Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Power-press, chain, cylinder, and electrical items produce $5,300
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1995 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
Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc. made small metal parts at its Connecticut facility. Administrative Law Judge Richard DeBenedetto vacated a flammable-container item because the Secretary's amendment shifted the theory from approved container design to liquid transfer without evidence fitting the new standard. He also vacated general machine-guarding allegations because the compliance officer did not explain how the eyelet machines or trash compactor operated or how employees encountered the claimed hazards. The judge affirmed grouped mechanical-power-press items because safety-device and inspection requirements applied when the press was used for die testing, not only during regular production. He also affirmed exposed sprocket-and-chain and compressed-gas-cylinder items, plus part of the electrical item, while vacating other electrical theories that did not fit the cited rules. Including settled abrasive-wheel items and uncontested other-than-serious items, the assessed penalties totaled $5,300.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(d), 1910.212(a)(1), 1910.217(b)(6)(i), 1910.217(c)(1)(i), 1910.217(e)(1)(i), 1910.217(e)(1)(ii), 1910.219(f)(3), 1910.253(b)(4)(iii), 1910.303(g)(1), 1910.303(g)(2)(i), 1910.304(d)(1)(i), 1910.305(g)(1)(iii)(A), 1910.305(g)(1)(iii)(D), and 1910.22(d)(1).
- Outcome: Mixed. The container and general machine-guarding items were vacated; the press, abrasive-wheel, chain, cylinder, and part of the electrical items were affirmed, with $5,300 in total penalties.
- Key point: A mechanical power press must have required guarding, controls, and inspection records before any operation, including testing outside normal production.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
United States of America
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1120 20th Street, NW., Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-34 19
Phone:(202)606-5400
Fax:(202)606-5050
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 93-1664
EYELEMATIC MANUF’ACI’URING CO., INC.
Respondent.
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ADMI[NI[STEUTIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on June 2551995. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on July 31, 1995 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 etition should be received by the Executive Secret on or before
July 19, 1895 in order to ermit suflicient time for its review. Y ee
CommlsSion Rule 91,29 6 .F.R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shall be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Review COrnmission
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 Come1 for
Regional Trial Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any party
havmg questions about review nghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
FOR THE COMMISSION
Date: June 29, 1995 Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
DOCKET NO. 93-1664
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO W FOLLOWING:
Albert H. Ross, Esq.
Re ‘onal Solicitor
O&e of the Solicitor U S DOL
One Congress Street, iltb *floor
P.O. Box 8396
Boston, MA 02114
Barrett A. Metzler, President
Northeast Safety Management
PO Box 330733
West Hartford, CT 06133
Richard DeBenedetto
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety an cf Health
Review Commission
McCormack Post Offic and
Courthouse, Room 420
Boston, MA 02109 4501
00116127192:01
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWCOMMISSION
JOHN W. McCORMACK POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE
ROOM 420
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02 109-450 1
PHONE: FAX:
COM (617) 223-9746 COM (617) 223-404
FTS (617) 223-9746 F-6 (617) 2234004
..
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant .. OSHRC
.. DOCKET NO. 934664
v. ..
EYELEMATIC MANUFACTURING .a
COMPANY, INC. ..
Respondent. ..
.
Appearances:
James H. Angevine, Esq. Barrett A. Metzler, President
Office of the Solicitor Northeast Safety Management, Inc.
U.S. Department of Labor West Hartford, CT
For Complainant For Respondent
Before: Administrative Law Judge Richard DeBenedetto
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 7, 1993, Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“Eyelematic”) was issued two
&&ns as the result of an inspection of its facility located in Watertown, Connecticut. Eyelematic
is engaged in the manufacture of small metal parts used for various commercial products such as
cosmetics and battery cans (Tr. 158, 468-69). The fkst citation contains seven items alleging serious
violations ofvarious general industry standards with a total proposed penalty of $12,800; the second l
citation contains two other-than-serious violations with no penalties proposed. At ‘the
commencement of the hearing, Eyelematic withdrew its notice of contest to both of the violations
alleged in the other-than-serious citation (Tr. 4-5,23024). Therefore, these items are af%med with
no penalty asses& (Tr. 23.24).’ With regard to the serious citation, Eyelematic agreed to withdraw
its notice of contest to Items 3a and 3b in exchange for a 50% reduction in the $1200 penalty .
proposed (Tr. 223-26). This settlement was accepted at the hearing, reducing the total proposed
penalty to $12,200 (Tr. 226).
