NEWS AND UPCOMING EVENTS:

Read all of the latest news concerning USA and its membership below.

Spring 2010 USA Meeting – Friday May 21,2010 – Location the location will be the same - note form 0730 - 0830 Continental Breakfast - 0830 - Noon Meeting: Legislative Updates: DOT, Fed OSHA, Cal OSHA, MSHA and Envronmental Updates - Industry Network Problem Solving - Current Issues Discussion 

Summer 2010 USA Meeting – Friday July 16, 2010 – Location & Agenda TBA

Fall 2010 USA Meeting – Friday October 15, 2010 – Location & Agenda TBA

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES:

Mine Safety & Health Administration

Part 46 Training

Data from both before and after implementation of the (Part 46) regulation (in 2000) found that overall injury rate at almost 8,000 mines did go down.

For crushed stone operations, the rate declined by 52.6 percent, at sand and gravel operations by 46.2 percent and at other surface mineral mines, by 38 percent.  But the decline was reflected only in permanently disabling injuries, such as losing an eye or a limb, not less severe injuries, such as those resulting only in lost work time or restricted duty. The researchers, from George Washington University in Washington, D.C., could not say why there were declines only in this one type of injury.  But the findings do point up the importance of education in ensuring safety in any field.

"These authors found that when they intervened with education, they had fewer life-threatening debilitating injuries," said Dr. David Birnbach, a professor of anesthesiology and public health at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

Ellen Smith – Min Safety & Health News

FBI Probing Fed Officials And Massey, Owner Of W. Va. Mine Where 29 Died

April 30, 2010

By Howard Berkes and Dina Temple-Raston - NPR News

NPR News has learned that the Mine Safety and Health Administration is the target of a federal criminal investigation surrounding the explosion of the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia three weeks ago -- a disaster that killed 29 miners. The probe also targets Massey Energy, the owner of the mine.

Sources familiar with the investigation say the FBI is looking into possible bribery of officials of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the federal agency that inspects and regulates mining. The sources say FBI agents are also exploring potential criminal negligence on the part of Massey Energy, the owner of the Upper Big Branch mine.
Massey has been cited repeatedly for violations of federal safety regulations and unsubstantiated rumors have circulated for years that mine inspectors and other officials receive payoffs. The FBI declines comment and neither confirms nor denies that an investigation is ongoing.

In a statement to NPR, Massey Energy says it is not aware of the allegations, and is fully cooperating with any investigations taking place. The Mine Safety and Health Administration has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Above Article Provided To United Safety Associates by:
Ellen Smith – Mine Safety & Health News

Temporary Restraining Order Sought to Stop UBB Closed-Door Interviews

The United Mine Workers and two families who lost family members in the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster have asked the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston for a temporary restraining order to stop MSHA's witness interviews.

“We sincerely wish we did not have to take this action,” UMWA International President Cecil E. Roberts said. “But we have been left with no choice. We believe it is imperative for the families of the victims of this tragedy to be able to hear the evidence that will be gathered in these interviews for themselves,” Roberts said. “We also believe that the workers – who will have to go back to work in that mine – must be allowed to have their designated representative in the interviews, asking questions and hearing testimony first-hand. The only way that can be accomplished is by MSHA holding an open and transparent investigation,” Roberts said.

Massey Coal Co., as well as the Charleston Gazette, Mine Safety and Health News, Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of News Editors, Capitol Reporters and Editors, Radio Television Digital News Assn., National Newspaper Assn., the Society of Environmental Journalists and the Society of Professional Journalists have all called on MSHA for a public hearing under 103(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act.

Mine Safety and Health News called for a UBB hearing to be structured like the Gramercy Plant explosion hearing, which was open to the press and public.

That hearing involved the July 5, 1999 plant explosion at Kaiser Aluminum's Gramercy Works in Louisiana.  During the hearing, the public was permitted to submit questions. All questions were part of the public record.  In addition, MSHA made available its book of exhibits used to question the witnesses.

The guidelines for that public hearing are below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Works Alumina Plant Explosion
PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR KAISER PUBLIC HEARING 1.
(Footnote 1: 1.Procedural guidelines numbered 1, 6, 7 and 9 are promulgated pursuant to an Order of U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier and are in effect for the duration of his Order during the conduct of the hearing.)

1. All witnesses shall be given at least fourteen days advance notice of the date and time of their appearance at the hearing. Once notice has been given, rescheduling for a later date or a mutually agreed upon earlier date may be necessary.

2. The names of testifying witnesses will not be released prior to the time of their testimony.

3. Witnesses are entitled to be represented by an attorney or other representative with whom they may consult or confer during their testimony.

4. Counsel for a testifying witness may raise any recognized and applicable legal privilege on behalf of the witness during the course of the questioning.

5. Counsel for witnesses are not entitled to ask questions of the witnesses during the hearing or to raise objections to questions, other than to assert a privilege.

6. MSHA will provide each witness who is called to testify a list of the questions that it plans to ask him or her or a brief synopsis of the specific areas of testimony that will be covered. During questioning of the witness, however, MSHA will not be limited to matters contained within the list of questions or the synopsis.

7. If a witness believes that his or her answer to any of the questions or areas of questioning supplied by MSHA may incriminate him or her, he or she may claim the privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer the question he or she believes to require an answer that could be incriminating. The claim of privilege must be made in writing for each question or area of testimony that the witness believes to require an answer that could be incriminating. In addition, the witness should prepare a written response to all questions for which the responses are non-privileged. Witnesses will have at least two business days to respond to MSHA's questions or synopsis.

8. The witness' written assertion of the privilege against self incrimination will be made part of the official record of the investigation.

9. Once MSHA has received notice that a witness intends to claim the privilege against self incrimination in accordance with paragraph 7 above, MSHA may: end the inquiry with respect to that witness; call the witness to testify about the areas as to which no privilege has been asserted; arrange with the Department of Justice to offer the witness immunity to testify; or seek an order from the U.S. District Court to compel the witness' testimony, if MSHA believes that the privilege has not been properly invoked.

10. Witnesses may claim the privilege against self incrimination with regard to any question asked during the hearing, even if the claim was not previously raised in writing.

11. Witnesses who testify may offer written statements to be filed into the official record of the investigation.

12. Normally privilege assertions will only be made by the attorney representing the testifying witness. MSHA does not expect that attorneys who are not the representative of the testifying witness will have a need to assert privileges. However, if an attorney has a valid privilege objection pertaining to his or her client which is not addressed by the witness or his or her counsel, the attorney may assert the privilege. If an attorney persists in interrupting the proceedings with privilege assertions on matters which have already been ruled upon, or if an attorney asserts privileges frivolously or in a disruptive fashion, MSHA will require that privilege assertions by anyone other than the testifying witness or his or her counsel be made in writing only.

13. MSHA's book of exhibits which is used to question the witnesses will be available for review by witnesses, counsel for witnesses, and members of the public at the St. James Parish Courthouse, Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Convent, Louisiana during the hours that the hearing is taking place. To make arrangements to review the exhibit book call (703)235-1565.

14. Witnesses may not attend the public hearing until after their testimony is concluded. On the day of their testimony witnesses will be required to wait in a separate witness room until they are called to testify. The only persons who will be allowed to enter the witness room are the witnesses, the witnesses' counsel and family members, and MSHA officials. Once the witness' testimony has been concluded and he or she has been excused, he or she may attend the hearing as a member of the audience if he or she wishes to do so.

15. Witnesses should not discuss their testimony with any of the other witnesses.

16. Public observers may suggest questions for the MSHA panel to pose to the witnesses. Suggested questions should be written down and submitted to the panel. A file will be kept of all questions that are submitted by the public, whether they have been asked or not.

17. Public observers, attorneys, and members of the press may not disrupt or interfere in any way with the hearing proceedings. Anyone who violates this rule may be removed from the hearing room and barred from reentry for the remainder of the hearing.

Ellen Smith – Mine Safety & Health News

Statement made by President Obama on the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. On April 5th, the United States suffered the worst mine disaster in more than a generation. Twenty-nine lives were lost. Families have been devastated. Communities have been upended. And during this painful time, all of us are mourning with the people of Montcoal and Whitesville and Naoma and the Coal River Valley . The people of West Virginia are in our prayers.

But we owe them more than prayers. We owe them action. We owe them accountability. We owe them an assurance that when they go to work every day, when they enter that dark mine, they are not alone. They ought to know that behind them there is a company that’s doing what it takes to protect them, and a government that is looking out for their safety.

In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, I asked the officials standing with me — Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and Joe Main and Kevin Stricklin with the Mine Safety and Health Administration — to lead an investigation into what caused the explosion at Massey Energy Company’s Upper Big Branch mine. I asked them to report back with preliminary findings this week.

We just concluded a meeting, where they briefed me on their investigation. I want to emphasize that this investigation is ongoing, and there’s still a lot that we don’t know. But we do know that this tragedy was triggered by a failure at the Upper Big Branch mine — a failure first and foremost of management, but also a failure of oversight and a failure of laws so riddled with loopholes that they allow unsafe conditions to continue.

So today I’ve directed Secretary Solis, Assistant Secretary Main, and Administrator Stricklin to work closely with state mining officials to press ahead with this investigation — so we can help make sure a disaster like this never happens again. Owners responsible for conditions in the Upper Big Branch mine should be held accountable for decisions they made and preventive measures they failed to take. And I’ve asked Secretary Solis to work with the Justice Department to ensure that every tool in the federal government is available in this investigation.
But this isn’t just about a single mine. It’s about all of our mines. The safety record at the Massey Upper Big Branch mine was troubling. And it’s clear that while there are many responsible companies, far too many mines aren’t doing enough to protect their workers’ safety.

And that’s why yesterday Governor Manchin announced that West Virginia miners will take this Friday off from coal production so they can mourn their loss, but also reevaluate safety procedures. He also called for additional inspections in West Virginia mines. The federal government is taking sweeping actions as well. Starting today, we’ll go back and take another look at mines across this country with troubling safety records, and get inspectors into those mines immediately to ensure they aren’t facing the same unsafe working conditions that led to this disaster.

Second, I’ve directed Secretary Solis, Assistant Secretary Main, and Administrator Stricklin to work with Congress to strengthen enforcement of existing laws and close loopholes that permit companies to shirk their responsibilities.

Stronger mine safety laws were passed in 2006 after the Sago mine disaster. But safety violators like Massey have still been able to find ways to put their bottom line before the safety of their workers — filing endless appeals instead of paying fines and fixing safety problems.

To help ensure that mine companies no longer use a strategy of endless litigation to evade their responsibilities, we need to tackle the backlog of cases at the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

And to help hold companies accountable, I’ve also asked Secretary Solis to streamline the rules for proving that a mining company has committed a pattern of violations — so that we can empower the mine safety agency to take essential steps to keep miners safe. If a mining company consistently violates safety standards, they should be subjected to the tougher enforcement that comes with being placed on an updated Pattern of Violations list.

Third, we can’t just hold mining companies accountable — we need to hold Washington accountable. And that’s why I want to review how our Mine Safety and Health Administration operates. For a long time, the mine safety agency was stacked with former mine executives and industry players. The industry [sic] is now run, I’m proud to say, by former miners and health safety experts like Joe Main and Kevin Stricklin. Even so, we need to take a hard look at our own practices and our own procedures to ensure that we’re pursuing mine safety as relentlessly as we responsibly can. In addition, we need to make sure that miners themselves, and not just the government or mine operators, are empowered to report any safety violations.

I think we all understand that underground coal mining is, by its very nature, dangerous. Every miner and every mining family understands this. But we know what can cause mine explosions, and we know how to prevent them. I refuse to accept any number of miner deaths as simply a cost of doing business. We can’t eliminate chance completely from mining any more than we can from life itself. But if a tragedy can be prevented, it must be prevented. That’s the responsibility of mine operators. That’s the responsibility of government. And that is the responsibility that we’re all going to have to work together to meet in the weeks and months to come.
Thank you very much, everybody.

(above paragraphs bolded by USA to provide emphasis in key areas of concern to the mining community regarding President Obama’s comments)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special contributor:
Ellen Smith, Owner and Managing Editor
Mine Safety and Health News
888 Pittsford Mendon Center Rd.
Pittsford, NY 14534
phone: 585-721-3211; email: MineSafety@aol.com
On the web: www.Minesafety.com
fax: 585-582-2879

Federal OSHA

Secretary of State Hilda Solis Vows Increased Enforcement:

In a recent address in April 2010 at the Latino Worker Conference, Secretary of State lauded the efforts and progress made in the Texas and Nevada OSHA sweeps, fines and progress made.  She has vowed to use the same tactics and go after the those states with approved state plans under Federal OSHA .  There are 23 state approved plans of which California is one and one approved plan for the territory of Puerto Rico.  Evidence of this is already being felt as six digit assessment penalties are no longer the anomaly with the Fed or the State but are becoming commonplace.

Congress has already introduced significant new legislation to provide the Fed with more oversight of the state approved plans.  One of the new directives that is being heard is that Secretary Solis has introduced the concept of requiring each state to have an Injury & Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) Plan.  Shades of her California experience now surface at the federal level

Protecting America’s Workers Act:

Both the house and the Senate have reconvened after an early April break, but the talk about Washington is that Obama wants to put controversial measures, i.e. Cap and Trade etc. on the backburner to give some healing time for the legislators in preparation for the November elections.  So there will most likely be more focus in other areas of which it is hoped occupational safety and health will be one.

