Table Of Contents (continued) Mine Inspection Program Evaluation US

table of contents (continued) mine inspection program evaluation u.s. department of labor mine safety and health administra

Table of Contents (continued)
Mine Inspection Program Evaluation

U.S. Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Final Report
September 30, 2003
ICF Consulting
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, VA 22031-1207
Reference 080773.0.065
Foreword
This report was prepared by ICF Consulting. The material in it
represents ICF Consulting’s best judgment in light of the information
available to us at the time for preparation. Opinions expressed in
this report are those of the ICF Consulting staff involved in the
project and not necessarily those of the Department of Labor or the
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
The ICF Consulting team wishes to extend our appreciation to the
members of the MSHA Core Team for their dedication and commitment to
this review. We would also like to recognize the outstanding
cooperation that was provided by personnel in MSHA offices and at
mining industry operations (management and labor). Both MSHA and
mining industry management and labor were very supportive and eager to
contribute ideas and recommendations.
1.0 Executive Summary 1
2.0 Introduction 1
2.1 Context for Evaluation 1
2.1 Purpose and Scope 1
2.2 Evaluation Design 1
2.3 Report Organization 5
3.0 Inspection Program Review 1
3.1 Consistency with Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 1
3.2 Program Effectiveness 4
3.3 Inspection Program Efficiency 17
4.0 Government, Industry Inspection Activities, and MSHA’s Streamlined
Inspection Program Initiatives 1
4.1 Governmental Inspection Programs 1
4.2 Industry Inspection/Audit Programs 2
4.3 MSHA’s Streamlined Inspection Program Initiatives 3
4.4 Comparative Assessment of Other Inspection Proposals or Practices
5
5.0 Summary of Results and Recommendations 1
5.1 Inspection Enforcement Activities 1
5.2 Compliance Assistance 3
5.3 Mechanisms and Tools for Enhancing Consistency 3
5.4 Written Inspection Procedures 5
5.5 District Resources 6
5.6 Recruitment and Training 6
5.7 Streamlining Initiatives 7
Appendix A. Mine Inspection Program Evaluation Design
Document……………………A-1
Appendix B. Guides for MSHA and Mining Industry
Interviews……………………………B-1
1.0Executive Summary
====================
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has a mandate to
conduct safety inspections of the Nation’s mines in their
entirety—twice per year at surface mines and four times per year at
underground mines—under Section 103(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act). The purpose of these inspections is to
verify mine operators’ compliance with statutory requirements and to
determine whether an imminent danger exists.
ICF Consulting was selected by MSHA to conduct an independent outcome
evaluation of the mine safety inspection program. The purpose of the
evaluation was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of
inspection activities. The evaluation also included a review of
streamlined inspection initiatives proposed by Coal’s Reinvention Work
Group and Metal and Non-Metal’s (MNM) Voluntary Compliance Partnership
(VCP), and an analysis of the allocation and distribution of
inspection enforcement resources. Our recommendations were to be based
on the assumption that resources will be maintained within current and
future budgetary constraints and should take into consideration the
specific inspection requirements set forth in the Mine Act and
associated regulations. The evaluation, conducted between October 2002
and May 2003, was based on an analysis of MSHA data, interviews with
over 100 individuals representing MSHA and the mining industry
(management and labor), a review of internal documents, and a review
of industry and other governmental inspection programs.
Based on our evaluation we found that MSHA’s inspection program is
generally compliant with statutory and regulatory requirements. In
terms of outcomes, the inspectors evaluate compliance with applicable
regulations, and recognize and cite both instances of mines’
non-compliance with statutory requirements and imminent (potentially
catastrophic) dangers. Moreover, inspectors and mine operators
interviewed agreed that enforcement aimed at preventing major events
such as fires and explosions is helping prevent such incidents.
However, we also identified a number of opportunities to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the inspection program. Our specific
findings and recommendations are summarized below.
Inspection Enforcement Activities: MSHA and mining industry management
and labor we interviewed believe that inspections continue to be a key
component of MSHA’s overall mission to protect the health and safety
of the Nation’s miners, and we concur. Representatives of the mining
industry view the inspection program as a tool to evaluate safety
issues and acknowledge that fair and thorough inspections can help
improve safety performance. However, the data indicate that the
numbers and types of days lost injuries occurring over the past 5 to
10 years are not well correlated either quantitatively or
qualitatively with the citations issued through inspection enforcement
activities. This suggests that at least some factors contributing to
the current incident rates are not being captured in the process for
issuing citations. Moreover, mining industry personnel interviewed
stated that the inspections do not necessarily focus on a mine’s
overall approach to safety or the most critical or hazardous mine
activities and conditions in significant depth to identify factors
that may have a more influential impact on safety performance.
We recommend that MSHA increase the effectiveness of the inspection
process by including elements of industry and other governmental
inspection practices and the Coal Reinvention Work Group’s
recommendations such that an inspection of a mine in its entirety
highlights an evaluation of the underlying problems or gaps in site
level safety programs that contribute to fatalities and other days
lost injuries. This recommendation applies to both Coal and MNM and
would involve using the inspection activities of other inspectors in
completing reviews, establishing priorities for inspecting high risk
areas or activities within the operational portion of a mine,
conducting representative sampling of safety activities documented in
mine records, and developing criteria proposed for in-depth inspection
of abandoned or inactive portions of a mine with long established
compliance histories.
Compliance Assistance: Compliance assistance is being provided to the
mine sites by inspectors during an inspection. The mining industry
appreciates this assistance especially when the inspectors engage in
compliance assistance activities that are directly relevant to their
specific situations. However, the frequency and form of compliance
assistance varies among the inspectors and these activities have not
been fully institutionalized and incorporated into the inspection
process.
We recommend that MSHA proceed with its plans to institutionalize
compliance assistance during inspections by: determining the most
valuable type of assistance for various mines; incorporating
compliance assistance into the daily routine of the inspection
process; expanding Educational Field Services activities; and making
compliance assistance materials widely available.
Inspection Consistency: During interviews with mine personnel, we
heard comments about inconsistencies among the inspectors. The
differing areas of expertise among inspectors are viewed as both a
strength and a weakness of the current inspection program. MSHA
personnel see it primarily as a strength, since it allows fresh
perspectives on particular areas as inspectors rotate through the
mines. (In addition to mine rotation, MSHA manages the potential
inconsistencies by conducting internal meetings to review new
regulations and field supervisors indicate that they routinely review
the basis for inspectors’ citations.) Mine personnel expressed concern
about inconsistencies they perceived between different districts and
different inspectors making decisions in the field as to what
constitutes a citation or a significant and substantial (S&S)
citation.
We recommend that MSHA take steps to improve consistency across
districts and among inspectors. Possible steps include: expanding the
use of inspection guides during inspections to ensure consistent
review of applicable regulations; using the supervisory review process
to confirm that the inspectors are following updated inspection
procedures; and upgrading the Inspection Procedures Handbooks and
refresher training to provide the inspectors with an ability to more
consistently interpret or assess compliance with applicable
regulations.
Written Inspection Procedures: To establish a basis for consistency
and training of new inspectors, both Coal and MNM have developed
written inspection procedures covering three phases of an
inspection—pre-inspection, on-site activities, and report preparation.
The written inspection procedures for Coal and MNM, however, differ in
terms of content and rigor. Although differences in the procedures are
understandable given the type and range of mines that need to be
inspected within Coal and MNM, the degree of the differences are not
aligned with the “One MSHA Strategy” of conveying to miners a single
organization with one set of policies. In addition, MNM procedures
have not been updated to reflect changes in health monitoring
requirements.
We recommend that MSHA standardize, update, and modify the inspection
procedures used by Coal and MNM. In particular, utilize a similar
format for both Coal and MNM Inspection Procedures Handbooks, and
fine-tune the details in Coal and MNM’s Inspection Procedures
Handbooks to reflect the inspection process recommendations for
increasing the time on-site for conducting the inspection, as well as
the focusing of the inspection as outlined in this report.
District Resources: MSHA has an inspection force of approximately 900
staff members, and at the end of 2002 Coal had 597 inspectors and MNM
had 310 inspectors. Within Coal there are approximately 2,000 mines to
inspect with the majority being underground; MNM has approximately
13,000 mines with the vast majority being surface. Decisions regarding
staffing needs are based on the number and complexity of operating
mines. Coal has achieved an average inspection completion rate of
approximately 98 percent over the past five years; MNM has achieved an
average completion rate of 81 percent over the same period of time.
MNM has made efforts to reallocate resources among the districts to
increase the completion rates and during 2002 the overall completion
rate was 88 percent. In reviewing resource allocations we concluded
that the availability of inspector resources is an important element
in achieving the mandated number of inspections. We also noted that
Coal has appreciably greater personnel resources than MNM and that the
resource allocations within Coal may not be totally aligned with
current miner activity. We further noted that Coal’s resources appear
to be distributed differently across districts, while the MNM
resources are distributed fairly evenly.
We recommend that MSHA consider reallocating inspection resources
across Coal districts and between Coal and MNM, as much as practical,
to address these inspection resource issues.
Recruitment and Training: MSHA has an established program in place to
train and retrain inspectors for both Coal and MNM. The initial
training program consists of both classroom and on-the-job training to
familiarize inspectors with applicable regulations and the inspection
process. Most of the interviewees stated that the initial training was
appropriate and prepared them to undertake job responsibilities, but
the refresher training program needs to be enhanced to help address
the inconsistencies in interpretation, develop new skill sets, or
enhance existing skill sets. It is also perceived by mine personnel
and within MSHA, whom we interviewed, that the mining industry
experience base within the inspectorate may diminish with time.
We recommend that MSHA: upgrade the refresher training to provide the
inspectors with skills and techniques to enhance compliance assistance
activities; use the results of the Job Task Analysis (JTA) to examine,
design, or require specific continuing education coursework to close
the skills gap; and establish a recruiting plan to replace retiring
inspectors to ensure that mining experience is retained within the
inspectorate. (We note that changes in the National Mine Health and
Safety Academy training programs are one intended outcome of the MSHA
JTA initiative.)
Streamlining Initiatives: MNM proposed the VCP initiative to provide
recognition to those mines with excellent safety and health programs.
Coal established an internal Reinvention Work Group to examine current
inspection procedures. The proposals prepared by Coal and MNM for
enhancing (streamlining) the inspection process, in our opinion, are
generally consistent with mandated inspection requirements and are
reinforced by ICF Consulting’s data-gathering and analysis activities.
We recommend that MSHA implement MNM’s VCP initiative to provide a
mechanism to recognize mines with outstanding safety performance
records and the Coal’s Reinvention Work Group’s recommendations to
increase the time on-site in conducting inspections and the value and
quality of the inspection process. In particular, both Coal and MNM
should update the written inspection procedures to reflect the
Reinvention Work Group recommendations for prioritizing the on-site
portion of the inspection, modifying the specific tasks outlined for
reviewing the Uniform Mine File (UMF) prior to an inspection and the
order in which areas of the mine are to be inspected, and using the
inspection activities of other inspectors in completing an inspection.
2.0Introduction
===============
2.1 Context for Evaluation
--------------------------
The Mine Act mandates that MSHA place priority on preventing deaths
and serious injuries from unsafe and unhealthful conditions and
practices in mines. As MSHA moves forward in the 21st Century, it is
seeking to determine the most efficient and effective allocation and
distribution of enforcement and compliance assistance resources that
will have positive effects on mine safety and health. ICF Consulting
was selected to undertake an evaluation of the inspection program
because of its long history of program evaluation work in a wide range
of industries and programs, and its extensive experience in helping
organizations, including those in the mining industry, to enhance
inspection or auditing practices. ICF Consulting worked with a Core
Evaluation Team consisting of MSHA and Department of Labor personnel.
This team provided inputs, reviewed and approved the design of the
evaluation approach, and provided quantitative and qualitative data
that were critical to the completion of this project.
MSHA and mining industry management and labor were very supportive and
eager to contribute ideas and recommendations. MSHA and mining
industry representatives very willingly accepted the opportunity to
participate in the interview process and cooperated with ICF
Consulting to schedule the mine site and MSHA office visits and
interviews in a timely manner. Information was provided to the ICF
Consulting team in a candid and objective manner. Representatives of
the mining industry view the inspection program as a tool to evaluate
safety issues and acknowledge that fair and thorough inspections can
help improve safety performance. MSHA personnel believe that
inspections are a key component of MSHA’s overall mission to protect
the health and safety of the Nation’s miners.
2.1Purpose and Scope
--------------------
MSHA requested that ICF Consulting evaluate the regular inspection
program as implemented by Coal and MNM in order to assess current
effectiveness and efficiency and to develop recommendations for
improving the current program. The regular inspector program covers
the twice per year inspections at surface mines and the four times per
year inspections at underground mines. These inspections are generally
referred to as AAAs for Coal and 01s for MNM. The evaluation also
included a review of streamlined inspection initiatives proposed by
Coal and MNM, and an analysis of the allocation and distribution of
inspection enforcement resources. Our recommendations were to be based
on the assumption that resources will be maintained within current and
future budgetary constraints and should take into consideration the
specific inspection requirements set forth in the Mine Act and
associated regulations.
2.2Evaluation Design
--------------------
To undertake our evaluation, ICF Consulting developed a program
evaluation design and prepared a work plan that was approved by MSHA’s
Core Evaluation Team. The work plan outlined a series of questions and
identified data sources that were used to gather information in order
to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the inspection program
and related plans for enhancement generally referred to as streamlined
processes. A copy of the design document is presented in Appendix A.
The main focus question of this evaluation was: Is the inspection
program effective and efficient in fulfilling its mission and are
there opportunities for improvement? Within the parameters of the main
question, the program evaluation focused on the following specific
questions:
*
Is the inspection program meeting the statutory and regulatory
requirements? Is it compliant?
*
Is the inspection program designed and implemented in a manner
that accomplishes the program goals? Is it effective?
*
Is the inspection program maximizing the utilization of its
resources in performing its activities? Is it efficient?
*
How can the inspection program be improved?
In order to address these questions, the program evaluation consisted
of a four-pronged approach that included:
*
Quantitative data analysis;
*
Qualitative field site visits and interviews;
*
Document review; and
*
A review of industry and other government agencies that have
inspection programs.
The Mine, Accident, Injury, and Illness Database was provided by MSHA
and used as the primary database to support the data analysis
activities of the inspection program evaluation. The database
contained approximately 3,631,838 records related to accidents,
injuries, inspections, violations, miners and miner hours for the
period October 1992 through December 2002. Data in the database were
also available for inspections conducted between 1973 and 1992. Data
were reviewed for completeness and consistency and the period 1998 –
2002 was used to support data analysis for the inspection program
evaluation. The 1998 – 2002 data set contained 1,684,605 records.
Data were analyzed, evaluated, and summarized by calendar year (Jan
1-Dec 31) and fiscal year (Oct 1-Sept 30). Four major categories were
used to group data:
*
Major commodity (i.e., Coal or MNM)
*
Mine type (i.e., surface or underground)
*
District (i.e., MSHA defined geographic area)
*
Type of mine worker (i.e., operator or contractor)
Data were manipulated, analyzed, and summary statistics were prepared
using the following tools:
*
Microsoft Access, version 1997 SR-2 – queries that extract data
for a particular range of dates or quarters
*
Crystal Reports, version 8.5 – reports that group data according
to the evaluation categories
*
Microsoft Excel, version 2000 (9.0.4402 SR-1) – tables that
collect and present summary data
*
Microsoft Excel, version 2000 (9.0.4402 SR-1) – computes least
squares exponential regressions
Field interviews were conducted at MSHA offices and at mine sites to
collect additional qualitative information. A topical outline and a
field guide were developed to assist the interviewers in addressing
operational and organizational issues related to the inspection
program, inspection program health and safety statistics, and options
for streamlining inspections. Copies of these guides are presented in
Appendix B. We interviewed approximately 100 individuals at the
locations in Table 1.
Table 1: Internal and External Interviews
Organization
Location
Internal to MSHA
MSHA Headquarters
VA, Rosslyn
MSHA Inspectors and Supervisors (Job Task Analysis Workshop)
WV, Beckley
MNM District Managers’ Meeting
PA, Bruceton
Coal District Managers’ Meeting
WV, Beckley
MSHA Leadership Meeting
WV, Beckley
Coal District 4
WV, Mt. Hope District Office
Coal District 4
WV, Mt. Carbon Field Office
Coal District 5
VA, Norton District Office
Coal District 8
IN, Vincennes District Office
Coal District 8
IL, Hillsboro Field Office
Coal District 9
CO, Denver District Office
MNM Northeastern District
NH, Manchester Field Office
MNM North Central District
IN, Vincennes Field Office
MNM South Central District
TX, San Antonio Field Office
MNM Rocky Mountain District
CO, Denver District Office
MNM Rocky Mountain District
UT, Salt Lake City Field Office
MNM Western District
CA, Vacaville District Office
MNM Health Monitoring
VA, Rosslyn
Mining Industry
Arch Coal (Catenary Coal, Samples Mine)
WV, Coal District 4
Freeman United Coal Company (Coal Crown II Mine)
VA, Coal District 8
Paramont Coal Company of Virginia LLC (VICC No. 7 Mine)
VA, Coal District 5
General Chemical
WY, MNM Rocky Mountain District
Hanson Permanente
CA, MNM Western District
IMC Phosphates
FL, MNM South East District
Kennecott Utah Copper Mines
UT, MNM Rocky Mountain District
Mulzer Stone (Rockport Yard)
IN, MNM North Central District
Sherwin Alumina Company
TX, MNM South Central District
Persons interviewed at MSHA locations included headquarters staff,
district managers, field managers and supervisors, and inspectors.
Interviewees at mining industry locations included managers, health
and safety coordinators, and miners (including union mine safety
representatives).
To supplement the information gathered during our interviews, we
reviewed relevant documents. These documents included the following:
1.
MSHA in the Twenty First Century: A Discussion of the Initiatives
and Prerogatives to Improve the Effectiveness of MSHA
2.
FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan
3.
MSHA Policy and Procedures Manual
4.
Coal General Inspection Procedures Handbook
5.
MNM General Inspection Procedures Handbook
6.
MNM Supervisor’s Handbook
7.
Accountability Program Manual
8.
Coal Mine Health Inspection Procedures
9.
MNM Accompanied and Unaccompanied Supervisory Review Form
10.
Citation and Order Writing Handbook for Coal Mines and Metal and
Non Metal Mines
11.
MSHA Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2003-2008 (Final Draft)
12.
Accident & Occupational Illness Prevention Program
13.
MNM Compliance Program
14.
Selected Case Law Summaries (covering spot inspections and
definition of an inspection of a mine in its entirety)
15.
MNM Voluntary Compliance Partnership Initiative
16.
Streamlining Proposal for Coal (1996)
17.
Coal Employee and Supervisory Mentoring Programs
18.
US Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration,
Coal Mine Safety and Health Report of Investigation of the No. 5
Mine, Jim Walters Resources, Inc.
19.
Internal Review of MSHA’s Action at the No. 5 Mine, Jim Walters
Resources, Inc.
20.
MSHA Mine, Accident, Injury, and Illness Database
21.
2002-2003 Fatalgrams and Fatality Investigation Reports
(www.msha.gov)
22.
Selected Inspection Reports
23.
Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with a focus on
Parts 56, 57, 75, and 77
24.
Metal and Nonmetal Procedure Instruction Letter No. 101-IV-1
(1/01/2001)
25.
Job Task Analysis Workforce Reports for Coal and MNM
26.
MSHA’s Briefing Book 2002
27.
The Role of Training and Development in Implementing Initiatives
and Prerogatives to Improve the Effectiveness of MSHA
28.
Study of MNM Mining Enforcement and Compliance Assistance,
1983-2000
Most Federal agencies, including MSHA, are being asked to use human,
financial, and information technology resources in the most effective
manner. We researched inspection programs undertaken by other Federal
agencies to understand how resources are being managed to undertake
enforcement activities. The primary information source for each agency
was its website.
The agencies included:
*
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
*
Environmental Protection Agency
*
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection
Service
*
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
*
United States Coast Guard
*
Federal Aviation Administration
*
Internal Revenue Service
*
Food and Drug Administration
*
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
2.3Report Organization
----------------------
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
*
Section 3.0 summarizes the results of the analysis of the MSHA
Mine, Accident, Injury, and Illness Database for regular
inspections (AAAs in Coal and 01s in MNM), data gathered through
site visits and interviews to evaluate the inspection program’s
consistency with Mine Act requirements and the effectiveness and
efficiency of the inspection program.
*
Section 4.0 summarizes features of other governmental agency
inspection programs, lists characteristics of inspection or audit
programs within the mining industry, provides an overview of the
streamlined proposals MSHA has developed, and includes a
comparative analysis of these other programs and practices.
*
Section 5.0 summarizes the findings and conclusions from our
review of MSHA’s inspection program and recommendations to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of the inspection program.
3.0Inspection Program Review
============================
3.1Consistency with Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
---------------------------------------------------------
MSHA is required to undertake inspections at set frequencies, verify
compliance with applicable regulations, issue citations for
noncompliance, and review imminent hazards. The information we
gathered and analyzed for these dimensions is outlined below.
3.1.1Completion Rates
As mandated by the Mine Act, MSHA is required to conduct a minimum
number of inspections per year at each mine—twice per year at surface
mines and four times per year at underground mines. This has generally
been interpreted by MSHA as requiring inspections once per six months
or once per quarter. Within Coal there are approximately 2,000 mines
to inspect and the majority are underground; MNM has approximately
13,000 mines to inspect and the vast majority are surface mines. The
number of coal mines has decreased from 1998-2002, with decreases in
both surface and underground. Within MNM, the number of mines has
increased over that same period of time, primarily as a function of an
increase in the number of surface mines.
MSHA calculates completion rates using an algorithm that takes into
account the realities of the mining industry (e.g., seasonal
variations in mine operations, etc.). Based on MSHA’s calculations,
Coal has achieved an average completion rate of 98 percent for the
past five years. For MNM the average completion rate has been
approximately 81 percent for that same period of time. MSHA’s
calculated completion rates are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Average Inspection Completion Rates

The completion rates for Coal districts have ranged from 94 to 100
percent over the past five years. The completion rates achieved for
MNM districts have ranged from 53 percent to 98 percent over that same
period of time. The district completion rates calculated by MSHA are
listed in Table 2.
Table 2: District Inspection Completion Rates
District
Fiscal Year/ Percent Completion Rate
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Coal
C0100 (Wilkes-Barre)
99
99
99
99
100
C0200 (New Stanton)
99
97
96
98
96
C0300 (Morgantown)
98
99
99
97
98
C0400 (Mt. Hope)
99
99
99
96
99
C0500 (Norton)
99
99
99
98
99
C0600 (Pikeville)
99
99
98
98
99
C0700 (Barbourville)
99
99
98
98
99
C0800 (Vincennes)
100
99
96
97
98
C0900 (Denver)
99
98
97
98
98
C1000 (Madisonville)
94
100
100
97
99
C1100 (Birmingham)
99
97
97
99
96
MNM
M2000 (Northeastern)
97
95
82
69
83
M3000 (Southeastern)
95
99
89
94
98
M4000 (North Central)
90
85
79
77
88
M5000 (South Central)
87
75
64
70
94
M6000 (Rocky Mountain)
85
79
69
64
72
M7000 (Western)
72
53
56
81
96
MSHA has attempted to address the variations within MNM through
management reviews to understand underlying factors contributing to
gaps in completion rates. We understand from District and Assistant
Managers and inspectors that the number of mines, travel distances,
and the availability of inspector resources are contributing factors
influencing completion rates. In response, MNM added and reallocated
staff to field offices where resources were needed and Field Offices
developed schedules to ensure that mines with compliance problems
receive the required number of inspections per year. On occasion, MNM
has drawn on inspectors from other MNM districts as well as Coal to
assist in undertaking inspections to increase the overall completion
rate. In 2002, the completion rates within MNM districts ranged from
72 to 98 percent.
In our opinion, the overall inspection program is reasonably compliant
with frequency of inspection requirements, although there is a need to
increase the completion rates for MNM. We also collected comments
related to the value of using resources to conduct inspections at
regular frequencies for mines that are no longer operational [but are
not closed or abandoned] or that “mine” intermittently.
3.1.2Regulatory Focus
The inspectors are required to focus on the requirements of the Mine
Act of 1977 and applicable portions of Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. By examining a number of inspection reports and by
interviewing a number of inspectors and mining industry management and
labor personnel, we confirmed that the inspectors focus on regulatory
compliance. Principal safety requirements with which the inspectors
must confirm compliance are formidable, as illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3. Principal Safety Regulation Areas for Mines
Regulatory Area
30 CFR Section
Coal, Underground
Coal, Surface
MNM, Underground
MNM, Surface
Aerial Tramways
57.10000
56.10000
Air Quality
57.5000
56.5000
Auger Mining
77.1500
Combustible Materials
75.400
Communications
75.1600
Compressed Air and Boilers
57.13000
56.13000
Diesel-powered Equipment
75.1900
Drilling and Rotary Jet
57.7000
56.7000
Electrical Equipment General
75.500
77.500
Electricity
57.12000
56.12000
Emergency Shelters
75.1500
Explosives & Blasting
75.1300
77.1300
57.6000
56.6000
Fire Prevention
75.1100
77.1100
57.4000
56.4000
Grounding
75.700
High Voltage
75.800
Hoisting and Mantrips/ Personnel Hoisting
75.1400
77.1400
57.19000
56.19000
Illumination
57.17000
56.17000
Loading, Haulage and Dumping
77.1600
57.9000
56.9000
Low Voltage
75.900
Machinery and Equipment
57.14000
56.14000
Maps
75.1200
Materials Storage and Handling
57.16000
56.16000
Methane
57.22000
Miscellaneous
75.1700
77.1700
57.20000
56.20000
Personal Protection
57.15000
56.15000
Roof Support/Ground Control
75.200
77.1000
57.3000
56.3000
Safeguards for Mechanical Equipment
77.400
Safety Programs
57.18000
56.18000
Slope and Shaft Sinking
77.1900
Surface Installations
77.200
Thermal Dryers
77.300
Trailing Cables
75.600
Travelways
57.11000
56.11000
Trolley Wires
77.1800
Ventilation
75.300
57.8000
Notes to Table 3
Excluded from the table, but not insignificant, are 30 CFR Sections 48
(Training/retraining of miners) and 70, 71, and 72 (Health Standards),
among others.
3.1.3Reporting
MSHA is required to issue a report for each inspection conducted and
issue a citation or order for noncompliance with statutory
requirements. In reviewing a sample of inspection reports, we noted
the reports are prepared in a consistent manner, and the citation
forms include substantial detail about the rationale for the
citations. However, inspectors’ field notes, in our opinion, do not
generally contain enough information detailing what was inspected and
concluded in those cases where there was no specific citation.
3.1.4Imminent Dangers
During an inspection, MSHA is required to determine whether an
imminent danger exists. Mine personnel interviewed stated that the
inspection process provides another pair of eyes to look at safety
issues, but question whether the inspectors are focusing on hazard
recognition and work practices that may lead to a serious incident or
accident. Several mine personnel interviewed indicated that behavioral
issues (e.g., taking short cuts in the implementation of work
activities, initiating work without fully understanding or assessing
hazard situations) contribute more to safety incidents than
“conditions.”
Several mine operators suggested that the inspections tend to place a
priority on employee and union complaints, possibly at the expense of
addressing other potential safety concerns. They also suggested that
there maybe a need to examine hazards from a more comprehensive
perspective during an inspection. That is, examine a mine’s overall
safety program to confirm strengths or potential weaknesses. MSHA has
recognized this need and is planning to address it through increased
compliance assistance activity.
3.2Program Effectiveness
------------------------
The design and implementation of the inspection program was evaluated
relative to program goals to evaluate its effectiveness. Design and
implementation features reviewed included the program’s contributions
to achieving MSHA’s goals for miner safety and health, the allocation
of resources to the districts, training programs, and staff roles and
responsibilities.
3.2.1Miner Health and Safety
MSHA has a mission to protect the health and safety of our Nation’s
miners through inspections, technical assistance, and other outreach
activities as specified in the Mine Act of 1977. Over the past three
decades, MSHA technical assistance, education and training, and
enforcement efforts and the mining industry’s safety program
improvement activities have resulted in significant reductions in
fatality and days lost injury rates. In fact, mining deaths and
injuries are at an all time low. However, during the period 1992-2002
the trend in reductions of fatalities and other days lost injuries
began to plateau even though there are still year-to-year reductions.
This “plateau” behavior is characteristic of phenomena that decline at
linear first order rates. (See Figure 2)
Figure 2: Days Lost Injury Data: Operators and Contractors

Notes to Figure 2
Both mine operator and contractor injuries are included. “Days Lost
Injuries” refers to fatalities (01), permanent total or partial
disability (02), days away from work only (03), days away from work
and restricted activity (04), and restricted activity only (05).
To address what it considers an unsatisfactory rate of improvement in
safety performance, MSHA has established aggressive safety goals of
reducing fatality rates by 15 percent per year and to reduce the
all-injury rate by 50 percent by the end of 2005 compared to the FY
2000 baseline. MSHA has recognized that traditional enforcement
mechanisms may not be sufficient to achieve these goals. In ICF
Consulting’s analysis, we plotted numbers (not rates) of fatalities
and injuries against time (see Figure 3). On this basis, projected
times for reaching a 15 percent reduction in fatalities is 4.7 years
and for a 50 percent reduction in total injuries is 12 years.
Figure 3a: Projected Decrease in Fatalities

Figure 3b: Projected Decrease in All Injuries

Notes to Figure 3
Fatalities and injuries for both operators and contractors are
included.
The extrapolation curves shown in Figures 3a and 3b are least squares
exponential regressions. To facilitate comparison with MSHA’s goal,
injuries plotted in Figure 3b are for total injuries, which include
degrees 02 through 04 (days away), 05 (days restricted activity only),
and 06 (no days lost, no restricted activity).
Note that Figures 3a and 3b are based on numbers, not on rates, of
fatalities and injuries. It is not expected that the rate will decline
more rapidly than the number, given that the number of miner hours has
been decreasing over the past five years.
To evaluate the inspection program’s potential impact on miner health
and safety in greater detail, we analyzed the relationship among the
number of citations and S&S citations issued during regular
inspections—AAAs and 01s—and total number of days lost injuries, and
asked mining industry management and labor about the types of
citations they receive and the nature of the on-site injuries.
We found that the absolute numbers of citations and S&S citations
issued during AAA or 01 inspections have not decreased substantially
over the past five years (See Figure 4). One might have expected that,
over time, actions by the mines to correct the cited violations would
lead to a decrease in citations. This expectation is not supported by
the data, which suggests that mine operators may be addressing only
the specific symptomatic non-compliance cited and not correcting the
underlying systemic causes. This observation supports MSHA’s plan to
designate root cause analysis as an appropriate target for increased
compliance assistance. Figure 4 also suggests that there is no clear
correlation between the numbers of days lost injuries and the numbers
of total and S&S citations for MSHA as a whole.
Figure 4: Relationship Between Days Lost Injuries, Total Citations and
S&S Citations Issued During Regular Inspections

Notes to Figure 4
In all of the ICF Consulting analyses, graphs, and tables, only
citations arising from regular inspections (AAAs in Coal and 01s in
MNM) are included.
Fatalities and injuries for both operators and contractors are
included.
“Days Lost Injuries” refers to fatalities (degree 01), days lost
injuries assigned degrees 02 (permanent total or partial disability),
03 (days away from work only), 04 (days away from work and restricted
activity), and 05 (restricted activity only).
When Coal and MNM are looked at separately, a similar pattern appears.
The number of S&S citations issued during regular inspections or days
lost injuries has not declined rapidly, except for MNM in the two most
recent years. (See Figures 5 and 6)
F

igure 5: S&S Citations Issued During Regular Inspections: Operators
and Contractors
Figure 6: Days Lost Injuries: Operators and Contractors


Notes to Figure 6
Days Lost Injuries are degrees 01 through 05.
At the district level we also found a similar pattern in the data—for
the most part there is no clear relationship between the total number
of fatalities and days lost injuries and the total number of citations
and S&S citations issued during regular inspections. We were told that
earlier MSHA studies had indicated similar results.
During our interviews with mine and MSHA personnel, we heard many
times that there is no correlation between the types of citations
issued and the nature of the more frequent types of [nonfatal]
accidents at individual mines. To explore the relationship between
citations and on-going injuries, we examined health and safety data at
four mines. In preparing these tables we relied on MSHA’s Accident,
Injury, and Illness database with respect to injury classification and
made very basic correlations with the regulatory citations issued
during regular inspections. This information is summarized in Tables 4
through 7.
At this level of analysis, the correlation between regulatory sections
cited and causes of on-going injuries is imperfect. One logical
inference would be that some potential injuries are prevented when the
mine operator corrects the regulatory violations that have been cited.
It is not possible to quantify the “avoided” injuries. However, other
inferences are equally plausible. For example, it is possible that the
existence of the inspection enforcement process, in and of itself,
results in increased attention to safety by the mine operators.
Another logical inference is that the regulations—and therefore the
compliance enforcement inspections—do not address the root causes of
on-going injuries, which include back strains, abrasions, etc.
Table 4. Comparison of Citations with Injury Records (FY1998 to
FY2002)—Example for a MNM Surface Operation
Citations
Number of Miners Injured
Regulation Cited
Total
S&S
Classification
Days Away
Restricted Activity
56 CFR 14000 Machinery
55
19
Machinery
Powered Haulage
5
1
56 CFR 12000 Electricity
55
8
56 CFR 4000 Fire Protection
26
56 CFR 16000 Materials Storage and Handling
15
4
Handling of Materials
10
6
56 CFR 5000 Air Quality
13
3
Occupational illness
2
56 CFR 15000 Personal Protection
12
8
56 CFR 11000 Travelways
11
7
Slip or Fall of Person
8
2
Hand Tools (non-powered)
4
5
Explosion of Gas or Dust
1
Subtotal of Listed Items
187
49
29
13
Totals
216
57
31
13
Notes to Table 4
Only citations to 30 CFR Part 56 have been included. Not all citations
with fewer than 10 occurrences are tabulated. Days away include
degrees 01 through 04, and restricted activity is degree 05. The
number of degree 07 (occupational illness) incidents is listed for
comparison with the number of Air Quality citations.
