Bridgeport Brass Company

Plain-English summary

Bridgeport Brass Company occasionally transferred sulfuric acid from a truck to an outdoor storage tank. An eyewash fountain and safety shower were inside an adjacent building, a short distance from the door. The Secretary argued that the door, tank, truck, and delivery lines could obstruct an employee trying to reach the equipment after acid exposure. The Commission found no unreasonable impediment because the facilities were close, suitable, protected from freezing, and the stipulated record did not show that the truck or lines actually blocked access. It reversed the judge and vacated the citation under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.151(c).

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.151(c)
• Outcome: Citation vacated.
• Key point: Emergency drenching equipment may be located inside an adjacent building when the route is short and the record does not establish an unreasonable obstruction.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 82-0899

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

BRIDGEPORT BRASS COMPANY,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 82-0899

DECISION

Before:  BUCKLEY, Chairman, and CLEARY, Commissioner.

BY THE COMMISSION:

This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
under 29 U.S.C. � 661(i), section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970, 29 U.S.C. �� 651-678 ("the Act").  The Commission is an
adjudicatory agency, independent of the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration.  It was established to resolve disputes arising out of
enforcement actions brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatory
functions.  See section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. � 659(c).

The issue in the case is whether Bridgeport Brass Company
("Bridgeport") violated the occupational safety standard at 29 C.F.R. �
1910.151(c) [[1]] in that certain facilities for emergency drenching of employees' eyes
and skin were not sufficiently accessible to employees delivering sulfuric acid.  The
administrative law judge found that Bridgeport violated the standard as alleged by the
Secretary of Labor's citation.  We reverse the judge's decision and vacate the
citation.

I

The case was submitted on stipulated facts.  Bridgeport maintains an
outdoor storage tank for sulfuric acid of 4000 gallon capacity at Seymour, Connecticut.
  On infrequent occasions,[[2]] Bridgeport employees transfer acid from a truck into
the tank.  Two of Bridgeport's employees participate in each delivery of acid.  
The stipulation states that leaks have occurred during the delivery of corrosives at other
locations at Bridgeport's workplace.  The tank is located adjacent to a
building.  The position where the truck is connected to the tank during an acid
delivery is 16 feet from the door of the building.  Inside the building and along the
wall in which the door is located is an eyewash fountain 7 1/2 feet from the door.  
Along the same wall, 20 feet from the door, is a safety shower.

The Secretary and Bridgeport agree that the eyewash fountain and safety
shower are suitable facilities for quick drenching of the eyes or body.  However, the
Secretary contends that their location renders them unavailable for immediate emergency
use within the meaning of the standard.  The Secretary is concerned that an employee
engaged in acid delivery might get acid in his eyes and that this would make it difficult
for the employee, who is outside the building, to locate the drenching facilities inside
the building. The Secretary notes that the employee's path would be obstructed by the
door, and perhaps by the tank itself and the delivery truck and lines.  Bridgeport
argues that its facilities were readily available in that an employee would need to take
only five or six steps to reach the door and the eyewash and shower were only a few steps
from the door.  Bridgeport also notes that the indoor facilities are not subject to
freezing.

II

The purpose of section 1910.151(c) is to assure that employees who work with corrosive
chemicals have facilities available to wash such chemicals from their eyes or body before
they suffer injury.  Cf . Plessey , Inc ., 74 OSAHRC 77/C1, 2 BNA
OSHC 1302, 1974-75 CCH OSHD � 18,907 (No. 946, 1974) (interpreting 29 C.F.R. �
1910.94(d)(9)(vii)).  Whether an employer's facilities are adequate to comply with
the standard depends on the particular circumstances present at the workplace, including
the nature and amount of corrosive materials to which employees are exposed, the
configuration of the work area, and the distance between the spot where corrosive
chemicals are used and the drenching facilities.  Gibson Discount Center, Store No .
15, 78 OSAHRC 30/C1, 6 BNA OSHC 1526, 1978 CCH OSHD � 22,669 (No. 14657, 1978).

In this case, there is no dispute that the facilities provided by Bridgeport
were suitable for flushing corrosive materials from the eyes and body of an employee.
  Nor does the Secretary contend that the facilities were at too great a distance
from the point on the tank where the delivery connection is made.  The only fault the
Secretary finds with Bridgeport's facilities is that the path an employee would have to
take to reach them is not entirely straight and unobstructed.  The obstructions that
concern the Secretary include the tank itself, the delivery truck and lines, and the door
into the building containing the eyewash and shower.

We conclude that there was not an unreasonable impediment to employees
reaching the emergency drenching facilities.  It is sometimes necessary for persons
to enter or leave a building through a door, or to move from one room in a building to
another, under emergency conditions.  If an employee is temporarily blinded he will
be unable to find an eyewash without assistance in any event.  Moreover, it is
evident that it would not be possible to maintain an eyewash and shower outside during the
winter.

The record also does not support the Secretary's argument that the tank truck
and delivery lines would obstruct employees from reaching the eyewash and shower.  
The stipulation of facts contains nothing that supports the Secretary's argument.  
The stipulation states that one employee checks the connection for leaks after delivery
has begun but does not state whether the employee does this in a location where there is
any obstruction between him and the door to the building.

Accordingly, the citation is vacated.

FOR THE COMMISSION

RAY H. DARLING, JR.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

DATED:  SEP 17 1984

The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this
format.  To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public
Information Office by e-mail ( [email protected]
), telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).

FOOTNOTES:

[[1]] This standard provides:

Where the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive
materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes or body shall
be provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.

[[2]] The stipulation states that deliveries were made on September 18, 1980,
May 14, 1981, and May 6, 1982.