This is a text-only version of the document "MSHA Internal Audits, Region 2, 2010". To see the original version of the document click here.

---

MSHA Internal Audit Reports, 2010 Region 2 - Bituminous coal in Pennsylvania Table of Contents Kittanning, PA Field Office -- p 2

U.S. Department of Labor

Mine Safety and Health Administration 11 00 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209·3939

JUN- 2 Z010
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY R. WAGNER, M.D. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Mine Safety and Health THROUGH:

PETER J. MONTALI Acting Director of AccountabilitY~r Mine Safety and Health

C1ic.. .9.~
u
I.
fJv._

FROM:

JERRY J. KISSELL ~(}~ BILLy RANDOLPH ARLIE A. WEBB Accountability Specialists

SUBJECT:

MSHA Offic~countability Audit, Coal District 2, Kittanning, PA (b) (6) .Office---(b) (6) (b) (6)

Introduction
This memorandum summarizes the Office of Accountability audit of the subject field office and mine. Audit subjects included MSHA field activities, level of enforcement, Field Activity Reviews (FARs), Accompanied Activities (AAs), MSHA supervisory and managerial oversight, mine plans, Hazard complaints, PKW's, ACR review, and the conditions and practices at the mine. The audit was conducted by Accountability Specialists Arlie A. Webb and Accountability Specialist Billy Randolph, during the week of (b) (6) . Positive findings and issues requiring attention

Overview
The district portion of the...audit was conducted fromthroug- . The field office _ o (b) (6) nand the on-site--rtion audit was conducted on of the (b) (6) . Accompanying the audit team were (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

- --·

-

You can now file your MSHA forms online at www.MSHA.gov. It's easy, it's fast, and it saves you money!

-

(b) (6) (b) (6)

On-site areas examined at t h e . . included the 004-0 working section, intake travelway (primary escapeway) including lifelines, Simons Rand scoop (Unit #3), DBT twin boom roof bolter (Unit #2), H "Butt" rooms, and the alternate escapeway and lifelines. Also examined during the audit were the A, B, C, D, E, F and H intake travelways, theE-main conveyor belt, drive, and fire suppression system, the H conveyor belt, drive, and fire suppression system, three SCSR caches, and a Strata refuge chamber. The mine phone lines, wireless communications system, electronic tracking system, and communication based tracking systems were examined. The on-site portion of the audit also included examination of pre-shift and on shift records, the imminent danger run, and an observation of inspection activities.

Other observations on-site included a portion of the mining cycle (continuous miner & bridge conveyor) and roof and rib conditions. Two 50/50 (water pressure/volume) tests were performed in different locations and several fire taps were tested a random. Roof support appeared well maintained and the roof control plan appeared adequate for the conditions observed. Rock dusting and general housekeeping looked good in all areas traveled.
(b) (6) (b) (6)

On-site areas examined at t h e included the 001-0 working section (#1 Butt), the intake travel way (primary escapeway) including lifelines, the No.7 belt conveyor entries (alternate escapeway) including lifelines, the No. 1 belt drive and the No.1 low belt. A twin-boom roof bolting machine and a Strata refuge chamber were also examined. In the West Mains area, lifelines, an alternative refuge chamber, phone lines, wireless communication system, tracking system were examined. Portions of the Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS) were examined along with several sprinkler type fire suppression systems. Miners were interviewed regardiflg the training plan, emergency response plan and fire-fighting drills. The on-site portion of the audit also included examination of pre-shift and on shift records, the imminent danger run, and an observation of inspection activities. In addition roof and rib conditions were observed, as well as fire fighting equipment and general housekeeping practices. The mining equipment was free of grease and oil. Rock dusting appeared adequate in the areas traveled. The inspector used a camera to document violations.
(b) (6) (b) (6)

was idle during the audit. On-site areas examined included the 3 Left rooms (MMU-001-0), the intake travel way (primary escape), lifelines, mantrips, the C-main 2

conveyor belt and drive, the fire suppression system at the C belt drives, guarding, and an alternative refuge chamber. Also examined were the phone lines, wireless communications, tracking system, and mine records. During the idle time, mine employees were constructing seals in the "F Butt" area of the mine. Seal construction (Micon Hybrid II 120psi) was observed, including ground control, materials being used, and installation of sample ports. Roof and rib conditions were inspected and roof support appeared well maintained. The roof control plan appeared adequate for the conditions observed. General clean up and housekeeping was adequate and rock dusting looked good. Several fire taps were tested at random. S&:S Rate Comparison S&S rates for the Kittanning field office were above the district and national levels for FY 2008, FY 2009, and to-date in FY 2010. S&:S Rate Comparison Kittanning, P A Coal District 2 Field Office 42.9% 39.6% 51.3% 43.6% 55.3% 43.4%

Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 (to-date)

National Average 34.0% 35.0% 33.4%

Time and Activity Comparison Time distribution for E01 inspections conducted out of the Kittanning, PA field office from FY 2008 to date, has shown significant improvement in most areas. Although time spent in the 11 other" category at surface facilities is higher than the national average, it has decreased during the first half of FY 2010. Likewise, the percentage of time spent on-site has increased during the first half of FY 2010, and is higher than the national average. Time Distribution (Percent) - EOl Inspections at Surface Facilities Citations Citations Other Travel On-Site Issued Issued Total On-site Off-site 21.94% 2.21% 0.25% 100.0% 18.63% 59.18% 18.56% 0.30% 17.06% 64.07% 5.82% 100.0% 6.81% 0.81% 100.0% 14.70% 23.53% 60.97% 0.20% 16.99% 16.93% 65.88% 5.40% 100.0% 16.17% 71.37% 4.89% 100.0% 11.84% 0.62% 16.06% 0.39% 100.0% 17.56% 65.98% 4.84%

2008
Nat'l Avg 2008

2009
Nat'l Avg 2009

2010 (to-date)
Nat'l Avg 2010

Time spent in the 11 other" category at surface mines is also higher than the national average. However, it too has decreased during the first half of FY 2010. Likewise, the percentage of 3

time spent on-site has increased during the first half of FY 2010, and is slightly higher than the national average. Time Distribution (Percent) - EOl Inspections at Surface Mines Citations Citations Total Travel Issued Other On-Site Issued On-site Off-site 1.28% 100.0% 21.85% 22.05% 54.82% 2.85% 100.0% 18.74% 16.88% 64.00% 5.14% 0.38% 100.0% 16.92% 21.19% 60.88% 4.17% 1.01% 18.83% 66.14% 0.39% 100.0% 5.01% 14.64% 100.0% 16.66% 15.39% 67.34% 3.15% 0.61% 0.55% 100.0% 18.90% 13.45% 67.10% 4.52%

2008
Nat'l Avg 2008

2009
Nat'l Avg 2009

2010 (to-date)
Nat'l Avg 2010

Underground time distribution has shown dramatic improvement. The percentage of time spent in the "other" category has decreased during the first half of FY 2010, and lower than the national average. Time spent on-site has increased during the first half of FY 2010, and is higher than the national average. Time Distribution (Percent) - EOl Inspections at Underground Mines Citations Citations Travel Other On-Site Issued Issued Total On-site Off-site 100.0% 13.86% 20.03% 64.82% 4.32% 1.29% 100.0% 15.44% 18.28% 65.80% 6.30% 0.49% 13.88% 4.05% 1.30% 100.0% 18.08% 66.74% 100.0% 15.43% 16.97% 67.20% 5.94% 0.40% 14.25% 73.67% 0.61% 100.0% 11.46% 3.25% 15.99% 15.43% 5.77% 0.47% 100.0% 68.11%

2008
Nat'l Avg 2008

2009
Nat'l Avg 2009

2010 (to-date)
Nat'l Avg 2010

Audit Results The audit revealed positive findings in several areas, including the following: 1. Uniform Mine File books are in proper order and well maintained. 2. Inspection personnel were professional and courteous 3. In-mine observations revealed good conditions and work practices, good housekeeping and rock dusting, and a safe working attitude. 4. Communications between the mine operator and MSHA appear very good 5. The level of enforcement during the audit appeared accurate 6. Time and activity code information sheets were created and used to assist inspectors in the proper charging of time for specific inspection activities. 7. Safety and health discussions with miners were held and were done very well. 8. Performance issues are identified and immediately addressed
4

The audit also revealed several issues that require corrective actions, including the following: 1. E-02 (103i) inspections are not being conducted on weekend/ off shifts when production is completed (See item 14) 2. No weekend inspections were noted on EOl inspections. Information and interviews indicate that several mines operate on Saturdays. 3. Supervisors and Managers are not completing the required number of mine visits, or are not properly completing the spreadsheet. 4. Severall03(i) spot inspections (E02) were conducted on the same day of the week for three or four consecutive weeks. In addition, an insufficient number of E02 inspections were conducted on off-shifts or weekends. 5. Second-level reviews do not contain sufficient documentation extraordinary actions or constructive criticism. 6. District-level Peer Reviews do not always include a review of the Uniform Mine File and do not always contain information regarding the district manager monitoring the effectiveness of the corrective action plan on an ongoing basis and/ or making adjustments to the plan as necessary. 7. Specialist and clerical personnel in the Technical Division do not appear to be sufficient to address the current workload.

5

Attachments
A.

Office of Accountability Checklist with comments, recommendations, and references
(b) (6) (b) (6)

B.

-

Citations/Orders issued during this audit

75.400 75.1722(a) 75.1101-10 75.380(d)(7)(iv) 75.1506(a)(3)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

C.

75.400 75.1101-7 75.1722(a) 75.360(£) 75.202(a)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

75.360(£) 75.1101-6 75.1722(a)

Enforcement actions with questionable evaluations

6

1.

