December 2007

Goliath Slays David

Throughout the post-Sago regulatory environment, mine safety has become a political issue that is more about soundbites than safety and the results are devastating.

Gone are discussions about best practices in mine safety and health, the economic rationale behind strong safety programs, and the impact of regulations on safety. Politicians have pre-empted regulators’ ability to work collaboratively to develop effective, appropriate regulations. Miner training — particularly for small mine operators — has been relegated to an afterthought rather than being recognized as one of the three prongs of a meaningful safety culture.

Sadly, these philosophies have been lost as national “leaders” remain more caught up in playing the blame game than in truly protecting workers. In fact, their efforts have gone so far off course that they have actually resulted in what they are purportedly trying to end — loss of life.

On Oct. 15, mine owner and operator David Himmelberger committed suicide, according to reports in The Morning Call.

Earlier this year, Himmelberger’s company, R&D Coal, was the first to be fined under the “flagrant violations” standards developed as part of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006. Following an Oct. 23, 2006, methane blast that resulted in the death of miner Dale Reightler, the five-man Tremont mine was issued a dozen citations and assessed an $874,500 fine.

Himmelberger was appealing the fine, but faced delays from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). On Oct. 5, The Morning Call reports that he attended a meeting of the Independent Miners and Associates of Tremont, an anthracite mine advocacy group whose representatives say they believe MSHA’s District One office is trying to close mines in the region. He did not speak at the meeting, but took his life 10 days later.

His death is not among those reported by the agency’s fatality statistics, so let me offer the following fatality report.

COAL MINE FATALITY  — On Monday, Oct. 15, a mine owner and superintendent was fatally injured by a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Distressed by multiple hearing postponements and facing egregious penalties, the victim was overcome by the regulatory burdens placed upon him.

Throughout the last 14 months, the R&D mine has lost two workers. Dale Reightler’s death resulted from series of mistakes throughout the mining process that could have been avoided. David Himmelberger’s suicide resulted from a combination of an overzealous regulations and punitive penalties that should have been avoided.

Regulators and legislators should follow MSHA’s practice of determining root causes, assigning blame, and penalizing the appropriate parties. It might invoke a hard look in the mirror, but it could prevent future tragedies and that is what a safety culture should be all about.

November 2007

Fostering Productive Environments

As some Aggregates Manager readers know, in my “spare” time, I serve on my local school board. One of my recent board responsibilities was to help develop parameters for the board’s team during contract negotiations with two of our unions. I didn’t participate in the negotiations themselves, but I did enjoy the experience of having hundreds of lime-green clad employees attend the board’s bi-monthly meetings to express their opinions.

Although the salaries and benefits reached through those two negotiations processes were quite comparable, how the various teams got to those results was quite different. One union agreed to interest-based bargaining (IBB). Through that process, each group brought a short list of concerns and agreed to develop mutually agreeable resolutions. The second group (the ones wearing the green T-shirts) opted for traditional bargaining.

As with many businesses, controlling health care costs was a primary issue in both processes. The team using IBB quickly realized that health care costs were, by necessity, going to be shared by both employer and employee. It took several months more — including both public commentary and picketing sessions — for the traditional based negotiating team to come to the same realization.

To say the negotiations process was an eye-opening experience would be a great understatement. However, several vital lessons came out of that process. First, working through collaboration rather than confrontation can produce the same results but much more quickly and with fewer hurt feelings. Second, clear, consistent, honest communications are vital, even when the message is one that some employees may not want to hear. Finally, emotions are always going to play a role in not only contract negotiations, but in ongoing employee satisfaction.

Another lesson that came from this process is that how employees perceive they are being treated is every bit as important as how they actually are being treated. The very human need for acknowledgement and positive feedback is one that applies to all employees regardless of their occupation.

In the aggregates industry, where more than one-half of producers say that finding and retaining workers can be problematic, employee satisfaction is a key component of employee retention programs. Many studies also show that people who enjoy their work, feel important, and valued are more productive than those who don’t enjoy their work and don’t feel appreciated. These concepts apply whether or not your operation is a union environment. They are simply good business.

October 2007

A Breath of Fresh Air

A group of workers at The Silvi Group, based in Fairless Hills, Pa., has been breathing a little easier during recent months. Earlier this year, the vertically integrated construction materials company implemented a smoke-cessation program that offers long-term health benefits to its workers.

