.
JORDAN CONSTRUCTION
Docket No. KENT 2001- 416
November 22, 2002



              FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                     OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                   601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500
                            Washington, DC 20001

                             November 22, 2002


SECRETARY OF LABOR,                   : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
  MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH              :
  ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),              : Docket No. KENT 2001- 416
    Petitioner                        : A.C. No. 15-15851-03515
                                      :
               v.                     :
                                      :
JORDAN CONSTRUCTION,                  :
    Respondent                        : Mine No. 1


                                  DECISION

Before:  Judge Schroeder

Appearances:  Brian Dougherty, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the
              Solicitor, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Petitioner;
              Larry Jordan, Owner, Jordan, Construction Company, Box 230,
              Blaine, Kentucky, pro se.


This case is before me on a Petition by the Secretary to assess a Civil Penalty
for alleged violations of mine safety regulations.  The Petition alleges three
violations for which the Secretary seeks a total Civil Penalty of $4,000.00.
After prehearing development, a hearing was held in Prestonburg, Kentucky on
March 12, 2002.  An opportunity for post hearing written arguments was given to
the parties.  After careful study of the record and arguments, I have reached
the factual and legal conclusions discussed below.

Issues Presented

The hearing held in this case concerned the alleged violation of safety
regulations that are directed at the segment of the mining industry known as
auger mining.  This is an activity in which the extracted material is removed
from the ground using a large rotating bit, usually driven horizontally from a
prepared work site that appears similar to a strip mine.  The regulations at
issue are the following:

30 C.F.R. � 77.1503(b) Overhangs

(b) No work shall be done under any overhang and, when a crew is engaged in
connecting or disconnecting auger sections under a highwall, at least one person
shall be assigned to observe the highwall for possible movement. (Emphasis
added)

30 C.F.R. � 77.1000 Ground Control Plan

Each operator shall establish and follow a ground control plan for the safe
control of all highwalls, pits and spoil banks to be developed after June 30,
1971, which shall be consistent with prudent engineering design and will insure
safe working conditions. The mining methods employed by the operator shall be
selected to insure highwall and spoil bank stability. (Emphasis added)

30 C.F.R.  � 77.1006(b) Escape

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, men shall not work
between equipment and the highwall or spoil bank where the equipment may hinder
escape from falls or slides. (Emphasis added)

(c) Special safety precautions shall be taken when men are required to perform
repair work between immobilized equipment and the highwall or spoil bank and
such equipment may hinder escape from falls or slides.  (Emphasis added)

The basic jurisdictional facts were stipulated at the hearing.  Exhibit JX-1  My
task now is to determine whether the Secretary has established in the record
each of the elements of a violation of one or more of these regulations and if
so, the appropriate penalty for each such violation.  The issue of appropriate
penalty amount raises the further issue of whether any particular penalty sum
would make it impossible for the Respondent to continue in business as the
Respondent now conducts it.

Factual Findings

Auger mining is generally defined as  a mining method used by strip-mine
operators when the overburden gets too thick to be removed economically.  Large-
diameter, spaced holes are drilled up to 200 feet into the coal bed by an auger.
Like a bit used for drilling into wood, this consists of a cutting head with
screw like extensions.  As the auger turns, the head breaks the coal and the
screw carriers the coal back into the open work area where it is loaded onto a
truck or a conveyor. (See, Dictionary of Mining, Mineral and related terms,
Department of the Interior)

Auger coal mining as conducted by the Respondent is quite similar to this
general definition.  Johnson Construction does not perform strip mining but has
a long term relationship with a strip miner.  Johnson Construction has one
drilling machine which requires two people to operate.  Johnson Construction has
only two employees.  The machine is not self propelled.  It must be pulled from
place to place to drill successive holes into a coal seam.  When operating, the
auger machine is typically located 10 to 15 feet from the highwall face.  In
this gap the coal is carried away from the hole and the machine helper works to
add or remove segments of auger.

The auger process begins with removal of overburden to expose the coal seam and
create a bench upon which the auger machine can be operated.  Removal of the
overburden typically involves drilling a line of holes to contain explosives to
shatter the overburden.  Testimony differed significantly on the capability of
the drill rig used here.  The MSHA Inspector, Ms. Wanda Hinkle, testified that
the older model drill rig present could only drill perpendicular holes since it
did not have hydraulic lifts to tilt the drill.  Mr. Johnson testified the use
of jacks and blocks enabled the drill to be offset a significant amount from the
perpendicular.  I credit Mr. Johnson's testimony because of his greater
familiarity with the equipment and my experience with the extent to which field
ingenuity can expand the rated capacity of equipment.  This issue is of
significance only because the ground control plan applicable to Johnson
Construction required the highwall to be inclined at 95 degrees, apparently an
attempt to reduce overhangs on the highwall.  I will assume that the highwall
observed by Ms. Hinkle during her inspection on November 14, 2000, was created
using drilled shot holes placed at approximately 95 degrees.

Ms. Hinkle testified she arrived at the Johnson Construction site when no work
was being performed.  She observed the auger machine in place at the bottom of
the highwall.  On the wall she observed 18 drilled holes facing the machine and
above these holes she observed an overhang that she considered dangerous.  She
did not observe any large quantity of fallen rock at the base of the highwall.
She took the time to measure several of the web structures between the holes.
Tr. 27 - 30.

Ms. Hinkle testified she observed an overhang of rocky materials about half way
up the 40 foot highwall.  The overhang seemed to her to protrude approximately 6
feet and to extend across the highwall approximately 40 feet.  Tr. 41 - 44.
This overhang was observed to be directly above approximately 18 auger holes
drilled by Johnson Construction on a previous day.  Ms. Hinkle used a tape to
measure the horizontal extent of the holes and measured several of the webs
between holes.  She determined the 18 holes and the related 17 webs totaled 39
feet.  She determined the webs varied from 3 to 8 inches.  These measurements
apparently prompted her to make reference to the Johnson Construction Ground
Control Plan.  Secretary's Exhibit 7.

Mr. Johnson's testimony on the presence of an overhang differed from Ms.
Hinkle's testimony only as a matter of emphasis.  He indicated the highwall had
been drilled and excavated properly but that rock had fallen out of the highwall
to create a cave inset into the highwall.  Accepting the testimony of either
witness it is undisputed that a substantial mass of material in the highwall had
no vertical support, i.e the "cave" ceiling.  Material above the work area
without vertical support is the practical definition of an overhang.  I find as
a matter of fact that a substantial overhang existed on the highwall at the
place Johnson Construction conducted auger mining operations.

The presence of a substantial overhang on the highwall illustrates the
importance of the spacing of auger holes under the Ground Control Plan.[1]  As
the auger holes are drilled, the vertical support for the highwall is gradually
weakened.  Unless the spacing of the holes leaves sufficient web material
between the holes, the vertical support for the highwall will fail and portions
of the wall will fall.  The Ground Control Plan is Secretary's Exhibit 5.  On
page 6, the Plan clearly specifies that 26" holes will be drilled so as to
assure a minimum of 8" of web material between holes.  Mr. Johnson testified,
and I accept this part of his testimony, that the vibration encountered in
boring a hole means that a hole bored with a 26" bit will be significantly wider
than 26".  This enlargement of the auger hole will always be at the expense of
the thickness of the web material.  This means that each hole and web requires
three feet of the highwall (26" + 8" + 2" = 36").  At this rate, 18 holes with
related web would consume 54 feet, not the 39 feet measured by the MSHA
inspector.  This means one or both of two things would need to be true; (1) the
holes are less than 26", or (2) the webs average less than 8" thick.  Mr.
Johnson testified that both things were true. In addition, Mr. Johnson testified
the holes were drilled in a "fan" pattern rather than parallel to each other.
Resp. Ex. G.  This had the effect of making the web material thinner at the
surface of the highwall but thickening farther into the highwall.  The
justification for the "fan" pattern was to reduce the number of times the auger
machine would need to be moved rather than rotated.  A consequence of this
"rotation" of the auger would be that for some holes the machine would have a
significant incline to the face of the highwall.  Whether that incline would
interfere with the opportunity to escape material falling from the highwall is
the subject of another claim.

Mr. Johnson testified that at the time of the MSHA inspection his auger machine
was running a 22" bit rather than a 26" bit.  He produced sales receipts for
materials used in the subsequent  fabrication of a 26" bit.  The sales receipts
were dated after the MSHA inspection.  The MSHA inspector had measured the
thickness of some of the webs between holes but did not indicate she had
measured the dimensions of the holes.  The lack of direct evidence of the size
of the holes makes it necessary to examine credibility of the competing
witnesses.

The MSHA investigator relied upon the ground control plan for the size of the
holes.  Her concern was to determine whether the web material was adequate to
support the highwall, particularly in light of her conclusion that the highwall
contained an overhang.  The industry standard for web thickness is expressed in
terms of a percentage of the diameter of the adjacent auger hole.  The bigger
the hole the thicker the web must be to meet the standard.  To the contrary, Mr.
Johnson is motivated to find smaller auger holes since that would only require
thinner webs under the standard.

Mr. Johnson is caught on the horns of a real dilemma.  He must argue he has
complied with his Ground Control Plan.  But his Plan contemplates the use of a
26" auger bit.  If he contends he has used a 26" bit then his webs are clearly
too thin.  If I accept the testimony of the MSHA inspector on only the lateral
measurement of 18 auger holes, i.e. 18 holes covered 39 feet, then I must
conclude that even if Mr. Johnson was using a 22" bit then the average web
dimension was less than 5".  That probably means a few webs were more than 5"
but many were not that thick.  On both grounds I conclude the Respondent was not
complying with the terms of the applicable Ground Control Plan.  I believe the
thinness of the webs at the entrance to the holes was probably a result of the
"fan" drill method, an issue not addressed in the Ground Control Plan.  Hence
the webs were probably of adequate thickness within several feet of the highwall
surface.  But those few feet are critical for stability of the highwall.

On the issue of whether the placement of the auger machine constituted an
unacceptable impairment of the ability of the crew to escape a rock fall from
the highwall, the testimony was only ambiguous in small details.  There is no
dispute that the auger machine was placed so as to form an acute angle with the
highwall to perform repair work on the machine in the space between the highwall
and the machine.  What is not clear is whether the repair work required the
efforts of one person or two.  This is important because the regulation
contemplates that when such a machine placement is required, special safety
precautions are required.  These precautions can be as simple as detailing one
person to watch the highwall for signs of impending falls.  If Johnson
Construction took such precautions, then no violation would have occurred.  I
find the record is insufficient to resolve that question.

Analysis

It is well settled that the Secretary has the initial burden of proof of each
element of a claim for assessment of a Civil Penalty.  Satisfaction of that
burden of proof imposes upon the Respondent the obligation of going forward with
evidence in rebuttal or face judgment in favor of the Secretary.  Only when it
has been determined that the Secretary has met that burden without persuasive
rebuttal does it become necessary to determine an appropriate amount of Civil
Penalty.  With this framework in mind I will now consider each of the claims
made by the Secretary.

1. Overhang under 30 C.F.R. � 77.1503(b)

As discussed above, I have found as a fact that an overhang existed in the
highwall above the location at which Johnson Construction performed work as an
auger miner.  The Respondent has offered no evidence in rebuttal of this charge
other than to question the seriousness of the risks involved for the two miners
involved.  The Secretary has proposed a Civil Penalty of $1,000.00 for this
violation because of the direct supervision of the work by the owner, a mine
operator of significant experience.

Mr. Johnson testified he has operated his auger mining business in essentially
the same way for 20 years without a serious accident.  He appears to be more
complacent with the risks than willful in his violations.  The Civil Penalty
imposed for this violation should be no more than the economic consequence
necessary to call Mr. Johnson's attention to the need for compliance.

2. Failure to Follow Ground Control Plan under 30 C.F.R. � 77.1000

As discussed above, I have found as a fact that the Respondent failed to follow
the approved Ground Control Plan in failing to allow adequate web material
between holes.  That the thickness of the web material several feet into the
highwall may have satisfied applicable industry standards is not rebuttal to the
claimed violation.  Support of the highwall at the point of fracture for rock
falls is the purpose and objective of the requirement for adequate web material.
The Secretary has proposed a Civil Penalty of $1,500.00 for this violation
because of the direct supervision of the work by the owner, a mine operator of
significant experience.

Mr. Johnson argued this violation amounts to no more than "paper work"
technicality.  The consequences of this violation need to be severe enough to
persuade Mr. Johnson that the regulatory requirement to plan his work and work
to his plan is significant and substantial.

3. Failure to Secure Escape Route under 30 C.F.R. � 77.1006(b)

As discussed above, I found that the Secretary has failed to prove that the
Respondent failed to take special precautions against hazards during maintenance
work for which the auger machine might represent an impairment of escape routes
from a rock fall.  Because of this failure of proof, I will dismiss this claim.

Amount of Civil Penalty

Jordon Construction is a very small mine operator.  Testimony was undisputed
that total net income from mine operations in the year 2000 was $37,500.00.  Tr.
271.   The Secretary has proposed Civil Penalties that total $2,500.00 for the
two violations I have accepted.  If I agreed with the Secretary's proposal, the
Civil Penalty would represent almost seven percent of net income for that year.
I consider that rate to be excessive. If applied to larger producers in this
industry it would be considered confiscatory.

In that light I conclude that a Civil Penalty of $250.00 is appropriate for the
Overhang violation and a Civil Penalty of $500.00 is appropriate for a violation
of the Ground Control Plan requirement.  This makes a total Civil Penalty in
this case of $750.00.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, I find the Respondent has violated mine safety
regulations contained in 30 C.F.R. �� 77.1000 and 77.1503(b) but has not been
shown to have violated the mine safety regulation in 30 C.F.R. � 77.1006(b).
Respondent is directed to pay a Civil Penalty of $750.00 for these violations
within 40 days of the date of this Order.



                                Irwin Schroeder
                                Administrative Law Judge


Distribution:

Brian W. Dougherty, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor,
2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-201, Nashville, TN 37215 (Certified Mail)

Larry Jordan, Owner, Jordan Construction Company, HC 89, Box 230, Blaine, KY
41124 (Certified Mail)

/mh


[1]  The Ground Control Plan appears to be a regulatory control document whose
function and importance was largely lost as time past.  Two entries on document
are total duplication.  The plan used by Johnson Construction was approved by
MSHA almost 6 years prior to the events at issue here and never updated.  Mr.
Johnson testified many of the requirements of the plan had been long forgotten.