Evaluate supervisory review of inspection reports and documentation for completeness.

Adequate

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

The field office supervisor documents report deficiencies and the date reviewed with inspectors and attaches the hand written document to the reports.

2.

Determine if supervisors address report deficiencies immediately

Adequate See Item 1

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

3. Adequate

Determine if supervisors are visiting each assigned mine at least annually

D

Inadequate

0

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

According to the District 2 spreadsheet for recording manager and supervisor mine visits, four of the nineteen positions listed did not complete the required number of visits during FY (b) (6) 2009. The Ruff Creek Field Officecompleted 46 of 48~ed (b) (6) (b) (6) ·thecompleted only 13 of 20 required visits; t h e (b) (6) (b) (6) completed only 8 of 20 required visits; and t h e completed 0 of 12 required visits. The spreadsheet also indicates the number of mine visits at this point in FY 2010 is low for ten of the nineteen positions listed.

4.
Adequate

Evaluate the quality of Field Activity Review reports (FARs)

[KJ

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

0

Comments Below ~

The FAR's reviewed indicated positive accomplishments, but no need to improve items were noted.

5. Adequate

Determine if supervisors/managers are identifying and addressing performance or behavior based issues during and after accompanied inspections are conducted

D

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

0

Comments Below 7

District ...__c_o_A_L_D_-2___.1 Field Office

I Kittanning, PA I Mine ID (b) (6)

United States Deparbnent of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability Date

(b) (6)

There were no performance or behavior based issues identified during accompanied inspections in FY 2009, or at this point in FY 2010. Evaluate the quality of Accompanied Inspections

6.
Adequate

[8]

Inadequate

0

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below ~

The AA' s reviewed indicated positive accomplishments, but no needs to improve items were noted. Determine if supervisors are thoroughly reviewing mine files at least annually

7. Adequate

W

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

8. Adequate

Determine if Assistant District Manager is holding supervisor accountable for general mine visits, FARs, and accompanied activities

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments· Below

9. Adequate

Determine if District Manager is using Performance Management System to hold ADMs accountable for oversight of subordinates

D

Inadequate

D·

Not Applicable

0

Comments Below

There were no performance or behavior based issues identified during accompanied inspections in FY 2009, or at this point in FY 2010.

11. Adequate

Determine if ADMs and OMs are visiting mines with poor compliance at least monthly

GJ

Inadequate

GJ

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

Although managerial mine visits appear adequate, See Item No. 3 regarding supervisory mine visits.
Attachment A - Checklist

8

District

L---c_o_A_L_D_-2___....~1

Field Office

I

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability
Kittanning, PA

I

Mine ID

(b) (6)

Date

(b) (6)

12. Adequate

Evaluate required monthly reports of supervisory and management mine visits

GJ

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

13. Adequate

Evaluate the location, workload, and availability of specialists (roof control, ventilation, electrical, etc.) within the district

D

Inadequate

0

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

The number of roof control and electrical specialists in the district appear adequate for the number of plans processed. However, the ventilation department has only one specialist assigned to the district office. The Roof Control Department does not have a secretary. Those duties are shared between four secretaries, who work in other departments. During the audit, several documents or items were requested that required identifying which secretary maintained those files. This overlapping responsibility for completing work and maintaining files creates the potential for . . errors.
In addition, the Kittanning, PA field office has four specialists (one each for Roof Control, Electrical, Ventilation, and Health). The district should consider if distributing specialists

between the Kittanning and Indiana field offices would be more efficient or effective.

Recommendahon: Obseroahons made during the audit indicate the district should consider consolidahng Roof Control clerical work under one posihon to prevent errors and reduce the potenhal for lost files.

14. Adequate

Evaluate supervisory and management review of 103(i) (spot inspection) tracking system for compliance with time frames

D

Inadequate

GJ

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below
9

Although time and activity data and records indicate that all required 103(i) inspections were
Attachment A - Checklist

District

~..-c_o_A_L_D-_2___sl

Field Office

I

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability (b) (6)

Kittanning, PA

I

(b) (6)

Mine ID

completed, an insufficient number of these inspections were on off-shifts and weekends. Records indicate that only 11 of the more than 700 E02 inspections conducted during FY 2009 and FY 2010 were conducted on off-shifts, and only 2 of these were conducted on a weekend. In addition, there were 77 instances when 103(i) inspections were conducted on the same day of the week for two consecutive weeks, 10 instances when 103(i) inspections were conducted on the same day of the week for three consecutive weeks, and 1 instance when 103(i) inspections were conducted on the same day of the week for four consecutive weeks.

Action Required: 103(i) inspections must be conducted in accordance with requirements of the Mine Act. Reference: Section 103 of the Mine Act
Determine if supervisors and managers are ensuring that 103(i) inspections are not combined with any other type of inspection

15. Adequate

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

Records indicate that E02 inspections are not being combined with any other type of inspection. Determine if supervisors, staff assistants, and other management personnel are reviewing work products for accuracy and completeness

16. Adequate

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

Seeitem1 &2 Determine if supervisors are monitoring inspector time and activity documentation to ensure proper use of time by inspector ·

17. Adequate

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

Analysis of time and activity for FY 2010 (mid-year) indicates that inspectors are spending more time onsite and less time in the "other" category.

