Anlo Energy, Inc.

Plain-English summary

MSHA found that Anlo Energy’s Peacock Mine No. 1 had inadequate grounded-phase protection and inoperative ground-monitoring circuits on its main power center. Judge William Fauver found that both conditions violated the cited standards and presented serious electrical hazards, including a risk of fatal injury if a ground fault occurred. The violations were abated within the allowed time, and the judge assessed $900 for the grounded-phase-protection violation and $550 for the ground-monitoring violation. The total civil penalty was $1,450.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. § 75.900 and 30 C.F.R. § 75.902.
• Outcome: Both violations were affirmed, with total civil penalties of $1,450.
• Key point: Grounded-phase protection and functioning ground-monitoring circuits are essential controls against fatal electrical faults in an underground coal mine.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. ANLO ENERGY
DDATE:
19861203
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1873

       Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
             Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. KENT 84-185
PETITIONER A.C. No. 15-13862-03510

           v.                           Peacock Mine No. 1

ANLO ENERGY, INC.,
RESPONDENT

                             DECISION

Appearances: Mary Sue Ray, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Nashville, TN,
for Petitioner;
Respondent did not appear at the hearing.

Before: Judge Fauver

 This case was brought by the Secretary of Labor for

assessment of civil penalties under the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801, et seq.

 Respondent did not appear at the hearing, but submitted a

letter stating its position on the charges. Having considered the
letter, the hearing evidence, and the record as a whole, I find
that a preponderance of the substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence establishes the following:

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

 1. At all relevant times, Respondent operated Peacock Mine

No. 1 at Greenville, Hopkins County, Kentucky. It had operated
the Peacock Mine No. 1 since December 1, 1982. The Peacock Mine
No. 2 is an underground coal mine operating two shifts per day,
employing 15 to 20 employees, and producing coal for resale in
interstate commerce.

 2. Respondent had a history of twelve violations of the Act

between December 1, 1982, and March 25, 1984, including
electrical, roof control, ventilation, methane monitor, and two
recordkeeping violations.

 3. In a spot inspection of the Peacock Mine No. 1 in March,

1984, Inspector Curtis Haile found that around the general face
area water was ranging in depth from 0 to 10 inches. The floor of
the mine was erratic in height, and the

Page 3

~1874
water level varied depending on the floor. Inspector Haile issued
107(a) withdrawal order on March 26, 1984, after finding a
imminent danger because of defects in the power center. In
connection with that order, on the same day he issued Citations
2338752 and 2338753, which are the subject of this proceeding.

 4. Citation 2338752 was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R.

75.900 in that grounded phase protection was not provided fo
three phase circuits on the power center. Inspector Haile tested
these circuits by simulating a ground fault condition by the use
of a five amp fuse. He testified that, during the first test on
the first breaker, the breaker tripped as normal, but when he
checked the remaining breakers, none of them would de-energize.
He went back and checked the first breaker and it also failed to
trip. He testified that the first breaker test in which the
breaker tripped as normal was most likely faulty because of a
carbon arc or a very small wire connecting its zig zag
transformer, which burned out in the second test. He stated that
when he checked the power center to verify abatement, he found
that the grounding resistors had been completely bypassed. This
resulted in a grounded system with no circuit limitation.
Inspector Haile testified that it was highly likely this
condition would result in a fatal accident involving at least one
person should a ground fault condition appear on the frame of any
piece of equipment. He testified that a reasonably qualified
electrician would have detected the condition upon testing, and
that it was negligence to bypass the grounding resistors.

 5. Citation 2338753 was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R.

75.902 in that the ground monitoring circuits were no
operative on the main power center. Inspector Haile testified
that ground monitoring circuits are required to ensure that there
is a viable ground wire continuously in operation from the power
system center to the frame of the piece of equipment. In the
event that a ground fault occurs, this would provide a path for
energy to return from the frame of the equipment to the power
center where it would be de-energized by a breaker. Inspector
Haile found three separate circuits in which the ground wire
monitor was not functioning: shuttle car number three, a
satellite pump, and shuttle car number two. None of these was
tagged out and all of them were available for use. Inspector
Haile testified that it was likely that the satellite pump would
be used sometime in the near future and that the shuttle car
circuits were used routinely in coal production operations. This
was a very serious violation in that, at any given time, the
ground wire could sever due to faulty manufacture, a faulty
splice, or normal wear and tear. If the ground wire were severed
and the machinery were involved in a ground fault,

Page 4

~1875
the hazard could result in a fatality. Normally the ground
monitors would be checked weekly.

 6. Respondent presented no claim or evidence of financial

hardship with respect to payment of the proposed penalties.

                 DISCUSSION WITH FURTHER FINDINGS

 The violation charged in citation 2338752 was due to

negligence in that the company knew or should have known of the
violation. It was likely that the condition would cause a
fatality.

 The violation charged in citation 2338753 was due to

negligence in that the company knew or should have known of the
violation. It was a serious violation with a risk of a fatality.

   Respondent is a small operator within the meaning of the

Act.

 Respondent had a total of 12 reported citations from

December 1, 1982, to March 25, 1984. Six of these citations were
significant and substantial and one was accompanied by a 107(a)
order. Prior violations include a cable violation, a ground
monitor violation, an improper identification of circuit breaker
violation, improper splicing of cables, and improper inspection
and cover plates.

 The violations involved here were both abated within the

time given.

 Considering all of the criteria of 110(i) of the Act for

assessing civil penalties, Respondent is ASSESSED a penalty of
$900 for the violation charged in Citation 2338752 and a penalty
of $550 for the violation charged in Citation 2338753.

                        CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   1. The Commission has jurisdiction in this proceeding.

 2. Respondent violated 30 C.F.R.   75.900 as alleged in

Citation 2338752.

 3. Respondent violated 30 C.F.R.   75.902 as alleged in

Citation 2338753.

Page 5

~1876
ORDER

 Respondent shall pay the above civil penalties in the total

amount of $1,450.00 within 30 days of this Order.

                         William Fauver
                         Administrative Law Judge