Document 7JQX3m8LE4GxMwM8vYGzyGZE

Wtwfcrtt I~n\'(ru\ Inc A OSMC 2V2\ ti*' g 9 p t t* A WESTERN ELECTRIC, INC. Review Commission Decision SECRETARY OF LABOR. Complain* am v. WESTERN ELECTRIC. INC.. Re-, spotuleni. OSAHKC Docket No. 6902, January 24. 1977. Eugene F. DeSha/o, Kansas City. Mo., for complainant. Laurel J. McKee. Western Electric. New York. N.Y.. tor respondent. Review Commission indite Paul l". Dixon. Before Bamako. Chairman; Moran and Cleary, Com missioners. CARCINOGENS Vinyl Chloride--Monitoring Require ment 220.04 Employer's decision not to monitor op eration in which solution containing poly vinyl chloride (PVC) was utilized to coat wire coils did not violate monitoring re quirement of emergency temporary stan dard for vinyl chloride. 29 CFR 1910.93cj (cHl). because decision was based on dis covers- that onlv negligible amount of vinyl chloride (VC) was released in another op eration which employer thought was likely to result in higher concentration of VC than coil coating and on employer's under standing of process by which VC is released from PVC. Full Text of Decision BARNAKO, Chairman; The issue in this case is whether Respon dent (Western Electric) violated the moni toring requirement of the emergency tempf orary* standard for vim^ l chloride.1 Western Electric was cited for allegedly tail ing to monitor an operation in which a so lution containing polyvinyl chloride was utilized to encapsulate wire coils at its plant in Lee's Summit. Missouri. It defended on the basis that (1) VC was not "released" during the encapsulation process within 'The jcmporiiry as j'u*m'.i!>;:t!ed <sn April 5, ,tiul wjv it: IN C .1 .R. Svv. m I'Ai. \2313 t April' 5*. it u;iv su; c: s-Nvt5 on JaiUMiv ]. l>v pvrnvtktnJjrv!, *: ^ o i.ih-'it at IN C'.K K. Sec* ,,W H.K. -1 *OwT. '5. W%U. 1 he1 tvnjj> >r.trv m.uN.iut cMbl'Nscco on exposure limit ot 5U parts per million tpprn). 1 he moniiurini: provision st,itCN as U* fmiutf As VH*n as possible. Inn n*i lat'.-r than April 22, i1* *1. CS'LTV i* tUplf -VCr vr o*per*j;u>'n-in ot v'lm'i *tt'f.i-/*1ieeML2 -Y -ruWleoFjsMTm'i;.uIiDni.iucht a re a uilMi , rvavtvvl. harnhcsi. pv ^ vl. rvv.ivil. :vpm'Evil. <r stores! sha!; no in; nsrc .miNcM atr ot the area m iN'vnv;::e i.icr c cNirutc its r; s "I ppm the meaning of the standard; ami (2) die PVC' solution was a "fabricated product" and therefore excluded from the standard.' Judge Paul E. Dixon rejected both argu ments and affirmed the citation. For the reasons which follow, we reverse his deci sion. Vinyl chloride l VC) is a gas temperature. Inhalation of amounts can result in angiosarcoma, a rare form of liver cancer. The discovery of VC's carcinogenic property led to the promulga tion of"first the temporary standard, and later the permanent standard. See general ly, Society <>l the Plastics Industry, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor. '509 I*.2d 1301 12 OSMC 1496) t2d C'in 1975). cert, denied. 421 U.S. 992 [3 0511C II95) (1975). Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is m.ihutactured from VC. At room temperature. PVC is a plastic found in many common pro ducts. PVC itself presents no inhalation hazard. When PVC is manufactured, how ever. a certain amount of VC gas becomes trapped inside the solid material. Some ot this gas escapes at room temperature. The rate of escape accelerates as PVC is heated. The application of heat, however, does not cause PVC molecules to change into VC. Thus, the tot til amount of VC that can be released from a mass of PVC is limited to the amount trapped inside when the PVC was man u fact u red. Western Electric utilizes PVC iii a pro cess wherebv wire coils are coated with a * layer of insulation. A rectangular tank, approximately 15 by 24 inches in area, contains one to two gallons of a liquid designated Hvsol CG7-433L 1 lie liquid consists of 55 Co tine particles of PVC sus pended in a plasticizer. A number of wire coils, shaped like doughnuts and approxi mately one inch in diameter, are heated in an oven to 360 'F. Thcv arc then immersed in the tank for 20 seconds. After thev are h removed from the tank, they are heated in the oven for five minutes and then allowed to cool. The tank is covered except when the coils are in it. The coating operation is performed approximately once per month. Western Electric employs approximately 4"0U persons at its Lee's Summit plant. Among these are two full-time industrial hvgicr.ists. At the lime the emergence temporary standard was promulgated. W eslern Electric had already instituted a company-wide program to determine St\*i-;ti 1v*i:1 ;*.i ?i pr* a i.!es: T E.:n section sl'-vs r. *; tre / 1 ...unc, * - i * < >< 1 <* * .,*!4^1 i4 i* '> wv .Is*4 W A ' * v' `t ' 1 T r s. m * * * *',*_ i 1' * > 4 v | * - *r~ - * * k ** r ` - * i- * i1 i f ^ II 4 * ' +* L 4 ^ I X* 1 . pp fip !< p Pi| pk p p1/ P *. P4 r 4rb 4 1 .H % V +L * * 4 1r \ >h .tL is 1 A' s PH 4 * .V m 1 s- " 1 i * i. t l l t. I- * j i L \V.t J J7 r - -V t. t J -^ k T I- 1I J ' * - r- + *i iT , mA * - ii > p* * ._ - <r * , *d m * v. ' ` 4 v.*::v';I->-* V ,^4T^ m K * * * \ * * - ^'A m --1 - -" TT ` " ' c 1 sz * ,, . ^ .'v `*v 1-- 'r.F_,-y ./ " t.*. - ,# '* -, "1- . - - b'"i ' >...: - ^ V^ * . 'J ^' b ?( / J* .-** ^ ' J`S 'j* " F* *ip * *' --. ' v; - ;`*^r ^ 'K-n H*, ' *-*. * ' 5 - 't t^ * u. *' W ** * 'i ,1 f rm ** J iP ,* " - - 1> ^ - 4 *. -h 7 * `L F ~ + /* V/ . ^1 > ^ - 'f- -r y r, irZ'Ai* i, I. '. * ^ -. -.-r . / -' - vv*.-i-% i -- - '*y A J' - ^ -+ I ' i. !.- v ** .s * j r, '4 * t* -i - - !" , *' * T , ^ . ' -'5* . * pp- -/ f J ^ ` ^-1 U . ,'C r , *. '1 ^ \ * - - j-| - 4h V jf T >. ^ ,r ': *4 * iij ^ % V. A m + h \ I* " m- 4r + , , " . * .-v : *_ , # " % ^ i A% 4 , ^ ^h f4 * i r- , ta * i. i p ir I ? + t r i. i f ri r i: r i I- i f 't +# * j * a+ V * R- *i * p- 4^ V >^ , . a- - *5 * i, . 1 >^ 4m -% * '^ r h > /I .% i -- i- f- m JF t tf F* 4-. * a* r1 - J- i> -^ * ** LT -* ^ _r *' .* L: ^1 "I ' .> * 4,,f ^* : . > *# J* VJ v -1 :;/<44i , 9 a> *p T- ' I ri d "" - . , ^ T- A F' `/ r 'T V ^ t * b * *'V'J' 'V-V * M - -f 7 : *v - .1 f - 'i *\ wf* ? "--* ,,- f Mm ' iW * **. 4 i.-V * 4' -1. * aa V1 1 _* _ H .t '+* 1 *4 jV. >r * v' * r I 4 M* * I* - > i rJ - J > V. M "I t :VT * *f r fP. , - Vn V->l -*; ` ^> .. .4. A rx* j, r * . _. .* r<- ' + ,'* .Ji r^ *. 4 i> * a?w -T * -* w* - f r ^ *ii - *' < VH*'*^ J -f*- ... A . .v - - *- " 4 ,_ *; y.vV'. - ''r`5 n j lf . ' **- ^ . v a- f r. - t *- i* " ?7- * * -* "/.*_" ^ 4 '-* ' .4 V t i. J J-. t .* / A ' t* J it ` 14 * -: '^ v, , -V" ^ +i V ^ ^ ` > VJ > : ' ` ` V^J >'vr*.* >-; V:--- 7 3 - y^^.rjv x"a 4.t ^ -- 'k h pi / 1 ... ;^y/S?fr- r..' T<f-V' - *'.1 ' * . S' * *.'A/'- ' i : --' '..' <''*:7-:r- ' r " ^ :- ..".' 'V > ' , . ' ' r. ,%. I- '-' -> . . *. / J,J- '/*' :' , - - . J i - t-- rt J f- i t 71" " . J^r- ^' - ` - * S - * # j* * * 1 + ' , fc' >*' ,, V r-:''. J t -7 V-.'l r h*T?Sl '.: -: 1 .: .^ ii-i.--,l>:v:-^ ?- **'- '.-'. t \ -' M f. *. '/ -ii'f :>, ^.,.*.,;-S-.s *- - tJ i *.j* -. --J " * f rm vV-. V .// ' -; v *V \r t / >V V ** * 7 /v-T a P ;*/ . *J ,_t . "* I #> . V -- * >T. ^ - & * *"*p *1 -L , *J`-- -.> -v/ -j: t Vi^d ' ` . L , ^,:taJ 1 4 OSIIC 2022 4fam whether VC presented a hazard to any of its employees. It also developed a sophisti cated analytical method to measure the air borne concentration of VC.-1 One of Western Hlectric's industrial hy* CL'ienists. Widner, timut*tht that the emere' er.ev temptnary standard applied only to :pera- tions which used \`C as a raw material, or used PYC resin to manufacture products of PYC. He concluded that, although < Western Electric utilized PVC products in several areas of its plant, it was not sub ject to the standard because it used no raw PVC resin. Nevertheless, he did monitor one operation in the plant to determine the amount of VC released. The operation monitored was one in which sheets of PVC are welded together to make exhaust ducts. Widner thought that, of all the operations in the plant utilizing PVC, this would re sult in the release of the greatest amount of VC. The concentration of VC measured was in the range of several parts per bil lion.4 This result reinforced Widnerfs con clusion that the levels of VC in all areas of the plant were well below the level of 50 ppm specilied in the standard. Accord ingly. he decided it was unnecessary to monitor the other operations in which PVC is used. On May 31* 1974, the plant was inspected by Complainant's industrial hygienist, who sampled the coil coating operation for VC. Thereafter, Western Electric also took VC samples around the tank. Much of the evi dentiary record is devoted to the analtya tical procedures used to analyze these samples, and to the results obtained. Both parties challenge the results obtained by the other on various grounds. For our present pur poses, however, the exact concentration is unimportant. It is sufficient to observe that the highest concentration measured bsr Complainant was 1.7 ppm. or approxi mately one-thirtieth of the 50 ppm limit established bv the standard.5* Compiainant contends that because some amount of VC, however small is "released." Western Electric violated the standard bv 4- ^Western Hloctric's technique u*ed a mass spectrome ter in ctmiimetkm with a e^s ehroniatcuTiir>h. Com^i plainant's chentUi testified that this w;,s far sup^riur to the method he employed, which utilized nrd\ a pas chromatograph. JOac part per billion is ) '11*00 of a part per mlikin. Thus, the level of 5*0 ppri specified in the s;a:uijrd would equal 50.000 pans per billion. \VVe also note, however, that this concentwas measured inside the lip of the ra;:k. Cninplainant's breathine /one sample yielded no measurable concen tration when nmilv/cd with a technique \cnMO\e to 0.3 pprm We also nwc that Sec. IL*lO.^oq:c.*3) re quires tnat the monitoring prcccct-re only be sensitive to 5 ppm. Wf.tf.