Read more about belt air.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Proposed federal rules on the use of conveyor belt tunnels to ventilate underground coal mines don't go nearly far enough, officials from the United Mine Workers union said Tuesday.

The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration should have banned the practice altogether, union safety officers said.

"I just can't believe we're sitting here today discussing allowing belt air in coal mines," said George Hill, chairman of the UMW Local 6426's safety committee.

Hill, who works at Patriot Coal's Big Mountain No. 16 Mine near Prenter, joined UMW safety director Dennis O'Dell and union consultant Jim Weeks to testify at an MSHA public hearing in Charleston.

"It's taking a step backward," Hill said. "We're supposed to be going forward."

Hill said using conveyor belt tunnels to bring fresh air into underground mines could push smoke and flames from belt fires toward miners at the working face.

"If you've ever been backed in a corner, with nowhere to go, that's what it's like," Hill said. "You can put all the sensors and warnings you want, but when the fire breaks out, the same results are going to happen again and again. Miners are going to lose their lives."

MSHA proposed the rule in June to comply with a legal mandate that it implement recommendations of a congressionally ordered study of the conveyor belt fire-safety issues. Lawmakers focused on the matter after two miners died in a conveyor belt fire in January 2006 at Massey Energy's Aracoma Alma No. 1 Mine.

Read more about belt air.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Proposed federal rules on the use of conveyor belt tunnels to ventilate underground coal mines don't go nearly far enough, officials from the United Mine Workers union said Tuesday.

The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration should have banned the practice altogether, union safety officers said.

"I just can't believe we're sitting here today discussing allowing belt air in coal mines," said George Hill, chairman of the UMW Local 6426's safety committee.

Hill, who works at Patriot Coal's Big Mountain No. 16 Mine near Prenter, joined UMW safety director Dennis O'Dell and union consultant Jim Weeks to testify at an MSHA public hearing in Charleston.

"It's taking a step backward," Hill said. "We're supposed to be going forward."

Hill said using conveyor belt tunnels to bring fresh air into underground mines could push smoke and flames from belt fires toward miners at the working face.

"If you've ever been backed in a corner, with nowhere to go, that's what it's like," Hill said. "You can put all the sensors and warnings you want, but when the fire breaks out, the same results are going to happen again and again. Miners are going to lose their lives."

MSHA proposed the rule in June to comply with a legal mandate that it implement recommendations of a congressionally ordered study of the conveyor belt fire-safety issues. Lawmakers focused on the matter after two miners died in a conveyor belt fire in January 2006 at Massey Energy's Aracoma Alma No. 1 Mine.

Tuesday's event was MSHA's third public hearing on the proposal, following hearings last week in Salt Lake City and Lexington, Ky. A final hearing is scheduled for Thursday in Birmingham, Ala. Public comments are due Sept. 8. Under a federal budget bill, MSHA has until Dec. 31 to finalize the rule.

Since at least 1969, the use of conveyor belt tunnels as fresh-air intakes for underground mines has generally been illegal. Mine operators could use such ventilation plans only with special approval from MSHA.

In 2004, the Bush administration rewrote federal rules to allow the widespread use of the practice without that special permission. Two years earlier, the Bush administration had also thrown out a proposal to require improved fire-resistant conveyor belts in underground mines.

In its new proposal, MSHA declined to outlaw the use of belt air. Instead, the agency is attempting to tighten its regulation of the practice.

Mine operators would be allowed to use belt air only if they show that doing so "would afford at least the same level of protection" as not using belt air. MSHA district managers would review industry requests and justifications.

The MSHA proposal uses language similar to the congressional study panel. The panel recommended that district managers "take special care to evaluate whether the belt air can be routed to the working fact in a manner that is safe for all miners involved."

But Weeks, who represented the UMW on the congressional panel, noted that the study also concluded that belt air makes mines less safe unless it is being used to diminish other safety hazards. In deep Western mines, for example, belt air allows operators to use fewer underground tunnels, which helps with roof and ground control problems. Belt air should be used only in those narrow circumstances, Weeks said.

"Is the mine better off using belt air?" Weeks said. "If you're going to use this kind of ventilation, it has to be a solution to some other problem."

Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...@wvgazette.com or 348-1702.