“Docket No. 89-3055 SECRETARY OF LABOR,\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\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Complainant,\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\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\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\u00a0\u00a0V.CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.,Respondent.\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\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\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\u00a0LOCAL 1- 2, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,Authorized Employee Representative.Docket No. 89-3055ORDERThis matter is before the Commission on aDirection for Review entered by Commissioner Velma Montoya on December 7, 1990. Theparties have now filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.Having reviewed the record, and based upon therepresentations appearing in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, we conclude thatthis case raises no matters warranting further review by the Commission. The terms of theStipulation and Settlement Agreement do not appear to be contrary to the OccupationalSafety and Health Act and are in compliance with the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.Accordingly, we incorporate the terms of theStipulation and Settlement Agreement into this order. This is the final order of theCommission in this case. See 29 U.S.C. ?? 659(c),660(a) and (b).Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. ChairmanDonald G. Wiseman\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\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0CommissionerVelma Montoya\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\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0CommissionerDated March 18, 1992SECRETARY OF LABOR,\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\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Complainant,\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\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\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\u00a0\u00a0V.CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.,Respondent.\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\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\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\u00a0LOCAL 1- 2, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No.89-3055STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTIn full settlement and disposition of the issuesin this proceeding, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the Complainant,Secretary of Labor, and the Respondent, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,that:1.This case is before the Commission upon thegranting of respondent’s Petition for Discretionary Review seeking review of theAdministrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order dated October 18, 1990. Review was grantedof serious\/repeat Citation 1 alleging a violation of 29 CFR 1926.58(f)(2)(i). (No reviewwas sought and none was granted for the affirmance of other-than- serious citation 2alleging a violation of 29 CFR 1910.20(e)(1)(iii)).2. The Secretary hereby amends citation 1 tocharacterize the violation of 29 CFR 1926.58(f)(2)(1) as a violation of section 17 of theOccupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C.? 666.3. Respondent hereby withdraws its notice ofcontest to citation 1 and to the notification of proposed penalty thereto.4. Respondent agrees to submit to the OSHA AreaOffice $1,600.00 in full and complete payment of the penalty within 30 days of thisAgreement.5.Respondent agrees that the above-mentionedviolations have been abated.6. This Stipulation and Settlement agreementdoes not affect the judge’s disposition of other-than-serious citation 2.7. Respondent certifies that a copy of thisStipulation and Settlement Agreement was posted at the workplace on the 27th day ofFebruary 1992, in accordance with Rules 7 and 100 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.8. Complainant and respondent will bear theirown litigation costs and expenses.Anthony F Gil\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\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\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\u00a0February 20, 1992\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\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\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\u00a0Counsel for the Secretary of LaborJonathan A. Fields\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\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\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\u00a0February 18, 1992\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\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\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\u00a0Attorney for RespondentSECRETARY OF LABOR,\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\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Complainant,\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\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\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\u00a0\u00a0V.CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.,Respondent.\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\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\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\u00a0LOCAL 1- 2, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,Authorized Employee Representative.Docket No. 89-3055APPEARANCE:JANE SNELL BRUNNER, ESQUIRE U.S. Department ofLabor Office of the SolicitorFor the ComplainantDAVID J. REILLY, ESQUIRE For the Respondent ARTHUR Z. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIREFor the UnionDECISION AND ORDERSOMMER, JUDGE:This proceeding arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651et seq., hereafter called the \”Act\” ).Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.