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 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. 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. 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.” 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 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. 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. 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.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 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. 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. 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 date. 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. 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 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. 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). 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. 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 workers employed. This database does not contain information about whether violators receive federal contracts. 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.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. 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). 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, 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). 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.) 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.) Many (68 percent) of the worksites where the violations occurred were relatively small, employing 500 or fewer workers. Just over 15 percent of 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. 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 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. (See app. I.) 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 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). 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. 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. In addition, OSHA does not currently penalize employers for failing to provide proof that the company has abated the hazard. As a result, OSHA has only the employer’s statement that abatement has taken place unless a follow-up or monitoring inspection is performed. 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 well as standards for machinery and machine guarding, electrical work, and recording and reporting.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. 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. At worksites of 50 federal contractors, 35 fatalities and 85 injuries occurred. 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. 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.) 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. 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. These 261 federal contractors were assessed a total of $24.1 million in proposed penalties and $10.9 million in actual penalties. 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. 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 Construction; and Frito-Lay, Inc. (one of its three inspections). 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. 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. 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. 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 $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. 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. UPS is also a large company, with 285,000 workers and annual sales of $17.7 billion. 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 improve its collection of these codes for worksites inspected. 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. 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. 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 inspections, in which case no information exists to determine if there is a compliance problem. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. However, as is the case with direct federal contracts, agency officials often lack information as to which 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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?) 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) 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 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. 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. 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. 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), 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 industry it is engaged in and the number of workers. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.) 4% Not a Federal Contractor per Telephone Verification 3% Unable to Verify Violators Receiving Federal Contracts (345 Inspections) 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. 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. 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. 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.This was a conservative approach to ensure that we were not attributing more contract dollars to that company than were verified. We found it necessary to report federal contract award data for violators by parent company for several reasons: 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. 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 violations associated with these inspections if the data did not lend themselves to presentation by inspection. 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, none of our 345 matched inspections was conducted for this reason. (See fig. I.2.) We discovered some inconsistencies in accident data when comparing different sources of data. 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 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.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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 of their 345 inspections were criminally prosecuted by OSHA 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. 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. 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. Table II.1: Characteristics of the Inspections and Contracts of 261 Federal Contractors Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) A.H.A. General Construction ($1,180,000 in contracts) $22,050 ($12,000) 5 workers were hospitalized due to fall when floor of building, which was not shored or braced, collapsed during demolition. A.A.R. Engine Component Services (A.A.R. Corp.; 46,224,000 in contracts) 33,000 (15,750) A.B.B. Combustion Engineering Nuclear (A.B.B. A.S.E.A. Brown Boveri, Ltd.; 100,882,000 in contracts) 20,775 (15,900) Acme Steel Co. (Acme Metals, Inc.; 310,000 in contracts) 83,000 (62,250) Means of egress; hazardous materials; personal protective equipment; general environmental controls; lockout/tagout; toxic and hazardous substances 1 worker died, another was hospitalized, from exposure to blast furnace gas due to equipment failure at a steel mill. Alamo Transformer Supply Co. (2,000 in contracts) 30,000 (9,500) Albany International Corp. (214,000 in contracts) 38,250 (25,000) 1 worker was hospitalized and died 4 days later after being crushed in a weaving loom at this textile plant. Alcan Toyo America (Toyo Aluminum KK; 512,000 in contracts) 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. Alder Construction Co. (18,811,000 in contracts) 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. All American Poly Corp. (13,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 52,000 (20,000) All-Steel, Inc. (B.T.R. PLC; 41,816,000 in contracts) 22,500 (10,000) 26,000 (13,000) Allied Tube and Conduit (Tyco International, Ltd.; 17,697,000 in contracts) 22,800 (8,700) Occupational health and environmental control 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 20,700 (12,000) Aluminum Co. of America (4,785,000 in contracts) 59,850 (26,910) Materials handling and storage; machinery and machine guarding 15,000 (10,000) 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. Amcor, Inc. (C.R.H. PLC; 342,000 in contracts) 20,000 (11,000) Amoco Gas Co. (Amoco Corp.; 400,000 in contracts) 37,500 (0) 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) 22,950 (3,475) Arco Alaska, Inc. (Atlantic Richfield Co.; 239,137,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 15,000 (7,500) Process safety management;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. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. (1,284,000 in contracts) 64,950 (18,000) 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. AT&T Communications (AT&T; 873,855,000 in contracts) 15,750 (4,875) Avondale Industries, Inc. (111,789,000 in contracts) 22,300 (9,189) 214,000 (50,000) 19,500 (1,000) Lockout/tagout; materials handling and storage; electrical; hazard communication standard 35,000 (25,000) Basler Electric Co. (373,000 in contracts) 30,650 (9,975) Occupational health and environmental control Bath Iron Works Corp. (Fulcrum II Limited Partnership; 797,629,000 in contracts) (580,000) Batson-Cook Co. (797,000 in contracts) 33,500 (21,775) Baxter Health Care Corp. (Baxter International, Inc.; 12,421,000 in contracts) 22,000 (22,000) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Textron, Inc.; 1,201,959,000 in contracts) 20,000 (5,000) 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) 65,050 (33,023) Berning Construction, Inc. (93,000 in contracts) 15,075 (7,575) Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1,729,000 in contracts) Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. (17,000 in contracts) 16,500 (10,000) Walking-working surfaces; means of egress; hazardous materials; lockout/tagout; machinery and machine guarding 40,000 (14,750) 18,000 (6,500) Blaze Construction Co. (2,208,000 in contracts) 45,200 (24,574) 67,500 (31,776) Blue Bell Creameries USA, Inc. (103,000 in contracts) 16,200 (8,625) Boeing (The Boeing Co.; 1,287,941,000 in contracts) 83,225 (43,100) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 57,700 (26,200) Boise Cascade Corp. (400,000 in contracts) 984,900 (476,100) Egregious; willful; serious 602,700 (273,900) Egregious; willful; repeat; serious 82,000 (7,000) 21,200 (9,200) General duty clause; walking-working surfaces; machinery and machine guarding; electrical Boston University (of Boston University Trustees; 7,667,000 in contracts) 18,925 (0) Bowman Apple Products Co., Inc. (148,000 in contracts) 35,850 (9,250) Brown & Root (Halliburton Co.; 302,113,000 in contracts) 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. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (5,623,000 in contracts) 18,700 (8,260) Burns & Roe Services Corp. (Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.; 103,403,000 in contracts) 25,500 (12,750) Burron Medical, Inc. (B. Braun Melsungen A.G.; 228,000 in contracts) 52,850 (28,650) 30,000 (0) Campbell Soup Co. (12,053,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 52,000 (26,000) Cargill Inc. (Tyson Foods, Inc.; 139,924,000 in contracts) 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. Center Core, Inc. (CenterCore Group; 7,575,000 in contracts) 16,200 (9,720) Centric Jones Construction (Centric Jones Co.; 15,041,000 in contracts) 16,650 (6,250) Century Concrete Services, Inc. (1,315,000 in contracts) 21,000 (8,875) Certified Coatings (Certified Coatings of Cal; 260,000 in contracts) 29,125 (13,250) Chevron USA (Chevron Corp.; 250,851,000 in contracts) 18,850 (6,100) Children’s Hospital Medical Center (170,000 in contracts) 21,250 (7,000) Chomerics, Inc. (Parker Hannifin Corp.; 1,117,000 in contracts) 18,000 (9,125) Chrysler Motors Corp., K (Chrysler Corp.; 314,074,000 in contracts) 106,600 (27,553) Machinery and machine guarding; lockout/tagout Cincinnati Milacron Resin Abrasion (Cincinnati Milacron, Inc.; 2,968,000 in contracts) 18,000 (9,310) Clean Harbors of Kingston, Inc. (Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.; 456,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 156,000 (60,000) 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. Cleveland Construction, Inc. (31,000 in contracts) 39,800 (10,000) Colgate-Palmolive Co. (3,734,000 in contracts) 15,300 (9,690) ConAgra, Inc. (also owns Longmont Foods; 149,606,000 in contracts) 15,000 (12,500) 35,550 (22,250) Walking-working surfaces Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (21,053,000 in contracts) 27,000 (20,250) Occupational health and environmental controls Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. (C.G.B. Enterprises, Inc.; 4,865,000 in contracts) 22,500 (10,625) Cornell University Press (Cornell University; 7,764,000 in contracts) 19,100 (11,000) Walking-working surfaces; means of egress; medical and first aid; materials handling and storage; hazard communication standard Coyne Textile Services (Coyne International Enterprises Corp.; 257,000 in contracts) 15,000 (4,000) Crane & Co., Inc. (69,574,000 in contracts) 25,925 (13,175) Machinery and machine guarding; special industries 48,000 (2,500) Crowley Maritime Corp. (27,991,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 63,500 (40,500) Occupational health and environmental control 40,500 (24,125) Crown American (Crown Holding Co.; 994,000 in contracts) 15,300 (10,000) Crown Central Petroleum Corp. (also owns La Gloria Oil & Gas Co.; 29,661,000 in contracts) 30,000 (12,500) D.J. Manufacturing Corp. (5,373,000 in contracts) 43,750 (22,750) Machinery and machine guarding; electrical 41,400 (19,800) Standards of state-operated program; machinery and machine guarding 21,250 (11,390) Delco Electronics (See General Motors Corp.) 35,125 (6,000) Dell Computer Corp. (4,163,000 in contracts) 20,700 (10,350) 16,200 (8,100) Detroit Diesel Corp. (Penske Corp.; 23,211,000 in contracts) 19,500 (9,750) Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing (Diamond Shamrock, Inc.; 48,880,000 in contracts) 31,000 (22,500) Dick Enterprises, Inc. (56,448,000 in contracts) 35,500 (2,300) Domermuth Petroleum Equipment & Maintenance (J. Myles Group, Inc.; 241,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 18,400 (8,940) Donohoe Construction Companies (Donohoe Companies, Inc.; 11,662,000 in contracts) 21,375 (5,250) Dreadnought Marine, Inc. (15,272,000 in contracts) 15,125 (6,325) Duncan-Smith, Inc. (70,000 in contracts) 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. Dunlop Tire Corp. (Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.; 26,000 in contracts) 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. Duro Bag Manufacturing Co. (118,000 in contracts) 38,000 (20,000) Dynalectric (Emcor Group, Inc.; 3,968,000 in contracts) 22,500 (0) Dyncorp-Fort Belvoir Division (Dyncorp; 672,931,000 in contracts) 20,250 (10,125) E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (38,484,000 in contracts) 44,700 (8,400) E.T. Lafore, Inc. (7,978,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 47,100 (30,000) Eastern Trans-Waste of Maryland (2,718,000 in contracts) 12,000 (3,000) 16,575 (8,050) Eltech Systems Corp., Electrode (Eltech Systems Corp.; 223,000 in contracts) 25,650 (13,230) Emco, Inc. (Mid-South Industries, Inc.; 5,666,000 in contracts) 33,375 (30,000) Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. (75,000 in contracts) 25,000 (12,500) Ethicon, Inc. (Johnson & Johnson; 9,658,000 in contracts) 54,150 (29,775) Lockout/tagout; medical and first aid; machinery and machine guarding; bloodborne pathogens; hazard communication standard 23,000 (13,500) 1 worker died from electric shock while checking fuses for this facility which manufactures storage batteries. Exide Electronics Corp. (Exide Electronics Group, Inc.; 68,866,000 in contracts) 56,000 (56,000) 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. Exxon Oil Co. (Exxon Corp.; 532,123,000 in contracts) 15,300 (7,550) F & B Manufacturing Co. (127,000 in contracts) 52,000 (14,200) Federal Paper Board Co. (176,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 34,500 (17,250) 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. Fletcher Pacific Construction (Fletcher Challenge, Ltd.; 29,300,000 in contracts) 74,600 (0) F.M.C. Corp., Wellhead Equipment Division (F.M.C. Corp.; 494,377,000 in contracts) 24,225 (11,750) Ford Motor Co. (44,130,000 in contracts) The Foxboro Co. (Siebe PLC; 21,094,000 in contracts) 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) 20,400 (10,200) 1 worker was burned while using a high-pressure steam hot water hose while cleaning the potato peeler equipment at this food preparation facility. 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. 19,200 (0) Fru-Con (Bilfinger & Berger; 18,001,000 in contracts) 90,500 (42,000) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Fruehauf Trailer Corp. (3,336,000 in contracts) 58,850 (18,950) Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (414,000 in contracts) 15,375 (6,150) Gary’s Grading and Pipeline Co. (160,000 in contracts) 28,350 (13,000) 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. 15,000 (5,000) General Electric Co. (8,710,060,000 in contracts) 42,500 (13,125) General Motors Corp. (also owns Delco Electronics; 2,386,810,000 in contracts) 27,700 (15,000) 30,000 (7,500) 133,500 (66,400) 15,000 (6,250) Georgia-Pacific Corp. (2,796,000 in contracts) 19,000 (12,664) 45,000 (22,331) 15,300 (10,125) Fire protection; special industries; electrical 16,125 (8,065) 32,000 (19,500) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Gold Kist, Inc. By Products (Gold Kist, Inc.; 27,202,000 in contracts) 16,100 (10,600) Goodyear Tire/Rubber Co. (Shell Co.; 48,462,000 in contracts) 22,950 (6,026) Goulds Pumps, Inc. (154,000 in contracts) 45,000 (27,000) Granite Construction Co. (33,293,000 in contracts) 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. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (Blackstone Dredging Partners; 63,949,000 in contracts) 18,900 (9,450) Great Plains Coca Cola Bottling Co. (945,000 in contracts) 17,250 (2,700) Grove North American, Division of Kidde Industries, Inc. (Hanson PLC; 25,444,000 in contracts) 16,575 (11,120) The Gunver Manufacturing Co. (5,077,000 in contracts) 15,050 (15,050) Handy & Harman (1,415,000 in contracts) 18,750 (9,375) Lockout/tagout; machinery and machine guarding Hardaway Co., Inc. (Because contract was terminated or modified, net obligations for fiscal year 1994 are 0 or less.) 15,000 (4,000) Harsco Corp., IKG Division (13,338,000 in contracts) 18,000 (11,175) Harvard Industries Hayes Albio (F.E.L. Corp.; 18,958,000 in contracts) 30,000 (30,000) Hawaii Electric Light Co. (Hawaii Electric Industries; 18,599,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 22,500 (9,000) 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. Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. (85,000 in contracts) 25,000 (15,000) 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. Heat Transfer Systems, Inc. (52,000 in contracts) 16,250 (6,000) Henkels and McCoy, Inc. (2,752,000 in contracts) 20,000 (9,000) Homer Laughlin China Co. (173,000 in contracts) 17,500 (9,000) Houck Services, Inc. (6,000 in contracts) 17,850 (7,500) 37,500 (18,700) Hussman Corp. (Whitman Corp.; 3,309,000 in contracts) 15,000 (5,600) I.A. Construction Corp. (Colas; 25,795,000 in contracts) 19,350 (7,550) 23,000 (7,500) Means of egress; hazardous materials I.C.I. America (Imperial Americas, which also owns Zeneca Resins; 16,136,000 in contracts) 19,500 (6,925) Idaho Pacific Corp. (32,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 23,100 (11,550) Personal protective equipment; hazard communication standard Indiana Michigan Power (American Electric Power Co.; 206,000 in contracts) 27,500 (10,000) Inland Steel Co. (Inland Steel Industries; 599,000 in contracts) 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. International Paper Co. (23,847,000 in contracts) 20,500 (10,000) 37,500 (18,000) 319,620 (319,620) Willful; repeat; serious 782,500 (372,000) 482,000 (240,000) 15,000 (5,000) 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. J & J Maintenance, Inc. (19,666,000 in contracts) 15,375 (9,225) Walking-working surfaces J.H. Baxter Facility (J.H. Baxter & Co., a Ltd. California Partnership; 327,000 in contracts) 16,630 (2,510) Joe E. Woods, Inc. (844,000 in contracts) 40,225 (10,000) John Crane, Inc. (T.I. Group PLC; 18,037,000 in contracts) 33,200 (16,100) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Judds Brothers Construction Co. (292,000 in contracts) 84,000 (18,000) Keebler Co. (United Biscuits Holdings PLC; 4,167,000 in contracts) 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. Klosterman Baking Co. (96,000 in contracts) 35,000 (9,000) Kohler Co., Mill Division (936,000 in contracts) 1,404,300 (35,730) Konica Imaging U.S.A., Inc. (Konica Corp.; 7,312,000 in contracts) 53,100 (16,792) Kostmayer Construction Co. (547,000 in contracts) 27,000 (13,500) Construction; occupational health and environmental controls Kraft Food Service, Inc. (Alliant Food Services; 80,005,000 in contracts) 23,350 (12,200) Krueger International (60,694,000 in contracts) 17,500 (6,600) La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. (See Crown Central Petroleum Corp.) 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 15,000 (3,500) Lady Baltimore Foods, Inc. (38,000 in contracts) 33,300 (11,600) Lakeside Care Center, Unicare (Crownex, Inc.; 2,183,000 in contracts) 25,500 (2,025) Lambda Electronics, Inc. (Unitech, PLC; 1,075,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 26,200 (8,249) Lauhoff Grain Co. (Bunge Corp.; 61,486,000 in contracts) 39,500 (11,750) 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. Lockheed (Lockheed-Martin Corp.; 7,043,395,000 in contracts) (1,495,560) Violations were changed to unclassified by an administrative law judge’s decision. 30,000 (22,500) 21,000 (15,750) Lufkin Industries, Inc. (5,724,000 in contracts) 15,750 (7,475) M & K Electrical Co., Inc. (3,000 in contracts) 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. M.R. Dillard Construction Co. (1,673,000 in contracts) 64,800 (12,000) Marine Hydraulics International (Marine Hydraulics, Inc.; 16,018,000 in contracts) 20,000 (10,140) Marley Cooling Tower Co., Inc. (United Dominion Industries, Ltd.; 1,907,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 21,000 (5,440) Marriott Corp. (Host Marriott Corp.; 2,128,000 in contracts) 24,000 (12,000) Mason Technologies, Inc. (The Mason Co.