Table 5. Comparison of Citations with Injury Records (FY1998 to
FY2002)—Example for a MNM Underground Operation
Citations
Number of Miners Injured
Regulation Cited
Total
S&S
Classification
Days Away
Restricted Activity
57 CFR 12000 Electricity
68
14
57 CFR 22000 Methane
61
57 CFR 14000 Machinery & Equipment
42
6
Machinery
Powered Haulage
7
16
11
11
57 CFR 4000 Fire Protection
22
57 CFR 15000 Personal Protection
2
2
57 CFR 11000 Travelways
3
1
Slip or Fall of Person
13
8
57 CFR 1600 Materials Storage and Handling
4
Handling of Materials
17
20
Stepping or Kneeling on Object
4
2
Hand Tools (non-powered)
3
6
Subtotal of Listed Items
202
23
60
58
Totals
225
30
65
62
Notes to Table 5
Only citations to 30 CFR Part 57 have been included. Not all citations
with fewer than 5 occurrences are tabulated. Days away include degrees
01 through 04, and restricted activity is degree 05.
Table 6. Comparison of Citations with Injuries (FY1998 to
FY2002)—Example for a Coal Surface Operation
Citations
Number of Miners Injured
Regulation Cited
Total
S&S
Classification
Days Away
Restricted Activity
77 CFR 1600 Loadage & Hauling
170
138
Powered Haulage
7
77 CFR 400 Safeguards for Mechanical Equipment
90
81
Machinery
12
72 CFR 600 and 77 CFR 1300 Explosives & Blasting
31
16
77 CFR 1100 Fire Protection
13
7
77 CFR 500 Electrical Equipment
9
3
77 CFR 1000 Ground Control
8
8
Handling of Materials
16
1
Slip or Fall of Person
15
1
Subtotal of Listed Items
321
253
50
2
Totals
342
268
57
2
Notes to Table 6
Only citations to 30 CFR Part 77 have been included. Not all citations
with fewer than 10 occurrences are tabulated. Days away include
degrees 01 through 04, and restricted activity is degree 05.
Table 7. Comparison of Citations with Injuries (1998 to 2002)—Example
for a Coal Underground Operation
Citations
Number of Miners Injured
Regulation Cited
Total
S&S
Classification
Days Away
Restricted Activity
75 CFR or 77 CFR 500 Electrical Equipment
147
85
75 CFR 400 Combustible Materials
94
31
75 CFR 1100 Fire Protection
86
15
75 CFR 300 Ventilation
80
30
75 CFR 600 Trailing Cables
67
13
75 CFR 1900 Diesel-powered Equipment
43
6
77 CFR 200 Surface Installations
44
22
75 CFR 200 Roof Support
39
23
Fall of Roof or Fall of Face
6
77 CFR 400 Safeguards for Mechanical Equipment
34
18
Machinery
8
Handling of Materials
30
Slip or Fall of Person
26
Powered Haulage
10
Hand Tools (non-powered)
6
Subtotal of Listed Items
634
243
86
Totals
699
271
105
Notes to Table 7
Only citations to 30 CFR Parts 75 and 77 have been included. Not all
citations with fewer than 10 occurrences are tabulated. Days away
include degrees 01 through 04, and restricted activity is degree 05.
Industry also perceives that different district offices and different
inspectors “make their own rules” by interpreting the regulations
differently. In some instances this is done by incorporating specific
requirements into required plans (e.g., the Roof Control Plan or
Ventilation Control Plan for underground mines) before they are
approved. Mining industry personnel expressed concern about
inconsistencies they perceived between different inspectors making
decisions in the field as to what constitutes a citation or an S&S
citation. We concluded that the process for issuing citations requires
greater scrutiny to determine whether or not the inspectors are
analyzing inspection information in a consistent manner.
During our interviews we heard multiple times that many citations are
“nit-picky” or that the regulations cited are unreasonable or
outdated. Mine industry personnel also noted that inspectors, to
varying degrees, advise mines to correct situations that are not
specifically violations of the requirements and, thus, do not result
in citations. Mine personnel believe that these “punch list items”
must be taken as seriously as citations in order to avoid an
adversarial relationship with the inspector. In addition, there is a
perception among some of the mine operators interviewed that the
dollar value of the penalties for citations may not be a driver for
improved safety performance. One mine visited viewed “overlapping
citations” (both contractor and mine cited for the same violation) as
unreasonable and unfair.
3.2.2Organization and Resources
To analyze the effectiveness of MSHA’s inspection organization and
resources, we reviewed: the allocations of inspector resources to each
of the districts relative to the mining activity within the district;
the training provided to the inspectors to implement inspection
activities consistent with program goals; and the roles and
responsibilities of the managers, supervisors, and inspectors.
3.2.2.1 Resource Allocations
We understand from MSHA that inspector resource allocations, to a
large degree, are made based on the number of miners and complexity of
the mines within a district. At the end of 2002, Coal had 597
inspectors and MNM had 310. Over the past five years Coal has had an
average of 578 inspectors and MNM 288. To examine the appropriateness
of inspection resource allocations for Coal and MNM, we made an
assumption that the number of miner hours would be a reasonable
surrogate parameter for approximating the number, size, and complexity
of operations within a Coal or MNM district.
Figures 7 and 8 indicate that Coal has a higher proportion of
inspector resources than MNM relative to the average number of miner
hours. The complexity of mining coal and number of regulations that
must be reviewed during an inspection can account for much of the
difference in inspector resource allocations between Coal and MNM.
However, when considering the total number of mines MNM is required to
inspect, the smaller number of inspectors within MNM districts is, in
our opinion, having an influence on completion rates.
For MNM, the resource allocations appear relatively even across
districts. Within Coal, there are differences in resource levels
across districts, which may relate, in part, to the different types of
mining activities in different regions. These Coal data also suggest,
however, that the resource allocations may not be totally aligned with
decreases in mining activities. District 1 (Wilkes Barre) in
particular seems to be high in its relative resources since 2000,
although it does have a large number of small mines which might
indicate a higher than average resource requirement. However, this
district also appears to have had a higher than average rate of mine
closings suggesting that staff attrition may not have kept pace with
the decreasing workload.
Figure 7: MNM Inspectors Per Miner (Operator and Contractor) Hour

F igure 8: Coal Inspectors Per Miner (Operator and Contractor)
Hour
Notes to Figures 7 and 8
Data on contractor hours are available only on a total Coal or MNM
level. Overall, the contractor-to-operator hours ratio is
approximately twice as high for Coal mines (20-25%) as for MNM mines
(10-12%). To facilitate comparison of Coal versus MNM resource
allocations at a district level, we assigned contractor hours to
districts as if each district within Coal or MNM used the same
proportion of contractor hours as Coal or MNM overall.
We also examined to what extent the districts are applying the same
level of effort to conduct inspections. Table 8 indicates that the
total hours and on-site hours per inspection are, on average, about
three times higher for Coal than MNM; report hours are about six times
higher; and travel hours two to three times higher. This reflects the
fact that MNM has a large number of small mines, such as sand and
gravel operations with five or fewer workers. Table 8 also indicates
that the on-site inspection time for Coal has increased over the past
several years and slightly decreased for MNM. For both Coal and MNM,
the reporting and travel time per inspection have remained relatively
constant over that same period of time.
Table 8: Average Hours Per Inspection
Type of Mine
Fiscal Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Average Total Hours per Inspection
Coal
61.5
62.2
64.1
67.5
72.9
Surface
34.5
34.1
34.7
34.7
35.1
Underground
85.7
88.5
91.0
97.3
108.1
MNM
20.5
22.5
23.9
22.4
19.8
Surface
19.0
20.5
21.6
25.0
18.4
Underground
46.8
54.1
59.1
55.5
48.9
Average On-site Hours per Inspection
Coal
39
40
41
43
48
Surface
22
22
22
22
23
Underground
54
56
58
63
71
MNM
13
15
16
15
13
Surface
12
14
15
17
12
Underground
32
37
41
40
34
Average Report Hours per Inspection
Coal
11.3
11.4
11.4
12.0
12.3
Surface
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.4
Underground
16.5
16.9
16.9
17.8
18.7
MNM
2.2
2.3
2.3
1.9
1.8
Surface
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.7
Underground
4.9
5.6
6.4
4.6
4.1
Average Travel Hours per Inspection
Coal
11.1
11.2
11.6
12.2
13.0
Surface
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
Underground
14.9
15.3
15.9
17.0
18.7
MNM
4.9
5.3
5.4
5.1
4.8
Surface
4.7
4.9
4.9
5.8
4.5
Underground
9.6
11.3
11.7
11.4
10.9
We also noted that the reporting time for MNM is lower than Coal on
both a total and per inspector basis, even though there may be a lack
of clerical support in some MNM field offices. In addition, because
MNM has many more facilities to inspect, the total travel time and the
amount of travel time per inspector are greater for MNM than for Coal.
(See Table 9)
Table 9: Total Inspection Hours and Inspection Hours per Inspector
Type of Mine
Fiscal Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Total Inspection Hours per Year
Coal
403,009
381,445
370,300
386,623
432,022
Surface
107,000
100,622
95,569
94,485
100,517
Underground
296,009
280,823
274,731
292,138
331,505
MNM
317,941
333,564
329,813
318,743
323,200
Surface
278,688
286,909
279,975
273,830
284,730
Underground
39,253
46,655
49,838
44,913
38,470
On-site Hours per Year
Coal
256,031
242,943
237,516
248,320
282,000
Surface
68,461
64,367
61,778
60,550
65,238
Underground
187,570
178,576
175,738
187,770
216,762
MNM
206,751
222,090
223,439
219,019
215,632
Surface
179,653
189,982
188,864
187,051
188,963
Underground
27,098
32,108
34,575
31,968
26,669
Report Hours per Year
Coal
74,317
69,873
65,805
68,457
72,976
Surface
17,253
16,092
14,849
15,115
15,555
Underground
57,064
53,781
50,956
53,342
57,421
MNM
34,745
33,442
32,371
26,923
29,453
Surface
30,645
28,615
27,000
23,238
26,192
Underground
4,100
4,827
5,371
3,685
3,261
Travel Hours per Year
Coal
72,661
68,629
66,979
69,846
77,046
Surface
21,286
20,163
18,943
18,820
19,724
Underground
51,375
48,466
48,036
51,026
57,322
MNM
76,445
78,032
74,003
72,801
78,115
Surface
68,390
68,312
64,111
63,541
69,575
Underground
8,055
9,720
9,892
9,260
8,540
Average Total Hours per Inspector
Coal
741
760
595
620
724
MNM
1,182
1,138
1,217
1,076
1,043
Average On-site Hours per Inspector
Coal
470
484
382
398
472
MNM
769
758
824
740
696
Average Report Hours per Inspector
Coal
137
139
106
110
122
MNM
129
114
119
91
95
Average Travel Hours per Inspector
Coal
134
136
108
112
129
MNM
284
266
273
246
252
Figures 9 and 10 indicate the inspection time by district normalized
to the number of miner years in that district. MNM inspectors spend
approximately the same average amount of time conducting the on-site
portion of an inspection across all districts, and the inspection time
per miner year has not changed appreciably in five years. Within Coal
there are some differences that are most likely attributable to the
size and complexity of the mines in the district, but may also reflect
a lag in adjusting resource allocations as mining activity in a
district decreases.
