SAVINA HOME INDUSTRIES, INC.
OSHRC Docket No. 12067
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
January 3, 1977
[*1]
Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
COUNSEL:
Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL
T. A. Housh, Jr., Reg., Sol. USDOL
Edgar Wm. Dwire, for the employer
OPINION:
DECISION
This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte order for review. The parties have filed no objections to the Administrative Law Judge's decision, either by way of petitions for discretionary review or response to the order for review. Accordingly, there has been no appeal to the Commission, and no party has otherwise expressed dissatisfaction with the Administrative Law Judge's decision.
In these circumstances, the Commission declines to pass upon, modify or change the Judge's decision in the absence of compelling public interest. Abbott-Sommer, Inc., 3 BNA OSHC 2032, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (No. 9507, 1976); Crane Co., 4 BNA OSHC 1015, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,508 (No. 3336, 1976); see also Keystone Roofing Co., Inc., v. O.S.H.R.C., 539 F.2d 960, 964 (3d Cir. 1976). The order for review in this case describes no compelling public interest issue.
The Judge's decision is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge's decision. [*2] Leone Constr. Co., 3 BNA OSHC 1979, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,387 (No. 4090, 1976).
It is ORDERED that the decision be affirmed.
CONCURBY: MORAN (In Part)
DISSENTBY: MORAN (In Part)
DISSENT:
MORAN, Commissioner, Concurring in Part; Dissenting in Part:
I agree with the Judge's disposition of the citation except that I would vacate item 9 thereof because complainant failed to establish that respondent's employees were actually exposed to the alleged hazard. Secretary v. Gilles & Cotting, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 504, February 20, 1976 (dissenting opinion). Furthermore, for the reasons expressed in my separate opinion in Secretary v. Schultz Roof Truss, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 14046, December 20, 1976, I disagree with the manner in which my colleagues are disposing of this case and with their views regarding the significance of decisions rendered by Review Commission Judges.
Since my colleagues do not address any of the matters covered in Judge Wienman's decision, his decision is attached hereto as Appendix A so that the law in this case may be known.
APPENDIX A
DECISION AND ORDER
EUGENE F. DESHAZO, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, for the Secretary of Labor
EDGAR WILLIAM [*3] DWIRE, for the Respondent
Wienman, Judge, OSAHRC:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding pursuant to section 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 651 et seq., hereafter called the Act) contesting a citation issued by the complainant against the respondent January 9, 1975, under the authority vested in complainant by section 9(a) of that Act. The citation alleged on the basis of an inspection January 6, 1975, of respondent's worksite at the corner of Bleckley Drive and Battin Street, Wichita, Kansas, that the respondent violated the Act by failing to comply with certain occupational safety and health standards. Complainant proposed penalties totaling $470 for multiple alleged nonserious violations. Respondent gave timely notice of its intention to contest the citation and proposed penalties.
After complaint and answer were filed by the parties, hearing was held September 4, 1975, in Wichita, Kansas, with complainant and respondent attending and participating.
THE ISSUES
In addition to the general issue of whether respondent violated occupational safety regulations as alleged in the citation, there is an ancillary issue relating to [*4] respondent's constitutional rights. In its notice of contest respondent informed complainant that "the process and procedure used by your governmental agency violates and infringes upon the personal guarantees within the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution." Also, in paragraph IV of the answer respondent alleged that complainant's entry to respondent's premises was in violation of respondent's constitutional rights.
