MARKETS

MSHA targets UBB among potential POVs

THE US Mine Safety and Health Administration has targeted 13 mines in seven US states, as well as...

Donna Schmidt
MSHA targets UBB among potential POVs

The group is the first to receive notifications since new federal reforms to the POV process were implemented. The new outlines include tougher enforcement provisions for chronic and persistent health and safety violators.

The following active coal mines have received notice of their potential POV status:

Peabody Energy – Big Ridge Willow Lake Portal, Illinois

Massey Energy – Freedom Energy Mine No. 1, Kentucky

Middle Fork Mining – KY No. 2, KY

James River Coal – Middle Fork Mining Abner Branch, KY

Left Fork Mining – Straight Creek No. 1, KY

Global Mining Group/Musselshel Resources – Signal Peak Energy Bull Mountain Mine No. 1, Montana

National Coal – Mine No. 14, Tennessee

Wilcoal Mining – Tri-State One, TN

New West Virginia Mining – Apache Mine, West Virginia

Rhino Eastern – Wexford Capital Eagle No. 1, WV

Massey Energy – Spartan Mining Ruby Energy, WV

The list also includes two metal/nonmetal mines. A 14th mine, the Upper Big Branch operation, also met the criteria but the agency has postponed action until the federal investigation into the April 5 explosion at the mine has been concluded.

“I have been saying since I arrived at MSHA that the POV system is broken,” agency assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health Joseph Main said.

“This screening represents a positive step forward, but it won’t be the only step. POV is on MSHA’s rulemaking agenda, and there are also statutory changes pending before Congress that would further improve the system.”

Main noted that MSHA’s review process was not finished as more mines might be put on potential POV notice after a thorough audit.

“Audits are being conducted at mine operations that appear close to qualifying for a potential POV to track any underreporting of mine accidents and injuries,” he said.

MSHA’s screening included enforcement actions during the 12-month period ended August 31 and identified operations with elevated rates of significant and substantial violations.

Also targeted were mines which have been subject to closure orders, including those for serious issues such as failing to correct federal violations after being cited, unwarrantable failures to comply with health or safety standards, failure to provide required training, and imminent dangers within the mine.

In addition, the new criteria considers whether operations have a high percentage of S&S violations which involve elevated negligence, and also take into account injury severity rates and target operations with above-average injury severity measures.

“Mine operators can choose to institute a corrective action program with concrete, meaningful measures to reduce their S&S violations; achievable benchmarks and milestones for implementing the program; management oversight to ensure the program is being instituted and followed; and measures to find and fix the mine’s specific compliance problems,” Main said.

“Mines that implement a corrective action program will be required to meet the prescribed goals within a maximum of 110 days of receiving potential POV notification, depending upon when a corrective action program is submitted to MSHA. Operators that do not choose to implement a corrective action program will be required to achieve the prescribed goals set by MSHA within 50 days of receiving a potential POV notification.”

MSHA has established S&S violation rate-reduction goals for mines which receive potential POV notices. To avoid receiving a notice, mines implementing an appropriate corrective action program must reduce their S&S frequency rate per 100 inspection hours by 50% during the 12-month review period, or to a rate within the top 50% for all mines of similar type and classification.

Mines not implementing appropriate corrective action programs must reduce S&S frequency rates per 100 inspection hours by 70% during the 12-month review period, provided that reduction is below the national rate for mines in the same classification over the timeframe – or to a rate within the top 35% for all mines of similar type and classification.

Under previous outlines, operators were required to achieve only a 30% reduction in rates to avoid POV actions, and were not mandated to meet any benchmarks where corrective action programs were used. Mines failing to meet requirements were subject to the POV, at which point every S&S violation would result in an automatic closure order until the violation was abated.

Mines would remain on POV status until a complete inspection found no existing S&S violations.

“Along with impact inspections and injunction actions, POV represents an important enforcement method for MSHA to change the behavior of mine operators who don’t take seriously the health and safety of miners,” Main said.

While it did not comment on UBB’s status, Massey Energy responded Friday afternoon to the report that its Ruby Energy mine had been placed on potential POV status.

“Massey will review all documents upon which the potential pattern of violations was based, discuss the violations with MSHA officials, and take needed corrective actions,” the company said.

Remaining “committed to coal safety”, the producer said that its safety record had been better than the industry average for 17 of the last 19 years. Last year marked Massey’s fifth consecutive year for a record above the national average. MSHA also bestowed three Sentinels of Safety awards to the company last year, the only time any company has won three honors in a single year.

“Massey will take all necessary steps to ensure that the operation notified of the potential pattern of violations meets Massey Energy’s standards,” the company said.

A complete list of potential POV mines can be found at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/msha/20101119-PPOV-Mines.pdf.

The agency’s POV Single Source Page can be found at http://www.msha.gov/POV/POVsinglesource.asp.

TOPICS:

A growing series of reports, each focused on a key discussion point for the mining sector, brought to you by the Mining Monthly Intelligence team.

A growing series of reports, each focused on a key discussion point for the mining sector, brought to you by the Mining Monthly Intelligence team.

editions

ESG Mining Company Index: Benchmarking the Future of Sustainable Mining

The ESG Mining Company Index report provides an in-depth evaluation of ESG performance of 61 of the world's largest mining companies. Using a robust framework, it assesses each company across 9 meticulously weighted indicators within 6 essential pillars.

editions

Mining Magazine Intelligence Exploration Report 2024 (feat. Opaxe data)

A comprehensive review of exploration trends and technologies, highlighting the best intercepts and discoveries and the latest initial resource estimates.

editions

Mining Magazine Intelligence Future Fleets Report 2024

The report paints a picture of the equipment landscape and includes detailed profiles of mines that are employing these fleets

editions

Mining Magazine Intelligence Digitalisation Report 2023

An in-depth review of operations that use digitalisation technology to drive improvements across all areas of mining production