Joe Whitcomb
In Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission, Peabody Midwest Mining, formerly known as Black Beauty Coal Company, faced legal proceedings concerning a safety citation issued at one of their coal mines. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard the case after Peabody challenged the citation.
The issue began on September 11, 2007, when an inspector from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) visited the Somerville Central Mine, operated by Peabody in Gibson County, Indiana. The inspector issued a citation under 30 C.F.R. § 77.1605(k), which requires a protective mound, or "berm," along the outer edge of elevated roadways to prevent vehicles from rolling over the edge.
Five days earlier, another inspector had visited the mine and cited Peabody for berms that were too low along two separate locations—one on a roadway descending into the mine pit and the other at a dumping site. The citation in question was issued after the second inspector returned to the site to ensure the deficiencies had been addressed.
At the time, Peabody was in the process of moving a large piece of mining equipment, a dragline, across a ledge cut into the side of the pit known as a "bench." This bench was used as a roadway for vehicles and workers within the mine, and the berm along this bench had been reduced in height to allow the dragline to maneuver. However, the inspector observed that the bench lacked a berm for approximately two-tenths of a mile, despite service trucks being driven close to the edge.
Initial Administrative Proceedings
Peabody contested the citation, arguing that the bench was not considered a roadway while the dragline was being moved, as no other vehicles were traveling on it during that time. They further argued that the berm present was sufficient, given the circumstances, and that the vehicles on the bench were there solely to assist with the dragline's move, thus minimizing the risk of injury.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected Peabody's arguments. The ALJ determined that the bench was indeed a roadway during the dragline move, as rubber-tired vehicles were still using it, and a berm was required by regulation. The ALJ concluded that the berm present was not tall enough and that Peabody's failure to maintain an adequate berm created a significant and substantial safety hazard. This violation was deemed "unwarrantable," meaning it constituted more than ordinary negligence, given that Peabody had been cited for similar violations just days earlier.
Appeal and Commission's Decision
Peabody appealed the ALJ's decision to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. The Commission upheld the ALJ's conclusion that the bench was a roadway requiring a berm during the dragline's move. However, the Commission found an inconsistency in the ALJ's decision, specifically regarding the presence of a remnant berm, and remanded the case for further clarification.
Upon review, the ALJ reaffirmed her original findings, crediting the inspector's testimony that no berm was present for a significant portion of the bench. The ALJ again concluded that the violation was significant and substantial, and an unwarrantable failure, resulting in a penalty of $4,329.
Final Review by the Seventh Circuit
Peabody sought further review by the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the bench was not a roadway during the dragline move and that the remnant berm was sufficient under the circumstances. The Seventh Circuit, however, upheld the Commission's findings, agreeing that the bench remained a roadway during the move and that the absence of a berm created a serious safety risk. The court emphasized that the violation was significant and substantial, with the potential for severe injury if a vehicle were to veer off the bench.
The court also supported the ALJ's finding of unwarrantable failure, noting that Peabody was on notice that greater efforts were necessary to comply with safety regulations due to the earlier citations.
Conclusion
In summary, the Seventh Circuit denied Peabody's petition for review, affirming the safety citation and the associated penalty. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to safety regulations in mining operations and the potential legal consequences of failing to maintain safety measures.