18. Adequate

Determine if Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are in place, current, and in compliance with MSHA policies and procedures

Q

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

Standard Operating Procedures were examined during this audit. All applicable SOPs were in place, and several had been recently revised to comply with Agency policy and applicable
Attachment A - Checklist

10

District

~c_o_A_L_D_-2___.1

Field Office

I

United States Deparbnent of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability (b) (6)

Kittanning, PA

I

(b) (6)
] Date

Mine ID

I regulations.
19. Adequate Determine if supervisors are using the Performance Management System to hold inspectors accountable fo~ properly evaluating gravity and negligence, termination due dates, and timely termination of citations

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

20. Adequate

Determine if supervisors are adequately evaluating the level of enforcement by visiting each producing mine

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

21. Adequate
(b) (6)

Determine if District Manager is monitoring the ACRI program and using the Performance Management System to ensure that CLRs justify changes

D

Inadequate

0

Not Applicable
• • ...

D
'r"\

Comments Below ·
·--a. -11-- .... -..J
L-

• .....,T

_...,1,."'

22. Adequate

Determine if District Manager is using discretion·in granting conferences

D

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

Ix I

During FY 2009, only 27 conferences were conducted by the ACRI Department in District 2. At this point in FY 2010 there have been no conferences held.

Attachment A - Checklist

11

District .__c_o_A_L_D-_2___.1 Field Office

I Kittanning, PA I Mine ID

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability (b) (6)

J

(b) (6)
Date

23. Adequate

Determine if second level reviews and Peer Reviews are used to assess supervisory review of enforcement actions

D

Inadequate

0

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

During this audit, 18 second-level reviews were examined. Of these, only two contained comments (1 positive and 1 negative) regarding the inspector or supervisor's activities. Two of the second-level reviews indicated that an extraordinary effort had been made, but there was no documentation as to what that effort was.

Recommendation: Second-level reviews need to contain more than just checked boxes. The review should be well documented to help the supervisor and inspector to improve.
Determine if appropriate actions are taken by supervisors and manager with respect to issues of misconduct and/ or poor performance

24. Adequate

D

Inadequate

D .Not Applicable 0

Comments Below

There were no instances of misconduct or poor performance identified during FY 2009, or at this point in FY 2010. Evaluate inspector/ specialist knowledge of documentation required and process for completing PKW Forms.

25. Adequate

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

A review of PKW forms at the district office indicates the inspectorate is knowledgeable in the proper evaluation and completion of all portions of these forms.

26. Adequate

Evaluate the district's process for performing Possible Knowing/Willful (PKW) reviews and initiating or denying special investigations

0

Inadequate

D

Not Applicable

D

Comments Below

A review of the Special Investigations Department files indicates the district has an effective process for determining when a special investigation is warranted. Records indicate each PKW is reviewed by several levels of district management and .t he SSI prior to presenting to the District Manager. Evaluations on the PIu- " - _,IOCIOIIIMeftlon lha ...--.ofMSHA. ...,.may ... I~EG-FAIR (1.&81·734-3247), o r - N 0 - 0 1 Smll au..-~ . Olllolofllle <10113111 S~swt. sw MC 2120. W8llllt1glcn. oc ;zo.1e. Plule - · . INiyournoM.,No• """""*"-me~ ,..,_,..,ony_ngtllSyoumay ,...., """""""' one ngh110- Clllliono ono pt01101111 Sfttv ancs " - , . _ c -

and

,.,..,_and-•'-lnll-,..

F---

"•-Ombud-n.

Attachment B - Citations Issued During Audit

34

District

COALD-2

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability ~ (b) (6) Field Office Kittanning, PA Mine ID

I

L_

J

Date

(b) (6)

J

Mine

Citation/Order

U.S. Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
8 Cand1h0n or Pr~ctoce

-

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(Contrador)
8a. Wt1t1en Notice ( 103g)

Combust1ble ~aterial, loose coal a~d coal dust, was allowed to accumulate on the 1 Butt Rcoms, MMU OCl-3 sectio~. The affected ared was crosscut #3 to #4 (SS•l3101). The combustible material was appro x. 0 to 12 inches in depth by 3 to 18 inches in width by approximately 20 feet in length. The coal was dry throughout the entire accumulation.
th~

This w1ll be

tenth issuance of 15.400 in the l ast two years.

