Skip to main content

US Labor Department’s order involving mine operator’s failure to timely notify of roof collapse upheld

ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration today announced that its order charging Pine Ridge Coal Co. LLC of Seth, W.Va., with committing an unwarrantable failure to comply with the law has been upheld by Administrative Law Judge Thomas McCarthy. The order stemmed from the operator's violation of 30 C.F.R. § 50.10, which requires mine operators to notify MSHA of any reportable roof falls without delay – but within no more than 15 minutes – once the operator knows or should know that a reportable accident has occurred.

Pine Ridge waited four days to notify MSHA of the roof collapse that took place at the Big Mountain Number 16 mine located in Boone County, W.Va., and notified MSHA only after the fall was discovered by an MSHA inspector and the violation cited. McCarthy found that the operator's delay was unreasonable and resulted from reckless disregard for its obligations under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The judge found that Pine Ridge did not have an objective good faith belief that the roof fall was not reportable, particularly given that the accident required the operator to abandon the mine entry altogether and to block off access to prevent travel through that section of the mine. The judge also held that the roof fall had impaired ventilation and had impeded passage in the mine. In addition, the judge tripled the penalty proposed by MSHA, requiring the operator to pay $6,000 for the violations.

"The Mine Act requires prompt notification of roof collapses because they can be dangerous and have significant impact on the health and safety of miners," said Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. "Operators must take seriously their reporting obligations, and when they don't, must deal with the consequences."

Rapid notification is required by law in order for MSHA to investigate and issue appropriate orders and approve rehabilitation plans to ensure the safety of miners. Pine Ridge had a history of roof falls at the Big Mountain Number 16 mine.

Pine Ridge Coal Co.; Docket No. WEVA 2010-312

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...