Senators Michael Enzi of Wyoming, Johnny Osakson of Georgia, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Larry Craig of Idaho, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Jeff Sessions of Alabama sent a letter to MSHA head Richard Stickler on October 6.
While they noted their support of the agency’s move to “meaningfully address the safety problems associated with drug and alcohol abuse” at mines through mandated programs for testing, they are pushing for changes to a policy rule that would keep operators from terminating employees after their first violation of the regulations.
“We note this provision is unsupported by any evidence as to how it would improve safety for our nation’s miners,” the group said.
The senators also noted that it would be counterproductive to other federal workplace drug testing program provisions and would “contravene” most of the protocols in place by employer testing programs.
The men also argue that MSHA’s proposal, should it become a final rule, would also “unduly interfere with existing state laws and … remove critical discretion from employers who bear the front-line responsibility and liability for ensuring a safe work environment”
As such, they noted, the proposal in its current form is “unsupportable” as it is not in the interest of worker safety.
MSHA released its proposal regulations September 8 in the Federal Register with, among other items, the prohibition of alcohol and drugs on mine property. Public hearings will be held this week across the country via videoconference to collect input and comment from the industry.
Last month, the National Mining Association also inked communication to the agency requesting a hearing, citing that the proposal would “result in a diminution of safety for miners, conflicts with existing company programs, both voluntary in nature, and where required by state law; and may cause enormous confusion and pose severe implementation problems” across the board.
MSHA extended its initial comment period and will accept input from the mining community through October 29 at midnight local time.
Earlier this month, the largest industry union spoke out about how MSHA had chosen to manage the hearings on the proposal, the logistics for chosen locations, and the fact that they were all scheduled on one day across the US and with two sites (at the time) not given the opportunity to speak.
United Mine Workers of America official Dennis O’Dell said in a letter to the agency that “listening isn’t participating” and the voices of those affected – the miners – would not be heard.
“My guess is that these locations were chosen to purposely limit if not eliminate the miners' participation," said O'Dell.
“Historically, Denver, Colorado has had very low turnouts for MSHA's past public hearings.
“I am also trying to figure out how many active coal miners live in the Washington, DC area that will be participating on the day of the teleconference. My guess is zero."
The union also objected to federal officials’ attempts to collect all comment from the industry in a single day.
“We are certain that many from the coal industry will be interested in commenting on this proposal and how it corresponds with current regulations in states, their experiences with such programs, and company sponsored alcohol and drug-testing programs,” O’Dell said.
In a move that was said to be prompted by the feedback of several stakeholders, MSHA spokeswoman Amy Louviere told ILN last week that the agency had added two sites to the teleconference – Price, Utah and Madisonville, Kentucky, for a total of seven locations. Additionally, testimony would be allowed and accepted from all, Louviere said.
“MSHA is committed to making the public hearing on its … proposed rule as accessible as possible to our stakeholders,” she confirmed.
“Traditionally, MSHA has offered three and sometimes four locations for stakeholders to testify, so this would mark at least a 50 per cent increase in locations to testify.
“Each and every comment will be carefully considered as we work toward drafting a final rule.”
