The article seems to have been written for Mineweb. The original article by Dorothy Kosich is at http://tinyurl.com/2dsh2ms

Sen. Jay Rockefeller\’s media statement on the issue is at http://tinyurl.com/22oqeby

Wall Street reform amendment would mandate SEC mine safety reporting
West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller wants publicly-traded mining companies to disclose their safety records to their shareholders and the SEC.
Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Monday , 10 May 2010
RENO, NV –
U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller has introduced an amendment to the Wall Street reform legislation that would require any publicly-traded mining company to include serious mine safety violations in its annual and quarterly SEC filings.
Mining companies that fail to file proper safety disclosures would face monetary penalties. The amendment would apply to coal and other mines.
\”This amendment is common-sense: what is good for safety is good for business,\” Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, said in a news release. \”By disclosing important mine safety information to shareholders, it\’s a win for companies doing a good job, and a much-needed alert for companies who are not.\”
\”Currently, there is no requirement to publicly disclose safety records, which has allowed companies to operate without critical checks and balances,\” he noted.
This amendment would require any publicly-traded mine company to report the following information in their annual and quarterly filings with the SEC:
1. The total number of significant and substantial violations of mandatory health or safety standards;
2. The total number of failures to abate orders issued under section 104(b) of the Mine Act;
3. The total number of citations and orders for unwarrantable failure of the mine operator to comply with mandatory health or safety standards under the Mine Act;
4. The total number of flagrant violations under the Mine Act;
5. The total number of imminent danger orders issued under the Mine Act;
6. The total dollar value of MSHA proposed penalties and fines;
7. A list of the regulated worksites that have been notified by MSHA of a Pattern of Violation or a Potential to have a Pattern of Violations under the Mine Act; and
8. Pending legal action before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

In addition, any publicly-traded mining company must issue an immediate \”8-K\” disclosure report to the SEC if it:
1. Receives a shutdown order under section 107(a) of the Mine Act (imminent danger), or
2. Receives notice that a mine site has a potential or actual pattern of violations.

In most SafetyAtWorkBlog posts, \”accident\” is replaced with \”incident\” but even that is soft although I don\’t think it is as dismissive. Some reports of crashes in the transport sector have moved away from \”accident\” and I think gradually \”accident\” will have a more specific application.

I keep seeing the word \”Accident\” teamed with work place injuries which tends to soften the impact of the \”workplace injury\”. In the main they are preventable injuries caused by lack of due diligence by management and in some cases, stupidity by workers.

When I start to see court lists of major size and consequence on a daily basis, hauling transgressors of OHSW law before the judiciary and significant penalties being handed down, then and only then, will I believe we are on the road to having a major impact on improvement in workplace safety.

My recent forays into US workplace safety issues has me very puzzled – just what is the basis of OSHA and MSHA legislation? Maybe Michael Tooma could \’please explain\’ – I\’m overly familiar with the UK and Australian legislative models. The Canadian is largely comprehensible. The USA – I just don\’t get it, seems very antiquated – is this like the old style prescriptive legislation that I\’m far to young to remember in Aus? And this \”rule making\” they bang on about – how does that work?

Que?