Siravo Contracting, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Siravo Contracting was doing masonry work on a Caldor department store construction site in Philadelphia when OSHA inspected in December 1992 after a referral about an overloaded, unguarded scaffold. The agency issued five serious items: too much block stored on the scaffold, an untapered stack of masonry block over 6 feet, no safe ladder access to the upper scaffold level, an unsecured ladder without slip-resistant feet, and missing guardrails. Administrative Law Judge John H. Frye III affirmed three items and vacated two. He upheld the excess-storage item (block sat three days unused), the ladder-access item (workers climbed the scaffold frame and cross bracing, which is not equivalent safe access even though ladders were somewhere on site), and the guardrail item (workers stood in unguarded areas with no reason tied to installing the rails). He vacated the untapered-stack item and the slippery-ladder item because the Secretary did not prove employee exposure to the stack or that the ladder rested on a slippery surface. Total penalties were $975.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.250(b)(5); § 1926.250(b)(7); § 1926.451(a)(13); § 1926.1053(b)(7); § 1926.451(d)(10)
• Outcome: Items 1a, 2a, and 3 affirmed as serious ($375, $225, $375); items 1b and 2b vacated. Total assessed $975.
• Key point: Keeping ladders somewhere on the job site does not satisfy the safe-access standard; ladders must be positioned where workers actually need to climb, and a scaffold frame with uneven rungs is not equivalent safe access. The Secretary must still prove employee exposure and the specific hazardous condition for each item.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMlSSlON
                               One Lafayette Centre
                         1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
                            Washington, DC 200364419




SECRETARY OF LABOR
            Complainant,
      v.                                                      OSHRC DOCKET
                                                              NO. 93-0445
SIRAVO CO-CTING,      INC.
              Respondent.


                     NOTICE OF DOCKETING
               OF ADMINISTIUTIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
     The Administrative Law Judge’s Re ort in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on Otto i er 14, 1994. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on November 14, 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
November 3 1994 in order to ermit sufficient time for its review. See
Commission’Rule 91,29 C.F.2 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. 200363419 ’
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:           I
                       Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
                       Counsel for Regional Trial Iii ation
                       Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOk
                       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
having questions about review nghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
                                       FOR THE COMMISSION


Date: October 14, 1994                 Ray H. Darling, Jr.
                                  ,    Executive Secretary
DOCKET NO. 934445
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:


Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Re l onal Trial Liti ation
Office of the So%l
                 citor, U.S. DO5
RoomS4004        .
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210



Catherine Oliver Murphy
De uty Regional Solicitor
Of&e of the Solicitor U.S. DOL
14480 Gatewa Build&g
3535 Market Htreet
Philadelphia, PA 19104



James F. Sassaman, Director of
  Safety
GBCA
P.O. Box 15959
36 So. 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103



John H. Frye, III
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety an cf Health
 Review Commission
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 990
Washington, DC 20036 3419




00018003061:03
                                                 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)6ow100
m(202)606-5100




                                                           ..
       SECRETARY            OF LABOR,                       ..
                                                             ..
                       Complainant                          l
                                                              .
                                                            .
                                                            .




                  V.                                        0
                                                            .                 Docket No. 93-0445
                                                            .
                                                            0




        SIRAVO CONTRACTING, INC.,                           ..
                                                             ..
                       Respondent.                          ..
                                                             .a

        Appearances:

                  Theresa C Timlin, Esq.                    James F. Sassaman
                          Office of the Solicitor                  General Building Contractors
                          U.S. Dept. of Labor                        Association
                          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania               Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

                                     For Complainant                           For Respondent

        BEFORE:          ADMINISTRATIVE             IAW JUDGE JOHN H FRYE, III

                                                  DECISION AND ORDER

                  A hearing was held in the above-captioned                  case on Thursday,    July 8, 1993 in
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.           In lieu of closing arguments, the parties were directed to submit
        briefs.


