If I could have one moment with President Bush, just one conversation about the way he’s running the government, I’d ask him to take one very simple step that would improve the performance of the federal agencies under his control: read the agencies’ pre-existing mission statements and follow them. It ain’t rocket science. In fact, the statements are usually right there on the agency/department website.
Take for example, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration. Their mission statement reads:
The mission of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is to administer the provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) and to enforce compliance with mandatory safety and health standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the frequency and severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards; and to promote improved safety and health conditions in the Nation’s mines. (emphasis mine)
In choosing who to head up this office, Bush only needs to read the mission statement to potential candidates and ask whether they believe they can fulfill that mission. Anyone who has a track record suggesting they don’t believe in that mission should be considered an unwise choice for the job.
Take for example David Lauriski. Back in 1997, as an executive of a mining company, he wanted to allow much* higher levels of coal dust than current federal regulations allow. I assume this would save coal mining companies money. It would also put miners at greater risk of black-lung disease.
It would seem to make sense that anyone willing to put miners at greater risk of black-lung disease might not be an ideal choice to “to promote improved safety and health conditions in the Nation’s mines.” But Bush made Lauriski the head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration anyway.
Now, as the New York Times is reporting, in direct opposition to the MSHA’s mission, Lauriski has revived his higher coal-dust levels idea.
OK, so there’s nothing about the coal-dust standard, per se, in the mission statement. You actually have to look a little further to find the MSHA’s current standard on coal dust. It does seem clear though (and it is the agency’s mission to enforce compliance with those standards):
MINERS (pdf file) HAVE THE RIGHT TO: • Work in an environment where dust levels are kept at or below the legal limits required by MSHA. (emphasis mine)
Those are the options…keep them at the legal limit or BELOW. There’s no “ABOVE” option here. Even a former executive should be able to understand what he’s supposed to be doing for the miners of America with regard to dust levels.
Lauriski insists his plan is not trying to elevate dust levels:
By virtue of the 1977 federal safety act, [Lauriski] explained, MSHA is obligated to stay within the 2 mg/m3 boundary. “There’s no attempt to raise the permissible exposure limit of the rule itself,” Lauriski said.
Read that again carefully. It’s masterful. No attempt to raise the limit of the rule itself. No, rather they want to create ways around the rule. According the the Times report:
Mr. Lauriski’s proposal allows for higher levels of coal dust when companies can prove to regulators that they cannot bring the levels down through “feasible” means, like ventilation or dust suppression. In those cases, miners would be required to wear helmets with built-in respirators to keep air at the two-milligram standard.
But helmets with built-in respirators are not a legal substitute for keeping the dust levels down:
Technology has the potential to shift the debate in a different direction. For high-exposure areas, such as a longwall shearer operator, miners already have access to fresh air respirators, also known as air-stream helmets. The Mine Act, however, specifically states that the ‘use of respirators shall not be substituted for environmental control measures in the active workings.’
And more than that, the current two-milligram standard may still be too high:
Experts including the federal National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have long said that the allowable dust level should be cut in half – from the current standard of no more than two milligrams for each cubic meter of air – to reduce black-lung deaths.
OK, so it gets complicated. But remember this one point: Lauriski, if he’s following the mission statement on his website, should be working to keep levels at or below the recommended levels.
Now Lauriski is not totally politically inept. He’s couching his desire for higher dust levels in terms that sound good for miners. Straight from the Rove Orwellian handbook:
This year you will also see more initiatives in West Virginia to reduce dust levels and prevent lung disease. Our programs have already had positive results – with reducing violations for excessive dust by more than half in a 3-year period.
Clearly more needs to be done. As you know the system for measuring and controlling coal miners’ dust exposure has been essentially the same for 30 years. (Back when Microsoft was a cleaning detergent!)
Industry and labor agreed last year that the personal dust monitor now under development should be the cornerstone of the revised system. We have been working closely with NIOSH in testing prototypes. The in-mine tests have been promising, and we look forward to continuing tests with the production prototype units later this year.
This year, you will also see our continuing effort to remove regulatory barriers to the application of new technologies.
Ahhh, yes, those dastardly regulatory barriers. They foil the ability of former industry insiders to help the workers of the US again and again. Only it ain’t that cut and dry here. All the personal monitoring devices and other technology don’t change that fact that lower levels of dust are better, not only for miners’ health, but also because higher concentrations of dust increase the risk of explosions (pdf file).
That last document is also on Lauriski’s website.
UPDATE: *”much higher levels of coal dust” is unfair. “higher levels” is fair.
I would posit a simplistic summary of Bush philosophy on this one. Since government is inherently evil, anything that lessens its role is good, no matter what. Except for military spending on his friend’s companies.
All those pesky health and safety regulations getting in the way of progress. Or wage laws obstructing productivity.
One of the reasons the Bush/Republican control of government has been a policy disaster is that there is no one on that side of the aisle really thinking about how to make the government run well. Its OK to wreck it since its bad, right?
Hence, runaway deficits and spending, and other bad behaviors like foxes in charge of the hens as with this mine safety example. Yesterday, I watched the Speaker of the House hawking his book on the Meet the Press telling me why this is all OK.
Forgive my ignorance, but why on earth is it good to have requirements for air that the miners won’t be breathing?
Slarti, my guess ism “Because higher concentrations of dust increase the risk of explosions?” My grandad spent several pre-WWII years as a coal miner. Explosions are bad, particularly when you’re underground.
Because respirators are not 100% effective.
The higher the dust concentration in the mine, the more dust a miner is going to inhale, even with proper safety equipment.
And that is just considering lung health. There are plenty of other dangers from coal dust that are far more immediate than silicosis and black lung.
Yeah…the explosion thing. This is what I get for excessive multitasking. I’m guessing that a fresh-air respirator is going to be a whole lot more effective than the filter kind, though.
Still, being an engineer and all, I had to look up the explosive concentration of coal dust. Turns out it’s 0.055 oz/ft^3. 2 milligrams per cubic meter translates to 0.000002 oz per cubic foot. In other words, the limit is four orders of magnitude below the explosive threshold.
So, basically, Lauriski wants to be able to extract coal from places that cannot be feasibly brought under the 2mg/m3 threshold by ventilation or dust suppresion. He proposes that miners should wear respiration equipment so that they will be able to work in those areas.
Now, I am not a mining engineer, but I am a civil engineer. So, I have some familiarity.
From Edinburgh University, http://www.chemeng.ed.ac.uk:
“In general the lowest concentration of dust that can give a dust explosion is around 50-100g/m3 and the maximum is 2-3kg/m3. These limits are dependent on the particular chemical in question and on the particle size distribution. The worst cases are usually when the dust concentration is slightly above the stoichiometric concentration. Upper concentration limits are dictated by the minimum amount of oxygen needed for explosion, lower limits by the minimum quantity of particles needed to sustain a combustion.”
(Note that this for all airborne particulate matter, not just coal.)
I found another source stating that 0.055 oz/ft3 is the low bound for coal dust explosions. This works out to 55.7 g/m3.
We are talking about something in the order of milligrams per cubic metre, so obviously explosions are not an issue.
Perhaps I will find something on concentrations and black-lung disease.
Damn it all. Beaten to the punch.
In other words, the limit is four orders of magnitude below the explosive threshold.
Hff…engineers…what language is that anyway? ;p
Does that mean you need more concentration than 2 milligrams per cubic foot to have an explosion?
Nevermind, Nathan answered my question.
But what remains unanswered is if Lauriski is looking for ways around the 2 milligram/ cubic meter regulation when the mining companies cannot bring the levels down through “feasible” means, is he risking explosions then?
And more importantly, how is doing so in keeping with his mission statement? He’s not supposed to be working for the mining companies now.
Yes. You would need about 50 grams per cubic metre, so about 25000 times that concentration. I think that the real danger here is black-lung, and not explosions.
It may be that a lower concentration would explode if it were exposed to high heat (say 600 C, or so). It would still probably be a bit higher than 2mg/m3, though.
Translate an order of magnitude as “times ten” and you’ll be ok. Thus, four orders of magnitude is roughly 10x10x10x10. If you’re a scientist, you can probably understand engineers, but not necessarily vice versa.
Thanks gents.
So at the current level an explosion is not possible. Good. And unless he’s a monster, it’s safe to assume Lauriski is not advocating letting levels get as high as 50 grams per cubic metre even in his proposed loop holes (no indication in the press either way what he’d prevent it from going beyond). Still, it’s not his job to work for the industry.
I have to say, that was some masterful jujitsu. An open-and-shut case of violating black-letter (heh) law becomes a thread demonstrating that breathable air standards for pollution are orders of magnitude below concentrations necessary to sustain an EXPLOSION (I’m sure my fellow engineers appreciate how horrifying an underground explosion is), and thus that … what, it’s okay to ignore the standards? If the inference is left for the reader, I guess I’m not too quick on the uptake here.
Also, I would take issue with Slartibartfast’s assertion that “miners won’t be breathing” the polluted air. Breathing apparatus is cumbersome and hot, and breathing with a hood or a mouthpiece while attempting heavy physical labor for hours at a time is all but impossible. Breathing apparatus is not a substitute for acceptably clean air for very good reasons.
Mining is terrifically hard work. Endangering miners’ lives and safety for any reason, especially for something like a few bucks’ profit or some coal companies’ political contributions, would IMHO be a first-order moral crime. I would hope that all of us with nice, clean keyboards would agree.
Spent a little time in the crushed stone industry, where MSHA rules.
One quick fix: Rotate the workers so that the limit breakage (it’s PER 8 hours, IIRC) doesn’t harm the workers. Silicosis is some nasty stuff & there are simply some places where you cannot feasibly keep the levels low, so the company need rotate the workers in & out of the areas (with respirators). Not a coverall, but one solution that I’ve seen put in place that is legal & protects the workers.
Finding ways to ease regulations to facilitate the few buck’s profit is paramount to the Lauriski types Bush populates his government with, bleh. One has to assume that’s why they get the jobs.
There is an argument to be made that regulations need to be revised to NOT prohibit technological advances. I just don’t believe that’s the case here. I pondered and researched long and hard before I wrote this whether “regulatory barriers” (the 2 milligram/cubic meter standard) could prevent Lauriski from implementing ANY technology breakthroughs, and I simply can’t see it. He’s simply bullshitting there. His only motivation seems to be to make the industry more money. He’s a US-taxpayer paid lobbyist.
I agree with bleh (hi bleh!) It’s one thing to ask whether or not the law, as currently written, is well-advised, and another to ask whether the agency charged with enforcing it should, well, enforce it. Last time I checked, the body of government charged with changing existing laws was the legislature.
On the other hand, bleh has completely misrepresented nearly everything I said, except for maybe the articles. So much for the moral high ground.
Oookay, there bleh. Relax. Capitalism bad, miners good. I get you.
Seriously, though, I tried to find stats for other countries as a comparison, but it was hard so I gave up. (South Africa appears to have a 3mg/m3 limit.)
2mg/m3 seems to be a reasonable number to me. It may be that the regulations regarding respirators could be amended for certain situations without causing extra risk. I think it a good idea to leave the 2mg/m3 limit alone, though.
So, if using respirators allows the miners to safely extract coal that is presently not feasibly extractable under ventilation or dust suppression, then I think that it benefits all.
So, basically, Lauriski wants to be able to extract coal from places that cannot be feasibly brought under the 2mg/m3 threshold by ventilation or dust suppresion.
Since this wasn’t disputed (too strong a word, but I’m in a hurry) I assume that its an acceptable (to Edward et. al.) paraphrasing of what’s going on, yes? If so, I don’t see how this squares with a desire to simply make the coal industry more profitable.
Maybe its tomAYto tomAHto, but since so much of our power is currently coal generated, and that coal is primarily US-dug, AND, we’d like to increase our dependence on domestic energy sources, isn’t finding a way to safely (for the workers) and inexpensively (for the industry) dig more coal out of our ground a good thing?
Also, before declaring what the law is, it’s best to actually read it first. Although I haven’t done an exhaustive reading (already being exhausted), the following caught my eye:
Upon petition by the operator or the representative of miners, the Secretary may modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary determines that an alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard…
So, sounds as if there are some alternatives allowed. I’d think spraying the whole mess down continuously would be permissible, but working wet isn’t much more fun than working hot.
“Last time I checked, the body of government charged with changing existing laws was the legislature.”
Good God hilzoy! Don’t say things like that! People will confuse you with me and think you are talking about judges. 😉
We don’t have robots that do this for us yet? *scratches head*
Heh, Nathan, I just reread this: It may be that a lower concentration would explode if it were exposed to high heat (say 600 C, or so).
I guess that’d make for an illegal work environment huh? Then again, I just searched the documents for the word “temperature” and it only brought back a couple of references, neither of which mentions a maximum allowable.
So, basically, Lauriski wants to be able to extract coal from places that cannot be feasibly brought under the 2mg/m3 threshold by ventilation or dust suppresion.
Since this wasn’t disputed (too strong a word, but I’m in a hurry) I assume that its an acceptable (to Edward et. al.) paraphrasing of what’s going on, yes? If so, I don’t see how this squares with a desire to simply make the coal industry more profitable.
Not so Crionna. Lauriski would need to concretly define “feasibly” before that would fly. Otherwise this is just another of the Bush administration’s faith-based workarounds. Leaving the industry to “regulate itself” through vaguely applicable loop holes.
Fox watching the hen house metaphors are more than apt here.
C’mon Edward you’re in business. Feasibly means profitably. It sounds to me like there will soon be technology that allows the measurement of dust inhalation by person rather than simply measuring the amount in the ambient environment. It further sounds to me that there is technology that can lower the level of coal dust inhalation by a person to legal levels in areas where the ambient levels are higher than legally allowed. It would then make sense to me that a loophole, or exception, be allowed for mining in areas where the ambient levels of dust are illegally high if the miners are provided with equipment that ensures their level of dust inhalation would be below the legal limit. Finally, it seems that the coal dug under such circumstances might be done so at a profit, adding jobs, proving the efficacy of new technology and increasing the coal production in the US.
I see this as The Administration trying to incorporate the benefits of new technology into the regs where applicable to the gain of labor and industry. You seem to see it as The Administration trying to kill miners.
Probably not the administration, crionna, so much as the administration-as-puppet-of-big-business. You know, Bush has no mind, and has his talking points whispered to him directly from rich industrialists. Whose interests presumably coincide with those of the whisperer, Dick Cheney.
“Good God hilzoy! Don’t say things like that! People will confuse you with me and think you are talking about judges. ;)”
Sebastian: I don’t want to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your head, but I suspect that any differences between us on the subject of judicial activism would turn not on the question whether judges should write laws, but on views about the nature of interpretation (e.g., when, and on what grounds, one should say that a judge stops interpreting an existing law and starts writing a new one.)
“Oookay, there bleh. Relax. Capitalism bad, miners good. I get you.”
Where exactly did bleh say or imply that he thought capitalism was bad?
I think it was right after I made my “masterful jiujitsu” moves. But I could be wrong.
“I don’t want to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your head, but I suspect that any differences between us on the subject of judicial activism would turn not on the question whether judges should write laws, but on views about the nature of interpretation (e.g., when, and on what grounds, one should say that a judge stops interpreting an existing law and starts writing a new one.)”
I’m almost certain that it would. 🙂 But I won’t hijack Edward’s thread to talk about it now, since I’m sure it will come up in a topic sometime soon.
crionna,
I was actually talking out of my (cough) when I said that it could explode at a lower concentration if subjected to high heat. Pure speculation.
I expect that the 50g number is what would explode given a spark or match flame. The important thing for explosions, I believe, is that they require a chain reaction (although I am sure that is the wrong word). So, even if subjected to a large heat source, it may not explode even at 10g/m3.
Oh, and feasibility most definitely does not mean profitability! Well, not exactly.
hilzoy,
I was just joking. bleh made a comment about “a few bucks” and I ribbed him about it. Hence my starting the next paragraph with “Seriously, though, …”.
But on topic, Congress has delegated much of its rule-making authority to administrative agencies–which I suspect is unwise. It appears that this is one such area. Changing this kind of rule (even through the use of respirator exceptions) is probably, if unfortunately, within the delegated authority of Congress as given to the agency, but I would have to locate the founding act to be sure.
