“Docket No. 81-1491-S SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.SYNTRON, INC.,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 81-1491-SDECISION Before:\u00a0 ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and BUCKLEY, Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:A decision of Administrative Law Judge Louis G. LaVecchia is before theCommission for review under 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i).\u00a0 A citation was issued to Syntron,Inc. alleging that it violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(1) because the unused portion ofthe blade of its metal cut-off saw was not guarded.\u00a0 The record indicates that theoperator of the saw positions the material to be cut in a vise while the machine is off,and then lowers the top portion of the saw until the blade is near the material.\u00a0 Hethen turns on the saw, which automatically makes the cut and shuts off.\u00a0 Both thecompliance officer and Syntron’s president testified that the operator stands about a footfrom the unguarded blade.\u00a0 Judge LaVecchia vacated the citation on the ground thatthe evidence was insufficient to establish that during the operation of the saw employeeswere exposed to a \”hazard\” within the meaning of the standard.We have examined the entire record–particularly a videotape showing themachine in operation–and we are unconvinced, as was the judge, that the operator’s handscome, or would have reason to come, close enough to the unused portion of the blade to beexposed to a hazard.[[1]]\u00a0 Accordingly, the judge’s decision is affirmed.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr. Executive SecretaryDATED:\u00a0 MAR 28 1984 CLEARY, Commissioner, dissenting:The majority vacates this citation because it is not convinced that theoperator’s hands \”come, or would have reason to come\” close enough to anunguarded bandsaw blade to be exposed to a hazard.\u00a0 This holding simply ignores thepurpose of the standard and long-standing Commission precedent by taking no account of thefact that the operator could be injured through inadvertence. Accordingly, I must dissent.Section 1910.212(a)(1) provides that \”[o]ne or more methods of machineguarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine areafrom hazards such as those created by point of operation . . . .\” This Commission haslong held that \”the standard is plainly intended to eliminate danger from unsafeoperating procedures, poor training, or employee inadvertence.\”\u00a0 SignodeCorp., 76 OSAHRC 43\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1078, 1079, 1975-76 CCH OSHD ? 20,575, p. 24,595(No. 3527, 1976) (emphasis added).\u00a0 It is for this reason that the standard requires physicalmethods of guarding rather than methods of guarding that depend on correct human behavior.\u00a0 \”The standard recognizes that men do not discard their personal qualities whenthey go to work.\”\u00a0 See Akron Brick and Block Co., 76 OSAHRC2\/E2, 3 BNA OSHC 1876, 1878, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 20,302, p. 24,212 (No. 4859, 1976).Thus, it is beside the point that — as the majority essentially finds — ithas not been shown that the operator would have reason to put his hands into the point ofoperation during its operating cycle.\u00a0 As stated above, our precedent unequivocallyholds that the standard requires physical protection to guard against inadvertence. \u00a0The facts in this case present precisely the conditions at which the machine guardingstandards are directed.It is undisputed that the operator stands only a foot away from the partially unguardedbandsaw blade.\u00a0 The operator is positioned with direct access to the point ofoperation and within reaching distance of it.\u00a0 The president of the company admittedthat an employee could inadvertently injure himself.\u00a0 The videotape does not proveotherwise even though it is a staged presentation prepared by Syntron.\u00a0 Accordingly,I find that the operator is exposed to a hazard of injury from the partially guardedbandsaw blade.\u00a0 See A.E. Burgess Leather Co., 77 OSAHRC 25\/D6, 5 BNAOSHC 1096, 1977-78 CCH OSHD ? 21,273 (No. 12501, 1977), aff’d, 576 F.2d 948 (1stCir. 1978).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Finally, there was testimony that a guard could have been secured orfabricated for no more than $20.00.\u00a0 If, indeed, the purpose of the Act is to providesafe working conditions and prevent injuries, twenty dollars is a small price to pay toprotect against an inadvertent injury here.The 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]] The dissent maintains that Syntron’s president testified that themachine operator could inadvertently injure himself.\u00a0 The witness was asked, however,only whether inadvertent injury was possible.\u00a0 Given the range of the humanimagination, it is understandable that he answered in the affirmative.\u00a0 The standardwas not, however, intended to protect against the mere possibility of injury.\u00a0 SeeStacey Manufacturing Co., 82 OSAHRC 14\/B1, 10 BNA OSHC 1534, 1537, 1982 CCH OSHD ?25,965, p. 32,559 (No. 76-1656, 1982).\u00a0 Rather, whether a machine presents a hazardwithin the meaning of the standard must be determined by how the machine functions and howit is operated by the employees.\u00a0 Id.”