-rz? t.i Crric. f>.c failing to monitor the coll coaiir.g tpe:\i- tion. In Complainant's view. ; :s unim- porrant how much VC is in tact release ':, because this is the verv information sought * >i_ to be obtained by tlie mantitoiar.-e recj I B*M, L4 U ment. He argues that this imeroretation >:' the standard is suggested bv our decision *M in OAF Corpurtiti>>)t. Docket No. 32i>j. BNA 3 OSHC IbMi. CCH OSHD para. 20.163 (1975). pci. for review filed. No. "6-102S (D.C. Cit\, .an. 13, 19"6). Western Electric points out that any operation involving FVC. even those in which the PVC is at room temperature, results in the "release" of at least a few molecules of VC. It contends that the stan dard was obviously not intended to require monitoringO when ont*v a neCg' ligo ible amount of VC is released iri a process utilizing PVC. Western Electric argues that, since the standard specifies a sensitivity require ment of 5 ppm for the analytical process, it should only be read to apply to concen trations in excess of 5 ppm. We do not entirely agree with either party's suggested interpretation of the stan dard. Complainant would have us read the standard to require- ocnitoring of every operation where VC is released without re gard to whether there is any realistic possi bility that the 50 ppm limit of the standard may be approached. The express purpose of the monitoring requirement, however, is "to determine whether (the ambient air; contains vinvl chloride in excess of 50 4 ppm." If it can be reliably predicted from the physical circumstances that the con centration of VC will be well below 50 ppm, then formal monitoring uould be a useless act. and it is unreasonable to in terpret the standard to require such an act. Furthermore, Complainant's interpreta tion would give a greater scope to the emergency temporary standard than was intended when the standard was promul gated. At that time. Complainant stated in the preamble to the standard: ... It has been decided to promulgate a standard containing oniv those essentia! * provisions which are deemed necessary to provide protection to employees from graw danger until a regular rulemaking proceeding in accordance with sections 6{b) and (c) of the Act can be con cluded. . . . 39 F.R. 12342 (April 5. 1974). (Emphasis supplied).6 t'pyrs,j.->.ri! to 29 U.S.C. Sec. t55tc), an cr:crgettcv tcir.jor.in standard to protect employees Uv-m "crave dancer" may !>e prom ideated w itiioui rewn to Vu!em.iriinv; proevedirres. I pon promulgation >1 such t temporary standard, a regular ru!em,aproceed.nc :me i i the promL'cstio.Tof a perrar,;:.- s-.a.-sdarj n:\t be c : rr n v7ce:d r\ ; l ! MWllV * 1 *. m * v ^ TT 4J '*T * w t. s. -- fb- J r p t 1. ******w _m *f * An i m. :` ^ '4 It* r ' k* rt - i Lr` , i- ii : a r *r w . y' t .% ' i #. * -# *t H. -* * *w,- y ' w ^ t * + * f- 4. * + *'* ' -+ ,i >* i f. `J +` . V. j; /T"- - <_ ' 4. m Kr .*-** >; -...-'wr***-rJW* sv*.*.-' . i ' * *. . -v - \- ' '- fc r, , - '"'? :.' *" . :\ : : V ''.J * *. ; *. * * . \> ^ *^ 1 . ii v " ?r v\ -.1 J 'w .. , * - * * *" :, j . : i'* ^;' *.-' i .-'. ' *?; * ; 7^'* P H.* * - ' tv -: V .1 11 * . 1 - -J * - z- t_ ii^ i* J l. . I^ fc * f -H -V 4- \* T* H k .. -r *M F- - ** V jr* : p K ^r ' * ` 1 ' * +* - * ^ * tw nJ [ 1- V t> vv *-\ 1 * *s -H .* st -P *- :-T kr ai t, I *v I> f_ *4 *h r. 44a. \J * . ** v 7 .1 i > * V .* . c* - ^p -* fc * 'J L ** r - ^ * 4- ^ ^ **. ' * - -. * ' "t * ' '-1, Vr 4. - :^ I ^ V * ' .-V*-' - > ' ,, ii * ^-r- * 1 ;' ` * r. p ^.i f. #- > >.. r> -*V- " -r" - - j "f 1 v T` r-; > -' . . "* t 79 . . .1 . *: f^ 1* * - -'- ' ' ' -fc 4. * -v - '-'m * -* I' r \ * T * . * 3> 1-,* ' V* >*: ,'.. -* * :** r , \ * * * .* * m + -tw i. - .* > w^ ' -Vr 'i ' rr - T- - -- ' + . 1 ; 13* . ^ ' x . ' ' V + / t v-, ,' .- . r 1 0 .' M fc ** *- ` - " ^r. \ .* - ;u^'* ' '!' 'v- V1,'^ / * ` : / ' ^ i^v', ^ I - ' -**-W Hf?'i ;"1* -V-* ; ,;.: .* >V--'Vf 7-r'v." > : i/'t.V; .. v ; . ' 1 ^:* F* -J` t-*. ' v* -r ` ''. -/ I . - , ' . - *.pL *- -' '/ Sv s 'i-::: ,v.* /V P - \" *1 f a -a _ _ .r1 A T -I I> j ,*' % 4 --^ t -- ta ^ p. * _ \ * '. * X * *- < 4 ' ,r ^ ^ ' .o-V;> - .4 1 ^ *> vV' .i . -* v ^j * *t * " :. ' " *- r ', ^ - . p .- ;t f, -.r tP-t- J--' * ; '. i * > . - j ^ A ^^y a * i ' i.-, i ._- - - ^ _p- itrH *^ H -a > , ^ ^ H ^- K- ' -i4 */ - v *; 4w-.. rf- - '- .' I + ' J,'* *, , ' . -* ( PL.*- - - *** i*? & * K . " "* . If^* r'-X-' 'la**' ***** -1 5 , >: ** ^ t *a ' ; ` / * r" '? ^t":- .**"- _____- * ` ' ; ^ .t f * . *' ** : ,J - i * V' ` i^ * .- 4 + t- ^ . ' r- < r::--;-^_ . * ' - . ^ ,v- > i '^ -- * '."! - "T *'.* 'V , *.*..*' j, r ^ -.1 a- 4 OSHC 2024 11 ^ f H'r.sr^r/f A/tW/vi.. /;k 4^- cr ot an crnpiovcc wtcKiny in an area <*r opera lion in which vinyl chloride is . . . released . . . shall beInk i 11 moniiorimVi iho ambient air oi the area to determine whether it contains vinyl chloride in concen trations in excess of 50 ppm. By its terms the standard requires monitor- me of employee exposure lev-e_,lis in every operation in which any vinyl chloride is released. The majority, however, reads dilter- cmly this unequivocal tans'uaijo. My co!- leasiues would not require monitoring even if vinyl chloride is released "ji'if it can be reliably predicted from the physical cir cumstances that the concentration of VC will be well below 50 ppm. . . This is in error. 1 submit that this monitoring standard is by its very nature intended to supplant `'reliable predictions." No matter how meticulously it is performed a "reliable prediction" cannot be considered as an ac ceptable alternative to physically monitor ing<i ambient air levels in areas wt here vinvm l chloride is released. Simple logic does not support the majority's action. Moreover, the wording of the standard itself is not amenable to the strained "interpretation" announced in the lead opinion. Vinyl chloride poses an extremely grave health hazard to thousands of work ers. Inhalation of vinvl chloride has been linked to angiosarcoma of the liver, an ex tremely rare and irreversible cancer. .So* cf'erv of Plastics Industries. Inc. v. O.S.ff.A.. 504 F.2d 1301. 1306 [2 OSHC 14961 (2d Cir. 1975), cert, denied. 421 U.S. 992 |3 OSHC 1195] (1975). The deleterious con sequences of employee exposure to vinyl chloride mandate the need for reliable measures of exposure levels in operations where vinvl chloride is released. The Secretary of Labor plainly recog nized this facr when lie adopted a standard that required monitoring of work environ ments where anv vinvl chloride gas is re- ** W leased.8 Nevertheless, the majority has ^ln attempting tn reject eonipSainanf* reading of the m am lard the lead opinion suggests that contain- ant\ interpretation would give greater wope to (he stamiJid than was originally intended. Cited in support ot this proposition is language tr<>:u the standard's pre amble holing the standard's intent t> prelect employees from "erase danger," The Chairman apparently is read mg the phrase "grave danger" as some form ot limitation upon the monitoring requirement. This is error in my opinion. Hie Secretary's use of the phrase "gr'ivc danger'' slam hi be considered <*nh in ihc manner it a as 1:1 tended, namely as a simple rcterenee to the grave consequences of \;r:vl chloride exposure. It was never intended as hmi'di.e he diitv -v *1 s:^jUv n* ignored (he Secretary's approach u this grave problem ai.d I'.as. iu effect, substi tuted its own luoniu.ihiii siuridurd. Bv doing so mv colleagues arc piainiv ctucs- iT* r +* I ** ttoningC' the wisdom of the standard.'* This Comn:is`-:.>u has c*msistetuly held that it lacks the requisite authority *e> e.-'o'ea the wish.- t>! staudard'i. Vim .k'.iw/.'c Cu.. Inc., 4 1;NA OS: 1C !I51. LC-i-'o CCH OSHD para. ?i>.o33 (No. 500". Jq7t>) ;m.i authorities ci; ` M.erem.!l' Finally, eve :t` 1 were to assume that the unequivocal language of the standard per mits the latitude of interpretation presumed in the lead opinion, the majority errs when it rejects .the Secretary's interpretation. As the adopting agency, the Secretary's inter pretation is entitled to great weight. Indeed, as noted bv the Filth Circuit to "[Tjhe promulgator*s interpretation is controllingc* as longc* as it is one of several reasonable interpretations, although it may not appear as reasonable as some other. Brennan v. Southern Contractors Service, 492 F.2d 49S. 501 [1 OSHC 1646! (5th Cir. 19--"' (cites omitted). In my opinion the interpretation urged bv the Secretary 4 C V *. is the only reasonable interpretation of the standard at issue in this ease. The majority errs when it rejeets the reasonable interpre tation of the standard urged by the Secre tary. I would adopt the Secretary's reading which would require initial monitoring in work environments where any amount of vinvl chloride i> released. Mv colleagues' * * -* reading of the standard is contrary to its terms and r. g..ies determinations of em ployee expo to this extremely harmful substance to educated guesswork. Further, if Western Electric believes that its techniques are superior to those of the standard it has recourse to the variance only thov2 virus cion % where exposure levels uv'.l bc'ow 50 ppm c be "rejiabiy predicted irer,\ ;he physical eireuinsumecx/' Q The !oui opinion vuqeeSH ihni the Secretary's version erf the siai^lard require formal nitmitorint: that mifjht late: prove to be a "useless act/* l submit that formal na-oicoring that discloses statistically cam exposure levels cannot properly be considered a "useless ;h f if it supplants a "reliable prediction" that if in .:m>r mi^ht ead to a useless death of an affected employee. L wer. 1 submit that the practical csfect of the majority's balding is to undermine and reject tletenr.i- nalions r-'.ole by the Secretary in promt*i^attnic the slundard ;n questiiu* as ait emergency temporary stan* dard under the terms of L\S,C\ See. t55ic>, *\s such. nr. coHeaeues are i:t;plicit!v euesta nine the ik'terniirn*;;'T:s . . (A) that entpiovecs are exposeC to erase d.ci-ar from exposure to sub\;,i:ices >r agents deterim* ot to be toxic nr phssieailv harn;!*;', > r new hazards, and (IS) that such emergency g f > i (7ti S necessarv pr^dect eiuphbecs from sncl* d .> H ^ Si SL*. S.C . .- \- l * Iv *p ,f at '- * 1T - 4 fc 1, J. i. If j- >* ^ 4 * -I ir *i r 4A --* ** '* 1 *V dk sl 4 *-* J * i*--' > * U' i b* v. < * to. y "* i i * * - ^ t 1* .-x ^ ^ H * 4 + .-l f ' * - V ^> *- * i> > *r + * J- b c t 1 -c Wi _.j ^ 1 A ** "t -y A `m. + l. ^ J V+ - : >. * TV r *' / *- V , ' .H V ' A , >i * ** r* %, =, T* \ C" 1 rf J I* .` ' V t it *' * 4, r l` *i * T t ' >i *' w- 1-' * M t> \ % *T "h -1 qf. b *p - * li ri : ' *J >4 VI p J % - 14 - > 4m I Hw ,. k 1 * - *w >. * -* '^ r" -t \f { ^ - n** * -f- 1- m ftP * >, bo A _. i. ** '> *^ * * \. *f " t ** * - * p s- >\ * V. .& -1 _ +v r H m+ 2 ' ^- * v V' ^ ^v' '..tv' ^. -w Sfei ri`!-\!<-ridiuii Corporation A OSHC 2025 I i procc cl i-es under the Act published in 29 Resnondent was cited for five sufetv vio** k 3 CFR Fur; J%5 in order to obtain nartic- lations under tb.e Occupational Safetv and m* ulari/ed relief. The majority's action makes Health Act while engaged on school con V unnecessary the use of this avenue bv pro struction in Walikill. New York. The vidin'-' genera! relief under a eerier a! test of *. C ^ reaMinablenesb that has possible harmful Secretary proposed a total penalty of Slt>5 for the violations. A signed return receipt implications tar bevoncl the contours of 1* this case. In sum. there was no dispute that some quantity of vinyl chloride was released into the work environment during respondent's of the notice of proposed penalty was post marked on April 24. 1976. Respondent had an informal conference J in the Secretary's area office on Mav 11. m ** 1976. At tb.e conference respondent orally coat ini; operation. Inasmuch as the evi informed the Secretary's representative of dence showed that respondent had nof its intent to contest. This oral notice was monitored the ambient air'in accordance within the fifteen working-day period per with the standard's requirements, a failure mitted by section 10(a) of the Act1 for to comply with 29 CFR Sec. 19l0.93q(e)(1) giving notice of a contest. However, be was shown. I would not, therefore, disturb cause of clerical error respondent's written Judge Dixon's decision affirming the eita- notice of contest was not filed until June 1, ion. Rather. I would adopt his disposition I9~6. The June 1 dare is bevond the 15 of the issue noted above and all other issues working-day period permitted by section in the direction for review. 10(a) of the Act for giving notice of contest. The issue before us is whether the oral notice to live Secretary's representative on May 13 is sufficient to meet the statutory MERRITT-MERIDIAN CORPORATION Review Commission Decision requirement for a notice of contest. A divided Commission has reversed the precedent represented bv American Airfines. Inc.. 13 OSAHRC 99. 2 BN A OSHC SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complain'V+Jk Iitt V. merritt-meridian cor poration. Respondent, OSAHRC Docket N>. r6-2467. January 21. 