MINE DISASTER SITE HAD 57 SAFETY VIOLATIONS | Page 2 | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
MINE DISASTER SITE HAD 57 SAFETY VIOLATIONS
April 8, 2010
11:07 am
Avatar
Aquarian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 779
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Dark-Samus, you eye roller Laugh

The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

April 8, 2010
4:20 pm
Avatar
Dark-Samus
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2494
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well excccuuuuuuussseeeee meeeeee! Laugh 😉

Truth doesn´t control you, you control it...

April 8, 2010
6:06 pm
Avatar
frrostedman
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3815
Member Since:
September 4, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"Aquarian" wrote: The profit-motive, ie; organized crime ala capitalism killed these miners.

It's Capitalism's fault? Oh, great. Here we go. Now anyone who dies working for a company that tries to make a profit, will have died because of evil Capitalism.

I guess anyone that dies working for a nonprofit organization, died of natural causes.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein

April 8, 2010
8:52 pm
Avatar
Aquarian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 779
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"frrostedman" wrote: [quote="Aquarian"]The profit-motive, ie; organized crime ala capitalism killed these miners.

It's Capitalism's fault? Oh, great. Here we go. Now anyone who dies working for a company that tries to make a profit, will have died because of evil Capitalism.

I guess anyone that dies working for a nonprofit organization, died of natural causes.

Oh Thomas.

What do you call a company unwilling to rectify safety concerns that ultimately require paying more in fees for maintenance, better equipment, etc? You think the decision not to take care of the workers came out of a vacuum? The mine preserves more money that way. Why it was allowed to operate despite numerous safety violations is unconscionable. How the agency in charge of evaluating the overall safety of workers in mines (OSHA) is not sanctioned to close down the mine is also beyond me. Then again, it's a clear example of Corporation controlling Government.

Also, most nonprofits aren't really non-profit. Most are just fronts for other for-profit enterprises.

The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

April 8, 2010
9:05 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10275
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

What do you call a company unwilling to rectify safety concerns that ultimately require paying more in fees for maintenance, better equipment, etc?

Trying to stay in business when they don't have the money!

April 8, 2010
9:11 pm
Avatar
Aquarian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 779
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Or as the CEO of Massey would tell you back in 1984:

For Massey, the scrutiny is hardly new. And the outspoken Blankenship has only stoked the coals of criticism. In a now infamous 2005 memo, for example, Blankenship instructed his deep mine superintendents to ignore any requests unrelated to coal production.

"If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e. - build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal," the memo said. "This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that coal pays the bills."

In another telling episode, a young Blankenship outlined his business philosophy in a 1984 interview.

"Unions, communities, people - everybody's gonna have to accept that, in the United States, we have a capitalist society," Blankenship said. "And that capitalism, from a business viewpoint, is survival of the most productive."

With congressional leaders already calling for hearings on Monday's explosion, Blankenship will almost certainly have a chance to tell lawmakers that himself.

http://www.commondreams.org/he.....10/04/08-9

The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

April 9, 2010
11:16 pm
Avatar
Questioner101
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 581
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The same violations existed in Utah, where the company killed miners....same thing in West Virginia. They cannot guarantee safety in the coal mining field anymore. They are getting down to mining the walls of shafts rather then veins of coal. The dust that's left is all that's left to mine. Time to use up the uranium and generate electricity with atomic power.

"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request."

April 10, 2010
1:49 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10275
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Coal mining always has and always will be one of the most dangerous and hazzardous jobs. Those who do it grow up and live in these areas and it is the only job they know. Not making excuses for the mine owners, but I'm sure it is a profession that will never be 100% safe and 100% without major health risks. But the public isn;t concerned until a mine blows up or caves in.

I'm not making any judgements about coal mines, I know they are dangerous and some people can only depend of coal for heating and electical power. It is a nessessary evil. I find it odd that when a coal mining disaster occurs, we act like there should never be a risk, but we entertain ourselves watching shows that glorify "Deadlist Catch", "Ice Truckers", and "Extreme" risk jobs. Instead of saying, I could live easily without Crab, or the oil Ice truckers takes supples to oil fields doing, we relish in the possible deadly nature of such jobs. We watch intently for a boat to capsize or a big rig truck to spin out, and know that dying real fast is a part of that job. Nobody is stopping the Diamond mines in Africa, that must be far more dangerous than coal mining.

A bit of a double standard in a way.

April 12, 2010
8:22 am
Avatar
Aquarian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 779
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Obama Administration Missed Chance To Get Tougher On Unsafe Mines

Long before the explosion that killed at least 25 coal miners inside Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine on Monday, Obama administration mine safety officials were aware of a major loophole that allowed companies like Massey to avoid stricter enforcement despite alarming safety records.

Mining safety regulations were tightened in 2007, following an explosion the previous year that killed 12 miners at the Sago Mine, also in West Virginia. But mining companies immediately began gaming the new system.

Mines that are designated as having a "pattern of violations" are subject to a greater level of oversight. But Massey and others ducked that designation simply by lodging formal appeals against the major violations issued against them.

It turns out that, according to current rules, contested violations can't be taken into consideration when assessing whether a pattern of violations exists.

Contesting those violations also allowed Massey and other companies to delay paying the fines levied against them -- thwarting a key enforcement mechanism.

And all the appeals overwhelmed the commission charged with adjudicating them, creating a massive backlog that effectively allowed the companies to flaunt the rules indefinitely.

Joe Main, a former United Mine Worker of America official, took over the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA, pronounced em-sha) in October. He told a congressional hearing in February that the backlog has effectively prevented MSHA from applying the stepped-up enforcement mechanisms to mines with a pattern of serious violations.

"And I think the consequence there is that mines have the ability to continue that pattern unabated," he said. His conclusion: "[W]e must diminish the incentives for operators who appear to be developing a pattern of significant and substantial safety violations to contest, simply to delay enforcement."

But that was in February -- at a hearing called by a concerned chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).

And according to Celeste Monforton, a George Washington University public health professor and former MSHA official, Obama administration officials had known of the problem for more than a year by then.

"I feel very confident that when the presidential transition teams in December and January were meeting with the senior career people in the agency," she said, "they heard that, one, there's a huge backlog in the review commission and, two, this is neutering, or making impotent, the pattern of violations provision of the Mine Act."

So, Monforton told HuffPost, "The question is: 'What did you do, knowing on January 21st that they're gaming the system? What did you do?'

"It doesn't look like they did anything."

Actually, the Obama administration did add four administrative law judges to the panel of 10 charged with ruling on the contested violations, in an attempt to somewhat reduce the backlog. And they've now requested four more.

But the basic rule that the companies are exploiting remained unchanged.

Officials from MSHA and its parent agency, the Department of Labor, could not be reached for comment by HuffPost on Friday, but MSHA deputy Greg Wagner spoke at some length on Thursday to Ken Ward Jr., the award-winning mine reporter and blogger for the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette.

Wagner told Ward that MSHA reviewed the Upper Big Branch Mine for a potential pattern of violations as recently as October, but concluded it did not meet the criteria, despite an astonishingly high number of serious safety violations.

Wagner, Ward wrote "was not able to explain that decision."

"I don't know the answer to that, but I will get that to you as soon as I can," Wagner told Ward.

There's more:

Wagner said that the new leaders at MSHA under the Obama administration hope to rewrite the pattern-of-violations rules, which date back to 1990. But he conceded that MSHA did not include such a proposal on regulatory agendas issued in May or in December...
In describing MSHA's policing of the Upper Big Branch Mine, Wagner said, "I think we feel that we used the tools that we have available."

But Wagner said he did not know if MSHA ever sought increased fines from the Upper Big Branch Mine for "flagrant violations," as allowed under the 2006 MINER Act.

And he said MSHA did not use its long-standing legal authority to seek a federal court order against any condition at the mine that created "a continuing hazard to the health or safety of miners."

"We did not use that section of the act, no," Wagner said. "I'm really trying to get an opinion from our lawyers to explain to me really what constraints they felt really existed to keep us from going .... I don't think that's ever been used, and I think there's some reason that people haven't and I need to find that out."

The Upper Big Branch mine's abysmal safety record, and its passage through the mining bureaucracy has, by now, been extensively chronicled.

Ward wrote that parts or all of the mine "were ordered closed more than 60 times in 2009 and 2010, and the mine was repeatedly cited in recent months for allowing potentially explosive coal dust to accumulate, according to newly released government documents."

