United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1996 OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

Violations of Safety and

Health Regulations by

Federal Contractors

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/HEHS-96-157

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-270418 

August 23, 1996

The Honorable Paul Simon

United States Senate

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

United States Senate

The federal government spends roughly $200 billion each year in contracts

for goods and services. Some private sector companies continue to be

awarded contracts every year even though they violate federal laws

intended to protect worker health and safety. Senator Simon has proposed

legislation that would restrict companies that violate the Occupational

Safety and Health Act from receiving federal contracts.1

 Another proposal,

introduced by Senator Kennedy, would reward companies for responsible

behaviors. This proposal would reduce taxes and offer preferences in

government contracts to companies for providing training opportunities to

their workers and taking other actions that promote workers’ economic

security.2

Given your interest in the safety and health practices of federal

contractors, you asked us to

• determine how many companies receiving federal contracts have also

been assessed penalties for violations of occupational safety and health

regulations,

• describe the characteristics of these contractors and their contracts,

• describe the kinds of violations for which these contractors were cited,

and

• identify ways to improve contractor compliance with workplace safety

and health requirements.

To identify federal contractors assessed penalties for safety and health

violations, we matched violation data from the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration’s (OSHA) automated database of inspection results

with a database of federal contractors maintained by the General Services

Administration (GSA). We restricted our analysis to those OSHA inspections

that were closed in fiscal year 1994 in which the proposed penalty

1

The proposed Federal Contractor Safety and Health Enforcement Act of 1995 (S. 781) was introduced

on May 9, 1995. It calls for the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations regarding debarment of

contractors “with a clear pattern and practice” of violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

However, the legislation does not define what a clear pattern and practice is.

2

The proposed American Workers Economic Security Act (S. 1668) was introduced on Apr. 15, 1996.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

assessed by the OSHA compliance officer was what we defined as

significant, regardless of the amount of the actual penalty recorded when

the inspection was closed. We used proposed penalties when selecting

inspections because they are based on the compliance officer’s judgment

of the nature and severity of violations, while actual penalties may be the

product of other factors such as negotiations between OSHA and the

company to encourage quicker abatement of workplace hazards. We

considered the proposed penalty assessed by the compliance officer to

have been significant if it was $15,000 or more.3

 We verified by telephone

that the company listed in the OSHA database of inspections was the same

company (or owned by the same parent company) listed in the federal

contractor database.

We obtained information about the federal contracts and safety and health

violations from the respective GSA and OSHA databases. We analyzed the

GSA database for the dollar value of fiscal year 1994 contracts received by

the violator or its parent company and the federal agencies that awarded

those contracts. Data limitations prevented us from determining whether a

company’s contract activity occurred at the same worksite where the

company was cited for safety and health violations. We analyzed the OSHA

database for characteristics of the violations and the worksites inspected.

Although we verified the link between the two databases, we did not verify

the data in either one.

To explore ways to improve the compliance of federal contractors with

safety and health regulations, we met with compliance staff at OSHA and

with federal contracting officials at GSA and other agency experts in

procurement. We did our work from July 1995 to July 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for a

detailed discussion of our scope and methodology).

Results in Brief Federal contracts have been awarded to employers who have violated

safety and health regulations issued under the Occupational Safety and

Health Act. For fiscal year 1994, we found 261 federal contractors who

were the corporate parent companies with worksites at which OSHA

assessed proposed penalties of $15,000 or more for violations of federal

3

Only 3 percent of the 72,950 inspections closed in fiscal year 1994 had proposed penalties of $15,000

or more. (See app. I.)

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

safety and health regulations.4 Because some of these contractors owned

more than one worksite, we identified 345 inspections, representing

16 percent of all inspections closed in fiscal year 1994 in which a

significant proposed penalty was assessed for OSHA violations.

In fiscal year 1994, the 261 federal contractors received $38 billion in

contract dollars, about 22 percent of the $176 billion in federal contracts of

$25,000 or more awarded that year.5

 Most of these contracts to violators

were awarded by the Department of Defense, with large amounts of

contract dollars also awarded by the Department of Energy and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Nearly 5 percent of these

261 federal contractors received more than $500 million each in federal

contracts. Many of the worksites where the violations occurred employed

500 or fewer workers and were engaged in manufacturing. Paper, food,

and primary and fabricated metals were among the products

manufactured.

The number and nature of the violations for which these 261 federal

contractors were cited, the fatalities associated with violations found in

the 345 inspections, and the high penalties assessed suggest that workers

were at substantial risk of injury or illness in some of these federal

contractors’ worksites. For 88 percent of the 345 inspections, OSHA

identified at least one violation that it classified as serious—posing a risk

of death or serious physical harm to workers. For 69 percent, it found at

least one violation that it classified as willful—situations in which the

employer intentionally and knowingly committed a violation. At the

worksites of 50 federal contractors, 35 fatalities and 85 injuries occurred.

Most of the violations (72 percent) were of general industry standards,

including failure to protect workers from electrical hazards and injuries

due to inadequate machine guarding. Actual penalties assessed for

violations in all 345 inspections totaled $10.9 million, and in 8 percent of

these inspections the contractor was assessed a proposed penalty of

$100,000 or more.

4

We considered the proposed penalty assessed by the compliance officer to have been significant if it

was $15,000 or more, regardless of the amount of the actual penalty agreed to when the inspection was

closed. An inspection is closed either because the employer accepted the citation or a contested

citation was resolved. The actual penalty is often less than the proposed penalty, but may be the same

if an employer accepted a citation or was refused a penalty reduction after contesting a citation.

Although these companies received federal contracts the year their OSHA inspection was closed

(fiscal year 1994), they may not have been receiving federal contracts when they were initially cited by

OSHA. Some of these federal contractors were cited as early as 1986.

5

The $38 billion in federal contracts were awarded to the parent companies of the violators. When

using the term federal contractor in this report, we are referring to the parent company.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Our analysis did not demonstrate, however, that all worksites owned by

these federal contractors were unsafe. Some contractors operated other

worksites that participated in an OSHA-sanctioned voluntary compliance

program because of their exemplary practices in workplace safety and

health. In addition, some of the violators we identified were very large

companies; unless safety and health violations were identified across

multiple worksites, a systemic compliance problem may not be indicated.

In an earlier report, we recommended that federal and state agencies

develop an information-sharing approach to facilitate the identification of

federal contractors who violate laws that protect workers’ rights to

bargain collectively.6

 Similarly, to improve safety and health compliance in

worksites operated by federal contractors, OSHA and contracting agencies

could develop policies and procedures to facilitate the exchange of

information that would increase the likelihood that a company’s safety and

health record is considered in decisions to award a contract or to debar or

suspend an existing contractor. The prospect of debarment or suspension

can provide impetus for a contractor to undertake remedial measures to

improve working conditions. OSHA could also emphasize the importance of

contractors’ complying with safety and health requirements by considering

whether and how an employer’s status as a federal contractor could be

used in setting priorities for targeting inspections.

Background Private sector companies receive billions of dollars annually in federal

government contracts for goods and services. Data from GSA show that

federal contracts valued at $25,000 or more totaled almost $176 billion in

fiscal year 1994. Approximately 22 percent of the labor force, 26 million

workers, is employed by companies with federal contracts and

subcontracts, according to fiscal year 1993 estimates of the Department of

Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Federal law and an executive order place greater responsibilities on

federal contractors compared with other employers in some areas of

workplace activity. For example, federal contractors must comply with

Executive Order 11246, which requires a contractor to develop an

affirmative action program detailing the steps that the contractor will take

and has already taken to ensure equal employment opportunity for all

workers, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In

6

In Worker Protection: Federal Contractors and Violations of Labor Law (GAO/HEHS-96-8, Oct. 24,

1995), we found that 80 firms that had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) had also

received over $23 billion in federal contracts awarded in fiscal year 1993. We used a similar matching

methodology in both reports. (See app. I.)

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

addition, the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act require the

payment of area-prevailing wages and benefits on federal contracts in the

service and construction industries, respectively. Recently, the

administration issued an executive order that would bar federal

contractors from receiving contracts if they hire permanent replacements

for striking workers and another executive order that would bar

contractors for hiring illegal immigrants.7

 Additionally, under the Contract

Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, Labor may debar contractors in the

construction industry for “repeated willful or grossly negligent” violations

of safety and health standards issued under the Occupational Safety and

Health Act.

Under federal procurement regulations, agencies may deny an award of a

contract or debar or suspend a contractor for a variety of reasons,

including failure to comply with safety and health standards. Before

awarding a contract, an agency must make a positive finding that the

bidder is responsible as defined in federal procurement regulations.8

 Also,

federal agencies can debar or suspend companies for any “cause of so

serious or compelling a nature that it affects the present responsibility of a

Government contractor or subcontractor.”9

 Debarred companies are not

allowed to receive federal contracts (or other forms of federal financial

assistance, such as grants and loans) for a period of time, generally not to

exceed 3 years. Suspended companies are temporarily disqualified from

receiving federal contracts or other forms of federal financial assistance.

In determining whether a federal contractor is responsible, agency

awarding and debarring officials could consider compliance with safety

and health standards.

To help foster consistency among agency regulations concerning

debarment and suspension, Executive Order 12549, issued in

February 1986, established the Interagency Committee on Debarment and

Suspension, which consists of agency representatives designated by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This committee meets monthly

and provides the opportunity for agency representatives (primarily

7

The validity of Executive Order 12954, barring federal contractors from hiring permanent

replacements, is the subject of continuing litigation. Most recently, it was struck down by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (74 F. 3d. 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). The court held that the

NLRA provision guaranteeing management’s right to hire permanent replacements during labor strikes

preempted the executive order. The Department of Labor has issued a press release stating that the

President is directing the Justice Department “to take all appropriate steps to have this decision

overturned.”

8

Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.1.

9

Federal Acquisition Regulation, Section 9.406-2(c).

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

debarring officials) to share information about companies that they are

either trying to debar or suspend or to bring into compliance with various

laws and regulations in order to avoid having to take an adverse

contracting action. At its monthly meetings, the committee also helps

interpret regulations on debarment or suspension issued by OMB. When

more than one agency has an interest in a particular federal contractor, the

Interagency Committee coordinates the assignment of lead agency

responsibility for any actions taken against that contractor.

GSA maintains the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) that tracks

firms awarded contracts of $25,000 or more in federal funding for products

and services. For fiscal year 1994, FPDS tracked information on 179,977

contracts totaling almost $176 billion. Although it is difficult to estimate

the number of federal contractors, GSA reports there may be 60,000 federal

contractors in that there are as many unique corporate identification

codes in FPDS.

10 FPDS contains a variety of information, including the

contractor’s name and location, agency the contract is with, principal

place of contract performance, and contract dollar amounts awarded. FPDS

does not contain information on contractors’ safety and health practices.

Most private sector firms—regardless of whether they are federal

contractors—must comply with safety and health standards issued under

the Occupational Safety and Health Act.11 The act was meant “to assure

safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women.” The

Secretary of Labor established OSHA in 1970 to carry out a number of

responsibilities under the act, including developing and enforcing safety

and health standards, educating workers and employers about workplace

hazards, and establishing responsibilities and rights for both employers

and employees for the achievement of better safety and health conditions.12

Even though OSHA has been in existence for 25 years, work-related illness

and injury remain a substantial problem. A total of 6,588 workplace

fatalities—on average, 18 fatalities a day—were reported to the Bureau of

10GSA uses corporate identification codes that are a derivative of the Dun & Bradstreet codes for

identifying companies. One code is for worksites, another for parent companies. In fiscal year 1995,

there were almost 60,000 unique codes for parent companies and over 70,000 unique codes for

worksites. However, this count by parent company may be on the high side because some of the larger

companies may have more than one parent code, particularly if their operations are diversified.

11The act covers most private sector employers and employees. Major exemptions include employees

of state governments and their political subdivisions, and workers engaged in industries, such as the

nuclear power industry, which are regulated by other federal agencies under other federal statutes.

12The act also authorized states to operate, with up to 50 percent federal funding, their own safety and

health programs, and 23 states have chosen to do so. OSHA, however, is responsible for approving

state programs and monitoring their performance to make sure they remain at least as effective as the

program operated by OSHA.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Labor Statistics in 1994, a 4-percent increase over 1993. In addition, a total

of 6.8 million injuries and illnesses were reported in 1994.13

OSHA cites employers for violations of standards covering a variety of

threats to workplace safety and health. Safety standards include those

designed to protect against workers falling from stairs or scaffolds

(walking-working surfaces); from injuries due to inadequate machine

guarding (machine guarding); and from electrical hazards (electrical).

Some standards (for example, excavations, underground construction, and

steel erection) protect against construction-related injuries. Health

standards protect against exposure to toxic substances such as lead,

asbestos, and bloodborne pathogens (referring to occupational exposures

to blood). There are also more generic informational standards relating to

the recording and reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses and for

informing employees about chemical hazards in the workplace.14 OSHA may

also cite employers for hazards not covered by any standard under Section

5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, referred to as the

General Duty Clause. This clause requires that employers furnish

employees a place of work “free from recognized hazards.” OSHA has relied

on the General Duty Clause, for example, to regulate employee exposure

to tuberculosis in the health care industry. OSHA has also relied on the

General Duty Clause to penalize companies for ergonomic hazards such as

cumulative trauma disorders, including lower back pain, carpal tunnel

syndrome, and tendinitis.

OSHA characterizes violations as other-than-serious, serious, willful, or

repeat, with civil penalties in specified increasing amounts for these

various types of violations. In addition, OSHA designates violations as

unclassified when companies make significant concessions to OSHA,

perhaps to avoid losing coverage under state workers’ compensation

programs or to minimize adverse publicity attached to violations as

originally classified. Additional penalties can be assessed either when a

company fails to abate a hazard or under OSHA’s “egregious” policy. Failure

to abate or correct a prior violation may bring an additional civil penalty

for each day that the violation continues beyond the prescribed abatement

13See Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries and Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, Bureau

of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (Washington, D.C.: 1994).

14For example, the Hazard Communication Standard requires employers to communicate to employees

information on the safe handling and use of chemicals present in the workplace.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

date.15 Under OSHA’s “egregious” policy, an employer is cited for each

instance of a particular violation—or for each worker exposed to a hazard.

Since initiated in 1986, this policy has resulted in penalties for some

inspections running into the millions of dollars. Although inspections in

which a company is cited in this fashion are not common, the number of

these inspections doubled from 8 in fiscal year 1994 to 17 in fiscal year

1995.

Table 1: Types of OSHA Violations

Type of violation Definition Penalty amount

Other-than-serious Direct and immediate relationship to worker safety

and health, even though hazardous condition

cannot reasonably be predicted to cause death or

serious physical harm

May be assessed up to $7,000

Serious Substantial probability that death or serious physical

harm could result

Up to $7,000

Willful Employer intentionally and knowingly commits a

violation

$5,000 to $70,000. Up to $250,000 for an individual,

or $500,000 for a corporation, and/or imprisonment

up to 6 months, if an employee dies and the

employer is convicted in a criminal proceeding

Repeat Violation found in current inspection is substantially

similar to one found in a prior inspection. The

inspection was conducted within 3 years of the final

order or abatement date of the previous citation,

whichever is later.

$5,000 to $70,000

Unclassified (also referred

to as Section 17

designation)

Typically a violation that was initially classified as

willful or repeat. In exchange for significant

concessions, a company may accept unclassified

violations, perhaps to avoid losing coverage under

state workers’ compensation programs or to

minimize adverse publicity attached to the violations

as originally classified.

Pays all or almost all of proposed penalty for initial

violation classification

OSHA is authorized to conduct workplace inspections to determine whether

employers are complying with safety and health standards, and to issue

citations and assess penalties when an employer is not in compliance. The

proposed penalty reflects an OSHA compliance officer’s judgment of the

nature and severity of violations. However, these proposed penalties are

often reduced. OSHA justifies such reductions as a means to get employers

to abate workplace problems quickly by avoiding the contesting of

15An employer can be assessed up to $7,000 for each day the employer fails to correct the violation for

which it was cited in a prior inspection. The distinction between failing to abate a hazard and a repeat

violation can be subtle. A company has failed to abate a hazard when an item of equipment or

condition previously cited has never been brought into compliance and is noted in a later inspection.

If, however, the violation had been corrected and then reoccurred, the subsequent occurrence is a

repeat violation.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

citations. If employers contest citations or proposed penalties, they do not

have to abate the cited hazard until the case is resolved, thereby leaving

workers unprotected.16 If cited for violations during an inspection, an

employer has 15 working days to either (1) accept the citation, abate the

hazards, and pay the penalties; (2) have an informal conference with local

OSHA officials and negotiate an informal settlement agreement; or

(3) formally contest the citation before the Occupational Safety and Health

Review Commission (OSHRC).17 After reviewing a contested citation, OSHRC

may affirm, vacate, or modify OSHA’s citations and proposed penalties.

Once the inspection is closed (either because the employer accepted the

citation or a contested citation was resolved), the penalty is referred to as

the actual penalty.18

OSHA targets a portion of its inspection resources toward facilities that may

be more hazardous to employees. OSHA has recently taken steps to revise

its inspection targeting priorities, in which employers in a certain industry

are currently treated alike regardless of their individual safety and health

performance. By integrating worksite-specific information, including

excessive rates of workplace injury and illness and a record of serious and

repeat violations, into its targeting procedures, OSHA hopes to enhance the

effectiveness of its enforcement system.

OSHA maintains a database that tracks all OSHA inspections. The Integrated

Management Information Systems (IMIS) database includes over 2 million

inspections from 1972 to 1995, with 72,950 closed inspections in 1994

alone in which the employer was cited for at least one violation. IMIS

includes such information as whether the inspections were performed by

OSHA or a state-operated program, penalty amounts (proposed and actual),

the type of violation (for example, serious, willful, or repeat), the

standards violated, whether fatalities or injuries occurred, and abatement

information. In addition, IMIS includes some data on the worksite

inspected, including the type of industry it is engaged in and the number of

16If, upon inspection, an imminent danger situation is found, OSHA will ask the employer to voluntarily

abate the hazard and to remove endangered employees from exposure. Should the employer fail to do

this, OSHA may seek a temporary restraining order from the courts so that the worksite can be shut

down immediately. An imminent danger is any condition where there is reasonable certainty that a

danger exists that can be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the

danger can be eliminated through normal enforcement procedures.

17OSHRC is an independent agency whose function is to resolve formal contests of OSHA citations and

penalties. A case is first assigned by the commission to an administrative law judge whose decision

may then be appealed to the commissioners themselves. A decision by the commissioners may be

further appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. When a citation or proposed penalty is contested, the

actual penalty assessed is decided by an administrative law judge or the commission.

18For clarity, we use the terms proposed and actual penalty instead of OSHA’s terminology of initial

penalty and current penalty.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

workers employed. This database does not contain information about

whether violators receive federal contracts.

A Total of 261 Federal

Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed

Penalties for Safety

and Health Violations

Federal contracts have been awarded to employers who have violated

occupational safety and health regulations. Restricting our analysis to only

those fiscal year 1994 inspections in which the company was assessed a

significant proposed penalty of $15,000 or more, we found 261 federal

contractors had violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act.19

Because some of the 261 federal contractors owned more than one

worksite, we identified a total of 345 inspections, representing 16 percent

of all inspections closed in fiscal year 1994 in which a significant proposed

penalty was assessed for OSHA violations (see fig. I.1). Key characteristics

of these violators, their federal contracts, and the specific standards

violated appear in appendixes II and III.

$38 Billion Awarded

Primarily From

Defense Department

These federal contractors received $38 billion in contracts in fiscal year

1994. Altogether, about 22 percent of the $176 billion in fiscal year 1994

contracts went to these 261 federal contractors (see fig. 1).20

19We considered a company to have been assessed a significant proposed penalty if the proposed

penalty for an inspection was $15,000 or more, regardless of the amount of the actual penalty agreed to

when the inspection was closed (either because the employer accepted the citation or a contested

citation was resolved).

20In reporting the contract dollars received by these violators, we are referring to the contracts

received by their parent companies. When using the term federal contractor in this report, we are

referring to the parent company. In many cases, the violator might be a division, or subsidiary of the

parent company, or have some other legal relationship with it. These totals likely underestimate the

number of violators and contracts they received because of the difficulties involved in the manual

matching procedure we used in this analysis. (See app. I.)

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Figure 1: Percent of All Federal

Contract Dollars That Went to

Companies Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties for OSHA

Violations, Fiscal Year 1994

22% • Violators ($38 billion)

78%•

Other Federal Contractors

($138 billion)

Note: Although contract awards are reported by the federal contractor (or parent company), the

violator might be a division, subsidiary, or have some other legal relationship with the federal

contractor.

The size of these federal contracts differed greatly. Over one-third of the

261 federal contractors assessed significant proposed penalties for OSHA

violations received less than $1 million each. Nearly 5 percent received

more than $500 million each in federal contracts in fiscal year 1994. These

12 companies were General Electric Co. ($8.7 billion); Lockheed-Martin

Corp. ($7 billion); Westinghouse Electric Corp. ($4.6 billion); United

Technologies Corp. ($2.8 billion); General Motors Corp. ($2.4 billion); The

Boeing Co. ($1.3 billion); Textron, Inc. ($1.2 billion); American Telephone

and Telegraph (AT&T) ($874 million); Fulcrum II Limited Partnership

($798 million); Dyncorp ($673 million); Exxon Corp. ($532 million); and

Tenneco Packaging, Inc. ($505 million).

Three-fourths of the $38 billion in contracts awarded in fiscal year 1994 to

these federal contractors that were assessed significant proposed

penalties for OSHA violations came from the Department of Defense. Within

the Department of Defense, the Air Force and the Navy awarded by far the

most contract dollars to violators ($11.8 billion and $9.6 billion,

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

respectively). In addition to the Department of Defense, large amounts of

contract dollars were awarded to violators by the Department of Energy

($5.8 billion) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ($1.2

billion).21 Other agencies that awarded more than $100 million in contracts

to violators include the Department of Agriculture ($382 million),

Department of Transportation ($365 million), GSA ($274 million),

Department of Justice ($242 million), and the Tennessee Valley Authority

($113 million). (See fig. 2.)

Figure 2: Agencies That Awarded

Contract Dollars to Federal

Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties for OSHA

Violations, Fiscal Year 1994

75% • Department of Defense

•15%

Department of Energy

•

3%

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

•

6%

Other

Note: Because of rounding, percentages do not total to 100.

21Similarly, the Department of Defense was the source of many contract dollars (67 percent) to all

federal contractors in fiscal year 1994. Department of Energy (10 percent) and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (6 percent) were the next largest sources of contract dollars to

all federal contractors.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties

Are Primarily in

Manufacturing

Industry and Are

Relatively Small

Over one-half of the 345 worksites (56 percent) penalized for safety and

health violations were engaged in manufacturing. An examination of the

violators’ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes shows that many of

these worksites manufactured paper, food, or primary and fabricated

metals. Although manufacturing is the industry in which most violators

were engaged, a significant percentage of worksites (18 percent) were

engaged in construction, and this is likely an underestimate because of the

difficulties we experienced verifying that worksites inspected in that

industry were part of the same company as the federal contractor. (See fig.

3.) (Difficulties we encountered verifying construction worksites are

explained in app. I.)

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Figure 3: Primary Industry of Worksite

of Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties for

OSHA Violations, Fiscal Year 1994

18% • Construction

• 8%

Food and Related Products

•

9%

Paper and Related Products

•

9%

Primary and Fabricated Metals

Industries and Products

30%•

Other Manufacturing

•16%

Transportation and Utilities

•

7%

Services

•

3%

Other

Manufacturing

Note: Other includes trade (wholesale and retail).

Many (68 percent) of the worksites where the violations occurred were

relatively small, employing 500 or fewer workers. Just over 15 percent of

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

the worksites were very small, employing 25 or fewer workers. (See fig. 4.)

Although few worksites employed large numbers of workers, the federal

contractors that own these worksites often employ large numbers of

workers and have numerous worksites throughout the country. Examples

of these include Boise Cascade Corp.; General Motors Corp.;

Georgia-Pacific Corp.; International Paper Co.; Sears Roebuck & Co.; and

the United Parcel Service Amer., Inc. (UPS). Some of these federal

contractors do billions of dollars in annual sales and employ hundreds of

thousands of workers. For example, UPS employs 285,000 workers

altogether, although most of the 24 worksites inspected employed fewer

than 1,000 workers. One UPS worksite, located in Twin Mountain, New

Hampshire, employed only 40 workers.

Figure 4: Number Employed at

Worksite of Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed

Penalties for OSHA Violations, Fiscal

Year 1994

Percent of 345 Inspections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 to 25 26 to

100

101 to

250

251 to

500

501 to

1,000

1,001 to

5,000

5,001 to

23,000

Number of Employees

16

21

17

14

12

17

2

Note: Because of rounding, percentages do not total to 100.

We were unable to determine whether a company’s contract activity

occurred at the same worksite where the company was cited for safety

and health violations. Data on the place of contract performance were not

specific enough to enable us to confirm whether or not the locations were

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

the same as where the OSHA inspections were conducted. It would have

been difficult to get companies to confirm whether or not they conducted

federal contract work at the particular worksite where the violations

occurred. This information might not be readily available or considered

confidential or proprietary. Finally, because the nature of some contract

work is so dispersed, with contract activity of some form occurring across

multiple worksites, it can be difficult for even the company to verify

exactly what activities at various worksites were supported by federal

contracts. However, it is possible, particularly given the size of some

federal contractors, that at least some violations occurred at worksites

other than those with contract activity.22 (See app. I.)

Inspections Showed

Substantial Risk of

Injury and Illness to

Workers at Some

Worksites

The number and nature of the violations for which these 261 federal

contractors were cited, the fatalities and injuries associated with

violations found in the 345 inspections, and the high penalties assessed

suggest that workers were at substantial risk of injury or illness in some

workplaces of these contractors. Nevertheless, some of these contractors

also operate worksites identified as exemplary with respect to safety and

health practices. In addition, the worksites associated with significant

proposed penalties represent a small percentage of the total worksites of

some contractors that are large companies.

Most of These Federal

Contractors Cited for

Serious and Willful

Violations

Most of the 345 inspections involved at least one violation that was serious

(88 percent), posing a risk of death or serious physical harm to workers, or

willful (69 percent) in which the employer intentionally and knowingly

committed a violation (see fig. 5).23 Included among these inspections

were three in which the contractor was cited under OSHA’s “egregious”

policy, situations where OSHA imposes larger total fines by citing the

company for every instance of that same violation or for each worker

exposed to a hazard.

