Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
Where MSHA fell short, how it fell short
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

At MSHA headquarters

* Did not have a standard process for its district offices to approve and review roof control plans

* Did not give district managers criteria to determine if submitted data was valid and to conduct risk assessments

* Was not required to approve "standard operating procedure" guidelines established by individual district offices

* Has not required mines to use computer models developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to evaluate pillar stability

* Did not have a mechanism to receive mine inspection reports from the Bureau of Land Management

At Denver district office

* Could not show it exercised care in reviewing Crandall Canyon's roof control plan; no evidence that 12 of 20 points in standard operating plan were followed

* No evidence MSHA reviewed plan as mine conditions changed over time

* Relied on roof control supervisor's knowledge and experience with retreat mining and did not document the specific criteria used to approve Crandall Canyon's plan

* Could not show the mine operator gave miners required instruction about roof control plans

* Local MSHA inspectors say their input not sought on Crandall Canyon roof control changes

* Assistance not sought from roof control specialists at MSHA's technical support center

* Did not pay attention to available seismic information about "bumps" in Utah's coal country

At Price field office

* Inspectors failed to document the work they performed in regular inspections and the basis for their conclusions regarding safety measures.

* Inspectors did not visit area of North barrier pillar damaged by March "bump," limiting their knowledge of roof control plan's effectiveness in approving work in south pillar

Recommendations

* Develop a rigorous and transparent process for approving, implementing and periodically assessing roof control plans

* Establish criteria for judging the safety of proposed plans

* Conduct a new review of all existing roof control plans

* Create policy governing when nonrescue personnel, such as television camera crews, can be on site during rescue effort

Source: Inspector general's report, U.S. Department of Labor

Article Tools

 
Affiliates and Partners