Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (ALJ decision, January 16, 1986)

Plain-English summary

MSHA cited Jim Walter Resources, Inc. for allegedly failing to make a diligent search for fire after cutting operations and for an accumulation of combustible material at its No. 7 Mine. The originally assessed penalties for the two violations totaled $2,500. The Secretary proposed settling them for $1,200. Chief Judge Paul Merlin accepted a $300 settlement for the fire search citation after interpreting the Secretary's position as a concern about the degree of diligence shown. He also accepted the settlement for the accumulation citation because MSHA did not know the extent of the admitted accumulation. The judge approved both settlements and ordered payment of $1,200 within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: The decision does not identify the regulations by number.
• Outcome: Settlement approved for two citations; total payment of $1,200 due within 30 days.
• Key point: The judge accepted reduced penalties based on uncertainty about the search effort and the extent of the combustible material accumulation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. JIM WALTER RESOURCES
DDATE:
19860116
TTEXT:
~79

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. SE 85-134
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 01-01401-03609

v. No. 7 Mine

JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC.,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Merlin

The Solicitor has filed a motion to approve a settlement for the two violations involved in this matter. The originally assessed amounts totalled $2,500 and the proposed settlements are for $1,200.

The first citation was issued for failure to make a diligent search for a fire after cutting operations. After an acetylene and oxygen torch was used to cut a belt header, employees checked for fire and found nothing. But several hours after again searching and using appropriate measuring instruments a fire was found. The Solicitor states inter alia, that the only evidence he has that a diligent search was not made was the failure to find the fire immediately. I have some difficulty understanding the Solicitor's representations but interpret him to be saying that the degree of diligence shown by the operator was not as great as it should have been rather than the inspector's original thought that there was no diligent search. On this basis I accept the Solicitor's representation and approve the recommended settlement of $300.

The second citation was issued for an accumulation of combustible materials. The Solicitor states that although an accumulation admittedly existed, MSHA does not know its extent. On this basis I accept the recommended settlement which is a substantial amount and adequately reflects the described gravity of the violation.
~80
Accordingly, the recommended settlements are Approved and the operator is Ordered to Pay $1,200 within 30 days from the date of this decision.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge