| <<< Back to MACOSH - Meeting Minutes |
Printing Instructions |
MACOSH Executive Summary
Washington, D.C.
March 3 and 4, 2004
|
The second meeting of the newly re-charted Maritime Committee on Safety and
Health (MACOSH) met in Washington, D.C. on March 3 and 4, 2004.
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
In attendance were members of the Committee: MACOSH Chairperson James Thornton,
North Grumman Newport News Shipyard; Dan Nadeau, Bath Iron Works; James D.
Burgin, National Maritime Safety Association; Captain John McNeill, Pacific
Maritime Association; Captain Teresa Preston, Atlantic Marine/Alabama Shipyard;
Charles I. Thompson, III, Virginia International Terminals; Stephen D. Huddock,
NIOSH, DART, C-24; Captain Keith D. Cameron, U.S. Coast Guard; Michael Flynn,
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers; William (Chico)
McGill, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local #733; and Mike
Freese, International Longshore and Warehouse Union. Others present included Jim
Maddux as the designated Federal Official and Susan Sherman, Committee Counsel.
James Thornton, Chairman of MACOSH introduced Gary Visscher as the Deputy
Assistant Secretary. Mr. Visscher welcomed the committee members on behalf of
Secretary Chao and Assistant Secretary for OSHA John Henshaw. Mr. Visscher noted
that the agency appreciated very much their work on the committee and their
willingness to serve and provide the agency with policy advice on occupational
safety and health issues for maritime work. Mr. Visscher noted that since the
last meeting the committee was able to establish goals, identify issues of
concern, and assign those issues to workgroups who will be reporting to the full
committee.
Mr. Visscher also noted a number of important issues the committee will be
discussing, including ergonomics, pedestal fall protection, outreach projects,
alliances, traffic speed control, powered industrial trucks, and hexavalent
chromium. Mr. Visscher also explained that the hexavalent chromium rulemaking is
on a court-ordered schedule. The agency is scheduled to publish a proposed
hexavalent chromium rule no later than October 4, 2004, and a final standard no
later than January 18, 2006. Mr. Visscher also noted the Health workgroup has
been reviewing the agency's draft materials and they will be discussing this
issue later today. On behalf of the agency, Mr. Visscher told the committee "we
do hope that this committee will be able to provide us with recommendations at
this meeting so that we can give them serious consideration. This is an
unusually fast time schedule that we're working on with this rulemaking." Mr. Visscher proceeded to inform the committee that the proposal is undergoing the
small business review process, a statutory mandate in terms of the regulatory
process. The agency has sent the draft materials and will have meetings with the
small business representatives over the next few weeks. Once the regulatory
review process is over, there will be a comment period that will certainly be
useful to get the input of the maritime community at this stage of the
rulemaking. Mr. Visscher also mentioned that there is a small shipyard on the
SBREFA panel.
Chairman Thornton entered a motion to accept, deny, comment, or correct, the
minutes for the first MACOSH meeting October 15 and 16, 2003. All members
accepted the motion and the motion carried.
Next, Chairman Thornton opened the floor for discussion and solicited reactions
from the committee members concerning the process of the workgroup meetings. The
committee responded positively to the workgroup meetings.
Afterwards, Jim Maddux gave the update on standards and guidance projects.
- Vertical Tandem Lifts. The comment period for docket Vertical tandem lifts was
extended for a couple of months so that people could provide more comments. The
docket is now closed. There were two requests for hearings. The hearing may be
held in May or June, in Washington, D.C.
- Subpart P Shipyard Fire Protection. The proposal was out two years ago, and OSHA
accepted comments. The agency received about three dozen comments. There were no
requests for hearings. The proposal is moving towards a final rule. Currently,
the final rule is in our solicitor's office for review by second-level
solicitors. The process should be completed within the next two weeks. Soon
after clearance from SOL the proposal will go through the departmental clearance
process.
- Subpart F General Working Conditions in Shipyards. The majority of the current
shipyard rule has being carried forward, with minor editorial changes. The
agency has considered using 1910 sanitation standards that already apply to land
side and tailor the requirements to shipyard conditions. The agency is reviewing
the longshoring, and construction sanitation rules to see what can be brought
into the rule that makes sense. The agency will try to write the emergency
medical services and first aid much the same way combining the current 1910 and
1915 requirements. In addition, some of the smaller rules will just say follow
the 1910 standards. There are two areas of the proposal that are brand new and
will have probably the most controversy as the proposal moves forward: Lockout/tagout
LOTO) and vehicle safety. The agency will probably adjust the 1910 LOTO standard
a little to correspond to shipyard conditions. The other area is vehicle safety,
which will consist of basic safety practices.
Mr. Maddux' concluded his presentation and Chairman Thornton opened the floor to
questions from MACOSH and the public. A committee member posed a question
concerning 1915.86 (lifeboats). Mr. Maddux explained that the agency is looking
at making small changes to 1915.86 mainly because of a recent accident where a
life boat had been taken down to test it. The issue was not whether employees
should ride in lifeboats during a particular situation, but if employees should
be allowed to ride in them at all. In response to Jim's answer, and on behalf of
the Committee, Captain Teresa Preston suggested OSHA look at the Coast Guard
studies and regulations on this issue.
