Citation Details

Back to citations

Section: 46.9b3
Date: 10/26/2010
District: NC
Negligence: Moderate
Injury or Illness: No Likelihood
Injury or illness could be expected to be: No Lost Workdays
Significant and Substantial: No

Condition or Practice: The mine name is not properly documented on the 5 annual refresher training
records reviewed for this site. The company name is documented instead. This
standard requires the mine name and not the company name.

Action to Terminate: None

Why this concerns you: This represents a change in the criteria
for preparing refresher training
records. Also, the name appearing on
the training records has nothing to do
with the physical safety of miners.

Abatement Suggestions From Industry

We received the same citation a couple of weeks ago. I asked how that would help keep anyone safe and was told that the special attention given to this standard was a result of a peer review among supervising inspectors from several field offices. He also said it was in our best interest to have this correct as it would help the operators in the eventuality of a special investigation. Many of our people 'float' from crew to crew so I asked what ID to use to which he responded that it didn't matter.
- posted on 10/27/2010

Professional miners in rural locations support production at numerous locations. This fact can cross MSHA jurisdiction as well as state boundries. Site hazard awareness for each location is done but documented at the location. Annual refresher training has typically been attached to the company name, not locations. The world must be all wrong and one inspector has decided to save us from ourselves...
- posted on 10/27/2010

I obviously agree that this is a bogus citation that helps to keep no one safe. We in the MNM mining field have done a great job at keeping our plants safe and compliant so now the MSHA is nit-picking. Also, moderate negligence seems a bit far reaching, even for a bogus citation. I think that there is more of a likely hood of getting injured from a paper cut from correcting the records then there is receiving an injury due to the wording.
- posted on 10/27/2010

Unfortunately, we must all pay attention to exactly what these standards say and where there is specific direction, unlike most of the performance oriented standards, follow it to the letter. The company appears to have been in error and their criteria should be changed to match what the standard literally says. In this time of increased scrutiny and enforcement, we must really be sure to dot our "i"s and cross our "t"s.

Thanks for sharing this citation as we can all look at this as "Enforcement Education".

- posted on 10/27/2010

We too have had issues with this. I don't agree with MSHA on this. We also train miners that help on multiple locations. If any injury would come from this it might be in the form of a papercut!
- posted on 11/04/2010

I have clients who have also been cited (related issue) for not having a specific mine ID on their training plan, when it is used to train employees who work at multiple portable plants. This was never an issue before but has now arisen - and been rated "high" negligence - in the midwest. I have all of the citations under contest and will let you know how we fare in disputing these. Obviously, these clerical issues have no bearing on miner safety but do generate revenue for the agency and brownie points for the issuing inspectors!
Adele L. Abrams Esq., CMSP
- posted on 10/29/2010

Along with this increased enforcement, we should remember that part 46 requires that the LENGTH of training be placed on the training document/form. If you use the standard MSHA 5000-23, there is no place for the class length to be noted. Despite years of practice allowing the 5000-23 to sub for a training doc, it does not literally meet the criteria in part 46, unless you put on the form, somewhere, the class time/length/hours trained.

Don't be surprised if this isn't the next citation somewhere, in order to keep the quota filled.
- posted on 11/04/2010

When we were inspected (2007 inspection) and our paper work for the annual training was looked at, they happened to look at one (out of a total of 36) that I forgot to write in "8 hours". This cost us $100.00, probably because of the potential of someone getting hurt or even death due to not having "8 hours" on their paper work. Since I was using an MSHA form and there is not a place for "hours", it's sort of "out of sight out of mind". But for an inspector it's, we'll get them, we won't put a place for hours on our form then write them up for not marking down the hours in the place not provided.
- posted on 11/05/2010

Post a Comment

We have provided a place where you can post your professional comment or add additional information regarding this citation. Before doing so, please read the following guidelines:

Be nice!
If you are angry, step back and take a breath.

Post like you are talking to someone face-to-face. Better yet, post it like your mother is going to read it.

Don't discuss anything that might be construed as restraining trade. Nothing about boycotts and we certainly don't want to read about the price of rock.

Be honest!
Keep it factual. There is absolutely no need to exaggerate; some citations are hard enough to believe as is. Mine safety is important and those who visit the site must be able to rely on posts being accurate.

We review all posts
Sorry, but all posts come to us first. We want this site to be effective, and we want you to use it. The site can only be effective if it is legal and professional. If we get something that isn't both, we won't post it. None of us want that to happen.

No Guarantees
Anyone who has been a mine safety professional for long knows what one inspector approves, another may consider a violation. As much as we would like to, we cannot guarantee any solution offered here will work for your situation. We certainly hope what others have done provides helpful ideas, but we aren't willing to bet the farm on it passing an inspection and you shouldn't either.

Your name and email will not be shown when you post your comment. We ask for these fields because it helps us identify association members and keeps spam off the website.

Your Name

Your Email

Member Of



Any comments or opinions shown on this website reflect the views and opinions of the individuals or organization who posted them and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the parties sponsoring or supporting this website. The sponsors are not responsible for the content of any comment posted on this website.