Amarillo Road Company

Plain-English summary

Amarillo Road Company operated a limestone mine and crushing operation with 16 to 18 miners. MSHA cited the company after an employee went under an unsecured conveyor section and suffered two broken legs and a broken back. Judge George A. Koutras found that the company was not negligent and that the conveyor was resting at an angle against a bin, with its other end on the ground, rather than hanging free from a lifting device. He held that the condition was not a suspended load covered by 30 C.F.R. § 56.16009. The citation was vacated and the $30 civil penalty proposal was dismissed.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.16009
• Outcome: Citation No. 2660902 was vacated and the civil penalty proposal was dismissed.
• Key point: The suspended-load standard did not apply where one end of a conveyor rested on the ground and the other rested against a bin without being held by a crane or other lifting apparatus.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. AMARILLO ROAD
DDATE:
19870113
TTEXT:

Page 2

~84

        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 86-93-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 41-03327-05501
v.
Crusher No. 2 Mine
AMARILLO ROAD COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                            DECISION

Appearances: Rebecca A. Siegel, Esq., Office of the
Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Dallas,
Texas, for the Petitioner;
E.E. Clark, Secretary-Treasurer, Amarillo
Road Company, Amarillo, Texas, pro se,
for the Respondent.

Before: Judge Koutras

                      Statement of the Case

 This proceeding concerns a proposal for assessment of civil

penalty 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 of
$30 for an alleged violation of mandatory safety standard 30
C.F.R. 56.16009. The respondent filed an answer denying the
violation, and a hearing was held in Amarillo, Texas, on December
11, 1986. The parties waived the filing of posthearing briefs,
but I have considered their oral arguments made on the record in
the course of my adjudication of this matter.

                             Issues

  The issues presented in this proceeding are as follows:

      1. Whether the respondent violated the cited mandatory
      safety standard, and if so, the appropriate civil
      penalty to be assessed

Page 3

~85
for the violation based on the criteria found in
section 110(i) of the Act.

      2. Additional issues raised by the parties are
      identified and discussed in the course of this
      decision.

Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

 1. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Pub.L.

95-164, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

  2. Section 110(i) of the 1977 Act, 30 U.S.C.   820(i).

  3. Commission Rules, 20 C.F.R.   2700.1 et seq.

Stipulations

  The parties stipulated to the following (Tr. 5-12):

 1. The respondent's mining activities involve products which

affect interstate commerce, and the respondent is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Act.

 2. The respondent's annual mining production of limestone is

31,615 tons. The respondent is a highway contractor, and its
limestone mining and crushing operations employ from 16 to 18
miners.

 3. The cited condition or practice which resulted in the

issuance of the violation was not the result of any negligence by
the respondent.

 4. For purposes of this case, the respondent has no prior

history of violations.

 5. The inspector's gravity findings, as reflected on the

face of the citation, are accurate and correct.

 6. The respondent exhibited good faith compliance in abating

the cited condition or practice.

                           Discussion

 Section 104(a) "S & S" Citation No. 2660902, issued on

January 9, 1986, cites a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.16009, and
the cited condition or practice is described as follows:

      A serious non-fatal accident occurred on January 2,
      1986, resulting in two broken legs

Page 4

~86
and a broken back when an employee for some unknown
reason walked under an unsecured 47 foot section of
belt conveyor framework which had just been raised
into place but not secured. Moments prior to the
accident, all employees involved in setting the structure
were advised by the foreman to stand clear until more
jacks and supports could be installed to secure the
section of conveyor and related load out bin.

 The citation was terminated on February 5, 1986, and the

termination notice states as follows: "When suspended loads are
required at the crusher plant the employees has (sic) again been
informed of the hazards involved at a safety meeting held on
1-13-86. Employees that violate the foreman's dissuade safety
orders will face dismissal of employment."

MSHA's Testimony and Evidence

 MSHA Inspector Michael C. Sanders, testified as to his

training and experience, and he confirmed that he issued the
citation in question on January 9, 1986, after conducting an
investigation of the accident which occurred on January 2, 1986.

 Mr. Sanders identified photographic exhibits P-1 through P-4

as the conveyor and portable load out bin, and confirmed that he
took the pictures on January 9, 1986. Photograph P-1 shows the
conveyor which fell on the accident victim resting against the
lip of the load out bin; P-2 is a rear view of the bin with
wooden support blocks under the axle; P-3 is similar to P-1; and
P-4 shows a part of the load out bin supported by jacks and
wooden blocks.

 Mr. Sanders sketched a diagram showing the final flow of the

limestone material along the bin feed out conveyor through to the
load out bin, and to the truck load out conveyor (exhibit P-5),
and he explained the processing sequence. He confirmed that the
crusher "plant" consists of portable conveyors and bins which are
moved from location to location as required.

