Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
APPE N D I X B MINE SA F E TY AND HAZARD CONTROL TH ROUG H L E G ISLATION ( Secretary of the I nterior 1 974, Mitchell and Verakis 1 975, U.S. BuMines 1 972, Mesa Magazine 1 977, Barrett 1 977). As i n any other industrial venture, the pri me objective i n m i n i ng is the h i ghest possible production at the l owest possi ble cost. In the early days of m i n i ng, hu man safety aspects probably were low priority concerns if they were con sidered at a l l . As society became more complex, the val ue o f hu man l i fe a n d recogn ition of hazards i ncreased, and safety aspects of m i n i ng gradu a l l y were considered. Progress in this area was sl ow, however, and it became necessary to i m pose government regu l ations in most advanced nati ons to impl ement i m prove ments in m ining opera tions. I n the United States, records of occupati onal injury, i l lness, and death have shown mining to be one of the most hazardous of al l industri es, and neither the i ndustry nor the states u nder their own individual l aws and regu l ations have made much progress in protecting m i ne workers from harm. F i res and explosions i n u ndergrou nd coal m i nes were the major sti m u l i of legisl a tive action to u pgrade mining health and safety l aws. The Organic Act of 1 9 1 0, the fi rst major legislation affecti ng the coal industry, was enacted to curb the high death tol l of fires and explosions ( during the first decade of this century , mine expl os i ons took the l i fe of one m iner for each m i l l i on tons of coa l produced). The next piece of major mi ne safety legislation, the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act of 1 952, was a response to disasters in I l l i nois - in the Central i a No. 5 ( 1 94 7) and the Orient No. 2 ( 1 95 1 ) mines - and was enacted in recogn ition of the fact that earl ier efforts had been effective. This Act (as amended in 1 966) charged the U. S. Bureau of M i nes to e l i m i nate u ndergrou nd coal mining disasters without attacking the nondisastrous but statisti cal l y more frequent day·to-day accidents i nvolving fou r or fewer men. The disaster phi l osophy that generated this Act, however, had many shortcom i ngs ; provided l ittle protection in the pri mary accident areas; and, except for a few vague requi re ments, provided for no mandatory protection of the mi ners' heal th and wel fare . Congress passed the Federal Metal a n d Non meta l l i c M i ne Safety Act i n 1 966. This Act thrust u pon the Secretary of the I nterior the responsi bi l i ty for promoting and for m i n i mizing fatalities, i nju ries, and occu pati onal i l l nesses i n other than coal mines by devel opi ng health and safety stand ards and by enforci ng th ose standards through mine inspections and investigati ons. I n addition, the Act stipulated th at mine health and safety was to be prom oted through education and tra i n i ng, tech· 1 48
APP EN D I X 8 nica l assistance, and health and safety research and provi ded for cooperation with the states throu gh a syste m of state plans. At thi s ti me, pu blic awareness began to focus sharply on the severe health hazards that were present in u ndergrou nd coal m i nes and the alarm ing inci dence of "bl ack lu ng" disease ( pneu mocon iosis) among coal m i ners. It also be came i ncreas· i ngl y apparent that the federal government had not and was not responding to the problem. On N ovember 20, 1 968, a major disaster in the form of a coal m ine expl os i on occu rred at the Consol idati on Coal Com pany's No. 9 M i ne at Farm ing· ton, West Virgi n ia, and 78 men were kil led. The occu rrence of thi s explosion during the period of intense pu blic controversy over "black lung" disease led to an enti rely new ph i l osophy on health and safety in the coal min ing i ndustry . I n early 1 969, Congress began heari ngs to provide "strong and positive approaches towards i mproving the health and safety conditions for our nati on's coal mi ners. " F rom those heari ngs came the Federa l Coal M i ne Health and Safety Act of 1 969. To the u n i n itiated, the parts of the Act di rected to preventi ng and control l i ng fi res and ex plosions appear to be on ly a smal l part of the whole, but in rea l ity, more than half of the Title I and I l l requi re ments are concerned with fires and explosion s. The 1 969 Act retained regu lations concern ing m i ne closure in event of i m m inent dangers and unwarranta ble fai l ure on the part of the operator and also prov ided for penalties to be imposed for infracti ons of statutory requ i re ments and mandatory provisions. It also re moved the disti nction between gassy and nongassy m ines, e l i m inated the Title I and Title I I concept, sti pu l ated that a l l u ndergrou nd coal m i nes be treated on the same basis, and contained a comprehensive grou ping of statutory requ i rements coveri n g 26 topics and including 35 mandatory provision s. On November 20, 1 970, the original statutory requirements for m i ne venti l ation were further refined by a comprehensive