SIGNODE CORPORATION
OSHRC Docket No. 3527
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
April 1, 1976
[*1]
Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
COUNSEL:
Herman Grant, Regional Solicitor, USDOL
George E. Bullwinkel and Karl W. Grabemann, for the employer
OPINIONBY: CLEARY
OPINION:
DECISION
CLEARY, Commissioner:
On February 6, 1974, Administrative Law Judge David J. Knight held the respondent employer, Signode Corp., in violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. [hereinafter cited as "the Act"], for failure to comply with the safety standard published at 29 CFR § 1910.212(a)(1). n1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 § 1910.212 General requirements for all machines
(a) Machine guarding . . .
(1) Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. Examples of guarding methods are -- barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pursuant to section [*2] 12(j) of the Act, review of the Judge's decision was directed by Commissioner Moran, after respondent filed a petition for discretionary review, to determine whether respondent's machines constitute a hazard within the meaning of the cited standard.
Respondent operates machines called Magnus-line rewind wheels. The machines are arranged in three lines, each comprised of about 16 machines. A line is 60 to 80 feet long with aisles of 5 feet between lines. Two employees service each line of machines. The function of the machines is to rewind 1/2 to 1-inch wide steel strapping which is used for packing. A completed reel of strapping is about 1 1/2 feet in diameter, and weighs about 100 pounds. Immediately in front of each reel is a fan-like wheel of six paddles, each paddle being 3-4 inches wide and 8-10 inches long. The center of the wheel is approximately 4 1/2 feet from the floor. During rewinding the wheels rotate at 45-50 revolutions per minute. After a reel is rewound, the machine automatically stops. An operator has 40 seconds to remove the reel and begin a new one before the machine automatically restarts. Normally, however, only 20 seconds are needed to change reels, [*3] the extra 20 seconds being a safety factor. The operation of the machines is staggered. This enables an employee to change reels at different intervals on several machines. On some machines dual-palm buttons are used to collapse the paddles during the changeover. On others a foot switch is used.
The wheels of each machine were unguarded. There were no barriers to restrict access to the lines of machines. Also, there were no signs or devices to warn an employee to keep away from them.
Judge Knight held that, although respondent's machines constituted a safety hazard, the installation of individual guarding devices would be impractical. In lieu of individual guards, the Judge recommended that the parties explore other means of abatement, such as restricting access to the machine area and installing dualpalm buttons to keep an employee's hands away from nip points. In order to allow respondent sufficient time to implement such measures, the Judge extended the date for abatement to six months from the effective date of his order.
Claiming that in 272 machine years of operation there have been no accidents caused by the exposed paddles, respondent takes exception to the Judge's [*4] conclusion that the machines constitute a safety hazard. Respondent maintains that no hazard exists because the chance of injury may not be reasonably anticipated in the ordinary use of the unguarded machines.
On the other hand, the Secretary asserts that the Judge correctly found the operation of the unguarded machines to be hazardous, but takes exception to the Judge's finding that individual guarding is not feasible.
Although the evidence indicates that the likelihood of an accident is small, the unguarded machines constitute a hazard. The wheels turn at a relatively slow pace (45-50 RPM). But it is possible that an employee could catch a finger or hand against the paddles, or that an employee's clothing could get snagged in the rotating paddles, pulling him towards the machine and causing injury. Further, any line of 16 machines is attended by two employees, necessitating employee movement in the area of operative machines. It is well established that neither a specific accident rate nor any accident is required to establish a violation. Ryder Truck Lines v. Brennan, 497 F.2d 230, 233 (5th Cir. 1974). One purpose of the Act is to prevent accidents. Lee Way Motor [*5] Freight, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 511 F.2d 864, 866 (10th Cir. 1975). The likelihood of an accident relates to the degree rather than the kind of violation. See Natkin and Company, 1971-1973 CCH OSHD para. 15,679, 1 BNA OSHC 1204 (No. 401, 1973). Although there is little chance of an injury if the machines are operated properly, the standard is plainly intended to eliminate danger from unsafe operating procedures, poor training, or employee inadvertence. See Polycel Corp., 1975-1976 CCH OSHD para. 20,134, 3 BNA OSHC 1698, (No. 5241, 1975) (dissenting opinion).
We find no error in the Judge's abatement order. The installation of individual guarding devices is only one method of complying with the cited standard. The standard allows considerable flexibility in methods of compliance. Allowing respondent a period of six months in which to accomplish abatement is appropriate in these circumstances when options to individual guarding must be studied.
Regarding the penalty assessment we hold that because the gravity of the violation is low, the Judge correctly assessed no penalty.
So ORDERED.
DISSENTBY: MORAN
DISSENT:
MORAN, Commissioner, Dissenting:
The standard at issue in [*6] this case, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(1), requires guarding only if it is necessary in order to "protect . . . employees . . . from hazards." Consequently one cannot be in violation for failure to provide guarding unless the evidence shows that operation of the machines without guarding constitutes a "hazard" to employees. That essential element of proof is missing in this case. The citation, therefore, should be vacated.
The Judge made the factual determination that respondent's rewind machines created a "remote and slight" risk of injury. n2 This raises the issue of whether a condition causing probabilities of injury of such a low degree can be considered a "hazard" within the meaning of the standard. My colleagues, without any basis in the record for so doing, upgrade the probability of injury from "remote" to "small" and find a violation by concluding in essence that a condition is ipso facto hazardous whenever the evidence shows any possibility of injury. n3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 The Judge's decision is attached hereto as Appendix A.
n3 In the past Messrs. Barnako and Cleary have redefined the meanings of words in order to establish violations of the Act ("and" means the same as "or," a roof is a floor, etc., etc., and so forth). In this case they try something different: they choose their own word to define the facts - then conclude that, on the basis of such "facts," a violation has been proved.
[*7]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The respondent contends that the rewind machines cannot reasonably be labelled "hazards" and, if they were so considered within the context of the standard, that the standard does not conform with the Act's definition of an occupational safety and health standard as "a standard which "requires conditions . . . reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment." n4 I agree.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n4 29 U.S.C. § 652(8) (emphasis added).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Neither the Act nor the safety standard defines the term "hazard." However, Secretary v. Raven Industries, Inc., 4 OSAHRC 897, 904 (1973), sets forth the following definition of that term as it is employed within an occupational safety and health standard:
"[H]azard is risk incident to the nature of the work performed and to the nature of the place of employment and not fortuitous circumstances which never occurred in such environment."
In Raven, the employer was [*8] cited for a violation of the same machine guarding standard at issue in this case. The citation alleged a failure to guard pulley wheels on industrial sewing machines. No injuries to employees at the unguarded nip points and revolving parts on the sewing machines had ever been reported at Raven Industries or nine similar industries. Furthermore, an operator could not gain access to the exposed nip points in the absence of a deactivation of the machine. Although injury was possible, it was too remote a possibility to fall within the purview of the standard. The Judge concluded that:
"[T]he employer is required to guard [his machines], only if, in the ordinary course of human affairs, chance of injury may be reasonably anticipated from use of it without protection." (Emphasis added.)
Mere possibility of injury is too speculative a basis for a finding that a hazard exists. See Secretary v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 6 OSAHRC 214 (1974). Furthermore, the complainant must establish the "hazard" element of the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Secretary v. Armor Elevator, Inc., 5 OSAHRC 260 (1973).
The record in this case shows that no accident [*9] had been caused by the rotating paddles of respondent's machines in the 272 machine years the 48 rewinders had been operating. Additionally, no accident had resulted therefrom in another of respondent's plants during the four years that one witness had worked there.
The complainant's case rests on the speculative opinion testimony of his area director, who had not personally seen respondent's equipment. This witness speculated that an employee's extremities could be struck by the paddles or his clothing caught therein. However, this opinion was not supported by any evidence of prior injuries in respondent's or similar plants. Moreover, the witness conceded that there was no method of assuring the probability of injury to respondent's employees except to say that, as a general proposition, slips, trips, and falls account for 20 percent of all industrial accidents.
Complainant has clearly failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any nexus between those slips, trips, or falls in the conditions at this respondent's plant. n5 In other words there is no evidence that there are risks which are "incident to the nature of the work performed and to the nature of the place [*10] of employment" as required by the Raven definition. He has also failed to show that a striking of an employee's extremities or the catching of his clothing would be other than fortuitous circumstances which, the record indicates, have never occurred in respondent's plant. Therefore, a chance of injury cannot be "reasonably anticipated," and the presence of a hazard has not been established.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n5 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made it clear in Brennan v. OSAHRC and Hendrix, 511 F.2d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir., 1975) that the evidence would be insufficient to establish a violation unless it established some nexus between the cited employer and the conditions which are alleged to consultute the violation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have previously commented on the vagueness of the regulation here in issue. Secretary v. Boise Cascade Corp., 20 OSAHRC 903 (1975) (dissenting opinion). This case serves to emphasize the dilemma that is created for employers by such broadly worded regulations. The Judge has told respondent to explore [*11]
The actions of Messrs. Barnako and Cleary in this case are directly contrary to the sage observation of the Fifth Circuit's Chief Judge, John R. Brown, in Diamond Roofing Co. v. OSAHRC, F.2d (5th Cir., No. 73-3704 decided March 15, 1976):
"The purpose of OSHA is to obtain safe and healthful working conditions through promulgation of occupational safety and health standards which tell employers what they must do to avoid hazardous conditions. To strain the plain and natural meaning of words for the purpose of alleviating a perceived safety hazard is to delay the day when the occupational safety and health regulations will be written in clear and concise language so that employers will be better able to understand and [*12] observe them."
APPENDIX A
Decision and Order
Herman Grant, Regional Solicitor and John C. Nangle, for the employer
George E. Bullwinkel and Donald J. Erickson, Jr., For Signode Corporation
David J. Knight, A.L.J.
On June 6, 1973, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor (Complainant) issued a citation to Signode Corporation of Bridgeview, Illinois (Respondent) alleging a non-serious n1 violation of a safety standard promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § § 651, et seq., the Act) as follows:
|
Standard Allegedly |
|
|
Violated |
Description |
|
29 C.F.R. |
Failed to guard machinery to protect the operator and |
|
§ 1910.212(a)(1) n2 |
other employees in the machine area from hazards such |
|
|
as those created by points of operation, ingoing nip |
|
|
points rotating parts, and flying chips and sparks. |
|
|
For example: Cincinnati was not equipped with guard |
|
|
over chuck nor was it equipped with shield over |
|
|
point of operation. Rewind wheels on Magnus lines |
|
|
1-2-3 Gen'l Plant area. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 A non-serious violation is one which does not create a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from the condition cited, cf, 29 U.S.C. § 666(b)(c) and (k).
n2 This standard as it appears in 29 CFR reads:
§ 1910.212 General requirements for all machines.
(a) Machine guarding -- (1) Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. Examples of guarding methods are -- barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.
[*13]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The citation required correction of this condition by August 6, 1973, and no penalty was assessed under section 666(c) of the Act.
Within the 15 working day period prescribed by section 659(a) of the Act, the Respondent notified n3 the Complainant that it contested the alleged violation. Thereafter, the complaint was filed essentially repeating the allegations in the citation and also alleging the necessary jurisdictional facts to support the validity of this proceeding. Respondent's answer denies that it violated the cited standard but admits to the jurisdiction of this Commission. Hearing was held on November 20, 1973, in Chicago, Illinois, with both parties represented by counsel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n3 By letter dated June 28, 1973. Twelve other violations were itemized in the citation which the Respondent did not contest. These allegations ripened into final orders by the passage of time, 29 U.S.C. § 659(a).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No employee or employee representative [*14] came forward to claim party status. Proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and briefs were filed by January 2, 1974.
THE ISSUES
The dispositive issue is whether a circle of six steel flaps -- on machines which wind reels of steel banding -- rotating at a speed of 45 revolutions per minute, located at a level of about four and one half feet from the floor and not enclosed or guarded creates a hazard to employees or others in the vicinity of the machinery. n4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n4 Two types of machinery were alleged to be in violation of the standard. As to one, the Cincinnati grinder, no contest is directed to the allegation. (See transcript, hereafter Tr., 21-22).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And, if a hazard is found to exist, the questions then arise of what would constitute a reasonable abatement and the time required to implement the necessary safety measures.