         I   l    FACTUAL BACKGROUND
                  Respondent,        Siravo Contracting, Inc., is a corporation which had a workplace at l-79
         Mifflin Street,      Philadelphia,     Pennsylvania      19148.    Complaint,   li II; Answer   ll II.   In
         December        of 1992, Respondent        was performing         masonry work in connection     with the
construction      of a Caldor department      store at this workplace.      Tr. 13, 15. Respondent       had
approximately        18 employees at the work site. Complaint, li III; Answer, li III.
          On Tuesday, December           1, 1992, Hiliary H. Holloway, Jr., a Compliance Safety and
Health     Specialist with the Occupational             Safety and Health      Administration,     inspected
Respondent’s work site.’ Mr. Holloway was accompanied by Dominick Salvatore, Assistant
Area Director for Safety, Occupational          Safety and Health Administration.        Tr. 13-14. Upon
first arriving at the work site Mr. Holloway and Mr. Salvatore introduced themselves to the
general       contractor     (Geoffrey   M. Brown) and asked that representatives            from all the
contractors       on site be gathered        for an opening      conference.       Tr. 14.       Al Zuback,
Superintendent         for Siravo Contracting,      Inc., attended     the opening conference         as the
representative       for Respondent.      Tr. 15, 79.
          A         Citation 1, Item la.
          Inspector        Holloway and Mr. Salvatore        observed more than one day’s worth of
concrete block stored on the tubular welded frame scaffold. Tr. 20,81; Government                    Exhibit
(“GX”) 2,3. Mr. Zuback told Mr. Salvatore that the concrete block stored on the third buck
of the West Elevation had been there since the prior Friday. Tr. 81. Mr. Holloway and Mr.
Salvatore observed that the concrete block was still present at the end of the day. Tr. 21,
84-85; GX 4. No work was done on the East Elevation on December 1,1992. Tr. 21,&L85;
GX 4. The excess block was stored in plain view of Siravo management.
          B0        Citation 1, Item lb
          In another area, Inspector Holloway absented concrete block stacked higher than 6
feet which was not tapered back one-half block per tier above the 6 foot level. Tr. 26-27;
GX 5. The concrete block was leaning to one side and there was a space in the middle of
the block.        Tr. 86; GX 5. The ground where the 8 foot 5 inches high pile of block was
stacked was muddy and not level. Tr. 27,86; GX 5. The block was unstable as stacked, and
could have fallen on a worker causing serious injury.                Tr. 27. The operator of the lull (a
piece of heavy equipment            used to transport     and place block) told Mr. Holloway that he


‘Inspector Holloway received the assignment to conduct the inspection as a result of a referral from another
OSHA compliance officer alleging that employees were working on an unguarded scaffold, and that the
scaffold appeared to be overloaded. Tr. 13, 78-79.

                                                         2
sometimes walks in the area of the unstable stack of block. Tr. 29. Respondent     was aware
of the way the block had been stacked as the block was in plain view. Tr. 28-29.
       C0      Citation 1, Item 2a
       An access ladder or equivalent safe access was not provided for employees working
on the second level of the tubular welded frame scaffold. Tr. 33-34; GX 7. There was one
ladder provided that did not extend high enough to reach the top buck of the scaffold.     Tr.
34,92; GX 7,8.     One employee was observed climbing from the outrigger to the first level
of scaffolding by way of the scaffold cross bracing. Tr. 31-32; GX 7. The scaffold frame was
a stirrup type, which did not have evenly spaced rungs. Tr. 34-35; GX 7.
       D.      Citation 1, Item 2b
       The access ladder that was present did not have slip resistant feet and was not lashed
or otherwise secured to the scaffold. Tr. 3&39,93; GX 8,9,10.      The foot of the ladder was
placed on a concrete surface which was covered with loose, sandy soil. Tr. 39; GX 9. Mr.
Holloway observed Respondent’s employees using the unsecured access ladder.        Tr. 41. An
employee who fell from the ladder could sustain injuries ranging from contusions to sprains
to broken bones. Tr. 40. Respondent was aware of the unsecured access ladder as it was
in plain view. Tr. 41.
        E.      Citation 1, Item 3
        Standard guard rails and toeboards were not installed at all open sides and ends on
tubular welded frame scaffolds more than 10 feet above the ground.           Employees   were
present on the West Elevation of the scaffold without benefit of guard rails or other fall
protection.   Tr. 4244,91,140;   GX 7,12,13,14.   Respondent’s employees were thus exposed
to fall hazards of up to approximately 14 feet. Tr. 45-46. Respondent was aware of the lack
of guard rails as the scaffolds were in plain view. Tr. 46.


