Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Conte?

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for your leadership in launching these important hearings. In addition to my work on this committee, I am familiar with the problems of this act through my work on the Labor-HEW appropriations subcommittee. If there were any doubt about the urgency of the problem, it should have been clear by last week's vote, to bar OSHA inspections of firms employing 25 persons or less.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that we begin here today to conduct the kind of responsible inquiry this subject demands. Without question there are serious problems with the present operation of the act. Most serious, in my opinion, is the inability of small businesses to obtain an on-site inspection of their premises to see if they are in compliance without risking immediate citations and penalties.

This is a special burden on small businessmen who are not equipped to employ their own safety engineers and who are having great difficulty in finding out precisely what the law and the regulations require of them. There are many other problems that will be explored in these hearings. I am confident we will make a record here that will enable us to prepare useful recommendations to our colleagues, to insure the survival of small business.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for instituting these hearings. I think it is very important to clarify what the situation is. If some of the allegations I have heard are true, it amounts to unreasonable administration of the law. On the other hand, I have also heard allegations that equipment manufacturers are scaring employers to death with stories of requirements that are not true, and also that some overnight experts have gotten into the consulting business and that they are scaring employers so that they can whip up some business. Whatever the facts are, they ought to come out in these hearings. It will be good to clarify it, no matter what the facts turn out to be. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. McKevitt, have you a statement?

Mr. McKEVITT. The hearings we begin today could not be more timely. In my view, this is the most important work this committee has undertaken in this Congress. Your statement, Mr. Chairman, has already set out the major concern of the small businessmen who must comply with OSHA. Without taking up additional time, I would like to include at the close of my remarks a sampling of the mail I have received complaining about the tremendous burdens OSHA has imposed on small businessmen. Experiences such as these convinced me to support last week the amendment to deny funds for 1 year for OSHA inspections of businesses employing 25 or less. Obviously, this amendment was only a stopgap measure to buy time. I am hopeful that these hearings will enable us to provide the needed direction to see that necessary administrative or legislative changes are made to be sure that we will achieve true occupational safety and health without needlessly sacrificing the future of small business.

I would like now to insert these letters from different employers in my area, Mr. Chairman.

80-497-72

Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection, they will be made a part of the

record at this point.

(The letters follow:)

GERALD H. PHIPPS, INC., Denver, Colo., February 25, 1971.

Hon. JAMES D. McKEVITT,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MIKE: The enclosed is for your information.

The Proposed Safety and Health Regulations for Construction have been promulgated through the Federal Register by the Department of Labor. There are many sections of these regulations, covering such as blasting, tunneling, etc. in which we have no experience or expertise. We have endeavored to make a thorough study of the regulations that would directly affect our operations. At the same time, we recognize that there are problems in the areas of safety and health in our industry.

Our suggestions are made in the sincere belief that they would meet our obligations as employers, but could still be lived with from the point of view of economics.

Sincerely yours,

GERALD H. PHIPPS, President.

GERALD H. PHIPPS, INC., Denver, Colo., February 25, 1971.

Subject: Proposed Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.
Mr. DONALD W. DECKER,

Executive Manager, Associated Building Contractors of Colorado,
Denver, Colo.

DEAR DON: In accordance with your memorandum of February 9, the following are our comments on the Proposed Safety and Health Regulations for Construction as published in the Federal Register, Volume 36, Number 22, Part II dated Tuesday, February 2, 1971.

Subpart D-Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, Section 1518.50 (b). The term "in near proximity" with reference to availability of an infirmary, clinic or hospital to the jobsite appears entirely too indefinite. It would seem that this requirement should be stated in terms of number of minutes required to reach such facility from the jobsite, or minutes required for emergency equipment to reach the jobsite from such facility. Further, and also referring to Subpart (f) of this same section, with the lack of continuity of employment on any specific jobsite that is characteristic of the construction industry, the full time availability of an employee with approved first aid training will, as a practical matter, be extremely difficult to enforce.

Section 1518.51 Sanitation, Table D-1. As a strictly practical matter the proposed required number of toilet facilities appears on the high side. Experience indicates that two such facilities are normally ample for 50 employees with one additional for each additional 30 employees.

Section 1518.51 Sanitation, Table D-1 (2) requires flush toilets "where sanitary sewers are available”. Again, this wording is extremely indefinite. The Colorado State law now requires sanitary type toilets regularly maintained, on all jobsites. Substantial expense would be involved if "available", when referring to sanitary sewers, could mean the temporary installation of extensive sewer lines. Section 1518.52 Occupational Noise Exposure, Table D-2. This is difficult to interpret. For example, what "Sound level dBA slow Response" number would be assigned to a jack hammer being used against concrete?

Subpart F-Fire Protection and Prevention, Section 1518.151, Fire Protection (b) Water Supply. This section requires a temporary or permanent water supply to be made available at any jobsite as soon as combustible materials accumulate. Even at City building locations, obtaining the minimum temporary water service is often much more than merely a matter of applying for and paying the cost of such service. In some remote locations, water service of any kind is often completely unavailable until the project is near the completion stage. Enforcement of this provision would appear impractical in the extreme.

