United States Department Of Labor
Advisory Committee On
Construction Safety And Health (ACCSH)


Wednesday, April 10, 1996


The Advisory Committee Met In The Frances Perkinsbuilding
Room N3437 A-D
Washington, D.D., At 8:30 A.M.,
Knut Ringen, Chair, Presiding.


Employee Representatives:

John B. Moran
William C. Rhoten
Knut Ringen
Lauren J. Sugerman

Employer Representatives:

Stewart Burkhammer
Stephen Cloutier
Theodore E. Webster
Kathryn G. Thompson


State Representatives:

Allen Meier
John A. Pompeii

Public Representatives:

Ana Maria Osorio
Judy A. Paul


Bruce Swanson
Holly Nelson
Tom Hall
Theresa Berry


Wednesday, April 10, 1996

Special Emphasis Program to Prevent Silica Exposure
Ruth McCully

Reports from Workgroups

Laurie Sugerman

Safety and Health Programs
Judy Paul

Committee Business
Knut Ringen

American Society of Safety Engineers
Lawrence Oldendorf, President


9:00 a.m.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Good morning. Would you please
be seated? We'll get started. Tom, did we have anybody else who asked to make any comments today?


CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Okay. Let's see. Before we get started, are there any comments on any of the issues that we discussed yesterday? I think at least I would like to get copies of the slides that you used yesterday. And I gave some thought to the enforcement data that you were presenting, and one of the things that occurred to me was, I noticed in one area office, I guess it was in New England, where you showed at one period it did all focused inspections and no regular inspections. And I think there are two things that would be good to know more about, at least from my perspective. The first is, and I asked this yesterday, to what extent is the focused inspection program freeing up resources to do more inspections than you would have done previously? It is really an efficiency program as it was advertised? Since we are seeing at the same time that we're implementing that in overall inspections that you're seeing throughout the agency in other programs. And the second issue is, are the criteria for using it sufficiently clear to the people in the area office, so that this stuff does not simply become a substitute, a convenient substitute, for regular inspections? That's it. That thought struck by just by seeing the one office that did not, as near as I could remember from your slides, did not have any regular inspection in one period. Any other comments about this issues?

MR. CLOUTIER: Well, in Congress there was a monograph that showed everything was a routine, general inspection and only one focused. Why the difference there? It's like 100 inspections, and only one...

MR. SWANSON: May I comment? Are you expecting comment? The one question that you asked, Mr. Chairman, about freeing up resources. I think that it will be easy for us to show that we are freeing up resources. That will be simply an analysis of how hours are used. What will be more difficult for us to show is the implicit, to me anyhow, implicit second half of your question, and that is how are those freed up resources being utilized? And if they are not showing up as more inspections, at least more inspections in the construction area, what does that say about the freed-up resources? And that's, that could get us into quite a long discussion which we'd be happy to have, either in this setting or in some other setting, and might have to be handled by anecdotal information, because again, some of this is stuff we don't capture, such as the reinvention efforts that Mr. Dear is leading us through at the moment, trying to revise the culture of OSHA. That is taking hours and exactly how many hours is something that's not being captured. But we can show the hours that are being saved by doing a focused inspection rather than a wall to wall inspection. The other question, and the two sides were both presented here by your questions. Why is an area office doing 100 percent, and I don't remember that precise line, but why is an area doing 100 percent focused inspections. North Boston? And that one we can show, because we can pull the case files from North Boston and walk through there and the file itself should evidence for us by how for that period of time all the contractors that were visited qualified. And as I mentioned yesterday, again, I'm not sure whether that's good news or bad news, whether we simply, you know, targeted the contractors who we should have known maybe didn't need us at all, even for a focused inspection. Not that there are contractors who don't need OSHA, but everything is relative. There are contractors who need OSHA more than some other contractors need OSHA. Steve asked about an area office that is primarily wall-to-wall comprehensive inspections, or 100 percent comprehensive inspections. And why is that? And again, I can't give an answer that isn't liberally sprinkled with anecdotal information here, but what we do here yet, we are trying to help people leave some of their past ideas and past prejudices, but, you know, as recently as six, eight months ago, we had area directors out there that didn't agree with the concept of focused inspection, didn't agree with the assistant secretary's approach to construction inspections and as those opinions are shared with us we can work them and things get changed. I do not know if that has anything to do with the data you saw on the slides yesterday or not. But that perhaps is it. Also, perhaps, that area director is just able to target precisely those construction sites that have contractors that are most in need of inspections. Or it could be somewhere in-between there, Steve.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: I think Steve actually captured better what I was trying to say, and that is, are we getting consistent application of this program across the various offices? And it has to do with what we talked a little bit about yesterday, you're relationship to the field office. And the second aspect of it, can we get better performance, sort of, measures on these inspections that we are having? We will look for that in the future. Any other comments? General or otherwise? Bill.

MR. SMITH: Knut, I apologize for not being here yesterday. I had called and just said that at the last minute we had to change. But I did send someone over from the office, and he just gave me a note yesterday and it said something about a question arose yesterday as to certification and a specific reference to crane certification?

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: I'll talk to you about that.

MR. SMITH: Okay.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: It's something that we are going to take care of between now and the next meeting.

MR. SMITH: That's what I was going to say, that maybe between now and the next meeting we can bring that up, since there is that national effort approach and we're part of it. So...

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Right. Any other questions or comments?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Okay. We're going to start out this morning with a report on the special emphasis program to prevent silica exposure, I guess is the way to put it. Ruth McCully is here.


Special Empahsis Program To Prevent Silica Exposure
Ruth McCully

MS. McCULLY: Yes. I'm Ruth McCully, and I'm the Director of the Office of Health Compliance Assistance in OSHA, and with me is Richard Fairfax, an industrial hygienist on staff. And what we'd like to do is give you some information and bring you up to date as to where we are on a special emphasis program for silica. The purpose of the program is to focus on those worksites where there is potential exposure, emphasizing overexposure, to silica, as well as where there may already be incidence of silicosis at those work sites. The other purpose is to assure uniform enforcement within OSHA regarding silica. People have asked why silica, and why is silica being emphasized? Last December OSHA's priority planning process, the results were announced by Joe Dear and Linda Rosenstock, and silica was really elevated as a significant occupational health issue. You all may be familiar with that report that came out at that time. The agencies went to the public and asked the public as to what were the different types of safety and health issues we should be focusing on. We held public meetings. We received information on 123 different hazards and substances, and the committee distilled that down to 18. Five of those were identified for potential rulemaking action, and silica was one of those that was identified for a possible rulemaking in the future. As different substances dropped off our rulemaking agenda these items then would be added to the rulemaking agenda, and silica was one of those. We also have several area offices in state plan states that have local emphasis programs for silica related to abrasive blasting, so we wanted to make that more uniform across the country. We used specific data to define the problem and we looked to NIOSH and NIOSH estimated that there are two million workers exposed to silica in the United States. Of these, NIOSH estimates that there's 100,000 involved in high-risk exposures such as abrasive blasting and rock drilling, mining types of operation. We looked at the deaths where silica was reported and we found from 1968 to 1990 more than 6,000 deaths listed silicosis as the underlying cause. Deaths from silicosis continue every year. It has a steady and continual rate of about 300 deaths per year from silicosis. We also looked at our enforcement data over the past three years, and we found that we have done samplings for silica in 51 zip codes. Of those, we found overexposures in 16. Those 16 zip codes were found in general industry, construction and maritime industries. So this is really an emphasis program which is going across all industry, whereas in the past we've had special emphasis programs for the chemical industry or the fireworks industry or trenching, for example, which was focused in construction, or blood-borne focused in general industry. This is one that we're emphasizing silica in maritime, general industry and construction. We sent the draft program out to 36 stakeholders for review. We have received comments back. We are receiving comments this week and we are in the process of reviewing them and incorporating the comments. We have had several meetings with stakeholders also who are interested and wanted to work with us more closely in presenting their comments. The program will emphasize silica in all industries and in that way we will be applying the existing standards that we have been for silica. We don't have a substance-specific standard such as we do with lead in construction, or arsenic, or lead in general. That covers a very comprehensive type of program. So we'll be using our existing standards for permissible exposure limits, respiratory protection, hygiene facility, warning signs and so forth as they apply to that particular situation. We're providing a range of sources to the area office that they can use as a targeting mechanism. Rather than the national office taking the lead in coming up with a targeted list for inspections to be conducted, the targeting will be done at the local area office level. And because we really wanted to focus on those workplaces where there is a problem, where there are silicosis cases, for example, we are providing different types of sources such as the use of sensor data from NIOSH, hospital discharge records if they can get that information, worker's comp information if they can get that, so they can identify those establishments where there is silicosis cases and that's where we can really emphasize our efforts. Another aspect of the program that we have included is a focused inspection element. It is going across all three sectors and so if, for example, there is a safety and health program that includes silicosis prevention or silica control, or if in another situation in general industry or maritime, for example, we walk into a situation where there is a silica control program or a silicosis prevention program, we will look at that program, interview management, interview the workers, and if there's a program and it's working, then we'll leave that facility. So that there's really no need for us to be there at that point if there's a program that's up and operating, and then we can move our resources to where they are really needed. So we're trying to take this focused inspection element and move it beyond only construction and move it to different industries as well. We look at the program as being as a two phased program. The first phase will be outreach, followed by enforcement. We expect that the outreach will take at least 60 days. The program, we would like to have the program operational by the end of May, and that is having outreach going on by the end of May and have that continue for two months, and then start on the enforcement program. We've gotten considerable input from NIOSH and MSHA as well as from the Bureau of Mines. There's considerable interest in work that has been done relative to silica and silicosis across the federal government, and so we are really working with these other agencies to develop and identify outreach materials that can be used. One of the other aspects that we've tried to build into the program is a way to measure impact, which poses a problem for us. When we try to look at impact for health related issues, and particularly in situations where you have health effects such as silicosis with a very long latent period. It takes a very long period of time, 10 to 20 years, to determine whether or not what you are doing today is going to have an impact down the road. So we've tried to look at more intermediate measures to determine impact, and, for example, we will be tracking focused inspections to see how many programs are out there that are emphasizing silicosis prevention as well as programs that will be put in place after our effort. We also want to evaluate the engineering and work practice controls that will be put into place, and we figure we can do that not by an on-site inspection, but follow up on those inspections that we have conducted to see what types of controls have been put into place, and provide that information to the public. And I think that's about all I have as far as the program goes. Do you all have any questions?

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Any questions? Bill.

MR. SMITH: Knut, because of the problem of many employers out there, they don't even know about silicosis at all, much less the effects of it and its like the asbestos with the latency time frame and everything else. When OSHA goes out to inspect, is there going to be a method where for the employer's sake there's going to be a list of the type of work that will involve a silica exposure, so that the employers will know? In other words, if I'm an employer and I'm doing trenching, or if I'm doing blasting, or if I'm doing anything that involves the abrasiveness in the soil that could cause a silica exposure, as an employer I would need to know the types of work that is out there to define the potential exposure, before I would even know whether I'd need a program on silica or not. And just as much for the compliance officer, because he would need to know what that type of work would be to even look for a program. And I don't know if you've thought about doing that or not, but there's no way for an employer to determine whether there has been silica exposure or not unless he knows what type of work is involved. And that has to be part of that outreach and education process.

MS. McCULLY: Right. And we had a meeting yesterday with the three agencies to go over the different types of outreach materials that are out there as well as health hazard evaluation that has been done so far. So we will be working to get that information provided up front during that outreach effort.

MR. SMITH: But that won't be in a standard as you know it, or in the regulations?

MS. McCULLY: No, because we don't have a specific standard for silica. Our standard for silica really is a permissible exposure limit. So we have a permissible exposure limit. There are other OSHA standards that can apply to silica if there is an overexposure. For example, the use of respiratory protection or hygiene facilities, or a warning sign. But we don't have a specific standard that deals only with silica and all the different types of elements that would be in the program. So that would really be something that we'd be addressing in either a specific silica control program, such as some industries have. The, Gratescheck(?) for example in Vermont, that industry has been very active. But it could also be an element in a specific safety and health program.

MR. SMITH: Because it is still confusing out there, I think, in major terms for employers. Especially earthmoving employers, where they're taking a lot of rock and they're moving a lot of soil, and there's always dust and there's always potential for that exposure. And in our occupation with heavy equipment operators they're constantly in the dirt atmosphere, and they're doing blasting, they're doing scraping. Just the movement of the soil itself. But I'm sure that employers doing that road work and road building have no idea where to go or what to look for, and yet there may be a potential there, that they should be protected if there's a need, but if they come across with a citation they're not even going to know why they're getting a citation or what to do with it. And I think it's confusing, again. The other issue, I guess, is that if this comes out, if you come out with a final rule in this area, you were talking about maritime and general and construction. Is there going to be a listing in each one of them, as far as the final rule goes, or regulation? Will it be assigned a number under 1926?

MS. McCULLY: Yes. Oh, yes.