S"' ConllnUOt""' Form (MSIIA Form 7000.lal

B. Sedion
of ACI

C Part/Section of T•lle 30 CFR

75.400

No Likehhood
NO·lOS1 Workdays Yes 11. Negligence (chedl one)

Unlikely

Reasonat>ly L.kely ..,.
• Pemtanenll} Olsabhng

Occurl1!d
Fatal .,.,

Lost Wolltdllys Or Reslllcled Duty

'<'

No ·

0. Number of Persona Affected:

007
Wrttten Nobce ·

A None

B. low

C. Moderate .,..
Citabon

E.

Reckless DISrEgard
Safeguard

12. Type of Action
14. lnillaiACiiOn A. C•tatoon .

I O~(a)
8 Ortllr

13. Type or Issuance (c:heck one)
E. Cilatianl
C Safeguard :.. . 0 . Written Nohce

'.I

Orde• .

F Dated

Mo Da Yr

Order Number

15 Area or Equ•pmen1

16 Temuna110n Oue

(b) (6)

8

rune (24 Hr

Ooclcl

(b) (6)

17 Actton 10 Tenntnate The accumulation of coal and coal fines were cleaned up and the area was rock dusted.

18.

(b) (6)
of Inspection

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) ~ .c::
M:.ittA

OYIMJn' of the Sm•U &us.ne" R~ C"forccmcnt f111rnas .-c. o1 199G. trtr ~moll Cb.•ncasAd""n.tv•tton Nil 6&.801~ • NaboNI !:lirMI awa.neaa .,'101,....,....,,. "~-, ...>tnbuclsrnAn .md tO RetO"'el Fauneas Bc.erdaiO r.cerve ~~~from 5m-'1 Dullnn.MS lbOut federal agency """""""'ln11C110nl Tile Omt.-...n - l y •••uotoo_enl_. and ratll oiCII ~~ rtspctnll-10 small lkiSIIIOU Wyou WISh 10 comment on U.. •niOtcernent aa.ono of MSHA. rou rnayQJt 1·881-REG-fAIR 1'~88-73o0.3247). 01 wnta the Omlludsm"" at Smal llus"*l Adm""SifiiUOII. 011ce ol""' '"""""" Omoud...,..., 400 ltration

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(Contractor)

The spnnkler system, wh . ch provides fire protection fo r the 1-Butt drlve and : belt , was not set up and maintained properly in accordance with the Nat i onal F1re Protect i on Asso c iat ~ on. Severa ! of the sprinkler heads were arrange in such a manner t hat if activated the water spray pattern would miss the i r lntended t arget. Also, u nder sized water hose that suppl1 e s waLer t o the sprinkler designated to protect the belt starter box did not have the capac i ty to supply the proper GPM flow required by the natlor. a l f i re code.
This will. be t he fir .•H. i ss11?1nr.e nf 1"> .1 101-7 in the
i.~:'H

1. wo yP.i!r :".

9 VIOlatiOn

8 Sect1on of Act

C Pat11Sect10n of
Tale30CFR

75 . 1101-7

No Likeli~ood

Unlilonlel'll ·lctiOnS The 011'11l1011m1J1 annually lvllullei-IICiiV!Utl lrus!ni!SS. rt you - h to COIIIMenl on L•e onl<>rcornti'IIIC1!0nS CJf MSHA. you 1-8U-REG-FAIR (1-88e-7Jo4-~2•7). Of - l l l e OIToi>Ydsman at SmolluSUIMS Adm;n;srr;tllon. o..-... ol N NII!Otll Oml>udsmon. <09 lod SUMt. SW MC 2120. WasiVtiQIDn. DC 20018 P..... natt. nowevw. llllt ...... ngottoftle Ornl>lldSman 11•n •"1 you may ...... oncJuoi"'V tne ngt1 :o conr.al cnaDOns ind f)fDPOMC l)8llatlJes and OIMin • l'lunng Defore 1M ;:aoerat MUll Safety .,o Hea:ltn ReVIeW Comm•s.&~on

'"""COli

•""""'*" -tt•

_...,It> utne<,..,..

Attachment B - Citations Issued During Audit

36

District

COALD-2

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability (b) (6) Field Office Mine ID [ Kittanning, PA

I

Date

(b) (6)

J

Mine Citation/Order

U.S. Deoartment of Labor

(b) (6)
6 Mind

.... 1 Date

~

(b) (6)

llllllillllllll

(b) (6)

Older Number -----+5~0~-ra-tor----~----

(b) 8 Cond4oon "'Pra<;~tea (6) !ldequate quar::iinq was not pr·ovideu

1 .o prevent a person from coming in c F01m (MSHA Fomt 100G-3•)

9 Violahon

8 Sactoon or Act

C PatVSection ol

n1e JOCFR

75.1722(b)

No loketihoad 8 Injury or dtness oould reasonably be expected Ia be.
c Sognoncant ana SuDs:anual~

i

Unlikely

Reasonably Likely

Highly U kely

Occurred

No lost Wortcdays No

lost Wottcdays Or Restnded Duty

Permanently Dosabhng ., U. Numoer 01 l'ersons Anectea.

