The Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) Meeting
September 21, 2011
Portland, Maine

MACOSH members in attendance:

  • James Thornton, Chair – American Industrial Hygiene Association
  • Karen Conrad – North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association
  • Philip Dovinh – Marine Chemist Association
  • Michael Flynn – International Association of Mechanics & Aerospace Workers
  • Kelly Garber – API Limited
  • Robert Godinez – International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
  • Lesley Johnson – International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
  • Charles Lemon – Washington State Department of Labor and Industries
  • Christopher McMahon – U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration
  • Tim Podue – International Longshore & Warehouse Union
  • Donald Raffo – General Dynamics
  • Arthur Ross – Texas Terminals L.P.

MACOSH members absent:

  • George Lynch – International Longshoremen's Association
  • Ken Smith – U.S. Coast Guard

DOL Support Staff in Attendance:

  • Susan Brinkerhoff, Counsel for MACOSH
  • Veneta Chatmon
  • Theresa Clark
  • Joe Daddura, MACOSH Designated Federal Official
  • Dorothy Dougherty
  • Christie Garner
  • Bill Perry
  • Danielle Watson
  • Vanessa Welch

Public in Attendance:

  • Gene Alvarez – Rogers Shipbuilding, Bath
  • Steve Butler – OSHA National Office
  • Bill Coffin – OSHA Augusta Area Office
  • Angelo Costa – OSHA Region 3
  • Jason Curtis – Maine Marine Trade Association
  • Greg Grondin – Marine Chemist at Bath iron Works
  • John Halpin – National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
  • LeAnn Jillings – OSHA Directorate of Cooperate and State Programs
  • Bart Limbell – Chair of the Safety Committee, Bath Iron Works
  • Laura Masterson – Bath Iron Works
  • Chet Matthews – Independent Consultant
  • Bill Mueller – Navy Crane Center
  • Katie Nishimura – OSHA Region 1
  • Polly Parks – Southern Recycling
  • Jack Reich – OSHA Region 9
  • Jerry Swanson – PMA
  • Susan Swanton – Maine Marine Trades Association, Portland, Maine
  • Kevin Sullivan – OSHA Region 2
  • John Vos – OSHA Region 4
  • Paul Weiser – ILWU
  • Randy White – OSHA Region 10

Welcome and Introduction
Dorothy Dougherty, Director
Directorate of Standards and Guidance

Ms. Dougherty welcomed the Committee and informed them that her staff has reported to her on the success of the workgroups during the meetings the previous day and during the conference calls between the MACOSH meetings. Ms. Dougherty also told the Committee that she is looking forward to listening to their recommendations and viewing the work products developed from all of their hard work. Ms. Dougherty informed the Committee that OSHA is moving on the previous Committee's guidance products. Five of the longshoring guidance products (Intermodal Container Repair document, Single-piece and Multi-piece Rim Wheel Quick Card, Single-piece and Multi-piece Rim Wheel Fact Sheet, Protecting Mechanics Working on Power Equipment in the Yard at Marine Terminals Quick Card, and the Mechanics Working in the Yard in Marine Cargo Terminals Quick Card) are currently being reviewed by OSHA's writer/editor. Three guidance products (Working on the Apron or Highline Quick Card, Traffic Lanes and Safety Zones Fact Sheet, and the Fire Watch Quick Card) are in the official OSHA review process.

Ms. Dougherty also thanked Joe Daddura for his hard work as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the Committee. She informed the Committee that this is Mr. Daddura's last MACOSH meeting because, after 20 years of Federal service, Mr. Daddura will be retiring in December.

