Lawmaker’s coal mine was cited
Updated throughout at 5:30 p.m.
By John Cheves – jcheves@herald-leader.com
State Rep. Keith Hall, D-Phelps
State inspectors last year cited and shut down a small coal mine near Pikeville for not having a mine emergency technician on duty, in violation of a mine-safety law requiring at least two METs whenever coal is being produced.
That mine was owned by state Rep. Keith Hall, D-Phelps, who is now using his political clout to attack the law, calling it unreasonably tough.
Hall’s House Bill 119, awaiting a House floor vote, would cut from two to one the number of METs required at coal mines that employ fewer than 18 people, as his does. METs are miners trained for free by the state to provide on-site medical care to their colleagues in case of an accident. The legislature added the two-MET minimum in 2007 after a series of miner deaths.
Hall is president and owner of Beech Creek Coal Co., which owns the underground coal reserves at Mine #1 in Phelps currently being mined on contract by Kimara Coal Co. (Another lawmaker, House Majority Leader Rocky Adkins, D-Sandy Hook, is a paid consultant to Beech Creek Coal, offering Hall advice about coal markets.)
It was Kimara that the state Office of Mine Safety and Licensing cited and shut down at 9:50 a.m. last Aug. 19 for not having an MET or a foreman on the property while coal was produced inside the mine, according to state records.
About two hours later, a foreman and two METs arrived at the mine, so the problem was considered resolved, according to state records. There is no reference in those records to any penalties being issued. The Office of Mine Safety and Licensing on Monday declined to provide more information.
In an interview Monday, Hall confirmed that Kimara was mining his coal when it was cited, but said that it would be unfair to blame him for the actions of his contractor. However, the incident does prove how hard it is for small mines to reliably find two of the state’s 4,565 certified METs to work on a crew at any given time, Hall said.
“This has been a real hardship for my constituents in Pike County, the several, several coal operators who have talked to me about this,” Hall said. “What I hope to achieve is not to diminish safety but to make room in our legislation for the small mine operators that don’t have 50, 100, 250 or 300 miners.”
Kimara co-owner John Biliter said Mine #1 employs seven or eight miners per shift. Kimara was at a disadvantage the morning inspectors arrived because one MET didn’t come to work and the other — who was also the foreman — abruptly quit and left, Biliter said. Usually, Kimara respects the law and stops mining when it can’t find two METs, which is an all too common obstacle, he said.
“At Phelps, we probably miss about four or five days a month because we don’t have METs,” Biliter said. “It makes it real difficult.”
Mine-safety advocates, who are fighting coal-industry efforts to weaken the two-MET rule, said it’s disgraceful that Hall has associated himself with scofflaw mining.
“I think Mr. Hall clearly has a conflict of interest here. He needs to drop this nonsense and pull this bill,” said Steve Earle, a United Mine Workers of America representative in Kentucky
“Obviously this is a coal company that puts production ahead of miners’ safety,” Earle said. “Those sorts of companies should not be in business. This is exactly why we need strong safety laws.”
Filed Under: Featured • KY General Assembly • Rocky Adkins • State Government
About the Author: 
If the training is free, why don’t they just train everybody so they always have two METs on site?
Conflict of interest? Maybe? Par for the course in Kentucky, though. We are condemned to continue floundering as a state as long as this kind of self-dealing is the norm.
A lot of people do not know that for every 50 miners there is supposed to be 2 METS. That is a ration of 25 miners to 1 MET. What is the problem with 18 miners or less to 1 MET. The article and past articles fail to examine this. A good portion of mines in this state employee less than 18 workers. However because of current legislation thousands of working hours are lost each year because it is difficult to find and maintain two METS. Now in trying economical times, miners need to work and have the guarantee that every day they show up to work there is work. Also lets look at another aspect that has not been examined, that millions of coal severance tax dollars are lost. That money is used to be the infrastructure in E. KY and in the rest of the state. With the state facing budget problems, that money is much needed……
Chris,
because if you have one MET for 18 and he is off work the whole crew gets no pay and what if one MET is part of the accident and disabled. You do understand that the training cost the operator nothing? One dollar an hour for the extra MET!
What makes this stink to high heaven is who introduced the bill. You can’t seriously tell me that you see no conflict of interest here. He benifits directly from this bill. He is supposed to file bills that benifit the people not himself.
His mine did get wrote up, even if your contractor gets wrote up the man that hired the contractor is still responsible and the original owner.
Standard practice to hire a contractor to mine your coal, the going price now is about $20 dollars a ton for coal they are selling for around 60 a ton.
pompey,
he only owns the coal, and leases out the reserve. It is not his mine… it is the leasee of the reserve
He hired the contractor? Who hired the contactor? Even if another coal company hired the contractor to mine coal leased from Mr. Hall or by Mr. Hall it is money out of Mr. Halls pocket if they royalty checks are not coming in. Thus he is directly effected by this legislation and will reap direct benifits from it, when the contractor does not miss any work days on account of not having two MIT’s on site.
Conflict of interest, not just the appearance but actual conflict of interest.
I may have agreed with it if it had been offered by a non coal representative.
What will make it worse is if severance coal money ends up in non coal county projects this session. The coal county representatives fought to keep the coal severance in the legislature instead of going direct to the coal county fiscal courts. I would hate to think we would see any trading for votes on this piece of coal company sponsored legislation.
We don’t need to be so chincy as to save a few bucks on the backs of dead miners.
Coal county reps have fought hard to make sure that the severance money is only use in coal counnties. But other people see that vast money and want a piece of it. But i know for a fact that coal county reps fought hard to make sure that the money is spent in those regions specifically….
If the money went straight to the fiscal courts the non coal county reps would not be salivating over it and maybe the coal county reps would not have to fight so hard to steer it to coal counties.
Where it is supposed to be spent in the first place! Why do we need a middle man or woman for something that is for coal county use.
I am from a coal county. But u not going to keep the rest of the state trying to get their hands in the jar. I hate to say i do not have much faith in physical courts anymore….
We finally agree, so what do you do? It’s dangerous to leave it in the legislature. Fiscal Court can’t be trusted to spend it within the guidelines. Just took it from the governor, too political. The coal counties need to get something back for the damage caused by mining and hauling coal. Hauling and piping out the natural wealth of the county. Nothing left but the damage!
This Is The Best Blogs…
I think this is among the most significant information for me. And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on few general things, The site style is perfect, the articles is really nice….
http://www.abercrombie-fitch-clothes.net Where it is supposed to be spent in the first place! Why do we need a middle man or woman for something that is for coal county use.