Broken Hill Mining Company, Incorporated (ALJ decision, September 6, 1995)

Plain-English summary

Broken Hill Mining Company was cited after permanent ventilation stoppings were not maintained through the third connecting crosscut at its No. 3 Mine. The Judge rejected the company's argument that the area qualified for the regulation's room exception and found the violation significant and substantial. Because the company had previously been cited for the same condition and had been told about the requirement, the Judge found unwarrantable failure. Two related dust-sampling orders were modified from section 104(d)(1) orders to section 104(a) citations, with their penalties reduced to $325 each. The corrected decision assessed a total penalty of $3,650, replacing the original $3,700 amount.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 70.208(a) and 75.333(b)(1)
• Outcome: The ventilation citation was affirmed, two orders were modified to section 104(a) citations, and the corrected total penalty was $3,650.
• Key point: Repeated notice of a ventilation requirement supported an unwarrantable-failure finding, and the Judge corrected the decision's penalty amount from $3,700 to $3,650.

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

September 6, 1995

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 94-972
Petitioner : A. C. No. 15-14959-03560
v. :
: Mine No. 3
BROKEN HILL MINING COMPANY,
:
INCORPORATED,
:
Respondent
:

D ECISION

A ppea ra nces: M a ry Su e Ta ylor, Esqu ire, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. D epa rtm ent of La bor, Na shville, Tennessee for Petitioner;
Hoba rt W . A nderson, President, Brok en Hill M ining Co., Inc., Pik eville, K entu ck y, Pro Se, for Respondent.

Before: Ju dg e Hodg don

This ca se is before m e on a petition for a ssessm ent of civil pena lty filed by the Secreta ry of La bor, a cting throu g h his M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth A dm inistra tion ( M SHA ), a g a inst Brok en Hill M ining Co. pu rsu a nt to Section 10 5 of the Federa l M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth A ct of 1977, 30 U.S.C. ' 815. The petition a lleg es three viola tions of the Secreta ry' s m a nda tory hea lth a nd sa fety sta nda rds a nd seek s a pena lty of $8,0 0 0 .0 0 . For the rea sons set forth below , I a ffirm the cita tion a nd the tw o orders, a s m odified, a nd a ssess a pena lty of $3,70 0 .0 0 .

The ca se w a s hea rd on M a y 2 , 1995, in Pik eville, K entu ck y.1 M SHA Inspector John P. Chu rch a nd M SHA V entila tion Specia list Jerry Bella m y testified for the Secreta ry. No. 3 M ine Su perintendent Freddie G. Ca rroll a nd Brok en Hill President Hoba rt W . A nderson testified for the com pa ny. The pa rties a lso su bm itted briefs w h ich I ha ve considered in m y disposition of this ca se.

SETTLED ORDERS

A t the beg inning of the hea ring , the pa rties a dvised tha t they ha d a g reed to settle Order Nos. 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 a nd 4015281, issu ed u nder Section 10 4 ( d)( 1) of the A ct, 30 U.S.C. ' 814( d)( 1). Both involve fa ilu re to su bm it va lid respira ble du st sa m ples in viola tion of Section 70 .2 0 8( a ) of the Reg u la tions, 30 C.F.R. ' 70 .2 0 8( a ), for w h ich the Secreta ry ha d proposed

The tra nscript for this ca se erroneou sly sta tes on its cover sheet tha t it is for "Dock et 1

No. K ENT 94- 920."

Page 2

civil pena lties of $2 ,4 0 0 .0 0 a nd $2 ,6 0 0 .0 0 , respectively. The a g reem ent provides for the orders to be m odified to Section 10 4 ( a ) cita tions, 30 U.S.C. ' 814( a ), by deleting the "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" desig na tions, a nd for the pena lties to be redu ced to $325.0 0 ea ch.

Ha ving considered the representa tions a nd docu m enta tion presented, ( Tr. 6- 9), I conclu de tha t the proffered settlem ent is a ppropria te u nder the criteria set forth in Section 110 ( i) of the A ct, 30 U.S.C. ' 82 0 ( i). A ccording ly, a pprova l of the settlem ent a g reem ent is g ra nted a nd its provisions w ill be ca rried ou t in the order a t the end of this decision.

CONTESTED CITA TION

On Septem ber 10 , 1993, Inspector Chu rch issu ed Cita tion No. 4 0 15959, u nder Section 10 4 ( d)( 1) of the A ct.2 The cita tion a lleg es a viola tion of Section 75.333( b)( 1) of the Reg u la tions, 30 C.F.R. ' 75.333( b)( 1), beca u se "[t]he ba sic ventila tion pla n w a s not being com plied w ith in 0 0 1- 0 section, in tha t perm a nent stopping s w ere not being m a inta ined u p to a nd inclu ding the 3rd

connecting crosscu t ou tby the w ork ing fa ces. There w ere five open crosscu ts on both inta k e a nd retu rn sides of the w ork ing section." ( G ovt. Ex. 1.)

Section 75.333( b)( 1) requ ires tha t:

( b) Perm a nent stopping s or other perm a nent ventila tion control devices

2
Section 10 4 ( d)1) provides:

If, u pon a ny inspection of a coa l or other m ine, a n a u thorized representa tive of the Secreta ry finds tha t there ha s been a viola tion of a ny m a nda tory hea lth or sa fety sta nda rd, a nd if he a lso finds tha t, w h ile the conditions crea ted by su ch viola tion do not ca u se im m inent da ng er, su ch viola tion is of su ch na tu re a s cou ld sig nifica ntly a nd su bsta ntia lly contribu te to the ca u se a nd effect of a coa l or other m ine sa fety or hea lth ha za rd, a nd if he finds su ch viola tion to be ca u sed by a n u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re of su ch opera tor to com ply w ith su ch m a nda tory hea lth or sa fety sta nda rds, he sha ll inclu de su ch finding in a ny cita tion g iven to the opera tor u nder this A ct.

2

Page 3

constru cted a fter
Novem ber 15, 1992, sha ll be bu ilt a nd m a inta ined- -
( 1) Betw een inta k e a nd retu rn a ir cou rses, except tem pora ry controls m a y by u sed in room s tha t a re 6 0 0 feet or less from the centerline of the entry from w h ich the room w a s developed. Unless otherw ise a pproved in the ventila tion pla n, these stopping s or controls sha ll be m a inta ined to a nd inclu ding the third connecting crosscu t ou tby the w ork ing fa ce.

The Respondent contends tha t the a rea being m ined w a s a "room " ra ther tha n a n "entry" a nd tha t since it w a s less tha n 6 0 0 feet, it com es w ithin the exception to the section. Therefore, the com pa ny a rg u es tha t it did not viola te Section 75.333( b)( 1). I conclu de otherw ise.

The issu e in this ca se is w h ether a room m u st be to the left or rig ht of a n entry or w h ether it ca n be a t the hea d of a n entry. Relying on the Bu rea u of M ines, U.S. D epa rtm ent of Interior, A D ictiona ry of M ining , M inera l, a nd Rela ted Term s 941 ( 1968) definition of "room " a s "[a ] pla ce a bu tting a n entry or a ir w a y w h ere coa l ha s been m ined a nd extending from the entry or a irw a y to a fa ce," Brok en Hill a rg u es tha t it ca n be a t the hea d of a n entry. This a rg u m ent, how ever, is a m isrea ding of both the definition a nd the reg u la tion.

"A bu tting " m ea ns "to tou ch a long a border, to border on." New M iria m W ebster D ictiona ry 2 2 ( 1989). ( Tr. 169.) A room a t the hea d of a n entry w ou ld border on a crosscu t,3 not a n entry. Therefore, a room , by definition, ca nnot be a t the hea d of a n entry.

Fu rtherm ore, the reg u la tion is even clea rer tha n the definition. It provides a n exception for "room s tha t a re 6 0 0 feet or less from the centerline of the entry from w h ich the room w a s developed" ( em pha sis a dded). Since the centerline g oes in the sa m e direction tha t the entry g oes, a room cou ld only be to the left or the rig ht of the centerline a nd, thu s, to the left or rig ht of a n entry.

I conclu de tha t the reg u la tion is clea r a nd u na m big u ou s a nd tha t the com pa ny viola ted it. How ever, even if it w ere not u na m big u ou s, w h ether Brok en Hill viola ted the reg u la tion m u st be eva lu a ted "in lig ht of w h a t a ' rea sona bly pru dent person, fa m ilia r w ith the m ining indu stry a nd the protective pu rpose of the sta nda rd, w ou ld ha ve provided in order to m eet the protection intended by the sta nda rd.' " Idea l Cem ent Co., 12 FM SHRC 2409, 2415 ( Novem ber 1990) ( cita tions om itted).

Su perintendent Ca rroll sta ted tha t "in m y opinion room s a re w h en you a re finishing u p a nd you drop dow n to lik e a sm a ll center, lik e forty by forty in this ca se; you w hether it be

3
A "crosscu t" is "[a ] sm a ll pa ssa g ew a y driven a t rig ht a ng les to the m a in entry to connect it w ith a pa ra llel entry or a ir cou rse." Bu rea u of M ines, U.S. D epa rtm ent of Interior, A D ictiona ry of M ining , M inera l, a nd Rela ted Term s 280 ( 1968).

3

Page 4

left, rig ht or stra ig ht a hea d, the la st six hu ndred feet is a room ." ( Tr. 235.) On the other ha nd, both Inspector Chu rch a nd M r. Bella m y testified tha t a room ha s to m a k e "a tu rn" to "the left or rig ht." ( Tr. 78, 155- 58.) M r. Bella m y fu rther testified tha t the rea son room s only requ ire tem pora ry stopping s is tha t "in room s you w ou ldn' t w a nt to pu t a ll you r ventila ting cu rrent into it. You w ou ldn' t ha ve to. So you w ou ld reg u la te som e off you r m a in cu rrent to ventila te the room ." ( Tr. 158.)

I conclu de tha t the inspector a nd the ventila tion specia list presented w h a t a "rea sona bly pru dent person, fa m ilia r w ith the m ining indu stry" wou ld ha ve provided in this m ine to com ply w ith Section 75.333( b)( 1). This testim ony is su pported by the reg u la tion a nd definitions discu ssed a bove. Ca rroll' s opinion is not su pported by either, a nd is a lso not su pported by a nything he cou ld provide from his prior experience.

Ba sed on either the pla in m ea ning of the reg u la tion or the "rea sona bly pru dent person" sta nda rd, it is a ppa rent tha t in this insta nce, Brok en Hill viola ted Section 75.333( b)( 1) of the Reg u la tions. A ccording ly, I so conclu de.

Sig nifica nt a nd Su bsta ntia l

The cita tion a lleg es tha t the viola tion w a s "sig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l." A "sig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l" ( S& S) viola tion is

described in Section 10 4 ( d)( 1) of the A ct a s a viola tion "of su ch na tu re a s cou ld sig nifica ntly a nd su bsta ntia lly contribu te to the ca u se a nd effect of a coa l or other m ine sa fety or hea lth ha za rd." 4 A viola tion is properly desig na ted S& S "if, ba sed u pon the pa rticu la r fa cts su rrou nding tha t viola tion, there exists a rea sona ble lik elihood tha t the ha za rd contribu ted to w ill resu lt in a n inju ry or illness of a rea sona bly seriou s na tu re." Cem ent Division, Na tiona l Gypsu m Co., 3 FM SHRC 822, 82 5 ( A pril 1981).

In M a thies Coa l Co., 6 FM SHRC 1, 3- 4 ( Ja nu a ry 1984), the Com m ission set ou t fou r criteria for determ ining w hether a viola tion is S& S. See a lso A u stin Pow er, Inc. v. Secreta ry, 861 F.2d 99, 103- 0 4 ( 5th Cir. 1988), a ff' g A u stin Pow er, Inc., 9 FM SHRC 2015, 2 0 2 1 ( D ecem ber 1987)( a pproving M a thies criteria ). This eva lu a tion is m a de in term s of "continu ed norm a l m ining opera tions." U.S. Steel M ining Co., Inc., 6 FM SHRC 1573, 1574 ( Ju ly 1984). The qu estion of w h ether a pa rticu la r viola tion is sig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l m u st be ba sed on the pa rticu la r fa cts su rrou nding the viola tion. Texa sg u lf, Inc., 10 FM SHRC 498 ( A pril 1988); You g hiog heny & Ohio Coa l Co., 9 FM SHRC 10 0 7 ( D ecem ber 1987).