“We instituted this proactive policy on May 1 and already are happy to report that at least 10 of our employees have been encouraged to quit as a direct result of this policy,” President Larry Silvi said in a press release.

The workplace policy prohibits smoking on all company premises and covers company vehicles and equipment, as well as visitors to company premises. To encourage employees to participate, incentives including medical coverage of smoke cessation programs, reimbursement of prescribed and over-the-counter remedies, and nutritional counseling were offered. Silvi describes employee response as “overwhelmingly positive.”

While the program is certainly in the best interests of its employees, it also benefits the company itself. Epidemiological research concerning various miner exposure limits, including asbestosis and silicosis, has long been confounded by smoking among employees.

It’s refreshing to see an aggregates company focus on health issues as part of its health and safety program. Perhaps legislators and regulators could glean some insight from this program. Silvi Group’s long-term perspective is sadly missing in proposed regulations such as the S-MINER Act and the Miner Health Act.

As a string of fatalities plague the coal mining industry, the aggregates industry continues to be caught in the crossfire. First, the S-Miner Act sought to penalize the industry before the Miner Act was fully implemented. Now, the Miner Health Act has abandoned any pretense of thoughtful rulemaking. It would give the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health all of 30 days to suggest recommended exposure limits to the Secretary of Labor. In addition, the Mine Safety and Health Administration would be given 30 more days to adopt those proposals as permissible exposure limits.

To presume research proposals could be developed in 30 days leaves the concepts of accurate research, the importance of sound science, and the clarity of public comment sadly missing in the mix.

The deaths of the Utah miners and rescue workers were a reminder of our somber responsibility to our workers. All would do well to reflect in a productive, thoughtful manner on how we can improve the health and safety of our workers.

Will a smoke-cessation program save lives? Quite possibly. Was it based on research of proven methods for mitigating health risks? Absolutely.

If legislators could take a moment and think about how they can promote better health and safety practices rather than pontificate for voters, it would truly be a breath of fresh air.

September 2007

Authorizations vs. Appropriations
“Highways don’t just happen.”

That comment was among the statements made by President George W. Bush when he signed the Safe Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) into law on Aug. 10, 2005.

After a two-year delay and a record-breaking 12 extensions, Bush touted the importance of the highway bill noting, “Our economy depends on us having the most efficient, reliable transportation system in the world.”

He pontificated about the need to improve safety, to ease congestion, to modernize the highway system, to create jobs, and to improve quality of life. Best of all, he noted, SAFETEA-LU would accomplish these goals “in a fiscally responsible way.”

Apparently, his viewpoint on fiscal responsibility has changed since 2005. As Congress considers FY 2008 appropriations measures, both the House and Senate appropriations include $40.2 billion for highways. Each measure includes $631 million in revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) funds. In comparison, the President’s budget calls for $39.6 billion in highway spending with no RABA funds. In lobbying for the lower spending level, the White House has even gone so far as to describe highway spending levels guaranteed by SAFETEA-LU authorization levels as “spending beyond its means” and has threatened a veto.

Clearly, the White House’s goal of capping discretionary spending is taking priority over infrastructure. Job creation, traffic congestion, and safety all take a backseat in the President’s ever-changing definition of fiscal responsibility.

While short-term appropriations issues are troubling, the depletion of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) has even greater implications for future transportation funding. Since FY 2004, the $10.8 billion balance has been drawn down each year to fully fund SAFETEA-LU. By FY 2009, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) predicts a $4.3 billion shortfall in HTF funds.

Congress has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to increase gas taxes, and with prices at the pump rising and an aggressive agenda for increased automobile fuel efficiency, future funding streams need to be scrutinized. In addition, construction materials and labor prices are on the rise. This combination of decreased revenues and increased costs does not bode well for America’s infrastructure.

It’s time to develop a viable vision for the future of the nation’s highway system. As President Bush accurately stated in 2005, the nation’s economy is tied to its ability to transport goods and services on its highways and roads. A repeat of the 2005 delays and funding extensions will only serve to further deteriorate the condition of our transportation system.

To echo President Bush’s earlier statement, highways don’t just happen. We must make them happen.

August 2007

Muddy Waters

Then it comes to understanding regulatory oversight of some water issues related to aggregates mining, the lack of clarity is enough to have any operator singing the blues.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) attempted to spell out issues related to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 when it issued joint guidance on the matter. The agencies say that the guidance is intended “to ensure nationwide predictability, reliability, and consistency in identifying wetlands, streams and rivers subject to the CWA.”

The intent is to outline when an operator needs to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before conducting activities in wetlands, tributaries, or other waters. To that end, the guidance discusses the agencies’ protection of three classes of waters through the following actions:

1. Continuing to regulate “traditionally navigable waters,” including all rivers and other waters that are large enough to be used by boats that transport commerce and any wetlands adjacent to such waters;

2. Continuing to regulate “non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent and wetlands that are physically connected to these tributaries”; and

3. Continuing to regulate based on case-by-case determinations for other tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have certain characteristics that significantly affect traditionally navigable waters.

Essentially, the guidance is trying to incorporate two different viewpoints published by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its fragmented ruling on two combined Section 404 cases, Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that the scope of federal jurisdiction focus on whether the water body in question had a “significant nexus” with waters deemed traditionally navigable. No other justice joined that opinion. On the other hand, Justice Anton Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas, wrote that jurisdiction should include non-navigable tributaries with relatively permanent flows and wetlands that are connected to these tributaries. Federal courts have been split on their interpretation of these opinions, hence the need for clarification.

The challenge is that the case-by-case determination method offers ample opportunity for subjective rather than objective decision-making. It is the EPA and Corps’ attempt to include the “significant nexus” opinion, but the concept of “significant nexus” is inherently ambiguous.

Although the guidance took effect immediately after publication, a 180-day comment period does allow for operator input. If your operation may be impacted by this guidance, make your voice heard. Otherwise, you may be drawn to the lyrics of blues legend Muddy Waters:

 Lord, I’m troubled, I’m all worried in mind

Yeah and I’m never bein’ satisfied, and I just can’t keep from cryin’

July 2007

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Two months ago, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) solicited public comments on its draft document, Asbestos and Other Mineral Fibers: A Roadmap for Scientific Research. The research project, coupled with legislation reintroduced by Sen. Patty Murray

(D-Wash.), puts asbestos and mineralogy descriptions back at the top of the aggregates industry’s regulatory agenda.

In NIOSH’s definitions of the document, it notes that, “Asbestos has been a highly visible issue in public health for over three decades, and abundant information is in the scientific literature. However, in part because of the complexity of the mineralogy, the scientific literature has various inconsistencies and inconclusive evidence which have led to uncertainties in identifying and applying the term asbestos for health and regulatory purposes.” It adds that, “it is expected that the products of this research will influence how NIOSH views occupational exposure to various minerals when there is risk of inhalation to fiber-shaped particles.”

That’s regulatory speak that basically says that NIOSH wants a broad-based definition of asbestos to be used to develop future regulatory standards. Pesky details about the different health impacts of asbestiform particles and cleavage fragment forms of the same mineral are muddying the issue, so let’s get rid of them.

To its credit, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA) — along with the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — co-sponsored presentations by three well-regarded scientists at the NIOSH public comment hearing in early May. The presentations addressed key issues in the minerals definition debate such as the difference in particle types and epidemiological studies of lung cancer and those various particle types.

According to The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.’s Daily Executive Report, NSSGA Senior Vice President Bill Ford also outlined the difference between asbestiform and non-asbestiform minerals and stressed the need for accurate definitions for regulatory and legislative use.

The same report details how Richard Lemen, a former NIOSH deputy director, told the institute that “NIOSH should not back away from including all respirable fibers” in its studies and added that “this should only be changed if there is irrefutable data” showing no human harm. Funny, but the last time I heard the saying, it was “innocent until proven guilty” not vice versa. Of course, Lemen testifies in asbestos cases for plaintiffs, so he’s hardly an objective party.

Minerals definitions for asbestos are complex. They can’t be streamlined, and they can’t be simplified. While it may be politically expedient to push a one-size-fits-all definition, it’s inappropriate. Epidemiology must form the basis for any and all research regarding asbestos.

If NIOSH wants to create a roadmap, it must be an accurate one. Otherwise, it will simply be a one-way route into the courtroom.

