<DOC>
[110 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43819.wais]
S. Hrg. 110-464
IMPROVING MINE SAFETY: ONE YEAR AFTER SAGO AND ALMA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
FEBRUARY 28, 2007--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-819 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED STEVENS, Alaska
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
Charles Kieffer, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATTY MURRAY, Washington JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island TED STEVENS, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Ellen Murray
Erik Fatemi
Mark Laisch
Adrienne Hallett
Lisa Bernhardt
Bettilou Taylor (Minority)
Sudip Shrikant Parikh (Minority)
Administrative Support
Teri Curtin
Jeff Kratz (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Senator Tom Harkin.......................... 1
Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd.............................. 3
Opening statement of Senator Arlen Specter....................... 5
Statement of Senator Patty Murray................................ 7
Statement of Hon. Richard E. Stickler, Assistant Secretary, Mine
Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.......... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Statement of Dr. John Howard, Director, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Statement of Cecil Roberts, international president, United Mine
Workers of America, Washington, DC............................. 39
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Statement of Bruce Watzman, vice-president, National Mining
Association.................................................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Statement of J. Davitt McAteer, esquire, vice president of
sponsored programs, Wheeling Jesuit University, Shephardstown,
West Virginia.................................................. 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Statement of Chris R. Hamilton, senior vice president, West
Virginia Coal Association, Charleston, West Virginia........... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Questions submitted by Senator Tom Harkin........................ 70
Question submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd..................... 80
IMPROVING MINE SAFETY: ONE YEAR AFTER SAGO AND ALMA
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin, Murray, Byrd, Specter, and
Shelby.
opening statement of senator tom harkin
Senator Harkin. Good afternoon. The Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies will now come to order for this
hearing on mine safety.
I'm happy to convene this hearing in response to a request
from Senator Byrd, the chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee.
At the outset, I want to say that Senator Byrd has no peer,
when it comes to improving the health and the safety of our
Nation's miners. In response to his leadership, our
subcommittee included $302 million in the fiscal year 2007
Joint Funding Resolution for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, MSHA. This amount is $24.5 million more than
MSHA would have gotten without his efforts, and $14 million
more than the President's budget request.
Last year, Senator Byrd pushed for supplemental
appropriations of $25.6 million for MSHA and $10 million for
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH)--funding required to hire more coal inspectors and push
the development of technologies that can improve the working
conditions of miners.
In addition, Senator Byrd led the Congress in passing the
MINER Act, the most significant piece of mine safety
legislation passed in the last 30 years.
Earlier this month, Senator Byrd made an outstanding speech
about coal mining on the Senate Floor, in which he quoted the
great labor leader, John L. Lewis. I wondered at the time if
the President pro tem of the Senate knew--I'm sure he does,
because he's very knowledgeable about these things--but not a
lot of people know that John L. Lewis was born and raised, and
began to mine coal in the State of Iowa. Not too many people--
I've won more beers at bars with miners on that little tidbit
of information than anything you can imagine. We have the John
L. Lewis museum, in Lucas, Iowa--it's a wonderful museum. About
all of the early days of coal mining in this country. At that
time, Iowa was one of the leading coal-producing States in the
country. A lot of the Welsh tie-ins, the Slovenes, my mother
was an immigrant, her family came over to mine coal, that kind
of thing.
My father started mining coal in Iowa sometime around 1910.
Now, of course, I wasn't born until after he'd finished--he
worked in the mines about 23 years. Then the Depression hit. He
tried a little bit of farming, and lost his farm in the
Depression. Then he came back, actually, and worked a little
bit, when the mine came back right at the beginning of World
War II.
But I can remember, as a little kid, my father and some of
his buddies, his friends that all worked in the coal mines,
sitting around, talking about it, and what it was like. As a
little kid, listening to this, I can still remember how scary
it was--about going down in this rickety, old elevator, how
they would pump air, manually, pump air down into the mine. I
still, well I had until recently, his old carbide lantern, you
know, the old carbide lanterns they would wear. How they would
go out, and they'd go down in the mine before the sun came up,
and they would come up after the sun went down. My dad, and
those guys, sometimes would go for weeks without ever seeing
the sunshine. They lost a lot of people, working in those coal
mines.
Well, anyway, just an aside, I didn't mean to get into all
that. But anyway, that just made an impression on me, growing
up. I've just always had a feeling about miners in this
country, and the kind of work they do, and the kind of lives
they lead. If it weren't for the miners of this country, we
wouldn't have the kind of society--the powered generation. The
coal that was used to heat our homes--to make our great
factories, our steel mills that produced all the things we used
World War II, our electric lighting, all came from coal.
So, it's safe to say, that on the backs of our miners, we
built America. So I'm proud to have come from that line miners.
Well, it's been more than 1 year since the tragedies at the
Sago and Alma Mines. Despite all of the heightened focus on
safety after those events, another 33 mining families lost a
loved one during the remainder of 2006. Even after Sago and
Alma, we did no better protecting miners. Well, this has got to
change.
As a son of a coal miner, my heart goes out to these
families, as does my commitment to follow the lead of Senator
Byrd, and try to find a way to prevent another needless loss of
life.
When my father started mining coal in Iowa around 1910,
there was one fatality--at least this is what my research
says--1 fatality for every 257 miners. In 2006, that rate was 1
death for every 2,537 miners, so that's a pretty significant
improvement over 100 years.
So, we think about how far we've come, but think about how
far we do need to go yet, with technology that can help us.
There's no reason why we can't communicate safely and
effectively with miners underground, after an accident. Know
where they are through tracking technology.
I'm disappointed that MSHA's approved only three additional
communication and tracking systems since last year. Why is
there not a greater sense of urgency about getting this
technology tested and approved, and why the delay? Why haven't
coal companies installed better communications systems that are
currently available? The National Mining Association's report
last year recommended that mines take this step, until new
technologies are available.
Well, as I've outlined, Congress has taken significant
steps, thanks to Senator Byrd, to give the administration the
resources and tools it needs. Well, the administration must
respond by delivering the kind of results that mining families
across the country expect and deserve.
Before I call on Senator Byrd, I'd like to recognize my
fellow Senator here, Senator Specter, for his vital role. As we
continue--as he has so many times said--the seamless passing of
this gavel, which has happened several times in the last 20
years, between Senator Specter and me.
It was under his chairmanship, last year, that this
important supplemental appropriations was enacted, that I just
spoke about. I can say this from both personal experience, and
being a good friend of Senator Specter's, that he is a true
friend to miners in Pennsylvania, and the United States. His
legislation was crucial in forging the bipartisan MINER Act,
which we passed last June. So, I'm flanked by two great
supporters of our miners in this Country, and I'm proud to be
associated with both of them.
With that, I would turn to the chairman of our committee,
and my great friend--a friend to all miners--Senator Byrd, from
the State of West Virginia.
statement of senator robert c. byrd
Senator Byrd. I defer to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Senator Specter. No, no, I defer to you, Senator Byrd.
We're going to play Gaston and Alphonse, but I'll follow you,
Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you for schedule this hearing in
response to my request. Last year, Senator Specter did the same
for me in the days immediately after the Sago tragedy. I
compliment, and thank, both of you for your courtesies, and for
the work that you do on this subcommittee, and for our Nation's
coal miners.
I welcome our witnesses--Richard Stickler from MSHA, Dr.
John Howard from NIOSH, Davitt McAteer from Wheeling Jesuit
University, Chris Hamilton from the West Virginia Coal
Association, Bruce Watzman from the National Coal Mining
Association, and the one and only--the one and only--Cecil
Roberts, from the United Mine Workers of America. Thank you for
sharing your expertise--your knowledge--this afternoon.
I grew up in the coal fields of Southern West Virginia. My
dad was a coal miner. He belonged to the United Mine Workers,
Local 5771. I married a coal miner's daughter, she's an angel
in heaven today. My brother-in-law died of silicosis, black
lung, and his father was killed in a slate fall, Walker Minton.
When I speak about coal miners and their safety underground, I
am speaking about my family. I am speaking from the heart.
Forty-seven coal miners perished last year. Half of them,
in West Virginia. Our Nation mourned when 12 miners perished at
the Sago Mine in Upshur County, West Virginia. It watched in
disbelief, as two more miners perished. They succumbed to an
underground fire in the Alma Mine in Logan County. Logan
County, West Virginia.
Congressional hearings revealed that the Mine Safety and
Health Administration, MSHA, had been lax in communications
equipment. Emergency preparedness and mine rescue had been
allowed to fall by the wayside. The Federal Mine Safety budget
had been eroded. Egregious and habitual violators were getting
away with slaps on the wrist.
It is a tragedy whenever miners perish in the coal fields.
It is unforgivable when those deaths could have been prevented,
like those at Sago and Alma, last year.
The Coal and Mine Acts are specific about the Department of
Labor responsibility for achieving the highest degree of health
and safety protection for the Nation's coal miners, for the
miner. How frustrating it is to listen to the Department drone
on about so-called ``compliance assistance initiatives'' when
miners are dying in the coal fields? How infuriating it is to
watch MSHA issue regulations that actually weaken statutory
protections.
The agency and Department charged with protecting our
Nation's coal miners exacerbated the dangers in the coal fields
in the years, the long years, before Sago and Alma. Good work
and the good intentions of so many dedicated public servants at
the Department of Labor and MSHA were undermined by their own
political leadership.
Last year, the Congress had to pass the MINER Act, in order
to force the Department of Labor to do its job. In addition,
with the support of Senators Harkin, and Specter--Senators
Harkin and Specter have secured $36 million for MSHA to hire
additional safety inspectors, and for NIOSH to expedite the
hiring and the development--the hiring of men, and the
development of the emergency safety equipment.
The President has requested additional funds for the
Department of Labor to continue the hiring of safety inspectors
in the fiscal year 2008. However, the President's budget does
not include additional funds for NIOSH. The President's budget
does not--N-O-T--include additional funds for the development
of the essential emergency breathing, communications equipment.
The President's budget does not include additional funds to
further test, and to strengthen seals. The President's budget
does not include additional funds to develop refuge chambers.
The President's budget does not include additional funds to
improve mine rescue training. These omissions are glaring,
they're inexcusable, and they must be remedied.
Two deaths in Southern West Virginia this year, serve as a
somber reminder that the crisis in the coal fields is not over.
We must seek opportunities to get ahead of the dangers. We must
ask the question, the question--the question, repeatedly, if
necessary. What additional resources are needed to protect our
Nation's miners?
I look forward to hearing the answers to that question from
our witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter.
opening statement of senator arlen specter
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to
appear on this panel with the distinguished senior Senator of
the U.S. Senate, Senator Byrd, as well as my colleague, Senator
Harkin, the chairman, and Senator Murray.
There's nothing like being chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. Senator Byrd commented about the $36 million he
added in the past to, for additional inspectors, we just passed
a continuing resolution to add an additional $24.5 million.
Senator Byrd was elected for his 9th term last year. I'm only
one spot away from being the senior Republican on the
committee, and as the gavels shift back and forth, as my
distinguished colleague Senator Harkin said, we have had shifts
of the gavel, and it's seamless, and I look forward, one day,
to being chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Senator Byrd. I look forward to being at your elbow.
Senator Specter. Senator Byrd makes a reference to being at
my elbow as the ranking Democrat--we would make a tremendous
team. Anybody teamed up with Robert Byrd would make a
tremendous team. But if, as and when I become chairman, the
coal miners--will have an advocate--I won't say equal to--but a
very strong advocate.
When I chaired the subcommittee last year, again, at
Senator Byrd's request, we had a hearing on January 23, after
the Sago Mine incident. We had a accident at the Quecreek Mine,
Somerset County, Pennsylvania. I convened a field hearing on
October 21, 2002, and we have pressed very hard to get adequate
funding.
But, I'm distressed to note that there was a report by the
House Committee on Education and Labor, just released
yesterday, which came to the conclusion that the U.S. Mine
Safety and Health Administration, ``is moving too slowly,'' to
make needed safety improvements for the Nation's coal miners.
That has to be corrected, that has to be acted upon.
When Senator Byrd went through a long list of items which
were inadequately funded, I can tell you that he and Senator
Harkin, Senator Murray and others as well as myself, will make
every effort to restore them, and with the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee on board, I think we will restore
them.
Just a comment or two about the Assistant Secretary for
Labor and Mine Safety and Health. We did not have the
confirmation process concluded last year for Mr. Richard
Stickler, but he received a recess appointment, and I want to
put in the record a letter which I wrote to Mr. Stickler, dated
November 1, 2006. Especially the handwritten message I wrote at
the bottom, ``I urge you to become a forceful advocate for
adequate mine safety funding.'' I want to put in the record Mr.
Stickler's response to me, dated December 6, and I think in the
vernacular, Mr. Stickler, you're on the spot. You have to
perform. We'll be watching you very closely.
May the record show that Mr. Stickler's nodding in the
affirmative.
[The information follows:]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Senator Specter.
Senator Murray.
statement of senator patty murray
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing. It's an honor to be here with this panel
today, who I know speak from their heart when it comes to this
issue. I have another hearing I have to go to, but I did want
to come today and speak, just quickly, about the importance of
properly implementing and enforcing the MINER Act. Because,
like all of us here, I was very shocked and saddened by the
tragic events last year at Sago and Alma. Listening to the
widows and the family members of the miners talk about the loss
of their loved ones, really compelled me to work with all of
you to do the best job we could do.
I especially want to thank Senator Byrd for his work last
year, along with Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Enzi, in
quickly putting together legislation that is the most sweeping
changes in mine legislation in a generation, and getting that
through the Congress and to the President's desk for a
signature. The act requires long-overdue improvements in miner
communications, it increased the supply and access to oxygen
for our miners, and it better tracks their whereabouts in the
mine. But, I think all of us know that without vigorous
enforcement, the MINER Act--like any act--though well-
intentioned will not really have its value.
So, I look forward, today, to hearing about the progress
with MSHA, and NIOSH on what they've done to implement the
MINER's Act, key safety provisions, and hope that we hear some
really strong words about their commitment to make sure that
that is implemented properly.
I chair the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
within the HELP Committee, and I intend to work very closely
with Chairman Kennedy--along with all of our colleagues here--
on additional oversight hearings on this matter. I want to
really hear about whether we're doing accident preparedness and
response plans, and whether they've been reviewed, and what the
findings are.
But, Mr. Chairman, I do have another hearing to go to, I
did want to come by today because this is a critical issue, and
I hope that we can soon report to the widows and the children
of the 72 men who died last year in mine-related accidents,
that we're doing everything we possibly can--and as quickly as
we can--to prevent tragedies like that happening again in the
future.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I will submit my
questions for the record.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
Well, we have two panels, our first panel, Mr. Richard
Stickler, we'll recognize first, then Dr. Howard.
Mr. Richard Stickler, appointed to serve as Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health on October 19,
2006. He was Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine
Safety from 1997-2003, he's a native of West Virginia. Received
his B.A. from Fairmont State University, and certified as a
mine safety professional by the International Society of Mine
Safety Professionals.
Then after that, we'll to Dr. John Howard, from NIOSH. With
that--and again, all of you, your statements will be made a
part of the record in there entirety, I'd ask that, if you
could just take 5 minutes and summarize for us, we'd appreciate
that so we have time for questions.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the committee, and please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD E. STICKLER, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mr. Stickler. Thank you. Is this on?
Senator Harkin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stickler. Chairman Harkin, Chairman Byrd, Senator
Specter, and members of this subcommittee. I'm pleased to
appear before you today to discuss the important work of the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, in protecting the
health and safety of our Nation's miners. We appreciate the
support this committee has given MSHA.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2008
underscores our commitment to advancing mine safety and health.
Last year, Congress passed the MINER Act, the most
significant mine safety legislation in nearly 30 years. Allow
me to briefly list some of our actions, to date, to implement
this act.
MSHA's final rule in emergency mine evacuation was
published in the Federal Register on December 8, last year. It
addressed many provisions that were mandated in the MINER Act
to enhance miner safety, including required catches of self-
contained self-rescuers, improved training for miners,
installation of lifelines and escape routes, provisions for
multi-gas detectors, and the prompt accident notification.
All emergency response plans have been submitted to MSHA by
the deadline of August 14, 2006. We are ensuring that these are
reviewed, approved, and implemented in a timely manner.
One key component of the emergency response plan, is the
availability of post-accident breathable air. MSHA issued a
program information bulletin February 8 of this year that
specifies three acceptable options for meeting this
requirement.
Post-accident communications and tracking are required by
the MINER Act to be in place by mid-June 2009. We have had
contact with more than 125 parties about systems to track and/
or communicate with miners while they're underground. To date,
we have observed the testing or demonstration of 16 systems at
various mine sites around the country.
The MINER Act mandates improved training, certification,
availability, and composition requirements for underground coal
rescue teams. We're on track for publication of this proposed
rule in the Spring, with the final rule to be published by the
MINER Act's deadline of December of this year.
We have also taken action to increase civil penalties. MSHA
has sent a draft final rule increasing penalties to the Office
of Management and Budget, and we expect it will be approved
shortly.
To implement section VII of the MINER Act, MSHA has
designated 14 family liaison personnel. Those liaisons have had
their initial training. The National Transportation Safety
Board and the American Red Cross has helped us train these
individuals.
The MINER Act requires that standards be finalized by
December 15 of this year, for sealing of abandoned areas of
underground coal mines, with seals that provide for an increase
in the 20 pounds per square inch standard.
Last year MSHA raised the standards for alternative seals
from 20 psi to 50 psi. This is an interim step until we
finalize the final standard.
MSHA and NIOSH are studying seal design, and MSHA is
developing a proposed rule that we expect to publish in the
Federal Register this spring.
We're pressing ahead with our recruitment, training, and
deployment of 170 additional coal mine enforcement personnel,
mandated by Congress, and provided for in our fiscal year 2008
budget. Ninety have already been hired, and we're on target to
meet our hiring goal by September of this year.
We will use all of the tools available to us to achieve our
goals, including tough enforcement, education and training, and
technology. We will particularly be aggressive with those mine
operators who habitually violate MSHA's standards, and who seem
to view penalties as just another cost of doing business.
prepared statement
Much progress has been made to improve mine safety and
health, but yet there is still a lot of work to be done. Today,
MSHA remains focused on our core mission--to improve safety and
health of America's miners, and to work toward the day when
every miner goes home safe and healthy to family and friends,
every shift of every day.
Thank you for allowing me to testify, I look forward to
taking your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard E. Stickler
Chairman Harkin, Chairman Byrd, Senator Specter, members of the
subcommittee: I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
important work of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in
protecting the health and safety of our Nation's miners, and to tell
you of our progress in implementing the Mine Improvement and New
Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006.
2006 was the worst year for coal mine fatalities in over a decade.
I know firsthand that every fatality is devastating for miners, their
families, and the communities they live in. Let me be very clear that
my number one priority is to protect the health and safety of America's
miners. Both President Bush and Secretary Chao support my efforts to
achieve these goals.
Everything we do at MSHA is in service of the goal of zero
fatalities in the Nation's mines.
msha fiscal year 2008 budget request
The President's 2008 Budget requests $313 million and 2,306 full-
time equivalent employees for MSHA--a 4 percent increase over the 2007
appropriation. The Budget underscores the administration's commitment
to strong enforcement of safety and health in our Nation's over 14,000
mines. The Budget includes $16.6 million to retain 170 additional coal
enforcement personnel that were initially funded in a fiscal year 2006
emergency supplemental appropriation in the wake of the Sago, Alma, and
Darby mine accidents. It also supports the vigorous implementation of
new safety standards and regulations authorized in the MINER Act, which
the President signed into law on June 15, 2006.
Implementing the MINER Act of 2006 and Initiating New Policies
Last year, Congress passed the MINER Act--the most significant mine
safety legislation in nearly 30 years. Implementing the provisions in
the MINER Act is MSHA's top priority.
I would like to take this opportunity to review the progress that
MSHA has made in implementing this landmark legislation.
emergency mine evacuation
The Department published a final rule on Emergency Mine Evacuation
in the Federal Register on December 8, 2006. This regulation implements
many provisions that were mandated in the MINER Act to enhance miner
safety, including:
--Increased availability and storage of breathing devices, Self-
Contained Self-Rescuers (SCSRs);
--Improved emergency evacuation drills and training;
--Installation and maintenance of lifelines in underground coal
mines;
--Immediate accident notification for all mines.
--Installation of fire-resistant, directional lifelines; and
--Requirement to provide multigas detectors to individual miners
working alone and to each group of miners.
This rule was effective immediately, on December 8, 2006, with the
exception of some training and equipment provisions that must
necessarily wait for training units to be developed and made available
and for the equipment to be manufactured and shipped to some of the
mine operators.
With regard to the caches of SCSRs operators are required to store
throughout the mines, MSHA has requested manufacturers of these units
to give priority consideration to fulfilling orders to mining
operations starting with those that do not have two SCSRs per miner.
I have also written letters to underground mine operators asking
them to ensure that they have at least two SCSRs per miner at their
mine. If they do not, I have asked them to contact the manufacturer of
their SCSRs to request priority order consideration. In addition, I
have asked operators to let their local MSHA District Manager know if
they need priority order consideration so that MSHA can monitor the
requests and assist wherever possible.
We are following a risk-based implementation plan to ensure
sufficient quantities of SCSRs for every underground mine operation in
this country, and we will continue to closely monitor the situation.
emergency response plans
Section 2 of the MINER Act requires underground coal mine operators
to adopt an emergency response plan covering the evacuation of all
individuals endangered by an emergency, and to provide for the
maintenance of individuals trapped underground. The first priority in
any mine accident is to evacuate everyone from the mine, if possible.
In addition, the emergency response plan must address post-accident
communications and tracking, post-accident breathable air, lifelines,
training, and local coordination.
MSHA issued Program Policy Letters providing guidance to mine
operators to help them develop their emergency response plans. All
plans were submitted to MSHA by the deadline of August 14, 2006. We are
ensuring that the plans are reviewed in a timely manner, approved, and
implemented for all underground coal mines as specified in the act.
post-accident breathable air
With respect to post-accident breathable air, MSHA first issued a
request for information (RFI) in August 2006, to solicit ideas about
how to address the issue of post-accident breathable air (required by
the MINER Act). The Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) must provide for
``emergency supplies of breathable air for individuals trapped
underground sufficient to maintain such individuals for a sustained
period of time.''
We evaluated the comments and determined the best approach for
implementing this requirement is through the dissemination of a Program
Information Bulletin (PIB) on Breathable Air. This PIB was placed on
MSHA's website and distributed widely to the coal mining community on
February 8, 2007.
The major provisions of this PIB include:
Provides the following options for Operators to meet the
requirements for Breathable Air:
--Establish boreholes within 2,000 feet of the working section; or
--Provide 48 hours of breathable air located within 2,000 feet of the
working section of the mine with contingency arrangements to
drill boreholes if miners are not rescued within 48 hours; or
--Provide 96 hours of breathable air located within 2,000 feet of the
working section; or
--Other options that provide equivalent protection based on unique
conditions at a mine.
Methods of Providing Breathable Air (in barricaded or other areas
that isolate miners from contaminated air) include:
--Drilling boreholes;
--Air line supplied by surface positive pressure blowers; or
--Compressed air cylinders, oxygen cylinders, or chemical oxygen
generators.
We are also posting related compliance assistance materials on
MSHA's website, including the Program Information Bulletin (PIB), a
hazard awareness information sheet on use of compressed air and
compressed oxygen; and information sheets on methods of providing
breathable air, including calculations.
post-accident communications and post-accident tracking
In section 2, the MINER Act requires post-accident communication
and tracking systems to be in place by mid-June of 2009. MSHA is
reviewing all the available technology and working with NIOSH and
manufacturers to help in the development of safe, reliable systems for
underground coal mines. We have had contact with more than 125 parties
about systems to track and/or communicate with miners while they are
underground.
To date, we have observed the testing or demonstration of 16 post-
accident communications and tracking systems at various mine sites
around the country. Once these systems are presented to MSHA for
approval, we will expedite the approval process to ensure that
workable, durable and reliable systems get into the mines as quickly as
possible.
mine rescue teams
The MINER Act mandates improved training, certification,
availability, and composition requirements for underground coal mine
rescue teams. We currently are drafting a proposed rule to implement
the MINER Act provisions for mine rescue teams, and are on track for
publication in the spring. The final rule will be published by the
Act's deadline of December 2007.
civil penalties
MSHA has implemented provisions contained in the MINER Act
mandating increased penalties for flagrant violations, unwarrantable
failure violations, and immediate notification violations in accordance
with the MINER Act. The penalty amounts currently being assessed
include:
--Failure to promptly notify MSHA of accidents--$5,000 to $60,000;
--Unwarrantable failure violations--minimum $2,000 for the first
citation and $4,000 for subsequent orders; and
--Flagrant violations--up to $220,000.
Last October, I issued a Procedure Instruction Letter (PIL) to all
MSHA inspectors establishing uniform, Agency-wide procedures for
enforcement personnel to properly evaluate flagrant violations as
defined in the MINER Act.
MSHA included the MINER Act penalty provisions and increased civil
penalties for other violations in our civil penalty proposed rule,
published September 8, 2006. We held public hearings to collect input
from miners, the mining industry, and other interested parties.
After reviewing the hearing input and written comments from all
interested parties, we drafted a final rule and submitted it to the
Office of Management and Budget for their review in accordance with
required regulatory procedures. We anticipate publication of the final
rule on civil penalties in the Federal Register soon.
family liaison program
MSHA's Family Liaison Policy has been put into place to provide for
an MSHA liaison with families at the site of a mine disaster. A Program
Policy Letter has been issued and 14 designated family liaison
personnel have had their initial training sessions. The National
Transportation Safety Board and the American Red Cross have helped
train these individuals.
sealing of abandoned areas in underground coal mines
The MINER Act requires that standards be finalized by December 15,
2007, for the sealing of abandoned areas in underground coal mines with
seals that provide for an increase in the 20 pounds per square inch
(psi) standard for alternative seal construction.
Last year, MSHA raised the standard for alternative seals from 20
psi to 50 psi. This is an interim step until we establish a final
standard.
MSHA and NIOSH are studying the issue, and MSHA is drafting a
proposed rule that we expect to publish in the Federal Register this
spring.
technical study panel on belt air
Section 11 of the MINER Act requires the establishment of a
Technical Study Panel on Belt Air. The charter governing the panel was
published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2006. The first
meeting of the Technical Study Panel on the utilization of belt air and
the fire retardant properties of belt materials in underground coal
mining took place January 9-10, 2007.
Members of the panel are prominent and experienced mine safety and
health professionals. As mandated in the MINER Act, two of the panel
members were appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services,
two by the Department of Labor, and two members were appointed by
Congress.
The panel will convene their next meeting in March in Pittsburgh.
The panel will prepare and submit a report by the end of this year
to the Secretary of Labor regarding the utilization of belt air and the
fire retardant properties of belt materials in underground coal mines.
This report will provide independent scientific and engineering
recommendations.
refuge alternatives
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
will conduct research and field tests on refuge alternatives. By the
end of this year, NIOSH is scheduled to report the results of the
research to the Department of Labor. By mid-2008, the Department of
Labor will report to Congress on the actions MSHA will take in response
to the NIOSH report.
recruitment
The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (Public Law
109-234) provided an additional $26 million for MSHA to strengthen its
coal enforcement program, including the hiring of coal mine inspectors
and other enforcement personnel. MSHA is pressing ahead with
recruitment, training and deployment of the additional 170 coal mine
enforcement personnel. To date, 90 of the 170 staff have already been
hired. We are on target to meet our hiring deadline of September 2007,
for the additional 80 coal mine enforcement personnel.
We continue to conduct recruitment drives in local communities
around the country, and we have hired additional staff at our Mine
Health and Safety Academy to ensure that we can properly and
expeditiously train our new inspectors and get them out to the job
sites where they will make a difference. I strongly believe the
increased presence of MSHA enforcement staff at the job sites will have
a positive impact on mine safety and health.
reinforcing the basics of mine safety and health
We will use all of the tools available to us to achieve our goals,
including tough enforcement, education and training, and technology. We
will be particularly aggressive with those mine operators who
habitually violate MSHA standards and who also seem to view penalties
as just another cost of doing business. We are developing a database on
accidents so that we can more objectively analyze trends and results.
This will help MSHA target resources and attend to areas where progress
has not been satisfactory.
We face the challenge of inculcating a culture of safety in an
industry that has played a key role in America's economic growth since
the first industrial revolution. Much progress has been made since
passage of the seminal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Today, every
single person at MSHA remains focused on our core mission: to improve
the safety and health of America's miners and to work toward the day
when every miner goes home safe and healthy to family and friends,
after every shift of every day.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I look forward to
answering your questions.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Stickler.
Senator Harkin. Now, we turn to Dr. John Howard, Director
of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Washington.
Dr. Howard received his Doctor of Medicine from Loyola
University in Chicago, his Doctor of Law from the University of
California, Los Angeles, his Master's of Law from the George
Washington University, here in Washington.
He is Board-certified in internal medicine and occupational
medicine, admitted to practice medicine and law in the State of
California and the District of Columbia.
Then, do I understand, you're accompanied by Dr. Kohler,
who is Director of the NIOSH Office of Mine Safety and Health--
is that correct?
Dr. Howard. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin. Well, Dr. Howard, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN HOWARD, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Dr. Howard. Thank you very much. We're very pleased to be
here today, with our statutory partner, MSHA, to give you an
update on the NIOSH activities at Mining Safety and Health at
our Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, our Spokane, Washington, and our
underground Lake Lynn laboratories, which straddle Pennsylvania
and West Virginia. Especially, activities made possible by the
MINER Act, and the $10 million emergency supplemental
appropriation in 2006.
Following enactment of the MINER Act, NIOSH developed an
implementation plan consisting of a technical, and a contract
acquisition phase. In the technical phase, we tested system
prototypes in operating coal mines, and evaluated claims from
vendors about technologies that were represented as,
``solutions,'' for the mining industry. NIOSH met with
representatives from industry and labor, from Federal and State
agencies, and even as far as Australia.
Now, we're in the contract acquisition phase where the
statement of Work for each technology area has been developed,
and contract solicitations have been advertised for the
development of new technologies.
Today, I wanted to give you a brief update a brief update
on several of the aspects of our Disaster Prevention Research
Program, which have been made possible, and are greatly aided
by the MINER Act, and the supplementation.
First, NIOSH and MSHA have been working to share
information on mine seals. Recently, NIOSH released a draft
report entitled, ``Explosion Pressure, Design Criteria for New
Seals in U.S. Coal Mines.'' Once finalized, this NIOSH report
will provide an engineering science basis for designing mine
seals in underground coal mines.
Second, the Kutta System, which is a subterranean, wireless
electronic communication system for the military. NIOSH is
providing funds to DOD to modify their existing contract to
develop a digitally networked communication system for
underground miners to communicate with each other, and with the
surface, which is capable of maintaining mine-wide operational
integrity after a fire or explosion.
Third, the leaky feeder communications systems, which are
currently used in underground mines, and during normal mine
operations, they function well. But they are based on a cable
backbone that is run throughout the mine that can be damaged in
fire or explosion. Our goal is to develop a survivable wireless
leaky feeder communications system, that again, is capable of
maintaining mine-wide operational integrity, after a fire or
explosion. Such a system will be evaluated at the Leverage
Mine, near Fairmont, West Virginia.
Fourth, a wireless mesh system, which is a multi-hop
network technology that could potentially increase the
probability of any radio being able to communicate with another
radio in the mine, by providing multiple communication paths in
the mine. This system will be evaluated at the Imperial Mine in
West Virginia.
Fifth, mine location tracking systems would be particularly
useful in locating miners in post-disaster situations, provided
that the system survived a fire or explosion. We are now
evaluating various tracking systems, and one will be selected
for development.
Sixth, NIOSH and MSHA have a working group to share
information and coordinate activities on refuge chambers. NIOSH
has contracted with the National technology Transfer Center at
Wheeling Jesuit University to conduct two pilot studies on
refuge chambers. Additionally, we are developing a third
contract to determine design, installation and location
parameters for refuge chambers. Combined with our own research
and testing, these contract results will be used to prepare a
report to Congress on refuge alternatives, and to provide
practical guidance on the use of refuge chambers in underground
coal mines.
Seventh, NIOSH and MSHA are working, together with a
technical study panel, appointed jointly by the Congress and
the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services, to
develop recommendation on the utilization of belt air, and the
composition and flammability of belt materials.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, NIOSH continues to work diligently to protect
America's mine workers. The MINER Act, and the emergency
supplemental appropriation of 2006, will enable NIOSH together
with MSHA, to better protect miners.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. John Howard
introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the
Committee. My name is John Howard, and I am the Director of the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which is
part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), within
the Department of Health and Human Services. I am accompanied by Dr.
Jeffery Kohler, Director of the Office of Mine Safety and Health within
NIOSH. We are pleased to be here today with our sister agency the Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to give you an update on
activities that have been initiated under the MINER Act of 2006.
The United States is fortunate to have an abundance of mineral
resources to power the economy, and the highly skilled men and women
who work in the mining industry everyday are our most precious
resource. The mine disasters in 2006 and the double roof fall
fatalities in a West Virginia coal mine last month serve as painful
reminders of the dangers inherent to this industry, and our shared
responsibilities to ensure the safety and health of our mineworkers.
The Office of Mine Safety and Health Research within NIOSH works to
eliminate occupational illnesses, injuries, and fatalities through its
research and prevention activities. Mining researchers at our
Pittsburgh, Spokane, and Lake Lynn Laboratories have a long and
successful history of working in partnership with labor, industry, and
State and Federal agencies to develop and implement interventions that
eliminate or control mining safety hazards, or reduce exposure to
harmful physical or chemical agents. The work of NIOSH scientists and
engineers can be found throughout American mines. This is evidenced by
safer design practices, equipment innovations that improve safety or
health, technology to improve mine rescue, and improved training
programs for miners. Over the years, significant safety and health
gains have been achieved through the collective efforts of labor,
industry, and government. Yet, more remains to be done, and additional
effort will be required just to maintain the historical gains, as
changing mining conditions present new safety and health challenges.
Our program of mining safety and health research is driven by a
strategic plan with specific performance goals. Our plan, developed
with extensive customer and stakeholder input, identifies critical gaps
in mining safety and health knowledge and practices and establishes
research priorities for filling in those gaps.
While it is still too soon to find visible evidence of major
changes resulting from research in underground coal mines since the
Sago Mine disaster, changes are underway, and may represent the most
significant improvement in mine safety technology and mine safety
practices in three decades. New communications and tracking
technologies, Self Contained Self Rescuers (SCSRs), and refuge chambers
are being developed. New and more effective training programs,
emergency procedures, and mine safety practices are being designed
using innovative management systems and risk analysis studies. Any one
of these alone would improve mine safety, but in combination the effect
is expected to be great. The funds from the emergency supplemental
appropriation are facilitating more safety technology gains in 2 years
than have occurred in the last few decades. The legislative mandates
have created an unprecedented environment of partnership among labor,
industry, and government. The safety landscape will be different and
vastly improved within 3 years of enactment of the MINER Act, and
important improvements are expected to continue for several years
afterwards.
Improving disaster prevention and response continues to be a high
priority for NIOSH, and we have several projects to develop
technologies and practices to prevent mine explosions, fires, and
inundations that existed before the MINER Act was adopted and some new
ones triggered by the tragic events of last year. A few weeks ago we
released a draft report entitled, Explosion Pressure Design Criteria
for New Seals in U.S. Coal Mines. Once finalized, this NIOSH report
will provide an engineering-science basis for designing mine seals and
will assist NIOSH and MSHA in developing new standards for seals in
underground coal mines, in this country and around the world.
NIOSH received the Research & Development 100 Award of 2006,
recognizing the coal dust explosibility meter, as one of the top
technological innovations of the year. Rock dust is applied to coal
mine surfaces to prevent coal dust explosions. If sufficient dust is
applied, an inert mixture between the two dusts is achieved. The
percentage of inert material in the mixture is specified by current
regulation. However, a determination of this percentage by an MSHA
inspector or mine operator requires taking a sample and sending it to a
distant lab for analysis. This can take several days. The coal dust
explosibility meter developed and field tested by NIOSH researchers
will allow an immediate or real-time determination by mine operators,
or an MSHA inspector, of whether an inert ratio has been achieved. A
pre-production model is currently undergoing approval testing at MSHA,
and commercial production of this life-saving, new technology will
begin as soon as it is approved for use in underground coal mines.
new innovations--miner act of 2006 and supplemental appropriation
Moving critical safety technologies, for example oxygen supply,
emergency communications, and miner tracking devices, from the
laboratory into the mine is a high priority for NIOSH, as is adapting
technologies from other military or civilian applications to the mining
industry's needs. In addition to the scientific challenges, there are
economic ones as well--since mines represent a relatively small market
for sales, the government role in research and development becomes even
more important in bringing a promising technology to mine operators.
The Conference Report on H.R. 4939 (109-494) Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery provided a $10 million Emergency Supplemental Appropriation
(ESA), that will have a very positive effect in increasing the
availability of critical oxygen supply, communication and tracking
technologies. The goal is to facilitate the adaptation and movement of
these technologies from other industries or from prototype stage to
commercialization and into the mines, as rapidly as possible, and this
is well underway.
First, a high level ``road map'' for success was designed, taking
into consideration, the availability of technologies, commercial
availability of equipment, as well as the technical and logistical
difficulties in meeting the schedule and performance expectations of
the MINER Act. It was determined that the plan should include
improvements to legacy systems as well as the introduction of new
technologies. An accurate assessment of the existing technology base
was deemed an essential prerequisite to success. The initial challenge
for NIOSH was to invest sufficient time in the initial analysis to
ensure that the contract efforts are in the areas most likely to yield
results, and move new technologies into the mines as expeditiously as
possible.
Our effort to award the right mix of contracts quickly consisted of
two phases: the technical preparation phase and the contract
acquisition phase. The technical phase consisted of significant
engineering-science work to develop the scope of work for the
contracts, testing of system prototypes in operating coal mines and at
NIOSH's Lake Lynn Experimental Mine, and evaluation of claims from
vendors on technologies that were represented as ``solutions'' for the
mining industry. Stakeholder meetings including the NIOSH Emergency
Communications Partnership were held periodically as well. NIOSH also
met with Australian labor, industry, and government officials to review
findings and the proposed approach, as well as other alternatives.
Within three months after the engineering services agreement (ESA) was
approved, a consensus was reached among all groups that the available
funds were: targeting a balanced set of technologies that address the
mining community's needs in the critical gap areas; selecting
technology subsets that have a higher probability of success in the
short term; and meeting the goal of the emergency supplemental
appropriation.
Depending on the amount of work involved, it has taken between 2
and 5 months to complete the preliminary technical work for each
contract. Essentially, this technical preparation phase has helped to
ensure that the most promising and critical technologies are being
supported under the ESA.
We are now in the acquisition phase, where the statements of work
for each technology area have been developed and contract solicitations
have been advertised for the purchase of services that will lead to
development and demonstration of new technologies to meet the intent of
the MINER Act. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriation is subject to
the rules and regulations for full and open competition as prescribed
by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. Therefore, full
and open competition is being pursued.
NIOSH and MSHA have a working group to share information and
coordinate activities on refuge chambers. NIOSH has contracted with the
National Technology Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit University to
conduct two pilot studies on refuge chambers, and another contract to
determine design, installation, and location parameters is in the
acquisition phase. The findings of these contracts combined with our
research and testing will be used to prepare the report to Congress on
refuge alternatives, and to provide practical guidance to industry and
labor on the use of refuge chambers in underground coal mines.
The following table displays the various communication and tracking
technology solicitation areas NIOSH is actively pursuing, and the
respective anticipated award and completion dates.
TABLE 1.--COMMUNICATION AND TRACKING PROCUREMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical phase Projected Completion
Solicitation completion date Anticipated award date Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptation of the U.S. Army ``Kutta'' August 2006............ Awarded January 2007-- April 2008
System. work in process.
Survivable Leaky Feeder.............. August 2006............ April 2007............. August 2008
Hardened Mesh/Node System............ September 2006......... May 2007............... September 2008
Communications Practices............. November 2006.......... May 2007............... March 2008
Tracking System...................... December 2006.......... June 2007.............. December 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projected completion dates are based on historical estimates
and projections from appropriate organizations, and are directly
dependent on the anticipated award dates being met. It should be noted
that a number of factors may affect award dates and therefore project
completion, such as the number of bidders, the extent of technical
clarification or budget clarification meetings necessary, the
complexity of the negotiated changes, and the time allotted to prepare
best and final offers.
The following provides a brief description of select technologies
to be funded.
Adaptation of the U.S. Army ``Kutta'' System
The U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command,
Communications Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center
(CERDEC) currently has a contract with Kutta Consulting to design and
develop a subterranean wireless electronic communications (SWEC) system
for the military. There is high potential for applying this Department
of Defense (DOD) technology to meet the mine communication and tracking
requirements. In this procurement action, we are providing funds to the
DOD to modify their existing contract with Kutta Consulting, to extend
current design and development efforts to a communications system for
underground mines. In taking this approach, we hope to build on the
proven successes resulting from the application of state-of-art
information and communications-electronics technologies to increase the
safety level for the military, to achieve similar enhancements for U.S.
mines.
Under this contract, Kutta Consulting will develop a digitally
networked communications system for underground miners to communicate
with each other and with the surface. The approach is to develop a
communication system that has a dual-mode of operation. It is
envisioned that this system will be capable of maintaining mine-wide
operational integrity after an emergency situation such as a mine fire
or explosion.
Survivable Leaky Feeder System
Leaky feeder communication systems are currently used in
underground mines. During normal mine operations they function very
well. However, they are based on a cable backbone that is run
throughout the mine that can be damaged in the event of a fire, roof
fall or explosion. If the cable is damaged, the system may no longer be
operational.
For this procurement action, we want the selected contractor to
design, develop, and demonstrate a survivable wireless leaky feeder
communications distribution system that is capable of maintaining mine
wide operational integrity after an emergency situation such as a mine
fire or explosion. The proposed system will be compatible with the
leaky feeder systems and mobile radios that are commonly used in mines
today.
Hardened Mesh/Node System
Wireless mesh network technology is a multi-hop system in which
devices are capable of supporting each other during transmission of
voice and data information. They are used for commercial and public
safety applications today. Some of the attributes that they display
could be beneficial for use in underground mines. These include: (1)
increased probability of any radio being able to communicate with
another radio, by providing multiple paths for communications within
the mesh network, and (2) peer-to-peer communications network in which
every node is a routing relay. The mesh network is capable of
supporting communications between members of a group within the mesh
network without the support of external networks.
While the introduction of wireless mesh technology in mines does
hold potential, there are a variety of challenges that the underground
mining environment introduces to realizing the full potential of a
wireless mesh network, including: survivability of system components
during catastrophic events, range limitations. For this procurement
action, we want the selected contractor to design, adapt, construct,
install, and evaluate wireless mesh ``peer-to-peer'' communication
networks in an underground coal mine that address these challenges.
Mine Location Tracking System
NIOSH has also prepared a request for the procurement of services
to evaluate and develop mine location tracking systems. These systems
would be particularly useful in locating miners in a post accident
situation and respond directly to the requirements of the MINER Act.
Our internal research and discussions with vendors have determined
that there are several possibilities for providing for the tracking of
miners. Therefore, our request for services has been constructed so
that there can be several phase one awards during which the accuracy
and feasibility of the technology can be assessed. Of the competing
phase one awardees, one will be selected for phase two funding for the
demonstration and development of their technology.
As a separate initiative, NIOSH and MSHA plan to test a fully
functional military mesh communications and location tracking system in
an underground mine. While the form factor (back pack size) is totally
unsuitable for a miner, it should demonstrate the maximum performance
and accuracy achievable through one approach to mine tracking--the node
based radio approach. This is an important input in consideration of
future spending of funds in this area.
Lastly, NIOSH and MSHA are working closely together with a
technical study panel on belt air appointed by the Congress and the
Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services to develop
recommendations on the utilization of belt air and the composition and
flammability of belt materials.
conclusion
In closing, NIOSH continues to work diligently to protect the
safety and health of mineworkers. The MINER Act and supplemental
funding for mining research will enable us to make significant
improvements in the areas of communication and tracking. We appreciate
the opportunity to present our work to you and thank you for your
continued support. We are pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Harkin. Dr. Howard, thank you very much.
I would like to open this round of questions by turning to
our distinguished chairman, Chairman Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stickler, the State of West Virginia is preparing to
implement several mine safety improvements. Coal operators will
submit plans for the use of emergency shelters by April of this
year, and submit separate plans for the use of wireless
communications and tracking systems by July 31 of this year.
If West Virginia is moving ahead with these safety
improvements in communications, and emergency shelters, then
why can they not be done just as quickly at the Federal level?
Mr. Stickler. Well, as you know, the MINER Act established
procedures for the evaluation of shelters, and assigned that
responsibility to NIOSH, and NIOSH will be issuing a report by
the end of this year. That process is ongoing, and certainly
MSHA will look forward to receiving that information, and use
that guidance to do the best we can to promote health and
safety.
Senator Byrd. When will MSHA make emergency shelters
available to miners?
Mr. Stickler. This is dependent upon the study that NIOSH
is doing, and after that study's done, and a report is
published, then MSHA would consider that information for
rulemaking to make shelters available to miners.
Senator Byrd. When do you think that will be? How long will
that take?
Mr. Stickler. Well, NIOSH's report, I understand, is due
the end of this year. Then normally it takes about a year to do
rulemaking after that.
Senator Byrd. When will MSHA re-examine its rule about the
use of belt air ventilation?
Mr. Stickler. Well, as you know, Congress established the
technical study panel, comprised of two members appointed by
Congress, two members appointed by each the Secretary of the
Department of Labor, and the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services.
Senator Byrd. Are they all in place?
Mr. Stickler. They're in place, they had their first
meeting on January 9 or 10, they're scheduled for their second
meeting in March in Pittsburgh, and they will complete their
report by the end of this year.
Senator Byrd. You've had the authority to address these
issues since the 1969 Coal Act. Why does MSHA choose not to use
that authority? Why do you need another 18 months to study the
issues?
Mr. Stickler. Well, sir, I think since Congress established
the mechanism for NIOSH to conduct that study, and I think it's
appropriate to follow that process.
Senator Byrd. When MSHA releases its rule to increase seal
standards this spring, how closely will those changes track the
recommendations by NIOSH, which suggested a three-tier--T-I-E-
R--system and a standard up to 640 psi?
Mr. Stickler. I have been working very closely with NIOSH
on, on this. I've met with them, I've also assigned a team of
engineers and safety specialists to address exactly what you
said--a tier system that would identify the seal stress that
would be required in various scenarios in an underground coal
mine.
Senator Byrd. How closely will those changes track the
recommendations by NIOSH?
Mr. Stickler. I think they will track very closely. NIOSH
did a study, traveled around the world--really, this is the
first time that any type of study like this has been done, and
provided new information that, I think, is going to have a
significant impact on mine safety--not only in this country,
but in other countries. MSHA will certainly track NIOSH's
recommendations very closely.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Stickler, MSHA recently changed its
training requirements for coal safety inspectors. In the
materials submitted to my office, I noted from those materials
that MSHA has eliminated from its curriculum 92 hours of safety
training, including 6 hours related to repeat violations, 6
hours related to roof control, 13 hours related to ventilation,
6 hours related to accident investigations, and 6 hours related
to 103(g) orders, which is the provision in the Coal Mine Acts
giving a union representative the right to obtain, immediately,
an inspection of a mine if an imminent danger exists. How can
this subcommittee be sure that the coal safety inspectors that
MSHA is hiring are receiving sufficient training in these
critical areas?
Mr. Stickler. My understanding is that, while some
curriculum's subject matter was reduced, for other subjects,
increases in the amount of training hours, and the net gain was
56 hours.
Part of the reason that the classroom training hours were
reduced, is that some of this training has been transferred to
the field at the District Offices to be done, some of it can be
done via computer systems. But I had the same concerns and the
same questions that you asked. It came to my attention, I met
with the Director of the program that oversees the Beckley
Academy and the training of our mine inspectors, and he assured
me that a couple of years ago they did a survey to identify
what knowledge and skills and information an individual needs
to have to be a mine inspector. So, they went back, and they
changed the curriculum, to tailor it, to make sure that they
addressed those areas that gave the trainee, the inspector
trainee, the skills and knowledge that they needed to do the
job, and he has assured me that we are doing a better job
training our inspectors today than any time in the past.
Senator Byrd. How do you feel about that? Are you, are you,
are you assured by that?
Mr. Stickler. Well, this individual has many years of
mining experience, worked underground with the miners, been in
charge of safety, of training for MSHA for several years, and I
have a great amount of confidence in his judgment.
Senator Byrd. Do you feel that there's anything that's,
really, that really needs to be done? Anything that's not up to
your expectations?
Mr. Stickler. In the area of training, I think we have a
world-class training program of our inspectors. They spend,
basically, 6 months in the classroom, and 6 months on the job,
and they rotate back and forth, spend a couple of weeks in the
classroom, 2 or 3 weeks out in the field, and back and forth. I
think we're doing an outstanding job.
I've spent quite a bit of time, since I've been with this
job, traveling out to the districts and meeting with our mine
inspectors, and talking with them, and getting ideas and
comments from them, and I have not had one yet indicate to me
that he was concerned about the amount--or she was concerned--
about the amount of training they're receiving.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stickler, the report released by the House Education
and Labor Committee has evaluated a number of the objectives
that we had. It has found that the requirements have not been
completed. For example, conveyer belts were supposed to be
installed which could readily ignite underground fires. They
have not been replaced with less flammable belts, although
those less flammable belts are available. Are you familiar with
that deficiency?
Mr. Stickler. I'm not familiar with that deficiency,
Senator, because, in fact, there is no deficiency there.
The Congress set up the technical study panel to study the
fire-resistant properties of underground conveyer belts. That's
the Panel I mentioned earlier, they are studying two things--
belt air, and the fire resistant properties of underground
conveyer belt material.
That study panel will conclude their work at the end of
this year, and based upon their recommendation, then, MSHA will
determine what would be appropriate, based on the study and
information we receive.
Senator Specter. Isn't it correct, as the House committee
has found--that there are flammable belts now in operation?
Mr. Stickler. Yes, sir. There----
Senator Specter. Aren't there belts which are safer, less
flammable?
Mr. Stickler. The belts that are in service today are
required to be fire-resistant. They are tested by MSHA to
determine whether or not they are fire-resistant.
Senator Specter. Well, then let's deal with my question,
which is a question posed by the House committee report, that
there are less flammable belts available now--isn't that true?
Mr. Stickler. I would, yes, I believe you could protract
less flammable belts.
Senator Specter. Well, if that is true, why aren't the less
flammable belts installed now?
Mr. Stickler. The law hasn't required a less flammable
belt, the law has required a fire-resistant belt, and the
specifications that belt material must pass in the test in
order to be approved as fire-resistant.
Senator Specter. Well, if the law requires a fire-resistant
belt, and you could put a safer belt on, why not do that?
Mr. Stickler. That may very well be the recommendation of
this study panel, that they are available----
Senator Specter. Well, wait a minute--wait a minute--why
wait for a recommendation from a study panel, if you know that
there is equipment which will be safer?
Mr. Stickler. Because Congress set up the study panel to do
an impartial, scientific evaluation of what is available, and
whether or not it's practical to improve the fire-resistance of
our underground conveyer belts.
Senator Specter. But, you have authority now to put into
operation the safest equipment which is currently available,
don't you?
Mr. Stickler. That would take a rule to change the fire-
resistant specifications for a conveyer belt, will take a rule,
and it will take longer--it would take longer to do that rule,
than it would to wait until the technical study panel does
their work.
Senator Specter. Well, Mr. Stickler, first I hear about a
rule change, then I hear about a study. In the context where
you know you could get safer belts now, it seems to me that it
ought to be done. Are you telling me that you don't have the
authority to do it?
Mr. Stickler. Under the current law and rules, I do not
have the authority to require any belts, other than what is
specified in the Federal regulation.
Senator Specter. Well, we will pursue that, Mr. Stickler. I
don't think you're correct. I think you have the authority to
do that now, and you're telling us about rule changes and about
studies. These more flammable belts could cause an accident at
any time.
The House committee reported that there are electronic
detection devices available, which can detect fires before they
get out of control, and detect explosive gases before it is too
late. But, those devices are not being implemented, why not?
Mr. Stickler. Well, they're implemented in some cases. Some
mine operators install these voluntarily, and also mine
operators that use belt air at the face, are required by
Federal regulation to install carbon monoxide detectors as part
of their protection system on that belt conveyor.
Senator Specter. Well, don't you have the authority to
require that those electronic detection devices will be
installed?
Mr. Stickler. Not without a new rule. The current rule does
not require them at all mines.
Senator Specter. Are you trying to get a new rule, so we
could have safer electronic detection devices?
Mr. Stickler. I think that would certainly be a rule that I
would like to pursue.
Senator Specter. Well, why don't you pursue it?
Mr. Stickler. Well, sir, I've been on the job 4 months. I
inherited a regulatory agenda that I've been working very hard
on, and the priorities on that agenda are those things that
Congress mandated last June, and MSHA has been working very
hard to do that rulemaking, and will continue to do so the rest
of this year.
Senator Specter. Well, the red light is on.
Senator Harkin. Go ahead.
Senator Specter. Senator Harkin says I should go ahead, so
I shall. I've got a long list here.
There are required air packs, in order to assist on
evacuation. The House committee found that those required air
packs are not being installed, is that true?
Mr. Stickler. They're being installed at the rate of,
probably about 10,000 a month. There are three manufacturers
for these air packs, and as you know, the MINER Act, and also
the final rule that MSHA published on December 8 requires a
significant number of additional air packs at the underground
mines, and the manufacturers have not been able to keep up.
There are two manufacturers that have about 98 percent of
the market, and they have approximately a 10 month backlog on
order. I have worked with the manufacturers, and I sent a
letter out to the mine operators, asking that we give priority
to those mines that need these units the most. Starting with
any mine that doesn't have two units per miner, and once we get
those in place, then we'll go to three, and so on, until we get
full implementation.
About 20 percent of the mines are in full compliance, that
have not only two per miner in the working section, but one on
the man-trip, and caches of SCSR's steward in the escape way,
traveling out of the mine.
Senator Specter. According to the committee report, Mr.
Stickler, MSHA has delayed in providing guidance, so that mine
operators are not yet providing breathable air supplies
underground, as required by law. Is that true?
Mr. Stickler. I provided that guidance on February 8. As
far as breathable air, the requirements and methods of
providing breathable air.
Senator Specter. So, the House committee is wrong when they
say that your Department has delayed, and the mine operators
don't know what to do on that issue.
Mr. Stickler. Well, perhaps they wrote that before February
8, but February 8 was when I issued the guidance.
Senator Specter. The report came out yesterday.
The MINER Act sought to ensure that all coal mines have
rescue teams available who can react swiftly in emergencies.
According to the committee report, that hasn't been
accomplished. Are they wrong again?
Mr. Stickler. The current regulation on mine rescue teams
is that they have to be within 2 hours of the mine site. The
MINER Act requires that MSHA promulgate rules that would
require the rescue teams to be within 1 hour. MSHA has started
to work on that rule, and we will be publishing a proposed rule
shortly, and we will have a final rule before the end of this
year.
Senator Specter. The MINER Act sought to ensure that MSHA
would keep families and the public fully and accurately
informed about accidents. According to the committee report,
family members continue to complain that MSHA is not fulfilling
that requirement. Are they wrong again?
Mr. Stickler. I have instructed our investigation team
leaders to make sure that we maintain constant contact with the
family members and meet with them, and provide information with
them. If there's anyone that feels that we're not fulfilling
that, I would certainly correct it, if they make me aware of
it.
Senator Specter. Well, there are more, we'll supply them
for the record.
[The information follows:]
Summary of Staff Report of the House Education and Labor Committee
emergency evacuation problems still remain
The MINER Act sought to ensure that miners have the equipment and
training needed to get out of the mine quickly during an emergency.
According to the Committee staff, the required air packs necessary for
escape are not all in place, and their reliability is uncertain. Miners
are not yet receiving real-world training in evacuation. Adequate
communication and tracking equipment for emergencies are still not in
place, and will not likely be anytime soon.
underground refuges are still not being installed
The MINER Act sought to ensure that miners have a safe place to
await rescue should they be unable to safely evacuate in an emergency.
According to the Committee staff, due to delays by MSHA in providing
guidance, mine operators are not yet providing breathable air supplies
underground. Moreover, MSHA has not yet required mine operators to
provide hardened shelters underground.
qualified rescue teams are still not available at all mines
The MINER Act sought to ensure that all coal mines have rescue
teams available who can react swiftly in emergencies. According to
Committee staff, this has not been accomplished.
disaster communication with miner families and the public needs
attention
The MINER Act sought to ensure that MSHA keep families and the
public fully and accurately informed about accidents. But today, family
members continue to complain that MSHA is not keeping them informed
about accident investigations affecting their loved ones.
key hazards revealed by the 2006 tragedies remain unaddressed
According to Committee staff, conveyor belts that can readily
ignite underground mine fires have not been replaced with less
flammable belts, although flame retardant belts are available.
Electronic detection devices that can detect fires before they get out
of control, and explosive gases before it is too late, are not
universally required.
tougher penalties need to be regularly assessed
The MINER Act sought to ensure that incentives for compliance with
MSHA requirements at mines were increased. According to Committee
staff, MSHA has yet to issue a ``pattern of violations'' citation to a
mine operator, has not finalized regulations to ensure that assessments
are properly assessed, and has not addressed concerns that initial
penalties assessed by inspectors are watered down during review.
conclusion: according to the committee staff, the promise of the miner
act has not been fully realized
The promise of the MINER Act of 2006 has not been fully realized.
MSHA is moving too slowly. Meanwhile, miners' lives remain at risk. The
mining industry need not wait for MSHA to act, but many mine operators
are doing just that. MSHA and the mining industry need to do better,
and then move on swiftly to eliminate many other critical safety and
health risks to miners.
Senator Specter. It's a little discouraging, Mr. Stickler,
to find a House committee specifying all of these deficiencies,
and to have your replies that they're either wrong on the
facts, or that you need some additional rule, or that some
manufacturer can't comply, and it all amounts to delay. Any one
of these many factors could cause another mine disaster with
many deaths.
I would ask you to review their report, and give this
subcommittee responses to what they have had to say.
Mr. Stickler. I'll do that.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
MSHA Comments on the House Committee on Education and Labor Interim
Staff Report--Implementation of the MINER Act
executive summary
On February 27, 2007, the Chairman of the House Education and Labor
Committee, Rep. George Miller, issued an Interim Staff Report entitled,
Implementation of the MINER Act Is Proceeding Too Slowly. As the title
of the report indicates, Chairman Miller believes that the Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA) is not moving quickly enough to
implement the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act
of 2006, which was signed by President Bush on June 15, 2006. MSHA's
response to the report was requested by Senator Arlen Specter during an
oversight hearing conducted by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education on February 28,
2007.
The report concedes that MSHA is making progress towards
implementing the key provisions of the MINER Act. The principal
criticism appears to be that MSHA is not implementing the Act before
the deadlines set for the agency by Congress. The key point made by the
report is:
``Following a careful examination of available information, we
conclude that while the Mine Safety and Health Administration is making
some progress, it is moving too slowly in addressing the critical risks
targeted by the MINER Act.''
MSHA, however, believes that, by including these deadlines in the
legislation, Congress made clear its intent to focus MSHA's attention
on MINER Act implementation. Congress also recognized, by setting
certain deadlines ahead of others, that certain MINER Act provisions
are complex and require substantial analysis and public input prior to
implementation. These provisions would necessitate more time.
MSHA does not agree that the agency is falling short on
implementing the MINER Act. There has been significant progress toward
implementing this important statute. A summary of the provisions
already implemented to protect miners include:
--Requiring all coal mines to submit to MSHA their emergency response
plans;
--Requiring more SCSRs devices for each miner in every underground
coal mine. MSHA has addressed a backlog in SCSR orders created
by new MINER Act requirements;
--Requiring fire resistant evacuation life lines in all underground
coal mines within three years as specified in the MINER Act;
--Mandating additional safety training and training on the use of
SCSRs at underground coal mines. Devices from all three SCSR
manufacturers are now commercially available for miners to
fulfill their expectations training requirements;
--Establishing new maximum penalties for flagrant violations and new
minimum penalties for failure to notify and unwarrantable
failure violations and orders;
--Requiring all mine operators to contact MSHA within 15 minutes of
an accident;
--Requiring redundant underground to surface communications systems
in underground coal mines;
--Issuing guidance to mine operators regarding emergency supplies of
breathable air;
--Training 14 MSHA officials to serve as Family Liaisons; and
--Although it was not required under the MINER Act, MSHA required the
use of multi-gas detectors for underground coal miners.
In addition to these accomplishments, MSHA continues to implement
the remaining provisions of the MINER Act, including:
post-accident communications and post-accident tracking
Between January 2006 and March 30, 2007, MSHA has received 39
applications for approval of communications and tracking systems. Of
these 39, 24 applications are being evaluated for approval, 12 are
modifications of previously approved systems, and 3 are approvals for
new systems. These new systems are:
--The Kenwood portable hand held radio;
--Marco RFID (radio frequency identification) Tracking Tag; and
--Matrix Design Group RFID Tracking Tag.
While none of these devices are entirely wireless, they do provide
options that are available now for communicating in mines. Congress, in
the MINER Act, requires that by June 2009, mine operators must adopt
wireless communications and electronic tracking systems. MSHA is
reviewing the available technology and working with the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and manufacturers
to help in the development of safe, reliable systems for underground
coal mines. Between January 2006 and March 26, 2007, MSHA has received
a total of 132 communications and tracking proposals.
mine rescue teams
The MINER Act requires the Department of Labor to issue regulations
with regard to mine rescue teams. These regulations must address
improved training, certification, availability, and composition
requirements for underground coal mine rescue teams. MSHA is currently
drafting a proposed rule to implement the MINER Act provisions for mine
rescue teams with anticipated publication in summer 2007. MSHA
anticipates that a final rule, as mandated by Congress in the MINER
Act, will be promulgated by December 15, 2007.
civil penalties
MSHA immediately implemented the MINER Act provisions mandating a
new maximum penalty of up to $220,000 for flagrant violations, and new
minimum penalties for ``unwarrantable failure'' and ``failure to
notify'' violations. Last October, MSHA issued a Procedure Instruction
Letter (PIL) to all MSHA inspectors establishing uniform, Agency-wide
procedures for enforcement personnel to recognize and issue flagrant
violations as defined in the MINER Act. MSHA's Coal Mine Safety and
Health Division is considering 13 flagrant violation citations and
orders--a first in the Agency's history. In addition to the MINER Act
changes, MSHA published a proposed civil penalty regulation in
September 2006 and a final civil penalty rule, providing higher penalty
assessments, on March 22, 2007.
sealing of abandoned areas in underground coal mines
Beginning on June 1, 2006, prior to passage of the MINER Act, MSHA
took several actions to increase protection for miners. The agency
required: a temporary moratorium on the construction of new alternative
seals; operators to assess the atmosphere behind sealed areas of
existing alternative seals; operators to take remedial action if the
atmosphere behind the seal had the potential for an explosion; strength
and construction requirements for new alternative seals; inspection and
maintenance of existing alternative seals, including corrective action
when necessary; and MSHA approval of new alternative seals. MSHA is
currently reviewing all the available scientific information and
industry practices to determine the best means of implementing the seal
requirements of the MINER Act. Working with the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), MSHA is developing a proposed
rule on mine seals and will publish the proposal in the Federal
Register in summer 2007. A final rule, as mandated by Congress in the
MINER Act, will be promulgated by December 15, 2007.
technical study panel on belt air
Section 11 of the MINER Act established a Technical Study Panel on
Belt Air. The purpose of this Panel is to ``provide independent
scientific and engineering review and recommendations with respect to
the utilization of belt air and the composition and fire retardant
properties of belt materials in underground coal mining.'' Congress
provided the Panel one year from the Panel's appointment to issue its
report, and required the Department of Labor to respond to the Panel's
report within 180 days of receiving it.
The charter governing the Panel was published in the Federal
Register on December 22, 2006. The first meeting of the Technical Study
Panel took place January 9-10, 2007. Members of the Panel are prominent
and experienced mine safety and health professionals. As mandated in
the MINER Act, two of the Panel members were appointed by the
Department of Health and Human Services, two by the Department of
Labor, and two members were appointed by Congress. The Panel will
convene its second meeting to be held March 28-30 in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
refuge alternatives
The MINER Act requires NIOSH to provide a report to the Department
of Labor by December 2007 concerning various refuge alternatives for
underground coal mines. The MINER Act further requires that 180 days
after receipt of the NIOSH report, the Department of Labor will report
to Congress on the actions MSHA will take in response to the report.
Additionally, MSHA is currently working with state agencies, refuge
chamber manufacturers and NIOSH, in examining the technical
considerations for implementing refuge chambers safely. MSHA has hosted
several informational meetings and demonstrations in which refuge
chamber manufacturers, NIOSH, industry personnel, and state agencies
participated.
msha continues to protect miners
MSHA is meeting the requirements of both the MINER Act and the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. Every day, MSHA personnel are
inspecting mines, issuing citations, reviewing safety and health plans,
working on regulatory initiatives, and improving both inspector and
miner training.
It is important to keep in mind that as MSHA implements the MINER
Act, the agency is also working to meet its many other statutory
obligations under the 1977 Mine Act. As you know, MSHA is required to
inspect each surface mine at least two times a year and each
underground mine at least four times a year. During the inspections of
2006, MSHA issued 77,129 citations and orders in coal mines, up from
69,124 in 2005 and 62,937 in metal and non-metal mines, up from 59,101
in 2005. Proposed assessments in 2006 totaled $35 million, up from $25
million in 2005.
MSHA performs other important duties and activities, including:
--Investigating mine accidents, complaints of discrimination filed by
miners, hazardous condition complaints, knowing or willful
violations committed by agents of mine operators, and petitions
for modification of mandatory safety standards;
--Developing improved mandatory safety and health standards;
--Proposing assessments and collecting civil penalties for violations
of mine safety and health standards and the Mine Act;
--Reviewing and approving mine operators' ventilation and dust
control, roof control and other mine plans, and education and
training programs;
--Maintaining the National Mine Health and Safety Academy to train
inspectors, technical support personnel, and mining industry
personnel;
--Approving certain mining products for use in underground coal and
gassy metal and nonmetal mines to ensure they do not cause a
fire or explosion;
--Providing technical assistance to mine operators;
--Providing assistance to mine operators in improving their education
and training programs;
--Cooperating with states in the development of mine safety and
health programs;
--Making grants to states in which mining takes place; and
--Overseeing rescue and recovery operations at mines nationwide.
Additional comments on the House Education and Labor majority staff
report are attached.
MSHA Responses to Education and Labor Committee Staff Report on MINER
Act Implementation
the emergency evacuation rule
The report makes several erroneous statements about the emergency
evacuation plans mandated by section 2 of the MINER Act.
Charge. ``The Rules and When They Take Effect, Vary Mine by Mine.''
The report claims that the emergency evacuation plan required by the
MINER Act is not being enforced with consistent criteria, thus the
MINER Act protections ``are not being implemented.'' Furthermore, the
report charges that ``implementation of the rules set out in the MINER
Act is occurring only gradually in many mines,'' because of the time
being given to operators to comply with these provisions.
Answer. As with other required underground mine plans such as roof
control and ventilation plans, the Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) are
required for each mine and must be tailored to the individual mine. A
``one size fits all'' implementation standard is neither practical nor
in the best interests of mine safety and health, given the unique and
various conditions that exist in each underground coal mine. MSHA
district managers always have the latitude to request additional
information to render an informed decision on the approval or
disapproval of the plans, and to issue citations for violations of a
plan as called for in the act.
The ERP plans must address specific items required by the MINER Act
through various options or alternatives. These variations are based on
mine operator submissions, which take into account mine specifics and
unique features such as mine size, overall mine design and layout,
mining environments and other physical considerations, and mining
methods. As various portions of the ERPs are approved by MSHA, mine
operators are expected to fully comply with the approved components of
the plan.
In some instances, mine operators are given a reasonable period of
time to implement certain portions of their approved ERPs, which is
normally based on market availability and delivery schedules of
materials and equipment.
More details are provided about these instances in ensuing sections
of this response.
Charge. The report charges that miners are missing SCSRs and that
the problem is ``in part due to MSHA policies.''
Answer. MSHA does not dispute that miners are missing SCSRs. This
deficiency is because of a large backlog of SCSR orders from SCSR
manufacturers as result of the large increases in the numbers of SCSRs
required by the MINER Act. Due to this backlog, operators are
considered to have made a good faith effort in obtaining the SCSRs
either by taking physical delivery of the SCSRs or providing a purchase
order with a delivery date. The current shortage of SCSR units is
approximately 90,000. MSHA is working diligently with the mining
community to reduce this backlog and comply with the requirements of
the MINER Act concerning SCSRs.
Charge. ``So although the third manufacturer of SCSRs (Draeger) has
a surplus of thousands of these lifesaving devices, miners remain
without them.'' The report states ``. . . but of course compliance with
this request is not required.''
Answer. Recognizing the overwhelming preference of coal mine
operators and of miners for units from the other two manufacturers (CSE
and Ocenco), MSHA has asked mine operators and these two SCSR suppliers
to cooperate and give priority in supplying SCSRs to those mines that
do not have at least two SCSRs per miner, or to those with the worst
shortages. MSHA is working closely with SCSR manufacturers and there is
no evidence that manufacturers are not cooperating.
If MSHA required operators who currently use CSE and Ocenco's in
their mines to purchase the Draeger units as called for in the staff
report, miners could face another set of serious safety issues. Mixing
different types of SCSRs that use different technology or donning
procedures could result in confusion and delay in donning and
activating the device during an emergency situation. Therefore, MSHA
and the United Mine Workers of America believe that it is not in the
best interest of safety to mix SCSR types at a mine.
Charge. The report further states that ``SCSRs have a history of
failure'' and mentions 250 units ``manufactured in recent years being
pulled'' by MSHA in January 2007.
Answer. MSHA has, in fact, recalled MSA Lifesaver 60 SCSRs. MSA
issued a recall in 2002 on these devices due to potential problems with
the chlorate candle starters. This recall was extended to a wider range
of manufacturing dates in 2006. MSA has received cooperation from mine
operators to remove these devices from their inventories. These SCSRs
are no longer being manufactured, and operators will have to replace
these models with other types of SCSRs. Since CSE and Ocenco are the
predominant SCSR manufacturers in the United States, this MSA recall
had a de minimis effect on the backlog.
The Emergency Mine Evacuation final rule requires that mine
operators report their SCSR inventories to MSHA. This national
inventory will constitute the first time an accurate count of SCSRs
will be made, including manufacturer, type of model SCSR, serial
numbers, and dates of manufacture. This inventory will serve as the
basis for the random sampling of SCSRs. MSHA developed a computer-based
reporting system which mine operators will be able to access from the
MSHA website, as well as a form for reporting SCSR inventories.
Charge. ``MSHA has declined to conduct random sampling of the SCSR
units stocked by mine operators, nor is it required to by the MINER
Act.''
Answer. In the past, a true random sampling procedure for testing
SCSRs was impossible for MSHA to implement without inventory
information. However, it is not a true statement that SCSRs are not
checked for reliability. For the past 26 years, MSHA has cooperated
with NIOSH by assisting with the Long Term Field Testing (LTFT) of
SCSRs. NIOSH has selected the numbers and types of SCSRs to be
collected, and MSHA has assisted with mine contacts and collection. The
selection of SCSRs was based on estimated market share by manufacturer.
NIOSH performs the testing and writes the reports. NIOSH has recently
published a program concept paper on its web site proposing a draft
redesign of the mine respirator evaluation program and is seeking
public comment on the proposal. This concept paper includes the
methodology for selecting the random sample using the new MSHA SCSR
inventory database mentioned above.
Charge. The House Committee staff report also states that the large
purchases of SCSRs--required to comply with the MINER Act--could harm
the development of new technology to provide breathable air in
underground mines. Specifically, the report says ``. . . since mine
operators are currently purchasing many units of existing design to
meet the requirements of the MINER Act, and these units have an
official shelf life of many years, it is likely to take a new mandate
to move new designs into place quickly.''
Answer. The pursuit of new technology continues, as evidenced by
MSHA's coordination with NIOSH to develop dockable and hybrid SCSRs.
MSHA personnel also participated in the SCSR workshops, sponsored by
both NIOSH and MSHA in 2005 and 2006, where concepts for both of these
new types of SCSRs were developed. MSHA also has been involved in the
evaluation of SCSR proposals through the NIOSH Request for Proposal
(RFP) process.
While some SCSR models have a ``service life'' of 10 years, and
others have service lives of 15 years, operators are able to introduce
new technology at any time. In addition, MSHA has worked with one mine
operator and Draeger to utilize SCBAs (self-contained breathing
apparatus) similar to those used by firefighters, with quick-fill
connections and quick-fill stations to meet the requirements of the
MINER Act. The SCBAs will be used in conjunction with SCSRs that will
be carried on miners' belts and on man-trips. This will provide another
choice for operators who currently have plans to utilize only SCSRs.
In addition, NIOSH introduced proposed changes to their approval
regulations for SCSRs in 2006 as specified in 42 CFR Part 84, which
would expedite the introduction and adoption of new technology into the
mining industry. Under this proposal, breathing and metabolic
simulators would be used instead of man tests and the test criteria
would be changed. In addition, NIOSH has proposed that SCSR
manufacturers would need to meet the new criteria within 6 years from
enactment of the new regulations.
Charge. ``Miners are still not Receiving Adequate Evacuation
Training,'' and expectations training in particular, because ``. . .
requirements that mine operators provide such training will take effect
only after MSHA certifies that the training units which can provide a
simulated experience of using an SCSR are readily available.''
Answer. All manufacturers have developed training devices that
simulate both the heat and breathing resistance a miner may experience
using an SCSR. These devices are required by the December 8, 2006,
final rule. These training devices are now available and MSHA is
publishing a Federal Register notice to announce their availability.
Operators will have 30 days from publication of the notice to purchase
the units and 60 days from receipt of the units to provide training.
Charge. ``However, mine operators are not required to allow miners
to actually turn on the SCSR and breathe with it. While this saves the
cost of obtaining additional SCSRs, it also means this quarterly
training does not provide miners with the sensation of what it is like
to actually use an SCSR.''
Answer. Advanced training in SCSR use during simulated mine
evacuations is being implemented. MSHA's final rule on Emergency Mine
Evacuation required increased self-rescuer training, including
instruction and demonstration in the use, care, and maintenance of the
self-rescue devices used at the mine. The final rule specifically
requires that miners must insert the mouthpiece as part of the
quarterly training. As part of the ERP requirements, mine operators
must include SCSR hands-on training in donning and transferring from
one SCSR to another for each type of SCSR carried or stored in the
mine. Each mine operator's ERP must also provide for one of the
quarterly drills to take place in artificial smoke or in an environment
simulating smoke, and MSHA inspectors are checking for mine operator
compliance with these ERP provisions.
Charge. The report states that miners still lack good emergency
communications systems. Specifically, the report states that ``MSHA
could require these systems (communications systems described in the
report) prior to 2009; it has chosen not to do so. Moreover, it (MSHA)
has elected not to require one-way communication devices either.'' This
section of the report concludes ``While waiting for a more perfect
technology saves mine operators money, it places miners' lives at
risk.''
Answer. MSHA disagrees with the charge that MSHA is failing to
implement these provisions because it ``saves mine operators money.''
MSHA is actively implementing the provisions of the MINER Act, based on
the requirements of the Act as passed by both Houses of Congress.
The MINER Act requires underground communication systems to be
implemented in two stages. Stage 1 is the provision in the ERPs for
post-accident communications by means of redundant communication
systems with the surface. Stage 2 is the provision in the ERP for post-
accident communication between underground and surface personnel via a
wireless two-way medium by June 15, 2009. Also, between January of 2006
and March 26, 2007, MSHA approved 3 new tracking and communication
systems and 12 approvals for modification to previously approved
systems via the Revised Approval Modification Program (RAMP). While
these are not wireless systems, they will provide more communications
options. MSHA's foremost concern is the safety of miners. With this as
a priority, MSHA is implementing the requirements of the MINER Act as
specified.
Charge. The report incorrectly states that ``many manufacturers
already produce two-way wireless systems, and many such systems have
been installed in mines around the world.''
Answer. MSHA representatives have traveled to Australia and Germany
in the last year, and NIOSH representatives have visited additional
countries to research and evaluate the availability and functionality
of two-way wireless systems. MSHA is unaware of any fully wireless two-
way communication system used in an underground mine anywhere in the
world.
The Personal Emergency Device (PED), which received a great deal of
media and Congressional attention as a wireless solution, is a one-way
paging system that would only be useful after a fire or explosion only
if the required loop antenna were installed on the surface. Most U.S.
mines install the loop antenna underground because they do not own
surface rights or the topography is not amenable to surface
installation. An underground loop antenna would be susceptible to
damage in a fire or explosion. Surface antenna, depending on geology
and depth from the surface, does not always provide dependable one-way
communication.
Charge. The report correctly states that MSHA must examine two-way
communication systems to ensure they are intrinsically safe and further
states that ``this approval process can often take 1-2 years, although
MSHA has promised to give such wireless communication systems top
priority.''
Answer. Products used in underground mining have to meet
requirements that are not needed for above ground use. The possible
presence of methane and combustible dust along with tough environmental
conditions impose unique demands on communications equipment. This
equipment must also be able to withstand an explosion in order to be
effective after an accident. Therefore, MSHA works with manufacturers
to ensure their products can meet the unique safety and reliability
requirements demanded by underground mining. Although the MSHA approval
process can sometimes take 1-2 years, the turnaround time can typically
be significantly less if the applicant provides a complete application
package initially, and provides timely responses to MSHA requests for
corrections or test samples. The process timeline can be further
shortened if the product under evaluation does not require significant
re-design to achieve compliance or if no test failures are experienced.
MSHA has made a concerted effort to expedite all applications for
approval of these devices.
Charge. ``Underground Miners Still Cannot be Quickly Located.'' As
in the previous section of the report, the charge is ``The situation
here is similar to that for two-way wireless communication devices--
there are already approved systems that mine operators could adopt.''
The report further states that ``workable electronic tracking systems
for miners have been around since the 1980s, are not very expensive . .
. .''
Answer. To our knowledge, the first electronic tracking device was
approved by MSHA in 2003 and the only available MSHA-approved tracking
technology is radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. To use an
RFID system, the miner wears a ``tag'' that can be identified by
various ``readers'' located in strategic locations around the mine and
the system is only as accurate as the spacing of the readers. For
example, if the readers are located 4,000 feet apart, you can have up
to 4,000 feet of area where the miner's location would not be known.
While the ``tag'' is MSHA-approved, the ``readers'' are not MSHA-
approved and therefore, are not safe for use in an explosive
atmosphere; so miners located in these areas could not be tracked.
Also, RFID is a wire-based system so functionality may be lost in a
fire or explosion.
The MINER Act establishes that no later than 3 years after the date
of enactment, mine operator plans shall ``. . . provide for an
electronic tracking system permitting surface personnel to determine
the location of any persons trapped underground or set forth within the
plan the reasons such provisions cannot be adopted.'' MSHA continues to
review and field-test a number of emergency communications and tracking
systems that represent the most promising technologies for application
in underground mines. As of February 14, 2007, MSHA had observed
testing or demonstration of 19 communications and/or tracking systems
at various mine sites. MSHA technical personnel have met with
representatives from 48 communication and tracking system companies. To
date, we have had discussions with various vendors regarding 133
different proposals for development of mine communications and tracking
systems. We continue to work with the NIOSH Emergency Communication and
Testing Partnership to arrange for demonstrations of additional
systems. We are also assisting NIOSH in the review of proposals
received in response to the Requests for Proposals (RFPs).
underground refuges
Charge. ``MSHA approval of underground shelters is not required;
there are no intrinsic safety issues.''
Answer. The first priority in any mine accident is to evacuate
everyone from the mine, to the greatest extent possible. The focus of
the MINER Act is to ensure that miners are adequately trained and
supplied so that they can safely exit a mine in case of an emergency.
With regard to underground refuge chambers, MSHA approval for
permissibility in mines may be required depending on whether the
shelters use electricity; there may be safety issues when electrical
systems are used in the refuge shelters. These need to be carefully
reviewed to ensure that new safety hazards are not created for miners
after these chambers are installed.
Further, the MINER Act requires that NIOSH conduct research on
refuge alternatives and provide its report to MSHA by December 2007
(the MINER Act does not require NIOSH to provide technical
specifications to MSHA). Then, the Department of Labor has 180 days to
respond to the Congress about the report. MSHA began collecting
technical information about refuge chambers shortly after the Sago mine
tragedy and continues to do so. In October 2006, MSHA held a Mine
Rescue Technologies Expo in conjunction with the annual training
conference at the National Mine Academy in Beckley, West Virginia. The
Expo served to exchange information on international technologies for
refuge chambers and other safety advancements in the mining industry.
MSHA has reviewed prototypes of inflatable stoppings or other quickly
deployable barricade units that can be used to create a safe haven by
isolating the trapped miners from the potentially toxic mine
atmosphere. The study of these devices is ongoing as new products are
developed and submitted for review.
Charge. The report charges that MSHA did not implement the
`breathable air' provisions of the MINER Act in a timely manner.
Answer. On February 8, 2007, MSHA published the Program Information
Bulletin, PIB-07-03, as a practical approach that provides options for
implementing the requirement for breathable air. Mine operators are
required to include a provision for ``breathable air'' in their
emergency response plans. The MINER Act required MSHA to study the
``breathable air'' issue and develop the appropriate response. Prior to
issuing the PIB, MSHA sought public input by issuing a Request for
Information (RFI) from experts and the mining community.
Charge. Referring to the breathable air guidance provided by MSHA,
the report says ''On February 8, 2007, following a letter from Chairman
Miller to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao expressing concern about this
and several implementation delays, MSHA issued a Program Information
Bulletin to its district managers and mine operators providing some
guidance on these points.''
Answer. MSHA solicited public comment and worked diligently to
provide options for meeting this requirement.
Charge. The staff report criticizes the breathable air PIB for not
providing specific guidance for other safety related issues such as
protecting oxygen tanks from roof falls, fire hazards, and storage
concerns, the report says ``The PIB provides no specific guidance on
this point, although there appear to be some regulations from 1971 that
remain applicable.''
Answer. The report does not acknowledge the PIB attachments, which
provide storage, handling, and use information for compressed air and
oxygen cylinders, including sketches with suggested storage racks.
Charge. The report characterizes the ERP submission and approval
process as follows: ``Mine operators have a month to submit plans, but
additional delays can be expected as District Managers and operators
ask for clarification on a variety of alternatives, and individual
plans are likely to include long implementation timelines for whatever
approach is ultimately agreed upon.''
Answer. Congress included an expedited dispute resolution process
for ERPs in the MINER Act. This expedited process was meant to resolve
disputes quickly over plan content or a district manager's disapproval
of a plan. If the districts manager disapproves a plan and issues a
citation to the operator, the citation must be immediately referred to
an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Review Commission (FMSHRC). MSHA and the operator must submit all
relevant material to the ALJ within 15 days of the date of the
referral. The ALJ of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission must render a decision with respect to the plan dispute
within 15 days of the submission of material to the judge.
qualified rescue teams
Charge. ``Qualified Rescue Teams are Still not Available at All
Underground Mines.''--The House staff report goes on to say ``Many
rescue teams are highly qualified but may not have all the equipment
and operational support they need to do their jobs; until MSHA
completes these regulations and implements them, miner protection will
not be secure.''
Answer. The latest data indicated that there are currently 161 coal
mine rescue teams and 152 metal and nonmetal rescue teams. These teams
consist of company funded teams, state government funded teams,
contract teams, and teams made up of state employees. These teams are
all qualified, well equipped, and readily available for underground
mine rescue. The nation's miners are well served by these mine rescue
teams.
MSHA is working to finish its proposed rule on mine rescue teams
with expected publication this summer. These new regulations are
scheduled for completion by December 15 2007, as required by the MINER
Act.
disaster communication
Charge. ``According to some of the Sago families, however, as of
early this year they were still are not being kept well informed about
the status of the investigation of this tragedy, and MSHA has not been
responsive to their requests for information. . .''
Answer. Despite the implication of the staff report, the Agency has
completed several additional actions to fully implement Section 7 of
the MINER Act, including:
--A Program Policy Letter was issued on December 22, 2006, to
describe implementation of Section 7 of the MINER Act with
regard to both the Primary Communicator and the Family Liaison.
--On the same day, the Assistant Secretaries of the Office of Public
Affairs and the Mine Safety and Health Administration signed a
protocol firmly establishing Departmental support of a Primary
Communicator in accident cases where multiple miners are
trapped, unaccounted for, or where multiple fatalities have
occurred.
--Procedural instructions were issued to require the appropriate
application of personnel and resources to meet the obligation
for Family Liaison and Primary Communicator. These materials
are available on the MSHA website and have been released to the
mining community and the general public.
--In January 2007, MSHA trained 14 employees to act as family
liaisons at future mine accidents where multiple miners are
trapped, unaccounted for, or where multiple fatalities have
occurred. These individuals were selected based on their
credentials as technical mining experts, as well as their
ability to perform in stressful situations and in effective
communications. Training was provided by experts from the
National Transportation Safety Board and the Red Cross--
organizations having vast experience with grief management and
communications with families, media, and the public. The 14
employees are fully capable of filling the role of family
liaison. To assure the rapid availability of family liaisons,
additional employees will be trained in the future.
In both the Aracoma and Darby mine accidents, the lead accident
investigators have worked directly with family members to keep them
informed of progress in the investigations. Also, the lead
investigators attempted to respond to all questions and requests as
quickly as possible. We are unaware of any outstanding complaints by
the families of the Aracoma and Darby accident victims.
At Sago, a family liaison was assigned after the rescue and
recovery operations were completed. Both the assigned liaison and the
lead accident investigator have made every effort to respond to the
questions and requests of the Sago families in a timely manner. The
MSHA Sago mine accident investigation team, accompanied by the
Associate Solicitor for Mine Safety and Health, held several meetings
with family members which were intended to keep them fully apprised on
the progress of the investigation. Senior MSHA personnel will also meet
with the families again when the accident investigation report is final
and released to the public.
mine seals
Charge. The report declares that ``practically all underground coal
miners are in imminent danger'' based on a draft report from NIOSH on
mine seals.
Answer. The buildup of methane and the possibly improper
installation of mine seals present a serious hazard.
The sealing regulations that were promulgated in 1992 allowed for
alternative seals provided they withstand a static horizontal pressure
of 20 pounds per square inch (psi) and their method of installation and
the material used are approved in the ventilation plan. Tests were
conducted in the NIOSH Lake Lynn experimental mine that indicated an
alternative seal could withstand the 20 psi test.
