An overly broad interpretation of the scope of Section 103(k) orders has led to the shutdown of some mines and increased operating costs for others.
days. The operator contested the propriety of the 103(k) order, but the ALJ upheld the order, stating that MSHA has "plenary power" and "complete control" to issue post-accident orders for the purpose of protection and safety of all miners. Likewise, MSHA seized operations at a mine where no de- monstrable injury or condition existed. Miners in alleged inci- dents occurring months apart reported that they "thought" they suffered electrical shocks while handling equipment. Although there were no physical signs of electrical shock, MSHA evalu- ated the claims and issued a 103(k) order withdrawing miners from the entire mine. MSHA also ordered the operator to replace all trailing cables in the mine. The operator and MSHA tested the equipment and cable after each claim, and neither could effectively determine that any issues existed. Despite this, however, MSHA maintained the issuance of the 103(k) order and forced the operator to comply with its broad demands. While these two examples illustrate MSHA's proclivity for is-
Write 172 on Reader Card. Libra_AGRM0112pg35.indd 1 48 AGGREGATES MANAGER March 2012 12/8/11 10:38 PM
