Search form

‘Attended’ Does Not Require Being Inside Drill Cab, Mining Commission Affirms

  • April 5, 2016

A drill operator need not to be inside the cab of his drill at all times to comply with a mine safety standard stating that drills in operation “shall be attended at all times,” the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission has ruled, upholding a judge’s ruling vacating citations against contractor Drilling and Blasting Systems, Inc. (D&B). Sec’y of Labor v. Drilling and Blasting Systems, Inc., No. SE 2012-510-M (Feb. 22, 2016).

In March 2012, a Mine Safety and Health Administration inspector cited a North Carolina quarry on consecutive days for two alleged violations of the Mine Safety and Health Act’s standard on tending drills in operation, 30 CFR §56.7012. The standard states, “While in operation, drills shall be attended at all times.” The agency proposed a $1,080 fine. In both instances, the drill attendant was outside the cab while the drill was in operation. The inspector alleged the drill was not being “attended,” in violation of the standard. He argued the worker needed to be at the drill’s controls continuously in the event of an emergency, such as if the steel or drill bit became stuck in the drill hole, causing the steel to disintegrate under pressure and hurl steel fragments through the air. The inspector described an accident having this alleged scenario.

The operator had argued successfully before a judge the drill operator had other assigned duties, including critical safety-related tasks, which could not be fulfilled from inside the drill cab. These included checking surrounding ground conditions for changes that could destabilize the drill, possibly causing it to tumble over the highwall, and checking fluid levels on the drill engine and compressor for leaks or other malfunctions. The drill has a sensor designed to shut down the drill automatically if the equipment begins to malfunction, the operator noted.

The commissioners devoted a substantial portion of their unanimous ruling to summarizing Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Priscilla Rae’s vacatur decision. She had determined the term “attended” in the standard was ambiguous and depended upon circumstances. She reasoned that MSHA’s interpretation was not entitled to deference because it was plainly erroneous for two reasons. First, she noted MSHA had vacated an identical citation against the operator in 2010 at a different mine. In that instance, the contractor had convinced an MSHA supervisor that the operator’s practice of having the drill operator leave the controls was permitted under the standard. Second, the judge contended that accepting MSHA’s insistence the operator remain at the controls could lead to dangerous consequences because the operator would not be in the best position to deal with safety hazards, including failing ground conditions, should they suddenly arise.

Four individuals with lengthy experience in the mechanics and physics of drilling had testified for the operator. All four stated they had never heard of drill steel fragmenting after getting hung up in the ground. The inspector testified that the operator’s equipment was in good condition. The ALJ credited their testimony over the inspector’s, who had no drilling experience and had actually declined a chance to gain such experience. The inspector stated he saw no reason why the operator needed to leave the cab.

MSHA contended that the operator could assign a second person to observe conditions outside the cab. In its decision, the commissioners noted MSHA had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its position. For her part, ALJ Rae credited the testimony of the operator’s owner, who said it was industry practice for operators to remain outside the drill for much of the time it is operating. This was reinforced by the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, which stated in an amicus brief that adding a second person would alter decades of previously accepted safety, management, and personnel practices.

The commissioners concluded, “The Judge was justified in crediting the testimony of the operator’s witnesses experienced with drilling activities, and the testimony of the operator’s expert witness, as against the testimony of one inspector who had neither training nor experience with drilling operations. The Judge relied on testimony regarding the safety advantages of not requiring fixed stationing in the cab, the absence of any history of the type of incident described by the inspector, the lack of any enforcement history, and the different positions taken by MSHA in prior matters.” Those factors, combined with MSHA’s providing less than “the most natural reading” of the standard, gave them no basis for siding with the agency, the commissioners said.

In this case, the operator was cited because its drill operator was 18-20 feet from the drill. The commissioners accepted the operator’s interpretation that the standard allowed the drill operator to be located anywhere within the area where drilling is being done that permits drilling activity to be monitored. Barring reversal should MSHA appeal, the case provides valuable guidance to drill operators concerned about compliance with the standard. Our attorneys can provide further guidance on how to apply the standard legally.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 16, 2017

Transportation Department Expands Drug Testing Panel to Include Certain ‘Semi-Synthetic’ Opioids

November 16, 2017

Employers regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) should revise their drug and alcohol testing policies to conform to new DOT regulations that added four “semi-synthetic” opioid drugs to the DOT drug testing panel. The new regulations go into effect on January 1, 2018. DOT announced in a rule published in the Federal... Read More

October 27, 2017

What Employers Need to Know about OSHA’s Respirable Crystalline Silica Rule for Construction

October 27, 2017

Full enforcement with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s new respirable crystalline silica rule in the construction industry began on October 23, 2017, according to the agency. The silica rule is one of the most comprehensive health standards ever issued for the construction industry and significantly reduces the... Read More

August 23, 2017

Mine Safety Agency Implements Medical Standards Action Plan for Inspectors, Technical Personnel

August 23, 2017

The Mine Safety and Health Administration will implement an action plan for employees who do not meet the agency’s medical standards.   As a condition of employment, MSHA inspectors and technical personnel must undergo periodic medical examinations, including vision and hearing tests, and meet medical standards set by the Office... Read More

Related Practices