Section 1518.151 (d) (1) and (2). Sprinkler Protection, Standpipes. In the construction of multi-story buildings protected by automatic systems in addition

to standpipes, normal procedure is for the standpipe system to be made operable as soon as possible on each floor. The sprinkler system, however, is completed throughout the building, inspected, tested, and put into operation as a unit. Once operable, underwriting codes do not permit inclusion in the system of any valving arrangement that would permit the system to operate in one area while inoperable in another. Following the provisions of subparagraph (1) (i) of this section would substantially increase costs by requiring temporary cut-off valves and multiple testing and inspection. Secondly, wet-pipe rather than dry-pipe systems are used almost exclusively in high-rise structures. No portion of a wet-pipe system, whether automatic or standpipe, can be put in operation during periods of possible subfreezing temperatures until work has progressed to the point where temperature protection is possible.

Section 1518.153 Flammable and combustible liquids (b). The limitation of 15 gallons of flammable or combustible liquids is unduly restrictive especially as far as painting supplies are concerned. Increasing this limitation to 25 gallons would permit reasonably economical operations by a painting contractor without, in our opinion, presenting undue hazards.

Section 1518.401, Grounding and Bonding (k) Temporary Lighting. The requirement for guards on all temporary lights appears unduly restrictive.

Subpart M-Floor and Wall Openings, and Stairways, Section 1518.500 Guardrails, Handrails and Covers. (d). This subparagraph requires protection of every open sided floor or platform four or more feet above adjacent floor or ground level, to be guarded by a standard railing. Standard railing is specified under subparagraph 5(f) of the same section. Recognizing the necessity of protecting such areas, the requirement and specification would be exceptionally expensive on high rise structures. We believe that equally satisfactory protection can be provided by wire rope properly placed and marked with flags for visibility.

Section 1518.1001 Records and 1518.1002 Injury Reports Required. As is well known, the number of reports, forms, etc. that presently need to be filed with various and sundry agencies becomes a more burdensome problem day by day. It is assumed that the records and reports could be coordinated with records and reports currently required for such agencies as the State Industial Commission and the Disabling Injury report required by the Associated General Contractors of America's Safety Program.

We trust that the above comments will be helpful in producing a final set of safety and health regulations that are protection for all affected individuals without working an undue hardship on the industry.

Sincerely yours,

GERALD H. PHIPPS, President.

OLSON CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.,
Denver, Colo., November 11, 1971.

Re new Health and Safety Act.

Hon. MICHAEL MCKEVITT,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCKEVITT: Since the new Safety and Health Regulations were passed by Congress, we have made every effort to comply with this act, both on the job and making and submitting reports.

Some of the requirements at the jobsite are absolutely ridiculous and hindersome and inconvenient for the workmen to have to put up with. A lot of time is lost even trying to comply with the requirements of the New Health and Safety Act, such as making inspection on every piece of equipment every day. Each time we get a new instruction sheet, additional items are added that make it almost impossible to get any work done and the workmen are getting discouraged trying to work under the conditions imposed by this new Federal Health and Safety Act.

Each time it becomes impossible to comply with the safety requirements, we have to submit a request for variance for some particular item covered by this new act. A lot of time is wasted, production is slowed down and the cost of construction is increased, not to mention the confusion and the possibility of being cited for violations when it is the opinion of the inspector that we have violated the Safety Act.

A classic example of what we are up against is a report on a project in Cincinnati where an inspection was made. I have enclosed a copy of this report,

for your information, which clearly indicates the hardship that has been applied to the construction industry.

I suggest that the new Federal Health and Safety Act be appealed, and if required, a new Safety Act similar to the one introduced by Senator Dominick, be considered.

As you know, each state has its own Industrial or Safety Commission that looks after the safety and health hazards for all types of operations within the state. The Associated General Contractors has a safety regulation that has been in use in the construction industry for many years, and which is updated from time to time as required.

Please give this some serious consideration and help us to get rid of all this confusion we now have in the construction industry, which is the one I am most familiar with. I am sure there are other industries that have the same problem we are having.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

J. N. JOHANSSON,

CONSTRUCTION ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM OF GREATER CINCINNATI

RESULTS OF FIRST OSHA SAFETY INSPECTION OF CINCINNATI CONSTRUCTION JOB To: ACI Members and CAP Contributors.

GENTLEMEN: The first reported safety inspection of a Cincinnati construction job took place last week by a team of two inspectors. The inspection lasted 21⁄2 days. The morning of the first day the inspectors interviewed the supervisory personnel including foremen of all contractors on the job to determine the safety measures in effect by each contractor. The afternoon and the entire next day was spent inspecting the job. On the morning of the third day inspectors reviewed verbally with the principals of all of the contractors the hazards and alleged violations noted during the inspection.

The inspectors submit their formal report to the OSHA Area Director who determines if there are violations and issues notices or citations and assesses penalties. Notices are issued for violations that have no direct or immediate effect on safety or health and no penalty is assessed for such violations. Notices or citations must be issued for violations even if they are corrected during the inspection. For a serious violation a penalty up to $1,000 must be assessed with no discount for correction. For a non-serious violation a penalty up to $1.000 may be assessed and 50% of such penalty may be waived by the Area Administrator for correction of violation within a specified period. Employers will be notified by certified mail of notices and citations issued and penalties assessed. Employer on this job was told this would come in about two weeks. Employers have 15 days within which to appeal citations and/or penalties. Citations and penalties become final if not appealed within the 15 day period. The regulations provide that the following things will be considered in determining the penalty to be assessed: size of business of the contractor, the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and the history of previous violations.

We appreciate the cooperation of the contractors on this job in making information available as to the alleged violations reported to them by the inspectors in their verbal review. This information is being furnished to assist you in understanding and complying with the Occupational Safety & Health Act and the Safety and Health Regulations for Construction which, on September 27, became effective on all of your jobs, both public and private. There is no grandfather's clause exempting work that was already under construction or bid. The following are alleged violations noted by the inspectors:

Circuit breakers not properly identified at main switch in temporary electric shanty.

Ungrounded Skill saw resulting from ground prong not making proper contact in receptacle. They test grounding by use of meters.

Perimeter protection and guarding of floor openings not in accordance with regulations which required standard railing system (top and intermediate rail) erected to withstand 200 pounds of force from any direction with a minimum deflection, and toe boards all around. For perimeter protection the inspector indicated that rope (manila or wire) may be used in lieu of wood rails but toe boards must be installed. To be remembered-if rope is used it must be installed to withstand 200 pound/force from any direction with a minimum deflection.

The standards are specific and extensive as to requirements for protection where there is a danger of employees or materials falling through floor, wall or roof openings or from stairways and runways. Your attention is specially directed to Subpart M of Safety and Health Regulations.

Steel stairs not properly barricaded to prevent use until hand rails and wood treads are installed.

Temporary lights not provided with metal guards. Inspector indicated that if guards had been used they must be grounded and further indicated that a suspension system is required for temporary light cables. The regulations provide that temporary lights must have guards to prevent accidental contact with bulbs, or bulbs must be deeply recessed in a reflector. In a conversation between an ACI staff member and a federal inspector, the inspector indicated that his experience in other areas was that temporary light systems were uniformly not in compliance.

Welding leads and ground cables frayed or not insulated to the degree of the original insulation.

Temporary electric lines laying on floor.

Welding machine not properly grounded.

Cable clamps not installed in accordance with regulations.

Nylon sling not marked to show manufacturer's rated capacity and type of material.

Improper lighting: One area had less than the required 5 foot-candles of illumination. Regulations spell out minimum foot-candles required in various areas. General construction areas must have minimum of 5 foot-candles.

Chain hoist support: One ton chain hoist hung from support not capable of supporting one ton load, but was more than capable of supporting maximum load for which it was being used, approximately 200 pounds. Violation to use any hoisting device of this type unless support system is capable of withstanding load to be lifted under the system of erection, or unless equipment is tagged to show maximum load limit to be lifted as erected.

Ladder without safety feet: New ladder delivered to job but never used because safety feet had not yet been delivered and installed. Violation because ladder should have been tagged OUT OF SERVICE so it wouldn't be picked up and used without the safety feet.

Employees unsafe tools: Inspectors looked into employees' tool boxes. Found several chisels with mushroomed heads. This is a violation for it is up to employer to make sure his employees use safe tools. Employer has responsibility to inspect employees' tools and if any unsafe, have them taken from job.

Dump truck violations: Dump truck parked on job for basic use as refuse container. Regulations spell out a number of requirements for motor vehicles and further provide that they must be inspected at the beginning of each shift and all defects corrected prior to vehicle being put into use. Inspector checked dump truck and found violations of improper brake lights, no turn signals, cracked windshield, no locking device to lock dump body in up-position, and a nonapproved type oil can in the truck. No violation charged for lack of back-up alarm. Inspector would have to see vehicle moving in reverse and if no back-up alarm or signalman used, then violation would occur.

Improperly capped form oil drum.

Side rails on job built ladder not of sufficient dimensions.

Spinner handle added on concrete power buggy.

Cracked windshield on crane.

Wire rope stored in work area creating tripping hazard.

Exposed reinforcing dowels creating impalement hazard.

Insufficient traffic control signs in area of concrete unloading operations.

Five gallon can of diesel fuel not stored in safety can: Inspector indicated spark arrestor required on cans containing volatile fluids.

Compressor without safety device at compressor to reduce the pressure in case of hose failure.

Open bags of lime and cement: Caustic materials in open bags evidently a dust hazard.

Loading platform cantilevered out from building was of excess dimensions and improperly shored in accordance with standards. Platform also had inadequate perimeter protection.

Housekeeping: In certain areas housekeeping did not meet standards. All contractors (including one responsible for housekeeping violation) probably charged with violation for permitting their employees to work in a hazardous

area.

« PreviousContinue »