22Although these companies received federal contracts the year their OSHA inspection was closed

(fiscal year 1994), they may not have been receiving federal contracts when they were initially cited for

OSHA violations. This is because the inspection may have occurred several years before the case was

resolved. Although all of these 345 inspections were closed in fiscal year 1994, 35 percent were opened

between fiscal years 1986 and 1992.

23Nineteen percent of the inspections also involved at least one violation that was unclassified.

Typically, the company’s violations were initially classified as willful or repeat. In exchange for

significant concessions, the company accepted unclassified violations, perhaps to avoid losing

coverage under state workers’ compensation programs or to minimize adverse publicity attached to

the violations as initially classified.

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Federal contractors were cited for repeat violations in 29 inspections

(8 percent). A repeat violation occurs when the company is cited for a

substantially similar violation in the current inspection within 3 years of

the final order or abatement date of the previous citation. In only one

inspection was a federal contractor assessed additional penalties for

failing to abate a hazard; that is, the company failed to correct the same

violation for which it was cited in a prior inspection. However, these

relatively low rates of citations for repeat violations and penalties for

failing to abate hazards may be a reflection of OSHA’s limited resources to

return to worksites it has inspected in the past. Only about 1 percent of all

fiscal year 1994 inspections were follow-up or monitoring inspections.24 In

addition, OSHA does not currently penalize employers for failing to provide

proof that the company has abated the hazard.25 As a result, OSHA has only

the employer’s statement that abatement has taken place unless a

follow-up or monitoring inspection is performed.

24Follow-up inspections are done to determine if previously cited violations have been corrected.

Monitoring inspections are done to ensure that hazards are being corrected whenever a long period of

time is needed to come into compliance.

25In Occupational Safety & Health: Options for Improving Safety and Health in the Workplace

(GAO/HRD-90-66BR, Aug. 24, 1990), we recommended that OSHA require employers to provide proof

of abatement. Although OSHA asks employers to provide documentation, such as invoices and

photographs, along with their statements that abatement has taken place, there is no penalty to

employers for failing to provide such evidence. To encourage more expeditious abatement, OSHA has

conducted a pilot project in which a company that abates a hazard before an inspection’s closing

conference receives a penalty reduction. OSHA officials said a new regulation will soon be issued

requiring better evidence from employers that they have abated workplace hazards.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Figure 5: Type of Violations for

Inspections Involving Federal

Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties, Fiscal Year 1994

Percent of 345 Inspections

0

20

40

60

80

100

Serious Willful Repeat

Type of Violation

88

69

8

Note: An inspection is included if at least one violation was of this type. A single inspection may

have violations of more than one type.

Examples of federal contractors cited for serious, willful, or repeat

violations or assessed additional penalties under OSHA’s “egregious” policy

or for failing to abate hazards follow:

• Bath Iron Works Corp. and Boise Cascade Corp. were the only contractors

assessed penalties under OSHA’s “egregious” policy. These two contractors

were also cited for a number of serious, willful, and repeat violations. Bath

Iron Works Corp., a shipbuilding and repair company, was cited for

violations of shipyard standards as well as standards for walking-working

surfaces, electrical work, and recording and reporting at its worksite in

Bath, Maine. Boise Cascade Corp., a manufacturer of wood and paper

products, was cited under OSHA’s “egregious” policy for violations in two

inspections at its paper mill in Rumford, Maine. This company violated

special industry standards for paper mills in one of these inspections as

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

well as standards for machinery and machine guarding, electrical work,

and recording and reporting.26

• International Paper Co., in one of six inspections in which this company

was assessed a significant proposed penalty, was cited in 1991 for 37

repeat violations at a paper mill in Moss Point, Mississippi. Among the

repeat violations, International Paper was cited for failing to protect its

workers from burns because of inadequately insulated steam pipes. The

company had been cited in 1988 for similar violations.27

• The Gunver Manufacturing Co. in Manchester, Connecticut, was assessed

additional penalties for failing to abate a machine-guarding hazard, among

other hazards. The first inspection took place in 1992; in two follow-up

inspections in 1993 and 1994, OSHA penalized Gunver for failing to abate

the hazards cited in the first inspection.

Thirty-Five Fatalities and

85 Injuries Associated With

Inspections of Federal

Contractors

At worksites of 50 federal contractors, 35 fatalities and 85 injuries

occurred.28 Fifty-five of the 85 injuries were serious enough for the worker

to be hospitalized. The accidents varied depending upon the nature of the

work. For example:

• Acme Steel Co. was cited for hazardous materials violations after one

worker died and another was hospitalized from exposure to blast furnace

gas due to an equipment failure at a steel mill in Chicago.

• Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemical, at an industrial chemicals worksite in

Martinez, California, was cited for violations of state standards requiring

protections against accidental discharge of liquid from above-ground

storage tanks and for failing to provide adequate extinguishing equipment.

One worker died and another was hospitalized due to chemical burns

when they mistakenly extracted a valve, releasing 80,000 gallons of acid

sludge from a storage tank.

26Although these inspections of Boise Cascade were closed in fiscal year 1994, they were conducted in

1989. Our study did not examine the extent to which companies changed their safety and health

practices in response to OSHA inspections. An OSHA official in the area office that had conducted the

inspections at Boise Cascade said that the company has made major improvements in its safety and

health practices since these earlier inspections, including significant reductions in its injury and illness

rate.

27International Paper is one of several federal contractors identified in this report that own worksites

extensively evaluated and found qualified to participate in OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program

(VPP) because of exemplary safety and health practices. However, the company’s VPP worksites do

not include this worksite, which was assessed significant proposed penalties for safety and health

violations.

28Factors other than a company’s OSHA violations may have contributed to some of these fatalities or

injuries, including misjudgments by the worker or the worker’s failure to follow company policies

regarding safety and health practices.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

• Clean Harbors of Kingston, Inc., was cited when a worker was asphyxiated

and died after coworkers were unable to retrieve him from a tank

containing chemical sludge when his air supply ran low. This refuse

collection and disposal facility in Providence, Rhode Island, was cited for

violating the General Duty Clause because of oversights in providing

rescue capability, inadequate ventilation, and failure to sample the air in

the confined space.

(Details of all inspections that involved fatalities and injuries are provided

in app. IV.)

Many Violations Cited

Were for Failing to Protect

Workers From Electrical

and Machine-Guarding

Hazards

Most of the violations (72 percent) were of general industry standards,

including failure to protect workers from electrical hazards (11 percent)

and injuries due to inadequate machine guarding (10 percent). (See fig. 6.)

Examples of federal contractors who violated electrical and

machine-guarding standards include the following:

• A Dunlop Tire Corp. worksite in Huntsville, Alabama, was cited for

inadequate machine guarding after a worker, who placed fabric on a

rotating cylinder, got caught in the machinery and died from asphyxia

after being wound up inside the fabric.

• At its Evansville, Indiana, worksite where refrigerators are made, the

Whirlpool Corp. was cited for inadequate machine guarding when a

worker’s hand and forearm had to be amputated after he got caught while

manually feeding coil through a mechanical power press.

• Exide Electronics Corp., at a worksite in Raleigh, North Carolina, where

transformers are produced, was cited for violating electrical standards,

when one worker was hospitalized due to electric shock while cleaning

consoles with liquid cleaners. The consoles were not disconnected from

the power supply.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Figure 6: Distribution of OSHA

Standards Violated in Inspections

Involving Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed

Penalties, Fiscal Year 1994

•

2%

General Duty Clause

• 7%

Recording/Reporting

10%•

Machine Guarding

11%•

Electrical

•

6%

Hazard Communication

45%•

Other General Industry

1%

Shipyards and Related

•

8%

Construction

•10%

All Others

General Industry Standards

(Figure notes on next page)

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Note: All others includes violations under state-operated programs when they are coded

differently than the federal standards.

Violations of construction industry standards represented 8 percent of all

violations, although this is likely an underestimate because of difficulties

we experienced verifying the ownership of worksites engaged in

construction (see app. I). Seven percent of all violations were related to

inadequate recording or reporting of occupational illness and injuries and

6 percent of violations involved the Hazard Communication Standard.

Only 2 percent of all violations involved the General Duty Clause, relied on

by OSHA when more specific standards are not applicable.

Dollar Amounts of Some

Penalties Are High

These 261 federal contractors were assessed a total of $24.1 million in

proposed penalties and $10.9 million in actual penalties.29 These penalties

represent about one-fourth of the proposed and actual penalties,

respectively, for all inspections closed during fiscal year 1994 in which the

company was assessed a significant proposed penalty.

Although most (76 percent) of all 345 inspections had a proposed penalty

between $15,000 and $50,000, the federal contractor was assessed an

especially high proposed penalty of $100,000 or more in 8 percent of these

inspections (see fig. 7). The 26 inspections in which the federal contractor

was assessed a proposed penalty of $100,000 or more in a single inspection

are identified in appendixes II and III.

29The proposed penalty reflects an OSHA compliance officer’s judgment of the nature and severity of

violations. Once the inspection is closed (either because the employer accepted the citation or a

contested citation was resolved), the penalty is referred to as the actual penalty.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Figure 7: Proposed Penalties for

Inspections Involving Federal

Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties for OSHA

Violations, Fiscal Year 1994

Percent of 345 Inspections

0

20

40

60

80

100

$15,000 to < $50,000

$50,000 to < $100,000

$100,000 or more

Total Proposed Penalties

76

17

8

Note: All proposed penalties in these 345 inspections were $15,000 or more because we

restricted our analysis to include only such inspections. Due to rounding, percentages do not total

to 100.

The average proposed penalty for all 345 inspections was about $70,000;

the average actual penalty for these inspections was about $32,000. The

actual penalties for many (63 percent) of the 345 inspections were less

than $15,000. In fact, the penalties in many of the 345 inspections were

reduced between 40 and 80 percent (see fig. 8). Proposed penalties were

reduced to nothing in six inspections of companies, including Amoco Gas

Co.; Boston University; C.H. Heist Corp.; Dynalectric; Fletcher Pacific

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Construction; and Frito-Lay, Inc. (one of its three inspections).30 In

contrast, the actual penalty for Morrison-Knudsen, Corp., Inc., cited for

violations committed on a bridge demolition project in New York City, was

higher than the proposed penalty. The company agreed to pay a higher

penalty in a settlement agreement in which its violations were changed to

unclassified.

Figure 8: Percent Reduction of

Proposed Penalty for Inspections

Involving Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed

Penalties, Fiscal Year 1994

Percent of 345 Inspections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

No reduction

1 to < 20

20 to < 40

40 to < 60

60 to < 80

80 to < 100

100 percent reduction

Percent Reduction

10

2

12

39

25

11

2

Note: In one of the inspections (not included in the figure above), the adjusted penalty was higher

than the proposed penalty. Because of rounding, percentages do not total to 100.

30Although the companies involved in these six inspections were assessed significant proposed

penalties, OSHA ultimately withdrew the citations and reduced penalties to zero. There are several

reasons why a penalty might be reduced to nothing. For example, on closer examination, OSHA might

decide that violations were incorrectly cited or that the company inspected was not the responsible

party. OSHA might have also failed to adequately document the violations in order to defend its case

should the company contest the violations, and thereby withdraws its citation. In some cases, there are

jurisdictional issues in which OSHA discovers after the investigation that it does not have authority to

cite the company. For example, the Amoco Gas Co. inspection involved the intrastate transportation of

gas over which OSHA later determined it did not have jurisdiction because this activity is regulated by

the state.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

Thirty-Nine Federal

Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed

Penalties More Than Once

for Violations at Different

Locations

Thirty-nine of the 261 federal contractors were assessed a significant

proposed penalty more than once in fiscal year 1994 for violations that

occurred at different worksites owned by or associated with the same

corporate parent company.31 Appendix V lists all contractors that were

assessed significant proposed penalties in more than one inspection

closed in fiscal year 1994. These companies can be large, with multiple

worksites across the country, and they sometimes have diversified

operations. Examples of these large companies are Boise Cascade Corp.;

General Motors Corp.; Georgia-Pacific Corp.; International Paper Co.;

Sears Roebuck & Co.; and UPS.

32

For example:

• General Motors Corp. was assessed significant proposed penalties for

safety and health violations in five different inspections in fiscal year 1994.

In four of these inspections, conducted at worksites in Ohio and

Oklahoma that manufacture motor vehicles, General Motors was cited for

violations of hazardous materials, personal protective equipment,

electrical work, and machine guarding, among other standards. General

Motors also owns Delco Electronics. A Delco facility in Oak Creek,

Wisconsin, that manufactures semiconductors and related devices, was

cited for lockout/tagout violations—referring to inadequate servicing and

maintenance that could lead to a worker injury through the unexpected

start-up of machinery. Being assessed significant proposed penalties in

multiple inspections could, in part, be explained by the size of the parent

company, General Motors Corp., which employs 711,000 workers, has

$138 billion in annual sales, and is organized into more than 50 different

divisions.

• Sears Roebuck & Co. was assessed significant proposed penalties for

safety and health violations at four different worksites. Three of the four

were automotive repair shops in Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts; the

other was a general merchandise store in Iowa. The Sears automotive

repair shops were cited for violations of the General Duty Clause as well

as standards for occupational noise exposure and hazard communication.

The merchandise store was cited for violations of standards for materials

handling and storage. Like General Motors Corp., Sears Roebuck & Co. is

also a large company, employing 249,000 workers with annual sales of

31In a few cases, it appears that the federal contractor was assessed a significant proposed penalty

more than once in fiscal year 1994 at the same worksite or at different worksites located in the same

city.

32Any of these companies may have had additional violations not reflected in this report if the

proposed penalty for the associated inspection was less than $15,000.

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

$50.8 billion. In addition to its retail operations and its automotive repair

division, Sears has other divisions and subsidiaries, including a savings

bank.

• With a total of 24 inspections in which it was assessed a significant

proposed penalty, UPS had more significant-penalty inspections closed in

fiscal year 1994 than any other contractor in our review. These 24

inspections occurred in facilities providing courier services, both by truck

and air, across 10 different states. In most of these inspections, UPS was

cited for failing to fully comply with a corporatewide settlement

agreement to improve its emergency response to hazardous conditions

created when packages are damaged while being transported.33 Because of

OSHA’s concern that UPS failed to fully implement the corporatewide

settlement agreement, a supplemental settlement agreement was reached

by the two parties.34 UPS is also a large company, with 285,000 workers and

annual sales of $17.7 billion.

Some Federal Contractors

Have a History of

Receiving Significant

Proposed Penalties on

OSHA Inspections

A review of prior-year inspection records of these federal contractors with

significant proposed penalties showed a number of additional inspections,

including some that also resulted in significant proposed penalties.

Because of omitted corporate identification numbers, we were only able to

retrieve prior inspection information for about one-half of the worksites at

which significant proposed penalties had been assessed for violations in

fiscal year 1994. Nevertheless, we found 221 prior inspections from 1987

through 1993. Nine percent of these worksites had been assessed a

proposed penalty of $15,000 or more in these prior inspections.

It is possible that there are additional significant-penalty inspections

among our 261 federal contractors that we could not retrieve because of

missing corporate identification codes. However, OSHA has taken actions to

33OSHA negotiates corporatewide settlement agreements to obtain formal recognition by the employer

of cited hazards and formal acceptance of the obligation to seek out and abate those hazards

throughout all workplaces under its control. If the company violates the terms of the agreement, OSHA

can initiate contempt proceedings through the courts.

34The supplemental settlement agreement was reached on Apr. 1, 1994. The supplemental agreement

called for an annual audit of at least 50 UPS facilities, among other things, in order to ensure that the

original corporatewide settlement agreement concerning hazardous materials (entered into by OSHA

and UPS on Feb. 27, 1992) is fully implemented. This original 1992 corporatewide settlement

agreement also required action by UPS in redesigning its injury and illness recordkeeping system in

order that, among other improvements, records can be identified by individual worksites.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

improve its collection of these codes for worksites inspected.35 A

corporate identification code would make it easier for OSHA or a

contracting agency to determine whether a company has a history of OSHA

violations and if violations have been committed across multiple facilities

or worksites owned by the same federal contractor.

Safety and Health Hazards

May Not Be Present at All

Worksites of Federal

Contractors

Although federal contractors were assessed significant proposed penalties

because of safety and health violations at some worksites, some of these

same contractors operated other worksites that have exemplary safety and

health practices. These are worksites that have been extensively evaluated

and found qualified to participate in OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program

(VPP). VPP worksites qualify on the basis of OSHA’s review of their

application to be a VPP participant and site visits in which OSHA determines

if the company maintains a comprehensive safety and health program.

These companies are rewarded for their demonstrated commitment to

safety and health by their worksite being excluded from OSHA’s inspection

lists. OSHA told us that at least three federal contractors we identified as

violators operated worksites (although not the worksites assessed

significant proposed penalties for violations) that were selected for the VPP

program.36

In addition, for some of the federal contractors we identified, the safety

and health violations may reflect a localized worksite compliance problem

rather than a systemic corporatewide compliance problem. For example,

large companies like General Electric Co., Westinghouse Electric Corp.,

United Technologies Corp., AT&T, and Exxon Corp., had only one worksite

that we identified because significant proposed penalties had been

assessed. These companies own many other worksites where there may

not be a safety and health compliance problem or, given OSHA’s limited

enforcement resources, where there may not have been recent

35OSHA has experienced difficulties collecting a corporate identification code, in part because some

companies do not have a number or supervisors at worksites inspected do not always know this code

or report it accurately. OSHA has tried to address this problem by automatically sending information

regarding the worksite inspected to Dun & Bradstreet (a private company that collects and

disseminates information about U.S. and foreign companies) in order to get an identification code for

the company that owns the worksite. OSHA is also experimenting with the use of tax identification

numbers to facilitate the cross-referencing of inspections of worksites owned by or associated with

the same company.

36These three federal contractors, and the worksites selected for the VPP program, are International

Paper Co. (Vicksburg, Mississippi, and East Point, Georgia), Georgia-Pacific Corp. (Warrington,

Georgia), and Chevron Corp. (Bay Town, Texas). Because VPP participants are selected by worksite,

exemplary practices may not be in evidence at all of a company’s worksites. OSHA staff told us that

none of the 345 worksites where the federal contractor was assessed significant proposed penalties for

OSHA violations were also participants in VPP.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

inspections, in which case no information exists to determine if there is a

compliance problem.

Options to Improve

Federal Contractor

Compliance With

Safety and Health

Regulations

To improve federal contractor compliance, one option is to develop

policies and procedures regarding the exchange of information between

OSHA and contracting agencies to increase the likelihood that a company’s

safety and health record will be considered in contracting decisions. The

first option is similar to our recommendation in an earlier report that

agencies develop an information sharing approach to facilitate the

identification of federal contractors who violate laws that protect workers’

rights to bargain collectively. A second option is for OSHA to consider

giving inspection priority to those high-hazard workplaces operated by

companies with federal contracts.

Agency Awarding and

Debarring Officials Can

Use Safety and Health

Compliance Information in

Contracting Decisions

Before awarding a contract, an agency must make a positive finding that

the bidder is responsible as defined in federal procurement regulations.

Although this determination primarily focuses on prior contract

performance and the financial integrity of a prospective contractor, the

agency must also make an affirmative determination that the company is

qualified to receive contract awards under applicable laws and

regulations, which could include the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Similarly, federal agencies can debar or suspend companies for any “cause

of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects the present

responsibility of a Government contractor or subcontractor.”

Even though federal agencies may deny the awarding of contracts or debar

contractors for many different reasons, it appears this authority is rarely

exercised for safety and health violations.37 Aside from the inherent

interest of federal agencies in finding or keeping the contractor who is

either the lowest bidder or has a history of providing these goods and

services to the agency, awarding and debarring officials rarely exercise

this authority in part because they lack information as to which

contractors are OSHA violators. GSA officials, including members of the

Interagency Committee on Debarment and Suspension, which monitors

the implementation of debarment and suspension procedures, told us that

agency awarding and debarring staff do not routinely receive information

37Available data did not permit us to determine how many contractors were suspended or debarred for

safety and health violations. Although GSA publishes a “List of Parties Excluded From Federal

Procurement and Non-Procurement Programs” each month, which identifies the cause for debarment

for each company listed, failure to comply with OSHA is not a distinct category among possible

causes.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

about contractors who have violated OSHA regulations. GSA officials also

said safety and health information was not routinely collected by agency

contract officers when they conduct their pre-award survey to determine

whether or not a prospective contractor is responsible.

Members of the Interagency Committee told us that the prospect of being

debarred or suspended can provide an impetus for a contractor to

undertake remedial measures to improve workplace safety and health

conditions. Agency debarment and suspension staff could work with the

contractors, perhaps with technical support provided by OSHA, to help

bring a contractor into compliance, thereby avoiding disruption to the

contracting arrangement. GSA officials and Interagency Committee

members stressed the importance of maintaining agency discretion in

contracting decisions and urged that debarment or suspension for safety

and health violations not be mandated.38

Although our analysis did not include companies receiving other forms of

federal financial assistance, such as grants and loans, GSA officials and

Interagency Committee members said that safety and health violations

should also be considered in debarment or suspension decisions for these

companies since these forms of assistance total to large amounts of

federal dollars.39 Federal assistance in the form of grants alone accounted

for $225 billion in fiscal year 1995. State and local governments, through

which federal grants are distributed, may contract with companies to carry

out a wide range of work, including welfare and health care services as

well as highway, airport, mass transit, and sewage treatment plant

construction. GSA officials and Interagency Committee members said that

workers employed by these companies should also be protected from

workplace safety and health hazards.40 However, as is the case with direct

federal contracts, agency officials often lack information as to which

38According to members of the Interagency Committee, if information regarding OSHA violations was

provided to debarring officials, they would be obligated to review it.

39Under the OMB common rule for governmentwide debarment and suspension for nonprocurement,

companies involved in transactions funded by federal nonprocurement activities may be debarred or

suspended for any “cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects the present responsibility

of [the company],” which could include safety and health violations. Federal nonprocurement

activities include grants, cooperative agreements, contracts of assistance, loans, and loan guarantees.

40For example, several fatalities associated with safety violations occurred on the Chicago Tunnel and

Reservoir Plan project, a federal wastewater treatment construction project funded during the 1970s

and 1980s with over $1.2 billion in federal grants. After a notice of proposed debarment was issued to

one of the federal contractors involved, a compliance agreement with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency was reached in which the company agreed to take corrective actions and thereby

avoid debarment. EPA coordinated with OSHA to ensure that the compliance agreement was

implemented.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

companies receiving these other forms of federal financial assistance also

have OSHA violations.

Under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA), OSHA

also has authority to debar companies specifically for safety and health

violations.41 However, OSHA has not exercised this authority in the past and

it appears unlikely that it will increase its exercise of this authority in the

future. Although agency officials said they consider debarment when

particularly serious violations are committed by a company they can

identify as a federal contractor, they prefer to rely on remedies available

under the Occupational Safety and Health Act because litigation costs are

lower and they can obtain quicker abatement of the hazard.

Information can be made available to increase the likelihood that agency

officials will make decisions regarding contracts and other forms of

federal financial assistance that might improve contractor compliance

with OSHA regulations. However, policies and procedures regarding the

exchange of information between OSHA and contracting agencies need to

be developed.42 In developing these policies and procedures, a number of

issues would need to be resolved. These include the following:

• Identifying the inspection information regarding violations that OSHA could

provide that would facilitate action by agency awarding and debarring

officials. Given the large number of federal contractors violating OSHA

regulations, there is a danger that excessive or irrelevant information

would be generated and transmitted, resulting in a potential administrative

burden on both OSHA and awarding and debarring officials within the

agencies. OSHA could avoid this problem by developing criteria identifying

those federal contractors with exceptionally poor safety and health

records and transmitting information only on those companies to

awarding and debarring officials. OSHA and the contracting agencies would

also have to decide the type and level of detail of information that should

be provided regarding these violators and the nature of their violations.

• Developing the logistics of how OSHA, GSA, the Interagency Committee, and

agency awarding and debarring officials could share information. Whether

violation information should be provided immediately after any inspection

of a contractor in which exceptionally poor safety and health practices are

41Additionally, Labor has authority to debar companies for safety and health violations under other

statutes such as the Service Contract Act and the Walsh-Healey Act.

42In Worker Protection: Federal Contractors and Violations of Labor Law (GAO/HEHS-96-8, Oct. 24,

1995), we recommended that the National Labor Relations Board, to facilitate violators reimbursing

aggrieved employees for any back wages owed, work with GSA to develop a similar

information-sharing approach to identify federal contractors with labor violations.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

indicated or whether it should be provided at regular intervals for all

companies that meet these criteria based on their inspections over a

certain period of time needs to be determined. OSHA might choose to work

with GSA to determine which of its violators are federal contractors or it

may consider leaving this determination to the Interagency Committee or

awarding and debarring officials within the agencies. OSHA might also

provide information on violators directly to individual agencies with whom

the violators contract. Another alternative would be to have either GSA or

the Interagency Committee, depending on their relative level of resources,

act as a clearinghouse of safety and health compliance information for

awarding and debarring officials at all the agencies. As a clearinghouse of

compliance information, GSA or the Interagency Committee would need to

come up with a strategy for disseminating this information about

companies to the appropriate contract awarding and debarring official. If

safety and health violations are also going to be considered in debarment

or suspension decisions for companies receiving other forms of federal

financial assistance (for example, grants and loans), this dissemination

strategy would need to include those agency officials who manage these

other assistance programs. Finally, regular communication between OSHA

and agency debarring officials regarding violations of federal contractors

might be facilitated if OSHA had a representative participate in the monthly

meetings of the Interagency Committee.

• Enabling contracting agencies to interpret and use this information

effectively. OSHA and agency contract officers could explore how agencies

might use the awarding of federal contracts as a vehicle to encourage

companies to take more affirmative steps (for example, develop a

worksite safety and health program, or participate in voluntary

compliance efforts) to improve workplace safety and health.43 GSA officials

and the Interagency Committee members stressed the importance of

agency discretion in contracting decisions and that debarment or

suspension for safety and health violations should not be mandated. While

preserving this discretion, agencies could work with OSHA to develop some

kind of guidance as to how to interpret the safety and health records of

federal contractors to determine whether or not a contracting action is

warranted and, if so, what type of action is warranted. Such guidance, for

example, could help agency debarring officials to identify those instances

where it might be more appropriate to work with a contractor to facilitate

compliance instead of debarring or suspending that contractor. Such

situations might vary across agencies and contract type. In addition, OSHA

and the contracting agencies might want to determine the kind of

43OSHA has issued voluntary “Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines,” which contract

awarding officials within each agency could encourage bidders and existing federal contractors to

adopt.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

technical support, if any, OSHA could provide to help agencies in their

efforts to bring a contractor with a poor safety and health record into

compliance.

• Helping contracting agencies determine how closely tied to federal

contract dollars the worksite with violations must be to warrant taking an

adverse contract action. Sometimes a safety and health problem might be

localized or confined to a specific worksite. Thereby, taking a contract

action against the federal contractor might be appropriate only if that

particular worksite receives contract dollars. On the other hand, a

systemic corporatewide compliance problem may be indicated if there are

violations across many worksites owned by or associated with the same

federal contractor. In such cases, a contracting action against the company

as a whole may be appropriate. However, if the operations of a large

company are very diverse, compliance efforts for a safety and health

problem in one part of the company might have little relevance to other

parts of the company where safety problems, if there are any, might be

very different.

OSHA Could Give

Inspection Priority to

High-Hazard Workplaces

Operated by Federal

Contractors

OSHA might improve contractors’ safety and health compliance by giving

inspection priority to those high-hazard workplaces operated by

companies receiving federal contracts. For example, a company might be

more willing to abate hazards and pay penalties quickly if it is made aware

that contracting actions could be taken against it. OSHA has recently

launched an initiative to improve its inspection targeting system so that

instead of treating employers in a certain industry alike, OSHA will focus its

resources on specific worksites where employers ignore safety and health

regulations and put their employees at risk.44 The rationale is to increase

the likelihood that its limited resources will be spent inspecting worksites

more likely to have hazards. Following the principle of placing greater

responsibility on federal contractors for compliance with laws and

regulations, OSHA could consider adding to its criteria for targeting

inspections the presence of contract dollars. If a company’s worksite, for

example, were already identified by OSHA’s targeting system because of

meeting hazard-related criteria, OSHA might want to make sure to inspect

44OSHA’s current inspection priority system gives first priority to inspections of imminent danger

situations, fatalities or catastrophes (referring to at least one fatality and the hospitalization of three or

more workers), referrals from the media or other government agencies, and complaints from workers.

Second priority is given to programmed inspections, which are initiated by OSHA. Programmed

inspections are scheduled as follows: (1) construction inspections that are selected randomly among

larger, active construction sites, (2) nonconstruction safety inspections that are selected using lists of

employers in industries with high injury rates, and (3) nonconstruction health inspections using lists of

employers in industries with a history of noncompliance with OSHA health regulations.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

such a worksite if the company also received federal contracts. In

considering whether to do so, OSHA would have to address several issues:

• The appropriateness, from a policy standpoint, of including federal

contract status among criteria it considers in prioritizing inspections.

• The amount of emphasis to give to this criteria and how to combine it with

others (OSHA might want to consider this only after the worksite already

met OSHA’s hazard-related criteria because of, for example, a high number

of injuries or illnesses or a history of violations).

• How closely tied to federal contract dollars must the worksite be to

warrant an inspection because it is a federal contractor. (For example, is it

necessary that federal dollars are being awarded to this worksite or only

that the company which owns this worksite is receiving federal contract

dollars?)

Conclusions The federal government awarded $38 billion in federal contracts during

fiscal year 1994 to at least 261 corporate parent companies that owned

worksites where there were safety and health hazards. Although unaware

of their contractor status, OSHA identified these compliance problems

through its ongoing enforcement efforts and maintains information

regarding the nature of the violations, the fatalities and injuries associated

with the violations, and the penalties assessed.

Many federal agencies across government already have the authority to

debar or suspend federal contractors for the violation of safety and health

regulations. The prospect of debarment or suspension can also provide

impetus for a contractor to undertake remedial measures to improve

workplace conditions. Agencies could use the awarding of federal

contracts as a vehicle to encourage companies to take more affirmative

steps (for example, develop a worksite safety and health program, or

participate in voluntary compliance efforts like Maine 200)45 to improve

workplace safety and health. Given the complexity of federal procurement

regulations and processes and individual agencies’ familiarity with the

specific companies and contracts involved, they are probably in a better

position than OSHA to make each contracting decision. However, agency

awarding and debarring officials have not taken actions against

contractors for safety and health violations at least partially because they

did not have the information to determine which federal contractors have

45In 1993, OSHA initiated a pilot program, referred to as Maine 200, in which OSHA invited 200

companies in Maine with the highest number of injuries to conduct self-inspections to identify

workplace hazards and to develop worksite safety and health action plans. In return for such

participation, OSHA would give these companies its lowest inspection priority.

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

violated safety and health regulations, even when they have been assessed

high penalties for willful or repeat violations or cited under OSHA’s

“egregious” policy.

The considerable number of federal contractors with OSHA violations, even

in the single year we examined, suggests that policies and procedures

should be developed to facilitate the exchange of information between

OSHA and agency awarding and debarring officials to help improve federal

contractor compliance. Also, contractors might be more attentive to their

safety and health practices if OSHA were to give inspection priority to those

high-hazard workplaces operated by federal contractors.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary

for Occupational Safety and Health to

• develop and implement policies and procedures, in consultation with GSA

and the Interagency Committee on Debarment and Suspension, for how

safety and health records of federal contractors could be shared to better

inform agency awarding and debarring officials in their decisions

regarding contracts in order to improve workplace safety and health.

• develop policies and procedures regarding whether and how it will

consider a company’s status as a federal contractor in setting priorities for

inspecting worksites.

• assess the appropriateness of extending these policies and procedures to

cover companies receiving other forms of federal financial assistance,

such as grants and loans.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the Department of

Labor, GSA, and the Interagency Committee on Debarment and Suspension.

Labor noted that our findings reflected positively on OSHA’s enforcement

efforts because the companies we identified as receiving federal contracts

were already being cited for violations at some worksites under OSHA’s

existing compliance program. Labor stated that federal contractors, like

other employers, have a responsibility for providing employees with a safe

and healthful workplace. Labor also agreed that the exchange of

information between OSHA and GSA could make additional compliance

strategies available to OSHA at the worksites of federal contractors and

could be consistent with OSHA’s effort to reinvent its enforcement policies

and procedures.

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

However, Labor officials also suggested that our recommendation

regarding the exchange of information on inspections and contracts be

directed to GSA because they believe that GSA is in a better position to

affect agency contracting actions. Officials expressed greater concern

about our recommendation to use federal contractor status as one

criterion in OSHA’s prioritizing of inspection resources. Labor officials said

that the report does not provide evidence that federal contractors have a

worse compliance record than other employers. Because OSHA’s inspection

targeting program, consistent with the administration’s National

Performance Review (NPR),46 is intended to focus OSHA’s limited

enforcement resources toward worksites where the greatest safety and

health hazards exist, introducing the criterion of whether or not a

company received federal contracts could divert resources toward

worksites with less serious hazards.

Although coordination among all parties is necessary, we directed our

recommendations to Labor because we believe that OSHA is the appropriate

starting point for the initiation and development of any information

exchange on federal contracts and OSHA inspections. OSHA is the primary

federal agency responsible for workplace safety and health and it

maintains detailed information on the inspections conducted throughout

the nation, including the nature and severity of the violations detected. In

contrast, although GSA maintains information on federal contracts, the

contracting function itself is diffused among many individual agencies and

departments. Therefore, our recommendations recognize GSA as

instrumental in facilitating the sharing of information between OSHA, which

maintains the safety and health compliance information, and agency

awarding and debarring officials, who can use this information in their

contracting decisions.

Regarding Labor’s concerns about OSHA’s allocation of its inspection

resources, we acknowledge that including federal contractor status as an

additional criterion in OSHA’s prioritization of inspections raises several

issues, including its appropriateness from a policy standpoint and how

such a criterion would be operationalized. However, we view the use of

federal contractor status as a criterion to be implemented in addition to

and not in lieu of other criteria identifying high-hazard workplaces. We

also recognize that Labor, upon conclusion of its review, may determine

that federal contractor status should play only a minor role in OSHA’s

prioritization of resources. In addition, given our requesters’ interests and

46NPR, under the direction of the Vice President, is a major management reform initiative by the

administration and is intended to identify ways to make the government work better and cost less.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

the formidable data limitations facing such an analysis, we did not seek to

assess federal contractors’ overall compliance record as compared with

other employers. Instead, we sought to determine whether companies

receiving federal contracts had also been assessed significant proposed

penalties for safety and health violations. Our finding that 16 percent of all

the significant-penalty inspections closed in fiscal year 1994 involved

federal contractors suggests that the inclusion of contractor status as a

priority criterion could enhance OSHA’s ability to ensure safe and healthful

working conditions for U.S. workers.

Officials from GSA and members of the Interagency Committee on

Debarment and Suspension also generally agreed with the report’s findings

and concurred that information on OSHA inspections of firms receiving

federal contracts would be useful to agency awarding and debarring

officials’ decisions. Members of the Interagency Committee also suggested

that having an OSHA representative participate in the monthly meetings of

the Interagency Committee would be very useful to the entire

information-sharing process.

Although GSA officials and Interagency Committee members believe that

the recommendation regarding the exchange of information has merit,

they said that the report appears to confuse the roles that OSHA, GSA, the

Interagency Committee, and agency awarding and debarring officials

would play in its implementation. These officials believe that the report

places too much responsibility for the safety and health compliance of

federal contractors on GSA and the Interagency Committee. On such

matters, they believe that only OSHA has sufficient expertise to implement a

health and safety compliance program. They stated that officials involved

in awarding contracts or debarring contractors have little technical

expertise in OSHA compliance matters and would not be knowledgeable

about the appropriate remedial measures that, in the OSHA context, would

be sufficient.

In addition, although GSA officials and Interagency Committee members

agreed that they can help disseminate OSHA inspection information, they

have few resources to perform other more elaborate tasks such as the

dissemination of detailed OSHA compliance information. Interagency

Committee members, in particular, said that they lack staff and

administrative support that would be necessary for it to serve as a

clearinghouse of OSHA contractor compliance information. Interagency

Committee members also stated that the committee’s authority is limited

to coordinating the assignment of lead agency responsibility when more

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

than one agency has an interest in a particular contractor and it cannot

assign this responsibility. Finally, because the Interagency Committee is

composed only of debarring officials, it has no direct link to awarding

officials that could limit its role in facilitating the flow of violation

information to agency contract officers.

GSA officials and Interagency Committee members also pointed out that

debarment and suspension actions, because they can have a serious

impact on a contractor’s business life, can provide an impetus for a

contractor to take remedial measures. However, they stated that it would

be inappropriate and run counter to procurement regulations to use

debarment or suspension to threaten a contractor, even one with an

egregious safety record.47 To further clarify the roles of OSHA and other

parties on this matter, GSA officials suggested that an appropriate sequence

implementing this recommendation would be for OSHA to establish with the

contractor the appropriate compliance program and then provide

information on the case to the contracting agency’s debarring official for

review of the contractor’s overall responsibility.

We did not specify the precise roles that OSHA, GSA, and other parties

should play in facilitating the exchange of information because we

believed that it was best that the flexibility be available to ensure that any

arrangement developed would minimize the burden for all parties.

However, we agree with GSA officials and members of the Interagency

Committee that OSHA should be the primary agency concerned with health

and safety regulatory compliance. We also believe that GSA and the

Interagency Committee are better positioned than OSHA to identify which

violators receive federal contracts and to help disseminate information on

OSHA inspections to federal awarding and debarring officials throughout

the government. Awarding and debarring officials within the individual

agencies, after review of OSHA inspection information, would then be able

to make more informed decisions. Under such a procedure, agency

discretion could be preserved so that awarding and debarring officials

could provide the appropriate impetus for improvement to federal

contractors while avoiding unnecessary procurement disruptions. We also

note that, in all cases, OSHA would not be precluded from using its own

authority to cite employers for violations, monitor abatement efforts, or

take other available actions.

47See Federal Acquisition Regulation, section 9.402(b), which states: “The serious nature of debarment

and suspension requires that these sanctions be imposed only in the public interest for the

Government’s protection and not for purposes of punishment.”

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
B-270418 

We also agree that debarment or suspension should not be used as a

means to punish individual contractors and the report does not

recommend this. Instead, agencies could use OSHA inspection information

to ensure that they comply with the requirement in federal procurement

regulations that agencies contract only with firms that are responsible—in

compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the

Occupational Safety and Health Act. As GSA officials note, the prospect of

debarment or suspension because of corporate irresponsibility can

provide the impetus for a contractor to undertake remedial measures to

eliminate workplace hazards that could cause employees injury or illness,

thus improving the protection afforded to them.

Labor, GSA, and the Interagency Committee also provided us with technical

suggestions, which we incorporated where appropriate in the final report.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary

of Labor, the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, the

Administrator of GSA, the Chairman of the Interagency Committee on

Debarment and Suspension, the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget, relevant congressional committees, and interested parties. We

also will make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call

Charlie Jeszeck, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7036 or Jackie Baker

Werth, Project Manager, at (202) 512-7070.

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Page 39 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

44

Appendix II 

Characteristics of the

Inspections and

Contracts of 261

Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties

56

Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal

Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed

Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

89

Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries

Associated With

Inspections Involving

50 Federal

Contractors

126

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Contents

Appendix V 

Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties in

More Than One

Inspection Closed in

Fiscal Year 1994

136

Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

142

Related GAO Products 144

Tables Table 1: Types of OSHA Violations 8

Table II.1: Characteristics of the Inspections and Contracts of 261

Federal Contractors

57

Table III.1: OSHA Standards Violated by 261 Federal Contractors 90

Table IV.1: Fatalities and Injuries Associated With Inspections

Involving 50 Federal Contractors

126

Table V.1: Federal Contractors Assessed Significant Proposed

Penalties in More Than One Inspection Closed in Fiscal Year 1994

136

Figures Figure 1: Percent of All Federal Contract Dollars That Went to

Companies Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties for OSHA

Violations, Fiscal Year 1994

11

Figure 2: Agencies That Awarded Contract Dollars to Federal

Contractors Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties for OSHA

Violations, Fiscal Year 1994

12

Figure 3: Primary Industry of Worksite of Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties for OSHA Violations,

Fiscal Year 1994

14

Figure 4: Number Employed at Worksite of Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties for OSHA Violations,

Fiscal Year 1994

15

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Contents

Figure 5: Type of Violations for Inspections Involving Federal

Contractors Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties, Fiscal Year

1994

18

Figure 6: Distribution of OSHA Standards Violated in Inspections

Involving Federal Contractors Assessed Significant Proposed

Penalties, Fiscal Year 1994

21

Figure 7: Proposed Penalties for Inspections Involving Federal

Contractors Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties for OSHA

Violations, Fiscal Year 1994

23

Figure 8: Percent Reduction of Proposed Penalty for Inspections

Involving Federal Contractors Assessed Significant Proposed

Penalties, Fiscal Year 1994

24

Figure I.1: Reasons for Eliminating Inspections to Identify Those

Involving Companies That Received Federal Contracts

48

Figure I.2: Inspections Involving Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by Type of Inspection, Fiscal Year

1994

52

Abbreviations

AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph

CEC contractor establishment code

CWHSSA Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act

FPDS Federal Procurement Data System

GSA General Services Administration

IMIS Integrated Management Information System

NLRA National Labor Relations Act

NPR National Performance Review

OFCCP Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHRC Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

ULTICEC ultimate contractor establishment code

UPS United Parcel Service Amer., Inc.

VPP Voluntary Protection Program

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Page 43 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to (1) determine how many companies receiving federal

contracts have also been assessed penalties for violations of occupational

safety and health regulations, (2) describe the characteristics of these

contractors and their contracts, (3) describe the kinds of violations for

which these contractors were cited, and (4) identify ways to improve

contractor compliance with workplace safety and health requirements.

The scope of our work included the following:

• Matching violation data from OSHA’s database of inspection results (IMIS)

with a database of federal contractors maintained by GSA for fiscal year

1994, referred to as the FPDS. We restricted our analysis to those OSHA

inspections that were closed in fiscal year 1994 in which the proposed

penalty assessed by the OSHA compliance officer was what we defined as

significant, regardless of the amount of the actual penalty recorded when

the inspection was closed. We considered the proposed penalty assessed

by the compliance officer to have been significant if it was $15,000 or

more.

• Verifying by telephone that the company listed in IMIS was the same

company (or owned by the same parent company) listed in FPDS.

• Analyzing FPDS for the dollar value of the fiscal year 1994 contracts

received by the violator or its parent company and the federal agencies

that awarded the contracts.

• Analyzing IMIS for characteristics of the violations and the worksites

inspected.

• Meeting with compliance staff at OSHA and with federal contracting

officials at GSA and other agency experts in procurement.

Matching Violation

Data Against Federal

Contract Data

Background on Databases The IMIS database includes over 2 million inspections from 1972 to 1995,

and over 100,000 were closed in fiscal year 1994 alone. IMIS includes such

information as to whether or not the inspections were performed by OSHA

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

or a state-operated program, penalty amounts (proposed and actual),48 the

type of violation (for example, serious, willful, or repeat), the standards

violated, whether fatalities or injuries occurred, and abatement

information. In addition, IMIS includes some data on the worksite

inspected, including the industry it is engaged in and the number of

workers.49

IMIS is structured so that key inspection data (with a unique identifier,

referred to as the activity number) are contained in the stem and more

detailed data in segments. The violation segment, for example, includes

information on specific violations for which the worksite was cited and

the types of violations committed (serious, willful, and repeat). Another

segment, referred to as the accident segment, includes details on, among

other things, the number of workers injured and degree of injury.

In capturing violation data, violations are often grouped together when

they are related. For example, detailed violations in which the employer

was cited for inadequate locks to secure machines and failure to perform

periodic inspection of machinery could be grouped together under the

primary violation of lockout/tagout. Lockout/tagout refers to a number of

requirements for the maintenance of machines and equipment to protect

against their starting up unexpectedly. Similarly, when reporting actual

penalties, we accumulated only those penalties attached to the primary

member of a group of violations (including penalties for individual

violations only if they were not members of a group).

In fiscal year 1994 alone, FPDS tracked information on 179,977 contracts

and 477,648 contract actions, totaling $176 billion.50 FPDS contains a variety

of information, including the contractor’s name and location, contract

amounts awarded, agency the contract is with, principal place of contract

performance, and products and services provided.

48In IMIS, a proposed penalty is referred to as an initial penalty; an actual penalty is referred to as a

current penalty. A proposed penalty refers to an OSHA compliance officer’s judgment of the nature

and severity of violations. An actual penalty refers to the penalty once the inspection is closed (either

because the employer accepted the citation or a contested citation was resolved). The actual penalty is

often less than the proposed penalty, but may be the same if an employer accepted a citation or was

refused a penalty reduction after contesting a citation.

49IMIS uses the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes—a federal classification system—in

order to describe the type of industry each worksite is engaged in. Worksites can be divided into 11

major classifications—such as construction, manufacturing, and services.

50This database compiles information on contracts valued at $25,000 or more from Individual Contract

Action Reports (SF 279) completed by staff in the contracting agency. GSA also tracks contract awards

under $25,000 in a separate database capturing only summary information, which is referred to as the

Summary Contract Action Report (SF 281). We did not include this database of smaller contract

awards in our analysis.

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Restricting Analysis to

IMIS Inspections in Which

Company Assessed

Significant Proposed

Penalties

To determine which federal contractors were OSHA violators, we matched

IMIS with the FPDS. We chose to restrict our matching process to

inspections resulting in proposed penalties of at least $15,000 (regardless

of the amount of the actual penalty recorded when the inspection was

closed). The proposed penalty is the penalty issued by OSHA in the original

citation and reflects the compliance officer’s judgment of the nature and

severity of violations. We restricted the matching process in this way so

that

• we would include in our analysis only those companies whose safety and

health violations resulted in proposed penalties that we defined as

significant, and

• a manually matching procedure would be feasible. A manual process was

necessitated because of missing corporate identification codes in IMIS,

which precluded an automated matching procedure. Only by limiting the

size of one of the two databases, IMIS in this case, was a manual matching

process possible.

Discussions with OSHA officials, including IMIS specialists, helped us

identify ways to limit the size of IMIS. We decided to use only one fiscal

year of inspection data (1994) for cases that had already closed because

we would be certain that the actual penalty and disposition of any

inspection would not change. We also applied several other conditions,

including that at least one violation was cited.51

A proposed penalty is a compliance officer’s judgment of the nature and

severity of violations and, according to OSHA officials, is a better reflection

of the seriousness of the citations than actual penalties because actual

penalties are a product of other factors such as negotiations between OSHA

and the company to encourage quicker abatement of workplace hazards.

The criteria of $15,000 or more in proposed penalties resulted in a total of

2,113 inspections. This, we determined, would be a small enough number

of inspections to feasibly match against the larger FPDS. These 2,113

inspections represent only 3 percent of all closed fiscal year inspections.

We referred to these inspections as those in which the company was

assessed significant proposed penalties for OSHA violations.

51These additional conditions reduced the number of inspections closed in fiscal year 1994 from

112,913 to 72,950. These conditions include eliminating inspections that were scheduled but did not

actually occur because the company went out of business. Also eliminated were worksites included in

IMIS because they were covered by a corporatewide settlement agreement even though these

particular worksites had not actually been inspected.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Manual Matching

Procedure

A manual matching procedure was necessitated by missing corporate

identification codes in IMIS for many of the establishments inspected,

precluding an automated matching procedure. IMIS includes a field for a

company’s Dun & Bradstreet code. However, at the time that we initiated

this review, the Dun number was provided in only 20 percent of the 72,950

inspections closed in fiscal year 1994.52

We manually compared each company name among the selected 2,113

inspections in IMIS with the larger FPDS, identifying those company names

which were identical or nearly identical. Because companies may split up,

merge, subcontract, operate subsidiaries, or change names, the company

might have appeared under different names in the IMIS and the FPDS and

thereby escaped our detection.

Through manual matching, we identified 499 inspections (nearly

one-fourth of the 2,113 inspections) in which the company names were

identical or nearly identical. We eliminated some of these 499 inspections

either because our telephone verification revealed that the company listed

in IMIS was not the same company as listed in FPDS or because we were

unable to verify the match. A total of 345 inspections, involving 261 federal

contractors, resulted because some of the federal contractors owned more

than one inspected worksite. This represents 16 percent of all 2,113

inspections closed in fiscal year 1994 in which a significant proposed

penalty was assessed for OSHA violations. How cases were eliminated is

described below. (See fig. I.1.)

52OSHA has experienced difficulties collecting this number, in part because some companies do not

have a Dun & Bradstreet number or supervisors at worksites inspected do not always know this

number or report it accurately. OSHA has tried to address this problem by automatically sending

information regarding the worksite inspected to Dun & Bradstreet in order to get an identification

number for the company that owns the worksite. OSHA is also experimenting with the use of tax

identification numbers to facilitate the cross-referencing of inspections of worksites owned by or

associated with the same parent company.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Figure I.1: Reasons for Eliminating

Inspections to Identify Those Involving

Companies That Received Federal

Contracts

76% • Not Identified as Federal

Contractor Through Manual

Matching

•

4%

Not a Federal Contractor per

Telephone Verification

•

3%

Unable to Verify

•16%

Violators Receiving Federal

Contracts (345 Inspections)

Note: Because of rounding, percentages do not total to 100.

Verifying by

Telephone That

Federal Contractor

and OSHA Violator

Are the Same

Company

To ensure that a company listed in IMIS was the same company (or owned

by the same parent company) as the company listed in FPDS, we

telephoned the worksite where the OSHA violations occurred.53 We verified

that the company name and worksite locations, identified in both

databases, referred to the same company or were owned by the same

parent company. If there was more than one worksite under the same or

identical name in IMIS (indicating that violations may have occurred at

different worksites owned by or associated with the same parent

company), we verified that all these worksites were owned by the parent

company. We also asked the contact to provide the parent company name

or, if a parent company name was included in FPDS, to verify that name.

53If we could not find a telephone number for this location, we telephoned the company at a location

provided in FPDS.

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We eliminated from our matched companies those for which the telephone

call revealed that the company listed in IMIS was not the same company as

listed in FPDS (83 worksites representing 4 percent of the 2,113

inspections). We also eliminated companies (71 worksites representing

3 percent of the 2,113 inspections) because we were unable to verify the

match for a variety of reasons. Some companies went out of business or

relocated, or the location information in IMIS or FPDS was either incomplete

or inaccurate. We also eliminated worksites when we were told they were

organized as a franchise and the parent company exercised little oversight

over the franchised worksites. The greatest portion of worksites that we

could not verify were engaged in construction (52 percent). We believe

that because worksites in this industry are often temporary—existing only

for the duration of a construction project—the employer, in our telephone

contacts, could not always recall if such a worksite existed when the

inspection was conducted.

The 345 inspections of worksites verified as being owned by federal

contractors include 65 that we decided did not require telephone

verification because the company names and worksite locations in IMIS and

FPDS matched exactly.

Analyzing FPDS We analyzed FPDS for the dollar value of the fiscal year 1994 contracts

received by the corporate parent companies of the violators. Therefore,

when referring to a federal contractor in our report, we are referring to the

parent company. For the 345 matched companies, we used only variations

of the company name and worksite locations that were verified by

telephone to retrieve fiscal year 1994 contract information from the FPDS.

54

This was a conservative approach to ensure that we were not attributing

more contract dollars to that company than were verified.55

We found it necessary to report federal contract award data for violators

by parent company for several reasons:

54We used corporate identification codes that corresponded with these verified company names and

worksite locations to actually retrieve contract information in FPDS. GSA uses corporate identification

codes that are a derivative of the Dun & Bradstreet codes for identifying companies. GSA relies on two

sets of numbers: (1) contractor establishment codes (CEC), referring to a contractor’s worksite and

(2) ultimate contractor establishment codes (ULTICEC), referring to the ultimate parent company of

the contractor. We retrieved all contract data by the ULTICEC corresponding to variations of the

company name and worksite locations that were verified. In this way, we ensured that federal contract

data for each violator were comprehensive by parent company.

