“Docket No. 78-3512 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant,v.BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent. INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE ANDSHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 24,Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 78-3512DECISIONBefore:\u00a0 ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE, Commissioners. BY THE COMMISSION:A decision of Administrative Law Judge William E. Brennan is before theCommission pursuant to section 12(j), 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i), of the Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”).\u00a0 Judge Brennanvacated that part of a citation issued by the Secretary of Labor (\”theSecretary\”) to Respondent, Bethlehem Steel Corporation (\”Bethlehem\”),alleging a violation of the Act For failure to comply with the standard at 29 C.F.R. ?1915.33(c)(1).[[1]]\u00a0 The Secretary had proposed a $640 penalty for this allegedviolation and had characterized it as serious.[[2]] Commissioner Cottine granted in partthe Secretary’s petition for discretionary review, directing review on the followinglimited issue:Whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in not considering evidence ofemployee reactions symptomatic of exposure to the byproducts of welding, cutting, orheating surfaces coated with a toxic preservative as a basis for a violation of 29 C.F.R.? 1915.33(c)(1)?Commissioner Cleary also directed review on the following issues: Whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in vacating the alleged seriousviolation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1915.33(c)(1) on the ground that the Secretary introduceduncorroborated hearsay evidence insufficient to establish a violation of the citedstandard?and Whether in alleging the serious violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1915.33(c)(1) the Secretary mustprove that concentrations of zinc oxide fumes exceeding 5 mg\/M3 are present in theenclosed work space?For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Secretary sustained hisburden of proving Bethlehem’s noncompliance with section 1915.33(c)(1), but that he failedto prove that this violation of the Act was serious.I The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. A number of Bethlehem’s employees engagedin welding operations while replacing steel plates in various cargo tanks aboard a crudeoil tanker that was berthed for repairs at Bethlehem’s shipyard in Baltimore,Maryland.\u00a0 The new steel plates were coated with an anti-corrosive, inorganic coatingcalled Rust-Ban 191.\u00a0 A document titled \”Material Safety Data Sheet\”obtained by the Secretary from Bethlehem and admitted in evidence indicates that Rust-Ban191 is 80% zinc.\u00a0 During the course of the month-long repair activities, welding wasperformed upon steel surfaces coated with Rust-Ban 191. This welding produced zinc oxidefumes which were detected in measurable concentrations in the cargo tanks as a result ofair sampling by a Bethlehem environmental health technician.[[3]]\u00a0 The inhalation ofzinc oxide fumes can cause a condition known as metal fume fever.\u00a0 The \”MaterialSafety Data Sheet\” recommends that respiratory protection be provided.\u00a0Bethlehem’s employees were not provided with air line respirators, although somefume-filter cartridge respirators were available during part of this period and mechanicalexhaust fans were located on deck to help circulate air down in the bottom of the tanks.One of the welders, Ochs, testified that, after he had noticed that severalother employees engaged in the welding operation were missing work due to illness, hespoke with 29 co-workers who told him that they had experienced nausea, chills, headaches,bronchial and chest cramps and pains, and sore throats while welding in the tanks.\u00a0Ochs filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(\”OSHA\”) after a Baltimore physician, Dr. Keogh, had reviewed the medicalrecords of those affected and had concluded that a majority of those who became ill had asyndrome compatible with metal fume fever.\u00a0 By the time OSHA received the complaint,however, the tanker had left the shipyard and, therefore, the OSHA compliance officer wasunable to inspect it.\u00a0 Later, at the hearing before Judge Brennan, the complianceofficer testified that he had been told by three industrial hygienists at the OSHA officethat they considered Rust-Ban 191 to be a toxic preservative.\u00a0 The compliance officer– who conceded that he had no background in medicine, toxicology, or pharmacology –accepted the hygienists’ assessment regarding the toxicity of the coating, as well astheir opinion that metal fume fever could cause serious physical harm.\u00a0 He alsotestified that he believed that metal fume fever lasts a day or two and that zinc remainsin the body about one day.In his decision, Judge Brennan determined that Bethlehem had been properlycited under section 1915.33(c)(1).\u00a0 He then turned to the question of whether theSecretary had established that Bethlehem’s employees were exposed to \”toxic\”concentrations of zinc oxide while working in the vessel’s tanks, thereby implicitlyholding that the Secretary was required to make such a showing in order to establishnoncompliance with the cited standard.\u00a0 The judge noted that, according to thestandard at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1000(a)(2), Table Z-1, zinc oxide is a toxic substance inconcentrations exceeding an 8-hour time-weighted average of 5 mg\/M3.[[4]]\u00a0 The judgefound that no quantitative data had been introduced to establish that the threshold limitvalue (TLV) for zinc oxide set forth in section 1910.1000 had been exceeded.\u00a0 Hecharacterized the only evidence directly relevant to this issue, i.e., the testimony ofBethlehem’s environmental health technician concerning the samples he had taken, as\”not conclusive.\”\u00a0 The judge noted that the Secretary had attempted tobridge \”a substantial evidentiary gap\” by introducing the compliance officer’stestimony relating the opinion of the three OSHA industrial hygienists, Ochs’ testimonydescribing the symptoms reported to him by the 29 employees, and a letter by Dr. Keoghstating his evaluation of the symptoms which the employees had related to him.\u00a0 Thejudge found that none of this hearsay evidence was corroborated at the hearing and heindicated that such uncorroborated hearsay could not support a finding of noncompliance.\u00a0 Having concluded that the Secretary had failed to establish that the employees wereexposed to toxic concentrations of zinc oxide while welding, Judge Brennan vacated thisitem of the citation.II Bethlehem endorses Judge Brennan’s determination that, in order to establish the allegedviolation at issue, the Secretary had the burden of proving that the concentration of zincoxide fumes exceeded 5 mg\/M3 in the enclosed spaces in which welding was performed. [[5]]Bethlehem refers to the alternative tests set forth in 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.141(a)(2)(viii),which defines \”toxic material\” as \”a material in concentration or amountwhich exceeds the applicable limit established by a standard, such as ?? 1910.1000 and1910.1001 or, in the absence of an applicable standard, which is of such toxicity so as toconstitute a recognized hazard that is causing or is likely to cause death or seriousphysical harm.\”\u00a0 Bethlehem asserts that, once the + 25% sampling error factor isapplied to the results of the samples taken by its environmental health technician, thereis no record evidence to show that the 5 mg\/M3 TLV was exceeded.\u00a0 Moreover, itcontinues, by failing to show exposure to zinc oxide fume in excess of 5 mg\/M3, theSecretary has also failed to establish that the employees were exposed to any hazard,because, in Bethlehem’s view, no adverse health effects could be expected as a result ofexposure to concentrations below 5 mg\/M3.\u00a0 Bethlehem argues that the concentrationsshown in this case cannot be said to cause death or serious physical injury because therecord establishes the relatively brief duration of metal fume fever.\u00a0 Accordingly,Bethlehem concludes, Rust-Ban 191 does not constitute a toxic material under either partof the definition set forth in section 1910.141(a)(2)(viii).III The cited standard, a specification standard, requires that employees engaged in welding,cutting or heating in enclosed spaces on surfaces covered with toxic preservatives must beprotected by air line respirators or that the toxic coating must be stripped at least fourinches from the area of heat application.\u00a0 It is not seriously disputed — and JudgeBrennan so found — that air line respirators were not provided and that welding wasperformed in enclosed spaces on surfaces which had not been stripped of coating. \u00a0Thus, the matter fundamentally at issue before us is whether the unstripped coating on thesteel plates was a \”toxic preservative coating\” within the meaning of the citedstandard, note 1 supra.Bethlehem contends that Judge Brennan properly held that the Secretary failedto prove that Rust-Ban 191 is a toxic preservative coating.\u00a0 We disagree.\u00a0 TheMaterial Safety Data Sheet indicates that the preservative coating Rust-Ban 191 is 80%zinc.\u00a0 It also prescribes the use of respiratory protection and urges the use ofadequate ventilation while welding coated surfaces.\u00a0 The record evidence,particularly the four samples collected by Bethlehem’s own environmental healthtechnician, establishes that welding upon steel surfaces coated with Rust-Ban 191 producesmeasurable concentrations of zinc oxide fume.\u00a0 Under the ship repairing standardsBethlehem was expressly required to ascertain the threshold limit value for zinc oxide. 