Review of July 21, 2011 the MACOSH Meeting Minutes
San Diego, CA

Ms. Brinkerhoff addressed remarks that had been made at the July 2011 MACOSH meeting by Polly Parks, a member of the public. Ms. Parks had pointed out that a remark she had made at the April 2011 MACOSH meeting in response to an OSHA staff member's presentation had not been included in the minutes of that meeting. Ms. Brinkerhoff informed the Committee and the public that the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires an accurate and complete description of matters discussed and conclusions reached. Specifically, the focus of the minutes should be the discussions of the Committee members and any recommendations or decisions that the Committee makes. The presentations that are given to the Committee by OSHA staff are informative but do not go to the mission of the Committee. Thus, those presentations are not given as much time or space in the minutes because they are not directly related to what the Committee is doing at the particular meeting. However, as Ms. Brinkerhoff noted, all MACOSH meetings are transcribed in full and verbatim by a court reporter and are available for public view at

Mr. Thornton continued the discussion of the meeting minutes and asked the Committee to provide comments. Two members (Ken Smith and Lesley Johnson) were listed as being present at the meeting when in fact they were not there. One member (Michael Flynn) was not listed as being present at the meeting although he was present. Jack Reich, OSHA Region 9, noted that although the minutes indicated that BAE systems received certification for VPP, BAE is being reviewed for recertification. The Committee unanimously voted to accept the amendments to the meeting minutes. The un-amended minutes from July 20, 2011, MACOSH meeting, were entered into the record at Docket Number OSHA-2011-0007 as Exhibit 23.

Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs
LeeAnn Jillings

Ms. Jillings started her presentation with a brief overview of her office's responsibilities:

  • Office of Services and Alliances – Responsible for the Alliance Program and compliance assistance and outreach efforts.
  • Office of Partnership and Recognition – Responsible for OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs, OSHA Challenge, and the Strategic Partnership program, all of which have maritime industry involvement.
  • Office of Small Business Assistance – Responsible for the On-Site Consultation Program, as well as general outreach to the small business community.
  • Office of State Programs – Oversees the administration of the state-plan states around the country.

She then described a number of topics that her office is involved with:

Cooperative program statistics – At the end of August there were 2,463 active participants in the Voluntary Protection Program; 197 participating organizations in the OSHA Challenge Program; 94 Strategic Partnerships; nearly 1,600 SHARP sites (recognition program for On-Site Consultation); and 325 active Alliances. Between 2010 and 2011 there has been stabilization in the growth of active participant in the program. The maritime industry is active in OSHA's Cooperative Programs. BAE is involved in the VPP program, and there are 15 other maritime industry sites currently recognized in the VPP. There are two OSHA Challenge sites in the maritime industry and three graduates. Two Strategic Partnership agreements are active regionally at this time, and one National Alliance Agreement is currently in place for the maritime industry. The Department has signed several letters of agreement with various countries such as, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and other countries, focusing on worker safety and health efforts. The Agency is using Alliances in its efforts to collaborate with the local level through Consulates of these countries to help workers understand their rights as well as hazard exposure and protection from those hazards in the workplace. OSHA is also increasing efforts in working with community and faith-based organizations, local unions, and other non-traditional and nonprofit groups.

Voluntary Protection Program – In 2009, the General Accounting Office came out with a study on VPP, which pointed out a number of ways to improve the administration of the program. The Agency established a VPP Review Work Group that is actively addressing those recommendations. Both the 2004 GAO study and the 2009 study suggested that the Agency look at how the VPP program fits into and supports the Agency's goals and mission. The Review Work Group is doing a top-to-bottom review of VPP. This fall, OSHA will develop a report for Agency leadership.

OSHA Challenge Program – OSHA also conducted a review of this program's administration in the last year, predominantly focusing on data integrity. The Challenge Program leverages and engages outside organizations to work on their own time by volunteering to support companies and work sites. OSHA expects administrators in the program to turn in certain information every year to OSHA so that the Agency can track participants and provide data related to the program's impact on employers' development and implementation of a safety and health program, on its illness and injury rates, and on overall performance.

National Partnerships – There are 94 strategic partnerships nationwide. Of those 94, three are national. The other 91 are Regional and Area offices. Most of those regional and area office partnerships are predominantly in the Construction industry. However, there are two in the maritime industry (Crowley Petroleum Distribution and the Virginia Ship Repair Association). OSHA also conducted a review of the Strategic Partnership Program to ensure National, Regional, and Area office partnerships were following directive or established policies and procedures. Last October, OSHA implemented a revised penalty policy. The program eliminated one of the enforcement benefits offered to Strategic Partnership Program participants, which was the 10% penalty reduction. OSHA is continuing to work with the regions to receive timely information on the impact of their partnerships and the annual review process.

On-Site Consultation – This program is aimed at small and medium-size businesses and high-hazard industries. The program provides free and confidential services to these employers. Each year the program conducts approximately 30,000 visits across the country. Most of the businesses are very small, with 1 to 25 workers.

  • Q: Mr. Thornton asked if the On-Site Consultation Program is the same as the 7C1 Program.
  • A: Ms. Jillings responded that the On-Site Consultation Program is the same as the 7C1 Program, but Congress passed legislation, signed into law, that made it the 21D.
  • Q: Mr. Thornton also asked if the program is offered whether a State is a State-plan State, or a Federal OSHA State.
  • A: Ms. Jillings explained that the program is offered in all States and territories.

High-Hazard Industries – Construction is a high-hazard industry, and construction activities are performed at maritime work sites. Each year a number of shipbuilding facilities take advantage of on-site consultation services. OSHA is looking at ways to target consultations at high-hazard industries, including those that received OSHA's hazard alert letters. The Department of Labor awarded a three-year contract to evaluate the effects of consultations.

Promoting On-Site Consultation – OSHA is looking at looking at a number of ways to promote the program's availability and successes. OSHA conducted a number of national conferences, which included workshops, speakers from projects, employers, and Regional and National Office staff, American Society of Safety Engineers, Voluntary Protection Programs, and others. OSHA will also give a presentation at the upcoming National Safety Conference.

The OSHA Quick Takes – This initiative includes success stories about Consultation and SHARP sites. The Consultation and Small Business web pages have been redesigned to make them more user-friendly.

State Programs – Over 40% of the nation's workplaces are located in State-plan States; those States may enforce their own safety and health regulations, as long as those regulations are "at least as effective" as OSHA's standards in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment. Those States conducted just over 57,000 inspections last year. Federal inspections are around 40,000 per year. The States are issuing more violations but are not citing as many serious violations as Federal OSHA. In March of 2011, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a study that compared the effectiveness of State plans versus Federal OSHA. That study resulted in a work group that is looking at how to define "at least as effective."

  • Q: Mr. Thornton asked if the work group will look at injury rates and penalties.
  • A: Ms. Jillings stated that the work group will look at the States' overall program approach and a variety of other measures.

Ms. Jillings concluded her presentation, and the PowerPoint presentation entitled "Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs Update, September 21, 2011 by LeeAnn Jillings" was entered into OSHA docket number OSHA-0007-2011 as Exhibit 24.

Region 1 Presentation
Bill Coffin

Mr. Coffin welcomed the Committee to Portland and conveyed regrets from Regional Director, Marthe Kent.

Mr. Coffin stated that Portland has more VPP employers and SHARP sites than any other area office in New England. The Portland area office conducts a lot of work with its State counterpart, the 21D Consultation Program. As of July 1, 2011, a new local emphasis program (LEP) was initiated dealing with ship- and boat-building and repair. Region 1 has identified and contacted 197 shipyards and boat yards in the state of Maine. The 197 employers range from small employers with two or three workers to large industrial employers, which include General Dynamics and Bath Iron Works. The last LEP was issued about 12 to 15 years ago.

Q: Mr. Thornton asked how many employees work at the 197 shipyard and boat yards in the state of Maine.

A: Mr. Coffin stated that he would have a hard time providing a total number of employees, although he noted that Bath iron Works, which is the largest industrial employer in the State, has between 4,000 and 5,000 employees. Some of the other 196 shipyards and boatyards are two-person operations.

  • Q: Tim Podue (MACOSH member) asked if there are any longshoring and container operations in the State.
  • A: Mr. Coffin explained that most of the longshoring is in Portland, which also has handles crude oil that goes by pipeline to Montreal for refining. Other operations further north involve liquefied natural gas, which is brought in by tankers. Container operations are increasing in Portland.

Shipyard Workgroup Report
Don Raffo (Workgroup Chair)

Since the last meeting, the Shipyard Workgroup conducted two conference calls, in which all the workgroup members participated.

Ventilation Fact Sheet – At the start of this MACOSH charter, the agency requested the workgroup to review a ventilation fact sheet that was carried over from the previous workgroup. The workgroup looked at it in depth, talked about it at the conference calls, and has started to modify it. The workgroup felt that it contained too much general information to be useful to employees and employers. As an alternative, the workgroup decided to work on two different products: a quick card on ventilation practices for employees working in confined spaces, and an outline of a guidance document. The workgroup had discussions with OSHA on this issue and has informed the Agency that it is a big project, since it can apply to confined spaces, enclosed spaces, and open spaces, and can involve good ventilation practices, when it is required, and the difference between supply and exhaust ventilation.

Sewage Tanks – This guidance product deals with the safe practices involved in entry work and repair to these unique tanks on vessels. Ed Woolworth gave a presentation to the workgroup on the issues involved in sewage tank entry and repair work. Mr. Woolworth provided information and described some incidents that have happened, including fatalities, and gave the workgroup some overviews on atmospheric hazards, biological hazards, and flammability hazards that are found in these spaces. His discussion concentrated on naval vessels, but also included other vessels and an overview of some of the hazards that would occur on any type of vessel. Mr. Dovinh is refining a guidance document on sewage tanks. The workgroup started out with a fact sheet, which spawned a guidance document. Mr. Dovinh has been working on the fact sheet and the guidance document at the same time and presented the fact sheet to the workgroup for review during the workgroup meeting. The shipyard workgroup will be working on that fact sheet and will provide it to the longshore workgroup to review before the next meeting.

Welding Shade Fact Sheet – OSHA asked the workgroup to look at this document, which had been drafted by Agency staff. This fact sheet was a carry-over item from the previous workgroup and deals with welding shade lenses to be used during different types of welding operations. The workgroup discussed and made several significant changes to the document during the workgroup conference calls. Mr. Raffo thanked Mr. Johnson for his hard work on the fact sheet. The longshoring workgroup provided their comments. The shipyard workgroup reviewed the comments during the workgroup meeting and incorporated all the comments provided by the longshoring workgroup. The document entitled "Eye Protection against Radiant Energy for Welding in Shipyard Employment" was approved by the Committee for submission to the Agency and was entered into docket number OSHA-0007-2011 as Exhibit 26.

Eye Injury reduction – This topic came out of this charter's initial meeting as a topic the workgroup should look into. The workgroup discussion focused on eye injuries, which account for approximately 10% of reportable injuries in shipyards. The workgroup had a lengthy discussion on how to reduce eye injuries in shipyard employment. The discussion included types of PPE, engineering practices, proper removal of eyewear, enforcement of eye protection, and hazard assessment. Mr. Johnson brought in some new types of safety glasses that have a sponge support around them that provides a tighter seal around the eyes. The workgroup is developing an outline of the topics to be covered in a white paper. The outline will provide evidence that this type of injury continues to be an issue. The outline will also provide to the Agency some of the best industry practices to prevent eye injuries and will describe best methods to disseminate information to the industry. Mr. Thornton will lead this project. Mr. Thornton also stated that eye injury continues to be in the 10% range of all injuries, providing MACOSH the opportunity to make a dent in injury rates.

Hot Work on Hollow Structures – This topic came from the longshoring workgroup during a previous MACOSH meeting. Since the shipyard workgroup had more experience with the topic, the shipyard workgroup volunteered to develop a draft fact sheet. The document the shipyard workgroup developed mainly covered shipyard issues, but it may be useful to the longshoring workgroup in developing a fact sheet specific to the marine terminal industry. The shipyard workgroup would like to modify the guidance products to cover both longshoring and shipyards as an educational or awareness document to make people aware of the hazards of hollow structures. The guidance products can also be applicable to landside applications. The shipyard workgroup will work with the longshore workgroup to make the document maritime-specific.

SHIPS Documents (Safety and Health Information Prevention Sheets) – OSHA had previously asked the workgroup to look at five SHIPS documents to see if the documents were useful to the industry. Mr. Raffo consulted with several shipyard employers to see if the documents were useful and found that the majority of the larger shipyards did not find the information useful to them. However, the smaller shipyards found the SHIPS documents to be useful. The workgroup suggested that they continue to work with OSHA to develop a document that is useful to the industry. Mr. Thornton commented that although Mr. Raffo reached out to the Shipbuilders Council of America, which represents medium to larger shipyards, the work of the workgroup is pertinent to small, medium, and large shipyard employers, and the products produced by the workgroup is useful to all shipyard employers.

Person-in-the-Water (PIW) Document – During discussions with the two workgroups, it was recognized that the information in the in the PIW document is applicable to shipyards as well as marine terminals.

Mr. Raffo concluded the shipyard workgroup report, and the document entitled "MACOSH Shipyard Workgroup Report-out" was entered into docket number OSHA-0007-2011 as Exhibit 25.

Longshoring Workgroup Report
Charles Lemon, Acting Chair

PIW (Person in the Water) Guidance Document and Quick Card – As written, the quick card applies basically to the longshoring industry. The two workgroups discussed the documents and the changes that were incorporated into it. The Committee decided to change the documents to make them applicable to the maritime industry in general, not just longshoring.

Container Handling Equipment – The workgroup expected to produce a series of quick cards that will address the perspective of the person working around container handlers, including top handlers, side handlers, semi tractors, etc. The workgroup is also considering developing a quick card for straddle carriers as one of the series. The longshoring workgroup provided the shipyard workgroup with three quick cards for review: (1) Semi-Tractor Tip Over – This quick card deals with preventing semi-tractors from tipping over in marine terminals; (2) Top/side Handler Operation Safety – This quick card deals with making employers and employees aware of the dangers of traffic patterns and moving vehicles (top/side handlers) while working in marine terminals; and (3) Stay Focused on Safety While Working on or around Cargo Handling Equipment – This quick card is designed remind longshore workers, or make them aware, of the different hazards they are exposed to while working on or near cargo handling equipment in marine terminals.

  • Q: Mr. Daddura asked if the semi-tractor tip-over quick card addressed safety on state roads, and if the workgroup is working on distracted driving.
  • A: Mr. Lemon stated that the workgroup did not discuss distracted driving and that there are several contributing factors especially on tip-overs. The document is focused on awareness, not necessarily for the equipment operator rather but for persons working around this equipment.
  • Q: Mr. Thornton asked if the reference to topside handlers in the proposed quick card is the same as straddle buggies.
  • A: Mr. Lemon stated that the workgroup has not started on the straddle carriers quick card and that the discussion of the workgroup was that not a lot of terminals use straddle carriers anymore, but the workgroup is going to explore whether there would be a demand for it.
  • Q: Mr. Thornton suggested if the longshoring workgroup chooses to develop the quick card, they might consider developing it as an industry-wide product.
  • A: Mr. Lemon agreed with Mr. Thornton's statement.

The remaining items on the longshoring workgroup's agenda for the charter are:

  • Safety Zones between Railcars and Cargo Handling Equipment – The workgroup is developing a fact sheet and a quick card on this topic. The guidance products would recommend a designated space/safety zone between railcars and cargo handling equipment.
  • Preventing Chassis Drivers from Jostling in the Cabs – The workgroup is just starting to work on this subject. The quick card and fact sheet will address containers that are attached to chassis being lifted, and containers dropped from a height onto chassis.
  • PPE Poster or Quick Cards – The workgroup thought about developing quick cards that would illustrate various types of PPE for common working environments at marine terminals. During the meeting, the workgroup decided that there is already a lot of information out there on this topic, so there is no need to develop this product. The workgroup decided to take it off its agenda.
  • Testing between Deck Pontoon Hatches – This item is being addressed by the shipyard workgroup in its fact sheet on hot work on hollow and enclosed structures. The longshoring workgroup reviewed the draft document and thought it was well written. The longshoring workgroup is looking forward to working with the shipyard workgroup to make it a maritime industry document.
  • Combustible Dust in Marine Terminals – The workgroup is reviewing the OSHA fact sheet/safety alert to see if there are any unique maritime scenarios for combustible dust that the fact sheet does not address. If so, the workgroup will consider drafting a similar document or adding something to the existing document.

Mr. Lemon concluded his presentation and stated that the workgroup will start to brainstorm for more items to add to the list of work products because the workgroup will more than likely complete all of their current work products by the end of the charter. Mr. Thornton suggested that both workgroups take stock of their progress with regard to the work products on their list.

  • Q: Mr. Thornton asked if there was any discussion of the I2P2 effort in either group.
  • A: Mr. Lemon stated that the longshoring workgroup discussed I2P2 during their last conference call. The workgroup found that the Gulf region and the West Coast already have accident prevention programs. He stated that an I2P2 plan in the Gulf area is not necessarily required, but they have one. However, since the workgroup did not have an East Coast representative in attendance, or on the conference call, it is not known what the East Coast is doing on I2P2. Ms. Welch will contact terminals or some other resources on the East Coast to find out if they have I2P2 plans. If it's found that the East Coast is lacking in that area, the workgroup should address it at. Mr. Raffo stated that the shipyard workgroup had it on their agenda but did not discuss it during the workgroup meetings. However, they will keep it on their agenda. The shipyard workgroup plans to cooperate with OSHA's efforts on I2P2, because the maritime industry seems to be a good prototype.

Mr. Thornton suggested that the Committee discuss ways they can contribute, or if they want to contribute, to the I2P2 efforts. Mr. Lemon commented that the longshoring workgroup was not certain about what the Agency wanted from them, so they invited Mike Seymour to attend one of their prior conference calls. During that conference call, Mr. Seymour told the workgroup that he was not looking to try to reinvent an already-existing successful I2P2 program. Mr. Thornton suggested that the shipyard workgroup also invite Mr. Seymour to sit in on a conference call with them to give some direction as to what the Agency needs from MACOSH and what elements the Agency is looking for in an I2P2 program.

Mr. Lemon concluded the longshoring workgroup report. The document entitled "The Longshoring Workgroup Report" dated September 21, 2011, was entered into docket OSHA-0007-2011 as Exhibit 27.

Open Discussion
MACOSH Committee

Mr. Thornton opened the floor for discussion and asked the Committee and the public if there was a maritime workplace safety issue that should be addressed.

Ms. Brinkerhoff stated that the longshoring workgroup suggested they develop some sort of document for longshoremen who work with logs, because that operation is very hazardous and has not been addressed by OSHA.

Mr. Raffo stated that he would like OSHA to give a presentation to the Committee as to what happens to the products produced by the Committee once they are given to OSHA. He would like to learn about the OSHA clearance process and what, if anything, the Committee could do to help the process along. The next item Mr. Raffo would like the Committee to work on is toxic metals.

Mr. Thornton stated that the Agency was supposed to develop a spreadsheet to track the progress of guidance documents. The spreadsheet would be updated on a regular basis and provide feedback to the Committee. Mr. Daddura agreed to provide the Committee with such a spreadsheet. Ms. Dougherty addressed the Agency's efforts to move guidance documents through the clearance process. She stated that the review of documents is based on their priority, how much budget the Agency has, how they are going to be printed, and when they are going to be printed. An internal Agency workgroup called CAG, made up of OSHA Regional Administrators and OSHA Directorate heads, reviews all the products across the Agency and makes decisions about which guidance products should be produced, budget permitting. The CAG was less active during the last year or so, but the group has been reconstituted and things are moving through the CAG review process much faster now. Ms. Dougherty also explained several issues that play into the review process, such as formatting and the review of the writer/editor. The writer/editor review is a new process. After the writer/editor finishes refining the document at the directorate level, it goes to CAG. The Solicitor's Office reviews the document last, and then it goes to Communications for printing. The Agency is leaning towards online products instead of the laminated quick cards due to cost concerns. Ms. Dougherty informed the Committee that she has made the pitch for actual hard copies of the documents MACOSH submits, but the Agency is debating that issue. Hopefully OSHA will have something produced by the next meeting, or within the next couple of months. Mr. Thornton asked if there was any relevance to types of product produced by the Committee and the time it takes it to clear the Agency. Ms. Dougherty stated that it doesn't really make a difference in the product type, but obviously a 10-page document compared to a 2-page document is going to take more time, but not much. Mr. Podue told Ms. Dougherty that the quick cards are effective and are targeted at the worker. He noted that the laminated ones are good for the workers, and as soon as his workplace receives them from OSHA, they are all gone. They make a difference. Ms. Dougherty stated that OSHA is interested in more graphic representation in the guidance products, such as line drawings or photos. Mr. Ross asked Ms. Dougherty if she could give a timeframe from start to finish of a guidance product once MACOSH hands it over to the Agency. Ms. Dougherty replied that she couldn't give a definitive time frame, because it depended on the priorities of the Agency. Under ideal circumstances, it takes about two or three months to get guidance products through the clearance process.

Mr. Garber stated that logging operations are something the longshoring workgroup is interested in working on, but first they need to reach out to the people in the maritime industry to see what is going on before they decide to do guidance on logging. He also stated that he had some interest in the global harmonization standard (GHS) and how the maritime industry could comply with the standard. Ms. Dougherty replied that GHS is about to enter the final clearance stage. OSHA held hearings and heard from numerous people. OSHA is spending a lot time and effort in developing rollout material, and OSHA would be happy to give a presentation on GHS.

Mr. Lemon stated that he would like to see guidance materials for mechanics entering confined spaces. He would also like to see a clear Agency definition of a dive team and guidance on the proper training for divers.

Mr. Godinez stated that he was still concerned that, even under the current standard, accidents still happen in confined spaces, enclosed spaces, and open areas.

Mr. Podue thanked Jack Reich and Ken Atha for their efforts on the West Coast waterfront. For several years OSHA was not present on the waterfront, and their presence has made a huge difference.

Angelo Costa (OSHA Region 3) stated that he would like to see the Committee develop something informational on electrical hazards in the shipyards.

Susan Swanton, Executive Director of the Maine Marine Trades Association, asked MACOSH to consider having a member of the boat-building industry on the Committee the next time the Committee is reestablished.

Laura Masterson, Bath Iron Works, stated that Bath Iron Works is one of the companies that continuously look for ways to protect workers' eyes. She also stated that the eye protection issue may be behavioral as far as those workers wearing prescription eyewear all the time, versus those people who don't.

Mr. Thornton suggested the Committee look at the BLS data and focus on areas where the maritime industry is experiencing the highest number of injuries when the Committee next considers which products to work on. Mr. Thornton also told the Committee to make sure that whatever method the Committee chooses reaches the intended audience, i.e., quick cards, fact sheets, and white papers. The Committee needs to make sure the information is reaching the audience in a way that will make a difference or change behaviors.

Mr. Thornton mentioned that the maritime industry employs people of various ethnic backgrounds and asked the Committee to consider where translation of the guidance products makes sense.

Steve Butler, Director of Maritime Enforcement OSHA, mentioned fall protection for airlifts when working under water.

Mr. Lemon suggested that joint conference calls be held with a few members from each workgroup to discuss documents. Mr. Raffo suggested that the workgroups conduct a joint report-out at the end of the workgroup meetings to help streamline things prior to the full Committee meeting. Mr. Ross stated that he agreed with Mr. Raffo's statement about the joint workgroup meetings to expedite the progress of guidance documents within the Committee.

Final Comments
Chairman Thornton

Mr. Thornton announced the retirement of Joe Daddura. Mr. Thornton and Mr. Raffo presented Mr. Daddura with a gift from MACOSH and the Marine Chemists for his retirement. The MACOSH Committee and the public thanked Mr. Daddura for his service to the Committee and wished him well during his retirement from the Agency. Mr. Daddura thanked everyone and wished the Committee well in their efforts to protect working men and women in the maritime industry.

The meeting was adjourned at 2 p.m.

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.


  • James Thornton, Chairman
  • Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health

These minutes will be formally considered by the Committee at its next meeting, and any corrections or notations will be incorporated in the minutes of that meeting.