Opinion ID: 732421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events Relating to the Violation of Section 72.630(a)

Text: 11 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: 12 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. 13 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. 14 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 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). 15 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 [322 U.S.App.D.C. 317] water-equipped drill in operation, the inspector asked the operator whether he had encountered any problems with it. He answered that he had not. 16 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 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. 17 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. 18 Immediately following these conversations, Greer issued an 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 19 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. 20 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. 21 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.