However, after the mine accidents at Sago and Darby mines in 2006,
MSHA took action to reduce the risk associated with alternative seal
construction and increased the psi standard by 150 percent, from 20 to
50 psi. Beginning on June 1, 2006, prior to passage of the MINER Act,
MSHA took several actions to increase protection for miners. The agency
required: a temporary moratorium on the construction of new alternative
seals; operators to assess the atmosphere behind sealed areas of
existing alternative seals; operators to take remedial action if the
atmosphere behind the seal had the potential for an explosion; strength
and construction requirements for new alternative seals; inspection and
maintenance of existing alternative seals, including corrective action
when necessary; and MSHA approval of new alternative seals. MSHA is
considering whether other interim measures would be appropriate at this
time.
MSHA is constantly evaluating mine seals in a critical and
systematic fashion. This includes an evaluation of the integrity of the
seals as well as removing a portion of the coating on block seals to
determine if the mine operator had constructed the seals in accordance
with the ventilation plan requirements. The results of these efforts
can be seen in the enforcement activities of MSHA. From January 1,
2006, to March 6, 2007, a total of 558 seal violations were issued
nationwide. MSHA has examined all existing seals and taken corrective
action where necessary.
Section 10 of the MINER Act requires that the Department of Labor
finalize mandatory health and safety standards relating to the sealing
of abandoned areas in underground coal mines and provide for an
increase in the 20 psi standard, no later than December 15, 2007. MSHA
anticipates the publication of a proposed rule on seals by summer 2007.
On February 9, 2007, NIOSH issued a draft report on seals entitled
``Explosion Pressure Design Criteria for New Seals in U.S. Mines'' and
asked for public comments to be considered and evaluated before NIOSH
produces a final report. MSHA will consider the research that NIOSH has
completed and will continue to work with NIOSH as MSHA drafts its
proposed rule.
conveyor belts and belt air
Charge. The report does not make specific charges against MSHA with
regard to belt air. Instead, the report states that there are proposals
to suspend the belt air rule or outlaw the use of belt air to ventilate
a mine. One bill would ban belt air (i.e. to return the approach to
what it was before the Bush administration rule).
Answer. The MINER Act provides that MSHA convene a technical study
panel with members appointed by the Congress and the Departments of
Labor and Health and Human Services. The Panel was duly established by
the Department of Labor to provide independent scientific and
engineering review and recommendations with respect to the utilization
of belt air and the composition and fire retardant properties of belt
materials in underground coal mines.
MSHA convened the first meeting of the panel in January, 2007 and
the next meeting is scheduled for March 28, 29 and 30. Within one year
after the members' appointment, the Panel will submit a report to the
Secretary and the Congressional Committees concerning the use of belt
air and the composition and fire retardant properties of belt materials
in underground coal mines. No later than 180 days after receiving the
report, the Secretary of Labor will respond to the Congressional
Committees by describing what actions, if any, will be taken based on
the report, and the reasons for those actions.
The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 and the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 that superseded it, provided that
entries used as intake and return air courses be separated from belt
haulage entries, and that air coursed through belt entries be
prohibited from ventilating active working places. However, technology
improved over time and some mines submitted petitions for modification
under section 101(c) of the Mine Act to allow the use of belt air at
the working faces provided that certain conditions were met, including
the use of atmospheric monitoring systems in entries to monitor
conditions and detect combustion at the early stages of a fire.
There were 204 petitions for modifications that were granted to
allow the use of belt air as an additional intake air course between
1979 and 2003. As of February 7, 2007, 45 coal mines use belt air to
ventilate working faces.
On April 2, 2004, MSHA issued its final ``Belt Air Rule,'' which
eliminated the need for operators to file for petitions for
modification. The protections under the final rule, however, are at
least equal to those contained in the belt air petitions for
modifications that were granted and offer the same or an increased
level of protection to miners. In addition, all conveyor belts used in
underground coal mines are subject to the flammability testing as
stipulated in 30 CFR Part 18.65, which establishes the flame resistance
testing and acceptance requirements for conveyor belt materials. MSHA
flame resistance testing is conducted at MSHA's Approval and
Certification Center in Triadelphia, WV.
detecting methane gas and fires
Claim. The report discusses the necessity for ``electronic
detection devices that can avoid explosions and serious fires by
detecting for methane, carbon monoxide and smoke . . .'' and further
states that ``until action is taken, miners' lives remain at risk.''
Answer. MSHA took action to increase the numbers of multi-gas
detectors in underground coal mines in the Mine Emergency Evacuation
Rule, issued on December 8, 2006. In this rule, MSHA requires that the
mine operator provide an MSHA-approved, handheld, multi-gas detector,
which can measure methane, oxygen and carbon monoxide, to each group of
miners and to each miner working alone, that at least one miner in each
group be a qualified person and that each miner working alone be
trained to use the detectors to take gas readings and to interpret the
readings. Provisions are included in the Emergency Mine Evacuation
final rule that the detector must be maintained and calibrated as
specified by MSHA regulations.
penalty assessment
Charge. The report makes several charges regarding penalties. The
first is that ``MSHA has never actually issued a `pattern of
violations' citation.''
Answer. The Mine Act authorizes MSHA to issue a withdrawal order
under certain conditions disclosed by an inspection conducted within 90
days after a notice that the mine operator has a pattern of violations
of mandatory standards that could have significantly and substantially
contributed to mine hazards. MSHA has a regulation that provides for a
letter warning mine operators that they have a potential pattern of
violations before the statutory notice is issued. While MSHA has issued
such letters, it has never proceeded to issue the statutory notice.
MSHA has recently initiated the development of objective criteria to
identify mines that may have a pattern of violations. Once this new
criteria is in place, MSHA will issue pattern of violations notices and
orders where warranted.
Charge. ``MSHA does not have authority to close down entire mines;
only sections thereof.''
Answer. MSHA has authority to shut down an entire mine if the
hazard being cited affects the entire mine. MSHA inspectors determine
the extent of the area in the mine affected by an imminent danger or
closure order and will close that area of the mine, or the entire mine,
depending on the conditions they observe. For example, if there is a
major ventilation problem at the mine causing high levels of methane to
be detected, the entire mine is considered the affected area. An MSHA
inspector would immediately close down the entire mine until the
condition is abated.
MSHA district managers retain the right to approve or disapprove
ventilation, roof control, or emergency response plans at each
underground coal mine. This authority can also be used to close a mine
because, without an approved plan, a mine operator is not allowed to
legally operate the mine. It is the mine operator's responsibility to
develop and follow a plan which incorporates safe and healthful plan
provisions.
Charge. MSHA's approval authority regarding mine plans ``simply
leads to negotiation over implementation.''
Answer. The MINE Act provides the operator is entitled to adopt a
plan and the Secretary to grant approval. The process often requires
discussion and some refinements to the operator's proposed plan. MSHA
disagrees with the assertion that implies that inadequate plans are
approved. Compliance with MSHA's health and safety requirements are not
negotiable. Mine operators must submit a plan for approval or they
cannot operate the mine. MSHA will not approve a plan that is
inadequate.
MSHA proposes assessments which a mine operator may pay in full or
contest before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
(Commission). The Commission has the authority to assess penalties.
When MSHA proposes assessments it takes into account the six statutory
criteria which also guide the Commission. These criteria are: (1) the
operator's history of previous violations; (2) the appropriateness of
such penalty to the size of the business of the operator charged; (3)
whether the operator was negligent; (4) the effect on the operator's
ability to continue in business; (5) the gravity of the violation; and,
(6) the demonstrated good faith of the person charged in attempting to
achieve rapid compliance after notification of a violation.
MSHA's new civil penalty final rule was published in the Federal
Register on March 22, 2007. The final rule will result in an across-
the-board increase in penalties; the amounts will increase more
significantly for operators with histories of repeat violations of the
same standard and operators whose violations involve high degrees of
negligence or gravity. The final rule eliminates the single penalty
assessment provision of $60 for non-significant and substantial
violations in favor of a regular assessment. It also includes minimum
penalties of $2,000 and $4,000, depending on whether there is a
withdrawal order for unwarrantable failure violations. In addition,
flagrant violations--those involving ``a reckless or repeated failure
to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a
mandatory health or safety standard that substantially and proximately
caused, or reasonably could have been expected to cause, death or
serious bodily injury''--may receive a maximum penalty of $220,000.
Finally, a mine operator who fails to timely notify MSHA of a death, or
injury or entrapment with a reasonable potential to cause death, may
face penalties between $5,000 and $60,000.
msha mission support
Claim. The report states that it is ``too early to assess whether
MSHA is properly training new inspectors.''
Answer. Training enforcement personnel.--MSHA has revised the
training requirements for new coal mine inspectors. In the past, entry-
level training was stretched out as much as 2 years. By hiring
additional instructors at the Mine Academy, revising the training
schedule, condensing time between class modules, and streamlining the
delivery of the training curriculum, inspectors can now graduate in
approximately 1 year with the same or better skills. Some of the
training is now done on line or in the new inspector's home district
and some training classes have been combined to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the training program. Listed below are classes
within the trainee curriculum.
Orientation/Introduction to MSHA; Diversity; Effective Writing;
Intro to Laptops; Law Regulation and Policy; Notetaking/Citations and
Order Writing; Root Cause Analysis; Inspection Procedures; Inspectors
Portable Application for Laptops (IPAL); Workplace Examinations;
Longwall; Mine Maps/Gas Detecting Devices; Simulated Inspection;
Electrical Permissibility; Diesel Permissibility; Combustible Materials
and Rockdusting; Professionalism; Safety Talks I; Part 48 Training
Requirements; Part 50 Reporting Requirements & Auditing; Conference
Presentation Preparation PP; Conference Presentation; Introduction to
Special Investigations; Noise/Respirable Dust; Interviewing Techniques;
Mine Act 107(a)/103(g); Fire Protection; Ventilation; Accident
Investigation; Ground Control; Part 45 Contractors; and Mine Act
104(g)/Part 48.
The Interim Staff Report states that ``it is important that these
inspectors not be permitted to go out on their own until they have
completed adequate training, as they could miss life-threatening
hazards.'' MSHA concurs with this assessment. Currently, the trainee is
not permitted to receive his/her authorized representative (AR) card
until criteria have been fulfilled, including successful completion of
Academy training modules and satisfactory evaluations of the trainee
from the Academy Instructor, trainee's supervisor to District and Coal
Headquarters management. In addition, the trainee must have completed
on-the-job training and demonstrated, during supervisory- and
inspectors-accompanied inspections, the ability to independently
conduct periodic on-site health and safety inspections at coal mines.
Hiring Enforcement Personnel.--With the special supplemental
funding from Congress, MSHA is in the process of hiring an additional
170 new coal enforcement personnel. The hiring will occur over 5
quarters beginning in July 2006 and ending on September 30, 2007. The
chart below shows the number of enforcement personnel hired, broken
down by district, per quarter. To date, MSHA has filled their
commitments through the first three quarters of the hiring plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date and district Hired
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 2006-September 2006:
District 3, Bridgeport, WV............................. 3
District 3, Morgantown, WV............................. 2
District 4, Mt. Hope, WV............................... 6
District 4, Mt. Carbon, WV............................. 1
District 4, Logan, WV.................................. 1
District 4, Madison, WV................................ 1
District 4, Princeton, WV.............................. 1
District 7, Barbourville, KY........................... 4
District 7, Hazard, KY................................. 1
District 9, Gillette, WY............................... 1
------------
Total................................................ 21
============
October 2006-December 2006:
District 2, Clearfield, PA............................. 2
District 3, Morgantown, WV............................. 1
District 3, St. Clairsville, OH........................ 1
District 4, Madison, WV................................ 1
District 4, Logan, WV.................................. 1
District 5, Norton, VA................................. 2
District 5, Vansant, VA................................ 2
District 6, Whitesburg, KY............................. 2
District 6, Martin, KY................................. 2
District 6, Hindman, KY................................ 1
District 8, Vincennes, IN.............................. 1
District 9, Craig, CO.................................. 3
District 10, Madisonville, KY.......................... 1
District 10, Morganfield, KY........................... 1
------------
Total................................................ 21
============
January 2007--March 31, 2007:
District 2, Clearfield, PA............................. 2
District 2, Indiana, PA................................ 1
District 2, Johnstown, PA.............................. 1
District 2, Ruff Creek, PA............................. 4
District 3, St. Clairsville, OH........................ 4
District 4, Madison, WV................................ 1
District 4, Pineville, WV.............................. 1
District 5, Norton, VA................................. 2
District 5, Vansant, VA................................ 2
District 6, Martin, KY................................. 1
District 7, Barbourville, KY........................... 1
District 7, Harlan, KY................................. 3
District 7, Hazard, KY................................. 2
District 8, Hillsboro, IL.............................. 1
District 9, Delta, CO.................................. 1
District 9, Gillette, WY............................... 1
District 9, Price, UT.................................. 1
District 10, Beaver Dam, KY............................ 1
District 10, Madisonville, KY.......................... 1
District 11, Bessemer, AL.............................. 1
------------
Total................................................ 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, MSHA's goal is to backfill retiring enforcement
personnel. Our goal is to not only hire 170 supplemental hires by
September 30, 2007, but to replace enforcement personnel lost to
attrition such as retirements, at a one-to-one rate. As of March 19,
2007, an additional 51 enforcement personnel have been hired thereby
offsetting the vast majority of losses realized through attrition. At
the end of fiscal year 2007, MSHA is projecting to have 757 enforcement
personnel on board. This staffing would mark the highest level of coal
enforcement personnel since 1994.
conclusion
MSHA disagrees with the conclusion of the staff report that the
agency [is] ``failing to self-initiate important safety improvements.''
It further states that MSHA ``needs to do better, and quickly move on
to address the many other critical safety and health risks to miners
that require prompt attention before new disasters occur.''
MSHA is moving aggressively to implement important new safety
improvements in the MINER Act. Since passage of the MINER Act, MSHA has
taken the following regulatory and special emphasis enforcement
actions:
--Published final rule on Emergency Mine Evacuation implementing many
mandated provisions; final rule requires additional SCSRs,
improved SCSR and drill training, directional lifelines, and
multi-gas detectors for underground coal mines, and prompt
accident notification for all mines;
--Issued final rule on civil penalties, including penalty provisions
in the MINER Act; final rule published March 22, 2007;
--Issued guidance to help operators develop emergency response plans;
--Issued guidance to operators on post-accident breathable air;
--MSHA is considering 13 flagrant violation citations and orders, a
first in the Agency's history.
--Issued policies on family liaison and primary communicator
positions--trained MSHA officials to be family liaisons;
--Issued guidance to mine operators and MSHA personnel on alternative
seals: increased the strength requirement; improved inspection
and monitoring requirements; and improved approval
requirements;
--Inspected all seals, requiring corrective action where necessary;
--Evaluated testing and/or demonstration of post-accident
communications and tracking systems;
--Established the Technical Study Panel on the Utilization of Belt
Air; held the first meeting;
--Drafting proposed rules on mine rescue teams and sealing of
abandoned areas in underground coal mines;
--Initiated a special emphasis program in two districts to help
identify and reduce risks to miners who are engaged in retreat
mining;
--Initiated a special emphasis program to reduce health risks to
miners exposed to coal dust;
--Developing a new protocol to be rolled-out soon for addressing
mines that exhibit a ``pattern of violations;''
--Approved two proximity protection systems, providing improved
protection to miners who work underground near dangerous
equipment; and
--Hired 125 new coal enforcement personnel as a result of
Supplemental Appropriations and plans to hire a net of 170 coal
enforcement personnel by September 30, 2007.
MSHA believes that this list of accomplishments demonstrates solid
commitment to improving safety in our Nation's mines.
Senator Harkin. I just have one question for Dr. Howard.
What I'm concerned about, is how we maintain an interest in new
technology, when there hasn't been a recent disaster--thank
God--and when we've had this massive new legislation passed. To
get new innovations, and especially when you're not talking
about something that is going to be widely used, where maybe an
innovator might make a lot of money, because they sell millions
of these units, there's just not that big of a demand out there
for the kind of innovation, perhaps, that we're talking about.
I'm intrigued by groups like the X-Prize Foundation that
offer prize money for innovation. Every year, NASA offers up to
$500,000 in the Centennial Prize Program to the first company
or individual to solve a technology problem.
The Defense Advance Research Project Agency--DARPA, as we
all know--offers up $2 million in the Grand Challenge program
to whatever company shows that their technology will solve a
problem that DARPA has come up with. Should we do something
like that? How about annual prize in mine safety innovation?
Hold out a $1 million or $2 million out there, something like
that. Have you have ever considered that?
Dr. Howard. I think it's a great idea. Would we have the
resources to accomplish that, we'd be happy to do that. I think
it's a very innovative idea.
Senator Harkin. Well, maybe we ought to think about getting
the resources out there. Because, it just seems to me, this is
like that kind of a situation. Where you want to encourage
innovation, but there's not a huge market out there for it.
But, it's a problem that needs to be solved.
Well, we'll discuss it further with you on that. That's all
I have, and with that, we--did you have anything else to add,
Mr. Stickler, or Dr. Howard, or Dr. Kohler, any last things
before we dismiss you? Time is running out, we should get our
next panel.
Senator Byrd. May I ask a question here?
Senator Harkin. Oh, I'm sorry, yes.
Senator Byrd. Dr. Howard and Mr. Stickler--last summer, the
weekly mortality and morbidity report by the CDC noted clusters
of rapidly progressive pneumoconiosis, black lung, among miners
in Southwestern Virginia, and Eastern Kentucky.
The article noted several possible reasons for the
continuing occurrence of advanced cases of black lung. That the
current Federal respirable dust limit is too high, and it needs
to be lowered, or that the severity of black lung may be
increasing because of the toxicity of the coal being mined. I
suggest a third possible reason, namely that MSHA may not be
enforcing the current dust laws as effectively as they should
be. How do you explain the appearance of such aggressive cases
of black lung?
Dr. Howard. Senator, we are actively investigating the
outbreak of coal workers' pneumoconiosis in relatively young
miners in certain counties along the Kentucky, Virginia, West
Virginia border. Like us, we're looking at those kinds of
possibilities. But we, today, cannot tell you exactly what the
cause is.
We have briefed United Mine Workers, we have briefed the
industry, we have briefed MSHA, and I think we--hopefully--can
all work together to give you those answers, so that we know--
beyond reasonable doubt--what the issues are. We need to solve
this problem.
Senator Byrd. I hope you will continue to actively pursue
that.
Would you respond, too, Mr. Stickler?
Mr. Stickler. I met with Dr. Howard and the folks at NIOSH
on this, and discussed the issues and some of the concerns
about hot-spot areas, in other words, areas where there seems
to be a higher prevalence of black lung disease, particularly
among young miners.
We talked about some of the things that we can do, and one
idea that we're going forward on is identifying the mines that
these individuals are showing first-stage black lung, or
pneumoconiosis, identifying the mines that they work at now,
and in the past. MSHA plans to focus our enforcement to
increase the enforcement at those operations, and also increase
the amount of education and training to get people to
understand the risk that they're taking, when they're exposed
to coal dust.
Senator Byrd. I compliment you, and I hope you'll continue.
Mr. Stickler. Thank you.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, I thank this panel, you're dismissed, we'll call up
our second panel.
Mr. Cecil Roberts, Mr. Bruce Watzman, Mr. Davitt McAteer,
and Mr. Chris Hamilton.
We'll start with this panel in the order that I have them
listed here, we'll start first with Mr. Cecil Roberts,
International President of the United Mine Workers of America.
President Roberts is a sixth-generation coal miner, both of
his grandfathers were killed in the mines before he was born.
He graduated from West Virginia Technical College, where he
also received an Honorary Doctorate in Humanities.
Then, we'll go with, then, Mr. Watzman, Mr. McAteer, and
Mr. Hamilton, in that order.
Mr. Roberts, great friend, welcome to this committee, and
please proceed.
Again, all of your testimonies will be made a part of the
record in their entirety. If you could just sum it up in 5
minutes, I'd sure appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF CECIL ROBERTS, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT,
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for conducting this hearing today, I
know it was at the urging of my dear friend, and the coal
miner's best friend, ever, Senator Byrd.
I also want to thank you and Senator Specter for your
leadership last year, when this issue came before you. I know
that Senator Shelby came in, and I met him--unfortunately--
during the 2001 Jim Walters No. 5 disaster, and he showed great
compassion at that time.
I also think it would be very appropriate if I could
express on behalf of the coal miner's of this Nation, the
families who suffered through these disasters last year, our
deep appreciation to all of you, for what you've done to try to
make things better, and the coal miners of the United States of
America. I know I speak on their behalf in expressing their
appreciation.
I think it would be important to note something that I
think has been expressed here today. What would happen tomorrow
morning in the Nation's coal mines if we had a similar
explosion--God forbid--as we did on January 2, 2006? The truth
of the matter is, that we would have the same types of
problems, if this occurred tomorrow morning. Why is that?
It is true that this MINER Act is a wonderful piece of
legislation, and it mandates many things that we asked for at
the time of this debate a year ago. The amount of oxygen that
has been required by MSHA, we applaud, it's 96 hours of oxygen.
I remind you, had the Sago miners had access to 96 hours of
oxygen, they--at least 11 of those 12 miners--would be here
with us today. So, that is a step forward. The problem we have
is that all mines do not have 96 hours of oxygen underground,
currently, because of one of the problems that was outlined by
Mr. Stickler here, previously.
I'm going to speak, I'm going to somewhat--as I listened to
the testimony earlier, so that we could have a feel for where
we find ourselves today. One of the questions that was posed
earlier, was this question of flammable belts and ventilating
the face with belt air. If we recall, last year we pointed out,
in 2001 there were 17 rules that were pending in 2001 that were
eliminated by the new administration when they took office. One
of those rules that happened to be pending at that time,
Senator Specter, dealt with flammable belts. So, to suggest
that we can't do anything about flammable belts, we were well
on the way in 2001 towards doing something with respect to
flammable belts.
This issue of ventilating the face with belt air, I would
suggest to you that one of the problems that we have here that
has taken place since 1969 is this issue of the intent of
Congress being written into the law, and somehow we find
ourselves here today suggesting that we need to do something
about ventilating the face with belt air, and if you read the
law the Congress passed in 1969, you would be hard-pressed not
to come to the conclusion that it forbids that. That somehow,
down through the years, we have come to this place we find
ourselves in today. That is, we're arguing over whether or not
it's a good practice or not, Congress knew in 1969 that that
was not a good practice.
So, as we come today, we would also not be able to
communicate with miners who might find themselves on the wrong
side of one of these explosions, and it's true, there's been a
lot of discussion, and a lot of debate, about what type of
communications we should have, and the development of that
technology, and I applaud everyone's efforts at NIOSH, and MSHA
with respect to that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
But you know, we could--and this was discussed during the
debate on the MINER Act, and when we brought the families in
here, come up with a extra line, hard-line, going into mines at
very little cost, while we argue over this technology. I'm very
excited about being here today, I'm so pleased that we have not
forgotten about this issue. It did take us awhile to get to the
next piece of congressionally-mandated law of some 30 years--
and I said last year, I hope it's not another 30 years before
we get to the next one. But thank all of you, for this
opportunity on behalf of the miners, and all those that have
been left behind by these tragedies.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cecil Roberts
improving mine safety: one year after sago and alma
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to appear before your
Committee. As President of the United Mine Workers of America
(``UMWA''), I represent the union that, for 117 years, has been an
unwavering advocate for miners' health and safety.
This entire Committee has played a significant role in advancing
miners' health and safety. I would like to express my appreciation to
the leadership of this Committee for your efforts to protect the health
and safety of all miners. Your continued oversight is critical to
ensuring miners will go home safely at the end of their shift.
One year ago I testified about miners' health and safety shortly
after the Sago and Alma disasters; even after those two dramatic
tragedies occurred, 32 more coal miners were killed in 2006.
Following the Sago and Alma disasters and after five more miners
were killed on May 20, 2006 at the Darby Mine in Kentucky, Congress
moved to enact the MINER Act. That law includes several important
provisions aimed at helping miners after a mine emergency develops. It
is most appropriate for you to consider whether the improvements
Congress intended to accomplish through the MINER Act are being
realized. The Union supports MSHA's efforts to require substantially
more oxygen for every miner. The emergency mine evacuation rule also
contains a number of important improvements. Having said that, my
testimony will focus attention on areas that MSHA needs to dedicate
additional resources to fully implement the MINER Act.
Some of the inadequacies in implementing the MINER Act may be
linked to insufficient resources. However, others can be tracked to
decisions made by the agency. In 2001, then Assistant Secretary for
Mine Health and Safety, David Lauriski told members of the National
Mining Association that MSHA would, ``collaborate more with mine
operators on regulatory initiatives'' and become ``less confrontational
with mine operators, in an effort to provide companies with better
compliance assistance.'' At a meeting with mine operators in Hindman,
Kentucky, he bragged about his diminutive regulatory agenda. He noted,
``if you've seen it you noticed its quite a bit shorter than some past
agendas.'' These policy statements were accompanied by a withdrawal of
many proposed regulations by MSHA and a noticeable shift to compliance
assistance. These compliance assistance programs divert precious
resources away from enforcement. Perhaps most tragically, in many
cases, MSHA has ignored the mandate of Congress by adopting regulations
and policies that place miners at greater risk.
mine inspectors /mine inspections
The agency is experiencing great difficulty in fulfilling the
mandatory inspections required under the Mine Act. The Union is
convinced that the hiring and training of more MSHA inspectors must be
a top and continuing priority. The agency must have a full complement
of properly trained personnel if it is to perform its primary job of
enforcing the Mine Act. The ranks of the inspectors have been
diminished over the years and we can expect further reductions as more
of MSHA's long-time inspectors leave the profession as they reach
retirement age. These needs can only be filled by hiring qualified
individuals from all segments of the industry, including rank and file
miners. These new inspectors must also be outfitted with state of the
art equipment for personal protection and to perform their inspection
duties. Sufficient monies must be allocated to ensure this equipment is
readily available to these inspectors.
As the number of inspectors have decreased, MSHA's field office
specialists, including ventilation specialists and its electrical and
roof control support staff, have been forced to carry out routine mine
inspections. These specialists must be returned to their areas of
expertise. The only way to accomplish this is to hire an adequate
number of inspectors which will permit the specialists to focus on the
job they are trained to do. In addition, the agency must move
immediately to train a sufficient number of inspectors to perform these
technical tasks in the future.
I would like to thank Senator Byrd and the other members of the
Committee who worked to secure $25.6 million to hire an additional 170
mine inspectors and your continuing efforts to secure future funding.
Congress must ensure that funding levels at the Mine Academy in
Beckley, WV remain sufficient to meet future training needs for mine
inspectors. This facility is used to train mine inspectors and also
offers comprehensive training for miners and other health and safety
experts.
seals
In 1969 and again in 1977 Congress mandated that ``explosion proof
seals or bulkheads'' be used to isolate abandoned or worked out areas
of the mine from active workings. However, in the years since, MSHA has
promulgated regulations regarding seals that are much less protective
than what Congress mandated. The current regulation simply requires
that seals withstand static pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (psi)
in order to be approved for installation in the mine. The standard was
further eroded when MSHA approved the use of Omega Block type seals,
such as those that were used at Sago. These Omega Block seals
catastrophically failed as a result of the explosion at Sago and
contributed to the deaths of all 12 miners.
The UMWA urges MSHA to promulgate a regulation that would require
the construction of seals that meet the mandates of Congress and the
recommendations in NIOSH's draft report on mine seals.
regulations
The UMWA believes that MSHA should adopt an aggressive regulatory
agenda to address important issues in addition to those contained in
the MINER Act, including:
1. Improved Atmospheric Monitoring Systems
2. Develop a Nationwide Emergency Communication System
3. Revise MSHA's Approval and Certification Process for Equipment
Approval
4. Occupational Exposure to Coal Mine Dust (lowering exposure
limits)
5. Collection of Civil Penalties (mandatory mine closures for non-
payment)
6. Air Quality Chemical Substances and Respiratory Protection
Standards (update personal exposure limits)
7. Surface Haulage (truck, haul road, train and loadout safety)
8. Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard (reducing quartz
standard)
9. Requirements for Approval of Flame Resistant Conveyor Belts
10. Confined Spaces (tight quartered work areas)
11. Training and Retraining of Miners (revision of Part 48)
12. Surge and Storage Piles (dozer/feeder safety surface)
13. Escapeways and Refuges
14. Accident Investigation Hearing Procedures (make them public)
15. Verification of Surface Coal Mine Dust Control Plans
16. Continuous Monitoring of Respirable Coal Mine Dust in
Underground Coal Mines
17. Modify Conferencing Process (Appeals of Citations)
18. Underground Coal Mining, Self-Contained Self-Rescuer Service
Life Approval and Training.
recording fatal accidents
Just last week MSHA issued new guidelines for determining what
constitutes a mine related fatality. The ``Fatal Injury Guideline
Matrix'' narrows the scope of what the agency will define as a fatal
accident chargeable to the mine operator. This will allow the agency to
report numbers that are artificially low and possibly skew the actual
health and safety record of the mine and the industry. In addition,
fatals not listed as mine-related will not get the same scrutiny as a
chargeable accident. Without the formal investigation process, lessons
learned will not be available to prevent similar events in the future.
