an industrial hygienist, right from August 28, 1971, the date the standards went into effect, we have had delays in obtaining an industrial hygienist. Some of these run as long as 1 year.

4. Was advance notice given to the company and union? Out of approximately 150 forms that I have briefly examined, I found 11 claiming advance notice was given.

It seems to be rather high since it is supposed to be given only in extreme cases.

5. Was the entire plant inspected? If not, what part was? The results of that are very few plants are inspected in their entirety. The compliance officers usually only inspect that portion of the plant that was requested by the local union through a complaint.

7. Did the union attend the closing conference with the company and inspector? If not, did they request their own closing conference with the inspector? Reports indicate that about 38 percent of the local unions responding indicated they attended the closing conference. 8. Who paid for the union representatives' lost time? Company! Union? The company paid the lost time 65 percent of the time, the union 35 percent of the time. I would like to mention here that the steelworkers have many contracts that provide that the safety committee will not lose any pay while on safety and health matters.

9. Was the company cited? The questionnaire indicates that 82 percent of the 100 companies inspected were cited. Of the 65 complaints requesting an inspection, 86 percent of the companies were cited. This seems to be about 10 percent better than the national average.

10. Was the citation posted near the violation? There seems to be a small problem in this area. Some locals are claiming the companies are not posting citations, but this we must check out individually.

11. Were there any problems with who the employee representatives should be, advanced notice, closing conference, et cetera? There seems to be very little problem in these areas.

12. Is the local union satisfied with the results of the inspection? Of the 100 inspections conducted by the Federal Government, 65 said they were satisfied with the inspection, 35 said they were not satisfied with the inspection for various reasons, which I will get into later. Now, let's look at the 43 State inspections:

I. What prompted the inspection? General, 30. Complaints. 6. Accidents, 7.

3. How long did it take the State to respond to the complaint? Of the six complaints sent to various States, the average time was 28 days.

4. Was advance notice given to the company and union? This question indicates that companies were given advance notice about 35 percent of the time, but local unions were only given advance notice about 10 percent of the time. Again here advance notice could be given where the local union didn't know about and it could not answer that question affirmatively.

5. How many employee representatives accompanied the inspector? This question indicates that a union representative accompanied the inspector only 50 percent of the time.

6. Was the entire plant inspected? Seventy percent of these plants were inspected in their entirety.

7. Did the union attend the closing conference with the company and the inspector? Only 30 percent of the time did the union attend the closing conference with the State inspector.

8. Who paid for the union representatives' lost time? Company? Union? The company paid the union's lost time in 65 percent of the time and the union paid for their own lost time in 35 percent of the time, which is the same as the Federal, but again, a lot of our contracts provide for this.

9. Was the company cited? Companies were only cited 40 percent of the time.

10. Was the citation posted near the violation? There was only one response that indicated the company posted a citation from a State inspection, due to the fact that this is not required in any of the existing State laws that we know.

11. Were there any problems as to who the employee representatives should be, advanced notice, closing conference, et cetera? This question has no real bearing under present State laws since most States do not allow for an employee representative to accompany the inspector and also no provisions against advance notice and closing conferences.

12. Is the local union satisfied with the results of the inspection? Forty-five percent indicated that they were satisfied with the results of the State inspection.

I don't have it broken down now, but State inspections were coming from New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. These are some. At a later date we will have this broken down as to how many inspections in each State.

Now, at this time, I would like to bring to your attention some of the problems that accompanied these forms:

1. The length of time it takes before a compliance officer responds and especially a hygienist.

One case that I was directly involved in was USWA local union 5760 which represents the employees of the Olin Corp. in Sardis, Ohio. On September 24, 1971, a complaint was sent to the Columbus, Ohio, area office requesting an industrial hygienist. On March 7, 1972, an inspection was conducted by a compliance officer, but not a hygienist. They were told that a hygienist would inspect at a later date. An inspection was finally held and completed on July 25, 1972. We are told the reason for this delay was there was only one hygienist available in region V and, also, the lack of proper testing equipment. 2. The length of time it takes the compliance officer to cite the company after an inspection has been completed.

In another case involving an inspection at a company in Latrobe, Pa., on June 21, 1972, a Federal compliance officer, in response to a complaint by the local union, inspected all overhead cranes in the plant. One week after that inspection, the company brought in an insurance inspector who also inspected the overhead cranes.

On the recommendations of the insurance inspector one crane was condemned and taken out of service. On or around September 20, 1972, 3 months later, the company was issued only nonserious violations for the overhead cranes. Nothing was mentioned concerning the one crane that was taken out of service by the company. An employee representative informed me that the compliance officer never went up into the crane in question.

3. Some compliance officers have never been in steel plants or foundries and are inexperienced in the problems that exist.

I am sure you have heard the other side of the coin that many companies are being harassed by over-zealous compliance officers. At this time, I would like to read a letter from a plant manager to the vice president of the company. I would like to delete the name of the company and the compliance officer mentioned in this letter, but if the committee so desires, we can make this letter available to them. Subject: OSHA inspection.

