“Docket No. 82-0899 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant,v. BRIDGEPORT BRASS COMPANY, Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 82-0899DECISION Before:\u00a0 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 and Health Act of1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”).\u00a0 The Commission is anadjudicatory agency, independent of the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration.\u00a0 It was established to resolve disputes arising out ofenforcement actions brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatoryfunctions.\u00a0 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’ eyesand skin were not sufficiently accessible to employees delivering sulfuric acid.\u00a0 Theadministrative law judge found that Bridgeport violated the standard as alleged by theSecretary of Labor’s citation.\u00a0 We reverse the judge’s decision and vacate thecitation.IThe case was submitted on stipulated facts.\u00a0 Bridgeport maintains anoutdoor storage tank for sulfuric acid of 4000 gallon capacity at Seymour, Connecticut.\u00a0 On infrequent occasions,[[2]] Bridgeport employees transfer acid from a truck intothe tank.\u00a0 Two of Bridgeport’s employees participate in each delivery of acid. \u00a0The stipulation states that leaks have occurred during the delivery of corrosives at otherlocations at Bridgeport’s workplace.\u00a0 The tank is located adjacent to abuilding.\u00a0 The position where the truck is connected to the tank during an aciddelivery is 16 feet from the door of the building.\u00a0 Inside the building and along thewall in which the door is located is an eyewash fountain 7 1\/2 feet from the door. \u00a0Along the same wall, 20 feet from the 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.\u00a0 However, theSecretary contends that their location renders them unavailable for immediate emergencyuse within the meaning of the standard.\u00a0 The Secretary is concerned that an employeeengaged in acid delivery might get acid in his eyes and that this would make it difficultfor the employee, who is outside the building, to locate the drenching facilities insidethe building. The Secretary notes that the employee’s path would be obstructed by thedoor, and perhaps by the tank itself and the delivery truck and lines.\u00a0 Bridgeportargues that its facilities were readily available in that an employee would need to takeonly five or six steps to reach the door and the eyewash and shower were only a few stepsfrom the door.\u00a0 Bridgeport also notes that the indoor facilities are not subject tofreezing.II The purpose of section 1910.151(c) is to assure that employees who work with corrosivechemicals have facilities available to wash such chemicals from their eyes or body beforethey suffer injury.\u00a0 Cf. Plessey, Inc., 74 OSAHRC 77\/C1, 2 BNAOSHC 1302, 1974-75 CCH OSHD ? 18,907 (No. 946, 1974) (interpreting 29 C.F.R. ?1910.94(d)(9)(vii)).\u00a0 Whether an employer’s facilities are adequate to comply withthe standard depends on the particular circumstances present at the workplace, includingthe nature and amount of corrosive materials to which employees are exposed, theconfiguration of the work area, and the distance between the spot where corrosivechemicals are used and the drenching facilities.\u00a0 Gibson Discount Center, Store No.15, 78 OSAHRC 30\/C1, 6 BNA OSHC 1526, 1978 CCH OSHD ? 22,669 (No. 14657, 1978).In this case, there is no dispute that the facilities provided by Bridgeportwere suitable for flushing corrosive materials from the eyes and body of an employee.\u00a0 Nor does the Secretary contend that the facilities were at too great a distancefrom the point on the tank where the delivery connection is made.\u00a0 The only fault theSecretary finds with Bridgeport’s facilities is that the path an employee would have totake to reach them is not entirely straight and unobstructed.\u00a0 The obstructions thatconcern the Secretary include the tank itself, the delivery truck and lines, and the doorinto the building containing the eyewash and shower.We conclude that there was not an unreasonable impediment to employeesreaching the emergency drenching facilities.\u00a0 It is sometimes necessary for personsto enter or leave a building through a door, or to move from one room in a building toanother, under emergency conditions.\u00a0 If an employee is temporarily blinded he willbe unable to find an eyewash without assistance in any event.\u00a0 Moreover, it isevident that it would not be possible to maintain an eyewash and shower outside during thewinter.The record also does not support the Secretary’s argument that the tank truckand delivery lines would obstruct employees from reaching the eyewash and shower. \u00a0The stipulation of facts contains nothing that supports the Secretary’s argument. \u00a0The stipulation states that one employee checks the connection for leaks after deliveryhas begun but does not state whether the employee does this in a location where there isany obstruction between him and the door to the building.Accordingly, the citation is vacated.FOR THE COMMISSIONRAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED:\u00a0 SEP 17 1984The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in thisformat.\u00a0 To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our PublicInformation 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 injurious corrosivematerials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes or body shallbe provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.[[2]] The stipulation states that deliveries were made on September 18, 1980,May 14, 1981, and May 6, 1982.”