The New York Times reported Friday that the mine was warned in December 2007 that it had been issued 204 serious violations over the previous two years, a rate nearly twice the national average, and would soon be designated as having a pattern of violations. But in the ensuing three months, the mine was able to reduce its rate to just above the national average -- enough to avoid the designation.

MSHA in March 2008 praised Massey and six other violators for "successfully and dramatically" reducing their "significant and substantial (S&S) violation rates -- on average -- by 50 percent during the 90-day review period."

But according to the Washington Post, Massey's mine "met the legal criteria" to avoid the designation "in part because contested violations had not been resolved. Massey is still contesting 352 alleged violations at the Upper Big Branch mine, some dating to 2007."

USA Today reported on Friday that coal mine operators generally have used appeals to avoid paying all but $8 million of the $113 million in major penalties assessed against them since April 2007.

Upper Big Branch in particular "has paid just one major fine since 2007, which cost $10,750. It has appealed or is delinquent on 21 major fines worth $505,000, records show."

The Associated Press reported that the mine "was cited for violating two federal safety rules on the day of the blast."

United Mine Workers of America President Cecil E. Roberts said in a statement released on Thursday that 20 people had been killed at mines operated by Massey, its subsidiaries or subcontractors in the last decade -- prior to Monday's explosion.

"Every year, like clockwork, at least one person has been killed since 2000 on the property of Massey or one of its subsidiaries," Roberts said. "With those already known to be dead at Upper Big Branch, it's now up to 45 people in the past 11 years, and four more missing at this point. No other coal operator even comes close to that fatality rate during that time frame. This demands a serious and immediate investigation by MSHA and by Congress."

West Virginia's senior senator, Democrat Robert Byrd, released a statement on Friday:

Once we learn the cause of this disaster and investigations are completed whether it is wrongdoing by Massey, lack of enforcement by MSHA, or inadequacies with the mine health and safety laws, including the MINER Act of 2006, action will need to be taken...
[T]he more I learn about the extent of these violations by Massey at the Upper Big Branch Mine alone, the angrier I get. 57 citations in the month of March alone! Closed over 60 times during the past two years to correct problems!

To me, one thing is clear -- for a company that has had this number of violations at just one coal mine -- one must seriously begin to question the practices and procedures of this particular coal company and it needs the most serious scrutiny from the Congress and the federal regulators.

Meanwhile, Republican West Virginia Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito made it clear in her statement that the Obama administration's conduct should also be in question:

In 2009, MSHA cited 515 violations and ordered the mine closed 29 times. Upper Big Branch Mine has had 124 violations in 2010 already. In fact, MSHA faulted the Upper Big Branch Mine on the day of the explosion for inadequate maps of escape routes and an improper splice of electrical cable on a piece of equipment. It falls on both the mining company and the regulatory agency to make sure that a mine is safe and in this instance both failed.
I ask that as we move forward, we take a long hard look at the relationship of mine operators and MSHA and how we could have prevented this disaster.

At the congressional hearing in February, Rep. George Miller angrily declared that "delays from growing appeals are undermining MSHA's ability to impose tougher sanctions on the repeat violators... If cases are stuck for months or years in the review commission, MSHA cannot impose stronger penalties on the worst mine operators. As a result, miners' lives are in the cross hairs."

But the committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania, defended the companies, arguing that "it appears mine operators are simply adapting to a punitive new regulatory environment that favors litigation and conflict over collaboration."

He expressed his view that "legislation and regulation may actually be the cause rather than the solution to the problem."

Matt Madia, who focuses on federal regulatory policy at the good-government group OMB Watch, sees MSHA's limitations as the result of a systemic problem.

"What's happening is you've got a relatively small agency with too few dollars, with too few inspectors, responsible for policing a huge industry with a huge lobbying presence in Washington. So who do you think's going to win that battle?

"It's easy to blame the bureaucrats after the fact, but the public and Congress and the administration are often not paying attention to these issues before tragedy strikes," he said.

© 2010 Huffington Post

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/10-2

The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online: mark ngelo
40 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10275

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24663

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8967

Posts: 124109

Newest Members:

German, Cajun, erica, kode, doninbran21, MYSTIFY, kregg, mark ngelo, donel clark, Codetrader

Administrators: John Greenewald: 634, blackvault: 1776