The Union also disagrees with the Committee established by the
agency to review deaths where chargeability is in question. The
Committee is made up of upper-level MSHA employees and not open to
other agencies, organizations or the public. This type of structure
does not lend itself to a fair, unbiased review of the situation.
implementation of the miner act
In the MINER Act, Congress mandated timelines for its
implementation. In some cases, MSHA has failed to meet these deadlines.
The Union urges Congress to allocate adequate funding to MSHA so it can
fully implement this Act within the timeframes set by Congress.
The Emergency Mine Evacuation Rule, which is separate from the
MINER Act but ties into the self-contained self-rescuers (SCSRs)
requirements, was finalized and made effective December 8, 2006.
However, miners working underground today do not have all the
protections that Rule addresses. MSHA deems the operator to be in
compliance with the Rule if it has placed an order for additional
SCSRs. Although the Rule requires increased availability and storage of
SCSRs, there is a backlog of orders for these life-sustaining units.
While the Union is extremely frustrated that more than a year after the
Sago and Alma disasters, many miners only have 1 additional hour of
oxygen, in light of this backlog, the Union supports MSHA's approach to
make the additional oxygen units equally available to all miners. In
reality, it will still take a number of years before miners receive the
protections mandated by Congress. Miners cannot wait for another mine
disaster to occur to drive new technology, therefore, the Union
strongly urges the development and approval of the next generation
SCSR.
The Rule also requires ``expectations'' training on SCSRs. This
would allow miners to experience the actual effects of donning a unit
and attempting an escape. The practice units would allow miners to
experience the breathing restriction and heating that SCSRs create,
without risking their safety. While MSHA claims these practice units
are not available for purchase, they are in fact available. The reason
these devices are not being used by miners today is not availability,
it is cost. Many mine operators simply do not want to spend the money
to buy them. This is unacceptable and while we commend MSHA for
promulgating a rule that is intended to be ``technology-driven,'' it
must now enforce that rule.
Moreover, the finality of this emergency response and evacuation
rule is somewhat uncertain as the National Mining Association (NMA)
filed a court challenge. The Union is not certain which aspects of the
rule NMA is contesting, but it is certain that such legal maneuvers
delays the protections Congress mandated only last year.
Congress understood the importance of requiring that mine operators
have comprehensive emergency response plans at all their operations.
The MINER Act permitted operators a 60 day period to prepare these
plans and submit them to the agency for review and approval. However,
many of the mine emergency response plans that operators submitted were
grossly inadequate, and not worthy of approval. We are now over 6
months beyond the deadline established by Congress. While we commend
MSHA for not approving these faulty plans, we do believe it must be
more aggressive and apply more pressure on the operators to get these
plans completed. Unless MSHA takes decisive action and resolves all the
remaining issues, miners will not get the mine emergency response
improvements that Congress intended.
Further, the mine emergency response plans are to be reviewed and
re-approved by MSHA every 6 months. We are already 6 months beyond the
original plan due date. If those first plans are not yet approved and
fully implemented, how can we expect MSHA to handle these semi-annual
reviews? Perhaps MSHA needs more manpower to handle this task, but
whatever the answer, until every operation has an approved plan in
place, miners are not getting the protections Congress intended.
Very little has changed in the last year concerning the ability to
communicate with and locate trapped miners. While we have learned more
about this technology and understand that much is available, very few
operators have taken advantage of it. Communication systems and
tracking devices are areas that MSHA must pursue more aggressively.
Current communication and tracking technology, including one-way text
messaging and two-way wireless systems, some of which are available
now, must be immediately installed in all mines. Any system that can
increase the ability for miners to escape a mine emergency, even if it
is limited in scope, must be utilized. The Federal Government, through
NIOSH and MSHA, must fund and direct continued studies and research to
develop the next generation of tracking and communication devices. As
this newer technology becomes available, mine operators must be
required to upgrade existing systems at all its operations.
We are also troubled by MSHA's failure to undertake action to
facilitate the creation and training of additional mine rescue teams.
Congress in the MINER Act clearly outlined its intent regarding the
need for additional mine rescue teams. In addition, the language
clearly defines how this is to be applied at both large and small
mines. While Congress allowed MSHA 18 months in which to prepare,
finalize, and give effect to rules that increase and enhance mine
rescue team requirements, so far MSHA has not addressed this need. The
need is real, and it is immediate. In the not-too-distant future MSHA
will need additional funding to certify that mine rescue teams are
qualified, as contemplated by the MINER Act.
Over the past 20 years MSHA and some operators have weakened the
intent of the current regulations regarding mine rescue protections.
The existing mine rescue team structure is spread too thin. It takes a
lot of time and much practice for any mine rescue team to function
well. The UMWA has training facilities and is willing to provide mine
rescue training and first responder training if we receive the
necessary funding. Miners cannot afford to wait any longer for the
training of new teams to begin.
collection of civil penalties
In the MINER Act, Congress charged MSHA with revising and enhancing
its penalty structure. MSHA proposed a revised schedule, but it is not
yet final, so it is difficult for us to comment about whether it will
induce any better compliance by operators.
However, even without a new fine structure, the agency needs to do
a better job of tracking and collecting the fines it imposes, and it
should escalate the pressure when an operator refuses to pay a final
penalty. Last year MSHA blamed computer problems on its inability to
track fines. We understand that it still faces some technological
challenges. If that is the case, then MSHA needs to fix the problem.
When fines go unpaid it not only gives an unfair competitive advantage
to the delinquent operator, but that operator's disregard for the mine
health and safety laws and regulations imposes excessive risk on its
employees.
To the extent that MSHA takes the position that it cannot close an
operation for having substantial unpaid fines, we submit that Congress
should grant the agency such authority. MSHA's top personnel claim that
if it had that authority the agency would exercise it to close
operators who refuse to pay their fines. We would welcome that.
msha hotline
The Union has complained for some time that the current hotline
system miners use to report hazardous conditions is ineffective.
Recently, a member of the UMWA called the 800 number listed on MSHA's
website to report a problem at the mine where he worked and was
frustrated by problems he encountered. The individual who answered the
call, a contract employee, did not have any knowledge of mining, making
it extremely difficult for the miner to convey the message. Further,
the individual at the call center was not remotely familiar with MSHA's
District structure and was therefore uncertain which office should
receive the complaint.
The Union has stressed on many occasions that the MSHA hotline
should be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by MSHA personnel with
an understanding
of the mining industry and the agency. The current practice of
contracting this work out to call centers lessens miners' health and
safety.
belt-air
In keeping with the mandates of Congress in the 1969 Coal Act, and
the 1977 Mine Act, which strictly prohibits the use of belt-air to
ventilate working places, the Union has historically been opposed to
the use of belt-air to ventilate the working places. The 2006 Alma
disaster is a reminder that there is no safe way to ventilate working
sections using belt-air. This mine fire was intensified by air from the
belt entry, and the contaminated air was dumped onto miners working
inby. In addition, conveyor belts used in the mining industry must be
made of non-flammable material.
In the MINER Act, Congress directed that there be created a
Technical Study Panel to provide independent scientific and engineering
review and recommendations with respect to belt air and belt materials;
the Study Panel is then to issue a report to the Secretaries of Labor
and Health and Human Services, as well as the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the House Committee on
Education and Labor. While this Technical Study Panel has been
constituted and had its first meetings last month, we harbor
reservations about its administration. Congress was silent as to its
administration, but MSHA staff is providing the support personnel. If
its first meetings are any indication, MSHA seems more invested in
defending the belt air decisions it has already made, than simply
servicing the Study Panel. Congress assigned this Study Panel to offer
an ``independent'' review and recommendations, and we hope it can
overcome MSHA's bias in favor of belt air.
funding for additional programs and health and safety protections
The Union would urge Congress to adequately fund other agencies and
programs that advance the Health and Safety of the nation's miners.
These include:
--Pittsburgh Research Center
--Lake Lynn Facility
--Appalachian Laboratory for Occupational Health and Safety in
Morgantown, WV
--Approval and Certification Center
--Personal Dust Monitors (PDM)
--Colorado School of Mines
conclusion
One year ago many of you were present when I testified before the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to discuss
and review the performance of MSHA and the overall state of mine health
and safety. That testimony followed the first two disasters of 2006 at
the Sago and Alma Mines. At that time, I described many of the
shortcomings in miners' health and safety.
I am sorry to report that MSHA's efforts over the past year would
do little to change matters today if a mine were to experience an
explosion like the one at Sago, or a mine fire like the one at Alma;
indeed the underground miners would likely fair no better than those
who perished over one year ago. Thanks to the MINER Act, I can presume
that any incident would be reported within the initial 15 minutes.
However, there is no reason to expect that a sufficient number of mine
rescue teams would respond quickly. This is because the last year has
seen virtually no progress in either expanding the number or improving
the proximity of qualified mine rescue teams.
MSHA still allows mine operators to ventilate working sections with
belt-air, and non-flammable belts are still not required. Today there
are no requirements that operators provide systems that would enable
miners to communicate with the surface or vice versa. There is nothing
in place that requires an operator to be able to locate trapped miners,
and very few could do so. Safety chambers are not required, nor are
safe havens prescribed. Most operators do not have a complete approved
emergency response plan as required by the MINER Act. Many miners
caught in a disaster would likely have one additional hour of oxygen as
opposed to early 2006, but please remember that it took more than 40
hours for the first mine rescue teams to reach the miners at Sago.
We are most appreciative that Congress has worked towards
increasing MSHA's budget so more mine inspectors can inspect mines to
ensure compliance with the Mine Act. We implore MSHA to demonstrate a
similar commitment to enforcing the Mine Act and to improving miners'
health and safety so that our industry will never again experience
another mine disaster like Sago or Alma. Technology is progressing on a
daily basis and the UMWA urges MSHA to require mine operators to employ
improvements as they become available.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts.
I would turn to Mr. Bruce Watzman, Vice President for
Safety, Health and Human Resources for the National Mining
Association. Mr. Watzman was appointed recently to the Mine
Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee. His
undergraduate degree is in economics and psychology, and a
post-graduate degree in environmental health management.
Mr. Watzman.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE WATZMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
MINING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Watzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the
opportunity to discuss with you what we've done since the
tragic events last year, and since passage of the MINER Act,
which NMA supported.
In January 2006, we established the Mine Safety Technology
and Training Commission, an independent body to study new
technologies, procedures and training techniques that can
further enhance safety in the Nation's underground coal mines.
The commission drew upon the knowledge and experience of
mine safety and health professionals from academia, government,
industry, and the United Mine Workers to develop an active
blueprint to advance miner safety. The commission's peer review
report was published in December 2006, and delivered to the
National Mine Association, and that would ask that it be made a
part of the hearing record.
The commission unanimously adopted 75 recommendations that
are both near-term, and far-reaching in scope. Many endorse
actions by Congress in its passage of the MINER Act. The
central theme of the Commission's recommendations is a call for
a new paradigm, that focuses on a systematic and comprehensive
risk assessment-based approach towards prevention. This will
require us to look at mining differently, and to train miners
differently. We're currently implementing a number of the
commission's near-term recommendations, and developing a
blueprint for action on the more far-reaching items.
For example, we're discussing with NIOSH the development of
risk-based management tools and templates to assist the
industry in its implementation of the central recommendation.
Our goal is to help every company identify and address
significant hazards, before they create situations that
threaten life or property.
Turning to the MINER Act, which NMA supported--the
requirements recognized the need for a forward-looking risk
assessment, that good safety practice continually evolve based
upon experience and technologic development, and that every
underground coal mine presents a unique environment. As the
act's legislative history succinctly states, ``The goals of
optimizing safety and survivability must be unchanging. But,
the manner for doing so must be practical and sensible.''
This serves as a useful reminder to the industry and
regulators, that there is often more than one way to achieve
our singular purpose of improved workplace safety. Even before
enactment of the MINER Act, we were engaged with NIOSH and MSHA
in an emergency communication partnership, to evaluate current
practices and technologies, and design performance criteria and
protocols for testing. Some of these technologies hold great
promise, however, they are some years away from readiness for
mine application.
Communications and safety experts agree that underground
coal mines present unique challenges to radio and wire signal
propagation. Another important challenge we face, is the often-
conflicting regulatory requirements imposed by MSHA and State
governments. We do not have the luxury of time to develop one
system that complies with MSHA requirements, another for one
State, and possibly a third or fourth from additional States.
Let me stress this again: Inconsistent Federal and State
requirements and conflicting implementation deadlines threaten
the progress we are making. It's imperative that we embrace
policies that encourage the broadest possible application of
technologies across all underground coal regions.
While we grapple with these technologic challenges, we
continue to make substantial investments in safety, equipment,
and practices to meet the mandates of the MINER Act. We've done
a preliminary survey of our members, and it shows that $65
million is being spent to purchase 90,000 additional SCSRs, $19
million in communication and tracking, $15 million for
additional measures required under new State requirements, and
$60 million for safety equipment, training and manpower beyond
the mandates of the act. This is only the beginning.
We've also undertaken several voluntary initiatives. We
initiated a review of existing mine rescue procedures that
resulted in the development of a generic mine rescue handbook,
to help those forming teams, and developing their own
protocols. We've distributed this throughout the industry,
posted it on our website, and made it available to the public,
and I would ask, also, that this be made a part of the record.
[The information follows:]
[Clerk's Note.--This material can be found at http://
www.nma.org/pdf/01110507_safety_handbook.pdf]
Mr. Watzman. We're also developing a protocol for
communications with the media during a mine crisis, which will
provide a framework for effective communications in cooperation
with MSHA.
Finally, at no time in our recent history has the expertise
residing at the mining program in NIOSH been more vital to
improved mine safety. The elimination of the Bureau of Mines in
1995 was a blow to the longstanding and renowned government
leadership in this area. The permanent establishment through
the MINER Act of the Office of Mine Safety and Health at NIOSH
will begin to restore this important government function.
However, without adequate resources, this area will suffer, and
the MINER Act expectations for acceleration, and the pace of
research and progress will be frustrated.
While NIOSH continues to develop and implement important
advances in mine safety and health, progress is slowed due to
the erosion of funds, and the situation is becoming critical.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We thank the subcommittee and Senator Byrd for the $10
million that was provided in the supplemental last year, but
that is just the start. We urge you to, again, strengthen this
vital government function, to ensure that there is sufficient
funding, and we look forward to working with you to make that
reality. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Watzman
Good afternoon. My name is Bruce Watzman, and I am the vice
president of safety, health and human resources for the National Mining
Association (NMA).
NMA and its member companies appreciate the opportunity to discuss
with the subcommittee what we have done since the tragic events last
year in West Virginia and Kentucky and since passage of the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006, which NMA
supported.
Last year's events brought all members of the mining community
together behind a single purpose--to ensure that every miner returns
home safely to their loved ones each and every day. It is this single
purpose that has guided the actions of NMA in establishing the Mine
Safety Technology and Training Commission, supporting passage of the
MINER Act, promoting industry awareness of the law's new requirements,
and striving to find and deploy the new technologies which will improve
the protection of underground coal miners.
With that common purpose in mind, I will discuss with you today the
findings of the Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission, and
what the industry is doing to implement its recommendations; steps the
industry has taken thus far to meet the expectations of the MINER Act;
and our views on enhancing mine safety research capabilities.
mine safety technology and training commission
In January 2006, NMA established the Mine Safety Technology and
Training Commission, an independent body, to immediately undertake a
study of new technologies, procedures and training techniques that can
further enhance safety in the nation's underground coal mines. The
commission drew upon the knowledge and experience of mine safety and
health professionals from academia, government, industry and the United
Mine Workers of America to develop a pro-active blueprint for achieving
zero fatalities and zero serious injuries in U.S. underground coal
mines. The product of the commission's deliberations is a peer-reviewed
report released in December 2006. Mr. Chairman I would ask that the
commission's complete report be made a part of this hearing record.
The commission unanimously adopted 75 recommendations that are both
near-term and far-reaching in scope. Many of the recommendations
endorse actions taken by Congress in passing the MINER Act. The
commission's recommendations include the areas of communications
technology, emergency preparedness, response and rescue procedures,
training, and escape and protection strategies. The central theme of
the commission's recommendations is a call for a new paradigm for
ensuring mine safety--one that focuses on a systematic and
comprehensive risk assessment-based approach toward prevention that
serves as the foundation from which all safety efforts will flow. This
new paradigm will require us to look at mining differently and to train
miners differently.
The industry is currently implementing a number of the commission's
near-term recommendations and is developing a blueprint for action on
the more far-reaching items. For example, we are discussing with NIOSH
the development of risk-based management tools and templates to assist
the industry in its implementation of the central recommendation of the
commission. The use of risk-analysis risk-management, while not a
common practice throughout the industry, is familiar to many of the
larger companies. Our goal is to create operational tools that will
help every company identify and address significant hazards before they
create situations that threaten life or property.
We share the commission's view that adoption ``. . . of a
comprehensive, risk assessment-based approach toward prevention should
significantly increase the odds of survival for miners in emergency
situations, [and] also provide a guideline for pursuing zero accidents
from all sources.'' We are mindful, however, that this is a significant
undertaking. As Professor Jim Joy, Minerals Industry Health and Safety
Center, University of Queensland, has noted in describing the
Australian mining industry's experience with implementation of a risk-
based approach, [It] ``is immense and fraught with stumbling blocks.''
Nonetheless, we are committed to the task.
miner act
NMA worked toward the passage of the MINER Act. We continue to
believe that its core requirements are sound. The requirements, as
implemented through Emergency Response Plans, recognize the need for a
forward-looking risk assessment, that good safety practices continually
evolve based upon experience and technological development, and that
every underground coal mine presents a unique environment and what may
work in one may not be effective or desirable in another. As the Act's
legislative history succinctly states:
The goals of optimizing safety and survivability must be
unchanging, but the manner for doing so must be practical and
sensible.----S. Rep. No. 109-365 p. 3.
We believe that this passage not only aptly captures the intent of
the law, but also serves as a useful reminder to the industry and
regulators that there is often more than one way to achieve our
singular purpose to improve workplace safety.
In the months following the enactment of the MINER Act, we
endeavored to promote industry awareness and understanding of the law's
new requirements. Toward that end, NMA, in conjunction with its state
association affiliates, and in cooperation with federal and state mine
safety agencies, conducted six MINER Act Workshops throughout the
country. These workshops were designed to assist the industry in
preparing their Emergency Response Plans, obtain information on the
latest technological developments for communications and tracking
systems, and assess mine rescue protocols.
Even before the enactment of the MINER Act, NMA and its members
engaged NIOSH and MSHA in a mine emergency communications partnership.
The purpose of the partnership is to evaluate current practices and
technologies, design performance criteria and protocols for testing,
and identify mines where the technologies can be tested. Our members
have volunteered their mines for testing tracking and communications
systems. Some of these technologies hold great promise; however, they
are, in our estimation, some years away from readiness for mine
application. Communications and safety experts agree that underground
coal mines present unique challenges to radio and wire signal
propagation. What works in one mine may not perform in another. As we
seek to find and deploy the best systems, we will continue in the
meantime to improve conventional systems to provide more reliable means
for tracking and communicating with miners underground.
Another challenge we face is the often conflicting regulatory
requirements imposed by MSHA and state governments. We do not have the
luxury of time to develop one system that complies with MSHA
requirements, another for one state and possibly a third or fourth for
additional states. Unfortunately, the underground mining marketplace is
not attractive to many technology providers. In the interest of miner
safety it is imperative that we embrace policies that encourage the
broadest possible application of technology across all underground coal
regions.
While we grapple with the technological challenges in these areas,
the industry continues to move forward in making substantial
investments in safety equipment and practices to meet the expectations
of the MINER Act. The preliminary data from a survey of NMA members (to
date the survey responses represent about 65 percent of all underground
coal production) indicates actual and planned investments in the
following areas for 2006-2007:
--$65 million to purchase 90,000 additional self-contained self-
rescuers (SCSRs).
--$19 million in communication and tracking systems.
--$15 million for additional measures required under new state
requirements.
--$60 million for safety equipment, training, and manpower beyond the
mandates of the MINER Act.
These numbers simply reflect one quantifiable measurement of the
industry's commitment to the MINER Act. And it is only the beginning,
just as the MINER Act itself is not the end, but rather one means for
reaching our desired goal to protect our nation's miners.
Beyond the actions taken by the industry to comply with federal and
state rules we have undertaken several voluntary initiatives that we
would like to bring to your attention.
NMA, with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), initiated
a review of existing mine rescue procedures to determine if existing
practices and protocols remain operative given the structural changes
that have occurred across the industry. This effort resulted in the
development of a generic mine rescue handbook that can serve as a guide
for those forming mine rescue teams and developing mine rescue
protocols, as well as a review tool for those with established
procedures in place. This document has been distributed throughout the
mining industry to be used as a pre-event planning template that will
expedite the delivery of mine rescue services in an efficient manner,
should they be required. It is also readily available to the industry
and public on NMA's website at www.nma.org. With the chairman's
permission, I would ask that a copy of the handbook be included in the
record.
Working with the industry's communication specialists, NMA is
developing a protocol for communications with the media during a mining
crisis. The protocol recognizes the important role of the media in
keeping communities informed about the facts surrounding a mining
accident or fatality and the obligation of mine operators to contribute
to that understanding. The protocol will provide a framework for
effective communications and cooperation with MSHA, as envisioned by
the MINER Act.
mine safety research
At no time in our recent history has the expertise residing at the
mining program in NIOSH been more vital to improving mine safety. The
elimination of the Bureau of Mines in 1995 was a blow to the
longstanding and renowned government leadership in mine safety and
health research. The permanent establishment through the MINER Act of
the Office of Mine Safety and Health in NIOSH will begin to restore
this important function to its former prominence. However, without
adequate resources, the Office of Mine Safety and Health's leadership
in this area will suffer and the MINER Act's expectation for the
acceleration in the pace of research and progress will be frustrated.
While NIOSH continues to develop and implement important
advancements in mine safety and health, progress has slowed due to the
erosion of research funds, and the situation is becoming critical.
Because NIOSH's budget for mine safety and health has remained
relatively flat in recent years, its purchasing power continues to
decline with the increasing cost of labor, materials and other research
costs.
This subcommittee's efforts and Senator Byrd's leadership last year
provided NIOSH with $10 million through the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation of 2006 to facilitate the development of technologies for
rapid introduction into underground coal mines. The decisions on which
technologies should be supported with that funding were made in
collaboration with labor and industry under the auspices of the many
NIOSH partnerships that have been formed.
We urge you to again strengthen this vital government function and
ensure funding for NIOSH is commensurate with the role Congress
intended under the MINER Act to, ``enhance the development of new miner
safety technology and technological applications and to expedite the
commercial availability and implementation of such technology in mining
environments.''
Today's mine safety and health professionals face important
challenges. More complicated geological conditions, advancements in
technology and a new generation of miners require the introduction of
new and innovative techniques. Our ability to further advance coal mine
safety will require that government and industry continue to harness
their collective resources to identify new technologies and practices
that eliminate accidents, illnesses and injuries in the workplace. We
look forward to working with you to ensure that the resources required
to achieve this goal are available so that every miner can return home
safely each and every day.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Watzman.
Now, we'll turn to Mr. Davitt McAteer, vice president of
sponsored programs at Wheeling Jesuit University. He is a
former Assistant Secretary of Labor of Mine Safety and Health,
worked as a consultant on Mine Safety and Health to former West
Virginia Governor Wise.
Mr. McAteer received his B.A. from Wheeling Jesuit
University, and his J.D. from West Virginia University. Mr.
McAteer.
STATEMENT OF J. DAVITT McATEER, ESQUIRE, VICE PRESIDENT
OF SPONSORED PROGRAMS, WHEELING JESUIT
UNIVERSITY, SHEPHARDSTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. McAteer. Senator Harkin, Senator Byrd, Senator Specter,
and Senator Shelby, and members of the committee, good
afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to come here today to
speak before you.
At the request of Governor Manchin, in 2006, we published
two reports on the two disasters which occurred during that
year, in West Virginia. Those reports, the Sago report, and the
Aracoma/Alma report--which I asked to be made part of the
record--identified two problems in mine safety, as relate to
those disasters.
[The information follows:]
[Clerk's Note.--This report, as well as additional related
information, is available at: www.wvgov.org and www.wju.edu]
Mr. McAteer. First was the impact that lightening had--the
probable impact that lightning had at the Sago Mine, and the
second was the failure of the seals to hold, and for the
failure of the seals to protect the miners.
In the second case, the Aracoma/Alma case--that was an
operator's disregard for the safety of the miners, and the
failure of MSHA and the State agency to properly enforce the
law.
In April last year, we also hosted an International
Symposium on Mine Safety and Health at Wheeling Jesuit
University, where some 400 attendees addressed the question of,
how might we improve safety and health technology, to better
protect the miner? The second such symposium is scheduled for
this year, in April.
Further, we held a public hearing for the Sago families, in
May 2006, at West Virginia Wesleyan College in West Buckhannon,
West Virginia. For the first time in our history, families were
provided an opportunity to ask questions and to give testimony,
and to try to reach results as, to find out the results and to
find out what caused the accidents.
But, what I would like to address today are six critical
factors that we identified in both of these studies, and that
have been the subject of your conversation here today. My
associate, Paul Miles, will be here with the charts on the
right, and we've tried to identify those subjects, and say
exactly where are they--where are we with regard to any, or
each, of these items.
With regard to communications, there has been improvement,
there has been some steps in the positive and right direction.
Unfortunately, that improvement has not achieved the goal that
we want to see happen. There is technology out there--the
Harden leaky feeder system that was mentioned earlier today, is
a technology that exists, and can be put in the mines. That
technology is being identified by operators, and some operators
are taking steps to put it in. Sadly, that's not the case for
all operators.
Second, with regard to the most promising of the
communications systems, is the medium-frequency radio. That
communications system is on the horizon, and that offers the
most promise of any of the communications that we've seen
today.
Sadly, and unfortunately, most miners are still using the
old system, the phone system, the pager/phone system, and the
trolley system to provide communications outside the mine. As
Mr. Roberts points out, as President Roberts points out, if we
had an accident tomorrow, we would still be stuck in the same
situation we were in before.
Now, let me look at the question of seals. What we need to
do in the area of seals is we, we have not--NIOSH has put out a
recommendation, and MSHA has suggested in its study, that
recommendation. But, at the present time, we have 14,000 seals
that are still in place in the mines of this country, that have
not been improved, we have not taken the steps necessary to
take that process.
There has been a moratorium put on seals, using alternative
blocks, in the State of West Virginia, and a moratorium on the
Federal level, but the Federal level has been allowed to go
forward, if the seal meets a 50 psi standard. Our suggestion is
that, we need to give industry guidance on how to increase
their seal protection today, and we need to address the
prohibit--prohibit the use of pressure piling mining
techniques, as was the case in Sago, and at the Darby disaster,
where the mining was done in the bottom, allowing pressure
piling to occur when the explosion occurs, in getting more psi
to come back through the mine.
With regard to SCSRs--the difficulty has been pointed out
here by President Roberts, and by other speakers, is that we
don't have additional SCSRs in the mines that we need them. It
is our recommendation that a committee immediately convene a
rapid, strategic task force, consisting of government, labor,
manufacturing, and industry to chart out that strategic
implementation plan to protect the most miners, in the shortest
period of time.
Mr. Stickler recommended, suggested that he'd sent out a
letter of guidance to that effect, but I believe that it's
necessary for us to form a task force to involve all of the
parties so that we know where it is that we need to put these,
those devices currently.
So as one--as was also indicated, one manufacturer has
7,000 devices sitting on their shelves, but they're not the
device of choice, two manufacturers have backlogs of 7 to 10
months. Our suggestion is that we look at what's available, and
to see what steps can be taken currently.
With regard to chambers--while the MINER Act does not
directly require chambers, chambers are available. There are,
in this country, 50 chambers in mines--mainly hard rock mines,
but three chambers in coal mines. There is nothing to prevent
the use of chambers in this mine, and in the coal mines in this
country today, they are permitted in the 1969 Act, and those
chambers ought to be adopted where they are commercially
available, ought to be allowed--put in the mines, and there's
not a necessity that the mine operators reach, wait for the
regulation to come through.
With regard to lightening--we believe lightening is a real
problem. We've identified a number of accidents, in this
country and abroad, and we suggest that a National Academy of
Science panel be initiated, and that we look at the question
of, how do we prevent from--in the most likely cases, and the
most difficult cases--how do we provide protection?
PREPARED STATEMENT
Last, with regard to belt air, we believe that we should
revert to the period prior to 2000, only allow belt air after
special consideration be given by the mine operator to come up
with a plan that provides as safe as a rule prohibiting belt
air, and it's only in those circumstances where the miners,
their safety is improved by the use of belt air.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Davitt McAteer
Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman
Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Arlen Specter and members of the
subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Davitt McAteer. I am
Vice President of Sponsored Programs at Wheeling Jesuit University and
special advisor to West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, III on mine
safety matters. Thank you for this opportunity to appear today.
In the past 14 months, three tragedies, Sago, Aracoma/Alma, and
Kentucky Darby stunned the nation and brought the issue of miner's
safety and health to millions on the front pages of the nation's
newspapers and on the nightly news cast. In quick succession, first two
then a third accident occurred, resulting in multiple deaths. The
public was shocked that in the 21st Century, in the United States of
America, we were seeing miners killed with such frequency. Especially
after years of progress in reducing the numbers of men and women killed
or injured in the mines.
Sadly, but less noticed, deaths continued throughout the year, one
and two at a time, miners throughout the Nation have fallen not in new
or novel ways, but in old carbon copy-type accidents, in circumstances
that have been seen hundreds, if not thousands, of times over the past
one hundred plus years. In 2006, the number of fatalities in the United
States mines amounted to 72, the highest number since 2001.
Thus far in 2007, six miners have died working to bring coal and
minerals out of the ground, this despite the fact that the Senate,
along with the House of Representatives acted last year with commitment
and dispatch to pass the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response
Act of 2006 (The MINER Act).
The MINER Act, with the support of many of you, notably Senator
Byrd, was an effort to address some of the most egregious short comings
in the protection of miner's safety and health.
The question that is presented to us today is--Are the Nation's
miners safer today than they were on January 1, 2006? In the months
since the Sago disaster, much has changed and much more is in progress;
but unfortunately for the average miner underground today, not much has
improved from the day-to-day safety and health standpoint. For some,
there has been a heightened awareness of the risks as many companies
have improved the frequency and quality of training on SCSRs, but there
are still not enough SCSRs underground to effectively protect the
miners or meet the requirements of the MINER Act.
In the area of communications, there has not been a transformation
away from the antiquated, decades old, hard line phone technology.
Although, there is movement toward the development of both wireless and
improved wired and wireless systems, miners still rely upon the phones
which were in place before January 2, 2006. While numerous systems have
been tested by MSHA and NIOSH underground, and MSHA currently has
pending twenty-one applications of communication and tracking
equipment, progress toward implementing new systems is moving at a slow
pace. Although one encouraging fact is that two companies have recently
filed for approval of systems with the state of West Virginia in
anticipation of the July 31st deadline.
In the matter of rescue chambers, few if any chambers have been
installed following Sago, although I am aware of the efforts of MSHA,
NIOSH and WVOMHS&T to identify and evaluate rescue chambers to comply
with the upcoming West Virginia state requirements. In a recent report
to NIOSH, more than fifty mines, including three coal mines were
identified as having chambers installed and fifteen companies were
identified as marketing chambers and related equipment.
There are, in fact, a number of deadlines that are approaching,
which will require compliance on a federal and state level. A report by
the Wheeling Jesuit University's Mining and Industry Safety Technology
and Training Innovation Center (``MISTTIC'') sets out the compliance
dates for various requirements.
Recently, on February 19, 2007, West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin
III and I visited Consolidation Coal Company's McElroy mine with the
UMWA safety director and were briefed by MSHA, NIOSH and the WVOMHS&T
officials on the status of the communication technologies. As Governor
Manchin stated afterwards, we are seeing some progress, but are not yet
where we want and need to be.
Progress toward improved communication systems has been aided by
some companies who have actively engaged in research and have invested
time and effort in testing new equipment. Sadly, others have not taken
up the challenge and have indeed been suggesting that change is neither
necessary nor timely.
It is appropriate to commend the National Mining Association's Mine
Safety Technology and Training Commission for their report published in
December, 2006 which addressed the question of how the United States
mining industry could improve mine safety, technology and training and
establish the United States as the global leader. The panel, headed by
Dr. R. Larry Grayson did an admirable job of setting out the need for
change and developing a roadmap which would address the challenges in
the area of safety and health equipment.
The Commission concluded that immediately, mines should use
hardened pager phones or leaky feeder systems, as an interim measure,
to provide emergency communication after accidents.
Further, they urged the implementation of hybrid communication
systems that combine wireless communications devices and existing
metallic infrastructure or leaky feeder backbone coupled with pipes,
haulage track or wire lifelines. As the report stated, these systems
are now available and would be a vast improvement over the current
system.
Further, the report urged MSHA and NIOSH to enhance their efforts
to encourage the development of wireless communications in underground
mines, including efforts to assist in developing commercial alternative
communications and tracking systems.
Since I appeared before this Committee last January 23, 2006,
following the Sago and Aracoma Alma mine accidents much as transpired.
In April, 2006, Wheeling Jesuit University hosted the first
International Mining Health and Safety Symposium in Wheeling, West
Virginia, sponsored by Senator Byrd, MSHA, NIOSH, the United Mine
Workers of America, Wheeling Jesuit University and the Wheeling
Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Wheeling Chamber of Commerce. This
meeting brought together representatives from industry and labor,
technology developers, legislators, and members of academia to focus on
the future of the health and safety in the coal mining industry. The
symposium also attracted a large number of mining experts from all over
the world. Panels addressed questions of how to bring about
improvements in mine safety and rescue, underground communications, and
breathing devices. With 400 United States and international attendees,
as well as 6,000 webcast viewers, the symposium offered an
extraordinary opportunity to share information and focus on new
technologies that exist in the United States and abroad.
On April 26-27 of this year, Wheeling Jesuit will again host this
event. Our focus will include a review of the progress made over the
last year in such critical areas as underground mine communications,
breathing devices, mine seals, mine refuge chambers and rescue worker
training.
Then on May 2, 2006, we convened a Public Hearing on the Sago Mine
Disaster and included, as part of the hearing, panelists
representatives of the twelve victims' families and the West Virginia
Legislative Committees. For three days, witnesses from the Mine Safety
& Health Administration, the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health
Safety and Training, the International Coal Group and victim family
members testified as to the cause and reasons for the disaster. The
hearing was held at West Virginia Wesleyan College in Buckhannon, West
Virginia. This was the first post-disaster hearing to involve the
families in the process.
On July 19, 2006, with the assistance of a remarkable staff, we
issued the Sago Report and, on November 10, 2006, we issued the Aracoma
Alma Report.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Sago Mine Disaster Report and Aracoma/Alma #1 Mine Report
can be found at:
http://www.wju.edu/sago/SagoMineDisasterReport_July2006.pdf
http://www.wju.edu/aracoma/AracomaAlmaMineReport_November2006.pdf
http://www.wvgov.org/SagoMineDisasterJuly2006FINAL.pdf
http://www.wvgov.org/McAteerAlma1106.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those reports chronicle two separate and distinct problems in the
mining industry in the United States. First, at Sago we found that the
probable cause of the disaster was lightning. We also found that there
were nine other instances of lightning or suspected lightning ignitions
in other mines in the country over the past 13 years. One of our
conclusions was that the mining community must deal with this issue;
unfortunately, that has not come to pass.In the Aracoma Alma No. 1 Mine
Fire Report, we concluded that the mine was being operated with a
disregard for the safety of the miners. But equally troubling, we
concluded that the MSHA inspectors and West Virginia inspectors utterly
failed to detect this disregard for safety and failed to detect
multiple violations of the law by Massey officials and personnel. The
entire federal and state safety system completely collapsed and two men
died.
I have included for your review the Executive Summaries and
Recommendations we made in both the Sago and Aracoma Alma Reports.
Next, I would like to draw your attention to the five charts which
we have prepared in an effort to describe the current status of each of
the six critical areas:
Seals, SCSRs, Rescue Chambers, Communications, Belt Air and
Lightning. These charts set out the issues we are still facing in each
area and make recommendations on what should be done.
Both Senator Byrd and Senator Harkin have called for innovative
approaches to make the breakthroughs which we need to protect our
nations miners. This will take different forms with each of the
problems areas, Rescue Chambers, Communications, SCSRs, Lightning,
Seals and Belt Air.
But, what we must be driven by is the need to act. We would all be
filled with remorse if today an explosion again trapped miners and we
had not put in place currently available equipment to communicate with
them or to enhance their chances of rescue.
We would also be derelict if we did not pursue and force new
technology in areas such as wireless communications, in Seals and in
Chambers. It is not a matter of deciding between existing technology
currently available or waiting for improved technology which may become
available at some point in the future. We must do both. We must
immediately adopt technology improvements which exist today and develop
new technology which can result in greatly enhanced protection. We must
adopt such a two-pronged approach doing everything we can with what is
available and forcing the technology to reach the next level--anything
less would be irresponsible.
Historically, the development of safety and health equipment has
lagged behind production equipment innovations. In fact, the
development, manufacture and introduction of safety equipment into the
workplace has been separate from the development and implementation of
production equipment, resulting in a two-track system.
One result of this bifurcated system is that there is no continued
renewal demand for improved health and safety equipment as there is
with production equipment. Innovations in production speed, coal
recovery or reduced expenses will drive the market for new production
equipment. Machines which produce coal cheaper and faster will sell and
replace slower less efficient machines. Health and safety equipment has
no such economic motivation and, therefore, tends to remain stagnant,
i.e., SCSRs are virtually the same models that were introduced in the
1980s and mine phones have remained largely unchanged in the last three
decades.
One solution to this problem might be to incorporate safety and
health requirements into production equipment specifications, which
might serve as a way to renew the safety technology and cause
innovation and advances in safety and health equipment.
For example, SCSRs could be installed or built into equipment,
including long walls and continuous mining machines, while phone lines
could be built into the electrical cables which provide power for the
long walls and continuous miners, shuttle cars, etc. Rarely are these
cables out of commission and never for extended periods of time because
they are critical in the production cycle. And when new production
equipment is purchased, new safety features would be already
incorporated. The introduction of seat belts and air bags for passenger
cars could serve as a model for introducing safety and health equipment
into the production equipment manufacturing cycle.
Until such time as we incorporate safety and health equipment into
the production process, it will remain the step-child, lagging behind
and only added to the mining cycle.
The men and women who mine our Nation's energy and minerals deserve
much more. During this first decade of the 21st Century we have the
opportunity to change the mining business both in this country and
abroad. We must not miss this opportunity. Those who have died in the
mines, and their families, deserve no less.
I would be glad to attempt to answer any questions and to provide
any additional information that may be helpful to you, thank you.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. McAteer, that was
a very lucid presentation.
Now, Mr. Chris Hamilton, senior vice president of the West
Virginia Coal Association, an organization he's been affiliated
with for over 20 years. Mr. Hamilton has Mine Forman
Certifications from West Virginia and Ohio, and received his
undergraduate and graduate degrees from West Virginia
University.
Mr. Hamilton.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS R. HAMILTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
WEST VIRGINIA COAL ASSOCIATION, CHARLESTON,
WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
members of the committee, Senator Byrd.
If I may, just momentarily, echo the sentiments expressed
by my friend Cecil Roberts--we appreciate all you do for our
great State of West Virginia, for the coal industry, we
appreciate your leadership, your longstanding public service,
and most importantly, we appreciate your friendship.
Senator Specter, Senator Shelby--thank you very much for
the opportunity to participate in today's proceeding, and for
your ongoing attention to the important topic of coal mine
safety.
I'm pleased to appear before you today to report on the
progress we have made in my home State of West Virginia over
the past 12 months, and to comment on the important work that
remains. Initially, allow me to offer a couple of observations
which serve to form the basis from which my testimony was
constructed.
First, as we've reported previously, West Virginia recorded
the safest mining year in history during calendar year 2005,
which literally ended just hours before the tragic Sago
accident. The overall performance of this industry, our State's
industry, which was brought into question as a result of
several tragic accidents last year, was the culmination of many
years whereby mine safety performance experienced gradual, but
continual, improvement. Technological advancements in mine
extractive techniques, combined with an extraordinarily skilled
and experienced workforce were primarily responsible for this
achievement.
In fact, it was said at one of our many forums on mine
safety held throughout this past year, that the industry was a
victim of its own success, and consequently, became somewhat
complacent, and as such, did not devote an equal amount of
attention--particularly in the technology area--to post-
accident side of safety. This has now changed, which we will
examine momentarily.
Second, the Sago and Alma accidents will continue to serve
as a reminder that our path forward and quest to become the
safest mining industry in the world should never cease. I am
pleased to report today that much work has been completed, and
the basis for additional safeguards and worker protections is
well developed.
Third, as we progress throughout calendar year 2006 looking
for ways to improve mine health and safety, and to prevent
recurrences of the accidents which claimed human life, we
witnessed an unprecedented level of cooperation from all
involved parties and stakeholders from around the industry.
Coal management workers, legislators, government leaders,
academicians, researchers came together, and exhibited a
tremendous desire to develop workable solutions to these
complex and technical issues, and to achieve our shared goal of
improving coal mine safety, so that every miner returns home
safely, every day, to his family and to his home.
These collective efforts culminated in two significant
reforms of our State and Federal mine safety acts last year, we
feel it's important to note that this same level of cooperation
among the various stakeholders is continuing today as
additional improvements are sought.
Last, we pledged our support last year to work with you,
with State and Federal governments to improve mine safety. Over
the course of the past 12 months, the industry has kept that
commitment, has dedicated endless resources, countless man
hours to the many processes and forms underway designed to
improve coal mine safety.
We have opened up our mining operations, we've assisted the
technical and research communities in the design, installation,
and testing of mine communications and tracking systems, and
other mine safety technologies.
We reaffirm our pledge and commitment today, as we move to
implement measures enacted last year, and to strive to develop
a greater level of prevention, and improve mine safety. During
this same hearing, held on January 23 last year, I mentioned
that the State of West Virginia was on the verge of enacting
landmark legislation to address many of the safety concerns
identified last year in our accident investigations.
S. 247 established requirements for the following safety
program components, immediate accident notification systems,
wireless communications systems, additional self-contained
breathing apparatuses, mine emergency plans, individual
tracking devices, lifelines, miner training, miner re-training
programs.
S. 247 paved the way for the Federal MINER Act, which
contained many of the same provisions. On the administrative
front, certain seal material has been banned from use in State
mines, several administrative rules have been promulgated to
implement the provisions of S. 247. The West Virginia Coal Mine
Safety Task Force and the West Virginia Board of Coal Mine
Health and Safety have been engaged to review the entire gamut
of mine emergency operations post-accident procedures.
Most of the requirements set forth on the State level,
through S. 247, are currently being implemented consistent with
State compliance schedules. Mine emergency shelters, or plans
for such shelters, are due this April, plans for emergency
communications are due in July.
Greater numbers of SCSRs have been deployed over the past
year, and provisions for increased breathable air units are in
place. Moreover, every mine in our State has redesigned their
mine rescue, and general mine preparedness plans, all miners
have been trained and retrained in mine emergency simulations
and procedures, and in the use of SCSRs.
The State and industry's attention is now turned toward
accident prevention, and the need to ensure that the tragic
accidents experienced last year do not occur in the future.
Toward that end, the West Virginia Office of Miner's Health
Safety and Training, the West Virginia Board of Coal Mine
Health and Safety, continue their joint review of the root
causes of Sago, protections against lightening events and
overall integrity of sealed areas, and underground mines are a
prime focus.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared text, and I'd be
glad to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris R. Hamilton
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: Thank you for the
invitation to address this committee and for placing this important
topic ``Coal Mine Health & Safety'' on your agenda for review and
discussion.
introduction
My role and contribution to today's hearing will be defined by the
following four key points: First, to express our heartfelt prayers for
the families who suffered great personal loss at the Sago Mine. Our
prayers continue for Randall McCloy's full recovery and for his wife
and family. We now extend those prayers and our State's unique circle
of support to the families of Don Bragg and Ellery Hatfield of the
Aracoma Mine tragedy. The deceased miners will forever be with us as we
implement the necessary steps to improve coal mine safety and prevent
recurrences. We also thank the mine rescue team members, the State,
Federal, and company officials who directed and guided their heroic and
brave efforts at Sago, and whose performance in those dark and anxious
hours will be analyzed for years to come. It is our hope that their
performance will be constructively reviewed with an eye towards
improving future rescue efforts; third, we are here as one of the
Nation's largest trade associations to offer our pledge to work with
you in whatever capacity you deem appropriate in the discharge of your
important work and to direct our Association's collective attention
towards the identification and implementation of appropriate remedial
measures; and fourth, and subordinate to the preceding points, is the
perceived need to preserve the integrity and future of the coal
industry--to implement the necessary changes from the lessons learned
from the horrific accident that brings us here today and to elevate the
understanding and appreciation of our industry which means so much to
West Virginia and to our Nation!
My personal background: I have nearly 35 years of experience in the
coal mining industry beginning in 1971 during the immediate
implementation of the 1969 Federal Mine Health and Safety Act and over
thirty years of experience in mine health and safety.
I worked as an underground miner and for underground and surface
mining companies. I have also worked for the Federal and State mine
safety agencies as a mine safety professional and safety instructor--
certified to train and certify miners in all aspects of mining and mine
safety including mine emergency preparedness and mine rescue
operations.
As Training Director for the West Virginia Department of Mines (for
then Governor Jay Rockefeller), I was responsible for approving mine
training facilities, mine training plans and individual mine training
instructors.
I possess underground Mine Foreman--Fire Boss certifications from
WV and the State of Ohio where I worked for several years in the
industry. I received my undergraduate and graduate degree from West
Virginia University and have also completed many college level courses
in mine safety, mining technology and mine industrial engineering.
I presently serve under gubernatorial appointment on the West
Virginia Coal Mine Health and Safety Board; the West Virginia Mine
Safety and Technical Review Committee; The West Virginia Board of Miner
Training Education & Certification; and, the West Virginia Diesel
Equipment Commission.
During my tenure on as a mine safety official, I have been involved
in the review/investigation of serious mining accidents and practically
every single mining death in West Virginia for the past twenty-five
years.
As a member of the West Virginia Board of Coal Mine Health & Safety
(the only independent entity in West Virginia with a statutory charge
to investigate and respond to mine accidents), I will be part of the
State's investigation and regulatory response to the Sago and Aracoma
accidents!
West Virginia's coal industry is comprised of approximately 40,000
individuals who work directly in, or around a coal mining facility and
without exception, miners, managers, engineers and support staff along
with our entire State have been deeply saddened by the ``Sago and
Aracoma tragedies'' and will continue to mourn for years to follow.
Our hearts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of the
miners who perished in the Sago incident and we continue to pray for
Randall McCloy's full recovery. We now extend those prayers and our
State's unique circle of support to the families of Don Bragg and
Ellery Hatfield of the Aracoma mine tragedy. I would observe that next
to the immediate families of the deceased miners, nobody is saddened
more than mine management officials over this tremendous loss. West
Virginians share a special bond with their families, church and
communities.
They have an unparalleled inner strength and inner faith and no
where is that bond more prominent than in the coal industry.
For the record, The West Virginia Coal Association wholeheartedly
embraces Governor Manchin's sentiments ``that no miner should ever be
fatally injured in a West Virginia coal mine''. We also fully support
the Governor's commitment to operate the safest mines in the world! We
will commit the necessary resources over the months to come and will do
everything humanly possible to achieve that shared goal!
First and foremost, that is our commitment which we believe is
realistic and achievable!
We also maintain that the primary responsibility for achieving that
goal rests firmly with those who own, operate and manage coal mining
operations. A responsibility we not only acknowledge but aim to
fulfill!
These tragic events have caught the eye of practically all of
America in the past three weeks and the media has presented an accurate
portrayal of the courage and overall character of the men and woman who
have selected mining as a profession. They have a passion for their
work and they do it with great pride and an exceptional level of
professionalism!
Unfortunately, the events of January 2nd and those of last week
have not accurately portrayed how technologically advanced mining has
become and all of the progress and safety achievement that's been made
over the past several decades. But one mining death is one too many and
despite all the progress recorded in recent years, we now realize that
much work remains! Particular focus is required in the post accident
phase so that the effect of an accident can be minimized or mitigated!
By its very nature, mining is unique (unlike any other business or
industry) in that it is dependent on natural conditions and geology.
Through their skills, training and hard work, miners attempt to control
and manage the challenges of their environment--and they are good at
it! It requires a supreme vigilance every minute of every shift.
Undoubtedly coal mining is a dangerous occupation with unique
hazards inherent to the workplace but I would maintain that mining is
much safer today than what was realistically believed possible a few
short years ago.
New mining technologies such as longwall mining systems, remote-
controlled equipment design and mine wide atmospheric monitoring
systems combined with the extraordinary skill & experience level of
today's workforce has led to safer conditions and fewer accidents.
As a relevant part of my testimony and record today, I incorporate
a copy of the most recent ``Directory of Mines'' which is published
annually by the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety &
Training. It contains useful statistical information and charts the
mine safety performance of the industry over the years.
The ``Directory'' reflects a dramatic reduction in mining related
deaths since passage of the 1969 Mine Safety Act when 162 fatal
accidents were recorded to 3 for all of 2005. It also depicts a
significant reduction in mine accidents and lost time injuries over
this same period.
The State's annual report also reveals that the State of West
Virginia has one of the more comprehensive mine safety programs found
anywhere in the country with a full complement of mine safety
inspectors, safety officials and an extremely aggressive legislative
and regulatory program.
It is also noteworthy to point out that no provision exists under
Federal law for States to acquire ``primacy'' over the administration
of mine safety laws. Consequently, all West Virginia mines are examined
by State and Federal inspectors throughout each and every quarter.
The significance of the industry and the important role coal plays
in our everyday lives, which ranges from our basic quality of life to
national defense and national security and should also serve as a
tribute to the men and families of Sago!
Over the past several weeks we have heard local, regional,
national, and international media sources all ask a similar question:
Why do we continue to mine coal?
Coal, and in particular, West Virginia coal, is crucial to our
advanced society and extraordinarily quality of life. Coal continues to
account for over fifty percent of the America's electricity. In West
Virginia that figure is closer to 99 percent.
Over the past several decades our State's coal industry has a
remarkably record of safety achievement, reclamation accomplishments
and environmental stewardship. We are coordinating proposed mine sites
with local and State planning agencies to ensure meaningful and more
productive development occurs.
West Virginia is a shining example of where you can have a robust
coal industry along with a thriving tourism industry--you can truly
have both and I submit to you that nobody is doing it better!
Today's industry represents a technologically advanced enterprise
with a highly skilled and efficient workforce and has established a
healthy presence in an international marketplace.
West Virginia produces approximately 160 millions tons of coal
annually. Of that total, over 105 million tons or 65 percent percent
comes from underground mines and approximately 55 million tons of coal
is produced from surface mines.
West Virginia continues to lead the Nation in underground coal
production and is second only to the State of Wyoming in overall coal
production. West Virginia is the world's leader in Longwall mining and
is the leading coal export State.
All told, West Virginia coal is shipped to 23 foreign countries and
accounts for approximately one half of the United States total export
product leaving domestic boundaries contributing immensely to the
United States balance of trade.
We also have more processing plants than any other State, more
transportation outlets and one of the more elaborate transportation
systems and infrastructures you find anywhere in the world. It is
comprised of rails, trucks and barges and we have the best quality and
variety of coals found anywhere in the world.
Due to its clean and high quality, West Virginia coal is shipped
throughout the eastern half of the United States to 33 States to
generate electricity for industrial and household energy and for coking
and steel production. West Virginia has the highest quality of coal
found anywhere in the world and we have plenty of it (Reports of our
diminishing reserve base has been wrongly placed)! We have over 52
billion tons of demonstrated mineable reserves or 350 years of
production remaining at today's production levels.
The coal industry remains vitally important to our State and its
economy. Together, with the States electric power industry, it accounts
for nearly 60 percent of the total State business tax collections.
These tax dollars translate directly into important education,
government and community services and provide a reliable revenue stream
for many other county, local, and municipal programs.
No other State business or industry affects so many people in so
many different ways! It's overall impact is staggering in terms of
employment, wages, taxes and overall economic activity.
The State's industry is postured with an abundance of opportunity
as the worlds thirst for low-cost, reliable energy grows on an
incremental basis of nearly 2 percent annually. Thus, coal generally
and West Virginia's coal particularly will continue to be a major
player in the world wide energy mix on a going forward basis.
A strong energy market and high demand has created an uplifting and
positive energy around the State that most of us in the business have
not witnessed since the 70s--And with that optimism comes the
realization that we can do so much more if we are able to capitalize on
todays opportunities. West Virginia Coal will be relied upon more than
ever for industrial and household energy; domestic energy independence;
national strategic defense; homeland security, and today's ever popular
``coal-to-liquids'' and ``coal conversion technologies''.
And lastly, just as all miners and mine managers have come together
to grieve over the tragic events of the last 3 weeks, they all need to
be part of the solution so we may effectively prevent a similar event
in the future. They all have unique experiences and qualifications to
contribute!
Today, more than ever before miners, mine managers, engineers,
research institutions and government officials need to become engaged
to develop safer mining plans, better designed equipment and more
effective ways to control our environment. Matters of safety, security
and stability are shared responsibilities.
And as the industry prepares to retrain its existing workforce
along with the next generation of skilled miners, the ``Sago'' miners
will be forever remembered and serve as a daily reminder of the supreme
vigilance required in the workplace!
Our membership has an abundance of safety, technical and
operational expertise which has been called upon to respond to the
challenges before us. We hereby extend those resources for your use and
dedicate the same towards making the West Virginia Coal industry the
safest in the world!
I'll close by reciting the inscription on the ``The West Virginia
Coal Miner'' statue located on the grounds of our State capital which
captures the essence and summarizes best the importance of the coal
miner and coal mining to West Virginia and to the Nation . . .
``In honor and in recognition of the men and woman who have devoted
a career, some a lifetime, towards providing the State, Nation and
world with low-cost, reliable household and industrial energy . . . Let
it be said that `Coal' is the fuel that helped build the greatest
country on earth, has protected and preserved our freedom and has
enhanced our quality of life. God bless the West Virginia Coal Miner''
Thank You.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton, and
thank the entire panel.
I will now turn for the first round of questions, to
Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Sago and Alma tragedies highlighted the weaknesses in
mine emergency preparedness. What can be done to further
protect miners against roof falls and lightening, and other
longstanding and recurring threats to miner safety?
Mr. Roberts. Is that for anyone.
Senator Byrd. We'll start with you.
Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Senator.
One of the things I don't believe has been properly dwelled
upon here today--for lack of a better way of saying it--the
MINER Act recognized the need for mine rescue teams, that we
had a terrible lack of trained people who could go into a mine
on a very rapid notice, and hopefully rescue miners who might
be trapped. The MINER Act calls for a period of time for MSHA
to deal with that problem. I can say to this committee today,
that we're in real trouble with respect to that. We see no
progress for developing additional mine rescue teams, we are
concerned that if we do not deal with this situation very soon,
we will have the same type problems that we had at Sago, and I
remind the committee, 5 hours before the mine rescue teams, the
first one arrived at Sago--and I believe it was somewhere in
the neighborhood of 10 hours before the first mine rescue team
went underground--that is unacceptable, under anybody's
evaluation. That's one thing that I would like to draw to the
committee's attention.
With respect to Senator Byrd's specific question about
lightening and roof falls--there's a lot of technology that's
being applied currently to protect miners from roof falls that
exist out there. One of the debates that has been ongoing about
what caused the explosion at Sago, whether it was a roof fall
in the sealed area that ignited the methane gas, or did
lightening somehow make its way into the mine.
With respect to lightening itself, this would be the first
time that any of us know of--and I don't want to misspeak here,
but this was agreed-to, stated at the public hearing on Sago--
and I would commend the State of West Virginia for conducting
that public hearing--that this would be the first time in the
history of mining that lightening made its way into the coal
mine, without a conduit of some kind, such as a gas well.
I agree with the recommendation that this would be
something that should be studied by the experts to determine
how this is possible.
With respect to roof falls in sealed areas, we--in our
testimony--suggest we need to deal with seals, to make them
more explosion-proof, to the extent we can, and we support
NIOSH's preliminary recommendations to increase the psi, and
they also have suggested the ability to more closely monitor
the gases in those sealed areas, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Mr. McAteer?
Mr. McAteer. Thank you, Senator. You've asked several
important questions.
In the first instance, the question of communication, and
how fast can we get the information from the mine to the
process. I had the opportunity last week to visit the McElroy
mine of Consolidation Coal Company in Northern West Virginia.
They have a command center that ties in all of their large
mines that they can have instantaneous communication, 24-hours
a day, 7 days a week, with all of those mines, and those
individuals are trained to be able to locate and identify State
inspectors, Federal inspectors, company people immediately.
That's not being done at other places, and that's a technology
that exists, and one that's in place.
With regard to roof falls, inside sealed areas, we think
that's a very important concern that we have. There are two
ways to do protections, and one is to put a seal in there that
increases the psi, increases a likelihood that that explosion
will be kept inside the sealed area. Those seals need to be
increased, the psi level needs to be increased. The German
model, which is the model that we've looked at, takes the seal
level psi at 72. We suggest a psi level of 100, as a beginning
process.
The second part of this goes back to Senator Harkin's
earlier question--how do we get innovation in? Because what we
have in those sealed areas, is methane gas. We have, in fact,
energy. We need to be able to capture that, and remove it, and
use it in a safe way.
Those three suggestions, I think, along with the National
Academy of Science to look at the lightening, may help us get
to where we want to be, in terms of those protections.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Watzman?
Mr. Watzman. Thank you, Senator.