-Del; 282,424,000 in contracts) 19,125 (9,562.50) Medical Laboratory Automation (36,000 in contracts) 16,950 (11,865) Medline Industries, Inc. (1,190,000 in contracts) 27,675 (15,000) Meinecke-Johnson Co. (6,975,000 in contracts) 21,500 (10,750) Metric Constructors (Philipp Holzman AG; 36,452,000 in contracts) 20,800 (9,200) Misener Marine Construction, Inc. (Interbain; 9,460,000 in contracts) 25,550 (7,200) Montgomery Elevator (Kone Holding, Inc.; 5,930,000 in contracts) 55,000 (14,500) 18,000 (10,000) Moon Engineering Co., Inc. (7,281,000 in contracts) 20,300 (10,150) Morrison-Knudsen Corp., Inc. (221,024,000 in contracts) 70,000 (175,000) Mosler, Inc. (Kelso Investment Assoc. IV LP; 1,465,000 in contracts) 37,000 (21,000) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 33,600 (20,285) National Beef Packing Co. LP (15,177,000 in contracts) 908,600 (483,500) National Fruit Produce Co., Inc. (535,000 in contracts) 104,500 (49,125) National Health Laboratories (National Health Labs Holdings; 794,000 in contracts) 123,000 (75,000) Neosho Construction (Neosho, Inc.; 6,061,000 in contracts) 80,100 (9,500) 1 worker was hospitalized for head injuries when he fell 10 feet onto a concrete floor while working on reinforcing a railroad undercrossing. New York Telephone Co. (NYNEX Corp.; 5,822,000 in contracts) 16,995 (3,000) Northern Indiana Pacific Service (NIPSCO Industries, Inc.; 770,000 in contracts) 22,000 (14,250) Northwest Enviro Service, Inc. (6,803,000 in contracts) 22,275 (10,000) Novinger Group, Inc. (58,000 in contracts) 17,800 (9,000) 1 worker died of electric shock when, for this plastering and drywall company, he mistakenly cut into electric wiring. 33,750 (11,250) Packaging Corp. of America (Tenneco Packaging, Inc.; 504,686,000 in contracts) 16,500 (5,000) 15,000 (4,700) P.C.L.- Harbert, Joint Venture (P.C.L. Enterprises; 216,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 32,500 (12,310) Peace Industries, Ltd. (326,000 in contracts) 15,750 (11,500) Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Pennsylvania Power & Light Resources, Inc.; 4,863,000 in contracts) 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. Penrose Hospital (Sisters of Charity Health Care; 232,000 in contracts) 51,750 (38,813) 94,000 (31,500) Piquniq Management Corp. (36,597,000 in contracts) 78,750 (33,750) Pizzagalli Construction, Inc. (Because contract was terminated or modified, net obligations for fiscal year 1994 are 0 or less.) 21,675 (9,500) PMX Industries, Inc. (13,268,000 in contracts) 40,000 (10,700) 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. Professional Ambulance Service (American Medical Response; 712,000 in contracts) 15,750 (15,750) P.S.I. Energy-Gibson Generating (Cinergy Corp.; 4,650,000 in contracts) 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. (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Public Service Co. of Colorado (17,015,000 in contracts) 37,850 (28,000) Pulse Electronics, Inc. (149,000 in contracts) 16,575 (6,630) Purina Mills, Inc. (P.M. Holdings Corp.; 99,000 in contracts) 18,000 (12,000) Walking-working surfaces; 35,000 (5,000) 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. 22,950 (13,162.50) Walking-working surfaces; Radiation Systems, Inc.-Univer (Comsat Corp. RSI; 40,787,000 in contracts) 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. Ralston Purina Co. (7,388,000 in contracts) 49,050 (8,700) Redondo Construction Corp. (8,799,000 in contracts) 18,275 (7,310) Reed & Reed, Inc. (1,359,000 in contracts) 28,000 (4,000) Rehrig International, Inc. (28,000 in contracts) 22,550 (9,020) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (5,656,000 in contracts) 62,500 (8,000) Reynolds & Reynolds Co. (1,402,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 19,800 (12,000) Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemical (Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.; 10,693,000 in contracts) 195,165 (57,485) 365,875 (64,250) 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. Rich Industries, Inc. (90,000 in contracts) 31,500 (12,800) 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. Richard F. Kline, Inc. (24,000 in contracts) 51,775 (4,100) R.M.I. Co. (R.M.I. Titanium Co.; 7,577,000 in contracts) Roadway Express, Inc. (1,900,000 in contracts) 17,425 (7,600) 32,850 (9,900) The Roof Doctor, Inc. (Because contract was terminated or modified, net obligations for fiscal year 1994 are 0 or less.) 23,290 (8,290) Rosenburg Forest Products (446,000 in contracts) 75,000 (10,000) Roto-Rooter Services Co. (Roto-Rooter, Inc.; 1,000 in contracts) 30,250 (4,525) Salvation Army (5,714,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 28,800 (2,880) Means of egress; fire protection; machinery and machine guarding; electrical 22,500 (1,000) Schuck and Sons Construction Co., Inc. (49,000 in contracts) 56,125 (1,075) 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. Sciaba Construction Corp. (267,000 in contracts) 18,200 (7,280) Scott Paper Co. (Kimberly-Clark; 2,875,000 in contracts) 36,750 (27,575) Sears (Sears Roebuck & Co.; 10,497,000 in contracts) 67,000 (58,600) 16,500 (4,900) 23,500 (7,000) 36,900 (15,500) Occupational health and environmental control Sermetech International, Inc. (Teleflex, Inc.; 11,529,000 in contracts) 18,750 (8,437.50) Shasta Industries, Inc. (79,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 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. Shelby Williams Industries, Inc. (401,000 in contracts) 60,000 (9,200) 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. 155,000 (155,000) Shirley Contracting Corp. (3,989,000 in contracts) 21,000 (8,000) Siemens Energy & Automation (Siemens; 47,791,000 in contracts) 60,000 (21,500) Signature Flight Support Corp. (14,535,000 in contracts) 18,500 (10,200) 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. Smith & Nephew Dyonics (Smith & Nephew PLC; 589,000 in contracts) 15,375 (7,688) Smith & Wesson Co. (Tompkins Industries; 3,817,000 in contracts) 22,750 (11,375) Machinery and machine guarding; electrical The Smithfield Packing Co. (Smithfield Foods, Inc.; 2,975,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 22,500 (7,800) Snyder General Corp. (McQuay International; 557,000 in contracts) 19,975 (11,225) Spearin Preston & Burrows, Inc. (51,000 in contracts) 17,500 (2,500) S.S.I. Food Services, Inc. (Simplot J.R. Co.; 26,736,000 in contracts) 107,000 (43,000) Stambaugh’s Air Service, Inc. (12,883,000 in contracts) 18,000 (12,900) 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. Stevedoring (Cooper/T Smith Stevedoring, Inc.; 10,299,000 in contracts) 18,000 (9,000) 16,900 (8,450) Stone Container Corp. (3,214,000 in contracts) 65,500 (60,000) 75,000 (41,500) 45,000 (30,000) Walking-working surfaces; 28,375 (9,350) 40,000 (3,000) Stonhard Maufacturing Co., Inc. (R.P.M., Inc.; 473,000 in contracts) 17,625 (9,300) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Sun Chemical Corp. (Dainippon Ink & Chemicals, Inc.; 552,000 in contracts) 22,500 (7,000) Walking-working surfaces 15,500 (7,000) Walking-working surfaces Supreme Corp. (Supreme Industries, Inc.; 58,000 in contracts) 39,700 (13,850) Swiftships Freeport, Inc. (Swiftships, Inc.; 2,757,000 in contracts) 18,600 (1,500) 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. Texaco Refining (Texaco, Inc.; 21,559,000 in contracts) 83,500 (83,500) 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. Tower Construction Co., Inc. (5,022,000 in contracts) 24,000 (5,250) Trataros Construction Co. (9,539,000 in contracts) 17,625 (11,500) Trident Seafoods Corp. (880,000 in contracts) 30,150 (13,050) 16,500 (7,250) Trinity Industries, Inc. (109,805,000 in contracts) 15,000 (4,000) 16,500 (9,400) Union Camp Corp. (206,000 in contracts) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 86,250 (35,837.50) Hazardous materials; machinery and machine guarding; electrical 20,280 (14,490) Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific Corp.; because contract was terminated or modified, net obligations for fiscal year 1994 are 0 or less.) 15,750 (4,650) United Airlines (U.A.L. Corp.; 2,366,000 in contracts) 27,500 (5,900) Hazard communication standard; fire protection 39,950 (10,125) 95,000 (6,500) Occupational health and environmental controls United Parcel Service (United Parcel Service Amer., Inc.; 5,699,000 in contracts) 22,500 (19,000) 60,000 (60,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 30,000 (30,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 142,000 (142,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 30,000 (30,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 15,000 (15,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 17,500 (9,975) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 90,000 (90,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 94,025 (92,500) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 30,975 (30,975) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 60,000 (60,000) 90,000 (90,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 165,000 (165,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 165,000 (165,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 15,000 (15,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 15,000 (15,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 60,000 (60,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 30,000 (30,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 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. 60,000 (60,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 60,000 (60,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 30,000 (30,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 141,000 (141,000) Corporatewide settlement agreement regarding emergency response to hazardous conditions when packages are damaged. 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) 41,000 (16,000) 34,200 (4,000) Toxic and hazardous substances; hazard communication standard Universal Maritime Service Corp. (Maersk, Inc.; 182,088,000 in contracts) 18,700 (4,500) University of Miami (10,020,000 in contracts) 17,550 (7,200) Valley Design and Construction (266,000 in contracts) 17,150 (8,575) Vickers, Inc. (Trinova Corp.; 17,831,000 in contracts) 28,500 (15,500) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 24,000 (15,000) Victory Corrugated Container Corp. (82,000 in contracts) 29,575 (16,000) Vineland Kosher Poultry, Inc. (349,000 in contracts) Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (47,000 in contracts) 43,900 (12,700) Volunteers of America of Oklahoma (Volunteers of America, Inc.; 3,416,000 in contracts) 15,000 (5,000) Wabash Valley Manufacturing, Inc. (63,000 in contracts) 21,000 (4,900) Waste Management Disposal (WMX Technologies, Inc.; 241,696,000 in contracts) 63,000 (9,000) Weber Aircraft, Inc. (Zodiac, SA; 13,300,000 in contracts) 28,500 (21,225) Weight Watchers Food Co. (Heinz, Inc.; 439,000 in contracts) 66,000 (42,000) West State, Inc. (W.S., Inc.; 1,310,000 in contracts) 15,000 (2,500) Westinghouse Electric Corp. (4,595,090,000 in contracts) 21,925 (18,300) Whirlpool Corp. (2,351,000 in contracts) 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. (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different; total contract dollars awarded) Proposed penalty (actual penalty) Description of fatality or injury 19,000 (5,000) Willamette Industries, Inc. (1,860,000 in contracts) 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. 29,025 (19,350) 15,000 (15,000) Yuasa-Exide, Inc. (1,583,000 in contracts) Zeneca Resins (Imperial Americas; see I.C.I. America) 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. (Table notes on next page) *Assessed proposed penalty of $100,000 or more for safety and health violations. =Inspection conducted by a state-operated safety and health program. 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. Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) New York, NY (106934086) A.A.R. Engine Component Service (A.A.R. Corp.) Frankfort, NY (018154542) A.B.B. Combustion Engineering Nuclear (A.B.B. A.S.E.A. Brown Boveri, Ltd.) Newington, NH (108781816) Acme Steel Co. (Acme Metals, Inc.) Chicago, IL (103451274) Alamo Transformer Supply Co. Houston, TX (107489593) Albany International Corp. East Greenbush, NY (109053272) Alcan Toyo America (Toyo Aluminum KK) Lockport, IL (108719063) Alder Construction Co. Boise, ID (107232167) All American Poly Corp. Dunellen, NJ (114039639) All-Steel, Inc. (B.T.R. PLC) Montgomery, IL (102997434) West Hazleton, PA (018226225) Allied Tube and Conduit (Tyco International, Ltd.) Philadelphia, PA (017999095) Philadelphia, PA (018253054)* Harvey, IL (103453387) Rockdale, TX (123431298) Massena, NY (106991326) Amcor, Inc. (C.R.H. PLC) Nampa, ID (110517984) Amoco Gas Co. (Amoco Corp.) Texas City, TX (107491433) The Arbors at Fairmont (Arbor Health Care Co.) Fairmont, WV (101176626) Arco Alaska, Inc. (Atlantic Richfield Co.) Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Prudhoe Bay, AK (105867964)= Asplundh Tree Expert Co. Columbia, MD (119539898)= AT&T Communications (AT&T) Danforth, ME (109797910) Avondale Industries, Inc. Westwego, LA (110344983) B.R. Group, Inc. Baldt, Inc. Chester, PA (102842192) Ball Corp. Columbus, OH (103343000) Basler Electric Co. Corning, AR (107705931) Bath Iron Works Corp. (Fulcrum II Limited Partnership) Bath, ME (101450336)* Batson-Cook Co. Tampa, FL (109609776) Baxter Health Care Corp. (Baxter International, Inc.) Carolina, PR (119461473)= Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Textron, Inc.) Hurst, TX (103375663) Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co. Mobile, AL (107011207) Berning Construction, Inc. Detroit, OR (123776262)= Bethlehem Steel Corp. Sparrows Point, MD (104383815)= Sparrows Point, MD (119517068)= Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. Paterson, NJ (109043141) Fairfield, NJ (101484780) Bizzack, Inc. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Logan, WV (116242512) Blaze Construction Co. Many Farms, AZ (002331486) Pinon, AZ (002331478) Blue Bells Creameries USA, Inc. Brenham, TX (123419905) Boeing (The Boeing Co.) Commerical Aircraft Co. Everett, WA (115506081)= Defense and Space Group Ridley Park, PA (018253047) Boise Cascade Corp. Horseshoe Bend, ID (110502895) Rumford, ME (102753969)* Rumford, ME (103392247)* Rumford, ME (109793901) Boston University (of Boston University Trustees) Boston, MA (109124131) Bowman Apple Products Co., Inc. Mt. Jackson, VA (105754790)= Brown & Root (Halliburton Co.) Deer Park, TX (123652505) Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. Corpus Christi, TX (103579934) Burns & Roe Services Corp. (Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.) Greenport, NY (108664475) Burron Medical, Inc. (B. Braun Melsungen A.G.) Allentown, PA (123264145) C.H. Heist Corp. Oregon, OH (110294584) Campbell Soup Co. Tecumseh, NE (109323105) Cargill, Inc. (Tyson Foods, Inc.) Buena Vista, GA (106514169) Center Core, Inc. (CenterCore Group) Plainfield, NJ (113942155) Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Centric Jones Construction (Centric Jones Co.) Aurora, CO (100748813) Century Concrete Services, Inc. Richmond, VA (123658890)= Certified Coatings (Certified Coating of Cal) Ogden, UT (124620931)= Chevron USA (Chevron Corp.) Port Arthur, TX (123653255) Children’s Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, OH (102592094) Chomerics, Inc. (Parker Hannifin Corp.) Hudson, NH (108781717) Chrysler Motors Corp., K (Chrysler Corp.) Kenosha, WI (102347218)* Cincinnati Milacron Resin Abrasion (Cincinnati Milacron, Inc.) Carlisle, PA (109025502) Clean Harbors of Kingston, Inc. (Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.) Providence, RI (017945213)* Cincinnati, OH (103127585) Colgate-Palmolive Co. Kansas City, KS (113820021) ConAgra, Inc. Broiler Co. Enterprise, AL (109246249) Fresh Meats Co. Omaha, NE (109318873) Consolidated Edison Co. of New York New York, NY (107197816) Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. (C.G.B. Enterprises, Inc.) Mount Vernon, IN (107139784) Cornell University Press (Cornell University) Ithaca, NY (113937304) Coyne Textile Services (Coyne International Enterprises Corp.) New Bedford, MA (109124958) Crane & Co., Inc. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Pittsfield, MA (017830456) Croman Corp. Lumber Boise, ID (018168146) Crowley Maritime Corp. American Transport, Inc. San Juan, PR (106716145) Maritime Corp. Seattle, WA (109421685) Crown American (Crown Holding Co.) Scranton, PA (017623174) Crown Central Petroleum Corp. Pasadena, TX (123653081) D.J. Manufacturing Corp. Dana Corp. Spicer Axle Div. Fort Wayne, IN (115017410)= Chasis Prod. Oklahoma City, OK (108736869) Delco Electronics (General Motors Corp.) Oak Creek, WI (103472049) Dell Computer Corp. Austin, TX (123549917) Austin, TX (123579559) Detroit Diesel Corp. (Penske Corp.) Detroit, MI (114811748)= Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing (Diamond Shamrock, Inc.) Colorado Springs, CO (109549055) Dick Enterprises, Inc. Shamokin, PA (018227009) Domermuth Petroleum Equipment & Maintenance (J. Myles Group, Inc.) East Syracuse, NY (100162056) Donohoe Construction Companies (Donohoe Companies, Inc.) Rockville, MD (119535847)= Dreadnought Marine, Inc. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Norfolk, VA (123673253)= 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) E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Niagara Falls, NY (017816026) E.T. Lafore, Inc. Denver, CO (100744580) Washington, DC (117940098) Eaton Corp. Marion, OH (106127541) Eltech Systems Corp, Electrode (Eltech Systems Corp.) Chardon, OH (103544557) Emco, Inc. (Mid-South Industries, Inc.) Gadsden, AL (109192997) Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. Mifflintown, PA (102699568) Ethicon, Inc. (Johnson & Johnson) San Angelo, TX (123542706) Exide Corp. Salina, KS (103163317) Exide Electronics Corp. (Exide Electronics Group, Inc.) Raleigh, NC (111091807)= Exxon Oil Co. (Exxon Corp.) Baytown, TX (109459339) F & B Manufacturing Co. Gurnee, IL (102987740) Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Federal Paper Board Co., Inc. Riegelwood, NC (018518670)= 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) Ford Motor Co. Hazelwood, MO (106547508)* Lorain, OH (106123748) The Foxboro Co. (Siebe PLC) Foxboro, MA (107541567) Frito-Lay, Inc. (Pepisco, Inc.) Dayville, CT (109826248) Allen Park, MI (110801305)= Granite City, IL (103278982) Fru-Con (Bilfinger & Berger) Grant Town, WV (100595354) Fruehauf Trailer Corp. St. Louis, MO (116102088) Fruit of the Loom, Inc. Lexington, SC (120477351)= Gary’s Grading and Pipeline Co. Lawrenceville, GA (106514367) Gayston Corp. Springboro, OH (103385290) General Electric Co. Springfield, MO (110466034) General Motors Corp. BOC Lordstown Lordstown, OH (103217881) BOC Lordstown Lordstown, OH (108836552) Trucks Moraine, OH (103376422)* CPC Group Oklahoma City, OK (108743253) Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Georgia-Pacific Corp. Brunswick, GA (109006700) Brunswick, GA (109006981) Palatka, FL (110133816) Mount Wolf, PA (109029520) Cedar Springs, GA (106213911) X Gold Kist, Inc. By Products (Gold Kist, Inc.) Ball Ground, GA (106514383) Goodyear Tire/Rubber Co. (Shell Co.) Apple Grove, WV (100781483) Goulds Pumps, Inc. Slurry Pump Ashland, PA (106464829) 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) The Gunver Manufacturing Co. Manchester, CT (109829119) Attleboro, MA (109130294) 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. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) St. Louis, MO (106546963) 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) I.A. Construction Corp. (Colas) Philadelphia, PA (102845575) I.B.P., Inc. Waterloo, IA (115062556)= I.C.I. America (Imperial Americas) Tamaqua, PA (106472160) Idaho Pacific Corp. Ririe, ID (107234965) Indiana Michigan Power (American Electric Power Co.) Rockport, IN (123970188)= Inland Steel Co. (Inland Steel Industries) East Chicago, IN (115036386)= International Paper Co. Moss Point, MS (101391787) Natchez, MS (107089484) Cordele, GA (106441108) Jay, ME (018058123)* Moss Point, MS (101390235)* Natchez, MS (102677952)* J & J Maintenance Inc. Norfolk, VA (017704875) J.H. Baxter Facility (J.H. Baxter & Co, a Ltd. California Partnership) Long Beach, CA (112086327)= Joe E. Woods, Inc. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) San Carlos, AZ (102317195) John Crane, Inc. (T.I. Group PLC) Morton Grove, IL (102991825) Judds Brothers Construction Co. Ashland, NE (109317917) Keebler Co. (United Biscuits Holdings PLC) Grand Rapids, MI (114801988)= Klosterman Baking Co. Cincinnati, OH (103032751) Kohler Co., Mill Division Kohler, WI (103077707)* Konica Imaging U.S.A., Inc. (Konica Corp.) Glen Cove, NY (113921183) Kostmayer Construction Co. New Orleans, LA (107634032) Kraft Food Service, Inc. (Alliant Food Services) Englewood, CO (109547000) Green Bay, WI (103520318) La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. (Crown Central Petroleum Corp.) Tyler, TX (107555567) Tyler, TX (103564449) Lady Baltimore Foods, Inc. Kansas City, KS (113821532) Lakeside Care Center, Unicare (Crownex, Inc.) Lubbock, TX (107410565) Lambda Electronics, Inc. (Unitech, PLC) McAllen, TX (107431975) Lauhoff Grain Co. (Bunge Corp.) Danville, IL (103304135) Lockheed (Lockheed-Martin Corp.) Aeronautical Systems (001874445)* Engineering & Science (123652711) Longmont Foods (ConAgra, Inc.) Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Longmont, CO (100747476) Lufkin Industries, Inc. Lufkin, TX (123565210) 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) Marley Cooling Tower Co., Inc. (United Dominion Industries, Ltd.) Needville, TX (123650103) Marriott Corp. (Host Marriott Corp.) Troy, OH (103275814) Mason Technologies, Inc. (The Mason Co.-Del) Ceiba, PR (106716202) Pleasantville, NY (110603289) 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) Morrison-Knudsen Corp., Inc. Yonkers, NY (017651407) Mosler, Inc. (Kelso Investment Assoc. IV LP) Hamilton, OH (103275830) M.S.E. Corp. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Indianapolis, IN (115006017)= National Beef Packing Co. LP Liberal, KS (106629884)* National Fruit Produce Co., Inc. Winchester, VA (112376587)*= 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) Northern Indiana Public Service (NIPSCO Industries, Inc.) South Bend, IN (115002420)= Northwest Enviro Service, Inc. Seattle, WA (111284170)= Harrisburg, PA (109018937) Olin Corp. East Alton, IL (103279196) 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) Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Pennsylvania Power & Light Resources, Inc.) Williamsport, PA (109361659) 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. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Hanover, NH (100856921) PMX Industries, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA (115054066)= Professional Ambulance Service (American Medical Response) Atlantic City, NJ (113960538) 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)= Purina Mills, Inc. (P.M. Holdings Corp.) Macon, GA (106513559) Liberal, KS (103164372) Oklahoma City, OK (108742081) Radiation Systems, Inc.-Univer (Comsat Corp. RSI) Green Bank, WV (101174506) Ralston Purina Co. Clinton, IA (115066870)= Redondo Construction Corp. Mayaguez, PR (119487999)= Reed & Reed, Inc. Saint Francis, ME (102748233) Rehrig International, Inc. Richmond, VA (123656555)= 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. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) R.M.I. Co. Niles, OH (105924922) Roadway Express, Inc. Chicago Heights, IL (101313252) Oakville, CT (109828079) The Roof Doctor, Inc. Olympia, WA (111459855)= Weed, CA (111909560)= Roto-Rooter Services Co. (Roto-Rooter, Inc.) Baltimore, MD (119559649)= Rockford, IL (122098684) Rockford, IL (122108004) Schuck and Sons Construction Co., Inc. Indio, CA (112057690)= Sciaba Construction Corp. Shelburne Falls, MA (017826439) Scott Paper Co. (Kimberly-Clark) Chester, PA (102845120) Sears (Sears Roebuck & Co.) Auto Center Toledo, OH (110274198) Automotive Center Toms River, NJ (108665050) Roebuck & Co. Iowa City, IA (115054561)= Roebuck & Co. Automotive Springfield, MA (017828617) Sermetech International, Inc. (Teleflex, Inc.) Sugar Land, TX (123652174) Shasta Industries, Inc. Phoenix, AZ (115562290)= Shelby Williams Industries, Inc. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Shell Oil Co. Deer Park, TX (123652513) Wood River Roxana, IL (106552771)* 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) Smith & Wesson Co. (Tompkins Industries) Springfield, MA (102766664) The Smithfield Packing Co. (Smithfield Foods, Inc.) Landover, MD (119587681)= Snyder General Corp. (McQuay International) Verona, VA (123702128)= 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) Stevedoring (Cooper/T Smith Stevedoring, Inc.) Services of America Savannah, GA (106219967) Port Cooper Houston, TX (123653958) Stone Container Corp. Jacksonville, AR (107605776) Jacksonville, AR (110360427) Frenchtown, MT (100568815) Frenchtown, MT (107214314) Columbia, SC (120493994)= Stonhard Manufacturing Co., Inc. (R.P.M., Inc.) Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Maple Shade, NJ (106741531) Sun Chemical Corp. (Dainippon Ink & Chemicals, Inc.) Cincinnati, OH (103231833) Cincinnati, OH (103273041) Supreme Corp. (Supreme Industries, Inc.) Goshen, IN (108646167)= Swiftships Freeport, Inc. (Swiftships, Inc.) Freeport, TX (107491011) 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) Naknek, AK (124072521)= Trinity Industries, Inc. Longview, TX (109098921) Unifirst Corp. Springfield, MA (017828252) Union Camp Corp. Fine Paper Division Franklin, VA (112394796)= Savannah, GA (017403627) Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific Corp.) Green River, WY (114619042)= United Airlines (U.A.L. Corp.) Elk Grove Village, IL (102992112) Elk Grove Village, IL (103456794) 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) Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) 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)* 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.) Unitog, Inc. Warrensburg, MO (115971475) Universal Maritime Service Corp. (Maersk, Inc.) Port Newark, NJ (017982646) Fort Lauderdale, FL (109689992) X Boise, ID (107234726) Vickers, Inc. (Trinova Corp.) Omaha, NE (109321687) Omaha, NE (109322974) Victory Corrugated Container Corp. Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) Location (IMIS activity number) Roselle, NJ (114039951) Vineland Kosher Poultry, Inc. Vineland, NJ (108666413) Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. Malvern, PA (102845518) Volunteers of America of Oklahoma (Volunteers of America, Inc.) Tulsa, OK (109060137) Wabash Valley Manufacturing, Inc. Silver Lake, IN (114974199)= Waste Management Disposal (W.M.X. Technologies, Inc.) Phoenix, AZ (115584815)= Weber Aircraft, Inc. (Zodiac, SA) Gainesville, TX (110372539) Weight Watchers Food Co. (Heinz, Inc.) Wethersfield, CT (102794856) 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. Witco Corp. Memphis, TN (120549472)= Yuasa-Exide, Inc. San Antonio, TX (123434094) Zeneca Resins (Imperial Americas) Wilmington, MA (109620831) Shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring *Assessed proposed penalty of $100,000 or more for safety and health violations. =Inspection conducted by a state-operated safety and health program. 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) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 5 workers were hospitalized due to fall when floor of building, which was not shored or braced, collapsed during demolition. 1 worker died, another was hospitalized, from exposure to blast furnace gas due to equipment failure at a steel mill. Means of egress;hazardous materials; personal protective equipment; general environmental controls lockout/tagout;toxic and hazardous substances (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 1 worker was hospitalized and died 4 days later after being crushed in a weaving loom at this textile plant. 1 worker died from burns when a mixer containing aluminum powder exploded at this primary metals production plant. General duty clause; personal protective 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. Allied Tube and Conduit (Tyco International, Ltd.) 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. 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. 9 workers were hospitalized for burns due to an explosion of a natural gas pipeline. (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 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; standards of state-operated program 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. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Textron, Inc.) 1 worker was killed and another hospitalized due to overexposure to sulfuric acid in a confined space. 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 1 worker was injured when he mixed together unmarked chemicals that subsequently exploded. The worker was cleaning at this poultry processing facility. Clean Harbors of Kingston, Inc. (Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.) 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. (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 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. Dunlop Tire Corp. (Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.) 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. 1 worker died from electric shock while checking fuses for this facility, which manufactures storage batteries. Exide Electronics Corp. (Exide Electronics Group, Inc.) 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. 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 (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 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 1 worker was burned while using a high pressure steam hot water hose while cleaning the potato peeler equipment at this food preparation facility. 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. 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. 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. Hawaii Electric Light Co., Inc. (Hawaii Electric Industries) 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. 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. (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 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 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. Keebler Co. (United Biscuits Holdings PLC) 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 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. 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 1 worker was hospitalized for head injuries when he fell 10 feet onto a concrete floor while working on reinforcing a railroad undercrossing. 1 worker died of electric shock when, for this plastering and drywall company, he mistakenly cut into electrical wiring. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Pennsylvania Power & Light Resources, Inc.) (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 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 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. P.S.I. Energy-Gibson Generating (Cinergy Corp.) 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 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. Radiation Systems, Inc.-Univer (Comsat Corp. RSI) 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. Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemicals (Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.) 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. (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 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. 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. 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 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 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. (continued) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 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. 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. 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. United Parcel Service (United Parcel Service Amer, Inc.) 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 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. 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) Worksite (name of federal contractor if different) OSHA standard violated associated with highest actual penalty 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 *Assessed proposed penalty of $100,000 or more for safety and health violations. =Inspection conducted by a state-operated safety and health program. 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 Location of inspection (IMIS activity number) Montgomery, IL (102997434); West Hazleton, PA (018226225) Philadelphia, PA (017999095) (018253054); Harvey, IL (103453387) Rockdale, TX (123431298); Massena, NY (106991326) Sparrows Point, MD (104383815) (119517068) Steel works, blast furnaces (including coke ovens), and rolling mills (continued) Location of inspection (IMIS activity number) Fairfield, NJ (101484780); Paterson, NJ (109043141) Pinon, AZ (002331478); Many Farms, AZ (002331486) Everett, WA (115506081); Ridley Park, PA (018253047) Rumford, ME (103392247) (102753969) (109793901); Horseshoe, ID (110502895) Enterprise, AL (109246249); Omaha, NE (109318873); Longmont, CO (100747476) San Juan, PR (106716145); Seattle, WA (109421685) Pasadena, TX (123653081); Tyler, TX (107555567) (103564449) Fort Wayne, IN (115017410); Oklahoma City, OK (108736869) Austin, TX (123579559) (123549917) Riegelwood, NC (018518670) (018518688) Hazelwood, MO (106547508); Lorain, OH (106123748) Motor vehicles and passenger car bodies (continued) Location of inspection (IMIS activity number) Allen Park, MI (110801305); Dayville, CT (109826248); Granite City, IL (103278982) Lordstown, OH (103217881) (108836552); Moraine, OH (103376422); Oklahoma City, OK (108743253); Oak Creek, WI (103472049) Brunswick, GA (109006700) (109006981); Palatka, FL (110133816); Mount Wolf, PA (109029520); Cedar Springs, GA (106213911) Tamaqua, PA (106472160); Wilmington, MA (109620831) Moss Point, MS (101391787) (101390235); Natchez, MS (107089484) (102677952); Cordele, GA (106441108); Jay, ME (018058123) Burbank, CA (001874445); Houston, TX (123652711) Winfield, KS (103164935); Tampa, FL (106491350) Elevators and moving stairways; installation or erection of building equipment (continued) Location of inspection (IMIS activity number) Griffith, IN (124068792); Tama, IA (115064248) Macon, GA (106513559); Liberal, KS (103164372); Oklahoma City, OK (108742081) Martinez, CA (111995379) (111996526) Chicago Hts, IL (101313252); Oakville, CT (109828079) Rockford, IL (122098684) (122108004) Toledo, OH (110274198); Toms River, NJ (108665050); Iowa City, IA (115054561); Springfield, MA (017828617) Deer Park, TX (123652513); Roxana, IL (106552771) Savannah, GA (106219967); Houston, TX (123653958) 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 (continued) Location of inspection (IMIS activity number) Cincinnati, OH (103231833) (103273041) Naknek, AK (109433052) (124072521) Savannah, GA (017403627); Franklin, VA (112394796) Elk Grove Village, IL (102992112) (103456794) (102992047) 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 (continued) Location of inspection (IMIS activity number) 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) Omaha, NE (109321687) (109322974) Fort Smith, AR (110354784); Evansville, IN (123970469) Hawesville, KY (123812786); Moncure, NC (111139390) 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. 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). 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. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 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.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined federal contractors' compliance with federal occupational safety and health regulations. GAO found that: (1) federal contracts are awarded to employers violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA); (2) in fiscal year (FY) 1994, 261 federal contractors received penalties of at least $15,000 for violating OSHA regulations; (3) 5 percent of these contractors received more than $500 million in federal contracts; (4) contract violations typically occurred at worksites with fewer than 500 employees and at manufacturing plants; (5) federal contractors received $38 billion in contract dollars for FY 1994; (6) most of the contract violations involved companies' failure to protect their workers from electrical hazard or injury; (7) the actual penalties assessed during contractor worksite inspections totalled $10.9 million; (8) in 8 percent of those inspections, the contractor received a penalty of at least $100,000; (9) some of the federal contractors participated in the OSHA Voluntary Compliance Program; (10) OSHA contracting and debarring officials use safety and health compliance information to make their award decisions; and (11) federal contractors would be more attentive to their safety and health practices if OSHA gave greater priority to those high-hazard workplaces operated by federal contractors.