MR. SMITH: Only because I know there's an argument to do the opposite and to eliminate pages and reduce, so I didn't know as we go forward if we were going to still assign 26 numbers when it deals with construction.

MS. McCULLY: Well, how we've done standards more recently when we've done standards across all industries we've applied numbers 1926 or 1910 as it applies. But let me clarify that. For example, silica or the other four materials or conditions that were recommended for rulemaking. Those should only come on our regulatory agenda as other standards dropped off. So the earliest that this could happen would be, for example, late '97 or in FY 98, because our regulatory agenda is full right now. So only after substances, or only after rules are promulgated and they drop off the regulatory agenda will items then be added. So we're down the road.

MR. SMITH: I know it's a time frame. It's just something that we definitely as it goes forward in that slow process that it takes, it's still some, it has to be food for thought during that process, because the employers are really confused anyway, and this is an issue that we see a lot more of, silicosis exposure, and people are dying from it and not knowing why they're dying from it. So a lot of times it even I think gets confused with asbestosis in some cases. So I think if you'd probably, if they would examine the records they'd find a lot of asbestosis. It may have been silicosis in fact. So I know it's going to come to light, it's just that I think that there needs to be more information and education, and an easier way for the employer to find out. Because if I am a construction employer doing earthmoving, and trenching is on the list for a potential exposure to silica, or just moving soil from one area to another, I think they need to know that in that outreach and they need to know what they need to do to protect as well as the compliance officers when they get to the job need to know what to look for when they get there.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Any other comments?

MS. JENKINS: If you're talking about enforcement by the end of May, what are you...

MS. McCULLY: No, no. We would be starting the outreach.

MS. JENKINS: You're going to start the outreach.

MS. McCULLY: Right, right. We'll do outreach before we do enforcement, and we'll do 60 days of outreach before we do enforcement, so enforcement wouldn't be projected until the end of July.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Any other comments?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: I have a couple of comments. The first is that it's difficult to separate out silica dust from general dust. Nuisance dust, as it's called. And it's probably in most parts of construction the bigger risk, and it's important not to create a program that makes people think of dust as being synonymous simply with silica exposure. The general dust exposure leading to chronic obstructive disease is probably in terms of prevalence a bigger issue. The second issue with regard to silica exposure is that most people think of it only as abrasive blasting, and even there, of course, protection is generally poor. But probably the more commonplace for exposure is cutting concrete and concrete blocks, which happens more in general construction, in commercial construction, even residential construction and so on. And we provide very poor protection in those areas. It's without a doubt a very important issue that has been neglected, so I think it's great to have this program. But I would keep those... Also a third area. There's very little known about, it's a little ... The third area where there is relatively little information is in certain times it's gunnite exposures or operations. In the past when people laid cement terrazzo flooring they would frequently dry sand it in the end, as the first step before they would finish it with the wet sanding, which would create enormous silica exposures. Now that's not done so much anymore but it's now an area that's very important. Any other comments?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Thank you. Now we'll turn to the work group reports. These are simply I believe informational reports today unless you ask, have some specific recommendation that you would like us to address. And we'll start with the women in construction. Laurie?


Health & Safety Of Women In Construction
Laurie Sugerman

MS. SUGERMAN: Our committee is the health and safety of women in construction. Just to remind everybody on the committee and in our audience, our mission is to identify, to describe, to document and to educate about the health and safety hazards that women face in the construction industry. We, four members of our committee of 10, were able to meet yesterday. Two of our other members were attending another work group and several of our members are out of town. So we're not always able to participate in our committee meetings. We had not met for nine months, so we spent the first part of our meeting just updating ourselves on what had happened in that interim period. There were NIOSH hearings held and we reviewed some testimony that was submitted to NIOSH asking that NIOSH focus some of its research on the issues facing women in construction. This was submitted by a group, the YWCA in Milwaukee. And this was important for our committee to be able to reaffirm that this is an important issue beyond just the scope of our committee. Other people are also thinking about this and raising this concern, so we are glad it was raised at the Chicago hearings that NIOSH held on its research agenda. We also discussed the settlement of a recent case before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on one of the issues that's been raised before in our committee, that of equal protection for women in terms of sanitary facilities on construction job sites. And a female electrician was forced to sue her company when she was unfairly laid off, terminated from employment, because she left the job site to find a clean, sanitary facility. The EEOC reached a settlement in her case and fined the contractor $10,000 on her behalf, because they found in her favor. The case did not go forward to an administrative hearing. The employer decided to settle the case. But we find that this is more evidence of the need to have protective standards in advance of having individual women having to resolve these cases through this kind of mediation. The committee has been conducting a review of the existing OSHA standards to identify where issues of gender might be important and where they may already be included or where they may be missing and need to be included. We reviewed, I think, about 15 standards that range from the personal protective equipment standard to field sanitation to many of the chemical standards to see where an how issues of gender were included. And they are included predominantly in the range of reproductive health often that's the only way any issues of gender are addressed in the standard. In the area of field sanitation there is little concern for separate sanitary facilities or the kind of clean sanitary facilities that would have precluded the problem of female electrician's case in the Chicago case. And women are really left out in terms of most of the standards. In terms of the preamble, we looked at the preambles, at the standards and at the appendixes. We also raised the fact that it might be important to look at some of the research that was conducted to see if women were even part of any of the research cohorts of the standard. We'll be incorporating this review of the standards into the next area that we discuss, which is the document that we hope will be the final outcome of our committee's work. And this document will be an overview of all of the data that we've reviewed, looked at, and the issues that have been brought to our attention. It will include an executive summary. It will include about seven issue areas with both anecdotal and statistical evidence, as well as the literature review that we are also conducting now, as well as recommendations both for OSHA, the industry, the labor unions and workers themselves in order to be able to be more protected in terms of health and safety. We are in the process of conducting of a literature review. We've identified about 11 pieces of research that have been conducted since 1938 on the issue of women in construction. Some of these have to do with the question of personal protective equipment; others have to do with stress; some look at the differences between women in traditional and non-traditional jobs in terms of safety factors. We'll be incorporating this literature review into our document as well, and we think this will be the best tool for both OSHA and other entities to use to be able to evaluate an initiative policy discussions on this question for the future. So we are spending most of the time on the that. When we come close to a final draft, which we hope will be in about two meetings, we'll be prepared to circulate that draft to the full committee for your review.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Thank you. Any comments?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Well, I think this is very important. This is going to be the first, certainly the first of its kind in construction, and I'm glad it's coming from this committee rather than coming from OSHA or someplace else to the industry. It will be an eye opener for a lot of people, I believe. The next committee is confined spaces. Steve.

Steve Cloutier

MR. CLOUTIER: We met yesterday afternoon. There were nine members in attendance. Three ACCSH members, three members from OSHA and three outside people participated in the meeting. The work group reviewed a previous reported which was dated May 17, 1994 that was generated by John Rand in the previous work group on confined spaces in construction. We started to identify some key issues. We agreed we needed to have another meeting in the future and look for the agency to provide a space and funding to have that meeting. In looking at the key issues there was a lot of discussion on whether we need to call it a confined space entry, because I think that muddies the water a lot when we just talk about confined space and really in our industry we're talking about confined space entry. We asked NIOSH through Diane Duncan Porter to provide us with any current 94/95, and even some '96 confined space fatality data in construction and she agreed to go back to NIOSH and look for that information. There was discussion about using a decision tree and whether a permit is going to be required for confined space entry. The members on the committee thought that would be very useful, which you could estimate all the way out find out whether it was falling down to requiring, designating a confined space entry and whether a permit would o would not be required. There was discussion about breaking two types of spaces, current and existing spaces and the other new spaces that may be generated during the course of construction. So we felt that we needed to better define the preamble and the scope and application, that there were some gray areas there. And then the last item that we had lengthy discussion on that everybody felt would be beneficial to the industry is to use a question and answer type format to keep it simple. You know. Then go forward with it. So we worked hard. We looked at key issues. There's a lot of additional work that needs to be done, but for the limited amount of time and the documentation that we received yesterday I think it was very productive.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Thank you. Any comments? Are you going to be able to meet the time frame that we laid out yesterday, do you think?

MR. CLOUTIER: We believe so. We recognize there's going to have to be at least one more meeting and we were looking to come back probably to the District and to spend an all day session hammering some things out and going over some of the latest data so we can get back to the full committee with our recommendations.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: In order to meet that time schedule do you need any additional resources or help from OSHA that you're not getting?

MR. CLOUTIER: Well, we just need to make sure that we can meet again and come back...

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Okay. You don't need any staff help or anything?

MR. CLOUTIER: Well, we've got... There were three people. The Solicitor was there, the person from the OSHA office, and a gentleman by the name of Tom Laughlin was there from OSHA also, so we've got some resources there that are available.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Great. Finally, the safety and health programs work group. Judy.


Safety And Health Programs
Judy Paul

MS. PAUL: We met yesterday afternoon for a short meeting. I might announce right up front that we are going to meet again after this meeting. We felt that would be around 11:00, was Knut's estimate. The attendees from the committee were Anna Maria Osorio, Bob Masterson, myself and Bernice Jenkins. Work group members themselves from the committee. We had a lot of participation, however, This subject really kicks off a lot of interest. And because we were... They shared with us yesterday that we now have a separate construction standard, or will have, and that they need to have any suggestions that we might want to make to them by the middle of June, then now we are under extreme pressure to get our suggestions together to make to the full committee so that the full committee can make any comments or any assistance to OSHA that they might deem appropriate. To that end I wanted to invite any of the representatives that were with us yesterday and any from former meetings that we have had, that we might contact to see if they would like to be involved, to be members of the work group. I know that I asked before for some sample safety and health programs, and certainly many of the representatives and the organizations complied with that. They have been misplaced, mislaid, over the past year while we were coming to decisions on just how this whole thing was going to come about. And I would like to ask that these people that are interested... I have one right here from the National Association of Homebuilders, a sample program. These types of sample programs. If persons would give that kind of information, comments, definitions, special problems that their own organizations might see in forming safety and health programs. All this information, we really need it, and we need it quickly. So if... I would invite members of the committee and I would invite members of the audience to get those kinds of information, suggestions, comments, and get that in to Bruce Swanson's office by the end of the week if at all possible. We really want to hurry on this. OSHA then will compile from all the information that it takes in a proposed draft standard, and from the common element. They will then send to all the people that I would like to give me their business cards if they want to be members of the work group, or their names and addresses, those kinds of things, because within two weeks, when we get the proposed draft, then we'll send it to all the people currently on the work group, those who wish to be involved will send that proposed draft out and it will then be ready for comments and sources, you know, to work on that draft. We'll have one... We're going to have a meeting following this meeting, and Mr. Reidy, Gerald Reidy will tell us what room. It will be a short meeting. It's not going to be an all day session. But we'll have one more meeting. We're going to have all these papers flying around to those folks that are interested prior to the next meeting.

MR. REIDY: This room.

MS. PAUL: This room? Oh, great. Just stay here then, those who want to. So just, you know, if you have an interest, we will contact the people who have been here in the past and who didn't make it to this meeting for one reason or another, just to make sure that we get all the possible participation that we can have. Because since we need to have this done by the middle of June we'll have one more meeting the day prior to the next ACCSH meeting. That date to be set here in a few minutes. But that will be the end of it. so we really need to be mailing and faxing things back and forth on this particular issue. So the time frame is to send in programs and definitions and checklists, all those kinds of things by the end of this week, April 12th. OSHA is then gong to compile a draft document for us, and they will send it back out to the members of the work group. So make sure that you get your names and addresses and affiliations in to me today. And we're just going to march forward. I would like to say that attached to Beth's little comment with this time frame, Anna Maria, bless her heart, with her laptop, has put together the notes from yesterday's meetings. And there are all the questions that we stirred up yesterday, and others she could think of. All of these are contained within the document there. And these are some of the issues that we went over, the persons on the work group, to address in the next couple of months. So I'm not going to go over that document, but certainly there are copies that have been passed around. So it's one of the those things where you wait a year, and then you hurry up. That's it.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Thank you. It was an interesting discussion anyway yesterday. This is obviously a big subject that's going to be addressed very quickly, and I appreciate all the efforts that you're making. Any comments? Questions? Yes. Ana Maria. MS. OSORIO: I'm just a little worried about the time frame, because, you know, everything's going to go in, mailed out at least by the 12th. And then OSHA's going to have two weeks to then turn around a draft. I mean, is that enough time to adequately review the materials?

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: They're going to do the best they can.

MS. OSORIO: Oh. Okay.

MS. PAUL: Yes. And they're going to... The first draft will be one that contains the common elements. What they are going to be doing is trying to pick out the common elements, and then they'll take it from there with the comments, you know, and get more specific. They're going to be working hard and fast.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Okay. Bruce wants to comment.

MR. SWANSON: OSHA is going to play several roles here. One, OSHA is supporting with resources, time and whatever else the efforts of the work group, and we will try and turn things around and do the word crunching and the draft preparation for the work group. What OSHA is preparing there, however, is the work group's product, not OSHA's product. There should not be any confusion on that. And when we talk about OSHA turning something around and having a draft in two weeks or whatever time, that's a draft for the work group. Okay? And the work group product still of course has to go through the whole committee, and then the full committee has to make a recommendation to OSHA. And then the other part of OSHA's duty will kick in and we'll bring all of the resources of OSHA to bear to prepare a proposed safety and health program standard for the Federal Register. That's where we're trying to get. But the first OSHA effort, I don't want anyone on the committee or in the audience to get confused. OSHA's not confused as to what product we're working on.

(?): OSHA is going...

MS. OSORIO: I just think that these documents have a life of their own. Perhaps this is just a typo, but it say OSHA is going to turn around and provide a proposed draft standard. Maybe you want to clarify that language, then, because that's, the way I was reacting to it, I go, gee, that's a lot. You may want to say a draft list of concepts that the committee could use. I mean, I think the terminology needs to be clarified for somebody who just reads this cold. I mean, Judy can comment on that.

MS. PAUL: I understand your concern there, yes, a and that's exactly what we did mean. That's exactly what we do mean. People that are going to work with this work group will take the information that is forwarded. There's different programs, checklists, definitions, those kinds of things, and all of the concerns that we can get, you know,in the notes, and will take the top common elements from that and will then, will just do that word crunching for us, and will send back to us that document for our comments, which we will then send back, and they will send back, and...

MS. OSORIO: I just think you need to clean up the language in that second to the last paragraph...


MS. OSORIO: And exactly what you said... That's what I was struggling with, and that's why I reacted the way I did to that.

MR. SWANSON: You're right. You can't do that.


MS. SUGERMAN: I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind the work group and OSHA as well that one of the recommendations, or maybe not recommendations but suggestions from the work group on health and safety of women in construction last May was that this was a perfect opportunity to begin incorporating questions of gender, as a new standard was being developed. And I would urge the work group and OSHA to pay attention to how to include sexual harassment prevention training, training about reproductive hazards and the use of proper fitting personal protective equipment as well in these standards, if that's at all possible, in terms of helping people prepare the best and most appropriate health and safety training program.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: It may be within the time limits that are here that we have a little bit of a crunch between what your group is doing and what this group is doing. It would be good to see this as the various health and safety programs that are submitted are reviewed when this issue is dealt with to begin with, and to get back to your group also with that and see how we can deal with it. It's not to say that that's not an insignificant issue. But insofar as your group has not completed its work yet, either. We'll see how that goes. But you can ask the OSHA people to look at that as they review the various programs. It occurred to me in the discussions that we had in the group yesterday that there was a big difference in terms of terminology. And this only struck me last night afterwards, that the concepts of programs and fines are still very familiar to many of us who have been working extensively in the field of environmental remediation under the OSHA HAZWPPR standard, where these terms are used all the time, and these requirements that are being proposed here in general exist very specifically for that part of the industry. It may be good also to go back and look a little bit at the experience, both with regard to the way that employers are operating under the HAZWPPR standard, and also the way that, the experience that OSHA has gained in doing enforcement under that standard. Any other comments or questions?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: So you'll meet here right after the committee adjourns. Right?

MS. PAUL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Okay. Good job. Thank you.


General Committee Business
Knut Ringen

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: I'd like to turn to the general issue of the committee's business, and I had in mind a couple of different things, some of which have been resolved yesterday and today. But my concern was that OSHA was asking us to do a great deal here in a short period of time with these new committees, and one of the things I wanted to make sure was that OSHA was going to be able to provide the assistance that the committee, that these work groups will need to complete their work and that the committee as a whole will need to do this. Because as I understand it it's likely that OSHA will be asking us in the future also to be doing more of these things, to look ahead of OSHA to some extent at some of the issues that it's going to want to deal with rather than to simply review what OSHA has proposed, which has usually been the case. There have been exceptions, but has generally been the case for this committee in the past. And I wonder if there's any discussion of that issue. Are there any concerns about it from any of the members? Is it fair to say that the committee is prepared to go ahead and address the issues in the way that OSHA has asked on these two issues, the confined spaces and the programs, as long as OSHA is also prepared to give us the help that we need to carry out that work? I think we have to be pretty firm on that.

(Nods in general agreement.)

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Okay. The second committee business issue is one that's a little difficult to address, still, but it has to do with the next meeting of the committee as a whole, and in light of the time schedules that were given, if the, it occurred to me that we ought to try to schedule the next meeting about two months from now, which would be in the middle of June somewhere, the week of June the 10th. Or 17th. How do those weeks look for people here? It's fine? Anybody have problems with the week, June the 10th?

MR. SWANSON: Mr. Chairman. May I comment?


MR. SWANSON: My concern is not to do with my individual calendar, but if your meeting is the 10th on these two standards, and I don't have as much concern over the confined spaces standard. Steve made that sound like he doesn't have much concern over it, meeting the deadline anyhow. But on the safety and health program standard, if there is still work to be done when we get to the 10th, which I don't think is totally inconceivable, we have not left ourselves a whole lot of time to flex here. It's a request for an earlier meeting.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: When we say the week of the 10th, we could do it at the end of the week, like on the Wednesday or Thursday, or even... We like not to meet on Thursday and Friday if we can avoid it, especially for the people who come from the west coast.

MS. JENKINS: What about the end of the month?

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: The end of the month? the week of the 24th? 25th? We could do that. That doesn't leave much time, if we're going to have this done by then that doesn't leave much time to fix anything that comes after the meeting. So I think that we will try to stick with the week of the 10th, and why don't we try to schedule it the 12th and 13th? Is that okay? Is that okay with you, Bruce? Subject to your previous concern.

MR. SWANSON: If that is what meets the needs of the committee, fine.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: And you said, Judy, that you thought you would need one day of meetings ahead of that?

MS. PAUL: Prior to.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: The work group.

MS. PAUL: Right. But we can have the 11th?

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: That would be the 11th, yes.

MS. PAUL: Is that a Monday or a Tuesday?

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: That's a Tuesday.

MS. PAUL: Okay.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: So what we would try to do then is that you would meet on the 11th. We will meet as a whole committee on the morning of the 12th. We would set aside some time on the morning of the 12th to discuss certainly your issue, and if you need to discuss some of yours also.