l isti ng of mandatory regu l ations and in· structi ons. The U.S. Department of the I nterior M i n i ng Enforcement and Safety Adm in is· tration ( M ESA) was created in 1 973 from organi zational components of the U.S. Bureau of M i nes. It was to carry out its programs under the mandate of two laws, the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1 969 and the Federal Metal and Non meta l l ic Mine Safety Act, passed in 1 966, and com bined the various talents of some 3,400 persons in a variety of functions and programs to reduce or e l i m inate death, injury, and disease among the 400,000 empl oyees in the U.S. m ining in· dustry. The age ncy integrated its programs through organi zati onal fu nctions of an enforcement activity that ensured compliance with federal regu lations, a techn ical support activity that served as the agency 's engineeri ng arm, and an education and trai ning activity ( including the recently completed $20 m i l l ion Nati on al M i ne Health and Safety Acade my ). Althou gh the 1 969 and 1 966 Acts provi ded M ESA with differe nt sets of en· forcement tools for its specific i nspection forces, both contai ned powerfu l i ncen· 1 49
M I N ES A N D B U N K E R S tives for compl iance (i.e., M E SA had the authority to issue a notice of viol ation, which sets a ti me period for correcti n g the violation, and to cl ose a mine i n an i mmediately da ngerous situation ). The closu re order is part of an overal l enforce ment sche me that contains several key provisions. 1 . When miners are fou nd to be in i m m i nent danger, the affected area of the mine is cl osed i mmediately by an inspector until the danger i s over. 2. When viol ation of any m an datory health or safety standard is d iscovered, the mine operator is issued a notice that establishes a date by which the violation must be corrected and also is assessed a civil penalty . 3. When the operator does not correct the viol ation with in the ti me set b y the notice, the affected a rea of the m ine is cl osed u nti l the violation is corrected. 4. A viol ati on resu lti ng from the operator's "unwarra ntable fai lure" to comply with a health or safety standard is noted on the first occu rrence, and, if it occurs again with i n a 90-day period, the mine or the affected portion is closed immediately until the violation is abated. 5. Mandatory civi l penalties are assessed for each viol ation of a health or safety standard u p to a max i m u m amou nt of $1 0,000 per violation . 6. Knowing or wi l lful violati ons are covered by cri minal penalties, i ncl uding pen alties imposed upon corporate officials or agents who may have knowing l y authori zed or permitted violations to occur. These enforcement powe rs, especial l y the abi l ity to cl ose a dangerous section of the m ine, give the coa l m i ne inspector forcefu l, persuasive tools to ensu re compl i ance with the l aw and, most i mportantly, resu lt in safer and health ier mi nes. The 1 966 Act permitted inspectors to issue similar notices of violation and closure orders at metal and non-meta l m i nes and m i l l s but did not provide for man datory civi l penalties for each violation of health and safety standards as the coa l act does. It fu rther permitted individual states to operate a m i ne inspection system i n accordance with federal stan dards and under M ESA's su pervisi on. Th is state plan system hel ped guarantee that the vast number of metal and non-metal m i ne operati ons wou ld be i nspected under federal standards without increasing the size of the federal i nspection force. Six states were operating under such plans. The ti metables for promu l gation of both safety and health regu lation s for metal and non-metal operations were identical ; however, M ESA fol lowed a com pletely different procedure for coal safety regu l ations and used a th i rd set of procedures for coal hea lth standards. A major di fference between the metal and non-metal rule-ma king procedu res and the coal procedu res was that metal and non-metal regu l ations were proposed and final i zed in conju nction with an advisory com m ittee drawn from representatives of l a bor, industry, and state in spection agencies. Th is com m i ttee advised the Secretary of I nterior, who ulti mately promul gated al l federal m i n i ng regu lations. No such advi sory group existed for coa l regu lations, but the 1 969 Act did sti pu l ate that heal th regu l ations be formul ated with the Secretary of Health, Education , and Wel fare. 1 50
