|<< Back to MACOSH – Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
In attendance were members of the Committee: MACOSH Chairperson James Thornton,
North Grumman Newport News Shipyard; Dan Nadeau, Bath Iron Works; James D.
Burgin, National Maritime Safety Association; Captain John McNeill, Pacific
Maritime Association; Captain Teresa Preston, Atlantic Marine/Alabama Shipyard;
Charles I. Thompson, III, Virginia International Terminals; Stephen D. Hudock,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), DART, C–24;
Captain Keith D. Cameron, U.S. Coast Guard; Michael Flynn, International
Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers; William (Chico) McGill,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local #733; and Pete Schmidt,
Washington State Department of Labor. Others present included Jim Maddux as the
designated Federal Official and Susan Sherman, Committee Counsel.
James Thornton, Chairman of MACOSH called the meeting to order and welcomed
everyone at the meeting. Next, Chairman Thornton asked the public to introduce
After the roll call and introductions, Chairman Thornton introduced Steve Witt,
Director of Standards and guidance, who presented the opening remarks. Mr. Witt
told the committee that OSHA has been very successful because MACOSH has been
very successful. When this committee was chartered OSHA wanted to change the
direction of the committee so it would be more responsive, provide more useful
recommendations, and establish workgroups that would work between meetings. Mr.
Witt informed MACOSH that he believes the committee has met these goals under
the leadership of Jim Thornton.
Next, Mr. Witt went through a list of MACOSH accomplishments, which included:
Mr. Witt commended MACOSH for their recommendations to
OSHA. Next, Mr. Witt discussed the future of the committee. The agency intends
to begin the rechartering process, which takes several months. Mr. Witt
explained the re–chartering process, and informed MACOSH that if the current
members should reapply, their nominations will be considered, along with any new
nominations. The Assistant Secretary, with the approval of the Secretary of
Labor, will make those decisions. Mr. Witt noted that the continued absence of
some of the committee members will be considered during the selection process.
- providing assistance on e–tools,
- coordinating a collection of hexavalent chromium data,
- recommending that maritime be treated separately in the hexavalent chromium rulemaking, and
Mr. Witt then opened the floor up to questions from the committee. Mr. Flynn
asked "On the recharter, is there any intent to make this a seamless
rechartering where it is rechartered by the end or conclusion of this?" Mr. Witt
responded by explaining the rechartering process, and with the changes taking
place at the political level at different parts of the department, not just in
OSHA, but in other parts of the department that work on charters it would be
difficult to have the nomination process completed by the end of the current
charter. Mr. Witt went on to say "I will commit to you that we will have the
charter ready and approved at the time the nominees are selected." Next, Mr.
Witt personally thanked the committee and extended a personal thanks to Chairman
Thornton for his commitment, dedication, hard work, and leadership during MACOSH.
Next, Chairman Thornton asked the committee to refer to the executive summary in
their packages. Chairman Thornton asked for comments or corrections to the
minutes. Mr. Maddux informed the committee that some comments have been received
from Jimmy Burgin and Captain McNeill, and they are reflected in the executive
summary. Mr. McGill made a motion to accept the minutes. There was a second to
the motion, and the minutes were unanimously approved.
Chairman Thornton called for open discussion of the full committee. Mr. Maddux
asked Mr. Hudock if he would give an update on how NIOSH is doing on VACIS
radiation screening. Mr. Hudock responded that the report is still pending. Mr.
Maddux reported he and other OSHA personnel attended a data collection activity
Baltimore. Also, Mr. Maddux believes that the Customs Service and NIOSH are
trying to issue a report within 3 to 4 weeks. Mr. Maddux also informed the
committee that the OSHA staff have made several recommendations to the Customs
Captain Cameron discussed the issue of towing vessels and their status as
inspected vessels. Captain Cameron explained that this past summer the President
signed the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, which included a
provision to make towing vessels inspected vessels, or vessels subject to Coast
Guard inspection. Previously, towing vessels were uninspected vessels. The
change will add approximately 5,000 to 7,000 vessels to the Coast Guard
inspected fleet. Mr. Burgin asked Mr. Cameron when the rule would become
effective. Mr. Cameron responded that it may take three to four years. Mr.
Burgin also asked if the MOU would still be in effect until this becomes a final
rule. Mr. Maddux responded that he is unsure of the MOU's status during the
transition period. Mr. Burgin asked if the rule would affect floating cranes.
Mr. Cameron explained that the change only affects towing vessels and floating
cranes do not fall under the definition. Chairman Thornton suggested Mr. Cameron
keep the committee informed of any information he receives on the subject, and
Mr. Cameron agreed.
Chairman Thornton gave a report on the Hispanic Summit. Chairman Thornton
explained that the Hispanic proportion of the workforce is growing quickly. The
Agency has acknowledged that fact, and will challenge itself and stakeholders to
develop initiatives to deal with the issue. Chairman Thornton also said that
there were several initiatives recommended during the summit and he thought the
summit was useful and worthwhile.
Mr. Nadeau gave a report on the NSRP Lockout/Tagout study. Mr. Nadeau reported
the SHAC group conducted a study of 74 shipyards focusing on various ways
lockout/tagout is being performed in the industry. Mr. Nadeau went on to say
that the information will be shared with OSHA to be used in future rulemaking.
Mr. Nadeau also said the group planned to transmit it to OSHA, and perhaps at
the next meeting he could provide a presentation on it.
Chairman Thornton announced that the outreach workgroup has been reactivated.
Captain Preston explained that there were OSHA's new fire protection standard
and that OSHA's has started putting together some frequently asked questions
(FAQ's) for outreach. She explained that the outreach workgroup will reconvene
and developh some frequently asked questions OSHA can use in their outreach
Chairman Thornton asked the committee if they thought there should be a safety
workgroup to parallel the health workgroup. Mr. Flynn stated that if there is an
issue related to safety, that we create a committee, a workgroup on that
specific topic, instead of just creating a new committee and having it out there
Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Maddux if he had looked into the update of OSHA's
publication for training requirements. Mr. Maddux informed the committee that
the publications office has just about completed their revisions and expect
release of the next version in February or March. Mr. McGill asked about the
10–hour training course for shipyards. In response to Mr. McGill's question and
the need for more information on the subject, Chairman Thornton asked Captain
Preston to discuss the topic in the outreach workgroup session.
Standards and Guidance Update
By: Jim Maddux
Notice of Proposed rulemakings
- The Reguestt for Information is under review at OMB.
- Occupational Exposure to beryllium – Trying to start the small business panel
process and expect to start that process next year.
- Chrome VI – OSHA issued a proposal on October 4th. The docket will be open for
comment until January 3rd. Hearings will be held the first week in February in Washington, DC.
- Silica – has been through the SBREFA process and the risk assessment is being developed.
OSHA will have the risk assessment peer reviewed by other scientists, which should start in the next month.
- Consensus standards project – An overall project to try and update the consensus standards that are
either incorporated by reference, or that are the basis for entire OSHA rules. Three separate Federal
Register notices were issued recently. The first describes the overall approach to the consensus standards
problem and it lays out the steps OSHA is going to take. The second is a direct final rule. The third is a
parallel proposed rule to revoke a few consensus standards that are referenced in the OSHA standards that no
longer exist. OSHA will also work on direct final rules to adopt newer versions of consensus standards when
the rules are relatively non–controversial. OSHA will also use notice and comment rulemaking in those situations
where there is a consensus standard that has undergone more change and a full rulemaking is needed. The first
Federal Register notices are open for comment until December 27th.
- Subpart S electrical safety standard
– OSHA published a proposal in April of 2004, and closed the comment
period in June 2004. The docket is being analyzed to work out various issues in the final rule. A final rule
may be published sometime next year.
- Vertical tandem lifts – A proposal was issued in September 2003. There was a public hearing last July.
The post hearing comment period closed October 29. At the end of the hearing there was an agreement to perform
dynamic tests on connecting devices and container corner castings. Two engineering reports were submitted.
OSHA will be evaluate the information and determine whether or not to be re-open the record for an additional
brief time (30 days) to allow other parties to examine and comment on the data.
- General working conditions for shipyard employment – This proposal includes a variety of subject matters,
some of which are covered in the current general working conditions. For example, lifeboats, and sanitation.
The rule will also include lockout/tagout.
- Subpart D Walking working surfaces – OSHA reopened the rule about six months ago to collect data for six or
seven specific topic areas. OSHA will probably reopen the record to collect data on the economics that are involved.
- Employer payment for PPE – A proposal was issued in 1999 on this issue. OSHA
reopened the record to solicit additional information on what is commonly called
"tools of the trade." OSHA is trying to work out exactly how to resolve the
issue of whether employers should pay for PPE.
- The Standards Improvement Process Phase II – currently under the review at
Office of Management and Budget. The project involves mostly corrections to a
number of health standards and standardizes issues inside of OSHA's health
- Fire Protection in Shipyards – The final rule was published in September.
The agency is currently working on outreach and compliance assistance. OSHA's
maritime enforcement is evaluating the rule to determine if directives needs to
be updated. OSHA's Office of Alliance Programs office is working on an outreach
plan that will determine what type of outreach OSHA is going to offer.
Mr. Losey commented that he would like to thank Mr. Witt and Mr. Maddux for
their consideration in separating the shipbuilding sector in the proposed
chromium rule. Mr. Maddux responded that he would just like to encourage the
public to comment on the chromium rulemaking document.
- Portable ladder safety – A portable ladder safety card will be coming out in a few weeks.
The card will be three inches by six inches and can be used by employees to give them information
about portable ladder safety. The card will also be translated into Spanish.
- Hexavalent Chromium – OSHA is working on a safety and health information bulletin to alert
employers of the health effects of chromium and the risks involved with exposure to chromium VI,
what materials employees could be working with, where they would be exposed, and different ways to
control exposure to that chemical. This information will help employers and employees reduce exposure to chromium VI.
- Scrap metal recycling – The document discusses different hazards that can occur during scrap metal processing,
both from a safety and a health perspective. Beryllium is sometimes in scrap metal, so a certain amount of beryllium
is getting into the recycled steel that we are all using. That product is in its final agency review.
- Beryllium – a hazard alert about exposure in metal recycling informing people that are recycling metal can be
exposed to it. We have a first draft completed, and it is just beginning the clearance process.
- Hazard communication – OSHA's goal is to improve the quality of information on material data safety sheets. We have
issued draft guidance in the form of a model training program. We are also developing guidance to help chemical manufacturers
prepare safety data sheets. We've issued a guide on the globally harmonized system of classification and labeling of chemicals.
An ongoing question is whether or not agencies in the United States should adopt the globally harmonized system.
- Biological aspects of poor indoor air quality – There are two documents. One is a guide on mold–related problems
for building owners and managers. The other is for occupants.
- PPE for emergency response – is a handbook on the existing PPE standards that would apply during an emergency
situation. Mr. Thompson asked if emergency response is going to dovetail with the HAZWOPER standard. Mr. Maddux said
that the HAZWOPER standard is one of the standards referenced in this list of OSHA requirements that need to be followed.
In fact, it is one of the major standards that has application in this situation.
- The hazards of combustible dust – There are a number of organic materials, that can have explosive qualities when
they are in a very fine particulate dust. We've had a number of explosions around the country. Some of them are from
wood and plastic dust. The goal is to make people aware of the dangers of explosive dust.
- Marine staging – We are just ready to move into our final OSHA review, and I'm hopeful that that will be published
early to mid year next year.
- Pedestal fall protection on ships – under MACOSH review. We'll be discussing the document during the container
safety workgroup this afternoon.
- Abrasive blasting in shipyards – deals with the issue of alternative blasting materials that are being used in shipyards.
The goal is to make people aware of the potential hazards of some of the alternative materials. The health workgroup will report
on that document tomorrow.
- Longshore maintenance and repair training – a draft document that was recommended by MACOSH. Trying to provide training
advice and training assistance to the longshoring and marine terminal industry that is being used by the shipyard industry.
The product is still in its early stages of development.
- Traffic safety at marine terminals – a guidance product matches up to our OSHA strategic plan. We have shared a draft
with the vehicle safety workgroup, and we'll be hearing from them tomorrow.
- Shipyard ergonomics – a draft ergonomics guideline is in our clearance process. After the first of the year, it will be
published for comment as with all of our ergonomics guidelines. If there is sufficient interest, there will be a public meeting
so people can provide their views on the document before it goes final.
Standards and Guidance emerging issues
By: Jim Maddux
Q & A
- Nanotechnology –– deals with materials that are built using manufacturing techniques that
literally make things one atom at a time. This is a new area that OSHA and NIOSH are looking at.
There are some efforts to start guidance materials, some collaboration with the National Science Foundation workgroup.
- Control banding –– a concept that came up in Europe. England has a control banding system that people can
use for chemical exposure. The idea is to give people advice on specific chemicals when they don't have a large
chemistry or IH background and help them take action to control exposures in their workplace.
Chairman Thornton asked if there is a group in OSHA working on control banding.
Mr. Maddux responded that a number of individuals are working on it, but
Jennifer Silk is the best contact . Mr. Flynn asked when and where the
conference on control banning was, and if it is an OSHA conference. Mr. Maddux
responded that the conference is in collaboration with NIOSH and other agencies
with the same interests.