MR. CLOUTIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just don't like coming to the meeting and at the last minute getting something dumped on us to have to take a committee vote the very next day, or the same day. Because we've fallen into this practice here in the last year and we have had a discussion in prior committees that we weren't going to do that, that there was going to be a 10 day window so everybody could get it in hand. But I understand there are time restraints here. Possibly if there's some other issues that are coming up that we know they are going to be hot issues then we can get some information out to the membership of the committee prior to the 11th.


MR. CLOUTIER: And then when we come in, and Judy 25 meets with her group on the 11th they can either say this issue was resolved or not, and narrow some of the things down. It just puts people around the table in a tough situation. You've got to take it, you've got to comprehend it and you've got to make that decision. I'm prepared to do that, but it's not fair to the committee members.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: I thought we had made clear that we are going to avoid getting into the situation...

MR. CLOUTIER: That's the worst that could happen, because Judy is going to come in, she's going to have her committee her on the 11th and then dump it on our lap on the 12th. We'll debate the merits of the issue and then take a vote.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Well, the only way to avoid that would be to postpone the full committee meeting until early July. Or you could have a work group meeting before then. That would put even more pressure on you to have a work group meeting, let's say at the end of May, try to produce your report in sufficient drafts so that you can circulate it to the whole committee. How does that sound to you? Does that help you?

MR. CLOUTIER: The agency comes us to us and wantsour help, but they give us less and less time, and by the time we get around to it... This window of opportunity is getting smaller and smaller. You want a fine document from the committee.

MS. OSORIO: I think this one is a pretty big job, a tall order, and I do think some thought has to go into it. I think... I am sympathetic to the comments here, because at the best we could present something the morning of the 12th and people can look at it that night, and then they can vote on it. But I think this is kind of a different kind of approach in some cases, and there's some legal aspects and everything that, you know, I really think we need to have maybe a week or two ahead of time.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Well, we ought to have it if possible. The other alternative is to see what the group comes up and to be very clear that this may not be acceptable and to say we're going to need another couple of months to finish this.

MR. CLOUTIER: Well, that's honest.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Yes. I don't think we are going to commit ourselves to putting out something from here and give it to OSHA that we don't think is good. But I think it's important that members of the committee express that view clearly. So why don't we try to do it this way, that, Judy, you'll try to complete a document towards the end of may, early June if possible, or at least some sort of a draft, or a listing of the issues that remain outstanding that you haven't been able to resolve.

MS. PAUL: Right. Yes.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: So that this would give, the members of the whole committee can have a chance to think about that. You'll meet on the 11th to try to deal with them. We'll have a discussion of your findings in the morning of the 12th in the full committee. We'll have work group meetings in the afternoon of the 12, again, and then we will meet in the morning of the 13th to try to see if we have a final document that's acceptable to everybody, or not. If we don't have a final document that's acceptable and that everybody feels comfortable with, then we'll take it from there.

MS. PAUL: Then we don't.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: But that's the best that we can do to try to meet the time frame that we have been given, I think. Bruce.

MR. SWANSON: Okay. I understand. I hear what the committee is saying. I do not disagree with you at all. These time frames are for us almost impossible. What you have told OSHA here in the last 20 minutes is that they are impossible for you, and so noted. If in fact we are looking at reg text, that the soonest OSHA can put it together is in the month of July or August, then there will not, there is no hope for a proposal this fiscal year. And that's just a fact that the Assistant Secretary is going to have to accept from you, that coming to you this late and asking for this effort out of you, we can't meet the timetables that are built into the system, you know, the need to put together a preamble on this, the need to meet the OMB guidelines, et cetera. All we ask, all we can ask, reasonably and logically, is for this committee to do the best that it can do, and if that means that a consensus is going to be in June or possibly even later, so be it.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: I think it's important to keep in mind here that this work group was established a year and a half ago for the purpose of being available when OSHA was going to have a draft to us, and many people have spent unnecessary time in meetings that have not been very fruitful on this in the past. Rick Pfeffer, if I remember correctly, last February promised us a draft within a week or two, or was it a month or two, after this. And suddenly we were told several months after that, or maybe even a year after that, that no draft exists anywhere. That nothing's been put on paper. We found that to be a rather astonishing experience, and then to have the whole thing dropped in the lap of the committee at this point was that, gee, while we've been spending two years and haven't been able to come up with anything on paper we would like you now to sit down and do this for us in two months...

MR. SWANSON: Is that a complaint, Knut?


CHAIRMAN RINGEN: It just states for the record of some facts that I think you should keep in mind. Now this committee is once again prepared to try to do whatever it can, and I think in some ways it's good that the meat of this, whatever it's going to be, comes from this committee than from OSHA. I think that's very positive. But to promise that we can do that, or that this work group can do that in two months is asking for a lot. But we will try.

MR. SWANSON: Understood, and we thank you.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Any other questions about our process and procedures?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Okay. We have one more issue left on the agenda, which means that we are going to be done by 10:00, 10:15, or something like that. That's very good. The American Society of Safety Engineers. We got a letter from them saying that they would like to address the issue and asked that Larry Oldendorf, who is the President of ASSE, be permitted to come here an make a 15 minute presentation on issues related to safety and health programs, powered industrial trucks, confined spaces and fall protection. Welcome.


American Society Of Safety Engineers
Lawrence Oldendorf

MR. OLDENDORF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American Society of Safety Engineers would like to thank all the members of this committee for allowing us the opportunity to talk to you a little bit about the resources within ASSE and many of the references that can be used in developing the work and report to OSHA. My name is Larry Oldendorf and I am President of the American Society of Safety Engineers. My professional credits, illustrating the diversity of ASSE membership, are the designations of certified safety professional and professional engineer and fire protection engineering. I have over 40 years of experience in occupational safety and health with all levels of management, both in the public and the private sector. I currently am owner and president of Fire and Safety Engineering Services and vice president of an architectural engineering design firm for fire protection and light systems for Compton Associates. Both are located in the Chicagoland area. Prior to that I spent over 31 years at the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy as a safety and fire protection engineer, and the last eight years as management analysis officer, providing the compliance coordination for the environmental management activities and the evaluations of the foremen of research, the management and all administrative, technical and safety and health areas for all the national laboratories that were administering contracts for the Chicago operations office. I also have six years of insurance industry experience as a safety and fire protection engineer, both in St. Louis and in the midwest. My work in this time also included evaluations of construction safety programs for major research facilities, industry and public utililities, and currently includes environmental and construction management services. The ASSE requested to make this presentation to you today so that you will be aware of our society's history, accomplishments and the resources we can offer to the construction industry and to your committee. We were founded in 1911 and are the world's largest and oldest professional safety society, with a diverse corps of 32,000 dedicated safety and health professionals. Included in this membership are certified safety professionals, industrial hygienists, physicians, occupational nurses, environmental specialists and an impressive collection of other disciplines, skills and backgrounds. We pride ourselves on our dedication to excellence, expertise, and our commitment to the protection of people, property and the environment of our nation. The society also has nine specific divisions consisting of construction, consultants, engineering, environmental, health care, management, public sector and risk management. We will be adding an international division next month and have over 525 members in 54 countries. The society members included in these divisions are considered to be leaders in their field, with the knowledge and expertise needed to advance the safety and health of the nation. The ASSE provides an excellent example of what can be accomplished for the good of all through comprehensive work in the area of safety and health. Our membership volunteers contribute a great deal of their time to benefit the American public.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Mr. Oldendorf. We are a little concerned about groups coming here with sort of self- advertisement before the committee. We invite people to come here address issues that we are concerned about rather than...

