present in the sample. 17 Industry discussed with MSHA 18 in Arlington the use of a 19 chromatograph to more accurately 20 determine the constituent gases of 21 sealed area when there was a question 22 and that the true explosive nature of 23 the sealed area needed to be 24 1 determined. 2 Industry discussed the 3 benefits of having more accurate 4 analysis and how these results could 5 be evaluated using the calculations to 6 plot the Zabetakis nose-curve. A 7 method that has been used throughout 8 the industry for years to determine 9 whether atmospheres are explosive or 10 not when fighting fires. 11 We were told that this would 12 be an accepted method by Mr. Stickler. 13 But when it became necessary to use it 14 in the field, MSHA attached such a 15 large measure of safety to it, that it 16 became impractical to use. 17 When methane is the only 18 explosive gas, the R value of the 19 Zabetakis nose-curve is one. MSHA 20 arbitrarily assigned an R value of .6, 21 which would consider in the area under 22 the R curve of one to the R curve of 23 .6 is 130 percent safety factor. 25 1 According to page 3 of 2 IC7901, there's already a small safety 3 factor built into the calculations 4 when used at ordinary temperatures. 5 Jim Walter's understanding 6 when the temporary standard was 7 released and my understanding was, 8 that the reason that MSHA or one of 9 the ways that MSHA was looking at it 10 with a 3 to 20 percent indicator, if 11 oxygen was greater than 10 was an 12 action level to do other things. 13 Jim Walter has on-site 14 chromatograph and anyone that's ever 15 dealt with fire situation or when 16 you're trying to -- even MSHA collects 17 bottle samples routinely to further 18 evaluate and get a closer more 19 accurate call with a chromatograph. 20 So, therefore, it was 21 logical, and I still believe it was 22 logical that to follow-up hand 23 readings, which handheld readings are 26 1 not as accurate as potentially a 2 chromatograph as far as a 3 chromatograph would be, then it 4 certainly made good scientific 5 technical reasoning to follow-up using 6 a chromatograph as an evaluation to 7 actually what is inside the sealed 8 area or inside that analysis from that 9 particular seal when there became a 10 question mark. 11 I called Kevin Strickland to 12 find out if this was a National 13 guideline to use an R value of .6 and 14 that did the sample result when 15 plotted must be outside of this R 16 value. He told me that this was 17 correct and that that would be their 18 policy. 19 Matter of fact, I was told 20 that that was in the question and 21 answers that he thought it was. I 22 believe he told me he thought it was 23 in the June 11th question and answers. 27 1 And when I checked, I could not find 2 any reference to that. But I was told 3 by phone conversation that that would 4 be the MSHA's policy. And that that 5 was a National way that they would 6 look at it from not just a District 7 11th point of view but from a National 8 point of view. 9 He told me that this was 10 correct as I said before, and that 11 that would be their policy. I asked 12 him where this originated from, and he 13 told me from John. I called John -- 14 or John Urosek -- I called John and 15 asked him was there a mathematical way 16 that this was derived to possibly 17 relate it to the ETS and how was this 18 value arrived at. 19 He told me that this was an 20 arbitrary safety factor that he had 21 historically used in fighting fires. 22 And I related to John that to me 23 there's quite a bit of difference in a 28 1 fire situation and one where the 2 atmosphere is sealed and there is no 3 fire. 4 Industry was badly misled 5 when we were told in Washington that 6 we could use the Zabetakis nose-curve 7 by Mr. Stickler. And John and Kevin 8 were in the room, and there was no 9 discussion of any safety factors. It 10 never came up in the meeting. If it 11 was even considered, it would seem 12 like that would be the logical place 13 to discuss merits of one. 14 Rather than using proper 15 science and encouraging industry to 16 use techniques that has been a 17 standard since this development in 18 1959, MSHA has done nothing to but 19 discourage its use. 20 If MSHA is concerned about 21 the use of the chromatograph because 22 it is not available to all operators, 23 I mean, we can understand that to some 29 1 degree. But MSHA still could make a 2 proper evaluation of atmospheres and 3 sealed areas by requiring methane, 4 oxygen, and CO2 to be measured with a 5 handheld unit. 6 The remainder of the gas 7 will be nitrogen because these are the 8 primary component gases in the sealed 9 areas. Knowing this, effective inert, 10 which is the X axis of the Zabetakis 11 nose-curve can be calculated using the 12 formula on page 5 of IC7901. You will 13 have to do some mathematics, but you 14 can get down to where you can use a 15 handheld to give you an indicator of 16 are you truly explosive or not 17 explosive. 18 The way the ETS is written 19 is only to measure methane and oxygen. 20 The miners are being withdrawn from 21 mine under false pretense when the 22 atmosphere is not even explosive. Jim 23 Walter's No. 4 Mine was threatened to 30 1 be withdrawn on June 6 when we had 2 samples from seals that were within 3 the ETS guideline and was withdrawn on 4 June 26 when, again, we were within 5 the ETS guideline but were not 6 explosive in either case when properly 7 evaluated using a chromatograph. 8 And as I said before, Jim 9 Walter Resources has an on-site 10 chromatograph and had the analysis 11 before MSHA could get to the second 12 one-hour reading. And when I say 13 "MSHA," MSHA was on-site at the time 14 -- MSHA was there at the mine. 15 By the way, as far as our 16 chromatograph is concerned, we have a 17 -- actually, we have about four 18 chromatographs, which we routinely 19 operate. We've used it in fire 20 situations. MSHA, we've been in the 21 Round Robin with MSHA. If there's a 22 question -- matter of fact, in 2001, 23 MSHA operated on one shift with their 31 1 mobile lab, and we operated on the 2 other shift. And I don't remember 3 exactly, but we may have operated on 4 12 hours and 12 hours. So, I don't 5 think there's a question as far as the 6 validity of Jim Walter's chromatograph 7 and the accuracy. 8 The way the ETS is written 9 is too vague when left up to the 10 discretion of interpretation by each 11 District and miners are withdrawn 12 unnecessarily. The ETS should require 13 sampling of all pertinent gases and 14 require a true analysis of the 15 explosion nature of the sealed 16 atmosphere. 17 On June 27th after the mine 18 was shut down for being inside the ETS 19 guidelines of methane and oxygen, a 20 meeting was held with the District 21 Manager to discuss the Zabetakis 22 nose-curve and other things such as 23 how the overall atmosphere of the 32 1 internal part of the sealed area could 2 be determined using samples taken from 3 degas holes. 4 The results of samples taken 5 from numerous degas holes, which 6 reviewed with the District Manager to 7 show how when you get further from the 8 seal line, the atmosphere in the 9 sealed area becomes more inert. 10 This was also discussed with 11 Mr. Urosek during conversation with 12 him, and during this discussion the 13 question was asked, how do you know 14 that these results reflect what is the 15 atmosphere in the mine. I told him 16 that many of the samples throughout 17 when we've been collecting samples 18 from Jim Walter and we have been 19 actually have produced gas from degas 20 holes within the sealed areas for 21 years, that many of those type samples 22 will have CO2 in them, which is 23 derived from oxidation of the coal at 33 1 the mine level. And CO2 being a heavy 2 gas, had to be coming from the mine. 3 Today, I brought with me and 4 will include in our comments and I 5 brought it but I will submit this to 6 MSHA at a later time with our actual 7 written comments, but two Isopachs. 8 One of which is methane within the 9 sealed area, and the other one is 10 oxygen. 11 Now, these Isopachs are 12 intended only to demonstrate to MSHA 13 how the vast majority of the sealed 14 areas inert, is only a very small 15 fringe line where leakage gets into 16 the sealed area, where the sealed area 17 may potentially get into the explosive 18 range. This doesn't mean that it is 19 in the explosive range. It's just to 20 demonstrate to MSHA how small these 21 zones are. You still have to look at 22 the CO2 that potentially could be in 23 the sample. 34 1 These Isopachs are from a 2 fairly wide scatter of data points, 3 they do include the samples from where 4 leakage and the sealed points. But 5 the Isopachs give you an indication of 6 how air leaks into a sealed area and 7 migrates along the fringe line and is 8 influenced by the negative where the 9 fan, it will leak in on the high 10 pressure side and leak out on the low 11 pressure side. 12 These Isopachs also show 13 that the sealed areas are not 14 homogenous but vary in concentration. 15 For MSHA to expect that no sample 16 taken from the sealed area to ever be 17 in the explosive range is too much to 18 ask from any operator. 19 Just from the fact that the 20 area is sealed, means that it reacts 21 to barometric swings and will breathe 22 out on barometric lows and breathe in 23 on barometrics highs. And at certain 35 1 times if the samples are taken when 2 the barometer swings from a low to a 3 high, this could be enough to 4 temporarily shift a sample into the 5 explosive range. 6 MSHA should recognize that 7 these phenomena will happen. And 8 there are times that a sample may be 9 in the explosive range does not 10 present a hazard to the miner if the 11 operator could demonstrate that this 12 area is small compared to the overall 13 size of the sealed area. 14 MSHA should consider a 15 tiered approach what action is 16 expected from the operator to the size 17 of this zone and the potential hazard 18 that it may represent. To withdraw 19 miners any time an explosive sample is 20 found without considering the history 21 of this particular sample and the 22 relationship to the rest of the sealed 23 area is impractical. 36 1 Why establish a baseline if 2 MSHA only intends to look at one 3 sample. Surely, a baseline is 4 required to get the history of that 5 particular sample. Why do a baseline 6 line if it's not going to be used. 7 MSHA in haste has developed 8 a regulation has made it virtually 9 impossible for the operator to comply 10 with. The regulation does not provide 11 for proper sampling of gases in sealed 12 areas, proper analysis of these gases 13 to determine if that experience 14 explosive, or consider the fact that 15 the sealed areas are not stable but 16 change with adjustments to the 17 ventilation and shifts to the 18 barometer. 19 The ETS talks about the 20 barometer, but nobody reacts to the 21 barometer. Nobody looks at shifts. 22 MSHA looks at one sample, these are 23 problem. MSHA has reacted as one 37 1 sample that might be in the explosive 2 range from one particular seal. No 3 matter how isolated it is from the 4 active works and they've withdrawn the 5 miners from the mine. 6 Operators cannot manage 7 their mines effectively under such 8 regulation. Sealing of abandoned 9 areas in mines provides for operators 10 to isolate older areas that are 11 deteriorating, it eliminates dangerous 12 areas that have to be maintained and 13 travel. It provides more effective 14 ventilation to the act of work and 15 allows the operator to abandon older 16 areas so that he can better manage the 17 remaining act of works. 18 Operators need a regulation 19 allows them to continue this. And 20 when an area is sealed, it is 21 permanently sealed and does not have 22 to be monitored and evaluated. 23 We applaud MSHA for setting 38 1 criteria for a seal that can be built 2 by the operator that will allow this 3 to be accomplished. The standard for 4 the 120 psi seals is reasonable and 5 will greatly enhance the safety of 6 miners. But MSHA must continue to 7 help industry to come up with 8 construction techniques that can 9 easily be placed in the mines. 