Figure 9: MNM On-site Inspection Time Per District

F igure 10: Coal On-site Inspection Time Per District
3.2.2.2Inspector Training Programs
Inspectors are provided with a core program of education to become
qualified as Authorized Representatives. In general, an inspector
spends one year as a trainee, with approximately 26 weeks of classroom
training at the National Mine Health and Safety Academy (Beckley, WV)
and 26 weeks of on-the-job training with a seasoned inspector. The
classroom training covers inspection procedures and typical conditions
the inspector would need to review while on-site at a mining
operation—including ground control hazards, haulage, hoists and
elevators, blasting, roof control, and health monitoring. In terms of
refresher training, Coal inspectors are scheduled to receive
approximately two weeks per year and MNM inspectors two weeks every
other year. The supervisor and inspector decide together which courses
should be taken as part of the refresher training process. These
courses, for the most part, are similar to the ones taken during the
initial training period although they may vary to reflect new
regulations such as hazard communication. Many of the inspectors
interviewed indicated that the initial training was appropriate but
they do not currently receive much value from this refresher training.
Several MSHA staff members interviewed also indicated that there might
be gaps in the attendance of inspectors in refresher training, which
may relate to, among other things, the scheduling of Academy classes
in comparison to inspectors’ workload “crunch times.” In addition,
several interviewees suggested that training, including annual
refresher training, may need to be upgraded to cover new or different
skill sets such as improved communication skills, so that inspections
are more effective. MSHA intends to use the results of the JTA to
support efforts in this direction. Suggestions from MSHA and mining
industry personnel for enhancing the refresher training include the
following:
*
Review of new regulations to enhance consistency in
interpretation.
*
Presentation skills to enhance the delivery of compliance
assistance “spot training” undertaken by inspectors during site
reviews.
*
Writing skills to enhance the communication of the underlying
facts associated with a citation or order.
*
Overview of behavioral safety issues that frequently contribute to
safety problems.
3.2.2.3Roles and Responsibilities and Resource Management
Overall, district managers and field office supervisors have
responsibility for establishing travel area inspection schedules,
monitoring inspection schedule implementation, confirming that the
citations have been appropriately evaluated and issued, and
conferencing with mining industry personnel regarding any of the
citations issued during an inspection. These responsibilities appear
to be clearly communicated and understood across MSHA. The inspectors
also clearly understand their role in conducting inspections and
issuing citations and believe they are helping to improve the working
conditions in the mines to enhance safety performance.
Each year supervisors are required to conduct paper reviews and field
reviews of each inspector to ensure consistency in the implementation
of the inspection process and interpretation of the regulations.
Overwhelmingly this process was viewed as positive by both the
inspectors and supervisors. It helps to identify inconsistencies among
the individual inspectors. Supervisors indicated that an equally
important, or perhaps even more important, benefit was providing an
opportunity for communicating with mine management.
During interviews with mining industry personnel, we were told
repeatedly about inconsistencies among the inspectors. The differing
areas of expertise among inspectors are viewed as both a strength and
a weakness of the current inspection program. MSHA personnel see it
primarily as strength, since it allows fresh perspectives on
particular areas as inspectors rotate through the mines. (Note: In
addition to mine rotation, MSHA manages the potential inconsistencies
by conducting internal meetings to review new regulations and field
supervisors indicate that they routinely review the basis for
inspectors’ citations.) Mine personnel are concerned about resulting
inconsistencies of interpretation in the application of regulations.
Mine personnel also indicated they can predict the types of citations
a particular inspector will issue because of his or her background.
More often than not, comments were made during interviews regarding
the hiring and qualifications of inspectors in the years to come.
Several MSHA management personnel indicated that the hiring process
might not always result in the hiring of the most qualified inspectors
(e.g., those with hands on mining experience).
Both MSHA and mining industry personnel raised concerns about the
experience level and skill sets of inspectors, now and in future.
Currently the work force is comprised primarily of inspectors who come
directly from the mining industry. It is perceived that the mining
industry experience base within the inspectorate may diminish with
time. The Mine Act requires inspectors to have five years of ”mining
experience.” An individual who has a mining degree with several years
experience as an apprentice inspector can meet this requirement. Mine
industry personnel interviewed were skeptical that this is an adequate
replacement for actual in-mine experience.
3.3Inspection Program Efficiency
--------------------------------
Inspection program efficiency was evaluated as a function of MSHA’s
efforts to maximize inspection resources. Based upon a review of
inspection implementation practices within Coal and MNM, we found that
efforts to be more efficient or utilize resources in the best possible
manner exist but have not been fully institutionalized. We also
acknowledge differences between Coal and MNM with regard to
undertaking inspections based on the types of operations and
regulations to be reviewed; however, in our opinion, there are
opportunities to make the inspection process more consistent across
MSHA.
3.3.1Inspection Process
To establish and ensure consistency among inspectors in conducting
inspections to assess compliance and evaluate imminent hazards, both
Coal and MNM have developed and implemented written procedures. The
procedures established by Coal and MNM are similar in that they
outline three distinct phases of the inspection
process—pre-inspection, on-site activities, and post inspection report
preparation. While discussing the implementation of these procedures
with MSHA and representatives from the mining industry, a diverse set
of comments was offered.
*
Coal inspectors questioned the value of traversing all drifts in a
mine every quarter, reviewing all paperwork that may not change
from quarter to quarter or half year to half year, repetitive
reviews of the UMF when site conditions do not change, and
confirming the self contained self rescuer (SCSR) tracking
program.
*
MNM inspectors do not always feel they have the time or the
experience to undertake health monitoring during an inspection.
Several MNM mines indicated that health monitoring was not
routinely undertaken. Coal interviewees indicated that health
monitoring is very time-consuming, especially when confirmatory
sampling is required.
*
Several mining industry personnel commented that MSHA applies the
same inspection process to all mines and questioned whether that
approach was still practical or useful since there are a wide and
diverse group of mining operations to inspect. Some suggested that
small mines, with no or limited health and safety staff resources,
require the inspector to focus on compliance. At large established
mines, with health and safety staff, the focus could be on the
mine’s compliance delivery systems (i.e., overall safety programs)
and on hazard management.
*
Abandoned areas of the mine are inspected according to those
inspectors we interviewed. However, several inspectors also
indicated that the primary focus of their inspection activities is
on operational areas of the mine.
*
Several mining industry personnel commented that inspectors, at
times, extended the number of days spent at a mine during an
inspection. Several also noted that inspectors do not put in full
days when they are at the mine. (MSHA considers writing
inspections reports/citations as “on-site” time, even if it the
inspector returns to the office to do this.)
*
Some inspectors use checklists to assist in the review of specific
topics (e.g., dam safety or emergency evacuation plans). This type
of tool provides a basis for consistent review of applicable
requirements, but the inspectors’ union has not endorsed their
use.
*
During inspections, MSHA and mining industry management and labor
stated that the inspectors engage in “compliance assistance”
through informal training and provide mining industry management
and labor with suggestions for improving safety performance. Mine
management and labor particularly appreciate when the compliance
assistance provided is relevant to their specific mining
operations and safety situations (e.g., if the mine is having
problems with machine guarding, the compliance assistance is
focused on guarding); however, they also noted that it varies
depending upon individual inspectors (i.e., some inspectors
provide compliance assistance while others may not). We also noted
that inspectors generally do not record in their field notes the
types of compliance assistance provided during an inspection.
*
Mining industry personnel stated that Educational Field Service
(EFS) personnel no longer schedule regular field visits to
operating mines; mining industry personnel (management and labor)
miss these MSHA EFS employees. (MSHA personnel indicated that EFS
staff are relatively limited in number and have large geographic
areas to cover, therefore these staff members may not be able to
schedule visits to mine sites on a regular basis.) By providing
compliance assistance during an inspection, MSHA partially
compensates for the absence of regularly scheduled visits to the
mine sites by EFS personnel.
These comments suggest that there are opportunities to enhance on-site
activities to increase the depth and rigor of safety inspections and
compliance assistance.
3.3.2Inspection Procedures
The written Inspection Procedures Handbooks for Coal and MNM are
prescriptive but differ in terms of content and rigor. For example:
*
The Coal Inspection Procedures Handbook outlines in very specific
detail the steps an inspector is required to follow in conducting
each phase of an inspection. As a consequence of the specificity
of these procedures, the inspector has little flexibility in how
an inspection is undertaken.
For example, Coal inspectors are instructed to follow step-by-step
instructions such as:
“MSHA personnel should proceed to the area selected for inspection as
quickly as possible after arriving at the mine site. When inspection
personnel travel to a working section while conducting inspections or
investigations, they should check all the working places for imminent
dangers as soon as practical after arrival on the section and before
examining equipment or observing any cycle of operation. Even if mine
management has, at the time of arrival, started to take action to
correct the condition(s) or practice(s), cite the violations.”
In practice, we were told; Coal makes some allowances for special
circumstances, such as informal identification of imminent danger. In
contrast, the MNM Inspection Procedures Handbook does not contain
step-by-step guidance. Instead, the MNM inspectors are provided with
an inspection framework or a general set of rules to follow in
undertaking inspections.
*
Coal inspectors are required to collect samples of mine air, dust,
and noise during each inspection. For MNM, criteria have been
established for sampling requirements. Mines ranked as “A” and
producing ground silica, asbestos etc, are to be sampled annually.
Conversely, mines ranked as “B” are to be sampled at least every
three years. (Note: The MNM Inspection Procedures Handbook has not
been updated to reflect the ranking scheme referenced above that
is described in MSHA’s Policy and Procedures Manual and the
1/01/2001 Procedure Instruction Letter No. 101-IV-1.)
*
The Coal Inspection Procedures Handbook includes a section on
citations and orders; the MNM Inspection Procedures Handbook does
not include a similar section. However, there is a separate
handbook for both Coal and MNM covering citations and orders.
Although differences in the procedures are understandable given the
type and range of mines that need to be inspected within Coal and MNM,
the redundancy and lack of standardization, in our opinion, are not
aligned with the “One MSHA Strategy” of conveying to miners a single
organization with one set of policies. In addition, we believe that
the absence of a single manual that contains the most up-to-date
inspection procedures along with the absence of inspection guides and
tools to be used on-site for the inspectors to help ensure that the
regulations are reviewed and interpreted in a consistent manner may be
counterproductive in terms of achieving consistency in approach among
the inspectors.
3.3.3Selected Modifications to the Inspection Procedures
MSHA staff and mining industry management and labor were asked about
activities that have been undertaken or to identify modifications to
increase the efficiency of the inspection process. Within several MSHA
districts, enhancements to the implementation of inspection procedures
have been undertaken with the goal of conducting more efficient and,
in some cases, more
focused reviews of particular requirements or conditions on-site.
These changes include the following:
*
When possible, results of specialists’ inspections are being
incorporated into the regular (AAA) inspections for coal mines.
*
When scheduling inspections, priority is given to sites that have
a history of citations or safety incidents.
*
Greater focus is placed on corrective actions related to accidents
and incidents during an inspection.
*
Inspectors focus more on operational activities than on inactive
portions of a mine during an inspection.
Mine personnel suggested the following for enhancing the overall
efficiency or focus of the inspection program:
*
Conduct spot checks (e.g., many short visits over the course of a
year) of mines with good safety records.
*
Prioritize inspections so that mines with good safety records are
inspected less frequently than mandated levels.
*
Conduct focused inspections, that is, focus on several key safety
issues or hazards based on a review of the mine’s accident history
and feedback from miners.
*
Spend more time at mines with safety problems and less time at
mines with good safety records. (The additional time could be used
to review compliance issues in greater depth or to provide
mine-specific training.)
