Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Cumberland Coal Res., LP
| Decision Date | 24 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 4 WAP 2013,s. 4 WAP 2013 |
| Citation | 628 Pa. 17,102 A.3d 962 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Appellant v. CUMBERLAND COAL RESOURCES, LP and Amfire Mining Co., LLC, Appellees. Department of Environmental Protection, Appellant v. Emerald Coal Resources, LP and Cumberland Coal Resources, LP, Appellees. |
Mary Martha Truschel, Esq., Dennis A. Whitaker, Esq., PA Department of Environmental Protection, for Department of Environmental Protection.
Patrick Wayne Dennison, Esq., Pittsburgh, Jessica Maria Jurasko, Esq., Ralph Henry Moore II, Esq., Jackson Kelly, P.L.L.C., Arthur Max Wolfson, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Emerald Coal Resources, et al.
Patrick Wayne Dennison, Esq., Pittsburgh, Jessica Maria Jurasko, Esq., Ralph Henry Moore II, Esq., Jackson Kelly, P.L.L.C., Arthur Max Wolfson, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Cumberland Coal Resources, et al.
BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, STEVENS, JJ.
In this appeal by allowance, we consider, inter alia, the scope of the authority of the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) to issue administrative orders under the Bituminous Coal Mine Safety Act.1 For the reasons that follow, we find that the DEP acted within its authority with respect to the orders it issued regarding certain failures to report accidents, but that it improperly issued other orders with respect to requiring fire extinguishers on certain mining vehicles. Thus, we reverse in part, and affirm in part, the order of the Commonwealth Court.
Before we consider the specifics of this appeal, a brief overview of the law concerning mine safety in our Commonwealth is in order. Historically, and not surprisingly, the mining of underground coal in Pennsylvania has been widely considered a dangerous endeavor. While significant improvements in mining safety have been achieved over the years, the recent events at the 2002 Quecreek Mine accident in Somerset County Pennsylvania, where nine miners were trapped for three days in a flooded mine shaft, made manifest the continued perilousness of mining. While the federal government regulates mining in Pennsylvania through the Mine Safety and Health Administration Act, as amended by the Mine Improvement Emergency Response Act,2 state governments are permitted to regulate mining as well, and our Commonwealth has done so for over 100 years.
Specifically, the progenitor of Pennsylvania's Bituminous Coal Mine Safety Act, entitled the Bituminous Coal Mine Act, was originally codified in 1883. The most recent version of the statute was drafted in 1961 and constituted the first comprehensive mining legislation designed to regulate mining safety practices. The 1961 version of the Act included various provisions concerning safety, including inspectors being tasked with inspecting mines on a regular basis, with the ultimate purpose being to protect the health and safety of miners.
In 2008, after years of work among industry, workers, and government representatives, the retitled “Bituminous Coal Mine Safety Act of 2008” (“Mine Safety Act” or “Act”), at issue herein, was unanimously enacted by the General Assembly. Stressing the theme of the statute, the legislature's findings declared that the “first priority and concern of all in the bituminous coal mining industry must be the health and safety of those who work in and at mines and others in and about mines.” 52 P.S. § 690–103(a)(1). Consistent therewith, the General Assembly added to the multiple declared purposes of the Act, including “[t]o use the full extent of the Commonwealth's powers to protect the lives, health and safety of miners and others in and about underground bituminous coal mines.” Id. § 690–103(b)(1).
Three aspects of the recent legislation are particularly noteworthy for purposes of the matter before us. First, pursuant to Section 109 of the Mine Safety Act, mine operators must notify the DEP of “accidents” that occur at their mines, within 15 minutes of the discovery of the accident. 52 P.S. § 690–109(a)(1). Unlike its predecessor, the Act provides a broad definition to the operative term “accident” as follows:
Second, the Mine Safety Act requires certain vehicles to carry portable fire extinguishers. Specifically, “[e]ach track or off-track locomotive, self-propelled mantrip car or personnel carrier shall be equipped with one portable fire extinguisher.” 52 P.S. § 690–273(f).
Third, the Act created the Board of Coal Mine Safety (“Safety Board” or “Board”), which was established to provide the means to rapidly respond to changes in mining technology and conditions. 52 P.S. § 690–106. The Board, comprised of seven members representing the DEP, workers, and owner/operators, is given the authority to write amendments to interim mandatory safety standards, as well as promulgate new mine safety regulations.