55We dropped those locations we could not verify unless the corporate identification number was the

same as that for a location that we were able to verify.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• First, FPDS data did not enable us to confirm whether a company’s contract

activity occurred at the same worksite where the company was cited for

safety and health violations. FPDS data on principal place of performance

include city and state information but not a street address, which is

needed to confirm a match to the worksite level. Also, the location that

receives the largest dollar share of the contract is listed as the principal

place of performance. Moreover, if the place of performance cannot be

determined, the contractor’s billing location is used instead.

• Second, it would have been difficult to get companies to confirm whether

or not they conduct federal contract work at the particular worksite where

the violations occurred. This information might not be readily available or

might be considered confidential or proprietary.

• Third, the nature of some contract work is so dispersed (for example,

interstate transportation of freight), with contract activity of some form

occurring across multiple worksites, that it would have been difficult for

even the company to verify exactly what activities at various worksites

were supported by federal contracts. Even when focusing our analysis on

the agency from which most contract dollars were awarded to a particular

company, there were often many corresponding places of performance

and products and services provided to this agency.

The 345 inspections involved 261 federal contractors because some federal

contractors owned more than one inspected worksite. For each of the 261

federal contractors, we checked to ensure that any corporate

identification code was not shared by another federal contractor we had

verified as a violator. If there was a shared corporate identification code,

we made sure that we had confirmed, during our telephone verifications,

that these worksites were owned by the same federal contractor to

preclude double counting contract awards.

Using FPDS, we examined total contract dollars awarded by each federal

agency. We also ran a distribution of contract dollars to determine the

number of federal contractors by the size of contract awards. We did not

determine the extent to which OSHA violators were federal subcontractors

(companies who receive a portion of the contract award through a primary

federal contractor) with violations because we could not identify

subcontractors.

Analyzing IMIS We analyzed IMIS for characteristics of the violations cited in these

inspections. We ran distributions on a number of data fields, tabulating the

data by the 345 matched inspections where possible, or the 5,121

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

violations associated with these inspections if the data did not lend

themselves to presentation by inspection.56

Even though all of these 345 inspections were closed in fiscal year 1994,

many may have been conducted years before. Some inspections can take

many years to resolve. Only 20 percent of the 345 inspections were opened

and closed within fiscal year 1994, 45 percent were opened in fiscal year

1993, and 35 percent were opened in fiscal years 1986 through 1992. As a

result, a company may not have been receiving federal contracts at the

same time that it violated the act. Another limitation to this review is that

companies may have changed their safety and health practices,

particularly if a long time has elapsed between the opening and closing of

an inspection. This means that worksites with poor safety and health

practices when the inspection was opened may have improved their

practices by the time the inspection was closed, as a result of the

inspection or other factors.

Employee complaints were the most common reason these 345

inspections were conducted (41 percent). Programmed inspections, which

include inspections in construction and other high-hazard industries, were

the next most common (27 percent) reason given for inspections.

Fatalities or catastrophes (referring to at least one fatality and the

hospitalization of at least three workers) led to 13 percent of these

inspections. The other 9 percent of inspections included follow-up

inspections to determine if previously cited violations had been corrected

and monitoring inspections to ensure that hazards were being corrected

whenever a long period of time was needed to come into compliance.

Referrals from any source, including media reports, led to 9 percent of

these inspections. Although OSHA’s first priority for conducting an

inspection is if there is an alleged imminent danger situation,57 none of our

345 matched inspections was conducted for this reason. (See fig. I.2.)

56The 5,121 violations include only the primary violation, if several violations are grouped together, and

individual violations, if they are not members of a group.

57Imminent danger refers to any condition where there is reasonable certainty that a danger exists that

can be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately. If it is decided that the case has

merit, the OSHA area director will assign a compliance officer to conduct an immediate inspection of

the workplace.

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Figure I.2: Inspections Involving

Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by

Type of Inspection, Fiscal Year 1994

41% • Employee Complaint

27%•

Programmed

13%•

Fatality or Catastrophe

•

9%

Referral

•

9%

Other

Note: Because of rounding, percentages do not total to 100.

We discovered some inconsistencies in accident data when comparing

different sources of data.58 The primary source of accident data is in the

IMIS accident segment, providing data on the number of workers killed or

injured and the degree of injury, among other information. However,

investigation summaries, referring to accident abstracts submitted by OSHA

compliance officers, referred to fatalities or injuries not always recorded

in the accident segment. In addition, some violations were coded in a

special manner to indicate that they were related to a fatality or

catastrophe, yet there was not a corresponding accident segment or

58Reasons for these discrepancies, according to OSHA staff, include changing definitions for

catastrophe (during fiscal year 1994, the definition changed from five or more to three or more

hospitalized injuries); different criteria that state-operated programs use in determining whether to

report fatalities or injuries; workers for the subcontractor, not the contractor, were affected; and data

input errors.

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

investigation summary. We reconciled these inconsistencies by conducting

follow-up telephone calls to the OSHA area offices that had conducted the

inspection. In many of these inspections, a fatality or injury had occurred.59

The results of these follow-up calls are reflected in the number of fatalities

and injuries and in the descriptions of the accidents, which occurred at the

worksites of 50 federal contractors.

We performed a special tabulation for types of violations. Because the

types of violations (serious, willful, repeat, and unclassified) are captured

not by inspection but by violations only, our special tabulation involved

developing counts by inspection when there was at least one violation of

that particular type. We also performed a special tabulation to determine

how many inspections involved additional penalties assessed under OSHA’s

“egregious” policy and the specific standards violated.60 We also ran data

for all worksites to determine whether a company had been penalized for

failing to abate a hazard.

We ran distributions of penalties, both of total proposed penalties and

total actual penalties for our 345 inspections.61 To capture the degree to

which proposed penalties were reduced, we ran a distribution of the

percentage difference between each proposed and actual penalty. Finally,

we ran distributions by standards violated, focusing on those standards in

which the greatest number of violations in these 345 inspections fell.

We chose not to report the disposition of inspections, referring to the level

of review at which a contested inspection was resolved—formal

settlement agreement, administrative law judge decision, or by OSHRC

commissioners’ decision. After requesting copies of decisions from OSHRC

59In a few inspections, the fatalities or injuries occurred before the inspection and were recorded in the

worksite’s injury and illness log. The inspector included these fatalities and injuries in his or her

investigation summary because they were directly related to the violations for which the company was

cited. We have included these fatalities and injuries in our totals.

60Under its “egregious” policy, OSHA issues separate penalties for each instance of a violation—or for

each worker exposed to a hazard—rather than levying a single penalty. This policy, according to OSHA

officials, has helped create a deterrent by allowing OSHA to levy penalties that are high enough to have

an economic effect on the company. However, this policy is currently being challenged in several key

cases. For example, in Secretary of Labor v. Arcadian Corp., OSHRC ruled that the Secretary of Labor

does not have the authority under the General Duty Clause to cite separate violations for each

employee exposed to a hazard. Labor, however, has appealed this case to the federal court. Arcadian

Corp. was cited following the catastrophic failure of a reactor in a fertilizer plant.

61The average penalties for these 345 inspections ($70,000 proposed penalty; $32,000 actual penalty)

were higher compared with average penalties for all fiscal year 1994 cases—in which $3,004 was the

average proposed penalty and $1,517 was the average actual penalty. This is because we restricted our

analysis to inspections with significant proposed penalties. Penalties for federal OSHA inspections

tend to be higher than for inspections by state-operated programs—$2,446 for federal OSHA compared

with $810 for state-operated programs in actual penalties.

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

on those inspections in which violations were coded as being resolved by

its commissioners, we found that many of these cases had actually been

resolved before reaching this level of review by an administrative law

judge’s decision.62 We found disposition coding errors of this nature

among inspections conducted by both federal OSHA and state-operated

programs. However, we did review all administrative law judge decisions

in the federal OSHA cases to make sure that the types of violations reported

and the actual penalties for which the company was assessed accurately

reflected the review by the administrative law judge.63

We also used IMIS to characterize the worksite where the inspection

occurred. OSHA staff told us that the more reliable data on the number of

employees was the number at the worksite.64 We also ran a distribution on

the primary industry the worksite was engaged in, relying on SIC codes

captured for each worksite. We used more detailed codes within the SIC

classification system when reporting on individual worksites. To describe

the federal contractors (or parent company) that own the worksites

inspected, we gathered number of employees and annual sales data for

selected companies—those that were assessed significant proposed

penalties in more than one inspection closed in fiscal year 1994.65

OSHA staff helped us to determine whether some of the worksites owned by

federal contractors that had been assessed significant proposed penalties

had a history of violations. OSHA staff, using corporate identification codes

for worksites inspected, performed a search of IMIS to retrieve prior-year

inspections at these same worksites. Because of missing corporate

identification numbers, OSHA was only able to retrieve prior-year

inspection information on about one-half (197) of the worksites. We ran a

distribution by proposed penalty to determine if some of these prior

inspections resulted in significant proposed penalties of $15,000 or more.

We also asked OSHA staff to review our list of 261 federal contractors who

own worksites with safety and health violations to determine whether any

62We also conducted follow-up telephone calls to OSHA area offices to confirm this.

63In only one inspection did we find that the administrative law judge decision was not reflected in

IMIS data. Therefore, when reporting information about this individual company, we indicated that

these violations had been changed to unclassified by an administrative law judge’s decision. However,

we included the types of violations as recorded in IMIS (before they were changed by the

administrative law judge’s decision) in our totals for all violators.

64The number of workers affected by the inspection and the number of workers controlled by the

employer nationally are also captured in IMIS. However, several OSHA staff told us these data were

less reliable.

65For this purpose, we referred to Series 1995 Million Dollar Directory, Dun & Bradstreet (Bethlehem,

Penn.: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 1995).

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

of their 345 inspections were criminally prosecuted by OSHA66 or,

conversely, whether any of these federal contractors were participants in

OSHA’s VPP because of exemplary safety and health practices. While OSHA

staff determined that none of the 345 inspections was criminally

prosecuted, they reported to us that some of these federal contractors did

have worksites (other than those assessed significant proposed penalties

for safety and health violations) that were VPP participants.

Exploring Ways to

Improve Compliance

To explore ways to improve compliance of federal contractors with OSHA,

we met with OSHA officials in the Directorate of Compliance Programs,

because of their enforcement responsibilities, and Labor’s Office of the

Solicitor. We also met with contracting officials at GSA and the Interagency

Committee on Debarment and Suspension, which coordinates suspension

and debarment activities governmentwide. We also met with computer and

technical staff in OSHA headquarters as well as officials in its San Francisco

regional office.

We conducted our work from July 1995 to July 1996 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

66An employer can be penalized up to $250,000 ($500,000 if a corporation) and sentenced to 6 months’

imprisonment for the willful violation of a standard when the violation causes the death of an

employee.

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Table II.1 provides key characteristics of inspections and contracts of the

261 federal contractors assessed significant proposed penalties for

violations of safety and health regulations. Our definition of a significant

penalty is a proposed penalty of $15,000 or more regardless of the size of

the actual penalty recorded when the inspection was closed (either

because the employer accepted the citation or a contested citation was

resolved). The proposed penalty is the penalty issued by OSHA in the

original citation and reflects the compliance officer’s judgment of the

nature and severity of violations, while the actual penalty may be the

product of other factors such as negotiations between OSHA and the

company to encourage quicker abatement of workplace hazards. Because

some of these 261 federal contractors own more than one worksite

inspected, a total of 345 inspections appear in the table. In reporting fiscal

year 1994 contract dollars, we are referring to the federal contractor (or

parent company), which is identified if it is different from the name of the

worksite where the violations occurred. The violations may have occurred

at only one worksite or facility, possibly within a division or subsidiary, of

the federal contractor and not necessarily where the contract activity was

performed.

Inspection information includes the location of the worksite inspected and

the activity number of the inspection that is assigned in IMIS. We have

provided both the proposed and actual penalties. We have reported those

standards violated that are associated with the highest actual penalty as

well as standards that reportedly contributed to a fatality or injury when

different than the former. In summarizing the fatality or injury, we referred

to investigation summaries submitted by OSHA compliance officers or

follow-up calls to local OSHA offices when other data in IMIS indicated an

accident had occurred but no summary was available. To provide selected

characteristics of violations, we reported whether violations included at

least one violation that was willful, repeat, or serious and whether the

company was assessed penalties under OSHA’s “egregious” policy or for

failing to abate a hazard.

If a proposed penalty of $100,000 or more was assessed for safety and

health violations (which was the case in 26 of these inspections), an

asterisk appears by the activity number of the inspection. If an inspection

was conducted by a state-operated safety and health program (which was

the case in 71 of these inspections), a special symbol (✝) appears by the

activity number of the inspection.

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Table II.1: Characteristics of the Inspections and Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

A.H.A. General Construction ($1,180,000 in contracts)

New York, NY

(106934086)

$22,050 ($12,000) Demolition 5 workers were hospitalized due

to fall when floor of building,

which was not shored or braced,

collapsed during demolition.

Serious

A.A.R. Engine Component Services (A.A.R. Corp.; 46,224,000 in contracts)

Frankfort, NY

(018154542)

33,000 (15,750) Hazardous materials Repeat; serious

A.B.B. Combustion Engineering Nuclear (A.B.B. A.S.E.A. Brown Boveri, Ltd.; 100,882,000 in contracts)

Newington, NH

(108781816)

20,775 (15,900) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Acme Steel Co. (Acme Metals, Inc.; 310,000 in contracts)

Chicago, IL

(103451274)

83,000 (62,250) Means of egress;a hazardous

materials; personal protective

equipment; general environmental

controls; lockout/tagout;b toxic

and hazardous substances

1 worker died, another was

hospitalized, from exposure to

blast furnace gas due to

equipment failure at a steel mill.

Repeat; serious

Alamo Transformer Supply Co. (2,000 in contracts)

Houston, TX

(107489593)

30,000 (9,500) Hazardous materials;

compressed gas and air

equipment; machinery and

machine guarding; welding,

cutting, and brazing; electrical

Serious

Albany International Corp. (214,000 in contracts)

East Greenbush, NY

(109053272)

38,250 (25,000) Lockout/tagout 1 worker was hospitalized and

died 4 days later after being

crushed in a weaving loom at this

textile plant.

Willful; serious

Alcan Toyo America (Toyo Aluminum KK; 512,000 in contracts)

Lockport, IL

(108719063)

16,750 (9,000) General duty clause; personal

protective equipment

1 worker died from burns when a

mixer containing aluminum

powder exploded at this primary

metals production plant.

Serious

Alder Construction Co. (18,811,000 in contracts)

Boise, ID (107232167) 20,500 (20,500) General safety and health

provisions; fire protection and

prevention; occupational health

and environmental controls;

personal protective and lifesaving

equipment

1 worker died due to a propane

explosion when he entered a

confined space, where the

atmosphere had not been tested,

with a lighted torch.

Serious

All American Poly Corp. (13,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Dunellen, NJ

(114039639)

52,000 (20,000) Hazardous materials Willful; serious

All-Steel, Inc. (B.T.R. PLC; 41,816,000 in contracts)

Montgomery, IL

(102997434)

22,500 (10,000) Personal protective equipment Willful; serious

West Hazleton, PA

(018226225)

26,000 (13,000) Hazardous materials Serious

Allied Tube and Conduit (Tyco International, Ltd.; 17,697,000 in contracts)

Philadelphia, PA

(017999095)

22,800 (8,700) Occupational health and

environmental control

Serious

Philadelphia, PA

(018253054)*

137,500 (40,000) Machinery and machine guarding 3 workers lost fingers or parts of

fingers, and a fourth worker

fractured several fingers. Their

fingers were either crushed or cut

by machinery at this electric

wiring facility. A fifth worker was

hospitalized after being pinned

between a forklift and a parking

cart.

Willful; repeat;

serious

Harvey, IL

(103453387)

20,700 (12,000) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Aluminum Co. of America (4,785,000 in contracts)

Massena, NY

(106991326)

59,850 (26,910) Materials handling and storage;

machinery and machine guarding

Serious

Rockdale, TX

(123431298)

15,000 (10,000) General duty clause 1 worker died after he was

crushed inside of a truck that he

operated for this metal smelting

and refining plant. The truck ran

off the road and rolled upside

down, in part because his vision

was obstructed due to the truck’s

design.

Serious

Amcor, Inc. (C.R.H. PLC; 342,000 in contracts)

Nampa, ID

(110517984)

20,000 (11,000) Lockout/tagout Repeat; serious

Amoco Gas Co. (Amoco Corp.; 400,000 in contracts)

Texas City, TX

(107491433)

37,500 (0) All deleted 9 workers were hospitalized for

burns due to an explosion of a

natural gas pipeline.

The Arbors at Fairmont (Arbor Health Care Co.; 948,000 in contracts)

Fairmont, WV

(101176626)

22,950 (3,475) Bloodborne pathogens Serious

Arco Alaska, Inc. (Atlantic Richfield Co.; 239,137,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Prudhoe Bay, AK

(105867964)✝

15,000 (7,500) Process safety management;c

standards of state-operated

program

1 worker was hospitalized and 4

other workers were injured due to

a flash fire in a tank. Sparks from

a welding or cutting operation

ignited gases in a pipe that was

inadequately purged at this

petroleum and natural gas facility.

Serious

Asplundh Tree Expert Co. (1,284,000 in contracts)

Columbia, MD

(119539898)✝

64,950 (18,000) Electrical 2 workers were hospitalized due

to contact with a light pole that hit

high-voltage lines when they were

reinstalling it for this power line

construction company.

Serious

AT&T Communications (AT&T; 873,855,000 in contracts)

Danforth, ME

(109797910)

15,750 (4,875) Special industries Serious

Avondale Industries, Inc. (111,789,000 in contracts)

Westwego, LA

(110344983)

22,300 (9,189) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

B.R. Group, Inc. (57,000 in contracts)

Orange, MA

(102861978)*

214,000 (50,000) Machinery and machine guarding Willful; serious

Baldt, Inc. (94,000 in contracts)

Chester, PA

(102842192)

19,500 (1,000) Lockout/tagout; materials

handling and storage; electrical;

hazard communication standard

Serious

Ball Corp. (65,956,000 in contracts)

Columbus, OH

(103343000)

35,000 (25,000) Machinery and machine guarding

Basler Electric Co. (373,000 in contracts)

Corning, AR

(107705931)

30,650 (9,975) Occupational health and

environmental control

Serious

Bath Iron Works Corp. (Fulcrum II Limited Partnership; 797,629,000 in contracts)

Bath, ME

(101450336)*

3,816,900

(580,000)

Electrical Egregious;

willful; repeat;

serious

Batson-Cook Co. (797,000 in contracts)

Tampa, FL

(109609776)

33,500 (21,775) Construction; fall protection Serious

Baxter Health Care Corp. (Baxter International, Inc.; 12,421,000 in contracts)

Carolina, PR

(119461473)✝

22,000 (22,000) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

(continued)

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Textron, Inc.; 1,201,959,000 in contracts)

Hurst, TX (103375663) 20,000 (5,000) Electrical 1 worker was killed and another

hospitalized due to overexposure

to sulfuric acid in a confined

space.

Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co. (14,749,000 in contracts)

Mobile, AL

(107011207)

65,050 (33,023) Electrical Serious

Berning Construction, Inc. (93,000 in contracts)

Detroit, OR

(123776262)✝

15,075 (7,575) Construction; standard of

state-operated program

Willful; serious

Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1,729,000 in contracts)

Sparrows Point, MD

(119517068)✝

55,000 (55,000) Walking-working surfaces Serious

Sparrows Point, MD

(104383815)✝

17,590 (8,190) Walking-working surfaces Repeat; serious

Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. (17,000 in contracts)

Paterson, NJ

(109043141)

16,500 (10,000) Walking-working surfaces; means

of egress; hazardous materials;

lockout/tagout; machinery and

machine guarding

Serious

Fairfield, NJ

(101484780)

40,000 (14,750) Lockout/tagout Willful; serious

Bizzack, Inc. (4,500,000 in contracts)

Logan, WV

(116242512)

18,000 (6,500) Construction Serious

Blaze Construction Co. (2,208,000 in contracts)

Pinon, AZ

(002331478)

45,200 (24,574) Construction Repeat; serious

Many Farms, AZ

(002331486)

67,500 (31,776) Excavationsd Willful; repeat;

serious

Blue Bell Creameries USA, Inc. (103,000 in contracts)

Brenham, TX

(123419905)

16,200 (8,625) Personal protective equipment;

electrical

Serious

Boeing (The Boeing Co.; 1,287,941,000 in contracts)

Defense and Space

Group 

Ridley Park, PA

(018253047)

83,225 (43,100) Machinery and machine guarding Repeat; serious

(continued)

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Commercial Aircraft

Co. 

Everett, WA

(115506081)✝

57,700 (26,200) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Boise Cascade Corp. (400,000 in contracts)

Rumford, ME

(103392247)*

984,900 (476,100) Special industries; electrical Egregious;

willful; serious

Rumford, ME

(102753969)*

602,700 (273,900) Occupational health and

environmental control; hazardous

materials

Egregious;

willful; repeat;

serious

Horseshoe Bend, ID

(110502895)

82,000 (7,000) Materials handling and storage Serious

Rumford, ME

(109793901)

21,200 (9,200) General duty clause;

walking-working surfaces;

machinery and machine

guarding; electrical

Serious

Boston University (of Boston University Trustees; 7,667,000 in contracts)

Boston, MA

(109124131)

18,925 (0) All deleted

Bowman Apple Products Co., Inc. (148,000 in contracts)

Mt. Jackson, VA

(105754790)✝

35,850 (9,250) Means of egress Serious

Brown & Root (Halliburton Co.; 302,113,000 in contracts)

Deer Park, TX

(123652505)

20,000 (5,000) Process safety management;

personal protective equipment

1 worker died, 2 workers were

hospitalized, due to gas exposure

while doing maintenance work on

a pipeline for this special trades

contractor.

Serious

Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (5,623,000 in contracts)

Corpus Christi, TX

(103579934)

18,700 (8,260) Lockout/tagout Serious

Burns & Roe Services Corp. (Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.; 103,403,000 in contracts)

Greenport, NY

(108664475)

25,500 (12,750) Hazard communication standard Serious

Burron Medical, Inc. (B. Braun Melsungen A.G.; 228,000 in contracts)

Allentown, PA

(123264145)

52,850 (28,650) Toxic and hazardous substances Serious

C.H. Heist Corp. (534,000 in contracts)

Oregen, OH

(110294584)

30,000 (0) All deleted

Campbell Soup Co. (12,053,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Tecumseh, NE

(109323105)

52,000 (26,000) Means of egress; lockout/tagout Serious

Cargill Inc. (Tyson Foods, Inc.; 139,924,000 in contracts)

Buena Vista, GA

(106514169)

15,300 (9,180) Toxic and hazardous substance;

hazard communication standard

1 worker was injured when he

mixed together unmarked

chemicals that subsequently

exploded. The worker was

cleaning at this poultry

processing facility.

Serious

Center Core, Inc. (CenterCore Group; 7,575,000 in contracts)

Plainfield, NJ

(113942155)

16,200 (9,720) Recording and reporting Serious

Centric Jones Construction (Centric Jones Co.; 15,041,000 in contracts)

Aurora, CO

(100748813)

16,650 (6,250) General duty clause Serious

Century Concrete Services, Inc. (1,315,000 in contracts)

Richmond, VA

(123658890)✝

21,000 (8,875) Fall protection Serious

Certified Coatings (Certified Coatings of Cal; 260,000 in contracts)

Ogden, UT

(124620931)✝

29,125 (13,250) Lead; construction Repeat; serious

Chevron USA (Chevron Corp.; 250,851,000 in contracts)

Port Arthur, TX

(123653255)

18,850 (6,100) Bloodborne pathogens Serious

Children’s Hospital Medical Center (170,000 in contracts)

Cincinnati, OH

(102592094)

21,250 (7,000) Hazard communication standard Serious

Chomerics, Inc. (Parker Hannifin Corp.; 1,117,000 in contracts)

Hudson, NH

(108781717)

18,000 (9,125) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Chrysler Motors Corp., K (Chrysler Corp.; 314,074,000 in contracts)

Kenosha, WI

(102347218)*

106,600 (27,553) Machinery and machine

guarding; lockout/tagout

Serious

Cincinnati Milacron Resin Abrasion (Cincinnati Milacron, Inc.; 2,968,000 in contracts)

Carlisle, PA

(109025502)

18,000 (9,310) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Clean Harbors of Kingston, Inc. (Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.; 456,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Providence, RI

(017945213)*

156,000 (60,000) General duty clause 1 worker died because his

co-workers were unable to

retrieve him from a tank

containing a chemical sludge

when his air supply ran low. He

was cleaning the tank for this

facility that provides refuse

collection and disposal services.

Serious

Cleveland Construction, Inc. (31,000 in contracts)

Cincinnati, OH

(103127585)

39,800 (10,000) Electrical Willful; serious

Colgate-Palmolive Co. (3,734,000 in contracts)

Kansas City, KS

(113820021)

15,300 (9,690) Lockout/tagout; electrical Serious

ConAgra, Inc. (also owns Longmont Foods; 149,606,000 in contracts)

Boiler Co. 

Enterprise, AL

(109246249)

15,000 (12,500) Special industries Serious

Fresh Meats Co.

Omaha, NE

(109318873)

35,550 (22,250) Walking-working surfaces Serious

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (21,053,000 in contracts)

New York, NY

(107197816)

27,000 (20,250) Occupational health and

environmental controls

Repeat

Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. (C.G.B. Enterprises, Inc.; 4,865,000 in contracts)

Mount Vernon, IN

(107139784)

22,500 (10,625) Marine terminals Repeat; serious

Cornell University Press (Cornell University; 7,764,000 in contracts)

Ithaca, NY

(113937304)

19,100 (11,000) Walking-working surfaces; means

of egress; medical and first aid;

materials handling and storage;

hazard communication standard

Serious

Coyne Textile Services (Coyne International Enterprises Corp.; 257,000 in contracts)

New Bedford, MA

(109124958)

15,000 (4,000) Electrical Serious

Crane & Co., Inc. (69,574,000 in contracts)

Pittsfield, MA

(017830456)

25,925 (13,175) Machinery and machine

guarding; special industries

Serious

Croman Corp. (4,336,000 in contracts)

Lumber 

Boise, ID (018168146)

48,000 (2,500) Lockout/tagout Serious

Crowley Maritime Corp. (27,991,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Maritime Corp. 

