me I UHCIBSSHIBG I UECIEISSHISU HOIUIHQS OI me STATUS REPORT ON OSHA submitted by Morton Corn, to Secretary of Labor W. J. Usery January 12, 1977 Keproauceu from me I HOIOIHQS CT the Nanonal AFCHIVES STATUS REPORT OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION January 8, 1977 by Morton Corn Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to examine the current state of operations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The report will focus on the conditions erist? ing in the Agency as of December 2, 1975 when I assumed office, the philosophical approach and decisions made to alter many of the situations encountered at that time, progress made during the period since December 2, 1975, and finally, major issues and conditions facing the Agency today. Of necessity, this pre- sentation will be brief. It is possible to construct an elabo? rate text which would provide extensive detail on the subject. II. STATE OF THE AGENCY ON DECEMBER 2, 1975 Mr. John Stender, previous Assistant Secretary for Occu? pational Safety and Health, left the Office at the close of June, 1975. From July through November, 1975, Messrs. Miller and Concklin, Deputy Assistant Secretaries of OSHA adminis? tered the Agency. Both of these individuals were energetic management specialists without any prior experience in "Om me I 0! me arcnwes occupational safety and health. During these months, they forged a superficial reorganization of the Agency and a com? plex network of task forces and temporary arrangements to address problems that had been festering for literally years. Subsequently, Mr. Miller left the Agency (departure was July 1, 1976, but effective relinquishment of responsibility occurred March 1, 1976). During the interim period of March through June 1976, Mr. Miller was preparing a special report related to chemical toxicity. That report was never submitted to the Agency. The Agency was under extremely heavy criticism from the very public that it was created to protect. During my visits to congressional offices prior to confirmation hearings, I was informed of the large volume of OSHA?related mail on the Hill, virtually all of which was critical of the Agency's procedures. Morale in the Agency was at a very low level. In general, staff members expressed the view that regardless of what actions were taken by the Agency members, criticism was bound to ensue. The professional health and safety communities, which one would think were allied with the Agency, were also in conflict 'with OSHA. -Many of the procedures followed by OSHA in both its standard setting and compliance activities were antithetical to professional health and safety organizations. Within the Department of was considered the "hot seat" Agency. The very nature of OSHA's responsibilities had established a pattern of acute, intensive emergenCy situa? tions which required attention on the part of the Assistant Heproauceu Ir om me Unclassmeu I OI Ine 3 Secretary for OSHA and the Secretary of Labor. These emergen- cies appeared to occur with regular frequency. In addition, there had been past instances of political tampering with OSHA. The most famous of these incidents involved the first Assistant Secretary for OSHA, Mr. Guenther. A letter had been uncovered and made public which suggested that OSHA could be used to apply pressure to stimulate contributions to the 1972 political campaign. Thus, the Agency was recognized by all to be a diffi- cult one to administer, and one searching for a pattern of behavior that would effectively accomplish the mandate of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. APPROACH TO AGENCY REFORMATION Certain basic principles guided actions taken during 1976. They will now be delineated. A. Professional Code of Behavior for the Agency The appointment of the first health professional as Assistant Secretary was a step taken by Secretary John T. Dunlop towards building the Agency's "health" capabilities. Upon review of existing conditions I determined that OSHA must be a professional health and safety Agency. I deemed it necessary to institute other steps that would convince the public served by OSHA that the Agency was, indeed, conducting itself according to a professional code of behavior. Therefore, the following steps were taken. erlTl me I UBCIBSSITIBG HOICIIFIQS 0T me Natlonal Major emphasis was placed on hiring professional health and safety compliance officers and training those currently emplOyed by the Agency to bring them up to an acceptable level of performance. Hiring guidelines were altered for more stringent requirements, a threewyear career development program was instituted in September 1976 for health compliance officers who could not be hired through normal procedures because insufficient numbers of these professionals are available, and a two?week course in health training was developed and offered to all safety compliance officers. In addition, a three?day course devoted to dealing with the public was developed and is being offered on a rotating basis to all compliance staff. It should be noted that this latter effort is crucial to the receptivity of OSHA by the public (approxi? mately six percent of OSHA citations are contested; the OSHA solicitor force exceeds 250 attorneys). In order to implement these training initiatives, the size of the OSHA training staff was approximately doubled. The OSHA Training Institute in Chicago, Illinois, will move into a new facility, whiChapproximately-triples its space, in April 1977. Because the training efforts of the Agency were held in low regard by its own employees, the very best OSHA experts are now utilized in training at the Institute; they are guest instructors. KBDTOOUCBG Irom tne I UBCIBSSITIBG Ol? me Nauonal Technical libraries, each-costing several thousand dollars, were installed in every OSHA regional and area office and. field stations. Thus, it is now possible for OSHA employees to have reference materials at hand. These libraries were non~existent prior to 1976. Each OSHA professional health and safety employee is now offered the opportunity of attending one professional meeting for a maximum attendance time of one week every two years. Attendance at these meetings represents another aspect of professionalism, namely, exchanging knowledge and new developments with one's colleagues. This policy implicitly states that OSHA must be represented in the professional com? munity. During 1976 a policy was established by which approxi? mately one percent of OSHA employees (currently Agency staffing is approximately 2,700) would attend graduate school full time for one year, while on salary. A committee was established to judge and select applicants for this program. The program is an investment in the future. It is an explicit statement of belief in current employees of the Agency who show promise for assuming leadership roles in the future. Applications for the first year of training, to commence September 1977, have been received and are being evaluated by the selection committee. All professional safety and health personnel were instructed to discuss their judgments and their citations with employers and employees. Previously, discussions were not me Unclassmea I HOICIIFIQS OI Ine Nanona: held on site. This failure to discuss professional judgements with the Clients OSHA serves led to misunderstanding of our procedures and our judgments. All of the above initiatives are directed at build? ing a professional body of health and safety personnel in the Agency. Many of them have long term "pay off times?. Results are already beginning to show in the improved climate of acceptance of the Agency by the public. These initiatives and mechanisms must be sustained if incremental improvement in Agency performance is anticipated in the future. B. Technical Support Capability of OSHA This philosophicalapproach is closely related to that of the professional base of the Agency. It requires different actions for implementation and it is therefore highlighted here under a separate category. Implementation of the OSH Act of l970 was conceived in a strictly managerial sense. In other words, it was believed that efficient managers without health and safety expertise could pilot the Agency. There is almost an absolute absence of highly qualified technical personnel among the Washington staff and in the highest level field positions. In December, 1975 major offices of the Agency were headed by individuals without health and safety eXpertise. This omission of techni? cal understanding of health and safety, perhaps the major Heproaucea TIOITI me Unclassmea I Ueclassmea Holdings 0! me NaUOrlal ingredient of an OSHA program has, in my opinion, led to alienation of the clients the Agency serves and the allied professional community. Steps taken to remedy this situation have involved numerous personnel actions to replace key indi? viduals, as well as a_reorganization of the entire Agency (effective.November, 1976). One of the results of the reor? ganization was to create an entirely new technical support capability of the Agency. Large amounts of time have been spent in recruiting for senior positions under the new reor? ganization scheme. Certain key selections were made at the close of 1976; the Civil Service Commission is acting on these selections today. The Congress authorized additional staffing of the Agency in fiscal '76 and '77; approximately 500 new positions were made available to the Agency. It is crucial that new staffing and replacement staffing of the Agency focus on individuals with a high level of technical expertise. Increasingly, OSHA is being challenged on the integrity of its technical procedures and judgments. Presum? ably,the reason for this is that as the Agency continues to build in the health area, as contrasted to the safety area, the costs of compliance with standards will increase. In general, it is more expensive to implement a program directed at the containment of agents which can affect health than to implement a program directed at control of traumatic hazards which can cause injury, i.e.y safety conditions. Heproouceu Irom Unctassmecl I Ueclassmeu 01 me Nauonai AFCHIVBS The new reorganization scheme, which took effect November 1976 is appended to this paper (Appendix A). Com? plete descriptions of responsibilities for all offices shown in this schematic are available. In a different section of this report I will discuss the rationale for this reorgani? zation and some further details of the components created. The lack of technical expertise in the Washington office, in particular, led to creation of a rift between the field components of the Agency (approximately 75% of Agency staff) and those directing and coordinating Agency activity in the field. Those in the field have a far greater understand? ing of the technical ingredients of OSHA work than do those in Washington. The result of this rift, as well as a broader philosophy promoted during the period 1970-74, was that OSHA operations were decentralized in ten regions in the field. Each region "did its own thing". All efforts during 1976 were undertaken to coordinate regional performance so that the indeed, appearing as a consistent regulatory Agency to all those clients it dealt with, regardless of their physiCal location in the continental United States, Alaska, Puerto Rico or Hawaii. Majorprogress has been made in this regard. It was made by bringing present safety expertise in the field into Washington to guide the field,and by increasing the technical competence of the Washington staff at the maximum rate feasible prior to the reorganization, and increasingly more rapidly since the KGDIOGUCQG Ine I Hommgs OI me manonal reorganization was implemented in November of 1976. It is_ absolutely essential that the technical administration of the Agency be further increased if the coordination of activities in the field is to continue. When the field cannot get valid responses from Washington or even worse, obtains contradictory responses and guidance from Washington, the field merely neglects to consult with Washington and proceeds as it deems necessary. This type of activity leads to contradictory regulatory action by the Agency. The technical incompetence of the Agency is also reflected in its standards activities. The safety standards office of the Agency is particularly defunct of sufficient high level technically able individuals. The health standards area has more expertise than the safety area, but it is preciously small when one considers the demands being made upon the Agency in this area. Additional positions have been allocated to these areas under the reorganization scheme. In addition, there is provision for supervisory control which will permit better utilization of those individuals with the highly developed knowledge to work with well-meaning, but relatively inexperi- enced beginners recruited into the organization. The technical capability of the Agency was also extremely weak in certain support function units. Specifically, the OSHA laboratory numbered 26 individuals in December of 1975. It has been built to a current strength of 72 individuals. This laboratory is reSponsible for analyzing samples which are the Keprouucea mm the Unclassmeu I 0T me 10 basis for many citations in the health compliance area. In 1975 only seven percent of Agency inspections in the field were associated with health and the load on the laboratory was not great, as will be discussed later in this report. During 197 the Agency has been eased into the health area with an attendant major increase of resources. This necessi? tated strengthening the laboratory facility. The facility was technically reviewed during 1976 by highly qualified profes? sional peers. It was my intent to build this laboratory into a first-class facility. The instrument calibration facility for OSHA was located in Cincinnati and was administered by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. With the greater activity in health compliance, and additional instrumentation envisioned.(approximately two million dollars of instrumentation was ordered in 1976; an additional four million dollars of industrial hygiene instrumentation is planned for 1977), it was necessary to integrate this facility into the OSHA organization and expand it. With the reorganization of 1976, at OSHA's request NIOSH transferred the calibration facility to OSHA. OSHA has obtained increased physical space for the calibration facility and has also increased the number of personnel. These technical backup units, if you will, are cru? cial to the effectiveness of the Agency in sustaining its efforts in the health compliance area. There are already pro? ceedings of contested OSHA citations that have hinged on the Heproauceu rrom me unCIassmeu I Holdings OT me Nauonal Arcmves ll accuracy and reliability of instrumentation and results of analysis of air samples obtained in the field. C. The Increased Activity in Health Compliance It was perceived in December of 1975 by virtually all those having any understanding of the Agency that efforts in health compliance had been minimal during the first five years of OSHA activity. It has never been clear to me why the preponderant effort was in safety during these five years. Nevertheless, 1976 activities were very heavily devoted to lay? ing a firm foundation for a health compliance and standards set- ting effort. Some of the ingredients of this activity have already been mentioned; certain others will now be discussed. In December, 1975 the Agency employed approximately 1,050 safety compliance officers. A decision was reached to sustain this number of safety compliance officers while using all new position allocations for compliance to hire health compliance officers, or industrial hygienists. Very few quali? fied industrial hygienists were available for hiring and an ambitious three?year career development prOgram for industrial hygienists was initiated in September,l976; approximately 200 individuals are enrolled at this time. It is planned to enroll approximately 100 beginner industrial hygienists in this program during l977. (A brief article describing this program is appen? ded to this report as Appendix B.) The main point to stress is KQDFOOUGGU Irom the UHCIHSSITIGU I HOIUIHQS 0T tne National ATCDIVBS 12 that the decision was made to build, in the short run, to a level of equal activity in the field in safety and health. This activity would be measured by the admittedly inadequate parameter of equal numbers of safety and health compliance officers. It is planned to achieve this short term goal by 1979. At that time, the Agency should have approximately 2,100 compliance officers in the field, with approximately half of these in each of the specialized areas of health and safety. This complement of compliance officers should permit OSHA to perform, with a high degree of professional competence, approximately 150 to 160,000 inspections a year. I will later discuss how plans and programming have been altered to target these inspections efficiently, because the Agency has respon? sibility for over five million establishments and must use its limited resources by going to the worst facilities first. The above discussion is not meant to imply that exclusive reliance is being placed upon enforcement. Indeed, a philosophy evolved during 1976 explicitly stated that OSHA is interested in compliance, and that enforcement as reflected in inspections is only one of several tools for compliance activities. Educational efforts for employer and employee and on?site consultation are other tools that serve the purpose of ensuring compliance with standards adopted under provisions of the Act. Additional tools of compliance should also, ideally, be programmed to target those in greatest need of assistance. Heproaucecl Irom tne I UECIBSSITIGO OI Il'le Nallonal 13' Efforts to target educational and informational programs for employer/employee and on?site consultation are not as well developed as targeting efforts for enforcement activities. It should be noted that a higher level of technical sophistication is required to effectively operate a program directed at agents affecting health in industry as contrasted to operating a safety program. In general, one can sense by sight or by touch the hazards which can result in traumatic injury to the individual, safety hazards. In almost all cases, extension of the human senses is required to detect health hazards. Instrumentation, collection of samples, chemi- cal analysis of samples, elaborate engineering design to con? tain chemicals or physical agents, are all parts of the matrix of a health compliance program. Understanding the individual parts of the matrix requires programnwnagersv?th fairly sophis? ticated scientific and technical backgrounds. D. Relationships with Special Interest Sectors A major part of my effort during this year was to establish dialogues with the professional health and safety community, the private sector as represented by both large and small business management groups, and organized labor. It was also necessary to initiate, or in a few cases, to continue dialogues with other agencies of government. It is apprOpri? ate to discuss these efforts in this report. Keproouceu me unclassmea I HOIOIHQS 0! me l4 1. Professional Community The National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH), a committee established by statute to represent labor, management and the public, was meeting as a full cOmmittee on the minimum number of occasions required under the Act, twice a year in 1975. I decided to upgrade the importance of this committee. Its potential importance was built into the Act, but, in reality it was almost serving a ves~ tigial function. The committee was reappointed in 1975. It was authorized to form into subgroups which would permit fewer than the 12 members comprising the full committee to meet for in?depth discussion of selected topics of their own choosing, or referred to them by the Assistant Secretary. Four sub?groups were formed (standards, compliance, policy and budget) in early 1976 which evolved into three sub?groups by the end of the year. The full committee met six times during 1976. Sub?groups met an average of six to ten times each. The influ? ence of NACOSH and its sub?groups during 1976 cannot be over? emphasized. Virtually all major. compliance and standards decisions are now referred to this committee for their recom- mendations. Almost all recommendations to the Assistant Secre? tary during 1976 have been acted upon by the Assistant Secretary and translated into Agency policy. A few of these subjects are noted here for examples: definition of serious and other than serious hazards, revision of the penalty system, relationship of OSHA to the small business community, revision of consenSus Keprouuceu mm the unctassmea I Declassmed or me National Arcnwes l5 safety standards, the 1977 budgetary needs of OSHA. Other equally important topics were deliberated and recommendations were made. The committee serves an invaluable function. It is absolutely essential that the resources and support given to this committee in 1976 be continued. Although efforts started with the National Advisory Committee, the Assistant Secretary and key individuals in OSHA were drawn upon to establish relationships with the American Society of Safety Engineers, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the American Industrial Hygiene Association, among others. In all cases, the message was the same: we welcome your participation in our activities. We wish to draw upon you for review fungtions and for involvement in generation of standards. A formal agreement was signed with ANSI and others may be signed. In all cases the response to these initiatives has been salutary. 2. Organized Labor The Office of the Assistant Secretary has three special assistants for liaison purposes. One of these is in the area of labor (the other two are industry and agricultural liaison, respectively). Tragically, the highly qualified labor liaison incumbent when I assumed office retired early in 1976 with a medical disability. The position was not filled until late 1976. I cannot over stress the difficulties this vacancy Heprouucea Irom tne I UecIassmeo OI Ine NaIIonal AFCHIVBS 16 created during 1976. These are crucial staff positions. The function of a labor liaison officer is to alert the Assistant Secretary to the concerns of organized labor and to inform organized labor of the concerns of the Assistant Secretary which, hopefully, reflect the concerns of the Agency. Organized labor has assumed a watch?dog role for the Agency. Frequent meetings are necessary with labor representa? tives. Organized labor is not a homogeneous entity. Each of the unions have their own views on virtually all subjects of importance to the occupational safety and health program. It is therefore necessary to have open channels of communication with as many of the unions as possible and to keep_them closely informed of Agency activities. Unfortunately, only a very few of the unions have a level of expertise necessary to the watch? dog role they desire. It has been my experience that many of the laborcmiticisns of Agency activity are superficial and upon closer scrutiny stem from bona fide but baseless fears, of incorrect Agency action. Only time will increase the level of competence of union personnel in these matters, so necessary to facilitate the essential relationship between organized labor and the Agency. 3. Mangement and Industrial Associations There are simply too many industrial management associations for OSHA to deal with on an ongoing basis. They number in the hundreds or even thousands. Certain key groups KEPTOCIUCBCI Irom me UnCIassmeo I OI me Natlonal AFCHIVBS l? pay very close attention to channels of communications with their representatives are on a continuing basis. A new policy I initiated is that whenever a new standard is started the Agency communicates with the relevant.industrial group. We inform them of the project, solicit their assistance, and enlist their support for final review of the material that will go to proposal. This new policy has greatly improved the acceptance of the Agency in this sector. 'We have made it very clear that OSHA must basis of evidence before it and that these decisions will be the best technical? professional decisions that can be made. We are not soliciting their assistance to make our decisions; we are soliciting their assistance with gathering available data prior to decision mak? ing. The procedures referred to above were instituted dur- ing development of the diving proposal and further implemented with the cotton dust proposal. These procedures have proven effective in sustaining dialogue but not for avoiding legal challenge to the Agency?s standards. In general, the concerns cf the private sector are directly proportional to the costs of compliance with OSHA standards. The private sector is not convinced of the neces? sity for many OSHA requirements. The early OSHA adoption of consensus safety standards did not promote a feeling of confi~ dence in OSHA among regulatees. Many of the early consensus KEPFOGUCBO Irom Ine I HOIGIHQS OI Ine HFCHIVBS safety standards were, indeed, associated with nitpicking ingredients. The costs of compliance with health standards can be large. As an example, the coke oven standard will have an estimated 275 million dollars a year cost. Thus, fforts aimed at engendering understanding among those who must comply with the standards are well placed efforts. OSHA cannot require compliance with standards without laying the groundwork for understanding. In this same regard, I insti- tuted a major policy of providing educational materials in advance of the effective date of a standard. In fact, I delayed the enforcement date of the standard for guarding of farm machin? ery because an unanticipated delay had occurred in the prepara? tion of simplified brochures for the farm community. These. brochures were directed at demonstrating in clear, simple terms the steps required to comply with the standard. It would be an error for OSHA to move rapidly in institution of new require? ments without fully laying the groundwork for the understanding of these requirements by those in the private sector. More extensive use of information hearings during development of standards and multiple hearings at locations other than Wash? ington were also started during 1976; they should not only be continued, but should be expanded. At this point in time, a tenuous but real working relationship has been established with many components of the private sector. This working relationship has not prevented the filing of challenges to our standards, the American HBDFOCIUCBO Irom me unclassmecl I I'lOlOil'lgS OI Ine AFCHIVBS 19 Iron and Steel Institute challenge to the Coke Oven Standard. But it has placed the dialogue between OSHA and the private sector on a professional, substantive footing. The period of emotional accusations and phony issues is over; it should not be resurrected by rapid action on the part of overzealous administrators of the Agency. Actions by OSHA must be care? fully considered and documented prior to announcement. They must then be implemented effectively. 4. Relationships With Other Federal Agencies Many of OSHA's activities impact upon other Fed- eral agencies. There is only one major agency, created in the OSHA Act, with which we must coordinate efforts. It is the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. In December of 1975 practically all communication between NIOSH and OSHA had ceased. NIOSH was transmitting to us in a very formal manner, criteria documents developed as recommendations for initiation of standards activity. Under the Act, NIOSH was established as the research wing of OSHA. It is a non?regula? tory agency. Almost immediately upon assuming the role of Assistant Secretary of OSHA, I requested and initiated meetings between the directors of NIOSH and OSHA. These meetings have been held every month since my assumption of office. In addi? tion, working group meetings are held to follow up on topics discussed by the directors. Progress, while real and KBPFOOUCBG worn [he I HOIGIHQS OT Ine Nallonal 20 discernable, has been slow. The goals and budgeting, indeed the entire operation of NIOSH is in a different organizational scheme than those of OSHA. NIOSH is in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and OSHA is in the Department of Labor. I would urge that the coordination heretofore developed be continued and expanded, but it appears to me that this relationship will never be an effective, efficient one until NIOSH is incorporated into OSHA. By a satisfactory re? lationship, I here mean that the research and data gathering functions of NIOSH be responsive to the regulatory priorities conceived and agreed upon by NIOSH and OSHA. At the present time, each Agency is proceeding with its own priorities; the planning schemes have not been intermeshed. There are many administrative and bureaucratic reasons for this situation which will not be dwelled upon here. The point is that incre- mental progress is possible and will continue to be made, but the problems which face both Agencies in the American workplace cannot wait upon the slow rate of progress demonstrated hereto? fore and predicted for the future. Only by placing NIOSH under the jurisdiction of OSHA will major progress be made in a rela? tively short time. As an example of NIQSH failure to understand or respond to needs, I will relate our experience with requests for medical evaluations of personnel at facilities where an emergency situation occurs. Personnel of the OSHA Emergency Heprouucea trom [he Declassmecl OI tne NaIlOl'lal AFCHIVBS 21 Office must often reach decisions which might result in closure of a facility. Requests to NIOSH for rapid surveillance of personnel in the plant have not been rapidly acted upon. In addition, requests for medical surveillance of personnel in plants undergoing abatement in programs requiring more than one year, have not been responded to by NIOSH. Thus, requests for medical surveillance in literally hundreds of facilities under? going abatement for lead were made by OSHA in late summer of 1976. NIOSH has not yet responded. The priorities of NIOSH are simply not geared to the regulatory needs of OSHA. Other agencies with which OSHA should have intimate relationships include EPA, the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Sciences. One might also mention FDA. With respect to EPA, there were few ties prior to December 1975. In fact, the two Agencies had been adversaries in hearings called to obtain information relative to a noise standard for the occupational environment. Because of my extensive involvement with EPA prior to coming to OSHA (For three years I had chaired the Air Pollution Grants Research Advisory Committee and also served on the Science Advisory. Hoar ties were established. EPA reviewed engineering pro? visions for the OSHA Coke Oven Standard issued in November, 1975. Indeed, during this review process EPA discovered that certain OSHA requirements were in conflict with engineering require- ments related to regulation of air pollutant emissions ""0111 the unalassmeu I UBGIBSSITIBO OI 1W3 Nallonal 22 to the ambient air. These differences were reconciled. The new Toxic Substances Control Act calls for intimate ties be? tween EPA and OSHA. During the past several months extensive discussions have been held between EPA and OSHA personnel on the subject of the Toxic Substances Control Act. I have per? sonally met with representatives of EPA to fully inform them of OSHA procedures and concerns. OSHA will assign full time personnel to be responsible for appropriate coordination with EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Thus, the ground? work has been laid for continuing coordination with EPA. These initial efforts should be supplemented and reinforced. Members of the National Cancer Institute and of the national Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have been consulted during the formulation of a proposal for identifica? tion, classification and regulation of carcinogens. OSHA hopes to issue this proposal early in 1977. I have attended meetings at theinvitationof NIEHS and NCI, as well as meetings devoted to regulation of materials which could affect genetic transfor? mation. The latter meetings were called at the invitation of the Director of the National Institutes of Health. These ties should also be continued. It is essential for OSHA to be aware of new scientific developments related to industrial processing and chemical toxicity. OSHA should be represented on committees concerned with these developments and should be on the mailing lists of professional societies and public interest groups call- ing for representatives of government agencies to consider new Keprouuceu Irom me I 01' me Nanonal 23 developments. Only in this way will the Agency have an early start on hazards that can affect the health and safety of those at work. This way, OSHA will not be in the position, which it too often finds itself in, of coming from behind, or playing "catch up ball." E. Standards Development One of the two major functions of the Agency is development and promulgation of safety and health standards; the other is ensuring compliance with these standards. In the perception of'the public the major failing of performance during the entire period of OSHA's history, including 1976, has been the slow rate of promulgation of health standards. The subject of Agency health and safety standards efforts will now be discussed. 1. Health Standards On occasions I have referred to the develop- ment of OSHA standards for agents affecting health as a seminal subject. In my opinion, much of the health standards promulga? tion effort is research in its truest applied form. In addi? tion to the very difficult issues which must be resolved prior to either proposal or final promulgation of the health standard, the legal?administrative procedures which must be followed are cumbersome. In the latter regard, it is necessary to develop a proposal (in coordination with impacted groups, according to "0m me I UBCIBSSIHBG HOIOIFIQS OI Ine NBHOFIEI AFCDIVES 24 recently articulated policy), to hold a hearing on the pro? posal, to follow the hearing with a post?hearing commentary period, and then to finally promulgate a standard. In addi? tion, in 1975 an Executive Order required the preparation of an inflationary impact statement to accompany each newly promulgated standard. The requirement for an environmental impact statement also exists. At the Optimum rate of progres? sion, it is believed that health standards can be promulgated in a period of approximately 14 months from inception of effort. The Agency has never met this time frame. Standards promulga? tion has required, at best, 18 to 22 months. Many improvements have been made, and will continue to be made in the coordination of attorney effort from the Solicitor's Office and scientific effort from the health standards office in this development process. It should be recOgnized that the team approach to standards development is the best approach. Prior to December 1975, OSHA attempted to develop a standard and the Solicitor's Office reviewed it. During the period I have been in office, a team approach in? volving attorneys and scientific personnel has been utilized. With the resources currently planned for the Health Standards -Directorate of OSHA, I estimate that a productivity rate of 15 to 20 health standards promulgated per year is a noble ambi- tion in 1978 or 1979. Obviously, there are thousands of chemi? cals in the work environment and this rate of productivity will not adequately address the problem. However, this rate of me Unmassmeu I HOIGIHQS OI me 25 productivity will, I believe, saturate the ability of the com? pliance staff to follow up with inspections related to the standards which have been promulgated. Nonetheless, the public will undoubtedly judge the Agency on the basis of standards promulgated, rather than on adequate enforcement action until such time as the sophistication of the public permits it to call attention to the mismatch between compliance activities and standards promulgation. The above considerations lead to the conclusion that continued development of standards for individual chemi? cal agents is a self?limiting developmental process. The Agency must seek another way of addressing chemical hazards in the work environment. In this regard, we have been search? ing during 1976 for so?called generic standards. For example, standards would be issued for labelling of compounds, for medical surveillance of employees, and for monitoring of the work environment. OSHA would not wait for development of standards for each agent to regulate each of these specific provisions for that agent. A labelling proposal is on the verge of being ready for the Federal ReqiSter and the imminent proposal for identification, classification, and regulation of carcinogens is a generic proposal. I believe that efforts along these lines should be accelerated. Some private sector and union groups are also working with their internal commit- tees to develop generic standards. TrOlTl me I UBCIESSITIBU HOIUIHQS 01' me Nannal ARCHIVES 26 It must also be recognized that the state of science and technology is not adequate to fulfill the legal burdens of proof which the Occupational Safety and Health Review Com? mission and the courts have been requiring of the Agency. In most cases, a dose?response curve does not exist for the effects of the agent on the population at risk. Also, in the real world the population at risk is exposed to a multiplicity of hazards and the effects produced in the human body by the various agents are often in the form of a general medical condi~ tion, bronchitis, cancer. These medical con? ditions cannot be uniquely associated with the agent that is being regulated. All of these uncertainties, which we attempt? to treat in our standards documents, are fertile grounds for legal challenges by those who are not committed to abiding by the standard in question. It is clear that delay of implementation of a stand? ard saves a great deal of money for those impacted by the standard. Indeed, rough estimates by OSHA indicate that the legal costs of ensuring delay through challenge in the courts represents a small fraction of the costs of compliance,costs which would have been expended during the period that the chal? lenge holds the standard in abeyance. Appended to this report (Appendix C) is a summary document of the Status of inflationary impact statements being prepared for health standards under development. Also included Heproaucea ITOITI Ine I HOIOIHQS me National 27 is a summary table of the projected standards for 1977. It must be stressed that a valid priority system has not yet been developed by OSHA for health standards development. A priority system is being discussed with the National Insti? tute of Occupational Safety and Health, as well as.internally. While greatprogress has been made in the administrative struc- ture and procedures followed by the health standards section of OSHA (additional positions have been allocated for hiring in 1977, particularly for senior supervisory personnel), the development of adequate resources in the Office of the Solici? tor will in the future be the constraint on the rate of develop? ment of health standards. As noted above, development of a health standard requires a team effort. While OSHA has been receiving an allocation of positions for expansion, staffing of the Solicitor's Office has been frozen by the Congress. As this report is being written, discussions are in progress to arrange for transfer of positions allocated to OSHA to the Office of the Solicitor to permit additional personnel in the Solicitor's Office to be assigned to health standards develop? ment. I strongly urge that this procedure be initiated. The increased staffing in OSHA, without concomitant staffing in the Solicitor's Office, will not materially increase the rate of productivity of health standards; they will languish in the hands of the Associate Solicitor for OSHA who cannot allo- cate adequate resources to them. Keproaucea me I OI me Nannal HFCHIVES 28 2. Inflationary Impact Statements In recent months a major controversy has developed on the subject of inflationay impact statements which must be prepared in conjunction with each health stand? ard. The requirement for an inflationary impact statement was set by Executive Order in 1975. At the time of the Executive Order it was not clear what the format of an inflationary impact statement was to be, nor was the capability to prepare these statements in OSHA. The Secretary of Labor issued an order vesting the authority for certification of inflationary impact statements prepared within the Department of Labor in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Research (ASPER). Thus, although OSHA is required to prepare these documents, OSHA must submit the final products to ASPER for certification prior to issuance of the Federal Register notice of standard and IIS. A large number of standards without accompanying IIS documents were placed in the Federal Register in the fall of 1975. Subsequently, preparation of IIS documents proceeded utilizing contractors because OSHA staff With capabilities to prepare these documents had to be hired. OSHA has been hiring such staff throughout 1976. Part of the new OSHA reorganiza- tion scheme is an Office of Inflationary and Economic Impact Assessment. However, during the period of evolution of these documents, namely, the entire year 1976, it became increasingly clear that the perception of ASPER as to what constitutes an Irom me I OI Lne 29 IIS and the perception of OSHA in this regard, were vastly different. I stated as a matter of OSHA policy that economic assessment should be performed prior to issuance of the standard. The purpose of this economic assessment is to provide the Agency with sufficient insight into its regulatory action to adjust time periods for compliance for different sectors impacted by the standard. ASPER, on the other hand, is primarily based in economic theory and believes that a classical cost-benefit analysis should be performed for each standard. This analysis would determine the dollar value of benefits, deaths, disease states, injuries, etc., in each sector impacted, and would contrast this dollar value with the costs of control of the hazard. ASPER would then selectively apply the regulation to those sectors where the benefits exceed the cost. As Assistant Secretary, I have declined to have OSHA perform such dollar analyses of benefits. In the first place, the methodology associated with such analyses is in its forma? tive stages. The variance placed on any estimates of dollar benefits of disease and death is so great as to be virtually useless. Furthermore, there is the philosophical question of whether or not OSHA and the Department of Labor, charged under the Act to provide, insofar as possible, a safe working environ? ment to every man and woman in the United States, should approach its responsibilities by placing dollar values on benefits to determine if the benefits of the Occupational Safety and Health Keproaucea me Undassmed I Holdings OI me 30 Act should be brought to all sectors. I have assumed that these benefits should be brought to all sectors. The only question to be resolved is that of the time period allocated to the highly impacted sectors to permit institution of the required controls to ensure safe and healthful environment. The conflict between OSHA and ASPER has not been resolved as of this date; the Executive'Order has been extended into 1977. The issue came to a crucial head with the inflation? ary impact statement for Lead which was prepared by a contrac- tor. The document did not meet the certification requirements of ASPER, but it did meet the needs of OSHA. ASPER ruled that a new contract for an let, one which would require approxi mately another twelve months for completion. I indicated that such delay was intolerable. Fortunately, the Secretary and Under Secretary authorized the gathering of additional informa? tion which would overcome some, but not all, the concerns of ASPER for a "total" 115. The hearing for the Lead IIS and pro- posed standard has been scheduled for March 15, 1977. The controversy which arose in conjunction with the Lead IIS was, I believe, only the first of many which will arise until