With regard to roof falls, and roof control, the industry,
I think, has made significant progress. Fortunately, we don't
have the number of fatalities that we experienced historically,
resulting from roof falls. Unfortunately, we continue to have
some. But, this improvement has come about due to the
introduction of new technologies that have allowed for better
roof control, for the requirement that operators file with
MSHA, and MSHA enforce roof-control plans. It is an area that
we, as an industry, continue to look at, I can tell you that
the manufacturers of roof control equipment continue to look at
it, and we are--we continue to explore how we can better
stabilize the roofs.
Lightening is a difficult issue, and it's one that is not
new. There have been previous studies related to lightening
strikes at coal mines. Mr. McAteer recommends the appointment,
or the recommendation of a National Academy of Sciences study.
That may be the proper route, but that may not. Whether we need
further study is a question that I have in my mind.
You have expressed concern earlier about delays in getting
things done, that adds another increment of delay to the
process. There may be a better process that we could all come
up with collectively, to get to the route of the problem, and
ways that we can address it, short of a--the need for another
study.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir.
First, allow me to say that I don't think we should leave
here today with the understanding or perception that very
little--if anything--has been done over the course of the last
year. Thanks in large measure to your oversight and direct
involvement in this important issue, I can't speak for the
entire country, but I can tell you, in the State of West
Virginia, we are leap years ahead--right now, today--then where
we were a year ago at this time. I beg to differ with some of
my panelists--and I don't want to be argumentative--but we are
so much better off today than what we were a year ago at this
time, or a year and a month or so, at this time.
We have installed two, three, four times the number of
breathing apparatuses in our mines in West Virginia than what
we had a year ago. There are more than just a couple of mining
operations that have experimented, installed with these
enhanced communication systems. Communication systems that were
in coal mines, prior to this time last year, have been
reinforced, there's been redundancy added, there's been
duplicative systems, there's been hardening of systems and
other protections. Miners have been trained, re-trained, re-
trained, and re-trained, on the use of self-contained breathing
apparatuses, on evacuation procedures, on escape mechanisms, on
mine emergency plans. We have immediate notification--we passed
legislation in West Virginia creating two new mine rescue--
State mine rescue teams--to enhance in the overall actions
necessary in mine rescue activities, to supplement company
teams. We anticipate another 30 to 35 company-sponsored mine
rescue teams in West Virginia alone. Many of those teams are
already on board, every existing team has also experienced
training after training simulation.
Every miner in the State of West Virginia has gone to self-
contained breathing apparatuses, have gone through extensive
training, and how to inspect that apparatus to ensure its
workability and performance in the event it is ever needed. We
have lifelines throughout every single coal mine in the State
of West Virginia, and multiple, multiple entries.
Some of the advanced communication technologies, such as
those that go through the earth are not quite perfected at this
point. All of your mine safety experts, your entire research
community, everybody would concur with that point.
But, we are going forward with existing technologies,
capable of providing improved, enhanced communications,
particularly in the event of a mine emergency situation. So, we
feel, we are--and we have also gone through practically every
mine, every ventilation system, repeatedly looking at these
seals, and potential explosive environments. So, there's been a
tremendous amount of work that's been done, and that work's
continuing as we go forward.
Senator Byrd. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin. I'll hold my questions till later.
Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Roberts, you've heard Mr. Hamilton saying that there
have been enormous improvements in the year, do you agree with
that?
Mr. Roberts. I think, in my initial comments I said I
thought that Congress had done a tremendous service to the coal
miners of this country with the passage of the MINER Act. When
it was being considered by both Houses, the UMWA went on record
supporting it.
We are never satisfied. That's what we're here for. We are
to be the voice of the coal miners. I suggested--and I stand by
that--if we had a similar situation at the Sago Mine tomorrow
morning, do we have more mine rescue teams that would get to
that mine within, say, 2 hours? Would we have communications in
that mine, available to talk to those miners if that same
explosion occurred? The answer to that, from my perspective, is
no. That does not mean I'm being critical. I think the State of
West Virginia, the Governor, the Republicans and the Democrats
on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard, and probably
led the way to try to make improvements in miner safety.
But, we have to be honest when we come here. If we had a
belt catch on fire tomorrow morning in the Nation's coal mine--
a flammable belt, it's a question that you posed earlier to Mr.
Stickler--could a belt catch on fire? The answer to that is,
absolutely, because the belts that are in existence in the
Nation's coal mines are flammable.
If you want to know what happened at Alma, get the report.
There was clearly negligence, there's no question, on the
operator's part. But what happened? You had a belt fire. One of
the situations we're here for today is, where are we after Sago
and Alma? Because Alma occurred right after Sago, the belt
caught on fire. Why did those miners die? Because the
ventilation system was disrupted and--and for all intents and
purposes--you were ventilating the working face--you weren't
supposed to be an evac plan. But, because of the negligence on
the operator's part, you had the smoke, and the poisonous gases
go forward into the intake--that's why two miners died. Could
that happen again tomorrow? The answer to that is, yes.
Could communications be disrupted tomorrow? Yes. That's not
to be critical, that is to state where we are this morning, or
this afternoon.
Senator Specter. Mr. Roberts, when Mr. Stickler testified
on these flammable belts, he's waiting for more rules. Your
testimony, which followed my questioning of Mr. Stickler, was
that pre-existing statutes give Mr. Stickler's unit adequate
authority to improve the quality of those flammable belts,
correct?
Mr. Roberts. His predecessor, his predecessor, eliminated a
rule that had been pending for some time, to deal with
flammable belts. So, clearly, MSHA had the authority to
implement a rule requiring flammable belts to be removed from
the mines, and non-flammable belts to be placed in the mines.
One of the things that I would suggest here today, if I
may--just because Congress said, ``You've got to meet these
deadlines by 3 years or 18 months,'' I would expect that
Congress would have no problem if MSHA met them sooner than
that.
Senator Specter. Mr. Hamilton, I would appreciate it if you
would take a look at the report by the staff of the House
Education and Labor Committee, and give us your comments on it,
because it is significantly at variance with the picture that
you have portrayed. Obviously what this subcommittee wants to
do is find out what the facts are.
Mr. Roberts, you comment that the State of West Virginia
has done a good job, but how about Mr. Stickler's unit? Has Mr.
Stickler's unit done what it should have, in the intervening
time since the enactment of the law?
Mr. Roberts. Let me try to be as fair as I can with respect
to that.
Mr. Stickler has reached out for the coal industry, and
those working in the coal industry, since this debate about
whether he should be appointed, it's no secret, the UMWA
opposed his appointment, and we do today. But, he's there, and
we're going to do the best that we can, as all of us have to
do, to work with him.
Our problem is that we believe that we need to move more
rapidly to protect the Nation's coal miners than we currently
are, and that would be my position with respect to MSHA, as we
look at it today, and he heads that agency.
Senator Specter. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more
question. That is directed to Mr. McAteer.
In your testimony, you outlined a great many things that
could be done now. What response would you have to what Mr.
Stickler has said about the law being insufficient, or rules
being necessary for equipment being unavailable, or time delays
being inevitable?
Mr. McAteer. Thank you, Senator Specter. Let me first
clarify the record. I did not--refer to Mr. Hamilton--we did
not say, I have not suggested that we haven't made progress
during the year. We have made significant progress, and many
operators are moving forward, and doing things to improve the
process.
But with regard to your question of whether or not the
statute provides sufficient authority for the agency to move
forward--yes, it does, indeed. The statute provides sufficient
authority with regard to belt air, the statute provides
sufficient authority with regard to belts themselves, there was
a belt rule that was being moved forward at the time of my
Assistant Secretaryship, and unfortunately, we didn't it
attached either. I will tell you, rules are very difficult to
get through.
Let me also add, as one who sat in Mr. Stickler's chair,
this year has been a particularly difficult year for the agency
to try to do all of the things that they want and need to do.
In some instances they've made some progress, but in many
instances they haven't made the kind of progress that they
would like to see, and that we all would like to see in the
mining community.
I think, your question is, does the industry need to wait
in every instance to incorporate some of the improvements that
are found, for example, with regard to belts? No, they don't
need to wait for the regulations to come forward. Can the
industry, on its own, take steps forward? We believe that they
can. In some instances, there are some in industry that do
that. As I mentioned with regards to the communication system,
that's a voluntary effort on the part of the Consolidation Coal
Company. Unfortunately, we have not moved the ball forward as
much as we would like. Unfortunately, as President Roberts
points out, we are not as far as we would like to be. Yes,
we've made progress, but we're not where we want to be.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
Mr. Roberts, you stated that the mine rescue team structure
is spread too thin, you offer a solution, you said the United
Mine Workers of America has training facilities that can be
used for mine rescue team training and first responder
training.
How could your training facilities help solve the problem
of too few mine rescue teams?
Mr. Roberts. The only way, Senator, that we can get
additional teams is to train these people. If you look at our
testimony, we mention what you just said, and we also suggest
that MSHA needs to be able to approve those teams on a more
rapid basis, whether or not they had the funding to do that,
the personnel to do that--we don't know the answer to that. But
that's the two answers to that. These people need to be
trained--it takes a great commitment, by the way--on behalf of
some individual who is a coal miner to start with--to decide
that they want to take additional training, and place
themselves in the situation where they go into the most
dangerous conditions known to a human being, to go underground
when a mine has exploded, and full of poisonous gases--to be
willing to that for your friends, and your neighbors and your
brothers in this industry. Those people should be commended for
their courage that they've shown in all of these disasters, by
the way.
I go all the way back to 2001, in Alabama, I go to the Sago
situation, I go to Alma, I go down into the Darby mine in
Kentucky--these people risk their lives. But, it takes enormous
amounts of training to be able to have the skills and the
ability to do this--that is the first step. You have to have
the people who want to do it, and then they have to be trained.
We're suggesting we can do that, we're not particularly hung up
on where these people get trained, but we're offering to do
that, and they need to be trained, and we need these people as
quickly as possible.
Senator Harkin. Could we offer them additional benefits and
things like that? I mean----
Mr. Roberts. Where we get most of our mine rescue team
members now, Mr. Chairman, just so the committee can understand
this, is from two places. Mostly from coal companies, and I
must say--we've mentioned Consolidation Coal Company today with
the leaky feeder system, we've mentioned them today about the
central communications system, we offer--we suggest in our
comments that we need a national communication system, so in
the event of a disaster, we have someplace to go to locate mine
rescue team members, locate equipment.
If you look at every disaster we've had over the years--I
don't care where it's been--we're scrambling around, trying to
find drills to go drill bore holes, we're scrambling around to
find equipment--that is absolutely absurd, Mr. Chairman. Coal
miners deserve better than that, and we can do better than
that.
Senator Harkin. Yes.
Mr. Roberts. We need a national communications system in
place.
But, the Consolidation Coal Company has mine rescue teams
at every one of their mines. They spend money to train their
miners in this area, they have the best equipment available to
anybody in this country. The thing that happens--and I want you
to think about this, too, Mr. Chairman--when you have a Sago
who doesn't do this, and didn't do this, they call who? They
call Consolidation Coal Company, and say, ``Would you send your
team down here?'' So, they send their experienced miners who--
by they way, mine coal every day for them--and their
experienced mine rescue team, and their equipment, down to the
Sago mine and risk those people's lives to try to help out
there. We'll always do that in this industry, no matter if
you're a foreman or a union person, or a non-union person--when
a disaster strikes in these coal fields, everybody reacts to
it.
But, every company should do what Consol does, and that
should be a requirement.
Senator Harkin. Mr. Watzman, I noticed you wanted to say
something about this.
Mr. Watzman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to be clear,
and that we not leave the implication that the tragic outcomes
at Sago, and Alma, and Darby and other tragedies were the
result of the failure of the mine rescue system.
At the Alma Mine, there were 22 mine rescue teams on site
available for the efforts there. One of the issues that mine
rescue teams confront, and all of my panel members are aware of
this, is that we want to ensure that the mine rescue teams are
not sent underground until it is safe to send them underground.
That causes much of the delay. At Sago, there was a delay in
the teams getting there, but when it was safe for the teams to
go underground, there were adequate numbers of mine rescue
teams.
That's not to say that the system is perfect, the MINER Act
reflects that, the MINER Act deals with mine rescue, and we
supported the MINER Act, and those provisions. But, there is
not a disaster looming for the industry in terms of mine rescue
capability.
Senator Harkin. My nephew is a miner. My nephew, he's been
mining now for about--pretty close to 30 years, but he's out
west, it's not coal mines, it's trona, trona mines. He's a team
leader of a rescue team. They go to National competitions, do
they do that for coal, too?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Senator Harkin. Do they have National competitions, and
that type of thing?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Senator Harkin. I've often been, you know, and his team
is--I think came in second in the Nation or something like that
in one of these competitions. I've always been admiring him for
that. But, but he tells me about these rescue teams, and what
the kind of training they go through. It is pretty extensive.
They have to continually be re-certified--is that the right
word, or something like that, maybe? Something like that?
Mr. Roberts. Right.
Senator Harkin. That's the same as coal, also? As trona
mines?
Well, I haven't checked with him lately, but I'd offer his
services, I'll have to check with him on that.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I was not here for
the first panel, I wish I had been, but we have multiple
committees to go to.
Mr. Roberts, you referenced my State of Alabama, and the
disaster that happened down there, I was down there with you
and others. Just for the record, on the afternoon of September
23, 2001, 32 miners were working to repair drilling machines
and hoisting tunnel supports in the No. 5 mine of Jim Walter
Resources in Brookwood, Tuscaloosa County, my home county, of
Alabama.
A piece of the mine ceiling dropped on a battery charger,
which set off a spark, igniting a pocket of methane gas. The
explosion injured several miners, and incapacitated one, who
was unable to move. Heroically, several miners set aside their
own concern for safety--as they do--and rushed to his aid. As
they moved into the tunnel, a second, larger explosion blasted
through the mine, and killed the incapacitated miner, and his
12 rescuers. In total, 13 men died in my State, in my home
county of Alabama that day. This was a severe blow--not only to
the family, the friends, but everybody in the community.
In November 2005, I corresponded with Secretary Chao, and
expressed my concern that an Administrative Law Judge had
reduced the original fine--Mr. Roberts is very familiar with
this--from the amount of $435,000, to $3,000. Earlier this
year, I was notified that an appeal had failed. This brings
about several questions.
First, how does a fine get reduced by such a staggering
amount? Second, why did the appeal fail? Third, why would the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor, not
pursue a case where 13 miners tragically died?
Mr. Roberts, do you have an opinion?
Mr. Roberts. I have an opinion.
Senator Shelby. I'd like to hear it.
Mr. Roberts. It's been well expressed.
Senator Shelby. Because we've talked about this.
Mr. Roberts. Yes, we have. I think we met on a ball field.
Senator Shelby. We did, at a memorial service, where there
was a lot of grief, to say the least, would you say?
Mr. Roberts. That's, that's putting it very mildly,
Senator.
I think it should be noted for the record that 12 of those
miners who tried to save--Junior Adams, it's amazing these
names that, you know, when you go through this, you can
remember--Junior Adams was the miner that was injured in the
initial, there was two explosions.
Senator Shelby. That's right.
Mr. Roberts. One was very minor, injuring three miners,
one--one, Junior Adams, could not move--one miner caught on
fire, and rolled himself down the entryway to put himself out.
Senator Shelby. That's right.
Mr. Roberts. The place was full of smoke and dust, and he
went to Junior Adams, and Junior Adams took off his light, and
gave it to this miner who lost his in that initial explosion,
and his name was Mike Mackey--I remember his name, too--and he
staggered down the entryway to the foreman, and the foreman was
so dazed that he didn't know where he was, and those two
stumbled their way down to the track, and they let people know
that Junior Adams was up there in the dark, injured and
couldn't walk. Then 12 miners, Alabamans, brave coal miners in
Alabama said, ``We're going to go get him.'' They went to get
him, and another large, just horrendous explosion occurred, and
killed all 13 of them. Excuse me, and we had to go down and
talk to the families about the fact--we had sealed that mine
for about 2 or 3 weeks, if I remember, because it was about to
blow completely off the map.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Roberts, share with them how deep this
mine is? Of course, the quality of the coal is superb, but----
Mr. Roberts. You go down, you go straight down a shaft
about 2,000 feet, if I'm not mistaken, in Alabama is the
deepest coal mines in North America----
Senator Shelby. Some of the finest coal, other than West
Virginia, right?
Mr. Roberts. Absolutely. Some of the best metallurgical
coal in the world.
Senator Shelby. It is, in the world.
Mr. Roberts. Then you get on a--once you go down to 2,000
feet, you talk about the difficulty in rescuing people, I want
you to think about this. These mine rescue teams went down an
elevator after mine exploded, twice, and tried to rescue
people, 2,000 feet down the shaft, and then went miles and
miles and miles underground after they got there trying to find
these miners, but the air was so contaminated, that the CO was
completely out of kilter, the methane was about to explode
again, there was heat and fire everywhere, and they had to come
out. They got one of the miners out, and he unfortunately,
died.
Senator Shelby. Weren't these rescuers that got blown up
volunteers, too? Some of them?
Mr. Roberts. The rescue team members who went down after
the mine exploded were volunteers, and they came back out. They
went down and rescued one miner, who died the next day, but all
of these miners who went up there to try to get Junior Adams,
were working in a different part of the mine, and could have
gotten out. They could have walked out, they could have rode
out and been saved, but they chose to go risk their lives to
get Junior Adams, and the mine exploded.
But, I want you to think about the story we just told, and
MSHA decided--first of all, the initial fines were ridiculously
low. Then on a conference, I believed is where they were
reduced down to an absurd amount. Then they were appealed to a
Federal--I believe, an Administrative Law Judge----
Senator Shelby. That's right.
Mr. Roberts [continuing]. Reduced those down, and this
Administrative Law Judge said that these 13 miners' lives was
worth something like $4,000, I believe?
Senator Shelby. Horrible.
Mr. Roberts. That, that's--and in the--in our testimony
that's written here----
Senator Shelby. Can we impeach that guy?
Mr. Roberts. Well, he should be. We, in our testimony----
Senator Shelby. It is shocking. It's shocking, Tom.
Mr. Roberts. In our testimony, we suggest that the fines,
they need to be assessed, and fines need--listen to this, fines
need to be collected. That's a problem that we've had for some
time, and we suggest in our testimony that MSHA--if they do not
have the authority now, which they say they do not have--if
these fines go unpaid, it's the same as never been issued, they
ought to go down, and shut these mines down, and have the
authority to close these mines for the failure to pay those
fines.
I think, Senator, you're making one of the arguments that
we've been making for years, that this is an absurd situation
that exists in this Nation.
Senator Shelby. Well, as you well know, in my home county
in Alabama, it's great coal, some of the finest metallurgical
coal in the world, deep mines, a lot of methane, big risk, we
should so everything we can to make it as safe as we can for
our workers, should we not?
Mr. Roberts. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. In case they're trapped, we should do
everything we can in a response team.
Elaborate if you would, just a minute, I know the hour's
late, on some type of an emergency respond team. You have them,
but some kind of national--we have SWAT teams, you know, we
have everything--the FBI has a SWAT team for real emergency,
dealing with crime and big things. But these coal miners' lives
are very important, to all of us.
Mr. Roberts. I would invite the committee to, I'm sure
most--many Members of Congress had, this is the UMWA's report
on the Jim Walter No. 5 disaster. Many of the things that we
talked about when this report was issued, we talked about again
at Sago. We talked about again at Alma.
But, let me just suggest this--there is no place in the
United States where there's a central communications systems
where, in the event of a mine disaster, somebody knows where
everything is. Somebody knows where everybody is, and somebody
can find everything that you need. Every one of these
situations we start--and let me commend the people who have to
go through these. I went through more of the one in Alabama
than I cared to go through, but let me tell you--you'll never
forget it if you ever go through one. You'll never forget it,
until the day you die, that's when you'll forget about it.
But let me tell you, we need a central location--you could
take what Consolidation Coal Company does for their--and
they're the largest underground producer in the country--you
could take what they do to protect their mines, with respect to
mine rescue team training, mine rescue team members, and a
communications system where they can communicate with anyone
and everyone that they might need in the event of an emergency,
and we ought to have that available somewhere, in the United
States of America, where in the event of a next disaster,
somebody says, ``Call Morgantown, call Alabama,'' wherever we
put this----
Senator Shelby. Call Tuscaloosa, my hometown.
Mr. Roberts. They'll know how to get everything and
anything----
Senator Shelby. That makes sense.
Mr. Roberts. Within the matter of an hour for these
disasters. That does not exist.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Roberts----
Mr. Roberts. It does not exist, and that would be
relatively easy to develop.
Senator Shelby. But we do it for other things--we have the
first responders program, the chairman understands that--both
the chairmen, Chairman Byrd and Chairman Harkin--very well,
because we fund it, in case of terrorist attack, chemicals. But
these ought to have some type of a coordinated, well-trained
National response, I agree with you.
Mr. Roberts. Amen, Senator.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for you indulgence.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby. Good
line of questions.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin. Well, thank you all very much. Thank this
panel, and the previous panel. Again, I think you can sense
that we're all very proud of our tradition of mining in this
country. These tragedies that occur tear at all of us, and we
just have to re-double our efforts to make sure that the MINER
Act is fully enforced and implemented as soon as possible.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
There will be some additional questions which will be
submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
technology
Question. You mentioned that MSHA has had contact with more than
125 parties about communications and tracking systems, but only
observed testing and demonstration of 16 systems and approved 3. Why
haven't you been able to test and certify more? Is this a resource
issue? What specific steps are you taking to expedite the approval
process for these technologies?
Answer. While MSHA has had contact with 132 parties regarding
communication and tracking systems, between January 2006 and March 30,
2007, MSHA has received 39 applications for approval of communications
and tracking systems. Of these 39 applications, 24 applications are
currently being evaluated and 15 have already been approved. Three of
these are new approvals for communication and tracking systems and 12
are modifications to previously approved pager phones and leaky feeder
systems. These are completed via the Revised Approval Modification
Program (RAMP).
The 16 tests referenced above were observed as non-approval related
product demonstrations. To help advance the technology MSHA has been
providing non-typical assistance to communication and tracking
technology manufacturers to help them develop their systems. These in-
mine tests are designed to determine if the technology can work
effectively in the unique mine environment and are not part of the MSHA
approval process. The normal MSHA approval process determines whether
or not the technology is safe and does not present a fire or explosion
hazard.
MSHA has assigned top priority to all communication and tracking
approval applications.
Question. The National Mining Association report released in
December 2006 recommends ``that mines utilized hardened mine pager
phones or leaky feeder systems, as an interim measure, to meet the need
for post-incident emergency voice communications.'' How will MSHA
support this recommendation so that communications systems are improved
immediately?
Answer. Various pager phones and leaky feeder systems are currently
available and MSHA-approved for mine operators to use at their mines.
Among the 24 communication and tracking applications currently under
investigation at MSHA's Approval and Certification Center (A&CC),
several are for modifications to existing approved pager phones and
leaky feeder systems. These modifications are typically changes
necessary to accommodate ``hardening'' of the devices so that the
devices will be better protected to withstand explosive forces or fire.
As mentioned above, in addition to the three new approvals that the
MSHA A&CC issued in the previous year for communication and tracking
systems, the A&CC also issued 12 modifications to previously approved
pager phones and leaky feeder systems to accommodate the ``hardening''
changes.
Question. At the hearing last year, I saw an Australian technology
known as a Personal Emergency Device (PED). It was a relatively cost-
effective text message type communication device. I know that was only
a 1-way communication system and we want 2-way, but where are we on
that? I seem to recall that several U.S. mine operators had already
bought the system. Has the number increased? Why not?
Answer. MSHA has made a significant effort to assess the
performance of the PED. MSHA visited five installations in the United
States as well as four stallations in Australia that are using the
device. The purpose of these visits was to evaluate the performance and
capabilities of the PED one-way paging system. We published our
findings about the advantages and disadvantages of these devices on the
MSHA website. The primary concern with the performance of the PED was
that, in order for it to function properly after an accident, the
required loop antenna needs to be installed on the surface. However,
unlike in Australia, most mine operators in the United States do not
own the surface rights to their underground mine properties, which
precludes the installation of this essential component. To use the
system such operators must install the antenna underground, rendering
it susceptible to an explosion or fire. Also, topography is a greater
challenge in the United States than it is in Australia. Other important
concerns with the PED included major interference problems, no
confirmation from the miner that text messages are received, and
significant ``dead zones.''
The Mine Site Technologies PED system is a one-way paging system
with little technical promise to be made an effective 2-way
communication device. Some U.S. coal mine operators are not willing to
purchase the one-way PED system when the MINER Act requires a two-way
system. While there are companies working on two-way, through-the-earth
voice communication, test results have shown that this technology does
not exist at this time.
training
Question. The Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission report
recommended that MSHA better validate mine rescue team training by
observing training in progress in addition to checking training logs.
It also recommended that MSHA should improve the quality of training
during approval of mine operator training plans; and address a
significant training materials gap. Does MSHA have sufficient resources
this year and in the fiscal year 2008 President's budget to address the
training-related recommendations in this report? Specifically, how do
you plan to address these recommendations?
Answer. MSHA has sufficient funding in 2007 and under the
President's 2008 Budget to address the training recommendations and
implement the training requirements in the MINER Act.
The MINER Act requirements dealing with mine rescue teams are
currently in the rulemaking process. The MINER Act provides for
different training requirements for large and small mines. The MINER
Act adds a new training requirement that mine rescue team members must
participate in two local mine rescue contests and participate in
training at the covered mines. These additional training requirements
complement the existing training in 30 CFR Part 49.8 (training for mine
rescue teams) and will enhance the current system of mine rescue
capability and result in additional protection for the nation's miners.
Existing Part 49.8 requires 4 hours of refresher mine rescue
training each month, or eight hours every 2 months; training sessions
underground every 6 months; and team members to wear breathing
apparatus for a minimum of 2 hours every 2 months.
The new requirements for training of coal mine rescue teams include
training sessions underground, familiarity with operations of covered
mines, and knowledge of operation and ventilation at each covered mine.
MSHA inspection personnel currently monitor selected mine rescue
training, participate in Mine Emergency Readiness Drills (MERD) and
participate in Mine Rescue Contests as contest judges. MSHA expects to
continue this monitoring and participation.
Pursuant to the requirements of the MINER Act, MSHA is currently
developing regulations covering the above issues related to mine rescue
teams, and expects to publish a proposed rule later this year.
emergency response plans
Question. The MINER Act requires each mine's emergency response
plan to be continuously reviewed, updated and re-certified by MSHA
every 6 months. To date, how many have been reviewed and fully
approved, and how many are pending review?
Answer. To date, there have been 481 emergency response plans
(ERPs) submitted for approval from active, producing underground coal
mines. Of these ERPs submitted for approval, approximately 90 percent
(431) have been partially approved. MSHA's guidance on ``breathable
air'' was recently issued as PIB 07-03 on February 8, 2007. Mine
operators had 30 days after the Program Information Bulletin (PIB) was
issued to submit their revised ERPs for approval by MSHA. Many of these
submissions were found to be deficient and new submissions, under
MSHA's plan approval process will need to be reviewed. These are due to
be sent to the MSHA District Managers on March 28, 2007.
Question. What have been the major deficiencies identified in the
plans that needed to be altered?
Answer. The policy on post-accident breathable air (PIB P07-03)
required mine operator submission of the portion of the ERP addressing
breathable air no later than March 12, 2007. MSHA found many of the
submissions deficient and under MSHA's plan approval process new
submissions were due to the MSHA district managers on March 28.
Consequently, no ERPs have been fully approved by MSHA at this time.
Partially approved plans are those plans basically without
breathable air. As explained above, MSHA expects to receive submissions
of those portions by March 28. For those plans not yet partially
approved and in the review process, two major areas of deficiencies
have been identified by several of the districts. Questions have been
raised by MSHA regarding post accident tracking and the areas or zones
selected for location purposes. Some mine operators have submitted
plans with very large zones or areas to work within that would make
locating miners very difficult. Also, some mines have submitted plans
with a voice recorder system to track the miners, but no provisions
were included for monitoring the recorders during the shift worked.
Consequently, in the event of an accident, several hours of recording
might have to be reviewed in order determine the last known location of
miners.
The MINER Act requires each mine's ERP to be reviewed, updated and
approved by MSHA every 6 months. Since the first ERP submission
deadline of August 14, 2006, MSHA has issued additional guidance
established by policy and regulations that require mine operators to
revise and update their ERPs. These include the following:
--MSHA Program Policy Letter (PPL) No. P06-V-10 Implementation of
Section 2 of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response
(MINER) Act of 2006, issued on October 24, 2006,
--Emergency Mine Evacuation Final Rule, effective December 8, 2006,
--MSHA PIB No. P07-03 Implementation of Section 2 of the MINER Act of
2006: Options for Providing Post-Accident Breathable Air to
Underground Coal Miners, issued on February 8, 2007.
Question. What are the resources dedicated to this effort in fiscal
year 2007 and proposed for fiscal year 2008 in dollars and FTEs?
Answer. The Emergency Response Plans are reviewed by the district
specialists and these district personnel will be dedicated to reviewing
and approving these plans as needed. There is not a specific line-item
in the budget for this activity.
