Citation Details


Back to citations


Section: 56.14101a2
Date: 05/22/2013
District:
Negligence: Low
Injury or Illness: Unlikely
Injury or illness could be expected to be: Fatal
Significant and Substantial: No

Condition or Practice: When tested, the parking brake on the Caterpillar D440 Haul Truck (S/N
8PS00647) was not capable of holding the equipment with its typical load on
the maximum grade the haul truck travels. The haul truck was observed hauling
reject sand at the time of the inspection. The parking brake was tested with
a typical load on the exit hill where the truck was being loaded throughout
the shift. Should the vehicle roll unexpectedly with a defective parking
brake, a miner would be subjected to severe injuries from being struck by the
loader.

Action to Terminate: We hired Michigan Cat to inspect the brakes fearing that they were wore out. They were in great condition, the technician explained to us that on this style of truck when the parking brake is applied while the unit is running it only engages the front axle, when it is shut off there is a drive line lock that engages all of the axles. The units wouldn't pass the standard perfectly while the unit was running so we installed a toggle switch that could be used to engage the rear two axles so that the unit could pass the standard.

Why this concerns you: The equipment was in good working condition, but by design it wouldn't pass the standard as it was never designed to be parked on a grade loaded. The service brakes worked great on the grade so it wasn't a question of whether it was too steep of a grade. It concerns me when we start to have to modify equpiment beyond manufacturers standards to meet MSHA standards. At what point are we jepordizing the integrity of the equipment? And across the board this isn't a cost effective way to do busineses, buy a piece of equipment designed to do the function that you are asking it to do and then modify it to meet MSHA standards. That concerns me greatly.



Abatement Suggestions From Industry


There are no abatements posted for this citation. Add your suggestion below.


Post a Comment


We have provided a place where you can post your professional comment or add additional information regarding this citation. Before doing so, please read the following guidelines:

Be nice!
If you are angry, step back and take a breath.

Post like you are talking to someone face-to-face. Better yet, post it like your mother is going to read it.

Don't discuss anything that might be construed as restraining trade. Nothing about boycotts and we certainly don't want to read about the price of rock.


Be honest!
Keep it factual. There is absolutely no need to exaggerate; some citations are hard enough to believe as is. Mine safety is important and those who visit the site must be able to rely on posts being accurate.


We review all posts
Sorry, but all posts come to us first. We want this site to be effective, and we want you to use it. The site can only be effective if it is legal and professional. If we get something that isn't both, we won't post it. None of us want that to happen.


No Guarantees
Anyone who has been a mine safety professional for long knows what one inspector approves, another may consider a violation. As much as we would like to, we cannot guarantee any solution offered here will work for your situation. We certainly hope what others have done provides helpful ideas, but we aren't willing to bet the farm on it passing an inspection and you shouldn't either.


Your name and email will not be shown when you post your comment. We ask for these fields because it helps us identify association members and keeps spam off the website.

Your Name

Your Email

Member Of

*

Comment


Any comments or opinions shown on this website reflect the views and opinions of the individuals or organization who posted them and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the parties sponsoring or supporting this website. The sponsors are not responsible for the content of any comment posted on this website.