Alabama By-Products Corp.

Plain-English summary

Alabama By-Products Corp. faced seven contests and two civil penalty proceedings after a fatal accident involving a continuous-mining machine operator. The judge approved settlements for two citations, affirmed several citations and one imminent-danger order, and dismissed the related contests. MSHA had vacated another imminent-danger order as unsupported, so that contest was dismissed. The settlements approved penalties of $6,100 and $900, while the other citations and order were affirmed without a new penalty disposition in this decision.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.1719-1(d), 75.503, and 75.1725(a), with penalty procedure under 29 C.F.R. § 2700.30
• Outcome: Two settlement penalties were approved, multiple citations and one imminent-danger order were affirmed, and the contests were dismissed, including one contest tied to an imminent-danger order MSHA had vacated.
• Key point: A consolidated Mine Act proceeding may resolve different citations and orders through separate affirmances, dismissals, and settlement penalties based on the record for each matter.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS v. SOL (MSHA)
SOL (MSHA) v. ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS
DDATE:
19850829
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1303
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges

ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS CORP., CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
CONTESTANT Docket No. SE 85-18-R
v. Citation No. 2480143; 10/16/84

SECRETARY OF LABOR, Docket No. SE 85-19-R
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH Citation No. 2480144; 10/16/84
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT Docket No. SE 85-20-R
Order No. 2481839; 10/16/84

                                   Docket No. SE 85-21-R
                                   Citation No. 2481840; 10/16/84

                                   Docket No. SE 85-23-R
                                   Citation No. 2481845; 10/16/84

                                   Docket No. SE 85-24-R
                                   Citation No. 2481846; 10/16/84

                                   Docket No. SE 85-26-R
                                   Order No. 2480147; 10/22/84

                                   Segco No. 1 Mine

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. SE 85-82
PETITIONER A.C. No. 01-00347-03604
v.
Docket No. SE 85-89
ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS CORP., A.C. No. 01-00347-03606
RESPONDENT
Segco No. 1 Mine

                           DECISIONS

Appearances: H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Esq., Maynard, Cooper,
Frierson & Gale, and J. Fred McDuff, Alabama
By-Products Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama,
for the Contestant/Respondent;

Page 3

~1304
George D. Palmer and Cynthia Welch, Esqs.,
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of
Labor, Birmingham, Alabama, for the
Respondent/Petitioner.

Before: Judge Koutras

                 Statement of the Proceedings

 These consolidated proceedings concern the captioned

citations and orders issued to the Alabama By-Products
Corporation (ABC) by several mine inspectors pursuant to the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a).
The contests concern ABC's challenge to the legality and
propriety of the citations and orders, and the civil penalty
proceedings concern MSHA's proposed civil penalty assessments for
the alleged violations in question. Hearings were convened on May
14, 1985, in Birmingham, Alabama, and the parties appeared and
participated therein.

                            Issues

 The principal issue presented in these proceedings are (1)

whether ABC violated the provisions of the Act and implementing
regulations as alleged in the proposals for assessment of civil
penalties filed by MSHA, and if so, (2) the appropriate civil
penalties that should be assessed ABC for the alleged violations
based upon the criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act.
Additional issues in connection with the contested citations and
orders are identified and disposed of in the course of these
decisions.

        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, 29 C.F.R.   2700.1 et seq.

                          Discussion

 The citations and orders issued in these proceedings were

issued after the completion of a fatal accident investigation
conducted by MSHA Inspector William E. Herren on October 15,
1984. The accident occurred when a continuous-mining machine
operator was tramming a machine through a crosscut with a remote
control unit and suffered fatal injuries when he was pinned
between the machine and the rib.

Page 4

~1305
Although the parties were prepared to go to trial on all of these
cases, they advised me at the beginning of the hearings that they
had reached a compromise, and proposed to settle all of the
cases. Under the circumstances, the parties were afforded an
opportunity to present arguments on the record in support of
their proposed disposition of the cases (Tr. 5-42). A copy of
MSHA's accident report, and photographs of the cited remote
control unit were received and made a part of the record
(exhibits ALJ-1, R-1 and R-2, and C-8 through C-12).

 The circumstances surrounding each of the contested cases

are as follows:

Docket No. SE 85-24-R

 This proceeding concerns a section 104(a) citation, No.

2481846, with special "S & S" findings, issued by MSHA Inspector
William Herren on October 16, 1984. The inspector cited a
violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.1719-1(d), when he found that certain
working places in the mine where the continuous-mining machine
involved in the accident was operated were not illuminated in
compliance with the cited standard. The inspector found that four
of the illuminated lights installed on the machine were
inoperative.

 MSHA's counsel asserted that while the inspector made no

illumination tests, the citation is supportable, and that if
called to testify, Inspector Herren would confirm that the
inoperative lights resulted in a lack of adequate illumination.
However, given the fact that no tests were made, counsel conceded
that the lack of testing presented a disputed and open legal
question which would be argued by the parties in support of their
respective positions. Given this dispute, the parties proposed to
settle this violation by ABC agreeing to pay a civil penalty in
the amount of $300. Upon approval of this proposal, the parties
agreed that the citation should be affirmed and the contest
dismissed.

 In a posthearing letter filed with me on July 22, 1985,

MSHA's counsel advised me that at the time of the hearing the
parties had anticipated that the proposed civil penalty
assessment for the violation would be $500, and that the proposed
settlement was made on that basis. However, counsel has now
determined that the proposed penalty assessment was actually $91,
and that ABC paid that assessment on March 20, 1985. Under the
circumstances, counsel requested that the citation be affirmed.

Page 5

~1306
Docket No. SE 85-26-R

 This proceeding concerns a section 107(a) imminent danger

order, No. 2480147, issued by MSHA Inspector Newell E. Butler on
October 22, 1984, and subsequently modified on October 22, 1984.
The inspector alleged that the clearance maintained between a
continuous-mining machine and the coal rib was inadequate to
protect the machine operator, and that this condition resulted
from inadequate training by mine management. The order was issued
during the course of the fatality investigation.

 MSHA's counsel asserted that upon further consideration of

this order, including consultation with the inspector, MSHA has
concluded that the order should be vacated. Under the
circumstances, ABC's counsel requested to withdraw the contest,
and agreed that it may be dismissed.

Docket No. SE 85-20-R

 This proceeding concerns a section 107(a) imminent danger

order, No. 2481839, issued by MSHA Inspector William Herren on
October 16, 1984. The order was issued during the course of the
fatality investigation, and Mr. Herren alleged that the remote
control unit on the continuous-mining machine involved in the
accident had been modified in an unauthorized manner, thereby,
rendering the machine non-permissible and in violation of
mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R. 75.503. The order was
subsequently modified by Mr. Herren on November 6, 1984, to
delete his reference to a violation of section 75.503, and it was
amended to allege a violation of section 75.1725(a).

Docket Nos. SE 85-21-R and SE 85-82

 This proceeding concerns a section 104(a) citation, No.

2481840, with special "S & S" findings, issued by Inspector
Herren on October 16, 1984, in conjunction with the issuance of
the imminent danger order noted in Docket No. SE 85-20-R.
Inspector Herren issued the citation for a violation of section
75.503, but he subsequently modified it on November 6, 1984, by
deleting this section and substituting an alleged violation of
section 75.1725(a).

 The parties proposed to settle the civil penalty case

concerning contested Citation No. 2481840, (Docket No. SE 85-82),
and ABC agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $6,100 for
the violation (Tr. 6). The parties also agreed that the imminent
danger order (Docket No. SE 85-20-R) should be affirmed, and that
the contests (Docket No. SE 85-20-R and SE 85-21-R) should be dismissed.

Page 6

~1307
Docket Nos. SE 85-23-R and SE 85-89

 These proceedings concern a section 104(a) citation, No.

