by Tom Bethell
Twenty-nine coal miners lost their lives in last week’s massive explosion at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia.
Why?
Part of the answer to that question will have to wait until the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) conducts its investigation of the disaster. Only then will we know precisely where the ignition point was and why methane was allowed to build to the point where it constituted 5 to 15 percent of the mine atmosphere — the range at which the otherwise inert gas becomes lethally explosive.
But no one familiar with the coal mining industry will have to wait to answer the larger question:
Why do coal miners die?
They die because of negligence. They die because the company they work for cares more about running coal than making mines safe. And they die because the federal agency that is charged with protecting them fails in its mission.
About the first instance of negligence there can be no question. The explosion was too violent and too extensive to have been caused by a pocket of methane alone. The initial blast must have ignited coal dust — which is even more explosive than methane — and that couldn’t have happened if management had been diligent about cleaning up accumulations of loose coal, particularly along the conveyor belt carrying coal out of the mine. But we know from MSHA’s inspection records that maintenance at Upper Big Branch never got top priority. That went to production — regardless of how many times the mine was cited for lax safety practices.
The mine was projected to earn $145.6 million for Massey this year, and nothing was going to get in the way of meeting that goal. Massey CEO Don Blankenship has dismissed any and all criticism as the work of “the enemies of coal.” He’s God, in short, and you’re not.
Enough said about Massey. But is it fair to accuse MSHA of negligence? After all, it’s the mine owner’s responsibility to run a safe mine. And, as MSHA deputy director Greg Wagner repeatedly said last week, “We can’t be in the mine all the time, in every place in the mine.”
That’s true — obviously. But it begs the question. MSHA has been and continues to be negligent because it has stubbornly resisted using all of the enforcement tools provided to it under federal law.
Going back to 1969, when the first genuinely tough federal mining law was enacted (after a 1968 explosion killed 78 West Virginia miners), concerned lawmakers have been doing whatever they can to empower MSHA. Most importantly, the agency has the power to close a mine or section of a mine and to withdraw the miners under a variety of circumstances: if an imminent danger exists; if the mine operator fails to abate a violation within the time fixed by a citation; if there are hazards caused by the operator’s “unwarrantable failure” to address “significant and substantial” health and safety standards; if an operator who has been issued a withdrawal order commits a repeat violation; and if inspectors find a pattern of violations.
MSHA is also required to impose penalties whenever violations are cited. But penalties, although necessary, have never been MSHA’s most effective weapon, in part because they can be and routinely are appealed — a process that can take years. And penalties rarely make much of a dent in a company’s bottom line, especially for companies as large and profitable as Massey.
So what does get their attention? It’s the power to halt production and pull the miners out of the mine until an unsafe condition is corrected. When production stops, profit stops. And it’s that power that MSHA has failed to use to the full extent provided by law.
Why? The reasons are complex, but the short answer seems to be that the higher you go up the command chain at MSHA, the more you encounter weak knees. Labor Department lawyers, some of whom seem unduly intimidated by their much higher-paid company counterparts, have a long history of looking for ways to rein in aggressive inspectors and district managers, in part to avoid getting sued. One result is that MSHA has never used its pattern-of-violations power to shut down a consistently dangerous mine. What good is a two-by-four if you don’t use it to get the mule’s attention?
But the pattern-of-violations power isn’t MSHA’s only tool. Progressive enforcement — ratcheting up citations and the scope of withdrawal orders when a foreman or mine boss fails to shape up after the initial citation —
“is a good tool and should be used to the fullest,” in the words of one former district manager. “It gets attention better than fooling with the pattern-of-violation guidelines.”
And then there’s the blitz. When Davitt McAteer headed MSHA during the Clinton administration, he asked his district managers to identify their worst “bad actors.” Then, on more than one occasion, he would inform a company CEO, on a Friday, that he was getting ready to augment regular inspections by sending a dozen or more inspectors into a troubled mine on Monday morning.
“It was amazing how clean that mine would be by Sunday night,” he recalls.
Enforcing mine safety is a bit like warfare. Infantrymen aren’t likely to charge ahead if they don’t think the sergeant’s got their back. Sergeants need to know that lieutenants and captains have got their back. And so on, all the way to the top. That was definitely not true at MSHA during the Bush administration, when inspectors were told to focus on “compliance assistance.” Whether it will become true during the Obama administration remains to be seen. Meanwhile, miners remain at risk.
Veteran mine safety advocate Tony Oppegard, a former MSHA enforcement lawyer who now represents Kentucky miners, plans to work with the Appalachian Citizens Law Center, headquartered here in Letcher County, to push for any regulatory revisions that may be needed to help MSHA force repeat offenders to shape up or shut down. He doesn’t buy the fatalistic argument that allowing some CEO to put your life at risk is a fair trade-off for working in one of Appalachia’s few good-paying occupations. “Coal miners shouldn’t have to accept safety violations to earn a living,” Oppegard says.
If that simple message ever sinks in at MSHA — with or without regulatory changes — we’ll be on our way to a new era of responsibility and accountability. Until then, miners will die from negligence.
The editorial was written by The Mountain Eagle Contributing Editor Tom Bethell, who has covered coal for the paper off and on for nearly 40 years. Based in Washington, D.C., he is also the author of The Hurricane Creek Massacre, a book about a 1970 mine disaster, and is a former research director of the United Mine Workers of America. He was part of the McAteer team that conducted the special investigation of the Sago mine disaster in 2006.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 16, 2010 at 1:34 am
Dina J. Padilla
When this country’s leadership start representing their constituents-people, and then they’ll start realizing that people/citizens are more important then the increased bottom line of their investments, only then will we have the moral obligation for each others well being as well as what we desire for ourselves.
