W. R. Grace and Company (ALJ decision, February 27, 1981)

Plain-English summary

W. R. Grace contested three enforcement actions at its Bonny Lake Mine arising from alleged violations by an independent contractor. MSHA later reported that the contractor had paid the assessments for two citations and that it had not assessed the third because the alleged violation did not involve a mandatory standard. MSHA treated the contractor as solely responsible for the two paid violations and sought no further sanction against W. R. Grace. Judge George A. Koutras granted MSHA's motion and dismissed all three contests. This order assessed no penalty against W. R. Grace.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: None identified in this dismissal order.
• Outcome: Three contests dismissed; no penalty imposed on W. R. Grace in this order.
• Key point: MSHA treated the contractor as solely liable for two paid violations and did not assess the third citation because it viewed the alleged violation as outside a mandatory standard.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
W. R. GRACE v. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19810227
TTEXT:
~601
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

W. R. GRACE AND COMPANY,
Contest of Citation and Orders
CONTESTANT
Docket No. SE 80-98-RM
v. Docket No. SE 80-99-RM
Docket No. SE 80-100-RM
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Citation/Order No. 091430 5/7/80
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
Order No. 091432 5/7/80
Citation No. 091433 5/7/80
INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION,
Bonny Lake Mine
RESPONDENTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

These consolidated contests were scheduled for hearing in Tampa, Florida, February 3, 1981. However, the hearing was continued to afford respondent MSHA an opportunity to furnish additional information concerning certain enforcement actions taken against an independent contractor who allegedly was responsible for the violations which prompted the filing of these contests by the contestant. This additional information has been filed by MSHA and it reflects that the independent contractor has paid the full assessment for two of the citations which it did not contest, and the remaining citation was not assessed because MSHA is of the view that the alleged violation did not involve a mandatory standard. Further, MSHA asserts that it considers the contractor who has paid the assessments in question to be solely liable and responsible for the violations and it seeks no further action or sanctions against the contestant.

Order

In view of the foregoing, and in light of a full disclosure of all of the circumstances presented in these proceedings, MSHA's motion to dismiss these contests is GRANTED, and they are DISMISSED.

George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge