Twenty-five people are dead, two have been taken to hospitals, and four are still missing after an explosion at the Massey Energy Co. Upper Big Branch coal mine in Whitesville, W.V., yesterday afternoon, Don Blankenship, the company’s chairman and CEO, confirms. 

These are updated numbers from Blankenship’s original confirmation of seven people dead and 19 unaccounted for.

Rescue efforts are currently suspended due to conditions underground. Rescue efforts will resume as soon as conditions allow, Massey Energy Co. says.

Massey Energy Company, headquartered in Richmond, Va., with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia, is the largest coal producer in Central Appalachia.

The names of the dead and the injured were not being released at the time of this news post, pending the notification of the miners’ next-of-kin, Blankenship said.

“Our top priority is the safety of our miners and the well-being of their families,” Blankenship said in an April 5 written statement. following the incident. ”We are working diligently on rescue efforts and continue to partner with all of the appropriate agencies. Our prayers go out to the families of the miners. We want to assure the families of all the miners we are taking every action possible to locate and rescue those still missing.”

In an updated press statement on April 6, Blankenship said: “We mourn the deaths of our members at Massey Energy. I want to offer my condolences to the miners’ families who lost loved ones at Upper Big Branch. And I want to thank the rescue teams and the Massey members who continue to work hard on behalf of our miners and their families.”

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis issued a statement in which she said: “My heartfelt condolences go out to the families, co-workers and communities that are mourning the loss of lives at the Upper Big Branch South Mine in Whitesville, W.Va.  My thoughts and prayers are with them.”

This incident comes after a record-breaking year of safety last year and an excellent track record for the last half a dozen years.

On the company’s Web site, its front page points out that in 2009, Massey recorded an all-time best NFDL incident rate (a measure of lost-time accidents) of 1.67.

“This is an improvement over last year’s rate of 1.93, our previous best result,” Massey has posted on its Web site. By comparison, the bituminous coal mining industry average NFDL rate was 2.95 in 2008.  2009 marked the 6th consecutive year and the 17th year out of the past 20 years in which Massey’s safety performance was stronger than the industry average, 

Elizabeth Chamberlin, Massey vice president of safety and training, notes on the site: “We strive for sustainable excellence in safety. It is our top priority every day. We are proud of our tradition of developing safety innovations, which we freely share with others to the benefit of the entire industry.”

However, even with an excellent safety record this coal mine incident has the potential to not only tarnish the coal industry’s reputation but mining as a whole.

The entire mining industry has always struggled with a negative image. But after the tragic Sago coal mine explosion and Aracoma Coal Alma No.1 coal mine incident, both in 2006, and Utah and Indiana coal mine incidents in 2007, legislation and federal regulations have been rampant and mining has been brought more into the public eye.

In reaction to the the Sago incident, The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, was passed in May of that year in an effort to further protecting the safety and heath of the nation’s mineworkers.

However, coal mining and aggregate mining are very different, and sometimes the various types of mining aren’t differentiated and a “one-size-fits-all” mentality unintentionally creates unnecessary and unfair burdens on the regulated community. This was a major concern after the Sago incident because the construction aggregates industry is subject to the federal Mine Safety and Health Act, which has an extensive set of regulatory requirements.

The final version of the bill mostly applied to the coal industry. However, the legislation codified provisions that were applicable to all mining sectors — such as the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s (MSHA) 15-minute emergency notification requirement when an incident or accident poses a reasonable risk of death; increased penalties, including a minimum $2,000 fine for Section 104 (d) (1) violation; and the increase of the civil fine for “flagrant” violations to a maximum $220,000.

In Jan. 23, 2006, testimony to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services of the Senate Committee on Appropriations MSHA Oversight Hearing while the Mine Act of 2006 was being drafted, Charlie E. Hawkins, III, then executive vice president and COO for the National , Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA), said that the events in the Sago Mine and Aracoma Coal Alma No. 1 Mine disasters were undoubtedly tragic. However, he pointed out that the aggregates industry safety record has steadily improved and is “attributable to a combination of more effective safety and health programs developed and implemented by the industry over the past decade in response to increased Mine Safety and Health Administration regulation of the mining industry and heightened enforcement.”

“The loss of even one life, let alone 14 lives, is devastating,” Hawkins said in his testimony. “Nevertheless, the safety record of the mining industry, and the aggregates industry in particular, has improved due to a heightened level of effort invested by the industry to sustain an improved performance.”

But despite safety improvements in the aggregates mining sector, regulation has continued after mining tragedies regardless of the mining industry sector. In 2008, supplemental mine safety legislation (S-MINER) was passed in response to the the 2007 coal mine incidents. The aggregates industry — particularly NSSGA — vehemently opposed the legislation because it was geared toward the coal mining industry. (Click here to see NSSGA’s Public Policy Position Paper on S-MINER.)