MR. OLDENDORF: Right. I understand.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Because otherwise we will have groups coming here consistently for that.

MR. OLDENDORF: So I will proceed then with some of the noteworthy achievements that are applicable to your committee work. Countrywide participation of nearly 140 local chapters in National Safety Week designated by the President each year. Secretary to five American National Standards Institute committees developing safety and health standards which are used by private sector organizations as well as state and federal government agencies such as OSHA, CPSC, EPA, NIOSH, et cetera. These ASSE secretariats include Z-87, eye and face protection; Z-117, confined spaces; Z-359, fall protection equipment; A-1264 workplace floor and wall openings, railings and stairways; and also working on a standard of measurement of slip-resistance coefficients. Z-390, hydrogen sulfide safety training. In addition, the society has appointed safety professionals to over 20 other standard committees impacting safety and health. ASSE also provides a number of additional services to local state and federal government agencies, including OSHA pro bono training for small businesses. Also non-cost consultations with members and non-members seeking technical information. ASSE expertise and knowledge has been utilized by both public and private sector organizations in the creation of effective legislation and regulations. Additional ASSE representation on technical committees such as ANSI, NFPA, ASTM and other private/public sector advisory boards and committees. Educational consulting services for small business through technical literature and materials, and technical publications including the classics in safety and health. Position papers were recently published on traffic safety, the role on consensus standards in safety and health, employee involvement in safety and health education and training, safety and health programs, and numerous position statements to legislators and regulators, including OSHA reform. One of the first areas which we would like to offer specific comment on is a proposal for OSHA to develop a safety and health management program specifically for the construction industry. ASSE recently distributed a comprehensive position statement on the OSHA comprehensive safety and health management programs, and we believe that such a document provides a solid base not only for general industry but the construction industry. We recommend that even though construction is unique in regard to safety and health considerations, such a standard should work in close conjunction with the comprehensive standard in order to maintain some level of consistency. One of the most important areas of such programs is proper training and the need to ensure that the training is conducted by competent safety and health professionals. Whether the training is done by a company employee or a third party consultant, it is very important to ensure that the person doing the training is qualified. There are unfortunately organizations in this country which award suspect or bogus credentials. In fact there is an organization which will "certify" people in construction safety and health for $250, without any experience, education or examination requirements. While we are not recommending that OSHA or this committee get into the business of evaluating individual safety and health professionals' qualifications, we do believe, however, it would be appropriate for you to establish general guidelines for the experience and expertise which such trainers should possess. One possible model for the committee to consider is the Board of Certified Safety Professionals as an example of certification which indicates a high caliber level of experience and expertise. BCSP administers a widely accepted and internationally recognized professional certification offering the designation of certified safety professional, which many ASSE members acquire for demonstrating their qualifications of practice and their safety specialties. This nationally and internationally respected designation ensures a high caliber level of expertise and competence for the professionals who practice in this area. Applicants must satisfy stringent formal education, work experience and continuing educational requirements for maintenance of the designation. Individuals are also required to complete two comprehensive examinations and adhere to a written code of ethics. In order to take the CSB exam an individual must possess a baccalaureate degree in safety or the hard sciences from an accredited university and four years of professional safety experience acceptable to the Board of Certified Safety Professionals. It is also important to note that many qualified safety and health professionals are not presently certified, and we are not suggesting that a person must be certified to do this type of work. However, recognizing the credentials such as the CSB are an indicator of competence. Thus, the criteria need to earn them could be utilized as its basic guides. Please let me point out that our construction division numbers over 2,000 qualified safety and health professionals who work in the construction industry. And there are also several hundred uniquely qualified certified safety professionals who practice in this area. This collection of individually qualified safety and health construction professionals is perhaps the most extensive in the world. The BCSP now offers the CSP designation with passing a construction safety and health specialty exam as well as certification as a construction safety health technologist and construction training safety supervisor. The second area we would like to comment is the proposed powered industrial truck regulation for the construction industry. We recently submitted a position statement to OSHA with some recommendations on the proposal for powered industrial trucks. Specifically we suggested there should be training requirements for the designated person training, trainers. The qualifications of the trainers are at least as important as the material being covered. The ASSE supports the committee's recommendations that employers be able to recognize documented training given by qualified third parties when a company does not have a qualified staff of instructors. We also believe it is appropriate for OSHA and this committee to create general qualifications, guidelines, when establishing these criteria for lift truck trainers. However, we strongly recommend that OSHA not get into the business of certifying these trainers. We feel that ongoing operator training is very important. However, requiring annual training could be burdensome to both employees and employers, especially if the employee has a large number of employees. We suggest that every three years would be a reasonable time interval. We have some concerns with the proposed training criteria outlined, as we believe it might be too detailed and complicated for both construction and general industry usage. An example would be the requirement of operator training for each specific model of equipment owned by an employer. There needs to be a clarification in the rule as to whether or not the recordkeeping requirements apply to third party trainers, or are such requirements the dominion of the employer alone? OSHA should create a model training program and utilize the expertise of the private sector during its development. The third area where we would like to offer comment is confined spaces and fall protection. We stated earlier that we are the secretariat for Z-117 and Z-359. We recommend that when rulemaking is conducted on these issues that these standards be consulted. The standards are arrived via a consensus making process and we believe that they represent a balance of both the employer and employee. Not following the standard can have a deleterious effect in our industries. While construction already has its own fall protection standard in effect, we believe that Z-359 also offers an additional window of opportunity. The fourth area where we would like to provide comment is the resources and expertise which ASSE can offer to this committee. ASSE is always available to this committee to provide technical expertise through the assistance of our extensive national network of 140 chapters. In fact, several of our chapters worked successfully with OSHA in establishing a one day seminar on trenching hazards. Utilization of ASSE resources by the committee would be of benefit to the committee, OSHA and businesses, since such an approach would keep costs at a minimum level while ensuring the finest quality of safety and health expertise. We have already submitted a letter to Mr. Joe Dear volunteering to assist with the development of a publication titled, "The Common Sense Safety Guide," which would be designed for use by the home building industry. And we are more than willing to use our resources, expertise and experience in areas which will support this committee in other innovative approaches to construction safety and health. We have recently seen articles on a proposed evaluation audit program for the roofing industry. And if the pilot program is pursued we are available to serve. Our primary concern is that the vast majority of people who would be doing such evaluations would probably be members of ASSE, and we need to ensure that their voices are heard. The society has been a supporter of third party audit evaluations, and we recently completed a detailed position statement on the issue. There is the possibility that through our national network of 140 chapters we could offer complimentary evaluation audit services during the initial phase of the pilot program. Such an approach would ensure the finest levels of expertise during the initial phase at a very low cost. We are all interested in the OSHA partnership program, as we believe this venue may be an opportunity for additional private sector involvement in the agency. And I also will be offering assistance in the way of documentation, references to the work group on occupational safety and health standards for construction, and will also offer the names of a number of experts from our construction division to work with that committee if they so desire it. So if there are any questions or comments, I would like to answer those now.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: First of all, Stu Burkhammer is of course a very active member in ASSE. He is a member of the committee and frequently refers to ASSE. Any questions? Comments?