Thanks for trying to get this thread back on topic Sebastian, but to be really on topic, I’d like those folks saying “what’s the big deal here?” (Crionna, Nathan, Slartibartfast) to address the appropriateness of Lauriski still working for the mining industry when he’s supposed to be working for the health of the miners.
I’d like those folks saying “what’s the big deal here?” (Crionna, Nathan, Slartibartfast) to address the appropriateness of Lauriski still working for the mining industry when he’s supposed to be working for the health of the miners.
Wait…you mean Lauriski’s still working for the mining industry? That seems a little over-the-top evil, even for the current administration.
But going on what I think you meant by that, it’s certainly a valid point. Consider, though, that perhaps Lauriski’s been petitioned by the mining outfits to give them relief, and he’s given such relief as the law allows. If this sort of thing is outside the intent of the law, maybe the law needs to be updated accordingly.
Consider, though, that perhaps Lauriski’s been petitioned by the mining outfits to give them relief, and he’s given such relief as the law allows. If this sort of thing is outside the intent of the law, maybe the law needs to be updated accordingly.
I’d make it simplier than that. Maybe those in power need to do their jobs in good faith, doing what we pay them to do. Lauriski’s responsibilities are crystal clear. He is no way empowered to act in the interests of the mining companies. He is empowered to act in the interest of the miners. He’s abusing his power.
He is no way empowered to act in the interests of the mining companies.
Ah, but he is empowered to consider (and act on) petitions, as evidenced by the text of the law I cited above. Again, if you think it’s inappropriate for one guy to make these decisions, it might be a good argument for a change in the law. I mean, if you suspect that the administration’s stacked the deck against the average worker, probably the first thing to do is make it so that can never happen again, no?
I disagree that the current law enables him to do this, Slarti. Let’s look at it:
Current law states that “use of respirators shall not be substituted for environmental control measures in the active workings.” So even if petitioned (and let’s face it, Lauriski wanted to increase the levels before he was appointed, so it’s not like we’re talking about a disinterested party here), he must tell the operators “no.”
Sehr interessant:
So, respirators are allowed, when environmental control measures fail to keep dust below the required maximum. Is it your contention that Lauriski is proposing dispensing with dust control altogether?
Slarti,
I read that to mean that operators have to have respirators on hand in case of an UNEXPECTED elevation in the dust levels. The second line is clear enough to me:
Use of respirators shall not be substituted for environmental control measures in the active workings.
I see nothing here suggesting respirators are “allowed”…rather that in cases where the dust levels (one assumes only temporarily) exceed the legal limits, respirators are MANDATORY equipment.
Use of respirators shall not be substituted for environmental control measures in the active workings.
Keyword: substituted. There’s nothing that says respirators and environmental control measures cannot be used in tandem. It’s pretty clear that respirators instead of environmental control measures, though, is strictly out.
Again, I know squat about mining, which includes regulation thereof. I suspect you’re at a similar level of knowledge. If you think there’s something going on here that’s outside of the charter for the government agency in question, write your congresscritter and let them know.
Fair enough Edward, I see your point. However, it reminds me of a scene from Black Hawk Down. Sgt. Eversman is taking some ribbing from his soldiers about being an idealist and believing in the Somalia mission. One soldier says “I believe I was trained to fight. Were you trained to fight Sgt.?” The Sgt. replies, “Well, I believe I was trained to make a difference.”.
As you say, He is no way empowered to act in the interests of the mining companies. He is empowered to act in the interest of the miners. Isn’t finding ways to increase the number of safe mining jobs working in the interest of miners?
Isn’t finding ways to increase the number of safe mining jobs working in the interest of miners?
Do you think that was Laruiski’s objective when he advocated higher levels of coal dust back in 1997, back before the technology he’s touting now wasn’t as advanced as it now? He’s only interested in finding miners new jobs?
Puh-leaze.
Nathan, Oh, and feasibility most definitely does not mean profitability! Well, not exactly.
Heh. That’s for sure.
Do you think that was Laruiski’s objective…
Inciting others to mind-read. 5-yard penalty.
Inciting others to mind-read. 5-yard penalty.
