Greenwich Collieries, Division of Pennsylvania Mines Corporation

Plain-English summary

Greenwich Collieries faced a civil penalty proceeding for a section 103(k) violation at its No. 1 Mine. A section foreman entered an area covered by a withdrawal order after a methane explosion, and the parties proposed reducing the $1,000 assessment to $550. Judge George A. Koutras found that confusion created by later changes to the withdrawal order supported the reduced penalty, along with the absence of likely injury or affected workers. He found the settlement reasonable and in the public interest, approved it, and ordered payment within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provision(s): 30 U.S.C. § 813(k), § 819(c), and § 820(i), with settlement procedure under 29 C.F.R. § 2700.30.
• Outcome: The proposed penalty was reduced from $1,000 to $550, and the proceeding was to be dismissed after payment.
• Key point: A settlement reduction may be approved when the parties explain the violation, the penalty criteria, and the basis for reduced negligence and gravity findings.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. GREENWICH COLLIERIES
DDATE:
19850903
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1378
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. PENN 85-113
PETITIONER A.C. No. 36-02405-03585
v.
Greenwich Collieries No. 1 Mine
GREENWICH COLLIERIES,
DIVISION OF PENNSYLVANIA
MINES CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT

                       DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Koutras

                          Statement of the Case

 This is a civil penalty proceeding filed by the petitioner

against the respondent pursuant to section 110(a) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a), seeking a
civil penalty assessment in the amount of $1,000 for a violation
of section 103(k) of the Act. By motion filed with me on August
20, 1985, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, the parties seek
approval of a proposed settlement disposition of the case, the
terms of which require the respondent to pay a civil penalty
assessment in the amount of $550 for the violation in question.

                                Discussion

 In support of the proposed settlement disposition of this

matter, the parties state that they have discussed the alleged
violation and the six statutory criteria stated in section 110(i)
of the Act. Further, they have submitted a complete discussion
and full disclosure as to the facts and circumstances surrounding
the issuance of the violation, and they have filed full
information concerning the criteria found in section 110(i).

 Petitioner's counsel stated that the section 104(a)

Citation, No. 2114018, March 15, 1984, was issued pursuant to
section 109(c) of the Act when the inspector determined that a
section foreman entered and worked in an area which was subject
to an order of withdrawal issued pursuant to section 103(k). The
section foreman was not among those authorized to enter the area
under

Page 3

~1379
order. Counsel explains that the original section 103 order was
issued on February 16, 1984, following a methane explosion which
resulted in three deaths. The order listed who was permitted to
enter the area specified, e.g. State and MSHA officials, company
representatives and UMWA personnel necessary to conduct rescue
operations. Subsequent modifications of the original order created
confusion as to what work could be done in the cited area, resulting
in the entrance of section foreman Richard Endler into the prohibited
area to perform rock dusting. The mine was idle at the time and was
not reopened until April due to the ongoing investigation. While it
is clear that a violation of section 109(c) occurred, petitioner's
counsel believes the assessment of "high" negligence is not warranted.
Inasmuch as there was no likelihood of an occurrence, as found by the
issuing inspector, and no workers would be affected, counsel asserts
further that the proposed amended civil penalty is proper in view
of the minimal gravity.

                               Conclusion

 After careful review and consideration of the pleadings,

arguments, and submissions in support of the motion to approve
the proposed settlement of this case, I conclude and find that
the proposed settlement disposition is reasonable and in the
public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30,
the motion IS GRANTED and the settlement IS APPROVED.

                                 ORDER

 Respondent IS ORDERED to pay a civil penalty in the amount

of $550 in satisfaction of the citation in question, and payment
is to be made to MSHA within thirty (30) days of the date of this
decision and order. Upon receipt of payment, this proceeding is
dismissed.

                                  George A. Koutras
                                  Administrative Law Judge