Root Cause Analysis and OSHA Requirements - Coursework Example

Student’s name) (Course code+name) (Professor’s name) (University name) Table of Contents 1.0.Introduction 3 2.0.Analysis of the root causes linked to OSHA laws and requirements 3 3.0.Legal requirements and legal opinion on compliance with standards, codes or regulations 5 4.0.Conclusion 6 5.0.Reference Lists 8 1.0. Introduction Most of mining disasters in the U.S. have claimed many lives and as earlier noted; Centralia Mining Disaster occurred that occurred on March 25, 1947 was not exceptional. In as much, even the architectures have not been able to predictably give control measures to avert such disasters (Nieto et al., 2008). It is for this reason that Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) laws and requirements are of importance to bring forward resurgent efforts that can help in controlling some of the mining disasters. 2.0. Analysis of the root causes linked to OSHA laws and requirements According to U.S. Mine Rescue Association (2003) report, “The cause of explosion was as a result of under burdened blown out shot ignited coal dust.” (p.13) Owing to this, part 1910.95 OSHA Standard was contravened by the management. This part requires that building be having hearing conversation and abide by general awareness regarding different level of noises that can be met in the environment. This is also in tandem with the strategy first held where stakeholders ought to have done rock dusting as the control measure. This strategy is supported in Article VI of Coal and Rock Dust, Section 1a-Coal. On the other hand, heavy deposits of coal dust were present along the roadways and on the roof, ribs and timber in working places and entries. Linking it to OSHA requirement, reluctance and negligence are some of the major root causes of the Centralia Mining Disaster. That is, 1910.28(a) of the standard agitates for requirements for all scaffolds. This is related to earlier given strategy where there was a need to enact pertinent mine safety legislations that are specific to the problem. In as much, OSHA requirement differs with this strategy under 1910.28(a) (2) where it is required that there should be maximum intended load in such mining sites so as to avoid displacement or settling. Most of States and Federal agencies never responded to reports that had been released to them by the inspectors showing a sign of negligence (NIOSH, 2001). The death of 111 men that occurred in Centralia Mining Disaster was a direct influence of the leaders but not on individuals’ error. This resulted to the violation of OSHA’s requirement of Hazard Communication under part 910.1200. To elaborate of this strategy, OSHA opines that there should be mechanisms of informing and workers when there are new hazards and make information to the site-specific exposure such as labelling (Part 910.1200 (h)(2)(ii)). Ironically, Centralia Mines did not take the report seriously and continued to work in oblivion. In addition, in November 1944, Mr. William Rowekamp; UMWA Local 52 recording secretary also sent a warning to several mining sites including Centralia about the violation of the Mining regulation (Nieto et al., 2008). Worker behaviour in mine emergencies is the other strategy that was considered and has been highlighted differently under OSHA regulations. One of such behaviours is the complexity workers find when trying to mitigate the disaster as well as complex decision making as they attempt to escape. OSHA Standard under part 1910.132 when read through to 138 requires that workers be made aware of protective devices in what it terms as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The existing difference between the strategy provided and the OSHA’s is that OSHA requires updated services and training as there are changes in the types of PPE. 3.0. Legal requirements and legal opinion on compliance with standards, codes or regulations The first is the Respiratory Protection Requirement (Part 1910.134 of OSHA). To opine on this, miners were supposed to have been furnished with skills on respiratory protection to enable them to understand the respiratory protection methods so to comply with this part. This law requires miners to have an understanding of importance of wearing respirators and loss of oxygen. The miners would have also benefited from the program of exercise on Air Supplying Respirators. To ensure that the miners comply with this requirement, it should be put as perquisite for hiring them to work in the mines sites. It should be made mandatory to the owners of the mines to employ only those whom have undergone specifics training in respiratory hazards as also required by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Nieto et al., 2008). As a lawyer, it should be essential for the introduction of Personal Protective Equipment as enshrined under part part 1910.132 through 138. This requirement is relevant to the Centralia Mining Disaster since it allows the miners to acquire skills on head, hand and foot protection. The Mine Safety and Health Administration of the U.S Department should always carry out hazard assessment to ensure that all the mines meet this standard. This requirement can be connected with general safety and emergency procedures under part 190.38 of OSHA requirements where workers are made aware of radiation dangers and need for proper escape routes. Process Safety Management (PSM) is another relevant requirement to Centralia Mining Disaster. The requirement aims at ensuring that the workers are trained on the emergency action plans and management of change (Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act). These skills would be of relevance to the disaster by making the workers aware of the looming dangers as had been reported by the inspectors. Safety Management should be a pre-requisite training to employment as a mine worker. Excavation, Trenching and Shoring requirement; this requirement is meant to provide skills on excavations and the dangers associated with the cave-ins as well as the protective mechanisms (Feldman, 2008). In Centralia Mining, an understanding of this requirement would have created an immensely in averting some of the dangers. The trenching and shoring tools should be easily accessed and their working conditions should be good. Lastly, the employer is required by OSHA to keep all the records of safety and health as documents to evidence of compliance with the standards. It is worth pointing out that effective compliance can result to fewer illnesses and injuries. It can also boost the morale of workers. 4.0. Conclusion In conclusion, OSHA standards have been useful in controlling disasters in various fields. Some of the practical areas where OSHA standards have been applied are discussed below. Vis Insurance Company in Iceland used OSHA law to promote Safety and Health among the staff. The company introduced health promotion; safety and a feeling of well-being at work .Surveys were conducted periodically, and follow ups made through training which emphasised professional development to improve on the areas of weaknesses. Consequently, the company realised a positive culture at the workplace, satisfied staff, better working conditions and improved response to emergencies (Philip, 1999). Erste Bank of Austria also applied the OSHA laws to help in adjusting the working conditions of employees towards retirement through a LIFETIME program. Through this program trainings were organised aimed at increasing workers motivation and to reduce stress at various stages. The result of the program best exemplified in older employees who were able to positively change their attitudes to work. This study finds that some of the strategy adopted to control mining disasters conforms to the requirements or Standards of the OSHA but with slight differences. For instance, this study notes that individuals and managers should have a part to play so as to avert crises while OSHA Standards is keen on the managers. 5.0. Reference Lists Feldman, J (2008). “OSHA Enforcement Landing Page” Public citizen, Retrieved 2012. Martin, J.B. (2000). The blast in Centralia No. 5: A mine disaster no one stopped. In R.J. Stillman, Public administration concepts and cases (7th ed.), pp. 31-45. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act), Pub. L. No. 108 236 (S 2803) (June 15, 2006). MSHA. (2006a). Accident, illness and injury, and employment self-extracting files (part 50 data). http://www.msha.gov/stats/part50/p50y2k/p50y2k.htm Accessed September 2009. Nieto, A. and Duerksen, A. (2008).The effects of mine safety legislation on mining technology in the USA. Int. J Mining and Mineral Engineering 1(1): 95-103. NIOSH. (2001). Mining disasters. Washington, DC: Author, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved Oct. 24, 2003, from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/data Philip, L.C (1999). Understanding OSHA’s “Multi-employer Citation Policy” on Construction Projects. Elsevier Press U.S. Mine Rescue Association (2003). Historical data on mine disasters in the United States.’ Retrieved Oct. 27, 2003, from http://www.usmra.com/saxsewell/historical.htm Read More