HTML> WCB Case No. SH-92346 OSHA Opinion and Order


                          THE STATE OF OREGON

                           HEARINGS DIVISION

Oregon Occupational Safety &                                    
  Health Division			)  Docket No: SH92346

	vs.				)

					)  Citation No. J815905992


	Defendant			)  OPINION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing and the record was closed May
14, 1993 before the undersigned referee. Neither the employer
nor anyone on its behalf appeared. Assistant Attorney General
Norm Kelley appeared on behalf of OROSHA and the Department of
Justice. Exhibits 1 through 7 were admitted. The proceedings
were recorded by Harris Reporting Services.


Employer challenges Citation Items 1-1 through 2-9. There is no
challenge to Citation Item 2-10.


Kathryn Jernstedt, who at the time of the inspection was a
qualified safety compliance officer, performed the inspection
pursuant to OSHA's rules. The photographs and reports are
accurate and establish the violations as alleged. The officer's
estimates of probability of injury and severity of injury are
reasonable and appropriate. The penalties proposed accurately
reflect deductions where appropriate for elimination of the
exposure at the time of inspection and for first offense
reductions because this employer's 1991 injury history compared
favorably to the statewide efforts for 1991 in that industry.

The citation is correct as presented.

                   OPINION AND CONCLUSIONS

Item 1-1

OAR 437-03-075(1) requires fall protection when working on roofs
with a ground to eaves height greater than ten feet. In this
case the ground to eaves height was up to 30 feet with no fall
protection provided. This is a serious violation. The likelihood
of someone falling was low. The initial penalty calculation of
$1000, before reduction to $500, was appropriate.

Item 1-2

OAR 437-03-075(3) requires that guarding be provided around bit
pipe outlets and around access points for hoisting materials.
This guarding was not provided. This was a serious violation.
The likelihood of injury occurring was low. The fine was
properly calculated at $1000 and properly reduced by the factors
innumerated in OAR 437-01-045(2)(a) and (b).

Item 1-3 and Item 2-4

OAR 437-03-001 and 29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(6) and (b)(a) require
securing the feet of ladders and that ladder side rails extend
at least three feet above the upper landing surface. Those rules
were not complied with. Those are general violations. No penalty
was set for the second of these two violations. The first
violation was serious and the penalty was appropriately
calculated and reduced.

Item 2-5

OAR 437-03-001 and 29 CFR 1926.152(a)(1) requires that approved
metal safety cans be used for handling flammable liquids.
Employer's stored flammable liquid in inappropriate plastic
containers at this job site. This is a general violation. The
penalty is appropriate.

Items 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8

OAR 436-03-01 and 29 CFR 1926.59(e)(1), (g)(1), and (h) require
a written Hazard Communication Program, a Material Safety Data
Sheet for each hazardous chemical used, and that the employer
provide employees with information and training on the hazardous
chemicals being used. Employer had no written hazard
communication program, no material safety data sheets, and no
training on hazardous chemicals. These are general violations,
the fines for which were appropriately calculated.

Item 2-9

OAR 437-03-001 and 29 CFR 1926.50(d)(2) require that an approved
first aid kit be available on site. No first aid kit was
available or, if it was available, no one knew where it was, at
the job site. This is a general violation. The fine was
appropriately calculated.

The citation is correct in its entirety.


Citation No. J851905992 is affirmed in its entirety.

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: You are entitled to judicial review of
this Order. Proceedings for review are to be instituted by
filing a petition to the State Court Administrator, Record
Section, 1163 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97310, within 60 days
following the date this Order is entered and served as shown
hereon. The procedure for such judicial review is prescribed by
ORS 183.480 and ORS 183.482.

	Entered at Portland, Oregon on MAY 2 5 1993 


				By Gilah Tenenbaum Referee