<DOC>
[DOCID: f:newwar.wais]

 
NEW WARWICK MINING COMPANY
September 16, 1996
PENN 93-445


           FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                     1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR

                       WASHINGTON, D.C.  20006


                          September 16, 1996

SECRETARY OF LABOR,              :
  MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH         :
  ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)          :
                                 :
          v.                     :    Docket Nos. PENN 93-445
                                 :    PENN 94-54
NEW WARWICK MINING COMPANY       :


BEFORE:  Jordan, Chairman; Marks and Riley, Commissioners[1]

DECISION

BY:  Jordan, Chairman; and Riley, Commissioner

     These civil penalty proceedings, arising under the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. � 801 et seq. (1994) ("Mine
Act" or "Act"), raise the issues of whether Administrative Law Judge
Arthur Amchan properly concluded that a violation of 30  C.F.R. 
� 75.400[2] by New Warwick Mining Company ("New Warwick") resulted
from its unwarrantable failure to comply with the standard, whether
there was no violation of 30 C.F.R. � 75.360(b),[3] and whether five
violations of 30 C.F.R. � 77.202[4] were not significant and substantial
("S&S").  16 FMSHRC 2451 (December 1994) (ALJ).  The Commission granted
cross-petitions for discretionary review challenging these determinations.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and
remand.[5]

                                  I.

                  Factual and Procedural Background

A.  Docket No. PENN 94-54

     New Warwick operates the Warwick Mine, an underground coal mine,
in Greene County, Pennsylvania.  On July 26-28, 1993, Robert Santee,
an inspector from the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health
Administration ("MSHA"), inspected the 3 left (012) longwall section
of the mine.  16 FMSHRC at 2452.  During this period, New Warwick was
mining through a rock binder in the coal seam, which generated increased
amounts of dust.  Id. at 2453.  In addition, as the longwall shields
advanced, they dug into the mine bottom, "rolling" it onto the shield
toes.[6]  Tr. 110-11.  On July 26, Santee found float coal dust
accumulations ranging up to 1/4-inch deep on and behind the longwall
shields and issued a citation for violation of section 75.400.  16
FMSHRC at 2452; Gov't Ex. 4.  He informed the mine superintendent and
longwall coordinator that the hose attached to the longwall shear was
inadequate to prevent dust from accumulating and that washdown hoses
needed to be installed across the pan line.  16 FMSHRC at 2452; Tr. 23,
79, 160.  

     On July 27, Santee discovered an accumulation of loose fine
coal on a pump car at the end of the longwall supply track and issued
another citation for violation of section 75.400.  16 FMSHRC at 2452;
Gov't Ex. 5.  He also observed coal dust accumulations on and behind
the longwall shields, but he did not issue a citation because cleanup
was being performed.  16 FMSHRC 2452.  Santee discussed with the mine
safety director the need for continued efforts to prevent violations
of section 75.400 at the longwall.  Id.; Tr. 25, 28. 

     On July 28, Michael Smith, the longwall foreman on the night
shift[7] at Warwick Mine, conducted a preshift examination of the
mine from 1:00 to 3:00 a.m.  Tr. 21, 128.  When Smith examined the
3 left (012) longwall section, he did not note any hazardous accumulations
of loose coal or coal dust.  Tr. 21, 132.  The longwall broke down at
approximately 3:30 a.m.  Tr. 21.  At 5:10 a.m., Inspector Santee,
accompanied by Barry Radolec, an inspector trainee, inspected the
longwall section.  16 FMSHRC at 2452; Tr. 90.  Santee found float coal
dust accumulations ranging up to 1/4-inch deep on the longwall shields.
16 FMSHRC at 2452; Gov't Ex. 1.  He also found float coal dust accumulations
on cables, loose coal accumulations ranging up to 6-inches deep behind the
longwall shields, and loose coal mixed with slate rock up to 22-inches
deep on some of the shield toes.  Id.

     Based on the foregoing, Inspector Santee issued New Warwick Order
No. 3655504, pursuant to section 104(d)(2) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.
� 814(d)(2), alleging an unwarrantable and S&S violation of section
75.400 for failure to clean up the accumulations.  16 FMSHRC at 2452-53;
Gov't Ex. 1.  In addition, Santee issued New Warwick Order No. 3655505,
pursuant to section 104(d)(2), alleging an unwarrantable and S&S
violation of section 75.360(b) for failure to note the accumulations
in the preshift examination record book.  16 FMSHRC at 2453; Gov't Ex. 2.

     The Secretary of Labor subsequently proposed civil penalty
assessments of $4,100 and $3,800 for the alleged violations of
sections 75.400 and 75.360(b), respectively.  New Warwick challenged
the proposed assessments, contending that it had not violated the
standards, the violations were not S&S, and the violations were not
caused by its unwarrantable failure.

     Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge concluded that New
Warwick had violated section 75.400, that the violation was not S&S,
but that it had resulted from New Warwick's unwarrantable failure to
comply with the standard.  16 FMSHRC at 2452-56.  The judge based the
unwarrantable failure determination on his findings that, although the
accumulations "had not existed for a long time," the accumulations were
extensive, New Warwick should have been on "heightened alert" that such
accumulations could occur, and New Warwick had not immediately commenced
cleanup of the accumulations.  Id. at 2455 & n.5.  He assessed a civil
penalty of $2,000.  Id. at 2455-56.  

     Further, the judge concluded that New Warwick had not violated
section 75.360(b).  Id. at 2456.  He reasoned that the order was based
on the assumption that the accumulations that served as the basis for
the violation of section 75.400 were present during the preshift examination.
Id.  The judge credited the testimony of Smith, who conducted the preshift
examination between 1:00 and 3:00 a.m., that he had not observed any
hazardous accumulations of coal or coal dust.  Id.  Recognizing that the
longwall broke down at 3:30 a.m., the judge concluded that the accumulations
observed by the inspector "may not have been present or may not have been as
extensive" during the preshift examination.  Id.  Therefore, the judge
determined that the preshift examination "may not have been inadequate"
and he vacated the order.  Id.  

     The Commission subsequently granted cross-petitions for discretionary
review filed by New Warwick, challenging the judge's determination that
the violation of section 75.400 was unwarrantable, and by the Secretary,
challenging the judge's determination that there was no violation of
section 75.360(b).

B.  Docket No. PENN 93-445

     On May 19, 1993, MSHA Inspector Frank Terrett inspected six
overland conveyor belt transfer stations at Warwick Mine.[8]  16 FMSHRC
at 2459.  Inside five of the transfer stations, Terrett found coal dust
accumulations ranging from 1/8-inch to 4-inches deep on top of motors,
inside electrical boxes, around belt rollers, and on the floors.  Id.;
Tr. 187, 189-90, 194-95, 208- 09.  Accordingly, he issued New Warwick
five citations, pursuant to section 104(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.
� 814(a), alleging violations of section 77.202 for failure to clean up
the accumulations.  16 FMSHRC at 2459; Gov't Exs. 17-21.  Subsequently,
Inspector Terrett modified the citations to designate the violations as
S&S.  16 FMSHRC at 2460; Tr. 202, 215-17; Gov't Exs. 17-21.  

     The Secretary proposed civil penalty assessments totaling $4,060
for the alleged violations.  New Warwick challenged the proposed
assessments, contending that it had not violated the standard and the
violations were not S&S.

     Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge concluded that New
Warwick had violated section 77.202 but that the violations were not
S&S.  16 FMSHRC at 2459-61.  He noted that the Secretary's theory that
the violations were S&S was based largely on the need for an employee
to jump from the second floor of the transfer station to escape a fire
resulting from the accumulations.  Id. at 2461.  The judge found that
each transfer station had three exits on the first floor and two or
three exits on the second floor and that an employee would not have
to jump from the second floor to escape a fire.  Id.  Therefore, he
concluded that the Secretary had failed to establish a reasonable
likelihood of serious injury.  Id.  The judge assessed civil penalties
totaling $1,800.  Id. at 2462.  