a clear decision is made by the Secretary of Labor as to the content of an inflationary impact statement. I have personally recommended that the certification authority for inflationary impact statements relative to OSHA standards be transferred from ASPER to the office of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. I do not believe it possible to adhere to the requirements laid down by ASPER and to promulgate standards in a timely manner. Lne I 0T tne NBIIODEI Even more important, I do not see the relevance of much of the information desired by ASPER in these 118 documents. It is essential that this matter be resolved at the earliest possible date. F. OSHA Relationships With Members of Congress In December of 1975, there were alarmingly few members of the Congress who were well?informed with respect to OSHA and its activities. It was absolutely essential to plan for, and to initiate steps which would build the base of understanding of OSHA in the Congress. Therefore, I immedi- ately moved to secure the full?time services of one OSHA employ? ee on the Hill. The function of this individual was to inform members of the actions, and the reasons for the actions of OSHA, and to carry concerns of members on the Hill back to OSHA. This individual now reports to the Office of Legislative Affairs of the Department of Labor. In addition to the above full?time person added to the staff and working throughout 1976, a process of information transfer was established between our own OSHA Office of Legisla? tive and Interagency Affairs and the Hill. During 1976 a com? plete information book on new initiatives of the Agency was distributed to each member of the Senate and the House. Brief- ings were held with staff of members of the House and Senate. I participated in these briefings, which were of a general nature. Briefings on specific topics were also undertaken. One in particular was concerned with revision of consensus Keprocluced trom me Unclassmed I UBCIGSSITIGCI Of the National AICDIVBS 32 safety standards. I personally visited with many members of the Senate and the House and also met with groupings of members. The purpose of all of these meetings was to inform and to answer concerns. I believe that steps have been taken to establish an on-going program with members of the Congress. It would be appropriate at this time to review in detail the experiences of 1976 in establishing a broader base of understanding on the Hill for OSHA. I recently met with the Deputy Under Secretary for Legislative Affairs of the Department of Labor and reviewed his perceptions of the opera? tions of the full?time staff member for OSHA and the interaction of that person with the OSHA Office of Legislative and Inter- agency Affairs. The Deputy Under Secretary had several sugges- tions for improvement of the initial procedures utilized in 1976. Others at OSHA have suggestions for improvement. Cer? tainly, the experiences gained in this first year of an extended 'effort to develop a better basis of understanding of the Agency on the Hill should be placed in perspective for the purpose of launching a second year of more effective operation. G. OSHA Relationships With the Public The mandate to the Agency to protect approximately 65 million employees in approximately 5 million establishments requires an extensive transfer of information to employees and employers, as well as to the general public. Prior to 1975 the Heprooucea tne I UBCIBSSINGU OT Ine HFCHIVBS 33 Agency had never geared up for such a massive public and con? sumer affairs effort. The reorganization of the Agency in 1975 created an Office of Public and Consumer Affairs operat? ing out of the Office of the Assistant Secretary. It is pro? jected to be a large effort. The utilization of audiovisual aids as well as printed materials is envisioned. At the pre- sent time, consideration is being given to a policy which would allocate a fixed percentage of the OSHA budget (tentatively set at 5 percent) to employee/employer educational materials. In addition, plans are being implemented for a hardware system which will permit the rapid transfer of information between the National Office, Regional Offices, and Area Offices. The flow of information would be in two directions. The rationale for planning for this extensive approach to information transfer is that OSHA covers many, many subjects and they are detailed. The actions of the Agency are often misunderstood. The past image of the Agency smacks of a dictatorial nature. The ini? tial six years of Agency activity carry one major lesson in this regard: OSHA will not prevail if it does not explain its actions satisfactorily. Unfortunately, there has been some resistance within the Department of Labor to the very concepts outlined above. it appears that within government the term public affairs is con- fused with public relations. OSHA is not intent On image building. OSHA is intent on information transfer. Perhaps more than any other agency in the Department of Labor it must engage KEPFOGUCBU Irom me I OI 1ne Nauonal HrcanES 34 in this type of activity. The function cannot be fulfilled by the Information Office of the Department of Labor because that office does not understand many of the technical compo? nents of the information which must be transferred. It would be gratifying to be able to state that after a year of explain? ing this position within the Department of Labor the public affairs efforts of OSHA will move forward smoothly. I do not think they will. There continues to be increasing suspicion of the massive information transfer effort that the Agency is gearing up to perform on an on?going basis. I believe this effort is essential to the success of OSHA and must be further supported and defended. Regular sessions have been scheduled during 1976 with reporters covering OSHA. The sessions have been held at inter- vals of approximately six weeks, with some deviation from this schedule. The scheduling of news interviews has supplemented interviews called for special occasions. A rapport has been built up with the news media because of these scheduled events. I believe a degree of trust has been engendered in those members of the media covering the Agency on a regular basis. In addition, virtually all requests from the media for interviews have been honored. A major philosophy espoused, during 1976 was that OSHA desires to discuss its activities and is greatly appreciative of accurate and reliable reporting of these activities. From the Unclassmea I Ueclassmed Holdings 01 me Natlonal Ar CHIVES 35 IV. Additional Issues Which Require Policy Decisions in the Immediate Future A. Relationship of Federal OSHA to States The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 con- ceived a federal?state partnership. States were permitted the option of operating programs "at least as effective as" that of the Federal Government. States electing such an option have three years to develop fully operational plans; a fourth year is allotted for solo performance by the state to demonstrate the efficacy of its procedures. At the conclu- sion of the fourth year, federal OSHA can, but does not have to make a decision concerning the ability of the state to con? tinue without federal oversight while still receiving federal matching funds. Several states are now in their fourth year of operation. The problem with the procedures described above is that criteria for evaluating states in their fourth year of performance were never developed by the Agency during 1971?75. During 1976 such criteria were developed and a meeting with the State Labor Commissioners of states with plans is scheduled for February, 1977 to review the criteria.' I intended to transmit to the Commissioners the decision not to uncouple states from federal OSHA for solo performance at the end of their fourth year if they do not have a smoothly functioning and effective program for abatement of health hazards, as well Keprouucea me Unclassmea! Of the Natlonal HanWeS 36 as a program for abatement of safety hazards. During 1976 federal OSHA embarked on a program of improvement in the area of occupational health and states must also assume this responsibility. It is inconceivable to me that a state be granted federal certification without an occupational health program. There certainly can be a.1esser degree of monitor? ing of the state in the safety area during the fifth year of plan Operation, While continuing to closely monitor the state occupational health program. In any event, these matters must be discussed with State Labor Commissioners and program mana? gers at the earliest possible date. B. Federal Agency Occupational Safety and Health Programs The Act delineates an advisory capacity for federal OSHA in its dealings with federal agencies. During the years 1971?75 extremely slow prOgress was made in this area. In fact, the General Accounting Office report issued in early 1976 entitled "Safety in the Federal Workplace" condemned the efforts of federal agencies to date. The Assistant Secretary for OSHA is chairman of the Federal Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. In this capacity I attempted during 1976 to accelerate federal agency safety and health activity. I per- sonally accompanied the director of the OSHA Federal Agency Programs office to other federal agencies to indicate the neces? sity for more rapid progress. It appears to me that there has Heprouuceu tne unalassmea I Ueclassmeu 0! me wauonal 37 been an increased tempo of progress in this area during 1976, but still far too little for complacency. It is my opinion that until federal OSHA is given more substantial tools to deal with federal agencies, tools with authority as well as advisory capacity, the federal agency program will continue to progress at a disappointingly slow rate. There is no philosophical basis for differentiating between the millions of employees in federal agencies and those employed in the private sector. Federal employees have a right to the same degree of coverage which OSHA is so assidu? ously attempting to deliver to those in the private sector. Certainly, continued increased attention by the Secretary to this sector of OSHA activity and increased effort by the Assistant Secretary for Administrative Programs in the Depart? ment of Labor to implement Labor Department health and safety programs will help. A temporary loan of 10 positions from the OSHA staffing allocation to the Department of Labor was author? ized by me at the close of 1976 to permit the Department of Labor to move forward with its health and safety program. It is difficult for the Assistant Secretary of OSHA to urge other federal agencies to promote health and safety when the Depart? ment of Labor is also faulted by the General Accounting Office for its slow progress. KBDIOOUCBO me HOIOIHQS 0F, me Hanonal HFCFIIVBS 38 C. Jurisdictional Issues With Other Agencies Under the Clause of the Act During this year of tenure as Assistant Secretary, I was deeply involved with issues under the clause of the Act. These issues arise because the Act does not clearly assign responsibility to OSHA or other federal agencies for coverage of their employees when their standards are inadequate. The coverage of railroad employees by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is illustrative of this issue. Jurisdic? tional disputes are extremely frustrating matters with which to deal. They often reach irreconcilable points. With respect to the FRA, that agency has locked our inspectors out of the premises. OSHA is hoping to resolve the dispute in court. It is a tragedy that two federal agencies come to this point in administration of a program designed to protect the health and safety of employees. During the six years of the Act approxi- mately 55,000 railroad employees have not had satisfactory health and safety services delivered to them by either the FRA or OSHA. I submitted a memo to Secretary Usery indicating my frustration in resolving these jurisdictional disputes. This situation could prove more amenable to solution in a new Admin? istration if direct Executive Office action is taken to clarify agency responsibility. However, the conclusion of my memorandum to Secretary Usery was that'amendment of the Act was the most promising recourse for resolving jurisdictional disputes. Heprouucea trom tne unclassmea I Ueclassmed Holdings or me Nauonal Arcmves 39 Nothing has happened in the interim since submission of the memo to alter my opinion on this matter. D. Criteria for Professional Technical Personnel and Associated Salary Levels As OSHA continues to achieve higher levels of tech- nical and scientific sophistication in its operations it becomes increasingly difficult to hire individuals to staff the Agency. As Assistant Secretary I visited with the Civil Service Commis- sion on at least two occasions to explain the needs of the Agency. There is a prevailing belief that the Agency operates at a lower level of technical sophistication than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the Energy Research and Development Administration, for instance. This is not a valid conclusion. The technical aspects of occupational health and safety are as subtle and difficult as those which challenge the two agencies noted above, and other government agencies which have been allocated staffing patterns at higher grade levels. An improved approach to staffing of OSHA must be en? dorsed by the Secretary of Labor and the Civil Service Commis? sion must be convinced of the correctness of this posture. Increased emphasis in the health area has placed great demand on industrial hygienists. Annual salaries for qualified industrial hygienists increased in 1975 by several thousand dollars. As noted in this report, the Agency has Heproaucea Tl'Om tne I OI me Na?onal RFCHIVGS 4O undertaken a training program for newly hired industrial hygienists. If the problem of grade assignment and salary level is not resolved the agency will lose those hygienists trained under the OSHA career development training program. I urge that emphasis be placed on securing higher level posi? tions for the Agency and altering current job descriptions for health and safety personnel so that supervisory responsi? bilities are not required to advance technical and scientific personnel beyond the GS-12 level. Another alternative would be to petition Congress for a separate salary classification for the needed specialists, one competitive with that of the private sector. E. Support Functions for the Agency The "bread and butter" support functions for any agency include adequate space for personnel, adequate trans? portation for its members, adequate numbers and quality of clerical personnel, and hardware for transmission of informa? tion, typing, photocopying, etc. Most of these items are worked out by GSA and regional directors in the Department of Labor. We are having difficulties in many of our regional offices securing minimal allocations of adequate space for our offices. This matter has been called to the attention of the Assistant Secretary for administrative matters in the Department of Labor, but progress is slow. The same situation applies to availability of cars for our compliance officers. Transporta? KBPFOGUCBO "'0le [he Unclassmedl Uecrassmeu OI tne Nallonal 41 tion to sites for compliance activities is crucial for the work of OSHA. Not only must there be a sufficient number of automobiles, but they must be of the appropriate type because health compliance personnel have a large stock of apparatus and instrumentation to transport to the site. The occurrence of emergency field situations which require immediate attention of agency personnel necessitated my authorizing ordering of hardware for a rapid transmittal system for information from national office to regional offices to area offices. Preparations for ordering of this hardware system, so essential to deal with critical situations in the field, has thus far consumed over fOur months. At the time of this writing, I am not sure that orders are placed. There is apparently some question of this system partially duplicating systems in the Department of Labor. I cannot overstress the need for such a system for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. When a toxic chemical situation such as those for vinyl chloride, kepone, or leptophcs occurs in the field, there must immediately be transfers of all information from the localized site to the national office. There must also occur transfer of information from the Technical Data Center to sites throughout the country where the same chemical is encountered. Continuous dialogue between members of the field and members of the Washington office is required. The hardware I system desired should be placed in operation as soon as Heprouucea Irom me I OI Il'le NaIIOf?lal ATCHIVGS 42 In summary, it is necessary for both members of the Department of Labor administrative staff and for the GSA to recognize that the nature of the work of OSHA demands some preferred attention, if you will. Life and death matters are, quite literally, at stake. F. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission The Act established a Review Commission composed of three commissioners to review contested citations. The Review Commission establishes regulatory.policy. In my opinion, many of the decision of the Review Commission have been misdirected.? I urge that the new position of the Review Commission because it has an enormous influence on the activities of OSHA. It can, with one decision, negate Agency policy. It is then necessary for the Associate Solicitor for OSHA to contest the decision of the Review Com?' mission in a Court of Appeals. The litigious activities engen- dered require time and effort. The uncertainty of Agency behavior in the interim aggravates the clients of OSHA, who understandably seek some firm directions in Agency policy. G. Statistical Approach to Evaluating Effectiveness of OSHA Since its inception, OSHA has been pressed to estab~ lish a data gathering and evaluation system to judge the extent of occupational disease and injury and the impact of the Agency KGPFOOUCBU Irom me U?ClaSSl?ed I 0! me NaIanal HFCHIVGS on these events. Considerable progress was made by BLS in the area of safety statistics data gathering and reporting for prevalence of injuries and fatalities in the entire popu- lation at risk by sampling employers across all SIC categories. In fact, the statistics for 1973, 1974 and 1975 are encourag- ing, showing a decrease in total injury rates. Progress has not been made in gathering data to show 1) the effect of OSHA inspections in specific industry sectors or 2) the incidence of occupational disease and death in the working population. In order to accelerate progress in these tasks, an Office of Statistical Studies and Analyses was created with the reorganization of 1976. This office is engaging in a variety of prototype studies and also serves as the OSHA liaison with It is staffed with persons having statistical and epidemiological expertise. This office must be carefully culti- vated and nurtured if progress is to be made with answering the questions discussed above. Other questions being asked by members of this staff include the analysis of accident sites on the body and disease states in particular industrial sectors and their relationship I to OSHA standards, or the need for standards. V. Conclusions This status report presents a large array of issues, policies, actions and philosophy which have guided my activi- ties and those or the Agency during 1976. I have not delineated Heproaucecl ?Um Ine I USCIBSSITIQG OI me NaUOl'lal 44 in a staccato manner the order in which a new Assistant Secre? tary for OSHA should approach pending matters. Rather, the report has attempted to place in perspective each of the major issues. There are others, but they are judged to be less significant. There are some guiding principles. All OSHA actions should be based on a defensible, objective technical?profes? sional weighing of the facts relative to the issues. The rea- soning resulting in decisions should be elaborated upon with OSHA clients, professional groups and the public. The consistent reliance on facts and a readiness to defend objective decisions made by knowledgable individuals will, with certainty, make OSHA a professional Agency less subject to criticism, controversy and ridicule. During 1976 I attempted to gauge all my actions as Assistant Secretary by these criteria. neprouucea me I . INTRODUCTION For at least five years there has been a recognized, serious per- sonnel shortage in the occupational health sciences in the United States. It is our purpose in this article to review the response of the Occupa- tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to this shortage until such time as this Nation's colleges and universities are able to pro? vide adequate numbers of professionals to staff programs in government, industry, labor organizations, and the academic and research communities. It should be noted that the OSHA program described below was initiated solely because of the nonavailability of adequate numbers of qualified personnel in selected occupational categdries needed to implement the Federal program under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. ESTIMATES OF INCIDENCE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE IN THE UNITED STATES The annual number of both acute and chronic diseases and deaths in the United States associated with exposure to physical and chemical agents substances in the workplace is not known. Estimates vary from 200,400 occupational illnesses reported in 1974 Bureau of Labor Statis- tics data,1 to 390,000 new cases of occupational disease each year reported in U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare data. Indications are, however, that these figures may underestimate the problem because all currently used methods for assessing the extent of occupational illness have certain limitations, some of which are described below. - - . . stun- - r. h. actions authorized by the Act cannot be ignored. It is the intent of the agency to optimize the utilization of its resources, but within the framework of present resources there is no lack of problems to address. OSHA depends to a great extent upon the effectiveness of the Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) inspecting the workplace for the presence of hazards which, if left unattended, could result in serious physical harm. The compliance officer is the front line of OSHA's enforcement endeavor. The compliance officer is expected to exercise individual judgement in evaluating the workplace situation, but at the same time to perform his or her duties in a relatively uniform manner, one consistent with OSHA's national enforcement objectives and priorities. During the first five-year period of the agency, emphasis was almOst exclusively on the safety aspects of the work environment. During these years, OSHA measured the effectiveness of the compliance officer largely on the basis of the number of inspections made and the number of citations issued. Efforts to achieve these goals obscured the need to focus on some of the more serious hazards, espe- cially those in the health area, where time per inspection usually exceeds that required in the safety area. In general, the recognition, evaluation and control of agents affecting employee health in the work environment is a more complex matter than recognizing, evaluating and controlling safety hazards. Instrumentation and chemical analysis of samples are usually part of inspections involving assessment of hazards Heproouceo Irom tne Linc: 31m:- -. to health. During this early period of OSHA, the training of com- plaince officers did not receive a high priority. Inspections and the resulting citations reflected, for the most part, educational and experience background of the individual compliance officers and not necessarily the realities of the situation. In l975, for example, less than l0 percent of inspections were related to chemical and physical agents which may affect health. 0f the most frequently violated safety and health standards which led to citations, only one was a health standard. The remaining 99 were alleged violations of safety standards. Inadequate training and inspection procedures con- tributed to varying interpretations of standards and citation types, - levels of fines, and varying abatement periods. OSHA RESOURCES IN HEALTH Past hiring practices clearly reflected OSHA's emphasis on safety hazards. At the end of the Agency's first year, OSHA employed 422 safety inspectors, but only 54 industrial hygienists. By the end of Fiscal Year l975, OSHA had only 205 industrial hygienists available to make health inspections, out of a total field staff of l,l02 compliance officers. In order to improVe the balance between safety and health inspec- tions, virtually all of the new compliance officer positions authorized during Fiscal Year l976 were designated for health compliance officers, thus increasing the industrial hygiene staff to 450 positions, while maintaining the safety staff at the l976 level of l,050 positions. As of August, 1976, 350 of the authorized positions had been filled. In neprouucea Irom Ine ?ggn?fllyurif'u- - . T, IIS WEEKLY STATUS SUMMARY (30 December 1976) CURRENT ISSUES: The following issues were discussed at a meeting between ASPER and the Office of Technology Assessments (TAS) on December 28, 1976. . ASPER suggested that they not review first drafts on a regular basis. TAS objected to this. This issue is yet to be resolved. . Drafts will be sent out for peer review only after internal re? views by ASPER and OSHA and incorporation of their comments. . Formal transmittal slips will accompany all documents sent by OSHA to ASPER. . ASPER will be kept informed of the relative document review priorities through their participation in the weekly :18 meetings. The following problem/status items are currently under consideration. . Arthur Young Company has initiated for cadmium, silica, laboratory provisions for carcinogens, and organophosphates. Also, the issue of future work in-the SCP area is under consid? eration. An issue paper is to be prepared for hazardous material; labeling. . Arthur Young Company is preparing an analysis of the imprica- tions of the expiration of Executive Order 11821. . A Task Order on Arthur Young's continued role as integration contractor has been prepared and approved by COTR. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ITS ACTIVITIES: 1. Documents Currently In?House Substance/Hazard Draft I Review Status Final Document received 10/21. ?de AI review complete since 11/1. IEiestos Final received 10/4. Comments returned to