A train full of cargo goes first on the track before the passengers.
A health care provider /insurance company denies medical care to patients of all ages including our children, all to increase it’s profits
Bio tech labs can create germs that cause illness so investors can profit.
Developers can build on toxic dump sites, exposing workers and residents, all for profits.
How many working people and their families have to die snd suffer, all in the name of a few to live like kings and queens on ill begotten gains?
April 21, 2010 at 8:16 pm
David Harrington
The one thing I would add to Tom Bethel’s piece is that not having a union in any workplace is going to mean a more hazardous workplace but particularly in the coal mines. Having a strong and present UMWA meant that miners on a section could keep that section boss and the mine superintendent more compliant with the safety regulations. The worst job in a union mine was the section boss because he was under pressure to run coal from the superintendent and yet he knew if he pushed his section crew too hard or cut safety corners the crew would be on him and they might just might make a trip to the dinner hole or even throw their water out and walk off the job. To be a section boss was to have ulcers. Those days pretty much don’t exist anymore and the unregulated, unrepentant coal company is an ugly, nasty thing to experience. The very idea that there would a non-union mine in West Virginia says a lot about how far things have gone downhill. These miners want to make a living, but do it with self-respect and with courage and in solidarity with each other. When they witness the outspoken miners being sent to shovel along the belt line or sent down the road and know the only job alternative is flipping burgers, a painful silence sets in. People like Don Blankenship are experts at exploiting that fear.
Even in its best days the MSHA never exercised its authority to stop the coal from running throughout a mine. The mine inspector might order the section boss to stop mining coal temporarily and have the crew correct a hazard but that was not typical. More likely they would keep running coal as the section boss and the red hats corrected that ventilation curtain or rock dusted some area. Keep in mind that many of these inspectors are former rank-and-file coal miners and mining management who live in these communities and face tremendous pressure not to stop a mine from running coal. Unless MSHA upper management had their backs and they were somehow immune from loosing their jobs or being marginalized it wouldn’t happen. The Obama Administration needs to enforce the MSHA regulations they currently have while they work on a long-term strategy of MSHA reform. To do that they need to let the committed MSHA inspectors know that they have their backs if they do their job accordingly. They need to let the cynical, blame the miners, too friendly to management, inspectors know that their jobs are in jeopardy if they fail to act like enforcers. Of course you need upper and district management commitment to make that happen. Praying can help people get through the pain but now that the miners are buried let’s cut out the pious, fatalistic speeches and see some action!
David Harrington
dpharring@aol.com
May 2, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Dusty Coal
Dina,
I am grateful that you are passionate about life safety. As a Safety Professional in Mining and Electric Power (Coal-based), I share that passion for the well being of workers with you.
I have always disliked Unions because they have compromised the effectiveness on several of my construction projects, however, there is something to be said for the value of the UMWA in mines, unless you have an extraordinary mining company who communicates well and regards life above all else.
I am not a big Obama supporter either, but I do think there are and will continue to be improvements in safety as a result of his administration if they bring better control of safety without taking over entirely.
What I am having a hard time reconciling is the dispise that Obama has openly expressed for the future of Coal-based Power. Saying that you are going to “bankrupt coal” in one breath, then trying to tell coal miners you care for their environment and safety does not wash. 95% of all Coal Miners will choose some compromise in safety over having their livelyhood “bankrupted”.
Obama should get his act together regarding energy, so that he can truely be seen as a friend to those who risk their lives to light our lamps. Wind and Solar Power are truley miniscule and incapable of providing an adequate future. Congress, or the Administration should not pontificate about elliminating over 50% of our power when all we have are ideas about its replacement. Technology must be developed and proven before we elliminate things.
IF (just pretend with me for a moment) the pseudoscience of man-made climate change is false, we are and will continue to impact our cost and quality of life for nothing, while stunting our regrowth of the economy. Obama’s speach at the funeral services was elliquant, but did not even sound like the same person as Obama, the Energy Pontificator. He gave credit to the miners of coal, for things he has stringently opposed or denied existance of. In fact, I have never heard him admit the need for electric power or the positive aspects of coal use.
Ontario Power has threatened to elliminate its Coal-based Power for many years. Every time a new leader is attempting to be elected, they tout their intent to elliminate coal-based power. Then, when they gain access to their new found leadership, they learn that it is virtually impossible to elliminate that source of power without finding a VIABLE replacement. Finally, after decades of such games in Ontario, it seems they have started to make transisions to wood-based power, etc. to slowly build technology and learn how to effect change.
My whole point in relation to safety is, you must first be a leader who understands the need for feasible power, who understands the need for developing realistic coal power alternatives before replacing it. THEN, you will win the minds and hearts of the coal miners and their employers. Then they will feel that you are trying to preserve their lives while appreciating their true and LONG-TERM contributions.
Finally, try to understand that these mine owners, many of them, are good people and spend any profits they do squeeze out of their efforts, on improving life and safety for their miners. It is fun to imagine that the World is full of evil people disregarding life, I think ignorance is ultimately a poor excuse. What we need are leaders who have the ability to make long-term, viable, technologically feasible, objectives and plans. Then organize people in an effort to improve production, safety, and market, without sucking the freedom of those people completely dry. You don’t need to take over ownership of something to effect its successful and safe future (when I say “its” I am refering to the people within its walls).