     The Commission subsequently granted the petition for discretionary
review filed by the Secretary, challenging the judge's determination
that the violations of section 77.202 were not S&S.

                                 II.

                             Disposition

A.  Docket No. PENN 94-54

1.  Unwarrantable Failure

     New Warwick argues substantial evidence[9] does not support the
judge's finding that the section 75.400 accumulation violation was
unwarrantable.  It asserts that the accumulations had not existed for
a long time and were not extensive, it was not on heightened alert for
accumulations, cleanup surpassing the requirements of its cleanup plan
had been performed by the night shift, and the area was going to be
hosed down on the first pass by the day shift.  N.W. Br. at 4-9.  The
Secretary responds that substantial evidence supports the judge's finding.
He asserts that the accumulations were extensive and took at least one
shift to amass, New Warwick was on notice that accumulations violated
the standard, no cleanup had been performed by the night shift, and New
Warwick's compliance with its cleanup plan does not shield it from an
unwarrantable failure finding.  S. Resp. Br. at 3-10.

     The unwarrantable failure terminology is taken from section 104(d)
of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. � 814(d), and refers to more serious conduct
by an operator in connection with a violation.  In Emery Mining Corp.,
9 FMSHRC 1997 (December 1987), the Commission determined that unwarrantable
failure is aggravated conduct constituting more than ordinary negligence.
Id. at 2001.  Unwarrantable failure is characterized by such conduct as
"reckless disregard," "intentional misconduct," "indifference" or a
"serious lack of reasonable care."  Id. at 2003-04; Rochester & Pittsburgh
Coal Co., 13 FMSHRC 189, 193-94 (February 1991); see also Buck Creek Coal,
Inc. v. FMSHRC, 52 F.3d 133, 136 (7th Cir. 1995) (approving Commission's
unwarrantable failure test).  The Commission "has recognized that a number
of factors are relevant in determining whether a violation is the result
of an operator's unwarrantable failure, such as the extensiveness of the
violation, the length of time that the violative condition has existed,
the operator's efforts to eliminate the violative condition, and whether
an operator has been placed on notice that greater efforts are necessary
for compliance."  Mullins & Sons Coal Co., 16 FMSHRC 192, 195 (February
1994), citing Peabody Coal Co., 14 FMSHRC 1258, 1261 (August 1992). 

     Preliminarily, the judge's finding that the accumulations "had
not existed for a long time" is supported by substantial evidence.  The
record indicates the accumulations resulted in part from a reduced amount
of water applied on the last pass of the longwall shear on the night
shift.  16 FMSHRC at 2455.  Paul Wells, New Warwick's longwall foreman
on the day shift, testified that the night shift had "cut out," i.e.,
turned around, at the no. 1 shield -- a process which produces a large
amount of water mist and dust.  Id. at 2454; Tr. 107-08, 118, 120.  He
explained that, during this process the crew usually reduces the amount
of water to avoid getting wet from mist caught in the air traveling down
the face.  Tr. 118.  Wells further stated that water sprays on the shear
were suppressing dust from the headgate to the No. 40 shield during the
last 10 or 15 minutes of the shift, but that a miner probably did not
manually hose down the shields.  Tr. 118-19, 121-22.  In addition, the
judge noted that, contrary to Inspector Santee's and Radolec's testimony
that it appeared the longwall section had not been cleaned recently and
the accumulations had collected over a full shift, Foreman Smith testified
that cleanup had occurred during the night shift.  16 FMSHRC at 2453, 2455
n.5, citing Tr. 128-30 (longwall shields were hosed down "usually [on]
every pass" and two crew members did nothing but shovel).

     Although the accumulations had not existed for a long period of
time, substantial evidence supports the judge's determination that
New Warwick's violation was aggravated given the extensiveness of the
accumulations, the fact that New Warwick had been placed on notice
that greater efforts were necessary for compliance with the standard,
and New Warwick's failure to immediately clean up the accumulations.

