Valdak Corp.

Plain-English summary

Valdak Corporation used an industrial centrifuge extractor to dry towels at its North Dakota car wash. A 15-year-old employee suffered a severed arm, which was later reattached, after reaching into the extractor while its internal drum was spinning. The Commission held that Valdak willfully violated the machine-guarding standard because management knew the lid interlock was generally inoperative, knew the machine was dangerous, and continued operating it with little supervision of its young workforce. Valdak's employee-misconduct defense failed because it had no communicated and enforced rule requiring the interlock to operate or prohibiting use of the machine without it. The Commission affirmed the willful violation and increased the judge's penalty from $14,000 to $28,000.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(4).
• Outcome: Modified. The willful machine-guarding violation was affirmed, and the penalty was increased from $14,000 to $28,000.
• Key point: Continuing to operate a dangerous revolving-drum machine with a known inoperative interlock can establish willfulness, especially when young employees receive little training or supervision.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
         OCCUPATIONAL        SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                                   One Lafayette Centre
                             1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
                                Washington, DC 20036-3419




                                           ..

SECRETARY OF LABOR, l
.

                                           .
                                           .




                    Complainant,            ..
                                           ..
            v.                             ..    OSHRC Docket No. 93-0239

VALDAK CORPORATION,

                    Respondent.



                                        DECISION

BEFORE: WEISBERG, Chairman; FOULKEZ and MONTOYA, Commissioners.
BY THE COMMISSION:
At its car wash in Grand Forks, North Dakota, the Valdak Corporation used a
machine called an industrial centrifuge extractor to dry towels. On November 7,1992, a 15
year-old employee of Valdak had his arm pulled from his torso when he reached into the
extractor while the internal drum was still spinning. As a result of an inspection conducted
after the accident, the Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”) issued three citations to Valdak. The
one at issue before the Commission alleges that Valdak committed a willful violation of an
OSHA machine guarding standard. The Secretary proposed a penalty of $28,000 for the
violation. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin Loye affirmed the violation as willful and
assessed a penalty of $14,000. For the reasons that follow, we find that Judge Loye properly
affirmed the violation as willful, but we find that $28,000 is an appropriate penalty.

                                                                        1995 OSHRC No. 16

2

                                    BACKGROUND
     The industrial centrifuge extractor at the Grand Forks facility runs approximately

forty loads a day. The machine, which is essential to the car wash operation, uses centrifugal
force to dry towels by spinning the drum containing the towels at a rapid rate. When the
towels are drying, water comes out of a drainage tube. When water stops coming out of the
tube, the operator knows that the operation is complete. He then pulls the brake to stop
the internal drum, opens the lid, and removes the towels. At the bottom of the lid of the
extractor is the warning: “NEVER INSERT HANDS IN BASKET IF IT IS SPINNING
EVEN SLIGHTLY.”
The machine came equipped with an interlock system that kept the lid from being-
opened before the drum stopped spinning. However, the interlock system was usually
inoperative. On November 7, 1992, Josh Zimmerman, a 15.year-old employee of the car
wash stuck his arm in the extractor while it was operating. The machine pulled Zimmerman
in up to his chest and pulled his arm from his torso about three inches below his shoulder.
The arm was later reattached. At the time of the hearing, he was beginning to regain some
movement in his fingers.

                                      VTOATION
    The Secretary alleged and the judge found that Valdak’s failure to have a working

interlock is a violation of 29 C.F.R. 6 1910.212(a)(4).’ We agree. The evidence clearly
establishes that Valdak violated the cited standard .2 There is no dispute that section

‘5 1910.212 General requirements for all machines.

    (a) Machine guarding

    &ii Barrels, containers, and dnms. Revolving drums, barrels, and containers
    shall be guarded by an enclosure which is interlocked with the drive
    mechanism, so that the barrel, drum, or container cannot revolve unless the
    guard enclosure is in place.

2See Astra Phamaceutical hod&, 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 2129, 1981 CCH OSHD !I 25,578,
(continued...)
 3

1910.212(a)(4) applies to the extractor and that the interlock on the extractor was not
working. The record also shows Valdak’s employees were exposed to the violative condition.
They used the dryer to dry as many as forty loads of towels per day and, on occasion,
operated it with the lid jammed open. Valdak’s management knew that the interlock system
was inoperative, yet it allowed the machine to be used by its employees.
The judge also correctly rejected Valdak’s affirmative defense of unpreventable
employee misconduct. To prove that a violative condition results from unpreventable
employee misconduct, the employer must show that it had a workrule that effectively
implemented the requirements of the cited standard and that these workrules were
adequately communicated and effectively enforced. Gary Concrete Pro&., 15 BNA OSHC
1051, 1055, 1991-93 CCH OSHD 1 29,344, p. 39,452 (No. 86-1087, 1991). As the judge
noted, section 1910.212(a)(4) re q uires that the employer guard revolving drums, barrels, and
containers with an interlock connected to the drive mechanism. Valdak does not claim that
it communicated or enforced a work rule requiring that the interlock be operated, or
prohibiting use of the extractor without an operative interlock. Indeed, the evidence
establishes that, despite the extreme youth of many of the employees, the overall level of
supervision at the car wash was, at best, minimal. Several former employees testified that
there usually was considerable horseplay at the carwash, generally consisting of tying towels
in knots and playing football and wrestling. On the day of the accident, Zimmerman was
heavily engaged in such horseplay. A hat was tossed into the spinning extractor.
Zimmerman reached into the machine and pulled it out. Despite this act, which other
employees thought was “crazy,” Zimmerman was not warned of the danger. On that same
day, another employee picked Zimmerman up and held him by the extractor. While the
evidence does establish that Valdak’s manager, Joseph Strang, would stop the horseplay

‘(...continued)
pp. 31,899-900 (No. 78-6247, 198l)(In order to make out a prima facie case of a violation,
Secretary must establish applicability of cited standard, existence of violative condition,
employee exposure to condition, and employer knowledge of condition), afs’d in pertinent
part, 681 F.2d 69 (1st Cir. 1982).
 4

when he encountered it, the high level of horseplay that nonetheless occurred is testament
to the general failure of supervision at the car wash.

                                     WLLFULNESS

   A violation is willful if committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for

the requirements of the Act or with plain indifference to employee safety. L.E. Myers Co.,
16 BNA OSHC 1037, 1046, 1993 CCH OSHD lI 30,016, p. 41,132 (No. 90-945, 1993);
Willimrw Entep, 13 BNA OSHC 1249,1256, 198687 CCH OSHD fl 27,893, p. 36,589 (No.
85-355, 1987); Asbestos Tatile Co., 12 BNA OSHC 1062, 1063, 1984-85 CCH OSHD
lI 27,101, p. 34,948 (No. 79.3831,1984). A willful violation is differentiated Tom a nonwillful
violation by a heightened awareness, a conscious disregard or plain indifference to employee
safety. General Motors Cop., Electra-Motive Div., 14 BNA OSHC 2064,2068, 1991-93 CCH
OSHD If 29,240, p. 39,168 (No. 82-630, 1991) ( consolidated); Williams, 13 BNA OSHC at

1256-57, 1986-87 CCH OSHD at p. 36,5 9. A willful charge is not justified if an employer
b
has made a good faith effort to comply with a standard or to eliminate a hazard even though
the employer’s efforts are not entirely effective or complete. Keco I&W., Inc., 13 BNA
OSHC 1161, 1169, 1986-87 CCH OSHD ll 27,860, p. 36,478 (No. 81-263, 1987).
The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the violation here was willful. Valdak’s
management and supervisors knew that the interlock did not work and that the extractor was
not supposed to be used without functioning interlocks, yet they allowed the machine to
continue operating. The decision to continue operating was made at least partly for
economic reasons. As Strang testified, at the time of the accident he was aware that the
interlock was not working, but he did not have it repaired because it would have shut down
the machine and the car wash for up to an hour and a half. Strang also testified that before
the accident he had searched unsuccessfully for a new extractor for some time. However,
Valdak was able to purchase a new extractor two days after the accident.
There were warnings by Strang and Anderson to employees who were required to use
the extractor, including one by Strang pointing out that an employee who put his arm in the
 5

spinning extractor could lose it, but these warnings were not followed UP.~ Virtually every
employee who testified stated that he did not receive any written or oral safety training.
Even Strang admitted that, contrary to Valdak’s rules, a safety handbook was never handed
out to employees. Thus, it was common for employees to put their hands in the spinning
extractor, and Anderson taught at least one employee to slow the machine by holding a wet
towel against the spinning drum when the brake was not working.
The steps Valdak took to repair the machine before the accident do not come close
to negating a finding of willfulness. Indeed, they actually underscore the willful nature of
the violation. George Bowman, a part time supervisor, repaired the brake drum on the
extractor when it was not working properly, but he did not repair the interlock system. The
work done by repairman Tim Bonlie was also without effect. When he first began work for
Valdak five years before the accident, Bonlie had replaced the solenoid that controls the
interlock, but there is no evidence that he worked on the extractor’s safety system again until
the day after the accident, despite the fact that the interlocks were generally inoperative.
We therefore conclude that Valdak permitted, for a long period of time, the almost
continuous operation of a piece of equipment that it knew to be dangerous without the
necessary safety device. It also exercised an abysmally low level of supervision over the
employees who seem not to have appreciated the hazards present in the workplace. See