Mr. Nadeau asked if Mr. Maddux could elaborate a little more on walking working
surfaces, specifically on industry comments that were sent back on ship design.
Mr. Maddux responded that he was unsure of the specifics, and that he would take
a look at the information and get back to Mr. Nadeau with that.
Mr. Flynn asked Ms. Sherman about the differences between creating guidance
documents and standards. Is there a regulatory requirement in the development of
a guidance document? Ms. Sherman responded it is a matter of policy that the
agency has chosen to allow the public to comment. Sometimes they have
stakeholders meetings, et cetera.
Captain Preston asked if MACOSH would be able to review the ergonomics
guidelines as they did the maritime guidance documents. Mr. Maddux responded
that the ergonomics guidelines are on a separate track. If the timing worked
out, we could use a MACOSH meeting fors a stakeholder meeting.
Mr. Costano asked Mr. Maddux if he had seen the Elizabeth port study on VTL's,
will the reports be made to MACOSH, and would the time frame be, or what would
you see it be as far as if the 30–day window was reopened? Mr. Maddux responded
that the reports were sent to OSHA, but he has not reviewed them. The materials
will be available to the public through the OSHA docket as soon as OSHA receives
them. Mr. Maddux stated that OSHA will need to make a decision about whether or
not to reopen the record. Mr. Maddux explained the clearance process then said
it could take a couple of months before the record would reopen.
Safety Culture Workgroup Discussion
By Captain Keith Cameron
- Captain Cameron explained that he met with Mr. Maddux to learn what data kind
of collection things OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics perform.
- The workgroup would like to establish a regular reporting regime to the committee
on appropriate safety data, as well as injury and illness data.
- OSHA should advertise success stories where people have either adjusted their
culture and reduced injuries and illnesses in the workplace.
- The safety culture workgroup would like to explore the success of VPP participants,
even if they are not in the maritime industry.
- The workgroup recommended that a pilot project be establish to look at "why" type data.
- The workgroup should continue to monitor and support the efforts of the Shipbuilding Council
of America's data collection effort on their quarterly injury and illness report.
Q & A
Chairman Thornton asked the workgroup what the deliverable would look like from
MACOSH to OSHA when it's done. Captain Cameron responded that if it is a
periodic report, then the report would be from MACOSH to OSHA over the last
quarter or the last year, whatever parameters that are decided are include in
Chairman Thornton encouraged the work group to continue with their ongoing work
and he thought the notion of advancing or changing safety culture is a powerful
tool and VPP participants have seen how this advancement and change of culture
certainly reduces injuries and illnesses.
Mr. Thompson suggested MACOSH consider developing a list of things that VPP
people had used to change cutlure, such as the policy statements from senior
Mr. Maddux stated that positive safety culture has to be adopted willingly.
Unless people buy in and they believe in it in a positive way, it doesn't work.
Longshore Breakout Group Report
By Jimmy Burgin
The workgroup discussed the possibility that the National Maritime Safety Association technical committee
could create a comprehensive training program that covers the 1917 and 1918 Safety and Health Standards, and
that material can be used throughout this OSHA training course.
The workgroup will be working on tasks listed above for the next meeting and will provide a report on
its progress at the next MACOSH meeting.
A problem has arisen with state government employees in some East Coast and Gulf Coast ports that operate
cargo handling equipment. The workgroup discussed asking OSHA for help for monitoring some of the programs
that are applicable to state employees by using a Complaint against State Program Administration. This is
an accountability program that can be used by anyone to report on issues that should be looked at for state–run OSHA programs.
Dan Youhas, of the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) gave a report on a quarterly injury and illness survey
the SCA conducted through their shipyard members.
- The VACIS machine testing was done in Baltimore in November.
- Representatives from ILA, Customs, NIOSH, OSHA, and some other privately hired consultants were present.
- The results from the dosimeters will be analyzed and made available soon.
- All the initial reports and tests that were done in Baltimore and previously on the West Coast seemed to have a very low exposure level.
- Mr. Burgin requested that OSHA arrange for Mr. Whitman with US customs to give a presentation at the next MACOSH meeting to review
and discuss the results of the Baltimore test, discuss the safety and operation procedures of the VACIS, discuss the development
of the VACIS to ensure its safety, and then answer any questions the committee may have.
- OTI would like the workgroup to assist them with the 2 week training course in June 2005 in the following areas:
- Provide speakers or presenters for operations descriptions;
- Provide opportunities for field trips to terminals;
- Provide a list of training topics that should be covered during the two–week period.
- The survey allowed SCA see how their injury and illness statistics relate to the rest of the industry.
- SCA developed a list of why injury/illnesses occurred in their member shipyards.
- From the list of "whys" the SCA could create a safety and health information bulletin. About 50% of the SCA
members participated in the study over a 5 year span and of that 50% SCA had about 60 to 70% participation in the
incident analysis section, which is considered to be pretty substantial.
- The total number of (LWDS) man hours has gone down by 4,000 per quarter.
- There are 11 categories of incidents analysis topics:
- improper use of tools and equipment
- inadequate maintenance, or preventative maintenance
- improper PPE, worker overexertion, or ergonomics stressor
- worker exposed to hazardous substance
- procedures or enforcement, inadequate
- lack of engineering controls
- Act of God situation out of the employee's control
- housekeeping not maintained
- undetermined root cause
- inattention poor body mechanics
- SCA is considering the following future items:
- continuing to boost member participation, coordinating their activities with the safety culture workgroup
- Creating the series of questions as to why the injuries and illnesses occurred in the member shipyards and
including that on some future survey working through the safety culture working group in order to create a database
of root cause analysis for injuries and illnesses in shipyards.
Q & A
Mr. Flynn asked if lack of training could be a root cause, and if so, why is it
not one of the survey topics? Mr. Youhas stated that the list of topics was
hashed out over a conference call with their members and Captain Cameron, but
that topic could definitely be included in a future survey.
Mr. Maddux asked about SCA's plans for adjusting the survey for its second year?
Mr. Youhas responded that SCA could tap into the incident analysis that their
companies are already conducting at their shipyards, and include the information
on a spreadsheet, fine tune it to identify the reason why the accident/injury
occurred, and ship the information back to the members to use in a constructive
Mr. McGill asked if the data confidential. Mr. Youhas said that the information
received from their companies is kept confidential. The reports include only
Container Safety Workgroup Discussion
By Jimmy Burgin
- The workgroup had a conference call to discuss the draft guidance document for
vessel pedestal fall protection.
- The document addresses the problem of fall hazards on pedestals aboard ships.
It also addressed several devices to prevent falls.
- The workgroup gave input on one of the suggested devices the lashing wand has
not been tested and tried by many ports
- There were other problems in the draft that suggested impractical solutions,
- safety nets
- tying all fall protection equipment to door rods on containers
- A suction–type device used to rig a horizontal lifeline to provide fall
- The workgroup pointed out they would like to see a guidance document on this
issue to reflect international efforts to improve ship's designs, rather than
focusing on some of the solutions that were in the draft.
- The workgroup certainly would like to continue the guidance document process,
but maybe refocus some of the issues.
- The workgroup would like to bring before the IMO committee the issue in the
- Access hatches or scuttle openings –– The workgroup would like the code to
address other access hatch covers or rails to protect the crew and longshoremen
from falls through this access opening.
- Catwalks between cargo hatches –– The workgroup would like to see guardrails
- The securing gear –– The workgroup is asking for a flange or a small lip or
other type of means to keep the gear from sliding and striking someone as they
are going through an access way.
- Illumination –– The workgroup would ask that the code include illumination
requirements for standards that work in areas between hatches and for deck
lashers and below deck in the cargo hold areas, on ladders and walkways.
- Cell guides –– The workgroup would like IMO to investigate the design and
construction issues with cell guides to make sure that this problem doesn't
create more safety hazards to longshoremen, for example a cell guides stop six
feet above the bottom of the floor of the hatch. There are some cases when the
containers become jammed, which presents a safety issue to crew members, as well
as to longshoremen that have to go in and work with a jammed container.
- Mr. Burgin suggested that a specific PowerPoint program be provided to the
Coast Guard that illustrate pedestal lashing safety issues, and that the Coast
Guard pass the information along to the IMO.
- It was suggested that the coast guard notify OSHA or MACOSH prior to going to
the full CSS meeting so that industry and labor can provide input to the Coast
Guard before they go before the IMO committee.
- The workgroup recommends that MACOSH request OSHA to approach the Coast Guard
with the recommendation that classification society rules be reviewed in light
of the recommendations above and in particular with regard to the design and
construction of container cell guides.
Q & A
Mr. Maddux stated that performed a lot of research seeking potential solutions
to what has been a difficult problem to solve. Mr. Maddux continued to explain
that the agency did what it could to provide suggestions to ship's owners in the
guidance document, because the design of ships is not in OSHA's realm. Hopefully
the committee or the workgroup could find some way to develop guidance on this
subject, and give OSHA enough information so that the product could be modified
in an appropriate way.
Chairman Thornton summarized Mr. Burgin's recommendations and asked if the
agency wanted to comment. Mr. Maddux responded that he didn't know if the agency
would be able fulfill the request. However, it is an interesting issue.
Next, Chairman called for a motion to approve the workgroups recommendations.
The committee members unanimously approved the motion. Afterwards, Ms. Sherman
introduced Mr. Burgin's presentation as Exhibit 2.
The next issue the workgroup discussed was working aloft greater than five
containers high, sometimes eight high. The concern is longshore workers riding
in the basket of the container spreader bar. The workgroup would like to look
into the aspect of fall protection, anchorage points inside the baskets of these
container spreader bars, inside the personnel baskets of these container
Mr. Maddux pointed out that the workgroup has made this recommendation before
along with the issue of fall protection while they are on top of the containers.
Mr. Burgin stated that issue was discussed yesterday that OSHA recognizes that
this is a possible circumstance where workers do in fact have to go on tops of
containers. There is no need for any action on that unless anyone else needs to.
The workgroup recognizes that, there should be several devices to effectively
provide fall protection.
Mr. Miranda (public) said that he just wanted comment on container safety and
the fact of working also, and wanted to emphasize that the issue wasn't just
simply riding the beam going aloft, but it was also working up there as well.
Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Burgin if backing systems are used on any of the ships. Mr.
Burgin told Mr. Flynn that they are not used. Chairman Thornton asked if there
were any other comments on the container workgroup discussions. There was no
response, and the meeting was adjourned for the day.
Thursday, December 9, 2004
By: Tom Galassi
Site–specific targeting program – Has been in existence for about the six years.
Based upon DART rates and days away from work with injury and illness generate
primary and secondary lists, which establish thresholds for OSHA's inspection
lists. OSHA wanted to make sure that if someone reports a low rate, that in fact
that is the correct rate, so the agency audited two hundred establishments. OSHA
sent out about 13,000 to 14,000 letters to establishments telling them that they
have some high rates, and they ought to look for a consultant or some type of
assistance to lower those rates.
The Department of Labor sponsored a study that has some useful conclusions in
its draft form. A conclusions is that if OSHA sends a letter under the data
initiative, OSHA would see a 5 percent reduction in injury and illness over
three years. In addition, if the company received a letter and an SST
inspection, injuries were reduced over a three–year period by 13.8 percent. The
authors of this study believe that the rate reduction is a reflection of what
the employer has done to reduce injuries and illnesses in the long term.
On May 6th to August 11th, OSHA requested comments on improving the SST. The
agency received suggestions such as averaging three to five years of data to
target employers. Another suggestion was that the OSHA data initiative should be
sent to employers with less than 40 employees. The SST will be released around
April of 2005, and hopefully all the comments will be addressed and reflected in
The enhanced enforcement program –– This program is designed to deal with
employers who are indifferent to their obligations under the OSH Act. This
program looks at an employer with a worker death and a related high gravity
serious violation, three or more high gravity serious violations classified as
willful or repeat, or two or more failure to abate violations. OSHA will look at
using Section 11(b) of the Act where the agency can take the final order to the
Court of Appeals. It could then be enforced as an order of the court. OSHA will
seek enhanced settlement provisions should OSHA settle the case. The agency will
try and make sure that the citation isn't just settled, but have provisions
where the employer makes changes that are permanent in the workplace, such as
engaging a safety and health consultant to implement a safety and health
program, or sending OSHA their injury and illness data so OSHA can monitor the
site. As of October 27th, there were 313 cases or inspections under the program.
Most were related to fatalities, and half were in construction. OSHA is in the
process of conducting an end of year program evaluation and drafting an EEP
Inspection targeting systems, National and local emphasis programs – OSHA's
largest national emphasis program (NEP) addresses amputations. OSHA is looking
at changes in the way amputations are targeted. The ship breaking NEP will be
revised and reissued. It is in the final stages of development. The silica NEP
is awaiting final clearance. OSHA is currently evaluating the program for
occupational lead exposure. OSHA is considering targeting occupational asthma,
and is developing a list of agents that cause occupational asthma. Once the list
of possible agents is developed, OSHA will write a NEP directive and explore the
use of wipe sampling and air sampling as means of defining exposure. As with any
other NEP, OSHA will have outreach and compliance assistance available for the
employer. There are currently 141 local emphasis programs (LEPs) in a wide
variety of industries, operations, hazards, trenching, logging, electrical power
generation, etc. Last year, there were 19,774 LEP inspections.
