MSHA CHIEF JOE MAIN ANNOUNCES NEW INITIATIVE TO BEGIN IN MARCH 2010

Jolliff Named 2010 MASC President
Matt P. Jolliff was recently named 2010 President of the Mining Association of South Carolina (MASC). He was born in Wilson, NC and spent his childhood in Kenly, NC. Jolliff graduated from North Johnston High School, attended NC State University and Wayne Community College where he earned a degree in Forest Resource Technology. Upon graduation he went to work with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources as a forest ranger for three years. Jolliff then worked for Georgia Carolina Timber Company as a procurement forester for eight years. In 1988 he started in the aggregate business in green field exploration for Carolina Sunrock Corp. That position quickly worked into a sales position which he held for five years. In June of 1993 he became General Manager of GS Materials. In April of 1995 Jolliff returned to aggregate sales and joined the Hanson Aggregates sales team with responsibilities in the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, and Fayetteville North Carolina markets. In March of 1999 he moved to Greer, SC to assume the position of South Carolina Area Sales Manager for Hanson Aggregates with responsibilities for sales and quality control.

Jolliff has served on the board of directors for the Triangle chapter of the Professional Construction Estimators Association where he earned the Order of the Isosceles for service. He is a Past President of the SC Transportation Policy and Research Council and was the first Chairman of the South Carolina Alliance to Fix Our Roads (SCFOR). He is past Chairman of the Aggregate Committee for MASC and serves on the Suppliers Committee representing aggregates for the AGC. He is a member of Taylors First Baptist Church and has been married to Jo Dee for thirty two years. Matt and Jo Dee have two children, Bryan and Jackie and a grandson William. His hobbies include golf, hunting, sporting clays and music.

Other officers elected by the Mining Association of South Carolina were: President-Elect, David Risner, Martin Marietta Aggregates, Columbia, SC; Vice President, Joe McFalls, Holcim, Holly Hill, SC; Secretary, John Bratton, Wake Stone Corp., Knightdale, NC; and Treasurer, Jim Holmes, U.S. Silica Co., W. Columbia, SC; and Immediate Past President, Roy Duckett, Rio Tinto, Ridgeway, SC.

[Top]

REGISTER TODAY...For the “Largest Mining Industry Gathering in the State of S.C.”
MASC is pleased to announce that "early registration discount period" for the 2010 MASC Workshop has been EXTENDED until Friday, February 19, 2010...If you have not registered for the 2010 MASC Workshop now is the time! Prime spaces are going quickly! Please visit www.scmines.com for registration information and register today!

If you have questions, please contact the MASC Office at 803.772.5354, 800.438.7106 or via e-mail at chrissmith@as-irmo.com. You can also contact Doug Larson, MASC Workshop Committee Chairman at 864.968.1310 or via e-mail at doug.larson@hanson.com

We appreciate the support your company has been making to the mining industry in South Carolina. And again, we hope you will seriously consider being a part of this unique upcoming event. We are confident it is the right forum for you to build on your relationships with the SC mining community, and to explore additional business opportunities. [Top]

MSHA CHIEF JOE MAIN ANNOUNCES NEW INITIATIVE TO BEGIN IN MARCH 2010
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, Joe Main, has not wasted any time outlining his new initiatives for the New Year. The initiatives include a new program entitled Prevent Fatalities – Rules to Live By. MSHA recently completed an analysis of mining deaths that occurred from 2000 through 2008. They identified the most common violations of safety standards and conditions that contributed to the fatalities. As a result, Rules to Live By is intended to strengthen the effort to reduce mine fatalities, using a two-phase approach: industry outreach and enhanced enforcement. MSHA wants to improve on the already record low of 34 fatalities in the industry in 2009.

In the first phase, MSHA will provide details of their fatal accident research to every mine operator, labor organization, and state training grantees. Their website will have a “Single Source” page that will provide training and compliance assistance materials.

The second phase will focus upon specific workplace conditions and practices that have historically contributed to fatalities through the use of “enhanced enforcement”. As a result of their recent analysis of mining fatalities, 13 metal/nonmetal standards are to be targeted for “enhanced enforcement” by inspectors. They are:

1. 56.9101 – Operating speeds and control of equipment (operator not maintaining control of equipment while in motion and operating speeds not consistent with the conditions);

2. 56.12017 – Work on power circuits (circuits not de-energized before work beings on circuit and switches not locked out or other measures taken to prevent power circuits from being energized without knowledge of individuals working on them);

3. 56.14101(a) – Brake performance (service breaks not capable of stopping and holding equipment with typical load on maximum grade it travels, parking brakes not capable of holding equipment with typical load on maximum grade it travels, and a brake system component not maintained in a functional condition);

4. 56.14105 – Procedures during repairs or maintenance (machinery or equipment not blocked against motion during repairs or maintenance, equipment not effectively de-energized, and persons not protected against hazardous motion during testing or adjustments);

5. 56.14130(g) – Seat belts shall be worn by equipment operators (failure to wear seatbelts while operating mobile equipment);

6. 56.14131(a) – Seat belts shall be provided and worn in haul trucks (seatbelts not worn when operating or riding in haul truck);

7. 56.14205 – Machinery, equipment, and tools used beyond design (using machinery, equipment, or tools beyond design capacity intended by manufacturer);

8. 56.14207 – Parking procedures for unattended equipment (mobile equipment left unattended and controls not placed in park position, provided parking brake not set, and mobile equipment parked on grade and wheels/ tracks are not chocked or turned into a bank);

9. 56.15005 – Safety belts and lines (persons not wearing fall protection when exposed to fall hazard);

10. 56.16002(c) – Bins, hoppers, silos, tanks, and surge piles (persons entering bins, tanks, hoppers or surge piles not wearing fall protection where there is fall hazard, a second person not provided to tend lifeline, persons entering bins and hoppers when flow of materials has not ceased and/or supply and discharge equipment not locked out, and safe access in and around working areas not provided);

11. 56.16009 – Persons shall stay clear of suspended loads (persons failing to stay clear of suspended loads);

12. 56.20011 – Barricades and warning signs (barricades or warning signs not posted at all approaches where health or safety hazards exist that are not immediately obvious); and

13. 57.3360 – Ground support use (necessary ground support not designed, installed, and maintained in areas where persons work or travel).

In addition, MSHA will provide training to all inspectors regarding these priority standards, reminding them to “carefully evaluate the gravity and negligence” of violations. MSHA anticipates that the enhanced enforcement will begin on March 15, 2010. This means increased scrutiny for violations of these standards, with the likely result of increased penalties, increased negligence, and more significant and substantial violations. Unfortunately, violations of these standards will result in special assessments.

All operators are encouraged to spend additional time with employees to discuss this new MSHA initiative, including providing refresher courses, in order to avoid any unnecessary citations and orders. MSHA will provide two public outreach meetings for the general public on the new initiatives – one in Austin, Texas on February 11, and one in Charleston, West Virginia on February 12.

This article was authored by the following two MASC Members:

Jason M. Nutzman
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
300 East McBee Avenue Suite 500
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Phone: 864.240.2430
Fax: 864.240.2498
jason.nutzman@smithmoorelaw.com

Scott Hartness CMSP
Business Safety Services, Inc.
PO Box 2182
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Phone: 252.903.0718
Fax: 888.332.6828
scott@businesssafetyservices.com

Jason M.Nutzman & Scott Hartness, CMSP. February, 2010.

[Top]

Court’s Ruling Aids Wetlands
The S.C. Supreme Court dealt a smashing blow to developers who have tried for years to overturn state rules that safeguard coastal freshwater wetlands from unchecked development. The decision, much anticipated by environmentalists and developers, overturns a 2008 lower-court verdict that declared invalid state rules protecting freshwater wetlands along the coast. If the Supreme Court had upheld the lower court decision, potentially hundreds of thousands of acres of freshwater wetlands would have been open for development without state oversight. Conservationists cheered Monday’s decision, saying it’s an important victory for the plants, wildlife and wetlands that define South Carolina’s Lowcountry. "This has been a cloud hanging over coastal wetlands and coastal resources in general for nearly 10 years now,’’ Pawleys Island lawyer Jimmy Chandler said. "We finally put this argument to rest.’’ Chandler said the Supreme Court decision reinforces protections for all freshwater wetlands on the coast, but it is particularly significant for isolated depressions.