Seattle, WA

(109421685)

63,500 (40,500) Occupational health and

environmental control

Serious

American Transport,

Inc. 

San Juan, PR

(106716145)

40,500 (24,125) Marine terminals Repeat; serious

Crown American (Crown Holding Co.; 994,000 in contracts)

Scranton, PA

(017623174)

15,300 (10,000) Fall protection Serious

Crown Central Petroleum Corp. (also owns La Gloria Oil & Gas Co.; 29,661,000 in contracts)

Pasadena, TX

(123653081)

30,000 (12,500) Process safety management;

personal protective equipment

Serious

D.J. Manufacturing Corp. (5,373,000 in contracts)

Caguas, PR

(119466886)✝

43,750 (22,750) Machinery and machine

guarding; electrical

Serious

Dana Corp. (1,550,000 in contracts)

Spicer Axle Division 

Fort Wayne, IN

(115017410)✝

41,400 (19,800) Standards of state-operated

program; machinery and machine

guarding

Serious

Chasis Prod. 

Oklahoma City, OK

(108736869)

21,250 (11,390) Hazard communication standard Serious

Delco Electronics (See General Motors Corp.)

Oak Creek, WI

(103472049)

35,125 (6,000) Lockout/tagout

Dell Computer Corp. (4,163,000 in contracts)

Austin, TX

(123549917)

20,700 (10,350) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Austin, TX

(123579559)

16,200 (8,100) Bloodborne pathogens; hazard

communication standard

Serious

Detroit Diesel Corp. (Penske Corp.; 23,211,000 in contracts)

Detroit, MI

(114811748)✝

19,500 (9,750) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing (Diamond Shamrock, Inc.; 48,880,000 in contracts)

Colorado Springs, CO

(109549055)

31,000 (22,500) Construction; excavations Serious

Dick Enterprises, Inc. (56,448,000 in contracts)

Shamokin, PA

(018227009)

35,500 (2,300) Construction Serious

Domermuth Petroleum Equipment & Maintenance (J. Myles Group, Inc.; 241,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

East Syracuse, NY

(100162056)

18,400 (8,940) General duty clause Willful; serious

Donohoe Construction Companies (Donohoe Companies, Inc.; 11,662,000 in contracts)

Rockville, MD

(119535847)✝

21,375 (5,250) Occupational health and

environmental controls

Serious

Dreadnought Marine, Inc. (15,272,000 in contracts)

Norfolk, VA

(123673253)✝

15,125 (6,325) Hazardous materials; medical

and first aid; machinery and

machine guarding; portable

powered tools and handheld

equipment; welding, cutting, and

brazing; electrical

Serious

Duncan-Smith, Inc. (70,000 in contracts)

Charleston, SC

(017419631)

19,350 (12,578) General safety and health

provisions; personal protective

and lifesaving equipment;

materials handling, storage, use,

and disposal; cranes, derricks,

hoists, elevators, and conveyors;

motor vehicles, mechanized

equipment, and marine operations

1 worker drowned when he

jumped off a barge, without a life

preserver, because he was

frightened when it began to rock

back and forth. The rocking

action started when a sling broke

as workers were pulling pilings

out of the channel for this

demolition or wrecking company.

Serious

Dunlop Tire Corp. (Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.; 26,000 in contracts)

Huntsville, AL

(108955618)

25,000 (7,000) Machinery and machine guarding 1 worker, at this facility which

produces tires, died when he

placed fabric on a rotating

cylinder, got caught in the

machine, and asphyxiated after

being wound up inside the fabric.

Serious

Duro Bag Manufacturing Co. (118,000 in contracts)

Walton, KY

(124595901)✝

38,000 (20,000) Machinery and machine guarding Repeat; serious

Dynalectric (Emcor Group, Inc.; 3,968,000 in contracts)

Perryville, MD

(102480233)

22,500 (0) All deleted

Dyncorp-Fort Belvoir Division (Dyncorp; 672,931,000 in contracts)

Fort Belvoir, VA

(017968827)

20,250 (10,125) Lockout/tagout Serious

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (38,484,000 in contracts)

Niagara Falls, NY

(017816026)

44,700 (8,400) Recording and reporting Willful; serious

E.T. Lafore, Inc. (7,978,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 65 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Denver, CO

(100744580)

47,100 (30,000) Excavations Serious

Eastern Trans-Waste of Maryland (2,718,000 in contracts)

Washington, DC

(117940098)

12,000 (3,000) Excavations Serious

Eaton Corp. (95,934,000 in contracts)

Marion, OH

(106127541)

16,575 (8,050) Confined space;e lockout/tagout Serious

Eltech Systems Corp., Electrode (Eltech Systems Corp.; 223,000 in contracts)

Chardon, OH

(103544557)

25,650 (13,230) Confined space Serious

Emco, Inc. (Mid-South Industries, Inc.; 5,666,000 in contracts)

Gadsden, AL

(109192997)

33,375 (30,000) Occupational health and

environmental control

Serious

Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. (75,000 in contracts)

Mifflintown, PA

(102699568)

25,000 (12,500) Machinery and machine guarding Repeat

Ethicon, Inc. (Johnson & Johnson; 9,658,000 in contracts)

San Angelo, TX

(123542706)

54,150 (29,775) Lockout/tagout; medical and first

aid; machinery and machine

guarding; bloodborne pathogens;

hazard communication standard

Serious

Exide Corp. (1,092,000 in contracts)

Salina, KS

(103163317)

23,000 (13,500) Electrical 1 worker died from electric shock

while checking fuses for this

facility which manufactures

storage batteries.

Serious

Exide Electronics Corp. (Exide Electronics Group, Inc.; 68,866,000 in contracts)

Raleigh, NC

(111091807)✝

56,000 (56,000) Electrical; lockout/tagout 1 worker was hospitalized, at this

company which produces

transformers, due to electric

shock while cleaning consoles

with liquid cleaners. The consoles

were not disconnected from the

power supply.

Repeat; serious

Exxon Oil Co. (Exxon Corp.; 532,123,000 in contracts)

Baytown, TX

(109459339)

15,300 (7,550) Means of egress; machinery and

machine guarding

F & B Manufacturing Co. (127,000 in contracts)

Gurnee, IL

(102987740)

52,000 (14,200) Hazardous materials; machinery

and machine guarding

Serious

Federal Paper Board Co. (176,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 66 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Riegelwood, NC

(018518670)✝

34,500 (17,250) Special industries Willful; serious

Riegelwood, NC

(018518688)*✝

147,000 (7,500) Special industries; standard of

state-operated program

1 worker died from electric shock,

at this pulp and paper mill, when

a boiler precipitator within the

power plant was not deenergized

before he entered a confined

space to work on it.

Serious

Fletcher Pacific Construction (Fletcher Challenge, Ltd.; 29,300,000 in contracts)

Honolulu, HI

(120659362)✝

74,600 (0) All deleted

F.M.C. Corp., Wellhead Equipment Division (F.M.C. Corp.; 494,377,000 in contracts)

Houston, TX

(123553224)

24,225 (11,750) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Ford Motor Co. (44,130,000 in contracts)

Hazelwood, MO

(106547508)*

333,000 (44,825) Welding, cutting, and brazing;

electrical

Serious

Lorain, OH

(106123748)

19,500 (11,500) Walking-working surfaces Repeat; serious

The Foxboro Co. (Siebe PLC; 21,094,000 in contracts)

Foxboro, MA

(107541567)

60,000 (60,000) Occupational health and

environmental control; hazard

communication standard

1 worker died when splashed by

hydrogen fluoride while he was

manually dispensing the chemical

from the bottom of drum. This

company produces measuring

and controlling devices.

Frito-Lay, Inc. (Pepsico, Inc.; 18,720,000 in contracts)

Allen Park, MI

(110801305)✝

20,400 (10,200) Standards of state-operated

program

1 worker was burned while using

a high-pressure steam hot water

hose while cleaning the potato

peeler equipment at this food

preparation facility.

Serious

Dayville, CT

(109826248)

21,500 (11,000) Walking-working surfaces 1 worker died, at this facility

which produces snack foods,

when his neck was crushed while

making adjustments to the waste

conveyor system. He was working

alone at this wastewater treatment

plant.

Serious

Granite City, IL

(103278982)

19,200 (0) All deleted

Fru-Con (Bilfinger & Berger; 18,001,000 in contracts)

Grant Town, WV

(100595354)

90,500 (42,000) Excavations Repeat; serious

(continued)

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Fruehauf Trailer Corp. (3,336,000 in contracts)

St. Louis, MO

(116102088)

58,850 (18,950) Hazard communication standard Repeat; serious

Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (414,000 in contracts)

Lexington, SC

(120477351)✝

15,375 (6,150) Hazardous materials; machinery

and machine guarding

Serious

Gary’s Grading and Pipeline Co. (160,000 in contracts)

Lawrenceville, GA

(106514367)

28,350 (13,000) Excavations 1 worker was injured when a wall

of an unshored trench collapsed.

He was trying to install a saddle

tap for this pipeline and grading

company.

Serious

Gayston Corp. (621,000 in contracts)

Springboro, OH

(103385290)

15,000 (5,000) Hazardous materials Serious

General Electric Co. (8,710,060,000 in contracts)

Springfield, MO

(110466034)

42,500 (13,125) Personal protective equipment Serious

General Motors Corp. (also owns Delco Electronics; 2,386,810,000 in contracts)

BOC Lordstown 

Lordstown, OH

(103217881)

27,700 (15,000) Personal protective equipment Repeat; serious

BOC Lordstown 

Lordstown, OH

(108836552)

30,000 (7,500) Electrical Serious

Trucks 

Moraine, OH

(103376422)*

133,500 (66,400) Hazardous materials Willful; serious

CPC Group 

Oklahoma City, OK

(108743253)

15,000 (6,250) Hazardous materials; machinery

and machine guarding

Serious

Georgia-Pacific Corp. (2,796,000 in contracts)

Brunswick, GA

(109006700)

19,000 (12,664) Personal protective equipment Serious

Brunswick, GA

(109006981)

45,000 (22,331) Special industries; electrical Serious

Palatka, FL

(110133816)

15,300 (10,125) Fire protection; special industries;

electrical

Serious

Mount Wolf, PA

(109029520)

16,125 (8,065) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Cedar Springs, GA

(106213911)

32,000 (19,500) Special industries Repeat; serious

(continued)

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Gold Kist, Inc. By Products (Gold Kist, Inc.; 27,202,000 in contracts)

Ball Ground, GA

(106514383)

16,100 (10,600) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Goodyear Tire/Rubber Co. (Shell Co.; 48,462,000 in contracts)

Apple Grove, WV

(100781483)

22,950 (6,026) Construction Serious

Goulds Pumps, Inc. (154,000 in contracts)

Slurry Pump 

Ashland, PA

(106464829)

45,000 (27,000) Personal protection equipment;

lockout/tagout; machinery and

machine guarding

Serious

Granite Construction Co. (33,293,000 in contracts)

Rockwall, TX

(103556791)

26,550 (6,000) Electrical; general safety and

health provisions

1 worker died when a reinforced

concrete panel fell on him while

he was unloading a semitruck

transporting these panels to a

highway construction site.

Serious

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (Blackstone Dredging Partners; 63,949,000 in contracts)

Baltimore, MD

(102480217)

18,900 (9,450) Shipyards Serious

Great Plains Coca Cola Bottling Co. (945,000 in contracts)

Oklahoma City, OK

(108740200)

17,250 (2,700) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Grove North American, Division of Kidde Industries, Inc. (Hanson PLC; 25,444,000 in contracts)

Shady Grove, PA

(123177453)

16,575 (11,120) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

The Gunver Manufacturing Co. (5,077,000 in contracts)

Manchester, CT

(109829119)

15,050 (15,050) Hazardous materials Serious; failed

to abate hazard

Handy & Harman (1,415,000 in contracts)

Attleboro, MA

(109130294)

18,750 (9,375) Lockout/tagout; machinery and

machine guarding

Serious

Hardaway Co., Inc. (Because contract was terminated or modified, net obligations for fiscal year 1994 are 0 or less.)

St. Petersburg, FL

(109607689)

15,000 (4,000) Commercial diving operations Serious

Harsco Corp., IKG Division (13,338,000 in contracts)

Carlisle, OH

(103385464)

18,000 (11,175) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Harvard Industries Hayes Albio (F.E.L. Corp.; 18,958,000 in contracts)

Bryan, OH

(122085277)

30,000 (30,000) Machinery and machine guarding Repeat; serious

Hawaii Electric Light Co. (Hawaii Electric Industries; 18,599,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Hilo, HI (103885844)✝ 22,500 (9,000) Standard of state-operated

program

1 worker died from electric shock

when disassembling a test

transformer. The safety indicator

was inoperable so he did not

realize that the transformer was

still energized.

Serious

Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. (85,000 in contracts)

Honolulu, HI

(110635059)

25,000 (15,000) Materials handling and storage 1 worker was killed when a forklift

ran into him as he was directing

another driver into position to load

and unload goods on a pier for

this marine cargo handling

company.

Serious

Heat Transfer Systems, Inc. (52,000 in contracts)

St. Louis, MO

(106546963)

16,250 (6,000) Confined space; lockout/tagout;

machinery and machine guarding

Serious

Henkels and McCoy, Inc. (2,752,000 in contracts)

Conshohocken, PA

(017871906)

20,000 (9,000) Construction Serious

Homer Laughlin China Co. (173,000 in contracts)

Newell, WV

(101179000)

17,500 (9,000) Bloodborne pathogens Willful

Houck Services, Inc. (6,000 in contracts)

Harrisburg, PA

(123176414)

17,850 (7,500) Construction Serious

Hunter Corp. (38,000 in contracts)

Chesterton, IN

(124059148)✝

37,500 (18,700) Standard of state-operated

program;

construction

Serious

Hussman Corp. (Whitman Corp.; 3,309,000 in contracts)

Bridgeton, MO

(106540446)

15,000 (5,600) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

I.A. Construction Corp. (Colas; 25,795,000 in contracts)

Philadelphia, PA

(102845575)

19,350 (7,550) Construction Serious

I.B.P., Inc. (47,059,000 in contracts)

Waterloo, IA

(115062556)✝

23,000 (7,500) Means of egress; hazardous

materials

Serious

I.C.I. America (Imperial Americas, which also owns Zeneca Resins; 16,136,000 in contracts)

Tamaqua, PA

(106472160)

19,500 (6,925) Hazardous materials Serious

Idaho Pacific Corp. (32,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Ririe, ID (107234965) 23,100 (11,550) Personal protective equipment;

hazard communication standard

Serious

Indiana Michigan Power (American Electric Power Co.; 206,000 in contracts)

Rockport, IN

(123970188)✝

27,500 (10,000) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Inland Steel Co. (Inland Steel Industries; 599,000 in contracts)

East Chicago, IN

(115036386)✝

59,000 (30,725) Standard of state-operated

program; hazardous materials;

means of egress

2 workers were killed when

trapped in a fire which erupted at

this coke-making facility. Their

supervisor killed himself several

days later.

Serious

International Paper Co. (23,847,000 in contracts)

Moss Point, MS

(101391787)

20,500 (10,000) Hazard communication standard Repeat; serious

Natchez, MS

(107089484)

37,500 (18,000) Recording and reporting Repeat; serious

Jay, ME (018058123)* 319,620 (319,620) Special industries Willful; repeat;

serious

Moss Point, MS

(101390235)*

782,500 (372,000) Special industries Repeat; serious

Natchez, MS

(102677952)*

482,000 (240,000) General duty clause Repeat; serious

Cordele, GA

(106441108)

15,000 (5,000) Confined space 1 worker died when he entered a

drum to replace a faulty piece of

equipment at this wood products

facility. The drum, which was not

deenergized or locked out, was

inadvertently activated and the

worker fell 14 feet into the

conveyor system.

Serious

J & J Maintenance, Inc. (19,666,000 in contracts)

Norfolk, VA

(017704875)

15,375 (9,225) Walking-working surfaces Serious

J.H. Baxter Facility (J.H. Baxter & Co., a Ltd. California Partnership; 327,000 in contracts)

Long Beach, CA

(112086327)✝

16,630 (2,510) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Joe E. Woods, Inc. (844,000 in contracts)

San Carlos, AZ

(102317195)

40,225 (10,000) Excavations Serious

John Crane, Inc. (T.I. Group PLC; 18,037,000 in contracts)

Morton Grove, IL

(102991825)

33,200 (16,100) Hazard communication standard Repeat; serious

(continued)

Page 71 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Judds Brothers Construction Co. (292,000 in contracts)

Ashland, NE

(109317917)

84,000 (18,000) Excavations

Keebler Co. (United Biscuits Holdings PLC; 4,167,000 in contracts)

Grand Rapids, MI

(114801988)✝

16,100 (4,640) Standards of state-operated

program; lockout/tagout

2 workers fractured a forearm and

a finger, respectively, while

cleaning conveyors at this facility

that makes cookies and crackers.

Repeat; serious

Klosterman Baking Co. (96,000 in contracts)

Cincinnati, OH

(103032751)

35,000 (9,000) Special industries Serious

Kohler Co., Mill Division (936,000 in contracts)

Kohler, WI

(103077707)*

1,404,300 (35,730) Recording and reporting Willful; serious

Konica Imaging U.S.A., Inc. (Konica Corp.; 7,312,000 in contracts)

Glen Cove, NY

(113921183)

53,100 (16,792) Toxic and hazardous substances;

hazard communication standard

Serious

Kostmayer Construction Co. (547,000 in contracts)

New Orleans, LA

(107634032)

27,000 (13,500) Construction; occupational health

and environmental controls

Serious

Kraft Food Service, Inc. (Alliant Food Services; 80,005,000 in contracts)

Englewood, CO

(109547000)

23,350 (12,200) Lockout/tagout Serious

Krueger International (60,694,000 in contracts)

Green Bay, WI

(103520318)

17,500 (6,600) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. (See Crown Central Petroleum Corp.)

Tyler, TX (103564449) 53,250 (20,000) Walking-working surfaces;

hazardous materials; personal

protective equipment; medical

and first aid; materials handling

and storage; machinery and

machine guarding; electrical

Serious

Tyler, TX (107555567) 15,000 (3,500) Toxic and hazardous substances Serious

Lady Baltimore Foods, Inc. (38,000 in contracts)

Kansas City, KS

(113821532)

33,300 (11,600) Lockout/tagout Serious

Lakeside Care Center, Unicare (Crownex, Inc.; 2,183,000 in contracts)

Lubbock, TX

(107410565)

25,500 (2,025) Bloodborne pathogens Serious

Lambda Electronics, Inc. (Unitech, PLC; 1,075,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 72 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

McAllen, TX

(107431975)

26,200 (8,249) Lockout/tagout Serious

Lauhoff Grain Co. (Bunge Corp.; 61,486,000 in contracts)

Danville, IL

(103304135)

39,500 (11,750) General duty clause 1 worker died and another was

hospitalized when cleaning a

grain bin for this grain mill

products company. Both workers

were drawn down into the grain

bin, and the first suffocated.

Serious

Lockheed (Lockheed-Martin Corp.; 7,043,395,000 in contracts)

Aeronautical Systems

Burbank, CA

(001874445)*

1,495,560

(1,495,560)

Personal protective equipment;

asbestos

Violations were

changed to

unclassified by

an

administrative

law judge’s

decision.

Engineering &

Science 

Houston, TX

(123652711)

30,000 (22,500) Process safety management Serious

Longmont Foods (See ConAgra, Inc.)

Longmont, CO

(100747476)

21,000 (15,750) Hazard communication standard Repeat; serious

Lufkin Industries, Inc. (5,724,000 in contracts)

Lufkin, TX

(123565210)

15,750 (7,475) Hazardous materials Serious

M & K Electrical Co., Inc. (3,000 in contracts)

Pittsburgh, PA

(108755588)

21,000 (11,000) Electrical; general safety and

health provisions; power

transmission and distribution

1 worker died from electric shock

while removing a compactor from

between two energized

conductors and inadvertantly

coming into contact with an

energized line.

Serious

M.R. Dillard Construction Co. (1,673,000 in contracts)

Loretto, TN

(114512635)✝

64,800 (12,000) Excavations Serious

Marine Hydraulics International (Marine Hydraulics, Inc.; 16,018,000 in contracts)

Norfolk, VA

(102899580)

20,000 (10,140) Shipyards Repeat; serious

Marley Cooling Tower Co., Inc. (United Dominion Industries, Ltd.; 1,907,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 73 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Needville, TX

(123650103)

21,000 (5,440) Hazardous materials; personal

protective equipment; bloodborne

pathogens; hazard

communication standard

Serious

Marriott Corp. (Host Marriott Corp.; 2,128,000 in contracts)

Troy, OH (103275814) 24,000 (12,000) Personal protective equipment Serious

Mason Technologies, Inc. (The Mason Co.-Del; 282,424,000 in contracts)

Ceiba, PR

(106716202)

19,125 (9,562.50) Hazardous materials Serious

Medical Laboratory Automation (36,000 in contracts)

Pleasantville, NY

(110603289)

16,950 (11,865) Recording and reporting Serious

Medline Industries, Inc. (1,190,000 in contracts)

Mundelein, IL

(103594396)

27,675 (15,000) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Meinecke-Johnson Co. (6,975,000 in contracts)

Fargo, ND

(107119075)

21,500 (10,750) Construction Willful; repeat

Metric Constructors (Philipp Holzman AG; 36,452,000 in contracts)

Estill, SC (018112284) 20,800 (9,200) Excavations Serious

Misener Marine Construction, Inc. (Interbain; 9,460,000 in contracts)

Ft. Myers, FL

(109711606)

25,550 (7,200) Construction Serious

Montgomery Elevator (Kone Holding, Inc.; 5,930,000 in contracts)

Tampa, FL

(106491350)

55,000 (14,500) Electrical Repeat; serious

Winfield, KS

(103164935)

18,000 (10,000) Means of egress; lockout/tagout;

medical and first aid; bloodborne

pathogens

Serious

Moon Engineering Co., Inc. (7,281,000 in contracts)

Portsmouth, VA

(102899499)

20,300 (10,150) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Morrison-Knudsen Corp., Inc. (221,024,000 in contracts)

Yonkers, 

NY (017651407)

70,000 (175,000) Personal protective equipment;

construction; occupational health

and environmental controls

Serious

Mosler, Inc. (Kelso Investment Assoc. IV LP; 1,465,000 in contracts)

Hamilton, OH

(103275830)

37,000 (21,000) Lockout/tagout Repeat; serious

M.S.E. Corp. (1,089,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 74 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Indianapolis, IN

(115006017)✝

33,600 (20,285) Excavations Serious

National Beef Packing Co. LP (15,177,000 in contracts)

Liberal, KS

(106629884)*

908,600 (483,500) Means of egress; machinery and

machine guarding

Willful; repeat;

serious

National Fruit Produce Co., Inc. (535,000 in contracts)

Winchester, VA

(112376587)*✝

104,500 (49,125) Means of egress Repeat; serious

National Health Laboratories (National Health Labs Holdings; 794,000 in contracts)

Uniondale, NY

(107355133)*

123,000 (75,000) Toxic and hazardous substances Repeat; serious

Neosho Construction (Neosho, Inc.; 6,061,000 in contracts)

Riverside, CA

(119959757)✝

80,100 (9,500) Standards of state-operated

program

1 worker was hospitalized for

head injuries when he fell 10 feet

onto a concrete floor while

working on reinforcing a railroad

undercrossing.

Serious

New York Telephone Co. (NYNEX Corp.; 5,822,000 in contracts)

New York, NY

(108946708)

16,995 (3,000) Fire protection Serious

Northern Indiana Pacific Service (NIPSCO Industries, Inc.; 770,000 in contracts)

South Bend, IN

(115002420)✝

22,000 (14,250) Electrical Serious; repeat

Northwest Enviro Service, Inc. (6,803,000 in contracts)

Seattle, WA

(111284170)✝

22,275 (10,000) Standard of state-operated

program

Repeat; serious

Novinger Group, Inc. (58,000 in contracts)

Harrisburg, PA

(109018937)

17,800 (9,000) Electrical 1 worker died of electric shock

when, for this plastering and

drywall company, he mistakenly

cut into electric wiring.

Repeat; serious

Olin Corp. (346,133,000 in contracts)

East Alton, IL

(103279196)

33,750 (11,250) Hazardous materials;

lockout/tagout

Serious

Packaging Corp. of America (Tenneco Packaging, Inc.; 504,686,000 in contracts)

Griffith, IN

(124068792)✝

16,500 (5,000) Confined space Serious

Tama, IA

(115064248)✝

15,000 (4,700) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

P.C.L.- Harbert, Joint Venture (P.C.L. Enterprises; 216,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 75 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Denver, CO

(100748110)

32,500 (12,310) Construction Serious

Peace Industries, Ltd. (326,000 in contracts)

Rolling Meadows, IL

(103592515)

15,750 (11,500) Lockout/tagout Serious

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Pennsylvania Power & Light Resources, Inc.; 4,863,000 in contracts)

Williamsport, PA

(109361659)

21,000 (21,000) General duty clause; power

transmission and distribution

1 worker died of electric shock

when installing underground

electrical conductors in a new

development. He attempted to

connect a line he mistakenly

thought was deenergized.

Serious

Penrose Hospital (Sisters of Charity Health Care; 232,000 in contracts)

Colorado Springs, CO

(109544643)

51,750 (38,813) Bloodborne pathogens Serious

Perini Corp. (54,952,000 in contracts)

New York, NY

(106183445)

94,000 (31,500) Fall protection Willful; repeat;

serious

Piquniq Management Corp. (36,597,000 in contracts)

Kodiak, AK

(108542259)✝

78,750 (33,750) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Pizzagalli Construction, Inc. (Because contract was terminated or modified, net obligations for fiscal year 1994 are 0 or less.)

Hanover, NH

(100856921)

21,675 (9,500) Electrical

PMX Industries, Inc. (13,268,000 in contracts)

Cedar Rapids, IA

(115054066)✝

40,000 (10,700) Fire protection 6 workers were hospitalized from

smoke inhalation as a result of

fighting a fire. Hydraulic oil

caught fire at this metal smelting

and refining plant.

Serious

Professional Ambulance Service (American Medical Response; 712,000 in contracts)

Atlantic City, NJ

(113960538)

15,750 (15,750) Bloodborne pathogens Serious

P.S.I. Energy-Gibson Generating (Cinergy Corp.; 4,650,000 in contracts)

Owensville, IN

(108563958)✝

15,000 (5,620) Standard of state-operated

program; personal protective

equipment

2 workers were hospitalized due

to burns. 20 workers were injured,

although not hospitalized, as a

result of smoke inhalation and

cuts and bruises from falling

debris. These workers were trying

to fight the fire from a coal hopper

explosion at this electrical

services facility.

Serious

(continued)

Page 76 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Public Service Co. of Colorado (17,015,000 in contracts)

Pueblo, CO

(110534286)

37,850 (28,000) Personal protective equipment

Pulse Electronics, Inc. (149,000 in contracts)

Rockville, MD

(119588481)✝

16,575 (6,630) Lockout/tagout Serious

Purina Mills, Inc. (P.M. Holdings Corp.; 99,000 in contracts)

Macon, GA

(106513559)

18,000 (12,000) Walking-working surfaces;

electrical

Serious

Oklahoma City, OK

(108742081)

35,000 (5,000) Lockout/tagout 1 worker died when he got caught

in a bag-stacker machine while

trying to free a jammed pallet

without turning off the power. He

inadvertantly hit a switch, causing

the machine to recycle at this

animal feed manufacturing facility.

Willful

Liberal, KS

(103164372)

22,950 (13,162.50) Walking-working surfaces;

electrical

Serious

Radiation Systems, Inc.-Univer (Comsat Corp. RSI; 40,787,000 in contracts)

Green Bank, WV

(101174506)

23,000 (11,500) Cranes, derricks, hoists,

elevators, and conveyors

1 worked died when he fell 120

feet from a platform that hit an

object and tipped to the side as it

was being lowered. This worker

and 3 others on the platform were

not tied off. This company is a

special trade contractor in the

construction industry.

Serious

Ralston Purina Co. (7,388,000 in contracts)

Clinton, IA

(115066870)✝

49,050 (8,700) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Redondo Construction Corp. (8,799,000 in contracts)

Mayaguez, PR

(119487999)✝

18,275 (7,310) Construction Repeat; serious

Reed & Reed, Inc. (1,359,000 in contracts)

Saint Francis, ME

(102748233)

28,000 (4,000) Construction

Rehrig International, Inc. (28,000 in contracts)

Richmond, VA

(123656555)✝

22,550 (9,020) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (5,656,000 in contracts)

Troy, NY (108655804) 62,500 (8,000) Toxic and hazardous substances Repeat

Reynolds & Reynolds Co. (1,402,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 77 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Edison, NJ

(002119352)

19,800 (12,000) Means of egress Serious

Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemical (Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.; 10,693,000 in contracts)

Martinez, CA

(111995379)*✝

195,165 (57,485) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Martinez, CA

(111996526)*✝

365,875 (64,250) Standards of state-operated

program

1 worker died and another was

hospitalized due to chemical

burns when they mistakenly

extracted a valve, releasing

80,000 gallons of acid sludge

from a storage tank, at this

industrial chemicals facility.

Willful; serious

Rich Industries, Inc. (90,000 in contracts)

New Philadelphia, OH

(103040234)

31,500 (12,800) Electrical; lockout/tagout 1 worker died from electric shock

when he reached into a press to

do maintenance work and came

into contact with a live electrical

part. This facility manufactures

protective clothing for the nuclear

industry.

Serious

Richard F. Kline, Inc. (24,000 in contracts)

Cockeysville, MD

(119586360)✝

51,775 (4,100) Construction Serious

R.M.I. Co. (R.M.I. Titanium Co.; 7,577,000 in contracts)

Niles, OH (105924922) 36,180 (18,452) Walking-working surfaces Repeat; serious

Roadway Express, Inc. (1,900,000 in contracts)

Chicago Heights, IL

(101313252)

17,425 (7,600) Hazardous materials Serious

Oakville, CT

(109828079)

32,850 (9,900) Hazardous materials Serious

The Roof Doctor, Inc. (Because contract was terminated or modified, net obligations for fiscal year 1994 are 0 or less.)

Olympia, WA

(111459855)✝

23,290 (8,290) Standards of state-operated

program

Willful; repeat

Rosenburg Forest Products (446,000 in contracts)

Weed, CA

(111909560)✝

75,000 (10,000) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Roto-Rooter Services Co. (Roto-Rooter, Inc.; 1,000 in contracts)

Baltimore, MD

(119559649)✝

30,250 (4,525) Excavations Serious

Salvation Army (5,714,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 78 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Rockford, IL

(122098684)

28,800 (2,880) Means of egress; fire protection;

machinery and machine

guarding; electrical

Serious

Rockford, IL

(122108004)

22,500 (1,000) Personal protective equipment;

hazard communication standard

Repeat; serious

Schuck and Sons Construction Co., Inc. (49,000 in contracts)

Indio, CA

(112057690)✝

56,125 (1,075) Standards of state-operated

program

1 worker was hospitalized when

he fell while working on a frame

house for this company that

builds residential buildings. The

worker was leaning out from a

9-foot height while attempting to

cut a roof joist when he slipped

and fell to the cement porch

below.

Serious

Sciaba Construction Corp. (267,000 in contracts)

Shelburne Falls, MA

(017826439)

18,200 (7,280) Construction Repeat; serious

Scott Paper Co. (Kimberly-Clark; 2,875,000 in contracts)

Chester, PA

(102845120)

36,750 (27,575) Lockout/tagout Serious

Sears (Sears Roebuck & Co.; 10,497,000 in contracts)

Auto Center 

Toledo, OH

(110274198)

67,000 (58,600) General duty clause Serious

Automotive Center 

Toms River, NJ

(108665050)

16,500 (4,900) Hazard communication standard Serious

Roebuck & Co. 

Iowa City, IA

(115054561)✝

23,500 (7,000) Materials handling and storage Repeat; serious

Roebuck & Co.

Automotive 

Springfield, MA

(017828617)

36,900 (15,500) Occupational health and

environmental control

Serious

Sermetech International, Inc. (Teleflex, Inc.; 11,529,000 in contracts)

Sugar Land, TX

(123652174)

18,750 (8,437.50) Hazardous materials Serious

Shasta Industries, Inc. (79,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 79 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Phoenix, AZ

(115562290)✝

71,000 (29,500) Electrical; occupational health

and environmental controls

1 worker died from burns when

trying to use acetone to remove

standing water in a swimming

pool for which he was preparing a

fiberglass interior surface. The

acetone vapors in the pool were

ignited when he switched on a

vacuum. The company is a

special trade contractor.

Willful; serious

Shelby Williams Industries, Inc. (401,000 in contracts)

Morristown, TN

(114488984)✝

60,000 (9,200) Hazardous materials Repeat; serious

Shell Oil Co. (351,290,000 in contracts)

Deer Park, TX

(123652513)

44,675 (10,000) Process safety management;

personal protective equipment

1 worker died and 2 were

hospitalized from exposure to gas

when one of them opened the

flange of a pipeline while they

were doing maintenance work at

this petroleum refining facility.

Serious

Wood River 

Roxana, IL

(106552771)*

155,000 (155,000) General duty clause Serious

Shirley Contracting Corp. (3,989,000 in contracts)

Washington, DC

(123503294)

21,000 (8,000) Excavations Serious

Siemens Energy & Automation (Siemens; 47,791,000 in contracts)

Urbana, OH

(103030086)

60,000 (21,500) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Signature Flight Support Corp. (14,535,000 in contracts)

Chicago, IL

(103586947)

18,500 (10,200) Materials handling and storage 1 worker died when inflating a tire

on a baggage trailer that

transports luggage to and from

the aircraft. The tube exploded

and the rim struck the employee

in the face, causing massive head

injuries. The company provides

airport terminal services.

Serious

Smith & Nephew Dyonics (Smith & Nephew PLC; 589,000 in contracts)

Andover, MA

(109622332)

15,375 (7,688) Hazardous materials Serious

Smith & Wesson Co. (Tompkins Industries; 3,817,000 in contracts)

Springfield, MA

(102766664)

22,750 (11,375) Machinery and machine

guarding; electrical

Serious

The Smithfield Packing Co. (Smithfield Foods, Inc.; 2,975,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 80 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Landover, MD

(119587681)✝

22,500 (7,800) Electrical

Snyder General Corp. (McQuay International; 557,000 in contracts)

Verona, VA

(123702128)✝

19,975 (11,225) Materials handling and storage Serious

Spearin Preston & Burrows, Inc. (51,000 in contracts)

New York, NY

(017777251)

17,500 (2,500) Construction Serious

S.S.I. Food Services, Inc. (Simplot J.R. Co.; 26,736,000 in contracts)

Wilder, ID

(110516986)*

107,000 (43,000) Lockout/tagout Repeat; serious

Stambaugh’s Air Service, Inc. (12,883,000 in contracts)

Middletown, PA

(109028738)

18,000 (12,900) Materials handling and storage 1 worker died and another was

hospitalized when trying to

remove an engine from an

aircraft. The 4,000-pound engine

dropped on the chest of the first

worker when the front chain of the

mechanism used to remove the

engine broke. The other worker

was struck in the head by the

mechanism itself.

Serious

Stevedoring (Cooper/T Smith Stevedoring, Inc.; 10,299,000 in contracts)

Services of America 

Savannah, GA

(106219967)

18,000 (9,000) Materials handling and storage Serious

Port Cooper 

Houston, TX

(123653958)

16,900 (8,450) Longshoring; hazardous materials Serious

Stone Container Corp. (3,214,000 in contracts)

Frenchtown, MT

(100568815)

65,500 (60,000) Fire protection Repeat; serious

Frenchtown, MT

(107214314)

75,000 (41,500) Hazardous materials Serious

Jacksonville, AR

(107605776)

45,000 (30,000) Walking-working surfaces;

electrical

Repeat; serious

Columbia, SC

(120493994)✝

28,375 (9,350) Confined space Serious

Jacksonville, AR

(110360427)

40,000 (3,000) Recording and reporting Repeat

Stonhard Maufacturing Co., Inc. (R.P.M., Inc.; 473,000 in contracts)

Maple Shade, NJ

(106741531)

17,625 (9,300) Lockout/tagout Serious

(continued)

Page 81 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Sun Chemical Corp. (Dainippon Ink & Chemicals, Inc.; 552,000 in contracts)

Cincinnati, OH

(103231833)

22,500 (7,000) Walking-working surfaces Repeat; serious

Cincinnati, OH

(103273041)

15,500 (7,000) Walking-working surfaces Serious

Supreme Corp. (Supreme Industries, Inc.; 58,000 in contracts)

Goshen, IN

(108646167)✝

39,700 (13,850) Machinery and machine guarding Repeat; serious

Swiftships Freeport, Inc. (Swiftships, Inc.; 2,757,000 in contracts)

Freeport, TX

(107491011)

18,600 (1,500) General duty clause 1 worker died instantly when he

was struck in the head by a 3-ton

exhaust stack that was being

positioned by a crane for

sandblasting and painting, after

being removed from a vessel.

This facility is engaged in

shipbuilding and repair.

Serious

Texaco Refining (Texaco, Inc.; 21,559,000 in contracts)

Los Angeles, CA

(112076500)✝

83,500 (83,500) Standard of state-operated

program

10 workers were hospitalized for

smoke inhalation and being

struck by falling debris when a

piping failure led to a petroleum

explosion and fire at this

petroleum refining facility.

Willful; serious

Tower Construction Co., Inc. (5,022,000 in contracts)

Mililani Town, HI

(103887865)✝

24,000 (5,250) Standard of state-operated

program

Repeat; serious

Trataros Construction Co. (9,539,000 in contracts)

New York, NY

(107196248)

17,625 (11,500) Fall protection Repeat; serious

Trident Seafoods Corp. (880,000 in contracts)

Naknek, AK

(124072521)✝

30,150 (13,050) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

Naknek, AK

(109433052)

16,500 (7,250) Materials handling and storage Serious

Trinity Industries, Inc. (109,805,000 in contracts)

Longview, TX

(109098921)

15,000 (4,000) Confined space Serious

Unifirst Corp. (5,112,000 in contracts)

Springfield, MA

(017828252)

16,500 (9,400) Medical and first aid Serious

Union Camp Corp. (206,000 in contracts)

(continued)

Page 82 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Fine Paper Division 

Franklin, VA

(112394796)✝

86,250 (35,837.50) Hazardous materials; machinery

and machine guarding; electrical

Serious

Savannah, GA

(017403627)

20,280 (14,490) Special industries Serious

Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific Corp.; because contract was terminated or modified, net obligations for fiscal year 1994

are 0 or less.)

Green River, WY

(114619042)✝

15,750 (4,650) Standards of state-operated

program

Serious

United Airlines (U.A.L. Corp.; 2,366,000 in contracts)

Elk Grove Village, IL

(102992112)

27,500 (5,900) Hazard communication standard;

fire protection

Serious

Elk Grove Village, IL

(103456794)

39,950 (10,125) Confined space Serious

Executive Office

Elk Grove Village, IL

(102992047)

95,000 (6,500) Occupational health and

environmental controls

Serious

United Parcel Service (United Parcel Service Amer., Inc.; 5,699,000 in contracts)

Mesquite, TX

(107550857)

22,500 (19,000) Personal protective equipment Serious

Commerce City, CO

(109550491)

60,000 (60,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Manchester, NH

(017902925)

30,000 (30,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Uniondale, NY

(108664079)*

142,000 (142,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Buffalo, NY

(114098858)

30,000 (30,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Twin Mountain, NH

(108783929)

15,000 (15,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Earth City, MO

(116103722)

17,500 (9,975) Means of egress Serious

(continued)

Page 83 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Fort Collins, CO

(100747146)

90,000 (90,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Hartford, CT

(123214074)

94,025 (92,500) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Repeat; serious

Mobile, AL

(106092067)

30,975 (30,975) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Serious

Jackson, MS

(018135012)

60,000 (60,000) Hazardous materials

Pinellas Park, FL

(109709311)

90,000 (90,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Elmsford, NY

(109916726)*

165,000 (165,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

East Syracuse, NY

(106898208)*

165,000 (165,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Palm Bay, FL

(109709279)

15,000 (15,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Austin, TX

(123432338)

15,000 (15,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Bryan, TX

(123424574)

60,000 (60,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

San Antonio, TX

(123432254)

30,000 (30,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

(continued)

Page 84 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Linthicum Heights,

MD (119554269)✝

18,300 (2,000) Means of egress; personal

protective equipment

2 workers were hospitalized from

exposure to hazardous solvents

that leaked from packages within

the confined space of an airplane

cargo hold.

Serious

Laredo, TX

(107434243)

60,000 (60,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Corpus Christi, TX

(107433583)

60,000 (60,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Belton, TX

(123426421)

30,000 (30,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Miami, FL

(110056421)*

141,000 (141,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

Deerfield, FL

(108995697)

15,000 (15,000) Corporatewide settlement

agreement regarding emergency

response to hazardous conditions

when packages are damaged.

United Technologies Automotive (United Technologies Corp.; 2,776,447,000 in contracts)

Columbia City, IN

(114978794)✝

41,000 (16,000) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Unitog, Inc. (48,000 in contracts)

Warrensburg, MO

(115971475)

34,200 (4,000) Toxic and hazardous substances;

hazard communication standard

Serious

Universal Maritime Service Corp. (Maersk, Inc.; 182,088,000 in contracts)

Port Newark, NJ

(017982646)

18,700 (4,500) Marine terminals Serious

University of Miami (10,020,000 in contracts)

Fort Lauderdale, FL

(109689992)

17,550 (7,200) General duty clause; personal

protective equipment; bloodborne

pathogens

Serious

Valley Design and Construction (266,000 in contracts)

Boise, ID (107234726) 17,150 (8,575) Construction Serious

Vickers, Inc. (Trinova Corp.; 17,831,000 in contracts)

Omaha, NE

(109321687)

28,500 (15,500) Lockout/tagout Serious

(continued)

Page 85 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Omaha, NE

(109322974)

24,000 (15,000) Materials handling and storage Repeat; serious

Victory Corrugated Container Corp. (82,000 in contracts)

Roselle, NJ

(114039951)

29,575 (16,000) Lockout/tagout Serious

Vineland Kosher Poultry, Inc. (349,000 in contracts)

Vineland, NJ

(108666413)

31,500 (13,300) Walking-working surfaces;

lockout/tagout; materials handling

and storage; machinery and

machine guarding; electrical

Serious

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (47,000 in contracts)

Malvern, PA

(102845518)

43,900 (12,700) Electrical Serious

Volunteers of America of Oklahoma (Volunteers of America, Inc.; 3,416,000 in contracts)

Tulsa, OK

(109060137)

15,000 (5,000) Bloodborne pathogens Repeat; serious

Wabash Valley Manufacturing, Inc. (63,000 in contracts)

Silver Lake, IN

(114974199)✝

21,000 (4,900) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Waste Management Disposal (WMX Technologies, Inc.; 241,696,000 in contracts)

Phoenix, AZ

(115584815)✝

63,000 (9,000) Standards of state-operated

program; means of egress

Serious

Weber Aircraft, Inc. (Zodiac, SA; 13,300,000 in contracts)

Gainesville, TX

(110372539)

28,500 (21,225) Machinery and machine

guarding; electrical

Repeat; serious

Weight Watchers Food Co. (Heinz, Inc.; 439,000 in contracts)

Wethersfield, CT

(102794856)

66,000 (42,000) Machinery and machine guarding Repeat; serious

West State, Inc. (W.S., Inc.; 1,310,000 in contracts)

Portland, OR

(110505344)

15,000 (2,500) Shipyards Serious

Westinghouse Electric Corp. (4,595,090,000 in contracts)

Birmingham, AL

(106232804)

21,925 (18,300) Confined space Serious

Whirlpool Corp. (2,351,000 in contracts)

Evansville, IN

(123970469)✝

52,500 (26,250) Machinery and machine guarding 1 worker was hospitalized, and

his hand and forearm amputated,

when he got caught while

manually feeding coil through a

mechanical power press. The

facility manufactures household

refrigerators.

Willful; serious

(continued)

Page 86 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded)

Location of

inspection (IMIS

activity number)

Proposed penalty

(actual penalty)

OSHA standard violated

associated with highest actual

penalty

Description of 

fatality or injury

Selected

characteristics

of violations

Fort Smith, AR

(110354784)

19,000 (5,000) Machinery and machine guarding Serious

Willamette Industries, Inc. (1,860,000 in contracts)

Moncure, NC

(111139390)✝

17,500 (6,000) Standard of state-operated

program; walking-working

surfaces

1 worker died when an object,

which fell from the wall of a large

vessel he was cleaning along with

several other workers, crushed

this worker. The facility

manufactures hardwood veneer

or plywood.

Serious

Hawesville, KY

(123812786)✝

29,025 (19,350) Machinery and machine guarding Repeat; serious

Witco Corp. (162,000 in contracts)

Memphis, TN

(120549472)✝

15,000 (15,000) Machinery and machine

guarding; personal protective

equipment

Serious

Yuasa-Exide, Inc. (1,583,000 in contracts)

San Antonio, TX

(123434094)

21,600 (2,000) Walking-working surfaces Serious

Zeneca Resins (Imperial Americas; see I.C.I. America)

Wilmington, MA

(109620831)

17,550 (8,775) Means of egress; hazardous

material; fire protection

1 worker was hospitalized from

inhaling vapors released due to

improper storage of chemicals at

this facility that manufactures

plastics and synthetic resins.

Although all workers were

evacuated, this worker went to

search for a co-worker without

using personal protective

equipment.

Serious

(Table notes on next page)

Page 87 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix II 

Characteristics of the Inspections and

Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors

Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties

*Assessed proposed penalty of $100,000 or more for safety and health violations.

✝Inspection conducted by a state-operated safety and health program.

aMeans of egress refers to requirements that a continuous and unobstructed way to exit from any

point in a building or structure be provided.

bLockout/tagout refers to servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment to prevent their

unexpected start-up, which could cause injury to employees.

cProcess safety management refers to requirements for preventing or minimizing the

consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.

dExcavations refers to requirements for minimizing injuries (from cave-ins, for example) to

employees who are working below the earth’s surface, which would include trenches.

eConfined space refers to practices and procedures to protect employees from the hazards of

entry into permit-required confined spaces; for example, tanks, vessels, silos, storage bins, and

vaults.

Page 88 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Table III.1 categorizes the 261 federal contractors assessed significant

proposed penalties by the OSHA standard violated. Our definition of a

significant penalty is a proposed penalty of $15,000 or more regardless of

the size of the actual penalty recorded when the inspection was closed

(either because the employer accepted the citation or a contested citation

was resolved). The proposed penalty is the penalty issued by OSHA in the

original citation and reflects the compliance officer’s judgment of the

nature and severity of violations, while the actual penalty may be the

product of other factors such as negotiations between OSHA and the

company to encourage quicker abatement of workplace hazards. Because

some of these 261 federal contractors own more than one worksite

inspected, a total of 345 inspections appear in the table. The name of the

federal contractor (or parent company) is identified if it is different from

the name of the worksites where the violations occurred. The table also

includes the location of the worksite inspected, including the

corresponding activity number of the inspection as assigned in IMIS. Given

that there are many different OSHA standards, we reported those standards

in which the greatest number of violations in the 345 inspections fell.

Because more violations were of general industry standards, we reported

these standards in greater detail. We have identified those 26 inspections

in which a proposed penalty of $100,000 or more was assessed for safety

and health violations with an asterisk that appears by the activity number

of the inspection. Seventy-one inspections conducted by state-operated

safety and health programs are identified with a special symbol (✝) by the

activity number of the inspection. The column of “All other standards” is

often marked in inspections conducted by state-operated programs

because the codes used by some states are different from the codes for

federal standards.

Page 89 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Table III.1: OSHA Standards Violated

by 261 Federal Contractors Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

A.H.A. General Construction

New York, NY (106934086)

A.A.R. Engine Component Service (A.A.R. Corp.)

Frankfort, NY (018154542) X

A.B.B. Combustion Engineering Nuclear (A.B.B. A.S.E.A. Brown Boveri, Ltd.)

Newington, NH (108781816) X X

Acme Steel Co. (Acme Metals, Inc.)

Chicago, IL (103451274) X

Alamo Transformer Supply Co.

Houston, TX (107489593) X X X

Albany International Corp.

East Greenbush, NY (109053272)

Alcan Toyo America (Toyo Aluminum KK)

Lockport, IL (108719063) X

Alder Construction Co.

Boise, ID (107232167)

All American Poly Corp.

Dunellen, NJ (114039639) X X

All-Steel, Inc. (B.T.R. PLC)

Montgomery, IL (102997434) X

West Hazleton, PA (018226225) X X X

Allied Tube and Conduit (Tyco International, Ltd.)

Philadelphia, PA (017999095) X X

Philadelphia, PA (018253054)* X X

Harvey, IL (103453387) X X

Aluminum Co. of America

Rockdale, TX (123431298) X

Massena, NY (106991326) X X

Amcor, Inc. (C.R.H. PLC)

Nampa, ID (110517984) X X X

Amoco Gas Co. (Amoco Corp.)

Texas City, TX (107491433)

The Arbors at Fairmont (Arbor Health Care Co.)

Fairmont, WV (101176626) X

Arco Alaska, Inc. (Atlantic Richfield Co.)

Page 90 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X

X

X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X

(continued)

Page 91 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Prudhoe Bay, AK (105867964)✝ X

Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

Columbia, MD (119539898)✝

AT&T Communications (AT&T)

Danforth, ME (109797910)

Avondale Industries, Inc.

Westwego, LA (110344983) X

B.R. Group, Inc.

Orange, MA (102861978)* X X X

Baldt, Inc.

Chester, PA (102842192) X

Ball Corp.

Columbus, OH (103343000)

Basler Electric Co.

Corning, AR (107705931) X

Bath Iron Works Corp. (Fulcrum II Limited Partnership)

Bath, ME (101450336)* X X X X

Batson-Cook Co.

Tampa, FL (109609776)

Baxter Health Care Corp. (Baxter International, Inc.)

Carolina, PR (119461473)✝ X

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Textron, Inc.)

Hurst, TX (103375663) X

Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co.

Mobile, AL (107011207) X

Berning Construction, Inc.

Detroit, OR (123776262)✝

Bethlehem Steel Corp.

Sparrows Point, MD

(104383815)✝

X

Sparrows Point, MD

(119517068)✝

X

Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.

Paterson, NJ (109043141) X X

Fairfield, NJ (101484780)

Bizzack, Inc.

Page 92 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X

X X X

X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X

X X X X

X

X X X X

X X

X X

X X X

X

(continued)

Page 93 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Logan, WV (116242512)

Blaze Construction Co.

Many Farms, AZ (002331486)

Pinon, AZ (002331478)

Blue Bells Creameries USA, Inc.

Brenham, TX (123419905) X

Boeing (The Boeing Co.)

Commerical Aircraft Co. 

Everett, WA (115506081)✝

Defense and Space Group

Ridley Park, PA (018253047)

X X

Boise Cascade Corp.

Horseshoe Bend, ID (110502895) X

Rumford, ME (102753969)* X X

Rumford, ME (103392247)* X X X X

Rumford, ME (109793901) X X

Boston University (of Boston University Trustees)

Boston, MA (109124131)

Bowman Apple Products Co., Inc.

Mt. Jackson, VA (105754790)✝ X X

Brown & Root (Halliburton Co.)

Deer Park, TX (123652505)

Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

Corpus Christi, TX (103579934) X

Burns & Roe Services Corp. (Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.)

Greenport, NY (108664475) X X X

Burron Medical, Inc. (B. Braun Melsungen A.G.)

Allentown, PA (123264145) X

C.H. Heist Corp.

Oregon, OH (110294584) X

Campbell Soup Co.

Tecumseh, NE (109323105) X

Cargill, Inc. (Tyson Foods, Inc.)

Buena Vista, GA (106514169) X

Center Core, Inc. (CenterCore Group)

Plainfield, NJ (113942155) X X

Page 94 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X

X

X

X X X X X

X

X X X X X

X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X

X X X

X X X X

X X X X

(continued)

Page 95 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Centric Jones Construction (Centric Jones Co.)

Aurora, CO (100748813) X

Century Concrete Services, Inc.

Richmond, VA (123658890)✝

Certified Coatings (Certified Coating of Cal)

Ogden, UT (124620931)✝

Chevron USA (Chevron Corp.)

Port Arthur, TX (123653255) X

Children’s Hospital Medical Center

Cincinnati, OH (102592094)

Chomerics, Inc. (Parker Hannifin Corp.)

Hudson, NH (108781717) X

Chrysler Motors Corp., K (Chrysler Corp.)

Kenosha, WI (102347218)* X X

Cincinnati Milacron Resin Abrasion (Cincinnati Milacron, Inc.)

Carlisle, PA (109025502) X X X

Clean Harbors of Kingston, Inc. (Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.)

Providence, RI (017945213)* X

Cleveland Construction

Cincinnati, OH (103127585)

Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Kansas City, KS (113820021)

ConAgra, Inc.

Broiler Co. 

Enterprise, AL (109246249)

Fresh Meats Co. 

Omaha, NE (109318873)

X

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

New York, NY (107197816) X

Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. (C.G.B. Enterprises, Inc.)

Mount Vernon, IN (107139784)

Cornell University Press (Cornell University)

Ithaca, NY (113937304) X

Coyne Textile Services (Coyne International Enterprises Corp.)

New Bedford, MA (109124958)

Crane & Co., Inc.

Page 96 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X

X X

X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

X

X X X

X X

(continued)

Page 97 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Pittsfield, MA (017830456)

Croman Corp.

Lumber 

Boise, ID (018168146)

X

Crowley Maritime Corp.

American Transport, Inc. 

San Juan, PR (106716145)

Maritime Corp. 

Seattle, WA (109421685)

X X

Crown American (Crown Holding Co.)

Scranton, PA (017623174) X

Crown Central Petroleum Corp.

Pasadena, TX (123653081) X

D.J. Manufacturing Corp.

Caguas, PR (119466886)✝ X

Dana Corp.

Spicer Axle Div. 

Fort Wayne, IN (115017410)✝

X X

Chasis Prod. 

Oklahoma City, OK (108736869)

X

Delco Electronics (General Motors Corp.)

Oak Creek, WI (103472049)

Dell Computer Corp.

Austin, TX (123549917) X X

Austin, TX (123579559) X X

Detroit Diesel Corp. (Penske Corp.)

Detroit, MI (114811748)✝

Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing (Diamond Shamrock, Inc.)

Colorado Springs, CO

(109549055)

X

Dick Enterprises, Inc.

Shamokin, PA (018227009) X

Domermuth Petroleum Equipment & Maintenance (J. Myles Group, Inc.)

East Syracuse, NY (100162056) X

Donohoe Construction Companies (Donohoe Companies, Inc.)

Rockville, MD (119535847)✝

Dreadnought Marine, Inc.

Page 98 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X X X

X X

X

X X X X X X

X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X

X X

X X

X X X X

(continued)

Page 99 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Norfolk, VA (123673253)✝ X X

Duncan-Smith, Inc.

Charleston, SC (017419631)

Dunlop Tire Corp. (Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.)

Huntsville, AL (108955618)

Duro Bag Manufacturing Co.

Walton, KY (124595901)✝

Dynalectric (Emcor Group, Inc.)

Perryville, MD (102480233)

Dyncorp-Fort Belvoir Division (Dyncorp)

Fort Belvoir, VA (017968827) X

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

Niagara Falls, NY (017816026) X X

E.T. Lafore, Inc.

Denver, CO (100744580)

Eastern Trans-Waste of Maryland

Washington, DC (117940098)

Eaton Corp.

Marion, OH (106127541) X

Eltech Systems Corp, Electrode (Eltech Systems Corp.)

Chardon, OH (103544557)

Emco, Inc. (Mid-South Industries, Inc.)

Gadsden, AL (109192997) X

Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc.

Mifflintown, PA (102699568)

Ethicon, Inc. (Johnson & Johnson)

San Angelo, TX (123542706) X

Exide Corp.

Salina, KS (103163317)

Exide Electronics Corp. (Exide Electronics Group, Inc.)

Raleigh, NC (111091807)✝

Exxon Oil Co. (Exxon Corp.)

Baytown, TX (109459339) X

F & B Manufacturing Co.

Gurnee, IL (102987740) X X

Page 100 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X X X X X

X X

X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X

X

X

X

X X X

X X X X

X

X X X X X

X X

X X

X X

X X X X X

(continued)

Page 101 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Federal Paper Board Co., Inc.

Riegelwood, NC (018518670)✝ X

Riegelwood, NC (018518688)*✝

Fletcher Pacific Construction (Fletcher Challenge, Ltd.)

Honolulu, HI (120659362)✝

F.M.C. Corp., Wellhead Equipment D (F.M.C. Corp.)

Houston, TX (123553224) X X

Ford Motor Co.

Hazelwood, MO (106547508)* X X

Lorain, OH (106123748) X

The Foxboro Co. (Siebe PLC)

Foxboro, MA (107541567) X

Frito-Lay, Inc. (Pepisco, Inc.)

Dayville, CT (109826248) X X

Allen Park, MI (110801305)✝ X

Granite City, IL (103278982)

Fru-Con (Bilfinger & Berger)

Grant Town, WV (100595354)

Fruehauf Trailer Corp.

St. Louis, MO (116102088) X X X

Fruit of the Loom, Inc.

Lexington, SC (120477351)✝ X

Gary’s Grading and Pipeline Co.

Lawrenceville, GA (106514367)

Gayston Corp.

Springboro, OH (103385290) X

General Electric Co.

Springfield, MO (110466034)

General Motors Corp.

BOC Lordstown 

Lordstown, OH (103217881)

BOC Lordstown 

Lordstown, OH (108836552)

X

Trucks 

Moraine, OH (103376422)*

X X

CPC Group 

Oklahoma City, OK (108743253)

X

Page 102 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X

X X X X X

X X X X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X X X X

X X X

(continued)

Page 103 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Brunswick, GA (109006700) X

Brunswick, GA (109006981) X X

Palatka, FL (110133816)

Mount Wolf, PA (109029520) X X

Cedar Springs, GA (106213911) X

Gold Kist, Inc. By Products (Gold Kist, Inc.)

Ball Ground, GA (106514383) X

Goodyear Tire/Rubber Co. (Shell Co.)

Apple Grove, WV (100781483)

Goulds Pumps, Inc.

Slurry Pump 

Ashland, PA (106464829)

X X

Granite Construction Co.

Rockwall, TX (103556791)

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (Blackstone Dredging Partners)

Baltimore, MD (102480217)

Great Plains Coca Cola Bottling Co.

Oklahoma City, OK (108740200)

Grove North American, Division of Kidde Industries, Inc. (Hanson PLC)

Shady Grove, PA (123177453) X X X

The Gunver Manufacturing Co.

Manchester, CT (109829119) X

Handy & Harman

Attleboro, MA (109130294) X

Hardaway Co., Inc.

St. Petersburg, FL (109607689)

Harsco Corp., IKG Division

Carlisle, OH (103385464)

Harvard Industries Hayes Albio (F.E.L. Corp.)

Bryan, OH (122085277)

Hawaii Electric Light Co. (Hawaii Electric Industries)

Hilo, HI (103885844)✝

Hawaii Stevedores, Inc.

Honolulu, HI (110635059)

Heat Transfer Systems, Inc.

Page 104 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X

X X X X X

X

X X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

(continued)

Page 105 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

St. Louis, MO (106546963) X

Henkels & McCoy, Inc.

Conshohocken, PA (017871906)

Homer Laughlin China Co.

Newell, WV (101179000)

Houck Services, Inc.

Harrisburg, PA (123176414)

Hunter Corp.

Chesterton, IN (124059148)✝

Hussman Corp. (Whitman Corp.)

Bridgeton, MO (106540446) X

I.A. Construction Corp. (Colas)

Philadelphia, PA (102845575)

I.B.P., Inc.

Waterloo, IA (115062556)✝ X

I.C.I. America (Imperial Americas)

Tamaqua, PA (106472160) X

Idaho Pacific Corp.

Ririe, ID (107234965) X X

Indiana Michigan Power (American Electric Power Co.)

Rockport, IN (123970188)✝

Inland Steel Co. (Inland Steel Industries)

East Chicago, IN (115036386)✝ X

International Paper Co.

Moss Point, MS (101391787) X X

Natchez, MS (107089484) X

Cordele, GA (106441108)

Jay, ME (018058123)* X X

Moss Point, MS (101390235)* X X X

Natchez, MS (102677952)* X X

J & J Maintenance Inc.

Norfolk, VA (017704875) X X

J.H. Baxter Facility (J.H. Baxter & Co, a Ltd. California Partnership)

Long Beach, CA (112086327)✝

Joe E. Woods, Inc.

Page 106 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X X

X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X

(continued)

Page 107 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

San Carlos, AZ (102317195)

John Crane, Inc. (T.I. Group PLC)

Morton Grove, IL (102991825) X

Judds Brothers Construction Co.

Ashland, NE (109317917)

Keebler Co. (United Biscuits Holdings PLC)

Grand Rapids, MI (114801988)✝

Klosterman Baking Co.

Cincinnati, OH (103032751) X

Kohler Co., Mill Division

Kohler, WI (103077707)* X X X

Konica Imaging U.S.A., Inc. (Konica Corp.)

Glen Cove, NY (113921183) X

Kostmayer Construction Co.

New Orleans, LA (107634032)

Kraft Food Service, Inc. (Alliant Food Services)

Englewood, CO (109547000) X

Krueger International

Green Bay, WI (103520318)

La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. (Crown Central Petroleum Corp.)

Tyler, TX (107555567)

Tyler, TX (103564449) X X

Lady Baltimore Foods, Inc.

Kansas City, KS (113821532) X

Lakeside Care Center, Unicare (Crownex, Inc.)

Lubbock, TX (107410565) X

Lambda Electronics, Inc. (Unitech, PLC)

McAllen, TX (107431975) X X

Lauhoff Grain Co. (Bunge Corp.)

Danville, IL (103304135) X X X

Lockheed (Lockheed-Martin Corp.)

Aeronautical Systems

(001874445)*

X X X

Engineering & Science

(123652711)

X

Longmont Foods (ConAgra, Inc.)

Page 108 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X

X X X X X

X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X

X X X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X

(continued)

Page 109 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Longmont, CO (100747476)

Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Lufkin, TX (123565210) X

M & K Electrical Co., Inc.

Pittsburgh, PA (108755588)

M.R. Dillard Construction Co.

Loretto, TN (114512635)✝

Marine Hydraulics International (Marine Hydraulics, Inc.)

Norfolk, VA (102899580) X

Marley Cooling Tower Co., Inc. (United Dominion Industries, Ltd.)

Needville, TX (123650103) X

Marriott Corp. (Host Marriott Corp.)

Troy, OH (103275814)

Mason Technologies, Inc. (The Mason Co.-Del)

Ceiba, PR (106716202) X

Medical Laboratory Automation

Pleasantville, NY (110603289) X

Medline Industries, Inc.

Mundelein, IL (103594396)

Meinecke-Johnson Co.

Fargo, ND (107119075)

Metric Constructors (Philipp Holzman A.G.)

Estill, SC (018112284)

Misener Marine Construction, Inc. (Interbain)

Ft. Myers, FL (109711606)

Montgomery Elevator (Kone Holding, Inc.)

Winfield, KS (103164935)

Tampa, FL (106491350)

Moon Engineering Co., Inc.

Portsmouth, VA (102899499) X

Morrison-Knudsen Corp., Inc.

Yonkers, NY (017651407) X

Mosler, Inc. (Kelso Investment Assoc. IV LP)

Hamilton, OH (103275830)

M.S.E. Corp.

Page 110 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X

X X

X

X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X

X X

(continued)

Page 111 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Indianapolis, IN (115006017)✝

National Beef Packing Co. LP

Liberal, KS (106629884)* X X X

National Fruit Produce Co., Inc.

Winchester, VA (112376587)*✝ X X

National Health Laboratories (National Health Labs Holdings)

Uniondale, NY (107355133)*

Neosho Construction (Neosho, Inc.)

Riverside, CA (119959757)✝

New York Telephone Co. (NYNEX Corp.)

New York, NY (108946708) X X

Northern Indiana Public Service (NIPSCO Industries, Inc.)

South Bend, IN (115002420)✝

Northwest Enviro Service, Inc.

Seattle, WA (111284170)✝

Novinger Group

Harrisburg, PA (109018937)

Olin Corp.

East Alton, IL (103279196) X

Packaging Corp. of America (Tenneco Packaging, Inc.)

Griffith, IN (124068792)✝

Tama, IA (115064248)✝

P.C.L.-Harbert, Joint Venture (P.C.L. Enterprises)

Denver, CO (100748110)

Peace Industries, Ltd.

Rolling Meadows, IL (103592515) X X

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Pennsylvania Power & Light Resources, Inc.)

Williamsport, PA (109361659) X

Penrose Hospital (Sisters of Charity Health Care)

Colorado Springs, CO

(109544643)

Perini Corp.

New York, NY (106183445)

Piquniq Management Corp.

Kodiak, AK (108542259)✝

Pizzagalli Construction, Inc.

Page 112 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X X X X

X

X X X X

X

X X

X

X

(continued)

Page 113 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Hanover, NH (100856921)

PMX Industries, Inc.

Cedar Rapids, IA (115054066)✝

Professional Ambulance Service (American Medical Response)

Atlantic City, NJ (113960538) X X

P.S.I. Energy-Gibson Generating (Cinergy Corp.)

Owensville, IN (108563958)✝

Public Service Co. of Colorado

Pueblo, CO (110534286)

Pulse Electronics, Inc.

Rockville, MD (119588481)✝ X

Purina Mills, Inc. (P.M. Holdings Corp.)

Macon, GA (106513559) X

Liberal, KS (103164372) X

Oklahoma City, OK (108742081)

Radiation Systems, Inc.-Univer (Comsat Corp. RSI)

Green Bank, WV (101174506)

Ralston Purina Co.

Clinton, IA (115066870)✝ X X

Redondo Construction Corp.

Mayaguez, PR (119487999)✝

Reed & Reed, Inc.

Saint Francis, ME (102748233)

Rehrig International, Inc.

Richmond, VA (123656555)✝ X X

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Troy, NY (108655804)

Reynolds & Reynolds Co.

Edison, NJ (002119352)

Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemical (Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.)

Martinez, CA (111995379)*✝

Martinez, CA (111996526)*✝

Rich Industries, Inc.

New Philadelphia, OH

(103040234)

Richard F. Kline, Inc.

Page 114 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X

X

X X X X X

X

X

X X X X X

X

X X X

X

X

X X X

(continued)

Page 115 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Cockeysville, MD (119586360)✝

R.M.I. Co.

Niles, OH (105924922) X X

Roadway Express, Inc.

Chicago Heights, IL (101313252) X

Oakville, CT (109828079) X

The Roof Doctor, Inc.

Olympia, WA (111459855)✝

Roseburg Forest Products

Weed, CA (111909560)✝

Roto-Rooter Services Co. (Roto-Rooter, Inc.)

Baltimore, MD (119559649)✝

Salvation Army

Rockford, IL (122098684)

Rockford, IL (122108004)

Schuck and Sons Construction Co., Inc.

Indio, CA (112057690)✝

Sciaba Construction Corp.

Shelburne Falls, MA (017826439) X

Scott Paper Co. (Kimberly-Clark)

Chester, PA (102845120) X X

Sears (Sears Roebuck & Co.)

Auto Center 

Toledo, OH (110274198)

X

Automotive Center 

Toms River, NJ (108665050)

X

Roebuck & Co. 

Iowa City, IA (115054561)✝

X

Roebuck & Co. 

Automotive Springfield, MA

(017828617)

Sermetech International, Inc. (Teleflex, Inc.)

Sugar Land, TX (123652174) X X

Shasta Industries, Inc.

Phoenix, AZ (115562290)✝

Shelby Williams Industries, Inc.

Morristown, TN (114488984)✝ X

Page 116 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X

X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X X X

X X X

X

X X X

(continued)

Page 117 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Shell Oil Co.

Deer Park, TX (123652513) X

Wood River 

Roxana, IL (106552771)*

X X

Shirley Contracting Corp.

Washington, DC (123503294)

Siemens Energy & Automation (Siemens)

Urbana, OH (103030086)

Signature Flight Support Corp.

Chicago, IL (103586947)

Smith & Nephew Dyonics (Smith & Nephew PLC)

Andover, MA (109622332) X

Smith & Wesson Co. (Tompkins Industries)

Springfield, MA (102766664) X

The Smithfield Packing Co. (Smithfield Foods, Inc.)

Landover, MD (119587681)✝ X X

Snyder General Corp. (McQuay International)

Verona, VA (123702128)✝ X X

Spearin Preston & Burrows, Inc.

New York, NY (017777251)

S.S.I. Food Services, Inc. (Simplot J.R. Co.)

Wilder, ID (110516986)*

Stambaugh’s Air Service, Inc.

Middletown, PA (109028738) X X

Stevedoring (Cooper/T Smith Stevedoring, Inc.)

Services of America 

Savannah, GA (106219967)

Port Cooper 

Houston, TX (123653958)

X

Stone Container Corp.

Jacksonville, AR (107605776) X X

Jacksonville, AR (110360427) X

Frenchtown, MT (100568815) X X X

Frenchtown, MT (107214314) X X

Columbia, SC (120493994)✝ X

Stonhard Manufacturing Co., Inc. (R.P.M., Inc.)

Page 118 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X X

X X X X X

X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X

X X

X

X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

(continued)

Page 119 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Maple Shade, NJ (106741531) X X X

Sun Chemical Corp. (Dainippon Ink & Chemicals, Inc.)

Cincinnati, OH (103231833) X

Cincinnati, OH (103273041) X

Supreme Corp. (Supreme Industries, Inc.)

Goshen, IN (108646167)✝

Swiftships Freeport, Inc. (Swiftships, Inc.)

Freeport, TX (107491011) X X

Texaco Refining (Texaco, Inc.)

Los Angeles, CA (112076500)✝

Tower Construction Co., Inc.

Mililani Town, HI (103887865)✝

Trataros Construction Co.

New York, NY (107196248)

Trident Seafoods Corp.

Naknek, AK (109433052) X

Naknek, AK (124072521)✝

Trinity Industries, Inc.

Longview, TX (109098921)

Unifirst Corp.

Springfield, MA (017828252) X X

Union Camp Corp.

Fine Paper Division 

Franklin, VA (112394796)✝

X X

Savannah, GA (017403627) X X X

Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific Corp.)

Green River, WY (114619042)✝

United Airlines (U.A.L. Corp.)

Elk Grove Village, IL (102992112) X

Elk Grove Village, IL (103456794) X

Executive Office

Elk Grove Village, IL (102992047)

United Parcel Service (United Parcel Service Amer., Inc.)

Mobile, AL (106092067)

Commerce City, CO (109550491)

Fort Collins, CO (100747146)

Page 120 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X

X

X

X X

X X X X

X

X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X

X X X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

(continued)

Page 121 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Hartford, CT (123214074)

Palm Bay, FL (109709279)

Pinellas Park, FL (109709311)

Earth City, MO (116103722)

Jackson, MS (018135012) X

Manchester, NH (017902925)

Twin Mountain, NH (108783929)

Buffalo, NY (114098858)

East Syracuse, NY (106898208)*

Elmsford, NY (109916726)*

Uniondale, NY (108664079)*

Austin, TX (123432338)

Mesquite, TX (107550857)

Deerfield, FL (108995697)

Miami, FL (110056421)*

Linthicum Heights, MD

(119554269)✝

Belton, TX (123426421)

Bryan, TX (123424574)

Corpus Christi, TX (107433583)

Laredo, TX (107434243)

San Antonio, TX (123432254)

United Technologies Automotive (United Technologies Corp.)

Columbia City, IN (114978794)✝ X

Unitog, Inc.

Warrensburg, MO (115971475) X

Universal Maritime Service Corp. (Maersk, Inc.)

Port Newark, NJ (017982646)

University of Miami

Fort Lauderdale, FL (109689992) X

Valley Design and Construction

Boise, ID (107234726)

Vickers, Inc. (Trinova Corp.)

Omaha, NE (109321687) X X

Omaha, NE (109322974) X

Victory Corrugated Container Corp.

Page 122 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X

X

X X X X

X X X

(continued)

Page 123 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location (IMIS activity number)

General duty

clause

Recording 

and 

reporting

Walkingworking 

surfaces

H

m

Roselle, NJ (114039951) X

Vineland Kosher Poultry, Inc.

Vineland, NJ (108666413) X X

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.

Malvern, PA (102845518) X X

Volunteers of America of Oklahoma (Volunteers of America, Inc.)

Tulsa, OK (109060137)

Wabash Valley Manufacturing, Inc.

Silver Lake, IN (114974199)✝ X

Waste Management Disposal (W.M.X. Technologies, Inc.)

Phoenix, AZ (115584815)✝ X

Weber Aircraft, Inc. (Zodiac, SA)

Gainesville, TX (110372539) X

Weight Watchers Food Co. (Heinz, Inc.)

Wethersfield, CT (102794856) X X

West State, Inc. (W.S., Inc.)

Portland, OR (110505344)

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Birmingham, AL (106232804)

Whirlpool Corp.

Fort Smith, AR (110354784)

Evansville, IN (123970469)✝

Willamette Industries, Inc.

Hawesville, KY (123812786)✝ X

Moncure, NC (111139390)✝ X

Witco Corp.

Memphis, TN (120549472)✝

Yuasa-Exide, Inc.

San Antonio, TX (123434094) X X

Zeneca Resins (Imperial Americas)

Wilmington, MA (109620831) X

Page 124 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix III 

A Total of 261 Federal Contractors Assessed

Significant Proposed Penalties by OSHA

Standard Violated

Hazardous

materials

Machinery

and

machine

guarding Electrical

Toxic and

hazardous

substances

Hazard

communications

Other

general

industry

Shipyards,

marine

terminals,

longshoring Construction

All other

standards

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

X

X X X X

X X

X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X

Note: Toxic and hazardous substances include asbestos, lead, and bloodborne pathogens.

*Assessed proposed penalty of $100,000 or more for safety and health violations.

✝Inspection conducted by a state-operated safety and health program.

Page 125 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Table IV.1 identifies the 50 federal contractors that were assessed

significant proposed penalties in an OSHA inspection in which a fatality or

injury occurred. The location of the worksite inspected and the

corresponding activity number for the inspection, as assigned in IMIS, are

provided. The name of the federal contractor (or parent company) is

identified if it is different from the name of the worksite where the

violations occurred. In describing the fatality or injury, we referred to

investigation summaries submitted by OSHA compliance officers or

follow-up calls to area OSHA offices when other data in IMIS indicated an

accident had occurred but no summary was available. The accident

segment of IMIS provided counts for fatalities and injuries, which we

supplemented with information obtained through our follow-up calls. We

have reported only those standards violated that are associated with the

highest actual penalty as well as standards that reportedly contributed to a

fatality or injury when different from the former. Regardless, factors other

than a company’s OSHA violations may have contributed to some of these

fatalities or injuries, such as misjudgments by the worker or the worker’s

failure to follow company safety practices. We have identified those

inspections in which a proposed penalty of $100,000 or more was assessed

with an asterisk and those inspections conducted by state-operated safety

and health programs with a special symbol (✝).

Table IV.1: Fatalities and Injuries Associated With Inspections Involving 50 Federal Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

A.H.A. General Construction

New York, NY

(106934086)

5 5 workers were hospitalized due to

fall when floor of building, which was

not shored or braced, collapsed

during demolition.

Demolition

Acme Steel Co. (Acme Metals, Inc.)

Chicago, IL

(103451274)

1 1 1 worker died, another was

hospitalized, from exposure to blast

furnace gas due to equipment failure

at a steel mill.

Means of egress;a

hazardous materials;

personal protective

equipment; general

environmental controls

lockout/tagout;b

toxic and hazardous

substances

Albany International Corp.

(continued)

Page 126 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

East

Greenbush, NY

(109053272)

1 1 worker was hospitalized and died

4 days later after being crushed in a

weaving loom at this textile plant.

Lockout/tagout

Alcan Toyo America (Toyo Aluminum KK)

Lockport, IL

(108719063)

1 1 worker died from burns when a

mixer containing aluminum powder

exploded at this primary metals

production plant.

General duty clause;

personal protective

equipment

Alder Construction, Inc.

Boise, ID

(107232167)

1 1 worker died due to a propane

explosion when he entered a

confined space, where the

atmosphere had not been tested,

with a lighted torch.

General safety and

health provisions;

fire protection and

prevention;

occupational health and

environmental controls;

personal protective and

lifesaving equipment

Allied Tube and Conduit (Tyco International, Ltd.)

Philadelphia,

PA

(018253054)*

5 3 workers lost fingers or parts of

fingers, and a fourth worker fractured

several fingers. Their fingers were

either crushed or cut by machinery

at this electric wiring facility. A fifth

worker was hospitalized after being

pinned between a forklift and a

parking cart.

Machinery and machine

guarding

Aluminum Co. of America

Rockdale, TX

(123431298)

1 1 worker died after he was crushed

inside of a truck which he operated

for this metal smelting and refining

plant. The truck ran off the road and

rolled upside down, in part because

his vision was obstructed due to the

truck’s design.

General duty clause

Amoco Gas Co. (Amoco Corp.)

Texas City, TX

(107491433)

9 9 workers were hospitalized for

burns due to an explosion of a

natural gas pipeline.

All deleted

Arco Alaska, Inc. (Atlantic Richfield Co.)

(continued)

Page 127 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

Prudhoe Bay,

AK

(105867964)✝

1 4 1 worker was hospitalized and 4

other workers were injured due to a

flash fire in a tank. Sparks from a

welding or cutting operation ignited

gases in a pipe that was

inadequately purged at this

petroleum and natural gas facility.

Process safety

management;c standards

of state-operated

program

Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

Columbia, MD

(119539898)✝

2 2 workers were hospitalized due to

contact with a light pole that hit high

voltage lines when they were

reinstalling the pole for this power

line construction company.

Electrical

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Textron, Inc.)

Hurst, TX

(103375663)

1 1 1 worker was killed and another

hospitalized due to overexposure to

sulfuric acid in a confined space.

Electrical

Brown & Root (Halliburton Co.)

Deer Park, TX

(123652505)

1 2 1 worker died, 2 workers were

hospitalized, due to gas exposure

while doing maintenance work on a

pipeline for this special trades

contractor.

