Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. v. Mine Safety and Health Administration
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
476 F.3d 946 (2007)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
On January 19, 2001, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) (defendant) issued rules limiting the concentration of diesel particulate matter (DPM) in underground mines. The rules were based on MSHA’s findings that miners were being exposed to high levels of DPM and that DPM exposure caused adverse health effects. These findings were the result of a risk assessment through which MHSA took into account an exhaustive analysis of data and scientific literature. From these findings, MHSA concluded that prolonged exposure to elevated levels of DPM caused increased risks of eye irritation, pulmonary issues, bronchial inflammation, and lung cancer. MHSA found that nanoparticles emitted from newer engines, as opposed to DPM, could also cause harmful health effects, but the effect of nanoparticles was not yet fully known in the medical community. MSHA additionally found that there was no reliable method to measure DPM directly and, therefore, determined that total carbon (TC) should be measured as a surrogate for DPM. MHSA deemed TC to be an appropriate surrogate because evidence indicated that TC typically made up over 80 percent of DPM. Throughout the rulemaking process, commenters argued that TC was not a reliable surrogate, contending that TC measurement was subject to interference from other organic carbon compounds, such as tobacco smoke. Nonetheless, MSHA found that the interference problem could be avoided through the measuring of TC distant from any sources of potential interference. MHSA also determined that it would be feasible for the industry to comply with the concentration limits through the use of numerous control technologies. Numerous mining industry groups, including the National Mine Association, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, and several mine operators (collectively, the industry groups) (plaintiffs) petitioned for judicial review of the MHSA rules, challenging the rules as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The industry groups argued that MHSA failed to establish that DPM was a substantial health risk, failed to consider whether preexisting regulations were sufficient, and ignored the potential for newer engines to increase the number of harmful nanoparticles in mines.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sentelle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.