29C.F.R. ? 1915.57 provides in pertinent part:? 1915.57 Health and sanitation.(a) No chemical product, such as a…preservative; [and] no structural material, suchas… zinc coated steel … which is a hazardous material within the meaning of ?1915.2(s), shall be used until the employer has ascertained the potential fire, toxic, orreactivity hazards which are likely to be encountered in the handling, application, orutilization of such a material.(b) In order to ascertain the hazards, as required by paragraph (a) of this section, theemployer shall obtain the following items of information which are applicable to aspecific product or material to be used:(7) Health hazard data, including threshold limit value, in appropriateunits, for a single hazardous chemical or for the individual hazardous ingredients of amixture, as appropriate; ….Section 1915.2(s), cited in section 1915.57(a), defines \”hazardousmaterial\” as having any of seven characteristics, including \”…a thresholdlimit value… below 500 mg\/M3 for fumes …. \” The threshold limit value for zincoxide fumes is set forth in Table Z-1 of section 1910.1000, the roster of toxic andhazardous substances.\u00a0 Table Z-1 applies in this case because there is no specificreference in or to section 1915.57(a) regarding any other source for threshold limitvalues.\u00a0 The low TLV for zinc oxide fume found in Table Z-1, 5 mg\/M3, establishes thecharacterization of these fumes as \”hazardous.\” [[6]]\u00a0 We also note thatmetals coated, as here, with zinc-bearing materials are deemed to be \”of toxicsignificance\” pursuant to section 1915.31(c)(1), a companion standard to section1915.33(c)(1) in Subpart D–Welding, Cutting and Heating, of the Safety and HealthRegulations for Ship Repairing under Part 1915.\u00a0 Based on the foregoing evidence aswell as the Secretary’s regulations, we conclude that Rust-Ban 191 is a \”toxicpreservative coating\” within the meaning of the cited standard.We reject Bethlehem’s argument that, in order to establish a violation ofsection 1915.33(c)(1), the Secretary had the burden of proving the presence of zinc oxidefume in excess of the levels set forth in Table Z-1.[[7]]\u00a0 The plain meaning of thecited standard is that employees must be protected by air line respirators unless\”all toxic coatings\” have been stripped for a distance of at least 4 inches fromthe area of heat application.\u00a0 The standard applies to all surfaces covered by atoxic coating.\u00a0 Its application is not determined by the level of air contaminantsproduced by welding, cutting or heating these surfaces.[[8]]Bethlehem’s interpretation also is contrary to the standard’s preventativeintent.\u00a0 The standard requires either the stripping of coating away from the area ofheat application, which would prevent the creation of any toxic air contaminants, or theuse of air line respirators, which would assure protection from any toxic air contaminantsthat were created.\u00a0 The interpretation advocated by Bethlehem would permit employeesto be exposed to toxic air contaminants caused by welding upon surfaces coated with atoxic preservative for as long a period as is necessary to extrapolate an 8-hourtime-weighted average.\u00a0 Indeed, such exposure could continue until the ever-changingconcentration of zinc oxide fume created by the process of welding in an enclosed spacereached the point where the TLV was exceeded.\u00a0 In our view, Bethlehem’sinterpretation contravenes the clear intent of the standard, which is to protect employeesfrom any exposure to the air contaminants created by welding on a toxic preservativecoating by taking precautions before welding ever begins.In Anaconda Aluminum Co., 81 OSAHRC 27A\/A2, 9 BNA OSHC 1460, 1480, 1981 CCHOSHD ? 25,300, p. 31,352 (No. 13102, 1981), the Commission held that 29 C.F.R. ?1910.1001(c)(2)(iii) is not limited in its application to those situations in which thepermissible exposure limit for asbestos is exceeded.\u00a0 In essence, the Commissionconcluded that the standard cited in that case was a work practices standard that requiredemployees to use supplied-air respirators and special clothing whenever they engaged inthe specified activities of spraying, demolition, or removal of asbestos.\u00a0 Weconclude that the standard at issue in this case is similar to the standard at issue inAnaconda, i.e., both standards require specified precautions to be taken wheneveremployees are engaged in specified activities.\u00a0 Therefore, the cited standard likethe standard at issue in Anaconda is not limited in its application to situations where ashowing is made that permissible exposure limits have been exceeded.\u00a0 Inasmuch asBethlehem failed to provide air line respirators when its employees welded upon surfaceswhich had not been stripped of a toxic preservative coating, we further conclude thatBethlehem failed to comply with 29 C.F.R. ? 1915.33(c)(1).