Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (ALJ decision, September 29, 1987)

Plain-English summary

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. faced three violations at the No. 4 Mine involving material transport, roof control, and inspection requirements. The original penalties totaled $2,600, and the parties proposed settlements totaling $1,900. Judge Paul Merlin approved the reductions for the material-transport and roof-control violations and accepted the originally assessed $1,000 for the inspection violation. He approved the settlement, dismissed the related contest in Docket No. SE 87-56-R, and ordered the operator to pay $1,900 within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.1403-7(k), 75.200, and 75.303.
• Outcome: The settlement was approved, the related contest was dismissed, and the total penalty was reduced from $2,600 to $1,900.
• Key point: The settlement accounted for the lower gravity of the material-transport and roof-control violations while retaining the original penalty for the inspection violation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. JIM WALTER
DDATE:
19870929
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1713

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 87-95
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 01-01247-03768

v. No. 4 Mine

JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC.,

RESPONDENT

JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC.,
CONTEST PROCEEDING
CONTESTANT
v. Docket No. SE 87-56-R
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Order No. 2810626; 2/4/87
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
No. 4 Mine
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

ORDER TO PAY

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Merlin

The parties have submitted a joint motion to approve settlements of the three violations involved in this case. The total of the originally assessed penalties was $2,600 and the total of the proposed settlements is $1,900.

The motion discusses the violations in light of the six statutory criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Order No. 2811815 was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.1403-7K because an employee was riding in the service cage while material was being transported therein. This penalty was assessed at $500 and the proposed settlement is for $350. The parties represent that a reduction from the original amount is warranted on the basis that gravity is less than originally assessed because the equipment being transported consisted of 2 ram bar assemblies. These assemblies are approximately 4 or 5 feet long and are approximately 10 inches in diameter. The assemblies are also very heavy and

Page 3

~1714
therefore would not easily slide across the floor of the cage. Thus, the likelihood of a resulting injury is not as great as originally thought. I accept the foregoing representations and approve the recommended settlement.

Order No. 2810449 was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R.
75.200 because the approved roof control plan was not being complied with. The roof control plan requires that when fully grouted resin rods are used, that they shall be installed within 8 hours after the coal is mined or loaded, or the area shall be supported with temporary supports. In this instance, the cutting of the faces was concluded on the day shift at approximately 3:00 p.m. The roof bolting machine then became disabled on the evening shift and prevented the commencement of bolting operations. The order was issued at approximately 1:00 a.m. on the night shift. Once the roof bolting machine was repaired, the operator bolted the No. 2 entry with resin pins and temporarily supported the No. 2 entry. This penalty was originally assessed at $1,100 and the proposed settlement is for $550. The parties represent that a reduction from the original amount is warranted because gravity is less than originally assessed in that the roof remained intact, even after ten hours of cutting, which permitted the proper installation of the resin bolts. I accept the foregoing representations and approve the recommended settlement.

Order No. 2810626 was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R.
75.303 because the operator failed to comply with pre-shift and on-shift inspection requirements. The operator has agreed to pay the originally assessed amount of $1,000. I approve this settlement and hereby DISMISS the corresponding Notice of Contest to this order, Docket No. SE 87-56-R.

Accordingly, the joint motion to approve settlement is APPROVED and the operator is ORDERED TO PAY $1,900 within 30 days from the date of this decision.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge