Decker Construction
Trench violations result in $5,625 penalty
Apply this to your situation
This order from 2006 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Decker employees worked in a seven-foot excavation while relocating a fire hydrant. The company had not trained one crew member in excavation hazards, provided no ladder or constructed ramp, left spoil at the edge, and did not slope or shore the Type B soil as required. Those four items were affirmed as serious, and a hard-hat item settled at the hearing was also affirmed. The competent-person inspection item was vacated because OSHA did not prove that the foreman lacked the ability or authority to inspect the trench. Total penalties were $5,625.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.21(b)(2), 1926.651(k)(1), 1926.100(a), 1926.651(c)(2), 1926.651(j)(2), 1926.652(a)(1)
- Outcome: Five serious items were affirmed with total penalties of $5,625, and the competent-person inspection item was vacated.
- Key point: Designating a foreman as competent person did not cure separate failures to train employees or provide safe access, spoil control, and cave-in protection.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
United States of America
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1924 Building - Room 2R90, 100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
Secretary of Labor,
Complainant,
v. OSHRC Docket No. 06-1106
Decker Construction,
Respondent.
Appearances:
Linda Hastings, Esquire, Clev eland , Ohio
For Com plainant
Corey Crognale, Esquire,Co lumb us, O hio
For Respond ent
Before: Administrative Law Judge Stephen J. Simko, Jr.
DECISION AND ORDER
Decker Construction is an asphalt paving contractor. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) conducted an inspection of Decker’s jobsite in Columbus, Ohio, on June 8,
2006. As a result of this inspection, respondent was issued a Citation. Decker filed a timely notice
contesting the citation and proposed penalties. A hearing was held in Columbus, Ohio, pursuant to
Simplified Proceedings on September 20, 2006. At the hearing the parties settled Citation No. 1,
Item 2. Remaining at issue are Citation No. 1, Items 1a and b, 3, 4, and 5. For the reasons that
follow Item 1b is vacated and Items 1a, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are affirmed. Total penalties for Items 1a, 2,
3, 4 and 5 of $5,625.00 are assessed.
Background
Respondent had a jobsite near the intersection of Bonus and Chatterton Roads in Columbus,
Ohio. This job involved the relocation of fire hydrants as part of a road widening project. On
June 8, 2006, the Secretary’s compliance officer, Karen Preskar, conducted an inspection of that part
of respondent’s jobsite involving an excavation where Decker employees were in the process of
relocating a fire hydrant. When Ms. Preskar arrived, the hydrant was being placed, and about 75%
of the relocation was completed. Moe Rapp was respondent’s site superintendent, foreman and
competent person.
Ms. Preskar observed employees in the excavation placing the fire hydrant. The parties
agreed at the hearing that the excavation was dug in Type B soil. The compliance officer measured
the excavation and determined that the depth was 7 feet to 7 feet 8 inches, the bottom width was 7
feet in the area of the employee in the excavation, the top width of the excavation was 12 feet and
the length of the excavation was 12 feet. Respondent took no independent measurements of this
excavation.
Discussion
The Secretary has the burden of proving the violation:
In order to establish a violation of an occupational safety or health standard the
Secretary has the burden of proving: (a) the applicability of the cited standard, (b) the
employer’s noncompliance with the standard’s terms, (c) employee access to the
violative conditions, and (d) the employer’s actual constructive knowledge of the
violation (i.e., the employer knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence could
have known, of the violative conditions).
Atlantic Battery Co., 16 BNA OSHC 2131, 2138 (No. 90-1747, 1994).
2
Alleged Serious Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2)
The Secretary in Citation No. 1, Item 1a alleges that:
The employer did not instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of
unsafe condition(s) and the regulation(s) applicable to his work environment to
control or eliminate any hazard(s) or other exposure to illness or injury:
On the site, the employer did not ensure employees were clear on the requirements for cave-
in protection, spoil pile placement and safe means of egress while working in a trench.
The standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2)provides:
The employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of
unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his work environment to control
or eliminate any hazards or other exposure to illness or injury.
This standard is clearly applicable to the working conditions at issue. Respondent is involved
in construction including road widening and hazards encountered in trenching and excavation.
The Secretary argues that one employee, Brian Kraeft, received no training and the training
of employees Rapp, Sowers and Hanning was not adequate. At the hearing, respondent presented
evidence that it provided a competent person course for its foremen. Rapp, however, did not attend
this course. Respondent did produce some evidence that Rapp, Sowers and Hanning observed a
training video on Trench and Shoring Safety on May 10, 2006. (Exh. R-2, R-3). Ryan Schasteen,
respondent’s project manager, testified that all members of this crew attended the video training on
trench safety. A careful review of Exhibits R-2 and R-3, however, reveals that Brian Kraeft did not
sign the sheets signed by those employees that received the training. Also, Mr. Kraeft told the
compliance officer, Ms. Preskar, that he had past training with the city, but not with Decker. The
Secretary has established that at least Mr. Kraeft was not instructed by Decker in the recognition and
avoidance of unsafe conditions and regulations applicable to work in excavations. Respondent failed
to comply with the terms of the standard.
Mr. Kraeft was working at the top of the trench, holding the hydrant. He clearly had access
to the hazardous conditions of the excavation and therefore, was exposed to those conditions.
3
Respondent had knowledge of this violation. It maintained sign-in sheets showing the names
of employees that attended the trench safety video in May, 2006. It knew, through its foreman, that
Mr. Kraeft was working in this excavation. Decker made no attempt to train Mr. Kraeft in the
recognition of the hazards of excavations prior to allowing him to work in one on the day of the
inspection. It made no attempt to determine whether Mr. Kraeft had attended the video training or
had received other instruction or training on trench and excavation safety before allowing him to
work in this excavation. Respondent had constructive knowledge of the violation. The Secretary
has established a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2).
The violation was serious. Failure to instruct each employee in the recognition of hazards
of working in a trench can result in serious injuries or death.
Alleged Serious Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(k)(1).
The Secretary in Citation No.1, Item 1b alleges that:
Daily inspections of excavations, the adjacent areas, and protective systems were not
made by a competent person for evidence of a situation that could have resulted in
possible caveins, indications of failure of protective systems, hazardous atmospheres,
or other hazardous conditions:
On the site, the employer did not ensure the trench had been inspected by a
competent person prior to employees working in the trench.
The standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(k)(1) provides:
(k) Inspections. (1) Daily inspections of excavations, the adjacent
areas, and protective systems shall be made by a competent person for
evidence of a situation that could result in possible cave-ins,
indications of failure of protective systems, hazardous atmospheres,
or other hazardous conditions, An inspection shall be conducted by
the competent person prior to the start of work and as needed
throughout the shift. Inspections shall also be made after every
rainstorm or other hazard increasing occurrence. These inspections
are only required when employee exposure can be reasonably
anticipated.
4
The term “Competent Person” is defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.650(b) as follows:
Competent person means one who is capable of identifying existing
and predictable hazards in the surroundings, or working conditions
which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who
has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate
them.
This standard is clearly applicable. Respondent is engaged in construction work involving
excavations. It is undisputed that Decker employees worked in the excavation on June 8, 2006.
Remaining at issue is whether, on the day of inspection, respondent’s excavation was inspected by
a competent person prior to entry by is employees.
Moe Rapp, Decker’s foreman and job superintendent, was respondent’s designated competent
person at this site authorized by the respondent to make daily inspections and correct hazardous
conditions. Decker provided competent person training for its superintendents, but Mr. Rapp was
on vacation and did not attend the course. He did receive annual general safety training from Decker
for the past seven years. He took the OSHA 10-hour course prior to working for Decker. Some of
his training included classification of soils, placement of spoil piles and how the trench is to be
excavated depending on depth.
Mr. Rapp testified regarding his method of inspection of excavations. He stated that he
performs a thumb test and visual inspection of the soil to determine whether the soil is virgin soil
or previously disturbed. He checks for rock size, cracks in walls and water seepage. He decides
whether to use a trench box or slope the sides of the excavation. He testified that he inspects the site
every morning before work begins. Mr. Rapp testified that he inspected this site on the day of the
inspection. He did a thumb test and visual test. He determined this to be virgin soil. He saw no
problems with the sidewalls, and saw nothing out of the ordinary on that trench.
On cross examination, Mr. Rapp testified that the soil at the location of the excavation was
Type - B. He stated that he did not complete an inspection checklist for this excavation. He attended
a course to become a competent person in trenching and excavation at some unstated time in the
past, but did not receive a competent person certificate.
5
The evidence relating to the alleged violation of this standard is limited at best. The
Secretary has the burden of proving that an inspection by a competent person was not made prior to
the start of work on June 8, 2006.
Mr. Rapp testified that he did make an inspection of the site before work on June 8, 2006.
The issue before me is whether Mr. Rapp was a competent person for Decker on that site on that day.
Mr. Rapp and Mr. Schasteen, Decker’s Project Manager, testified regarding the question of whether
Mr. Rapp was the competent person on-site. Their testimony established that Mr. Rapp was
authorized to act as the competent person for Decker, to make daily inspections and to take prompt
corrective measures to eliminate hazards to employees. Mr. Rapp was at this excavation at all times
when employees were in the trench. The Secretary presented insufficient evidence to prove that Mr.
Rapp was not capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in this excavation. The record
is unclear as to the extent of Mr. Rapp’s ability to act as a competent person. The Secretary,
therefore, has presented insufficient evidence to establish that Decker did not comply with the terms
of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(k)(1).
Alleged Serious Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(c)(2)
The Secretary in Citation No. 1, Item 3 alleges that:
A stairway, ladder, ramp or other safe means of egress was not located in trench
excavations that were four feet (1.22m) or more in depth so as to require no more
than 25 feet (7.62m) of lateral travel for employees:
On the site, the employer did not ensure the employees working in the trench were
provided with a safe mean of egress.
The standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(c)(2) provides:
(2) Means of egress from trench excavations. A stairway, ladder,
ramp or other safe means of egress shall be located in trench
excavations that are 4 feet (1.22m) or more in depth so as it require
no more that 25 feet (7.62m) of lateral travel for employees.
A “ramp” is defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.650 as follows:
Ramp means an inclined walking or working surface that is used to
gain access to one point from another, and is constructed from earth
or from structural materials such as steel or wood.
6
The standard clearly applies. Respondent is engaged in construction including work in an
excavation. It is undisputed that respondent had no stairway or ladder as a means of egress from the
excavation where its employees worked while relocating a fire hydrant.
The depth of the trench exceeded 4 feet. Karen Preskar, the Secretary’s compliance officer,
directly measured the depth and determined that the trench depth ranged between 7 feet and 7 feet
8 inches. Respondent took no measurement of this excavation. Ms. Preskar’s determinations as to
the trench depth are accepted.
At issue is whether employees had a ramp or other safe means of egress from this excavation.
The evidence shows that respondent did not construct a ramp or other means of egress to allow
employees to safely exit the trench.
Respondent required its employees to scramble up one side of the excavation to exit the
trench. That side was covered with loose gravel. Ms. Preskar testified that she saw an employee,
Mr. Kraeft, exiting the trench. She stated that he was using a spud bar to assist him in getting out
of the trench. She also observed gravel rolling into the trench while he was trying to walk out of the
excavation. The photograph in Exhibit C-10 is consistent with Ms. Preskar’s testimony. It appears
to depict Mr. Kraeft climbing out of the trench with his left hand on his left knee and the iron spud
bar held vertically behind his torso on his right side. The logical inference from the testimony and
the photograph is that Mr. Kraeft was using the bar for assistance in climbing up the side of the
excavation. I find Ms. Preskar’s testimony credible on this point.
The testimony of Mr. Rapp and Mr. Frost that Mr. Kraeft could walk out of the excavation
upright without difficulty is totally inconsistent with Exhibit C-10. I find their testimony on this
point not credible. The Secretary established that respondent failed to comply with the terms of
29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(c)(2) by not providing its employees a safe means of egress from this
excavation.
Respondent’s employee, Brian Kraeft, was exposed to this hazard. He was observed exiting
the 7 foot deep trench using the side of the excavation. Decker, through its foreman, knew of this
condition. Rapp was present during the entire job and knew that no ladder or ramp was provided.
He was present and saw Mr. Kraeft climb up the trench side to exit the excavation. The Secretary
has established a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(c)(2). The violation was serious. Without a safe
means of egress from a 7 foot deep trench, an employee could sustain serious injury or death from
cave-in of the excavation walls.
7
Alleged Serious Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(j)(2)
The Secretary in Citation No. 1, Item 4 alleges that:
Protection was not provided by placing and keeping excavated or
other materials or equipment at least two feet (.61m) from the edge
of excavations, or by the use of retaining devices that were sufficient
to prevent materials or equipment from falling or rolling into
excavations, or by a combination of both if necessary:
On the site, the employer did not ensure the spoil pile was placed at
least 2 feet away from the edge of the trench to protect employees
working in the trench.
The standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(j)(2) provides:
(2) Employees shall be protected from excavated or other materials
or equipment that could pose a hazard by falling or rolling into
excavations. Protection shall be provided by placing and keeping
such materials or equipment at least 2 feet (.61m) from the edge of
excavations, or by the use of retaining devices that are sufficient to
prevent materials or equipment from falling or rolling into
excavations, or by a combination of both if necessary.
Ms. Preskar, the compliance officer, testified that two piles of excavated material were at the
top edge of the excavation with no retaining devices to prevent the excavated material from rolling
or falling into the excavation. This testimony is consistent with the photographic evidence (Exhibits
C-1, C-11 and C-12). I find her testimony credible and consistent on this point.
There is potential for these materials to fall or roll into the trench. Respondent’s employees,
Kraeft and Hanning worked in the trench, exposed to the excavated materials. Mr. Rapp, Decker’s
foreman, was present at this trench throughout the job. He observed these employees working below
the excavated materials at the top edge of the trench.
Ryan Schasteen, respondent’s project manager, testified he saw no problem with the spoil
piles. He was not at the site on June 8, 2006, and based his testimony on a review of the photos and
hearsay from his crew. His testimony is not credible since he did not view the site on the day of the
inspection. The testimony of Ms. Preskar is more credible since she observed the trench condition
directly on-site during the inspection.
8
The testimony of employees Rapp, Frost and Sowers is inconsistent with the photographic
evidence and inconsistent with the testimony of Ms. Preskar. Each of these employees gave a
different estimate of the location of the spoil pile in relation to the edge of the trench. Their
collective inconsistent testimony is not credible on this point.
The Secretary has established a violation of 29 C.F.R § 1926.651(j)(2). The violation is
serious. Falling material from the edge of an excavation could cause death or serious physical injury.
Alleged Serious Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1)
The Secretary in Citation No. 1, Item 5 alleges that:
Each employee in an excavation was not protected from caveins by an adequate
protective system designed in accordance with 29 C.F.R 1926.652(c):
On the site, the employer did not ensure employees working in the
trench were provided with cave-in protection.
The standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) provides:
(a) Protection of employees in excavations. (1) Each employee in an
excavation shall be protected from cave-ins by an adequate protective
system designed in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section except when:
(i) Excavations are made entirely in stable rock: or
(ii) Excavations are less than 5 feet (1.52m) in depth and examination
of the ground by a competent person provides no indication of a
potential cave-in.
The standard is clearly applicable. The Secretary has alleged that an employee in an
excavation at this site was not protected from cave-ins by shoring or sloping. Paragraphs (b) and (c)
describe the design and configuration requirements of shoring and sloping systems. The cited
standard incorporates by reference paragraphs (b) and (c) and requires that employees be protected
by a system designed in accordance with one of those two paragraphs. The standard is applicable
where, as here, the violative condition alleged is allowing an employee to work in a excavation
without an adequate protective system. The reference to paragraphs (b) and (c) is sufficient notice
to an employer as to how systems must be designed to provide adequate protection.
9
Karen Preskar, the Secretary’s compliance officer, determined the dimensions of
respondent’s trench during her inspection on June 8, 2006. Respondent made no independent
measurements. Mr. Rapp, Decker’s foreman, did not dispute Ms. Preskar’s measurements during
the inspection. The compliance officer determined that the depth was 7 feet to 7 feet 8 inches, the
width at the bottom of the trench was 7 feet, the width at the top was 12 feet and the length of the
trench was 12 feet.
It is undisputed that the excavation was dug in Type B soil. The standard requires shoring
or sloping of the sides of the trench at a ratio of 1 to 1, that is, at a 45 degree angle. The side of the
trench next to the sidewalk or bike path was vertical. The wall on the opposite side of the excavation
was vertical with only a six inch to one foot wide bench, about 4 feet above the trench bottom. To
comply with the requirements of the standard, an excavation 7 feet wide at the bottom must be
sloped so the width at the top is at least 21 feet. This would provide a 45 degree angle from the toe
of the trench wall to the top edge of the excavation. Here the top width of the excavation was only
12 feet. An alternative means of compliance would be the use of a trench box or other shoring.
Decker failed to use either a trench box or other shoring to protect its employees in this 7 foot deep
excavation.
While some testimony of Decker employees Rapp, Frost and Sowers corroborated the
measurements of Ms. Preskar, other testimony by these individuals was inconsistent with her
determination of dimensions of the excavation. Their testimony was inconsistent with prior
statements during the inspection, inconsistent with the testimony of each other and even internally
inconsistent during their own testimony. After observing the demeanor of these witnesses, listening
to their testimony and fully reviewing all evidence submitted in this case, I find the testimony of
these employees not credible as to the dimensions of this excavation. Ms. Preskar’s determinations
and testimony are supported by measurements and other evidence discussed above. Her testimony
is found to be credible regarding conditions and dimensions of this excavation. The Secretary has
established that respondent failed to comply with the terms of the standard.
Respondent’s employees were exposed to the hazards of cave-in. Jarrod Hanning, Decker’s
laborer, was in the bottom of the 7 foot deep excavation bolting the fire hydrant. Another employee
Brian Kraeft, was near the top of the excavation holding the hydrant in place while Hanning was
making the connection.
10
Decker had requisite knowledge of this violative condition through its job superintendent and
foreman, Moe Rapp. Mr. Rapp directly supervised this work and was designated as Decker’s
competent person for this excavation. During the inspection, Ms. Preskar told Mr. Rapp that she
would like the employees to exit the trench. Ms. Preskar testified that Mr. Rapp then stated:
“We only have one piece to finish to install them” and then they would leave. (TR 60.) Even after
being advised of the continuing employee exposure to this hazardous condition, respondent’s job
superintendent exhibited no urgency in removing employees from the excavation and abating the
violation.
The Secretary has established a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1). The violation was
serious in that a cave-in could result in death or serious physical harm.
Penalty Assessment
Section 17(j) of the Act requires that when assessing penalties, the Commission must give
“due consideration” to (1) the size of the employer’s business, (2) the gravity of the violation, (3)
the good faith of the employer, and (4) the history of previous violations. 19 U.S.C. § 666(j). The
Commission has wide discretion in penalty assessment. Kohler Co., 16 BNA OSHC 176) (No.88-
237, 1994).
Respondent is an employer with approximately 150 employees, and 5 employees at this
trench. Respondent did not immediately abate or correct the violative conditions, showing a lack
of good faith during the inspection.
Generally, the gravity of the violation is the primary consideration in assessing penalties.
Trinity Industries, Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1481, 1483 (no. 88-2691, 1992). The gravity of a particular
violation “depends upon such matters as the number of employees exposed, the duration of the
exposure, the precautions taken against injury, and likelihood that any injury would result.” J.A.
Jones Construction Co., 15 BNA OSHC 2201, 2214 (no. 87-2059, 1993).
This was a five person crew. One employee was observed working in the bottom of this 7
foot deep excavation. One employee was observed exiting it. The walls of the excavation were
improperly sloped and unshored. The job superintendent was the competent person and foreman for
this site. He directed the work to be done in the manner actually performed.
11
Based on these factors, appropriate penalties for the violations found are as follows:
For the violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2) the appropriate penalty is $400.00
For the violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a) the appropriate penalty is $1,100.00
For the violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(c)(2) the appropriate penalty is $1,375.00
For the violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(j)(2) the appropriate penalty is $1,375.00
For the violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) the appropriate penalty is $1,375.00
Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
The foregoing decision constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance
with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing decision it is ORDERED that:
Citation No.1, Item 1a is affirmed as a serious violation and a penalty of $400.00 is assessed,
Citation No.1, Item 1b is vacated,
Citation No.1, Item 2 is affirmed as a serious violation and a penalty of $1,100.00 is
assessed.
Citation No.1, Item 3 is affirmed as a serious violation and a penalty of $1,375.00 is
assessed.
Citation No.1, Item 4 is affirmed as a serious violation and a penalty of $1,375.00 is
assessed.
Citation No.1, Item 5 is affirmed as a serious violation and a penalty of $1,375.00 is
assessed.
/s/ Stephen J. Simko, Jr.
STEPHEN J. SIMKO, JR.
Judge
Date: November 3, 2006
12
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2006, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.