Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (ALJ decision, August 23, 1995)

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (FMSHRC SE 95-430): Consolidated contest and penalty proceedings resolved

Decision type

ALJ decision

Dockets

SE 95-430, SE 94-586-R, SE 94-429, SE 94-448, SE 94-394

Decided

August 23, 1995

Presiding judge

David F. Barbour

Outcome

Mixed result

Precedential status

Final order, not precedent

Checked against source

2026-08-13

Cited standards

30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(2) 30 C.F.R. § 70.400-3 30 C.F.R. § 72.630(a) 30 C.F.R. § 72.630(d) 30 C.F.R. § 75.370(a)(1) 30 C.F.R. § 75.523 30 C.F.R. § 75.380(g) 30 C.F.R. § 75.220 30 C.F.R. § 75.400 30 C.F.R. § 75.1725 30 C.F.R. § 75.503 30 C.F.R. § 75.335 30 C.F.R. § 75.207(a) 30 C.F.R. § 75.381(c)(4) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1100-2(b) 30 C.F.R. § 75.403 30 C.F.R. § 75.342 30 C.F.R. § 75.1722(a) 30 C.F.R. § 50.20

Official source

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

PDF

View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1995 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent

This decision became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.

About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

These consolidated proceedings involved one contest and four civil penalty proceedings arising from alleged dust-control and other mine-safety violations. The judge affirmed the violation in the contested withdrawal order, vacated its significant-and-substantial finding, and found unwarrantable failure. He approved settlements for the other proceedings, including modifications and vacatur of individual citations, and ordered payment of the assessed penalties. The proceedings were dismissed after the required payments and citation modifications were completed.

Decision snapshot

Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. §§ 70.400-3 and 72.630(a), plus the other standards listed above
Outcome: The contested violation was affirmed with the S&S finding vacated, numerous settlements were approved, and the proceedings were ordered dismissed after payment and modifications.
Key point: The judge separated the underlying dust-control violation from the special S&S finding and approved negotiated resolutions of the remaining citations.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

August 23, 1995

JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC.,
: CONTEST PROCEEDING
Contestant
:
v. : Docket No. SE 94-586-R
: Order No. 3184217; 7/22/94
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
:
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
: No. 4 Mine
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
:
Respondent
:
:
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
: Docket No. SE 94-429
Petitioner
: A.C. No. 01-01247-04120
:
v. : Docket No. SE 94-448
: A.C. No. 01-01247-04122
JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC.,
:
Respondent
: No. 4 Mine
:
: Docket No. SE 94-394
: A.C. No. 01-01322-03957
:
: No. 5 Mine
:
: Docket No. SE 95-430
: A.C. No. 01-01401-04011
:
: No. 7 Mine

DECISION

Appearances: William Lawson, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Birmingham, Alabama, for Respondent and Petitioner;
David M. Smith, Esq., Maynard, Cooper & Gail, Birmingham, Alabama, for Contestant and
Respondent;
R. Stanley Morrow, Esq., Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Brookwood, Alabama, for Contestant and Respondent.

Before: Judge David Barbour

These consolida ted ca ses involve one contest proceeding a nd fou r civil pena lty proceeding s brou g ht u nder the Federa l M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth A ct of 1977 ( A ct) ( 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. ( 1988)). In the contest proceeding , Jim Walter Resou rces, Inc. ( Jim Walter) cha lleng es the va lidity of a n order of w ithdra w a l issu ed pu rsu a nt to section 104( d)( 2) of the A ct ( 30 U.S.C. ' 814( d)( 2 )). In the civil pena lty proceeding s, the Secreta ry of La bor ( Secreta ry), on beha lf of his M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth A dm inistra tion ( M SHA ), petitions for the a ssessm ent of civil pena lties for nu m erou s viola tions of m a nda tory sa fety a nd hea lth sta nda rds.

The ca ses w ere hea rd in Hoover, A la ba m a . Prior to the hea ring , cou nsels for the pa rties a nnou nced tha t they ha d settled m a ny of the a lleg ed viola tions in the civil pena lty proceeding s, bu t they ha d been u na ble to settle the issu es rela ting to the contest of the order of w ithdra w a l ( D ock et No. SE 94- 586-R), a nd to tw o of the a lleg ed viola tions of hea lth sta nda rds ( D ock et No. SE 94- 4 4 8). I a dvised cou nsel tha t I w ou ld hea r their expla n- a tions of the settlem ents a fter a ll of the evidence ha d been su bm itted reg a rding the contested issu es. I sta ted tha t if I believed the settlem ents w ere w a rra nted, I w ou ld a pprove them on the record a nd a ffirm m y a pprova ls in this decision.

The Issu es

The order of w ithdra w a l contested in D ock et No. SE 94- 586- R a lleg es a viola tion of 30 C.F.R. ' 72 .630( a ), a hea lth sta nda rd requ iring the control of du st resu lting from the drilling of rock . The order a lso conta ins specia l finding s a lleg ing tha t the viola tion w a s a sig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l ( S& S) contribu tion to a m ine hea lth ha za rd a nd w a s the resu lt of Jim Walter's u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re to com ply w ith section 72 .630( a ).

The a lleg ed viola tions in D ock et No. SE 94- 4 4 8 a re ea ch of 30 C.F.R. '70 .440-3, a hea lth sta nda rd tha t requ ired du st

from a rock drill to be rea dily distribu ted a nd ca rried a w a y from the drill opera tor or other w ork ers in the a rea . The cita tions in w h ich the viola tions a re a lleg ed a lso conta in S& S finding s. The Secreta ry proposed civil pena lties of $1,610 for ea ch of the a lleg ed viola tions.

The issu es in the contest proceeding a re w h ether Jim Walter viola ted section 76.630( a ) a nd, if so, w hether the specia l find - ing s a re va lid. The issu es in the civil pena lty ca se a re w h ether Jim Walter viola ted section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 , w h ether the S& S finding s a re va lid, a nd the a m ou nt of a ny civil pena lties to be a ssessed. Fina lly, the pa rties a g reed tha t if I conclu ded the viola tion cited in the contested order existed, I shou ld m a k e finding s reg a rding the g ra vity of the viola tion a nd the neg lig ence of Jim Walter in order to g u ide the pa rties in resolving the civil pena lty a spects of the ca se ( Tr. 7).

The Sta nda rds

Section 70 .4 0 0 , of which section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 is a su bsection, w a s in effect u ntil A pril 18, 1994. Section 70 .4 0 0 sta ted:

The du st resu lting from drilling in rock sha ll be controlled by u se of perm issible du st collectors, or by w a ter, or w a ter w ith a w etting a g ent, or by ventila tion, or by a ny other m ethod or device a pproved by the Secreta ry w hich is a s effective in controlling su ch du st.

Section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 sta ted:

To a dequ a tely control du st from drilling rock , the a ir cu rrent sha ll be so directed tha t the du st is rea dily dispersed a nd ca rried a w a y from the drill opera tor or a ny other w ork ers in the a rea .

On A pril 19, 1994, Section 70 .4 0 0 w a s repla ced by section 72.630( a ), a nd section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 w a s repla ced by section 72.630( d) ( See 59 Fed. Reg . 8327 ( 1994)). The new sta nda rds a re virtu a lly identica l to the old.

Section 72.630( a ) sta tes:

D u st resu lting from drilling in rock sha ll be controlled by u se of perm issible du st collectors, or by w a ter, or w a ter w ith a w etting a g ent, or by ventila tion, or by a ny other m ethod or device a pproved by the Secreta ry tha t is a s effective in controlling the du st.

Section 72.630( d) sta tes:

To a dequ a tely control du st from drilling rock , the a ir cu rrent sha ll be so directed tha t the du st is rea dily dispersed a nd ca rried a w a y from the drill opera tor or a ny other m iners in the a rea .

The Cita tions a nd The Order

Cita tion No. 3186828 ( D ock et No. SE 94- 4 4 8), w h ich a lleg es a viola tion of section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 , w a s issu ed on M a rch 21, 1994, a t the No. 4 M ine. It sta tes, in pa rt:

A ccording to sta tem ents m a de by m a na g em ent a nd la bor em ployees, rock drilling is being condu cted on the No. 2 long w a ll ... w ith ventila tion a s the only m ethod of du st control.
The drilling is being d one on- shift a nd a ffected em ployees a re not being rem oved dow nw ind on the long w a ll fa ce. Tra ining sha ll be condu cted on a ll three shifts in the requ irem ent tha t w ith ventila tion a s the only m ea ns of du st control du ring rock drilling , the a ir sha ll either be directed a w a y from the fa ce or the a ffected em ployees rem oved from the a rea . The drilling is being d one w ith g opher ... drills ( G ov. Exh. 4).

Cita tion No. 3186829 ( D ock et No. SE 94- 4 4 8) w a s issu ed on the sa m e da te, a t the No. 4 M ine, a nd a lleg es a viola tion of the sa m e hea lth sta nda rd. It sta tes, in pa rt:

A ccording to sta tem ents m a de by m a na g em ent a nd la bor em ployees, rock drilling ha s been condu cted on the fa ce a nd belt entry of the [N]o. 1 long w a ll ... w ith ventila tion a s the only m ethod of du st control. The drilling is being d one on shift a nd a ffected em ployees a re not being rem oved from dow nw ind on the long w a ll fa ce. Tra ining sha ll be condu cted on a ll three shifts in the requ irem ent tha t w ith ventila tion a s the only m ea ns of du st control du ring rock drill- ing , the a ir sha ll either be directed a w a y from the fa ce or the a ffected em ployees rem oved from the a rea . The drilling is done w ith g opher ... drills ( G ov. Exh. 5).

Order No. 3184217 ( D ock et No. SE 94- 586-R), w h ich a lleg es a viola tion of section 72.630( a ), w a s issu ed on Ju ly 22, 1994, a t the No. 4 M ine. It sta tes, in pa rt:

Sta tem ents g iven by la bor a nd m a na g em ent em ployees ... show tha t du st resu lting from drilling in rock w a s not being controlled by u se of perm issible du st collectors, or by w a ter, or

by w a ter w ith [a ] w etting a g ent, or by ventila tion controls. Em ployees w h o w ere drilling the No. 1 long w a ll section roof w ith pneu m a tic rota tion drills on [the] 7- 2 1-94 ow l shift w ere exposed to this du st w h ile insta lling perm a nent roof su pports. A s m a ny a s fou r ( 4) drills w ere in opera tion a t a ny one tim e a nd none of the drills w ere equ ipped w ith du st su ppression devices ( G ov. Exh. 8).

The A rg u m ents

In opening his ca se, cou nsel for the Secreta ry sta ted tha t the reg u la tions reg a rding the control of rock du st from drilling provide essentia lly for three m ea ns of control - - a pproved du st collectors, w a ter, or ventila tion. Beca u se w ork a ble du st collectors a re not a va ila ble for pneu m a tic rock drills, du st control ca n be a seriou s problem u nless w a ter or effective ventila tion is u sed ( Tr. 11). The cita tions a nd order w ere issu ed beca u se Jim Walter u sed pneu m a tic rock drills, bu t did not u se w a ter or properly u se ventila tion. The ventila tion in the cited a rea s w a s ineffective in tha t the rock du st tra veled over m iners w h o w ere dow nw ind of the drills ( Tr. 12).

Cou nsel for Jim Walter a g reed tha t no effective du st collectors w ere a va ila ble for the rock drills a nd tha t the com pa ny ha d to u se either w a ter or ventila tion. W a ter posed a ha za rd to the m iners opera ting the drills, a nd the config u ra tion of ventila tion on the long w a ll sections m a de it im possible to u se ventila tion for du st control ( Tr. 16). Cou nsel a sserted tha t Jim Walter did a n "excellent job in m a in- ta ining a sa fe a nd hea lthy environm ent" nonetheless ( Tr. 16), a nd tha t the situ a tion the com pa ny fa ced w a s "m ore [lik e] a n im possibility of com plia nce position" tha n a nything else ( Tr. 17).

The Secreta ry' s W itnesses

Ju dy M cCorm ick

Ju dy M cCorm ick is in cha rg e of the hea lth inspection a ctivities a t M SHA ' s Birm ing ha m , A la ba m a , su bdistrict office.
A s pa rt of her w ork , she su pervised three inspectors w h o con- du ct du st a nd noise su rveys ( Tr. 19- 2 0 ). M cCorm ick sta ted tha t w h en section 70 .4 0 0 w a s in effect, it w a s u su a lly a pplied to percu ssion- type rock drills tha t drilled m ine roofs ( Tr. 21).

M cCorm ick testified tha t section 70 .4 0 0 requ ired du st from drilling in rock to be controlled by perm issible du st collectors, w a ter, w a ter w ith a w etting a g ent, ventila tion or "a ny other m ethod tha t [w a s] a pproved by the Secreta ry" ( Tr. 22). She u nderstood tha t if ventila tion w a s u sed a s a m ea ns of du st control, the a ir ha d to be directed so the du st w a s ca rried a w a y from a drill opera tor a nd other m iners. If a m iner w a s dow nw ind from the drill opera tor a nd

du st from the drill pa ssed over him or her, a viola tion of the sta nda rd occu rred. The volu m e of the a ir m a de no difference a s to whether the viola tion existed ( Tr. 39). In M cCorm ick ' s view , section 72.630 conta ined the sa m e requ irem ents a s section 70 .4 0 0 .

M cCorm ick identified a cita tion tha t w a s issu ed by M SHA Inspector New ell Bu tler a t Jim Walter' s No. 3 M ine on M a rch 15, 1994 ( G ov. Exh. 3). The cita tion a lleg ed a viola tion of section 75.4 0 0 - 3 . It w a s issu ed for drilling rock on the No. 2 long w a ll section w ith ventila tion a s the only m ea ns of du st control a nd w ith m iners dow nw ind of the drilling . A ccording to M cCorm ick , these w ere essentia lly the sa m e conditions tha t six da ys la ter resu lted in the a lleg ed viola tions of section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 a t the No. 4 M ine, a nd tha t six m onths la ter ca u sed the contested order to be issu ed a t the m ine ( Tr. 26.).

The a lleg ed viola tions of section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 w ere not ba sed u pon the persona l observa tion of the inspector, bu t ra ther u pon his interview s w ith la bor a nd m a na g em ent personnel. M cCorm ick expla ined:

[T]he long w a lls of Jim Walter's [w ere] ha ving com plia nce problem s.
A nd it w a s brou g ht to ou r a ttention by the United M ine W ork ers tha t drilling w a s being d one w ith the Gopher [percu ssion- type] drills ... a nd people on the long w a ll fa ces w ere being exposed to this du st ( Tr. 28).

M cCorm ick testified tha t in A pril 1994, she ta u g ht a n M SHA sponsored cla ss for coa l opera tors reg a rding com plia nce w ith Pa rt 72 . Jim Walter sent tw o em ployees, one of w h om w a s W yett A ndrew s, the sa fety su pervisor a t the No. 4 M ine ( Tr. 30-31). D u ring the cou rse, section 72.630 wa s discu ssed. Neither A ndrew s nor the other Jim Walter em ployee w h o a ttended told M cCorm ick tha t the com pa ny w a s u na ble to com ply w ith the sta nda rd ( Tr. 31).

M cCorm ick w a s a sk ed a bou t hea lth ha za rds a ssocia ted w ith drilling rock . Her a nsw er w a s su ccinct - - "[e]xposu re to crysta lline silica or qu a rtz resu lting in silicosis" ( Tr. 32). She expla ined tha t the m a nda tory du st sta nda rds of Pa rt 70 lim it respira ble du st in the a tm osphere of a ctive w ork ing s of a n u nderg rou nd coa l m ine to 2.0 m illig ra m s of du st per cu bic m eter of a ir w h en no qu a rtz or less tha n five percent qu a rtz is present ( 30 U.S.C. § 70 .10 0 ). W hen m ore tha n five percent qu a rtz is present, the lim it decrea ses ( 30 C.F.R. § 70 .10 1). The redu ced a llow a ble concentra tion is m a nda ted beca u se of the heig htened possibility of contra cting silicosis du e to increa sed qu a rtz in the m ine a tm osphere ( Tr. 33).

In the tw o yea rs prior to the hea ring , a redu ced respira ble du st lim it w a s in effect a t the No. 4 M ine ( Tr. 33). In other w ords, du ring tha t tim e Jim Walter ha d to m a inta in the a vera g e concentra tion of respira ble du st in the m ine a tm osphere of both long w a lls a t a sta nda rd low er tha n 2.0 m illig ra m s per cu bic m eter of a ir. M cCorm ick sta ted tha t M SHA ha d cited the com pa ny for viola ting the redu ced sta nda rd ( Tr. 34- 35).

M cCorm ick w a s a sk ed a bou t "bu lk sa m ples." She expla ined tha t su ch sa m ples w ere ta k en w h en a m ine w a s experiencing a "qu a rtz problem ." The pu rpose of the sa m ples w a s to identify the sou rce of the qu a rtz. The sa m ples consisted of bu lk m a teria l from the coa l fa ce, the roof or the floor ( Tr. 35).

Bu lk sa m ples w ere collected a t the No. 4 M ine du ring the w inter of 1993 ( Tr. 37- 38).
A ccording to M cCorm ick , a na lysis of the sa m ples "show ed tha t the presence of qu a rtz w a s extrem ely hig h in the M iddle M a n rock in the fa ce, w h ich is a rock pa rt in betw een the coa l [,] ... neg lig ible in the Blu e Creek coa l sea m ... hig h in the roof, hig h in the floor a nd extrem ely hig h in the M a ry Lee coa l sea m " ( Tr. 37). The sa m ples w ere ta k en a t Jim Walter' s requ est to help the com pa ny isola te the sou rce of qu a rtz on the long w a ll. The resu lts of the a na lysis of the sa m ples w ere g iven to the com pa ny' s m a na g er of ventila tion.

