MSHA Inspections: Preparing Your Small Sand and Gravel Operations (Part 46 Mines) for a Visit: August 2009

On Wednesday, August 12, 2009, around 150 people attended a MSHA training meeting at the Mission Mill Museum in Salem, Oregon. MSHA was represented by Rich Laufenberg (Acting Administrator, M/NM) , Harvey Kirk (Guarding Specialist, Safety and Health Division, National Office), Kevin Hirsch (Supervisor, Vacaville, CA), Ron Jacobson (Field Office Supervisor, Boise, ID), Brad Breland (Field Office Supervisor, Albany, OR) and Evan Church (Small Mine Compliance). Mr. Kirk gave the presentation on Equipment Guarding, and Mr. Laufenberg presented information regarding Highwall Safety. Following the presentations was a question/answer and discussion period.

"Equipment Guarding"

by

Harvey Kirk

Here are the meeting notes I took on Harvey Kirk's Equipment Guarding presentation. For the complete DVD on this subject and to obtain the 2004 handbook titled: Guide to Equipment Guarding , please contact Mr. Kirk for ordering information. The Power Point presentation that Mr. Kirk used at the August 12th meeting is also available. His email is: kirk.lewis@dol.gov and his phone number is (202) 693-9617. There is also a new training resource video coming out from NSNGA, and it has information on guarding included. It will cover the process from crushing to trucking to stockpiling.

Mr. Kirk explained that his department focuses on reducing the number of fatalities, injuries, illnesses and risk to miners. He also strives to improve the consistency of guarding inspections and compliance between regions and across the nation by explaining those that are most cited and least understood. Mr. Kirk explained that there are around 100 serious injuries each year, as well as at least one fatality. Along with the number of miners who become permanently disabled from guarding accidents, there are scores of those with lost time and restricted duty. He gave a statistical breakdown of how the injuries happened, and it was interesting to learn that around 60% of injuries occurred during times maintenance.

Mr. Kirk introduced two terms for the group to consider: Residual Risk and Tolerable Risk, saying the the latter should be our goal. The rules on guarding standards are explained in the MSHA manual and it is important to know the standards and to read the preambles. The main goals are to guard against inadvertent contact of machinery and the guarding of engine drive belts on off-road vehicles (loaders, etc.)

The following materials can be used as guards if they are in good shape, strong and flexible: screencloth; rubber (if it is secured and replaced when needed), lightweight aluminum tubing; Tensar high-strength webbing; custom shapes or cut to fit plastic; plexiglass (may need to be replaced if scratches block the view) and sometimes wooden guards are fine. Plastic construction webbing is not okay, and neither are screens with sharp edges.

Mr. Kirk advised the following points:

Be aware and guard against the whipping action of V-belts when they break.
Make sure there are emergency stop switches on unguarded conveyors and walkways; making sure they work and are in good condition.
Railings have to be in a good position and be structurally capable.
Have good skirtboard and pinch point guarding.
Return idlers are very dangerous and are killers. Make sure they are guarded if people will be walking by them or under them.
Make sure to guard all running "nip points".
Guards need to be checked and maintained. Vibration over time will cause a loss in effectiveness.
Guards must be held securely in place at all times, either by fastening or held in place by its own weight, bulk or method of attachment.
Pins and sleeves are a great idea to secure guards.
Plastic wire ties are okay if they are heavy duty and there are enough of them. They must be kept in place and maintained (replaced when they get old).
Read the specifics of CFR 56/57.14105: Procedures During Repairs.
Guard your stationary grinding machines carefully. A peripheral hood is fine as long as it covers 270* and the maxium gap from tip to wheel is 1/4".

Watch for dangers where the likelihood of injury is low, but the severity is high.
Look for guarding problems in daily workplace exams and fix them immediately.
Presses can be adequately guarded by using Plexiglas shields.
It is a really good idea to color code your guards.
Use extended grease fittings to avoid contact moving parts. During winter months, use thinner grease for better flow through the hoses (EP2 works well).
Hinging guards is fine.
Make continuous improvements on your guards. Don't make them too heavy; weld handles on them if it will help them function better.
Beware of those moving parts that you consider "guarded by location". Any change or modification can cause loss of protection and something that was once safe is no longer.
Area guarding is not for convenience. Only area guard when you can not use a point of contact guard.

