ShareThis Page
Feds: Massey mine official lied, destroyed evidence |

Feds: Massey mine official lied, destroyed evidence

| Monday, February 28, 2011 12:00 a.m

Massey Energy Co.’s head of security at the Upper Big Branch in Montcoal, W. Va. lied to federal investigators and ordered the destruction of thousands of pages of security-related documents, according to a federal grand jury indictment released today.

Hughie Elbert Stover, 60, of Clear Fork, who supervised all security guards at the mine, ordered the documents destroyed in a trash compactor in early January, the indictment reads, and did so despite being aware that “the FBI and (Mine Safety and Health Administration) were conducting an investigation into allegations of criminal conduct involving (the) Upper Big Branch mine.”

He was arrested today and faces a March 15 hearing in Beckley, W.Va. Calls to his house were not answered.

An explosion inside Upper Big Branch on April 5 killed 29 miners and injured two, making it the deadliest U.S. mine disaster in 40 years.

Massey officials said they are cooperating with investigators.

“The company takes this matter very seriously,” said Shane Harvey, Massey Energy general counsel. “Indeed, the company notified the U.S. Attorney’s office within hours of learning that documents had been disposed of and took immediate steps to recover documents and turn them over to the U.S. Attorney’s office. The matter remains under review and the company has no further comment at this time.”

Stover is accused of lying to federal inspectors when he said on Jan. 21 that he would have fired anyone who gave advance notice of MSHA investigators on the property, which is illegal.

Investigators said Stover personally directed and trained security guards to give advance notice when MSHA sent inspectors to the mine.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.