S.M. Lorusso & Sons, Inc.

Plain-English summary

S.M. Lorusso & Sons, Inc. faced five citations involving excessive noise exposure and missing or damaged guards at a crushed-stone operation. Judge Paul Merlin considered the seriousness of each condition, the operator's small size, its limited prior violations, and the circumstances of employee exposure. He assessed penalties of $20, $55, $20, $45, and $20, for a total of $160. Payment was ordered within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. §§ 56.5-50(b), 56.14-1, and 56.14-6
• Outcome: Five citations were resolved through penalties totaling $160.
• Key point: Penalty amounts reflected the individual hazards, actual exposure, operator size, and prior violation history.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. S. M. LORUSSO & SONS
DDATE:
19850827
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1292
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. YORK 85-2-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 19-00076-05504

      v.                           Docket No. YORK 84-12-M (FOOTNOTE.1)
                                   A.C. No. 19-00076-05503

S.M. LORUSSO & SONS, INC.,
RESPONDENT West Roxbury Crushed Stone

                            DECISION

Appearances: David L. Baskin, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Boston, Massachusetts,
for Petitioner;
Michael E. Bussiere, S.M. Lorusso & Sons, Inc.,
Walpole, Massachusetts, for Respondent.

Before: Judge Merlin

 These cases are petitions for the assessment of civil

penalties. They were heard at the same time and are hereby
consolidated for decision.

 Citation No. 2367541 was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R.

56.5-50(b) because an employee had been exposed to noise in
excess of the maximum permissible level. However, the employee
was wearing approved protective headwear and the exposure was in
the nature of an isolated instance since the operator was in
compliance at other times. The operator is very small in size. It
has an excellent history of prior violations with only two
violations for the preceding 24 months. In light of these facts,
a penalty of $20 is assessed.

 Citation No. 2367931 was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R.

56.14-1 because a guard was not provided for the V-belt on the
plant feeder. The violation was serious because a

Page 3

~1293
man working under the feeder could be caught at the pinch point.
The operator was negligent. Taking into account these facts as
well as the operator's small size and excellent prior history a
penalty of $55 is assessed.

 Citation No. 2221218 was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R.

56.14-6 because part of a guard on a self-cleaning tail pulley
was missing. Most of the guard was in place, the exposed area was
not one where men usually worked, and no one was working in the
area at the time in question. The Solicitor therefore,
represented that the violation was not serious. I accept the
Solicitor's representations and a penalty of $20 is assessed.

 Citation No. 2221219 was issued for the same type of

condition as the immediately preceding violation but there was a
miner in the general area. Therefore, the violation was more
serious. Negligence was ordinary. A penalty of $45 is assessed
for the violation and I again note the operator's small size and
excellent history.

 Citation No. 2221220 was issued because of a piece of a guard

near a belt drive was bent. Here again, there was no actual
exposure because no one was in the area and the Solicitor again
represented the violation as nonserious. A penalty of $20 is
assessed.

 In conclusion I repeat what already appears herein and what

I told the operator at the hearing, i.e., these small penalty
amounts are assessed in light of the operator's small size and
excellent history. But the operator should take care that such
guarding violations do not occur in the future.

 Accordingly, the operator is ORDERED TO PAY $160 within 30

days from the date of this decision.

                      Paul Merlin
                      Chief Administrative Law Judge

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
FOOTNOTES START HERE:-

~Footnote_one

 1 The front page of the Administrative transcript

erroneously refers only to YORK 84-12-M but both dockets were
heard. Accordingly, the front page is hereby amended to refer to
both.