"Highwall Safety"

by

Richard Laufenberg

Mr. Laufenberg talked to the group about highwall hazards and how to keep highwalls safe. Highwalls are in the MSHA manual under CFR 56.3130 which discusses wall, bank and slope stability both from above (falling material) and from below (loss of support).

The first thing to do is to eliminate hazards by both recognizing the hazard and correcting the hazard. Owners and operators need to study their own wall formations to determine the unique possible hazards at each site. Look at the highwall from both directions (facing the wall and parallel to the wall). Check to see if there is a 50% chance that the wall is unstable and ready for separation. Look for wedges formed by geometry and orientation. The wall beds will be effected by moisture, freezing and thawing, and will change over time. Check the joints of your wall. If there is a possibility of wall failure, block access until you have corrected the problem. If you can not correct it, it becomes unusable and you need to place warning signs and put barriers in place to prevent access.

Never get between your equipment and the highwall.

Types of Highwall Failure:

Massive wall failure
Planar failure
Wedge failure
Toppling failures
Circular failure
Highly fractured rock mass
Rock falls. Rock fall factors to consider: exposure, block weight and geometry.
In the Northwest the most important thing is rock removal. This can be done by resloping, trimming and sealing.
Keep good records of your highwalls. Note any changes, no matter how small.

Protective Measures for Highwalls:

Examination of ground conditions and monitoring of highwalls.
Restrict access
Equipment position
FOPS (Falling Object Protective Standards)
Mesh
Benches
Berms
Computer modeling

Know the CFR 56.3131 - Pit or Quarry wall perimeter information. Keep the benches clean and maintained at leas one level above the mining operation. Also know CFR 56.3401 - Berming and examination of ground control, doing exams weekly or more often.

Discussion Period Notes:

During the first part of the question and answer period, Harvey Kirk had the floor. Questions ranged all over the board, and I will try to summarize the discussion here.