Maritime enforcement issues – OSHA is working on the following issues:
- Drafting a commercial diving operations directive.
- Updating directives dealing with the Coast Guard and jurisdictional authority
- Looking at doing an editorial revision to the confined space directive Subpart
B for 1915.
- The directive for Subpart I PPE in the maritime industry is in final clearance
and should be out soon.
- Two directives called the "Tool Bag" and "Tool Shed" addressing the shipyard
and marine cargo industries were released in October of 2003.
- There have been about 39,000 federal inspections this year.
- Last year OSHA did about 2,500 SST inspections.
- There are 400 plus inspections in the maritime industry.
- Total violations issued continue to increase.
Q & A
Mr. Nadeau asked if there were any specifics on causes of respiratory problems.
Mr. Galassi responded that the issue hasn't been looked into, but he would
speculate that it is probably due to perhaps welding or cutting metals and
things of that nature, such as grinding and silica. Mr. Nadeau responded by
suggesting that this may be something that the health workgroup may be able to
help or look into to get some assistance with that with the industry
Next, Mr. Thompson asked for more detail on the HAZCOM citations. Mr. Galassi
responded that the areas being cited under HAZCOM are training, labeling,
written programs, and MSDS which are probably the least cited, but there is an
MSDS initiative to address concerns about the accuracy and clarity of MSDSs
raised the NACOSH advisory committee.
Mr. Burgin asked if Mr. Galassi mention of Coast Guard vessels was aimed at the
issue of uninspected commercial towing vessels. Mr. Butler responded that OSHA
will have to meet with the Coast Guard to see if there is going to be a
transition period, and then OSHA will develop guidance on the subject.
Mr. Burgin asked what OSHA will do from an enforcement standpoint in terms of a
directive. Mr. Galassi said the directive doesn't give any guidance in terms of
initiating any inspections of uninspected vessels. It provides information to
OSHA staff so CSHO's understand the jurisdictional issue.
Chairman Thornton suggested that OSHA provide the committee some more detailed
information regarding the kinds of specific citations that may be issued in
regards to respiratory protection that may give the industry a place to go in
terms of looking at their programs. Mr. Galassi responded that he would.
Health Workgroup Discussion
By: Dan Nadeau
There are items the workgroup has not completed, but the workgroup had discussed
each of them to try to reach conclusions by the next meeting and make
Chairman Thornton recommended the workgroup follow–up on Respiratory Protection
and provide additional information to the entire committee, and thus to OSHA.
Mr. Nadeau agreed that the workgroup would provide the information requested.
Mr. Nadeau made a motion that OSHA consider the four recommendations to the
abrasive blasting document. The motion was approved unanimously.
- Hearing loss –– one study was done, but the other ones have not been completed
by NIOSH. The workgroup is still waiting for those to come in. As they do come
in, the workgroup will review those findings.
- Radiation –– the workgroup discussed the study performed in Baltimore and the
VACIS machine. There are two other studies that are going to be performed by PMA
and NIOSH. The initial radiation readings are quite low. Depending on the
outcome of the studies, the workgroup will provide a recommendation, or table
- Ergonomics –– still awaiting the outcome of the guidelines to provide some
comment. The guidelines are currently in OSHA clearance, so there is no
discussion at this time any further on this issue.
- Diesel exhaust –– there is one known study completed. There was discussion at
the last meeting about two other studies. There has been no movement on that
since the last meeting. Upon outcome of those studies, they will make
- Silica and Beryllium
–– the workgroup is recommending working with OSHA and
industry providing sampling data for beryllium and silica.
- Hexavalent chromium –– the work group is reviewing the questions OSHA asked in
the proposed rule. Individual members are planning to respond to OSHA's comments
within the next few weeks.
- Subpart P, fire protection –– the outreach group will put together a list of
frequently asked questions.
- AEDs – a recommendation was made at the last meeting for OSHA to look into
getting a Good Samaritan law to limit the liability for people using AEDs.
- Abrasive blasting guideline
–– the workgroup recommended several changes.
First, to look at the protocol for air sampling for potentially allowing
sampling under the hood as a more representative sampling method. The second was
to have more inclusive pros and cons on various blast media. Third, to make a
global note that environmental limitations need to be considered, and the fourth
recommendation is the TB test should be conducted if a positive chest x–ray is
indicated, not as a blanket requirement.
Science, Technology, and Medicine Up
By: Deborah Gabry
Mr. McGill commented "I think this is really exciting, what is going on here
with the CDs, the VHS's. Certainly I would urge and hope that the agency would
look at continued funding to keep developing these tools."
- The Safety and Health Injury Prevention Sheet (SHIPS) hot work guide was
completed last year and is on the web. The only change we made reflects the new
fire protection standard.
- MACOSH identified the processes and the hazards in the shipyard industry that
helped OSHA develop the hazard matrix. The shipyard review team identified the
priorities, and the order in which to work on the SHIPs, but the processes and
hazards were identified by MACOSH.
- There six SHIPS being developed this year. Ship fitting, shipboard machining,
surface preparation, which includes abrasive blasting and painting, rigging,
shipboard materials handling, and shipboard electrical.
- The ship fitting module is done and is being reviewed by the seven member
ships working group. Now it's being reviewed through the official clearance
process. The CD on the ship fitting module was sent out, and it is being
reviewed by the OSHA directorate heads, the regional administrators, and the
shipyard review team.
- Mini posters are new additions to the SHIPS.
- Videos – Volume I featured crane hazards, combined space hazards, fall
hazards, and properties of equipment. Volume II had some of the same hazards,
but with different root causes, and some other hazards that are unique, like the
diving hazards. Volume I is complete except for some minor changes. Volume II is
still being worked on.
- E–tools – The shipyard E–tools were reviewed through the official clearance
process within OSHA. The comments have been reviewed except the barge cleaning
tool. These E–Tools will be posted on the web.
- "Examining Fatal Shipyard Accidents", Volume 1, was shown to the committee.
Captain Preston made a motion recommending MACOSH encourage OSHA to have the
products Ms. Gabry reported on be translated into Spanish. The committee
unanimously endorsed the motion.
Mr. McGill made a motion to encourage OSHA to continue with the effort of the
video outreach initiatives. Mr. Thompson commented that there are obviously some
applications there that the longshoring industry would like to enjoy also. After
that comment, the motion was made and was unanimously accepted by the full
Hazardous Energy and Scaffolding Toeboard Issue
Next, Chairman Thornton entered into the record a letter from the National
Safety Council dated October 13 of this year encouraging MACOSH to take up the
issue of lockout/tagout. Chairman Thornton called for discussion on the letter
drafted to Alan McMillan of the National Safety Council.
