Peabody Coal Company

Plain-English summary

Peabody Coal contested a withdrawal order alleging that return air was reaching power connection points in the Martwick Underground Mine, and the parties separately settled another citation for a $100 penalty. Judge Gary Melick found that the ventilation violation occurred, but the Secretary did not prove the aggravated conduct required for an unwarrantable-failure order. The order was modified to a citation under section 104(a), with a $250 penalty, while Citation No. 3857222 was affirmed under the settlement. The release text is an OCR transcription and retains spacing and character artifacts from the official scan.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.372 and 75.507; Mine Act §§ 104(a), 104(d)(2), and 110(i)
• Outcome: Order No. 3861948 was modified to a section 104(a) citation with a $250 penalty. Citation No. 3857222 was affirmed under a $100 settlement.
• Key point: Proof of a ventilation violation did not establish unwarrantable failure where the evidence did not show aggravated conduct.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                            OFFICE OF A D M INISTRA TIV E LA W JUDGES
                                     2 SK YLINE, 10 th FLOOR
                                      5203 LEESBURG PIK E
                                FA LLS CHURCH, V IRGINIA 22041



                                    January 31, 1995

PEABODY COAL COMPANY, : CONTEST PROCEEDING
Contestant :
v. : Docket No. KENT 94-430-R
: Citation No. 3861948; 2/16/94
SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH : Martwick Underground Mine
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : I.D. No. 15-14074
Respondent :
:
:
SECRETARY OF LABOR : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 94-1062
Petitioner : A.C. No. 15-14074-03664
v. :
: Martwick Underground Mine
PEABODY COAL COMPANY, :
Respondent :

                                          DECISION

Appearances: Brian W. Dougherty, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Nashville, Tennessee for
the Secretary of Labor;
David R. Joest, Esq., Henderson, Kentucky for
Peabody Coal Company.

Before: Judge Melick

     These consolidated cases are before me pursuant to Section

105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U .S.C.
' 80 1, et. seq., the "A ct", to cha lleng e tw o cita tions issu ed by the Secreta ry of La bor a g a inst
the Pea body Coa l Com pa ny ( Pea body). A t hea ring the pa rties m oved for a pprova l of a
settlem ent of cita tion No. 3857222 proposing a redu ction in pena lty from $168 to $10 0 . The
settlem ent w a s a pproved a t hea ring u pon considera tion of the representa tions a nd docu m enta tion
su bm itted a nd a n order directing pa ym ent of the a g reed pena lty w ill be incorpora ted in this
decision.
Order No. 3861948, issu ed pu rsu a nt to section 10 4 ( d)( 2 ) of the A ct, cha rg es a
viola tion of the m a nda tory sta nda rd a t 30 C.F.R. ' 75.50 7 a nd cha rg es a s follow s: 1
1
Section 104(d) of the Act provides as follows:

Page 2

 (1) If, upon any inspection of a coal or other mine, an

authorized representative of the Secretary finds that there has
been a violation of any mandatory health or safety standard, and
if he also finds that, while the conditions created by such
violation do not cause imminent danger, such violation is of such
nature as could significantly and substantially contribute to the
cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard,
and if he finds such violation to be caused by an unwarrantable
failure of such operator to comply with such mandatory health or
safety standards, he shall include such finding in any citation
given to the operator under this Act. If, during the same
inspection or any subsequent inspection of such mine within 90
days after the issuance of such citation, an authorized

                            2

Page 3

     Pow er connection points w h ich consist of the follow ing a re           loca ted in retu rn a ir:

belt drive m otors, tra nsform ers, diesel equ ipm ent, a nd ba ttery pow ered equ ipm ent. Retu rn
a ir is being cou rsed ou t the lim ited inta k e entries ( beltline, su pply roa d) of the second
ea st pa nel off the northea st su bm a in. This a ir ha s pa ssed the w ork ing force on # 1 u nit. The a ir volu m e

representative of the Secretary finds another violation of any
mandatory health or safety standard and finds such violation to
be also caused by an unwarrantable failure of such operator to so
comply, he shall forthwith issue an order requiring the operator
to cause all persons in the area affected by such violation,
except those persons referred to in subsection (c) to be
withdrawn from, and to be prohibited from entering, such area
until an authorized representative of the Secretary determines
that such violation has been abated.

 (2) If a withdrawal order with respect to any area in a

coal or other mine has been issue pursuant to paragraph (1), a
withdrawal order shall promptly be issued by an authorized
representative of the Secretary who finds upon any subsequent
inspection the existence in such mine of violations similar to
those that resulted in issuance of the withdrawal order under
paragraph (1) until such time as an inspection of such mine
discloses no similar violations. Following an inspection of such
mine which discloses no similar violations, the provisions of
paragraph (1) shall again be applicable to that mine.

                                                 3

Page 4

m inu te. Chem ica l sm ok e w a s relea sed a t the # 1 u nit' s check cu rta in a nd
a irlock s. The sm ok e tra veled in a n ou tby direction over pow er connection points.
The a irlock in # 2 entry is off the m ine floor a pproxim a tely one foot a nd a ir is flow ing
ou tby throu g h this a ir lock . The opera tor' s records a nd ventila tion m a p su bm itted to
D istrict 10 office indica te this condition exists.

              The cited sta nda rd provides tha t "[e]xcept w h ere perm issible pow er connection

u nits a re u sed, a ll pow er connection points ou tby the la st open crosscu t sha ll be in inta k e a ir."

      Inspector Troy D a vis of the M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth A dm inistra tion ( M SHA ) issu ed

the su bject order on Febru a ry 16, 1994, a t the Pea body M a rtw ick M ine. In the No. 1 u nit he
fou nd tha t a ir from the fa ce a rea s w a s lea k ing throu g h "a irlock s" or tem pora ry bra ttices into
the neu tra l entries, ca lled "lim ited inta k e entries" by D a vis. D a vis u sed a sm ok e tu be to verify
tha t a ir from the fa ces w a s entering the neu tra l entries. It is u ndispu ted tha t this a ir ha d
pa ssed a t lea st one w ork ing fa ce. Pea body does not dispu te tha t these fa cts constitu te a
viola tion a s a lleg ed bu t m a inta ins tha t the viola tion w a s not the resu lt of its "u nw a rra nta ble
fa ilu re". "Unw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" ha s been defined a s condu ct tha t is "not ju stifia ble" or is
"inexcu sa ble." It is a g g ra va ted condu ct by a m ine opera tor constitu ting m ore tha n ordina ry
neg lig ence. You g hiog heny a nd Ohio Coa l Com pa ny, 9 FM SHRC 2007 ( 1987); Em ery M ining
Corp., 9 FM SHRC 1997 ( 1987).

      The Secreta ry m a inta ins tha t the viola tion w a s the resu lt of Pea body'    s u nw a rra nta ble

fa ilu re beca u se the viola tive condition w a s "obviou s a nd continu ed over a sig nifica nt period of
tim e". In pa rticu la r, the Secreta ry cites a m ine ventila tion m a p su bm itted by Pea body to
M SHA on Ja nu a ry 28, 1994, a nd certified a s a ccu ra te by Pea body officia ls on Ja nu a ry 1,
1994, w h ich show s a g rea ter a ir volu m e in the la st open crosscu t of the u nit ( inta k e side)
tha n in the u nit' s split retu rn ( w here the u nit's retu rn a ir rejoins the m a in or su bm a in retu rn).
A ccording to Inspector D a vis, som eone a t the m ine shou ld ha ve exa m ined these rea ding s a nd
detected a problem . A s Pea body points ou t in its brief, how ever, Inspector D a vis a ssu m ed in
rea ching this conclu sion tha t the ventila tion m a p a ir rea ding s w ere a ll ta k en on Ja nu a ry 1,
1994, a nd w ere certified by Pea body' s reg istered professiona l eng ineer a s being a ccu ra te a s of
tha t da te. He fu rther ba sed this a ssu m ption on the eng ineer' s u nda ted certifica tion tha t the
m a p w a s "tru e a nd correct" . . .
a s requ ired by 30 C.F.R. ' 75.372 . . ." a nd a sta tem ent on the m a p tha t "m ine w ork ing s a re
posted a s of Ja nu a ry 1, 1994".

      How ever, Ja m es Roberts, the professiona l eng ineer w h o certified the m a ps, testified

credibly tha t the a ir rea ding s on the ventila tion m a p w ere not a ll ta k en on Ja nu a ry 1, 1994,
bu t cou ld ha ve been ta k en a nytim e betw een Ja nu a ry 1, 1994, a nd Ja nu a ry 28, 1994.
A ccording ly, the differences betw een the rea ding s w ou ld not provide a va lid m ea su re of
w h ether retu rn a ir w a s entering the neu tra l entries. M oreover, Roberts notes tha t the
certifica tion on the m a p is not intended to m ea n tha t the a ir rea ding s w ere a ll ta k en on
Ja nu a ry 1, 1994, bu t tha t the la ng u a g e on the m a p tha t "m ine w ork ing s a re posted to Ja nu a ry
1, 1994" m ea ns only tha t the w ork ed- ou t a rea s show n on the m a p a re cu rrent a s of tha t da te.

                                                    4

Page 5

Roberts observed tha t, if su ch rea ding s w ere to be u sed to determ ine w h ether retu rn a ir w a s
being cou rsed throu g h the neu tra l entries, he w ou ld m a k e su re tha t sim u lta neou s rea ding s w ere
ta k en. How ever, he w a s never told tha t M SHA w ou ld try to u se the rea ding s in this m a nner.

     It is clea r from the credible testim ony of Pea body'    s expert, Ja m es Roberts, tha t the

Secreta ry's relia nce u pon the pu rported dispa rities a ppea ring in the Ja nu a ry 1994 ventila tion
m a p is m ispla ced. A ccording ly, it ca nnot rea sona bly be inferred tha t Pea body ha d k now ledg e of
the existence of the insta nt viola tion a s ea rly a s Ja nu a ry 1, 1994, w h en tha t m a p w a s
"certified" a nd the evidence ca nnot, therefore, provide a ba sis for u nw a rra nta bility.

     It is a lso noted tha t a lthou g h a previou s ventila tion m a p su bm itted by Pea body in Ju ly

1993 ha d show n sim ila r dispa rities a s the m ore recent ventila tion m a p, M SHA a pproved the
m a p w ithou t com m ent or enforcem ent a ction a g a inst Pea body. It is for this a dditiona l rea son
ina ppropria te for the Secreta ry to now su g g est tha t Pea body' s ina ction ba sed on sim ila r
dispa rities in the a ir rea ding s w a s the resu lt of its "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re".

      The Secreta ry next a rg u es, a s a ba sis for u nw a rra nta bility, tha t the viola tive condition

w a s "obviou s a nd continu ed over a sig nifica nt period of tim e" ba sed on records of a Febru a ry
14, 1994, w eek ly exa m ina tion a nd the Febru a ry 14, 1994, a nd
Febru a ry 16, 1994, pre- shift exa m ina tions. The Secreta ry m a inta ins tha t since Pea body' s m ine
m a na g er ha d review ed a nd cou ntersig ned the Febru a ry 14, 1994, a ir rea ding s "du e dilig ence
dicta tes tha t, a t the lea st, Pea body shou ld ha ve m onitored its ow n w eek ly retu rn split a ir
rea ding s w ith the pre- shift la st open crosscu t a ir rea ding s ta k en on the sa m e da y to determ ine
w h ether this viola tive condition w a s occu rring ." The Secreta ry m a inta ins tha t su ch a
com pa rison of a ir rea ding s w ou ld a lso ha ve a lerted m ine officia ls to the existence of this
viola tive condition.

     A s Pea body observes, how ever, reg u la tory sta nda rds g overning w eek ly a nd pre- shift

exa m ina tions do not requ ire or even su g g est tha t a ir rea ding s from different exa m ina tions
shou ld be cross check ed. A s Pea body a lso notes there is no evidence tha t su ch cross- check ing
is even a n a ccepted indu stry pra ctice or ha s ever been recom m ended by the Secreta ry. Indeed,
the inspector him self com pa red the w eek ly a nd pre- shift exa m ina tion reports only a fter being
a lerted to the possibility of a viola tion du e to his m isinterpreta tion of the ventila tion m a p.

     W ithin the fra m ew ork a nd circu m sta nces of this ca se, I m u st a g ree w ith Pea body. It

ca nnot, therefore, be sa id tha t Pea body w a s g rossly neg lig ent or w a s involved in a n a g g ra va ted
om ission a m ou nting to "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" by fa iling to cross- check the cited w eek ly a nd
pre- shift exa m ina tions on Febru a ry 14 a nd 16, 1994.