2481845, with special "S & S" findings, issued on October 16,
1984. The citation was issued when the inspector found that the
remote radio control unit on a continuous-mining machine which
had been removed from service had been modified in an
unauthorized manner, thereby rendering the machines
non-permissible in violation of mandatory safety standard 30
C.F.R. 75.503.

 The inspector modified the citation on November 19, 1984,

deleting his allegation of a violation of section 75.503, and
amending the violation to allege a violation of section
75.1725(a).

 The parties agreed to an affirmation of the citation and

they proposed to settle the matter by a payment by ABC of a civil
penalty assessment in the amount of $700 (Tr. 6, 7). At the time
of the hearing, MSHA's counsel indicated that he expected the
violation to be assessed at $1,000, but that the circumstances
presented warranted a reduction in the original penalty
assessment.

 In his posthearing letter of July 22, 1985, MSHA's counsel

advised me that while the parties had expected the violation to be
assessed at $1,000, the proposed assessment is actually $1,200
(SE 85-89). Counsel also advised that the parties have agreed to
amend their proposed settlement as stated during the hearing to
reflect an agreement by ABC to pay a civil penalty in the amount
of $900, in full settlement for the citation.

Docket Nos. SE 85-18-R and SE 85-19-R

 These proceedings concern two section 104(a) citations, Nos.

2480143 and 2480144, with special "S & S" findings, issued on
October 16, 1984, by MSHA Inspectors Newell E. Butler and William
Herren. The citations were issued when the inspectors found that
the remote radio control units on two continuous-mining machines
which had been removed from service by the operator had been
modified in an unauthorized manner, thereby rendering the
machines non-permissible in violation of mandatory safety
standard 30 C.F.R. 75.503.

 The inspectors modified the citations on November 19, 1984,

deleting their allegations of violations of section

Page 7

~1308
75.503, and amending the citations to allege violations of
section 75.1725(a).

 The parties proposed to settle these citations by ABC

agreeing to pay civil penalties in the amount of $700 for each of
the citations, or a total of $1,400 in penalties. Upon approval
of their proposal, the parties agreed that the citations should be
affirmed and the contests dismissed.

 In his posthearing letter of July 22, 1985, MSHA's counsel

states that at the time of the hearing the parties had
anticipated proposed civil penalties of approximately $1,000 for
each of the citations. However, counsel has now determined that
the proposed penalties were actually $192 for each citation, and
that the assessments were paid by ABC on February 20, 1985 (SE
85-18-R), and March 5, 1985 (SE 85-19-R). Under the
circumstances, counsel requested that the citations be affirmed.

    Size of Business and Effect of Civil Penalties on the
   Contestant/Respondent's Ability to Continue in Business

 The parties agreed that ABC is a large mine operator and

that the payment of the agreed-upon civil penalties will not
adversely affect its ability to continue in business (Tr. 23-25).

                    Good Faith Compliance

 The record in these proceedings reflects that all of the

conditions or practices cited as violations were promptly abated
by ABC within the time fixed by the inspectors. MSHA's counsel
conceded that this was the case, and he agreed that ABC abated
all of the violations in good faith (Tr. 23-25).

                          Negligence

 MSHA's counsel argued that ABC exhibited a high degree of

negligence with respect to all of the violations in question in
these proceedings. With regard to the continuous-mining machine
citations, counsel asserted the negligence was less than gross,
and that had these cases proceeded to trial, ABC's counsel would
have presented testimony indicating that on prior shifts, the
remote controlled mining machine units were operating properly.

 MSHA's counsel pointed out that while Inspector Herren found

evidence that some of the control units had been

Page 8

~1309
altered by tape or by "whittling" or shaving some of the control
unit levers, these conditions were not readily observable or
detectable through visual inspection, and that the inspector
agreed that this was the case. Counsel also pointed out that
after the accident occurred, the other cited machines were taken
out of service by ABC and were not in use at the time they were
cited. Counsel agreed that the inspector issued the citations in
order to prevent the use of the machines until the defects could
be corrected, and that ABC's actions in taking them out of
service mitigates the negligence with respect to those
violations.

 ABC's counsel asserted that given the fact that his

investigation reflected that the mining machine involved in the
accident was found to be in proper working order on prior shifts,
there is a strong presumption that the accident victim may have
taped the left control lever, thereby, contributing to the
conditions cited by the inspector.

 MSHA's counsel consulted with Inspector Ferren, and he

reportd that Mr. Ferren's investigation did not disclose the
identity of any individuals who may have altered the control
levers on the cited mining machines. Counsel confirmed that
Inspector Ferren had no reason to believe that the required
weekly electrical inspections or preshift examinations were not
conducted as required.

                           Gravity

 I take note of the fact that the inspectors who issued the

citations in these proceedings found a high degree of gravity,
and that they made special findings that the cited violations
were "significant and substantial" (S & S). In addition, although
the parties subsequently agreed to a settlement disposition for
all of the violations in question, the inspector's findings that
they were "S & S" remains, and they agree that the citations are
to be affirmed as issued. Under the circumstances, I conclude and
find that all of the violations in issue in these proceedings are
serious violations.

 With regard to Citation Nos. 2480143, 2480144, and 2481845,

I take note of the fact that in the narrative description of the
cited conditions on the face of each citation form, the inspectors
noted that the citations were a factor which contributed to the
issuance of three additional imminent danger orders issued that same
day. However, all of these orders were subsequently vacated by MSHA as
unsupportable, and I dismissed the cases. Under the circumstances,

Page 9

~1310
MSHA's vacation of the orders mitigates the gravity with respect
to these violations.

                  History of Prior Violations

 MSHA's counsel asserted that ABC has an "average" history of

prior violations, and that its compliance record is not such as
to warrant any additional increases in the civil penalty
assessments proposed for the violations in question. Counsel
confirmed that ABC's prior history does not include previous
citations for defective continuous miner remote control units, or
for conditions or practices similar to those cited by the
inspectors in these proceedings (Tr. 23-25).

                      Findings and Conclusions

 After careful consideration of the proposed settlement

disposition of civil penalty proceedings SE 85-82 and SE 85-89,
and taking into account the arguments at the hearing, I conclude
and find that the proposed settlement dispositions are reasonable
and in the public interest, and pursuant to Commission Rule 30,
29 C.F.R. 2700.30, they are APPROVED.

                              ORDER

 Respondent Alabama By-Products, Inc., IS ORDERED to pay the

following civil penalties for the violations which have been
settled, and payment is to be made to MSHA within thirty (30)
days of the date of these decisions.

Docket No. SE 85-82
30 C.F.R.
Citation No. Date Section Assessment

  2481840     10/16/84   75.1725(a)      $6,100

Docket No. SE 85-89
30 C.F.R.
Citation No. Date Section Assessment

  2481845     10/16/84   75.1725(a)      $ 900

 In view of the settlement approvals, Citation Nos. 2481480

and 2481845, are AFFIRMED, and contest Docket Nos. SE 85-21-R and
SE 85-23-R, are DISMISSED.

Page 10

~1311
In view of the civil penalty assessment dispositions made by and
between the parties in connection with contests Docket Nos. SE
85-18-R, SE 85-19-R, and SE 85-24-R the citations in issue in
those proceedings (2480143, 2480144, and 2481846) are all
AFFIRMED, and the contests are DISMISSED.

 By agreement of the parties, the section 107(a) imminent

danger order, No. 2481839, issued on October 16, 1984, in Docket
No SE 85-20-R, is AFFIRMED as issued, and the contest is
DISMISSED.

 In view of MSHA's assertion at the hearing that the section

107(a) imminent danger order, No. 2480147, issued on October 22,
1984, in Docket No. SE 85-26-R, cannot be supported, and in light
of MSHA counsels' assertion by letter filed with me on July 22,
1985, that the order has been vacated, the contest is DISMISSED.

                         George A. Koutras
                         Administrative Law Judge