Mr. McGill commented that the letter should encourage NSC to keep sending any
kind of information they have into OSHA so that the information can be used for
the development of the standards that are currently being worked on. That needs
to be emphasized in the letter.
Mr. Davis and Mr. Johnson, technical advisors representing the National Safety
Council, made a presentation to the shipyard workgroup regarding lockout/tagout
and scaffolding toeboards. The committee decided that the toeboard issue was
adequately addressed in the standards and should not be addressed by MACOSH. The
committee decided to continue to assist OSHA on the lockout/tagout issue, but to
avoid any actions that could delay the pending rulemaking.
Captain Preston made the motion that the letter as amended be sent to Mr.
McMillan in response to their concerns be accepted. Mr. McGill seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Traffic Safety Workgroup Presentation
By: Jimmy Burgin
Each member has received a draft of the guidance document on traffic safety in
marine terminals. The document has suggested changes. If there were changes to
the original text, it was stricken through. If there were new suggested language
in the draft, that language is underlined. The following is some highlights of
the discussion and/or comments for the document:
Mr. Flynn commented that he was concerned about endorsing drug testing, which
led to a disucssion about drug testing. Chairman Thornton suggested that the
language be changed as follows: substitute "and established substance abuse
programs," and strike "drug testing for employees."
- It was suggested to add the second bullet point in the middle of the page,
forklifts used for non–container cargo. The committee felt like there was a gap
- Mr. Flynn commented that the word program should not be in "substance abuse
program." It should be substance abuse as part of the accident prevention
program. Captain Preston agreed.
- Ms. Sherman asked why equipment governor was taken out after speedometer on
page 6 under safety checks. Mr. Thompson responded that the operator may not
check a governor, but can verify the presence of a speedometer.
- Mr. Nadeau suggested some language regarding literacy be added on page five
under "traffic control."
- There were concerns if seatbelt use should be mandatory at all times, or if
there are some situations that seatbelt use was inappropriate, for example, when
people are on forklifts near the water, or in ships where they are in the ship's
hold where there may be shifting loads.
- Safety features need to be maintained should be added to page seven under
"equipment selection and maintenance,"
- The security requirement on the top of page eight was deleted because it was
too broad and each individual terminal has to have their own security plan
approved by the Coast Guard.
Mr. Maddux asked for a clarification on placing items on rolling equipment and
the fact that it is a loose item that could fall off of the equipment and injure
somebody. Mr. Burgin explained that items can fall off and become a hazard. The
other suggestion is to keep people away from the machine.
- Pedestrian and marine terminals was previously in the first OSHA draft at the
end, almost at the very end of the complete document. The workgroup felt like it
should be moved to the location it is in this draft. There was some discussion
of the word "pedestrian". The workgroup wanted to distinguish the difference
between people walking around in the terminals and those persons working in
Under the section for operating powered and industrial trucks, the original
draft said "the requirements applicable to traffic safety," it was changed that
to, "Some requirements."
Mr. Nadeau suggested that the heading should be a little broader to and include
Q & A
Mr. McGill asked if the settlement agreement could be referenced in the
document. Mr. Burgin suggested that a copy of the agreement can be attached.
Mr. Burgin made a recommendation to the full committee to approve the document
as a MACOSH product with the changes that were discussed and listed in the
document just reviewed. The motion was carried and the full committee voted
unanimously to accept the recommendation.
Maritime Noise Study
By: Dr. Mark Stephenson
Dr. Stephenson passed around electronic earmuffs so everyone could see the
technology that is available to help people communicate while wearing hearing
protectors. The electronic earmuffs allow the user to hearing important sounds.
They do not use noise cancellation, they use sound restoration. They have
microphones on the outside, and they send sound underneath the ear cushion. The
sound can be made louder and louder. The amplifier cuts off if the outside sound
reaches a hazardous level, 85 dBA or higher.
Ms. Sherman asked if the device has an NRR rating. Dr. Stephenson said The NRR
reduction rating is about 21. Dr. Stephenson stated that occupational hearing
loss is the number one occupational illness in America today.
- Between January and October of this year, the Navy tested about 12,000 workers
at its four major shipyards. Of those, 18 percent had what is called an STS or a
significant change in hearing from their baseline hearing test in just one year.
According to the most recent data from the Navy, between June of 2003, July of
2004, the Navy spent about $13 million in workers' compensation for hearing loss
among its shipyard workers. NIOSH has been working in the laboratory to develop
a number of interventions to address the problems of occupational noise and
occupational hearing loss. NIOSH is partnering with the Navy to take these
technologies out into the field.
- Many people who get noise induced hearing loss will also get this ringing in
the ears (tinnitus). Dr. Stephenson explained how workers get hearing loss and
the tinnitus through graphs and charts. Dr. Stephenson showed a chart showing
the percentage of workers who wear hearing protectors when working in loud
noise. Only 1/3 of them were wearing hearing protection.
- NIOSH will conduct measurements identify noise hazards and determine which
workers are at risk. NIOSH and the Navy will develop programs with engineering
and administrative controls to eliminate as many noise hazards as possible.
NIOSH would like to develop training programs that help promote an intrinsic
desire to protect hearing. NIOSH conducted a pilot study at the shipyards where
they gave hearing protector with a rating of 26, told the test subjects to read
the instructions that are on the box, and fit the earplugs. Predictably, the
results were 6 decibels of protection. In a 10–minute training video, followed
by a simple hands–on exercise, NIOSH was able to increase the amount of
protection that the earplugs provided.
Q & A
Chairman Thornton asked what an STS was. Dr. Stephenson explained that a STS is
a standard threshold shift, defined as an average loss in hearing of 10 decibels
or more, at 2, 3, and 4 kilohertz. The STS is designed to pick up losses before
a person actually becomes hearing impaired.
Mr. Maddux asked what was being used as the threshold for considering somebody
to be hearing impaired. Dr. Stephenson stated that NIOSH defines a material
hearing impairment as anybody who has a threshold at 1, 2, 3, and 4 kilohertz
that equals or exceeds 25 decibels.
Ms. Gabry asked if the two 10 minute vides were available to be seen. Dr.
Stephenson said they should be available next year.
Captain Preston what type of hearing protectors were used in the test Dr.
Stephenson responded they were a typical formable foam ear plug, and another was
a pre–molded ear plug. Captain Preston also asked if outside the workplace
activities and noise levels will be factors involved in culture training. Dr.
Stephenson said the proposed Navy study would study those factors because
everybody asks that question. But there is some extremely good data that has
been repeated over a period of decades that shows that hazardous workplace noise
drives their hearing loss.
Mr. Miranda asked if NIOSH was planning on doing a study for longshoring like
the study for the shipyard. Dr. Stephenson responded that the proposed study
will be at shipyards, and at this point, it does not include longshore
operations. However, it is expected that based upon the pilot data that it will
be able to be applied to longshore operations in the future.
By: Dr. Wright
- Cardiovascular disease is a huge problem in America, causing about a million
deaths every year. Of those, about 1/4 are the result of a sudden cardiac
arrest. Defibrillation is the only technique that is effective in returning a
heart in ventricular fibrillation to normal rhythm. Not only do they need a
shock to the heart, but they need it in a timely manner. The longer the time
between loss of consciousness until shock delivery, the lower their survival
rate. For every minute that passes the survival rate decreases ten percent. If
the shock is delivered after one minute, the survival rate is about 90 percent.
After three minutes, it is 70 percent. After 10 minutes the survival rate is
very low. The American Heart Association would like for everyone to have access
to defibrillation within three to four minutes. Many companies have developed
automatic external defibrillator (AED) programs. Dr. Wright shared a story in
his PowerPoint presentation of an employee who had a heart attack. Dr. Wright
showed the different heart rhythm readings the AED identified, leading to the
AED telling the operator to shock the patient.
- OSHA does not envision regulating AED's, but OSHA will use other tools to
encourage employers to develop AED programs. OSHA put together a technical
information bulletin and published a tech links page on OSHA's website.
Employers can go to this site to learn how to develop an AED program, and it has
links to the American Heart Association and other agencies that have good
information. OSHA has a brochure that encourages AED use. The agency is working
on revising the first aid directives. They should be published in the next 6
months and the issue of AED's will be included. OSHA is working on a letter of
support from CEOs. The agency approached CEOs from Fortune 100 companies that
have developed AED programs, and asked them to jointly write a letter
encouraging their colleagues to develop AED programs. OSHA is also working with
alliance partners to help promote the use of AEDs. The Department of labor has
placed AED's throughout the agency to set an example. The Department of Labor
started their program four years ago, and two lives have been saved since then.
Some of the problems that employers have with AED's are, that developing an AED
program is not cost–free. The devices, although they are coming down in prices,
are in the $2,000 to $3,000 range. In addition to that, employers would have to
have a medical director to oversee their program, and train employees each year.
Dr. Wright said "I firmly believe the day will come that you will be under much
more liability not to have a program than to have a program, so I think that the
liability concerns are small in regards of training."
- Ms. Sherman explained the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. The Cardiac arrest
survival act was signed into law in November 2000 by President Clinton. The Act
mandated placement of AEDs in federal buildings. It also established limited
immunity protection for people who either use or acquire AEDs – a Good Samaritan
provision. The immunity applies only if the harm is not caused by a failure to
notify local emergency response personnel of the placement of a device within a
reasonable amount of time, or failure to properly maintain and test the devices.
The intent of the law is to protect somebody who is not acting in the scope of
their employment, and helps another person.
Q & A
Ms. Sherman asked if the AED's deliver the shock, or does it tell the operator
to do so. Dr. Wright said that the new machines actually deliver the shock, but
most of the machines will tell the operator, shock advised, shock patient, and
it involves an active step of the operator pushing a button.
Mr. Thompson asked if the committee could get a summary of Ms. Sherman's
comments. Ms. Sherman said she could get one together and maybe Jim can mail it
to the committee, or else at the next committee meeting, it would be available
Captain Preston asked for clarification of the good–Samaritan act. For example,
if an on–site clinic responds with an AED and does something wrong, would they
be covered. Ms. Sherman said that is her understanding of the law that the good
Samaritan provisions would not apply because they would be acting within the
scope of their employment, and they are licensed health care professionals.
Ms. Sherman asked how long it takes to train someone to operate an AED. Dr.
Wright said you can do that in four hours, generally. There are longer programs
that last six hours.
Construction Cranes Update
By: Mr. Wiltshire
- The crane and derrick advisory committee (CDAC) was comprised of 23 members
from various interests. The CDAC committee had their first meeting in July of
- CDAC addressed fall protection on cranes, keeping clear of the load, work area
control, working around the crane, riggers and other people close to the crane,
hoisting personnel, and qualifications of maintenance workers.
- Cranes were defined as hoists that move suspended loads. Backhoes, forklifts,
and equipment originally designed as aerial lifts are all excluded from the
definition of cranes.
- Ground conditions made the general contractor responsible for providing safe
access into the job site.
- The controlling entity is the general contractor, who provides firm, drained,
and graded access and lay down areas for the crane, and to inform the operator
if there is any underground hazards, voids, things of that nature.
- A formal guideline was developed on how to assemble and disassemble a crane.
In the guidelines there are two options, the manufacturer's procedures and
employer procedures. The employer's procedure should be developed by qualified,
competent, trained, designated person. CDAC used qualified persons in this area
to prevent unintended movement, provide stability, and unintended collapse.
- Assembly and disassembly should be performed by a competent and qualified
person according to the manufacturer's procedures. However, if the
manufacturer's procedures do not exist then a structural engineer's
recommendation would suffice?
- There are some specific requirements or guidelines for when someone is out of
- There is a requirement addressing power line contact.
- CDAC decided to adopt parts of the Virginia Overhead High Voltage Line Safety
Act for this particular part of the standard, Mark boundaries, or have a 360
degree radius around the crane. There are very few times when work is performed
within 10 feet of power lines, but there are times when the work must be
performed, therefore there is a list of guidelines to follow to make sure they
are conducted successfully.
- The operator qualifications were by far the most contentious area. It was a
real victory to get 21 people to agree that we need to really step up the
- In order to certify an employer qualification program, it has to be audited by
an outside auditor that makes sure the program complies with testing and test
administration criteria. You can develop your own program, but an outside
auditor has to certify the program.
- There are some requirements for testing criteria. There must be a knowledge
test and a practical test. The knowledge test, again, is very involved. Load
charts, capabilities, configurations, setup, et cetera. The practical test is
not just picking this up and sitting it here. It is very involved also.
- We're saying signaling training must be very specific. There is a requirement
that signalers have to be qualified, they have to be evaluated, and it can be
- Cranes on barges probably wouldn't have been such a big issue, except that one
was dumped in the river in Maine about two or three years ago. There is an
entire section on floating cranes that talks about divers, inspections etc.
- A proposed standard will be published in the Federal Register. After that,
there will be a public comment period. Then the record is analyzed and then a
final standard is issued. The standard may be out in the next 12 to 18 months.
Q & A
Captain Preston asked if the same people that sell crane service are also going
to certify employee qualifications and crane testing. Mr. Wiltshire said yes, an
employer could certify its own cranes and employees, but an outside entity would
need to certify the overall program.