[[9]]The citation alleged that the violation was serious in nature.\u00a0 Viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to the Secretary, it could be concluded that someof the affected employees contracted metal fume fever as the result of exposure to zincoxide fumes in the cargo tanks.\u00a0 Also, the compliance officer reported the hearsayopinion of three OSHA industrial hygienists that metal fume fever could cause seriousphysical harm and Dr. Keogh’s report indicated that some of the workers exposed hadpersistent symptoms.\u00a0 Nevertheless, Dr. Keogh noted that these persistent symptomsare \”clearly not typical of the course reported in the literature for metal fumefever.\”\u00a0 Moreover, the ACGIH documentation regarding zinc oxide fume states that\”[m]ost authorities agree that metal fume fever itself is a relatively innocuouscondition.\u00a0 It has been described as temporary and never serious, of brief durationand without aftereffects, never fatal . . . . \”[[10]]\u00a0 There is no argument orevidence that employees were exposed to the hazard of contracting metal fume fever otherthan during this one welding operation or that the metal fumes were contaminated with anyother substance that could aggravate the resulting symptoms.\u00a0 Thus, the Secretary’scase rests on the effects of metal fumes during the limited period of welding involved inthis case.We conclude that the Secretary’s evidence does not establish a probability that metal fumefever could result in prolonged or serious physical harm in light of the references by Dr.Keogh and ACGIH to the widely-held scientific opinion to the contrary.As to the appropriate penalty, the gravity of the violation was substantialbecause a great number of employees were exposed to the zinc oxide fumes.\u00a0 Bethlehemis a large company with many prior violations.\u00a0 Though Bethlehem showed a degree ofgood faith by monitoring some employees’ exposure levels, it took no action after thosereadings revealed exposure to measurable concentrations of zinc oxide fume.\u00a0 Inaddition, the inadequate metal fume filter respirators were not always provided.\u00a0 Inconsideration of these factors we assess a $300 penalty.SO ORDERED.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr. Executive SecretaryDATED:\u00a0 FEB 28 1983The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format.\u00a0 To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public InformationOffice by e-mail ( [email protected] ),telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).FOOTNOTES: [[1]] The standard provided as follows:? 1915.33 Welding, cutting and heating in way of preservative coatings. (c)Protection against toxic preservative coatings. (1) In enclosed spaces all surfacescovered with toxic preservatives shall be stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance ofat least 4 inches from the area of heat application or the employees shall be protected byair line respirators meeting the requirements of ? 1915.82(a).The Secretary recently has consolidated and revised the standards thatpreviously were published at 29 C.F.R. Parts 1915, 1916 and 1917.\u00a0 These revisedstandards have been promulgated as a new 29 C.F.R. Part 1915–Occupational Safety andHealth Standards for Shipyard Employment. 47 Fed. Reg. 16984-17013 (April 20, 1982). Thestandard cited in this case and set forth above is now found at 29 C.F.R. ?1915.53(d)(1). 47 Fed. Reg. 16995. In this decision, we will use the old designation forthe cited standard, as well as for the other standards and regulations that formerly werepublished in Part 1915–Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repairing.[[2]] Section 17(k), 29 U.S.C. ? 666(j), of the Act provides:[A] serious violation shall be deemed to exist in a place of employment ifthere is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result…unless the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, knowof the presence of the violation.[[3]] The Bethlehem environmental health technician testified that he tooksamples in the tanker but did not use any breathing zone monitoring devices because noneof the employees he approached were willing to wear them.\u00a0 Therefore, instead ofattaching sampling devices to individual employees, he took sampling pumps and placed themin pairs in different areas where employees were working.