3.3.4Organizational Issues Influencing the Inspection Process
Several cultural or organizational factors were identified during our
discussions with MSHA personnel as being particularly important to
consider if any changes to existing inspection procedures are to be
proposed. MSHA staff stated that if an incident were to occur under an
enhanced inspection program (that is, operational or high risk areas
of a mine received a more in-depth review than non-operational areas
of the mine, but an incident were to occur within the non-operational
area), the inspectors would want to clearly understand if there would
be any ramifications. The inspectors interviewed also stated that the
performance evaluation review process is designed more towards
rewarding inspectors for completion of the required number of
inspections rather than on the quality of the inspections that they
conduct.
4.0Government, Industry Inspection Activities, and MSHA’s Streamlined
Inspection Program Initiatives
=====================================================================
This section briefly summarizes features of other Federal agency
inspection programs, lists characteristics of industry
inspection/audit programs, and summarizes MSHA proposals that have
been discussed but not implemented to streamline the inspection
process. This section also briefly compares and contrasts MSHA’s
inspection program to other Federal agency programs and industry
practices.
4.1 Governmental Inspection Programs
------------------------------------
We reviewed several other inspection programs within the Federal
government to understand their overall function and design relative to
MSHA’s mandated regular inspection program. These programs are
summarized below.
*
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspects all of its
licensees, with power plants receiving the greatest scrutiny.
Power plants are inspected based on a tiered approach by both
resident inspectors and regional specialists. The inspection tiers
are:
*
Continuous inspection by at least two resident inspectors.
*
Periodic inspections by regional inspection specialists.
Specialists may conduct 10-25 routine inspections per year at each
plant, depending upon activities at the plant and problems that
may occur.
*
Semiannual inspections by the region with prior performance a
factor in scheduling.
*
As needed inspections, including special inspections of facilities
that exceeded thresholds during routine inspections.
Reactors at test or research facilities are inspected based on risk,
with those licensed at less than two megawatts inspected every two
years and those licensed at or above two megawatts inspected annually.
*
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety Inspection
System (FSIS) must ensure that all meat and poultry products sold
in the United States are “safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled
and packaged.” As part of that mission, meat and poultry sold in
interstate and foreign commerce (imported) is inspected by FSIS,
which also monitors state inspection programs for products
produced and sold within a state. FSIS recently adopted a new
regulatory scheme whereby instead of focusing only on individual
problems in plants, FSIS inspectors and compliance personnel will
evaluate whether plant systems are working as intended to prevent
and control contamination.
*
The US Coast Guard (USCG) inspects and issues Certificates of
Inspection (COI) for maritime vessels. Under 46 CFR 8, with
guidance from Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC)
2-99, the Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP) was established in
1999 as an alternative to the traditional annual inspections for
vessels. The program is not designed for all companies, and
operators must apply to be included in the SIP. According to the
USCG: “The Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP) is a voluntary
alternate method of inspecting a vessel to ensure regulatory
compliance. Instead of the traditional Coast Guard inspection by a
marine inspector, the SIP allows onboard and shore side vessel
operating personnel to conduct the majority of inspections
required, and to have the adequacy of these inspections verified
by Coast Guard marine inspectors on a regular basis.”
*
The Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) was implemented in
1998 as a new approach to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
certification and surveillance oversight, using system safety
principles and systematic processes to assure that air carriers
are in compliance with the Federal regulations. This approach
enables Flight Standards inspectors to be more effective in the
oversight of air carriers by focusing on the most critical safety
aspects of an air carrier's operation.
*
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in 2003 that it
has accomplished the initial objectives set in its ongoing
initiative to modernize the agency's regulation of pharmaceutical
manufacturing and product quality. The initiative was designed to
evaluate and improve upon the agency's approach to reviews and
inspections related to the manufacturing of human and animal drugs
and biologics. Under the new initiative, the FDA will focus its
resources on inspections that are likely to achieve the greatest
public health impact (e.g., sterile drug manufacturing).
*
In March of 2003, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) announced its Enhanced Enforcement Program.
This program focuses on those employers who have received "high
gravity" citations. High gravity citations are issued when an
employer's violations are considered to be at the highest level of
severity. For the past several years, OSHA has used a
site-specific targeting inspection program that consists of
employer-reported injury and illness data received through OSHA's
Data Initiative.
*
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses Risk Prioritization
to strategically target its enforcement and compliance activities
as a deterrent to pollution and to encourage greater compliance
with the law. EPA has developed tools to assist inspectors in
conducting reviews.
*
The Bureau of Land Management, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement is required under Section 517 of the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977 to conduct inspections
of any surface coal mining and reclamation operations that are
necessary to evaluate the administration of approved State
programs, or to develop or enforce any Federal program. The
inspections by the regulatory authority must: occur on an
irregular basis averaging not less than one partial inspection per
month and one complete inspection per calendar quarter for the
surface coal mining and reclamation operation covered by each
permit; occur without prior notice to the permittee or his agents
or employees except for necessary on-site meetings with the
permittee; and include the filing of inspection reports adequate
to enforce the requirements of and to carry out the terms and
purposes of this Act.
4.2Industry Inspection/Audit Programs
-------------------------------------
Many companies within the mining industry have established inspection
or audit programs that focus on environmental as well as safety
programs. To a large degree, these programs are established as an
internal verification that operating sites are in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. Characteristics of inspection or
audit programs within general industry as well as the mining industry
include some of the following:
*
The objectives of an inspection or audit include verifying
conformance with governmental regulations, internal policies and
procedures, and assessing management systems.
*
Inspection or audit frequency and site selection are based on
environmental, health, and safety (EHS) factors such as risks,
impacts, and complexity of operations. The audit frequency is
based on a scheme such that higher-risk facilities are audited
more frequently than medium or low risk facilities.
*
Inspections or audits are implemented in accordance with
established procedures and tools. The audit process generally
consists of:
*
Conducting pre-audit planning tasks to arrange logistics, etc.
*
Initiating the on-site portion of the audit with an opening
meeting.
*
Collecting of information to evaluate compliance program
activities.
*
Reviewing and analyzing information gathered during the audit.
*
Closing the audit with a meeting to discuss findings and potential
recommendations.
Typically areas of high risk are reviewed in depth.
*
Protocols, guides, or other checklists are used to enhance
consistency and reliability when conducting inspections or audits.
Sampling schemes, when appropriate, are utilized to obtain
representative data. Information gathered through interviewing and
verification is relevant, objective, and sufficient to support
results. Working papers are prepared during the ongoing activities
of an inspection or audit and are retained, at a minimum, until
the completion of the review.
*
Written and signed reports are prepared at the end of each review.
The results are reported to the appropriate levels of management
and prepared in a formal manner that is easily understood by the
recipients. Corrective actions are tracked until completion
(frequently verification of closure occurs during the next
scheduled audit).
*
Quality checks are conducted during the inspection or audit (e.g.,
confirmation that the findings are consistent with evidence
gathered and reliably communicated in reports) to assure accuracy
of the fieldwork and to encourage continuous improvement of
inspection/audit management systems, procedures, and
implementation.
4.3MSHA’s Streamlined Inspection Program Initiatives
----------------------------------------------------
4.3.1Proposed Modifications to Coal Inspection Procedures
An internal Reinvention Work Group was assembled several years ago
within Coal. The purpose of the Work Group was to examine current
inspection procedures to determine if there were opportunities for
enhancing program efficiency. Topics discussed included the
possibility of eliminating or reducing work that did not increase the
value or quality of an inspection, methods for increasing on-site
inspection time, and focusing inspectors’ attention on problem areas
and operations. The proposed modifications prepared by the work group
addressed issues related to:
*
Modifying the requirement for reviewing the UMF prior to an
inspection if mining conditions have not changed since the last
inspection.
*
Changing the order in which areas of a mine are inspected to
reduce predictability.
*
Establishing priorities for conducting regular inspections taking
into consideration each mine’s history of compliance, problem
areas, hazards, or the need for added emphasis on specific areas.
*
Using the inspection activities of other inspectors at a mine site
in completing an overall inspection.
*
Modifying the scheduling process so that the required number of
inspections is conducted within the fiscal year, instead of
completing inspections within a given quarter.
*
Amending the rock dust survey requirements to provide some
flexibility on the part of the inspector if the mine has a good
rock dust program and has demonstrated this through a record of
compliance based on surveys conducted over an extended period of
time.
4.3.2MNM’s VCP Initiative
MNM proposed the VCP Initiative to provide recognition to those mines
that have excellent safety and health programs. The VCP Initiative is
similar to OSHA’s Voluntary Protection and EPA’s Performance Track
programs. MNM anticipates that no more than approximately five percent
of total operations would be eligible for VCP status. To participate
and potentially be recognized for excellent safety and health
programs, a mine operator must meet eight specific criteria including,
but not limited to, its incident rate and citation history. The
partnership requirements include:
*
Having a written safety and health program that MSHA determines
will effectively promote a safe and healthy workplace.
*
Training miners in hazard recognition, accident prevention, MSHA
requirements, and miner rights under the Mine Act.
*
Conducting and documenting comprehensive or site-wide inspections
and audits at least weekly to review conditions at the mine and
work habits of the miners. These audits are in addition to
inspections required under Title 30.
*
Retaining records of daily workplace examinations and
pre-operational inspections for MSHA review.
*
Having a policy to deal with non-complying contractors, and having
a copy of each contractor’s safety and health program or a
statement that the contractor will abide to the operator’s
program.
*
Having the support and cooperation of the miners and retaining a
single declaration of that support.
The application would be reviewed and an on-site visit conducted to
verify the information submitted in the application. Mandated regular
inspections of a mine that had been approved under the VCP Initiative
would continue. These inspections would include:
*
Conducting an inspection of the mine in its entirety to the extent
required confirming compliance with applicable regulations is at a
high level.
*
As appropriate, sampling the mine for exposures to noise, dust,
and other contaminants to confirm compliance with applicable
regulations.
*
Inspecting a representative sample of equipment to verify
conformance with applicable standards.
*
Discussing the implementation of the safety and health program
with management and labor to confirm full implementation.
*
Providing compliance assistance, as needed.
*
Notifying site representatives of any findings identified during
an inspection.
If conditions observed during an inspection suggest that the mine no
longer qualifies for VCP status, the appropriate MNM district manager
will notify mine management and the miner’s representative.
4.4Comparative Assessment of Other Inspection Proposals or Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing other inspection programs, we noted that:
*
The approach used by other Federal agencies and industry to
conduct inspections includes greater emphasis on either an element
of risk prioritization or a focus on overall management systems to
control hazards. These are not explicit features of MSHA’s
inspection program that are detailed in the Coal or MNM inspection
procedures manuals.
*
MSHA inspectors are required to examine all records, equipment,
and operations and are required to verify completion of each
corrective action before a citation can be closed. These are not
explicit requirements of other Federal agencies and industry
inspection programs.
*
Elements of the proposals set forth by Coal and MNM for enhancing
(streamlining) the inspection process are more consistent with
industry and other governmental inspection programs in that they
recommend the focusing of inspection efforts on areas or programs
that are more inherently hazardous or require more improvement to
meet applicable regulations with the goal of trying to enhance the
safety and health of the working conditions of the miner.
*
5.0Summary of Results and Recommendations
=========================================
Based on the data gathered by and provided to ICF Consulting, we
concluded that the inspection program is generally compliant with
statutory and regulatory requirements. There are, however,
opportunities for increasing the effectiveness of program activities,
and to institutionalize efforts to be more efficient in the
implementation of inspection activities. The more specific results are
outlined below as well as our recommendations for increasing the
efficiency and effectiveness of the inspection program.
5.1Inspection Enforcement Activities
------------------------------------
Evaluation Results
Inspectors and mine operators interviewed agree that inspections have
contributed to improvements in miner health and safety and that
enforcement aimed at preventing major events such as fires,
explosions, fall of roof or wall, etc., is helping to prevent such
incidents. However, representatives from both the mining industry
(management and labor) and MSHA expressed sound reasons for modifying
the on-site portion of the inspection program to improve the safety
and health of the miner while maintaining the requirements to conduct
inspections of the mine in its entirety at mandated frequencies. These
include the following:
*
Although the inspection program being implemented is consistent
with statutory requirements, the data indicate that the numbers
and types of days lost injuries occurring over the past 5 to 10
years are not well correlated either quantitatively or
qualitatively with the citations issued through inspection
enforcement activities. This suggests that at least some factors
contributing to the current incident rates are not being captured
in the process for issuing citations. In addition, some mine
operators commented that the value of the citations might not be a
driver for improved safety performance.
*
The inspection enforcement activities have been implemented in the
same basic way for nearly thirty years. Although improvements in
mining industry safety performance have clearly been made, the
traditional approach—reviewing conformance with applicable
regulations and issuing citations—is not designed to instruct the
inspectors to focus on overall safety programs or on the most
critical or hazardous mine activities and conditions in
significant depth to identify factors that may have a more
influential impact on safety performance. Many industry and
governmental inspection programs are designed in a manner to
examine these types of factors in addition to compliance.
Recommendations
1.
Implement an approach within Coal and MNM that incorporates
aspects of industry and other governmental agency inspection
practices and Coal’s Reinvention Work Group suggestions for
inspecting a mine in its entirety that increases: a) the time
allocated to the on-site portion of the inspection; and b) the
focus of the on-site inspection process so that the inspectors are
in a position to evaluate in greater depth the underlying problems
or gaps in mine level safety programs that may be contributing to
fatalities and other days lost injuries. Specifically:
*
Increase the time allocated for inspecting the operational
portions of the mine by:
*
Modifying the requirement for reviewing the UMF prior to an
inspection if the mine has not changed since the last inspection
or the inspector is familiar with the mine and the contents of the
UMF.
*
Establishing procedures to determine the frequency with which
abandoned or inactive portions of a mine requires in-depth
inspection.
*
Modifying the procedures that specify the order in which areas of
a mine are inspected to reduce predictability and to increase the
time allocated to inspect high-risk areas in greater depth.
*
Increase the focus of the on-site inspection such that greater
emphasis is placed on evaluating the underlying problems or gaps
in mine level safety programs that potentially contribute to
fatalities and other days lost injuries. That is:
*
Prioritize inspection activities with the assistance of the
supervisor by taking into consideration:
*
Compliance history
*
Methane liberation
*
Accident and injury frequency rates
*
Prior mine conditions and conditions encountered during the
current inspection
*
Overall health and safety programs at the mine
*
Miners attitudes towards safety
*
Other information available to the inspector such as voluntary
compliance initiatives undertaken by the mine
*
Establish criteria for using the inspection activities of other
inspectors at a mine site in completing an overall regular (AAA or
01) inspection.
*
Increase the time allocated to inspecting the physical conditions
of the mine and interviewing employees about safety programs and
concerns by instructing the inspectors to confirm that the
following records are being prepared consistently by mine
personnel and then conduct a physical inspection of a
representative sample of safety activities documented in the
mine’s records to verify that that the safety issues are being
identified and corrected:
*
Pre-shift inspections
*
Supplemental inspections
*
On-shift examinations
*
Hazardous conditions records
*
Weekly examinations
*
Compressed-air receivers and other unfired pressure vessels
inspection reports
*
Records of inspection and repairs for boilers
*
Records of defective self-propelled mobile equipment, until the
defects are corrected
*
Inspections and testing for rollover protective structures when
alterations or repairs are performed or when stressed use has
occurred
2.
Use the Accountability Program (which is being modified with
implementation planned for 2003) to examine in detail the
determination and issuance of citations to confirm that the
appropriate level of enforcement is being applied. In particular,
focus on citation history to determine if trends have been
identified and evaluated as appropriate for enforcement purposes
and the citations clearly reflect underlying safety problems at
the mine sites.
3.
Periodically conduct an independent review of the overall
effectiveness of the updated inspection process, to supplement the
individual supervisory reviews. During these independent reviews
examine whether or not the inspection procedures and citations are
contributing to enhanced safety performance.
5.2Compliance Assistance
------------------------
Evaluation Results
Inspectors are providing compliance assistance to the mine sites
during inspections. Mine operators and labor appreciate this
assistance especially when the inspectors engage in compliance
assistance activities that are directly relevant to their specific
situations. However, the frequency and form of compliance assistance
varies among the inspectors and these activities have not been fully
institutionalized and incorporated into the inspection procedures.
Recommendations
1.
Determine the type of compliance assistance required at mine sites
by:
*
Reviewing information about a mine to identify recurring issues or
problem areas.
*
Contacting mine owners, operators, and holding companies through a
questionnaire, survey, or direct contact to determine the
requirements for additional assistance (e.g., training, reviewing
safety reports, behavioral factors, citation review and
explanation). Inspectors, supervisors, district managers, or
headquarters safety officers can make the initial contact.
2.
Through supervisory reviews, obtain feedback on the nature of the
compliance assistance being provided and the value to mine
management and labor.
3.
Formalize or incorporate compliance assistance into the daily
routine of the inspection process and program, using a similar
approach to that taken by some MNM inspectors who spend the first
hour on-site doing compliance assistance. Elements to consider
include:
*
Evaluating a mine’s overall safety program.
*
Providing technical support, training materials, and sharing “best
practices” methods.
*
Assisting with accident and violation analysis and hazard
identification.
*
Improving inspectors’ skills at root cause analysis, so they can
assist mines in developing systemic—not just
symptomatic—corrective actions for conditions that are continually
generating citations.
*
Encouraging inspectors to explain the reason for citations or
other safety concerns.
Document the compliance assistance that is being provided by
inspectors during regular inspections.
4.
Expand EFS to include compliance assistance through more on-site
visits or newsletters about current issues and topics in safety
and health, equipment, maintenance, etc.
5.
Document compliance assistance presentations, handouts, talking
points, and discussion materials; make available on the MSHA
Intranet and website; and distribute among all district and field
offices for use by all inspectors.
5.3Mechanisms and Tools for Enhancing Consistency
-------------------------------------------------
Evaluation Results
Mining industry personnel expressed concern about inconsistencies they
perceived between different districts and different inspectors making
decisions in the field as to what constitutes a citation or an S&S
citation. The differing areas of expertise among inspectors are viewed
as both a strength and a weakness of the current inspection program.
MSHA personnel see it primarily as a strength, since it allows fresh
perspectives on particular areas as inspectors rotate through the
mines. Mine personnel say that they can predict what citations an
inspector will write based on his or her background.
The use of inspection tools, guides, or checklists to assist the
inspectors in conducting reviews is not widely used or endorsed within
MSHA, although they are a common feature of industry inspection or
audit programs. Inspector guides are typically used by industry and
other governmental agencies to help minimize inconsistency among the
inspectors, increase the rigor of on-site activities, and increase the
information included in inspection reports. Such guides are
particularly helpful to an inspector operating outside the realm of
his or her area of specialization and when the regulations include
multiple provisions and are quite specific. Examples of regulations
with multiple and specific provisions include:
*
Fire Prevention Safeguards in Surface Metal/Nonmetal Mines [30 CFR
56.4100 to 4130] — warning signs, flammable liquid storage,
accumulation of combustible materials, combustion engines, battery
charging stations, and belt conveyors.
*
Electrical Equipment in Underground Coal Mines [30 CFR
75.513-75.524] — electrical conductors, electrical connections and
splices in conductors, proper fittings for metal frames,
insulation of power wires, circuit-breaking devices, main power
circuits, electrical switches, exposed, ungrounded conductors and
telephone lines, fittings for lighting fixtures, electric face
equipment, electric self-propelled equipment.
In addition, many of the results of the JTA are amenable for
conversion to an inspector guide format.
Inspection reports are prepared in a consistent manner, and the
citation forms include substantial detail about the rationale for the
citations. However, in our opinion, inspectors’ field notes contain
very limited information, which is insufficient to allow confirmation
of what was inspected, and what was concluded in those cases where
there was no specific citation. Field notes also do not document the
informal compliance assistance-related conversations that may occur
frequently during inspections.
Recommendations
1.
Expand the use of inspector guides and tools during inspections.
*
Assemble an MSHA inspectors’ work group to collect, identify, and
review common and best practices with regard to tools (checklists
or similar inspection guides) currently in use throughout MSHA.
*
Develop a preliminary set of standard inspector guides for use
during inspections.
*
Once agreed upon and approved, distribute guides to use when
completing inspections.
*
Make guides available on the MSHA Intranet and website.
2.
Establish some minimum standards for documentation of inspection
activities—both enforcement and compliance assistance—in
inspectors’ field notes.
3.
Upgrade the procedures manuals and refresher training to provide
the inspectors with an ability to more consistently interpret or
assess compliance with applicable regulations.
4.
Use the supervisory review process to confirm that the inspectors
are following updated inspection procedures.
5.4Written Inspection Procedures
--------------------------------
Evaluation Results
To establish a basis for consistency and training of new inspectors,
both Coal and MNM have developed written inspection procedures that
cover all aspects of an inspection. The written inspection procedures
for Coal and MNM differ in terms of content and rigor. Although
differences in the procedures are understandable given the type and
range of mines that need to be inspected within Coal and MNM, the
degree of the differences are not aligned with the “One MSHA Strategy”
of conveying to miners a single organization with one set of policies.
MNM procedures have not been updated to reflect changes in health
monitoring requirements.
Recommendations
Standardize, update, and modify the inspection procedures used by Coal
and MNM. In particular:
1.
Utilize a similar format for both Coal and MNM Inspection
Procedures Handbooks.
2.
Fine-tune the details in Coal and MNM’s Inspection Procedures
Handbooks to correspond with the changes recommended for the
inspection process. Specifically:
*
Modify the requirement for reviewing the UMF prior to an
inspection such that the inspector is expected to be familiar with
the UMF.
*
Include procedures to determine the frequency with which abandoned
or inactive portions of a mine require in-depth review during an
inspection.
*
Modify the requirement regarding the order in which areas of a
mine are inspected to reduce predictability and to increase the
time allocated to inspect high-risk areas in greater depth.
*
Revise Coal and MNM inspection procedural manuals to provide a
mechanism for using the inspection activities of other inspectors
at a mine site in completing a regular inspection.
*
Outline the steps and the factors to be considered for
establishing priorities for conducting the on-site portion of the
inspection.
3.
With regard to MNM, update the sections regarding health
monitoring to reflect current practices.
4.
Review all MSHA documents that contain inspection guidance and
eliminate redundancies so that all appropriate inspection
procedures are contained in the Coal and MNM handbooks. For
example, eliminate the redundancies between the Inspection
Handbooks and MSHA Policy and Procedures Manual, Citation and
Order Writing Handbook for Coal Mines and Metal and Non Metal
Mines, and the Metal and Nonmetal Procedure Instruction Letters.
5.
Develop a process to review and update, as appropriate, the
inspection procedures on a periodic basis.
5.5District Resources
---------------------
Evaluation Results
In terms of the inspection organization, we noted that
responsibilities for program implementation are clearly understood
among the district managers, assistant managers, supervisors, and
inspectors. Moreover, the internal requirement to review inspectors
twice per year is widely viewed as a practice to help ensure
consistency among the members of the inspectorate.
