Iron Mountain Ore Company

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Iron Mountain Ore Company operated a surface iron-ore crushing and screening site in Utah. Judge John J. Morris found that the operation was subject to the Mine Act and that nine citations covered missing training plans, inadequate first aid training and materials, unguarded moving machine parts, improper electrical fittings and grounding, and missing fire extinguishers. The judge affirmed all nine violations and assessed a nominal $1 penalty for each, for a total of $9. The penalties were reduced because the company had abated the conditions, cooperated with MSHA, ceased operations, and was effectively bankrupt.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. § 48.23, § 56.18010, § 56.15001, § 56.14001, § 56.12008, and § 56.12025.
• Outcome: All nine citations were affirmed, with a $1 penalty for each citation.
• Key point: The judge may assess nominal penalties when a small operator has abated the violations, cooperated with MSHA, ceased operations, and cannot pay more without undermining the purposes of the Act.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. IRON MOUNTAIN ORE
DDATE:
19861125
TTEXT:

---

Page 2

~1840

       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. WEST 85-142-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 42-01929-05502

      v.                              Treasure Box

IRON MOUNTAIN ORE COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                           DECISION

Appearances: Margaret Miller, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado,
for Petitioner;
Mr. Carlyle Johnson, Iron Mountain Ore Company,
Cedar City, Utah, pro se.

Before: Judge Morris

 The Secretary of Labor, on behalf of the Mine Safety and

Health Administration, charges respondent with violating safety
regulations promulgated under the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., (the "Act").

 After notice to the parties, a hearing on the merits took

place in Las Vegas, Nevada on August 27, 1986.

 At the hearing the parties waived their right to file

post-trial briefs but subsequently respondent filed a letter. The
judge considered the letter to be a post-trial submission. The
Secretary was given an opportunity to reply to the letter but did
not do so.

                            Issues

 The threshold issue is whether respondent is subject to the

Act. If this is resolved in the affirmative then issues arise as
to whether respondent violated the regulations and what penalty
is appropriate.

             Evaluation of the Threshold Evidence

 A credibility issue arises concerning the activities being

conducted at Iron Mountain.

---

Page 3

~1841
Inspector Wilson described the activities as an above ground
"crushing and screening" operation (Tr. 16, 17). He further
stated that he "may be corrected later on" but as he recalled Mr.
Johnson's company drills and blasts large boulders.

 On the other hand, Mr. Johnson states his company picks up

iron ore from the surface. The ore itself was mined some 30 years
ago. Iron Mountain then crushes, screens and ships the surface
material to its customers specifications (FOOTNOTE 1) (Tr. 97, 98).

 I credit Mr. Johnson's version of the manner in which the

company functions. As the operator he would be in a position to
know. In addition, the inspector's testimony that the company
drills and blasts boulders is, at best, vague and hesistant.

 The factual situation thus presented is whether respondent

is subject to the Act when it merely picks up iron ore from the
surface and then crushes and screens it.

 Section 3(h) of the Act defines a coal or other mine as

follows:

"(h)(1) "coal or other mine' means (A) an area of land
from which minerals are extracted in nonliquid form or,
if in liquid form, are extracted with workers
underground, (B) private ways and roads appurtenant to
such area, and (C) lands, excavations, underground
passageways, shafts, slopes, tunnels and workings,
structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools or
other property including impoundments, retention dams,
and tailings ponds, on the surface of underground, used
in, or to be used in, or resulting from, the work of
extracting such minerals from their natural deposits in
nonliquid form, or if in liquid form, with workers
underground, or used in, or to be used in, the milling
of such minerals, or the work of preparing coal or
other minerals, and includes custom coal preparation
facilities.

 In the unique circumstances involved here I agree with

respondent that it did not extract minerals from the land. Hence
it is not a mine as defined in (A) of the statutory definition.
However, this 30 acre site is land used in the "milling of such
minerals".(FOOTNOTE 2) Accordingly, respondent meets the statutory
definition as set forth in paragraph (C).

---

Page 4

~1842
Respondent further relies on the regulations of the State of
Utah (Ex. R1, page 64). These regulations, according to respondent,
exclude Iron Mountain as a "mining operation."

 Respondent's argument is rejected. The determinative issue

is whether respondent is subject to the federal Act, not the
State of Utah regulations.

 In his evidence respondent also adduced evidence that the

company had received other MSHA citations but they were not the
subject of the instant appeal.

 While the Commission has the authority to grant declaratory

relief the granting of such relief is discretionary. Climax
Molybdenum Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 703 F.2d 447. Such relief
should not be granted in this case because the record is
inadequate to determine this issue.

 Mr. Johnson also protests the action of the inspector in

"terminating" the citations when such authority rests with the
Commission.

 Mr. Johnson has confused the administrative actions of the

MSHA inspector with an adjudication by the Commission. When an
inspector, as he did here, terminates a citation he does so
because respondent has abated the violative condition. Failure of
the inspector to terminate the citation could result in
subjecting an operator to additional sanctions as contained in
Section 104(d) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 814(d). In this case
Inspector Wilson correctly, on an administrative basis,
terminated the instant citations. The authority of the
Commission, on the other hand, rests on an adjudicatory level as
provided by Section 113 of the Act.

 For the foregoing reasons, respondent's threshold

contentions are denied.

                       Citation 2360842

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

48.23 which provides as follows:

(a) Each operator of a mine shall have an MSHA approved
plan containing programs for training new miners,
training newly-employed experienced miners, training
miners for new tasks, annual refresher training, and
hazard training for miners as follows:
(1) In the case of a mine which is operating on the
effective date of this Subpart B, the operator of the
mine shall submit such plan for approval within 150
days after the effective date of this Subpart B.
(2) Within 60 days after the operator submits the plan
for

---

Page 5

~1843
approval, unless extended by MSHA, the operator shall
have an approved plan for the mine.
(3) In the case of a new mine which is to be opened or
a mine which is to be reopened or reactivated after the
effective date of this Subpart B, the operator shall
have an approved plan prior to opening the new mine, or
reopening or reactivating the mine unless the mine is
reopened or reactivated periodically using portable
equipment and mobile teams of miners as a normal method
of operation by the operator. The operator to be so
excepted shall maintain an approved plan for training
covering all mine locations which are operated with
portable equipment and mobile teams of miners.

 Inspector Wilson issued this citation because respondent did

not have any plan on file with MSHA (Tr. 19, 20).

 The inspector discussed the citation with Mr. Johnson. He

was not aware such a plan was required (Tr. 21).

The citation was abated (Tr. 21).

 Carlyle Johnson testified that he was unaware that he was

subject to MSHA's rules (Tr. 74).

                  Evaluation of the Evidence

 The facts establish that respondent did not have a plan

filed with MSHA. Mr. Johnson failed to establish a defense to the
citation.

The citation should be affirmed.

                       Citation 2360843

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

56.18Ä10, now 56.18010, which provides as follows:

 56.18010 First aid training. Selected supervisors
shall be trained in first aid. First aid training shall
be made available to all interested employees.

 Inspector Wilson issued this citation when he learned that

Mr. Johnson had not received formal first aid training in years
(Tr. 21). The other employees had received no or little training
(Tr. 21Ä22). The first aid training had not been made available
to the employees (Tr. 22). There is no lead time granted for the
training of employees in first aid (Tr. 23, 24, 55).

 Generally, to be effective first aid training has to be

taken every two years (Tr. 55).

The citation was abated (Tr. 22).

---

Page 6

~1844
Mr. Johnson indicated that he had extensive first aid training
at U.S. Steel in the spring of 1984 (Tr. 76).

                  Evaluation of the Evidence

 Mr. Johnson, as a supervisor, was trained in first aid. But

such training had not been made available to interested
employees.

The citation should be affirmed.

                       Citation 2360844

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

56.15Ä1, now 56.15001, which provides as follows:

Adequate first-aid materials, including stretchers and
blankets, shall be provided at places convenient to all
working areas. Water or neutralizing agents shall be
available where corrosive chemicals or other harmful
substances are stored, handled, or used.

 Inspector Wilson did not recall seeing any stretchers or

blankets on the mine property but there were a few supplies on
hand (Tr. 24, 25, 55). The nearest town was 18 miles away (Tr.
25).

The citation was abated (Tr. 25).

 Mr. Johnson testified that there were first aid materials

and a stretcher on the job. The stretcher, constructed of pipe
and wire, was 400 yards from the work area (Tr. 76, 77). After
the company was cited Mr. Johnson brought over the ladder (Tr.
76Ä77). Additional first aid material was purchased and brought
to the site the following morning (Tr. 77).

 At the time of the inspection Mr. Johnson had a standard

first aid kit available in his trailer (Tr. 77). The witness did
not know if blankets were on hand (Tr. 78).

                  Evaluation of the Evidence

 Inspector Wilson's testimony is credible. Accordingly, the

first aid materials, stretchers and blankets were not provided at
places convenient to the working area. A stretcher 400 yards away
was not at a convenient place.

The citation should be affirmed.

                       Citation 2360845

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

56.14Ä1, now 56.14001, which provides as follows:

---

Page 7

~1845
56.14001 Moving machine parts. Gears; sprockets; chains; drive,
head, tail, and takeup pulleys; flywheels; couplings; shafts;
sawblades; fan inlets; and similar exposed moving machine parts
which may be contacted by persons, and which may cause injury to
persons, shall be guarded.

 Inspector Wilson issued this citation when he observed an

unguarded jaw crusher flywheel (Tr. 25Ä27). The flywheel rotates
in a circular motion when the jaw crusher runs at a high rate of
speed (Tr. 27; Ex. P1, P2).

 The condition was accessible. In addition, this condition

has been known to kill or maim miners (Tr. 27, 28, 56). This can
occur when parts of their bodies or clothing are caught in the
unguarded assembly (Tr. 28).

 This type of violation could cause a reasonably serious

injury (Tr. 30).

 The inspector observed tracks around the jaw crusher but he

didn't know when they had been made (Tr. 56).

The citation was abated (Tr. 56).

 Mr. Johnson testified that no one had to go near the exposed

parts involved in Citation 2360845 and 2360846. Cleanup is done
when the machinery is shutdown.

 There was considerable room around the equipment (Tr. 79;

Ex. R8).

                  Evaluation of the Evidence

 The credible evidence adduced by Inspector Wilson

establishes a violation of the regulation.

 Mr. Johnson's testimony that was "considerable room" around

the equipment does not excuse the violative condition.

The citation should be affirmed.

                       Citation 2360846

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

56.14Ä1, now 56.14001, cited supra, for unguarded moving
machine parts.

 Inspector Wilson observed that a flywheel, a "V" belt and

the pulley assembly were unguarded (Tr. 31; Ex. P3).

 Numerous fatalities and serious injuries have occurred in

industry from such conditions (Tr. 32).

The citation was abated (Tr. 32, 80).

---

Page 8

~1846
Mr. Johnson testified MSHA was right in requiring that this
condition be guarded but there was no necessity to get near the
area (Tr. 80; Ex. R8).

                  Evaluation of the Evidence

 The testimony of Inspector Wilson establishes a violation.

Mr. Johnson does not contradict the evidence that a violation
existed.

The citation should be affirmed.

                       Citation 2360847

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

14Ä1, now 56.14001, cited supra, for unguarded moving machine
parts.

 Inspector Wilson issued this citation when he saw an

unguarded conveyor belt and "V" belt. The condition, which could
cause a serious injury, was adjacent to a walkway (Tr. 33, 36,
37; Ex. P4, P5). This machinery was moving at 100 rpm's or more
(Tr. 34).

 The inspector considered this to be a significant and

substantial violation (Tr. 36).

The condition was abated (Tr. 37).

 For illustrative purposes, Mr. Johnson presented at the

hearing a two horse motor mounted on a bearing assembly (Tr. 80).
The motors go into a 15 to 1 gear reduction and the head pulley
turns at a 15th of 1,120 rpms, or about 75 rpms (Tr. 81). Mr.
Johnson differed with the inspector's claim that the condition
could cause a fatality (Tr. 81, 82).

                  Evaluation of the Evidence

 Mr. Johnson's evidence is credible and persuasive. I agree

that this particular unguarded equipment could not cause a
serious injury.

 However, the violation existed and the citation should be

affirmed.

                       Citation 2360848

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

56.12Ä8, now 56.12008, which provides as follows:

 56.12008 Insulation and fittings for power wires and
cables. Power wires and cables shall be insulated
adequately where they pass into or out of electrical
compartments. Cables shall enter metal frames of
motors, splice boxes,

---

Page 9

~1847
and electrical compartments only through proper fittings.
When insulated wires, other than cables, pass through metal
frames, the holes shall be substantially bushed with
insulated bushings.

 Inspector Wilson observed an S.O. cable feeding power to the

motor. It was not bushed nor was it provided with an appropriate
fitting where it entered the motor makeup box (Tr. 38, 57; Ex.
P4, P5).

 There was not an appropriate fitting (Tr. 39). The primary

purpose of a clamp or a bushing is to prevent the cable from
being stressed (Tr. 39Ä40). It also prevents dirt, dust and rain
from entering the box (Tr. 40).

 The wires here were rubbing against the edge of the metal

(Tr. 40). Normally a bushing citation is a minor violation but
the inspector considered this to be serious due to the lack of
electrical grounding (Tr. 41).

 The hazard here involved electrical shock or electrocution

(Tr. 41). The inspector had read of numerous fatalities caused by
these conditions (Tr. 41). He believed the citation was
significant and substantial because of the amperage and because
the plant was not electrically grounded (Tr. 41). The entire
conveyor belt frame could have been energized (Tr. 42).

The condition was abated (Tr. 42).

 Mr. Johnson testified that the grommet provided by the

factory had pulled out. There was no short and the wiring was
still intact (Tr. 82).

                  Evaluation of the Evidence

 The regulation requires that cables enter metal frames

through proper fittings. Inspector Wilson established the
violative condition and Mr. Johnson confirmed it.

The citation should be affirmed.

                       Citation 2360849

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

56.12Ä25, now 56.12025, which provides as follows:

All metal enclosing or encasing electrical circuits
shall be grounded or provided with equivalent
protection. This requirement does not apply to
battery-operated equipment.

 Inspector Wilson found that the 220 volt AC three phase

electrical system was not continuously grounded. However, it was
grounded by a copper rod and wire at the box (Tr. 42, 43). In
effect, a portion of the electrical system was grounded and
portion was not (Tr. 44, 46).

---

Page 10

~1848
Mr. Johnson told the inspector the equipment was grounded
because it was resting on iron ore. In the inspector's view such
grounding was inadequate (Tr. 44, 58).

 Mr. Wilson discussed various ways the system could be

grounded (Tr. 44, 45, 46). But he apparently did not use a meter
to test the ground (Tr. 46). The violation was obvious since
there was no fourth wire and no bonding (Tr. 47).

 In the event of an electrical fault the entire metal

conveyor belt frame could be energized. This could cause a fatal
electrocution (Tr. 47).

The citation was abated (Tr. 48, 60, 83).

 Mr. Johnson testified there was six inches of iron dirt

every place you walk. Iron is highly conductive but not as good
as copper wire (Tr. 83).

                  Evaluation of the Evidence

 A violation exists in these circumstances. In this

connection, I credit Mr. Wilson's expertise that metal resting on
iron ore does not constitute adequate grounding.

                       Citation 2360850

 This citation charges respondent with violating 30 C.F.R.

56.40Ä24(b), now 55.4Ä24(b), which provides as follows:

 56.4Ä24 Mandatory. Fire extinguishers and fire
suppression devices shall be: (b) Adequate in number
and size for the particular fire hazard involved.

 Inspector Wilson found a wooden storage shack containing

oil, grease, rags and paper boxes. There were no fire
extinguishers in or about the shack which was 50 to 100 feet from
the trailer house (Tr. 50, 52, 60Ä61).

 The standard requires fire extinguishers in the vicinity of

flammable or combustible material (Tr. 51).

 The inspector did not consider the violation to be

significant and substantial because the shack was away from the
work area (Tr. 53).

The violation was abated (Tr. 53).

 Mr. Johnson indicated there was a fire extinguisher 50 feet

from the building. There were no grease rags; however, they did
store unopened oil cans and five gallon buckets of motor oil, as
well as grease and paper boxes containing extra parts (Tr. 83,
84).

---

Page 11

~1849
Evaluation of the Evidence

 The parties agree that a fire extinguisher was 50 feet from

the shack. However, a fire among combustibles requires a quick
response. Valuable time would be lost in obtaining the fire
extinguisher under the circumstances involved here.

The citation should be affirmed.

                        Civil Penalties

 In this case the Secretary has proposed the following

penalties:

    Citation No.        Subject               Proposed
      2360842      MSHA approved plan            $20
      2360843      First aid training             20
      2360844      First aid materials            20
      2360845      Unguarded flywheel             74
      2360846      Unguarded pulley               74
      2360847      Unguarded conveyor belt        74
      2360848      No fitting to metal box        74
      2360849      Electrical system ungrounded   74
      2360850      No fire extinguisher           20

 The statutory criteria to assess civil penalties is

contained in Section 110(i) of the Act.

 In reviewing the evidence in relation to the statutory

criteria it appears that the company has a favorable prior
history since it was not previously cited (Tr. 62). The company
had only five or six employees. The number of the employees and
its gross income of approximately $511,000 causes me to conclude
that the company's size is relatively small (Tr. 88). The company
must be considered as negligent since the violative conditions
should have been known to Mr. Johnson. The assessment of a
penalty would severely affect the company if it were still in
business.

 At the time of the inspection the company had been in

operation for three months. In 1985 the company grossed $511,000
but spent $580,000. Mr. Johnson has financed the company by
borrowing on property he owns. However, he is "broke" (Tr. 88,
89). Mr. Johnson's bank balance was $328. From this amount he
drew out $100 to come to the hearing. In his personal account he
has a balance of $197. At the time of the hearing U.S. Steel owed
Iron Mountain $5,000 but payment has been delayed due to the fact
that the company is on strike. He also has a bill of $8,000 with
the Bank of Iron County but he has no way of paying it (Tr. 95).
Johnson stopped operating the mine on October 1, 1985 (Tr. 95).

 Except for the unguarded moving machine parts, the gravity

of all of the violations was minimal.

---

Page 12

~1850
The company's good faith was apparent in that they fully abated
the citations. They also furnished gloves, safety shoes and hard
hats. In addition, the company fully cooperated with MSHA.

 As a general rule, the text and legislative history of

Section 110 of the Act require the Secretary to propose a penalty
assessment for each violation and the Commission and its judges
to assess some penalty for each violation found. Tazco, Inc., 3
FMSHRC 1895 (1981). In Tazco the Commission ruled that the
Commission and its judges do not have the power to suspend
penalties. 3 FMSHRC at 1897. But in Tazco the Commission
specifically noted that it was not passing on the propriety of
nominal penalties, 3 FMSHRC 1898, footnote 4.

 Precedent for the assessment of nominal penalties is

contained in Potochar and Potochar Coal Company, 4 IBMA 252, 1
MSHC 1300 (1975).

 In the instant case the operator abated the violative

conditions and fully cooperated with MSHA. The company has ceased
operations and there is no indication in the record that the
company intends to resume its activities. The company and its
owner, Mr. Johnson, have lost a substantial amount of money. In
fact, they are essentially bankrupt.

 I do not believe that the imposition of more than nominal

penalties in these circumstances would serve the purposes of the
Act or the best interests of justice.

 Accordingly, a penalty of $1 should be assessed for each

violation.

                      Conclusions of Law

 Based on the entire record and the factual findings made in

the narrative portion of this decision, the following conclusion
of law are entered:

1. The Commission has jurisdiction to decide this case.

 2. Respondent violated all of the regulations for which it

was cited in this case.

 Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law I enter

the following:

                            ORDER

 1. Citation 2360842 is affirmed and a penalty of $1 is

assessed.

 2. Citation 2360843 is affirmed and a penalty of $1 is

assessed.

---

Page 13

~1851
3. Citation 2360844 is affirmed and
a penalty of $1 is assessed.

 4. Citation 2360845 is affirmed and a penalty of $1 is

assessed.

 5. Citation 2360846 is affirmed and a penalty of $1 is

assessed.

 6. Citation 2360847 is affirmed and a penalty of $1 is

assessed.

 7. Citation 2360848 is affirmed and a penalty of $1 is

assessed.

 8. Citation 2360849 is affirmed and a penalty of $1 is

assessed.

 9. Citation 2360850 is affirmed and a penalty of $1 is

assessed.

                      John J. Morris
                      Administrative Law Judge

FOOTNOTES START HERE-

1 A 15 x 18 foot jaw crusher reduces the ore to the size
of about two-inch pellets (Tr. 65).

2 Milling is defined, in part, as the grinding or crushing
of ore. A Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms, 707,
U.S. Department of Interior, 1968.