A s in m ost S& S ca ses, w h ether the viola tion w a s "sig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l" depends on w h ether the Secreta ry ha s show n tha t the third M a thies elem ent, tha t there w a s a rea sona ble lik elihood tha t the ha za rd contribu ted to by the viola tion w ou ld resu lt in a n inju ry, w a s present. In this connection, the Secreta ry presented evidence tha t there w ere severa l ca bles lying on the w et m ine floor, tha t the ca bles w ere frequ ently ru bbed on the corners of ribs, tha t a s a resu lt shorts in the ca ble cou ld develop ca u sing a sm a ll ca ble fire w ith resu lting sm ok e

4
See fn. 2 , su pra .

4

Page 5

a nd tha t the line cu rta ins tha t ha d been hu ng a s tem pora ry stopping s in the a rea w ere poorly hu ng a nd cou ld ea sily be dislodg ed either by m iners or equ ipm ent g oing throu g h them . In a ddition, there w a s evidence tha t m etha ne is a lw a ys a da ng er in m ines.

A g a inst this, the com pa ny contends tha t the a ir circu la tion a t the fa ce w a s w ithin requ irem ents, tha t m etha ne ha d never been detected in the m ine a nd tha t no m isha ps of the na tu re su g g ested by the Secreta ry ha d occu rred when the cita tion w a s issu ed. How ever, considering this viola tion, not ju st a t the tim e it w a s cited, bu t a ssu m ing continu ed m ining opera tions, I find tha t the flim sy na tu re of the ventila tion controls present a nd the

consta nt m ovem ent of the ca bles m a k es it rea sona bly lik ely tha t a seriou s inju ry w ou ld resu lt. A ccording ly, I find tha t the viola tion w a s "sig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l."

U nw a rra nta ble Fa ilu re

The cita tion a lso a lleg es tha t Brok en Hill w a s hig hly neg lig ent in perm itting this viola tion to occu r a nd tha t the viola tion resu lted from the com pa ny' s "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" to com ply w ith the reg u la tion. The Com m ission ha s held tha t "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" is a g g ra va ted condu ct constitu ting m ore tha t ordina ry neg lig ence by a m ine opera tor in rela tion to a viola tion of the A ct. Em ery M ining Corp., 9 FM SHRC 1997, 2 0 0 4 ( D ecem ber 1987); You g hiog heny & Ohio Coa l Co., 9 FM SHRC 2007, 2 0 10 ( D ecem ber 1987). "Unw a rra nta ble fa ilu re is cha ra cterized by su ch condu ct a s ' reck less disreg a rd,'' intentiona l m iscondu ct,'
'indifference'or a ' seriou s la ck of rea sona ble ca re.' [Em ery] a t 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 ; Rochester & Pittsbu rg h Coa l Corp., 13 FM SHRC 189, 193- 94 ( Febru a ry 1991)." W yom ing Fu el Co., 16 FM SHRC 1618, 1627 ( A u g u st 1994).

The evidence indica tes tha t on A u g u st 17 a nd Septem ber 2 , 1993, Inspector Chu rch issu ed cita tions for the sa m e viola tion in the sa m e entries a s the insta nt cita tion. A fter ea ch cita tion, a nd pa rticu la rly a fter the second one, Inspector Chu rch stressed to com pa ny officia ls the im porta nce of com plying w ith Section 75.333( b)( 1). The evidence a lso show s tha t w h en this cita tion w a s issu ed, the forem a n to w h om it w a s issu ed a dm itted to the inspector tha t he k new perm a nent stopping s w ere requ ired.

A lthou g h not specifica lly a rg u ed in the Respondent' s brief, im plicit in its presenta tion in this ca se is the a ssertion tha t the viola tion w a s not a n "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" beca u se the com pa ny believed it ca m e w ithin the "room " exception to the reg u la tion. This contention is rejected for tw o rea sons.

First, to be a defense to "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" the com pa ny w ou ld ha ve ha d to ha ve ha d the belief a t the tim e the viola tion w a s com m itted. Instea d, the evidence is to the contra ry since no m ention w a s m a de of the exception a t the tim e the cita tion w a s issu ed or a t the tim e a conference w ith the com pa ny w a s held concerning the cita tion. In fa ct, a s la te a s the filing of its a nsw er to the petition for civil pena lty on A u g u st 18, 1994, the com pa ny a dm itted tha t a viola tion existed

5

Page 6

a nd m a de no cla im of a "room " exception.5 Thu s, it a ppea rs tha t the com pa ny' s defense to the cita tion w a s not a rrived a t u ntil som etim e la ter.

Secondly, to be a defense to "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re," Brok en Hill' s belief tha t it w a s m ining a room w ou ld ha ve to be in g ood fa ith a nd rea sona ble. W yom ing Fu el a t 1628; Cypru s Pla tea u M ining Corp., 16 FM SHRC 1610 , 1615 ( A u g u st 1994). A s the evidence in this ca se a m ply dem onstra tes, it w a s neither.

I find tha t Brok en Hill' s fa ilu re to esta blish perm a nent stopping s u p to a nd inclu ding the third connecting crosscu t ou tby the w ork ing fa ce, a fter tw ice being cited for the sa m e viola tion, a nd a fter a dm issions by its a g ents tha t they w ere a w a re of the requ irem ent constitu tes a t best indifference or a la ck of seriou s ca re. A ccording ly, I conclu de tha t by su ch a g g ra va ted condu ct, the Respondent u nw a rra nta bly fa iled to com ply w ith Section 75.333( b)( 1) of the Reg u la tions.

CIV IL PENA LTY A SSESSM ENT

The Secreta ry ha s proposed a civil pena lty of $3,0 0 0 .0 0 for this viola tion. How ever, it is the ju dg e' s independent responsibility to determ ine the a ppropria te a m ou nt of a pena lty, in a ccorda nce w ith the six criteria set ou t in Section 110 ( i) of the A ct. Sellersbu rg Stone Co. v. Federa l M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth Review Com m ission, 736 F.2d 1147, 1151 ( 7th Cir. 1984). Considering the six criteria , w ith pa rticu la r em pha sis on the deg ree of neg lig ence, I conclu de tha t a $3,0 0 0 .0 0 p ena lty is a ppropria te for this viola tion.

ORD ER

Order Nos. 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 a nd 4015281 a re M ODIFIED to Section 10 4 ( a ) cita tions by deleting the "u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re" desig na tions a nd a re A FFIRM ED a s m odified. Cita tion No. 4 0 15959

is A FFIRM ED . Brok en Hill M ining Com pa ny is ORD ERED TO PA Y a civil pena lty of
$3,70 0 .0 0 w ithin 3 0 d a ys of the da te of this decision. On receipt of pa ym ent, this proceeding is D ISM ISSED .

5
Brok en Hill sta ted "[a ]s to Cita tion No. 4 0 15959, the Respondent cla im s tha t even thou g h a Cita tion existed, w e ca nnot a g ree tha t it shou ld be a 10 4 - D - 1 type, beca u se tem pora ry bra ttices w ere insta lled in the crosscu ts, u p to a nd inclu ding the second crosscu t ou tby the fa ces on the inta k e a nd retu rn side of the section."

6

Page 7

T. Todd Hodg don
A dm inistra tive La w Ju dg e

Distribution:

Mary Sue Taylor, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201, Nashville, TN
37215-2862 (Certified Mail)

Hobart Anderson, President, Broken Hill Mining Co., Inc.,
P.O. Box 356, Sidney, KY 41564 (Certified Mail)

/lbk

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

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 94-972
Petitioner : A. C. No. 15-14959-03560

7

Page 8

v. :
: Mine No. 3
BROKEN HILL MINING COMPANY, :
INCORPORATED,
:
Respondent :

ORDER CORRECTING DECISION

In the last sentence of the first paragraph and the second to last sentence in the concluding paragraph of the September 1, 1995, Decision in the captioned case, the amount of penalty assessed is incorrectly stated as "$3,700.00." The amount of penalty should be "$3,650.00."

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, pursuant to Commission Rule 69(c), 29 C.F.R. ' 2700.69(c), that the last sentence in the first paragraph of the decision is CORRECTED to read: "For the reasons set forth below, I affirm the citation and the two orders, as modified, and assess a penalty of $3,650.00." Similarly, it is ORDERED that the second to last sentence in the final paragraph of the decision is CORRECTED to read: "Broken Hill Mining Company is ORDERED TO PAY a civil penalty of $3,650.00 within 30 days of the date of this decision.

T. Todd Hodgdon
Administrative Law Judge

8