June 2007

Fines and Punishment

Throughout the last two years, worker safety has been a high-profile issue. While many companies have long-standing safety programs and most have pledged to achieve significant safety improvements, political pressure is now firmly driving how regulatory agencies deal with safety — to the detriment of all involved.

Last year, the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act created burdensome new requirements. One of the more onerous provisions is the requirement for producers to notify the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) within 15 minutes of an incident that is either fatal or poses a reasonable risk of death. This year’s follow up, 30 CFR Part 100 “Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties,” implements the corresponding new penalty structure, complete with fines ranging from $5,000 to $60,000 for failure to meet that 15-minute notification requirement.

How will the industry suffer? Let’s count the ways.

Small producers will be subject to the same minimum penalties as large producers. While safety is clearly equally important for all employees, one has to question whether a two-man sand and gravel operation has the same ability as their larger counterparts to pay these minimum fines.

Large companies take a hit when it comes the penalty points. Under the previous penalty point structure, a controlling entity that recorded 400,000 annual hours worked would receive one penalty point. Under the new structure, it will receive four points. Apparently, large producers are a potential profit center for the regulatory agency.

Contractors who operate on a national basis, particularly in specialty work, face their own challenges. Because a contractor receives a single identification number (regardless of the number of crews it has or the sites at which it operates) its national performance will be reflected in its history of violations. Again, the costs will quickly add up.

Finally, the repeat violation criteria are disturbing because they create a punitive response to seemingly insignificant previous citations. Imagine those who opted not to contest a $60 violation a year ago. The penalty didn’t appear to be worth the time, effort, or cost. Now, those violations count toward penalty points.

While MSHA remains focused on fines, history shows that increased penalties alone do not deter unsafe practices. Following an increase in fines in 2003, the number of citations increased from 110,038 to 121,225 and continued on an upward trend. In its own rulemaking, the agency notes that it “recognizes that civil penalties alone may not significantly affect compliance with the Mine Act and MSHA’s safety and health standards and regulations or reduce the number of mining accidents and injuries.”

May 2007

The Sum of Its Parts

Obtaining a permit is one of the most difficult challenges facing aggregate producers today. As indicated throughout the annual reports of many large companies, the contentiousness encountered during this process — not to mention the expense — has encouraged many companies to expand their reserves via acquisition rather than through permitting greenfield sites.

Now, imagine completing this time-consuming, capital-intensive process only to find out that after clearing all the local zoning, permitting, and environmental hurdles, the anti-mining advocates have taken their battle up the food chain. That’s exactly what is happening in the state of Washington, where a trio of bills in the state Legislature could stall a decade’s worth of effort for Glacier Northwest.

In 1997, the company began the process of obtaining the necessary permits to replace a barge unloading dock at its 235-acre facility on Puget Sound’s Maury Island. According to a decision issued by the state’s Shorelines Hearing Board, material would be transported to barges via a conveyor that would extend about 400 feet from the shore over the Puget Sound. The portion over the Sound is slated to be enclosed in a 12-foot diameter pipe, while a telescoping spout at the end of the conveyor will lower material into barges for transport off the island.

Throughout the permitting process, Glacier Northwest worked with officials from King County, the state Department of Fish & Wildlife, and the state Department of Natural Resources. It addressed concerns from several citizens’ group including Protect Our Island and People for Puget Sound, as well as legal challenges along the way. In late 2004, the Shorelines Hearing Board reviewed a total of 28 pleadings and motions in the case and reversed a King County motion that stood in the way of the dock construction project. Its opinion asserted that the shipping pier would not adversely affect nearby eelgrass beds or migrating whales.

Now, after the company has invested more than $4 million, the state Senate introduced three bills, including one that would give the Metropolitan King County Council veto power over a state permit in these circumstances.

The Seattle Times reports that state Sen. Erik Poulsen (D-West Seattle) is the driving force behind the bills. He told the newspaper that the people of Maury Island have “been victimized by the huge political might and financial power of Glacier.” Poppycock. The only political might being wielded in this exchange is that of Poulsen himself. The state created the permitting process, and Glacier Northwest followed it.

It’s time for Poulsen to quit playing politics and to abandon the ridiculous notion that local agencies should be able to trump state ones. The company acted in good faith. Now, it’s Poulsen’s turn to do the same and to withdraw the ill-conceived legislation.

April 2007

The Sum of Its Parts

During the 16 years that I’ve covered the aggregates industry, I’ve seen a lot of industry trends come and go. Some business trends, such as mergers and acquisitions, are cyclical and appear to be one indicator of the overall market health. If that’s truly the case, the market is very, very healthy.

Following several years of low-level acquisition activity, the aggregates market is once again red hot. Cemex initiated a hostile bid for Rinker Materials. Hanson bought Material Services Corp. Oldcastle negotiated numerous bolt-on acquisitions through its regional businesses.

On President’s Day, what may be the biggest deal of the year was unveiled. Vulcan Materials Co. and Florida Rock Industries Inc. announced that they reached an agreement for Vulcan Materials to acquire Florida Rock in a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $4.6 billion. Current rankings by the U.S. Geological Survey place these two companies as the first- and tenth-largest aggregates producers, respectively, in the United States.

The deal is somewhat reminiscent of Vulcan’s 1999 acquisition of Calmat, although that deal — which seemed huge at the time — was a more modest $760 million acquisition. As Calmat strengthened Vulcan’s presence in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, this new deal is likely to do the same in the robust Florida market, along the Gulf Coast, and in the Mid-Atlantic region. It also boosts Vulcan’s aggregates reserves by more than 20 percent and 2006 aggregates shipments by 18 percent.

“This is a tremendous opportunity for Vulcan Materials and Florida Rock,” said Vulcan Materials Chairman and CEO Don James in a written statement regarding the deal. “We’re taking two high-performance companies and creating an even better company.”

In the same release, John Baker, president and CEO of Florida Rock, added, “These are very complementary companies, and this is an excellent opportunity for our shareholders as well as our employees, many of whom could enjoy enhanced opportunities as part of an even stronger and more geographically diversified organization that has operations  in key high-growth markets nationwide.”

Both companies have excellent reputations and mutual respect is obvious between the two CEOs. However, the most gratifying coverage of this deal came not from the executives, but from the work force itself.

Within 24 hours of the announcement of the acquisition, employees of both companies were in online chat forums sharing information with one another. Some of the Florida Rock workers were clearly unsettled by the change ahead, and numerous Vulcan employees spoke in very positive terms about their experience with the nation’s leading aggregates producer.

One Vulcan employee — a former Calmat worker — offered Florida Rock assurances with regards to a variety of human relations issues and summed up his experience noting, “I know it seems like a hard time, but put your worries to rest.”

When it comes to ensuring a smooth integration, this employee dialogue indicates that the sum of these two parts may truly be more than the whole.

March 2007

Asset Management

When it comes to the aggregates industry and its assets, I’ve often said that any company’s most valuable assets don’t involve capital. Rather, they are the people within the organization. That may seem like a pretty bold statement when you consider that aggregate operations require large amounts of real estate, as well as fixed and mobile equipment valued in millions of dollars. But I stand by it.

After all, what good is the property without an engineer to develop a mine plan, the plant without a superintendent who knows how to run it efficiently, or a wheel loader without an operator who can maneuver it gracefully around the quarry?

Plants run well when the people in them are properly trained and equipped to do their jobs. This point was recently driven home when I was told the tale of two mobile plants. Two operations used the same model of plant. One was running quite well, with little downtime and scheduled maintenance. The other was experiencing frequent downtime, chewing up replacement parts, and producing only a fraction of the other plant’s output. And before you start thinking about the mineralogy of different deposits, let me clarify that the two plants were placed in close proximity to one another with approximately the same mineral composition. The difference was the training of the people running them. The right team — with the right training — created a huge difference in plant performance under similar operating conditions.

Traditionally, it would be easy to blame difficulties in finding and retaining workers for underperforming employees, but that problem is not as acute as it has been during the past. According to the Aggregates Manager’s 2006-07 Industry Survey, the percentage of producers who describe finding and retaining workers as a major problem dropped from 23 percent in 2006 to 17 percent for 2007. In addition, 41 percent of those responding to the survey said that they had increased staff within the last year. That’s good news, but employee development remains an issue for many.

