U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Advisory Committee on Construction Saftey and Health

Volume 2

Embassy Suites Hotel
5500 North River Road
Rosemont, Illinois

February 13, 2004

The meeting was convened, pursuant to recess, at 8:00 a.m., MR. ROBERT KRUL, Chairman, presiding.





Directorate of Construction

Office of Construction Services
Directorate of Construction
Office of Construction Services
Directorate of Construction
ACCSH Counsel
Office of the Solicitor













By ACCSH Chair - Robert Krul

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Good morning. We are back in session. I'm sure our designated federal official will be back in here in a minute. We'll get going on a couple of these things.

Let me, even though the group is a lot smaller, caution everybody again on cell phones and pagers so we don't disrupt one another for what we hope will be a brief time that we're here.

The public has shrunk from yesterday, but I'll just ask again, if anyone in the public wants to make any comments -- I don't see any hands, but I'll ask one more time before we adjourn, if you would identify yourself and let us know what it is you'd like to speak about.

Bruce is coming in now. What I would like to do is reopen this discussion we had regarding hexavalent chromium. The first thing I'd like to do, is put a request on the table as a result of discussions we've had with most of the committee members regarding this issue and talk about the potential for a specially-called meeting, recognizing the time constraints that the DOL is under, and certainly understanding that there are no guarantees, but hopefully 30 days or some portion would be better than nothing.

Would the Directorate be willing to have a special meeting regarding this hexavalent chromium issue?

MR. SWANSON: The easy answer to that is yes.

As I said yesterday, we will do whatever we can do to accommodate this committee and OSHA's needs. I hear that from OSHA they don't feel that there is a whole lot of option on time. If you can give them an answer by last Monday, they'd appreciate it. Anything after that is going to be late.

On the other hand, I don't know. We've got a real problem. You people have your own constituencies to answer to. I heard John loud and clear yesterday that he understood that and he'd like to hear back from you sooner rather than later. But they'd like to hear back from you.

If it helps anybody by having a special meeting of this group -- you know, it's very difficult to meet by phone because these meetings have to be public. So, if that means a special ad hoc meeting in Washington or someplace else called, I'm sure that his answer would be, let's do it.



MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I just wanted to add, apparently, according to the discussion yesterday, OSHA is providing more information in a complete package that is going to be much more digestible to the SBREFA panel next week. It seems like we really don't have the information, we didn't get it in time, whatever, but didn't have a complete package.

So it seems appropriate to have a meeting sometime in the next month or so so that we can review the information and we'll have a much better ability to respond.


MR. SWANSON: If I may, Bob. Any other information that comes out, we will make sure you get it in your hands. We don't need a meeting to get you information. You might need a meeting for this board to discuss and form a consensus after you have the information, after you folks talk on the phone, after you deal with your chair.

We'll reconsider and Bob and I will talk as to what your needs are, but you will get whatever information is available to get into your hands, and we'll try and have CDs that have something on them or are readable anyhow and follow up on that.


MS. SHORTALL: Two things, from both an access and a legal point. First of all, Bob Burt did say yesterday that the material that is going out to the small employer representatives for the SBREFA package goes into the OSHA docket next week, and as a result it will go up on OSHA's e-docket on their Web page, so it will be accessible by the entire public, including all members of ACCSH.

Number two, if there is a special meeting called, it's going to have to be at least a little bit more than 15 days from now, because under the regulations that ACCSH is governed by, as well as FACA and the Administrative Procedures Act, there must be a notice printed in the Federal Register giving the public 15 days' notice of an upcoming meeting. We have to write that notice, and then it takes at least three days for the Federal Register to get it into the Federal Register.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Along those lines, Mike and Scott and I were looking at the calendar. Just for pragmatic purposes and being practical, it looks like the week of the first week of March, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, something like that. This is such a small window.

I mean, I think, if nothing else, many of the members of ACCSH, and especially those of us in the construction trades, there's a couple of issues, Portland cement being one of the most notable, that we would probably have to contact a couple of other affiliates that sit on our Safety and Health Committee for the input.

I mean, Scott wants to look at a couple of things that affect his members that deal in Portland cement. So whether this is enough time for the committee to make a decision or not, I don't know, on backing the draft standard.

But there are a couple of people I know that would like to make a couple of comments and motions in relation relative to making a recommendation to the Department on the draft standard.

But I think, if I can speak for the whole group in the discussion we started yesterday, understanding where the Department of Labor is legally with this thing, and we don't mean to be road blockers, but this compressed standard poses problems. I don't know if rehashing those problems is going to prove of any value today.

I think, if we just make the attempt to do something within the next 21 days -- as Sarah said, there's a rapidly closing window in order to accomplish this interim meeting. But I'd like to hear everybody else's comments. I know I didn't talk to everybody yesterday.

Go ahead. Tom Broderick?

MR. BRODERICK: I've had discussions away from the table with several people. I've sensed that everyone is troubled, or everyone that I've talked to, by the exemption for Portland cement. I mean, I think that the contact dermatitis, cement dermatitis issue is one that's been around for a long time. We've recognized it for a long time.

The fix for it is not an expensive fix in terms of protective equipment. We're talking about boots, gloves, goggles, and not engineering controls. So, I mean, if a little bit is better than nothing coming out of this committee, I would suggest that we see if we could at least recommendation that Portland cement be included in the scope.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I think someone's prepared to make that motion.

MR. SCHNEIDER: Or if you're making the motion I'll second that.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Would you like that in the form of a motion?

MR. BRODERICK: Yes, I would.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: And you're seconding that?


CHAIRMAN KRUL: And if I understand the motion correctly, it's that this committee would recommend, in the consideration of this standard for hexavalent chromium, that Portland cement not be excluded, but it, in fact, be included in consideration of the scope of the standard. Is that a correct statement of the motion?


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. It's been regularly moved and seconded. You've heard the motion. Anyone on the question? Scott?

MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I just wanted to make a little bit of discussion on this point. As I said yesterday, I think what happens in the proposal really defines a lot of what happens in the final rule. If something is excluded in the proposal, the chances of it ever getting to final are very slim. So I think putting it in the proposal makes a lot of sense.

Now, it may get excluded later on for technical or economic reasons, or whatever, but at least it is in the proposal and it is going to be discussed there. I think not having it in the proposal would be the death knell for that. This affects a lot of our members.

As Tom said, I don't think the fixes are expensive. There are other technological fixes that are relatively cheap, too. In Europe, they put in small amounts of ferrosulfate that converts hexavalent chromium to trivalent and reduces their dermatitis problem tremendously.

But also, the main thing this would do, people are already getting boots and gloves. The main thing this probably would do, would be to force more hand-washing facilities, which goes to the sanitation issue, which I know we all support. That would be a tremendous step forward, I think, for our members.

So, I do support leaving it in there, making sure it gets in the proposal. I think OSHA's concern about this, the reason they excluded this -- I can't tell you why they did. I don't know why. But I think the chances are, the lawsuit really revolved around airborne exposures. They wanted to address the lawsuit.

Frankly, OSHA has never put out a health standard that deals with dermal exposure. That's not the way they normally operate. I don't think they've really given much thought to, how do you prevent dermal exposure. But I think it's not complicated.

It doesn't require local exhaust ventilation or respirator fit testing, or air monitoring, so a lot of the expenses that are associated with airborne standards aren't there. So, I would recommend strongly that we support this motion.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Thank you, Scott.

Mike Thibodeaux?

MR. THIBODEAUX: Just from reading what we got this week, it seems that there's nil exposure to airborne things. I don't know if OSHA was looking at exhibiting the concrete as far as airborne exposure. Because what I read was, they were talking about wet concrete, with the lime and other materials they have in concrete.

Obviously that's a dermatological exposure. I don't know how bad that is. I mean, I know I wouldn't deal with any concrete unless I wore the proper gloves, boots, goggles, and such.

That's something that we ought to look at whenever we get this additional information to determine if that's appropriate to separate the airborne exposure from the dermal exposure.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: And that's why Scott and his folks that work in concrete -- we have, at least within our building trades group, the plasters and cement masons. We've had the Center to Protect Workers' Rights that's done it.

I think one of the reasons for asking for the special meeting, is we as a group would like to look at further information and for us to be comfortable. I mean, again, this compressed timeframe is unusual. I mentioned that at breakfast this morning.

We're usually jumping up and down, yelling and screaming at OSHA because it's taking them six or seven years and we haven't gotten a standard out, and today we're talking about a couple of weeks that decisions have to be made.

But, be that as it may, the Department finds themselves in a dilemma. In turn, we find ourselves in a dilemma. I think the best thing we can do is just make our recommendations and go forward.

One more. Greg. Yes?

MR. STRUDWICK: One more comment. I would support Tom's motion as long as that exposure is real. I think, going back to Scott, if it's not, let's leave it out of there. Okay? Because we've got road crews and highway crews that are pouring thousands and thousands of yards of concrete. There are people out there that don't seem to be having a lot of problems as far as dermatitis is concerned because they are exposed on a daily basis, they know how to dress, they know what kind of personal protective equipment to use.

I stay all over them about wearing their glasses to keep from splashing, but if there's an exposure, fine. If there's not, let's leave it alone. Let's not over-mandate anything.

There is some concern, in my opinion, about these gang rooms, or change rooms, or water change places, or whatever they are, because that, in itself, creates a real problem out on a highway job because it's moving all the time.

So, I think we need more time, but I also think we need to address the actual exposure. If there's not one for cement, wet, dry or dust, then I think we ought to move on and let it go and trust the IH's that say there's an exposure or not an exposure.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Anybody else on this motion?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. It's been regularly moved, seconded, and discussed. All those in favor, signify by the sign "aye."

(A chorus of ayes)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Opposed, if any?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: The ayes have it. So ordered.

Bill Rhoten?

MR. RHOTEN: Mr. Chairman, our main concern, at least from the standpoint of the welders that we represent in the field, is that we would think that the permissible exposure limit should be the same in all industries.

I can appreciate the fact that OSHA is under the gun now to get this standard put together and out, but yesterday when I asked those questions, I got the indication back that they really weren't sure yet what it might be, and it could well in fact be different for different industries.

I want to make a motion that this committee goes on the record opposing any different standards for the different industries. The one for construction, general industry, and maritime, whatever that number is, is the same. It seems illogical to me that you would have a different exposure limit for the different industries.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Let me restate that. Rather than the negative, let me go to the positive. Your motion, as I understand it, is that whatever PEL is set, that that PEL be identical for the construction, maritime, and general industry sectors.


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Do I have a second to that?

VOICE: Second.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Regularly moved and seconded. Anyone else on the question? Go ahead, Jane Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: One question, for my own information. Is it reasonable to assume, Bill--you're the professional here--that all --

MR. RHOTEN: Well, I wouldn't say that.

MS. WILLIAMS: -- that all industries' conditions would be so similar that there would not be a requirement for differences in the PEL?

MR. RHOTEN: Well, you know, welding is welding. You can weld in a fabrication shop and you can make the case that in a fabrication shop they can have the exhaust fans there in place and in a factory setting they can have the exhaust fans in place. But as a practical matter, those things are also available on a construction site.


MR. RHOTEN: They're there.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Scott, if you would chime in here, as per our breakfast discussion. In your recollection, there's only been one time when OSHA went to different PELs?

MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, maybe Sarah could talk about this. But it's very unusual that OSHA will set different PELs for different industries. It's only happened, to my knowledge, once. We were talking about this the other night. That was based on technological feasibility.

MS. SHORTALL: No, it was not based on technological feasibility.

MR. SCHNEIDER: It was on economic feasibility. I'm sorry.

MS. SHORTALL: Right. In the lead standard, they set a separate engineering control PEL for the non-ferrous foundry industry, for small non-ferrous foundries, because of a determination by us, and previously being remanded by the court, that the PEL we originally set was not economically feasible.

PELs, and the decision about a PEL, is usually based on our health effects analysis and the determination that, in general, are there risks to the health of an individual. Because it's done as a global nature, wherever you have that exposure, there can be excess risk of death or of other types of injuries or health effects. So, that's why we've set one PEL wherever the exposure is.

Likewise, I guess, relating back to Greg's question, if Portland cement were in fact included in the standard, if there were no exposure, there would be no requirements on behalf of the employer because everything is triggered by, first, looking to see if there is exposure. If there is no exposure, if the exposure is less than 30 days a year, the requirement for you to do anything drops out.

MR. RHOTEN: I understand that. But I also understand that that's the responsibility of the employer to say there's no exposure.


MR. RHOTEN: To do all the measuring.

MS. SHORTALL: Well, they are allowed, in this particular standard, to do it either based on -- or objective data.

MR. SCHNEIDER: And let me just add, if you're looking at dermal exposures you're not going to be doing exposure monitoring in the sense that, you know, airborne standards require. So, it would be a lot simpler.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. Anyone else on the question?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: The motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor, signify by the sign "aye."

(A chorus of ayes)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Opposed, if any?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: The ayes have it. It is so ordered.

Any further discussion on hexavalent chromium?

(No response)


There are two items in the minutes, before we look for approval, that I think we need to discuss. One of them is on our agenda, the workgroups. I'll save that for last.

There is an item there that Bruce wanted to address regarding the workgroup OTI, where a recommendation came out looking at whether the 10-hour program should be ad infinitum, or should there be recertification of folks who take the 10-hour course on a periodic basis.

The minutes reflect that Mr. Swanson was taking an action item to arrange for an OTI representative to be present for the workgroup at its next meeting, prepared to discuss the history of the 10-hour course. I'll turn that over to Bruce.

MR. SWANSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This last meeting --

CHAIRMAN KRUL: It's on page 10 of your minutes, by the way. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to get everybody lost.

MR. SWANSON: The meeting was last May. A little water has gone under the bridge since last May in all our lives, and some of the membership of this committee has changed.

I think the issue, as we discussed it almost a year ago, 10 months ago, whatever it was, is not the burning issue with this committee that it was with the old membership. Nonetheless, what I have asked the Institute to be so kind as to do, is make Ziggy available this morning.

Actually, I asked Ziggy to make himself available this morning, and just talk briefly for your edification, the present status of the 10-hour, a little on the history of the 10-hour so that this whole committee, with its new membership, feels up to speed on it.

If you have continuing issues and want to get back into where we were last May, we can do that at a subsequent meeting. But for right now, this was only intended to be a generalized briefing and I asked Mr. Sadauskas to do that.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Ziggy, do you want to come up, please, to the table? Identify yourself and your affiliation for the transcriber.



By Zigmas Sadauskas, Director, OSHA Training Institute

MR. SADAUSKAS: My name is Zigmas Sadauskas, Ziggy. I'm the Director of the OSHA Training Institute. I've been with the Institute since 1975. I think I am one of the few left here that can kind of remember a few things that we did. Some of it, we can't talk about.

MR. SWANSON: Just as well.


MR. SADAUSKAS: Just as well. Right.

Bruce asked me to talk a little bit about the history of the 10- and 30-hour programs. Basically, I think all of you maybe know what it is, but it's an outreach program. It is certainly one of the first ones where we were actually able to get to the workers. Most of our courses, or most of our efforts, especially in training, is we don't get to the worker.

The workers don't come to our courses. They're one-week, two-week courses. So usually these are the professionals, people who have full-time or collateral duty on safety.

So when OSHA first started -- I didn't make the decision, but pretty much there decided that we needed some missionary work. In fact, if I recall, I think, as far as industrial hygiene goes, I think they hired, like, 11 industrial hygienists, one per region and one in the national office, because they figured that's all they needed.

When they did a survey, a lot of the hazards people were concerned about came in on health, and the industrial hygienists just started getting hired. Well, the joke was, what is OSHA? It's not a small town in Wisconsin. Basically, that was really the thought.

So the decision was made there, perhaps we need to go in and get out these programs. So a train-the-trainer program was incorporated, and that was the 500 course. The 500 series at the OSHA Training Institute are the private sector courses. And to enhance it, somebody thought, well, why don't we give them a card?

So the 500 course, which was given by the OSHA Training Institute, was to train the trainer. Then those people who got the 500 became trainers who could go out and do a 10- or 30-hour training to the workers.

Now, in the beginning, it was a very slow start. It didn't have much emphasis, and the cards didn't seem to have -- you know, there was indifference as to whether they got the cards or not.

The 500 course was a two-week course. Basically, it covered the standards. Again, that's one of the things, that people did not know the standards. Also, there was very little policy coming out of it.

One of the things we used to say, when there was a question, was ask your area director. That wasn't much help, so every director was making up policies as they went along the best they could.

The cards had no expiration date, so the trainer, as well as the 10-hour card, was as long as you lived. There were no prerequisites. The other thing that was going on, we had courses at the Institute for COSHOs, state people, and private sector people, and we didn't mix them up. In other words, the COSHOs were by themselves, the states went to class on their own, and the private sector.

And one of the concerns was that perhaps, while we are keeping people apart, are we telling the COSHOs one thing, and then when we do a private sector course are we telling them something else? We didn't, but there still was that perception. So, about '77, '78, a decision was made by regional administrators who said that all of our courses would be available to everybody.

Now, that was a bit of a shock to us because we really had to tell the truth then. We figured out that honesty was the best policy. Because, you know, you've got union people, you've got employers, you've got states, and so on. So, we had to go straight down the line. Okay. This is the policy, this is what we do.

But what happened was, as private sector people now starting taking our courses, whether it was welding, hygiene courses, crane courses, or whatever, they were coming in totally cold.

So in the first day, I know when I was an instructor there, we had them go up and say, what do you mean by this? They didn't know the standards. They didn't know the jargon. My test was, do you know what a 5(a)(1) is? When they didn't, they didn't belong in the class. But that was a problem.

So we had to spend basically the first day of bringing people up to a certain level, and the courses were, like, a three-day, four-day course. So then we said we need a prerequisite.

The only thing we had in construction was the 500 course. So now we've got a 500 course, where the intent was for it to be train the trainers, professionals going out there and going to train other people.

Now, anybody that wanted to take a construction course had to take the 500, and the 500 gave them cards. So we had cards flying out all over the place. About two-thirds of the class did not really care to have the trainer card because they were never going to train, but we had them out there. So we said, now we've got a problem there.

So, at the same time, the demand for the 10-hour card began to increase. Part of it was the recognition, and especially in the construction industry, because people moving around, it was the construction people. You know, it's very good to have someone who will come to work on the job site and you knew they had a minimum of some safety training.

So what happened was, in many areas it became a condition of employment, as presently. Before somebody can get on the job site, they have to have the card. The other thing that gave it the impetus, they also sometimes wanted a person to have a 500 course and the trainer card to train people, and that was built into government contracts, especially government contracts.

I used to get emergency calls that would say, I've got to get into the 500 course, get me in right now, because I can't bid on a contract unless I have someone there.

So, it wasn't our intent, where we sat there very brilliantly and saying, you know, why don't we develop this thing and it's going to just really be what it is. No.

Again, it was sort of a missionary type of program that industry accepted, found it valuable, and became a cottage industry. So, the number of people went out there now and actually became consultants and did a lot of training.

Well, we got so many requests for the 500 course that we couldn't keep up. So, we said, well, it's a two-week course. Why don't we make it a one-week course so we can do twice as many? And that's what we did.

In those days it was a little easier to make decisions. We just sat, sometimes after hours, and said, what do we do? We'd sit around and say, sounds like a good idea. We didn't have to do a lot of clearances or go through the Federal Register, or so on. So the 500 course went from a two-week course to a one-week course. It was a little hard to compress it, but it was more efficient. We got more cards out.

So now in the '80s, again, like I said, it grew in importance, quite often, a condition of employment. Then we began to think, you know, there's a lot of people out there now who are getting the 500 cards that, in fact, are not qualified.

I mean, you could be a barber, take the course, and become a trainer. Well, we argued the fact, let the market weed itself out. But I ultimately decided, the way we need to do that, is to have a prerequisite.

So, presently the 500 has a prerequisite which says you have to have five years construction safety experience before you can become the trainer, which then required another entry-level course for private sector people to take our construction courses at OTI. So, that gave the genesis to the 510. The 510 now became the entry-level prerequisite course for anyone that wants to take OSHA courses. All right.

Now, the other thing that happened, we decided that we had people now deciding, you know, I can make some money. I got the 500 card back in the '70s. Now it's in the '90s. They put out a shingle and start teaching. So, again, we didn't want to devalue that.

There was impetus from the people saying, why don't you put an expiration date? So we did. We put an expiration date. I believe it's four years.

In other words, in three years you go in there, and your fourth year you try to get in the course and do it. If you have an expiration date, then we need an update course, which gave rise to the 502. So what do we have now? Anybody that wants to go in and wants to take some construction courses at the Institute, you take the 510. Okay.

Now, if you have experience and you have construction safety and so on, you take the 500. Then, after three years, somewhere between the third and fourth year, or as we're requiring you, if you're going to become a trainer, you need the update course, which is a 502. That's about a three-day course.

The essence of the 502 is to update you and teach you about what we call the "latest greatest," whatever the new policy is, whatever that is, and also maybe get into training techniques and so on.

Again, we still could not keep up with the request. So one of the main reasons the education center concept came up is to teach the 500 series, the private sector courses.

So, as of now, the Institute's main goal is to teach federal compliance officer and state compliance and consultants. That is our major constituency. We do a few 500 courses in the schedule just so we could keep up so we don't get totally off, knowing what other people are doing, and keeping track of the education centers. But that's not our main goal.

The education centers are the ones that are mainly doing most of the 500 courses, and their outreach trainers are the ones who are doing most of the cards.

Now, I recall about four or five years ago, I think like one year we did 250,000 cards, 10-hour cards. I know we're well over a million there, but mots of the training now is not done by us in the 500 series, it's done through the education centers.

Then Charles Jeffress became the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and apparently he took a course before coming to OSHA. He liked it well enough, but everybody got a card. So, basically it was a card for attendance. He didn't like that, so he had some meetings and he said, we're going to have a test. So we did. We developed a test. The 500 there has a pass/fail aspect to it.

Now, it's not our intent to flunk people. If somebody doesn't get the 78, whatever, that's required, we're asked to go over it with the person who missed the questions, make sure they go over it, and then we'll work with them and make sure that, you know, they get the right answers.

So that's the state of it now. There's a 500 card which requires five years' experience, there's the pre- and post-test, and there's a set matrix. The only thing I want to add to that, we will work with associations, unions, and other groups there where we will stay within the matrix, the concept of the course.

But if we're going to work with electricians, we may have more electrical examples. For example, if we're working with the tower people, which we are, then our examples will then do more with fall protection dealing with towers. But it is important that that 10-hour card sort of be uniform, and that the topics we allow be covered.

So, that's basically the state where we are. Of course, if there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Jane and Frank, you're the co-chairs of that. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

MR. MIGLIACCIO: Everything that Ziggy said follows exactly through. I do recall a meeting when we talked about this before. And if I understand correctly, we're looking to go a step further with the 10-hour, making it mandatory to refresh. Is that correct?

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Well, that was the proposal that was put forth the last time. Jane?

MS. WILLIAMS: We had put that proposal forward a couple of meetings prior to that. The last workgroup meeting that we did have, we really discussed the practicality of that being able to be accomplished.

And, having gone through it once before, and OSHA via Mr. Jeffress making comment on record that from their perspective--and correct me if I'm wrong, Bruce--it would be very hard for OSHA to dictate that or lend it credence.

So the workgroup recommended that the committee adopt the philosophy and try to work in our individual constituencies to get the message out to owners to require it more so than asking them for any non-achievable goal.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Tom Broderick?

MR. BRODERICK: Mr. Chairman, I would remind you that we have, I don't think, disbanded the other workgroup that deals with training and certification that Joe Durst and I are co-chairs of. I think that the initial discussion came from Tom and Joe when we did the combined meeting with the other workgroup.

It was my hypothesis, actually, that because we now have a much larger network of available 500 courses vis-a-vis the education centers and the growing number of education centers, that accessibility to, whether it be a 10-hour update or taking a fresh 10-hour periodically, the landscape is very much changed from 10 years ago.

I also wanted to mention one other thing. I was involved with the building of a new program that OSHA Training Institute is embarking on for homeland security. It's a new kind of certification process for workers who are going to be responding, such as the workers who responded for the recovery effort at ground zero.

Right now, as of that meeting a couple of weeks ago, the card that would be given to the people who were qualified to do that and that would be required for entrance into one of these sites, is based on a work-in-progress 16-hour program. We did a run-through of it and, I think on March 1 and 2, we're meeting in Silver Springs to do another run-through of it.

But the prerequisite for that 16-hour course is an OSHA 10-hour card. I surfaced this issue when we were talking about building that, about, are we talking about a 10-hour card that could be 15 years old or will there be some trigger mechanism that people will have gotten updated information in the 10-hour, if that's going to be a lynch pin of this course that's going to allow people to go into areas to do highly hazardous work.

I pointed out some of the things that my co-chair, Durst, pointed out. The number of standards that have been promulgated affecting our industry within the last five years are significant.

I think they take an even greater significance if that's the key to get into the door to the 16-hour course that would then allow these people to respond to disasters.

Then the other third of that matriculation process would be a 40-hour HAZWOPER course, and there theoretically could be people that would have the 10-hour and the 16-hour course that would be able to respond to certain disasters where the site was not declared to be meeting the criteria for a HAZWOPER sites.

But other sites, like ground zero, they would have to have all three pieces, the 10-hour, the 16-hour, and then the HAZWOPER. So, I'm not sure exactly how we're doing on the development of that course, but that was how it was left at the OSHA Training Institute a couple of weeks ago.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: My understanding, and the reason I'm bringing this whole topic up, is just what is contained in the minutes, and why Ziggy made his presentation.

This is a work in progress. The workgroups are looking at this. We're not asking the committee to make a decision today. I mean, there's been ongoing discussions, and we'll get into the workgroups next.

But I just want to make it clear, we're not looking for the committee to make a decision on this. There's obviously viewpoints from management, viewpoints from labor, and viewpoints from the public sector about the efficacy of having a refresher course for the 10-hour. But I just want to make it clear, we're not making a decision on this today.

Go ahead, Bill.

MR. RHOTEN: I just wanted to ask a question, please, Tom. Are you aware that the Center to Protect Workers' Rights has put together a disaster relief program module?

MR. BRODERICK: Yes. Actually, CPWR was involved in putting this course together. They left a copy of the proprietary CPWR course at the Institute, and they showed modules of it. But they did that so that OSHA could get the flavor of it and the elements they put into it, but of course it's a proprietary program, so none of that actual content would be used.

MR. RHOTEN: Right. The conversations we've had with them, we have now our master instructors that have taken that disaster relief program and they've got the disks, and they're trying to get that circulated throughout the United States so that all local unions, in fact, have instructors in the area, building trades instructors, so if there is a disaster they can put together a class.

Now, my understanding was, in New York it was very difficult. They maybe had three hours' training at the most before they went in. I wasn't up there, but I heard it was just really difficult to get the trainers in. So we're hoping, if it happens again, we'll have building trades people in those jurisdictions with the disks that can go.

But when you're discussing the 16-hour course, I guess what I'm thinking about is, at least on our part, we would have a really difficult time getting any of our members to take the 16-hour course before they could go in the disaster area, because they're not anticipating there's going to be a disaster.

Our members, anyway, wouldn't take a 16-hour course for disaster response, anticipating that they might get a job at a disaster site.

I'm not suggesting it's a bad program. But just as a practical matter, I think the direction the center is going on that regard, it's better that you have the instructors in the area with the disks, so if there is a disaster you can crank up the training at that time and maybe have a few people around that are trained. I'm not being critical. I was just bringing that up to point that other program out.

MR. BRODERICK: I understand that. I think there was maybe a bit of frustration around the table because several other unions were involved, as well as CPWR. The Laborers Union has developed a very fine disaster response program that they're making available nationally. They delivered sections of it. There was another union that also had their version. So, we are, to some degree, reinventing the wheel.

My organization actually had a Harwood grant on homeland security. We developed a program that OSHA has already bought and paid for that we pointed out could be a skeleton, or part of it.

But I think that the direction had been given to the OSHA Training Institute to develop this as a part of the overall National Response Plan, and Cathy Cronin was tasked with putting the 16-hour program together.

So the people that were up at the OSHA Training Institute were invited in, I think, because they realized that other programs have been built and it seemed as though they were looking to take the best information that's out there.

But certainly there's going to be this enormous redundancy of training where people will have gotten to their own JACT and taken a response program. I don't know how that's going to work in the grand scheme of things.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: And I think that's the charge to the workgroups, is to figure out how and why it's going to be accomplished. Okay. I'm going to cancel further debate on this.

Thank you, Ziggy, for the overview. We have a charge, I think, to the currently existing two committees, and we'll talk about that right now. Thank you, Ziggy, very much for your input.

MR. SADAUSKAS: Thank you.



CHAIRMAN KRUL: The next minute item, before we ask for approval of the minutes, is on page 11 in the middle. I don't mean to get into as lengthy a discussion as we had on this the last time, except to restate--especially for the new members--the Chair's reasons for wanting to consolidate and somehow prioritize the number of workgroups we have.

I have a list in front of me now. I'm a little confused by these minutes, is the reason I'm bringing it up.

Our last meeting was so long ago, and Steve Cloutier was nice enough, in this book that he prepared, to keep me in order here. I have what I think was the original number of 15 workgroups we had. The minutes reflect--and I'll need the committee members' help with this--that we narrowed and combined some of those down, and I'm looking at them.

Let me restate what I did the last time. I think 15 workgroups is too many to juggle for this committee at one time, especially given the numbers of people. I mean, I'm looking at here, there are really nine people that are actively involved in these 15 different workgroups.

My concern is that -- I'm not saying that any of them are not important. I think they're all important or they wouldn't have been raised as workgroups.

But the fact of the matter is, that with the numbers of people we have, with the times that we had to meet, that we have far too many workgroups and not enough people to address them.

I think that, as the safety and health professionals that you are, we can put a priority on these things, get some of those workgroups' work done rather than stretching something out over a period of three, four, five, or longer years by having these workgroups in existence, that we put some type of priority on these things, that we combine some of them. I'd be happy to have volunteers. We're going to have to appoint people.

Cherie, in your case, I think hexavalent chromium would be a perfect match for you to take Marie's place on that, or lead on that.

We're going to need some new people participating for those that have left the committee. So, I ask that, in looking at the copy of the minutes that you have, somebody tell me that this is what we agreed to. The following workgroups will remain active: Silica, Noise, Homeland Security, Diversity/Multilingual Issues, which was a combination of two workgroups that were put together.

I thought OTI and Certification -- Tom, if you would correct me, there were two workgroups before. One was Certification and Training that you and Joe worked on.


CHAIRMAN KRUL: The other one was OSHA Training Institute Course Ideas and Delivery Systems, which was Jane and Frank. Did we agree to combine those two?

MS. WILLIAMS: We met together.

MR. BRODERICK: But we didn't combine the two.

MS. WILLIAMS: We recommended it, but they felt their charge was going to be very different.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: The scope of the workgroup was different from yours.

MS. WILLIAMS: It was left that way at that time.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. So as I'm looking at it, then those are two separate workgroups. Okay. That's why I didn't want an approval of the minutes on these two issues. I wanted to make sure that we understood what we're doing here. The other ones were Tower Erection and Hexavalent Chromium.

Now, for want of a better term, the oxen that were gored in workgroups, as I understand it, was Cranes, Data Collection and Targeting, Diversified Construction Workforce Initiatives, I think, was combined with Multilingual Issues. We thought that that was a proper match. Hexavalent Chromium was still in. Homeland Security is still in. Musculoskeletal disorders.

That was only as a result of the stance that OSHA took. I'm not saying that MSDs in construction are not important. What we were doing was looking at putting a priority, what can we work on first? So, again, cranes and musculoskeletal disorders.

Noise was left in. Safety and Health Programs was one that we said was going to go by the wayside, at least temporarily. Sanitation. Silica was still in. State Plan States was put in a hold position. Tower Erection. Of course, we heard from Kevin on that yesterday.


MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I was looking in the minutes. It says in the minutes on page 9 that Mr. Swanson made the point that the Data Collection and Targeting Workgroups can go no further.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Where are you on page 9, Scott?

MR. SCHNEIDER: The top of page 9. "The Data Collection and Targeting Workgroups can go no further until OSHA makes some important organizational decisions." So I guess, as a follow-up question, has OSHA made those important organizational decisions in the last eight, nine months? Can we get some sort of update on that in terms of making a decision whether those workgroups need to be reconstituted or continue their work?

CHAIRMAN KRUL: It was a year ago. Tough, huh?

MR. SWANSON: Yes. I presume that what my comment addressed was some changes that would have to be made, some decisions that would have to be made inside OSHA about how the 170 was going to be changed for us to, in a meaningful way, collect the data.

Those decisions have not been made. I don't anticipate any changes in the foreseeable future on the OSHA 170 form. So, I don't know what else this committee could help us with at the moment.

MR. SCHNEIDER: On the targeting issue, though, I know OSHA has a Construction Targeting Task Force. I don't know the status of that. Or maybe at the next meeting we could ask for a report from the Targeting Task Force.

MR. SWANSON: I'd be happy to do that.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: And let me just say, I'm not looking to put these workgroups in purgatory, I'm not looking to get rid of them. I was just, as Chairman, trying to be pragmatic in what we were doing. If any committee member feels that any topic or workgroup necessary to the completion of work here, I'd just ask you, while you do that, that we don't go from two pages to nine.

I don't see the point in having all these workgroups when our time to work at them is so limited, by the time recommendations go to OSHA for action, I hate to see us being like hamsters in a cage, I guess, is my point.

Does anybody feel that what's listed in those minutes cannot be accepted? Again, with the understanding that if we revise these workgroups, when we get to our special meeting or when we get to the next meeting, if somebody wants to make a motion for creation of a workgroup that they feel is important to this committee's work, so be it.


MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I mean, I had two ideas I was thinking about. I don't want to necessarily propose that we create these workgroups, but there are two issues that I think are important that we need to address.

One of them is the trenching issue. I mean, if OSHA is coming out with a new trenching initiative, I think we need to be involved in that and have some sort of small subgroup, whether it's a formal workgroup or an ad hoc group, that is going to be working with them on that. I'd be happy to work on that. I think it is important.

Then the other one that we've done a lot of work on that I don't think has been addressed by this committee, at least up till now, not that I know of, is the work zone safety issue.

I mean, I don't know who else on the committee is actively involved in work zone safety or is interested in this. But people working on the highway have probably twice the fatality risk of other construction workers. If you look at the fatality rates, it's about 30 versus 16 per 100,000.

I think it's something that this committee probably needs to pay some attention to and at some point maybe we should start a workgroup. I don't want to start proliferating too many workgroups, but I'm just saying it is an important issue that we might need to address.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Let's hold that for a minute. I think you just volunteered yourself to be chairman of a workgroup or chairman of an ad hoc committee.


MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to make a comment on the work zone issue for Scott. We had talked about creating that, but there seemed to be so many associations pursuing it, there was so much data, as well as OSHA, that we really didn't know, with all the other workgroups that we had, could we do any more to contribute to the written data that was already available to us. That's why we did not pursue that at that point in time.


Greg Strudwick?

MR. STRUDWICK: I concur with Jane. In other words, there is an awful lot of work being done right now on the work zone issue through ARTBA, AGC, and a number of the people that are most affected by that. I think we'd be reinventing -- we're behind. Okay. We'd be way behind in initiating a workgroup on work zones when it's already been resolved, to a great degree. It's constantly ongoing.

As far as the trenching and excavation, I agree with Scott and would volunteer to co-chair.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Just on that point, so I don't get lost, would you agree, Scott, that the workgroup then on work zone safety, before I go any further, that it should not be a workgroup? I'm agreeing with an ad hoc committee on trenching, but I'm listening to two members, at least for the time being.

MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. Let me address that. I know there's a lot going on in work zone, and we're involved in a lot of different efforts. I guess the question is, is OSHA actively engaged on work zone issues or does this committee have a responsibility in terms of advising OSHA on safety issues, sort of getting OSHA's attention or bringing to their attention things that they should be doing on work zone safety? I know certain areas, like in Region 5, there's a very active effort.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Let's let Bruce answer that.

MR. SWANSON: I agree, Mr. Chairman, with the way you've opened this discussion about workgroups. I think that one of the things this committee ought to resolve for itself is, what are you trying to accomplish as a committee on a given subject and is a workgroup necessary as a way to get there?

Let me use, as an example, two issues that have just been raised here. The one is trenching. We heard the Assistant Secretary yesterday address the issue of trenching.

It's a hot button issue right now, particularly because of the New York Times article, and some other articles. There are problems. The numbers in trenching are growing. The fatality numbers are going up and there's no good reason for them to be going up.

You heard me yesterday accept the at least quasi-serious offer from the Chair that this committee would form a workgroup on it and work with us on trenching, and I accepted that offer off the cuff yesterday. Anything we can do on trenching should be done.

If there is not a workgroup set up on trenching, I am still going to be dealing, and my office will be dealing, with Greg Strudwick, NUCA, and some of the others who are closely tied into trenching issues.

I anticipate that we'd be working with you as well, Scott. I heard how many of the fatalities were laborers, organized or not. They were laborers in those trench fatalities. It's totally up to this committee.

I intend to work with the people who can help the Directorate of Construction get its assignment done, and I'd be happy to work with the committee. If there's not a committee, I'll work with people who represent other organizations.

The Work Zone Safety Committee is, I think, on another end of that spectrum. There is so much out there that is organized that we are already involved with. I would be, again, happy to work with the committee.

But Scott, as you know, we're working with your organization. We are working with ARTBA. We're working with AGC. We have an alliance going on work zone safety. Anybody and everybody is trying to get something done on this.

This committee could, without setting up a subcommittee, ask my office, it could ask any one of its members, such as Scott Schneider, to come in and give a report at the next meeting on what is being done in a particular subject area, what progress is being done, and what does that organization--be it mine or some other organization--think this committee ought to do, by way of motion or otherwise, to send its message to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA so that he knows from his Advisory Committee where your hearts and minds are.

You don't need a workgroup to sit for 6, 8, 9 months, 12 months in order to get to that point in time. You can ask your constituent members to come in and give a report to the committee, and the committee can then take action based on that report. Thank you, sir.


Given that, Scott, what I'd like to do then is suggest, as far as work zone safety goes, that we could hear from you. Put yourself, through myself and the Directorate, on the agenda.

Something I neglected to say on these workgroups that is extremely important, and that's what we're going to do next, is try, for the groups that we have -- and I will accept the trenching, because at the invitation of Secretary Henshaw, I think that would be important. But I will have you and Greg serve as co-chairmen of that. That's the important thing I want to point out about these other workgroups.

Just from a political, pragmatic standpoint, anything that comes out of those workgroups, regardless of whether it's an election year or not, has to reflect a labor/management consensus. We can't have the unions directing it, we can't have management directing it, we can't have the private sector directing it. It's got to be labor/management.

So, I'm going to look to balance these workgroups, wherever possible, with labor/management co-chairs, or at least labor/management participants on the committee if either labor or management chooses not, and the private sector. I'm not saying that the private sector has to leave their co-chair positions now. I'd just like to see more balance.

It's just the animal we deal with when recommendations come out of here. If they're one-sided, they're more than likely going to be ignored. So, let's keep that in mind when we're doing it. So, for the record, I think this trenching -- I don't see why it can't be a workgroup, quite honestly. I think it's something that cries for resolution within the next few months.

So, I don't think your workgroup will be -- if anyone wants to volunteer for that, what we normally due, in the true sense of an ad hoc committee, any committee member who wants to attend any session for input is certainly welcome to do that. Okay.

Let's take a look at what we've got. Right now, Certification and Training, Tom Broderick, Joe Durst. I don't know the status of Mr. Durst's continuance on this committee. I certainly don't want to eliminate him. But is there any labor/management? Mike Thibodeaux?


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Let's put Mike Thibodeaux on as a co-chair, at least for the time being, even if he's co- co-chair with Brother Durst. But at least as a committee member. Thank you, Mike. That will help balance out that one.

Where are we going next? Multilingual Issues and Diversified Construction Workforce. We did combine those, but how did we work that out? We had Tom, Dave Bush, and Jane Williams. Dave Bush and Jane Williams are the co-chairs. Is that correct? We probably need a labor person in there somewhere. Who's not here?


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Let's see. All right. I don't want everybody involved in too many things. Well, let's see. We've got a new member here.

MR. RHOTEN: I will be happy to serve as the chair, Mr. President.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. So we've got Mr. Rhoten joining those as a labor co-chair. All right.

Noise and Construction. I know who wants to be chair of that committee, at least from the labor side. Again, I don't know Joe's status. Joe's tenure is up in July. I mean, if Joe comes back we'll have two labor people in there, so I actually need --

Dave Bush and Mike Sotelo had to leave, to be called back to their businesses. They said if they needed to be -- so I'm not putting somebody on just because they're not here. But David Bush would probably be a good representative to be in there for Noise and Construction.

I volunteered Scott, but Scott has been so active in Noise and Construction, I was being a little bit facetious. But Scott certainly wants to be in Noise and Construction.

The OSHA Training Institute and Ideas. I think we'll leave -- well, we've got Frank Migliaccio and Jane Williams. I don't know. Cherie, speak up if any of these things interest you. We don't have to have you just on hexavalent chromium.

Mike Sotelo was in State Plan States, I think. He was where, Jane?

MS. WILLIAMS: He was on Multilingual.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Oh. He belongs there. Yes. Let's have him in Multilingual, yes, as a management representative.

MR. BRODERICK: Back to that, Marie and I also had, I had understood, a task force on Multilingual Issues, Hispanic issues.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Well, we combined the Women in Construction, Diversity, and Multilingual Issues. I mean, I'm looking at, at least for chairperson purposes, trying to balance labor and management. It doesn't have to be that way as long as there's participation on the committee.

And again, any member of the committee, whether it's ad hoc or appointed, if you guys want to be on this Diversity and Multilingual Issues, you're more than welcome to be appointed to the committee. I'm not trying to restrict membership, by any means. Do you still want to be on it


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. Tom Broderick.


MS. ESTILL: I thought OTI/Certification were --

CHAIRMAN KRUL: No. We're leaving those apart. I thought we were, too. While it looks like that in the minutes, slash, take the slash out and put a dash. It's going to be two separate entities. They don't feel that their work scopes allow them to merge.

MS. ESTILL: Okay. Yes. For Multilingual.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: For Multilingual. And OTI or Certification. Did you want to go on there?

MS. ESTILL: Is there going to be a silica one?

CHAIRMAN KRUL: There's going to be a silica one.

MS. ESTILL: I'll wait for that.


Yes? Dan Murphy?

MR. MURPHY: If there's room, I would like to get on the Multilingual, if possible.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Absolutely.

MR. MURPHY: They've really done quite a bit of work in that area.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Mike Thibodeaux?

MR. THIBODEAUX: I was going to ask about the OTI and the certification and training. I think that could go hand in hand, and I'd volunteer for that.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Well, you'd have to volunteer for both of them. We're not combining them. The certification --

MR. THIBODEAUX: No, no. I understand. I agree.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Oh. Okay. Okay.


CHAIRMAN KRUL: You would want to be on which one? Both?


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. Mike Thibodeaux to both OSHA Training Institute Courses, Ideas, and Delivery Systems and Certification and Training. Correct?


MR. STRUDWICK: I think I'm part of those workgroups. As far as the chair, no, but as far as the workgroup.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. That's good. We like to have management participation in there.

Yes? Bill Rhoten?

MR. RHOTEN: They're always open to anybody.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Yes. That's okay to --

MR. RHOTEN: And, too, I don't necessarily have to be chair or co-chair.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: No. Go ahead.

MR. SWANSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like you to clarify, as we're going through this, who is chairing it. And if they're co-chairs, that's fine. But particularly when we're getting four and five members, I just want to know who we're dealing with.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Yes. Well, I'm hoping that the minutes and the transcript will reflect this in some orderly way. I thought I was doing that. I was trying to get labor and management -- this is how we got screwed up last time. But that's okay. We'll keep it on as an ongoing topic on the agenda. Okay.

We're past Noise, and we're past that one. Silica. We had Jane Williams, we have Cherie. But now, whether it's co-chairs or not, I would like to see some labor/management input on Silica. Greg Strudwick?

MR. STRUDWICK: We're going to participate on that.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: All right. And Scott. Participation-wise, that's fine. We'll put you as committee members. Jane, you were the chair of that, you and Marie?

MS. WILLIAMS: It was Marie and I, yes.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. Let's keep it Cherie and you. That's because some of these, obviously, because of the topic, we'd rather have professionals who are --

MS. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. That's fine.


Tower Erection. James Ahern is no longer here. We had Kevin Beauregard, Frank Migliaccio, Jr. We've made a recommendation, but I don't think, given what's going on with NATE and other initiatives with the tower erection, I'd like to see one management member. I don't know. Greg doesn't have anything to do with tower erection. I don't know that David Bush or Mike Sotelo do, either.

MR. STRUDWICK: I think Sotelo did.


MR. STRUDWICK: Didn't Sotelo make a comment about tower erection?

MR. BRODERICK: Well, he's not here. So --

MR. STRUDWICK: I think he did. Didn't you hear it?

MR. BRODERICK: I heard it. I remember.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I think I heard him, too.


MR. STRUDWICK: I think Mike expressed an interest in it at one time.

MR. BRODERICK: He did, honestly.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: All right. Let's at least put him on, leave Kevin and Frank as co-chairs. Let's put Mike on as a management member of that committee.

Yes, Jane?

MS. WILLIAMS: I would like to be on that one as a committee member.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: As a committee member. Okay.

MR. BEAUREGARD: And I would also say that we have a meeting with NATE the last week of this month. Jane will be there. She's doing some training. And I'll be there.


MR. BEAUREGARD: So anybody who wants information on it, let me know.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: All right. I think that we have -- oh. We didn't do Homeland Security? How did I miss those two.

MR. STRUDWICK: That workgroup was organized at our last meeting and there was still some question in the air as to who was going to be co-chair.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Well, we could have Jane there. She was leading the charge on that. We need labor/management people, again, at least as a co-chair or committee members.

MR. STRUDWICK: Well, I had volunteered as a co-chair.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: You had? To serve as a co-chair with Jane?


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. So we've got Greg.

MR. RHOTEN: I'll just show up for the committee. All you need to do is the chair and co-chairs, and everybody else can just go.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Well, we want the chair and co-chair to be the lead dogs and at least, again, have that diversity across labor and management.

MR. THIBODEAUX: Mr. Chairman?


MR. THIBODEAUX: I would like to be on that because I'm actively involved with the OTI initiative.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. Tom Broderick to Homeland Security, Bill Rhoten, and Mike Thibodeaux. That will well round out that one. And Frank Migliaccio.

MR. SWANSON: Let me respond, if I may, to Bill's comment. He said anybody on the committee that wants to can participate. That is absolutely true, Bill. But if the chairman or the co-chair persons of one of these subcommittees wants to have a meeting in Chicago in February again, and neither of them reside here, then you are going to be looking to my office for your expenditures. I can cover some expenditures for some meetings where the chairman has named someone to a committee to do work for this committee.

But if all of ACCSH wants to attend that subcommittee meeting and participate they are certainly free to attend and participate, but don't look to my office. I can't help you with that. Okay? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Let me go to Hexavalent Chromium. Then we'll have to back up just to help Sarah out here a little bit. Hexavalent Chromium. I've got down here "will appoint at a later date." But hexavalent chromium -- again, this was one of --

MS. ESTILL: Estill as co-chair.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Co-chair. Who wants to be in the Hexavalent Chromium? It's going to be a short workgroup, maybe. We don't know what's going to happen. All right. Let's make you and Cherie co-chairs. Jane would like to be on that committee. Cherie and Bill Rhoten. Scott raised his hand to be a committee member, and Jane Williams.

MS. SHORTALL: We don't have any management on that one.


MS. SHORTALL: He's only on here one time. Mr. Krul is not on here at all.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: The Chairman exercises his right to attend all committee meetings.

We have to back up, just to clear Sarah here. The Multilingual Diversity. Somebody repeat for me, who's co-chairs?

MR. CLOUTIER: I want to re-run the list for you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Go ahead, because that will help Sarah out immensely.

MR. CLOUTIER: Listening in the background, I heard, on the Diversity and Multilingual one, was Tom Broderick Mr. Bush, Mr. Rhoten, Mr. Sotelo.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Hang on. The way she's structuring this, which would be helpful to her, Steve, is if you would put down who are the co-chairs. You didn't do it that way?

MR. CLOUTIER: I do have co-chairs, except on that committee.

MS. SHORTALL: I can go through the whole list here.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: All right. Let Sarah do it the way she's got it lined up, and you look at your list, too.

MS. SHORTALL: I'm going to go labor, management, other. Okay?

1. Silica

Co-Chairs: Williams, Estill

Labor - None

Management - Strudwick

Other - Williams, Estill

2. Noise

Co-Chairs: Durst/Schneider, Bush

Labor - Durst, Schneider

Management - Bush

Other - None

3. Homeland Security

Co-Chairs: Williams, Strudwick

Labor - Rhoten, Migliaccio

Management - Strudwick, Thibodeaux

Other - Williams, Broderick

4. Diversity and Multilingual Issues

Co-Chairs: Sotelo, Williams

Labor - Rhoten

Management - Sotelo, Murphy

Other - Estill, Broderick, Williams

MR. BRODERICK: I got a demotion. I was co-chair with Marie.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: This is one of the ones where there was a combination. Do you express a burning desire to co-chair?

MS. SHORTALL: He is not co-chair of anything.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: He was co-chair of the combined Multilingual and Diversity.

MS. SHORTALL: But other than that, if he's not co-chair here, he's not co-chairing anything.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I'm asking if it's your burning desire to be a co-chair.




4. Diversity and Multilingual Issues


Co-chairs - Broderick and Williams.

5. OSHA Training Institute

Co-chairs - Migliaccio, Thibodeaux

Labor - Migliaccio

Management - Thibodeaux, Strudwick

Other - Williams

6. Certification

Co-Chairs - Durst, Thibodeaux

Labor - Durst, Rhoten

Management - Thibodeaux, Strudwick

Other - Broderick

7. Tower Erection

Co-Chairs - Migliaccio, Beauregard

Labor - Migliaccio

Management - Sotelo

Other - Williams, Beauregard

8. Hexavalent Chromium

Co-Chairs - Rhoten, Estill

Labor - Rhoten, Schneider

Management - Bush

Other - Williams, Estill

9. Trenching

Co-Chairs - Schneider, Struwick

Labor - Schneider

Management - Struwick

Other - None


MR. CLOUTIER: If we go back down the list, Mr. Chairman, on Homeland Security there's seven committee members. On Diversity and Multilingual, there's seven members. Yet on trenching, it's a hot button. It's a concern to the Agency, it's a concern to the industry, and there's only two committee members on it.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: And that was because first we were going to do it, Steve, as an ad hoc committee. This was going to be an ongoing committee. I understand that it's a hot button issue. The standard is already written. I think what they're looking at is trying new approaches, as Scott had suggested in yesterday's meeting.

MR. SWANSON: Two is a nice number, Mr. Cloutier.

MR. CLOUTIER: No, I agree.


MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I was just going to suggest, on the Noise Subcommittee, I would volunteer to be the co-chair. I'm just not sure what Mr. Durst's status is vis-a-vis the committee. I don't know if you want to --

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Right now we've got Durst/Schneider.


CHAIRMAN KRUL: My guess is, without hearing from Joe at this meeting, I don't know if he's going to appear at any future meetings and I don't want to dig into the thing. His term is up in July. If he doesn't show up, you'll be there as the labor representative.

MR. SCHNEIDER: Sure. Sure. That's fine.


MR. SWANSON: Yes. May I just rhetorically ask, what did you reduce this list to? Then letting that go, could we --

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Less than 15.

MR. SWANSON: Sarah, could we hear from counsel? Just review the rules on how these workgroups will work, the notice requirements, the legal status of their work product before it has been acted upon by this full committee?


MR. SWANSON: Thank you.

MS. SHORTALL: Workgroup meetings must be, according to both your charter as well as our regulations, open to the public. They do not have the same notice requirements as the full meetings.

So we can publicize those by putting something on our Web page. Persons who are interested in participating can let the Agency know and they can be on an ongoing e-mail list. We can announce the meetings at one of our regular ACCSH meetings.

Where we have information available, we have put notice of workgroup meetings that are going to be held the same week of an ACCSH meeting in the Federal Register so people will know, who might be traveling in from out of town, that they might want to be coming a day or two earlier. So, those are the notice requirements.

It is a little bit less formal. Obviously, since it's open to the public, we need to let, generally, those for sure who are interested in attending know. But I think if we use any or all of those things, I think we've met the notice requirements there.

Mr. Swanson has brought up a very important point. The material that the workgroup develops is something that then must be brought to consideration by ACCSH as a whole. The only recommendations that go to the Department are those that are approved by ACCSH as a body.

So, I think institutionally this committee has done a very good job in having ongoing workgroup reports at each meeting. But when it does come to final action, it must be the action of ACCSH and not the workgroup to move it on forward to the Agency for consideration.



CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. We can take action on the minutes. Are there any other questions, clarifications? Mr. Beauregard?

MR. BEAUREGARD: Just one clarification. I think on page 10, in the case that Tom Broderick gave a report on tower erection, I think that's probably either supposed to be me, or Tom did a report on something else.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: We don't see Kevin Beauregard giving a report on tower erection. I'd assume that would be Kevin Beauregard. And I don't see your name anyplace else. So, have those minutes reflect the correction that it's Kevin Beauregard, and not Tom Broderick.

MR. STRUDWICK: Mr. Chairman, on page 7.


MR. STRUDWICK: I addressed this yesterday. But the 800 number at the top, it said, "Connell disseminated his new 800 number which is available from anywhere in the U.S." That's mine. It's not Noah's number, it's my number.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: It's your number.


CHAIRMAN KRUL: So if the minutes would reflect Noah Connell's 800 number, is what you're asking.

MR. STRUDWICK: No. It would reflect the 800 number as my 800 number.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Oh. So it shouldn't say Connell, it should say, "Strudwick disseminated his" --

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. The number is correct. I see what you meant. I see. Thank you.


MS. WILLIAMS: One, Kevin picked up. The other one, on page 10.


MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, can I ask that we have an insert there? One of our charges was to review reducing -- or recommending to ACCSH to recommend to OTI that the 10-hour be reduced to an 8-hour. We had an awful lot of discussion. We recommended to ACCSH, and it was adopted, that the 10-hour remain a 10-hour. It was just a recommendation.

Could we have that just inserted at the end that the workgroup recommended that ACCSH adopt our recommendation that the OSHA OTI outreach 10-hour remain a 10-hour?

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Just a suggestion, Jane. In that third sentence that starts out, "ACCSH voted unanimously to accept the report and the recommendations, including the recommendation that the 10-hour program remain a 10-hour program."

MS. WILLIAMS: Perfect. Yes, sir. That was my intent.


MR. MIGLIACCIO: On page 4, second paragraph down, a question of AFL. There should be an L.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Oh, I see it. It's about five sentences up from the bottom. It says "AFC NFC championship game." It should be AFL-CIO.

Anyone else?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. A motion for acceptance would be in order.



CHAIRMAN KRUL: Seconded by Jane, moved by Frank. Regularly moved and seconded. Anyone else on the question?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: All those in favor, signify by the sign "aye."

(A chorus of ayes)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Opposed, if any?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Hearing none, we'll accept that. So moved.

MR. BRODERICK: Mr. Chairman?


MR. BRODERICK: Would it be possible, Sarah, for you, when you get this whole mess put together, to get it out to us maybe --

MS. SHORTALL: I'll send it down to Steve.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I was just going to say. Yes. If Steve --

MS. SHORTALL: Steve will have some other things he's sending out.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Steve normally puts together a book for the Chair and for distribution to the full committee, so we'll make sure that that happens so that we're all on the same page with appointments, chairs and co-chairs. I'd like to see that chart myself and have it.

Everybody with an e-mail address has written an e-mail address in. If you haven't, then we'll get it that way.

MR. BRODERICK: I guess what I was asking, is sometimes it takes a while to compile all this stuff. If we could get that list as soon as possible --

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Oh. As soon as possible.

MR. BRODERICK: -- so that we can get working.

MS. SHORTALL: I'll type it up on Monday and send it down to Steve.



MR. BEAUREGARD: I just wanted to make one notice, in light of the advice that we got. We do have a tower workgroup meeting on February 26th that's going to be in Nashville. OSHA is already aware of this. We've already notified them. But for anybody else that's interested, it's going to be a short meeting. It's done in conjunction with the May conference, but it's going to be from 10:15 to 1:15 on the 26th.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. Thank you. That's in the record.

I know there are guidelines. A motion is going to be made to accept some guidelines for whoever sits in this chair and for the committee, and I think it's going to be a good thing.

But Felipe Devora had made a request of me, and I'm going to do all I can to fulfill it, but especially for the organized labor members and for anybody else who has information -- I know the AFL-CIO has a central body of interfaith groups and contacts across the United States, and Felipe is interested in that for the work that he's doing for the Hispanic Workforce in Construction.

So I'm going to make a point to get him that information. If any other committee member, labor or other representative has any information on interfaith groups that would be of use to Felipe, please send him that at the Directorate.

Jane, are you going to address the guidelines?

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.

Last year, I had guidelines -- how do I want to say it? I've made some changes to the guidelines based upon your request. Rather than go into a lot of history, I don't think that we really need that. If it would be the Chair's pleasure, I would just like to read the current recommended revisions that are primarily housekeeping.

I recognize that some members may not have them, but I think you all have received these. So if I could just do that in a brief manner, give the history, would that be appropriate?


MS. SHORTALL: Could the minutes reflect that what Jane is speaking about are the procedural guidelines for the operation of ACCSH?

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. That's right. Yes, that is correct. For the minutes, we're looking at a Rev. 2, February 14, '03, recommendations.

On page 2, house cleaning, we just added, under the typical agenda, ACCSH/DFO Self-Introductions. We also added, in lieu of the word "stakeholders," we said "other meeting attendees." There are other people who attend this meeting in other capacities, so we wanted to acknowledge that.

Roberts Rules. It's just a clarification. The other was on page 6. We added "Workgroup co-chairs may call upon an ACCSH member to attend meetings necessary for the work of the workgroup whenever conflicts prevent their attendance." A brief clarification.

Sometimes two co-chairs, for whatever reasons, cannot get to an appropriate meeting that the workgroup wants to. This allows them to have other members who have been appointed by the chair to serve in that capacity as co-chair for that particular meeting.

MR. BEAUREGARD: Jane, I have a question for Bruce, I guess, on that. Would that have any impact on what you said earlier, if somebody wanted to attend the meeting in place of a co-chair, on being reimbursed for that?

MR. SWANSON: We just have to cross the t's on that. I think, to keep the record clean, we'd talk to the chairman. If somebody can't make it and we need a co-chair, you're standing in as the co-chair, the chair is approving that, then we'll do it.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I think, Bruce, one of the reasons we had that in there was we wanted to clarify that it had to be an appointed member of the committee to perform that function, not an ACCSH person that the chair hadn't recognized in this manner.


MS. WILLIAMS: The next one, "Whenever possible prior to an ACCSH meeting, the Directorate of Construction will be forwarded an electronic copy of the workgroup's product, especially formal presentations."

We wanted to assist them so that they could set things up in their manner for the material and equipment that we've all experienced here today. So, that was house cleaning.

On page 7, "Final reports may be placed on the ACCSH Web site if requested by the workgroup co-chairs and if DOC can accommodate the request. A final report will include a cover sheet specific to the document's intent and indicate to the stakeholders any comments to be directed to.

In other words, we did not want to include its status, because the status was ever changing as a workgroup product, until it was adopted. We wanted to be able to inform stakeholders who to call in the workgroup so they weren't bombarding DOC with actions they haven't received yet formally.

We added, "Workgroup co-chairs may request internal reports to be placed on the ACCSH Web site to accommodate additional stakeholder comments if DOC can accommodate the request." Sometimes it just can't be done. I believe, Mr. Chair, that concludes the recommendations.

I move acceptance by the committee of the Rev. 2 February 4, 2003 recommendations to the Advisory Committee on Construction on Safety and Health Committee Procedures and Guidelines.

MS. SHORTALL: I think, to be completely crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's, as Mr. Swanson was saying, I think on the reports of workgroups, whether final or interim, being on the Web page, I think it needs to be ACCSH itself requesting that DOC place them on if they can be accommodated rather than the co-chairs themselves, because the co-chairs only answer to this committee. They have no function outside of answering to this committee, basically.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Are you referring to this?