THE EVIDENCE:
Complainant's Compliance Officer, Thomas M. Kott, inspected Respondent's plant at Bridgeview, Illinois on May 17, 1973, and witnessed the operation of the so-called [*15] Magnus lines one, two and three (Tr. 25). Although the witness had difficulty in remembering all the details of the machines' operations (Tr. 41), he testified that there were from 20 to 30 machines in each of the three lines (Tr. 25), each line between 60 to 80 feet long and an aisle between them to from six to eight feet (Tr. 28). Each machine's function is to rewind steel strapping to be used for packing (Tr. 25). The strapping or banding could be from one-half to one inch wide (Tr. 26), and a completed reel would be about a foot and a half or larger in diameter (Tr. 39).
Immediately in front of the forming reel is a wheel of six paddles similar to a fan, each paddle being three or four inches wide and eight to ten inches long (Tr. 42, 46 and exhibit C-2). The center of the wheel is located about four and a half feet from the floor or to a man's chest (Tr. 30). The wheel of paddles rotates while the strapping is being wound at a speed of 45 to 50 revolutions per minute. He was not sure how many employees serviced each line -- removing full reels and starting new ones -- but it could be from one to three men and he did see two men working on one of the lines (Tr. 48-49). [*16]
The witness saw no barriers to restrict access to a line of rewind machines nor any sign or device to warn a person to keep away from the machines and he mentioned the absence of these safeguards to the employer's representative (Tr. 49-52). Installation of these safeguards would be, according to this witness, sufficient protection (Tr. 64-65).
Since the wheel of paddles on each machine was exposed, the Officer testified that an employee might get his hand caught in the spinning wheel mangling it, losing a finger or receiving a severe laceration (Tr. 56). It would also be possible for an employee to get his hand nipped where the banding is fed into the reel (Tr. 57). And, when a reel is removed from the machine, the paddles collapse forward, toward the operator, and come together. When this occurs, the operator's hand or fingers could be pinched (Tr. 57, 59, and exhibit C-2, figure D).
The Complainant's Area Director, Mr. William E. Funcheon, Jr. -- whom I deem to be expert in the field of machinery guarding based on his years of actual experience in this area (Tr. 78-84 and 86-89) -- testified that the hazard presented by exposed rotating paddles at 45 revolutions per minute [*17] and at a height of four and a half feet is the probability of an employee's hands or fingers (extremities) or clothing struck or caught in the paddles which he analogized to fan blades (Tr. 93).
It would be more likely that a hand within the paddles would be pushed out but it could be dragged through a part of a revolution (Tr. 94). In the latter event, or if a sleeve were caught up, the hand or arm would be twisted resulting in a strain, sprain or a break (Tr. 95-96). The injury resulting when the hand is pushed out would range from none at all to a bruise, laceration, break, to sprain if caught on an upswing (Tr. 95-96) depending on the horse-power of the machine. If an employee got his wrist caught in the paddles while his arm was behind his back, he could be catapulted (Tr. 97).
According to this witness, there is no method of assessing the probability of an accident occurring except that 20 per cent of all industrial accidents result from slips, trips or falls (Tr. 99-100). It cannot be determined when an employee might inadvertently slip or somehow come in contact with the rotating paddles (Tr. 99).
The Magnus rewinders may be protected by two types of guarding. A barrier [*18] type guard to prevent physical contact, such as a screen, or one which would stop the machine if an employee came to close, such as an electronic eye device (Tr. 102, 126). It appeared to the witness that there is room around each machine to install barriers, (Tr. 108) but its presence should not interfere with the operation of the machine (127). These could be in place within three months. Installation of the electric eye device could take up to a year or longer (Tr. 128-129).
Respondent's Plant Manager, Mr. John E. Dick, with pictures described in detail the processing of steel banding and the function of the Magnus rewinding machines (Tr. 138-141 and exhibits R2-1 to 11). There are 16 rewinding machines on each of the three lines at this plant (Tr. 168). Once the incoming steel is slit into the width of the finished product and ready to be reeled, it is heat treated and welded into the Magnus rewinder lines (Tr. 139-140). From there on, because of the heat treatment, the process must be continuous for any delay would result in the entire load either becoming scrap or requiring reworking. The rate must be kept constant (Tr. 140). After being heat treated, each ribbon of [*19] steel (one on each rewinder) is painted, waxed and finally reeled on a Magnus rewinder (Tr. 41). In a line of 16 machines, the first one has a footage counter and will stop automatically when the reel is complete (Tr. 143). The operator has 40 seconds to remove the full reel and begin the next one. This operation normally requires 20 seconds. Occasionally, some difficulty is experienced in taking off a reel (Tr. 145-146). The extra 20 seconds is a built in safety factor (Tr. 145). Thereafter, each machine in the line is stopped in a timed sequence and the reels removed and new ones begun (Tr. 143). On some machines, dual palm buttons are used to bring the paddles upright and on others a foot switch is used (Tr. 156 and 157).