The Commission has consistently held that it does not have jurisdiction to pass on the constitutionality of the statute from which it derives its jurisdiction, and the constitutional issues will not be discussed further herein. Respondent is entitled to have all constitutional questions determined by a court, but this decision will be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Citation Item Number 1
Citation item number 1 alleges a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.100(a). n1 The alleged violation is described on the citation as follows:
"The two employees, working under the mobile tubular scaffold on the southeast corner of the building under construction [*5] were exposed to overhead hazards from falling objects and were not wearing head protection. Located at the new Davids store construction site."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.100(a) provides:
"(a) Employees working in areas where there is a possible danger of head injury from impact, or from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, shall be protected by protective helmets."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OSHA Compliance Officer Jeff C. Spahn testified he inspected respondent's construction site, a new David store on Bleckley and Battin Streets in Wichita on January 6, 1975, (T. 19-21). At the entrance were two signs warning "hard hat area." However, Spahn observed two men on a scaffold using portable electric and hand tools and two other men at ground level near the scaffold with no head protection (T. 22).
The Compliance Officer's observations were not disputed although Mike Savina, respondent's president, testified his employees had been supplied hard hats and instructed to wear them in hazardous locations (T. 145-146). [*6]
The necessary conclusion is that respondent was not enforcing its protective equipment policy effectively. Both Spahn and Junior Seamster, respondent's project foreman, observed a tool fall from the scaffold during the closing conference (T. 28, 131). We deem the $50 penalty proposed for the violation appropriate under the circumstances.
Citation Item Numbers 2(A), 2(B) and 2(C)
Item 2 combined three alleged violations relating to a manually propelled tubular scaffold Spahn observed at the southeast corner of the building. Part (A) alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.451(e)(10) n2 described as follows:
"Part (A) The manually propelled tubular scaffold, being used at the southeast corner of the building under construction, which is in excess of ten (10) feet high was not provided with standard railings or toeboards thus exposing the two (2) employees working on the scaffold to a falling hazard."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.451(e)(10) provides:
"(10) Guardrails made of lumber, not less than 2 X 4 inches (or other material providing equivalent protection), approximately 42 inches high, with a midrail, of 1 X 6 inch lumber (or other material providing equivalent protection), and toeboards, shall be installed at all open sides and ends on all scaffolds more than 10 feet above the ground or floor. Toeboards shall be a minimum of 4 inches in height. Wire mesh shall be installed in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section."
[*7]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Compliance Officer Spahn observed two workman on a manually propelled mobile scaffold which lacked guardrails and toeboards. He measured the height to the uppermost platform plank and testified it was 13 feet 2 inches (T. 29). This testimony, unrebutted, and supported by the photographic Exhibit G-3, established a prima facie violation as alleged in item 2(A).
Item 2(B) alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.451(e)(4). n3 The violation was described as follows:
"Part (B) The manually propelled tubular scaffold, being used at the southeast corner of the building under construction was not planked for the full width of the platform thus exposing employees to a falling hazard."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n3 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.451(e)(4) provides:
"(4) Platforms shall be tightly planked for the full width of the scaffold except for necessary entrance opening. Platforms shall be secured in place."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance Officer testified that rather than being [*8] fully planked there was no planking on about half of the platform area (T. 33). Exhibit G-3 depicts the scaffold with none of three platforms fully planked (T. 33).
Respondent contended the platforms were not fully decked in order to permit easier access. However, it was evident that the area without decking exceeds a mere entrance opening, and we conclude that the violation, as alleged in item 2(B), is established.
Item 2(C) alleged a violation of 29 CFR 1926.451(e)(3). n4 The violation was described as follows:
"Part (C) The manually propelled tubular scaffold, being used at the southeast corner of the building under construction was not cross braced on the top, inside section of upper scaffold section."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n4 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.451(e)(3) provides:
"(3) Scaffolds shall be properly braced by cross bracing and horizontal bracing conforming with paragraph (d)(3) of this section."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Compliance Officer Spahn testified that there was a lack of cross bracing on the upper inside portion of the scaffold next to the [*9] building.
Respondent freely admitted that there was an absence of cross bracing in that area, but explained that this was a deliberate offort to reduce hazards for men working against the building (T. 147). However, respondent took pains to notch the planking so that the scaffold was rigid and squared in place (T. 147).
The Compliance Officer agreed that scaffolding planks were made very secure by notching and locking and that this method did increase stability (T. 69-70).
Since the purpose of the cross bracing is to secure a plumb, square and rigid scaffold, the violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.451(e)(3) is technical at most. The absence of guardrails, toeboards and adequate planking created bona fide hazards which could result in injuries to respondent's employees, but the scaffold apparently was rigid and square although not conforming to bracing method set forth in the regulation. Having given due consideration to the gravity of the various hazards, as well as respondent's size, good faith and safety history, we deem a penalty in the sum of $110 appropriate for the violations combined in Item 2.
Citation Item Number 3
Citation item number 3 alleged a violation of regulation [*10] 29 CFR 1926.402(a)(10) n5 described as follows:
"The three Craftsman, 3/8" electric drills, model number 3274 C, located by the scaffold on the southeast corner of the building under construction had frayed, worn electrical cords at the point where the cords and drills are attached, thus creating a shock hazard."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n5 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.402(a)(10) provides:
"Worn or frayed electric cables shall not be used."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance Officer testified he observed three Craftsman drills somewhat frayed at the point where the flexible cord enters the handle of the drill. The interior wires were exposed but still intact. Seamster agreed that the outer part of the insulation was frayed (T. 131), although these double insulated drills were newly purchased the previous month (T. 149).
The testimony thus established a technical violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.402(a)(10) with little hazard to employees on the day of the inspection. Continued use of the drills could have led to a dangerous condition since Spahn observed that [*11] it was "only a matter of time before the two small circuit wires would have been in a like condition." (T. 121) However, under the circumstances we would affirm the violation without monetary penalty.
Citation Item Number 4
Citation item number 4 alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.402(a)(1). n6 The alleged violation was described on the citation as follows:
"The plastic duplex electrical receptacle, attached to a flexible cord, being used to energize portable electric hand tools has exposed live parts due to not being an approved, receptacle, located near the southeast door of the building under construction."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n6 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.402(a)(1) provides:
"(1) Receptacles for attachment plugs shall be of approved, concealed contact type with a contact for extending ground continuity and shall be so designed and constructed that the plug may be pulled out without leaving any live parts exposed to accidental contact."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the interior of the building Compliance Officer Spahn observed a plastic duplex receptacle [*12] used to energize electric drills. He described it as the sort of receptacle commonly used for household wiring, a non-approved closed contact type of receptacle with no cover plate. He believed there were exposed live parts (T. 40).
Respondent vigorously contested Spahn's observation that the receptacle exposed live parts, but the Compliance Officer's testimony that receptacle was "not approved" was unshaken and established a violation. In assessing the gravity of the hazard Spahn rated the hazard "in the medium range in terms of likelihood" because the receptacle was not used continuously. Under the circumstances we deem the penalty of $25 appropriate.
Citation Item Number 5
Citation item number 5 alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.402(a)(5) n7 described as follows:
"The flexible cable being used to energize a J.C.S. double duplex set of receptacles was not being used in a continuous length, and had been spliced with plastic tape and one bare conductor wire was visible. This Phelps Dodge, type NM core was located at the south end of the billing, running down the outside wall and positioned by the southeast door of the building under construction."
- - - - - [*13] - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n7 Regulation 29 CFR. 1926.402(a)(5) provides:
"(5) Flexible cord shall be used only in continuous lengths without splice, except suitable molded or vulcanized splices may be used where properly made, and the insulation shall be equal to the cable being spliced and wire connections soldered."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance Officer testified that a flexible cord used to energize duplex receptacles had been spliced and wrapped with electrical tape at a distance of about five feet from the receptacles (T. 41). One wire was exposed although Spahn could not say for certain whether this wire was or was not a current carrying wire (T. 91). He did not pick up the wire for closer inspection and admitted there was a possibility that the splice was molded or vulcanized (T. 96).
Mike Savina testified that the conditions Spahn observed had been created in a deliberate effort to provide greater safety for the workmen. Savina, concerned with the continuity of the ground because of the size of the building and the weather conditions, hd ordered Seamster [*14] to disconnect the equipment grounding wire and install ground fault circuit interrupters for safety (T. 156-157).
Savina identified the visible wire as the equipment grounding conductor which had been disconnected to open the circuit. The circuit, he said, had been spliced with a "redhead," a pressure solderless connector approved by the National Electrical Code. Savina'a testimony that a "redhead" is equivalent to a molded or vulcanized splice was unrebutted. We therefore conclude that violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.402(a)(5) is not established by preponderance of the evidence and vacate the item.
Citation Item Number 6
Citation item number 6 alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.251(c)(3) n8 described as follows:
"The chain and hook, attached to the wire rope winch mounted on the Chevrolet, Kansas License Number SG 37366, was not safe in that the attachment had been achieved by a knot in the wire rope through a chain link. Located at approximately the mid point of the building under construction."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n8 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.251(c)(3) provides:
"(3) Wire rope shall not be secured by knots, except on haul back lines on scrapers."
[*15]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spahn observed a Chevrolet truck parked truck parked inside the building with a hoist or winch connected to a chain passing over the tailgate. The chain was secured to the winch cable by a knot in the cable. This was dangerous, he stated, because there was a possibility that the knot would flatten and give way with consequent injury to employees (T. 45).
Witnesses for respondent testified the knot had been in the wire rope for fifteen years (T. 142) and that the knot at the end of a cable is the strongest means of securing a cable so it can slide over a pulley and lift straight up. Mike Savina testified: "Everybody uses knots in the end of winch trucks. I bought the truck with the knot in it in 1958." (T. 163)
The Compliance Officer stated the probability of an injury as the result of the condition was fairly low because the cable was not in operation (T. 123). However, respondent's admission that the winch had been used to move lightweight steel (T. 162) establishes a technical violation of the regulation. Coupling this with the low gravity, we would affirm the violation but assess no penalty [*16] thereon.
Citation Item Number 7
Citation item number 7 alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.251(c)(5)(i) n9 described as follows:
"The two (2) wire rope slings used to hoist steel sections into position, equipped with two (2) wire rope clips on each eye had one (1) wire rope clip on each eye positioned with the U bolt on the live end of the rope thus creating a slipping hazard. Located adjacent the steel pile, northwest portion of the building under construction."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n9 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.251(c)(5)(i) provides:
"(i) When used for eye splices, the U-bolt shall be applied so that the "U" section is in contact with the dead end of the rope."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spahn observed two wire rope slings upon which "I's" were formed by means of wire rope clips. One clip had been installed incorrectly on the live end of the sling with a possible crushing effect on the cable structure (T. 48-49).
Seamster testified that the slings had been sparingly used, not over three times each, to lift structural steel (T. 132).
The Compliance [*17] Officer rated the probability of an accident fairly low (T. 123). Under the circumstances the violation is established and a $30 penalty appears appropriate.
Citation Item Number 8
Citation item number 8 alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.450(a)(2) n10 described as follows:
"The 16' wood extension ladder section, positioned on the east wall of the building under construction was not safe in that one siderail was split and had improvised repairs and the top rung was broken. The ladder had not been removed from service or tagged as unsafe."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n10 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.450(a)(2) provides:
"(2) The use of ladders with broken or missing rungs or steps, broken or split side rails, or other faulty or defective construction is prohibited. When ladders with such defects are discovered, they shall be immediately withdrawn from service. Inspection of metal ladders shall include checking for corrosion of interiors of open end hollow rungs."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance Officer observed and photographed (Ex. G-9) a 16-foot [*18] extension ladder leaning against the east side of the building. Inspection revealed the left siderail had been split in two places and electric tape wound around the splits. Also, the top rung was broken "clear through" (T. 52).
The Compliance Officer's testimony relative to the condition of the ladder was not rebutted, and Seamster indicated the ladder had been used to get to the top of the roof (T. 127). The record thus established a violation as alleged in item 8, and a $35 penalty appears appropriate.
Citation Item Number 9
Citation item number 9 alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.301(c) n11 described as follows:
"The crow bar/drive tool located in the white tool box in the center portion of the building under construction was not safe in that the striking surface is mushroomed thus exposing employees to steel splinters."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n11 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.301(c) provides:
"(c) Impact tools, such as drift pines, wedges, and chisels, shall be kept free of mushroomed heads."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance Officer observed [*19] a crowbar in a tool box in the center of the building with its striking surface mushroomed approximately 1/8-inch (T. 107-108). Respondent did not deny the condition of the tool, but Seamster testified that it had not been used on the job and he removed it promptly (T. 133).
Since the tool was in service and available for use on the date of the inspection, we conclude that a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.301(c) is established. However, absent employee exposure no monetary penalty is appropriate
Citation Items 10(A), 10(B) and 10(C)
Citation item 10 combined three alleged violations relating to storage and use of compressed gas cylinders. Part (A) alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.350(a)(1) n12 described as follows:
"One large and one small oxygen cylinders did not have the valve protection caps in place, located in the center portion of the building under construction."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n12 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.350(a)(1) provides:
"(1) Valve protection caps shall be in place and secured."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance [*20] Officer testified he observed two oxygen cylinders in the northwest portion of the building without gauges or valve protection caps in place. He warned that if a cylinder was upset and the valve damaged "it can have almost a jet engine type effect." (T. 55)
Item 10(B) alleged a violation of regulation 299 CFR 1926.350(a)(9) n13 described as follows:
"The small oxygen cylinder, located in the center portion of the building under construction was not secured to prevent the cylinder from being knocked over by passing persons or equipment."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n13 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.350(a)(9) provides:
"(9) Compressed gas cylinders shall be secured in an upright position at all times except, if necessary, for short periods of time while cylinders are actually being hoisted or carried."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spahn observed the smaller cylinder standing upright in an unsecure position contrary to the requirements of the regulation (T. 55). This testimony was not contradicted although Mike Savina indicated that someone had told him that the smaller cylinder [*21] was empty (T. 167).
Item 10(C) alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.352(d) n14 described as follows:
"No fire extinguishing equipment was provided so as to be immediately available for instant use during welding operations."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n14 Regulation 29 CFR. 1926.352(d) provides:
"(d) Suitable fire extinguishing equipment shall be immediately available in the work area and shall be maintained in a state of readiness for instant use."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance Officer testified that he observed no fire suppression equipment anywhere on the job site (T. 56). However, he conceded no welding operation was conducted while he was on the premises (T. 108), and the record therefore establishes no violation of 29 CFR 1926.352(d), a regulation specifically referenced to are welding and cutting.
The violations in items 10(A) and 10(B) are established and bear sufficient relationship to employee safety to merit the imposition of the penalty, and we deem a total penalty of $25 appropriate.
Citation Items 11(A), 11(B)
Citation item 11 [*22] combined two alleged violations of regulations relating to medical services and first aid for which no penalty was proposed.
Item 11(A) alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.50(c) n15 described as follows:
"A trained first aid attendent [sic] was not provided at the worksite to render first aid should an injury occur."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n15 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.50(c) provides:
"(c) In the absence of an infirmary, clinic, hospital, or physician, that is reasonably accessible in terms of time and distance to the worksite, which is available for the treatment of injured employees, a person who has a valid certificate in first-aid training from the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the American Red Cross, or equivalent training that can be verified by documentary evidence, shall be available et the worksite to render first aid."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance Officer testified positively that no person trained in first aid was present on the job site (T. 55). The record supports this observation, but other testimony also revealed a hospital was less [*23] than a mile from the construction site (T. 127). Nothing in the record indicates that this hospital was not reasonably accessible, and we conclude that a violation as alleged in item 11(A) is not established.
Item 11(B) alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.50(d)(1) n16 described as follows:
"First aid supplies approved by a consulting [physician] were not provided at the workplace to be used in emergency situations should injuries occur."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n16 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.50(d)(1) provides:
"(1) First-aid supplies approved by the consulting physician shall be easily accessible when required."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Compliance Officer testified that there were no approved first-aid supplies on the job (T. 58). This testimony was unrebutted, although an independent bricklayer, H. L. Phipps, later stated that he had a first-aid kit in his truck (T. 137).
However, absent a showing that this kit satisfied the requirements of the regulation, we conclude that the violation as alleged in item 11(A) is established. No penalty was proposed [*24] and none should be assessed.
Citation Item Number 12
Citation number 12 alleged a violation of regulation 29 CFR 1926.150(c)(1)(i) n17 described as follows:
"A fire extinguisher, rated not less than 2A, was not provided at the workplace to be used in emergency situations."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n17 Regulation 29 CFR 1926.150(c)(1)(i) provides:
"(i) A fire extinguisher, rated not less than 2A, shall be provided for each 3,000 square feet of the protected building area, or major fraction thereof. Travel distance from any point of the protected area to the nearest fire extinguisher shall not exceed 100 feet."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As noted earlier the Compliance Officer testified that he observed no fire suppression equipment anywhere on the construction site (T. 56). On cross-examination he conceded there was sand but did not recall any 55-gallon water drums on the premises (T. 110).
The bricklayer's testimony established that he not only had 15 to 20 tons of sand on the job but he also had two 55-gallon drums of water (T. 136). He stated that respondent [*25] had asked him to keep the water drums open at all times and he had seven or eight 5-gallon buckets nearby (T. 138).
The cited regulation permits the substitution of 55-gallon open drums of water with fire pails in lieu of fire extinguishers, and we conclude that the evidence fails to establish a violation as alleged in item 12.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Savina Homes Industries, Inc., is a corporation engaged in a business affecting commerce and is an employer within the meaning of the Act.
2. Jurisdiction of this proceeding is conferred upon the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission by section 10(c) of the Act.
3. On January 6, 1975, respondent violated the following occupational safety and health regulations:
29 CFR 1926.100(a) as alleged in item 1 of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.451(e)(1) as alleged in item 2, part (A) of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.451(e)(4) as alleged in item 2, part (B) of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.451(e)(3) as alleged in item 2, part (C) of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.402(a)(10) as alleged in item 3 of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.402(a)(1) as alleged in item 4 of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.251(c)(3) as alleged in item 6 of the citation; [*26]
29 CFR 1926.251(c)(5)(i) as alleged in item 7 of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.450(a)(2) as alleged in item 8 of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.301(c) as alleged in item 9 of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.350(a)(1) as alleged in item 10, part (A) of the citation;
29 CFR 1926.350(a)(9) as alleged in item 10, part (B) of the citation; and
29 CFR 1926.50(d)(1) as alleged in item 11, part (B) of the citation.
4. On January 6, 1975, respondent was not in violation of the occupational safety and health regulations codified as 29 CFR 1926.402(a)(5); 29 CFR 1926.352(d); 29 CFR 1926.50(c); and 29 CFR 1926.150(c)(1)(i).
5. Due consideration having been given to the evidence of record, including the gravity of the violations, and the good faith, size and history of the respondent, it is concluded that a total penalty of $275 is appropriate for the aforesaid violation.
ORDER
Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law it is ORDERED that:
1. Items 1, 2(A), 2(B), 2(C), 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(A), 10(B), and 11(B) of the citation for nonserious violations issued to respondent January 9, 1975, are hereby affirmed and a total penalty in the sum of $275 is assessed for said violations. [*27]
2. Items 5, 10(C), 11(A), and 12 of the citation for nonserious violations issued to respondent January 6, 1975, are hereby vacated.
Alan M. Wienman, Judge, OSAHRC
Date: March 1, 1976