10 Matter of fact, under 11 comments that Jim Walter -- under the 12 NIOSH document, at that time, we 13 commented to MSHA that we thought 100 14 -- I don't remember the exact psi, but 15 it was 100 to 120 psi seal we thought 16 was reasonable. And it is reasonable. 17 But we need help evaluating 18 ideas such as building two barriers 19 some distance apart, pumping bulk 20 material such as rock dust or gypsum 21 between to provide the necessary 22 strength. 23 Research into construction 39 1 techniques that can easily be done in 2 remote areas of the mine, should be 3 initiated. Industry has asked 4 Arlington, MSHA for assistance in how 5 to do this. I know MSHA put on their 6 web page a way of using concrete that 7 can be pumped. There's a lot of 8 difficulties with that and actually 9 doing it underground. We just 10 recently built one ourselves, and 11 there's a lot of complications with 12 that. 13 So, we believe, and our 14 company has not -- matter of fact, we 15 came out on the front end of the ETS 16 about the 120 psi seal. But there 17 needs to be more done to help the 18 operator be able to replace a seal in 19 remote areas, some of these can be up 20 to 1000 feet from a location where you 21 can easily access water and power and 22 be able to pump it to remote areas. 23 So, we're asking for assistance in 40 1 that end. 2 I wanted to come to the 3 panel today because I've been a part 4 of NMA and DCOA and discussions early 5 on. I've talked to key players of the 6 panel such as John Urosek. I've 7 talked with Kevin Strickland. I've 8 been in the meetings. It's a very 9 important issue. It's an issue that 10 shuts mines down in our opinion 11 without valid reasons. Our No. 4 Mine 12 was shut down without valid reasons. 13 We were held because we were in the 14 position to technically evaluate it 15 properly, but yet we got no credit for 16 it, that's wrong. 17 Other companies are probably 18 in the same position. MSHA is in a 19 position, they've done in other areas 20 to try to have technology forcing. If 21 there's not an instrument that 22 accurately measures CO2, come up with 23 one. 41 1 If MSHA wanted it to happen, 2 it can happen. And I do believe there 3 are instruments, they may not be 4 perfect yet, but yet there is ways 5 that we can look at bad gases that 6 will give us a better indication. 7 If MSHA is -- if 8 chromatograph was something that was a 9 benefit, believe me, companies would 10 be looking at using chromatographs to 11 then shutting the mine down. But yet 12 MSHA has not recognized it. We need 13 MSHA to write this ETS with valid 14 signs and looking at is the 15 atmosphere, truly explosive or is it 16 not explosive, and we need MSHA to 17 recognize the fact that atmospheres 18 within sealed areas are not constant, 19 even though they're sealed, they're 20 still influenced by other factors such 21 as the barometer and even ventilation 22 adjustments that could be made. 23 What may be set up today as 42 1 far as the way the seal line reacts, 2 when you make an adjustment in the 3 active work side of the mine, it can 4 influence the atmosphere on the inside 5 of the sealed area. 6 So, anyway, that's the 7 reason that Jim Walter felt it was 8 important. We appreciate the panel 9 coming today to listen to us. 10 Hopefully, these comments will be 11 reviewed and taken into consideration. 12 And if there's any question, 13 I'll be happy to try to answer them. 14 And I apologize for being here at the 15 last minute. But, anyway, I hope I 16 didn't hold the panel up. 17 MS. SILVEY: Thank you, Mr. 18 McNider. In your comments, I'm sure 19 some of my panel members have 20 something to say. I have a few 21 opening comments. You talked about -- 22 and I must say that the monitoring and 23 sampling requirement is an important 43 1 aspect of the ETS. And you talked 2 about suggestions on monitoring that 3 has been given to MSHA but ignored in 4 the final rule. 5 And I will -- and you made a 6 number of other comments. So, one of 7 the things, overall things I'm going 8 to say, and I've been saying this to 9 everybody, you know, so we won't get 10 into a dispute over that right now. 11 What we talked about is how we move 12 forward and craft this rule in the 13 most workable manner, the safest 14 manner for miners and the most 15 workable manner to be implemented. 16 So, in terms of the -- and 17 yes, we do, just like you -- and I 18 think it may be implicit, that was 19 implicit in your comments, there are a 20 variety of mining conditions that this 21 rule has to address. 22 So, one of the things I 23 would ask you to do and anybody else 44 1 who wishes to make comments is, when 2 you talk about the sampling and your 3 recommendations for the sampling, and 4 you said that you would send a written 5 copy, you would supplement this with 6 written -- follow-up with written 7 comments, be real specific with the 8 suggestions that you have for 9 sampling. Even if it includes 10 alternative language for sampling, 11 alternative language to the language 12 we include in the ETS. 13 You also talked about a 14 number, and I see we have our people 15 from District 11 here. We have our 16 District Manager here. You talked 17 about that a number of sampling errors 18 in the field that have caused mines to 19 shut down. And I assume, you mean 20 unnecessarily. 21 If we have committed a 22 number of sampling errors in the field 23 that have caused mines to shut down, 45 1 I'd like for you to provide me with 2 examples of that. 3 MR. MCNIDER: Okay. 4 MS. SILVEY: I don't know 5 whether you -- one of the other things 6 you talked about was in terms of 7 sampling if there's an explosive area. 8 But it's not a hazard to miners if the 9 area is small in relation to the 10 entire sealed area. I think I recall 11 you saying that. 12 Could you explain that? 13 Tell me a little more what you -- you 14 said if the area is small. Do you 15 have some relationship to small in 16 terms of what you're talking about 17 there? 18 MR. MCNIDER: Let me expand 19 on that a little bit. 20 MS. SILVEY: Yeah. Expand 21 on that a little. 22 MR. MCNIDER: Right. Early 23 on what we talked about at Jim Walter 46 1 Resources, and more of this will be 2 followed up as far as the National 3 comments from NMA. So, it will get 4 into specifics about how the ETS we 5 believe should be rewritten. The 6 rationale of why we think it should be 7 rewritten a little bit different. So, 8 it will get into more specifics. 9 That's why at this meeting 10 today, I wanted to talk -- when you 11 asked about one particular mine that 12 was shut down, based on hand samples, 13 not given adequate time to follow-up 14 with chromatograph, that happened in 15 our No. 4 Mine. That's the case I'm 16 personally familiar with. 17 I know there are about eight 18 mines in discussions with NMA. I 19 believe there are other mines where 20 there is questions about errors in the 21 field, being able to sample. 22 I know when I looked at this 23 from the early on to try to find an 47 1 instrument out there that would 2 measure methane, oxygen, and CO2, 3 they're not readily available. And I 4 don't know whether MSHA's panel has 5 looked at instruments. 6 Industrial Scientific offers 7 ones that reads higher levels of 8 methane with oxygen. I think there's 9 like a 620 and there's a 400, 10 something that I think is used in the 11 field. The only one that we were able 12 to find at the time was a CSE Drager 13 Miniwarn that would measure CO2. But 14 there's even complications with that 15 that we're coming to find out. 16 So, my reference was that 17 early on that MSHA -- that we 18 requested from MSHA, and when you take 19 samples from sealed areas, it's 20 different from reading it in just an 21 atmosphere. If there's one that maybe 22 has a slight differential out, you 23 need assistance through a pump, you 48 1 need to make sure that you properly 2 guarded the instrument that you don't 3 get influence from the active work 4 side. There's more to sampling a 5 sealed atmosphere than just taking one 6 on the active work side. 7 So, what we discussed with 8 MSHA was about coming up with some 9 general guidelines and also some 10 instruments that would assist in doing 11 this. To my knowledge, that hasn't 12 been done yet. 13 To measure methane and 14 oxygen without looking at the other 15 pertinent gas, in our opinions, is 16 wrong. And we've looked at the CSE. 17 I've recommended to our company that 18 we definitely plan to look at CO2, 19 that's an inert gas that goes into the 20 composition of the atmosphere 21 explosive or not. I think John is 22 well aware of this just as well as I 23 am. So, for MSHA not to include that, 49 1 is wrong. And that is what we asked 2 for early on from the industry. 3 The other thing that we 4 discussed back to the size of the 5 zones, typically, where most problems 6 -- and I'm talking about once a gob 7 has stabilized, has gone through the 8 -- you know, when you initially 9 sealed, I'm not talking about that, 10 I'm talking about after some period of 11 time -- the primary zones that are 12 concerned are the ones trickling along 13 the fringe line right inside the seal. 14 And normally, they leak in 15 where you're furthest away from the 16 fan, and they typically leak out some 17 position closer to the fan. And it's 18 just a very -- the flow paths are 19 extremely small; therefore, those 20 zones are typically very small. 21 And when I give MSHA, and I 22 will furnish this with our comments. 23 Basically, what it does, we have very 50 1 large gobs and we have a large number 2 of potential sampling points from 3 within the gob and it demonstrates 4 what I'm trying to point out to MSHA 5 that these zones that potentially 6 could be a problem are very small. 7 And they will react to 8 barometric swings, and they will react 9 to changes in ventilation. And, 10 typically, an operator may be able to 11 keep all of those points out of the 12 explosive range, but there are times 13 they could shift in and out based on 14 the changes in barometric influence. 15 What I'm trying to tell MSHA 16 is, there should be a tiered action to 17 what you do based on how large those 18 zones are and what the influence to 19 the mine is. And there will be other 20 language I think that will give you 21 better guidelines to exactly what 22 we're saying. I'm not ready to do it 23 today. 51 1 MS. SILVEY: For us to write 2 a regulation, conceptually, I 3 understand what you're saying. But 4 for us to put the mining community on 5 notice as to what our requirement is, 6 you've got to translate that concept 7 into some specific requirement. And 8 that's why I was asking you specifics. 9 MR. MCNIDER: I think you'll 10 get that. 11 MS. SILVEY: Okay. The 12 other thing we talked about -- I tell 13 you what I'm going to do, I'm going to 14 ask one more question, and then I'm 15 going take a break, if people don't 16 mind, and then Mr. McNider we'll 17 retake up with you. 18 One other question I have 19 before we take the break. You talked 20 also with respect to the sealed 21 strength. You said there were a lot 22 -- and one of the things I want to say 23 here is that, MSHA does want to 52 1 provide some type of guidance and 2 compliance guidance to the mine 3 community on the sealed strength and 4 designs. And to that end, I think 5 we've included some things on our 6 website for 50 psi and 120 psi sealed 7 applications. 8 But you talk about 9 complications when used in concrete 10 seals, particularly, in a remote area. 11 Could you expand on the specific 12 complication? 13 MR. MCNIDER: Sure. When 14 you're getting ready to pump a 3- to 15 5,000 psi concrete mix, which has a 16 lot of aggregate in it to bind it. 17 And I'm not a civil engineer, so 18 therefore I'm not going to try to go 19 into the, you know, the mechanics of 20 what happens to give you the 120 psi 21 strength. 22 But it's difficult to pump. 23 It is extremely -- when you start 53 1 getting more remote from the sealed 2 area and get hundreds of feet from the 3 seal, which is not unusual in 4 underground workings, these areas also 5 start to somewhat deteriorate and 6 trying to get permissible equipment or 7 nonpermissible equipment into areas to 8 pump. It becomes difficult. And it's 9 limited as to how far you can pump 10 those type materials. 11 So, that's what I'm saying 12 is that we are requesting from MSHA to 13 give us some other work to come up 14 with other type techniques that where 15 you can get a 120 psi seal. It might 16 mean where you build barriers like a 17 brattish or a standard like what was 18 called a Mitchell-Barrett seal, which 19 is cross-course blocks. But in 20 between that to give it the 120 psi 21 strength, you can clump a bulk 22 material such as rock dust or gypsum 23 or something that will bind and give 54 1 it the weight so it will resist the 2 explosive force. And those type 3 things you can pump quite a long ways. 4 That's what I'm saying that 5 MSHA needs to go back. They put on 6 their website how to build a concrete 7 or cement seal, but to actually do 8 that in the mine is difficult. I know 9 there are other companies that are 10 also out there that are trying to come 11 up with sealed techniques, which I do 12 know in time, I believe this will 13 happen. 14 But we request MSHA that 15 there are companies that need the 16 seals today. And what's in their web 17 page, I believe most companies will 18 struggle with putting that in the 19 mine. 20 MS. SILVEY: All right. We 21 will take up -- if you don't mind, we 22 will continue this with you after. 23 Can we, please, take maybe a five to 55 1 ten minute break, no longer than ten 2 minutes. Thank you. 3 (Whereupon, a recess was 4 taken at this time.) 5 MS. SILVEY: Back on the 6 record. Continuing on with the Mine 7 Safety and Health Administration 8 Public Hearing on seals and abandoned 9 areas in underground coal mines. 10 Mr. McNider, one of the 11 things, and we have said this, the 12 panel members -- oh, before I move any 13 further, we have a number of people in 14 the audience who helped in drafting 15 this ETS. Maybe they don't want to 16 take credit for it now after all you 17 said about it. That's all right, I'm 18 sure they will. If they don't mind me 19 mentioning their names. Javier L. 20 Romanach with the Solicitor's Office. 21 They're looking for you Javier. 22 Roslyn Fontaine with the Office of 23 Technical Support. Richard Allwes 56 1 with the Office of Technical Support. 2 Dennis Swentosky. Dennis is with the 3 Coal Mine Health and Safety. And 4 David Hershfield who is an economist 5 in my office. And to do this ETS in 6 somewhat of a timely fashion, did 7 require a lot of resources. And so, 8 in addition, to the members on the 9 panel, those people that whose names I 10 mentioned also helped in drafting the 11 ETS. 12 But as I said before, 13 sampling, this whole sampling issue 14 has come at a number of the previous 15 hearings. I would like to say to 16 you-all that MSHA has a third set of 17 compliance questions and answers. And 18 I have said this earlier, but that set 19 of questions and answers should be 20 coming out very soon, and that should 21 provide some additional guidance to 22 the mining community. I'm sure it 23 won't be the end word, and I'm sure 57 1 that even after that set comes out, 2 there may be additional questions and 3 answers. 4 Also, MSHA will have a 5 procedure instruction method that 6 talks about how the Agency will sample 7 and will do other of the Agency's 8 activity, that should be coming out at 9 sometime soon. And all we can do is 10 encourage the mining community of any 11 time you have questions, you obviously 12 work through your district, your field 13 people, our field people, and also if 14 you have questions, you can feel free 15 to call us at headquarters at any 16 time. And we'll do the best we can to 17 address the situation. Sometimes it 18 may not always be the answer that you 19 want, but we'll try to address it as 20 best we can. So, I did want to make 21 that point. 22 At this point though, I'm 23 sure some members of the panel have 58 1 comments that they might want to make. 2 MR. UROSEK: Tom, I'm 3 particularly interested, if you could 4 help us out with some information on 5 the Zabetakis curve. And in 6 particular, you mentioned safety 7 factor and what you feel may be 8 appropriate. I realize you might not 9 be in position to do that at this 10 moment, but if you could provide it in 11 your comments, in specific, to just 12 what your thoughts are and if there 13 should be a safety factor and how that 14 should be administered, using the 15 Zabetakis curve. 16 And particularly, if you're 17 familiar with the bottom of the 18 Zabetakis curve and that it rests 19 generally around five percent. And if 20 you use an R factor, it doesn't take 21 into consideration any safety factor 22 below that and how that could be 23 addressed; for example, instead of a 59 1 nose curve that's at the same location 2 4.6 and 1, if it should be drawn below 3 that or whatever recommendation you 4 have in that. 5 MR. MCNIDER: John, we will 6 -- I'll incorporate that because I 7 mean that has been in discussion. 8 I'll just say one thing about it today 9 and I'd rather wait to comment as an 10 official from Jim Walter and make sure 11 what our position is going to be. 12 In the Zabetakis nose-curve 13 on page 3 I did in my verbal, it does 14 have a small safety factor built in it 15 today. So, there is one incorporated. 16 It's in the literature from the IC, 17 and that's on page 3 I believe. But 18 we will comment on that. 19 MR. UROSEK: Okay. I 20 appreciate that. And you also 21 mentioned in sampling different areas, 22 you mentioned the small volume of 23 potentially explosive area versus the 60 1 large area of the gob that may be 2 inert. And I know Pat asked you this 3 specifically, but I'll just repeat 4 that because it's real important to us 5 to have a feel for how big that zone 6 really is. If there is any way or any 7 information that you may have that can 8 quantify that for us and is specific 9 in relation to where that zone 10 potentially could be in relation to 11 where the seals are. That would be 12 very helpful to us. 13 MR. MCNIDER: Yeah. We will 14 do that also. 15 MR. UROSEK: You had 16 mentioned about different samples that 17 you've taken in sealed areas in 18 relation to your fans; for example, 19 some that are under lower pressure, 20 some are under higher pressure. And 21 that has been something that we've 22 considered. But we would appreciate 23 your input into that. 61 1 Especially, as it relates to 2 what can be done in those factors and 3 also how that affects that particular 4 zone of where there might be the 5 potential for explosive mixture and 6 how large that may be. And anything 7 that you may have tried to solve that 8 issue would be very important to us. 9 MR. MCNIDER: One thing I 10 told Pat earlier, John, you know, I've 11 worked with NMA as part of that 12 committee. And I think you will, from 13 the NMA, will see a lot of what our 14 thoughts are about specifics, about 15 size of the zone, what your trigger 16 and action level, some other things. 17 So, I think more of that, 18 but I'll follow-up on that. If it 19 doesn't come through the NMA, it will 20 come through us. 21 MR. UROSEK: Whether you 22 have some particular practical 23 experience from actually doing it in 62 1 your mind, which sometimes it may be 2 far from the overall picture, but that 3 that particular knowledge will be 4 helpful for us. You mentioned the 5 barometer and the changes that can 6 occur at the sampling location. 7 Any information that you 8 could help us with the barometer 9 changes, we acknowledge as you've 10 said, there's going to be a time 11 period when the atmosphere is going to 12 change behind the seal at the sampling 13 location, and there's going to be a 14 zone in particular at that location, 15 that sampling location, that may 16 change from nonexplosive to explosive 17 for a period of time. 18 But how large of an 19 explosive zone does that represent. 20 If you have any information that could 21 help us quantify that and make that 22 determination; for example, is it just 23 five feet, and it's just right at the 63 1 sampling point, and then, it 2 disappears as the barometer continues, 3 or does that zone get larger. 4 Anything that you could 5 provide to help us with that, we would 6 greatly appreciate. 7 MR. MCNIDER: I brought 8 something with me today, John, but I 9 don't want to provide it because I 10 haven't even visually gone through the 11 accompanying set, and I don't have 12 these in writing. I will give you 13 that. It was those Isopachs I talked 14 about. 15 Gives you kind of -- it's 16 like, you can't use it and say, yeah, 17 this is contour line and this is this 18 one. It gives an indication of how it 19 reacts, which is what you're asking 20 for, using internal holes as part of 21 the data base to give you the network 22 to isopach it. 23 So, I do have that. I will 64 1 furnish that to you to give you an 2 idea about what I'm talking about and, 3 you know, where these areas are. 4 That's been discussed with 5 MSHA I know talking about that they 6 should look at this in a tiered 7 approach because I don't think at all 8 times operators can guarantee you'll 9 never have one or two points that are 10 potential to swing in and out of that 11 zone. 12 So, there will be -- I think 13 you'll get other information about 14 this. I know I'm planning on 15 providing this to you. And I will get 16 that. And I think from the National 17 comments you'll see more of what I'm 18 talking about. 19 MR. UROSEK: And one of the 20 things, I don't know if it does 21 address, but I hope that it would, is, 22 you know, we acknowledge what occurs 23 in a gob area, particular in your gob 65 1 areas where you're looking at multiple 2 long holes that are sealed together 3 and the atmosphere that you may be 4 able to get from your degasifications 5 and sampling, but how did that relate 6 to the atmosphere that may be in the 7 open entries; for example, the mains 8 that may be connected with that. And 9 in particular, we're interested in 10 what the extent of potential explosive 11 mixture may be in those open areas and 12 how that relates to the sampling that 13 you have in your degas holes. 14 Any information on that, 15 that help us clarify that would be 16 greatly appreciated. 17 MS. SILVEY: I'll just 18 follow-up. I guess what John is 19 saying, to draw the lent, you talked 20 about the samples from the degas hole 21 to show that they are representative 22 of what is in the sealed area. 23 MR. UROSEK: And in 66 1 particular, those areas that are the 2 open entries that may be in front of 3 the actual gobs themselves. And 4 anything to tie that together. We 5 would greatly appreciate that. 6 MR. MCNIDER: One thing I 7 will say about, when you get into the 8 sealed area, you know, then it starts 9 to act like it's sealed, like a glue 10 of somewhat; although, there's leakage 11 in and out of it, which we talked 12 about a long fringe lines because it's 13 not perfectly sealed. 14 But once it is sealed as you 15 get more and more remote, it tends to 16 become -- it's not homogenous because 17 you can vary it, depending on what you 18 do at certain points. And, you know, 19 I don't believe it's a homogenous 20 mixed throughout, you've got layering 21 and all kinds of things that are. 22 But as you can remove more 23 from the sealed fringe line and you 67 1 get more internal to the gob, then I 2 do think that as you get collection 3 points, they do tend to represent what 4 is more in the atmosphere for that 5 complete sealed area. 6 And there are -- and, you 7 know, I'll try to expand on that a 8 little bit. 9 MR. UROSEK: And any data 10 that you have, and I'm sure your 11 comments, and I know we've asked for 12 this, any information as far as the 15 13 sampling pipe versus the sampling pipe 14 that extends into the cross-cut and 15 your thoughts on that area would be 16 important to us. 17 MR. SHERER: Mr. McNider, I 18 understand that you are a major 19 producer of coalbed methane? 20 MR. MCNIDER: We are a 21 producer of coalbed methane, yes. 22 MR. SHERER: You produce 23 what is commonly called gob holes in 68 1 your active panels, don't you? 2 MR. MCNIDER: Yes. 3 MR. SHERER: What's the 4 composition of that coalbed methane? 5 MR. MCNIDER: Well, let me 6 describe that a little bit to you 7 because I think this is a little 8 confusing to MSHA. 9 MR. SHERER: Sure. 10 MR. MCNIDER: When you have 11 an active panel and you go through and 12 you get the cave and you expand the 13 upper strata or collapse the upper 14 strata and whatever other coal seems 15 that may be in that upper strata and 16 from the mine, particular mine, the 17 fractured zone right at the mine 18 level, initially, you're going to get 19 a high production rate of methane, 20 which will, typically, in our case, is 21 extremely high. It's pretty much 22 pipeline quality gas, which is 95 23 percent plus. And that varies with 69 1 how hard you produce it. 2 But those wells are on a 3 fairly rapid decay curve; in other 4 words, once you put one of those on 5 line, typically, by the time the panel 6 is mined out, they have greatly gone 7 down in their production rate and 8 their decay is rapid. 9 So, therefore, as you move 10 to the next panel, it continues to 11 decline, and it gets to the point 12 where eventually those wells can be 13 just shut in and have very very 14 minimal impact. 15 So, as the gob or as you 16 mine adjacent panels and you go with 17 time, those holes then become less and 18 less active as far as just methane. 19 Now, when you shut them in, they can 20 charge to some degree, but they're 21 easily drawn back down typically. And 22 because it's not like when you first 23 go under. 70 1 So, therefore, depending on 2 how much negative and how much you 3 produce from those wells, the old 4 abandoned wells, you can pull -- 5 you're actually, you're pulling less 6 from the wellbore, which you might be 7 initially, and you're pulling more 8 from the horizon at the mine level. 9 That's why I indicated to 10 John that these don't. When you have 11 an active well that's in the active 12 gob in the panel you're mining that's 13 just come on line, those are pretty 14 much very inert like John and I 15 discussed. And they're all close to 16 100 percent methane. You want them as 17 high as you can. 18 But in time, that decay 19 curve allows less and less methane to 20 be produced through those type holes. 21 And actually, when you look at the 22 average production from one of those 23 wells that have been into the mine for 71 1 an extended period of time, typically, 2 they run about 60 percent methane, 3 they run about 3 to 5 percent oxygen 4 or -- well, I say 3 to 5, a very low 5 amount of oxygen. And the rest of it 6 is nitrogen and excess nitrogen and 7 CO2. 8 So, that's why when I 9 discussed this with John from our 10 experience, these wells do become good 11 indicators of what is in the internal 12 part of the sealed area. They're as 13 good a indicator as you would have 14 because basically nobody has a number 15 of boreholes that go into the mine 16 environment. 17 So, a degas hole is a good 18 tool to use to get a representation 19 what is further and further remote 20 from the fringe of the seal line. 21 MR. SHERER: So, you have a 22 tube that goes down to the actual 23 mined out area? 72 1 MR. MCNIDER: No. The way 2 the well is originally put in, is it's 3 drilled within about 40 feet of the 4 active mines. But then when the mines 5 under and it fractures, it 6 communicates with it. 7 And what I'm saying is, that 8 as an indication of how these wells 9 are reacting to the gases at the mine 10 level, these holes are cased to about 11 halfway within the mine level, the 12 rest of the way, it's open hole with 13 limited influence from any other kind 14 of coal that could possibly oxidize. 15 And to my knowledge, there 16 are no CO2 type. There's no way that 17 CO2 -- there's no CO2 that's 18 introduced from the borehole. So, as 19 you produced this, you're getting more 20 of an influence at the mine level. 21 And many times, these holes actually 22 see high percent levels of CO2, which 23 is formed from blackdamp, which is an 73 1 inerting process from the gob. 2 And as you produce this, 3 you're seeing the inert gas CO2, which 4 is a heavy gas, which would layer 5 closer to the mine port. Even though 6 those holes stop at about 40 feet 7 above the mine level when they're 8 first put in, they are actually 9 communicating with the mine level, in 10 my opinion because they do see CO2. 11 They do see gases. They see some 12 oxygen, which originates from the 13 mine. It's the only way it can get 14 there. 15 Q. What's the rank you're 16 calling? 17 A. I'd have to -- I'm not sure. 18 I can tell you this, it's not a 19 SPONCOM type code. I think it's a low 20 rank code. It does not readily -- 21 it's fairly slow to oxidize. 22 Q. Is it less than 20 percent 23 of a ball from there? 74 1 A. No. The ball runs from a -- 2 a low ball, which could be 18 to 20 to 3 a higher ball, it's about 28. 4 Something like that. 5 MR. SHERER: Isn't CO2 a 6 common strata gas with lower rank 7 coals, part of the coalification 8 process? 9 MR. MCNIDER: We did a 10 pristine gas back early on when we 11 first got into degasification. And, 12 basically, what we see in our 13 situation is, you're about 99 percent 14 methane, a little bit of hydrogen. 15 And I'm trying to remember what the 16 remainder was. I think it was -- I'd 17 have to go back and look. 18 But it was mostly 100 19 percent methane with a little bit of 20 hydrogen in it. And there was one 21 other gas, but I can't remember what 22 that was. 23 MR. SHERER: Thank you. 75 1 MR. UROSEK: A couple more 2 questions. One of the important 3 issues that came up recently, was 4 leakage factors through the seals; in 5 other words, how much does the seal 6 leak. And it seems to be more of a 7 determination, not so much leakage 8 through the actual material of the 9 seal, but through the strata. 10 If you have any information 11 you could give us and any help or the 12 amount of cubic feet per minute, 13 typically that you see through a seal, 14 that would be very helpful to us. 15 Especially, in your coal that's more 16 prime than other coal and is rated a 17 little higher than average. The other 18 question was on the -- you mentioned 19 about samplings for CO2. 20 And I'd appreciate, we would 21 appreciate if what your thoughts would 22 be on how we could actually tie that 23 in to the rule and sampling. I mean 76 1 methane and oxygen is a straight mix, 2 we're all familiar with how to deal 3 with that. 4 But how would you -- what's 5 your suggestions on dealing with if 6 CO2 is a factor that affects the 7 explosibility without going with 8 Zabetakis curve, and how do you tie 9 that in or suggest tying that in, 10 would be appreciated. 11 MR. MCNIDER: One way, John, 12 and I did this. It's in the comments 13 that I gave you today, and it's 14 something that could be done. The 15 primary gas in most sealed areas and 16 low oxidation is CO2, methane, oxygen, 17 and nitrogen. 18 So, if those are the 19 components that equal 100 percent, and 20 it's not going to be exact. I mean, 21 because you are going to have a few 22 DPM of CO, and you're going to have 23 some of eventually maybe nitrogen. 77 1 But, like, I said, that's 2 one of our pristine gases when you 3 seal it. But you could get an 4 extremely -- MSHA could get a very 5 good guide even that you could do at 6 the mine level. And there's probably 7 other ways I haven't really thought 8 about that you could calculate its 9 flexibility. 10 But one way and I think it 11 was like page 5, it's in my -- 12 verbally in the comments. You could 13 go through there and take those gases 14 and come through and you could do the 15 Zabetakis based on a hand reading, but 16 you need CO2. And it's important that 17 MSHA gets an instrument that we can 18 measure CO2 with. 19 CO2 is a critical factor in 20 this. In my opinion, you've got to 21 consider CO2, you can't leave it out. 22 I think you would agree to that. If 23 you just look at methane and oxygen on 78 1 their own, it's badly misleading. So, 2 that's one way. I know today sitting 3 here I can tell you you can do it that 4 way as an indicator. There may be 5 others, I'd just have to think about 6 that. 7 MR. UROSEK: If you have 8 anything specific you can supply us on 9 that, we would appreciate it. 10 MS. SILVEY: One of my panel 11 members wrote me a note and said that, 12 Tom, you were busy writing down some 13 of the questions we asked you. But 14 I'll remind everybody that the 15 transcript is going to be on the 16 website about a week after today. 17 But even as I remind you of 18 that, I would say to you, Tom, but the 19 comment period closes August 17, so, 20 you probably want to get on your 21 questions anyway. So, it's probably a 22 good thing that you're writing them 23 down anyway. 79 1 MR. UROSEK: I know we've 2 asked Tom a lot of specific questions 3 because he's the one at the panel at 4 the moment. But if anyone has any 5 information on a lot of the questions 6 that we asked that they can help us 7 with, we'd appreciate that 8 information. 9 MS. SILVEY: The transcript 10 will be on the web approximately one 11 week after today's hearing. So, it 12 should be on there at approximately 13 next Thursday. And I think that's 14 July 26th I think. 15 I think those are all the 16 questions that we have, Mr. McNider. 17 So, thank you very much. Again, we 18 appreciate your comments and your 19 testimony. And we look forward to 20 getting supplemental comments from you 21 by time the record closes on August 22 17. 23 MR. MCNIDER: Well, I 80 1 appreciate the opportunity to address 2 the panel today. So, I appreciate it. 3 MS. SILVEY: Thank you. At 4 this point, I would ask if there is 5 anybody else who wishes to make 6 comments, you can be start getting 7 yourself ready. We will take anybody 8 else who wishes to make comments or 9 testimony. Anybody else? Okay. 10 Nobody. 11 Well, if nobody else wishes 12 to make comment or provide testimony, 13 then I want to say that on behalf of 14 the Labor Department, we appreciate 15 your participation in this ruling. 16 And I do want to point out that for 17 those of you who came but did not 18 provide comment or testimony, we 19 appreciate the fact that you're here 20 and the fact that you're here is 21 evidence to us that you have an 22 interest in this rule making and 23 that's important to us too. 81 1 I want to say again for the 2 benefit of everybody that the record 3 will close on August 17th. We 4 encourage you to either supplement any 5 information that you provided to us so 6 far or to make sure if you have 7 anything to say to us, to get that in 8 to us in Arlington before August 17th. 9 And as you've heard me say 10 too many times, when you provide your 11 comments, you heard us asking and 12 encouraging Mr. McNider and others who 13 have testified before, please, be as 14 specific as possible as you can. 15 When you provide your 16 conclusions to us, things that are 17 complications in the rules, things 18 that are difficulties, tell us exactly 19 where the complications are, where the 20 difficulties are. 21 If you have suggestions for 22 how we might sample differently, 23 please, provide specific alternatives 82 1 if you have those, specific language. 2 That will help us to as we move 3 forward and craft the final rule. 4 If nobody else wishing to 5 testify then, I'm going to attentively 6 draw this hearing to a close. And 7 what that means is; however, that we 8 will be here until approximately 1:00 9 o'clock in case somebody else shows 10 up. If nobody else shows up, then, I 11 will not reconvene the hearing, and we 12 will consider it closed at this point. 13 And, obviously, if somebody 14 else shows up, we will take that 15 testimony. But at this time, the 16 hearing is closed. Thank you. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23