U.S. Coal, Incorporated

Plain-English summary

U.S. Coal's electrician worked on an energized 480-volt circuit without de-energizing it or locking out and tagging the disconnecting devices. He suffered an electrical shock and burns, and later experienced lasting work-related impairments described in the decision. The Commission held that the electrician was not the operator's agent for imputing negligence, so Judge William Fauver reassessed the penalties without that factor. He found the violations serious and significant and substantial, but reduced the penalties from $4,000 each to $2,000 each, for a total of $4,000.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.509 and 75.511
• Outcome: The violations remained established, and the total penalty was modified from $8,000 to $4,000.
• Key point: Penalty reassessment after remand omitted negligence imputable to the operator but still accounted for the serious gravity of the violations.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041
February 5, 1996

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : Docket No. SE 93-119
Petitioner : A.C. No. 40-01977-03619
v. :
: Mine No. 3-2
U.S. COAL, INCORPORATED, :
Respondent :

                  DECISION ON REMAND

 This is an action for civil penalties under § 105(d) of the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801
et seq.

 After a hearing I entered a decision on March 29, 1994,

holding that Respondent violated the regulations cited in the two
citations involved. I also held that the violations were
significant and substantial and that gross negligence of
Respondent’s electrician was imputable to Respondent. I
assessed civil penalties of $4,000 for each violation.

 In review of my decision, on October 30, 1995, the

Commission held that the electrician was not an agent of the
operator and his negligence was therefore not imputable to the
operator. It reversed my determination that the electrician’s
gross negligence was imputable to the operator, and remanded the
case to me for assessment of appropriate civil penalties.

 This decision will reassess civil penalties without

imputation of negligence.

 The electrician was called to repair an electrical

malfunction in a continuous mining machine. He opened the
electrical panel cover and began work with a screwdriver without
de-energizing the power circuits and without locking out and
tagging disconnecting devices for the 480-volt circuit he was
working on.

 While trying to repair the energized circuit, the

electrician received a severe electrical shock. Other miners saw
him shaking, and cut the power off. He continued to shake so
badly that it took five miners to hold him down and transport him

Page 2

to the surface. At the hospital he was treated for electrical
shock and burns to his hand.

 Because of his injuries, the electrician was absent from

work for two to three months. When he returned, he showed signs
of memory loss and impaired mental condition that were not
present before the electrical shock. Because of his deteriorated
mental condition, which included an inability to understand,
remember and follow work rules and safety standards, the company
terminated his employment.

 The electrician violated the two cited safety standards.

Section 75.509 of 30 C.F.R. requires that all power circuits and
electrical equipment be de-energized before doing electrical
work. Section 75.511 provides that no electrical work shall be
performed on circuits or equipment without locking out the
circuits and tagging the disconnecting devices. The violations,
as found previously, were significant and substantial.

 Under the Mine Act, the operator is liable without fault for

the electrician’s violations. Since the Commission has ruled
that the electrician’s negligence is not to imputable to the
operator, the civil penalties will be reassessed on the basis of
the other five statutory criteria, i.e., omitting the factor of
fault or negligence. 1

 Respondent is a relatively small operator. There is no

issue with respect to its financial condition or its compliance
history. Those factors are therefore neither a plus or a minus.
Respondent demonstrated good faith in attempting to achieve rapid
compliance after notification of the two violations.2 This is a

 1
   The statutory standards for assessing civil penalties for

violations are set forth in § 110(i) of the Act, as follows:

 “The Commission shall have authority to assess all civil

penalties provided in this chapter. In assessing civil monetary
penalties, the Commission shall consider the operator’s history
of previous violations, the appropriateness of such penalty to
the size of the business of the operator charged, whether the
operator was negligent, the effect on the operator’s ability to
continue in business, the gravity of the violation, and the
demonstrated food faith of the person charged in attempting to
achieve rapid compliance after notification of violation. * * *.”
2
Inspector McDaniel testified that the practices cited were
corrected by the company holding a safety meeting, at which
Inspector McDaniel again cautioned management and the

                            2

Page 3

plus.

 The remaining factor is the gravity of the violations. The

violations were very serious and could have resulted in death.
As found in my original decision, the electrician not only
endangered himself, but put other miners at risk. The high
degree of gravity warrants a substantial civil penalty.

 On balance, I find that civil penalties of $2,000 for each

violation are appropriate. This is a reduction of 50 percent
from my original assessment of penalties.

                          ORDER

 Respondent shall pay civil penalties of $4,000 within 30

days of the date of this decision.

                                  William Fauver
                                  Administrative Law Judge

electricians as to the rules for de-energizing circuits and
locking and tagging them out before doing electrical work.

                            3

Page 4

Distribution:

Susan E. Long, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. Of
Labor, 4015 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203
(Certified Mail)

Charles A. Wagner, III, Esq., Wagner, Myers & Sanger, P.O.
Box 1308, Knoxville, TN 37901 (Certified Mail)

                            4