Attached is a copy of a report on OSHA inspection of the plant. [Reading:]

"The inspector arrived at approximately 11 a.m. on Friday, June 9, 1972, and asked to see the person in charge of the plant. I was not present at the time, therefore the inspector was received and admitted by- safety and personnel supervisor, who has written the attached report. I will also add for the record my personal observation. "1. The inspector was most courteous and helpful.

"2. He left the route of the inspection tour completely up to myself. "3. His inspection was not too thorough, and I got the impression that this was his first visit to any foundry.

"4. He made comments about many items which he did not write up, for example:

"(a) Castings stacked on an unsafe welding table.

"(b) Material falling down an access ladder on the sand system. "(c) Junction boxes without covers.

"(d) Bad ground cable on welding unit.

"(e) Saw in pattern shop which did not return on its own to resting place.

"(f) Pointed out fire extinguishers which were not in their proper place fastened on the wall.

"(g) No guard rail in muller area where people were working below. "He inspected the whole of the plant including offices and all storage buildings and in most cases looked for very obvious items, for example: "(a) Inspected hand tools for proper grounding.

"(b) Checked all crane inspections records.

"(c) Checked maintenance records on fork lift trucks.

"(d) Noted that maintenance personnel were working on equipment which was not locked out.

"(e) Noted that electrical control panels at rear of electric furnaces in transformer room were not in place.

"After his tour was completed, he then requested a summation meeting at which he went over each item which he proposed to cite us for and asked me to fill in the abatement period which I thought we required to achieve compliance. These he indicated would be the days which would be entered into the official report.

"He at all times asked if we had any questions and did in fact invite questions regularly.

"One question I asked was about a visit during the night and he indicated that it was an unwritten policy that they would give some advance notice of a night visit primarily to avoid delays to their admittance to the plant.

"He also indicated that he had been in contact with the State inspectors that morning and I got an impression that this could have been why his inspection, in my opinion, was very cursory and he was not going to look for too much. He completed his tour and summation and left at approximately 3:30 p.m.

"Again in retrospect, I was most impressed at all times by his pleasantness and willingness to be helpful.

/S,,

-Works Manager.

"There is at least one company which was not harassed. If you care, I can give you the actual letter or you can leave it at that.

Mr. DANIELS. It is not necessary.

Mr. GRIMES. I would also like to submit the seven-page report of that which goes through it department by department of the inspector and I have also deleted the names from this report.

Mr. DANIELS. That will be filed for the record of this proceeding. Mr. GRIMES. Another problem was:

4. A compliance officer arriving at the plant at 3 p.m. holds the opening conference and then returns the next morning giving the company at least 16 hours to clean up.

5. Companies shutting down furnaces before inspections in order to lower the fumes and noise level claimed by locals.

6. The companies are not posting citation and are not correcting the violations during the abatement period.

7. There are also complaints that the compliance officer would bring 30 to 40 violations of different standards to the attention of the company and then only issue four or five citations. This is not the same as grouping of six violations of the same standard onto one citation, but just not citing a company for violating a standard, similar to the letter I just read.

Before closing, I would like to state that our Department has had wonderful cooperation from all the regional and area directors and compliance officers that we have called on with various problems. Therefore, in conclusion, it seems to me that the most prevalent problem seems to be the delay in responding to a complaint and then the delay in obtaining the results of that inspection. This seems to be the result of the lack of compliance officers and industrial hygienists.

The quality of the inspections seems to be good considering that more than half of the inspection force are new inspectors. We, therefore, recommend that Congress and the Senate and the administration appropriate more funds for the Labor Department and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in order that the intent of Congress, which is, to assure as far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources, is reached.

Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Grimes.

I am very much impressed by your testimony here today.

Mr. Steiger, do you have any questions?

Mr. STEIGER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I think what the union did in terms of the survey and having presented it to us has been exceedingly helpful. Now we have some rational basis on which to make some decisions one way or the other.

Mr. GRIMES. This is why when we say something we want to be able to back it up with some facts.

Mr. STEIGER. Very well done. Thank you very much.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

(The information referred to follows:)

1. What prompted Inspection? General Complaint Accidentor was this a health hazard evaluation sent to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health?

2. If this was a complaint, please send a copy with this report.

3. How long did it take the Government to respond to the complaint?.

4. Was advanced notice given to the Company and Union?.

5. How many employee representatives accompanied the Inspector?_

6. Was the entire plant inspected? If not, what part was?.

7. Did the Union attend the closing conference with the Company and Inspector?_

If not, did they request their own closing conference with the Inspector?.

8. Who paid for the Union representatives' lost time? Company Union ☐

11. Were there any problems with who the employee representatives should be, advanced notice, closing conference, etc. ?.

12. Is the Local Union satisfied with the results of the inspection?.

13. Briefly describe the citation and abatement period, or send a copy if available.

(Continue on reverse side if necessary)

This report should be filled out and mailed to the United Steelworkers of America, Safety and Health Department, 1500 Commonwealth Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222 as soon as the citation(s) is posted or when the complaining party receives their copy. After this report has been mailed, please keep us informed of any further developments such as company contesting citations, hearing on contested citations, violation not corrected in allowed time, etc.