Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

B-248482

employers are required to submit a form that describes abatement actions taken. Failure to return the form results in either a doubled penalty, a follow-up inspection, or both.

Procedures in the other states are similar to those of OSHA, in that verification is requested rather than required, that is, no penalty is attached to failure to submit the requested verification. State procedures differ in several ways: (1) some use a standardized form while others ask only for a letter; (2) some request only a statement that abatement has occurred while others request additional evidence, such as diagrams, photographs, or invoices; and (3) some specify that employers can be prosecuted for perjury if they provide false information while others do not.

OSHA and the Department of Labor have agreed with our recommendation that OSHA issue a regulation requiring employers to submit documentation of actions taken to abate hazards. (See app. IV.) As of May 1, 1992, the Office of Management and Budget had approved Labor's request to begin drafting such a regulation, and responsibility for doing so had been assigned within OSHA. OSHA estimated that a proposed regulation could be published for public comment as early as December 1992, and a final rule could be published by August 1993. If OSHA issues such a regulation, state-operated programs would be required to adopt it as well or demonstrate that they had comparable regulations as effective. A regulation such as this would be similar to the action OSHA would be required to take by H.R. 3160's abatement verification provision.

MSHA officials told us that requiring a letter or other documentary evidence from employers they inspect was not needed because they conduct follow-up inspections at all locations cited for violations. This may be more feasible for MSHA than OSHA because of the difference in resources: in fiscal year 1991, MSHA and OSHA each had budget authority for about 2,000 employees for their enforcement efforts, but MSHA covered about 16,000 operations while OSHA covered about 6 million establishments.

AGENCY COMMENTS

OSHA and MSHA officials reviewed a draft of this report. However, to meet the tight time frames of the Committee, we obtained oral comments. They generally agreed with the

B-248482

report's contents and presentation and suggested technical changes which we incorporated, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and other interested parties. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-7014. Other major contributors are listed in appendix

V.

Sincerely yours,

Linda & Morra

Linda G. Morra

Director, Education and
Employment Issues

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

The objective of our study was to compare three provisions in H.R. 3160 with procedures currently, used by OSHA, state-operated safety and health programs, and MSHA.' These provisions concern (1) imminent danger situations, (2) interim or temporary abatement while contested citations are being resolved, and (3) verification of abatement.

For information about federal programs, we conducted interviews and examined agency documents. We interviewed Department of Labor officials in OSHA and MSHA and obtained statistical data from them pertaining to safety and health inspections, contested inspections, imminent danger situations, and shutdowns during fiscal years 198991.

To obtain information on states' procedures, we (1) reviewed descriptions of the 21 OSHA-approved state plans (excluding the two territories) and OSHA's special evaluation of each state's program, issued in January 1992; (2) sent a questionnaire requesting additional information from safety and health program officials in nine states that we identified as having "tagging" provisions or inspector shutdown authority, and (3) contacted officials in the nine states for clarification of information they provided or for additional data. We obtained statistics on the frequency of imminent danger situations in those states and officials' opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of shutdown authority. Our work was done in March and April 1992 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

'H.R. 3160, Title V, section 506, abatement of serious hazards during employer contests, subsections (b) citations and enforcement and (d) verification of abatement; and section 510, imminent danger inspections.

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX II

COMPARISON OF IMMINENT DANGER PROCEDURES AND
PENALTIES IN SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES AND STATES

Federal agencies, such as MSHA and OSHA, as well as states that operate OSHA-approved safety and health programs, have procedures for dealing with imminent danger situations in the workplace. These federal and state agencies also have authority to assess civil penalties for violations of occupational safety and health standards. In some cases, courts may also assess criminal monetary penalties, imprisonment, or both for employers convicted of criminal violations as provided for by law.

MSHA and OSHA use similar definitions of imminent danger. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 defines imminent danger

as

the existence of any condition or practice in

a coal or other mine which could reasonably be expected
to cause death or serious physical harm before such
condition or practice can be abated."

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 defines imminent dangers as

. . any conditions or practices in any place of employment which are such that a danger exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise provided by this act."

Serious physical harm may be either an injury or an illness. Examples of injuries that might cause serious physical harm cited in OSHA's Field Operations Manual include amputation, concussion, crushing, fracture, burning or scalding (including electric and chemical burns), and cuts, lacerations, or punctures involving significant bleeding and/or requiring suturing. Illnesses that might represent serious physical harm include cancer, poisoning, lung diseases, hearing loss, central nervous system impairment, and visual impairment.

State safety and health program officials gave us the following examples of imminent danger situations that have occurred in their states: excavations (trenching operations) where the trench is not shored properly or excavated material is too close to the edge of the trench; asbestos abatement without proper equipment, respirators, and engineering controls; improper use of scaffolding, especially in window-washing operations; unsafe handling of explosive materials; working too close to high voltage electric

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »