Itmann Coal Company (ALJ decision, August 11, 1980)

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Itmann Coal Company contested a withdrawal order and proposed civil penalty after an inspector found hydraulic oil accumulated in the car haul area of its No. 3 mine. The judge credited the inspector's estimate of several hundred gallons over the company's account that most puddles were water. He found that Itmann knew or should have known about the recurring oil problem, making the violation an unwarrantable failure to comply with the combustible materials standard. He also rejected Itmann's argument that too much time had passed since the earlier withdrawal order in the statutory chain. Judge James A. Laurenson upheld the order and assessed a $1,500 civil penalty for the violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.400.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.400, combustible material accumulations.
• Outcome: Section 104(d)(2) withdrawal order affirmed; $1,500 civil penalty assessed.
• Key point: A later order in the unwarrantable failure chain was valid because the record did not establish an intervening inspection that found no similar violation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
SKYLINE TOWERS NO. 2, 10TH FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

(703) 756-6230

11 AUG 1980

ITMANN COAL COMPANY ,
: Contest of Order
Applicant :
v. : Docket No. WEVA 80-8-R
:
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : Itmann No. 3 Mine
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
:

and
:
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
:
Respondents
:

RAY MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF LABOR, : Civil Penalty Proceeding
Petitioner :
v. : Docket No. WEVA 80-230
: A.C. No. 46-01576-03041V

ITMANN COAL COMPANY ,
: Itmann No. 3 Mine
Respondent :

DECISION

Appearances: Karl T. Skrypak, Esq., Consolidation Coal Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Itmann Coal Company;
James H. Swain, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration;
Mary Lu Jordan, Esq., Washington, D.C., for United Mine Workers of America.

Before: Judge James A. Laurenson

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This proceeding arises out of the consolidation of a contest of order and

a civil penalty proceeding arising out of that order. On October 1, 1979,

2193

Itmann Coal Company (hereinafter Itmann) filed a notice of contest'af an order

issued under section 104(d)(2) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(2) (hereinafter the Act). On March 19, 1980, the

Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (hereinafter MSHA)

filed a proposal for assessment of a civil penalty against Itmann for viola-

tion of 30 C.F.R. § 75.400. On March 28, 1980, I ordered these cases con- solidated under Procedural Rule 12 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health

Review Commission (hereinafter Commission), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.12.

A hearing was held in Charleston, West Virginia, on April 17, 1980.

Itmann's motion for summary decision on part of the proceeding was denied because it was not timely filed. James Bowman testified on behalf of MSHA.

Arnold Rogers testified on behalf of the United Mine Workers of America (here- inafter UMWA). Frank Beard, Harry Farmer, David Bailey, and Eugene Kiser

testified on behalf of Itmann. Following the hearing, Itmann and MSHA sub- mitted briefs with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ISSUES

The first general issue is whether the order under section 104(d)(2) was

properly issued. The second general issue is whether Itmann violated the Act or regulations as charged by MSHA and, if so, the amount of the civil penalty

which should be assessed.

APPLICABLE LAW

Section 104(d) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 814(d), provides as follows:

2194

(1) If, upon 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 stan- dard, 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 con- tribute 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 inspec- tion of such mine within 90 days after the issuance of such citation, an authorized 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 rep- resentative 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 issued pursuant to paragraph (1), a withdrawal order shall promptly be issued by an autho- orized representative of the Secretary who finds upon any subsequent inspection the existence in such mine of viola- tions similar to those that resulted in the 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.

30 C.F.R. § 75.400 provides as follows: "Coal dust, including float coal

dust deposited on rock-dusted surfaces, loose coal, and other combustible

materials, shall be cleaned up and not be permitted to accumulate in active

workings, or on electric equipment therein."

Section 110(i) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(i), provides in pertinent

part as follows:

2195

In assessing civil monetary penalties, the Commission shall consider the operator's history of previous violations, the appropriateness of such penalty to the size of the busi- ness of the operator charged, whether the operator was negli- gent, the effect on the operator's ability to continue in business, the gravity of the violation, and the demonstrated good faith of the person charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notification of a violation.
,

STIPULATIONS

The parties stipulated the following:

1. Itmann is the owner and operator of the Itmann No. 3 Mine, located in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

2. Itmann and the Itmann No. 3 Mine are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

3. The Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to section 107 of the 1977 Act.

4. The inspector who issued the subject order and termination was a duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor.

5. A true and correct copy of the subject order and termination were properly served upon the operator in , accordance with section 107(d) of the 1977 Act.

6. Copies of the subject order and termination are authentic, and may be admitted into evidence for the purpose of establishing their issuance, and not for the truthfulness or relevancy of any statements asserted therein.

7. The appropriateness of the penalty, if any, to the size of the operator's business, should be determined, based upon the fact that in 1979 the Itmann No. 3 Mine produced an annual tonnage of 535,357 and the controlling company, Itmann, had an annual tonnage of 1,627,963.

8. The history of previous violations should be deter- mined based on the fact that the total number of assessed violations in the preceding 24 months is 382 and the total number of inspection days in the preceding 24 months is 832.

2196

9. The alleged violation was abated in a timely manner and the operator demonstrated good faith in obtaining abatement.

10. The assessment of a civil penalty in this proceeding will not affect the operator's ability to continue in business.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

On September 5, 1979, MSHA inspector James Bowman conducted a regular

inspection of the Itmann No. 3 Mine. He was accompanied by Arnold Rogers,

UMWA safety committeeman and walk-around, and Eugene Kiser, an Itmann section

foreman and company escort. Approximately 1 month prior to this inspection,

Inspector Bowman had issued a section 104(a) citation to Itmann for the accu-

mulation of combustible hydraulic oil in the car haul area of this mine.

Following the issuance of the earlier citation, Inspector Bowman talked to

three members of Itmann management: Harry Farmer, David Bailey, and Eugene

Kiser, about the fact that this area should be examined to prevent accumula-

tions of oil. On the day the order in question was issued, Inspector Bowman

indicated that he wanted to return to the car haul area to see how Itmann was

doing in controlling combustible materials.

Inspector Bowman testified that when he entered the car haul area he

observed a large accumulation of hydraulic oil. He made measurements of the

various puddles and prepared a detailed sketch of the area (Exh. C-2). He

described the largest accumulation of hydraulic oil as being a puddle 20 feet

long, 4-1/2 feet wide, and 4-1/4 inches deep. He also noted several other

smaller puddles of oil, 168 feet of oil-soaked material, and some accumula-

tions of water with oil floating on top. He estimated that there were

several hundred gallons of oil on the floor in this area. Oil puddles were

2197

in between and on both sides of the haulage track. He stated that several of the puddles consisted of 100 percent hydraulic oil. He put his shoe in these

puddles and found no evidence of water. At the time he made his inspection, I)
Inspector Bowman found no evidence of any cleanup in progress. A pump was

present in the area but it was not running. The wire leading to the pump was

lying in a puddle of oil. There was no record of any rupture of a hose or

other equipment which would account for the large accumulation of oil in this

area. Therefore, Inspector Bowman assumed that the spillage was due to normal

operating conditions. He estimated that it would take approximately 1 week

for this amount of oil to accumulate. Since hydraulic oil is combustible, it could be ignited by sparks from the tracks or a short circuit from the elec-

tric pump wire. While he did not find that the condition constituted an

imminent danger, he believed that if the oil were ignited it would affect the mine's ventilation and endanger all working sections of the mine.

Based upon his observations, Inspector Bowman issued a section 104(d)(2)

order which described the condition as follows:

Combustible material (hydraulic oil) was permitted to accumulate in the No. 2 boom empty branch entry for a dis- tance of approximately 170 feet and in depths ranging from a film to 4-1/2 inches, one pool of oil was approximately 4-1/4 inches deep, 4-1/2 feet wide, and 20 feet in length.
Several other pools of oil was present, the deepest of which was 4-1/2 inches. The certified belt conveyor examiner's designated by the operator to make pre-shift examinations on belt conveyor should have seen and reported this condition.
The belts are examined every 8 hours. The No. 2 boom was cited on 08-07-79, in Citation No. 0661247 for a similar condition and the operator admitted that this is a known problem area. The writer at the time of the first citation discussed the problem of the oil accumulations with several of the operating officials, and the operator knew the prob- lem existed and should have known the accumulation was

2198
present. The boom man stated that the car haul was using as much oil now as it did prior to 08-07-79. The operator should be aware of the quantity of oil being used at No. 2 boom.

As modified, this order was issued based upon the initial action of a section

104(d)(1) Order No. 0662681 issued on March 14, 1979.

Arnold Rogers, UMWA safety committeeman and walk-around, testified that

he agreed with Inspector Bowman's description of the oil which was found in

the car haul area on September 5, 1979. He further stated that he splashed a wedge around in the puddles to see whether they contained water. Of all the accumulations of oil noted on Inspector Bowman's drawing, Arnold Rogers

found only one small puddle on the right side of the haulage track which

consisted primarily of water.

Arnold Rogers further corroborated Inspector Bowman's testimony that the

pump was not operating when they arrived in this area. Moreover, the pump was not set in the right place because it was approximately 30 feet away from the

largest puddle of oil which he described as being 4-1/2 feet by 18 to 20 feet.

The boom operator told Mr. Rogers that they used 25 gallons of oil per day.

The chief electrician said that the O-ring on the gasket in the jack was

blown causing it to leak oil. Mr. Rogers estimated that it would take a few

days to accumulate this much oil.

Eugene Kiser, a section foreman at Itmann, accompanied Inspector Bowman

as the company escort on the day of this order. Mr. Kiser testified that

when they arrived in the car haul area, the pump was running but it was sitting on a higher elevation than the place where the largest accumulation

of liquid was found. Mr. Kiser stated that a slurry was being pumped into

2199

the mine car at the time. Mr. Kiser testified that the majority of the

accumulated liquid in this area consisted * of water. He stated that the water

had pushed the oil up through the ballast. He further stated that he was

going to order 200 tons of ballast to cover this area. Mr. Kiser testified

that he was aware of the existence of the oil problem in this area and that

is why he had a pump in operation. Although Mr. Kiser contended that the

majority of the accumulated liquid was water, he conceded that he found

one puddle, 2 feet in diameter and 2-1/4 inches deep, on the right side of

car No. 3 which consisted of approximately 50 percent oil. Mr. Kiser further

estimated that there was a maximum of 15 gallons of oil on the ground in the

car haul area at the time this order was written.

Frank Beard, Vice President of Operations at Itmann, testified that he

received a call from Eugene Kiser on September 5, 1979, advising him that the

inspector had issued a section 104(d)(2) order. Mr. Beard advised Eugene

Kiser that he was coming underground and that nothing should be touched.

Vice President Beard arrived in the car haul area 10 or 15 minutes after the

call from Mr. Kiser. Frank Beard testified that oil leaks are normal in car

spotter units because the oil is under pressure and the seals and hoses

rupture.

Vice President Beard testified that he was unable to recall whether the

pump was running when he arrived. He stated that the sketch prepared by

Inspector Bowman depicting the various accumulations of oil was "fairly

accurate." He stated that he was unable to disagree with the dimensions

noted on that sketch and that he did not take any measurements. He further

2200

conceded that he did not examine one area noted in the sketch. Vice

President Beard contended that most of the puddles were filled with water

with a light film of oil on top but stated that no chemical analysis of the

puddles was performed. He disagreed with Inspector Bowman about the contents

of the puddles and whether the order was proper. He was mad. He estimated

that only a few gallons of oil were present. However, he admitted that for

day-to-day operation of this section, this amount of oil might be considered

"excessive." He recalled that there had been an accident on the prior shift

which resulted in oil spillage but stated that there was no record of any

such accident. He questioned the belt examiner who had preshifted this area

and the belt examiner said he did not see anything wrong.

Vice President Beard testified that he did not believe that there was

any accumulation of combustible materials because there was more water than

oil in the area. He stated that it was hard to say whether the operator knew

about this condition because Itmann was aware of the fact that oil does get

into this area. It was his opinion that no miner was placed in any danger

of injury because of the conditions which he observed in the car haul area

on the day the order was issued.

Harry Farmer, general superintendent of Itmann No. 3 Mine, accompanied

Vice President Beard into the area after the order was issued. He corrobo-

rated the testimony of Vice President Beard and Foreman Kiser that most of

the puddles were filled with water but had an oil skim on top. He admitted

that it was hard to determine how much oil was there. The chief electrician

told him that some oil had been spilled on the prior shift due to trouble

with the car haul unit. The packing in the jacks is replaced once a week

2201

and oil is lost in that process. He admitted that Inspector Bowman may have talked to him before about the problem of accumulation of oil in this area.

Mr. Farmer admitted that he found at least one puddle of oil on the left

side of car No. 6 which was 2 feet in diameter and a couple of inches deep.

David Bailey, superintendent at Itmann No. 3 Mine, testified that the

pump was dry when he arrived with Vice President Beard and General Super-

intendent Farmer. He stated that the pump was running but it was not doing anything. It needed to be moved. He stirred the various puddles with his hand, shoe, and a piece of wood. On the right side of the tracks, he found primarily water covered with a film of oil. He admitted that he encountered one puddle on the left side of the track which was a mixture of half oil and

half water. He described this as being 2 feet in diameter. In his opinion,

there was no more than 5 gallons of oil in the entire area. He did not believe that there was any danger to miners but stated that if there were a fire, two working sections would be affected.

EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE

All of the testimony, exhibits, stipulations, arguments of the parties,

and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered.

MSHA contends that the section 104(d)(2) order should be affirmed and that a civil penalty should be assessed. Itmann contends that the order should be vacated and no penalty should be assessed.

Itmann's first line of defense, as raised in its motion for summary decision on part of the proceeding, is that the section 104(d)(2) order is

2202

invalid because of "an ineffectual time linkage of the section 104(d) chain

of orders at the Itmann No. 3 Mine." This assertion requires an examination

of the provisions of section 104(d) of the Act. Section 104(d)(1) of the

Act provides that a citation shall be issued if: (a) there is a violation of

a mandatory health or safety standard; (b) the conditions created by the vio-

lation do not cause imminent danger; (c) the violation could significantly and

substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a safety or health hazard;

and (d) the violation is caused by the unwarrantable failure of the operator

to comply with mandatory health or safety standards. That same section of the

Act then goes on to state that an order of withdrawal may be issued if, within

90 days of the date of the issuance of the citation as described above, there

is another violation of any mandatory health or safety standard which was

caused by an unwarrantable failure of the operator to comply with such stan-

dards. Section 104(d)(2) provides that where a section 104(d)(1) order has

already been issued, another order of withdrawal shall be issued when, in a

subsequent inspection, a similar violation is found until such time as an

inspection of the mine discloses no similar violations. As used in this sec-

tion, "similar" violation does not refer to any substantive similarity.

Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 3 IBMA 331 (1974). A "similar" violation is

a violation of any mandatory health or safety standard which is caused by

the unwarrantable failure of the operator to comply. International Union,

United Mine Workers, etc. v. Kleppe, 532 F.2d 1403 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert.

denied, sub nom., Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Inc. v. Kleppe,

429 U.S. 858 (1976).

2203

Itmann does not contest the fact that a valid section 104(d)(1) citation

was issued. Likewise, Itmann does not contest the validity of the section

104(d)(1) order which was issued on March 14, 1979. However, Itmann alleges

that Order No. 0661235, issued on July 15, 1979, under section 104(d)(2) was

modified by another judge as part of an approved settlement between MSHA and

Itmann and that the decision approving that settlement is controlling here.

Since the order in controversy here was not predicated upon the order which

was modified in the prior proceeding, that decision approving a settlement

is of no import in this case. Itmann appears to be under the misapprehension

that a section 104(d)(2) order must be issued within 90 days of the issuance

of the section 104(d)(1) order. Section 104(d)(2) of the Act contains no

time restrictions for the issuance of orders. This chain of orders based

upon the operator's unwarrantable failure to comply with mandatory health or

safety standards can only be broken at "such time as an inspection of such

mine discloses no similar violations." There is no evidence of record in

this case to establish that there was any intervening inspection of Itmann

No. 3 Mine between March 14, 1979, and September 5, 1979, which disclosed no

similar violations. Itmann's contention that the order is invalid because

of an "ineffectual time linkage" is rejected.

The next issue is whether MSHA established a violation of 30 C.F.R.

s 75.400. As pertinent here, that section provides that "combustible

materials shall be cleaned up and not be permitted to accumulate in active

workings." Itmann concedes that hydraulic oil is a combustible material.

However, Itmann contends that the evidence does not establish any accumu-

lation of combustible materials. This controversy concerns the various

2204

puddles of liquid which MSHA contends were composed of hydraulic oil and

which Itmann contends were puddles of water covered with an oil film. No

chemical analysis of the contents of the puddles was performed. At the

outset, it should be noted that both sides agree that both types of puddles

were in existence in this area of the mine. Inspector Bowman and UMWA walk-

around Rogers testified that they saw puddles of water with an oil film on

top. Itmann witnesses Farmer, Bailey, and Kiser identified puddles on both

sides of the track approximately 2 feet in diameter and a couple of inches

deep which were at least half filled with oil. This testimony coupled with

Itmann's other evidence that it was necessary to disturb the surfaces of the

puddles to determine that there was water underneath the oil establishes

clearly that Itmann had not cleaned up the combustible hydraulic oil but

rather permitted it to accumulate in the area around the track in the car

haul. Itmann presented evidence of hearsay statements of the person who

conducted the preshift examination of this area to the effect that there was

no accumulation of combustible materials in this area. This evidence is

entitled to very little weight in light of Itmann's voluntary payment of a

civil penalty of $700 for violating the preshift examination regulation at

30 C.F.R. § 75.303 at the time and place of this occurrence. Secretary of

Labor v. Itmann Coal Co., Docket No. WEVA 80-160 (June 30, 1980).

Itmann has calculated that the largest puddle of oil described by Inspec-

tor Bowman, 20 feet by 4-1/2 feet by 4-1/4 inches, would contain more than

238 gallons of oil if there were no water in the puddle. Posthearing brief

of Itmann Coal' Company at 9. While there may have been some water in this

puddle, I find that the puddle consisted primarily of oil as alleged by

2205

Inspector Bowman and Arnold Rogers. Moreover, considering the numerous other

puddles of oil and oil-soaked areas at this location, I find Inspector

Bowman's estimate of several hundred gallons of oil to be credible. There-

fore, I find that Itmann has violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.400 as alleged by MSHA.

The next issue is whether the section 104(d)(2) order was properly issued

in this case. As noted, supra, this section of the Act applies where the vio-

lation is due to the "unwarrantable failure" of the operator to comply with

mandatory health or safety standards. The term "unwarrantable failure" was

defined by the Interior Board of Mine Operations Appeals as follows:

[A]n inspector should find that a violation of any mandatory standard was caused by an unwarrantable failure to comply with such standard if he determines that the operator involved has failed to abate the conditions or practices constituting such violation, conditions or practices the operator knew or should have known existed or which it failed to abate because of a lack of due diligence, or because of indifference or a lack of reasonable care.

Zeigler Coal Company, 7 IBMA 280 (1977). This definition was approved in the

legislative history of the 1977 Act. S. Rpt. No. 95-181, 95th Cong., 1st

Sess. 32 (1977).

In December 1979, the Commission upheld an order of withdrawal based

upon an operator's unwarrantable failure to comply with 30 C.F.R. § 75.400.

In Old Ben Coal Company, VINC 74-11 (December 12, 1979), the Commission held

that the violation was an unwarrantable failure even though the evidence

established that the spillage occurred during the previous shift.

Applying the above principles to the facts of this case, it is clear that

Itmann knew or should have known of the existence of the accumulation of

2206

hydraulic oil in this area. The area had been cited less than 1 month pre- viously for the same condition and Inspector Bowman advised Itmann management

at that time of its duty to prevent a reoccurrence. Itmann's witnesses con- ceded that there was more hydraulic oil in this area than was normal. Whether the one pump was running or not is immaterial since several accumulations have

been established and Itmann failed to exercise due diligence to eliminate this

hazard. Even if Itmann is correct that the oil spillage occurred on the pre- vious shift, Old Ben Coal Company, supra, compels the conclusion that this

accumulation was due to the unwarrantable failure of Itmann to promptly

eliminate this condition. Therefore, I find that MSHA has established that the violation herein was caused by Itmann's unwarrantable failure to comply

with the mandatory standard.

The final issue to be resolved is the amount of the civil penalty which

should be assessed. In assessing a civil penalty, the six criteria set forth

in section 110(i) of the Act shall be considered. As pertinent here, I have considered stipulation Nos. 7 through 10 concerning Itmann' previous history,

size of business, ability to continue in business, and good faith in attempt-

ing to achieve rapid compliance. The remaining criteria to be discussed are

Itmann's negligence and the gravity of the violation.

In upholding the section 104(d)(2) order herein, I have previously found that Itmann was negligent in permitting combustible hydraulic oil to accumu- late in the area in question and in failing to clean up this condition.

Itmann's violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.400 constitute8 ordinary negligence.

2207

The gravity of a violation must be determined in light of the likelihood

of an occurrence, the number of miners exposed to potential injury, and the

seriousness of potential injury to the miners. Inspector Bowman testified that the condition which he found did not constitute an imminent danger.

However, he testified that the accumulation of hydraulic oil could be

ignited by sparks coming from the electricity in the rails of the haulage track or from the trailing cable of the 250-volt water pump which was lying

in oil. In the event of a fire, Inspector Bowman testified that carbon

monoxide therefrom would be taken to every working section of the mine. On the other hand, Itmann presented evidence that the possibility of ignition

of hydraulic oil was remote, only two working sections would be affected

in the event of a fire, and there was no danger of any injury to miners.

I find that in the event of an ignition of the hydraulic oil accumula-

tion, the miners in two working sections would have been exposed to serious

injury. However, the evidence fails to establish that such an occurrence

was probable. Considering all of the factors that go into determining the gravity of the violation, I find that this was a serious violation.

Based upon the evidence of record and the criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Act, I conclude that a civil penalty of $1,500 should be

imposed for the violation found to have occurred.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the contest of order is DENIED and the subject withdrawal order is AFFIRMED.

2208

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Itmann pay the sum of $1,500 within 30 days of

the date of this decision for violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.400.

James A. Laurenson, Judge

Distribution by Certified Mail:

Karl T. Skrypak, Esq., Consolidation Coal Company, 1800 Washington Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15214

James H. Swain, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 14480, Gateway Building, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Mary Lu Jordan, Esq., United Mine Workers of America, 900 15th Street, NW., Washington DC 20005

2209