MS. SHORTALL: No, no. I'm referring to the interim reports that you want on the ACCSH Web page.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Oh. Okay. "Workgroup co-chairs may request interim reports be placed on the ACCSH" --

MS. SHORTALL: Right. I think it's, "ACCSH should request interim reports."

MS. WILLIAMS: I have no objection.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: So if we change "workgroup co-chairs" to "ACCSH."

MS. SHORTALL: Right. Especially when it comes to the final reports.

MS. WILLIAMS: So we would be striking "workgroup co-chairs" on page 7 and inserting "ACCSH may request."



MS. SHORTALL: Is that any problem?

MS. WILLIAMS: No, ma'am.


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Was that moved in the form of a motion?

MS. SHORTALL: I can't move it.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: No, no, no. I'm asking Jane if that was moved in the form of a motion.

MS. WILLIAMS: Would the Chair accept the correction just read for the motion?

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Yes. Absolutely. The group accepts it. Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: I'd move the adoption of Rev. 2, as corrected.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Is there a second?


CHAIRMAN KRUL: And on the question?

MR. SWANSON: Yes. It has been brought to my attention that there might be some confusion to say that meetings are open to stakeholders. Of course the meetings are open to the public. Is there any potential confusion that stakeholders are a subgroup of the public? They're open to the public.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Yes. I think that's understood that they're open to the public.


CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. On the question. Can the Chair make a comment on the question?

MS. SHORTALL: Sure. You can comment on anything.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I just want to clear up what Bruce and you have said about dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I think that the term "may," that "workgroup co-chairs may call upon an ACCSH member," recognizing that that has to go through the Directorate, and because of the i's and the t's being dotted and crossed, I think everyone understands that that's a member of the committee that was appointed, and if there is the availability for that person. I mean, it's not a blanket okay for somebody to travel.


CHAIRMAN KRUL: There would have to be some hoops jumped through before that happens.

MS. SHORTALL: What you could do on that, is say that a workgroup co-chair can call on, and also inform, DOC so that the co-chairs themselves have the duty to put that extra procedure into place for Mr. Swanson and his people so they're not caught off guard and they're paying travel at the last moment.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Well, I guess my point is that the term "may" means "may," and the inference is that this requires approval through the DOC, no matter which way you look at it. I don't know. Is that necessary to put in the docket?

MS. SHORTALL: Well, I was just trying to say, placing a duty on the co-chair to inform DOC. That's all I was saying, that the co-chair would have the duty to inform DOC that, you know, they're not able to attend and they're requesting that someone else fill in as the co-chair so that DOC has a heads-up as soon as possible.

MS. WILLIAMS: You know, maybe that whole thing should be reworded, Mr. Chair, because we know--at least the workgroups, but it's not certain here to my memory--that before we call for authorization for travel, that it has to be made aware so Mr. Swanson's office does not have a surprise. In fact, it can be done.

So we had originally changed the fact that we can go anywhere we want, but the funding is an issue. So maybe we should just say it. Maybe I could suggest that I work with Mr. Swanson's office to get that statement and put it in the revised document.

MS. SHORTALL: Well, yes. Mr. Swanson's office, from the charter, his own budget has certain monetary constraints --

MS. WILLIAMS: Exactly.

MS. SHORTALL: -- that will be of more pressure at certain times of the year than others.

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Do we have a recommended wording that we could just put in there right now and we could adopt that and I could just -- "workgroup co-chairs may call upon an ACCSH-appointed committee member, workgroup member, to attend meetings necessary for the work of the workgroup whenever conflicts prevent, and so request Department of Construction travel authorization." Is that --

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I'm wondering if we just have to jump through this hoop. I think everyone understands that you have to go through the DFO. I don't know why we should struggle with language with this.

MS. WILLIAMS: That's where I was going.


MS. WILLIAMS: Just say it.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I mean, we've already made a motion and a second. In order to change this, we'd have to go back. I'm just offering the opinion that there is an inference contained -- I mean, if you read this whole section, you have to go through the DFO for any of these scheduled meetings. I don't want to get caught up in word smithing if there's really no necessity to do that. I think the thing is fine as it is.




CHAIRMAN KRUL: And we have a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any further discussion on the question?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: If not, it's been regularly moved and seconded, and discussed. All in favor of the motion, signify by the sign "aye."

(A chorus of ayes)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Any opposed?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: So moved and ordered.

MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I will take this document, if you don't mind.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Absolutely.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I will re-do those changes and provide the disk and hard copy to the Directorate and yourself.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: To Steve Cloutier. Steve will be the guy who does these.



Our designated federal official is out of the room now. I took care of -- we have a tentative meeting date scheduled sometime in May. We'll all be notified via e-mail and that will go into the Federal Register. We also have the proposed emergency meeting or specially called meeting.

Is there any other new business?

MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman? Could I just request that, should we have that emergency ad hoc meeting, would it be possible just to request it be looked at for the end of a week instead of an earlier part of the week, regardless of whenever?

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I think that would be the intent.



MR. BURKHAMMER: Based on the paperwork and meeting all the requirements, the earliest you can have it is the 22nd of March.

MS. WILLIAMS: Perfect.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: I mean, we were looking at the calendar, Stew. It's going to be what it is. It's going to be what it is. There's no other way around it.

MR. BURKHAMMER: The week of the 22nd is -- getting you guys the material to review. Any time after the 22nd fits us getting you the required documents and getting the meeting announced properly.

MS. WILLIAMS: Stew, my comment would be that we look at the end of the week in lieu of a Monday/Tuesday. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: This is on the ad hoc meeting. Stew informs us that the week of March 22nd is good, so we're looking at that, and we're skewed towards Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, if there was a specially called meeting. It would be more towards the middle of the week rather than the beginning of the week.

MR. STRUDWICK: No. More towards the end of the week.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Yes. I think that's what everybody's looking at.


MR. SCHNEIDER: This is on new business.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: New business.

MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I just wanted to make a recommendation or a request that the next meeting we have the DOC address us on a couple of issues. One of them, I've already mentioned earlier, construction targeting, a report from the Construction Targeting Task Force, with Rick Rinehart who is the chair of that.

The second is, I had asked Assistant Secretary Henshaw about the applicability of the enhanced enforcement effort in construction specifically, and he didn't have any specific information. But maybe at the next meeting he could get some information or a report about how the enhanced enforcement effort is being applied in the construction industry.

Then the third thing I was wondering, is I know the Agency has a number of different projects going on and alliances, et cetera, and Harwood grants that relate to ergonomics in the construction industry.

And what I was wondering, is if we could get an overview of what the Agency is doing on ergonomics in construction on a variety of different programs that they have established. So, those are my requests.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Well, they're recommendations for the next agenda. We'll take those into consideration.

MR. SWANSON: Yes. And we'll be happy to get back with a full report on enhanced enforcement, as well as consider the other items for the agenda.

But I would like to tell you that it was effective last September. I noticed that John didn't have it on the tip of his tongue, but it was effective in every region, in general industry and construction, last September. I heard yesterday from Stew that there were some 32 cases that we had been informed about in the construction industry since that date in September. But we'll give you a more detailed report.



MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this may be a question for our Solicitor or Mr. Swanson. Should a special meeting be called for the purpose to review any data that's provided to us on the issue of hexavalent chromium, is it inappropriate, or could it be approved that any meeting of a formed workgroup could potentially meet at that same time while we're there?

And primarily I would be thinking of silica. With it coming out of SBREFA, would a workgroup meeting be inappropriate for an ad hoc meeting date?

MR. SWANSON: No. You know, if any of these very few subcommittees that the Chairman just set up would --

CHAIRMAN KRUL: The Chairman reduced, not set up.

MR. SWANSON: -- like to have a meeting in March, they can have it. It's not dependent upon whether or not there is a hexavalent meeting or not. So, yes. Any time.


MR. SWANSON: We'll talk about it.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Any other new business?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Any old business?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Okay. We said 10:00. We hit our mark. I want to thank the Directorate, his staff, especially Steve Cloutier, Stew Burkhammer, and Venetta for helping us out, not only setting this meeting up, but especially keeping the Chairman straight, Sarah, for her counsel and guidance. Yes.

And I want to thank the new committee members. I hope we made this interesting enough for you. To the old committee members, thank you for your input and assistance. We look forward to seeing you whenever this next one comes.

I need a motion to adjourn.

MS. WILLIAMS: So moved.



CHAIRMAN KRUL: All those in favor, signify by the sign "aye."

(A chorus of ayes)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: Opposed, if any?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN KRUL: So ordered. Thank you very much, everyone.

(Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m. the meeting was concluded.)


This is to certify that the foregoing proceedings of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, (ACCSH), U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, held on Friday, February 13, 2004, were transcribed as herein appears, and this is the original of transcript thereof.

Court Reporter