Consolidation Coal Company

Plain-English summary

Consolidation Coal Company faced a civil penalty proceeding over roof-bolt spacing at its Blacksville No. 1 Mine. The Secretary alleged that four rows of bolts in the P-3 section did not comply with the approved roof-control plan, exposing miners to roof-fall hazards. The parties disputed whether all of the cited roof was exposed and whether the more restrictive spacing requirement applied, but the company was already correcting the condition when it was cited. Judge George A. Koutras approved a settlement under which the company must pay $30 instead of the proposed $168, and ordered dismissal after payment.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.200
• Outcome: The settlement was approved and the civil penalty was reduced from $168 to $30, with dismissal after payment.
• Key point: Prompt correction and the parties' differing views about the applicable roof-control spacing supported approval of the reduced settlement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. CONSOLIDATION COAL
DDATE:
19870414
TTEXT:

Page 2

~786

          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 86-482
PETITIONER A.C. No. 46-01867-03691

     v.                               Blacksville No. 1 Mine

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                    DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Koutras

                        Statement of the Case

 This is a civil penalty proceeding filed by the petitioner

against the respondent pursuant to section 110(a) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a), seeking a
civil penalty assessment in the amount of $168 for an alleged
violation of mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R. 75.200, as
stated in a section 104(a) Citation No. 2712924, issued at the
mine on August 5, 1986.

 The respondent filed a timely answer and contest, and the

case was scheduled for hearing in Morgantown, West Virginia, on
April 21, 1987. However, the petitioner has filed a motion
pursuant to Commission Rule 30, 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, seeking
approval of a settlement of the case. The proposed settlement
agreement requires the respondent to pay a civil penalty
assessment in the amount of $30 for the violation in question.
Discussion

 In support of the proposed settlement disposition of this

case, the petitioner has submitted information pertaining to the
six statutory civil penalty criteria found in section 110(i) of
the Act. In addition, the petitioner has submitted a full
discussion and disclosure as to the facts and circumstances
surrounding the issuance of the citation in question, and a
reasonable justification for the reduction of the original
proposed civil penalty assessment.

Page 3

~787
In support of its argument with respect to the reduction of the
initial civil penalty assessment, petitioner states that the
citation was issued when the inspector found that the approved
roof-control plan was not being complied with on the PÄ3 section.
The approved roof-control plan requires maximum 60Äinch spacing
under normal roof conditions and 48Äinch spacing when there are
exposed roof conditions. The inspector observed four rows of
bolts in the No. 2 entry spaced 58 to 66 inches apart, and the
bolts had been incorrectly installed on the previous midnight
shift. However, the respondent was in the process of repairing
the cited condition at the time the inspector issued the
violation. When the day shift came on the section that morning,
the continuous miner operators observed the bolt spacing problems
and alerted the section foreman, and initial steps had already
been taken to rebolt the area. The continuous miner had been
moved back and supplies brought to the immediate area.

 The petitioner asserts that while the roof-control plan

required 60Äinch bolt spacing for non-exposed roof and 40-inch
spacing for exposed roof, it was the inspector's opinion that the
roof was exposed in this area and, therefore, subject to the 48
inch spacing requirement. The respondent, on the other hand, was
of the opinion that not all of the areas cited by the inspector
constituted exposed roof, thus, making two of the areas within
the 60Äinch spacing requirement. The respondent would present
evidence by way of extensive testimony that not all of the roof
was exposed and, therefore, the violation was not as extensive as
cited by the inspector.

 The petitioner states that the reduced civil penalty

assessment properly considers the gravity and probability of harm
associated with the violation. Recognizing the fact that
inadequate roof bolting exposed miners working in the area to the
hazards of a roof fall, petitioner asserts that the fact that the
violation came into existence during the end of the last shift
and actions were taken to correct the condition would reduce the
likelihood of such an occurrence. Further, the petitioner points
out that the respondent clearly demonstrated a good faith effort
to abate the violative condition in that roof bolters were about
to install additional bolts, and in fact, four additional rows of
bolts were installed to reduce the spacing within 1 hour that the
condition was cited.

Page 4

~788
Conclusion

 After careful review and consideration of the pleadings,

arguments, and submissions in support of the motion to approve
the proposed settlement of this case, I conclude and find that
the proposed settlement disposition is reasonable and in the
public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30,
the motion IS GRANTED, and the settlement IS APPROVED.

                             ORDER

 Respondent IS ORDERED to pay a civil penalty in the amount

of $30 in satisfaction of the citation in question within thirty
(30) days of the date of this decision and order, and upon
receipt of payment by the petitioner, this proceeding is
dismissed.

                             George A. Koutras
                             Administrative Law Judge