There are many reasons to train workers, including the regulatory requirements to do so. New miner training is absolutely vital, particularly with regard to safety. But other reasons to train workers include improving performance, expanding equipment and plant knowledge, developing better maintenance schedules, and many, many more.

February 2007

Proceed with Caution

Many producers maintain strong relationships with members of the communities in which they operate. Through a variety of mechanisms, such as informal neighborhood advisory panels, school tours, and community sponsorships, strong bonds have helped transform potentially adversarial relationships into strong partnerships.

Each of these community relations strategies has a proven track record within the industry. However, some communities are looking for more formal relationships with their local producers. Such alternatives may be worthwhile, but should be approached with some degree of caution.

For example, the Maricopa County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors approved an aggregate mining operations zoning district with a 10-member advisory board in 2004. Comprised of five citizens — who live within one mile of a mining operation — and five mining representatives, the committee was formed to make recommendations to the supervisors and to help resolve issues between residents and mining operations. In theory, the premise is sound. It makes a lot of sense to work through compromise and conciliation before bringing problems to the higher authority. The reality is that compromise and conciliation only work when all members work in an environment of mutual trust.

Throughout this group’s history, the committee has been able — for the most part — to work in such an environment. Various reports on the committee’s activities have noted concerns such as the one-mile residency requirement for community members, an attempt to limit operation hours of what was poorly defined as “heavy mining,” and the ever-constant debate concerning truck traffic routes.

However, in December, the community members of that group may have irrevocably broken the trust between the two factions. The Arizona Republic reports that members of the recommendation committee voted 5-4 to require trucks at mining operations near homes to be equipped with legally approved, non-aggravating back-up devices. The motion was put to a vote when one member of the committee, a mining operation representative, was absent.

Importantly, the vote came after one operation voluntarily installed quieter back-up alarm systems on 25 of its trucks earlier in the fall and another ready-mix producer installed alarms that sound like a quacking duck on its fleet. The fact that construction material producers were voluntarily investing in quieter technology should have been applauded by the community members of the commission, not used as ammunition against others.

In the news report, Vulcan Material’s Tom Lowry, a mining member of the commission, said that the item was not listed as an action item on the meeting agenda and that community members took advantage of an absent industry member to cast the vote. He is correct. Industry members of this commission have acted in good faith.

The bad faith demonstrated by the community members of this group, however, sets off an alarm that can be heard loud and clear: they are more interested in control than cooperation. The County Board of Supervisors should hold them accountable for their actions if there is to be any hope for the private-public partnership.

January 2007

Sharing Safety Practices

As many aggregates managers are keenly aware, safety is at the center of a productive, profitable operation. Be-yond the moral obligation of protecting workers, safe work practices offer numerous financial incentives. Improved employee retention and lower insurance costs are just two of the benefits of a well-trained, safety-oriented work force.

Another obvious benefit to the implementation of strong safety practices is a reduction in regulatory fines and the associated legal costs. While producers have always been aware of these costs, the new penalty structure implemented through the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act) has taken that incentive to a whole new level.

At a time when Congress, the public, and the general media are all operating under belief that mining is a dirty, dangerous business, it is more important than ever to make sure that our employees know that safety is the most important aspect of our operations — yes, even beyond the holy grail of production.

Sustaining measurable safety progress is fundamental to our continued business success. However, achieving that success is not small task. During 2006, the metal/non-metal mining market was on track to see significantly fewer fatalities than during the previous year. At press time, the most recent data available at the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Web site indicated that there were nine fewer fatalities for the same period of 2006 compared to 2005.

That one-year snapshot looks quite positive, and it is. Every life saved is significant. Conversely, every life lost is even more important. Despite achieving a year-over-year improvement, 2006 was also on track to record more fatalities than 2003 and 2004.

When it comes to fatalities, the trend line needs to move clearly and consistently downward. Moving that arrow in the right direction requires concerted effort from everyone in an organization. Top management must make safety its highest priority. Middle management must make sure that value is carried out in day-to-day operations. Operational staff must remember that best practices are designed for their benefit and use them regularly.

Through an alliance between MSHA and the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, producers and regulators are working together to identify high-risk operational areas and to offer best practices to avoid accidents and injuries. Through collaborative efforts, the alliance has developed safety share articles intended to help all producers address the common causes of accidents.