With this history and relevant legal background in hand, we turn to the facts underlying this appeal, which are largely undisputed and involve alleged violations of the Mine Safety Act at mines in the southwestern part of the Commonwealth. The instant case arises out of several orders issued by the DEP to Appellees as a result of Appellees' alleged failure to report various incidents that purportedly compromised the safety of their mines—i.e., the alleged failure to report an “accident”—as well as Appellees' alleged failure to maintain proper fire protection equipment. We first consider the charges of a failure to report an “accident.”
Appellee Emerald Coal Resources L.P. (“Emerald”) engages in underground bituminous coal mining at its Emerald Mine in Wayne Township, Greene County, Pennsylvania. On January 19, 2009, at approximately 10:00 p.m., a crew of miners working in the B–7 section of the operation mined through into the adjoining B–6 section. A plan for the cut through had been prepared and a mine examiner was to be sent and stationed at the B–6 section to wait for and listen for the approach of the mining crew in the B–7 section. The plan also required the mine examiner to close two doors that the company had erected for the purpose of maintaining safe ventilation in the mine following the cut through. Although the mine examiner went to the B–6 area, he did not remain there, and the doors stood open at the time of the cut through. Due to the doors remaining open, the ventilation in the area was affected. Specifically, a witness to the cut through felt the air along a conveyer belt reverse, and he could feel the heat from the feeder on his face. Additionally, a methane detector on a shuttle car sounded an alarm. Once certain protective measures were taken at the cut through, employees entered the B–6 area and closed the doors, resulting in the ventilation returning to its proper path.
Emerald did not notify the DEP of the incident. Thus, on January 30, 2009, the DEP issued an administrative order for Emerald's violation of Section 109 of the Mine Safety Act for failing to report this “accident,” even though Section 104 does not list a ventilation disruption as a specific reportable accident.
Appellee Cumberland Coal Resources L.P. (“Cumberland”) is the owner and operator of Cumberland Mine in Waynesburg, Greene County, Pennsylvania. At approximately 2:00 a.m. on February 12, 2009, an electrical storm resulted in a power outage at its mine that caused a fan in the mine's ventilation system to stop working. The mine's backup power system also failed to start after the loss of power, and, as a result, the mine's ventilation system at the No. 5 bleeder shaft was inoperable for over 16 minutes. The diesel powered back-up system, which should have automatically been triggered, failed to operate. Ultimately, a fan monitoring system alerted surface personnel of the stoppage, and an electrician restarted the fan. The Mine Safety Act requires mine operators to evacuate the mine when a ventilation system is down for 15 minutes or more; however, such an event is not included in Section 104's list of “accidents” subject to reporting requirements. Cumberland did not notify the DEP of the fan outage, and the DEP issued an administrative order for the violation.
Turning to the alleged fire equipment maintenance violations, as noted above, the Mine Safety Act requires certain vehicles to contain portable fire extinguishers. The DEP, interpreting “off-track locomotive” to include “scoops,” issued multiple administrative orders and notices of violation to both Cumberland and Appellee Amfire Mining Co. (“Amfire”) for failing to equip their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicole B. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila.
...the legislature's intent may be determined by considering any of the factors enumerated in Section 1921(c). DEP v. Cumberland Coal , 628 Pa. 17, 102 A.3d 962, 975 (2014). These factors are:(1) The occasion and necessity for the statute.(2) The circumstances under which it was enacted.(3) Th......
-
Marcellus Shale Coal. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. of Pa., 573 M.D. 2016
...also guided by the doctrine of ejusdem generis , which means "of the same kind or class." Department of Environmental Protection v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP , 628 Pa. 17, 102 A.3d 962, 976 (2014). This doctrine provides that when general expressions such as "including" or "including, b......
-
Ball v. Chapman
... ... See Ne. Ohio Coal. for the ... Homeless v. Husted , 137 S.Ct ... marks omitted); see also Dep't of Env't Prot. v ... Cumberland Coal Res. , 102 A.3d ... ...
-
Leight v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Physicians
...the legislature's intent may be determined by considering any of the factors enumerated in Section 1921(c). DEP v. Cumberland Coal , 628 Pa. 17, 102 A.3d 962, 975 (2014). These factors include the occasion and necessity for the statute; the object to be attained; and the consequences of a p......