Speakers at Tuesday’s public hearing hosted by MSHA included 10 mine operators, six trade organisations representing producers, 19 union members, one vendor and a media representative.

Despite discontent from several industry groups that all voices were not heard, MSHA spokeswoman Amy Louviere told International Longwall News: “Everyone who wanted to speak got the opportunity to speak.”

She said final attendance numbers for the hearing were still being tallied, but the Birmingham, Alabama site was by far the best attended.

Under discussion was the agency’s proposed rulemaking that would permit drug and alcohol testing for all job applicants, and random testing for existing workers, and prohibit possession and use of drugs at the nation’s mines.

The outlines of the regulations were published in the Federal Register September 8 and MSHA is accepting input from the mining community until October 29.

Those companies which do not already have programs for drug testing would have one year to become compliant with the new regulations should they become a final rule.

MSHA previously stated the new laws would cost the industry $US16 million over the first year and approximately $13 million per year after that.

Industry groups takes sides

The National Mining Association, the United Mine Workers of America and the United Steelworkers of America are just a few of the industry-related member groups that are speaking out against MSHA’s proposed regulations.

This week they were joined by other groups and mine operators who all voiced their concerns at the October 14 hearing.

The NMA called for improvements to the proposal by basically rewriting the outlines to put a greater emphasis on the “safety first” programs that many mining operators already have.

The industry advocacy group, which represents a vast majority of the nation’s most significant producers, noted that the proposal up for comment was “inconsistent” with safety goals. For example, it said, MSHA defines certain jobs as "safety-sensitive" rather than making all workers accountable regardless of rank.

NMA said plans to adopt the Department of Transportation’s alcohol and drug testing programs were flawed and would result in the curtailing of many comprehensive testing protocols already in place at many mines, as the DOT rules are less rigorous.

Additionally, NMA officials said MSHA was looking to rely upon “outdated” substance abuse testing procedure and, perhaps most significantly, allow a second chance for workers who fail a test but then complete treatment.

NMA lobbyist Bruce Watzman said in an interview with International Longwall News that the group sought to take those three main points to Tuesday’s hearing. NMA and other groups had lobbied for the hearing as MSHA had initially not planned to hold a public hearing.

Watzman admitted there was “confusion and controversy” surrounding both the way MSHA had handled the event’s logistics as well as the outlines of the regulations themselves.

After the hearing, Watzman said the NMA’s stance was probably the same as that of many others in the mining community – that while the group appreciated that MSHA sought to create the new regulations its process was flawed.

“This is not the answer,” he said.

“We concur that this will not advance safety and health, but will diminish it.”

Watzman said the NMA’s member companies “can just not tolerate” the proposal as it stands.

NMA also agreed with major industry group the United Steelworkers of America.

“MSHA has not shown that the proposed rule is necessary," union official Mike Wright testified.

“In this rule, MSHA is relying on limited anecdotal and sometimes irrelevant information.”

Wright called the proposed rules “unconstitutional” to workers.

“It's a distraction from real worker safety and it should be withdrawn,” he said.

Also urging the agency to withdraw its plans for the proposal altogether was the United Mine Workers, along with the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, the West Virginia Coal Association and producers Arch Coal and Consol Energy, according to an Associated Press report.

“As published … [the rules] would diminish the level of workplace safety currently provided by [company] policy and state regulations,” Alpha Natural Resources safety and health vice-president Allen Dupree said.

He pointed out that in states such as Virginia and Kentucky workplace programs to protect miners from adverse effects of drugs and alcohol already exist.

“MSHA’s regulations should supplement, not replace, effective state statutes,” Dupree said.

Bill Orick of Twin Pines Coal added in his company’s public statement the scope and reality of the ruling’s leniency.

“All of our jobs would be considered safety sensitive [and] we cannot keep a job open while someone is off for an [indeterminate] amount of time for treatment,” he said.

“There is a great liability to our company by knowingly putting someone back to work who fails a drug test.

“We have a zero tolerance drug policy … this section of the law is unacceptable for our business.”

UMWA: hearing a ‘logistical nightmare’

The nation’s largest industry union, UMWA, one of the loudest voices of opposition prior to the hearing, said Wednesday that the teleconference was a “logistical nightmare” and that claims by the agency that everyone had the opportunity to speak were false.

“Miners in Beckley, West Virginia walked out in protest after not being allowed to speak,” spokesman Phil Smith told ILN.

Union head Cecil Roberts said the group in Beckley was just the tip of the iceberg.

“The so-called ‘hearing’ process used today … is a sham that denies miners their rights under the law,” Roberts said.

Despite clear outlines on the procedure for public hearings and the rights of miners to give testimony, Roberts said those sections of federal law were ignored.

“Over 250 miners were present in Birmingham, wanting to testify about this needless proposed rule,” he said.

“The room MSHA set aside for participants could hold less than 50 people, meaning hundreds of miners were not given the opportunity to testify. A similar situation occurred in Pittsburgh and in Beckley.”

UMWA had requested an expansion to the hearings previously, but rather than hold traditional hearings, Roberts said MSHA responded by only adding additional locations and “charged ahead with this cockamamie one-day electronic hearing” for the proposed rulemaking.

“The result is chaos and the denial of miners’ rights in this process – and all for a proposed rule that will have little, if any, actual effect on coal miners’ health and safety beyond what is already in place in the nation’s coal fields,” he said.

“MSHA itself says that 80 per cent of America’s miners already are subject to drug and alcohol testing.”

Smith told ILN that the union had heard an additional hearing could be held, but could not confirm. A subsequent request for comment from MSHA was not returned by press time.

“We certainly hope they do – and that some way is found to compensate the miners who come to speak, as they have already taken a day off work without pay to attend yesterday's fiasco,” said Smith.

MSHA held one hearing, taking testimony via teleconference from Beaver, West Virginia; Washington, DC; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Englewood, Colorado; Birmingham, Alabama; Madisonville, Kentucky; and Price, Utah.