Doss Fork Coal Company, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Doss Fork Coal Company was ordered to pay civil penalties after MSHA found loose coal accumulations, inadequate roof support, and failures to record hazardous conditions at the Seminole Mine. On remand, Judge Gary Melick found that the first violation resulted from unwarrantable failure and high negligence, and that the second and third violations also involved unwarrantable failure. He affirmed Orders 3554292, 3554293, and 3554294. The penalties were $800, $2,300, and $1,000, respectively, for a total of $4,100.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provision(s): 30 C.F.R. § 75.400; 30 C.F.R. § 75.202(a); 30 C.F.R. § 75.305
• Outcome: Three orders affirmed, with civil penalties totaling $4,100.
• Key point: The remand findings treated extensive coal accumulations, deteriorated roof support, and unreported hazardous conditions as unwarrantable failures.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                 OFFICE OF A D M INISTRA TIV E LA W JUDGES
                           2 SK YLINE, Su ite 10 0 0
                           5203 LEESBURG PIK E
                     FA LLS CHURCH, V IRGINIA 22041



                          April 5, 1996

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEVA 93-129
Petitioner : A.C. No. 46-07751-03542
v. :
: Seminole Mine
DOSS FORK COAL COMPANY, INC., :
Respondent :

                              DECISION

Appearances: Pamela Silverman, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Dept. of Labor, Arlington, Virginia for
Petitioner;
David Hardy, Esq., Jackson & Kelly, Charleston,

Before: Judge Melick

 This case is before me upon remand by the Commission,

18 FMSHRC 122, (February 1996) to determine whether the
violations charged in Order Nos. 3554292 and 3554293 were the
result of unwarrantable failure, and whether Order No. 3554294
should be sustained.

Order No. 3554292

 The evidence established that on October 26, 1992, MSHA

Inspector James Graham, accompanied by MSHA Supervisor Clyde
Ratcliff, observed that loose coal, mixed with pieces of rock,
had been pushed into ten crosscuts in the right return air course
of the Doss Fork Seminole Mine. Inspector Graham issued this
order alleging a Asignificant and substantial@ violation of 30
C.F.R. ' 75.400.1 He also charged that the violation was the
result of Doss Fork=s Aunwarrantable failure@.

 1
   30 C.F.R. ' 75.400 provides that Acoal 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.@

Page 2

 In the initial decision it was concluded that the cited

material constituted a violation but that the Secretary had not
proven the violation was Asignificant and substantial@.
It was also found that section foreman Carl Dalton entertained a
good faith belief that the material was not a violative
accumulation. Primarily for this reason the violation was not
found to be the result of Aunwarrantable failure@.

      Unwarrantable failure is defined as aggravated conduct

constituting more than ordinary negligence. Emory Mining Corp.,
9 FMSHRC 1997 (December 1987). Unwarrantable failure is
characterized by such conduct as Areckless disregard,@
Aintentional misconduct,@ Aindifference@ or a Alack of reasonable
care.@ Id. at 2003-04; Rochester and Pittsburgh Coal Company,
13 FMSHRC 189, 193-194 (February 1991). The Com m ission ha s identified
severa l fa ctors to be considered in a na lyzing w hether a viola tion resu lted from u nw a rra nta ble
fa ilu re. A m ong these a re Athe extensiveness of the viola tion, the leng th of tim e tha t the
viola tive condition ha s existed, the opera tor=s efforts to elim ina te the viola tive condition, a nd
w h ether a n opera tor ha s been pla ced on notice tha t g rea ter efforts a re necessa ry for
com plia nce.@ M u llins a nd Sons Coa l Com pa ny, 16 FM SHRC 192, 195 ( Febru a ry 1994). The
Com m ission ha s a lso noted tha t in order to serve a s a defense to a finding of u nw a rra nta ble
fa ilu re a n opera tor=s g ood fa ith belief tha t the cited conditions w ere not viola tive m u st a lso be
rea sona ble. Cypru s Pla tea u M ining Corp., 16 FM SHRC 1610 , 1615 ( A u g u st 1994). The
Com m ission seek s on rem a nd a determ ina tion of w h ether this opera tor=s belief tha t the cited
conditions w ere not viola tive w ere rea sona ble.

      Upon exa m ina tion of the record I m u st conclu de tha t the belief of the opera tor=s a g ent

in this reg a rd w a s not, in fa ct, rea sona ble. The viola tion w a s extensive in tha t there w ere
a ccu m u la tions of u p to 26 inches in depth in 10 crosscu ts. Section Forem a n D a lton a lso
testified tha t the m a teria l w a s pu shed into the crosscu ts du ring the la st w eek of Septem ber or
the first w eek of October, thereby a ck now ledg ing tha t the a ccu m u la tions ha d existed for a t lea st
three w eek s. In a ddition, the record indica tes tha t the opera tor w a s on notice tha t the storing
of coa l, even w h en m ixed w ith rock a nd m u d, w a s viola tive. Prior to issu a nce of the su bject
order, the opera tor w a s cited on Ju ne 3 a nd October 2 1, 1992, for three viola tions of the sa m e
sta nda rd. The record a lso show s tha t M SHA ha d w a rned the opera tor on October 15 a bou t
sim ila r a ccu m u la tions. U nder the circu m sta nces I conclu de tha t it w a s not rea sona ble to
believe tha t the cited conditions w ere not viola tive. Since the opera tor ha s fa iled to su sta in
his bu rden of proving this a ffirm a tive defense, I conclu de tha t the viola tion indeed resu lted
from Au nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re@ a nd hig h neg lig ence.

     In lig ht of these finding s, the previou s determ ina tion tha t the viola tion w a s not

Asig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l@ ( a nd a ccording ly of lessened g ra vity) a nd the other criteria u nder
Section 110 ( i), I find tha t a civil pena lty of $80 0 is a ppropria te.
Order No. 3554293

                                                   2

Page 3

      The record show s tha t on October 26, 1992, Inspector Gra ha m , a ccom pa nied by M SHA

Su pervisor Ra tcliff, issu ed a Section 10 4 ( d)( 1) order2 a lleg ing a Asig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l@
viola tion of 30 C.F.R. ' 75.2 0 2 ( a ).3 Ba sed on his observa tion of ina dequ a te roof su pport in
the left retu rn a ir cou rse of the m ine, Inspector Gra ha m cha rg ed tha t the viola tion w a s the
resu lt of D oss Fork =s u nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re. The viola tion w a s fou nd to be sig nifica nt a nd
su bsta ntia l.

      The Com m ission ha s rem a nded for eva lu a tion of the u nw a rra nta bility issu e in lig ht of

a ppropria te testim ony. In this reg a rd Inspector Gra ha m testified tha t, du ring his inspection of
the left retu rn a ir cou rse, severa l pla ces existed where roof bolts w ere ha ng ing dow n a nd
exposing 2 4 inches betw een the roof a nd the pla te. Gra ha m a lso described three pa rticu la r
a rea s w h ere g rou ps of six, 10 , a nd 12 a d ja cent defective bolts w ere observed. A dditiona lly,
Gra ha m testified tha t there w ere m a ny other da m a g ed bolts throu g hou t the a rea w ith cra ck ed
a nd loose rock in the roof w ith m u ch of the loose roof left ha ng ing . Gra ha m conclu ded tha t
the condition ha d existed for a t lea st severa l w eek s beca u se of the sta te of deteriora tion. He

    2
        Order No. 3554293 stated in part:

 The mine roof in the left return air course is not

adequately supported at spot locations starting at crosscuts
outby survey station number 65 and extended outby this point to
within three crosscuts of the surface portal. There were several
roof bolts at each location that were damaged to a point they no
longer adequately supported the roof.
3
30 C.F.R. ' 75.202(a) provides:

 The roof, face and ribs of areas where persons work or

travel shall be supported or otherwise controlled to protect
persons from hazards related to falls of the roof, face or ribs
and coal or rock bursts.

                                                   3

Page 4

dispu ted tha t the deteriora tion cou ld ha ve occu rred w ithin the five da ys since the la st w eek ly
exa m ina tion. M SHA Su pervisor Ra tcliff testified tha t the conditions he observed w ere sim ila r
to a n ea rthqu a k e, w ith fa llen m a teria l in a ny direction you look ed. He observed a rea s of
m a jor roof fa lls tha t he believed ha d existed for w eek s beca u se Aroof tra nsition tha t excessive
doesn=t occu r in a m a tter of da ys.@

       On the other ha nd Section Forem a n W ebb testified tha t he m a de the la st w eek ly

exa m ina tion on October 2 1, only five da ys before the conditions w ere observed a nd cited by
M SHA , a nd tha t he did not observe a ny viola tive conditions a t tha t tim e. Ba sed on the
expert testim ony of Gra ha m a nd Ra tcliff a nd the sig nifica nt fa ctor tha t only five da ys ha d
a ctu a lly ela psed betw een the da te of the la st w eek ly exa m ina tion reportedly condu cted by
Forem a n W ebb a nd the da te the conditions w ere discovered by M SHA , it is clea r tha t a t lea st
som e of the viola tive conditions m u st ha ve existed a t the tim e of the previou s w eek ly
exa m ina tion on October 2 1. In view of the circu m sta nces, it m a y rea sona bly be inferred tha t
W ebb m u st ha ve k now n of these conditions a t the tim e of tha t w eek ly exa m ina tion. W ith
su ch notice to a n a g ent of the opera tor, the fa ilu re to ha ve corrected those conditions du ring
the interim five da ys is clea rly su fficient to find the hig h deg ree of neg lig ence necessa ry for a
finding of Au nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re.@ A ccording ly, Order No. 3554293 is a ffirm ed w ith a n
a ppropria te civil pena lty of $2 ,3 0 0 .

Order No. 3554294

    Order No. 3554294 a lleg ed in pa rt a s follow s:

             A dequ a te w eek ly exa m ina tions for ha za rdou s conditions in the retu rn a ir

cou rses of this coa l m ine a re not being condu cted. There w ere obviou s viola tions tha t w ere
observed a nd there w a s no report m a de of these viola tions in the w eek ly exa m ina tion
book .

    The cited sta nda rd, 30 C.F.R. ' 75.305 ( 1991) provided, in pa rt a s follow s:

             Exa m ina tions for ha za rdou s conditions . . . sha ll be       m a de a t lea st once

ea ch w eek . . . . If a ny ha za rdou s condition is fou nd, su ch condition sha ll be reported
. . . prom ptly . . . . A record of these exa m ina tions . . . sha ll be recorded . . . in a book . .
. a nd the record sha ll be open for inspection . . . .

     The u nderlying ba sis for this viola tion w a s the fa ilu re to report in the w eek ly

exa m ina tion book s roof conditions in both the rig ht a nd left retu rn a ir cou rses a nd loose coa l
stored in the rig ht retu rn a s cha rg ed in Order No. 3554291, discu ssed in the initia l decision
( 16 FM SHRC 797 ( A pril 1994)), a nd Orders
No. 3554292, a nd No. 3554293, previou sly discu ssed in tha t decision a nd herein. Inspector
Gra ha m review ed the w eek ly exa m ina tion book s for the rig ht a nd left retu rn a ir cou rses a fter
he a rrived on the su rfa ce of the m ine on October 26, 1992. Sig nifica ntly, w h en Inspector
Gra ha m a sk ed Forem en W ebb a nd D a lton, the w eek ly exa m iners, w h y these conditions ha d not

                                                 4

Page 5

been reported in the w eek ly exa m ina tion book s, they g a ve no a nsw er. A s discu ssed in the
orig ina l decision issu ed in this ca se, su pplem ented by the discu ssion herein of the viola tions
cited in Orders No. 3554292 a nd No. 3554293, the opera tor w a s clea rly in a position from
w h ich it m a y rea sona bly ha ve been inferred tha t he k new of the viola tive conditions.

     The fa ilu re to ha ve reported these conditions in the w eek ly exa m ina tion book s

constitu tes a viola tion a s cha rg ed. The viola tion w a s a lso Asig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l@. A
viola tion is properly desig na ted a s Asig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l@ if, ba sed on the pa rticu la r fa cts
su rrou nding tha t viola tion, there exists a rea sona ble lik elihood tha t the ha za rd contribu ted to
w ill resu lt in a n inju ry or illness of a rea sona bly seriou s na tu re. Cem ent Division, Na tiona l
Gypsu m Co., 3 FM SHRC 822, 82 5 ( 1981). In M a thies Coa l Co., 6 FM SHRC 1, 3- 4 ( 1984),
the Com m ission expla ined:

              In order to esta blish tha t a viola tion of a
    m a nda tory sta nda rd is sig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l
    u nder Na tiona l Gypsu m the Secreta ry m u st prove:
    ( 1) the u nderlying viola tion of a m a nda tory sa fety
    sta nda rd, ( 2 ) a discrete sa fety ha za rd - - tha t is, a
    m ea su re of da ng er to sa fety - - contribu ted to by the
    viola tion, ( 3) a rea sona ble lik elihood tha t the ha za rd
    contribu ted to w ill resu lt in a n inju ry, a nd ( 4) a
    rea sona ble lik elihood tha t the inju ry in qu estion w ill
    be of a rea sona bly seriou s na tu re.

            See a lso A u stin Pow er Co. v. Secreta ry, 861 F.2d 99,               103- 0 4 ( 5th Cir.

1988), a ff=g 9 FM SHRC 2015, 2 0 2 1 ( 1987)
( a pproving M a thies criteria ).

              The third elem ent of the M a thies form u la requ ires tha t
     the Secreta ry esta blish a rea sona ble lik elihood tha t the
     ha za rd contribu ted to w ill resu lt in a n event in w h ich there
     is a n inju ry ( U .S. Steel M ining Co., 6 FM SHRC 1834, 1836             ( 1984), a nd a lso tha t

the lik elihood of inju ry be eva lu a ted in term s of continu ed norm a l m ining opera tions.
U .S. Steel M ining Co., Inc., 6 FM SHRC 1473, 1574 ( 1984); see a lso Ha lfw a y, Inc.,
8 FM SHRC 8, 12 ( 1986) a nd Sou thern Oil Coa l Co., 13 FM SHRC 912 , 916- 17 ( 1991).

     The fa ilu re to ha ve reported in the w eek ly exa m ina tion book s the seriou s conditions

cited in the noted orders clea rly constitu ted a Asig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l@ a nd seriou s
viola tion. W ithou t the w a rning provided by su ch reports, u nsu specting persons w ou ld lik ely be
pla ced in ha za rdou s a nd potentia lly life- threa tening situ a tions - - pa rticu la rly in reg a rd to the
ha za rdou s roof conditions.

    The viola tion w a s a lso the resu lt of Au nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re@. The fa ilu re to ha ve

reported these conditions, a nd, in pa rticu la r, the seriou s roof conditions, in the w eek ly

                                                    5

Page 6

exa m ina tion book s w a s clea rly inexcu sa ble a nd the resu lt of a n a g g ra va ted om ission constitu ting
hig h neg lig ence. Considering the criteria u nder Section 110 ( i) of the A ct, a civil pena lty for
this viola tion of $1,0 0 0 is a ppropria te.

                                                ORD ER

     Order Nos. 3554292, 3554293 a nd 3554294 a re a ffirm ed. D oss Fork Coa l Com pa ny

is hereby directed to pa y w ithin 3 0 d a ys of the da te of this decision civil pena lties of $80 0 ,
$2 ,3 0 0 a nd $1,0 0 0 , respectively, for the viola tions cha rg ed in the a bove orders.

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

D istribu tion:

Pa m ela S. Silverm a n, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. D ept. of La bor, 4 0 15 W ilson Blvd.,
Room 516, A rling ton, V A 22203 ( Certified M a il)

D a vid J. Ha rdy, Esq., Ja ck son & K elly, 16 0 0 La idley Tow er, P.O. Box 553, Cha rleston, W V
2 5322 ( Certified M a il)

/ jf

                                                    6