II .    DECISION
        To establish a violation of a standard, Complainant   must show that “(1) the standard
applies to the cited condition; (2) the employer violated the terms of the standard;     (3) its
employees were exposed or had access to the violative conditions; and (4) the employer had
actual or constructive      knowledge of the violation.”         Secretary of Labor v. Sal Masonry
Contractors Ii.,      15 BNA OSHC 1609, 1610 (Rev. Comm. 1992)?

       Am          Complainant Sustained His Burden of Proving That Respondent Violated 29
                   C.F.R. 6 1926.250(b) (5)

        29 C.F.R. 0 1926.250(b)(5) p rovides that “materials shall not be stored on scaffolds

or runways in excess of supplies needed for immediate operations.”              Under the construction

regulations,   all material is considered “stored” until it is actually used. Sierra Consbuction

Cop., 6 OSHC BNA 1278, 1281 (Rev. Comm. 1978), citing Brennan v. Underhill Const~

Corp., 513 F.2d 1032 [2 OSHC 16411 (2d Cir. 1975); WEtcomb Logging Co., 2 OSHC BNA

1419,1974-75 CCH OSHD li 191,128 (No. 1323,1974).                 Inspector Holloway understood the

phrase “supplies needed for immediate operations” as meaning one day’s worth of supplies.

Tr. 20.    Inspector    Holloway testified that at the rate the Respondent’s             employees were

working, they could not have used all of the block stored on the West Elevation scaffold

within one day. Tr. 20; GX 2, 3. In fact, the block observed on top of the scaffolds at the

East Elevation was present at the beginning of the inspection and was untouched by the end

of the day. Tr. 21,84; GX 4. Employees were not even working on the East Elevation on

December       1, 1992. Tr. 21,85; GX 4.

          Respondent     argues that the Secretary would have it operate hand-to-mouth,            keeping

a just-in-time      inventory, as it were, of block on the scaffold.         The scaffold is used as a




2 The Secretary believes that a demonstration of actual or constructive knowledge of the violation is not
properly an element of herprima fmie case of violation, but rather is relevant to showing the characterization
of the violation as “serious”under 29 U.S.C @66(k). The Secretaq recognizes,however,that the Commission
continues to adhere to the analysis artidated in AstrtaPhamzac~,           9 BNA OSHC 2126 (No. 78-6247,
1981) and cases following it.

                                                      4
material stocking area for the masons working on an outrigger attached to the scaffold (Tr.

at 114). As Mr. Siravo explained:

                ...you are stocking block during the course of the day so that
                     9     r . *         q - I,
                you nave La steaay supp~y~ror your [masons]. You also have to
                stock block and make sure there [is a supply] ready for the first
                thing in the morning. oe So, therefore, when you leave at the
                                         l




                end of the day, you have to stock in those areas where they
                have to work at 790 in the morning.           If not, then the
                bricklayers will stand on the ground until whoever is available
                and they cannot work an eight hour day.

(Tr. at 123, 124).

       Moreover, Mr. Siravo also explained that this is a general practice throughout           the

masonry industry and that at the time of OSHA inspection working employees earlier in the

morning was not possible because of the late sunrise at that time of year (Tr. 143).

Respondent      submits that the overnight stocking comports with the cited standard in that it

provides materials     needed   for the bricklayers’ immediate      operations   first thing in the

morning.

       Moreover, Mr. Siravo explained that it was conceivable that the cubes of block in

question had been stocked on the plank for a few days in that Respondent followed another

subcontractor    on the job and if the other subcontractor   delays Respondent, then Respondent

is forced to wait until the other subcontractor’s work is completed (Tr. 124-25).

       Even assuming that Respondent is correct that block must be placed on the scaffold

the night before in order to supply the needs of the bricklayers at the beginning of the next

day’s shift, Respondent    was nonetheless in violation of the standard.    The block in question

had been in place for three days when the inspection began and was not used during the day

of the inspection.   Further, Respondent’s argument with respect to the possibility that it was

                                                  5
held up in its work by another contractor is both speculative in that Respondent               did not

provide any particulars and an insufficient justification given the length of time that the block

was present on the scaffold.

       “To show employee exposure, the Secretary only needs to show that the employee

was in the zone of danger during the employee’s assigned workduties.”              Mueller Pipeliner,

Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1607, 1608 (AIJ 1992) ( serious citation for violation of 29 C.F.R. 0

1926.652(a)(l)     affirmed).     Respondent’s employees were exposed to the hazard presented

by the excess concrete          block in that they were working inside the wall and also walked

beneath and beside the scaffold. Tr. 23, 82-83.

       Mr. Zuback told Mr. Salvatore that the block had been present on the scaffold since

the Friday before the inspection.          Tr. 83. Clearly, Respondent   knew that excess block was

stored on the scaffold.

        The hazard which the standard addresses, according to Mr. Holloway, is that wood

fibers have a tendency to breakdown under the loads imposed by the stored block. Tr. 19.

Respondent       submits that, if affirmed, the violation ought to be downgraded to a de minim&

notice because      Complainant       has failed to prove any direct or immediate      relationship     to

employee safety. Respondent            points out that Mr. Holloway conceded that he had no idea

of the stability or the instability of the plank on which the block was stored (Tr. 69) while

Mr. Salvatore       readily     admitted   at that neither   he nor Mr. Holloway       performed       any

 calculations to that end (Tr. 81).

        However, “[ulnder          Commission precedent,     a serious violation   is established     if an

 accident is possible and there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm



                                                      6
could result from the accident.”      Secretaryof Labor v. Consolidated FreightwaysCorp., 15

BNA OSHC 1317, 1324 (Rev. Comm. 1991) citing Dravo Cop., 7 BNA OSHC 2095,2101,

1980 CCH OSHD lr 24,158, p. 29,370 (No. 16317,1980), ard., 639 F.2d 772 [9 OSHC 21441

(3d Cir. 1980).     See also 29 U.S.C. 0 666(k).      In the event of the scaffold collapsing,

employees would be subject to serious physical harm, either from falling off the scaffold, or

from being struck by materials       falling off the scaffold.   Here, the hazardous    condition

addressed by the standard - the possibility that the weight of the block over an extended

period of time could cause a failure of the scaffold planking - had existed for three days

when the inspection began, and continued throughout the course of the inspection.        In these

circumstances, it was not necessary for the Secretary to establish that the presence of the

block had in fact caused the planking to deteriorate in order to establish that the violation

was not de minirnti.

       Having established      that the violation of 29 C.F.R. 5 1926.250(b)(5) was serious,

Inspector Holloway testified regarding how he determined the penalty. Tr. 48-50. Inspector

Holloway testified that he calculated a gravity-based penalty by assigning a value for the

severity of the injury to be expected and a value for the probability       of an accident.    This

violation was classified as low probability, greater severity because,        in Mr. Holloway’s

judgement, while the probability of an accident was low, the resulting injury could be serious.

The gravity-based      penalty for a greater severity/lesser probability   injury is $2,500.   The

 $2,500 penalty was then reduced        by 85% because of the small size of Respondent’s

 company, Respondent’s      good faith in that it had safety programs in place, and Respondent’s

 lack of prior history with OSHA. The final recommended          penalty, therefore, was $375.00.
Mr. Holloway’s reasoning in assessing this penalty was sound and the record furnishes no

basis to change the amount.

      B   l   Complainant Did Not Sustain His Burden of Proving That
              Respondent Violated 29 C.F.R. 0 1926.250(b)(7)

      This standard provides that “when masonry blocks are stacked higher than 6 feet, the

stack shall be tapered back one-half block per tier above the 6-foot level.” Mr. Salvatore

measured the stack of block as 8 feet, 5 inches high. Tr. 26. It was not tapered in any way.