 Mr. Sanders stated that his investigation of the accident

disclosed that at the time of the accident the plant was in the
process of being moved and was in the final stages of assembly.
One end of the conveyor which fell on the employee was elevated
and resting against the lip of the bin as shown

Page 5

~87
in photographs P-1, P-3, and R-1, but the safety chain normally
used to secure the conveyor to the bin to prevent movement once
the assembly is completed was not attached to the bin. The other
end of the conveyor was resting on the ground.

 Mr. Sanders stated that the end of the conveyor which was

resting on the bin was lifted in place to that position by a
front-end loader. Once in place, the loader pulled away and left
the area. The supervisor on the scene, Vicente Loe, noticed that
the three employees who were assembling the plant had not secured
the conveyor chain to the bin as they had been instructed. He
also observed that the weight of the conveyor, as it rested
against the bin, resulted in some movement of the support blocks
under the bin axle. Recognizing these hazards, Mr. Loe left the
scene to bring back the front-end loader to stablize the conveyor
and to secure it to the bin. However, before leaving, Mr. Loe
informed the work crew of the hazard of the unsecured conveyor
and specifically instructed them to stay clear of the conveyor
until he returned with the loader. For some unexplained reason,
the accident victim disregarded Mr. Loe's directives and went
under the conveyor. When he did, movement of the bin blocks
caused the end of the conveyor resting on the bin to fall on the
victim breaking his legs, and his back.

 On cross-examination, Mr. Sanders stated that during his

accident investigation he did not speak with the injured employee
or the other two employees. He confirmed that he had no reason to
question Mr. Loe's version of the accident, and he concluded that
the respondent was not negligent, and that it resulted solely
from the negligence of the injured employee who disregarded Mr.
Loe's instructions to stay clear of the conveyor until it could
be supported by the loader and secured by the chain.

 Mr. Sanders confirmed that the conveyor which fell and

struck the employee was not "suspended in the air," and that one
end was on the ground, and the other end which fell was elevated
at an angle resting against the bin and the chain was not secured
to the bin. He stated that in the assembly and disassembly of the
conveyor and bin, the conveyor is normally lifted off the ground
by means of an end-loader and placed against the bin until it can
be secured to the bin by a safety chain. According to his
interpretation of section 56.16009, if the safety chain is not
secured to the bin, he considers the conveyor to be "suspended"
within the meaning of that standard, and that is why he cited
this standard. If the conveyor were secured to the bin by the
safety chain, he

Page 6

~88
would not consider the conveyor to be "suspended" and he would
not have issued the citation.

Respondent's Arguments

 The respondent agreed that there is no dispute as to the

facts of this case, and that the inspector's testimony regarding
the circumstances of the accident in question is accurate.
Although Mr. Loe was present in the courtroom, respondent's
representative E.E. Clark stated that he saw no need to call him
as a witness, and that the respondent's position is as stated in
its answer and exhibits filed in this proceeding.

 Mr. Clark took the position that the respondent has not

violated section 56.16009, because the conveyor in question was
not in fact a "suspended load," in that it had been placed at
rest on the bin similar to an inclined plane, or a ladder resting
against a wall. Mr. Clark pointed out that the conveyor was not
free on all sides, or "suspended" or hoisted in the air as the
phrase "suspended load" normally implies. He also argued that
since section 56.16009, is included as part of MSHA's "Materials
Storage and Handling" standards under Subpart O, Part 56, Code of
Federal Regulations, it does not apply in this case because the
conveyor cannot be considered "materials" as that term is used in
the standards appearing in Subpart O.

 Mr. Clark asserted that the respondent's safety rules

(exhibit R-2) require each employee to follow instructions and
not to take chances, and that the hoisting or lifting of objects
over workmen is prohibited.

 Mr. Clark maintained that the accident was not caused by the

respondent's or Mr. Loe's failure to recognize a hazard and react
accordingly in a safe and prudent manner, but was caused by the
negligence of the injured employee who disregarded Mr. Loe's
cautionary instruction to stand clear of the conveyor. Since MSHA
agrees that the respondent was not negligent, Mr. Clark believes
that the respondent should not be held accountable for any
violation. Mr. Clark concludes that since the injured employee
violated his supervisor's order to stand clear, and since the
load was not suspended in the first place, no violation of
section 56.16009 has been established.

 I take note of the fact that as part of its answer to MSHA's

proposal for assessment of civil penalty, the respondent included
a copy of a company accident report filled out and signed by Mr.
Loe on the day of the accident. Mr. Loe

Page 7

~89
stated that when he asked the two employees who were at the scene
for an explanation as to why they did not attach the conveyor
chain or wait until he returned, they responded that "they didn't
know" and "just thought that they could block the bin and took a
chance."

Petitioner's Arguments

 Petitioner asserts that section 56.16009 is a broad standard

which should be liberally construed, and that the inspector's
interpretation and application of the phrase "suspended loads"
was correctly applied and should be affirmed. In response to the
respondent's assertion that since the cited standard appears
under Subpart O, Part 56, dealing with storage and handling of
materials, it is not intended to apply to equipment such as a
conveyor, petitioner cites my prior decision of October 8, 1979,
in Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation, 1 FMSHRC 1191 (August
1979). In that case, I concluded that the cited standard applied
in the case of a motor suspended above a work area.

 In response to the respondent's argument that it should not

be liable for any violation when it is clear that it was not
negligent, and that the accident was caused by the employee's
negligence in failing to follow the safety instructions of his
supervisor, petitioner states that the law is otherwise, and that
the courts and the Commission have consistently ruled that a mine
operator is liable for a violation without regard to fault.

                     Findings and Conclusions

 The respondent in this case is charged with a violation of

mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R. 56.16009, which states that
"Persons shall stay clear of suspended loads." MSHA concedes that
the respondent was not negligent and that the foreman who was
supervising the construction work at the scene of the accident
warned his crew and the injured miner to stand clear of the
conveyor in question until it could be further secured from any
movement.

 Two issues are presented in this case. The first question is

whether or not the respondent can be held liable and accountable
for a violation which resulted from the negligence of one of its
employees who for some unknown reason clearly disregarded his
foreman's instructions to stay clear of the conveyor which fell
and struck him. The second issue is whether or not the cited
mandatory standard section is

Page 8

~90
applicable to the alleged violative condition which prompted the
issuance of the citation.

 The respondent's contention that it cannot be held liable

for a violation of any mandatory safety standard because it was
not negligent is rejected. As correctly stated by the petitioner,
the law is otherwise, and the Commission has consistently held
that under the Mine Act, an operator is liable, without regard to
fault, for violations committed by its employees. Asarco,
Incorporated-Northwestern Mining Department, 8 FMSHRC 1632
(November 1986), and the cases cited therein.

 The term "load" is defined in A Dictionary of Mining,

Mineral, and Related Terms, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1968
Edition, in pertinent part as follows at page 650:

     f. The weight borne by a structure caused by gravity
     alone (dead load) or by gravity increased by the stress
     of moving weight (live load), as in the case of
     hoisting a string of drill rods.

 The term "suspend" is defined in Webster's New Collegiate

Dictionary, in pertinent part as follows: "[T]o hang so as to be
free on all sides except at the point of support."

 In the Pennsylvania Sand Glass case, supra, the inspector

issued a citation based on his belief that someone had performed
work under a scrubber motor which had been lifted up in the air
by a chain hoist and tied off with a safety chain. The inspector
believed that maintenance work was required to be performed in
the area under the motor while it was in that suspended position.
In addressing the question as to whether the standard applied to
the motor, even though it appeared under a "materials storage and
handling" general regulatory section, I concluded that "it may be
applied to a situation where it is established that men are
working under any suspended loads, whether it be "materials',
as that term is commonly understood, or motors or other equipment,"
1 FMSHRC 1208. Although I concluded that the cited section was
applicable, I vacated the citation on the ground that the
inspector failed to describe the alleged violative condition with
any particularity, and that he personally did not observe anyone
working under any suspended load.

 The facts presented in the Pennsylvania Sand Glass case are

clearly distinguishable from the facts presented in the instant
case. In Pennsylvania Sand Glass, the inspector's

Page 9

~91
rationale for issuing the citation was based on his belief that
someone was working under a motor while it was suspended in the
air and held in that position by a chain lifting apparatus. In
the case at hand, there is no evidence that the conveyor belt
structure which fell was tied to any crane or other lifting
apparatus, or was otherwise suspended at the time of the
accident. The evidence established that one end of the conveyor
piece in question had been lifted up by means of a front-end
loader and placed against the side of the bin, while the other
end remained on the ground at an angle. Further, once placed in
that position by the end loader, the loader left the area and was
not holding the end which had been laid to rest against the bin.
Under these circumstances, I cannot conclude that the conveyor
section which fell was a suspended load within the meaning or
intent of section 56.16009, nor can I conclude that the cited
section is applicable on the facts here presented.

 I take note of the fact that the "condition or practice"

cited by the inspector on the face of his citation makes no
reference to any "suspended loads." However, the abatement and
termination notice indicated that abatement was achieved by
informing all employees of the hazards concerning "suspended
loads." The testimony established that the end of the conveyor
which fell was not secured to the end of the bin by a safety
chain which is normally used for this purpose. While it may be
true that the accident could have been prevented by securing the
safety chain, the respondent here is not charged with any safety
infraction for failure to secure the end of the conveyor to the
bin. The respondent is charged with a violation that requires men
to stay clear of a suspended load, and MSHA's theory is that the
conveyor piece which fell was suspended. On the facts of this
case, I cannot conclude that the petitioner has established a
violation of section 56.16009.

                            ORDER

 In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, section

104(a) Citation No. 2660902, January 9, 1986, 30 C.F.R.
56.16009, IS VACATED, and the petitioner's civil penalty proposal
IS DISMISSED.

                George A. Koutras
                Administrative Law Judge