Mr. CORN. Prior to assuming this position, I was responsible for a graduate program in the Department of Occupational Health, a 1-year program for industrial hygienists-11 months, which incorporated a knowledge of the agents that affect the body, how to measure them, how you control them, where they come from, human physiology, toxicology-all of these ingredients are part of a health compliance effort. I am not suggesting that we intend to give the people we have 11 months of formalized training. We anticipate somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 months during the first year of employment, apprenticing them to a senior person, and signing them off for types of facilities. So if they perform a health inspection of a foundry several times, they will be cleared for foundry inspections. They then go to a chemical facility and they will be cleared for that. With this type of field training combined with classroom training, I think over a period of a year you will have a person who can perform health inspections. Still not an industrial hygienist. As you may know, the Industrial Hygiene Association is protesting our approach to the role of industrial hygienist. They feel this is not quite adequate. Mr. OBEY. What are they saying?

Mr. CORN. They are saying they need more classroom time than I am presenting here. But we are going to utilize them as restricted industrial hygienists, gradually bringing under their capability all the facilities industrial hygienists generally get into.

UPGRADING OF OSHA INSPECTORS

Mr. OBEY. Under the suggestions in the committee report to upgrade the skills of OSHA inspectors-can you tell me where that training is taking place?

Mr. CORN. At the present time, it is taking place in Chicago at our Rosemont Institute, near Chicago. For the extensive increased training we are talking about, I hope much of it will take place in area and regional offices.

HIRING FREEZE

Mr. OBEY. You mentioned something about-and again I was on the phone when you mentioned it-we gave you how many new inspectors last year-330? And you said-what did you say you had doneyou had imposed a freeze on hiring?

Mr. CORN. Approximately 5 to 6 weeks ago I closed hiring, pending the issuance of these hiring guidelines.

Mr. OBEY. What would your plans be in terms of the number of health versus the number of safety people?

Mr. CORN. For the new positions? The bulk of them will be in the health area. Virtually all of them.

TRAINING INSTITUTE

Mr. OBEY. On this training you are talking about at Rosemont, who will be trained there-only the new ones, or those presently on as well?

Mr. CORN. During the coming year and a half, all of the safety inspectors will be going through a primer in occupational health, and

Mr. OBEY. They will spend how much time out there?

Mr. CORN. We estimate approximately 2 weeks for all safety compliance officers, for the first principles of health inspection.

Mr. OBEY. Let me ask you this. How does this work? At the end of a training session, do you give tests?

Mr. CORN. We have not. I am also injecting that ingredient into our training—that there will be testing as part of the training.

UNSATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE OFFICERS

Mr. OBEY. Say you hire an inspector, he goes to the training program, then he doesn't measure up on a test. Can you can him?

Mr. CORN. We have been discussing this, and the present approach will be that he will be spotted and flagged if he is weak. The entire first year will be a year trial period. During his first period through the training he will be spotted. Word will be given to his area director, "You have a guy here who has to be watched." I am told in our discussions we can approach this on a trial basis and the man could be released.

Mr. OBEY. But you are stuck with him for a year?

Mr. CORN. NO; I am not. But the entire first year would be the trial period. Action could be taken during the entire first year as we are working this out.

Mr. OBEY. You can get rid of anybody who does not because that wasn't my understanding.

Mr. CORN. For new hires.

Mr. OBEY. What about old ones?

Mr. PLUMMER. Mr. Obey, as you know, people who have tenure under the civil service structure are also covered by the national field labor laws, covered by various rules, regulations, under the civil service. If we are going to take adverse action procedure against an employee. we have to give him 90 days' notice, we have to take in some ways cumbersome notification in writing to the employee, we have to sit down and counsel with the employee. You can take adverse action. But it is a time-consuming process with a person who has tenure. Mr. OBEY. Very complicated and frustrating.

Mr. PLUMMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. OBEY. It just seems to me if you have a guy in the field as sensitive as this, and if he isn't worth a damn, you ought to be able to get rid of him. My question is would you have any specific suggestions which you think might be helpful in the way of amending the law so that you can get rid of people in a decent time frame if they simply don't measure up?

Mr. CORN. Let me mention one action I have taken, although perhaps it will not satisfy you as an answer. We do evaluate our field officers. There are 27 such in department evaluations now on our books. As part of that evaluation, I have asked the evaluation_people to focus on individual compliance officers. They have not. They have focused on office performance. So we will be spotting those compliance officers who we think could utilize further training and effort.

Now, the emphasis here is to upgrade them, not to get rid of them. But at least we will be indicating where we may have some weak people out there in the field. I think that is a first step.

Mr. OBEY. That is my question.

Do you think that the problem can be serious enough that you ought to have greater latitude than you now have under the law to get rid of people who you don't think are measuring up, or are likely to measure up?

Mr. CORN. I think that with a consistent record of inadequate performance in the kind of role that we are assuming here, an agency should have the ability to remove a person, yes, sir.

Mr. OBEY. I guess I don't know what that response means.

Mr. CORN. It means I think if we can show that a man consistently has abused the authority which has led to serious loss of life or limb on a consistent pattern, that man should not be in that position.

CHANGES IN CIVIL SERVICE LAW

Mr. OBEY. But my question is, are there any specific changes which you think you need in the law in order to give you more latitude than you now have, or are you satisfied with the conditions under present law?

Mr. CORN. I am aware of the procedures Mr. Plummer described, which fall within the civil service constraints. If I was aware of such an individual, as an administrator of this agency, I would be impatient with the procedure he has just described, and I would lean toward taking action faster. I do not think I can do that at this time.

Mr. OBEY. Is there any specific criterion which you would like to see built in the law to enable you to take whatever action you want to take? That is what I am trying to get on the record.

Mr. CORN. Yes.

Mr. OBEY. What is it?

Mr. CORN. I would supply you with such criteria. I think this has to give the benefit of defense to the man, and the burden of proof should be on me as the administrator of the agency. But due process here is involved.

Mr. OBEY. I recognize that, and I agree.

But there are a lot of complaints about civil service statutes every day. I just wondered what yours is.

Mr. CORN. I don't know the civil service procedures well enough yet to point to the inadequacies. I am pointing here to the slowness of the procedures that Mr. Plummer has outlined, and saying that I would like some more rapid procedure, and I would be pleased to provide you with some suggestions.

[The information follows:]

[CLERK'S NOTE.-The Department was unable to furnish the information.]

Mr. OBEY. Why don't you do that? I think that would be helpful. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the record at this point a series of questions to which I would like Mr. Corn to respond on State programs—and then turn to a couple of other questions.

HEALTH STANDARDS

How many people are involved in setting health standards in OSHA?

Mr. WRENN. Our Division of Health Standards development at present comprises about 40 people, slightly fewer than 30 professionals, and then clerical support.

Mr. OBEY. Could you supply for the record how many have bachelor's degrees, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, so we know that their academic qualifications are?

Mr. WRENN. Yes.

[The information follows:]

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

Mr. OBEY. You remember we had the problem with supergrades which were assigned to you and being used by somebody else. I understand that problem is now corrected-you have them back. How are you using those?

Mr. CORN. I am not using them as yet. I will have suggestions.

Mr. OBEY. Could you use them in this area to obtain the kind of highly qualified people you need?

Mr. CORN. I will use them for that purpose in the very near future. I will have recommendations as to how they should be used.

STANDARDS PROMULGATED SINCE 1971

Mr. OBEY. How many new standards has OSHA promulgated since 1971?

Mr. WRENN. In terms of health standards-I can't give you the tally offhand for safety standards-for health standards, 14 carcinogens, abestos, vinyl chloride.

STANDARDS PROMULGATED IN LAST 12 MONTHS

Mr. OBEY. How many in the last 12 months?

Mr. WRENN. In the last 12 months, vinyl chloride, in October 1974, was the last final regulation promulgated by the agency. It was the result of a 6 months' emergency temporary standard. In the past 12 months we have published as proposals some 26 additional standards which are in various stages of completion in the rulemaking process. Mr. OBEY. Would you insert in the record what those are. [The information follows:]