001

11 Negligem;e (Cileck 01181
12. Type at Action 1•. lnllla! ACIJOn A r.o,.!inn

A. None

8 . low
13 Type

C MOderate ~·

0 H111h
Crtlltion ~ Orcleo

E. Redt.less

Otsr~ard

l04(a)
A Om"' C Sale!Juard

at Issuance (check one)
E Cilaloonl

Safeguard

Wronen Notice Mo Qa Yr

F

oared

Or 10 a>~~~me~~r on.,. rr~ayc.oii1-888-II£G-fAIR 01 "'"'" . . . OtiiOI alfle Net«• Ombudsman. •ot ltd Slreet. SW UC 2120. Wutun;tof' DC 20411 PiNw , . , howewet" that your nghiiO ftfe • GOt"'mef11 "'""' 1 OT!buGIINin '' tn aoGDon Ill any oU'\el riQhiS VC... may hi~ tnc.lud1ng he 1f'le nght 10 contet.t CIUit..ona and p~ pe~ ana «na.n a neanno betcwe the Fedefal Mine s.tetv and ~talltl A:ey1ew Comm1sson

.... · _ . - r ac:110n1 ofThe-Omi>JOsmln aroroually e v -_ enlorcoemenladMioes """..," eiiCII agenqtoaiSNII Busoneu10"""'"''",."""· ac:110ns r-.eness .,.,._,, I.ISHA,JOU IHI88-l'34·32•7), Qtroudoman

-

(b) (6)
21 Promary or MrU

(b) (6)

23. AA Numbet

(b) (6)

-aa of VIc $mall 0u31ncM Re-gutelOI'W' [nforc:etnenl Flllfr\C'N ,tct Of l~M. lhc 5"'811 814ncN t\ctm.t'IIIVta"on hilS sman and 10 Reg.ONI F'.atmeas Boards &o fecetYI' commenb from im&ll bu$1nesseslbou1 fedll!fal agency

Attachment B - Citations Issued During Audit

37

District

COALD-2

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability ~ (b) (6) Field Office Kittanning,PA MineiD

I

L-

J

Date

(b) (6)

J

M1ne C1lation/Order

U.S. Department of labor

Mine Safely and Health Adm.mstrauon

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(ContraCior)
8~.

Wnnen Notice (10Jg)

The record of the results of the pre-shift exam performec on the 1-butl belt flight on 4/6/10 and 4/7/10 had the wrong dates entered. The dates that were qntered showed the exam was pcrfor~cd on 5/6/10 ~nd 5/1/10. Alco, two of the entrie~ ma.de in the pre- ~J hift exam book was not signed by the t::<.Jmi.-.er.
This will be the third issuance o f 75 . .) 60(f)

in the last t wo years .

See CoobroobOn Form (MSHA farm 700fl.3a) 9. Viol~toon

B

SediOR

C ParVSedlon of

ot Acr

TKie JOCfR

75 . .160(0

No Llkelohooel "8 lnju')' or Illness cculd reasonab be e4 Hr

rJnr.Jo)

-

(b) (6)

18 lerm•nated A Dale

MoDa Vr

II

r,me (24 Hr

SecDoo 111-Aulo~Niecl Sys~M\ Oall

~EOI

19 Type oflnspee~oon

(b) (6) ~
MSHA. Form 71
tSUtDr'SI'*i a I
~ .aaons. The

IS

ClOCk

(b) (6)

21 Pnrraf\1 or Mill

2;

AR Number

(b) (6)

ol the Small Busl"esl RegutalOI"' Enforcement fillrneU A.::t of !t96. !tllt Small Busness AdmrniStrlbOn haS

smen and 10 Regen• Fauness Soares to reut~te comment~ from small Dusmesses AtiOUt federl!ltg~cy

Ombvdltnan ~ ev.auara enfofc.emen~ ~ rnct rates ucn ~ef'CV's ,espom.veneu to 511\atl tvs.ness If~ Mlh to ID"'Iment en U'le en"'""'"""' IC!Iona o1 1.4$~ ,ou may cd 1-818-REG·FAIR (1·1811-734·324 7). "'wnot!N ao Smal Busnless Adtn1t111112110n. Ofke ol llle Na"""ll Omt>uds,.,., 409 3rOhllo contest ca.~ms and prooo54ICI penalbos andllbll111 a heanno oelore 111o F_,., ..,. Sat.~y and 1100111 Rev- c.,.,.,.,,.,

Omoua•"'•"

Attachment B - Citations Issued During Audit

38

District

COALD-2

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability (b) (6) ~ Field Office Kittanning, PA Mine lD

I

L-

J

Date

(b) (6)

J

Mine Citation/Order

U.S. Oeparlment of LiiiJur Mine Safety and Health Administration

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(Conllador)

8a Wnnen NOIIC8 ( 1D3g)

!'he roof aren where persons work or travel is not supported or

oLlu~rwt :"ie

c::ontr.olled to protect persons from hazards related to falls of roof. face ·H ribs in the ~1 Bel~. the affected area began at the 11 Belt tailp!ece and ex tended outby approximately five cross cuts {SS#l30011. Loose hanging rock 0 t o five inches thick by several f eet in diameter was detected at several locations w1 t h in t he five crosscut area.

This standard was cited 9 times in two years aL this mine.

see Connnualion Form (MS~" Form 7tJ00.3a)

B Section
of Ad

C. Pafi/SeciKln ol Tiii•JOCFR

75.::!02(8)

A Injury 01 Illness (lias) (as)

No Likehhood 1

Unlikely

Reasonablv UAS"" form 1C $mill llusaMSS ROll"•..,.., Eofor_,.m F...-...., ol ~~~ ""' Smll &o.uaesa Ad""""nlon lias esoalllolheela • a 10 Rogaonat f1<,... Boordl 11> rea~•e oDGUttecleral aa-•cv enromernent ICIJDRI The o~n &nnually a'lalualK erumcenent aarv.ues and rates eact1 1gency1 responSiveness 10 small tiUSU"eH If you W'ISh to com."ft8nt on h eni0R2menl.,.,1 of MSHA. ""' may c.ll I .alia-REG-FAIR (I .allf.734-32>47J. 01 '''"" tile Ombucloman at Sono• - - Adrn...t..r-. 011\at of tile Omburnao as "' 10 any oth•r "9"15 you may na.e

..,.,.....,.from"""""'-'"

Nat""'•'

the ~ Ia earnest 01111ans and Ol'tiPC)SICI QenaHII!s ana ~n a fteanng b!fate lhe Feoe.ral Mine Safety ~nd .;e;l'" R.ev;ew Comnus...cl'l

"'<""'"'9

Attachment B - Citations Issued During Audit

39

District

COALD-2

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability - (6) (b) Field Office Mine ID [ Kittanning, PA

I

]

Date

[ (b) (6)

..

J

M1ne C1tahonJOrder
Section 1-- VIOla bOn Data

U.S. Deoartment of Labor Mine Safety and Health Admm1stra11on

. . . To

(b) (6)

(b) (6) ~ (b) (6) ~

(b) (6) (b) (6)
-

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(Contrador)

8 r.;onaot1on or 1-'racta

Sa Written Notioa 110Jg)

A record of ~he results of the pre-shift exams conducted an the mines Refuge Alternatives had not been recorded in the pre-Shl : t exam book. Confirmation that Ute exams were conducted was ven.tied oy the DTI beards located at tt:e Refuqe Alternatives.
Thi:s will be 1.he first
~ ssudn -:: e

:;;f 7!"1.360(()

in rt:e last twc years.

See Conllnuat10n Forni (MSHA Form 700G-3a)
9 V1olatton

8 Sect1on

or Ad

C. Part/See110n of
IItie
JOl:~K

75 ..l60( f)

No LikelihOod

Unl1kety

_,

Reasonably Ltkely

Highly Like!)"

Occu~

8. Injury or 1llness could rea!Onab!y be expecled to be:
C S19mftcant and Substantial. t 1. Negligence (chec:ll one)

No Lost Workdilys _,

LOSI Workdil'l$ Or ReatnCied Duty

Permaner.lly Dosabling

Falal

Yes

No .,

.o Number cf Persons Affected·
C Moderate .,
0 Hogh Citatoon ., Order E Reckless Disregard Safeguard

000
WnnenNotoce

A Nooe

BLON

12. TypeofActiOII
14 IMial ActiOn A. CitatiOn

104(a)
B. Oraer

13. Type of Issuance (dlecll one)

c Sateguara

o wnnen Nota

E Cotation/ Oraer NumDer

F Dated

Mo Da Yr

1S. Area or Equ1pment

16 Termonabon Due

I

A Date •

Secoon 111-TennmllbOn Acbon
17.ActoontoTerm:nate

The mine management retrained the mine examiners on proper record keeping techniques.

(b) (6)

Yr

Is

T•me (24 Hr. Clock)

-

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
~SHA. Form 7000.3. Apr 01 (tHWCSJ

(b) (6) (b) (6)

lr1 an::orcbii1Ct! IMih tn. £1'0\11'1101'11 ol UMt Small BuA~MY A"'ttiiiU)ty Fnf~ F••'""* Act nl •HfS lhfll Sm;tU RIIM"P" AdmmiAR'•Mn fur. ..- I H at Smal l!usiMU Mrron11nll0n o«oco ol the Natielnal OmlluCSsman. •at 3• S11ee1. SW MC 2120 Waomngson DC ~1& Please IIOie. ,._ver that '/f>JI ng11110 f1le • commentWJIIIthe Omouclsmon IS 1n illdlll()n to any_, ngnts!'OU may have. li1CIUGing tne "'lh1IOCDniOSICIIBIIOnUf1d ~ pelli!ILeO .ncl OOialo 0 hUO"'I before,. FeuCISman anc1 10 Rog~onar Faorlle1! Sollras 10 recerw. a>mmenllllrorn small ouscresses oDOut- agency lrf'\fofcement KbOftS Tl\e Ombudln"lan annul!ty ev.ruetet enfarcatnent ldMtM and ralft eac:ft agency, reiPQI\SIYII\HIIO sm1u tluSal1eSa If you ..,.., to cxwn!TM!'"t on tne Otlforc.omenl OCIIOill may caN 1.a118-REG-FAIR (l.jlll·734·32.71 Ombulr ngrns- may na,. . .nclud•ng the ngnt 10 contoso 01111toons and propoleG penoooes - obl.,n a heanng Detore 11rt Fodelll Mo~~e Satoly and I"IUIIII Re•- Com..,~soon

