text: b'SEPTEMBER 24, 2007\n REVIEW REPORT\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF AUDITS\n\n\n\n\n EFFECTIVE INSPECTION PROGRAM KEY TO\n IMPROVING LABORATORY SAFETY AT\n GLENN RESEARCH CENTER\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n National Aeronautics and\n Space Administration\n\n\n\n\n REPORT NO. IG-07-032 (ASSIGNMENT NO. S-06-011-00)\n\x0cFinal report released by:\n\n\n\n signed\n\nEvelyn R. Klemstine\nAssistant Inspector General for Auditing\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\n\nGLPD Glenn Lewis Policy Directive\nHAZCOM Hazard Communication Program\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nOSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration\nPI Principal Investigator\nMSDS Material Safety Data Sheets\nSHED Safety, Health, and Environmental Division\nSOP Standard Operating Procedure\n\n\n\n REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cSEPTEMBER 24, 2007\n\n\n\n\n OVERVIEW\n\n EFFECTIVE INSPECTION PROGRAM KEY TO IMPROVING\n LABORATORY SAFETY AT GLENN RESEARCH CENTER\n\n The Issue\n\n This review was initiated in response to two hotline complaints concerning Glenn Safety\n Programs: one concerned laboratory safety and the review process for granting Glenn\n Research Center (Glenn) safety permits, and the second concerned the actions of \xe2\x80\x9cfirst\n responder\xe2\x80\x9d personnel to a January 2006 fire in a Glenn underground tunnel. This report\n addresses laboratory safety and the process for reviewing, approving, and maintaining\n safety permits for Glenn laboratory operations; a separate report will address the first\n responder\xe2\x80\x99s activities as they relate to the emergency response system at Glenn.\n\n Glenn operates scientific laboratories that conduct research and development in areas\n such as microgravity science, fluid physics, and combustion science. To ensure that\n those laboratories are operated in accordance with applicable Federal, NASA, and Glenn\n safety guidance, Glenn requires that each of the laboratories apply for and maintain a\n safety permit that gives the authority to operate a laboratory or piece of equipment within\n the constraints listed on the permit. In addition, the Safety, Health, and Environmental\n Division (SHED) of Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate manages a safety\n and health inspection program with inspectors responsible for detecting, and reporting\n on, hazardous conditions, unsafe work practices, and other occupational safety and health\n issues identified in the laboratories.\n\n We reviewed the management of the safety permit system and the safety and health\n inspection program, specifically focusing on their impact on overall laboratory safety. In\n January 2007, we conducted a review of 22 Glenn laboratories and evaluated the\n laboratory conditions and operations against Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s laboratory safety guidance and the\n constraints listed on the laboratory safety permit. We also compared the results of our\n review to laboratory inspections performed as part of the safety and health inspection\n program. The details of our review\xe2\x80\x99s scope and methodology are in Appendix A.\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0c OVERVIEW\n\n\n\n Results\n\n Glenn did not ensure that all of its laboratories were operated in compliance with Glenn\n safety guidance. Specifically, we identified incidents of noncompliance in each of the\n 22 laboratories that we reviewed. For those 22 laboratories, 1\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 9 did not have a safety permit, the safety permit had expired, or the safety permit\n remained active after laboratory operations had ceased;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 10 did not have a current or approved standard operating procedure (SOP) (7 had\n no SOP, 2 had SOPs that had expired, and 1 had an SOP that lacked the required\n signature/approval of the Glenn Chemical Hygiene Officer);\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 16 did not properly identify and store hazardous chemicals or maintain the\n required information for their safe use (for example, in 14 of the 18 laboratories,\n we found unattended flammable chemicals that were not properly stored);\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 17 were operated without adequate engineering controls or safeguards 2 (for\n example, in 1 laboratory, water valves used to control chilled water were located\n directly above electrically energized equipment, where inadvertent leaks or a line\n rupture could cause an electrically initiated fire and/or result in serious electrical\n shock);\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 7 were not maintained clean and free from potential hazards, such as keeping\n aisles and stairways free from clutter, cleaning chemical spills, minimizing\n combustibles in workplace and storage areas, and keeping all exits free from\n obstructions;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 7 were operated by personnel without the requisite safety training, to include\n laboratory management personnel; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 13 did not meet fire and life safety standards (for example, laboratory personnel,\n when queried, did not have knowledge of primary and secondary emergency\n evacuation routes, did not know the location of the designated safe area, and were\n unfamiliar with the location of the nearest fire alarm).\n\n Because SHED relies on the facility safety and health inspection program to detect\n laboratory safety violations, we analyzed the SHED inspection results from laboratory\n inspections conducted on or about the period of our review. That analysis indicated that\n\n 1\n The initial sample selected for inspection totaled 39 laboratories, however due to on-going hazardous\n operations, locked doors, and/or the unavailability of laboratory personnel, we were only able to inspect\n 22 of the laboratories.\n 2\n Engineering controls eliminate or reduce exposure to a chemical or physical hazard through the use or\n substitution of engineered machinery or equipment.\n\n\n\nii REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cOVERVIEW\n\n\n\n the SHED inspectors did not identify all of the issues that we identified during our\n review. However, it was difficult to fully validate that premise because SHED did not\n require its inspectors to identify all of the laboratories included in a specific inspection,\n only those laboratories that had violations. Therefore, we did not know whether the\n inspectors missed some of the problems we found or whether some of the problems we\n found were in laboratories that were not included in their inspection.\n\n The inspection program\xe2\x80\x99s effectiveness could be improved if all laboratories at Glenn\n were subjected to inspection through inclusion in the inspection universe. SHED had\n defined its inspection universe as only those laboratories that had active safety permits,\n which did not account for those laboratories that may have never applied for a permit or\n whose safety permit had expired. We compared the SHED laboratory list to a list\n contained in the Glenn Facilities Division database and noted that the Facilities Division\n database included 192 more laboratories than the SHED list. Although both lists could\n be partially incorrect, reconciliation should be performed periodically to ensure that\n SHED maintains a comprehensive laboratory universe.\n\n The effectiveness of the inspection program is also dependent on adequate follow up of\n the violations identified during the laboratory inspections. Although Glenn safety\n guidance required that corrective action plans be prepared for safety violations remaining\n open after 30 days, we identified 87 violations that should have had plans but did not.\n Nine of those violations were considered as having the potential to cause minor or severe\n injury or damage to personnel or equipment.\n\n The risk of injury and/or damage associated with Glenn laboratory operations increases\n when those operations are not conducted in compliance with Glenn safety guidance.\n According to NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Incident Reporting Information System, during the 17-month\n period from January 2006 through May 2007, Glenn reported 28 mishaps 3 and close\n calls 4 that were directly or indirectly related to laboratory operations and the types of\n noncompliance issues that we identified. Had Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s facility safety and health\n inspection program been more effective in identifying, tracking, and monitoring\n laboratory safety violations, we expect that we would have identified fewer incidents of\n safety noncompliance. Improving the effectiveness of the inspection program should\n improve safety compliance and, most important, should reduce the risk of injury to\n personnel and damage to assets and facilities resulting from laboratory operations.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n NASA defines a mishap as an unplanned event that results in injury to personnel or damage to property.\n NASA categorizes mishaps as Type A through Type D based on the severity of injury to personnel or\n total cost of damage to property.\n 4\n NASA defines a close call as an occurrence or employee concern that did not result in injury to personnel\n or significant damage to property but possesses the potential to cause a mishap.\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 iii\n\x0c OVERVIEW\n\n\n\n Management Action\n\n Subsequent to our laboratory review, Glenn began taking corrective action to address a\n number of issues that are identified in this report. Specifically, SHED has initiated a\n comprehensive review of the Glenn chemical management and laboratory safety\n programs and initiated an update of chemical inventories by use of a commercially\n available database. For our findings that indicated an immediate health and/or safety\n threat, such as the improper storage of chemicals, SHED instituted a stop-work order and\n effectively mitigated the threat. That action, along with corrective action taken in\n response to our recommendations, should continue to improve the safety posture within\n the Glenn laboratories.\n\n In a draft of this report, we recommended that the Director, Safety and Mission\n Assurance, Glenn Research Center, ensure that SHED develops a process that will\n comprehensively define the laboratory universe for the facility safety and health\n inspections. We also recommend that the Glenn Safety Manual, Chapter 24, be revised\n to require the facility safety and health inspectors to indicate not only the building\n number in which an inspection took place, but also the specific laboratories that were\n inspected. We recommend that Chapter 24 be further revised to require that the safety\n and health violation database be monitored and that Glenn management be notified of all\n past-due violations and corrective action plans. Finally, we recommend that SHED\n coordinate a safety stand-down day, in which laboratory personnel conduct a safety self-\n assessment of their laboratories and that the results of those assessments be used by\n SHED to issue violation notices and identify any systemic safety issues.\n\n The Director, Glenn Research Center concurred with our finding and recommendations\n and provided a corrective action plan that details the actions to be taken for each\n recommendation along with planned completion dates (see Appendix E). We consider\n the recommendations resolved and will close the recommendations upon completion and\n verification of management\xe2\x80\x99s corrective actions.\n\n\n\n\niv REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cSEPTEMBER 24, 2007\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n INTRODUCTION\n Background __________________________________________ 1\n Objectives ___________________________________________ 2\n\n RESULTS\n Safety Guidance Not Always Followed at Glenn Laboratories ____ 4\n\n APPENDIX A\n Scope and Methodology _______________________________ 15\n Review of Internal Controls _____________________________ 16\n Prior Coverage_______________________________________ 16\n\n APPENDIX B\n OIG Review Results ___________________________________ 17\n\n APPENDIX C\n Basic Inspection Checklist ______________________________ 29\n\n APPENDIX D\n Detailed Inspection Checklist ___________________________ 32\n\n APPENDIX E\n Management Comments _______________________________ 41\n\n APPENDIX F\n Report Distribution ___________________________________ 49\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0c\x0cSEPTEMBER 24, 2007\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\nBackground\n\n As one of NASA\xe2\x80\x99s 10 Centers, the Glenn Research Center (Glenn) develops and transfers\n critical technologies that address national priorities through research, technology\n development, and systems development for safe and reliable aeronautics, aerospace, and\n space applications. To accomplish its mission, Glenn operates scientific laboratories\n where research and development is conducted in areas such as microgravity science, fluid\n physics, and combustion science. The laboratories play a key role in aeropropulsion and\n turbomachinery and are major contributors in material science, aircraft and spacecraft\n structures, instrumentation and controls, and aircraft icing research. According to the\n Glenn Facilities Division, there are 563 laboratories located at Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s Lewis Field,\n which is adjacent to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in Ohio.\n\n Laboratory Management. The Glenn laboratories are managed by a principal\n investigator 5 (PI) for the research or technology project or projects that are ongoing in a\n specific laboratory. At Glenn, laboratory personnel work for three of the four NASA\n Mission Directorates\xe2\x80\x94Aeronautics Research, Exploration Systems, and Science.\n Although the laboratories are managed and operated by personnel who work for NASA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Mission Directorates, the authority to conduct a research or technology project in a\n specific laboratory is granted through the Glenn safety permit system. An approved\n safety permit constitutes a license to operate a laboratory or piece of equipment within\n the constraints listed on the permit.\n\n Laboratory Safety. Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s Safety, Health, and Environmental Board is responsible for\n safety, health, and environmental policy and decision making and provides management\n leadership and oversight for the Center\xe2\x80\x99s Safety and Health Management System. The\n Center Director chairs the Board, and members include the Glenn Operational Directors,\n the Director of Safety and Mission Assurance, and Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Counsel. The Safety,\n Health, and Environmental Division (SHED) of Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s Safety and Mission Assurance\n Directorate is responsible for laboratory safety and the safety permit system. SHED is\n comprised of three Branches\xe2\x80\x94Safety, Occupational Health, and Environmental\n Management. The Safety Branch recommends minimum acceptable safety standards for\n Center operations, maintains illness and injury records, and monitors Center activities to\n ensure compliance with all applicable safety standards and regulations. The\n Occupational Health Branch is responsible for the evaluation and measurement of\n exposure hazards in the work environment that can cause long-term or latent illness and\n\n 5\n NASA Procedural Requirements 1080.1, \xe2\x80\x9cNASA Science Policy,\xe2\x80\x9d February 2, 2005, defines Principal\n Investigators as \xe2\x80\x9cscientists external or internal to NASA who have received funding to perform specific\n research tasks.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 1\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n\n\n disease. The Environmental Management Branch identifies risks posed by current and\n past Glenn programs, operations, and activities and develops and implements processes\n to remediate, abate, and control those risks.\n\n The Safety, Health, and Environmental Board delegated the approval process for the\n safety permit system to 14 Area Safety Committees (9 geographically based and\n 5 specialty based). The Area Safety Committees are comprised of a chairperson,\n personnel with engineering and operational expertise, and representatives from SHED, as\n needed. The Area Safety Committees review proposals for all research and development\n operations, for modifications or additions to facilities and equipment, and for any project\n that may affect safety within their assigned safety area. For those proposals that meet\n Glenn safety requirements, the Committee approves and issues a safety permit; once the\n permit is issued, the requestor may begin the research operation or experiment. SHED\xe2\x80\x99s\n Safety Branch is responsible for maintaining a list of the issued permits and conducting\n periodic inspections of the laboratories to identify hazardous conditions, unsafe or\n unhealthy work practices, and other safety and health issues. The PI must submit a\n revision to the safety permit upon any deviation from the procedures or requirements\n listed on the permit.\n\n Glenn Safety Guidance. Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s overarching safety policy is Glenn Lewis Policy\n Directive (GLPD) 1702.1I, \xe2\x80\x9cGlenn Safety and Health Program,\xe2\x80\x9d April 2005, which\n parallels NASA Policy Directive 8710.2D, \xe2\x80\x9cNASA Safety and Health Program Policy,\xe2\x80\x9d\n April 28, 2004. GLPD 1702.1I addresses the need to effectively manage operations so\n that risk to personnel, property, and the environment is eliminated or reduced. Policy\n documents for other aspects of the safety program include GLPD 1800.2, \xe2\x80\x9cGlenn\n Research Center Occupational Health Program,\xe2\x80\x9d September 2006, and GLPD 8500.1,\n \xe2\x80\x9cNASA Glenn Environmental Management System,\xe2\x80\x9d April 2007. The three SHED\n branches publish implementation instructions for Glenn safety guidance in three\n manuals\xe2\x80\x94the Glenn Safety Manual, the Occupational Health Programs Manual, and the\n Environmental Programs Manual.\n\n\nObjectives\n\n Our overall objective was to determine whether the Glenn Safety Program was operated\n in accordance with applicable Federal, NASA, and Glenn guidance and if appropriate\n steps were being taken to prevent injury to Center personnel and damage to NASA\n assets. The review was initiated in response to two hotline complaints concerning Glenn\n Safety Programs: the first concerned laboratory safety and the review process for\n granting Glenn safety permits and the second concerned the actions of \xe2\x80\x9cfirst responder\xe2\x80\x9d\n personnel to a January 2006 fire in a Glenn underground tunnel. This report addresses\n laboratory safety and the process for reviewing, approving, and maintaining safety\n permits for Glenn laboratory operations; a separate report will address the first\n responder\xe2\x80\x99s activities as they relate to emergency response at Glenn. We also reviewed\n internal controls as they related to the review objective. See Appendix A for details of\n\n\n2 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cINTRODUCTION\n\n\n\n the review\xe2\x80\x99s scope and methodology, our review of internal controls, and a list of prior\n coverage.\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 3\n\x0c RESULTS\n\n\n\n\n SAFETY GUIDANCE NOT ALWAYS\n FOLLOWED AT GLENN\n LABORATORIES\n\n Glenn did not ensure that all of its laboratories were operated in compliance with\n Glenn safety guidance. Specifically, we identified incidents of noncompliance in\n each of the 22 laboratories that we reviewed. For those 22 laboratories, 6\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 9 did not have a safety permit, the safety permit had expired, or the safety\n permit remained active after laboratory operations had ceased;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 10 did not have a current or approved standard operating procedure;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 16 did not properly identify and store hazardous chemicals or maintain the\n required information for their safe use;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 17 were operated without adequate engineering controls or safeguards 7;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 7 were not maintained clean and free from potential hazards;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 7 were operated by personnel without the requisite safety training; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 13 did not meet fire and life safety standards.\n\n SHED\xe2\x80\x99s facility safety and health inspection program was not effectively\n accomplishing its mission to ensure that laboratory safety violations were identified\n and adequately corrected. As a result, Glenn personnel, assets, and facilities were\n placed at an increased risk of injury and/or damage associated with laboratory\n operations. Review of NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Incident Reporting Information System for the\n 17-month period from January 2006 through May 2007 indicates that 28 of the\n 247 mishaps and close calls reported at Glenn were directly or indirectly related to\n laboratory operations and the types of noncompliance issues that we identified.\n\n\nLaboratory Safety Guidance\n\n The \xe2\x80\x9cGlenn Safety Manual,\xe2\x80\x9d April 2007, and the \xe2\x80\x9cEnvironmental Programs Manual,\xe2\x80\x9d\n April 2007, provide specific safety guidance for the Glenn laboratories. The manuals\n\n 6\n The initial sample selected for inspection totaled 39 laboratories, however due to on-going hazardous\n operations, locked doors, and/or the unavailability of laboratory personnel, we were only able to inspect\n 22 of the laboratories.\n 7\n Engineering controls eliminate or reduce exposure to a chemical or physical hazard through the use or\n substitution of engineered machinery or equipment.\n\n\n4 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cRESULTS\n\n\n\n contain instruction concerning the safety permit system, laboratory standard operating\n procedures (SOP), hazardous chemicals, engineering controls, employee training, and\n fire protection.\n\n Glenn Safety Manual. The Glenn Safety Manual contains the requirements for safety\n permits and inspections, engineering controls, and fire protection. Chapter 1A, \xe2\x80\x9cSafety\n Permit System,\xe2\x80\x9d identifies certain activities likely to require an approved safety permit\n and outlines the procedures for requesting, reviewing, issuing, maintaining, renewing,\n and terminating safety permits. Chapter 15, \xe2\x80\x9cPersonal Protective Equipment,\xe2\x80\x9d discusses\n requirements for identifying relevant engineering controls and the need for personal\n protective equipment such as ventilation and respiratory protection. Chapter 27\n \xe2\x80\x9cBuilding Emergency Evacuation Plan Program,\xe2\x80\x9d and Chapter 31, \xe2\x80\x9cFire Protection,\xe2\x80\x9d\n discuss the fire and life safety protective measures necessary to ensure safe and orderly\n emergency evacuations and the requisite controls designed to prevent, contain, and\n mitigate fires.\n\n Environmental Programs Manual. The Environmental Programs Manual contains the\n requirements for the Hazard Communication (HAZCOM) Program. The purpose of the\n HAZCOM Program is to inform employees of the hazards associated with chemicals in\n the workplace. Chapter 16, \xe2\x80\x9cHazard Communication Policy,\xe2\x80\x9d establishes the methods for\n communicating chemical hazard information, which includes container labeling, Material\n Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), 8 and employee training. The Environmental Programs\n Manual also contains the requirements for laboratory SOPs, chemical management,\n laboratory maintenance, and training. Chapter 17, \xe2\x80\x9cChemical Hygiene Policy,\xe2\x80\x9d requires\n every Glenn laboratory to develop an SOP describing the specific operations that take\n place in the laboratory. Each laboratory SOP, along with general measures established in\n the Chemical Hygiene Plan, defines the requisite engineering and procedural controls\n designed to protect employees from the harmful affects of chemicals used in a laboratory.\n Chapter 17 also contains a list of general training requirements for those laboratory\n employees that work with or around hazardous chemicals.\n\n\nLaboratory Reviews Identified Noncompliance Issues\n\n Glenn did not ensure that all of its laboratories were operated in compliance with Glenn\n safety guidance. We identified a total of 150 incidents of noncompliance in the\n 22 laboratories that we reviewed, pertaining to safety permits, SOPs, chemical\n management, laboratory safeguards, laboratory maintenance, and training. (See\n Appendix B for the list of noncompliance incidents.)\n\n\n\n 8\n The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires chemical manufactures to develop\n MSDS to inform end-users of a chemical\xe2\x80\x99s composition, physical hazards, health hazards, exposure\n routes and limits, toxicology, instructions for safe use, emergency and first aid procedures, and the\n manufacture\xe2\x80\x99s contact information.\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 5\n\x0c RESULTS\n\n\n\n Safety Permits. Safety permits were not available or valid in nine of the laboratories. In\n eight of the laboratories, operations were taking place that required a safety permit but\n the PI could not provide one. For example, in the Shape Memory Alloy Research and\n Technical Laboratory, laboratory personnel were working with a laser and other high-\n voltage equipment; however, there was no safety permit posted. According to Chapter\n 1A of the Glenn Safety Manual, any operation or activity that uses hazardous chemicals,\n pressurized systems, lasers, electrical or mechanical energy sources, or otherwise\n requires fire and life safety controls must have a safety permit.