ERIK SANZENBACH / L’Observateur / September 29, 1999

CONVENT – Jurisdiction over the Kaiser Aluminum investigation of the July 5 explosion will be decided in federal court.

Kaiser spokesman Scott Lamb spoke up Monday to clarify the company’s position in light of the recent postponement of the hearings conducted by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration.MSHA has complained of no-shows by company officials to the public hearings held until recently at the St. James Parish courthouse in Convent.Now, a hearing is set Thursday before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier inNew Orleans, where arguments will be heard whether the investigation properly belongs to MSHA or to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which performs a similar function for nearly every other plant in the River Road corridor.

“The issue was raised by the attorneys representing the employees,” Lamb said, adding if the court found OSHA to be the proper agency, “they would come in and pick up where MSHA left off.”Lamb said the argument arose since the Gramercy plant is a refinery and manufacturer, not a mining operation.

“We’re really a manufacturing plant, which would fall under OSHA,” John Jennings of Kaiser observed. “It doesn’t change the investigation.”Concern over proper jurisdiction was raised because of how Kaiser perceives the management of the hearings, Lamb said.

He added Monday the company has had serious concerns about the lack of procedures that would protect the rights of witnesses and other parties in the public hearings.

Lamb noted this is the first such hearing MSHA had conducted in more than 20 years, and he noted that despite conducting numerous investigations of serious accidents, including those involving fatalities, this is the first such public hearings conducted in this manner.

On the other hand, Rodney Brown of MSHA observed, “How many accidents affect the community like this one?” Brown added that since Kaiser has been under MSHA supervision since it opened its gates in 1958, “It’s kind of late in the day to be bringing that up.”Confusion also arose over the subpoenas issued by MSHA for the hearings, according to Lamb, who said some witnesses were led to believe that they were being called by Kaiser, not MSHA.

“Our subpoenas were very clear,” Brown said.

Kaiser attorneys also claimed MSHA issued subpoenas on Fridays and Saturdays for witnesses and documents for the following Monday.

Oppegard, on the other hand, claimed that the earlier round of witnesses were subpoenaed on Aug. 18, some three weeks prior to their scheduledappearances.

On Sept. 17, Judge Barbier ordered MSHA to inform 18 potential witnessesthey have 14 days notice prior to having to appear.

Since the Sept. 8 start of the MSHA public hearings on the July 5 Kaiserplant explosion, 25 subpoenaed witnesses from Kaiser’s management and supervisors have failed to appear, according to Oppegard.

The MSHA panel began hearing witnesses on Sept. 8, but only ninewitnesses have testified, including three strikers, four replacement workers, an employee of Harmony Contractors who provided the replacement workers on the heels of the Sept. 30, 1998 labor disputewalkout and Kaiser supervisor Dennis Haas.

Return To News Stories