Process safety

management; personal

protective equipment

Cargill, Inc. (Tyson Foods, Inc.)

Buena Vista,

GA

(106514169)

1 1 worker was injured when he mixed

together unmarked chemicals that

subsequently exploded. The worker

was cleaning at this poultry

processing facility.

Toxic and hazardous

substance; hazard

communication standard

Clean Harbors of Kingston, Inc. (Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.)

Providence, RI

(017945213)*

1 1 worker died because his

co-workers were unable to retrieve

him from a tank containing a

chemical sludge when his air supply

ran low. He was cleaning the tank for

this facility that provides refuse

collection and disposal services.

General duty clause

Duncan-Smith, Inc.

(continued)

Page 128 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

Charleston, SC

(017419631)

1 1 worker drowned when he jumped

off a barge without a life preserver

because he was frightened when it

began to rock back and forth. The

rocking action started when a sling

broke as workers were pulling pilings

out of the channel for this demolition

and wrecking company.

General safety and

health provisions;

personal protective and

life saving equipment;

materials handling,

storage, use, and

disposal; cranes,

derricks, hoists,

elevators, and

conveyors; motor

vehicles, mechanized

equipment, and marine

operations

Dunlop Tire Corp. (Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.)

Huntsville, AL

(108955618)

1 1 worker, at this facility which

produces tires, died when he placed

fabric on a rotating cylinder, got

caught in the machine, and

asphyxiated after being wound up

inside the fabric.

Machinery and machine

guarding

Exide Corp.

Salina, KS

(103163317)

1 1 worker died from electric shock

while checking fuses for this facility,

which manufactures storage

batteries.

Electrical

Exide Electronics Corp. (Exide Electronics Group, Inc.)

Raleigh, NC

(111091807)✝

1 1 worker was hospitalized, at this

company which produces

transformers, due to electric shock

while cleaning consoles with a liquid

cleaner. The consoles were not

disconnected from the power supply.

Electrical;

lockout/tagout

Federal Paper Board Co., Inc.

Riegelwood,

NC

(018518688)*✝

1 1 worker died from electric shock, at

this pulp and paper mill, when a

boiler precipitator within the power

plant was not deenergized before he

entered a confined space to work on

it.

Special industries;

standard of

state-operated program

The Foxboro Co. (Siebe PLC)

(continued)

Page 129 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

Foxboro, MA

(107541567)

1 1 worker died when splashed by

hydrogen fluoride while he was

manually dispensing the chemical

from the bottom of the drum. This

company produces measuring and

controlling devices.

Occupational health and

environmental control;

hazard communication

standard

Frito-Lay, Inc. (Pepisco, Inc.)

Allen Park, MI

(110801305)✝

1 1 worker was burned while using a

high pressure steam hot water hose

while cleaning the potato peeler

equipment at this food preparation

facility.

Standards of

state-operated program

Dayville, CT

(109826248)

1 1 worker died, at this facility which

produces snack foods, when his

neck was crushed while making

adjustments to the waste conveyor

system. He was working alone at this

wastewater treatment plant.

Walking-working surfaces

Gary’s Grading and Pipeline Co.

Lawrenceville,

GA

(106514367)

1 1 worker was injured when a wall of

an unshored trench collapsed. He

was trying to install a saddle tap for

this grading and pipeline company.

Excavationsd

Granite Construction Co.

Rockwall, TX

(103556791)

1 1 worker died when a reinforced

concrete panel fell on him while he

was unloading a semitruck

transporting these panels to a

highway construction site.

Electrical;

general safety and

health provisions

Hawaii Electric Light Co., Inc. (Hawaii Electric Industries)

Hilo, HI

(103885844)✝

1 1 worker died from electric shock

when disassembling a test

transformer. The safety indicator was

inoperable so he did not realize that

the transformer was still energized.

Standard of

state-operated program

Hawaii Stevedores, Inc.

Honolulu, HI

(110635059)

1 1 worker was killed when a forklift

ran into him as he was directing

another driver into position to load

and unload goods on a pier for this

marine cargo handling company.

Materials handling and

storage

Inland Steel Co. (Inland Steel Industries)

(continued)

Page 130 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

East Chicago,

IN

(115036386)✝

3 2 workers were killed when trapped

in a fire that erupted at this

coke-making facility. Their supervisor

killed himself several days later.

Standards of

state-operated program;

hazardous materials;

means of egress

International Paper Co.

Cordele, GA

(106441108)

1 1 worker died when he entered a

drum to replace a faulty piece of

equipment at this wood products

facility. The drum, which was not

deenergized or locked out, was

inadvertently activated and the

worker fell 14 feet into the conveyor

system.

Confined spacee

Keebler Co. (United Biscuits Holdings PLC)

Grand Rapids,

MI

(114801988)✝

2 2 workers fractured a forearm and a

finger, respectively, while cleaning

conveyors at this facility which

makes cookies and crackers.

Standards of

state-operated program;

lockout/tagout

Lauhoff Grain Co., Inc. (Bunge Corp.)

Danville, IL

(103304135)

1 1 1 worker died and another was

hospitalized when cleaning a grain

bin for this grain mill products

company. Both workers were drawn

down into the grain bin, and the first

suffocated.

General duty clause

M & K Electrical Co., Inc.

Pittsburgh, PA

(108755588)

1 1 worker died from electric shock

while removing a compactor from

between two energized conductors

and inadvertently coming into

contact with an energized line.

Electical; general safety

and health provisions;

power transmission and

distribution

Neosho Construction (Neosho, Inc.)

Riverside, CA

(119959757)✝

1 1 worker was hospitalized for head

injuries when he fell 10 feet onto a

concrete floor while working on

reinforcing a railroad undercrossing.

Standards of

state-operated program

Novinger Group

Harrisburg, PA

(109018937)

1 1 worker died of electric shock

when, for this plastering and drywall

company, he mistakenly cut into

electrical wiring.

Electrical

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Pennsylvania Power & Light Resources, Inc.)

(continued)

Page 131 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

Williamsport,

PA

(109361659)

1 1 worker died of electric shock when

installing underground electrical

conductors in a new development.

He attempted to connect a line he

mistakenly thought was deenergized.

General duty clause;

power transmission and

distribution

P.M.X. Industries, Inc.

Cedar Rapids,

IA

(115054066)✝

6 6 workers were hospitalized from

smoke inhalation as a result of

fighting a fire. Hydraulic oil caught

fire at this metal smelting and

refining plant.

Fire protection

P.S.I. Energy-Gibson Generating (Cinergy Corp.)

Owensville, IN

(108563958)✝

2 20 2 workers were hospitalized due to

burns. 20 workers were injured,

although not hospitalized, as a result

of smoke inhalation and cuts and

bruises from falling debris. These

workers were trying to fight the fire

from a coal hopper explosion at this

electrical services facility.

Standard of

state-operated program;

personal protective

equipment

Purina Mills, Inc. (PM Holdings Corp.)

Oklahoma City,

OK

(108742081)

1 1 worker died when he got caught in

a bag-stacker machine while trying

to free a jammed pallet without

turning off the power. He

inadvertently hit a switch, causing

the machine to recycle at this animal

feed manufacturing facility.

Lockout/tagout

Radiation Systems, Inc.-Univer (Comsat Corp. RSI)

Green Bank,

WV

(101174506)

1 1 worked died when he fell 120 feet

from a platform that hit an object and

tipped to the side as it was being

lowered. This worker and 3 others on

the platform were not tied off. This

company is a special trades

contractor in the construction

industry.

Cranes, derricks, hoists,

elevators, and conveyors

Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemicals (Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.)

Martinez, CA

(111996526)*✝

1 1 1 worker died and another was

hospitalized due to chemical burns

when they mistakenly extracted a

valve, releasing 80,000 gallons of

acid sludge from a storage tank at

this industrial chemicals facility.

Standards of

state-operated program

Rich Industries, Inc.

(continued)

Page 132 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

New

Philadelphia,

OH

(103040234)

1 1 worker died from electric shock

when he reached into a press to do

maintenance work and came into

contact with a live electrical part.

This facility manufactures protective

clothing for the nuclear industry.

Electrical;

lockout/tagout

Schuck and Sons Construction Co., Inc.

Indio,CA

(112057690)✝

1 1 worker was hospitalized when he

fell while working on a frame house

for this company that builds

residential buildings. The worker was

leaning out from a 9-foot height while

attempting to cut a roof joist when he

slipped and fell to the cement porch

below.

Standards of

state-operated program

Shasta Industries, Inc.

Phoenix, AZ

(115562290)✝

1 1 worker died from burns when

trying to use acetone to remove

standing water in a swimming pool

for which he was preparing a

fiberglass interior surface. The

acetone vapors in the pool were

ignited when he switched on a

vacuum. The company is a special

trades contractor.

Electrical;

occupational health and

environmental controls

Shell Oil Co.

Deer Park, TX

(123652513)

1 2 1 worker died and 2 were

hospitalized from exposure to gas

when one of them opened the flange

of a pipeline while they were doing

maintenance work at this petroleum

refining facility.

Process safety

management; personal

protective equipment

Signature Flight Support Corp.

Chicago, IL

(103586947)

1 1 worker died when inflating a tire on

a baggage trailer that transports

luggage to and from the aircraft. The

tube exploded and the rim struck the

employee in the face, causing

massive head injuries. The company

provides airport terminal services.

Materials handling and

storage

Stambaugh’s Air Service, Inc.

(continued)

Page 133 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

Middletown, PA

(109028738)

1 1 1 worker died and another was

hospitalized when trying to remove

an engine from an aircraft. The

4,000-pound engine dropped on the

chest of the first worker when the

front chain of the mechanism used to

remove the engine broke. The other

worker was struck in the head by the

mechanism itself.

Materials handling and

storage

Swiftships Freeport, Inc. (Swiftships, Inc.)

Freeport, TX

(107491011)

1 1 worker died instantly when he was

struck in the head by a 3-ton exhaust

stack that was being positioned by a

crane for sandblasting and painting,

after being removed from a vessel.

This facility is engaged in

shipbuilding and repair.

General duty clause

Texaco Refining (Texaco, Inc.)

Los Angeles,

CA

(112076500)✝

10 10 workers were hospitalized for

smoke inhalation and being struck

by falling debris when a piping

failure led to a petroleum explosion

and fire at this petroleum refining

facility.

Standard of

state-operated program

United Parcel Service (United Parcel Service Amer, Inc.)

Linthicum

Heights, MD

(119554269)✝

2 2 workers were hospitalized from

exposure to hazardous solvents that

leaked from packages within the

confined space of an airplane cargo

hold.

Means of egress;

personal protective

equipment

Whirlpool Corp.

Evansville, IN

(123970469)✝

1 1 worker was hospitalized, and his

hand and forearm amputated, when

he got caught while manually

feeding coil through a mechanical

power press. The facility

manufactures household

refrigerators.

Machinery and machine

guarding

Willamette Industries, Inc.

Moncure, NC

(111139390)✝

1 1 worker died when an object, which

fell from the wall of a large vessel he

was cleaning along with several

other workers, crushed this worker.

The facility manufactures hardwood

veneer and plywood.

Standard of

state-operated program;

walking-working surfaces

(continued)

Page 134 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix IV 

Fatalities and Injuries Associated With

Inspections Involving 50 Federal

Contractors

Worksite (name of federal contractor if different)

Location of

inspection 

(IMIS activity

number) Fatalities

Hospitalized

injuries

Nonhospitalized

injuries Description of fatality or injury

OSHA standard

violated associated

with highest actual

penalty

Zeneca Resins (Imperial Americas)

Wilmington, MA

(109620831)

1 1 worker was hospitalized from

inhaling vapors released due to

improper storage of chemicals at a

facility which manufactures plastics

and synthetic resins. Although all

workers were evacuated, this worker

went to search for a co-worker

without personal protective

equipment.

Means of egress;

hazardous materials; fire

protection

Total 35 55 30

*Assessed proposed penalty of $100,000 or more for safety and health violations.

✝Inspection conducted by a state-operated safety and health program.

aMeans of egress refers to requirements that a continuous and unobstructed way to exit from any

point in a building or structure be provided.

bLockout/tagout refers to servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment to prevent their

unexpected start-up that could cause injury to employees.

cProcess safety management refers to requirements for preventing or minimizing the

consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.

dExcavations refers to requirements for minimizing injuries (from cave-ins, for example) to

employees who are working below the earth’s surface, which would include trenches.

eConfined space refers to practices and procedures to protect employees from the hazards of

entry into permit-required confined spaces, for example, tanks, vessels, silos, storage bins, and

vaults.

Page 135 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix V 

Federal Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties in More Than One

Inspection Closed in Fiscal Year 1994

Table V.1 provides information on federal contractors assessed a

significant proposed penalty more than once in fiscal year 1994 for

violations that occurred at different worksites owned by or associated

with the same company. In a few cases, the federal contractor was

assessed a significant proposed penalty more than once in fiscal year 1994

at the same or different worksites located in the same city. Our definition

of a significant penalty is a proposed penalty of $15,000 or more regardless

of the size of the actual penalty recorded when the inspection was closed

(either because the employer accepted the citation or a contested citation

was resolved). The proposed penalty is the penalty issued by OSHA in the

original citation and reflects the compliance officer’s judgment of the

nature and severity of violations. Inspections of these worksites are

grouped by federal contractor (or parent company). The name of the

federal contractor is identified if it is different from the name of the

worksite where the violations occurred.

Locations for the worksites inspected are provided, as well as the activity

number of each inspection as assigned in IMIS. The primary industry of the

worksite inspected is also provided, based on SIC codes in IMIS. Finally, the

number of inspections closed in fiscal year 1994 in which a worksite

owned by the same federal contractor was assessed significant proposed

penalties is also provided.

Table V.1: Federal Contractors Assessed Significant Proposed Penalties in More Than One Inspection Closed in Fiscal

Year 1994

Worksite (name of federal

contractor if different)

Location of inspection 

(IMIS activity number)

Primary industry of

establishment

Number of inspections

resulting in proposed penalty

of $15,000 or more closed in

fiscal year 1994

All-Steel, Inc.

(B.T.R. PLC)

Montgomery, IL

(102997434);

West Hazleton, PA

(018226225)

Office furniture, except wood 2

Allied Tube & Conduit Co.

(Tyco International, Inc.)

Philadelphia, PA

(017999095)

(018253054);

Harvey, IL

(103453387)

Steel pipe and tubes;

noncurrent-carrying wiring

devices

3

Aluminum Co. of America Rockdale, TX

(123431298);

Massena, NY

(106991326)

Secondary smelting and

refining of nonferrous metals

2

Bethlehem Steel Corp. Sparrows Point, MD

(104383815)

(119517068)

Steel works, blast furnaces

(including coke ovens), and

rolling mills

2

(continued)

Page 136 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix V 

Federal Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties in More Than One

Inspection Closed in Fiscal Year 1994

Worksite (name of federal

contractor if different)

Location of inspection 

(IMIS activity number)

Primary industry of

establishment

Number of inspections

resulting in proposed penalty

of $15,000 or more closed in

fiscal year 1994

Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. Fairfield, NJ

(101484780);

Paterson, NJ

(109043141)

Pharmaceutical preparations 2

Blaze Construction Co. Pinon, AZ

(002331478);

Many Farms, AZ

(002331486)

General

contractors—single-family

houses

2

Boeing Commercial Aircraft

Co./Defense & Space Group

(The Boeing Co.)

Everett, WA

(115506081);

Ridley Park, PA

(018253047)

Aircraft 2

Boise Cascade Corp. Rumford, ME

(103392247)

(102753969)

(109793901);

Horseshoe, ID

(110502895)

Paper mills; sawmills and

planing mills

4

ConAgra Broiler Co./Fresh Meats

Co./Longmont Foods

(ConAgra, Inc.)

Enterprise, AL

(109246249);

Omaha, NE

(109318873);

Longmont, CO

(100747476)

Prepared feeds and feed

ingredients for animals and

fowls; meat packing plants;

poultry slaughtering and

processing

3

Crowley American Transport

Inc./Maritime Corp.

(Crowley Maritime Corp.)

San Juan, PR

(106716145);

Seattle, WA

(109421685)

Marine cargo handling; ship

building and repairing

2

Crown Central Petroleum/La

Gloria Oil & Gas Co.

(Crown Central Petroleum Corp.)

Pasadena, TX

(123653081);

Tyler, TX

(107555567)

(103564449)

Petroleum refining 3

Dana Spicer Axle Division/Chasis

Prod.

(Dana Corp.)

Fort Wayne, IN

(115017410);

Oklahoma City, OK

(108736869)

Motor vehicle parts and

accessories

2

Dell Computer Corp. Austin, TX

(123579559)

(123549917)

Computer peripheral

equipment; computers

2

Federal Paper Board Co. Riegelwood, NC

(018518670)

(018518688)

Paper mills 2

Ford Motor Co. Hazelwood, MO

(106547508);

Lorain, OH

(106123748)

Motor vehicles and passenger

car bodies

2

(continued)

Page 137 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix V 

Federal Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties in More Than One

Inspection Closed in Fiscal Year 1994

Worksite (name of federal

contractor if different)

Location of inspection 

(IMIS activity number)

Primary industry of

establishment

Number of inspections

resulting in proposed penalty

of $15,000 or more closed in

fiscal year 1994

Frito-Lay, Inc.

(Pepsico, Inc.)

Allen Park, MI

(110801305);

Dayville, CT

(109826248);

Granite City, IL

(103278982)

Food preparations; potato

chips, corn chips, and similar

snacks; grocery stores

3

General Motors BOC

Lordstown/Truck/CPC

Group/Delco Electronics/

(General Motors Corp.)

Lordstown, OH

(103217881)

(108836552);

Moraine, OH

(103376422);

Oklahoma City, OK

(108743253);

Oak Creek, WI

(103472049)

Motor vehicles and passenger

car bodies; motor vehicle parts

and accessories;

semiconductors and related

devices

5

Georgia-Pacific Corp. Brunswick, GA

(109006700)

(109006981);

Palatka, FL

(110133816);

Mount Wolf, PA

(109029520);

Cedar Springs, GA 

(106213911)

Pulp mills; paper mills;

corrugated and solid fiber

boxes; paperboard mills

5

I.C.I. America/Zeneca Resins

(Imperial Americas)

Tamaqua, PA

(106472160);

Wilmington, MA

(109620831)

Explosives; plastics materials,

synthetic resins, and

nonvulcanizable elastomers

2

International Paper Co. Moss Point, MS

(101391787)

(101390235);

Natchez, MS

(107089484)

(102677952);

Cordele, GA

(106441108);

Jay, ME

(018058123)

Paper mills; pulp mills;

reconstituted wood products

6

Lockheed Aeronautical

Systems/Engineering & Science

(Lockheed-Martin Corp.)

Burbank, CA

(001874445);

Houston, TX

(123652711)

Aircraft; engineering services 2

Montgomery Elevator

(Kone Holding, Inc.)

Winfield, KS

(103164935);

Tampa, FL

(106491350)

Elevators and moving stairways;

installation or erection of

building equipment

2

(continued)

Page 138 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix V 

Federal Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties in More Than One

Inspection Closed in Fiscal Year 1994

Worksite (name of federal

contractor if different)

Location of inspection 

(IMIS activity number)

Primary industry of

establishment

Number of inspections

resulting in proposed penalty

of $15,000 or more closed in

fiscal year 1994

Packaging Corp. of America

(Tenneco Packaging, Inc.)

Griffith, IN

(124068792);

Tama, IA

(115064248)

Sanitary food containers;

paperboard mills

2

Purina Mills, Inc.

(P.M. Holdings Corp.)

Macon, GA

(106513559);

Liberal, KS

(103164372);

Oklahoma City, OK

(108742081)

Prepared feeds and feed

ingredients for animals and

fowls

3

Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemical

(Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.)

Martinez, CA

(111995379)

(111996526)

Industrial inorganic chemicals 2

Roadway Express, Inc. Chicago Hts, IL

(101313252);

Oakville, CT

(109828079)

Terminal and joint terminal

maintenance facilities for motor

freight transportation; local

trucking without storage

2

Salvation Army Rockford, IL

(122098684)

(122108004)

Individual and family social

services

2

Sears Automotive

Center/Roebuck & Co.

(Sears Roebuck & Co.)

Toledo, OH

(110274198);

Toms River, NJ

(108665050);

Iowa City, IA

(115054561);

Springfield, MA

(017828617)

General automotive repair

shops; miscellaneous general

merchandise stores

4

Shell Oil Co./Wood River

(Shell Oil Co.)

Deer Park, TX

(123652513);

Roxana, IL

(106552771)

Petroleum refining 2

Stevedoring Services of

America/Port Cooper

(Cooper/T Smith Stevedoring,

Inc.)

Savannah, GA

(106219967);

Houston, TX

(123653958)

Repair shops and related

services; marine cargo handling

2

Stone Container Corp. Jacksonville, AR

(107605776)

(110360427);

Frenchtown, MT

(100568815)

(107214314);

Columbia, SC

(120493994)

Plastics, foil, and coated paper

bags; uncoated paper and

multiwall bags; paperboard

mills; paper mills; corrugated

and solid fiber boxes

5

(continued)

Page 139 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix V 

Federal Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties in More Than One

Inspection Closed in Fiscal Year 1994

Worksite (name of federal

contractor if different)

Location of inspection 

(IMIS activity number)

Primary industry of

establishment

Number of inspections

resulting in proposed penalty

of $15,000 or more closed in

fiscal year 1994

Sun Chemical Corp.

(Dainippon Ink & Chemicals, Inc.)

Cincinnati, OH

(103231833)

(103273041)

Cyclic organic crudes and

intermediates, and organic

dyes and pigments; industrial

organic chemicals

2

Trident Seafoods Corp. Naknek, AK

(109433052)

(124072521)

Prepared fresh or frozen fish

and seafoods; canned and

cured fish and seafoods

2

Union Camp Corp./Fine Paper

Division

(Union Camp Corp.)

Savannah, GA

(017403627);

Franklin, VA

(112394796)

Paper mills 2

United Airlines/Executive Office

(U.A.L. Corp.)

Elk Grove Village, IL

(102992112)

(103456794)

(102992047)

Air transportation 3

UPS

(United Parcel Service Amer.,

Inc.)

Mobile, AL

(106092067);

Commerce City, CO

(109550491);

Fort Collins, CO

(100747146);

Hartford, CT

(123214074);

Palm Bay, FL

(109709279);

Pinellas Park, FL

(109709311);

Earth City, MO

(116103722);

Jackson, MS

(018135012);

Manchester, NH

(017902925);

Twin Mountain, NH

(108783929);

Buffalo, NY

(114098858);

East Syracuse, NY

(106898208);

Elmsford, NY

(109916726);

Courier services, except by air;

air courier services; trucking,

except local; terminal and joint

terminal maintenance facilities

for motor freight transportation;

arrangement of transporation of

freight and cargo

24

(continued)

Page 140 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix V 

Federal Contractors Assessed Significant

Proposed Penalties in More Than One

Inspection Closed in Fiscal Year 1994

Worksite (name of federal

contractor if different)

Location of inspection 

(IMIS activity number)

Primary industry of

establishment

Number of inspections

resulting in proposed penalty

of $15,000 or more closed in

fiscal year 1994

Uniondale, NY

(108664079);

Austin, TX

(123432338);

Mesquite, TX

(107550857);

Deerfield Beach, FL

(108995697);

Miami, FL

(110056421);

Linthicum Hts., MD

(119554269);

Belton, TX

(123426421);

Bryan, TX

(123424574);

Corpus Christi, TX

(107433583);

Laredo, TX

(107434243);

San Antonio, TX

(123432254)

Vickers, Inc.

(Trinova Corp.)

Omaha, NE

(109321687)

(109322974)

Fluid power pumps and motors 2

Whirlpool Corp. Fort Smith, AR

(110354784);

Evansville, IN

(123970469)

Household refrigerators and

home and farm freezers

2

Willamette Industries, Inc. Hawesville, KY

(123812786);

Moncure, NC

(111139390)

Paper mills; hardwood veneer

and plywood

2

Page 141 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Charles Jeszeck, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7036

Jackie Baker Werth, Project Manager, (202) 512-7070

Staff

Acknowledgments

In addition to those already named, the following individuals contributed

to this report: Wayne J. Turowski, Computer Specialist, who provided

programming support and analysis; Robert G. Crystal, Assistant General

Counsel, who provided legal analysis; David Druid, Evaluator, who

assisted with the audit work; Cheryl Gordon, Evaluator, who did some

initial audit work; and William J. Carter-Woodbridge, Communications

Analyst, who provided editing support.

Page 142 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 143 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Related GAO Products

Worker Protection: Federal Contractors and Violations of Labor Law

(GAO/HEHS-96-8, Oct. 24, 1995).

OSHA: Potential to Reform Regulatory Enforcement Efforts (GAO/T-HEHS-96-42,

Oct. 17, 1995).

Workplace Regulation: Information on Selected Employer and Union

Experiences (GAO/HEHS-94-138, Vol. I, June 30, 1994).

Workplace Regulation: Information on Selected Employer and Union

Experiences (GAO/HEHS-94-138, Vol. II, June 30, 1994).

Occupational Safety and Health: Differences Between Programs in the

United States and Canada (GAO/HRD-94-15FS, Dec. 6, 1993).

Occupational Safety and Health: Changes Needed in the Combined

Federal-State Approach (GAO/T-HRD-94-3, Oct. 20, 1993).

Occupational Safety and Health: Uneven Protections Provided to

Congressional Employees (GAO/HRD-93-1, Oct. 2, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Improvements Needed in OSHA’s

Monitoring of Federal Agencies’ Programs (GAO/HRD-92-97, Aug. 28, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Worksite Safety and Health Programs

Show Promise (GAO/HRD-92-68, May 19, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Options to Improve Hazard-Abatement

Procedures in the Workplace (GAO/HRD-92-105, May 12, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Employers’ Experiences in Complying

With the Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-63BR, May 8, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Penalties for Violations Are Well Below

Maximum Allowable Penalties (GAO/HRD-92-48, Apr. 6, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: OSHA Action Needed to Improve

Compliance With Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-8, Nov. 26,

1991).

Occupational Safety and Health: OSHA Policy Changes Needed to Confirm

That Employers Abate Serious Hazards (GAO/HRD-91-35, May 8, 1991).

(205305) Page 144 GAO/HEHS-96-157 Federal Contractor Safety Practices
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100