Brad Breland assured an audience member that ample time would be given to fix guarding situations, instead of forcing a band-aide approach in an effort to just get things done quickly.
I asked why the crusher and washplant manufactures were not required to install proper guards prior to selling their new equipment, so that we didn't have to scurry around trying to retrofit guards in a hit and miss fashion. Mr. Kirk said that you could order them that way, including that request in your bid. (I later found out that MSHA does not have jurisdiction over the manufacturers, only over our pits and the equipment we use in them.)
When asked which approach gets better results, citations and fines or non-punitive cooperation, Mr. Kirk said that if an inspector sees a violation they have to write a ticket. He suggested that operators go back and fix the problem so that there would be no citation written in the first place.
When asked how things went at the Field Inspector's meeting held the day before, and which things did the inspectors ask for clarification on, Mr. Kirk said that they asked such questions as if bolts were required. At their meeting, he cleared up misconceptions about guarding issues. Urban legends were dispelled. New inspectors still need to learn about guarding, and they had questions that he answered.
Kim Redding pointed out that inconsistencies between inspectors about fixing guards cost mine operators up to $34,000 in fines and a lot of time to fight the incorrect citations. Mr. Kirk replied that Congress made those rules about the increase in fines. If you feel that the citation is unjustified, talk to the inspector. The inspector has an obligation to justify the tickets that they write, as well as explain the reasons why he wrote it to the operator. If you get nowhere with the inspector, go to the Field Office Supervisor, then to the district level if you need to. There is a process to be followed. Mr. Kirk also said that inspectors should not be writing citations unless it is a true violation; they cannot just make them up.
Cary Matthews asked if it was really true that it was mandated for inspectors to issue citations and that they would be prosecuted if they did not. He wondered if Mr. Kirk knew of anybody who had actually been prosecuted for this. Mr. Kirk said, yes, he did know of somebody that was prosecuted, around two years ago.
Cary then brought up the Mike Davis letter of March that instructed inspectors to be courteous and professional to small mine owners and operators. He wondered what recourse mine owners have if they come across a rude and unprofessional inspector. Mr. Kirk said that in that case, the operator should write to the Office of the Assistant Secretary or call them. Give the circumstances and name names. Neal Merrifield and Mr. Kirk will investigate and respond. They have trained investigators and will respond.
Mr. Kirk was asked why the industry couldn't partner with MSHA like they can with Oregon and California OSHA, and why was it that only smaller mines could receive free consultation and education and not larger ones. Mr. Kirk replied that MSHA did have National Alliances with some organizations, but they do not apply to aggregate plants. There are some for the coal mines and for explosives, and the cement industry though. He suggested that we talk with Congress. As far as the difference between OSHA and MSHA, OSHA has specific standards, while MSHA uses the gray area.
The question arose about the guarding standard for non-work related, and about inspectors deliberately laying on the ground and putting their arm up inside a guard and then writing a citation for unsafe guarding. His operation was cited for not bottom guarding tail pulleys 5" to 6" off the ground. Mr. Kirk said that there were misconceptions about that, and that the inspectors are getting retrained on that very issue. All of the people in the field office have been retaught on the tail pully requirements; retraining and review has been done.
A question was asked about inspector interpretation being an issue, and if inspectors were graded on a daily basis to find their weak areas so that operators do not have to keep wasting time and money over the varying inspector opinions. Mr. Kirk replied that there were new training packets prepared for the new inspectors at the academy and that the experienced inspectors were being retrained. Managers from other districts are going into other areas to see how things are being done. Peer evaluations between the field offices are taking place. Checks are being made on the quality of inspections.
Dennis Ingram said that one problem is the drastic black and white practice in subjective situations, the only choice for the inspector is to write a citation or not. He stated that there are many safe minded people who were very upset because practices are not consistent across the board, and that it should be possible to have a different approach, as in other government agencies. Mr. Kirk responded by saying that there was a line act by Congress to improve the selection of inspectors, and that we all have our own life experiences. Just like in selecting a juror, inspectors need to be reasonable people doing their job and they will be corrected if they are wrong.
In answer to that, an audience member said that there is no money in the alternative. Consistency in inspectors is what we need. He gave the example that he had not had a ticket for years and years because he runs a safe operation, and then last year he received 20 tickets.
Mary McNatt stated that OIAA and like minded organizations want to be working partners with MSHA, and that we do not like to be in an adversarial position. We want to work together to lessen frustrations. Mr. Kirk suggested that we work together at a local level with the field offices. Then, he handed the floor over to Mr. Laufenberg.
Mr. Laufenberg told Mary that he would pass her request on to headquarters. He said that attending Spring Thaws and trainings such as today's all help to build relationship. He said that their agency is trying to be as consistent as possible. There is an Office of Accountibility and Performance and consistency is the goal. They review reports, work with Kevin Hirsch, and are out in the field more than ever before. Mr. Laufenberg assured us that allegations are reviewed at the highest level, even if we don't hear about the results.
The question was presented that all of these were reactive issues instead of proactive ones. The audience member appreciates how Cal-OSHA comes out and consults, but MSHA does not. He thought it would be great if MSHA would. He said that this meeting was very informative, but was not going to fix the issues in the field.
Mr. Laufenberg responded by saying that they came out to Oregon to do their presentations. Were those helpful or not? If you do your guarding over and above what is required and you won't get a citation. Members of the audience said, yes, this meeting was very helpful and we really appreciated them coming.
The question was asked about highwalls, was there any measurement info available, as in how high can they be and still be safe? Mr. Laufenberg said to use the best practices recommendation, it was really a site specific issue. If you are still needing to know more about highwalls, contact MSHA's specialists for guidelines and technical support.
A question was asked about whether or not the requirements that geologists gave met MSHA's criteria, and is there more that the mine operator needs to know besides the geologists report. Mr. Laufenberg said that benching is an option, not a requirement. You can scale the highwall, berm it, or evacuate the area. Geologists can give advice, but MSHA has rules on maintaining safety. There is exposure for each individual mines, and daily or weekly inspections are suggested.
Gary Clapshaw asked Mr. Laufenberg about how he felt about the heavy handedness being applied to above ground mines because of what happened with the coal mine disasters. The answer was that in 2006 the Part 100 was changed to increase fines, because some mine owners had found it easier to just pay the fines and not fix the problems. MSHA is concerned about the safety of the miners, and this is a nationwide and important issue. He knows that we care about our employees and want to be safe also.
I stated that when Mr. Merrifield came and spoke with us, he told us that 2 years ago there were $25 million in MSHA fines received into the general fund, and that there are now $250 million in MSHA fines written. I said we don't have the money to keep paying those kind of fines. He just looked at me. I said, I know you can't fix it, we just don't know what to do and who to talk to about it. The meeting broke up shortly after that.

(On a side note, I wondered if there are companies who go around to mine sites to review, manufacture and install site specific equipment guards for crusher and washplant operations. If anybody knows of some, I would be happy to list them on this website.)