APP E N D I X 8 Because of these and other discrepancies, Congress enacted the Federal M i ne Safety and Health Act of 1 977 ( Publ ic Law 9- 1 73 as· amended by Pu blic Law 9& 1 64 ). Basica l l y, th is act extends to workers i n non-coal m i nes a nd m i l l i ng opera· tions the same protections that coal mi ners already h ave under the l aw. Metal and n on-metal activities range from l arge open pit and multilevel underground metal mi nes to cou ntless smal l sand and gravel pits, quarries, and dredging operations. Three new requirements in particu l ar represent significant changes for both M ESA ( includi ng a change i n name to the M i ne Safety and Health Adm inistration [ MSHA] ) and operators i n the metal and non-metal area: 1 . A requ i rement for at least fou r mandatory undergrou nd i nspections, the same n u m ber as requ i red for u ndergrou nd coal operations but three m ore com plete i nspections than had been requ ired for the non-coal mining industry, 2. A n ew mandatory requ i rement cal l i ng for two surface i nspections annu al l y. 3. The i m position of mandatory civi l penalties. The i mposition of mandatory civ i l penalties also is provided as a tool for enforci ng operator compli ance throughout the mi ning i ndustry (although such penalties were used with coal mine operators since 1 970, they cou ld not be i m posed on metal and non- metal mine operators) . The 1 977 Act conti nues t o provide for closure o f a l l o r part of a m i ne o r withdrawal o f miners from affected areas when an i nspector fi nds a condition that constitutes "imminent danger". I n addition, the "unwarrantable fai l u re " mine clo sure order that was n ot for merly appl ica ble to metal and non-metal m ines i ndustry is now appl ied to a l l of m i n i ng. This provision establishes a sequence for the issu ing of an order to withdraw m i ners from hazardous areas based on a violation that was due to the operator's unwarranta ble fa i lure to com ply with the law and that, whi l e not constituti ng i m m i nent danger, cou l d "significantl y and su bstanti ally" contri b ute to the cause and effect of a mine safety or health hazard. Although requi rements u nder the new legisl ation are ai med at stream l i n i ng the overal l standards-making process, the changes most affect ru l e making for the metal and non- metal i ndustry profou ndl y. For example, whereas all coa l i ndustry health and safety regu l ations h ave been mandatory , ex isting non-coal industry standards were both mandatory and "advisory". The 1 977 Act requires th at an advisory com mittee be named to review a l l these metal and non-metal advisory standards and to recommend wh ich ones shou ld be made mandatory. The Federal Metal and Non-metal M ine Safety and Health Advisory Committee, for wh ich there was no counterpart in the coal ru l e-making process, has played a l arge role in developing non-coal standards ; it wi l l be disconti nued under the new l aw, and hearings on metal and non- metal standards wi l l become less formal. All in a l l , standards-making for the non-coal industry under the 1 977 Act wi l l be far less cum bersome and time-consu m ing than before . The extent o f fire safety enfo rcement b y regul atory agencies varies a great deal between the various industries. In intern ational shi ppi ng, for example the least 1 51
M I N ES AND B U N K E R S stringent fire safety requ irements are set by I ntergovernmental Mariti me Consu lta tive Organization ( I M CO) , the international regu latory body . The requirements of the "classification societies" governing insurance sales are more strict, prov iding an i ncentive for the owner to set fi re safety standards above minimum. The actual fire safety regul ations adopted by most owners, however, are usually more stri ngent than those requ ired of him by agencies since it i s h is own pri me concern to protect h is i nvestment, vessel , and cargo. I n contrast, the mining industry in the United States and most other devel oped nations is control led to a great degree by govern ment. This extensive i nvolvement of government shou l d not be considered alarming; it evolved from the obvious necessity to protect the life and safety of employees of th is extremely hazardous i ndustry and the public outcry and pressures based on recogn ition of thi s necessity. Another overwhel ming consideration is that no i nd ividual m ine owner cou ld afford the extensive development efforts an d research activities upon which the regu l atory agencies base their widespread regu latory, enforcement, and tra i n i ng services. Besides developing and modifying regu lations and enforcing them th rough an extensive inspecti on system, MSHA provi des a we l l organized training program for mi ners and seeks continual input from the mining community th roughout the entire ru le making process. F inal ly, the U. S. Bureau of Mines conducts numerous research programs con cern ing mine fire and explosion prevention at its own faci l ities, at private institu tions, and in cooperation wi th indu stri al and academic research organizati ons. The results and findi n gs of these research programs are m ade available to m i n i ng and supporti ng i ndustries through pu bl ications and technology tra nsfer seminars. The subject of these research programs are the basic elements of fire dynam ics as wel l as practical approaches to fire detecti on, prevention, and su ppression. The successfu l conclusion of these research activities is expected to provide the elements needed for a soph isticated, systems approach to the development of design criteria for mine safety and hazard control. 1 52
