Consolidation Coal Company (ALJ decision, October 1, 1986)

Plain-English summary

Consolidation Coal Company was cited under 30 C.F.R. § 75.902 after the ground-check circuit and its backup system at the Ireland UG Mine were found inoperative. The penalty was originally assessed at $750. The Secretary sought a reduction because the backup failure resulted from a manufacturer's defect and the operator had not known that the systems were not working. Judge Paul Merlin rejected an initial $100 settlement because of the violation's seriousness, then approved the parties' revised $250 agreement. He ordered payment within 30 days and urged measures to prevent a recurrence.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.902
• Outcome: A $250 settlement was approved in place of the $750 assessment, payable within 30 days.
• Key point: The judge required a higher settlement than first proposed despite the reduced negligence finding.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. CONSOLIDATION COAL
DDATE:
19861001
TTEXT:

~1519

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. WEVA 86-112
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 46-01438-03631

v. Ireland UG Mine

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Merlin

The Solicitor has filed a motion to approve settlement of the one violation involved in this case. The originally assessed penalty was $750. The proposed settlement is for $250.

The Solicitor's motion discusses the violation in light the six criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Order No. 2714192 was issued for violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.902 because of the inoperative state of the failsafe ground check circuit. A back-up ground check system was not functioning due to a manufacturer's defect. The Solicitor represents that a reduction in the proposed penalty is justified because the negligence of the operator was less than was originally thought. The company was not aware that the circuit and back-up system were not working. The parties had proposed a settlement of $100. Because of the seriousness of the violation, the initial proposed settlement was rejected and the parties were advised to reconfer. A settlement in the amount of $250 was then proposed.

The representations and recommendations of the parties are now accepted. However, the operator should take whatever action is necessary including discipline, if appropriate, to prevent any recurrence of such an incident.

~1520
Accordingly, the motion to approve settlement is GRANTED and the operator is ORDERED TO PAY $250 within 30 days of the date of this decision.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge