Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01554/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01554-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Respondent
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.
Petitioner
Secretary of Labor
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 13, 1996 Decided January 17, 1997

No. 95-1554

JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC.,

PETITIONER

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

AND FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,

RESPONDENTS

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

David M. Smith, with whom Warren B. Lightfoot Jr. was on the

briefs, argued the cause for petitioner.

Colleen A. Geraghty, Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor, with whom

J. Davitt McAteer, Acting Solicitor of Labor, and W. Christian

Schumann, Counsel, were on the brief, argued the cause for

respondents. Elizabeth Ebner and Norman M. Gleichman entered

appearances for respondents.

Before HENDERSON and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLEY, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the court filed by Senior Circuit Judge BUCKLEY.

BUCKLEY, Senior Circuit Judge: Petitioner Jim Walter

Resources, Inc. seeks review of the Federal Mine Safety and Health

Review Commission's Decision and Order finding that Jim Walter

violated the mandatory health standards established in 30 C.F.R. §

72.630(a) and that the violation constituted an "unwarrantable

failure" to comply with the standards. We uphold the Commission's

determination that Jim Walter violated section 72.630(a) but reject

its finding that the violation constituted an unwarrantable failure

to comply with the regulation.

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 1 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

I. BACKGROUND

A. Legal Framework

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 ("Act"), 30

U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (1994), was enacted to improve and promote

health and safety in the Nation's mines. See id. § 801. Section

104(a) of the Act directs the Secretary of Labor ("Secretary") or

his authorized representative to issue a citation to a mine

operator if, upon inspection or investigation, he believes that the

operator has violated a mandatory health or safety standard

established under the Act. Id. § 814(a).

The health standard at issue in this case is 30 C.F.R. §

72.630, which provides, in its entirety, as follows:

§ 72.630 Drill dust control at underground areas of

underground mines.

(a) Dust resulting from drilling in rock shall be

controlled by use of permissible dust collectors, or by

water, or water with a wetting agent, or by ventilation,

or by any other method or device approved by the

Secretary that is as effective in controlling the dust.

(b) Dust collectors. Dust collectors shall be

maintained in permissible and operating condition. Dust

collectors approved under Part 33Dust Collectors for Use

in Connection with Rock Drilling in Coal Mines of this

title or under Bureau of Mines Schedule 25B are

permissible dust collectors for the purpose of this

section.

(c) Water control. Water used to control dust from

drilling rock shall be applied through a hollow drill

steel or stem or by the flooding of vertical drill holes

in the floor.

(d) Ventilation control. To adequately control dust

from drilling rock, the air current shall be so directed

that the dust is readily dispersed and carried away from

the drill operator or any other miners in the area.

30 C.F.R. § 72.630 (1996).

A violation of section 72.630 occurs when a miner is located

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 2 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

downwind of a drilling operation that fails to employ one of the

three alternative methods of dust suppression specified in the

regulations: approved dust collectors, water, and ventilation.

Because workable dust collectors were not available for Jim

Walter's pneumatic drills, it had to rely on either water or

ventilation to control rock dust.

B. Events Relating to the Violation of Section 72.630(a)

Jim Walter owns and operates an underground coal mine, known

as the "Number 4 mine," in Birmingham, Alabama. The coal is

extracted through "longwall mining," which we have described as

follows:

A longwall panel is created by digging two parallel,

vertical tunnels (the headgate and tailgate entries) and

a third horizontal connector (the longwall). The ceiling

of the longwall exposes the face of rock from which coal

will be extracted by a shearer moving back and forth

across the face. Mining begins at the bottom of the

parallel entries and progresses back towards ground

level.

International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. FMSHA, 931

F.2d 908, 910 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted). After the miners have finished mining a

section, they engage in longwall recovery, that is, removal of

longwall equipment from one area so that they can begin mining

another longwall panel at a different location. During this

process, it is necessary to install roof bolts to support the mine

roof so that the equipment may be removed.

The Jim Walter miners work three shifts: an "owl shift" that

runs from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; a "day shift" from 7:00 a.m. to

3:00 p.m.; and an "evening shift" from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

During the day shift on July 21, 1994, an inspector from the Mine

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 3 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA"), Gary Don Greer,

conducted an inspection of the Number 4 mine while the miners were

engaged in longwall recovery. Greer was accompanied on his

inspection by a representative of management and Glynn Loggins, the

United Mine Workers of America's ("UMWA") representative on the

Number 4 mine safety committee. Loggins told Greer that the union

was having problems with management concerning the drilling of rock

along the longwall face upwind of miners. Greer replied that he

would look into the problem. Loggins also informed the inspector

that it was likely that a "section 103(g)" complaint would be filed

concerning the conditions faced by the downwind miners. Section

103(g) enables a miner or a representative of the miners to obtain

an "immediate inspection" by notifying the Secretary or his

authorized representative of a violation that he "has reasonable

grounds to believe ... exists." 30 U.S.C. § 813(g).

During the course of his inspection, Greer discussed the three

approved ways of complying with section 72.630(a) with the longwall

foreman and saw him connect one of Jim Walter's drills to water.

After observing the water-equipped drill in operation, the

inspector asked the operator whether he had encountered any

problems with it. He answered that he had not.

When Greer reached the surface of the mine, he received a

message directing him to call the MSHA Sub-District office. When

he called, he was told that the MSHA had received a section 103(g)

complaint asking for an inspection of the Number 4 mine. The

complaint stated that on July 20-21, 1994, drills were operated

upwind of other miners without the use of any method of dust

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 4 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

suppression. The complaint also reported that management and some

drill operators were concerned that problems encountered with the

use of water in the drilling would create a hazard; and it

requested that, in the event Jim Walter decided to drill with

water, an inspection of the "roofbolting" be made to determine

whether the use of water presented an imminent danger. 103(g)

Complaint (July 21, 1994), reprinted in App. Tab 9.

The next day, July 22, 1994, Greer gave a copy of the 103(g)

complaint to Jim Walter officials and interviewed persons who had

information regarding the July 21 owl shift (i.e., 11:00 p.m. on

July 20 to 7:00 a.m. on July 21). Greer testified that, in the

course of these interviews, he was informed that the miners had

used drills to install roofbolts; that they had as many as four

drills in operation at a time; that they would have used more

drills had they not kept breaking down; and that broken drills

were being sent out to be repaired and then returned so as to

maintain as many drills in operation as possible. He also stated

that he had asked Jeffrey Maddox, the longwall manager, whether he

knew that the drills should be provided with water, and that Maddox

replied that he did, but that "they were in a hurry, due to bad

roofing conditions, and they thought that [the use of] water would

create a [safety] hazard." Transcript of Hearing held January 31,

1995 Before Administrative Law Judge ("Tr.") at 96. Finally, Greer

testified that when he observed drilling during the July 21 day

shift, the use of water did not appear to be creating a hazard.

Id.

Immediately following these conversations, Greer issued an

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 5 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

order, pursuant to section 104(d)(2) of the Act ("(d)(2) order"),

30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(2), in which he found that Jim Walter had

violated 30 C.F.R. § 72.630(a). He determined that

dust resulting from drilling in rock was not being

controlled by use of permissible dust collectors or by

water, or water with a wetting agent, or by ventilation

controls. Employees who were drilling the No.1 longwall

section roof with pneumatic rotation drills on 7-21-94

owl shift were exposed to this dust while installing

permanent roof supports. As many as four (4) drills were

in operation at any one time and none of the drills were

equipped with dust suppression devices.

Mine Citation/Order No. 3184217 (July 22, 1994), reprinted in App.

Tab 10. The (d)(2) order also indicated that injury or illness was

"highly likely"; that the injury or illness could reasonably be

expected to be "permanently disabling"; that the violation

affected eight people; and that the violation was "significant and

substantial." Id.

Jim Walter contested the (d)(2) order; and on January 31,

1995, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge

("ALJ"). On August 23, 1995, the ALJ found that Jim Walter had

violated section 72.630(a), Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Secretary

of Labor, MSHA, 17 F.M.S.H.R.C. 1423, 1446 (1995); that the

violation, albeit serious, was not "significant and substantial,"

id. at 1448; and that it was the result of Jim Walter's

"unwarrantable failure to comply" with the health standard

established by the regulations. Id. at 1450. Jim Walter's

subsequent petition for review and motion for reconsideration were

denied.

II. DISCUSSION

In reviewing the ALJ's decision, we must uphold his findings

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 6 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of fact "if supported by substantial evidence on the record

considered as a whole." 30 U.S.C. § 816(a)(1); Chaney Creek Coal

Corp. v. FMSHRC, 866 F.2d 1424, 1431 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citations

omitted). "Our only task in reviewing substantial evidence

questions is to determine whether there is such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the

judge's conclusion." Id. (citations, internal quotation marks, and

brackets omitted). We defer to the Secretary's interpretation of

his regulations unless it is "clearly erroneous." Energy West

Mining Co. v. FMSHRC, 40 F.3d 457, 462 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citing

Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1965)).

A. Violation of Section 72.630(a)

Jim Walter challenges the ALJ's finding that it violated

section 72.630(a) on three grounds. It maintains, first, that

Greer was required to take air or dust samples before issuing the

(d)(2) order; second, that the ALJ's determination is not

supported by substantial evidence because Keith Burgess's testimony

was discredited on cross-examination; and third, that it actually

used water during the July 21 owl shift.

1. Inspector Greer's Failure to Take Air or Dust Samples

Jim Walter contends that the commentary to 30 C.F.R. § 72.630,

see Air Quality: Health Standards for Abrasive Blasting and Drill

Dust Control, 59 Fed. Reg. 8318, 8324-25 (1994), required Greer to

take air or dust samples or to measure Jim Walter's air volume

before issuing the (d)(2) order. The relevant portion of the

commentary provides, with specific reference to section 72.630(d),

that

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 7 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

MSHA will continue to determine compliance with this

requirement under the final rule as it has enforced §

70.400-3; i.e., through the measurement of air quantity

or other measures set forth in a mine's ventilation and

methane and dust control plan.

Air Quality, 59 Fed. Reg. at 8325.

We have several problems with this argument: First, because

section 72.630(d) deals exclusively with the use of ventilation to

control rock dust, it is clear that the commentary is referring to

methods for determining the efficacy of ventilation in controlling

dust. Second, as the ALJ observed, neither the Secretary's Program

Policy Manual (the official repository of the Secretary's

interpretation of the regulations and of his enforcement practices)

nor the regulations contain a single reference to air measurements

or the collection of dust samples. Jim Walter Resources, 17

F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1444. Finally, we note that the sentence

immediately following the passage on which Jim Walter relies reads

as follows: "MSHA does not intend that exposure samples be the

routine method of determining compliance with this paragraph." Air

Quality, 59 Fed. Reg. at 8325. Thus, the commentary itself

explicitly recognizes that the taking of samples is not a

prerequisite for determining whether section 72.630(a) has been

violated.

2. Keith Burgess's Testimony

One of the Secretary's key witnesses was Keith Burgess, who

worked during the July 21, 1994, owl shift. The ALJ's decision

relied heavily on his testimony to establish the existence of a

violation:

Burgess' first hand testimony establishes the violation.

Burgess worked on the owl shift, and I accept his

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 8 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

assertion that drilling took place during the entire

shift. I also accept his testimony that as many as four

drills were used at one time, that the first was located

at the headgate and the others were located downwind,

along the longwall. In this regard, I note his assertion

that when he "stood back," he saw more than two drills in

operation, and that none was fitted with water. The fact

that water was not used is also attested by Burgess'

statement that he saw dust coming toward him from an

upwind drill, and by his testimony that [he was told

that] the respirators were a replacement for using water

when drilling.

Jim Walter Resources, 17 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1443 (citations omitted).

Jim Walter argues that the ALJ ignored most, if not all, of

Burgess's cross-examination testimony. Specifically, it contends

that although Burgess testified on direct examination that he saw

four drills operating simultaneously, on cross- examination he

admitted that only two drills were operable. Jim Walter's

interpretation, however, is not supported by the transcript. On

cross-examination, Burgess testified that when the owl shift crew

arrived, two functioning drills and one or two non-functioning

drills were at the site in addition to the two drills that the owl

shift crew brought with themfor a total of five or six drills, of

which four were operable. Tr. at 197.

Jim Walter also maintains that Burgess admitted on

cross-examination that while operating his drill, he never observed

any others in operation. The company takes the statement out of

context. Although Burgess testified that he could not see any

other drills when he was operating his own, he also stated that

when he was not engaged in drilling (i.e., when his attention was

not focused on his own work), he could see "more than one drill

operating." Thus, while it may have been gilding the lily for the

ALJ to find that as many as four drills were in operation at the

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 9 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

same time, substantial evidence clearly supported the conclusion

that two or more drills, at least one of which was located downwind

from another, were operating simultaneously, which was all that was

required to support the finding of a violation.

3. Use of Water During the Owl Shift

In challenging Greer's statement, in the (d)(2) order, that

"none of the drills were equipped with dust suppression devices,"

Jim Walter points out that Greer actually saw drilling with water

on the morning of July 21 and that the production reports reveal

that water was being used on the drills during the shifts preceding

the July 21 owl shift. Jim Walter then argues that because water

was used before and after the July 21 owl shift, the drills must

have been at least equipped for the use of water during the owl

shift, even if none was used, because the drills could not have

been so rigged between the end of the owl shift and Greer's arrival

at the start of the next one. Although Jim Walter charges the

inspector with perjury, we are inclined to find its objections

little more than a quibble. A fair reading of the (d)(2) order is

that none of the drills employed water during the owl shift. Jim

Walter does not seriously contest the key finding that substantial

drilling occurred during that shift without the use of dust

suppressors.

B. "Unwarrantable Failure"

Section 104(d)(1) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that

[i]f, upon any 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 standard, ... 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

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 10 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

shall include such finding in any citation given to the

operator under this chapter.

30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(1). A finding of an unwarrantable failure is a

condition precedent for the issuance of a "withdrawal order" under

this subsection, i.e., an order that the operator withdraw

personnel from the area affected by the violation until a

representative of the Secretary finds that the violation has been

abated. Id. Section 104(d)(2) provides for the issuance of an

additional order, i.e., a (d)(2) order, should a subsequent

inspection of the same mine reveal similar violations. Id. §

814(d)(2).

The Commission has defined "unwarrantable failure" as

"aggravated conduct, constituting more than ordinary negligence, by

a mine operator in relation to a violation of the Act." Emery

Mining Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, 9 F.M.S.H.R.C. 1997, 2004

(1987). It is characterized by "indifference," "serious lack of

reasonable care," "reckless disregard," or "intentional

misconduct." Cyprus Plateau Mining Corp. v. Secretary of Labor,

MSHA, 16 F.M.S.H.R.C. 1610, 1615 (1994) (citations omitted). If an

operator reasonably, but erroneously, believes in good faith that

the cited conduct is the safest method of compliance with the

applicable regulations, its actions will not constitute aggravated

conduct that exceeds ordinary negligence. Id.

The ALJ determined that Jim Walter's violation on the July 21

owl shift constituted an unwarrantable failure to comply with the

standards, Jim Walter Resources, 17 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1449-50, and

rejected its argument that it had been trying diligently to comply

with section 72.630(a) and would have but for problems it had

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 11 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

encountered with its drills and the condition of the mine's roof.

Id. at 1450. Jim Walter contends that this finding is not

supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ ignored the

undisputed testimony of Jim Walter's witnesses that the company

went to great lengths to develop a water-equipped drill in order to

comply with section 72.630(a) but that compliance on the July 21

owl shift was not feasible due to the poor condition of the roof

that the miners were required to drill during that shift.

Jim Walter first learned that the Secretary intended to apply

section 72.630 to longwall mining in March 1994, when it received

two citations for failing to control rock dust adequately with

ventilation. At that time, portable drills of the kind employed by

Jim Walter for such operations were not equipped to use water.

Those drills, which weighed about 150 pounds and were carried by

two persons, were equipped with hollow "drill steels" that

connected the drill to the drilling bits. Pressurized air injected

through the steels rotated the bits, which, in turn, generated rock

dust that, unless wetted down or otherwise suppressed, would be

injected into the air of the mine as a visible cloud.

The hearing record shows that following the issuance of the

March 1994 citations, Jim Walter proceeded to test various ways of

adapting its drills for the use of water for dust suppression, but

none of these proved successful. For example, when it ran water

through one type of steel, it tended to drill curved holes into

which roof bolts could not be inserted; when another kind was

used, dispersed water caused the steel to "hang" in the rock if the

drill hit a crack, which the miners had difficulty withdrawing.

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 12 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Tr. at 278. Following these initial failures, Jim Walter worked

with the distributor of its drills to develop a system in which the

water would flow through the handle of the drill. Tr. at 279.

After initial setbacks, an alternative method was devised that ran

water from the drill head through the steel. Tr. at 280.

Six of these modified drills were delivered to the Number 4

mine on July 19, 1994, in time to be used in the longwall recovery

operation. The miners found, however, that the drills were

operable for only short periods. During the evening shift of July

20, a miner reported that the water was "tearing the [drill] heads

up" and that rock was falling from the roof. Tr. 283-84. Because

the drills were not functioning properly, the miners had difficulty

inserting pins into the roof. Maddox, the longwall manager,

testified that Jim Walter then contacted the distributor and asked

for delivery of the additional drills that Jim Walter had been

holding in reserve. These were brought into the mine, and the

damaged drills were returned to the distributor for repair. Even

when the drills were working, water hindered the miners' vision and

dispersed in the cracks that were encountered in this section of

the roof, which caused the drill steels to get stuck in the roof.

Jim Walter concluded that to continue injecting water into this

"bad top" would create a new hazard as the roof became heavier and

more likely to fall. The severity of the hazard facing Jim Walter

is not diminished by the fact that Greer observed miners

successfully drilling with water on the shift immediately following

the July 21 owl shift because the condition of the roof in this

type of operation is extremely variable.

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 13 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

None of this testimony was disputed. In fact, the poor

condition of some of the roof being drilled during the July 21 owl

shift was corroborated by Burgess. Tr. at 199. Greer himself

testified that "bad top" is "scary," Tr. at 138; and the

employees' 103(g) complaint confirmed that some drill operators as

well as management were concerned that "if water was used in the

drill, the drill steels will not work properly and would creat

[sic] a hazard." Nevertheless, rather than rely on any of this

evidence, the ALJ concluded that Jim Walter had not tried

"diligently to comply" with section 72.630(a). Jim Walter

Resources, 17 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1450. He reasoned that

[i]f, in fact, Jim Walter was having compliance problems,

it is logical that this would have been explained to

Greer. It was not, and Maddox's excusethat Greer did

not ask about the problemsstrains credulity given the

consequences of Jim Walter's indifference.

Id. (citations to hearing transcript omitted). As the ALJ

acknowledged, however, Maddox also testified that when he saw that

Greer was writing the (d)(2) order, he became angry and abruptly

ended the meeting. Id. at 1441.

Whatever the reason for Maddox's silence on the matter, his

failure to detail the compliance problems Jim Walter had

encountered was not a sufficient reason for ignoring the

uncontradicted evidence that the company had in fact worked

diligently to develop a method for using water with portable

drills, had brought six water-equipped drills into the mine for no

discernible reason other than an intent to suppress the dust, and

had abandoned their use only after running into mechanical problems

and encountering conditions with the roof that caused at least some

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 14 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of the miners to fear for their safety. This evidence trumped

whatever inference might fairly be drawn from Maddox's failure to

explain the company's inability to comply with the regulation.

Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ's finding of

"unwarrantable failure" is not supported by substantial evidence.

Having made that determination, we need not address Jim Walter's

argument that 30 U.S.C. § 814(d) only authorizes such a finding

when accompanied by a violation that could "significantly and

substantially" contribute to a safety or health hazard; nor need

we determine whether the company's Petition for Discretionary

Review and Motion for Reconsideration were properly denied.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we affirm the Commission's

determination that there was a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 72.630(a)

but reverse its finding that the violation was caused by an

"unwarrantable failure to comply." The case is remanded for

further action consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

USCA Case #95-1554 Document #247285 Filed: 01/17/1997 Page 15 of 15