Question. How does MSHA plan to stay current with meaningful
reviews of operator plans and enforcement of effective implementation
of the plans?
Answer. MSHA keeps current by tracking progress on the
implementation of the MINER Act and the Mine Emergency Evacuation Final
Rule nationwide and at the district level. We track this progress
through our review of the ERP which is required every 6 months by the
MINER Act and through regular inspection activities at the mine sites.
When MSHA conducts an inspection, MSHA evaluates plan compliance.
In the event non-compliance is found, appropriate enforcement action is
taken and corrective action is required. Also, if MSHA receives a
complaint from a concerned miner, MSHA would investigate it.
mine inspectors
Question. In a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from
2003, GAO stated that 44 percent of underground coal mine inspectors
would be eligible for retirement within the next 5 years. What is the
actual record of retirements by calendar year? Does MSHA have a
specific plan for preparing to replace these lost assets? What is it?
How will you ensure that the new inspectors have the skills and
experience needed to replace veteran inspectors?
Answer. The table below shows MSHA's record of retirements of its
enforcement personnel over the last several years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Calendar year retirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................. 20
2004.................................................. 33
2005.................................................. 60
2006.................................................. 56
2007 (through February)............................... 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the supplemental funding provided in fiscal year 2006, MSHA is
in the process of hiring an additional 170 new coal enforcement
personnel. The hiring is occurring over five quarters beginning in July
2006 and ending on September 30, 2007. As of March 12, 2007, here have
been 18 job fairs held with a total of 1,240 candidates being tested.
Additional job fairs will be held and recruiting measures taken to
maintain MSHA's enforcement corps.
In addition, MSHA is working to backfill retiring enforcement
personnel so that we net 170 new enforcement personnel by the end of
September, 2007, at which time MSHA expects to have 757 coal
enforcement personnel on board by the end of fiscal year 2007, the
highest number since 1994.
MSHA will ensure that all new inspectors have the skills and
experience to inspect mines and make mining as safe as possible.
Currently, trainees are not permitted to receive their authorized
representative (AR) cards until training has been completed and the
trainee has received satisfactory evaluations from the Academy
Instructor and the trainee's supervisor. The MSHA Coal District Manager
and the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health must approve the
readiness of new inspectors. In addition, the trainee must have
completed on-the-job training and demonstrated, during supervisory-and
inspectors-accompanied inspections, the ability to independently
conduct periodic on-site health and safety inspections at coal mines.
Question. MSHA has been transferring specialists back to inspectors
in order to meet mandated inspections. Please identify the number of
FTEs of such transfers that have taken place in fiscal year 06 and thus
far in fiscal year 2007. What has the impact been on the availability
of assistance with ventilation, roof, electrical, health and other
operational issues? Does the fiscal year 2008 budget provided for the
backfilling of these transferred specialists? If so, how many FTEs are
supported by the fiscal year 2008 budget request?
Answer. In fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, MSHA did not
convert any specialists to inspectors. As such, no vacancies were
created which require backfilling. It was not necessary because we
replace inspectors with new inspector hires and keep specialists in
their designated positions.
Question. Under the educational policy and development line, your
budget proposes to fund 20 entry level inspector groups during fiscal
year 2008. Is this training plan sufficient to replace losses?
Answer. MSHA's training plan will accommodate training requirements
of personnel hired to replace losses as well as the 170 new personnel.
Of the 20 entry level inspector groups planned, 15 are for coal and
five are for metal/nonmetal. The typical size of each coal mine
inspector (CMI) class is 15 students; therefore 15 classes will
accommodate all trainees. Coal Mine Safety and Health and Educational
Policy and Development, as in the past, will continue to work in
concert to make the necessary adjustments to ensure that the scheduling
of CMI training classes are a top priority.
inspections
Question. The MINE Act requires that all underground mines be
comprehensively inspected 4 times per year, and that surface mines be
inspected twice a year. How is MSHA complying with this requirement?
What does MSHA do beyond the required inspections to address the causes
for mining accidents and fatalities?
Answer. MSHA places a high priority on completion of Regular Health
and Safety Inspections (E01 code) for all mines where inspections are
required, surface and underground. The E01 Inspections are
comprehensive and cover all aspects of safety and health for the mine.
MSHA tracks the rates for completion of the regular inspections to
monitor performance and adherence to the Mine Act requirements. Beyond
the regular inspections, MSHA conducts special emphasis inspections
covering various areas of concern for increased enforcement focus such
as roof control, ventilation, electrical, surface haulage and health.
MSHA has several traditional special emphasis initiatives that are
conducted annually. These include the summer Preventive Roof Outreach
Program (PROP) for heightened roof hazard awareness and the Winter
Alert initiative to emphasize underground explosion and fire hazards
and surface area winter-related hazards. When circumstances dictate,
MSHA conducts special emphasis initiatives to address areas of concern
such as mine belt conveyors, slopes and shafts, roof control areas
including retreat mining, seal evaluations, respirable dust, and
special general mine-wide inspection saturation events to determine
overall compliance at a single mine or at several mines simultaneously.
For example, a special emphasis on retreat mining at 14 mines in
District 4 yielded 217 citations, 21 orders, and one safeguard. The
targeted enforcement effort on respirable dust at 61 mines nationwide
discovered 32 violations for not complying with provisions of dust
control plans.
MSHA also utilizes non-enforcement personnel from its Technical
Support branch for highly technical investigations involving areas of
special expertise, and MSHA uses personnel from its Education and Field
Services branch to monitor miner training classes for course content
and appropriateness, monitor training instructors, assist with training
plan approval issues and to participate in the special emphasis
initiatives.
Question. The MINE Act provides for the issuance of withdrawal
orders to mine operators who exhibit a ``pattern of violations'' of
mandatory health and safety standards that could significantly and
substantially contribute to the cause and effect of the health and
safety hazards. What plans does MSHA have to improve enforcement at
mines that have a pattern of violations?
Answer. The MINE Act authorizes MSHA to issue a withdrawal order
under certain conditions disclosed by an inspection conducted within 90
days after a notice that the mine operator has a pattern of violations
of mandatory standards that could have significantly and substantially
contributed to mine hazards. MSHA has a regulation that provides for a
letter warning mine operators that they have a potential pattern of
violations before the statutory notice is issued. While MSHA has issued
such letters, it has never proceeded to issue the statutory notice.
MSHA has recently initiated the development of objective criteria to
identify mines that may have a pattern of violations. Once these new
criteria are in place, MSHA will issue pattern of violations notices
and orders where warranted. Each Significant and Substantial (S&S)
violation requires the mine operator to withdraw miners from that area
if the mine until that violation is abated. Once a mine operator
receives a notice of pattern of violations, there must be an inspection
of the mine in its entirety where no S&S violations are found in order
for the notice of pattern of violations to be terminated. This
enforcement tool will provide a powerful incentive for mine operators
to comply.
Question. How will this differ from current practices?
Answer. Using objective criteria to determine whether mines are
identified as having a potential pattern of violations will result in
uniformity and consistency for each district and improve the overall
effectiveness of this enforcement tool.
safety and health conferences
Question. In fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008, how much do you
expect to spend in dollars and FTEs on Safety and Health Conferences
conducted by conference litigation representatives? Given your
expectation that Safety and Health Conferences will increase as a
result of the higher assessments under the MINER Act, specifically how
will you meet this higher demand for conferences this year and in
fiscal year 2008?
Answer. In fiscal year 2006, MSHA's Coal Mine Safety and Health
(CMS&H) component conducted 1,612 safety and health conferences.
Currently Coal has 14 full time conference litigation representatives
(CLRs) and an additional three vacancies currently in the process of
being filled.
CMS&H continues to adjust hiring needs in anticipation of increased
workloads and attrition and will continue to adjust them. CMS&H is also
working with the Office of the Solicitor, which must also be capable of
meeting the corresponding increase in contested cases before the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. This increased
contested case load is anticipated to result from the increased
conference case load that the CLRs are unable to resolve.
Question. How much was spent in fiscal year 2006 for Office of
Solicitor costs related to investigations and other work done on MSHA's
behalf? How much do you anticipate will be needed in fiscal year 2007
and fiscal year 2008 for such costs? How many investigations and other
workloads will these costs support?
Answer. In fiscal year 2006, the Office of the Solicitor (SOL)
expended $8.267 million in support of MSHA legal enforcement, and
experienced a pending investigative and enforcement-related caseload of
6,228. The SOL investigative and enforcement related caseload includes
the defense of pending safety and health citations before
administrative law judges, before the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Review Commission, and before the courts, as well as legal advice
related to investigations and legal support for MSHA regulatory
initiatives. Because of ongoing substantial increases in MSHA
enforcement efforts and inspection FTE and the impact of the MINER Act,
the pending MSHA enforcement caseload for SOL increased by
approximately 60 percent between 2005 and 2006 and is expected to
continue to increase by 20-25 percent each year over the next 2 years.
In fiscal year 2007, based on year-to-date actual figures, SOL
estimates expenditures for MSHA legal enforcement of $8.679 million,
and expects the total pending caseload to increase to 7,401. The 2008
Budget includes $11.604 million for SOL legal enforcement support of
MSHA, and the total pending caseload is expected to increase to 9,125.
Question. Your fiscal year 2008 budget stated that your special
investigations program has experienced a decrease of 42 percent over
the past 5 years. What is the appropriate number of such staff needed?
How many FTEs does your fiscal year 2008 budget support for this
program?
Answer. For fiscal year 2008, we were requesting to hire 10
additional special investigators (SIs). Currently, there are 31
fulltime SIs and MSHA CMS&H is in the process of approving another
seven for a total of 38. The additional 10 hires would boost that
number to 48 in fiscal year 2008. MSHA may need to train as many as 19
additional special investigators for CMS&H to properly staff for the
foreseeable future. Initially, however, not all of these FTEs would
necessarily need to be full-time since some special investigators are
involved with collateral duties. Ultimately, this recommended number of
trained investigators will likely be needed by CMS&H to cover
anticipated retirements. Currently, CMS&H is balancing special
investigators' existing workloads by sharing investigator resources
across some districts.
enforcement
Question. What is the working relationship between MSHA and the
various mining oversight agencies at the state level? What, if any,
obstacles exist to a cooperative and collaborative relationship between
MSHA and the state oversight agencies?
Answer. MSHA has a long history of cooperative relationships with
most of the state oversight agencies for mine safety and health. MSHA
considers the state agencies among its most important stakeholders and
strives to partner with those groups. For example, over the years MSHA
has conducted or participated in joint mine rescue exercises or
competitions, has conducted problem solving meetings with individual
states and MSHA/State summits with multiple state agencies to share
ideas, issues and areas of concern, and to gain a better understanding
of specific problems facing the states. On numerous occasions, MSHA and
the state agencies have successfully conducted inspection activities
jointly with favorable results for both.
Obstacles to cooperative and collaborative working relationships
can arise from time to time stemming from divergent policies or
priorities. However, MSHA and state agencies work collaboratively to
resolve such situations in a manner that provides optimum safety and
health for mines. Many times the affected district manager and director
of the state program work together to resolve these differences in the
context of a recognition that state standards may exceed MSHA
requirements but not diminish protections.
Question. Last year, the Inspector General (IG) found that the coal
mine hazardous condition complaint process needs strengthening. In
particular, the IG found that the contractor operating the hazardous
complaint call center did not have mining experience and utilized
deficient call scripts. In addition, the IG found that MSHA did not
quantify a benchmark by which the complaints or imminent danger
allegations would be investigated. Specifically, how have you addressed
the issues in the IG report? What is the basis for not having a
benchmark for how quickly complaints or imminent danger allegations
will be expected? For the past 2 years, what is the average response
time for complaints and imminent danger allegations made to the call
center?
Answer. Prior to and following the publication of the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) report on hazardous condition complaints, MSHA
has taken the following actions to address the issues identified in the
September 29, 2006 report:
(1) enhancements to the new Hazardous Condition Complaint tracking
system for better management control and oversight of code-a-phone, on-
line E-Gov, and written complaints;
(2) implementation of a 1-800 complaint answering service staffed
by trained operators on a 24/7 basis;
(3) training for MSHA personnel on imminent danger hazardous
condition complaints, and appropriate documentation for assessment
purposes; and
(4) new procedures and policies to address tracking and recording
calls, timely evaluation of complaints, other OIG findings and
recommendations, such as complete and accurate recording of complaints
and timely evaluation of complaints.
The OIG recommended that MSHA establish a measure to complete
hazard condition complaint evaluations and imminent danger complaint
investigations. MSHA has not set benchmarks that place time constraints
on a safety or health activity and could have a detrimental effect on
the quality of our investigation and response. If the completion
performance metric is too binding, the focus is on timeliness instead
of the overall need for, scope and quality of response and could result
in premature and uninformed decisions, minimizing the ability for MSHA
to correct the root cause(s) of the issue.
At this point we do not have the requested data for the past 2
years; and, since the call center became operational on December 8,
2006, we cannot provide the average response time for complaints and
imminent danger allegations made to the call center for the past 2
years. However, MSHA has designed new reports to track the issues in
the OIG report such as response times for complaints and imminent
danger investigations. The enhancements to the hazardous condition
complaint system are scheduled for implementation this spring.
Question. In your written testimony, you stated that MSHA will use
all of the tools available to achieve your goals, including tough
enforcement. Why does the budget for the Office of Assessments include
no additional funding and assume that MSHA will assess fewer violations
in fiscal year 2008 than in fiscal year 2006? How will MSHA practice
tough enforcement, including specifically the new authority under the
MINER Act for flagrant violations, without additional resources and
with an expectation to assess fewer violations?
Answer. The newly final proposed penalty schedule is intended to
improve compliance with mine safety and health laws, and it is MSHA's
expectation that the increased penalties will ultimately result in
fewer violations. MSHA has already implemented the MINER Act penalty
provisions, and this has not increased the costs of assessing the
associated penalties.
MSHA is also making revisions to the Civil Penalty component of its
computer system to provide mine operators additional information on the
status of contested, paid, and unpaid violations every month. This,
coupled with another change to have the system automatically apply
penalty payments, should result in fewer inquiries from the mining
community and help keep the administrative costs associated with
assessing and collecting civil penalties in check. When necessary, MSHA
augments existing staff with contract support to help process the civil
penalty paperwork. MSHA will be able to fully and vigorously enforce
the law with the resources requested in the 2008 Budget.
Question. Mr. Stickler, when I wrote to you on November 1, 2006, I
had emphasized the importance for you to become a forceful advocate for
adequate mine safety funding.
What actions have you taken to ensure that MSHA is a forceful
advocate for mine safety funding?
Answer. I fully support the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
request for $313.5 million, which I believe is a clear demonstration of
this administration's strong commitment to mine safety. This request
provides for 757 coal enforcement personnel--the highest number since
1994. I believe these new inspectors will enable MSHA to aggressively
enforce our Nation's mine safety and health laws. I also note that a
strong enforcement program for mine safety and health also needs a
correspondingly well funded and adequate amount of legal support to
handle the increased workload. To this end, the President's fiscal year
2008 Budget also requested $11.604 million for MSHA legal enforcement
support.
Question. Many of the provisions of the MINER Act have not been
implemented. To what extent has inadequate funding impacted on
implementing the act?
Answer. MSHA has implemented, or is in the process of implementing,
all mandated MINER Act provisions that have become due and has done so
in accordance with MINER Act implementation dates. MSHA funding is
adequate to meet these deadlines.
The provisions of the MINER Act that have been implemented by MSHA
include:
--Reviewing emergency response plans submitted by underground coal
mine operators;
--Requiring more self-contained self-rescue devices for each miner in
every underground coal mine;
--Requiring flame resistant life lines for evacuation in all
underground coal mines;
--Mandating additional mine evacuation safety training and training
on the use of SCSRs;
--Currently drafting regulations on both Seals and Mine Rescue rules
that will meet the requirements of the MINER Act;
--Establishing the penalties for flagrant and failure to notify
violations and increasing penalties for unwarrantable
violations;
--Requiring all mine operators to notify MSHA immediately after a
reportable accident;
--Installing redundant underground to surface communications systems;
--Setting up the Technical Study Panel on belt air and conveyor
belting; and
--Training 14 MSHA personnel to serve as Family Liaison and Primary
Communicators following mine accidents involving multiple
fatalities.
Question. I understand that West Virginia and Illinois are still
expecting to require mine operators in those States to provide wireless
communications devices and underground shelters in just a few months.
Why can't MSHA move ahead on those matters right now so miners in the
rest of the country can enjoy similar protections?
Answer. Regarding wireless communication devices, the states of
West Virginia and Illinois have accepted a relatively broad
interpretation of the term ``wireless.'' They intend to accept a
``hardened'' leaky feeder system as complying with the terms of their
state laws. The leaky feeder systems that MSHA is familiar with are not
wireless, because portions of the leaky feeder systems are based on
wired components. The MINER Act allowed a three year period for mines
to comply with the requirement to provide a ``wireless two-way medium''
for communications presumably to allow time for truly wireless
technology to be adapted to the underground mine environment and for
wireless systems to obtain MSHA approval.
As to emergency shelters, MSHA policy PIB 07-03 provided mine
operators with a range of options for supporting miners who are trapped
underground with breathable air adaptable for a wide variety of mining
conditions. The PIB does not prohibit the use of refuge chambers as a
means of providing breathable air.
With regard to specific underground refuge shelter requirements,
the MINER Act stipulates that NIOSH has been given until December 2007
to provide the technical specifications for refuge chambers, on which
MSHA's requirements may be based.
Following the release of NIOSH's report, MSHA will respond to
Congress describing what actions, if any, the agency intends to take
and the reasons for such actions. MSHA is working closely with NIOSH in
their research project.
MSHA has hosted several informational meetings and demonstrations
in which refuge chamber manufacturers, NIOSH, industry personnel, and
state agencies participated. In October 2006, MSHA held a Mine Rescue
Technologies Expo in conjunction with the annual TRAM (Training
Resources Applied to Mining) conference at the Beckley National Mine
Academy. This Expo served to share current worldwide refuge chamber and
related technologies with the entire U.S. mining industry. MSHA
recognized it to be in the best interest of the miners to act quickly,
and, after extensive research and technical data collection, has
published MSHA policy PIB-07-03 as a practical, immediately
implementable approach for providing breathable air, based upon the
requirements of the MINER Act and what is feasible under current
technology and mining conditions.
Question. The recent NIOSH draft report on ``mine seals'' indicates
that workers are currently in ``grave'' danger because these walls can
explode, regardless of what kind of material they are made from. The
NIOSH report also suggested that the technology is there to solve this
problem, and in many cases costs can be minimized.
Why can't you speed up the agencies action on this critically
important area, just as MSHA did last year when it mandated that more
oxygen be made available to miners working underground?
Answer. MSHA has already taken prompt interim action to increase
protection for miners from hazards relating to sealed areas of
underground coal mines by requiring:
(1) a temporary moratorium on the construction of new alternative
seals;
(2) operators to assess the atmosphere behind existing alternative
seals;
(3) operators to take remedial actions if the atmosphere behind the
sealed area has the potential for an explosion;
(4) improvement of strength and construction specifications for new
alternative seals;
(5) inspection and maintenance of existing alternative seals,
including corrective actions, when necessary; and
(6) MSHA approval of new alternative seals. MSHA also required
remedial action, in specific situations, where necessary. These actions
reduced the hazards of explosions in sealed areas. MSHA is evaluating
additional interim steps to improve safety conditions associated with
alternative seals prior to issuance of a final standard.
MSHA is working expeditiously to develop improved standards for
seals so that the Agency can meet the MINER Act requirement. MSHA will
use all information available, including technical information from
NIOSH, to develop the new standards.
msha penalties
Question. I understand OMB has been reviewing a proposal on MSHA
penalties for some time. When your staff briefed some of us last month
they commented on how important the increases in penalties will be in
helping to ensure greater compliance by the mine operators.
What is your opinion of the new fine structure under the MINER Act?
Answer. Increases in penalties are important to helping ensure
greater compliance by mine operators. The penalty provisions in the
MINER Act reflect the intent of Congress to ensure greater compliance
with MSHA's health and safety laws. MSHA fully supports these
provisions.
Question. Is OMB trying to weaken the rule on penalties that MSHA
has proposed?
Answer. No. MSHA submitted the rule to OMB in accordance with
Executive Order 12866 as part of the normal rulemaking development
process and published a final rule that substantially increased
penalties.
Question. When do you expect to move forward on this aspect of the
law?
Answer. MSHA's civil penalty final rule was published on March 22,
2007, as Part IV of the Federal Register. The new rule will take effect
on April 23, 2007. The civil penalty final rule will result in an
across-the-board increase in penalties, with the amounts increasing
more significantly for operators with histories of repeat violations of
the same standard and operators with violations involving high degrees
of negligence or gravity. The final rule eliminates the single penalty
assessment provision of $60 for non-significant and substantial
violations in favor of a regular assessment. It also includes minimum
penalties of $2,000 and $4,000, depending on whether there is a
withdrawal order, for unwarrantable failure violations. In addition,
flagrant violations--those involving ``a reckless or repeated failure
to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a
mandatory health or safety standard that substantially and proximately
caused, or reasonably could have been expected to cause, death or
serious bodily injury''--may receive a maximum penalty of $220,000.
Finally, a mine operator who fails to timely notify MSHA of a death, or
injury or entrapment with a reasonable potential to cause death, may
face penalties between $5,000 and $60,000.
Question. Also, MSHA can issue a ``pattern of violation'' citation
to those mines that repeatedly ignore mine safety requirements. Yet I
understand MSHA has never issued such a citation. What steps are you
taking to ensure that your District Managers know they will receive
your support for initiating such sanctions in appropriate cases?
Answer. I believe the Pattern of Violations regulations can be a
powerful enforcement tool, and, as my answer to Question 13
demonstrates, MSHA is working to ensure that this enforcement tool is
used consistently and effectively to provide miners with additional
protections against health and safety hazards. With the assistance of
the Solicitor's Office and district managers, MSHA staff is developing
objective criteria to identify mines that may have a pattern of
violations. Ultimately, based on reports from the district manager, the
Administrator for either Coal or Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and
Health decides whether the mine will be issued a notice of a pattern of
violations.
Question. MSHA's regulatory agenda indicates it is going to finally
update its asbestos rule by next month. Tomorrow I will be chairing a
hearing in my Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee on the re-
introduction of my bill to ban the production and importation of
asbestos in the United States. This administration has promised to do
something about asbestos time and again. The current MSHA rule is much
weaker than OSHA's rule, and to make matters worse, the OSHA rule is
itself not protective enough according to the results of the latest
study of the residents of Libby, Montana.
Are you in fact going to finally issue this rule?
Answer. Yes. MSHA, however, is currently devoting most of its
regulatory resources to developing the policies and regulations
required by the MINER Act of 2006.
Unlike the commercial asbestos OSHA regulates, MSHA regulates
asbestos that develops naturally in certain rock formations. The U.S.
mining industry does not mine or produce asbestos. MSHA's most recent
summary asbestos sampling data (01/00-3/05) reveal that 19 full-shift
asbestos samples at five mines, out of 812 samples at 173 mines,
indicated a personal exposure that equaled or exceeded the OSHA
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and MSHA's proposed limit. Although
MSHA has not issued the final rule, MSHA encouraged all five operators
to adopt, as a company standard, the more protective OSHA PEL of 0.1 f/
cc in a letter sent to each operator. In the letter, the Agency also
offered guidance for reducing exposures at these mines. In its sampling
program, MSHA focuses on the mines and occupations most likely to have
asbestos exposures.
Question. When?
Answer. MSHA expects to issue the asbestos rule sometime in early
or mid 2008, after the Agency completes the MINER Act mandated
regulatory requirements.
Question. According to the MINER Act, mine owners were to submit
emergency response plans to you by August 2006.
In the past 6 months, how many have you reviewed and approved, and
what is the status of the plans that are still outstanding?
Answer. To date, there have been 481 Emergency Response Plans
(ERPs) submitted for approval from active, producing underground coal
mines. Of these ERPs submitted for approval, approximately 90 percent
(431) have been partially approved for various provisions of the MINER
Act, Emergency Mine Evacuation Final Rule and/or MSHA Program
Information Bulletins (PIBs) and/or Program Policy Letters (PPLs)
relevant to ERPs. The remainder of the ERPs are being reviewed and
discussions are being held with the operators on some aspect of their
plan submission.
The guidance on post-accident breathable air (PIB P-07-03) required
mine operator submission of the portion of the ERP addressing
breathable air no later than March 12, 2007. Because deficiencies were
noted in regard to many of those submissions, the breathable air
provisions are due to be resubmitted, as part of MSHA's usual plan
approval process, by March 28, 2007 for review by the Districts.
Consequently, no ERPs have been fully approved by MSHA.
Question. MSHA seems to be relying heavily on training in its
approach to addressing safety problems in the industry. In particular,
the MINER Act requires companies to provide training for emergency
procedures.
Has MSHA provided training for the new inspectors it has hired
recently?
Answer. Yes, all new inspectors receive extensive and intensive
training in their job tasks. Training occurs in the classroom, mine
simulation laboratory, and on-the-job. New inspectors must demonstrate
proficiency in all areas of training before inspecting mines. As the
MINER Act requirements, new regulations and policies become effective,
they are incorporated in the inspector training programs.
The current Entry Level Training (ELT) schedule has 58 courses with
669 hours of training, and 9 on-line courses totaling an additional 41
hours. There are three 4-week modules and three 3-week modules
presented. Additionally, on-the-job training is incorporated with the
majority of the ELT courses presented at the Academy. The last 100 coal
enforcement personnel hired by MSHA have averaged more than 17 years
prior mining experience.
Question. How have you evaluated the effectiveness of the current
safety training programs for miners, particularly the emergency
training procedures?
Answer. Our inspectors and field education staff have evaluated and
continue to evaluate the effectiveness of emergency training
procedures.
Our inspectors evaluate training programs during their inspections.
They check emergency plans, training records, visit classes in session,
talk to miners about emergency procedures, observe emergency evacuation
drills and evaluate mine rescue capability. Inspectors cite violations
where noncompliance with requirements are found. When inspectors
encounter issues that require more in-depth training, they may
recommend that MSHA field education staff work with mine operators to
improve the effectiveness of emergency training procedures.
Field education personnel and Academy staff continue to evaluate
the effectiveness of emergency training procedures at mines and assist
mines with their emergency training programs.
Field education staff conducted extensive evaluations of the
effectiveness of emergency procedures at 60 underground coal mines in
2006. Where deficiencies were found, recommendations were made to
improve effectiveness. Evaluations and assistance were provided at many
other mines with varying aspects of emergency procedures. The topics
covered included self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR) donning,
transferring and storage; work place examinations, escape and
evacuation; and mine rescue and fire and explosion prevention. Field
education staff will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of safety
training programs for miners. Also, the Agency plans to enlist the
assistance of several experienced contractors, for a short term, to
work with our field education staff to evaluate safety training
programs required by the MINER Act and to speed up advance compliance
with emergency procedures.
The National Mine Health and Safety Academy in Beckley, West
Virginia, has trained and evaluated 38 mining teams in 2006 and 9 thus
far in 2007 in varying aspects of mine emergency procedures.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
Question. Last summer, the weekly morbidity and mortality report by
the CDC noted clusters of rapidly progressive pneumoconiosis--black
lung--among miners in Southwestern Virginia and Eastern Kentucky. The
article noted several possible reasons for the continuing occurrence of
advanced cases of black lung: (1) that the current federal respirable
dust limit is too high, and needs to be lowered, or (2) that the
severity of black lung may be increasing because of the toxicity of the
coal being mined. I would suggest a third possible reason, that MSHA
may not be enforcing the current dust laws as effectively as it should
be.
How do you explain the appearance of such aggressive cases of black
lung?
Answer. We anticipated this problem several years ago when we were
trying to change the dust sampling regulations, unfortunately one
person at the UMWA did not think we went far enough and we were
allowing the limited use of masks in the narrow locations where the
levels could not be held to under 2 mg. That individual is no longer at
the union and their position has changed. Second the 2 mg level is no
doubt too high and could be changed, but since we are not hitting it
anyway what is the impact of dropping it down. What the current system
does is to create the highest paying jobs at the dustiest locations and
then by virtue of averaging five samples (one in the dusty job and four
in the clean locations the operator meets the 2 mg standard and one
individual is exposed to guite high standards. Also to continue to have
the operators take samples simply defies logic no other industry in
this country or abroad has the operator take compliance samples,
finally the industry and this one guy said we should wait for the
continuous dust sampler, that was in 2000, 6 years later we are still
waiting and will be for some time but industry continues to put at risk
a small but predictable number of miners. The solution drops the level
to one but changes the sampling system. If you like I will forward my
proposal for changing the dust regulations.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Harkin. I am concerned that we are not moving ahead
rapidly enough on these new technologies, and we've got to look
at ways of incentivizing that, and in the meantime, we have to
use whatever existing technologies that are right out there,
right now, to make sure that we have the highest possible level
of assurance to every miner, that in case of one of these
tragedies, they have the highest expectation of rescue and
survival. Nothing less will do.
So, I thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., Wednesday, February 28, the
hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
-