Secretary of Labor v. Carey Salt - Division of Processed Minerals, Inc. (ALJ decision, December 10, 1984)

Plain-English summary

MSHA cited Carey Salt's underground salt mine after parked railcars moved from a spur track and struck other cars, fatally injuring an employee near the loading dock. The citation alleged that the parked cars lacked the required positive action stopblock. The parties proposed settling the $4,000 penalty case for $3,000 and said the company's practice had been to rely on hand brakes that had not previously drawn a citation. Judge George A. Koutras found the proposed settlement reasonable and approved it. Carey Salt must pay $3,000 within 30 days; the case is dismissed after payment.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. § 57.9-20 on blocking parked railcars.
• Outcome: Settlement approved at a $3,000 civil penalty, reduced from the $4,000 proposal.
• Key point: The settlement accounted for the serious accident and the parties' explanation of the mine's prior braking practice.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. CAREY SALT
DDATE:
198412010
TTEXT:

~2724

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. CENT 84-67-M
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 14-00412-05501
v.
Carey Rock Salt Mine
CAREY SALT - DIVISION OF
PROCESSED MINERALS, INC.,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Koutras

Statement of the Case

This proceeding concerns a civil penalty proposal 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 $4,000, for a violation of mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R. 57.9-20.

The respondent filed a timely answer contesting the violation, and the case was scheduled for hearing in Witchita, Kansas, on November 27, 1984. However, by joint motion filed by the parties pursuant to Commission Rule 30, 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, they seek my approval of a proposed settlement of the case, the terms of which include an agreement by the respondent to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $3,000, for the violation in question.

Discussion

In support of the proposed settlement disposition of this case, the parties have submitted a full discussion of the six statutory criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act. The parties state that the respondent is a small operator engaged in the operation of an underground salt mine and that the settlement amount is appropriate to the size of

~2725
the operation and will not affect the respondent's ability to continue in business. The parties also state that the respondent has a good compliance history and abated the violation within a reasonable period of time.

The parties are in agreement that the gravity of the violation was serious, and that the violation contributed to an accident. According to the information in the pleadings filed by the petitioner, the citation was issued because four railroad cars, parked on a spur track east of the mill loading dock, were not blocked by a positive action stopblock as required by section 57.9-20. The four parked cars ran off the spur track and struck three cars near the loading dock; these three cars, in turn, moved forward and crushed an employee against the car at the loading dock, causing fatal injuries. The petitioner believes that had the cars on the spur track been securely blocked, the accident would not have occurred.

In further support of the proposed settlement, the parties assert that several mitigating circumstances dictate that the degree of negligence be modified from moderate to low. The parties state that it had been the custom and practice of respondent to park railroad cars on the spur track and to use the parking (hand) brake on the railroad cars to keep them from moving. This practice was in effect prior to MSHA inspections and was not cited. The parties also state that it is probable that some moisture accumulated around the brake shoe which froze and then thawed out, thereby contributing to the brake not holding.

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

The respondent IS ORDERED to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $3,000, in satisfaction of the violation in question, and payment is to be made to the petitioner within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision and order. Upon receipt of payment, this case is DISMISSED.

George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge