Secretary of Labor v. Consolidation Coal Company
Secretary of Labor v. Consolidation Coal Company (FMSHRC WEVA 95-44, WEVA 95-95, WEVA 95-96, WEVA 95-117): Citations affirmed and penalties modified
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.
Plain-English summary
Consolidation Coal Company was cited after an inspector found a coal feeder being moved with combustible accumulations, incomplete fire-resistant covering, and inadequate grounding. The judge affirmed the citation and order in docket WEVA 95-117, finding a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.1003-2 that was significant and substantial and resulted from unwarrantable failure. The judge accepted settlements in three other consolidated dockets, modifying two orders and reducing the agreed penalties. The company was ordered to pay $10,050 total, after which the proceedings would be dismissed.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.1003-2
- Outcome: The citations and orders were affirmed, two settled matters were modified, and a total civil penalty of $10,050 was assessed.
- Key point: The judge found the feeder was not cleaned, fully covered, or properly grounded before it was moved under energized trolley wires.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
+FED ERA L M INE SA FETY A ND HEA LTH REV IEW COM M ISSION
OFFICE OF A D M INISTRA TIV E LA W JUDGES
2 SK YLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIK E
FA LLS CHURCH, V IRGINIA 22041
October 27, 1995
SECRETA RY OF LA BOR, : CIV IL PENA LTY PROCEED ING S
M INE SA FETY A ND HEA LTH :
A D M INISTRA TION ( M SHA ), : D ock et No. W EV A 95- 4 4
Petitioner : A .C. No. 46- 0 1968- 0 4 165
v. :
: D ock et No. W EV A 95- 95
CONSOLID A TION COA L COM PA NY, : A .C. No. 46- 0 1968- 0 4 169
Respondent :
: Bla ck sville No. 2 M ine
:
: D ock et No. W EV A 95- 96
: A .C. No. 46- 0 1455- 0 4 0 4 0
:
: Osa g e No. 3 M ine
:
: D ock et No. W EV A 95- 117
: A .C. No. 46- 0 1452 - 0 4 0 0 1
:
: A rk w rig ht No. 1 M ine
D ECISION
A ppea ra nces: Eliza beth Lopes, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S.
D epa rtm ent of La bor, A rling ton, V irg inia , for Petitioner;
Eliza beth S. Cha m berlin, Esq., Consolida tion Coa l
Com pa ny, Pittsbu rg h, Pennsylva nia , for Respondent.
Before: Ju d g e Hod g d on
These consolida ted ca ses a re before m e on petitions for a ssessm ent of civil pena lty filed
by the Secreta ry of La bor, a cting throu g h his M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth A dm inistra tion
( M SHA ), a g a inst Consolida tion Coa l Com pa ny ( Consol) pu rsu a nt to Section 10 5 of the Federa l
M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth A ct of 1977, 30 U.S.C. ' 815. The petitions a lleg e severa l viola tions
of the Secreta ry=s m a nda tory hea lth a nd sa fety sta nda rds a nd seek pena lties of $14,0 50 .0 0 .
For the rea sons set forth below , I a ffirm a ll cita tions a nd orders, m odifying tw o of them
pu rsu a nt to a settlem ent a g reem ent, a nd a ssess civil pena lties of $10 ,0 50 .0 0 .
A hea ring w a s held on Ju ly 18, 1995, in M org a ntow n, W est V irg inia . M SHA Coa l
Page 2
M ine Inspector Ed w in W . Fetty, Fred
D . Sm ith, D a vid B. M yers, a nd M SHA Conference a nd Litig a tion Representa tive Lynn A .
W ork ley testified for the Secreta ry. M icha el L. Cole, La rry J. Johnson, W illia m A . Ru nya n,
D a vid
R. Pile, Cha rles Cla rk , Ca rl G . W eber, Sr., a nd Clifford
J. Cu tlip w ere w itnesses for Consol. The pa rties a lso su bm itted briefs which I ha ve considered
in m y disposition of these ca ses.
SETTLED D O CK ETS
A t the beg inning of the hea ring , cou nsel for the Secreta ry sta ted tha t they ha d settled
D ock et Nos. W EV A 95- 4 4 , W EV A 95- 95 a nd W EV A 95- 96. W ith respect to D ock et No.
95- 4 4 , the a g reem ent provides tha t Consol w ill pa y the proposed pena lty of $50 .0 0 for
Cita tion No. 3319362 in fu ll a nd tha t the pena lty for Order
No. 3318854 w ill be redu ced from $1,50 0 .0 0 to $1,0 0 0 .0 0 . For D ock et No. W EV A 95- 95,
Order No. 3319349 will be m odified to delete the Asig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l@ desig na tion a nd
the pena lty redu ced from $3,0 0 0 .0 0 to $1,50 0 .0 0 . In D ock et
No. W EV A 95- 96, the deg ree of neg lig ence in Cita tion No. 3319345 w ill be redu ced from
Am odera te@ to Alow @ a nd the pena lty redu ced from $4,0 0 0 .0 0 to $2 ,0 0 0 .0 0 .
A fter considering the pa rties= representa tions, I conclu ded tha t the settlem ent w a s
a ppropria te u nder the criteria set forth in Section 110 ( i) of the A ct, 30 U.S.C. ' 82 0 ( i), a nd
inform ed the pa rties tha t I w ou ld a ccept the a g reem ent. ( Tr. 9- 13.) The provisions of the
a g reem ent w ill be ca rried ou t in the order a t the end of this decision.
DOCK ET NO. W EV A 95- 117
Inspector Fetty w a s driving on I- 79 pa st Consol=s A rk w rig ht No. 1 m ine on Ju ly 6,
1994, when his a ttention w a s a ttra cted to a cra ne boom tha t he believed w a s too close to som e
hig h tension lines. He pu lled onto the m ine property to investig a te the situ a tion. Once he
a rrived a t the scene, he conclu ded tha t there w a s no problem . Unfortu na tely, for Consol,
how ever, while on the property he noticed a coa l feeder on a n equ ipm ent ca rrier pa rk ed on a
spu r tra ck in the post pile a rea . The inspector observed wha t a ppea red to be a ccu m u la tions of
coa l, coa l du st, oil a nd g rea se on the feeder a nd w ent to inspect it.
Inspector Fetty testified tha t:
On Ju ly 6 when I observed the feeder, there w a s a ccu m u la tion of coa l
on the sides a nd the a ng les of the feeder. There w a s [sic] a ccu m u la tions of oil
a nd g rea se in the deck w here the m otor ha d been rem oved. A nd coa l a nd coa l
du st w a s a lso present there.
A nd on the trolley a nd feeder w ire side, a rou nd the opera ting controls,
there w a s a n excessive a m ou nt of fine, loose, dry coa l a ccu m u la ted there.
....
Page 3
There w a s a ccu m u la tion of the coa l throu g h the entire throa t of the
m a chine, in betw een ea ch flig ht, ra ng ing from one to three inches deep.
....
Lik e I sa id, the a ccu m u la tion existed dow n on the inside, betw een the
conveyor flig hts, in the feeder. A lso, on the left- ha nd ed g e, there w a s coa l
a rou nd - - a ccu m u la ted on the sides. Com ing u p to the next piece there, . . . is
you r electrica l box.
A ccu m u la tions w a s [sic] on top of tha t box a nd a rou nd the other
controls, on u p, a nd com ing u p into the front where you ca n see the drive m otor
tha t drives the conveyor, which ha d been rem oved, there w a s a ccu m u la tion of oil
a nd g rea se over the entire a rea .
( Tr. 39- 4 1.)
The inspector fu rther testified tha t he Aobserved tw o pieces of conveyor belting , one on
the rig ht side, a nd one on the left side. A nd the a rea betw een the conveyor for a pproxim a tely
2 0 inches w ide, there w a s nothing , or nothing d ow n the trolley w ire side.@ ( Tr. 50 .) He
sta ted tha t he believed tha t the feeder ha d not been covered a s requ ired beca u se of this
opening a nd beca u se A[t]here w a s a m a rk on top of the m eta l, on top of the feeder, tha t
indica ted tha t a t one tim e the trolley or trolley feeder ha d conta cted this portion of the feeder@
a nd tha t the m a rk Aw a s fresh, beca u se it w a s still shiny.@ ( Tr. 51.)
Fina lly, the inspector testified tha t the feeder w a s not properly g rou nded for the m ove
A[b]eca u se the only m ethod of g rou nding tha t w a s provided, tha t I observed a t the tim e I w a s
there, there w a s a piece of tra ck bond tw isted a rou nd a portion of the feeder a nd ju st tw isted
a rou nd the fra m e of the low boy.@ ( Tr. 55.)
A s a resu lt of his observa tions, Inspector Fetty issu ed order No. 3122362 u nder Section
10 4 ( d)( 2 ) of the A ct,
30 U.S.C. ' 814( d)( 2 ),1 a lleg ing a viola tion of Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 of the Secreta ry=s
1
Section 104(d)(2) states:
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 authorized representative of the Secretary
who finds upon any subsequent inspection the existence
in such mine of violations similar to those that
resulted in the issuance of the withdrawal order under
paragraph (1) until such time as an inspection of such
3
Page 4
Reg u la tions, 30 C.F.R. ' 75.10 0 3 - 2 . The order a lleg es tha t:
A coa l feeder w a s observed setting [sic] on a spu r tra ck of the m a in
tra ck ha u la g e betw een the hills of the A rk w rig ht No. 1 M ine. The feeder ha d
been m oved from u nderg rou nd u nder energ ized 300 vdc trolley w ire a nd trolley
feeder w ire on a previou s shift. The feeder w a s not clea ned a nd there w ere
a ccu m u la tions of fine dry coa l a nd coa l du st, oil, g rea se a nd w ooden m a teria l on
the coa l feeder. The coa l feeder w a s not properly covered on the top a nd trolley
w ire side. There w a s evidence tha t the energ ized trolley w ire or trolley feeder
w ire ha d conta cted the center su pport of the coa l feeder, lea ving indica tions of
a rcing for
9 inches a nd m olten m eta l spla tter. Electrica l conta ct
w a s not m a inta ined betw een the coa l feeder being
tra nsported a nd the ra il- m ou nted low boy ba rrier.
A ccording to a com pa ny forem a n, the equ ipm ent w a s being
m oved u nder the direction of a certified forem a n a nd
w ith a qu a lified electricia n. The condition w a s
observed by a t lea st tw o forem en. A fire cou ld ha ve occu rred ca u sing
inju ries from sm ok e inha la tion,
a sphyxia tion or bu rns. Proper sa fety preca u tions
shou ld ha ve been provided prior to a nd du ring equ ipm ent
m ove.
( G ovt. Ex. 1.)
FIND ING S OF FA CT A ND CONCLU SIONS OF LA W
Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 requ ires, in pertinent pa rt:
( a ) Prior to m oving or tra nsporting a ny u nit of off- tra ck m ining
equ ipm ent in a rea s of the a ctive w ork ing s where energ ized trolley w ires or
trolley feeder w ires a re present:
( 1) The u nit of equ ipm ent sha ll be exa m ined by a certified person to
ensu re tha t coa l du st, floa t coa l du st, loose coa l oil, g rea se, a nd other
com bu stible m a teria ls ha ve been clea ned u p a nd ha ve not been perm itted to
a ccu m u la te on su ch u nit of equ ipm ent;
....
mine discloses no similar violations.
4
Page 5
( d) The fra m es of off- tra ck m ining equ ipm ent being m oved or
tra nsported, in a ccorda nce w ith this section, sha ll be covered on the top a nd on
the trolley w ire side w ith fire- resista nt m a teria l . . . .
( e) Electrica l conta ct sha ll be m a inta ined betw een the m ine tra ck a nd
the fra m es of off- tra ck m ining equ ip m ent being m oved in- tra ck a nd trolley
entries . . . .
A s a prelim ina ry m a tter, Consol a rg u es tha t this reg u la tion does not a pply to the coa l
feeder in qu estion. It ba ses this contention on Sou thern Ohio Coa l Co., 3 FM SHRC 1449
( Ju d g e K ou tra s, Ju ne 1981), where the ju d g e held Atha t section 75.10 0 3 - 2 only a pplies to
com plete or rea sona bly com plete pieces of off- tra ck m ining equ ipm ent.@ Id. a t 1455. A t issu e
in tha t ca se w a s whether the boom of a n off- tra ck shu ttle ca r being tra nsported on a low - boy
w a s covered by Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 . The ca se does not su pport the Respondent=s position.
The boom of a shu ttle ca r is a sm a ll pa rt of the shu ttle ca r, while in this ca se it is the
sm a ll pa rts, su ch a s the m otor, which ha ve been rem oved lea ving a rea sona bly com plete feeder.
Fu rther, a s Consol a dm its in its brief, a t a m inim u m the fra m e of the feeder w a s involved in
this m ove. In tha t connection, the ju d g e noted in Sou thern Ohio, A[s]ince su bsection ( d)[a lso
a lleg ed to ha ve been viola ted in this ca se] m entions only fra m es, it is evident tha t the dra fters
w ere considering only la rg e, nea rly com plete, or com plete pieces of m a chinery.@ Id. a t 1456.
Clea rly, Ju d g e K ou tra s considered a fra m e to be a com plete or rea sona bly com plete piece of
equ ipm ent. I concu r, a nd conclu de tha t Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 a pplies to the m ove of the coa l
feeder in this ca se.
This ca se tu rns on the credibility of the w itnesses. There is no dispu te tha t the feeder
w a s m oved ou t of the m ine in three sepa ra te m oves over the period from Ju ly 2 throu g h Ju ly
6, 1994. Nor is there a ny dispu te tha t when Inspector Fetty observed the feeder on the
m orning of Ju ly 6, it w a s loca ted where the la st m ove ha d pa rk ed it du ring the ea rly m orning
hou rs of tha t da y. How ever, there is a dispu te a s to whether the m ove com plied w ith Section
75.10 0 3 - 2 .
Cla im ing tha t it did, Consol=s w itnesses testified tha t the feeder w a s ca refu lly clea ned
before the m ove on the first da y, tha t it w a s rock du sted a nd then com pletely covered w ith
pieces of conveyor belt which were la ced tog ether. They testified tha t the requ ired, certified
person check ed the feeder to ensu re tha t it w a s clea n before the m ove w a s com m enced. The
w itnesses m a inta ined tha t it w a s not u ncovered while stopped tw ice before being m oved a g a in
a nd tha t it w a s g rou nded w ith a cla m p a tta ched to the feeder fra m e a nd to the Alow - boy@
ca rrier.
W hile a dm itting tha t tw o incidents of a rcing occu rred du ring the m ove, they deny tha t
the w ire ca m e in conta ct w ith the feeder, cla im ing tha t on one occa sion a trolley w ire ha ng er
ca m e loose a nd sw u ng d ow n hitting the side of the Alow - boy@ a nd on the other occa sion the
belting on the feeder pu shed u p, ca u sing the trolley w ire to conta ct a m eta l ceiling bea m .
Consol=s m iners a verred tha t wha t a ppea red to Inspector Fetty to be a n a rea on the feeder
5
Page 6
where the feeder conta cted the trolley w ire w a s, in fa ct, a pla ce where a n L- sha ped bra ck et ha d
been cu t off of the feeder w ith a n a cetylene torch.
The Consol w itnesses hypothesized tha t the a ccu m u la tions observed on the feeder by
Inspector Fetty resu lted from roof a nd rib slou g ha g e, a s w ell a s a ccu m u la tions k nock ed off of
w a ter pipes, du ring the m ove. Fina lly, they a ssert tha t the rea son the feeder w a s not
com pletely covered by conveyor belting w hen observed by the inspector w a s tha t the m overs
sta rted to rem ove the belting on com pleting the m ove before deciding to lea ve tha t ta sk to the
da y shift.
I find the testim ony of the inspector to be the m ost believa ble in this ca se. G enera lly,
there ha s been no show ing tha t Inspector Fetty ha d a ny rea son or m otive to m a k e u p wha t he
observed. In fa ct, while the conclu sions tha t he drew from his observa tions a re clea rly
cha lleng ed by Consol, his observa tions a re not. On the other ha nd, the Respondent=s em ployees,
who w ere involved in com m itting a viola tion, if one is fou nd, ha d a n obviou s rea son for
sha ding the tru th. Fu rtherm ore, Fetty=s observa tions a re corrobora ted by a disinterested w itness.
Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 ( a )( 1)
Tu rning first to the a ccu m u la tions of coa l, coa l du st, oil a nd g rea se a nd w ood m a teria l
observed by the inspector, his description is very deta iled a nd describes a ccu m u la tions in pla ces
a nd to extents tha t cou ld not ha ve resu lted from slou g ha g e a nd dislod g em ents onto a covered
feeder du ring the m ove. This testim ony w a s su pported by the testim ony of Fred Sm ith, a
retired m iner who ha d no a ppa rent m otive to dissem ble.
M r. Sm ith testified tha t he sa w the feeder on Ju ly 6 when he m oved it from the tra ck
spu r to the No. 8 shop a nd A[i]t ha d a hea vy debris, lik e bu g du st, coa l a nd oil, a ll over the
equ ipm ent, a ll over the whole m a chine.@ ( Tr. 117.) He fu rther sta ted tha t Ait didn=t look lik e
it ha d been hosed off lik e the other m a chines I ha ve ha u led ou t of tha t m ines [sic] a nd other
m ines@ a nd tha t in his opinion A[w ]ith the fine du st a nd a ccu m u la tion of the oil, it w ou ld ha ve
to be a ccu m u la ted where it w a s in opera tion.@ ( Tr. 117.) Fina lly, he sa id tha t it w a s u nlik ely
tha t the a ccu m u la tions ha d occu rred while the feeder w a s being m oved beca u se they w ere u nder
sloped pa rts of the feeder.
In a ddition, the Respondent took som e pictu res of the feeder the next da y a t the shop.
( Jt. Exs. A - L.) A lthou g h both the inspector a nd M r. Sm ith testified tha t the feeder ha d been
clea ned u p by Ju ly 7 a nd a ppea red clea ner tha n when they sa w it on Ju ly 6, it is a ppa rent
from these pictu res tha t there w ere still a ccu m u la tions of com bu stible m a teria ls on the feeder.
Consequ ently, I conclu de tha t the Respondent viola ted su bsection ( a )( 1) of the reg u la tion by
not ensu ring tha t the feeder ha d been clea ned u p prior to the m ove.
Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 ( d )
The evidence concerning w hether the feeder w a s properly covered du ring the m ove is
6
Page 7
not a s explicit. The inspector ba sed his conclu sion on this issu e on his observa tion of the g a p
in the covering a nd the presence on the feeder of a n a rea in the g a p which a ppea red to ha ve
com e in conta ct w ith the w ire. M r. Sm ith a g reed w ith Inspector Fetty tha t the shiny a rea
a ppea red to be a pla ce where the feeder conta cted the w ire. Conversely, the Respondent
expla ins the g a p a s being a n u nfinished a ttem pt to u ncover the feeder a fter the m ove w a s
com pleted a nd the shiny a rea a s being the resu lt of a bra ce being cu t off of the feeder.
Only M r. Cla rk a nd M r. W eber testified concerning u ncovering the feeder. M r. Cla rk
sta ted:AW e ju st sta rted to peel ba ck one piece. Tha t w a s it.@ ( Tr. 322.) M r. W eber rela ted:
AI m oved one piece a nd I think the m otorm a n a nd Chic M a rtin sta rted to ta k e a nother piece
off, m oved it a rou nd.@ ( Tr. 362.) How ever, none of this expla ins the 2 0 inch g a p observed by
the inspector. If one piece w ere pa rtly peeled ba ck , it w ou ld ha ve been obviou s to the
inspector. Fu rther, if one piece ha d been rem oved a nd a nother m oved, the g a p w ou ld ha ve
been la rg er tha n 2 0 inches a nd presu m a bly the piece tha t ha d been rem oved w ou ld ha ve been
present in the a rea .
W ith reg a rd to the shiny a rea , both Inspector Fetty a nd
M r. Sm ith testified tha t this w a s different in a ppea ra nce from a rea s tha t ha d been cu t w ith a
torch a nd they w ere a ble to point ou t the difference in the photog ra phs where there is no
dispu te tha t a pa rt ha d been cu t off of the feeder. W hile Consol=s w itnesses a ll m a inta ined
tha t a pa rt ha d been cu t off a t the shiny spot, they did not a ttem pt to expla in why there w a s
a difference in the a ppea ra nce of the cu ts. In fa ct, there is a n observa ble difference. ( Jt. Exs.
E a nd L.)
Ba sed on the evidence a va ila ble, there a re only tw o expla na tions for the shiny a rea .
Either a pa rt w a s rem oved from the a rea , or the feeder ca m e in conta ct w ith the w ire. Ba sed
on the difference betw een the a rea s k now n to ha ve been cu t a nd the a rea in qu estion, I find
tha t the shiny a rea resu lted from conta ct w ith the w ire. Ba sed on a ll of the evidence on this
issu e, I conclu de tha t the feeder w a s not covered a s requ ired by su bsection ( d).
Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 ( e)
Inspector Fetty did not see a proper g rou nd on the feeder a t the tim e he observed it.
A t tha t tim e, no expla na tion w a s g iven to him of the rea son the feeder did not a ppea r to be
properly g rou nded. How ever, the next da y he w a s inform ed tha t a g rou nd cla m p ha d been
u sed a nd he w a s provided w ith the cla m p tha t w a s a lleg edly u sed. On receiving the cla m p, the
inspector tested it w ith his equ ipm ent for continu ity. Continu ity w a s not obta ined.
M r. Cu tlip testified tha t the cla m p did m a inta in continu ity when tested by the
inspector. How ever, I do not credit this testim ony. M r. Cu tlip m a de extensive
contem pora neou s notes a t the tim e the order w a s issu ed, ( G ovt. Ex. 5 a nd Resp. Ex. 10 ), yet
this incident, which if tru e dem onstra tes tha t the com pa ny did properly g rou nd the feeder a nd
tha t the inspector w a s lying , is not m entioned. Fu rther, a lthou g h severa l other people w ere
present when the test w a s m a de, none testified to corrobora te this cla im .
7
Page 8
I find it su spiciou s tha t no m ention w a s m a de of the cla m p u ntil the next da y a nd a m
not convinced tha t one w a s u sed. Nevertheless, even if the one g iven to the inspector the next
da y w a s, in fa ct, u sed, it obviou sly did not provide a proper g rou nd ba sed on the inspector=s
testing . Therefore, I conclu de tha t Consol viola ted su bsection ( e).
Ba sed on a prepondera nce of the evidence, I find tha t Consol did not ensu re tha t the
feeder ha d been clea ned of com bu stible m a teria ls prior to m oving it, did not com pletely cover
the top a nd trolley w ire side of the feeder w ith fire- resista nt m a teria l while it w a s being
m oved, a nd did not m a inta in electrica l conta ct betw een the m ine tra ck a nd the feeder du ring
the m ove. A ccording ly, I conclu de tha t the com pa ny viola ted Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 of the
reg u la tions a s a lleg ed.
Sig nifica nt a nd Su bsta ntia l
The inspector determined that this violation was
Asignificant and substantial.@ A "significant and substantial"
(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." A violation is properly
designated S&S "if, based upon the particular facts surrounding
that 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 Mathies Coal Co., 6 FMSHRC 1 (January 1984), the
Commission set out four criteria that have to be met for a
violation to be S&S. See also Austin Power, Inc. v. Secretary,
861 F.2d 99, 103-04 (5th Cir. 1988), aff'g Austin Power, Inc.,
9 FMSHRC 2015, 2021 (December 1987)(approving Mathies criteria).
Evaluation of the criteria is made in terms of "continued
normal mining operations." U.S. Steel Mining Co., Inc., 6 FMSHRC
1573, 1574 (July 1984). The question of whether a particular
violation is Asignificant and substantial@ must be based on the
particular facts surrounding the violation. Texasgulf, Inc., 10
FMSHRC 498 (April 1988); Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co., 9 FMSHRC
1007 (December 1987).
Inspector Fetty testified that the widespread accumulations
on the feeder were dry and combustible. He further testified
that it was reasonably likely that if a trolley wire came in
contact with the feeder it would cause arcing that would ignite
the accumulations resulting in a fire. The evidence indicates
that at least twice during the move contact with the trolley wire
or a wire hanger resulted in arcing, although fortunately there
8
Page 9
was no ignition. The inspector also testified that if a fire
occurred, serious injuries such as burns and smoke inhalation
were likely to occur.
Ba sed on this evidence, I find tha t the M a thies criteria ha ve been m et. The fa ilu re to
clea n, cover a nd g rou nd the feeder for the m ove contribu ted to the da ng er of a fire in the
m ine. A fire w a s rea sona bly lik ely, a ssu m ing norm a l m ining opera tions, a nd if a fire occu rred
it cou ld be expected to resu lt in rea sona bly seriou s inju ries. A ccording ly, I conclu de tha t the
viola tion w a s Asig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l.@
U nw a rra nta ble Fa ilu re
Inspector Fetty a lso fou nd tha t this viola tion resu lted from Consol=s Au nw a rra nta ble
fa ilu re@ to com ply w ith the reg u la tion. The Commission has held that
Aunwarrantable failure@ is aggravated conduct constituting more
than ordinary negligence by a mine operator in relation to a
violation of the Act. Emery Mining Corp., 9 FMSHRC 1997, 2004
(December 1987); Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co., 9 FMSHRC 2007,
2010 (December 1987). AUnwarrantable failure is characterized by
such conduct as >reckless disregard,= >intentional misconduct,=
indifference= or a >serious lack of reasonable care.= [Emery] at
2003-04; Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Corp. 13 FMSHRC 189, 193-94
(February 1991).@ Wyoming Fuel Co., 16 FMSHRC 1618, 1627 (August
1994).
In this ca se the a ccu m u la tions w ere w idesprea d a nd rea dily a ppa rent to Inspector Fetty
a nd M r. Sm ith a nd, a ccording to the inspector=s notes m a de a t the tim e of his inspection,
m em bers of Consol=s m a na g em ent a lso. ( G ovt. Ex. 2 .) Indeed they a re rea dily a ppa rent in the
photog ra phs ta k en a da y la ter. D espite this, the m ove w a s ca rried ou t a fter a certified person
indica ted tha t he ha d exa m ined the feeder a nd it w a s Aclea ned a nd covered.@ ( Resp. Ex. 5.)
Clea rly, Consol k new w ha t Section 75.10 0 3 - 2 requ ired for the m ove of the feeder. Ju st
a s clea rly, the com pa ny m a de only a su perficia l a ttem pt to com ply w ith those requ irem ents.
A t best this resu lted from Aindifference,@ a t w orst it w a s Aintentiona l m iscondu ct.@
Consequ ently, I conclu de tha t this viola tion resu lted from Consol=s Au nw a rra nta ble fa ilu re@ to
com ply w ith the reg u la tion.
CIV IL PENA LTY A SSESSM ENT
The Secreta ry ha s proposed a civil pena lty of $5,50 0 .0 0 for this viola tion. How ever,
it is the ju d g e=s independent responsibility to determ ine the a ppropria te a m ou nt of a pena lty,
in a ccorda nce w ith the six criteria set ou t in Section 110 ( i) of the A ct. Sellersbu rg Stone Co.
v. Federa l M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth Review Com m ission, 736 F.2d 1147, 1151 ( 7th Cir. 1984).
In connection w ith the six criteria , the pa rties ha ve stipu la ted tha t Consol is a la rg e
m ine opera tor, tha t the m a xim u m pena lty perm issible for this viola tion w ill not a ffect its
9
Page 10
a bility to rem a in in bu siness a nd tha t the com pa ny dem onstra ted g ood fa ith in a ba ting the
viola tion. ( Tr. 2 1- 2 2 .) For the tw o yea rs preceding this viola tion, the com pa ny received a
m odera te nu m ber of viola tions for a m ine of this size, inclu ding seven for viola tion of the sa m e
reg u la tion. ( G ovt. Ex. 7.) The evidence in this ca se dem onstra tes tha t the Respondent w a s
hig hly neg lig ent a nd tha t the g ra vity of the viola tion w a s very seriou s. Considering a ll of this
tog ether, I conclu de tha t the proposed pena lty of $5,50 0 .0 0 is a ppropria te.
ORD ER
Order No. 3318854 a nd Cita tion No. 3319362 in D ock et No. W EV A 95- 4 4 a re
A FFIRM ED , Order No. 3319349 in D ock et No. W EV A
95- 95 is M ODIFIED by deleting the Asig nifica nt a nd su bsta ntia l@ desig na tion a nd
A FFIRM ED a s m odified, Cita tion No. 3319345 in D ock et No. W EV A 95- 96 is
M ODIFIED by redu cing the deg ree of neg lig ence from Am odera te@ to Alow @ a nd A FFIRM ED
a s m odified a nd Order No. 3122632 in D ock et No. W EV A 95- 117 is A FFIRM ED .
Consolida tion Coa l Com pa ny is ORD ERED TO PA Y civil pena lties of $10 ,0 50 .0 0 w ithin
30 da ys of the da te of this decision. On receipt of pa ym ent, these proceeding s a re
D ISM ISSED .
T. Todd Hod g d on
A dm inistra tive La w Ju d g e
D istribu tion:
Eliza beth Lopes, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. D epa rtm ent of La bor, 4 0 15 W ilson Blvd.,
A rling ton, V A 2 2 2 0 3 ( Certified M a il)
Eliza beth S. Cha m berlin, Esq., Consol, Inc., 1800 W a shing ton Rd., Pittsbu rg h, PA 15241- 1421
( Certified M a il)
/ lt
10
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1995, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.