No bu lk sa m ples w ere ta k en for the exa ct a rea s covered by the su bject cita tions, or, for tha t m a tter, w ithin 10 0 feet of the a rea s, nor w ere respira ble du st sa m ples ta k en ( Tr. 44). M cCorm ick did not k now w h a t the respira ble du st concentra tions w ere on the long w a ll sections w h en the a lleg ed viola tions occu rred ( Tr. 45). W hen a sk ed how M SHA cou ld determ ine the qu a rtz content of the du st being brea thed by m iners if sa m ples w ere not ta k en a nd a na lyzed, M cCorm ick replied tha t the ha za rd from rock du st w a s so g rea t, "it w a s not necessa ry to prove a n overexposu re to a ny sta nda rd, only to prove a n exposu re" ( Tr. 63). She a dded tha t the qu a rtz content of the du st did not m a tter, there w a s a n a ssu m ption tha t exposu re w ou ld resu lt in silicosis a t som e point ( Tr. 64).

M cCorm ick a lso sta ted tha t if m iners w ore respira tors, a n opera tor w ou ld still ha ve to com ply w ith the sta nda rds. How ever, u se of persona l protection equ ipm ent m ig ht a ffect the S& S na tu re of the viola tion ( Tr. 38, 39, 55).

M cCorm ick believed the m inim u m a ir qu a ntity requ ired for the No. 1 long w a ll w a s 65,0 0 0 cu bic feet per m inu te w h en m ining w a s in prog ress. The qu a ntity requ ired w a s less when m ining cea sed a nd the long w a ll w a s being recovered. She did not k now h ow m u ch less, a nd she did not k now the volu m e of a ir present on the No. 1 long w a ll when the contested order w a s issu ed. Nonetheless, she insisted tha t w h a tever the volu m e w a s, it ha d no bea ring on the a lleg ed viola tion, nor on its S& S na tu re ( Tr. 52 , 55- 57).

W hen prom u lg a ting Pa rt 72, the Secreta ry, throu g h M SHA , sta ted:

Under som e circu m sta nces, continu ou s m ining m a chines a nd roof bolters w ork on a sing le split of a ir, a nd this ca n resu lt in only the drillers being protected while persons w ork ing d ow nw ind cou ld be exposed. If proper preca u tions a re ta k en, how ever, ventila tion ca n be a n effective m ethod of du st control. M SHA , therefore, ha s not deleted pa ra g ra ph ( d) [of section 72.630].
M SHA w ill continu e to determ ine com plia nce w ith this requ irem ent u nder the fina l ru le a s it ha s enforced ' 70 .4 0 0 - 3 ; i.e., throu g h the m ea su rem ent of a ir qu a ntity or other m ea su res set forth in a m ine' s ventila tion a nd m etha ne a nd du st control pla n ( 59 Fed. Reg . 8325 ( 1994)).

M cCorm ick w a s a sk ed whether this sta tem ent indica ted tha t com plia nce w ith section 72 .630( d) shou ld be ba sed u pon a ir qu a ntity m ea su rem ents. M cCorm ick responded, "No" ( Tr 56 - 57). In M cCorm ick ' s view , to esta blish a viola tion of section 72.630( d), a ll a n inspector needed to k now w a s the m ethod of du st control being em ployed by the opera tor. If ventila tion w a s being u sed, a nd if m iners w ere dow nw ind of the drill, there w a s a viola tion ( Tr. 6 0 - 6 1).

G a ry D on Greer

Inspector G a ry D on Greer w ork s in the M SHA sa fety division.
He w ork ed previou sly in the hea lth division a nd a dm inistered the ta k ing of respira ble du st sa m ples ( Tr. 67- 6 8). Greer testified a bou t the events tha t lea d him to issu e the contested order.

On Ju ly 21, 1994, Greer condu cted a n inspection a t the No. 4 M ine. He a rrived u nderg rou nd a s the crew from the third shift or "ow l shift" w a s lea ving ( Tr. 150 ). ( The ow l shift beg a n a t 11:00 p.m . on Ju ly 2 0 , a nd ended a t 7:0 0 a .m . on Ju ly 2 1 ( Tr. 110 ).) Greer w a s a ccom pa nied by m iners'representa tive, Glynn Log g ins. ( Log g ins is a lso a m em ber of the United M ine W ork ers of A m erica ( UM W A ) m ine sa fety com m ittee ( Tr. 69- 70 ).)

G reer a nd Log g ins tra veled to the No. 1 long w a ll section, a nd a rrived a bou t 30 m inu tes a fter the end of the ow l shift
( Tr. 12 2 - 123). Log g ins told Greer a bou t "the problem s tha t la bor ha d ... w ith neg otia tions w ith m a na g em ent concerning d rilling rock , a nd ha ving people w ork dow nw ind in ... drilling opera tions" ( Tr. 70 ). Log g ins a lso told him tha t a section 103( g ) com pla int w ou ld lik ely be filed for ha ving m iners w ork ing d ow nw ind while rock w a s drilled ( Tr. 147, 161- 162). ( Section 103( g ) of the A ct ( 30 U.S.C. § 813( g )) provides tha t a representa tive of m iners ha s the rig ht

to obta in a n im m edia te inspection on requ est if the representa tive ha s rea sona ble g rou nds to believe a viola tion exists.)

Recovery opera tions w ere u nderw a y a t the long w a ll fa ce.
On the hea d g a te side of the section, the opera tions requ ired insta lla tion of a m onora il, a ra il type system u sed to ha ng ca bles ( Tr. 21). The w ork necessita ted drilling holes into the roof w ith percu ssion- type drills ( G opher drills) ( Tr. 71, 142).

G reer expla ined tha t a G opher drill w eig hs a pproxim a tely 150 pou nds ( Tr. 90, 142). It ca n be ca rried by tw o people w ith- ou t m u ch difficu lty. The drill steel is hollow . Pressu rized a ir cou rses u p the steel a nd tu rns the bit. A s the bit rota tes, it pu lverizes the roof rock . Unless the pu lverized rock is collected or w etted, the du st is forced ou t of the drill hole by the a ir a nd enters the m ine a tm osphere in a visible clou d ( Tr. 9 0 - 9 1). W hen w a ter is u sed, no du st enters the a tm osphere ( Tr. 97).

G reer did not k now of a ny du st collection devices tha t w ou ld w ork on Gopher drills. He believed the only w a y to con- trol the du st w a s w ith w a ter or ventila tion ( Tr. 10 1- 10 2 ). A lthou g h Jim Walter ha d been m ining long w a lls since 1980, u ntil the inspection of Ju ly 21, Greer never sa w w a ter u sed to control rock du st ( Tr. 103). Prior to Ju ly, he never issu ed a cita tion for m iners w ork ing d ow nw ind when ventila tion w a s the only m ea ns of rock du st control ( Tr. 104).

The long w a ll section forem a n w a s Ed Sca lla . A ccording to Greer, Sca lla a sk ed how Jim W a lter cou ld opera te drills on the section a nd com ply w ith section 72.630 ( Tr. 148, see a lso Tr. 71). ( G reer specu la ted tha t Sca lla inqu ired a bou t the problem beca u se the UM W A a nd Jim Walter ha d been discu ssing it ( Tr. 75).) Greer told Sca lla tha t Jim Walter cou ld provide w a ter or w a ter w ith a w etting a g ent to the drills or cou ld u se ventila tion ( Tr. 72 - 73).

G reer a sk ed how m a ny drills w ere a va ila ble on the section, a nd Sca lla sta ted tha t there w ere tw o ( Tr. 72 - 73). Greer responded tha t w ith tw o drills opera ting a nd w ith ventila tion u sed a s the m ea ns of du st control, m iners cou ld not w ork below the u pw ind drill ( Tr. 73- 74).

A ccording to Greer, follow ing the discu ssion w ith Sca lla , Eu g ene A verette, the long w a ll m a intena nce su pervisor, fitted one of the tw o drills w ith w a ter by connecting a w a ter line to the drill. It took a pproxim a tely 15 m inu tes ( Tr. 76, 109).

G reer then w a tched while the drill w a s u sed a nd w a ter w a s cou rsed throu g h the drill steel into the drill hole ( Tr. 76 - 77). It w a s the first tim e Greer ha d seen w a ter u sed w ith a percu ssion- type rock drill ( Tr. 103, 126). Six or seven bolts w ere insta lled in the roof. It took a pproxim a tely three or fou r m inu tes to drill a hole ( Tr. 90- 91). Som e w a ter ca m e ou t of the hole a s it w a s drilled, bu t the w a ter did not interfere w ith the opera tion of the drill ( Tr. 126). W hen the hole w a s finished, the drill w a s pick ed u p a nd m oved over five feet a nd the next hole w a s drilled ( Tr. 92).

G reer a nd Log g ins a lso observed both drills in opera tion a t the sa m e tim e. The drills w ere from 10 0 feet to 250 feet a pa rt ( Tr. 92). The m iners loca ted dow nw ind did not ha ve du st pa ssing over them from the u pw ind drill beca u se the w a ter on the u pw ind drill w a s effective in controlling the du st ( Tr. 77). Greer a sk ed the m iners opera ting the u pw ind drill if the w a ter ca u sed them a ny problem s, a nd they replied tha t it did not ( Tr. 78). Greer a lso a sk ed Log g ins if he believed there w a s a ny da ng er in u sing w a ter a nd Log g ins replied tha t he did not ( Tr. 154). No one from m ine m a na g em ent a sk ed a ny qu estions a bou t the opera tion of the drill, or indica ted a ny problem w ith the w a ter ( Tr. 79).
G reer testified tha t w a ter w a s rea dily a va ila ble on a long w a ll section. W hen m ining w a s in prog ress, it w a s u sed to w et the coa l, a nd du ring recovery opera tions, a w a ter line for fire fig hting ra n to the end of the tra ck ( Tr. 78- 79).

W hen Greer retu rned to the su rfa ce, he w a s told tha t M cCorm ick w a nted him . Greer ca lled M cCorm ick , who a dvised him tha t she ha d received a section 103( g ) inspection requ est from the UM W A . The requ est sta ted tha t m iners w ere requ ired to w ork dow nw ind du ring roof drilling opera tions a nd tha t the drills w ere not equ ipped w ith w a ter ( Tr. 80). Greer told M cCorm ick tha t beca u se of his recently com pleted inspection, he w a s a w a re of the problem a nd tha t he w ou ld "ha ndle the requ est" ( Tr. 81).

G reer retu rned to the m ine the next da y. Pu rsu a nt to the section 103( g ) requ est, he interview ed severa l m iners, inclu ding K eith Bu rg ess, ow l shift u nion sa fety com m itteem a n, a nd Log g ins ( Tr. 81). Greer a lso interview ed W ya tt A ndrew s a nd the forem a n of the ow l shift ( Tr. 82).

In Greer' s view , the section 103( g ) requ est w a s referring to conditions tha t ha d existed on the Ju ly 21 ow l shift. Greer a sk ed m a na g em ent personnel if roof bolts ha d been insta lled du ring tha t shift. He w a s told tha t they ha d been a nd tha t a s m a ny a s fou r Gopher drills ha d been u sed a t one pa rticu la r tim e ( Tr. 83).

G reer a sk ed the shift su pervisor if he w a s a w a re tha t a cita tion ha d been issu ed in M a rch beca u se drills w ere not equ ipped w ith w a ter a nd effective ventila tion controls w ere not u sed. The su pervisor told him he w a s not a w a re of the cita tion ( Tr. 84). How ever, Greer m a inta ined tha t W ya tt A ndrew s a nd Jerry M a ddox, the long w a ll m a na g er, w ere a w a re of the previou s cita tions ( Tr. 84- 85). M a ddox told Greer tha t he believed the u se of w a ter to control du st cou ld crea te a ha za rd ( Tr. 96). Greer a ck now led g ed tha t injecting w a ter into the roof cou ld a d d w eig ht to the roof ( Tr. 117).

G reer' s discu ssions w ith Jim Walter su pervisory personnel a nd UW M A em ployees yielded identica l inform a tion reg a rding the Ju ly 21 ow l shift - - tha t none of the drills in opera tion a t a ny one tim e w ere equ ipped w ith du st su ppression devices or w a ter ( Tr. 122). G reer believed there w a s a viola tion of section 72.630( a ) beca u se the investig a tion revea led tha t Jim Walter fa iled to provide w a ter, or w a ter w ith a n a g ent, to a lla y du st g enera ted by drilling rock a nd fa iled to im plem ent a ny type of ventila tion control tha t ca rried drill du st a w a y from people w ork ing d ow nw ind ( Tr. 86- 87).

G reer fou nd the viola tion of section 75.630( a ) w a s ca u sed by the com pa ny' s u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re to com ply, in tha t Jim Walter m a na g em ent k new tha t the pra ctice of drilling w ithou t protective devices a nd w ith m iners dow nw ind w a s a viola tion of the sta nda rd ( Tr. 87). In other w ords, the viola tion w a s delibera te. He sta ted, "I a sk ed ... A ndrew s a nd I a sk ed ... M a ddox if they w ere a w a re tha t viola tions of a sim ila r na tu re ha d been issu ed, a nd both sta ted tha t ... they w ere a w a re" ( Tr. 87- 88).

G reer fou nd the viola tion w a s S& S beca u se the drilling

of rock tha t conta ined qu a rtz cou ld lea d to qu a rtz- bea ring respira ble du st, a nd exposu re to the du st cou ld ca u se brea thing problem s a nd silicosis ( Tr. 89). How ever, Greer a dm itted tha t w h en he w rote the order he ha d no inform a tion a bou t the volu m e of ventila tion in the a ffected a rea , the content of respira ble du st in the a tm osphere, nor a ny inform a tion a bou t the specific com position of the du st ( Tr. 131, 138). He sta ted his finding tha t the viola tion w a s "hig hly lik ely" to lea d to illness w a s a n "edu ca ted g u ess" ( Tr. 132).

W illia m K eith Bu rg ess

W illia m K eith Bu rg ess is a long w a ll helper a t the No. 4 M ine. He ha s been em ployed by Jim Walter since Ja nu a ry 1980, a nd he is a m em ber of the UM W A sa fety com m ittee ( Tr. 167). ( The com m ittee m eets w ith m a na g em ent on a m onthly ba sis a nd discu sses specific problem s w ith m a na g em ent on a da ily ba sis ( Id.).

Bu rg ess sta ted tha t som e da ys before Ju ly 22, he w a s present w h en the com m ittee a nd m a na g em ent discu ssed the issu e of con- trolling d u st from rock drilling ( Tr. 168- 169). ( He believed the su bject ha d been discu ssed by the u nion a nd m a na g em ent previou sly. How ever, this w a s the first tim e he w a s involved ( Tr. 172).) A t the m eeting , W yett A ndrew s a nd Fred K ozell, the depu ty m ine m a na g er, represented m a na g em ent. Bu rg ess, Log g ins a nd a nother m iner w ere the u nion representa tives ( Tr. 168- 169, 172). The rea son for the m eeting w a s tha t ra nk - a nd - file m iners k new G opher drills w ou ld be u sed du ring forthcom ing long w a ll recovery w ork . A ccording to Bu rg ess, when the u nion personnel a sk ed K ozell if w a ter w a s g oing to be u sed to control the rock du st, K ozell responded a ffirm a tively a nd sa id tha t he w ou ld ha ve the drills fitted for w a ter ( Tr. 170 ).

Bu rg ess described a G opher drill a s a pproxim a tely three feet hig h w ith a sw ing - type ha ndle. T w o levers a re loca ted in the m iddle of the ha ndle, one controls the a ir tha t is blow n into the drill steel, a nd the other extends the drill into the roof ( Tr. 174 - 175). Bu rg ess sta ted tha t visu a lly observed du st is crea ted when w a ter is not u sed ( Tr. 176).

On Ju ly 21, Bu rg ess w a s w ork ing on the ow l shift a s a long - w a ll helper a nd drill opera tor. He reca lled fou r Gopher drills in u se du ring the shift. T w o w ere on the section w h en the crew a rrived a nd tw o w ere brou g ht to the section by the crew ( Tr. 179). ( Severa l other inopera ble drills w ere on the section w h en the crew a rrived ( Id.).) D rilling w ent on du ring the entire ow l shift a nd Bu rg ess w a s not a w a re of w a ter u sed on a ny of the drills du ring the shift ( Tr. 183- 184, 222).

Bu rg ess testified tha t the fou r drills w ere opera ted a t the sa m e tim e ( Tr. 179).
A lthou g h he cou ld not see other drills opera ting w hen he w a s drilling , w h en he stood ba ck , he

cou ld see m ore tha n one drill opera ting , a nd none of the drills w ere fitted for w a ter ( Tr. 2 16 - 2 17, 2 2 1, 226, 227).

The drills w ere a long the long w a ll fa ce betw een the hea d g a te a nd ta ilg a te ( Tr. 181- 182).
One drill w a s loca ted a t the hea d - g a te. Beca u se the a ir on the long w a ll m oved from the hea d g a te to the ta ilg a te, the other drills w ere loca ted dow nw ind from the

first drill ( the hea d g a te drill) ( Tr. 182- 183). Bu rg ess believed he w a s opera ting the third drill ( Tr. 183). W hile he w a s drill- ing , Bu rg ess observed du st com ing tow a rd him from the other drills ( Tr. 228).

Bu rg ess described som e of the roof being d rilled a s "ba d top" ( Tr. 199). A t tim es, the drill steel pa ssed throu g h brea k s in the roof stra ta , w h ich indica ted to him tha t the stra ta w a s cra ck ed ( Tr. 199- 2 0 0 , 2 0 1).

Shortly before entering the m ine on Ju ly 21, the ow l shift crew w a s told by Ed Hertzog , the forem a n, to g et respira tors
( Tr. 186). Bu rg ess testified tha t he ha d never previou sly been issu ed a respira tor ( Tr. 188). A ccording to Bu rg ess, Hertzog sta ted the respira tors w ere to repla ce w a ter on the drills ( Tr. 191, 2 2 5- 2 2 6 ).

Once on the section, Bu rg ess a ttem pted to w ea r his respira tor, bu t rem oved it beca u se it pu lled his hea d dow n a nd he cou ld not w a tch the roof ( Tr. 190). Only one m iner w ore a respira tor du ring the entire shift. A ll other m iners on the crew w ore their respira tors a t lea st for a n hou r ( Tr. 190, 218).

W hen it beca m e clea r tha t w a ter w a s not g oing to be u sed on the drills, Bu rg ess discu ssed w ith the other sa fety com m ittee m em bers the possibility of requ esting a section 103( g ) inspection ( Tr. 19 2 - 193). Bu rg ess believed a n inspection w a s w a rra nted du e to "the issu e of [the] hea lth of the m iners" ( Tr. 193). He a lso sta ted tha t one drill opera tor w a s concerned a bou t w h a t w ou ld ha ppen if w a ter g ot into the roof stra ta ( Tr. 204, 2 0 5).

Bobby Horton

M SHA Inspector Bobby Horton is su pervised by M cCorm ick . He sta ted tha t he issu ed the M a rch 21 cita tions to Jim Walter. The cita tions a lleg ed viola tions of section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 a t the No. 4 M ine ( Tr. 229-230; Gov. Exhs. 4 a nd 5). He did not g o u nder- g rou nd to observe the conditions described on the cita tions, ra ther he obta ined the inform a tion from interview ing m iners ( Tr. 231).

The cita tions w ere issu ed su bsequ ent to M cCorm ick ' s instru ctions to check rock drills
( Tr. 231). A fter inter-
view ing m iners a nd m a na g em ent em ployees, Horton determ ined tha t the drills w ere not equ ipped w ith w a ter or w ith perm issible du st collectors ( Tr. 232). Jim Walter personnel w h o w ere present du ring the interview s inclu ded W yett A ndrew s a nd Fred K ozell. Union m em bers w ere a lso present ( Tr. 232-233).

Horton w a s told du ring the interview s tha t m iners a t the No. 1 a nd No. 2 long w a lls w ere w ork ing d ow nw ind while drilling a nd tha t no w a ter or du st su ppression devices w ere u sed to con- trol the du st ( Tr. 233, 237). K ozell confirm ed this ( Tr. 238). Therefore, Horton fou nd tha t viola tions of 70 .400-3 ha d occu rred.

Horton a lso fou nd tha t beca u se the viola tions presented the ha za rd of contra cting silicosis, they w ere S& S ( Tr. 236- 2 37).
Horton did not ta k e a ny du st sa m ples in connection w ith the cita tions a nd he ha d no k now led g e of the du st content of a ir on the long w a ll sections. Horton did not k now the deg ree of a ny m iner' s a ctu a l exposu re ( Tr. 242, 243). Nevertheless, he fou nd the a lleg ed viola tions posed a lik elihood of illness beca u se of the "history of qu a rtz a nd sa m ples tha t [ca m e] ba ck from Jim Walter' s No. 4 [M ]ine" ( Tr. 243). He testified, "[y]ou ca n g et disa bled. Brea thing qu a rtz, people ca n g et silicosis" ( Tr. 244).

Horton believed tha t u p to ten m iners w ere exposed to the ha za rd beca u se the du st from the drills ha d pa ssed over them
( Tr. 237).

Glynn Log g ins

Log g ins a ccom pa nied Greer to the No. 1 long w a ll a t the sta rt of the Ju ly 21 da y shift.
He a nd Greer observed roof bolting opera tions w h en w a ter w a s u sed on the drills. Log g ins hea rd Greer a sk a drill opera tor if the drill opera tor ha d a ny problem s u sing the drill w ith w a ter. The drill opera tor replied tha t he did not ( Tr. 396- 397).

Jim Walter' s W itnesses

Jeffrey W a de M a ddox

Jeffrey W a de M a ddox, the long w a ll m a na g er a t the No. 4 M ine ha s w ork ed on long w a lls for 13 yea rs. A s the long w a ll m a na g er, M a ddox is responsible for the opera tion of the m ine' s tw o long - w a lls a nd for the m iners w ork ing on the long w a ll sections ( Tr. 2 50 ). The w ork da y on ea ch long w a ll section is divided into three shifts. Ea ch shift ha s a produ ction forem a n a nd a m a intena nce forem a n. In a ddition, ea ch da y shift ha s a long w a ll coordina tor, w h o reports directly to M a ddox ( Tr. 250 ).

M a ddox norm a lly w ork s the da y shift, bu t he is responsible for long w a ll opera tions 24 hou rs a da y. W hen a long w a ll is being recovered, M a ddox is a t the m ine from ten to tw elve hou rs a da y. W hen he is not a t the m ine, he is "on ca ll" ( Tr. 272, 309, 312). A ccording to M a ddox:

I w ill m eet the evening shift su pervisors com ing in on their oncom ing shift, a nd ta lk to them severa l tim es du ring their shift. The ow l shift su pervisor w ill be conta cted prior to his shift.
A nd 30 percent of the tim e, they ca ll m e a t hom e du ring the a .m . hou rs ( Tr.
2 72 - 2 73).

The No. 1 long w a ll pa nel w a s a pproxim a tely 950 feet w ide a nd 6,350 feet long ( Tr.
2 52 ). A ccording to M a ddox, in Ju ly 1994, the roof a long the fa ce beca m e increa sing ly ha rd to control. A s a resu lt, long w a ll m ining cea sed 125 feet short of projections, a nd recovery sta rted ( Tr. 251).

The Blu e Creek coa l sea m is m ined a t the No. 1 M ine long w a ll. A bove the Blu e Creek coa l is a sea m of rock ( the M iddle M a n sea m ) w h ich va ries in thick ness from ten inches to five feet. A bove the rock is a nother coa l sea m , the M a ry Lee sea m , a nd a bove the M a ry Lee sea m is sa ndstone ( Tr. 253- 2 54, 255). Jim Walter prefers to u se the M iddle M a n sea m a s the roof ( Tr. 2 56).

W hen m ining stopped on the No. 1 long w a ll, the M iddle M a n sea m constitu ted a bou t one fou rth of the roof ( i.e. the first 2 5 shields). The M iddle M a n sea m ha d becom e increa sing ly na rrow . A s a resu lt, the M a ry Lee coa l sea m w a s m ined a nd the rem a ining three fou rths of the roof ( a pproxim a tely 160 shields) consisted of sa ndstone ( Tr. 256 - 2 57). This roof w a s u nsta ble a nd som e of it w a s fa lling before it cou ld be pinned ( Tr. 258- 2 59, 283). One fa ll m ea su red 35 feet long , five feet w ide a nd fou r to five feet thick ( Tr. 260).

M a ddox w a s a w a re tha t w a ter or other du st control m ea su res w ere needed for the drills ( Tr. 2 77). A fter Jim Walter received the M a rch cita tions, it experim ented w ith w a ter, bu t ea ch experim ent ha d a n a ssocia ted problem ( Tr. 227- 2 2 8).

Follow ing a consu lta tion w ith the distribu tor of the drills, the com pa ny tried a system w h ereby w a ter ca m e throu g h a drill' s ha ndle. W hen this did not work , the system w a s m odified to a llow a hose to be plu g g ed in a t a different point. On Ju ly 19, six drills tha t w ere fitted in this w a y w ere u sed on the No. 1 long w a ll ( Tr. 279- 2 80, 281). They only w ork ed for a short while. One problem encou ntered w a s tha t if the drill steel hit a cra ck or void in the roof stra ta a nd w a ter dispersed into the stra ta , the steel w ou ld "ha ng u p" a nd cou ld not be rem oved ( Tr. 278).

D u ring the evening shift on Ju ly 2 0 , Piper, the No. 1 long w a ll forem a n, ca lled M a ddox a t hom e a nd told M a ddox he cou ld not k eep the drills opera tiona l. M a ddox u nderstood the problem to be tha t the w a ter w a s "tea ring the hea ds u p" ( Tr. 283). In a ddition, w h en the drill steel hu ng u p, the drill opera tors w ere a fra id to pu ll ou t the drill steel for fea r of pu lling dow n the roof ( Tr. 285). Beca u se the drills w ere inopera ble the m ine produ ction report for the evening shift sta ted tha t the com pa ny needed "to g et [the] pow ered respira tor[s] cha rg ed" for the oncom ing ow l shift ( Tr. 343- 344; JW R Exh. 2 a t 11).

A rou nd 4:0 0 a .m ., du ring the ow l shift, M a ddox, w h o w a s still a t hom e, spok e w ith long w a ll forem a n Hertzog ( Tr. 346). Hertzog sa id he w a s u sing tw o drills, a nd a sk ed if M a ddox w a nted w a ter hook ed u p to the drills. M a ddox told Hertzog to try w a ter on one of the drills ( Tr. 287). How ever, M a ddox did not k now if this w a s done ( Tr. 347).

M a ddox testified tha t on Ju ly 22, he a ttended a m eeting w ith Greer a nd others a nd discu ssed the problem ( Tr. 291). A ccording to M a ddox, Greer a sk ed if he w a s a w a re tha t drills w ere in opera tion w ithou t w a ter a nd M a ddox sta ted he w a s a w a re of it. Greer a lso a sk ed if M a ddox w a s a w a re of the cita tions w ritten in M a rch, a nd M a ddox sta ted tha t he w a s ( Tr. 291). G reer a sk ed why the drills w ere being opera ted w ithou t w a ter a nd M a ddox responded tha t Jim W a lter w a s in a hu rry to bolt the roof beca u se it w a s ba d ( Tr. 291-2 9 2 ). M a ddox la ter testified tha t tim e w a s of the essence a nd tha t the long er the roof rem a ined u nbolted, the m ore it deteriora ted ( Tr. 376).

M a ddox sta ted tha t Greer did not inqu ire a bou t the efforts Jim Walter ha d m a de to opera te the drills w ith w a ter ( Tr. 292). Nor did M a ddox volu nteer a ny inform a tion a bou t the

com pa ny's a ttem pts to u se w a ter. W hen a sk ed why he did not tell Greer a bou t this, he responded, "[t]he qu estion w a sn' t a sk ed" ( Tr. 292, 356). W hen M a ddox sa w tha t Greer w a s w riting a n order of w ithdra w a l, M a ddox beca m e a ng ry a nd he a bru ptly ended his conversa tion w ith Greer ( Tr. 374).

M a ddox did not a dvise UM W A sa fety com m ittee m em bers of the efforts Jim Walter ha d been m a k ing to provide w a ter for the rock drills. Nor did he conta ct M SHA ' s technica l su pport division or the M SHA su bdistrict hea lth division a bou t the problem s Jim Walter w a s experiencing w ith the rock drills ( Tr. 354-355, 357- 358).

M a ddox testified tha t a da y or tw o before the w ithdra w a l order w a s issu ed, he received com pla ints from da y shift drill opera tors a bou t infu sing w a ter into the roof ( Tr. 294, 334- 335). M a ddox sta ted tha t the m iners w ere concerned beca u se, "[t]he roof w a s extrem ely ba d" ( Tr. 294). How ever, he a g reed tha t roof conditions a re dyna m ic a nd ca n cha ng e from shift to shift ( Tr. 372 ). M a ddox did not spea k w ith the m iners a g a in a bou t the problem ( Id.).

W yett A ndrew s

W yett A ndrew s, who is the sa fety su pervisor a t the No. 4 M ine, sta ted tha t du ring the evening shift of Ju ly 2 0 , he w a s in depu ty m ine m a na g er K ozell' s office w h en it w a s reported tha t there w a s a problem u sing w a ter w h ile drilling ( Tr. 381- 382). A s a resu lt, K ozell directed A ndrew s to g et the pow er respira tors prepa red for the ow l shift ( Tr. 382). A ndrew s ha d the respira tors'ba tteries cha rg ed so tha t the respira tors w ou ld be rea dy ( Tr. 384).

The Ju ly 21 ow l shift crew took the respira tors into the m ine ( Tr. 384). A ndrew s believed tha t if the respira tors w ere w orn they w ou ld protect the m iners from respira ble du st ( Tr. 391). He a ck now led g ed tha t m ost m iners did not lik e to w ea r the respira tors beca u se they a re bu lk y a nd u ncom forta ble. A s a resu lt, Jim Walter did not requ ire tha t they be w orn, only tha t they be a va ila ble for w ea r ( Tr. 392).

A ndrew s believed tha t a fter the M a rch cita tions w ere issu ed, Jim Walter a ba ted them , in pa rt, by tra ining its m iners in com - plia nce. The tra ining took tw o or three m inu tes a nd consisted of instru cting long w a ll m iners, su pervisors a nd long w a ll coordina tors tha t if the drills did not ha ve w a ter, personnel w ere not to be loca ted dow nw ind of the drills ( Tr. 394, 395). A ndrew s w a s certa in tha t M a ddox took pa rt in the tra ining ( Tr. 396). ( Interesting ly, M a ddox did not reca ll m u ch reg a rding the tra ining ( Tr. 323- 325). He sta ted:

W e ca m e in a nd sa t dow n ... They w ent over the instru ction w ith m e over w h a t ha d to be done. The drills ha d to be converted to w a ter. A nd w e w ere g oing to try tha t to see how it w ork ed ( Tr. 324).)

Fina lly, A ndrew s testified tha t on Ju ly 2 0 , 21 a nd 22, the a ir volu m e on the No. 1 long w a ll ra ng ed from betw een 78,260 cfm to 85,550 cfm ( JW R Exh. 3 pp 2- 7; Tr. 385). Under the m ine' s ventila tion pla n, the m inim u m a ir volu m e requ ired du ring long w a ll recovery w a s 18,0 0 0 cfm ( Tr. 386).

The V iola tions

The a lleg ed viola tions a re ba sed on su bsta ntia lly sim ila r fa cts a nd, a s noted, the sta nda rds a lleg ed to ha ve been viola ted a re su bsta ntively identica l. Section 70 .4 0 0 requ ired, a nd section 70 .630( a ) requ ires, tha t du st resu lting from drilling in rock be controlled by u se of perm issible du st collectors, w a ter, w a ter w ith a w etting a g ent, or by ventila tion. Section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 expla ined, a nd section 72.630( d) expla ins, tha t ventila tion control is a dequ a te w h en the ventila tion is so directed tha t du st is ca rried a w a y from the drill opera tor a nd/ or a ny other m iners.

Bobby Horton, who issu ed the M a rch 21 cita tions, sta ted tha t he lea rned throu g h interview s tha t rock drills in u se a t the No. 4 M ine w ere not equ ipped w ith perm issible du st collectors or w ith w a ter, a nd tha t m iners w ere dow nw ind while the drills w ere opera ted ( Tr. 231, 233, 237). In a ddition, Horton sta ted tha t M ine M a na g er K ozell confirm ed tha t Jim Walter w a s not u sing a ny m ea ns to su ppress the du st ( Tr. 238).

Horton' s testim ony w ent u ncha lleng ed a nd I a ccept it. It esta blishes tha t Jim Walter w a s not controlling the du st resu lt- ing from drilling by a ny of the m ethods specified in section 70 .4 0 0 . Jim Walter w a s not u sing perm issible du st collectors, w a ter, or w a ter w ith a w etting a g ent. Beca u se the long w a lls w ere ventila ted on w h a t w a s essentia lly a sing le split of a ir tha t tra veled from the ta ilg a te to the hea d g a te, a nd beca u se I a ccept Horton' s testim ony tha t m iners w ere w ork ing d ow nw ind from the drills w h ile the drills w ere opera ted,, it is clea r tha t the du st w a s not controlled a dequ a tely by ventila tion. Therefore, I conclu de the M a rch viola tions existed a s cha rg ed.

I fu rther find tha t there w a s a viola tion of 72.630( a ) on the ow l shift on Ju ly 21,
1994. Bu rg ess'firstha nd testim ony esta blishes the viola tion. Bu rg ess w ork ed on the ow l shift, a nd I a ccept his a ssertion tha t drilling took pla ce du ring the entire shift ( Tr. 183). I a lso a ccept his testim ony tha t a s m a ny a s fou r drills w ere u sed a t one tim e, tha t the first w a s loca ted a t the hea d g a te a nd the others w ere loca ted dow nw ind, a long the long w a ll ( Tr. 181- 183). In this reg a rd, I note his a ssertion tha t w h en he "stood ba ck ," he sa w m ore tha n tw o drills in opera tion, a nd tha t none w a s fitted w ith w a ter ( Tr. 221, 227). The fa ct tha t w a ter w a s not u sed is a lso a ttested by Bu rg ess'sta tem ent tha t he sa w d u st com ing tow a rd him from a n

u pw ind drill, a nd by his testim ony tha t Hertzog told him the respira tors w ere a repla cem ent for u sing w a ter when drilling ( Tr. 191, 225- 2 2 6 , 228).

None of Jim Walter' s w itnesses u nderm ined Bu rg ess'testi- m ony. M a ddox sta ted tha t he told Hertzog to hook u p w a ter on one drill, bu t he w a s not present on the section a nd he a dm itted tha t he did not k now if it w a s done ( Tr. 287, 347). Thu s, the testim ony of Bu rg ess com pels the conclu sion tha t du ring the ow l shift of Ju ly 21, du st resu lting from drilling rock w a s not controlled by du st collectors or w a ter a nd, beca u se m iners w ere w ork ing d ow nw ind in du st from the drilling , w a s not controlled by ventila tion.

In conclu ding tha t the viola tions existed a s cha rg ed, I ha ve considered Jim Walter' s a rg u m ent tha t the Secreta ry's fa ilu re to ta k e a ir m ea su rem ents a nd du st sa m ples on the long w a ll sections w a rra nts va ca tion of the cita tions a nd order ( JW R Br. 17- 19). Jim Walter a sserts tha t w ithou t su ch m ea su rem ents a nd sa m ples, "M SHA ca nnot m ea su re the hea lth risk to the m iners from the du st a nd ca nnot rea sona bly contend tha t Jim Walter w a s not su ppressing the du st ... by dilu tion w ith ventila tion" ( JW R Br. 18).

It is tru e tha t when the Secreta ry prom u lg a ted section 72.630, he seem s to ha ve sta ted tha t he w ou ld determ ine whether ventila tion w a s a n a dequ a te m ea ns of du st control throu g h the m ea su rem ent of a ir qu a ntity a nd other m ea su res set forth in the m ine' s ventila tion, m etha ne a nd du st control pla n. ( "M SHA w ill continu e to determ ine com plia nce w ith th[e] requ irem ent [of section 72.630 ( d)] ... a s it ha s enforced ' 70 .4 0 0 - 3 , i.e., throu g h the m ea su rem ent of a ir qu a ntity or throu g h other m ea su res set forth in a m ine' s ventila tion ... pla n ( 59 Fed. Reg . a t 3825).)

How ever, the intent a nd a ctu a l m ea ning of the sta tem ent is a n enig m a to m e. Cou nsel for the Secreta ry ha s not offered a n expla na tion. No testim ony w a s offered by either pa rty tha t com plia nce w ith section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 w a s determ ined throu g h the m ea su rem ent of a ir volu m e. The Secreta ry' s Prog ra m Policy M a nu a l - - the officia l repository of the Secreta ry' s interpreta tion of the reg u la tions a nd of his enforcem ent pra ctices - - is silent reg a rding the m a tter.

In a ny event, beca u se the sta nda rds them selves a re very clea r, I conclu de tha t the sta tem ent is beside the point. The sta nda rds requ ire du st resu lting from drilling to be controlled by the m ethods indica ted. If ventila tion is a chosen m ethod, they requ ire the a ir cu rrent to be directed so tha t du st is ca rried a w a y from the drill opera tor or other m iners in the a rea . The reg u la tions conta in not one w ord a bou t a ir m ea su rem ents a nd/ or du st sa m ples. I ca nnot conclu de tha t the Secreta ry intended to condition com plia nce u pon requ irem ents he did not prom u lg a te.

S&S

A S&S violation is described in section 104(d)(1) of the

Act as a violation "of such nature as could significantly and
substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a coal or
other mine safety or health hazard" (30 C.F.R. § 814(d)(1)).
A violation is properly designated S&S, "if, based upon the
particular facts surrounding the violation there exists a
reasonable likelihood that the hazard contributed to will result
in an injury or illness of a reasonably serious nature" ( Cement
Division, National Gypsum Co. , 3 FMSHRC 822, 825 (April 1981)).

In Consolidation Coal Co. , 8 FMSHRC 890 ( Ju ne 1986), a ff'
d su b nom
Consolida tion Coa l Co. v. FM SHRC, 824 F.2d 10 76
( D .C. Cir. 1987), the Com m ission conclu ded tha t the S& S a na lysis it a dopted in M a thies Coa l Co., 6 FM SHRC 1, 3- 4 ( Ja nu a ry 1984), with certain adaptations, is appropriate in determining whether certain health-related standards are S&S. The Commission stated that to prove a mandatory health standard is S&S, the Secretary must establish:

(1) the underlying violation of a mandatory health standard; (2) a discrete health hazard--that is, a measure of danger to health--contributed to be the violation, (3) a reasonable likelihood that the health hazard contributed to will result in an illness; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that the illness in question will be of a reasonably serious nature.

Consol, 8 FMSHRC at 897.

In United States Steel Mining Company, Inc. , 7 FMSHRC 1125, 1129 (August 1985), the Commission stated:

We have explained further that the third element of the ... formula [enunciated in Consol] 'requires that the Secretary establish a reasonable likelihood that the hazard contributed to will result in an event in which there is an injury [or illness]' (U.S. Steel Mining Co. , 6 FMSHRC 1834, 1836 (August 1984)). We have emphasized that, in accordance with the language of section 104(d)(1), it is the contri- bution of a violation to the cause and effect of a hazard that must be significant and substantial.
U.S. Steel Mining Company, Inc. , 6 FMSHRC 1866, 1868 (August 1984); U.S. Steel Mining Co., Inc. , 6 FMSHRC 1573, 1574-75 (July 1984)(Emphasis in original).

The question of whether any particular violation is S&S must be based on the particular facts surrounding the violation (Secretary of Labor v. Texasgulf, Inc., 10 FMSHRC 498 (April

1988); Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Company , 9 FMSHRC 2007 (December 1987)). Further, any determination of the significant nature of a violation must be made in the context of continued normal mining operations ( National Gypsum, 3 FMSHRC at 329; Halfway, Inc., 8 FMSHRC 8, 12 (January 1986); U.S. Steel Mining Co. , 7 FMSHRC at 1130).

I ha ve fou nd tha t the viola tions existed a s cha rg ed. Thu s, the first elem ent of the Consol test ha s been esta blished. I fu rther find tha t the viola tions presented a discrete hea lth ha za rd. I a ccept the testim ony of M cCorm ick tha t previou s bu lk sa m ples show ed a hig h presence of qu a rtz in the roof a nd else- w here on the long w a ll section ( Tr. 33, 37). The Com m ission observed in Consol tha t, "[s]ilicosis ha s been recog nized for a long tim e a s a disea se a ssocia ted w ith coa l m iners, a nd the inha la tion of silica - bea ring d u st ha s been ca u sa lly link ed to the disea se" ( 8 FM SHRC a t 1279). W hen rock du st is not con- trolled by m ethods other tha n ventila tion, when the ventila tion control is ina dequ a te in tha t m iners w ork in a nd brea th the du st, a nd when the du st is rea sona bly lik ely to conta in qu a rtz, a discrete hea lth ha za rd is esta blished.

How ever, the Secreta ry' s proof fa ils to m eet the third elem ent of the Consol test. In the context of a viola tion of sections 70 .4 0 0 - 3 a nd 72.630( a ), this elem ent requ ires the Secreta ry to esta blish a rea sona ble lik elihood tha t the ha za rd contribu ted to w ill resu lt in a n illness. In other w ords, the Secreta ry m u st prove it w a s rea sona bly lik ely tha t inha la tion of the rock du st tra veling d ow nw ind w ou ld resu lt in the m iners becom ing ill a s m ining continu ed on the long w a ll.

Beca u se bu lk sa m ples of the a rea of the roof being d rilled w ere not collected, a nd beca u se the respira ble du st content of the m ine a tm osphere in w h ich the m iners w ere w ork ing w a s not sa m pled, none of the Secreta ry' s w itnesses cou ld testify to the exa ct silica content of the su bject roof a rea , to the silica content of the drill du st, or to the a ctu a l concentra tion of respira ble du st to which the m iners w ere exposed. Nor did the w itnesses offer testim ony reg a rding the respira ble du st exposu re lim its on the long w a ll sections on M a rch 21, 1994 a nd on Ju ly 2 1, 1994, or w h a t the a vera g e concentra tion of respira ble du st in the long w a ll a tm ospheres rea sona bly m ig ht ha ve been.

Ra ther tha n testim ony reg a rding the specific fa cts needed to find a rea sona ble lik elihood of illness or the specific fa cts needed to m a k e a rea sona ble inference of su ch a lik elihood, the Secreta ry' s w itnesses testified to a la ck of specific k now led g e a nd to g enera lities. Su ch testim ony is insu fficient to esta blish the rea sona ble lik elihood of illness.

In rea ching this conclu sion, I ha ve considered the Secreta ry' s a ssertion tha t,"once a viola tion of the drill du st control reg u la tion is esta blished, a presu m ption a rises tha t

it is rea sona bly lik ely tha t the hea lth ha za rd contribu ted to w ill resu lt in a n illness" ( Sec. Br. 12 ). The Secreta ry cites Com m ission decisions finding su ch presu m ptions w h en exposu re- rela ted hea lth sta nda rds a re viola ted; i.e., Consol, 8 FM SHRC a t 890 ( finding a viola tion of section 70 .10 0 ( a ) S& S), a nd U.S. Steel M ining Co., Inc., 8 FM SHRC 1274 ( Septem ber 1986) ( finding a viola tion of section 70 .10 1 S& S). These presu m ptions a re ba sed u pon the fa ct tha t the exposu re levels set in the sta nda rds a re "the m a xim u m level a llow ed to a chieve [Cong ress' s] sta ted g oa l of preventing d isa bling respira tory disea se" ( U.S. Steel, 8 FM SRHC 1279- 1280). Beca u se cu m u la tive exposu res to respira ble du st a bove the lim its a re a n im porta nt risk fa ctor, a nd beca u se the sta te of scientific a nd m edica l k now led g e does not m a k e it possible to determ ine the precise point a t w h ich respira ble disea ses indu ced by the du st w ill present, the Com m ission presu m ed tha t a docu m ented overexposu re esta blished a rea sona ble lik elihood tha t illness w ou ld develop.

The sta nda rds for drill du st control a re not ba sed u pon finding s link ing their viola tion to the rea sona ble lik ely developm ent of disea se. Ra ther, the sta nda rds them selves a re the prim a ry m ea ns of controlling d rill du st exposu re ( 59 Fed. Reg . 8325 ( 1994). This m ea ns tha t the Secreta ry m u st esta blish, for ea ch viola tion, tha t the pa rticu la r circu m sta nces cited a re rea sona bly lik ely to resu lt in disea se a s m ining continu es.

A s I ha ve noted, the Secreta ry did not do so here. He offered no evidence reg a rding the a vera g e concentra tion of respira ble du st tha t Jim Walter ha d to m a inta in on the long w a ll section on M a rch 21 a nd Ju ly 21. Nor did he present testim ony reg a rding the a ctu a l level of exposu re of the m iners, or the rea sona bly lik ely level of exposu re on those da tes.

This is not to sa y tha t the Secreta ry necessa rily ha d to offer the resu lts of bu lk sa m ples a nd/ or of respira ble du st sa m ples, to esta blish the inspectors'S& S finding s. It is conceiva ble he cou ld ha ve offered testim ony from w h ich a rea sona ble lik elihood of exposu re in excess of the a pplica ble perm issible lim it or lim its cou ld ha ve been inferred. How ever, he did not.

Ra ther, the Secreta ry proved tha t in the pa st the long w a ll sections w ere u nder a redu ced, bu t u nspecified exposu re level. This does not lea d inevita bly to a conclu sion tha t on M a rch 21 a nd Ju ly 21 m iners in the sa m e sections w h o w ere w ork ing u nder sim ila r conditions w ere exposed to respira ble du st concentra tions w h ose a vera g e exceeded the level a llow ed. They m ig ht ha ve been or they m ig ht not ha ve been, a nd S& S finding s ca n not rest u pon the pa st tense of "m a y."

Gra vity

A lthou g h the viola tions w ere not S& S, they w ere seriou s. Jim Walter w a s opera ting rock drills w ithou t du st control devices a nd m iners w ere dow nw ind from the drills. Fu rther,

the roof being d rilled w a s com posed of rock m a y ha ve ha d a hig h silica content. The ventila tion on the long w a lls w a s ca rrying the rock du st over the dow nw ind m iners. The m iners w ere su bjected to the possibility of inha ling silica bea ring d u st a t a level in excess of tha t a llow ed. This is enou g h to esta blish the seriou sness of the viola tions.

I ha ve considered A ndrew s testim ony tha t respira tors w ere a va ila ble for u se by m iners on the ow l shift ( Tr. 382- 384). Ha d Jim Walter esta blished tha t the respira tors w ere w orn throu g hou t the ow l shift by a ll m iners w h o w ere dow nw ind from the drills, the g ra vity of the Ju ly 2 1 viola tion m ig ht ha ve been m itig a ted.

The com pa ny m a de no su ch show ing . A ndrew s a ck now led g ed the respira tors w ere bu lk y a nd u ncom forta ble a nd tha t m ost m iners did not lik e to w ea r them ( Tr. 392). M oreover, he a dm itted tha t Jim Walter did not requ ire they be w orn, only tha t they be a va ila ble for w ea r ( Id.). The fa ct tha t a va ila bility did not foster continu ing u se w a s confirm ed by Bu rg ess. He sta ted tha t only one m iner w ore a respira tor for the entire shift ( Tr. 190, 218). A lthou g h the rest of the crew w ore respira tors for one hou r a t lea st, tha t did nothing to m itig a te their exposu re du ring the rem a inder of the shift.

Unw a rra nta ble Fa ilu re a nd Neg lig ence

In Em ery M ining Corp.( 9 FM SHRC 1997, 2 0 0 4 ( D ecem ber 1987)) the Com m ission 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 n ordina ry neg lig ence a nd tha t it 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" ( Rochester a nd Pittsbu rg h Coa l Co.,13 FM SHRC 189 ( D ecem ber 1991)).

By Ju ly 21, 1994, Jim Walter w a s on notice reg a rding the requ irem ents of section 72 .630 a nd of the Secreta ry' s intent to enforce the sta nda rd. Six m onths before, three cita tions ha d been issu ed for essentia lly the sa m e conditions. A ndrew s a nd M a ddox told Greer they w ere a w a re of the M a rch cita tions issu ed a t the No. 4 M ine ( Tr. 84- 85). M oreover, A ndrew s w a s one of tw o Jim Walter em ployees who a ttended M SHA sponsored cla sses on Pa rt 72, cla sses in wh ich com plia nce w ith section 72.630 wa s discu ssed ( Tr. 84- 85).

D espite this k now led g e, Jim Walter a rg u es, in pa rt, tha t a ny fa ilu re to com ply w a s du e to the need to speedily bolt the roof before it deteriora ted ( JW R Br. 32). Jim Walter presented testim ony to this effect, in tha t M a ddox sta ted tha t the roof w a s ba d a nd needed to be bolted in a hu rry ( Tr. 291-2 9 2 ). In a ddition, Jim Walter a rg u es tha t it w a s not indifferent to the requ irem ents of the reg u la tion, tha t it w a s m a k ing d ilig ent efforts to com ply bu t w a s ha ving trou ble developing a system w h ereby w a ter cou ld be u sed a nd the drills cou ld be k ept opera tiona l ( JW R Br. 31- 32).

W hile I do not dou bt the com pa ny ha d problem s w ith the roof, I do not believe the com pa ny w a s trying d ilig ently to com ply. If, in fa ct, Jim Walter w a s ha ving com plia nce problem s, it is log ica l tha t this w ou ld ha ve been expla ined to Greer. It w a s not ( Tr. 374), a nd M a ddox' s excu se - - tha t Greer did not a sk a bou t the problem s - - stra ins credu lity g iven the consequ ences of Jim Walter' s indifference ( Tr. 292, 356, 357).

If Jim Walter cou ld not su ccessfu lly fit a nd opera te its drills w ith w a ter, it is rea sona ble to think tha t the com pa ny w ou ld ha ve conta cted M SHA a bou t the problem a nd perha ps even ha ve a dvised the UM W A sa fety com m ittee, since it k new of the m iners'concerns a bou t w ork ing in drill du st ( Tr. 354-355, 357- 358).
Therefore, I find tha t Jim Walter fu lly u nderstood wha t w a s requ ired, bu t w a s indifferent to com plia nce. Its fa ilu re to control du st from rock drilling on the ow l shift on Ju ly 21, w a s the resu lt of a seriou s la ck of rea sona ble ca re a nd hence w a s the resu lt of the com pa ny' s u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re to com ply w ith section 72.630( a ).

In exhibiting a seriou s la ck of rea sona ble ca re, Jim Walter fa iled to m eet the sta nda rd of ca re requ ired by the circu m - sta nces. Consequ ently, I a lso conclu de the com pa ny w a s hig hly neg lig ent in a llow ing the viola tion of section 72.630( a ).

Fina lly, I conclu de tha t Jim Walter exhibited ordina ry neg lig ence in a llow ing the viola tions of section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 to exist. The first tim e Jim Walter w a s cited for a viola tion of the sta nda rds rela ting to drill du st control w a s M a rch 15, 1994. The cita tion w a s issu ed six da ys before the cita tions a t the No. 4 M ine. Jim Walter personnel shou ld ha ve k now n tha t the conditions w h ich elicited the cita tion a t the No. 3 M ine w ere lik ely to resu lt in sim ila r cita tions a t the No. 4 M ine, a nd rea sona ble ca re requ ired tha t the conditions not be repea ted a t the No. 4 M ine.

Other Civil Pena lty Criteria

A M SHA com pu ter print ou t indica tes tha t in the 24 m onths prior to M a rch 21, 1994, the tota l nu m ber of pa id viola tions a t the No. 4 M ine w a s 1,0 50 ( G ov. Exh. 11). W hile this is a la rg e nu m ber of previou s viola tions, there w ere no previou s pa id viola tions of section 70 .4 0 0 ( Id.).

Jim Walter is a la rg e opera tor a nd the No. 4 M ine is a la rg e m ine.

There ha s been no show ing tha t the size of the pena lties w ill effect Jim Walter' s a bility to continu e in bu siness, a nd I conclu de tha t it w ill not.

Jim Walter dem onstra ted g ood fa ith in a ttem pting to a chieve ra pid com plia nce w ith section 70 .4 0 0 - 3 a nd section 72.630( a ).

Civil Pena lties

D ock et No. SE 94- 4 4 8

Order/ Proposed A ssessed
Cita tion No. D a te 30 C.F.R. § Pena lty Pena lty

3186828 3/ 21/ 94 70 .4 0 0 - 3 $1,610 $6 0 0 3186829 3/ 21/ 94 70 .4 0 0 - 3 $1,610 $6 0 0

The viola tions w ere seriou s. They w ere ca u sed by Jim Walter' s ordina ry neg lig ence. Given the ordina ry neg lig ence a nd the fa ct tha t the viola tions represent the first tim e the drill du st sta nda rd w a s enforced a t the m ine, I conclu de tha t pena lties sig nifica ntly less tha n those proposed a re a ppropria te. A ccording ly, I w ill a ssess pena lties of $6 0 0 for ea ch viola tion.

Settlem ents a nd Orders

A t the close of the hea ring , Jim Walter's cou nsel expla ined, on the record, the na tu re of the settlem ents to which the pa rties ha d a g reed ( Tr. 4 0 6 - 4 12). Ha ving considered the proposed settle- m ents a nd the rea sons su pporting them , I find they a re a ppropria te a nd consistent w ith the pu rposes of the A ct. A ccording ly, a s set forth below , the settlem ents a re a pproved.

D ock et No. SE 94-429