Shedding Light on MSHA’s Illumination Standard

Quick Hits

• Mine operators often face frustration with MSHA citations alleging insufficient illumination in work areas, as the standards can seem subjective.
• A recent court case reaffirmed that MSHA inspections do not require light measurements to cite violations of illumination standards, focusing instead on the observed working conditions.
• The judge in the case sided with MSHA, emphasizing the importance of safe visibility for critical tasks, despite a contractor’s evidence of sufficient light based on later measurements.

In his situation, a loading area was illuminated by twelve overhead lights, and the loader had a bank of lights on top of the operator’s cab—in addition to manufacturer-provided lights. Two of the twelve overhead lights were out.

Based on these two inoperable lights and the inspector’s observation of the workplace, an S&S (significant and substantial) citation was issued alleging violation of the illumination standard at 30 C.F.R. §56.17001. That standard requires the following: “Illumination sufficient to provide safe working conditions shall be provided in and on all surface structures, paths, walkways, stairways, switch panels, loading and dumping sites, and work areas.”

The inspector did not utilize a light meter to make an objective evaluation of the illumination level. At conference, MSHA reiterated that a light meter was not required and that the inspector’s observations of the work area—and the work that was being performed—was sufficient to justify the citation. The district office modified the citation to non-S&S, and the company decided not to challenge the citation any further.

Recent FMSHRC Case

A recent Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission administrative law judge’s decision casts some light on MSHA’s illumination standard.

 In Saiia Construction Co., LLC, an inspector conducted an inspection of a contractor’s work area following a hazard complaint alleging insufficient illumination. MSHA issued a citation to the contractor alleging a violation of 30 C.F.R. §56.17001.

The focus of the case was the sufficiency of lighting conditions at the worksite at 4:30 a.m. The contractor argued that the lighting conditions were sufficient based on light measurements performed by an industrial hygienist in similar conditions several months after the inspection.

The industrial hygienist utilized a methodology that considered best practices for lighting ranges involving certain tasks identified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Illuminating Engineering Society, and a handbook.

Based on this analysis and the fact that all vehicles in the work area had operable lights, the contractor asserted that the work area had sufficient illumination. The contractor also pointed out that the inspector did not take light measurements.

The judge, however, disagreed. He explained that section 56.17001 does not require light measurements to be conducted to determine if lighting is sufficient.

He further pointed out that the review commission stated in the past that, in determining whether illumination is sufficient to provide safe working conditions, a judge is required “to make a factual determination based on the working conditions in the cited area and the nature of the illumination provided.”

The Judge’s Reasoning

In this regard, the judge noted that the industrial hygienist’s analysis concentrated on the light necessary to perform certain activities but did not see some of the critical tasks—like pushing and dumping material over a substantial drop. To this point, the judge credited an equipment operator who stated that he could not see the outline of the dumping area.

In finding a violation, the judge summarized his reasoning as follows: “This Court recognizes that [the] period of time at issue, which comprised darkness and early twilight, was relatively brief in duration. Nonetheless, it was of sufficient length so as to create a reasonable likelihood of the occurrence of the hazards testified to by the inspector. This Court credits [the equipment operator’s] testimony that it was too dark to see the edge of the dump site when the miners began to operate vehicles.”

Further, the judge noted it was appropriate to credit the opinions and judgment of the MSHA inspector. In this case, he noted that the inspector’s testimony was especially credible given the inspector’s experience.

This decision would probably not relieve the quarry manager’s frustration, but it does provide some parameters to consider if confronted by one of these citations.

Ogletree Deakins’ Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Mine Safety blog as additional information becomes available.

A version of this article was previously published in Pit & Quarry magazine.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts