CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Massey Energy made promises to federal mine safety regulators but never had the manpower to follow through, a former Massey safety official testified Tuesday during the Don Blankenship federal criminal trial.
Federal prosecutors called Bill Ross to the stand after the lunch break. The 32-year MSHA official—who took a job with Massey right after his 2008 retirement—was hired to help with mining plans and ventilation issues. He also conducted training classes with Massey miners.
MORE read Bill Ross recommendations
Ross, who has been called a “whistleblower” by prosecutors, testified from a memo that was written after he had a sit down meeting with a pair of Massey officials in June 2009, 14 months after he was hired. The memo, which were made up of Ross’ recommendations, was sent to Blankenship, prosecutors said.
Ross cited a need for more training, more experienced miners in supervisory positions and more manpower.
Ross is viewed as a key witness for federal prosecutors as they try to convince the 12-member jury that Blankenship, the former Massey CEO, conspired to break mine safety laws in favor of production at the Upper Big Branch mine in Raleigh County.
Ross recommended UBB be made a model mine so MSHA could see the company was serious when it came to safety. MSHA’s attitude toward Massey was much different, Ross said.
“It leads inspectors to conclude that Massey just doesn’t care,” Ross said.
Ross spoke with Massey miners during safety classes. One of them told Ross miners at Massey were like “robots.” Everything was laid out for them but they weren’t given the manpower to complete the job.
However, Ross struggled to give Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Ruby specific examples on how Massey didn’t follow up on MSHA concerns. He also struggled to cite a specific example to back up the statement that Massey didn’t take MSHA seriously.
The memo included other Ross statements:
–It was run, run, run (coal) until we get caught and when we get caught (by MSHA) we’ll fix it.
–If you can get the (mined coal) footage we can pay the fines.
–The situation had to get to the point of shutdown before a Massey (top officials) would get involved (at a particular mine)
–(on dust violations) didn’t have enough staff to handle the sampling process
–Massey needs to make a change to show MSHA it’s serious.
–MSHA will help us if we ask.
In a recording previously played for the jury, Blankenship called the memo a “terrible document to be in discovery” for any future legal action and, in a separate call, characterized it as “worse than a Charleston Gazette article,” a memo that he intended to remain “highly confidential.”
Prior to the start of Ross’ testimony Tuesday, Bill Taylor, one of Blankenship’s attorneys, unsuccessfully argued to redact portions of the Ross memo.
Taylor also questioned privilege because the document is marked confidential, an issue U.S. District Irene Berger said she would address, if necessary, during testimony from Ross.
Additionally, Taylor was denied the opportunity to question Ross outside of the presence of the jury about who specifically, if anyone, he spoke with at UBB during his safety review.
Ross became the prosecution’s 24th witness in the trial of Blankenship that began with jury selection on Oct. 1. Tuesday, the 18th day for testimony, came after a day off Monday for jurors.
The previous seven days were dominated by testimony from Chris Blanchard, the former president of the Massey mine group that included UBB. Before testimony resumed, Berger denied a defense request for the opportunity to again cross examine Blanchard.
The first witness called to the stand Tuesday was Harold Hayhurst, a former MSHA coal mine inspector who currently works as an MSHA field office supervisor.
Hayhurst denied previous testimony from Blanchard that he, Hayhurst, had told Blanchard advanced notifications of MSHA inspections were legal in the early 2000s. Blanchard was working as a section boss at the Sugar Camp Mine at the time.
Such early warnings, Hayhurst testified, “hamper inspections.”
On cross examination, Blair Brown, one of Blankenship’s attorneys, spent a lot of time trying to define what exactly “advance notice” could mean. At one point, Hayhurst conceded warnings given once an inspection began would not be considered “advance.” The inspection start time, he said, could begin before MSHA inspectors even arrived at a mine site.
The jury also heard Tuesday from Charles Lilly, a former chief deputy with the Raleigh County Sheriff’s Department who went to work at UBB as a security guard in 2001. He said he routinely announced all arrivals by non-Massey members at UBB, including arrivals of federal and state inspectors, on two radio channels.
Lilly testified he stopped the practice in Nov. 2007 when an MSHA inspector who overheard him informed him the practice was illegal.
According to Lilly, he refused to give the early warnings after that because his supervisor could not provide written documents from Massey’s lawyers verifying the legality of the advance notifications.