Come on Slarti. He was an executive in a mining company. It’s not mind reading. If he were even remotely competent at what he did, that would have been his objective, no? I appreciate giving people the benefit of doubt, but you’re do so to a fault here.
Edward, it sounds to me like, in 1997, respirator technology was advanced enough to assumably allow work in higher ambient dust level environments. He supported that. However, no one could be sure it was safe because of the lack of the personal inhalation detectors that are now in the prototype stage. So, the technology that is available only now, is not the technology that allows miner safety (although it presumably has as well), but rather the technology that proves the level of safety.
I don’t believe that advocating mining in dangerous areas with the proper safety gear but without the ability to prove worker safety (although firefighters seem to have proven respirators’ value by 1997) is support for killing miners for profit. Nor do I believe that seeing an opportunity to help both sides of an industry and working to make changes that would bring about those benefits is out of the purview of his job.
And Darn, here I’m saying things like “both sides of an industry” when mgmt. and labor are in it together. You’re a divider Edward, not a uniter ;P
The manufacturer of the respirators in question (!) and super-libertarian Juan Non-Volokh (!!!) are on Edward’s side:
what the hell just happened?
here is relevant link, and here is the relevant quote:
Interesting. It’s an gut-feel, rather than an evidenced argument, but still…Edward, that’s what a compelling argument looks like. Take note.
Go Nemo!
Let me be really clear here though. I don’t object to government finding good solutions to environmental or health hazards that are also pro-business. I think that’s government working at its very best.
What I think is problematic is government that walk, talks, and acts just like the industry lobbyists. The lobbyists are already doing everything they can to get government to make pro-business changes. The government MUST be advocates for the people.
Lauriski wanted the higher levels back in 1997. He’s not looking for ways to improve miners’ working conditions on this one. And that’s his first responsibility.
Let the lobbyists do their part…convince the lawmakers to change the law so businesses can make more money. Make MSHA and other agencies created to protect the workers do their part…protect the workers. If both sides are pulling for industry, the workers lose out.
Edward, that’s what a compelling argument looks like. Take note.
Doctor, heal thyself! ;p
Hey, no fair holding me to the same standards I hold you to.
8/°°°°°°°
Let me give y’all an occupational medicine point of view: respirators are much harder to fit properly than one might think, and there are a lot of factors which affect there use. One example: for any respirator to work as designed, the wearer must be clean shaven. Two days of stubble (let alone a full beard) make it impossible to get a good seal.
are much harder to fit properly than one might think
Which is why I’m sure the law states that “Use of respirators shall not be substituted for environmental control measures in the active workings.”
I’ll have you know that I had to rein myself in quite firmly to keep from posting something truly bestial, inspired by JKC‘s last sentence.
License granted…(it’s my thread, I can delete it if it’s too bestial)…curious minds and all, ya know…
“The lobbyists are already doing everything they can to get government to make pro-business changes. The government MUST be advocates for the people.”
Hmm, I’ll agree with you on practically everything on this post but I don’t like this formulation. It depends on what you mean by people, but my general theory on government is that it should try to strike the best balance it can against various competing interests. Generally it should not be an advocate for one side or another.
It depends on what you mean by people, but my general theory on government is that it should try to strike the best balance it can against various competing interests. Generally it should not be an advocate for one side or another.
Fair enough. I’ll restate. MSHA MUST be advocates for the miners. That’s their entire raison d’etre.
If Lauriski’s plan back in 1997 had any inkling of a benefit for the miners’ health, then I’d budge on this. But his job now is to enforce compliance with the Mine Act. If he can do that in ways that also benefit business, more power to him. But this is an instance where a pre-desired change in regulations is now being spun as good for the miners’ health, and I just can’t see how it is.
Of course Lauriski is gutting miner health and safety. You don’t think the Senator from Kentucky, who owes his high donor mine industry buddies, would let his wife, the labor secretary, put anyone else in charge of regulating mines. Golly! Besides, if David Laursiki can walk away from his role as the cause of 27 miners being killed at the Wilberg Mine, and then have the audacity to give media interviews saying that he didn’t work for the company then (despite his name and title of safety manager on the accident report) then he can get away with anything. He should run for president next.