     First, substantial evidence supports the judge's finding that
the accumulations were extensive.  16 FMSHRC at 2455.  Float coal dust
had accumulated up to 1/4-inch deep on surfaces of the longwall shields,
headgate, stageloader, cables, and cable trough, covering energized
parts that supply power to the longwall shear.  Tr. 18-19, 56, 92-94;
Gov't Ex. 1.  In addition, loose coal had accumulated up to 6-inches
deep behind the longwall shields and loose coal mixed with slate rock
had accumulated up to 22-inches deep on some of the shield toes.  Tr.
92-93; Gov't Ex. 1.  The accumulations were deposited along the entire
longwall section, which was 123 shields in length.  Tr. 98-99, 108;
Gov't Ex. 1.

     Second, the judge's finding that New Warwick "should have been
on a 'heightened alert' that such accumulations could occur" is also
supported by substantial evidence.  16 FMSHRC at 2455, citing Drummond
Co., 13 FMSHRC 1362, 1368 (September 1991).  The Commission has
recognized that repeated similar violations may be relevant to an
unwarrantable failure determination to the extent that they place an
operator on notice that greater efforts are necessary for compliance
with a standard.  Peabody, 14 FMSHRC at 1263-64; Drummond, 13 FMSHRC
at 1363-64, 1368.  The record indicates that, during the previous
inspection period (April 1 to June 30, 1993), MSHA had found 16
violations of section 75.400 at Warwick.  Gov't Ex. 1.  Moreover,
twice during the two days preceding issuance of the instant order,
Inspector Santee informed New Warwick that similar accumulations were
not permitted.  In fact, the mine superintendent assured Inspector
Santee that preventive measures would be taken seriously because MSHA
could use it as a basis for an unwarrantable failure finding.  Tr. 24.

     Finally, substantial evidence supports the judge's finding that
New Warwick failed to take sufficient measures to clean up the
accumulations.  16 FMSHRC at 2455 & n.5.  In Utah Power and Light Co.,
11 FMSHRC 1926, 1933 (October 1989), the Commission held that the
operator did not demonstrate unwarrantable failure because before
and during the inspection, miners were shoveling the accumulations
and attempting to abate the condition.  Here, New Warwick was not
engaged in cleanup when Inspector Santee observed the accumulations.
Tr. 22, 108-09, 117, 128-30.  Further, New Warwick had not yet
implemented Inspector Santee's recommendation that additional washdown
hoses be installed to facilitate cleanup of the accumulations.  Tr. 79.
Given New Warwick's knowledge that the reduction of water would lead
to accumulations and that it had been warned during both of the past
two days not to allow accumulations to exist, its reliance on the night
shift's cleanup efforts or on the anticipated efforts of the day shift
was not reasonable.  See Cyprus Plateau Mining Corp., 16 FMSHRC 1610,
1615 (August 1994) (to support a conclusion that an operator's conduct
was not unwarrantable, an operator's good faith belief that its conduct
was the safest method of compliance must be reasonable).  

     Based on consideration of the above factors, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the judge's determination that New
Warwick demonstrated aggravated conduct by failing to clean up the
accumulations.  Accordingly, we affirm the judge's holding.

2.  Violation of Section 75.360(b)

     The Secretary argues that substantial evidence does not support
the judge's finding that there was no violation of the section 75.360(b)
preshift examination requirement.  He asserts that the accumulations
were extensive and took at least one shift to amass, the accumulations
likely existed during the preshift examination, and the judge's finding
that there was no preshift violation does not accord with his finding
that the related accumulation violation was unwarrantable.  S. Br. at
6-9.  New Warwick responds that substantial evidence supports the judge's
finding.  N.W. Resp. Br. for Dckt. No. PENN 94-54 at 5-10.  

     In concluding that the accumulations may not have existed or
been as extensive during the preshift examination, the judge credited
Foreman Smith's testimony that he had not observed any hazardous
conditions over Inspector Santee's assumption that the accumulations
had collected over a full shift.  16 FMSHRC at 2456.  We find no basis
to reverse the judge's credibility determination.  The record indicates
that the preshift examination of the mine was conducted between 1:00
and 3:00 a.m. (Tr. 21) but does not specify the time at which the
longwall section was examined.  Smith related that mining conditions
were adverse and, as soon as the shields moved, they looked as though
they had not been cleaned.  Tr. 132.  He asserted that the accumulations
of float dust in the trough could have amassed in one pass of the longwall
shear, which normally takes 30 to 45 minutes.  Tr. 86-87, 111-12, 132-33.
Thus, the longwall section could have been examined early during the
preshift examination and one or more passes of the longwall could have
occurred before the longwall broke down at 3:30 a.m.  Therefore, the
judge's conclusion that the accumulations may not have existed or been
as extensive at the time the longwall section was examined is supported
by substantial evidence.  Accordingly, we affirm the judge's holding
that New Warwick did not violate section 75.360(b).[10]

B.  Docket No. PENN 93-445

1.  Significant and Substantial

     The Secretary argues substantial evidence does not support the
judge's finding that the section 77.202 accumulation violations in
the transfer stations were not S&S.  He asserts the judge ignored
testimony that an explosion, rather than a fire alone, was reasonably
likely to occur and result in serious injury.  S. Br. at 9-13.  New
Warwick responds that substantial evidence supports the judge's
finding.  It contends that the inspector improperly modified the
citations, a fire and subsequent explosion were not likely, and an
explosion has never occurred in a transfer station.  N.W. Resp. Br.
for Dckt. No. PENN 93-445 at 6-12.  

     The S&S terminology is taken from section 104(d) of the Mine
Act, 30 U.S.C. � 814(d), and refers to more serious violations.  A
violation is S&S if, based on the particular facts surrounding the
violation, there exists a reasonable likelihood that the hazard
contributed to will result in an injury or illness of a reasonably
serious nature.  Cement Div., Nat'l Gypsum Co., 3 FMSHRC 822, 825
(April 1981).  In Mathies Coal Co., 6 FMSHRC 1 (January 1984), the
Commission further explained:

     In order 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.

Id. at 3-4 (footnote omitted).  See also Buck Creek Coal, Inc. v. FMSHRC
52 F.3d at 135; Austin Power, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 861 F.2d 99,
103 (5th Cir. 1988) (approving Mathies criteria).  An evaluation of the
reasonable likelihood of injury should be made assuming continued normal
mining operations.  U.S. Steel Mining Co., 7 FMSHRC 1125, 1130 (August
1985).  When examining whether an explosion or ignition is reasonably
likely to occur, it is appropriate to consider whether a "confluence of
factors" exists to create such a likelihood.  Texasgulf, Inc., 10 FMSHRC
498, 501 (April 1988); see also Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp., 13 FMSHRC 178,
184 (February 1991).   

     We agree with the Secretary that the judge erred by failing to
address the hazard of explosion.  The record indicates that Inspector
Terrett was concerned about both the hazards of fire, which could
result from deposited coal dust, and explosion, which could result
from suspended coal dust.  Tr. 192, 195, 201-02, 210-14, 219, 222.
Terrett acknowledged that, if there were only a fire, an employee
would not have difficulty getting out of the transfer station because
he would have warning.  Tr. 222-23.  He also testified, however, that
if the fire were instantaneous and created a dust explosion, an employee
would have difficulty escaping and could be "killed right there."  Tr.
195, 223.  In addition to his concern that an employee might have to
jump off of the second floor to escape a fire or explosion, Terrett was
concerned that an employee could be burned, inhale smoke or byproducts
of the belts, or might not be able to get out of the building.  Tr. 201,
202-03, 213. 

     New Warwick's argument that there is no evidence an explosion
has ever occurred in a transfer station is not dispositive of an S&S
finding.  Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc., 16 FMSHRC 2043, 2046 (October
1994); Ozark-Mahoning Co., 8 FMSHRC 190, 192 (February 1986).  Furthermore,
the record does not suggest that Inspector Terrett acted inappropriately
by modifying the citations.  Terrett testified he modified the S&S
designations after realizing the seriousness of the violations.  Tr.
202-03, 215.  He explained that, as a new inspector, he was inexperienced
with "putting [citations] together" and writing modifications.  Tr. 216.
Terrett stated that he conferred with his supervisor to ensure that the
modifications were correct.  Tr. 216-17. 

     Because the judge failed to evaluate evidence or make findings
and conclusions regarding the hazard of explosion, we vacate the judge's
determination that the violations were not S&S and remand the matter
for further consideration.  

                                 III.

                              Conclusion

     For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judge's determinations
that the violation of section 75.400 resulted from unwarrantable
failure and that there was no violation of section 75.360(b).  In
addition, we vacate the judge's determination that the violations
of section 77.202 were not S&S and remand for further consideration.


                                   Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

                                   James C. Riley, Commissioner


Commissioner Marks, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

     I concur in this decision, with the exception of the disposition
regarding the violations of 30 C.F.R. � 77.202.  In view of the record
evidence, I conclude that the violations were S&S and therefore I
would reverse the judge's contrary conclusion.


                                   Marc Lincoln Marks, Commissioner


     [1]   Commissioner Holen participated in the consideration of
this matter, but her term expired before issuance of this decision.
Pursuant to section 113(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act
of 1977, 30 U.S.C. � 823(c), this panel of three Commissioners has
been designated to exercise the powers of the Commission.

     [2]   Section 75.400 states:

     Coal dust, including float coal dust deposited on 
     rock-dusted surfaces, loose coal, and other combustible 
     materials, shall be cleaned up and not be permitted to 
     accumulate in active workings, or on electric equipment
     therein.

     [3]  Section 75.360(b) states, in part:

     The person conducting the preshift examination shall 
     examine for hazardous conditions . . . .

     [4]   Section 77.202 states:

     Coal dust in the air of, or in, or on the surfaces 
     of, structures, enclosures, or other facilities shall not be 
     allowed to exist or accumulate in dangerous amounts.

     [5]   Chairman Jordan and Commissioners Marks and Riley vote
to affirm the judge's determinations that the violation of section
75.400 resulted from unwarrantable failure and that there was no
violation of section 75.360(b).  Chairman Jordan and Commissioner
Riley vote to vacate the judge's determination that the violations
of section 77.202 were not S&S and remand for further consideration.
Commissioner Marks would reverse the judge's S&S determination. 

     [6]   A shield toe is the horizontal, bottom part of the shield.
Tr. 26.

     [7]   The night shift worked from 4:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. and
the day shift worked from 4:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.  16 FMSHRC at 2456;
Tr. 28.

     [8]   The overland conveyor belt travels over fields from the
supplier to the river.  Tr. 204.  The transfer stations house motor
drives that operate contiguous sections of the conveyor belt.  16
FMSHRC at 2459; Tr. 187.  Each transfer station is a 20-feet-square,
2-story metal building with a concrete first floor and a grate-type
second floor.  Tr. 204, 227, 229.

     [9]   The Commission is bound by the substantial evidence test
when reviewing an administrative law judge's factual determinations.
30 U.S.C. � 823(d)(2)(A)(ii)(I).  "Substantial evidence" means "such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support [the judge's] conclusion."  Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co.,
11 FMSHRC 2159, 2163 (November 1989), quoting Consolidated Edison Co.
v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).  While we do not lightly overturn
a judge's factual findings and credibility resolutions, neither are
we bound to affirm such determinations if only slight or dubious
evidence is present to support them.  See, e.g., Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Corp. v. NLRB, 732 F.2d 1288, 1293 (6th Cir. 1984); Midwest Stock
Exchange, Inc. v. NLRB, 635 F.2d 1255, 1263 (7th Cir. 1980).  We are
guided by the settled principle that, in reviewing the whole record,
an appellate tribunal must also consider anything in the record that
"fairly detracts" from the weight of the evidence that supports a
challenged finding.  Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474,
488 (1951).

     [10]   We reject the Secretary's argument that the judge's
determination that there was no preshift violation is inconsistent
with his finding that the violation of section 75.400 was aggravated.
Although the accumulations were extensive, they could have amassed
following examination of the longwall section.