3Valdak’s claim that the judge erred in characterizing the testimony of a number of its
witnesses as self serving does not affect our view of the evidence. Although the term self
serving usually refers to a certain kind of out-of-court statement, it is clear that the judge
was stating that he did not find Valdak’s witnesses to be credible because their assertion that
they did not realize that the machine was particularly dangerous was aimed at excusing their
failure to prevent the extractor from being used without the interlocks. The Commission
normally will not disturb a judge’s credibility finding because it is the judge who has lived
with the case, heard the witnesses, and observed their demeanor. Archer-Western Contrac.,
Ltd., 15 BNA OSHC 1013, 1016, 1991-93 CCH OSHD ll 29,317, p. 39, 377 (No. 87-1067,
1991), afd, 978 F.2d 744 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Kent Nowlin Constz Co., 8 BNA OSHC 1286,
1980 CCH OSHD ic 24,459 (No. 76-191, 1980)(consolidated).
 6

Little Beaver Creek Ranches, Inc., 10 BNA OSHC 1806, 1811, 1982 CCH OSHD ll26,125,
p. 32,879 (No. 77-2096, 1982):

   As a preliminary matter, we find no legal significance to Valdak’s contention   that the

language of the direction for review, raised sua spnte and suggesting that the Commission
might increase the penalty assessed by the judge, has a chilling effect on an employer’s
decision to seek review.’ Once a citation is contested, the Commission has the sole

4Valdak argues that, according to St. Joe Minerals Cop. v. OSHRC, 647 F.2d 840 (8th Cir.
1981), a willful violation cannot be found where the employer is shown only to have
knowledge of the hazard. Rather, a willful violation can only be sustained where the
Secretary establishes an actual intent to disregard the hazard. St. Joe Mherals does not
require a different result. The evidence establishes not only that Valdak knew that the
interlock system was inoperative, but also that it made a deliberate decision to operate the
extractor without the required safety device.

‘Commissioners Foulke and Montoya note that, in practice, the potential “chilling effect”
on an employer’s decision to file a petition for review is obvious. Accordingly, the
Commission has traditionally balanced its authority for de novo review of penalty assessments
by directing review of a judge’s penalty assessment only when petitioned to do so by one of
the parties or where it became necessary due to reversal of the judge’s decision regarding
the violation. Commissioner Montoya notes that the Commission has generally refrained
from assessing a penalty in excess of that proposed by the Secretary, except in those
instances where the proceedings disclose facts previously unknown to the Secretary that
require the Commission to reevaluate the penalty factors set forth under section 17(j) of the
Act, 29 U.S.C. 8 666(j). See RG. Friday Masonry, Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1070 (No. 91-1873,
1995) (consolidated). Furthermore, Commissioner Foulke notes that the Commission has
generally refrained from assessing a penalty in excess of that proposed by the Secretary,
except in those instances where the Commission determined that the penalty factors were
so improperly applied that a failure to increase them beyond the level proposed by the
Secretary would constitute an abuse of discretion.

Chairman Weisberg notes, as he did in RG. Fiiday Masonry, Inc., supra, at footnote 14, that
there is no basis, statutory or otherwise for limiting the Commission’s ability to assess a
penalty that is higher than that proposed by the Secretary. Chairman Weisberg believes that
the view espoused by his colleagues is at odds with Hem Iron Works, Inc., 16 BNA OSHC
1619,1994 CCH OSHD lI 30,363 (No. 88-1962,1994) and with the Commission’s authority,
(continued...)
 7

authority to assess penalties. Hem Iron Works, 16 BNA OSHC at 1621,1994 CCH OSHD
at p. 41,881. The Act places limits for penalty amounts but places no restrictions on the
Commission’s authority to raise or lower penalties within those limits. Compare sections
17(a)-(g) and 17(j); 29 U.S.C. 00 666(a)-(g) and 666(j). After an administrative law judge
issues a decision, the Commission has discretionary authority to review the entire case, either
by granting a petition for discretionary review filed by one of the parties or on the SUQsponte
order of any Commissioner, even where no petition has been filed. Commission Rules 91(a)
and 92(a); 29 C.F.R. $8 2200.91(a) and 92(a). As part of that review, the Commission may
consider all penalties de novo. Cal#iomia Stevedore and Ballast Co. v. OSHRC, 517 F.2d 986,
988 (9th Cir. 1975); Hem Iron Works, 16 BNA OSHC at 1622, 1994 CCH OSHD at
p. 41,881.
Section 17(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 8 666(j), re q uires that when assessing penalties,
the Commission must give “due consideration” to four criteria: the size of the employer’s
business, gravity of the violation, good faith, and prior history of violations. .M. Jones Comtz
Co., 15 BNA OSHC 2201, 1993 CCH OSHD II 29,964 (No. 87-2059, 1993). These factors
are not necessarily accorded equal weight. Generally speaking, the gravity of a violation is
the primary element in the penalty assessment. 2Ehit-yZtius., 15 BNA OSHC 1481, 1483,
1991-93 CCH OSHD ll29,582, p. 40,033 (No. 882691, 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 the likelihood that any injury would
result. JA. Jones, 15 BNA OSHC at 2214, 1991-93 CCH OSHD at p. 41,033.

in cases where the penalty has been contested, to assess penalties de WVO. Determination
of an appropriate penalty de novo is a misnomer if it is subject to an artificial ceiling set by
the Secretary’s proposed penalty. In the Chairman’s view, the Commission’s discretion in
assessing appropriate penalties is circumscribed by the facts of the case, application of the
17(j) factors, and certain statutory limits on the penalty structure, but is no more restricted
when it comes to assessing a penalty that is higher than the Secretary’s proposed penalty
than when assessing one that is lower.
 8

    It is the Secretary’s burden to introduce into the record evidence bearing on these

section 17(j) factors. He should also explain how he arrived at the penalty he proposed.
When determining what penalty is appropriate, the judge should articulate the weight he
gives to each of the section 17(j) factors. See JA. Jones. Of course, when the penalty
amounts are not really disputed, we would expect the judge’s analysis to reflect that fact.
Here, the Secretary determined that $35,000 was an appropriate amount based only
on the gravity of the violation. He then allowed a 20 per cent deduction for the size of
Valdak’s operation and proposed a penalty of $28,000. The judge affirmed the violation as
willful, but reduced the penalty to $14,000 based on Valdak’s size. The judge did not explain
why Valdak’s size warranted such a substantial reduction. He merely stated that “[tlaking
into consideration the size of Valdak’s operation, however, the proposed penalty is
considered excessive.” This is not an adequate explanation for such a large reduction, and
we cannot accept it. JA. Jones Consht Co., 15 BNA OSHC at 2213-14,1991-93 CCH OSHD
at p. 41,032. We, therefore, make our own determination of an appropriate penalty de nova.
.
The gravity of this violation is high. As indicated by the accident, the cited condition
exposed employees not only to the hazard of having a limb pulled off, but also to death. At
least five employees at the Grand Forks car wash regularly used the extractor to dry up to
forty loads a day. Other employees were also exposed to the violative condition. However,
Valdak instituted few precautions. It had a work rule prohibiting employees from putting
their hands in the extractor, but the evidence demonstrates that the rule was routinely
violated. This lack of precaution is particularly troubling when we consider that some of
Valdak’s employees were 15 to 16-year-old boys.
Any employer that puts such employees to work in an environment that contains
dangerous machinery undertakes a heightened duty to adequately supervise those employees
and maintain in proper working order all safety devices. Little Beaver Creek Ranches; see
also Davey Tree Expert Co., 11 BNA OSHC 1898, 1900, 198384 CCH OSHD li 26,852,
p. 34,400 (No. 77=2350,1984)(employer can rely on experience and judgment of employees
to perform work in a safe and proper manner). Valdak failed on both counts. Its failure
to provide adequate supervision resulted in a work environment rife with horseplay. Valdak,
 9

itself, describes Zimmerman as a “loose cannon” who regularly engaged in hazardous
behaviors, yet it did nothing to prevent him from working virtually unsupervised near
dangerous machinery. Moreover, Anderson instructed employees to slow the spinning drum
after the power had been turned off by holding a towel against the inside lip of the dryer.
Certainly, these instructions substantially increased the likelihood that an accident would
occuL6
Valdak’s failure to adequately supervise its employees and to maintain the interlock
system establish that Valdak lacked good faith with regard to employee safety and health.
In fact, so cavalier was Valdak’s attitude toward the safety of its employees that, in blatant
disregard of the explicit warning on the machine and its own safety rules, one of its
supervisors felt free to instruct employees to put their hands into the extractor to slow it
down.
A penalty of up to $70,000 can be assessed for a willful violation of the Act.
Considering the high gravity of the violation, Valdak’s disregard for the safety of its
employees and the potential maximum penalty for such a violation, we find the penalty
assessed by the judge to be inadequate. Valdak’s disregard for the safety of its employees
entitles it to no credit for good faith. However, despite the gravity of the violation and
Valdak’s abrogation of its duty to provide a safe work environment for its employees, we
note that, with 125 employees, Valdak is a relatively small company with no history of
previous violations. Considering all relevant factors, we find a $28,000 penalty to be fully
supported by the section 17(j) factors and appropriate to ensure prospective compliance with
the Act’.

%lthough in finding the violation to be of moderate gravity the judge considered the youth
of the employees, he failed to adequately consider the impact of the unsupervised conditions
in which they worked on the likelihood an accident would occur. Therefore, we find that
the judge erred in finding the violation to be of only moderate gravity.

‘Chairman Weisberg would find, based on his de novo review of the penalty issue, that the
willful violation in this case warrants a penalty in excess of that proposed by the Secretary.
In that regard, he notes that the maximum penalty allowable for a willful violation is $70,000.
He further notes Valdak knowingly failed to provide, over an extended period of time, a
(continued...)
 10

                                         ORDER
     Accordingly,   it is ordered   that the citation   for willful violation   of 29 C.F.R.

6 1910.212(a)(4) is affirmed and a penalty of $28,000 is assessed.

                                                         Stuart E. Weisberg
                                                         Chairman




                                                         Commissioner




                                                         Commissioner

Dated: March 29, 1995

‘(...continued)
functioning rudimentary safety device for the extractor. Valdak compounded the risk posed
by the inoperative interlock system by failing to appropriately train its youthful workforce
or provide other than minimal supervision. Indeed, Valdak’s management effectively
permitted a work atmosphere with abundant horseplay occurring near dangerous machinery.
Its own supervisor, Anderson, actually encouraged the very kind of unsafe behavior which
led to the accident precipitating the inspection in the instant case. The foregoing, combined
with the high probability of dire consequences Tom such behavior, render this case, in the
Chairman’s view, a classic or textbook example of a willful violation.

The Chairman agrees with his colleagues that the record establishes that Valdak’s blatant
disregard for the safety of its employees entitles it to no credit for good faith in penalty
assessment. Moreover, he notes that, while Valdak is not a large employer, with 125
employees it is, as his colleagues find, only “relatively” small. Accordingly, and given the
extreme nature of the case, Valdak’s size coupled with the fact that it has not been
previously cited for safety violations are not, in the Chairman’s view, nearly sufficient to
reduce the maximum penalty to the great extent that the Secretary found appropriate.
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419

PHONE:
COM (202) 606-5100
FTs(202)60&5100

                                         .
                                         .

SECRETARY OF LABOR, ..
..
Complainant, ..
..
v. .. Docket No. 93-0239
..
VALDAK CORPORATION, ..
..
Respondent. ..
.

The attached decision by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission was issued on
March 29.1995. ANY PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED OR AGGRIEVED WHO WISHES TO
OBTAIN REVIEW OF THIS DECISION MUST FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH TEIE
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS VVITEUN60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF ‘IBIS
DECISION. See Section 11 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,29 U.S.C. 8 660.

                                                     A        THE COMMISSION

March 29. 1995
Date
Docket No. 93-0239

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 A. Housh, Jr., Esq.
Regional Solicitor
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
1210 City Center Square
1100 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64105

John H. Moosbrugger, Esquire
Moosbrugger, Ohlsen, Dvorak & Carter
219 South Third Street
Grand Forks, ND 58206-5159

Benjamin R. Loye
Administrative Law Judge
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
Room 250
1244 North Speer Boulevard
Denver, CO 80204-3582
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419

PHONE
coM(202)6064100
Frs (202) 60645100

                 SECRETARY       OF LABOR
                                   Complainant,
                          v.                                                      OSHRC DOCKET
                                                                                  NO. 93-0239
                 VALDAK CORP.                                                 i
                                     Respondent.


                                       NOTICE OF DOCKETING
                                OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
                      The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was
                 docketed with the Commission o’i!iFebruary 25, 1994. The decision of the Judge
                 will become a final order of the Commission on March 28, 1994 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
                 March 17, 1994 in order to permit 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
                                         Review 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. DO%
                                        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 Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any party
                 havmg questions about review rights may contact the Commission’s Executive
                 Secretary or call (202) 6065400.




             Date: February 25, 1994

DOCKET NO. 93-0239
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:

Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOgL
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., Rooi 2106
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106

John H. Moosbrugger, Esq.
Mossbrugger, Ohlsen, Dvorak &
Carter
219 .South Third Street
Grand Forks, ND 58206

Benjamin R. Lo e
Administrative I5 w Jud e
Occupational Safe9 an f Health
Review Commissron
Room 250
1244 North S eer Boulevard
Denver, CO tr0204 3582

00107116154:08
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1244 N. Speer Boulevard
Room 250
Denver, Colorado 80204-3582

PHONE
COM (303) 8444409 FE (303)84&3759
Frs (303) 8443759
Fw303)844-3409

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,

         v.                                                          OSHRC Docket No. 93-0239

VALDAK CORPORATION,
Respondent.

APPEARANCES:

                   Elizabeth C. Lawrence, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department   of Labor
                    Kansas City, Missouri

                   John H. Moosbrugger, Esq., Moosbrugger, Ohlsen, Dvorak & Carter,
                     Grand Forks, North Dakota

Before: Administrative Law Judge Benjamin R. Loye

                                        DECISION AND ORDER


             This proceeding   arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29

U.S.C. Section 651 et seq.; hereafter called the “Act”).
Respondent, Valdak Corporation (Valdak), at all times relevant to this action
maintained a place of business at 1149 36th Avenue South, Grand Forks, North Dakota,
where it was engaged in the operation of a car wash. Respondent admits it is an
employer engaged in a business affecting commerce and is subject to the requirements of
the Act.
 On November 9, 1992, following a reported accident, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) conducted an inspection of Valdak’s Grand Forks work-
site (Tr. 49, 59). As a result of the inspection, Valdak was issued citations alleging a
number of violations of the Act, together with proposed penalties. Valdak filed a timely
notice contesting “willful” citation 2, and the penalties proposed under “serious” citation
1, bringing this proceeding before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commis-
sion (Commission).
Prior to the hearing the parties stipulated to withdrawal of the alternative allega-
tions contained in “willful” citation 2, charging violation of §1910.212(a)(3)(ii) of the Act
(Tr. 8). Citation 2 remains at issue solely as a violation of $1910.212(a)(4). On
November 4, 1993, a hearing was held in Grand Forks, North Dakota, on the contested

issues. The parties have submitted briefs and this matter is ready for disposition.
Alleged Violation of $5(a)( 1)
Serious citation 1, item 1 alleges:
1
Section 5(a)(l) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did
not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized
hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees:

   (a) The employer did not have a safety and health program for all operations
   where employees could be exposed to potential safety and health hazards at the
   Valley Car Wash, 1149 36th Avenue South, in Grand Forks, North Dakota.

   Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable method of abatement to cor-
   rect the hazard would be to develop a program similar to that outlined in the
   Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines as published in the Federal
   Register dated January 26, 1989, which would include as a minimum the following:

   1.      Management commitment and employee involvement.
   2.      Worksite analysis.
   3.      Hazard prevention and control.
   4.      Supervisory monitoring and enforcement.
   5.      Safety and health training.        *

   Valdak contests only the penalty of $1,200.00 proposed by the Secretary.


                                              2

Valdak has 125 employees, 30 to 50 of whom were employed at the cited location
(Tr. 555). It is stipulated that Valdak never received a citation for violation of the Act
prior to the issuance of the citations in this matter (Stipulation 6). Valdak demonstrated
its good faith by cooperating fully in the investigation of this matter and immediately
abating the violations (Tr. 81, 323-24, 537-39). CO Husebye testified that a safety pro-

gram, properly implemented, would have controlled or eliminated the serious workplace
hazards cited during the November 1992 investigation (Tr. 294-95).
Taking into consideration the relevant factors, the undersigned finds that the
gravity of the violation is overstated. The gravity of the violation is moderate to low.
The Secretary established no direct connection between the absence of a safety program
and the cited violations. Moreover, the named serious hazards found at Valdak’s work-
place were also cited, and separate penalties proposed.
The proposed penalty is excessive. A penalty of $600.00 will be assessed.

                     9)
   Serious citation I? item 2 alleges:

2A
29 CFR 1910.219(d)(l): Pulleys with parts seven feet or less from the floor or work
platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified at 29 CFR
1910.219(m) & (0):

   (a) The chemical pumps located in the loft area.

2B
29 CFR 1910.219(e)(3)(i): Vertical or inclined belts were not enclosed by guards con-
forming to the requirements specified at 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (0):

   (a) The chemical pumps located in the loft area.

   Valdak contests only the combined             penalty of $1,200.00 proposed      by the Secre-

.
tary
The undersigned finds that the gravity of the violation is moderate to low. CO
Husebye stated that employees could become entangled in the belts and pulleys and
sut’t’er broken bones, cuts and possibly amputation of fingers or hands (Tr. 298). Only

                                                 3

five supervisory and maintenance personnel were routinely exposed to the exposed belts
and pulleys on the chemical pumps in the loft area, as they hooked the pumps up to new
containers of concentrated chemicals (Tr. 296-298; Exh C-9, C-10).
Based on the statutory criteria, the proposed penalty is found to be excessive. A
penalty of $900.00 will be assessed.
Alleged Violation of !$1910.1200(e)(l), (hl
Serious citation 1, item 3 alleges:
3A
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)( 1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at
the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria
specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:

    (a) Car wash, for employees exposed                to hazardous      chemicals   such as rust
    inhibitor, de-icer, wax, and detergent.

3B
29 CFR 1910.1200(h): Employees were not provided information and training as speci-
fied in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(l) and (2) on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the
time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced into their
work area:

    (a) Car wash, for employees exposed                to hazardous      chemicals   such as rust
    inhibitor, de-icer, wax, and detergent.

    Valdak     contests    only   the    combined    penalty    of $1,200.00   proposed    by the

Secretary.
The gravity of the violation is low to moderate. The CO Husebye testified that
the chemicals dispensed by the pumps ultimately end up on the floor of the car wash and
on the vehicles. All employees are exposed to the dispersed chemicals daily (Tr. 302-04).
Ingestion or inhalation of the cited chemicals could result in skin rashes, dermatitis,
allergic reactions, bums or eye injuries (Tr. 303). There was no evidence that any
injuries had ever been suffered as a result of the cited violations.
The proposed penalty is found excessive; $900.00 will be assessed.

                                                 4

Alleged Violation of 51910.212(a)(4)
Willful citation 2, item 1 alleges:
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(4): Revolving drums, barrels, or containers were not guarded by
enclosures which were interlocked with the drive mechanism so that the barrels, drums,
or containers could not revolve unless the enclosures were in place.

    (a) Southeast comer of the Valley Car Wash located at 1149 36th Avenue South,
    Grand Forks, North Dakota, where the cover of the Bock centrifugal extractor
    could be opened during the operating cycle exposing employees to the hazard of
    contact with the rotating tub.

   The cited standard provides:

   Burrd.c, couhrwrs,     NYI~ dams.         Revolving    drums, barrels, and containers
   shall be guarded by an enclosure which is interlocked              with the drive mecha-
    nism, so that the barrel,   drum,    or container     cannot   revolve unless the guard
   enclosure is in place.

    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 ll29,239, p. 39,157 (No. 87-1359, 1991).
In this case, there is no question that Valdak violated the cited standard. Valdak
admits that the centrifugal extractor, which is the subject of the citation, has a revolving
container; 51910.212(a)(4) is, therefore, applicable (Tr. 8-9, Stipulation 7). Valdak fur-
ther admits that the interlocking mechanism on the extractor was not “operating and/or

functioning accurately” on November 7, 1992 (Tr. 9, 64; Stipulation 8). Testimony, as
well as the accident itself, in which an employee lost an arm in the extractor, establishes
employee access to the unguarded revolving part (Tr. 140, 145, 150, 152, 235, 255-56,
397). Finally, supervisory personnel were admittedly aware of the violative condition (Tr.
67, 280, 395, 403, 484, 563-64).
 Valdak raises the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct. The
citation in this case, however, involves a specifications standard which mandates a physi-
cal form of protection, thus limiting the availability of the employee misconduct defense.
The employee misconduct defense is only available to employers who have com-
municated and enforced work rules designed to eliminate the specific hazard for which
the employer has been cited. See, e.g. Archer-Western Contractors Ltd., 15 BNA OSHC
1013, 1991 CCH OSHD 1129,317 (No. 87-1067, 1991). Here, the cited standard requires
that the employer guard revolving drums, barrels, and containers with an interlock con-
nected to the drive mechanism, so that the barrel, drum, or container cannot revolve
unless the guard is in place. Valdak does not claim it communicated or enforced a work
rule requiring that an interlock remain in operation on the extractor, or prohibiting use
of the extractor without the interlock in place (Tr. 178-79). In the absence of a work
rule designed to eliminate the cited violation, Valdak cannot prove an employee miscon-
duct defense.’ Id.
Valdak has failed to establish its affirmative defense.
The violation is classified as %illful.” The Commission has held that:
A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary dis-
regard for the requirements of the Act, or with plain indifference to employee
safety. It is differentiated from other types of violations by a “heightened aware-
ness -- of the illegality of the conduct or conditions -- and by the state of mind --
conscious disregard or plain indifference.

CuZang CO~JX,14 BNA OSHC 1789, 1791, 1987-90 CCH OSHD lI29,080, p. 38,870 (No.
85-319, 1990).
The undersigned finds that Valdak’s failure to assure that a working interlock was
installed on its extractor, contrary to the requirements of the Act, together with its failure
to provide adequate training and supervision to operators, despite the obvious danger to

Testimony regarding the victim’s conduct is relevant only if it concerns an attempt to defeat a

functioning interlock device, or established rules prohibiting use of the unguarded extractor. The general
deportment, or behavior of the victim is, in itself, insufficient to establish the defense, and will not be
discussed here.

                  .                             6

the young employees running that equipment, demonstrates plain indifference to those
employees’ safety and warrants a finding of willfulness.
The cited Brock 5197 centrifuge extractor extracts moisture from wet towels as its
drum spins at a high rate of speed (Tr. 59, 60; Exh. C-3). The extractor presents a clear
hazard; the bottom of the lid bears the warning: “Never insert hands in basket if it is
spinning even slightly” (Tr. 157; Exh R-15 through R-17). Valdak’s management was
admittedly aware that the extractor was supposed to have an interlock device to keep the
lid from being opened while the drum was spinning (Tr. 572).
Young employees, from 15 to 21 years of age (Tr. 92, 137-38, 175, 203, 252)
operated the machine (Tr. 98, 99) without the benefit of any formal safety training (Tr.
93, 138, 176, 204, 238, 254, 393, 401, 434 SSS), and without close supervision (Tr. 206,
242, 244, 258, 269).
Valdak’s management was aware that it was the practice of employee operators to
press their hands against the inside lip of the extractor’s drum to further slow the drum
after applying the extractor’s brake (Tr. 564-65; See testimony of Jeremy Larson, Tr. 236.
37; Chad Preaht, Tr. 257-59). Employee Paul Gabriel testified that during an approxi-
mately six week period when the brake on the extractor was not working (Tr. 106.07), he
had been specifically instructed by Joanne Anderson, an assistant manager, to slow the
spinning drum after the power had been turned off by holding a towel against the inside
lip of the drum (Tr. 103-04). Gabriel further stated that Joe Strang had seen him reach
into the extractor while it was moving in order to remove a towel wrapped around the
spindle, and then warned him that the extractor would “take [his] arm off’ (Tr. 102, lll-

12) .
Anderson and Strang admitted that the extractor was the only one the car wash
had, and so they had to continue using it, regardless of whether safety features, i.e. the
solenoid, or hold down coil, were working, which they frequently were not (Tr. 369-70,
499, 558-59). Employees Chad Preabt, Jeremy Larson, Tim Castoreno and John Austin
testified that the extractor lid could be opened while the extractor drum was spinning
during the times thev, worked at Valdak (Tr. 140, 145, 150, 152,, 235, 255-56). Gabriel
testified that there was no functioning interlock on the extractor at any time between
November 1991 and May 1992, while he worked for Valdak (Tr. 91, 102).
Despite the presence of an obvious hazard in its workplace, and the availability of
repair personnel (Tr. 417-18, 445), Valdak made no effort to assure that a working inter-
lock was maintained on the extractor (Tr. 459, 470, 475-76).
The undersigned does not find credible the testimony of Valdak’s management
personnel, all of whom stated that they were unaware that the extractor was a dangerous
piece of machinery (Tr. 375-76, 391, 398, 637). Such self-serving testimony is
contradicted by the supervisors’ own testimony that they warned the employees not to
put their hands in the machine (Tr. 376-77, 399, 492), and Valdak’s position that the
hazard posed by the machine was obvious to employees, and that the safety legend on
the lid of the extractor provided sufficient warning of the danger posed by the spinning
drum. That management personnel did not foresee the extent of injury possible does not
excuse its disregard for continuing safety hazards of which it had actual knowledge.
The gravity of the violation is moderate to high. At least five employees operated
the extractor (Tr. 289), running approximately 40 loads a day (Tr. 562). An employee
catching an appendage in the extractor could suffer injuries ranging from broken fingers,
amputation or death (Tr. 292). Although the hazard was obvious, the youth of Valdak’s
employees increases the likelihood of an accident occurring.
Taking into consideration the size of Valdak’s operation, however, the proposed
penalty is considered excessive. A penalty of $14,000.00 will be ASSESSED.

                           Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
      All findings of fact and conclusions              of law relevant    and necessary to a deter-

mination of the contested issues have been found specially and appear in the decision
above. See Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                                    8

ORDER

1. Citation 1, item 1: A penalty of $600.00 will be ASSESSED.
2. Citation 1, items 2A and 2B: A penalty of $900.00 will be ASSESSED.
3. Citation 1, items 3A and 3B: A penalty of $900.00 will be ASSESSED.
4. “Willfkl” citation 2, item 1, is AFFIRMED and a penalty of $14,000.00 is
   ASSESSED.

Dated: EWXU~~V
we18, 1994