The above-noted bill has been re-introduced into the House and Senate, but the only activity is taking place in the house.  The house held a hearing a few months back to discuss the civil and criminal penalties increase section of the proposed legislation.  This sparked a lot of debate, but it is still questionable as to whether this discussion will be revisited or a completely new bill will be re-introduced.  The general outlook regardless is that there are so many onerous things in this bill, such as providing 20 year prison terms for manages including safety officers for safety violations that will draw major opposition that it will once again fail to be passed.

Safe Patient Handling:

Legislation suggested that would require OSHA to adopt a “safe patient handling” standard is currently pending.  Many states have enacted similar legislation, but nothing currently exists at the federal level for those states not having approved plans.  At present OSHA’s deficiency with respect to passing this legislation is the 18 month requirement to promulgate a standard.

The health care community will continue to push for this standard, but it’s unlikely that anything will get resolved.  There is no doubt that general industry will buck the passing of a standard like this due to the fear that passing legislation in this area could potentially lead to the introduction and passing of an industry-wide ergonomic standard which will encompass everyone.

OSHA Hears Comments on MSD Inclusion In OSHA 300 Logs:

The American Industrial Hygiene Association in March of this year released a position statement supporting restoration of the Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSD) column on the OSHA 300 log and including it for future use on the logs.  This has not been done since 2001, but many organizations still track MSD’s.  The AIHA noted that insurance carriers have routinely noted loss categories on loss statements as strains, sprains, overexertion and cumulative trauma that all relate to ergonomic related MSD’s.

However, because these insurance company reports can contribute to inaccuracies and inconsistencies in reporting due to differing definitions state by state, a better remedy would be to reinstate the column on the OSHA 300 Log, define the MSD for industry and collect data that would provide great accuracy and consistency in reporting.  This may provide a basis for the promulgation of an ergonomic standard if the statistics support a move in that direction.

Cal OSHA

Bimbo’s Bakery Locations Receive $230,000 Fines:

A recent sweep by Cal OSHA on Bimbo’s Bakeries resulted in citations and a resulting total assessment of $230,000 in penalties thus rendering Bimbo’s as one of the newest recipients of what will become increased enforcement by Cal OSHA under the Federal OSHA oversight.  It seems that 5 years ago, Bimbo’s was cited for an amputation injury at one of their facilities and fined accordingly for poor guarding.  A recent amputation in the latter part of 2009 resulted in an OSHA sweep of their three operating locations and further citations and assessments for guarding that yielded the above noted six digit fines.

Alta Bates Summit Medical Center Receives $103,000 Fines:

The Alta Bates Medical Center located in Northern California recently received $103,000 in penalty assessments from Cal OSHA for failure to have a Aerosol Transmitted Disease Plan.  The medical facility which recently had an outbreak of highly infectious Spinal Meningitis reported the disease incident as required.  After reporting the disease they were involved in a follow-up inspection by Cal OSHA.  When confronted by OSHA inspectors the facility was unable to produce the mandated ATD written program which resulted in the above noted fines.

Gateway Pacific Contractors Receive $128,750 in Citations Assessments:

Gateway Pacific recently received over $128,000 in fines from Cal OSHA resulting from an inspection involving a 18 foot excavation that collapsed on a construction worker last fall.  The Serious and Willful violation resulted from the Cal OSHA inspector seeing other workers in the same trench after the collapse situation.  The Serious and Willful violation resulted in $70,000 of the $128,000 penalties.

The additional citations and penalties resulted from other issues in the trench including exposing personnel to loose rock, working in the trench with water hazards, failure to extend the excavation shield 18 inches above the excavation, failure to have the construction permit posted etc. 

California Tally Regarding Fatality Totals for 2008 Increase:

Preliminary statistics revealed that there were 404 fatal injuries in California in 2008.  However, once the Bureau of Labor Statistics reviewed the data, the total number of fatalities was adjusted upward to 465 fatal injuries.  Sixteen states including California had fatal statistics that were adjusted upward.  The nationally revised total of 5,071 fatal injuries in 2008 was adjusted upward to reflect that the actual number of fatal industrial injuries for 2008 was 5,214.  This made the national fatal incident rate elevate from 3.6 to 3.7 per 100,000 workers for the year

[ Back to Top ]