Sulphur Springs Stone Company (ALJ decision, April 9, 1987)

Plain-English summary

Sulphur Springs Stone Company operated a small stone mine in Kentucky with five employees. After the company did not appear at the hearing, Judge James A. Broderick reviewed the Secretary's evidence concerning 26 alleged violations found during an October 8, 1985 inspection. The violations included missing guards, exposed electrical parts, inadequate protective equipment, missing berms, unsafe traffic and access conditions, and other mine-safety problems. The Judge found every violation established and affirmed all citations, assessing a total of $1,530 in civil penalties. The decision states that the mine was no longer operating and that the Secretary stipulated the company made reasonable efforts to achieve compliance after the citations were issued.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. Part 56 standards concerning equipment guarding, electrical safety, protective equipment, berms, explosives-area controls, haulage, and access.
• Outcome: All 26 citations were affirmed, with a combined civil penalty of $1,530.
• Key point: The ALJ found the violations established from the Secretary's evidence after the operator defaulted at the hearing, then set individual penalties based on seriousness, exposure, negligence, and the operator's circumstances.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. SULPHER GAS
DDATE:
19870409
TTEXT:

Page 2

~719

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. KENT 86-32-M
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 15-14035-05502

v. Docket No. KENT 86-39-M
A.C. No. 15-14035-05501
SULPHUR SPRINGS STONE
COMPANY,
No. 1 Mine
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Appearances: Joseph Luckett, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Nashville, Tennessee, for Petitioner;
There was no appearance for Respondent.

Before: Judge Broderick

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In these proceedings, the Secretary seeks civil penalties for a total of 26 alleged violations of mandatory health and safety standards, all being issued during an inspection on October 8, 1985. Respondent by Bill J. Morse, President, filed answers to the petitions. I issued a notice of hearing on January 7, 1987, scheduling the cases for hearing in Owensboro, Kentucky on March 3, 1987. According to the postal return receipt in the file, the notice was received by Bill J. Morse on January 9, 1987. When the case was called for hearing on March 3, 1987, no one appeared for Respondent. An attempt was made by Petitioner's representative to contact Mr. Morse by telephone but was unsuccessful. I found Respondent in default, and directed the Secretary to submit evidence concerning the alleged violations, and concerning the questions of gravity and negligence. Eric Shanholtz testified on behalf of the Secretary. Posthearing briefs were not filed. On the basis of the entire record, I make the following decision.

Page 3

~720
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW COMMON TO ALL ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

1. In 1985, Respondent was the owner and operator of a stone mine in Ohio County, Kentucky, known as the No. 1 Mine. Respondent was subject to the provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (the Act) in the operation of the mine.

2. In 1985, Respondent produced 13,557 tons of stone for a gross dollar amount of $33,892. Five people were employed at the mine. This was the only mine operated by Respondent. Respondent was a small operator.

3. No citations were issued by MSHA to Respondent in the two years prior to October 8, 1985.

4. The mine is no longer in operation. Respondent submitted by mail a copy of what purports to be a 1984 federal income tax return, showing a loss of $62,680 on gross receipts of $43,893.

5. The Secretary has stipulated that Respondent made reasonable efforts to achieve compliance after the citations were issued.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO EACH CITATION DOCKET NO. KENT 86Ä39-M

CITATION 2657202

The citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.13021 because safety chains were not being used on the 2 inch hose going from a compressor to a track drill. The drill was in operation with 90 pounds air pressure. The violation was established, was moderately serious, in that it could have injured employees in the area. The violation was obvious and therefore resulted from Respondent's negligence. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $100.

CITATION 2657221

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14001 because the VÄBelt drive to the discharge conveyor was not guarded. The mill was in operation. The exposed belt was approximately 4 feet from ground level. The violation was established, and was moderately serious, in that it could have resulted in an injury to an employee. The violation was evident and therefore resulted from Respondent's negligence. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $100.

Page 4

~721
CITATION 2657222

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.12032 because a make up box cover was not provided for the drive motor to the discharge conveyor of the hammer mill. The violation was established. It was not serious but resulted from negligence since it was evident. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $20.

CITATION 2657223

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14003 because the head pulley for the feed conveyor to the secondary screen was inadequately guarded. The conveyor was in operation. There was a walkway adjacent. The pinch point was approximately 30 inches from floor level. The violation was established. It was not serious because of low employee exposure. The operator should have known of the violation. Therefore, it resulted from negligence. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $30.

CITATION 2657224

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.1203 because a 110 volt energized receptacle in the electrical shack had a broken face, exposing energized parts. The receptacle was approximately 3 feet from floor level. The violation was established. It was serious because employees could have touched the energized parts. It was evident and, therefore resulted from Respondent's negligence. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $100.

CITATION 2657225

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14001 because three stacking conveyor tail pulleys were not guarded. They were accessible to employees and were at ground level. The violation was established. It was moderately serious because of the possibility of serious injury. Respondent should have been aware of the condition. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $100.

CITATION 2657226

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14035 because a V-belt drive to a conveyor was inadequately guarded. Pinch points, 3 feet from ground level, were accessible to employees. The belt was in operation. The violation was established. It was moderately serious because serious injury could occur. The operator should have been aware of the

Page 5

~722
condition. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $100.

CITATION 2657228

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14001 because the take-up pulley to a rock conveyor was not guarded. There was an exposed pinch point approximately 3 feet from ground level. It was moderately serious because of the likelihood of injury. The condition was evident. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $100.

CITATION 2657227

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.12032 because a drive motor for a rock conveyor was not provided with a makeup box cover. The motor was 6 to 8 feet high and there was low employee exposure. The violation was established. It was not serious. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $20.

CITATION 2657229

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.12032 because a drive motor for another rock conveyor was not provided with a makeup box cover. There was low employee exposure. The violation was established. It was not serious. I conclude that an appropriate penalty for the violation is $20.

DOCKET NO. KENT 86Ä32-M

CITATION 2657203
This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.5003 because an employer was drilling without using the water system thus exposing him to dust. The possibility of injury or disease resulting was not high. The violation was not serious. I conclude that $20 is an appropriate penalty for this violation.

CITATION 2657204

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.15002 because employees were working in the pit and crusher area without hard hats. Hazards in the form of falling rock and flyrock existed in the area. The practice was likely to result in injury. The operator should have been aware of the practice. The violation was established and was moderately serious. I conclude that $75 is an appropriate penalty for this violation.

Page 6

~723
CITATION 2657205

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.15003 because an employee was observed drilling without adequate foot protection. The practice was likely to result in injury. the operator should have been aware of the practice. The violation was established and was moderately serious. I conclude that $75 is an appropriate penalty for this violation.

CITATION 2657206

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.9002 because berms were not provided along the upper bench of the pit, the elevated road leading from the upper bench, and the elevated ramp leading to the crusher charging bin. Front end loaders and dump trucks were operating in these areas. The condition was reasonably likely to result in serious injury. The operator was aware or should have been aware of the condition. The violation was established and was serious. I conclude that $125 is an appropriate penalty for this violation.

CITATION 2657207

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R.
56.4230(a)(1) because three diesel powered pieces of equipment were not provided with fire extinguishers. The violation was established. It was not serious. I conclude that $20 is an appropriate penalty for this violation.

CITATION 2657209

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.6005 because dry grass about two feet high surrounded the powder magazine. The condition was not deemed likely to result in injury because of little employee exposure. The violation was established but was not serious. I conclude that $20 is an appropriate penalty for this violation.

CITATION 2657210

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.6020(i) because suitable danger signs were not posted at the magazine. The condition was unlikely to result in injury. The violation was established and was not serious. I conclude that $20 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657211

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.9002 because an outside mirror was missing from a haul truck. The

Page 7

~724
absence of the mirror was unlikely to result in injury. The violation was established and was not serious. I conclude that
$20 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657212

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.9087 because two haul trucks were not provided with back-up alarms, although the operator's view to the rear was obstructed. Foot traffic in the area was low. The violation was established and was not serious. I conclude that $20 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657213

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14001 because the main shaft for the crusher protruded and provided a pinch point accessible to employees. The crusher was operating. There was a walkway beside the crusher. The condition could result in serious injury. It was evident and the operator should have been aware of it. The violation was established and was moderately serious. I conclude that $100 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657214

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14001 because several V-belt drives on the impact crusher were unguarded. They were 4 to 5 feet from ground level and were accessible to employees. There was foot traffic in the area. The condition was likely to result in serious injury and should have been known to the operator. The violation was established and was moderately serious. I conclude that $100 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657215

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.11012 because of an unguarded opening in the bin by the impact crusher. The bin was about 8 feet deep and was empty. There was foot traffic in the area. The condition was likely to result in injury and the operator should have been aware of it. The violation was established and was moderately serious. I conclude that $75 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657217

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14001 because a V-belt drive to the primary shaker screen was unguarded. The inspector deemed an injury unlikely because of low employee exposure. The condition was evident. The violation was

Page 8

~725
established. It was not serious. I conclude that $30 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657218

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14001 because the tail pulley to the waste rock conveyor was unguarded. A walkway made the exposed pulley accessible to employees. It was approximately 2 feet from floor level. The inspector deemed an injury unlikely because of low employee exposure. The operator should have been aware of the condition. The violation was established and was not serious. I conclude that $30 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657219

This citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14007 because of an inadequate guard on the V-belt drive to the crusher-hammer mill. Two pinch points existed above 30 inches from the floor. The inspector deemed an injury unlikely. The operator should have been aware of the condition. The violation was established but was not serious. I conclude that $30 is an appropriate penalty.

CITATION 2657220

The citation charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.11001 because three conveyors were not adequately provided with handrails. The conveyors were approximately 20 feet from ground level and were used as access to service the head pulleys. The condition was reasonably likely to result in injury and should have been known to Respondent. The violation was established and was moderately serious. I conclude that $80 is an appropriate penalty.
ORDER

Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law IT IS ORDERED:

1. The citations are AFFIRMED.

2. Respondent shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, pay the following civil penalties for violations found herein.

CITATION
PENALTY

2657202
$100
2657221
100
2657222
20
2657223
30
2657224
100
2657225
100
2657226
100
2657228
100
2657227
20

Page 9

2657229
20
2657203
20
2657204
75
2657205
75
2657206 125
2657207
20
2657209
20
2657210
20
2657211
20
2657212
20
2657213 100
2657214 100
2657215
75
2657217
30
2657218
30
2657219
30
2657220
80
-------
Total $1530

Page 10

~726
James A. Broderick
Administrative Law Judge