19"". Francis V. LaRuft'a. Regional Solicitor, New York. N.Y.. for complainant. Dennis T\'iise, Construction Employees of the Hudson Valley. Newburgh. N.S'., for respondent. Review Commission Judge Abraham M. Gold. Before Bamako, Chairman; Moran and Cleary. Commissioners. 1320. CCH OSHD para. 18.908 fN\>. 4532. 1974) and held that a timelv oral notice of v- contest may be permissible of section 10(a) under limited circumstances. In WotrJ Products Co.. 4 BNA OSHC 3 6S8. 16S9. CCH 19-6-77 OSHD para. 21.097. p. 25.396 (So. 9205. 1976). the Commission bv divided vote field that an ora! notice of w? contest for an employer appearing pro so was permissible when the employer had been confused bv the events involved and * misunderstanding resulting from communications with the Secretary's area director. In P A M Safes. Inc.. 4 BNA OSHC 1158. NOTICE OF CONTEST Timeliness--Excuse for Delay 55.101 CCH 1975-76 OSHD para. 20.673 (No. 3443. 19"6), the Commission again bv iT1 w divided vote held that a tiling of a written Hmnlover's filing of written notice of J. * * contest davs after expiration of statu tore # 4 m eor.;*'s- ;jvriod is, not vweuv.vl bv "`clerical -.-in;. `B w^t ir'l 1 'i i * despite fact that empl\oyer notice of contest as to the penalty and an oral notice of comes; concerning the eitam. lion was sufficient notice concerning the citation under the e;s of fulll^ case. cave timely or.t! notification of intent to eortes' c*.iait or.. such1 ur.timciVf notice of contest must be dismissed. Tu,7 Text vi !)i`cisifin CLEARS*. Commissioner: On Jr:!v 21. 19?**, Judge Gold granted ^i the Secretary ox Labor's motion to dismiss J rc'C( 'Mndcnt cntn* lov* cr's notice of contest lor no* bet" ;.* timely filed. 't he case is before us on nrdets lor review by the Chairman and C<'!in v. oner Nlor.tn. Sl c'f6 : ; I;!'.!* r*jj l *i * i . n:'r \i\ (hv t : *\ \ try 1 **rA.y\ I'V a ci' .t::- : w vrr it'ictl 1. 7'...t*4' t i . i'* N*1.S 1T = ? peri J iJm 1 * t!*b^m ;,l: it .t'.y r\-t p-'r * *. *.* i * tx * t-r'p* . v*r \ .* s ffrtvn lx* dsXL>\V kJ* t * .'tA vx* rVirc vi*1 \ U w!:- cv: t- S 1rt - + N.a r -,'t.irv II iUi r li V ' 1i v r-> b `T- V\: t 1 * '' * , u * . - k I ll.il. : i ll:c V ] W'.i g v. * 1L:* p* 1 4 >. * a r: n SfbTvr.irv 1 ** #i '. *H- 'r d p' i * rbrt *S - P-*7-- : .vr <* * k , *f ot K-.rN i: *' A v i ' : N . t 3-7 ,iT Co4- r * - p : b il* * 4**" ** V f'.' v* =1 ' - : *! ri or .it:** 1 * *i r * 4b \ v1* a! .tsU'VvVie 'V `Sbthch ** *I 1. F- | ,' ff ** ;_ *,**.. -F . p ** i J. i. i-v.' ,i itri.il 1 -! L ' v r l A* v r11!i'-v r ' ' l ff.'i '* U V. ::. v 'Cll i * : i:*.T Wl P` < k ri V * * i ;It?.-.* r*-i L - - - -a.-' - --..-.r ;*3r>6:; v.*^? " -*~ t i , r r- * ' ; 4 . - -*i ` * * /'V; ` . .. i -- . , i, ^ t * ----- , t .2 *: jf. F , i_S m ^ r* -m ^ ^ i I-'-'- ' * J- ' - t ^ ^ '" p -*' V . ^ v. r * *t - - p- *=.-' 1 ' - p> A -* * - - - .. .* -b .n-- -%- <> * .. * r i J* ' p- * : i * t* V, t ' 4# -* n _j \ .. ,, ^ d , .t h, I' d i. h m * ..* ^ t" I'-'-..'-' - .P -J . , J*. . * .,,L' V* - Vd . -- - .. ^ l r r V r *. ., s H *- V *+ r4 - v '* '* , 1' *" " 4j *f ' -` Ei r- .% .L * ' -4 m 'X k m ,i 'V. - t- S- _ f. 4 V. tH '^ l-l* -M. I* W* 4 1 -4 1 < m + * * ^ .* 4 ri * ^r + %> t* '* i\ JT +^ tr*i\ti i [ V -+ . i F i kh VV t l L. H h .* 'r ^- i, F> k * t VAB.0001042625 t 1 t 4- * rt * i i- ' " 1 J T L * d