Hensel Phelps Construction Co.
Flammable-liquid storage item affirmed
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1993 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
Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for construction of a federal prison facility in Florence, Colorado. A painting subcontractor stored far more than 25 gallons of flammable and combustible liquids in a warehouse without an approved cabinet, near electrical equipment, smoking, and employee traffic. The ALJ held Hensel responsible because its supervisors knew the materials were stored there, had authority to correct subcontractor hazards, and could have detected the quantity through reasonable diligence. That serious item was affirmed with a $3,250 penalty. The oxygen-and-acetylene-cylinder item was vacated because OSHA did not prove the cylinders were in storage or determine which employer controlled them. The temporary-cord items were vacated for lack of employer knowledge and inadequate notice that subcontractor cords were included, and the defective-ladder item was vacated because OSHA did not prove that supervisors knew a discarded ladder had returned to the work area.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.152(b)(1), 1926.350(j), 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I), and 1926.1053(b)(16)
- Outcome: The flammable-liquid storage item was affirmed with a $3,250 penalty; the cylinder, temporary-cord, and defective-ladder items were vacated.
- Key point: A controlling contractor can be liable for a subcontractor's visible storage hazard when its supervisors have both knowledge of the materials and authority to require correction.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
I 120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 92-2347
HANSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.
Respondent.
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Re ort in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on July P2, 1993. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on August 11, 1993 unless a
Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY
PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION BY THE
COMMISSION MUST FILE A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
Any such petition should be received by the Executive Secretary on or before
August 2, 1993 in order to ermit sufficient time for its review. See
Commission Rule 91, 29 C.f .R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shall be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Revtew Commission
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
Washington, D.C. 20036-3419
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
_- Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DO5
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission, then the Counsel for
Regional Trial L,itigation will represent the Depa rtment of Labor. &Y Party
having questions about review rights may contact the Commission’ ‘s Exe cutive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
FOR THE COMPAfSSION
Date: July 12, 1993
DOCKET NO. 92-2347
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Litigation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Tedrick Housh, Esq.
Re ional Solicitor
Of&e of’the Solicitor U S DOL
Federal Office Bldg., ko;i 2106
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Robert R. Miller, Es uire
Stettner, Miller & CoB n, P. C.
1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80204
James A. Cronin
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety an d Health
Review Commission
Room 250
1244 North S eer Boulevard
Denver, CO f 0204 3582
00109547398:08
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1244
N SPEER BOULEVARO
ROOM 250
DENVER. COLORADO 80204-3582
PYGNE
CGM (303) 844-2281
FTS (303)844-2281
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
V. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 92-2347
HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.,
Respondent.
I
APPEARANCES:
For the Complainant:
Evert H. Van Wijk, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U. S. Department of Labor, Kansas City, Missouri
For the Respondent:
Robert R. Miller, Esq., Denver, Colorado
DECISION AND ORDER
Cronin Judge:
This proceeding arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. Section 651 et seq.; hereafter referred to as the “Act”).
Respondent, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. (Hensel), at all times relevant to this
matter, maintained a workplace at a federal prison facility under construction at 5880 South
Highway 67, Florence, Colorado where it was engaged in construction activities. Hensel
admits it employed approximately 40 workers at the Florence worksite and is engaged in a
business affecting commerce. Hensel, therefore, is an employer within the meaning b of. and
subject to the Act.
On April 13, 1992, a Compliance Officer (CO) with the Occupational SafeNd and
Health Administration (OSHA) conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Florence worksite
(Tr. 10). As a result, Hensel was issued a “serious” citation containing seven items alleging
violations of the Act.
By filing a timely notice of contest Hensel brought this proceeding before the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission). On March 1, 1993, a hearing
was held in Denver, Colorado. At the hearing, item 5, 6 and the second instance of item
7 were withdrawn (Tr. 3). ComplBinant’s request to amend item 4 was denied (Tr. 5).