\n\n The ninth laboratory had an active safety permit posted on the laboratory door, but\n according to documentation gathered in the laboratory, operations had been terminated\n for months. We were able to gain unrestricted access to the laboratory where we\n observed unlabeled chemical containers on top of a workbench and flammable chemicals\n that were improperly stored in a cabinet that was not\n rated for flammable chemical storage. We also\n observed glassware that was coated with a crystallized\n residue and syringes, sharps, and test equipment that\n was unsecured. The laboratory sink contained\n unidentified corrosion and discoloration that is\n consistent with improper waste disposal (see\n Figure 1). None of these conditions should have\n existed, as the Safety Manual specifically states that\n when a laboratory operation or activity is terminated,\n the PI should remove and return the safety permit to Figure 1. Corrosion in laboratory sink.\n\n the Glenn Safety Branch and coordinate the phase out\n of the operation, including the removal and disposal of all hazardous materials.\n\n Laboratory SOPs. Laboratory SOPs were not available or were incomplete in 10 of the\n laboratories. Specifically, 7 laboratories had no SOP and 2 had SOPs that had expired;\n one SOP lacked the required signature/approval of the Glenn Chemical Hygiene Officer.\n The Environmental Programs Manual, Chapter 17, establishes the Glenn Chemical\n Hygiene Plan, which requires the laboratory PIs to develop and submit an SOP to the\n Chemical Hygiene Officer if the PI plans to use chemicals in conducting his or her\n research. The SOP must include an overview of laboratory operations, identify the\n chemicals the PI plans to use in the laboratory, list the regulatory compliance\n requirements, describe emergency response procedures, and reflect guidance for revising\n the SOP, if needed. Without an SOP, laboratory personnel and personnel responding to a\n laboratory emergency may not have access to detailed safety and health information\n tailored to that specific laboratory.\n\n Chemical Management. With regard to chemical management, we identified\n noncompliance issues in 16 of the laboratories. The Chemical Hygiene Plan outlines the\n Center\xe2\x80\x99s policy regarding chemical management and, in conjunction with the laboratory\n SOPs, contains procedural and engineering controls designed to protect laboratory\n workers from harmful affects presented by hazardous chemicals. The majority of the\n\n\n6 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cRESULTS\n\n\n\n noncompliance issues that we identified concerned improper chemical storage and\n labeling. In 14 laboratories, we found unattended flammable chemicals that were not\n properly stored. The Chemical Hygiene Plan requires that all flammable chemicals be\n stored in an approved flammable storage cabinet. 9 It also requires that incompatible\n chemicals or chemicals that can react violently, generate substantial heat, or produce\n flammable or toxic by-products, be segregated from one another. In one laboratory, we\n discovered highly hazardous and reactive chemicals (bromine and lithium) co-located in\n the same unmarked storage space. 10 We also observed instances where food and\n beverages were consumed in areas where chemicals were used and stored.\n\n Regarding chemical labeling, we found unlabeled\n hazardous chemicals in six of the laboratories (see\n Figure 2). The Chemical Hygiene Plan requires all\n hazardous chemicals to be properly labeled in\n accordance with the HAZCOM Program. The\n label must match the information as stated on the\n MSDS. The labels should list the name of the\n chemical, hazard warnings, and the name and\n address of the manufacturer or other responsible\n Figure 2. Unattended and unlabeled containers\n party. Containers labeled by the chemical holding hazardous chemicals.\n manufacture do not require additional labels;\n however, when chemicals are transferred to other containers (secondary containers),\n these secondary containers must be separately labeled. 11\n\n The HAZCOM Program also requires that the employees have ready access to the MSDS\n and that an inventory be maintained for all hazardous chemicals used and stored in the\n workplace. We found that in seven laboratories, personnel did not have ready access to\n the MSDS and were unfamiliar with the properties and hazards of the chemicals used and\n stored in the laboratories. In three of the laboratories, personnel stated that they\n maintained MSDS for the laboratory on an automated information system; however, in\n each instance; computer terminals were not located in the laboratories. According to the\n HAZCOM Program, where electronic access is not available, laboratories should\n maintain the MSDS as hardcopy (i.e., provided as a paper document).\n\n\n\n 9\n In accordance with the National Fire Protection Association\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cFlammable and Combustible Liquids\n Code,\xe2\x80\x9d Chapter 4.3.3 (b), and OSHA 29, Code of Federal Regulations 1910.106 (d)(3)(ii)(a), an\n approved flammable chemical storage cabinet is constructed of doubled walled No. 18 gauge sheet steel\n with 1 \xc2\xbd in. (3.8 cm) of air space. The door must have a 3-point latching arrangement and the doorsill\n raised at least 2 in. (5 cm) above the bottom of the cabinet to retain spilled liquid.\n 10\n Bromine is a highly reactive corrosive that poses a serious health threat. Although classified as a\n noncombustible material, bromine will act as an accelerant and react violently when it is exposed to\n combustible materials. Lithium is a combustible solid that may ignite or explode when it is exposed to\n flame, heat, corrosives, or oxidizers.\n 11\n The only exception to this requirement is if the chemical is intended for immediate use; however, none\n of the instances we are reporting involved chemicals intended for immediate use.\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 7\n\x0c RESULTS\n\n\n\n Lastly, in five of the laboratories, the chemical inventory list did not reflect the chemicals\n in use and stored in the laboratory. One of those lists had not been updated since\n April 11, 1991. The Chemical Hygiene Plan requires that chemical inventories be taken\n at least annually.\n\n Laboratory Safeguards. With regard to\n laboratory safeguards, 17 of the laboratories did\n not have engineering controls in place that were\n commensurate with all recognized laboratory\n hazards. For example, in one of the laboratories,\n the PI was performing tests and conducting\n research into the magnetization of neodymium-\n iron-boron (NdFeB). In order to magnetize this\n material, the PI used a wide variety of electrically\n Figure 3. Water valves piped over energized\n energized support equipment. Although the electrical equipment.\n engineering design was effective to support the\n technical process, basic safety considerations were not incorporated into the design. For\n example, water used to chill the equipment was piped directly over the energized\n equipment where a leak or rupture could result in an electrically initiated fire and/or\n cause electrical shock. The design also included in-line gate valves and fittings that\n could fail or leak, further reducing the margin of safety (see Figure 3). In another\n instance, laboratory personnel were working with a laser without requisite personal\n protective equipment, 12 such as protective eye wear. The Safety Manual requires\n laboratory supervisors and SHED to perform hazard assessments for each laboratory to\n identify hazards and to institute engineering controls and protective equipment to\n mitigate recognized hazards.\n\n Laboratory Maintenance. In seven laboratories,\n laboratory maintenance standards were not being\n met. The Safety Manual states that all personnel\n are responsible for laboratory safety and must\n follow housekeeping guidelines such as keeping\n aisles and stairways free from clutter, cleaning\n chemical spills, minimizing combustibles in\n workplace and storage areas, and keeping all exits\n free from obstructions. In the NdFeB laboratory,\n we found evidence of water intrusion around Figure 4. Water intrusion around electrically\n energized equipment.\n electrically energized laboratory equipment and\n along one of the laboratory walls, which created an electric shock hazard and a slip\n hazard (see Figure 4). In the other six laboratories, we found needles, syringes, and\n hazardous tools left out in unoccupied work areas and \xe2\x80\x9cslip, trip, and fall\xe2\x80\x9d types of\n hazards due to debris accumulation on laboratory floors.\n 12\n Personal protective equipment comprises clothing, devices, and other accessories designed to create a\n barrier against workplace hazards. The equipment can include safety glasses, hard hats, safety shoes,\n gloves, ear protection, respirators, and other protective items.\n\n\n8 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cRESULTS\n\n\n\n Training. Personnel in seven of the laboratories did not have training commensurate\n with the work being performed in the laboratory. In several of those laboratories,\n personnel were working with hazardous chemicals and/or biological agents. For\n example, in the \xe2\x80\x9cVertebrate Cell Culture Laboratory,\xe2\x80\x9d laboratory personnel were working\n with quail eggs to study biological phenomena such as blood vessel and bone cell\n development; however, the laboratory\xe2\x80\x99s PI stated that she did not have the required\n HAZCOM training. The HAZCOM Program requires laboratory personnel to attend\n HAZCOM training at least once every 3 years. HAZCOM training includes instruction\n on HAZCOM standards, MSDS, Glenn safety policies and procedures, chemical\n inventories, and provides contact information for the Safety Branch.\n\n Fire and Life Safety. We identified 13\n laboratories that were noncompliant with the\n Safety Manual\xe2\x80\x99s fire and life safety\n requirements with regard to emergency egress,\n emergency response, and hazardous waste\n disposal. The Safety Manual defines\n emergency egress as the process by which a\n continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel\n is maintained from any point in a building to a\n predetermined safe location. We observed\n corridors and a stairway that were identified as\n Figure 5. Blocked path of emergency egress.\n exit routes but were obstructed by boxes and\n unused equipment (see Figure 5). We also\n noted one instance in which exit signs led personnel to a locked exit door.\n\n With regard to emergency response, personnel in five of the laboratories stated that they\n were unsure of their responsibilities during a fire emergency or chemical spill or release.\n Other personnel stated that they were unsure as to how or when to use a portable fire\n extinguisher. In two of the laboratories, access to the fire extinguishers was partially\n blocked by crates, boxes, and laboratory equipment. The Safety Manual states that\n individual employees are required to be familiar with the emergency procedures for their\n particular work area. Familiarity includes having knowledge of the primary and\n secondary emergency evacuation route, the location of the designated safe area, and the\n identity of the building evacuation monitors. In the event of a fire, personnel are required\n to know the location of the nearest alarm and how to report the emergency to the Glenn\n dispatcher and, if qualified, to fight a fire in its beginning stages by using the appropriate\n portable fire extinguisher.\n\n Finally, in the area of combustible waste, we identified such waste accumulated on\n workbenches and improperly deposited into ordinary trash receptacles. For the\n laboratories that were using the proper hazardous waste receptacles, those receptacles\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 9\n\x0c RESULTS\n\n\n\n were not emptied on a daily basis. OSHA regulations 13 require combustible waste to be\n discarded in covered, self-closing receptacles and that those receptacles be emptied daily.\n\n\nSafety and Health Inspection Program\n\n SHED\xe2\x80\x99s facility safety and health inspection program was not effectively accomplishing\n its mission to ensure that laboratory safety violations were identified and adequately\n corrected.\n\n Inspection Program. SHED relies on safety and health inspections as the principal\n means to detect hazardous conditions, unsafe work practices, and other occupational\n safety and health issues in its laboratories. The Glenn Safety Manual, Chapter 24,\n \xe2\x80\x9cFacility Safety and Health Inspection Program,\xe2\x80\x9d identifies the types of facility safety\n and health inspections SHED conducts, the frequency of those inspections, and the\n responsibilities of the inspectors, management, and the Glenn Safety Branch. SHED\n performs two types of inspections\xe2\x80\x94basic and detailed. Basic inspections are\n unscheduled inspections performed to identify fire, life safety, and industrial hygiene 14\n violations. Detailed inspections cover four areas\xe2\x80\x94safety and health, chemical\n management, industrial hygiene, and health physics\xe2\x80\x94and are designed to identify safety\n violations such as expired safety permits. Basic inspections are performed by Safety\n Branch representatives on a bimonthly basis and detailed inspections are scheduled\n inspections conducted by a team led by a Safety Branch representative. Depending on\n the criticality and risk 15 associated with each facility, detailed facility safety and health\n inspections are performed on a quarterly or annual basis.\n\n The inspectors use the SHED-developed Bi-Monthly Facility Inspection Checklist when\n performing basic inspections and the Facility Safety and Health Inspection Checklist\n when performing detailed inspections (see Appendixes C and D for copies of the\n checklists). SHED maintains a database that tracks the violations recorded on the\n checklists, generates violation notices, and provides management reports. When a\n violation is posted to the database, a safety violation notice is generated and distributed to\n the PI\xe2\x80\x99s chain of command and the respective building manager where the violation\n occurred. For violations that are open for 30 days or longer, the Safety Manual requires\n that the PI develop a corrective action plan, which must contain a justification as to why\n the violation remains unresolved, a description of the planned corrective action,\n timeframes for completing corrective action, and interim actions to protect employees\n from unsafe conditions caused by the violation.\n\n 13\n In accordance with OSHA 29, Code of Federal Regulations 1910.106(h)(8)(iii), combustible waste\n material and residue must be kept to a minimum; stored in closed, metal waste cans; and disposed of\n daily.\n 14\n Industrial hygiene is defined as a science devoted to the protection and improvement of the health and\n well-being of workers exposed to chemical and physical agents in their work environment.\n 15\n \xe2\x80\x9cRisk\xe2\x80\x9d is characterized in the Glenn Safety Program by combining the probability that an undesired\n event will occur with the consequences or severity if it were to occur.\n\n\n10 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cRESULTS\n\n\n\n Laboratory Inspection Universe. SHED did not include all Glenn laboratories in its\n inspection universe and was not aware of the total number of facilities that were\n designated as laboratories at Glenn. When we attempted to define the universe of Glenn\n laboratories for our review, we requested that SHED provide us a list of all Glenn\n laboratories that were conducting operations that warranted inspection under the facility\n safety and health inspection program. SHED personnel stated that their inspection\n universe was based on a list of laboratories with active safety permits and provided a list\n containing 371 laboratories. Upon receiving the list, we became concerned that limiting\n the inspections to laboratories with \xe2\x80\x9cactive\xe2\x80\x9d safety permits did not account for those\n laboratories that had not applied for a permit but should have or those laboratories whose\n safety permits had expired. Subsequently, we contacted the Glenn Facilities Division and\n requested a list of Glenn laboratories from its database. We received a list of\n 563 laboratories from the Facilities Division database; 192 laboratories more than the\n SHED list. Neither SHED nor the Facilities Division was aware that such a difference in\n the number of laboratories existed, and we could not confirm whether reconciliation\n between the two lists had ever been conducted.\n\n SHED needs to include all laboratories in its inspection universe. In our review of\n 22 laboratories, we identified 9 laboratories that had no safety permit or had an expired\n safety permit and, therefore, would not be included in the SHED universe. Each of those\n laboratories was conducting operations that required a safety permit and commensurate\n safety controls. To ensure that SHED has visibility over each of the Glenn laboratories,\n it needs to periodically reconcile its list of laboratories that have active safety permits\n with the Facilities Division database. This will improve SHED\xe2\x80\x99s ability to maintain a\n comprehensive inspection universe and identify those laboratories that may be operating\n in violation of Safety Manual requirements and without the proper safety controls.\n\n Identification of Laboratories Inspected. The inspectors were not required to complete\n checklists for each laboratory inspected during the basic or detailed safety inspections.\n Because we identified 22 laboratories with 150 instances of noncompliance, we wanted\n to determine whether the results of the SHED basic and detailed inspections conducted\n around the period of our review contained similar findings. Because we conducted our\n laboratory review in January 2007, we requested all SHED inspection checklists for the\n period December 2006 through March 2007. Upon review, we found that only the\n laboratories in which violations were identified were annotated on the checklist; the\n checklist did not contain a list of all laboratories inspected. Therefore, we were unable to\n perform a laboratory-by-laboratory comparison between our results and the SHED\n inspection results, although according to the checklists, the SHED inspectors found only\n five health and safety violations in the buildings that we reviewed. Not requiring the\n inspectors to identify all laboratories inspected makes it difficult to hold the inspectors\n accountable for the inspection results because there is no evidence showing which\n laboratories were actually inspected and which laboratories may have been locked or\n otherwise inaccessible during the inspection.\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 11\n\x0c RESULTS\n\n\n\n Inspection Follow-Up. SHED did not adequately follow up on all laboratory safety\n violations identified during the basic and detailed inspections. We reviewed safety\n violation notices issued for the 17-month period between January 2006 and May 2007.\n During that period, SHED issued 165 safety violation notices against the laboratory\n buildings that we reviewed, of which 99 violations remained open for 30 days or longer.\n According to the Glenn Safety Manual, a corrective action plan should be prepared for\n any violation remaining open for more than 30 days. However, only 12 of the 99 open\n violations had corrective action plans. For the 87 violations that did not have corrective\n action plans, 9 were classified as Code 3 or Code 2 violations. Code 3 violations have\n the potential of causing minor injury or damage to personnel or equipment; Code 2\n violations have the potential of causing severe injury or damage to personnel or\n equipment. Glenn should not have those type of violations open for extended periods,\n without a valid corrective action plan. The Safety Manual properly addresses the issue\n by requiring that corrective action plans be prepared and justifications be given as to why\n the violation remains open; however, SHED needs to periodically monitor its violation\n database and ensure corrective action plans are developed for all past-due safety\n violations. Special attention should be given to those violations that are Code 3 or higher\n to ensure that appropriate action is taken to keep employees and equipment safe.\n\n\nAssociated Risk\n\n The risk of injury and/or damage associated with Glenn laboratory operations increases\n when those operations are not conducted in compliance with Glenn safety guidance. In\n our review of 22 laboratories, we identified 150 instances in which that safety guidance\n was not properly followed. Because we did not derive our sample statistically, we cannot\n project our results to the entire universe of Glenn laboratories; however, we believe that\n our results provide a solid indication that improvements are warranted. According to\n NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Incident Reporting Information System, during the 17-month period from\n January 2006 through May 2007, Glenn reported 247 mishaps 16 and close calls 17 and\n sustained more than $449,049 in related property and vehicle damage. Of those mishaps\n and close calls, 28 directly or indirectly related to laboratory operations and the types of\n noncompliance issues that we identified. Had Glenn\xe2\x80\x99s facility safety and health\n inspection program been more effective in identifying, tracking, and monitoring\n laboratory safety violations, we expect that we would have identified fewer incidents of\n safety noncompliance. Because we reviewed only 22 of the 563 Glenn laboratories\n (4 percent), we believe that SHED should coordinate and sponsor a laboratory stand-\n down day, in which the PI and his or her staff could conduct a safety self-assessment\n based on the SHED checklists. This would provide SHED a baseline of laboratory\n\n 16\n NASA defines a mishap as an unplanned event that results in injury to personnel or damage to property.\n NASA categorizes mishaps as Type A through Type D based on the severity of injury to personnel or\n total cost of damage to property.\n 17\n NASA defines a close call as an occurrence or employee concern that did not result in injury to\n personnel or significant damage to property but possesses the potential to cause a mishap.\n\n\n12 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cRESULTS\n\n\n\n conditions, allow for the identification of systemic issues that may need to be addressed\n Center-wide, and provide a universe for follow-up inspections. Such an effort, along\n with improving the effectiveness of the inspection program should improve safety\n compliance, and most important, should reduce the risk of injury to personnel and\n damage to assets and facilities resulting from laboratory operations.\n\n\nManagement Actions\n\n\n Subsequent to our laboratory review, Glenn began taking corrective action to address the\n 150 noncompliance incidents that we identified. To facilitate that action, we briefed\n senior Glenn management and the SHED chief of our laboratory review results. Both\n were very receptive to our findings. The SHED chief has since initiated a comprehensive\n review of the Glenn chemical management and laboratory safety programs. SHED has\n also begun updating the chemical inventories by use of a commercially available\n database. For our findings that indicated an immediate health and/or safety threat, such\n as the improper storage of chemicals, SHED instituted a stop-work order and effectively\n mitigated the threat. We commend SHED for taking immediate action; that action, along\n with corrective action taken in response to our recommendations, should continue to\n improve the safety posture within the Glenn laboratories.\n\nRecommendations, Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response, and Evaluation of\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\nRecommendation 1. The Director, Safety and Mission Assurance, Glenn Research Center,\nshould ensure that the Safety, Health, and Environmental Division develops a process that\nwill comprehensively define the laboratory universe for facility safety and health inspections\nthat includes, at a minimum, a periodic reconciliation between the Safety, Health, and\nEnvironmental Division\xe2\x80\x99s list of laboratories with active safety permits against the Facility\nDivision\xe2\x80\x99s list of total Glenn laboratories.\n\nRecommendation 2. The Director, Safety and Mission Assurance, Glenn Research Center,\nshould ensure that the Safety, Health, and Environmental Division\n\n a. revise the Glenn Safety Manual, Chapter 24, to require inspectors to annotate the\n building number and the specific laboratories that were inspected during all basic and\n detailed inspections; and\n\n b. require the safety and health violation database be monitored, by severity code, to\n identify and notify management of all violations that are past due and require a\n corrective action plan.\n\nRecommendation 3. The Director, Safety and Mission Assurance, Glenn Research Center,\nshould ensure that the Safety, Health, and Environmental Division coordinate a laboratory\nsafety stand-down day, that, at a minimum, requires that the Principal Investigators and their\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 13\n\x0c RESULTS\n\n\n\nstaff conduct a self-assessment based on the Safety, Health, and Environmental Division\xe2\x80\x99s\nchecklists.\n\nRecommendation 4. The Director, Safety and Mission Assurance, Glenn Research Center,\nshould ensure that the Safety, Health, and Environmental Division\n\n a. record and analyze the results of the laboratory self-assessments and issue\n violation notices in accordance with the Glenn Safety Manual;\n\n b. identify and address, on a Center-wide basis, any systemic laboratory safety issues\n noted during the analysis; and\n\n c. based on the number of violations, conduct random or total follow up inspections\n to ensure that appropriate corrective action was taken.\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response. The Director, Glenn Research Center, concurred, and\n provided a corrective action plan that addresses each of the recommendations. He stated\n that the Safety Branch would conduct an immediate reconciliation of the Safety, Health,\n and Environmental Division\xe2\x80\x99s safety permit list with the list of laboratories maintained\n by the Facility Division. Once the reconciliation is complete, Safety Branch personnel\n will physically review the laboratories identified as not having active safety permits and,\n if necessary, issue violation notices in accordance with the Glenn Safety Manual. The\n Safety Branch will also establish a process to ensure that the safety permit tracking\n system is updated when laboratories are established or terminated or if the hazards\n associated with a specific laboratory change.\n\n Regarding the laboratory safety inspections, the Center Director stated that the Glenn\n Safety Manual will be revised to require inspectors to annotate the building number and\n specific laboratory inspected during all basic and detailed inspections. In addition, the\n safety and health violation database will be monitored for past-due violations, and when\n identified, the cognizant managers will be required to present a closure plan to the Center\n Operations Management Council.\n\n The Center Director also agreed to hold a Center-wide safety stand-down day in\n conjunction with Center-wide safety day events. During the stand-down day, the\n laboratory principal investigators, supervisors, and employees will be required to conduct\n and document self-assessments based on the existing laboratory safety checklists. Any\n safety violations identified will be immediately corrected or documented in the safety and\n health violation database. The violations will be trended to identify any systemic\n laboratory safety concerns.\n\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response. Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments are responsive. The\n recommendations are resolved and will be closed upon completion and verification of\n management\xe2\x80\x99s corrective action\n\n\n\n\n14 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX A\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX A\n\n\nScope and Methodology\n\n We collected, reviewed, and analyzed guidance and documents relating to laboratory\n safety and the Glenn safety permit system. Specifically, we evaluated OSHA\n requirements, Executive Orders, and applicable NASA and Glenn safety guidance. We\n also reviewed selected laboratory safety permits, SOPs, laboratory inspection results,\n corrective action plans, and facility database information. We interviewed Glenn\n officials including, the SHED Division and branch chiefs, Area Safety Committee\n chairpersons, and Glenn senior management to obtain an overview of the Glenn safety\n program and to gain an in-depth understanding of the safety permit process and\n laboratory inspection program.\n\n We reviewed laboratory operations in 22 Glenn laboratories, the laboratories were\n selected for review by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Safety Manager on the basis\n of severity of operational hazards identified in laboratory safety permits. During the\n reviews, we observed laboratory operations and interviewed laboratory management and\n staff to determine if each laboratory operated with the appropriate permits, maintained\n standard operating procedures, properly managed hazardous chemicals, had appropriate\n engineering controls and safeguards, maintained cleanliness, and met fire standards.\n\n We compared the results of our inspections to the results of Glenn safety, occupational\n health, health physics, and chemical management inspections performed in calendar year\n 2006 and the first quarter of calendar year 2007. We obtained the results of those safety\n inspections by querying the Glenn facility inspection database and reviewing associated\n inspection checklists. We also queried NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Incident Reporting Information System\n for the 17-month period from January 2006 through May 2007, to identify mishaps and\n close calls that were reported at Glenn and determine if any of those mishaps and close\n calls were indirectly related to laboratory operations and the types of noncompliance\n issues that we identified.\n\n We performed this review at the Glenn Research Center from May 2006 through\n June 2007.\n\n Use of Computer-Processed Data. We did not perform a detailed assessment of the\n reliability of the data reported in the Glenn facility inspection database or the Incident\n Reporting Information System. We reviewed the checklists that supported the facility\n inspection database but could not validate the results as the checklists represented\n laboratory conditions at a certain point in time. We did not review supporting\n documentation for the Incident Reporting Information System. However, changes in the\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 15\n\x0c APPENDIX A\n\n\n\n inspection results and the incidents reported would not change our conclusions or\n recommendations.\n\n\nReview of Internal Controls\n\n We reviewed internal controls for Glenn laboratory safety to include applicable policies\n and procedures and the oversight activities of the SHED and the Area Safety\n Committees. We identified weaknesses in the SHED oversight activities, specifically\n concerning the facility health and safety inspection program. Implementing the\n recommendations in this report to comprehensively address the inspection program\n should improve the internal controls over laboratory safety.\n\nPrior Coverage\n\n During the last 5 years, the Government Accountability Office and the NASA Office of\n Inspector General have not issued any reports of particular relevance to the subject of this\n report.\n\n\n\n\n16 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\n OIG REVIEW RESULTS\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 17\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\n18 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 19\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\n20 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 21\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\n22 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 23\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\n24 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 25\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\n26 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 27\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\n28 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX C\n\n\n\n\n BASIC INSPECTION CHECKLIST\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 29\n\x0c APPENDIX C\n\n\n\n\n30 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX C\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 31\n\x0c APPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\n DETAILED INSPECTION CHECKLIST\n\n\n\n\n32 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 33\n\x0c APPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\n34 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 35\n\x0c APPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\n36 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 37\n\x0c APPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\n38 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 39\n\x0c APPENDIX D\n\n\n\n\n40 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX E\n\n\n\n\n MANAGEMENT COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 41\n\x0c APPENDIX E\n\n\n\n\n42 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX E\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 43\n\x0c APPENDIX E\n\n\n\n\n44 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX E\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 45\n\x0c APPENDIX E\n\n\n\n\n46 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX E\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 47\n\x0c APPENDIX E\n\n\n\n\n48 REPORT NO. IG-07-032\n\x0cAPPENDIX F\n REPORT\n\n\n\n REPORT DISTRIBUTION\n\nNational Aeronautics and Space Administration\n\n Administrator\n Deputy Administrator\n Chief of Staff\n Chief Safety and Mission Assurance\n Assistant Administrator for Internal Controls and Management Systems\n Center Director, Glenn Research Center\n Director for Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate, Glenn Research Center\n Chief for Safety, Health, and Environmental Division, Glenn Research Center\n\nNon-NASA Organizations and Individuals\n\n Office of Management and Budget\n Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division\n Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch\n Government Accountability Office\n Director, Defense, State, and NASA Financial Management, Office of Financial\n Management and Assurance\n Director, NASA Issues, Office of Acquisition and Sourcing Management\n\nCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Member\n\n Senate Committee on Appropriations\n Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies\n Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation\n Senate Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences\n Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs\n House Committee on Appropriations\n House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies\n House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform\n House Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement\n House Committee on Science and Technology\n House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight\n House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 49\n\x0c\x0cMajor Contributors to the Report:\n Carol Gorman, Director, Space Operations and Exploration Directorate\n Ronald Yarbrough, Project Leader\n Michael Bruns, Lead Auditor\n Michael Brant, Auditor\n Eugene Bauer, Auditor\n Janet Overton, Report Process Manager\n\n\n\n\nREPORT NO. IG-07-032 51\n\x0c SEPTEMBER 24, 2007\n REPORT No. IG-07-032\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF AUDITS\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\nADDITIONAL COPIES\nVisit www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits/reports/FY07/index.html to obtain additional copies of this\nreport, or contact the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing at 202-358-1232.\n\nCOMMENTS ON THIS REPORT\nIn order to help us improve the quality of our products, if you wish to comment on the quality or\nusefulness of this report, please send your comments to Ms. Jacqueline White, Director of Quality\nAssurance, at Jacqueline.White@nasa.gov or call 202-358-0203.\n\nSUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AUDITS\nTo suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing.\nIdeas and requests can also be mailed to:\n Assistant Inspector General for Auditing\n NASA Headquarters\n Washington, DC 20546-0001\n\nNASA HOTLINE\nTo report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement, contact the NASA OIG Hotline at 800-424-9183 or\n800-535-8134 (TDD). You may also write to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L\xe2\x80\x99Enfant\nPlaza Station, Washington, DC 20026, or use http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form.\nThe identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, upon request, to the extent permitted\nby law.\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Το Πριγκηπάτο της Ανδόρρας (καταλανικά: Principat d'Andorra, γαλλικά: Principauté d'Andorre, ισπανικά: Principado de Andorra) είναι πολύ μικρό περίκλειστο κράτος, που βρίσκεται στη νοτιοδυτική Ευρώπη, στα ανατολικά Πυρηναία, μεταξύ Γαλλίας και Ισπανίας. Έχει έκταση 468 τ.χλμ. και πληθυσμό 79.535 σύμφωνα με επίσημη εκτίμηση για το 2021. Το συνολικό μήκος της χώρας είναι 40 χλμ. Εκτός της πρωτεύουσας, Ανδόρρα λα Βέλια, περιλαμβάνει και 7 χωριά. Το κράτος ονομάζεται και Πριγκιπάτο των Κοιλάδων της Ανδόρρας.
 Ιστορία
 Η Πολιτεία της Ανδόρρας δημιουργήθηκε το 1278, όταν η περιοχή περιήλθε στον κόμη της Φουά (Comte de Foix) και στον επίσκοπο του Ουρζέλ. Τα δικαιώματα όμως της Κομητείας αυτής πέρασαν μετά από γάμο του Ερρίκου Δ ́ στο Γαλλικό Στέμμα. Έτσι, συνέχισε να βρίσκεται αυτοτελές μεν αλλά υπό την προστασία του εκάστοτε Βασιλέως, και σήμερα (κατά κληρονομικό δικαίωμα) Προέδρου της Γαλλικής Δημοκρατίας. Αξιοσημείωτο είναι το γεγονός ότι η χώρα παραλείφθηκε από τη συνθήκη του 1919, με αποτέλεσμα να παραμείνει σε εμπόλεμη κατάσταση με τη Γερμανία ως το 1958. Το 1982 ανέλαβε πρώτος πρωθυπουργός ο Όσκαρ Ρίβας Ρετς και στις 14 Μαρτίου του 1993 εγκρίθηκε Σύνταγμα με δημοψήφισμα. Σύμφωνα με το ίδιο το Σύνταγμα, τέθηκε σε ισχύ την ημέρα που δημοσιεύτηκε στην Εφημερίδα της Κυβερνήσεως, στις 28 Απριλίου του 1993. Μερικούς μήνες αργότερα, στις 28 Ιουλίου του 1993, η Ανδόρρα έγινε μέλος του ΟΗΕ. Έπειτα από τις γενικές εκλογές του 2009, οι Σοσιαλδημοκράτες του Ζάουμε Μπαρτουμέου κέρδισαν συνολικά 14 έδρες στο 28μελές Γενικό Συμβούλιο έναντι 11 για το συνασπισμό του απερχόμενου πρωθυπουργού, Αλμπέρτ Πιντάτ. Ο Μπαρτουμέου σχημάτισε κυβέρνηση συνασπισμού από κοινού με το Ανδορρανό Κόμμα για την Αλλαγή (ApC), το οποίο κατέλαβε 3 έδρες. Ο Μπαρτουμέου εξελέγη πρωθυπουργός τον Ιούνιο του 2009 και ανέλαβε καθήκοντα στις 5 Ιουνίου του ιδίου έτους.
 Γεωγραφία και κλίμα
 Εξαιτίας της θέσης της στα ανατολικά Πυρηναία, η Ανδόρρα αποτελείται κυρίως από όρη με μέσο υψόμετρο 1.996 μ. Το μεγαλύτερο σε ύψος βουνό είναι το Κόμα Πεδρόσα (Coma Pedrosa) στα 2.946 μ. Το χαμηλότερο σημείο είναι 870 μ. στο σημείο που ενώνονται τρεις στενές κοιλάδες σε σχήμα Υ, στον ποταμό Βαλίρα.
 Κλίμα
 Το εύκρατο κλίμα του κρατιδίου είναι παρόμοιο με εκείνο των όμορων χωρών του. Έτσι, εξαιτίας του μεγάλου υψομέτρου οι χειμώνες χαρακτηρίζονται από συχνές χιονοπτώσεις κατά μέσο όρο και παρατηρείται σχετική δροσιά το καλοκαίρι.Οι βροχοπτώσεις κατά μέσο όρο είναι της τάξης των 808 mm και η μέση θερμοκρασία κυμαίνεται από -1 ως 6 βαθμούς Κελσίου τον Ιανουάριο σε 12 με 26 βαθμούς Κελσίου τον Ιούλιο.
 Χλωρίδα
 Φυτογεωγραφικά η χώρα ανήκει στην ευρωπαϊκή κυκλοβόρεια ατλαντική περιοχή. Σύμφωνα με το WWF, το έδαφος της Ανδόρρας ανήκει στην οικολογική ζώνη των κωνοφόρων και των μικτών δασών των Πυρηναίων. Τα δάση της αποτελούνται από πεύκα, ελάτες, βελανιδιές και άλλα δέντρα.
 Δημογραφία
 Ο πληθυσμός της χώρας είναι 79.535 κάτοικοι το 2021 (206η στον κόσμο). Στο κρατίδιο ζουν Ισπανοί, Γάλλοι, Πορτογάλοι, Βρετανοί και Ιταλοί, σε ποσοστό 67,7%. Οι Ανδορρανοί αποτελούν μειονότητα στην ίδια τους τη χώρα, με 33% του συνολικού πληθυσμού. Ο ρυθμός αύξησης του πληθυσμού είναι -0,1% (εκτίμηση 2021) με τον ρυθμό γεννήσεων να είναι 6,91 γεννήσεις/1000 κατοίκους και θανάτων 7,86 θάνατοι/1000 κατοίκους πληθυσμού (εκτίμηση 2021).
 Γλώσσες
 Η καταλανική γλώσσα είναι η εθνική γλώσσα της χώρας. Οι περισσότεροι κάτοικοι της χώρας μιλούν παράλληλα ισπανικά και γαλλικά. Το κρατίδιο είναι το μοναδικό μαζί με άλλα τρία (Γαλλία, Μονακό και Τουρκία) στην Ευρώπη που δεν έχει υπογράψει τη Θεμελιώδη Σύμβαση του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης για την Προστασία των Μειονοτήτων.
 Θρησκεία
 Ο πληθυσμός πρεσβεύει κυρίως το Ρωμαιοκαθολικό δόγμα. Η προστάτιδά τους είναι η Θεοτόκος του Μεριτσέλ (Mare de Déu de Meritxell). Στις 8 Σεπτεμβρίου είναι εθνική εορτή, καθώς τιμάται η μνήμη της.
 Μακροζωία
 Σύμφωνα με αμερικανική έρευνα του 2007, η Ανδόρρα κατέχει το ρεκόρ μακροζωίας διεθνώς. Σύμφωνα με εκτιμήσεις για το 2021, το μέσο προσδόκιμο ζωής στη χώρα είναι 83,23 χρόνια (στους άνδρες 80,99 και στις γυναίκες 85,6).
 Διοικητική διαίρεση
 Το κρατίδιο διαιρείται σε 7 ενορίες. Αυτές είναι:
 Ανδόρρα Λα Βέλια
 Κανίλιο (Canillo)
 Ενκάμ (Encamp)
 Εσκάλντες-Ενγκορντάνι (Escaldes-Engordany)
 Λα Μασάνα (La Massana)
 Ορντίνο (Ordino)
 Σαντ Ζουλιά ντε Λόρια (Sant Julià de Lòria)
 Οικονομία
 Η οικονομία της βασίζεται κυρίως στον τουρισμό και αποτελεί οικονομικό κέντρο χάρη στις φορολογικές απαλλαγές. Το 1982 το Πριγκιπάτο επισκέφθηκαν, διερχόμενοι, περισσότεροι από 6 εκατομ. τουρίστες, αριθμός που ανέρχεται σε περισσότερο από 11,5 εκατομμύρια (εκτ. 2009). Επίσης οι κάτοικοι ασχολούνται με την καλλιέργεια πατάτας και καπνού. Καλλιεργούνται ακόμα κριθάρι και σίκαλη. Παράγεται επίσης ξυλεία και μόλυβδος. Οι εξαγωγές περιλαμβάνουν τσιγάρα, πούρα, έπιπλα, μεταλλικό νερό και γραμματόσημα. Η παραγωγή ηλεκτρισμού το 1984 ήταν 140 εκατομμύρια kwh και εισήγαγε ακόμη 200 εκατομμύρια kwh. Νόμισμα της χώρας είναι το ευρώ.
 Διακυβέρνηση
 Αρχηγός Κράτους είναι από κοινού, ο εκάστοτε Πρόεδρος της Γαλλίας και ο επίσκοπος του Ουρζέλ. Έτσι, Αρχηγοί Κράτους (συνηγεμόνες) είναι σήμερα ο Εμμανυέλ Μακρόν και ο επίσκοπος του Ουρζέλ, Ζουάν Ενρίκ Βίβες Σισίλια. Ο Πρόεδρος της Γαλλίας εκπροσωπείται διά του προσωπικού του αντιπροσώπου στη συνηγεμονία. Στο αξίωμα αυτό υπηρετεί από τo 2017 ο Πατρίκ Στρζοντά. Αντιπρόσωπος του επισκόπου είναι ο Ζοζέπ Μαρία Μαουρί Πριόρ, από τον Ιούλιο του 2012. Την εκτελεστική εξουσία ασκεί ο αρχηγός κυβερνήσεως Ζαβιέρ Εσπότ Ζαμόρα (από το 2019). Το τελευταίο Σύνταγμα της χώρας εγκρίθηκε σε δημοψήφισμα, το 1993. Το Κοινοβούλιο (Γενικό Συμβούλιο) αποτελείται από 28 μέλη, των οποίων η θητεία διαρκεί 4 έτη και ο πρόεδρός του (σήμερα ο Βισένς Ματέου Ζαμόρα, ανέλαβε καθήκοντα στις 28 Απριλίου 2011) καλείται Σύνδικος (Síndic General de les Valls d'Andorra). Δικαίωμα ψήφου έχουν όσες και όσοι είναι ηλικίας 18 ετών και άνω.
 Εκλογές
 Άμυνα
 Η Ισπανία και η Γαλλία έχουν την ευθύνη για την άμυνα της Ανδόρρας. Σήμερα έχει πολύ μικρή στρατιωτική δύναμη, 700 περίπου αντρών, η οποία χρησιμοποιείται μόνο για εθιμοτυπικούς λόγους.
 Επικοινωνίες και μεταφορές
 Οι αναλογικές τηλεοπτικές μεταδόσεις σταμάτησαν στις 25 Σεπτεμβρίου του 2007 και έκτοτε όλες οι τηλεοπτικές υπηρεσίες παρέχονται από την Επίγεια Ψηφιακή Τηλεόραση (Televisió Digital Terrestre ή TDT), η οποία μεταδίδει εκτός από τον μοναδικό τηλεοπτικό σταθμό της Ανδόρρας και ισπανικά και γαλλικά κανάλια. Η κρατική ραδιοφωνία (Radio Nacional d’Andorra) ευθύνεται για τη λειτουργία του Radio Andorra και του μουσικού σταθμού Andorra Música.
 Η Ανδόρρα συνδέεται με τις εθνικές οδούς Ισπανίας και Γαλλίας. Στερείται σιδηροδρομικού δικτύου και αεροδρομίου, με πλησιέστερους αερολιμένες αυτούς του Σέου δ' Ουρζέλ, της Βαρκελώνης και του Περπινιάν. Καθώς αποτελεί περίκλειστη χώρα, η Ανδόρρα στερείται και λιμανιών. Η οδήγηση γίνεται στη δεξιά πλευρά του δρόμου. Για τις μεταφορές του κοινού γίνονται τακτικά δρομολόγια λεωφορείων.
 Εκπαίδευση
 Ο αλφαβητισμός είναι της τάξης του 100%. Το 1986 στα σχολεία του κράτους φοιτούσαν 3.490 μαθητές και μαθήτριες πρωτοβάθμιας, 3.113 δευτεροβάθμιας, 170 τεχνολογίας και 46 ειδικών σχολών. Η χώρα διαθέτει δημόσιο πανεπιστήμιο (Universitat d'Andorra) από το 1997. Αποτελείται από νοσηλευτική σχολή, μία σχολή επιστημών πληροφορικής και ένα κέντρο για σπουδές εξ αποστάσεως. Είναι μέλος της Ένωσης Ευρωπαϊκών Πανεπιστημίων.
 Πολιτισμός
 Μουσική
 Στη χώρα διοργανώνονται μουσικά φεστιβάλ και παρουσιάζονται παραδοσιακοί χοροί, όπως οι «κοντραπάς» (contrapàs) και «μαράτσα» (marratxa). Σημαντικός χορός, τυπικός της Καταλονίας, είναι και η σαρδάνα (sardana). Επίσης, στο Εσκάλντες-Ενγκορδάν χορεύεται και ο «χορός της Αγίας Άννας».
 Στην Κάβρα δε Αντόρα δραστηριοποιείται και Ορχήστρα Νέων. Από το 2004 μεχρι το 2009 η χώρα συμμετείχε στον ευρωπαϊκό διαγωνισμό τραγουδιού της Eurovision.
 Αθλητισμός
 Η Ανδόρρα είναι δημοφιλής τόπος για χειμερινά αθλήματα, εξαιτίας των ορέων της. Ωστόσο, το ποδόσφαιρο είναι επίσης σημαντικό άθλημα για το μικρό κράτος. Η εθνική της ποδοσφαιρική ομοσπονδία (Federació Andorrana de Fútbol) ιδρύθηκε το 1994. Είναι μέλος της FIFA από το 1996. Έχει επίσης εθνική ομάδα ανδρών (εθνικά χρώματα είναι το κόκκινο, το μπλε και το κίτρινο), η οποία τον Απρίλιο του 2009 ήταν 195η στην παγκόσμια κατάταξη.
 Σημαντικότερη, είναι η παρουσία της Ανδόρρας στο άθλημα του Ράγκμπι γιούνιον.
 Στην Ευρώπη (FIRA - AER) η εθνική ομάδα της Ανδόρρας αγωνίζεται στην τέταρτη (από επτά υπάρχουσες) τη τάξει κατηγορία (ENC 2B). Διεθνώς, το IRB (Διεθνές Συμβούλιο Ράγκμπυ) την κατατάσσει 58η μεταξύ 93 χωρών.
 Στην Ανδόρρα επίσης εδρεύει η ομάδα μπάσκετ ΜΚ Ανδόρρα η οποία συμμετέχει στο ισπανικό πρωτάθλημα.
 Διεθνείς σχέσεις
 Στην Ανδόρρα υπάρχουν πολλές πρεσβείες και προξενεία από χώρες που εκπροσωπούνται άμεσα σε αυτήν.
 Παραπομπές
 Brutails La Coutume d'Andorre Paris 1904.
 Corts Peyret J. Geografia Historia d'Andorra Barcelona, 1945.
 Statesman's Year Book by John Paxton.
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 https://www.geografikoi.gr/andorra/
 Ευρωπαϊκά κράτη
 Περίκλειστα κράτη
 Πριγκιπάτα


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
Αριθ. C 344/6 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων 21. 12. 87
 Πρόταση κανονισμού (ΕΟΚ) του Συμβουλίου που τροποποιεί τον κανονισμό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ.
 805/68 περί κοινής οργανώσεως της αγοράς στον τομέα του βοείου κρέατος
 COM(87) 513 τελικό
 (Υποβληθείσα από την Επιτροπή στο Συμβούλιο στις 9 Νοεμβρίου 1987)
 (87/C 344/02)
 ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΩΝ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ, αίματα ζώων, και γεμισμένα ζυμαρικά που περιέχουν
 κατά βάρος περισσότερο από 20 % λουκάνικα, σαλάμια
 Έχοντας υπόψη: και παρόμοια, κρέατα και παραπροϊόντα, συμπεριλαμ
 βανομένων των λιπών υπάγονται σε διακρίσεις της
 τη συνθήκη για την ίδρυση της Ευρωπαϊκής Οικονομι
 κλάσεως 16.02 του κοινού δασμολογίου, που ισχύει επί
 κής Κοινότητας και ιδίως τα άρθρα 42 και 43,
 του παρόντος, τα οποία καλύπτονται από τον κανονισμό
 την πρόταση της Επιτροπής, (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 805/68' ότι στη Συνδυασμένη Ονοματολο
 γία του εναρμονισμένου συστήματος καθορίσθηκαν
 τη γνώμη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, ιδιαίτερες διακρίσεις για κάθε ένα από τα προαναφερθέ
 ντα παρασκευάσματα' ότι είναι επιθυμητό τα εν λόγω
 τη γνώμη της Οικονομικής και Κοινωνικής Επιτροπής, παρασκευάσματα να καλύπτονται από τον κανονισμό
 (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 2759/75 της 1ης Νοεμβρίου 1975 περί
 Εκτιμώντας: κοινής οργανώσεως της αγοράς του χοιρείου κρέα
 4
 τος ( ), όπως τροποποιήθηκε τελευταία από τον κανονι
 ότι η Κοινότητα είναι συμβαλλόμενο μέρος στη διεθνή σμό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 000/88' ότι, κατά συνέπεια, δεν
 σύμβαση για το εναρμονισμένο σύστημα περιγραφής καλύπτονται από τον κανονισμό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 805/68'
 και κωδικοποίησης των εμπορευμάτων που εφεξής
 ονομάζεται «εναρμονισμένο σύστημα», που αντικαθι ότι πολλοί κανονισμοί στον τομέα του βοείου κρέατος
 στά τη σύμβαση της 15ης Δεκεμβρίου 1950 περί της πρέπει να προσαρμοστούν για να ληφθεί υπόψη η
 ονοματολογίας για την κατάταξη των εμπορευμάτων χρησιμοποίηση της νέας ονοματολογίας' ότι βάσει του
 στο κοινό δασμολόγιο" άρθρου 15 του κανονισμού (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 2658/87
 μπορούν να πραγματοποιηθούν μόνο οι τροποιήσεις
 ότι από την 1η Ιανουαρίου 1988 καθιερώνεται, με τον
 καθαρά τεχνικού χαρακτήρα' ότι κατά συνέπεια θα
 κανονισμό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 2658/87 του Συμβουλίου ('), με
 πρέπει να προβλεφθεί ότι όλες οι άλλες προσαρμογές
 βάση την ονοματολογία του εναρμονισμένου συστήμα
 των δασμών του Συμβουλίου και της Επιτροπής όσον
 τος, Συνδυασμένη Ονοματολογία των εμπορευμάτων
 αφορά την κοινή οργάνωση της αγοράς στον τομέα του
 που θα ικανοποιεί συγχρόνως τις απαιτήσεις του κοινού
 βοείου κρέατος θα πραγματοποιηθούν σύμφωνα με την
 δασμολογίου και των στατιστικών του εξωτερικού
 διαδικασία που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 27 του κανονι
 εμπορίου της Κοινότητας'
 σμού (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 805/68 υπό τον όρο ότι οι προσαρμο
 ότι είναι αναγκαίο, κατά συνέπεια, να διατυπωθούν οι γές αυτές οφείλονται αποκλειστικά στην εισαγωγή του
 περιγραφές των εμπορευμάτων και οι δασμολογικές εναρμονισμένου συστήματος,
 κλάσεις που αναφέρονται στον κανονισμό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ.
 805/68 του Συμβουλίου ( 2 ), όπως τροποποιήθηκε τελευ
 ΕΞΕΔΩΣΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΑΡΟΝΤΑ ΚΑΝΟΝΙΣΜΟ:
 ταία από τον κ α ν ο ν ι σ μ ό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 467/87 ( 3 ),
 σύμφωνα με τους όρους Συνδυασμένης Ονοματολογίας
 που βασίζεται στο εναρμονισμένο σύστημα'
 'Αρθρο 1
 ότι τα άλευρα και τα εδώδιμα παρασκευάσματα από
 κρέατα ή παραπροϊόντα μπορούν να υπαχθούν, ανάλογα Ο κανονισμός (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 805/68 τροποποιείται ως
 με το βασικό τους χαρακτήρα σε διάφορες διακρίσεις εξής:
 της κλάσεως 02.06 του κοινού δασμολογίου που ισχύει
 σήμερα' ότι στη Συνδυασμένη Ονοματολογία που
 βασίζεται στο εναρμονισμένο σύστημα, για απλοποίη
 ση, έχει καθορισθεί μία μόνο διάκριση για να περιλάβει 1. Το άρθρο 1, τροποποιείται ως εξής:
 όλα τα άλευρα και τα εδώδιμα παρασκευάσματα κρέατος
 ή παραπροϊόντων' ότι είναι επιθυμητό τα εν λόγω
 α) η παράγραφος 1 αντικαθίσταται από το ακόλουθο
 άλευρα ή εδώδιμα παρασκευάσματα ή παραπροϊόντα να
 κείμενο:
 καλύπτονται από τον κανονισμό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 805/68'
 ότι ορισμένα ομογενοποιημένα παρασκευάσματα κρέα « 1. Η κοινή οργάνωση αγοράς στον τομέα του
 τος, παραπροϊόντων ή αίματος, παρασκευάσματα από βοείου κρέατος περιλαμβάνει ένα καθεστώς
 τιμών και ανταλλαγών και διέπει τα ακόλουθα
 προϊόντα:
 (') ΕΕ αριθ. L 256 της 7. 9. 1987, σ. 1.
 (2) ΕΕ αριθ. L 148 της 28. 6. 1968, σ. 24.
 (3) ΕΕ αριθ. L 48 της 17. 2. 1987, σ. 1. (4) ΕΕ αριθ. L 282 της 1. 11. 1975, σ. 1.
 ---pagebreak--- 21. 12. 87 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων Αριθ. C 344/7
 Κωδικός ΣΟ Περιγραφή εμπορευμάτων
 α) 0102 90 10-^37 Βοοειδή ζωντανά κατοικίδια, άλλα από τα αναπαραγωγής καθαρής φυλής
 0201 Κρέατα βοοειδών, νωπά ή διατηρημένα με απλή ψύξη
 0202 Κρέατα βοοειδών, κατεψυγμένα
 0206 10 95 Στύλοι διαφράγματος και διάφραγμα, νωπά ή διατηρημένα με απλή ψύξη
 0206 29 91 Στύλοι διαφράγματος και διάφραγμα, κατεψυγμένα
 0210 20 Κρέατα βοοειδών, αλατισμένα ή σε άλμη, αποξεραμένα ή καπνιστά
 0210 90 41 Στύλοι διαφράγματος και διάφραγμα, αλατισμένα ή σε άλμη, αποξεραμένα ή
 καπνιστά
 0210 90 90 Αλεύρια και σκόνες κρεάτων ή παραπροϊόντων, βρώσιμα
 1602 50 10 Άλλα παρασκευάσματα και κονσέρβες κρεάτων ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων
 βοοειδών, άψητα. Μείγματα κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων, ψημένων
 και κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων άψητων
 1602 90 61 Άλλα παρασκευάσματα ή κονσέρβες κρεάτων ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων
 βοοειδών, άψητα. Μείγματα κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων, ψημένων
 και κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων άψητων
 β) 0102 10 00 Βοοειδή ζωντανά αναπαραγωγής καθαρής φυλής
 0206 10 91 Παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων βρώσιμα βοοειδών, με εξαίρεση τους στύλους
 0206 10 99 διαφράγματος και το διάφραγμα, νωπά ή διατηρημένα με απλή ψύξη, άλλα
 από τα προοριζόμενα για την παρασκευή φαρμακευτικών προϊόντων
 0206 21 00 Παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων βρώσιμων βοοειδών, με εξαίρεση τους στύλους
 0206 22 90 διαφράγματος και το διάφραγμα, κατεψυγμένα, άλλα από τα προοριζόμενα
 0206 29 99 για την παρασκευή φαρμακευτικών προϊόντων
 0210 90 49 Παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων βρώσιμων βοοειδών, αλατισμένα ή σε άλμη,
 αποξεραμένα ή καπνιστά, άλλα από τους στύλους διαφράγματος και το
 διάφραγμα
 1502 00 91 Λίπη βοοειδών, ακατέργαστα (ξίγκια) ή λιωμένα έστω και με πίεση ή που
 εξάγονται με τη βοήθεια διαλυτών
 1602 50 90 Άλλα παρασκευάσματα και κονσέρβες κρεάτων ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων
 βοοειδών, άλλα από άψητα και μείγματα κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων
 άψητων
 1602 90 69 Άλλα παρασκευάσματα και κονσέρβες κρεάτων ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων
 βοοειδών, άλλα από άψητα και μείγματα κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων
 ψημένων και κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων άψητων»
 β) Η παράγραφος 2 α) αντικαθίσταται από το καθοριστούν, νωπών ή κατεψυγμένων κρεάτων των
 ακόλουθο κείμενο: διακρίσεων 0201 10 και 0201 20 11 μέχρι 0201 20 59
 της Συνδυασμένης Ονοματολογίας αποφασίζονται
 «α)βοοειδή: τα ζωντανά κατοικίδια βοοειδή,
 από την Επιτροπή εφόσον πληρούνται συγχρόνως,
 άλλα από τα αναπαραγωγής καθαρής φυλής,
 όσον αφορά τις εν λόγω ποιότητες ή ομάδες
 των διακρίσεων 0102 90 10 μέχρι 0102 90 37
 ποιοτήτων, οι ακόλουθοι δύο όροι:
 της Συνδυασμένης Ονοματολογίας.»
 — η μέση τιμή της κοινοτικής αγοράς που διαπιστώ
 νεται με βάσει τον κοινοτικό πίνακα ταξινόμησης
 2. Στο άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 1, το πρώτο εδάφιο σφαγίων χονδρών βοοειδών είναι μικρότερη από
 αντικαθίσταται από το ακόλουθο κείμενο: το 91 % της τιμής παρέμβασης,
 «Οι οργανισμοί παρέμβασης, που καθορίζονται από — η μέση τιμή της αγοράς που διαπιστώνεται με
 τα κράτη μέλη, αγοράζουν τα νωπά ή διατηρημένα με βάση τον εν λόγω πίνακα στο ή στα κράτη μέλη ή
 απλή ψύξη κρέατα που περιλαμβάνονται στο παράρ στην περιοχή ενός κράτος μέλους είναι μικρότε
 τημα τμήμα α) υπό τις διακρίσεις 0201 10 και ρη από το 87 % της τιμής παρέμβασης.»
 0201 20 11 μέχρι 0201 20 59.»
 4. Στο άρθρο 10 παράγραφος 2 το δεύτερο εδάφιο
 3. Στο άρθρο 6α η παράγραφος 2 αντικαθίσταται από το αντικαθίσταται από το ακόλουθο κείμενο:
 ακόλουθο κείμενο:
 «Η τιμή προσφοράς ελεύθερο στα σύνορα της
 «2. Οι αγορές από τους οργανισμούς παρέμβασης Κοινότητας καθορίζεται με βάση τις δυνατότητες
 σε ένα ή περισσότερα κράτη μέλη ή σε μία περιοχή αγοράς τις πιο αντιπροσωπευτικές, όσον αφορά την
 ενός κράτους μέλους για μία ή περισσότερες ποιότητα και την ποσότητα, που διαπιστώνονται στη
 ποιότητες ή ομάδες ποιοτήτων, που πρόκειται να διάρκεια μιας περιόδου που καθορίζεται πριν από
 ---pagebreak--- Αριθ. C 344/8 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων 21. 12. 87
 τον προσδιορισμό της εισφοράς βάσης, για τα μα της διάκρισης 0206 29 91 απολαύουν, με τους
 βοοειδή καθώς και για τα νωπά ή διατηρημένα με όρους που προβλέπονται στο παρόν άρθρο:»
 απλή ψήξη κρέατα που περιλαμβάνονται στο παράρ
 τημα τμήμα α) υπό τις διακρίσεις 0201 10 και 0201 20
 11 μέχρι 0201 20 59, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη κυρίως: 7. Στο άρθρο 16 παράγραφος 2, η πρώτη και η δεύτερη
 περίπτωση αντικαθίστανται από το ακόλουθο κείμε
 α) την κατάσταση προσφοράς και ζήτησης' νο:
 β) τις τιμές της διεθνούς αγοράς των κατεψυγμένων «—Προϊόντα που υπάγονται στην κλάση 0201 και
 κρεάτων μιας κατηγορίας ανταγωνιστικής των τη διάκριση 0206 10 95 της Συνδυασμένης Ονο
 νωπών ή διατηρημένων με απλή ψύξη κρεάτων, ματολογίας, καταγωγής και προέλευσης τρίτων
 γ) την εμπειρία που έχει αποκτηθεί.» χωρών, που πληρούν τους όρους της σχετικής
 συμφωνίας που έχει συναφθεί με την Κοινότητα,
 με βάση τη διάρκεια της θαλάσσιας μεταφοράς
 5. Το άρθρο 11 τροποποιείται ως εξής: που παρέχουν επαρκείς εγγυήσεις.
 — Προϊόντα που υπάγονται στην κλάση 0202 και
 α) Η εισαγωγική φράση της παραγράφου 2, αντικα
 τη διάκριση 0206 29 91 της Συνδιασμένης Ονο
 θίσταται από το ακόλουθο κείμενο:
 ματολογίας, καταγωγής και προέλευσης τρίτων
 «Η εισφορά καθορίζεται για τα καταψυγμένα χωρών, που πληρούν τους όρους της σχετικής
 κρέατα που περιλαμβάνονται στο παράρτημα συμφωνίας που έχει συναφθεί με την Κοινότητα
 τμήμα β) υπό τις διακρίσεις 0202 10 00 και και παρέχουν επαρκείς εγγυήσεις.»
 0202 20 10, με βάση τη διαφορά μεταξύ:»
 β) Η παράγραφος 4 αντικαθίσταται από το ακόλου 8. Το παράρτημα αντικαθίσταται από το συνημμένο
 θο κείμενο: παράρτημα.
 «4. Για τα κατεψυγμένα κρέατα που, περιλαμ
 βάνονται στο παράτημα τμήμα β) υπό τις διακρί Άρθρο 2
 σεις 0202 20 30, 0202 20 50, 0202 20 90, 0202 30
 και για τους στύλους του διαφράγματος και το Η Επιτροπή, σύμφωνα με τη διαδικασία που προβλέπε
 διάφραγμα της διάκρισης 0206 2991 η εισφορά ται στο άρθρο 27 του κανονισμού (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 805/68
 βάσης είναι ίση με την εισφορά βάσης που προβαίνει στις αναγκαίες προσαρμογές των ρυθμίσεων
 καθορίζεται για το προϊόν που αναφέρεται στην του Συμβουλίου ή της Επιτροπής που αφορούν την
 παράγραφο 2, η οποία πολλαπλασιάζεται με ένα κοινή οργάνωση αγοράς στον τομέα του βοείου κρέατος
 συντελεστή κατ' αποκοπή που καθορίζεται για και που προκύπτουν από την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 1.
 καθένα από τα εν λόγω προϊόντα.»
 Άρθρο 3
 6. Στο άρθρο 14, η εισαγωγική φράση της παραγράφου Ο παρών κανονισμός αρχίζει να ισχύει την τρίτη ημέρα
 1 αντικαθίσταται από το ακόλουθο κείμενο: μετά την δημοσίευση του στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των
 Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων.
 «Τα κατεψυγμένα κρέατα που προορίζονται για Το άρθρο 1 εφαρμόζεται από την 1η Ιανουαρίου 1988.
 μεταποίηση και περιλαμβάνονται στο παράρτημα
 τμήμα β), υπό τις διακρίσεις 0202 20 30, 0202 30 και Ο παρών κανονισμός είναι δεσμευτικός ως προς όλα τα
 για τους στύλους του διαφράγματος και το διάφραγ- μέρη του και ισχύει άμεσα σε κάθε κράτος μέλος.
 ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ
 «ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ
 Κωδικός ΣΟ Περιγραφή εμπορευμάτων
 Τμήμα α)
 0201 Κρέατα βοοειδών, νωπά ή διατηρημένα με απλή ψύξη:
 0201 10 — Σε ολόκληρα σφάγια ή μισά σφάγια
 0201 20 — Άλλα τεμάχια με κόκαλα:
 0201 20 11 Τέταρα του σφαγίου, που ονομάζονται «αλληλοσυμπληρούμενα»
 0201 20 19
 0201 20 31 Μπροστινά τέταρτα μη χωρισμένα ή χωρισμένα
 0201 20 39
 ---pagebreak--- 21. 12. 87 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων Αριθ. C 344/9
 Κωδικός ΣΟ Περιγραφή εμπορευμάτων
 0201 20 51 Πισινά τέταρτα μη χωρισμένα ή χωρισμένα
 0201 20 59
 0201 20 90 Άλλα
 0201 30 — Χωρίς κόκαλα
 ex 0206 10 Παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων βρώσιμα βοοειδών, νωπά ή διατηρημένα με απλή
 ψύξη:
 Άλλα:
 0206 10 95 Στύλοι διαφράγματος και διάφραγμα
 Τμήμα β)
 0202 Κρέατα βοοειδών, κατεψυγμένα:
 0202 10 00 — Σε ολόκληρα σφάγια ή μισά σφάγια
 0202 20 — Άλλα τεμάχια με κόκαλα:
 0202 20 10 Τέταρα του σφαγίου, που ονομάζονται «αλληλοσυμπληρούμενα»
 0202 20 30 Μπροστινά τέταρτα μη χωρισμένα ή χωρισμένα
 0202 20 50 Πισινά τέταρτα μη χωρισμένα ή χωρισμένα
 0202 20 90 Άλλα
 0202 30 — Χωρίς κόκαλα
 ex 0206 29 Παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων βρώσιμα βοοειδών, κατεψυγμένα:
 0206 29 91 Στύλοι διαφράγματος και διάφραγμα
 Τμήμα γ)
 0210 Κρέατα και παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων βρώσιμα, αλατισμένα ή σε άλμη,
 αποξεραμένα ή καπνιστά. Αλεύρια και σκόνες, βρώσιμα, από κρέατα ή
 παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων:
 0210 20 — Κρέατα βοοειδών:
 0210 20 10 Με κόκαλα
 0210 20 90 Χωρίς κόκαλα
 ex 0210 90 — Άλλα, στα οποία περιλαμβάνονται και τα αλεύρια και οι σκόνες,
 βρώσιμα, από κρέατα ή παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων:
 Παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων:
 Βοοειδών:
 0210 90 41 Στύλοι διαφράγματος και διάφραγμα
 0210 90 90 Αλεύρια και σκόνες κρεάτων ή παραπροϊόντων, βρώσιμα
 Τμήμα δ)
 ex 1602 50 Άλλα παρασκευάσματα και κονσέρβες κρεάτων βοοειδών:
 1602 50 10 Άψητα. Μείγματα κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων, ψημένων και
 κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων, άψητων
 — Άλλα, στα οποία περιλαμβάνονται και τα παρασκευάσματα από αίμα
 όλων των ζώων:
 Άλλα
 ex 1602 90 Άλλα
 Άλλα:
 Που περιέχουν κρέας ή παραπροϊόντα σφαγίων βοοειδών:
 Άψητα. Μείγματα κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων,
 ψημένων και κρέατος ή παραπροϊόντων σφαγίων,
 άψητων»
 1602 90 61