“\ufeff\t\tDocument\t\t\t\t p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } p { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; font-size:10pt; font-size:10pt; } p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; } p.style_Normal { } span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } table.style_TableNormal { } span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } span.BulletSymbol { font-family:’Symbol’; } body { margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-right:0px;} div.basic { width:21.59cm;height:27.94cm;} p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar useragent = navigator.userAgent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar navigatorname;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘MSIE’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”MSIE\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Gecko’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘Chrome’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Google Chrome\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Mozilla’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”old Netscape or Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Opera’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Opera\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfunction symbol(code1,code2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (navigatorname == ‘MSIE’)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code1);\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code2);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tComplainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv.\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 5470\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSTATE, INCORPORATED\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDECISION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBefore Barnako, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBY THE COMMISSION:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFollowing an inspection of Respondent\u2019s worksite in Pueblo, Colorado, Respondent\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\treceived citations alleging one serious and four nonserious violations. On April 1, 1975, Judge\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJohn J. Morris vacated all citations but one alleging a failure to erect guardrails on a runway in\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tviolation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.500(d)(2). The Judge affirmed that citation and assessed a penalty of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t$200.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommissioner Moran directed review on the following issue:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u2018What was the authority for an increase of the penalty for the \u00a7 1926.500(d)(1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[sic] charge from the $30 proposed by the Secretary of Labor to the $200 assessed\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tby the Judge.\u2019\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNeither Complainant nor Respondent petitioned for review or briefed the issue directed for\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\treview.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe Commission has earlier decided that where neither party requests review of an\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAdministrative Judge\u2019s decision, we will not consider the case on the basis of issues raised sua\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsponte, in the absence of a compelling public interest, Abbott\u2014Sommer, Inc., Docket No. 9507,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBNA 3 OSHC 2032, CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (Feb. 17, 1976); Singer Furniture Co., Docket\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 7134, BNA 3 OSHC 2079, CCH OSHD para. 20,481 (Mar. 5, 1976). We thus decline to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpass on the issue raised or on any other aspect of the Judge\u2019s decision. Although the decision is\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttherefore affirmed, it is not binding as precedent, Penn-Dixie Industries, Inc., Docket No. 8718\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand 8380\u2013P, BNA 4 OSHC 1209, CCH OSHD para. 20, 703 (May 14, 1976). However, it is a\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tguide in the growing body of occupational safety and health law.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBY THE COMMISSION:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWILLIAM S. McLAUGHLIN\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tEXECUTIVE SECRETARY\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDATE: OCT 21, 1976\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMORAN, Commissioner, Dissenting:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe issue in this case and the majority\u2019s disposition thereof is identical to that in\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSecretary v. Brand Insulations Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 8685, September 15, 1976. For the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\treasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in that case, it is wrong for my colleagues to refuse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tto address the directed issue and to affirm a penalty in excess of that proposed by complainant.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMy colleagues disposition of the case sub judice on the basis of party disinterest is\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tinconsistent with their affirmance of an increased penalty. They look the other way at the fact\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthat neither party sought an increase in the proposed penalty before the Judge, but rely on similar\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdisinterest in refusing to remedy the injustice of the increased penalty on this employer who, no\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdoubt, from his experience below justifiably feared that even a greater penalty might result if he\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tattempted to contest this matter further. Such hypocrisy reflects unfavorably on the Commission,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand I shall not join therein.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFurthermore, the doubletalk in the majority opinion is as ridiculous as it is wrong. Their\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tblind adherence to rote has resulted in the convolution of reasoning illustrated in this decision. If\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe Judge\u2019s decision has no precedential value, how can it be \u2018a guide in the growing body of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\toccupational safety and health law\u2019? What is the standing of the ill-conceived precedent\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\testablished by Messrs. Barnako and Cleary which sanctions an increase in proposed penalties?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSee, e.g., Secretary v. Worcester Pressed Steel Company, 20 OSAHRC 737 (1975). Does their\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfailure to rely on their own precedent mean that they now doubt the validity thereof? These\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tquestions arise because my colleagues have forgotten that their sole function is to adjudicate\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcases. 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 651(b)(3).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSince this decision does not cover all matters included in Judge Morris\u2019 decision, the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsame is attached hereto as Appendix A.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tComplainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv.\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 5470\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSTATE, INCORPORATED\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDECISION AND ORDER\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTRIAL APPEARANCES:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThomas E. Korson, Esq., Office of Associate Regional\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSolicitor of Denver, Colorado,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfor the Secretary of Labor,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThomas E. Jagger, Esq., of Pueblo, Colorado,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfor the Respondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHearing conducted June 20, 1974 in Pueblo, Colorado; Judge John J. Morris presiding.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tApril 1, 1975\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMorris, Judge, OSAHRC:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCitation number 1 issued by complainant\u2019s area director on November 26, 1973 alleged a\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tserious violation of Public Law 91\u2013596, Section 5(a)(1) by State, Inc. (State) in the basic oxygen\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfurnace department (BOF) of C. F. & I. Corporation (CF&I). The above public law, now codified\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tat 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) provides as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(a) Each employer\u2014\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twhich are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdeath or serious physical harm to his employees;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe complainant herein proposed a civil penalty in the amount of $650 and described the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tviolation in the following terms:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn October 31, 1973 the employer failed to furnish his employees working on the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tinstallation of a basic oxygen furnace dust collection system at the CF&I plant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPueblo, Colorado a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthat were causing or were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\temployees in that: He did not remove employees from their working areas on\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\televated structural steel while the furnace charging operations were in progress\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthus exposing employee to a hazardous exposure to flame and extreme heat\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tduring possible eruption of combustible material.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn this proceeding for an adjudication pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 659(c) under the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 (et seq.) respondent asserts that it\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdid not violate the general duty clause. In part respondent argues the facts fail to establish the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\texistence of a recognized hazard. The assertions require a review of the facts which basically\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tinvolve two occasions:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn August 29, 1973 an explosion similar to a sonic boom shattered windows in a trailer\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t100 yards from the BOF building. Smoke rose from the building (Tr. 77, 80\u201381, 89, 135). Water\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin the furnace caused this explosion during the tapping of the slag material (Tr. 92, 136; compl\u2019s.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tex. 4). The tapping occurs prior to a charging for a heating of metal that is to follow (Tr. 32;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcompl\u2019s. ex. 4). The described incident was apparently due to a leak in the spark box cooler\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\telbow allowing a small amount of water to enter the furnace (compl\u2019s. ex. 4). The CF&I\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsuperintendent indicated that explosions due to slag and water reactions are not uncommon in\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsteel making shops (Tr. 66\u201367; compl\u2019s. ex. 4). 4). Immediately after the explosion State\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\temployees received directions from their foreman to leave the job (Tr. 77). They remained off\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttwo days until assured by the CF&I engineer that there existed no chance of a reoccurrence of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsuch an explosion (Tr. 77\u201380, 87; compl\u2019s. ex. 4). At the same time respondent subcontractor\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand CF&I agreed that State employees would discontinue work over any operating furnace (Tr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t95). Between the August 29 explosion and the incident at bar a minor explosion occurred without\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tresultant damage nor concern to State supervisory personnel (Tr. 58, 80, 91\u201392). Prior to August\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t29 State employees, when working over an operating furnace, maintained what was described as\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ta fire watch (Tr. 85). The fire observer kept the area clear of persons who might walk under\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdebris falling from the roof. (Tr. 29, 30, 36, 37, 44, 46, 59, 84.) Further the watcher advised State\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\temployees when CF&I charged the furnace. In addition the observer placed \u2018KEEP OUT,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDANCER\u2019 signs on the charging floor (Tr. 44, 45, 65). After August 29, respondent no longer\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tmaintained the fire watch (Tr. 95\u201396).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn October 31, 1973 State employees replaced roof sheets (Tr. 9\u201311). Employees Baca\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand Cassus worked over the non-operating furnace (180 feet above ground level); employee\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLancaster, on the same line as Baca and Casaus, relayed signals to the rig operator (Tr. 14, 16,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t17, 19, 20, 94; compl\u2019s. ex. 1). The nearest State employee (estimated by various methods) was\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfrom 135 feet to in excess of 900 feet from the operating furnace (Tr. 91\u2013101, 162). The\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trectangular BOF building, 1200 feet long and 300 feet wide, towers 140 feet in height (Tr. 124).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn October 31 there was no fire watch because respondent\u2019s supervisory personnel believed that\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tState iron workers at the far south end from the north furnace were sufficiently removed from the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcharging of the metal (Tr. 31, 91, 96). The charging process occurs when scrap and hot metal are\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcombined in the furnace (Tr. 32, 136, compl. ex. 4). At that point in time a swish sound ushered\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ta large blast of fire up through the operating furnace (Tr. 89, 101). Employee Lancaster fought\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe fire on his coveralls (Tr. 12, 13, 19, 21\u201322); Baca and Casaus lay dead on the operating floor\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Tr. 6, 13, 83).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAs noted in National Realty and Construction Company v. Occupational Safety and\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHealth Review Commission 489 F.2d 1257 (1973), l.c. 1265:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA recognized hazard is a condition that is known to be hazardous and is known\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnot necessarily by each and every individual employer, but is known taking into\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taccount the standard of knowledge in the industry. In other words whether or not\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ta hazard is \u2018recognized\u2019 is a matter for objective determination; it does not depend\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tupon whether the particular employer is aware of it.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tComplainant must prove an employer awareness of a condition of danger or a general awareness\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin the industry. Secretary v. Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, OSAHRC Docket No. 130 (January\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1975) Rev. Comn. The instant case fails to establish that the described processes or incidents\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tconstituted such a recognized hazard. The facts do not even support a duplication of similar\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\texplosions. The August 29 explosion occurred during a tapping of the slag (Tr. 92, 136, compl.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tex. 4). The more severe explosion occurred October 31 during the charging of the furnace. The\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttwo work activities are unrelated. The proof is lacking and the citation and proposed penalty\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttherefor are to be vacated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCitation number 2, item 1 alleges a nonserious violation of 29 CFR 1926.25(a) in the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfollowing respects:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFailure to keep work areas, passageways and stairs cleared of debris, on the tip\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttop level and the Lange floor walkway. This condition constituted tripping\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\thazards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe foregoing standard promulgated by complainant pursuant to his statutory grant of authority\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\treads as follows.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a7 1926.25 Housekeeping.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(a) During the course of construction, alteration, or repairs, form and scrap lumber\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twith protruding nails, and all other debris, shall be kept cleared from work areas,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpassageways, and stairs, in and around buildings or other structures.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMetal plates scattered about the tip top area (Tr. 107). Pennington, an employee of State who\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taccompanied the compliance officer stated that 4 State employees used the level (Tr. 108). The\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdebris consisted of some lines and waste material between the work area and the entrance (Tr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t116). The cluttered walkway on the lange level consisted of boards, angle irons, pails, cardboard\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tboxes, and excelsior paper (Tr. 130). CF&I also used this area (Tr. 130). On cross-examination\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe compliance officer acknowledged an inability to identify the lange floor walkway as an area\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tused by State employees (Tr. 133).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCitation 2, item 2 alleges that respondent violated 29 CFR 1926.350(a)(9) in the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfollowing respects:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFailure to properly secure oxygen cylinder on walkway at the Lange floor level\u2014\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\televator. This offered an exposure to employees to hazard or danger if tipping\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcaused breakage or rupture of cylinder or damage to valves.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe foregoing standard promulgated by complainant reads as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a7 1926.350 Gas welding and cutting.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(a) Transporting, moving and storing compressed gas cylinders.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(9) Compressed gas cylinders shall be secured in an upright position at all times\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\texcept, if necessary, for short periods of time while cylinders are actually being\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\thoisted or carried.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhen the crane moved near the catwalk it caused two uncapped unsecured oxygen bottles to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tjiggle (Tr. 109, 119). If the neck snaps an oxygen bottle can become an unguided missle (Tr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t109). It was determined that these were oxygen cylinders by virtue of their color coding (Tr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t125). They were identified as being used by CF&I (Tr. 131, 132).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCitation number 2, item 3 coupled with a proposed civil penalty of $30, alleges that\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trespondent violated 29 CFR 1926.402(d)(1) in the following respects:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tProtection was not provided by individual housing or an enclosure type\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tprotection, against accidental contact of employees with 440V Transformer\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsupplying electric welding machines at the tip-top level of the basic oxygen\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfurnace. This condition thus provided a hazard to employees of electrical burns or\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tshock.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe foregoing standard reads as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a7 1926.402 Equipment installation and maintenance.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(d) Transformers. (1) Energized transformers and other related electrically\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tenergized equipment over 150 volts to ground shall be protected so as to prevent\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taccidental contact with any person. Protection shall be provided by individual\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tintegrated housing or by an enclosure, such as an electrical substation fence,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twhich accommodates a group of such equipment. Metallic enclosures shall be\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tgrounded.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe evidence established broken casing and exposed wiring on the 440V transformer (Tr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t107). The transformer with uninsulated wires connected to an electric welding machine (Tr. 108,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t118, 126). The compliance officer did not know who identified the transformer area as one used\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tby State employees (Tr. 183).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCitation number 2, item 4, with a proposed civil penalty of $30 alleges a nonserious\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tviolation of 29 CFR 1926.500(d)(2) in the following respects:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe footwalks, elevated approximately 40 feet above the ground level, where\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tworkmen can pass beneath, did not have standard guard rails and toe boards on 3\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsides of the footwalk structure. Scrap materials, hand-tools and other materials\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcould be kicked or knocked off onto personnel passing beneath. This is also\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trequired to additionally protect employees from falls while they are on the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfootwalks.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe foregoing standard as promulgated by complainant states as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a7 1926.500 Guardrails, handrails, and covers.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(d) Guarding of open-sided floors, platforms, and runways. (2) Runways shall be\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tguarded by a standard railing, or the equivalent, as specified in paragraph (f) of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthis section, on all open sides, 4 feet or more above floor or ground level.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWherever tools, machine parts, or materials are likely to be used on the runway, a\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttoeboard shall also be provided on each exposed side.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn employee of respondent was installing railings on the stairway that leads to the tier. (Tr. 111,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t115) The area without guardrails and toeboards was identified as one being used by State\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\temployees by its foreman (Tr. 134).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent contends complainant failed to establish exposure to State personnel in\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tconnection with the alleged nonserious citations. Respondent\u2019s correct analysis of the evidence\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trequires the vacation of items 1, 2 and 3. As to item 1 (debris in the tip top area) State employee\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPennington identified the area as one used by State. However, Pennington was referred to as only\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tan employee. The extent of his authority to bind respondent by an admission was not established.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAs to items 2 and 3 (gas cylinders and uninsulated wires) the total record fails to establish\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\temployee exposure (Tr. 183). As to item 4 (guardrails) respondent\u2019s millwright foreman\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tidentified this as an area used by State; further State employees were working in the area (Tr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t111, 115, 134). An admission by a foreman at a jobsite that an area under the foreman\u2019s\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tjurisdiction is used by employees is entitled to evidential admissibility as an admission of the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tprincipal. McCormick on Evidence, Section 267; Rule 801, Rules of Evidence, Public Law 93\u2013\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t595. Exposure to employees can be established by circumstantial evidence as in Secretary v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tChicago Bridge and Iron Company, OSAHRC Number 224, December, 1974 Rev. Comn. As to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\titem 4 respondent\u2019s additional contention that it did not create the violative condition and should\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttherefore not be responsible is without merit. The Commission has consistently held that the fact\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthat the immediate employer did not create the hazard is no defense when his employees are\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\texposed, Secretary v. R. H. Bishop 8 OSAHRC 931; Secretary v. Chicago Bridge and Iron, cited\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsupra. The proposed civil penalty of $30 as to item 4 constitutes an inadequate sanction. The\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tgravity is apparent as the unguarded level was 30 to 35 feet above ground (Tr. 111). A civil\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpenalty of $200 for item 4 of citation 2 follows Review Commission policy as expressed in\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSecretary v. Dixie Electric, Inc. 5 OSAHRC 201.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFINDINGS OF FACT\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Respondent employer does business in several states (Tr. 5\u20136, 10\u201311).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. The record fails to establish that respondent\u2019s employees were exposed to a recognized\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\thazard. (Totality of the record)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3. The record fails to establish employees exposure to the alleged violation of citation\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnumber 2, items 1, 2 and 3. (Totality of record)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4. An unguarded runway without guardrails or toeboards used by respondent\u2019s employees\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\texposed them to a fall of 30 to 35 feet (Tr. 111, 115, 134).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCONCLUSIONS OF LAW\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Respondent is and was at all times relevant to the issues herein engaged in a business\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taffecting commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 652 (Facts 1).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Respondent is and was at all times herein mentioned an employer within the meaning\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof 29 U.S.C. 652(5) and subject to 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) and (2) and the standards promulgated\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tunder 29 U.S.C. 655. (Facts 1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3. Respondent did not violate 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) and citation 1 and the proposed penalty\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof $650 therefor should be vacated (Facts 2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4. Respondent did not violate items 1, 2 and 3 of citation 2 and said items and all\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tproposed penalties therefor should be vacated (Facts 3).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5. Respondent violated item 4 of citation 2 and said citation should be affirmed; the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tproposed civil penalty of $30 should be vacated and a penalty of $200 should be assessed. (Facts\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tORDER\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBased on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is hereby ORDERED\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand ADJUDGED as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Citation number 1 for the alleged serious violation of Public Law 91\u2013596, section\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5(a)(1) [29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)] is vacated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. The proposed civil penalty of $650 for the violation alleged in the preceding paragraph\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tis vacated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3. Citation number 2:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem\t\t\t\t\t\tStandard Allegedly Violated\t\t\t\t\t\tProposed Penalty\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.25(a)\t\t\t\t\t\tNone\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.350(a)(9)\t\t\t\t\t\tNone\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.402(d)(1)\t\t\t\t\t\t$30\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tis vacated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4. Citation number 2, item 4 for the alleged violation of 29 CFR 1926.500(d)(2) is\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taffirmed.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5. The proposed civil penalty of $30 for the violation established in the preceding\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tparagraph is vacated and a civil penalty of $200 is assessed.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSo ordered in the City and County of Denver, Colorado.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJohn J. Morris\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge, OSAHRC\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tApril 1, 1975\t\t\t”