MR. SMITH: The only thing, just because the powered industrial trucks is coming up, and you had quoted in your statement about the fact that we know, just like everybody, I mean, you have to certify that the trainer knows what he's doing before he can train a student. Accreditation is probably the best avenue for OSHA to go. In this guideline. If the rules pass and OSHA comes out, one of OSHA's objectives as a compliance officer is going to be to see that the people are trained and that they are certified that they operate that industrial truck. Let's use a forklift, for example. Well, the way the world is going to work, he's just going to look for a card. If the guy's got the card, basically he's going to check if off and say that the guy's been trained and he's got a successful completion certificate in his pocket and everything's okay. We know that the optimum way would be to accredit the trainer, so that when you find that individuals are operating is properly, and then you can check the certification, then you can go back to where they were ; certified and find out that the trainers aren't accredited or didn't know what they were doing when they did it. So then you have an avenue to correct the problem from the beginning instead of the end. We would like to see probably that happen, but it's not going to, because OSHA doesn't want to get into the business of certifying trainers or accrediting training institutions or even programs. So I don't know how we're going to fix the problem of worrying about the fact that the individual trainers are certified without some method of OSHA crediting the training.

MR. OLDENDORF: One way would be to provide a scenario such as quality assurance of the training program. The methodology used to train the operator, the credentials that might exist in the way of other certifications for the individual that does the training. Normally if would be a supervisor that has credentials from some other kind of a training facility. Those kinds of things would be have to be measured up to a certain standard that would be established by OSHA.

MR. SMITH: Who's going to check that?

MR. OLDENDORF: This would be the compliance officer would have to go back and do as much checking as possible.

MR. SMITH: See, they're not going to do that. And that's why the powered industrial truck for construction, we left it, and Steve and I were in that meeting, but we left it to the ability that, for construction only it's going to have to be a third party certifier that's going to go out, and in our case where people come from hiring halls to run that equipment they are coming with their credentials. And that's going to be the bottom line in that world that we live in, because we are unique. Because that individual employer is not going to have a program on a shelf. And the only thing he's going to be required to do is a note that the guy was certified when he came there, and the compliance officer is not going to back up any more than that.

MR. OLDENDORF: Much like operating engineers do now, out of their locals.

MR. SMITH: Yes. And that's... Well, I'm with the operating engineers, so I'm just giving you the example for construction based on what your comments were. The other thing, you had mentioned something about us and the committee using your services and the consensus standards, and we agree with that. And correct me if I'm wrong. Have you reviewed the powered industrial truck standard? Because I think what we have done is highlighted or commented from the B-56 consensus building standards on powered industrial trucks, so I think we're right on par as to what you were saying that we should be looking at in the Z standards. However, we're using the B-56 standards.

MR. OLDENDORF: Right. We have representations on that.

MR. SMITH: Okay. Good. Good.

MR. OLDENDORF: So we would use their expertise in commenting on regulations on that subject.

MR. SMITH: And I think this committee is always in favor of looking at industry consensus standards when they have one that reflects an issue that we're talking about regulation-wise.



MR. CLOUTIER: Mr. Oldendorf, three of the committee members I know participate and are members of ASSE and one of our former chairman was the president a few years back. We appreciate you bringing back to the forefront your availability and the expertise of your membership. We have also remarked that not only is there ASSE but there's the Corps of Engineers, there's the Building Round Table, there's CI, there's a number of groups out there that work a lot of the problems out in the industry. And there's times that the agency listens to us and there's times that the agency doesn't, but I can assure you, I know Stu Burkhammer is a very active member, I participate, Bob Masterson participates, so ASSE is represented here by default if nothing else. We appreciate your comments here today. Time till tell. I know we go back and look at consensus standards, participating with Bill Smith in powered industrial trucks, and he's looked at crane operator certification, and I can assure you on confined spaces we'll go back and look at the Form 76.

MR. OLDENDORF: Well, good.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: You actually raise a good point that we ought to get back to. That was the idea of having more ex officio members participating in this committee, including the Department of Energy. Of course John Moran was sort of in that kind of situation for a while. The Corps of Engineers and possibly some professional groups. We have representation directly from a couple of professional groups, the nurses and so on. And it may be we should have some more discussions about that, Bruce, and we'll get back to you with some comments about that before the next meeting. Any other comments?

(No response.) ;

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Thank you very much. ;

MR. OLDENDORF: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: And thank you for your participation on the work group. Personally. We have here also, just for your information, the roster of the committee that is now dated April 11 in the top right corner, is the latest and accurate roster. Throw out all preceding rosters, please. (Discussion of address corrections and Internet access.)

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: All right. Any other comments? Any other issues that we need to address? Do we have a motion to adjourn?

MR. SMITH: So moved.

MR. RHOTEN: Seconded.

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Okay. All in favor? ;

(Chorus of ayes.) ;

CHAIRMAN RINGEN: Thank you very much. Unless we hear otherwise from OSHA about budgets and so on here in Washington on June the 12th and 13th. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.)



DATE: April 10, 1996

LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Department of Labor, were held according to the record and that this is the original, complete, true and accurate transcript which has been compared to the reporting or recording accomplished at this hearing.