“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.BRIDGEPORT BRASS COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 82-0899_DECISION_Before: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and CLEARY, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commissionunder 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i), section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”). The Commission isan adjudicatory agency, independent of the Department of Labor and theOccupational Safety and Health Administration. It was established toresolve disputes arising out of enforcement actions brought by theSecretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatory functions. _See_section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c).The issue in the case is whether Bridgeport Brass Company (\”Bridgeport\”)violated the occupational safety standard at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.151(c)[[1]] in that certain facilities for emergency drenching of employees’eyes and skin were not sufficiently accessible to employees deliveringsulfuric acid. The administrative law judge found that Bridgeportviolated the standard as alleged by the Secretary of Labor’s citation. We reverse the judge’s decision and vacate the citation.IThe case was submitted on stipulated facts. Bridgeport maintains anoutdoor storage tank for sulfuric acid of 4000 gallon capacity atSeymour, Connecticut. On infrequent occasions,[[2]] Bridgeportemployees transfer acid from a truck into the tank. Two of Bridgeport’semployees participate in each delivery of acid. The stipulation statesthat leaks have occurred during the delivery of corrosives at otherlocations at Bridgeport’s workplace. The tank is located adjacent to abuilding. The position where the truck is connected to the tank duringan acid delivery is 16 feet from the door of the building. Inside thebuilding and along the wall in which the door is located is an eyewashfountain 7 1\/2 feet from the door. Along the same wall, 20 feet fromthe door, is a safety shower.The Secretary and Bridgeport agree that the eyewash fountain and safetyshower are suitable facilities for quick drenching of the eyes or body. However, the Secretary contends that their location renders themunavailable for immediate emergency use within the meaning of thestandard. The Secretary is concerned that an employee engaged in aciddelivery might get acid in his eyes and that this would make itdifficult for the employee, who is outside the building, to locate thedrenching facilities inside the building. The Secretary notes that theemployee’s path would be obstructed by the door, and perhaps by the tankitself and the delivery truck and lines. Bridgeport argues that itsfacilities were readily available in that an employee would need to takeonly five or six steps to reach the door and the eyewash and shower wereonly a few steps from the door. Bridgeport also notes that the indoorfacilities are not subject to freezing.IIThe purpose of section 1910.151(c) is to assure that employees who workwith corrosive chemicals have facilities available to wash suchchemicals from their eyes or body before they suffer injury. _Cf_._Plessey_, _Inc_., 74 OSAHRC 77\/C1, 2 BNA OSHC 1302, 1974-75 CCH OSHD ?18,907 (No. 946, 1974) (interpreting 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.94(d)(9)(vii)). Whether an employer’s facilities are adequate to comply with thestandard depends on the particular circumstances present at theworkplace, including the nature and amount of corrosive materials towhich employees are exposed, the configuration of the work area, and thedistance between the spot where corrosive chemicals are used and thedrenching facilities. _Gibson Discount Center, Store No_. 15, 78 OSAHRC30\/C1, 6 BNA OSHC 1526, 1978 CCH OSHD ? 22,669 (No. 14657, 1978).In this case, there is no dispute that the facilities provided byBridgeport were suitable for flushing corrosive materials from the eyesand body of an employee. Nor does the Secretary contend that thefacilities were at too great a distance from the point on the tank wherethe delivery connection is made. The only fault the Secretary findswith Bridgeport’s facilities is that the path an employee would have totake to reach them is not entirely straight and unobstructed. Theobstructions that concern the Secretary include the tank itself, thedelivery truck and lines, and the door into the building containing theeyewash and shower.We conclude that there was not an unreasonable impediment to employeesreaching the emergency drenching facilities. It is sometimes necessaryfor persons to enter or leave a building through a door, or to move fromone room in a building to another, under emergency conditions. If anemployee is temporarily blinded he will be unable to find an eyewashwithout assistance in any event. Moreover, it is evident that it wouldnot be possible to maintain an eyewash and shower outside during the winter.The record also does not support the Secretary’s argument that the tanktruck and delivery lines would obstruct employees from reaching theeyewash and shower. The stipulation of facts contains nothing thatsupports the Secretary’s argument. The stipulation states that oneemployee checks the connection for leaks after delivery has begun butdoes not state whether the employee does this in a location where thereis any obstruction between him and the door to the building.Accordingly, the citation is vacated.FOR THE COMMISSIONRAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED: SEP 17 1984————————————————————————The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable inthis format. To obtain a copy of this document, please request one fromour Public Information Office by e-mail ( [email protected] ), telephone (202-606-5398), fax(202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).FOOTNOTES:[[1]] This standard provides:Where the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injuriouscorrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushingof the eyes or body shall be provided within the work area for immediateemergency use.[[2]] The stipulation states that deliveries were made on September 18,1980, May 14, 1981, and May 6, 1982.”