Tr. 26, 86; GX 5.

      The evidence       in support   of employee     exposure   consists of the facts that, first,

Respondent’s employee, Willie Walden, told Inspector Holloway that he worked in the area

where the block was stacked, sometimes on foot (Tr. 29), and second, that the stacks on the

far right of the offending stack (see GX 5) have individual blocks on top, indicating that

employees had been in the area.3       Respondent     points out that the inspectors conceded on

cross-examination   that they had no idea if the &foot, 5-&h block configuration             existed at

the time any employees may have been in the vicinity. Tr. 69.71,87-88,99.             The Secretary

has failed to establish that employees were exposed to this condition.          Therefore,    Citation

1, item lb is vacated.




%e individual blocks would have been hand stacked, as the blocks are delivered from the manufacturer in
interlock@ pla&c-wrapped cubes. Compare GX 5 with GX 6. In GX 6, blocks are stacked in lower,
interlocked, uniform piles and wrapped in plastic

                                                  8
       C0       Complainant Sustained His Burden of Prwing That Respondent Violated 29
                C.F.R 0 1926.451(a)(l3)

       This standard      provides that “an access ladder or equivalent              safe access shall be

provided” for scafEolding.           Inspector    Holloway and Mr. Salvatore             absented     one of

Respondent’s employees climbing down the cross bracing of the scaffold.                   Tr. 31-34; GX 7.

No ladders or other equivalent safe access were provided4 for access above the first buck

of the scaffold.

        Respondent      takes the position that it provided ladders.            Mr. Siravo testified that

Resporident had four ladders (at 12 feet, 16 feet, 20 feet and a 40 foot extension ladder) at

the job site. Tr. 128. Respondent        submits that the provision of ladders is all that is required

by the plain and clear language of the standard, citingSecretaryof Labor v. Rust Engineering

Co., supra, footnote 4, Usey v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 6 BNA OSHC 1197 (10th Cir. 1977);

and Barton, Inc. v. OSHRC, supra, footnote 4.




4 The Commission has interpreted 5 1926.4Sl(a)(13) to mean that an employer must not only provide a ladder
or equivalent safe access, but must also ensure the use of an access ladder or equivalent safe access when
employees seek to access scaffolding, but this interpretation has not been accepted by the Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Ciicuit. Atlas Industric;rlPainters, 15 OSHC BNA 1215,1218 (Rev. Comm. 1991), citing Barton,
Inc., 10 OSHC BNA 1462,146s (Rev. Comm. 1982),rev’dBorton, Inc. v. OSHRC, 734 E2d 508,510 [ll OSHC
1921) (10th Cir. 1984). See also Tnrax & Hovey DryvaIlCoporation, 6 OSHC BNA 1654 (Rev. Comm. 1978),
(29 CER. 9 1926.451(a)(13) contains implicit requirement that ladders be used); W&on Btddkm, 15 OSHC
BNA 1362,1368 (ALJ 1991) (Reyiew Commission has ruled that under 5 1926.451(a)(13) an employer must
ensure that its employees are using the ladder). But see Rust Enginming Compmy, 15 OSHC BNA 1104 (ALJ
 1991) (an employer is required only to proyide its employees with safe access, not to make them use it); Kiurth
Mizso~, 13 OSHC BNA 1281 (ALJ 1987) (employer provided ladder, but employees preferred climbing the
scaffolding because the scaffolding was more secure). See &o ContractorsWeIdingof Ww            New York; Inc.,
 15 OSHC 1249 (Rev. Corm. MU), vacated 15 OSHC 1874 (Rev. Comm. 1992) (employer that made life
jackets accessible to welders but did not require employees to wear them did not violate 29 CER.
 51926.106(a)); Ratt & JVzhey Aihafi Group, Div. of Viied Technologies Cop., 12 OSHC BNA 1770 (Rev.
 Comm. 1986) (meaning of “provide” in 29 CER. 5 1910.94(d)(9)@) does not impose duty on employer to
ensure use of equipment by employees).
       Mr. Siravo’s testimony that he delivered four ladders to the job site is uncontradicted.

However, because Mr. Siravo did not indicate where the other three ladders were located,

his testimony is not sufficient to establish that ladders were provided.             In order to satisfy the

standard, Respondent       must provide the ladders in a place or position where they can be

used by the employees.         Simply having them on the job site does not provide them to

employees who must ascend and descend a particular scaffold.                    The photographs        entered

into evidence show only one ladder,5 and that does not provide access above the first buck.

        The Secretary correctly urges that the scaffold frame itself cannot be considered                     as

providing equivalent safe access since the rungs on the vertical legs of the scaffold were not

evenly spaced or of even width!            The vertical rungs on Respondent’s            scaffold were in a




?he Secretary maintains that this ladder was not safe as it was not secured and did not have slip resistant feet.
See discussion inpa. Tr. 38, GX 9, 10.

6’rhe Secretary relies on the following cases. Secretmy v. Brickjie&iBuilders, Ihc, 15 OSHC BNA 1940 (ALJ
1992). See also MeZJantis Cons&z&on Co., Inc., 9 OSHC BNA 2124,2125 (Rev. Comm. 1981) (violation of
29 C.F.R ~1926.451(a)(13) affirmed where horizontal members of the scaffold did not follow a vertical
progression and therefore “did not bear the resemblance to a ladder which is necessary to satisfy the standard’s
requirements*); Rodney E. Fossett d/b/al Southem Ligheight Concwte Company, 7 OSHC BNA 1915 (Rev.
Comm. 1979) (scaffold frame does not provide equivalent safe access if means of access provided by frame does
not comport with the requirements of the ANSI specifications incorporated into ~192&45O(a)(5),the standard
for fixed ladders); Term: & Hovey Drywall Cotporation, supra, footnote 4, at 1656; Chahs H. Tompkhs, 6
OSHC BNA 1045,1047 (Rev. &mm. 1977). WI equivalent means of access must be virtually identical to
a ladder and be as safe as that provided by a properly constructed ladder.” O& Elevator Company, 6 OSHC
BNA 1515,1517 (Rev. Comm. 1978). Waining access to a scaffold by climbing its fkame is unacceptable under
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission precedent.” J&A Interior Systems,Iizc., 15 OSHC BNA
1526, 1527 (ALJ 1992). See a&o W&on BuiMers, 15 OSHC BNA 1362, 1368 (ALJ 1991) (violation of 9
192&451(a)(13)affirmed where employees and owner were climbing up cross bracing to access scaffold).
         Respondent, overlooking the cases cited by the Secretary, believes that the Secretary must rely on
Secretmy ofLaborv. Perhi Coq~a&z, 5 BNA OSHC 1343,1346, (Rev. Comm., 1977), for the proposition
that scaffold rungs do not provide “equivalent safe access.” Respondent then proceeds to explain why Perini
does not support that proposition. While Respondent is correct that P&i does not support that proposition,
it does not defeat it either. P&i involved a mobile smold cited under 29 CFR 51926.451(e)(5), which
requires that ladders be affixed to or built into mobile scaffolds. The cases cited by the secretary amply
demonstrate that the Commission has long held that scaffold fkames do not provide “equivalent safe access”
 under 29 CFR ~192&451(e)(13).


                                                       10
stirrup configuration,    of increasing widths, and not evenly spaced. GX 7, 8. Likewise, the

cross bracing which at least one employee was seen using to climb from the second level

buck to the first level was not similar to a ladder and did not provide safe access.                  GX 7.

Respondent     had knowledge of the violation of 5 1926.451(a)(13) as the condition was in

plain view and both Respondent’s President, Mr. Siravo, and Respondent’s Superintendent,

Al Zuback, were on the work site on a daily basis.

        The fact that no access ladder or other safe access to the upper levels of the scaffold

was provided      exposed employees        to a hazard of falling from the scaffold.              Inspector

Holloway testified that employees were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately                      7 feet.

Tr. 36. An individual falling 7 feet could sustain serious injuries ranging from contusions,

to sprains, to broken bones or fatalities.         Tr. 36.

        Having established       that the violation     of 29 C.F.R. 5 1926.451(a)( 13) was serious,

Inspector Holloway calculated that the gravity-based penalty for item 2a would be $2,500.

Tr. 50-51; RX-l.      The $2,500 penalty was then reduced by 85% because of the size, good

faith, and history. The final recommended            penalty is $375.00. Tr. 51. Mr. Holloway based

his calculation    on the proposition      that the probability of an accident was great, but the

 consequences were low. I find that the probability of an accident is low.’ The OSHA Field

 Operations Manual assesses an unadjusted penalty for a low probability, low consequences



 6(...continued)
 under 29 CFR 51926.451(e)(13).


 ‘Respondent has advanced no argument with respect to the calculation of the penalty for this item. I note
 from the case citations furnished by the Secretary that the Commission has often found that similar violations
 were de minimis: Here there is testimony to support the serious classification, but no evidence indicates that
 the probability of an accident is great.

                                                      11
violation at $1,500. Applying the 85% reduction to this figure yields a penalty of $225. This

amount is assessed.

       D0      Complainant Did Not Sustain His Burden of Proving That Respondent
               Violated 29 C.F.R. 8 192&1053(b)(7)

       The standard under which Respondent      was cited provides that “ladders shall not be

used on slippery surfaces unless secured or provided with slip-resistant         feet to prevent

accidental displacement.”   The ladder provided for the employees working on the first buck

level of the West Elevation was not secured at the top, and did not have slip-resistant feet.

Tr. 38; GX 9, 10. Inspector Holloway testified that the surface on which the ladder rested

was sandy soil on top of concrete, which was unstable and slippery.      Tr. 39-40; GX 9. As

a result, in Mr. Holloway’s view, steps should have been taken to secure the ladder.

       Respondent     points out that the standard     addresses   concrete    stiaces   that are

constructed   so they cannot be prevented   from becoming slippery, and that the Secretary

presented no evidence to support a claim of a smooth finished concrete surface. Mr. Siravo

recalled that the ladder sat on blacktop which. he described as rough. Tr. 133-34. Exhl”bit

G-9 supports Mr. Siravo’s assessment that the surface, whether blacktop or concrete, was

rough. The Secretary has not established that the ladder was resting on a slippery surface,

thus bringing into play the provisions of 29 C.F.R. 6 1926.1053(b)(7).        Citation 1, item 2b,

is vacated.



               Complainant Sustained His Burden of proving That Respondent Violated 29
               C.F.R. 8 1926.451(d)(lO)

        The standard under which Respondent        was cited, 0 1926.451(d)(lO), provides that



                                              12
       guard rails made of lumber, not less than 2 x 4 inches (or other material
       providing equivalent protection), and approximately 42 inches high, with a
       midrail of 1 x 6 lumber (or other material providing equivalent protection),
       and toeboards, shall be installed at all open sides and ends on all scaffolds
       more than 10 feet above the ground or floor. . .

The evidence establishes that some of Respondent’s employees were working on scaffolding

more than ten feet high that lacked standard guard rails.

       In GX 7 and GX 8, an employee is seen walking along the second buck level of

scaffold without any fall protection.   No guard rails are present on second buck level. GX

7. Each buck is approximately 6x-7 feet high. Tr. 32. In GX 11 and 12, employees can be

seen on the second buck level in an area that is unguarded.     Guard rails have been erected

along part of the second buck in GX 11, 12, 13.. In GX 13, however, one employee              is

working in the area that does not have guard rails. The area that is protected by guard rails,

moreover, is not in compliance with 6 1926.45l(d)(lO)     as an employee is working behind a

section of guardrail that does not have a midrail.    Tr. 43; GX 12, 13.

       Mr. Siravo explained what is happening        in these photographs.   In the course of

building a masonry wall, it becomes necessary to add bucks to the scaffolding as the wall

rises. When the crew of masons has built a particular section of the wall to the maximum

height which they can reach, they move laterally to the next section and begin working there.

The laborers add a buck to the scaffold in the section which the masons have vacated to

permit the wall to be built higher.     Block and mortar are placed on the higher scaffold.

        The photographs     relied on by the Secretary were taken during this process.     Mr.

Siravo indicated that the usual sequence of events in for the bucks to be added and planked,

the block to be placed on the bucks, the guard rails to be erected, and then selectively and



                                                13
temporarily   removed to permit delivery of the mortar.           For example, in RX-2, the same

photograph    as GX-13 (Tr. 65), one sees where the block has been landed and, in the

distance, the lull landing more planking.       Tr. 11416, 118-20, 137-38.

       This description of what was o ccurring is consistent with Mr. Salvatore’s description

of his conversation    with Siravo’s foreman, Mr. Zuback, concerning the guard rails.                Mr.

Salvatore indicated that he suggested to Mr. Zuback that the guard rails be installed as the

scaffolding was erected.     Tr. 88-89.

       While the explanation of why the guard rails were not completely installed is credible,

the photographs       (GX-7, 8, 11, 12, 13) indicate        that workers whose activities are not

associated with the installation of guard rails are present in unprotected           areas.   Given Mr.

Siravo’s description    of the process of the work, there appears to be no reason for those

workers to be present other than to install guard rails. The scaffold has been erected and

the block landed on it. According to Mr. Siravo, the next step is to install guard rails. Yet

 none of the workers depicted are engaged in that activity.          It is clear that Respondent      had

 knowledge of the violation as the unguarded             scaffolding was in plain view and both Mr.

 Siravo and Mr. Zuback were at the work site on a daily basis.                Tr. 45. I find that the

 standard is applicable and was violated by Respondent.’

        Mr. Holloway testified that he determined           a gravity based penalty for this violation

 of $3,500, based on his judgement that there was “a fairly good probability” of a “significant

 serious injury” if a fall were to occur. Tr. 52 After the 85% reduction for the size, good


 %e Secretary also points out that employees were working on the outrigger without benefit of a standard
 guardrail. Tr. 43; GX 7,8,13,14. However, there is no showing that the outrigger was more than ten feet
 above the ground. Hence the Secretary has not made a established that this condition was also violative of
 the cited standard.

                                                    14
faith and history adjustment factors, he recommended        a penalty of $525.00. Tr. 52. I concur

in Mr, Holloway’s assessment of consequences.        However, in light of the short period of time

that the scaffold would remain unguarded given Respondent’s                method of operation, I find

that there is a lesser probability of an accident.     Therefore,        I assess a penalty of $375.9



III   l   CONCLUSIONS        OF LAW

          A    Respondent utilizes tools, equipment, machinery, materials, goods and supplies

which have originated       in whole or in part from locations outside the Commonwealth                 of

Pennsylvania and is therefore engaged in business affecting commerce and is subject to the

requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Act”). 29 U.S.C. 0

652(5).

          B.   Respondent      is an employer within the meaning of the Act and is therefore

subject to its requirements.

          C.   Respondent       was   in   serious   violation      of     the   terms   of   29   C.F.R.

8 1926.250(b)(5).   A penalty of $375.00 for Citation 1, Item l(a), is appropriate.

          D.   Respondent did not violated the terms of 29 C.F.R. 6 1926.250(b)(7). Citation

1, Item l(b) is vacated.

          E0   Respondent       was   in   serious   violation      of     the   terms   of   29 C.F.R.

0 1926.451(a)( 13). A of penalty of $225 for Citation 1, item 2a, is appropriate.

          F.   Respondent did not violate the terms of 29 C.F.R. 0 1926.1053(b)(7). Citation

 1, Item 2(b) is vacated.



?he Field Operations Manual indicates a penalty of $2500. Reducing this by 85% yields
                                                                                    $375.
       G0     Respondent       was   in   serious        violation   of   the   terms   of .29   C.F.R.

0 1926.451(d)( 10). A penalty of $375.00 for Citation 1, Item 3, is appropriate.



Iv     ORDER

       Citation 1, items la, 2a, and 3 are affirmed as serious violations of the Act. A total

penalty of $975 is assessed.

       It is so ORDERED.




                                                    16