With regard to inspector resources, there are differences between the
overall number of inspectors available to Coal and MNM to complete the
required number of inspections. Although some of the differences in
inspector resources relate to the complexity and volume of regulations
applicable to coal operations, in our opinion the overall number of
inspectors within MNM is having an influence on the completion rates
and hours allocated to the on-site portion of the inspections.
We also heard concerns from within MSHA and outside the agency that
there is a need to maintain a high level of mining experience among
the inspectors. We also heard from several MSHA employees that: 1) the
performance appraisal process is focused more on rewarding inspectors
for completing the required number of inspections rather than on the
quality of the inspections; and 2) inspectors want to clearly
understand the basis for evaluating their performance if an incident
were to occur at a mine that was inspected using a focused approach
methodology instead of the current inspection procedures. These issues
need to be managed if any enhancements are made to the inspection
program.
Recommendations
1.
Increase the completion rates and on-site inspection time for MNM.
Since MSHA’s 2003 budget does not provide for additional
inspection resources, suggestions for increasing MNM completion
rates include the following:
*
As inspectors retire within Coal districts that are relatively
“resource rich” reallocate new hires to MNM (combine with
efficiency increases in Coal to prevent impairment of the ability
to meet their inspection completion targets).
*
To accommodate travel schedules for MNM inspectors, consider
deploying inspectors to mine sites from the closest field office,
whether Coal or MNM.
2.
If the inspection process is modified to reflect the proposed
recommendations in this report regarding the focusing of
inspection activities, ensure that inspectors are evaluated
against updated inspection procedures if any serious incidents
occur at a mine.
3.
Modify the annual performance review criteria to include
compliance assistance activities undertaken during an inspection
and the quality of the inspections.
5.6Recruitment and Training
---------------------------
Evaluation Results
Inspectors are provided with a core program of education to become
qualified as Authorized Representatives. Most of the interviewees
stated that the initial training was appropriate and that the
refresher-training program for inspectors needs to be augmented to
address the inconsistencies in interpretation, develop new skill sets,
and enhance existing skill sets. In addition, we noted that any
changes in the inspection program would need to be reinforced through
training. It is also perceived by mine personnel and within MSHA, whom
we interviewed, that the mining industry experience base within the
inspectorate may diminish with time.
Recommendations
1.
Review mechanisms and criteria for recruitment to determine
whether opportunities exist for attracting more experienced mine
safety professionals to replace retiring inspectors, to ensure
that mining experience is retained within the inspectorate, and to
enhance the knowledge base regarding hazard and behavioral safety
recognition techniques.
2.
Upgrade the refresher training to provide the inspectors with
skills and techniques to enhance compliance assistance
implementation activities—presentation skills, hazard assessment
techniques, and more consistently interpret or assess compliance
with applicable regulations.
3.
Use the results of the JTA to examine weaknesses in current
inspection program processes and design or require specific
refresher training coursework to close the skills gap.
4.
Provide a mechanism so that the inspectors and supervisors can
select courses relevant to their needs during the two-week
refresher course.
5.
Ensure that MNM inspectors participate in the bi-annual refresher
or journeyman-training program on a regular basis.
6.
Cross-train MNM and Coal inspectors and new hires so that there
are greater opportunities to utilize inspectors such that they can
conduct inspections at both coal and MNM mines, as appropriate.
7.
Implement or pilot a distance-learning program that takes training
to the field offices by making coursework available through the
Internet. That way, inspectors don’t have to come to the Academy
for training (crunch time issue cited earlier); they can receive
training from their home, their office or their hotel, while on
extended travel. Computer based learning modules can be more
readily developed and deployed, thus saving travel costs,
instructor and facility costs at the Academy.
8.
Establish a remote training facility in the Midwest, with
computers and training materials and offer specific courses
tailored to MNM inspectors.
5.7Streamlining Initiatives
---------------------------
Evaluation Results
The proposals set forth by Coal and MNM for enhancing (streamlining)
the inspection process are sound and reinforced by the results of ICF
Consulting’s data gathering and analysis. The proposals require that
the mandated number of inspections continue to be conducted at
operating mines. They are intended to enhance the use of the
inspection staff by focusing their inspection efforts on mines, areas
or programs that are more inherently hazardous or require more
improvement to meet applicable regulations. Both initiatives are
designed with the goal of enhancing the safety and health of the
working conditions of the miner.
Recommendations
1.
Implement the VCP Initiative to provide MNM mines that have
excellent safety performance records an ability to highlight their
accomplishments relative to peers.
2.
Expand the VCP Initiative description to define the modifications,
if any that will be made to the routine inspection program for
qualifying VCP mines.
3.
Conduct a 12-month post-implementation review of the VCP and
evaluate its performance against program goals and objectives. If
outcomes are positive, continue further implementation to
additional MNM mine sites and consider expanding to include select
Coal mine sites.
4.
Include in both Coal and MNM’s inspection procedure manuals the
Reinvention Work Group’s suggestions, that address the focusing of
inspections and increasing the efficiency of the inspection
process, as outlined in this report.
Appendix A. Mine Inspection Program Evaluation Design Document








Appendix B. Guides for MSHA and Mining Industry Interviews

1.
Strengths and weaknesses associated with the current inspection
program.
2.
Key benefits of the inspection program.
3.
Value of the inspection program
a.
To mine operators
b.
To mine workers.
4.
Concept and value of inspecting the mine site “in its entirety”
relative to an active, inactive, or abandoned section of a mine.
5.
Typical activities associated with an inspection
a.
High value-added tasks (i.e., those that contribute most
directly to improved health and safety)
b.
Low value-added tasks (i.e., those that have little apparent
effect on miners’ health and safety).
6.
Major hazards/risks to health and safety for this type of
operation.
7.
Types of fatalities or serious incidents at the mine over the past
five years.
8.
Typical types of citations identified during an inspection of the
mine over the past five years.
9.
Modifications to the safety inspection program (pre-inspection,
on-site, post-inspection) that should be considered by MSHA.
10.
Any objections to modifying (expanding or contracting) the process
for conducting inspections.
11.
Perceived need for additional/different training and skills for
Inspectors if the process of conducting an inspection were
modified.
12.
Any unanticipated impacts if there were a change in the process of
conducting inspections.
13.
Types of activities the mine would like to see the inspectors
engage in if the inspection program were to be modified so as to
increase its effectiveness and efficiency.
Question Number
Question
District Manager and Assistant Manager
Field Office Supervisor
Inspector1
Operational and Organizational Issues Related to the Inspection
Program
1
Please provide an overview of the demographics of your region2. That
is:
*
The number, location, and staffing of field offices
*
Number, type3, and size of mines
X
X
2
Please provide an overview of the completion of required inspections4
in the District. That is:
*
How many 4s and 2s are scheduled to be completed during 2002?
*
How many were actually completed?
*
If applicable, why were the required inspections not completed and
how was it determined which inspections were deferred?
X
X
X
3
What are the overall responsibilities of the district manager,
supervisor, and inspector with regard to the implementation of the
inspection program?
5.7.1How would you prioritize the specific inspection responsibilities
of the district manager, supervisor, and inspector?
5.7.2What are the other major responsibilities of the district
manager, supervisor, and inspector?
5.7.3Are there any inspection or administrative tasks that the
inspector or supervisor performs that are not value-added or part of
the inspection program?
X
X
X
4
What are your views regarding the value of observing inspectors two
times per year, as required?
X
X
X
5
Can you describe the flow of information from managers, to supervisors
to inspectors and between and among other districts?
X
X
X
6
What is your definition of compliance assistance?
*
To what extent is compliance assistance integrated into the
current inspection program?
*
What activities in the current inspection program are, or can be
considered compliance assistance?
*
Could more compliance assistance be provided without diluting the
enforcement aspects?
*
Do supervisors and inspectors have the appropriate training
required to provide compliance assistance?
X
X
X
Question Number
Question
District Manager and Assistant Manager
Field Office Supervisor
Inspector
Inspection Program
7
What is the level of effort (person hours) involved or required to
conduct a regular inspection, by type/size of mine?
*
Pre-inspection
*
On-site
*
Post inspection
Has the time required to complete an inspection increased, decreased
or remained the same over the past several years?
What is the reason for the change?
X
X
X
8
Are the current levels of resources sufficient to complete the
required number of regular inspections?
6.0If no, what additional resources, personnel and/or other, are
needed?
7.0Would a shared inspection pool, e.g., coal/metal/nonmetal, help
ensure that the required number of inspections is completed?
*
If yes why? If no, why not?
X
X
X
9
What is your definition of conducting an inspection of the mine site
in its entirety?
*
How would the owner or operator of the mine define entirety?
*
How does this definition apply to active, inactive, abandoned
mines?
X
X
X
10
Are inspection procedures performed uniformly across similar type
mines and among all inspectors? For example, are inspectors doing
different things or interpreting regulations differently?
X
X
X
11
What are the strengths and weaknesses associated with the current
inspection program?
X
X
X
12
Are there any barriers, including language barriers, to the successful
implementation of the existing inspection program?
X
X
X
13
What is the general consensus among mine management (including owners
and operators) and mine workers (mine stakeholders) regarding the
current inspection program?
*
Would these stakeholders be receptive to changes in the inspection
program?
*
If yes, why? If no, why not?
*
Are there any specific changes these stakeholders would welcome in
the inspection program that do not conflict with statutory
requirements?
*
What could be done to increase the stakeholders’ acceptance of
changes?
X
X
X
Question
Number
Question
District Manager and Assistant Manager
Field Office Supervisor
Inspector
Health and Safety Statistics
14
What types of fatalities and serious incidents have occurred at mines
over the past two years?
*
Has this trend changed over time?
*
Are there any underlying reasons why these fatalities or serious
incidents have occurred?
X
X
X
15
Are inspectors trained to identify situations that contribute to
fatalities and serious incidents?
*
Should the inspection program focus on such situations?
*
How can the inspection program be enhanced to help inspectors
identify these situations?
X
X
X
16
What are the typical types of citations identified by the inspectors
over the past two years?
*
Do these citations reflect the types of fatalities and serious
incidents that have occurred over the past several years?
8.0If no, why not?
X
X
X
Streamlining Inspections
17
Are you aware of any streamlined inspection procedures under
development or proposed by MSHA?
*
What are potential challenges and/or barriers to the successful
implementation of streamlined inspection procedures?
*
If changes were implemented, would the inspectors and supervisors
require any additional training?
*
How would streamlined inspector procedures increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of the safety inspector program?
X
X
X
18
Are there other modifications to the inspection program that should be
considered and, if so, why?
X
X
X
19
If the inspection program is streamlined or made more efficient, what
additional activities would the inspectors perform and why?
X
X
X
20
Are there any other issues related to a streamlined inspection program
that should be noted?
X
X
X
Other
21
Did you participate in the 2001 “Stakeholder Dialog” meetings?
If so, what were your perceptions of stakeholder opinions/concerns
about the inspection program?
X
1 Inspector is synonymous with compliance specialist.
2 Region means District, Field Office territory, or individual
Inspector’s territory.
3 “Type” may include union vs. non-union; large corporation vs. small
company, etc., as well as product (for metal/nonmetal) and underground
vs. surface.
4 Throughout this document, inspection refers to the 4s and 2s—the
four times (underground mines) and two times (surface mines) per year
inspections mandated by the Mine Safety Act of 1977. These are also
known as AAA inspections in Coal and as 01 inspections in M/NM. It is
recognized that the frequency may be less for mines that operate
seasonally.
0