     The Secreta ry fu rther a rg u es tha t on the da y of the inspection the inspector observed

tha t the check a nd ba ck - cu rta ins for the neu tra l entries a t the w ork ing section w ere sta nding
tow a rd the ou tby direction. A ccording to the Secreta ry this is a n "obviou s physica l indica tion"
tha t retu rn a ir w a s esca ping into the neu tra l entries. Pea body cou nters, how ever, tha t the

                                                   5

Page 6

inspector a ck now ledg ed tha t it is not possible to disting u ish inta k e a nd retu rn a ir m ovem ent
u nderg rou nd which is w h y he u sed chem ica l sm ok e to verify the viola tion. Pea body fu rther
notes, a nd it is u ndispu ted, tha t the m iners ha d a lrea dy been ta k ing corrective m ea su res to
tig hten ventila tion cu rta ins before the inspector a rrived. A ccording ly, I ca nnot find tha t the
position of the check cu rta ins a lone is su fficient to w a rra nt a finding of a g g ra va ted
circu m sta nces a m ou nting to "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re".

      The Secreta ry, in su pport of his cla im of u nw a rra nta bility, ha s a rg u ed, in a ddition, tha t

the inspector fou nd when he "a rrived on the section, [tha t] there w ere m en ru nning a rou nd,
dra g g ing cu rta ins, trying to tig hten u p a ir lock s a nd stu ff [sic] on the belt a nd su pply roa d
entries." The Secreta ry' s u nexpla ined position a t hea ring w a s tha t these rem edia l efforts w ere
evidence of "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re". I disa g ree. Su ch rem edia l efforts to a ba te a problem
before observed or cited by a n inspector clea rly indica tes a ppropria te corrective a ction a nd not
neg lig ence.

      Fina lly, the Secreta ry m a inta ins tha t "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" m a y be fou nd on the

"g enera l history of this sa m e viola tion" a t the M a rtw ick M ine. The Secreta ry relies on prior
viola tions of the sta nda rd cited herein occu rring on A u g u st 13, 1991, A u g u st 2 7, 1991,
October 26, 1992 a nd A pril 7, 1993, i.e. fou r viola tions in the 30 m onths preceding the
viola tion a t issu e. I note in pa rticu la r tha t there ha d been no viola tions of the cited sta nda rd
for the 10 m onth period preceding the da te of the viola tion a t issu e. Under the circu m sta nces
I do not find tha t su ch a history w a rra nts the a g g ra va ted finding s necessa ry to constitu te
"u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re". Com pa re Pea body Coa l Com pa ny, 14 FM SHRC 12 58 a t 1263 ( 1992)
w h erein 17 viola tions of the cited sta nda rd in six a nd one- ha lf m onths w a s a ppropria tely
considered a s evidence of u nw a rra nta bility.
U nder a ll of the circu m sta nces, I ca nnot conclu de tha t the Secreta ry ha s m et his bu rden
of proving tha t the viola tion herein w a s the resu lt of Pea body' s "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" a nd,
a ccording ly, the order herein m u st be m odified to a cita tion u nder section 10 4 ( a ) of the A ct.
I do find, how ever, tha t the viola tion w a s the resu lt of m odera te neg lig ence. Consistent w ith
the Secreta ry' s position I fu rther conclu de tha t the viola tion w a s neither "sig nifica nt a nd
su bsta ntia l" nor of hig h g ra vity. Considering the criteria u nder section 110 ( i) of the A ct, I
conclu de tha t a civil pena lty of $2 50 is a ppropria te for the viola tion herein.

                                                ORD ER

    Cita tion No. 38572 2 2 is hereby a ffirm ed a nd Pea body Coa l Com pa ny is directed to pa y

a civil pena lty of $10 0 w ithin 3 0 d a ys of the da te of this decision for the viola tion therein.
Order No. 3861948 is hereby m odified to a cita tion u nder section 10 4 ( a ) of the A ct a nd
Pea body Coa l Com pa ny is directed to pa y a civil pena lty of $2 50 for the viola tion therein
w ithin 3 0 d a ys of the da te of this decision.

                                                     6

Page 7

                                           G a ry M elick
                           A dm inistra tive La w Ju dg e

D istribu tion:

D a vid R. Joest, Esq., Pea body Coa l Com pa ny, 1951 Ba rrett Cou rt, P.O. Box 1990, Henderson,
K Y 42420 ( Certified M a il)

Bria n W . D ou g herty, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. D epa rtm ent of La bor, 2 0 0 2 Richa rd
Jones Roa d, Su ite B- 2 0 1, Na shville, TN 372 15- 2 862

/ jf

                                                7