Jim Maddux continued with his presentation and requested information from
individual shipyards through the committee on current work practices for vehicle
safety and lock-out/tag-out. Another question was posed by Chico McGill that
concerned working on hot circuits. Jim Maddux responded to a question by stating
that the LOTO requirement in Subpart F would take care of a good part of working
on hot circuits. Jim continued and requested information for Subpart F from
Chico McGill on hot circuits or other accidents that LOTO may have help prevent
an accident. In addition, Theresa Nelson (National Shipbuilding Research
Program) offered to share information with OSHA on tag-out, a summary of the
program elements and an assessment of the effectiveness of each program that's
currently being used in shipyards. They are also collecting incident
information.
Next, Mr. Maddux delivered a presentation on maritime guidance projects
- Hanging scaffolding. The agency did some editorial work to the document, and
provided MACOSH with the latest version.
- Abrasive blasting - this document will address the health hazards of silica and
alternative materials that are being used. The agency is expecting a draft
document from contractors soon. Jim Maddux will review the document, and
subsequently will distribute it to the health workgroup for review.
- Fall Protection on Ship Pedestals - this document deals with fall hazards while
latching or unlatching twist-locks or performing lashing work. Jim Maddux and
Mr. Rossi have reviewed the first draft from the contractor. Jim Maddux asked
the container safety work group for assistance for ways to improve the document.
In turn Jim will get all the information back to the contractor and ask them for
a second draft that merges the two documents and incorporates the new
information from the workgroup, with more emphasis on guardrails for protection.
A committee member suggest the workgroup prepare a document, give it back to
MACOSH, and get MACOSH involved possibly at the next meeting.
Following, Jim Maddux delivered a presentation on general industry rulemakings
that may potentially affect the maritime industry.
- Hexavalent chromium rulemaking
- Silica
- Subpart S, the electrical rules (proposal)
- Beryllium
- Respirator fit testing (nearing proposal stage) an amendment to 1910.134
Subpart D, walking working surfaces (proposed in the early '90s). There was a
question of whether or not we will deal with this issue well enough in Subpart F
rulemaking so that the 1910 standard will no longer apply to shipyards.
- The Standards Improvement Project
PPE payment (ongoing) trying to figure out what to do with this issue. Issues
dealing with PPE are: tools of the trade in the area of maintenance and repair
trades, and short-term workers.
Next, Jim Maddux delivered a presentation on guidance projects that may have
some potential impact on the maritime industries.
- Beryllium
- Hazard Communication – this guidance project focuses on the accuracy of material
safety data sheets. The agency has a specific web page devoted to assisting
people to try and keep accurate with their safety data sheets. The current rule
will not be changed.
- Silica
- Motor vehicle safety – the agency partnered with the National Highway
transportation Safety Administration so that we can come out with a motor
vehicle safety program booklet that will have joint publication by both OSHA and
NHTSA.
- PPE for disaster situations – no relation to PPE payment. This project deals
with the kind of PPE preparation needed to make for disasters, or some really
big accident i.e., rescue, clean up, etc.,
- PELs - identifies the risks from chemicals. Encourages employers to think about
whether they want to follow the OSHA PEL or whether they want to adopt, at least
inside of their own company, some lower exposure limit. This is not a standards
activity. No intention to change the PELs in the standards.
- Explosive dust – the agency will be looking to get out some information to
people to help raise the awareness of potential explosive dust.
- Indoor air quality – An ongoing issue the agency think would be helpful for
people.
Mr. Bill Perry, Director, Office of Chemical Hazards in the Office of Standards
and Guidance followed with an update on Silica.
- A draft standard was completed last year with requirements that will apply to
general industry and maritime. The draft standard included provisions seen in
other health standards, such as exposure assessment, health screening, hygiene
facilities, regulated areas, and worker training. The draft contained some
specific provisions on abrasive blasting which was consistent with the
requirements of 1910.94. There were some additions the agency is interested in
getting some input on. Some alternatives being considered are to prohibit the
use of dry sand as a blasting agent in enclosed areas; and requiring a
professional safety and health person to be responsible for establishing
procedures for setting up regulated areas around blasting operations. There were
some comments on outdoor blasting operations and some concern for a requirement
that prohibited dry sweeping, high turnover, heat stress, repetitive motion
disorders, and silica sand as an abrasive blasting agent. The SBREFA report was
completed on December 19. The agency is developing options for how we should
proceed with the rulemaking. At this point, no specific decisions have been made
on how to proceed, or what action we will take, or a timetable for that action
since OSHA is still looking at all the recommendations and considering options.
Mr. Perry responded to a question posed by a committee member by inviting anyone
that may have information, data, recommendations, or comments concerning the
draft standard to send that information to him. Mr. Perry also mentioned that
there is a second draft standard as a part of this package. He goes on and
explained that OSHA is very interested in by-stander exposures, where there are
workers not engaged in silica-related operations that are nonetheless exposed
because of things happening near by. Mr. Perry concluded by reiterating that if
there is any information out there that the industry think should be considered
that they send him the information.
Mr. Buchet with the Directorate of Construction, Office of Construction
Services, followed with a presentation on Cranes and Derricks. The agency is
aware of the sensitivity to what may happen if the rulemaking for cranes and
derricks changes part of 1926.550 and it may have some impact in the maritime
industries. However, the negotiated rulemaking affects only the construction
cranes and derricks standard. In response to a Federal Register Notice, the
agency received 50 plus nominations, and selected 23 negotiated rulemaking
committee members. The committee intends to have its draft work done by the end
of July. The committee is meeting today and they are sorting through information
considering what defines a crane. The committee will continue to meet in May,
June and July. The committee published a list of 17 or18 potential topics.
- Operating procedures - a list of some of the ongoing discussions surrounding
operating procedures are: boom stops, anti-two-block devices, or anti-two-block
devices warning devices, insulating links, how to operate near power lines.
- Signaling – The committee has been discussing ways of signaling between the
crane operator and the person who wants the service. The committee has been
discussing some procedures on how use telecommunications. The committee has
talked about qualified people, competent people, and some sort of certification
process for testing knowledge and their abilities in understanding it, or being
able to record it.
- Inspections – The committee is working on how to normalize criteria for
inspection.
- Keeping clear of the load – There is discussion remaining on the topic of how to
do it safely, and what abatements are available.
- Fall protection – there is ongoing discussion with the committee about fall
protection as in personal fall arrest, or guardrails, or ladder systems.
- Wire rope and the criteria of wire rope and inspection of wire rope – The
committee is wrestling with looking at the safety factors and how they're
assigned and whether or not to adjust them. The committee is also looking at
using synthetics. The agency is waiting for the industry to bring information on
synthetics to us.
- Derricks – the committee is talking with people who have derricks and have
overhead cranes to find out how to deal with them.
- Critical lifts or engineering lifts – in the operation section of the standard
there will be requirements for certain types of lifts.
- Verification criteria for the components of the crane – we're looking for
something in the standard that says if you want to operate a crane in this
country it has to be built to these standards and it has to meet certain
criteria for its structural integrity.
- Structural integrity – a very big issue, the idea of verifying the structural
integrity of the crane is increasingly important, as the tolerances and the
manufacturing get tighter and tighter.
- Floating cranes, cranes on barges, and cranes used in marine construction – the
issue of the crane moving back and forth from industry to industry is not really
the business of this negotiated rulemaking, but OSHA and the committee are
sensitive to the fact that what we do may have unintended consequences beyond
the realm of construction.
- Safety devices – with the help of the members of the committee and research by
OSHA staff, we developed a list of 170 named devices. After the committee
finishes safety devices, they will start going back over the issues and try to
clarify the concepts and resolve the terminology that they want to present to
OSHA.
- Tower cranes – The committee has decided that we probably need to fine-tune
signaling for tower cranes and there will be some tower crane-specific
information in the standard. In addition, operator cab criteria are another
issue the committee will be discussing.
- Limited criteria for cranes with 2,000 pound or less lifting capacity – will be
tackled at the meeting at the end of March.
Mr. Buchet ended his presentation and Chairman Thornton opened the floor to
questions.
Mr. McGill asked Mr. Buchet if he could make his presentation available to
MACOSH since they didn't get to see it on the disk. Jim Maddux responded and
informed the committee that OSHA would make copies available to them.
Mr. Buchet's presentation was entered into the record as "Exhibit 3."
The next presenter, Mr. Mike Seymour, Director, Office of Physical Hazards &
Others delivered a presentation on Shipyard Ergonomics Guidelines. The guideline
is organized similar to the previous guidelines that we've published for nursing
homes and the drafts for poultry and grocery, in that it's got an introductory
section that addresses program approaches to ergonomics and a section that
addresses specific control measures for ergonomic problems in specific
operations. We are proposing controls that employers can look at, can gather
ideas from, and implement or not implement as it fits their own particular
circumstances. The control measures address power tools, metal work; materials
handling, those kinds of tasks. They are addressed in the context of either a
shop, or in a ship, where the environment is very different. In terms of our
schedule, we expect to finish the review process with OSHA and the Department,
then publish it in draft form. Following that, there will be a public comment
period where we'll be receiving writing comments from any interested
stakeholders. Finally, OSHA is planning to hold a stakeholder meeting where
interested stakeholders can come in and give us their ideas and their approaches
for improving the draft guidelines, and then we'll produce the final.
Mr. Seymour concluded his presentation and Chairman Thornton opened the floor to
questions.
Mr. Flynn stated for the record that it's the Machinist Union's position to look
forward to the day of a promulgated standard on ergonomics. Chico McGill
reiterated the request for the record. Chairman Thornton asked Mr. Seymour is
there something specifically that the committee could do, or provide to assist
in this effort? Mr. Seymour responded that he would like the committee to
consider providing OSHA with data that will help make the business case for
ergonomics in the shipyard environment, either on an individual firm or
establishment basis or on the industry basis. He also stated that the agency
would like related success stories about how individual shipyards, how
individual establishments have evaluated the effectiveness of their ergonomics
programs. Any information, photos of specific control measures, certainly we'd
look at them and try to figure out how to integrate them in the document,
particularly if they're accompanied by comparative information about injuries
and illnesses before and after the implementation of a particular control. A
timeline has not been established for this guideline.