Mr. Thompson asked a if there has been any discussion regarding medical
examinations of the operators? Mr. Wiltshire answered; yes it very closely
mirrored the DOT guidelines.
Captain Preston asked if the proposal covers inspection intervals on floating
cranes. If so, are the barges themselves covered? Mr. Wiltshire responded; yes
that's involved and the barge will be inspected also. The 1914 and 1915
guidelines were used for the section on barge mounted cranes.
Captain Preston asked if shipyards could be represented when the standard goes
through the SBREFA process, since the legislation does concern them. Ms. Sherman
said "when you go through the SBREFA process, you have a procedure where you
identify certain people called small entity representatives, or SERs." Any small
business would be eligible to serve as a SER on the small business panel.
Captain Preston asked if there is a small shipyard interested in getting
involved in the SBREFA process, how they go about doing that. Ms. Sherman
responded that they can contact OSHA and express their interested in serving on
By: Jess McCluer
- The alliance program is open to all groups, including trade and professional
associations, business and labor unions, and other government agencies.
Alliances can be formed through the national, regional or area offices and state
- The alliance program is less structured than other OSHA cooperative programs.
It is not worksite based instead, it usually focuses on an entire industry or
particular hazard within that industry.
- At the end of October of ‘04, there were 250 national, regional, and area
office alliances. As of Monday there are 252. Two national alliances have been
signed since fiscal year ‘05. Last year, in fiscal year ‘04, eight national
alliances were renewed.
- As far as the maritime alliances go, SCA is currently in the process of
renewing their alliance. The SCA has included ergonomics as a future issue that
they would like to address in their alliance.
- October 14th, there was an alliance signed between OSHA, MSHA,(the Mine,
Safety and Health Administration) the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Policy, working partners for the Alcohol and Drug Free Workplace Program, and
the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing
Iron Workers, International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, the International
Union of Operating Engineers, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America. All four alliances signed an alliance with OSHA, MSHA and
- The Shipbuilders Council of America, American Shipbuilding Association, and
the National Shipbuilding Research Program alliances focus on the process of
sharing current shipbuilding injury hazard and workforce trends, and
familiarizing OSHA personnel with the safe practices within the shipyard
industry. Region X alliance with the SCA has been renewed. They have produced a
guidance product regarding lockout/tagout.
- The maritime alliances have worked on several projects. One project is the
voluntary protection program seminar, which was held at the Northrop Grumman
ship systems Avondale operations on September 21st. The purpose was to let other
shipyards be aware of the benefits of being part of the VPP program, and the
processes that Northrop Grumman went through as part of the VPP program.
- The alliance implementation team will be discussing the 10–hour shipyard
training course, the regional alliance events, and a best practices seminar on
lockout/tagout, OSHA personnel training, best practices, and fatality fact
sheets. Several items within that plan have been completed already. That
includes updating the maritime safety and health topics page, the shipyard
employment etool, and frequently asked questions.
- The possibility of developing a new module for the fire protection was also
- According to the Office of Partnerships and Recognition within the DCSP, there
have been no new developments as of late as far as the national partnerships go.
- There is an annual report describing the activities and events of the
- If you have any questions or you would like some more information on the
alliance program you can click on alliances in the OSHA home page and it will
take you right there. The page has been updated, and it's is broken down by the
strategic management plan focus area. So if there is any particular issue that
you are curious about, you can just click on that symbol and it will take you
Q & A
Mr. Flynn asked if there is always an OSHA representative at each alliance
meeting? Mr. McCluer responded "yes, for each alliance, there is an OSHA
alliance coordinator." Mr. Flynn asked how much OSHA staff is dedicated to
alliances. Mr. McCluer stated that there are 70 national alliances. The
remaining alliances are regional area alliances that are spread out over the 10
regions of OSHA.
Fire Protection Presentation
By: Captain Preston
The outreach workgroup volunteered to come up with some frequently asked
questions for the recently issued fire protection standard.
After Captain Preston finished her presentation, she motioned that MACOSH pass
the questions onto OSHA as MACOSH frequently asked questions. The motioned was
second by Mr. McGill. There were no objections to the motion, so Chairman
Thornton opened the subject for discussion.
- Non–employee participation –– there was a question as to whether documentation
was required, and if so, what it would be.
- Multi–employer provision –– If the ship is acting as the host employer how
does that relationship between the ship and the shipyard employees that may be
working on board that vessel change, particularly with regard to training?
- Unattended hoses –– particularly with respect to the fire watch being able to
attend those if someone has to exit the space. If so, can they perform the
function if he is fire watching for multiple employees?
- Unattended lines –– What types of pullback are required?
- Disconnecting the hose assemblies –– If the torch has a disconnect line, does
that change the issue? If he leaves the torch attached, does he still have to
roll back and so forth?
- Combustible material closer than 35 feet –– Is a fire watch required if it is
treated to be fire resistant or fire retardant?
- Remaining in the hot work area for at least 30 minutes –– Would that include
the fire watch and/or the person doing hot work?
- Ensuring the physical qualifications of fire watches –– What type of work
applies under the fixed fire extinguishing section?
- Live fire scenarios –– Does it have to be conducted using each extinguishing
method that the employee may have to utilize? Does every employee undergoing the
training have to physically put out a fire himself, or can he observe another
employee doing it?
- Definitions –– Hot work in this subpart the same as that in 29CFR 1915.11, as
was it intended during the negotiated process?
Mr. Maddux commented that the agency has additional FAQs, and of course issues
continue to arise from various parties.
Chairman Thornton commented that as OSHA develops answers, OSHA may want to
consider using other resources, like alliances.
The motion was accepted by the full committee.
Captain Preston raised the desire for both industry employees and management to
have an OSHA 10–hour course for shipbuilding and for longshoring. It is
understood that the course hasn't happened because of the funding limitations
with OSHA. The workgroup has decided to work with the various alliances, because
some of us are already working on developing those in–house. The workgroup would
be happy to report back at some point when there is a final product developed to
MACOSH as to how that's going.
Wrap–up and Administrative matters.
Mr. Maddux reminded the committee that with rechartering and a call for
nominations, it is unlikely that this committee will have the same exact
membership going forward, and that it is wise to try and wrap up issues at the
Chairman Thornton thanked the committee and the public for participating. "We
invite, solicit, and encourage input by the public in that process. I hope the
public feels like they are a part of the process, even though they aren't voting
Captain Preston commented on Mr. Witt's observation that the group has been one
of the most productive MACOSH committees. "I personally think that this
committee has turned out an awful lot of excellent product."
Mr. Maddux commented that he also thought the committee has done a lot of work,
and that the committee is a very hard working committee. Mr. Maddux also thanked
Chairman Thornton made a motion to adjourn the motion was seconded, and the
meeting was adjourned.