See the May 2010 print issue of Aggregates Manager more analysis on what this incident means for the aggregates industry.

by Henry Chajet and Scott Stewart

Strengthening clean water enforcement is a high priority of the Obama Administration. On Oct. 15, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance published a roadmap for overhauling and intensifying Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement. This action plan focuses on both EPA and state enforcement efforts and will lead to a significant rise in CWA enforcement. This suggests an urgent need for companies to review their CWA permit status, revisit their compliance programs, and take new steps to ensure that their operations are not flagged for enforcement.

CWA enforcement action plan highlights

Targeted enforcement. EPA plans to move away from its current policy of focusing enforcement on the largest facilities and those with significant non-compliance. Enforcement focus will shift to significant point source violations that adversely affect water quality. Facilities sited on impaired water bodies are in the enforcement crosshairs.

Strengthened oversight. While 46 states are authorized by EPA to run the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, EPA retains responsibility to ensure states protect water quality and consistently apply the law through vigorous enforcement. EPA will develop and publicize performance metrics to hold states accountable. If states underperform, EPA will disapprove permits. For example, EPA’s recent use of its CWA §404(c) power to deny, restrict, or prohibit actions under a CWA Section 404 permit previously issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to a coal mining operation is evidence of EPA’s new focus on impacts to impaired waters. In addition, EPA informed the Corps that it is targeting 79 pending, surface coal mining permit applications because they raise “potentially significant water quality and environmental issues.” Facilities in states with traditionally lax enforcement will either see stepped-up enforcement by the state or increased federal enforcement.

Improved accountability and transparency. EPA believes it lacks nationally consistent and complete information on facilities, permits, pollutant discharges, and compliance status of most NPDES-regulated facilities. To address this problem, EPA will implement electronic reporting across all regulated facilities. Initially, it will encourage voluntary submittal of electronic Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), but will work to develop a rule requiring the practice.

CWA enforcement: the past as prelude

In 2008, Massey Energy Co. Inc. paid a $20 million civil penalty in addition to costly injunctive relief to settle the United States’ claim of wastewater discharge permit violations. In 2009, Patriot Coal Corp. paid a $6.5 million civil penalty in addition to substantial injunctive relief to settle a wastewater discharge permit violation case.

In the same vein, in 2009, Alaska Gold Co. and NovaGold Resources Inc. paid a civil penalty of $883,628 to settle alleged violations of a storm water discharge permit. In August 2009, Aggregate Industries – Northeast Region Inc. settled with the United States, agreeing to pay a $2.75 million civil penalty and implement a regional evaluation and compliance program, resolving numerous alleged CWA storm water violations at 23 of its facilities. To date, this is the largest civil penalty ever assessed to a nationwide ready-mixed concrete company for alleged CWA storm water violations. 

Harvesting low-hanging fruit

EPA’s actions can be predicted by its statements and planning activity. During the 2008-2010 planning cycle, EPA stated that it would focus on three main areas of the storm water program, including ready-mixed concrete with crushed stone and sand and gravel operations. Clearly, these industries, and the others who fit into similar operational categories, should be on notice and take action to reduce their risks.

EPA will also look for “big ticket,” high-profile enforcement actions that are press-worthy and involve large civil penalties, costly injunctive relief, pollution mitigation, and expensive supplemental environmental projects. In addition to making a media splash, EPA believes that these types of enforcement actions reduce the rate of non-compliance. 

EPA will also step up the number of inspections and expedite enforcement of CWA violations, focusing on clusters of facilities whose non-compliance is adversely impacting already impaired waters. If your sites are near impaired waters, you should be on notice of increased EPA enforcement risks.

 Finally, EPA will focus on areas previously targeted under its National Priority program. One of EPA’s national priorities is the mineral processing and mining sector. While EPA intended to use the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as its tool for implementing this enforcement priority, in its most recent strategy summary, EPA indicated it will evaluate other tools, including the CWA, to address environmental risks. 

From 2004 to 2007, EPA completed inspections at 20 phosphoric acid facilities, 25 other mineral processing facilities, and five mine sites. Familiarity with the sector as a result of these inspections, combined with EPA’s belief that the “mineral processing and mining sectors generate more wastes that are corrosive or contain toxic metals than any other industrial sector,” indicate that EPA continues to aim enforcement attention on this sector. We predict that information gleaned from previous RCRA inspections, coupled with EPA’s desire to use the CWA for this purpose, will lead to enhanced CWA enforcement in the industrial minerals industry in the near future.

Mitigating enforcement risks

Given the increased enforcement risks, target facilities should make every effort to assure compliance with permitting requirements and institute programs to remain in compliance. 

Operators should engage in a permit compliance assessment, preferably under the direction of counsel, looking back over a minimum of the past five years, in order to gauge the risk of future enforcement action. 

Concurrently, operators should evaluate training programs for employees, focusing on permit compliance, risk mitigation, and crisis management. Personnel should be trained on interacting with regulators who inspect facilities. Inspections by EPA or the state should be taken very seriously, and responses should be planned to mitigate enforcement exposure.

Finally, should your company face enforcement, it is critical to understand the extent of the liability and ways that it can be eliminated, managed, or reduced. These EPA actions require a strategic defense that addresses the potential liabilities and combines tough litigation, when needed, with cooperative agency negotiations and community and congressional assistance to produce sound financial resolutions, improve agency relations, and achieve the goals of environmental protection while protecting good jobs and company value.

Henry Chajet is a partner based at Patton Boggs LLP’s Washington, D.C., office. Chajet may be reached via phone at 202-457-6511 or via e-mail at hchajet@pattonboggs.com. Scott Stewart is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C., office. He may be reached via phone at 202-457-6012 or via e-mail at sstewart@pattonboggs.com.

As I interviewed this year’s AggMan of the Year, Cheryl Ann Suzio (see page xx), she shared a different perspective of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) than the one typically voiced by aggregate producers. She has traditionally welcomed an inspector’s visit to her operation. That certainly caught my attention.

Listening to her recount her largely positive 25 years’ worth of interactions with MSHA reminded me of inspectors I’ve met throughout the years who participate in their local Holmes Association meetings. These inspectors, henceforth referred to as the gray-hairs, earn the mud on their steel-toe boots. They know the companies, equipment, and personnel at the sites they visit. They understand both the regulatory and operational aspects of mining. These inspectors will point out an inefficiency — not issue a citation — and suggest ways to improve the plant process. They also provide information about incident trends, best practices, and sources for additional information. Their visits are beneficial to the mines.

There is, however, a second kind of inspector. These inspectors, the wet-behind-the-ears, can be identified by a surplus of opinion and a deficit of knowledge. Like the school yard bully, they come to the site exuding attitude and looking for a reason to issue paper. To make matters worse, these inspectors don’t acknowledge their lack of experience or consistency. By the end of one of their visits, managers and miners alike are happy to see them leave.

  Unfortunately, it seems that the second type of inspector is beginning to outnumber the first. An October news article by Senior Editor Kerry Clines, “Is MSHA being heavy handed?,” sparked numerous responses from readers who say that, like the Tennessee producers featured in the story, they are facing a steep increase in both the number and value of citations received during recent inspections.

Has poor safety performance led to these increased fines? Not so, says a Washington producer who told Aggregates Manager that one of her sites had received $4,000 in citation-related fines from 2003 to 2008. In 2009, the same site received $25,000 in fines. The company has no accidents in its mining history, uses MSHA resources, conducts mock inspections, and brings in private consultants specifically for advice on regulatory compliance. “Despite these measures, it proves an illusive task to satisfy the whims of each inspector who visits our mines,” a site manager says. “There is just too much subjectivity in the inspection process for us to satisfy each possible inspector’s interpretation of every safety standard.”

It may not be possible to clone the gray-hairs left at MSHA, but it is possible to leverage their experience and expertise to train the next generation. Have these inspectors remind the wet-behind-the-ears what MSHA can and should be. It would not only create more producers who welcome inspectors at their gates, it would ultimately lead to safer operations throughout the nation.

My wife, Pam, reads, critiques, and has veto power over every Carved in Stone article sent to Aggregates Manager. She said the topic of fines is stupefying and hinted that future articles on the subject might end up in the recycling bin.

Because this is my last chance, I have included a list of potential markets for fines. Of course, each use requires fines of specific physical and chemical properties, and not all fines can be marketed for all listed uses.

If you can’t market all your fines, you might want to limit their production. The amount of fines generated during aggregate production is, in part, a function of the mineral composition and texture of the rock. Less energy is generally used to separate individual mineral particles than to break them apart. All other things being equal, blasting and crushing a coarse-grained rock will generate fewer fines than a fine-grained rock.

Similarly, softer minerals break down more easily than harder minerals, and processing rocks with low abrasion resistance produces more fines than rocks with high abrasion resistance. The shape of the fine particles is also influenced by mineralogy. Processing a rock with a high content of flaky or elongated minerals will tend to produce more flaky-shaped fines than processing a rock with equigranular minerals.

Blasting also affects the production of fines. Increasing explosive energy produces smaller feedstock for the primary crusher, resulting in increased productivity and reduced costs for crushing. However, too much fragmentation can generate an excess of fines. Blasting commonly is optimized according to handling and crusher requirements, but could include a marketing strategy for all the products generated, even the fines.

During processing, multiple stages of crushing and screening are commonly used to maintain a relatively low reduction ratio (ratio of particle-size of feed material to particle-size of crusher product), which is more efficient and results in fewer fines being generated at each stage. However, using many stages with low reduction ratios may cumulatively produce more fines than a process using fewer stages with higher reduction ratios.

The generation of fines also depends on the type of crushers and feed rates being used. Impact crushers generally produce more fines (perhaps as much as 25 to 30 percent) than compressive crushers (jaw and cone crushers). Feed rates resulting in rock-on-rock interaction in an impact crusher commonly generate more fines than rock-on-metal interaction. But keep in mind, rock-on-metal interactions cause high wear of crusher components and create different particle shapes than rock-on-rock interactions.

Storage of fines affects the final use. Fines have a very large surface area in relation to the particle size, and the increased surface area sometimes facilitates weathering and chemical alterations to stockpiled material. Fines stored in stockpiles are exposed to the air and may weather differently than those stored in settling ponds. Fines stored in settling ponds are also more difficult to handle and ship than fines that are stored dry. The good news is that, in some situations, fines can be dredged from settling ponds and dried in specially constructed drainage cells, thus allowing them to compete for markets commonly thought only available to dry-stored fines.

I think this stuff is fascinating, but if I bored you with this story about fines, you have my wife to thank. She allowed it — this time.

Author’s Note: Thanks to Terry Lee, of Florida Environmental Dredging, for information on dredging fines from settling ponds.

The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, is subject to a 30-day comment period and approval by the federal court.

Source: U.S. Federal News

by Bill Langer

A funny thing happened at a recent American Kennel Club agility trial. Rosie and I were at the first obstacle waiting for the signal to start. I was trying to psych her up with an excited “Are you ready!?!” I knew the answer was “YES!” But I failed to anticipate Rosie’s enthusiastic response. Next thing I knew, she was two obstacles down the course with me madly running behind yelling out commands for the next obstacles. Actually, it was fun.

The Carved in Stone column in the February 2009 issue of Aggregates Manager described a potential use for massive amounts of limestone fines in a yet-to-be-implemented process called Accelerated Weathering of Limestone (AWL). I began with the question ‘Got fines?’ I knew the answer was “YES!” But, as with Rosie, I failed to anticipate the enthusiastic response. I have received a flurry of requests from folks asking about markets for other kinds of fines, not just limestone fines for some potential futuristic market driven by Accelerated Weathering of Limestone. This column will briefly describe some of the lesser known, ‘green’ applications for fines.

An obvious agricultural application for limestone fines is for liming fields. But fines from some metamorphic or igneous rocks may have value for re-mineralizing soils by providing plants with essential nutrients such as iron, potassium, and magnesium. Applied research into the growth of crops using re-mineralized soils has given varied results. The outcomes of some trials give positive results, and the outcomes of others show no significant change in plant growth rates. Fines have also been used in the manufacture of artificial soils and in composting where they may lower ammonia production during composting and raise composting temperatures.

Cement production requires four major constituents: calcium carbonate, quartz, aluminum, and iron. The cement sector has been conducting research on the use of quarry fines that contain those constituents in cement manufacturing. By utilizing waste fines, cement can be considered a green product. Also, research at the University of Wisconsin has shown that limestone quarry fines and fly ash can be used to produce an effective, low-cost, self-compacting, green concrete, thus replacing the use of Portland cement in certain applications.

Fines might find application in other innovative, eco-friendly products such as green roofs, eco-friendly ‘slate’ roof tiles, and cob buildings.

Green roofs are specially constructed roofs covered with gardens or other plantings. Fines could be used in the soil mixtures, but they must meet specific shape and size distribution parameters for these applications

And speaking of roofs, eco-friendly roofing slate is produced from resin-bonded recycled plastic and dolomite/limestone fines, which serve as a filler material. Other fillers derived from fines might also be suitable for this product, although research is required to determine the suitability of the fines to this application while providing excellent insulation and heat storage properties.

Fines could also be used in earth construction applications such as cob houses. Cob structures are made with straw, dirt, and water mixed together to produce one massive structure, something like adobe, except adobe is made into forms that can be stacked like bricks. When cob dries, it resembles rock or concrete, and when coated with plaster, can withstand significant weathering.

Capturing these markets might not be easy, but…

Are you ready?