Though not withdrawn, Complainant abandoned that item, presenting no evidence of a
violation. Citation 1, item 4, therefore, is vacated.
Remaining at issue are items 1 through 3, alleging violations of @1926.152(b)( 1);
.350(j); .405(a)(2)(ii)(I); and item 7(a)(l) alleging a violation of §1926.1053(b)(16). The
parties have submitted briefs on the contested issues, and the matter is ready for decision.
Alleged Violations
Serious citation 1, item 1 alleges:
1
29 CFR 1926.152(b)(l): In indoor storage of flammable or combustible liquids, more than
25 gallons of flammable or combustible liquids were stored in a room outside of an
approved storage cabinet:
a) As the controlling contractor H.P.C.C. did not assure that its subcontractor CD1
provided proper storage for flammable and combustible liquids at Bldg. 6, (sic).
Federal Prison Complex, Florence, CO.
Serious citation 1, item 2 alleges:
2
29 CFR 1926.350(j) Section 3.2.4.3 American National Standards Institute 249.1-1967 as
adopted by 29 CFR 2926.350(j) (sic): Oxygen cylinders in storage were not separated from
fuel-gas cylinders, reseIve stocks of carbides, or highly combustible materials (especially oil
or grease) by a minimum distance of 20 feet or by a noncombustible barrier at least five feet
high having a fire-resistance rating of at least l/2 hour:
2
a) At Bldg. G. Federal Prison Complex, Florence, CO: H.P.C.C. had an acetylene
and an oxygen bottle stored beside each other at a column.
Serious citation 1, item 3 alleges:
3
29 CFR 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I): Protection was not provided to avoid damage to flexible cords
and cables used for temporary wiring which passed through doorways or other pinch points:
a) Federal Prison Complex: Flexible cords were run through a metal door exposing
the cord the (sic) physical damage.
Serious citation 1, item 7 alleges:
7
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(16): Portable ladders with structural defects, such as, but not limited
to, broken or missing rungs, cleats, or steps, broken or split rails, corroded components, or
other faulty or defective components, were not either immediately marked in a manner that
readily identified them as defective, or tagged with “Do Not Use” or similar language, and
were not withdrawn from service until repaired:
a) At the H.P.C.C. jobsite Federal Prison Complex, Florence, CO: Two ladders
belonging to H.P.C.C. had defects and were not removed from service and located
at the following locations:
1) Bldg. G, 6 foot wooden step ladder.
Issues
-
Whether the storage of painting materials in Building G on April 13, 1992 constituted
a violation of §1926.152(b)( l)?a. If so, whether Hensel, as the controlling contractor, had actual or constructive. knowledge of the violation?
-
Whether the Secretary has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Respondent violated $1926.350(j)? -
Whether the Secretary has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Respondent violated #1926.405(a) (2)(ii)(I) on April 13, 1993?a. Whether the citation and/or complaint provided Hensel with notice that the alleged violations covered not only Hensel’s electrical cords, but those of its subcontractor Riviera Electric? 34. Whether the Secretary has show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Respondent violated $1926.1053(b){ 16)?Alleged Violation of $1926.152(b)( 1) Facts It is undisputed that the painting subcontractor at the Florence worksite, CDI, storedgalvite white primer, enamel paints, solvents, and toluene in the warehouse area of building
G (Tr. 13-15, 21, 95). Hensel admits that toluene, mineral spirits and paint thinner are
flammable materials (Tr. 116). The OSHA CO, Michael Kelly, testified that labels on the
primer stated that the contents were combustible, and that enamel containers carried
flamm,able substance warnings (Tr. 15-16). Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) from
Sherwin Williams identify all their galvite white primer as combustible (Tr. 15,21; Exh. C-3).
MSDS for Sherwin Williams’ enamels indicate flammability (Tr. 22; Exh. C-4).
Photographs taken by Kelly show more than 25 gallons of materials stored in the
warehouse (Tr. 116-17; Exh. C-l, C-2). Kelly testified that he counted “under 300 gallon[s]
total” of full stacked five gallon primer containers alone (Tr. 16). Kelly testified that ignition
sources in the area included electrical outlets, an electrical drill, electric motors on scissors
lifts in the area, and workers walking through the area with lighted cigarettes (Tr. 24, 29).
Kelly testified that employees of an electrical subcontractor, Riviera Electric, were
in the vicinity working on electric lighting from two lifts, 20 and 50 feet, respectively, from
the storage area (Tr. 27). In addition, employees of other subcontractors passed through
the area to get through the building (Tr. 27, 120-21). Kelly stated that should the flammable
and combustible materials be ignited, employees in the area might suffer bums and/or
concussive injuries which could result in death (Tr. 28).
Hensel was the general contractor at the Florence prison facility (Tr. 10). Hensel
superintendents conducted daily safety inspections of the worksite areas for which they were
responsible, and had the authority to immediately stop work and correct any hazards to
which its own or a subcontractor’s employees were exposed (Tr. 25, 68, 92-93, 112, 114).
Rick Lindow was the area supervisor responsible for the warehouse in Building G; however,
he had left the site about two weeks earlier, following the substantial completion of that area
(Tr. 113-14). Roy Bamhart, Hensel’s general superintendent, stated that he conducted safety4inspections “every other day, three times a week” (Tr. 111). Either he or the general
carpenter foreman inspected the warehouse area two to three times a week (Tr. 11$15).
Barnhart first testified that he knew CD1 was storing its material in Bui1ch-v 2 G, but
that he had not seen it (Tr. 97, 118). Barnhart later stated that he had personallv 4 inspested
the warehouse area on Thursday or Friday of the week preceding the Monday inspection
(Tr. 115), but that he was not “consciously” aware that more than 25 gallons of material
were being stored there (Tr. 120). He testified that the quantity of material changed, as five
gallon pails were delivered at different times during the week, but that he knew, at some
point, that more than 25 gallons of material were on hand (Tr. 120). Prior to the OS&4
inspection, Barnhart was unaware of 03-M regulations requiring that more than 25 gallons
of flammable or combustible material be stored in cabinets (Tr. 119). Barnhart testified that
Rick Lindow had collected and compiled MSDS forms by subcontractor and, thus, was aware
of the types of material being stored by CD1 (Tr. 119)
Discussion
Section ,1926.152(b)(l) provides that “no more than 25 gallons of flammable or
combustible liquids shall be stored in a room outside of an approved storage cabinet.”
The evidence establishes that the cited standard was violated. Hensel’s represen-
tative, Barnhart, admitted that on April 13 more than 25 gallons of painting materials, many
of which he knew to be flammable, were stored in Building G. Although Bamhart was
uncertain of the flammability of the galvite white primer, stored there in the largest quanti-
ties, Rick Lindow, Hensel’s area superintendent had compiled CDI’s MSDS forms. The
manufacturer’s MSDS lists the primer’s flash point, 105” F., and the vapor pressure of its
components, none above 7.1 pounds per square inch. Paragraph (g) of the definitions
section at 01926.155 states: “Flammable liquids means any liquid having a flash point below
140’ F. and having a vapor pressure not exceeding 40 pounds per square inch (absolute) at
100’ F.“’ Hensel should have been aware, therefore, that galvite white primer is
“flammable” for the purposes of $1926.152.
It is uncontroverted that the flammable materials were not stored in an appmved
cabinet. Employees working in and passing through Building G were exposed to the hazard.
The Secretary does not contend either that Hensel created the cited hazard, or that
its own employees were exposed. The Commission has held, however, that a general
contractor may be held responsible for violations of other employers “where it could be
reasonably expected to prevent or detect and abate the violations due to its supervisory
authority and control over the worksite.” Blount International, Ltd., 15 BNA OSHD 1897,
1899, 1992 CCH OSHD ll29,854, ~040,750 (No. 89-1394, 1992).
Bamhart admitted that Hensel had the authority to direct the correction of safety and
health hazards it discovered. Hensel had actual knowledge, through its supervisors Bamhart
and Lindow, that flammable painting materials were being delivered to and stored in Build-
ing G by CDI. Moreover, Barnhart testified that he knew more than 25 gallons of materials
had been stored there at times. Exercising reasonable diligence, Hensel should, at that
point, have directed CD1 to provide an approved storage cabinet for such materials, and
thereafter, monitored the quantities of materials stored in the open. Barnhart, however, was
unaware of the storage requirements of $1926.152. His ignorance of the standard’s
requirements cannot excuse Hensel’s failure to use due diligence, because an employer is
presumed to know of the standards that affect its business; ignorance of the standards does
not excuse noncompliance. Capfom, Inc., 13 BNA OSHC 2219.I 1989 CCH OSHD ll28,503
(No. 84-556, 1989).
The Secretary has established both the existence of a violation and Hensel’s
constructive knowledge of that violation. Citation 1, item 1 will be affirmed.
’ The manufacturer’s MSDS classifies galvite white primer as “combustible;” however, the definitions
of “combustible” and “flammable” contained within the Hazard Communication Standard at ~1910.1200 ef
seq. are not identical to those contained in the construction standards. Flammable liquid, for instance, is
defined at ~1910.12OO(c) as “any liquid having a flashpoint below loo0 F (37.8” C), . . ..
6
Penalty
The Secretary has proposed a penalty of $3,250.00. Hensel is a large employer.
d The
Secretary took into account Hensel’s lack of prior violations and its good f;ii;h in
immediately abating the violation (Tr. 19, 3O), and as a result had already factored in a 35%
reduction in the penalty. The gravity of the violation was high because of the numerous
ignition sources in the area, the traffic in the area, and the severity of probable injuries,
including death, to an employee caught in a fire.
The Secretary’s proposed penalty is considered appropriate and will be assessed.
Alleged Violation of $1926.350(“’
Fac&s
CO Kelly testified that on the day of his inspection he observed an acetylene and an
oxygen bottle tied to a column two or three steps from Riviera Electric’s gang box (Tr. 31-
32; Exh. C-6). The cylinders were marked with the letters HPCC (Tr. 32, 70). Kelly
interviewed two Hensel carpenters outside Building G, who said they had used an acetylene
and oxygen torch to cut some rebar two to three days prior to the inspection (Tr. 32, 39.40),
but had not used the cited tanks (Tr. 71-73). Roy Bamhart testified that Hensel had no
oxygen or acetylene on site (Tr. 98), but that a n.umber of subcontractors used the same gas
supplier, and that gas cylinders were recycled (Tr. 99-101). Barnhart had not seen the gas
cylinders in Building G prior to April 13 (Tr. 101).
Dkcussion
Section 1926.350(j) states:
For additional details not covered in this subpart, applicable technical portions
of American National Standards Institute, 249.1-1967, Safety in Welding and
Cutting shall apply.
ANSI $249.1-1967 states:
“Oxygen cylinders in storage shall be separated from fuel-gas cylinders or combustible
materials (especially oil or grease) a minimum distance of 20 feet or by a
noncombustible barrier at least 5 feet high having a fire resistance rating of at least
l/2 hour.
In order to prove a violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act, the Secretary must show
by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the cited standard applies, (2) there was a
failure to comply with the cited standard, (3) employees had access to the violative condition
and (4) the cited employer either knew or could have known of the condition with the
exercise of reasonable diligence. See, e.g., Walker Towing Corp., 14 BNA OSHC 2072, 2074,
1991 CCH OSHD ll29239, p. 39,157 (No. 87-1359, 1991). The Commission has held that the
$1926,35O(j)‘s applicability is limited to the transport and storage of cylinders. Mcc of .
Florida, Inc., 9 BNA OSHC 1895, 1981 CCH OSHD lI24,420 (No. 15757, 1981). In MCC,
the Commission held that capped cylinders lashed to a rack and “waiting to be placed in
service” were available for use and not subject to the regulation.
Here, the Secretary failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the cited
cylinders were in storage. CO Kelly failed to adequately determine which employer
controlled the cited tanks, and interviewed only Hensel employees about their welding
activities. The cited tanks, therefore, may have been available for the use of employees
other than Hensel.
Citation 1, item 2 wil I be vacated.
Alleged Violation of S1926.405(a)(2)(iijCI)
Facts
CO Kelly observed three electric cords running through a doorway in Building D (Tr.
41, 103; Exh. C-8). Two of the cords, belonging to Riviera Electric, ran from a power panel
box inside the building and supplied power to a temporary panel box outside (Tr. 41). A
small wooden block was taped to those cords where the cords ran through the doorway (Tr.
43; Exh. C-9). The third cord belonged to Hensel, and ran from the outside panel back into
the building (Tr. 41-42). Hensel’s cord was unprotected; at the time of the inspection it ran
through a gap between the door and the ground (Tr. 107; Exh. C-9). Kelly stated that the
heavy metal door had no hardware to hold it open and could have cut through the electric
cords if slammed or blown shut, and that the wooden block was of insufficient size to stop
the door (Tr. 42-43).
Kelly believed that he tested the outside panel with a ground fault circuit interrupter
(GFCI), and found it was energized (Tr. 43,46). Bamhart, however, testified that the GFCI
8
test showed no power (Tr. 105). Barnhart stated that the panel had been killed from inside
the building that day when the building was put on permanent power (Tr. 105). Barnhart
did not know whether the power had been off all day (Tr. 108). A Riviera ekc;ri;i;tn,
however, told Kelly that they would be at that location a few more days (Tr. (18). &l]v4
testified that he did not trace Hensel’s cord (Tr. 41, 77, SO), but stated that he had just come
from building B where a hammer and drill were being run from a second cord off the panel
(Tr. 45; Exh. C-8).
Bamhart stated that Hensel’s cord could not have been plugged into the panel prior
to April 13 because Hensel rolls up its cords .and
. stores them at its workstation at the end
of each day (Tr. 107). Bamhart first stated that he had no idea how long the panel and the
two feeder cords running to it had been in place, then admitted that the cords were a
“permanent attachment” (Tr. 125). Bamhart further conceded that he had, in fact,
previously inspected the area and had seen the cords and the wooden block taped to them
(Tr. 125).
Discussion
Section 1926405(a)(2)(ii)(1) provides:
Flexible cords and cables shall be protected from damage. Sharp comers and
projections shall be avoided. Flexible cords and cables may pass through dooMtays
or other pinch points, if protection is provided to avoid damage.
The Secretary has shown a violation of the cited standard. It is clear from CO Kelly’s
photographs that no protection was provided to prevent Hensel’s cord from being pinched
between the door and its jamb. The standard contains no provision for allowing employers
to pass cords between the door and floor. Moreover, here the cord was in no way secured
to the floor and if pulled taut, could easily have been caught between the door and jamb or
the door and Riviera’s
_- wooden block.
This Judge finds it more likely than not that the cord was energized at some point
on the day of the inspection. Even were Barnhart’s testimony regarding the GFCI testing
accepted, CO Kelly saw tools being operated from another extension cord running from the
panel immediately prior to that testing. Finally it is unlikely that Hensel employees would
have plugged an extension cord into the panel box that morning if it had been &energized.
9
I’he record is devoid, however, of employer knowledge of the violative condition.
Kellv4 did not talk to any Hensel employees in the area, and did not know who was usingL the
cord. There is no evidence of how long the cord had been in the doorway. (:~tsi:c of
Barnhart’s statement that it could not have been there overnight. The undersigned cannot
say, therefore, that Respondent should, in the exercise of due diligence, have know of the
violation. See, William Enterprises, Inc., 10 BNA OSHC 1260, 1981 CCH OSHD Q&875
(No. 16184, 1981).
In addition, the second instance of the cited violation, concerning Riviera’s feeder
cords also must be vacated. Neither the citation nor the complaint provide notice that
Hensel would be required to defend the adequacy of Riviera’s protective measures. The
words “as the controlling contractor,” present in other citation items pertaining to Hensel’s
supervisory role, are missing from this item. The complaint’s recitation regarding the
applicability of the standard states only that Respondent was using temporary wiring at its
workplace.
Citation 1, item 3 will, therefore, be dismissed.
Alleged Violation of 81926.1053(b)(16]
Facts
In Building G, Kelly found a six foot ladder stenciled with Hensel’s name leaning
against a column (Tr. 53, 81; Exh. C-6). The ladder was unstable, was missing a step and
had been bound together with duct tape where one leg was shattered (Tr. 54-55). The
ladder was not tagged or identified as defective (Tr. 53, 127). Mr. Bamhart stated that he
had ordered the ladder be taken out of service, and that his general labor foreman told him
it had been thrown in a dumpster adjacent to Building G (Tr. 54, 109-110). CO Kelly did
not ask Hensel employees in the area whether they used the ladder (Tr. 82).
--
Diwssion
Section §1926.1053(b)( 16) provides:
Portable ladders with structural defects, such as, but not limited to, broken or missing
rungs, cleats, or steps, broken or split rails, corroded components, or other faulty or
defective components, shall either be immediately marked in a manner that readily
identifies them as defective, or be tagged with “Do Not Use” or similar language, and
shall be withdrawn from service until repaired.
10
me evidence establishes that a defective ladder was available for use in Building G.
There was no showing, however, that Hensel’s supenisoxy personnel were aware that the
ladder was on the site. Rather, Barnhart testified that the ladder had been thrwn WI, 2nd
must have been retrieved from the dumpster. Work in the warehouse had been substantiah 4
completed and its inspection schedule reduced to two or three times a week. Nothing in the
record indicates how long the ladder had been in the warehouse.
In the absence of any evidence that Hensel’s supervisory personnel were, or should
have been aware that the ladder was on site, the cited violation must be vacated.
Conclusions of Law
-
The Secretary has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence that 51926.152(b)(l)
was violated on April 13, 1992. -
Hensel could reasonably have been expected, through its supervisory powers to detect
and abate the violation of $1926.152(b)(l). -
The Secretary has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, the
applicability of $1926.350(j) to the conditions cited on April 13, 1992. -
The Secretary failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent
violated $1926.405(a)(2) (ii)(I). -
The Secretary’s citation and complaint failed to provide Respondent with adequate
notice that its supervisory role in discovering and abating its subcontractor’s alleged
violations of §1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I) were at issue. -
The Secretaryhas failed t’o show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the conditions constituting a
violation of §1926.1053(b)( 16).Findings of Fact All findings of fact relevant and necessary to a determination of the contested issueshave been found specially and appear in the decision above. See Rule 52(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Proposed Findings of Fact that are inconsistent with this decision
are denied.
11
Order
-
Serious Citation 1, item 1, alleging violation of §1926.152@)( 1) is AFFIRWZD.
and a penalty of $3,250.00 is ASSESSED.
7
L* Serious Citation 1, item 2, alleging violation of $1926.350(j) is VACATED. -
Serious Citation 1, item 3, alleging violation of §1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I) is
VACATED.
-
Serious Citation 1, item 7, albging violation9 §1926.1053(b)(16)
d is VACATED.
.’ f
-7
i :L .&&i ,i
.// /’
Jknes A. Cro$>>L
/ ’ ‘Judge, OSHRC
Dated: July 2, 1993 J12
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1993, 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.