\u00a0 He collected four sampleswhich yielded zinc oxide in the following concentrations:Sample#\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Sample Duration\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Zinc-OxideConcentration1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a036 minutes\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0.74 mg\/M3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a015 minutes\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a05.67 mg\/M35\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a010 minutes\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a01.14 mg\/M36\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a030 minutes\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a03.66 mg\/M3test, so he was unable to state at what level inside the tanker the samples had beentaken.At the hearing the technician initially testified that he had computed the exposure levelin terms of a time-weighted average by adding the concentration level figures determinedby the samples taken and then dividing that total by the number of samples. However, helater admitted that the figure he had computed could not be equated with an 8-hourtime-weighted average.[[4]] The standard at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1000(a)(2) requires employee exposureto specified air contaminants to be limited to the applicable 8-hour time-weighted averageas listed in Table Z-1.[[5]] Both Bethlehem and the Secretary frame their arguments in terms ofwhether the samples taken by the environmental health technician indicated a concentrationof zinc oxide fume in excess of 5 mg\/M3 for the brief period of time sampled.\u00a0 Theyoverlook the fact that this TLV for zinc oxide fume is an 8-hour timeweighted average.[[6]] Commissioner Cleary does not rely on the listing of zinc oxide fumes inTable Z-1 of ? 1910.1000 as a basis for concluding that Rust-Ban 191 is a toxicpreservative coating.\u00a0 Instead, he notes that the American Conference of GovernmentIndustrial Hygienists, in its publication, Threshold Limit Values, has set a TLV for zincoxide fumes of 5 mg\/M3, and that ? 1915.5 specifically incorporates this publication into?? 1915.11(a)(3) and (b)(3) and 1915.21(b).\u00a0 Accordingly, Commissioner Clearyconcludes that the references to threshold limit values in ?? 1915.2(s) and 1915.57refer to the TLVs as established and published by the ACGIH.[[7]] The definition of \”toxic material\” at 29 C.F.R. ?1910.141(a)(2)(viii) cited by Bethlehem is by its terms applicable only to 29 C.F.R. Part1910, Subpart J, and does not control the meaning of \”toxic coating\” under thecited standard.[[8]] Commissioner Cottine notes that the dissent at n.15, infra, overlooksthe elementary distinction between a permissible exposure level and a work practice. See29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1001(b)(1), (c)(2)-(iii) (asbestos standard: separate requirements forpermissible exposure level and work practices), ? 1910.1029(c), (f)(3) (coke ovenemissions standard: same), ? 1910.1043(c), (g) (cotton dust standard: same).\u00a0 InBethlehem Steel Corp., 82 OSAHRC 31\/A2, 10 BNA OSHC 1673, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 26,083 (No.77-1807, 1982), the standard specifically required a mechanical ventilation systemadequate to maintain welding fumes and smoke \”within safe limits\” unlessalternative protection was provided. 29 C.F.R. ? 1916.31(a), (b).\u00a0 However, thecitation in this case involves the work practices provision of ? 1915.33(c)(1). \u00a0This provision specifically mandates protection unless all toxic coatings are removed fromthe area of heat application.\u00a0 Therefore, this provision requires specific workpractices regardless of air contaminant levels when welding is to be done on surfacescovered with toxic preservative coatings.\u00a0 These work practices are supplemented bythe requirement of adequate ventilation or alternative protection when welding smoke andfumes exceed \”safe levels.\” Work practices are dependent on a qualitativecriterion–\”metals of toxic significance\” on the surface of the material to bewelded–and by a quantitative criterion–the \”safe limits\” established by thepermissible exposure levels for toxic air contaminants. Accordingly, Commissioner Cottineadheres to his fully consistent view that the threshold limit values of Table Z-1 of ?1910.1000 are an appropriate quantitative reference for a standard requiring themeasurement of air contaminants, Bethlehem Steel Corp., 10 BNA OSHC, at 1677 n.9, 1982 CCHOSHD at p. 32,832 n.9, but that this quantitative reference is irrelevant to a standardthat requires a specific work practice regardless of the air contaminant levels.[[9]] Our finding that the coating before us is a \”toxic preservativecoating\” within the meaning of the cited standard is not based upon any of theevidence which the judge characterized as \”uncorroborated hearsay.\” Therefore,we need not reach the evidentiary issues directed for review in order to dispose of thiscase. It is, of course, well-settled that hearsay evidence is admissible in ReviewCommission proceedings and that hearsay evidence may be probative. E.g. UltimateDistribution Systems, Inc., 82 OSAHRC 22\/B12, 10 BNA OSHC 1568, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 26,011(No. 79-1269, 1982).[[10]] ACGIH, Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values 284 (3d ed.1971)(citations omitted); see also Id. 446 (4th ed. 1980).”