Opinion ID: 492014
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Proceedings In This Case

Text: 8 Pursuant to the designated occupation sampling regulations, Consol collected five respirable dust samples in January, 1982 for the continuous miner occupation in section 026-0 of the Blacksville No. 1 Mine in Monongalia County, West Virginia. 4 MSHA's analysis of the samples revealed respirable dust concentrations of 8.1, 6.3, 5.1, 0.7, and 0.4 mg/m 3 . 5 Thus, the average concentration for the five samples was 4.1 mg/m 3 . 9 Based on these test results, on February 16, 1982, an MSHA inspector issued a citation under Sec. 104(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 814(a), alleging that Consol had violated the respirable dust standard, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 70.100(a), and that the violation was significant and substantial. Consol was able to abate the violation without making any changes in ventilation or mining procedures. According to Consol, [t]he only act necessary to achieve abatement was to 'babysit' the sampling device to ensure its reliable functioning. Brief of Consolidation Coal Company at 8-9. The citation was terminated on March 5, after Consol submitted five samples which showed respirable dust concentrations of 0.2, 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.8 mg/m 3 . 10 The designation of Consol's violation as significant and substantial was consistent with MSHA policy guidelines adopted in response to the Commission's decision in Cement Division, National Gypsum Co., 3 F.M.S.H.R.C. 822 (1981). The Commission held in National Gypsum, a case involving violations of mandatory safety standards, that a violation is properly designated as significant and substantial 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. Id. at 825. In a subsequent decision, Mathies Coal Co., the Commission expanded on its decision in National Gypsum, holding that 11 to establish that a violation of a mandatory safety standard is significant and substantial under National Gypsum, the Secretary of Labor must prove: (1) the underlying violation of a mandatory safety standard; (2) a discrete safety hazard--that is, a measure of danger to safety--contributed to by the violation; (3) a reasonable likelihood that the hazard contributed to will result in an injury; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that the injury in question will be of a reasonably serious nature. 12 6 F.M.S.H.R.C. 1, 3-4 (1984) (footnote omitted). The Commission emphasized that Mathies involved a violation of a mandatory safety standard and noted that the question of the application of National Gypsum to a mandatory health standard was pending before the Commission in this case. Id. at 3 n. 4. 13 After the Commission's decision in National Gypsum, the MSHA adopted enforcement guidelines implementing that decision. See Guidelines for Determining Whether a Violation is Significant and Substantial, Addendum C to Brief for the Secretary of Labor. With respect to violations of mandatory health standards, the guidelines stated: 14 MSHA is currently reviewing the application of these guidelines to violations involving mandatory health standards. Pending completion of this review, violations involving mandatory health standards which limit exposure to or require protection from harmful airborne contaminants, toxic substances or harmful physical agents should be designated as significant and substantial. 15 Id. at 3. 16 Consol contested the citation, admitting that it had violated the respirable dust standard, but arguing that the violation should not have been designated as significant and substantial. Following an evidentiary hearing, a Commission ALJ upheld the designation of the violation as significant and substantial. Consolidation Coal Co., 5 F.M.S.H.R.C. 378 (1983). The ALJ found, based on the medical evidence presented, that the exposure covered by the dust samples which resulted in the citation herein in itself would neither cause nor significantly contribute to chronic bronchitis ... or coal workers pneumoconiosis. Id. at 389 (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, the ALJ referred to each incident of exposure to excessive levels of respirable dust as a drop in the bucket and concluded that every drop in the bucket, every two month sampling period where excessive dust is present, significantly and substantially contributes to a health hazard--the hazard of contracting chronic bronchitis or coal workers' pneumoconiosis. Id. at 390. The ALJ found that there was no evidence that the violation was caused by negligence on the part of Consol. He imposed a penalty of $150. Id. 17 The Commission affirmed the ALJ's decision, holding that some departure from the National Gypsum standard was justified in this case because of fundamental differences between a typical safety hazard and the respirable dust exposure-related health hazard at issue. Consolidation Coal Co., 6 F.M.S.H.R.C. 890, 895 (1986). Adapting the Mathies Coal Co. formula to the context of a health standard violation, the Commission set out the elements necessary for a finding that such a violation is significant and substantial: 18 (1) the underlying violation of a mandatory health standard; (2) a discrete health hazard--a measure of danger to health--contributed to by the violation; (3) a reasonable likelihood that the health hazard contributed to will result in an illness; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that the illness in question will be of a reasonably serious nature. 19 Id. at 897. In applying this test to the violation at issue, the Commission had no trouble in determining that the first, second, and fourth elements were met, but it acknowledged that [t]he third element ... presents a more difficult conceptual issue. Id. at 898. The Commission recognized that proof of a single incident of overexposure does not, in and of itself, conclusively establish a reasonable likelihood that respira[tory] disease will result. Id. (emphasis in original). It also noted, however, that the harmful effects of overexposure to respirable dust are cumulative and do not produce any symptoms until serious harm has already occurred, so that it is impossible to predict the precise point at which the development of chronic bronchitis or pneumoconiosis will occur or is reasonably likely to occur. Id. The Commission considered the text and legislative history of the Mine Act and concluded that the Act embodied an unambiguous legislative declaration in favor of preventing any disability from pneumoconiosis or any other occupation-related disease. Id. at 897. Given the insidiousness and unpredictability of the onset of respiratory disease, coupled with the fact that prevention of such disease was one of the fundamental purposes of the Mine Act, the Commission concluded that once a violation of the respirable dust standard has been proven, a presumption arises that the third element of the significant and substantial test--a reasonable likelihood that the health hazard contributed to will result in an illness--has been established. Id. at 899. The Commission went on to hold that, because the four elements of the test would be met in any case in which a violation of the respirable dust standard was shown to exist, rather than requiring the Secretary to prove anew all four elements in each case, we hold that when the Secretary proves that a violation of 30 C.F.R. Sec. 70.100(a) ... has occurred, a presumption that the violation is a significant and substantial violation is appropriate. Id. A mine operator could rebut this presumption, the Commission stated, by showing that miners were not actually exposed to the excessive dust concentration--through the use of protective equipment, for example. 20 The Commission also rejected Consol's argument that MSHA's dust sampling procedures were not sufficiently accurate to support a finding that a violation of the respirable dust standard was significant and substantial. The Commission noted that all sampling methods fall short of perfection and are designed to provide best estimates of actual conditions. Id. at 900. It concluded that the sampling procedures adopted by MSHA, if properly applied by the mine operator, would produce results which were reasonably representative of the mine atmosphere. Id. at 901. Further, Consol had failed to present any persuasive evidence that the accuracy of the results was compromised in its case. Id. at 902.