(Con Edison) at its Indian Point location was issued two citations on September 9, 1989,alleging a \”Repeat\” violation of29 C. F. R. 1926.58(f) (2) (i) and an \”other than serious\”29 C. F. R. 1910.20(e) (2) (i). A hearing was held in New York, New York. Both partieswere represented by counsel who filed post-hearing briefs. No jurisdictional issues are indispute, Respondent having admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the Complaint.BACKGROUNDCon Edison is a New York Corporation engaged inthe business of providing electricity to consumers and related activities. During the timeat issue, employees at Respondent’s Indian Point station were assigned \”to go upthere and clean gaskets, the gasket material from the flanges\” on the No. 3 AirEjector. (Tr. 7, 29)Citation No. 1 alleges: 29 C. F. R. 1926.58(f)(2) (i) : The employer did not perform initial monitoring at the initiation of eachasbestos job to accurately determine the airborne concentration of asbestos to whichemployees may have been exposed:(a) at the Steam Lift Eject System No. 23, 36foot elevation, where two employees were replacing asbestos containing baskets on March23, 1989.The standard at 29 C. F. R. 1926.58(f) (2) (i)provides: (f) Exposure monitoring(2) Initial monitoring. (i) Each employer whohas a workplace or work operation covered by this standard, except as provided for inparagraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(iii) of this section, shall perform initial monitoring atthe initiation of each asbestos,….job to accurately determine the airborneconcentrations of asbestos…. to which employees may be exposed.Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) provides in pertinent part:The employer may demonstrate that employee exposures are below the action….level bymeans of objective data demonstrating that the product or material containingasbestos….cannot release airborne fibers in concentrations exceeding the level actionunder those work conditions having the greatest potential for releasing asbestos….Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) provides: where theemployer has monitored each asbestos,….job, and the data were obtained during workoperations conducted under workplace conditions closely resembling the processes, type ofmaterial, control methods, work practices, and environmental conditions used andprevailing in the employer’s current operations, the employer may rely on such earliermonitoring results to satisfy the requirements of Paragraph (f) (2) (i) of this section.SUMMARY OF EVIDENCEOn March 21, 1989 two employees of theRespondent at its Indian Point location were assigned to remove J tubes on the No. 23 AirEjector. The job required breaking apart the flanges removing the gaskets and scraping thegasket material off. In scraping the material off it splits into pieces andthe material appearing is \”hard to see\”. ( Tr. 10) On March 23while carrying out this work the employees noted that the Igasket material might be asbestos. They stopped work, notified a superior, which resultedin the material being sent out for evaluation which showed it was largely asbestos.Thereafter, cleaning of the flanges was assigned to an outside asbestos removal company.Girardi, one of the mechanics doing the work testified no initial monitoring for asbestoshad been carved out prior to the work assignment. (Tr. 8)Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R.1926.58 (f)2)(i)The standard at issue in this case requires thatan employer who has a workplace or work operation covered therein must do initialmonitoring of airborne concentrations of asbestos and other specified toxic materials todetermine the airborne concentrations which employees may be exposed to, except where theemployer has 1) demonstrated that employee exposures are below the action level by meansof objective data demonstrating the asbestos carrying material cannot release airbornefibers in concentrations exceeding the action level or 2) where the employer has monitoredeach asbestos job, and the data obtained were under work operations and conditions closelyresembling the processes, type of material, control methods, work practices and otherconditions prevailing currently, such results may satisfy the requirements of initialmonitoring.Both employees, and Mayer, the maintenancesupervisor, testified that no initial monitoring was done. None of the exceptions whichwould qualify the Respondent for relief from the initial monitoring requirement was met.No objective data was produced showing that employee exposure while removing the gasketmaterial was below the \”action level,\” [[1]] or that this material could notrelease airborne fibers in concentrations exceeding the action level under conditionsexistent. Additionally, while some evidence of monitoring was present, this did not meetthe requirements of 1926.58 f(2)(i). The June 1989 monitoring does not qualify beingsubsequent to the gasket removal project herein. The March 1988 monitoring does notqualify as an exception since a) the air samples evaluated were of a different plant andarea that involved therein, and were not personal sampling of employees’ breathing zones(see appendix A to ? 1926.58, Sampling and Analytical Procedure, paragraph 7) and b)there was no evidence produced demonstrating the monitoring data results in the otherplant (Ravenswood) were obtained under conditions closely resembling processes, type ofmaterial, control methods, work practices and environmental conditions existing at theIndian Head plant. The evidence fully demonstrates that the cited standard applies andthat the Respondent failed to comply. Both employees who were removing the gaskets were ina zone of danger from the asbestos. The Respondent knew or could reasonably have known ofthe dangerous violative condition present. Management had previously tested and foundasbestos present in one of its plants. (March 1988 area testing). The Respondent’s foremanJoseph Mayer testified that while he was not aware removing gaskets was an asbestosabatement job, in the past flanges had been removed, wetted down and scrapped, and ifwe suspected asbestos, putting them with the asbestos (underlining added) (Tr. 108).In short, the evidence is persuasive that Con Edison knew or with the exercise ofreasonable diligence based on past experience could have known of the hazardous exposurepresent in doing this job. Respondent was in violation of 1926.58 (f)(2)(i).Alleged Character of the ViolationThe further issue to be determine is whether the violation of 1926.58 (f) (2)(i) was serious\/repeat under the Act.A serious violation exists \”if there is asubstantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result.\” 29 U.S.C.666(k). I conclude that the citation alleging a serious violation of 1926. 58 (f) (2) (i)is supported by the record. Compliance officer Franklin, holder of advanced degrees inchemistry, with a past history of inspections of worksites wherein asbestos was presenttestified without contradiction that exposure to asbestos could cause death or seriousphysical harm. The Secretary has proven that death or serious physical likely could haveresulted from asbestos exposure.The allegation by Respondent that it cannot becharged with a serious violation since the citation does not so allege is rejected. Thecitation merely serves to notify the employer that the Secretary alleges a violation hasbeen committed. If the employer files a notice of contest the jurisdiction of theCommission is invoked. Thereafter the Secretary must file a Complaint which is the firstpleading commencing the action; the Complaint gives the Respondent actual notice ofthe Secretary’s allegations. The Respondent herein was duly apprised by the Complaint thatthe Secretary was charging that a serious\/repeat violation had occurred, and had fullopportunity to form a defense thereto.Another issue is whether the violation of1926.58 (f) (2) (i) was a repeat one as alleged both in the citation and Complaint. UnderCommission precedent,A violation is repeated….if, at the time ofthe alleged repeated violation, there was a Commission final order against the sameemployer for a substantially similar violation. Potlatch Corp., 79 OSAHRC 6\/A2, 7BNA OSHC 1061, 1063, 1979 CCH OSHD? 23,294, p.28,171 (No. 16183, 1979).The Secretary establishes a prima facie case by showing that both violations are of thesame standard. The employer then has the burden of demonstrating that past and presentviolations are not substantially similar.The record shows that the Respondent was issueda citation for violation of 1926.58(f)(1)(i) on January 25, 1988, which was not contestedand thusly became final. 1926.58(f) (1)(i) requires employers to perform \”monitoringto determine accurately the airborne concentration of asbestos….to which employees maybe exposed\”.\u00a0 In this case the standard violated was 1926.58(f)(2)(i) whichrequires that an employer perform \”initial monitoring at the initiation of eachasbestos….job to accurately determine the airborne concentrations of asbestos….towhich employees may be exposed\”. Both standards are concerned with preventingemployee exposure to the toxicity of asbestos by requiring employers to conduct airmonitoring of the workplace. This requirement for exposure monitoring under 1926.58(f) inboth the prior citation and the citation at issue herein is substantially similar. It isconcluded that the violation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.58(f)(2)(i) as alleged herein was repeated.The Respondent’s contention that these citations which are directed to \”exposuremonitoring\” are not substantially similar is without merit and given no evidence. Inshort, the totality of the evidence of record supports a finding that the Respondentcommitted a serious\/repeat violation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.58(f) (2) (i) .The next question for determination concerns theamount of penalty to be assessed for the violation. Consistent with the criteria set forthin 17(J) of the Act, a penalty of $1,000 is appropriate herein.Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R.1910.20(e)(1)(iii) (as amended by Complaint)The standard at issue, 29 C.F.R.1910.20(e)(1)(iii), requires that whenever an employee requests a copy of a record, theemployer shall assure that either:(A) A copy of the record is provided withoutcost to the employee or representative.(B) The necessary mechanical copying facilities(e.g. photocopying) are made available without cost to the employee or representatives forcopying the record, or(C) The record is loaned to the employee orrepresentative for a reasonable time to enable a copy to be made.On June 9, 1989, three of the Respondent’semployees requested \”pre- abatement and final clearance air samples results forasbestos abatement job \”carried out by Respondent in an area where employees werepresent. (Exh. C1)The testimony of Mr. Riner, the Respondent’ssafety coordinator, to whom the record request was made shows that the Respondent failedto provide the employees with access to the records sought as required under the standardat 29 C.F.R. 1910.20(e) (1) (iii) . None of the provisions under the standard which coveremployee requests for a copy of a relevant record sought were complied with. (Tr. 121-2)The Respondent was in other than serious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.20(e) (1) (iii). Nopenalty is assessed.FINDINGS OF FACTAll facts relevant and necessary to adetermination of the contested issues have been found specially and appear in the decisionabove. See Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. The Secretary of Labor established by apreponderance of the evidence that Con Edison committed a serious\/repeat violation of 29C.F.R. ?1926.58(f)(2)(i).2. The Secretary of Labor established by apreponderance of the evidence that Con Edison committed an other than serious violation of29 C. F. R. 1910. 20 (d) (1) (iii)ORDERBased on the findings of fact, conclusions oflaw, and the entire record, it is ORDERED:1. Citation No. 1 alleging a violation of29 C.F.R. 1926.58(f) (2) (i) is AFFIRMED, and a penalty of $1,000 ASSESSED.2. Citation No. 2, as amended by the Complaint,alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. 1920.20(e) (1) (iii) is AFFIRMED and no penalty isASSESSED.IRVING SOMMER Judge, CSHRC DATED: NOV 7, 1990Washington, D.C.FOOTNOTES: [[1]] \”Action level\” means an airborne concentration of asbestos….or acombination of….minerals of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter (f\/cc) of air calculated asan eight (8)- hour time-weighted average.”