While a machine is stopped, the ribbon will continue to flow and accumulates in a track on top of the machine. This is reeled when the machine is restarted (Tr. 144).
Across an aisle of four and a half to five feet from each machine is a suspended hook or clamp on an overhead monorail which the operator brings over to remove a completed reel which weighs about 100 pounds (Tr. 154 and exhibit R2-7).
A machine will automatically stop if it finds a too-large [*20] weld or globule of lead or paint. These thicknesses are removed by the operator (Tr. 141-142). Often, then, more than one machine is stopped (Tr. 175-176). If not restarted within the 40 second accumulation period, the line will shut down and the strap will become scrap (Tr. 176).
Two machines were fitted with gates over their entire face in September 1973, to test this type of guard (Tr. 156-157 and exhibits R2-12 and 13). These gates open some two and a half to three feet into the aisle where normally two operators will be working and interfere with the operator's taking care of a stopped machine (Tr. 166). Types of barrier guards which would slide above and below the paddles would not work because there is no room to accommodate these on top or below the machines and there is about one foot between the wheels of paddles (Tr. 179-181).
An optical or light-type guard which would stop the machine if its beam of light were broken was installed on another machine (Tr. 159 and exhibit R2-14). This is a large, bulky structure which extends into the aisle requiring an operator to lean over awkwardly to work on the machine (Tr. 160). This apparatus has been in operation some six [*21] weeks (as of the time of the hearing) and its dependability is uncertain (Tr. 160-161).
The Plant Manager reviewed the accident record of each line of machines and found that no accident has been caused by the rotating paddles of these machines. The three lines of 48 rewinders have been operating for a total of 272 machine years with no accident caused by the paddles (Tr. 168). There are also 16 rewinders at Respondent's Weirton, W. Va., plant and no accident occurred there over the four year period this witness was at that location (Tr. 169).
According to this witness, who is a mechanical engineer and whose scope of employment includes occupational safety (Tr. 136-8), in the normal operation of the rewinders whose paddles rotate at 45 revolutions per minute -- the speed of a phonograph record player (Tr. 163-164) -- there is no hazard (Tr. 171). The employees are trained to operate these machines safely and, if one did fall against a rotating paddle, he might be pushed away; but he could fall completely into the structure (Tr. 200-201).
The final witness was Respondent's Plant Engineer, Mr. Joseph Speaks, who experimented with the different types of guards. Several types of [*22] barrier guards were tried and discarded (Tr. 205-207). Then the electric light guard was purchased and installed at a cost of between $2500 and $3000 (Tr. 207-208, exhibit R2-14). This type of guard works very effectively but, because it protrudes, causes the operator to lean over to work on the rewinder (Tr. 208-209). Therefore, it obstructs the smooth operation and increases the hazard (Tr. 213-214). However, the electric light guard shown in exhibit R2-14 is the only one of its kind that is feasible for it is more stable than others requiring less maintenance (Tr. 209). Respondent, because of the required continuousness of the operation, cannot afford to put any rewinder out of operation to maintain the guard (Tr. 209-210).
While this witness believes that no hazard is created by the rotating paddles because, even if an employee slipped or fell into a machine, no harm would be caused (Tr. 211, 213), it is possible that an employee falling against the rotating paddles would receive an injury that he otherwise would not if he had fallen against a wall (Tr. 218-219). He knows, though, of no such occurrence (Tr. 219). In fact, an employee could put his hand into the rotating [*23] paddles and remove it without any injury (Tr. 216).
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Complainant would find from the evidence that the existence of nip points and the rotating speed of the steel paddles make it likely that an injury would occur from accidental contact. Under the standard cited, according to Complainant, it is only necessary to prove that an accident is possible. Complainant's Brief, pages 2 - 3. Complainant argues that it is not the function of the Commission to pass on problems involving the abatement and, in this case, the use of vertical gates would be a complete cure. Complainant's Brief, pages 3-4.
Respondent, relying on the greater expertise of its witnesses than that of Complainant, would find no hazard in the normal operation of the rewinders. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, 13-21. No likelihood of injury arises from this operation and Complainant has failed to prove otherwise. Respondent's Conclusions of Law, 7. could not be anticipated. Respondent's Brief, page 4.
Furthermore, argues Respondent, the types of guards tried create hazards of their own and the only reasonable method of abatement would be to restruct access to the aisles of the rewinders by gating of the entrances. Here, Respondent relies on the definition in the act:
(8) The term "occupational safety and health standard" means a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment. 29 U.S.C. § 652(8). (Respondent's Brief, pages 4-6).
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Based on the foregoing, I find the following facts to be determinative of the issues presented:
1). In the normal operations at Respondent's plant at Bridgeview, Illinois, two employees work the 16 machines in each of the three lines of Magnus rewinders;
2) The work area consists of an aisle not more than five feet wide and on one side are the unguarded 16 wheels of paddles at chest level which -- while the machine is forming a reel of steel banding -- rotate at a speed of 45 revolutions [*25] per minute with a distance of about a foot between each wheel;
3) Once a machine stops, either because the reel is complete or there is a defect in the steel being wound, the employee has 40 seconds to remove or correct the reel and that amount of time is adequate even though more than one machine stops at any point;
4) The employees working each line are exposed to the rotating paddles and their extremities or clothing could accidentally come into contact with the paddles in operation;
5) The risk of injury should such contact come about is remote and slight for, based on the testimony of the Area Director and Respondent's witnesses, anything coming into the paddles would most likely be pushed out of the periphery;
6) The use of gate-type barrier guards opening into the aisle where two employees are working increases the chances of a slip or fall by one who must go around them; so, too, with the use of the electric light type guard at the bottom of each machine extending into the aisle and causing the employee to lean over into the machine;
7) The configuration of the machines does not permit the use of guards sliding above or below them; and
8) The installation of barrier [*26] type guards would require no less than three months and not less than a year if the electric light guard is used, the installation of the latter costing approximately $144,000.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER:
While a hazard created by the rotating paddles has been shown, the likelihood of any injury being remote and the impracticality of guarding each individual has also been demonstrated. Use of the barrier or electronic types of guards tested by Respondent increase the hazard of a slip, trip or other accidental contact with a rewinder in operation. The employees have little enough time or space to service a stopped machine.
But given the hazard, I must conclude that the standard requiring some type of guarding has been violated. It does not necessarily follow, however, that each machine must be individually guarded.
Although Complainant argues that problems of abatement of hazards are not within the province of the Commission in this type of proceeding, certainly compliance with the standards as they are written is. The standard cited, 29 CFR § 1910.212(a) requires:
(1) One or methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees [*27] in the machine area from hazards . . . (emphasis mine)
But the very next section goes on to say:
(2) General requirements for machine guards. Guards shall be affixed to the machine where possible and secured elsewhere if for any reason attachment to the machine is not possible. The guard shall be such that it does not offer an accident hazard in itself.
The guards described by the Complainant's Area Director and those tested by Respondent offer "accident hazards[s]" themselves and their installation, therefore, would not -- under these standards -- be required.
Other avenues to reduce the effects of the hazard must be explored such as restricting access to the machine area, as suggested by the Complainant's Compliance Officer, while allowing the operators the necessary room to work safely. The evidence also indicates that some rewinders have been equipped with such safety devices as dual-palm buttons to keep an employee's hands away from nip points. All machines should be so operated.
In my opinion, a period of six months should be sufficient to implement the necessary safeguards in the machines' area and on the machines themselves where necessary to protect against [*28] nip points.
As noted above, the parties do not contest the jurisdiction of the Commission nor that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 652(3) and (5). Also, the corrections to the transcript filed by Respondent on December 26, 1973, are accepted and the transcript is deemed so corrected.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that:
1) The citation issued June 6, 1973, alleging a violation of 29 CFR § 1910.212(a)(1) as that standard applies to the Magnus lines of rewinders at Respondent's plant at Bridgeview, Illinois, and assessing no penalty therefor, is affired; and
2) The period to abate this violation is fixed at six (6) months from the effective date of this order.
DAVID J. KNIGHT, Judge, OSHRC
Dated: February 6, 1974, Washington, D.C.