8101oi•shed • Na..,al Smoi Buoo-. and Agnc.onure ~egu"""'Y Ombu4siNn...., 10 AflloOnal Foor- Barlrcts 10 ree lD

~
.

(b) (6)

J
- L . - • •• ., ... · · - '""-"""" ..

(b) (6)

~-

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

distance between personnel doors in permanent stoppings, used to separate the belt conveyor taullaa4eWClY from the return air course, was more than 300 feet in a seam height below 48 inches. The required door between #3 and #2 heading, in 1 North East Main, located one crosscut inby ss 11092, in #3 heading, was gobbed and impassable. This is the 2nd violation of 75.333(c)(1) at this mine in the past two years.

(b) (6)

-MineiD

Citation

J Issued

(b) (6)

Type 104(a} Citation

30CFR 75.517

S&S likely Injury Affected Negligence
N

UL

FTL

1

Mod

Power wires and cables were not insulated adequately and fully protected. The outer conduit of the size 6, 480 volt, cable, supplying electrical power to the #20, 30 HP, pump had separated from the switch box connector, exposing the insulated inner wires. The exposed area measured approximately one half inch. The pump is located along the tight side of the 2 West Beltline, in the #3 entry and was immediately removed from service by the operator. This is the thirteenth violation of 75.517 at this mine in the past two years.

Considering the number of times this was cited, a higher degree of negligence should have been considered.

(b) (6)

Issued
(b) (6)

30CFR

Negligence
Mnn

Attachment C -Citations with Questionable Evaluations

45

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability District

COAL D-2

Field Offke

I

Kittanning

I

Mine 1D

(b) (6)

c(b) (6)

(b) (6)

J
:;.

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

The distance between personnel doors, installed in permanent stoppings constructed after November 15, 1992, permitting travel between aircourses, was more than 300 feet in a seam height below 48 inches. The distance between personnel doors in 1st North West Mains, crosscut 38 and 45 was approximately 420 feet. These doors are to permit travel between the primary and secondary escapewaysThis is the third violation of 75.333(c)1 at this mine in the past two years..

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

The #4 twin boom Fletcher roof bolting machine, sin 2006023, operating on the 1-Butt rooms MMU-002 section was not being maintained in safe operating condition. A cross member plate that was welded on the back of the ATRS support bracket assembly was broke completely off. The Assistant to the Mine Foreman, Rick Beers immediately removed this roof bolter from service. Within the last two years this section of the law has been cited 13 times. Considering the number of times this was cited, a higher degree of negligence should have been considered.

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

The #18 Marmon Research mantrip (sin 3728-27) located in the pit charging bay was not maintained in a safe operating condition. The Look-a-head-system when tested did not work. The tram pedal was left in the on position and the panic bar (emergency shut down system) was tested, when the panic bar was reset with the tram pedal in the on position the mantrip started to move in high tram. The mine mechanic immediately removed this mantrip from service. This is the 14th time this section of the law has been cited within the last two years. Considering the number of times this was cited, a higher degree of negligence should have been considered. The number of persons affected does not reflect that this is a mantrip.

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

Attachment C -Citations with Questionable Evaluations

46

United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Accountability Disbict COAL D-2

I

Field Offke

I

Kittanrung

I

(b) (6)

Mine ID

r-

J

Date

c(b) (6)

J

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

The water sprinkler (required for firefighting) system installed to protect the I Butt belt-conveyor drive was not installed and maintained in accordance with Sections 75.1101-7 through 75.1101-11. Both branch lines were installed above the top belt instead of one branch line positioned above the top belt and one installed between the top and bottom belt, as required by 75.1101-S(b). Also, no sprinkler was installed above the electrical control (starter box), as required by 75.11 01-S(a).This mine operator has not been cited for violations of this standard at this mine in the last two years.

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

The waterline installed parallel to the F Butt belt conveyor was not equipped with firehose outlets with valves at 300-foot intervals. The distance from the firehose outlet just outby Survey Spad No.967 to the firehose outlet near Survey Spad No.928 was approximately 500 feet. This mine operator has not been cited for violations of this standard at this mine in the last two years.

Attachment C -Citations with Questionable Evaluations

47