APPROVED CONTAINERS VIOLATION
Under the first item of the serious citation, the Secretary alleges that Eyelematic failed to place
flammable or combustible liquids into “approved” containers before use. Specifically, the Secretary
contends that neither of the two containers observed by the compliance officer during his inspection
- a one-gallon plastic container of paint thinner in the finishing area and a five-gallon metal a of
flamnable liquid in the print room - were approved for use with flammable or combustible liquids
(Tr. 38,404, 54, 70071,87088; Exhibits C-1, C-2, C-3, C-18 & C-19).
As originally cited, the two flammable liquid containers were alleged to have been “use&' or
“stored” in violation of 6 1910.106(d)(2)(i) which reads as follows:
Desia comtmction, dupacity of containers - (i) Only approved
containers and portable tanks shall be used. Metal containers and
portable tanks meeting the requirements of and containing products
authorized by chapter I, title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(regulations issued by the Hazardous Materials Regulations Board,
Department of Transportation), shall be deemed to be acceptable.
At the hearing, the Secretary amended the subsectionunder which this condition was cited to allege
violation of 6 1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(d) instead of the 106(d)(2)(i) standard (Tr. 9-10, 15-16). The
amended standard provides:
(e) Induss~ialplants.(2) Inci&ntd storage or use offlizmmable and combustible liquids. l At the hearing, the Secretary corrected a typographical enor in the standard cited under Item 1 of theother-than-serious citation (Tr. 19-20). The standard at 29 C.F.R 8 1910.22(d)( 1) is substituted for
6 1910.23(d)(l).2 (iv) Handling liquids at point of$nal use. * * * (d) Flammable or combustible liquids shall be drawn from or transferred into vessels, containers, or portable tanks within a building only through a closed piping system, from safety cans, by means of a device drawing through the top, or from a container or portable tanks by gravity through an approved self-closing valve. Transferring by means of air pressure on the container or portable tanks shall be prohibited.me Secretary has failed to relate the amended standard to the evidence presented. The thrust of the
Secretary’s case at the hearing was that the containers did not meet the criteria of Underwriter’s
Laboratory &JL) or Factory Mutual and therefore, were not approved (Tr. 38,40,65-67, 70-72).2
In this respect, the Secretary’s amendment, despite his assurances to the contrary, fkndamentally
changed the factual basis of the violation from the design and construction of containers to the
process of transferring liquids (Tr. 14).
Given the confusion surrounding the allegation, it is not surprising that the item was not
clearly and fully tried under the standard originally cited or the amended standard. Although
5 19 10.106(d)(2)(i) specifically applies to the storage of flammable or combustible liquids, the
Secretary has not shown whether these containers were actually being “stored” in the areas in which
they were observed. See 0 1910.106(d)(l)(i) (“This paragraph shall apply only to the storage of
flammable or combustible liquids in drums or other containers...“). According to the unrebutted
t&mony of Eyelematic’s safety director, the containers had been removed f’koma storage area and
pIa& remporarilv in the referenced areas until the substances could be transferred to safety cans and
taken to the work area where they would be used (Tr. 92,478.80). In addition, Eyelematic raised
the issue of whether the containers could be considered “acceptable” pursuant to the requirements
ofthe Department of Transportation regulations mentioned in 6 1910.106(d)(2)(i), but the matter \~vas
left unresolved (Tr. 42, 49, 55, 64, 67, 71-72, 82-85). The record does not provide. adequate
evidentiary support to sustain this item.2 This cOrreSpOndSwith the definitionof “approved” found at 8 1910.106(a)(35) (C‘Approved,U&SSofherwise indicated, approved,or listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. Refer to 0 1910.7 for
&fhition of nation@ recognizedtesting laboratory.“).3 MACHINE GUARDING VIOLATIONUnder the second item of the serious citation, the Secretary alleges that Eyelematic failed to
protect its employees Corn the hazards associated with ingoing nip points, rotating parts, and
reciprocating parts in violation of 6 1910.212(a)(l).3 Under the first and third instances ofviolation,
the Secretary claims that adequate guarding was not provided for eighty-five cam-operated eyelet
presses and that no guarding at all was provided to protect employees from sixteen crank arms on
eight of these machines (Tr. 13 1, 160-62, 180-85; Exhibits C-16 & C-17). Under the second
instance, the Secretary claims that a trash compactor located in the receiving area lacked an
~@&ng device which would have prevented the compactor from operating when its doors were
open (Tr. 162-68; Exhibit C-20).
Under 5 1910.212(a)(l), the Secretary is required to prove that a hazard within the meaning
of the standard exists in the cited employer’s workplace. Codgra Flour MiZZingCo., 16 BNA
OSHC 1137, 1147, 1993 CCH OSHD 7 30,045 (No. 881250, 1993), rev’don othergmmds, 25
F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 1994); Jeff erson Smurfit Corp., 15 BNA OSHC 14 19, 142 1, 199 1 CCH OSHD
7 29,551 (No. 89-0553, 1991). Specifically, the Secretary must show that employees are exposed
to a hazard as a result of the manner in which the cited machine tinctions and is operated. Codgra,
16 BNA ti 1147; Jefirsw-2 Smurfit, 15 BNA at 1421. The Secretary has failed to present any such
evidence.
With regard to the cited eyelet machines, the compliance officer provided no information
whatsoever as to how this type of machine finctions or how Eyelematic’s employees operate it (Tr.
130-62, 180-201,205-12). In fact, he readily admitted that he did not know how an eyelet machine
operates (Tr. 189,289). Without detailed information about the actual operation of these machines,
the compliance officer’s vague
. references to points of operation, nip points, and rotating parts, as well
as the numerous photographs he took of the cited machines, lack context and provide little support3 This standard provides: One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the opemtor and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created bypoint of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. Examples of guarding methods are - barrier devices, two-hand tripping devices, electronicsafety devices,etc. 4fir the Secretary’s allegations (Tr. 139,146, 152-54, 156, 192-93, 196, W-200,205,207; Exhibits
C-4 to C-l 1 & R-2). Moreover, credible testimony from Eyelematic’s safiety director indicates that
in the course of their normal work duties, Eyelematic’s employees do not come in proximity to any
of these allegedly hazardous areas during the machine’s operation (Tr. 490-93, 503, 515.16,525,
528,532.36). See Jefirson Smu@, 15 BNA at 1422. The Secretary has failed to sustain his burden
of proving a violation of 6 1910.212(a)( 1) under the first and third instances of this citation item.
The Secretary does not fare much better with regard to the trash compactor cited under the
mnd instance of this violation. Again, the compliance officer never explained how the compactor
functions or is operated by Eyelematic’s employees (Tr. 162-76). Not even the photographic
evidence, which pictures only a close-up of the compactor’s closed doors, sheds any light on this
critical issue (Exhibits C-14 & C-15). According to Eyelematic’s safety director, the point of
operation in the compactor is located behind the doors approximately eight feet down and the doors,
pictured in Eyelematic’s photograph of the machine, are positioned several feet above the floor (Tr.
499-500, 529, 540; Exhibit R-l). The safety director also testified that anyone operating the
compactor must remain stationed at the controls located several feet away from the doors and there
is no reason for any employee to go into the compactor while it is operating (Tr. 500-02, 529-32,
53842). In fact, he indicated that an outside contractor, not Eyelematic, handles the trash
compactor’s repair and maintenance (Tr. 502). Because the record does not show that the
compactor, as operated, posed a hazard to Eyelematic employees, a violation of 0 1910.2 12(a)(l)
under the second instance is not established. Consequently, the entire item is vacated.
MECElANICAL POWER PRESS VIOLATION
The fourth item of the serious citation alleges a grouped violation of four standards which
govern the operation of mechanical power presses. All four items are based upon the compliance
officer’s observations of a single mechanical power press located in the echo room (Tr. 23 1; Exhibits
C-21 to C-26). Under the first item, Eyelematic is cited for failing to ensure that the power press’s
wehand tripping device operated with concurrent controls in violation of 0 1910.217@(6)(i) (Tr.
23 l-34; Exhibits C-21 to C-23)! The second item alleges a failure to guard the point of operation
at the back ofthe press in violation of 0 1910.217(c)(l)(i) (Tr. 234035,272.73; Exhibits C-22 & C-
24) .s Finally, under the last two items, the Secretary contends that Eyelematic violated
$0 19 1O.217(e)( I)(i) and (e)(I)@), respectively, for failing to establish and follow an inspection
program which would ensure that all ofthe press’s parts are in safe operating condition and for f&g
to maintain weekly reports of inspections conducted to determine the condition of specific
mechanisms on the press (Tr. 236-37; Exhibits C-25 & C-26)!
&&n&k does not deny that it failed to comply with the requirements of the standards. It
argues, however, that because the power press was not in production at the time ofthe @&on,
4 Se&on 19 10.2 17(b)(6)(i) provides:
A two-hand trip shall have the individual operator’s hand controls protected
against unintentional operation and have the individual operator’s hand
controls arranged by design and construction and/or separation to require the
use of both hands to trip the press and use a control arrangement requiring
concurrent operation of the individual operator’s hand controls.
5 Section I9 10.2 17(c)(l)(i) provides:
It shall be the responsibility of the employer to provide and insure the usage
of “point of operation guards” or properly applied and adjusted point of
operationdeviceson evq operationpefiormed on a mechanical power press.
6 Sections 19 10.2 17(e)(l)(i) and (ii) provide:
(elnsrpection, maintenance,and modification ofthe presses - (I ) Inspection
and maintenancerecords. (i) It shall be the responsibility of the employer to
establish and follow a program of periodic and reguk inspections of his
power presses to ensure that all their parts, auxiliary equipment, and
safeguards are in a safe operating condition and adjustment. The employer
shall maintain a certification record of inspection which includes the date of
inspection, the signature of the person who perfumed the inspection and the
serial number, or other identifier, of the power press that was inspected.
(ii) Each press shalI be inspected and tested no less than weekly to determiue
the condition of the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature and single
stroke mechanism. Necessary maintenance or repair or both shall be
performed andcompktedbef~thepress is operated. These requirements do
not apply to those presses which comply withparagraphs(b)(13) and (14) of
this don The employershallmahtain a certificationrecord of inspections,
test and maintenance work which includes the date of the inspection, test, or
maintenance; the signature of the person who performed the inspection, test,
or maintenance; and the serial number or other identifier of the press that was
inspec~testedormaill~
6
it was not subject to these requirements (Tr. 54445, W-52, 555). Eyelematic’s safety director
testified that the press had recently ken taken out of storage and was being used to experiment with
dies before it was to be placed into production (Tr. 264,544-45,547-48, 555-59, 561-62). There
is no basis for believing that the standards exempt power presses fi-om their requirements when those
presses are used for purposes other than regular production (Tr. 55 1, 561-62). A press that is
operated for special purposes can pose the same type of hazards as a press operated in fir11production
mode (Tr. 241, 244, 247-48, 257-60, 264-6’7, 558, 564). The general requirements of
5 1910.2 17(c)(l)(i) expressly require an employer to provide and ensure the use of point of
operations guards or devices “on every operation performed on a mechanical power press” (emphasis
added). Similarly, 5 19 10.2 17(e)( l)(ii) provides that any necessary repairs or maintenance must be
“performed and completed before the press is operated (emphasis added).
Contrq to Eyelematic’s claims, the applicability of 6 19 10.2 17(c)(l)(i) does not hinge upon
whether an employee was considered an “operator” of the machine for production purposes (Tr. 245.
46,549). Once the press was removed from storage and before it was operated, Eyelematic should
have equipped it with the proper safety devices and inspected all of its parts in order to veri@ that
they were in safe operating condition (Tr. 244,248,26&X). Because these requirements were not
met, an employee operating the press for any reason could have suffered serious physical injury (Tr.
256,262-63). Therefore, the violation must be affirmed as serious. Based upon the pendty criteria
set forth at 5 17(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 5 666(j), a penalty of $2000 is assessed.
SPROCKET WHEELS AND CHAINS VIOLATION .
Under the fifth item of the serious citation, the Secretary alleges that Eyelematic failed to
guard exposed chain and sprocket drives on five of its eyelet machines in violation of
6 1910.219(f)(3). This standard provides, in relevant part, that all sprocket wheels and chains must
be enclosed unless they are more than seven feet above the floor or platform. Although the record
contains no specific evidence indicating the height of the cited mechanisms, Eyelematic’s safety
director described some of them as being at chest or head level (Tr. 573-76; Exhibit C-30). In
addition, the photographs suggest that none of the exposed parts were positioned more than seven
feet above the floor (Exhibits C-27 to C-30).’
Unlike the machine guarding standard set forth at 6 191O.212(a)( I), the Secretary is not
required to prove that the exposed sprockets and chains posed a particular operational hazard to
employeesin order to establish a violation of 6 1910.2 19(f)(3). Here, proof of exposure hinges upon
whetherEyelematic’s employees had “access” to the unguarded parts, i.e whether it was “reasonably
predictable”thatduring the course of their normal work duties, their personal activities while on the
job, or their normal manner of entering or exiting the assigned work area, the employees would come
withinthe “zone of danger” resulting from the alleged violation. Amour Food Co., 14 BNA OSHC
18 17, 1824, 1987-90 CCH OSHD 129,088 (NO. 86-24’7, 1990); GiZes & Catting, Inc., 3 BNA
OSHC 2002,2003,1975-76 CCH OSHD 3 20,448 (No. 504,1976).
Based on the photographic evidence alone, it would appear that inadvertent contact with any
one of the exposed parts is more than just a remote possibility (Exhibits C-27 to C-30). An employ-
simplypassingthe side of one of the eyelet machines during its operation could easily make contact
with the exposed sprocket and chain located there, particularly if the employee is wearing loose
clothing of any kind (Tr. 566-68, 576-77; Exhibit C-27). In addition, contrary to Eyelematic’s
contentions, an employee may not always take the time to completely lock out a machine when
m$&g routine, minor adjustments to components located in these areas, such as the numerous fluid
hoses winding in and around the exposed wheels and chains (Tr. 568.72,575; Exhibits C-27 to C-
30). Contact with the exposed parts is also possible given the close proximity of various buckets and
barrelsplaced around the machine, as well as a red control button located in the immediate vicinity
of one of the sprockets and chain (Tr. 574-78; Exhibits C-27 to C-30). In sum, each of these areas
is simply too open and accessible to conclude that contact with an exposed wheel or chain is unlikely.
Employee exposure having been established, the violation must be afIkned. Because contact WV&
these exposed parts could result in serious physical injury, the violation has been properly
characterized as serious (Tr. 281.81,283,286-88). Under the penalty criteria set forth at 0 17(j) of
the Act, 29 U.S.C. 5 666(j), a penalty of $1200 is assessed.
‘It should be noted that where, as here, a standard containsan exception,the burden of proving &e
e~ct~~timlieswiththe party claimingits benefit. se, e.g., Falcon Steel Co., 16 BNA OSHC 1179, 118 1,1993
CCH OSHD 7 30,059 (Nos. 8902883,8903444,1993).
8
OXYGEN, ARGON; & ACETYLENE CYLINDERS VIOLATION
Under the sixth item of the serious citation, the Secretary alleges that Eyelematic improperly
stored an oxygen cylinder with a cylinder of argon and a cylinder of acetylene in violation of
$ 1910.253(b)(4)(iii). ‘Thisstandard requires oxygen cylinders that are in storage to be separated
from fuel-gas cylinders or combustible materials by a minimum distance of twenty feet or by a
noncombustible barrier at least five feet high and having a fire-resistance rating of at least one-half
hour. It is undisputed that three cylinders which contained the referenced substances were tied
togetherwith a clotheslinearound a metal beam in the echo room (Tr. 301-05,308-09; Exhibits C-32,
C-33, & C-34).* Although argon is considered an inert substance, the OSHA assistantarea director
testified that acetylene is a fuel that is considered flammable as both a liquid and a gas (Tr. 3 14-15,
590). His testimony on this point was not challenged.
& the hearing, the dispute centered on whether the metal beam around which these cylinders
were tied can be considered a “barrier” under the terms of the standard. Where the very purpose of
this standard is to maintain enough of a distance or separation between oxygen cylinders and those
which contain fuel and other combustible materials so as to prevent the possibility or the spread of
a fire, it cannot be credl%lyargued that the metal beam constituted a barrier which accomplished this
goal (Tr. 3 10,314.16, 325). The beam is simply not wide enough to provide an adequate barrier
between the cylinders (Tr. 305012,3 1622,328; Exhibits C-33 & C-34). Furthermore, Eyelematic’s
represent&e and its safety director admitted that the manner in which the cylinders were stored was
not ideal und= the circumstances (Tr. 324,585.86,589). For instance, in this position, the cylinders
could have sustained damage from mechanized equipment which might run into them (Tr. 3 18-19;
Exhiiits C-33 & C-34). Also, the rope used to bind the cylinders together, as well as the materials
stored in the area surrounding them, were flammable, creating an environment in which fire c&d
spreadquickly(Tr. 327,581.83,586). Under these clearly hazardous conditions, a serious violation
of 6 1910.253@)(4)@) has been established, and a penaltyof $1200 is assessed. 29 U.S.C. 5 666(j).
8 Although Eyelematic’s safety director indicated that these cylinders were empty at the time of the
inspect@ thecylindersno doubtcontainedvapor or even residue of the substancestoredtherein(Tr. 75-76,
583-85).
9
ELECTRICAL VIOLATIONS
Under the seventh item of the serious citation, the Secretary alleges a grouped violation of
four electrical standards. Under the first item, Eyelematic is cited for filing to provide sufficient
access to electrical equipment in violation of 0 1910.303o(l)P It is undisputed that numerous boxes
were stacked on pallets which were positioned in front of two disconnect boxes located in the echo
room (Tr. 338-39, 348, 592-94, 598-99; Exhibits C-35 & C-36). Although Eyelematic’s safety
director admitted that one of its employee had placed the pallets in a restricted area so marked by a
y&w line painted on the floor, he insisted that access to the disconnects was still available along one
side of the pallets (Tr. 348, 592 , 598-600, 602-05; Exhibit C-35). The photographic evidence,
however, does not support his claim (Tr. 348,35 l-53; Exhiiit C-35). Even if an aisle did exist in this
area, the pallets and stacked boxes still limited an employee’s ability to immediately access the
equipment for “ready and safe” operation or maintenance.
There is also insufficient evidence to establish Eyelematic’s defense of unpreventable
employee misconduct with regard to this violation (Tr. 332-333). While the safety director’s
testimony suggests that Eyelematic has a safety rule which addresses the cited condition and has
enforced that rule, at least in this case, by reprimanding the employee who placed the pallets in the
restricted area, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Eyelematic effectively communicated
this rule, or any others, to its employees (Tr. 603-M). See Centex-Romey Cmstr. Co., 16 BNA
OSHC 2127,213O (No. 92-0851,1994) (quoting fi-om Pridk Oil WellSen?, 15 BNA OSHC 1809,
18 16, 1991-93 CCH OSHD 1 29,807 (NO. 87-692, 1992) (to establish affirmative defense of
unpreventable employee misconduct, employer must show that “it had established a work rule
designed to prevent the violation, adequately communicated those work rules, and effiely
enforced those work rules when they were violated”). This item, therefore, is af!Eirmed.
Under the second item, the Secretary charges Eyelematic with failing to mount several “wall
boxes” observed throughout the facility in violation of 0 1910.303(g)(2)@). According to the
gThe &cfeWy amended this item to allege violation of 6 1910.303(g)(l) instead of $1910.303(f) (Tr.
M-17). The amended standardrequire that ticient access and working space be provided and maintained
about all electric equipmentso as to petit the ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment.
l
10
compliance officer, these boxes, which are enclosed by a metal casing and have either two or four
outlets on its face, are designed to be mounted on a fixed surface and failure to do so subjects them
to potential damage (Tr. 362-64,366-68,370,373-76; Exhibits C-37 to C-51). The cited standard,
however, contains no such mounting requirement and in fkct, does not even refer to outlet boxes (Tr.
371-72,381.82). Appearing under the heading, “Guarding of live parts”, 8 1910.303(g)(2)@) merely
provides that in locations where electric equipment will be exposed to physical damage, enclosures
or guards must be so arranged and of suf&ient strength as to prevent such damage. Where the focus
ofthis standard is the enclosure or guard used to prevent contact with the equipment’s live parts and
its ability to protect that equipment from damage, it is not clear how 0 EUO.303(g)(Qo(i) applies to
Eyelematic’s failure to mount an outlet box to a fixed surface (Tr. 362-63, 370-72, 381-82, 388,
607). Without evidence that the boxes were exposed to potential damage because of the way in
which they were used and that their metal casings were of insufficient strength to protect internal
parts from any such damage, the Secretary has not shown how this standard is relevant to the cited
condition (Tr. 3620364,367,371-72,374-76, 383-84, 606, 60%09,616).
The OSHA assistant area director himself expressed skepticism iegarding the application of
the cited standard. Admitting that the standard “does not explicitly explain the complete
circumstances”, the official identified another electrical standard which presumably ad&es= the
condition more appropriately (Tr. 380,387, 389). He testified that this type of outlet box must be
mounted in order to be listed for use by UL; therefore, he would have cited Eyelematic under
6 1910.303@)(1)(i),a general standard which essentially provides that the UL listing for a particular
piece of electrical equipment is one of the factors to consider when determining the safety of that
equipment (Tr. 386-87, 389-90). Given that this standard contains no reference to outlet boxes,
mounting requirements, or the UL listing criteria, its applicability is baseless (Tr. 392). kordiigly,
this item must be vacated.
Under the third item, the Secretary claims that Eyelematic’s failure to provide a disconnect
pole to open or close overhead bus ducts located in its “non-conforming area”” constitutes a
The tam ccnondbrming area”appears in two auf of the fourteen subitemsof the grw@ eI&d
vi&tions. Apparent&the termis a designationassigned by Eyelematicfor its own purposes and to &s@@h
it from other plant departments,such as the echo and eyelet rm.
11
violation of 0 1910.304(d)(l)(i) (Tr. 395-97; Exhibits C-52 & C-53). This standard provides:
Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or
other structure from the service-entrance conductors. The
disconnecting means shall plainly indicate whether it is in the open or
closed position and shall be installed at a readily accessible location
nearest the point of entrance of the service-entrance conductors.
For the purposes of the standard, the.“disconnect means” is broadly defined as a device, or
group of devices, or other means by which the conductors of a circuit can be disconnected from their
source of supply. l1 $ 1910.399. Eyelematic contends that it provided such means by placing a
disconnect pole in its production room, an area adjacent to the “ non-conforming area” (Tr. 621-22,
627,630-31). In fact, the pole is visible in the photograph submitted by the Secretary in support of
the alleged violation (Tr. 3990400,621-22,630.3 1; Exhibit C-52). But according to the Secretary,
6 1910304(d)(l)(i) has been interpreted by OSHA as requiring a disconnect pole or other such means
in every room or area of a given facility (Tr. 623,62627). The standard, however, requires only that
disconnecting means be instakci in a “readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the
se&e-entrance conductors”.‘* Because there is nothing in the record to indicate the location of the
service-entrance conductors, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether Eyelematic actually
violated this standard when it provided a disconnect pole in the production room, but not in the
“non-conforming area.” This item is therefore vacated.
The fourth item alleges the use of flexible cords for purposes that are prohibited by
5 ~9~0.305(g)(Q@i).13The Secretary claims that Eyelematic attached a flexible cord in three places
to b&ling surfaces and used flexible cords as a substitute for fixed wiring in two areas (Tr. 41 l-20,
I1 The compliance officer testified that using a disconnect pole or a stepladderare two basic ways in
which overhead ducts may be discoruw ted (Tr. 396-97,401.02,626,629).
*2It should be noted that based solely upon the definition of “readily accessible”, placing the disconnect
pole in an adjacentarea about thirty feet away from the overhead bus ducts would appear to satis& the terms of
the cited standard (Tr. 627,629). See Q 1910.399 (“Capable of being reached quicklyfor operation, renewal,
or ins~tions, without requiring those to whom rady access is requisite to climb over or reznove obstacles or
to resort to portable ladders, chairs, etc.“).
I3This &uxIardprwides,in rekvant part,that flexiblecords and cables may not be used “as a subtitute
for the fixed wiring of a structure” or “where attached to building surfaces”. 8 1910.305(g)(l)(iii)(A) and (D).
12
431-36, 44548,458; Exhibits C-54, C-55, C-59, C-60 through C-C-63, & C-67).”
It is undisputed that in Eyelematic’s secondary industrial area, a flexible cord was run between
t-w0 points along the ceiling, then tie-wrapped to a conduit near floor level (Tr. 632,637; Exhibits
C-60 & C-61). Contrary to the Secretary’s allegations, this cord was not actually “attached” to the
ceiling, but was strung through small metal loops, known as “stand-offs”, which were clamped to a
Riling beam (Tr. 632,636). To attach something is to join or fasten it, terms which suggest that an
attached item is not capable of fk movement. Webstes ’ I;hird New Mematinal Dictionary of the
EnglishLanguage at 140 (Unabridged 1971). &e Otis Elev. Co., 16 BNA OSHC 2116,X18 (No.
92-2541, 1994). Here, there is no indication that simply running the cited cord through these two
loops somehow prevented it from moving freely. Nor is it shown that the described condition is
regarded within the electrical trade as falling within the standard’s prohibition. A cord that is tie-
wrapped to a conduit, on the other hand, will not move freely and therefore, is “attached”. But as
even the Secretary has acknowledged, it is not clearwhether a conduit can be considered a “building
surface” within the meaning of 6 1910.305(g)(l)(iii)@) (Tr. 637038,644-45). Where the term is
not defined in the regulations, its meaning must assume its normal everyday usage and reading the
words in their nomA and customary manner, the term clearly refers to the exterior faces of a building
structure, such as walls, ceilings, and floors (Tr. 638-39). See Otis Elev., 16 BNA at 2 116. Here,
the cord was attached to the surface of a fixture, not the surface of the building. Accordingly, this
item is vacated.
Finally, in Eyelematic’s echo room, the compliance officer observed a two-outlet box with
a switch that was directly wired with two flexible cords and, in the “non-corSorming area,” he
observed a four-outlet box that was directly wired with one flexible cord (Tr. 413.20,445-48,457-
58; Exhibits C-62, C-63, & C-67). The evidence establishes that these cords were used in lieu of
f&i or permanent wiring; that they were wired to boxes that were mounted does not change the fact
that the cords were used in a manner prohibited by 8 1910.305(g)(l)(iii) (Tr. 450-53,457.58). In
terms of exposure, the compliance officer reported that several Eyelematic employees were working
in these areas of the facility and as such,.had access to the improperly wired boxes (Tr. 416,446;
“Atthehearin&theSeaetary~~instancesC,D,E,andG~~thisitem,leaving~instances
A, B, and F at issue (Tr. 18-l 9,642-44,646).
13
Exhibits C-55 & C-59).
Eyelematic contends that because an outlet box can be considered a “fixture”, wiring it with
flexible cords is permitted by 6 1910.305(g)(l)(i) (Tr. 640-41).“s But according to the National
Electric Code (NEC), this term, which is not defined in the OSHA regulations, more accurately
descriii various types of lighting fixtures, such as pendants, receptacles, and incandescent filament
lamps. NEC, 6 410-l (1981). In addition, a “fixture” is cm.monly defined as something that is fixed
or attached as a permanent appendage or a structural part, such as a permanently mounted lighting
device; here, the parties agreed that the outlet boxes were “portable” in that they could be moved and
mounted anywhere vr. 64648). Websters’ IBird Nau Intentional Dictionary at 861. Therefore,
these two instances of violation must be affirmed.
in sum, the violation alleged under the seventh item of the serious citation is affirmed to the
extent that Eyelematic f&d to provide sufficient access to disconnect boxes and used flexible cords
in lieu of fixed wiring. According to the compliance offi~, the hazard of both conditions is potential
electric shock in that the blocked disconnects could result in delaying the response time to an
emergency requiring immediate deenergization of electrical equipment or cause an employee to trip
and come into contact with a live part; the flexible cords used in lieu of fixed wiring would be subject
to wear and tar that might fi-aythe cord and expose live wiring (Tr. 340-44,346-47,415-16,445-46,
448). The compliance officer, however, failed to provide any specific information regarding the
magnitude of any such shock or the resulting effect. Therefore, the violation is afiirmed as
nonserious. In terms of a penalty, the Secretary has already suggested a $400 reduction in the
proposed $2000 penalty for those instances which he withdrew at the hearing (Secretary’s Post-
Hearing Brief at 5). Given that two of the four violations grouped under this item were vacated and
that the violation as a whole has been affirmed as nonserious, a penalty of $300 is appropriate. 29
U.S.C. 6 666(j)*
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is
ORDERED that item 1 of citation number 1 (approved containers) is vacated. It is fbther
ORDERED that item 2 of citation number 1 (machine guarding) is vacated. It is fbrther
14
ORDERED that item 3 of citation number 1 (guarding abrasive wheels) is affirmed and a penalty of
$600 is assessed as agreed by the parties. It is further
ORDERED that item 4 of citation number 1 (mechanical power press) is tirmed and a penalty of
$2000 is assessed. It is further
ORDERED that items 5 (sprocket wheel and chains) and 6 (stored cylinders) of citation number 1
are af&med and a penalty of $1200 is assessed for each item. It is further
ORDERED that item 7 of citation number 1 (electrical conditions), as amended, is affirmed in pm
and vacated in part, and a penalty of $300 is assessed. It is further
ORDERED that citation number 2 is tied, as amended.
Judge, OSHRC
June 22, 1995
Dated:
Boston, Massachusetts
I5 .
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1995, 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.