Quarto Mining Company

Plain-English summary

Quarto Mining Company was cited for excessive respirable dust at a designated occupation and loose coal along a belt conveyor at the Powhatan No. 4 Mine. Judge James A. Broderick approved the parties' settlement, which reduced the proposed penalties from $2,850 to $1,324. The settlement amount reflected the operator's dust-control plan revision, a belt misalignment that caused intermittent spillage, and its favorable violation history.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 70.100(a) and 75.400
• Outcome: The settlement was approved and Quarto Mining Company was ordered to pay $1,324.
• Key point: The ALJ approved a reduced settlement after considering the operator's abatement efforts, the cause of the belt spillage, and its compliance history.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. QUARTO MINING
DDATE:
19861106
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1662

       Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
             Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. LAKE 85-24
PETITIONER A.C. No. 33-01157-03680

      v.                            Powhatan No. 4 Mine

QUARTO MINING COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Broderick

 On October 30, 1986, the Secretary of Labor filed a motion

for approval of a settlement reached by the parties in this case.
The violations were originally assessed at $2850 and the parties
propose to settle for $1324.

 This docket contains two alleged violations, one of 30

C.F.R. 70.100(a) because the average concentration of
respirable dust in the environment of a designated occupation
exceeded 2.0 mg/m# (it was 3.3 mg/m3); the other alleged
violation was of 30 C.F.R. 75.400 because of an accumulation of
loose coal along a belt conveyor the first named violation was
assessed at $1000; the second at $1850. The settlement agreement
reduces them to $424 and $900.

 The motion states that the operator was in the process of

revising its dust control plan at the time the citation was
issued. A revised plan was submitted in July 1984 and it has been
successful in reducing respirable dust violations. With respect
to the accumulations violation, the motion states that it
resulted from intermittent spillage due to a misalighed belt and
would be cleaned up in accordance with its clean up plan.
Respondent has a favorable history of prior violations.

 I have considered the motion in the light of the criteria in

section 110(i) of the Act and conclude that it should be
approved.

 Accordingly, the settlement is APPROVED and Respondent is

ORDERED TO PAY the sum of $1324 within 30 days of the date of
this order.

                    James A. Broderick
                    Administrative Law Judge