EXTENSIONS of REMARKS September 5, 19B4 EXTENSIONS of REMARKS HEY-Atl'ention OSHA-IT's That the Inspections Were Not Initiated Ed
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
24322 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS September 5, 19B4 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS HEY-ATl'ENTION OSHA-IT'S that the inspections were not initiated ed. The disastero·us impact which the REAGAN NOT REGAN as a result of the investigation. Five removal of the Coors facilities from attempts at inspections where no in the target list had on the obtaining of HON. DAVID R. OBEY spection actually took place were also warrants is discussed in memos by OF WISCONSIN included. One of the thirteen inspec staff of both OSHA and the office of IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES tions or attempted inspections claimed the solicitor in the Denver regional by the proposed speech can only be ac Wednesday, September 5, 1984 office. counted for by the fact that when the The attitude which the agency ap •Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, productivi Department adds 4, 5, and 3 it gets 13 peared to have had at the time and ty at the U.S. Department of Labor something many of us have suspected the attitude expressed in this pro has apparently grown so rapidly in for some time. posed floor statement is that OSHA recent years that they are now volun The serious argument that they are rules, fines, and abatement require teering their services outside the exec trying to make is that because the ments should be reserved only for utive branch and are engaging in con company was uncooperative and would those employers that want them; and gressional speech writing. Regrettably, not let the agency in without a war if an employer does not wish to coop they seem to be having difficulty find rant and because the courts in Colora erate we can at least let him buy us ing Members to give their speeches. do were uncooperative in granting lunch. One such speech was written back in warrants, part of the drop in enforce The second point made in the pro early August and concerned criticism ment activity was beyond the Depart posed speech is that the experimenta which I made of the Occupational ment's control. There is, in fact, a Safety and Health Administration and good deal of merit to this argument. tion which is taking place at the Coors its enforcement policies toward the But it also raises another question; if facility where noise levels were docu Adolph Coors Co. Since no other the agency was in a difficult situation mented at as much 250 percent above Member of Congress seems willing to regarding warrants, how did they go Federal limits is part of a tradition insert this statement in the RECORD about resolving that problem and still started during the Carter administra and since considerable tax dollars were meet their responsibilities under the tion to speed up abatement of hazards. spent in its preparation, I have decid law? Did they attempt to put pressure The speech says the workers will be ed to put it in the RECORD myself. on the company to be more coopera fully protected during the NIOSH There are three major points put tive in permitting inspections? Did study. First of all, it is obvious that forward in the Department's proposed they make full scale legal efforts to the person who wrote this section of floor statement. get warrants through the courts? the proposed statement could not be First, they attempt to argue that the The answer to both of these ques lieve that the agency had done what efforts to enforce safe work rules at tions is no. While OSHA inspectors the agency in fact did. The consent Coors-owned facilities under former were denied entry to Coors factories, agreement signed between OSHA and Assistant Secretary Auchter declined high OSHA officials were frequent Coors does not provide for abatement. by only 35 percent instead of the 80- social guests at the Coors mansion. I repeat, the consent agreement that percent drop indicated in statements When OSHA inspectors were able to OSHA signed does not require Coors which I have made. I have pointed out get in to Coors plants they hardly to cut the noise levels, therefore there that between the time that auchter could be said to have thrown the book is no way that it could be argued that took over and January of this year at the company. Two deaths and a per this agreement in any way speeded there were only four instances where manent injury resulting from numer hazard removal. The second major OSHA entered Coors facilities and ous failings by the company to meet error made in this paragraph is the three of those were mandatory investi minimal safety standards were pun statement that NIOSH is conducting gations following the deaths of Coors ished with a fine of $800. Widespread the study. As the letter which I am in employees. This compares with 20 in noise violations in another factory was serting at this point in the RECORD spections in a previous 33-month time resolved by an agreement to perform a shows, NIOSH has refused to have period. study on the hearing loss of the em anything to do with this Coors OSHA While the Department does not di ployees with no requirement for abate experiment. rectly dispute this number they try to ment of the unlawful conditions. If The third point made in the speech develop a new statistic more to their OSHA was sending the Coors Co. a is that the agency used peer review liking. They argue that there were 13 message about noncooperation the and therefore demonstrated good inspections or attempted inspections message was nothing more than a faith in its recommendation to the during a 36-month period as opposed wink. State of Virginia that the Dan River to 20 inspections or attempted inspec The agency not only did not deve Co. be given a variance to allow a tions during a previous 36-month lope and execute an effective legal study of workers exposed to cotton period. The difference between the strategy to obtain warrants to enter dust at levels higher than those per two sets of numbers can be explained Coors facilities, they took deliberate mitted by Federal standards. As I as follows. Three inspections are actions to ensure that warrants would pointed out in a floor statement in added which took place after January be unobtainable. Coors facilities rated May, the Department did use peer of this year. I did not include these in as dangerous in OSHA national target review, but the only written review sal my 33-month base period for two rea ing procedures were removed from the vaged the proposal and the prospects sons. First, the Department could not priority inspection list. The major pur of gaining any useful information give me a straight or consistent answer pose for developing the national tar from such a study as well as the whole on inspections after January; and geting system for inspections was to idea of experimenting on human second, this was the time period have a nonarbitrary means of deter beings. The fact that a recommenda during which the investigation was mining where inspections should be tion to proceed was made in total con begun by my office. It was not clear made so that warrants could be grant- tradiction to the peer review is one of e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor. September 5, 1984 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 24323 the major concerns which I and others course of action that would assure prompt tal variance from the medical-removal re have expressed in this one example of abatement of hazards found in the course of quirements of OSHA's Lead Standard at the an inspection. A prime objective of this request of an employee who preferred not gross abuse of regulatory power. policy is to avoid lengthy legal actions to be removed from his job even though he Mr. Speaker, I won't take any more against OSHA that only delay correction of had blood-lead levels requiring such removal time with this pathetic little speech hazards and tie up the agency's resources in under OSHA's Lead Standard. A number of the Department has generated but to the courtroom instead of the workplace. firms in the lead industry have received var the credit of my colleagues, could not The evaluation being done by NIOSH at iances from these medical-removal require peddle. I would point out that while OSHA's request is intended to provide infor ments upon guarantees of increased medical we have cut back job training and mation to the agency on why some workers surveillance of workers and maintenance of CETA jobs considerably in the last experienced hearing loss. There are no sinis workplace controls. The Gulf Coast experi ter villains lurking in the wings to experi ment was designed to determine whether, in several years, there are clearly a few ment on hapless workers as the honorable make-work jobs left for the unskilled gentleman's remarks imply. In this particu conjunction with engineering controls, the at the Department of Labor. lar Coors facility, I understand that employ use of particular type of respirator designed Clnsert 11 ees are being fully protected during the expecially for the employee who wanted to NIOSH evaluation since the work establish remain at his job would result in lower Mr. Speaker: We all know that this is elec blood levels of lead. Strict medical evalua tion season, but a statement in the Congres ment is in compliance with OSHA's hearing conservation standard.