The next presentation was Beryllium and Hexavalent Chromium by David O'Connor,
Office of Chemical Hazards – Metals, Directorate of Standards and Guidance.
- Beryllium – OSHA has a request for information and is currently in the process
of reviewing the responses received for that request, and also the published
literature regarding occupational exposure to beryllium. OSHA has contractors
working on risk estimates for the health effects associated to exposure to
beryllium and the agency is looking at endpoints that would include
sensitization, the allergic reaction to beryllium exposure, chronic beryllium
disease, and lung cancer. The agency has a contractor performing site visits and
reviewing the feasibility information being used to develop a draft regulatory
text and the supporting analysis. The regulatory agenda has OSHA starting the
SBREFA process for beryllium in September of this year. By then, the agency will
have a draft available for review by the small entity representatives, and the
agency could certainly make that available to the committee at forthcoming
meetings.
- Hexavalent Chromium – the agency was initially ordered by the court to continue
expeditiously in December of 2002, and the court laid out a schedule in April of
2003. That set fixed dates as far as proposing the rule in October of 2004, and
issuing a final rule in January of 2006. The SBREFA process was initiated in
December of 2003 and is now ongoing. Afterwards the agency will revise the
proposal before it goes into OMB review. After the proposal is issued, OSHA will
have a 90-day comment period, which would be followed by public hearings,
followed by a post hearing comment period. OSHA is looking at four areas that
apply to shipyards painting and surface preparation, including abrasive blasting
and grinding; welding and thermal cutting of stainless steel, could also bring
in welding and cutting on surfaces which have received some type of paint or
coating that contains hexavalent chromium, woodworking operations with CCA-treated
lumber; and some electroplating operations where there are captive shops doing
electroplating.
- Painting and surface preparation – 6,230 exposed workers in maritime.
- Welding and thermal cutting – approximately 4,722 exposed workers, the vast
majority of whom would be exposed below one micron per cubic meter.
- Woodworking operations – there are about 319 exposed workers.
- Electroplating – OSHA didn't separate the maritime shops from general industry
shops in the analysis. But, for the most part the majority of people are exposed
below 1microgram per cubic meter there.
Mr. O'Connor asked the committee for descriptive information with regard to the
exposure profile that the agency has for employees who are exposed to hexavalent
chromium that reflects current worker exposures. The information needs to be
very specific and should indicate things like length of sampling, an eight-hour
twa, or some shorter term; the location of the sampling device, and personal
versus area sampling. For example, the activity being performed with as much
specificity as you're able to give. Also, with regard to baseline practices, any
information MACOSH or the public may have regarding what' currently being done
in the industry with regard to what types of controls are currently being used,
when using respiratory protection, the use of protective clothing, what's being
done with regard to medical surveillance. With regard to the information
requested, Mr. O'Connor would like to get the information by the last full week
of March. In addition, the agency will do it's best to take that information
into account before the proposal goes out.
Mr. O'Connor concluded his presentation and Chairman Thornton opened the floor
to questions from MACOSH and the public participants.
Mr. Flynn asked what percentage of those exposed is shipyard related? Mr.
O'Connor responded and stated that he is unsure of the percentage, but will
check into it and try to get that information for the committee if it's
available. Mr. McGill asked about secondary exposure of chromium. Mr. O'Connor
explained that he's not aware of studies that were directly attempting to get
those secondary effects, but in general measuring exposure across the board
throughout a facility, there may be individuals in a workplace that may not be
working with hexavalent chromium compounds, but were nonetheless measured in
these studies with regard to their exposures there is information on that, and
the committee will be provided with a copy of that study. Mr. O'Connor
emphasizes that the agency is focusing on the effects that are associated
specifically with hexavalent chromium in this rulemaking.
"OSHA's Beryllium and Hexavalent Chromium Rulemakings" dated March 3, 2004 was
entered into the record as "Exhibit 1," and the Draft Chromium (VI) Standard for
Construction was entered into the record as "Exhibit 2."
Next, the Health work group delivered a report on their activities. Initially
the group started looking at eight subjects. They were: hexavalent chromium,
ergonomics, diesel exhaust and vapors, hearing, AED, radiation, silica, and
beryllium. After several teleconferences, the committee decided to focus more
closely on four of the subjects. The topics were reduced to chromium,
ergonomics, diesel exhaust, and hearing. The health workgroup made a
recommendation to OSHA to continue to visit other sites in the shipbuilding
community and incorporate the industry's best practices; the NIOSH's study; and
the National Ship Research Program (NSRP) work into the OSHA ergonomics
guidelines.
After listening to discussion about the health workgroups recommendations, the
committee voted, and unanimously agreed to accept the workgroups
recommendations.
- MACOSH recommends that the health workgroup collect additional hexavalent
chromium data from maritime interests and provide the data to OSHA. The health
workgroup will try to provide data by March 30, with a deadline of April 15. The
data may include exposure monitoring, injuries and illnesses, costs, and
abatement control measures. The additional data will be used by OSHA as it
develops the hexavalent chromium standard for the maritime industry.
- MACOSH recommends that OSHA propose a hexavalent chromium rule for maritime that
is not combined with the general industry proposed rule. The rule should be
similar to the separate rule being considered for construction, allowing OSHA to
tailor the rule to the maritime work environment.
Next, the Traffic Safety workgroup identified the scope of what the committee is
looking for on the shipyard side. It will be basically all production areas,
material warehouses, and some roadways within the shipyard. On the marine
terminal side, container yards, pier traffic lanes, and driving under the
container cranes. The workgroup identified numerous factors that contribute to
accident and injuries within the shipyard and longshoring industries i.e., poor
operation of machinery; terminal mechanics in the container yard, over-the- road
trucks; pedestrians struck by vehicles; training; and drug testing. The motor
vehicle safety workgroup recommended that Longshoring should be involved in some
e-tools or SHAC type products.
After listening to discussion about the traffic safety workgroups
recommendations, the committee voted, and unanimously agreed to accept the
workgroups recommendations.
- MACOSH recommends OSHA produce a traffic safety guidance product for the
longshore industry to help employers and employees reduce traffic accidents and
injuries. The guidance product would be most useful in the form of an e-tool
that can be used on the Internet.
The traffic safety workgroup's presentation was entered into the record as
"Exhibit 4."
Afterwards, the Safety Culture Workgroup reported on two issues; one was a
safety culture or a work safety culture that consisted of three different
things, statistical measurement, root cause analysis, and then the ultimate goal
would be culture change. The work group suggested that the safety culture
workgroup conduct a pilot project with maritime interests to determine the most
common root causes of maritime accidents and report them to the full committee.
MACOSH will develop two lists of the 15 most common root causes, one for
longshoring and the other for shipyards.
After listening to discussion about the safety culture workgroups
recommendations, the committee voted, and unanimously agreed to accept the
workgroups recommendations.
- MACOSH recommends that the safety culture workgroup conduct a pilot project with
maritime interests to determine the most common root causes of maritime
accidents. MACOSH will develop two lists of the 15 most common root causes, one
for longshoring and the other for shipyards.
Thursday, March 4, 2004
Tom Galassi presented the enforcement update on the strategic plan and key
initiatives. Under the strategic management plan, the agency will be looking at
hazards relevant in shipyard and maritime industry and the ship and boat
building SIC code.
The secretary announced her four-pronged approach to deal with ergonomics in
April 2002.
- Enforcement
- Guidelines
- Compliance assistance
- Research
Enforcement has issued 13 general duty clause citations for ergonomic related
incidents.
There are a number of ways to conduct inspections:
- SST (site specific targeting)
- Site specific targeting program
- Local initiatives
- Complaints and referrals
Enforcement has conducted about 1,600 inspections focusing on ergonomics. OSHA
has distributed 243 hazard alert letters to employers. OSHA is trying to come up
with a policy that addresses follow-up procedures for those letters.
OSHA has issued a shipyard tool bag directive and a longshoring tool shed
directive, which will go out in December. These directives lay out all the
strategic tools to address:
- Shipyards
- Ship repair
- Shipbuilding
- Compliance assistance
- Outreach
- Training
- Enforcement
- Applicable standards information
OSHA has several emphasis programs. For example; the one for lead was put out in
July of 2001. The amputations program was revised, and an asthma program is
being developed.
OSHA sends out about 13,000 – 14,000 letters annually notifying the employers
who have a significantly high injury and illness rate.
OSHA is working on other key initiatives for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
and the hazard communication guidance documents. OSHA's directorate of
enforcement will develop a directive to launch a MSDS program. Mr. Galassi asks
the committee for comments on the MSDS program and informed MACOSH that OSHA
will prepare a MSDS checklist after the agency has identified the 10 chemicals.
The agency is working to change federal agency injury and illness recordkeeping
from Worker's Compensation data to the new 1904 standards. Hopefully the
initiative will be effective in 2005. The President signed an initiative for
federal Safety and Health and Return to Employment initiative on January 9,
2004.
Mr. Galassi concluded his presentation and Chairman Thornton opened the floor to
questions from MACOSH and the public participants.
Captain McNeill asked about the cut-off data for DART DAFWI rates? Mr. Galassi
explained to the committee that the primary list cut-off for DART is 14, and
DAFWI is 9. Teresa Preston asked if the 13,000 letters that were sent out to
employers are public record. Mr. Galassi explained that there was a press
release dated February 27 that announced that action.
Iona Evans informed the committee and Mr. Galassi of a letter that was
circulated asking the enforcement office for an official interpretation of hot
work. Mr. Galassi responded by saying that the agency will have to go through
the normal study of the record, preamble, regulation, and then consult with the
attorneys to get an official agency position on the issue. Ed Willwerth proposed
his document be submitted to the record to counter the opposing position to the
issue. He also explained the different elements of hot work and asked that OSHA
would consider all the aspects of determining hot work into account.
Tom Galassi's presentation was presented to the record as "Exhibit 5."
Next, Cathy Oliver, Director of the Office of Partnerships and Recognition gave
a presentation on Alliances and Partnerships. The strategic partnership program
was formalized in 1998. Incentives for partnership programs are: reduced
penalties, focused inspections, consultation priority service, and assistance
from OSHA. Partnership programs are evaluated annually. There are regular
quarterly conference calls and annual meetings. There are national, regional,
and area office level partnerships. Partnerships are individual at the local
level; industry based; or hazard based focusing on a particular hazard or
problem. There are currently 215 active partnerships at all levels. There are
four active participants in the maritime sites that cover 60 employers and
16,000 employees. Region 9 has a partnership with the port of San Diego Ship
Repairers Association. There are 35 employers involved in the partnership.
Voluntary Protection Programs was founded on the 1989 safety and health
guidelines OSHA published. There are over 1,000 work sites in the VPP program
and two maritime VPP sites. OSHA is working on three new initiatives this year:
the challenge program, corporate VVP initiative, and construction.
Ms. Oliver's presentation was entered for the record as "Exhibit 6."
Afterwards, Lee Anne Jillings gave her presentation on Alliances. The Alliance
program was established in March of 2002. It was designed to complement and
build upon the success of the other cooperative programs that the agency has, in
some cases, more than 20 years of experience. Alliances are formed with trade
associations, businesses, educational institutions, government agencies, and
organized labor entities. There are three primary goal areas: training and
education, outreach and communication, and promoting the national dialog. Each
alliance has an implementation team made up of representatives from OSHA, as
well as the organization that has entered the alliance with OSHA. There are
quarterly implementation team meetings. The alliance agreements last for two
years and are renewable. There's an annual report for each alliance that
summarizes the impact and progress made in achieving the goals. It is also an
opportunity for organizations to build a cooperative and trusting relationship
with OSHA. Alliances provide opportunities for participants to network with
other organizations committed to workplace safety and health. They provide an
opportunity to leverage resources to maximize worker safety and health
protections. In addition, alliance programs afford an opportunity to gain
recognition for those participating in it as proactive leaders in safety and
health. Active organizations are: the maritime industry, construction,
manufacturing, professions societies, other government agencies, academia, and
organized labor. Issues being addressed through the Alliance program are:
- Ergonomics
- Silica
- Encouraging and promoting the awareness of professional certification
- Emergency preparedness
- Motor vehicle safety
- PSM and reactive chemicals
- Material safety data sheets
- Business case for safety and health
Next are some alliance activities that relate to the maritime industry. On July
15, 2003, the American Shipbuilding Association and the National Shipbuilding
Research Program both signed alliances with the Agency. The Shipbuilders Council
of America entered an alliance with OSHA in January 31, 2003. The three
alliances are focusing on increasing access to an awareness of training and
educational materials in the maritime industry on safety and health. This
alliance will likely discuss maritime issues, and in particular, potentially
motor vehicle safety or forklift safety issues. There are maritime alliances in
Region 1, Region 6, Region 9, and Region 10. There is another alliance program
under development for the maritime industry in Region 6 with the U.S. Coast
Guard. Recently the National Safety Council approved the workshop submission
that we sent in on the maritime safety that's an outgrowth of alliances
together. The alliances will be engaged in providing input and expertise for
SHIPS and the shipyard video project as OSHA moves forward with those projects.
OSHA is looking at updating/revising training courses for OSHA staff on maritime
issues. All three alliances in the maritime industry have a web page that is
devoted to the alliance and pertinent information is there.
Ms. Jillings has concluded her presentation, and Chairman Thornton has opened
the floor for questions. Mike Flynn asked if the funding for the alliances the
same as the funding for the partnerships? Is there a similar amount of funds
dedicated to each one?
Ms. Jillings responded by stating that the funding for all the cooperative
programs is part of OSHA's overall budget towards funding cooperative programs.
There's no particular line item on any of the programs. They are funded out of a
general source for funding compliance assistance and cooperative programs. The
committee also asks if more money has been dedicated to the partnership or to
the alliances out of that one source. Ms. Jillings responded that the
information was not available to her at the moment; however she will find that
information and get it to him.
Ms. Jillings presentation was entered into the record as "Exhibit 7."
Next, Mr. Henshaw made a surprise appearance and told the committee that he is
looking forward to hearing their responses and advice on what OSHA can do to
continue to advance safety and health. In addition, Mr. Henshaw thanked everyone
for being there.
Next, Cathy Goedert gave an update on Science, Technology, and Medicine. The
ship repair e-tool has been completed and is on the Web. The Agency is
continuing to work on the shipbuilding and the ship breaking e-tool, and in
addition we're working on barge cleaning. The initial development has been done
for all these products. Next week there's a meeting with the Shipbuilders
Council of America. They will finalize the barge cleaning e-tool content and
review the ship breaking and shipbuilding. Then OSHA will start the products all
through the final clearance process. Assuming that there are no major changes in
what's been done to date, the e-tools should be implemented this year. Last year
there was a shipyard fatality animated videos produced and there were some
adjustments that needed to be made in the text and the voice-overs. The contract
to do the work was awarded this week. The work should start in about two weeks
and is expected to be finished, reviewed and cleared by, tentatively, June 11.
It should be out by the end of the third quarter.
OSHA has also funded an additional set of fatality animated videos. That
contract was also just awarded this week. That takes much longer, but it is
expected to have those finished by this time next year. The alliances and the
steering committee will all be part of that review. The agency is going to
submit the maritime fatality animated videos to the World Safety Congress's film
and video festival that will be part of the Congress in September of 2005. OSHA
is working on the safety and health injury prevention sheets.
OSHA will be talking to Chet soon about a schedule for the development of the
six ships that we itemized in that task order. We don't have any money for
additional topics in 2004.
After the presentation, Chairman Thornton opened the floor up to questions from
MACOSH and the public.
Mr. Burgin asked if there is any plan to do any marine cargo handling or
longshoring animated videos. Ms. Goedert explained that right now, we have a
very tight budget. We met with the compliance assistance coordinating group for
the Agency and went through all of the safety and health subjects and determined
where resources ought to be applied. This year, this covers everything that we
are able to do. Now, we haven't made any plans for what we'll develop next year.
At this point, there isn't anything else, but there could be in the next fiscal
year.
Ms. Goedert's presentation was entered into the record as "Exhibit 8."
The Electrical Standard Update given by, David Wallis, Director of the office of
Subpart S of part 1910 contains OSHA electrical standards for general industry.
There are two groups of standards in that subpart, electrical installation
requirements and safety-related work practices. OSHA's electrical installation
requirements are based on the National Electrical Code, but NFPA 70(e) takes the
electrical code and boils it down into the basics. OSHA is proposing that this
project would update those standards to the latest version of NFPA 70(e). The
document was cleared by OMB March 3, 2004, so it will probably be published as a
proposal in the next couple of weeks. The marine terminal standard in part 1917
specifically incorporates Subpart S requirements for marine terminals in Section
1917.1(a)(2)(iv). These standards apply to electrical installations aboard
vessels if they are shore-based. The proposal would not change the scope of
Subpart S. As for shipyards if there weren't any electrical standards covering a
particular hazard in the shipyards standard, Subpart S would apply. There are
some electrical requirements in the shipyards. For example, Section 1915.92
contains a provision on electric lighting, and 1915.132 requirements on portable
electric tools. The Scope of Subpart S exempts installations in ships and
vessels. Only shore-based wiring will apply to Subpart S. Mr. Wallis concluded
his presentation, and Chairman Thornton opened the floor for questions. Mr.
Favazza asked does Subpart S cover the trench that cranes hook onto and then it
goes to a small substation?" Mr. Wallis explained that electrical wiring for
cranes is normally considered utilization wiring and would be covered under
Subpart S. Mr. Favazza also stated that there are concerns about adding more
tangential regulations, because it would be too much information to funnel to
the small industry.
Mr. Wallis responded that the agency is aware that some employers may not
understand, but there are very few electrical codes that people use. The main
code is the National Electrical Code, and OSHA's standards are almost
word-for-word right out of the electrical code.
Next is the Container Safety Workgroup presentation, given by Captain John
McNeill. The issues of the container safety work group are: pedestal lashing and
other lashing problems; riding the beam, and mechanic's safety training. The
chairman of the workgroup explains that the pattern on the lashing depends on
the height of the load, the weight of the containers, and the design of the
vessel. Lashers who do this work need a secure place to stand especially at the
edge of the vessel and most vessels don't have any kind of protection to keep
lashers from falling. The Port of Felixto designed a device for vessels that
don't have protection for lashers.
The committee recommends OSHA develop a rule that would require vessels to
provide guarded platforms for lashers.
After the recommendation by the container safety workgroup, there was discussion
among the committee. Captain Teresa Preston commented that this is an issue we
would be asking OSHA to bring to the international front and perhaps encourage
the different ports to require it. Chico McGill asked, "How prevalent are these
types of accidents?" The workgroup chairman responds that lashing accidents are
one of the most common accidents on the waterfront today. Another committee
member suggested the Coast Guard might able to assist, because they have
regulations for handrails. Pete Favazza stated that the ILWU were 100 percent in
favor of this rule.
- MACOSH recommends that OSHA develop a standard to require vessels to provide
guardrails on platforms where longshore workers are lashing and unlashing
containers, and performing other work, in order to reduce fall injuries.
The next issue was riding the beam. The operation under consideration is
transferring workers from the dock to the ship and vice-versa by means of a
personnel cage attached to the lifting beam of a container crane. Three issues
discussed were: should there be anchor points in the cage to attach the fall
protection harness; should the crane be set to operate in a "slow" mode while
transferring workers; and should the personnel cage be fitted with an emergency
stop switch to enable the occupants and the passengers in the cage to stop the
operation in the event the crane driver is incapacitated. The recommendation on
the first issue is that OSHA should be encouraged to make a rule that anchor
points should be provided. The recommendation is that this is not necessary.
Finally, personnel cage being fitted with an emergency stop. The recommendation
is that it should not be equipped with and emergency stop.
- MACOSH recommended that OSHA develop a longshore standard to require fall
protection when employees are inside a cage being lifted by a crane. Employers
should be required to install anchor points at a low point in the cage, and
employees must tie off to the anchor points to reduce fall injuries.
Captain McNeill's presentation was entered into the record as "Exhibits 9 and
10."
The third item for container workgroup discussion safety training for
maintenance workers and repair workers was continued with a presentation given
by Captain Teresa Preston. A list was established of the typical safety training
given to maintenance and repair workers at her shipyard are: hearing
conservation; HAZWOPPER; respiratory protection; welding and hot work, etc.
Several committee members discussed their training programs and possible topics.
The committee then approved the following recommendation for a guidance product:
- MACOSH recommends OSHA produce a guidance product for the longshore industry
outlining safety and health training issues for maintenance and repair staff.
The guidance product should cover mandatory training under OSHA's longshore
standards, and recommend training commonly used by shipyard employers for
maintenance and repair workers. The guidance product would be most useful in the
form of an e-tool that can be used on the Internet.
After listening to discussion about the container workgroup recommendations that
were presented by Captain McNeill, the committee voted, and unanimously agreed
to accept all of the workgroup recommendations.
The next presentation was the Outreach Workgroup discussion, also given by
Captain Teresa Preston. The workgroups top priority was alliances. The second
was e-tools, the third was the SHIPS program, and the fourth was the website.
Following a discussion of outreach issues, the committee developed and approved
the following recommendations.
- MACOSH recommends that OSHA complete the six Safety and Health Injury Prevention
Sheets (SHIPS) currently in development, and fund additional SHIPS for the
longshore industry. MACOSH should provide input on the subject matter and
priority of additional SHIPS.
- MACOSH recommends that OSHA produce safety and health e-tools for the longshore
industry and set aside funding to update and maintain the shipyard e-tools.
- MACOSH recommends that OSHA continue to develop alliances in the maritime
industry, with appropriate union involvement. MACOSH further recommends that
OSHA support regional alliance meetings with maritime and other interests to
allow alliances to network on safety and health matters and facilitate the
sharing of safety and health best practices information between alliances.
After listening to discussion about the outreach workgroups recommendations, the
committee voted, and unanimously agreed to accept the workgroups recommendations
The outreach workgroup discussion and the presentation on safety training for
workers were entered into the record as "Exhibits 11 and 12."
Next, Chairman Thornton called for open discussion. The committee discussed the
next meeting. The committee is looking to meet the week of June 14 in
Washington, D.C. with the workgroup breakouts on June 15, and the full committee
meeting on June 16 and 17. In addition, during open discussion, MACOSH
recommended they all stay at the same hotel where the meeting is held. Chairman
Thornton suggested the workgroups preload their presentations so that time is
not wasted queuing up their presentation. Mr. Chairman also recommends cordless
microphones for the public to accommodate their engagement in the discussions.
One committee member suggested using larger rooms for the workgroup sessions so
the public can be involved.
After the facility hardware issues, Chairman Thornton opened up the discussion
for what the committee is going to do going forward and what tasks are
remaining. Starting the discussion was the Health workgroup. The workgroup has
two deliverables prior to the next meeting, one is to submit the NSRP best
practices and the other is to get industry sampling on exposure of hexavalent
chromium by March 30m no later than the 15th of April. Items the health
workgroup plan to present at the next MACOSH meeting is diesel exhaust and
vapors, hearing loss, and perhaps silica.
Next, the vehicle safety workgroup stated that the main outcome of the workgroup
was an e-tool program. The workgroup is in suspension for this moment until such
time as other activities or issues come before it that are brought and need to
be worked by this group.
Following the vehicle safety workgroup update, the safety culture workgroup gave
an update of their future. The safety culture workgroup will develop a list of
whys, send it out, and then analyze them to see where they fall, into what
areas, and see then how that drives initiatives that would, indeed, affect the
culture change that is desired.
Next, the outreach workgroup reported on future projects. The workgroup has made
their recommendations on all but one of the items they started with. The
committee as a whole seems to be very supportive of outreach as a whole, and
fairly familiar with it. The only thing left is to respond back on the web site
changes and that could be examined at the next committee meeting. Other than
that the outreach workgroup will take on work as it comes in.
One committee member suggested that if there is something anyone or the agency
can think of during the interim, it should be channeled to the workgroups. The
committee goes on to suggest that group leaders who have members absent during
one of the conference calls, give the members a summary of the information in
the conference call.
The chairman of the outreach workgroup mentioned that the workgroup could work
on some of the fatal facts information, the fatality information for longshoring
into some sort of pamphlet form.
Another committee member suggested that the longshoring group and the shipyard
group meet separately and discuss possible future issues that could be added
into the main flow of the next meeting. At the end of the day the longshoring
group and the shipyard group get together and discuss their findings and the
chairman of each workgroup get together and coordinate their efforts.
Chairman Thornton briefly touched on the agenda, and asked MACOSH to allow him
self and OSHA staff to work on the agenda for the next meeting. One committee
member made a request to hear from John Ferris' Office of Homeland Security.
Chairman Thornton also encourages MACOSH to submit any suggestions for the
Agenda to himself, or Jim Maddux.
Wrap-up
A committee member asks OSHA to look at a list that NMSA has put together over
the last couple of years for training requirements in the longshoring industry,
and marine terminals, and provide some feedback on the project. Another
committee member encouraged the workgroups to continue the work outside the
one-week in June and encourage workgroup conference calls, or exchange e-mails.
Another committee member suggested considered putting drug and alcohol testing
on the table as a standard for the industry because of the high hazard.
Finally, the Chairman concluded the meeting by thanking OSHA, MACOSH, and the
public participants for their support, collegiality, and professionalism.
|
|
|
Back to Top