Isolated wetlands have been largely without federal protection in South Carolina since a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling curtailed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ authority. The ruling left state regulators with the only authority to limit or stop development in the soggy depressions - but that authority has been under attack. Since 2001, developers from Beaufort to Myrtle Beach have raised questions about the state’s coastal law and South Carolina’s authority. But the case decided Monday is the only one to reach the S.C. Supreme Court. Chandler’s co-counsel, Amy Armstrong, called the decision "the most significant and far-reaching’’ their office had handled in years. "It affects literally hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands that are not protected under federal rules.’’ Stan Barnett, a lawyer for a business group that had challenged state authority, said he has little choice but to accept the Supreme Court decision. While isolated wetlands are considered important to wildlife, they also can get in the way of new development that businesspeople say helps the economy. "The Supreme Court in this state is the last word,’’ Barnett said. "I’m disappointed.’’ Despite the ruling, developers can still get permission to build in isolated wetlands - but only after review and approval from the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. Monday’s Supreme Court decision allows DHEC to continue oversight. The agency can turn down a developer’s request or require a change in plans.

Unlike river swamps and salt marshes, isolated wetlands aren’t directly connected to streams, lakes or the ocean. Many are fed by groundwater or rainfall and are rich in plants and wildlife. Black bears, for instance, are attracted to isolated wetlands near Myrtle Beach to feed on the succulent berries that grow there. Carolina bays, rare oval-shaped depressions found almost exclusively in South Carolina, are among the types of isolated wetlands in the coastal plain. South Carolina has 300,000 to 400,000 acres of isolated wetlands, most of which are in the coastal plain. At issue before the S.C. Supreme Court was a company’s development plans for 62 acres at Murrells Inlet, at least half of which includes isolated wetlands. The state Department of Health and Environmental Control had denied a storm water permit for the work, but that was overturned by the S.C. Administrative Law Court after the development company appealed. Spectre LLC was preparing the land for future commercial development.

Administrative Law Judge John McLeod said the state coastal-management program was not valid because it had not been through the proper procedures to regulate coastal development. The state could not use the coastal management program to deny permits in isolated freshwater wetlands, the court said. McLeod also said federal rules did not apply because the wetlands were isolated. But Monday, the Supreme Court said McLeod had erred and it upheld the state coastal-management rules as valid. The Supreme Court said the coastal program was approved by the Legislature, making it a legal way to regulate wetlands at the state level.

The S.C. Supreme Court case does not affect salt marshes, which are protected by a separate state permitting program, or isolated wetlands in the state’s interior, where state rules are different than on the coast. DHEC, the S.C. Wildlife Federation, the Coastal Conservation League and the League of Women Voters had appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Last October, the court heard arguments in the case. "DHEC is pleased with the state Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling upholding the validity of our coastal-management program,’’ DHEC spokesman Thom Berry said. "This complete and important victory in the Spectre case will allow DHEC to continue to implement regulations and policies to guide the reasonable use and protection of our resources.’’

SAMMY FRETWELL, sfretwell@thestate.com.February, 2010.

[Top]

Permits Drag on U.S. Mining Projects
Despite having vast reserves, the U.S. remains a major importer of metals and minerals.

Obtaining the permits and approvals needed to build a mine in the U.S. takes an average of seven years, among the longest wait time in the world. So despite having vast underground stores of raw materials, the U.S. is one of the last places miners go to start a project.

At the proposed Kennecott Eagle nickel mine in Michigan's sparsely populated Upper Peninsula, the wait is at seven years and growing. Global miner Rio Tinto says the project would fill a raw-material gap in the U.S. economy, but the company has yet to produce an ounce of nickel there.